Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/20/1993
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA Mayor — Gary G. Miller Mayor Pro Tem — Phyllis E. Papen Councilman — John A. Forbing Councilman — Gary H. Werner Councilman — Dexter D. MacBride City Council Chambers are located at: South CoastAir Quality Management DistactAuditodum 21855 East Copley Drive in _ee re ain. om srmrm,. . MEETING DATE: July 20, 1993 Terrence L. Belanger City Manager Andrew V. Arczynski City Attorney MEETINGTIME: Closed Session - 5:00 p.m. Lynda Burgess Regular Session - 6:00 p.m. City Clerk The City of Diamond Bar uses RECYCLED paper and encourages you to do the same. THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY JONES INTERCABLE FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 12, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. Next Resolution No. 93-56 Next Ordinance No. 04(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: Reverend Mark Hopper, Evangelical Free Church ROLL CALL: Councilmen MacBride, Forbing, Werner, Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Mayor Miller 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 3.1 Certificates of Recognition to Winners of the 1993 Diamond Bar Jr. Women's Club Annual Spelling Bee: First Place - Eric Laine, Maple Hill School; Second Place - Chelsea Ray, Quail Summit School; , Third Place - Sean Stroud, Golden Springs School. 3.2 Presentation regarding Municipal Water District Water Rates - Ed Biederman, General Manager, Walnut Valley Water District. 4. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 4.1 Concert in the Park - July 21, 1993 - 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. "Mike Gealer & Euphoria" Contemporary Jazz - Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 4.2 Parks & Recreation Commission - July 22, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.3 Planning Commission - July 27, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.4 Concert in the Park - July 28, 1993 - 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. "Instant Replay" 60's & 70's Surf Music - Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 4.5 City Council Meeting - August 3, 1993 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.6 Concert in the Park August 4, 1993 - 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. - "Smokewood" Bluegrass/Country Combo - Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 5. 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 JULY 20, 1993 PAGE 2 6. 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. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6:45 p.m. or earlier. The following items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and are approved by a single motion. 7.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Recommended Action: Approve the release of bonds posted for public improvements constructed on Tract 47722 located on Diamond Knoll Ln. 7.7 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT PATHFINDER ROAD AND BREA CANYON ROAD IN SAID CITY AND 7.1.1 Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 29, 1993 - Gen. Plan Pub. Hear. - Approve as submitted. 7.1.2 Regular Meeting of July 6, 1993 - Approve as Submitted. 7.2 WARRANT REGISTER - Approve Warrant Register dated July 20, 1993 in the amount of $359,710.58. 7.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of May 13, 1993 - Receive & file. 7.4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: 7.4.1 Regular Meeting of April 22, 1993 - Receive & file. 7.4.2 Regular Meeting of May 27, 1993 - Receive & file. 7.5 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 7.5.1 Regular Meeting of May 24, 1994 - Receive & file. 7.5.2 Regular Meeting of June 14, 1993 - Receive & file. 7.5.3 Regular Meeting of June 28, 1993 - Receive & file. 7.6 BOND EXONERATION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS ON TRACT 47722 (DIAMOND KNOLL LANE) BY PIERMARINI HOMES - The City desires to exonerate: a) labor and material and b) guarantee and warranty bonds posted for construc- tion of Diamond Knoll Ln. street improvements, Sanitary Sewer P.C. No. DB -91-47722 and Storm Drain Improvements. Recommended Action: Approve the release of bonds posted for public improvements constructed on Tract 47722 located on Diamond Knoll Ln. 7.7 RESOLUTION NO. 93 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT PATHFINDER ROAD AND BREA CANYON ROAD IN SAID CITY AND JULY 20, 1993 PAGE 3 AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS - The Pathfinder/Brea Canyon Road intersection has been identified and warranted for traffic signals. Plans and specifications for the project have been prepared. Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 93 -XX to approve plans and specifications for traffic signal construction at Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Rd. and authorize the City Clerk to advertise for bids. PUBLIC HEARINGS: WILL BEGIN PRECISELY AT 7:00 P.M. 8.1 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-12(1) AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 93-2 - On June 3, 1993, Kenneth P. Anderson filed an appeal in opposition of the May 24, 1993 Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review permitting construction of a 6,756 sq. ft. single story restaurant (Hamburger Hamlet) with a lounge/bar and patio dining. The appeal is based on issues involving hours of operation, sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, security, parking driveway access, continued expansion of the shopping center, truck traffic and the location of the restaurant within the existing retail shopping center identified as Country Hills Towne Center, 2757 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. The Public Hearing was continued from the July 6, 1993. Recommended Action: Open the continued Public Hearing, receive public testimony, deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's decision approving the restaurant use. 8.2 ADOPTION OF THE 1993 GENERAL PLAN - The General Plan is a statement of goals, policies and implementing programs to guide the long-range physical development of the City. The Plan is required by State Law and determines the size, form and character of the City over the next twenty years. In March, 1993, Council authorized the retention of a consultant team to further develop the Draft General Plan. Five community workshops were conducted with residents in April and May to identify key planning issues and discuss potential General Plan policy options. Since May 19, 1993, nine Public Hearings have been conducted to consider adoption of the Draft 1993 General Plan. This meeting provides additional opportunity for commentary. Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive a presentation from the General Plan Consultant team, receive and conclude public testimony. JULY 20, 1993 PAGE 4 9. OLD BUSINESS: 9.1 AMENDMENT TO CITY ATTORNEY AGREEMENT - Consideration of amendment of the legal services agreement between the City and Markman, Arczynski, Hanson & King, which would add an hourly rate ($60) for law clerk and paralegal services. Recommended Action: Approve the amendment to the legal services agreement to include a fee rate for law clerk and paralegal services of sixty dollars ($60) per hour. 10. NEW BUSINESS: 10.1 ORDINANCE NO. XX (1993): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING IN ITS ENTIRETY, CHAPTER 13.05 OF TITLE 13 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND ESTABLISHING NEW REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY ALARM SYSTEMS - Alarm systems are_prone,to be activated by electrical failures or other events having no connection with criminal activity and many hours of valuable police time are wasted each year answering false alarms. This can deprive those with genuine emergencies from getting needed assistance and places law enforcement and other safety personnel at great risk. Recommended Action: Approve for first reading by title only and waive full reading of Ordinance No. XX(1993) repealing Chapter 13.05 of Title 13 of the Los Angeles County Code. 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 12. ADJOURNMENT: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING STATE OF CALIFORNIA ) COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ) The Diamond Bar City Council will hold a Closed Session at 5:00 p.m. and a Regular Meeting at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, located at 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California at 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday, July 20, 1993. Items for consideration are listed on the attached agenda. I, LYNDA BURGESS, declare as follows: I am the City Clerk in the City of Diamond Bar; that a copy of the Notice for the Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council, to be held on July 20, 1993 was posted at their proper locations. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this Notice and Affidavit was executed this 16th day of July, 1993, at Diamond Bar, California. /s/ Lynda Burnes Lynda Burgess, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: %I Q 017; TO: City Clerk FROM: IV i ^CK f 5 ADDRESS: 05 R dapt OC ORGANIZATION: r, SUBJECT: Jaw UD4� iv I expect to address the Council Council Minutes reflect my name and a fes. 144 /,v 0, lu4 QX J- C 2l vs iib ' ect agenda i�em. PPlease have the e�s „as Mitten above. S NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognised and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: TO: City Clerk FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and addressap-�ten above. ture NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognised and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: TO: City Clerk FROM: ub11--/R / j1lCL/lr ADDRESS: C� �� �� G/4 / cj k7tf ORGANIZATION: i Ogre SUBJECT: T - '5 w d 6w Cwn y&,4 f Iae (3/d I expect to address the Council on the s ct agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address s7�' ten above. Z— Sianature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognised and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. i DATE: i TO: City Clerk FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: 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. Sianature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THECITY COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: % "20 " 47 7 TO: City Clerk FROM: &L2 �- ,J/t!D P ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: 77 A�n�J ✓ P� EK�vt I expect to address the Councilqp the subje t,'agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name,aadc e� " written above. Signature NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and' address the City Council. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. DATE: TO: L FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. w-g_� Clerk I expect to address the Council Council Minutes reflect my name ect agenda item. Please have the as written above. ture NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing to address the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. DATE: TO: City Clerk FROM: ADDRESS: S �L UL' �,✓� C�' "rm '7 ORGANIZATION: v / 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 NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This form sttheeassist in ensuring persons wishing to address Council are recognizedand toenurecorrecspellingof names in the Minutes. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCI REGARDING AGENDA ITEM NO. r � c 10 DATE: 113C TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: SUBJECT: Cit Clerk cl I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. S NOTE: All persons may attend meetings and address the City Council. This form is intended to assist the Mayor in ensuring that all persons wishing t dd ss the Council are recognized and to ensure correct spelling of o a re names in the Minutes. Diamond Bar Juniors June 10, 1993 AGENDA NO. 3.1 Mr. Gary Werner, Council Member City of Diamond Bar 21660 Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Dear Gary: We sorely missed your presence at our annual Spelling Bee this year, and hope to see you again next year. We had three very deserving winners whose names, school, and home addresses (if available) are listed below. We were hoping that you could have the City recognize these outstanding students as you did last year. First Prize: Eric Laine 1177 Chisolm Trail Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Maple Hill School Second Prize: Chelsea Ray 23620 Monument Cyn Dr. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Quail Summit School Third Prize: Sean Stroud / Golden Springs School Thank you for your continued support. Diane Thompson Spelling Bee Co-chair P.O. Box 4026 • Diamond Bar, Caiifomia 91765 D AGENDA NO. 3.1 F 11.E cop y July 8, 1993 Mr. Eric Laine 1177 Chisolm Trail Diamond Bar CA 91765 Dear Mr. Laine: The Diamond Bar City Council would like to recognize you for your outstanding efforts at the Jr. Women's Club Spelling Bee this year. We would like to invite you and your family to attend the Diamond Bar City Council meeting to be held on July 20, 1993 to accept a certificate from the City Council. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Dr. Please contact Tommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk, at 860-2489 to confirm your attendance. We look forward to meeting you on July 20th! Sincerely, Lynda Burgess, CMC/AAE City Clerk /tn AGENDA NO. 3.1 July 8, 1993 Ms. Chelsea Ray 23620 Monument Canyon Drive Diamond Bar CA 91765 Dear Ms. Ray: FILE COP I The Diamond Bar City Council would like to recognize you for your outstanding efforts at the Jr. Women's Club Spelling Bee this year. We would like to invite you and your family to attend the Diamond Bar City Council meeting to be held on July 20, 1993 to accept a certificate from the City Council. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Dr. Please contact Tommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk, at 860-2489 to confirm your attendance. We look forward to meeting you on July 20th! Sincerely, Lynda Burgess, CMC/AAE City Clerk /tn AGENDA NO. 3.1 FILL CUPT July 12, 1993 Mr. Sean Stroud 49564 Hopi Dr. Parker, Arizona 85344 Dear Mr. Stoud: The Diamond Bar City Council would like to recognize you for your outstanding efforts at the Jr. Women's Club Spelling Bee this year. We would like to invite you and your family to attend the Diamond Bar City Council meeting to be held on July 20, 1993 to accept a certificate from the City Council. The meeting will be held at 6:00 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley Dr. Please contact Tommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk, at 860-2489 to confirm your attendance. We look forward to meeting you on July 20th! Sincerely, Lynda Burgess, CMC/AAE City Clerk /tn DIAMOND 9"/- / e, l9 9u BAR'S STATE OF MIND JULY 20, 1993 RECENTLY, THREE DIAMOND BAR COUNCIL PERSONS (2 PRESENT, 1 PAST) HAVE BEEN PUBLICLY ACCUSED OF BREAKING LAWS INVOLVING MONEY ISSUES. THIS DEMANDS A RESPONSE FROM THE CITY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: A. PUBLIC CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENTAL PROCESS HAS BEEN DIl41MSHED B. THE CITIZENS OF DIAMOND BAR ARE A PARTY TO LAWSUIT No. 71-16-84 FILLED IN THE ORANGE COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT C. THE CITIZENS MUST PAY THE LEGAL FEES AND ANY JUDGEMENTS AWARDED THE PLAINTIFF WHICH COULD EXCEED $125,0009000.00 3 ALL CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS WILL BE SUSPECT UNTIL THESE CHARGES ARE RESOLVED *** RESPONSES SHOULD INCLUDE *** A. THE PROCESS FOR CHOOSING THE LAWYERS AND THEIR FEES TO LITIGATE CASE NO. 71-16-84. B. IT SHOULD INCLUDE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND RESOLUTION PROCESS C. THE CITY'S ANSWER TO EACH CHARGE IN CASE NO. 71-16-84 D. THE POSSIBILITY THAT THE COUNCIL PERSONS NAMED IN THE SUIT NOT VOTE ON ACTIONS REQUIRING THE EXPENDITURE OF CITY FUNDS UNTIL THE LAW SUIT IS RESOLVED. 10.4w4 avo t . Tonight I want to talk about Money; specifically, the funds being expended for legal representation for the City of Diamond Bar. In reviewing some budget information I have observed numerous expenses and numerous firms representing the City, some on identical issues and some on separate concerns. It is my understanding, correct me if I am mistaken (but please correct me when I still have an opportunity to respond) that the City has a contract with Markman, Arczynski and Hanson, for legal services to the City. The monthly retainer fee is approximately $5500.00 per month (66,000 per year). However, fees for Mr. Arczynski's services average approximately $12,821 per month or 153,852 per year). Now, if we think about the famous suitcase of money that means the suitcase would be about 1/3 full. Now I am not here tonight to debate whether Mr. Arczynski's skill in defending and protecting the City's legal interests warrants such an expenditure of monies. I am here to ask why, given that expenditure of funds, the City finds it necessary to continually hire other attorneys and other firms to perform the same function that Mr.. Arczynski was hired and is paid well to do. (about $663.00 per day) Just a quick perusal of records revealed 7 other entities in addition to Markman, Arczynski, Hanson hired to represent the City. Some entities have received modest amounts of money (Jennings Engstrand) while others have been paid substantial amounts (Richards, Watson & Gershon). In June, Mr. Arczynski's firm was paid 6,189.00 for General Plan business and that same month Richards, Watson & Gershon were paid 4,118,25. How much of this is duplicated and how much more financially prudent would it be for a single individual or firm to handle identical issues. If you feel Mr. Arczynski is unable, for whatever reasons, to represent the City on legal issues, it is imperative to reevaluate whether or not the large expenditure of funds is in the best interests of this City. We have already been notified of the need to carefully watch our revenues in order to remain solvent. We have also been informed that our staff is smaller than most comparable city staffs and their salaries lower, considering their skills and duties. It appears grossly unfair to have one employee well paid while others, with different but equally valuable skills are paid at the lower end of the salary structure. My second concern is one of process/ procedure (I'm not sure what to call it.). Several of the attorneys hired by the City have been in the employ of Mayor Miller or are in positions where Mr. Miller may have a "conflict of interest". For instance, Daniel Wildish (Mahaffa & Nialis) represented the City in the Referendum case and the Grand Ave. situation. He was also involved with the lawsuit in Monrovia involving Jan Dabney and Mr. Miller. Mr. Robert Owens, with Rutan and Tucker, is presently, I believe, a city attorney for the City of Rialto and Mr. Miller has substantial land within that city's boundaries. He has been chosen to represent the City in the lawsuit involving Diamond Bar Associates. Actually, it may be more accurate to say that Rutan & Tucker, indicate in a letter dated February 22, 1993, addressed to the City Manager ""at your request Rutan & Tucker is submitting this proposal to the City of Diamond Bar with the case, Diamond Bar Associates v. City of Diamond Bar " and to ask if the case was awarded to this firm. I am not an attorney and certainly do not pretend to know all the minute details of legal representation, conflict of interest, etc. However from a lay person's (at least this lay person's perspective) there is an appearance of impropriety in awarding contracts to individuals with such previous or past affiliation with our mayor. Given the present atmosphere with our City it would appear of the utmost importance to diligently avoid such appearances of impropriety.. Respectfully submitted to the City Clerk to be included in the minutes for this meeting, I am Barbara Beach-Courchesne Resident, Diamond Bar JANUARY Markman, Arczynski, Hanson 7945.50 MARCH Markman, Arczynski, Hanson 21,324.39 501.42 21,825.81 APRIL Markman, Arczynski, Hanson 11, 269.50 Jennings Engstrand 196.62 11,466.12 ►I 51'1 Markman, Arczynski, Hanson 12,114.00 Jennings Engstrand 176.00 M/M Court Reporters 4,136.00 Michael Montgomery 35,525.00 51,951.00 JUNE Markman, Arczynski, Hanson 12,673.50 Los Angeles County District Attorney 63.33 Richard Watson & Gershon 8,776.60 JULY Markman, Arczynski, Hanson 11,598.00 Los Angeles County District Attorney 18.74 Jennings Engstrand 173.25 Richard Watson & Gershon 4,118,25 21,513.43 15,908,24 130,610.10 Markman, Arczynski, Hanson Los Angeles County District Attorney Jennings Engstrand M/M Court Reporters Richards Watson & Gershon Carl Warren & Company Rutan and Tucker Mahaffa & Nialis City ouncil i,eetinq, tis much. of Diamond ..ar was "uuilt out" when we became a c__ty, that. Shen we did become a city, 1 put together a tree ordinance in hopeE it wou:_c protect our few remaining natural wilderness areas which have S major species of trees indigenous to our city such as, Coastal Live Oak, Sycamore, iirrcyo Willow, S ack bValnut and Pepper trees. One Cfune 1, 1989, after contacting 5 other cities for cop: -es of th(iir tree ordinances, I was able to assemble a comparable tree ordinance a-xed at the preservation of vegitation including wildlife but more fi_rri in the reg- ulations. 'this city uses the county ordinance of only a 2 to 1. replacement of only the oak, but i felt the need to expand the species a" indicated above. Considering the eculocaical changes that have occured in the last 300 to 500 years ago when our environment was cleaner than now, a greater replacement factor was needed. As this city harbors one of the last Lilack Nalnut forests left in Calif= ornia and due to looming develpoment in this area, a tree orcinance was para- mount if we were to save any of our Heritage wild trees and other natural resources mankind can never replace or duplicate. Also, over 9000 trees will be destroyed if there were no controls at all. On June 1, 1989, 1 submitted my rendition of a tree ordinance to this city and aside from preserving our trees, wildlife and all other forms of vegitation, some found only in this city, would be protected. Wildlife corridors arenow protected in the Draft General Plan alonf with our r-d,ae line, hilsides and other natural features that our citizens enjoy. Without a tree ordinance, this city will not have a complete general Plan. 3y March 1990, nothing had been done. This process of delay continued into October 1990 and when I inquired again was told by the planning director that there were other more im]ortant matters to attend to first. '."he ordinance finally surfaced in December of 1991 and January 13, 1992. v4hat I waren"t aware of, until recently, was that P -r. N iller aquired sandstone Canyon and other wiluerness areas on December 27, 1990 and transfered to f14P February 15, 1991 and that studies for uevelopment of Sandstone Canyon had already starte prior to C,ctober of 1990 for a project now known as South Pointe Muster Plan. Without a tree ordinance, the 1_'IR of this plan lists aproximately 978 Oak trees will. be destroyed where in reality, over 3000 trees will be destroyed without any form cif compensation to any agency, or the citiznes and the obvious fact seem,. to show the delays were to the advantage of the owners/developers. When Nr. Miller returned to the council position in November 1991, this placed him in a perfect position tv apply his influence over the entire council, (at that time), and during a 20 minute tirade in a study session, indicated "This is the worst tree ordinance I have ever seen" and during this Narch 10, 1992 study session, by recomendation of �:r. 'Eorbing, trashed the entire ord- inance. 'ihere was riot even a request to send it back to staff for further work as hGd been done before and staff had done a fine job in finalizing this document. So now, after a study session was opened up to the public without prior notice, or. March 10, 1992, we became the whims of land/developers and damn the ecolocy, environment or wishes of the citizens who moved here for these natural bEauties in the first place. Is tt.is all true:' Is this our trusted council in action? You tell me. "• cerel� Don SES; ad ADDRESS TO DIAMOND BAf CITY COUNCIL �o m JULY 20,1993 � Speaker: Oscar 1. law MR. MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS: I come before you one angry and confused individual. There is nothing I want more than a government that is, for and by the people of it's jurisdiction. What do I find? Our senior city council officer more for himself than the people of Diamond Bar. Mr. Mayor, with your vast real estate holdings and you being a builder, I cannot, in good faith, see why you should be present tonight to pass a master plan that we citizens will have to live with for the next 20 years. Sir, is this not a conflict of interests? We have asked you often as to what the RnP Development Co. stands for. You shrug your shoulders and with a little boy innocence say you do not know. Neither does your fr�rnd and office neighbor. No one knows. It is a mystery. BUNK/ Is it not true that the "R" is L,Rumsey? Who is the "n" and to know. Are there any other Dabney's involved? Mr. Mayor, honesty, for a change? for your Father-in-law, Robert "P"? We citizens have a right kin folk of yours or Jan why not try just a little The world's strongest and largest weapon is not "the bomb." It is the truth. Seems to me this may be a new word in your vocabulary, On April 5, 1993, one of our citizens presented to you, in writing a list of 31 simple questions. To Date you have not choosen to answer even 1 of them. Why? They are reasonable questions any honest man would jump at the chance to set the record straight. Why not You? Once again these questions will be given to the City Secretary w�r to be entered in the minutes of this meeting. Do you 4 to bet a cup of coffee or a soda pop these questions along with a copy of my talk tonight will never be entered into the minutes? Now let's talk f act. Last year RnP's holdings in Sandstone Canyon were appraised for $280,000. Why have you and the Mayor pro -tem offered it to the Citizens of Diamond Bar anywhere from $12 million up? Everytime the Mayor Pro -Tem open, her mouth the price goes up and up. Why? Are you both such gougers? Or do you both think the citizens of our City just came out of the turnip patch? Members of our City Council, try a little honesty for a change. PLEASE!!! Oscar L.Law 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 RnP9 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? 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 Bdard 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. AGENDA NO. 7.1.1 t�� MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL Atp ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 29, 1993 1. CALL TO ORDER: M/Miller called the meeting to ordor at 7:00 p.m. in the Hearing Room, AQMD Auditorium, 218E5 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Mayor Miller. ROLL CALL: Mayor Pro Tem Papen, Councilmen Forbing and Werner. Mayor Miller and Councilman MacBride were excused. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: CDD/DeStefano reported that the City Council, at the conclusion of June 16, 1993 General Plan Public Hearing, directed that the draft General Plan dated June 16, 1993 be referred to the Planning Commission, in accordance with the Government Code, to review substantial modifications made to the 1992 General Plan. The Planning Commission conducted such Public Hearing on June 28, 1993 and staff will summarize their report. Additionally, staff has included a variety of addendum pages which incorporate all changes presented to date. He introduced the following members of the consultant team: Michael Jenkins, special legal counsel from the Richards, Watson, & Gershon; Daniel Iacofano, from Moore, Iacofano, and Goltsman; Terry Austin, of Austin Faust and Dale Beland, of Cotton/Beland Assoc. Dale Beland reviewed the Planning Commission's actions and summarized the content of their discussion as follows: - Reduction in potential development buildout which results in a change to the Land Use Map reflecting reclassification of substantial existing single family neighborhoods, adjustment and density classifications and change of maximum intensity of the RLM category. - Move toward more explicit policy with respect to preservation of open space, as indicated in strategy 1.5.4., and support strategy 1.5.5. which specifically recognizes SEA #15 and calls for strategy language to support further definition of the extent and the intensity of resources in SEA #15. He reported that, as a result of the great deal of interest and concern over SEA #15, they have reviewed the County's studies which lead to the designation of this area. The 1991 report prepared as a phase one study stipulates that it is not the intent of the designation of SEA #15 to preclude development, but to attain the goal of protecting and enhancing significant environmental resources by requiring a very rigorous process of review of the resources within the area to assure that any approved development would address the issue of preservation and enhancement of resources. The Planning Commission recommended that the City Council consider modifying the current text of strategy 1.5.3 by deleting the definition portion, thereby having strategy 1.5.3 contain the JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 2 portion that establishes policy for requiring a Public Hearing for any changes of deed restriction, recognizing the statement in strategy 1.5.4 to define open space. - Mitigation of current and projected traffic impacts, concurring with strategy 1.1.4 to proactively work with adjacent jurisdictions in the evaluation of regional transportation linking options through the easterly portion of the sphere of influence area which recognize and prioritize environmental sensitivity. Mr. Beland reported that, in addition to the summary of the three significant change areas, the Planning Commission included a list of more specific items for the City Council's consideration as follows: change the Tres Hermanos property to Agriculture/Specific Plan; graphically represent SEA #15 on the Land Use Map; modify the language in the vision statement to expand concern about SEA #15; to add the term "adjacent area;" change language to read "at least 25% density bonus," replacing "up to 25%;" add the words "residentially compatible" to Land Use strategy 1.3.4 in the context of Home Occupations; review the road classification listing for accuracy; delete the word "natural" from "natural hillsides" as indicated on page I-1, Retention of Existing Residential Land Use Patterns; delete the fourth sentence "in addition, many residents moved to Diamond Bar because of the historically low rate of taxation..." on page I-6, section 3; show Chino Hills Parkway and Grand Ave. on the Land Use Map; add "possibly the California gnatcatcher" to the wording concerning the "diverse population of native animals..." on page III -2, section 2; revise page III -6, section 4 to reflect water conditions; revise page III -11, strategy 1.2.3 to insert the words "civic organizations;" add "as practical" to the sentence "Pursue preservation of canyon areas in their natural state" on page III -11, strategy 1.2.4; indicate that there are inadequate medical facilities on page IV -5, section 5; indicate that the City should implement their Disaster Preparedness Plan on IV -9, strategy 1.7.1; revise the sentence on page V-2, section 1, Issue Analysis to read "...to address impacts to all streets in Diamond Bar and to maintain or improve roadway level of service;" add a Goal in the Circulation Element to "Encourage the State to construct the necessary offramps on State Routes 57 and 60 and to improve the interchange of State Routes 57 and 60 at Sunset Crossing; add strategy 1.1.5, page V-5 to state "Encourage Orange and San Bernardino Counties to fund and construct an environ- mentally sensitive roadway through Soquel Canyon;" revise strategy 2.2.2, page V-7, to state that the impacts for the roadway serving the high school site on surrounding residential neighborhoods should be minimized; and add a strategy in the General Plan to encourage coordination with adjacent cities and other agencies to lobby the State and Federal government on a variety of issues. JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 3 In response to C/Werner, Mr. Beland explained that the Planning Commission's recommendation to revise strategy 1.5.3 was to address their concern that a better definition of the terms "deed restricted" and "undeveloped" is needed, as well as a concern as to whether or not recreational facilities were appropriately not open space. MPT/Papen expressed concern that such a revision to strategy 1.5.3 would not be consistent with the Land Use Map because in the Land Use Map open space has been designated as vacant, deed restricted, undeveloped portions of property. There are further definitions for parks, golf courses, open space, private recreation and public facilities. Mr. Beland confirmed that the Land Use Map would need to be modified if the City Council concurs with the recommendation made by the Planning Commission. In response to C/Werner, he explained that the intent of the draft language in strategy 1.5.3 was to describe "open space" as land that is vacant, undeveloped and subject to constituent restrictions on its use, such as deed restriction, map restrictions, etc. that preclude physical construction and therefore make the property assumable as being "open" for the foreseeable future. There is a distinction between this and more typical active recreational facilities, such as a golf course. CDD/DeStefano explained that if a property is vacant, and has no deed restrictions or other restrictions, it would be considered "undeveloped land." For the land to be considered "open space" in this definition, it would also have to include visual amenity and environmental resource factors. The policy originated from some questions at the workshop process that became a policy option of how "open space" was to be defined and how its land use application was to be clarified on the Land Use Map. MPT/Papen inquired if there is a documented study to justify adding the "gnatcatcher". Mr. Beland stated that the comment was in reaction to recent news reports of the status issue on listing of the California gnatcatcher, an action from the State and Federal level. However, knowledge of whether this particular species exist in the area was not discussed. The City is obligated, regardless of what is stated in the General Plan, to obey Federal and State laws; therefore, the issue is, in some degree, moot. The intent was to add information in the Prologue to the Issue section of the element. MPT/Papen concurred that the text should be changed on page III -6 to follow the Planning Commission's recommendation to reflect current water conditions. C/Forbing stated that he felt it is unnecessary to add "as JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 4 practical" as suggested in item #13. C/Werner, ambivalent to the necessity of adding "as practical," pointed out that the City must act in a responsible fashion at all times regardless. C/Forbing stated that he felt that medical facilities in the City are adequate, particularly with the addition of the proposed medical facility. Mr. Beland stated that the Planning Commission was dealing more with the concerns of recent budget limitations since that may impact the provisions of medical facilities. CDD/DeStefano stated that there was also a comment made, on the application for the medical facility before the City, that medical emergency services and facilities were inadequate because there was a lack of a community or regionally -oriented medical facility, leading to strategy 1.6.2 which addresses the need and feasibility of locating a major medical facility within the City. C/Forbing pointed out that since the Issue Analysis indicates that the City should decide if any additional medical facilities are needed, then item #14 should be deleted. MPT/Papen concurred. MPT/Papen stated that she would prefer that items #17 and #18 dealing with Circulation be discussed later in the meeting. C/Werner expressed apprehension about doing changes without the benefit of any public input and without the benefit of a full Council. MPT/Papen stated that public input will be allowed following Council input, and the document will be going before the full Council for discussion at another meeting date, if so desired. Mr. Beland stated that the Planning Commission concurred with all of the proposed changes dealing with the three significant issues identified earlier. The listing labeled exhibit A includes items that the. Planning Commission would like the Council to give further consideration. C/Forbing suggested that item #15 be deleted because the General Plan already indicates that there is a Disaster Preparedness plan, and that the City will coordinate with the State Office of Emergency Management. CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Werner, stated that the Planning Commission received a letter from the City of Industry dated June 28, 1993 and following discussion, the Commission concluded with a recommendation supporting Industry's request that the property be designated JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 5 Agricultural/Specific Plan. C/Werner asked if a General Plan amendment would be needed if the Tres Hermanos property is designated as Agricultural/ Specific Plan when the City of Industry is prepared to develop a specific plan for that area. CDD/DeStefano stated that it was his understanding that a General Plan amendment would be needed for a detailed specific plan, requiring a planning analysis and an environmental analysis. CM/Belanger stated that the designation Agricultural/Specific Plan determines that the area is appropriate for specific planning activities. Once those activities take place, it is recommended that the categories of land use, identified through the specific plan process, go through a series of other processes, including General Plan and/or development agreements. Michael Jenkins stated that the change is proposed to eliminate an incompatibility between the designation and the text. Since the text contemplates a specific plan, then the designation should also contemplate a specific plan. If the specific plan contains uses or activities which are inconsistent with the text, then a General Plan amendment will be required in addition to the approval of a specific plan. Gary Neely, 344 Canoe Cove Dr. suggested: rewrite the Economic section; change strategy 1.5.3; change strategy 1.5.1 a & b; create a Specific Plan designation for Tres Hermanos; justify Three Valleys in their connection with MWD in item #11; delete "goal" in item #17 since it requires objectives and strategies; further clarify item #19 a; and support item #20. MPT/Papen requested staff to bring back, at the next meeting, a revised current water condition for the Council's and public review. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Ln., asked about the variety of issues referred to in item #20. MPT/Papen suggested that perhaps "variety of issues" should be changed to "regional issues that impact the City of Diamond Bar" so it can include such issues as solid waste, waste by rail, water, revenue, circulation, etc. Max Maxwell stated that he was under the impression that the City has a committee that already evaluated the location of the undeveloped land in Diamond Bar and its future potential use. The citizens have expected many of these items to have already been accomplished in the last 4 years. He then stated that he submitted a 33 page document, prepared by the Citizens JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 6 of Diamond Bar to Protect Country Living, to the City. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills Rd., expressed concern that the public is expected to respond to the Planning Commission's comments without an adequate review period. She then made the following comments: referring to item #5, she stated that a study should be done on existing vacant commercial property in the City before the City begins to look at expansion; how is "practical" determined as indicated in item #13; she disagrees with the deletion of strategy 1.5.3, definition of open space, and wants the term "map restrictions" included. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., made the following requests: the words "and possibly the California gnatcatcher" deleted since the gnatcatcher does exist there, add "cactus wren, arboreal salamander and palm turtle" to item #10; revise item #12 to read "In conjunction with civic organizations, local schools and volunteers plus wilderness conservancies..." and delete "as practical" from item #13. Don Gravdahl, 23988 Minnequa, concurred with Mr. Neely that there needs to be justification with Three Valleys Water, as indicated in item #11. Following discussion, the Council concurred to agendize the issue regarding the rate increase by Three Valleys Water for a future meeting. MPT/Papen summarized the Council's positions on the Planning Commission's recommendations: "no" on items #6, #14, and #15; a split decision on item #13; a request that item #11 be brought back to Council for discussion of issues; no discussion on items #17 and #18; and the remaining items would be deemed acceptable. C/Werner stated that he had not taken any position on any of the items, nor had he had the benefit to review all the items. The public only provided input on items #3, #5, #6, #7, #11, #12 and #13, and staff should be directed to come back with the suggestions offered. All the items should be discussed when there is a full Council. He stated that he was under the impression that the purpose of this Public Hearing was to continue discussion of the last Public Hearing, allowing the public additional time to review the General Plan dated June 16, 1993. He requested additional time to review the suggested items offered by the Planning Commission. MPT/Papen requested staff to reverify the number of multiple family and single family units in the community as indicated on page II -4 in the Housing Element because it seems that the number should be 27% to 30%. Furthermore, staff should investigate why the medium density, that was reduced to 12 DU/AC for vacant undeveloped land, is no longer in the Housing JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 7 Element on page II -12. Max Maxwell stated that it had been requested that hillside areas be designated RH IDU/2.5 AC. He then read a letter, representing the Citizens of Diamond Bar for Country Living, to be submitted to the City, that made the following points to the draft 1993 General Plan (strikeout version): the strikeout version is very confusing to read, and difficult to review the changes made; more time is needed to review the document; upon reviewing the first few pages, it was discovered that the draft does not reflect the public's request as it had attempted to do; the language in the document is not strong enough to reflect the concerns made; the issues discussed need to be more specific and emphatic toward preservation of open spaces, especially Sandstone Canyon, upper Sycamore Canyon, Tonner Canyon and controlling development parameters; the process of redoing the General Plan has been a "show"; they are prepared to take legal action to force the City to produce a General Plan that meets the needs of those who have participated; they are prepared to do a second referendum and a recall; they request time to thoroughly discuss the issues and reach a satisfactory agreement, and allow 90 days to review the final draft; and it is difficult for the public to keep up with this accelerated period of review with weekly Council meetings, along with the Planning Commission meeting. Gary Neely made the following comments: the acknowledgments need a page number; add Lavinia Rowland's name to workshop #2; the original name of Diamond Bar was "Rancho Las Nogales" not "Rancho De Las Nogales" as indicated on page 14; revise page 16, Circulation, to read "Tonner Canyon scenic highway has been proposed as a regional bypass roadway. This proposed roadway would connect the 60 freeway north at or about Chino Hills Parkway/Phillips Ranch Rd. to the 57 freeway south at or about Brea Canyon Road underpass. Although professionally generated traffic studies have shown this road to have a major impact on helping to solve the City's surface street traffic congestion problems, local environmentalists and other private citizens have expressed a considerable amount of concern as to whether the construction of this roadway to SEA #15 can be accomplished in an environmentally sensitive manner;" change goal on page 16 to read "Over the objections of many private citizens, pressure from developers to develop the City's supply of vacant land continue to mount, especially on vacant land that may have been designed or restricted as open space by previous development approvals through the County." MPT/Papen suggested to Mr. Neely that he cover those points that have not been covered before by him, either by writing or orally. Gary Neely pointed out that during the workshop process, he was often dismissed and told that many of his points would be reviewed and considered at a later date. However, such JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 8 consideration was never given. C/Miller stated that he has requested Mr. Beland to make a list of all items discussed during the workshops, along with items submitted in writing by Mr. Neely and Mr. Van Winkle, and identify how the issues were resolved by incorporation into the revised document, along with remaining issues still outstanding. Don Schad made the following comments: revise page I -Ila, Land Use Element, to indicate that any areas that are 25% or more can only have 10% graded for utilization, and 25% grading for slopes 0% to 15%; add Sandstone Canyon and Upper Sycamore Canyon to page III -10, strategy 1.2.1; add the term "tunnels or means of egress and ingress under the roadways" to wildlife linkages indicated on page III -11, and remove the word "where practical;" insert the Tree Ordinance on page III -11, strategy 1.2.2; add the list of recreational activities he submitted, above and beyond sporting events on page III -11, strategy 1.3.1; review the proper use of the word "attenuation" indicated on page IV -11, strategy 1.10.5; specify that decibel levels will remain constant within the neighborhood even if less than the recommended maximum decibel level indicated on page IV -11, strategy 1.10.1; and add the statement "there will be no roadway in Tanner Canyon" to page V-3, item 4. Mr. Beland stated that the suggestion being made by Mr. Schad is a policy issue because he is asking the City to monitor existing noise environment to determine the current noise ambient, and then, by policy, adopt that as a standard not to be exceeded by any new change in development. Such a policy is quite difficult to implement because, first off, it would be difficult to identify how the ambient will be measured and how it is to be monitored. MPT/Papen, in response to Mr. Schad's comments regarding the tree ordinance and his suggested list of recreational activities, explained that ordinances are not included in the General Plan, nor is a list of recreational classes. Staff indicated that they had explained that there is a process by which new recreational programs are added, and they now await further feedback from you. Wilbur Smith He requested Angeles, Ora action to su evidence, the that such a r the document Council to b The City sho solution, be General Pla submitted material to the Coun evidence that any governme nge, and/or San Bernardino c pport a Tanner Canyon roadwa n how can the General Plan c oad is a viable solution. He include specific action t ring about improvements to the uld also consider multi-level fore a Tanner Canyon road. n does not address the po cil for the record. ntal agency of Los ounties have taken y. If there is no ontinually indicate then suggested that o be taken by the 57/60 interchange. interchanges as a Furthermore, the tential geological JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 9 problems associated with Tonner Canyon and "The Country Estates" area. The General Plan should also include a statement on how the City and its staff operates. CM/Belanger, referring to the Public Health & Safety Element, page VI -7, pointed out that Objective 1 and its strategies, does consider potential problems from seismic ground shaking and other geologic events, and its prescribed method for dealing with, evaluating and remediating those conditions. Furthermore, the City Council directed staff to remove reference to Tonner Canyon roadway in the Circulation Element. The only reference to any kind of by-pass transportation corridor will not reference Tonner Canyon. Don Gravdahl questioned the width of some of the roads indicated on the Roadway Classifications chart V-6, on page V- 13, as well as the collector classifications given to some of the roads. Mr. Beland stated that the map being referred to by Mr. Gravdahl is proposed for deletion from the plan. The definition of roadway classification would reside in Table V- 1. Staff will investigate the widths defining the roadways on Table V-1. In response to C/Forbing, he stated that all references to Colima will be changed to Golden Springs. Don Gravdahl pointed that page V-14 needs to include reference that Orange County Transportation is also sending buses into our area. He then stated that there needs to be a compromise made by everyone, realizing that the General Plan can be amended every 90 days. Gary Neely inquired when the decision to delete a Tonner Canyon road from the General Plan was made. If a Tonner Canyon scenic highway is not built, the number of road segments where volume exceeds capacity will jump to 28. C/Werner stated that he recalls that the discussion of Tonner Canyon was to remain in the text, but the graphics was not to show a line going through for Tonner Canyon. The traffic consultants had indicated that they would review Figure V-1 because of its problem with its designation of collectors. CM/Belanger stated that the General Plan must have internal consistency to define the by-pass in strategy 1.1.4, page V-5. The development of Tonner Canyon as an alternative travel corridor around the City will say something other than the development of Tonner Canyon is it is going to be consistent with the policy in 1.1.4. He then reviewed the items that staff understood were to be changed to make the document consistent: the specific reference on V-5, item 4, development of Tonner Canyon, was to be amended to reflect the policy objective set forth in the General Plan document; and the arrows, which do not reflect the policy statement in the JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 10 document, were to be removed. Wilbur Smith stated that he feels that if there is to be the inclusion of a Tonner Canyon road in the General Plan, then the document should state specifically how it is to be built, financed and who will support it. MPT/Papen stated that the Council has been working for over four years to get State and County funding for improvements to the freeway system that will keep traffic on the freeway. The City's streets would function properly if used only by local City traffic. The Metrolink system from Riverside to L.A. County can reduce the traffic on our interchange if used. However, the Metrolink system from Riverside directly to Orange County won't occur until 1994/95. There is to be a vote, scheduled June 30, 1993, on four-year funding for a highway program in L.A. County. The Council has worked for two years to get the three Caltrans districts to mesh their long-range plans for carpool lanes and to direct their attention to the intercounty system. The three Caltrans have agreed to prioritize their intercounty connections. The San Gabriel Valley Association of Cities put forth a resolution 1 1/2 years ago advocating that the HOV system in the San Gabriel Valley be pushed forward and be built in the next eight years. Perhaps the General Plan should have a listing of some of the projects supported and those scheduled to be funded. However, even if those projects are done, we will continue to face LOS levels of F on streets in Diamond Bar because of the continued growth in San Bernardino and Riverside County. Perhaps there should be a strategy included in the document that the City participate in SCAG's Regional Mobility Plan, which currently the City is doing. Wilbur Smith pointed out that the problem is that the comments expressed by MPT/Papen are not in the document. MPT/Papen stated that the strategies repeatedly indicate that the City is to proactively work with adjacent jurisdictions and other agencies in the evaluation of regional transpor- tation linkage. The City does not have jurisdiction to make a decision on what was just outlined; therefore, those comments cannot be put in the document. However, the document can and does include general statements on policies that can be taken, as is indicated on page V-4 as follows: increase the attractiveness of State Routes 57 & 60 for through traffic use; work with Caltrans to reduce the use of through traffic on Diamond Bar Blvd.; provide HOV lanes on State Routes 57 and 60; provide truck lanes where appropriate; construct auxiliary lanes within key intersections; page V-7, lobby Caltrans to provide HOV lanes on local freeways; as well as other references. Max Maxwell stated that the Council had an opportunity to place the General Plan on the ballot. The type of bickering JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 11 occurring is the reason that the document is not being completed. No one is discussing the real issues and no results are being made. C/Forbing pointed out that the dilemma is trying to please all individuals, particularly those have opposing view points with each other. MPT/Papen stated that ultimately it is the Council's decision which viewpoint will be incorporated into the document, which undoubtedly will create dissatisfaction amongst a variety of individuals. Don Schad, referring to page III -10, requested to have the statement "To develop a tree preservation policy pertaining to our five major species, which are the Black Walnut, the Oak, the Sycamore, the Pepper and the Arroyo Willow" inserted in strategy 1.1.4. MPT/Papen requested staff to include a statement to develop a policy or program of preservation, without being specific on the types of trees because a study was never conducted regarding those trees. C/Werner suggested that the term "indigenous" be used in the statement. Mr. Schad expressed concurrence. James Roberts, 829 Silver Fir Rd., suggested that there be a general analysis that water, land, air, trees and light all have a concentric matrix that can't really be separated. The Resource Element separates these elements into biological resources, open space, parks, recreations, etc. Mr. Beland stated that a supplemental statement can be added on page III -2, an elaboration of existing conditions, to provide a background description of the interrelationship in the context of ecology. Gary Neely stated that some of those that have a disagreement with a Tonner Canyon Rd. would be willing to talk to a subcommittee of the Council, staff and the consultant to develop verbiage for the Circulation Element that would be acceptable to all parties. James Roberts suggested that a third party review the document to verify if there are significant changes to the 1992 General Plan before the Council votes on this revised 1993 General Plan, and then allow the public a long period of time to review it for their approval. The process should not be rushed. Jack Bartowski asked if the Council felt that they entered this review process in a spirit of negotiation, or if their minds had been made up since the time of the adoption of the JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 12 1992 General Plan. The City Council should expect resistance from the citizens because they are equally concerned about their community. He asked whether the Council felt that there have been substantial changes made to the document. Michael Jenkins explained that the determination of whether there are significant changes to the document will be a joint determination that will be made initially by the consultant staff and ultimately by the City Council. MPT/Papen, referring to the sphere of influence area, inquired how much a General Plan should be based on a policy outside of the City's jurisdiction and is not the City's ultimate decision. Michael Jenkins indicated that it is appropriate within the Plan to comment on what the City would like to see happen in that area. Discussion in the Plan is proportionate to its importance relative to the discussion of that which is contained within the boundaries of the City. C/Werner stated that he had hoped to enter into a compromise between the parties that had initiated the referendum and the City Council in the adoption of the July version of the General Plan. He stated that he has expressed concern to staff that all the materials get reconciled in a form and time element that allows for a reasonable amount of digestion to understand the document, and that the City Council not hastily approve a document, giving the wrong impression that there was not a good faith effort on the part of the City Council to reconcile these differences. It is disconcerting for a representative of the Citizens Group to state, before the process is even done, that it is going back to the referendum. C/Forbing pointed out that every strikeout in the revised document is a change that the Council has participated in since the original document. Tonner Canyon has been listed Agricultural since the original document, and is still listed as Agricultural, as indicated in strategy 1.1.9 on page I-12. The Council has attempted to solve the circulation problems in this community and to be environmentally sensitive and to leave the private property in Tonner Canyon listed Agricultural. Many things discussed throughout the process have been philosophical rather than specific. Many issues brought up cannot legally be placed into the document. The City has hired consultants to put together a document that is legal, specific and major to pass all the requirements of the law so that the Council could get on with the business of running the community. Jack Bartowski stated that he opposes a roadway through Tonner Canyon and that the traffic problems of the eastern portion of L.A. County should not be mitigated to the detriment of those living in Diamond Bar. In response to C/Werner, he confirmed JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 13 that any mitigation to Diamond Bar's traffic problems by way of a coordinated effort to build a Tonner Canyon road with other jurisdictions, without exploring other avenues such as Carbon Canyon or the widening of the freeway, is an issue that would propel him, and probably 4,000 other residents, to sign a referendum. C/Werner suggested that the committee organized to discuss the Tonner Canyon issue consider the use of an advisory measure to allow the entire community to voice their input on the matter. Since it is not an issue on the immediate horizon for our General Plan, it would be to unfortunate to see that long term issue hold up this General Plan document and prevent this City from conducting business. Gary Neely stated that the Parsons -Brinkerhoff report had eight alignments going through Tres Hermanos in Diamond Bar, traversing an area presently being discussed to house a reclaimed water lake. It is important to consider the alignment of the road when constructing the reclaimed water lake, and secure easements and developer fees associated with the lake to help pay for construction of the road. The General Plan needs to address the Tonner Canyon road because segments of the road will be built before 20 years. C/Forbing pointed out that Mr. Bartowski stated that 4,000 residents signed a petition stating that they do not want a road any place in the City's sphere of influence, and now Mr. Neely is stating that the Councilmembers are poor leaders if a road is not put in the sphere of influence. He suggested that both individuals discuss the issue and return with an agreement, or allow the Council to vote their consciences, keeping it out of the courts. Gary Neely stated that everyone participating in this system for the last 15 to 20 meetings is willing to sit down and discuss the issue with at least one member of the Council present. Part of the problem is that the Circulation Element is not well-written or organized, creating a lot of confusion. MPT/Papen stated that, personally, she would not include any road because it has taken such intense effort getting what we can get from the County and the State. It is unfair to expect the Council to be able to accomplish a road. Identifying the funding and the how it is to be done is not what the General Plan is all about, nor is it a City decision. We are making a general policy decision now, not selecting roadway alignments. C/Forbing indicated that there are 4,000 people who signed the referendum who do not want a road through Tonner Canyon and do not want a line drawn on the map. Gary Neely stated that the Councilmembers were elected on the JUNE 29, 1993 PAGE 14 premise that they would solve the traffic problems of the City. A road through Tonner Canyon is the only viable solution. Max Maxwell stated that he is willing to participate in the committee with Mr. Neely to discuss the issue. The Tonner Canyon road is one of major four issues that spurred the referendum. There are many other issues in the General Plan, such as the public benefits tax assessments and so forth. In response to C/Forbing's question as to whether he would be willing to draw a line on the map for an environmentally sensitive road, if it meets the proper definition of environmentally sensitive, Mr. Maxwell stated that that would be a fair evaluation but, at this point, he wants to sit down and discuss the issue. MPT/Papen requested that C/Werner meet with the citizens committee and staff to discuss the Tonner Canyon road issue and bring a report back to the Council at the next meeting. Staff is also bringing back the issue on item #11 regarding water resources to the next meeting. The Councilmembers on the Economic Development Subcommittee will review the Economic Section and review Mr. Neely's comments on the Vision statement. She then requested that "Foothill Transit" be added to Services from other Agencies on page VI -2. 3. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, MPT/Papen adjourned the meeting at 11:00 p.m. and continued the Public Hearing to July 6, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor Lynda Burgess, City Clerk AGENDA NO. 7.1.2 MINUTL5 Ur TnZ %--=Tz cvvnc=i. REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR b*44 JULY 6, 1993 Pr 1. CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 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 6:04 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 Mayor Miller. INVOCATION: The invocation was presented by Pastor Robert Clayton, Diamond Bar Worship Center. ROLL CALL: Mayor Miller, Councilmen Forbing, Werner and MacBride. Mayor Pro Tem Papen was excused. Also present were Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Andrew V. Arczynski, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Community Development Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; George Wentz, Public Works Director; and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES, ETC. 3.1 Proclaimed July, 1993 AS "PARKS AND RECREATION MONTH" - Parks & Recreation Commission Chairman David Schey and Commissioners Steve Johnson and Mike Goldenberg accepted the Proclamation. 3.2 David Bourne, representing Lanterman Developmental Center, expressed the Center's views regarding the proposed Materials Recovery Facility to be constructed by the City of Industry. He stated that if the MRF is built and operated as proposed, the health of the Center's clients would be negatively impacted. He expressed concern regarding the increase in flies in the area, the air borne contaminants, the increase in traffic, and the increase in noise. 4. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 4.1 Concert in the Park - July 7, 1993 - 6:30 to 8:00 p.m. - "Kelly Rae and Cadillac Blue" Country Western - Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 4.2 Planning Commission - July 12, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.3 Nomination Period for City Council Vacancies - July 12, 1993 - 8:00 a.m., City Hall, 21660 E. Copley Dr. 4.4 Concert in the Park - July 14, 1993 - 6:30 to 8:00 P.M. - "Mid -West Coast Band" Top 40 Contemporary - Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 4.5 Traffic & Transportation Commission - July 15, 1993 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. JULY 6, 1993 PAGE 2 4.6 City Council Meeting - July 20, 1993 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 4.7 Concert in the Park - July 21, 1993 - 6:30 to 8:00 P.M. - "Mike Gealer & Euphoria" Contemporary Jazz - Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 4.8 Continued General Plan Public Hearing - July 13, 1993 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5. PUBLIC CONVENTS: Jim Paul complimented the City Council's aggressive efforts on the Graffiti Ordinance. He then suggested that the Council take an aggressive stance, by ordinance, on term limits on a local level, specifying guidelines in the event of any Councilmember seeking higher office; requiring any Councilmember to pay for the cost of an election in the event that he is elected to higher office; and setting a protocol to fill vacancies not due to a person going to a higher office. Oscar Law, a member of the Citizens of Diamond Bar for Country Living, pointed out that, historically, it often only takes a small number of individuals to make a change so that justice prevails. He expressed concern regarding the possibility that the City may lose the lawsuit filed by Diamond Bar Assoc. Don Schad, 1824 Shaded Wood Rd., requested support from the City Council for an initiative program called "California for Parks and Wildlife (CPW) for preservation and purchase of undisturbed wilderness areas in the State, costing each taxpayer less than $.50 per month for 20 years. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fair Wind Ln., referring to the DBA project, questioned why tracts #51 & #87 were approved, particularly when they have the same geological problems associated with tract #50, which was denied. William Gross, 21637 High Bluff, stated that the lawsuit filed by the Diamond Bar Assoc. makes no mention of the referendum, as was indicated, but is directed to allegations made regarding M/Miller and MPT/Papen's actions. The crimes being alleged are serious and have the potential of being costly to the City. Max Maxwell expressed support for Don Schad's request for the City's aggressive support in the CPW program, which is supported by the Federal Government. Barbara Beach-Courchesne, 2021 Peaceful Hills, expressed concern that citizens' right to free speech is being restricted, and those attempting to express their opinions are accused of being extremists. The lawsuit filed against the City by the DBA far exceeds any cost associated with the referendum. The Councilmembers involved in the allegations should use their own private funds for court costs, not City funds. JULY 6, 1993 PAGE 3 Nick Anis, 1125 Bramford Ct., pointed out that when the DBA presented their project, the majority of the citizens did not feel that it should be approved by the City Council. The City Council, after reviewing the project, concurred that the project should be denied. The allegations are unfounded. 6. COUNCIL COMMENTS: M/Miller stated that when the Council denied the DBA Tract Map, it was based upon geotechnical concerns raised by the Council and the audience during the Public Hearing process. CM/Belanger clarified that the litigation is a civil complaint, not a criminal complaint as was insinuated. C/Werner urged the public to remember that one is innocent until proven guilty, and conclusions should not be drawn until all of the facts have been presented. 7. CONSENT CALENDAR: Motion was made by C/Forbing and seconded by C/MacBride to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: MPT/Papen 7.1 APPROVED MINUTES: 7.1.1 Regular Meeting of June 1, 1993 - as submitted. 7.1.2 Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 9, 1993 - General Plan Public Hearing - as submitted. 7.1.3 Regular Meeting of June 15, 1993 - as submitted. 7.1.4 Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 16, 1993 - General Plan Public Hearing - as submitted. 7.2 APPROVED WARRANT REGISTER - Dated July 6, 1993 in the amount of $784,439.79. 7.3 RECEIVED & FILED TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of May, 1993. 7.4 REJECTED CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES: 7.4.1 Filed by Allstate Insurance Company June 1, 1993 - Referred matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 7.4.2 Filed by Fernando Diaz June 7, 1993 - Referred matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 7.4.3 Filed by Miguel A. Ramos and Judith R. Martinez June 7, 1993 - Referred matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. 7.5 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-52: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF JULY 6, 1993 PAGE 4 INVESTMENT POLICY. 7.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-53: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT PER PARCEL DISCRETIONARY GRANT PROGRAM FOR LIGHTING OF SPORTS FIELDS AT PETERSON PARK. 7.7 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 93-54: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES REGIONAL PARK AND OPEN SPACE DISTRICT SPECIFIED PROJECT GRANT PROGRAM FOR THE DESIGN AND DEVELOPMENT OF PANTERA PARK. RECESS: M/Miller recessed the meeting at 6:55 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Miller reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 93-55: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE 1992 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND APPROVING THE CMP CONFORMANCE CHECKLIST - PWD/Wentz reported that State statutes require that local jurisdictions adopt a resolution by August each year certifying conformance with the Congestion Management Program (CMP) for the previous year. The City Council adopted an ordinance, in March of 1993, encouraging car pooling, van pooling and similar types of approaches to reduce overall trips within the City, and containing requirements related to land use decisions and their impacts upon any regional transportation systems within the City. He recommended adoption of a Resolution finding the City to be in compliance with the 1992 Congestion Management Program (CMP) and approving the CMP Conformance Checklist. M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. With no testimony offered, M/Miller closed the Public Hearing. Motion was made C/Forbing and seconded by C/MacBride to adopt Resolution No. 93-55 finding the City to be in compliance with the 1992 Congestion Management Program (CMP) and approving the CMP Conformance Checklist. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, M/Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: MPT/Papen JULY 6, 1993 PAGE 5 8.2 APPEAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-12(1) AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 93-2 - M/Miller stated that staff and the applicant requested that the matter be carried over to the July 20, 1993 Council meeting. If there are individuals present to provide testimony on this matter, a report will first be presented by staff. Robert Gannon stated that he is willing to return to the next meeting to provide testimony. Mr. Anderson stated that the staff report is incomplete because it does not contain a letter submitted by Mrs. Anderson or by the Wolff Company. M/Miller indicated that the staff report will be complete by the next meeting. M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. With no testimony offered, M/Miller continued the Public Hearing to July 20, 1993. 8.3 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING THE GENERAL PLAN- CDD/DeStefano reported that this is the seventh Public Hearing, continuing the Public Hearing process for adoption of the 1993 General Plan. The Council received a report from the Planning Commission at the Council's General Plan Public Hearing meeting of June 29, 1993. The Council assigned C/Werner to chair a subcommittee "regarding the merits of the proposed transportation corridor" within the sphere of influence. That meeting was held on July 6, 1993 and included eight residents as well as several staff members. The purpose of the continued Public Hearing is to receive additional comments, review a vision statement prepared by Dale Beland and receive additional testimony from the public and Council regarding commentary or direction of the 1993 General Plan. He then introduced the following members of the consultant team: Michael Jenkins, of Richards, Watson, and Gershon; Daniel Iacofano, of Moore, Iacofano, and Goltsman; Terry Austin, of firm Austin Faust; and Dale Beland, of Cotton/Beland Assoc. Dale Beland stated that the new version of the vision statement, submitted to the Council and the public, demonstrates that a substantial part of the comments received on the subjects of retention of rural country living, community character, preservation of open space resources and reduction of regional traffic impacts on local streets are part of the current revised draft General Plan. The purpose of reviewing the draft is not to revise or change any direction or major policy conclusions, but to ascertain if it does a better job of focusing the vision of what the General Plan is all about JULY 6, 1993 PAGE 6 and to direct staff to include it into the draft if it is acceptable. The consulting staff also submitted a report, requested by the Council, on the status of comments received during the General Plan revision program. The report is a review of the comments made during the City Council Public Hearings. A response to comments made at the workshops was not included because the Council previously received, in written form, an itemized tabulation of all those comments from the three series of workshops, and an indication of those comments incorporated into the revised draft, and those still up for discussion. Many of the comments heard before the City Council have been previously introduced at the workshops. The consulting staff organized the comments made by two methods: by General Plan component, vision statement and General Plan element; and by the commentor, both written and verbal. He then reviewed some of the major areas, as indicated in the submittal presented to the Council, that require direction from the Council. Staff was unable to respond to all comments made due to the July 4, 1993 weekend. C/Werner pointed out that staff had not yet included the direction from Council made on June 29, 1993, to incorporate some policy statements in the General Plan that would suggest amending the existing Tree Ordinance to reflect "indigenous trees". M/Miller opened the Public Hearing. Max Maxwell requested that the public be notified of upcoming Public Hearings in advance. He inquired if the Council will be responding to the comments made as indicated in the report submitted by staff. Nick Anis stated that he is not in support of many of the comments made to revise the General Plan, as indicated in the summarization included in the staff report. He expressed the following concerns: requiring homes built in the City to be on 5 acres allows only wealthy people to buy homes; a double-decker interchange on the 57/60 freeway seems impractical; improving the 57/60 freeway is not enough of a solution to solve the traffic problems on Grand Ave.; and a more direct alternative route must be made available such as the Tonner Canyon Road exit on the 57 freeway to the 71 freeway in Chino; if Chino builds an alternate route, we will have less control than we would have if it were initiated by Diamond Bar; and because there are vacant retail commercial establishments now does not mean future centers should not be built. Wilbur Smith requested an opportunity to review the EIR and the MEA documents. JULY 6, 1993 PAGE 7 CDD/DeStefano explained that the EIR was prepared and certified as part of the previous General Plan adoption process. The programs, policies, goals, vision statements, etc., being developed in the 1993 General Plan, are contained within the range of projects discussed in the 1992 General Plan, in accordance to CEQA guidelines. The EIR and MEA are, and have been, available for review at the library and City Hall for purchase or to be borrowed. The EIR was circulated for public review early 1992, and distributed to public agencies and individuals. Dale Beland stated that the appropriate action to be considered by the City Council is the adoption of an addendum to the final EIR, which is specifically designed to accommodate the need for technical modification of a prior certified document, thus achieving the objectives of CEQA. The addendum will be a separate document submitted to the Council for action prior to any adoption of a revised draft General Plan. The existing final EIR, which will be the basis for the addendum, was certified on July 14, 1992. Audrey Hamilton, Copper Mountain Dr., stated that the General Plan needs to contain a program to alleviate the congestion on Grand Ave. Both Tonner and Soquel Canyons are needed as alternate routes for pass-through traffic on Grand Ave. Don Schad made the following comments: indicate in strategy 1.1.4 on page IV, that 1DU/2.5AC is satisfactory for property not exceeding 15%, and 1DU/5AC for property 15% to 25%, and for properties 0% to 15%, 20% of the property can be graded; delete where appropriate from strategy 3.2.1 on page IV; stress in strategy 1.1.4 on page IV that trees are limited and so are natural wilderness areas. Mr. Schad further expressed his complete opposition to a Tonner Canyon roadway. C/Werner reported that the subcommittee, which included eight residents, CM/Belanger, CDD/DeStefano, PWD/Wentz met to discuss how the issue of the regional bypass road is to be handled in the General Plan. C/Forbing had expressed, at the last meeting, the Council's frustration as to the position to take because there are two adamant opposite viewpoints regarding this issue. It was stated by a member of the public that even though there is disagreement with some of the other comments made publicly, there is an opportunity to reconcile, for General Plan purposes, a statement to place into the document that would adequately cover the issue generally to the satisfaction of the parties involved. Though a conclusion was not drawn during the subcommittee meeting, substantial progress was made, bringing the issue to the forefront and identifying the different options, JULY 6, 1993 PAGE 8 realizing that perhaps not all of the options are evident at this point in time since it is a regional issue, needing a regional solution. The City may have to look for a solution beyond the limits of the City, not limiting the solution to just the right-of-way or the location of the road, but in terms of funding for the road as well. Since it is a regional issue, the City should not shoulder the entire responsibility for solving the issue, nor is the City in a position to draw all of the conclusions through this General Plan. However, it was felt that the City should be able to scope out the parameters with which we are willing to proceed, addressing how we proactively seek the development of a road, deal with day-to-day issues arising until a road is built, if it is to be built, and how our other traffic issues are prioritized until the regional by-pass road issue is solved. Not realizing that a City Council meeting was scheduled for July 13, 1993, the sub- committee concurred to meet on that same date at 4:30 p.m. to discuss the issue into the evening if necessary. M/Miller suggested that C/Werner discuss with the sub- committee members the possibility of arranging an earlier meeting time. Hearing no further testimony offered, M/Miller declared the Public Hearing continued to July 13, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. 9. OLD BUSINESS: 9.1 AWARD OF DESIGN SERVICES CONTRACT FOR GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE MEDIANS FROM GONA COURT TO WESTERLY CITY LIMITS - CM/Belanger reported that, in order to provide a uniform landscaping theme along Golden Springs Dr., medians were proposed between Gona Ct. to the westerly City limits; with the Lemon Ave. to the westerly City limit line being the first phase, and the Gona Ct. to Lemon Ave. being a future phased project, proposed if and when the right-of- way on the northerly side of Golden Springs is eventually developed. Staff has reviewed the design proposals submitted by various firms. He recommended that the Council award Dwight French & Assoc. a design services contact, in an amount not to exceed $20,970, and authorize a contingency amount of $5,000 to address contract changes that may become necessary. Jim Paul expressed support that the project's priority is to go from Lemon Ave. westbound to the City limits rather than from Gona Court, because Golden Springs on the north side of the street is primarily undeveloped from Gona Court to Lemon Ave. CM/Belanger, in response to C/Werner, stated that Davidson's proposal was for $100 less than the proposal JULY 6, 1993 PAGE 9 made by Dwight French & Assoc.; however, the proposal made left out a storm drainage design, which is a substantial part of the task needed to be provided. In these types of contracts, though price is a factor, it cannot be the determining factor. Dwight French & Assoc. is doing the design of the resurfacing project for Golden Springs from Brea Canyon Rd. to Grand Ave. As part of their design, they have done a median evaluation along Golden Springs. Their familiarity with the area was noted and was a part of the overall evaluation of their overall service capabilities. In response to C/Werner, PWD/Wentz stated that he and SE/Liu will review the plans that were completed by Dwight French & Assoc. SE/Liu is a registered engineer that is fully capable of dealing with these plans independently. Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by C/Forbing to award Dwight French & Assoc. a design services contact, in an amount not to exceed $20,970 and authorize a contingency amount of $5,000. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: MPT/Papen 9.2 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR CITY-WIDE STREET TREE MAINTENANCE - CSD/Rose reported that bids were received from five qualified contractors for street tree maintenance and ranged from $71,458 to $141,680. He recommended that the City Council award a contract to West Coast Arborists, Inc., the lowest responsive bidder, in the amount of $71,458. Motion was made by C/Forbing and seconded by C/Werner to award the contract to West Coast Arborists, Inc., the lowest responsive bidder, in the amount of $71,458. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: MPT/Papen 9.3 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT FOR PANTERA PARK - CSD/Rose reported that 18 Landscape Architect firms submitted proposals for preparation of plans and specifications for development of Pantera Park. Because of the passage of Prop. A adopted November of 1992, there is $1.47 million available for design and development of Pantera Park. After careful review of the proposals, JULY 6, 1993 PAGE 10 staff recommended that the City Council award the contract to RJM Design Group to complete plans and specifications for development of Pantera Park in an amount not to exceed $82,550. At the request of CM/Belanger, CSD/Rose stated that after reviewing the 18 proposals, staff reduced the list to five firms that appeared to have successfully completed similar projects in similar communities to Diamond Bar, and successfully completed extensive public participation processes. Those five firms were invited to an interview to explain the merits of their company and to demonstrate the level of the people doing the projects. Staff then visited the sites of completed projects in other communities, and met with the staff from the agencies in these communities to see how the parks planning process was handled. The list was then narrowed to three, and at that time staff opened the fee envelopes provided as part of the proposal, and determined the firm not only the most qualified but who provided the most reasonable fee for the project. Motion was made by C/Forbing, and seconded by C/MacBride to award the contract to RJM Design Group to complete plans and specifications for development of Pantera Park in an amount not to exceed $82,550. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: MPT/Papen 9.4 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR THE INSTALLATION OF THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND PLANTING OF TREES ALONG RT. 60 FREEWAY - CSD/Rose reported that bids were received from four qualified contractors, which were opened and publicly read on June 29, 1993 with prices ranging from $322,118 to $435,470. He recommended that the City Council award a contract to Coast Landscape Construction Inc., in the amount of $322,118 for installation of the irrigation system and planting of trees along Rt. 60 freeway. Motion was made by C/Werner and seconded by C/MacBride to award a contract to Coast Landscape Construction Inc., in the amount of $322,118 for installation of the irrigation system and planting of trees along Rt. 60 freeway. Motion carried by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: MPT/Papen JULY 6, 1993 PAGE 11 10. NEW BUSINESS: 10.1 POMONA VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES AGREEMENT - SUPPLEMENT #2 - CM/Belanger reported that the City Council is requested to annually review the Agreement for Animal Control Services with Pomona Valley Humane Society and approve the annual supplemental payment. He recommended that the City Council approve Supplement Number 2 with the Pomona Valley Humane Society and authorize the Mayor to sign said Supplement. Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by C/Werner to approve Supplement Number 2 to the Agreement for Animal Control Services between the City and the Pomona Valley Humane Society and authorize the Mayor to sign Supplement No. 2. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEN: Forbing, MacBride, Werner, M/ Miller NOES: COUNCILMEN: None ABSENT: COUNCILMEN: MPT/Papen 11. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/MacBride stated that he feels the City has a very good partner in the Pomona Valley Humane Society for Animal Control Services. C/Werner stated that he enjoyed last week's Concert -in -the - Park and that he looked forward to the Country Western band this Wednesday. Lte. Wendell Henson, at the request of CM/Belanger, introduced Sgt. Sheila Sanchez, the new team sergeant, who is replacing Sgt. Warren Wright as liaison to the City. 12. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, M/Miller adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m. and continued the Public Hearing regarding the General Plan to July 13, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. and the Public Hearing regarding Cup 91-12(1) to July 20, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor Lynda Burgess, City Clerk AGENDA NO. 7.2 i 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 Papeen and Councilmember Forbing FROM: Linda G. Magnusou,'Accounting Manager SUBJECT: Voucher Registers, July 20, 1993 DATE: July 15, 1993 Attached are the Voucher Registers dated July 20, 1993. You will notice there are two voucher registers. This is due to the Fiscal Year ending June 30. There is a register for. expenditures allocated to FY92-93 in the amount of $243,559.93 and one for FY93- 94 in the amount of $116,150.65 for a total of $359,710.58. As requested, the Finance Department is submitting the voucher registers for the Finance Committee's review and approval prior to their entry on the Consent Calender. The checks will be produced after any recommendations and the final approval is received. Please review and sign the attached. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL The attached listings of vouchers dated July 20, 1993 have been audited approved and recommended for payment. Payments are hereby allowed from the following funds in these amounts: FUND NO. FUND DESCRIPTION 001 General Fund 112 Prop A Fund 118 Air Quality Mgt. Fund 138 LLAD #38 Fund 139 LLAD #39 Fund 141 LLAD #41 Fund 225 Grand Ave Const Fd 227 Traffic Mitigation Fund 250 CIP Fund TOTAL ALL FUNDS APPROVED BY: L nda G. Mag Accounting Manrn er Terrence L. Belanger City Manager AMOUNT $282,347.04 631.99 8,976.45 1,255.73 904.66 4,130.49 396.00 18,071.20 42.997.02 $359,710.58 Phyl is E. Pape - Mayor Pro Tem c J n A. Forbing Councilmember i*+ E+UN TTME: 10:E6 37/i5/91 V O it C d F R R E !, T S' E R v::ti1.UR MIME VENDOR 1D. AC:'`!UNT P1R1,9j.T1-N9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BATCH PO.HNE/N9, ENTRY/DOF TVOT�_t fid ;w1p i ION A.MD NT DAIE W/(:riry R2frFs hasp^t Svcs ARA 071 4098 2325 3: 3072tA 61!14 86/33 KS-Ptina Sopolips 71.8t igEAL Di,E VEND!R------> 77.0 fiSL Coi�saltants 13S`-45?9-4888 6 3811tA W1;12 67/14 8b/38 Prof Sacs-Li-AD t3=; 99i.66 141-,41-Lt0 8 30/2tA t9/1512 47714 86/38 Pref vrs-LLAD t41 9P4.67 134-45:31 40at 12 32110 87/1512 611/14 86/38 1451.5 Prof Svcs-LLAD I'M 984..57 TOTAL DUE VENDUR--------; 2.714.82 AT a T AIW 821 v6?-9 2t2` 2` 3`"lll� ?7/14 tbi3t June Luna Dist Svc; 6,1,.St. iWAL OU V0DuR--------, AdvancFd 00c Re=earrh Advi.mic i1A 409F,-6232 14 301208 81/1684 67/14 86/30 26847 5-Enrgy Eff._nt Camouters 8,976.45 TOTAL DUE :NDUR--------; 8,976.45 An�:a Aa::kflca 2 AcuaBack 13u-4531-2118 21; W-z1 A 29/145:3 87/14 e6/3t Back Hai Tect LLAD 13L 25.03 TOTAL Di'E VENDOR--------i 2S.82 Ara?nt'put. PHI Arteotrout Zai-4440-+040 31 30710A 07/14 86/3t Emer arcs Coord-6/71-1/9 862.0t TUiAL DUE VENDOR --------> ,62.00 Boys GlnbiSan Pahriel V1Y Boy ,C1tib 231-45`:' -5S1t 14 38728A 07/14 06/38 Graffiti Reaoval-6/93 1.952.88 WAL DUE VENDUR--------'i 1./58.02 Clayton Ennireering Inc. ClaytrEnnr 250-4310-6415 04693 183 387z8A 87/14 86/32 23(-,2 Heritage Park Constr 41.971.02 TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------! 41,917.82 ^�eeoinn_ aervic CasDisnosl 241-45`'5-3,t1 16 3011tA e7/14 06/38 Street Sweeping-6/93 10,73A.88 TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------; 18,/?8.6) f* 4 i t. V I a m o n d :5 a r *! AINtI*E: 10:,687/15193 VOiCiER AE6T ER Ph. 2 Tti .............'7/2'193 �ryri;R "dnME V£4DUR 1D. i'±l°Ai t ACC.4iNT P"Oj.TX-NUJ BATCH P0.11NE/N0. E4?RfilR INVOfC CR1PIiUh AM:IiiNT I iiE --:E,f, Coy lin Bros S ortine :-Incl Conl;nBras +81-43ri3-128 108 387?8a +91;1585 Cntian/"eland Assoc '-ot'.?p1Asa 081-4710-47.2:3 67 3,47M Gent rf Trar.si;or+atian "entirars 081-4S55-50% 25 3870A Di'63and Bar Pptty Cash Pettycash 781-2.x88-1004 i? 38728 001 -4830 -?325 Al 30720D 081-4040-1282 6 38710D 4N1--4M-4M '29 20179D 081-4210-2321. 24 38 M 281-43t8-2314 109 10 0 3D 081-4310-232:. 9 38710 001-WM-12':3 11, 1. 38/28D Diana Cho S Associates DianaCilo 752-431.0-6415 P4613 102 301281 U401ht French d Assoc. Dvightfren 22/-4S1e•641? 06192 12 31721A 0111332 225-'+518 6411 06393 16 31726A 01/1451 FasiFi.Te FasiFile 081-4517-1100 24 3872tA 01/15;8 First Interstate Bank FirsfInter 701•-4010-2331 SG 307?4D @T!iL 16/3:3 5/e?; 07/14 @6/? 21114 06/32 126391 01/15 06/34 07/15 Sh/30 07115 06/30 07!15 26/38 07/15 06/38 W15 26/20 07115 06/38 01!15 06/30 07114 26/38 Baseball Fauiocant 1.700.17 IOIAL Di,E --------> 11.1 t.17 Prof Svcs -Sen Plan 13,562.78 MAL DUE VENDOR --------- 13.562.36 Signal Caint-5/9:; TOTAL DUE 4n_NDuR--------> Saoglies-Re; Productn,CC! Meetings-CMgr, Dutzlaff Sunolies-City Clerk Suonlips-Cndifiration,CCl Meeting -Planning FuPI-Parks Meetinos-Parks `iuonlle5-APr*Patian T(ITAL PIP PAI!; WONT ----1 101 AL DI;E VENDOR -------- Prof Svcs-CDRu-Heritage TOTAL DUE UENDUR-------- 6'0,31 Sb0.31 34.80 06/38/93 0000321279 36.91 06/31/93 0002021279 16.23 06/38/93 0122021279 18.44 26/30/93 00002121279 14.83 06/30193 0422%:21279 27.28 26/?0/93 20028212/9 61..04 06138/93 OLttt?1219 241.23 x16/20/93 20020?12/9 458.49 t.2) 71114 06/30 1081072 Proi Svcs-Btdn Sargs 18,071.28 87/14 06/30 14810/3 6rard Ave Iaorvants 396.0 TOTAL DUE VFNDOR--------) 16,467.20 01114 06/30 39987 +9!/15 06/3t FasiFile Hangers -Egg TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------- Cvntract Cities Conf••Frba IOIAL !'REPAID AMOUNT ----; TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------- 98.56 70.56 341.64 06/30/93 0880271274 341.64 7.27 First Interstate °ink. Fir;tLi�er Mi -4919-231k 1 32712D ?21-421:. 32� 67 12 221) e9i-4319-2342 57 327z1 D First Interstate ?3r.k FirstLltar 991-4919-233F 5t. 387221) First Ioters+ate Eink FirstIrter 981-4919-232` M 38720 991-4319-233r 19 3212x1) first Interstate Park First Inter 121-4919-231e 2 32720 e91 -W@-'632 r,a .^:2i%21) First Interstate Bank Firstlnter 01 -493x -231B 52 327M 221-4931 31n 8 UIM 01-4932-23.0 46 31724D Flamentsa,m. BTure Flamenhauai ext -4219-4199 61. 30728M flept gall fleetrall e21-499a-2t3k 45 327[xN e7i15 96/38 87/.15 1;6/32 97/15 e6/32 97i15 96;39 e7il5 96/32 27/15 e6/32 97/15 96/38 211.15 96/32 91/15 96/32 97/15 96132 97115 96/38 97114 96/38 97/14 96/32 387492 Fil?I-'CitY Council. Bus Resource Mtg-MacBride Contract Cities Conf-MBrd i0(AL PREPAID AMOUNT ----'> 'UTAL DUE VENDOR -----.---> CA Contra,t Cities -Miller IO(AL PREPAID 0171iNT ---- WTr^.L DUF VENDOR --------> Meeting-;derner CA Contract Cities-;ilerner TOTAL Pf,00) A?,aflNT ----> I W AL DILE VENDOR --------> File! -City Council CA Contract Cities-Papen :(!TA,' Ph PAID WONT ----y iOTAL DILE VENDOR --------> Fuel -Char Meetings-CMnr CA Contract Cities -Char TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----y TUTAL DUE VFMMR--------> P1ngCo%Atq-5/19,6/14,61.28 TO(AL DIIE VENDOR -------- Radio Svcs -June TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------- 23.59 96032/93 92a2?IM 26.13 v '2M3 e9e9921275 3.42.26 403:?/ UM,?12 +31.'18 2.92 12.3.9? 96132/93 OM`4. 2127h 128.42 9.08 39.41 96/30/93 9922x21273 313.76 96/30/93 e99021213 353.11 3.0 12.66 96/30/93 W.1021211 431.66 9619-2193 e29021'117 444.52 a.91 17.69 96132/93 9992071216 192.39 96/39/93 M921276 579.43 96/32/93 9222221276 167.51 9. ea 4 E i t v ,. D i a A 0 '1 i ti a. kuN TIME: 19:e6 97/15/93 V 0 !U C K E R R E 6 1 3 T F R P4Jr 3 .............37/'.'_2/93 / NXIR NAME VENYIP Iv. ACCOI;NT PROJ.TX-40 BATCH PO.i.INF/NO. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ VRYfM,"C_ 14VI11I;F ?;=5:v1Pi._I AMOGVT IA IF First Interstate °ink. Fir;tLi�er Mi -4919-231k 1 32712D ?21-421:. 32� 67 12 221) e9i-4319-2342 57 327z1 D First Interstate ?3r.k FirstLltar 991-4919-233F 5t. 387221) First Ioters+ate Eink FirstIrter 981-4919-232` M 38720 991-4319-233r 19 3212x1) first Interstate Park First Inter 121-4919-231e 2 32720 e91 -W@-'632 r,a .^:2i%21) First Interstate Bank Firstlnter 01 -493x -231B 52 327M 221-4931 31n 8 UIM 01-4932-23.0 46 31724D Flamentsa,m. BTure Flamenhauai ext -4219-4199 61. 30728M flept gall fleetrall e21-499a-2t3k 45 327[xN e7i15 96/38 87/.15 1;6/32 97/15 e6/32 97i15 96;39 e7il5 96/32 27/15 e6/32 97/15 96/38 211.15 96/32 91/15 96/32 97/15 96132 97115 96/38 97114 96/38 97/14 96/32 387492 Fil?I-'CitY Council. Bus Resource Mtg-MacBride Contract Cities Conf-MBrd i0(AL PREPAID AMOUNT ----'> 'UTAL DUE VENDOR -----.---> CA Contra,t Cities -Miller IO(AL PREPAID 0171iNT ---- WTr^.L DUF VENDOR --------> Meeting-;derner CA Contract Cities-;ilerner TOTAL Pf,00) A?,aflNT ----> I W AL DILE VENDOR --------> File! -City Council CA Contract Cities-Papen :(!TA,' Ph PAID WONT ----y iOTAL DILE VENDOR --------> Fuel -Char Meetings-CMnr CA Contract Cities -Char TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----y TUTAL DUE VFMMR--------> P1ngCo%Atq-5/19,6/14,61.28 TO(AL DIIE VENDOR -------- Radio Svcs -June TOTAL DUE VENDOR ------- 23.59 96032/93 92a2?IM 26.13 v '2M3 e9e9921275 3.42.26 403:?/ UM,?12 +31.'18 2.92 12.3.9? 96132/93 OM`4. 2127h 128.42 9.08 39.41 96/30/93 9922x21273 313.76 96/30/93 e99021213 353.11 3.0 12.66 96/30/93 W.1021211 431.66 9619-2193 e29021'117 444.52 a.91 17.69 96132/93 9992071216 192.39 96/39/93 M921276 579.43 96/32/93 9222221276 167.51 9. ea ry`fid-�3 + * + itv a1 Diamond Har sTT RUN )IME: 12:V'6 x7115/93 V 0 it C H E R R E G I S- E R ;,: { DOE THRU .............0/ 22/93 V;=9DUA Nt;ME VENDOR 1D.1E, f ACCOUNT --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PLUM -NO BATCH PO.IINF/NJ. F;TRY/DiIF TNVOtCt DrS itiptiLIN AMJ11'it ?AlE CHE; k; Fr Dz21 FraG?N itil 43ti2 21•,0 l 327208 07/14 06/32 5189271 Film Prk-,r-e5sinc-i:nv Tots 25.63 W -'+:'SC -21': 5 iW0 87/14 061';2 57628676 EiI.T-Tiny T^,ts 8.9 6 3271211 07/14 06131 5162883 Film-Tinv Tots 8.52 10161- DI;E 'ENDUR--------; v2,63 u. Teamv 704 0t- -.78 W! 3:1720/ 07/14 06/32 Recreation Refond 35.80 TOTAL. OUE VENDUR--------; ?5.88 h 6 8 Trnphv ;a. i'66iroohv 0d1-4^111 -IM lib 3.i7129 8311511 07/14 86132 Tranhies-Sports PQa 531).52 01 -0r4 -IM 109 'i8/2tB 02i1521 07,14 26/32 A06 Tr00hie5--0arts PGA 186.66 TOTAI. DUE VENDOR --------: 722.22 61E Cah"ornia IE 821-4098-212'; 2;, 327106 07/14 86138 Telephone Svcs -June 1.934.63 IUTAL DI1E VENDOR --------: 1,'134.63 G?rald P. ,-Ei;ern a Assoc ,4elfern 801-4$90-468:1 16 321106 81/1576 07/14 06/32 Appraisal -M ibrary 1,220.00 TOTAL DISE VENDUR--------> 1,280.82 6raimer Grainier Dai -4310-120e 148 32720 8?/1568 07/14 06/30 Parks Sooalies 116.04 NOTAL DUE VENDOR --------; 116.04 6rothe, .lack GrotW 881-4210-+100 59 347M 07/14 06/35 PinaCnm"It�-5110,6114,6/28 240.00 IOIAL DI)E VEIIDUR--------, 242.02 Hartz -Equipment Rental HertrEquio 801-45':6-S!,0 54 327208 01/14 06/38 107562 Equip Rental -62 Fry Proj 60.35 081-45-6 5528 S-9 1 -UM 07/14 86/30 /02563 Equip Rent -60 Fry Proj 283.60 TOTA: DUE VENDOR --------- 684.15 Highlander Publications Highlander 0t-4?10-4212 6° 307226 07/14 06/30 Pub Hep -Gan Plan 193.04 001-4210-4[20 !,9 '-)U28B 07/14 86i30 21152 Pub Hrg-ben Plan 186.22 'UTAL DUE VENDOR --------; 379.2.+ 7 1c;, B * � RiN TIM-: 18:46 87!15/93 V 0 J C H E R R: G I S T E R PA t 5 Ci;F NRU.............47/?8/43 VENDOR NAMc VENDOR IP, ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-140 BATCH POJINE;'vO. VTAY;C; 14Vijl;;E EICulpi10 AMOU>4T!TATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tdr•ani. Nmer:a 6'0 241-3')7?. 311 39,72211 87i 14 86/39, '!,,sue=s Enuicsent IrB115r.nain 89,1 ;8':9, 122 48 32?229 87;14 86i39 'enninns Encs*rand iennincaEn 841••4828-4¢21 5,5 327M 87114 @6133 .1nhrso,1, Gale R. 664 801-3476 312 387M 87115 46/39 Kane, Keang S. 783 881-3478 328 327&1 87/14 46/39 k;T?infeld?r kleirfeldr 841-45':,5-5221. 6 39120 81/1541 87/14 86139 I.A.County Public Works _;%*pubwk 24. 0 Supplies -Xerox 114.2: 821-45;5-55917 29 397299 87114 86/34 9846 441-41155-5591 7A 34/29B 91/14 26/38 9847 841-45,5 558? 27 367218 81/14 86/38 98+8 891 +:5'9,5-5597 26 36/219 81/14 86139 9249 441-45'.,5-5r,97 31 361218 87/15 96139 931.134 L.A.County Public Works LAUPeb1'k 641-45SS-5S27 32 39,322E Landscace `J8s, IandsraceY 141-4541-5 84 26 397M @7114 86/38 2819 0/14 4613$ 18624 Ra-reation R2fond 2+.44 ,MAL POF 'v:NDOR------- 24. 0 Supplies -Xerox 114.2: TOTAL D!;E VENDOR --------> 114.25 Szieciai Legal Svc-Prua Tx 113.2; TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- 113.25 Recreation Refund 26.09 86/31/93 88829?118,9 TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT ----> 26.89 1iiTA1 DUE VENDOR --------; 8.88 R2-reation Refund 31.99 10TAL DUE VENDOR --------> 31.89 GenTech Svcs-Gidn5pg 6.435.78 MAL DUE VCMDOR--------> 6,435.79 Renairs-uldn Sans/Gatewy 7,682.28 Recairs-Grand 6 DB Blvd 1,321.45 Repairs-Gldn S,nrgsi6atevy 9,791.94 Renairs-Chino Hills Pkwv 7.?;9.84 Credit Meto 2,259,84 - TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 18,/82.17 Sinnal Maint-Fab 93 5,126.31 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 5;1=6.31 Maintenance-LLAD 41, June 3,211.62 OrAL DUE VENDOR --------> 3,211.60 ]DIAL OUE VENDUR--------- 7,471.9) Marincsa Horticultural f+ City ai iliitmp�id Bar *r� RUN 11MF: 19:26 87/15/93 23 V D t3 C H E P R E 6 I S i E R P,=S: 6 June Maint-Paul Grow 1,030.82 001: T 'tU .............R1!Ri93 25/20M 52/1418 Vt:+1DUR VANE 06/30 V"ENDUR iD. 3une Paint -Heritage 696.36 821-43t6 SUS PR! PAD k + ACCUtiNT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- PRO7.TX-NO BATCH PO.1-INE/N7. ENTRY1DtiE T 0i[:E DR1P(liiN "RUNT DATE CHE k ie4is Fnoravina. Inc. Lewiscnora 30729M 01/1418 07114 26/33 5533 tiji-4210-2119 17 32120H 07/14 06/371 13478 Plague-Flaaenbaum 61.10 e6/30 5533 June Maint-RonReagan 1,030.82 231-4325 5390 ]DIAL DUE VENDOR --------- 61.73 Li. "i :hael 01114 Li;ike 5033 lupe Paint Starshine 429.94 901-4328-5399 9c1-4;'10,-4t,R 54 32710; 97/14 96/33 5033 P1noCom14to-5/10,6/14,6/28 2+0.90 1,545.71 201-4:331-5:90 36 30729M 28/1'+18 87114 TOTAL Di1E VENDUR--------) 242.93 Los Ancelps County Maint-Svr.amore Cyn LAi;IntSvc 001-4090-2132 46 30710; 07/14 05/30 909 May Parser Svcs 78.38 TOTAL DOE VENDUR--------> 78.:38 Mak,eaous, Paul lei 021-3478 307 307281 07/14 96/30 Recreation Refund 10.00 TOTAL DUE VENDUR --------) 10.0+4 Marina Contrartors Inc. MaripaCont 01.4s`16 -5,JR 63 35720.1 91./1537 01/14 06/30 Supplies-5019YProj 13890.93 TOTAL DUE VENDUR--------; 1.896.03 Maricsa Hortirultural Mar7og5a 021 4310 2210 42 3ET10M 07114 06/30 4829 Fertilization -Parks 2,215.00 901-4310-1710 149 32/29; 07114 06/30 5032 Park SuopliNs 84.38 001••4328-221.0 14 30720.1 91114 06/30 5034 Sprinkler Maint-SamstRdge 91.59 901-4:122-2210 20 30/294 07114 96/20 5035 Sorinkler Maint-Paul6row 52.10 021-4322 221.9 21 30720M 07114 06/32 5036 Sarinkler Maint-RonReagan 295.38 201-4:331-2215 14 2 WOM 07/14 06/30 5037 Paint -Controller -Sycamore 1,998.83 001-431.6 221e 16 3071011 91/14 06130 503;' Sarinkler Maint-MapleHill 160.75 201 43t3-2215 11 307204 07114 96/30 5040 Sprinkler Paint -Heritage 112.91 6711-4310-4300 2 3172#9 07114 06/32 5041 Maint-Pressure Regulatnr 3,454.39 ]DIAL OUE VENDUR--------- 7,471.9) Marincsa Horticultural Mariposa 221-4311-5350 23 3072#4 06/1418 97/14 06/30 503:1 June Maint-Paul Grow 1,030.82 201-4313-5310 26 25/20M 52/1418 51/14 06/30 5933 3une Paint -Heritage 696.36 821-43t6 SUS 23 30720; 04/1418 97/14 06/30 5033 June Maint-Maple Hill 858.84 591-4319-5325 16 30729M 01/1418 07114 26/33 5533 .lupe Maint-Peterson 1,28A.76 921-4322 5;102 25 30720M 03/1418 07114 e6/30 5533 June Maint-RonReagan 1,030.82 231-4325 5390 24 38/22.1 25/1438 01114 06/33 5033 lupe Paint Starshine 429.94 901-4328-5399 24 30720M 07/141A 07/14 06130 5033 June Paint-Saaait R1dQe. 1,545.71 201-4:331-5:90 36 30729M 28/1'+18 87114 96/33 5033 June Maint-Svr.amore Cyn 1,5A3.03 TUTA1 DUE VENDOR --------; 8.454.80 t City J' Di3aond Bar 4tf R11N TIME; 10;06 01/15/93 V O U C E R R E G I S T E R PAST J Di,E .............87/20/93 ,. VL1D(iR RAI!c VEvDnit II:. `. , .,. + � A::COij-T T'RiiJ.TX-NO BATCH s'UINUNO. '-VTRYiCi.= f# Citi of Diamond 9 a r + Ft N T IMF_: 19: 'b 21,`15/93 V D it C H E R R F 6 I S T E R F hE A Di TP R ...............2? 23/93 VI.-MOR R;hE VENDOR 1D. AM"ILINT P(i3").TX-N9 BATCH PD.!INE/N0. -tN*RY/UUE ik"Vay'E D!SCR IPiION AMDONT DATE Iranne $lassor Lines DrangeBIos 112 431:' S.{10 24 3'7221 S1?1512 97r114 06/32 ti'?161 Transn-CnriInPark 412.52 M IAL DUI VEND R--------i '+17.52 ?rant;?. Cnra 2u1 ::i 18 326 321121 27;14 95/32 Rarreation Ref,nd 10.92 TuTAI, DUE VMI",R-------- 13.00 Pac?t.etter Munirical Svcs Pac?s?tter 031-42A-5221 25 327188 21,'15 96/32 Bldg 6 Safety Svc{-June 16,406.22 06132/93 0223071242 21-4273-5.91 ^6 31i72D 27/15 W "Ia Plan Chking 5vrs-June 6,197.68 06/32/93 000322119? ; uTAL PRLL PAIN AML-ItINT ----) 2+, 5'78.99 10161. 01;E VENDOR --------> 2.04 Partsmastar Int. Partsmastr 021-431.0-1222 152 3271211 07/15;4 9711.4 96/32 45599A Repair.DrinkingFountain 3M2 TOTAL DUE VENDOR---------- Plunk. I-viiia E. PlurK 021-4210-4192 0 3;1221 91/14 96132 Pinglnj&btg-5/10,6/14,6/28 249.02 TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------- 243.92 R A D Blueprint RISOBlue 091-4510-2119 10 3271211 97114 06/32 910369 Blueprints-Engine?ring 19.79 991-4513-2112 11 22/20!1 07114 W20 910389 Blueprints-Engineering 19.29 TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------y 38.58 Rrp sch lir?5 Ipr. Roeschline 021-4353-531.0 1 3972614 97/15 06/32 Laughlin Excursian•-6/22 14.51 112-4360-5314 25 3972614 a7/14 0612t Transp-lauyhlin 219.49 T(ITA1 DOF VFYDOR--------> 234.02 Futan 3 Tuck?- Rutan3Trrck 231.-4072-4071 51 32122!1 07/14 06/32 Legal 5vc5-DNarAsscVsCity 6,383.35 TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------y 6,363.33 Ruth Clark Ph:)t,,nraphy Ruthl:lark 001-4010-1222 5 32722!1 97/14 06/32 3217 Prof 5vc5-Ph0t00ra0h5 54.13 1DIAL DUE VENDOR--------> 54.13 7a; ++ i t y of Diamond gar +++ RUN !IMF: 10016 37/15/93 V 0 U C H F R REGISTER DUE '1HRJ.............27/28/93 VCN, Di;R NAMF VENDOR iD. + a 'l+i.P a! D + + ACC::!11NT PAIM.TII-NO BATCH PMINE/N'_l. ENT, Ryi'DIlE INVOTCt G :'f:R,Pf10N AMDUNT DAF ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ San Gabriel. V;v Trihtme Si•VTrih1.1ne 091-4210 2114 71 38718!1 07/14 06;30 snvt213t PC Hra for ADA 93 4 46.07 MAL DUE VENDOR --------', 46.2? 'ncuricoro In*.`1 Tnr.eruric ro 091-4SS-'3-SS31. 14 30710'( 07/14 06/30 0?636° June Crossing Gaurd Svcs 4.28 .58 IFifAL DUE VENDOR --------D 5?igvorth, Harold I. S.- ifjnorth 08174556-5509 64 30741 07114 06134 0302 June Prof Svcs -Prof 63Ptiy 6,380.00 !OPAL DUE VENDOR --------- 6.343.02 5iknra, Shaman 694 081-3418 305 301'181 07/14 06/30 Recreation Refund 57.00 10fAL DUE ti^_NDOR-------) S7.02 Sir Sreedv Sir Speedy 081-4?18 421r 70 38)181 07/14 06/38 12824 Printino Svcs -Gert Plan 433.08 MAL DUE VENDOR --------': 433.02 Southern ra. :dison 5nCaFdison 031-4553-2126 14 38713.1 07/14 0613? June Traffic Control Svcs 1,294.04 101AL DUE VENDOR --------) 1,294.08 Southern ra. -.dison SoCaEdison 138-4S'36-2126 40 38718N 07/14 06/30 June Elect Svcs -Dist 38 376.06 101AL DUE VENDOR --------) 37.6.96 Southern Ca. tdison SoCaEdison 141-4541-2121, 31 31721kl 07/14 06/30 June Elect Svcs -Dist 41 14.22 10TAL DUE VENDOR --------) 14.22 Spectar.u.lar Affairs Sp?cAffair 031-4353-5385 3:i 387233 01/1689 07/14 06/33 14888 Chairs-ConcInPark 98.38 10fAL DUE VENDOR --------) '06.34 State Ccmnensatiun Ins Fd StateCrao 021-2110-1011 51. 38728M 07/14 06132 0kr Camp Prem -tad Qtr 2,318.67 001-2110-131i 76 3417_&t1 87/14 06130 0r Chap Pres -2nd Qtr 3,085.79 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------- 5,404.46 k t of Giaaond ROK Ilhc:10,-.4607115!93 VJUCHER REvISTER PtSi 10 117E ' '1 .............31;20!93 VENDAR NAME VENDOR IU, f f PL1gQA10 A1:i;o1;NT PRo.TM-KO BATCH MJINE/y0. 0 RYj01;E INVO;LE rlE5 i1Pl1 N AMiUNT LATE CH�fK ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Tanaka, yichiro 821-;478 The �lao Shop 821-43`.0 -5.38' Thrmason, 'acK 621-4556-SS80 185 310 301181 Fia}Shoo 31 137131: 6111821 Thr..;ansonJ 6`: 30728N Tian Out Personnel Syr. Tiaeout 601-4040-4000 26 30710N 201-1+04-4-4222 27 ?0729N 881-4040-4600 28 307281 iJnorai 1r oral 601-4034 231t� 51 327221 West Coast Ari.orist Inc. WICArhor 041-4555-S5t? 44 321101 601 4555-5569 46 20729N 631-4555-5 401) 47 307101! 601-45;5-5529 45 23121M 07,114 86!33 Recreating: R?fond 2+.03 46 3072*7 61114 06/32 Recreation Rafand 45.08 TOTAL Di?F VENDUR--------'i 24.03 81/14 06130 Whole `:nchilai'a gonting-197j"m lnPrk 91.42 921-43-.0-S32S 34 381181 67114 06/30 428674 TOTAL D13E VEyDCR --------• 91.42. 01114 06130 10TAL DUE VENDOR -------- June ProF Svcs-63Tay Praj 1,040.03 TOM Pi: PAID ------------ 27,686.12 101AL OUE VENDOR --------3 1.240.60 07114 06130 9323'77 Teal Svcs -Dep City Clerk 362.49 01/14 66/?0 920413 Ta;ap Svr.s-Zen City Clark 72.81 07%14 06733 932413 Tears Svcs -Zap City Clerk 326.88 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i 740.16 07/14 06/32 33396900 fuel-CMor 21.90 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 21.92 07/14 06/30 7719 Citywide Tree Maint 3,065.00 07/14 86/36 77•".A Emerg Tree Svc-6rd1DBar 268.09 07114 06130 7188 City Wide Tree Maint 750.00 01714 66130 7806 Citywide Tree Maint 560.60 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------- 4,575.03 Whit?, Dave 160 621-3414 46 3072*7 61114 06/32 Recreation Rafand 45.08 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 45.08 Whole `:nchilai'a WholeEnchl 921-43-.0-S32S 34 381181 67114 06/30 428674 Provisions-ConcInPrk 251..41 10TAL DUE VENDOR -------- 261.41 TOM Pi: PAID ------------ 27,686.12 TOTAL DUE ---------------> 215.919.81 7i1TA1 REPORT ------------j 243,559.93 r t,� 0. D, a;ion.i bar +++ RuNTIC: ia:0607/15/93 Y 0 U C H E R RE6IST ER PASS 1 FUND SUMIARY REPORT DOF !FRU.............a7/22!93 DISBURSE 6/L h;E '.�!AS P^SEED FUIUk;E 1P,ALSAC'l IGNi FUND ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- TO W, OTREC! PAY RiVE4'IF FiP1.NSL R, F-N!JF. EM14"E. R17EN7E E ( P tiS" r�l1 S?ne-a1. F.r,d 166, 1.95.3'i 5,5+5.21 26? U 16 ,.169.13 !'s'9 LLAD ia9 F :r:t: ?04.;h ;04.66 141 tt_AD 141 Fund 4,132.49 i,i?2.49 :^8 U -AD 118 Fund L'rc5.3 1.t'S5.;3 118 Air 91.1atity Ito 5,976.45 d,9tti.45 ''';2 C.I.P. Fund 1+7,'197.22 47,"91.22 221 TrafEir M:t Fee 18,+;71.72 18,271.72 12'5 brand Av Forst F 396.22 345.93 112 Pron A -Transit F 631..9'; 631.99 OiAL ----------- -- -- A,,L FJ?%DS 243,5,9.93 5,5+5.7; 262.02 231,751.67 I q3 -9q- 1 t 0i Diaaomd gar x** R0 iIMF: t?! ?3 41!15193 V ;T U HFR R F.5 15 I F R P Dul Tr'RU.............@7/22/93 NArF VEWR 3. An!'(!�_ikT PRDJ.T�-k`J HATCH PD.(INEtNO. E.VTRtIWF Tk'dOti: Dt:;!';+i?T?ilk A:'i!IINT D4 i E --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A:;?/Cory Hetrn .hunt Secs ARA ta; 409c 2;. a 3 WAC Arpri r'i,es A;xarirarAi t:;1 1?a0 1 4@710D 1-41?0-3?`a 1 '412e0 Sr,priran Stnra!:e I -ID Smertnraa @4t y0')? 2142 2 4@71`d% Ar,:ailli. RaTr.a_ee 738 001- X18 2? 4@1[27 Rer++. I iSa t33 @0t-3;78 '6 4@7121 net d;i^^,frt, i. i,da 752 41-3-!76 24 407121 81r�cars. �adeleioe 719 W-3478 7 447127 8ranrii, .",-hel 758 @41-3478 22 407221 8r=a, Citv cf Srsmcity 01-4Y4 5324 i. 407180 @7/14 @1121 32G3r5 E:;uioRznt-8/93 217.0 CIAL ,}+;E ''INDUR-------- 9.@8 @7115 011e9Air-ICt!A-i8atanaer 34LS5 V—'/@919;1 @vidr4?1?85 01/15 071@9 Ai; oer ;48.';0 dlr`39t93 t@2 4?t2 5 TOTAL PIREPAID A;iIONT ---- 697.04 0 AL iU;E VCN) uR--------> 4.@9 %/14 @1124 Rent-2�{nits-8193 15,@0 10FAL DI;E V':NDUR--------: 153.@2 07/14 01/28 Recreation Refund 73.00 TOTAL DUE ':ENDOR.-------- 1.0 @7114 07120 Recreation Reiund 11.00 101AL DOE, VENDOR --------> 52.0 07/14 07/20 Rarreation Refund 26.04 TOTAL DI;E VENDUR--------i 26.13 @7/14 01/22 Recreation Refund 6.00 ICTAL DI;E YiiNDUR --------i 6.0 @1/14 07/28 Recreation Refund 15.04 TOTAL DI;E VENDUR -------- 15.0 07/14 01/23 30467 JUTy93R2CGY15 26,139.38 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------> -.6,739.38 a o n j a :�3 11;*g: 09:43y 37/tSjQ3 j F C R F, T C 7 E % E q3 —qq 2. D;.IF THRU .............87/22i99 vr-4D!"R t i AM)UNT Pf"L"ITI-1149 ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BATCH PO.i PKE/N3. ENITRYNUE 1NVO : C f i(IN --------- AM3LINT DALE K ---------------------------- 011-4019-2311 2 WaZ 0114 01128 CF44ERM'arsfip-pappn I)CM I i A!- D E Y f7 N, D 0 R -------- 112 091-431-0 2:3iz 1 402K 07114 07i22 93/94Mvshp-Rasp MAL OUE VCADUR --------- \ MM.I) California rcp+*act iliFA 01-4098-2311 2 401z2P. �7i14 e7/2e CCMPmherDves93/94 MOM@ i0iAL DUE VENDOR -------- 21,ZtLeo arreon., 434 01-3478 19 WM elili+ 97M Recreation Refund 28.08 Milk Di,,E VLAIDCR -------- 23.0 Casey, tli7ah-eth 746 01-34/8 26 4072?1 e7/14 el/2e R2-,reatinfi Refond 27.08 V,--MUR '27.0 Chan. Sandv /25 091-.2,476 17 4U11t1 07114 @7/28 R?-,re;ition Refund 24.08 TOTAL Fjl:E VENDOR -------- 21.93 chav;ra.. 021-3474 2 407221 07114 if/20 Ri-reation Refund 45.0 TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- 45M ChPljllq, Dulinic 719 rel -.11,476 25 47781 01114 el/20 R2creatlon Refund 15.08 100L DUE VENDOR --------> 15.24 chlick 1-00'stri-3 t Assfic Cilock! ind 01-4358-I222 5 407,z+7;.' 0II1612 �,7/14 01/20 249 Diamndhy 'LnnInPrk 225.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- 225.09 lohen, Tiri 428 091-31478 12 407117 071114 07/23 Recreation Refund 61.0 IWAL DUE VENDOR -------- > 61.0 �Y 3-'( tt i .f of Diamo d Bar +# RI,N ilaF: Z�:'%37 :lYj Vii iJ FI E A R _ 6 1 :; E q "^ 3 TrRii.............f'/22/93 V:_YDiR NAME 6'ENDiJR iD. * k .,':PA1w ► ACC'01INT P1t0,-0(49 BATCH PO.1 !NF19, ENTRY/Dut' IKVOju CJ F1!'11i I, A":'.iNi CA E E .k Cna:auter AooliPd System; CAS #41 485$ 4838 2 46i1xC 81/114 87/20 6 79 3(1 8 Cn1p,a0,tce-6/93 432,0 i;ifAL D,1;F V ND1,R--------) 932.01 run Brr..s 5i;nrtino ?nr,i Poll li i1_sr.'s 0)1-43`-8 1282 3 40718u 81/161'x, 67/14 01/28 5j16 DuPrSaon. iiesworts 1,25'.21 10iAL '}l;:. Cou^?r, 27 081-3418 2 481[8? 87/14 07/28 R2.-rea?inn Refund 16.60 TOTAL D{;i: VCNDCR--------) 76.00 D.B. fiirls "arfthail D Sr,#thall 6 40718;. 6'1/14 31/28 Markino Lima 99.65 101AL DUE VENDOR --------; 99.66 Eastman Inc. Fastxan 0x11 -483x--1288 1 407,180 07/14 67/28 010664131 Suioaliee 56.07 841-4710-172a 1 401700 07/14 81/28 810564136 Sunalies 67.11 01-4310-1282 1 W2KC 61/14 07!28 elebt4155 &mnlie5 2`1.03 001-4514-12t8 1 ':0,%74G 81/14 87/78 010664159 Suvplips 210.11 01 431.0-12x2 2 481180 87/14 07/28 010684176 Sim lies 31.3`; X01 -;:s10-1728 3 4:,'/'.00 07/14 81/28 010101532 Supolies 19.07 021-4040-1206 1 401100 07/14 01/20 010707945 Sill I ies 118.74 201 4690 1728 1 44/780 07/14 07/28 010766'2112 Supplies 1.16.00 6v1 4516 12x4 2 407t8C 07/14 07/28 01070626A Saa lies 40.92 s41 -405x-1%00 i 401700 07/14 07/70 010713249 Supplies 1.59 TiI(AI, DUE VENDOR --------; 767,06 1iA FP?deral Credit Union FEACr?ditU 081-21.10-1049 1 49720 87115 07102 Pf'13 P",JeductPP13 11251.08 01/01/9'? 0088821271 1OfAL VRIEPA1D AMOUNT ----; 1.155.32 TIITAL DOF VENDOR --------; 8.02 !-1A F=dPral Ci?dit Union F3ACredid 0x1-2110 1089 2 40712D 07/15 07/14 P1'14 Pa'/rollCont-P°14 2,093.08 07714/93 tt?002121 TOTAL PREPAID AMOUNT 2.093.02 TCITAI DUE VENDOR --------) 0.08 city - if Diii-Q-1d 6al R�;N Tl�-C: @7115i93 v a I'Ll c P. E R R F G 1 6 1 E R p AGi- THRU . . . . . . . . . . . . . K-NDOR NAME VENDOR D), # # ?;"•,i:" -AI ; Al'I"00T V7O-3. ------------------------------------------------------------------- FX -140 BATCH Poll N- SY 0 FNT�Ti ------------------------------------------------------------------- 1.111,T'i T DA K t�1-4313 2121 1 W22C 01114 07128 P-qone�nvc-'1127illacie I;. S7 LOYAL DUE VENDOR -------- "5.67 blE California +iT£ I 40728' 07/14 07/23 Phone-,-vc-SvcP.nvn 57.93 ffljiAl----------- . t7.?3 61E. California STE 0a1-4313-2121 2 407280 0114 01/28 hone3vc-H2ritane 54.79 TU,AL C -UE VENDOR - - - - - - - - - > i9 61E ('alliforpia 6TE 0a1-4440-212' 1 40180 0.7,,14 07/28 f`,',one,;vc-EserPrpo 37.89 TOTAL Ol.:E VENDOR -------- 37,89 Garcia, Olivia 01-3378 3 407247 0(/14 07128 R2f--reation Refund 21.0 TOTAL v.,I--NDUR -------- 1.palpr, Mike spaD?T.Mike 6 4072a' 07!14 07128 ConInPark.-7/21193 688.00 101AL Fjl;E VADCR --------7 -Wa.113 Goodson, Cathy as 133 01-11478 131 40287 07114 47128 Recreation Refund 32.08 10 f AL DUE VtNDCR -------- 32.03 ;'all. Ui7a0p*h 121 01-3476 11 467297 0114 07/23 Recreation Refund 61.08 TOTAL LE V--NDUR -------- > 61.91 ^1athv A. 1V 021-3418 26 48740 07I14 07128 838? R212fund 26.09 TOTAL 01;E VENDOR -------- ?6.03 Hills Club .4i 11 sCljjb 01-43S3-2140 S 40728' 07/14 e7428 R2nt-R2CC1a45P5-,Cjk1MZ2f93 618,75 10TAL DOE VENDOR -------- 618.i5 � Yq3 -q4 +** City of Jia a and Bar *** RO /IME-: 09:307/15/93 V0U.HER R E 6 1 C TER DUE INRO.............A1/22199 v',:4J:tiR NAME VEIDUR iD. ACCUUNT PRO;i.TX-NO BA1CH PO.f THE/N'J. ENTRY/DiiE INVOICt D�SCR1PfNN. AMOUNT DATE HE:K R:«e D?pat ;t „,r:epnt 40,IiK 01;161' HMAaetlrF_Aent TrUSt �-/ /LMA 201-4A38 a61V 1 Ort,i?'0 jai -44;34-0090 1 ':01200 211-4940''0391 1 4011+�t: Dai -4050-0098 1 401200 Dai -42101290 1 401180 01-4310.10`/4 1 40!200 201-4510-0394 1 497180 241 2112-1207 1 40/20. Inland valley My Bulletn IV,B 281-4210-211; 1 407100 2A1-42ia-2115 2 O OK 201-4210-211; 3 407200 Instant ReniaV InstantReo 241-43.0-5:3? ; ; 407[00 inti Business Ef"vioment InBUSFOup 241-4090-2284 2 407180 Jrk on, Cherie 741 241 '478 38 487.180 .'..es=e, Teresa A. 109 241-3478 2V 407'180 00 iP, Ann 140 041-3478 31 40/220 01!14 A7/14 MiscParkS�.tior-5taae 444.12 07!14 07/28 CM2ontractMlnt-July 4;30.4^ 07/14 07/2A Julyraferont ,90.93 01/14 07/28 1t1i.VCaf2Cn1t 4A3.38 07/14 01/20 Julvrafpront 113.2.1 A7/14 01/28 111yWeOnnt 542.95 01114 01120 JulyCaferont 311.53 01114 01128 lulycafa"ont 981.79 01!14 47/2a ;'P12/13 DefCoaoCont-'P12113 218.0) TUTAM, DUE VENDOR --------> 3,7Y9.48 07/14 01/28 dc43770 PubHrq-CUP1,2-13 70.00 x7/14 01/20 dc43/10 PoOrg-VAR93-2 55.0 07114 A7/20 dc43770 PaRra-CUP93-6 70.20 101AL DUE VEdDOR--------) 205.0) 07/14 01/24 Concert in Park -712.1 600.02 MAL DUE VENDUR--------> 1.08.0 07/14 07128 082;'28 CnpierMtce-July93 754.76 IOTAL DOE VENDOR --------) /54.76 0,7/14 07128 8192 R2CR2fund 22..00 f0TAL DUE VENDOR --------> 22.04 07/14 07/28 79"l BacRebnd 24.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------� 24.01 07/14 07120 8265 RP0 2fund 61..9E TOTAL Di;E VENDUR --------) 61.09 f* f t 'r o 1 D i a m a n d B a r Ri,N iI*E: 09:23 W i5/93 V 0 U C H£ R R E 6 15 T E R 6 D,,E TLj1;ll .............07/22i93 :EV0,!;R VALE VENDOR J. ACi'NNT P1,0.1.Tll-N9 BATCH PU.IIKE/ND, EtitRY;'lliIE Ih`/J;i:F D�";'.RIN'ION 1MDONT D Al E John Alden 6.T. JnhnAld,-n X21-4010-2290:" 2 4?72�D 67/15 v7/yt1 JulvInsPre4 Miller 41,?. 00 0748!90 P t,3012M,, 10TAL 'B LPAtD AM�7UNT TOTAL DOE VFNYIR--------- �:ais?r Per:*arQnte k'ais?rFar 0e1-4010-8290 1 40720, 01/14 07/22 AunCaf Ma.Bride TOTAL DUE V,_V.rUR--------; �' � �3 __ 9q TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- ) 21.00 C i t v ci D i i i o n a r R;.iK TiMc-t 0,9:? 0115/92 V 0 U C H E R R F G 1 S I E R pAr 7 . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 VENDOR 11). 1-:0 1.'N T ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PROJ.H-4 BATCH PO.I.BEINO. s.'NTFY/DL:". -t IV 0 1 !.., I:_ AWN T DATE CK of CA citlNs R31 -489x1-2315 3 4@1288 @7/14 07/28 19`1;:-94CnuntyDivisinnDue; 97`1.08 0 1 .4 L Ot,E 'Y F N P U R - - - - - - - - iep?. 1 -!}ria 124 031-;.-;18 1 407281 q,7114 0128 Recreation Refund 5.08 TOTAL HE VENDOR -------- 5.0 Lpiqhton and Pssviat,?s 1.1aight. o'. I 031-2:188-1@12 4 WiK 07114 07128 78716 " BpoR2y-.F!jI40�q 1. 312.58 TOFAL DUE VENDOR -------- 112.54 Long, Ev?lYn JQ 01-334118 43 40724 @7/15 01120 6498 Recreation Refund 25.88 TOTAL DUE vENDUR -------- 26.0 1-pong. Evelvr E TOTAL. DOF VENDOR -------- 9.0a Liao, Aody 715 Obi 3'178 h 40728A 07/14 07/20 R27reiticin Refund aa TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- 021-3418 4 47281 07114 t7/20 Recreation Refund 261.0 101AL DUE VENDOR --------- 26.0 i 1 Mobil 0I-4?1t-231q 148126A e7/14 07120 k?465933 Fuel -Ping 2*4.08 2 0120A 07/14 87128 k2l.690b2 Fijs?!-Gen Govt 14.25 01-4?10.234 2 40720A 07/14 07120 k3t77525 Fuel -Ping 14.32 v0i-43t@-23t0 I 4@120A 37/14 37/28 k4574,192 36.0 TOTAL DLIF VENDOR -------- > 87.57 p'non . tai `2;fjor 732 031-3478 15 4@1287 07114 @7/28 Recreation Refund 21.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- ) 21.00 tf* City of Diaipand Aar *}* RO) IME: 89:13 87/45443 VOUCHER R E 'S I S T E R .... �i''RJ .............?712E/93 1 V,--VrOUR NAME VEND!)R ID. } } ry"O'lly } } c,COtIN P."Oj. ---------------- 1-N TCM P,. Ei IN NO. ----------------------------- T :t RY/SUE ------ r ------- I' !r`illiC"t --------- D�;:Rir'i i1A -------------------------------- A :dNT urRlt Cr: ,:K ---------------------------------- h�ican, Trent ti2150nI Bit 4353-s:.W 6 4072?A 0,7114 07/29 Saund?e:h onInh-7/21 400.01 IO AL DIH VENDUR---- - - - - -> 't00.°2 ti?lion, Trent NelsonT M-4314-SW 9 W'M 0,7/14 07/20 5aundlvhConInPk-7/2, 400.0,0 TOTAL DUE v9NDUR-------- 4-.0A Norsan. Debbie 74S dal-3478 1. 48 M 87!14 87/23 8,424 Recreation Refond 54.00 TUTAL DUE ,' NDUR--------) 54.0,2 Nur, Rubiya 717 0,01-3414 3 4072,A 871:14 Gin 7627 Recreation Refund 46.00 i0[AL DI;E "'ENDUR--------> 46.0,2 O'Connor, 1-ynre 723 821-3418 9 40,72$1 07114 87/23 Recreation R21und 51..00 TOTAL DI,E W4DUR--------; 51.03 l RS 'r'.ea[th Benefits PEr'S1;ealth 094-?1.40 1093 i 40,122D 0,7145 0,7/08 July JulyhealthPremE 1,605.14 07/08193 0N301287 0,81-4998 tiW 1 49/M 07/15 97/08 July JulyAdairFees 38.93 97/08193 021,1`421282 TOTAL PRI PAID A!!aINT ----> 7,643.17 I'MAL DIIE VENDUR --------> 9.82 Parda, Cindy 151 821-3478 23 407247 97114 87/23 Recreation Refund 15.03 TUTAL DUE VENDUR--------> 15.82 Patel, Sushila 131 01-3478 14 467M 07/14 07/23 Recreation Refund 21.da TOTAL DUE VENDUR--------> 21.0,2 Pathak. Daksha 744 0,31-3418 3#, 48723A 01/14 OWN 8223 Recreation R2f,md 54.09 IUTAL DUE VENDOR --------; 54.02 f C i t v a f D i a@ a n d 5 a r '41"N jIME: 89:130,/tS/t;,3 Y 0 U C H F R R E G 1 6 T F 3 PAVE 9 M.1f: THI"i ...... ...... e. 7,1n Vt--NDN;q NAME YEADUR 0. P;l 1 .3 ACI-110INT P,0-.'i,TX-NO --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- BATCH PGJ, INEIIND, Df- :41P It 10%, ------------------------------------------ A M 1 HN T DA, E h .av ro 1. 1 T r a p, s f ;ar Pavia j 1 Tr Bal 1071 1 48'r°11 �1 0.7115 e710? P'13 PayrallTranHl� 3,1t , M . P, a 7 It? i Q� � MR0 13 M 11"ITAL AMOUNT b. —3.0 'UTA; DuC 14,1DOR --------? 8.08 P-,Hjr?tti. Tp,-.v 71 W A 407Y2t 07/14 0/28 Recreation R2iund 45.02 TOTAL T'ME VENDOR -------- 45.0 Panna Valley Hijipaile pklmk?s 011 4431-5 03 1 WM 01/31614 071f,4 07120 Judy Animal Cont-al Svcs 4,152.17 TUAL Dl,,E VCNDUR --------- / 4.152.17 Pas-ace By Phone rcsthFfhon 021-4098--212114 2 447728 e7/14 0123 Postage Raplenishtent 1,000.00 TOTAL 0i;E VENDUR --------> IIUM) Public Fmpl RptilEjent E;"S 081-2110-10t, 3 447129, 97/15 07/09 PP12 R2tCvritPf'l2 2.154.24 07109191 U1133?1734 8+11 ?118-1586 4 48/?89, 87115 07/99 :-`P 12 1 11; R + ron t 1* P 12 2,41?.A3 07/003 MU21284 TflTA', PIN'tPAIC) Af."ItINT 4,567.03 iOfAL OUE VCMDUR -------- Ma It f-lbl'C F301 RPUTPJTAt :1 -S 081--?1.10-IOU, I MM 07115 07/09 Pf'13 R2tCQQtP," 13 2,116.01 07/091193 022222120 1104-2110-ir.W 2 0790D W15 47/0 ?P13 petconti,M 2,37t.96 07/99/93 22M01263 TUTAL PREPAID AMMNT ----> 4,486.07 i0fAL DUE VCNDUR -------- 8.01 50hprt Driver Ins Co. RobDrive 021-2"08-1014 2 41720 4711; 9,7112 June S-PFventTns-1mp93 222.0 e7/12193 02120?12.17 TOTAL 'REPAID AMOUNT ----> 'M .48 'UTAL DUE VENDOR --------> 0.0 Sohprt Driver Tos Ci-,. Fa Drive 1 407189, 0/15 0710 May93 SDFyentIns-May93 128.03 07108193 0121021281 MAL PRUA0 AMOUNT in.00 10TAL WE VENDOR --------- 9.00 ,� 1 '-'/ � C 1 t V of D 1 a I o n !J liar RufN Irl -C. 09;?j @111;m V 0 j C H E R R P 6 S I F R PAGz: R Dl,,E ' Hc ;T I j . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 / y .3 VLN)"IN NArIt VENDOR 111. PROA7 A1,21,06,14T �,ROMX-40 BAICH PO.LINFIM. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- �A I Ri 1 �i i: F M1)'H-:E ------------------------------------ T OA f CK R -137 @a1 3,47918 411203 07/14 0/28 R2r-reiticm Refund 26, TVAL DUE '.ODuR -------- > "6-11) i"M 211@-1000 1 401 15 Gi15 07112 July Dpitat-JuM 92�.^:`:, r1/12rqj CAta"a'?J?tq M-2110-Rlk I 41/93D 07/15 07112 1j 1 Y93 Vision-.July93 2',5.91 37/12i93 Z' t;'6� 212E9 TOTAI, PREPAID AMOUNT 1117Y.2b VCNDUR -------- 0.03 Sa,-Pupl5on, Jarqus.) 17,43 201-31,418 39 40722A 07/14 01/23 8015 R?creation Refund 83.0 MIAL DUE VC.NDUR -------- 113.0 San Rabriql Val)ev t-01-4098 2315 4 WW 07/Y14 9712$ 11913 -94 Membership 7,530.@8 MAL DUE VtNDCR --------> 7j0a.0 Sir Sc�Fdv SirSoepdy 01-4093-211e I 40M V/14 0,7122 12095 Stationary suclolies 12"'.41 TOTAL Pil;C VFNDuR -------- 127.41 Sfmlich, Paul t29 6 407281 @7/14 07/23 Rp.rrmtinn Refund NM IW AL DUE VENDOR -------- 221.@2 Trine Center Travel Townerente 201-4010-23:34 2 40723D Air/Monterey/MacBride 168,00 e7/02193 0030321272 ,DIAL rRIEPAID AMOUNT 10TAt DOF VFNI(IR -------- 9.03 an Veronin, Chourg 46 'A't-3474 I 407M e7/14 07M Recreation Refund 9"M TOTAL DUE YENDUR --------- > rl'5.03 Whitebousp, Nancy ilh if ehmjee 001 4032 ;100 I 40722) 97/15 V/14 Officp&mches 91.95 07114i93 0@380091 801 -WO -2-325 1 43120D V/15 87/14 Meetipr'Sugglips 17.32 37114/93 OHW1291 TOTAL PROM AMakINT ----> 109.38 i0fk DUE VENDOR --------> a." r Diamond Bar +++ RUN li"E; 05:2387/15iq Vi',i)"HSR RESIS i ER E ii?? U ............. ViN/Sd PSE 11 d;:N UR NAhE 4'ENDUR ID. * + 'r PA; t + AlCJt!NT PRII.TI—ND BATCH PO.IINE/N0. ENTRY/DUF AVOfCr Dt-'.CR1uiIUN' MUNI DATE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ eright, Ridell 7:i'f 01-3818 40 40724A 071,14 071122 8136 Rarreition ReFan,i 40.02 !i(AL D!;E vi_NDUR --------> 4MI 't1iRt PRE?AID-----------) 57, 789. A3 MO(AL DUE --------------- b.J60.12 MAL R�POR(-------------) iih,152.b5 !� I J—lLt t f k C. t v O S D i d A 0 it I B 3: 4+ R:iRTIME:93:2SU/15i93 V 0 1 U C H E R RFS 151 FR A* 1 1iND SUMMARY REPP,RT D'.i't Tt.-RJ............. r7i22i93 C tri �' C,�T .L -t (i -;�;� SlC�I-': DISBURSE G/L a.'E LTi._ I,., SJ A5 CST.D U ,.t iRA,..Ai r iitiD TOfA, DTRECI PAY R=VENUE E4P1N'S E R,, VEN"F EiPIL R,-VEE EIPiLtiSf -- —------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 001 5 rte'di F:Ind 116,15,1.6 5';,19&.5i 11163. ed 5' ,194.15 ;001_ ------------------------ L.L r Q",9 116 +.".6`; 51i,+96.S+ 1, 768. a8 5`;,194.15 AGENDA NO. 7.3 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MAY 13, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Chavers called the meeting to order at 6:36 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Hearing Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Cheng. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Ury, Cheng, Beke, and Chairman Chavers. Vice Chairman Gravdahl was absent. Also present were Senior Engineer David Liu, Administrative Analyst Tseday Aberra, Sergeant Rawlings, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. MINUTES: Apr. 8, 1993 Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of April 8, 1993, as presented. COMMISSION C/Ury requested staff to give an update to the COMMENTS: Commission, later in the meeting, regarding the meeting with Supervisor Dana's aide, as well as an update on the plans proposed for improving the Grand Ave./Diamond Bar Boulevard intersection. C/Beke stated that Supervisor Dana and his staff was supportive of Diamond Bar's priorities for the 57/60 freeway project. C/Cheng, noting the difficulty to turn left, requested staff to investigate the need for a left turn movement at the intersection of Pathfinder northbound to Diamond Bar Blvd. Chair/Chavers encouraged those in the audience to attend the General Plan revision public hearings to be held before the City Council, or to submit comments or inquiries to staff if so desired. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Mr. Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star Drive, stated that the accident rate at the intersection of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Fountain Springs Road has decreased since the implementation of the "No Parking" on the northside of Fountain Springs Road. However, the posted "No Parking" on the southside of Fountain Springs Road is not being observed and needs additional enforcement. Parking in that area is a problem due to the inadequate parking area May 13, 1993 Page 2 provided by the two story office building and the Country Hills Towne Center. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chair/Chavers pulled items A and B from the Consent Calendar. Item B, a request to install stop signs at the intersection of Deer Crossing Drive and Country View Drive, will be combined with item X.A, the results of a 60 -day observation of the "No Right Turn" restriction at Rolling Knoll Road and Country View Drive at Grand Avenue. Restrict. AA/Aberra presented the staff report regarding the Parking in request received from the tenants of the Shea front of Business Center businesses to restrict parking ("No Shea Business Parking, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m., Monday -Friday") on Center the west side of Brea Canyon Road south of Washington Street. Currently, the west side of Brea Canyon Road south of Washington street directly in front of the businesses has a 2 -hour parking limit. Though trucks park there less than two hours at a given time, each truck, reportedly, seems to be quickly replaced by another, and visibility of the stores is restricted because the businesses are lower than the street level. Staff has requested, as was requested in June of 1979 when the 112 -hour parking" signs were first installed at the request of the businesses from Shea Business Center, for a consensus among the businesses regarding the request to restrict parking. Since staff did not observe any trucks parking on the westerly side of Brea Canyon road during the field investigation, it is recommended that the Commission maintain the existing 2 -hour parking limit and deny the request. Felicia Bryant, owner of American TV & Video, representing the 6 businesses mentioned in the letter submitted to the City, stated that there has been an increase in the traffic of trucks on Brea Canyon Road due mostly from the increase of warehousing space in the City of Industry. Though the Shea Business Center management has indicated that they feel that the 112 -hour parking" restriction is sufficient, the businesses feel that visibility should not be obstructed since they pay extra rent to be located in the front of the center. She then submitted a video, for the record, illustrating the traffic flow and the amount of trucks parked in front of the Center. Sgt. Rawlings informed the Commission that City Ordinance No. 4 (1990), subsection (b), already restricts parking, stopping, or standing of a commercial vehicle for more than 1/2 hour on any May 13, 1993 Page 3 street located within the City of Diamond Bar in a commercial or industrial zone, except when loading/ unloading property for such time as is necessary. SE/Liu stated that Ordinance No. 4 (1990) is a City wide ordinance, and staff will have to investigate if there is an ordinance for the current 112 -hour parking" restriction that was adopted by the County Board of Supervisors. C/Beke, noting that the County probably does have an Ordinance behind the 2 -hour time limit parking, requested staff to verify which ordinance would prevail, and if there can be an ordinance that exempts one street from the 1/2 hour restriction. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Ury and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the matter to the next meeting, with direction to staff to research with the City Attorney and the Sheriff's Department how this restriction might be posted and enforced, and what precedent is set within the rest of the City. C/Ury, noting that the volume counts indicated in the staff report was conducted prior to the installation of the "No Right Turn" signs, pointed out that there is probably a tremendous difference in the volume of traffic going through the area. The report also indicates that there is a lot of westbound traffic in the early morning hours, indicating that there are illegal turns being made in the area. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Cheng, Ury, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Gravdahl. Request to SE/Liu reported that the Commission accepted install stop staff's recommendation, at the February 11, 1993 signs at Deer meeting, to deny the request to install stop signs Crossing/Country at the intersection of Deer Crossing Drive and View Country View Drive, and tabled the balance of the items recommended by staff until the Country View Drive cut -through issue is brought back to the Commission in sixty (60) days. It is recommended that the Commission approve the installation of the following: install a yield sign on Deer Crossing Drive; paint double yellow centerline striping on Country View Drive (entire length); and post "Down Hill Speed" sign on Country View Drive. C/Ury, noting that the volume counts indicated in the staff report was conducted prior to the installation of the "No Right Turn" signs, pointed out that there is probably a tremendous difference in the volume of traffic going through the area. The report also indicates that there is a lot of westbound traffic in the early morning hours, indicating that there are illegal turns being made in the area. May 13, 1993 Page 4 Chair/Chavers opened the meeting to public testimony. The following individuals expressed their support for the installation of a yield sign at Deer Crossing Drive only because the traffic significantly decreased as a result of the "No Right turn" signs posted on Rolling Knoll Road and Country View Drive at Grand Avenue: Tony Ruiz, residing at 23649 Country View Dr.; Debra Kline, residing at 23812 Country View Dr.; Jean Puchihara, residing at 23717 Country View Dr.; and Karen Mahoney, residing at 23834 Country View Dr. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Chavers closed the meeting to public testimony. Motion was made by C/Beke, seconded by C/Cheng and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation's to install a yield sign on Deer Crossing Drive, and to deny staff's recommendation to paint the double yellow centerline, and post the "Watch Down Hill Speed" sign on Country View Drive. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Cheng, Ury, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Gravdahl. The results of SE/Liu reported that the "No Right Turn, 4-7:00 PM, a 60 -day Monday -Friday" signs on Rolling Knoll Road and observation of Country View Drive at Grand Avenue were installed the "No Right on March 3, 1993 and enforcement began on March 10, Turn" restriction1993. Additional signs on the traffic signal mast signs on arm and in the median island on Grand Avenue were Rolling Knoll Rd.installed on April 27, 1993. There has been a and Country View total of 496 citations given by the Walnut Sheriff at Grand Avenue Station during the months of March and April of 1993. On April 22, 1993, the Department of Public Works mailed out approximately 600 surveys to the residents in the Quail Summit Drive/Rolling Knoll Road area to assess the effect of the "No Right Turn" signs on the neighborhood. Of the 217 surveys received as of May 6, 1993, 143 residences wanted the signs to remain as presently posted; 50 requested the removal of the signs; and 24 wanted the signs modified. The City also received signed petitions from 48 residences from. the Long View Drive area requesting the removal of the signs. This matter will come before the City Council on June 15, 1993 for further discussion. May 13, 1993 NEW BUSINESS: Page 5 Chair/Chavers opened the meeting to public testimony. The following individuals expressed their support to retain the "No Right Turn" signs posted on Rolling Knoll Road and Country View Drive at Grand Avenue because the signs are effective, and the area is now safe for children: Tony Ruiz, residing at 23649 Country View Dr.; Mark Segal, residing at 1342 Rolling Knoll Rd.; Karen Mahoney, residing at 23834 Country View Dr.; Sheila Olivas, residing at 23481 Quail Summit Dr.; Adolf and Rosalita Neder, residing at 23229 Quail Summit Dr.; Don Lemly, residing 1387 Rolling Knoll Rd.; and Dave Mansa, 1356 Rolling Knoll Rd. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Chavers closed the meeting to public testimony. There were approximately 60 hands raised in response to C/Beke's inquiry of how many people in the audience are in favor of the restrictive signs. One individual raised his hand in favor of the removal of the signs. Chair/Chavers directed staff to reflect in their staff report to the City Council that the Traffic Commission stands by their original recommendation without any modification. Chair/Chavers recessed the meeting at 7:25 p.m. the meeting was reconvened at 7:30 p.m. 4 -way stop sign AA/Aberra presented the staff report regarding the at Castle Rock request received from a Diamond Bar resident to and Cold Springs replace the existing 2 -way stop signs with a 4 -way stop sign at the intersection of Castle Rock Road and Cold Springs Lane. Upon staff's investigation, it was determined that the intersection did not meet the requirements of the multi -way stop warrant analysis in the CalTrans Traffic Manual. It is recommended that the Commission deny the request to install a 4 -way stop sign at the intersection of Castle Rock Road and Cold Springs Lane. Motion was made by C/Ury, seconded by Chair/Chavers and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to accept staff's recommendation to deny the request. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Beke, Cheng, Ury, and Chair/Chavers. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. May 13, 1993 Page 6 ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Gravdahl. STATUS OF SE/Liu, in response to Chair/Chavers, reported that PREVIOUS the far side secondary "No Right Turn" signs have ACTION ITEMS: been posted on the mast arm of the signal at Rolling Knoll Road at Grand Avenue. ITEMS FROM SE/Liu, in response to C/Ury's inquiry regarding COMMISSIONERS: the progress of the study to improve the intersection of Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard, reported that staff is currently working with the traffic engineer to explore all options for that intersection. An operational analysis will also be conducted. In response to C/Cheng, SE/Liu stated that the Commission did study the intersection of Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Drive and concluded to add double left turn pockets on the Grand Ave. approaches. SE/Liu, upon the request of C/Ury, reported that Supervisor Dana's office was very supportive of CalTrans HOV lanes along the 57 and 60 freeways, and the 57/60 freeway interchange project. Additionally, the City submitted two other projects: the Grand Ave Traffic Signal Synchronization and Arterial Improvements; and the Brea Canyon Road Widening Project. ITEMS FROM STAFF: Metrolink SE/Liu stated that any Commissioner interested in Tour the Metrolink tour, tentatively scheduled for June 17, 1993, should notify staff. Ranch Festival SE/Liu stated that this matter will be brought back Booth/Ride to the Commission at the next meeting after staff Sharing has communicated with the people at CTS. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Cheng, seconded by C/Beke and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 7:45 p.m. Respectively, /s/ David G. Liu David G. Liu, Secretary Attest: /s/ J. Todd Chavers J. Todd Chavers, Chairman AGENDA N. 7.4.1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION APRIL 22, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. at the AQMD, Hearing Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Goldenberg. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Medina, Johnson, Goldenberg, Vice Chairman Schey, and Chairman Ruzicka. Also present were Community Services Director Bob Rose, Administrative Assistant Kellee Fritzal, Recreation Supervisor Marla Pearlman, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. MATTERS FROM Don Gravdahl thanked the Commission for their THE AUDIENCE: support, and staff for their efforts, in organizing the City's Fourth Annual Birthday Celebration. The Commission thanked Mr. Gravdahl for his efforts as well. APPROVAL OF C/Goldenberg will abstain from voting on the THE MINUTES: minutes because he was not present during the subject meeting. Feb. 25, 1993 Mar. 25, 1993 Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by C/Johnson and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of February 25, 1993, as presented. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Medina, Johnson, V C/ S c h e y, a n d Chair/Ruzicka. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VC/Schey and C/Goldenberg will abstain from voting on the minutes because they were not present during the subject meeting. Motion was made by C/Medina, seconded by C/Johnson and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of March 25, 1993, as presented. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Medina, Johnson, and Chair/Ruzicka. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg and VC/Schey. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. OLD BUSINESS: CSD/Rose reported that the Senior Citizen Sub- committee of the Parks and Recreation Commission Senior Citizen met with the City Council Senior Citizen sub - Update committee on March 31, 1993. It was agreed that a meeting will be held, sometime in May of 1993, with April 22, 1993 Page 2 those who had indicated, on the survey, an interest in developing senior programs in Diamond Bar. A town hall meeting for seniors will follow, on a date yet to be determined, for the purpose of obtaining input for developing the Diamond Bar senior citizen program. Staff has developed a proposed budget for staffing to do the program at Heritage Park, which will be funded by Community Development Block Grant Funds (CDBG). Those proposed programs have been forwarded to the Community Development Commission (CDC) of Los Angeles County for their approval. AA/Fritzal explained that the Community Development Commission is in the process of reviewing the City's request, and, if approved, the City will receive funds beginning July 1, 1993. The CDBG funds are used for low/moderate income seniors. CSD/Rose stated that once the City's request has received approval, which will be in approximately two weeks, a meeting with the seniors will be scheduled. Staff is also planning, starting July 1, 1994, on soliciting Area Agency on Aging Funds. C/Johnson suggested that the organizational meeting be scheduled for May 20, 1993. The Commission concurred. NEW BUSINESS: Roller The City received a request for use of one Maple Blade Hockey Hill Park tennis court for Rollerblade hockey on Friday and Saturday evenings. CSD/Rose reported that staff sought information from the following professionals regarding the effect of the requested use on the tennis facilities: Southern California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (SCJPIA)- Risk Management for the City; Tomark Sports - tennis court surfacing; City of Garden Grove - runs rollerblade hockey league; and Saddleback Valley School District - runs rollerblade hockey league. The input provided from all parties indicated the concern for liability that the City would face by authorizing the use of tennis courts for rollerblade hockey play. The biggest concern indicated by the JPIA involved the chance of an accident into the permanently installed net supports on the tennis courts. Tomark Sports indicated a concern about the wear and tear of the tennis court surface. Those consulted also indicated the need to explore alternative locations for rollerblade hockey play April 22, 1993 Page 3 to be conducted. The City of Garden Grove indicated that they have 300 adult teams, over a period of one year, which is organized on a contract basis. Saddleback Valley School District indicated that their youth league, which costs $75.00 per player, uses multiple use tennis courts which have removable posts. It is staff's recommendation that the Commission deny the use of tennis courts for rollerblade hockey play. However, if it is the desire of the Commission to seek alternative locations for rollerblade hockey play in the City, then it is recommended that the Commission direct the Program Sub -committee to meet with staff, the rollerblade hockey participants and their parents to seek alternatives. CSD/Rose, in response to C/Johnson, stated that the cost to resurface a tennis court is between $1,500 and $1,800 dollars, and is usually done approximately every three years. In response to VC/Schey, CSD/Rose explained that a concrete surface is desired, as opposed to asphalt, because it provides for the puck to slide smoothly. Rollerblade hockey is a contact sport in which "checking" or "charging" in rollerblade hockey is considered a minor infraction, and "cross checking" is considered a major infraction. Chair/Ruzicka opened the meeting to public testimony. Matt Laboda, residing at 1850 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., submitted a petition, to the Commission, in favor of the use of the tennis courts for rollerblade hockey. He made the following comments: the reason why they chose to play on the tennis court is because it has lights which will allow them to play Friday and Saturday nights from 6:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m; their teams have consisted of four players; there is very little contact during the game; all players wear protective gear; speed is limited due to the size of the court, and there have been no injuries at this point; if the brakes on the rollerblades leave black marks, it washes off very easily with water; and the ages of those playing now range from 16 to 40 years. Mr. Laboda then explained that they are having a difficult time finding a place to play, and they often receive complaints. VC/Schey inquired if Mr. Laboda felt that there was enough particpants who would be interested in joining an organized league. April 22, 1993 Page 4 Matt Laboda stated that they have around 30 people who have expressed an interest in playing, and there are probably more who would want to play if there was an area to do so. At this point, Mr. Roger Skinner, the principal at Chaparral Middle School, has given permission to us to play at the basketball courts after school, and we are in the process, with the help of Larry Rogers, a science teacher, in organizing games. Chair/Ruzicka suggested that staff determine if the School District's insurance would cover this type of activity on their campuses. CSD/Rose indicated that Mark Hansberger, in charge of the facilities allocation for the Walnut Valley Unified School District, has contacted staff and indicated that they are looking upon this favorably as far as something to consider on their campuses. C/Goldenberg stressed the importance of having adult supervision during all games, regardless of where the games are played. CSD/Rose, in response to VC/Schey, stated that Saddleback Valley School District has indicated that they play on a court that is 120 feet long by 60 feet wide. A High School basketball court is about 86 feet long by 50 feet wide. Johnny Cho, residing at 1345 Rapid View Drive, made the following comments: no one has ever run into a pole on the tennis courts; there has been no proof offered that rollerblades destroy the court surface; tennis rackets cause most of the nicks on the court; they would prefer to start with a pick up game then move into a league as popularity increases; since some of the kids who like to play are as young as 6 years old, a $75.00 dollar charge to join a league would be quite steep; they like to play at night because it is cooler and it does not conflict with the time that people prefer to use the tennis courts; it is not safe to play at dusk because it is difficult to see the puck; the playing surface must be smooth; and there is no other facility in the City that has lit courts. Chair/Ruzicka inquired why Mr. Skinner, the principal, did not give permission for the use of the tennis courts, as he did for the basketball courts. Mark Daly, owner of Mad Dog Tennis, explained that the reason permission was not given for the use of April 22, 1993 Page 5 the tennis courts was because he leases, and pays permits and insurance, for the Chaparral facility for the Southern California Tennis Association Jr, Team tennis program. They will be spending several thousands dollars to resurface the courts soon. He pointed out that the black marks on a painted surface is not removable without removing the paint. In order to make Maple Hill tennis courts functional to play rollerblade hockey, the facility would have to be completely enclosed so no one gets hurt. He suggested that the City explore the Hills Club to see if they can have access to the enclosed facility at a fee, or explore a facility somewhere in the City of Walnut. He then indicated that usually the kids are respectful, but there have been times when there has been drinking, and abusive language. Tennis courts are designed for tennis, not rollerblade hockey. John Serta, residing at 21073 Highland Drive, pointed out that Walnut has a lot of gangs and is not a safe area to play in at night. Furthermore, the basketball courts at Chaparral have large cracks that interrupt playing. There is a large number of people who desire to play rollerblade hockey. C/Medina, concerned with the liability issue involved with using the tennis courts, suggested that the kids be given a chance to play on the basketball courts at Chaparral because the liability factor is not there. Kathleen Daly, from Mad Dog Tennis, made the following comments: the basketball court at Chaparral may be feasible because there is a fence on one side of it, and grass on the other; if the children are given permission to play anywhere, it must be stressed that there must be serious adult supervision; there are fights that have occurred at Chaparral with no adult supervision, coach, or principal present; at times, inappropriate language is used by those utilizing the courts, and there is disrespect if asked to leave; a fundraiser can be held to raise money to start a league for these children; and the Hills Club has an enclosed, lighted area that perhaps can be used. Cheryl Meder, residing at 1415 Indian Well Drive, made the following comments: there was a $400 to $500 dollar fee to join the Hills Club three years ago, plus a monthly fee, which is much too expensive for these kids; they play in the evenings because it is too hot during the day, especially April 22, 1993 Page 6 wearing the safety gear; they need lighting to be able to see the puck; a tennis ball has the same dangers as a puck going into another court; school officials and police patrol the area to guard against drinking; most of the time the tennis courts are empty so who is possibly complaining; they only play on one of the courts so any damage on the other courts are due to something else; Parks and Recreation is for the community; and many parents and teachers also signed the petition submitted by the children. She then indicated that she was under the impression that if a child is hurt at the park, it is the parents liability, not the City. CSD/Rose, in regards to the liability issue, explained that the City's Risk Manager indicated that if the City authorizes a use of a facility, and something occurs during that authorized activity, then the City places itself as an agent approving the use, and is now in a position of liability, as opposed to an activity that is done independent from the City. John Serta stated that the basketball court at the Hills Club is in terrible condition, and has pine leaves everywhere. VC/Schey suggested that staff investigate if the tennis courts can be retrofitted with removable standards, and some amount of additional fencing can be placed between courts to address the issue of liability, so that one or more tennis courts in the area can be used for this type of a sport for some amount of time each week. Furthermore, perhaps the design at the new park at Pantera should be specifically looked at to make the standards removable on one or more of the courts. There is a group of citizens in this community that have presented a legitimate request, and we should attempt to accommodate their request if we are able to do so. CSD/Rose, in response to C/Medina, indicated that staff does have access to portable lighting. C/Johnson suggested that the investigation not be limited to our two existing tennis courts, but to expand on all the other suggestions given tonight. We have a responsibility to look for ways to add additional services, not take away any. If the tennis courts are utilized, it should be enclosed entirely because the possibility of risk is present. April 22, 1993 Page 7 Motion was made by VC/Schey, seconded by C/Johnson and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to request staff to investigate the following: the possible modification of one of the tennis courts at Ronald Reagan Park or Maple Hill to include removable standards, appropriate fencing, and perhaps removable padding for the perimeter fencing, plus staff is to include the costs associated with these modifications; investigate, with the JPIA Risk Manager whether, with those types of modification, an acceptable level of risk might be reached for the use of such a court with rollerblade hockey, what additional cost for liability insurance might be entailed, and the requirements necessary to limit the liability to the City; the potential scheduling issues that might be offered for rollerblade hockey use on the designated court, any requirements for supervision that might be recommended or required by the City or the Risk Manager, and any requirements as far as organization of the supervision in this game that might be necessary to mitigate the City's liability; and to investigate any other facility that may be conceivably feasible. The Program Inventory Sub -committee of the Master Plan should work with staff to help them in their investigation. C/Goldenberg, believing that the courts have declared rollerblade hockey to be a contact sport, stated that using a facility for a contact sport, whether supervised or..unsupervised, in an area not specifically designated for that activity, will bring litigation to the City. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Recreation RS/Pearlman presented the recreation update as Update included in the staff report, reviewing contract classes, City wide youth track and field meet, adult athletics, youth athletics, and Diamond Bar's Fourth Birthday Celebration. CSD/Rose reported that there was an excursion to Solvang on April 17, 1993 with 22 people in attendance. There is an excursion scheduled to Catalina on May 15, 1993, which is sold out, and a Laughlin turn around trip scheduled June 19 & 20, 1993 that still has openings. The spring session of Tiny Tots has begun with 39 participants in the program. April 22, 1993 Page 8 Concerts AA/Fritzal, referring to the tentative schedule for In The the groups for the Concert in the Parks series, Park stated that staff is presently awaiting for the contracts to be signed by the groups and sent back to the City. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Medina thanked staff for their efforts in organizing the Birthday Celebration. C/Schey and Chair/Ruzicka welcomed C/Goldenberg to the Commission. CSD/Rose informed the Commission that Mr. Daly submitted a letter from Randy Lin objecting to the tennis courts being used for rollerblade hockey. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Schey, seconded by C/Johnson and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 9:01 P.M. Respectively, /s/ Bob Rose Bob Rose Secretary Attest: /s/ Joe Ruzicka Joe Ruzicka. Chairman AGENDA NO. 7.4.2 ciTY vr- a�ixravarn D� MINUTES OF THE PARRS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MAY 27, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. at the AQMD, Hearing Room, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Ruzicka. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Medina, Johnson, Goldenberg, Vice Chairman Schey, and Chairman Ruzicka. Also present were Community Services Director Bob Rose, Administrative Assistant Kellee Fritzal, Brea's Community Service Manager Ted Owens, Brea's Athletic Specialist Chris Emeterio, Brea's Contract Class Specialist Jan Stwertnik, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. Administrative Intern Sandy Barlow arrived at 7:10 p.m. APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES: Apr. 22, 1993 Motion was made by C/Johnson, seconded by C/Medina and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of April 22, 1993, as presented. COMMISSION REORGANIZATION: Election of Nomination was made by C/Medina and seconded by Chairperson C/Goldenberg for Chair/Ruzicka as Chairman. Nomination was made by C/Johnson, seconded by Chair/Ruzicka for VC/Schey as Chairman. The Commission voted upon the nomination for Chair/Ruzicka as Chairman. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg and Medina. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Johnson, VC/Schey, and Chair/Ruzicka. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. The Nomination FAILED. The Commission voted upon the nomination for VC/Schey as Chairman. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg, Johnson, Medina, Ruzicka, and VC/Schey. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. May 27, 1993 page 2 The Nomination UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. Chair/Schey commended C/Ruzicka for his service as chairman this past year. Election of Nomination was made by C/Ruzicka and seconded by Vice -Chairman C/Medina for C/Johnson as Vice Chairman. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg, Johnson, CSD/Rose presented the staff report regarding the Rollerblade Medina, Ruzicka, and Hockey on tennis court for rollerblade hockey on Friday and VC/Schey. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. The Nomination UNANIMOUSLY PASSED. C/Ruzicka congratulated Chair/Schey and VC/Johnson on their new positions. OLD BUSINESS: Request for CSD/Rose presented the staff report regarding the Rollerblade request received for the use of one Maple Hill Park Hockey on tennis court for rollerblade hockey on Friday and Maple Hill Saturday evenings. The issue. was discussed at the Tennis Courts April 22, 1993 meeting, and staff was asked to do further research regarding the costs associated with tennis court modifications, investigate the J.P.I.A.'s costs and requirements for liability insurance following those modifications, potential scheduling issues, supervision requirements, and the use of other facilities as an option. CSD/Rose then reviewed the information obtained, as indicated in the staff report. In addition to the information in the staff report, CSD/Rose reported that Mark Hansburger, the Facilities Supervisor of the Walnut Unified School District (WVUSD), has indicated that the Principal of Chaparral Middle School is interested in having one of their tennis courts converted to a roller hockey playing facility. The WVUSD is in agreement with having that type of program conducted either separate or in conjunction with the City. Furthermore, he reported that the landscape architects, interviewed on the Pantera Park project, indicated that it is possible in the design process to put two basketball courts together, running a rollerblade hockey court across the two courts so that the basketball standards do not interfere. They also indicated that there was less concern expressed from basketball participants, regarding joint use with roller hockey, than from tennis participants. Also, in regards to the black marks left on the May 27, 1993 Page 3 tennis court surfacing material made by the braking device on the roller blades, the California Street Hockey Association stated that when the courts are to be jointly used, they obtain an agreement from the roller blade hockey participants to remove the braking device so no black marks are made. In the programs five years, no injuries or problems have occurred by removing the breaking device. Furthermore, they stated that the surface material used for rollerblade hockey courts is the same used for tennis courts, and are resurfaced yearly unless there is an extreme amount of play, then it is resurfaced biyearly. It is staff's recommendation that the Commission deny the use of Tennis Courts for rollerblade hockey play. If it is the desire of the Commission to seek alternative locations for rollerblade hockey play in Diamond Bar, direct the program subcommittee to meet with staff, the rollerblade hockey participants, and their parents. C/Medina pointed out that the participants of rollerblade hockey had requested the use of the Maple Hill tennis courts, and not the Chaparral tennis courts, because they wanted a facility that had lights to be able to play in the evenings. CSD/Rose, in response to C/Goldenberg, stated that the original RFP had all athletic facilities lit, including the basketball courts. The California Street Hockey Association (CSHA) did not indicate a cost for resurfacing rollerblade hockey courts. C/Medina suggested that staff research the possibility of using the parking lot at St. Denis because it does have lighting. CSD/Rose, in response to C/Johnson, stated that staff has not yet determined if the City would be responsible for supervision if the City were to enter into an agreement with the WVUSD. The activity planned with Brea would be a drop in program and it would not be run by City staff, however, staff would be present to insure that the requirements made by the insurance company were enforced. The CSHA would run their program similar to our contract classes. Chair/Schey suggested that, since the use of the tennis court as requested is not cost effective to the City, staff should investigate working with the WVUSD and the CSHA to use the basketball courts at Chaparral as an interim facility, even if it necessitated an asphalt overlay. Staff should also pursue designing the basketball courts to serve as May 27, 1993 Page 4 a dual purpose in the design of Pantera Park, since it seems to be an actively growing sport. Motion was made by C/Ruzicka, seconded by C/Medina and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to deny the use of the tennis courts for rollerblade hockey, with direction to staff to continue to explore multiple alternative sites for use of rollerblade hockey, preferably lighted sites, but not to exclude sites without lights because there are portable lights available, and not to exclude interim facilities with the participation of the WVUSD. Reorganization AA/Fritzal reported that, with the reorganization of Commission of the Commission, and the addition of a new Subcommittees Commissioner, it was felt that the subcommittees need to be reorganized. Following discussion, the following list is the new appointees of the Parks and Recreation subcommittee members: Subcommittees: User Groups Ruzicka (Chairman) and Schey. Master Plan Ruzicka (Chairman). Inventory Medina and Johnson. Park Standards Schey and Ruzicka. Prog. Inventory Johnson and Goldenberg. senior Citizens Johnson (Chairman) and Medina. ADA Compliance Ruzicka (Chairman) and Johnson. Adopt -A -Park Johnson (Chairman) and Goldenberg. AA/Fritzal explained that the Fifth Anniversary Subcommittee is not listed because it is not a standing active subcommittee at this point. NEW BUSINESS: Americans with CSD/Rose reported that the City has requested Disabilities $84,597 in Community Development Block Grant Funds Act Retro -Fit (CDBG) to retro -fit the City parks to meet of Parks Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requirements. He reviewed the areas planned for retro -fitting during the 1993-94 fiscal year, as itemized in the staff report. This request is in the final stages of approval by the Community Development Commission of Los Angeles County, and funding should be available beginning July 1, 1993. An RFP seeking a landscape architect to design the major components of this retro -fit effort is going to the City May 27, 1993 Page 5 Council for approval on June 1, 1993. Bernadette Robinson, Executive Director of the Disability Community Center, and her staff member, both disabled, have indicated their willingness to work with staff and the Commission to tour the facilities and comment upon our retro -fit ideas. it is recommended that the Commission ADA Subcommittee schedule a meeting with staff to finalize the process for completing the retro -fit items. CSD/Rose, in response to Chair/Schey, explained that this stage would be considered the first year's retro -fit work. The entire cost to do all the parks, not in the Lighting and Landscaping Districts, would be in the $300,000 dollar range. It may not be required that all playground equipment be retro -fit for accessibility, but rather that entrances into park facilities, such as bathrooms, be made assessable. In response to C/Medina, CSD/Rose explained that public phones in the parks are a separate issue from the ADA requirements. However, it is the City's intent to have public pay phones installed at every park. The ADA Subcommittee concurred to meet with staff and the two members of the Disability Community Center on June 7, 1993 at 7:00 p.m. at City Hall. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: Pantera Park CSD/Rose reported that the City has received 18 Landscape proposals from landscape architects responding to Architect the RFP to design Pantera Park. Staff reviewed the proposals as.submitted and qualified the following five firms for interviews/presentations, which were held today: RJM Design Group, Inc.; Harris and Associates; E.P.T.; FORMA; and Clark Green. Staff requested each firm to provide a list of parks they developed three to five years ago, in which staff will tour one or two parks from each firm. Staff will notify the Commission of the tour meeting dates. It is anticipated that staff will make a recommendation to the City Council at the July 6, 1993 Council meeting for awarding a contract. The successful landscape architect will be invited to the July 22, 1993 Commission meeting to begin the Pantera Park design process. Park Maintenance CSD/Rose reported that the City is currently Contract accepting bids from Landscape Maintenance firms to provide contract maintenance of City parks. He reviewed the specifications for park maintenance May 27, 1993 Page 6 that have been revised to improve the quality of the parks and to provide better service to the community, as indicated in the staff report, as well the special maintenance needs for Peterson Park and Paul C. Grow Park. The bid process includes a mandatory tour of the parks scheduled June 3, 1993, with the bid opening scheduled for June 8, 1993. The new contract is expected to begin on July 1, 1993. Chair/Schey suggested that the turf condition at Summit Ridge Park be investigated as well. The contract should also cover a more diligent overview of the irrigation practices at the parks. Recreation UpdateCSD/Rose reported that Recreation Supervisor Marla Pearlman, a representative of Brea, is out on leave due to medical reasons. The following staff members, representing Brea, will present the staff report: Community Service Manager Ted Owens, Athletic Specialist Chris Ementerio, Contract Class Specialist Jan Stwertnik. Chris Emeterio presented an update on the athletic programs, as indicated in the staff report, reviewing adult softball leagues, adult coed volleyball, adult basketball leagues, the youth city-wide track meet, and youth baseball leagues. Jan Stwertnik presented an update on the contract classes as indicated in the staff report. The Spring session is nearing completion, and the Summer session is scheduled to begin the end of June of 1993. Some of the new classes scheduled include Youth Wrestling, Fencing, Critters and Crafts, Cake Decorating, and two MacIntosh computer classes. C/Medina suggested that the tennis program include City sponsored tournaments as a way of showcasing the players of Diamond Bar. Ted Owens reported that the Community Service Department just received grant funds from Brea's local trash disposal company to host a basketball tournament for Junior High School children next winter. The intent is to extend invitations to Diamond Bar's local Junior High Schools to compete. AA/Fritzal reported that the Commission is invited to attend the Tiny Tot graduation to be held June 11, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. at the Diamond Bar High School Golden Horseshoe Room. She then reviewed the following dates scheduled for upcoming May 27, 1993 Page 7 Excursion events: June 19 - Laughlin for $15.00; July 11 - San Diego Champagne/ Brunch Cruise; Aug. 6 - Hollywood Bowl for fireworks and a box dinner; and Sept. 15-16 - San Sumion to the Hertz Castle. CSD/Rose, in response to C/Goldenberg, stated that staff will put in a news release, or distribute fliers, informing the public that there are provisions for financial assistance for the economically disabled to participate in the youth baseball programs. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Medina read a letter he received from the Chairman at St. Denis, thanking the City for the plaque given to retired Father Donald Pothoff. C/Ruzicka requested an update of the Priorities List for the next meeting. He also suggested that the staff review the potential problems associated with public phones in the parks as discussed at previous Commission meetings over a year ago. VC/Johnson requested staff to include an update, at the next meeting, on the status of the Adopt -A -Park program regarding how many organization are involved in it. Chair/Schey thanked the Commission for electing him Chairman. CSD/Rose introduced Sandy Barlow, employed in the Community Service Department. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Ruzicka, seconded by VC/Johnson and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 8:50 p.m. Respectively, /s/ Bob-Rose- Bob obRoseBob Rose Secretary Attest: /s/ David Schey David Schey Chairman In response to C/Li's inquiry, Mr. Anderson explained that he is not an engineer, but he does know it is a monitoring well that is subject to remediation under the Environmental Protection Agency. Martha Bruske, residing at 600 S. Great Bend, expressed her concern that a citizen is being questioned regarding a concern that is the function of the City Engineer. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Plunk requested that the Minutes of April 26, 1993 be amended on page 13, 2nd paragraph to AGENDA NO. 7.5.1 G=TY OF 0XA%&10Na aa►ra MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSIO MAY 24, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:09 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, Plunk, and Vice Chairman Meyer. Chairman Flamenbaum arrived at 8:25 p.m.. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. VC/Meyer reported that Chair/Flamenbaum will be arriving late to the meeting. MATTERS FROM Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, THE AUDIENCE: expressed his concern that the charcoal canister, used to remove the gasoline in the ground at the old Chevron site, now currently developed with a two story building owned by Dr. Cho, does not function properly because it has never had electrical power applied to the equipment. According to the Water Management Quality District, the electrical power is supposed to come from Country Hills Towne Center's power vault next to Dr. Cho's building. There were non detectable levels of hydrocarbons the first two quarters of the year, but recently the levels have increased to 1,200 due mostly from the increase in the water table from the recent heavy rains. The hydrocarbons could be captured if the charcoal canister was turned on. VC/Meyer requested that the City Engineer and the Planning staff investigate Mr. Anderson's concern and to provide a report. In response to C/Li's inquiry, Mr. Anderson explained that he is not an engineer, but he does know it is a monitoring well that is subject to remediation under the Environmental Protection Agency. Martha Bruske, residing at 600 S. Great Bend, expressed her concern that a citizen is being questioned regarding a concern that is the function of the City Engineer. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Plunk requested that the Minutes of April 26, 1993 be amended on page 13, 2nd paragraph to May 24, 1993 Page 2 Minutes of indicate, "...the commercial center is not a size Apr. 26, 29, 1993that would only hold dry cleaners and pizza & May 10, 1993. parlors". C/Grothe requested that the minutes be amended on page 3 to indicate his absence during the vote. Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of April 26, 1993 as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, Li, and VC/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum. C/Plunk requested that the Minutes of April 29, 1993 be amended on page 10 to indicate, "The conditions at South Pointe School are substandard and the traffic situation is worse than any other school in Diamond Bar." Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of April 29, 1993 as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, Li, and VC/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum. C/Plunk requested that the Minutes of May 10, 1993 be amended on page 7 to indicate the proper spelling of "Vinod". Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of May 10, 1993 as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, Li, and VC/Meyer. None. None. Chair/Flamenbaum. CONTINUED CDD/DeStefano reported that Chair/Flamenbaum will PUBLIC HEARINGS: not be in attendance for this portion of the meeting due to a potential conflict of interest. Variance 93-1, CUP 93-3 & VC/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened. Oak Tree Permit 93-1 May 24, 1993 Page 3 PT/Lungu presented the staff report regarding the request made by the applicants Jake Williams, property owner at project site 22840 Ridgeline Road (lot 156), Richard Miller, property owner at project site 22820 Ridgeline Road (lot 157), Scott Harris, property owner at project site 22909 Lazy Trail Road (lot 153), and A.C. Kausal, property owner at project site 1245 S. Mahogony Court (lot 154), to construct a series of retaining walls in excess of six feet with a maximum height of 18 feet on lots 153, 156, & 157. A CUP is required for the purpose of grading on all four lots pursuant to the Hillside Management Ordinance. An Oak Tree Permit is required in order to remove oak trees on all 4 lots. A Variance is required for the construciton of retaining walls in excess of 6 feet. The project site, located in "The Country", is zoned R-1-40,000 with draft General Plan land use designation of RR. The City adopted the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code (Chapter 22.48, Section 160 D.) which indicates that "Retaining walls, not to exceed six feet in height, are permitted in all yards". PT/Lungu then reviewed the analysis of the proposed project as indicated in the staff report. The applicants will be required to submit to the City a schedule of the proposed activities with their completion dates prior to the issuance of a grading permit. It is staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 93-1, CUP No. 93-3, and Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1, Findings of Fact, and conditions listed within the attached resolution. PT/Lungu then made the following corrections to the attached resolution: amend the last sentence on page 6, condition (h) , to indicate, "The cost of the required bond shall be paid by Mr. Jake Williams and shall remain in effect until completion of the project to the satisfaction of the City Engineer."; amend condition (i) to indicate, "The applicant shall provide a phasing schedule of activities with completion dates prior to the issuance of a grading permit. Should the work not be completed in accordance with the said phase schedule, the City must rescind the grading permit."; and amend the word "should" to "shall" in condition (p). Carl Kobbins, the Civil Engineer on the project for the grading program, 9640 Center Ave., Rancho Cucamonga, stated that the applicant does not take any issue with any of the conditions placed on the project. However, he noted that the project has been modified, without staff's review, to completely eliminate the 18 foot retaining wall by filling in the area referred to as "daylight", May 24, 1993 Page 4 which is an area about 30 feet between the property line on lot 156 to the south side property line on lot 157. He then submitted a letter from the adjacent owner indicating that they have granted Jake Williams slope and drainage easement rights in order to make that fill. PT/Lungu, in response to C/Plunk's inquiry, explained that staff has not had the opportunity to review the indicated change to determine possible environmental impacts. ICE/Wentz stated that he does not see a problem, from an engineering point of view, with the modification indicated. CDD/DeStefano suggested that staff could be directed to investigate possible impacts resulting from the modification. If oak trees which are subject to the City's permit process are impacted, staff would be responsible for providing mitigation based upon the direction given by the Planning Commission. Carl Kobbins, in response to VC/Meyer's inquiry regarding the code enforcement issue, explained that there was some contention with the City about the illegal fills below Mr. Williams home which resulted from the rebuilding of the driveway done under permit. However, that fill is to be removed, replaced, and recompacted as part of this program. The 48,000 cubic yards of dirt will be imported and used as a controlled fill for a more contoured appearance. Jake Williams, property owner of lot 156, further explained that originally, in 1989, there was a Master Plan on his property alone. Upon review, changes were requested to that overall Master Plan. After many drawings and attempts, authorization was given from contract City Engineer Ron Kranzer to realign the existing driveway, which was originally built not according to code. The City then issued a stop work order and called the imported dirt illegal fill. There has never been any blatant stockpiling or illegal grading. All work completed was inspected. In order to complete the project, there would have to be encroachment onto the other lots. Therefore all four lots were coordinated into the project, making it more aesthetically appealing. The 48,000 cubic yards of dirt will and has been moved within "The Country" Estates area from other projects underway. He then indicated May 24, 1993 Page 5 his willingness to replace the trees at a 4:1 ratio. ICE/Wentz confirmed th and quite a bit of driveway, in the area that was uncertified code. With this app will be properly plac attempt was made to t with the Hillside Mana recognizing that the bench drains will be as possible. The only engineering and soils reviewed and approved of the wall. at the driveway was approved, fill was placed below the now proposed to be filled, and not according to City roved plan, those materials ed in a safe condition. An ry to put as much compliance gement Ordinance as possible, site is very restricted. The screened and gunited as much portion of the plan, from an point of view, that was not is the proposed elimination CDD/DeStefano, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that condition (d), on page 6 of the resolution prepared by staff, indicates that the applicant is required to submit a detailed landscape and irrigation plan. Because it is part of the Hillside CLIP, it requires mitigation in accordance with the revegetation techniques contained within the Hillside Management ordinance. Hearing no further testimony, VC/Meyer declared the Public Hearing closed. CDD/DeStefano, in response to VC/Meyer, suggested that the Planning Commission can either review the specific drawings discussed this evening to determine the impact of eliminating the 18 foot retaining wall from an engineering standpoint and an environmental standpoint, or direct staff to investigate the possible impacts with direction that, if there are oak trees within that area which exceed the thresholds within the code and require an extra oak tree permit, it be brought back before the Commission for review. C/Grothe expressed his concern with granting a variance because lots in "The Country" were designed to build into the natural terrain and every lot in that area, with similar topography, would qualify for a variance. Furthermore, there is no indication as to what percentage of the wall is nonconforming. Perhaps "existing nonconforming" would be a better term than a "variance" since some of the walls are part of a retroactive project. Referring to condition (d), he then stated that he would prefer some assurance that the landscape plan May 24, 1993 Page 6 is in accordance with the City's Hillside Grading Ordinance. C/Li indicated that he feels that the Commission should direct staff to investigate and handle the project appropriately. C/Plunk suggested that condition (c) on page 5 be amended to indicate that the applicant shall also maintain the planters weed free. ICE/Wentz, in response to VC/Meyer, stated that it is staff's opinion that there is a sufficient set of conditions to assure that compliance will take place to complete the project. VC/Meyer suggested that the condition in the Oak Tree Permit be amended to indicate a tree replacement ratio of 4:1 since the applicant has expressed his willingness to do so. PT/Lungu, in response to C/Grothe's concern if a variance is appropriate, explained that the City Engineer has assured the Planning staff that the walls need to be at this height because of the constraints of the site, unless the applicant is able to encroach upon another property. C/Grothe pointed out that the variance is only needed to put in walls to construct the tennis courts. Motion was made by C/Grothe to approve CUP No. 93-3 and Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1 with the modifications previously outlined by staff and the Planning Commission, and to deny the variance, requiring stepping the wall for the driveway and eliminating any walls exceeding 6 feet in height for the tennis court. The Motion DIED for lack of a second. C/Plunk pointed out that the tennis court will be constructed down in the gully, which may add to the stability of the area. She then inquired if there is a condition in place addressing the easement needed for drainage. DCA/Fox stated that it is staff's recommendation that a condition be added to indicate that the applicant shall obtain a recorded easements necessary to accommodate drainage, and any other outside grading is designated by the City Engineer in size and nature satisfactory to the City May 24, 1993 Page 7 Engineer prior to issuance of grading permit, and with the provision that no additional oak trees, requiring an Oak Tree removal permit be a part of this approval. CDD/DeStefano stated that the condition should also indicate that the Community Development Department should be involved in that review process, and that no additional oak trees, requiring an oak tree removal permit, be a part of this approval. Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED to approve Variance No. 93-1, CUP No. 93-3, and Oak Tree Permit No. 93-1, Findings of Fact, and conditions listed within the attached resolution as amended by staff, to include a tree replacement ratio of 4:1, and that the hillsides are to be maintained in a weed free condition. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk, Li, and VC/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Flamenbaum. VC/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 8:35 p.m.. Amendment to AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the CUP No. 91-8 request made by the applicant Jung Ho and Yeon Ho Kim, to extend the hours of operation for a billiard establishment located in the Colima Plaza at the intersection of Colima Road and Lemon Avenue, from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight to 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. The application for the family billiard hall was originally approved by the Planning Commission on September 23, 1991. Since then, the Planning Commission has approved a Karoake Studio for this center and found that the studio may operate until 2:00 a.m. Friday and Saturday night with the provision of on-site licensed and uniformed security. The combination of these two land uses in a commercial center designated as Neighborhood Commercial" substantially increases the intensity of the center. In staff's opinion, this intensification is not in conformance with the concept of a neighborhood commercial center. Review of the application with the Sheriff Department revealed that there had been at least three occasions where the billiard hall continued to operate well past May 24, 1993 page 8 midnight. However, upon being admonished by the patrolling deputy, the billiard hall immediately complied with the 12:00 a.m. limitation. Staff feels that the approval of the application in conjunction with other approvals for late night operation has the potential to over intensify the center. It is staff's recommendation that the Commission adopt a resolution to deny the applicant's request. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. David Li, representing the applicant Yeon Kim, from Rowland Heights, explained that the applicant would like to extend the hours of operation for two hours in order to compete with a similar business in Rowland Heights. The majority of the customers come in around 9:00 p.m. and would like to play longer than the remaining 3 hours. Furthermore, the billiard hall should be able to stay open until 2:00 a.m. as was permitted for the Karoake use. In response to a series of Commission inquiries, Mr. Li stated the following: increasing the hours of operation will increase business about 50%; the petition was not circulated among the residential neighborhood; they do not pay sales tax; they are willing to hire a security guard between the hours of 12:00 and 2:00 a.m.; billiard customers are different than the customers that go to karoake studio; the business is family oriented and those men who signed the petition represent the entire family; and the reason they were open past 12:00 a.m was because of the cleaning crew. The Public Hearing was declared opened. The following individuals spoke in favor of the project: Don Schad, a resident; David Park, residing in Hacienda Heights; Max Maxwell, a resident; Julliana Ho; and Eric So, a resident. They supported the project for the following reasons: there have been no complaints from the surrounding neighborhood; the karoake studio remains open till 2:00 a.m.; it is hurting their business to close at 12:00 a.m.; and bowling facilities can remain open all night. Martha Bruske, a resident, pointed out that the area has a heavy graffiti problem. If the business is supposed to close a 12:00 a.m., then they should do so and not have to be admonished by the Sheriff Department. May 24, 1993 page 9 C/Plunk expressed her concern that extending the hours of operation will create a significant increase in traffic at an hour not conducive to a residential neighborhood. If the establishment had trouble closing at 12:00 a.m. then they will have equal trouble closing at 2:00 a.m.. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the hours be extended to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday with a condition that there be a uniformed security guard present. VC/Meyer stated that since a CUP is a land use entitlement, then the Planning Commission should focus on the findings of fact of the land use decision. If the business is not operating as a good neighbor, then our Sheriff Department or code enforcement ought to be able to address the problem. Motion was made by VC/Meyer and seconded by C/Li to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval with the following amendments: hours of operation from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday; modifying condition #5 to at least one employee over the age of 21 would be on the premises at all time; and condition #6 be modified to indicate that a security person shall be uniformed, may be the owner of the business, and be on the premise from 12:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. (consistent with the karoake studio). Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the hours of operation be made consistent with the Karoake Studio extending the hours to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday only. VC/Meyer stated that the Sheriff Department will handle any problems that may occur. Instead of trying to control a business operation, we should be trying to control a land use type of operation. A billiard room close to a residential neighborhood does not seem to be a problem since no .one is present to complain. C/Grothe stated that since it is unknown what the effects will be by having both the Karaoke and the Billiard Hall open till 2:00 a.m., he would feel more comfortable following the conditions set for the karoake studio approval. C/Plunk pointed out that the karaoke studio has only been open for three weeks so the problems with the establishment have not yet been determined. May 24, 1993 Page 10 VC/Meyer stated that the CUP can be revoked if the business gets out of hand. The Planning Commission voted upon VC/Meyer's motion, as seconded by C/Li to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Approval amending the hours of operation from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday, modifying condition #5 that at least one employee over the age of 21 would be on the premises at all time and that condition #6 be modified to indicate that a security person shall be uniformed and may be the owner of the business, and to be on the premise from 12:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. (consistent with the karoake studio). ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, and Plunk. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:30 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 9:40 p.m. PUBLIC HEARING: CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report regarding the request by the applicant, Hamburger Hamlet, to DR 93-2 and amend CUP No. 91-12 and Development Review for the CUP 91-12(1) purpose of constructing a restaurant with a lounge/bar and patio dining to be located at the Country Hills Towne Center, 2757 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. The hours of operation are from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve CUP No. 91-12(1), Development Review No. 93-2, Findings of Fact, and conditions listed within the attached resolution. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Paul Brockman, the President of Hamburger Hamlet which was established in 1950, stated that they are a casual "upscale" family restaurant serving moderately priced meals. About 75 more jobs will be created for the community. There will be excess of 2 to 3 million dollars of sales which will benefit the community in sales tax. Hamburger Hamlet will also be part of the community supporting sports teams and such. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, he stated the following: delivery usually occurs between 9:00 May 24, 1993 Page 11 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.; they normally do not have a security guard for their family restaurant; and though the kitchen will be closed at 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, they are asking to stay open till 2:00 a.m. to allow those who arrive at 11:55 p.m. enough time to eat. Sherrod Marshall, the architect for Hamburger Hamlet, expressed his concern for condition (i) and condition (j), as well as condition (1). CDD/DeStefano explained that condition (i) addresses staff's concern that the ten foot area in the rear of the building off of Diamond Bar Blvd., which is suitable for pedestrian loading and unloading is also suitable to support a vehicle. In conjunction with condition (i), condition (j) addresses staff's concern for vehicular parking requiring that the single door proposed at the rear of the building on the southerly side, currently proposed as a loading/unloading area only, should be moved to the westerly side. The two conditions run in tandem whereas if condition (i) is maintained, in terms of no vehicular access to that rear ten foot area, then condition (j) is not needed. ICE/Wentz stated that the Engineering Department was also concerned that delivery vehicles not attempt to pull into that area, and the area not be used for any type of additional overflow parking by cars. If condition (i) is modified to assure that there is no vehicular access or parking back there, the Engineering Department would concur that condition (j) could be eliminated Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that condition (i) be modified to prohibit utilizing the driveway located at the rear portion of pad X15 for vehicles. Sherrod Marshall then inquired if condition (1) could be modified to indicate that if there is less than 49 people in the room, and the room is part of a larger room, then a second means of egress is not needed. CDD/DeStefano suggested that condition (1) be modified to read, "Subject to the review and approval of the building official, the applicant shall provide...". Sherrod Marshall then explained that the trash area has been located facing the front of the building to be consistent with the rest of the center. May 24, 1993 Page 12 Also, the proposed location may be a more efficient location for the trash collectors as opposed to locating it around the corner. C/Grothe stated that he would prefer that the trash containers be located in the back of the building. Sherrod Marshall, noting that the staff report is inconsistent regarding the size of the building, clarified that the building is 7,000 square feet. Referring to condition (g), he then inquired how "amplified" is defined, and if there is a problem with Hamlet using a musak system in the outside patio and entrance for the pleasure of those waiting. VC/Meyer suggested that condition (g) be modified to indicate that it must be "in compliance with the City's Noise ordinance." Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if it would be a problem for the applicant if the Fountain Springs entrance into the Center was made to be an ingress only, as was conditioned upon approval of the SpeeDee Lube project. Bart Porter, Executive Vice President of the Wolff Company, the asset managers for Country Hills Towne Center, stated they are pleased that Hamlet Hamburger chose Diamond Bar as their future home. He stated that a traffic consultant has been hired to correct the problem of the driveway into the Center. When the plans have been completed, it will be presented before the Planning Commission. The plan actually adds about 7 or 8 parking spaces in the process. The entrance from Fountain Springs is currently an egress/ingress and will be changed to an ingress only, unless the City decides otherwise. Robert Gannon, residing at 2641 Rising Star Drive, stated that even though he likes Hamburger Hamlet, the proposed location in the Country Hills Towne Center is not suitable for the following reasons: there is not sufficient parking spaces in the entire Center; the residential neighborhood currently has trouble with the kids hanging around the center, they must deal with patrons of the restaurant that will over drink; Fountain Springs will most likely be used as an ingress/egress regardless how it is posted, particularly late at night; it is dangerous to have an establishment that serves alcohol in a center that is frequented by children; the northside of the Towne Center is May 24, 1993 Page 13 overdeveloped while the southside remains quiet and underdeveloped; a more benign type of business, such as medical, would be a better choice for that location because it requires very little parking and creates no noise or pollution; and there would have been more people present opposing the project if the property had been posted by ABC. Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, expressed the following concerns: there are not 1,000 parking spaces as indicated by the Center because many spaces, particularly behind the movie theater, are not utilized; many of the parking spaces are not even striped; many spaces are often blocked by delivery trucks; there are many carpoolers, who used to park at Fallowfield, now parking in the Alpha Beta area; the same conditions requested of the Speedee Lube project should be requested for this project that the ramp be made in only, that there be sidewalks in both sides, and that there be no truck traffic; what garbage company will be used by this project since there are already many garbage trucks arriving at various times early in the day disturbing residents; and has the applicant been made aware of the upstream contamination of hydrocarbons coming on to their property. Martha Bruske, a resident, inquired why the five minute time restriction is used only when citizens begin to express their concerns. She then expressed the following concerns regarding the proposed project: there is not adequate parking available; parking stalls should not be compact; the project is too close to a residential area; the noise will echo in the hills; and the entrance from Fountain Springs should remain 2 ways, especially if a signal at Fountain Springs/Diamond Bar Blvd. is installed. Pam Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, expressed the following concerns: having an open patio bar 200 yards from a residential street will generate a lot of noise; a bar and a lounge open until 2:00 a.m. is incompatible to a quiet residential neighborhood; and there are already too many spots to buy liquor within the Center. Steven Nice, residing at 2621 Rising Star, made the following comments: though it is a nice restaurant, it is inappropriately located in the middle of a residential neighborhood; a lounge is not consistent with the existing neighborhood; and the number of parking spaces is inadequate. May 24, 1993 Page 14 Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Chair/Flamenbaum summarized the following changes to the conditions as presented: delete condition (g) and require that the outdoor patio area to be in compliance with Chapter 2228; delete the statement "vehicular access" in condition (i) to "vehicles", deleting condition (j); and modify condition (1) to be "subject to the Building Official" VC/Meyer suggested that condition (e) be modified to indicate that there will be no deliveries between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. He then inquired if there are adequate enforcement measures in terms of the CUP to address problems that may occur so as to assure that these new businesses are operating as good neighbors. CDD/DeStefano stated that there is adequate safeguards with respect to existing City codes, the provisions of this CUP, as well as the requirements of the Alcohol Beverage Control Board. Ken Anderson pointed out that a security guard is not present at the theater in the evenings even though it is a requirement of the CUP. This Center is too close to a residential neighborhood, which has dramatically changed the nature of the neighborhood. Motion was made by VC/Meyer to approve the resolution for the CUP, amending condition (e), (g), (i), and, (1), and deleting condition (j) as indicated by staff and the Commission. The motion DIED for lack of a second. C/Grothe stated that the whole Center, based on square footage, is under parked due to shared uses. The parking spaces should be made to match the plans presented by the Center. He then stated that the list of the conditions to the Center, i.e. the pedestrian sidewalks, which were placed on the Speedee Lube project, should be placed on this project as well. Also, the Center should address sidewalks at the Diamond Bar Blvd. entrance in their modification of the major Center entrance. VC/Meyer noted that there may be a problem with sidewalks because of the steepness of the driveway. Perhaps those conditions should be addressed at the May 24, 1993 Page 15 time that the plans for the modification of the Diamond Bar entrance are presented to staff. Bart Porter stated that one of the issues being addressed is the steepness of the driveway and the ability to construct sidewalks. It is our intention to come back, perhaps in 30 days, to give a presentation before the Planning Commission. C/Plunk noted that there is a difference between patio dining which has a bar and an ordinary liquor establishment. She suggested the applicant consider moving closer to Alta Ski & Sport because there is more readily available parking in that area. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED to approve the Resolution for the CUP, amending condition (e), (g), (i), and, (1), and deleting condition (j), as indicated by staff and the Commission. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Li. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. CONTINUED CDD/DeStefano reported that the Planning Commission PUBLIC closed the public hearing, at the May 10, 1993 HEARINGS: meeting, for the Arciero and the RnP portion of the development, and directed staff to prepare South Pointe Resolutions of approval of the various project Master Plan EIR entitlements. The Planning Commission did not No. 92-1, State close the public hearing with respect to the Sasak Clearing House proposal. Staff, with the services of the following 92081040. DA consultant team, has put together the No's 92-1, 92-2, variety of documents for Planning Commission review 92-3; Vesting which is contained in the Commission's packet TT Map 32400, responding to a variety of questions and issues Vesting TT Map raised by the Commission at the last meeting: an 51407, TT Map additional CEQA finding of adverse environmental 51253; CUP 92-8 impact for the issue of oak tree removal; the & OTP 92-8; CUP Resource Management Plan has been added in various all the conditions dealing 91-5 & OTP 91-2; CUP 92-12; OTP documents, consolidating with that issue as directed by the Commission in 92-9 the conditions suggested for approval as well as the South Pointe Master Plan development standards; the development standards have been modified specific to the Commission's request, particularly dealing with the 5 and 10 foot sideyard areas; the provisions dealing with Larkstone through access May 24, 1993 Page 16 has been incorporated within the EIR document and the Master Plan document; and conditions appropriate to each tract have been added related to environmental resource recoveries categories. Both the series of Resolutions and the Development Agreements incorporate a variety of land transfers and commitments by all the different parties towards the successful completion of this project. The documents are substantially the same as, those received in May of 1993, and the specific changes have been identified in a red line or strike out format for ease in identification. It is recommended that the Commission take action to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400 (Arciero) and the Development Agreement for that project, and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 (RnP) and the Development Agreement for that project. The Sasak project has been evaluated further by the City Planning staff as directed by the Commission looking at an alternative that extended Shepherd Hills Road from it's existing terminus at Morning Sun. That proposal resulted in a substantial retaining wall that created some concerns for the City staff. Inasmuch as the new 21 lot design meets the minimum criteria for Enclave 1 of the proposed South Pointe Master Plan and both adjacent developers have agreed to the respective tract designs, staff recommends approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 as revised for 21 lots. A summary lot comparison is provided for evaluation. The Sasak project does not incorporate a development agreement. Therefore, an additional resolution has been provided for the Hillside Conditional Use Permit and the Oak Tree Removal Permit. Peter Lewendowski, the Director of Planning for Ultra Systems Engineers and Constructors Inc., located in Irvine, Ca., stated that they have been contracted by the City to prepare a detailed EIR for a mixed use project on a 171 acre site in the City of Diamond Bar. A draft EIR was prepared in compliance with California CEQA and the State CEQA guidelines, dated November, 1992, which analyzed the direct, indirect cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project. A Response to Comments document was prepared, dated February, 1993, in response to public and government agency comments received on that document, as well as questions raised by the Planning Commission. Subsequent to the publication of that document, a number of technical studies have been conducted in response to specific questions left unaddressed in the Response to Comments document. The following three May 24, 1993 Page 17 technical studies were prepared and included in a document entitled Response to Comments Technical Appendix: San Diego Horned Lizard Survey; a Focused Spring Time Plant Survey; and a Focused Mountain Lion Survey. These studies concluded that none of the species surveyed were evident on the project site, and no additional biological resources, other than oak trees, would be impacted by project development. The draft EIR, the Response to Comments document, and the Technical Appendix collectively constitute the Draft EIR. Both CEQA and the State CEQA guidelines require that the lead agency certify the EIR prior to taking action on the proposed project. Certification of the EIR is included as a component of the Resolutions presented before the Commission this evening. Hardy Strozier reported that staff has incorporated every recommendation, made by the Commission at the last meeting, to the Resolutions. He then identified the following specific changes made to the Resolution, which are relatively consistent throughout all the Resolutions: item 8.a., on page 6, should be amended to read, "The action proposed has been processed in accordance to the provisions of Ordinance 14 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar."; page 3, item 7.c., of the Vesting Tentative Map should be amended to indicate 1194 lot subdivision"; page 4, item g., should indicate "based on the size and shape"; page 4, item h., should strike the word "not" because all these projects do front upon a blue line stream; and page 3, of the Conditions of Approval for RnP, should add new item 11, under General Engineering Requirements, to read, "Adjustments to the designated lot lines of lot #57, #58, #59, #60, #64, #65, & #66 of tract 51407 (RnP) shall be recorded within six months of final map approval.". VC/Meyer, upon confirmation from DCA/Fox that this Vesting Tentative Map would be recorded first, followed by a lot line adjustment, suggested that such a condition would be better placed in the Development Agreement because there is no motivation to do a lot line adjustment after map recordation. Also, the lot line adjustment is a discretionary action, and such a condition is requiring that a decision be reached prior to the application being placed before the discretionary body. DCA/Fox explained that the map has to be in final form before it can be adjusted through a lot line May 24, 1993 Page 18 adjustment process. This map can be recorded as a condition on the recordation of the Vesting Map, as well as be placed in the Development Agreement. If the condition is approved, the Commission is making a decision ahead of time, however, all of the facts are presented to make such a decision. The map must be in a final form before the lot lines can be adjusted. The specifics of the lot line adjustments are probably not known at this time. ICE/Wentz stated that the process proposed by the DCA/Fox is feasible and is a typical approach to making an adjustment. However, if those specifics could be identified, then that would preclude us from making a lot line adjustment at a later date. VC/Meyer expressed his concern that the maps would be approved subject to being adjusted later with no guarantee to Sasak or RnP that it will be adjusted later. ICE/Wentz stated that it would be appropriate to approve the maps and establish the legal descriptions. Hardy Strozier, continuing with his report until the City Engineer can suggest some language addressing the concern regarding new condition #11, reviewed the following changes: page 3, Grading, item #11, should read "The applicant shall submit to the City Engineer the total cost estimate and post surety for bonding purposes of all grading and execute an agreement guaranteeing completion of all grading prior to approval of the final map."; item #37, on page 6, Streets, should read "...right-of- way improvements shall include but are not limited to undergrounding of existing overhead utilities"; add condition #53, on page 8, Streets. to read, "Through access to Larkstone Drive shall be provided with a future ability to close off the access if so desired by the City"; properly spell "Prior" in item #13, on page 12, of the Conditions; add a new condition on page 14, Applicable EIR Mitigation Measures, to read, "Applicant shall comply with the mitigation monitoring program to implement the required EIR mitigation measures."; strike item 10.k. on page 17, "Commercial site: provided adequate ventilation system for enclosed parking facilities" and reletter those conditions, and add a new condition 10.m. to read "The applicant for the commercial enclave shall develop and submit, for Community Development Director review and approval, a trip reduction program." May 24, 1993 Page 19 All the preceding changes should be repeated for the Arciero, RnP, and Sasak conditions of approval. Hardy Strozier then reviewed the changes made to the RnP Development Agreement: item 3, Term, on page 5 should properly indicate "no effective date"; item b., on page 11 and page 12, should properly indicate $50,000; item c. on page 12, should "indicate a one year guarantee"; and the full RnP address, which is 4439 Rodelia Drive, Claremont Ca., 91711, will be put on page 23. He then explained how the references to "findings" under each one of the topical headings are dealt with. Hardy Strozier then reviewed the changes made to Exhibit "C", the Master Plan: add, to page 5, item 3, that Larkstone Drive shall be a through street to new street "A" connecting Brea Canyon Road, and that the City reserves the right to close the Larkstone Drive through connection at "A" street in the future; change the front setbacks, on page 9, to indicate a minimum of 16 feet and an average of 18 feet; and a condition on page 12, item c.3, indicates that there can be a 15% grade with the City Engineer's approval, as indicated in condition #34, page 6, in the Arciero Tract conditions. Hardy Strozier then reviewed the changes made to the Arciero Resolution: strike the word "not" on page 4, item h.; the remaining changes are similar to the ones outlined previously for all Resolutions. He then reviewed the changes made to the Sasak Resolution: strike the word "not" on page 3, item h.; the remaining changes are similar to the ones outlined previously for all Resolutions. Hardy Strozier, in response to Chair/ Flamenbaum Is statement that the Commission had requested that the home's setback not be uniformed, explained that the way the condition is written, the concept of "averaging" is going to dictate how the Community Development Director reviews the plans during plan check. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the language in the condition be modified so that it meets the intent of the Planning Commission to assure that there is not a uniformed setback. C/Plunk inquired why the 1 year warrantee was changed from a three year warrantee as indicated on page 10.3 of the RnP Development Agreement. May 24, 1993 Page 20 CDD/DeStefano explained that it was felt by the negotiating team that the combination of requiring a $50,000 cash deposit, and the one year warrantee for improvements, plus further criteria within the Development Agreement that allows the City to deal with development improvements and warrantee for those improvements was more appropriate to deal with this issue than the normal three year requirement seen on a typical subdivision. The Commission concurred with staff's recommendation. Hardy Strozier suggested the language on page 10, double asterisk, of the Master Plan be amended to add the following statement to deal with the setback issue: "...,adjoining lots shall provide variable front yard setbacks of not less than 2 feet without prior consent of the Community Development Director" or add a statement, "..., average home setback shall be staggered and minimum setback shall be 18 feet, providing a variety of front yard setbacks to prevent a series of similar front yard setbacks." VC/Meyer expressed his concern that by setting a minimum development standard, you get a development that only meets your minimum development standard. Following discussion, the Commission concurred with the latter phrase, "...,average home setback shall be staggered and minimum setback shall be 18 feet, providing a variety of front yard setbacks to prevent a series of similar front yard setbacks." DCA/Fox then suggested the following language to address the lot line adjustment issue: "Adjustments to lot lines of lots designated by the City Engineer between Tract No. 51253 & No. 51407 shall be identified and described to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and shall be recorded within 6 months of final map approval." Motion was made by C/Plunk to continue the meeting to tomorrow night. The Motion DIED for lack of a second. The Commission concurred with the language as suggested by DCA/Fox. Jan Dabney, Jan Dabney & Associates, 671 Brea Canyon Road, representing RnP and Arciero, stated that Arciero is in agreement with the changes made to the Resolution. RnP is generally in agreement May 24, 1993 Page 21 with the changes made, but has concern with the language on the lot line adjustment. The owners would prefer to do a lot line adjustment for the four lots after the tentative map and prior to final approval. The language does not protect RnP if someone should die, nor does it indicate where the lot line adjustment ends. The language should indicate that RnP will do a lot line adjustment, Sasak will do a lot line adjustment which will effect lots #46, #47, #48, & #49 of the parent tract. The concern of the lot line adjustment is that since the Sasak Corporation does not have a development agreement, it has revoked all the protection that the development agreement would render to Mr. Forester and equally to Mr. Patel. DCA/Fox suggested the following language: "Adjustments to lot lines of lots mutually agreed upon by the City Engineer and applicants for Tract No. 51253 and No. 51407 shall be designated on each tentative tract map and shall be recorded on each final map." Jan Dabney stated that he is in concurrence with the language suggested by DCA/Fox. The Planning Commission also concurred with the suggested language. VC/Meyer inquired how the secondary access for the Arciero project will be provided. Jan Dabney stated that the current presentation on the Master Plan is to allow emergency secondary access to the commercial site. There will be a full street section that will be turf blocked or landscaped to discourage commercial traffic or cut through traffic coming through the Arciero tract. In addition to that specific access, Mr. Arciero is providing pedestrian access through a trail up to the South Pointe School. Mr. Arciero meets the County requirements for a tract this size, with this circulation pattern. The entire system allows you to get out to Brea Canyon Road. Hardy Strozier suggested that another sentence be added to condition #52, on page 7, Conditions of Approval under Streets, to read, "said access shall be improved across enclave 4 (the commercial site) to Brea Canyon Road until such time that enclave 4 is improved with its temporary access." The City Engineer concurred with the suggested language. VC/Meyer inquired if increasing the street section of street A, along the southerly portion of the May 24, 1993 Page 22 commercial site to include an 8 foot wide raised landscape median for that street would work under the grading plan proposed. Jan Dabney stated that the property is owned by the City and if the City desires to widen the road, it would not be a dramatic impact to us. However, if it is increased dramatically, then, because of the slope situation, the commercial is cut down and/or there won't be a perpendicular access to the street. However, we do not want street A to have any commercial traffic or connection to that commercial site whatsoever unless for emergency purposes. VC/Meyer inquired if Mr. Forester will participate in building a reasonable street intersection to connect to Shepherd Hills. Jan Dabney stated that since Sasak Corp. does not have a development agreement, there is no assurance from anyone that we will be protected. The only way to reduce the grade enough to help Mr. Budke with the design problems is for those 6 or 7 lots, on that piece of land, to have the sewers drain down that hill to Morning Sun. But there is no vehicle to allow us to guarantee that when we are ready to develop that access will be set aside and available to us. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED to recommend adoption of the Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR and approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 32400, as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. Grothe. None. None. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED to recommend adoption of the Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR and approval of the South Pointe Development Agreement for Arciero & Sons, as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. May 24, 1993 Page 23 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED to recommend adoption of the Resolution recommending that the City Council certify the EIR and approval of the South Pointe Development Agreement for RnP, as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. Grothe. None. None. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED to recommend adoption of the Resolution recommending that the City Council approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 51407 to develop a 94 lot subdivision consisting of 90 single family residential parcels, as amended. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. Grothe. None. None. Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe and FAILED to continue the matter to the next regularly scheduled meeting. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and Grothe. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. C/Plunk and C/Grothe departed the meeting at 12:20 a.m. Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 12:20 a.m. The meeting was reconvened at 12:30 a.m. CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report for Tentative Tract No. 51253, Oak Tree Permit and CUP for Hillside Development for the Sasak Corporation project. Staff was directed, at the last Planning Commission meeting, to look at an alternative May 24, 1993 Page 24 design dealing with the issue of bringing street A up from Shepherd Hills Road. Upon evaluation, it was determined that such a design would indicate a large retaining wall of about 20 feet in height at Shepherd Hills Road and Morning Sun Avenue. Staff determined that such a wall would not be appropriate, nor would some of the other alternatives reviewed in previous meetings. It is staff's recommendation that, inasmuch as the new 21 lot design meets the minimum criteria for Enclave 1 of the proposed South Pointe Master Plan and both adjacent developers have agreed to the respective tract designs, that the Commission review and recommend approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 as revised for 21 lots, as well as recommend approval for the Hillside CUP and the Oak Tree Removal Permit. James Budke, the Design Engineer representing Mr. Patel, stated that 2 or 3 other modifications, as recommended by the Commission, were reviewed with staff, but regardless of the layout, the large retaining wall would have to remain, which is not aesthetically pleasing nor effective from an engineering point of view. He reviewed the various problems associated with the design. There is no benefit or compelling reason to locate this intersection at Shepherd Hills Drive. The tentative map, designed with 21 lots, presented at the May 6, 1993 meeting, is the preferred design. VC/Meyer pointed out that the earlier project presented this evening had a similar design as this one, and that received staff's approval but this one is being recommended against. We have a responsibility to those people on the cul-de-sac to try to preserve the neighborhood as best as possible. The traffic will dump on Morning Sun. VC/Meyer concurred that the design presented is bad in terms of the improvements that would have to be made. However, it appears that the research has not been allowed to go far enough. The engineering analysis should have gone beyond the property boundary, to look where a series of retaining walls may be installed on the RnP project to lower some of the grades and reduce the impacts at the alignment. The Master Plan should have considered the impacts caused on the surrounding communities, and should have attempted to minimize them. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. May 24, 1993 Page 25 Barbara Beach Cushane, a resident, expressed her concern that the South Pointe Master Plan was heard last on the agenda, giving a perception that the citizens of this community come last. Agenda items should be taken in the order listed, barring a significant emergency. She stated that when changes are made to a proposal or project, a public hearing should be reopened to provide an opportunity to respond to the changes. She then pointed out that much effort has been made to protect the quality of life of those living on Morning Sun, and the same consideration should be given to all citizens of Diamond Bar. Elizabeth Hodges, residing at 1604 Morning Sun, stated that the following individuals have commented on the inadvisability of putting a street through to Morning Sun: Frank Menesees, a section head of the LA County Department of Regional Planning, commented in Chapter 5, page 8 in the EIR; Todd Chavers, Chairman of the Traffic Commission; John Beke, a member of the Traffic Commission; and Carl Blum, Assistant Deputy Director County of LA Department of Public Works, Planning Division. She stated that since Mr. Budke has pointed out how difficult it is to develop Mr. Patel's property, then perhaps it should not be developed. Don Schad read a variety of letters from 7th graders concern with the environment and with overdeveloping the community. Max Maxwell stated that he did receive a response from Mr. Beier stating that the statement made in the article regarding cougars was incorrect. Mr. Maxwell then stated that since there is no General Plan, then the item should be tabled. He inquired how the RnP property was changed from Building Restricted/Park to it's current classification. Chuck Bowler, residing on Morning Sun, suggested that if the plans were modified to tie the road in with the one with RnP, moving all the homes over so that there is back to back lots, the project would be more aesthetically pleasing. There should not be a double sided row of homes. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. VC/Meyer stated that though the project does not fit well, and does not seem to take into consideration other constraints of the site, it May 24, 1993 Page 26 will probably function. He then made the following comments: the condition of the $18,000 dollars of off site sidewalk area to be installed in the County should be in the recommended conditions; paying the minimum Quimby Act fees is not paying a fair share for burying the blue line stream, and tearing out all the Oak Tree; and additional assessment should be made that will be used directly for the improvements of the park site that will be provided on the RnP site. He then inquired if, at the end of this project, if the City will end up with a developed park site that is functional, or just a level pad. CDD/DeStefano stated that the City will have a graded active park site, plus a significant amount of revenue coming from the other two developers in term of their park improvement fees. The formula used for the Quimby Act fees is based upon the value of the property and other things. The fees will be in the range of about $1,500/DU. VC/Meyer suggested that another $3,500 dollars per lot be added for open space fees to be used directly for the improvement of the park. ICE/Wentz, in response to VC/Meyer Is inquiry if there is another design solution for that intersection, stated that, from an engineering point of view, the May 6, 1993 design is the most practical of the alternative designs presented. That particular design may also discourage some of the cut -through use being anticipated through that area. Other innovative things could also be done in the entire development area to help discourage the potential problem of cut -through traffic. CDD/DeStefano, in response to Chair/Flamenbaum, stated that, on the present proposal, there is a significant slope between lots #13 through #18 and the RnP property that may be an appropriate location to replant a majority of the series of oaks. Hardy Strozier pointed out that the Mitigation Monitoring Program can provide an opportunity to do off site mitigation for the Oak Trees. Motion was made by C/Li to deny the project. The Motion DIED for lack of a second. VC/Meyer stated that there has been a significant amount of opposition to the entire project itself, May 24, 1993 Page 27 and perhaps they should be allowed an opportunity to back up their commitment to total preservation. MPT/Papen has expressed some interest in putting a bond issue on the next election to generate the revenue to acquire open space, and perhaps the Commission should recommend that the Council entertain this option. Motion was made by VC/Meyer to recommend to the City Council to entertain the feasibility of putting a bond issue on the next election to purchase open space. DCA/Fox stated that it would be advisable that the Commission not take action on something not on the agenda. The Motion DIED for lack of a second. Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED to approve the Resolution for Tentative Tract Map No. 51253 for the 21 lot subdivision, as amended with the additional assessment of $3,500/DU for off site park developments, and the $1,800 dollars for off site sidewalks. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: V C/ M e y e r a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Li. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and Grothe. Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED to approve the Resolution on the Hillside Management Ordinance CUP and Oak Tree Removal Permit, as amended by staff. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: V C/ M e y e r a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Li. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk and Grothe. REORGANIZATION: Motion was made aCARR ED Chair/ seconded VC/Meyer table the matter to the next meeting. Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the matter of recommending to the City Council to float a bond May 24, 1993 Page 28 act for the purposes of purchasing open space within the City of Diamond Bar be placed on the next agenda. Chair/ Flamenbaum also requested that staff put on the agenda as soon as possible the proposed changes to the Towne Center Plaza entrance. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 1:40 a.m. Respectively, /s/ James DeStefano James DeStefano Secretary Attest: /s/ Bruce Flamenbaum Bruce Flamenbaum Chairman AGENDA NO. 7.5.2 6TTY 6V hnumh M MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSI JUNE 14, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by ALLEGIANCE: Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Plunk, Vice Chairman Meyer and Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner Li arrived at 8:05 p.m.. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: Chair/ Flamenbaum. requested the Minutes of May 24, 1993 be amended on page 27 to properly reflect Minutes of "noel' votes for C/Li, and on page 28 to indicate May 24, 1993 1:40 a.m. VC/Meyer requested an update to the request made at the last meeting to investigate the reclamation well at Country Towne Center. CDD/DeStefano reported that the item is being handled by the City Planning Department and the Building Department. He then reported that there was an appeal filed on the Hamburger Hamlet project, which will be before the City Council at their July 6, 1993 meeting. C/Plunk indicated that she will abstain from voting on the Minutes because she left prior to it's adjournment. Motion was made by Chair/Flamenbaum, seconded by VC/Meyer and CARRIED to approve the Minutes of May 24, 1993 as amended. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Plunk. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li. OLD BUSINESS: The Planning Commission held a public hearing for Resolution CUP 91-1 (1) on May 24, 1993. At it's conclusion, of Approval the Commission directed staff to amend the for CUP conditions of approval, prepare a Resolution of No. 91-8 (1) Approval, and bring the resolution back to the Commission at the next meeting. Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if it would be appropriate to request that the uniform security June 14, 1993 Page 2 guard condition be removed from the resolution because the intent was to assure that there was one uniformed security guard present at the center for both the billiard hall and the karoake studio. DCA/Fox stated since a public hearing was held allowing the public to respond to the conditions proposed, it would be more appropriate to include direction to staff to handle the issue of the security guard administratively, if the security guard is deemed unnecessary after a specified period of time, or to suggest to the applicant to reapply for a modification to remove that condition. C/Grothe stated the condition is written such that the Community Development Director does have the discretion to determine if having one licensed security guard for both the billiard hall and the karoake studio is sufficient to comply with the intent of the Commission's direction. DCA/Fox concurred. Motion was made by VC/Meyer and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to adopt Resolution of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 91-8 (1). AYES: COMMISSIONERS:'V C/ M e y e r a n d Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Plunk. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Li. The Motion tied 2-2-1. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that the matter be tabled until C/Li arrives to the meeting. The Commission concurred. NEW BUSINESS: CDD/DeStefano reported that the California Government Code Section requires the Planning Review of Commission to review public works projects proposed FY 93-94 CIP for the ensuing fiscal year and determine for conformity compliance with the City's General Plan prior to with the the adoption of the CIP Program by the City General Plan Council. The project list includes park improvements and a variety of street improvement projects, which will be funded as a result of this years budget and are anticipated to be completed by the end of FY 93-94. Staff has reviewed the CIP and finds the projects listed are consistent with Ordinance No. 4 as adopted by the City. It is recommended that the Commission adopt Resolution June 14, 1993 Page 3 No. 93 -XX recommending the City Council approve FY 93-94 CIP. C/Grothe stated, in his opinion, item #10, traffic control improvements at the intersection of Golden Springs at Golden Prados, is a low priority. The intersection of Goldrush at Diamond Bar Boulevard is in much more need of a signal. CDD/DeStefano clarified that the list presented is not intended to be a priority list. However, the Commission can prioritize the list if so desired. Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that item 03, sidewalk street improvement on Diamond Bar Boulevard from Golden Springs to Goldrush Drive, be given low priority. C/Plunk suggested that slurry sealing Diamond Bar Boulevard between Kiowa Crest to Mountain Laurel on the east side of the street be added to the list. CDD/DeStefano explained to Chair/Flamenbaum that the City is required by ADA to retrofit the parks. The ADA parks retrofit money, item #14, as well as the handicap access ramps, item 119, are being funded by CDBG funds. All of these projects listed are to be funded through other sources. Only about $100,000 dollars, of the total of about $2 million dollars, are coming out of the City's General Fund. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that item #16, City Park Signage Retrofit, should also be given a low priority. VC/Meyer, opposed to specifically prioritizing the list presented, suggested that the Resolution Finding of Fact simply indicate that the presented list is not a priority list and the Commission feels that some of these projects have more merit than others. The City Council will consider the priority of these items when debating the issue of design and construction specification. C/Grothe pointed out that the Commission is just to determine if the projects listed are consistent with Ordinance No. 4, and not the content of the list. Motion was made by C/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to find the projects listed to be consisted with Ordinance No. 4. June 14, 1993 Page 4 C/Plunk stated that the Commission should suggest to the Council that items 13 and 116 be given low priority, as well as suggest adding to the list a traffic control improvement at the intersection of Goldrush at Diamond Bar Boulevard, and slurry sealing Diamond Bar Boulevard between Kiowa Crest to Mountain Laurel on the eastern side of the street. VC/Meyer requested that item 4, page 2, of the Resolution, include the following language: "...California Government Code Section 65402, does not intend to represent or imply a priority list." He recommended a cover letter be written suggesting to the Council that items 13 and 116 be given low priority. The Commission concurred. Following discussion, CDD/DeStefano stated staff will also include in the cover letter that the Commission recommends that item 120, traffic control improvement at the intersection of Goldrush at Diamond Bar Boulevard, and item 121, slurry seal Diamond Bar Boulevard between Kiowa Crest to Mountain Laurel on the eastern side of the street, be added to the Capital Improvement Program. The Commission concurred. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by C/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adopt Resolution No. 93 - XX approving the FY 93-94 CIP, as amended, to include the cover letter as described. INFORMATIONAL CDD/DeStefano reviewed the following proposed ITEMS: substantial areas of change which reflect a significant difference to the 1992 General Plan: Status Report 1. a proposed substantial reduction in buildout on General Plan intensity throughout much of the developed single adoption process family area by reflecting the land use policy map allowing only development which currently exists in most of the single family area; 2. the need to increase and amplify policy definition, with respect to retention of existing deed restricted open space throughout the community, and to address how the City deals with the regional circulation system; 3. a goal to try to retain, revitalize, and promote viable commercial activity in the community; and 4. a regional by-pass located in the City's Tonner Canyon sphere of influence, but outside of the SEA. Furthermore, the land use map was revised eliminating the specific plan designation for the Tres Hermanos property, in which an agricultural designation is now being considered. Also, the land use map includes the specific location of the Diamond Ranch High School, June 14, 1993 Page 5 recognizing the current activity on that property. It is anticipated that the City Council will review the final document at their July 6, 1993 meeting, following a three week public review period after the last General Plan Revision Public Hearing of June 16, 1993. Chair/Flamenbaum requested that the document reflect the properly spelling of his name and Mike NEW BUSINESS: Goldenberg's name. Reorganization Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 7:55 p.m. was made by The meeting was reconvened at 8:06 p.m. OLD BUSINESS: With the arrival of C/Li, the Commission concurred and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY for VC/Meyer as to revisit the matter of considering a Resolution Consideration of Approval for Conditional Use Permit No. 91-8 of a Reso. of (1). Approval for CUP 91-8 (1) Motion was made by C/Li, seconded by VC/Meyer and AYES: CARRIED to adopt Resolution of Approval for Li, Grothe, Plunk, Conditional Use Permit No. 91-8 (1). AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, VC/Meyer, and Flamenbaum, and Meyer. Chair/Flamenbaum. NOES: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe and Plunk. None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. NEW BUSINESS: CDD/DeStefano accepted nominations for Chairman. Reorganization Nomination was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by of the C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY for VC/Meyer as Planning Chairman. Commission AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Grothe, Plunk, Flamenbaum, and Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. Chair/Meyer accepted nominations for Vice Chairman. Nomination was made by C/Li and seconded by C/Flamenbaum for C/Plunk as Vice Chairman. Nomination was made by Chair/Meyer and seconded by C/Flamenbaum for C/Grothe as Vice Chairman. The Commission voted upon the nomination for C/Plunk as Vice Chairman. June 14, 1993 Page 6 AYES: COMMISSIONERS: L i, P l u n k, a n d Flamenbaum. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Meyer. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. VC/Plunk was elected as Vice Chairman. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Flamenbaum reported that Brea is having an Open Space Task Force public forum on June 17, 1993 at 6:30 p.m. in their City Council Chambers if anyone is interested in attending. VC/Plunk requested staff to distribute the letter she wrote on open space to the other Planning Commissioners. CDD/DeStefano reviewed the status of the General Plan adoption process to C/Li. Chair/Meyer thanked the Commission for their support in electing him as chairman. He stated he would like to direct the Planning Commission into a proactive stance in developing policies which will help in the Commission's deliberation, and help staff in analyzing projects. He suggested that the following issues be reviewed: the Sign Ordinance; the establishment of development guidelines; develop policies allowing the Planning Commission to be in charge of it's agenda; the presentation or policy for the appeal of projects which come before the Planning Commission to the City Council; and the representation of this Planning Commission in the planning process of surrounding communities. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 8:25 p.m. Respectively, /s/ James DeStefano James DeStefano Secretary Attest: /s/ David Meyer David Meyer Chairman v=sx yr v=rrrsysia MINUTES OF THE PLANNING JUNE 28, 1993 AGENDA NO. 7.5.3 AMR COMMISSION CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:10 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: Chairman Meyer. ROLL CALL: Commissioners: Grothe, Li, Vice Chairman Plunk, and Chairman Meyer. Chairman Meyer arrived at 7:30 P.m.. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox (left meeting at 7:30 p.m.), Attorney Deborah Hackman, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Plunk requested the Minutes of June 14, 1993 be amended on page 6 to properly indicate "elect" Minutes of instead of "nominate". June 14, 1993 Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to approve the Minutes of June 14, 1993, as amended. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Motion was made by VC/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to move agenda item #3 to Planned Sign agenda item #2. Program No. 93-2 AP/Searcy presented the staff report regarding the application made by the applicant, Kirkelie Business Parks, LTD. V, for approval of a planned sign program for wall signs and freestanding monument signs for the commercial center, Colima Plaza, located on the northwest corner of Lemon Avenue and Golden Springs Drive. AP/Searcy then made the following revisions to the staff report: the term "pylon", on page 5, should be amended to indicate "all cabinets of monument signs shall be primered with one coat of finish paint with a minimum two coats of acrylic enamel", which would be the same for any center or monument sign; and all references to "pylon" signs will now be changed to monument signs. It is recommended that the Commission approve the Planned Sign Program, Findings of Fact, and conditions as listed within the attached resolution. Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened. Craig Kirkelie, representing the applicant, stated that they concur with all the conditions as recommended by staff. June 28, 1993 Page 2 Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing closed. Motion was made by VC/Plunk, seconded by C/Grothe and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adopt the resolution for Planned Sign Program No. 93-2. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Grothe, VC/Plunk, and Chair/Meyer. NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum. Referral of CDD/DeStefano reported that the City Council, 1993 General pursuant to the Government Code, has directed the Plan to the Planning Commission to review the significant Commission modifications being proposed within the March 1993 General Plan. Attorney Deborah Hackman, from the firm of Richards, Watsons and Gershaun, will assist as special counsel on the General Plan process. He then introduced the following members of the consultant team, retained by the City in March of 1993 to further develop the draft General Plan: Michael Jenkins, special legal counsel from the law firm of Richards, Watson, and Gershaun, who is not present; Daniel Isafano, of the firm Moore, Isofano, and Goldsmen, utilized to facilitate the public workshop process; Terry Austin, of the firm Austin, Faust, utilized to assist in the Circulation Element, who is not present; and Dale Beland, of the firm Cotton, Beland 'Associates, utilized for the development of the General Plan policy issues. Five community workshops have been held in April and May of 1993 to identify planning issues and to discuss a variety of General Plan policy options. An extensive out reach program was initiated - by the City in order to solicit the broadest base community input for the workshop program. The following key planning issues were identified during those workshops: the amount and type of future residential development; open space preservation; a reduction of traffic congestion; and a transportation corridor through Tonner Canyon. As a result of the workshops, public hearings have been utilized to suggest further revisions to the General Plan. To date, five public hearings have been conducted to discuss the General Plan. The City Council has reviewed a variety of workshop and public hearing comments to develop the specific policy recommendations framed in the 1993 draft General Plan. The 1993 General Plan incorporates all the State mandated requirements, specifically the seven mandatory elements. The document has been distributed to a June 28, 1993 Page 3 wide variety of people and is available for public review at City Hall, and the library, and can either be purchased or borrowed. The 1993 General Plan utilizes the 1992 General Plan as it's foundation. The changes, which respond to statements made within the referendum petition, and the community workshops, and public hearing comments are identified in strikeout and highlight form. This public hearing has been extensively noticed by publishing ads within the San Gabriel Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, in accordance with State Law. Staff also has noticed those within the General Plan mailing list. It is recommended that the Commission open the public hearing, receive the presentation and public testimony, and forward a report to the City Council recommending adoption. Dale Beland reviewed the following substantial significant changes to the General Plan: the amount and intensity of future development, including retail; the preservation of open space and policy for the sphere of influence (Tonner Canyon); the mitigation and reduction of regional traffic impacts on local streets; a vision statement in the Introduction; a proposed substantial reduction in buildout intensity throughout much of the developed single family area by reflecting the land use policy map to allow only that development which currently exists in most of the single family area; the need to increase and amplify policy definition, with respect to retention of existing deed restricted open space throughout the community; the direction to initiate a feasibility study for acquisition of open space lands and to explore all other techniques to achieve the basic goal maximizing the retention and maintenance of open space in the community; requiring the submission of a title report or other acceptable documentation of deed and map restriction; require a public hearing before any City action that would change those existing deed restrictions; the enhancement of recognition of the natural resources in SEA 115; and to proactively address how the City deals with the regional circulation system and reduce circulation impacts on local streets. Dale Beland recommended that the Commission review each element, beginning with the Land Use 'Element. In response to Chair/Meyer, Dale Beland stated that the draft document, at this point in the process, is substantially consistent with the direction given in the General Plan.guidelines in the State of California. June 28, 1993 Page 4 Deborah Hackman, in response to Chair/Meyer's inquiry, stated that internal consistency of the document is continually under review as the document unfolds. Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened. Don Schad, residing at 1824 Shaded Wood Road, recommended that the City allow a 90 day review period following the public hearings due to the size of the document. The document should also be available for weekend review. He suggested the utilization of a conservancy to assist in the preservation of the natural wilderness areas within the City. Also, the Tree Ordinance should be made part of the General Plan. Gary Neely, residing at 344 Canoe Cove Drive, clarifying his written statement, on page II -12, submitted to the Planning Commission, stated he would prefer a minimum of a specific plan of the undeveloped property, on the Tres Hermanos property, along with a dotted line demonstrating the reclaimed lake and the high school. C/Flamenbaum questioned the reasoning behind changing the designation Specific Plan/Agricultural, given the language that follows the terms. Dale Beland explained that the Council felt, given the uncertainty and the lack of any definite plans for development of that property, it is more appropriate to show it in the current plan as Agricultural with the intent of transitioning to a development at such time as there is specific plans. Additional work on the language may be needed in that paragraph. Oscar Law, residing at 21511 Pathfinder, expressed his concern that the reclaimed water lake proposed at Tres Hermanos may increase humidity. Max Maxwell, residing at 3211 Bent Twig Lane, concurred that the Tree Ordinance should be included in the General Plan. He then suggested that the homes proposed at Tres Hermanos be included on the Land Use Map. He stated that there is a lack of protection for Sandstone Canyon, Tonner Canyon, and upper Sycamore Canyon in the 1993 General Plan. Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 8:15 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 8:25 p.m. June 28, 1993 Page 5 Don Schad then made the following comments regarding the 1993 Draft General Plan: change the statement "additional growth could place" on page I-9, to "additional growth will place unacceptable limits on sensitive and scarce resources; change the word "enhance" to maintain the quality of life for its residents as indicated on page I-10; change from 1DU/AC on page I-11 to 5DU/AC; omit "where appropriate" in strategy 3.2.1, on page I-21; add "visual resources including Sandstone Canyon, and Upper Sycamore Canyon" on page III -2; add 1.1.4.a to strategy 1.1.4, on page III -10, inserting the Tree Ordinance; delete "where practical" from strategy 1.2.1, page III -11, and add "will provide"; add the statement "add tunnels, or whatever is necessary so wildlife can move freely without crossing roads" to strategy 1.2.2; add "after school, and volunteers, and conservancies" to strategy 1.2.3, on page III -11; delete the word "pursue" from strategy 1.2.4, on page III -11, and indicate "Preserve canyon areas in natural state"; include his 3 page recommendation submitted to the Parks and Recreation Commission to strategy 1.3.1 on page III -11; clarify the term "intenuation" in strategy 1.10.5, on page IV -11; indicate in strategy 1.10.1, page IV -12, that if existing noise level is less than standard, than it should be left alone; and remove "Tonner Canyon" from item 4, page V-3. Oscar Law suggested that strategy 1.3.9, page III - 12, be deleted. Don Schad thanked staff for their efforts in preparing the Tree Ordinance which was denied by the City Council. Chair/Meyer clarified that the City does have a Tree Ordinance, however, it is not one endorsed by Don Schad, nor the one that Don Schad would like in the General Plan. Hearing no further testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing closed. VC/Plunk stated that she would like a goal included in the document to develop a cohesive program that coordinates open space preservation with sustainable conservation and development goals. This can be done be setting criteria and a grading system looking at conservation. The Commission concurred to come back to that issue. June 28, 1993 Page 6 C/Grothe stated that he prefers having Tres Hermanos zoned Specific Plan because it indicates that the property will not be piece mealed. Dale Beland explained that the property owner has indicated their intent to ultimately develop something on Tres Hermanos, subject to careful review and approval by the City of Diamond Bar. With the exception of the high school site, there is no detail plan available for the entire property. The City Council has modified the classification name to Agricultural/ Specific Plan to reflect the true intent which is a transition in the short range to hold it agricultural yet expressing the long range intent to go towards a complete specific plan for the entire property. CDD/DeStefano, referring to the correspondence received by Diamond Bar from the City of Industry, included in the staff report, stated that the City of Industry has raised some concern regarding the Agricultural designation indicated in the 1993 draft General Plan. The City of Industry has suggested that the Planning Commission, and more specifically the City Council, give some strong consideration to labeling the property as Agricultural/Specific Plan. The Planning Commission concurred to recommend to the City Council to utilize the Agricultural/Specific Plan designation in the General Plan. Chair/Meyer, referring to Mr. Law's comment, inquired if the Commission wants any modification in the General Plan regarding the water feature. The Commission concurred to leave the water feature as is. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the cohesive plan, as suggested by VC/Plunk, might be appropriately placed in a strategy under Objective 1.2, on page III -10. C/Li stated that he does not agree with the concept expressed by VC/Plunk because another program will develop another level of bureaucracy. VC/Plunk stated that the value of the open space property can be determined by developing a check list of items that are important so those areas deserving protection are protected when there is development. June 28, 1993 Page 7 C/Flamenbaum pointed out that the overall goal of Resource Management is to provide and maintain adequate open spaces in the City, etc. The General Plan is to balance the needs between natural resources and the push to develop versus circulation. If VC/flunk's desire is to strengthen this overall policy, he stated he would support any specifics, but not another strategy or policy. Chair/Meyer concurred. C/Grothe stated that the City should encourage government to look at open space at a regional level and not look towards creating another program which could possibly create a gridlock. The Commission concurred that the General Plan does not need to create another policy. VC/Plunk suggested that page III -2 include the "gnatcatcher" in the list of endangered, protected, and sensitive species. C/Flamenbaum pointed out that the particular section is under Existing Conditions. CDD/DeStefano stated that adding the gnatcatcher to the list would not effect the process. The language could be changed to indicate "may contain", and add the gnat catcher as a possible resident of this area. The Commission concurred. VC/Plunk suggested that the top sentence on page III -8 be modified to read "this includes wildlife corridors with quality sustainable habitat to prevent isolation and loss" with "quality sustainable" meaning that it could regenerate itself. CDD/DeStefano stated that the term "quality" would need to be defined. The Commission concurred that the modification suggested is not appropriate. VC/Plunk inquired if the Commission is in concurrence with the suggestion made by Mr. Schad to add reference of the Tree Ordinance in strategy 1.1.4. The Planning Commission concurred that it is not appropriate to put the Tree Ordinance in the General Plan. The Tree Ordinance can be revisited at a future date. June 28, 1993 Page 8 VC/Plunk, referring to the suggestion made by Mr. Schad to amend strategy 1.2.4, on page III -11, to indicate preserving canyons in a natural state, suggested that the strategy be amended to keep the word "pursue" and add "enhancement" in case there are natural disasters, such as fire. C/Flamenbaum stated that "enhancement" and "natural state" are contradictory statements. The Commission concurred. C/Flamenbaum inquired if the Commission concurs with the suggestion made by Mr. Schad to delete "where practical", referring to wildlife linkages, in bullet two on page III -11, and add the issues of tunnels and/or corridors. VC/Plunk suggested that the words "as practical" be added instead. The Commission concurred. Chair/Meyer inquired if the Commission concurs with Mr. Schad's suggestion to add a funding mechanism to strategy 1.2.3, such as conservancy, in the General Plan. C/Flamenbaum suggested that strategy 1.2.3 be amended to indicate "in conjunction with civic organizations". He also suggested that a statement regarding "some wildlife corridor" in Tres Hermanos roads be added in the Circulation Element as a policy to protect wildlife. Chair/Meyer suggested the Commission now focus on major issues, as outlined by Dale Beland, rather than specific wording. Vision Statement Dale Beland stated that staff would appreciate any comment from the Commission on substantive problems with the way the components are identified. C/Flamenbaum suggested that the vision statement be amended to read "within and adjacent to SEA #15" instead of just "within". The Commission concurred. VC/Plunk suggested that the word "natural" be deleted from "natural hillsides". The Commission concurred. Land Use Element I-11 June 28, 1993 Page 9 Dale Beland stated that this section describes land use classifications. There is a change in meaning of the maximum permitted density in the low medium residential (REM) from 6DU/AC to 5DU/AC or existing density, whichever is greater. The Land Use Map reflects the land use policy change whereas substantial areas have been reclassified from RLM (6DU/AC) to RL (3DU/AC) which reflects existing development. In response to C/Flamenbaum, Dale Beland confirmed that the City would be required to notice all zone changes. C/Grothe stated that he would recommend to the City Council to leave all zoning of existing residential properties at its current zoning, as originally recommended by the Commission. Chair/Meyer indicated that, because this is one of the major issues of the referendum, this is an opportunity for the commission to reconsider our position. Deborah Hackman, in response to VC/Plunk, stated that this issue is a policy question that will have to be debated amongst the Commission. There are no legal implications whether the zoning designation is kept as is or if it is down zoned in this fashion. However, the zoning must be consistent with the General Plan. CDD/DeStefano advised the Commission to recommend classification of the property as the Commission believes the property should be classified for the ensuing 15 to 20 year time period of the General Plan. C/Flamenbaum stated that, though he believes that down zoning will create a great expense to the City, as well as create opposition to the zone changes, he will support such a down zoning since it is a strong issue of the supporters of the referendum. Oscar Law suggested that the City consider grandfathering in existing housing. The Commission debated if a grandfathering clause can actually be implemented. CDD/DeStefano indicated that there are economical ways to achieve the down zoning. Dale Beland, in response to VC/Plunk's inquiry if a statement "grandfather existing housing" can be June 28, 1993 Page 10 included, stated that the wording on page I-11 seems to be consistent with the intent expressed by the Commission, and a discussion of adding a term "grandfathering" is not appropriate for a General Plan text, but more appropriate in the Development Code. Following discussion the Commission concurred to support the down zoning. Land Having Significant Slopes - Page 1-11 C/Grothe pointed out that the Hillside Management Ordinance encompass the issues regarding grading, cut and fill, etc. The Commission concurred. Definition of Open Space - Page I-17 Dale Beland pointed out that Goal 2 on page I-19 covers the concerns expressed by VC/Plunk regarding sustainability and balance of land use, open space preservation, and conservation. This goal statement would provide additional support for strategies 1.5.4, 1.5.5, and 1.5.6 on page I-17. VC/Plunk suggested that strategy 1.4.7 on page I-16 be amended to delineate "active facility and open space preservation", rather than have just "recreational plan" because they are two separate items. Dale Beland suggested that the wording as being proposed would fit more appropriately in the next series of strategies 1.5 because the Objective 1.4 focuses on education, cultural recreation, etc.. The commission concurred. C/Flamenbaum inquired of the definition of "deed restriction", as indicated in strategy 1.5.3, as well as the definition of the term "undeveloped property". Both terms need to be more definitive since every property has some sort of "deed restriction" in regards to mineral rights and easements, and virtually every area in Diamond Bar has some form of building on it such as a fence, water pumps, power poles, etc. Deborah Hackman explained that apparently there are many properties in the City that contain deed restrictions to preserve open space, which was originally done for the benefit of the County. The City is now the beneficiary of those restrictions. June 28, 1993 Page 11 VC/Plunk suggested that open space lands be defined as vacant., deed restricted from development. She also pointed out that private recreational space was considered in the City's calculations for the open space totals. Dale Beland suggested that the second sentence, "Recreational facilities", in strategy 1.5.3, be deleted if desired by the Commission. Staff can then pursue the question of the definition of "deed restriction etc." Chair/Meyer inquired if State law defines the open space element. Dale Beland stated that there are no explicit guidelines on the substance of an open space element. Chair/Meyer pointed out that the General Plan should be as generic as the State law that implements it. C/Flamenbaum stated that, since the strategy specifically defines open space as vacant deed restricted land, the definition should be correct. He suggested the following verbiage for strategy 1.5.3: "Require a public hearing prior to any City action which would change the existing characteristic of open space land." Dale Beland explained that the General Plan law clearly states that an owner of a property must be able to read the adopted plan and understand the implications for his/her property. Following discussion, Dale Beland suggested the following wording for strategy 1.5.3: "Define open space lands as vacant, deed restricted, undeveloped properties which are to be retained for purposes of visual amenity, environmental resource protection, fire, slopes stability, hazard, abatement, and recreation. Recreational facilities, both active and passive, which incorporate undeveloped land, are included in this definition." C/Flamenbaum expressed his concern that though the wording of the strategy is improving, there is still not one piece of land that falls under that definition. Chair/Meyer recessed the meeting at 10:05 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 10:12 p.m. June 28, 1993 Page 12 Dale Beland recommended that strategy 1.5.4, on page I-17, which reads "Develop an open space program which will identify and acquire/preserve open space land...", be moved in lieu of strategy 1.5.3, amending the existing wording in strategy 1.5.3 to delete the first two sentences so that it reads "Require a public hearing prior to any City action..." The Commission concurred. SEA #15 - Page I-17 C/Grothe suggested that surrounding areas adjacent to the City's borders be included in the Map as well, as suggested by Mr. Neely. Dale Beland pointed out that Figure 3 on page 16 of the Introduction provides that information. In response to C/Flamenbaum, he concurred that it would be appropriate to put the SEA on the Land Use Map. The Commission concurred. C/Grothe, in regards to Figure 3 on page 16, clarified that the suggestion made refers to the Zoning Map because it is equally important to know the zoning of adjacent properties outside the City's borders when dealing with tract map applications. Regional Traffic Mitigation - Page V-6 Dale Beland pointed out that strategy 1.1.4, page V-6, explicitly states the intent to get involved in, participating in, regional planning. Furthermore, page V-12 contains a comprehensive definition of environmentally sensitive transportation corridor which responds to input received from a variety of people. C/Flamenbaum, referring to the Roadway Classification on page V-13, stated that he recalls that the Commission decided to classify Lemon Avenue as a major road because it is designated as a truck route north of Colima. He then inquired if this would imply that Grand Ave. would also bear the potential for being a truck route. Dale Beland explained that the column labeled Los Angeles County classification, in Table V-1, is a statement of prior existing facts that does not have any significant policy impact. Furthermore, there is a distinction between existing function and/or developed width versus master plan classification, which are not always the same. Also, it is important to establish the hierarchy of June 28, 1993 Page 13 Diamond Bar classification for the different roadways so that the City has the ability to tie assessable future funding to a particular road identified as a certain classification. C/Flamenbaum expressed his concern that the classifications do not seem to be consistent and need further review. Furthermore, Brea Canyon cut- off needs to be classified. Dale Beland stated that the traffic consultants will investigate the continuity issue of going from secondary to major, and vice versa, as one travels down a particular route. The Commission concurred. VC/Plunk suggested that the Issue Analysis on page V-2 be amended to read "To maintain or improve...". The Commission concurred. C/Grothe, referring to page V-3, expressed his concern that the statement "within the existing right-of-way", referring to Grand Ave., in the Issue Analysis, is both restrictive and contradictory since new developments are asked to donate additional right-of-way along Grand Ave. CDD/DeStefano pointed out that some of the measures indicated within section V on page V-3 incorporate optimizing signal coordination, providing acceleration and deceleration lanes, etc. The Commission concurred to leave the statement as is. C/Flamenbaum suggested that language be added to encourage or work with the State to get a 60/57 freeway northbound on ramp, or to remove Diamond Bar Blvd. from the States transportation corridor. He also suggested that language be added regarding the City's concern that the high school road should be constructed with the least impact possible to existing neighborhoods to avoid another Lemon Ave. situation to South Pointe Middle School. CDD/DeStefano suggested that the statement "minimize impact to existing residential neighborhoods" be added to strategy 2.2.2 on page V-7. The Commission concurred. VC/Plunk suggested that language be added to strategy 2.1.8 on page V-6 to connect the park system and to have more bicycle racks and drinking fountains, which would improve it's useability. June 28, 1993 Page 14 The Commission concurred that such a statement does not belong in the General Plan. Environmentally Sensitive Transportation Corridor CDD/DeStefano reported that the 1993 General Plan refers to two specific areas of major significant change with respect to the environmentally sensitive transportation corridor in regards to Tonner Canyon. Strategy 1.1.4 now reads "Proactively work with adjacent jurisdictions in the evaluation of a regional transportation linkage options through the easterly portion of the sphere of influence area which recognize and prioritize environmental sensitivity.", and it also refers back to a specific plan strategy within the Land Use Element. Furthermore, page V-11 begins to define specifically an environmentally sensitive corridor. C/Flamenbaum stated that he would like a policy encouraging San Bernardino Canyon to build a Soquel Canyon road, emphasizing it as a higher priority over this transportation corridor. CDD/DeStefano explained that because Soquel Canyon is so far out of the City's influence, it would be more appropriate to include strategies that refer to working with adjacent jurisdictions and agencies with respect to alternatives for Diamond Bar. He suggested the following language for new strategy 1.1.5 on page V-5: "Encourage San Bernardino and Orange Counties to fund and construct an environmentally sensitive road for Soquel Canyon." The Commission concurred. Chair/Meyer stated that the Commission has now completed discussing the major issues, and can review any minor issues of concern. VC/Plunk stated that she would prefer the Introduction included that the reason people moved to Diamond Bar was for it's proximity to job centers in Los Angeles, Orange, and San Bernardino Counties and not for it's historically low taxes. The Commission concurred. Deborah Hackman, in response to Chair/Meyer, confirmed that the Government Code provides that density bonuses be at least 25%. VC/Plunk suggested that strategy 1.3.4 on page I-14 specify encouraging home occupations are not consistent with a residential pattern. June 28, 1993 Page 15 CDD/DeStefano suggested that strategy 1.3.4 be amended to read, "Encourage the retention, rehabilitation, refurbishment and/or expansion of existing business establishments and residentially compatible home occupations." The Commission concurred. C/Flamenbaum inquired if the revised Housing Element has been approved. CDD/DeStefano stated that the comments on the existing Housing Element has been provided to the consultants who are now working on some minor word changes. VC/Plunk suggested that page VI -5 indicate that emergency service is inadequate in the City. She also suggested that page VI -9 indicate that the City needs to "implement our emergency plan" not "prepare" it since the City currently has one. The Commission concurred. C/Li reiterated his comments made during the study session regarding the formation of a professional lobby, by the City, for our transportation needs, and the fact that the proposed surcharge with MWD is now a reality. C/Flamenbaum stated that strategy 1.3.1, on page VI -5, regarding securing land for a High School, be deleted since it is outdated. Motion was made by C/Flamenbaum, seconded by C/Li and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to recommend that the City Council adopt the draft General Plan dated June 16, 1993 as recommended, with the inclusion of the comments made this evening. DR 93-1 & It is recommended that the Commission continue CUP 93-4 Development Review No. 93-1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 93-4 to the next meeting. Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing opened. Hearing no testimony, Chair/Meyer declared the Public Hearing closed and to be continued. Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by VC/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue Development Review No. 93-1 and Conditional Use Permit No. 93-4 to the meeting of July 12, 1993. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Li, Grothe, VC/Plunk, and Chair/Meyer. June 28, 1993 Page 16 NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None. ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum. ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS: Chair/Meyer presented C/Flamenbaum with a plaque in recognition of his dedicated service as the Presenting a Planning Commission chairman from April of 1992 to plaque to June of 1993, which is presented by the Planning C/Flamenbaum Commission and staff. ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/Li, seconded by VC/Plunk and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the meeting at 10:55 p.m. Respectively, /s/ James DeStefano James DeStefano Secretary Attest: /s/ David Meyer-- David eyer:David Meyer Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA NO. 7, AGENDA REPORT TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager REPORT DATE: July 12, 1993 MEETING DATE: July 20, 1993 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Bond Exoneration for Construction of Public Improvements on Tract 47722 (Diamond Knoll Lane) by Piennarini Homes. SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar desires to exonerate the a)labor and material and b)guarantee and warranty bonds posted for the construction of Diamond Knoll Lane street improvements, Sanitary Sewer P.C. No. DB -91-47722 and Storm Dram Improvements for Tract 47722. (See attached site map). RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the release of the bonds posted for the public improvements constructed on Tract 47722 located on Diamond Knoll mance Further, it is reeceoc mended las P the City Clerk notify Piermanm Homes and American Motorists action. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: -X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) Ordinances(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other:. Plot Plan and D P W ' isn-Off of Im�rovern nr� Crnrm Drain Maintenance Le+ter and L.A. w r A r SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed Yes _ No — by the City Attorney? Majority 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/ vote? — Yes — No 3. Has environmental impact been assessed. Yes -2L No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? — Which Commission? Yes _2L No 5. Are other departments affected by the report? — Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terre ce L. elangei eorge A. entz W Interim City Engineer City Manager CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. 7.6 AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: July 20, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager Bond Exoneration for Construction of Public Improvements on SUBJECT: Tract 47722 Diamond Knoll Lane) by Piermarini Homes. ISSUE STATEMENT: The City of Diamond Bar desires to exfoorrthe constructe the a) tion of Diamond Knolr and material l b)guarantee and warranty bonds posted f Lane street improvements, Sanitary Sewer P.C. No. DB -91-47722 and Storm Drain Improvements for Tract 47722 (See attached site map). RECOMMENDATION: public That the City Council approve the release of the bonds posted for the p improvements constructed on Tract he City Clerktnot notify Piermaed on rinin Homesoll and Further, it is recommended that Company of the City Council's action. American Motorists Insurance FINANCIAL SUMMARY: Tthe City's 1993-1994 budget. This action has no impact on BACKGROUND: The construction of the street on July 6, t on 1992. Diamond The construction of the completed and accepted by the Cityroved by the City sanitary sewer improvements P.C. No. os Angeles was app June 18, 1993 and transferred to Los Angeles County Consolidated by Diamond Bar Maintenance District Division by Resolution No. 93-31 adop Y for City Council on May 18, 1993. The Division accepted this sewer ved maintenance on February 23, 1993. The storm drain improvementseDiamond Bar by the City on July 1, 1992 and accepted for maintenance by the Country Estate Association on June 29, 1993. DISCUSSION: The following listed surety bonds need to be released: Tract No.: Bond No.: Surety Co.: Principal: Amount: Tract No.: Bond No.: Surety CO.: Principal: Amount: PREPARED BY: Anne M Garvey 47722 3SM 774 581 00 American Motorists Piermarini Homes $4,875.00 47722 3SM 774 580 00 American Motorists Piermarini Homes $32,500.00 Insurance Company Company Dec 91 14: 47 Poo .005 P .01 PIE�',N1HF. AGENDA NO. 7.6 prAN10ND BAR :OPLEY DRIVE, SUITI~ 100 .MONTH BAR, CA 91765 ± 6o -CITY 714860-2489 ADING INSp>rCTION CERTIFICATE 7-r2 U i ZZ — PERMIT NO. .IOS ADDRESS/TRi CONTRACTOR OWNER ✓a_ 11 ' following -- FKATION SOILS ENGINEER', _-- COMPatont aced on the lots were installed upon I certify that and compacted in compliance with requirements of and propexly pr."-' .rther certify that where the report or reports Of an Building Code }is site, have recommended the installation of buttress Builengineding Co e�elt ration measures, such earthwork construction has been tills or other _:nrQved design. Completed in accr.r LOT NOS. recommended allowable soil or compaction test data, $Qe Teport datec. : ;<-tions . bearing Values EXPAF$zVE SOILa BUTTRESS FILLS l Reg . NoDats ROUGH GRADING CERTIFICATION SUPERVISING GRto approximate R.DIN3u:�G� completion of rough grading.including� grading graded I Certify to the satisiac,,�f+1Ps located and staked; cut and fill slopes correctly final elevations, prole roved designs swales and terraces graded pads. for and located in accor!arce. Nith the approved rovided on th d/or soils aired drainage slopes P paving, berms in t ar,� reg i ne in such further certify r.hat t.ere report or Yeports of the recommen4' .`.• pre^�re:� relative to this site, ,•�:-� engineer have been r in the preseCution of_t.b.e. �� ,�>.;-;,f 'tom •;�• reports have been 1...;`' c'� ;•� �� , � 10. r/\ -- ___._'`' _ 1 � _ ., �. •.7iiA'; � '� � ` REMARKS I1J�nn _ t_,r''_.,• ,nc `Date (DI Reg. No. 3Z1 4 Enginee-r Cl�11 ,. SUPERVISING GRADING ENGINEER'S FINAL GRADING CERTIFICATION .9�r roe plans. Yadin in accordanceydpahciy irrig,a- I certify to the Satisfactory completion of g gslo a planting es Lte for drainage uired)l and adequate provisions have been All required drainage devices have been installed► P work tion syateRls P C)"'ided (where req site. The recommendations of the soils edginetheand/ of surface waters fwom each building or engineering geologist lit such persons Were employed) have been incorporate LOT NOS, REMARKS --- Date Reg. No. Engineer i' q 5 LANE 4 2 *" to CZ !2 ��2 Q4o4Co � t�t21V E+lVA,�' i �IOC�E SINE 12R R �p-r }10. 2r�pg<o 1NGEX Mai 2. Pc:n�s- )l-4-7-722; fV-.No.4'�2 GITY OF per. 0 t3A� enrasEp -A,t N_ 07- E_- SAY t�tUMR� tN CIfZCLE� IN QCATE PAG NUME3E-FZ� M.,4 As - AFF" CC STORM DRAINS Pre -Cont: Excavati..-r Laying P ip< Manholes. Catch Bas_.ne; Reinforci lg St Other Str-cture Final.— — other ........ REMARKS - ___ C MONDAY' , ATTACHED: PERMITS....... .. PLANS............... , REMARKS: ,.•TREETS • [ Pre -Contract.........[ ] Subgrade.............•( � 13ase............. ( curb and Gutter....... •[ ] sidewalk... o ......... Driveway Approach.....( Cross Gutter .......... l Other ................ [ ] UTILITIES Pre -Contract ....••••[ 1 Edison ...........::: Gas .............• ,[ GTE ...............•.[ Cable T.V...... Final............. .[ Other .............. TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SUBMITTED: PERMIT & PLANS ON 1 _ --, � ,_ ,�,��sZu iii tt_: i 1 (•7ta' > i 1 COPY TO ` .- i %_c l ,�ut�t7 INc� LIN67 ���utKlZ 1> GLvSr_l�, SIGNED: INSPECTO DATE' �o�.-r e V AN NORT GARY H.WE�nR ,•v_ -City Manager Counc. whf er JOHN A. FORBING JAY C. KIM PHYLLIS E. PAPEN DONALDC.A Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember CITY OF DIAMOND BAR USES RECYCLED PAPER [,A`.1, f (-_OPLEY DRIVE • SUIW d i �,1 SIN ;) 13 AR, CA 91765-4177 iQ-24};9 • FAX 714-861-3117 d -K i ,.• AGENDA NO. 7.6 � = 7'MENT _):F PUBLIC WORKS 4 FOR INSPECTION [FEST DATE PIAN CHECK NO TO PERMIT NO ATTENTI'=1 TION: OCA JOB LOCATION- FROM FROM 41 C13 TELEPHONE NO NAME OF��— -- OR CONTRr _ _- -- INING WALLS �SrContraCt GRADING •[ Pt -fa -contract........•.[ �......•:` Excavation......... Pre -Cont::- footing Excavation .•- Laying Pipe.........[ [ clearing lielnforring Steel ..... Manholes ..... •••••" 1)q Rough Gra= WaL1 Construction ...•. Air Pressure Test.. Sub Drair,a ;.muting .............•[ Balling.............[ Terrace ix Crainage..........-• .[ l Final .............. Final Gr.c Final ...............• [ I other...............[ Other... Other ...... ........... STORM DRAINS Pre -Cont: Excavati..-r Laying P ip< Manholes. Catch Bas_.ne; Reinforci lg St Other Str-cture Final.— — other ........ REMARKS - ___ C MONDAY' , ATTACHED: PERMITS....... .. PLANS............... , REMARKS: ,.•TREETS • [ Pre -Contract.........[ ] Subgrade.............•( � 13ase............. ( curb and Gutter....... •[ ] sidewalk... o ......... Driveway Approach.....( Cross Gutter .......... l Other ................ [ ] UTILITIES Pre -Contract ....••••[ 1 Edison ...........::: Gas .............• ,[ GTE ...............•.[ Cable T.V...... Final............. .[ Other .............. TUESDAY WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY SUBMITTED: PERMIT & PLANS ON 1 _ --, � ,_ ,�,��sZu iii tt_: i 1 (•7ta' > i 1 COPY TO ` .- i %_c l ,�ut�t7 INc� LIN67 ���utKlZ 1> GLvSr_l�, SIGNED: INSPECTO DATE' �o�.-r e V AN NORT GARY H.WE�nR ,•v_ -City Manager Counc. whf er JOHN A. FORBING JAY C. KIM PHYLLIS E. PAPEN DONALDC.A Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember CITY OF DIAMOND BAR USES RECYCLED PAPER OF LOg c" } iX x X C'4(IFORM�P f THOMAS A. TIM Febrt, Mr. Intev City 21660 Diamon Dear !° ACCEP TRACT CITY IDr This i (., - accepted Distri 1S ANGELES IUBLIC WORKS rtiT AVENUE R N I A 9 1803-1 33 1 458-5100 00 L77 91-47722) 4AWE ADDRESS ALL CORRESPONDENCE TO: P.O.BOX 1460 ALHAMBRA, CALIFORNIA 91802-1460 IN REPLY PLEASE REFER TO FILE: W-9 AGENDA NO. 7.6 ,-. the subject sanitary sewer has been ;y the Consolidated Sewer Maintenance please contact Mr. Norman Cortez at If you r: ( 818', Very tlt T. A. Director DEAN E STATHTC?'.- Assistant Del, uM ,Y' D rector Waterworks and Sewer Maintenance Division NC: pf W-9\SM5469 cc: Mr. Frank Piermarini r Nib", • 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765-4177 714-860-2489 • FAX 714-861-3117 AGENDA NO. 7.6 �rDEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS ,�••REQUEST FOR INSPECTION DATE pLAN CHECK NO TOPERMI T NOATTENTION: - JOB I,a•ATION: / 7 / FROM C �`� �1 TELEPHONE NO C2 ? NAME OF OWN -r (L OR CONTRACT :-'1_ -_- GRADING Clearing & G: ] Rough Grading Sub Drains... ) Terrace & Do. Final Gradinc. [ )/ Other....... ( STORM DRAINS -[ l -pre-Contrast [ ) Excavation... [ } Laying PiPe-.. [ ) Manholes••• [ ] Catch Basins. Reinforcing Other Structure' [ ] Final....... [ ] Other........ [ ] REMARKS= - - —/ MONDAY ATTACHED: PERMITS......... [ ] PLANS........... RETAINING WALLS Pre -Contract .......... [ ] Footing Excavation....[ ] Reinforcing Steel•••••[ Wall Construction •••••[ ] [ ] Grouting••••.......... [ ] Drainage•-•••••••:.•••[ l Final ............ ....[ ) Other ............. STREETS •[ ] Pre -Contract .......•:.[ } Subgrade........•:..} Base........... [ l Curb and Gutter ....... •[ ] sidewalk ....... ...• Driveway APProach..... � Cross Gutter ....... } Final .............•:..[ ] Other .............. DNESDAY TUESDAY THURSDAY SUBMITTED: PERMIT & PLANS ON -�T[�• COPY TO SEWER .[ ] Pre -Contract .......•[ ] Excavation ••••••••'•[ } Laying Pipe .... } Manholes......... Air Pressure Test ..•[ ] Balling ... " '•••[ ] Final ....... ........ ] Other ............. UTILITIES Pre -Contract .......•[ ) Edison ..... .•....... [ ] Gas .................[ ] GTE.................[ } Cable T•V........... J Final ...............[ ) Other .............. [ ] FRIDAY SIGNED: r �N ��' I SPECTORI DATE: Z-26-`tL DONALD C. NARDELLA G"y n. vrr.n,.�. City manager JAY C. Kim PHYLLIS E. PAPEN Councilmember 10HN A. FORBING r„ .,cilmember Councilmember June 29, - fond Bar ntry Estates ,ociation George Wen' City Engineer City of Dia nc>nd Bar Suite 190 11660 Copley Drive, Diamond Ba -i, Ca. , U ��-rrte -, � F- L LLQ ,.`;t✓, :I I,I 22615 Lazy Meadow Drive Diamond Bar California 91765 (909) 861-4114 Fax (909) 861-2968 AGENDA NO. 7.6 Dear Mr. Wesit.z: Bar Country Estates that the Diamond to maintain the storm This is t.o inform you number 47722► Association ag rees to take responsibility tract numb drain infrastructure for Diamond form Inoll Lane in in the City of Diamond Bar,California. give me a call. If you have any questions please do not hesitate to Sincerely, JIM GARDNER, General Manager DIAMOND BAR COUNTRY ESTATES ASSOCIATIO J(7,: S-0 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA NO. `7.7 AGENDA REPORT TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager PORT DATE: July 12, 1993 MEETING DATE: July 20, 1993 FROM: George A. Wentz, Interim City Engineer TITLE: Traffic Signal Construction at Pathfinder and Brea Canyon Road SUMMARY: The Pathfinder Road/Brea Canyon Road intersection has been identified and warranted for traffic signals. At this time, plans and specifications for the project have been prepared. il adopt attached Resolution to approve the RECOMMENDATION: Itis recommended Signal eConstruction atthat the City cPathfindereRoad and Brea Canyon Road and plans and specifications of the Traffic authoize the City Clerk to advertise the project for bids. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report X Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) — Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: Public Hearing Notification X Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's office) Other: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed — Yes X No by the City Attorney? ty or 4/5 vote? Majority 2. Does the report require a majori Yes X No 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? — X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? —Yes Which Commission? Yes X No 5. Are other departments affected by the report? — Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: "neeL.ger City Manager i Geotge A. Wentz Inte{ im City Engineer r CITY COUNCIL REYVR i AGENDA NO. 7.7 AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: July 20, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Traffic Signal Construction at Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Road ISSUE STATEMENT To construct a traffic signal of the intersection of Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Road. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to uction at approve the plans and specifications ea Canyon Rod and TrafficSignal the CC City Clerk to ons Pathfinder Road a advertise the project for bids. FINANCIAL SUMMARY The engineer's estimate for said project is $75,000, excluding any contingencies. The total allocated project budget is $160,000 of Gas Tax Fund. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION The Pathfinder Bridge Widening Project, currently under construction, is proposed to be completed by the end of the year. The improvements will eliminate the bottleneck and reduce the resultant congestion currently existing on the two-lane overcrossing. To provide a safe and effective traffic circulation during the construction phase, the City sigCouncil at ns for the meeting of April 21, 1992 approved the installation of 3-waystop the intersection of Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Road. In order to maintain the ability to effectively accommodate the future traffic circulation after the construction, the City has identified and conducted a warrant study for the construction of traffic signal improvements at the subject location. Plans and specifications for the project have been prepared. requirements placed upon the contractor includes: (14) calendar days Key aspects of ■ Plan and schedule to be submitted at least fourteen before start of work. ■ Traffic control plans. 1 Pathfinder Road/Brea Canyon Road July 20, 1993 Page Two ■ Notification to utility owners and other public agencies. ■ Completion of all work within eighty (80) calendar days. ■ Liquidated damages of $250/day for non-performance. All customary insurance and bonds have been included. The contract and bid documents have been prepared in cooperation with the City Attorney. Staff has prepared a tentative schedule for the various project activities. They are as follows: Plans and specifications to City Council July 20, 1993 for approval and authorize City Clerk to advertise for bids August 17, 1993 Bid opening September 7, 1993 Award of Contract September 8, 1993 Notice to Proceed/Procure November 8, 1993 Start of Construction December 10, 1993 Completion of Construction Prepared By: David G. Liu 7 AGENDA NO. 7.7 RESOLUTION NO. 93- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT PATHFINDER ROAD AND DIRECTING CANYON THE ROAD IN SAID CITY CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS- WHEREAS, IDAUTHORISING S D D WHEREAS, it is the intention of the City of Diamond Bar to construct certain improvements in the City of Diamond Bar; and . WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar has prepared plans and specifications for the construction of certain improvements; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the plans and specifications presented to the City of Diamond Bar be and are hereby approved as the specifications for Traffic Signal Construction at Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Road. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to advertise as required by law for the receipt of sealed bids or proposals for doing of the work specified in the aforesaid plans and specifications, which said advertisement shall be substantially in the following words and figures, to wit: "NOTICE INVITING SEALED BIDS OR PROPOSALS" Pursuant to a Resolution of the. City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, directing this notice, NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the said City of Diamond Bar will receive at the office of the City Clerk in the City Hall of Diamond Bar, on or before the hour of 10:00 A.M. on the 17th day of August, 1993, sealed bids or proposals for the Traffic Signal Construction at Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Road in said City. Bids will be opened and publicly read immediatey in the Diamond office of the City Clerk, Suite 100, 21660 E. Copley Drivel, Bar, California. Bids must be made on a form provided for the purpose, addressed to the City of Diamond Bar, California, marked, "Bid for Traffic Signal Construction at Pathfinder Road and Brea Canyon Road". PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the Contractor is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem ublic ges for work of a similar character in the localityinwhi hprevailing rate of the p work is performed, and not less than the general per diem wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations of the State tof California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, Suite 100, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, 91675-41771 and are available to any interested party on request. The Contracting Agency also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site. The Contractor shall forfeit, as penalty to the City of Diamond Bar, not more than fifty dollars ($50.00) for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed for each calendar day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman, or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing rate of wages herein before Ystipulated or by any any work done under the attached contract, by subcontractor under him, in violation of the provisions of said Labor Code. In accordance with the provisions of Section 1777.5 on c the Labor Code as amended by Chapter 971. Statutes of 1939 , and in accordance with the regulations renticesthe California may be employed in the esp Council, properly indentured app prosecution of the work. Attention is directed to the provisions in Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 of the Labor Code concerning the employment of apprentices by the Contractor or any subcontractor under him. Section 1777.5, as amended, requires the Contractor or subcontractor employing tradesmen in any apprenticeable occupation to apply to the joint apprenticeship committee nearest re ticesh f the public works project and which administers the a of royal. The program in that trade for a certificatrentices to journeymen certificate will also fix the ratio of app that will be used in the performance apprentices to journeymensuch cases shall not be less than one in to five except: A. When unemployment in the area of coverage by the joint apprenticeship committee has exceeded e the an average of 15 percent in the 90 days prior request for certificate, or B. When the number of apprentices in training in the area exceeds a ratio of one to five, or C. When the trade can show that it is 'replacing at lease 1/30 of its membership through apprenticeship training on an annual basis statewide or locally, or when the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. D. When the Contractor provides evidence that he employs registered apprentices on all of his contracts on an annual average of not less than one apprentice to eight journeymen. The Contractor is required to make contributionsto if he t established for the administration of apprenticeship programs employees registered apprentices or journeymen in any apprenticeable trade on such contracts and if other Contractors on the Public Works site are making such contributions. The Contractor and subcontractor under him shall comply with the requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 ntin the employment of apprentices. Information relative to apprenticeship obtained standards, wage schedules, and other requirements maythe from the Director of Industrial Rel .s o, California ex-offic or from Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, the Division of Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices. Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract and the Contractor and any subcontractor under him shall employ to do and be governed by the laws of the State of California having Chapter 1, with working hours as set forth in Division 2, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended. The Contractor shall forfeit, as a penalty to the City of Diamond Bar, twenty five dollars ($25.00)for each laborer, workman, or mechanic employed in the execution° the contract, bby hibefore any subcontractor under him, up an f y a work which said laborer, mentioned, for each calendar day during workman, ° mechanic violation of said Labor Code.° labor more than eight ( 8 ) hours Contractor agrees to pay travel and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining agreements filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8. The bidder must submit with his proposal cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bidder's bond, payable to the City of Diamond' Bar for an amount equal to at least ten percent (10%) of the amount of said bid as a guarantee that the bidder willenter r into the proposed contract if the same is awarded to him, in event of failure to enter into such contract said cash, cashier's check, certified check, or bond shall become the property of the City of Diamond Bar. If the City of Diamond Bar awards the contract to the next lowest bidder, the amount of the lowest bidder's security shall be applied by the City of Diamond Bar to the difference between the low bid and the second lowest of Diamond Bar to difference between the low bid and the second lowest bid, and the surplus, if any shall be returned to the lowest bidder. The amount of the bond to be given to secure a faithful performance of the contract for said work shall be one hundred percent (100) of the contract price thereof, and an additional bond in an amount equal to one hundred percent (100%) for the contract price for said work shall be given to secure the payment of claims for any materials or supplies furnished for the performance of the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, or any work or labor of any kind done thereon, and the Contractor will also be required to furnish a certificate that he carries compensation insurance covering his employees upon work to be done under contract which may be entered into between him and the said City of Diamond Bar for the construction of said work. No proposal will be considered from a Contractor who is not licensed as a Class A and/or C-10 contractor at time of bid in accordance with the provisions of the Contractor's License Law (California Business and Professions Code, Section 7000 et seq. ) and rules and regulations adopted pursuant thereto or to whom a proposal form has not been issued by the City of Diamond Bar. The work is to be done in accordance with the profiles, plans, and specifications of the City of Diamond Bar on file in the office of the City Clerk at the City Hall, Diamond Bar, California. Copies of the plans and specifications will be furnished upon application to the City of Diamond Bar and payment of $10.00, said $10.00 is nonrefundable. Upon written request by the bidder, copies of the plans and specifications will be mailed when said request is accompanied by payment stipulated above, together with an additional nonreimbursable payment of $5.00 to cover the cost of mailing charges and overhead. The successful bidder will be required to enter into a contract satisfactory to the City of Diamond Bar. In accordance with the requirements of Section 93 of the General Provisions, as set forth in the Plans and Specifications regarding the work contracted to be done by the Contractor, the Contractor may, upon the Contractor's request and at the Contractor's sole cost and expense, substitute authorized securities in lieu of monies withheld (performance retention). The Engineer's Estimate for this project is $75,000.000. The City of Diamond Bar, California, reserves the right to reject any and all bids. By order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California. Dated this day of , 1993. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of_, 1993. MAYOR ATTEST: CITY CLERK I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on day of , 1993, by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS - NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS - ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS - ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS - LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT 271 SOUTH BREA CANYON ROAD, WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91789 .t� HEP F J7SL AV Irli .A Nr vow - -)UE DETACH AND HEI URN THIS PORTION VVITH YOUR REMITTANCE IN THE ENCLOSED ENVELOPE --------------------------------------------------------------------- INFORMATION ABOUTYOUR KEEP THIS PORTION OF •• YOUR RECORDS (909) NOTE: PAYMENTS MAILED ON OR NEAR THE DATE ACCOUNT SERVICE ADDRESS SHOWN FOR BILL PREPARATION MAY NOT HAVE NUMBHR BEEN DEDUCTED FROM THE AMOUNT DUE. • • IAX, 10171"1"1111111 • ON weI WINr • OUR COSI TO PURCHASE WATER FROM OTHER REGULATQRY TOTAL UNIT MWD (1i' TVMWD (2)• FEES (3)* OUR DELIVERY COST COST IMPORTS: I WHOLESALER + + + _ G *(1) Metropolitan WO r [)I4rict of Southern California (2) Three Valleys Municipal Water District (Claremont) (3) Federal, State'& Local FROM TO I METER READINGS F DAYS OF WATER COST a C 1R IVT `ERVICE PERIOD SERVICE CURRENT PREVIOUS USED PER UNIT WATER COST -- - 7 -J - x = } NEXT SCHEDULE) SERVICE PERIOD�PSDREAO BABLE m — oDAIggLY AVERAGES UNITS THIS z AGE DAILY FROM TO RV ©EU PERIODIS I GALPER QDH1S UNITS I BASEST AR COST THiS PERIOD a BASF RA"! RESERVOIR CAPACITY CHARGE I WATER COSTS DUE FROM PREVIOUS BILLING TOTAL AMOUNT NOW DUE AND PAYABLE If payrnen: is not rec�� �I In add MPenalty :C7=: UNITS UNITSCONSERVATION _J MANDATORY Cff Your Conservation Goals is Now: ~ (ONE UNIT EQJALS 50 GALLONS OF WATER) �- VOLUNTARY THIS PERIOD NEXT PERIOD WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT • 271 SOUTH BREA CANYON ROAD • WALNUT, CALIFORNIA 91789 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: July 20, 1993 REPORT DATE: July 12, 1993 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: An appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12(1) and Development Review No. 93-2. SUMMARY: On June 3, 1993, Dr. Pamela and Kenneth P. Anderson filed an appeal in opposition of the May 24, 1993 Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Development Review which permits the construction of a 6,756 square foot, single story restaurant (Hamburger Hamlet) with a lounge/bar and patio dining. The appeal is based on issues involving hours of operation, sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, security, parking, driveway access, continued expansion of the shopping center, truck traffic, and the location of the restaurant within the existing retail shopping center identified as Country Hills Towne Center located at 2757 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision to approve the restaurant use. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report X Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) Agreement(s) X Other EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: None _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? X Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No Which Commission? PLANNING COMMISSION 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes_ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: BUILDING AND SAFETY, ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY- Terrence . Belanger Ymes DeStefano City Manager Community Develo ment Director MEETING DATE: TO: AGENDA NO. 8.1 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. July 20, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: City Manager SUBJECT: An appeal of the Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12(1) and Development Review No. 93-2. ISSUE STATEMENT: On June 3, 1993, Dr. Pamela and Kenneth Anderson filed an appeal in opposition of the May 24, 1993 Planning Commission approval of a Conditional Use Permit and a Development Review which permits the construction of a 6, 756 square foot, single story restaurant (Hamburger Hamlet) with a lounge/bar and patio dining. The appeal is based on issues involving hours of operation, sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages, security, parking, driveway access, continued expansion of the shopping center, truck traffic, and the location of the restaurant within the existing retail shopping center identified as Country Hills Towne Center located at 2757 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission decision to approve the restaurant use. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: N/A BACKGROUND: On June 3, 1993, the appellants, Dr. Pamela and Kenneth P. Anderson filed and appeal in opposition of the May 24, 1993 Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12 (1) and Development Review No. 93-2. On June 25, 1993, Mr. Anderson requested that the appeal hearing be continued until the July 20, 1993 City Council meeting due to the possibility that all Council member may not be present at the July 6, 1993 meeting. Hamburger Hamlet concurred with the continuation request. The proposed project site is located on a vacant pad of 15,999 square feet (Parcel 15 of Tract 18722) within an established retail shopping center identified as Country Hills Towne Center. The project site is located within the Restricted Business Zone (C-1). It has a Draft, 1993 General Plan land use designation of General Commercial. On May 24, 1993, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12(1) and Development Review No. 93-2. This approval permits the construction of a one story, "up -scale" family restaurant with a lounge/bar and patio dining of approximately 6,756 square feet with an occupancy of 248 1 persons. As presented in the Planning commission stmt repurt and conditioned in the Resolution of Approval (see attachments), the Hamburger Hamlet project complies with all City requirements and development standards. DISCUSSION: On July 1, 1993, staff met with Mr. Anderson to discuss issues which he feels warrant further community input. The following is a list along with staff's discussion concerning these issues. 1. Hours of operation: The Planning Commission approved hours of operation for Hamburger Hamlet from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and it a.m. to 2 a.m. Friday through Saturday. Mr. Anderson feels that because the restaurant is located within a retail shopping center which is adjacent to a residential area, hours of closing should be restricted to 10 p.m. Sunday through Thursday and midnight Friday and Saturday. Located within the shopping center is a movie theater with the last movie shown at approximately 10:30 p.m. The average movie is an hour and forty-five minutes to two hours in length. Therefore, patrons will be leaving the theater at about 12:30 p.m. Hamburger Hamlet intends to attract movie patrons after the last show. Staff contacted nine Hamburger Hamlets to compare hours of operation. A majority of the restaurants opened at li a.m. and close at 11 p.m. or midnight Sunday through Thursday. On Friday and Saturday, a majority opened at 11 a.m. and close at midnight. Although three restaurants closed at 1 a.m. and one restaurant closed at 2 a.m. Burger King, adjacent to the Hamburger Hamlet site, has hours of operation on the Sunday through Thursday from 7 a.m. to 11 p.m. and 7 a.m. to midnight Friday through Saturday. 2. Alcoholic Beverages: Dr. and Mr. Anderson are strongly opposed to the sale and on-site consumption of alcoholic beverages at Hamburger Hamlet (see attachment - correspondence dated June 3, 1993). The appellant feels that if alcoholic beverages should not be sold. If alcoholic beverages must be sold, it should be sold at dinner only and not after 9 p.m. The Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has been contacted by Hamburger Hamlet for a license. At this time, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control has reported a protest letter from Dr. Pamela Anderson concerning the issuance of a license mainly based on moral issues. But, the Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control does not anticipate denial of the license. of the Hamburger Hamlet restaurants contacted, all serve alcoholic beverages until closing. 3. Security: Appellant believes security personnel should be on duty throughout the shopping center after dusk and until all the businesses are closed for the evening. A condition of approval for the movie theater is that adequate 2 qualified personnel ne proviaea Dy Lue p=-L=itt== 1a. LL- areas from dusk through one-half hour after closing of the cinema to discourage loitering and littering and to encourage maximum usage of available parking facility by providing patron security. The property owner of Country Hills Towne Center provides security personnel as follows: Monday through Thursday - 2 p.m. to 9 P.M. - one guard; Friday and Saturday - 2 p.m. to 11 p.m. - one guard and 4 p.m. to 1 a.m. one guard. The Los Angeles County Sheriff Department has been contacted and does not anticipate any problems in conjunction with the Hamburger Hamlet restaurant at Country Hills Towne Center. 4. Driveway at Fountain Springs Road: Mr. Anderson maintains that the driveway for the shopping center located on Fountain Springs Road should be for ingress only and a sidewalk be installed for pedestrian access. The appellant would also like the driveway utilized for automobile access only and not truck access. On February 24, 1992, the Planning Commission approved the construction of a SpeeDee Lube and Tune facility adjacent to the Kirkorian Theater which is under construction. The conditions of approval included the installation of a sidewalk for the Fountain Springs Road driveway and designation of the driveway for ingress only. Fountain Spring Road is not a truck route and would not be utilized by truck traffic. As such, the driveway located at Fountain Springs would not be utilized for truck access. Also, the Hamburger Hamlet restaurant Planning Commission Resolution of Approval has a condition which states that deliveries shall not occur between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. thereby eliminating any noise that might occur from delivery trucks during evening and early morning hours. 5. Parking Signs: Mr. Anderson would like signs installed designating additional parking at the rear of the shopping center along with valet parking to insure that the parking of cars will be equally distributed throughout the center rather then at the easterly portion. Conditions of approval for the SpeeDee Lube and Tune facility included the installation of signs indicating additional parking located at the rear of the shopping center. 6. Patio Dining: Mr. Anderson would like the patio dining area of Hamburger Hamlet to be enclosed not only with the three foot wall as approved, but also with the addition of Plexiglas three to four feet in height upon the wall. As per Chapter 22.28, Section 0.70, G. of the County of Los Angeles Planning and Zoning Code, the outdoor patio dining was approved without amplified sound of music. A Plexiglas barrier is not required. In the Planning Commission Resolution of Approval a condition states that the applicant shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. 7. Relocate Hamburger Hamlet: Mr. Anderson believes that Hamburger 3 Hamlei .�hvaald b� ivcatca Y7GtKGeZ1 F-e.d i �� Qs e1 es=� --I shops) and Pad #19 (Alta Ski and Sport) thereby reducing the congestion at the northeasterly portion of the shopping center. Tract Map No 18722 has not been subdivided in such a manner as to provide for a parcel between Pad #17 and 119. The lease agreement for Alpha Beta requires a "view corridor" to exist between the two pads which Alpha Beta will not relinquish. Further more, the synergy of the shopping center is enhanced by the location of the restaurant in close proximity to the theater. 8. Adequate Parkinct: Mr. Anderson claims the parking in inadequate at Country Hills Towne Center to accommodated all the uses and Pad #14, located adjacent to Fountain Springs Road, should be utilized for parking. Pad #14 (at one time proposed for a Goodyear tire store) is a developable lot. If the property owner can meet all of the City requirements, it may be possible to develop the lot. A physical count indicates that there are 1,019 parking spaces within the shopping center. The required number of parking space for the existing uses, the vacant retail units, and the Hamburger Hamlet restaurant is 987. Therefore, according to the parking code, the number of parking spaces are adequate to accommodate the uses. 9. Future Expansion of Country Hills Towne Center: Mr. Anderson maintains further expansion of the shopping center should be prohibited. He feels further expansion will create traffic congestion and a shortage of parking spaces. Each project is reviewed on a case-by-case basis. If future projects comply with all City requirements then in place, it may be possible to expand the shopping center. 10. Parking Lot Repairs: Mr. Anderson feels the parking lot area needs repair, slurry sealing, and re -striping. Independent of the Hamburger Hamlet restaurant project, the property owner of Country Hills Towne Center is preparing a proposal for a redesign of the main entrance to the shopping center. When reviewing this proposal, staff will be considering the entire parking lot area and its need for repair. What every is required to improve the safety and appearance of the parking lot will become conditions of approval. The City's Engineering Department reviewed the Hamburger Hamlet restaurant project and did not require parking lot improvements. 11. Remediation: Mr. Anderson believes the contamination in the soil of a property locate at 2707 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard adjacent to Country Hills Towne Center has migrated to the Hamburger Hamlet restaurant site and remediation is necessary. Remediation equipment has been installed and was activated on July 9, 1993 at 2707 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. Soils studies are being undertaken for the Hamburger Hamlet site. Any remediation necessary for the Hamburger Hamlet site will be part of the construction of the restaurant and the responsibility of the 4 property owner of z1oy s. niamona Bar Conditions of approval imposed on the Hamburger Hamlet restaurant project are consistent with code and City policy. The use of a restaurant is appropriate for the site. Country Hills Towne Shopping Center can accommodate the existing uses and the Hamburger Hamlet restaurant. A traffic impact and parking demand study was completed in April 1987 for the proposal of the movie theater. It incorporated existing uses, future development, and 18,000 square feet of development for quality restaurants. At this time, there is 16,185 square feet of restaurant development (including Hamburger Hamlet) within the shopping center. The conclusion of the traffic impact and parking demand study stated that the parking is adequate for all operating demands throughout the year. It also concluded that the adjacent residential neighborhood is not going to be affected by adverse impacts. The City's Engineering Department did not require a traffic impact and parking demand study for the Hamburger Hamlet restaurant. CONCLUSION: The addition of a Hamburger Hamlet restaurant (instead of the previously considered KFC drive-thru restaurant) to Country Hills Towne Center is an excellent choice for the shopping center as well as for Pad #15. It expands the range of uses and enhances the synergy within the shopping center. This project allows for patrons to dine at an "up -scale" family restaurant and shop or patronize move theater within the City of Diamond Bar instead of in another city. The Planning Commission and staff recommend approval of the Hamburger Hamlet restaurant project. Attached is a detailed Planning Commission staff report. PREPARED BY: jfle� ��_ An J. L g , 6ning Technician Attachments: Planning Commission staff report dated May 24, 1993 Planning Commission Resolution No. 93-15 Minutes of May 24, 1993 Planning Commission meeting City Council Resolution Exhibit "A" - site plan, floor plan, and elevations dated May 24, 1993 Correspondence dated June 3, 1993 - appeal request Correspondence dated June 23, 1993 - from the appellant to Dept. of Alcoholic Beverage Control Correspondence dated June 25, 1993 - request to continue the appeal hearing 5 1952 1953 1954 1955 1956 1957 1958 1959 1960 1961 1962 1963 1964 1965 1966 1967 1968 fA 1969 1970 ami 1971 CA 1972 1973 1974 1975 1976 rt 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 Cost Per Acre Foot N N Cil O CT O f7� O O O O O O w w � O (T O O O O O L" - N N w w ? v v a, o Ul v u+ v 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Pertinent Facts Operations & Maintenance BUDGET Classification 1992/93 Source of Supply $159,058 Pumping Expense $704,585 Hydroelectric Expense $18,489 Transmission & Distribution $869,013 Consumer Service $662,678 General & Administrative $2,362,129 Fiscal Agent Fees $1,500 Badillo / Grand $0 Total O $ M Budget $4,777,452 PURCHASED WATER 21,241 Ac. Ft. @ $323.00 $6,860,843 21,662 Ac. Ft. @ $386.50 INCREASE 421 Acre Feet PERSONNEL Total Employees 54 RESULTS O & M Budget Reduced by $119,692 or 2.5% Purchased Water Rates Increased by $63.50 or 19.7% 1993/94 $154,769 $676,803 $20,367 $792,959 $654,000 $2,336,836 $1,500 $20,526 $4,657,760 w l r. pd m�e $8,372,363 $63.50 Cost per Acre Foot 499:_ .reuse Purchased Water Consumption Increased by 421 Ac. Ft. or 2% Personnel Reduced by 5 or 9.3% WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Domestic Water Charges (Commodity Rate) For 100 Cubic Feet of Water (750 Gallons) Current Charges (1992-93) Proposed Charges Effective August 1st WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Secondary Charges Reservoir Capacity Charge Current Charge (Bimonthly) Residential $6.00 Commercial $7.50 Industrial $10.00 �t • Average Bimonthly Water Use (Normal Household) 36 Units (100 Cubic Feet) of Water @ $1.15 (Old Rate) _ $41.40 36 Units (100 Cubic Feet) of Water @ $1.30 (New Rate) _ $46.80 I ncrease $5.40 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT Alternate Potable Water Sources Under Consideration Purchase and Blend High Nitrate Water From $118.00 Acre Foot Savings City of La Verne Purchase Treated Nitrate Water From City of Pomona Obtain Rising Water Credit From Upper San Gabriel Water District Initiate Conjunctive Use Program With Valencia Heights Water District $118.00 Acre Foot Savings $227.00 Acre Foot Savings $227.00 Acre Foot Savings Every $100.00 Reduction = 23¢ Savings on Each 100 Cubic Feet of Water Purchased by District Consumers City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report AGENDA NO. 8.1 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 5 REPORT DATE: May 13, 1993 MEETING DATE: May 24, 1993 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12 (1) and Development Review No. 93- 2 APPLICATION REQUEST: Conditional Use Permit No. 91- is a request to amend 12(1) Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12. Development Review No. 93-2 is a request to construct a restaurant with a lounge and patio dining. PROPERTY LOCATION: Country Hills Towne Center 2757 So. Diamond Bar Blvd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Hamburger Hamlet 14156 Magnolia Blvd. Sherman Oaks, CA 91243 PROPERTY OWNER: Landsing Pacific Fund 800 E1 Camino Real Menlo Park, CA 94025 BACKGROUND: The applicant, Hamburger Hamlet is requesting an amendment to a Conditional Use Permit and Development Review for the purpose of constructing a restaurant with a lounge and patio dining. The proposed project site is located on a vacant pad within a retail shopping center identified as Country Hills Towne Center at 2757 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. The retail center is approximately 17.7 acres with approximately 174,187 square feet devoted to structures, 161,821 square feet is devoted to active and passive open space, and 434,568 square feet devoted to parking areas. The project pad is 7,030 square 1 feet. The project lot (Parcel 15 of Tract 18722) is 15,999 square feet. The project site is located within the Restricted Business Zone (C-1). It has a Draft General Plan Land Use Designation of General Commercial (C). Generally, the following zones surround the site: to the north and west is the Single Family Residential Zone -minimum lot size 7,500 square feet (R-1-7,500); to the south is the Residential Planned Development Zone -15 units per acre (RPD -15U); to the east is Single Family Residential Zone -minimum lot size 20,000 square feet (R-1-20,000). APPLICATION ANALYSIS: CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT: On February 24, 1992, the Planning Commission approved Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12 which allowed two uses for Pad 115 which is 15,999 square feet. One use would be a drive-thru restaurant of 3,855 square feet. The other use would be retail shops of 3,050 square feet. The remainder of the pad area would be dedicated to landscaping and parking. Consequently, an amendment to the approval is required in order to construct a restaurant with a lounge and patio dining. The applicant is proposing to construct an "up -scale" family restaurant identified as Hamburger Hamlet. The proposed restaurant is permitted within the zone by right. DEVELOPMENT REVIEW: The proposed restaurant structure is 6,756 square feet. The assemble areas will contain 248 seats with a bar/lounge without entertainment and a patio adjacent to the main entrance for outdoor dining. The remain areas of the structure will be devoted to storage, food preparation/ cooking, restrooms, dressing area for employees, and office. Electrical and water equipment will be housed on the south side of the structure with exterior access. The architectural style of the restaurant structure is "Neo-classic". It is typical for all Hamburger Hamlet restaurants. Although it is not the same architectural style as the shopping center, the restaurant does not detract from the theme of the shopping center. The uniqueness of the architectural style of the restaurant will enhance the appearance of the shopping center. The main entrance which faces north will have doors constructed from cherry mahogany hardwood and glass with brass trim. Exterior of the structure will be tan and dusty peach colored plaster. Awnings will be utilized above most of the windows. The awnings will be constructed of dark green canvas and white lettering which will identify the restaurant and its services. Ambient lighting will consist of awning lights in dark green, exterior wall lights at the main entrance in antique bronze/brass, and two pole lights on each side of the walk -way leading to the entrance. The walk -way leading to the main entrance will be constructed from non -slip tile pavers in beige. The following is a comparison of required development standards and the proposed development standards for the restaurant structure. Required Development Standards 1. Setbacks: front/corner - 20 ft. where property adjoins a parkway, major or secondary highway; 2. Parking: adjacent to a street - 5 ft.; - Proposed Development Standards front/corner - 26 ft.; n/a; 3. Height: two stories 24 ft. 3 in.; 4. Parking requirements: 1 space occupant - 255 = 85 parking per 3 occupants; spaces; 5. Landscaping: minimum 10% per 3,400 sq.ft. (10% = 1,600 lot or parcel; sq. ft.); The proposed project complies with all development standard required by code. The outdoor patio dining is permitted by code (Chapter 22.28, Section 070.G.) within the C-1 zone. This section of code requires additional development standards such as: 1. No amplified sound of music; 2. Lighting shall be so arranged as to prevent glare, or direct illumination in any residential zone; 3. A 42 inch high wall, fence, hedge, or five foot landscaped are shall be established along the outside eating area which adjoins any public sidewalk, street or highway except where tables and chairs are removed daily. The applicant complies with these development standards. The outdoor patio area will seat 36 patrons. The patio will be enclosed by a 36 inch high wall which will be plastered to match the restaurant structure. There will be a six foot wide landscape area surrounding the patio. Hours of operation for the proposed restaurant are Sunday through Thursday from 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. and Friday through Saturday 11 a.m. to 2 a.m. There will be approximately 40 employees with two work shifts. Twenty to twenty-five employees per shift. Delivery access will be on the south side of the restaurant structure. Deliveries will occur in the morning when the restaurant is closed. Therefore, deliveries will not interfere with the daily operation of the restaurant. Approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 87-002 (1) for the existing theater within the shopping center required 1,057 parking spaces for the entire shopping center. According to plans submitted for this project, the retail shopping center provides 1,053 parking spaces. The required number of parking spaces for the existing uses is 987. Including the existing uses, the vacant retail units, and the proposed restaurant, the provided parking is adequate. 3 8.1 South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) requires the applicant to obtain permits for the control of emissions from broilers utilized in connection with a restaurant. Before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy, the applicant will be required to obtain all permits required by AQMD. There are two trash enclosure - existing and proposed for this project. The proposed trash enclosure will be located adjacent to the existing retaining wall in the rear portion of the pad. The applicant will be required to provide a recycling bin. The proposed trash enclosure will contain two bins. One of the bins could be use for recycling. Also, the opening of the proposed trash enclosure will need to be rotated to face east for aesthetic reasons. The existing trash enclosure is located adjacent to the east property line. The proposed project has been reviewed by the Engineering Department. The following are Engineering concerns: 1. The proposed patio dining area over an existing 16 foot easement. The easement is ut. In order to construct any easement, the applicant will with verification that Edison within the easement. and sidewalk is being constructed aide Southern California Edison ilized for underground cables. permanent structures within the be required to provide the City will permit permanent structures 2. The 10 foot width of asphalt concrete paving driveway access on the south-east side of the restaurant appears inadequate for truck deliveries. Since the drive -way access is inadequate, the applicant will not be able to utilize the drive -way. The applicant will be required to relocate the door at the south side of the restaurant structure to the west side of the restaurant structure for the purpose of receiving deliveries. The Building and Safety Department has reviewed the proposed project. The following are Building and Safety concerns: 1. The proposed restaurant structure is required to comply with the State handicapped and American Disabilities Act requirements. 2. The proposed restaurant structure is required to be designed for a minimum wind pressure of 80 m.p.h. and exposure "C". 3. A second exit is required from the lounge area. NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARING: This item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Tribune on April 28, 1993. Notices were mailed to approximately 92 property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site on April 27, 1993. 4 8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because mitigation measures were incorporated into the proposed project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12(1), Development Review 93-2, Findings of Fact, and conditions listed within the attached resolution. Prepared by: /�'oot-z; 7n J. u , P nning Technician Attachments: Draft Resolution Application Initial Study Environmental Checklist Mitigated Negative Declaration Exhibit "A" dated May 24, 1993 - conceptual landscape plan Correspondence from the County April 29, 1993 Site Plan, floor plan, elevations, and of Los Angeles Fire Department dated Correspondence from the Wolff Company dated May 14, 1993 5 A. AGENDA NO. 8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 93-%B A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-12(1), AN APPLICATION AMENDING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-12 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 93-2, AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A RESTAURANT WITH A LOUNGE AND PATIO DINING, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 93-6 LOCATE AT 2757 SO. DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD WITHIN THE COUNTRY HILLS TOWNE CENTER (PAD #15, LOT 15 OF TRACT No. 18722). Recitals 1. Hamburger Hamlet has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12(1) amending Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12 to permit a restaurant with a lounge and patio dining on a developable pad that was previous approved for a drive-thru restaurant and retail shops and Development Review No. 93-2 for construct of the restaurant on Pad #15, Lot 15 of Tract No. 18722 located 2757 So. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution. The subject Conditional Use Permit and Development Review is referred to as "Application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No.4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. 1 8.1 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on May 24, 1993 conducted a duly noticed public meeting on said Application. 5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on April 28, 1993. Ninety-two property owners with in a 500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on April 27, 1993. 6. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu- tion have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 93-6 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1070, as amended, and the guideline promulgated thereunder, and further, this Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based thereon, further specifically finds and determines that, based upon the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project as proposed by the Application, and Conditioned for approval herein, will. have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before this Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the Applicant shall pay all fees required for the filing of a Notice of Determination and any other fees imposed by the 2 8.1 California Department of Fish and Game prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission, in conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a parcel of 15,999 square feet with a developable pad of 7.030 square feet within an existing retail shopping center of approximately 17.7 acres identified as Country Hills Towne Center located at 2757 So. Diamond Bar Boulevard, City of Diamond Bar, California 91765. The project site is locate within the Restricted Business Zone (C-1) with a draft General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial (C). (b) Generally, the proposed project is surrounded by the following zones; to the north and west is the Single Family Residential Zone -minimum lot size 7,500 square feet (R-1_7,500); to the south is the Residential Planned Development Zone -15 units per acre (RPD -15U); to the east is Single Family Residential Zone -minimum lot size 20,000 square feet (R-1-20,000). (c) In accordance with the procedures set forth in Ordinance No. 4 (1992), substantial evidence exists, considering the record as a whole, to determine that the project, as proposed and conditioned herein, will not be detrimental to or interfere with the General Plan adopted or under consideration by the City. (d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered. The site is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed development. Conditional Use Permit: (e) Pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992), the proposed project will not be in substantial conflict with the policies of General Plan adopted or under consideration by the City. (f) The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. (g) The proposed project will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of 3 8.1 property of other persons located in the vicinity of the subject site. (h) The proposed project will not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to public health, safety or general welfare. (i) The proposed project site is adequately served by Diamond Bar Boulevard. Development Review (j) The design and lay out of the proposed project is consistent with the applicable elements of the General Plan, adopted or under consideration by the City and pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992), design guidelines of the appropriate district, and any adopted architectural criteria for specialized area, such as designated historic districts, theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments. (k) The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments,and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. (1) The architectural design of the proposed project is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990). (m) The design of the proposed project would provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic used of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing and will retain a reasonably adequate level of maintenance. (n) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4, above, the Planning 4 8.1 Commission, hereby approves this application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to the site plan, floor plan, elevations, and landscape plan labeled collectively as Exhibit "A" dated May 24, 1993 as submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. (b) The subject site 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 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. (c) Applicant shall provide an enclosed recycling bin. Within 60 days of approval of this grant, the Applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval a revised site indicating the location of the recycling bin. (d) The hours of operation for the restaurant shall be Sunday through Thursday 11 a.m. to it p.m. and Friday through Saturday 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. (e) Deliveries shall occur in the morning when the restaurant is closed for business. (f) Applicant shall provide verification in writing from Southern California Edison Company permitting construction of permanent structures within the Edison easement prior to the issuance of a building permit. (g) No amplified music shall be permitted within the patio dining area. (h) Applicant shall obtain all required permits from South Coast Air Quality Management District before the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from the City. 5 8.1 (i) Applicant shall be prohibited from utilizing the drive -way located in the rear portion of Pad 115 for vehicular access. (j) Applicant shall relocate the door at the south side of the restaurant structure to the west side of the restaurant. Within 60 days of approval of this resolution, the Applicant shall submit a revised a revised plan indicating the relocation of the door for review and approval by the City. (k) Applicant shall comply with the State handicapped and American Disabilities Act requirements. (1) Applicant shall provide a second exit from the lounge area. Within 60 days of approval of this resolution, the Applicant shall submit a revised site for review and approval by the City. (m) Applicant shall comply with all Planning, Zoning, Engineering, and Building and Safety requirements. (n) Applicant shall comply with any subsequent adopted Planned Sign Program for the retail shopping center. (o) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (p) The subject property shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulations applicable to any development or activity of the subject properties. (q) This grant shall be valid for one year and must be exercised (i.e. substantial construction including but not limited to grading, footings, foundations etc.) 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 of this grant. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: 8.1 (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to: Hamburger Hamlet, 14156 Magnolia Blvd., Sherman Oaks, CA 91243. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 1993, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of May, 1993, by the following vote: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:] ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:] ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary 7 8.1 MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION No. 93-6 April 28, 1993 Case Number: Conditional Use Permit No. 9112(1), Development Review No. 93-2 Applicant: Hamburger Hamlet 14156 Magnolia Blvd. Sherman Oaks, CA 91423 Proposal: Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12(1) is a request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12 which permits two uses, within an existing retail shopping center, on Pad #15 - a drive-thru restaurant and general retail shops to a restaurant use only. Development Review No. 93-2 is a request to construct a one story structure to be utilized as a restaurant (Hamburger Hamlet) with a lounge and patio dining in an existing retail shopping center. Location: Country Hills Towne Center 2757 So. Diamond Bar Blvd Diamond Bar, CA 91965 Environmental Findings: The proposed project, as determined in the City of Diamond Bar, could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on herein have been incorporated into the proposed project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared. II. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation: Mitigated Negative Declaration Explanation to supplement "Yes" and "Possible" answers aiven in the Initial Study. Environmental Impacts: 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: 8.1 a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? Possibly. b. The creation of objectional odors? Possibly. Explanation: The broilers are utilized for cooking with an exhaust system that emits fumes into the air. mitigation: Mitigation measures shall be based on requirements set forth by South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) which includes precipitators and scrubbers. The required permits shall be obtained from SCAQMD and shall be a condition of approval. 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? Possibly. Explanation: The proposed lighting will exterior light consist f xtures and voltage landscape lighting, two freestanding light fixtures. mitigation: The landscape lighting is low voltage and shielded to control glare. light gfixtures glare and prow de 1 ghtfor walk -way s tocontrol areas. SHERkQD HARSHALL AIR TCL:1-213-655-8013 Apr 22 93 17:15 NO -010 P.041 cM OF DIAMOND BAR CM# ae» 4 j--Lh-L! Yi$pAR� �' �'• � *T1111iaD Ret:vtt� ..��, ., $. � 21460 B. Caplay Drive Suitt 190- (714)3W616 Pax (714)861-3117 � Pt CommNAL USE Pyr APMCAUON tY - Rward 6w4wl) Applklust Appl wt's Agent i+anPacific dg Hamburger 114mlet Sherrod Marshall (LNtR� Addrest-0 �1 Camino Roa►1 �d7sd M�.e„r,�ia at�.d._. 842 W. Thjrd Bta-208 city A:Q park. �� Sherman Oaks CA Los Angeles, CA tip 94015 ., 1)42AA-_ - 90048 phcm of ) (Ba- 295-7311__-,^.___. (213 - (Attach separato whaot it neesseary# SAoludii►o oamat Rddreasaa, And sipnnturer eR movAmrr 09,p4&tnirehipr, juint vsnturaa, and directors of oorporr 068) CdHJ<Jtxst Z raA he sloe o! LJta Applloation *company thsr request _ , -_ _, _ Dale ✓r �_ �� Certification; _, td,a uoderMtO0na�rsby certify under ponalbrr of parjury that the I.nfvr-wt;lon A0rvjA previ.Z As VOrr10t to tht beat o MY 7ienovlld0o• printed )la►aes Sharrod XarsUll SigllOd Dat• Nnt K Lacaaion trot 12 of Tract NO. 18722 (strait s or tract WO let ) tc�irb C-1 No p:ovlous Qaao$ /4'fT?-,0 rs0 Fort. 2 FP -ST Fa01=7•• ----- present Ilse of Bit iv qMi applied [crib -NIS ! L — S�Pt`T1 5T�U lsj� rroject sig* (orbls sorbs) rrojoct daMaL4Y $ Dc>aittatio wets[ iovrcrf. fopany/DLVtsiat x0thod Of $stage atsp00%l 5£wT asilLtttlon District 9wo,aiw0 of Lott by Applivast! yet_ _ tlhW n"a"ry srsdins dnisn on W@ plan sr ttAt MR1 "j*XOpRUlrJF saltbi'Jfs PM • /ROOT MOST JtCCWAMr pWES7 APR 2$ '93 08144 714 727 7448 PAGE. 003 8.1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190 (714)396-5676 VELOPMNTRLTIEW APPLICATION DEVELOPMENT Record Owner(s) xame dsing Pacific Fund (Last name first) Address -800 E1 Camino Real City Menlo Park,CA 94025 Zip Phone( Applicant Hamburger Hamlet 14156 Magnolia Blvd. 8425 W. Third St. Sherman Oaks, CA Los Angeles, CA Recvd Fee $ Receipt By Applicant's Agent Sherrod Marshall 91423. (819 991;-7333 (213) 655-0220 (Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations) CONSENT: onsent to the submission of the application accompanying this request Date Signed ( l( ?ecorded owners) Certification: Z, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge. Printed Name: Sherrod Marshall (App(' n or Agent) Date 3 �� Signed (Applicant or Agent) Location Lot 12 of Tract No. 18722 dodgy 5-25- �Lvb (street address or tract and Lot number) Zoninq Cl HNM Previous Cases Country Hill Town Center Development Vacant Present Use of Site Use applied for To construct a Restaurant on site proposed for ountry Hill Town Center Shopping Center. future restaurant on C LEGAL DESCRIPTION (all ownership comprising the proposed lots)/parcel(s) Lots 1 to 15, Tract No. 18722, County of Los Angeles, State of California Area devoted to structures 7,070 s . f . Landscaping/open space 27,929 s . f . Proposed density 248 Seat Restaurant (Units Acres) Style of Architecture Traditional Number of Floors Proposed 1 slope of Roof 1/2"per ft. 8.1 � LEGAL DESCRIPTION (all ownership comprising the proposed lot(s)/parcel(s) Lot No. 12 of Tract NO. 18722 Area devoted to structures 7,070 s.f. Landscaping/Open space 27,929 s.f. Residential Project: and (gross area) (No. of lots) Proposed density (Units/Acres) Parking Required Provided Standard 866 964 Compact Handicapped Z1 2 Total `�85 0053 AGENDA NO. 8.1 A INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE A. GENERAL INFORMATION Project Applicant (Owner): HI►.45k6r,., HPAI-eT NAME 141 S� h/ A�ftou A '13�.yn . ADDRESS sF+�MAt� BnICS� c -A � 1423 Cels 99�--r3�3 PHONE # (staff use) PROJECT NUb®ER(s): Project Representative: c HEgROtc> NAME ?i4zS' W. THIRD s -r. ADDRESS Las Ie►�t a's CA • 0 48 i it 3� 6S'9- - Q vz- o 1. Action requested and project description: TID ^M&40 2. Street location of project: 21AMbt1L2 t'.aArU k/iTWta CkWN-M`i Htl,.l. 51-%olortN4 3a. Present use of site: EMPly IAT 3b. Previous use of site or structures: rg1'PROVt� Foy 2 FIST Foo17 REsT�UR�" 4. Please list all previous cases (if any) related to this project: S. Other related permit/approvals required. Specify type and .granting agency. 6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y 0 If yes, explain: 7. Project Area: 8. Number of floors 9. Present zoning: PHONE # Covered by structures, paving: 1�,Z Landscaping, open space: Total Area:—g9�°-- I C.- 1 10. Water and sewer service: Domestic Public _- . 8.1 CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE -BURDEN OF PROOF In addition to the information required in the application, the applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Zoning Board and/or Commission, the following facts: A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not: 1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area, or 2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located i -n the vicinity of the site, or 3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general . ale, family restaurant e welfar The Hare. er Hamlet is a casual, upscale, which offers a moderately priced menu t at caters o all ages. Is is consistent with similar development within will shopping center previously approved y t e city. contribute to the diversification andcon inuat growth of the community. B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed in this Title 22, or as is otherwise required in order to integrate said use with the uses in the surrounding area. The Hamburger Hamlet has allowed for sufficient landscaping on a our sides ot the bulialng comfortablvinto the shopping center and the adjacent street facing the Hamlet building. C. That the proposed site is adequately served: 1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate, and 8.1 2. By other public or private service facilities as are required. The site was originally approved for two fast food restaurants The traffice for the Hamburger Hamlet Restaurant is more conducive to a more moderate traffic pattern All the utilities are underground and are in place on the pad designated for the Hamburger Hamlet Restaurant. 8.1 B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION 1. Environmental Setting --Project Site a. Existing use/structures EM FyT_7�( LCT b. Topography/slopes F;1LAP146 AOA'd *C, Vegetation *d. Animals *e. Watercourses f. Cultural/historical resources g. Other 2. Environmental Setting -- Surrounding Area a. Existing uses structures (types, densities): b. Topography/slopes p6.AT W/ SLOrC '°'T�t•46T�Yy �,T�b1LTH qw� r� E.AbT l O F 3tTt�s *c. Vegetation �CtST� L/�►JnSCA1"� i'KROtJGnH GKTr Tee Sl *d. Animals *e. Watercourses f. Cultural/historical resources g, Other * Answers are not required if the area does not contain natural, undeveloped land. 3. Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees? YES Q If yes, type and number: 4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed through project development?: YES nNO If yes, explain: 5. Grading: Will the project require grading? YES NO If yes, how many cubic yards? Will it be balanced on site? H A . YES NO If not balanced, where will dirt be obtained or deposited? 6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on the property (including uncompacted fill)? YES O If yes, explain: 7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with moderately dense vegetation)? YES Q Distance to nearest fire station: 8. Noise: Existing noise sources at site: SIMIL.AR._M EX«'t1„Ka CAOTUK' Noise to be generated by project: 5'&P-4& As AMoY6 9. Fumes: Odors generated by project: Could toxic fumes be generated? 1�iO 10. What energy -conserving designs or material will be used? WAI -s�M L. I Q c. Does service exist at site? 8.1 YO N 0 N If yes. do purveyors have capacity to meet demand of project and all other approved N projects? O N If domestic water or public sewers are not available, how will these services be provided? Residential Projects: 11. Number and type of units: 12. Schools: What school district(s) serves the property? Are existing school facilities adequate to meet project needs? YES NO If not, what provisions will be made for additional classrooms? Non -Residential projects: 13. Distance to neafest residential use or sensitive use (school, hospital, etc.) 14. Number and floor area of buildings: -7,10-70 O 5. F . 1S. Number of employees and shifts: FT- 16. Maximum employees per shift: 2 17. Operating hours: Icog 18. Identify any: End products Waste products C:tAR "ASIG Z TRASH CA!*4P4 e1M t ^ ►_- Means of disposal 50YSF"/T1t^V4 f4ac-UP 8.1 19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as oil, pesticid , chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials? YES ,� If yes, explain 20. Do your operations require any pressurized tanks? hO If yes, explainGn 2, AkSEI.. SIM" . 21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on- si te. LlOg oaf` - 22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach the nearest highway? YES If yes, explain 8.1 CERTIFICATION: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in the attached exhibits present the data and information required for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that the facts, statements, and information presented are true and correct to the best of my,kgowle0fe) and belief. _ APS r. ��i . I: i April 29, 1993 P' MICHAEL FREEMAN FIRE CHIEF FORESTER & FIRE WARDEN COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES (Tff )DFI&&j� 2 T 1320 NORTH EASTERN AVENUE LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA 90063-3294 City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive Suite #100 Diamond Bar, Ca 91765-4177 Attention: Ann Lungu SUBJECT: C.U.P. 91 - 12(1) COUNTRY HILLS TOWNE CENTER The development of this project must comply with all applicable code and ordinance requirements for construction, access, water mains, fire flows, and fire hydrants. Fire flows of 2000 gallons per minute at 20 pounds per square inch residual pressure for a 2 hour duration will be required. Final fire flow will be based on the size of the building, its relationship to other structures and property lines, and the type of construction used. No portion of lot frontage shall be more than 200 feet via vehicular access from a public hydrant, and no portion of a building should exceed 400 feet via vehicular access from a properly spaced hydrant. If you need any additional information, please feel free to contact me at (213) 890-4125 Very truly yours, P. MICHAEL FREEMAN By INS:'ECTOR JOHN ATTILA WATER, SUBDIVISION AND ACCESS UNIT PREVENTION BUREAU JA: 11 SERVING THE UNINCORPORATED AREAS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY AND THE CITIES OF: AGOURA HILLS BRADBURY DIAMOND BAR IRWINDALE LOMITA PICO RIVERA RANCHO PALOS VERDES SIGNAL HILL SOUTH EL MONTE ARTESIA CALABASAS DUARTE LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE MALIBU ROLLING HILLS SOUTH GATE AZUSA CARSON GLENDORA LAKEWOOD MAYWOOD ROLLING HILLS ESTATES TEMPLE CITY BALDWIN PARK CERRITOS HAWAIIAN GARDENS LA MIRADA NORWALK ROSEMEAD WALNUT BELL CLAREMONT HIDDEN HILLS LANCASTER PALMDALE SAN DIMAS WEST HOLLYWOOD BELLFLOWER COMMERCE HUNTINGTON PARK LA PUENTE PALOS VERGES ESTATES SANTA CLARITA WESTLAKE VILLAGE BELL GARDENS CUDAHY INDUSTRY LAWNDALE PARAMOUNT WHITTIER The Wolff Company A Real Estate Operating Company May 14, 1993 Ms. Ann J. Lungu, Planning Technician Community Development Department City of Diamond Bar, California 21660 East Copley Drive/Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765-4177 Re: Edison Easement - Hamburger Hamlet - Country Hills Towne Center Dear Ann: On May 6, 1993 I received a telephone call from Danny Bremgartner, Real Properties Agent for Southern California Edison. In this conversation Mr. Bremgartner advised me that Mr. Jeff Burt, Service Planner with Southern California Edison, had given the approval, on behalf of SCE to allow Hamburger Hamlet to proceed with the construction of the patio, walls, and sidewalks as shown on Hamburger Hamlet's site plan. If you have any questions, or if you wish to speak to Mr. Bremgartner directly, he may be reached as follows: Mr. Danny Bremgartner Real Properties Agent Southern California Edison 500 North State College Boulevard Orange, California 92668 (714) 939-4734 HLP/hc Sincerely Herbert L Porter Executive Vice President 7700 IRVINE CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 710, IRVINE, CALIFORNIA 92718 • (714) 720.1000 - FAX: (714) 727-7448 &1 ~_ w""�" �m/nnmomI Tx/ .^,.o„.....�~/omm'nnIHnn/LLE ----- f-FrTTMTTj, r, q u Summary L-4 `wd`ldg ° ~ .peft!,~. .0, ~~~ ~_ w""�" �m/nnmomI Tx/ .^,.o„.....�~/omm'nnIHnn/LLE ----- f-FrTTMTTj, r, q u nn...... - c. s. l q d'i Bell ELI T 7 -41 IL 17 C -i nI L R -T-7 rlr e 0 e ES v ja rT.1 a a 8.1 s a e 0 e ES v ja rT.1 a a 8.1 8.1 ENVIRONMENTAL CHECKLIST FORM I. Background: Request to construct a 6,756 square foot restaurant with a lounge and outdoor dining within an existing retail shopping center. 1. Name of Applicant: Hamburger Hamlet 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: 14156 Magnolia Blvd.. Sherman Oaks CA 91423 (818) 995-7333 3. Name, Address and Phone of Project Contact: Sherrod Marshall. Architect 8425 W. Third St # 208. Los Angeles CA 90048 (2131655-0220 4. Date of Environmental Information Submittal: April 22. 1993 5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal: April 28. 1993 6. Lead Agency (Agency Required Checklist): City of Diamond Bar 7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdivision): Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12(l) and Development Review No 93-02 8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination): None YES NO Variance: X_ Conditional Use Permit: Zone Change: X_ General Plan Amendment: -2L- (Attach Completed Environmental Information Form) 8.1 H. Environmental Impacts: (Explanations and additional information to supplement all "yes" and "possibly "answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) YES NO POSSIBLY X X —X X X —X X 1. Earth. Will the proposal result ins a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? b. Disruptions, displacements, compaction or overcovering of the soil? C. Change in topography or ground surface relief features? X b. X 3. d. The destruction, covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of constant or intermittently flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in climate, either locally or regionally? Water. Will the proposal result ins a. Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? X b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? _X C. Alterations of the course or flow of flood waters? _x d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? X e. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity? X f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? 8.1 YES NO POSSIBLY X g. Change in the quantity of ground waters, either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? X h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? X i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: X a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? X b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare of endangered species of plants? X C. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities which are recognized as sensitive? X d. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? _X e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 5. Aninal Life. Will the proposal result in: X a. change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? _X b. Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare or endangered species of animals? X C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the normal migration or movement of resident species? X d. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 5. Noise. will the proposal result in: _ X a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? X b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. will the proposal result in: X a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result ins � X a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area? 8.1 YES NO POSSIBLY 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in: X a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result ins X a. A risk of an explosion or the release of X hazardous substances (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or X radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? X b. Probable interference with an emergency X response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal: X a. Alter the location, distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect: X a. Existing housing, or create a demand for . X additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: X a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? X b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? X C. Substantial impact on existing transportation systems? X d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. X e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? X f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: . X 1. Fire Protection? _ X 2. Police Protection? X 3. Schools? X 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? X S. Maintenance of public facilities, including roads? X 6. other governmental services? 8.1 YES NO POSSIBLY 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: X a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? X b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in: X a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: X a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? X b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: X a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result ins X a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: X a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? X b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? X C. A physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? X d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance? X a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species,' cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? 8.1 YES NO POSSIBLY _ x b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals? X C. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? X d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: (Attach Narrative) IV. DETERMINATION: on the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. X I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date: &Aril 28. 1993 Signature: Title: For the City of Diamond Bar,_ California AGENDA NO. 8.1 RESOLUTION NO. 93-15 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF,DIAMOND BAR APPROVING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-12(1), AN APPLICATION TO AMEND CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 91-12 AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 93-2, AN APPLICATION TO CONSTRUCT A RESTAURANT WITH A LOUNGE AND PATIO DINING, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 93-6 LOCATE AT 2757 SO. DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD WITHIN THE COUNTRY HILLS TOWNE CENTER (PAD #15, LOT 15 OF TRACT No. 18722). A. Recitals 1. Hamburger Hamlet has filed an application for a Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12(1) amending Conditional Use Permit No. 91-12 to permit a restaurant with a lounge and patio dining on a developable pad that was previous approved for a drive-thru restaurant and retail shops and Development Review No. 93-2 for construction of the restaurant on Pad #15, Lot 15 of Tract No. 18722 located 2757 So. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Conditional Use Permit and Development Review applications are collectively referred to as the "Application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization of the State of California. On said date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency with the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of Ordinance No.4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on May 24, 1993 conducted a duly noticed public meeting on said Application. 5. Notification of the public he for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on April 28, 1993. Ninety-two property owners with in a 500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on April 27, 1993. 6. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu- tion have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 93-6 has been prepared in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the guideline promulgated thereunder, and further, this Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Mitigated Negative Declaration and, based thereon, further specifically finds and determines that, based upon its independent judgement, the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project as proposed by the Application, and Conditioned for approval herein, will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before this Planning Commission, the Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effect contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. Notwithstanding the provisions of this paragraph, the Applicant shall pay all fees required for the filing of a Notice of Determination and any other fees imposed by the California Department of Fish and Game prior to the issuance of any building permits. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission, in conformance with Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of. the City of Diamond Bar hereby finds as follows: (a) The project relates to a parcel of 15,999 square feet with a developable pad of 7.030 square feet within an existing retail shopping center of approximately 17.7 acres identified as Country Hills Towne Center located at 2757 So. Diamond Bar Boulevard, City of Diamond Bar, California 91765. The project site is locate within the Restricted Business Zone (C-1) with a draft General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial (C). (b) Generally, the proposed project is surrounded by the following zones; to the north and west is the Single Family Residential Zone -minimum lot size 7,500 square feet (R-1_7,500); to the south is the Residential Planned Development Zone -15 units per acre (RPD -15U); to the east is Single Family Residential Zone -minimum lot size 20,000 square feet (R-1-20,000). (c) In accordance with the procedures set forth in ordinance No. 4 (1992), substantial evidence exists, considering the record as a whole, to determine that the project, as proposed and conditioned herein, will not be detrimental to or interfere with the General Plan adopted or under consideration by the City. (d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has been considered. The site is adequate in size to accommodate the proposed development. Conditional Use Permit: (e) Pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992), the proposed project will not be in substantial conflict with the policies of General Plan adopted or under consideration by the City. (f) The proposed project will not adversely affectthe health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. (g) The proposed project will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the.. subject site. (h) The proposed project will not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace -to public health, safety or general welfare. (i) The proposed project site is adequately served by Diamond Bar Boulevard. Development Review (j) The design and lay out of the proposed project is consistent with the applicable elements of the General Plan, adopted or under consideration by the City and pursuant to the provisions of Ordinance No. 4 (1992), design guidelines of the appropriate district, and any adopted architectural criteria for specialized area, such as designated historic districts, theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards, or planned developments. (k) The design and layout of the proposed development will not unreasonably interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments,and will not create traffic or pedestrian hazards. (1) The architectural design of the proposed project is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Development Review Ordinance No. 5 (1990) . (m) The design of the proposed project 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. (n) The proposed project will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to the properties or improvements in the vicinity. set f orth in - 5 . Based upon the � ind3 3,and adnd 4con above, the Planning paragraphs 1, , y Commission, hereby approves this application subject to the following conditions: (a) The project shall substantially conform to the site plan, floor plan, elevations, and landscape plan labeled collectively as Exhibit "A" dated May 24, 1993 as submitted to and approved by the Planning Commission. (b) The subject site 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, app t or by 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. (c) Applicant shall provide an enclosed recycling bin. Within 60 days of approval of this grant, the Applicant shall submit to the City for review and approval a revised site indicating the location of the recycling bin. (d) The hours of operation for the restaurant shall be Sunday through Thursday 11 a.m. to 11 p.m. a nd Friday through Saturday 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. (e) Deliveries shall not occur between the hours of 6 p.m. and 8 a.m. (f) Applicant shall provide verification in writing from Southern California Edison Company permitting construction of permanent structures within the Edison easement prior to the issuance of a building permit. (g) Applicant shall comply with the City's Noise Ordinance. (h) Applicant shall obtain all required permits from J, south Coast Air quality Management District before 5 the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy from the City. (i) Applicant shall be prohibited from utilizing the drive -way located in the rear portion of Pad #15 for vehicles. (j) Applicant shall comply with the State handicapped and American Disabilities Act requirements. (k) Subject to the review and approval of the Building Official, the Applicant shall provide a second exit from the lounge area. Within 60 days of approval of this resolution, the Applicant shall submit a revised site for review and approval by the City. (1) Applicant shall comply with all Planning, Zoning, Engineering, and Building and Safety requirements. (m) Applicant shall comply with any subsequent adopted Planned Sign Program for the retail shopping center. (n) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (o) The subject property shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulations applicable to any development or activity on the subject properties. (p) This grant shall be valid for one year and must be exercised (i.e. substantial construction including but not limited to grading, footings, foundations etc.) 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 of this grant. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and M (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to: Hamburger Hamlet, 14156 Magnolia Blvd., Sherman Oaks, CA 91243. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF MAY, 1993, BY THE PLANRIN6—COMIIISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY: Bruce Flamenbaum, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular ion held on the 24th day of May, meeting of the Planning Commiss 1993, by the following vote: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] Flamenbaum, Meyer, Grothe, Plunk NOES: [COMMISSIONERS:] None ABSENT: [COMMISSIONERS:] None ABSTAIN: [ OMMISSI NE S:-} Li ATTEST: Ja eStefano, Se, retary 7 Paul Brockman, the President of Hamburger Hamlet which was established in 1950, stated that they are a casual "upscale" family restaurant serving moderately priced meals. About 75 more jobs will be created for the community. There will be excess of 2 to 3 million dollars of sales which will benefit the community in sales tax. Hamburger Hamlet will also be part of the community supporting sports teams and such. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, he stated the following: delivery usually occurs between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.; they normally do not have a security guard for their family restaurant; and though the kitchen will be closed at 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, they are asking to stay open till 2:00 a.m. to allow those who arrive at 11:55 p.m. enough time to eat. AGENDA NO. 8.1 G=TZ DZ" Dil�i"iviiD a1S!! MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 24, 1993 CALL TO ORDER: Vice Chairman Meyer called the meeting to order at 7:09 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, Plunk, and Vice Chairman Meyer. Chairman Flamenbaum arrived at 8:25 p.m.. Also present were Community Development Director James DeStefano, Associate Planner Rob Searcy, Planning Technician Ann Lungu, Deputy City Attorney Craig Fox, Interim City Engineer George Wentz, and Contract Recording Secretary Liz Myers. VC/Meyer reported that Chair/Flamenbaum will be arriving late to the meeting. PUBLIC HEARING: CDD/DeStefano presented the staff report regarding the request by the applicant, Hamburger Hamlet, to DR 93-2 and amend CUP No. 91-12 and Development Review for the CUP 91-12(1) purpose of constructing a restaurant with a lounge/bar and patio dining to be located at the Country Hills Towne Center, 2757 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard. The hours of operation are from 11:00 a.m. to 12:00 midnight. Sunday through Thursday and 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday. It is recommended that the Planning Commission approve CUP No. 91-12(1), Development Review No. 93-2, Findings of Fact, and conditions listed within the attached resolution. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing opened. Paul Brockman, the President of Hamburger Hamlet which was established in 1950, stated that they are a casual "upscale" family restaurant serving moderately priced meals. About 75 more jobs will be created for the community. There will be excess of 2 to 3 million dollars of sales which will benefit the community in sales tax. Hamburger Hamlet will also be part of the community supporting sports teams and such. In response to Chair/Flamenbaum's inquiry, he stated the following: delivery usually occurs between 9:00 a.m. and 11:00 a.m.; they normally do not have a security guard for their family restaurant; and though the kitchen will be closed at 12:00 a.m. on Friday and Saturday, they are asking to stay open till 2:00 a.m. to allow those who arrive at 11:55 p.m. enough time to eat. May 24, 1993 Page 2 Sherrod Marshall, the architect for Hamburger Hamlet, expressed his concern for condition (i) and condition (j), as well as condition (1). CDD/DeStefano explained that condition (i) addresses staff's concern that the ten foot area in the rear of the building off of Diamond Bar Blvd., which is suitable for pedestrian loading and unloading is also suitable to support a vehicle. In conjunction with condition (i), condition (j) addresses staff's concern for vehicular parking requiring that the single door proposed at the rear of the building on the southerly side, currently proposed as a loading/ unloading area only, should be moved to the westerly side. The two conditions run in tandem whereas if condition (i) is maintained, in terms of no vehicular access to'that rear ten foot area, then condition (j) is not needed. ICE/Wentz stated that the Engineering Department was also concerned that delivery vehicles not attempt to pull into that area, and the area not be used for any type of additional overflow parking by cars. If condition (i) is modified to assure that there is no vehicular access or parking back there, the Engineering Department would concur that condition (j) could be eliminated Chair/Flamenbaum suggested that condition (i) be modified to prohibit utilizing the driveway located at the rear portion of pad #15 for vehicles. Sherrod Marshall then inquired if condition (1) could be modified to indicate that if there is less than 49 people in the room, and the room is part of a larger room, then a second means of egress is not needed. CDD/DeStefano suggested that condition (1) be modified to read, "Subject to the review and approval of the building official, the applicant shall provide...". Sherrod Marshall then explained that the trash area has been located facing the front of the building to be consistent with the rest of the center. Also, the proposed location may be a more efficient location for the trash collectors as opposed to locating it around the corner. C/Grothe stated that he would prefer that the trash containers be located in the back of the building. May 24, 1993 Page 3 Sherrod Marshall, noting that the staff report is inconsistent regarding the size of the building, clarified that the building is 7,000 square feet. Referring to condition (g), he then inquired how "amplified" is defined, and if there is a problem with Hamlet using a musak system in the outside patio and entrance for the pleasure of those waiting. VC/Meyer suggested that condition (g) be modified to indicate that it must be "in compliance with the City's Noise Ordinance." Chair/Flamenbaum inquired if it would be a problem for the applicant if the Fountain Springs entrance into the Center was made to be an ingress only, as was conditioned upon approval of the SpeeDee Lube project. Bart Porter, Executive Vice President of the Wolff Company, the asset managers for Country Hills Towne Center, stated they are pleased that Hamlet Hamburger chose Diamond Bar as their future home. He stated that a traffic consultant has been hired to correct the problem of the driveway into the Center. When the plans have been completed, it will be presented before the Planning Commission. The plan actually adds about 7 or 8 parking spaces in the process. The entrance from Fountain Springs is currently an egress/ingress and will be changed to an ingress only, unless the City decides otherwise. Robert Gannon, residing at 2641 Rising Star Drive, stated that even though he likes Hamburger Hamlet, the proposed location in the Country Hills Towne Center is not suitable for the following reasons: there is not sufficient parking spaces in the entire Center; the residential neighborhood currently has trouble with the kids hanging around the center, they must deal with patrons of the restaurant that will over drink; Fountain Springs will most likely be used as an ingress/egress regardless how it is posted, particularly late at night; it is dangerous to have an establishment that serves alcohol in a center that is frequented by children; the northside of the Towne Center is overdeveloped while the southside remains quiet and underdeveloped; a more benign type of business, such as medical, would be a better choice for that location because it requires very little parking and creates no noise or pollution; and there would have been more people present opposing the project if the property had been posted by ABC. May 24, 1993 Page 4 Ken Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, expressed the following concerns: there are not 1,000 parking spaces as indicated by the Center because many spaces, particularly behind the movie theater, are not utilized; many of the parking spaces are not even striped; many spaces are often blocked by delivery trucks; there are many carpoolers, who used to park at Fallowfield, now parking in the Alpha Beta area; the same conditions requested of the Speedee Lube project should be requested for this project that the ramp be made in only, that there be sidewalks in both sides, and that there be no truck traffic; what garbage company will be used by this project since there are already many garbage trucks arriving at various times early in the day disturbing residents; and has the applicant been made aware of the upstream contamination of hydrocarbons coming on to their property. Martha Bruske, a resident, inquired why the five minute time restriction is used only when citizens begin to express their. concerns. She then expressed the following concerns regarding the proposed project: there is not adequate parking available; parking stalls should not be compact; the project is too close to a residential area; the noise will echo in the hills; and the entrance from Fountain Springs should remain 2 ways, especially if a signal at Fountain Springs/Diamond Bar Blvd. is installed. Pam Anderson, residing at 2628 Rising Star, expressed the following concerns: having an open patio bar 200 yards from a residential street will generate a lot of noise; a bar and a lounge open until 2:00 a.m. is incompatible to a quiet residential neighborhood; and there are already too many spots to buy liquor within the Center. Steven Nice, residing at 2621 Rising Star, made the following comments: though it is a nice restaurant, it is inappropriately located in the middle of a residential neighborhood; a lounge is not consistent with the existing neighborhood; and the number of parking spaces is inadequate. Hearing no further testimony, Chairman Flamenbaum declared the Public Hearing closed. Chair/Flamenbaum summarized the following changes to the conditions as presented: delete condition (g) and require that the outdoor patio area to be in compliance with Chapter 2228; delete the May 24, 1993 Page 5 statement "vehicular access" in condition (i) to "vehicles", deleting condition (j); and modify condition (1) to be "subject to the Building Official" VC/Meyer suggested that condition (e) be modified to indicate that there will be no deliveries between 6:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. He then inquired if there are adequate enforcement measures in terms of the CUP to address problems that may occur so as to assure that these new businesses are operating as good neighbors. CDD/DeStefano stated that there is adequate safeguards with respect to existing City codes, the provisions of this CUP, as well as the requirements of the Alcohol Beverage Control Board. Ken Anderson pointed out that a security guard is not present at the theater in the evenings even though it is a requirement of the CUP. This Center is too close to a residential neighborhood, which has dramatically changed the nature of the neighborhood. Motion was made by VC/Meyer to approve the resolution for the CUP, amending condition (e), (g) , ( i) , and, (1) , and deleting condition ( j ) as indicated by staff and the Commission. The motion DIED for lack of a second. C/Grothe stated that the whole Center, based on square footage, is under parked due to shared uses. The parking spaces should be made to match the plans presented by the Center. He then stated that the list of the conditions to the Center, i.e. the pedestrian sidewalks, which were placed on the Speedee Lube project, should be placed on this project as well. Also, the Center should address sidewalks at the Diamond Bar Blvd. entrance in their modification of the major Center entrance. VC/Meyer noted that there may be a problem with sidewalks because of the steepness of the driveway. Perhaps those conditions should be addressed at the time that the plans for the modification of the Diamond Bar entrance are presented to staff. Bart Porter stated that one of the issues being addressed is the steepness of the driveway and the ability to construct sidewalks. It is our intention to come back, perhaps in 30 days, to give a presentation before the Planning Commission. May 24, 1993 Page 6 C/Plunk noted that there is a difference between patio dining which has a bar and an ordinary liquor establishment. She suggested the applicant consider moving closer to Alta Ski & Sport because there is more readily available parking in that area. Motion was made by VC/Meyer, seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum and CARRIED to approve the Resolution for the CUP, amending condition (e), (g), (i), and, (1), and deleting condition (j), as indicated by staff and the Commission. ROLL CALL: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NOES: COMMISSIONERS: ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Plunk, VC/Meyer, and Chair/Flamenbaum. None. Li. None. To: ldamonU From: Dr. Par. iie 3, 1993 AGENDA NO. 8.1 ..n oppos: _.;_rig Commision's May 24, 1993 decision e H-. 11s Town Center CUP, Hambu:-ger Hand ,: to the Diamond Bar City Counc..l. This I. xzarrants further community input. Pleasc ;cii)er 2138 for $500.00 to satisfy planning We and our r, �tters and other supporting materials as needF,: p idvised by contacting us at 909 5)4-4252. sincerely, Y� Kenneth Anderson 2628 Rising Star Dr. Diamond Bar, 91765 I i i To: ldamonU From: Dr. Par. iie 3, 1993 AGENDA NO. 8.1 ..n oppos: _.;_rig Commision's May 24, 1993 decision e H-. 11s Town Center CUP, Hambu:-ger Hand ,: to the Diamond Bar City Counc..l. This I. xzarrants further community input. Pleasc ;cii)er 2138 for $500.00 to satisfy planning We and our r, �tters and other supporting materials as needF,: p idvised by contacting us at 909 5)4-4252. sincerely, Y� Kenneth Anderson 2628 Rising Star Dr. Diamond Bar, 91765 rc, 7,_ Pamela W. Anderson, M. _'i ] t: 17 2628 Rising Star Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AGENDA NO. 8.1 June 23, 1993 Dept of Alcoholic Beverage Control Suite 204 �%A 1 rn '` 9350 Flair Drive, ✓ �,,,, � El Monte, CA 91731 N n RE: Hamburger Hamlet -� 2709 Diamond Bar Blvd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 w N � Dear ABC Investigator, I am a resident of Diamond Bar and I live a few hundred feet away from the proposed Hamburger Hamlet, whose address is listed above. After attending my town's Planning Commission meetings, I discovered that this restaurant will contain a separate bar area which will be open until midnight during the week and until 2 AM on the weekends. I am very concerned about Hamburger Hamlet operating a late-night bar in my neighborhood. My specific concerns are several -fold: 1) The proposed restaurantibar will be several hundred feet away from houses in a long-standing (> 30 years), stable, middle-class residential area. If you look at maps of the area, you can see that the mall in which it will be located, is surrounded by residences. The residents of this area are very concerned about probable substantial increases in late night noise, since the bar will be attached to an unenclosed patio, which will play Musak. In addition, increased late night traffic is a real concern. We are also greatly concerned with the danger posed by intoxicated bar patrons, specifically, the increased likelihood of drunk driving accidents, vandalism and mayhem. Residents are also very concerned about the effect this bar will have on the value of their homes; who would want to buy a home, no matter how nice, which was located a few hundred feet from a bar that was open until 2 AM? 2) 1 object on ethical grounds to businesses that make their profits from the addictions of others, whether it is the liquor industry, the tobacco industry or the illegal drug industry. We already have a large number of businesses in the immediate area that sell liquor, some freely (though illegally) to minors. While liquor stores and bars do not a Skid Row make, ask the people of South Central Los Angeles if having a large number of businesses in their neighborhood whose goal is to promote the consumption of liquor, helps or hurts the community. The local residents would like to see ethical, low - impact businesses make their home in our neighborhood mall. 3) As a physician who has worked at Los Angeles County Hospital for the past 11 years, I can attest to the enormous toll alcoholism wreaks on the individual, his/her family and society in general. According to recent CDC statistics, alcoholic liver disease/alcoholic cirrhosis is the 4th leading cause of death in men aged 20-50 years old, behind AIDS, trauma and homicide. Furthermore, alcohol is 1 :7n T ke � 1 ENDA NO. 8.1 f= �L_1 . Cu. IiTY Pamela W. Anderson, M.D.^ ,} J t :17 2628 Rising Star Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AGENDA NO. 8.1 June 23, 1993 K rn Dept of Alcoholic Beverage Control 9350 Flair Drive, Suite 204 El Monte, CA 91731 �' V z . N ri RE: Hamburger Hamlet 2709 Diamond Bar Blvd. 3 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 "0 z N � Dear ABC Investigator, I am a resident of Diamond Bar and I live a few hundred feet away from the proposed Hamburger Hamlet, whose address is listed above. After attending my town's Planning Commission meetings, I discovered that this restaurant will contain a separate bar area which will be open until midnight during the week and until 2 AM on the weekends. I am very concerned about Hamburger Hamlet operating a late-night bar in my neighborhood. My specific concerns are several -fold: 1) The proposed restaurant/bar will be several hundred feet away from houses in a long-standing (> 30 years), stable, middle-class residential area. If you look at maps of the area, you can see that the mall in which it will be located, is surrounded by residences. The residents of this area are very concerned about probable substantial increases in late night noise, since the bar will be attached to an unenclosed patio, which will play Musak. In addition, increased late night traffic is a real concern. We are also greatly concerned with the danger posed by intoxicated bar patrons, specifically, the increased likelihood of drunk driving accidents, vandalism . and mayhem. Residents are also very concerned about the effect this bar will have on the value of their homes; who would want to buy a home, no matter how nice, which was located a few hundred feet from a bar that was open until 2 AM? 2) I object on ethical grounds to businesses that make their profits from the addictions of others, whether it is the liquor industry, the tobacco industry or the illegal drug industry. We already have a large number of businesses in the immediate area that sell liquor, some freely (though illegally) to minors. While liquor stores and bars do not a Skid Row make, ask the people of South Central Los Angeles if having a large number of businesses in their neighborhood whose goal is to promote the consumption of liquor, helps or hurts the community. The local residents would like to see ethical, low - impact businesses make their home in our neighborhood mall. 3) As a physician who has worked at Los Angeles County Hospital for the past 11 years, I can attest to the enormous toll alcoholism wreaks on the individual, his/her family and society in general. According to recent CDC statistics, alcoholic liver disease/alcoholic cirrhosis is the 4th leading cause of death in men aged 20-50 years old, behind AIDS, trauma and homicide. Furthermore, alcohol is 1 involved in more than 50% of fatal auto accidents. Domestic violence, an uncontrolled epidemic, which affects 1 out of 4 women at some time in their lives, is often fueled by the consumption of excessive alcohol. Despite these impressive statistics, excessive drinking is viewed as normal, even desirable by many persons and alcoholism often goes unrecognized for years, creating ever more misery. That misperception must stop. Bars are not benign places, such as those depicted in the television series Cheers. When we encourage the proliferation of establishments that encourage the consumption of liquor, we are telling our children, our community, our society, that alcoholism and its attendant evils is something to be encouraged. While the closing of one bar will not cure society of alcoholism, it will help change the public's image of drinking as a harmless endeavor. We would like Hamburger Hamlet to seek a more reasonable location, away from our residential area. If they insist on building in their proposed location, I and the residents of this area, strongly encourage you to refuse a liquor license to the above-named Hamburger Hamlet. If a license must be issued, we ask that you limit the hours that alcohol can be served tc dinner -time only (i.e., not after 9 PM). Sincerely yours, Pamela W. Anderson, M.D. cc: filers I AGENDA NO. 8.1 July 15, 1993 Council Members Diamond Bar City Council RE: Hearing for Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille Dear Council Members: Recently, my wife and I attended a meeting of the Planning Commission hearing a request for the Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille to open a facility in the Country Town Center. Numerous residents spoke to identify their concerns of having this business so close to residences. Unfortunately the Planning Commission approved this project in contradiction of their concern regarding another project at the same meeting. They had concern for hours of operation of a billiard room and agreed to extended hours there due mainly to the fact that no food or alcohol is served and the establishment is in a commercial area. Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grill does not benefit from those same conditions. Their own concerns regarding the billiard room should have been sufficient cause to decline the Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grill request at that time. Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille is attempting to put this facility within approximately 100 yards of a residential neighborhood. Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille plans to emphasize the BAR aspect of their establishment by remaining open until midnight during the week, and 2:00 a.m. on the weekends. They also plan on having an unenclosed patio\lounge which will have music piped into this area. Again, unenclosed. We are opposed to this project for many reasons. 1) We are concerned over the possible increases in alcohol related trauma and violence in the community because of the presence of this BAR. 2) We are concerned with the noise created by an open BAR\lounge. 3) We are concerned about inadequate parking. 4) We are concerned with the late hour of operation. 5) We are concerned with construction on a lot that has already been identified as containing a unacceptable level of ground contamination. 6) We are concerned with traffic and traffic flows and keeping traffic off of our residential streets. In our opinion, and the opinion of our neighbors, this project should be rejected. Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille will be a nuisance neighbor and should locate their establishment to an area that will not offend the residential neighborhood. If it is determined that the Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille is allowed to establish it's operations in the Country Town Center, we believe that a better location would be next to Alta Ski and Sport. As prudent a decision this appears to be, it is my understanding that this possibility has been suggested but refused by Alpha Beta in the same center. They feel that this BAR and grille is not consistant with their business plan. It is also my understanding that Alpha Beta, because it is the anchor tenant, has the right to stop any tenant they wish from locating on their side of the center. The homes were here before Alpha Beta and the residents in this area should be of primary concern for any business wanting to operate in the Country Town Center. In the event that you decide to allow the Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille to operate in the location now under consideration, we believe there are several issues that should be addressed and limitations made on their operation. 1) A parking study must be conducted and recommendations must be adhered to. 2) An environmental impact report must be conducted and recommendations implimented. 3) A complete clean-up of the ground water and hazardous contaminants must be done prior to any additional construction in this area of the Country Town Center. 4) The unenclosed lounge area of the Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille must be completely enclosed. 5) No music should be allowed to escape into the surrounding area. 6 ) The remaining unoccupied areas in the center must be turned into parking in an attempt to keep patrons of Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille and the movie theatre from parking on neighboring residential streets. 7) The driveway now located at Fountain Springs to the Country Town Center must be closed to vehicle traffic. It was agreed by the developer when the movie theatre was built that this was to be a walk through access only, and no motor vehicle access was to be permitted. I have no idea how the developer was allowed by our city council to get away with making this unauthorized change. If Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille is allowed to go in, this would be the opportune time for the developer to correct this deficiency. 8) Hours that alcohol can be served should end by 9:00 p.m. 9) This should be the final project for the Country Town Center which should then be considered fully developed. 10) An adequate security presence must be maintained to avoid any unwanted loitering or violence from occurring. Council Members, hopefully you now understand the problems of putting Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grill in this location. Hopefully you will decide against the project at this location. Hovever, if you decide if favor of the project, it is imperative that each of these requirements be implemented in order to maintain the high standards established in Diamond Bar. Your support our views in regards to this project will not only keep Diamond Bar a prime location for exemplary business operations but also maintain it's reputation as a prime residential area. Respectfully, Stephen . Nice ?Janet�'I. Nice Pamela W. Anderson 2628 Rising Star I Diamond Bar, CA June 23, 1993 �1 Dept of Alcoholic Beverage Control, 9350 Flair Drive, Suite 204 L El Monte, CA 91731 RE: Hamburger Hamlet 2709 Diamond Bar Blvd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dear ABC Investigator, ti �� A AGENDA NO. 8.1 .4 I am a resident of Diamond Bar and 1 live a few hundr Hamburger Hamlet, whose address is listed above. After Commission meetings, I discovered that this restaurant will cc will be open until midnight during the week and until 2 AM I am very concerned about Hamburger Hamlet ope neighborhood. My specific concerns are several -fold: 1) The several hundred feet away from houses in a long-standing (> residential area. If you look at maps of the area, you can see 11; located, is surrounded by residences. The residents of this probable substantial increases in late night noise, since th,._ unenclosed patio, which will play Musak. In addition, incre,r:. concern. We are also greatly concerned with the danger po sci specifically, the increased likelihood of drunk driving accidcr, Residents are also very concerned about the effect this bar m\,' 0 i c homes; who would want to buy a home, no matter how nice, wli c h ,u feet from a bar that was open until 2 AM? 2) I object on ethical zrouHdk make their profits from the addictions of others, whether it is the liquor 11 KI WI t OIC C t o ha ( c 1 industry or the illegal drug industry. We already have a large numhcr of hii .r scs in the immediate area that sell liquor, some freely (though illegally) to minors. Whik. i<auor ,tore� and bars do not a Skid Row make, ask the people of South Central l,o,, large number of businesses in their neighborhood whose goal is to promote the C0nsuMption of liquor, helps or hurts the community. The local residents %,,otild like to see ethical, low - impact businesses make their home in our neighborhood mall. 3) Ns a pYiN sician who has worked at Los Angeles County Hospital for the past 11 years, I can attest to the enormous toll alcoholism wreaks on the individual, his/her family and society in general. /\ccorchng to recent CDC statistics, alcoholic liver disease/alcoholic cirrhosis is the 4th leading cause of death in men aged 20-50 years old, behind AIDS, trauma and homicide. Furthermore, alcohol is 1 involved in more than 50% of fatal auto accidents. Domestic violence, an uncontrolled epidemic, which affects 1 out of 4 women at some time in their lives, is often fueled by the consumption of excessive alcohol. Despite these impressive statistics, excessive drinking is viewed as normal, even desirable by many persons and alcoholism often goes unrecognized for years, creating ever more misery. That misperception must stop. Bars are not benign places, such as those depicted in the television series Cheers. When we encourage the proliferation of establishments that encourage the consumption of liquor, we are telling our children, our community, our society, that alcoholism and its attendant evils is something to be encouraged. While the closing of one bar will not cure society of alcoholism, it will help change the public's image of drinking as a harmless endeavor. We would like Hamburger Hamlet to seek a more reasonable location, away from our residential area. If they insist on building in their proposed location, I and the residents of this area, strongly encourage you to refuse a liquor license to the above-named Hamburger Hamlet. If a license must be issued, we ask that you limit the hours that alcohol can be served to dinner -time only (i.e., not after 9 PM). Sincerely yours, Pamela W. Anderson, M.D. cc: file 2 RECE NET) C17Y MNO GER. m3 im 20 LOCATE) /M -i N couLn TR —�C) vet lj C P` AS A LoN4 T,NLG p6egipeti, OF 7?iC OT`1 oF. D,AMUNb SAR,AN.D As ACRoss T74L--RT72,6�� rRoM 7-14 c: To w ,v c t, M-rE1Z1 --i- A -M O PPOS,15-b Ta 77V6-" E.STAB4SHA4��% OFA BaSlIV65-S fZ COAlo 1 / C B6--YC-R144�&31 4 Ar 1.D�'G //1 A/Niiu4 ©/�E/✓ CZW .-1 L A , M, 11V 7lV AIORIc%167. 7-/-/C-- ,O/e,,Nl AA y X 6A- SG 1'1 —`OA? A4 i Tb 7�VlS�S'i �I I� S,YiZl6NT /S /Zl�/� 11V7ZT-v717-0 S6Z L Zi¢clo2 7-6 i 62.P W�,, 77-16- comma vi WILL -S Ati' ii✓ fILceHoL "gtrz,4r&zb r4 ec JDEN S /+ND 2>6•47�V o,,P- /",raley 9 �1oTo•2 YE%Y�cLcs _..BqP-9LAAIES 4/vb R08gEIR',1n W , LL MNCR((� G- i'rs ©UT-Y-DOeS 7-0 �XPL0106- CUA— A514;;ViaD�P/1DaD3 C-"N/2Oa/ C AIVb 4pV'"Y Ped. -1 729 141v -D Cie/L L , %i'� Scr�ENiTy c�F c�l�i2 N6/�pNl.� o�Q/�/CiQ� �-vrLL N 4 f is IL( %K ser/i2 �eA��OS BLf1%��N� �K1Jc� Fay ��-cod��NCZS „/ILL gCCOME A R6GctRR���g Tqe-AAU A CAN)q MC6/,AG&7 S FROM O(L7MfOe CO AA tt ttiV r'i C &-3 G e4'A,/d '-1'0 CO N 42N�A' iN Tf/C�- L,4 rC Ar/ -Nr /i✓S� J6 7YE LOC,'I�-1On/. F�/CRy'On!E L�K�=S //�DS;�6/eeTY. EV 6—RXov6' L//GES �20y',eN3S, ,Qui /f+ Gr/�fiT �iCsC� ? k/4�- /-I LQ CAD % hW VCS /4- )?CS7;9LL%2A N i /N 1-;V6 i owAJ 66:N7z7e, -- y/C' /-�Av o L/QuoR_. S� Two Tao M/4AlY-7 1 N 7Y&— TOW Al C6V7T7R, .Ly quoit /s 7wRiF7-YS AAzD /g-- �i►l�isF/� 7X Boil/ .�o c rZ /i✓ _ 7 -e'6 - f7 q V/Q^�C oeE r leom . MY S'w/�PLiN! /1%fJ�LSi �o.v( Oaoole COAJAL[GINT/ES. WC- iD O N ICRP LT- Co (X TRY Si a P J F+6 . �-r�rC3L�S k-1 N�6T1 � pF 7}tb !-f�ttit�3 u.P,.,C�6� (over,) 9/ 3; July 15, 1993 Council Members Diamond Bar City Council AGENDA NO. 8.1 RE: Hearing for Iiamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille Dear Council Members: Recently, my wife and I attended a meeting of the Planning Commiss. A request for the Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille to open a facility in _ry Town Center. Numerous residents spoke to identify their concerns of hao, chis business so close to residences. Unfortunately the Planning Commission approved this project in contradiction of their concern regarding another project at the same meeting. They had concern for hours of operation of a billiard room and agreed to extended hours there due mainly to the fact that no food or alcohol is served and the establishment is in a commercial area. Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grill does not benefit from those same conditions. Their own concerns regarding the billiard room should have been sufficient cause to decline the Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grill request at that time. Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille is attempting to put this facility within approximately 100 yards of a residential neighborhood. Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille plans to emphasize the BAR aspect of their establishment by remaining open until midnight during the week, and 2:00 a.m. on the weekends. They also plan on having an unenclosed patio\lounge which will have music piped into this area. Again, unenclosed. We are opposed to this project for many reasons. 1) We are concerned over the possible increases in alcohol related trauma and violence in the community because of the presence of this BAR. 2) We are concerned with the noise created by an open BAR\lounge. 3) We are concerned about inadequate parking. 4) We are concerned with the late hour of operation. 5) We are concerned with construction on a lot that has already been identified as containing a unacceptable level of ground contamination. 6) We are concerned with traffic and traffic flows and keeping traffic off of our residential streets. In our opinion, and the opinion of our neighbors, this project should be rejected. Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille will be a nuisance neighbor and should locate their establishment to an area that will not offend the residential neighborhood. If it is determined that the Hamburger Hamlet BAR and Grille is allowed to establish it's operations in the Country Town Center, we believe that a better location would be next to Alta Ski and Sport. As prudent a decision this appears to be, it is my understanding that this possibility has been suggested but refused by Alpha Beta in the same center. They feel that this BAR and grille is not consistant with their business plan. It is also my understanding that Alpha Beta, because it is the anchor tenant, has the right to stop any tenant they wish from locating on their side of the center. The homes were here before Alpha Beta and the residents in this area should be of primary concern for any business wanting to operate in the Country Town Center. (*TTV 61P WA 67'-M BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: July 20, 1993 REPORT DATE: July 16, 1993 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Adoption of the 1993 General Plan SUMMARY: The General Plan is a statement of goals, policies and implementing programs to guide the long-range physical development of the City. The Plan is required by State Law and determines the size, form and character of the City over the next twenty years. In March of 1993 the City Council authorized the retention of a consultant team to further develop the Draft General Plan. Five community workshops were conducted with residents in April and May to identify key planning issues and discuss potential General Plan policy options. Since May 19, 1993, nine Public Hearings have been conducted (eight City Council, one Planning Commission) to consider adoption of the Draft 1993 General Plan. On July 13, 1993, City Council received a presentation on the "final" Draft 1993 General Plan. The July 20, 1993, public hearing provides an additional opportunity for commentary on the 1993 General Plan adoption process. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive a presentation from the General Plan consultant team, conclude public testimony and forward comments to City Staff. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Library SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) _ Other 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? _ Planning 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes No Report discussed with the following affected departments: _ REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belangesf City Manager CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. 8.2 AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: July 20, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Adoption of the 1993 General Plan ISSUE STATEMENT: The General Plan is a statement of goals, policies and implementing programs to guide the long-range physical development of the City. The Plan is required by State Law and determines the size, form and character of the City over the next twenty years. In March of 1993 the City Council authorized the retention of a consultant team to further develop the Draft General Plan. Five community workshops were conducted with residents in April and May to identify key planning issues and discuss potential General Plan policy options. Since May 19, 1993, nine Public Hearings have been conducted (eight City Council, one Planning Commission) to consider adoption of the Draft 1993 General Plan. On July 13, 1993, City Council received a presentation on the "final" Draft 1993 General Plan. The July 20, 1993, public hearing provides an additional opportunity for commentary on the 1993 General Plan adoption process. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive a presentation from the General Plan consultant team, receive, conclude public testimony and forward comments to City Staff. BACKGROUND: In March of 1993, the City Council rescinded its prior resolution which adopted the 1992 General Plan and directed the preparation of a community workshop and public hearing process to adopt the 1993 General Plan. A team of specialized consultants were retained to develop the Draft General Plan. Community workshops were conducted in April and May to identify planning issues and policy options. Since May, 1993, the City Council has conducted eight public hearings to formulate and consider adoption of a new General Plan. On June 28, 1993, the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the substantial areas of change reflecting significant modification to the 1992 General Plan. The Planning Commission concluded their public hearing discussion and forwarded their report to the City Council recommending adoption of the substantial modifications as set forth in their report. On June 29, the City Council appointed Councilman Gary Werner to chair a subcommittee created to discuss a regional bypass roadway within the sphere of influence. The Bypass Subcommittee has held two meetings, has identified key issues to be addressed, and criteria for consideration of the roadway. Committee has established a third meeting for Monday, July 19, to further 1 refine criteria for consideration of a regional bypass roadway. On July 13, 1993, the City Council received the final Draft 1993 General Plan. The document contained changes, inclusions, deletions and other modifications to the base General Plan document. The General Plan consultant discussed the major and significant changes within the General Plan and provided a page by page review. Major areas of significant or substantive change include: 1. Map and text changes related to the former General Plan's theoretical buildout of 6235 additional residential dwelling units. The 1993 General Plan indicates that 1900 additional dwelling units may be developed over the next twenty years as a result of its policies. However, with specific development review standards and site constraints, staff believes that the reality for future residential growth in Diamond Bar is approximately half the theoretical amount. 2. Incorporation of substantial language responding to environmental concerns and environmental sensitivity related to a regional bypass transportation corridor as well as recognition of Significant Ecological Area No. 15 and further defining significant impacts to be reviewed before a project is considered for approval. 3. Incorporation of transportation policy statements responding to Diamond Bar's position as a recipient of regional traffic. Strong proactive statements regarding regional traffic mitigation, the need to work with other agencies and jurisdictions toward common solutions, and consideration of an environmentally sensitive regional traffic bypass roadway. 4. A vision statement which incorporates the retention of rural country living characteristics of the community, preservation of open space resources, reduction of regional traffic impacts on local streets, promoting viable commercial activity, and the provision for a well maintained, attractive and hospitable community environment are incorporated. As a result of direction received at the July 13, 1993, hearing, addendum pages are attached for review. The July 20, 1993, continued public hearing provides an opportunity for additional commentary on the 1993 General Plan prior to adoption. PUBLIC HEARING NOTIFICATION: Public hearing notices were previously published within the San Ga2riel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin in accordance with State Law. In addition, public notices were published within the Diamond Bar Highlander. The July 20 public hearing of the City Council represents the ninth public hearing conducted since May 19, 1993. Notice of each public hearing has been mailed to several hundred persons or organizations as represented on our General Plan mailing list. All General Plan documents have been available for review at City Hall and the County Library. 2 PREPARED BY: James DeStefano Community Development Director attachments: Draft General Plan dated July 13, 1993 (transmitted on 1. 1993 D July ra 19e to City Council members and public hearing participants.) 2. Addendum 3. Correspondence dated July 8, 1993, received from Eric Stone dated July 8, 1993 4. Correspondence, undated, received from Max Maxwell on July 13, 1993. 5. Correspondence dated and received July 13, 1993, from Todd Chavers. 3 8.2 K-. GENERAL PLAN FORMAT The 199;0'Diamond Bar General Plan is divided into tree documents for ease of reference. 1. Document 1: General Plan The first document contains the five actual divisions of the General Plan proper, that is, the compilation of the goals, objectives, and implementation strategies of the Plan. This document contains an introduction, and the Land Use, Housing, , Resource Management, Public Health and Safety, Public Services and Facilities, and PhysieeA Meb s,;t:.,; ........... �... Document `iiiMEnvironmental Impact Report/Technical Appendices c�h�# hIx This document contains the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the General Plan, including the Notice of Preparation and Responses. The EIR contains the appropriate environmental documentation for the General Plan as required by the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) including detailed analyses of the various impacts of ultimately development Diamond Bar. This document also contains all of the technical appendices not specifically related to the EIR,, such as noise,, air quality,• land• use summaries and alternatives, etc. Arrddii t # Itusd. pt;Ec�ptitgp j �q8 .lE>3if. .elle Master Environmental Assessment for the City, which will provided a comprehensive and consistent baseline of environmental data from which further (project -specific) environmental analyses can be performedtitt#. The organization of the General Plan can thus be visualized as follows: Document 1 Introduction Plen--Fee-Land Use cit P60 For -Housing p# ................... ni__ n,._ .................. Resource Management . Plan -Fee -Public Health and Safety!€l; `.:':, Plaw4ee-Public Services and Facilities Plan for Phries! Mebgity jpq ( i ....%:Yffn• yp: �:. FfQ]; Document 3< Environmental Impact Report Technical Appendices Diamond Bar General Plan Introduction July _3 1993 20 ,, r 8.2 1993 GENERAL PLAN WORKSHOP ATTENDANCE (Continued) Diamond Bar General Plan July 20, 1993 X WORKSHOP # 4/21 4J2 4J2$ 5JI 5/IZ hlAMl~ 213.. 3 Gary Neely X X X X X Max Maxwell X X X X X Red Calkins X X Theresa Zavala X X Jack Bath X Don Gravdahl X X Alice Houseworth X X Ray Forrest X Cornelia & Ernest Pizzo X Frank Dursa X X David Damaske X Gary Werner X Kathleen McCarthy X X Marilyn Kieffer X X Sherry Rogers X Eileen Ansari X Debbie & Bill Noyes X X Ken Knolf X Sue Sisk X X X Tom Van Winkle X X X Ken Anderson X X X C.W. Heaton X Tina & Brian Worth X Harold Fraser X Rod Riepen X Mel Davis X Carolyn Elfelt X Tom Ortiz X X W. Tinsman X Chuck Rogers X X George Kingston X Philip Lo X X Wilbur Smith x Todd Chavers X Beverly D'Errico X Diamond Bar General Plan July 20, 1993 X 8.2 Vii: Sphere Of Influence The City of Diamond Bar's Sphere of Influence, as ffesently approved by the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), encompasses 3,591 acres immediately south of the City limits to the Los Angeles ./Orange County border. This sphere area represents the middle portion of Tonner Canyon -- an undeveloped northeast/southwest trending wooded canyon. This portion of the canyon is primarily owned by the Boy Scouts of America and utilized for their Firestone Boy Scout Reservation. The Scout Reservation is an unimproved camping facility, and the only improved uses in the canyon are scattered campground support buildings, a water tower on the southern ridge, and a commercial radio tower on the northern ridge. Diamond Bar General Plan Land Use Element July Q i� J I-3 8.2 Capabilities Of The Natural And Man -Made Environment a. Natural Resources Events of this decade have highlighted our limited regional resources, such as air quality, water, and solid waste disposal. As a new city, Diamond Bar needs to establish its own position on these environmental issues. Although the City is largely built out, additional growth could place unacceptable limits on sensitive or scarce resources. ISSUE ANALYSIS: There is a need for the City to plan for growth in ways that protect and conserve natural resources and the environment. a; Infrastructure Capabilities At present, the City has a fairly new infrastructure system and operates its services with a slight surplus of revenues. However, as the City ages, maintenance and service costs go up faster than municipal revenues increase. The current mix of land uses within the City is insufficient to adequately fund long- range capital and operating needs. ISSUE ANALYSIS: There is a need to plan now for the maintenance of existing facilities, fund new facilities, and support future services to continue the quality of life in Diamond Bar. City Image It. Mosier Plemile residenEWweet* with local commercial arterial intersections. Msuelt it `',-_. _ ., community, in the ----------------- ffejeets- leeeEed at fz, lJ F :::v<: <, x The vision of the General Plan offers the opportunity toeat in new developments within the Gity ISSUE ANALYSIS: There is a need to dFd' `':" .: °": a City imapa that re)lects arm de{enes the l :' tr1`'. ftlft3 t S :tt"ttfE'".# ptslott eemmwlily's .........,...............................................ls ...,..................... qu*My ef life. Diamond Bar General Plan Land Use Element July &!3 1-9 8.2 1.4.4 Designate and pursue acquisition of a centralized site for use as a civic/multi- purpose community center. Objective 1.5 Maintain a feeling of open space within the community by identifying and preserving an adequate amount of open land Strategies: 1.5.1 Maintain en inventory of preview dedieafiens, designations, at deeisions fegenling UMF any development festrietions en the pfapeftyr 1.5.2 Identify lands to be preserved in open space along with funding mechanisms . a. Investigate the need for a bond issuance to purchase open space areas not already protected by open space restrictions. b. Investigate the need for establishment of one or more Landscape and Lighting Districts to provide for open space improvements and maintenance. C. Investigate the potential for establishment of a maintenance district for privately -owned, slope areas that are along or visible from major roadways. •�.:{<.{.:{:;.{::..::>:;;.:<...>::::::::::..: ..:...+.. ...... :.... .....,.....sl.:S.... k -t>: >?}.<.: :•. i.•::. •: �:::::: .,...>.......:::::::::::.::::>:;::::<>:;:iii::::::::<;:+':x»•ix{>;;:: ...:+,:::...,iii -r:,--„-4,. ,....�i+�.,... y�j'� }j/���';�j'{ •..Y -.• :: �iI.V:+.,yA:pL.O.� ...r•:...... -'':i•1.'.xA!!�.:C!M!.i yl .. `i ;, M',•.�•'•-,},�r�,:--:>•. 0�::•:�•y:'�' C�+:."•:•'•'.., vy.+y"�,'-••�;�,::,�.,,:Y.. .,�:,t; }+, k+:iu>•>•{;.,..+,:{•��, .. .. .. `�// .�`.'• �' ','`,i�3: . E;'y :; •> • , ' $',:.:}�;'.`�.eY., � .::"?f:�:.cf.;� rJ;>. .A`>�54 .'y: •i,.•ii:��.i,3 Swyii»,'}C�>:, i..�:;:.x3ii�s�.,r :: .'•>:i • -- ':' ;:'`�� f f'�Y+ i• �•' '' : v': , •n;J. ••'•>f.;:j,:.i \9.. ; .. ri^ r•:;:!yi>}: ^::v .,•ati . f,•.: ' }y '•S ,..a,,.f•,^... ::{.?ti,,{� :-i3.; ':•F.`.:F .i.�{;>3!�" !•6x' �;.;:>:;>i.+::: ,-�?: %f:�%5::::.;c Diamond Bar General Plan Land Use Element July.3 1993 �-o I-16 8.2 rental housing, factory -built housing, mobilehomes, emergency shelters, and transitional housing in order to meet the community's housing goals." The Plan der Land Use lttcontains the inventory of land suitable for residential development, including both vacant and underutilized sites by residential density category. Areas with sites having a realistic potential of residential development include: 1) the Tres Hermans property, occupying almest I tAw tl acres at the northeast corner of the City; 2) the vacant property in the north -central portion of the City, occupying several hundred acres; and 3) other vacant parcels (10 acres or more) found throughout the City. Although there is other available land within the City, much of it is very steep or has other physical constraints that would generally preclude its use for moderate density residential development. The land within the current City limits that is available for general residential development could yield an additional 3-,599 Munits. However., ike load eould suppeo up te 6,00 This potential supply exceeds the projected local need figure of 781 dwellings for the 1989 - 1994 time period, based on a proportionate share of County -wide housing need as estimated in the 1987 RHNAreport (Trumbell-SCAG 1991). The reason for a lack of detail in the Diamond Bar land use inventory is that most of the large vacant properties remaining in the City are hilly with little infrastructure in place or immediately adjacent. The largest vacant parcel, called "Tres Hermanos," is designated w a 6N,V 3El because there are no firm development or improvement plans at present. It is intended that specific housing projects within Tres Hermanos could be built at densities higher than 16 units per acre, at densities that would provide housing for all income segments of identified need. a. Residential Land Use Categories Rural Residential (a0 - LO du/ac) Areas designated for Rural Residential including hillside areas that are suitable for low density residential areas. These areas are appropriate for rural residential development with a modest amount of open space. The maximum residential density is up to one dwelling unit per acre (1 du/ac). Low Dmrity Res&mdd (1.1-10 du/ac) The Low Density category limits land uses to single family detached residential. The maximum density within Low Density areas is up to three dwelling units per gross acre (3 du/ac). In Diamond Bar, the development of second units and attached dwellings behind the primary residential structure is allowed subject to the provisions of the City's zoning ordinance. In addition, second units and attached dwellings, which were constructed pursuant to valid permits issued prior to the effective date of this element are permitted, even if the resulting density of a site would be greater than 3 du/ac. LOW-Mediwn Density Residential (3.1 - &0 The Low -Medium Density category limits land uses to smaller lot single family detached residential. The maximum density within Low -Medium Density areas is up to sis: Jirdwelling units per gross acre (6 du/ac). In Diamond Bar, the development of second units and attached dwellings behind the primary residential structure is allowed subject to the provisions of the City's zoning ordinance. In addition, second units and attached dwellings, which were constructed pursuant to valid permits issued prior to the effective date of this element are permitted, even if the resulting density of a site would be greater than 0-'du/ac. x Diamond Bar General Plan Housing Element July 6,1993 `lA II -12 8.2 1.1.5 When deemed necessary by the City, require that significant vegetation which cannot be preserved in place, but is suitable for transplanting, be relocated. 1.1.6 Where possible and practical, require that dwelling units, structures and landscaping be sited in a manner which: • Protects views for essting development • Retains opportunities for views from dwellings • Preserves or enhances vistas, particularly those seen from public places • Preserves mature trees, natural hydrology, native plant materials, and areas of visual interest. • Permits removal of vegetation as part of a City or Fire District approved fuel modification program. 1.1.7 Utilize grading permit procedures to ensure that site designs for development proposals for hillside areas conform to the natural terrain, and consider the visual aspects. 1.1.8 Work with the appropriate jurisdictions to protect prominent ridges, slopes, and hilltops in and adjacent to the City and its sphere of influence, such as SEA 15, w<ilhia Tonner Canyon, the hills in the City of Industry, west of the 57 Freeway at Grand Avenue, the hills within the County of Los Angeles (Rowland Heights), west of the 57 Freeway, south of Brea Canyon Cutoff, the portion of Tonner Canyon within the Chino Hills Specific Plan, and the portion of Tonner Canyon within the City of Brea (Orange County). 1.1.9 Enact provisions and techniques that enhance groundwater recharge and local water recovery. �# :,: •;:::.��•;�,•:: �-'::......,:•: •:: •:.�: ••::: ..:•............. }::,,:.'...ice.:,.,. Blt��i+3�ii.,• ';$C,;j�c;#? .k.. .. rl}K'>':. {. �v'}ti:%wvw.v �. �.:0?::4vi' p :{i: vi\:-%'-.-. .v,:%f.. ;:jt�•} ''.�• :.?r..'.M�:w:i:2"....L:-;;.n:i: 3ci?9''. ::�.'��{ .-:}..j>;.}..;.F;�•-:: X Objective 1.2 Where ecologically and financially feasible, maintain, protect, andpreserve biologically significant areas, including SEA 15, riparian areas, oak and walnut woodlands, and other areas of natural significance, providing only such recreational and cultural opportunities as can be developed in a manner sensitive to the environment. Strategies: 1.2.1 Ensure that all development, including roads, proposed adjacent to riparian and other biologically sensitive habitats avoid significant impacts to such areas. Require that new development proposed in such locations be designed to: Minimize or eliminate impacts on environmentally sensitive areas; Diamond Bar General Plan Resource Management Element JUIYQ 1993 20 III -10 8.2 • Protect the visual seclusion of forage areas from road intrusion by providing vegetative buffering; • Provide wildlife movement linkages to water, foo4"".."'Na and nesting where • Provide vegetation that can be used by wildlife for cover along roadsides; and • Avoid intrusion of night lighting into identified areas through properly designed lighting systems. ;rnvriyn:{.}}•{: - v:.:C3:..� •Y... nyr.::;:. ti:: <�4 • t <::. ;:} :.. wildlife eer�ers and migration : .............. Replace it fresh drinking water for wildlife when natural water areas are removed or blocked. areas to the e3dent feasible. Nettwal -vegetation is ie be feme-ved only 1.2.3.2 In conjunction with local schools and volunteers, the City may participate in an environment education program. 1.2.45 Pursue preservation of canyon areas in their natural state'i Objective 1.3 Maintain a system of recreation facilities which meets the active and passive recreational needs of Diamond Bar residents of all ages. Strategies: 1.3.1 Develop Recreation facilities emphasizing active and passive recreation areas. The development of a community center, the acquisition of traditional neighborhood parkland including community athletic fields should be pursued. • Improve and enhance existing recreation areas. • Pursue joint public/private development of recreation facilities. • Develop and maintain a comprehensive inventory of recreation facilities and update the facilities to ensure that the City's needs are being met. • Actively pursue land acquisition for parks. • Pursue acquisition of various hillside areas for natural parks. • Initiate a program of identifying environmentally significant areas in the City and the sphere of influence, and analyze the possibility of protecting any unique or significant environmental features of such areas. Diamond Bar General Plan July 0993 f) Resource Management Element I11-11 1 8.2 CnYinim SPI RE OP DOLUENCE FREEWAY MATORARrEML SECONDARYARTBItIAL SEE STRATEGIES 1.&S OF THE LAND USE ELEMENT AND 1.1.4 OF THE CIRCULATION ELEMENT (f NOT TO SCALE GEN, PLAN Figure V-1 Circulation Element Roadway System Diamond Bar General Plan Circulation Element July 13, 1993 V-17 AGENDA NO. 8.2 VI. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES A. INTRODUCTION State law does not require the preparation of a general plan element dealing specifically with public services and facilities. However, it does state that... "The general plan may include any other elements or address any other subjects which, in the judgement of the legislative body, relate to the physical development of the county or city" (Government Code Section 65303). Diamond Bar, as a new City, faces many decisions as how to best provide services to the public, and what types of facilities it needs to build to support those services. Therefore, a local General Plan element dealing with the long-term provision of municipal services and facilities is appropriate for Diamond Bar. The actual provision of various public services has already been addressed in the following sections of the Diamond Bar General Plan: I. Plan for G-R19949nmily E) III. Flair fer Resource Management ltxt IV. Plan for Public Health and Safety .................. Land Use (for all services & utilities) Parks and Recreation Water (and Reclaimed Wastewater) Energy Systems Solid Waste Flood Control Police Fire Emergency Services Disaster Preparedness The Plan-fer Public Services and Facilities lift seeks to tie the provision of these various services and facilities together into an integrated strategy for municipal management. The Plan focuses on: • Identifying City facilities and services needed to sustain the community's quality of life • Long-range planning to fund City services and buildings • Coordinating and cooperating with various local agencies to provide those services not provided by the City. Diamond Bar General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element July 13, 1993 VI -1 8.2 B. EXISTING CONDITIONS The City presently has a minimum of in-house staff, and contracts out much of the actual service provision to local public and private agencies. In-house City services include administration, engineering, planning, parks and recreation, and maintenance of public facilities. The City is also arranging for local collection of solid waste. These daily functions are housed in City Hall, which currently consists of office space leased in the Gateway Corporate Center. The major physical assets of the City are its streets and parks, which were originally built by the County. The existing street system is also in good condition at present. Park maintenance is presently handled by City staff, although maintenance of the local landscape districts is contracted to private firms. The County of Los Angeles provides a number of services under contract to the City. Wastewater conveyance and treatment is provided by County Sanitation District No. 21. Although much of the physical sewage infrastructure (pipelines) appear in generally good condition, there have been repeated failures of the pump stations needed to lift flows to the regional collectors. Flood control is provided by the County Flood Control District. Its facilities are in fairly good condition with a small amount of seasonal flooding near the intersection of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. Solid waste disposal is handled by the County Solid Waste Management Department using several regional landfills. However, landfill space could run out before the end of the decade. Law enforcement N 3n handled by the County Sheriff's Department out of the Walnut -San Dimas Station. Fire protection, emergency evacuation, and response to accidents involving hazardous materials are all accommodated by the County Fire Department with three stations in and around Diamond Bar. The Los Angeles County Library System also maintains a very small community library on Grand Avenue near Diamond Bar Boulevard. Other services and facilities are provided within Diamond Bar by a variety of public and private agencies. Domestic water service is provided by the Walnut Valley Water District, which is in turn supplied by Three Valleys Municipal Water District and ultimately by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California. Water facilities are generally adequate, although the statewide drought makes the long-term supply of water to this area questionable. In terms of energy utilities, electricity is supplied by the Southern California Edison Company, while natural gas is supplied by the Southern California Gas Company. Energy facilities are generally adequate tc accommodate existing and planned uses. Comprehensive K-12 educational facilities and programs are provided by the Walnut Valley Unified School District and the Pomona Unified School District. Other services within Diamond Bar include branch office postal services administered in Pomona, RT bus system, Walnut -Diamond Bar YMCA, and Seniors organization. Diamond Bar General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element July 13, 1993 VI -2 8.2 C. PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES ISSUES If the City decides to provide more local services, services that are now contracted out, or decides to increase the levels of existing services, there may be a future need for a larger civic center in a more centralized location. This long-term facility need would have to be balanced against a community desire for no increases in local costs. The most cost effective way to provide such a facility would be through a joint public/private arrangement to build a civic center for the City, most likely in exchange for some kind of development arrangement. This facility could also house a number of other social programs for City residents, such as a senior center or a community center. The City may wish to plan its own long-range program of wastewater conveyance and treatment separate from Los Angeles County plans. Discussions with Orange County would be needed to determine if a separate sewage system were feasible. A larger problem would likely be the funding and timing of construction for some type of new system. Although most of the backbone system is already in place and designed to flow toward the Los Angeles system, a detailed alternative service plan could be prepared to address a change in flow direction. The costs and timing of such a new system would have to be weighed against potential failures of the existing system. The existing flood control system is presently adequate, but the City should establish if or how any local costs might accrue as the system ages, so that there are no "surprises" in future budgets. A master drainage plan will need to be developed for the City and its sphere of influence. The City may decide its wants to take a proactive role in developing long-term solutions to regional solid waste problems, such as rail haul systems. At a minimum, the City will participate in the mandated planning requirements for source reduction, recycling, and hazardous waste issues. Police and fire services are presently adequate. However, the City may wish to study providing its own protective services, or joining a more local association (non -County) to provide them. In the future, the sphere of influence may require additional police and fire protection as development occurs. The County's library is not presently adequate for local residents, although there are many other community libraries in the area that can provide additional resources. The City may want to consider providing for its own library, possibly as part of a centralized civic center complex in the future. Although local water purveyors can adequately serve the area in terms of facilities, a continuation of the State- wide drought could put severe restrictions on the availability of water. The City may wish to take a proactive stance on securing additional water supplies for itself, or at least keeping current on potential new sources or limitations. Energy facilities and systems presently appear adequate, although there may be supply shortages in the future. The City may wish to take a more active role in energy conservation and the development of new energy technologies. There are numerous governmental and private organizations in the area that might wish to use City resources to test new programs or devices. The City may wish to take a more proactive role in planning for its energy future. Local schools are presently experiencing overcrowding at all levels. The State funding mechanism for constructing new schools will probably not be sufficient to build local schools. Year-round school or other programs or building modifications may be necessary to continue providing quality education to local students. The City may choose to work closely with the local districts on site selection, funding mechanisms, and joint use of facilities. Diamond Bar General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element July 13, 1993 VI -3 8.2 D. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, AND IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES 7T IS THE OVERALL GOAL OF THE PLAN FOR PUBLIC SERVICES AND FACILITIES THAT THE CITYACQUIREAND MAINTAINADEQUATE RESOURCES TO MEET THE NEEDS OFITS RESIDENTS. " GOAL 1 Provide adequate infrastructure facilities and public services to support development and planned growth. Objective 1.1 Maintain adequate systems for water supply and distribution; wastewater collection, treatment, and disposal; solid waste collection and disposal; and energy distribution which are capable of meeting the needs of the residents of Diamond Bar. Strategies: 1.1.1 Prior to permitting a major extension of services or utilities to facilitate changes in land use, conduct a thorough review of all social, economic, and environmental factors associated with that extension; require the implementation of appropriate mitigation measures. 1.1.2 Ensure that existing residents and businesses are not burdened with or are reimbursed for the cost of financing infrastructure aimed at supporting new development or the intensification of existing development which does not benefit them. 1.1.3 Unless otherwise approved by the City, ensure that public water, sewer, drainage and other backbone facilities needed for a project phase are constructed prior to or concurrent with initial development within that phase. 1.1.4 Place the responsibility with, the project sponsor for ensuring that all necessary infrastructure improvements (including a pro -rata share system -wide improvements) needed to support a project development are available at the time that they are needed. 1.15 Coordinate the long-term provision of utility services, including water, wastewater, electricity, natural gas, solid waste, etc. to assure adequate future levels of services for City residents. a. Investigate plans by the Metropolitan Water District to locate a reservoir in upper Toaner Canyon. Diamond Bar General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element July 13, 1993 V14 8.2 Objective 1.2 Establish and implement comprehensive and equitable solutions to the financing of public facilities and services. Strategies: 1.2.1 Establish a development fee structure which ensures that costs for new capital facilities and expansion of existing facilities necessitated by proposals for new development and intensification of existing development are internalized by those projects, to the percentage appropriate to the development. 1.2.2 Investigate the establishment of proven financing techniques and mechanisms in combination with programmed capital improvements to facilitate the provision of desired community facilities. Objective 1.3 Ensure that all Diamond Bar residents have access to high quality local educational facilities, regardless of their socioeconomic status or location within the City. Strategies: 1.3.1 soe MOWN= a cooperative program with the City ef Industfy and the Pomona Unified School district to construct a high school in the Pomonft in the City of Diamond Bar stieh as within t{ Tres Hermanos Ranch. As part of high school development, pursue development of a major joint use recreational facility (e.g. <ud:rpool, ball fields, tennis; 1€iIlc courts stadium, gymnasium). 1.3.2 Work closely with the Walnut Valley and Pomona Unified School Districts on an ongoing basis to resolve issues such as joint use of facilities, location of new facilities, and alternative use of vacant or unused sites. Objective 1.4 Ensure the provision of cultural facilities, such as educational institutions, museums, and performing arts facilities, to meet the needs of Diamond Bar residents. Strategies: 1.4.1 Pursue the acquisition of a site and development of a civic center, including a multi -use community center. 1.4.2 Monitor plans of the University of California and California State University and Colleges systems to locate new campuses in Southern California. 1.4.3 Work with Los Angeles County to insure adequate library services are provided. GOAL 2 Achieve a fiscally solvent, financially stable community. Objective 21 Provide sufficient opportunities for retail and other nonresidential commercial and office uses as necessary to ensure adequate municipal income to finance desired community amenities. Diamond Bar General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element July 13, 1993 VI -5 Strategies: 8.2 2.1.1 Promote the intensification of the sales tax -generating potential of existing and future commercial and office areas within the City (also see provisions in the Land Use section of the Plan for Community Development). 2.1.2 Work with State officials and local elected representatives to make a determined effort to promote legislation for distribution of sales taxes to local agencies reflecting a combination of the location where the sales tax was collected and an equitable distribution based on population. 2.1.3 Pursue the expansion of municipal boundaries to areas which can be utilized to assist in the provision of sufficient municipal income to provide the high level of services and facilities demanded by Diamond Bar residents. 2.1.4 Prepare and maintain a municipal cost/benefit model. Objective 2.2 Promote efficiency in the provision of public services and facilities. Strategies: 2.2.1 Conduct an annual review of user charges, development fees, and public facilities impact mitigation fees in accordance with California Government Code Section 66000 et al, (AB1600) to ensure that the charges are consistent with the costs of improvement and maintenance, and that public services and facilities are being expanded in a cost-efficient manner. Objective 2.3 Promote a balance of public and private provision of services and amenities to the community. Strategies: 2.3.1 Identify and pursue opportunities for private provision of services and facilities within the City of Diamond Bar, including joint public/private efforts. 2.3.2 Explore joint or cooperative use of facilities owned or constructed by other public agencies. Potential locations include, but are not limited to, the Pomona Unified School District high school site in the Tres Hermans area; Site "D" owned by the Walnut Valley Unified School District off of Diamond Bar Boulevard east of the 57 Freeway; South Pointe Middle School; and the Walnut Valley Unified School District school/office site on Lemon Avenue just north of the 60 Freeway. 23.3 Provide regular information to citizens regarding current issues, public safety information, resource management information, city services, public meeting schedules, hazardous material collection programs, etc. Diamond Bar General Plan Public Services and Facilities Element July 13, 1993 VI -6 On numerous occasions I have spoken in opposition to the proposed down zoning, especially of unique parcels. To spite my efforts to notify the consultants of existing and potentially damaging future opposition, it has come to my attention that the City may still be considering these zone changes. Sure the owners of larger, potentially developable lots are a smaller percentage of the total property owners in Diamond Bar. That is exactly why, if one large lot owner speaks in opposition of down zoning, that his/her requests to leave the zone designations alone, should be given fair weighting. IE: whatever the ratio is (50-1?). And in more unique situations 2000 to 1. With the above weightings in mind, even if as many as 3 or more persons comments at the general plan workshops were some how interpreted as calling for reduced zoning designations, please then consider the 15 sample polling questionnaires enclosed. Someone should remind these consultants that it only took one seriously disgruntled property owner to effect a plan recension. If the consultants would like greater representation of those in opposition of a so called "no harm" down zoning idea, perhaps they should personally try posting notice on those property owners lots who stand to lose something and yet must continue to pay the extra taxes to spite their loses. For example, I am charged over $600 a year more in property taxes than my neighbors, largely because of development potential recognized by various taxing districts. For the same special considerations I am required to pay these higher taxes, so should I be given the consideration, as should other unique properties with similar size,if any. Is it wrong for a general plan to have provisions for fairness? This is why I propose special situation properties like mine which have location uniqueness and that are over say 5 acres, should be left alone, or be given special wording consideration in the general plan which effectively leaves their zoning unaffected. This way I won't be forced unfairly to pay the extra taxes for property that has had a 50% reduction in zoning designation, without a 50% reduction in extra taxes. The unique qualities I am referring to are -its proximity to the Freeway, semi commercial roadway and the potential of access to the new L r- July 8, 1993 �' �''C 4 3 City Of Diamond Bar rn Attn: Mr. Terrance Belanger, City -Manager 21660 East Copley Drive t .p Diamond Bar, CA 91765 „o S � Re:Cotton/Beland Associates, Inc., %:A '- General Plan Draft Recommendations: % -n Dear Mr. Belanger, On numerous occasions I have spoken in opposition to the proposed down zoning, especially of unique parcels. To spite my efforts to notify the consultants of existing and potentially damaging future opposition, it has come to my attention that the City may still be considering these zone changes. Sure the owners of larger, potentially developable lots are a smaller percentage of the total property owners in Diamond Bar. That is exactly why, if one large lot owner speaks in opposition of down zoning, that his/her requests to leave the zone designations alone, should be given fair weighting. IE: whatever the ratio is (50-1?). And in more unique situations 2000 to 1. With the above weightings in mind, even if as many as 3 or more persons comments at the general plan workshops were some how interpreted as calling for reduced zoning designations, please then consider the 15 sample polling questionnaires enclosed. Someone should remind these consultants that it only took one seriously disgruntled property owner to effect a plan recension. If the consultants would like greater representation of those in opposition of a so called "no harm" down zoning idea, perhaps they should personally try posting notice on those property owners lots who stand to lose something and yet must continue to pay the extra taxes to spite their loses. For example, I am charged over $600 a year more in property taxes than my neighbors, largely because of development potential recognized by various taxing districts. For the same special considerations I am required to pay these higher taxes, so should I be given the consideration, as should other unique properties with similar size,if any. Is it wrong for a general plan to have provisions for fairness? This is why I propose special situation properties like mine which have location uniqueness and that are over say 5 acres, should be left alone, or be given special wording consideration in the general plan which effectively leaves their zoning unaffected. This way I won't be forced unfairly to pay the extra taxes for property that has had a 50% reduction in zoning designation, without a 50% reduction in extra taxes. The unique qualities I am referring to are -its proximity to the Freeway, semi commercial roadway and the potential of access to the new City of Diamond Ba-- -70 Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff vJ Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by + Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft W :7) Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners; \' All boxes that apply are checked: ❑ T is is the first time I have heard that my �roperty has been targe or down zoning. ❑ Whatever sures may have been taken o notify me of such proposed down zo g have been inadequa . ❑ It angers me that ch a zone c nge of my property could have taken effect without know dge. ❑ If necessary, I may by si ar or through class action, bring suit to either rescin a do zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever mount is e most liberally projected value of my losses. ❑ In the future wi such matters as serio as consultants extrapolating and ' terpreting what they assum others were trying to say, of ectively into examples like "d n zone from 6 to 3 units per cre" that this type of consultant s ould be required to c ry ample professional errors and omissions liability i urance so that the results of erroneous interpret ions and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. ❑ In he future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appr iate being given not less than the courtesy of singular iss a direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any LS L-K\Q- V4 • i. t Name/print C-1 ` c- Signature Address ZvrA_, t9li,3 , Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Ba= Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff c7 w n Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/BelandiAssociates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft r Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property OwnersAA 0 All boxes that apply are checked: (/This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. ET -'Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. [��It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. T'l-In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. (9-�!_n the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print ( /�' Eti 0 ePuYC4ignature Address i -ZVY`�1 �! (ic1,3 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Ba- Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff 73 �1 _J r Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by -71 Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates. Inc. ;7 Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft �p Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Ownerst All boxes that apply are checked: Q/ [,� This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Q_Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. aIt angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. aIf necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected vial/ue of my losses. 4Y In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous inte pretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print -'�_;, r, ,Signature A ?65 Address' -r Diamond Bar, CA 91 �vr•�.� �! L`�ct3 City of Diamond Bar Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff :Z5 ,7 Z m Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates. Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft L Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners•" p All boxes that apply are checked: rn W This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Q Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. QIt angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. 9 If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. W. In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print L, %il Jf � - _%� f � � , Signature Address C jL (. �V L__ Diamond/Bar, 91765 r 191ii,3 City of Diamond Ba- Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff x rn Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by r Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now. Present in Formal General Plan Draft ;=X -o -a -c Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners W D -.o All boxes that apply are checked: OZThis is the first time I have heard that my property has been targe for down zoning. Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. [3' It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. �Tf necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. �J In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous inter�tations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. Zn the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/prim ��' � %� �f�T� ���L, Signat e 21L Address (��� /( %� �'- Diamond Bar, CA 91765 � Q Y%4- l lil: 3 City of Diamond Ba=- Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft x rn �7 W r Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners; y All boxes that apply are checked: w ' UJ �/ �n 1 This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. C21, Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. 12 It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. 11 If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. U In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. 6 In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print C0+2iGx,E z , Signature i Address '4,�F Wlk(TOS Fl • Q*QLeCi4 G3h1Z Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Z11Y`4L, Qf� r clili3 City of Diamond Ba- Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff X Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by � Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates. Inc. UJ rn Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft t c'� 'O :Zi Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Ownerag 3 M o• M All boxes that apply are checked: .70 U This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. 0, Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. [IT It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. dIf necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. �In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. []�In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any /��? i�Y ��`'�'�� s �Jo u Name/ print D J'0"1C1 d Signature Address 2-45127 Der , Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Z V Y` 4- 136 t 91iJ3 Environmentally Sensitive roadway. Tonner Canyon Issue The following are our recomendations for. the "Environmentlly Sensitive Issues of a roadway or corridor though Tonner Canyon or any to her alternative route that is to be considered environmentally sensitive. Name: If a name is to be designated to this rout, it should be named to not attract attention, such as: Scenic Highway etc. The name must play down the use of the road and discourage it's use. Issues of concern: A purpose for the Roadway must be defined: 1. To relieve traffic in Diamond Bar and provide a means for Chino Hills traffic to commute around Diamond Bar. Not to induce a new rout for further development in chino Hills. Definitely not to open a rout to development in SEA 15. 2. The regional area (San Bernardino County, Northern orange County and San Gabriel Valley area must discourage additional building and traffic. A surcharge on all new building such as a $5,000 to $10,000 fee for each new residential and proportionally more for commercial sites should be imposed within the area of this greater problem area. Developers must add the cost all new development as soon a possible. 3. Action must be taken to protect the environment and significance of SEA 15. No more development, even piece meal, will be allowed in SEA 15, including that area in the Country Estates, back hills area where SEA 15 exist now. Ecological Issues: Noise levels: Noise levels must be maintained at levels of current levels. Noise from traffic may be able to reach as highs as 45 db. It will be controlled by vehicle regulations: 1.) Vehicles larger than a small mini -van will not be permitted to travel on this road. Tire noise, engine noise, rattling of truck parts and load when pulling hills etc. will not be permitted. Certain tires, such as all weather and small pick-up vehicles that have above normal vehicle tire road noise will not be permitted to travel the roadway. 2.) A unique feature of he road will be its function to move traffic faster in one direction to meet the need for early morning traffic to Orange County and the evening traffic from Orange County. Therefore, it will be a four lane only roadway all in the same direction part of the day and all four lanes in the reverse 159 direction the other part of the day. 3.) Travel time: The roadway will be monitored with ingress and egress such a in the East where toll roads are monitored. Speed limits will be monitored. A maximum speed of 35 MPH will be maintained and ticketed if over 40 mph. This keeps tire noise down and lower. Time of travel will be limited from 6:30 AM to 11:30 AM South Bound, closed from 11:30 AM to 2:30 PM for maintenance ar accidents and a switch of the north bound PM traffic. North Bound PM traffic will be from 2:30 PM to 6:PM. Head lights will not be used at any time. If the hours do.not coincide with travel hours, the hours will b shortened. 4.) Construction of the Roadway or railway will be limited to the width of a four lane roadway (one direction) plus 10 foot on each side for construction purposes and drainage. The construction process will take place only on the proposed road, not allowing any travel or work along side the proposed road. This will eliminate destruction of animal habitat and vegitation. All work must be done, including spillage of fill etc. will be done as though building a tunnel where the work is done only in the pathway. 5.) Bridges will be provided that are not an eye sore. Bridges will provide pathways for animals to cross in their natural migration paths. A study will be made, Such as Dr. Paul Beier's Cougar study for all animals, Cougar, Deer and other identified essential animals. Bridges will be constructed to retain their natural movement and migration. 6.) No lights will be installed along the roadway. Not traffic will use their headlights. Studies show that many animals travel during the night. The Cougar travels at night and needs a 500 foot wide corridor. 7.) No stopping will be provided, except for emergency. Phones will be provided for emergency purposes. All vehicles will be ticketed to enforce the law. 8.) Toll Road. A toll of est $1 or so will be charged to defray costs and Highway Patrol expenses. It also will discourage use of this road, therefore eliminating excessive travel. Ingress and egress will be monitored to maintain a 35 mph traffic flow. This will then be a major benefit to travelers who desire to use this road. 8.) Road design. The roadway will follow the natural terrain as reasonable to be constructed. However, the roadway will not be built at the expense of destroying any trees larger than 8 inches in diameter. All existing trees over 8 inches in diameter will remain and the roadway will be designed around them. 9.) Fencing. The roadway will be fenced off to prevent any animal from crossing the roadway. This includes small animals such as raccoons, squirrels, rabbits etc. A pleasing appearance of possibly a chain-link fence may be appropriate, however, no block 160 wall will be used. A block wall makes the canyon appear like a freeway. Fencing may be located at the 10 foot line along side the roadway, to permit emergency parking and water drainage. 10.) Water drainage. All rain water or vehicle fluid must be drained through a system underneath the roadway to point at the end of the roadway outside the SEA area, such as in Brea in Orange County. This may require major construction considerations, but the need to keep polluted water from the canyon is utmost important. We suggest all drainage collected in the center or within the 10 foot limit on the side of the road. 11.) NO EXITS of any kind or connections to any future roadway will be built as long as this road exists. To construct a connector road to another rout defeats the purpose of this road and the protection of the canyon. To facilitate traffic movement, a fan of collector roads will be at the extreme ends of the roadway, outside the SEA onto major highways, such as Lambert, Imperial etc on one end and the 71 Freeway in Chino Hills and others. Grand Ave. should not be connected to the roadway, as it is a problem roadway. If the road is to serve any purpose it must go around the problem or it will add to the problem, stimulating travel within the area. 12.) Vehicles such as electric vehicles andnatural gas may have special priveledges, such as less fees etc. 13.) Air Pollution. Limiting the traffic to only those vehicles such as small vehicles, No Trucks will limit the air pollution. By keeping a continual flow and limited hours, air pollution will be limited within reason. However, Air pollution is greatly affected by the need for the road, such as more building of new homes in the area. Therefore, the ultimate answer is to put heavy costs to future building of new homes. 14.) No smoking will be permitted on this roadway. Fines will be excessive to discourage smoking. 15.) Those homes on the back side of Diamond Bar, such as in th Country and those in Diamond Ridge, that are is sight of the roadway, will be reibmersed a fee for depreciation in their property values. such a $50,000 each home. Financing Must be spelled out and not as a tax to th residents of Diamond Bar. pg 135 LOG_FILE\GP_LOG_2.BBC 161 DIAMOND BAR GENERAL PLAN Potential Text for By -Pass Corridor July 13, 1993 Detailed analysis conducted for the Circulation Element indicates that area roadways will see continued growth in traffic for the next twenty years. This is due primarily to continued development in areas to the east of Diamond Bar, especially in Chino Hills but also further east in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The analysis conducted for the Circulation Element was based upon coordinated information and data assembled from SCAG, Orange County, and RIVSAN traffic model sources. This information is derived largely from regional planning estimates of population and employment prepared by SCAG in its role as the metropolitan planning organization. Estimates of future traffic conditions also assume completion of identified improvements to the regional roadway system, in particular the freeway facilities. The improvements included in the roadway system include the following: - widening SR 60 to its ultimate configuration of 4 lanes each direction plus HOV lanes completion of HOV lanes for SR 57 improvement to the SR 60/SR 57 interchange (not 4 -level but including braided ramps to eliminate weaving and reduce congestion) - completion of SR 30 from its current terminus in Glendora east to I-15 - completion of HOV lanes on I-10 from El Monte to San Bernardino - upgrading of SR 71 to freeway status from approximately Holt Blvd south to SR 91 (this includes the 4 -level interchange at SR 60 currently under construction) - completion of widening of SR 91 to accommodate HOV and additional through lanes The results of this analysis indicates that traffic conditions in Diamond Bar will continue to worsen from their current levels. Delay, congestion, and associated environmental problems will increase in key corridors such as Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Drive given the projected growth and despite identified freeway improvements. Further analysis indicates that the range of development alternatives available within Diamond Bar (as defined in the land use plan) has no impact on roadway needs within the City; regional traffic demands are the driving force for future roadway needs in the City. Under these circumstances, it will be prudent for the City to consider the option of a by-pass corridor around the City's southern perimeter. Studies of such a facility indicate that should forecasted development and freeway improvements occur, a by-pass corridor will provide substantial relief to the key streets in Diamond Bar. Therefore, it will be the policy of the City to: - explore and exhaust regional options for transportation improvements prior to initiating development of a regional by-pass corridor - seek cooperation of adjoining jurisdictions in managing growth and assigning responsibility for infrastructure improvements to support that growth. - not wait until need for the by-pass corridor is demonstrated, but proactively monitor signs for the need so that timely planning and environmental steps can be taken - establish criteria under which a by-pass corridor would be considered, designed, constructed, and utilized On numerous occasions I have spoken in opposition to the proposed down zoning, especially of unique parcels. To spite my efforts to notify the consultants of existing and potentially damaging future opposition, it has come to my attention that the City may still be considering these zone changes. Sure the owners of larger, potentially developable lots are a smaller percentage of the total property owners in Diamond Bar. That is exactly why, if one large lot owner speaks in opposition of down zoning, that his/her requests to leave the zone designations alone, should be given fair weighting. IE: whatever the ratio is (50-1?). And in more unique situations 2000 to 1. With the above weightings in mind, even if as many as 3 or more persons comments at the general plan workshops were some how interpreted as calling for reduced zoning designations, please then consider the 15 sample polling questionnaires enclosed. Someone should remind these consultants that it only took one seriously disgruntled property owner to effect a plan recension. If the consultants would like greater representation of those in opposition of a so called "no harm" down zoning idea, perhaps they should personally try posting notice on those property owners lots who stand to lose something and yet must continue to pay the extra taxes to spite their loses. For example, I am charged over $600 a year more in property taxes than my neighbors, largely because of development potential recognized by various taxing districts. For the same special considerations I am required to pay these higher taxes, so should I be given the consideration, as should other unique properties with similar size,if any. Is it wrong for a general plan to have provisions for fairness? This is why I propose special situation properties like mine which have location uniqueness and that are over say 5 acres, should be left alone, or be given special wording consideration in the general plan which effectively leaves their zoning unaffected. This way I won't be forced unfairly to pay the extra taxes for property that has had a 50% reduction in zoning designation, without a 50% reduction in extra taxes. The unique qualities I am referring to are -its proximity to the Freeway, semi commercial roadway and the potential of access to the new L TY July 8, 1993 Z5 City Of Diamond Bar -n Attn: Mr. Terrance Belanger, City -Manager 21660 East Copley Drive ,p _4 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 { -o s Re:Cotton/Beland Associates, Inc., y+ `-t General Plan Draft Recommendations: � --t Dear Mr. Belanger, On numerous occasions I have spoken in opposition to the proposed down zoning, especially of unique parcels. To spite my efforts to notify the consultants of existing and potentially damaging future opposition, it has come to my attention that the City may still be considering these zone changes. Sure the owners of larger, potentially developable lots are a smaller percentage of the total property owners in Diamond Bar. That is exactly why, if one large lot owner speaks in opposition of down zoning, that his/her requests to leave the zone designations alone, should be given fair weighting. IE: whatever the ratio is (50-1?). And in more unique situations 2000 to 1. With the above weightings in mind, even if as many as 3 or more persons comments at the general plan workshops were some how interpreted as calling for reduced zoning designations, please then consider the 15 sample polling questionnaires enclosed. Someone should remind these consultants that it only took one seriously disgruntled property owner to effect a plan recension. If the consultants would like greater representation of those in opposition of a so called "no harm" down zoning idea, perhaps they should personally try posting notice on those property owners lots who stand to lose something and yet must continue to pay the extra taxes to spite their loses. For example, I am charged over $600 a year more in property taxes than my neighbors, largely because of development potential recognized by various taxing districts. For the same special considerations I am required to pay these higher taxes, so should I be given the consideration, as should other unique properties with similar size,if any. Is it wrong for a general plan to have provisions for fairness? This is why I propose special situation properties like mine which have location uniqueness and that are over say 5 acres, should be left alone, or be given special wording consideration in the general plan which effectively leaves their zoning unaffected. This way I won't be forced unfairly to pay the extra taxes for property that has had a 50% reduction in zoning designation, without a 50% reduction in extra taxes. The unique qualities I am referring to are -its proximity to the Freeway, semi commercial roadway and the potential of access to the new high school. After all, is it wrong for a general plan to preserve the market valuation and collateral valuation of unique property and common property alike? :t will be my pleasure help mitigate any opposition group to the new general plan, but I will need your help. If it is Okay with you, please have someone help the consultants understand the serious issues presented here and encourage them to include wording in the new general plan that is considerate of unique properties like mine. I look forward to helping our City support its new general plan Sincerely, C �+ rL Eric Stone Former GPAC Member 24401 Darrin Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Tele. (909) 860-2474 City of Diamond Ba_ - ti Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft r Y.' w ^� Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners All boxes that apply are checked: ❑ T is is the first time I have heard that my ¢roperty has been targe te or down zoning. C3 Whatever sures may have been taken o notify me of such proposed down zo g have been inadequa ❑ It angers me that ch a zone c nge of my property could have taken effect without know dge. ❑ If necessary, I may by si ar or through class action, bring suit to either rescin a do zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever mount is a most liberally projected value of my losses. ❑ In the future wi such matters as serio as consultants extrapolating and terpreting what they assum others were trying to say,of ectively into examples like "d n zone from 6 to 3 units per cre" that this type of consultant s ould be required to c ry ample professional errors and omiss',ns liability i urance so that the results of erroneous interpret ions and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. ❑ In he future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appr iate being given not less than the courtesy of singular iss a direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any T k -a "fr2 rte, �.,��., �-,o � �, � w a r-�+►� —�-v -� �-, � So �Q� Name/print C -r' L �UZ__ , signature Address 'Zv r-1 4t— I le 1453 , Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Ba: Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff ren n 71 W TI r Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. ,o Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft W 7 Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Ownersr All boxes that apply are checked: ffThis is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. E� Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have beenAinadequate. compie" QIt angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. ❑ In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and inte:^preting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. 9 In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any I am ow-ra*A iat 6U01;, dnanl e- in zOryi(1q Which rudd AR& m� Dowd w bx, coAtcrnp xk& uri kMt k40WL#45. X ansa`*- , v6x ncn+t op" tD 'ANC.Ianjk 1n fie.. 2-0nin9 ob t resid.Afiz� P and dwclopma �/ ' Name/print Mi6ia ,l A . Simmons �6r, , Signature / and ( am Aa in 01 ncickbLVr' Address 471 Anhit?): 1Rtt, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 �vr4L-I z —, L`�ri3 City of Diamond Ba_- Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff n W Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland'Associates, Inc. 1 10 Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft t } Sample Pollinq of Potentially Effected Property Owners 7 All boxes that apply are checked: This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Q--lhatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. Q�t angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. Q___I_f necessary, I may by singular or through class action, brina suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected �,-alue of my losses. Q --In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. [9' -'I -n the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print A-ZA-1k eD e/-' '^'Signature _"V/_n7 ,_)L Address S S ���� •� C -4v >>� Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Bar Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by nT Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates. Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft cn ^_ :2 `o _4 Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners a All boxes that apply are checked: 0 This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Qwhatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such 'proposed down zoning have been inadequate. It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. , In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. UIn the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name /pr int<=�L,<ilL_I `� -':�>J , Signature Address Diamond Bar, C 91765 ,ZVY`4_1 e 19133 City of Diamond Ba: Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff .n W � i Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates. Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft -c 4^ = Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners %A All boxes that apply are checked: 0 iThis is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Q Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. aIt angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. l...Y In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous inte pretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print Signature k, Address ' �' Diamond Bar, CA 91?65 City of Diamond Bar Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff x ,T 1 T Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft 1 T Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners; All boxes that apply are checked: FVarThis is the first time I have heard that my property has been geted for down zoning. Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such P/fbposed down zoning have been inadequate. It angers me that such a zone change of my property could ave taken effect without my knowledge. Rin If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, g suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. 2tr In the future with such matters as serious as consultants apolating and interpreting what they assumed cthers were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. 21In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would reciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/prin L /(),'k^,,,;,,NSignature ` �• L���1�: - Address ✓� ��5' /7', Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Bar Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff 4 Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft L •• 7 Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners•V All boxes that apply are checked: Q This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. QIt angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. QIf necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. aIn the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. '11� In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print C__ ,Signature �1 Address C `,L.,; ��(��,e� Diamond/Bar, 91765 r City of Diamond Ba_- Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff w Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft .p :74 Sample Polling of Potentially _Effected Property Owners;%,i All boxes that apply are checked: [y This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Qf Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. 12 It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. Q/1, In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any 11 � Name/print r h ; ,- h ?«!5'ignature'lr1 Address ,;��!l�� �i „i^ 1�'-� C- Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Zvr14-� _ ! I91 3 City of Diamond Ba: Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff x Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by -' Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners XJ x All boxes that apply are checked: his is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. QIf necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. 0 In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. (3--�In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print r 1�- A,r:%•,Signa ture Address Di and Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Ba= Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff • r -n C7 Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by T. Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates. Inc. �e n Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft � 7 NO --{ -C Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Propertv Owners:.. v+ � All boxes that apply are checked: 2 This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Q� Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. Ca,It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. QIf necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. U' In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. aIn the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print }��-�- /s �'l"-'ti , signature Address Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Ba_ Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff m Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by C) rst Consultant -Cotton Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft r= -c Sample Polling of Potentially Effected. -Property Owners ; w All boxes that apply are checked: 0 O This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targe for down zoning. Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. CY It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value -Of my losses. CJ In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interp tations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print !} i��(,.'`(,�( ,Signat e Address - (// f� �-T Diamond Bar, CA 91765 �vr�� 19q3 City of Diamond Bar Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff N Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by n w rn Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. G Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft rn -C Sample Polling of Potentially Effected PropertV owners, T UJ All boxes that apply are checked: [� This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. C31/ Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. �It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. 12/If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. LJ In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous int rpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. WZn the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any /1V 7V A- Name/print :L2L4&i; d g , Signature ,la�,� n Address Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Ba- Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft M W r Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners: All boxes that apply are checked: �+ w LE( This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Gal Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. ,2 It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. 12 If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. U In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. 6 In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any 1 .7) Name/print Signature Address '�e> AR1,(LCS PL • C pIL,,C" Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Ba- Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by x Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft w rn rn C Sample Polling of Potentiallv Effected Pro2erty owners.:— All wnersAll boxes that apply are checked: ow• t2 This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. [ :t angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. �If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected v�� allue of my losses. Ud 1n the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. Q --In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print /4 2t/`�N�Lx,/ , Signature' Address Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ZVY."t-� aZ tlig3 City of Diamond Ba_ Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by rn Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates. Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft < rn Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property owners 3 All boxes that apply are checked: w' o► G') rn U This is the first time I have heard that my targeted for down property has been zoning. M' Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. [" It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. dIf necessary, I may by singular or through class action bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. �In the future with such matters as serious extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed sothers lwere s trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. dIn the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Cfo C4 CJ�Crv'G Y (/vLQ C QL Name/print7/ell�/� JJ %O/`�/`d , Signature _%, N Address ?-442._7 427 bAR42a'N ,e.. �� Diamond Bar, CA 91765 CITY COUNCIL REPORT p, AGENDA NO. f MEETING DATE: July 20, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Amendment to Legal Services Agreement ISSUE STATEMENT: Consideration of the amendment of the legal services King,agreewhich between nadde City of Diamond Bar and Markman, Arczynski, Hanson & King, an hourly rate ($60) for law clerk and paralegal services. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the amendment to the legal services agreement, to include a fee rate for law clerk and paralegal services of sixty dollars ($60) per hour. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The inclusion of an hourly rate of sixty dollars ($60) per hour is antici- pated to reduce the overall charges for legal services; specifically special legal services. BACKGROUND: The law firm of Markman, Arczynski, Hanson & King has provided City Attorney services and special legal services to the City of Diamond Bar, since incorporation. The existing agreement for legal services, which was last amended in June, 1992, provides for three (3) hourly rates for services: senior partner ($125), partners/principals ($105) and associates ($90). The proposed agreement amendment peerthourlfordtheuservicespof6law clerks "At the rate of Sixty Dollars ($60) p tt and paralegals." This added galservices would the overall lowering oflegal services feesLegalservicesthat have been provided by law clerks provided by associate attorneys that could have been p and/or paralegals can now be assigned, completed, and billed at this new lesser hourly rate. This is the only proposed amendment to the legal services agreement. PREPARED BY: Terrence L. Be nger AGENDA NO. 9.1 AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES That Agreement for Legal Services entered into on July 1, 1992 ("the Agreement" hereinafter), by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, A Municipal Corporation ("CITY" hereinafter) and MARKMAN, ARCZYNSKI, HANSON & KING, A Professional Corporation ("ATTORNEY" hereinafter) hereby is amended as of March 1, 1993 as follows: 1. Subparagraph 6 .A of the Agreement hereby is modified to read, in words and figures, as follows: "A. ATTORNEY shall be compensated for all basic services rendered hereunder, subject to the provisions of Paragraph 6.B, as follows: (i) At the rate of One Hundred Twenty-five Dollars ($125.00) per hour for the services of JAMES L. MARKMAN; (ii) At the rate of One Hundred Five Dollars ($105.00) per hour for the services of ANDREW V. ARCZYNSKI and other principals (partners) of the law firm; (iii) At the rate of Ninety Dollars ($90.00) per hour for the services of associate lawyers; and (iv) At the rate of Sixty Dollars ($60.00) per hour for the services of law clerks and paralegals." 2. Other than as expressly amended herein, the Agreement, and each and every term and provision thereof shall remain in full force and effect. 1 direction the other part of the day. 3.) Travel time: The roadway will be monitored with ingress and egress such a in the East where toll roads are monitored. Speed limits will be monitored. A maximum speed of 35 MPH will be maintained and ticketed if over 40 mph. This keeps tire noise down and lower. Time of travel will be limited from 6:30 AM to 11:30 AM South Bound, closed from 11:30 AM to 2:30 PM for maintenance ar accidents and a switch of the north bound PM traffic. North Bound PM traffic will be from 2:30 PM to 6:PM. Head lights will not be used at any time. If the hours do.not coincide with travel hours, the hours will b shortened. 4.) Construction of the Roadway or railway will be limited to the width of a four lane roadway (one direction) plus 10 foot on each side for construction purposes and drainage. The construction process will take place only on the proposed road, not allowing any travel or work along side the proposed road. This will eliminate destruction of animal habitat and vegitation. All work must be done, including spillage of fill etc. will be done as though building a tunnel where the work is done only in the pathway. 5.) Bridges will be provided that are not an eye sore. Bridges will provide pathways for animals to cross in their natural migration paths. A study will be made, Such as Dr. Paul Beier's Cougar study for all animals, Cougar, Deer and other identified essential animals. Bridges will be constructed to retain their natural movement and migration. 6.) No lights will be installed along the roadway. Not traffic will use their headlights. Studies show that many animals travel during the night. The Cougar travels at night and needs a 500 foot wide corridor. 7.) No stopping will be provided, except for emergency. Phones will be provided for emergency purposes. All vehicles will be ticketed to enforce the law. 8.) Toll Road. A toll of est $1 or so will be charged to defray costs and Highway Patrol expenses. It also will discourage use of this road, therefore eliminating excessive travel. Ingress and egress will be monitored to maintain a 35 mph traffic flow. This will then be a major benefit to travelers who desire to use this .road. 8.) Road design. The roadway will follow the natural terrain as reasonable to be constructed. However, the roadway will not be built at the expense of destroying any trees larger than 8 inches in diameter. All existing trees over 8 inches in diameter will remain and the roadway will be designed around them. 9.) Fencing. The roadway .will be fenced off to prevent any animal from crossing the roadway. This includes small animals such as raccoons, squirrels, rabbits etc. A pleasing appearance of possibly a chain-link fence may be appropriate, however, no block 160 wall will be used. A block wall makes the canyon appear like a freeway. Fencing may be located at the 10 foot line along side the roadway, to permit emergency parking and water drainage. 10.) Water drainage. All rain water or vehicle fluid must be drained through a system underneath the roadway to point at the end of the roadway outside the SEA area, such as in Brea in Orange County. This may require major construction considerations, but the need to keep polluted water from the canyon is utmost important. We suggest all drainage collected in the center or within the _10 foot limit on the side of the road. 11.) NO EXITS of any kind or connections to any future roadway will be built as long as this road exists. To construct a connector road to another rout defeats the purpose of this road and the protection of the canyon. To facilitate traffic movement, a fan of collector roads will be at the extreme ends of the roadway, outside the SEA onto major highways, such as Lambert, Imperial etc on one end and the 71 Freeway in Chino Hills and others. Grand Ave. should not be connected to the roadway, as it is a problem roadway. If the road is to serve any purpose it must go around the problem or it will add to the problem, stimulating travel within the area. 12.) Vehicles such as electric vehicles andnatural gas may have special priveledges, such as less fees etc. 13.) Air Pollution. Limiting the traffic to only those vehicles such as small vehicles, No Trucks will limit the air pollution. By keeping a continual flow and limited hours, air pollution will be limited within reason. However, Air pollution is greatly affected by the need for the road, such as more building of new homes in the area. Therefore, the ultimate answer is to put heavy costs to future building of new homes. 14.) No smoking will be permitted on this roadway. Fines will be excessive to discourage smoking. 15.) Those homes on the back side of Diamond Bar, such as in th Country and those in Diamond Ridge, that are is sight of the roadway, will be reibmersed a fee for depreciation in their property values. Such a $50,000 each home. Financing Must be spelled out and not as a tax to th residents of Diamond Bar. pg 135 LOG_FILE\GP_LOG_2.BBC 161 DIAMOND BAR GENERAL PLAN Potential Text for By -Pass Corridor July 13, 1993 Detailed analysis conducted for the Circulation Element indicates that area roadways will see continued growth in traffic for the next twenty years. This is due primarily to continued development in areas to the east of Diamond Bar, especially in Chino Hills but also further east in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The analysis conducted for the Circulation Element was based upon coordinated information and data assembled from SCAG, Orange County, and RIVSAN traffic model sources. This information is derived largely from regional planning estimates of population and employment prepared by SCAG in its role as the metropolitan planning organization. Estimates of future traffic conditions also assume completion of identified improvements to the regional roadway system, in particular the freeway facilities. The improvements included in the roadway system include the following: - widening SR 60 to its ultimate configuration of 4 lanes each direction plus HOV lanes - completion of HOV lanes for SR 57 improvement to the SR 60/SR 57 interchange (not 4 -level but including braided ramps to eliminate weaving and reduce congestion) - completion of SR 30 from its current terminus in Glendora east to I-15 - completion of HOV lanes on 1-10 from El Monte to San Bernardino - upgrading of SR 71 to freeway status from approximately Holt Blvd south to SR 91 (this includes the 4 -level interchange at SR 60 currently under construction) - completion of widening of SR 91 to accommodate HOV and additional through lanes The results of this analysis indicates that traffic conditions in Diamond Bar will continue to worsen from their current levels. Delay, congestion, and associated environmental problems will increase in key corridors such as Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Drive given the projected growth and despite identified freeway improvements. Further analysis indicates that the range of development alternatives available within Diamond Bar (as defined in the land use plan) has no impact on roadway needs within the City; regional traffic demands are the driving force for future roadway needs in the City. Under these circumstances, it will be prudent for the City to consider the option of a by-pass corridor around the City's southern perimeter. Studies of such a facility indicate that should forecasted development and freeway improvements occur, a by-pass corridor will provide substantial relief to the key streets in Diamond Bar. Therefore, it will be the policy of the City to: - explore and exhaust regional options for transportation improvements prior to initiating development of a regional by-pass corridor - seek cooperation of adjoining jurisdictions in managing growth and assigning responsibility for infrastructure improvements to support that growth. - not wait until need for the by-pass corridor is demonstrated, but proactively monitor signs for the need so that timely planning and environmental steps can be taken - establish criteria under which a by-pass corridor would be considered, designed, constructed, and utilized CHAPTER IV. The California Environmental Quality Act and the General Plan This means that in nearly all cases, when a general plan is enacted based upon an EIR or mitigated negative declaration, the city council or board of supervisors must also adopt a reporting or monitoring program for ensuring compliance with adopted mitigation mea- sures. A discussion of the types of programs which may be adopted can be found in Tracking CEQA Mitigation Measures Under AB 3180, published by OPR. This requirement has two ramifications for mitigation measures. First, they must be practical measures that can be accomplished by enactment or revision of the general plan. Second, when enacting a new general plan or amendment, the city or county should clearly identify the mitigation measures that it is adopting. The city or county must adopt a specific program that will enable them to track compliance with those measures. This program may take any form as long as it meets the requirements of section 21081.6. One suggestion is to incorporate such programs into the yearly "state of the plan" report prepared for the city council or board of supervisors pursuant to Govern- ment Code Section 65400(b). MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENTS (INVENTORIES) A local government may prepare a master environmental assessment (MEA) in conjunction with the general plan and general plan EIR (CEQA Guidelines, Section 15169). Although its contents are not prescribed by law or the CEQA Guidelines, an MEA generally consists of an inventory of the physical and biological characteristics of an area, a discussion ofair and water quality and supply, the capacities and levels of use of existing services and facilities, and in some cases the effects of different development projects by type, scale, and location. A regularly updated master environmental assessment may provide information that agencies can use in subsequent initial studies, negative declarations, and EIRs on individual development proposals. It can also serve as a reference to help reduce the bulk and cost of project -level environmental documents. For further advice, see CEQA- Statutes and Guidelines, 1986, prepared by the Office of Planning and Research. 160 GENERAL PIAN GUIDELINES ADDENDUM TO FINAL EIR FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 1993 GENERAL PLAN PURPOSE AND SCOPE OF ADDENDUM TO THE FINAL EIR Section 15164 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines states the following: "(a) The Lead Agency or a Responsible Agency shall prepare an addendum to an EIR if: (1) None of the conditions described in Section 1162 calling for preparation of a subsequent EIR have occurred; (2) Only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the EIR under consideration adequate under CEQA; and (3) The changes to the EIR made by the addendum do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. (b) An addendum need not be circulated for public review but can be included in or attached to the final EIR. (c) The decision-making body shall consider the addendum with the final EIR prior to making a decision on the project." This addendum to the Diamond Bar General Plan Final EIR is prepared in response to modifications made to the previously adopted General Plan for which the Final EIR was prepared. For purposes of this addendum, the originally adopted 1992 General Plan and the proposed 1993 General Plan will be discussed. The environmental impacts associated with the 1993 General Plan will not alter the findings made in the original resolution certifying the Final EIR. No public review or additional recirculation of the Final EIR is required. DRAFT INTRODUCTION The Diamond Bar City Council adopted and approved Resolution 92-43 on July 14, 1992 which certified the Final EIR for the 1992 Diamond Bar General Plan. In Resolution 92-43, the City Council finds that the Final EIR has identified all significant environmental effects of the 1992 General Plan and that there are no known potential environmental impacts not addressed in the Final EIR. Furthermore, the City Council also finds that the Final EIR identifies the following unavoidable adverse impact which may occur upon implementation of the Plan: (i) Biological Resources; (ii) Transportation/Circulation; (iii) Air Quality; (iv) Acoustic Environment; (v) Land Use; and (vi) Public Services and Facilities. Contained within this same resolution, the City Council also finds that the facts supporting these findings are contained in the Final EIR, the General Plan text, and the information provided to the Council during the public hearing conducted with respect to the General Plan and the Final EIR. Mitigation measures, including a Mitigation Monitoring Program, are made a condition of approval of the General Plan and are intended to mitigate and/or avoid the significant environmental effects identified in the Final EIR. The 1992 General Plan itself is a mitigation measure which is intended to mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects of development which could otherwise occur without a planned, comprehensive approach such as the General Plan standards, guidelines and regulations. ADOPTED 1992 GENERAL PLAN The Diamond Bar City Council approved and adopted the General Plan on July 14, 1992 under Resolution 92-44. The 1992 General Plan incorporated the seven elements required by state law. In addition, the Plan for Public Services and Facilities was an optional element that integrated the provision and funding for public services. The General Plan identified three overriding issues which have a multitude of implications on the City's future. These issues included: Land Use (including open space); Circulation; and, the economics of municipal financing. As described in the 1992 Plan, land uses within the City of Diamond Bar were primarily residential, with supporting neighborhood commercial centers, freeway frontage retail/commercial, and newly expanding office and professional uses. These uses were supported by various roadways and public utility structures. According the preliminary 1990 census figures, the City had 17,664 total dwelling 2 units, with the majority (71.3 percent) being single-family detached units (General Plan FEIR, p. III -5). One objective of the adopted land use plan was to establish a land use classification system to guide the public and private use of land within the City and its sphere of influence. To meet this objective, the General Plan identified four residential designations. These designations included: a. Designate hillside areas with an average slope greater than 25 percent as Rural Residential (RR). The maximum gross density of Rural Residential will be 1.0 dwelling unit per gross acre (1.0 du/ac). b. Designate established master planned single-family neighborhoods as Low Density Residential (RL). The maximum density of Low Density Residential areas will be 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre (3.0 du/ac). C. Designate existing single-family detached residential subdivisions as Low Medium Density Residential (RLM). The maximum density of Low Medium Residential areas will be 6.0 dwelling units per gross acre (6.0 du/ac). d. Designate developed townhome, condominium, apartment, mobilehome and other multiple family residential properties as Medium Density Residential (RM). Maintain a maximum density of 16.0 dwelling units per gross acre (16 du/ac) within these areas. The General Plan also recognized a Specific Plan designation for large scale development areas (i.e. Tres Hermanos Ranch property) and an Agricultural designation for the Tonner Canyon area. Within this designation, agricultural and compatible open space and recreation uses were permitted. As stated in the 1992 General Plan, the City had a total of 17,664 dwelling units that housed a population of 53,672 residents (1990). The City was primarily residential, with 4,952 acres (52 percent) of the land developed for housing. The City of Diamond Bar's sphere of influence, as presently approved by the Los Angeles County Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) encompasses 3,591 acres immediately south of the City limits to the Los Angeles/Orange County border. This sphere includes the middle portion of Tonner Canyon, an undeveloped northeast/southwest trending wooded canyon. Proposed residential buildout under the 1992 General Plan could yield an additional 6,235 units. 3 PROPOSED 1993 GENERAL PLAN Following adoption of the 1992 General Plan, a residents' group circulated a referendum petition which was ultimately qualified. The City Council exercised its option to reconsider the adoption of the 1992 General Plan and as a result, on March 16, 1993, rescinded its prior resolution which adopted the Plan. The City Council then directed the preparation of a broad-based community participation program to encourage and obtain community involvement and create the 1993 General Plan. An extensive series of five public workshops (April, May) and nine public hearings (May, June and July) have been conducted. Workshops and public hearings were noticed to the community by means of newspaper ads, posters, press releases, cable television public service announcements, and direct mailings to approximately 300 persons and organizations. The result of this process were used in the formulation of the 1993 General Plan to accurately reflect the community's consensus of its vision for the future. Changes to the 1993 General Plan are shown by "red line" (to show new text) and strike -out (to eliminate existing text). Like the 1992 Plan, the 1993 General Plan is driven by three overriding issues which have a multitude of implications on the City's future. These issues include: Land Use (including open space); Circulation; and, the economics of municipal governance. With regard to land use, there are still some substantial vacant parcels of land in the community and the SOI. Some vacant parcels are suitable for development and other should be preserved for open space because of their significant environmental value.- Three major sub -issues have been identified that affect formulation of land use policy for Diamond Bar. These sub -issues include: (1) economic pressure conflicts with community desire to maintain the quality of existing environment; (2) status of deed and map restrictions; and, (3) the status of significant ecological resources within SEA 15 (Tonner Canyon/Chino Hills Significant Ecological Area). The 1993 General Plan establishes a land use classification system including residential and commercial designations. The 1993 General Plan identifies five residential designations. These designations include: a. Designate hillside areas with an average slope greater than 25 percent as Rural Residential (RR). The maximum gross density of Rural Residential will be 1.0 dwelling unit per gross acre (1.0 du/ac). 4 b. Designate existing developed single-family detached residential parcels as Low Density Residential (RL). The maximum density of such Low Density Residential parcels will be 3.0 dwelling units per gross acre (3.0 du/ac), or existing density, whichever is greater. C. Designate existing single family detached subdivisions as Low Medium Residential (RLM). The maximum density of Low Medium Residential areas will be 5.0 dwelling units per gross acre (5.0 du/ac), or existing density, whichever is greater. d. Designate existing planned townhome, condominium, apartment, mobilehome, and other multiple family residential properties as Medium Density Residential (RM -12). Maintain a maximum density of 12.0 dwelling units per gross acre (12 du/ac) within these areas. e. Designate existing and planned townhome, condominium, apartment, and other multiple family residential properties as High Density Residential (RM -16). Maintain a maximum density of 16.0 dwelling units per gross acre (16 du/ac) within these areas. The 1993 General Plan also specifically recognizes the Tres Hermanos Ranch property with an Agriculture/Specific Plan designation. The sphere of influence area is designated as Agricultural. SIGNIFICANT CHANGES BETWEEN THE 1992 PLAN AND THE 1993 PLAN As stated earlier, the 1993 General Plan incorporates community consensus of its vision for the future. As a result, changes have been made throughout the document which reflect changes in language or ideas. However, from an environmental analysis perspective, the most significant changes are included in the 1993 General Plan Land Use Element; more specifically, changes to the residential land use categories. The Land Use Element contains the inventory of land suitable for residential development, including both vacant and underutilized sites by residential density category. Areas with sites having a realistic potential of residential development include: 1) the Tres Hermanos property, occupying 800 acres at the northeast corner of the City; 2) the vacant property in the north -central portion of the City, occupying several hundred acres; and 3) other vacant parcels (10 or more) found throughout the City. Although there is other available land within the City, much of it is very steep or has other physical constraints that would generally preclude its use for moderate density residential development. The land within the current City limits that is available for general residential development could yield an additional 1,900 units (1993 General Plan, Housing 5 Element). Compared to the 1992 General Plan which estimated an additional 6,235 units at buildout, the 1993 General Plan accommodates significantly less new housing (approximately 4,335 units). The reason for the significant reduction in new housing is because the revised residential designations are intended to more accurately maintain existing single-family developments by not allowing densities to exceed that which currently exists. As defined, residential designations in the 1992 General Plan could potentially allow densities to increase in established neighborhoods. In contrast, the residential designations proposed in the 1993 General Plan reflect existing densities in established single-family developments. With 71 percent of the total City land devoted to single-family development, residential densities established in the 1993 General Plan have the effect of reducing potential buildout in terms of total number of allowable dwelling units. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT This reduction in total projected housing would, in turn, generally lessen the environmental impacts associated with land use, population, traffic, public services, utilities, natural resources, air quality, noise, light and glare, energy, and recreation. Open space and biological resources are maintained through the agricultural designation of large tracts of land. Based on this analysis, the changes considered in the 1993 General Plan will not result in any new or more adverse impacts not already considered in the Final EIR. The findings adopted by the City Council in Resolution 9243 regarding certification of the Final EIR for the General Plan are considered current and valid for the 1993 General Plan. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. K TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager PORT DATE: July 16, 1993 MEETING DATE: July 20, 1993 FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development Director TITLE: Adoption of the 1993 General Plan SUMMARY: The General Plan is a statement of goals, policies and implementing programs to guide the long-range physical development of the City. The Plan is required by State Law and determines the size, form and character of the City over the next twenty years. In March of 1993 the City Council authorized the retention of a consultant team to further develop the Draft General Plan. Five community workshops were conducted with residents in April and May to identify key planning issues and discuss potential General Plan policy options. Since May 19, 1993, nine Public Hearings have been conducted (eight City Council, one Planning Commission) to consider adoption of the Draft 1993 General Plan. On July 13, 1993, City Council received a presentation on the "final" Draft 1993 General Plan. The July 20, 1993, public hearing provides an additional opportunity for commentary on the 1993 General Plan adoption process. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive a presentation from the General Plan consultant team, conclude public testimony and forward comments to City Staff. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report — Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's Office) _ Ordinances(s) _ Other Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Library SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes X No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes No Which Commission? Planning 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: Terrence L. Belange soDeStefanoCity ManagerComent Director MEETING DATE: TO: FROM: SUBJECT: AGENDA NO. 8.2 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. July 20, 1993 Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager Adoption of the 1993 General Plan ISSUE STATEMENT: The General Plan is a statement of goals, policies and implementing programs to guide the long-range physical development of the City. The Plan is required by State Law and determines the size, form and character of the City over the next twenty years. In March of 1993 the City Council authorized the retention of a consultant team to further develop the Draft General Plan. Five community workshops were conducted with residents in April and May to identify key planning issues and discuss potential General Plan policy options. Since May 19, 1993, nine Public Hearings have been conducted (eight City Council, one Planning Commission) to consider adoption of the Draft 1993 General Plan. On July 13, 1993, City Council received a presentation on the "final" Draft 1993 General Plan. The July 20, 1993, public hearing provides an additional opportunity for commentary on the 1993 General Plan adoption process. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive a presentation from the General Plan consultant team, receive, conclude public testimony and forward comments to City Staff. BACKGROUND: In March of 1993, the City Council rescinded its prior resolution which adopted the 1992 General Plan and directed the preparation of a community workshop and public hearing process to adopt the 1993 General Plan. A team of specialized consultants were retained to develop the Draft General Plan. Community workshops were conducted in April and May to identify planning issues and policy options. Since May, 1993, the City Council has conducted eight public hearings to formulate and consider adoption of a new General Plan. On June 28, 1993, the City Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to review the substantial areas of change reflecting significant modification to the 1992 General Plan. The Planning Commission concluded their public hearing discussion and forwarded their report to the City Council recommending adoption of the substantial modifications as set forth in their report. On June 29, the City Council appointed Councilman Gary Werner to chair a subcommittee created to discuss a regional bypass roadway within the sphere of influence. The Bypass Subcommittee has held two meetings, has identified key issues to be addressed, and criteria for consideration of the roadway. Committee has established a third meeting for Monday, July 19, to further 1 refine criteria for consideration of a regional bypass roadway. On July 13, 1993, the City Council received the final Draft 1993 General Plan. The document contained changes, inclusions, deletions and other modifications to the base General Plan document. The General Plan consultant discussed the major and significant changes within the General Plan and provided a page by page review. Major areas of significant or substantive change include: 1. Map and text changes related to the former General Plan's theoretical buildout of 6235 additional residential dwelling units. The 1993 General Plan indicates that 1900 additional dwelling units may be developed over the next twenty years as a result of its policies. However, with specific development review standards and site constraints, staff believes that the reality for future residential growth in Diamond Bar is approximately half the theoretical amount. 2. Incorporation of substantial language responding to environmental concerns and environmental sensitivity related to a regional bypass transportation corridor as well as recognition of Significant Ecological Area No. 15 and further defining significant impacts to be reviewed before a project is considered for approval. 3. Incorporation of transportation policy statements responding to Diamond Bar's position as a recipient of regional traffic. Strong proactive statements regarding regional traffic mitigation, the need to work with other agencies and jurisdictions toward common solutions, and consideration of an environmentally sensitive regional traffic bypass roadway. 4. A vision statement which incorporates the retention of rural country living characteristics of the community, preservation of open space resources, reduction of regional traffic impacts on local streets, promoting viable commercial activity, and the provision for a well maintained, attractive and hospitable community environment are incorporated. As a result of direction received at the July 13, 1993, hearing, addendum pages are attached for review. The July 20, 1993, continued public hearing provides an opportunity for additional commentary on the 1993 General Plan prior to adoption. PUBLIC SEARING NOTIFICATION: Public hearing notices were previously published within the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Val ev Daily Bulletin in accordance with State Law. In addition, public notices were published within the Diamond Bar H;�hlander. The July 20 public hearing of the City Council represents the ninth public hearing conducted since May 19, 1993. Notice of each public hearing has been mailed to several hundred persons or organizations as represented on our General Plan mailing list. All General Plan documents have been available for review at City Hall and the County Library. N PREPARED BY: James DeStefano Community Development Director attachments: 1. 1993 Draft General Plan dated July 13, 1993 (transmitted on July 13, 1993 to City Council members and public hearing participants.) 2. Addendum 3. Correspondence dated July 8, 1993, received from Eric Stone dated July 8, 1993 4. Correspondence, undated, received from Max Maxwell on July 13, 1993. 5. Correspondence dated and received July 13, 1993, from Todd Chavers. 3 Sure the owners of larger, potentially developable lots are a smaller percentage of the total property owners in Diamond Bar. That is exactly why, if one large lot owner speaks in opposition of'down zoning, that his/her requests to leave the zone designations alone, should be given fair weighting. IE: whatever the ratio is (50-1?). And in more unique situations 2000 to I. With the above weightings in mind, even if as many as 3 or more persons comments at the general plan workshops were some how interpreted as calling for reduced zoning designations, please then consider the 15 sample polling questionnaires enclosed. Someone should remind these consultants that it only took one seriously disgruntled property owner to effect a plan recension. If the consultants would like greater representation of those in opposition of a so called "no harm" down zoning idea, perhaps they should personally try posting notice on those property owners lots who stand to lose something and yet must continue to pay the extra taxes to spite their loses. For example, I am charged over $600 a year more in property taxes than my neighbors, largely because of development potential recognized by various taxing districts. For the same special considerations I am required to pay these higher taxes, so should I be given the consideration, as should other unique properties with similar size,if any. Is it wrong for a general plan to have provisions for fairness? This is why I propose special situation properties like mine which have location uniqueness and that are over say 5 acres, should be left alone, or be given special wording consideration in the general plan which effectively leaves their zoning unaffected. This way I won't be forced unfairly to pay the extra taxes for property that has had a 50% reduction in zoning designation, without a 50% reduction in extra taxes. The unique qualities I am referring to are its proximity to the Freeway, semi commercial roadway and the potential of access to the new 1. TY July 8, 1993 1 � City Of Diamond Bar Attn: Mr. Terrance Belanger, City -Manager 1 -� 21660 East Copley Drive 'a 4 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 -� Re:Cotton/Beland Associates, Inc.. 7. General Plan Draft Recommendations: --1 Dear Mr. Belanger, On numerous occasions I have spoken in opposition to the proposed down zoning, especially of unique parcels. To spite my efforts to notify the consultants of existing and potentially damaging future opposition, it has come to my attention that the City may still be considering these zone changes. Sure the owners of larger, potentially developable lots are a smaller percentage of the total property owners in Diamond Bar. That is exactly why, if one large lot owner speaks in opposition of'down zoning, that his/her requests to leave the zone designations alone, should be given fair weighting. IE: whatever the ratio is (50-1?). And in more unique situations 2000 to I. With the above weightings in mind, even if as many as 3 or more persons comments at the general plan workshops were some how interpreted as calling for reduced zoning designations, please then consider the 15 sample polling questionnaires enclosed. Someone should remind these consultants that it only took one seriously disgruntled property owner to effect a plan recension. If the consultants would like greater representation of those in opposition of a so called "no harm" down zoning idea, perhaps they should personally try posting notice on those property owners lots who stand to lose something and yet must continue to pay the extra taxes to spite their loses. For example, I am charged over $600 a year more in property taxes than my neighbors, largely because of development potential recognized by various taxing districts. For the same special considerations I am required to pay these higher taxes, so should I be given the consideration, as should other unique properties with similar size,if any. Is it wrong for a general plan to have provisions for fairness? This is why I propose special situation properties like mine which have location uniqueness and that are over say 5 acres, should be left alone, or be given special wording consideration in the general plan which effectively leaves their zoning unaffected. This way I won't be forced unfairly to pay the extra taxes for property that has had a 50% reduction in zoning designation, without a 50% reduction in extra taxes. The unique qualities I am referring to are its proximity to the Freeway, semi commercial roadway and the potential of access to the new high school. After all, is it wrong for a general plan to preserve the market valuation and collateral valuation of unique property and common property alike? It will be my pleasure help mitigate any opposition group to the new general plan, but I will need your help. If it is Okay with You, please have someone help the consultants understand the serious issues presented here and encourage them to include wording in the new general plan that is considerate of unique Properties like mine. look forward to helping our City support its new general plan. Sincerely, L� Eric Stone Former GPAC Member 24401 Darrin Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Tele. (909) 860-2474 City of Diamond Ba- Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff 3 :-) 5 Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. -< Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft W ^� Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners; \�, All boxes that apply are checked: ❑ T is is the first time I have heard that my property has been targete or down zoning. / ❑ Whatever sures may have been taken o notify me or such proposed down zo g have been inadequa ❑ It angers me that h a zone c nge of my property could have taken effect without know dge. If necessary, I may by si ar or through class action, bring suit to either rescin a do zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever mount is a most liberally projected value of my losses. ❑ In the future wi such matters as seri o as consultants extrapolating and ' terpreting what they assum others were trying to say, of ectively into examples like "d zone from 6 to 3 units per cre" that this type of consultant s ould be required to c ry ample professional errors and omiss ,ns liability i urance so that the results of erroneous interpret ions and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. ❑ In he future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appr iate being given not less than the courtesy of singular iss a direct mail notice. Additional comments, i f any Name/print rt -'c_ Signature Address —'s v,r.i - 1 ",53 . Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Ba: Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff n W T 5 � Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft � =I .y Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners" - a All boxes that apply are checked: Or This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. (� Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have beenAinadequate. c Q It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. ❑ In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and inte7preting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. 9 In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any I am Oufrac�.cl -KIM .sash;, Cl�Rn t in Zaninq Q--- Which rould AR& mu a24' ccwd CIAA ►X CCALA kA LAnK out rwN Prion kAowu!dg_ a cmW -. S n zon MA&I nox4vew a£{cck +iu. VALUL RawtJ and dry► VP,k+Y►Gri+j0 L�Aj (+1t3►1d�� �n ZOninl� o� t{V. resiG�l�tlf c P In Mncif�kbWi^ AAA duu�.opl( u J 1 Name/print _MiChacl A. Simrrions , 3r. , Signature �0/- -� Address 471 i}Y►Yli{p5?IdCt, , Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Zvr.4, 7-9 , t9ri3 City of Diamond Bar Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff w n Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Cons•-ltant-Cotton/BelandiAssociates, Inc. .0 -.4 Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft r W � Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners All boxes that apply are checked: (/This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. Q�f necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected \,slue of my losses. Z�In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. [9"�'!n the future, concerning my property zoning changes, ould appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular Issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any �I Name/print ignature� r" Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Address 7 U Y%&_ City of Diamond Ba: Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates. Inc. 2 11 Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners i v� A;1 boxes that apply are checked: a This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. QWhatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such ,"proposed down zoning have been inadequate. It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. ,U In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. LJ In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/pr int L,� ,7 L1 `1 ,'.! � � , Signature - ` - _ Address Diamond Bar, C 91765 ���' � 1 _1 r: lam• L.\ Z vv%i . ,.�. _ L ` 45,3 City of Diamond Bar Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff 71 rn Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation. by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates. Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft ti Sample Polling of Potentially Effec'ed Property Owners , N 7 All boxes that apply are checked: 0 i This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. aIt angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. aIf necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. 11/ In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous inte pretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. WIn the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print _ , <.,:�, ,, , Signature Address ' '' Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Bar Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff x 'i '-7 Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by `n Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft r`= -G Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners %-A To .J All boxes that apply are checked: This is the first time I have heard that my property has been argeted for down zoning. Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such nk'nposed down zoning have been inadequate. It angers me that such a zone change of my property could ave taken effect without my knowledge. If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, ing suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. 2tr In the future with such matters as serious as consultants apolating and interpreting what they assumed cthers were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. 2In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would preciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/prin ` � , A- -11 /'ic,,NSignaturerlif--4.6, Address1 ✓� �'5-A:Z + %��, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Zvr,t-1 City of Diamond Ba: Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff ;o Z Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft 'o 4 `n L Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners ,�jm All boxes that apply are checked: Q This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. MWhatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. MIt angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. © If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. 12 In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any l � Name/print v , Signature Address ` '/I,,L,- Cwt -Diamond/Bar, 91765 r City of Diamond Ba: Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff w ~ Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-CottoniBeland,'Associates, Inc. T Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft ,o =� Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners All boxes that apply are checked: a This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. [� Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. Ca It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. 0 In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of ,consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. QIn the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print L n C �•n �ci� nature /� �-, _ L• Address .,k44!t l �. -�� �i� i^ h.�� e. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ZVY•t_1 _ /I t19, 3 City of Diamond Ba: Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff x Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by J Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft t -O =� Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners All boxes that apply are checked: his is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. C2 ------,t angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. 11 If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. 11 In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. [3 --In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/ r int ' , ��- �l-1 ,,, � �. 7� 1 6" P ,Signature ,4.. - - �- Address Di and Bar, CA 91765 Zvr•if , t` 9,q3 City of Diamond Ba: Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff rn Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. -n Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft Sample PollincT of Potentially Effected Property Owners y V{ •i All boxes that apply are checked: {d This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. 121"It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print }��-�— /1`�'�'�"'U ,Signature_ Address Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Ba_ Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff x Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft -c 70 Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners w All boxes that apply are checked: 0 U' This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targe for down zoning. Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. Ca It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge, If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interp tations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print- �=� (.'�(� ( , S i gna t e i____. • ,• ,! .� r /"T7 Address 22' ',/ Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Ba_ Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff n Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by m Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft rn � 7 -G Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owners;VIA T w All boxes that apply are checked: [x This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. (y/ Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. C31/ It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. M/If necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. aIn the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous int rpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. WIn the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any /1V 'rV e- 7ri.P4' .ri=4, � Name/print f,�&Z4 1���iia.� ,Signature ala' n • Address 4- Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Ba- Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates, Inc. Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft rn W r Sample Pollina of Potentially Effected Property Owners. i All boxes that apply are checked: v„+ w 13 This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. Qa whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. aIt angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. QIf necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. lJ In the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. 6 In the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, if any Name/print �p�j P� OlziLx'f'2 , Signature i :cc.� Address 4> AVU(TOS Fl • butZ. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 V Y% 4L City of Diamond Ba: Attn: Diamond Bar General Plan -Planning Staff Re: DOWN ZONING Extrapolation by r*i Consultant-Cotton/Beland/Associates. Inc. m Now Present in Formal General Plan Draft < rn I n 'o :::q Sample Polling of Potentially Effected Property Owner < 3 w• � All boxes that apply are checked: o► U This is the first time I have heard that my property has been targeted for down zoning. [, Whatever measures may have been taken to notify me of such proposed down zoning have been inadequate. [r It angers me that such a zone change of my property could have taken effect without my knowledge. dIf necessary, I may by singular or through class action, bring suit to either rescind a down zoning decision or to make right damages in whatever amount is the most liberally projected value of my losses. ErIn the future with such matters as serious as consultants extrapolating and interpreting what they assumed others were trying to say, effectively into examples like "down zone from 6 to 3 units per acre" that this type of consultant should be required to carry ample professional errors and omissions liability insurance so that the results of erroneous interpretations and omissions of prudent advice can be recovered. dIn the future, concerning my property zoning changes, I would appreciate being given not less than the courtesy of singular issue direct mail notice. Additional comments, �'J ��o•Yc Y 0 (/CiLQ I f any / J07- CP C OL Name/print7 ::R:rLP'ff-' A ! 0",1 /`0 , Signature Address 2-4127 pA212J'N 4e_,V er ., v'n.9 3n / 9q,; N Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Environmentally Sensitive roadway. Tonner Canyon Issue The following are our recomendations for the "Environmentlly Sensitive Issues of a roadway or corridor through Tonner Canyon or any to her alternative route that is to be considered environmentally sensitive. Name: If a name is to be designated to this rout, it should be named to not attract attention, such as: Scenic Highway etc. The name must play down the use of the road and discourage it's use. Issues of concern: A purpose for the Roadway must be defined: 1. To relieve traffic in Diamond Bar and provide a means for Chino Hills traffic to commute around Diamond Bar. Not to induce a new rout for further development in chino Hills. Definitely not to open a rout to development in SEA 15. 2. The regional area (San Bernardino County, Northern Orange County and San Gabriel Valley area must discourage additional building and traffic. A surcharge on all new building such as a $5,000 to $10,000 fee for each new residential and proportionally more for commercial sites should be imposed within the area of this greater problem area. Developers must add the cost all new development as soon a possible. 3. Action must be taken to protect the environment and significance of SEA 15. No more development, even piece meal, will be allowed in SEA 15, including that area in the Country Estates, back hills area where SEA 15 exist now. Ecological Issues: Noise levels: Noise levels must be maintained at levels of current levels. Noise from traffic may be able to reach as highs as 45 db. It will be controlled by vehicle regulations: 1.) Vehicles larger than a small mini -van will not be permitted to travel on this road. Tire noise, engine noise, rattling of truck parts and load when pulling hills etc. will not be permitted. Certain tires, such as all weather and small pick-up vehicles that have above normal vehicle tire road noise will not be permitted to travel the roadway. 2.) A unique feature of he road will be its function to move traffic faster in one direction to meet the need for early morning traffic to Orange County and the evening traffic from Orange County. Therefore, it will be a four lane only roadway all in the same direction part of the day and all four lanes in the reverse 159 direction the other part of the day. 3.) Travel time: The roadway will be monitored with ingress and egress such a in the East where toll roads are monitored. Speed limits will be monitored. A maximum speed of 35 MPH will be maintained and ticketed if over 40 mph. This keeps tire noise down and lower. Time of travel will be limited from 6:30 AM to 11:30 AM South Bound, closed from 11:30 AM to 2:30 PM for maintenance ar accidents and a switch of the north bound PM traffic. North Bound PM traffic will be from 2:30 PM to 6:PM. Head lights will not be used at any time. If the hours do -not coincide with travel hours, the hours will b shortened. 4.) Construction of the Roadway or railway will be limited to the width of a four lane roadway (one direction) plus 10 foot on each side for construction purposes and drainage. The construction process will take place only on the proposed road, not allowing any travel or work along side the proposed road. This will eliminate destruction of animal habitat and vegitation. All work must be done, including spillage of fill etc. will be done as though building a tunnel where the work is done only in the pathway. 5.) Bridges will be provided that are not an eye sore. Bridges will provide pathways for animals to cross in their natural migration paths. A study will be made, Such as Dr. Paul Beier's Cougar study for all animals, Cougar, Deer and other identified essential animals. Bridges will be constructed to retain their natural movement and migration. 6.) No lights will be installed along the roadway. Not traffic will use their headlights. Studies show that many animals travel during the night. The Cougar travels at night and needs a 500 foot wide corridor. 7.) No stopping will be provided, except for emergency. Phones will be provided for emergency purposes. All vehicles will be ticketed to enforce the law. 8.) Toll Road. A toll of est $1 or so will be charged to defray costs and Highway Patrol expenses. It also will discourage use of this road, therefore eliminating excessive travel. Ingress and egress will be monitored to maintain a 35 mph traffic flow. This will then be a major benefit to travelers who desire to use this road. 8.) Road design. The roadway will follow the natural terrain as reasonable to be constructed. However, the roadway will not be built at the expense of destroying any trees larger than 8 inches in diameter. All existing trees over 8 inches in diameter will remain and the roadway will be designed around them. 9.) Fencing. The roadway .will be fenced off to prevent any animal from crossing the roadway. This includes small animals such as raccoons, squirrels, rabbits etc. A pleasing appearance of possibly a chain-link fence may be appropriate, however, no block 160 wall will be used. A block wall makes the canyon appear . freeway. Fencing may be located at the 10 foot line along sic roadway, to permit emergency parking and water drainage. 10.) Water drainage. All rain water or vehicle fluid must drained through a system underneath the roadway to point at the of the roadway outside the SEA area, such as in Brea in Oran County. This may require major construction considerations, bi the need to keep polluted water from the canyon is utmos important. We suggest all drainage collected in the center of within the _10 foot limit on the side of the road. 11.) NO EXITS of any kind or connections to any future roadway will be built as long as this road exists. To construct a connector road to another rout defeats the purpose of this road and the protection of the canyon. To facilitate traffic movement, a fan of collector roads will be at the extreme ends of the roadway, outside the SEA onto major highways, such as Lambert, Imperial etc on one end and the 71 Freeway in Chino Hills and others. Grand Ave. should not be connected to the roadway, as it is a problem roadway. If the road is to serve any purpose it must go around the problem or it will add to the problem, stimulating travel within the area. 12.) Vehicles such as electric vehicles andnatural gas.may have special priveledges, such as less fees etc. 13.) Air Pollution. Limiting the traffic to only those vehicles such as small vehicles, No Trucks will limit the air pollution. By keeping a continual flow and limited hours, air pollution will be limited within reason. However, Air pollution is greatly affected by the need for the road, such as more building of new homes in the area. Therefore, the ultimate answer is to put heavy costs to future building of new homes. 14.) No smoking will be permitted on this roadway. Fines will be excessive to discourage smoking. 15.) Those homes on the back side of Diamond Bar, such as in th Country and those in Diamond Ridge, that are is sight of the roadway, will be reibmersed a fee for depreciation in their property values. Such a $50,000 each home. Financing Must be spelled out and not as a tax to th residents of Diamond Bar. pg 135 LOG_FILE\GP_LOG_2.BBC 161 DIAMOND BAR GENERAL PLAN Potential Text for By -Pass Corridor July 13, 1993 Detailed analysis conducted for the Circulation Element indicates that area roadways will see continued growth in traffic for the next twenty years. This is due primarily to continued development in areas to the east of Diamond Bar, especially in Chino Hills but also further east in San Bernardino and Riverside Counties. The analysis conducted for the Circulation Element was based upon coordinated information and data assembled from SCAG, Orange County, and RIVSAN traffic model sources. This information is derived largely from regional planning estimates of population and employment prepared by SCAG in its role as the metropolitan planning organization. Estimates of future traffic conditions also assume completion of identified improvements to the regional roadway system, in particular the freeway facilities. The improvements included in the roadway system include the following: widening SR 60 to its ultimate configuration of 4 lanes each direction plus HOY lanes - completion of HOY lanes for SR 57 - improvement to the SR 60/SR 57 interchange (not 4 -level but including braided ramps to eliminate weaving and reduce congestion) - completion of SR 30 from its current terminus in Glendora east to I-15 - completion of HOY lanes on I-10 from El Monte to San Bernardino - upgrading of SR 71 to freeway status from approximately Holt Blvd south to SR 91 (this includes the 4 -level interchange at SR 60 currently under construction) - completion of widening of SR 91 to accommodate HOY and additional through lanes The results of this analysis indicates that traffic conditions in Diamond Bar will continue to worsen from their current levels. Delay, congestion, and associated environmental problems will increase in key corridors such as Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Drive given the projected growth and despite identified freeway improvements. Further analysis indicates that the range of development alternatives available within Diamond Bar (as defined in the land use plan) has no impact on roadway needs within the City; regional traffic demands are the driving force for future roadway needs in the City. Under these circumstances, it will be prudent for the City to consider the option of a by-pass corridor around the City's southern perimeter. Studies of such a facility indicate that should forecasted development and freeway improvements occur, a by-pass corridor will provide substantial relief to the key streets in Diamond Bar. Therefore, it will be the policy of the City to: - explore and exhaust regional options for transportation improvements prior to initiating development of a regional by-pass corridor - seek cooperation of adjoining jurisdictions in managing growth and assigning responsibility for infrastructure improvements to support that growth. - not wait until need for the by-pass corridor is demonstrated, but proactively monitor signs for the need so that timely planning and environmental steps can be taken - establish criteria under which a by-pass corridor would be considered, designed, constructed, and utilized CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA Htt'UHT AGENDA NO. 10.1 AUtNUA NU. I, , I TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council MEETING DATE: July 20, 1993 REPORT DATE: July 16, 1993 FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager TITLE: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING, IN ITS ENTIRETY, CHAPTER 13.05 OF TITLE 13 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND ESTABLISHING NEW REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY ALARM SYSTEMS. SUMMARY: Alarm systems are very prone to be activated by electrical failures or other events having no connection with criminal activity. Unfortunately, millions of hours of valuable police time are wasted each year answering false alarms. This deprives those that genuinely have emergencies from getting needed assistance and places law enforcement and other safety personnel at great risk. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve Ordinance No. (1993) repealing Chapter 13.05 of Title 13 of the Los Angeles County Code and establishing new requirements and standards relating to public safety alarm systems. It is further recommended that the City Council direct staff to prepare the appropriate fee resolution establishing a service charge for maintaining a public nuisance alarm and set the prescribed public hearing for adoption at a future Council meeting. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report Resolutions) X Ordinances(s) _ Agreement(s) Other SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification _ Bid Specification 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes No by the City Attorney? _ 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A Yes No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ X No Which Commission? —Yes 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes No Report discussed with the following affected departments: _ Sheriff's Department Finance Department RE IEWED BY: Terre ce L. Belanger Troy L. Butzla City Manager Asst ant to the City Manager CITY GOVNGiL RLevKT AGENDA NO. 10.1 AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: July 20, 1993 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING, IN ITS ENTIRETY, CHAPTER 13.05 OF TITLE 13 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND ESTABLISHING NEW REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY ALARM SYSTEMS. ISSUE STATEMENT: Alarm systems are very prone to be activated by electrical failures or other events having no connection with criminal activity. Unfortunately, millions of hours of valuable police time are wasted each year answering false alarms. This deprives those that genuinely have emergencies from getting needed assistance and places law enforcement and other safety personnel at great risk. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve Ordinance No. (1993) repealing Chapter 13.05 of Title 13 of the Los Angeles County Code and establishing new requirements and standards relating to public safety alarm systems. It is further recommended that the City Council direct staff to prepare the appropriate fee resolution establishing a service charge for maintaining a public nuisance alarm and set the prescribed public hearing for adoption at a future Council meeting. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: On average, the Walnut/San Dimas Sheriff's Stations spend in excess of 9,500 man-hours a year responding to false alarms. In the City of Diamond Bar alone there were over 3,000 false alarms reported last year accounting for 2977 man-hours. At an estimated cost of $36.25 per Sheriff's unit, false alarms account for over $223,000 a year. BACKGROUND: In the face of growing crime, Americans are spending billions of dollars each year on security devices or services to protect themselves and their property. It is estimated that of the seven million alarm systems in use today each one produces about two alarms a year. Unfortunately, 95 percent of all alarms that are produced are false having no connection with criminal activity or actual emergencies. According to a recent report prepared by the National Institute of Justice hours of valuable police time are lost annually answering false alarms. In fact, the report indicates that the problem represents 10 to 30 percent of all requests for law enforcement services. Besides resulting in an enormous strain on the resources of public safety agencies, false alarms present a serious risk to law enforcement officers and other safety personnel. Some experts predict that unless something is done to remedy the problem of false alarms, law ahforn^Ma"t a"J _Lhae ciafcty ag�ncico Will zc..2VWLIl Vv c[►VLe than 40 million alarms by 1995. DISCUSSION: 10.1 The Sheriff's Department indicates that there were 3,080 burglary and robbery alarms in the City of Diamond Bar between June 1992 and May 1993. Given an average response and handling time of twenty-nine (29) minutes for each alarm, combined with the typical assignment of two patrol units at an average cost of $36.25 per unit, false alarms accounted for more than 2977 man-hours and cost the City over $223,000. Although Chapter 13.05 of Title 13 of the Los Angeles County Code, which has heretofore been adopted by the City, regulates burglary and robbery alarms, it provides no incentive to alarm owners to deal directly with the problem and formulate their own ideas, solutions, and mitigation measures to prevent false alarms from occurring time and time again. Moreover, the existing County ordinance has proven to be unworkable and costs more to invoke than may be expected in a potential fine. At the request of the Sheriff's Department, the City Council directed staff to research various false alarm ordinances and to prepared an ordinance for the Council's perusal. After reviewing the existing County statute and ordinances from other communities, staff believes that the adoption of a separate ordinance setting forth requirements and standards' relating to public safety alarm systems within the City is in the public's best interest in that: (1) eliminates unnecessary waste of tax dollars through emergency response to false alarms; (2) protects law enforcement officers and other safety personnel from needless risks to their safety; (3) releases emergency phone lines for genuine emergency calls from individuals that need assistance; and (4) provides the City with a mechanism for charging a fee to offset the costs of law enforcement services in responding to chronic false alarms. Staff contacted several cities in the surrounding area to determine if they have enacted ordinances providing for the collection of fees for costs incurred due to repeated false alarms. Of the ten cities contacted, nine of them have ordinances that provide for the assessment of a service charge to an alarm owner that exceeds the permitted number of false alarms during a given period of time. The following is a breakdown of those cities that have alarm ordinances, the number permitted false alarms by time period, and the fee that is assessed for each false alarm in excess of the permitted number of alarms: CITY NAME FALSE ALARMS PERMITTED SERVICE CHARGE/PENALTY Chino 3 per fiscal year N/A 4 in a fiscal year $35.00 5 in a fiscal year $70.00 6 or more alarms $148.00 Chino Hills 2 per fiscal year N/A 3 alarms in fiscal year $25.00 4 alarms in fiscal year $50.00 5 alarms in fiscal year $75.00 6 or more alarms $100.00 Claremont 3 every six months N/A 4 or more in six months $100.00 CITY NAME FALSE ALARMS PERMITTED SERVICE CHARGE/PENALTY Glendora 4 per twelve month period N/A 5 or more per twelve month period $50.00 10.1 La Verne 3 per twelve month period N/A 4 alarms in twelve months $35.00 5 alarms in twelve months $75.00 6 alarms in twelve months $150.00 7 or more alarms Misdemeanor Pomona 2 per calendar year N/A 3 alarms in calendar year $25.00 4 alarms in calendar year $50.00 5 alarms in calendar year $75.00 6 alarms in calendar year $100.00 San Dimas 3 per twelve month period N/A 4 or more in twelve month period Misdemeanor Upland 3 per calendar year N/A 4 alarms in calendar year $40.00 5 alarms in calendar year $65.00 6 or more alarms $90.00 Walnut 3 per twelve month period N/A 4 or more in twelve month period Misdemeanor Based on the number of false alarms occurring in the City and the strain it has on the resources of the Sheriff's Department, staff believes that each alarm owner should be allowed to have one (1) false alarm without charge in a twelve (12) month period. It is recommended that a service charge, as prescribed by resolution of the City Council, be assessed to any alarm owner of a particular alarm system that generates two (2) or more false alarm in any twelve (12) month period. After the fifth (5) and each subsequent false alarm in any twelve month period, staff recommends that an alarm owner be given official notice that a hearing will be conducted to determine whether the alarm system generating the false alarms should, by order of the Sheriff, be disconnected for a designated period of time or permitted to operate under conditions. Any alarm owner that continues to operate an alarm system without complying with the conditions imposed by the Sheriff or where the alarm has been ordered to be disconnected, is guilty of a misdemeanor and punishable as provided by law. In addition to the penalties for generating two or more false alarms in a twelve (12) month period, violation of any other provision of this Ordinance (i.e., failing to register an alarm, failure to post information, etc.) is considered an infraction which upon conviction is punished by fines of up to Five Hundred ($500.00) Dollars. ENFORCEMENT According to information provided by the Sheriff's Department, it is estimated that about two-thirds of all reported false alarms are a second or subsequent alarm call. Assuming that there were 3080 reported false alarms in the City last year this would mean that 2051 of them were from alarms that generated two or more alarm calls that required the Sheriff's Department to respond. In determining the service fee to be assessed, staff recommends that a flat fee of $125.00 be charged to any person operating an alarm system that generates two (2) or more false alarms in a twelve (12) month period. This fee should generate approximately $220,000 to help defray the costs of 10.1 providing law enforcement services and any other administrative costs that the City may incur in Y�spondlnq to false alarms. In addition to the penalties noted above, the proposed Ordinance provides the City with a mechanism, through civil remedies, to abate the nuisance alarm by means of a restraining order, a preliminary or permanent injunction. The City can also recover any and all costs incurred in abating the violation, and impose liens against any property on which the nuisance alarm is maintained. Enforcement of this Ordinance can be accomplished several different ways. While most cities use their own police departments or finance staff to administer the provisions of their alarm ordinance, this would prove difficult and time consuming for the City since we contract for law enforcement services with the County Sheriff's Department and have staffing constraints that would limit our ability to properly enforce this Ordinance. Some cities have resorted to using specialized service companies that will recover the costs associated with false alarms. These companies will, for a percentage (up to 40%) of the revenue that is recovered, track, invoice and recover the cost of law enforcement response for false alarms. While this type of service may relieve the City of certain administrative responsi- bilities, it doesn't completely alleviate the City from providing some staff support and may actually cost the City more than enforcing the provisions of this Ordinance itself. Since the City is presently contracting with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department for law enforcement services and they are enforcing similar alarm ordinances with other contract cities, staff believes that the City should work with them to develop an effective means of enforcing the City's false alarm problem. This could include joint administration of the ordinance through computerized billing verification, systematic collection of service charges from alarm owners for violation of the City's Ordinance, electronic tracking of false alarms, and report generation. The combined efforts of the City and Sheriff's Department could help to minimize the administrative costs of both agencies while providing an efficient process to manage the City's false alarm response program. Implementation of this Ordinance, in conjunction with the Sheriff's Department, should have minimal impact on the City and may only require five to ten hours per month of staff time to administer. However, in order to properly track billings and account for any fees that may be assessed it will be necessary to purchase an accounts receivable module or program for the Finance Department's accounting system. Generally, these programs are available at larger computer stores and cost between $150.00 to $350.00 depending on the complexity of the program and its functions. The more sophisticated accounting modules, which are used with financial systems like the one currently used by the City, cost several thousand dollars and require technical support to maintain. Based on the projected volume of false alarms and the time involved in billing and tracking payments, staff recommends that a low-cost accounts receivable program be purchased to bill violators of this Ordinance and to track payments received. PREPARED BY: 2L. S,-�-I-JA - Tro L'But aff Ass' tant to the Ci y Manager AGENDA 10.1 ORDINANCE XX (1993) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REPEALING, IN ITS ENTIRETY, CHAPTER 13.05 OF TITLE 13 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE AS HERETOFORE ADOPTED AND ESTABLISHING REQUIREMENTS AND STANDARDS RELATING TO PUBLIC SAFETY ALARM SYSTEMS. A. Recitals. (i) The City Council finds and declares that the majority of all burglary and robbery alarms that occur are false and constitute a public nuisance; (ii) The City Council further finds and determines that false alarms create conditions which are dangerous to law enforcement officers and other safety personnel; (iii) Law enforcement agencies spend countless hours responding to false alarms resulting in an enormous strain on the resources of these agencies and detracting law enforcement officers from responding to real criminal activity; (iv) Alarm systems which automatically and directly dial any emergency phone number are very prone to be activated by electrical failures or other events having no connection with criminal activity. This can tie up emergency phone lines making them unavailable to receive genuine emergency calls; (v) The City Council has heretofore adopted Chapter 13.05 of Title 13 of the Los Angeles County Code. However, said Chapter, which regulates burglary and robbery alarms, provides no incentive to alarm owners to deal directly with the problem of false alarms and formulate their own ideas, solutions, and mitigation measures to prevent false alarms from occurring time and time again. Therefore, the City Council finds it necessary to repeal this chapter, in its entirety, provided that said repeal shall not apply to or excuse any violation thereof occurring prior to the effective date of this Ordinance; and (v) The City Council finds and determines that the adoption of this ordinance setting forth requirements and standards relating to public safety alarm systems within the City is in the public's best interest in that it eliminates unnecessary waste of tax dollars through emergency response to false alarms, protects law enforcement officers and other safety personnel from needless risks to their safety, and releases emergency phone lines for genuine emergency calls. (v) 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. Chapter 13.05 of Title 13 of the Los Angeles County Code, as heretofore adopted by reference, is hereby repealed, provided however that said repeal shall not apply to nor excuse any violation of said Chapter occurring prior to the effective date of this ordinance. Section 3. The following provisions are hereby adopted as the Public Safety Alarm Systems Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar to read, in words and figures, as follows: "PUBLIC SAFETY ALARM SYSTEMS Sections• 1.0 Definitions. 2.0 Direct dial telephone devices. 3.0 Alarm systems --Registration required. 4.0 Audible alarms --General requirements. 5.0 Audible alarms --Prohibited sounds. 6.0 False alarm. 7.0 Repair. 8.0 Notification of Test. 9.0 Maintaining a public nuisance alarm. 10.0 Appeal. 11.0 Exemptions. 12.0 Penalties for Violation. 13.0 Civil Remedies Available. 14.0 Enforcement. Section 1.0 Definitions. the following words and phrases meanings herein defined unless it a different meaning is intended. For purposes of this Ordinance, shall be construed to have the is apparent from the context that A. "Alarm owner" means the person or entity that owns, operates, leases, rents, uses or makes available for use by his agents, employees, representatives or family, any alarm system. B. "Alarm system" means any mechanical or electrical device, whether known as a burglary, robbery or intrusion alarm, medical assistance alarm, direct dial telephone device, audible or silent alarm or by any other name, an alarm that is used for the detection of a fire, intrusion into a building, structure or facility, or to signal the commission of an unlawful act, or the existence of any other emergency situation. It shall include those devices which emit a signal within the protected premises only, are supervised by the proprietor of the premises where located, and are otherwise known as "proprietary alarm systems." Auxiliary devices installed by a telephone company to protect telephone company systems which might be damaged or disrupted by the use of an alarm system are not included in this definition. C. "Audible alarm" means an alarm system which, when activated, emits an audible sound in the vicinity of the protected premises. D. "Direct dial device" means a device which is connected to a telephone line and upon activation of an alarm system, automatically dials a predetermined telephone number and transmits a message or signal. E. "False alarm" means an alarm signal activated by causes other than the existence of an emergency situation or commission or attempted commission of an unlawful act, which the alarm system is designed to detect, and results in a response by the Sheriff to the alarm location. An alarm signal activated by violent conditions of nature or other extraordinary circumstances not subject to the control of the alarm owner shall not constitute a false alarm. F. "Sheriff" means the Sheriff of the County of Los Angeles or his/her designee. Section 2.0 Direct dial telephone devices. No person shall use any alarm system which is equipped with a direct dial device, and which when activated, automatically dials any telephone number in any office of the sheriff. Section 3.0 Alarm systems --Registration required A. Any alarm owner installing, maintaining, replacing, or using any type of security or emergency alarm system in the City shall provide to the Sheriff, in the form provided by the City or Sheriff, information on the alarm location, type of alarm system (e.g., on or off -premises signal), name of business (if applicable), names, addresses, and telephone numbers of all persons to be notified to render repairs or service during any hour of the day or night. Such form shall be promptly updated should any change in the information provided therein occur. B. The information furnished to the Sheriff pursuant to this Ordinance shall be confidential, shall not be subject to public inspection, and shall be kept so that the contents thereof shall not be known except to persons charged with the administration of this Ordinance. Section 4.0 Audible alarms --General requirements. The alarm owner of each audible alarm shall post in a conspicuous location outside the premise where the alarm is located the names and telephone numbers of persons to be notified to render repairs or service during any hour of the day or night during which the audible alarm is operated. An audible alarm shall terminate its sound, or shall automatically reset, within thirty (30) minutes of activation. Section 5.0 audible alarms --Prohibited sounds No alarm system shall be installed or used which emits a sound which is similar to that of an emergency vehicle siren or a civil defense warning system. Section 6.0 False alarm. A person shall not knowingly turn in a report of a false alarm. This section does not prohibit a test of an alarm system as permitted in advance by the Sheriff. Section 7.0 Repair. After any false alarm, the alarm owner shall, upon request by the Sheriff, submit a written report to the Sheriff, describing actions taken or to be taken to eliminate the cause of the false alarm. This report shall be submitted within ten (10) days of the date of request by the Sheriff. Section 8.0 Notification of Test. An alarm owner shall notify the Sheriff prior to any service, test, repair, maintenance, alteration, or installation of an alarm system which might produce a false alarm. Section 9.0 Maintaining a public nuisance alarm. A. Any alarm system which generates two (2) or more false alarm in any twelve (12) month period shall be deemed to be a public nuisance alarm. A service charge in an amount prescribed by resolution of the City Council may be charged to an alarm owner of a public nuisance alarm system. B. After each false alarm, the City shall notify the alarm owner in writing of the date and time that the Sheriff responded to said false alarm. The alarm owner shall also be notified in writing in each instance of the number of false alarms of record attributed to that alarm system within the previous twelve (12) month period. The alarm owner shall further be informed in writing of the provisions of this section and of any service charge or other penalties to be imposed. C. Within ten (10) days from the date of said notice, the alarm owner may present written evidence to the Sheriff that the alarm response in question was not in fact a false alarm as defined herein, or that there was a justifiable reason for the activation of the alarm. If no such response is made by the alarm owner within said ten (10) day period, the Sheriff's determination that the alarm was false shall be final. Within ten (10) days of receipt of written evidence from an alarm owner, the Sheriff shall render a decision which decision shall be final. D. Upon the occurrence of five (5) or more false alarms within any twelve (12) month period, the Sheriff may give notice in writing to the alarm owner thereof, by first class mail, postage pre -paid, of the date of a hearing to be conducted by the Sheriff. The purpose of the hearing shall be to provide the alarm owner with an opportunity to show cause why said owner's alarm system generating the false alarm should not be ordered to be disconnected. Within ten (10) days of the conclusion of said hearing, the Sheriff shall render a written decision, which decision may include, but is not limited to, ordering the subject public nuisance alarm to be disconnected for a designated period of time, or the imposition of conditions upon the continued use of the subject alarm system. said decision shall be final unless appealed as provided herein. Operation of an alarm system ordered to be disconnected, or without compliance with conditions imposed following said hearing, is a violation of this Ordinance and shall be deemed to be a misdemeanor punishable as set forth in Section 12.B hereof. Section 10.0 Appeal. A. An alarm owner may appeal the decision of the Sheriff rendered pursuant to Section 9.0(d) hereof by filing a written notice of appeal with the City Clerk within twenty (20) days of the date of the decision. The appeal shall be in writing, addressed to the City Manager explaining the matter appealing from and setting forth a statement of the action desired by the appellant, with reasons therefor. B. Upon the filing of an appeal, the City Manager or his or her designee shall set a date for a hearing on the appeal within thirty (30) days from the date of filing. The City Clerk shall notify the appellant of the date, time and place of the hearing. C. The City Manager shall, within ten (10) days after the conclusion of the hearing, certify the findings and decision in writing to the alarm owner. The decision of the City Manager shall be final. Section 11.0 Exemptions. The provisions of this Ordinance are not applicable to audible alarms affixed to motor vehicles or to a public telephone utility whose only duty is to furnish telephone service pursuant to tariffs on file with the California Public Utilities Commission. No false alarms shall be counted against an alarm owner that were the result of an act of God, natural disaster, or interruptions of electrical service not due to the alarm owner. Section 12.0 Penalties for violation A. 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. 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 an infraction, except as hereinafter provided, and upon conviction thereof shall be punished as follows: 1. A fine not exceeding One Hundred Dollars ($100.00) for a first violation; 2. A fine not exceeding Two Hundred Dollars ($200.00) for a second violation occurring within one (1) year; and 3. A fine not exceeding Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) for a third violation occurring within one (1) year. B. Any person violating any of the provisions of this Ordinance who has previously been convicted of a third infraction for violation of this Ordinance within a twenty-four (24) month period shall be deemed to have committed 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. C. Each person, firm, partnership, or corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of any of the provisions of this. Ordinance is committed, continued or permitted by such person, firm, partnership, or corporation, and shall be deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Ordinance. Section 13.0 Civil Remedies Available. Violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall constitute a nuisance and may be abated in the name of the City in any court of competent jurisdiction through civil process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent injunction or in any other manner provided by law for the abatement of such nuisances. Section 14.0 Enforcement. A. The amount of any service charge shall be deemed a debt to the City. All service charges shall be deemed delinquent fifteen (15) days after they are due and payable. B. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 38773, the City may recover any and all costs incurred in abating a violation or violations of this Ordinance, including the imposition of a lien against the property on which the nuisance is maintained. against the property on which the nuisance is maintained; and C. Prior to the recordation of a lien against property for the recovery of abatement and other related administrative costs, the City, in accordance with Section 38773.1 or 38773.5 of the 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. Section 4. 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 5. 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 6. No mandatory duties created hereby. In adopting this Ordinance, it is the City Council's intent to further and promote the goals set forth in Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance, but without creating, expressly or by implication, any mandatory or non -delegable duties on the part of the City of Diamond Bar or any of its officers, officials, or employees. Section 7. 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 I, LYNDA BURGESS, the City Clerk of the City of Diamond 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 6th day of July, 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