Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/06/1995elo C it NJ 00 COUYICII/ AGENDA Tuesday, June 6, 1995 6:30 P.M. Regular Meeting South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Phyllis E. Papen Gary H. Werner Council Member Eileen R. Ansari Council Member Clair W. Harmony City Manager Terrence L. Belanger City Attorney Michael Jenkins City Clerk Lynda Burgess Copies of staff reports, or other written documentation relating to agenda items, are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 860-2489 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title I1 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. I111�1l1111 I�,1I: Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper in the Council Chambers. .. and encourages you to do the same. 1. 2. �\.»a�ii Next Resolution No. 95-24 Next Ordinance No. 05(1995) CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m. June 6, 1995 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Papen ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Mayor Pro Tem Werner, Mayor Papen SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, PROCLAMATIONS, CERTIFICATES: 2.1 OUTSTANDING CROSSING GUARD OF THE YEAR - Arlene Snedeker serving students at Golden Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd. 2.2 CERTIFICATES OF RECOGNITION TO THE WINNERS OF THE 20TH ANNUAL DIAMOND BAR JR. WOMEN'S CLUB SPELLING BEE: First Place - Annie Nguyen, Third Grade, Golden Springs Elementary School; Second Place - Victor Yu, Fourth Grade, Quail Summit Elementary School; and Maryanne Ramirez, Third Grade, Neil Armstrong Elementary School. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda. Although the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council generally cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and sive it to the City Clerk (completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council. 4. COUNCIL COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Council - members are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a future meeting. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - June 8, 1995 - 6:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - June 12, 1995 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - June 20, 1995 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 2 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES: 6.1.1 Regular Meeting of May 2, 1995 - Approve as Submitted. 6.1.2 Adjourned Regular Meeting of May 9, 1995 - Approve as Submitted. Requested by: City Clerk 6.2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of March 23, 1995 - Receive & File. Requested by: Community Services Director 6.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.3.1 Regular Meeting of March 9, 1995 - Receive & File. 6.3.2 Special Meeting of March 30, 1995 - Receive & File. Requested by: City Engineer 6.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.4.1 Regular Meeting of March 27, 1995 - Receive & File. 6.4.2 Regular Meeting of April 10, 1995 - Receive & File. 6.4.3 Regular Meeting of April 24, 1995 - Receive & File. Requested by: Community Development Director 6.5 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated June 6, 1995 in the amount of $748,295.02. Requested by: City Manager 6.6 TREASURERfS REPORT - Receive and File Treasurers Report for April, 1995. Requested by: City Manager 6.7 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Phil Rini May 12, 1995. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council reject the request and refer the matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager. Requested by: City Clerk 6.8 NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR CONSTRUCTION OF NEW SIDEWALKS ON DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD - On April 4, 1995, the Council awarded a sidewalk construction contract to JDC, Inc. for JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 3 $24,300 for construction of sidewalks on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Fountain Spgs. Rd. and Pathfinder Rd. Work has been completed and determined to be in accordance with plans and specifications approved by the City. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council accept work performed by JDC, Inc. and authorize the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion and release any retention amounts after 35 days of filing. Requested by: City Engineer 6.9 (A) GRAND AVENUE STREET REHABILITATION, TRAFFIC SIGNAL SYNCHRONIZATION AND INTERSECTION MODIFICATION PROJECT BETWEEN GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE AND SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY LINE - Grand Ave., between Golden Springs Dr. and the San Bernardino County line, is in need of pavement rehabil- itation and/or reconstruction. On March 21, 1995 Council authorized staff to advertise for bids. Staff now proposes to award a construction contract to the lowest responsible bidder. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council award a contract to Gentry Brothers, Inc. in an amount not -to -exceed $914,395.30, and provide a contingency amount of $140,000 for project change orders to be approved by the City Manager, for a total authorization amount of $1,054,395.30. (B) CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION/ INSPECTION SERVICES FOR GRAND AVENUE REHABILITATION - On March 21, 1995, the Council approved plans and specifications for Grand Ave. Rehabilitation which includes pavement rehabilitation, intersection improvements and traffic signal synchron- ization. After distributing 50 Requests for Proposals, 10 firms were interviewed and, with concensus of the Committee, Harris & Associates was found to be the best qualified. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the Mayor to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with Harris & Associates for Construction Administration and Inspection Services for Grand Ave. Rehabilitation in an amount not -to -exceed $41,310 and provide a contingency amount of $4,000 for contract amendment(s) to be approved by the City Manager, for a total authorization of $45,310. (C) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA ACCEPTING A GRANT OF CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY HEREIN DESCRIBED FOR PUBLIC PURPOSES AND THE DEDICATION OF THE RIGHT TO RESTRICT DIRECT VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS THERETO FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY - This matter requests the Council's acceptance of a grant deed from Calvary Chapel/Hidden Manna Corp. of real property JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 4 (for, street purposes) at the southeasterly corner of Golden Spgs. Dr. and Grand Ave. along with the dedication of the right to restrict direct vehicular access to/from the street from this frontage. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council accept the Grant Deed and adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX directing the City Clerk to sign the Certificate of Acceptance and record the document. Requested by: City Engineer 6.10 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR PARK SITE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS (A) SYCAMORE CANYON PARK; (B) STARSHINE PARK; (C) HERITAGE PARK IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE TO RECEIVE BIDS - The following three site improvements are approved projects in the 1994/95 FY Capital Improvement Budget: a) Sycamore Canyon Park - Repair of wood poles along front edge of playground and installation of fence between playground and slope; b) Starshine Park - Installation of picnic table and barbecue; c) Heritage Park - Extension of basketball court from half court to full court. There is $14,750 in Quimby Funds allocated specifically for these projects. Also, there is $4,000 in General Fund Capital equipment funds available, bringing the total amount available to $18,750. Engineer's estimated cost of these projects is $17,000. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX approving plans and specifications for park site improvements at Sycamore Canyon Park, Starshine Park and Heritage Park and direct the City Clerk to advertise for and receive bids. Requested by: Community Services Director 6.11 (A) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON - Pursuant to Council's direction of March 21, 1995, staff has prepared the Engineer's Report for District No. 38 for FY 1995-96. Said Report was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California. JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 5 Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report, adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX declaring the City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District No. 38 and direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing for June 20, 1995. (B) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON - Pursuant to Council's direction of March 21, 1995, staff has prepared the Engineer's Report for District No. 39 for FY 1995-96. Said Report was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report, adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX declaring the City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District No. 39 and direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing for June 20, 1995. (C) RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE ENGINEER'S REPORT FILED PURSUANT TO SECTION 22623 OF THE CALIFORNIA STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE WITH RESPECT TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41; AND DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR CERTAIN LANDSCAPING MAINTENANCE WITHIN SAID DISTRICT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1995-96; AND FIXING A TIME AND PLACE FOR A HEARING OF OBJECTIONS THEREON - Pursuant to Council's direction of March 21, 1995, staff has prepared the Engineer's Report for District No. 41 for FY 1995-96. Said Report was prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the ,State of California. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report, adopt Resolution No. 95 -XX declaring the City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District No. 41 and direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing for June 20, 1995. Requested by: City Engineer JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 6 6.12 EXTENSION OF BUS SHELTERS CONTRACT - The City has contracted with Metro Display Advertising, Inc. to provide 20 bus shelters since July of 1990. The five year term of the original contract expires on July 1, 1995. Section 15 of the contract provides the Council with the option of extending the contract for an additional five year term. Staff has negotiated the conditions of the extension with Metro Display Advertising Inc. The City will receive a $24,000 franchise fee and incur no costs for the repair or maintenance for the shelters. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the extension of the Bus Shelters contract with Metro Display Advertising, Inc. for a period of five years, effective July 1, 1995. Requested by: Community Services Director 6.13 AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES - The Council awarded a professional services agreement in the amount of $19,900 to Charles Abbott Associates, Inc. for environmental management services. Staff is requesting that an additional $8,000 be allocated for additional services related to the City's used motor oil program. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to the professional services with Charles Abbott Associates, Inc. authorizing the City Manager to allocate an additional $8,000 for environmental management services related to the used motor oil grant program. Requested by: City Manager 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 CERTIFICATION OF MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 91-2 AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47850, LOCATED EASTERLY OF STEEPLECHASE LANE AND SOUTH OF WINDMILL DR. ADJACENT TO THE PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY KNOWN AS "THE COUNTRY" - At the conclusion of the April 61, 1995 Joint Session with the Planning Commission, Council referred the project to the Commission for comments. The Commission has completed their review and forwarded comments back to the City Council for consideration. Continued from May 17, 1995. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council open the continued public hearing, receive a presentation from staff, receive public testimony, close the public hearing and direct staff as appropriate. JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 7 Requested by: Community Development Director 7.2 1995-96 BUDGET Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council open the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the matter to June 20, 1995. Requested by: City Manager 8. OLD BUSINESS: 8.1 APPOINTMENT OF DELEGATES AND/OR ALTERNATES - Wildlife Corridor Conservancy Joint Powers and Southern California Joint Powers Insurance Authority (SCJPIA). Requested by: Mayor 8.2 REQUEST FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RELATED TO RENEWAL OF THE CITY'S CABLE TELEVISION FRANCHISE - The Council adopted Ordinance No. 04(1995) extending the term of the cable television franchise with Jones Intercable for an additional six month period. This extension now allows the City to commence a comprehensive evaluation of the cable television system, including financial and technical audits, service capability and operator performance and a review of the cable operator's past record of compliance with the franchise ordinance. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council allocate $16,500 in FY 1994-95 for professional services related to renewal of the City's cable television franchise; further, that the City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into separate professional services agreement with the following firms: (1) Conrad & Associates for financial and customer complaint auditing services in an amount not -to -exceed $2,800; (2) Communications Support Corporation for technical inspection services in an amount not -to -exceed $3,700; and (3) law firm of Richards, Watson and Gershon for special legal services in an amount not -to -exceed $10,000. Requested by: 9. NEW BUSINESS: 9.1 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENT TO UNEXPIRED TERM OF FORMER COUNCIL MEMBER MILLER - On May 18, 1995, Council Member Gary G. Miller was sworn in as a Member of the State Assembly to complete the unexpired term remaining upon the recall of Assemblyman Paul Horcher. It is the opinion of the City Attorney that Mr. Miller's City Council seat became vacant at the time he took the State Oath of Office. Government Code Section 36512(b) states JUNE 6, 1995 PAGE 8 that "the council shall, within 30 days from the commencement of the vacancy, either fill the vacancy by appointment or call a special election to fill the vacancy. The special election shall be held on the next regularly established election date no less than 114 days from the call of the special election. A person appointed or elected to fill a vacancy holds office for the unexpired term of the former incumbent." The 30 -day period will expire June 17, 1995. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council 1) on or before June 17, 1995, consider the appointment of a registered voter of Diamond Bar to complete the unexpired term of Council Member Gary G. Miller or 2) delay the selection of a replacement until the election is held on November 7, 1995. Requested by: City Manager 9.2 ORDINANCE NO. XX (1995) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING AND ENACTING A NEW CODE FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF CERTAIN ORDINANCES NOT INCLUDED THEREIN; PROVIDING A PENALTY FOR THE VIOLATION THEREOF; PROVIDING FOR THE MANNER OF AMENDING SUCH CODE; AND PROVIDING WHEN SUCH CODE AND THIS ORDINANCE SHALL BECOME EFFECTIVE - In 1992, the City Council authorized an agreement with Municipal Code Corp. of Tallahassee, F1 to codify its ordinances into a document commonly referred to as a "Municipal Code." Said publication is a compilation of all ordinances adopted by the City beginning with incorporation up to July 5, 1994. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve for first reading by title only, waive full reading and set a Public Hearing for July 18, 1995. Requested by: City Manager 10. ANNOUNCEMENTS: 11. 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 Regular Meeting at the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, located at 21865 E. Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California at 6:30 p.m. on Tuesday, June 6, 1995. 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 Regular Meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council, to be held on June 6, 1995 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 2nd day of June, 1995, at Diamond Bar, California. /s/ Lynda Burgess Lynda Burgess, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RULES PUBLIC INPUT The meetings of the Diamond Bar City Council are open to the public. A member of the public may address the Council on the subject of one or more agenda items and/or other items of which are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Diamond Bar City Council. A request to address the Council should be submitted in writing to the City Clerk. As a general rule the opportunity for public comments will take place at the discretion of the Chair. However, in order to facilitate the meeting, persons who are interested parties for an item may be requested to give their presentation at the time the item is called on the calendar. The Chair may limit the public input on any item or the total amount of time allocated for public testimony based on the number of people requesting to speak and the business of the Council. Individuals are requested to refrain from personal attacks toward Council Members or other persons. Comments which are not conducive to a positive business meeting environment are viewed as attacks against the entire City Council and will not be tolerated. If not complied with, you will forfeit your remaining time as ordered by the Chair. Your cooperation is greatly appreciated. In accordance with Government Code Section 54954.3(a) the Chair may from time to time dispense with public comment on items previously considered by the Council. (Does not apply to Committee meetings.) In accordance with State Law (Brown Act), all matters to be acted on by the City Council must be posted at least 72 hours prior to the Council meeting. In case of emergency or when a subject matter arises subsequent to the posting of the agenda, upon making certain findings, the Council may act on an item that is not on the posted agenda. CONDUCT IN THE CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS The Chair shall order removed from the Council Chambers any person who commits the following acts in respect to a regular or special meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council. A. Disorderly behavior toward the Council or any member of the thereof, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting. B. A breach of the peace, boisterous conduct or violent disturbance, tending to interrupt the due and orderly course of said meeting. C. Disobedience of any lawful order ofthe Chair, which shall include an order to be seated or to refrain from addressing the Board; and D. Any other unlawful interference with the due and orderly conduct of said meeting. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL Agendas for the regular Diamond Bar City Council meetings are prepared by the City Clerk and are available 72 hours prior to the meeting. Agendas are available electronically and may be accessed by a personal computer through a phone modem. Every meeting of the City Council is recorded on cassette tapes and duplicate tapes are available for a nominal charge. ADA REQUIREMENTS A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility Wgxurmgats who cannot access the public speaking area. Sign language interpreter services are also available by giving notice at least three business days in advance of the meeting. Please telephone (909) 860-2489 between 8 a.m. and 5 p.m. Monday through Friday. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of Agenda, Rules of the Council, Cassette Tapes of Meetings (909) 860-2489 Computer Access to Agendas (909) 8WLINE General Information (909) 860-2489 NOTE: ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM IDEN'1'Ir' W ON THE AGENDA. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS, ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: A-'� A '94'le CITY CLERK DATE: 9S PHONE: z 9U I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. /' k57-1,- ��/' Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: r'7 �' ✓ �'» DATE: ADDRESS: PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: , 77i,iJ PA44A) 1 expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Si nature t* - VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK !� L S DATE: J �r7-- PHONE: 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 FA TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADONEss TNF CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT a 01 DATE: ��91 !'-- PHONE: Q'e �e��id ti I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Ziagnature rA TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK c3 DATE: PHONE:�,r� I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. L Signature E2 TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL CITY CLERK 'A" J,, - DATE: �; ` 6' 7T— PHONE: AGENDA /SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. nature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: / 6 r �,r�/' �/� DATE: ADDRESS: PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: •�����`� Com^ I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO FR DM: AC DRESS: OF GANIZ4TION: AG EN DA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: PHONE: 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 \ r VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA #/SUBJECT: % • /7 49�5�0 DATE: PHONE: go//, 075/-L., I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. 60 J-ze-" -71 Signature AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.�1� TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: June 6, 1995 REPORT DATE: June 1, 1995 FROM: George A. Wentz, City Engineer TITLE: Landscaping Assessment District Number 38 SUMMARY: Pursuant to the City Council's direction of March 21, 1995, staff has prepared the Engineer's Report for District Number 38 for the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. Said report has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report, adopt the attached Resolution to declare the City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District Number 38 and direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council at the regular meeting of June 20, 1995. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification X Resolution(s) _ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) _ Ordinances(s) X Other: Engineer's Report _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes No by the City Attorney? _ 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Yes X No Which Commission? _ 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes No Report discussed with the following affected departments: _ Community Services REVIEWED BY: �. /z Terrence elanger Frank M. Usher eorge A. Venti City Manager Assistant City Manager City Engineer C:\NP60\LINDAKAY\AGEN95\DIST#38.606 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: June 6, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Landscaping Assessment District Number 38 ISSUE STATEMENT: Pursuant to the City Council's direction of March 21, 1995, staff has prepared the Engineer's Report for District Number 38 for the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report; adopt the attached Resolution to declare City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District Number 38; and direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council on the question of the levy of the proposed assessments on assessable lots within District Number 38. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The revenues generated by these Districts are proposed to pay for it. There will be no impact on the City's General Funds. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The attached Engineer's Report for the City's Landscaping Assessment District Number 38, which is prepared pursuant to provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California, includes authority for the report, estimated costs of improvements, a diagram for the District and the assessments. The estimated number of parcels within the existing District is 17,341 parcels. The amount assessed upon the lands within District Number 38 for Fiscal Year 1994-95 was $15.00 per parcel. The amount estimated to be assessed for Fiscal Year 1995-96 is to remain at $15.00 per parcel. The assessments will be utilized towards the general maintenance of City's medians and parkways. Prepared By: David G. Liu C:\VM6ML NDAKAY\CCR-95\DISTA#38.&M 1 11 Y OF ll1AMONn RAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. (o, I I (� TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: June 6, 1995 REPORT DATE: May 31, 1995 FROM: George A. Wentz, City Engineer TITLE: Landscaping Assessment District Number 39 SUMMARY: Pursuant to the City Council's direction of March 21, 1995, staff has prepared the Engineer's Report for District Number 39 for the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. Said report has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report, adopt the attached Resolution to declare the City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District Number 39 and direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council at the regular meeting of June 20, 1995. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report X Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: _ Public Hearing Notification Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other: nzineer's R Agreement(s) SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? _ 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes No Report discussed with the following affected departments: Community Services REVIEWED BY: Terrence Belange6' Frank . Usher ge A. Wentz City Manager Assistant City Manager 1�kity Engineer C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\AGEN95\DIST#39.606 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: June 6, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Landscaping Assessment District Number 39 ISSUE STATEMENT: Pursuant to the City Council's direction of March 21, 1995, staff has prepared the Engineer's Report for District Number 39 for the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. RECONPAEENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report; adopt the attached Resolution to declare City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District Number 39, and direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council on the question of the levy of the proposed assessments on assessable lots within District Number 39. BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: The attached Engineer's Report for the City's Landscaping Assessment District Number 39, which is prepared pursuant to provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California, includes authority for the report, estimated costs of improvements, a diagram for the District and the assessments. Requested by Bramalea Limited, Inc. and M. J. Brock and Sons, Inc. of the Diamond Bar Hills Project, Landscaping Assessment District Number 39 was formed in 1985 to include all of the unincorporated area known as Diamond Bar Hills is the Diamond Bar area. The formation of the District was to provide the method by which funds may be raised for the maintenance of the landscaped entrance developments, slopes, parkway parcels, open space areas and appurtenant improvements to be installed by the developers within the Diamond Bar Hills development. These landscaped improvements consist of turf, shrubs, plants, trees, automatic irrigation systems, and other appurtenant improvements. For FY 1985-86, with 354 parcels, the assessed amount was $236 per parcel. The administration of the District was provided by the Los Angeles County Department of Parks and Recreation until the City's incorporation in 1989. Resolution No. 89-50, adopted by the Council on June 6, 1989, effectuated the transfer of Landscaping Assessment Districts 38, 39, and 41 to the City of Diamond Bar. For FY 1990-91, based on the Assessment Engineer's calculations which include an estimate of available carry- over funds, 1990-91 revenues, and operating costs, the assessment amount was $130 per parcel. In FY 1991- 92, the assessment was reduced to $77 per parcel. Subsequently, in FY 1992-93, the assessment amount was 1. District #39 June 6, 1995 Page Two reduced to the current amount of $73.50 per parcel. Since FY 1991-92, the Reserve Fund has been supplementing the District. As reflected in the Financial Analysis section of the Engineer's Report, the current revenue (based on $73.50/parcel) is inadequate in providing the operation and maintenance activities for the District. Two (2) scenarios are presented to the Council for your consideration: SCENARIO A: Maintain the current level of operation and maintenance activities. There are two (2) means to achieve this: (a) To increase the assessment to approximately $135.52/parcel for the 1,272 parcels based on Table 1. TABLE 1 2 CURRENT 1994-95 BUDGET PROPOSED Contract Maintenance $ 74,600 $ 73,080 (For Both Parks and Slope Areas) Fire Breaks -0- $ 6,000 Professional Services $ 1,410 $ 41000 Utilities $ 60,500 $ 60,500 Other As -Needed Maintenance $ 17,500 $ 17,500 Reserve Fund Balance 11,305)* 11,305)* Total $ 165,315 $ 172,385 * This is an additive item to reflect the total expenditure. 2 District #39 June 6, 1995 Page Three (b) To supplement with other funding sources (i.e. general funds) of approximately $78,893 based on Table 2. TABLE 2 DISTRICT GENERATED GENERAL FUND T TAL FUND CONTRIBUTION TO DISTRICT $73.50 x 1,272 = $93,492 $78,893 $172,385 SCENARIO B: Decrease the current level of operation and maintenance activities. With the current revenue of $93,492, the following activities can be provided: Park Maintenance Only $ 48,460 (Irrigation & Landscape) Fire Breaks $ 6,000 Professional Services $ 4,000 Other As -Needed Maintenance $ 8,750 Rodent Control (slopes) $ 3,600 Reserve Fund Balance 11,305) Total $ 82,115 However, it should be noted that under this scenario all landscaped and irrigated slope areas, without irrigation and maintenance, will be reverted back to their natural conditions. These areas include slopes behind the homes along Grand Avenue, easterly City limit line, Longview Drive, Summitridge Drive, Cold Stream Court, and Wynnewood Drive, and Rustic Court. Approximately 150 parcels will be impacted. 3 District #39 June 6, 1995 Page Four Staff s recommendation is to maintain the current level of operation and maintenance activities. To achieve this, there are two (2) ways: 1. Increase the assessment to no lower than $135.52 per parcel. 2. Supplement with the City's General Fund. The City's General Fund can fund the contribution in accordance with Section 22657 of the California Streets and Highways Code (allowing for the City Council to make a contribution to the District's improvement fund, or to make a temporary advance to be paid out of the next year's assessment). The General Fund will maintain the five (5) mini parks (Silver Tip, Star Dust, Longview South, Summitridge, and Longview North), and staff will be working to resolve the issues of titles/access rights with the current owners. Prepared By: Bob Rose David G. Liu C: \ WP60\LDWAKAY\CCR-95\DISTA39.606 4 Cxww BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.G TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: June 6, 1995. REPORT DATE: June 1, 1995 FROM: George A. Wentz, City Engineer TITLE: Landscaping Assessment District Number 41 SUMMARY: Pursuant to the City Council's direction of March 21, 1995, staff has prepared the Engineer's Report for District Number 41 for the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. Said report has been prepared pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report, adopt the attached Resolution to declare the City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District Number 41 and direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the Council at the regular meeting of June 20, 1995. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report X Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other: Engineer's Report _ Agreement(s) 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 415 vote? Majority 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? _ Yes X No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: Community Services REVIEWED BY: City Manager Assistant City Engineer City Engineer C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\AGEN95\DIST#41.606 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: June 6, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Landscaping Assessment District Number 41 ISSUE STATE LENT: Pursuant to the City Council's direction of March 21, 1995, staff has prepared the Engineer's Report for District Number 41 for the 1995-96 Fiscal Year. RECOIVEVIENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the Engineer's Report; adopt the attached Resolution to declare the City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District Number 41, and direct the City Clerk to advertise the public hearing before the. Council on the question of the levy of the proposed assessments on assessable lots within District Number 41. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The revenues generated by these Districts are proposed to pay for it. There will be no impact on the City's General Funds. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The attached Engineer's Report for the City's Landscaping Assessment District Number 41, which is prepared pursuant to provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highway Code of the State of California, includes authority for the report, estimated costs of improvements, a diagram for the District and the assessments. The estimated number of parcels within the existing District is 554 parcels. The amount assessed upon the lands within District Number 41 for Fiscal Year 1994-95 was $220.50 per parcel. The amount estimated to be assessed for Fiscal Year 1995-96 is to remain at $220.50 per parcel. The assessments will be utilized towards general maintenance of mini parks, slopes, and open space areas within District 41. Prepared By: David G. Liu C: \W P60\LMAKAY\CCR-95\DISTA41.606 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO.t.z TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: June 6, 1995 REPORT DATE: June 1, 1995 FROM: Bob Rose, Community Services Director TITLE: Extension of Bus Shelters contract. SUMMARY: The City of Diamond Bar has contracted with Metro Display Advertising, Inc. to provide 20 bus shelters in the City since July of 1990. The five year term of the original contract expires on July 1, 1995. Section 15 of the contract provides the City Council with the option of extending the contract for an additional five year term. Staff has negotiated the conditions of the extension with officials from Metro Display Advertising, Inc. and the contract is prepared for City Council action. The City of Diamond Bar will receive a $24,000 franchise fee and will incur no costs for the repair or maintenance of the bus shelters, per the proposed extension. RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the extension of the Bus Shelters contract with Metro Display Advertising, Inc. for a period of five (5) years, effective July 1, 1995. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report X Agreement(s) Ordinance(s) _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's Office) X Other: Letter of Agreement 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority vote? X Yes _ No 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ Yes X No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Yes X No 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _ Yes X No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REV D BY: TekrenceBelanger rank Us o Rose City Manager Assistant City Manager Community Services Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: June 6, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrance L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Extension of Bus Shelters Contract ISSUE STATEMENT: Shall the City Council approve the extension of the Bus Shelters contract with Metro Display Advertising, Inc. for a period of five (5) years, effective July 1, 1995? RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the extension of the Bus Shelters contract with Metro Display Advertising, Inc., for a period of five (5) years, effective July 1, 1995. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The terms of the proposed extension require Metro Display Advertising, Inc. to pay a minimum of $24,000 in franchise fees to the City of Diamond Bar per year. All maintenance and repair costs will be borne by Metro Display Advertising, Inc. There are no costs proposed to be borne by the City of Diamond Bar. BACKGROUND: The City of Diamond Bar has contracted with Metro Display Advertising, Inc. to provide bus shelters in the City since July of 1990. The five year term of the original contract expires on July 1, 1995. Section 15 of the contract provides the City Council with the option of extending the contract for up to two additional five year terms. Over the past five years, Metro Display Advertising, Inc. has paid all of the guaranteed franchise fees due to the City, has maintained the bus shelters in a satisfactory manner at their expense and has operated an advertising policy that generally has been non-offensive to the community. Twice during the five years, staff has had to invoke its right to have advertising removed due to complaints from the community, per section 12 of the contract. Both times, Metro Display Advertising, Inc. promptly removed the advertising. Metro Display Advertising, Inc., as a business, has had some difficult times over the past five years, and even went through a bankruptcy to reorganize. Despite the bankruptcy, all franchise fees due to the City have been paid, although some fee payments were delayed by the bankruptcy action. All required maintenance activities required under the contract have been completed, even while in bankruptcy, and the service of the community has not been interrupted. There have been some significant acts of vandalism on many of the bus shelters that has resulted in decisive action by officials at Metro Display Advertising, Inc. Many of the bronze colored glass panels, City Council Report Meeting Date: June 6, 1995 Bus Shelter Contract Extension Page Two BACKGROUND: (continued) located behind the bench in the shelters, have been destroyed by rock throwing vandals. In order to resolve this ongoing problem, the glass panels have been replaced with frosted acrylic panels that do not break. In another act of vandalism, a bus shelter was recently doused with a flammable liquid and burned up. Maintenance crews from Metro Display Advertising, Inc. removed the bus shelter within hours of notification. The destroyed shelter has since been replaced with a new one. It is staff's experience that Metro Display Advertising, Inc. is responsive to the needs of the community. They provide quality shelters at 20 bus stops in Diamond Bar and maintain them in a manner satisfactory to the community. DISCUSSION: Per Section 15 of the contract, conditions and revenue are negotiated during the extension process. A Proposal For Extension has been submitted by Metro Display Advertising, Inc. Features of the proposal include: 1. Extension of contract for five (5) years. 2. Modest increase in guaranteed franchise fee from approximately $21,000 per year to $24,000 per year. 3. 60 day notice of termination clause in favor of City should the franchise default with reasonable cause. 4. 60 day notice of removal clause in favor of Bus Stop Shelters should policies be established that make it impossible for the bus shelter to generate advertising profit. 5. Maintenance schedule that includes trash disposal once per week and steam cleaning once per month. 6. Repair response time of three (3) hour maximum. 7. Availability of pay phones for each bus shelter site, should the City Council so request. (The current contract prohibits installation of pay phones without City authorization). 8. Advertising policy that allows the City to require removal of any advertisement, with 24 hours notice. 9. Allows City use of bus shelter panels for public service announcements. Staff met with officials from Metro Display Advertising, Inc. to review the proposal. In addition to the items listed above, Metro Display Advertising, Inc. is offering additional bus shelters in Diamond Bar, should the City Council so request, with the quantity and locations to be determined. It is staff's intention to bring back a recommendation to the City Council that includes proposed sites for installation of new bus shelters at a future City Council meeting for approval. PREPARED BY: Bob Rose Community Services Director Phyllis E. Papen Mayor Gary H. Werner Mayor Pro Tem Eileen R. Ansari Council Member Clair W. Harmony Council Member Gary G. Miller Council Member R-y,W pap , June 1, 1995 City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 (909) 860-2489 - Fax (909) 861-3117 Metro Display Advertising, Inc. Scott Kraft, President & CEO 15265 Alton Parkway, Ste 100 Irvine, CA 92718 RE: Bus Shelters Contract Dear Mr. Kraft: The City of Diamond Bar is interested in extending the Bus Shelter Contract with Metro Display Advertising, Inc. The term of the extension is for five (5) years per Section 15 of the existing contract. Conditions of the extension have been negotiated to include the following: a. Term of extended Contract will begin on July 1, 1995 and shall continue for five (5) years, unless previously terminated. b. Fee payable to City stated in Section 2.a. shall be increased to $100 per month per shelter (20 shelters x $100 per month x 12 months = $24,000 per year). C. Section 16, Termination, shall be revised to add the following paragraph: Contractor shall retain the right to remove any shelter upon sixty (60) days notice to the City of Diamond Bar in the event the Federal, State, Municipal or other proper authorities should hereafter establish any rules, regulations or taxation which shall so restrict location, construction, maintenance or operation of the shelters as to substantially diminish the value of said shelters for advertising purpose which effectively inhibits the ability of the bus shelter to generate advertising profit. d. Section 11, Shelter and Bench Maintenance and Repair, shall be revised to require cleaning and trash removal by the contractor once per week, and to require a three (3) hour response time by contractor maintenance crews for any problem relating to the shelters. It is understood that, should the City Council request, Metro Display Advertising, Inc. shall install additional Bus Shelters in Diamond Bar, the Letter to Metro Display Advertising, Inc. Re: Extension of Contract June 1, 1995 Page Two quantity and locations to be determined by the City Council. Upon approval of the contract extension by the Diamond Bar City Council, a fully executed copy of this letter will be forwarded to you. Sincerely, Bob Rose, Director Community Services Department By signing below, the parties agree to the above terms. Mayor Date President Date City of Diamond Bar Metro Display Advertising, Inc. Attest: Approved to Form: City Clerk Date City Attorney Date AGREEMENT FOR BUS SHELTERS THIS AGREEMENT, made and entered into this 1st day of July 1990, by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation of the State of California, (the "City"), and RECITALS: W I T N E S S E T H A. City needs bus shelters and bus benches, hereinafter re- ferred to as "shelters" and "benches", at various designated bus stop locations throughout the City. B. City desires to provide such shelters and benches with- out incurring costs and expenses therefor. C. City has requested proposals for construction and main- tenance of such shelters and benches. D. Franchisee represents that it is willing and qualified to provide such shelters under the terms and conditions hereinaf- ter set forth. E. City is willing to provide Franchisee with a right to construct, erect, install, repair, maintain and insure such shel- ters on City -owned property under the terms and conditions herein- after set forth. WHEREFORE, in consideration of the respective and mutual cov- enants and promises hereinafter contained and made and subject to all of the terms and conditions hereof, the parties hereto do hereby agree as follows: 1. Grant of Right by City City hereby grants to Franchisee, subject to pr -.Vi - cions herein, the right to construct, erect, install, repair, and 1 maintain and insure shelters as described in Exhibit "A", attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, at twenty (20) desig- nated bus stop locations, said locations described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. 2. Fee Payable to City a. In consideration of the right granted hereby, Franchisee agrees to pay to City 19.1 of the gross advertis- ing revenues received by Franchisee, after agency commission, for the rental of advertising space in and on each shelter, and in no instance shall said payment be less than a minimum of $76.10 per month per shelter which is maintained and/or owned by Franchi- see within the City's Corporate limits. The greater of these amounts per calendar month will be the payment for that month. Monthly guaranteed revenue per shelter will increase after year one and through year five, by the same percentage ofincreaseas reflected in the Los Angeles Consumer Price Index. b. Franchisee shall make payment to City on a quarterly basis for all shelter revenues due City for the preced- ing quarter. Payments are due January 15, April 15, July 15, and October 15 of each year. C. All payments from Franchisee to City shall be supported by a certified Statement of Account showing all shelter locations and revenues received. d. Franchisee shall allow inspection of its books and records by City officials as authorized by City's Manager, at Franchisee's office during reasonable business hours, to determine revenues due the City. e. Certified quarterly reports (unaudited) con- cerning gross advertising receipts derived from shelters within 2 the City shall be provided to the City Manager of City within thi- rty (30) days after the conclusion of each calendar quarter. 3. Franchisee's Services Franchisee agrees, at its own cost and expense, to perform as follows: a. Scoge of Service. Franchisee shall install and/or maintain a total of twenty (20) shelters in the City upon City sidewalks at twenty (20) locations specified in Exhibit ."A". In addition, up to fifty (50) bus benches of custom design, embossed with the leg- end "Diamond Bar" shall be furnished, installed and maintained. Benches shall be installed at locations designated by City. b. Timeline for Installation. Work on the construction or installation of the first bus shelter shall begin July 15, 1990 after the franch- ise has been awarded by the City Council. Building permit appli- cations must be submitted to the proper agencies within thirty (30) calendar days after the contract has been awarded. Installation of an individual shelter, includ- ing all shelter amenities, except electrical connections, shall be completed within seven (7) calendar days, after work has commenced on such individual shelter. Failure to perform as required will result in liquidated damages being assessed by the City. Construction or installation of all twenty (20) shelters including electrical connections shall be completed within ninety (90) calendar days after the date that work has com- menced on the first shelter. Installation of all required bus benches shall be completed within one hundred twenty (120) days after the date 3 of City design approval of the benches prior to fabrication. Franchisee's proposed design to be submitted within thirty (30) day of award contract. Failure to perform, as required above, on any item, will result in liquidated damages being assessed by the City in the sum of fifty dollars ($50.00) for each delinquent day. C. Additional Shelters. The City reserves the right to require addi- tional shelters subject to the provisions herein, and upon written amendment to this agreement. Franchisee shall make every effort to meet the need for additional City requested shelters, or docu- ment in writing within seven (7) days why it cannot meet stated needs. Failure to respond to City's written request within seven (7) days shall release City to fill the need at its discretion. No shelters other than those specified in Exhibit "A" shall be installed by the Franchisee without written authorization from the City. d. Design of Shelters and Benches. 1. SPECIFICATIONS: All work performed on the shelter or the shelter site must conform to the requirements of the Standard Spe- cifications For Public Works Construction, 1988 edition, and all applicable codes and regulations, including, but not limited to, the City Building and Electrical Codes. In addition, all work must comply with the conditions of the Public Works Permit issued for each location and any and all other conditions of the fran- chise. Franchisee shall obtain any and all necessary building and electrical permits prior to its performance of the franchise. 4 2. SHELTER DESIGN DRAWINGS: All designs, plans and change orders shall be signed by a California Registered Civil or Structural En- gineer before they will be accepted for design or location appro- val. Before any shelter may be installed in the City of Diamond Bar, it shall be reviewed for adequate design by the Diamond Bar Park and Building Departments for electrical wiring and appurtenances, structural integrity and general sound- ness of design and compliance with provisions of the franchise and these specifications. 3. SHELTER LOCATION DESIGN DRAWINGS: A location drawing shall be provided by Franchisee and shall contain a minimum forty (40) feet to one -inch scale representation of the proposed shelter site, covering the area from the adjacent property line to the street centerline at the intersection. Mid -block sites may be shown with broken line ties. The drawing shall tie the shelter location to the closest curb return and give the distance from the existing curb and adja- cent property line to the shelter. It shall also show the loca- tion of manholes, catch basins, fire hydrants, poles, trees and other above -ground facilities within twenty-five (25) feet of the proposed shelter. 4. PERMITS: The City will issue "no fee" permits, as required, which may include building, electrical, and construction and excavation permits required for the construction and installa- tion of the bus shelters. 5 5. SHELTER SITE SELECTION: Any shelter sites, in addition to those specified initially by the City, shall be chosen by the City in consultation with the Franchisee. The City shall supply the Fran- chisee with a list of preferred shelter sites. Any proposed shel- ter site shall be subject to the following screening process: a) In the event the proposed site is adjacent to a commercial user, the specific consent of the commer- cial user may be required. b)_ All sites proposed which are adja- cent to residential uses shall be subject to review by the Diamond Bar Engineering Department. C) No shelter site shall be chosen which will result in a shelter being closer than ten (10) feet to a driveway. d) No shelter site shall be chosen which will result in a shelter being located over a storm drain, unless approved by the City Engineer. It e) No shelter site shall be chosen which will result in a shelter being placed in such a position that less than four (4) feet of contiguous sidewalk remains us- able. f) All sites are subject to approval by the City Council based on safety of bus riders, traffic and pedes- trians. g) Every shelter Shall be wheelchair accessible. In the event the City and Franchisee can- not agree on the location of a site, beyond the initial twenty (20) locations, the City's decision on locations shall be final. Some of the initial twenty (20) shelter sites may have benches existing. These existing benches shall be removed and dismantled by the Franchisee and delivered to the Parks and Maintenance Department. Some of the initial fifty (50) bench sites may have existing benches, these too will be disman- tled and delivered to the Parks and Maintenance Department. 6. SITE RELOCATION: The City reserves the right to require the Franchisee to relocate shelters and benches, at Franchisee's sole expense, for the convenience of pedestrians and bus patrons or because of a change in bus stop locations or street widening. The Franchisee shall, not relocate or remove a bus shelter or bench without the City's permission. The City may require or permit a shelter or bench to be removed or relocated if it has been demon- strated to be incapable of proper maintenance due to excessive vandalism or any other reasonable cause. "'Excessive vandalism" is defined as damage inflicted to an individual shelter during any consecutive six (6) month period, which requires cumulative expen- ditures for replacement and repair that exceed the original cost of construction and installation of the shelter. 7. SHELTER DESIGN SPECIFICATIONS: Basic Shelter Design - a) All shelters shall be of the same design, wherever used throughout the City, unless alternate de- signs are approved by the City. b) Shelter shall be enclosed on two 7 sides and covered. Transparent panels shall be of tempered safety glass. C) The roof shall be supported by four curved corner steel columns, aluminum clad, steel columns or other similar construction materials. Roof shall be Red Tile. d) A standard roof overhang shall be designed into the shelter to increase protection from the rain and sun. e) The space between all glass, ad pan- els, and the sidewalk shall be a maximum of six (6) inches to ac- commodate a blind person's touching cane. This may be accomplish- ed with either a larger glass panel, a deeper bottom glass support or a flange attached to the bottom of the glass support. f) Final shelter design (sizes, roof types, etc.) shall require City approval. 1. Advertising Panels - a) Only one, two-sided, back -lighted ad panel per shelter will be allowed. Each'ad panel side shall display no more than twenty-five (25) square feet of advertising (fifty (50) square feet total per shelter). b) All ad panels shall be constructed of metal and tempered safety glass. 2. Allowable Size of shelter: a) Height: 716" to 816" b) Length: 14' to 17' C) Width: 416" to 516" In the event a shelter is desired at a location which will not permit construction of the standard shelter meeting these al- lowable sizes, unique designs will be considered by the City. 8 All ad panels shall be locked or secured in a manner that will eliminate or discourage vandalism. 3. Wheelchair Access - All shelters shall be designed to accommodate wheelchairs. 4. Shelter Seating - Minimum bench length - 616" Minimum bench width - 115" Bench shall be located such that a wheelchair can be placed alongside the bench within the shelter. S. Shelter Electrification - Every shelter shall be illuminated from dusk to dawn by an overhead, energy efficient, fluorescent lighting system concealed in the roof structure. Failure to light the shelters at night shall be grounds for cancellation of the franchise. a) Minimum size - eighty (80). Solar power shall be used. supplemental conventional power may be used. b) Photocells or other approved devices capable of activat- ing each shelter's lighting system shall be installed. 6. Shelter Drainage - All shelters shall contain a roof gutter system to prevent dripping water over the edges. Water shall be drained through a downspout(s) located in the columns, with the water exiting at approximately sidewalk level. 7. Glazing Anchorage - No edge of any glass panel shall be exposed. All glass panels shall be securely contained and held at both top and bottom. The securing of all four edges is preferable. All post foundations shall be designed in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, latest edition adopted by the City. 9 e. Trash Receptacles - Each shelter shall have at least one (1) covered trash recep- tacle, designed and placed to promote maximum usage by shelter patrons. The receptacle and its cover shall be securely attached to the shelter. No telephone vending machines, kiosks, news racks, or any other device not specifically allowed in these specifications shall be permitted to be installed on or near the shelters, with- out prior authorization from the City. S. SHELTER SIGNAGE: a) The Franchisee shall ensure that bus route information, and City logo, are displayed in and around the shelter. b). The name of the nearest cross street where appropriate, shall be placed on the roof facia on both ends of the shelter. Minimum letter size for this sign shall be three (3) inches high and two and one half (2-1/2) inches wide. C) The Franchisee shall affix, in a conspicuous area on each shelter, an owner identification plaque, that includes its business name, address and telephone number. 9. SHELTER CONSTRUCTION SPECIFICATIONS: a) The shelter shall be prefabricated and assembled at the site. b) No welding except for foundation works shall be permitted at the site. C) All concrete finishing shall conform to the Standard Specifications for Public Works construction, lat- est edition. 10 d) The Franchisee shall have quality control supervisors working for its contractor, if any, (not the sub -contractor), at every construction site for a minimum of one (1) hour per working day. 10. BENCHES: a) Bus benches shall be recycled plas- tic as manufactured by Hammers Plastic Recycling Corp. RR3 Box 182, Iowa Falls, Iowa, 50126, (515) 648-5073, or equivalent de- sign, as approved by the City. Concrete bus benches shall be as manufactured by Robbins Pre Cast Inc., P. 0. Box 2225, Irwindale, California, 91706, (818) 357-4111, bench number PSP -72, or equiva- lent design, as approved by the City. b) Each bench shall be fabricated with the legend "Diamond Bar" embossed on the face of the seat back. c) The color of the benches shall be coral, with color samples to be approved by the City. d) Preference will be given to benches made of recycled materials. 11. SHELTER AND BENCII MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR: The Franchisee shall maintain, repair, clean, and service all shelters and benches, keeping them, their appurtenances and the immediate surrounding areas, in a safe, clean, attractive, and sanitary condition. The Franchisee shall be at liberty to enter upon and into shelters and benches at any reasonable time with personnel and all necessary equipment and materials to provide for the satisfactory maintenance of the clean-up/trash removal calls on each shelter (not benches) at least twice each week. Each shelter and bus bench shall be com 11 pletely steam cleaned as needed, but not less often than once a month. The Franchisee shall repair or replace bus shelters and benches due to damage, vandalism or graffiti w- ithin two (2) working days after having been found at the time of the required twice per week routine maintenance, or sooner upon notification by the City. If shelter or bench damage or vandalism is such that the public could be exposed to a dangerous situation while in or near the shelter or bench, the Franchisee shall repair or, if necessary, remove the entire shelter or bench within twen- ty-four (24) hours of notification, leaving the site in a safe condition, and it shall be replaced and made fully operational at the same location within five (5) working days after removal. The Franchisee shall furnish to the City a written monthly summary of its shelter maintenance operations within the City of Diamond Bar. All maintenance work and correc- tive actions shall be performed at the expense of the Franchisee. Franchisee's personnel, equipment and/or vehicles shall not block automobile or bicycle travel lanes with- out proper warning signs and traffic delineation devices properly placed in accordance with the Work Area Traffic Control Handbook (published by Building News, Inc.). 12. ADVERTISING: The Franchisee shall, upon request, tran- smit to the City Manager or his designee, color copies of any and all ads proposed to be placed in the shelters, for review prior to display. Should the City, in its sole discretion, determine that any advertising on any shelter is improper, offensive or consti- tutes a display that is likely to interfere with, mislead or dis- 12 tract traffic, or conflict with any traffic control system, the Franchisee shall be so advised and shall not utilize such adver- tising. In the event Franchisee fails to provide the City Manager or his designee with such color copies prior to display, and the display is determined to be improper, for any reason set forth herein, Franchisee shall remove such advertising within twenty- four (24) hours after the City serves written notice thereof. Franchisee contractor will provide local businesses the right of first refusal on 50% of the available advertising space. 13. PIIBLIC SERVICE MESSAC3E8: The Franchisee shall, at least two (2) times per year, for at least ten (10) consecutive calendar days, display at least one (1) public service announcement in lieu of paid advertising in each bus shelter. The Franchisee shall ar- range for service and installation of the public service announce- ments. The City shall be entitled to specify certain public ser- vice messages to be displayed. 14. PERPNCE a ghyrEE: The Franchisee shall post and maintain an irrevocable letter of credit which will inure to the benefit of the City, or equivalent security approved by the City, in the amount of twenty-five thousand dollars ($25,000.00). Said letter of credit or security shall remain in effect over the duration of the franchise period to insure the faithful performance of Fran- chisee's covenants for construction, maintenance, and repair or replacement of the shelters and benches, timely payment of all revenues due the City, (including permit fees, business license, advertising revenues), and restoration of shelter sites to their condition existing prior to installation of the shelters, whenever 13 a shelter is removed or relocated. All shelters no longer serving a speci- fied bus route shall be removed by Franchisee within seven (7) days after written notice is served by mail by City. Shelters may be relocated only with City approval. 15. TERM: The term of this Agreement shall commence at 12:01 a.m., on the day following execution hereof by City and shall continue for a term of five (5) years, unless previously terminated as hereafter provided. By mutual agreement and consent of both Bustop Shelters of California, Inc. and the City of Dia- mond Bar, this agreement may be extended for two (2), five (5) year increments. Conditions and revenue to be negotiated at time of extension, as amended. 16. TERMINATION: If the Franchisee is found to be in de- fault with respect to any term or provision of the franchise, and if after ten (10) days prior written notice, Franchisee does not cure such default and provide for the satisfactory continuance of the agreement, the City may terminate the contract upon giving the Franchisee written notice thereof not- less than sixty (60) days prior to the effective date of termination. Upon termination of the franchise, either by default or by expiration of its term, and within ten (10) days thereof the Franchisee shall remove the shelters and restore each site to its proper and original condition at the Franchisee's own cost and expense. The non -advertising bus benches shall remain in place at the termination of the franchise. 14 17. INDgpUMEXT CONTRACTOR: Franchisee is an independent contractor and not an employee of City, and all personnel to be utilized by Franchisee in the performance of this Agreement shall be employees of Franchisee and not employees of City. Franchisee shall pay all salaries and wages, employer's social security taxes, unemployment insurance and similar taxes relating to employees and shall be responsible for all applicable withholding taxes. Is. INBORANC. : The Franchisee shall obtain, at its sole cost, and keep in force throughout the term of the franchise, the following insurance coverage: a) Minimum one million dollars ($1,000- ,000.00) combined single limit public liability insurance for bod- ily injury and property damage. b) said policy or policies shall be in a form approved by the City and shall name the City, the City Council, its officers, agents and employees as additional insureds by an endorsement to the policy. Said endorsement shall provide that the City shall receive not less than thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policies of insurance re- quired hereunder. C) Franchisee shall furnish evidence, prior to commencing performance of this Agreement, of having pro- cured Workers' Compensation Insurance on behalf of its employees in an amount as required by law and which is acceptable to the City Attorney of City. Further, the Franchisee shall obtain any additional kinds and amounts of insurance which, in its own judg- 15 ment, may be necessary for the proper protection of any of its officers', employees', agents', or authorized subcontractors' own actions during the performance of this franchise. 19. REPR SENTATIVBB AND NOTICES: The City Manager or his designee shall be the representative of City for purposes of this Agreement and may issue all consents, approvals, directives and agreements on behalf of City, called for by this Agreement, except as otherwise expres- sly provided in this Agreement. T L shall be the sole representative of Franchisee for purposes of this Agreement, and may enter into any subordinate agreements with City pursuant to this Agreement on behalf of the Franchisee. Notice and written communications sent by one party to the other shall be personally delivered or sent by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, to the following addresses: If sent by Franchisee to City: City Manager City of Diamond Bar 21660 E. Copley Drive Suite #100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177 If sent by City to Franchisee: gustoo Shelters of Cali ornia, Inc. AT TN& Jean Claude Le'Rover g_ 2 -i sky Park' Irvine Califnrni 92714 20. OWNERPRIP : Prior to commencing performance under 16 this Agreement, Franchisee shall provide the City with a written statement, executed under penalty of purjury, containing the fol- lowing information: a. If the Franchisee is a corporation, the name of the corporation shall be set forth exactly as shown in its Articles of Incorporation or Charter together with the State and date of incorporation and the names and residence addresses of each of its current officers and directors, and of each stockhold- er holding more than five percent (5%) of the stock of that corpo- ration. b. If Franchisee is a partnership, the statement shall set forth the name and residence addresses of each of the partners, including limited partners. If Franchisee is a limited partnership, it shall furnish a copy of its certificate of limited partnership, as filed with the County Clerk. If one or more of the partners is a corporation, the provisions of subsec- tion a, above, pertaining to corporate Franchisee shall apply. C. Franchisee, if a corporation, or partnership, shall designate one of its officers or general part- ners to act as its responsible managing employee. Such person shall complete and sign all the statements required in this sec- tion. d. If the Franchisee is not a corpora- tion or partnership, the statement shall set forth the name and residence address of each and every owner possessing more than five percent (5%) ownership interest; regardless of whether such ownership interest consists of stock or any other asset, tangible or intangible. 17 21. SUBCONTRACTORS: None of the services to be provided under this Agreement shall be subcontracted without the prior approval of City. Franchisee shall be fully responsible to City for "the performance of any and all approved subcontractors. Any perfor- mance of Franchisee's obligations hereunder by any person or en- tity, other than Franchisee, without prior written permission of City, shall be deemed reasonable cause for City to terminate this Agreement. 22. ASSIGNABILITY: This Agreement may not be sold, transfer- red or assigned by the Franchisee or by operation of law, to any other person or persons, business entity, without the City's prior written permission. Any such sale, transfer or assignment, or at- tempted sale, transfer or assignment without written permission, may be deemed by City to constitute a voluntary termination of this Agreement by Contractor constitute a voluntary termination of this Agreement by Franchisee and this Agreement shall thereafter be deemed terminated and void; provided land excepting, however, that if the Franchisee is a partnership and one or more of the partners should die, one or more of the surviving partners may acquire, by purchase or otherwise, the interest of the deceased partner or partners without effecting a surrender or termination of this Agreement. 23. INDEMNIFICATION: Franchisee shall defend, indemnify, hold free and harmless the City, its elected officials, its officers and employees, from and against any and all damages to property or injuries to or death of any person or persons, and shall defend, 18 indemnify, save and hold harmless City, elected officials, its of- ficers and employees from any and all claims, demands, suits, ac- tions or proceedings of any kind of nature, including, but not by way of limitation, all civil claims, Workers' Compensation claims, and all other claims resulting from or arising out of the acts, errors or omissions of Franchisee, its employees and/or authorized 0 subcontractors, whether intentional or non -intentional, in the performance of this Agreement. 24. VALIDITY: The invalidity in whole or in part of any provision of this Agreement shall not void or affect the validity of any of the other provisions of this Agreement. 25. GOVMMING LAW: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of -California. 26. IRE AGRB : This Agreement, plus City's "Request For Franchise Proposals", which is hereby incorporated by reference as part of this Agreement, supersedes any and all other agreements whether oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the subject matter hereof and contains all of the Covenants and Agreements between the parties with respect to said matter, and each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that any other agreement or modification of this Agreement shall be effective only if executed in writing and signed by both City and Franchisee. 19 27 • awe T1i7TFIU'—BT *_ ' T: Franchisee recognizes and understands reement may create a possessory interest in Franchisee that this Ag reel to assume all subject to property taxation and Franchisee ag onsibility for payment of property taxes levied liability and res P on such interest. 2 8 .V_..,. X * S "W: al proceeding is in- In the event any leg tituted to enforce any term or provision of the Agreement, the s shall be entitled to re- arty in said legal proceeding prevailing p opposing party in an cover attorneys' fees and costs from the amount determined by the Court to be reasonable. 29. 9121MM Any dispute or controversy arising under this Agreement, or in connection with any of the terms and under t or in connection with any of the terms and condi- this Agreemen , tions hereof, shall be referred by the parties hereto for media- tions arty, neutral mediation service shall be selected, tion. A third p expenses thereof as agreed upon by the parties and the costs and be borne equally by the parties and the costs and expenses shall In the equally by the parties her thereof shall be borne eq agree upon the mediator a event the parties are unable to mutually 9 ed hereunder, the City Council shall select such a to be select Council's de neutral, third party mediation service and the City finalThe parties agree to utilize their good . cision shall be so sub ts to resolve any such dispute or controversy faith efforunderstood and agreed by mitted to mediation. It is specifically the parties hereto that referral of any such dispute or controver- sy, and mutual good faith efforts to resolve the same ther y, 20 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement, the date and year first above written. ATTEST: 4 , CLERK OF THE COUNCIL APPROVED AS TO FORM: CITY ATTORNEY 22 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR A Municipal Corporation of the State of California DIAMOND BAR PARTNER FRANCHISEE ZINIBIT A Shelter Locations These,locations are in commercial areas and require shelter for a minimum of 10 patrons a day. Listed below are those sites: 23 #E oI patrons ocatioa 1. WB Diamond Bar Brea Canyon 18 2. WB Diamond Bar Fountain Springs 21 3. WB Diamond Bar Grand 38 4. WB Diamond Bar Golden Springs 105 5. WB Diamond Bar Save -on Entrance 88 6. WB Diamond Bar Pomona Freeway 26 7. WB Diamond Bar Sunset 45 • 8. WB Diamond Bar Highland 37 9. WB Diamond Bar Temple Tem p 21 10. WB Golden Springs Grand 38 11. WB Golden Springs Canyon Brea Can Y 70 12. EB Golden Springs Canyon, Brea Can Y 71 13. EB Golden Springs Grand 37 14. EB Diamond Bar Golden Springs 85 15. EB Diamond Bar K -Mart Entrance 99 16. EB Diamond Bar Sunset 41 17. EB Diamond Bar Highland Hi 9 25 18. EB Diamond Bar Grand 35 19. EB Diamond Bar Quail Summit 15 20. EB Diamond Bar Brea Canyon 19 23 Agenda Item No. 7.1 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 Re: Condition No. 22 - to read as follows: royal of the final map, the owner shall make a bona Prior to app Estates Association fide application to the Diamond Bar country The owner shall to annex this subdivision to thaonArecordation of the final map, if required to agree to annex eDiamond Bar country Estates if all fees assessed by Association do not exceed the fees assessed per lot for annexation to the Diamond Bar country Estates Association for Tract No. 47722• r Ate PAGE 1 (PRINTED -11.1 � RECEIVED 05/23 13:21 1995 AT 613117 TO 19098613117 P.01 E5-23-1995 11:43AM FROM STAUHER Diamond Bar Juniors � ` � �*/ , 1 ? FAY MESSAGE`) • s or % '✓ To: Phyllis PapPn, Ma Y . City of Diamond Bax' From: Christine Mi11er,;President Diamond, Bar; Junioir Women's C11 I Date: May 23, 1995 � Subject -Spelling Bee Winniere �� i iii *! ! Si 1111 !! !! S! i i 11111 S�ii ii i t i�iiii Z It was so nice to gee'you at our Fashioxi SNOW on May 6. We really appreciate your suppoYt! Spelling Be;e was held oft Friday. May 19 for third our 24th Annual and fourth grade students from the locals elementary schools• Over Zoo students signed dits participate this year. We are proud to announce that once. again, the event was:a success. be At your request, I am;submitting the nanies of this year's winners. The winners, their paxents :end myself are all looking forward to We attending the June 6: CityiCouncil Meaning (at 6:30 p• being thank you for the invitatiall. As elementary school students, our recognized by the Mayor Lp a big moment in their on�by local city organization is always apP eciative of recognition n officials. We thank ±you far your interest! First Place: Annie Nguyen Third b3: ade Golden Springs Elementar�.School second place: victor yu Fourth Grade Quail j3ummit4 Elementary School Third Place: Maryanne Ramirez Third trade Elementary School Neil A'rmstrgng recognized I would like to requedt that the Spelling Beet oy are be resets by the city council ettly i* the meeting as eY are young that hava:early bed times. jaso, pleas+ confirm the. date sad time of the meeting as Tutsday, June 6 at 6:'30 p -m• My home telephone number is (909) 860-6822. i Best', $tegardu. f p' Dox 402 Diamond d • er, C&Wcmia "M TOTAL P.01 RESOLUTION NO. 95-24 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO- ADDENDUM TO A 90010S6AL 1�STER AND ENVIRONMENT APPROVAL OF TRACT DEVELOP A 57 UNIT SUBDIVISION, UB I� ONS LOC TED IN NORTHERN TONNER CANYONA�WI'I'gIN SIGNIFICANT F`�NT��E LANE AND 15, SOUTHERI- WAGON TRAIN LANE, IN DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals (i) Diamond Bar Associates, Inc. 3480 Torrance Blvd., Torrance, California, (the "Applicant" hereinafter), has heretofore filed an application for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 shall be referred to as the "Application." (ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted, by ordinance, the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Titles 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended, 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. (iii) The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted duly noticed public hearings on the project and its environmental documentation on January 7, January 21, January 28, March 3, April 7, April 21, October 16 and November 17, 1992. The City Council additionally held subsequent public hearings on the project as a part of a Joint Session with the Planning Commission on April 6, 1995 and continued the meeting to May 16 and May 17 and June 6, 1995 on the subject matter of the Application. (iv) The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Action was taken on this application, as to consistency to the 1995 draft General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Office of Planning and Research extension of time granted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65361. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Council hereby finds that the addendum to the Final Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was presented to the City Council, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to deciding upon any aspect of the project, and based thereon, so certifies that the addendum to the Final MSIR No. SCH 90010861 has been prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder. Further, the addendum to the Final. MSIR No. SCH 90010861 reflects the independent judgment of the City of Diamond Bar. Additionally, the City Council certifies the addendum to the MSIR is complete and adequate in that it fully addresses all environmental effects of the project. 3. The City Council hereby specifically finds and determines, based on the findings set forth below, that changes and alterations have been required in or incorporated into and conditioned upon the project specified in the application, which mitigate or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the addendum to the Final MSIR No. SCH 90010861 except as to those effects which are identified and made the subject of a Statement of Overriding Considerations which this City Council finds are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the proposed project, as more fully set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 4. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B" and hereby incorporated by reference. 5. The Applicant shall make payment of any and all fees which the Department of Fish and Game may require to be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit or further entitlement. 6. Based on substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above - referenced public hearings, including written and oral staff reports, public testimony and the record of the Application, this City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: 2 (a) The, Application applies to a parcel located southeast of the intersection of Wagon Train Lane and the southerly terminus of Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar, with a gross area of 73 acres, within Significant Ecological Area No. 15, and is zoned R-1- 8,000, R-1-20,000 and A-2-2. (b) Surrounding properties, zoning and land use to the north and west is R-1-8,000, R-1-9,000 (Single Family Residence Zone) and C-R (Commercial Recreation Zone) and is developed with single family and multi family residential, respectively; to the east the property is vacant and zoned R-1-20,000 (Single Family Residence Zone) and; to the south the land is vacant and lies within the R0,00 (Single Family Residence Zone) and A-2-2 (HeavyAgriculture Zone). (c) The Application is for a 57 lot residential subdivision to construct 57 single family units, private streets and a common open space lot to be developed with a sewage pump station. (d) The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed and has access to public highways and streets. Further, the .Property shall be served by sanitary sewers, provided with water supply and distribution facilities with sufficient capacity to meet anticipated domestic and fire protection needs and shall have geologic hazards and flood hazards mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. (fl The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish or wildlife or to their habitat, and while the proposed development will have a significant adverse effect on biological resources including flora and fauna due to extensive grading activities associated with the implementation of the project, air quality and emission levels due to traffic generation and grading activities, and development of the site with land uses that require the use of energy resources, mitigation measures have been included as project conditions to reduce the impacts and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been made on these unavoidable impacts. (g) Neither the design of the subdivision nor the types of improvements will cause serious public health problems, since sewage disposal, storm drainage, public services and geological 13 and soils factors are addressed in the conditions of approval appended hereto. (h) The subject site lies within the County of Los Angeles Community General Plan land use designation of Nonurban (1 du or less/ac) and within the 1992 General Plan land use designation RR (Rural Residential, 1 du/ac). The proposed map is consistent with the 1992 General Plan and is not in conflict with the current zoning standards or with the 1995 draft General Plan, which maintains the same land use classification of RR. (i) The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. The design of the subdivision is based on the size and shape of the parcel. (j) The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake or reservoir. (k) The subdivision and development of the property in the manner set forth on the map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of public entity and/or public utility rights-of- way and/or easements within the area covered by the map, since the design and development as set forth in the conditions of approval and on the tentative map provide adequate protection for any such easements. (1) The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (Sections 13000, et seq.) of the California Water Code. (m) The housing needs of the region have been considered and balanced against the public service needs of local residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. (n) On September 23, 1991 and November 25, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the subject matter of the Application. The Planning Commission, upon conclusion of the public hearing, took action to adopt PC Resolution No. 91-20 for certification of the Final EIR and approval of Conditional Use Permit/Oak Tree Permit No. 89582 (effective upon approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application) and PC Resolution No. 91-23 recommending approval of the Application to this City Council. 4 (o) The City determined that the Project and those discretionary actions identified therein or required thereunder constituted a "project" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended ("CEQA") and the guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("guidelines"). (p) The City, based upon the preliminary findings contained in an Initial Study prepared by the City, determined that the Project could result in significant environmental impacts, commenced preparation of an addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). (q) On February 2, 1995, pursuant to the noticing obligations delineated in CEQA guidelines, the City prepared and disseminated both a Notice of Completion (NOC") and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project, SCH No. 90010505 ("Draft EIR"), commencing a 30 -day review period which was extended to and concluded on March 15, 1995. (r) The City published legal notice regarding the availability of the Draft EIR and solicited public comments thereupon in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Bulletin on December 3, 1992. (s) The City of Diamond Bar City Council conducted noticed public hearings on the Project and its environmental documentation on January 7, January 21, January 28, March 3, April 7, April 21, October 16, and concluded the duly noticed public hearing on November 17, 1992. (t) Subsequent to that hearing, the applicant was unable to provide additional information to the City Council related to geotechnical information on soil conditions and required stabilizing remedial procedures. The Council therefore took action to deny the project without prejudice. (u) The applicant challenged the denial of the project in court and a Settlement Agreement was eventually entered into between the applicant and the City. A component of the Settlement Agreement required the City to hold a Joint Session public hearing with the Planning Commission. That public hearing was held on April 6, 1995 and continued April 24 and May 8 before the Planning Commission. (v) A public hearing before the City Council was scheduled for May 16 and continued to May 17 and, at the request of the applicant, was continued again until June 6, 1995. 5 (w) The Final EIR consists of the following documents: (1) Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume I (SCH 90010861) (January, 1995) (2) Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume II (SCH 90010861) (January, 1995) (3) Response to Comments Received on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850, Conditional Use Permit No. 89528 and Oak Tract No. 89528 (March, 1995); and (4) Mitigation Monitoring Program for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850, Conditional Use Permit No. 89528 and Oak Tract No. 89528 (March, 1995). 8. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of fact set forth above, pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code 65361, the Council hereby finds and determines as follows: (a) The action proposed (Vesting Tentative Map) was initiated and processed in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code 65360 and Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar and pursuant to the Extension of Time conditions granted to the City of Diamond Bar by the Office of Planning and Research. (b) The Application as proposed and conditioned herein complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances. 9. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this City Council hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditions which are set forth in Exhibit "C" hereto and are incorporated by reference. The City Clerk is hereby directed to: (a) to certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the applicant at its address per City records. Approved and adopted this the 6th day of June, 1995, by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar. M Mayor Z I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of June, 1995, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: [COUNCI-L MEMBERS:] NOES: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ABSTAIN: [COUNCIL, MEMBERS:] ABSENT: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ATTEST: QUZnERsuzesOUMV7W47= RW City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar 7 FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 47850 AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Diamond Bar has provided documentation that addresses potential significant impacts that would result from the implementation of Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 47850. These findings only address environmental issues that would be significantly affected by the proposed project. The following environmental issues would not be significantly affected by the implementation Of the proposed project; therefore, findings for these issues are not required. • Hydrology and Water Quality • Noise • Land Use • Energy Resources • Aesthetics and Visual Resources • Archaeological Resources Potential significant impacts of VTM 47850 have been separated into two categories: (1) those potential impacts that could be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, and (2) those potential impacts that could be reduced with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures; however, the impacts would remain significant (e.g., cannot be reduced to a level less than significant). As required by Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, one or more of the following findings must be made for each potential significant impact: • Changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. (Finding 1) • Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Finding 2) CAWP51\RES0LUTI\47850.FND 1 • Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (Finding 3) Section 15091(b) requires that each finding be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. SIGNIFICANT MITIGATED ADVERSE IMPACTS The potential significant adverse environmental impacts of VTM 47850 that would be mitigated are listed below. The Diamond Bar City Council finds that these potential significant adverse impacts would be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. NATURAL LAND FORMS Significant hnDacct Development of the proposed project would result in substantial cuts and fills during grading activities. There would not be significantly less remedial grading involved in a subdivision containing fewer lots, given that: 1) The conservative assumptions concerning shear strength and other parameters as required by the City's Geotechnical consultants are utilized to determine factors of safety not less than 1.5; 2) The City desires that these conservatively derived factors of safety extend well beyond the lots' buildable pads. City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in ftp9rt of Finding$ Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effec*s will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: C:\WP51\RES0LUTI\47850.FND 2 • During and after construction, measures shall be taken to prevent erosion. These measures shall be listed and included within a developer -prepared erosion control plan which shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing grading. • A security bond shall be posted with the City Engineer prior to commencement of grading. This bond shall be adequate to assure completion of grading per the approved plans for which a grading permit is issued. • An improvement bond shall be posted and a subdivision agreement shall be executed for the project development. • Grading and exterior construction activities shall begin no earlier than 7 a.m. and shall not continue past 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Grading and exterior construction activities shall be restricted to 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturday. Transportation of equipment to and across the project site shall occur only within these hours. • The applicant shall establish a construction staging area on the project site before beginning preliminary grading. The construction staging area will provide for the storage of equipment, landscape materials, and building materials. • Gopher suppression measures shall be developed by the geotechnical consultant in order to control gopher tunneling and erosion of fill slopes. The gopher suppression measures shall be subject to review by the City's geotechnical consultant and to City Engineer approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. Significant Imnagt The onsite colluvium may affect proposed residential structures. Findii' ,g: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in SupMr_t of Finding Implementation of the following mitigation measure will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • Onsite colluvium shall be removed during grading activities. In those cases where colluvium soils are used as fill, they shall be remolded and compacted to attain the required relative compaction of 95 percent for the proposed fill slopes and buttresses. Representative testing of the compacted fill shall occur during grading in order to verify the design shear strength. C: \WP51\RESOLUTI\47850.FND Significant Impact Existing areas of geologic instability due to creep, landslides, and seismic ground shaking would affect the proposed development. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Fin in s Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • Major areas of fill shall not exceed a slope of two units horizontal to one unit vertical (2:1 slope maximum). • A qualified soils engineer shall confirm in writing that the proposed grading for Vesting Tentative Map 47850 will render the site safe from known geologic instabilities, to an acceptable- margin of safety, based upon standard soils engineering practices. • All areas of unstable soils shall be modified to correct the instability to a level of adequate safety based upon soils engineering criteria and standards. All areas of unstable soils shall be excavated and recompacted per the recommendations of the soils engineer. • As additional geologic studies are conducted, the project geotechnical engineer shall determine the number of additional borings/pits excavated onsite in order to further define geologic constraints and ensure safe and stable developments. These actions shall be subject to review by the City Engineer and the City's geotechnical consultant. TRAFFIC and CIRCULATION Significant Impact Implementation of 57 dwelling units will increase traffic volumes in the project vicinity and may contribute to significant cumulative impacts on the following intersections and roadway segments: (1) Shadow Canyon/Diamond Bar Boulevard, (2) Diamond Bar/Brea Canyon Boulevard, (3) Diamond Bar Boulevard north of Pathfinder, (4) Diamond Bar Boulevard/Pathfinder, (5) Diamond Bar Boulevard across from the Country Hill Shopping Center. The proposed project will also result in potential onsite traffic impacts. CAWP51\RES0LUn\47850.FND 4 EI in : The City hereby makes Finding 1. W7_ 7 - .IT TaT Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • To improve traffic operations at the Shadow Canyon/Diamond Bar Boulevard intersection, the City as a part of its long range planning process installed a traffic signal at this location. The identified need for signalization at the intersection was caused by traffic volumes on Diamond Bar Boulevard and the demand for access by vehicles on Shadow Canyon Drive. The construction of the proposed tract will cumulatively aggravate this impact. The resulting cumulative impact may be defined as significant. (the applicants have stated that they are prepared to fund the incremental (pro -rata) share of the cost of the signalization of the intersection of Shadow Canyon Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard). Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall submit its pro -rata share to the City of Diamond Bar Public Works Department. • The project applicant shall provide its fair share contribution toward striping a separate right -turn lane and installing* appropriate signs in the northbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar and Shadow Canyon Drive. • Due to forecasted traffic growth in the study area, a separate left -turn lane should be installed in the southbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road to increase the level of service from Level of Service "E" to an acceptable level. The need for this additional lane occurs under the traffic condition of existing plus future background plus Project traffic. This impact is not significant individually, but could be defined as significant cumulatively. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit its incremental (pro -rata) share to the City of Diamond Bar Public Works Department for a separate left -turn lane in the southbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. • The project applicant shall provide its fair share contribution toward striping a separate right -turn lane and installing appropriate signs in the southbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Pathfinder Road. • The project applicant shall provide its fair share contribution toward the construction of a sidewalk along the eastside of Diamond Bar Boulevard across from the Country Hills Slopping Center. • In addition, a stop sign should also be installed at the intersection of Wagon Train Lane and Steeple Chase Lane in order to minimize any vehicular conflicts in the intersection. The stop sign should be installed on Wagon Train C:\WP51\RESOLUTI\47850.FND 5 Lane (stem of the intersection) along with fifty feet of double yellow striping and Type D raised pavement markers, stop legend and limit line. • Parking for construction employees and equipment will be provided on the construction site, and no parking will be permitted on existing streets. • No fencing, planting materials, or obstructions of any kind (over 30 inches high, as measured from the top of the curb), shall be allowed in the clear sight triangles (50'x50') at the intersections of the main access roads which serve the project site. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would eliminate 28.2 acres of California walnut woodland due to grading and affect 5.0 acres of California walnut woodland due to fuel modification. Sensitive wildlife associated with this habitat would also be affected. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in SuDport of Mndi= Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • A walnut woodland revegetation program shall be approved by the City of Diamond Bar prior to the issuance of grading permits. The program shall include walnut woodland replacement guidelines that address mitigation site selection, site preparation, irrigation system design, planting (planting sizes and densities by species), and maintenance (weed control, irrigation requirements, and plant replacement). Monitoring guidelines shall be established that will include performance standards (percent survival and percent cover standards for planted species), monitoring methodology, and reporting requirements. To ensure the replacement of ecosystem values and not just of trees, native understory plant species shall be included in the walnut woodland revegetation program. Understory plant species shall be grown and obtained from native plant suppliers. Walnuts planted in the fuel modification areas shall follow the guidelines. • Replacement walnuts shall be planted within protected open space areas onsite in need of habitat enhancement and where long-term wildlife values can be realized. If this criteria cannot be met onsite, replacement of walnuts removed C AWP51\RESOLUTI\47850.FND by project implementation shall be performed offsite at locations agreed upon by the CDFG and the City of Diamond Bar. An offsite location shall be designated prior to the issuance of a grading permit for VTM 47850. • All walnuts removed during project implementation shall be replaced at a ratio of 2:1, with a minimum container size of 5 gallons. Planting shall occur between November and April. Walnut replacement shall not exceed 45 replacement trees per acre (with understory) or 30 trees per acre (without understory). The project proponent shall avoid and preserve walnut trees to the maximum extent possible within the grading plan. • Walnut woodland revegetation areas shall be maintained (weed control and supplemental irrigation) by the subdivider for a minimum of 3 years following planting to ensure the successful establishment and long-term survival of the habitat. Irrigation shall be gradually curtailed by the end of the third year to ensure that the woodland plantings can survive without long-term supplemental irrigation. • All walnut woodland replacement efforts shall be monitored by the subdivider for a period of 5 years. Yearly monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City of Diamond Bar. These monitoring reports shall document the success of the replacement efforts (percent survival of replacement plantings, percent cover, and height data) and any required remedial actions. At the end of the 5 year monitoring period, the performance standard shall be two live replacement walnut trees for each walnut tree removed. Significant Impa Grading activities associated with the project would affect 0.6 acres of coast live oak woodland and fuel modification would affect 0.7 acres. Sensitive wildlife associated with this habitat would also be affected. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Find'm Implementation of the following' mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • The feasibility of relocating small- to moderate-sized oaks, not currently proposed for relocation, shall be analyzed for use in the oak replacement efforts. Consideration shall be given to collecting oak acorns onsite for germination and use in the oak woodland mitigation efforts. An oak woodland CAWP51\MOLUTI\47850.FND 7 revegetation plan shall be approved by the City of Diamond Bar prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The plan shall include a program to reduce the amount of surface runoff reaching oak woodlands. Surface runoff from impermeable surfaces, irrigation systems, and construction areas shall be directed away from oak woodlands by means of a swale, French drain, or similar device. All oaks within the upland habitat removed as a result of project implementation shall be replaced at a ratio of 4:1. To ensure the replacement of ecosystem values and not just of trees, native understory plant species shall be included in the oak woodland replacement program. Oak replacement shall include 64 replacement oaks in upland habitat. Oak replacement shall not exceed 45 replacement trees per acre. All oak woodland replacement container stock shall be inoculated with mycorrhyzal fungi to enhance plant establishment. Replacement oak trees shall consist of the following mix of sizes: - 5 percent - 5 gallon - 25 percent - 15 gallon - 50 percent - 24 -inch box - 20 percent - 36 -inch box • The replacement requirements for riparian -associated oaks to be removed by project implementation shall be determined through discussions with the California Department of Fish and Game as part of the Section 1600 process. The riparian -associated oaks removed as a result of project implementation shall be replaced at a ratio of a minimum of 3:1. Oak replacement shall include 21 replacement oaks in riparian habitat. • Replacement oaks shall be planted within protected open space areas in need of habitat enhancement and where long-term wildlife values can be realized. If this criterion cannot be met onsite, replacement of oaks removed as a result of project implementation shall be performed offsite. An offsite location shall be designated prior to the issuance of a grading permit for VTM 47850. • Oak woodland revegetation areas shall be maintained (weed control and supplemental irrigation) by the subdivider for a minimum of 3 years following planting to ensure the successful establishment and long-term survival of the habitat. Irrigation will be gradually curtailed by the end of the third year to ensure that the woodland plantings can survive without supplemental irrigation. • All oak woodland replacement efforts shall be monitored by the subdivider for a period of 5 years. Yearly monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City of Diamond Bar. These monitoring reports shall document the success of the replacement efforts (percent survival of replacement plantings, percent cover, and height data) and any required remedial actions. At the end of the 5 -year monitoring period, the performance standard shall be two live replacement oak trees for each oak remediation. CAWP51\RESOLUTI\47850.FND 8 Sigpificant Impact Development of the proposed project would affect the existing riparian habitat and associated sensitive wildlife on the project site. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Ekdim Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a mitigation plan addressing potential impacts on streambed, wetlands, or riparian habitats shall be prepared by the subdivider in conjunction with an application for a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and a Section 1603 Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game. These agencies typically require the replacement of lost habitat values through the enhancement of remaining streambed, wetland, or riparian habitat, or through the creation of new areas of such habitat. The mitigation plan for riparian habitats shall outline procedures for mitigation site preparation (clearing, grading, topsoil storage), irrigation, planting (seeding, container plantings, transplantation), and maintenance (weed control, irrigation scheduling, replanting). Hydrological studies shall be performed to determine if groundwater levels and surface water flows will be adequate to sustain the restored riparian habitat once established. Methodologies and requirements shall be specified in the mitigation plan for monitoring of the riparian habitat replacement efforts, including performance criteria and provisions for documenting the results of the replacement efforts through the end of the monitoring periods. Provisions to insure the long-term preservation of riparian mitigation areas shall be identified. Riparian habitat replacement programs shall be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (as biological advisor to the ACOE) and the CDFG for review and approval. • Riparian mitigation implementation shall be completed as soon as practicable following completion of project grading. • Riparian mitigation shall be monitored by the subdivider for a 5 -year period following planting. The subdivider shall submit annual reports discussing the survival rate of the mitigation to the City of Diamond Bar. CAWP51MESOLUTI\47850.FND 9 SigWfcant Impact Construction activities on the project site will affect onsite and offsite natural habitats. Fin in : The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Fb dhm Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the limits of proposed grading and construction activities shall be delineated with 8 -foot lengths of PVC pipe, mounted on a rigid steel base for support. • Prior to the initiation of vegetation clearing or grading, all oaks and walnuts within 200 feet of construction activity shall be marked for either protection, relocation, or removal, both in the field and on construction site plans. Oaks and walnuts to be retained shall be protected from construction damage through the installation of temporary, rigid fencing. Fencing shall be a minimum of 4 feet high and located at least 15 feet outside the dripline of any oak or walnut or group of oaks/walnuts. No equipment storage or other activities shall be allowed within these fenced areas. Fencing shall remain in place for the duration of construction activities. • A biological resource monitor, approved by the City of Diamond Bar, shall be onsite during construction to ensure adherence to all habitat protection measures. • In compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, a qualified biologist shall determine the presence of any raptor nests prior to or concurrent with grading activities, the project applicant shall contact CDFG, shall obtain and comply with all appropriate procedures relative to grading operations in proximity to those nests, and shall provide verification of same to the City. Resulting mitigation measures may include restricting construction activities near raptor nesting sites during and immediately following the breeding season. • Pre -construction meetings shall be held between the biological resource monitor and construction supervisors and equipment operators to review and ensure adherence to all habitat protection measures. • During construction, measures to prevent erosion, such as use of silt fencing or hay bales, shall be installed at the limits of grading. CAWP51MESOLU7I\47850.FND 10 • During construction, vehicle haul routes between cut and fill locations shall be restricted to a minimum number. Earth -moving equipment shall be confined to the narrowest possible corridor during construction. Waste dirt or rubble shall not be deposited on adjacent native vegetation. Vehicle haul routes shall be identified on construction plans and marked in the field, in consultation with a qualified biologist, to ensure minimization of impacts to biological resources. Trenching for utilities and irrigation lines shall be conducted outside the dripline of individual oaks or oak woodlands. &=111cant Impact The proposed project includes the implementation of a fuel modification zone that will affect 14.4 acres of natural habitat and associated sensitive wildlife. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Fin iM Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • All fuel modification requirements, such as selective clearing, pruning, and wet zones, shall be prohibited within 15 feet of the dripline of any individual oak tree or within 50 feet of the dripline of any oak woodland, except as otherwise required by the fire marshall. • All large native shrub specimens (5 -inch caliper or larger at base) within fuel modification zones shall remain in place, except as otherwise directed by the fire marshall. Large native shrubs within the fuel modification zone may be thinned and pruned of all deadwood to reduce the fuel load. Only highly flammable vegetation, such as chamise, sages, and non-native grasses should be selectively removed, as required by the fire marshall. • All thinning or selective clearing of vegetation within the fuel modification zone should be completed by hand to prevent the disturbance of the soil structure or vegetation to be preserved. No herbicides shall be used. Thinning should be done in a manner to maintain a natural appearance. • The irrigated wet zone should serve as both a fuel modification zone and as a buffer zone/transition area between the residences and the open space area, and should be designed to limit human intrusion. Significant Impact CAWP51MESOLUTI147850.PND 11 Onsite and offsite plant and wildlife species will experience post -construction impacts. Find: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in SuRuort of Madingc Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • The following list of plant species shall not be permitted in the landscape plan in any development areas (i.e., common areas and private lots). These plants may potentially invade natural areas and displace native plant species. Such non-native species include ice plant (Delosperma spp.), blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), spotted gum (Eucalyptus maculata), tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), Peruvian pepper tree (S. molle), pampas grass (Cortaderia sellowiana), fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), Spanish broom (Span7ium junceum), German ivy (Senecio mikaniodes), periwinkle (Vinca major), tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), Jupiter's beard (Centnwthus ruber), Melia sp., cape honeysuckle (Tecomaria capensis), and plumbago (Plumbago auricolata). • Landscaping within common areas and buffer zones shall be restricted to the use of native plants. These should include only those species that were found to occur on the site or in the immediate vicinity prior to grading. Such native species include laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), California black walnut (luglwu californica), white sage (Silva apiana), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), black sage (Salvia mellifera), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), fuschia-flowered gooseberry (Ribes speciosum), western poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), thistle (Cirsium sp.), California everlasting (Gnaphalium californicum), saw-toothed goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), telegraph weed (Heterotheca granditlora), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma mendesii var. menziesit), California dodder Cuscuta californica), rattlesnake weed (Chamaesyce albomarginata), Santa Barbara locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), lupine (Lupinus sp.), purple sage -black sage hybrid (Salvia leucophylla x Salvia mellifera), mesa bushmallow (Malacod mnus fasciculatus), holly -leaved redberry (Rhamnus ilicifolia), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), narrow -leaved bedstraw (Galium angustifolium), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), orange bush monkey - flower (Mimulus aurantiacus), chaparral nightshade (Solanum xanti), western verbena (Verbena lasiostachys), big leaf mistletoe (Phoradendron macrophyllum), giant wild rye (Leymus condensatus), and purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra). Landscaping on private lots may use non-native plants. C:\WP51\RESOLUTI\47850.FND 12 • Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an urban runoff management plan prepared by a qualified biologist, shall be developed to control and reduce the amount of surface runoff generated by local precipitation events, as well as nuisance flows, and the associated pollutants that may be transported along with stormwaters into natural drainages. The conditions of the plan will be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. • Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Buyer Awareness brochure shall be developed to provide residents with information on surrounding natural habitats and resident wildlife, as well as guidelines to ensure the continuation of wildlife values of surrounding habitats. Guidelines to be incorporated into this brochure include domestic pet control, landscaping around mature oaks, native landscaping, and appropriate behavior in natural open space areas. • Successful integration of development into wildlife habitat depends on proper buffering at the interface of these two areas. Development often results in an edge condition where residential lots are located adjacent to areas of natural open space. A conceptual buffer plan using native plant species has been developed for the management of this edge condition. This buffer will limit potential impacts to the natural areas by screening development from wildlife, capturing excess runoff from landscape irrigation that could potentially injure sensitive plants, and providing an edge along residential lots that is aesthetically pleasing while providing many plant species that are valuable to wildlife. This edge. shall be designed so that it may be integrated into a fuel modification plan for the development that meets the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Native plants recommended for this buffer include mesic species such as toyon, California black walnut, and Mexican elderberry. Additional native plant species that are low growing and of low fuel volume, and would not impede views into natural areas, could also be used. These include golden yarrow (Eriophyllum conferti, florum), California poppy (Eschscholzia califormca), monkey flower (Diplacus spp.), heart -leaved penstemon (Keckiella corrlifolia), California fuchsia (Epilobium spp.), deerweed (Lotus scoparzus), and annual lupine (Lupinus spp.). This zone shall be periodically thinned to maintain low fuel levels, and should be cleared of invasive grasses. To help all plants mature as quickly as possible and maintain all plant materials in optimum condition, irrigation facilities shall be installed as appropriate on slope areas and maintained by the applicant until sold. Mainte- nance shall then be the responsibility of the property owner. The use of fertilizers and pesticides within transition zones shall be minimized. Only nonresidual herbicides shall be used to control persistent invasive species within the landscape buffers. Mechanical clearing techniques such as grubbing C:\WP51\RESOLUTI\47850.FND 13 and mowing, and hand removal shall be used to eliminate less persistent invasive species. Subject to approval by the City of Diamond Bar, the applicant shall provide for the following: a. Physical specification on the type and degree of fencing allowed. b. Enforcement of a mandatory leash law. C. Guidelines for the maintenance of trash receptacles and uneaten pet food. d. Prohibition of the outside storage of pet food. e. The urban pollution basins shall be maintained by the subdivider. The City of Diamond Bar shall reserve the right to maintain the urban pollution basins and collect its costs should efforts by the subdivider not meet City standards. f. Existing dirt roads within the open space area shall be used as pedestrian/hiking/equestrian/biking trails as much as possible. Any additional trails shall be designed to avoid sensitive biological resources. Hunting shall not be allowed within the open space areas. Unauthorized vehicular use shall be restricted within the open space areas. All trash (man-made materials) shall be removed from natural open space areas on a regular basis. Invasive weedy species such as giant reed, fennel, and artichoke thistle shall be monitored by the subdivider and, if necessary, these invasive plant species shall be removed. • Signs shall be located in appropriate areas to discourage human intrusion into natural open space and the Tonner Canyon SEA No.15. • The effect of night lighting on wildlife shall be mitigated through the use of low -intensity street lamps at the edge of development, low -height lighting poles, and shielding by internal silvering of the globe or external opaque reflectors. C:\WPSI\RESOLUTI\47850.FND 14 PUBLIC SERVICES - SCHOOLS Significant Impact The proposed project would increase the number of students in the Walnut Valley Unified School District. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Finding -s, Implementation of the following mitigation measure will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall pay a development fee to the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD) in accordance with California Government Code 53080 and the school fees identified by the WVUSD. SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACT The potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the implementation of VTM 47850 are listed below. The Diamond Bar City Council finds that these potential significant adverse impacts would be reduced with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures; however, the impacts cannot be reduced to a level that is less than significant. The Diamond Bar City Council will adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations per Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. CLIMATE and AIR QUALITY Significant Impact The proposed project will generate a maximum of approximately 891 pounds per day (lbs/day) of PM10 during construction activities which exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District's threshold of 150 lbs/day of PM10. C:\WP51\RES0LUTI\47850.FND 15 nn&U.a. The City hereby makes niwins 1. F8Cts in SuQuort of Findbw Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen the project impact; however, the impact would remain significant: • Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer how the following measures recommended by the City or the South Coast Air Quality Management District have either • been incorporated into the project construction guidelines or provided sufficient evidence to the City that a particular measure is not feasible to implement. a. Apply approved chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 4 days or more). b. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas per City specifications. C. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders, according to manufacturers' specifications, to exposed stockpiles (i.e., gravel, sand, dirt). d. Water active sites at least twice daily. e. Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). f. Monitor for particulate emissions according to South Coast Air Quality Management District specified procedures: for information call (909) 396-3147. g. In field trailers, use portable air conditioning units powered by nondiesel equipment. h. Sweep streets at the end of day if any visible soil material is carried over to adjacent thoroughfares (recommend water sweepers which use reclaimed water). i. The City may require that gravel be used in unpaved areas used as either construction roads or staging areas for construction equipment. j. Apply water twice daily for chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all unpaved parking or staging areas and unpaved road surfaces, if required for dust control. CAWP51\RESOLUTI\47850.PND 16 k. InStall wheel wavborc wkere s 01X;Vlw 19-4 unparc+u auuua unw paveu roads, or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site every trip in designated areas on the site. Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads surfaces to be reduced to 15 mph or less. in. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered and should maintain at least 6 inches of freeboard (i.e., minimum required space between top of the load and top of the trailer, based upon a level load). n. Pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, 150 total daily trips for all vehicles, for 12 consecutive days. o. Pave all construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road. p. Use methanol or low -sulfur pile drivers. q. Use low -sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment pursuant to Rule 431.2 r. Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts. For daily forecast, call (800) 242-4022 (Los Angeles County). S. Use construction equipment that has catalytic convertors (for gasoline powered equipment). t. Prevent trucks from idling longer than 2 minutes. U. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. V. Provide temporary traffic control during all phases of construction activities to improve traffic flow such as providing a flag person to direct traffic and ensure safe movements off the site as directed by the City Engineer. W. Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow to off-peak hours (i.e., between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. and between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.) with approval from the City. Implementation of the above measures can reduce PM1O emissions by up to 75 percent. The amount of PM10 that would be generated by the construction of the proposed project (i.e., 891 lbs/day) could be reduced by a maximum of 75 percent to 223 lbs/day which would still exceed CAWP51\MOLUT1\47850.FND 17 SCAQMD's threshold of 150 lhslaay or pmlo. Tho rvn=i,111[15 L&11"ru,U41D1e auverse Impact Is considered to be acceptable in light of the evidence provided above and the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. Significant Impact The proposed project will increase emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG) in the air basin. Although the project's emissions of NOx and ROG would not be significant, these emissions, when combined with related projects, would be cumulatively significant. Fin in s: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and Finding 3. Facts in Support of Findince Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen the project impact; however, the impact would remain significant: • Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer how the following measures recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District have been incorporated into the project. a. Use solar or low -emission water heaters. b. Use central water heating systems. C. Use built-in energy-efficient appliances. d. Provide shade trees to reduce building heat. e. Use energy-efficient and automated controls for air conditioners. f. Use double -glass paned windows. Implementation of the above measures will serve to substantially, but not completely, mitigate the project's contribution to a potential significant impact on long-term air quality. The remaining unavoidable adverse impact is considered to be acceptable in light of the evidence provided above and the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. CAWP51\RES0LUn\47850.FND 18 ATTACHMENT A OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 47850 As stated in the preceding findings, the City of Diamond Bar has determined that even with the adoption of mitigation measures, certain impacts of the project will continue to be, or will potentially be, significant, including short- and long-term impacts described under air quality. As provided by Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Diamond Bar has considered these significant unavoidable adverse impacts in balance with the benefits of the project, and finds that the benefits of the project, summarized below, render the significant unavoidable environmental impacts acceptable: 1. Implementation of the proposed project will implement the City of Diamond Bar's current draft General Plan. 2. Financial contribution for circulation improvements in the project vicinity will be provided by the proposed project. 3. Development of the proposed project will increase the City's revenue through property taxes. 4. The corrective design for remedial grading purposes on the landslide areas will mandate shear strength values at a factor of safety of not less than 1.5. CAWP51\RES0LUTI\47850.FND 19 VTM 47850 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL . REQUUUMMNTS: 1. This approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 shall not be effective for any purpose until a duly authorized representative of the applicant has filed with the Community Development Department an Affidavit of Acceptance, thereby accepting all the conditions of this approval which Affidavit shall be filed within 15 days of the date of approval. 2. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1) and (2). The subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the Application by the City, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. Any condition imposed pursuant to this subdivision shall include the requirement that the City promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding and that the City cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the. subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 3. The property shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlements granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a refuse hauler who has obtained a permit for such refuse hauling from the City of Diamond Bar. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste hauler utilized is one which has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar. C: I L&T77£RS I VZM47M. CON 1 f rr P I ? % ) 9,i B. PLANNING REQUHUKMENTS 1. That three (3) copies of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 presented at the public hearing and marked Exhibit "A" and conforming to such of the following conditions as can shown on a plan, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director. Thereafter, the 57 lot residential subdivision with one (1) common lot shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map. 2. The approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 is granted subject to the approval and certification of Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2. 3. That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the underlying zoning of the subject property must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in the permit or shown on the approved plan. 4. The applicant shall satisfy the Park Obligation by contributing land acreage or the in -lieu fee to the City prior to recordation of the final map per code section 21.24.340. In the alternative, the applicant and the City by mutual agreement, may engage in in-kind development or funding of recreational facilities in lieu of section 21.24.340. If such proposed agreement fails, section 21.24.340 shall control. 5. Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of Homeowner's Association are required and shall be provided to the Community Development Director and the City attorney for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall be created and responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within the CC&R's. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. 6. The project shall be designed so as to substantially comply with the CC&R's implemented by the adjacent development heretofore known as "The Country". The CC&.R's should incorporate at a minimum, provisions which would establish a maintenance program for urban pollutant basins, and all mitigation measures within the Mitigation Monitoring Program, such that wildlife movement corridors are left in an undisturbed and natural state. The CC&R's will, to the fullest extent possible, be consistent with the CC&R's of "The Country" in terms of lot size and other factors. C: I L87TSRSIVTMI7W.CON 2 7. A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&R's which requires disputes involving interpretation or application of the agreement (between private Parties), to be referred to a neutral third party mediation service (name of service may be included) prior to any party initiating litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction. The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Community Development Director for approval prior to the sale of the first lot of the subdivision, a "Buyers Awareness Package " which shall include, but not be limited to, information pertaining to geologic issues regarding the property, wildlife corridors, oak and walnut tree Preservation issues, the existence and constraints pertaining to SEA No. 15 and Tonner Canyon, explanatory information pertaining to restrictions on use of properties as necessary and similar related matters. The applicant shall institute a program to include delivery of a copy of the "Buyers Awareness Package" to each prospective purchaser and shall keep on file in the office of the applicant a receipt signed by each such prospective purchaser indicating that the prospective purchaser has received and read the information contained within the "Buyers Awareness Package ". The applicant shall incorporate within the CC&R's a reference to the availability of the "Buyers Awareness Package " and the fact that a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar. 9. The applicant shall obtain approval by County Sanitation on the location of the structures affecting County Sanitation easements and submit written evidence to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) outlined within Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) No. 91-2 shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the grading permit. Should a conflict exist between the Conditions of Approval, the MMP as outlined in the MEIR No. 91-2, and the SEATAC Final Report dated April 8, 1991, the conflict will be presented to the Community Development Director for resolution. 11. Prior to approval of the final landscape plan the applicant shall demonstrate that the landscaping palette for the project emphasizes the use of drought tolerant, native plant species with low water requirements adapted to the inland Southern California climate. In order to limit the potential threat of wildland fires, low -fuel volume plants shall be incorporated into the revegetative plan. The final landscape plan shall substantially comply with the recommendations of the Final SEATAC Report, MEIR No. 91-2, and the preliminary landscape plan submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and marked Exhibit "A-1 " and shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building permits. Indicate fence details, tree staking, soil preparation, planting details, an automatic irrigation system and the incorporation of xerotropic landscaping wherever feasible. C: METIERS I VM47W. CON 12. All irrigation equipment, slope planting and revegetated areas shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer or HOA until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that the planting is in satisfactory condition. 13. Exterior grading and construction activities (framing and roofing, etc.) shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, except that interior building construction activities shall not be limited. All construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. 14. Transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall also be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the subject property. Dust generated by construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during grading activities. Use of reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. 15. Dust control mitigation measures shall comply with MEIR No. 91-2 and shall be included and enforced under the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved by the Community Development Director. Measures may include but not be limited to reducing dust by watering the soil prior to and during grading activities. Use of reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. 16. The use authorized by this approval shall be commenced or construction necessary and incidental thereto shall be started on or before the time limit specified herein and thereafter diligently advanced on or before two (2) years after the expiration of the appeal period. A one year extension may be requested and granted. 17. The applicant shall pay development fees (including, but not limited to, Planning, Building and school fees) at the established rates, prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits, as required by the Community Development and Public Works Directors. 18. Comply with all conditions of approval listed by the Engineering Dept. as exhibited on Exhibit "C-2". 19. Prior to any occupancy permit being granted, these conditions and all improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. 20. The subdivider shall contribute its pro rata share, estimated at $6,000.00, for the baseline biological analysis prepared in August of 1992, Tonner Canyon and SEA No. 15. 0 I L firFrRS I VTM47M. CON 4 ,%1I11C" ) %M 21. All residences will be required to receive approval via the Development Review process by the Planning Commission or Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. 22. Prior to final map approval, the owner shall make a bona fide application to Diamond Bar Country Estates Association to annex this subdivision to that Association. The owner shall be required to agree to annex upon recordation of the final map, if all fees assessed by the Diamond Bar Country Estates Association do not exceed the fees assessed per lot for annexation to the Diamond Bar Country Estates Association for Tract No. 47722. 23. All down drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace drains shall follow land form slope configurations and shall not be placed in exposed positions. All down drains shall be hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope face. 24. The applicant shall participate in an oak and walnut tree replacement program substantially conforming to the ratios and locations exhibited in MEIR No. 91- 2 prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 25. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Los Angeles County code and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in Place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. 26. Prior to recordation or issuance of any permits, the applicant shall pay all environmental and development fees at the established rates as required. All Mitigation Monitoring Program fees to defray the cost of implementation and monitoring by City staff and consultants retained by the City, are to be deposited with'the City prior to the issuance of building or grading permits and all costs related to the ongoing monitoring shall be secured by the City prior to Final Map approval. 27. The final map shall clearly delineate and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the construction of buildings (or other structures) within those areas to be designated on the map as building restriction areas. 28. The location of the fences demarcating the construction rights prohibited area shall be clearly delineated on the final map. 29. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. Q"TrMSiVM47Wcon 5 30. The use authorized by this approval shall be commenced or construction necessary and incidental thereto shall be started on or before two (2) years after the expiration of the appeal period. A one (1) year extension may be requested and granted. 31. Lot Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 34, 35, 36, 46, 47, 48 and 49 shall provide a minimum lot/street frontage of 60 feet at the property line, as defined in Title 22 of the City's Subdivision Code. All other lots shall have a minimum lot/street frontage of 125 feet. 32. All lots shall be a minimum of 20,000 gross square feet in size and constructed with a minimum pad size of 10,000 square feet. 33. In compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, a qualified biologist shall determine the presence of any raptor nests prior to or concurrent with grading activities, the project applicant(s) shall contact the California Department of Fish and Game, shall obtain and comply with all appropriate procedures relative to grading operations in proximity to those nests, and shall provide verification of same to the City. 34. The applicant is to contribute $10,000 to the Los Angeles County Fire Department, in lieu of providing an alternative location for the helipad on-site. Should the Los Angeles County Fire Department not need the funds for the heilpad, then the City will use the contribution for fire protection enhancement. C. ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT REQUHWVM4TS EXHIBIT "C-1" SUBDIVISION 1. All easements existing prior to final map approval must be identified. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the final map in lieu of showing its location. 2. Subdivider shall submit a title report/guarantee and a subdivision guarantee showing all fee owners and interest holders must be submitted when a final map is submitted for map check. This account with the title company must remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder. An updated title report/guarantee and subdivision guarantee must be submitted ten (10) working days prior to final map approval. 3. The subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate of all off-site improvements, prior to approval of the final map. C:VXTr Zg1VM47&V.CON 1.1 L No3'oSBON"ISvxuT -,l *SIM.QP puu salou asagj 3o iunojdde ajnjpsuoo lou scop deur sail jo ienoiddu aii pue f-iuo iunidaouoo on sueid pou!tugns agj uo umogs sajou uoponjlsuoo pue sguinnejp gelap aiZ 'Zi •sliuuad guippnq 3o aouenssi of joud pojmbai si `joamfta �I!D zip , q aouumlo 2uuaquinu asnoH IT i •sopoo dzz aoinjas iulsod s,j% puou m(j jo 43 all uiilim sounu longs 2upstxo oleogdnp jou isnw souieu asaiL •deur ieuij oii 3o ienojdde of joud ienojdde pue mo!Aai AITD jo3 pajllwgns aq Mqs saumu lams Oi 'iunoidde deux iuug of loud iaoucffug f4!D ail Aq panoiddu pue fouajsisuoo jo; pmm4pj000 aq lugs suuid luowoAoidwT uwjp uuols pue jajem `jamas ` loans `uopeBujt `2uideospuei `2utpuj2 alis iid •6 • f4j moos oluudojdde oij lsod nuis puu sluotuanojdwT ail alaidmoo of f4iD aij ipm luau gone ue oiut nluo Begs joptAipgns ail `deur ieuy aij 3o lenojdde ail of jond f4iD zip Aq pajdaooe pue pajaiduroo uaaq jou aAEq sjuauianojduit oqqnd pannbaj Auu 3I 8 ,shad gutpimq 3o ienojddu of joud jaauiOuH f413 ail Ag ienojdde of ioofgns am put, spjeptms fjta pue opo3 uotsiAlpgns f4lo ail `tuff omS `job' den uois!AIMS aij ijim aouepi000e ut las oq lsnuu sluaumuow kmpunoq mou `deur ieuq ail jo3 XoAjns aij �ufew 3o auip ail le punoj jou aje sluauunuoux 6jepunoq uotstAipgns ajagM .slnujad $u?Ppnq to aouenssi of joud jaouigua f4jo ail of pannugns aq iiegs salou ap ivaumuotu ougialuao PUB `sp-mPuais'4!3 gllm aouepj000e ut `nowguH fmD ail Sq panojddu oq jsnuu uoisiAipgns stiff 3o and se las sap luaumuow ougialuoo &OH •jaautguH f4i3 agl 3o uopoeppes agj of sluiod olutpauualui jaglo jo `3oamp sluaguel 3o uopoasjalut 3o sluiod ail jo somno 3o pua pue guluutgaq agj jagpia 3[juui of pue kopunoq jaRn aqj slim swgs ;o suopoosimul `sjoans;o suopoosjalu! ail 3[jeuz of las oq pegs sluaumuoui ougjaluao iaajis '9 •g£ jorjlsT juautssasSV aoueualupW odeospuzl pue 2upi2iZ ail of poxouuu oq legs jou oqs .9 „filunoD oqL„ uMm sloans ajunud aij ein alis loofgns aqj of knua jo-jgBu ajenbapepodojd anuq Mm loofojd ail Imp Bupuaipui sluauznoop papjooaj liuigns lsnu[ japtAipgns aqL •.v II (1 M1 ,qtr l laam 129 �m ru s )ING GEOLOGY & 5O 13. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance withthe UniformMnement Building Code, City Grading Ordinance No. 7 (1992), Ordinance or as amended and acceptable grading Practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the grading shown as a material part of the tentative map as approved. The maximum grade of driveways serving building Pad areas shall be 15%. 14. At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan for plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Said report shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed by the State of California. The report shall address, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane; projection plane shall have a minimum safety factor of 1.5. (b) All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key locations, etc.) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. (c) Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading. (d) The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly defined on the grading plans. (e) Areas of potential for debris flow shall be defined and proper remedial measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer. (f) Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as Part of geotechnical report, including remedial fill that replaces natural slope. (g) Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as approved by the City Engineer. (h) All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the 40 -scale final grading Plan as a base. 15. Grading plan (24"x 36") must be designed in compliance with. All remedial recommendations of the soils and engeology mgrPorated into the Plans. earthwork specified in the final report shall be Inco c: v srrexsIVW47M-00N 8 .Yaaw Ely 1ups 16. Grading plan must be signed and stamped by a California registered Civil Engineer, Soils Engineer and registered Geologist. 17. All identified flood and geologic hazard areas associated with this Proposed development which cannot be eliminated to the satisfaction of the City Engineer must be indicated on the final map as "Restricted Use Area". The subdivider shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted use arm on the final map. 18. As a custom -lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a) Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all grading and on-site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City Engineer prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading Permits - b) Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage flows that are conducted onto or e veradsatisfaction of the City Engineer prior to nt Parcels, are to be delineated andshown on issuance of the final map to th grading permits. c) On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties from drainage flows, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or occurring within a parcel for which a building permit is requested. d) All slope banks in excess of five (5) feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or an alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. 19. Completion and stabilization of all man-made slopes, removal of all landslide materials and reconstruction of slopes must comply with the City Building Code, all other provisions of this tentative map approval and Ordinances including those requirements for erosion protection and landscaping. 20The geotechnical consultant of record, Harrington Geotechnical g�cal Inc., must provide written confirmation of their acceptance techni data and information provided previously by other consultants for tioa their vesting tentative tract which has been utilized or relied upon in preparation geotechnical reports. C: MrnWIVTM47MC0N 9 swo E2,, 1L PM 21. The following geotechnical issues must be addressed and approved by the City, prior to approval of the grading plan: a) Areas of potential for debris flow need to be defined and proper remedial measures recommended. b) Stability of all proposed slopes must be confirmed by analysis. Unstable slopes shall be redesigned or stabilized utilizing slope reinforcement. ROAD c) All landslides must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map• Specific remedial measures shall be implemented pursuant to requirements of City Code and Ordinances. d) Stability of back cuts (i.e. excavation of natural slopes) must be analyzed. 22. Street improvement plans (24"06"), prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval. 23. Cul-de-sacs, in accordance with all applicable City Standards, must be constructed at the terminus ends of Hawkwood Road (public) a Lane (private). 24. Install street name signs at all intersections within the Tract. 25. Prior to any work being performed in Public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction Permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. 26. Street improvement plans for all streets shall bee�desi On thestreets, fees um be grade of 12 %. Prior to any work being per , paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other Permits required. 27. Construct base and pavement on all streets and access ute roads a�I� ce W°� and the emergency access road to southerly property the City approved soils report and City Standards. Vehicular access must be provided to all "Urban Pollutant Basins" �e no greater than 2h a minimum p%f 15', with 12' of pavement and with a maxi g 28. Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall contribute $8,550.00 towards the construction of sidewalk along the east side of ing Center. Diamond Bar Boulevard across from the try Hills c:EETFMjVTMC W.00N 10 Juaw X29 2X5 DRAINAGE 29. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the Cityand Engineer prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities shall be designed constructed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Standards. Private (and future) easements for storm drain purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. The private storm drain facilities shall be maintained by the homeowners association and this shall be assured through the CC&R's. 30. Trees are prohibited within atof t a mature tree �koutside diameter af any storm drain pipe measured from the outeredge 31. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement las and shall be completed beyond the Phase boundaries to assure secondary accesboundaries drainage protection otthe ines hownon of the City Engineer. on the approved tentative map. shall correspond to 32, Prior to placement of any dredged or fill material into any U.S.G.S. blue line stream bed, a 404 permit shall be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers subject to the provisions of nation wide permit for discharges of dredge t fill materials into water ways of the United States. Not withstanding permit from place any fill in the U.S.G.S. blue line stream bed a written Permission affected property owners must be obtained prior to approval of the final map and issuance of a grading permit. An agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game th �iuiabel mapoa �submitted grading to the ��t. Engineer prior to approval EE MER 33. Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be connected to city sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works Department, prior to approval of the final map. 34. The subdivider must obtain a sewer connection permit from the City and County Sanitation District. The subdivision must be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate easements for all sewer main lines and pump station must be provided and accepted by the City, with approval of the final map. 35. Prior to approval of the final map, the subdivider must conduct an engineering analysis to determine the capacity of sewer lines from the site to the County Sanitation District trunk line. If the system is found to be of insufficient capacity the problem must be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. c.mrnwiV7X47 CON 11 IMM A 05 36. Subdivider, at his sole cost and expense, must construct the sewer system including the pump station in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Work Department and County Sanitation District Standards. T1t XFIC 37. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for approval in conformance with adopted policy. 38. Pavement striping, marking and street name signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 39. An additional left -turn lane shall be striped and appropriate signs installed in the southbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. 40. A stop sign shall be installed at the intersection of Wagon Train Lane and Steeplechase Lane. The stop sign shall be installed on Wagon Train along with fifty feet of double yellow striping, Type D pavement markers, stop legend and limit line. 41. Stop signs shall be installed at the intersection of Steeplechase Lane and street "A", subject to the approval by the City Engineer. 42. Developer shall contribute $28,500.00 towards the installation of atraffic signal at intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Shadow Canyon prior to approval of the final map. UIMITEEa 43. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance a the respective utility companies standards. Easements shall be provided required. All utilities shall be Placed underground. 44. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary and placing them underground. Facilities within that easement owned by General Telephone Company shall be relocated as necessary to allow telephone company to relinquish its easement. Subdivider shall, at it's own expense, cause General Telephone Company to relinquish this easement. 45. Prior to recordation of the final map, aDwrim �' Gam, SCE, SCG and Jonecation shall be s to the City from Walnut Valley W prior to issuance of Intercable stating that adequate facilities are or will , P ct and they have no building permits, available to serve he proposed objection to recording of the map. such letter must be issued by the utility companies at least 30 days prior to final map approval. C..VXT JMIVT6147MCON 12 ffMM 1189 sns 46. On all lots where the effect of existing easements may reduce the usable building pad area to less than that shown on the tentative map, such easements shall be relocated or otherwise removed from the required building pad area to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer prior to approval of the final map. 47. Lot "A" shall be conveyed to the Homeowners Association and the owner shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings and other structures thereon. 48. On the final map Lot 13, Lot 15 and/or Lot 16, as shown on tentative map, shall be modified to include the entirety of the "Remainder Parcel". 49. No construction equipment nor related construction traffic shall be permitted to enter the site from Hawkwood Drive. 50. As reclaimed water supply is not currently available, Subdividerand the Walnut o design and construct, to the satisfaction of the City Eng reclaimed Valley Water District, main and service lines capable of delivering water to all portions of the subdivision and the system shall be designed to permit "switch over" of non-domestic services on each lot at such time a reclaimed water supply is available to the subdivision. Security shall be posted to guarantee the performance of this agreement. Subdivider shall install, prior to approval of final grading, a portion of the system consisting 'Of main and service lines capable of delivering reclaimed water to those portions of the subdivision for which the homeowners association is responsible for irrigation and/or landscape maintenance. This portion installed shall provide for switchover from domestic service to reclaimed service at such time as it is available. 51. Prior to approval of the grading plan and final map, Subdivider shall submit permission to grade from all affected property owners outside the boundaries of the subdivision and shall submit documents granting necessary easements for maintenance and repair of inlets and storm drains to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. c.iLEnwesiVTM47 V.CON 13 �,� i _. 1� f r i, * r ra,,,_ f s (i C to T.� {+�t ! n �� ,/ rq, T: i ,,�� -t '+ { 4 x 5 \ �• tr r1 a P' r.C''ftF •� raft :s ,�# a� ,rr� t r' �7 ! i - f7 �t ,1 � r y rK 4 `4}r - y r'i a.%�id'Y tv:'{ ti. ]' v F K a 0,-M4-04, : .:ice X�r,p(i•.�ta i� > w�r tr• c '�^ {e +T4, >- jr t..+ ,sy -111.1 It Cys x '�� i P, i`' IN � 3t " ra'2�t r. 'y tty� � w y sr a N ',`d y �u � i A ',1_1'_, l +\},. r 1.y ty ;� � �i`tS � i� * `z t g�� E w'' -- :� v �. '`kt5'i j� t �j{.� x��.`n4�;., - "" l , S �1RI"E "U", 5 _ _ r: } e . n ter' C2 s ak:'.r,p ' .- , ,, ". } ' _g�. / q�, c ,n, L' • .a.yrl✓r s`p. A 'f I t k r . £� 1`M1 1t err s V ic. `L j d " ' t�� � ;d` � y .P�'-qY •/ t". a� ,ti' 'E� �.. `s n , k i.a r. i �, y .j,. t }:4 4, .,t _t ,,, i, 1„h •,,,Z, s, .l�`�`1.�:vtr. '-^'a'- +p•� N Z !: r .v=K� �„�at 7j "'rSr;^P ,✓ y, 3 �5f rte Fy ,Ft .1.� ! l'j.�s, �K,'* "t �'Y ?fjit=�' t'4�f- its",:+ T. `t t 'tY. �t�� f . ks 3 'T.r 3Y" 114 V ' ^••j. f, r Yr ca �� d "* ,'�` N4174_1 Ll* - ? k`t'. ''. .di st' � `�' R w-�av« VMI'.Ph�i+� +a yv x a i%Wirt-X h4 r�i ���-vF, -�3 'f� .y=oe-, �f'Yt �'Pn` k� ,r.'�c'h t �`4., {,I` Yi.`js."�Z '' j 1> tr.�( s 7 - ��X�[� i 3.,�2 ""t. �i �- e -ti Yi �4 , � c. tet ` ;/ {r �,/ �„/ ♦. �if�r}v I �Fy� . I *,k ,` '•i 5; /(i y� 4 f ," j 'S'� / ...� 4 +'4 , P �j i 1, ` I FA ]y ? �5 � ;.P �R ij� ! �,- y ^.i \, .F 1�" 0 £ y y •,, �1! - It sJ' Y.k e' ��V} 4 j t•, . 'tet- %.,S i"1 a �i,'t ,rf� �..4t,, �,,,S ar- r, .4'.r3,' f k''".�''.'.c _.fi 'i;°- i' i +SLIU � '3, 1� <a r"LX ,X. t -y ,2 ai r f ✓: ��-�' 'fYirf'ii i",� t .y;;Vt � e?__ -, M"� x ' *,t t x a 3.' s ''; s -`� G>_ k TIGATION' VIONITORING� ,ROGRAMilm � f 5 .l 1 s r �_ � { rte �` 1.ay ;s •' i• ,l' 7 "Ll ! .s iF i ,i4 4 r� h -`-rt- :i� �..: t \`, F`'-x�'*Y� - , y , . � r 11-I&S 1\lT 'i Gl\ l ••�TRA � 47W � , { L i-" ��r � i4 t � . K �� : _ , %,; ,1 < < <P s �F�C MMONAL ,VSE•PERIVII'I'.'NO 89528 ` � x ,,. `,t� ' [Y �. 'S� 7k ^E� '�P .f✓ a y� ( �a .S r ' ' `et 'd t°� ,� i.a �� ��� OAB TREE PERMIT NO 8525 r : / ,ti ��y ,�,,y.y t: yti 4 { %t!�'"y' Sin✓ i- r>:''+ ,�. t xti1't �. .;f. •�- f t rP'1 ;.r ,t S k s of--ter-".,3 .Y Wit„ £. I{ 4 (.. rF '•',,-1, - _}?ti +,. -1 4 'f , i� v i . '� �'7 Y ' .X t `sTJ` : t P'` �, e- 1Fr' ° "t ,{ -.. �'°} �"' �a< '1 s� ?, t;J' Yt•.1'f v". ? ->>1� ;p ? fi �1L1 J ^{ xx' ,�'- :4 Y�S.pCi��/`t7\ .. �` L: �.�, -y'LL AC/C� , s �J�[ x ,n*' } '. } 7'`^� r `;j ry._"rY` t'#P'~xM1 ''t 'a { �'f 1M1'4 ►7VZi N��,y7WV.�VJ '�. -t#� r j 'c i y'�"f ,y F.. L 3 T S r= i , 1< f t F I '••y�^ { '� -i *M.:.. y . �. �7 �n. _ � / ` '. y.,�,,.Y.• b - � v J �,ti+ t.�, f 3 - � A =., 'f ` i F �• `y l'trt„ y; f �rt� '� sf -�: - r k 47... �.. 4 f t Y .� c` ,, B r AY_' y t : !�, ^F L tr ,d ,f -� - yf . ^N .� :. ,F — 11C I z 1 -rt r rf "r f_ _ t_ .fi ;.r < y��c ! / y. fj� r H� .1 .n fa L ".� lr` Fk "` a la , i s 1 �` t l y� �u'x�,ypT� � t• � �'A"''1 -adre� •- ,.t t Ji ut v Pt i L� ;i ar4fY.1 t't�i 14 '} 'A4.t1,/ �''c,{wt' .' �`y 1 t , '� s� , J .q mY{R.,t�.� f �N F. ! 'S4 -r _ 4 (..°, f ''> j y� r f V. / , { ��/' L, .`nl.1 , f''✓E"i -r•�+p 4I j`'(`�yv .. �+t�,.. S•C--k ��',i �'� ih � _ ��" z%t SG; P /i' -r ' S Xi t �"' f �,SZ s :., t , P .�4 W ,} C f'\.{ ji ;, t _'�..tir�,. "^`, !�. -`..,._ I.>° c f t ,/ ) v � .,} . �"R r `.t� 1''C ,.1. `;� A r,1 `� .'`P '11, _.bi �! ,. -+., '' Y1r->d ,c i �":d R � 5 t \ x -i,7 - !1 a ' tr t yr �.. ! s '� 4 � ,.,• r'+ `' 'a 'reffar� for ., t-, , ,t 11 �= �� � .- 01 ,f v iAl �71­ " to (` ,x r� f p ,'r 1 YLtd ,, t 1�:: ,� r i it t �f .< t ,� a' k' -x t y 4` , a - _ .,� �f t P'r (L y� t' - �{ p'if� �{ ' 1 t l r $ % , i 1 t r r. ��`; t ��� ^i ' = j �Clty of DlalIldnd Bar, a `f r� d,/� t % _ i 1', i f z. £ i I ;, p ,'r Co -!i Ltty ___ 1-1 r. E ,. f F� � z�, �dq} 11 ! � t� 1 , r 21 Cople� D11ve, Surte_.�90 �� t —1 r, T r Y . �`` _3 r S d 1, 4 ('.` r r ,) x f 1: r c au .,r ,4 , t;: Diamond ar, Oalifornia'917634177 ' f, , ,,- �� , ,t � t c: Jw a. i r';� s fir, i f f_ t Our �, z 4' # .��,! ,�:, � ` r t i 1 t r �+ �? 1 1, ldc 1_1111s 1 }� ; a - d r i Contact ;I '.*`D- Btii ano TPlannmg Director � F `. `_' r " _�) t , R /Y, s� t .!. y % r r P f J Y \\ F �v 1 ^s'"+, tx v 't, t f ( �, rr` ( wt < «G y (4 `,.-y,4"'ta,+ ` t r' ls` i ^.7� .r\\ 1� \� - -<�� C. �.1.� js .�1fL.^l s! + } i > Y;r sr r•t t !} tip- rT �;.'1' f ., �r-- ti ?t' `.moi c + ..�. �SiG �,. T71"nti'` s '` `r U r L 1l f'' r r.r i Y ♦ `� P ", t JE - ..r L `-.J:v ✓ � �ar s F'- \ �` i V �, vim... } _,. 1 i ) � t s ,�F ?,: ,!._� } i _ ti }.r ; C' ki.i j'. -, '• "• a t C y S f {iNI"r J �. 1 ` k� f , .,:=.. , - 1. , - ` ! 3 !' ` r ,i 11 r� C x T j 1. 1_Y fi . �_,� � " r r �by 1 `i f j.r ter, ► > _ �:,Prepar r �� ` " � � " 1' Michael. Brandman Aisgc�ates ' � . � = � . x � i 17310 Red Hill'Avenue, Suite 250 4 - , �' J + ' ;:, S t Irvine, California 192714 t a : ,' t I 7� �� i \ / t a r y i(714) 25�- 555 � t , r' s s r ` _ - _� r t '�, 11 .L t ice ��1. z'r L -' t ! ¢� t_! d,_l # gi . J. Contact Thomas E �Smrth, Jr r AICP, Project Direct4% t, - fi ! � }, {`�i : i f Michel E Houlihan '1?roJect Manager <: y � '� � , l-, y i4 L r "� ) l ti t .r',.� ,4i t M,/ '-1 '\ 1_ , :�/` '�' r . _ : i c Y 1 T / / 'r`�1; � � C -t` r `� ! )'. , P y I ° ) \. , . Marchi 1995 � ; �� 1 � �; _ : � 1n: } i _ ; ,.t .1 - 1 ink t�-~{ ° '3. •�ii;- t _ }`. T t! :11,z�k 1 r S i^ t J tY .. - } - �• _ 1 - -. r r (D W) 00o a � bA � Q .O :d O F C 04 0 . E a. 0 U -'n O a a c. 3 ao 3 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 pczto W A A A CD A Ca C C C C F ccs A ymo ou to ao W M M > ar w O w O w O04 w O R Cd Cd H dl H w .- CA b4 0ba o o o 0 Cd .3 Q U ar y RS w O OtA bfl CC > O d 3�5- tw�o=co�v to N N C d O U C C O O U O .O C .y •V O GY O b bqe� ��,,, W C H N 00 C 5 cn ._�7 R bo ea H O O x n O O,�, .� L1 YO h O .0 y L3 N d B C O w Q O G �' 3 O d i d O N .^ O y p G O c� Z U R Cd n C U vpi +�- CL a • o.;� c a �,.° o > o ami = H y t, bo U 'L7 .. a. >; wc� _E y v q 4'Un m CL -- c y" p' 7 fn w o D y Q U an .� Q cc w Q 3>= d (D W) 00o a � bA � Q .O :d O F C 04 0 . E b •� 00 w o`o ti w o v •o � a � •o y ':, u .c .c a � F - b A4 CO2 L4 a� 04 h H a a a a a� ar !d a C3 Q rL O Q N Q Q 'C w C O 00 � C G cz Oq U Gy�l Oo C d u co N > d U O Cd U U 0 do •� o u asba .v C to p O 'L A u a bo A C. Com. O .. ° p ►U U O t3 bA i4) O Ccq C13 cc M o In . O v C 3 'a1 O. U'0 cd po -�+ CA C A C O ty. CaU+ o N «� W O O U 00 O O. C O 'Cn fy > ON •d fl C 6) U H u C C C y O C t ci ba y •y '� 1r N y '•� bo eO� ad.+ 0 cn U N U C f"" en V _ C E of cd �"� U tV .0 • E ami o $ -� aC°i •°: -� v ° °' y s C:6 L 4 CL -0 v"i U � w N�� C 0o C h� Q. H p� � ��� G C r. rA 00 a' w c� a1 'C C U O In d V O— C dA ) O_ N 0a in h O CCS C •� •>1 H 0 •CCS O .� '�❑», O -4 ej r -N •cn y h wyl CU CL R O C rn a+ O N C ►• + V 0o •N aq y C y O a� cui Q• cd v v ca > °. `° C C `� C > ani d Q +� p ' V C c� 0o C U y m O 'cJ Q G N a.. � o0 C7 y C L4 a cl c y F- ti n u ° C ° ° a� o �' s a� rrO^ 0 o p C. > 8 O ho ti .0 V w "� rn > V 't3 Q CU :n L f•'1 00 Lq 50 o d U L' w t� .2 ° 'G d O > N > as 0 > C O L y N y J"-+ Q QQ C C w � L U co}, a C:L cz N +J L1 L .v v (7.� � N y w •L � � .0 y t7 U U � D. `�•' Q � •O O cd Cd u cd . •N.• Q $ N eda of d c� at ° 3 3 3 3 r� a fi a C4- 0 0 0 0 Eaoi w ca A p p p 50 00 C L c ° Lir a c. 00 C p u A = L c w N �o w00 o L a� to C O > as iG C F C 04 O ca .C+ QO � M o d U L' w t� .2 ° 'G d O > N > as E > C O y N y J"-+ Q QQ C C N N y L U co}, a C:L cz N +J L1 L .v v (7.� � N y w •L � � .0 y t7 y U y 4-. `�•' by C O. N E_. O cd Cd u cd . •N.• Q $ N eda of d c� at ° 0 00 C L c ° Lir a c. 00 C p u A = L c w N �o w00 o L a� to C O > as iG C F C 04 O ca .C+ QO � M a 0 U N FA Vl CAL CA RS a> ►� o 00 .c '^ ~ o a > b E.,. u by U U A U O O R 't7 C Cc> 0 0 o C 3 E t a o. A O OT3 y L Cd L �a Ra � ^ U ^ L1 .CL CL D ¢ a ¢ a a o i ,M ca a M b a b `L° O C: 0 w _ d O u v = LL ^a c ca cd CD O 04 cc '*• a> ami � E o a a s vow � D v O U d 0 0 ccs A ►- " O oo V yr^ 4+ L h {Ur U L y •di c r C -0 co CZ CZ C `z L U C p, > a O '°a C v, is o c �^ a ca L Cd �p CLO v, 3 O e� y N ami �+• as a� _o 'ba 3 c .. a0i ti C 04 •� U w L C a • y '� O CU 3 'CO _0 L' (,L� U ,x C L G• O to L V1 0 m q 4= N ed �, O _, O p L b C y� E a w3� °�'oan 3C's° ? O cd C o, o «: oo° hoi O w a� �� c ry a�° u c E 0 a o en O' 3 0 J L ��c+i. iny 2 E _ y y� � o -[ h C O O. 0y y�y Ct. C O L c� V+ u a ►�. 3 cR U o u Qi 3 a> ca O �' L t T %' •� L N C'.. C O Oy C aC+ 'U E N Lca. 'C L y «f y o Ll. O O o .0 .� ,C .0 O= v tt- g c� L G. C a U ❑ L v ce . 3 U n a v f' C]. F v. o Gp 0 en vi m D4 i w 0 ►Z U .�E C.1 •a � J N w �• a h � c 3 3 � U U O U a.. 0 0 0 Q c E E E E to 0 o Ao b c c a cl Cd cc U GD Oq �Q C G w .44 O > > V dq bA cz cri O O O y rA Q C u O � H y � Q •G c v a c o o .�w E a� edCCS 0 c„ a u u cm e .N a ci OC O a� (U tC -r 0 G C¢ a> u w u O a°i Cd U '" Uo c v t 4 ai c ov 0u4..w o°O G:i �.- o °e°'cn Q> a > '0 a = ao eo5� � S. *� n vca o c Q mz �� 4u2., 3 o a� i �' � Q >, u o� > v cc u a il. 'p 'CJ •Cf W " aD O .0.+�' U H c`G d y, ocda ami :3E. c a hwU o.oU c Q yaw ca a fl. O a Z 03 cli U , W) F—A O U ollN O N .� O vw .� ►�. v� .y O pL , N •� > E 'R d .O t3 oo-�'� Ems' °� nc >,oE� SHL Cd > O N O = c cd d V ti� b0 c3 ce yN �0+ t� Cl O h N •9 cd O CD t .= x �' O 0. U Q% L •� Ucd 42 y y ate+ ed4. ya`v3"i m�, w •o� 4>i '_dX.y_f wa.a� �c E .�r �eAy3 > � L. •cO �a. Cd 'ccyav o;n L.caai °m0 o o « E a .eu Q 0- M N c o o O y + Ctw 0 N U� cn e0 U Oof U 4V Q L L U R .yr U C y �U. N c VS Vl w cl y b 3 ° °' C U o q 0 c 3 .� Cl W N C C > 3 3u 0 cn i 0 h ov in. on � o > o o � A eA o E c ._ e i to I." °U G U {N{.yy •�" > O •G .N O E N U C N ca t. O C O O N 0.Y L ~ O'• ei N O 'B Qi �+ N V� O .0 bA ., G L> >>.0 V. O N O R p c� 4 cm �ap C om+ ° -0 p u> s. c� N N U aow o nrA GO C cd cd b N G �O G °° 0 O o L) N ° ��. c �� o o w o 3 H 3 0 a>i o y p •N In cn cd co cn in. cd C7 C r Y E G y 3 N 3 C w'a 8 0 c ° o0 0 �� U o o i a= v> .o .cz = •C1 � o 0 �. °= C R c>d y c a G N == •� N N > w N ►. h a� .00 d N N u y 11 U N N 41 c Q° a co 3 °��' Cd U. o w �' co axi H Q °' o a a to 9 ti.. N N O C V"yJ N y C g O > =IO c W " o° co a s ► % * L w 'ed ° 040. A' U C> O ea Q% U Q• .. a M .0 '0 $C u C j�v_, b L y 4) 0Y O 3 0 oca.c w acre H a� .- � m° ,,r.� 3 0 0 F U �' y 0►°�. a°�i u O ~ C N 0> C r. cu O y" i° O O O y p t� N U O • a �4 _U U C* �p, Gi 30 .v � � O CO � O N h U U U L E N [ C V]G ,, a.0' N C ° •U. «� >' O ° O C_ _ 0_ U O o ca > a .� O 0 .� S . U cd H CA G Q. 0 pq M C O O H U U �n O U G w O.N O .0 U 0 a. ea ani eo trl ea :: eQa si c y Y > 3 00 P9 Q P E 0 U Au- cc .. 0 o � C N O w r O o cc Q C F N CIS ° wcc U w U y ti. .D a cC O O I.- p > C y C Q O U C O y O G [ ca I J3 N O d N V3 .G03 y C cd •fl" .0 O G •° •� b 4L.O ° —Ui C•) c H Ql H cm ca. p mom° ° R a� °' $ A a -ri Cs N 0 o � C N O w r O o cc Q C F N CIS O w U y ti. .D a cC O O I.- p > C y C Q O U Fo- V .� 0 C13 d = h CZ CO H y cd �0 00�•• G9 U w G c d ed • n, woCd O A C y 4.. U cd U E h cFe O E p cd i r r J o �00 t- o a m U cc {. F•1 fl�'•. E. ii r 0 O N eo OA V1 y 3 ° 3 C � W O Q � t' cd � � Q A U 0 C C ,O C Cd A 0 W 0 43 C 4) U C C LV HfA N H L a Q a Q C O>U O cd G �; �• W v C j L J GC a� O N d 0 ed ri y C = Ct1 0 0 O E 3 v L a > a y O C C A= s. to O .0 w C C y p yA C a �j d O O p b C .+ C .0 C tOi C C yCd Cd E •y GL CdQ cc N w b I L7G U of 0 O U C b V w O. d OG .n v p y U C E" O H N y. y y C F. •O .0 cd cF W V •Vl cd a... �. U td�... '_' C w C4,W U U U O O 0 '31�. �, N v� O L y U C .+'s ca `d C C }'- w Na. L. yi.. t" C y a" N N sn 'C C N v cu G' n. d h y • L=. , V C C Oa L3 C C JY d .� TJ cd .C.. d y v y o0 0 rJ .0 ,C O_ Oq GL :,% •0 y 5 •C U H S ti cd p cd cd U GL'ZA C7 CO w C.. d t M G •C .0 O N i r r J a m 0 w C m aN�+ b4 0 .D C Q� •� [ 0 0 . b O.•B d A O y S � � � •b c .r w U CO C aU+ Ev octs .0 '''� . N U •fl on r- ed N O CLC cC 0 a� v O � N C N i O •ate cotw ... N � cC U .c 3 � O " cC •y c co n. N «� t 0 O U h N N ed C cl r E cc° •� U U b a a w a 3 3 3 3 0 0 0 0 CL a c A A c o C 17 b b a � y N O R7 Gy N • aCC� eCC.� eC O _C In. eC rA ed CO C O es C 'ACC G 04O .v E U 2 S w C m aN�+ b4 0 .D C Q� •� [ 0 0 . b O.•B d A O y S � � � •b c .r w U CO C aU+ Ev octs .0 '''� . N U •fl on r- ed N O CLC cC 0 a� v O � N C N i O •ate cotw ... N � cC U ., O LLUi O o cC •y c co n. N «� t 0 O U h N N ed C cl W) R gz 0 0� ° 9 "' d w g c C to .H CSG OG ed ao N 3 E v E O U - w ° y E O 0 Q Q ca � C sws Uo N ee R% w w O pO td 7 � N N N N •O � .O C L V 91. a a Nw '� O L O C lJ. •N 0 .y V ° .Vcu d C Q N L 'V •L. L b Q a. Q 6i G •N U C O CL C N O V N V O O° U .� N y C y °C C � :c arm°'. � � y >,'a 3 . mom c `cd d) M y M bo V 'd N d �N+ t4 c y. C a7 N L' R 0 O W 4>1G1 � N y !�'' N co C C O C> 42ba �` A O N c E .— O �. CG N L, ^ O � y N .0 N ea N C •~ba tw w V N V v� N o a� c �_ c o- a> a F- .. x u cnaCA a v c V ° o o n u.°A c� � t i�� > o h .O 'N ""+ C 3 b0 iQ "O O 'S7 ` C C h N '"' C 04 r h 6. O R y E U= O C O 't. Qq r:.0 G a N .i E >+ a b0 E 4 y N m C7. i..� JD n yy d 'C U � ti v O y •a co '^ VVl7 �. ° 4� �_ 3 y 0 L iS. C 'V -� lV N Zi V C '� > _� 00 O CG t%i „ i, Q A td y O L td a% �r CL RS > O O' V a v, 00 O. 3 eas C. o y -= 4) u O ev o 06 b w � 0 b C cCd y. N u oci. U U O 'a � •a iw i:, � L � V E E � E U QQ V U 0 0 0 C E o E o E o t _ d > 0o Ac ra0 C C O O cc C 1.. bq .2p O y, cc cc a w O CC C. G O U C cV3 U OrA d w i 0 a..0t) L cc O y0 E C ?. c c E e c o a c° ey11 $ E O ao "- u E ca u ca cco V u h d C O O U 4 ,114 G C G H 00 C 0 3 h ca o0 N e0 cd .0 y >'"s C, cn Q c c E E o o> C cd U V N Z Q 3 c °U' w N " C L, co C C yU, N N OO C > tv N ° Lq tU w eta w O tw y iC c+G a s 3 u o R G 'v oq N .:a ,It M a >I 2 'O � G d a e u b4 3 � Li. co AC w L � E 0 0 V Y Y G C. E m p ` O C. > > 0 0 0 Q w w bo O O c 0 p cz v bD ow a ca E w O > U d c E O V. vOi d N C y 'C O y G � do � 61 >> O C O 'rJ G G N NG -w o G w .� " eC ++ C p t'. .s O p C p U N •— O G cz co .0 o C,ani N to)E as L .° cC w" ° ►. p" � '� u "'' — G v iC ►�, �' U C C V~ O '� U 'O H w E Lfl. 0 .!G y Q �C to E N N >> �"' O •= N cc 0 153 .0 Q .N �ai . NcC >> G LM >= — • v a SE 1. s.'E Gyuaaa O avN cC o O. M ate+ S. W .�+ ►�., •�' .;, E w CL Lr U a) cc p «U+ cC p cC G L bJ/ N ° p •C >, •E N Qi "" N %1 �%. O V. p ° N 04 p C° Ct7 N 3 N lC O E C p OZ w vi Y U O fC E U C a) a) p a) U C `c�0 y eo E O C O y E on ° ca .L° is r.� c ° _o >' a' a� n. a> g E 3 b aVF G > E O G .�., S $ C lA — E 5 ❑. ti. — N C e0 > Uon E C_ d «, O eC f� V G C .�.+ Y N y a) •N •� p, 'on E cn C •o 'S 3° c E o y b °v E b¢ a, .�`. O ?3 v '= to o c c C Y eC O >cc ed cc — O O eC cC Son .° •° O C ' 4] '�O '- p -y 0 0 ecl A 7 G�� — t a aai t 1. 6. 3 a FL E co •5 H o 3 3 L' . U a) N Q N G, v C N L v �".. CC R. Y y O vi U �D O 0000 O bo c o > c o G G bo 0 c tw i i i 0 40 00 r- E o n. DO w� � C � O d O � z =° > s H 4. O L L' d G CC O 0 CC dc CG L CQ V cc m c w 0 U C eE O h O a.+ a. O L G. d 4 6l r t0 U O CA C.t00 m O H cd •^�O CA y CO Y O C edCL Q U ed G d d y w p G N c •� O O O O cn N y N G O u Cy v w6l yC ca c N d'CN O YO Y L a+ YC 9 O N E A ccNN t � � v c .O .0E w vi M'i .d = d 4�. O y b � U S y Y � h O o io u u ►. `- d C OO E o a° >a`ci° (, en 1. N '.l' .LJ. y O SC 'C N .�, ��„ W ."� •a y N Y U '3 d C H H Q C y G L O aS y In •c 0 r- U p, H U u U U d O •y cqs 67 7 U rA u Q. G. Cl. O` N U r y U y y" N C Y Cd U y0 rJ C O O �' a �, y eU0 `� n MO a ._ y e� Cd — .�+ o 'O •C " N O •N h N N c c _cc o O Q. 3 a7 N O ca V w .,Oy cn L. H .i 3 .0 O O F" co •� O C U i G i i r � a � 3 u .se w Qi W y c N ed 4D C 0. v Gt, ec Gt. cc V •� C C a E E U ° U 0 o O V � C u r a 8 c c r a� O w QQ Qcamin O O w w O O C C C O C A p •L ° V p R d O d y G p v p cjO C1 G cm O N W W W V N cc Q M b0 N 60 . + O ++ p •� p w 0 «+ .. w. u W O is a� d Cp c a� — 'G sg N i, O .0 gyp,. a� d� C° •C •� t S. cn p� y V 3 C '� CS. p '� t O •C_ C 3 Q L SS y Cy t0 O "8 e+„ C RS Gi N y CL o C ti O N C7 C G y Qi i. eEO 0y ii L MEW Ew •G p �c CLv 6r yy� G C'Ge- b0�•�C'C p C y Q O O d 3 y N O O A OCd6? 0� 0cc • Na D yV cc. N iO a E eCc °Tc`y y ❑ t =0 -E W) > L>0T L' O o 3 y o E y O °C' e' OC O o V c O 3 O d s °_' T 3 v •C 3 -0 h V3 cc �, a •v — o. a .. p too .. ,° a a 0 cu ° °� e° U w :g H ° �, o" c > 3 o vi c � o•o c _ 0.c a 0 C O O �.�� 0 ❑ c L-2 >,0• 0 O = ,y y N '3 d> t3 G' cc O 't. O 0�� V 4: eC — a. N '�+ d � O d r a �d p i 3 i A? N> a C v C N O T O fL E p G O N 6j O O, �1 M u ►�. em's C c�.. •0 E e� t . O i ec R: 3 •% e.. E O. Q O _ ._ 3 O �. C.1 ec C E 0 N N bD T v ¢ O O —' L. . 0 N s. 0. u O 06 C1 i i r i 0 04 t- 2-4- c a p R to cnc `o > R o p C rs; a > 44. ,� •v 0 N a .c 0u � o E L c Q N U �E � ca v� 'oo a awAv b R L W O U U C R O N N O L • L" p L � w �'• � .[ 67 r d i � R .y H _ � U •cc U O Q % •p .cd L E R N L W U cztw E CO N C O y .� Co O L p -0� cn c 'cc .d N cz ?, CQcc L ed ca LO R 'p CD cc R C6 N 0. 4' CO o C -v .� R o R too O rJ O [ �J 4) 4 a �o N .� c.b oo R- c C cv "a .� eo w CO C) `° fl. co v .. � � 3s �> 4)= w c •G api U V �Yr [ 'L7 b m L7 N�� N _N .E L .,,. jS, C L �+ ,,, L' � L N c� L O L w •L R w 'L [ N y «S .2 bq U R v, y[ 3 c � 3 0, r- S o y :v cC o a 3 y C v ,� � 3 v R U CO U cz '% U ,� U L' R s L 4-a o O a ._ a S O E y� O '� w¢ U"_ O E y 9 E O C O, p E p L c 0 U C- a x L„ N .0 C p M a. e�3 CG C y ao O •� N O N O U ,�•C C U a p R g a E o N U c4 U -• C] bUp 4- ev o a� 3 v E o sU. v a N u E N pG m V V 6 0 p b� O �, U •r by .v v O � ^pO ..ir1 L a0+ v y= O •C� a. O O^�. yca N �� W 'a. Q C04; cdE to b L C :C �i '� •Ly O iL h C C p o❑ H O .E = C N E hS. - y O "L cd "G +r1 vi O cya ,C d -g E O 2 d 'L• �Ir t L c ca ^i C o j •� C v y .G •� .� � O C a+ (y e0 v e0 cl cd N C 4-. H •� N h C p L E ea O d p wo E vi w 0t; O V.R d'fn wU�'OACi d C ,• Ca d r to O LL O. G O GL vl h oLo3':. y'E'_' -u °L' Sa a y ►_' �:oU E F L s r O O O a w O O y i•. r ea cc •p O � 0 y O o vj o. y � � a[i� CO c a°iEo�6� E u C7 `O •� '° c�i AA ami ami a>i L1000 C 0 0 00 d eLa w C a O _0 r Hp E o C6 L �- O L E y p N C V Cd d E d E A y n. 7 ,rl L g OL U C O 0 a CZ O CG {. � Vf to to C G+ C3. C Q V'1 OD E F L s r O O O y i•. r ea cc •p O � C � y O ate+'L y � aci .y CO c v a CL 4) E u G N C p 00 d eLa w C a O _0 r Hp E o E � L �- C L E Cd d E d E A y n. 7 ,rl L g OL U OQ 0 a CZ O CG N M E F L s r a3 � U U 'C7 b c w w 0 U nt R CL y 3 � N O C C c y C y O .r CL iu o ` o Ix R R d ca U a a > a > A DO OD tka to M 04 > •y R R U W W R O C Com. CC C O_ R U 7 E..• ° H H y C U «+ HO o 'E c a c 91.a. O 0 C ei 'N H y o i� C cUi GCL by O U C L w U C C a tw R c v N C C > O C 4 b4 ,C ^y 8 t' O OA O O ca n •C O R N �` �O U b0 W r - •p S. N 0. ty C vl U C RI Y 'y O d R C U N R G C bo 'd O -- a. C y O e� ° y O W C 3 U v s _ es R t. L tw d •O 7 R N C y 1U. f3. N R V... •� O N w w R A R y Z> vOi 0 > a •'-'' 61 .c 'C O 'rj R •0 co C 'CAI* a � � 40- U .J ~ . C c. n..- v, " �c} O N ami .� �C o�q d °' °. ° C c C o tw R � Nri y C � 6i N i.. •a c it � � u ° N � Zr '�•„ N Q, 0 6 bo 0 CZ "�" o`. - • N oo mai 3 ° v w°c'c a :Cv> g tw R 3 ,In n o U c c% $ v 3 0 =° y (D u g u o ID 4) o ami s fi v ¢ v 1, 1 N ° O �+ UCc cc M dV V CJ V p ba N o> ami �1 y C .y 3 E 0 0 a. U 0 w, OCL � w w p C O 0) E L y y C d E a O u 0 In in 0 00 min ❑ 0 C y., C cz 'p �' U co t U v U ed N OL O C G V C y C O O _ cc L E U .Q L n cCa'"'„ O "' �O U U C L 0. a pL eq 0 w t O a O 0 y O C C O C �O _ C A O d t O ca y C ° N m V G o ti U d to O 0 0� y 0 W r E w O '� 'C £ Cr7 RJ a .0 •b L [ C V y '� °' ••Vp2q C' d bD •U N N bq y O C Rai.o CO N►O U Q hC .Oy E -68 °U O to.—c C* c p G•OOba p Nu NO N O a O C Uu Ir �r r v > O la N •� ,N U U G. cc G C Li. t_ y v cz •LC •3 'Q N N � L' y L �• a+O •Q 0 N p r .0 Q^ . .0 C O 'V, N '� cC N R >i a O Qi u ey y w i id a 'C c3•O N ~O L U.G '•' O h C '.� ❑ CLR, n, y O c •yo�'O •�o ,wC , i 0 LC O N i U •UC° a . y00 � e�aaC ycuef C E ateU In C dp p .3n In O ;, CIS V 0 A %• a-% y .� �N C .0 •L •N 'Qi •{;+ 3 L •> o0 cC UQ U N Cl. U O a2 ❑ OL cd Qq 7 N ❑ O ^C �- C U ,a .G C .D 1, 1 r C O A V � 0000 o � a a� O y CL y �i p � 4:. OGpU�'C7� p � O ci C � L edC U OWS CA y •� 6�i C Q U _ _ y 'C p .0 •U � '� .bq '� 'G a+ 'a i•Lw 0 GL > o � 0000 o � y p � C � U U U O C 'C p a+ 'a i•Lw GL � > c c c U U U � � d w w w O O O C G C � O O E � � Cd O o ami o t ca. > > m CD cqs N 0 3 cu C a a id 4 N y .moi c 'Okn0 y C ed „d .Q it U 4.. • ^ tj H .b O cd In > b0 CO y ba Cp �a .Cd C3 = g .2 d y oar%. coau- >,0 53 v a 0 CC7 O ,O tw C s s G c a cd ca� G O Q _v OcnO y C O u 'aooa� a< —'�oQCd mUWcr E V —b Q 8 U d O.� y b0 > fV N N C05 w .3 ani .O E I .a o ae00 0' � o ¢ 0 > b y o �. Y F a� o� � d d C o o U U w 0 a a to to LIS d) �0 DO an - o g b O DA N O (V N O U V G h CC 0 ba �> O E L v O ` >, C b >, d vi C O O O O LOi to r d o aCi y C .+ y .: v s o. c Q '3r Q fu Z o N L •O y ani ed O V �• '' O CL. [. �Q v C 'y C1 � a _Rca o y V Q � � 'C •O '� C3. O >, CL �' O � :+ y y' d C � C3 y°cc N v G. e C .n V w' °i a. _ U O v �. C cCa .-, N o aCi A s o. ° u�i ani �; 0 °p C %Z 3 E e� 0Cr-= ° ° _ 5to 'v".:��Ow y C Z. ,` = _ h y —ice 0 H a y C O w c`i a� w •p O .T 0 d 3 C Z > j C Iz CO v O r, C o+ N � .> cd u . W :a V V � h N 8 l"" ed cd 'O V .D '� p, .� O..0 b00 .Q.. .�.• •.� � N Vl iSr N O m I o0 � o � g o 00> `F O a+ • Q c .� ca •N N Cep •� 0 a U N w O .+ ra O N � � O c N f3. > O N AA a L tw M Cd N w tK o c � y .4 O F. 0 � a Qti C O >, O O V �+ Cd �. ^ bq `' %00 •� O 'tj O eC .a ccn ^ y O O U '� y y d .� .� •O -w y p V^ '�' O O O Q 3 O h d b U a d cc cb4 b .� a� tl 2 y O C N h Q 'y � � O � y O obi a O C 'Q U O y O O O O U `1v w V^ ca cd^� �omty„., CQ% •t�O+ vydy y36'+� i>L e OcQ U�h iy~-: ► •CS E t p Q .n P-1 L. 0 E -a 0,0'. 7 Vl Ci Q . 0 'C U 4) Q 3 04 O'3 ”�3 LCOQti Nc� n6,t30C y� CA. -6 e >� y G7 C O b y t. s. fti '� co O Q O yt O 5 a rn 'C v �. •� vQ +° v o U O ty CU .` C3 q y" pp .. ` V .� O O O tw cV O G CLO i Cth O C� h a cts O O G .O cvn s.. O y cc tl e° 3 'y ego p s� v v ti. CS h ao .i v v .i 4 U3 S. u O h O y h Op -O �,O O N m E :O tr C N E7 1 w w N O00 00 C 3 a a � =� q N c a y a+ dbo C � .4) i- C •� C +' _ ai a.a .yam i N � O 3 C � G. V O O V u }C C 04 C t - Cd w N O o d c" H O y CA I- E ci a V CU d R C O C t0 i N U eC,O + co * �_ C.a� L 'y. y C «L• A 0 t ai n 0.C� Zi i.L O � •y L V Ci l� y C10 � Q y 3 `n •3 V �}•+ N N O ►. Cp C C y as C06 O C V 6q Oq y N ce O Cd O to G OC O H .y O v O ea bD RS WY ee N _d O O G� L_,y,,� O " t`' bA "aOy W - . V 2 'aC V O V O C O C O U. .0 -- '0 d c y, ao a` Co° > h a�=ws C � N N o m Eo 00 o � a� W Q •� C � O � 5� CD t •C E U W ° a+ C d E E C. > d d - 6p C_ ee N w - O O U ' C Cil O N � r ° V a a, .ca. C ^� 'Q C B i cd 'ami a�.l d O 3�•� ; g o a n o Ey Ecz � n o i C a`�' oi0C U O C m N O C` yzlJ bD_ ° 4 V ss w to ° a> cc ° Cs, > w C Y o c 3 Qi ate. '� y �+ '� O L 3 6.h U�U� > [y O '3 7 1: v h L d o C o a t1 c E' H _ c p -D H aq a+ Cpu C cd G y,,, C$ ti U '.d L 7 d rn cc .0 40 O ..., C ° H E. �+ CC C by - .+ > U .+ •> 7 as aeeS^+ o, =.° Q, ° n=i u G a = a. " ' cz E ca cqs Q o. cc cc_ o aci C o. d C C c 3 `� i" w = °° a �v, ami fl c O cR O O 3 E C .. Te a .� ct04 UO a _o E d H° H u L]. w a� o •� C O. w °� 3 3 a •" �°,- a� s a� °� i O L f„•^ ^ Q% Un V Q� .D U V •^ cz N q d v 0 A M. 4)j U �_ y C �, C� eCC `� O p� pD ��� O �. C' �- o E cd o .5 E c°a cLa v1 3 v Ll c°� c�a coy y E c w _ a� m w u 0 N m V N L. e 3 'd 3 `� �' `' .� - , o d c — ,o c T o Cao ' "per (A a.+ .0 ld C y 3 V w p c° a y t7 >.rA SN � y .D t Q -v y ia c cc 'dC c r c °�' a c o a o_ N ca ea V,; U r� N a �a o C c. v N .� Rs wU y aD ^' C '- w C ci a .. E p C 'C d C 'J y tC cc C O y C_ N C y ••fi•, a'E G. � �Qy; CD zs 06 'h Cgo O o c 'j y 4 o- 3> ami N c s y C 6l C'i b yam.` V �.,� d N° C .... -O C C CU y w O ',n U 'ca N h: Q C WC ^.� h 0 w ed C c°i N o C �• w N y c•3 9:6 ° W o o C° Q° E «a.c c c - ay NCD 'O O -Cu. '._+ c F q >+ �" N .� �. N cd 'O N H a� b 3 ' o a ° N xx ._ c 'O •c c c M U ie .O .v ° .' y •i L3. 0 �.. U Q q cdy N 'Q 'RS u co c O L Z.cU v Q ooc �w n� a� h0 E 5 F °o.aA a� o F5 = °C c,.. y C> 00 00 o � to C •o c L o � U O bo O bD y 3 Cd na. , c v c O C W pco o p y W ° N `o C H •,�� C a� avi c p to bo C E^ 4w.. y y C cd 15,1 O p () A v N a> U Oa c' c U i 0 3 o d ;? a' y U acr 3 o .� Qi O. .t7 .O rn .� C O �+ co aU.+ aN+ O C .� r cd R! u O H h 'y .� co bq cd tOr p h RS U G N ° N H L ° _ O 0 O O O d y N i1 H b) W cz '3 L, H C `� ao. A ° C U .. cd CU o ;a .O C C_ bo H cs ami 3 o C N �? RS c� ci d) N w g 7 y R7 O C aL H .0 d �dba cnhc. w O O cC U ca CO �C ccz W 00 R R .`r c�a c>a03 a.+ .Ur Vl Qa W CC � U 'v N w C> 00 00 o � to C •o c L o � U O bo O bD y i J a §o W) � o c O e ►. a� 0 Lim ._ al a �c a OU OU a� r" 4. a o 0 VJ CL E co U cd tO •U 4) R O C G 00 as N w O 4- O Q C E E- crCd go N N N N O E O tu. n da�1 'G O yO 7 W .rGt p A O y%'. y M— C w0 u•hy •N C 3 CtOi t.CA R •� O ° •5 — y C C n N L.y. m .0 CV tw Q i i Gi ? y GeS Q N N ed h •C C U h d �� a Q «! Q. O .N .. .y bA C C N •�' 0 cc Cd .� 0 �"' td ° N e•� � O N 'C f~ a' bA N u Lo�C O ,O E y r�A w a C e a d 15 = 3 :: c cu , ►. p B O C >+ ° �° o a �'=°�+a i N. :3 `� 2 a ami t° > O `� H U N _ c C'sC 'y y�_ R C 'C O In C Z7 O :± C y m p o _ Q > C O q w 8 n c co p in o > ►°» cc .� c Z a .a o C � M r•ry � i J a i i I 1 i i i .a L 0 00 bA a La bp 4 �' C:c o >_ ABC Gn $ 3 0 � c o � � 3 0 U U � U w O O 0 O d N > CL d d Q � •L7 � H A ba U C � N cc V d0 L. c c by m as ca y H .: O J .`�. hq >bo c O _ O O _ to c% a a as D •° O v V10. p EO •�' aO+ w ..+ d G 60 C V V ++ (V " 0.y _Co N _h O O O O Q• -c cc w •a w •v a� N •UO-Ovi .0 VweLedC 4dt QU O 0 O O O C .2 O 0 %.- rv I. V1 0 > > pa0.O `= F+ G3 0 n.� o >U o S rArA � �' c c0 d c c a� O 44wwMMW//11 w e :+ O O y C •C .+ ri p `'..' c� c> N ° ° U ° y �' ami " 3 " x -°0 a� o ►. aci a� L acny t4 U 07 v� C N �+ (� U G C p VV h ^r.' y H •C y ry yO y •� U 1] co "Clarn ci vOi o OO a °� a> >= E W o y y ao NO o c o 0 • 0 0 U s a� U �, U C � O � bo y a d C E � E U U U 0 0 0 y y C y C cc o C C C- M ed m bO u 00 C N C cc > 00 w bo U cUt C O C O C O .0 C O C D v G G Q v O G D u U ba. v U '- .� -p O 4. 00 C$ V O U ca 4 y U C !� O C w O t.7 L V � 'bq'C L U •O C 0 bo r' .L_a c 4'.n co, G .0 is �0 ba_ O C.'y 4- c o ) O O a 3 U C C U 400 'O V C C w C O ib G y G V N G w C O U 3 C U ti e E b4 w V =CE o .. v 'O O O .R G. U _ C.— i.. 60 ba bQ R .O l�0 `'L'' '� U ✓1 • 0 o Abp Y w C O ,c d Q b4 C •bp > a+ t C 3 y CZ - o eUo c �•be A L .� c � ca y c o y d o o c d 3 w. o a U-0 4-).o4-).oc 0 0 O U o .. 0o o H R ami .� .� c .= M > u E- 3 i M o 0 0 0 == Vl (y N U O ,V., V Q L H y cl to y ca. U > C L by > 3 U U U cn0 C .`n. .� d4 C cd .. G. U 0-0 •�+ C U > y� U y �� U a U O -- C v C U pCq cCC ea W) R O cn I 1 t+1 Ai � v C as M w a c. �j y c0 cc 3 a a 3 3 Cl.. U 0 0 0 0 0 IM C ° G C C C C CL A m edm bf m O U cC O +r Q O C E .O C y cc O rA •cn ci 3 L N c n. O W N Q _ IV E a y �" N y 0 0 c v C4n CIS 6i c q� 0 W- V _ E y . i cqs en 0 .0 cc go to o cc o a o � 0ca CC A Ca. id cd c. ETI r� L U o� �� 00 5 N�3�'o 3 �� •L •� flu wQi cqs Q y ^ y C/I w t6 y O •cr O c cd L y O° 3 c0 y L C 6 L= ►� a a w 0 U y a X o o iin o o t+1 MINUTES OF THF CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 4>*f ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL MAY 8, 1985 4pp CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:45 p.m. at the SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by C/Ansari. ROLL CALL: Mayor Papen, Mayor Pro Tem Werner, Council Members Harmony and Ansari. C/Miller was excused. Also Present: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Montgomery, Special Legal Counsel; George Wentz, City Engineer; James DeStefano, Community Development Director and Tommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk. Mayor Papen announced that Council Member Miller was attending another meeting and would be arriving in approximately one hour. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: (A) Resolution No. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INCORPORATING RESOLUTION NO. 92-43 BY REFERENCE AND CERTIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF THE ADDENDUM TO THE GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT AND MAKING FINDINGS THEREON PURSUANT TO THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. (B) Resolution No. 95 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE 1995 GENERAL PLAN FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. CDD/DeStefano reported that development of the 1995 General Plan had taken place over the past 1 1/2 years beginning with review by the Council -appointed General Plan Advisory Committee. The Planning Commission then held approximately 12 public hearings and the Council began detailed deliberation of the document in January, 1995. The latest draft of the General Plan, dated March 31, 1995, was distributed on April 7, 1995 for a 30 -day review by the public at the direction of the Council. The 30 -day publicly -noticed review period incorporated documents available for inspection, purchase or loan at City Hall and inspection at the Library. Approximately 80 "clean copies" of the General Plan were provided to the Council and the public using the City's mailing list. The "clean copy" eliminated all overlays and included all current changes and corrections directed by Council. The Planning Commission then reviewed four specific items on April 10, 1995, as directed by Council and concurred with Council's draft recommendations on all but one item. Regarding the South Pointe Master Plan property, the Commission agreed with Council's verbiage for the Planned Development proposed for the area MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 2 with two exceptions. The first was that the most sensitive property discussed within the Planned Development area should be the eastern -most portion of the canyon. The second difference was the Commission's suggestion that development of Larkstone Park be in addition to the 30% set aside in Planned Development as Open Space, meaning that of the 78 acre site, instead of about 23 acres set aside for open space, incorporation of Larkstone Park (approximately 2 1/2 acres) would increase open space to approximately 26 acres. Regarding PD 5, the 27 -acre Site D area located at Brea Canyon Rd. and D.B. Blvd., the General Plan allows for residential uses and, through a correction, staff will indicate Council's desire for a designation of Public Facilities, Open Space and Park for the property. The Planning Commission reviewed the change and, by a split vote, recommended that Council incorporate a Public Facilities designation for the entire property which is consistent with the previous Commission recommendation for use of the property. In addition to an errata, staffs presentation included Council's decision-making involvement with respect to adoption of an addendum to the Environmental Impact Report, as well as an Implementation & Mitigation Monitoring Program for the Environmental Impact Report and General Plan. Regarding the addendum, the Environmental Impacts of the 1995 General Plan were examined and compared with the originally -adopted 1992 General Plan. An Environmental Impact Report was prepared for the 1992 General Plan which addressed environmental impacts associated with the range of alternatives considered within that document. An analysis was performed by the City's consultant, Cotton\ Beland Assoc., Inc. regarding the environmental impacts of the 1995 General Plan. The conclusion was that the 1995 General Plan would not result in any new or more adverse environmental impacts that were not already considered within the scope of analysis contained in the previously certified EIR. In accordance with the State Environmental Quality Act, an addendum to the previously certified EIR was prepared and attached. The addendum does not require public review. The Implementation & Mitigation Monitoring Program is a combined document. Upon adoption of the General Plan, implementation begins. In addition, as a result of discussions contained in the General Plan, the next step for the City would be to create improved Hillside Management Ordinances, Tree Preservation Ordinances, Subdivisions, etc. The Mitigation Monitoring Program sets forth all strategies contained within the General Plan and timing and responsibility for oversight to insure implementation of all strategies. Staff received four letters since publication of the packet on Friday, May 5, 1995: 1) WN.U.S.D., dated April 26, 1995 and received on May 1, 1995, provided suggestions for Planned Development Areas 4 and 5; 2) Calif. Dept. of Transportation dated May 1, 1995 suggesting. that, in future development projects, the City look into development impact fees for public facilities such as the freeway system; 3) Dept. of Conservation dated May 8, 1995, indicating that there is an oil exploratory area either within or adjacent to the City, known as the Tonner Canyon Shell Oil area, and that if any development were to take place at any future date in that area, there is a set of guidelines and procedures that must be followed with regard to capping wells, etc; 4) Boy Scouts of America dated May 5, 1995 indicating that Edward Jacobs and Tom Kolin of that organization may speak on behalf of the Chairman of the Boy Scouts of America, L.A. Area Council. MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 3 With respect to revisions and errata, CDD/DeStefano presented the following: On Page 1-17 of the Land Use Element, there is a discussion of Planned Development Areas 2, 3 and 4. In a letter included in the packet, Bramalea suggested minor changes to the description for Planned Development Area 2. Bramalea correctly pointed out that within Planned Development Area 2, the description of the site requires amendment; that the 75 acres of Sub Area B is located get of Pantera Park; that the 2 acre area discussed in this Planned Development located at D.B. Blvd. and Gold Rush Dr. should be noted as being at the soytheast corner of those two streets; the last sentence should conclude by stating that lot sizes would range from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. Regarding Planned Development Area 5, he pointed out that while the text indicates that the land uses appropriate for the site include five units per acre residential land use, Council asked that land uses incorporating Public Facilities, Open Space and Park be incorporated into that Planned Development Area. On Page 1-18, Specific Plan Area 1, under Strategy 1.6.3, second paragraph, subsection (a) beginning with the words "Facilities appropriate for this site..." should be deleted. Regarding Table 1-3, Page 1-25, the top third of the table refers to Land Use Designations,, Residential Designations and follows with a Subtotal. Reading from left to right, the Subtotal Gross Acres in the City is 5,884 and the Total Gross Acres should read 5,884. The bottom quarter of Table I-3 indicates "Other Designation" under Water, the Total Gross Acres total 21 instead of 19. On Table 1-3, Other Designations "Open Space" Gross Acres in the City should be 51.$ and therefore, Total Gross Acres should also read §1& Private Recreation is listed as 58 acres and should be changed to read: 15 with the Total Gross Acres also indicating 15. Total Gross Acres under Other Designations, "Agriculture" should read 3.589 and not zero (0). The final totals on the page are correct. Regarding Table 1-4, Page 1-26, a revised table was provided. The dwelling unit discussion in the Residential Land Use classification was split. Therefore, the table under the "Land Use" heading currently reads: "Residential." Lines were added to read "City" and "Sphere." Reading from left to right, corrections are as follows: Existing Units/Sq. Ft. for Residential is 17,813 Dwelling Units; Potential Additional is 1,205; Expected Total Development is 19,018; and Population at General Plan Buildout is 58,000. The next line for the Sphere of Influence would read: Existing Units 0; Potential Additional Units 1,800; Expected Total Development 1,800; Population at General Plan Buildout 5,500. Totals remain unchanged. With respect to Page 1-27, Land Use Map, at the western most boundary of the City west of Brea Canyon Rd., west of the 57 Fwy. at the terminus of Pathfinder Rd., there is a public park below Pathfinder. Above Pathfinder, in a small notation, is Private Recreational. This designation is incorrect. It is a graphic error and should be restated as Open Space. This designation is consistent with Council's previous direction for the two open space areas that exist on either side of the Pathfinder MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 4 Homeowners Assn. property. Referring to Page II -9 and II -10 of the Housing Element, changes to Table II -3 were provided to Council. Council's requested update of these tables includes statistics through March, 1995. The Church of Christ in Pomona, the Pomona Women's Fellowship Home Site, Pomona and the Elsie Manning Friend in Need Service Center, Pomona no longer provide area homeless facilities and services. The Catholic Charities Brother Miguel Center of Pomona was added to the list (includes Target Groups Low income families and Facility/ Service Provide shelter. vouchers, food and referrals). On Table II -3, Page II -9, Pomona Valley Shelter, the number of beds was changed from 22 per night to i Families can be serviced. Under Pomona Neighborhood Center, # Beds should read: 170+. Under Dept. of Social Services, Pomona, Facility/Service should read: "Homeless assistance is provided at 0/night. 16 dans maximum." The Beta Center should be corrected to state under Facility/Service: 7 day emery food supply for each family member is added. On Page 11-10, Table II -3, the Women's & Family Crisis Center Social Services, Pomona # Beds should be changed to: 32 each in two shelters and Facility/Service is corrected by adding the following: "SHELTERS ARE IN LOS ANGELES." Bienvenidos Children Center, Inc., West Covina, # Beds should indicate 46 and the EMERGENCY SHELTER is actually located in Altadena. At the end of Table II -3, "Source:" should be shown as Cotton/ Beland/Assoc.. March 1995. The text of the first paragraph on Page II -10 was changed to reflect the table just discussed. Regarding Table II -4, Page II -14, the following changes were noted: under Low Density Residential classification the Acres under Vacant Land should be changed to Z2 and the DU's to 21Q for a Unit Total of 2f instead of 140. The TOTALS for the table are changed to read as follows: Acres 1,827.7; DU's 1.331; and Unit Total 1.471. In response to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano responded that the document currently states 1,205 DUs under Vacant Land and the total should be corrected to 1,331 as provided by Cotton/Beland based upon the latest mathematical calculations of development opportunity and application of density and; therefore, the number of dwelling units that may be created on those vacant areas. The number may change as the discussion of Land Use and Housing Element concludes. Referring to Page III -5, Resource Management Element, the second paragraph regarding the number of recreational areas should be corrected as a result of proper clarification contained within Table III -1 on Page III -4. The new first sentence follows: "Currently, within the City there is a total of 478.3 acres of recreational facilities, including 45,4 acres of developed parkland and 9z acres of undeveloped parkland for a total of 142.4 acres of City owned park land." MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 5 With respect to Page V-22, Circulation Element, he recommended that the fourth line of the first paragraph be changed to read: "The City of Industry is considering the development of the area beyond the terminus of Sunset Crossing Road, Beaverhead Drive, Washington Street and Lycoming Street with industrial uses and a waste -to -rail materials recovery facility" and the rest of the sentence should be eliminated. In addition, the next sentence should be eliminated. It now reads: "The area through which these streets would be extended is presently undeveloped." M/Papen stated that, in addition to the changes recommended by staff, the following words should be eliminated from the next sentence: 'The extension of these streets and..." so that the sentence now reads: 'The proposed development of industrial uses would significantly increase the volume of traffic along these residential streets and introduce a significant number of trucks into these residential neighborhoods." On Page V-23, sub -strategy (g) (4) Local funding; should be corrected to read: "(g) (4) Local funding such as, Prop C or Redevelopment funds;" Council concurred to adopt staffs recommended changes/corrections. CDD/DeStefano stated that staff believed, through the course of development of this General Plan, that the Council has a document containing all of the mandatory elements and all of the legal contents required for adoption pursuant to the California Government Code. M/Papen suggested the following changes/additions/corrections: Introduction, Page 1, third paragraph, second sentence, capitalize Qiamond; Housing Element Page II -2, Paragraph 1 and Paragraph 4, change 1994 to 1995; Housing Element, Page II -4; Resource Management Element, Page 111-4, Table III -1, insert the number of parking spaces for the D.B. Golf Course, the Little League Park and The Country Estates Park; Table III -1, Page 111-4, itemize local school recreational facilities i.e., tennis courts, etc.; Circulation Element, Page V-12, b. Paratransit Services, correct the paragraph to reflect the current "Diamond Bar Dial a Cab" service in place of Dial -a -Ride and change the last sentence to read: 'Transportation is provided within 10 miles of the City limits at a reduced rate; Paragraph V-24, Strategy 1.1.7 was previously deleted by the Council because it was redundant with the previous Strategy 1.1.5. In error, Strategy 1.1.6 was deleted. Therefore, Strategy 1.1.7 should read as follows: "Encourage Orange and San Bernardino Counties to fund and construct an environmentally sensitive transportation corridor through Soquel Canyon and/or Carbon Canyon; Public Services and Facilities, Page VI -2, Paragraph 1, change the third sentence to read"The City has established a system for collection of solid waste;" Page VI -2, Paragraph 8, delete the last phrase "although the statewide drought makes the long-term supply of water to this area questionable;" Page VI -2, Paragraph 11, change to read: "Other services within Diamond Bar include branch office postal services administered in Pomona, MTA, Foothill Transit and OCTA bus systema, Walnut -Diamond Bar YMCA, and Seniors MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 6 organization;" Page VI -3, Paragraph 7, first sentence, delete "continuation of the" so the sentence reads: Although local water purveyors can adequately serve the area in terms of facilities, a Statewide drought could put severe restrictions on the availability of water; Page VI -3, Paragraph 8, second sentence change to read: "The City should take a more active role in energy conservation and the implementation of new energy technologies;" Page VI -4, GOAL 1, change to read: "Consistent with the Vision Statement, provide adequate infrastructure facilities and public services to support development and planned growth." Responding to MPT/Werner regarding Existing Noise Contours Map, Figure IV -3 on Page IV -16, Public Health & Safety Element, CDD/DeStefano stated that the graphics are based upon an analysis performed over the course of development of this Plan and reflect the conditions at the time of the analysis. With traffic increases and other noise sources that may impact D.B., those numbers may change. Objective 1.10 and subsequent Strategies refer to reviewing and revising standards with respect to noise generators that would have impacts upon the City, as well as improving development standards so that the receptors of noise would be protected. The material contained within the graphic is accurate as of the time the information was obtained. M/Papen opened the Public Hearing. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., stated that regarding Page II -3, numbers should reflect the current situation. In the Circulation Element, Page V-22, he indicated that Strategy 1.1.4 should reflect that the easterly portion of the Sphere of Influence is outside SEA 15. Responding to Mr. Smith, M/Papen referred him to Sub -strategy (c). Mr. Smith requested that the map reflect this statement. C/Miller arrived at 7:40 p.m. Responding to C/Harmony, Mr. Smith stated the basic problem was not to have a road through Tonner Canyon and SEA 15 in particular. He indicated the language in the General Plan could be more specific if the easterly portion referred to in Strategy 1.1.4 is defined as being outside SEA 15. In response to M/Papen, Don Cotton stated that under b. Housing Stock Characteristics, Page II -3, the average resale value of $312,324 for 1991 being up 2.7 percent from 1990 was for a four bedroom home. M/Papen requested that sentence 5 be changed to include "four bedroom home" so that the sentence reads: "A review of resale house price date from the California Market Data Cooperative (CMDC) in Diamond Bar indicates an average resale value of a four bedroom home of $312,324 for 1991 which was up 2.7 percent from a value of $304,000 for 1990." Max Maxwell, 3211 Bent Twig Ln., agreed with Mr. Smith regarding Page V-22 of MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 7 the Circulation Element. He indicated the Resolution number is blank on the EIR form and asked what the number would be. M/Papen responded that the Resolution Number will be assigned by the Clerk at the time it is adopted. Mr. Maxwell further stated that the Council will be costing the City another $50,000 to $100,000 if the Council does not put this General Plan, along with GPAC's initiative on the ballot. The initiative has been filed and, therefore, according to law 65360 regarding general plans, referring to a statement that says "any plan that is under consideration that any land development or any approval by the Council of an issue that is not in accordance with any plan...", the Council will be breaking the law because the GPAC intended to put their initiative on the ballot and it is under consideration even though the Council might pass the General Plan tonight. There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing . M/Papen stated she is not a traffic engineer or a geologist and that she hesitated to put a line on a map with respect to the question of Strategy 1.1.4 and SEA 15 as raised by Mr. Smith. Technical studies regarding the area have not been completed. She believed it is the intent of both the Planning Commission and the Council unanimously to, as much as possible, avoid disturbance of Tonner Canyon and SEA15 to preserve the wildlife corridor and also allow for the possibility of a regional bypass that would relieve the City's streets from outside traffic. CDD/DeStefano displayed Figure 1-1 describing existing land uses in the City's planning area. He pointed out the demarcation for SEA 15 and where it is located within the City's area. Also contained within the Land Use Element is the proposed land use plan indicating a demarcation for SEA 15. According to the text of the Circulation Element, Strategy 1.1.5, Page V-23, which is very specific, there are a series of requirements for any future road consideration, one of which is avoiding the disruption of SEA 15. If there is going to be a roadway, it is going to be within the eastern most portion of the Sphere of Influence avoiding disruption of SEA 15. MPTMerner stated that this is the same drawing that was brought before the Council months ago and in his opinion, what Mr. Smith is suggesting is not that difficult. He suggested that Strategy 1.1.4 (c) be changed to read: "Avoiding SEA 15." CM/Belanger responded that the City could avoid SEA 15 and still disrupt SEA 15. M/Papen asked if any Council Member objected to deleting "disruption of from Strategy 1.1.4 (c) so that it reads: "Avoiding SEA 15". Seeing no objection, staff was directed to make the change. M/Papen suggested the following changes/additions/corrections: Page 1-12, MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 8 Strategy 1.1.6, correct the second sentence to read: 'This designation also includes lands which may have been restricted to open space by map restriction, deed (dedication condition, covenant and/or restriction), or by an Open Space Easement pursuant to California Govemment Code (CGC), Section 51070 et seq. and Section 64499 et seq;" Page 1-15, Strategy 1.5.3, correct the first sentence to read: "Land designated as Open Space by deed (dedication, condition, covenant._ and/or restriction) by open space easement (CGC Section 51070 et seq) or by map restriction (explicit or previous subdivision) must comply with an established review and decision making process prior to the recision, termination, abandonment and/or removal of an open space dedication easement and/or restriction; Page 1-23, F. LAND USE PLAN, 1. Land Use Designations, second paragraph, correct the number of land use designations from 16 to 18;" Page 1-23, F. LAND USE PLAN, 2. Land Use Intensity/Density, correct the third sentence to read: "Density is described in terms of dwelling units per gross acre of land (du/ac). M/Papen opened the Public Hearing with respect to the Land Use Element. Edward C. Jacobs, President, L.A. Area Council, Boy Scouts of America, stated the Boy Scouts seek the same density designation as always under L.A. County and an unbiased perspective so that the property's use is not predetermined prior to formulation of a specific plan. The Scouts are concerned with language in the current version of the General Plan requiring that any future development in the Specific Plan area will have to "create fiscal benefits for the City". Further, the Scouts were concerned that the language encouraged a predetermined use for the property, a use which must create fiscal benefits. Eliminating this phrase will maintain consistency with other portions of the Land Use Element and will reinforce unbiased perspective toward the Specific Plan designation. He presented Council with the Scout's specific wording for the General Plan. M/Papen acknowledged the following WVUSD Board members: Christine McPeak, President; Carol Herrera, Larry Redinger and Marsha Sykes. Ronald Hockwalt, Superintendent, WVUSD, asked to expand upon the letter dated April 26, 1995 to the Council which addressed concerns regarding the Land Use Element, Page 1-17, (d) Planned Development Area 4, formerly the RNP property. The current language is too restrictive. The Board requested that the Council drop reference to dwelling units since the school district has no interest in residential development in this area. Second, the Board would like the Council to expand the language to include commercial to public facilities and open space. Third, the language from the Planning Commission seems very restrictive to the Board. The school district is on record supporting a minimum of 30 percent of the 78 acres as open space and preserving the canyon. The district stands by these positions but finds the Planning Commission recommendation still too restrictive. With respect to Page 1-17 (e) Planned Development Area 5, also known as Site D, the Board felt that current language did not provide enough flexibility. The Board requested that the Council expand the language to include public facilities, recreational and MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 9 commercial land uses. As in the past and throughout discussion over the last several years, the district is requesting greater flexibility including a mixed land use pallet under the umbrella of Planned Development. The district requested that the Council incorporate these changes into the General Plan prior to adoption. Don Schad stated that, in his opinion, had the first General Plan been put into effect, this would be a much more peaceful City and a lot nicer to live in. If the present General Plan goes through, instead of the citizens' plan, then the City's natural resources will be gone with no chance to replace what most of the citizens moved here for in the first place. Sandstone Canyon and Tonner Canyon will be gone forever. Map and deed restrictions were placed on some tracts for a variety of reasons. The GPAC recommended that any land designations be modified or changed only by a vote of the people, especially those citizens who would be impacted the most by lifting those restrictions. Many real estate transactions were done with the promise that adjoining open space areas will never be developed. The housing density factor will impact open areas. GPAC approved between 600 and 700 new homes to be allowed before the City is built out. This will also reflect a certain amount of traffic increase as a result of over building. The City's traffic problems are severe now. Why compound the problem with greater density. As all of the easy areas are now developed, the trend seems to go after the wooded stream fed canyons and hills. Once again, the GPAC committee and citizens have been ignored. The rezoning of key environmentally sensitive areas for more commercial was also a "no" by GPAC and citizens but the power of three changed all of that again and with 35 to 40% vacancy in D.B., it doesn't dictate destroying hills, canyons and existing neighborhoods just to create more vacancies. The "no vote" regarding Tonner Canyon was an adamant effort and if a roadway was ever built in Tonner Canyon, the net result would impact D.B. very severely through increased traffic, smog and noise - noise factors exceeding the standards in the General Plan and opening the way for massive development plus the total destruction of the last major wilderness area in L.A. County. The Council of three promised the General Plan would be placed on the ballot. Based on past performance, this is the last chance for the Council to keep at least one promise to all citizens. Carolyn Elfelt, 21119 Silver Cloud Dr., indicated that she was present to support the school district's request for use of its D.B. properties. In April, she attended an EdSource Conference during which the goals for national education by the year 2000 were discussed. WVUSD has achieved the goals or has the processes in place to attain them. According to the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, Calif. funding will be spent to improve areas in which the district is already strong. During the conference, business leaders emphatically stressed that in order to be ready for the next century, students will have to know as much technology as possible. Technology costs money. Therefore, the value of the school district's property, as determined by the General Plan, will affect the district's ability to provide technology in its schools. She asked the Council to please allow the district the flexibility it needs to have as many options as possible in the use of its property MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 10 in order to better meet the needs of the students. Wilbur Smith requested that Page 1-10, Strategy 1.1.1 (f) contain language indicating all of the units within this category are to be used for the purpose of satisfying the State requirements of 20.0 dwelling units per gross acre. Regarding (g) under Strategy 1.1.1, Page 1-11, he asked that the Council define the number of domestic units per acre as a function of the average slope calculation. Regarding Page 1-12, Strategy 1.1.6, he did not understand why residences are allowed in an open space area. In his opinion, if its open space, there should be no residences. With respect to Page 1-12, Strategy 1.1.10, residences are allowed under the Agricultural (AG) designation. In his opinion, these statements are allowing development of Tonner Canyon and this is contrary to the Vision Statement of the General Plan. He stated that Table 1-4, Page 1-26, indicates that Tonner Canyon and the SEA 15 are targeted for development. He further stated that, in modifications to the EIR, there is no indication that the Council is really preparing to allow for development of the Sphere of Influence and SEA 15; however, the words in the document state that is exactly what will occur and this is a contradiction. He indicated that potential development of Tonner Canyon and the SEA 15 is the reason there will be an effort to referend the General Plan and to have an initiative which puts forth the citizens version of the General Plan. Max Maxwell stated that GPAC requested that parks and open space be separated. He indicated that the City requires that five acres per 1000 residents be set aside for parks. The school district purchased property with a promise to the Pathfinder Homeowners Assn. that they would preserve in its entirety. The school district bought property with restrictions on it. He stated that GPAC does not support the taxpayers paying $1.4 million to have commercial development on the school district property. GPAC wants the General Plan to go to a vote of the people. SEA protection has been overruled. Hundreds of homes are being built now, some of which are in the back side of 'The Country Estates." Jan Dabney, representing D&L.Properties, Inc. and SASAK, Inc., asked that both properties remain in the current zoning as set forth by the Planning Commission and forwarded to the Council at the last meeting. The D&L Property is proposed to be Rural Residential (RR) and SASAK Corp. is presently processing a map for the May 6, 1995 Council agenda. He stated that he has heard 'The citizen's General Plan for six years. These issues were widely discussed at GPAC and very few of the controversial land use issues were a landslide vote in either direction. Much of the language and much of the consideration given in the Mission Statement was widely discussed and not everyone was in agreement. The majority ruled, as it should be. There has been a representation that each GPAC committee was 100% in agreement with everything that came out of GPAC. Over the last three General Plans, the public has heard, on each occasion, that that General Plan is the best General Plan and that it is the "citizen's General Plan." On two of the occasions, the General Plan has come out with theoretically the same citizens group, substantially modified. He stated that when he, as a professional engineer, MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 11 hears terms put forth such as,a road through Tonner Canyon is going to increase the traffic impact in the City of D.B." which has currently ground to a stop and business people cannot get their cars into sites because of the pass-through traffic, he finds such statements a travesty. He further stated he is not advocating a highway through Tonner Canyon, but it needs to be reviewed. If a highway can be kept out of the SEA area, obviously it should be. He indicated that lack of a traffic corridor is what is killing this community. He stated that, in his opinion, the reason the corridor has not been approved to this date is that this City has taken six years to approve a General Plan while every surrounding community has built out their community and dropped traffic onto Grand Ave. Without having some instrument allowing the City to work in concert with other communities, the City is currently suffering the consequences. Terry Birrell stated that the GPAC General Plan respected map restrictions on the 400 acres off of Grand Ave. and Summitridge Dr. and map restrictions on the school district property. She further stated that map restrictions were placed on the property through the developer's negotiations with L.A. County because of density transfers which occurred years ago. For the City to incorporate and then lift those restrictions seemed immensely unfair. She continued that Mrs. Elfelt indicated that the school district needs money to educate children. She agreed with that statement but wondered why the district speculated with $1.5 million of taxpayers dollars. The district bought property with restrictions on it which had been purchased only three years earlier for less than $100,000. The district speculated that it could force a change. She deplored the waste of taxpayers dollars. She encouraged the Council to respect the designations placed on the land by GPAC and L.A. County. The Council indicated that its changes to the GPAC plan are in the interest of economic development for the City. She pointed to an article from the Wall Street Journal which concludes that in Europe, helped by greenbelt regulations, Europe's town centers prosper. She suggested that if the City is truly looking for economic development in an appropriate manner, that the City consider what is being created and that the City not be used merely as a pass through. She requested the Council to be more respectful of the GPAC version of the General Plan and put both versions on the ballot and let the citizens voices be heard. Ken Anderson stated he would like to see an open forum so that all sides could be considered prior to closing the Public Hearing. There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing. RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:45 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:55 p.m. M/Papen referred the Council to the Boy Scouts' request regarding Page 1-12, Strategy 1.1.9, last paragraph stating the Boy Scouts have requested the language be changed to: "At such time as development might be grolosed re uire MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 12 formulation of a specific plan pursuant to the provisions of Government Code Section 65450 for the Sere of Influence. The formation of a future specific plan shouldrp incoorateMyisions to protect existing. resources while minimizing future adverse impads to both the human and natural environment of the City, as well as the region (see Strategy 1.1.4 of the Circulation Elementl." MPT/Wemer stated that Mr. Smith raised the issue of SEA 15 and the question of contradiction between what the General Plan is stating in terms of preservation of the SEA and suggesting that the property is developable. He further stated that his comments addressed the Boy Scout property, as well as all of the properties in the Sphere of Influence area. He asked the City Attorney what purpose is served by designating anything for properties outside of the City which are currently subject to L.A. County zoning and could be subjected to a zoning initiative through the County. He continued that, in his opinion, the residents who are asking for the City's absolute control of the open space should be directing their concerns to the Board of Supervisors. Specifically, where does the City's control come from in designating these properties outside of the City and what does the City accomplish. SC/Montgomery stated that the original purpose of the Sphere of Influence was to ask the communities that were incorporated to work with the surrounding areas to plan them in a harmonious concept so that if and when annexation occurred, those areas would readily be assimilated into the surrounding city to which they adjoin or to which they have been assigned by the County. Long term planning by the County envisions that they will not be able to provide public services to isolated pockets. The duty of the Council, under the planning act and through the Land Use Element, has a duty to address the unincorporated areas that abut the City and that are in the Sphere of Influence and give the residents in the unincorporated areas an idea of what would be acceptable to the City should they choose to pass the annexation petition. MPT/Werner continued that the City has no authority to zone the property unless the property was annexed to the City. SC/Montgomery responded that while this is true, the City's designation is persuasive to the regional planner. L.A. County created the SEA 15 designation and it overlays the Agricultural (AG) zoning of the property. He further stated that the Boy Scouts would have a difficult time changing the zoning if the City endorses the Agricultural (AG) zoning on the Sphere of Influence. MPT/Werner suggested that if, under County zoning, the Boy Scouts were to sell the property under AG zoning to a developer and the developer proposes to build 2 acre ranchettes. Under current zoning, if the City were to designate the property anything other than 2 acre ranchettes, would L.A. County be in a position to approve 2 acre ranchettes. SC/Montgomery responded affirmatively by stating that the regional planner is MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 13 going to look at how the Sphere of Influence has been treated by the City for zoning in the General Plan. The County cannot arbitrarily and politically bypass zoning. Whatever is done by the City regarding the Sphere of Influence will have a great deal of impact at the County level. MPT/Werner stated that the Boy Scout property was targeted for acquisition by the Joint Powers of Authority. Would the City's designation of land use on that property have any influence on the fair market value of the property. SC/Montgomery responded that obviously, it would and if the Boy Scouts can show that their property was depressed simply because the Conservancy planned to acquire it, the Boy Scouts would be able to secure other zoning. If the Boy Scouts cannot show that it should have been changed and all of the reasonable planners say that is what the zoning should have been, then that is what the fair market value would be even though the Agricultural (AG) zoning under the County prevails. MPT/Werner stated that a contradiction was alleged to exist and, in his opinion, he did not see a contradiction. The property has some very complex natural features, environmental conditions and political conditions in terms of jurisdictions and perhaps other conditions influencing what, if anything, will happen with the property in the future. The current General Plan addresses a base line land use designation which identifies, as required by State law, the appropriate land use density for the property (1 du/2ac). Other sections of the General Plan show this property to be a significant ecological area under natural resources and rather than melding this together with the land use designation, the General Plan overlays the significant ecological area designation onto the land use designation and the plan suggests that in some future development plan, the preservation objectives stated under the SEA should be worked out compatibly with land use objectives. He asked if this is a contradiction to which SC/Montgomery responded that it is not because the City cannot anticipate what the changing situation is going to be and the two designations can work together to an end result deemed acceptable to the City and the developer in terms of preservation of the SEA. C/Harmony asked if there would be any adverse impact on the Boy Scout property if it was designated Open Space Recreational rather than Agricultural. Responding to C/Harmony, SC/Montgomery stated that, as a matter of law, a landowner is never entitled to more than the existing use. The trend is toward reduction of entitlement. There is no right to gain a more economically developable use. Therefore, the General Plan could indicate a current use zoning. MPT/Werner reiterated Ms. Birrell's reminder that the City's incorporation application stated there would be no change to land use designations. Responding to MPT/Werner, C/Harmony stated the Council, without his vote, created new designations for properties. He further stated that the promise to the MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 14 people is to keep the zoning on properties the same as it was through the County. Specific Plans and Planned Developments pull protection out of the General Plan. The school district is asking for commercial and those aspects pre -suggest the idea of lifting map restrictions. M/Papen restated the request by the Boy Scouts for the proposed change of language as previously outlined. It was moved by C/Ansari, seconded by MPTANemer to retain the current language for Strategy 1.1.9, Page 1-12. MPT/Werner, responding to C/Harmony, stated that he sensed that C/Harmony felt that a Specific Plan overlay had a negative connotation because it leaves to the future some land use decisions. He offered that the Specific Plan overlay as a well accepted planning tool, not only holds off land use decisions to the future, it provides a better opportunity to bring together all of the issues, objectives and goals of the entire General Plan document and the environmental impacts associated with projects and bring them together in a complete design for the property. By eliminating the Specific Plan overlay, a project is reduced to the Conditional Use Permit process and the same level of control is not evident. The Specific Plan is a legislative action which goes to Council and becomes ordinance. C/Harmony indicated he thought that is what a development plan would accomplish which is a better technique for future development of a project so that the citizens have specific notice and can deal with a project. Specific Plans allow for special agreement arrangements which gets very close to the concept of spot zoning. He indicated he has problems with the technique of Specific Plan and properties should be zoned as they currently are zoned and when a land developer wants to develop a property the developer comes forward, asks for amendments to the General Plan, if necessary, and puts the plans on the table and everyone is notified. Until then, the developer knows what the rules are and what obstacles need to be overcome instead of upgrading the zoning now and not having anything to show for it. C/Ansari's motion carried 4-1 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Regarding Planned Development Area 4, Page 1-17 (d), M/Papen stated that there is a mixed ownership on this property with the City owning four acres of freeway frontage property in the same PD -4 zone. Total acres should be 82 vacant acres with the City owning four acres and the school district owning 78 acres. The Planning Commission asked that the General Plan specify that the 30% set aside for open space not include Larkstone Park. She suggested that the residential language be deleted and designate PD -4 to consist of public facilities, commercial MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 15 offices, general commercial and open space and add the word park. Responding to M/Papen, CDD/DeStefano stated that with respect to the school district property 78 acres, 231/2 acres would be set aside for open space; two and one-half acres for Larkstone Park; 19 1/2 acres for commercial, and 32 acres for public facilities. Addressing Dr. Hockwalt, C/Harmony restated the school district's desire to "protect their investment and the property has been currently appraised at $1.2 million. He asked Dr. Hockwalt how it would protect the district's investment to upgrade the property to commercial. Responding to C/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt stated the property was appraised at $3.5 million. C/Harmony stated that his understanding of previous discussions was that one-half of the property would remain as open space. Dr. Hockwalt responded that discussions he has been involved in allowed for 30% of the property being set aside as open space. In response to C/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt responded that the school district has always wanted to preserve the entirety of Sandstone Canyon. In addition, he indicated he did not view it as profit taking, he viewed it as maintaining and managing the assets that the school district has. C/Ansari, addressing Dr. Hockwalt, stated that she is appalled by the master plan and the five Planned Development areas that are listed specifically. She was not against the school district's general building. The General Plan is specific as to what is allowed in the Planned Development areas. There have been two referendums because of Planned Development and she felt that the General Plan process should proceed. In her opinion, there is no need to develop a master plan for each of these areas. She believed both the GPAC version of the General Plan and the version of the General Plan now before the Council should go on the ballot and let the community decide what it wants. She is not in favor of another referendum. She further stated that this designation grants entitlements. M/Papen stated these designations do not grant entitlements. C/Ansari continued that the perception of the community is that these designations give entitlements. The language of the General Plan states that a master plan shall be developed for each area of the City designated as a Planned Development. MPT/Werner, addressing C/Ansari, stated that there are no entitlements. An entitlement is equal to a permit and once a permit is obtained, building can begin. That does not happen from any aspect of the General Plan. Entitlement is a very MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 16 specific term. Perhaps some of the citizens need to understand that this is not an entitlement, it is a General Plan. He indicated he would like to see the General Plan less specific as was originally intended, however, the people who are now opposed to the verbiage said the General Plan was not specific enough. So now the City is at the point where the General Plan is more specific; however, it is not an entitlement. He stated he would not have a problem calling the Planned Development areas "Planned Preservation areas." It was his understanding that the restrictions on the school district property are for residential dwelling units. The school district is asking that the residential dwelling units be deleted from the land use designation so they are acquiescing to the restriction on the property indicating they do not want the restriction. The City is now asked to put in place "commercial." He was not aware of any commercial restriction on the property. The school district is also saying they are going to preserve 1/3 of the property in natural open space and the remaining 1/3 of the property in public facility. Those sound positive and consistent with the planned preservation area. He believed that what the school district requested is consistent with what has transpired over the past one and one- half years with regard to this property. SC/Montgomery stated that C/Wemer was correct. The Land Use designation is a threshold to the application of the permit. Application for permit cannot be made if the Land Use designation does not permit the use intended. MPT/Werner continued that the General Plan is a foundation. The City is not saying, through this General Plan, that something can or cannot be built. It is a straightforward foundation toward the next step in the process and he believed that it was what the State had in mind when it said that cities are obligated to establish the land use principals that will allow a property owner to come forward and ask for a reasonable use of their property. With that, he indicated he would support the school district's request that is consistent with everything being said by members of the community. He did not suggest removing any restrictions from the property. If there is a restriction on the property, the restriction remains. M/Papen suggested the following wording for Page 1-17, (d) Planned Development Area 4: "PD -4 consists of 82 vacant acres and is located west of Brea Canyon Road, north of Peaceful Hills Road and south of South Pointe Middle School. Land uses appropriate for this planned development area would include commercial, park, public facilities and open space. A minimum of 30% of the site will be set aside as open space, not including parkland. The most sensitive portion of the site shall be retained in permanent open space. The site plan shall incorporate the planning and site preparation to accommodate the development of Larkstone Park of a suitable size and location to serve the neighborhood as approved by the City." Motion by MPT/Werner, seconded by C/Miller to adopt M/Papen's language. C/Harmony stated that he is in favor of the GPAC language which indicated no development in Sandstone Canyon - 78 acres, no development - and to allow 1/3, MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 17 1/3 and 1/3 is a real corruption of that body's deliberation; that is open space, it had reservations on it, the land was only worth $150,000 when Miller bought it. The school district bought it for $1,200,000. This is profit taking all of the way and it should be open space and the school district has to stick with their investment. M/Papen responded that one of the school board members mentioned to her during the recess that one of the reasons they had to spend in excess of $1 million to acquire the property, which was worth $3 million, was because they were going to lose $8 million in State funding because of the Council's delays in 1993 in approving any kind of development on this property. In her opinion, there is quality education in the WVUSD and the citizens want to encourage that. It is unfortunate that school districts have to go into land use planning inorder to provide monies for education. However, if that is what it takes to provide the quality of education long - A term in this community, she supports the school district 100°/x. c M/Papen's motion carried 4-1 by the following Roll Call vote: ;��� COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen b NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None C/Ansari questioned M/Papen's statement that the school district's project was held up in 1993. At that time, it was part of the South Pointe Master Plan. This item did not come before the Council again until the end of March, 1994, when the school district requested a re -hearing. The district was told at that time that they would have to begin grading in a couple of weeks and she was surprised because during a meeting with Dr. Hockwalt and Marsha Sykes on December 1, 1993, she was not told that they would need grading in the second or third week of April, 1994. It was brought before the Council the end of April, 1994, so it was rushed through on a time line that she did not feel was explored enough. It was held up because of the will of the people concerned about the South Pointe Master Plan. She was not against builders building on their land. She felt the Council should specify a master plan and if the Council wants to call a master plan Open Space Area 1, Area 2, Area 3, Area 4 and Area 5. C/Ansari moved to rename Planned Development Area 4 to Open Space Area 4 and replace current wording with the following language for Strategy 1.6.1, (d) Page 1-17: "OS4 consists of 78 vacant acres and is located west of Brea Canyon Road, north of Peaceful Hills Road and south of South Pointe Middle School." No other language should be incorporated and the people have so stated. The City should pass the General Plan and then come back and amend the Plan for each developer and each plot of land as it is presented. C/Ansari's motion died for lack of a second. C/Miller stated that C/Harmony's statement that he sold the property to the school MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 16 district is not true and he wants this issue cleared. He indicated he does not have a problem calling this area "Planned Preservation" and leaving the text as written. C/Miller amended MPT/Werner's motion to rename area 4 "Planned Preservation Area" leaving all of the text as requested by the school district. MPT/Werner agreed to the amendment. MPT/Werner did not see any difficulty in doing what C/Ansari suggested for Planned Development Area 4. The current language is more restrictive whereas what C/Ansari suggested opens the door and makes it less compatible and more contradictory to what the rest of the General Plan states. M/Papen stated that if the descriptive language is removed and the Plan only identifies the number of acres and location, then the property owner is allowed to come in with all 20 land uses.from which to pick and choose and the application could be for any land use. Responding to M/Papen and MPTNVerner, CM/Belanger stated there would be no restriction on what kind of application could be made. The school district asked for a land use designation presuming the district would be the applicant. However, some future landowner could submit an application and ask that the land use mix be changed to something else. Any property owner has a right to ask for anything and this particular property owner has stated they would like it to be a certain way. But if a future property owner comes in and says they want it to be 30 acres of commercial and 50 acres of residential, they can ask for it no matter what the General Plan states. The applicant can request a General Plan amendment. In response to C/Ansari, CM/Belanger stated that a General Plan designation of Planned Development does not zone the property. If the property owner came back to the City with a plan that is outlined here, at the very least, they would have to subject themselves to a zone change which means they would have to go through public hearing and it is all subject to referendum - it is a legislative act. Anything that is done to any property in a planning designation requires, at a minimum, a change in zoning because you don't zone the property. The Plan is simply stating these are categories. The property owner has to come back and say what they want to do. The property is not being given an entitlement. The only way the property can get an entitlement is to get zoning and specific legislative approval by the Council to do something. The General Plan does not do that. MPT/Werner's motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Staff was directed to change all Planned Development (PD) Area headings to MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 19 Planned Preservation Area (PP)". M/Papen stated that regarding Strategy 1.6.1 (e), Page 1-17, the request by the school district is to add the following language: "Land uses appropriate for this site include public facilities, commercial offices and general commercial." which includes deletion of the reference to single family land use. Motion made by MPT/Werner, seconded by M/Papen to amend the second sentence of Strategy 1.6.1 (e) Planned Preservation Area 5 to read as follows: "Land uses appropriate for this site include a maximum of five (5) single family detached residential dwelling units per acre and public facilities." In response to C/Harmony, Dr. Hockwalt stated that the 26 acre parcel had not been declared surplus property and if the school district wished to declare it surplus, it would have to go through the necessary legal procedures. In addition, if the property was declared surplus, it would have to be offered for sale to other public agencies. Since the district is not declaring the property surplus, it will not be offered for sale and the school district can develop the property in order to follow through with the principles of asset management. Motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Motion made by MPT/Werner, seconded by C/Miller to adopt Resolution No. 95-20, Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar incorporating Resolution No. 92-43 by reference and certifying the adequacy of the addendum to the General Plan Environmental Impact Report and making findings thereon pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act as amended. Motion carried 3-2 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, MPT/Werner, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Responding to M/Papen, SC/Montgomery stated that the General Plan can be adopted for a limited period of time and put on the ballot as to whether it should be continued or allowed to terminate at that time. Motion by MPT/Werner to adopt Resolution No. 95-21 adopting the 1995 General Plan, with the Plan to remain in effect during the remainder of 1995. Motion died for lack of a second. Motion by M/Papen, seconded by C/Miller to adopt Resolution No. 95-21: A MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 20 Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopting the 1995 General Plan for the City of Diamond Bar as amended. MPT/Werner asked what was the intent with regard to the ballot measure and if the ballot measure were to fail, what would be the status of the General Plan. M/Papen suggested adopting the General Plan and directing the City Attorney to bring back options to the Council for discussion at the first meeting in June. SC/Montgomery explained that the way a ballot measure would be phrased in the analysis is that it either terminates that day on a vote of the people or it continues. It's called an "interim ordinance" and then it's put on the ballot for the issue of "should it continue or not?" and you can phrase it either way. You can say "should ordinance so and so of the General Plan be continued?" or you can say "should ordinance so and so, General Plan, be terminated?" In response to MPT/Werner, M/Papen suggested that the Council wait for a report from the City Attorney on the options available and the impacts of doing it different ways. MPT/Wemer moved to amend M/Papen's motion with a supplemental provision that adoption of the General Plan would extend for a period of 13 months from tonight unless it is voted upon to continue. M/Papen indicated that she would not accept a substitute motion because the proposal is not a friendly amendment. MPT/Werner offered to amend his motion to extend the General Plan for 18 months if the ballot measure is approved. SC/Montgomery reminded Council that when they indicate 18 months and put the measure on the ballot and the voters vote against adoption, that's the end of it. MPT/Werner explained that he meant that between the time it's voted down in November and the expiration of that 18 month period is the period of time that the Council would then have to make the corrections. SC/Montgomery suggested it would be more reasonable to indicate that you're either adopting this for the next election or not. M/Papen's motion failed by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Harmony ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Werner ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None MAY 9, 1995 PAGE 21 It was moved by MPT/Werner, seconded by C/Miller to continue the Public Hearing for two weeks. Following discussion, MPT/Werner and C/Miller amended their motion to continue to the Public Hearing until the next regular Council meeting on May 16, 1995. MPT/Werner requested staff to provide more background on some of the topics currently being discussed so that Council would be in a better position next time. 5. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at 10:35 p.m. to Tuesday, May 16, 1995 at 6:30 p.m. LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk ATTEST: Mayor F" flu HILI= #2 AGENDA KrXURC TO: Mayor and City Council MEETING DATE: June 6, 1995 FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager 1xk7nLN1 '% 11V. -7 d REPORT DATE: May 31, 1995 TITLE: Certification of Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2 and approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850, located easterly of Steeplechase Lane and south of Windmill Dr. adjacent to the private gated community known as "The Country". SUMMARY: At the conclusion of the April 6, 1995 Joint Session with the Planning Commission, the Council referred the project to the Commission for comments. The Commission has completed their review and forwarded their comments back to the City Council for consideration. The public hearing for this project was continued from the meeting of May 16, 1995. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council open the continued public hearing, receive a presentation from staff, receive public testimony and close the public hearing. Thereafter it is recommended that the City Council continue deliberation and direct staff as appropriate. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerks Office) X Other MEIR and VTM 47850 transmitted under separate cover. EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: The project applicant, Diamond Bar Associates. 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: Engineering RE E Terrence L. Belanger F ank M. Us er es DeStefano City Manager Assistant City Manager Community Devel went Director 1 CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA N0. MEETING DATE: June 6, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 ISSUE STATEMENT: This matter requests approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850, a proposed 57 lot subdivision of a 73 acre site located on Steeplechase Lane, adjacent to "The Country", and within Significant Ecological Area No. 15. and certification of the draft Environmental Impact Report prepared to address the project impacts. BACKGROUND: At the conclusion of the April 6, 1995 Joint Session, the City Council continued the public hearing to May 16, 1995 and referred the project to the Planning Commission for review and comments pursuant to Government Code Section 65857. The Planning Commission concluded their review of the project at the May 8, 1995 meeting and forwarded their comments. At the May 16, 1995 public hearing, the Council continued the public hearing at the request of the applicant to June 6, 1995. The Planning Commission had requested the additional time to the review the project because of a lack of familiarity with the project. The Commission forwarded an itemized list of questions via public testimony to the staff prior to the meeting. Staff prepared responses to the issues and responded to additional questions extended by the Commission. At the conclusion of their review on May 8, 1995 the Commission transmitted all its comments to the City Council for its use and consideration, this includes all previously prepared project conditions and issues raised by the Commission (33 conditions of approval from the Community Development Department, the 52 conditions recommended by the Engineering Department and the five additional conditions recommended by the City Engineer via previously transmitted memorandum and the conditions contained within PC Resolution No. 91-23). The Commission additionally directed staff to forward the remaining concerns and comments expressed via their review of the project. Attached are the draft conditions of approval and comments from the Commission meeting in the form of draft minutes. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy Associate Planner Attachments: Draft Resolution of Approval Draft Conditions of Approval Planning Commission Staff Report Dated April 24, 1995 Draft Planning Commission Minutes For May 8, 1995 City Council Staff Report April 6, 1995 City Council Minutes for April 6, 1995 Franklin Fong Letter, Dated May 16, 1995 C. V67T6RSUWMRT3LfCCA W.cov 1 2 RESOLUTION NO. 95 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AN ADDENDUM TO A FINAL MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 90010861) AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47850, TO DEVELOP A 57 UNIT SUBDIVISION, LOCATED IN NORTHERN TONNER CANYON, WITHIN SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA NO. 15, SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF STEEPLECHASE LANE AND WAGON TRAIN LANE, IN DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. (i) Diamond Bar Associates, Inc. 3480 Torrance Blvd., Torrance, California, (the "Applicant" hereinafter), has heretofore filed an application for approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 shall be referred to as the "Application." (ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted, by ordinance, the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Titles 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code, as amended, 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. (iii) The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted duly noticed public hearings on the project and its environmental documentation on January 7, January 21, January 28, March 3, April 7, April 21, October 16 and November 17, 1992. The City Council additionally held subsequent public hearings on the project as a part of a Joint Session with the Planning Commission on April 6, 1995 and continued the meeting to May 16 and May 17 and June 6, 1995 on the subject matter of the Application. (iv) The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Action was taken on this application, as to consistency to the 1995 draft General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Office of Planning and Research extension of time granted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65361. (v) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Council hereby finds that the addendum to the Final Master Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was presented to the City Council, and that the City Council reviewed and considered the information contained therein prior to deciding upon any aspect of the project, and based thereon, so certifies that the addendum to the Final MEIR No. SCH 90010861 has been prepared for this project in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and the guidelines promulgated thereunder. Further, the addendum to the Final MEIR No. SCH 90010861 reflects the independent judgment of the City of Diamond Bar. Additionally, the City Council certifies the addendum to the MEIR is complete and adequate in that it fully addresses all environmental effects of the project. 3. The City Council hereby specifically finds and determines, based on the findings set forth below, that changes and alterations have been required in or incorporated into and conditioned upon the project specified in the application, which mitigate or avoid significant adverse environmental impacts identified in the addendum to the Final MEIR No. SCH 90010861 except as to those effects which are identified and made the subject of a Statement of Overriding Considerations which this City Council finds are clearly outweighed by the economic, social and other benefits of the proposed project, as more fully set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations. 4. The City Council hereby adopts the Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations and Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program attached hereto as Exhibits "A" and "B" and hereby incorporated by reference. 5. The Applicant shall make payment of any and all fees which the Department of Fish and Game may require to be paid prior to the issuance of any building permit or further entitlement. 6. Based on substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above - referenced public hearings, including written and oral staff reports, public testimony and the record of the Application, this City Council hereby specifically finds as follows: 2 (a) The Application applies to a parcel located southeast of the intersection of Wagon Train Lane and the southerly terminus of Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar, with a gross area of 73 acres, within Significant Ecological Area No. 15, and is zoned R-1- 8,000, R-1-20,000 and A-2-2. (b) Surrounding properties' zoning and land use to the north and west is R-1-8,000, R-1-9,000 (Single Family Residence Zone) and C-R (Commercial Recreation Zone) and is developed with single family and multi -family residential, respectively; to the east the property is vacant and zoned R-1-20,000 (Single Family Residence Zone) and; to the south the land is vacant and lies within the R-1-20,000 (Single Family Residence Zone) and A-2-2 (Heavy Agriculture Zone). (c) The Application is for a 53 lot residential subdivision to construct 53 single family units, private streets and a common open space lot to be developed with a sewage pump station. (d) The site is physically suitable for the proposed density of development. (e) The site is physically suitable for the type of development proposed and has access to public highways and streets. Further, the property shall be served by sanitary sewers, provided with water supply and distribution facilities with sufficient capacity to meet anticipated domestic and fire protection needs and shall have geologic hazards and flood hazards mitigated in accordance with the requirements of the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. (f) The design of the subdivision and the proposed improvements will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantial and avoidable injury to fish or wildlife or to their habitat, and while the proposed development will have a significant adverse effect on biological resources including flora and fauna due to extensive grading activities associated with the implementation of the project, air quality and emission levels due to traffic generation and grading activities, and development of the site with land uses that require the use of energy resources, mitigation measures have been included as project conditions to reduce the impacts and a Statement of Overriding Considerations has been made on these unavoidable impacts. (g) Neither the design of the subdivision nor the types of improvements will cause serious public health problems, since sewage disposal, storm drainage, public services and geological 3 and soils factors are addressed in the conditions of approval appended hereto. (h) The subject site lies within the County of Los Angeles Community General Plan land use designation of Nonurban (1 du or less/ac) and within the 1992 General Plan land use designation RR (Rural Residential, 1 du/ac). The proposed map is consistent with the 1992 General Plan and is not in conflict with the current zoning standards or with the 1995 draft General Plan, which maintains the same land use classification of RR. (i) The design of the subdivision provides, to the extent feasible, for future passive or natural heating or cooling opportunities. The design of the subdivision is based on the size and shape of the parcel. (j) The proposed subdivision does not contain or front upon any public waterway, river, stream, coastline, shoreline, lake or reservoir. (k) The subdivision and development of the property in the manner set forth on the map will not unreasonably interfere with the free and complete exercise of public entity and/or public utility rights-of- way and/or easements within the area covered by the map, since the design and development as set forth in the conditions of approval and on the tentative map provide adequate protection for any such easements. (1) The discharge of sewage from this subdivision into the public sewer system will not violate requirements of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 (Sections 13000, et seq.) of the California Water Code. (m) The housing needs of the region have been considered and balanced against the public service needs of local residents and available fiscal and environmental resources. (n) On September 23, 1991 and November 25, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the subject matter of the Application. The Planning Commission, upon conclusion of the public hearing, took action to adopt PC Resolution No. 91-20 for certification of the Final EIR and approval of Conditional Use Permit/Oak Tree Permit No. 89582 (effective upon approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map Application) and PC Resolution No. 91-23 recommending approval of the Application to this City Council. 4 (o) The City determined that the Project and those discretionary actions identified therein or required thereunder constituted a "project" pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, as amended ("CEQA") and the guidelines for the Implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act ("guidelines"). (p) The City, based upon the preliminary findings contained in an Initial Study prepared by the City, determined that the Project could result in significant environmental impacts, commenced preparation of an addendum to the Final Environmental Impact Report ("EIR"). (q) On February 2, 1995, pursuant to the noticing obligations delineated in CEQA guidelines, the City prepared and disseminated both a Notice of Completion ("NOC") and the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the project, SCH No. 90010505 ("Draft EIR"), commencing a 30 -day review period which was extended to and concluded on March 15, 1995. (r) The City published legal notice regarding the availability of the Draft EIR and solicited public comments thereupon in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Bulletin on December 3, 1992. (s) The City of Diamond Bar City Council conducted noticed public hearings on the Project and its environmental documentation on January 7, January 21, January 28, March 3, April 7, April 21, October 16, and concluded the duly noticed public hearing on November 17, 1992. (t} Subsequent to that hearing, the applicant was unable to provide additional information to the City Council related to geotechnical information on soil conditions and required stabilizing remedial procedures. The Council therefore took action to deny the project without prejudice. (u) The applicant challenged the denial of the project in court and a Settlement Agreement was eventually entered into between the applicant and the City. A component of the Settlement Agreement required the City to hold a Joint Session public hearing with the Planning Commission. That public hearing was held on April 6, 1995 and continued April 24 and May 8 before the Planning Commission. (v) A public hearing before the City Council was scheduled for May 16 and continued to May 17 and, at the request of the applicant, was continued again until June 6, 1995. 5 (w) 't'ne Final EIR consists of the following documents: (1) Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume I (SCH 90010861) (January, 1995) (2) Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, Volume II (SCH 90010861) (January, 1995) (3) Response to Comments Received on Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850, Conditional Use Permit No. 89528 and Oak Tract No. 89528 (March, 1995); and (4) Mitigation Monitoring Program for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850, Conditional Use Permit No. 89528 and Oak Tract No. 89528 (March, 1995). 8. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Council during the above referenced public hearing and upon the specific findings of fact set forth above, pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code 65361, the Council hereby finds and determines as follows: (a) The action proposed (Vesting Tentative Map) was initiated and processed in accordance with the provisions of California Government Code 65360 and Ordinance No. 4 (1992) of the City of Diamond Bar and pursuant to the Extension of Time conditions granted to the City of Diamond Bar by the Office of Planning and Research. (b) The Application as proposed and conditioned herein complies with all other applicable requirements of State law and local ordinances. 9. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this City Council hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditions which are set forth in Exhibit "C" hereto and are incorporated by reference. The City Clerk is hereby directed to: (a) to certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the applicant at its address per City records. Approved and adopted this the 6th day of June, 1995, by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar. BY: Mayor 0 I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 6th day of June, 1995, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] NOES: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ABSTAIN: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ABSENT: [COUNCIL MEMBERS:] ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar 7 City of Diamond Bar INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager FROM: James DeStefano, Community Development D' SUBJECT: DRAFT PROJECT CONDMONS FOR VESTING TE UATTIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47850 DATE: June 6, 1995 On Tuesday, June 6, 1995, the City Council will conduct a continued public hearing for consideration of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850. Attached please find draft conditions as prepared . by staff. In addition for your use and information we have provided a copy of the Planning Commission Resolution No. 91-23 recommending approval of the project. LDS\RS\rs attachments DATE: rO: MEMORANDUM CITY OF DIAMOND BAR April 20, 1995 Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director FROM: Mike Myers VIA: George Wentz, City Engineer SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850; Response to Public, City Council and Planning Commission Questions from the Joint Meeting of April 6, 1995 The following questions were noted from the Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission held on April 6, 1995. In addition to the responses to these questions herein, the City's Geotechnical Consultant (Leighton and Associates) has prepared a written response to written questions submitted at that meeting by Mr. Wilbur Smith. Their response, dated April 29, 1995, is transmitted herewith. Question: Can the proposed fill in westerly canyon be eliminated if some lots are eliminated? And, more generally, can the extent of the area disturbed by grading be reduced by reducing the number of lots? Answer: Intuitively this is a very reasonable expectation. Certainly the earthwork necessary to create the landform for access and the building pads is reduced very directly with the size and extent of the project. However, the magnitude and necessary extent of remedial earthwork can only be determined by detailed analysis of a specific proposed project. No project other than that now proposed has been submitted for review. While it is reasonable to assume that a significantly reduced project would likely require less remedial earthwork and impact a smaller area it does not necessarily follow that a project half the size of that proposed would impact half the area; it may impact somewhat more than this. And there may be a project that could be designed in such a way to impact less. Question: Can the proposed canyon fill in westerly canyon be eliminated if that proposed adjacent shear key (parallel easterly on the westerly facing slope of this canyon) is constructed deeper? Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 April 20, 1995 Memorandum, Response to Questions Page 2 Answer: It may be possible to eliminate the presently proposed canyon fill by constructing a deeper and larger shear key along the slope. However, it is probable that the shear key "front -cut" would extend significantly further downslope toward the canyon into areas which are now shown to be undisturbed. Also, as the site presently balances and the amount of material in the proposed canyon fill may not be able to be accommodated elsewhere onsite, a significant earthwork imbalance might be created. Question: Has the Developer published any safety factors for individual lots or are safety factors cited for entire project? Answer: A safety factor (SF) is applicable in the analysis of an entire slope and is not lot dependent. To the extent that a single lot is supported by that slope the SF is applicable to that lot. Question: How can burrowing animals be kept away from the site which- is immediately adjacent to the SEA? Answer: Burrowing animals are a concern where water is directed into the burrows which can then cause a detrimental effect on the surficial stability of slope faces. Animal burrows are not likely to be a conduit for water to depths that would cause a detrimental effect on the gross stability of the slopes. The manufactured slopes are immediately above the undisturbed natural slopes around the perimeter of the project and the natural slopes are all within an area to be dedicated to the HOA for slope maintenance purposes. Burrowing animal abatement programs are well understood and can be readily implemented by the homeowner. Such services are also available commercially. The control of burrowing animals will be required of the homeowner by the C,C & R's for this project. Question: How will a 10 feet "blanket" fill assure that water will not infiltrate from the surface into any of the lower natural joints and fissures. Answer: This is discussed in the City's Geotechnical Consultant's (Leighton and Associates) Response to Citizen (Wilbur Smith) Comments dated April 19, 1995, Response Item C. Question: If proposed structure setbacks are varied, does this affect the geotechnical stability of the site? Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 . April 20, 1995 Memorandum, Response to Questions Page 4 Answer: Yes. Conditions may be included to require this, however the grading operation is subject to continuous supervision by the Subdivider's professional geotechnical consultants. The City's inspection will require that regular reports (daily, weekly and monthly) be filed by the Subdivider's geotechnical consultants. Given the requirements for a final report and as -graded geotechnical map (as noted above) Staff did not recommend a condition of tentative map approval. Question: Did Subdivider's geotechnical consultant analyze the safety factor of "back cuts? Answer: Yes. Minimum factors of safety were in excess of 1.25 for these temporary slopes. This exceeds industry standards for these slope conditions that only exist for short periods of time during the construction process. Question: Can slope downdrains can be buried? Answer: Yes. However, buried pipes and associated inlets are more susceptible to clogging and therefore are a greater potential for creating conditions which could cause water to flow over the face of slopes. It is preferred, from maintenance standpoint, -to have such drains on the surface, readily visible and easily accessible for cleaning. Question:' How were the values for cohesion (C = 150) and friction angle (o = 151 established? Answer: This is discussed in the City's Geotechnical Consultant's (Leighton and Associates) Response to Citizen (Wilbur Smith) Comments dated April 19, 1995, Response Comment Item F. Question: What were the values for cohesion (C) and friction angle (o) that were used in the adjacent development (Tracts No. 29053 and 32974, adjacent westerly)? Answer: C = 200 and o = 100. This is discussed in the City's Geotechnical Consultant's (Leighton and Associates) Response to Citizen (Wilbur Smith) Comments dated April 19, 1995, Response Comment Item H. Question: Explain apparent contradiction in the project Geotechnical Report regarding report of no groundwater when Lawmaster Boring (DH -A-1) made in November, 1988 encountered seepage. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 April 20, 1995 Memorandum, Response to Questions Page 3 Answer: The geotechnical stability of this site is not affected by the location of residential or accessory structures or the setback of these structures from property lines. However, in addition to the structure.set back requirements in the planning and zoning codes, the setback of structures and foundations to/from slopes (both top and bottom) is regulated by the Uniform Building Code (UBC). Question: Are "blue -line streams" affected by this project? Answer: Yes. Two intermittent "blueline" streams are within the project area (see EIR page 3.2-3). Only the westerly canyon (intermittent "blueline" stream) is affected by grading and the construction of drainage improvements. Question: Did the project Geotechnical Report analyze and make recommendations regarding past -construction fill settlement? Answer: No. On Tract 47851 (grading recently completed) the City Staff in analyzing the final geotechnical report required Subdivider's Geotechnical Engineer to monitor a deep (approximately 110') fill similar, but deeper, than that proposed for this subdivision. The City has not yet given final grading approval for those lots supported by that fill and will not until a longer period (perhaps an additional 3 months) of settlement monitoring is completed. The fill on this project (approximately 80') and any requirement for settlement monitoring will be handled in the same way. Question: Can the conditions of tentative map approval require an "as -graded" plan and report and include a requirement that elevations of "bottom excavations" be shown? Answer: Yes. Conditions may be included to require this, however, the City's standard General Grading Notes require a final report and as -graded geotechnical map prior to approval of final grading, therefore Staff did not recommend a condition of tentative map approval. Question: As different geotechnical conditions may be encountered during grading, can the conditions of tentative map approval require detailed geotechnical mapping be performed during grading operations and require that any different conditions discovered be re -analyzed? Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 April 20, 1995 Memorandum, Response to Questions Page 5 Answer: This is discussed in the City's Geotechnical Consultant's (Leighton and Associates) Response to Citizen (Wilbur Smith) Comments dated April 19, 1995, Response Item I. Question: Can the conditions of tentative map approval require rubberized asphalt paving? Answer: Yes. Conditions may be included to require this. Should the Council desire that rubberized asphalt concrete pavement be required in the construction of street improvements it is recommended that the Planning Commission recommended Conditions, Engineering (Road) No. 29 be modified by adding the words "rubberized asphalt concrete" before the word "pavement". Question: What are the impacts of this project on the Shebarum Trail? Answer: Grading of the project will erase portions of the present trail and on the lower portions of Lots 18, 19 and 20 make the present trail impassible. In the final mapping for Tract 47851 portions of the present actual trail were found to be outside of the present easement dedicated to the County of Los Angeles. The present easement was abandoned with the recording of the final map and concurrently an alignment was dedicated to the City that matched the physical alignment of the existing and in some areas realigned/regraded trail. Continuity of the trail through the project was maintained and a passable trail within the easement was established. These same issues are expected in the final mapping of this project and will be handled in the same way. Question: . What provisions have been made for the grading shown offsite westerly? Answer: Grading easements have been obtained from all affected properties and recorded by the subdivider. Additionally Staff has recommended that a specific condition regarding this issue be added to those conditions of tentative map approval previously recommended by the Planning Commission. Question: Can the design of drainage swales incorporate rocks? Answer: Yes. However, this will adversly affect the hydraulic capacity of any design. Also, this will create a greater potential for trapping debris and increasing the effort in maintaining these necessary drainage facilities. Michael Brandman Associates April 20, 1995 MEMORANDUM f:�\ tR:)N>!L'`�1:�L U�1PUI�CC • PL�tt1ING • RC�CII'R(.kl:LLV.1(i1E3IlT7' TO. James De Stefano, City of Diamond Bar dow� FROM: Tom Smith and Steve Nelson, Michael Brandman Associat SUBJECT: Responses to Comments on Revised Draft EM for VTM 47850 by Planning Commission and City Council at Meeting of April 6,1995 Michael Brandman Associates has prepared responses to the comments on the Revised Draft EIR (con -geotechnical comments) provided by members of the Diamond Bar Planning Commission and City Council at the April 6 meeting. The Responses are organized to refer to the commentor's question, the page number of the April 6 meeting minutes where the question occurs, followed by our response. Stcve Nelson and I will attend the April 24 Planning Commission, and City Council meeting in May to provide additional explanations as requested. Planning Commission Comments Chair/Flamenbaum (page 14 1, What assurances does the City have that the natural flora and fauna will not be impacted by future residents? There are no absolute assurances that the City has in this regard. This situation e�dsts throughout ped areas. The CC&Rs for VTM 47850 could be revised to add a the City in e:asting develo cow Association for the development could then handle statement concerning this issue; the Hom any violations by residents. 2. Will there be a mitigation monitoring program and if so, who will maintain and pay for the program? Yes, there is a mitigation moahoring program for VIM 47950 as required by CEQA. A copy of the program was provided to- the planning Commission and City Council in the materials for the April 6 meeting. The applicant is responsible for paying for the implementation and monitoring of the program. 92: 'I•:. %;). i:ii FY :14.250 . i5%( to ji-m PPR -20-1 ?5� 3.. Docs the new Draft EIR consider the impact of the lav adjacent projects? yes, the impact of the two adjacent projects (VTM 48437 and VTM 47851) was considered in both the revised Draft EIR as Well as the original EM. In the current revised Draft lit, the graded condition of VTM 47851 was considered as an impact to the natural environment-, VTM 48487, although not graded presently, was assumed to be developed in the next 3-5 years, and its resulting impact on the natural environment, as described in the earlier certified EIR, was considered From a cumulative impact standpoint with respect to the natural environment, the prior approvals of the adjacent projects committed this arca to urban uses. 4. Subsequent to the initial EIR, the Jerry Yeh project was approved- What is the impact upon this tract as a result of that project approval? Because the Jerry Ych development (VTM 51169) is north of and not contiguous to, this development, there is no impact on this tract from that project approval. S. Regarding Volume I of the revised Draft EIR, page 7, Section 4,2.3, Mitigation Measures for Air Quality, are these the same mitigation measures that were used for the other recently completed projects and what were the results? Generally, the mitigation measures listed in this section are from the same source as air quality mitigations in other recent projects: the 194' Air Quality Handbook approved by the SCAQMD. . Each project was evaluated using the procedures specified in this handboolt; the mitigation measures listed in the revised Draft EIR are specified in the, SCAQMD Handbook The EIRs for previous projects have included similar mitigation measures, but not necessarily identical to those for this project, since each project is unique. 6. Throughout the BIR there is no mention of cougars or bobcats; why did the video include a shot of a sleepy cougar? As is standard practice, the EIR text summarizes the findings contained in the Technical Biological Report provided in Appendix A of the document. Potential use of the site by mountain lions is discussed on Page A-22 of the technical report under'the heading'NUdlife Movement Corridors'. As indicated in Table, 2, Faunal Compendium of the technical report, mountains lions aro expected to be on the site sporadically, but was not observed during the field surveys - Similarly, discussions on bobcats can be found in the technical report. Specifically, bobcats are mentioned on Pages A-6, A-22 and in the Faunal Compendium. Bobcats, while not observed, are expected to use the site in low numbers. 7, Are all of the animals pictured in the video at the site? All of the animals pictured in the video were either observed or are expected to use the site with varying degrees of regularity. 2 jas:dbazZ.tes & The ETR makes mention of numerous animals, but it also avoids a number of animals. The EIR text represents an expanded summary of the technical report. By referring to the Faunal Compendium of the technical report, the reader will see that numerous animals were observed or'are expected onsite. ChairlFlamenbaum (page 14): 9. Is this area a part of a wildlife corridor? The EIR states that this is a aeaondary corridor, but it does not talk about the project's impact to the secondary corridor. To clarify, the site may be, at best, part of a secondary corridor to and from the Tonner Canyon valley floor (see page 4-17 of the EIR and page A-22 of the technical report). However, it is more likely not to play a marked role in regional wildlife movement, The impact of the project on regional wildlife movement is discussed on Page 4-20 of the EIR, and Pages A-27, 28 of the technical report. Implementation of the project is not expected to substantially prevent or inhibit wildlife movement in the Tonner Canyon area. 10. Inasmuch as the other tract maps are not considered in the EIR, what is the Impact of the other improvements upon this site? The other tract maps are considered in the revised Draft EIR for VIM 47850 in Section 5, Cumulative Impacts. In that section, the cumulative impacts of the proposed project, when considered in conjunction with 19 other recently approved or completed projects throughout the City, - were considered for the three key environmental issues evaluated in this EIR: Geology, Air Quality, and Biological Resources. 11. If the setbacks for lots are varied or not varied, does it have any significant impact in the EIR with regard to aesthetics and geology? Varying of the setbacks on lots (or not varying them) will have no impact on the geology of the site or the impact and mitigation discussion in the EIR. The building pads are designed to accommodate budding placement anywhere on the pad. From an aesthetic perspective, varying lot setbacks in a development can add visual interest when compared to repetition of identical setbacks. However, the differences are not significant on a development of this size and in this location that is visible to veryfew residents of the aty. 12. The EIR discusses mammals - raccoons and bobcats are not mentioned. Page 4-15, and all of Table 4-4 of the EIR summarizes the observed or expected occurrence of 'Special Status Species on the Project Site. Raccoons and bobcats have no special status as defined in. the biological assessment. On page 4-6 of the technical report provided in Appendix A, raccoon and bobcat are indicated as being expected onsite, although not observed. Bobcat is again mentioned on page A-22 of the technical report- The Faunal Compendium in the technical report indicates that raccoons are expected to be fairly common onsite and bobcat are expected in low numbers. To the best of the author's knowledge, the EIR text and technical report do not indicate that these species are not expected. j;xdhur2--ta r-pR-20-1995 12'19 13. The EIR refers to no impact to the mule deer, however, it refers to a toss of a bedding arca Because mule deer are not afforded any special status, impacts to this species arc addressed under the headings "Direct Impacts to Wildlife" and 'Impacts on Wildlife Movement" in the FOL In both cases, the analysis found that these impacts were less than significant. Due'to the large open spaces and available habitats within Tonuer Canyon and further to the east and south of the site, the loss cZ the site as a bedding area was not found to be rignificant for wide ranging, highly mobile mule deer populations is the area. 14. Where its the project site in relation to the boundaries of SEA #15? An overlay of the SEA *15 on the project site is needCd. Such an overlay exhibit was displayed and discussed at the March 11 public meeting, and was available at the April 6 meeting. The exhibit will be discussed at the April 24 meeting of the Planning Commission. The technical report does discuss the project's potential impacts to SEA, #15 on page A-23. These include the potential for a decline in habitat value and the potential for genetic isolation of plant and wildlife populations caused by habitat fragmentation. In response to potential impacts on the resources within SEA #15, virtually all of the 31 mitigation measures outlined on pages 4-20 through 4-27 of the EIR address impacts to these resources- Based on the comprehensive coverage of these measures, it is concluded that the proposed project will not result in any significant adverse impacts to biological resources. 14. What happens at the end bf the 5 -year monitoring period for tree growth? The 5 -year monitoring period is a requirement used by the California Department and Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service in their mitigation programs. After 5 years, and with tree growth meeting the performance standards specified in the mitigation monitoring program, it is assumed that the trees will continue to prosper as they would in natural settings. At the conclusion of the 5 year period, the trees are the responsibility of the Homeownees Association, as is all other common areas in the development The City has no responsibility for their -continuing maintenance. 16. What is the impact upon those trees and other native specks caused by the runoff from the residents' lawns and washing of cars? . ''ihere should be no impact on trees or other native species from car washing or lawn irrigation runoff from residents. Pads arc graded to drain toward the streets of the development. Any runoff from lots will be conveyed to the storm system and to the water quality ponds designed to catch the first flush runoff from the development. 17. Are there any blue line streams in the acts? As noted in the original EOR certified for VI7M 47851 and VTM 48, $'I and applicable to the current revised Draft EIR for V'51 47850, there is one blueline stream that traverses the western edge of V M 47850. Appropriate permits will be obtained by the applicant iiom the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Department of Fish and Game for impacts to this drainage, as noted in the revised draft EIR (pages 1.3 and 1-4). jasx'b,rflc ca 4 ApR 20-1995 12.2E City Council Comments Mayor Papen (page 19): 1. When does the developer's 5 -year trey maintenance program begin? Five year maintenance/monitoring programs begin upon completion of the installation of all trees and other elements of the mitigation monitoring program for biological resources impacted by site development. 2 One of the alternatives in the ER is that appro:omately 15 homes would be bunt on the northeast comer. Concern was expressed that an alternative in the EIR states that 15 homes will be built on the, northeast section, however, if the soil cannot withstand this construction, is the alternative valid? 'This alternative was originally described in the Final E1R certified for YIM 48951 and VIM 4W7 and repeated in the revised drart ETR. the analysis of this alternative in the current ER states (page 8-7) that although there would only be 15 residences built onsite, the same impacts to geological factors would occur as with the proposed project, because 'the onsite soil and geologic instabi litim on the entire site would need to be remediated". Although this alternative is therefore valid since geological stability of the lots would be achieved, the economic feasibility of such an alternative maybe questionable. i&s:de&ni:.I« 6 18, On page A-22 the EIR says that no wildlife movement was studied and in another section it states that there is a wildlife corridor. These statements are in conflict. If a study is not conducted, how can the report determine there is no wildlife corridor? page A-22 of the EIR states, in relevant part:'Wildlifc movement through Tonner Canyon has not been studied in detail, to the best of MBA's knowledge. However, a review of aerial photographs and topographic maps indicates that Tonner Canyon is l9ccly a primary corridor. The project site has limited importance for wildlife movement because the onsite drainages originate on the site near e3 sting development and, therefore, only provide a connection with open space to the south in Toner Canyon.—Identification of wildlife corridors or bedding areas was determined by the observation of wildlife and scat, tracks, and other signs of wildlife activity. On the project site, it appears that mule deer use the site as a bedding area rather than a movement corridor_ However, due to the development of the rid$elinA the site docs not serve as a corridor by which wildlife move from one habitat area to another' As noted above, the site was evaluated with respect to its potential as a wildlife movement corridor and determined to not be one. It does appear that Tonner Canyon is a wildlife movement corridor, although this has not been studied as part of the revised Draft EIR analysis. 19. On page A-25, the EIR states that the Catalina Mariposa Lily may be present. Is it or isn't it present? This page of the EIR notes that focused studies were not conducted for Specific sensitive plant species. To do so would have added considerable expense to the effort that was not warranted, in the opinion of the MBA biologists. Instead, a habitat analysis was used to predict the potential for the occurrence of sensitive species. Whfle the Mariposa Lily was predicted to be potentially present onsite due to the presence of supportive habitat and site conditions, the EIR concluded that any impacts to the Mariposa Lily, if it were present, would not be considered significant because `the proposed project will not remove a significant amount of habitat for these species" (page A-25). Chair/Flamenbaum, page 1S: 20. Although the EIR indicates no trees shall be planted on the hillsides, the map shows that trees will be planted on the hillsides. What about slope maintenance areas, and are the hillsides being planted or are they not being planted? As a point of clarification, the EIR does not state that trees shall not be planted on the hillsides. htitigation measure 1 (Walnut Woodlands) and measure 6 (Oak Woodlands) require the preparation of revegetation programs that will specify where the replacement trees will be located, and the specific requirements to ensure their long term survival. It is anticipated that some tree replacement will occur in slope maintenance areas, as long as appropriate woodland habitat is assured. The mitigation measures are intended to provide for replacement of habitat, not just trees. jas:dbaxyk.tes LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. April 19, 1995 Project No. 2910164-60 To: City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, California 91765 Attention: Mr. Geo-ge Wentz Subject: Geotechnical Response to Citizen Comments Regarding (Revision No. 2) Tract 47850, City of Diamond Bar, California In response to your request, we have reviewed the letter dated March 14, 1995 (Revision No. 2), by Mr. Wilber Smith which includes comments regarding the geotechnical issues within Tract 47850. Our responses are lettered sequentially, corresponding to Mr. Smith's comments A through F. W. Smith's letter is attached A. • This comment should be directed to the City Attorney. B. The geotechnical reports associated with the development of Tract 47850 have been reviewed by Leighton and Associates. During the review process, comments were prepared by Leighton and Associates regarding various aspects of the geotechnical report. The review comments were subsequently responded to by the developer's geotechnical consultants, Harrington Geotechnical Engineering, Inc. Through an iterative process involving our review of the responses to our comments, preparation of additional review comments and subsequent responses to those comments by Harrington, all geotechnical issues were resolved. On August 23, 1994, Leighton approved Tract 47850 from a geotechnical standpoint (Leighton, 1994e). It is our opinion that the geotechnical issues associated with the development of Tract 47850 have been adequately addressed. C. The assumption that there will be no static ground water table or phreatic surface which would would create pore pressures within the subject slopes is a valid assumption. Shear keys, incorporating heel and back cut drains, will be constructed around the perimeter of the site which will effectively prevent the buildup of water. In addition, it is standard practice to overexcavate the lots located above slope stability shear keys or buttresses and replace the overexcavated material with compacted fill. The standard practice is to overexcavate the lots 3 feet. This reduces the potential for surface water seeping directly into adverse bedding planes and/or adverse joints. Within Tract 47850, the lots above the shear keys will be overexcavated a minimum of 10 feet below finish grade; in excess of the standard practice. It is, however, possible that the materials onsite will undergo fluctuations in moisture content. Strength parameters developed for the earth materials onsite, including the smectite layer, are based on saturated conditions. Thus, it is our opinion that the analyses performed to evaluate the stability of the site are appropriate. 659 BREA CANYON ROAD, SUITE 4, WALNUT, CALIFORNIA U.S.A. 917E9 (909) 869.6382 • (800) 777.2286 FAX t909) 869-6387 Douglas F- Moran, Inc. performed laboratory testing of a representative sample of the smectite obtained during Harrington's field investigation. They were provided with the sample and performed the test. Moran makes the following statements: In using such parameters to represent the strength of the material tested, it is appropriate to recognize that shear strength is effectively reduced by pore water pressure which tends to neutralize confining pressure on which a significant portion of shear strength depends. 'Ibis effect needs to be considered in an analysis of stability in which such parameters are used to represent material strength'. Since Moran has never been to the site or reviewed the geologic and geotechnical data associated with the development, their comments must be viewed as general in nature. In fact, pore water was considered by Harrington. It was determined that pore water pressures would not be a factor. Furthermore, the shear strength parameters used by Harrington (150 psf cohesion and 15 degrees friction angle) in the analysis of slopes onsite are significantly less than those recommended by Moran. D. In order to mitigate the potential effect of downhill bedrock creep on the development, a series of daylight shear keys will be constructed around the perimeter of the development In effect, the creep effected material will be removed in the vicinity of the shear keys and replaced with compacted fill. To reduce the potential for water accumulating in the shear keys, drains have been incorporated in the design. Also, all lots wm be capped with compacted fill to reduce the potential for surface water infiltration. In our opinion, these measures are state -of -the -practice and adequately address the drainage issues associated with stabilization of the slopes onsite. E. The City of Diamond Bar and the County of Los Angeles require. a minimum static factor of safety of 1.50 when analyzing the stability of permanent manufactured and natural slopes. This is also an industry standard Tract 47850 has been designed such that all slopes meet the minimum required stability standards. Slope stability analyses are performed on cross-sections in areas where worst-case conditions exist. The results of the analyses are not lot dependent, but - reflect the minimum factor of safety for the slope analyzed. F. As with most hillside developments, the most significant geotechnical issues with respect to the development of Tract 45850, are those associated with slope stability. The smectite layers onsite were considered by Harrington as the material which controlled the, site stability. Harrington conducted numerous laboratory tests to determine the strength of this material, both in house and by others. Based on the results of their testing program, they established strength parameters for the smectite materiaL However, based on our review of the geologic units onsite and on our experience, we questioned (by review comment) whether other, weaker materials could be present onsite. After several discussions, Harrington agreed to reduce the strength parameters to those which they had originally assumed based on the assumption that the controlling material onsite was a weaker clay material. -2- ..� . UIGNTON AND ASSOCIAHS, INC Slope stability analyses were performed for the site utilizing the weaker strength parameters. Based on the analyses, shear keys were designed to stabilize the parameter slopes. The construction of drains within the shear keys and capping of lots with compacted fill are measures taken to reduce the potential for water buildup within the shear keys, as discussed in our response to Comment D. Burrowing animals can have a detrimental effect on the official stability of slope faces. Burrowing animals tend to loosen the upper soil on the fax of slopes which can result in soil slump type failures during periods of heavy rains. It is very unlilmly that animal burrows located on the building pad, within the fill cap, will have any effect on the gross stability of the slopes onsite. The future homeowners, or the homeowner's association, should develop a slope maintenance program, one aspect of which should be the control of burrowing animals. G. See our response to Comment B, above. H. Considerable laboratory testing was performed by Harrington and others onsite to determine the shear strength of the earth materials onsite, including the smectite material. The final shear strength parameters utilized in slope stability analyses in Tract 47850 are significantly lower than the laboratory test results indicate. Lower strength parameters were used by S. E Medall & Associates, Inc. during their geotechnical review of Tracts 29053 and 32974 (Mendall, 1976). However, there are no reports by Medall on file with the City of Diamond Bar which support the use of the lower parameters with laboratory testing. In their October 4, 1976 report, Medall states, 'The parameters c and * that appear in the above equation define the strength of the material that is present along the bedding plane under consideration. Since it is not possible to determine with certainty the values of these parameters for each and every bedding plane along which sliding might tend to occur, it is common practice to assume the worst, that the lowest values obtained are characteristic of each and every betiding plane. This assumption is generally conservative". Thus, it appears that the strength parameters used by Mendall were conservative assumptions. L Seepage was encountered in the Lawmaster Boring DH -A-1, drilled November 21, 1988 (Plate C45, Brandeman, 1995). The seepage, encountered at depth of 71 feet, was described as emanating from slightly open joints. This was a minor perched water condition. No static ground water was encountered Seepage was also encountered in Test Pits S-3, ITA -1 and ITA -2 (Plates C-11, C47 and C48, Brandeman,1995). These latter three test pits were excavated in the bottom of, or adjacent to, active stream channels. We would anticipate water in these locations. This has no significance with respect to potential pore water pressure buildup and the stability of the slopes onsite. Thus, we do not see any contradiction to Harrington's conclusion that pore water pressure need not be included in the stability analysis of the slopes onsite. 2910164-60 J. The burden placed upon the homeowners, or a homeowner's association within Tract 47850 is no greater than those put upon any other homeowners or homeowner's associations within a hillside residential development It is common practice for the geotechnical consultant to recommend preventative measures to control burrowing animals, maintenance of proper drainage devices and landscaping, and prevention of excessive watering to reduce the potential for surficial slope instability and erosion. K The shear strength parameters used by Harrington, consisting of a cohesion of 150 psf and a friction angle of 15 degrees, are more conservative than zero cohesion and 22 degrees as recommended by Moran as a lower bound. L Harrington's conclusion that long-term creep may continue below the shear keys refers to the natural slopes downslope of the shear keys. Shear keys have been designed and recommendations provided by Harrington to mitigate the affects of long-term creep' on the development. Creep affected materials are being removed and replaced with compacted fill along the daylight cut and on the budding pads. Severe seasonal moisture changes which can contribute to long-term creep in expansive soils can be controlled by proper landscaping, irrigation, and slope maintenance within the development. M. No response from the geotechnical consultants required. If you have any questions, please call us at your convenience. DCS/rsh Respectfully submitted, LEIGFTTON AND ASSOCIATES, INC. David G Smith, RCE 46222 Manager of Operations . Attachment: Appendix A - References Appendix B - Letter dated March 14, 1995 Distribution: (2) Addressee r` '7 J k ; ® References Harrington Geotechnical Engineering, Inc.., 1992, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Grading Plan Review, Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 91-01-0109B, dated September 3, 1992 1993, Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Report Review Response, Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 91- 01-0109B, dated April 28, 1993. , 1994a, Response to Geotechnical Review Sheet for Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Diamond Bar, California, dated May 17, 1994. 1994b, Material Shearing Strength, Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Diamond Bar, California, dated June 14, 1994. ,1994c, Revised Slope Stability Analyses for Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 91-01-0109B, dated July 6, 1994. 1994d, Response to Geotechnical Review Sheet for Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 91-01-0109B, dated August 1, 1994. 1994e, Response to Geotechnical Review Sheet for Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Diamond Bar, California, dated August 16, 1994. Leighton and Associates, Inc., 1992, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Vesting Tentative Tract 47850, Report dated September 3, 1992, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 2910164-19, dated October 29, 1992 , 1994a, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Tract 47850, Report dated April 28, 1993, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 2910164-00, dated April 29, 1994. '1994b, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Tract 47850, Report dated June 14, 1994, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 2910164-60, dated June 15, 1994. , 1994c, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Tract 47850, Reports dated September 3, 1992 and Revised October 16, 1992, April 28, 1993, and July 6, 1994, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 2910164-60, dated July 21, 1994. , 1994d, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Tract 47850, Report dated August 1, 1994, Diamond Bar, California, Project No. 2910164-60, dated August 12, 1994. 1994e, Geotechnical Review Sheet, Tract 47850, Report dated August 23, 1994, Project No. 2910164-60, dated August 23, 1994. A-1 APPENDIX A References (Cont'd.) , 1994f, Geotechnical Response to Citizen Comments Regarding Tract 47850, City of Diamond Bar, California, dated March 23, 1995. Michael Brandeman Associates, 1995, Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report, Vesting Tentative Map 47850, (State Clearinghouse No. 90010861), Volume II, dated January 1995. S.E. Medall & Associates, Inc., 1976, Soil Engineering and Geologic Review of Tentative Tract 29053 and Tract 32974, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California for Weatherfield Homes, dated October 4, 1976. , 1978a, Supplemental Subsurface Exploration, Tracts 29053, 34160 and 34161, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California for County of Los Angeles, W.O. 605D, dated March 7, 1978. , 1978b, Addendum Report for Tracts 29053, 34160 and 34161, County of Los Angeles, California for Weatherfield Homes, W.O.605D, dated May 5, 197& 1979, Rough Grade Report; Lots 48-100, Tract 34160, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, California, W.O.605D, dated February 1, 1979. A-2 City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley DriQe, Suite 190, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (909) 396-5676 �. property Owners within a 500 foot radius of subject site- City ituCity of Diamond Bar 3TICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to State Law, that the City Council and Planning Commission will conduct a joint public ,ring on the Lilowing item to determine whether or not the subject request shall be approved under the provisions of State Law i the City of Diamond Bar: ATE AND TIME OF HEARING: Thursday, April 6, 1995 630 P.M. ,ACE OF HEARING: South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 JBJECT: VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO•.47850 and ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 92-1. ,QUEST: The applicant proposes a residential development on an approximately 73 ace site is the City of Diamond Bar. The -oposed projcct, if approved, would allow for the development of 57 custom lot single-family residences. Lot rim are ProPosed vary from 0.4,4 to 5.47 acres with an average lot size of 1.05 gross acres. Pad sizes will nage from 9,391 square feet to 21,391 Juste feet. rverall project density is 0.78 units per gross acre. The project site will have two acc= points from Steepiwjm a Lane and will tclude an internal loop roadway system with four onsite cul -(e . Approximately 47 acres will be graded for the lots with 16 acres raded for a fuel modification zone. M147850 was a component of a three tract development considered by the City in 1992. In Mav 1992.the City approved Vesting tive Tract Map Nos. 47851 and 48497. In November 1992 the City denied the third map (VTM 47850) which is now being cntathe City and has been the subject of additional environmental documentation. Pursuant to the terms of the California e;aaideredTr Tract avirotuaeatal Quality Act,. the City has determined that this project requires an Environmental Impact Report (FTEs). An EIR was rrrod for this project in 1991(SCl3 No. 9001086 1) and has been revised to reflect the current project and conditions. The Revised LR has been prepared to assess the individual and collective environmental impacts assxiated with the development of VTM 47850 fid to establish mitigation measures for those impacts. A noticed Public Workshop designed to reintroduce the project and provide forum for public input regarding the proposal and the Revised ER was held Saturday, March 11, 1995. The April 6, 1995. scheduled ublic hearing on the proposed development provides an additional opportunity to corcmeat upon the project. APPLICANT/OWNER: Diamond Bar Associates, Inc. 3480 Torrance Blvd. '301, Torrance, CA 90503 PROPERTY ADDRESS: The project is located within 'The Country Estates, near the intersection of Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Train Lane. Ptialished in: San Gabriel Valley Tribune: March 24, 1995 lnaad Valley Daily Bulletin: March 24, 1995 If you are unable to attend the puolic hearing, but wish to send written cotataens, please write to the City of Diamond Bar C; =uaity Development Department at the address given below. To preview case or for further information on this s•.:c: - aeat Department at (909) 396-5676. pi=w contact the Community Develop No fef %his �.s our %as f chc? T °p®°5e (See reverse for Site Map) U you challenge this application and project in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone ese __-3 _..L _ e a„d.T ;,, th;c ,,,,tiro nr in_written corrtsnondencedelivered to the Community Development Wilbur G. Smith 21630 Fairwind Lane Diamond Bar Ca. 91765 909-861-0742 March 14,1995 To: City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive Diamond Bar Ca. 91765 Attn: Mayor P.Papen,City Council Members,J.DeStefano Subject: Vesting Tentative Track Map 47850 - Revision Wo.2 (ten new references,six additions to ATTACHMENT B, identification of additional conflicting statements) Ladies and Gentlemen: Information (Attachment A) suppilied by the Cities Community Development and Engineering Departments has been reviewed for the purposes of providing citizen comment at Public Bearings to be held on the Crystal Ridge Development (VTTM 47850) and its Draft Environmental Inpact Report (Ref.5). Attachment B presents my citizen comments on the subject that I will present at these hearings and requests for actions to be taken by the City Council before voting on approval of the VTTM 47850. Please include this letter with attachments A and B in the final documentation of the Public Hearings. Thankr You 1 Wilbur G. Smith ATTACHMENT A REFERENCES 1) Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and Geotechnical Report Review Response for Subject Project, Dated April 28, 1994 by Harrington Geotechnical Engineering,Inc. 2) Supplemental Geotechnical Investigation and -Grading Plan Review, Dated October 16,1992 by Harrington Engineering Inc. 3) Geotechnical Review Sheet for VTTM 47850, Dated October 29, 1992 by Leighton & Associates Inc. 4) Compilation of Geotechnical Report Review Sheets and Responses ` for Vesting Tentative Track 47850 dated August 29,1994 by Harrington Geotechnical Engineering Inc. 5) Revised Draft Environmental Impact Report for Vesting i 3 Tentative Map 47850 Vol 1 and 2 dated January 1995 by Michael Brandman Associates. 6) Case No. 71 16 84 filed in SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE of CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ORANGE; DATE 21 JUNE 1993. 7) Letter from DOUGLAS E.MORAN,INC to Harrington Geotechnical Engineering: Subject :Results of Shear Tests Performed Tentative Tract No.47850 ,dated April 14,1993. 8) Leighton and Associates letter to City of Diamond Bar: Subject: Tract Map No. 47851 dated August 2,1994. 9) Harrington Geotechnical Engineering,Inc Report NO.91-01-0109A (Tract 47851) 10) Barrington Geotechnical Engineering,lnc. letter to B.Mazur of D.B.A. dated July 6,1994. 11) Harrington Geotechnical Engineering,Inc letter to B.Mazur of D.B.A. dated May 17,1994. 12) Addendum Report for Tracts 29053,34160,34161 for Weatherfield Homes by S.E.Mendall and Associates,Inc. dated May 5,1978 13) Supplemental Subsurface Exploration Tracts 29053,34160 and 34161 for Weatherfield Homes by S.E.Mendall and Associates,Inc. dated March 7,1978 14) Soils Engineering and Geologic Review of Tentative Tract 29053 and Tract 32974 for Weatherfield Homes by S.E.Mendall and Associates,Inc. dated Oct.4,1976 15) SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT between DIAMOND BAR CITY and D.B.A , No.16396-00002,F:\Doc\166\94030005.A10,dated 03-24-94 ATTACHMENT B COMMENTS and ACTIONS REQUESTED OF THE CITY COUNCIL BEFORE APPROVAL OF TRACK 47850 A) Direct the city attorney to give a legal opinion on the liability (degree and time periods) of D.B.A., City of Diamond Bar, J.C.C, and Leighton Associates for losses incurred by homeowners due to geologic hazards or errors in geotechnical calculations or assumptions. B) Reference 3 contains 24 specific questions that Leighton and Associates asked regarding Track 47850. These questions were elements in the law suite(Ref 6) filled by D.B.A against the city. D.B.A. responded to these questions in Reference 1. The city should now direct Leighton to make a definitive statement on each of the responses as to its adequacy and Leightons acceptance of the response. This request is consistent with the settlement agreement between The City OF DIAMOND BAR and D.B.A. (Ref. 15, section 2 Reconsideration of VTM 47845,page 3)which suspended the law suite. C) Stability analysis calculations are not adequate bedause they assume no groundwater and/or pore water pressure (Ref. 1 page. 11) This assumption is not valid because it is physically possible for water to reach the smectite layer. To support this,Section 4.4 (Analysis of the Smectite Layer) page 10 states "other factors such as different topography and/or ground water buildup must also have existed at the time of failure and contributed to the slides". A clear contradiction exists here. Page 11 states no water; whereas page 10 indicates the existence of ground water buildup in the past. Therefore the Council should require that all stability analysis and Factor of Safety calculations are made with assumptions of finite amounts of groundwater and/or pore water pressure.Supporting this opinion is the statement in Ref.7 (page 3)"In using such parameters (cohesion and angle) to represent the strength of the material tested it is appropriate to recognize that shear strength is effectively reduced by pore water pressure which tends to neutralize confining pressure on which a significant portion of shear strength depends.This effect needs to be considered in an analysis of stability in which such parameters are used to represent material strength." D) Another deficiency in the reports is that Reference 2 (page 10) identifies a condition of bedrock creep (to depth of 100 ft.) caused by 1) cyclic changes in moisture content and density due to seasonal wetting and drying, 2) water in tension/ shrinkage cracks, ...., 4) deep-seated, very thin bentonite (smectite) bed. However,Ref.2 page 11 states " ground water was not encountered in any of the excavations made at the site and is not expected to be a matter of future concern to the project under normal conditions .It is not reasonable to assume that because water was not encountered in these excavations that in will not occur at some future time, especially since there is evidence (land slides) that water was there in the past. Also the NO GROUNDWATER statement is qualified by NORMAL CONDITIONS. of existing slopes (landslides and downslope creep) are believed to be attributed,at least in part,to the infltration of surface water into the underlying bedrock. In order to minimize water infiltration we have recommended that all lots,pads and graded slopes be covered with at least ten feet of compacted fill." Unforunately the developer presents no analysis of the effectiveness of this measure. He strongly recommends that the homeowner eradicate burrowing animals (Ref.S Vol II page E-5) or resort to impractical measures of filling the burrows with concrete (Ref.S Vol II page E-6) because the burrows; in conjunction with the many faults,cracks,fractures and joints identified in Ref -5 (VOL II, plates C-1 thru C-58) provide easy passage for water to the smectite layer. The City Council should require D.B.A. to find pest control professionals who will state the degree to which burrowing animals can be controlled in areas that are adjecent to much larger wilderness areas (3500 acres of Tonner Canyon) where no attempt at control is made. Also D.B.A. should be required to access the effectiveness of the blanket fills in conjunction with the many open cracks,fractures,joints and faults below the fills as a means of preventing water reaching the smectite, layer. G) Before approval of VTTM 47850 require Leighton and Associates to write a letter stating approval of the geotechnical conditions as was done for VTTM 47851 (Ref.8). H) The low Factor of Safety values of 1.5051,1.5039,1.5011,1.5133 values (see Ref.10) were based upon cohesion values and angles c'_ 150 and 15 degrees respectively. Reference 12 states "... smectite ...a+,, n1 lrnnum trn PY; SL- within the limits of the fortunes and lives of so many people certainly should consider abnormal conditions such as adverse weather (50-100 year rainy seasons),uncertainties in geologic parameters, human deficiences in workmanship etc.,etc. The city council should require D.B.A. to conduct an error analysis of the Factor of Safety and other stability analysis computations using reasonable uncertainties in all system parameters (presence/amount of water,efficiency of blacket fills, geologic parameters. etc.,etc.) E) The COUNTY BUILDING CODE requires slope Factors of Safety greater than I.S. The references presented Factors of Safety values of 1.5051, 1.5039, 1.5011, 1.5133, 1.5218,1.5602 ,1.6092. These values indicate that the tract design is very marginal from the COUNTY Factor of Safety prespective. s Small errors in the computational process,the data used or assumptions made could cause many of these values to be less than the requirement which means the project would not be safe by County standards. The City Council should -require D.B.A. to conduct an error analysis of the Factor of Safety computational process . Also the Council should require D.B.A to publish the Factor of Safety for each lot. F) The most significant aspect of Track 47850 is the presence of a smectite layer which lies from 30 to 100 ft. below the surface.If water reaches this layer earth movement (landslides) could occur. Existing landslides are evidence of this . The developers approach to preventing this is to place 10 or 3 ft. earth blankets on each lot to prevent the infiltration of surface water down to the smectite layer. Reff.9(page 26) states "Most of the instability these tracts .... layers of relatively weak material with significantly lower shear strenths are known to exist within other areas of the Puente Formation ... to date none have been identified within the limits of this project or the adjecent adjecent tracts to the east ....". However, the soils reports. (References 12,13,14) on the adjacent Weatherfield Homes Tracts to the southwest of 47850 used cohesion values and angles of 200 and 10 degrees respectively and identified the presence of bentonite. The use of these values for Tract 47850 could reduce the Factors of Safety to something considerable less than the County required values of 1.5. Please ask D.B.A. to calculate Factors of Safety using these values and Leighton to review the results. I) Ref.l page 11 states "...the potential for groundwater buildup and/or pore water pressure buildup within confined smectite silt strata that could affect the stability of the site is extremely remote. As a result, the inclusion of groundwater and/or pore water buildup was not considered appropriate for inclusion in the stability analysis performed as part of this investigation. This conclusion is based in part on the following: * Groundwater was not incountered in any of the exploratory borings drilled on the site ..." These statements are contradicted by plates C -11,C -45,C-47 and C-48 in Ref.5 VOL II which shows water and/or seepage -.'Also Ref.7(page 3) clearly states that pore water pressure should be considered (see statement C in this Attachment). Consideration of VTTM 47850 should not be continued until these contradictions are resolved. J) A heavy burden is placed upon the homeowner to prevent potential geotechnical/earth movement problems by the need to ; 1) eradicate burrowing animals 2) have proper drainage of water from the lot 3) having and maintaining landscapeing 4) prevent excessive watering 5) proper design and maintainence (no leaks or cracks) of pools or spas. The potential homeowner should be advized that failures in the above areas could result in serious earth movement problems because they are mechanisms whereby water can reach the smectite layers. R} Concerning shear strenth parameters, Ref.7 (page 3) states " Values on the order of 22 degrees and zero cohesion could be used as a conservative lower bound." Please ask Harrington to calculate Factors of Safety using these recommended values and Leighton to evaluate the results. L) The Conclusions and Recommendations section Ref.2( page 17) states " Long-term creep which might continue below the shear key should be effectively mitigated up-slope because: 1) Surface water infiltration into any tension/shrinkage cracks which now exist will be essentially eliminated, 2) volume changes in the expansive materials resulting from seasonal moisture changes will be essentially eliminated,....". This is a THRUST ME STATEMENT because the document presents no evidence that either surface water infiltration or volume chances will be eliminated. The reality is that these can never be eliminated because they are controlled by the following characteristics of Nature laws of gravity b) Seasonal moisture changes are a result of weather. The only way to isolate expansive materials from the weather is to place it in a closed system such as a refrigerator,heater,thermos,etc.,etc. c) The tension/ shrinkage cracks which are the means whereby water reaches the shear planes and causes the creep are continually being formed by the seasonal temperature changes resulting from weather. It is totally impossible to isloate this entire developement from the effects of nature or the weather. M) Reference 15 states "The Joint Session (City Council plus Planning Commission) may also consider VTM 47850 in light of the proposed General Plan". The General Plan requires a minimun of one (1) -acre per dewelling unit . However VTM 47850 has lots as small as 0.43 acres. How will this difference be resolved ? JCC DEVELOPMENT ZD: MAR 31'95 14:28 No.010 P.02 `J�tAI QIo F v v AT TM! O P.W#M T Rob Searcy City of Diamond Bar Via Facsimile to (909) 861-3117 March 29, 1995 Re: Overview of 24 questionstcomments by Leighton & Associates and responses by Harrington Geotechnical, concerning Tract 47850 Geology & Soils Report of October, 1992 Dear Rob, This letter is written to provide the further detail and background which you requested ' oonceming questions No. 5, 9 and 12. No. 5 - The intersection of two of the geologic cross sections submitted by Harrington placed the base of the historic landslide in the central canyon at slightly different elevations (approximate 20 ft. discrepancy). In response to Leighton's comment, the data was reviewed, the mistake noted, and revisions drawn which accurately placed the area consistently at the intersection of the two cross-sectlons. Fill depth was also adjusted to reflect the correction. No. 9 - Remedial grading was designed for this area to reflect the more conservative scenario, rather than relying on more boring to provide data which might or might not excuse the need for same. No. 12 - The shear key for stabilization of the sewer pump station area Is a part of the remedial grading plan for the tract. DIAMOND BAR ASSOCIATES, INC, 3480 Torrance Burd., Suite 301, To canoe, California 90503 Telephone (213) 3403990 9 FAX (213) 318.7133 JCC DEVELOPMENT D: MAR 31'95 14:28 No.010 P.03 Mr. Rob Searcy, City of Diamond Bar 3-29-95, page 2 Please let me know if you would like further detail on any of the other questions. I've tried to strike a balanoe in this "translation' whereby laymen can understand the principals without having to spend a groat deal of time becoming educated in the details. We would of course be happy to provide more detailed Information to anyone who is interested. Sincerel y Kurt a son Diamond Bar Associates iI c: MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION MAY 8, 1995 CALL TO ORDER Chairman Flamenbaum called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. at the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Flamenbaum. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners: Chairman Flamenbaum, vice Chairman Huff, Meyer, Schad, Fong. Also Present: Community Development Director James DeStefano; Associate Planner Robert Searcy; Assistant Planner Ann Lungu; Assistant City Attorney Michael Estrada; Consultant Engineer Mike Myers; Special Counsel Robert Owens; and Recording Secretary Carol Dennis. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS.: Lydia Plunk, Diamond Bar resident, respectfully requested that the Commission give due consideration to go beyond the legalities and consider the appearance of having the highest ethical standards in discussions and decisions. When a public official serves on the board of an organization which stands to benefit in value, in her opinion, the Commissioner should step down as a member of the Planning Commission and address the item as a private citizen. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1. Minutes of April 24, 1995. VC/Huff indicated the minutes should reflect the opening and closing of the public hearing for New Business Item Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382. May 8, 1995 Page 2 Planninq Commission A motion was made by VC/Huff and seconded by C/Schad to approve the minutes as amended. The motion was approved 4-1 with the following roll call: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Huff, Schad, Fong, Meyer NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Flamenbaum ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None OLD BUSINESS: 1. vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 and master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2. A request for approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and related approvals including a Hillside Management Conditional Use Permit and Oak Tree Permit for development of 57 lots for custom home development within the area adjacent to "The Country Estates". At the joint session on April 6, 1995, consideration of the project was continued before the Planning Commission for their review and comments. Applicant/Owner: Diamond Bar Associates, Inc., 3480 Torrance Boulevard 1301, Torrance, CA 90503 CDD/DeStefano stated that, during this meeting, the Planning Commission will be discussing Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850. In addition to staff, Tom Smith and Steve Nelson, Environmental Consultants from Michael Brandman and Associates and the developers team are present. Also present is Robert Owen, Special Legal Counsel, Rutan & Tucker, who was retained to provide the City with specific legal advice regarding this project. He further stated that since this is not a public hearing item, the Commission has the discretion to entertain public comments. Staff recommends that the Commission provide comments regarding the project which will be forwarded to the City Council for the May 16, 1995 public hearing. AP/Searcy stated that this project has been referred back to the Planning Commission at t::e direction of the City Council pursuant to the action taken at the conclusion of the Joint Session held on April 6, 1995. The Planning Commission expressed the desire for further information to provide clarification on issues and perceived inconsistencies related to development of the project. The Planning Commission cited a lack of familiarity with the project, as there are no current members from the 1992 Commission that approved the May 8, 1995 Page 3 Planning Commission project. The Commission forwarded an itemized list of questions via public testimony to staff for responses. Staff has compiled answers to the expressed issues as attachments to this overview. The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission in a series of public hearings beginning in September of 1991. At the October 28, 1991 Planning Commission hearing, the Commission directed staff to prepare Resolutions of Approval and to amend the draft conditions of approval to most notably preserve an additional seven ( 7 ) oak trees in the western most canyon. The project was returned to the Commission on November 25, 1991. The Commission took action to certify the Master Environmental Impact Report for the purpose of approving the hillside development/SEA Conditional Use Permits and Oak Tree Permits and to recommend approval of the VTM 47850, 47851, and 48487 in addition to the Certification of the Master Environmental Impact Report (MSIR). The City Council began deliberation on the project -in January, 1992 following a series of public hearings over several months. In June of 1992, the Council certified the MEIR and approved VTM 47851 and VTM 48487 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Several issues arose out of the public hearing that focused on the geotechnical information on VTM 47850. The Council required the applicant to provide extensive information in order to respond to the questions. In November of 1992, the Council set a public hearing to deliberate on the project. The applicant had not provided the required information to respond to the plan check review questions in time- for the public hearing and requested an extension of time to respond to the issues. The Council took action to deny the requested extension of time and additionally took action to deny the application without prejudice. In so doing, the Council found that they could not approve the project without definitive information on the geotechnical issues and allowed the applicant to submit a new application for the project once the information had been gathered. Subsequently, the applicant filed a lawsuit to appeal the decision. The lawsuit was resolved when the City and the developer entered into an out of court settlement agreement. The settlement agreement required the City to re-initiate processing of the project commencing with a Joint Session to be conducted with the Planning Commission. AP/Searcy further May 8, 1995 Page 4 Planning comission stated that the City Attorney's recommendation for following the settlement agreement is included in the Planning Commission packets. As a result of the April 6, 1995 joint session, the public hearing for this project has been set by the City Council for May 16, 1995. The Planning Commission's comments from tonight's meeting will be forwarded to the City Council for the public hearing session. AP/Searcy continued that this project is a 73 acre site located in Northern Tonner Canyon. The 57 lot subdivision is proposed for a site which currently developed with extensive oak and walnut woodland. This project contains the most valuable biota of the three tracts proposed for development. VTM 47850 contains significant walnut woodlands that cover approximately 34 acres contain almost 700 trees. Approximately 110 oak trees are primarily found within two stands comprising 2.5 acres. The trues located in the southwest portion of the tract have been identified to be protected and contain some of the oldest and healthiest trees on-site. Sixteen oak trees have been marked for removal as a part of this project. These oak trees will be replaced at a 4:1 ratio as will all walnut trees removed as part of the project. The replacement trees have been grown from seeds collected on-site in order to ensure the continuation of the genetics of native plant community. The landscape plan for the project has been crafted to reproduce an environment that is compatible with remaining vegetation and natural habitat to be complementary with residential development and the mitigation measures recommended by the SEATAC. The project was submitted and deemed complete in 1989 and is vested in the standards in effect at that time. The government code (section 65360) allows actions to be taken in the absence of a General Plan with approvals of the projects requiring the City to make findings of consistency with the future adopted General Plan. The map as proposed is consistent with the zoninq classifications which traverse the site. Approximately 50 percent (35 acres) of the site is within the R-1-8,000 zone classification with the remainder of the project to be developed within the R-1-20,000 zone. The project proposes development of the site with a total of 57 units, although the May 8, 1995 Page 5 Planning Co=ission total number units under the zoning entitlement for the R-1- 8,000 acreage (net acres) would be approximately 142 units. The applicant designed the project to conform to the 1 unit per acre density (RR/Rural Residential) classification proposed in the draft General Plan and the Community General Plan previously approved by the County of Los Angeles. If the most restrictive application of density (1 unit per acre) were to be applied to the project, the project would be entitled to 72 units. The proposed density is .73 units per acre. The concept of clustered development has been utilized to maximize open space opportunities within hillside projects throughout the City. The subject project does not cluster development in the sense that all of the proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum lot sizes required by the zone. The applicant has provided additional open space by simply reducing the density. The project as a whole conforms to the land use designation RR as proposed within the Draft General Plan. The geotechnical issues primarily revolve around soil stability and the calculations which were used to design the project. The design parameters of this project meet or exceed state of the art factors of safety which are traditionally set at 1.5. The site has been designed to meet all design standards and the design has been reviewed and approved by the City. The site has extensively implemented conservative measures to account for worst case scenarios. For example, the site was designed as if materials such as bentonite were found on-site, although none has been identified. All shear strength calculations were performed using lesser shear strength values associated with this material. Additionally, the project will be overgraded with a 10 foot blanket fill. The standard overfill depth is typically three (3) feet. The environmental issues raised at the Joint Session reflect that staff needed to highlight the environmental documents that include technical appendices which supplement the presentation with the revised EIR. The primary issues staff identified as being raised are centrally related to the animals found or thought to be found on-site. All of the animals found on-site cannot be observed in the surveys that can be conducted on-site in a couple of visits. Therefore, staff compiled lists of animals expected to be on-site or traverse the site based on historical May St 1995 Page 6 Planning comission surveys. The site may be used by certain animals at certain times but because of the development surrounding the site on three sides, the value of the site as a primary corridor is negligible. The site does, however, provide limited habitat for certain animals that will be reduced as a part of the development of the site but the proximity of Tonner Canyon provides a viable area for relocation. CDD/DeStefano reiterated that the City's staff and consultants, as well as the developer consultants are present to assist the Planning Commission in its deliberation. The project has been returned to the City as a result of a settlement agreement. This matter was the focus of a Joint Session held by the City Council and the Planning Commission on April 6, 1995. The project was also the subject of a community -wide study session held March 11, 1995 to outline the project and related issues. The project is before the Planning Commission tonight as a result of City Council's direction requesting Planning Commission comments. Responding to C/Meyer and public comment by Lydia Plunk, CA/Owen stated that he agreed with the conclusion of the legal opinion from ICA/Montgomery that C/Schad may participate in any deliberations regarding this project. In response to VC/Huff, C/Schad asked that ICA/Montgomery's memo be entered into the record. It reads as follows: "The mayor has asked if Commissioner Schad is disqualified from voting on a zoning application, if the developer may decide to donate to the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy as part of its mitigation of the environmental impact. Based upon the documents that I have been provided with, the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy was incorporated effective April 30, 1992, by Commissioner Schad as sole incorporator as a tax exempt, charitable corporation, pursuant to the Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3). Paragraph V(A), of the articles of incorporation recites: "The property of this corporation is irrevocably dedicated to charitable purposes and no part of a net income or assets of the corporation shall every inure to the benefit of any director, trustee, member, or officer of this corporation, or to any private person", nRAFT May 8, 1995 Page 8 Planning Comission C/Meyer recommended that the City Council be encouraged to determine whether it wants land or money as meeting the Quimby Act. In response to C/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated that the question of project reduction in relation to the amount of grading required had been addressed in the EIR. In addition, the project is consistent with the density provisions of the Draft General Plan being reviewed by the City Council on May 16, 1995. AP/Searcy stated, in response to C/Meyer that the common lot is the lift station to be given to the Homeowners Association for maintenance. C/Meyer asked if the street easements proposed for the project would affect the density projections, to which AP/Searcy responded that the project would still be in conformity with the proposed General Plan even. if the easements for the streets are subtracted from the equation. In response to C/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated that the project must conform to the minimum 10,000 square foot building pad size. Regarding annexation to "The Country Estates", AP/Searcy stated that a provision of approval states that the developer must actively seek annexation. CDD/DeStefano stated that based upon the approval of the companion tract, it is the City's expressed desire that this property become a part of "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association. However, the City Council did not specifically mandate annexation. The Council said that there shall be an application for annexation and a good faith effort toward annexation. The Council also indicated that the annexation fees should not exceed those fees which were paid by the developers of Tract No. 47722. Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, CA/Owen stated that the City Council can make reasonable conditions on its approval. Often, with respect to subdivision maps, there is a requirement that a homeowners association be formed. Regarding this map, the matter is under consideration for the project to join an existing homeowners association. The City does not have the power to force the existing association to accept new development. However, as a condition of approval, the City Council can require that the developers of this project make their best efforts to annex to the existing homeowners association. May 8, 1995 Paq* 7 Planninq coanission and upon dissolution, the assets shall be distributed to a governmental or non-profit charitable entity (Subdivision B). The State of California issues a tax exemption to the Conservancy on October 20, 1992. The United States government issues its tax exemption on July 19, 1993. Commissioner Schad stated for the record at a public Planning Commission Meeting on June 13, 1994, that he does not, has never, and will not in the future, take any personal remuneration of any nature from the Conservancy. Based upon the foregoing, the Fair Political Practices Commission, on June 15, 1994, issues a telephonic opinion, that Commissioner Schad has no present financial or incompatibility conflict of interest, with respect to the Tonner Canyon Wilderness Conservancy, and pending applications, wherein the applicant retains the final decision as to which environmental preservation entity will receive the mitigation payments." C/Schad stated that he has never made a penny from this Conservancy. His goals, gains and enjoyment have been achieved by working with the children and assisting them in understanding and enjoying nature. He further stated he has run this Conservancy out of his own pocket and it has never made a cent. VC/Huff requested C/Schad to respond to whether the conditions in effect at the time are still in effect including the fact that there 'are no bylaws, directors or employees of the Conservancy. C/Schad responded that these facts or currently in effect. Responding to C/Meyer, AP/Searcy stated the recommendations from the staff are now before the Planning Commission for comment and recommendation to the City Council. Mr. Owen, responding to C/Meyer, stated that, at this meeting, the Planning Commission cannot make a formal recommendation to approve or deny the project. This can only be done at a public hearing under the City's local subdivision ordinances and tonight's meeting is not a public hearing. 71Rj May e, 1995 Page 10 Planning Commission VC/Huff recommended that the sentence referring to fences on Page 2, Paragraph 2 under Wildlife Habitat of the Buyers Awareness Package" be changed to read: "No fences or other barriers can be constructed within these areas except for fences approved by the City of Diamond Bar." Chair/Flamenbaum requested clarification of the response to his question regarding planting of trees on the hillside. He stated the response indicated that the EIR does not state that trees shall not be planted on the hillsides. He read from the EIR as follows: "In general the planting of trees on slopes is not recommended since the individual root systems, although very deep, are limited in extent and the process of normal growth may loosen the soil and create channels for the ingress of water into the soils". Chair/Flamenbaum again requested to know what happens at the end of the five year monitoring program for tree growth. Responding to questions from the Commission, CE/Myers stated that the issue of reduction in density/grading is addressed in his memo to CDD/DeStefano dated April 20, 1995. He further stated that since there has been no five to fifteen lot proposal submitted to the City, he is not in a position to state conclusively, that a smaller project would involve less grading disturbance.. With regard to the shear strength, CE/Myers stated that it is his understanding that the lower parameters used in analyzing the reports on the adjacent tract, there is no more information contained in the reports other than that those parameters were assumed. This project incorporates a body of work and tests which recommend higher parameters than are being used in the analysis. The applicant was pressed to stand by his earlier conservative assumptions in reviewing this project. CE/Myers asked for further clarification of C/Fong's concern for clarification of the definition of Smectite and Bentonite. In staff's opinion, the relevant information is being utilized in the geotechnical analysis and the definition of the material is academic. CE/Myers stated that the vesting status of this project map gives the City limited ability to require compliance with the Hillside ordinance. Staff feels that the applicant has May 8, 1995 Page 9 Planning Commission CDD/DeStefano, in response to C/Meyer, stated that the "Buyer Awareness Package" was established approximately four years ago by the City of Diamond Bar for all new subdivision tracts. The idea of the package is to provide an additional means of information to the potential buyer of any given lot within the tract of homes. For example, this project is adjacent to a significant ecological area that has sensitive species of flora and fauna, predatory animals and a number of different items unique to the subdivision immediately adjacent to this project. The "Buyer Awareness Package" for this project would indicate the type of fencing material that would permit these types of animals to traverse the site. In addition, the package would indicate the buyer needs to be aware that there are animals present that may "eat your cat" and therefore, food should not be left outside. Additionally, the buyer would also be advised that careful consideration should be given toward the use of pesticides and other chemicals which might be hazardous to the immediate environment. He further stated that the package goes beyond that required by the Department of Real Estate and is prepared by the developer and designed to be specific to the tract. The City must sign off on the package and there must be evidence that every buyer and potential buyer has received the package. Again responding to C/Meyer, CDD/DeStefano stated the application was submitted as a Vesting Tentative Tract Map in 1989. The City did not have a Hillside Management Ordinance until October, 1990. This developer chose to adopt some of the standards of the Hillside Management Ordinance and incorporate them in their product even though they were not required to do so. C/Fong suggested that a reduction in density should result in a reduction of the amount of grading required. C/Fong stated his concerns regarding shear strength value and requested further explanation of staff's comments that lower shear strengths were used in adjacent tracts. C/Fong recommended that the developer and consultant should state in writing their understanding of Smectite and Bentonite and clarification of the actual element contained in the project site. C/Fong stated that the project should implement the spirit of the Hillside Management Ordinance. May 8o 1995 Page 11 Planning Commission attempted to comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance at the perimeter of the project. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the meeting open to public comments. Lydia Plunk stated that in her opinion, when dealing with a sensitive area the idea of donating property to a Conservancy is good. She requested that the Commission recommend to the Council that the criteria would assure -that any property set aside would be used for the purposes stated in perpetuity and in good repair. Chair/Flamenbaum declared the public comment portion of the meeting closed. RECESS: Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 8:17 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 8:27 p.m. Kurt Nelson, Diamond Bar Associates, stated that as a result of conversations with CDD/DeStefano and the City Council, the "Buyer Awareness Package" originally prepared .for Tract No. 47851 has been revised and upgraded for Tract No. 47850. He further stated that if the oak tree plantings have survived for five years they should have reached their full native state thereby allowing them to survive on their own from that point. The homeowners association that is being established will be charged with further custody beyond the five year program. Regarding annexation, Mr. Nelson stated that, as a result of recent discussions with the board of directors of "The Country Estates", an agreement is forthcoming. Diamond Bar Associates paid "The Country Estates" in excess of $300,000 in the mid 1980s in settlement of a legal action concerning the back country tracts which included Tract No. 47850. In addition to the lump sum payment the lots must pay $3000 for access rights as they are built out. There is an optional payment of $4,500 per lot that the owner must pay if they wish to avail themselves of "The Country Estates" recreational facilities. Mr. Nelson stated the applicant has offered to make the $4,500 mandatory for uniformity of annexation. In lieu of the $4,500, the applicant has offered to meet with the board of directors of "The Country Estates" to determine what figure would be agreeable. May 8, 1995 Page 12 Planning Commission Mr. Nelson further stated that as a result of project alternative studies conducted in 1987, the EIR states that a 15 lot subdivision would not significantly lessen the remedial grading. Given the studies and the fact that the 57 lots were 50 percent of the allowable number of lots under the ordinances in effect at the time the map vested, no further consideration was given to a 15 lot subdivision. Mr. Nelson indicated Management Ordinance, Horst Shore in 1990. Planning Commission is by the engineering accommodate a large Ordinance. that, in the spirit of the Hillside the tract was completely redesigned by The project alternative before the the result of a radical tract redesign firm of Hunnsaker & Associates to portion of the Hillside Management Responding to VC/Huff, Tom Smith, Michael Brandman Associates, stated that the replacement ratio for oak trees is 4:1 and for walnut trees is 2:1. The intent of the monitoring program is that at the end of the monitoring period there will be as many living trees as there were planted. Mr. Smith agreed that the wording could be clarified to indicate this outcome. Mr. Smith stated, in response to VC/Huff, that a condition of approval is that a specific mitigation plan is to be developed to determine where the buffer areas are in relation to other requirements such as, fuel modification, and biological restoration and habitat. There are a number of areas that are overlain by a number of different requirments. VC/Huff requested that the language be revised to limit the non-native plants to the pad. Referring to Page 28 of the Mitigation Monitoring Program, VC/Huff read that "all trash and manmade materials shall be removed from natural open space areas on a regular basis" and he asked to know who would remove the trash. Mr. Nelson responded that the homeowners association would have the authority to respond to such conditions. C/Schad commended the applit..:nt for attempting to develop a project that is aesthetically balanced with the existing environment by gathering seeds for approximately 5,000 plants from the project site, and having nurseries develop plants that are indicative to the area. Again responding to C/Fong's concern regarding the reduction of the number of units for the project, CDD/DeStefano stated May 8, 1995 Page 13 Planning comission that the City Council retains full discretion with respect to approval or denial of this project and if the Council feels that it is appropriate to reduce the number of dwelling units, it has the authority to impose such conditions. C/Fong recommended that the number of building lots be reduced to 34 thereby, in his opinion, significantly reducing the amount of necessary remedial grading; that these lots be removed from the westerly and southerly portions of the property where the most complicated geotechnical problems exist; development should be confined to the easterly portion of the site in those areas most generally covered by lots 1 through 12, 27 through 36 and 45 to 57 where the geotechnical conditions are most favorable. A motion was made by C/Meyer and seconded by Chair/Flamenbaum to recommend that the City Council approve the project subject to the 33 conditions from the Community Development Department, the 52 conditions recommended by the City's Engineering Department, the five (5) conditions recommended by CE/Myers in a memorandum dated March and addressed to the Community Development Director, the recommendatitins contained in Resolution No. 91-23, consideration of the Quimby Act, as well as other recommendations stated by the Planning Commissioners at this meeting. GENERAL COMMENTS: VC/Huff stated that, in his opinion, if a developer came before the Planning Commission today with this project he would be shown the door. The rights were granted to this project some time ago and yet, it has been returned to the Planning Commission for recommendations. He further stated that he has difficulty recommending this project because he does not like the standards under which project approval might be granted. The residents have been clearly stating they want more open space and less housing. In spite of the fact that development does not stop, it should be shaped to the needs of the City. He indicated he would like to see the project go back to the developer. The fact that the developer does not want to do a project of 34 units does not mean he cannot do it and still make a profit. He stated he believes there will be significant impact to the project site.. In response to VC/Huff, C/Meyer commented that the Commission is dealing with standards that were set in 1988 and 1989. The applicant applied for the map and had it vested in 1989. The proposed density was over double of that now proposed. The project is consistent with the three draft general plans that the Commission has looked out. TIRAFT May s, 1995 Page 14 Planning Commission Special Counsel Robert Owen reminded the Commission they are free to make any recommendations they desire to the Council, but the Commission is not free to take a formal vote of approval or denial of the subdivision map, as is normally done for every subdivision map in the City, because it is not a noticed public hearing. C/Fong recommended that the shear keys be eliminated on lots 3, 4 and 5 to save the oak grove. C/Schad called for the question. C/Fong recommended that the Hillside Management Ordinance be implemented for this project. C/Fong recommended that the lots be staggered and that spaces be left between the lots. Chair/Flamenbaum restated the motion. The Planning Commission recommends that the City Council approve all the conditions as presented by ' staff and transmit all comments and recommendations stated at this meeting tonight. The motion was approved 5-0. RECESS: Chair/Flamenbaum recessed the meeting at 9:17 p.m. RECONVENE: Chair/Flamenbaum reconvened the meeting at 9:27 p.m. CDD/DeStefano introduced the new Assistant City Attorney, Mike Estrada, with the law firm of Richards, Watson & Gershon. NEW BUSINESS: 1. Conditional Use Permit No. 95-1 and Development Review No. 95- 1. A request to amend Conditional Use Permit No. 1634(1) in order to approve construction of a two story sanctuary structure with a cellar and two temporary modular units; and to ensure compliance with applicable design standards. Property Location: 3255 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar Property Owner/Applicant: Evangelical Free Church of Diamond Bar, 3255 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar VC/Huff announced that he would be recusing himself from this agenda item and left the dais. CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: April 6, 1995 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 ISSUE" STATEMENT: This matter requests approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850, the subdivision of a 73 acre site located adjacent to "The Country" in upper Tonner Canyon and within Significant Ecological Area No. 15. and certification of the draft Environmental Impact Report to prepared to address the project impacts. Purpose of the Joint Public Hearing: VTM 47850 was component of a Draft Master Environmental Impact Report prepared in 1991 to address three proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Maps No. 47850, 47851 and 48487. In May 1992 the City approved VTM 47851 and 48487. In November 1992 the City Council denied VTM 47850. A lawsuit filed by the applicant in 1993 and a Settlement Agreement was entered into in April 1994. In accordance with the Agreement the purpose of the Joint Session is to consider VTM 47850, the applicant's compliance with geotechnical concerns raised in October 1992 and any other matters deemed appropriate. The Planning Commission recommended City Council approval of VTM 47850 in November 1991. BACKGROUND: Vesting Tentative Tract Map 47850 was initiated in 1989 by the applicant, Diamond Bar Associates, 3480 Torrance Blvd - Ste. 300, Torrance, CA. as a subdivision request with related applications for 57 lots proposed for custom home development. The subject map was one of three maps (Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47851 and No. 48487 submitted encompassing 160 acres and proposing 120 units. Initial processing and review was completed by Regional Planning and the project was then transferred to the City of Diamond Bar. The project is located in northern Tonner Canyon and within Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15. The application necessitated that a Conditional Use Permit be acquired in order to develop in the SEA and hillside areas and an oak tree permit to remove 16 oak trees. The proposed project was required to prepare a Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) as a result of the evaluation initial study. The MEIR addressed the impacts related to development of the three tract subdivision as one project % nth different components. The MEIR addressed the proposed project and the Preferred Alternative which became the projnt of record. The preferred design alternative featured the incorporation of contour and landform grading whereas the initial project exhibited conventional grading techniques. Additionally, the project reflected measures identified br the Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC) to reduce the impacts germane to residential development in an SEA and in response to the City adopting a Hillside Management Ordinance (Ord. No. 14, 1990 � which mandated grading techniques more aesthetically pleasing and favorable to hillside development. The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission in a series of public hearings beginning in September of 1991 At the October 28, 1991 Planning Commission hearing, testimony was taken from the public, staff and the applicant At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission directed staff to prepare Resolutions of Approval and to amend the draft conditions of approval to most notably preserve an additional 7 oak trees in the western most canyon. The projw was returned to the Commission on the November 25, 1991. The Commission took action to certify the Master Environmental Impact Report for the purpose of approving the hillside development/SEA CUP's and oak tree permits and to recommend approval of the VTM 47850, 47851, and 48487 in addition to Certification of the MSIR. C.1UTr RSIREPOR731V M47&W.COY 1 The City Council began deliberation on the project in January of 1992 concluding after a series of public hearing over several months. In June of 1992 the Council certified the MEIR and approved VTM 47851 and VTM 48487 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Several issues arose out of the public hearing that focused on the geotechnical information on VTM 47850. The Council required the applicant to provide extensive information in order to respond to the questions. In November of 1992, the Council set a public hearing to deliberate on the project. The applicant had not provided the required information to respond to the plan check review questions in time for the public hearing and requested an extension of time to respond to the issues. The Council took action to deny the requested extension of time and additionally took action to deny the application without prejudice. In doing so, the Council found that they could not approve the project without definitive information on the geotechnical issues but allowed the applicant to submit a new application for the project once the information had been gathered. Subsequently, the applicant filed a lawsuit to appeal the decision. The lawsuit was resolved when the City and the developer entered into an out of court settlement agreement. The settlement agreement required the City to re-initiate processing of the project commencing with a Joint Session to be conducted with the Planning Commission. In anticipation of the renewed processing a revised environmental document was prepared. The revised document updated information related to air quality and biological resources as regulations and standards have changed and to the geotechnical information related to the 24 outstanding issues that served as the foundation for denial of the project. The revised draft MEIR was then circulated to responding agencies and for public review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Project Description Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 is a 73 acre site located in northern Tonner Canyon. The 57 lot subdivision is proposed for a site which currently- developed with extensive oak and walnut woodland. This project contains the most valuable biota of the three tracts proposed for development. VTM 47850 contains significant walnut woodlands that cover approximately 34 acres contain almost 700 trees. Approximately 110 oak trees are primarily found within two stands comprising 2.5 acres. The trees located in the southwest portion of the tract have been identified to be protected and contain some of the oldest and healthiest trees on-site. Sixteen oak trees have been marked for removal as a part of this project. These oak trees will be replaced at a 4:1 ratio as will all walnut trees removed as part of the project. The replacement trees have been grown from seeds collected on-site in order to ensure the continuation of the genetics of native plant community. The landscape plan for the project has been crafted to reproduce an environment that is compatible with remaining vegetation and natural habitat to be complementary with residential development and the mitigation measures recommended by the SEATAC. Geology The critical information that comprised the basis for the City Council's denial of the project is 1992 has been gathered and analyzed by the City's geotechnical consultant and City Engineer. There were 24 outstanding issues that focused on subsurface issues related to following areas: 1) identification soil materials thought to be bentonite clay; 2) the location and extent of shear keys to stabilize the development; 3) the provision of a map identifying the location of subsurface geologic features and surficial slump and earth units; and 4) supplemental information on the stability of proposed cut and fill areas. In the intervening period the applicant has provided the required information to the City and has satisfactorily resolved the outstanding issues. In order for the information to be gathered and analyzed, the applicant conducted additional physical explorations by deep boring and trenching of the site and concluded with numerous laboratory tests and analyses. As a result of the information generated by the additional testing the applicant was able to refine the information and to provide a more definitive understanding of the geology. Most notably, the earth material that had previously been thought to be bentonite clay was found to be smectitic silt. Analysis of the material found the strength parameters of the material QILh77E U RBPOR7S1VM478M.COY to exceed those of the bentonite clay. The analysis assumed the most conservative parameters and conducted tests in a manner that assumed the material to have the weaker bentonite characteristics. Grading The grading required to implement this project is substantial and requires approximately 783,000 cubic yards of earthwork. Total grading for the revised project will entail approximately 45 acres with about 2.5 acres of off-site grading. The canyon to the west of VTM 47850 will be graded and reconfigured to a state closely resembling the existing topography with slopes approximating a range from 4:1 to a 2:1 maximum vertical incline. The grading will be balanced on-site and with the incorporation of landform grading techniques, the project site will reflect many of the same physical characteristics that are visible today. The grading plan has been revised from the 1992 plan to reflect adjustments to the design parameters. The majority of the grading previously proposed has not been affected and overall there will be additional grading on approximately two acres. The additional grading will be conducted on the east and west facing slopes of the project. The east facing slope has grading redesigned to not encroach as far west off-site and to become more focussed along the upper portion of the canyon and upper areas around the building pads. On the east facing slope additional grading is proposed to extend north and south and to primarily add additional buttressing and support to the pads. The adjustments to the grading plan are not significant and do not dramatically change the previously identified impacts of the project. All grading activities are required to take place outside the nesting season and all of the heavy equipment will be staged on-site. No access to the adjacent public residential streets will be afforded to the construction equipment and will only access the site via "The Country". The project is located in SEA No. 15 in northern Tonner Canyon. All development projects within an SEA are required to obtain a conditional use permit. Review by the SEATAC is required prior to issuance of.the CUP and that review was conducted in concert with the MEIR preparation. SEATAC reviewed the project from the perspective of actual and potential impacts to the ecosystem of the entire SEA. Although the project itself comprises less than 1.5 percent of the entire SEA, the potential impacts are not proportional and can impart adverse impacts on a geometric scale to the biology of the entire SEA. As a result of the issues identified by the SEATAC, the deficiencies in the design of the 1989 project became evident the applicant redesigned the project in its present form. Extensive information on the biological resources of the site and the site's relationship to the Tonner Canyon ecosystem have been collected and evaluated for this project. At the impetus of the SEATAC a Tonner Canyon Study was initiated and completed in 1991. The information brought together in that report in addition to the information collected within the MEIR for this project serve to provide a very clear understanding for staff of the value of this site. Additional information related to flora and fauna has been collected from the proposed project area. In 1994 three extensive surveys of the site were conducted by the City's environmental consultant to document the biological resources on-site. Extensive walnut and oak woodlands were found to be present on-site and were surrounded by coastal sage and chaparral scrub as well as non-native grasses. The surveys also identified an expected variety of wildlife species that primarily use the site for breeding, cover and food. Based on the size, location and other constraints to the site, the %ate is not considered a primary wildlife corridor. That is not to say that the site is not use for animals to traverse to other locations but that there is no significant resource other than Tonner Canyon and the SEA for the site to provide e connection to. The disruption to the site will displace wildlife during the grading and construction phases. With the recreation of habitat areas with native plants species and maintenance of the habitat areas until they are reestablished, most of the displa%:dd wildlife will again utilize vast portions of the project site in the future. The removal of the oak and walnut trees will he mitigated by imposing a 4:1 replacement ratio. The remainder of the biota to be replanted in the restricted use areas w i I I be reflective of the plant species which are native to the site. c:1rrnRsLMMRn1V nW&V.cov 3 The SEATAC recommended that the applicant collect seeds and plants on-site prior to grading activities in order that the replacement plants could be grown in nurseries. The result of this action is a perpetuation of the same genetics within the species of plants. The emphasis of this replacement procedure is reduce the impacts to the environment and to assist in transition of the plants back into the ecosystem. Vesting_ Tentative Man Staff has reviewed the tentative map for conformance with the City Council's approval of the VTM 47851 and VTM 48487. There are some issues that have been identified that require the Council's attention. The City Engineer finds that there are numerous easements referenced on the tentative map. These easements are both public and private in nature. The City has the ability to vacate the easements which have been offered to the County of Los Angeles. This is accomplished via the public hearing process, approval of the tentative map as proposed and recording of the final map The private easements however may not be vacated in this manner. To relinquish the private easements the applicant will be required to relocate those easements which may have an adverse impact on the net useable pad area. Staff has drafted a condition for consideration of this action. The intent is to guarantee that the lots within the subdivision can be developed to the greatest extent possible. Lot "A" is the common lot identified on the tentative as the location of the lift station. Staff recommends that the lift station be conveyed to the Homeowners Association for the purpose of ownership and maintenance of the site in the prescribed manner. An easement for sewer purposes will be dedicated over the necessary portion of the lot. Additionally, this lot should have a restriction to preclude residential building. Lots within the gated community approved by the City Council have been required to provide minimum lot frontages of 125 feet on all lots with the exception of cul-de-sac lots. These lots have been approved with 60 feet minimum lot frontages. This tract has been designed with four cul-de-sac streets. These streets have been designed with lots that primarily conform to the minimum standard. However, there are two lots which require an increase in the lot frontage. Staff finds that there are two alternatives that can be investigated to achieve compliance. The applicant can adjust the adjacent lot lines to substantially conform to the requirement or the applicant can join two lots to form one and reduce the overall number lots by one. Additionally, staff finds that the Remainder Parcel located in the southeastern portion of the tract should be joined with and adjacent lot (Lot No. 13, 15 or 26). This action would be consistent with the Remainder Parcel on VTM 47851 and will guarantee suitable access to the parcel. The site is currently the location of a Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) helipad for emergency fire fighting especially for wildland fires. The Planning Commission had recommended that the Council consider requiring the applicant to either provide an alternative location on-site or require the applicant to work with the LACFD in funding the development of an alternative site. The proposed map does not indicate that an alternative was identified on-site but staff recommends that the option remain. Alternative Projects The draft MEIR is required to analyze alternative projects to evaluate a comparison of potential impacts. For this project there were a total of seven alternatives generated for review and analysis. The "no project" alternative assumes the project site will remain in the current state with no change in any identified impact. Two somewhat less benign alternatives were put forth that essentially look at development of the site in two commercial agricultural uses. The "commercial agriculture -vineyard" use is a project scenario that requires some minimal grading although minimal slope stabilization would be required. The impact of this type of development would create no more significant impacts than the project of record. The "commercial agriculture -grazing livestock" alternative requires little grading. Grading would primarily be required to stabilize slopes in the areas with access roads and structural facilities. The major detrimental impact associated with this type of land use is the degradation of the plant habitat from overgrazing of the cattle. The mitigation measures necessary for this scenario would reduce these impacts to a level less than the proposed project. C:V.S TEMIRBF 731vTM47M.COV 4 Development projects were reviewed at various degrees of density and design criteria. The 1989 project was presented as a realistic development alternative. Under this scenario, which proposed 57 single family units on the 73 acres, the project proposed conventional grading with linear grading techniques. Grading quantities for this concept would be less than the project of record but the visual and aesthetic impacts would be more apparent. The 50 percent reduction in density scenario would decrease the project to approximately 29 units. The design scheme would primarily reflect the same circulation system but would feature larger estate type lots. The overall impact of this alternative is consistent with the impacts associated with the current proposed development because the geotechnical corrections necessary for slope stabilization are the same. With the associated grading necessary for geotechnical stabilization, impacts to the biota would remain consistent as well. The "15 unit (74 percent reduction)" alternative would appear to reduce the project impacts in a manner corresponding to the density reduction. This is however not the case. Development of the 15 unit project requires that geotechnical stabilization be undertaken in the same manner similar to the grading plan proposed under the current project. As such, the grading required to stabilize the site would generate impacts that can be mitigated to a level of less than significant, as do the mitigation measures for the project of record. In summary, the alternatives identified vary in the extent of adverse impacts imparted on the site. The no development and agricultural uses generate less of an impact on the environment but are consistent with the land uses identified within the draft General Plan currently under consideration. These uses do not develop the site to its highest and best use and are not within the character of development within the area of the project. The reduced density projects do not yield projects with less cumulative impacts. The projects are still required to remediate the unstable soils conditions and in doing so impacting the biota of the site. The reduced density projects again deliver less development but do not reduce the environmental impacts and deliver projects that are less than the highest and best utilization of the project site. Conclusion: Staff has processed this application in conformance with the settlement agreement that, mandated the City Council reconsider the project. In the intervening period the draft MEIR has been modified to address environmental standards that have changed since the project was initially reviewed. Additionally, the applicant and the staff have worked diligently to provide definitive information on the issues related to geology and geotechnical concerns. Staff has reviewed the voluminous information that the applicant has gathered by physical exploration and extensive analysis and has concluded review of the information as it relates to 24 unanswered questions that served as the foundation of the Council's denial of the project. The analysis has been deemed to fulfill the, requirements set forth by the City. The applicant has developed a map which identifies the areas that contain surficial and subsurface landforms of note. The applicant has definitively resolved the issue surrounding bentonite on-site and has found the material to be a clay as smectitic silt. The strength of which exceeds that of bentonite and has revised the remedial work to correspond to these factors. The draft MSIR has been updated with current biota surveys. The surveys have identified no new issues and no new impacts have been identified. The mitigation measures identified for revegetation of disturbed areas are proposed to remain unchanged. The plants will be collected from the native plants and seeds on-site and will be planted and maintained until they are re-established (project maintenance for a maximum period of not less than five years). The draft MEIR also analyzed the alternative project designs. The projects with no development and commercial agriculture use do not have the same level of environmental impacts as the residential development projects. The land uses are not consistent with the land uses proposed within the draft General Plan and do no seem to be compatible with adjacent residential development. The reduced density projects yield less development but do not reduce commensurate environmental impacts proportionately. The required remedial grading is the same for the reduced density projects as C. v.ErrsRSUWMRr31Vrnr47MCov 5 is required for the project of record. PREPARED BY: Robert Searcy Associate Planner Attachments: Wilbur Smith Letters Dated March 30 and March 31, 1995 Response To Comments Mitigation Monitoring Program Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 C. V.ErrEMUMMR731 MWOMCOV 6 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING COMMISSION APRIL 6, 1995 1. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Papen called the meeting to order at 6:47 p.m. at the SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by M/Papen. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Harmony, Miller, Mayor Pro Tem Werner and Mayor Papen. PLANNING COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Schad, Vice -Chairman Huff and Chairman Flamenbaum. Commissioner Meyer was excused. Also Present: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Leonard Hempel, Special Legal Counsel; George Wentz, City Engineer; Michael Myers, Consultant Engineer; Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director; and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. OLD BUSINESS: 2.1 CERTIFICATION OF MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 91-2 AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 47850, LOCATED EASTERLY OF STEEPLECHASE LANE AND SOUTH OF WINDMILL DRIVE ADJACENT TO THE PRIVATE GATED COMMUNITY KNOWN AS 'THE COUNTRY"- M/Papen introduced Leonard Hempel, Rutan & Tucker, Special Legal Counsel, and asked him to discuss the reason for the joint meeting. She stated that staff would make a presentation regarding the project and lawsuit settlement. The meeting will be turned over to the Planning Commission for consideration and recommendation, after which the Council will discuss the project. Mr. Hempel stated that it had been approximately one year since litigation between D.B. Assoc. (DBA) and the City concluded with a settlement agreement. Part of the settlement involved the Council adopting a motion to reconsider a denial of VTTM No. 47850 which occurred in November, '1992. The denial was a result of the failure to present geotechnical data responding to 24 points at issue. The Planning Commission previously approved the map and because the City recognized there would be updated data with respect to geotechnical and environmental information in the new EIR, the settlement included a joint meeting between the Planning Commission and the Council. Although a public hearing is not required, the Planning Commissioners are being asked for their comments based on the new information. At the conclusion of the April 6, 1995 page 2 Council public hearing, the Council will determine whether to approve, deny, modify, or request additional data on the map. The agreement did not obligate the Council beyond following the State Subdivision Map Act, and City Codes and Ordinances in reconsideration of the map. In response to M/Papen, Mr. Hempel stated that there is no conflict of interest with M/Papen and C/Miller sitting in judgement of this project. M/Papen and C/Miller were added as defendants in the initial lawsuit. Demurrers were filed on behalf of Papen and Miller which were sustained without leave to amend. The settlement did not resolve that issue and DBA was free to appeal the dismissal of Papen and Miller from the lawsuit. Although they initially appealed, they later dropped the appeal, thereby making the decision of the trail court final, dismissing Papen and Miller. There is no restriction and no conflict relating from that litigation. In response to MPT/Werner, Mr. Hempel indicated that the project was considered under Ordinance No. 4, not under the General Plan. The settlement specifically envisioned that the Council would have the right to consider the project based upon the General Plan currently under consideration pursuant to the State Office of Planning and Research (OPR) extension of time. He stated that the Council should be considering this project under what they believe the ultimate General Plan designation will be for this property. The project will be vested under the terms of approval and at the time of final map approval. Technically, there is no General Plan under which the project will be vested, but the Council will be making findings that the project is not inconsistent with the proposed General Plan. Chair/Flamenbaum asked the extent of the current Planning Commission's involvement in the review process since a previously - seated Planning Commission had approved the project. Mr. Hempel responded that the P:snning Commission was not being asked to re -approve the project or go through the detail of the conditions. Upon request by the Planning Commission, the Council may grant the Commission additional opportunity to consider the project. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that no current Planning Commissioners were members of the Commission when the project was approved and they do not have specific knowledge of the details. April 6, 1995 Page 3 Mr. Hempel responded that, at the time the settlement agreement was entered into, it was not known that a year would be required to process the additional data and there would be a different Planning Commission. Council will determine the outcome of the project. Legally, the Planning Commission approved the project and the addition of the joint meeting was to give the current Commission the opportunity to review the updated data. Responding to MPT/Werner, CDD/DeStefano stated that the developer had paid all costs associated with reconsideration of VTTM No. 47850. He further reported that the project began in November, 1989 with a submittal to the City's acting planning staff at L.A. County. VTM No. 47850 was a component of a three tract submittal that was given to the City. The three tracts, 47850, 47851 and 48487, comprise a total of approximately 160 acres within the southwest portion of "The Country Estates" generally adjacent to Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Train Lane, and Hawkwood Road and Bent Twig Lane, and totalled about 120 dwelling units. In November, 1991 the Planning Commission reviewed the project and recommended its approval. The Council reviewed the project in early 1992 and in May, 1992, approved VTTMs 47851 and 48487 and certified that portion of the Master EIR. Map 47850 received further review in May and June 1992, and again in November and December 1992, and was subsequently denied. The Council denied the Map without prejudice and encouraged the developer to respond to outstanding issues and again present the project. As a result of litigation, the settlement agreement was concluded about one year ago and discussions ensued regarding the type of project presentation and environmental documentation needed for resubmission to the City. As a part of reconsideration of this project, the City held a widely publicized workshop on Saturday, March 11, 1995 from 9:00 a. m. until 1:00 p. m. City staff, the City's consultants, development representatives and members of the community participated in an information session. This was not a posted public hearing. Kurt Nelson, D.B. Assoc., :480 Torrance Blvd., Torrance, stated that VTTM 47850 is part of approximately 280 acres known as 'The Back Country" which was intended as a third phase of development in "The Country Estates" by Transamerica Development, now D. B. Assoc. In the mid 1980's, through an agreement with 'The Country Estates", these back country parcels obtained access rights for development and these rights have been exercised with the Phase I development of Tract 47851. Negotiations continue with 'The Country Estates" to effect full annexation. D.B. Assoc. has a homeowners association with CC&R's to implement the special conditions of approval which April 6, 1995 Page 4 were a part of Phase I and which will certainly be a part of Phase ll. Full annexation will retain the declaration of CC&R's so that all of the conditions of approval that the City's staff, consultants and the Council visit on this project will be carried out. D.B. Assoc. has given careful consideration to the 24 questions posed by Leighton & Assoc. concerning the geologic stability of the project. Phase II will incorporate the balancing of grading and re -vegetation used in Phase I. Lex Williman, Planning Director, Hunsaker & Associates, 10179 Huntington Street, San Diego, stated that this project was originally submitted to the County. When the City incorporated, it changed some of the rules. The Council adopted a Hillside Management Ordinance, the County's Oak Tree Ordinance and the SEA #15 boundaries. In addition, the City created a Significant Ecological Area Technical Advisory Committee (SEATAC) which reviewed this project. He indicated that his firm became involved in the project as a result of the Hillside Management Ordinance. His firm's task was to specifically recreate the project so that it met the Hillside Management Ordinance criteria. He believed this had been accomplished. This project has been reviewed by SEATAC on four occasions, and has been through five Planning Commission hearings and five or six Council hearings. The project is accessible from Steeplechase Ln. and Hawkwood Rd. Tonner Canyon and the Boy Scout properties are to the south of the project and Tract No. 47851 and No. 48487 are to the east of the project on the opposite ridge. His firm employed a combination of contour and land form grading techniques to the project. Balance was achieved by considering the underlying topography, the geotechnical conditions, the consideration of the General Plan, SEATAC input and the Hillside Ordinance. In areas where shear keys must be created, slopes similar to Tract No. 47851 are proposed to combine with the natural species. In addition, fill areas are proposed for the canyon to shore up some geotechnical instability in the slopes. There will be no construction in these areas. Land form grading will be used for the grading to create a natural look of the horizontal and vertical contours. The Uniform Building Code requires terraces and down drains which are hidden with berms and landscaping to preserve the natural look. In addition, all of the concrete required to meet the conditions of approval will be in earth tones in concert with the landscaping. He indicated that these issues have been addressed because the City's staff and City Council held the developers to a higher degree of standards than other cities. The 73 acre site proposes 57 lots. The minimum lot size is 20,000 square feet and the average lot size is about 1.3 acres. The minimum pad size is 10,000 square feet and the average is about 14,300 square April 6, 1995 Page 5 feet. This conforms to the current Draft General Plan. The average density is .75 dwelling units per acre with a maximum of 1 dwelling unit per acre. The underlying zoning is R-1-8000 and R-1-20,000. This project adheres to the R-1-20,000 throughout the site. There is a gate at Steeplechase Lane and Hawkwood Road. In addition, there is an emergency access to the north through the Las Brisas condominium project that connects to Hawkwood Rd. and provides secondary access to the condominiums. It is intended that this access will remain and it will be gated for emergency purposes only. The architecture of the gate will be enhanced with a combination of brick and wrought iron to conform to the front entrance gates for "The Country Estates". Don Harrington, Harrington Geotechnical, 1938 North Batavia St., Ste. N, Orange, stated that there were 13 exploratory borings drilled 120 feet deep, 40 test pits 15 feet deep and approximately 1400 lineal feet of trench excavated with a bulldozer. All of these excavations were logged by the project geologist and samples were taken. The weak link at this project is a thin layer of clay that was originally identified as bentonite. The material was tested in the Harrington Geotechnical laboratory, as well as the laboratory of another consultant and unusually high strength parameters were obtained A sample was sent to the Bureau of Mines and Mineral Resources in New Mexico for analysis. It was determined that the material was smectite which is a coarser grained stronger material than bentonite Realizing that there may be some uncertainties in sampling and testing, based upon discussions with D.B. Assoc. and the Leighton 8 Associates, the strength parameters were lowered by approximately 30°x. The remedial grading design and stability calculations were based upon these lower values and a safety factor of 1.5 as required by code. Twenty four items of concern regarding the project were compiled by Leighton & Assoc. These items were reviewed and answered to the satisfaction of the consultant. Craig Weber, Consulting Landscape Architect, D.B. Assoc., 790 Redondo Ave., Long Beach, stated that his firm has been involved in this project since 1989 and they have conducted a thorough investigation of Tract No. 47850, as well as Tract No. 47851. The initial studies that took place in 1989 and 1990 resulted in a detailed analysis of the site and its vegetation which assisted in the development of criteria for mitigation. He indicated the primary structure of this site is a combination of oak and walnut woodlands The primary tree, walnut, dominates the site at a ratio of four to one over the oak tree. In spite of considerable grading of the site approximately 240 oak and walnut trees will be retained. Asa result April 6, 1995 Page 6 of grading, approximately 540 walnut trees and 23 oak trees will be removed from the site. The oaks will be mitigated at a ratio of four to one, and the walnuts will be mitigated at a ratio of two to one as determined by Michael Brandman & Assoc. The developer will be responsible for on-site planting of 85 oak trees and 1,096 walnut trees, all of which will be irrigated and monitored for a period of five years. Sycamore, willow and pine trees will be planted in the central portion of the development, and the surrounding slopes will be mitigated with pure native vegetation. All of the proposed material will be generated from seeds and/or cuttings from the on-site gene pool. He referred the Council members and Commissioners to the westerly canyon area of the site which will receive a significant portion of hillside runoff into Tonner Canyon. He stated a series of water management basins are being developed to insure the water quality following a fomnat currently being developed by the Center for Regenerative Studies, Cal -Poly Pomona. He indicated that D. B. .Assoc. will monitor the growth and development of all proposed site vegetation for a period of five years with an annual inspection and monitoring program. David Smith, Leighton & Associates, stated his firm is the Geotechnical Consultant for the City hired to review the geotechnical aspects of Tract No. 47850. The review began in 1992 with a submittal of the developers' geotechnical investigation and grading plan review which was prepared by Harrington & Assoc. As a result of that review, Leighton & Assoc. issued a review sheet which recommended that the project not be approved until 24 specific comments were addressed. Since that time, Harrington & Associates has responded to the review comments which, in many cases, generated additional review comments. Through the review process involving several meetings between City's staff, the developer and his consultants, as well as Leighton & Assoc., all 24 of the original geotechnical review comments have been adequately addressed at this phase. He further stated that it is important to continue the review through the grading and construction phases to verify that the original geotechnical interpretation continues to be accurate. Tom Smith, Michael Brandman & Associates, 17310 Redhill, Irvine stated that Tract 47850 was originally evaluated in an EIR that address three tracts: 47850, 47851 and 48487. The EIR was certified for Tract No. 47851 and No. 48487. In the intervening two years since the EIR was filed, regulations have changed with special regard to biological resources on the site. In addition, there were changes in the air quality regulations that required re -analysis to meet current standards. As a result, in October, 1994, the City initiated a second April 6, 1995 Page 7 environmental review process for Tract No. 47850. In order that information compiled in the previous EIR, the City and Michael Brandman & Assoc. determined that there were three primary issues that the revised Draft EIR should address. These were the geological factors, the biological resources and the air quality impacts of construction. All other issues that were analyzed in the 1992 EIR were determined to have been adequately addressed in that document and did not need to be re -analyzed. All impacts evaluated in the revised Draft EIR were found to be mitigated to a level that was not significant after mitigation was applied with the exception of construction dust on the environment. South Coast Air Quality Management set a standard of PM10 and because of the low Standards set for dust emissions from construction, that impact cannot be mitigated through normal construction techniques of watering, etc. Therefore, Council will be required to make a statement of overriding considerations should the Council decide to approve this project. The revised Draft EIR was released for public review in February, 1995, and the review period ended on March 15, 1995. During the review period, written comments were received from two public agencies, the Los Angeles County Sanitation District and Caltrans, from three members of the community and from the applicant. Responses to these letters have been included in the document entitled 'Response to Comments Received on Draft Environmental Impact Report". He further stated that, as required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), a mitigation monitoring program has been prepared which lists all of the mitigation measures from the revised Draft and from the 1992 EIR that are recommended for incorporation into the project to mitigate the impacts of its development. CDD/DeStefano stated that the overall proposed land use for this project is Single Family Residential, 57 units on 73 acres. The lot sizes range from about 3/4 acre to over 5 acres with the average lot size in excess of an acre. Average pad sizes are in excess of 14,300 square feet with a minimum of 10,000 square feet. The overall land use of the project is substantially the same as that which was reviewed by the Planning Commission in 1991 and the City Council in 1992. The project is generally consistent with the General Plan as it existed in 1992 and as it exists in its present form. It is consistent with the zoning in place on the site and with the caliber of homes within'The Country Estates", the immediate neighbor to the proposed project. Homes that will be created on a product of this nature range in size from 5,000 to 10,000 square feet, are generally two stories, generally provide substantial private amenities such as pools, tennis courts and other types of recreational facilities. The project not only incorporates the Vesting Tentative Map and related issues under April 6, 1995 Page 8 discussion, it also involves, as a result of City and County standards, a Conditional Use Permit for hillside grading requiring the use of land form grading techniques and for the mitigation of the loss of oak trees. The grading for the proposed site comprises about 780,000 cubic yards of earth. He recommended that the joint session receive public testimony, receive Planning Commission commentary and for the Council to continue deliberation and direct staff appropriately. RECESS: M/Papen recessed the meeting at 8:02 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Papen reconvened the meeting at 8:20 p.m. M/Papen declared the Public Hearing open. Wilbur Smith, 21630 Fairwind Ln., referred the Council to his letter addressed to the City and requested it be made a part of the record. In addition, he requested that answers to questions in his letter be addressed by the Council and made a part of the final record. He cited the following reasons he opposed approval of VTTM 47850: The developers' technical documentation identified the cause of past and potential future landslides due to a combination of smectite soil layers and ground water/pore water pressure and the documents confirmed the presence of both items within the tract boundaries; the documents do not include groundwater or pore pressure in the Factor of Safety calculations which indicate the stability of the slopes; County Code requires Factors of Safety of 1.5 or greater. These documents report Factors of Safety of 1. 5051, 1.5093, 1.5011, 1.5133 based on normal conditions. These values should exceed the County requirement by a greater amount to allow for errors in the computational process. Also, calculations should be made based upon abnormal conditions such as adverse weather (50-100 year rain seasons), uncertainties in geologic parameters, human deficiencies in workmanship, etc.; and the report contains conflicting statements. The test states groundwater was not encountered in any exploratory borings drilled on the site... , whereas the figures and tables show the presence of ground water. Because of these contradictions, the truthfulness of these reports is questionable. Don Greely, 22635 Ridge Line Rd., President of 'The Country Estates" association, stated the association had been involved with this project since 1988. Seven years after D. B. Assoc. requested full annexation, this has not been accomplished. On behalf of the association, he asked the Council to consider proposing a condition that, as per the Council Minutes dated November 15, 1994, full April 6, 1995 Page 9 annexation would be agreed to be involved parties prior to any further deliberation with regard to this project. In addition, if annexation does not occur, the developer will provide facilities such as club house, tennis courts and pools for their community use. He indicated that without annexation, the homeowners of Tract No. 47850 are not entitled to the privileges of 'The Country Estates." He further stated that although he had previously been in favor of this project, he is now opposed to the project. The developer placed a burden upon 'The Country Estates" by using and damaging the paved roadways which have not been repaired. He asked that the developer make the necessary repairs immediately. In addition, the association anticipates there will be additional damage and requests a cash fund be established by the developer in advance for repair of streets. Responding to M/Papen, Mr. Greely stated that in the event of full annexation of the development, 'The Country Estates" will build a larger club house, a larger pool and additional tennis courts to accommodate the additional homeowners. The current facilities are not adequate to accommodate the new development,_ In response to MPT/Wemer, Mr. Greely indicated the association is looking for a similar condition to that imposed on the Jerry Yeh project for annexation with an associated fee. M/Papen referred to a letter submitted by David Araujo dated March 11, 1995 wherein he stated that although he previously opposed the project, after attending the Saturday meeting in March he is now in favor of the project. Martha Bruske, 600 South Great Bend Dr., stated the 6:30 p.m. Public Hearing started about 6:40. The people in favor of the project had sufficient time to discuss their views and the only person who was timed and interrupted was Mr. Wilbur Smith who lives in the area. In response to Mrs. Bruske, M/Papen stated she gave Mr. Smith eight minutes to speak and he took nine minutes which is nearly double the usual time allocated for speaking during a Public Hearing. Jack Healy asked that the City Attorney address the potential liability to D.B. Assoc., the City, JCC Developers and Leighton Assoc. with respect to slippage of the property. In addition, he asked whether D.B. Assoc. had publ*Fhed any safety factors for the proposed lots. He asked for discussion of the problem of burrowing animals which could cause seepage into the smectite, and what impact the lack of pest control in Tonner Canyon might have on this project since Tract April 6, 1995 Page 10 No. 47850 borders 3500 acres of the Canyon There being no further testimony offered, M/Papen closed the Public Hearing. M/Papen turned the meeting over to Planning Commission Chair Flamenbaum. A motion was made by VC/Huff that the Planning Commission recommend that the Council return this project to the Commission as an agenda item for consideration. Comm./Schad did not feel it necessary to pursue the project further. Comm./Fong stated that it is up to the Council to determine if they wish to send the project back to the Planning Commission for review. Chair/Flamenbaum stated that he had limited knowledge of the project and felt it might be in the best interest of the City to send the project back to the Planning Commission for review. C/Ansari felt the wishes of the Planning Commission should be honored. She indicated she had several questions as a result of issues raised during the public hearing and felt the project should be returned to the Planning Commission for recommendations. Responding to C/Harmony, Mr. Hempel read the following provision pertaining to the joint session from the settlement agreement with the developer. After conducting the joint session, or any continuance of the joint session meeting, VTM 47850 shall be referred to the City Council to take action on the re -consideration. Upon such reconsideration, the Council shall exercise that degree of discretion permitted the Council by state statutes and local ordinances pertaining to approval of a subdivision tract map. Further, the Council shall consider approval of VTM 47850 under the recently obtained extension of the deadline for adopting a General Plan issued by the Governors Office of Planning and Research." Mr. Hempel explained that agreement does not state anything about a referral back to the Planning Commission, but the agreement does say the Council shall exercise a degree of discretion permitted to Council by state statute. State statute permits referral back to the Planning Commission, if in the Council's judgement, there is significant new information that the Planning Commission could assist in commenting on. He further stated that, in his opinion, the Council has the right to return the item to the Commission even though the agreement does not specifically April 6, 1995 Page 11 address the issue. He suggested that with the time constraints, the Council could obtain the consent of the applicant and, in the event of referral to the Planning Commission, provide the applicant with a time line of events. C/Ansari expressed concern about whether the questions can be adequately addressed during the joint session with responses from the City's Engineering staff as to whether these are viable conclusions from the applicant's consultants. She requested further clarification regarding safety factors of 1.5 and water seepage. Mr. Hempel responded to M/Papen that the meeting could be split with the Council's portion continued to a later time and Planning Commission's portion continued to the April 10 Commission meeting. C/Miller suggested that the item be continued to the Planning Commission meeting of April 24 giving them adequate time to receive and review the pertinent materials. He requested the geotechnical investigation and recommended scheduling the item for the first Council meeting in May. M/Papen stated that the joint session would be used as an information and question gathering session. The Planning Commission will review the project at its April 24 meeting and return their recommendations to the Council for deliberation at the first Council meeting in May. She asked Planning Commissioners for their questions. Chair/Flamenbaum asked if it is necessary to fill in the canyon on the west side of the map if new houses are built on lots 20 through 28. How far to the west could a house be built if a fill did not occur on the west side. What if the map was split and houses were built only on the east side of the map and not on the west side of the map. Aside from the CCBR's, what assurances does the City have that the natural flora and fauna will not be impacted by future residents. The booklet "Home Buyers Awareness Package" indicates that homeowners should be warned and should - not put in certain potentially invasive plant species (Page 3), but what assurances are there that they will comply and what is the City's recourse if they do not comply. Will there be a mitigation/monitoring program and if so, who will maintain and pay for the program. Does the new Draft EIR consider the impact of the two adjacent projects and, subsequent to the initial EIR, the Jerry Yeh project was approved. What is the impact upon this tract as a result of that project approval. Regarding Volume I of the Draft EIR, Page 42-3, Mitigation Measures for Air April 6, 1995 Page 12 Quality, he asked if these were the same measures used for other recently completed projects and what were the results. He further stated that, throughout the EIR, there is no mention of cougars or bobcats; however, the video concluded with a shot of a sleepy cougar. Where was the picture taken and why was it in the video if there are no cougars. Are all of the animals pictured in the video at the site. The EIR makes mention of numerous animals but it also avoids a number of animals. Is this area a part of a wildlife corridor. The EIR states that this is a secondary corridor but it does not talk about the project's impact to the secondary corridor. Additionally, inasmuch as the other tract maps are not considered in the EIR, what is the impact of the other improvements upon the site. Are the setbacks the same for each lot on the site. If not, how do they vary, how much do they vary, do they vary side to side, and if they are varied or not varied, does it have any significant impact in the EIR with regard to aesthetics and geology. Page 4-15 of the EIR discusses mammals, raccoons are not mentioned. The EIR does not mention bobcat. Bobcat is mentioned in the supplement. On Page 4-17, the EIR talks about mule deer and how there is no impact to the mule deer; however, it talks about the fact that this is a loss of a bedding area. He stated he would like to see an SEA #15 overlay on the project. He indicated the EIR is not specific with regard to the SEA #15. He referred to the five year monitoring of tree growth by the developer and wants to know what occurs at the end of the monitoring period. Is the City then responsible for their care and maintenance and is the City going to monitor and pay for their care. What is the impact upon those trees and other native species caused by the runoff from the resident's lawns and washing of cars. Are there any blue line streams in the area. He further stated he noticed Schabarum Trail is on the site. Who maintains the trail and what is the impact of the trail upon the hillsides that are being modified. On Page A-22, the EIR says that no wildlife movement was studied and in another section it states that there is a wildlife corridor. These statements are in conflict. If a study is not conducted, how can the report determine there is no wildlife corridor. On Page A-25, the EIR states that the Catalina Mariposa Uly may be present. Is it or isn't it? If there was a detailed study conducted, he stated he would like to know if such things exist and what the impact might be. He further asked about the impact to the City and to the homeowners if the project does not annex to'The Country Estates". Does the City have any obligation to provide for private homeowners or private residential communities to improve their lot. EIR Volume 11, Appendix E-1, #3, states that the addition of berms to prevent water from spilling over the face of the slope is important. He asked how the berms are going to be maintained. The EIR discusses erecting walls and that the April 6, 1995 Page 13 drainage should be back to the street. In D.B., a wall of six feet or less does not require a permit. How does the City know the walls are being built and what is the impact when the walls are built. Although the EIR indicates no trees shall be planted on the hillsides, the map shows that trees will be planted on the hillsides. What about slope maintenance areas and are the hillsides being planted or are they not being planted. He asked for an explanation of boring vermin and their impact on the site. With regard to the damaged streets in "The Country Estates", he stated that those are private streets and it is a private matter between the developer and owner of the streets. If the streets are open to public access, then the Council could make a recommendation in support of street repair. VC/Huff expressed concern with the amount of dirt that will be rearranged at the site and the goal to maintain a natural look within that context. The proposed site appears to contain meticulously placed plantings rather than the irregular appearance of a natural site. Although the site proposes to have blended hues of concrete, he indicated he does not recall that this is a part of the current projects. He suggested placing rocks on the site with trees around them for a more natural appearance. With respect to traffic and circulation, according to the revised Draft EIR Volume I, there is no impact. He objected to the proposal of the restriping of D. B. Blvd. to three lanes. C/Fong commented that there is no statement or recommendation in the EIR regarding post construction fill sediment. In addition, he stated that he visited the site and the canyon fill on the west side is for stability. He proposed that a portion of the fill be eliminated and replaced with a shear key along the west side of the project for lots 21 through 26. He indicated he liked Chair/Flamenbaum's suggestion of reducing the number of units and avoiding the fill altogether. He suggested that a condition of approval should be that "a detailed geological mapping and measurement shall be performed during site excavation to confirm the geologic conditions assumed in design and if conditions encountered it i the field during construction are different from the conditions during design analysis, that appropriate reanalysis be conducted and that the City Engineer and geotechnical engineer and consultant review the analysis for approval." In addition he suggested that a condition for approval of issuance of a building permit should be that "an as -built geotechnical grading plan showing all limits of engineered fill, compaction tests, stabilization fills, subterranean location and actual geological conditions obtained during site construction and excavation be submitted for review and approval by the City geotechnical consultants. The plan should also April 6, 1995 Page 14 show the elevation of final bottom of excavated areas and shear keys, as well as any required and proven building setbacks as dictated by the geotechnical condition observed during construction." He asked if Harrington re -calculated safety factors for fill slopes (back cuts for stabilization fill using the lower strength parameter) when re- calculating the stability analysis required by Leighton & Assoc. He felt that there was confusion between smectite and bentonite in the report. He believed that bentonite is a clay soil formed from the weathering of volcanic ash and containing a large amount of clay mineral called montmorilion ite, which is also called smectite, therefore, montmorillonite and smectite are the same thing. The EIR and the response to the geotechnical questions indicate that the soil is not bentonite but smectite and infers that smectite is a coarser grained material with higher strength. He stated that this may be true for the sample taken in the test which contained greater amounts of stronger constituents; however, in general, the strength of smectite could be much lower if the constituents are weaker. He pointed out that pure smectite is one of the weakest soil materials in existence. He suggested that the vertical down drains be imbedded or buried in a trench under the final graded surface so that they would not be visible. He asked for the basis for the strength of C150 pounds per square foot and 50 degrees. He requested to know the strength parameter used in the adjacent Diamond Ridge tract and wanted to know if Leighton & Assoc. and the developer of Tract 47850 had looked at reports for Diamond Ridge to see if the parameters might be applicable to Tract 47850. He believed that, with proper setbacks and by reducing the number of lots to 37, the grading could be significantly reduced which would minimize the impact to existing vegetation and environment. MPT/Werner was concerned that there is a very generalized discussion of zoning in the EIR and no map showing the zoning as it overlays the site. Currently, three zone categories overlay on the site. These are R-1-8,000, R-1-20,000 and A-2. The A-2 runs co- terminously with the 5 -acre reserved parcel designated NAP (not a part of this project). However, the R-1-8,000 and R-1-20,000 overlay the remainder of the property that is subject to the.tract map. The current Draft General Plan designates this entire property (Tract 47850) as RR (Rural Residential) which equates to 1 unit per acre density. The overall project meets this requirement. He requested more specifics on where the zoning falls and where the lot sizes fall in relation to the zoning. Lot sizes range from 20,000 sq. ft. to more than an acre which net down to 15,246 sq. ft. It exceeds the minimum 8,000 sq. ft. lot size, but falls under the 20,000 sq. ft. lot size if it is in that zone. A zoning overlay would address this question. A April 6, 1995 Page 15 number of lots in the development are proposed to be less than one acre and average about 1/2 acre. He stated that CDD/DeStefano had advised him that lot averaging is permitted under the City's zoning code. He asked to see the wording of the ordinance that enables the lot averaging to occur. He felt he had a gap of understanding between the conditions for approval for Tract Map No. 47851 and what is currently pending for the approval of Tract Map No. 47850. Among the issues that the Council relied upon in denial of this project 1 1/2 years ago was objections from at least one property owner to the grading that was proposed to extend beyond the boundaries of the project. He asked what had been done to resolve this issue. He stated it would be helpful to have the Council minutes of previous meetings involving denial of Tract Map No. 47850 so that the issues can be specifically addressed by staff and the developer in order to demonstrate how they have been resolved. He asked that responses to the issues raised by Mr. Smith be presented to Council. C/Miller stated he does not have the geotechnical report and would like a copy in order to formulate his questions which he will put in writing and forward to staff for their response. C/Ansari requested to know why the same amount of grading would be necessary for the project if 15 or 57 homes were placed on this site. She requested written responses to Mr. Smith's questions. She expressed concern about the project because of the amount of movement of dirt, the shear keys and the amount of smectite on the property and what will happen in 10 to 15 years with torrential rains and earth movement. She further stated she would like to see fewer houses built on this site. C/Harmony stated the project was denied for geotechnical aspects He indicated he respects Comm./Fong's comments and that he expects a complete and full .report back to the Council so that, in layman's terms, there is full understanding of Mr. Smith's concerns He asked for interpretation of the arbitration provision in the Transamerica agreement (TADCO) with 'The Country Estates" association as it relates to this project. M/Papen stated that she had reviewed the 31 pages of conditions of approval and did not find a provision for the use of reclaimed water for landscape irrigation or rubberized asphalt and asked if these are now City standards and no longer need to be specified in the conditions of approval. She wanted to be certain that they are included in this project. She expressed concern about the lack of good faith in the annexation to 'The Country Estates." Annexation April 6, 1995 Page 16 was not written into Tract 47851; however, during public hearings, it was made very clear by the applicant that it was their intention to annex to "The Country Estates." During 7 years of discussion, the annexation has not happened and the buyers awareness package does not indicate a likelihood of this occurring. She requested that a condition of annexation be included in the conditions of approval with removal of the statement that the developer would not have to annex unless the fees were in excess of those applied to Tract No. 47722. She believed the Council listened to the developer and took them at their word that there would be full annexation and they are selling the previously approved tract without having annexed and the lack of good faith to the Council is apparent. She stated the following items should be audited for possible changes in Tract No. 47850: 1) The footprint of the home on the pad. On Tract 47851, the minimum side yard setbacks were changed from 10' to 20', 2) The buyer awareness package contains no home diagrams, 3) wildlife and the City's liability; 4) drainage; 5) When does the developer's 5 -yr. tree maintenance program begin. In previous discussions, one of the alternatives in the EIR was that approximately 15 homes would be built on the northeast corner. Several Commissioners and Council members have asked questions about eliminating the grading on the west side while still allowing the development. She stated she had been told there had not been sufficient soils and grading analysis to make such a determination. She was concerned that an alternative in the EIR states that 15 homes will be built on the northeast section; however, if the soil cannot withstand this construction, is the alternative valid. Land form grading techniques being considered apply to the outside of the project with the pads on a plateau. It appears that this is a giant development surrounded 50 ft. below by a wildlife corridor, oak and walnut trees. There is nothing in the specific project that retains the appearance of country. In her opinion, there should be created hills and berms to create a natural corridor to run through the entire project. She. indicated that if Lots 47 and 48 were removed, there would be a natural corridor running the length of the project and if lot 24 was removed, the corridor could be extended west, and if a lot was removed from lot 7 to 13, perhaps a "country atmosphere" could be created within the project. MPT/Werner requested that the builder recommend regulations as part of the development code on the RR designated lands to address the building envelope concerns. Responding to M/Papen, Kurt Nelson stated that the developer would be agreeable to the project being returned to the Planning Commission April 24. Further, questions currently raised by Mr. April 6, 1995 Page 17 Smith were virtually the same questions raised by him on March 11, which should have been answered at that time. He referred the Council and Commission to the written answers given to Mr. Smith's March 11 questions. He indicated that he, Jack Cameron, and Dan Buffington had several meetings with a subcommittee of 'The Country Estates, of which Mr. Greely was a member. 'The Country Estates" indicated they were fearful that they might not be able to get the requisite percentage of roads required by their declaration to allow the project to annex. Despite the fact that, as a result of the TADCO agreement, a settlement of approximately $300,000 was paid by D. B. Assoc. (formerly known as Transamerica Developers) to "The Country Estates" to settle the issue of impact upon the recreational facilities of 'The Country Estates". In addition to the lump sum cash payment, a per lot access fee of $3,000 would be paid at the time the lots were developed. There is a covenant that runs with the land and binds every resident in 'The Country Estates" to the contract. "The Country Estates has canceled at least two scheduled meetings regarding annexation: Annexation would generate approximately $800,000 of funds earmarked to enhance 'The Country Estates" facilities. Regarding the alleged street damage, Mr. Nelson stated he had suggested retaining a third party paving expert to determine if there had been any damage. Services of a mutually agreed upon third party were retained and a report was presented to 'The Country Estates". He stated 'The Country Estates" rejected the offer of recompense. He further stated he was willing to double and triple the amount to get the annexation done at a fair price. He stressed that D.B. Assoc. had acted in good faith and did not believe the project should be required to annex to The Country Estates even though they believe it is a good option for the project. If annexation does not occur, there -is an arbitration clause contained in the TADCO legal settlement that runs with the land. The City has no legal responsibility to enforce annex-ation. He offered to meet with Comm./Fong, Leighton & Assoc. and Harrington Geotechnical prior to the Planning Commission's April 24 meeting to answer questions concerning geotechnical matters. He believed- that there is a condition for approval wh*ch addresses reclaimed water, and he is not certain about rubberized asphalt. Regarding -the footprints and mansionization, even though annexation had not taken place, there is a good faith review process in place with 'The Country Estates" architectural committee. He stated, to his knowledge, a committee review had been conducted for each house prior to submission to the City's Community Development Department for its review. He further stated that, in his opinion, the idea of elimination of some lots to create a more natural corridor is a good one and could have been considered 21/2 years ago; however, the current project conforms to April 6, 1995 Page 18 the Ccuncil requirements set forth 2 112 years ago for this design alternative. The number of lots is fewer than is allowed by the zoning and the current proposed General Plan. As stated in the Master EIR and the recent update revision, fewer lots would not significantly reduce the amount of grading needed to reach an adequate factor. of safety set forth by the Council. Smectite is the on-site material, but the design criteria (the parameters of shear strength, etc.) were for materials of lesser strength more in keeping with the bentonite. The safety factors were derived with strength parameters more conservative than industry standards because at 1.50 strength, it is 1 1/2 times stronger than the minimum necessary. Responding to Mr. Hempel, CM/Belanger stated that the Planning Commission would consider the matter April 24 and, presuming the Commission could reach consensus that evening, he suggested May 16 for Council consideration. A motion was made by MPT/Werner, seconded by C/Ansari to refer Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 back to the Planning Commission for reconsideration on April 24, 1995 and continue the matter to May 16, 1995 for Council. Motion was carried unanimously by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - MPT/Wemer, Ansari, Harmony, Miller, M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None Responding to Chair/Flamenbaum, CM/Belanger responded that the Government Code provides for the Council to refer such matters back to the Planning Commission for their comments. The Commission has up to 45 days to make their comments or by a certain date, if directed by the Council. Further response from the Council indicated that the project is being returned to the Planning Commission for review and open to comments r.;th respect to any and all issues. M/Papen stated the applicants' agreement for continuance of the project as stated in the prior motion. It was moved by Comm./Schad and seconded by VC/Huff to continue the meeting to April 24, 1995 for purposes of commenting on the project. This is not a public hearing. Motion carried 4-0 by the following Roll Call vote: April 6, 1995 Page 19 AYES: COMMISSIONERS - Schad, VC/Huff, Fong, Chair/ Flamenbaum NOES: COMMISSIONERS - None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS - Meyer 4. ANNOUNCEMENTS: None 5. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, the meeting was continued to April 24, 1995 for the Planning Commission and May 16, 1995 for the City Council at 10:22 p.m. LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk ATTEST: Mayor Comment 2 - During the early stages of review for this project, there was concern regarding the present of bentonite at the site because of its very low shearing strength, which could contribute to landsliding. The strength parameters used to represent the slide plane material in the earlier design were thought to be unrealistically greater in shearing strength than the actual strength possible for bentonite. Accordingly, supplemental investigation was performed. Laboratory tests on a sample of material, which Harrington believed represent the weaker material that control the stability of the site, suggest the material to . be of greater shearing strength than previously assumed; an increased strength with a cohesion of c=100 psf and V=21 were used in design. However, as stated in the report by Harrington dated June 14, 1994, the design strength were lowered to the current (original) design strength of c= 150 psf and Jd= 15 by Harrington in response to the City's concern from past experiences in the local area that materials weaker than the sample tested could exist at the site. A recent review of the geotechnical reports for the existing developments adjacent to the subject site indicate much lower strength values were determined for these developments. The existing Diamond Ridge Tracts 29053 and 32974 west adjacent to the site were designed using c=200 psf and g=10. The Las Brisas Condominium development immediately northwest of the site was designed using c=200 psf and fi�=8, which were determined based on back-calculations of a 29-acre ancient landslide comprising much of this site. Both of these developments are underlain by the Puente formation similar to that beneath Tract 47850. These strength values determined for the existing adjacent developments are between 30 and 45 percent lower than the current values for Tract 47850 at a normal stress of 6,000 psf, which would be equivalent to the stress level at a depth of about 50 feet below the ground surface. It still remains unclear what past experience factors were used, in addition to the test data, for establishing the current design strength. There appears no references given in the developer's reports to substantiate the current strength values are adequate or appropriately conservative for the slide plane materials in view of the lower values determined in adjacent areas. In an inexact science and art, geotechnical engineers, as a standard practice, do not normally rely on laboratory testing and analysis alone, but also on the results of past experience under similar conditions in the local area. RECEIVED COMMUNITY CITY OF DIAMOND BAR C`VRC)D? 'E!Xr MEMORANDUM 6 P -H 3:45 Date: May 16, 1995 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Franklin Fong, Planning Commissioner Subject: Comments on Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 At the Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting on April 6, 1995, the City Council requested the Planning Commission for comments on the current information submitted to the City Council on Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850. Accordingly, comments were made by the Planning Commissioners in our regular meeting on May 8, 1995 and are being forwarded to the Council by the City staff. Because of the rather technical nature of several of my comments regarding certain geotechnical aspects of the project, these comments are presented separately in this memorandum. These comments are as follows: Comment 1 - As mentioned during the Joint Session, the reports presented by the developer's geotechnical consultant are ambiguous in the use of the terms "bentonite" and "smectite" as to the relative strength of these materials. The developer's geotechnical consultant, Harrington Geotechnical Engineering, Inc., asserts that "'smectite', a silty soil material of similar appearance but greater strength than bentonite" is not an accurate statement. Bentonite is a clay material formed from the weathering of volcanic ash and contain a large amount of the clay mineral, montmorillonite, which is also called smectite. Montmorillonite or smectite can absorb water many times its own volume, and thus, contributes to low strength of soils containing this clay mineral. Therefore, it is a misnomer to suggest "smectite", in general use of the purest sense of the term, is a stronger material than bentonite, which contain smectite. Although it appears academic from a practical standpoint, from a professional liability standpoint, inaccurate use of such terms could place the City, as well as other parties involved with the project, in a weak poster in event of a failure and lawsuit. The developer's consultants should present a clear statement of the definition of bentonite and smectite, and clarify inaccurate reference of the terms in their reports. Because of the significance of the strength values for design in terms of safety, the following additional comments and questions are presented: a. The developer's consultants should review pertinent geotechnical reports for the adjacent and any other nearby development as appropriate, and make any necessary references in the project reports of such information to substantiate the developer's findings and assumptions. b. How significant are the lower strength values previously determined for the existing adjacent developments as described above on the current design values for the project? C. In light of the lower strength values determined for the Puente formation beneath the adjacent developments, how would additional investigations at the subject site provide any improved refinement of the design strength values for the project? Respectfully submitted, Franklin Fong, :E G.E. Planning Commi s' ner DRAFT FINDINGS AND FACTS IN SUPPORT OF FINDINGS FOR SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 47850 AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with Section 21081 of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and Section 15091 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Diamond Bar has provided documentation that addresses potential significant impacts that would result from the implementation of Vesting Tentative Map (VTM) 47850. These findings only address environmental issues that would be significantly affected by the proposed project. The following environmental issues would not be significantly affected by the implementation of the proposed project; therefore, findings for these issues are not required. • Hydrology and Water Quality • Energy Resources • Noise • Aesthetics and Visual Resources • Land Use • Archaeological Resources Potential significant impacts of VTM 47850 have been separated into two categories: (1) those Potential impacts that could be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures, and (2) those potential impacts that could be reduced with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures; however, the impacts would remain significant (e.g., cannot be reduced to a level less than significant). As required by Section 15091(a) of the CEQA Guidelines, one or more of the following findings must be made for each potential significant impact: • Changes or alterations have been required or incorporated into the project which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects as identified in the final EIR. (Finding 1) • Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (Finding 2) • Specific economic, social, or other considerations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR. (Finding 3) Section 15091(b) requires that each finding be supported by substantial evidence in the administrative record. JB/09030018.FND SIGNIFICANT MTTIGATED ADVERSE E IMPACTS The potential significant adverse environmental impacts of VTM 47850 that would be mitigated are listed below. The Diamond Bar City Council finds that these potential significant adverse impacts would be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant after implementation of the recommended mitigation measures. NATURAL LAND FORMS Significant Impact Development of the proposed project would result in substantial cuts and fills during grading activities. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Suuuort of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • During and after construction, measures shall be taken to prevent erosion. These measures shall be listed and included within a developer -prepared erosion control plan which shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to commencing grading. • A security bond shall be posted with the City Engineer prior to commencement of grading. This bond shall be adequate to assure completion of grading per the approved plans for which a grading permit is issued. • An improvement bond shall be posted and a subdivision agreement shall be executed for the project development. • Grading and exterior construction activities shall begin no earlier than 7 a.m. and shall not continue past 5 p.m., Monday through Friday. Grading and exterior construction activities shall be restricted to 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. on Saturday. Transportation of equipment to and across the project site shall occur only within these hours. • The applicant shall establish a construction staging area on the project site before beginning preliminary grading. The construction staging area will provide for the storage of equipment, landscape materials, and building materials. • Gopher suppression measures shall be developed by the geotechnical consultant in order to control gopher tunneling and erosion of fill slopes. The gopher suppression measures shall be subject to review by the City's geotechnical consultant and to City Engineer approval prior to issuance of a grading permit. JB/09030018.FND 2 Significant Impact The onsite colluvium may affect proposed residential structures. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measure will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • Onsite colluvium shall be removed during grading activities. In those cases where colluvium soils are used as fill, they shall be remolded and compacted to attain the required relative compaction of 95 percent for the proposed fill slopes and buttresses. Representative testing of the compacted fill shall occur during grading in order to verify the design shear strength. Significant Impact Existing areas of geologic instability due to creep, landslides, and seismic ground shaking would affect the proposed development. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • Major areas of fill shall not exceed a slope of two units horizontal to one unit vertical (2:1 slope maximum). • A qualified soils engineer shall confirm in writing that the proposed grading for Vesting Tentative Map 47850 will render the site safe from known geologic instabilities, to an acceptable margin of safety, based upon standard soils engineering practices. • All areas of unstable soils shall be modified to correct the instability to a level of adequate safety based upon soils engineering criteria and standards. All areas of unstable soils shall be excavated and recompacted per the recommendations of the soils engineer. JB/09030018.FND • As additional geologic studies are conducted, the project geotechnical engineer shall determine the number of additional borings/pits excavated onsite in order to further define geologic constraints and ensure safe and stable developments. These actions shall be subject to review by the City Engineer and the City's geotechnical consultant. TRAFFIC and CIRCULATION Significant Impact Implementation of 57 dwelling units will increase traffic volumes in the project vicinity and may contribute to a significant cumulative impacts on the following intersections and roadway segments: (1) Shadow Canyon/Diamond Bar Boulevard, (2) Diamond Bar/Brea Canyon Boulevard, (3) Diamond Bar Boulevard north of Pathfinder, (4) Diamond Bar Boulevard/Pathfinder, (5) Diamond Bar Boulevard across from the Country Hill Shopping Center. The proposed project will also result in potential onsite traffic impacts. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • To improve traffic operations at the Shadow Canyon/Diamond Bar Boulevard intersection, the City as a part of its long range planning process installed a traffic signal at this location. The identified need for signalization at the intersection was caused by traffic volumes on Diamond Bar Boulevard and the demand for access by vehicles on Shadow Canyon Drive. The construction of the proposed tract will cumulatively aggravate this impact. The resulting cumulative impact may be defined as significant. (7he applicants have stated that they are prepared to fund the incremental (pro -rata) share of the cost of the signalization of the intersection of Shadow Canyon Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard). Prior to the approval of the final map, the applicant shall submit its pro -rata share to the City of Diamond Bar Public Works Department. • The project applicant shall provide its fair share contribution toward striping a separate right -turn lane and installing* appropriate signs in the northbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar and Shadow Canyon Drive. • Due to forecasted traffic growth in the study area, a separate left -turn lane should be installed in the southbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road to increase the level of service from Level of Service "E" to an acceptable level. The need for this additional lane occurs under the traffic condition of existing plus future background plus Project traffic. This JB/09030018.FND 4 impact is not significant individually, but could be defined as significant cumulatively. Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall submit its incremental (pro -rata) share to the City of Diamond Bar Public Works Department for a separate left -turn lane in the southbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. • The project applicant shall provide its fair share contribution toward striping a separate right -tum lane and installing appropriate signs in the southbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Pathfinder Road. • The project applicant shall provide its fair share contribution toward the construction of a sidewalk along the eastside of Diamond Bar Boulevard across from the Country Hill Shopping Center. • In addition, a stop sign should also be installed at the intersection of Wagon Train Lane and Steeple Chase Lane in order to minimize any vehicular conflicts in the intersection. The stop sign should be installed on Wagon Train Lane (stem of the tee intersection) along with fifty feet of double yellow striping and Type D raised pavement markers, stop legend and limit line. • Parking for construction employees and equipment will be provided on the construction site, and no parking will be permitted on existing streets. • No fencing, planting materials, or obstructions of any kind (over 30 inches high, as measured from the top of the curb), shall be allowed in the clear sight triangles (50'x50') at the intersections of the main access roads which serve the project site. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES Significant Impact Implementation of the proposed project would eliminate 28.2 acres of California walnut woodland due to grading and affect 5.0 acres of California walnut woodland due to fuel modification. Sensitive wildlife associated with this habitat would also be affected. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • A walnut woodland revegetation program shall be approved by the City of Diamond Bar prior to the issuance of grading permits. The program shall include walnut woodland replacement guidelines that address mitigation site selection, site preparation, irrigation system design, planting (planting sizes and densities by 7Bl09030018.FND species), and maintenance (weed control, irrigation requirements, and plant replacement). Monitoring guidelines shall be established that will include performance standards (percent survival and percent cover standards for planted species), monitoring methodology, and reporting requirements. To ensuie the replacement of ecosystem values and not just of trees, native understory plant species shall be included in the walnut woodland revegetation program. Understory plant species shall be grown and obtained from native plant suppliers. Walnuts planted in the fuel modification areas shall follow the guidelines. • Replacement walnuts shall be planted within protected open space areas onsite in need of habitat enhancement and where long-term wildlife values can be realized. If this criteria cannot be met onsite, replacement of walnuts removed by project implementation shall be performed offsite at locations agreed upon by the CDFG and the City of Diamond Bar. An offsite location shall be designated prior to the issuance of a grading permit for VTM 47850. • All walnuts removed during project implementation shall be replaced at a ratio of 2:1, with a minimum container size of 5 gallons. Planting shall occur between November and April. Walnut replacement shall not exceed 45 replacement trees per acre (with understory) or 30 trees per acre (without understory). The project proponent shall avoid and preserve walnut trees to the maximum extent possible within the grading plan. • Walnut woodland revegetation areas shall be maintained (weed control and supplemental irrigation) by the subdivider for a minimum of 3 years following planting to ensure the successful establishment and long-term survival of the habitat. Irrigation shall be gradually curtailed by the end of the third year to ensure that the woodland plantings can survive without long-term supplemental irrigation. • All walnut woodland replacement efforts shall be monitored by the subdivider for a period of 5 years. Yearly monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City of Diamond Bar. These monitoring reports shall document the success of the replacement efforts (percent survival of replacement plantings, percent cover, and height data) and any required remedial actions. At the end of the 5 year monitoring period, the performance standard shall be two live replacement walnut trees for each walnut tree removed. Significant Impact Grading activities associated with the project would affect 0.6 acre of coast live oak woodland and fuel modification would affect 0.7 acre. Sensitive wildlife associated with this habitat would also be affected. )Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. JB/09030018.FND 6 Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • The feasibility of relocating small- to moderate-sized oaks, not currently proposed for relocation, shall be analyzed for use in the oak replacement efforts. Consideration shall be given to collecting oak acorns onsite for germination and use in the oak woodland mitigation efforts. An oak woodland revegetation plan shall be approved by the City of Diamond Bar prior to the issuance of a grading permit. The plan shall include a program to reduce the amount of surface runoff reaching oak woodlands. Surface runoff from impermeable surfaces, irrigation systems, and construction areas shall be directed away from oak woodlands by means of a swale, French drain, or similar device. All oaks within the upland habitat removed as a result of project implementation shall be replaced at a ratio of 4:1. To ensure the replacement of ecosystem values and not just of trees, native understory plant species shall be included in the oak woodland replacement program. Oak replacement shall include 64 replacement oaks in upland habitat. Oak replacement shall not exceed 45 replacement trees per acre. All oak woodland replacement container stock shall be inoculated with mycorrhyzal fungi to enhance plant establishment. Replacement oak trees shall consist of the following mix of sizes: - 5 percent - 5 gallon - 25 percent - 15 gallon - 50 percent - 24 -inch box - 20 percent - 36 -inch box • The replacement requirements for riparian -associated oaks to be removed by project implementation shall be determined through discussions with the California Department of Fish and Game as part of the Section 1600 process. The riparian - associated oaks removed as a result of project implementation shall be replaced at a ratio of a minimum of 3:1. Oak replacement shall include 21 replacement oaks in riparian habitat. • Replacement oaks shall be planted within protected open space areas in need of habitat enhancement and where long-term wildlife values can be realized. If this criterion cannot be met onsite, replacement of oaks removed as a result of project implementation shall be performed offsite. An offsite location shall be designated prior to the issuance of a grading permit for VTM 47850. • Oak woodland revegetation areas shall be maintained (weed control and supplemental irrigation) by the subdivider for a minimum of 3 years following planting to ensure the successful establishment and long-term survival of the habitat. Irrigation will be gradually curtailed by the end of the third year to ensure that the woodland plantings can survive without supplemental irrigation. • All oak woodland replacement efforts shall be monitored by the subdivider for a period of 5 years. Yearly monitoring reports shall be submitted to the City of Diamond Bar. These monitoring reports shall document the success of the JBi09030018.Fan 7 replacement efforts (percent survival of replacement plantings, percent cover, and height data) and any required remedial actions. At the end of the 5 -year monitoring period, the performance standard shall be two live replacement oak trees for each oak remediation. Significant Impact Development of the proposed project would affect the existing riparian habitat and associated sensitive wildlife on the project site. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a mitigation plan addressing potential impacts on streambed, wetlands, or riparian habitats shall be prepared by the subdivider in conjunction with an application for a Section 404 permit from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and a Section 1603 Agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game. These agencies typically require the replacement of lost habitat values through the enhancement of remaining streambed, wetland, or riparian habitat, or through the creation of new areas of such habitat. The mitigation plan for riparian habitats shall outline procedures for mitigation site preparation (clearing, grading, topsoil storage), irrigation, planting (seeding, container plantings, transplantation), and maintenance (weed control, irrigation scheduling, replanting). Hydrological studies shall be performed to determine if groundwater levels and surface water flows will be adequate to sustain the restored riparian habitat once established. Methodologies and requirements shall be specified in the mitigation plan for monitoring of the riparian habitat replacement efforts, including performance criteria and provisions for documenting the results of the replacement efforts through the end of the monitoring periods. Provisions to insure the long-term preservation of riparian mitigation areas shall be identified. Riparian habitat replacement programs shall be submitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (as biological advisor to the ACOE) and the CDFG for review and approval. • Riparian mitigation implementation shall be completed as soon as practicable following completion of project grading. • Riparian mitigation shall be monitored by the subdivider for a 5 -year period following planting. The subdivider shall submit annual reports discussing the survival rate of the mitigation to the City of Diamond Bar. JB/09030018.FND 8 Significant Impact Construction activities on the project site will affect onsite and offsite natural habitats. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the limits of proposed grading and construction activities shall be delineated with 8 -foot lengths of PVC pipe, mounted on a rigid steel base for support. • Prior to the initiation of vegetation clearing or grading, all oaks and walnuts within 200 feet of construction activity shall be marked for either protection, relocation, or removal, both in the field and on construction site plans. Oaks and walnuts to be retained shall be protected from construction damage through the installation of temporary, rigid fencing. Fencing shall be a minimum of 4 feet high and located at least 15 feet outside the dripline of any oak or walnut or group of oaks/walnuts. No equipment storage or other activities shall be allowed within these fenced areas. Fencing shall remain in place for the duration of construction activities. • A biological resource monitor, approved by the City of Diamond Bar, shall be onsite during construction to ensure adherence to all habitat protection measures. • In compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, a qualified biologist shall determine the presence of any raptor nests prior to or concurrent with grading activities, the project applicant shall contact CDFG, shall obtain and comply with all appropriate procedures relative to grading operations in proximity to those nests, and shall provide verification of same to the City. Resulting mitigation measures may include restricting construction activities near raptor nesting sites during and immediately following the breeding season. • Pre -construction meetings shall be held between the biological resource monitor and construction supervisors and equipment operators to review and ensure adherence to all habitat protection measures. • During construction, measures to prevent erosion, such as use of silt fencing or hay bales, shall be installed at the limits of grading. • During construction, vehicle haul routes between cut and fill locations shall be restricted to a minimum number. Earth -moving equipment shall be confined to the narrowest possible corridor during construction. Waste dirt or rubble shall not be deposited on adjacent native vegetation. Vehicle haul routes shall be identified on construction plans and marked in the field, in consultation with a qualified biologist, JB/09030018.FND 9 to ensure minimization of impacts to biological resources. Trenching for utilities and irrigation lines shall be conducted outside the dripline of individual oaks or oak woodlands. Significant Impact The proposed project includes the implementation of a fuel modification zone that will affect 14.4 acres of natural habitat and associated sensitive wildlife. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • All fuel modification requirements, such as selective clearing, pruning, and wet zones, shall be prohibited within 15 feet of the dripline of any individual oak tree or within 50 feet of the dripline of any oak woodland, except as otherwise required by the fire marshall. • All large native shrub specimens (5 -inch caliper or larger at base) within fuel modification zones shall remain in place, except as otherwise directed by the fire marshall. Large native shrubs within the fuel modification zone may be thinned and pruned of all deadwood to reduce the fuel load. Only highly flammable vegetation, such as chamise, sages, and non-native grasses should be selectively removed, as required by the fire marshall. • All thinning or selective clearing of vegetation within the fuel modification zone should be completed by hand to prevent the disturbance of the soil structure or vegetation to be preserved. No herbicides shall be used. Thinning should be done in a manner to maintain a natural appearance. • The irrigated wet zone should serve as both a fuel modification zone and as a buffer zone/transition area between the residences and the open space area, and should be designed to limit human intrusion. Significant Impact Onsite and offsite plant and wildlife species will experience post -construction impacts. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. JB/09030018.FND 10 Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • The following list of plant species shall not be permitted in the landscape plan in any development areas (i.e., common areas and private lots). These plants may potentially invade natural areas and displace native plant species. Such non-native species include ice plant (Delosperma spp.), blue gum (Eucalyptus globulus), spotted gum (Eucalyptus maculata), tree -of -heaven (Ailanthus altissima), Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius), Peruvian pepper tree (S. molle), pampas grass (Cortaderia sellowiana), fountain grass (Pennisetum setaceum), Spanish broom (Spartium junceum), German ivy (Senecio mikaniodes), periwinkle (Vinca major), tamarisk (Tamarix sp.), hottentot fig (Carpobrotus edulis), Jupiter's beard (Centranthus ruber), Melia sp., cape honeysuckle (Tecomaria capensis), and plumbago (Plumbago auricolata). • Landscaping within common areas and buffer zones shall be restricted to the use of native plants. These should include only those species that were found to occur on the site or in the immediate vicinity prior to grading. Such native species include laurel sumac (Malosma laurina), lemonadeberry (Rhus integrifolia), California sagebrush (Artemisia californica), Mexican elderberry (Sambucus mexicana), coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), scrub oak (Quercus dumosa), California black walnut (Juglans californica), white sage (Silva apiana), purple sage (Salvia leucophylla), black sage (Salvia mellifera), toyon (Heteromeles arbutifolia), fuschia-flowered gooseberry (Ribes speciosum), western poison oak (Toxicodendron diversilobum), coyote brush (Baccharis pilularis), mulefat (Baccharis salicifolia), thistle (Cirsium sp.), California everlasting (Gnaphalium californicum), saw-toothed goldenbush (Hazardia squarrosa), telegraph weed (Heterotheca grandiflora), coastal goldenbush (Isocoma menziesii var. menziesii), California dodder Cuscuta californica), rattlesnake weed (Chamaesyce albomarginata), Santa Barbara locoweed (Astragalus trichopodus), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), lupine (Lupinus sp.), purple sage -black sage hybrid (Salvia leucophylla x Salvia mellifera), mesa bushmallow (Malacothamnus fasciculatus), holly -leaved redberry (Rhamnus ilicifolia), chamise (Adenostoma fasciculatum), narrow -leaved bedstraw (Galium angustifolium), arroyo willow (Salix lasiolepis), orange bush monkey -flower (Mimulus aurantiacus), chaparral nightshade (Solanum xanti), western verbena (Verbena lasiostachys), big leaf mistletoe (Phoradendron macrophyllum), giant wild rye (Leymus condensatus), and purple needlegrass (Nassella pulchra). Landscaping on private lots may use non-native plants. • Prior to the issuance of grading permits, an urban runoff management plan prepared by a qualified biologist, shall be developed to control and reduce the amount of surface runoff generated by local precipitation events, as well as nuisance flows, and the associated pollutants that may be transported along with stormwaters into natural drainages. The conditions of the plan will be subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to issuance of a grading permit. JB/09030018.FND 11 • Prior to the issuance of building permits, a Buyer Awareness brochure shall be developed to provide residents with information on surrounding natural habitats and resident wildlife, as well as guidelines to ensure the continuation of wildlife values of surrounding habitats. Guidelines to be incorporated into this brochure include domestic pet control, landscaping around mature oaks, native landscaping, and appropriate behavior in natural open space areas. • Successful integration of development into wildlife habitat depends on proper buffering at the interface of these two areas. Development often results in an edge condition where residential lots are located adjacent to areas of natural open space. A conceptual buffer plan using native plant species has been developed for the management of this edge condition. This buffer will limit potential impacts to the natural areas by screening development from wildlife, capturing excess runoff from landscape irrigation that could potentially injure sensitive plants, and providing an edge along residential lots that is aesthetically pleasing while providing many plant species that are valuable to wildlife. This edge shall be designed so that it may be integrated into a fuel modification plan for the development that meets the requirements of the Los Angeles County Fire Department. Native plants recommended for this buffer include mesic species such as toyon, California black walnut, and Mexican elderberry. Additional native plant species that are low growing and of low fuel volume, and would not impede views into natural areas, could also be used. These include golden yarrow (Eriophyllum confertiflorum), California poppy (Eschscholzia californica), monkey flower (Diplacus spp.), heart -leaved penstemon (Keckiella cordifolia), California fuchsia (Epilobium spp.), deerweed (Lotus scoparius), and annual lupine (Lupinus spp.). This zone shall be periodically thinned to maintain low fuel levels, and should be cleared of invasive grasses. To help all plants mature as quickly as possible and maintain all plant materials in optimum condition, irrigation facilities shall be installed as appropriate on slope areas and maintained by the applicant until sold. Maintenance shall then be the responsibility of the property owner. The use of fertilizers and pesticides within transition zones shall be minimized. Only nonresidual herbicides shall be used to control persistent invasive species within the landscape buffers. Mechanical clearing techniques such as grubbing and mowing, and hand removal shall be used to eliminate less persistent invasive species. Subject to approval by the City of Diamond Bar, the applicant shall provide for the following: Physical specification on the type and degree of fencing allowed. b. Enforcement of a mandatory leash law. Guidelines for the maintenance of trash receptacles and uneaten pet food. d. Prohibition of the outside storage of pet food. JB/09030018.FND 12 e. The urban pollution basins shall be maintained by the subdivider. The City of Diamond Bar shall reserve the right to maintain the urban pollution basins and collect its costs should efforts by the subdivider not meet City standards. Existing dirt roads within the open space area shall be used as pedestrian/hiking/equestrian/biking trails as much as possible. Any additional trails shall be designed to avoid sensitive biological resources. Barbed wire or split rail fencing shall be considered for highly sensitive areas subject to possible human intrusion. Hunting shall not be allowed within the open space areas. Unauthorized vehicular use shall be restricted within the open space areas. All trash (man-made materials) shall be removed from natural open space areas on a regular basis. Invasive weedy species such as giant reed, fennel, and artichoke thistle shall be monitored by the subdivider and, if necessary, these invasive plant species shall be removed. • Signs shall be located in appropriate areas to discourage human intrusion into natural open space and the Tonner Canyon SEA No. 15. • The effect of night lighting on wildlife shall be mitigated through the use of low - intensity street lamps at the edge of development, low -height lighting poles, and shielding by internal silvering of the globe or external opaque reflectors. PUBLIC SERVICES - SCHOOLS Significant Impact The proposed project would increase the number of students in the Walnut Valley Unified School District. Finding: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measure will lessen or avoid project impacts; thereafter, potential effects will be reduced to a level that is considered less than significant: • Prior to issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall pay a development fee to the Walnut Valley Unified School District (WVUSD) in accordance with California Government Code 53080 and the school fees identified by the WVUSD. JB/09030018.FND 0 SIGNIFICANT UNAVOIDABLE ADVERSE IMPACT The potential significant unavoidable adverse impacts associated with the implementation of VTM 47850 are listed below. The Diamond Bar City Council finds that these potential significant adverse impacts would be reduced with the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures; however, the impacts cannot be reduced to a level that is less than significant. The Diamond Bar City Council will adopt a Statement of Overriding Considerations per Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines. CLIMATE and AIR QUALITY Significant Impact The proposed project will generate a maximum of approximately 891 pounds per day (lbs/day) of PM 10 during construction activities which exceeds the South Coast Air Quality Management District's threshold of 150 lbs/day of PM 10. Findings: The City hereby makes Finding 1. Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen the project impact; however, the impact would remain significant: • Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer how the following measures recommended by the City or the South Coast Air Quality Management District have either been incorporated into the project construction guidelines or provided sufficient evidence to the City that a particular measure is not feasible to implement. a. Apply approved chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all inactive construction areas (previously graded areas inactive for 4 days or more). b. Replace ground cover in disturbed areas per City specifications. C. Enclose, cover, water twice daily, or apply approved soil binders, according to manufacturers' specifications, to exposed stockpiles (i.e., gravel, sand, dirt). d. Water active sites at least twice daily. e. Suspend all excavating and grading operations when wind speeds (as instantaneous gusts) exceed 25 miles per hour (mph). JB/09030018.FND 14 f. Monitor for particulate emissions according to South Coast Air Quality Management District specified procedures: for information call (909) 396- 3147. g. In field trailers, use portable air conditioning units powered by nondiesel equipment. h. Sweep streets at the end of day if any visible soil material is carried over to adjacent thoroughfares (recommend water sweepers which use reclaimed water) . The City may require that gravel be used in unpaved areas used as either construction roads or staging areas for construction equipment. j. Apply water twice daily for chemical soil stabilizers according to manufacturers' specifications to all unpaved parking or staging areas and unpaved road surfaces, if required for dust control. k. Install wheel washers where vehicles exit unpaved roads onto paved roads, or wash off trucks and any equipment leaving the site every trip in designated areas on the site. 1. Traffic speeds on all unpaved roads surfaces to be reduced to 15 mph or less. in. All trucks hauling dirt, sand, soil, or other loose materials are to be covered and should maintain at least 6 inches of freeboard (i.e., minimum required space between top of the load and top of the trailer, based upon a level load. n. Pave construction roads that have a traffic volume of more than 50 daily trips by construction equipment, 150 total daily trips for all vehicles, for 12 consecutive days. o. Pave all construction access roads at least 100 feet onto the site from the main road. p. Use methanol or low -sulfur pile drivers. q. Use low -sulfur fuel for stationary construction equipment pursuant to Rule 431.2 r. Suspend use of all construction equipment operations during second stage smog alerts. For daily forecast, call (800) 242-4022 (Los Angeles County). S. Use construction equipment that has catalytic convertors (for gasoline powered equipment). t. Prevent trucks from idling longer than 2 minutes. U. Configure construction parking to minimize traffic interference. JB/09030018.FND 15 V. Provide temporary traffic control during all phases of construction activities to improve traffic flow such as providing a flag person to direct traffic and ensure safe movements off the site as directed by the City Engineer. W. Schedule construction activities that affect traffic flow to off-peak hours (i.e., between 7 p.m. and 6 a.m. and between 10 a.m. and 3 p.m.) with approval from the City. Implementation of the above measures can reduce PM 10 emissions by up to 75 percent. The amount of PM10 that would be generated by the construction of the proposed project (i.e., 891 lbs/day) could be reduced by a maximum of 75 percent to 223 lbs/day which would still exceed SCAQMD's threshold of 150 lbs/day of PM10. The remaining unavoidable adverse impact is considered to be acceptable in light of the evidence provided above and the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. Significant Impact The proposed project will increase emissions of oxides of nitrogen (NOx) and reactive organic gases (ROG) in the air basin. Although the project's emissions of NOx and ROG would not be significant, these emissions, when combined with related projects, would be cumulatively significant. Findings: The City hereby makes Finding 1 and Finding 3. Facts in Support of Findings Implementation of the following mitigation measures will lessen the project impact; however, the impact would remain significant: • Prior to the issuance of a building permit, the project applicant shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City Engineer how the following measures recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District have been incorporated into the project. a. Use solar or low -emission water heaters. b. Use central water heating systems. C. Use built-in energy-efficient appliances. d. Building and subdivision orientation should be to the north for natural cooling. e. Provide shade trees to reduce building heat. JB/09030018.FND 16 f. Use energy-efficient and automated controls for air conditioners. g. Use double -glass paned windows. Implementation of the above measures will serve to substantially, but not completely, mitigate the project's contribution to a potential significant impact on long-term air quality. The remaining unavoidable adverse impact is considered to be acceptable in light of the evidence provided above and the Statement of Overriding Considerations provided herein as Attachment A. JB/09030018.FND 17 ATTACIEUENT A OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP 47850 As stated in the preceding findings, the City of Diamond Bar has determined that even with the adoption of mitigation measures, certain impacts of the project will continue to be, or will potentially be, significant, including short- and long-term impacts described under air quality. As provided by Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, the City of Diamond Bar has considered these significant unavoidable adverse impacts in balance with the benefits of the project, and finds that the benefits of the project, summarized below, render the significant unavoidable environmental impacts acceptable: 1. Implementation of the proposed project will implement the City of Diamond Bar's current draft General Plan. 2. Financial contribution for circulation improvements in the project vicinity will be provided by the proposed project. 3. Development of the proposed project will increase the City's revenue through property taxes. ]B/09030018.FND 18 1111 •117 l l,l IW4:11113111M VIM 47850 CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. GENERAL REQ ES: This approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 shall not be effective for any purpose until a duly authorized representative of the applicant has filed with the Community Development Department an Affidavit of Acceptance, thereby accepting all the conditions of this approval which Affidavit- shall be filed within 15 days of the date of approval. 2. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9(b)(1) and (2). The subdivider shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless the City, its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, an approval of the Application by the City, which action is brought within the time period provided for in Government Code Section 66499.37. Any condition imposed pursuant to this subdivision shall include the requirement that the City promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding and that the City cooperate fully in the defense. If the City fails to promptly notify the subdivider of any claim, action, or proceeding, or if the City fails to cooperate fully in the defense, the subdivider shall not thereafter be responsible to defend, indemnify, or hold harmless the City. 3. The property shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlements granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction, shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a refuse hauler who has obtained a permit for such refuse hauling from the City of Diamond Bar. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste hauler utilized is one which has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar. B. PLANNING REQUIREMENTS: 1. That three (3) copies of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 presented at the public hearing and marked Exhibit "A" and conforming to such of the following conditions as can shown on a plan, shall be submitted to the Community Development Director. Thereafter, the 57 lot residential C. ILETTBRS I VTM47850. CON 1 subdivision with one (1) common lot shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved Vesting Tentative Tract Map. 2. The approval of the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 is granted subject to the approval and certification of Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2. 3. That all requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the underlying zoning of the subject property must be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in the permit or shown on the approved plan. 4. The applicant shall satisfy the Park Obligation by contributing land acreage or the in -lieu fee to the City prior to recordation of the final map per code section 21.24.340. 5. Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of Homeowner's Association are required and shall be provided to the Community Development Director and the City attorney for review and approval prior to recordation of the final map. A Homeowners Association (HOA) shall be created and responsibilities thereof shall be delineated within the CC&R's. The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. 6. The project shall be designed so as to substantially comply with the CC&R's implemented by the adjacent development heretofore known as "The Country". The CC&R's should incorporate at a minimum, provisions which would establish a maintenance program for urban pollutant basins, and all mitigation measures within the Mitigation Monitoring Program, such that wildlife movement corridors are left in an undisturbed and natural state. The CC&R's will, to the fullest extent possible, be consistent with the CC&R's of "The Country". 7. A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&R's which requires disputes involving interpretation or application of the agreement (between private parties), to be referred to a neutral third party mediation service (name of service may be included) prior to any party initiating litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction. The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. 8. The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Community Development Director for approval prior to the sale of the first lot of the subdivision, a "Buyers Awareness Package" which shall include, but not be limited to, information pertaining to geologic issues regarding the property, wildlife corridors, oak and walnut tree preservation issues, the existence and c:ZE77M1VTM47M.c0x constraints pertaining to SEA No. 15 and Tonner Canyon, explanatory information pertaining to restrictions on use of properties as necessary and similar related matters. The applicant shall institute a program to include delivery of a copy of the "Buyers Awareness Package" to each prospective purchaser and shall keep on file in the office of the applicant a receipt signed by each such prospective purchaser indicating that the prospective purchaser has received and read the information contained within the "Buyers Awareness Package ". The applicant shall incorporate within the CC&R's a reference to the availability of the "Buyers Awareness Package" and the fact that a copy thereof is on file in the office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar. 9. The applicant shall obtain approval by County Sanitation on the location of the structures affecting County Sanitation easements and submit written evidence to the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. 10. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MAD) outlined within Master Environmental Impact Report (MEIR) No. 91-2 shall be submitted to and approved by the Community Development Director prior to the issuance of the grading permit. Should a conflict exist between the Conditions of Approval, the MMP as outlined in the MEIR No. 91-2, and the SEATAC Final Report dated April 8, 1991, the conflict will be presented to the Community Development Director for resolution. 11. Prior to approval of the final landscape plan the applicant shall demonstrate that the landscaping palette for the project emphasizes the use of drought tolerant, native plant species with low water requirements adapted to the inland Southern California climate. In order to limit the potential threat of wildland fires, low -fuel volume plants shall be incorporated into the revegetative plan. The final landscape plan shall substantially comply with the recommendations of the Final SEATAC Report, MEIR No. 91-2, and the preliminary landscape plan submitted and approved by the Planning Commission and marked Exhibit "A-1" and shall be submitted to the Community Development Director prior to issuance of any building permits. Indicate fence details, tree staking, soil preparation, planting details, an automatic irrigation system and the incorporation of xerotropic landscaping wherever feasible. 12. All irrigation equipment, slope planting and revegetated areas shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer or HOA until each individual unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for those units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine that the planting is in satisfactory condition. 13. Exterior grading and construction activities (framing and roofing, etc.) shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, except that .interior building construction activities shall not be limited. All construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. C: UHFRS1VW478S0.CON 1►) l2 1 / .7. Gi � �) 14. Transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy grading equipment shall also be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the subject property. Dust generated by construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during grading activities. Use of reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. 15. Dust control mitigation measures shall comply with MEIR No. 91-2 and shall be included and enforced under the Mitigation Monitoring Program approved by the Community Development Director. Measures may include but not be limited to reducing dust by watering the soil prior to and during grading activities. Use of reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. 16. The use authorized by this approval shall be commenced or construction necessary and incidental thereto shall be started on or before the time limit specified herein and thereafter diligently advanced on or before two (2) years after the expiration of the appeal period. A one year extension may be requested and granted. 17. The applicant shall pay development fees (including, but not limited to, Planning, Building and school fees) at the established rates, prior to issuance of Building or Grading Permits, as required by the Community Development and Public Works Directors. 18. Comply with all conditions of approval listed by the Engineering Dept. as exhibited on Exhibit "C-2." 19. Prior to any occupancy permit being granted, these conditions and all improvements shall be completed to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer. 20. The applicant shall contribute a pro rata share for the study of Tonner Canyon and SEA No. 15. 21. All residences will be required to receive approval via the Development Review process by the Planning Commission or Community Development Director prior to issuance of building permits. 22. The owner shall make a bona fide application to Diamond Bar Country Estates Association to annex this subdivision to that Association. The owner shall be required to annex if all fees assessed by the Diamond Bar Country Estates Association do not exceed the fees assessed per lot for annexation to the Diamond Bar Country Estates Association for Tract No. 47722. 23. All down drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth C. M=RS ST TERS I VTM47=. CON lIl/2 •1 ll� / °l tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace drains shall follow land form slope configurations and shall not be placed in exposed positions. All down drains shall be hidden in swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope face. 24. The applicant shall participate in an oak and walnut tree replacement program substantially conforming to the ratios and locations exhibited in MEIR No. 91- 2 prior to issuance of occupancy permits. 25. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Los Angeles County code and so noted on the grading plans. The location of those trees to be preserved in place and new locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. 26. Prior to recordation or issuance of any permits, the applicant shall pay all environmental and development fees at the established rates as required. All Mitigation Monitoring Program fees to defray the cost of implementation and monitoring by City staff and consultants retained by the City, are to be deposited with the City prior to the issuance of building or grading permits and all costs related to the ongoing monitoring shall be secured by the City prior to Final Map approval. 27. The final map shall clearly delineate and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the construction of buildings (or other structures) within those areas to be designated on the map as building restriction areas. 28. The location of the fences demarcating the construction rights prohibited area shall be clearly delineated on the final map. 29. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 30. The use authorized by this approval shall be commenced or construction necessary and incidental thereto shall be started on or before two (2) years after the expiration of the appeal period. A one (1) year extension may be requested and granted. 31. Lot Nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 17, 18, 34, 35, 36, 46, 47, 48 and 49 shall provide a minimum lot/street frontage of 60 feet at the property line, as defined in Title 22 of the City's Subdivision Code. All other lots shall have a minimum lot/street frontage of 125 feet. 32. All lots shall be a minimum of 20,000 gross square feet in size and C: I L E7TERS I V TM47850. CON 5 HRAP P 3/20/95 constructed with a minimum pad size of 10,000 square feet. 33. In compliance with Section 3503.5 of the California Fish and Game Code, a qualified biologist shall determine the presence of any raptor nests prior to or concurrent with grading activities, the project applicant(s) shall contact the California Department of Fish and Game, shall obtain and comply with all appropriate procedures relative to grading operations in proximity to those nests, and shall provide verification of same to the City. 34. The applicant is to contribute $10,000 to the Los Angeles County Fire Department in lieu of providing an alternative location for the helipad on-site. C: I L ET TM I VTM47850. CON 6 MEMORANDUM F901$iT ,-1 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DATE: March 28, 1995 (Revised April 3, 1995) TO: Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director FROM: Mike Myer* yer Gorge Wentz, City Engineer SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850; Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions as Recommended By Planning Commission Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 has been recommended for approval by the Planning Commission with conditions in accordance with its -Resolution 91-23 approved November 25, 1991. The City Engineer suggests modification of those conditions as follows. Deletions are shown with "strikeout" and additions in italics. SUBDIVISION 1. All easements existing prior to final map approval must be identified. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the final map in lieu of showing its location. 2. Subdivider shall submit aA title report/ guarantee and a subdivision guarantee showing all fee owners and interest holders must be submitted when a final map is submitted for pla-amap check. This account with the title company must remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder. An updated title report/ guarantee and subdivision guarantee must .be submitted ten (10) working days prior to final map approval. 3. The developer- subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the tet -1 detail cost estimate of all off-site improvements, prior to approval of the final map. 4. The subdivider must submit recorded documents indicating that lythe project will have proper/adequate right -of -entry to the subject site via -€r ­ea the private streets within "The Country". 5. The tract shall be annexed to the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Assessment District 38f aAd the 64=t da - - s --- 6. Street centerline monuments shall be set to mark the intersections of streets, intersections of streets with the Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev 4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 2 tract boundary and to mark either the beginning and end of curves or the points of intersection of tangents thereof, or other intermediate points to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. New centerline monument ties set as part of this subdivision must be approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Standards, and centerline monument tie notes shall be submitted to the City engineer prior to issuance of building permits.* 7. Where subdivision boundary monuments are not found at the time of making the survey for the final map, nNew boundary monuments must be set in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act, State law, the City Subdivision Code and City Standards and are subject to approval by the City Engineer prior to approval of building permits. 8. If any required public improvements have not been completed by the deme eper and accepted by the City prior to the approval of the final map, the deesubdivider shall enter into -an seb"*Ia ar agreement with the. City to complete the improvements and shall post the appropriate security. 9. All site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street , sewer, water and storm drain improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. 10. A ae} , aonte--jigh"ag pla.4 shall tae rce_d and, Iona`efly Might. method at so—ars not te J + 11. Street names shall be submitted for City review and approval prior to approval of the final map. These names must not be duplicated existing street names within the City of Diamond Bar's postal service zip codes. 12. House numbering clearance ' _ by the City Engineer, is required prior to agPE•eval s` the f; na map issuance of building permits. 13. The detail drawings and construction notes shown on the submitted plans are conceptual only and the approval of this map does not constitute approval of these notes and details. GRADING, GEOLOGY & SOILS 14. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Ordinance #4e_tienn+ No. 7 (1992), Hillside Management Ordinance or as amended and vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev 4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 3 acceptable grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the appEeved grading tae• shown as a material part of the tentative map as approved. The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15$. 15 16. A ge of e ' o l EepeEt shall l be _- ___ __ - ..d by al if ed ading p- lan ran ^heG k At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale grading plan for plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval. Said report shall be prepared•by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed by the State of California. The report shall address, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane; projection plane shall have a minimum safety factor of 1.5. (b) All soils and -geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key locations, etc.) shall be,delineated in detail -with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and.structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. (c) Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading. (d)' The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly defined on the grading plans. (e) Areas of potential for debris -flow shall be defined and proper remedial measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer. (f) Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as part of geotechnical report, including remedial fill that replaces natural slope. (g) Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as approved by the City Engineer. (h) All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the 40 -scale final grading plan as a base. 17. Grading plan (24"x36") must be designed in compliance with recommendations of the soils and engineering geology reports. All remedial earthwork specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the plans. 18. Grading plan must be signed and stamped by a California registered Civil Engineer, Soils Engineer and registered Geologist. Vesting Tentative Tract Map N0.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev 4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 4 19. All identified flood and geologic hazards areas associated with this proposed development must which cannot be eliminated and Eests=eted use areas as aPPEeved-Y to the satisfaction of the City Engineer must be indicated on the final map as "Restricted Use Area". The subdivider shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted use areas on the final map. 20. As a custom -lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a) Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all grading and on-site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the n "Ii e Weeks n,..,.., -a.., City Engineer prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. b) Appropriate easements for safe disposal of drainage waw flows that are conducted onto or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and EeseEded shown on the final map to the -satisfaction 'of the City's- penile WeEks Depar-t e Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. c) On-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties from drainage flows, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or occuring within a parcel ~-e tie, for which a building permit is requested. d) All slope banks in excess of five (5} feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with ground cover for erosion control upon completion of grading or some ekh an alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. 21. Completion and stabilization of all man-made slopes, removal of all landslide materials and zeconstruction of slopes must comply with the Los- -Angeles r Gurzt-' City Building Code, all other provisions of this tentative map approval and Ordinances including those requirements for erosion protection and landscaping. 22. The geotechnical consultant of record, Harrington Geotechnical Engineering, Inc., must provide written confirmation of their acceptance of the geotechnical data and information provided previously by other consultants for the -vesting tentative tracts which has been utilized or relied upon in preparation of their geotechnical reports. A `urat ^' Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev 4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 5 23. The following geotechnical issues must be addressed and approved by the City, prior to approval of the grading plan: a) Areas of potential for debris flow need to be defined and proper remedial measures recommended. b) Cre�_a�i��€}_ €8pe-ie-m-,-}tr___s1 47851 needs to -be -analyzed as-pa*t of geeteeh-e-eal repe6t C) Stability of all proposed slopes must be confirmed by analysis. Unstable slopes shall be redesigned or stabilized utilizing slope reinforcement. d) All landslides must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map. Specific- remedial measures shall be implemented pursuant to requirements of City Code and Ordinances. e) Stability of back cuts (i.e. excavation of natural slopes) must be analyzed. 171•;a, 24. Street improvement.plans (24"x36"), prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval. 25. Cul-de-sacs, in accordance with all applicable City Standards, must be constructed at the terminus ends of Hawkwood Road (public) and Steeplechase Lane (private). 26. Install street name signs at all intersections within the Tract. 27. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall .be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev 4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 6 28. Street improvement plans for all private streets shall be designed with a maximum slope grade of 12$ hal be oy aea f a s,,,r,Fevaj by the city gag . eeF. . Prior to any 1 work being performed on the pEi-vate streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. 29.. Construct base and pavement on all streets and access roads to pump station, and the emergency access road to southerly property line in accordance with the City approved soils report and City Standards. Vehicular access must be provided to all "Urban Pollutant Basins" with a minimum width of 15', with 12' of pavement and with a maximum slepe grade no greater than 20%. 30. Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall contribute $8,550.00 towards the construction of sidewalk along the east side of Diamond Bar Boulevard across from the Country Hills Shopping Center. - DRAINAGE 32. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Standards. Private (and future) easements for storm drain purposes shall be offered and shown on the final map for dedication to the City. The private storm drain facilities shall be maintained by the homeowners association and this shall be assured through the CC&R's. 33. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 34. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 35. Prior to placement of any dredged or fill material into any U.S.G.S. blue line stream bed, a 404 permit shall be obtained from the Army Corps of Engineers apar-e;re—s � aeties subject to the provisions of nation wide permit for discharges of dredged or fill materials into water ways of the United States. Not withstanding a permit to place any .fill in the U.S.G.S. blue line stream bed a written permission from affected property owners must be obtained Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850 March 28, 1995 {Rev 4/3/95} Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 7 prior to approval of the final map and issuance of a grading permit. An agreement with the California Department of Fish and Game shall be obtained and submitted to the City Engineer prior to approval of the final map and issuance of a grading permit. SEWER 36. Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sewer system serving the tract shall be connected to city sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works Department, prior to approval of the final map. 37. The subdivider must obtain a sewer connection permit from the City and County Sanitation District. The subdivision must be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate easements for all sewer main lines and pump station must be provided and accepted by the Gounty of T Angeles p.+111 Is WeEks DeP&Et&e%t city, prior 4G with approval of the final map. _ 38. Prior to approval of the final map, the subdivider must conduct an engineering analysis to determine the capacity of sewer lines from the site to the County Sanitation District trunk line. If the system is found to be of insufficient capacity the problem must be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 39. Subdivider, at his sole cost and expense, must construct the sewer.system including the pump station in accordance with the City, Los Angeles County Public Work Department and County Sanitation District Standards. TRAFFIC 40. gEafflei-mpEeveme-at plans--pFepaEed bya 7 Eed gr ca ------ e.hai e v-sau ri .e.. rv— --_ -_-- -,- a tGr t i 1 ema c s q tha -r i s_ --stated he,r-it 41. Intersection line of sight designs shall be reviewed by the City Engineer for approval in conformance with adopted policy. vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev 4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 8 42.The bdjA_1 E 6ha11--pEeparrestr • i. n l � �,r � �, � w rte, aj o f ;9 i FRap ,F Cal 1 , z ev apprre QSy 43. Pavement striping, marking and street name signing shall be installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 44. 45. 4;Ar-A lane shall be str-j:ped and apprreprrla i on at the „Ye___gt•i,fi 94 —B a�Aei3� $a�-Be"ev a aad Pathfinder - Rea , 46. An additional left -turn lane shall be striped and appropriate signs installed in the southbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. 47. A stop sign shall be installed at the intersection of Wagon Train Lane and Steeplechase Lane. The stop sign shall be installed on Wagon Train along with fifty feet- of double yellow striping, Type D pavement markers, stop legend and limit line. 48. Stop signs shall be installed at the intersection of Steeplechase Lane and street "A", subject to the approval by the City Engineer. 49. Developer shall contribute $28,500.00, towards the installation of a traffic signal at intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Shadow Canyon Drive prior to approval of the final map. UTILITIES 50. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the respective utility companies standards. Easements shall be provided as' required. All utilities shall be placed underground. 51. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of existing utilities as necessary and placing them underground. Facilities within that easement owned by General Telephone Company shall be relocated as necessary to allow telephone company to relinquish its easement. Subdivider shall, at it's own expense, cause General Telephone Company to relinquish this easement. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850 March 28, 1995 (Rev 4/3/95) Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions Page 9 52. Prior to recordation of the final map, a written certification shall be submitted to the City from Walnut Valley Water District, GTE, SCE, SCG and Jones Intercable stating that adequate facilities are or will be, prior to issuance of building permits, available to serve the proposed project sha-14 tae 9,abmitted to the City and they have no objection to recording of the map. Such letter must be issued by the utility companyies at least 44 30 days prior to final map approval. 2. The City Planning Commission hereby finds that the project has been required to prepare an Environmental Impact Report in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as _amended, and the Guidelines . promulgated thereunder, and further, this.Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information in reference to the application. 3. The Planning Commission hereby 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 set forth in the application, no significant adverse environmental effects will occur. 4. Based on the substantial evidence presented to this Commission during the above -referenced public hearing on September 23, 1991, and concluded on November 25, 1991, including written and oral staff reports, together with public testimony, and in conformance with the terms and provisions of California Government Code Sections 65360, this Commission hereby specifically finds as follows: a. The project is located within SEA NO. 15 to the southeast of Steeplechase Lane and Wagon Train Lane adjacent to the eastern boundary of the private gated community known as "The Country". b. The use is compatible with adjacent uses and is in compliance with the zoning standards, the Community General Plan, and the mitigation measures cited in the SEATAC Final Report and MEIR 91-2. C. The surrounding land uses to the north and west dential and ntoethefsouth andneast theland ly residential is r primarily vacant and natural. d. Granting the vesting tentative maps with conditions and restrictions hereinafter mentioned will not be in substantial conflict with any com- ponents of the proposed General Plan; The proposed site has adequate traffic access and said site is adequately served by other public or private service facilities which it requires, and; The location of the proposed land use does not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the sur- RESOLUTION NO. 91-23 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA RECOMMENDING TO THE CITY COUNCIL CERTIFICATION OF MASTER ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 91-2 AND APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT 47850, FOR A 57 LOT SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN NORTHERN TONNER CANYON, WITHIN SEA NO. 15, SOUTHERLY AND EASTERLY OF STEEPLECHASE LANE AND WAGON TRAIN LANE, IN DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF. A. Recitals. (i) Diamond Bar Associates, Inc.-, 3480 Torrance Blvd., Torrance, California, have heretofore filed an application for certification of a Master Environmental Impact Report and approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map, as described in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution' referred to as "the application". (ii) On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. On said date, -pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No.' 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, in- cluding the .subject application, within the City of Diamond Bar. (iii) Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency to the proposed General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of California Government Code Section 65360. (iv) On September 23, 1991, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the application and concluded said public hearing on November 25, 1991. (v) . All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, itis found, determined and resolved by the Plan- ning Co<<ission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. rounding area, and will not be materially detri- mental to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of pro- perty of other persons located in the vicinity of the site, and will not jeopardize, endanger, or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare. e. The City of -Diamond Bar is presently reviewing its draft General Plan and the final General Plan is to be adopted within the statutory time period as extended. It is reasonably probable that the project and land uses proposed by the Applicant will be consistent with the final General Plan on the basis of comparison of the same with the draft General Plan and the comments generated in respect to the same. Given the development abutting and adjacent to the subject site, and the conditions and design standards applied to this project proposals, there is little or no' probability of substantial detriment to or interference with the finally adopted General Plan if the project is ultimately inconsistent with the General Plan. The project, as conditioned, is in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, policies and standards. f. The Planning Commission hereby recommends that the City Council review and certify that h Environmental Impact Report No. EIR 91-2 has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder, and, further, that the Planning Commission has reviewed and considered the information contained in said Environmental Impact Report No. E.I.R. 91-2. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth in paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4 above, this Commission hereby recommends that the City Council approve the application subject to the restrictions and conditions listed on the attached Exhibits 11B-1, B-2, and B-3" as to use. 5. The Planning Commission Secretary shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Transmit this recommendation to the City Clerk for submittal to the City Council. (c) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Reso- lution, to Diamond Bar Associates at the address as set forth on the application. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS jTHJ�25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 1991BY THE PLANNING COMMISfSION 721�v F MOND BAR.. T BY: ck Grothe, C airman ATTEST r T 1 James DeStefanb, Secretary I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu- tion was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Com- mission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting• of the Planning commission held on the 25th day. of November, 1991, by the following vote -to -wit: AYES: [COMMISSIONERS:] GROTHE, HARMONY, MACBRIDE, SCHEY NOES: (COMMISSIONERS:) ABSTAIN: [COMMISSIONERS:) ABSENT: (COMISSIONERS:) LIN Transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy _ grading equipment shall also be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:0o p.m. All equipment staging areas shall be sited on the subject property. Dust generated by construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during grading activities. Use of reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. 10. A detailed landscape and irrigation plan, including slope planting and model home landscaping shall be prepared by a licensed landscape architect and submitted for City review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior to final map approval. Fence details, tree staking: soil preparation, planting details and the automatic irrigation systems and the incorporation of xerotropic landscaping shall be incorporated wherever feasible. 11. All down drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as to not impart adverse visual impacts. 12. All oak tions exhibited in EIR 9ees 1a21 be replaced at the ratios and loca 13. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Los The Angeles County Code, and so noted on the grading plans. location of those trees to be ions for transplanted trees shall be l be shown rved in ntheace a and locations landscape plans. from Tract 47850 shall be provided in 14. Emergency secondary access rotection District Standards and accordance with -Fire P requirement of the City Engineer. 15. Prior to issuance of any permits the applicant shall pay all environmental and development fees at the established rates. 16. The applicants for tracts 47850, 47851, and 48487 shall contribute $2oOTthe Ecological Concept study foronner Canyon and SEA No. 15, 17. The applicant shall pay development fees (including., but not limited to, Planning, Building, Park, and school fees) at the established rates prior to issuance of Building Permits, as required by the Community Development Director. 18. Street addresses shall be provided by the City Engineer after tract map recordation and prior to issuance of building permits. 19. The f inal grading plans shall be completed and approved prior to issuance of building permits. 20. The final map shall clearly delineate and dedicate to the ot ty the right to prohibit the construction of buildings EXHIBIT B -1A. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR VESTING TENTATIVE 'TRACT MAP NO. 47850. 1. The site shall be developed and maintained in accordance with the approved Vesting Tract Map and plans reviewed by the Planning Commission and City Council as revised by these conditions of approval. 2. The approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 is granted subject to the approval of Hillside Management and Significant Ecological Area Conditional Use Permit/Oak Tree Permit No. 89- 582. 3. The approvals incorporate all mitigation measures and conditions listed within the SEATAC Final Report Dated April 8, 1991 and Master Environmental Impact Report No. 91-2. 4. A mitigation monitoring program outlined within MEIR 91-2 shall be prepared by the developer and submitted to the City for review and approval 30 days prior to the issuance of a grading permit. 5. Should a conflict exist between the conditions or mitigation measures outlined within the Master Environmental Impact Report,, SEATAC Report on Project Conditions, said conflict will be presented to the Director of Community Development for resolution. 6. The preparation of Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs) and Articles of Incorporation of Homeowners' Association are required and are subject to the approval of the Planning and Engineering Divisions and the City Attorney.. They shall be recorded concurrently with the Final Map or prior to the issuance of building permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provided to the City Engineer. 7. The project shall be designed so as to substantially comply with the CC&Rs implemented by the adjacent development heretofore known as "The Country". The CC&Rs should incorporate, at a minimum, provisions which would establish a maintenance program for the urban pollutant basins, and all mitigation measures within the SEATAC report, such that wildlife movement corridors are left in an undisturbed and natural state. a Ne eenst—ral-tien-shal-I be pe--zaitted.. • Tr Of - A.. A^fQ59. 9. Exterior construction activities (grading, framing, etc.) shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday, except that interior building construction activities shall not be limited. All construction equipment shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. Transportation of equipment and materials and operation of heavy _ grading equipment shall also be limited to the hours of 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All equipment staging areas shall be sited on the subject property. Dust generated by construction activities shall be reduced by Use r of reclaimed wthe soil ater shall ior to dbe usedurin activities. whenever possible. slo 10. A detailed landscape home landscapingn shall be prepared by pa planting and mod licensed landscape architect and submitted for City review and approval prior to the issuance of building permits or prior to final map approval. Fence details, tree staking, soil preparation, planting details and the automatic irrigation systems and the i feasibleg xenotropic landscaping shall be incorporated wherever 11. All down drains and drainage channels shall be t impart adverse visual impact. 12. muted earth tones so as to P 12. All oak trees andleu in eesEIR 91all be replaced at the ratios and locations exhibited 13. Existing trees required to be preserved in place shall be protected with a construction barrier in accordance with the Los The Angeles County Code, and so noted oe �ni placeans. and new location of those trees to be preserved locations for transplanted trees shall be shown on the detailed landscape plans. be in 14. ..Emergency secondary access frocont District 47850 11Standards eland accordance with -Fire Protection requirement of the City Engineer. 15. Prior to issuance of any permits the applicant shall pay all environmental and development fees at the established rates. 16. The applicants for tracts 478500 47851, and 48487 shall contribute $20,000 as their er Canyoro rata share for n and SEA No. 15.the Ecological Concept Study for Tone Y 17. The applicant shall pay development fees (including., but not Park, and school fees) at the limited to, Planning, Building, established rates prior to issuance of Building Permits, as required by the Community Development Director. 18. Street addresses shall be provided by the City Engineer after tract map recordation and. prior to issuance of building permits. Tans shall be completed and approved prior to 19 . The final grading plans issuance of building permits. 20. The final map shall clearly delineate and dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the construction of buildings (or other structures) within those areas to be designated on the map as building restriction areas. 21. The location of the fences and retaining walls demarcating the construction rights prohibited area shall be clearly delineated on the final map and the locations line clearly shown on the final map. 22. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR I N T E R O F F I C E M E M O R A N D U M DATE: . March 27, 1992 TO: Department of Community Development, Planning FROM: Department of Public Works, Engineering SUBJECT: TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.47850 DATE SEPTEMBER 19, 1991 Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 has been recommended for approval by the office of the City Engineer subject to the following conditions: SUBDIVISION 1. All easements existing prior to final map approval must be identified. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate in nature, a statement to that effect must be shown on the final map in lieu of its location. 2. A title report/guarantee showing all fee owners and interest holders must be submitted when a final map is submitted for plan check. This account must remain open until the final map is filed with the County Recorder. An updated title report/guarantee must be submitted ten (10) working days prior to final map approval. 3. The developer shall submit to the City Engineer the total cost estimate for bonding purposes of all off-site improvements, prior to approval of the final map. 4. The subdivider must submit documents indicating that they will have proper/adequate right -of -entry to the subject site from the Country. 5. The tract shall be annexed to the Landscape Assessment District 38; and the City-wide lighting district. 6. New centerline ties set as part of this subdivision must be approved by the City Engineer, in accordance with City Standards. 7. New boundary monuments must be set in accordance with the City Standards and subject to approval by the City Engineer. 8. If any required public improvements have not been completed by the developer and accepted by the City prior to the approval of the final map, the developer shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City and shall post the appropriate security. 9. All site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street improve- ments, sewer and storm drain improvement plans shall be coordinated for consistency prior to final map approval. 10. Street names shall be submitted for.City review and approval prior to approval of the final map. These names must not be duplicated within the City of Diamond Bar's postal service zip codes. 11. House numbering clearance is required by the City Engineer, prior to issuance of building permits. 12. The detail drawings and construction notes shown on the submitted plans are conceptual only and the approval of this map does not constitute -approval of these notes. GRADING GEOLOGY & SOILS 13. Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City Grading Ordinance f14-(1990) or as amended and acceptable grading practices. The final grading plan shall be in substantial conformance with the approved grading plan.; 14. In preparation to construct the f ill slope at section SG -SG' , the stability of the slope on the bentonite shear plane shall be accomplished by removing the landslide debris. 15. Creep -prone materials shall be stabilized by the construction of shear keys. Minimum 10 ft. thick blanket fills are required'to eliminate cracks extending to the finished pad surfaces. The shear keys shall be extended through the land- slide behind lots 42 and 43. 16. Grading plan (241lx3611) must be designed in compliance with recommendations of the final detailed soils and engineering geology reports. 17. Grading plan must be signed and stamped by a registered Soils Engineer and registered Geologist. 18. All geologic hazards associated with the proposed development must be eliminated and restricted use areas as approved by the City Engineer must be indicated on the final map. The subdivider shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within the restricted use areas. 19. All landslide debris shall be completely removed prior to fill placement. 20. From the preliminary data and analyses presented to date, the proposed project is feasible from a geotechnical point of view. At the time of application for a 40 -scale grading plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval and said r=_port shall be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or geologist licensed by the State of California. The report shall contain, but not be limited to the following: a) .The locations and orientations (including the depth and extent) of the bentonite bed shall be delineated on a 40 - scale map and stability analyses shall be provided for further evaluation. b) Stability analysis of the daylight shear keys. For daylight shear keys, a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane shall be used in design and the projection plane shall have a minimum factor of safety of 1:1. c) All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e., landslides, shear key location, etc.) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. 21. As a custom -lot subdivision, the following requirements shall be met: a) Surety shall be posted and an agreement executed guaranteeing completion of all. on-site drainage facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the Public Works Department prior to final map approval and prior to the issuance of grading permits. b) Appropriate easements for safe disposal of., drainage water that are conducted onto or over adjacent parcels, are to be delineated and recorded to the satisfaction of the City's Public Works Department, prior to issuance of grading permits. c) on-site drainage improvements, necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties, are to be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows entering, leaving, or within a parcel relative to which a building permit is requested. d) All slope banks in excess of five (5) -feet in vertical height shall be seeded with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. In addition, a permanent irrigation system shall be provided. 22. Completion and stabilization of all man-made slopes, removal of all landslide materials and reconstruction of slopes must comply with -the Los Angeles County Building .Code and ordinances including those requirements for erosion protection and landscaping. 23. The geotechnical consultant of record, Harrington Geotechnical Engineering, Inc., must provide written confirmation of their acceptance of the geotechnical data and information provided previously by other consultants for the tracts. A further statement is required accepting data and information in Lockwood -Singh report dated November 31 1989,for Tract 47851 and Lawmaster reports dated July 13, 1987, May 25, and October 12, 1989 as being valid_and applicable to the current 100 - scale tract maps dated September 19, 1991. 24. The following geotechnical issues must be addressed and approved by the City, prior to approval of the grading plan: h) Areas of potential for debris flow need to be defined and proper remedial measures recommended. t b) Gross -stability of a 150 foot high fill slope in Tract 47851 needs to be analyzed as part of geotechnical report. c) Stability of all proposed slopes must be confirmed by analysis. Unstable slopes shall be redesigned or stabilized utilizing slope reinforcement. d) All landslides must if c remedial meashown on suresconsolidated be geotechnical map.' pec implemented pursuant to requirements: of Los Angeles County Code and Ordinances. e) Stability of back cuts (i.e. excavation of natural slopes) must be analyzed. ROAD 25. Street improvement plans (2411x3611), prepared by a registered Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an agreement executed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and City Attorney guaranteeing completion of the public and/or private street improvements, prior to final map approval. 26. Cul -de -secs, in accordance with all applicable City standards and to the satisfaction of the City Engineermust be and constructed at the terminus ends of Hawkwood Road (public) Steeplechase Lane (private). 27. Install street name signs at all intersections within the Tract. 28. Prior to any work being performed in public right-of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. 29. Street improvement plans for all private streets with maximum slope of 12%, $hall be provided for review and approval by the City Engineer. Prior to any work being performed on the private streets, fees shall be paid and construction permits shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office in addition to any other permits required. 30. Construct base and pavement on all streets and access roads to pump station, 'and the emergency access. road to southerly property line in -accordance with the City approved soils report and City Standards. Vehicular access must be provided to all "Urban Pollutant Basins"with a minimum width of 151, with 12' of pavement and with a maximum slope no greater than 20%. 31. Prior to approval of the final map, the developer shall contribute $8,550.00 towards the construction of sidewalk along the eastside,of Diamond Bar Boulevard across from the Country Bills Shopping Center. DRAINAGE 32. A final drainage study shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to final map approval. All drainage facilities shall be installed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with the County of Los Angeles Standards. 33. Trees are prohibited within 5 feet of the outside diameter of any storm drain pipe measured from the outer edge of a mature tree trunk. 34. Prior to finalization of any development phase, sufficient improvement plans shall be completed beyond the phase boundaries to assure secondary access and drainage protection to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to lot lines shown on the approved tentative map. 35. Prior to placement of any dredged or fill material into any U.S.G.S. blue line stream bed, the Army Corps of Engineers must review and approve such action subject to the provisions of nation wide permit for discharges of dredged or fill materials into water ways of the United States. Not- withstanding a permit to place any fill in the U.S.G.S. blue line stream bed a written offsite permission to grade from affected property owners must be obtained prior to approval of the final map. SE 36. Each dwelling unit shall be lines. d by a epaTheesever lateral sanitary sewer which shall not cross any other lot system serving the tract shall be connected to city sewer system. Said system shall be of the size, grade and depth approved by the City Engineer, County Sanitation District and Los Angeles County Public Works Department, prior to approval of the final map. 37. The subdivider must obtain connection permit from the City and County Sanitation District. The subdivision must be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and appropriate easements for all sewer main lines and pump station must be provided and accepted by the County of Los Angeles Public Works Department, prior to approval of the 'final map 38. Prior to approval of the final map, the subdivider must conduct an engineering analysis to determine the capacity of sewer lines from the site to the County Sanitation District trunk line. 39. Subdivider, at his sole cost and station accordance expense, must with the ct the sewer system including the pump City, Los Angeles County Public Work Department and County Sanitation District Standards. TRAFFIC 40. Traffic improvement plans prepared by a registered Traffic Engineer and signed by a registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to and approved by .the City Engineer. Security shall be posted and agreement executed to the satisfactionof the City Engineer and the City Attorney guaranteeing completion of these improvements Prior to final map approval unless otherwisestated h. 41. Intersection line of sight designs shall be conformance with adopted policy.wd by the City Engineer for 42. The subdivider shall prepare traffic control signing and striping plans in accordance with requirements of the State of California Traffic Manual prior to approval of final map. 43. Pavement striping, tion of the city Engineerg shall be installed to the satisfac MEMORANDUM City of Diamond Bar DATE: March 29, 1995, TO: Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director FROM: Mike Myers Via: George Wentz, City Engineer SUBJECT : Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850; Recommended Changes to Engineering Conditions as Recommended By Planning Commission and Other Considerations Attached is memo of March 28, 1995 regarding recommended revisions to the Engineering Conditions as those conditions were approved by the Planning Commission at its November 25, 1991 meeting for the subject vesting tentative map. Following is discussion of other. issues related to Council approval of the vesting tentative map including suggested language for additional conditions. It is understood that all streets within the development are intended to be private streets with the lots extending to the centerline of the streets. However, neither the tentative map nor the Planning Commission's recommended Conditions of Approval address this matter. It is recommended that the Council's approval of this map expressly include approval of private streets for this subdivision (except as shown on the tentative map as a public street dedication at the westerly terminus of Steeplechase). It is understood that street lights are not to be constructed within this subdivision. While §21.32.140 of the,Subdivision Code requires street lights, §21.32.150 provides that they may be waived if the Advisory Agency finds that they are not in keeping with the neighborhood pattern. The Planning Commission's resolution recommending approval does not address this matter. It is recommended that the Council's approval of this map expressly include a finding of "not in keeping ..." and waive the requirement for street lights for this subdivision. Grading is shown offsite (westerly) and is critical to the development of the subdivision as shown on the tentative map. It is understood that the subdivider has obtained easements to grade from the affected owners. These easements should be provided for Staff's review prior to Council approval of this subdivision. Numerous easements of record are shown and referenced on the tentative map. Many of these easements would appear to 44. A separate right -turn lane shall be striped and appropriate signs installed in the northbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar -Boulevard and Shadow Canyon Drive. 45. A separate right -turn lane shall be striped and appropriate signs installed in the southbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Pathfinder Road. 46. An additional left -turn lane shall be striped and appropriate signs_ installed in the southbound direction at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. 47. A stop sign shall be installed at the intersection of Wagon Train Lane and Steeplechase Lane. The.stop sign shall be installed on Wagon Train along with fifty feet of double yellow striping, Type D pavement markers, stop legend and limit line. 48. Stop signs shall be installed at the intersection of Steeplechase Lane and street "A", subject to the approval by the City Engineer. 49. Developer shall contribute $28,500.00 towards the installation of a traffic signal at intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Shadow Canyon Drive prior to approval of the final map. UTILITIES 50. Provide separate utility services to each parcel including water, gas, electric power, telephone, and cable TV (all underground) in accordance with the respective utility companies standards. Easements shall be provided as required. 51. The developer shall be responsible for the relocation of .existing utilities as necessary. 52. Prior to recordation of the final map, a written certification from Walnut Valley Water District, GTE, SCE, SCG and Jones Intercable stating that adequate facilities are or will be available to serve the proposed project shall be submitted to the City. Such letter must be issued by the utility company at least 90 days prior to final map approval. Revisions to Planning Commission Conditions March 29, 1995 Other Considerations Re: VTTM No. 47850 Page 2 significantly affect the realization of clear buildable residential pad areas as shown. With respect to easements shown which were offered to the public (LA County), the City has the authority under 566499.20 1/2 of the Subdivision Map Act to vacate such. These are generally those indicated on the tentative map as A, B and V. The notice of the public hearing for this map before the Council should clearly identify, as necessary to satisfy requirements for public notice and hearing on the matter, the Council's intention to vacate these easements and offers of easements. Private easements, however, cannot be addressed in this manner. Unless these easements, many of which are for access and utility purposes along the same lines as the public easements and offers, are cleared from the property, they may subsequently affect the subdivided property owner's ability to utilize his lot. Recommend the following Condition be considered: On all lots where the effect of existing easements may reduce the usable building pad area to less than that shown on the tentative map, such easements shall be relocated or otherwise removed from the required building pad area to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director and City Engineer prior to approval of the final map. It is suggested that Lot A (lift, station site) be conveyed in fee to the Homeowners Association. The City Engineer will require that an easement be dedicated over the necessary portion of this lot for sewer lines and a lift station purposes (also water lines). It is further suggested that the right to prohibit buildings and other structures on Lot A be dedicated to the City. Recommend the following Condition be considered: • Lot A shall be conveyed to the Homeowners Association and the owner shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings and other structures thereon. It is recommended that the "Remainder Parcel" shown on the tentative map not be approved as such. This parcel does not have suitable access from existing or proposed streets.. Recommend the following Condition be considered: • On the final map Lot 13, Lot 15 and/or Lot 16, as shown on tentative map, shall be modified to include the entirety of the "Remainder Parcel". It was noted in the public comments received in recirculating the Draft EIR that some were concerned about possible construction Revisions to 'Planning Commission Conditions March 29, 1995 Other Considerations Re: VTTM No. 47850 Page 3 traffic entering the project area via Hawkwood. This access via public streets is possible to the westerly project boundary. If the City Council desires to limit these short term impacts on the existing public streets leading to the project, recommend the following addition to Condition 7 (Planning Commission Resolution Exhibit B -1A) be considered. No construction equipment nor related construction traffic shall be permitted to enter the site from Hawkwood Drive. In considering recent tentative maps, the City Council has concerned itself with the matter of reclaimed water service to the subdivision. If the Council remains concerned about this matter, recommend the following Condition be considered: As reclaimed water supply is not currently available, Subdivider shall agree to design and construct, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Walnut Valley Water District, main and service lines capable of delivering reclaimed water to all portions of the subdivision and the system shall be designed to permit "switch over" of nondomestic services on each lot at such time a reclaimed water supply is available to the subdivision. Security shall be posted to guarantee the performance of this agreement. Subdivider shall install, prior to approval of final grading, a portion of the system consisting of main and service lines capable of delivering reclaimed water to those portions of the subdivision for which the homeowners association is responsible for irrigation and/or .landscape maintenance. This portion installed shall provide for switchover from domestic service to reclaimed service at such time as it is available. MEMORANDUM City of Diamond Bar DATE: March 31, 1995 TO: Jim DeStefano, Community Development Director FROM: Mike Myers Via: George Wentz, City Engineer SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.47850; Additional Recommended Condition In addition to those issues and additional conditions contained in my memo of March 29, 1995, consider the following. Regarding grading offsite westerly: The March 29 memo (page 1, 4th paragraph) discussed the necessity for Staff to review those "easements to grade" that the subdivider had previously obtained for that grading work proposed offsite westerly. The subdivider has submitted copies of those recorded documents granting permission for J.C.C.-Diamond Bar to grade as obtained from the owners of those affected properties, except for permission from the owner of Lot 1 of Tract No. 33602. These documents suffice as necessary to permit the grading offsite. However, applicant must provide similar document relating to Lot 1 of Tract No. 33602. An additional issue has been raised regarding the future repair and maintenance of the storm drain pipes and inlets which are also an integral part of the necessary grading in this area and which are outside the boundaries of the subdivision. These letters of permission "for the purposes of grading" (which reasonably also includes the construction of drain pipes and inlets) may be consider as granting of a "temporary" right and therefor terminate when the work is completed. Consideration must be made for the ongoing, long term maintenance that is necessary to keep these pipes and inlets functioning properly. The HOA will be responsible to provide for the maintenance of storm drains throughout the subdivision and the requirement to maintain these facilities outside the limits of the subdivision can be included within this responsibility. However, there are no present provisions to assure that the HOA will have or can obtain the necessary access to these pipes and inlets to perform this maintenance and repair. It is recommended that the following condition be included: Prior to approval of the grading plan and final map, Subdivider shall submit permission to grade from all affected property owners outside the boundaries of the subdivision and shall submit documents granting necessary easements for maintenance and repair of inlets and storm drains to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: APPLICANT: PROPERTY OWNER: BACKGROUND: City of Diamond Bar PLANNING COMMISSION Staff Report 7.1 April 19, 1995 April 24, 1995 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 The project is a request for approval of a Vesting Tentative Tract Map and related approvals including a Hillside Management Conditional Use`Pernnit and Oak Tree Permit for development of 57 Tots for custom home development within the area adjacent to "The Country". The project is located in northern Tonner Canyon, south of Steeplechase Drive and south of Windmill Drive. Diamond Bar Associates 3480 Torrance Blvd., Ste. 300 Torrance, CA. SAME This project has been referred back to the Planning Commission at the direction of the City Council pursuant to the action taken at the conclusion of the joint session held on April 6, 1995. The Planning Commission expressed the desire for further information to provide clarification on issues and perceived inconsistencies related to development of the project. The Planning Commission cited a lack of familiarity with the project, as there are no current members from the 1992 Commission that approved the project. The Commission forwarded an itemized list of questions via public testimony to staff for responses. Staff has compiled answers to the expressed issues as attachments to this overview. 1 Hi=a The project was reviewed by the Planning Commission in a series of public hearings beginning in September of 1991. At the October 28, 1991 Planning Commission hearing, testimony was taken from the public, staff and the applicant. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Commission directed staff to prepare Resolutions of Approval and to amend the draft conditions of approval to most notably preserve an additional 7 oak trees in the western most canyon. The project was returned to the Commission on the November 25, 1991. The Commission took action to certify the Master Environmental Impact Report for the purpose of approving the hillside development/SEA Conditional Use Permits and Oak Tree Permits and to recommend approval of the VTM 47850, 47851, and 48487 in addition to the Certification of the Master Environmental Impact Report (MSIR). The City Council began deliberation on the project in January of 1992 concluding after a series of public hearing over several months. In June of 1992 the Council certified the MEIR and approved VTM 47851 and VTM 48487 as recommended by the Planning Commission. Several issues arose out of the public hearing that focused on the geotechnical information on VTM 47850. The Council required the applicant to provide extensive information in order to respond to the questions. In November of 1992, the Council set a public hearing to deliberate on the project. The applicant had not provided the required information to respond to the plan check review questions in time .for the public hearing and requested an extension of time to respond to the issues. The Council took action to deny the requested extension of time and additionally took action to deny the application without prejudice. In doing so, the Council found that they could not approve the project without definitive information on the geotechnical issues but allowed the applicant to submit a new application for the project once the information had been gathered. Subsequently, the applicant filed a lawsuit to appeal the decision. The lawsuit was resolved when the City and the developer entered into an out of court settlement agreement. The settlement agreement required the City to re-initiate processing of the project commencing with a Joint Session to be conducted with the Planning Commission. In anticipation of the renewed processing, a revised environmental document was prepared. The revised document updated information related to air quality and biological resources, as regulations and standards have changed, and to the geotechnical information related to the 24 outstanding issues that served as the foundation for denial of the project. The revised draft MEIR was then circulated to responding agencies and for public review in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). At the conclusion of the Joint Session the City Council remanded the project back to the Planning Commission for review. Attached is the opinion of the City Attorney representative as to the scope of review available to the Commission as a part of this review as provided in the Settlement Agreement. In short, the Settle Agreement provided for the Commission's review of "... any other new matters or alternatives which the Joint Session deems appropriate" and did not preclude the Commission or Council's review in conformance with local ordinances or state statue. 2 APPLICATION ANALYSIS: Project Description Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 47850 is a 73 acre site located in northern Tonner Canyon. The 57 lot subdivision is proposed for a site which currently developed with extensive oak and walnut woodland. This project contains the most valuable biota of the three tracts proposed for development. VTM 47850 contains significant walnut woodlands that cover approximately 34 acres contain almost 700 trees. Approximately 110 oak trees are primarily found within two stands comprising 2.5 acres. The trees located in the southwest portion of the tract have been identified to be protected and contain some of the oldest and healthiest trees on-site. Sixteen oak trees have been marked for removal as a part of this project. These oak trees will be replaced at a 4:1 ratio as will all walnut trees• removed as part of the project. The replacement trees have been grown from seeds collected on-site in order to ensure the continuation of the genetics of native plant community. The landscape plan for the project has been crafted to reproduce an environment that is compatible with remaining vegetation and natural habitat to be complementary with residential development and the mitigation measures recommended by the SEATAC. General Plan/Vesting.- The lan/Vesting_The project was submitted and deemed complete in 1989 and is vested in the standards in effect at that time. The government code (section 65360) allows actions to be taken in the absence of a General Plan with approvals of the projects requiring the City to make findings of consistency with the future adopted General Plan. The map as proposed is consistent with the zoning classifications which traverse the site. Approximately 50 percent (35 acres) of the site is within the R-1-8,000 zone classification with the remainder of the project to be developed within the R-1=20,000 zone. The project proposes development of the site with a total of 57 units, although the total number units under the zoning entitlement for the R-1-8,000 acreage (net acres) would be approximately' 142 units. The applicant designed the project to conform to the 1 unit per acre density (RR/Rural Residential) classification proposed in the draft General Plan and the Community General Plan previously approved by the County of Los Angeles. If the most restrictive application of density, 1 unit per acre, were to be applied to the project, the project would be entitled to 72 units. The proposed density is .73 units per acre. The concept of clustered development has been utilized to maximize open space opportunities within hillside projects throughout the City. The subject project does not cluster development in the sense that all of the proposed lots meet or exceed the minimum lot sizes required by the zone. The applicant has provided additional open space by simply reducing the density. The project as a whole conforms to the land use designation (RR) as proposed within the draft General Plan. Issues Staff has responded to the Questions related to geotechnical and environmental issues and has provided responses which are intended to resolve perceived inconsistencies. Staff and City's professional consultants have provided an itemization of responses that were generated by the comments made at the Joint Session. The geotechnical issues primarily revolve around soil stability and the calculations which were used to design the project. The design parameters and factor of safety for the site were calculated by using state of the art industry standards. The site has been designed to meet all design standards and the design has been reviewed and approved by the City. The site has extensively implemented conservative measures to account for worst case scenarios. For example, the site was designed as if materials such bentonite were found on-site. All sheer strength calculations were performed using lesser sheer strength values associated with this material. Additionally, the project will be overgraded with a 10 ft. blanket fill. The standard overfill depth is typically 3 ft. The environmental issues raised at the Joint Session reflect that staff needed to highlight the environmental documents that include technical appendices which supplement the presentation within the revised EIR. The primary issues staff identified as being raised are centrally related to the animals found or thought to be found on-site. All of the animals found on-site cannot be observed in the surveys that can be conducted on-site in a couple of visits therefore staff compiled lists of animals expected to be on -site -or traverse the site based on historical surveys. The site may be used by certain animals at certain times but because of the development surrounding the site on three sides, the value of the site as a primary corridor is negligible. The site does however provide limited habitat for certain animals that will be reduced as a part of the development of the site but the proximity of Tonner Canyon provides a viable area for relocation. RECON MFMATIONS: Staff recommends that the Planning Commission review the project as submitted and direct staff as appropriate. PREPARED BY: RobertSearcy, Associate Planner ATTACHMENTS: Memorandum from City Engineer, Dated April 20, 1995 Leighton and Associates, Geotechnical Response to Citizen Comments, Dated April 19, 1995 Michael Brandman Associates, Response to City Council and Planning Commission Response to Comments, Dated April 20, 1995 Draft Conditions of Approval Memo from Robert Owen, Rutan & Tucker dated April 18, 1995 C:\LETTERS\REPORTS\VTM47850.STT