HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/7/19980�
Cit
co
AGENDA
Tuesday, July 7,1998
6:30 p.m. Regular Meeting
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East CopleyDrive
DiamondBar, California 91765
Mayor
Mayor Pro Tem
Council Member
Council Member
Council Member
City Manager
City Attorney
City Clerk
Carol Herrera
Wen Chang
Eileen Ansari
Bob Huff
Debby O'Connor
Terrence L. Belanger
Michael Jenkins
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 II 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.
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking
in the Council Chambers.
The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper
and encourages you to do the same.
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 cases 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 Councilor 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 of the 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 impairments 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) 860 -LINE
General Information (909) 860-2489
NOTE: ACTION MAY BE TAKEN ON ANY ITEM IDENTIFIED ON THE AGENDA.
Next Resolution No. 98-42
Next Ordinance No. 04(1998)
1. CLOSED SESSION: None
2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m., July 7, 1998
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor
INVOCATION: Dr. James Price, Diamond Canyon
Christian Church
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff,
O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time
reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an
opportunity for members of the public to directly address the
Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to
the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on
this agenda. 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
com,plete a Sneaker's and and give it to the City Clerk
(completion of this form i s voluntary). There is a fiv
minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - July 8, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - Doo Wah
Riders (Country Western/Bluegrass), Sycamore Canyon Park
5.2 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - July 9, 1998 -
7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 PLANNING COMMISSION - July 14, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - July 15, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - Film
at Eleven and the Late Breaking Horns - (Classic 601s),
Sycamore Canyon Park
5.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - July 21, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 2
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.6 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - July 22, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - Mid
West Coast Band (Top 40 Contemporary), Sycamore Canyon
Park
5.7 GRAND RE -OPENING OF DIAMOND BAR LIBRARY - August 15, 1998
- 10:00 a.m., 1061 S. Grand Ave.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
6.1.1 Study Session of June 16, 1998 - Approve as
submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of June 16, 1998 - Approve as
submitted.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated July 7,
1998 in the amount of $489,584.73 for FY 97-98 and
$189,854.31 for FY 98-99, for a total amount of
$679,439.04.
Requested by: City Manager
6.3 TREASURER'S REPORT - Submitted for the City Council's
review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the
month of May, 1998.
Requested by: City Manager
6.4 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Leslie Bellegia on June 3,
1998.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council deny the Claim for Damages filed and refer the
matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the
City's Risk Manager.
Requested by: City Clerk
7. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
matters can be heard.
7.1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 98-03, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 98-01 AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-02 (SCH 97031005) -
Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership and SunCal Companies are
requesting approval to subdivide 65 acres of a 339.3 acre
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 3
site into 141 lots for development of 130 detached single
family residences, 10 open space lots and one lot
reserved for the Walnut Valley Water District; remove and
replace oak and walnut trees; and remove map restrictions
on a portion of the 65 acres. The balance of the 339.3
acre site (274.3 acres) and all Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479
would be dedicated to the City as open space. The
project site is generally located east of D.B. Blvd. and
north of Grand Ave., at the extension of Highcrest Dr.
The Planning Commission concluded its review on May 12,
1998 and recommended approval.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council open the public hearing, received testimony and
continue the matter to August 4, 1998.
Requested by: Planning Division
7.2 (a) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99 - On May 18, 1998, Council approved the
Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No. 98-29 to
declare the City's intention to levy and collect
assessments for District No. 38. Council commenced the
public hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7,
1998 on the levy of the proposed assessments on
assessable lots within this District for FY 1998-99.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council reopen the public hearing, receive testimony,
close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX
levying an assessment for Assessment District No. 38 for
FY 1998-99.
(b) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99 - On May 18, 1998, Council approved the
Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No. 98-30 to
declare the City's intention to levy and collect
assessments for District No. 39. Council commenced the
public hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7,
1998 on the levy of the proposed assessments on
assessable lots within this District for FY 1998-99.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council reopen the public hearing, receive testimony,
close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX
levying an assessment for Assessment District No. 39 for
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 4
FY 1998-99.
(c) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99 - On May 18, 1998, Council approved the
Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No. 98-31 to
declare the City's intention to levy and collect
assessments for District No. 41. Council commenced the
public hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7,
1998 on the levy of the proposed assessments on
assessable lots within this District for FY 1998-99.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council reopen the public hearing, receive testimony,
close the public hearing and adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX
levying an assessment for Assessment District No. 41 for
FY 1998-99.
Requested by: Public Works Division
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 ACCEPTANCE OF WORK COMPLETED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT
AND MITIGATION (E.E.M.) TREE PLANTING PROJECT - The
E.E.M. Tree Planting Project along the 57 Fwy. and at the
60 Fwy/Brea Canyon Rd. Interchange has been completed.
A total of 421 trees have been planted and a drip
irrigation system utilizing reclaimed water has been
installed. Total cost of the project is $154,757, which
is within the contract amount of $158,405. Ali costs for
this project will be reimbursed to the City by the State
and ongoing maintenance is the responsibility of
Caltrans.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council accept work completed in the E.E.M. Tree Planting
Project and direct the City Clerk to file the Notice of
Completion. It is further recommended that the City
Council authorize the release of the retention in the
amount of $15,475.71 (100) 35 days after recordation of
said notice.
Requested by: Community Services Division
9. NEN BUSINESS: None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next Resolution No. RA -98-07
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 5
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera,
O'Connor, VC/Ansari, C/Herrera
2. 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
Redevelopment Agency on Consent Calendar items or matters of
interest to the public that are not already scheduled for
consideration on this agenda. Although the Redevelopment
Agency values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the
Agency generally cannot take any action on items not listed on
the posted agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give
it to the Agency Secretary (completion of this form i
voluntary) Where ;s a five minute maximum time limit when
addressing the Redevelopment Agency
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of June 16, 1998 -
Approve as submitted.
Requested by: Agency Secretary
3.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated July 7,
1998 in the amount of $62,933.00.
Requested by: Executive Director
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Agency
Members are for agency discussion. Direction may be given at
this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT:
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Council
Members are for agency discussion. Direction may be given at
this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 6
12. ADJOURNMENT
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: — /- d /V ,/ DATE: %- 7 G%
ADDRESS: 7 / I y ��
c� PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: f je– 2 z_
_77_
I expect to address the Co it on the subject agenda item Please have the CounciMinutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
/1c,4/ Z ;y//o/t,-
Signature
D.
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
7�' ti�% DATE: Z7 9
�o f e- S 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.
Signa ure
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: /V f) ItX 5- cl DATE: -7 �- a
ADDRESS: 4 3 jot t r R W PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:s ,�1 jar rat 9 c' u '�� ? c'f= U �' v� �•4 a
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: " %y1 T 73 c,;z— o : N
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:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT
CITY C ERK
0,
p 4 0
DATE:
PHONE:;& D
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: S77- / DATE: J W -Y 7
ADDRESS: )3;Yt--,o PHONE:YP- q6 7j
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: %, l f"��Te� -,� lr�c ,%7 .� EL -i2
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
S'gnature
D
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: 21 7' SZZL %
DATE:
PHONE:
expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signat�
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA WSUBJECT
CITY CLERK
DATE: _ Z y
6-9 PHONE: Zayw//-f/&
-z 7F4
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
t -Am-f)
D.
.r • PHONE:•
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written ahnvp
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TC CIN CLERK
FR )M: / e / �2.�c/D%� r1 r DATE: -7
AD )RESS: PHONE:
,OR aANIZATION:
,4G ---NIDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
TO:
FRO 4:
ADDi iE:SS:
ORG, �NIZATION:
AGES DA #/SUBJECT:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
DATE:
PHONE:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council
name and address as written above. ncil Minutes reflect my
Signat re
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO CITY CLERK
FROM; �tz7
DATE: ' 7_
ADCDRI.SS: PHONE: 451-ss3sv
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject apnda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
"TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
DATE:
Al I K�,f4J-ZONE:
I expect to address the Council on the
name and address as written above.
item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
ature
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: `,7, /
DATE:
PHONE: j;-=Y�- I
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
i
Signature
TO
FR )M:
AD CRESS:
OF aANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
DATE: r7ZZh P,
PHONE:
AG =NDA #/SUBJECT: i.,�L
I e} pect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
narie and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
'TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: �'t �`f l j 1 t� �� �_ (-,c V) _
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:A�1��
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
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: DATE: —
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
PHONE 1—
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
�_Jf VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
I
TO CITY CLERK
I=RG) VI: DATE:
f s
ADI.) 9ESS:
PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: t i v f �' ;i- DATE: —ILI/5 6
ADDRESS: %. S;z 1h-jyiUcr dv PHONE:
ORGANIZATION: 5 i
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
t
Signat e
'TO
FROM:
ADDRE=SS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
�f
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: `)'\k.''_
DATE: jv�
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.
rf^
Sign ure
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO CITY CLERK
--� DATE:
ADC )RESS:
PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGE NDA #/SUBJECT: V/V
expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: DATE:
ADDRESS: /y�� ,(�� PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM:���, ✓'� � J") DATE: r) %
ADDRESS: PHONE:
k
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
k, 1, J t z- 4, k -P -, - 4 ,
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature/
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
DATE:
PHONE:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please h
name and address as written above. have the Council Minutes reflect my
`,� Signature
L4 ` VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
'TO CITY CLERK
FRO 0: f t
e (' r DATE:
ADD iESS: ' K 1` t (� rpt '�(�
PHONE:
ORG 4NIZATION:
Irl
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
�t_�l : 't f �r'r ` r� _ {
f -'vii
%7)V1v
expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
�J
TC
FF )M:
AC )RESS:
OF SANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
DATE:
PHONE:
AC =NDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
na-ne and address as written above.
j''
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK p
FROM: �/ �� L {� I %�r i DATE: �D
ADDRESS: `- Z �> 11 �> lI ,D�Z%/� �PHON
ORGANIZATION: n n
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: I/ " I r
U�f
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above. -�
Signature
TO
FR,: M:
AD:KESS:
OR: ANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CL RK
,^
DATE: 7 I
LPHONE��'/�!
A'
I expect to address the Council on the subject aggp item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above. 1
TO
FRS _ I\A:
AD!: KESS:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
DATE:
PHONE:
7--7-91t5
OR: ANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: --� ���`� /" V -7-1G��'
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
K2
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
►/his L
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.
� r
P
Signatu
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: DATE:
ADDRESS: 56p, AIKN 7'2:::� per - PHONE: _A,61-156!2
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
Ui/Mr. owlr
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
_
4_
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO CITY CLERK
FROM: Ce o fop b DATE: 7171qly
ADDRESS: PHONE go % � �6
OR aANIZATION:
AGI: -:NDA #/SUBJECT:
— 149 ,
jk
I expect to address the Council on the s bject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
i�
!1'L�
Signature
TO
I=RO A:
ADD IESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGE: ADA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
vc
,p
DATE: 7 " 7
PHONE L�-O - _W_'
1 expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
7
�--- 7
�'ignature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY
�CLERK
FROM: / �f-s_4 � �u -�.� DATE:
ADDRESS: PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
i -/, �-,, //-� � " - ---, z 4 �
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO:
CITY CLERK
FROM:
0C"�' ;`'� h�
DATE: R �5
ADDRESS:PHONE:
O
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
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.
Signature
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
"QUICK CAP" MINUTES
JULY 7, 1998
1. CLOSED SESSION: None
2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to
order at 6:35 p.m. in the Auditorium of the SCAQMD, 21865 E.
Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Captain Martinez, Walnut Sheriff
INVOCATION: Dr. James Price, Diamond Canyon
Christian Church
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff,
O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera
Also present: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael
Jenkins, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager;
David Liu, Deputy Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community
Services Director; Mike Nelson, Communications and Marketing
Director, Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant and Lynda Burgess,
City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
4. PUBLIC CANTS: Clyde Hennessee re Special Meeting
held on Monday, July 6, 1998 - did not get his agenda until
Monday night. Felt the personnel matters could have been
continued to this meeting. Stated that street sweeping is not
taking place on a regular basis anymore. Asked what kind of
benefit are derived from the Concerts in the Park.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1
CONCERTS IN THE PARK -
July 8, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - Doo Wah
Riders (Country Western/Bluegrass), Sycamore Canyon Park
5.2
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
- July 9, 1998 -
7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3
PLANNING COMMISSION
- July 14, 1998 -
7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Dr.
5.4
CONCERTS IN THE PARK
- July 15, 1998 -
6:30 p.m. - Film
at Eleven and the Late
Breaking Horns -
(Classic 601s),
Sycamore Canyon Park
5.5
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
- July 21, 1998 -
6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium,. 21865 E.
Copley Dr.
5.6
CONCERTS IN THE PARK
- July 22, 1998 -
6:30 p.m. - Mid
West Coast Band (Top
40 Contemporary),
Sycamore Canyon
Park
5.7
GRAND RE -OPENING OF DIAMOND BAR LIBRARY
- August 15, 1998
- 10:00 a.m., 1061 S.
Grand Ave.
JULY 7, 1998
PAGE 2
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by MPT/Chang, seconded by
C/Ansari to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0
by Roll Call vote.
6.1 APPROVED MINUTES:
6.1.1 Study Session of June 16, 1998 - As submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of June 16, 1998 - As
submitted.
6.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated July 7, 1998 in the
amount of $489,584.73 for FY 97-98 and $189,854.31 for FY
98-99, for a total amount of $679,439.04.
6.3 REVIEWED AND APPROVED TREASURER'S REPORT - for month of
May, 1998.
6.4 DENIED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Leslie Bellegia on
June 3, 1998 and referred the matter for further action
to Carl Warren & Co., the City's Risk Manager.
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 ACCEPTANCE OF WORK COMPLETED IN ENVIRONMENTAL ENHANCEMENT
AND MITIGATION (E.E.M.) TREE PLANTING PROJECT - The
E.E.M. Tree Planting Project along the 57 Fwy. and at the
60 Fwy/Brea Canyon Rd. Interchange has been completed.
A total of 421 trees have been planted and a drip
irrigation system utilizing reclaimed water has been
installed. Total cost of the project is $154,757, which
is within the contract amount of $158,405. All costs for
this project will be reimbursed to the City by the State
and ongoing maintenance is the responsibility of
Caltrans.
In response to C/Ansari, CSD/Rose stated that the trees
planted were 15 gallon size consisting of walnut, oak and
sycamore for a total of 421 trees. All funding came from
the State.
MPT/Chang moved, seconded by C/Huff to accept work
completed in the E.E.M. Tree Planting Project and direct
the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion. It is
further recommended that the City Council authorize the
release of the retention in the amount of $15,475.71
(10%) 35 days after recordation of said notice. Motion
carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 6:58 p.m.
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff called the meeting to
order at 6:58 p.m.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 3
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera,
O'Connor, VC/Ansari, C/Huff
Also present: Terrence L. Belanger, Executive Director;
Michael Jenkins, Agency Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City
Manager; David Liu, Deputy Public Works Director; Bob Rose,
Community Services Director; Mike Nelson, Communications and
Marketing Director, Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant and Lynda
Burgess, Agency Secretary.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by AM/Herrera, seconded by AM/Ansari
to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll
Call vote.
3.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Regular Meeting of June 16, 1998 - As
submitted.
3.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated July 7, 1998 in the
amount of $62,933.00.
ADJOURNED REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FETING: 7:00 p.m.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267, CONDITIONAL USE
PERMIT NO. 98-03, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 98-01 AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-02 (SCH 97031005) -
Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership and SunCal Companies are
requesting approval to subdivide 65 acres of a 339.3 acre
site into 141 lots for development of 130 detached single
family residences, 10 open space lots and one lot
reserved for the Walnut Valley Water District; remove and
replace oak and walnut trees; and remove map restrictions
on a portion of the 65 acres. The balance of the 339.3
acre site (274.3 acres) and all Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479
would be dedicated to the City as open space. The
project site is generally located east of D.B. Blvd. and
north of Grand Ave., at the extension of Highcrest Dr.
The Planning Commission concluded its review on May 12,
1998 and recommended approval.
M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing.
Tom Jones, Environmental Consultant.
C/Belanger announced that two letters had been received
earlier in the day from Johnson & McCarthy LLP pointing
out certain issues regarding this project.
Todd Kurtin, representing Sun Cal.
Lex Williman, Planning Director, Hunsaker & Associates.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 4
Dean Armstrong, Engineering Geologist, Pacific Soils.
James Anderson - Against the project because he doesn't
want development in his back yard.
Rosie Bern - Quality of life has already been disrupted
because of the traffic along D.B. Blvd. and Grand Ave.
Concerned about devastating the nature landscaping.
Stan Granger - Was told that the area was map and deed
restricted and that it would never be developed.
Sam Saffari - No guarantee that the open space will not
be used by the City for some financial debacle.
Thom Pruitt, Pop Warner Football and Cheerleading Assn. -
Need a home field and asked Council to consider a sports
and recreation facility in addition to Pantera Park.
Wendy Ann Goin - against the project because she doesn't
want to see the aesthetics disturbed. Also concerned
about over -crowding of schools due to the new residents.
John Forbing - Transamerica originally planned for a
Population of 110,000. Map restrictions were placed by
the County in order to get developers to give them
something in return. Project well thought out and well
designed.
Don Gravdahl - Spoke in favor of assuring that the City
gets the best possible project out of this.
The following persons spoke against the project:
Dave Kersey
George Davidson
Randy Naydu - 500 acres of open land transferred from
Bramalea to SunCal - $2.7 million is a minimum amount.
Why didn't the City bid to purchase this property for
approx. $3 million? Re traffic and congestion - how many
members of the Planning Commission and Council drive
between Pathfinder and Grand Ave. between 5 and 5:30
P.M.? What about other landslides involving SunCal
developments in other areas?
Sandy Erickson - Pointed out that no one wants to stop
developer from building on Lot 6 which has no current
restrictions, but to stop them from building on map
restricted property.
Dr. Christina Goode - Air pollution - dust and other
JULY 7. iaaQ
PAGE 5
construction pollution will
acceptable standards. Will cause 10 times greater tha
be
health effectsn
What good is an EIR?
Martha Bruske
Ron Theran
Henry Pourzand
Marty Torres
Nick Anis - spoke regarding the necessity of the City to
not deny the developer the right to build on his
property.
Albert Perez
Kevin Johnson, Johnson & McCarthy, attorney
that there is a deed with restrictions placed o Pointed on it.
Project conflicts with General Plan.
Lex Williman and Todd Kurtin responded to some of the
concerns expressed by members of the public.
Jim Castles of Pacific Soils discussed the differences
between SunCal's project in San Juan Capistrano vs. the
proposed project in D.B.
C/O'Connor expressed a desire to see a plan for
development of Lot only.
In response to C/O'Connor, CA/Jenkins stated that the map
restriction "gives the
construction." City the right to prohibit
C/O'Connor requested copies of the deed
earlipresente
er. CA/Jenkins did not believe that the restriction
noted on the deed was truly a deed restriction but merely
a reflection of the map restriction already in existence.
O'Connor - could the water tanks be located
restricted property? Has anybody checked to see
geography of this site is similar to the Diamon
High School site?
on map
if the
d Ranch
C/Ansari also expressed concern that no project was
proposed just for Lot #6.
MPT/Chang asked is the General Plan would be complied
with if the project were limited to Lot #6 only? Need a
better analysis of the traffic impacts.
C/Huff requested a staff report during the next project
presentation regarding regional traffic impacts and what
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 6
numbers of vehicles are currently traveling through the
City. What type of impact will this project have upon
the schools? Staff to speak to what the City is trying
to achieve through the General Plan. Asked for written
response to Atty. Johnson's letters by the August meeting
date.
M/Herrera - address tree replacement issue. What can be
done to mitigate air pollution problems caused by the
project? Address number of trees removed from Arciero
Project and whether they were replaced. Staff to obtain
copy of deed displayed by Mr. Tehran. Suggested waiting
to make a decision on limiting project to Lot 46 until
questions are answered in August.
Council consensus to ask developer to prepare a proposal
for just Lot #6. Continue to July 21 to hear from the
developer as to whether they are interested in developing
such a proposal.
Mr. Kurtin stated that his firm would have to have some
time to think about the matter.
Following discussion, the Public Hearing was continued to
Saturday, August 8, 1998 at 9 a.m.
7.2 (a) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
RESOLUTION NO. 98-42: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99 - On May 18, 1998, Council approved the
Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No. 98-29 to
declare the City's intention to levy and collect
assessments for District No. 38. Council commenced the
public hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7,
1998 on the levy of the proposed assessments on
assessable lots within this District for FY 1998-99.
(b) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
RESOLUTION NO. 98-43: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99 - On May 18, 1998, Council approved the
Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No. 98-30 to
declare the City's intention to levy and collect
assessments for District No. 39. Council commenced the
public hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7,
1998 on the levy of the proposed assessments on
assessable lots within this District for FY 1998-99.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 7
(c) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99 - On May 18, 1998, Council approved the
Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No. 98-31 to
declare the City's intention to levy and collect
assessments for District No. 41. Council commenced the
public hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7,
1998 on the levy of the proposed assessments on
assessable lots within this District for FY 1998-99.
M/Herrera re -opened the Public Hearing.
There being no testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the
Public Hearing.
Moved by MPT/Chang, seconded by C/Ansari to adopt
Resolution Nos. 98-42, 98-43 and 98-44 levying
assessments on Assessment District Nos. 38, 39 and 41 for
FY 1998-99.
9. NEW BUSINESS: None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 11:15
2. PUBLIC COUNTS: None offered
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. AGENCY MEN[BER COMMENTS:
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: 11:16 P.M.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 11:16 P.M.
10. COUNCIL SUB-COM14ITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL b=MER COUNTS: M/Herrera announced that she will
establish a Telecommunications Task Force with members to be
proposed by all Council Members. Will begin work on September
1st with completion by October 31st with a report to the
Planning Commission immediately thereafter.
12. ADJOURNMENT: 11:21 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES
VERBATIM PUBLIC COMMENTS
JULY 7, 1998
SUNCAL PROJECT
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor
Herrera
Also present: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney;
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Deputy Public Works
Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director, Mike Nelson,
Communications and Marketing Director, Joann Gitmed, Senior
Accountant and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
7:00 p.m.
7.2 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
NO. 98-03, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 98-01 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 97-02 (SCH 970031005).
James Anderson, 23342 Stirrup Drive: "I have been in development for about 15 years
- not in this area. The presentation was absolutely professional. I think the people did a
magnificent job - a beautiful project. No question about it. But not in my backyard. I feel
we have enough traffic right now on Diamond Bar Boulevard. I have a feeling that at
some point in time our schools who (which) are crowded again which of course means
more expense to the city. I feel very strongly that many of us came here for the beauty of
this area. I feel, unfortunately, that the Planning Commission which approved this perhaps
doesn't live here or are possibly thinking about moving. I want to say I love this city. I
like it the way it is. Thank you."
Rosie Bern, 1010 S. Park Spring Lane: "I have been a citizen and a taxpayer of
Diamond Bar since 1980. We had a population when I first moved in of 29,000 roughly.
I think we're now, the latest figures are like 53,000 or so. I don't believe them. I think it's
more like 60,000. That was our maximum capacity at one time. Our density. I don't
know if that's been reached or not, but I have a suspicion that it has been because I haven't
seen those signs changed for a very long time. And my point is also that my quality of life
has diminished due to the traffic congestion along Diamond Bar Boulevard. I go on
Diamond Bar Boulevard during the morning rush hour and I come back every evening and
it's a total mess between (SO) 57 and 60 or 71 and up Grand Avenue since it's been
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 2
opened. And that needs to be addressed, maybe in the Transportation meeting I'll have to
go to on Thursday night. Also, because, before we do any further development I simply
have to look into our traffic problems. I'm also concerned that we're over populated and I
think we've done as much development as we should have between three long miles -
Diamond Bar is only three miles long - and also, there's 130 houses that they're planning to
put up on those hills and that's not one car per family. There's probably going to be two
cars per family - that's another 260 cars going down to Diamond Bar Boulevard and
clogging it up even more. So I'd like to know the environmental impact and the traffic
report. Even during construction, what that impact is going to have with the construction
going on up there because I think it's really going to make it impossible to go on Diamond
Bar Boulevard. I've also got other concerns about devastating the natural landscaping of
our area. I came here because I like the hills and the canyons and I'm seeing more and
more of them torn down. I like the open spaces. I don't want to see any further
development. And, I have a problem thinking about, you're talking about there's
landslides, possible landslides and who's going to be here after those landslides happen if
we have another bad rainstorm like we did this year in February and March - who's going
to be here to pay the damages. Is it going to be left to the city and the taxpayers? Who's
going to accept the liability? That's what I would like to know. I don't want it to be on
my tax bill, let's put it that way. And I'd like to see - I'm more concerned also, about the
type of barriers that are going to be put up - if it's going to be sufficient to withhold
rainstorms because it's a heavy hill. I've seen a lot of damage along Diamond Bar
Boulevard where the landscaping hasn't been too good. And they're not even as steep as
the area that you're talking about. And I guess that's about all of my concerns if that could
be addressed. I'm going to stay here until the end of the meeting to see if those questions
could be answered."
Stan Granger, 23800 Gold Nugget Avenue: "I've lived here since 1980. At that time
the developer assured me that the large open area presently under discussion was map and
deed restricted and it would never be developed, purposely to leave it as an open area.
This present developer, Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership is only the most recent of
several owners of this property. In other words, they purchased the property knowing full
well that they could not develop it. So you do not have to concern yourself about
restricting their rights as property owners or bailing them out of a known bad deal. You,
the City Council, need only concern yourselves with the rights and wishes of the residents
of Diamond Bar. This is the reason you are here - to represent us, the residents, not the
developer. And why would you want to look after the developer's interest instead of the
citizens of Diamond Bar anyway? Judging from the disgusting performance of the
Planning Committee in recent months where they rudely interrupted speakers, left the
room while people were speaking and declaring themselves impartial and undecided in this
matter, and then minutes later voting in favor of this project, virtually without full
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 3
discussion, flying in the face of substantial opposition. Also, the city's management policy
of notifying only those residents within 500 feet of development when this matter concerns
all residents of Diamond Bar makes one wonder what stake the city managers have in this
development when they should be concerned with the desires of the residents who pay
their salaries. So it seems that the Planning Commission doesn't want to represent the
residents of Diamond Bar. And the City Manager doesn't want to represent the residents
of Diamond Bar. It is now up to the City Council to make the right decision even though
it should never have gone this far. So let's do the right thing and stop this ridiculous
project here and now and put an end to something that should never have been started in
the first place. You cannot build on this deed and map restricted property period."
Sam Saffari, 24075 Highcrest Drive: "Thank you Mayor. Mayor, Council Members,
people of Diamond Bar - I'm going to go through this fast because I'm on a time clock of
five minutes. I live at 24075 Highcrest in Diamond Bar and I've been a resident for 11
years. I also want to thank SunCal project for allowing me to borrow their board. I'm
against this project. I've been attending Planning Commission meeting for the past nine
months. In that nine months and the number of meetings that I went to I've asked a
number of questions and none of them were answered or none of the major ones
answered. I'd like to address one and allow my fellow residents to get the others. The
main question that we asked the City Commission was this project was never offered to
the Commission within Lot 6 and as you can see from this plan that we have here, the
green line represents Lot 6 where everything is supposed to be built and what is the
houses that are going outside of Lot 6 are the ones that are in orange. And the rest of the
plan produced - I would call it a mickey mouse plan because it lacked a lot of the
necessary things such as the water tank inside, so on and so forth, and it was just talked
about over the microphone. No actual plan has ever been presented for actual intelligent
decision-making by the City Commission to see these two plans, one within Lot 6 which
they are allowed to build. And I would like to, at this point, make a strong point that I
believe that SunCal has a right, has a property right, but within parameters of what our
General Plan has given them and they cannot come out of that right and allow us to
believe that the land they are giving us in return is a favor. As Mr. Kurtin or SunCal was
stating, the General Plan itself says they have a right to build on this land if they give us a
75 percent return - so they're not giving us anything, they have to give it to us. Point
number two - I'm going to go through this real fast because I have other things to mention
- this land that they give us, there is no guarantee that the City Council will not use for
other purposes such as a financial disaster happening because of what ever project you
have, revitalization program or your current Redevelopment Agency makes a mistake and
oops - 20 million dollars - now, we need to not become Orange County, we need to sell
this land to a developer just like all the promises that we've heard over the years that this
land is not going to be built - now it's smaller - we'll take a bit more and we go forward.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 4
The guarantee in writing - a guarantee that a conservancy has taken it over prior to
anything said over a microphone or that can be taken back and say no, we now have
changed our minds. Those are my only two - I would like to mention at this point that
there are many people in attendance who are not going to speak. These people have
understandable problem with public speaking. They are here and I understand what you
just mentioned, but I do not see any other way but to ask them to clap at this time to show
how many residents are here to show their support that they are against this project."
(M/Herrera: They don't need to clap, but if they would raise their hands.)
Sam Safiari: "I would like to ask all the people who are against this project to please
stand up if you are a Diamond Bar resident. Thank you ladies and gentlemen. Please be
seated. I would like to, any Diamond Bar resident who is for this project to stand up. I
would like to know if you drive a car. Thank you. Please sit down. I would like to take
this time - we have collected over this past nine months 2,000 signatures. I would like to
thank all the people who walked the streets of Diamond Bar collecting signatures - at this
time many of them are in attendance - and I hope you have access to those signatures to
see their names. And at this time also I would like to mention that a lawyer representing
the residents of Diamond Bar is in attendance but he's limited to five minutes. We asked
both the commission's members to donate some of the speaker's time and write on your
card that you would donate their time to the lawyer and please hand it in. A number of
people already have handed in their cards with their time donated to the lawyer. And last,
I would like to just mention real fast some of the points that Mr. Kurtin and his engineer
brought up...."
(M/Herrera: I'm sorry but you're out of time. Perhaps other residents could make the
points that you were about to make.)
Thom Pruitt, 24242 Breckenridge Court: "I'm President of Pop Warner Football and
Cheerleading Association. This year we're celebrating our 20th Anniversary of
incorporation. But actually, we've been involved in providing programs for the City of
Diamond Bar, the families here, for 30 years. And obviously, during that time, the
organization could not possibly have survived without the strong support of civic leaders
including current City Council and governmental officials. And we appreciate that very
much. At the same time, we currently don't have a home field - a place that we can call
home - to play our games and our other activities to have as a base. The reason for that
obviously, is that there is an increasing scarcity of recreational facilities here in the City of
Diamond Bar and that's directly attributed to the lack of open space available for
development of those recreational facilities. We have spoken with many of you to varying
degrees about our concerns and have received quite a positive response. We've also
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 5
spoken with leading officials of other organizations here within the city as well as, with
Todd Kurtin of SunCal. And we have received very positive responses in all cases. We
feel certain that as you continue to consider the issue before you that you will take into
consideration as a priority the need to establish some sort of a sports and recreational
complex here in the city. This is in addition to the about to open Pantera Park facility.
Each year, including this year, approximately two weeks ago, when we try to allocate
space for athletic facilities, recreational facilities for organizations within the city, there's
always a conflict, a mild conflict, and that we try in a cooperative manner to divide up the
facilities that are available. But they are far from' adequate. Probably the loan exception
within the city is the Little League which has a property that was provided by
Transamerica Corporation some years ago and has been further developed by the families
that utilize that particular facility. We're hoping that as you go forward with your
consideration on this project before you that you will consider for open space use, whether
you approve it or not, a sports facility - there are many models for this in surrounding
municipalities. This would address the needs of citizens of various ages, the youth, a teen
center, a senior citizen's center as well as, a complex that would include a playing field that
could be used by various organizations. Soccer for example, has approximately 100-120
teams and maybe 1500 participants. We have almost, 500 participants. And so forth, and
so on. Thank you very much."
Wendy Ann Goin, 809 Bridle Drive: "Thank you. Madam Mayor, City Council
Members. Not to be redundant, I just want to reiterate something that someone said
before about the aesthetics of the city that we live in. And I am a very recent member of
Diamond Bar. I just moved here last month. And the reason being that I liked the city the
way it is. If I wanted to have live in a concrete jungle type of home then I would not have
moved to Diamond Bar. Maybe live in LA. But I chose Diamond Bar because of the way
it looks and I hope that you chose to leave it that way. The second point I'd like to make
is that overcrowding of our schools which has a direct correlation to the quality of
education that our children receive. I don't need to tell anybody here how we hear
complaints about the poor level of education in California in general. This all has to do
with overcrowded schools. And we have a development such as this. We have a hundred
more kids coming into our schools. Where do we plan to put them? What type of
education plans are we going to enforce? Do the children in our current schools, will they
be suffering as a result? Third point I'd like to make is that everything should not be about
dollars and cents. Unfortunately, in today's society, it is. It should be about quality of life.
And just walking outside your home and seeing some beautiful green hills and not having a
concrete jungle. It shouldn't be about dollars and cents and I'm wondering if the
developers and the planners if that's maybe their focus since they don't live here. Another
point I'd like to make is that it was stated before, I think by Mr. Belanger, that the City
Council has a right to prohibit or not prohibit the residential building but someone thought
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 6
it was important enough to keep that space and not to build on it. So they had that
statement - that clause put in so that it could be hopefully not lifted because it was
important enough for somebody to see this is a beautiful place. Let's not mess it up. Let's
leave it as it is. And I think we should just take a step back and look and think about what
that person maybe had in mind when they put that statement there. And also, a final point
I'd like to address is - I don't know the gentleman's name. He made a point about there
were five or more problems but the only two problems or three problems that were
remaining that were not of any significance were the aesthetics, the air quality and the
noise. I'm wondering, not of importance to whom. I mean these are exactly the points
that we're all talking about - the aesthetics, the air quality, the noise - and I think if we just
simply brush it aside and say well, these are the only three things that we haven't dealt with
or we haven't taken care of. But those are the things that we should take care of if were
going to, you know, really address this entire project. Final point I'd like to make - final
point, is that when does it end? You know, we build now and we say we're going to leave
this much space and then the next 10 years, oops, we need some more land. And then
another 20 years, ooh, yeah, we need to take a little more, you know, and when does it
end. That's all. Thank you for your time."
John Forbing, a Diamond Bar resident): "I moved here in 1975 and got involved on
the Diamond Bar Improvement Association Board and was President. I'm now the
President of the Diamond Bar Historical Society so I do have some knowledge of the
background of this community. When Transamerica originally planned this community in
1957, it was planned for 110,000 people. The Diamond Bar Improvement Association for
years, fought the original zoning and got the zoning downgraded from multiples all along
Diamond Bar Boulevard to single family residences. It was a constant battle against the
County (of Los Angeles). The only reason that the county ever put a map restriction on
(the proposed project area) was because they wanted the developer to come back and
stand in front of them and give them something to get it removed. Map restrictions were
strictly done to get the property owner back in front of the Board of Supervisors. It had
nothing to do with aesthetics or the feeling for the community by the Board of Supervisors
at any time. The education comments that have been made by several people has
absolutely nothing to do with the City Council. There is a school board that handles both
ends of the community. They are the ones that are responsible for the schools. The state
legislature has set up a way that the school districts collect money from every builder.
Whenever they build a house they have to give so many dollars per square feet of that
house to the school district to improve the schools. The community now has about
58,000 population. That includes the area that is west of the 57 freeway that was never
included in the original Transamerica map of Diamond Bar. The 110,000 population did
not include the area west of the 57 freeway. So when you take into account that area the
58,000 is a lot less than what was originally planned. I think that this project is well
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 7
thought out and well designed. I feel it will be an asset to the community and it's the
responsibility of the City Council to work with the property owners of any property that
has rights in the community and make sure that they do the best possible job of developing
their property so that the community will benefit from it. I think that the open space that
is being given by this property owner is going to be an asset and it's something that the
City Council in the future can work on to add recreation areas. It's really a shame that a
previous proposal that came to the community at a different part of town and a lot of
people signed petitions just like they've done on this one without understanding what it
was they were signing and fighting. The property is building homes right now on his
original approved property. The same is that there is now a hill there where there could
have been a park with room for soccer fields, baseball fields, an amphitheater, an extension
of all of the recreation facilities from the middle school that was contiguous with that plus
1.2 million dollars a year forever of income to the City of Diamond Bar from a retail area.
The people that signed those petitions that stopped that project are also the people that
when the alternative General Plan was on the ballot, soundly defeated it. The General
Plan that was proposed by the City Council was approved, is in effect right now, and I
think that this Council is doing a good job of requiring this developer to make sure that
they have mitigated all of the problems and they should continue to work with the
developer and approve the project."
Don Gravdah4 a Diamond Bar resident: "Yes. Good evening. My name is Don
Gravdahl. I know we've heard various times of living in the city. I think the wife and I
bought our first homes here in 1967 when the county had a sign posted between the golf
course and Diamond Bar Boulevard on Golden Springs Road that was 3600 and some
population. That 3600 and some population stayed there for quite a long time until
probably the early part of the 70's when building started off. Most of the people, if we're
going to close the door on property rights and say we love that beautiful hill up there, I
loved that beautiful hill when the population was 3600 too, but I didn't have the money to
buy that beautiful hill. Somebody else has paid property taxes on it over all of these years.
I realize this particular property has changed hands several times, and I also realize that
there are property rights to build on one parcel of about 130 homes. If this developer
builds on that property - if he crams or goes in and does a screwy job of a development
that you probably can't drive two cars down the street and meet each other and do all of
the other things that we have in some parts of our city in the early 60's, maybe he can fit
them in there. But if he does that, do you get 360 acres that he's talking about? Do you
have the right to ask him for that? Because that's in that MOU that was signed in the early
90's if this was carried out so that this development could be a decent development. I've
sat in the audience and to be very frank with you, this is the first presentation I've seen on
it. Here you have a gate -guarded community. Everything back of that gate belongs to the
homeowners. They're going to pay for the maintenance on those streets. They pay for
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 8
everything once they pass through that gate. And yes, we're going to collect taxes on
those pieces of property even though they are maintaining the streets and everything else
that's in it. As I understand, there's about 30 acres of green area that is also going to be
the responsibility and ownership of these property owners. They're going to be paying for
that as well, the maintenance and everything else on that. That's a real plus for our
community. As far as the schools are concerned, I believe this falls in Pomona Unified
School District and I'm sure the proper officials down there have got their hands out and
they've figured out just exactly what to do with the money from the 130 homes. Yes, this
builder has rights on it. And yes, he has proposed a project that does slop into some of
the other ones that did have the Board of Supervisor's map restrictions on. But let's get
the best possible project out of this. At least you will have something that the
homeowners who will be living in that development with will have pride of ownership
when they're done. You're going to eventually get 130 homes some way on this property.
The rest of the property that is there will still be hanging and if it's in private ownership
will still be coming back to this Council time after time after time. At least, if the city
owns that property, if some of it is used for parks or recreation or whatever else, we know
where it's at. We know that all of the residents from the very south tip of the city, the very
west tip of the city and the very north tip of the city will benefit from this development and
that land when the city has it. I realize that this City Council's got kind of a hard job and
I'm sure that if you've looked over this project you're probably wondering why you were
out there carrying your signs around asking for that job. Do your job. Give this
developer his part and get all you can from him. Thank you."
Dave Kersey, 23403 E. Wagon Trail Drive: "Thank you Madam Mayor, Council
Members. I've been going to Planning Commission meetings since last September. And
at the very first meeting when this project came up I asked questions of the Commission
that have not been answered. The developer gave us facts - I'm not sure where the figures
came from - stating that of these 130 homes, there will be 96 trips made in the morning
between the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m. and 131 trips in the evening between the
hours of 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m. If there's 130 homes and only 96 trips being made in the
morning, somebody's not working. How did they buy the homes. And why is there 131
trips being made between the hours of 4:00 and 6:00 p.m. when the majority of people
work until 5:00 p.m. So let's look at that traffic issue closely. I don't know if you've come
down Diamond Bar Boulevard in the evening towards north Diamond Bar, but it took me
25 minutes when I turned onto Diamond Bar Boulevard from Brea Canyon Road to get to
the post office this evening and that's between 6:00 p.m. and 6:25 p.m. We don't need any
more cars. They also had facts and figures about the oak trees and walnut trees. There
were 820 oak trees that are going to be preserved and exactly 410 that are going to be
destroyed. And I asked how is that? Was it chance? Because in the other project that the
developer pulled sometime earlier in this year which was Tract No. 52308 there were 20
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 9
oak trees and 10 were going to be destroyed. In each instance, exactly 50 percent of the
trees, or I'm sorry - one-third of the total was going to be destroyed. And the same figure
held for walnut trees. And this to me sounds like a figment of somebody's imagination.
Carey Garza of SunCal looked into it and claims that it's just pure chance. Please, let's
check this out. These trees, these 410 oak trees, basically fall in one canyon. The 1230
oak trees total fall in the entire project - the lots that go from Diamond Bar Boulevard all
the way back to Summitridge Park. And we're going to take exactly one-third of them out
on Diamond Bar Boulevard. I don't know why we have to take them all out. It seems to
me we should be able to preserve some. With regard to the water issues - hydrologic
issues, there was one gentleman that came up at one Planning Commission meeting who
was responsible for San Diego State project and he stated that they ran into some severe
problems with water runoff that's a real issue when you get into slopes. Now, all of us
have seen the water that accumulates in front of Sycamore Canyon Park there on Diamond
Bar Boulevard. There's an area there that says be careful extra water and they stick signs
out there. Tin Drive is going to come down very steep and that water's only got one place
to go that I can see and that's toward Sycamore Canyon Park. We'd better get our liability
insurance increased to cover the accidents. The development impacts air quality. I've
heard Mr. DeStefano say that several times. We cannot get around it. We exceed the
environmental impact allowances. Let's not do that. And I've heard that they're not going
to allow dynamiting. But even at that, we're still going to have severe impact with dust.
The noise is going to be something that we're going to deal with for several years. The
aesthetics obviously are going to change the community. This is our last virgin hill. This
is the last hill that Diamond Bar residents have that are commuting up and down Diamond
Bar Boulevard to look at. Sand Canyon is gone. Let's save the last one. And getting
back to the water issue, we had our hundred year rain this year. The slopes held real well.
I hate to think what might happen. I do recall Gold Rush Drive and I remember that that
mud rushed all the way down Gold Rush (Drive), down Diamond Bar Boulevard all the
way to Golden Springs (Road). We have enough trouble keeping our cars clean with
these meridians that have water out in the street more than in the grass areas. And that, as
I recall, was a project that the Diamond Bar voters told the city, we do not want. And yet
they came back and it was put in against our wishes."
George Davidson, 23426 E. Wagon Trail Road: "First, I just wanted to mention that
the speaker before Dave, I echo his thoughts that I want to find out what is the best
possible project for this area. How can we possibly do that if there's never been a
development proposal before you that is wholly contained within Lot 6? That is his legal
right. If we don't have that to compare to, I just don't think we can find out what really
the significant benefits are of allowing to lift the deed restrictions so that he can develop
that additional land. The crux of my issues are around the lifting of the restrictions. I've
talked to many of the Council Members, and it seems that in order to lift the restrictions,
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 10
the issue here is that there has to be a significant benefit to the city. And the fact that we
would be obtaining 360 acres of restricted land could possibly be a significant enough
benefit to lift those restrictions, and I wanted to address that. The developer came up and
said there's four significant benefits that he claims he's giving to the city: The open space,
the $250,000, following our Vision Statement, and safe neighborhoods. The safe
neighborhoods I think we all understand. That's Diamond Bar. So that's not significant to
me. I don't think that's a real significant benefit. And following our Vision Statement, I
think that's what you're supposed to do. So as far as significant benefits it's really just the
land and the money. For the city to own restricted land, and I asked many of you Council
Members, what is the significant advantage to the city owning it if its restricted land. And
every Council Member that I talked to, and I believe the other Council Members up there
in their campaigns talked about the preservation of open space. We want to preserve the
open space. If we own that land, then we can preserve that open space. To me a
significant benefit is, after you add up the pluses and you take away the minuses, there's
enough pluses left over that it becomes significant. I want to remind the Council that we
don't get this for free. This is not something that we are being given by the developer. In
order to get our name on the dotted line of restricted land, we have to give this developer
the right to destroy almost 19 additional acres of our precious open space. And I want to
expound on that issue. This developer isn't coming to the Council and saying hey, I need a
few extra square feet over here to make a little bit better configuration, or I need a couple
of percentage extra to make a nicer layout in the land. This developer is asking you to lift
restrictions on an additional 40 percent. This is not a developer who is trying to make a
better plan. This is a developer, in my opinion, that is trying to take advantage of the
system. Forty percent. The other point I want to make is, this is restricted land. Correct
me if I'm wrong, but the only way you can develop restricted land is if you City Council
Members lift those restrictions. So if your concern is to protect the open space, then what
I say to you now is, please - we're talking about 19 additional acres of open space that
you're going to allow this developer - you're considering to let this developer develop.
Stay true. Stay consistent. Do not allow him to take that open space. Say no to the
development and lifting of those restrictions. The second point that I wanted to make real
quick because I know I'm on a time constraint, is an issue, like I said before, I talked with
many of you Council Members. And one of the issues that I brought up to everybody was
the amount of signatures that we got. We really didn't even try and we got close to 2,000
signatures. And I asked some of the Council Members, you know, I asked one in
particular, how many signatures would it take for you to not lift the deed restrictions and
the answer I got - it shocked me. And I'm going to quote. The quote was, George, you're
probably not going to like the answer I'm going to give you, but it wouldn't matter to me if
there was 10 million signatures. Now I'm not going to take it out of context because the
Council Member explained that the fact that we got 2,000 signatures meant something,
but that this individual had to look at the project as a whole and determine whether this
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 11
was a significant benefit for the city and that was what they were going to base their
decision on. I believe that we are a city, not because of the land that we stand on, not
because of the streets we drive on or the houses that we live in, I believe we're a city
because of everybody that's in this room - the people. And you people were elected by us
to represent us. And for a Council Member to tell me that it wouldn't matter if 10 million
signatures had been obtained, he was still going to base that decision on what he or she
felt was best for the city, it tells me that you're not representing me. And I just want to
say that please, keep that in mind."
Randy Nayudu, 24059 Highcrest Drive: "Good evening. My name is Randy Nayudu.
I live on 24059 I ighcrest Drive and I thank you City Council Members and Madam
Mayor for the opportunity to speak before you. I would like to take up Madam Mayor's
suggestion to the city staff here that they will answer in writing some of the questions that
will be raised here today. I have three specific questions. And they are relating to issues
that I think are of great concern to everybody and what this whole meeting is about. The
first one is about open land. The second one is about traffic and congestion. And the
third is about the safety of my property which happens to He right adjacent to the SunCal
development. I asked a very pointed question to staff and I would like to have written
answer from them. Approximately 500 acres of open land in Diamond Bar transferred
from the hands of Bramalee to SunCal somewhere in the period of the last couple of years
for a price of 2.7 million dollars. The question I ask, is 2.7 million dollars is peanuts for
500 acres in the heart of Diamond Bar. Why did not somebody in the City of Diamond
Bar make a bid to buy this land instead for maybe three million dollars. Because if they
did, we would not be having this issue today. Three million dollars for the City of
Diamond Bar on a 10 year bond with approximately 70,000 residents amounts to less than
$350,000 a year on a mortgage payment which is approximately $5.00 to $6.00 per
resident. So, I would like to know who dropped the ball on this one. I work for the
private sector and I know that my job would be in jeopardy if I did not pick up an
opportunity that is available to buy some property for next to nothing. 500 acres in the
heart of Diamond Bar. I would like an answer to that. The second issue is regarding
traffic and congestion. I think your duty as the City Council and the people who were
here prior to you in several meetings, namely the Planning Commission, need to look at
not just the project for SunCal, but the problems in Diamond Bar as a whole as an entity.
I want to ask you folks, and I would like a written response to this one, how many
members of the Planning Commission - name by name - and how many members sitting up
there right now drive between Pathfinder (Road) and Grand Avenue between 5:00 p.m.
and 5:30 p.m. every evening? Because I do and I would like to see if you are really seeing
the world from my perspective or are you seeing it from the top of an ivory tower. The
third issue is the safety of my property. I live right adjacent to the SunCal property. I
open my LA Times and I see landslides in several parts of the state. And I see SunCal's
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 12
name there. Has anybody here, or are they willing to come back and give us a detailed
report of what the investigations at these other landslides have shown? Maybe it is not
SunCal's problem. Maybe it is SunCal's problem. We need to know that. I think it was
very quickly glossed over over here about one of the gentlemen showing you this map and
he talked about well, you know, this area, you know, potential, if water seeped in it.
That's exactly what we're talking about. I'm an engineer. And I have a real concern about
these issues. Another item I would just like'to mention is as elected members of this city,
I've attended several Planning Commission meetings and I tell you, they rode rough -shod
over the people of Diamond Bar. The last meeting was frankly, a disgrace. The people of
Diamond Bar were insulted, were shouted at, and I, for the first time in my fife, I got up to
speak at a meeting here because I felt somebody had to say enough. And after all of these
discussions and all of the soft voices and all the sweet talk in the last five minutes of this
meeting, three key issues were passed so fast which were never brought up earlier. One
was that the bulldozers were moved from Diamond Bar Boulevard up to a launching pad
on Highcrest Drive. The second was Mr. Todd as a gentleman had given me his word as a
gentleman that the gate on I-Iighcrest will be strictly for fire. And in those last five minutes
they passed another resolution that that gate will be open because the people in this
development will use Pantera Park. And the third was, they got a waiver to start the
grading prior to the deed being recorded. so my question is, whose side are you on?
That's all I want to know. I see the only benefit to this whole deal is everybody's talking
about the free land coming to the city. I do not accept anything for free. Do you? I think
we are not poverty stricken. I don't think we're some hard up little city somewhere. I
thunk SunCal is very smart. I respect them. I admire them. They saw a deal, they went
out and got it, okay. I'm a fair man. I don't think we should take anything away from
SunCal for nothing. They were smart enough to buy 500 acres for 2.7 million dollars. I
say the City of Diamond Bar should have the guts to tell SunCal look, we respect you and
admire you...."
Sandy Erickson, 22806 Ridge Line Road: "Thank you Madam Chairman and City
Council Members. I currently live at 22806 Ridge Line Drive but we will be relocating to
Highcrest (Drive). We purchased a piece of property there. And as this gentleman stated,
my property is going to butt up right next to this SunCal project. At one of the Planning
Commission meetings I got up and raised the question, since one of the gentleman
touched on the issue of safety several times alluding to the fact that he did not want to
create another Gold Rush (Drive), I got up and said, well, it doesn't seem like you're going
to be doing much to mitigate what is happening on Gold Rush (Drive) by opening up a
gate right there that's going to dump right on to Gold Rush (Drive) down the street into
Diamond Bar Boulevard. You're increasing the amount of traffic going in and out of Gold
Rush (Drive) down an already crowded busy dangerous street. That's the only place if
they come out Highcrest (Drive) that they will be able to access Diamond Bar Boulevard
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 13
is off of Gold Rush (Drive). So the safety issue is critical. Gold Rush (Drive) is a mess
and we're just going to make it worse by allowing him to develop the way he wants to
develop. I brought up the issue about the large building machinery being brought up Gold
Rush (Drive) up Highcrest (Drive), highly densely populated areas, and using Highcrest
(Drive) as the staging area. Well, someone over here said the Planning Commission has
the right to restrict that. They can say you cannot start building, you have to use staging
off of Tin Drive. Build Tin Drive first, then use that area which is not populated currently
for your staging. Well, like this gentleman says, in the last five minutes that was changed.
They were allowed to use Highcrest (Drive) as their staging area. That means they're
going to be moving heavy equipment and machinery up highly densely populated areas
with children who play out in the street. To me, it's just welcoming disaster. I too read
the article about the sliding in Orange County, the homes that slide down the hill recently,
and SunCal's name was mentioned in it. I would like to ask the question, is the same
geological firm doing the research for this project that did the research for that project,
and if so, how much credence can we put on a geological study done by a firm who
couldn't foresee that. The gentleman said well, he's going to be here at least until the end
of the project. Well, that's great. The sliding's not going to take place right at the end of
the project. It's going to happen maybe one, two, three years down the road when we
have another El Nino. Who's going to get stuck with the liability issues when that
happens? It's going to be the city. Because, if SunCal comes out of the mess down in
Orange County whole, then if it is perceived that this will happen here, then it's very
common for these developers to declare bankruptcy once they're done - out - declare
bankruptcy, they're no longer responsible. If the geological firm goes out of business and
opens up shop in another name, you can't go after them. Guess who the citizens are going
to go after that purchase those homes that may slide down the hill at a future date. It's
going to be the city. We're the city. We're going to be stuck with the bill down the road.
None of us are saying that the developer does not have rights to build in the lot that he
purchased to build on. None of us are saying that. But, by the same token, we as citizens
certainly can't just arbitrarily say we're going to take over open land that's deed restricted
and build on it. I don't think you would allow me to do that and all we're asking as
citizens is that you not allow them to do it either - that they stay within the parameters of
Lot 6, they don't bleed over. The open space is restricted. They're not giving us anything.
They can't build on it anyway unless you lift those restrictions at some particular point in
time. So, they're basically giving us open land that's restricted as open land anyway. Not
a big shake. They're not giving us a whole lot."
Dr. Christina Goode, 624 Hoss Street: "My name is Dr. Christina Goode. I reside at
624 Hoss Street, Diamond Bar, and thank you Council for giving us the opportunity to
address you. I previously attended the Planning Commission meetings and was extremely
disappointed that the Commission ultimately approved this project to come to you. And it
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 14
was by a 4-1 vote, not a 5-0 vote as indicated by Mr. Kurtin. So there was one person on
there who listened to the comments. Tonight it appears that you are now being asked to
vote again for this development due to the "significant benefit to the city of the donated
open space and the sum of $250,000" which I think is approximately half of the cost of
one of the 130 houses that they're going to build, so it is not a particularly significant sum.
In doing this, in voting for this project, you are being asked to ignore the three factors
already mentioned by the environmental consultant that will have a significant detriment to
the city. There are the aesthetics, the noise and the air pollution. And several people have
spoken already about the aesthetics and the noise. I would like to discuss the air
Pollution. As a resident of Diamond Bar for 11 years, the mother of two small children
and a Phd lab chemist doing research into biochemistry and the effects of our environment,
I am horrified by the Environmental Impact Report which seems to have been somewhat
brushed over in this thing. As determined by the Environmental Impact Report, the levels
of pollution during the ensuing years of the construction will exceed the prescribed levels
of health by at least three times, probably closer to 10 times, the level determined for
health. And this is both for particulant matter - that would be dust generated by the
construction and also nitrous oxides and pollution from the construction traffic. And the
people that are severely impacted by that would of course be butting on to the
development. Given that there is now an extensive scientific literature that directly
correlates even small increases in these particulant matters with significant increases
asthmatics, in infant mortality, in mortality amongst the aged, the body of evidence that is
out there that correlates these two things is overwhelming. And I have plenty if you
would like to see it. I'm wondering and I find myself wondering why the committee of the
Council can accept this development given the Environmental Impact Report. It would
seem to me that that reporting is in itself, regardless of everything else that is being
discussed is in and of itself reason for not allowing this development. We are going to be
subjecting the citizens of Diamond Bar, our children and our aged population, to severe
health effects during the period of development and because of the increased traffic, after
the development. But certainly during the development the levels of pollutants are
enormous. And my question is, and I hope it can be answered - and I too, would like to
have it answered in writing by the Council or the Council's staff - is what good is an
Environmental Impact Report if we just say, oh well, these three factors are significant but
we accept the project? Thank you."
Martha Bruske, a Diamond Bar resident: "I wish to say that I don't live in the
proposed project area but I support the people who are here concerned about the quality
of their life. You've heard me talk about quality of life and the deterioration that I observe
in the city and, most notably, noise, and the messes around the school and things like that.
I agree with what's been said. I'm concerned that you don't know how to accept land from
a developer. I frankly don't trust you not to turn around and sell it to another developer.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 15
But here's what I want to talk about. I want to talk about Sandstone Canyon. Seems to
me I've heard this song before. We had the same issues. We had map and deed
restrictions which the Council lifted. I believe everybody who lived in this town and voted
for cityhood had no idea that one of the things that was going to happen was that the
Council could then lift these map and deed restrictions. We had loss of open space. We
had the purchase and the resale of water district property. The Council did that and it
allowed the developer to progress. We lost a park. You tell me it's coming back, but it
will probably be behind guarded gate. It won't be available to me. We lost animal habitat.
We moved some oak trees which were going to be saved. As is, then I think we talked
about replanting saplings and then I think we lost track of what trees we had saved. I
think you really need to give some answers to all of us about that business of oak tree
saving. Finally, of course, we lost the whole hill didn't we. And the people who live
behind that hill lost the natural sound barrier. So I support these people who are
concerned. I am also concerned that when you have a public hearing, city staff are here to
work with the developer for the developer's posture on things and there is no one in the
city who helps the residents get organized or helps to speak for the residents. You are the
ones who are suppose to do that. Thank you."
Ron Tehran, 745 View Lane: "Good evening, Council Members, ladies and gentlemen
in audience. I want to talk about map or deed restriction. As you can see, I have a copy
of the grant deed that talks about a restriction. It is not a map restriction. This is a deed
restriction and it talks about restricting building on this property. The restriction that was
placed by LA County was for a reason - to preserve open space because of all the other
development. This deed restriction is not for public and should not be used for
negotiation. The project is a hillside development. This project, as you can see, is a very
steep grade - 2:1, 3:1 - very steep grade. Normally, all the other jurisdictions, including
us, that have two to five acres, have one building in those areas. When you look at Lot 6,
it has only 40 acres. Based on that, you only can build eight to 16 lots in this property.
They cannot negotiate the rest of the land. They only have right to build in Lot 6. Based
on hillside development, they can only build every five acres, 8 lot to 16 lot maximum. I
can't see how they (can) negotiate for anything more than that. The city cannot use other
lots area to transfer density or to combine map restriction. The intention is to leave open
space for (the) public. No matter how you look at it, if you remove this restriction, you're
betraying public trust. You can only trade Lot 6 acre per acre or even more. If they want
to get something more, they have to dedicate more from Lot 6. Nothing else. We heard
from the engineer. He talked about damages, he talked about soil and he talked about
safe. They intend to do what the developer is asking him. Safe. They can make less
houses. It would be safer. They don't need to make 130. If they build 16 they can fit it a
lot easier in Lot 6. They don't have to go to other lots. Why do you have to push 130? If
they want to make a nice grade, okay, go to the other lot but dedicate some other portion
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 16
of Lot 6 one to one for the area that they are going out. Why are they building everything
on Lot 6 and they're also going out? I don't see it to be safer. There is no document.
They don't show any cross-section. There's no engineering. Just talking. At least let's
substantiate what they claim based on engineering, cross-section document. Not just
wording. It is not safer to be 130 It's safer to make less. In addition, I would like to ask
(that) if they have a chance to come back up and talk, I'd like to have the public have the
same chance so when they come in here they have more time - a team of citizens can also
have more time in response to their answers. Because they come here and they answer
something totally different and the Planning Commission used to take it and they say okay,
okay, that's fine. Their plan has to be justified based upon engineering, not just wording.
Based on the geotechnical report that they stated that everything can be built, they can
minimize the project to any size. These hills are visible from a long distance away. Even
people driving can see these and having been located in the heart of the city, everyone will
pass a few times a day and enjoy the natural beauty and serenity of them. This project
mass grading with cut and fill will reconfigure the whole area with millions of cubic yard
which will impact all surrounding neighborhoods and in fact, the whole city. The aesthetic
impact cannot be mitigated and the natural beauty cannot be replaced. The visual impact
cannot be mitigated. The amount of dust, exhaust and noise of grading of two million
cubic yards of cut and fill created will adversely impact the neighborhood and the city.
Each cub yards is 2000 pounds - that's one ton. Then they talk about two million cubic
yards. That's two million of cars. Imagine if you have two million cubic cars of moving to
just give you an idea. Everyone in the area of the project will be impacted."
Henry Pourzand, 1008 Quiet Creek Lane: "Good evening, Council Members. My
name is Henry Pourzand. I live at 1008 Quiet Creek Lane. I've been a resident of
Diamond Bar for over nine years and I've worked in the field of air pollution control for
almost 10 years. One of the previous speakers has said a lot of what I was going to say so
I won't repeat it. I just did want to reemphasize that your own EIR statement as adopted
into the record states that the mitigated effects of air pollution from this project are going
to exceed 10 the healthful threshold level. And one thing that she didn't mention is that
the latest study - I believe it's out of Kaiser, I would have to check - indicate that the
group that's most affected now in California, children. The chronic illness there is asthma.
And I know one of the other speakers talked about recreational facilities for younger
citizens so I see some contradiction there. And I just wanted to bring that to your
attention. And just to let you know for the record, I am opposed to this project. I won't
take any more time. Thank you."
Marty Torres, 24832 Highcrest Drive: "Good evening, Council. I'm a Diamond Bar
resident but I also live on Highcrest and I came here with an open mind and I really
respect the comments of all of the speakers before me. Just a couple of issues. I don't
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 17
have $250,000 to give the city. I wish I did. Then I would be on a little more equal
ground. I don't have any open space to offer you tonight. But I do have as many other
people in the audience, really a 15 year history of civic involvement in the city. And I am
a taxpayer. And I do agree with having some open space but I'm a little bit concerned
about at what cost. We've heard a lot about a lot of technical issues by the developer and
the other technical people and I respect their opinions and I'm sure they're well founded.
Unfortunately, just because you can engineer something doesn't mean it's the right thing to
do. That's opinionated and it can be emotional and I do understand that. I'm a pharmacist
by training so the quality of life issue means something to me both in the emotional aspect
but even on a technical aspect and I really want you to weigh that very heavily. But not so
much emotionally but really with respect to what the Environmental Impact Report had to
say about that because I think that's really critical. And some of the speakers before me
addressed that. As a representative of my community, I do respect that the developer
wants us to play by the rules. I do believe he has rights just as we do. And in playing by
those rules, I would respectfully request that you do not remove any of the map
restrictions because that's playing by the rules and I feel that we should be above board.
Do not waive the EIR. Though six out of nine points seem to meet the appropriate
thresholds, three of nine didn't and I hope you weigh that very heavily in your assessment
of this project. I don't want you to downgrade those because the majority did meet. The
bottom line is we hear the word mitigate over and over again, but in three of the nine
points in the EIR the mitigation efforts were not effective enough. And that's based on the
people you had put that together. Those consultants, please respect their opinion and let's
not downgrade their efforts on the city's behalf. And then lastly, based on all this I hope
you exercise your right on my behalf and many of the members of the community to
prohibit this development exactly as it is. And if there are other alternatives then we can
go there when that happens. But as presented to the community and to you I hope that
you, on our behalf, will prohibit what they're presenting."
Nick Anis, a Diamond Bar resident: "Good evening. My name is Nick Anis. I'm a
Diamond Bar resident. My wife and I are active community volunteers. I wish we could
get so many people to turn out for some of the community events in town. You know, the
different fundraising for youth sports in the schools. But I guess that's just the nature of
things. I want to start out by congratulating people who've taken the time to come here
tonight and express their concerns. I bought my first home with my wife in 1977. We
were very thrilled. We both worked two jobs to save the money to buy our home and we
did care about our home and about our neighborhood. And one of the most thrilling times
in our life was when we moved to Diamond Bar. We did see open spaces but to be honest
with you we did move here because it seemed you got more for the money and the overall
community was nice. It seemed to be a safer community. There already was traffic when
we moved here and that was before the homes were built around this proposed project.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 18
I'm a little confused. I'd like to start by saying I don't blame anyone who lives on a certain
street or in a certain neighborhood. They have every right not to want other things in their
neighborhood. Not to want a new, I don't know, an office building or even another home.
If you have someone who lives on Elm Street and there's 10 houses on that street, if you
say to them would you like another house built on your street, who'sgoing to say yes?
Why would you want more houses? You already have your house. You don't need a
house. But maybe that's not the right question. Ask them if they would want to pay a
$1,000 per year assessment so that the city can pay for land that they've taken away from a
property owner. And I don't think most people are willing to do that. That question was
asked right here in this room. It was proposed that we buy the land at Southpointe. The
Middle School. And no one in this city was willing to pay the tax money for us to buy
that land. And that's a shame. I would have been in favor of that. But there were very
few people that expressed interest in that. I've heard some things tonight and I think a lot
of people aren't familiar with EHVs and how they work or with how the Planning
Commission meeting works or a Council meeting and the comment period. But it seems
to me, I just want to remind everyone, the Council, to my knowledge, you don't have the
authority to turn down any building what -so -ever. They are entitled to approval of a
project. So the question really is, are you going to approve this project that's on this
board? I can't believe there are people in this audience - you want them to say no to this
and then SunCal comes back - you don't even know what they're going to come back with.
Maybe you won't like what they come back with. Have you thought about that? What if
you hate what they come back with but it's on that one lot. Then they must - I can talk to
anyone I want - they must approve it. If it's on that one lot, they must approve it. And
how do you know you're going to like it? Maybe you should. take another look at this
project. Is that 10 percent in those other two lots - that's going to make more dust or
more traffic? I mean, I'm on your side. You deserve a break. You deserve every
consideration. But do you really believe that if intruding on another couple of lots that
makes it better or worse? And if so, please explain it to me and I'll help you. I'll chip in
for the lawyer. I'll fight it. I care about this community. I've worked here as a volunteer
six months full time on community projects and so has my wife. I care about Diamond
Bar. I live in the Summitridge area. My front yard overlooks the largest open space in the
City of Diamond Bar. The City of Industry has building rights and one day they're going
to build on it. And I'm not going to like it either. But I don't know if I'm going to be able
to come here and tell the Council to ignore the law or to take people's building rights
away. So if you really don't want them to build on those other two lots, and I don't think
they have to lift the restriction. The restriction does not say you cannot build. It says they
have the power to say yes or to say no. If they say yes, they don't have to lift anything,
they just say yes."
Albert Perez, 703 Pantera Drive: "I've heard a lot of comments today - good evening,
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 19
first of all - anyhow, about the traffic and the noise and all the elements that go into
building and I won't go into that because we've heard a lot of it. My comments will be
based basically on whether - I think the issue's going to come down to as whether this
project should be approved and if it's not approved, what are the consequences for the
City of Diamond Bar. You have a City Attorney from Richards, Watson and Gershon
who would probably give you legal advice one way or another. I think you would know
well enough that if you deny a project, is it a taking from SunCal? Can they come back
and tell the city is it a taking? If you weigh the totality of the circumstances of what
everyone is telling the City Council on how the residents feel and I feel the same way
because this is in my backyard. I'm opposed to the project the way it is. I don't want to
take the man's or SunCal's right to develop. I oppose the lifting of the deed restrictions.
You don't have to do that. That's what's in the deed and you can follow the law. Now
you've heard a gentleman that came up and said you have to approve it. That's not true.
He should probably read some law books and understand a little what's going on here.
Now, this project can be limited. It goes on with what the General Plan is. What
constitutes a taking? As far as if you would limit the project that's here, would it be a
taking? Well, if you limit it to conform with Diamond Bar standards, what the people of
Diamond Bar want, what's good for Diamond Bar, taking into consideration the
Environmental Impact Report. And that's what it's for, to take into consideration so you
can make an unbiased opinion of what you have. You can limit the project to the point
where the man can still develop on his project where it doesn't effect the residents. It
doesn't effect the community as a whole. And that's the way the decision should be
brought on this. You should seek the legal advise that you have here that you're paying
good money for and he should be able to tell you that you can limit the project, you don't
have to lift the deed restrictions, and if SunCal says well, I'm going litigate this, which they
probably will tell you, not to be afraid because when they lose, and they will lose if you
base on a rational decision, you will be able to collect your attorney's fees back from
SunCal. So Diamond Bar will be in a win-win situation. Our community will get a project
that's not going to be disturbing to everyone, you're still going to have the open space, and
we're going to have a peaceful community. Thank you very much."
Kevin Johnson, Attorney, 550 West "C" Street, San Diego, CA 92101: Thank you,
Madam Mayor, Members of the Council. I'll do my best to take less time than that (30
minutes). I know you've all been sitting here for awhile. My business address is 550 West
"C" Street, Suite 1150, San Diego, California. I'm with the firm of Johnson -McCarthy. I
have previously submitted to you a couple of letters based on my review of your EIR,
your General Plan and some other documents that had been given to me and I understand
now with the recommendation from Mr. DeStefano that those are part of your record. Is
that correct? Alhight, very good. I want to try and go somewhat in order. I've been
taking notes during the course of the evening here, and touch on some high points. I think
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 20
it's very wise of you to take some extra time to get some questions answered in writing
and continue this to another date for a decision. I wanted to start off on the subject of
deed restrictions. I have attempted to get some further documentation about the city's
legal rights in connection with the lifting of the restrictions. I've reviewed the language in
the General Plan and I have looked at title documents that were generated as part of the
study for the project. I have referenced in my letter of July 7 to you a deed which deals
with a number of the lots in question. And at the very back of that deed it refers to
restrictions on building for Lots 4, 5, 7 and 9. This document has been submitted to the
City Clerk. I have extra copies here which I can hand out to you if you'd like at a later
point. But in any event, this is a deed. It was developed by Chicago Title when they did
a deed search and on the deed it says that there are restrictions on buildings. So, we need
some full clarification on this because this is not a map, it's a deed - it's a restriction on a
deed. And as I note in my letter, in several places in the EIR the consultants refer
consistently to map restrictions and deed restrictions. And as Mr. DeStefano said, if it is a
deed restriction, that is a restriction that is put on by private parties and the city
unilaterally can't lift it. So that needs to be looked at very carefully. Now that raises
another issue.
Your General Plan talks about the requirement that you develop an open space plan for
the entire community. It's my understanding that an open space plan for the entire
community has not been done. We don't have, or you don't have a thorough plan
comprehensive inventory in terms of what you're doing with open space. And so,
therefore, to sit down and say well, we're going to try to assess the significance of giving
up 19 acres of open space in the context of the whole city and its future, you just simply
can't do it. You have incomplete information. Your General Plan dictates that you have
an open space element; it dictates that before you build on this project that you have a
specific plan for this planning area; it dictates that you have a master plan for this planning
area. None of those things are done. And I respectfully submit to you, based on my
understanding of General Plan law, that this project cannot be authorized without your
General Plan being complete in those areas and without you proceeding within the context
of a specific plan and a master plan and having an open space plan for your entire city. I
had hoped to have some dialogue with the city prior to the meeting tonight to get some
clarification on the thinking on this because I had raised these basic questions in my letter
of June 19. For various reasons, perhaps some misunderstandings, I did not have those
conversations. I do expect that there are going to be some semi -articulate explanations in
that regard. I look forward to hearing those because as I have seen it played out over the
years, these types of problems just simply prohibit you from legally approving this project
because the project is not consistent with the General Plan. There are specific features of
the project that are proposed that are not consistent with specific provisions of the
General Plan. You have, for example, under Planning Area H in your Land Use Element a
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 21
statement that the lot sizes shall be between 6,000 and 10,000 square feet. Shall be
between. That is mandatory language. You can't get around that. So, you have a project
before you which is bigger. It has a number of lots that are much bigger than that. It is
inconsistent with your General Plan. If you want to approve this project you have to go
through a General Plan amendment process on that particular issue. You have maps in
your General Plan which reflect this area as Open Space. If you want to change area from
open space to residential you have to amend your map. You have to make the General
Plan amendment. These are things that have to be done procedurally. And I get very
concerned when there appears to be - and again I say appears because I stand to be
educated on these subjects - when there appears to be a rush to get something through
when there are lots of procedural matters that are being ignored.
One of the other things I get very concerned about is when I start hearing about great
benefits of a project. The City of Los Angeles, that wonderful planning model for all of
us, was not built on people coming in and saying well, we've got an okay project here and
we hope you'll just sort of like us and let's go ahead and build it. They come in and they
promise you the world. And then they deliver something less. This project will deliver
traffic; it will deliver air pollution; it will deliver additional students to your schools. It
will cause all kinds of problems. Now. What are the real benefits? People have talked
about this issue of this other open space. And I call it open space because it is functionally
open space. It's restricted land. They knew it when they bought it. Now, I ask you. If
you have several hundred acres of land that you can't build on, what do you want to do
with that? You want to get rid of it because you're holding it. It's a liability. There could
be a landslide. There could be a mudslide. It could go down on Diamond Bar Boulevard.
You've got to pay property taxes on it. It's a pure liability. I run into this issue a lot of
times when I get involved in negotiating deals between private donors and land trusts.
Because the private owners say well, gee, we want you to support our project and we'll
dedicate this hillside to you. Well, the response to that is, look, you want to dedicate this
hillside to us more than we want it. They want to get rid of the liability. They want to get
rid of the expenses. In this particular case, you need to look at what they're trying to give
you. They've got land that's deed restricted, or map restricted. It's General Plan
restricted. However you want to call it, it's restricted. You can't build on it. So they
want to give it to you anyway. So what's the value to you. Now, if you want to make this
land have value, really make this land have value and other land that is restricted in the city
have value, what you need to do is you need. to say we're going to barter away 19 acres of
open space for $250,000 and set the precedent for every other builder and developer in
this city to look at every other parcel and say now what can we come up with to go to the
city to try to barter so we can try and take some more open space. Go ahead and, you
know, you set a precedent here by doing this, and this is going to come back to haunt you.
Somebody said - a gentleman who was speaking in favor of the project, I thought it was
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 22
ironic - he says if this land doesn't go into public ownership they're going to come back
over and over and over again. Well, I think it's exactly the opposite. If you take the stand
now and you say this is deed restricted - this is open space and you don't touch it and
nobody touches it anywhere in this city, then the message is clear. And people aren't
going to come back. It's the basic lesson I have to deal with my nine year old daughter on
all of the time. Kelsey, this is the rule. Quit coming back and bugging me. I'm not
changing my mind. You need to set that precedent here. Your General Plan dictates it
and good planning dictates it - that you can't buy this stuff. This is too precious a
resource. I might also add that this whole bugaboo of takings is something that just sort
of rhetorically gets overworn in these types of settings. A couple of the gentlemen that
spoke earlier were quite right that you have more than ample grounds to turn this whole
project down. I've given you references probably to 30 or 40 General Plan provisions
which you could site and reliably and I'd be a 100 percent sure that you could turn this
project down because it's inconsistent with your General Plan. You have the ability to do
that and any threats to come after you because you're not giving them what they want
which they're not entitled to are simply idle and they should be interpreted, I think, in a
general sense, as reflecting more of a position of weakness than a position of strength.
The rights of the community are here in front of you and when they talk about private
property rights, they're talking about developer private property rights. Now, those are
very important rights, but there are also neighbor private property rights and citizen
private property rights and community private property rights and city private property
rights and you hold them right now because you control the restrictions on the property as
open space.
On the issue of safety there has been a lot of discussion about fill and I think that there are
a couple of basic observations that could be made and I can put it in the form of a
question, really. Would you rather have your home built on a cut lot, a lot with one foot
of fill or a lot with 80 feet of fill? I think the answer is pretty obvious. Also, what security
do you have in the fact that soil is compacted to a level of 90 percent when there's 80 feet
of it underneath your house? I don't think you'd have a whole lot of security. Anytime
you build up a massive artificial structure you are creating something that could fail. It's a
question of risk. What type of risk do you want to take? Your General Plan says you're
suppose to minimize fill in your projects. That makes sense from an environmental
standpoint, from an aesthetics standpoint, from a planning standpoint, from a public safety
standpoint. I live currently in San Diego. I was raised in this area. I can tell you that San
Diego is the construction defect capitol of the world. And we have more problems
because we have naturally hilly terrain like you guys do in this particular area. Everybody
is cutting down hillsides historically and filling in and all this and boy, we've got projects
over the last two decades that have been cracking up all over the place. And the engineers
came in and they had great credentials and they had all the right things to say and they said
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 23
these projects are going to work. Folks, there are risks involved. That's all there is to it.
Anytime you're talking about 1.4 million cubic yards of dirt, there are risks. And you'd
best avoid it. Now, I pointed out in the paperwork that I've submitted to you that there
are a number of problems with the EIR. I do commend to you the Section 5 on Project
Alternatives because they have a number of little jewels that are hidden in there in terms of
their observations of this particular project in terms of alternative designs. And they say
how they can do certain things and they can avoid a million cubic yards of fill. They can
avoid building two huge fill slopes. They can protect an extra 80 trees. They can do lots
of things if you get around to redesigning this project. And, coincidentally, if you redesign
the project and fit it within Lot 6 which you are required to do, so many of these impacts
are dramatically reduced. That there is really a compelling case that the project needs to
be within Lot 6. Now, the developer may say, I don't know whether they've said it or not,
we can't afford to do this project unless we can do it this way because the economics don't
work out. That, ladies and gentlemen, is not your problem. The economy of Southern
California is not going to fail because they fail to build this project. And I don't know
whether the economic consideration is a big one that they have pushed in this context. I
do know from experience that that is often something they say. We have to have this
many lots. Well, they can get 130 lots. The EIR says that. All you got to do is have
smaller lots and then they'll all fit in Lot 6 which the EIR says, your laws your General
Plan and your map restrictions and your deed restrictions dictate.
On the subject of traffic, it always pains me because I live in a highly trafficked area too,
to hear people sharing the same frustrations. And a lot of times, people aren't quite sure
who to blame and how to deal with the problem and I give a lot of leeway to folks who do
get up and say, look, I live in this traffic, it's terrible and I know something's wrong and I
can't really put my finger on it. Those people instinctively know something is wrong and
they know that this project has something to do with it, (and) they don't necessarily make
all of the right connections. But they shouldn't be criticized by other people who come up
and suggest that they don't know what they're talking about. On the subject of traffic I
will say that I was very surprised that the EIR simply dispenses with impacts by saying
that under certain standards there's a less than two percent increase in the over capacity of
intersections that were analyzed. What does that mean? You have failed intersections.
You need to do something about it. These people should be paying good money into your
traffic mitigation plan, not just building a traffic signal cause that's all I read. They were
going to put a traffic signal on the road that they were going to build at the intersection of
Diamond Bar Boulevard (and Tin Drive). They should be paying good money into your
coffers as part - that has a plan to actually deal with the traffic problem on Diamond Bar
(Boulevard) and I didn't see that anywhere in the documents that I read. Perhaps I missed
something. This is an opportune time to say look, you're going to make a bad situation
worse and have no doubt about it, traffic is often a classic example of that old
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 24
phenomenon of the straw that breaks the camels back because you can have a situation
where you can sort of live with the traffic and you add a hundred more car trips and all of
a sudden, all heck breaks loose. The traffic engineers can confirm that. That's good
science and we all know it from our own observations.
In terms of how you proceed from here, I was going to suggest that you might consider
doing a workshop. I know that things need to be moved along. My experience is that
when you have tons of questions like this and issues that need to be answered, sometimes
actually having a workshop that is maybe a little bit more informal allows for a little bit
more exchange. It can be very helpful in terms of working through this with the citizens
and the experts and the applicant and the planning people. So I just through that out for
your idea for your consideration. And I guess finally, to the extent that I have any time
left, I'd like to reserve that to respond to any fin they presentation made by the applicant.
Thank you very much. Any questions, I'm happy to field them at this time. Thank you."
END OF PUBLIC TESTIMONY.
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION D#4str IN-HOUSE RECREATION SERVICESJUNE 16,1998
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to order at 5:12 p.m. in the
South Coast Air Quality Management District Rooms CC -3 & 5, 21865 Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
Present: Council Members Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem
Chang and Mayor Herrera.
Also present: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Bob Rose, Community Services
Director; David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works; Kellee Fritzal, Assistant to
City Manager; Mike Nelson, Communications & Marketing Director; Linda
Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director and Tommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk;
Wendy Bowman, Community Services Supervisor and Ted Owens, Community
Services Manager, City of Brea.
2. DISCUSSION REGARDING IN-HOUSE RECREATION SERVICES.
CM/Belanger referred to proposals from the cities of Brea, Chino Hills and Diamond
Bar for an in-house program. He stated that the issues of concern involve costs as
well as the philosophy of providing services.
CSD/Rose pointed out that an 18% overhead figure ($91,044) had been added to
the cost calculations for an in-house program. All three responses to requests for
proposals include basic programming that has been offered by the City for several
years which includes the Contract Class Program (100 classes with more than
4,000 participants), Sports Program (volleyball, basketball, soccer, slow -pitch
softball), Youth Sports Program (summer baseball, youth basketball, youth indoor
soccer, youth track and field, and support of San Gabriel Valley tournament
participants), Tiny Tots Program (new programs at Pantera Park), Concerts in the
Park, Summer Day Camp Program, and Teen Program (teen excursions, teen
leadership). He further stated that the difference between the contracted program
was that the in-house proposal included full time and part time administrative
positions. The current program contracted through the City of Brea includes one
full time supervisorial position and part time support including two part time clerical
support personnel (one 30 hours per week and one 20 hours per week. The Chino
Hills proposal includes hourly rates and benefits significantly higher for all
positions. He pointed out that the person who is assigned to run D.B.'s program
needs to be able to conduct businesses autonomously.
In response to C/O'Connor, CSD/Rose explained that the in-house proposal
contemplates about $20,000 in additional revenue for approximately 20 classes
which have been added to fill out the duties of the permanent full-time program
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 2 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
administrator. The intent of the Chino Hills proposal is to subcontract out many of
the adult sports programs which result in expenses being transferred to the
provider.
In response to C/Ansari, CSD/Rose stated the equipment belongs to D.B. under the
City of Brea proposal. Under the Ghino Hills program, the equipment belongs to the
subcontractor. In addition, the adult sports program is less because in a couple of
instances, the players pay fees directly to the officials. In this instance, the City
neither collects or expends these fees. The City of Chino Hills does not run youth
sports programs for Chino Hills residents.
CSD/Rose pointed out that the $61,521 City of Brea figure for Supplies and
Equipment contemplates the purchase of new equipment which is held in D.B.'s
budget. Any monies not expended are retained by the City of D.B.
In response to C/Huff, CSD/Rose believed that conducting the programs with staff
or contracted personnel affords the City better and more consistent representation.
Allen Hart said he had observed the deterioration of subcontracted programs that
do not have the benefit of local control.
Joe Motto said he plays in the basketball league. Sometimes, when the teams
arrive at the school sites, the playing field lights are not turned on and wondered
who the team should contact. The referees are paid out of the team players'
pockets and is expensive for the players when the programs are subcontracted.
CM/Belanger stated that the in-house program and the City of Brea proposal
include referee costs as a part of their basic fees. The referees are paid at the
game under subcontracted programs proposed by the City of Chino Hills. The
philosophy of the City of D.B. is that the fee is paid one-time and whether or not the
referee shows up to the game, the players should not have to be concerned about
paying additional fees.
CSS/Bowman explained that the league fee is obviously lower for cities in which the
players pay the referees in cash. The City of Brea proposal includes the official's
fees in the league fee. Brea contracts for its own officials which are retained
through the year.
CSD/Rose stressed that the City of Brea and in-house proposals include one-time
fees for youth and adult sports, whereas the City of Chino Hills proposal
contemplates an up -front fee plus a $25/game/participant charge.
CMS/Owens stated that all of the City of Brea basketball and softball officials are
CNF certified.
CSD/Rose explained that revenue projections are contemplated to recover the
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 3 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
direct costs - program costs including equipment costs, supplies, staff, etc. and
contract classes, including administrative fees. Top line administration costs are
not contemplated to be recovered.
CM/Belanger stated that the ramifications that are not easily quantifiable
automatically become the City's responsibility when the program is brought in-
house.
CSS/Bowman pointed out that Brea does not come close to expending the projected
budget amount for equipment. She cited the example that when the City initiated
the soccer program, it was not certain that the program would be successful. In the
interim, Brea borrowed the necessary equipment instead of purchasing it up front.
Now that the City is assured that the program will be successful, approximately
$800 to $1,000 of equipment *11 be purchased. Additionally, Brea partnered with
a City of L.A. group and borrowed basketball hoops for the youth basketball
program.
CM/Belanger stated that if Council determines that it wants to proceed with an in-
house program or contract with another city, the suggestion would be to give staff
lead time to deal with manpower and other issues. In accordance with Council
wishes, staff will recommend a transition date. With the July 1, 1998 Suite 100
move to the new space, office facilities will be provided to house staff for an in-
house program.
M/Herrera pointed out that if the City loses revenue as a result of the loss of motor
vehicle license fees, there will be budget cut considerations.
MPT/Chang also pointed out that the City will need to deal with the $915,000
population shortfall.
C/O'Connor responded to Allen Wilson that the Parks Master Plan consultant
recommended that the City continue with its current recreational program contract
service.
CM/Belanger responded to Allen Wilson that whether or not a community center
would benefit from an in-house program, it would depend upon what other types of
uses would be available in the community center. If the City had a Civic Center
which contained other facilities such as a City Hall, Library, Community
Center/Senior, etc., there would be some beneficial effect by having the recreation
department housed in the Community Center Monday -Friday. However, there will
be additional times when staff must be available which will result in additional costs.
The City attempts to offset those additional costs by offering things that will be
attractive to the community for market purposes - weddings, receptions, etc., where
the City attempts to offset some of the staff costs.
4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, Mayor Herrera
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 4 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
adjourned the study session at 6:14 p.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
TOMMYE NICE, Deputy City Clerk
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 16, 1998
STUDY SESSION:
5:12 p.m. - AQMD Room CC -3 & 5
a. In -House Recreation Services
CLOSED SESSION: None
�RgFT
2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to order
at 6:43 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium,
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Dr. Lawrence Rhodes
INVOCATION: Pastor Larry Grigsby, Calvary Chapel of
Diamond Bar
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera.
Also Present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager;
Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager;
David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works; Bob Rose, Community Services
Director; Mike Nelson, Communications & Marketing Director; Linda
Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director and Tommye Nice, Deputy City
Cleric.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Presented Certificate of Recognition to Andrew Badger, D.B. High
School graduate, for his accomplishments in track and field.
3.2 David Liu presented information regarding expansion of the CalTrans
Park -N -Ride at D.B. Blvd. and SR 60.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Martha Bruske recommended that
Commissioners who speak before Council as individuals identify themselves,
state which Commission they serve on, and by which Council Member they
were appointed. She believed the Park -N -Ride presentation should have
been scheduled under regular Council business instead of under Special
Presentations, Certificates, Proclamations. She stated that when this issue
was originally brought before Council, she spoke in opposition to removal of
the landscaping. She asked how providing 100 additional parking spots will
assure that shopping center parking lots will not be used for commuter
vehicle parking. Residents are limited to restricted parking while commuter
vehicles take up valuable parking spaces. She suggested that the City make
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
all of the parking spaces useful by removing mobile home residences and
Goodwill trailers. She asked what kind of commitment the City made to
CalTrans at incorporation. By what authority do the big rigs park overnight
in the Kmart shopping center parking lot.
Lydia Plunk said that Edda Gahm wished to thanked Martha Bruske, Patty
Anis, Carolyn Elfelt, and Dexter and Grace MacBride for stepping in to help
her when she was short of personnel at the Lorbeer Junior High School
polling location.
Allen Wilson asked Council to reconsider banning "Saturday Night
Specials."
Clyde Hennessee spoke against banning "Saturday Night Specials."
Further, he understood that Century Cable had raised its rates.
Carolyn Gong stated that USA Waste Management trucks leave oil spots on
residential streets and some of the walls along Grand Ave. between
Longview and Summitridge need to be painted. She asked if Council could
take a position on a homeowner who has not installed landscaping in more
than 12 years.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 SUMMER CONCERTS IN THE PARK SERIES BEGINS - Mike
Henebry Orchestra (Big Band) - June 17, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., Sycamore
Canyon Park.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - June 23, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - The Hodads (70's Retro Party Time)
June 24, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park.
5.4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - June 25, 1998, - 7:00 p.m.,
SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 CITY OFFICES CLOSED Friday, June 26, 1998 due to moving of the
Suite 100 Administrative Offices.
5.6 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - Long Beach Junior Concert (Patriotic) -
July 1, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park.
5.7 JULY 4TH HOLIDAY - In observance of the July 4th Holiday, City
Offices will be closed on Friday, July 3, 1998. City Offices will reopen
on Monday, July 6, 1998.
5.8 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - July 7, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by C/Huff, seconded by
MPT/Chang to approve Consent Calendar with the exception of Items No.
6.7, 6.9b, 6.11, 6.14, 6.15, 6.16 and 6.17. Motion carried by the following
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Regular Meeting of June 2, 1998 - as
submitted.
6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION
COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of April 9, 1998.
6.3 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.3.1 Regular Meeting of April 28, 1998.
6.3.2 Regular Meeting of May 12, 1998.
6.4 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated June 16, 1998 in the
amount of $333,606.29.
6.5 APPROVED MEMBERSHIP OF THE VENTURA PORT DISTRICT,
GATEWAY CITIES COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS (COG), AND
AGOURA HILLS AND CALABASAS COMMUNITY CENTER
AUTHORITY (CCA) INTO THE CALIFORNIA JOINT POWERS
INSURANCE AUTHORITY (CJPIA).
6.6 APPROVED EXONERATION OF CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF
GRADING BOND (FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE, LABOR &
MATERIAL) FOR 2653 WAGON TRAIN LANE.
6.8 APPROVED INCREASE IN CONTRACT WITH PAUL WRIGHT FOR
AUDIONISUAL SERVICES - by $750, for a total contract of $10,650.
6.9 EXTENDED MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS:
a) CITYWIDE STREET TREE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT
WITH WEST COAST ARBORISTS, INC. - in an amount not -
to -exceed $60,000 for FY 98/99;
c) WEED/LITTER ABATEMENT CONTRACT WITH
LANTERMAN DEVELOPMENTAL CENTER - for supplemental
weed and litter abatement for FY 98/99 for a total contract
amount of $16,483.
6.10 AWARDED CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE - for
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
Citywide Landscape Maintenance Services to Accurate Landscape
and Maintenance in the amount of $233,364 plus a contingency of up
to $50,000 for additional necessary work, limited to those items
identified in the specifications.
6.12 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 91-72C: A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING
RESOLUTION NO. 91-72B PRESCRIBING A METHOD OF
DRAWING WARRANTS AND CHECKS UPON CITY FUNDS - adding
the Deputy City Manager as an authorized signer of City warrants and
checks through October 31, 1998.
6.13 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-37: A RESOLUTION OF THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
SPECIFICATIONS FOR SIDEWALKS AND HANDICAP RAMPS
THROUGHOUT THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR THROUGH THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG).
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.7 APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT WITH
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. FOR MONTH-TO-MONTH
DIAMOND RIDE SERVICES.
In response to M/Herrera, CM/Belanger stated that staff budgeted
$302,000 for FY 98/99.
M/Herrera asked that staff research other vendors for improved
service.
Martha Bruske said that this is a very expensive program. Even
though it is subsidized by Proposition A funds, it is taxpayer's money
and should be carefully monitored. She would like to see a
breakdown of the per -ride cost. She asked if the contract provides for
no -smoking vehicles. She believed that elderly and handicapped
riders who are able to take advantage of reduced rates should be
properly represented and have a healthy environment for travel. She
expressed interest in reviewing the ridership survey.
In response to M/Herrera, CM/Belanger stated that the monthly
ridership is $.50 for about 1700 trips. Approximately 800 individuals
have cards that permit them to ride the cabs. Staff will provide an
analysis of the information for Council's consideration.
Following discussion, C/Ansari moved, C/O'Connor seconded, to
approve amendment of the contract for month-to-month services by
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.9(b) GRAFFITI REMOVAL CONTRACT WITH GRAFFITI CONTROL
SYSTEMS.
Martha Bruske stated that this contractor does a very good job of
promptly removing graffiti. She asked for specific documentation
regarding the location of the 1600 sites, how many times removal is
repeated at given sites and what assistance is provided by the
Sheriffs Department. She recommended that the City provide an
easier telephone number for reporting graffiti.
Lt. Stothers stated that it is important to remove graffiti as quickly as
possible. Prior to removing the graffiti, the vendor takes pictures,
which are turned over to the Sheriffs Department which provide a
means for the Department to identify the perpetrators who are cited
and punished.
In response to M/Herrera, Lt.
individuals who are cited reside
community.
Stothers explained that those
both inside and outside of the
MPT/Chang stated that, in addition to prompt graffiti removal, the City
of Ontario metes punishment to offending individuals by having them
cover the graffiti.
Following discussion, C/Huff moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to
approve an extension to the contract with Graffiti Control Systems in
an amount not -to -exceed $35,000 ($30/site for 1160 sites). Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.11 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AT
MONTEFINO AVENUE AND QUAIL SUMMIT DRIVE TRAFFIC
SIGNALIZATION.
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
C/Huff asked if a realignment of the Montefino Shopping Center
driveway would be included with this project.
CM/Belanger explained that the City's Engineer determined that the
location of the private driveway as it is presently constituted will not
create a problem for vehicles entering and exiting the shopping
center and that the traffic signal will not have to be removed in order
to accommodate any future realignment.
In response to C/Huff, DDPW/Liu stated that staff had not had
discussions with the property owner regarding realignment of the
shopping center driveway. The proposed system utilizes microwave
detection to detect vehicles exiting the shopping center. Any future
proposal to realign the driveway will require only a minor adjustment
of the installed traffic signal.
C/Huff said he would like to see the realignment completed and
believed that staff should talk with the property owner and do
whatever needs to be done to correct the matter at this time.
C/O'Connor did not understand why the property owner had not been
notified that a traffic signal will be installed at the intersection.
Allen Wilson expressed concern that too many traffic signals are
being installed in the City. He asked if a traffic study was completed
that indicated a significant impact requiring installation of a signal.
CM/Belanger stated that the traffic signals for D.B. Blvd. at Montefino
Ave. and Quail Summit Dr. are warranted signals based on a
standard evaluation criteria.
Following discussion, MPT/Chang moved, C/Ansari seconded, to
award contracts for D.B. Blvd. at Montefino Ave. and Quail Summit
Dr. traffic signalization as follows:
a) Pro Tech Electrical in an amount not -to -exceed $159,700 and
authorized a contingency of $16,000 for project change orders
to be approved by the City Manager, for a total authorization
of $175,700;
b) Inspection services contract to Warren Siecke in an amount
not -to -exceed $15,732 and authorized a contingency of $1,600
for project change orders to be approved by the City Manager,
for a total authorization of $17,332.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.14 APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT/BUDGET ADJUSTMENT
FORD & J ENGINEERING FOR BUILDING & SAFETY SERVICE
increasing revenues for Building & Safety Services by $100,000 and
expenditures by $60,000.
Following discussion, C/O'Connor moved, C/Huff seconded, to
approve the contract amendment with D & J Engineering for Building
& Safety Services. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.15 AWARD OF CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE OF COPIERS - from
Xerox Corporation of two re -manufactured Xerox 5100A copiers for
a total cost of $44,382 and authorize a one-year contract with Xerox
for full service maintenance at a rate of approximately $1,121 per
month.
MPT/Chang believed that the maintenance cost of slightly more than
$.02 cents per copy is excessive and asked staff to negotiate a lower
cost.
Following discussion, C/O'Connor moved, C/Huff seconded, to award
a contract to Xerox Corp. for purchase of two (2) 5100A re-
manufactured copiers. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.16 APPROVAL OF PURCHASE ORDER FOR LASER RADAR GUNS -
with Kustom Signals, Inc. for $12,973.76.
In response to M/Herrera, CM/Belanger explained that funds for these
devices are provided through the COPS program.
Martha Bruske said she would like for the City to examine its goals
and mission. She felt that motorcycle deputies with radar guns
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
appear to be "lying in wait" and she would prefer visibility to such
measures. She suggested that, as an alternative, cameras be
installed at strategic locations and that law enforcement officials be
utilized for protection services.
Following discussion, C/Huff moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to
approve a Purchase Order for Laser Radar Guns. Motion carried by
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
6.17 APPROVAL OF CONTRACT WITH ARMENTROUT CONSULTANTS
FOR EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS SERVICES - for one year in
an amount not -to -exceed $16,640.
Following discussion, MPT/Chang moved, C/Ansari seconded, to
approve the contract with Armentrout Consultants for Emergency
Preparedness Services. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 a) PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 1998-1999. On May 18, 1998, Council
approved the Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No.
98-29 to declare the City's intention to levy and collect
assessment for District No. 38. Council also set June 16, 1998
as the public hearing date on the levy of the proposed
assessments on assessable lots within this District for FY
98/99.
b) PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
FISCAL YEAR 1998/1999. On May 18, 1998, Council
approved the Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No.
98-30 to declare City's intention to levy and collect
assessment for District No. 39. Council also set June 16, 1998
as the public hearing date on the levy of the proposed
assessments on assessable lots within this District for FY
98/99.
c) PUBLIC HEARING - RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 1998/1999. On May 18, 1998, Council
approved the Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No.
98-31 to declare City's intention to levy and collect
assessment for District No. 41. Council also set June 16, 1998
as the public hearing date on the levy of the proposed
assessments on assessable lots within this District for FY
98/99.
Consultant John Friedreich presented information regarding
LAD Nos. 38, 39 and 41.
M/Herrera opened the public hearings.
There Ding no testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the public
hearings.
M/Herrera moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to continue the
matter to July 7, 1998 due to changes that need to be made to
both the Engineer's Report and the proposed Resolutions.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
7.2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - MUNICIPAL BUDGET 1998-1999.
Martha Bruske commented on the budget and the Employees' Benefit
Package.
There being no further testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the public
hearing.
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
(a) RESOLUTION NO. 89-88A - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA,
AMENDING RESOLUTION 89-88 APPROVING AN AMENDMENT
TO CONTRACT BETWEEN THE BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION OF
THE PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM AND THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
M/Herrera moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 89-
88A. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
(b) SECOND READING, ORDINANCE NO. 26A(1989): AN
ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR AMENDING ORDINANCE NO. 26(1.989), AUTHORIZING AN
AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT BETWEEN THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AND THE BOARD OF
ADMINISTRATION OF THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEES'
RETIREMENT SYSTEM.
M/Herrera moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to approve for second
reading, waive full reading, and adopt Ordinance No. 26A(1989).
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
(c) RESOLUTION NO. 98-38: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SETTING THE
APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 1998-1999 FOR THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE
PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 9 OF TITLE 1 OF THE GOVERNMENT
CODE.
MPT/Chang moved, C/Ansari seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 98-
38. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
(d) RESOLUTION NO. 98-39: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS
ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE STATEMENT
OF INVESTMENT POLICY.
C/O'Connor moved, C/Huff seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 98-39
adopting the FY 98/99 Investment Policy. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari
(e) RESOLUTION NO. 98-40: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING AND
ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR
THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1998 AND ENDING
JUNE 30, 1999 INCLUDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS,
SPECIAL FUNDS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND
APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR ACCOUNT, DEPARTMENTS,
DIVISIONS, OBJECTS AND PURPOSES THEREIN SET FORTH.
MPT/Chang moved, C/Huff seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 98-40
approving and adopting a budget for the City for the FY commencing
July 1, 1998 and ending June 30, 1999 including maintenance and
operations, special funds and capital improvements and appropriating
funds for account, departments, divisions, objects and purposes
therein set forth with the changes/additions enumerated by
CM/Belanger. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
7.3 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CODE AMENDMENT
(2CA 97-1) - DRAFT DEVELOPMENT CODE, CITYWIDE DESIGN
GUIDELINES AND NEGATIVE DECLARATION 97-3 - On December
9, 1997, the Planning Commission recommended approval of the
draft Development Code and Citywide Design Guidelines. These
documents were then transmitted to Council and four study sessions
were conducted. Public hearings on the Code began on March 17,
1998 with subsequent hearings held April 7, April 21, May 5 and May
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL
18, 1998. At its May 18, 1998 meeting, Council completed its review
of all articles and directed staff to prepare the adopting Ordinance for
the Development Code and the adopting Resolution for the Citywide
Design Guidelines.
M/Herrera opened the public hearing.
There being no testimony offered, M/ Herrera closed the public
hearing.
CA/Jenkins stated that there are changes that need to be made to the
Ordinance.
RECESS: M/Herrera recessed the meeting at 9:37 p.m. to allow Council
an opportunity to review the City Attorney's recommended
changes to the Ordinance.
RECONVENE: M/Herrera reconvened the meeting at 9:51 p.m.
C/Ansari left the meeting at 9:51 p.m.
CA/Jenkins presented the changes and corrections for Ordinance No.
02(1998): Section 22.36.030 E. Sign copy, Paragraph 2, to read as
follows: Delete the first sentence "A minimum of 50 percent of sign
copy shall be in English characters." Add the following sentence to
be placed in the paragraph as the next to the last sentence after the
sentence that reads "Address numbers shall be in Arabic numerals"
to read as follows: "Each business must provide identification
signage in English characters."
In response to M/Herrera, CA/Jenkins explained that the change
reflects 1 st Amendment case law.
In response to CIHuff, CA/Jenkins stated that the City can require that
all businesses have some identification signage as a public safety
matter; that identification, either generic identification as to the type
of business or the name of the business be in English, and that the
address be in English. What the City cannot dictate is the actual
percentages of the languages on the sign. The City could specify the
size of the characters with objective criteria (visible from the.street,
etc.), such as a 4" minimum.
C/Huff would like to have language contained in the Code to reflect
objective criteria in order to preserve the intent of the community.
CA/Jenkins concurred with M/Herrera that the added sentence could
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL
be amended to read as follows: "Each business must provide
identification signage in English characters not less than four inches
(4") in height." Council concurred.
CA/Jenkins confirmed to C/O'Connor that all references to "Draft"
Development Code will be deleted from the Ordinance.
There being no further testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the public
hearing.
C/O'Connor moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to adopt Resolution No.
98-41; waive full reading and approve for first reading by title only
amended Ordinance No. 02(1989).
(a) RESOLUTION NO. 98-41: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING AND
ESTABLISHING CITYWIDE DESIGN GUIDELINES AS PART OF
THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE.
(b) ORDINANCE NO. 02(1998): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING A DEVELOPMENT CODE (CASE
NO. ZCA 97-1) AND AMENDING THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL
CODE.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari
8. OLD BUSINESS: None
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.1 ORDINANCE NO. 03(1998): AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE
DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE RE: HEALTH CODE
(RESTAURANT RATINGS).
Following discussion, MPT/Chang moved, C/Huff seconded, to
approve first reading, waive full reading, and set the public hearing
for July 21, 1998. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang,
M/Herrera
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 10:20 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 10:30 p.m.
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS: MPT/Chang reported on his
attendance at the June 4, 1998 League of Cities meeting. A major topic of
discussion was AB 2010 extending the authority of the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy from the mountain area to the L.A. and San Gabriel
Valley river watershed area. He congratulated Jack and Kathy Newe,
owners of E -N Realty, for celebrating 25 years of business in D.B.
C/Huff stated that he and CIO'Connor completed their duties of service on
the Solid Waste Task Force. He thanked community members for their
participation, and J. Michael Huls for moderating the meetings.
M/Herrera reported that the Off -Site Task Force completed a series of
meetings and have finished the report to Council. She thanked the
volunteers who served on the Task Force.
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: MPT/Chang thanked the community
volunteers who served on the Off -Site and Solid Waste Task Forces. On
June 6, 1998, he and his son, Howard, participated in the DBIA "Paint Your
Town" project. He announced that he had attended the Walnut Sheriffs
Department Open House on June 6 and that on Saturday, June 20, 1998,
the D.B. Chinese American Association would be holding its 8th annual
dinner party at the Sheraton Hotel in the City of Industry.
C/O'Connor said that, on June 1, 1998, she noticed several campaign signs
for one candidate duct taped to City trees. She wondered if the trees are
damaged and if the City would bill the candidate
CM/Belanger was unaware of any damage to trees. If damage was done,
appropriate action will be taken. Wrapping campaign signs around trees
and securing them with duct tape is not permitted under the City's Temporary
Sign Ordinance.
C/O'Connor asked if the Sign Ordinance could be amended to include
penalties for candidates who display blatant disregard for the Ordinance.
The candidate in question indicated to her that he did not place the signs in
such a manner and that it must have been done by opposing candidates.
She asked that anyone who witnessed signs being placed on trees with duct
tape report their observances to her. She stated that today she attended the
Senior Citizen's Fathers' Day Celebration. C/O'Connor asked that this
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL
meeting be adjourned in memory of her father who recently passed away.
C/Huff stated that he and M/Herrera also attended the Senior Citizen's
Fathers Day Celebration. He looked forward to the City providing a larger
facility for the Seniors He thanked those who voted for him in the recent
election and reaffirmed his commitment to continue working on the City's
behalf. He asked staff to re-examine the City's Sign Ordinance, look at what
other cities do with respect to campaign signs, and determine whether the
City can tighten its Ordinance.
M/Herrera commented on the importance of adopting the City's Budget for
FY 98/99. She stated that it is unclear what effect future legislation may
have on the City's General Fund and that Council needs to be very
aggressive about establishing criteria to insure the financial stability of the
City. It is unfortunate that, while the City is attempting to make positive
improvements, it is still plagued by lawsuits which take public monies away
from the citizens. She expressed condolences to C/O'Connor on the loss of
her father.
12. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Herrera
adjourned the meeting at 10:52 p.m. in memory of C/O'Connor's father,
Dolph Hill.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Herrera and Councilmember O'Connor
FROM: Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, July 7, 1998
DATE: July 6, 1998
Attached is the Voucher Register dated July 7, 1998. As requested,
the Finance Department is submitting the voucher register for the
Finance Committee's review and approval prior to its entry on the
Consent Calendar.
The checks will be produced after any recommendations and the final
approval is received.
Please review and sign the attached.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL
The attached listing of vouchers dated July 7, 1998 have been
reviewed, approved, and recommended for payment. Payments are
hereby allowed from the following funds in these amounts:
001
General Fund
010
Library Services
011
Comm
Organization Group
112
Prop
A Fund -Transit Fund
115
Int.
Waste Mgt Fund
125
CDBG
Fund
126
COPS
Fund
138
LLAD
#38 Fund
139
LLAD
#39 Fund
141
LLAD
#41 Fund
250
CIP Fund
510
Self
Insurance Fund
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
APPROVED BY:
L
J ann itm d
Senior Accountant
Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager
.v� j
$350,663.51
62.34
6,187.68
38,865.27
26,404.57
513.03
90.54
5,557.43
8,074.22
5,205.30
85,468.15
152,347.00
$679,439.04
f !
Carol Herrera
Mayor
Deborah H. O'Connor
Councilmember
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------1 11.50
+##
� tycf
Diamor;c
Bar
RUN TIME: 16:10 07/06/98
V
O U C H
E R R E
GIS T E R
PAGE
DUE THRU
.............07/07/93
"VENDOR NAME
'VENDOR ID.
PREPAID R
ACCOUNT PROJ.TY-NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BATCH PO.LINE/NO.
ENTRY/DUE
INVOICE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHECt:
AT 1:. T
AT&T
*001-4090-2125
"'
80634E
07/01
i)i:/30
Lona. Distance Phne Svcs
2.7'._
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------1
311.78
AT 1: T
AT&T
pGI-469fl, -2125
10
80630A
07%01
06I30
Lonq Distance Phne Svcs
8.12
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------y
8.12
AYSO
AYSO
*011-4010-2/355
7
80707E
07/02
06./30
ComOrgSupportAgreemnt
1,125.0'3
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i
1,125.0.
Accurate Landsca.oe
Accurate
*001-4311-` 00
4
80630A 01/5897A
07/01
06/31,
u70g010
Maint-F'aulGrow Pro: -June
1,119,80
*00t-4313-5:?OC;
4
8U630A 0'x/5 ?7A
0:/Q
CEIiO
4709010
Maint-Heritage Prk-June
763.50
4001-4?16-5300
4
80630A 03.15897A
07f01
06/30
Q709010
Maint-Maple Hill Prk-June
916.20
*001-4319-5300
4
80630A 04/58`r7A
07/01
06/3Ca
9709010
Maint-Peterson Prk-June
1,1221.60
*001-4322-5300
4
80630A 0515897A
07/01
06/311
9709010
Maint-Ron Reagan -June
1,018.00
{?i-1-4315-5:00
4
30630A 06/5097A
07/01
O i1Q
-1700010
Maint-Starshine Prk-June
509'.00
*001-4328-5300
4
80630A 07158°97A
07r0i
06/30
'?7aj9tj10
Maint-Summitridge-June
1,527.00
#001-4331-53,0
i
8-0_:j+.jA 08/5897A
07 01
O6/-3:
-7C- 010
Maint-Sycamore Cyn -June
1,825.7':,
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------7
8,900.8.1
Accurate Landscape
Accurate
#001-431'1-2210
,0630A 50/6285A
07/01
06/30
707:,01
Add'! Maint Syc Cyn Prk:
450.00;
-4`si+'-
4Ob30A
01/589E,A
07/1)1
06 /30
a70?tK)y
Add'l Maint-LLAD 39 -June
6,199.61
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------1
6,649.62
AmeriComp
AmeriComp
#C;C)i-4040;-1105
80630A 01; 6857
Q7/01
C;l,/: 1_'
17470
Toner Cartridqes
172.9;
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------;
172.98
American Planning_
Assoc.
ARA
#,j'. -?1-4110-1=:15
3
807070
07/02
01,./30
FY 98/99 Member Dues
495.00
*0011-4110-1310
:1
807070
07/02
06130}
F'ino Publications
158.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------?
653.00
Aqua Backflow &
AquaBack
*001-43221-2210
3
80630A
07/01
06/30
19415
Bckflow Certifctn-RReagan
12.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------1 11.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------? 6,995.33
Brea, City of
#
City
o{
Diamond
Bar #
RUN TIME: 16:13 07/06/98
14
V
0 U C
H E R R E
G I S T E R
FADE
Recreation Supplies
3.719.18
DUE THRU.............07/07/9''
VENDOR NAME
VENDOR ID.
3,719.18
CLRE Center
CLRECenter
PREPAID x
ACCOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/N0.
ENTRY'
/DUE
1NVOICE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHEC'
BearCom
07/01
BearCom
16059801
GvtInstTrng-WVUSD/PUSD
4,250.00
#001-4310-22110
1
307ir71
07/C 2
0E,;3s7
101661`
Beit Cl ips-HandHeidRadios
12.79
*001-4:310-2210
1
80630A
07/01
06/30
1016615
Belt Clips-HandHeldRadios
1.7'?
*U01-4310 X210
2
80707C
07/02
06/30
li�i6615
Belt Clips-HandHeldfiadios
12.79-
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------?
12.79
Brahma Foundation
BrahmaFoun
CarolDenni
*011-4010-2355
5
,30707E
07/02
06/30
01/7222
ComOrgSupportAgreemnt
i 125.03
Mintes-T&T Mtg 6/11
60.00
*001-4553-4000
12
806:30B
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------
1.125.03;
Brandman Assoc.,
Michael
Brandman
80.00
*001-4553-4000
8
80630B
01/7222
*001-23,00-101i;
19
80630A
07/01
06/30
01983247
Prof Svcs-FPL 94-25
402.07
*001-2300-1010
23
80630A
i_:7,/61
06/30
0198324Q
Prof Svcs-FP" 93-10
7?8.73
*001-22300-1010
18
80630A
07/01
06/30
02983285
Prof Svcs-FPL 94-25
905.28
*001-2300-1010
24
80630A
07/01
06%30
03983326
Prof Svcs-FPL 93-10
757.11
*001-2300-1010
20
80630A
07/01
06/30
03983328
Prof Svcs-FPL 94-25
959.41
*001-'2300-1010
21
80630A
07/01
06/30
04983389
Prof Svcs-FPL 93-10
585.23
#001-2300-1010
25
80630A
07/01
06/30
0598:3442
Prof Svcs-FER 93-0.3
391.45
*001-2300-1010
27
80630A
07/01
06%30
0598:3443
Prof Svcs-FPL 93-10
341.38
*001-230()-1010
26
80630A
07/01
06/30
05983444
Prof Svcs-FER 93-06
357.02
*001-2:300-1010
22
80630A
07/01
06/:.iii
1'2973220
Prof Svcs-FPL 93-10
1,507.65
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------? 6,995.33
Brea, City of
BreaCity
*n01 -4350-12(M)
14
80E„OA
01/6298
07/01
06/30
61894
Recreation Supplies
3.719.18
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------?
3,719.18
CLRE Center
CLRECenter
*001-4090-2340
8
80630A
01/7358
07/01
06/30
16059801
GvtInstTrng-WVUSD/PUSD
4,250.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------?
4,50.00
California Tool and
WeldersWar
*001-4310-1200
11
80707F
01/6119
07/02
06/3U
16199c'
Welding Supplies
33.`.6
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------?
31.36
Carol Dennis
CarolDenni
*001-4552-4000
10
80630B
01/7222
07/01
061130
Mintes-T&T Mtg 6/11
60.00
*001-4553-4000
12
806:30B
01/7222
07%01
06/30
Mntes-OffStePrkg-6/10
80.00
*001-4553-4000
8
80630B
01/7222
07/01
06/30
98-08
Mnts-OffStePrk/S1dWst-6/8
160.00
*001-4210-4000
19
90630B
02/6087
07/01
06/30
PC980407
Minutes-Ping/ADR 6/8-9
120.00
*001-4350-4300
2
80630B
031/6087
07/01
06/30
PRR9805
Minutes-P&R Mtq-5/28
260.00
*001-4040-4000
13
80630B
01/6087
07/01
06/30
dbcc980407
Minute=_-CCncl Mtg-5/18
370.00
*001-4040-4000
14
80630B
01/6087
07/01
061/30
dbcc9804(18
Minutes-CCncl Mtgs 6/2
160.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 1,210.00
#* City o Diamond Bar##
RUN TIME: 16:13 07/06/98 V 0 U C H E R R E G I S T E R PAGE
DUE THRU............. 07/1;7/9_'
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID. * PREPAID
ACCOUNT F'ROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/ND. ENTRI/D'UE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMDUNT DATE CHECt.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Castro. Sergio
*001-2:306-1 rfi2
Chino Hills Ford
#001-4030-2200
BOO i-4ia3(1-'�20(;
CastroSerq
20 806.010A
ChHillFord
2 80610A 01/7235
4 80630A 01/7361
Church In The Valley ChurchlnTh
#001-2300-1002' 22 80630A
*001-2300-1002 21 80630A
Cintas Corporation Cintas
*001-4310-213!! lir 80630A 01/6131
*001-4310-2130 12 8{1630A 01/61:.1
Coffee Smith Coffee5mit
X001-409(;-2325 13 80630A 01/6034
Community Disposal Co. ComDisposl
*001-4510-5501 4 S0630A 01/6086
117/01
06:,130
46331
Refund-Deposit-Mple Hill
5(:,01)
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
50.00
07/01
06/30
195420
Vehcle Maint-Pool Car
125.00
07/01
06/30
195420
Vehcle Maint-Pool Car
119.39
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
244.39
07/01
06/310
42792
Refund/Deposit-HrtgComCtr
200.00
07/01
06/10
44579
Refund/Deposit-Hrtg Prk
50.00
X000 -2300-1012
12
80630A
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
250.00
07101
06/30
150168042:
Uniforms-Prk Stf-w/of6/2
19.(c"
07/01
06/30
15016KII
Uniforms-Prk:Stf-w/of6/15
19.08
.322.00
DW Engineering
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
3;_.16
07/0i
0JS/ ;C7
8752
Meeting Supplies
68.95
*001-2300-1010
29
806306
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
68.85
07/di
06/30
96-15
Str•eetSweep5vcs-May
8,111.85
30
806306
07/0812
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
8,111.85
Community Industries
Commindust
*001-4558-5521
2
8*630A W5895A
07/01
06/30
Litter
Abatmnt
Svcs -May
81.39.44
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR --------)
8:9.44
Converse Consultants
ConverseCo
X000 -2300-1012
12
80630A
07/01
06/30 332509
Prof
Svcs -EN 97 -198 -May
822.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR -------- i
.322.00
DW Engineering
DWEngine
*001-2300-1010
29
806306
07/02
06/30
Prof
Svcs-FF'L
96-15
QO.00
*001-2300-1010
30
806306
07/0812
06/30
Prof
Svcs -FPL
98-18
90.00
*001-2300-1010
31
806306
07/02
06,/30
Prof
Svcs -FPL
98-19
90.00
CK11-23(10-1010
32
806306
(17;02
06/30
Prof
Svcs -FPL
98-21
90.00
#ch i-2,300-1010
33
806'306
07/02
06/30
Prof
Svcs -FPL
98-24
90.00
#(x)1-2300-1010
34
806306
07/02
06130
Prof
Svcs -FPL
98-25
90.00
*001-2300-1010
35
806306
07/021
06/36
Prof
Svcs -FPL
97-16
90.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 71,364.32
h. B. Chamber of Commerce DBChamber
#001-4096-400f, 2 80630B 01/6406 07/02 06/30 177 FrofSvc5-May/June 4,000.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i 4,(x.00
Dante Real DanteReai
*001-2300-1002 26 80707E 117/02 06/30 44616 Refund%Deposit-HrtComCtr 200.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 200.00
David Evans & Assoc. DavidEvans
*250-4310-6415 11798
12 80630B 01/7007
07/02
'v o- D.aft,
onC Bar##
HrtgePrk-Retrofit-May
1_,r 5n
RUN TIME: 16:13
07/06/98
07/02
V O U C
H E R R E G
I S T E R
568.50
PAGE
DUE THRU.............0710'/9;
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------;
2,3ca.0G
Da; & NiKht Copv Center Day&Night
VENDOR NAME
VENDOR; IC'.
*0011-4210-21162
806308 01/7387
PREPAID � k
ACCOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PRDJ.Ti:-NO BATCH PO.LINE-ND.
ENTRYiDUE
INVOICE
DESCRIPTION
2-119 80630P
AMOUNT DATE CHECr
D&J Engineering
00001201
D&JEngine
431.92
(CONTINUED)
#001-2300-1010
36
806308
07/02 06/30
Destefano
Prof Svcs -FPL
47-47
9O.00
4001-2300-1010
37
80630D
07102 06/30
U7 /f1
Prof Svcs -FPL
98-023
90.00
*001-23W-1011;
3E,
80630b
07/(r2 06/30
iib/=;!
Prof Svcs -FPL
47-3,3
90.00
#001-2300-1010
28
806308
07/02 06/30
98P1ngO04
Prof Svcs -FPL
98-05
90.00
*001-4220-5201
6
806306 01/7439A
07/01 06/30
98db-Or
Bldo&SftvSvcs-5/19-6/17
43,120.05
*001-4220-5201
4
80630B 01/7.34='
(17./01 (.)6/3'0
98db06
Bldg&Sfty5vcs `/l9-6/17
27,254.27
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 71,364.32
h. B. Chamber of Commerce DBChamber
#001-4096-400f, 2 80630B 01/6406 07/02 06/30 177 FrofSvc5-May/June 4,000.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i 4,(x.00
Dante Real DanteReai
*001-2300-1002 26 80707E 117/02 06/30 44616 Refund%Deposit-HrtComCtr 200.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 200.00
David Evans & Assoc. DavidEvans
*250-4310-6415 11798
12 80630B 01/7007
07/02
Or,(3C!
056.761
HrtgePrk-Retrofit-May
1_,r 5n
*250-4310-6415 11718
14 80630B 02/7007
07/02
061130
056761
RonReagnPrk-Retrofit-May
568.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------;
2,3ca.0G
Da; & NiKht Copv Center Day&Night
*0011-4210-21162
806308 01/7387
07/02
06130
00001084
DraftDevlpmntCde-Copies
183.16
00i-2360-1010
2-119 80630P
07,102
06/30
00001201
Copies-Suncal-FPL 96-049
431.92
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
615.08
De Stefano. Jia,
Destefano
#001-4090-21215
11 806306
U7 /f1
0.%_ !
Reimb-Phone Svcs
34.75
001-40'?6.-2:1125
=0=,_<OB
(!7 /0l
iib/=;!
Reimb-ICBG Conf-5/1':-21
146.25
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i
1{,1.00
Deane Homes Salim Club
DeaneHomes
*!! -4351;-214x•
9 80630B 01/6435A
07/01
%130
1771
FacltyRnt-Jan-March
650.00
1F')01-4350-2140
11 0630B 0 7`269
a.. 1/
C
07/ ,1
�6,-,r,
C �_,,
77
i;;1
;
F=:_ilitykent-Jan-March
_�:.,.C>t!
595
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------}
1,245.00
Rept of Transportation
DeptTrans.
#250-4215-6420 09695'
2 60630B 0117293
07/01
06/30
07116221
Fro: & Ride Expansion
57,400.00
#001-4510-5507
68106308 01/7164
07/01
06/30
145948
Signal/Light Maint-April
1,333.$2
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 58,733.82
*+* C i t v of 111amnnc Bar *
RUN TIME: 16:1307/O6/Y8 VDUCH[R REGlSTEK PACE 5
DUE THRU............. V7/0ny0
VENDOR NAME VENDOR 0. * * PREPAID * '
ACCOUNT PRDJ.TX-NOBATCH PO.L0E,,'NO. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECI�
------------------------------------------------------------------
Diamond Bar International DBIntDeIi
m0l-4O90-2325 14
80630B95518 11/6332
07/01
06/30 ��
g�|6
Supp\s-CCnclr ��
110.14
66/"10
G'1106011A.298'
ProfSvcs'EN' 97'1Ki
25 o.C,
TOTAL DUE V[ND0R ---->
1\O.14
Diamond Bar Redevelopment
D8arRDA
400.00
06/-10
G806031a330
*001'1315 2
8070F
07/02
06/3()
Advance -Expenditures
62,933.00
1.150.00
07/02
06/30
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -----'-'>
62,933.00
Diamond Photo
DiamondPhn
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ----->
7,179.25
07/02
*001 -4O95 -2l12 6
8��0B O\/648VA
07/O2
V6/30 19�8|4
P�otofmig`mg Services
8,61
TOTAL DUE VENDOR '----->
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --''''''>
8.61
Diamond Ranch Boosters
DiaRnchBoo
*01�-4O\0'2355 6
807O7F
07/V2
O6/30
CnmOrgSupportAgreemnt
562.52
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -----'>
562.52
Ouran,Lucinda
Duran
*001-3478 24
807O7E
V7/02
06/3V
Recreation Refund
3O.00
`
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ---' >
30.00
EEGA
EEGA
Enweering-Environmental EngEnvGeo}
*001-2310-IO12 29 8&707C
*01-2300-1O12 30 80707C
*001-2300'1012 31 86707C
00 -2,-:00 �J 8063OB
�00/-2300-1012 14 80630B
6wicomCorporation Enwimm
*001-23,00-1011 3 80707C
Evergreen School EvergreenS
07/06 06/3f) G805 SIA.2'98 Prof Svcs -EN 97-190
7ICs
06/.V)
O8090 -8A.298
Prof Svcs -EN 97'196
07/0b,
66/"10
G'1106011A.298'
ProfSvcs'EN' 97'1Ki
25 o.C,
07/62
',i -/"K,
G80601W,119
ProfSvcs-EN 7!
400.00
06/-10
G806031a330
Prof Svcs -EN 97-199
250.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --'-->
1.150.00
07/02
06/30
ProfesinnalServices
7,179.25
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ----->
7,179.25
07/02
01,/30
4428Y
Refund/Demosit-Hrtge Prk
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR '----->
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 2,809.81
##
City of
Diamond
Ear#
RUN TIME: 16:13 07/06/98
V O U C H
E R R E
G I S T E R
PAGE b
DUE THRU
.............07/0?/';
VENDOR NAME
VENDOR ID.
PREPAID {
ACCOUNT PkOJ.Tk-NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
HATCH PD-LINE/N0,
EN-IRY/DUE
INVOICE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHER
Exabyte Corporation
Exabyte
*001-4090-2205
4
806-KE 01/723L
07/02 01%/30
10x261-
Comptr Maint-Tape Drive
417.6
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------)
Fallon,Calieen
Fallon
*001-3472:
23
80767E
67/02 06/3 i
Recreation, Refund
10.0:
T1TAL DUE VENDOR--------)
10.00
Federal Reserve Baro.
FedReserve
11;-ii»)='
306? �>
07/2)2 0x;13(;
PP12/i3-Payroll Deductns
1001.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------}
1fili3O(r
Flagship Distributors
FlgshpDist
*Bill-4095-lit%%
6
-0,30H 0117255
L.,.
07,/iT fir,;: [7
_.
2070
Supplies-Fla4s
631.11`+
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------)
6:31.09
Food System=-, Inc.
FoodSystem
#115-4515-2 t5
4
80707C 09/6981
07/02 06/30
15525
SldWstTskFrce-6/3
204,59
*001.-455''-2325
4
80707C 1016981
07/02 (W30
15531
OffStePrkgTsk.Frce-6/10
79.44
*001-4553-2325
6
807070 01/7387
07/02, 06/30
15531
Off5tePrkngTskFrc-6/10
227.45
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------)
511.45
Foothill Transit
FoothillTr
*112-4553-55=,3
9
807070
07/02 06/':0
8479
FromPassesSold-June
1,456.20
#112-4553-553+
10
80707C
07/02 06/30
3479
3%-Commission -June
209.73-
*112-4553-5535
7
80707C
07/02 06/30
8479
TransitPasses-June
5,532.80
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------)
6,781.27
GFU-Friedrich and Assoc
BFB
*138-4532.-4000
4
30707C 01/7012
07/02 06./30
930; -0•`_'
ProfSvcs-Dist #38-May
1,874.50
*139-45339-4000
4
80707C 02(7012
07/02 06/:.:0
` 80x,-02+
Prof Svcs-Dist #3'�-May
1,874.60
*141-4541-4000
4
60707C 03/7012
07/02 06130
9806-08
Prof Svcs-Dist #41-June
1,874.60
*001-4510-5227
22
80707C 01/7237
07/02 06/210
9806-12
May Engr Inspectn Svcs
56.25
*250-4510-6411 01498
25
80707C 01/701:
07/02 06/30
9806-1:
Slurry Seal-Area 1-Mav
1,392.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------)
7,071.95
GTE California
GTE
*001-4040-2125
2
80707C
07/02 06/30
PhneSrvcs-ModumLine
36.13
*(Y01-4090-21'25
14
80707C
07/02 06/30
Phone Svs-Cam Svcs Ctr
522.98
*001-4090-2125
15
807070
07/02 06/30
PhoneSrvcs-GenGovt.
1,976.97
*601-4CM-2125
16
80707C
07/02 06/30
Gen Phone Services
129.67
*001-4210-2320
2
807070 01/6742
07/02 06/30
StrAddressDirectry
81.72
*010-4355-2125
1
80707C
07/02 06/30
PhoneSrvcs-LibraryPrjct
62.34
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 2,809.81
### 1* V o` D l a m o n c a a r # {.
RUN TIME: 16:13 07/06/98 V O U C H E R R E 0 1 S T E R
DUE THRU............. 07/07/97.-`
PAGE
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID. # * PREPAID #
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE!N0. ENTRI%DUE INVOICE DESCfiIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHEC1:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
GTE Leasinq GTELease
#00i-4090-2130 7 80707x_ 07/02 06/30 2070!55•`_ June Equip Rent 44:.45
TOTAL DUE VENDOR. --------) 443.45
Ganesha Booster Club GaneshaBoo
*011-4010-2S,559 8'07+7 07/02 6131 Comm Q g Support Agreemnt 5 52
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 562.52
Hall & Foreman Hall&Forem
#001-4510-5227 24 80707C 01/6682 07/02 06/30 96431 Engr Inspectn Svcs 1,948.72
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 1.948.72
Hosler, William HoslerW
#001-4310-2330 7 807070 ()7/0- f ) k !0; Reimb-Conf 6/10-12 54.36
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 54.36
Hula, J. Mchael HulsMike
X115-4515-5500 21 80707C 011&3YZI 07/t12 06""x! GT03/05-98 Svcs-IW/Enviro-Oct-May 26,138.00
#001-4510-4240 4 80707C 02/6.325 07/02 06/30 SW02/05-98 IW/Enviro Svcs -Oct -May 778.25
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 226,916.-
I
ICMA Retirement -401 ICMA401
Oi:1 1ti!-10076, 80701C 07/02 06/301 PP12/13 PF'12/13DefCompContrib 1,34±'.30
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- '1 1,342.31
Image IV Systems Inc. Image4Sy=-.
*001-4090-2100 5 80707C 02/6456 07/02 06/30 Copy Charges -Apr 72.62
*001-400-2200 10 80707C 01/6456 07/02 06/3'0 Konica-Maint Charges -Apr 162.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR. --------) 234.62'
Inland Valley Dly Bulletn IVDB
#001-2300-1010
42 80707C
07/02
06/30
Legal Ad-FF'L 98-23
96.53
43 80707C
07/02
06/30
Lg1Ad-FPL Q8-021
54.60
*001-2300-1010
44 80707C
07/02
06/30
LQlAd FPL 98-24
54.60
#001-':A!-1010
45 807070
07/02
06/30
Lg1Ad FPL 98-25
54.60
*001-4040-2115
16. 80707D 01/7275
07/02
06/30
31503124
Ad -Pub Hrq-613-LLAE, 39
394.88
#001-4040-2115
18 80707D 01/7275
07/02
06/30
31503125
Ad -Pub Hrg-LLAD 41 6/"1
397.80
*001-40940-2115
14 80707D 01/7275
07/02
06/30
31503317
Ad -Pub Hrq-6/10-LLAD 32
330.53
#001-123.K10-1010
40 807:+7D
J7/(! -'
061130
37505870
Legal Ad -FPL 98-022
114.08
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 1.497.6.2
r i`v of Diamonc Bar
RUN TIME: 16:1307/06/9== VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE
DUE THRU.............U7/07/9'
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID. # PREPAID
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/NO, ENTR't'/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECt
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Intl Business Equipment inBusEquip
t001 -40Q0-2100 31 80707D
*001-4090-22,00 8 3070711
International Services IntService
*001-4411-5531 6 80707D 01/7159
Irma Sands IRMASANDS
00i-21300-1001 2 80707; -
Jain, Inbu
07tt7E
Jain,Indu Jain
*001-347=; 2/ 80707E
Judicial Data Systems JudDataSy_
*0!1-4411-5405 2 8078711 01/5907
Kleinfelder Kleinfeldr
*001-2300-1012 2080707F
Kuo, Georqe k:.uoG
#001 -421+? -4100 10 40707E
L.A.County Public Works LACPubWk:
*001-4510-5507 8 807071) 01/6003
07/02 06/30 23051
07/02 06/30 23051
07/02 06. /3i i 3416:
07 /02 0:,/300
07/02 06 /3C
07/0 06/30 6740
07/02 0h/30 53;;164
til /? i6. 06, i:;C)
t t7 /02 06 /:3i 1386.
LA Cellular Telephone
LACellular
Xerox. Maint Svcs -June
165.00
*000-40300-2125
E 80707D
07/02
06/30
*001-4040-2125
12 80707D
07/02
06/0
*001-4090-2125
13 60707D
07/0'
06/330
*001-4415-2125
2 80707D
07/02
06/30
X126,-4411-2125
2 80707D
07/x;'2
06/3tY
Xerox Copy Charges -June
=.1:.7
Xerox. Maint Svcs -June
165.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
478.76
Crossing Grd Svcs -May
6,671.70
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------'r
6,671.70;
Grading Bond Refund
5,400.00;
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------!
5,400.00
Recreation Refund
25.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i
25.00
PrkgCite/RvwProcess-May
176.36
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i
176.36
Prof Svcs -EN 96-157
722.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i
722.50
Plnq Comm Mtgs-5/12,26
120.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------?
120.00
Traffic Siqnl Maint-Oct97
4,979.95
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------1
4.97:':15
Cell Phne Svcs-Cmgr
°3.01
Cell Phne Svcs-CCncl
54.18
Cell Phne Svcs -Gen Govt
81.27
Cell Phne Svcs-Vltr Prtrl
105.34
Cell Phne Svcs -Sheriff
90.54
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i
424.34
#
Cit',' of
Diamond
Bar ##
RUN TIME: 16:13 07/06/95
V O U C
H E F R E
G I S T E R
PAGE
DUE THRU.............07/07/9.:
VENDOR NAME
VENDOR: 1D.
PREPAID **
ACCOUNT PROJ.TY,-NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BATCH P'C.LINEX.
ENTRY/DUE
INVOICE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHE'---
LA Cellular Telephone
LACellular
*001-4440-212
1
807:71;
07/02 ft,111,0
Cell Phne Svcs-Emer Prep
147.90
TOTAL DUE VENDOR-------->
147.90
Landscape West
LandscaoeW
*141-4541-2210.
SO7U7D C1f6288�
r.J,io
2591 +_
Ads' :Maint Dist #41
380.70
8141-4541-5.`-00
4
807071, 01/5 ';4
07/02 06/30
26141
Maint-Dist#41-May
2,950.00
TDTAL DUE VENDOR --------i
3.3x0.70
Leighton and Associates
Leiqhton
*001-230+ -1012
18
80707[1
C17/02 6i l- :
5386
Prof Svcs-EN 95-130
694.28
*001-2300-1012
19
80707D
07102 Ob/30
5386
Prof Svcs-EN 95-139
164.72
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------
359.N
Lewis Engraving Inc.
LewisEngra
*001-4095-2113
4
807'i7D O1J7198
07fC2 06/30
29754
Tile Enqrvg Svcs
133.15
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------->
133.15
Local Government
LOCGOVCom
*001-4090-23,1580707D07/02
[?6/3.
MembershpRenewal-FYSf`�='
`i?.+};�
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------?
50.00
Los Angeles County MTA
LACMTA
1 cc.+-qc
fi 12-4.•.:.. _.__:
11
807iJ7C
i F Par-�
r,2 J.,:X
q•7 c
6 80_071
Citv'_ Subsidv
4:33.10
*112-455:J-5525
E,
80707C
07/02 06/30
6980.571
MTAPasses-June
791.90
*112-4552-5535
,a
807077
07/02 06/30
T-10:31155
MTA 6u=_. Tokens
1,Boo. of)
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------)
3,025,00
Macadee Electrical
Macadee
*250-4510-6412: 10795
6
80707D 01/6737
07102 06/3i)
1692
TrfcSignlConst-DE/GtlSprq
24,293.15
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------)
24,25-3.15
Main Street Tours
MainStreet
001-4,350-531n
11
80707D 01/7191
07/0 06/30
24MS1
Excur-Candlight Pvin-5/14
966.00
*11'-.1-4360-5310
6
80707D 03/7191
07/02 06/30
24361
Transp-Excursion-5114
425.00
*125-4215-5310
2
807070 02,7191
07/02 06130
24861
Trsnsp Escursion 5/14
462.001
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------s
1,85=.00
*** City of Diamond bar ***
RUNTIME: 16:1307106/98 VOUCHER REGI ST EF
I9.fE THP.0.............07/07/98
VENDOR NAME VENDOR; ID.
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX.-NO BATCH PO.LINE/Nil. ENTRY/DUE INIuICE DESCRIPTION
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Maintex
*001-4314-1200
*001-4091-1200
*001-4:314-1200
Maintex
10 80707D 03/6139
2 8070711 02/6139
3 80707D 03/613` -
Mariposa Horticultural Mariposa
*1K -45.78-550(j 2 80707D 01/5892
*138-4538-2210 8 807071) 01/6287
Marshall, Thomas
*001-23,00-1002
McManus; Joseph
*001-4'210-4100
Metrolina:
*112-4553-5`3
*1121 _ C.- 5315
MarshallT
24 807071,
McManus)
10 80707E
Metrolink
12 807}7C
10 S07O7C
Miracle Recreation Equip. MiracieRec
*x101-4325-2210 5 8070711
ti001-4325-2210 4 20707D 01/7310
Mon! Oil: Corporation MobilOilCo
001-2300-1016 41 80707D
Moonlight Press MoonlightP
*001-4210-2110 3 80707D
Mt. Baldy United Wain UnitedWay
*001-2110-1013 2 80707U
PAGE
x PREPAID f
AMOUNT DATE CHEC!.
--------------------------
07/02 06/30
324232
Suppls-HrtgePra.:
49.31
07/02 06/30
326650
Misc Suppls-Comm Svcs Ctr
07/02 Ot,/30
326650
Suppls-HrtgePrk
69.24
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i
07/02 06/3((
1274:;
Maint-Dist# 8 -May
=_31';.49
07/02 Or:/30
12741
Add'l Maint LLAD 38 -May
:36:.44
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------;
2,68--K
07/02 06/30
45544
Refund/Deposit-Hrtq Priv:
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
50.00
07/0: 06/30
Plnq Comm Mtqs-5/12,26
120.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------;
120.00
07/02 U6/3()
Citv's Subsidv-June
5.74:3.60
07/02 06/30
FromPassesSold-June
22,890.40
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------1
28,634.0::
07/02 06/30
45473e
Rplcmnt Prts-Plygrd Eqpmt
17.41
07/02 06/30
455265
Plyornd Equip-Starshne Pk:
177.77
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------5
195.18
07/02 06/10
Refund/Deposit-FPL 98-12
1,687.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------3
1,687.50
07/02 06/30
98107
Suppls-Canary Envelopes
84.57
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------!
84.57
07/02 061130
PP12/1=n-P/R Deductions
9;;.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i
93.00
**x :'V of D-.amonc Ear;
RUN TIME: 16:13 07/06/98 V 0 0 0 H E R R E G I S T E R PAGE 11
DU- THRU.............07/07/9S
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID. * PREPAID
ACCOUNT PRGJ.T%-NO BATCH PC.LINE/NG. ENTki/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECi.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
National Office Furniture NatOffFurn
*001-4090-6221; 4 807071 01/7140
Nelson, Steve NelsonS
*001-4210-4100 11 S' 7 }7E
Nextel Communications Nextei
*001-4440-2130 4 86707E 01/614'=
O'Connor, Debby OconnerD
*001-4010-3335
001 -4096-2`-K 1 =10', 071)
Otto, Al OttoAl
*001-347-2 ? W707D
Payroll Transfer PayrollTr
*001-102680707E
Pentamation Enterprises Pentamatn
*001-4090-212.`_: 17 ,50707E
Pimentel,T. S. Pimentei,T
*001-2300-100 25 80707E
Pitney Bowes PitneyBowe
*001-4090-2130 q 80707E 01/6001
07/02 06/30
Ger:OffcEquip-De-!-
6,010.12
TOTAL DUE VENDOR: --------`
6,Ol0.i2l
07/0r_, 06.1-30
Ping Coma Mtgs-5/12,26•
120.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
120.00
07/02 06/30
801930
Two Way Radio Svcs
182.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
182.00
C;t,;`c'
Chamber Mixer -5%21
5.00
07;02 06%:�
Reimb-ICSC Conf-5,20
23.75
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
28.75
07/02 06/30
44476
Refund -Getty Excursion
15.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
15.00
07/02 06/30
PayrollTransfer
61,000.Oi?
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
61,000.00
07/02 06/3C?
i2'{r 0u
DataLine-Charges
9.70
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------
-------07/0'
07 /0206/30
45549
Refund5ecurityDeposit
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
50.00
07/02 06/30
3316188-JN98
RentMailEgp/F1dgMach
369.90
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------1
369.90
qty or D:amonc Har
RUN TIME: 16:13 07/06/9$ V O U C H E R R E G I S T E R PAGE 1
DUE THRU.............07/07/98
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID. PREPAID
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-ND HATCH PO.LINE/NO. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHEC
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Planninq Commissioners PlanningCm
Pleztor Pleztor
)•_1-4-`�_ -�._._ 6 „0 07E 01/ .31
Pomona Unified School F'omtVIVSchl
*001-4350-1140 12 80707E 01/6324
*001-4350-2140 15 '30707E 01/6-334
Project Sister ProjSister
*011-4010-2355 80707E
R & D Blueprint R&DBlue
*001-4556-4500 10 80707E 01/7230
#001-4556-450: 12 80767E 01/'"35;,
Ralphs Grocery Go. Ralphs
*001-4350-1200 16 80707E 01/6137
*001-4350-1200 IS 80707E 01/6137
Repro Graphics ReproGraph
*001-4090-2110 6 80707E 01/6101
Richards Watson & Gershon RichardsWa
*001-2,300-1010 46 80707E
*001-4010-4020' 1 80707E '11/6408
*001-4020-4021 1 80707E 12/6309
*115-4515-4000 1 80707E 13/6408
Rodriguez,Jaime Rodriguez
*001-2300-1002 27 80707E
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 0.00
07/02
06/30
2189:=
Comatr Maint-CD-Rom Drve
65.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
65.1111)
C)7/+i2
06/30
9.116-1
Faciltykent-Jan-Mar
1_051.00
07/02
06/30
93117-1
FaciltyRent-Apr-May
309,01_}
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
1,366.00
07/(K:.:
06/'50
SprtAgrmntCommOrg
562'.52
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
562.52
07/02
06/30
39036
EEM -Tree Plntg Project
75.44
07/01
0E/2*
39036
TreePlantingProject
2033 `8.
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
279.42
07/02
06130
0,7099
Suppls-RecPrgrm
41.11
07/02
06/30
46526
Suppls-Tiny Tots
93.16
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
134.17
07/02
06/30
9111
Prtg5vcsBusCardMstrs
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
89,x'•
07/01
06/30,
LolSrvcsFPL97-44
130.00
07/02
06/30
GenLglSrvcs-April
6,453.0.3
07/01
06/K
SPLglSrvcs-IPS April
6,5:0.21
07/01
06/30
LglSrvcsSolidWaste
54.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
113,167.24
07/02
06/30
45519
Recreation Refund
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
50.00
*** C:tv o* D:amanc Isar {
RUN TIME: 16:13 07/06/96 V 0 U C H E R R E G I S T E R PAGE 1:
DUE THRU.............07/07/?c'.
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID. x PREPAID
ACCOUNT PROJ.Tk-NO HATCH PO.LINE/N0. ENTP.I/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECi
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rose, Hobby RoseH
*001-4310-2330 S 80707E
Ruzicka, Joseph T. RuzickaJ
*001-4210-4100 'a 80707E
San Gabriel VIV Tribune SGVTribune
*001-2300-1010 47 80707E
(11)1/- cY10-1(11(1 48 8-0707E
Shiroma,Julis Shirom,
Shopping Centers Tocay ShopCenter
*001-4096-2115 2 80707E 01/701 -
Sister City SisterC'
*011-4010-2355 4 -;1707F
Smart & Final Smart&Finl
*001-4350-1200 22 80707E 01/6121
*001-4350-1'200 10 80707E 01/6121
*i25-4115-1100 4 80707E 04/6121
Souza,Hetty Souza
*001-23X1-1002 29 80707E
St.Josephs St.Josephs
*001-2300-1001 30 80707E
07/0:'
06/30
Reimb-CPRS Conf 3112-15
5.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i
5.`>
071/06
06/':0
Ping Comm Mtgs-5/12,26
120.(
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
120.00
07/02
06/:=0
Lg1Ad-FPL 98-2_
234.00
01/02
(16/30
LglAd-FPIL Q"-'22
1`.,.84
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
393.84
07/02'
0;6/30
45535
Refund
200,00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
2i1i�.0i1
6-1/0-2
06/30
AD -77016
Ad-May/June Issue
',125.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
3,128.00
0710*2
06/30
ComOrgSupportAgreemnt
1,125.03
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
07/02
06/:30
205782
Suppis-Tinv Tots
17.26
07/02
1)6/30,,
6762744
Suppls-Tiny Tots
79.12
07/01
06/30
6762744
SeniorbingoSuppls
51.03
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
147,41
07/02
061130
47077
Recreation Refund
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
50.00
07/02
06/30
47101
Refund/Deposit-RonRegan
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
50.00
*+
City of
Diamond
bar
RUN TIME: 16:13
07/06/98
V O U C
H E R R E G
I S T E R
PAGE 14
DUE THRU.............07/C117/92
VENDOR NAME
VENDOR ID.
PREPAID #
ACCOUNT PRGJ.TX-NO
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BATCH PO.LINE/NO.
ENTRY/DUE
INVOICE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHEC:
Stevens,Colleen
Stevens
*001-2300-1002
31
807FE
07/02 %/'0
44r,15
Recreation Refund
SG.0+"
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
51+.1+0
Subway
Subway
*011'111-4090-2-_-_j
15
20707E 22/6951
r)7 A)' 08,1130
CityCounciiMeeting-6/16
*1;01-45111)-2:32.`_.
1
807077 23/rr?57
07/02 0c�/:j+
GffsiteParkingTsk:Frc-b/]ti
111,91
*115-4515-2325
5
S0707E 21j697
,' +6831
�oiidViasteisk:Frc-r:/,1
7,. -
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------;
31.'
Teeples.Sandrr
Teepies
*00'_-230+)-1012
MW -7
(17/1112 061130
45545
Fer'_11nd!Deoo=it-F'etersor,
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
501DO
Time Out Personnel Svc.
Timegut
*00',-411111-4000
2_;
80707F 01/1281,
Cj7/C)2 06!30
AsistFingDvsnScrty
139. 88
*001-4210-4000
20
80707F
07i02 06/30
31-4S,80,62
TempSrvcs
651.14
*00-4210-4000
21
80707F
07102, 06/30
3199
TempSrvcs
26:,.62
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
1,054.64
Tye. Steven
T y e S,
*001-4216-4100
12
80707E
Cali i_, 11);.130
Ping Comm Mtgs-5/21,21E.
120.01)
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
120.00
UC Regent_.
UCRegents
*1,1111-4510-2:40
2
80707F 01/7363
071102 06/30
,399,,! 1
Conf-61111-1
120.1)11)
TOTAL DUE VENDOR, --------)
120.00
United Parcel Service
UPS
*00i-4096-2120
4
80707F
07/+)2 06/30
9632780027-2
Express Mail -Gen Govt
9.25
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
9.25
V -Corp
V -Corp
*001-4210-4000
25
80707F 01/7706
07/02 06/30
1514021
Copies-PingCommTpes
95.26
*001-4210-4000
27
30707F 01/7708
07/02 06/30
1514044
Copies-P1ngCommTpes
32.48
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
127.74
Wes'_ Coast Arborist Inc.
WCArbor
*001-4558-5509
22
80107E 01/7089
07/0:: 06/:30
13847
May-Cty Wde Tree Maint
1,994,00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
1,990.00
+
i- •y C1
2 Ri C r C P a r x#
RUN TIME: 16:13
07/06/98
V O U C H
E R R E G
I S T E R
PAGE
DUE THR1j
.............07/07/'x.
VENDOR NAME
VENDOR ID.
PREPAID
ACCOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROJ.TX-NO
BATCH PO.LINE%NO.
=NTRf/DUE
INVOICE
DESIRIPTIOP
AMOUNT DATE CHECi.
Worrell,Coleen
Worrell
*071-3478
25
80707E
07/0; 01-/36
Recreation Refund
125.1_;0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------?
125.00
Wright, Paul
WrightP
*001-4090-4000
14
E0707F 01/7430
07/02 06/30
Audio/Visual Srvcs
437.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
437.50
YMCA
YMCA
*011-4010-2355
3
80707F
07/0 06/:30
Comorg5upportAoreemnt
1,125.03
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
1,125.6'j
Yocum,Annette
Yocum
*000-347E
22
80707E
?/) 00131
Recreation Refund
8ia.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
Yosemite Waters
YosemWater
00 4� 10-2130
15
80707F 01/70='x,
07/0- lit,
EG=.:p Rent-Com5vcCtr-Jne
25.01!
*001-4250-12U(F
24
807,07F 02/.6141
07/02 (All"
Mav032645
Supplies-CSCenter
5.f;
*001-4310-2130
13
80707F
0"1/02 06/3!,
May05629
EquinRent-HrtgComCtr-June
7.00
4:01-4:314-12C',t!
12
8:067F 02/6140
07/02 0(%/30
May(158292
Supplies-HrtgeComCtr
30.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR. --------)
75,80
2ellerbach
2ellerbach
*001-4090-1200
7
80707F 01/7364
0710' 06/30
L!-59787-115
Supplies
579.14
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
579.14
TOTAL PREPAID -----------)
0.00
TOTAL DUE ---------------)
489,584.73
TOTAL REPORT ------------)
489,584.7:3
TOTAL------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
-rALL FUNDS 489,584.73 153,704.05 285.00 33-J, 5?..68
I` V 0 i D
1 a m n n E a r
RUN
TIME: 16:1" 07/06/9rc_
V O U C H E R
R E G I S T E F;
PAGE ;
FUND SUMMARY
REPORT
DUE THRU.............07/07/9,
DISBURSE
G/L GJE WILL
POST GJE HAS POSTED
FUTURE TRANSACTIONS
FUND
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TOTAL
DIRECT PAY REVENUE
EXPENSE REVENUE EXPENSE
REVENUE EXPENSE
001
General Fund
313,156.20
15<.704.05
285.00 159,167.15
011
Com Oranztn Sup
6,187.68
6,1F7.6B
139
LLAD #39 Fund
8.074.22
8 074.22
250
C.I.P. Fund
55,463.15
05,465.15
115
Int Waste Mamt F
26,404.57
26'404.5:
1K
Prop A -Transit F
'_8,865.27
38,865.27
1"c,
LLAD #38 fund
5,557.4=;
5,557.4
141
LLAD #41 Fund
5,205.30
5,205.30
010
Library Service
62'.34
126
COPS Fund
99;.54
90.54
125
CDBG Fund
513.0'
513.03
TOTAL------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
-rALL FUNDS 489,584.73 153,704.05 285.00 33-J, 5?..68
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 1,175,00
##
Ci
:
t o f Ga
m o n c Ear#
RUN TIME: 16:10 07/06/98
V
0 U C H E R R
E G I S T E R
PAGE
DUE THRU.............07/07/91;
VENDOR NAME
VENDOR ID.
PREPAID #
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/NO.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ENTRY/DUE
INVOICE
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHEC1..
American Storaqe LTD
AmerStoraq
001-4090-1140 1
807079
07101
07/07
FY9';/99 Rent-Stro #140
+380.00
001-4090-1140 2
80707A
07/01
07/07
FY90./99 Rent-Strg #112C
K15.0t:+
001-4090-1140 3
80707A
07101
07107
FY90199 Rent-Strq #92
1..10.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
2.915.00
California Contract
CCCA
0+01-4090-2'.15 2'
80707A
07/0'
07/07
FY Member Dues
oOt;,Ui;
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------i
1,80(+.00
California Joint Powers
CJPIA
510-4810-7200 1
80707A
07/01
07/07
98/99 Primary Ins Deposit
152,347.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
152,347.00
City Clerks Assoc of Ca.
CCAC
001-4040-2315 1
80707A
07/01
07/07
FY 9019 Member Dues
200.25
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------1
200.25
Delta Dental
DeltaDent
001-2110-1004 1
s,0707A
0710?
07/07
JulyDental Prems
1,253.11
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
1,258.21
Film A, Eleven
FilmAtElew
001-4350;-530+5 :;
l3i)7ii7h
07/3
0+7/02
Band-ConInPrk:-7/ 15198
8100.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------)
800,00
ICMA Retirement Trust -457 ICMA
+ii)1-2110-1007 1
80707A
07/02
07/07
July -Contract Contrib
758.00
00+1-1110-1007 1
80707A
07/02
07/07
July-Contrib-All Depts
9,937.81
001-40:30-0080+ 1
807079
07/02
07/07
July -Contract Contrib-Cmq
400.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------'t
11.095.81
L.A. Ctv-Fire Dept
LACFire
001-44;1-5401 1
80707A
07/02
07/07 06001365
FY 98199 -Contract Srvcs
7,359,00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------?
7,:359.00
League of Ca. Cities
League
001-4010-1325 1
80707A
07/02
07/07
Conf-7/22-24-CCncl
94+:.00
00:1-40::0-2325 1
80707A
07/02
07/07
Conf-7/22-24-CMgr
135.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 1,175,00
##
C i t
v of
D i a m c n d Bar -t-
RUN TIME: 16:20
07/06/98
VOUCHER
R E G I S T E P
PAG= -
DUE THRU
.............07/07/98;
VENDOR NAME
VENDOR ID.
PREPAID n
ACCOUNT
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PROU.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/NO.
ENTRY/DUE
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHECt_
Leibenson. Ken
Liebensoni.
001-4350-5305
4
80707A
07/02
,)7/()7
Hand-ConInPr1. 718/98'
350.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR-------->
850.t
MMASC
MMASC
001-4036-23i
_:OI 1
07/02
07/07
Cont-8/5-7-Harak:sin
2J.0.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------i
230.00
Nelsonic=
NelsonT
001-4350-5305
1
80707A
07/02
07/07
SoundSys-ConinPrF. 7/8/`7;_
50o.0i;
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------:
500.00
Nelsonics
NelsonT
001-4'50-5305
2
80707A
07/02
07/075ound��
=-
Sy ConlnPrk: 7/15/9
500.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------}
500.R!
SCAN J NATOA
SCAN
001-4030-2315
1
80707A
07102,
07/07
FY 98/99-Member Wes
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------}
50.00
San Gabriel Consortium
SGConsort
001-409 i-'2'15
1
_0707A
07/02
07/0-
FY 98/'!--Member Renewal
7,500.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR -------- }
7,506.00
Wyndam Emerald
Plaza
WyndEmeral
001-4030-2330
2
80707A
07/02
07/07
MMASC, Conf-2/5-7-Haraksin
274.04
TOTAL DUE VENDOR--------}
274.04
TOTAL PREPAID-----------}
0.00
TOTAL DUE---------------}
1891854.31
TOTAL REPORT ------------}
189,854.31
#n- _y of Uiaft, onc ear it
RUNTIME: 16:2007/06/98 VOUCHER PEG 1 ST ER PACS i
=UNIT SUMMARY REPORT
DUE THRU.............07/07/9S
DISBURSE G/L GJE WILL POST GJE HAS POSTED FUTURE TRANSACTIONS.
FUND TOTAL DIRECT PAY REVENUE EXPENSE REVENUE EXPENSE REVENUE EXPENSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
001 General Fund 37,507.31 11,''`4.�a2 215,553,29
510 Self Insurance F 152,347.0( 15,347.00
TOTAL------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ALL FUNDS 189,254. 1 11 54.0 177,900.29
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: July 7, 1998..� REPORT DATE: June 22, 1998
FROM: Linda G. Magnusorf,Assistant Finance Director
TITLE:
Treasurer's Report - May 30, 1998
SUMMARY:
Submitted for the City Council's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the
month of May, 1998.
RECOMMENDATION:
Review and approve.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City
Clerk's office)
_ Ordinance(s) _ Other:
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
_ Yes
_ No
by the City Attorney?
2.
Does the report require a majority vote?
_ Yes
_ No
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A
_ Yes
_ No
4.
Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? N/A
_ Yes
_ No
Which Commission?
5.
Are other departments affected by the report? N/A
_ Yes
s No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED
BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD:
7
Terrence
L. Belana Lind M gnu o
City
Manager Assistant Finance Director
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: July 7, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Treasurer's Statement - May 31, 1998
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer's
Statement for the City Council's review and approval.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the May, 1998 Treasurer's Statement.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
No fiscal impact.
BACKGROUND:
Submitted for the Council's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for
the month of May, 1998. This statement shows the cash balances for the various
funds, with a breakdown of bank account balances, investment account balances
and the effective yield earned from investments.
The City's Deferred Compensation balances which are managed by ICMA are also
being reported. The City receives ICMA statements on a quarterly basis. The
balances reported are as of March 31, 1998.
PREPARED BY:
Linda G. Maanuson
TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT
May 31, 1998
GENERAL FUND
$13,298,659.62
$922,975.68
$921,588.71
$13,300,046.59
LIBRARY SERVICES FUND
109,968.24
620.18
109,348.06
COMMUNITY ORG SUPPORT FD
0.00
1,125.03
(1,125.03)
GAS TAX FUND
2,767,674.25
94,037.82
2,861,712.07
TRANSIT TX (PROP A) FD
1,668,602.85
101,125.75
63,771.98
1,705,956.62
TRANSIT TX (PROP C) FD
2,136,901.71
2,136,901.71
ISTEA FUND
10,280.43
10,280.43
INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FD
160,686.34
22,071.60
4,019.59
178,738.35
AIR QUALITY IMPRVMNT FD
122,207.33
697.25
2,597.23
120,307.35
TRAILS & BIKEWAYS FD (SB 821)
28,838.65
28,838.65
PARK FEES FUND
448,685.91
448,685.91
S PARKS GRANT (PRP A) FD
(455,097.32)
(455,097.32)
FACILITIES & PARK DEVEL. FD
1,337,215.32
1,337,215.32
COM DEV BLOCK GRANT FD
(57,235.26)
112,866.00
4,116.78
51,513.96
CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SAFETY FD
268,316.37
922.07
267,394.30
NARCOTICS ASSET SEIZURE FD
314,918.61
314,918.61
LANDSCAPE DIST #38 FD
433,666.61
29,821.98
8,087.88
455,400.71
LANDSCAPE DIST #39 FD
140,334.59
17,626.76
8,798.58
149,162.77
LANDSCAPE DIST X41 FD
289,784.36
16,026.83
7,962.49
297,848.70
GRAND AV CONST FUND
139,130.78
139,130.78
CAP IMPROVEMENT PRJ FD
(201,577.50)
96.48
134,322.95
(335,803.97)
SELF INSURANCE FUND
747,577.41
747,577.41
TOTALS
$23,709,539.30
$1,317,346.15
$1,157,933.47
$0.00 $23,868,951.98
SUMMARY OF CASH:
DEMAND DEPOSITS:
GENERAL ACCOUNT $35,675.01
PAYROLL ACCOUNT 624.01
CHANGE FUND 200.00
PETTY CASH ACCOUNT 500.00
INVESTMENTS:
TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS $36,999.02
US TREASURY Money Market Acct. $3,831,952.96
TIME CERTIFICATES 0.00
COMMERCIAL PAPER 0.00
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD 20,000,000.00
TOTAL INVESTMENTS $23,831,952.96
TOTAL CASH
Note: The City of Diamond Bar is invested in the State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund. All funds are available
for withdrawal within 24 hours. Investment in the Local Agency Investment Fund is allowed under the City's formally
adopted investment policy.
$23,868,951.98
In May, 1997, the City's amount of investable surplus exceeded the LAIF limit of $20,000,000. As a result, the City had to
invest money in an alternative investment option. While other investments options are being evaluated, these funds have
been invested in a US Treasury sweep account through Weis Fargo Bank. These funds are "swept' on a daily basis from
the City's bank accounts and invested overnight into an investment pool of US Treasury notes. Interest will be creditied
to the City's bank account on a monthly basis.
L.A.I.F - Effective Yield for March 1998 5.680%
L.A.I.F - Effective Yield for April 1998 5.672%
Money Market -Effective Yield for March 1998 4.798%
GITT OF UTAMONU BAR
TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT
April 30, 1998
INVESTMENT: DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNT (AS OF 3/31/98)
ICMA Retirement Corporation - 487 Plan.
AGGRESSIVE OPPORTUNITY FUND
8,471.70
INTERNATIONAL FUND
9,691.33
OVERSEAS EQUITY INDEX FUND
6,493.72
GROWTH STOCK FUND
123,497.81
MID/SMALL CO. INDEX
9,389.51
BROAD MARKET FUND
21,029.85
500 STOCK INDEX FUND
3,294.96
EQUITY INCOME FUND
12,566.10
ASSET ALLOCATION FUND
46,672.38
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FUND
0.00
CORE BOND FUND
20,458.58
US TREASURY FUND
9,547.15
CASH MANAGEMENT FUND
3,723.54
PLUS FUND
364,309.28
GUARANTEED FUND
0.00
CONSERVATIVE GROWTH
1,590.51
TRADITIONAL GROWTH
14,824.55
MS MOMTM GROWTH
3,274.48
MS CAPITAL APPRECIATION
8,736.40
MS GROWTH
2,558.82
MS CONTR GROWTH
3,437.44
MS GROWTH & INCOME
12,20427
MS SP SITUATION
3,465.64
TOTAL OF DEPOSITS 688,738.02
Note. These investment options are at the discretion of the employees
Due to the complexity of the funds, which are solely handled by ICMA, the City is only reporting the balances available in
in the various instruments
The reporting period reflects the most current quarter reported by ICMA to the City.
TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS
$24,557,690.00
All investments are placed in accordance with the City of Diamond Bar's Investment Policy.
The above summary provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six month's
estimated expenditures.
Terrence L. Belanger, Treasurer
June 9, 1998 c J J i { { : 7
TO: City of Diamond Bar
ATTENTION: Tommye Nice, Deputy City Clerk
RE: Claim Bellegia v. City of Diamond Bar
Claimant Leslie Bellegia
D/Event 17 -Apr -98
Rec'd Y/Office 03 -Jun -98
Our File S-97318-SWQ
We have reviewed the above captioned claim and request that you take the action indicated
below:
• CLAIM REJECTION: Send a standard rejection letter to the claimant.
Please provide us with a copy of the notice sent, as requested above. If you have any
questions please contact the undersigned.
Very truly yours,
CARL WARREN & COMPANY
c
0- —
Dwight J. Kunz
cc: CJPIA w/enc.
Attn.: Executive Director
CARL WARREN & CO.
CLAIMS MANACEMENT•CLAIMS ADJUSTERS
750 The City Drive • Ste 400. Orange, CA 92868
Mail: P.O. Box 25180 • Santa Ana, Ca 92799-5180
Phone: (714) 740-7999 Ext. 140 • (800) 572-6900 • Far: (714) 740-9412
�L
L
June 2, 1998
LAW OFFICES OF
KEITH CORDELL HOLMES
SUITE 210
556 NORTH DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765-1000
Telephone (909) 861-2889
Facsimile (909) 860-9329
City Clerk
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21660 E. Copley Dr., Suite 100
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: LETTER OF REPRESENTATION
MY CLIENT: LESLIE BELLEGIA
SITUS: GOLDEN SPRINGS DR.
DATE OF INJURY: 4/17/98
Dear City Clerk:
This letter is to advise you that our law office represent the interests of Ms Bellegia in regards to
the following claim. Please be further advised that any and all communication should be
forwarded to this office.
As a result of the city of Diamond Bar's negligent maintenance of the sidewalks, my client, Ms
Bellegia, fell and suffered personal injuries. On April 17, 1998 my client, was walking on Golden
Springs Dr., on the north side of the street, east of Diamond Bar Blvd., in front of the Medical
Village square, when she tripped and fell on un -level sidewalk, caused by crack in the cement. Our
office submits this letter to advise you of the current status of her progress. Currently, she is
under the care of her physician, and when a report is prepared it will be forwarded to your office,
along with a claim form as provided under Gov. Code §915a. Enclosed is her Designee Form for
your review and file records.
Should you need any information that may ensure the expeditious and proper handling of your
insured's case, please do not hesitate to contact this office. Your attention and cooperation to this
matter is greatly appreciated.
Sincerely,
M
KEITH C. HOLMES
Attorney At Law
ECL: DESIGNEE FORM
F:\Law Office Files\TIMMELLEGIA.2REP.wpd
4-21-98
LAW OFFICES OF
KEITH CORDELL HOLMES
SUITE 210
556 NORTH DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765-1000
Telephone (909) 861-2889
Facsimile (909) 860-9329
My File No.: #4950
DESIGNATION BY CLAIMANT
(PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATION, TITLE 10)
I, LESLIE BELLEGIA ("CLAIMANT"), in the matter of the claim, ("CLAIM"), arising out of
an incident which occurred on or about 4-17-98 , do hereby appoint, authorize and direct the
LAW OFFICES OF KEITH CORDELL HOLMES, ("LAW FIRM"), and Keith C. Holmes,
Attorney at Law, or any representative(s), associate(s), or association(s) designated by the LAW
FIRM and/or appointed, directed or authorized by the LAW FIRM to represent me and my
interests, claim(s), and/or cause(s) of action, arising from the above-described matter and
CLAIM, and to handle my CLAIM, and to negotiate and resolve any settlement with the
following named insurance company(ies), and/or its representative(s).:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
This DESIGNATION BY CLAIMANT Form has been promulgated by the California Department or insurance, under the California Code of
Regulations, Title 10, Chapter 5, SubChapter 8, Section 2695.2(c) of the UNFAIR CLAIMS SETTLEMENT PRACTICES REGULATIONS.
Executed this day, 4-21-98 at the City of Diamond Bar , California.
LESLIE BELLEGIA
CLAIMANT'S PRINTED NAME
4950
C:Vaw Office Fdcs\Kctthjx Files\PI\BELLEGIA.wpd
CLAIMANT SIGNATURY
6
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
FROM: James DeStefano, Deputy City Mana
SUBJECT: Transmission of Public Hearing ocuments for
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 52267 -
SunCal Project
DATE: June 19, 1998
SunCal Companies is the owner of a 339.3 acre site identified as
Lots 4,5,6 and 7 of Tract 31479 (the former Bramelea property)
located on the east side of Diamond Bar Boulevard between Steep
Canyon Road and Gold Rush Drive. SunCal also purchased the 86
acre site located adjacent to Pantera Park identified as Lot 9 of
Tract 31479.
SunCal proposes to subdivide 65 acres of the 339.3 acre site into
141 lots for the development of 130 single family detached
residential homes. Ten of the eleven remaining lots will be open
space maintained by the homeowners association. The remaining lot
will be utilized for a future Walnut Valley Water District
reservoir.
The residential development is proposed as a private, gated
community. Lots will range in size from 6,000 square feet to
26,000 square feet, with an average lot size of 10,900 square
feet. The proposed gross density is 0.4 dwelling units per acre
with a net density of approximately 2.06 dwelling units per acre.
The applicants have requested the removal of the map restriction
which prohibits the development of residential units upon Lots 5
and 7, approval of VTM 52267, a vesting tentative tract map for
the subdivision of the land; Conditional Use Permit No. 98-3 for
hillside development within the zone; .Oak Tree Permit No. 98-1
for the removal and replacement of oak trees and the certification
of Environmental Impact Report (EIR) No. 97-2 (SCH No. 97031005)
with the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
On May 12, 1998, the Planning Commission recommended that the
City Council approve the referenced entitlements, certification of
the EIR and adoption of the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The
Commission recommended removal of the deed and map restrictions
for a portion of Lots 5 and 7 conditioned upon the following:
SunCal Memorandum
June 19, 1998
page 2
1. Dedication of approximately 274 acres of land as public
open space (not including the manufactured slopes;
2. Dedication of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479, approximately 86
acres for public open space; and
3. A contribution of $250,000.00 to the City's Parks
Development and Facility Fund.
Attached are several documents relating to the Planning Commission
public hearings for VTTM No. 52267. These documents will assist
the City Council in preparation for City Council public hearing
scheduled for July 7, 1998. The documents are as follows:
1. Environmental
Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I and II
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Statement of Overriding Consideration
Response to Comments, dated September 1997,
February 10, 1998, March 24, 1998 and April 28,
1998.
2. Planning Commission Staff Reports/ Memorandums
Staff reports dated September 23, 1997, October 6,
1998, February 10, 1998, February 19, 1998, March
19, 1998, April 28, 1998 and May 8, 1998.
3. Planning Commission Minutes
September 23, 1997
October 14, 1997
February 10, 1998
February 24, 1998
March 24, 1998
April 28, 1998
May 12, 1998
4. Planning Commission Public Hearing Tapes
February 10, 1998
February 24, 1998
March 24, 1998
April 28, 1998
May 12, 1998
5. Planning Commission Resolutions
Resolution No. 98-11
Resolution No. 98-12
SunCal Memorandum
June 19, 1998
page 3
6. Petitions/ Correspondence
Petitions - approximately 933 pages with 1300
signatures
Correspondence presented to the Planning
Commission in Memorandums dated March 24, 1998,
April 23, 1998 and April 28, 1998
7. Maps/Exhibits
VTTM No. 52267 - Subdivision Map
Landscape Mitigation Plan
Response to Comments Alternative Map
Slope Profile Map
Slope Analysis Map
Cut and Fill Map
Oak Tree Survey Map
8. Response to Comments Alternative
Housing development confined to Lot 6
VTTM No. 52267 Comparative Environmental
Evaluation of Proposed Project and Alternative
Project Alternative dated April 23, 1998
Results of Supplemental Tree Survey for VTTM No.
52267 Regarding the Alternative dated April 21,
1998.
9. Project Brochure prepared by the applicant.
Staff would recommend that the City Council review the Planning
Commission staff reports which outline the proposal in detail.
The EIR identifies the environmental impacts of the development;
and the proposed mitigation measures should the project be'
approved. Please note that the Draft EIR was prepared in 1997
prior to the applicant withdrawing VTM 52308.
The City Council public hearing for VTM 52267 is scheduled for
July 7, 1998. Should the City Council have any questions,
comments or need additional information regarding the materials
transmitted the staff would be pleased to respond.
Attachments
TB:JDS:AJL
Vesting Tentative Tract No. 52267,
Conditional Use Permit No. 98-03
and
Oak Tree Permit No. 98-01
ENVIRONMENTAL
DOCUMENTS
FINDINGS OF FACT
and
STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS',',`' r
for CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267
A. INTRODUCTION
The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15091 provides that:
(a) No public agency shall approve or cant' out a project for which an environmental
impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant environmental
effects of the project unless the public agency makes one or more written findings for
each of those significant effects, accompanied by a brief explanation of the rationale
for each finding. The possible findings are:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project
which avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as
identified in the final EIR.
(2) 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 agency or can and should be adopted by such
other agency.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make
infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final
EIR.
CEQA further requires that, where the decision of the public agency allows the occurrence of
significant effects which are identified in the final EIR, but are not at least substantially mitigated,
the agency shall state in writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR
and/or other information in the record (Sec. 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines).
The City of Diamond Bar has prepared a final EIR for the project in accordance with CEQA and
CEQA Guidelines requirements. The final EIR is subject to review by the City of Diamond Bar
Planning Commission and City Council, and the City Council has adopted a resolution certifying
that:
the final EIR has been prepared in compliance with CEQA; and,
the final EIR was presented to the City Council, and the Council reviewed and
considered the information contained in the final EIR prior to taking action of the
project.
Because the final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267
(VTTM No. 52267) identified significant environmental effects that may occur as a result of the
project, and in accordance with the provisions of CEQA and CEQA Guidelines, the City of Diamond
Bar hereby adopts these findings and following evidence as part of the approval of the project and
EX H 19 1
i. . A
related applications. Section B, "Mitigated Significant Impacts," details the potential environmental
effects which will no longer be significant because of the mitigation that will be incorporated into
the project, or due to project features which have been incorporated into the design of the project
in accordance with the finding required under Section 21081(a)(1). Section C, "Impacts That
Cannot be Mitigated to a Level Considered Less than Significant," identifies the significant
environmental effects of the VTTM No. 52267 project which cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level
considered less than significant. Section D summarizes the alternatives discussed in the final EIR
and provides findings required under CEQA 21081(a)(3) with respect to the feasibility of the
alternatives which might avoid the project's significant environmental impacts, cannot be feasibly
implemented due to spec economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations. Finally,
Section E sets forth the statement of overriding considerations adopted by the City pursuant to
Section 21081(b) of CEQA with respect to those significant effects on the environment which
cannot be feasibly mitigated or avoided.
This Statement of Findings of Fact and Overriding Considerations is based upon substantial
evidence in the administrative record for the project which is hereby incorporated by reference. It
is not intended to be inclusive of all fads contained within the administrative record which support
the findings set forth herein, but rather identifies the key principal facts in the administrative record
which provide substantial evidence supporting these findings. Additional facts in support of the
City's findings may be found in the final EIR, the staff reports prepared for both the Planning
Commission and the City Council, the transcripts of the various public hearings on the project, and
the administrative record as a whole.
The following Findings and Statement of Overriding Considerations are made relative to the final
EIR for the VTTM No. 52267 project. The mitigation measures described herein are consistent with
those included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program.
B. MITIGATED SIGNIFICANT IMPACTS
The City of Diamond Bar, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the final
EIR, the appendices to the final EIR, and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines, that changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the
VTTM No. 52267 project which mitigate, avoid, or substantially lessen potentially significant
environmental effects as identified in the final EIR in the following categories: (1) earth resources,
(2) water resources, (3) biological resources, (4) aesthetics, with respect to light and glare, (5)
transportation and circulation, and (6) cultural resources, with respect to archaeological and
paleontological resources.
EARTH RESOURCES
Development of 130 dwelling units on the site requires grading of approximately 1,800,000 cubic
yards of cut and fill (balanced onsite). Two large engineered fills comprise the majority of the
earthwork. One fill area is located along the southern edge of the development area below lots 112
through 130; the other is located along the northern portion of the development area below lots 9
through 20. Smaller fills are located throughout the development area. The maximum depth of cut
is approximately 80 feet and the maximum fill depth is approximately 180 feet. The grading plan
takes into account provisions to ensure slope stability, erosion control, and seismic safety.
Engineering features such as shear keys and buttress fills are a part of the grading design.
Engineered slopes on the site would not exceed 2:1 (horizontal:vertical) and are required to meet
City requirements for stability.
Findings
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
Significant effects have been substantially lessened to a level that is less than significant through
required compliance with engineering provisions for slope stability, erosion, and seismic safety.
The project's conformance with Uniform Building Code requirements, and incorporation of the
following mitigation measures is required.
For all "tract/parcel maps requiring the placement of fill in canyon areas, the
geotechnical engineer shall ensure that partial to complete removal and recompaction
of the alluvial deposits to geotechnically competent materials is performed. Additional
compressible materials that will require removal include topsoil, colluvium, debris flows,
landslide debris, and uncontrolled fills. The grading plan shall be approved by the City
Engineer.
2. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, areas that could result in debris flows shall be
avoided, treated where they originated, or directed away from areas of proposed
development. Engineered solutions could include debris basins and deflection walls
for directing debris flows into natural or man-made channels. Final recommendations
shall be provided by the geotechnical engineer for each potential debris flow location.
3. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant shall submit to the City Engineer
for review and approval a report that demonstrates that cut and fill slopes have been
designed in accordance with recommendations of a certified geotechnical engineer_
4. Prior to grading, all slopes shall be analyzed by a geotechnical engineer and
engineering geologist as part of grading plan review, with stabilization alternatives
presented.
5. Prior to the issuance of grading permits, cut slopes shall be designed to include
buttress widths based upon recommendations of a certified geotechnical engineer.
6. During project design and construction, an erosion control plan shall be developed as
part of the grading plan. The erosion plan is typically prepared by a civil engineer for
the purpose of controlling surface runoff during grading of the site.
7. During all grading activities within development areas, soils that may be susceptible to
ground lurching shall be removed and recompacted based on investigation by a
geologist and approved by the City engineer.
8. A geotechnical engineer shall evaluate areas of alluvial soils within the development
areas that will not be removed during grading for potential liquefaction and provide
appropriate mitigation measures as necessary.
3
9. Concurrent with the submittal of the master tentative tract map, the project developer
shall submit a detailed geologic and soils engineering report meeting the requirements
of the City of Diamond Bar Subdivision Ordinance.
WATER RESOURCES
Drainage from the development areas will be conveyed by onsite storm drain systems to existing
natural drainage courses which would then drain to existing culverts in Diamond Bar Boulevard.
The quality of stormwater runoff from developed areas is expected to be of lesser quality than the
existing runoff from the natural site.
During construction, short-term water quality impacts may occur from erosion and siltation from
soils exposed by grading activities.
Findings
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the
final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by the following project design features and mitigation measures as identified in the final
EIR and incorporated into the project. In addition, full compliance with applicable local, state, and
federal water quality standards by the applicant is required.
Proiect Desian Features
Stormwater runoff from developed areas would be conveyed to an "urban depollutant basin"
located downstream and south of the development area of the VTTM No. 52267 site. The basin
would trap urban runoff pollutants prior to discharge in the Los Angeles County storm drain facility
south of the development area.
Mitigation Measures
Energy dissipators shall be installed at all offsite discharge locations to eliminate
erosion in natural offsite drainage courses.
2. "Urban depollutant basins" shall be included to reduce contaminants in runoff from
developed areas of the site prior to discharge into natural areas. Such facilities shall
be indicated on all improvement plans submitted to the City of Diamond Bar for
approval.
3. All cut and fill slopes shall be landscaped as soon as practicable after completion of
grading to reduce potential erosion and increased runoff from these areas.
4. Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicant shall obtain a National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit from the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. A copy of the NPDES permit and
accompanying Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and related engineering plans for
4
control of runoff during construction shall be submitted to the City of Diamond Bar prior
to issuance of the grading permit.
5. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the City of Diamond
Bar an erosion control program for approval that indicates that proper control of
siltation, sedimentation, and other pollutants will be implemented. The use of filter
fences, filter dikes, and other construction Best Management Practices (BMPs) near
stormwater system outlets shall be included in the program.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES
Direct Imgacts
Approximately 65.7 acres of the 339.3 -acre site will be impacted by grading and construction
activities. Within the 65.7 -acre development area, the following plant communities will be removed:
Venturan-Diegan transitional coastal sage scrub (18.7 acres), Scrub Oak Chaparral (8.5 acres),
annual grassland (27.7 acres), coast live oak woodland (9.6 acres), Mexican Elderberry Woodland
(1.1 acres), and disturbed/developed areas (0.1 acre). Of these plant communities, the loss of
Venturan-Diegan transitional coastal sage scrub and coast live oak woodland are significant.
Approximately 410 coast live oak trees and 30 walnut trees will be removed to allow for
development of the site. The loss of the other plant communities are not significant. No plants
listed as sensitive are known to occur within the development area.
Implementation of the development will result in the loss of approximately 65.7 acres of native and
nonnative habitats that provide valuable nesting, foraging, and denning opportunities for a wide
variety of wildlife species. There are no known threatened or endangered animal species on the
site, including the coastal California gnatcatcher. Impacts to sensitive bird species
occurring/potentially occurring on the site are not significant due to their low sensitivity status,
limited amount of affected habitat, and amount of preserved habitat within the site. The loss of any
active raptor nest in the development area would be considered a significant impact.
Findings
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect -as identified in the
final EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effects have been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by implementation of the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and
incorporated into the project.
Project Design Features
Avoidance of 273.6 acres of a variety of plant communities has been incorporated into the project
design for VTTM No. 52267 to minimize impacts to sensitive resources. This includes the
preservation of 38.7 acres of coast live oak woodland and 40.1 acres of walnut woodland in the
open space area of VTTM No. 52267.
Biological Resource Management Plan (BRMP)
Prior to issuance of a grading permit, a Biological Resource Management Plan (BRMP)
will be submitted to the City of Diamond Bar for approval. This BRMP will specify
design and implementation of biotic mitigation measures, including habitat replacement
and revegetation (in temporary impact areas), protective measures during construction,
performance (growth) standards for replacement habitat, maintenance criteria, and
monitoring requirements. The Draft BRMP will also be reviewed by the United States
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG),
and the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) as applicable to their
jurisdictions.
The primary goal of the BRMP will be to ensure the long-term perpetuation of the
existing diversity of habitats in the preserved areas and adjacent development
transitional areas. The BRMP shall contain at a minimum the following:
a. Identification of habitats (including individual oak and walnut woodlands) to be
removed, and the locations where these habitats are proposed to be restored or
relocated.
b. Procedures for vegetation analyses of adjacent protected habitats to approximate
their relative composition, and site preparation activities (clearing, grading, weed
eradication, soil amendment, topsoil storage), irrigation, planting (container
plantings, seeding), and maintenance (weed control, irrigation system checks,
replanting). This information will be used to determine the mitigation requirements
in the revegetation areas.
c. Sources of plant materials for mitigation areas and methods of propagation.
d. Specifications for maintenance and monitoring of re-established habitats, including
weed control measures, frequency of field checks, and monitoring reports for
temporary disturbance areas.
e. Specifications and performance standards for growth of re-established plant
communities.
f. Remedial measures to be implemented if performance standards are not met.
g. Methods and requirements for monitoring of the restorationlreplacement areas.
h. Measures for topsoil preservation and erosion control.
i. Location of protective fencing around environmentally sensitive areas and
construction staging areas.
j. Specification of the purpose, type, frequency and extent of chemical use for insect
and disease control operations as part of vegetative maintenance within sensitive
habitat areas.
A
k. Speck measures for the protection of sensitive habitats to be preserved. These
measures will include, but are not limited to, erosion and siltation control measures,
protective fencing guidelines, dust control measures, grading techniques,
construction area limits, and biological monitoring requirements.
2. The City of Diamond Bar will designate a project biologist responsible for overseeing
biological monitoring, regulatory issues and compliance, and restoration activities
during construction and after project completion.
3. In conjunction with development of final plans and specifications for construction, or
other activities involving significant soil disturbance, the project biologist shall map all
sensitive habitats within 100 feet of the grading limits and/or fuel modification
boundaries on the grading plans. Sensitive habitats include but are not limited to:
scrub, woodland, and riparian habitats. Within the sensitive habitats, the following
limitations shall be observed: (1) no construction access, parking, or storage of
equipment or materials will be permitted within such marked areas; (2) to the maximum
extent practicable, construction access points shall be limited where they are adjacent
to protected habitat; (3) waste dirt or rubble will not be deposited on protected habitat;
and (4) vehicle transportation routes will be confined to the narrowest practicable width
in areas adjacent to marked, protected habitat during construction activities.
4. Prior to commencement of grading activities or other activities involving significant soil
disturbances, the project biologist shall attend preconstruction meetings with the
applicant's construction managers, to confirm grading and construction procedures as
they relate to the protection of preserved habitat areas.
5. During grading activities or construction operations, the project biologist shall conduct
monitoring of adjacent sensitive habitats to document adherence to habitat protection
and avoidance .measures addressed herein and as listed in applicable California
Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers permits.
6. During grading activities and construction operations, the project biologist shall submit
a monthly letter report to the City of Diamond Bar summarizing site visits, documenting
adherence or violations of required habitat protection measures, and listing any
necessary remedial measures.
7. During construction operations, the project biologist shall monitor the installation and/or
removal of creek crossing fill, access road fill, and protective devices (silt fencing,
sandbags, fencing, etc.) to facilitate the restoration of pre-existing ground elevations
and to ensure that protected natural resources are not damaged.
8. During all construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that construction equipment
or vehicles are not stored within drainage areas and that there shall be no fueling,
lubrication, or maintenance of construction equipment within 150 feet of applicable
California Department of Fish and Game and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
jurisdictional areas..
9. During all construction activities, the applicant shall ensure that no waste material is
discharged to any drainage areas, channels, or streams. Spoil sites shall not be
located within any streams, or in areas where spoils could be washed into any surface
water body.
7
10. Prior to initiation of construction, the applicant shall locate silt settling basins away from
streams to prevent discolored, silt -bearing water from reaching the stream.
11. If silt catchment basins are used during project construction, the basins shall be placed
across the stream immediately downstream of the project site prior, to initiation of
project grading. Catchment basins shall be constructed of materials which are free
from mud and silt. Upon completion of the project, all basin materials along with the
trapped sediments shall be removed from the stream, in such a manner that said
removal shall not introduce sediment to the stream. Prior to catchment basin removal,
basins will be surveyed for the presence of sensitive wildlife. Any sensitive wildlife
present will be relocated prior to removal of basin.
12. If the project biologist determines that turbidity/siltation levels from project -related
activities constitute.a threat to downstream biological resources, activities associated
with the turbidity/siltation shall be halted until effective control devices are installed, or
abatement procedures are initiated. An erosion control plan shall be approved by the
City of Diamond Bar and the California Regional Water Quality Control Board prior to
initiation of grading to insure protection of downstream water quality and prevent
extensive siltation. This plan shall stabilize sediment and reduce erosion hazard,
decreasing impacts to downstream aquatic resources.
13. Prior to initiation of any construction activity, the project biologist shall survey the
construction limits for the presence of occupied raptor nests and nest burrows (for
burrowing owls). Occupied raptor nests/burrows shall be mapped on the construction
plans by the project biologist. The project biologist will visit the nest/burrow site at the
beginning of the nesting season to verify the use of the nests/burrows for that particular
year.
If nesting activity begins at any nest site, then the active nest/burrow(s) shall be
protected until nesting activity has ended to ensure compliance with Section 3503.5 of
the California Fish and Game Code. To protect any active nest/burrow sites, the
following restrictions on construction are required between February 1 and June 30 (or
until nests are no longer active as determined by the project biologist): (1) clearing
limits will be established a minimum of 300 feet in any direction from raptor
nests/burrows; and (2) access and surveying will be allowed within 200 feet of
nests/burrows.
Approximately 18.7 acres of coastal sage scrub habitat would be impacted by the development of
the VTTM No. 52267 site. Because this habitat supports a number of sensitive wildlife species,
it is suggested that any fill slopes that do not need to be managed for fuel modification be reseeded
with coastal sage scrub plant species using the following guidance:
14. The goal of the coastal sage scrub (CSS) mitigation program is to develop two acres
of replacement coastal sage scrub habitat for each acre (2:1 ratio) lost to development.
Replacement at the 2:1 ratio will be achieved through implementation of the following
approaches on suitable undeveloped portions of the VTTM No. 52267 site or on
suitable portions of Lot 9 of Tract 31479: restoration of degraded CSS habitat;
development of new CSS habitat in or adjacent to areas of highly disturbed native
vegetation; or a combination of these approaches. Side slope revegetation of
manufactured slope areas may constitute a portion of the CSS mitigation, as long as
suitable conditions are present. The locations of the CSS mitigation sites will be
determined in the Biological Resources Management Plan (BRMP) developed for the
VI -TM No. 52267 project.
The following revegetation program will apply to all areas impacted but not replanted
with coast live oak and/or walnut woodland species or required for fuel modification:
Revegetation shall be implemented in stages. The initial stage will begin during site
grubbing and will consist of crushing/mulching scrub, within areas to be graded, with
a dozer. The crushed/mulched material along with the top 4 to 6 inches of topsoil will
then be removed in one operation with a loader or dozer and stockpiled nearby as
directed by the project biologist. Soil stockpiles should be stored at depths no greater
than 7 feet until revegetation sites are prepared and should be maintained free of
contamination (storage depths may require adjustment based upon length of storage).
Stockpiles should be stored no longer than six months. Once a restoration site is
prepared (roughened by sheep's foot or similar equipment) the stockpiled soil will be
spread to a depth of approximately 1 foot. Appropriate scrub container stock will be
incorporated into the revegetation areas as outlined in the detailed
.mitigation/restoration plan to be developed by the project biologist. In addition,
container stock consisting of native bunchgrasses will be incorporated into the planting.
The redistributed material, along with the container stock, will be watered by a
temporary irrigation system until established, as determined by the project biologist.
Crushed plant material and soil to be stockpiled will be obtained from various locations
onsite. Areas to be revegetated will be determined by the project biologist based upon
such factors as the configuration of the cut and/or fill slopes and proximity to areas of
intact scrub communities.
The timing of the stockpiling of plant material and topsoil will be dictated by the
grading/construction schedule. Reintroduction of stockpiled material to revegetation
sites will be conducted between September 1 and November 30. Container stock will
be planted during the same time period.
The following performance standards shall apply for the revegetation of coastal sage
scrub communities:
• First Year: Coverage/30 percent coverage by redistributed vegetative materials,
seeded species, and container stock (whichever of the three or combination is
used). Survival Rate/90 percent survival of any container stock originally planted.
If 90 percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with appropriate size
container stock necessary to achieve this standard will be performed.
• Second Year: Coverage/45 percent coverage by redistributed vegetative materials,
seeded species, and container stock (whichever of the three or combination is
used). Survival Rate/50 percent survival of any container stock originally planted.
If 50 percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with appropriate size
container stock necessary to achieve this standard will be performed.
• Third Year: Coverage/60 percent coverage by redistributed vegetative materials,
seeded species, and container stock (whichever of the three or combination is
used). Survival Rate/50 percent survival of any container stock originally planted.
If 50 percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with appropriate size
container stock necessary to achieve this standard will be performed.
• Fourth Year: Coverage/75 percent coverage by redistributed vegetative materials,
seeded species, and container stock (whichever of the three or combination is
used). Survival Rate/50 percent survival of any container stock originally planted.
If 50 percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with appropriate size
container stock necessary to achieve this standard will be performed.
• Fifth Year: Coverage/90 percent coverage by redistributed vegetative materials,
seeded species, and container stock (whichever of the three or combination is
used). Survival Rate/50 percent survival of any container stock originally planted.
If 50 percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with appropriate size
container stock necessary to achieve this standard will be performed.
Coastal sage scrub revegetation will be considered successful at five years if the
percent cover and species diversity of the restored and/or created habitat areas are
similar to percent cover and species diversity of adjacent existing habitats, as
determined by quantitative testing of existing and restored and/or created habitat areas
by the project biologist.
Monitoring of the revegetation areas shall be conducted for a minimum of 5 years to
ensure successful colonization of the restored areas by scrub species. If success
standards are not met, remedial measures, including hand seeding, hydroseeding, or
introduction of additional container stock will be implemented as directed by the project
biologist.
15. In conjunction with final design, the project biologist will work closely with the project
landscape architect to develop native plant palettes for revegetation areas adjacent to
development areas that abut natural open space. Final landscape design plans shall
be acceptable to the County Fire Marshal and shall reflect -the following:
• The landscaping along the open space areas (non -urban) will be a mix of native,
non-invasive, drought tolerant plant species from the scrub community. The scrub
community species selected will be the same as those that are appropriate for
support of the coastal orange -throated whiptail and cactus wren.
• Seeds, cuttings, and potted plants will be collected from local plant material where
feasible, supplemented by material from native plant nurseries.
Is Species native to California but not found in the project area shall not be used,
unless the species selected is considered to be appropriate for use by the project
biologist. Invasive, weedy, or non-native species will not be used in landscaping
along open space areas. Examples of invasive plants include, but are not limited
to, pampas grass, periwinkle, English ivy, and giant reed.
• Low-volume irrigation systems, using reclaimed water (where feasible), will be
included in the final design.
10
Coast Live Oak Woodland
16. Prior to determining the full extent of mitigation required for coast live oak woodland
impacts, a formal United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and California
Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional delineation shall be conducted on
the VTTM No. 52267 site.
17. Impacts shall be mitigated by the planting of coast live oaks and California walnuts
trees and associated understory herbaceous plant species within areas determined to
be suitable by the project biologist. Suitable areas include those areas located within
the permanent open space areas and outside of the fuel modification areas of the
VTTM No. 52267 site. Revegetation areas must contain the appropriate hydrology, soil
composition, and slope aspect to be considered for mitigation sites. The precise
mitigation locations shall be selected by a restoration ecologist with expertise in native
plant community restoration. Any planting of native trees and shrubs within the fuel
modification areas or within the interior of the developed project site (i.e., project
landscaping) will not be credited towards any tree replacement requirements of the City
of Diamond gar or the California Department of Fish and Game.
18. Mitigation shall consist of planting oak trees and walnut trees at a replacement ratio as
identified below or as otherwise deemed appropriate by the California Department of
Fish and Game.
Coast Uve Oak Replacement
Container Size
Trunk DBH
(Diameter at
Breast Height)
Replacement
24 -Inch
Ratio
5 -Gallon
15 -Gallon
Box
Transplant'
<36 inches
2:1
1
1
3648 inches
3:1
1
1
1
>48 inches
4:1
1 2
1 1 1
1
' If a sufficient quantity of healthy and/or accessible existing oaks are not available for transplantation,
then the following will apply as a substitution for the one transplanted oak noted above for each
dbh/ratio category:
<36 inches: substitute one 15 -gallon size for one transplant.
36-48 inches: substitute one 15 -gallon size for one transplant.
>48 inches: substltute one 24 -inch box size for one transplant.
Oak and walnut trees removed by project construction shall be replaced with a mixture
of container plantings, as specified in the Biological Resource Management Plan. Prior
to planting, the revegetation sites will be cleared of weed species as specified by a
restoration ecologist. An appropriate irrigation system shall be required for oaks and
walnuts to establish the container plantings. Advance notice of 9 to 12 months should
be given to the supplier/grower to ensure that the required oaks and walnuts are ready
at the time of proposed planting. Planting shall be conducted during the late fall
through early spring following a rainfall of at least 0.50 inch.
11
Performance standards for coast live oak woodland and walnut woodland are as
follows:
• First Year: Coverage/35 percent. Survival Rate/90 percent survival of all trees,
including container stock or cuttings. If 90 percent survival has not been achieved,
replanting with appropriate size container stock or cuttings necessary to achieve this
standard will be performed.
• Second Year: Coverage/50 percent coverage by tree and shrub plantings. Survival
Rate/90 percent survival of all trees, including container stock or cuttings. If 90
percent survival has not been achieved, replanting *with appropriate size container
stock or cuttings necessary to achieve this standard will be performed.
• Third Year: Coverage/70 percent coverage by tree and shrub plantings. Survival
Rate/90 percent survival of all trees, including container stock or cuttings. If 90
percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with appropriate size container
stock or cuttings necessary to achieve this standard will be performed.
• Fourth Year: Coverage/80 percent coverage by tree and shrub plantings. Survival
Rate/90 percent survival of all trees, including container stock or cuttings. If 90
percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with appropriate size container
stock or cuttings necessary to achieve this standard will be performed.
• Fifth Year: Coverage/90 percent coverage by tree and shrub plantings. Survival
Rate/90 percent survival of all trees, including container stock or cuttings. If 90
percent survival has not been achieved, replanting with appropriate size container
stock or cuttings necessary to achieve this standard will be performed.
Revegetation will be considered successful at five years if the percent cover and
species diversity of the restored and/or created habitat areas are similar to percent
cover and species diversity of adjacent existing habitats or impacted habitats, as
determined by quantitative testing of existing and restored and/or created habitat areas.
The site will be monitored and maintained for five years to, ensure successful
establishment of coast live oak and walnut woodland within the restored and created
areas. If success standards are not met, remedial measures including introduction of
additional container stock, weed removal, adjusting of irrigation, and/or extension of the
monitoring program will be implemented as directed by the restoration ecologist.
Indirect Impacts
Grading activities would disturb soils and result in the accumulation of dust on the surface of the
leaves of trees, shrubs, and herbs. This indirect effect of project construction on native vegetation
in the immediate vicinity of the construction area is considered adverse, but not significant.
Potential urban runoff from the project containing petroleum residues and the improper disposal
of petroleum and chemical products could have the potential to adversely affect water quality, and
in tum, affect populations of aquatic species. These impacts are considered adverse but not
significant.
12
Although these impacts are not considered significant, the following design features and mitigation
are required as conditions of approval.
Project Desion Featur
Stormwater runoff from these areas would be conveyed to an "urban depollutant basin" located just
downstream and south of the development area of the VTTM No. 52267 site. The basin would trap
urban runoff pollutants prior to discharge in the Los Angeles County storm drain facility south of
the development area.
Mitigation Measure=
19. In conjunction with construction activity, the grading contractor shall control dust
accumulation on natural vegetation at the source of disturbance by standard wetting
techniques. Under the guidance of the project biologist, natural vegetation shall be
periodically sprayed with water to reduce dust accumulation on leaves.
20. Energy dissipators shall be installed at all offsite discharge locations to eliminate
erosion in natural offsite drainage courses.
21. "Urban depollutant basins" shall be included to reduce contaminants in runoff from
developed areas of the site prior to discharge into natural areas. Such facilities
shall be indicated on all improvement plans submitted to the City of Diamond Bar
for approval.
22. All cut and fill slopes shall be landscaped as soon as practicable after completion
of grading to reduce potential erosion and increased runoff from these areas.
23. Prior to the initiation of grading, the applicant shall obtain an NPDES permit from
the California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region. A copy
of the NPDES permit and accompanying Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan and
related engineering plans for control of runoff during construction shall be submitted
to the City of Diamond Bar prior to issuance of the grading permit.
24. Prior to issuance of a grading permit, the applicant shall submit to the City of
Diamond Bar an erosion control program for approval which indicates that proper
control of siltation, sedimentation, and other pollutants will be implemented. The
use of filter fences, filter dikes, and other construction Best Management Practices
(BMPs) near stormwater system outlets shall be included in the program.
AESTHETICSNISUAL RESOURCES
Light and Glare
The residential development would introduce sources of lighting associated with homes and street
lights into an area of the City of Diamond Bar that is currently unlit during the night time.
Development of this site with residences, and therefore associated lighting sources, was
anticipated in the City of Diamond Bar General 'Plan. The site is also adjacent to existing
residential areas. While the introduction of light sources to the site is a change from existing
conditions, it is not considered a significant impact.
II
Although this change is not considered significant, the following measures are required as
conditions of approval.
Mitigation Measures
3. Street lights shall use fixtures that direct light downward to the maximum extent
Practicable. The intensity of the lighting shall conform to current City requirements.
TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION
A signal warrant analysis conducted for the intersection of Tin Drive at Diamond Bar Boulevard
identified that implementation of the project will result in extensive delays for eastbound left turn
movements from Tin Drive onto northbound Diamond Bar Boulevard. A traffic signal at this location
is needed and would be the responsibility of the project applicant.
Findings
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been eliminated to a level that is less than significant by the following
mitigation measure as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into the project.
1. Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first dwelling unit at the VTTM
No. 52267 site, a traffic signal shall be installed at the intersection of Tin Drive at
Diamond Bar Boulevard. The project applicant will be responsible for 100 percent of
the costs associated with this traffic signal.
CULTURAL RESOURCES
Archeological Resources
Prehistoric artifacts or sites could be found during construction activities. Damage to prehistoric
archaeological resources is considered a significant impact.
Findings
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into
the project.
14
Prior to rough grading activities, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained to monitor
the clearing and grubbing of the southern slope of the VTTM No. 52267 site. The
archaeologist would carefully inspect these areas to assess the potential for significant
prehistoric or historic remains. If a site is uncovered, then a subsurface evaluation may
be needed to'assess the resource. Further subsurface investigation may be needed if
the site is determined unique/important for its prehistoric information.
2. Following the intensive survey, the archaeologist shall file a survey report with the South
Central Coastal Information Center at University of California, Los Angeles. Any
subsequent archaeological testing and data recovery reports would also be filed with
the Information Center.
3. A qualified archaeologist shall be retained to attend pre -grade meetings and to monitor
grading activities. During grading activities, the archaeologist shall conduct limited
monitoring to observe and retrieve any buried artifacts that may be uncovered.
4. The archaeological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert or direct
grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed prehistoric or historic material.
5. A final monitoring report, including an itemized inventory and pertinent field data, shall
be sent to the property owner and to the South Central Coastal Information Center at
the University of California, Los Angeles.
6. Any recovered prehistoric and historic artifacts shall be offered, on a first right -of -refusal
basis, to a repository with a retrievable collection system and an educational and
research interest in the materials such as the Fowler Museum of Cultural History
(UCLA) and California State University, Fullerton, or alternatively to the Pomona Valley
Historical Society, La Puente Valley Historical Society, or Pacific Coast Archaeological
Society where collections are held locally.
Grading, trenching, and other earth moving activities in the Soquel Member of the Puente
Formation have the potential to destroy vertebrate, invertebrate, and plant fossil remains. Fossil
vertebrates and plants are non-renewable scientific resources; their loss is considered to be a
significant impact.
Findings
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR.
Facts in Support of Finding
The significant effect has been eliminated or substantially lessened to a level that is less than
significant by the following mitigation measures as identified in the final EIR and incorporated into
the project.
1.. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to produce a mitigation plan for the VTTM
No. 52267 site. The paleontologist shall attend pre -grade meetings to discuss the
15
monitoring, collecting, and safety procedures for the project and shall supervise the
paleontological monitoring during earth moving activities in the area.
2. Full-time monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor during earth
moving activities within the high sensitivity Soquel Member. Recent alluvium and
colluvium do not require monitoring. The paleontologist shall tailor the monitoring
schedule to the lithologies present, the rate of fossil recovery, the numbers of spreads
working simultaneously, and the cubic foot amounts of rock being excavated or
disturbed.
3. Screening of sediments shall routinely be conducted during monitoring under the
supervision of the paleontologist to sample significant small vertebrate remains.
4. The paleontological monitor shall have the authority to temporarily divert or redirect
grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed fossil material.
5. During monitoring, any scientifically significant specimens shall be properly salvaged
after evaluation by, and under the supervision of, the paleontologist. During fossil
salvage, contextual stratigraphic data shall also be collected. This will include lithologic
descriptions, localities plotted on a USGS 7.5' Series topographic quadrangle,
photographs, and field notes.
6. Specimens shall be prepared to the point of identification, identified, and curated on a
long-term loan basis in a suitable repository that has a retrievable storage system, such
as the Los Angeles County Museum of Natural History.
7. A final report shall be prepared at the end of earth moving activities, and shall include
an itemized inventory of recovered fossils and appropriate stratigraphic and locality
data. This report shall be sent to the City of Diamond Bar to signify the end of
mitigation. Another copy shall accompany any recovered fossils, along with field logs
and photographs, to the designated repository.
C. IMPACTS THAT CANNOT BE MITIGATED TO A LEVEL CONSIDERED LESS THAN
SIGNIFICANT
The following sets forth all significant effects of the VTTM No. 52267 project. For each effect, a
finding is made as referenced in the Introduction above, that states facts in support of such
findings, and, as appropriate, refers to the Statement of Overriding Considerations which is
attached.
LAND USE
The project is inconsistent with some goals, objectives, and strategies of the City of Diamond Bar
General Plan. Implementation the project would result in: significant topographical changes
associated with grading activities; removal of biological habitat including oak and walnut trees; and,
would be visible from existing residences. The topographical changes to the site to allow for the
proposed development are considered significant and unavoidable. The biological impacts can be
mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant. Alternatives have been identified that
would lessen the aesthetic and biological impacts. However, unless development is precluded,
unavoidable aesthetic impacts will occur.
16
General Plan Land Use Element Strategy 1.5.4 identifies that vacant land which has deed or map
restrictions must be subjected to public hearings before the Planning Commission and City Council
before any action can be taken to remove the restrictions. Development of the VTTM No. 52267
project requires the removal of map restrictions to allow for the development envelope for the
project to occur on Lots 5 and 7. Restrictions can only occur with the provision of a "significant
benefit" by an applicant to the City of Diamond Bar. The applicant is dedicating as public open
space the remaining approximately 274.3 acres (portions of Lots 4, 5, and 7 of Tract No. 31479
excluding manufactured slope areas) and all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479, approximately 86 acres,
of Planning Area 2 to the City of Diamond Bar as a significant benefit.
Findings
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EI R.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
Project Desian Featur
The project has been designed to be compatible with surrounding areas, retains the majority of the
tract in permanent open space by clustering the residences, is of'ther-same density as surrounding
developments, and limits grading to the degree feasible to address geotechnical issues. The
remainder of VTTM No. 52267 (approximately 274.3 acres) (portions of Lots 4, 5, and 7 of Tract
No. 31479 excluding manufactured slope areas) and all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 of Planning
Unit 2 would be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar.
Mitigation Measur
1. It is recommended that the grading plans for the VTTM No. 52267 site be revised to
incorporate techniques that would lessen the visibility of the residential units along the
prominent ridges. Visual simulations or cross sections of the revised plan shall be
required prior to issuance of grading permits.
2. Landscaping plans shall use native vegetation (e.g., oaks, walnuts, coastal sage scrub)
on manufactured slopes that are adjacent to naturally vegetated areas to minimize the
potential visual impact caused by urban landscaping in these areas. The plant
materials, placement, and maintenance of the native revegetation shall be approved by
the Fire Department and by the project biologist. This measure is intended to reduce
aesthetic impacts and should be coordinated -with mitigation for biological impacts to
ensure consistency.
AESTHETICSNISUAL RESOURCES
Viewed from near the intersection of Steep Canyon Road at Clear Creek Canyon Drive, the
development site would be visible along the top of the prominent ridge in the southern portion of
the site. A large engineered fill slope and fuel modification areas would also be visible. The visual
17
impact of the ridgeline development is considered to be a significant impact. Views of the ridge
along the northern edge of the site from southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard and adjacent areas
to the north are visible from Kidd Drive at Diamond Bar Boulevard. The new residences would be
visible along the northern ridge; the engineered fill slope beneath it would also be evident. This
visual impact is considered significant. Further, residences along the extension of High Crest Drive
would be visible along the top of the northern ridge in this area when viewed from the top of Gold
Rush Drive near its intersection with High Crest Drive. Residents on the south side of Gold Rush
Drive would have views from their backyards across the unnamed canyon to the new development.
These new residences would appear to be an extension of the existing development at the end of
High Crest Drive; this visual impact is considered significant.
Findings
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
The significant aesthetic effects associated with topographical/grading changes on the site would
be reduced by the following project design features and mitigation measures as identified in the
final EIR and incorporated into the project. It is unknown whether the mitigation measures
identified would reduce the aesthetic impacts of project development to a level that would be
considered less than significant. Therefore, the impacts identified are considered significant and
unavoidable. The remaining unavoidable effect is acceptable when balanced against the facts set
forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
-n ■-
The project has been designed to be compatible with surrounding areas, retains the majority of the
tract in permanent open space by clustering the residences, is of the same density as surrounding
developments, and limits grading to the degree feasible to address geotechnical issues. The
project is in compliance with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance standards and guidelines
in that it follows the natural topography of the site to the degree feasible; incorporates landform
grading; concave and convex forms will be used; slopes will not be linear in plan view;
manufactured slope gradients will vary from 2:1 to 4:1; lot shapes will vary; pads will maintain
irregular configurations were feasible; and, street slopes to the east will remain in their natural,
undisturbed state.
1. It is recommended that the grading plans for the VTTM No. 52267 site be revised to
incorporate techniques that would lessen the visibility of the residential units along the
prominent ridges. Visual simulations or cross sections of the revised plan shall be
required prior to issuance of grading permits.
18
2. Landscaping plans shall use native vegetation (e.g., oaks, walnuts, coastal sage scrub)
on manufactured slopes that are adjacent to naturally vegetated areas to minimize the
potential visual impact caused by urban landscaping in these areas. The plant
materials, placement, and maintenance of the native revegetation shall be approved by
the Fire Department and by the project biologist. This measure is intended to reduce
aesthetic impacts and should be coordinated with mitigation for biological impacts to
ensure consistency.
AIR QUALITY
The project will result in short-term construction impacts related to fugitive dust and equipment
exhaust emissions. Construction would generate air emissions from grading activities, construction
equipment, and employee vehicle exhaust emissions. Short-term construction emissions will
exceed the SCAQMD's 100 pounds/day threshold of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and its 150 pounds/day
threshold of particulate matter (PM,o).
Findings
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
avoid or substantially lessen the significant environmental effect as identified in the final
EIR.
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the
mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR.
Facts in Support of Findings
The following facts and mitigation measures indicate that although the construction -related air
quality emissions will be reduced. to the extent feasible, they cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level
considered less than significant. However, because the South Coast Air Quality Control District's
threshold for these criteria pollutants is low, all of the identified development altematives (except
the No Development Alternative) would exceed these levels and also be deemed significant. The
infeasibility of the No Development Alternative is addressed in the findings set forth below and any
further alternative or mitigation measure sufficient to achieve reductions in emissions below the air
district's thresholds would be infeasible for the same reasons. As a result, impacts associated with
NOx and PM,o are considered significant and unavoidable. These unavoidable effects are
acceptable when balanced against the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
1. The City shall require that all construction comply with the South Coast Air Quality
Management District's (SCAQMD) regulations, including Rule 402 which specifies that
there be no dust impacts offsite sufficient to cause a nuisance, and SCAQMD Rule 403,
which restricts visible emissions from construction. Specific measures to reduce
fugitive dust shall include the following:
a. Moisten soil prior to grading.
b. Water exposed surfaces at least twice a day under calm conditions and as often as
needed on windy days when winds are less than 25 miles per hour or during very
19
dry weather in order t maintain a surface crust and prevent the release of visible
emissions from the construction site.
c. Treat any area that will be exposed for extended periods with a soil conditioner to
stabilize soil or temporarily plant with vegetation.
d. Wash mud -covered tires and under -carriages of trucks leaving construction sites.
e. Provide for street sweeping, as needed, on adjacent roadways to remove dirt
dropped by construction vehicles or mud which would otherwise be carried off by
trucks departing project sites.
f. Securely cover loads of dirt with a tight fitting tarp on any truck leaving the
construction sites to dispose of excavated soil, if required.
g. Cease grading during periods when winds exceed 25 miles per hour.
h. Provide for permanent sealing of all graded areas, as applicable, at the earliest
practicable time after soil disturbance.
2. All contractors shall:
a. Maintain construction equipment in peak condition so as to reduce operation
emissions.
b. Use low -sulfur diesel fuel in all equipment.
c. Use electric equipment whenever practicable.
d. Shut off engines when not in use.
NOISE
Construction activities would increase noise levels in the project area over an approximate 2- to 3 -
year period. Noise would be associated with earth moving, materials handling, equipment, and
vehicles during clearing, excavation, grading, and construction. Noise produced by construction
activities could impact exterior areas of onsite land uses and offsite land uses. • Existing residents
along the existing terminus of Highcrest Drive, as well as those along Gold Rush Drive and
adjacent to Steep Canyon Road may experience noise levels that could exceed the City's noise
standards, depending on their distance from the operating equipment.
In addition to the noise from construction equipment, construction vehicle traffic and employee
traffic, location of overnight equipment parking, and morning start-up activities can also create
relatively high noise levels during project development.
Findings
1. Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which
mitigate or avoid the significant effects on the environment.
3. Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
20
make infeasible the mitigation measures or alternatives identified in the environmental
impact report.
Facts in Support of Findings
The following facts and mitigation measures indicate that although the construction -related noise
impact has been reduced to the extent feasible, it cannot feasibly be mitigated to a level considered
less than signifiCant. With the exception of the No Development Alternative which assumes no
development of the site, all of the project alternatives would result in short-term construction -related
noise impacts. Although these noise levels would be substantially lessened for these alternatives
including the preferred project through implementation of mitigation measures, these impacts would
remain unavoidable. Further reductions in construction -related noise are not considered
technologically feasible. The remaining unavoidable effect is acceptable when balanced against
the facts set forth in the Statement of Overriding Considerations.
1. Construction activities shall be limited to Monday to Saturday between the hours of 7:30
a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
2. Prior to issuance of grading permits, a construction traffic plan, equipment staging area,
and construction employee parking area program shall be submitted by the applicant
to the City for approval to ensure that construction noise impacts from these sources
are kept to a minimum.
D. FINDINGS REGARDING ALTERNATIVES
The City of Diamond Bar, having reviewed and considered the information in the final EIR, the
appendices to the final EIR, and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, that (a) the final EIR considers a reasonable range of project alternatives; and
(b) speck economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including considerations
for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers, make infeasible the project
alternatives identified in the final EIR as well as other alternatives or mitigation measures which
would reduce the following impacts below a level of significance: (1) landform modifications
resulting in aesthetic impacts; (2) construction -related air quality emissions; (3) and construction -
related noise.
Overview of Standards for Determining a Reasonable Range of Alternatives
Under CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)(1), CEQA mandates that EIRs examine feasible
mitigation measures and feasible alternatives to a proposed project. A critical element of any EIR
is the selection of alternatives that warrant detailed review in the document. CEQA Guidelines
Section 15126(d) states that:
"...the discussion of alternatives shall focus on alternatives to the project or its location
which are capable of avoiding or substantially lessening any significant effects of the
project, even if these alternatives would impede to some degree the attainment of the
project objectives, or would be more costly."
21
is designated Planning Area 1 with a Specific Plan designation of PA -ISP with a Agricultural land
use designation. As currently designated, this alternative site could be developed with 144 dwelling
units. Development on this site would be expected to have similar landform alterations and
visual/aesthetic changes because of its visibility and hillside topography. Moreover, the property
is owned by the City of Industry Redevelopment Agency and is not likely to be available for
development in the time frame requested by the project applicant for the VTTM No. 52267 site.
The apparent lack of substantial reduction of environmental impacts and the public agency
ownership of the property resulted in the rejection of this alternative from consideration as a.viable
alternative to reducing expected environmental impacts associated with the project.
A second alternative was rejected from further consideration in the final EIR. This alternative was
considered to attempt to further reduce visual impacts associated with large fill slopes along the
northern and southern edges of the development area of the site. Elimination of these two fill areas
would result in a reduction of 54 residential lots (76 residential lots would be retained). However,
to accomplish this alternative, approximately 1.4 million cubic yards of dirt would have to be
exported from the site. This would require approximately 58,000 truckloads of export, a significant
traffic impact not associated with the project. Significant air quality and noise impacts would still
occur.
Infeasibility and Comparison of Environmental Effects of Project Alternatives
The alternatives evaluated in the EIR and in this section are summarized below. Complete
descriptions and analysis can be found in Section 5 of the EIR.
No Development Alternative—Under this alternative, no development would be permitted on the
site. While this alternative would eliminate all significant and unavoidable environmental impacts
associated with any development on the site, the City of Diamond Bar General Plan designates the
site for residential development subject to environmental review and approval by the City.
No Project Altemative—Under this alternative, the development allowed by the existing Diamond
Bar General Plan would be implemented. The General Plan provides that a maximum of 130
dwelling units could be constructed on the VTTM No. 52267. The City's General Plan states that
no additional residential development beyond the 130 units can occur without specific "findings that
the decision is of significant benefit to the City" (General Plan Land Use Element, Strategy 1.5.3).
The remainder of Planning Area 2 would be retained in public open space.
This alternative would have fewer impacts to biological resources and less visible landform
alteration than the project. However, it would still result in significant impacts to views from ridgetop
development.
Project Design Refinement Alternative—Under this alternative, development of the VTTM No.
52267 site would be reconfigured to reduce the aesthetics/visual impacts. To achieve this impact
reduction, the project grading plans would incorporate techniques that would ensure that project
development would be less visible from adjacent areas. The design refinement is a variation of
the No Project Alternative: 107 single-family residential units would be constructed within the
boundaries of Lot 6, a reduction of 23 units in comparison with the project. Under this alternative,
the average lot size would be approximately 6,000 square feet with a minimum pad size of 5,000
square feet. Homes constructed on these lots would range between 2,500 to 2,800 square feet.
This alternative would eliminate lots; however, homes would still be located in areas along the
northern and southern ridgelines that are visible from adjacent neighborhoods. The resulting lot
23
configuration is caused largely by the extension of the access road from Diamond Bar Boulevard
eastward to connect with Highcrest Drive. Under this alternative, this road would have a 10 to 12
percent grade between Diamond Bar Boulevard and the existing terminus of Highcrest Drive.
Reduced Project Alternative—Under this alternative, the 130 dwelling units assumed for the site
would be reduced by approximately 20 percent to eliminate the ridgeline lots that would be most
visible from adjacent areas. A total of 104 dwelling units would be developed.
This alternative, although resulting in fewer impacts to biological resources and less visible
landform alteration than the project, would still result in impacts to biological resources and views
from ridgetop development. As with the project, biological impacts can be mitigated to a level that
is considered less than significant. Aesthetic impacts would remain significant and unavoidable.
Alternative Develooment Plan—Under this alternative, the 130 dwelling units assumed for the site
would be reduced to 120 units to allow for a reduction of grading, particularly outside of the
boundaries of Lot 6. It is anticipated that a further reduction in dwelling units (by nine units to 111
units) would be required to accommodate a water tank for the Walnut Valley Water District.
Increased visibility of the project from Diamond Bar Boulevard would occur.
This alternative, although resulting in less grading, would still result in significant impacts to
biological resources, as well as traffic, air quality, noise, and aesthetic impacts. As with the
preferred project, biological impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than
significant. Because less grading activities would occur associated with this alternative,
construction air quality emissions would be reduced but would remain unavoidable. Construction -
related noise impacts may affect fewer existing residences because of the reconfiguration of the
site plan; however, these noise impacts would remain unavoidable. Aesthetic impacts would
remain significant and unavoidable.
E. STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS
The City of Diamond Bar, having reviewed and considered the information contained in the final
EIR, the appendices to the final EIR, and the administrative record, finds, pursuant to CEQA and
the CEQA Guidelines, that specific overriding economic, legal, social, technological, or other
benefits of the project outweigh any and all significant effects that,the project will have on the
environment, and that on balance, the remaining significant effects for construction -related air
quality and noise impacts and for visual/aesthetic impacts are found acceptable given these
overriding considerations:
Planning Context
The economic character of Diamond Bar and its surroundings has changed dramatically over the
past 10 to 20 years. The need for the project derives in part from projections of County growth in
population, creating an increased demand for dwelling units.
Project Objectives
The project is intended to meet many applicant and City objectives as described in Section 2.7 of
the EIR, which are restated below:
24
Applicant Objectives
The applicant has incorporated the following objectives into the project:
• Create a strong residential community to ensure that land values remain stable
• Develop a community that is visually attractive and effectively organized
• Develop a new residential housing that is compatible with the existing surrounding
neighborhoods
• Provide a planned community that complements the existing development within the
City of Diamond Bar
• Maintain a pattern of development that meets the needs of Diamond Bar
Cluster development to minimize the potential impact on adjacent properties and
environmental resources
• Provide more open space than is typically available in nearby developments
• Encourage the enhancement of slopes and open space
• Provide public amenities including water, sewer, storm drain, and utilities with the
capacities to service the level of development proposed
• Enhance the physical and visual image of the community
• Enhance and maintain the suburban/rural identity of the community
• Maintain an environment that contributes to and enhances the quality of life
• Establish a development which is compatible with scenic and natural resources and
which also encourage environmental preservation
• Identify and encourage the preservation of viable open space in the City and the
surrounding area
City of Diamond Bar Objectives
The City of Diamond Bar's objectives for the project are those goals from the General Plan Land
Use Element which are applicable to the project. They are as follows:
Goal 1 Consistent with the Vision Statement, maintain a mix of land uses which
enhances the quality of life of Diamond Bar residents, providing a balance of
development and preservation of significant open space areas to assure both
economic viability and retention of distinctive natural features of the community.
Goal 2 Consistent with the Vision Statement, manage land use with respect to the
location, density and intensity, and quality of development. Maintain consistency
25
with the capabilities of the City and special districts to provide essential services
which achieve sustainable use of environmental and manmade resources.
Goal 3 Consistent with the Vision Statement, maintain recognition within Diamond Bar
and the surrounding region as being a community with a well planned and
aesthetically pleasing physical environment. _
Goal Consistent with the Vision Statement, encourage long-term and regional
perspectives in local and land use decisions, but not at the expense of the
Quality of Life for Diamond Bar residents.
Project Benefits
Dedication of Property Approximately 274.3 acres portions of Lots 4, 5, and 7 of Tract No.
31479 (approximately 274.3 acres excluding manufactured slope) plus all of Lot 9 of Tract No.
31479 (approximately 86.3 acres) would be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar and set aside as
public open space as part of Planning Area 2.
Employment Opportunities—The project will create construction jobs, including opportunities for
highly trained workers.
Infrastructure Improvement—All utilities for the proposed project will be underground. The
following improvements would be required and implemented as part of the project:
• Extend an eight -inch sewer line from the site across- Diamond Bar Boulevard into Tin
drive and down Bridle Drive approximately 330 feet and connect to an existing sewer
line.
• Extend a 14 -inch water service line from the site into Diamond Bar Boulevard and
connect to an existing water line.
• Extend a 48 -inch storm drain from the site approximately 450 feet to the south of Tin
Drive along Diamond Bar Boulevard to connect with an existing drainage basin.
Circulation Opportunities—The project is providing the City with a left -tum pocket at Diamond
Bar Boulevard for southbound traffic tuming left into the project site and a tum signal at Tin
Drive/Diamond Bar Boulevard.
Park Funds—The applicant is contributing funds (in an amount to be determined between the City
of Diamond Bar and applicant),to the City of Diamond Bar Parks and Acquisition Fund.
RAPropas=arWindings•50798
Ki
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
Diamond Bar Planning Commission
Public Hearing of April 28,.1998
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267
Responses to Comments
'CR 1Al' -? ' :Z1
A continued public hearing from March 24, 1998 on Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 52267
(VTTM No. 52267) was held on April 28, 1998. Approximately 100 members of the community
were present during the hearing; 16 individuals provided testimony to the Planning Commission.
Testimony addressed the following environmental issues (listed in order of number of commentors
speaking to the issue):
• dust emissions from grading;
• traffic impacts and congestion;
• loss of oak trees/coastal sage scrub habitat; and,
• effects of blasting.
Responses to each of these issues are provided below.
Dust Emissions from Grading
Overview: Commentors noted that the draft EIR states that development of the VTTM No. 52267
project would create fugitive dust emissions during grading after mitigation that would exceed the
South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) threshold of 150 pounds per day.
Concern was expressed over the health effects of this level of dust generation over the buildout
period of the site.
Response: As noted on page 3.7-15 of the draft EIR, projected dust emissions (PM10) from
concurrent grading and development of a total of 160 acres (both VTTM Nos. 52267 and 52308)
would total 1,696 pounds per day. Development of the VTTM No. 52308 site is no longer
proposed. Therefore the 1,696 pounds per day of dust emissions would be reduced by
approximately 47 percent to approximately 900 pounds per day. While the threshold would still be
exceeded, there would be much less dust generated from development of the VTTM No. 52267
project than indicated in the draft EIR. As a point of clarification, some commentors noted that the
dust would be generated over a three-year period. While development of the entire project would
take approximately three years, the dust would be generated during site grading, which is expected
to be completed in approximately three to four months.
Traffic Impacts and Congestion
Overview: Commentors raised the concern that the addition of traffic from the 130 dwelling units
would further worsen traffic congestion on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Comments also focused on
pass-through traffic into the Highcrest Drive neighborhood from the project connection to Highcrest
Drive.
Response: See responses prepared for comments raised at the September 23, 1997 and February
10, 1998 public hearings on the VTTM No. 52267 project. As noted in the responses to the
comments from the September hearing (included as part of the Planning Commission's agenda
packet for the February 10, 1998 meeting), comments regarding traffic and circulation from the
September hearing were directed to the City's EIR traffic consultant for clarification and response.
The results of this work were provided to the Planning Commission for the February 10, 1998
hearing.
In summary, the EIR traffic analysis used the City of Diamond Bar's criteria for determining
significance, as well as the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria. The
analysis indicated that the increase in traffic from the 130 -dwelling unit VTTM No. 52267 project
would not result in significant impacts and therefore not require mitigation. However, the project
is required to provide a traffic signal on Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive and a left -tum lane
for southbound traffic entering the site. It should also be noted that the EIR for the City's General
Plan addressed the environmental impacts (including traffic) from developing the General Plan land
uses. As indicated in the draft EIR, the VTTM No. 52267 site is designated in the General Plan for
construction of up to 130 dwelling units. Therefore, the traffic impacts of the proposed project (as
well as other land uses described in the General Plan) were considered in the City Council's
approval of General Plan and the accompanying EIR.
At the April 28, 1998 hearing, City staff also noted that traffic studies conducted by the City have
shown that approximately 40 percent of the traffic through the Diamond Bar/Grand Avenue
intersection during peak periods is transient traffic moving through Diamond Bar, mostly to and
from the cities of Chino Hills and Chino. The percentage of transient traffic is likely to increase in
the future as these areas continue to build out. The VTTM No. 52267 project traffic will not affect
this condition.
With respect to pass through traffic, the revised traffic analysis considered using the connection
to Highcrest Drive as an emergency access only. This circulation configuration would eliminate any
pass through traffic through the Highcrest neighborhood and require all project traffic to enter and
exit the site from Diamond Bar Boulevard. The analysis concluded that this adjustment would not
worsen the traffic impacts previously described in the draft EIR and that the previously proposed
mitigation measure would still be applicable.
Loss of Oak Trees/Coastal Sage Scrub Habitat
Overview: Commentors noted that the loss of 410 oaks and 30 walnuts was a significant impact
that should be carefully considered_
Response: The draft EIR acknowledges the significance of the loss of trees and describes
mitigation measures requiring that all impacted oaks and walnuts be replaced at a minimum ratio
of two replacement trees for each tree lost (2:1) to development. Also, the draft EIR mitigation
measures require the preparation of a Biological Resources Management Plan (BRMP) and City
of Diamond Bar approval prior to issuance of a grading permit for the site (see pages 3.3-22 and
3.3-23 of the draft EIR). The BRMP will describe the speck areas where the replacement trees
are to be planted, the sizes of trees to be planted, and the understory species necessary to replace
the habitat value of the oak and walnut trees lost to development.
At the April 28, 1998 hearing, the Planning Commission directed that the 2:1 mitigation ratio for
replacement oak trees be revised for larger trees as follows:
— oaks with trunk diameters less than 36 inches, ratio of 2:1;
— oaks with trunk diameters between 36 inches and 48 inches, ratio of 3:1; and,
— oaks with trunk diameters greater than 48 inches, ratio of 4:1.
These adjustments have been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the BRMP
requirements for the proposed VTTM No. 52267 project. Use of transplanted trees, where feasible,
as part of the replacement tree ratios is also included in the Mitigation Monitoring Program
adjustments.
At the April 28, 1998 hearing, the Planning Commission also directed that the 1:1 mitigation ratio
for loss of coastal sage scrub habitat be revised to be 2:1 (two acres of equivalent habitat for each
one acre of lost habitat). All other elements of the mitigations recommended in the draft EIR for
2
loss of coastal sage habitat were acceptable to the Planning Commission. This adjustment has
been incorporated into the Mitigation Monitoring Program and the BRMP requirements for the
proposed VTTM No. 52267 project.
Effects of Blasting
Overview: Commentors requested that assurances be provided by the City to ensure that blasting
will not be allowed in any development activities associated with the VTTM No. 52267 project.
Response: The conditions of approval for the proposed project prohibit any blasting during
development of the VTTM No. 52267 project. These conditions of approval will be monitored by
City staff during project implementation to ensure compliance.
RAPT jects\DBeAJOD2PCR2C42898
Diamond Bar Planning Commission
Public Hearing of March 24, 1998
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267
Responses to Comments
A continued public hearing from February 24, 1998 on Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 52267
(VTTM No. 52267) was held on March 24, 1998. Approximately 50 members of the community
were present during the hearing; six individuals provided testimony to the Planning Commission.
Testimony addressed the following issues (listed in order of number of commentors speaking to
the issue):
• Public noticing by the City of Diamond Bar for the project
• Need for recirculation of the draft EIR to address revised project design
Responses to each of these issues are provided below.
Noticing
Overview:
Commentors requested that more advance notice be provided when the applicant requests a
continuance of discussion of the project.
Response:
Staff provides as much notice as possible to the community for public hearings. In this case, the
applicant requested the continuance only five days prior to the scheduled March 24, 1998 Planning
Commission meeting. Notices were immediately mailed (on March 27, 1998) to the community to
notify them of this request. Under these circumstances, additional notice time to the community
was impossible.
Recirculation of Draft EIR for Public and Agency Comment
Overview:
Commentors requested that the draft EIR be recirculated for public review in light of the new project
design under consideration.
Response:
The City of Diamond Bar does not need to recirculate the draft EIR to public agencies and the
public unless significant new information is provided that identifies environmental impacts that
cannot be mitigated to a level that is less than significant or the applicant does not agree to the
mitigation necessary to fully mitigate these new significant impacts. Please refer to the responses
to comments of the February 24, 1998 Planning Commission hearing which addressed this issue
in greater detail. This alternative can be considered by the City as a part of the existing EIR
process. An alternative that is very similar to the one now being analyzed was included and
evaluated in the draft EIR; it was referred to as the "Refined Design" alternative to VTTM No.
522667 (see pages 5-4 through 5-8 of the draft EIR) . The "Refined Design" included 107 single-
family dwelling units within the boundary of Lot 6. A general comparison of the refined design to
The environmental evaluation of the alternative is still in process. If the results of the evaluation
recirculation indicated that recirculation of the draft EIR is warranted, the City will proceed
accordingly. At this time, such a determination has not been made.
R:\ProjWS%D8arU002PCR2C32498
Diamond Bar Planning Commission
Public Hearing of February 10, 1998
Responses to Comments
A public hearing on Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 52267 (VTTM No. 52267) was held on
February 10, 1997 to receive public input concerning the proposed development of 130 single-
family detached residential dwelling units clustered on approximately 65 acres of a 339.3 acre site.
A draft EIR addressing VTTM No. 52267 (SCH No. 97-031005) was prepared and available for
public review from July 10, 1997 to August 25, 1997.
Approximately 50 members of the community were present during the hearing; a total of 14
individuals provided testimony to the Planning Commission.
The following issues were raised in the testimony of individuals:
-Traffic and circulation
-biological resources impacts
-visual impacts
-dust from grading
-deed restrictions
-fiscal impacts
Responses to each of these subjects are provided below.
Traffic and Circulation
Overview: Commentors raised the concern that the addition of traffic from the 130 dwelling units
would further worsen traffic congestion on Diamond Bar Boulevard during evening peak hours.
Also, commentors requested clarification of the EIR traffic analysis with respect to the number of
trips generated during the a.m. and p.m. peak hour periods, since the numbers provided in the
Draft EIR seemed low.
Response: See responses written for comments raised at the September 23, 1997 public hearing
on VTTM No. 52267 project. As noted in the responses to the comments from the September
hearing (included as part of the Planning Commission's agenda packet for the February 10, 1998
meeting), comments regarding traffic and circulation from the September hearing were directed
to the City's EIR traffic consultant for clarification and response. The results of this work are
provided as Attachment A to this responses to comments document.
One commentor at the February hearing requested clarification of the EIR traffic study's reference
to the proposed development of 130 homes generating 96 a.m. peak hour trips and 131 p.m. peak
hour trips. As noted in the EIR Traffic Study prepared in June 1997 and summarized in Section
3.6 of the Draft EIR, possible traffic trips generated by the proposed 130 dwelling units were
developed using traffic generation rates developed by the Institute of Transportation Engineers
(ITE), Trip Generation Manual, 50 Edition. This document is recognized by transportation
engineers and planners as the definitive reference on this subject.
Using the ITE generation rates for single family detached land uses, the EIR traffic consultant
calculated that each dwelling unit would generate 9.55 vehicle trips per day; of these 9.55 daily
trips, ITE rates indicate that 0.74 trips and 1.01 trips per dwelling unit would occur in the a.m. peak
and p.m. peak hour periods, respectively. For the 130 dwelling units, these rates correspond to
1,242 daily trips, of which 96 trips would occur in the a.m. peak hours and 131 trips would occur
in the p.m. peak hours. These calculations are provided in Table 3.6B of the Draft EIR (page 3.6-
6). The use of the ITE rates was validated by the City's traffic engineer and also by another traffic
consultant hired by the City to evaluate the O'Rourke Engineering Traffic Study.
Using the City of Diamond Bar's criteria for determining significance, as well as the Los Angeles
County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria, the increase in traffic from the proposed
project would not result in a significant impact and therefore not require mitigation. Additionally,
the EIR for the City's General Plan addressed the environmental impacts (including traffic) from
developing the General Plan land uses. As indicated in the Draft EIR, the VTTM No. 52267 site
is designated in the General Plan for construction of up to 130 dwelling units. Therefore, the traffic
impacts of the proposed project (as well as others described in the General Plan) were considered
in the City Council's approval of General Plan and the accompanying EIR.
Biological Resources Impacts
Overview: Most commentors focused on the anticipated loss of biological resources from
development of the proposed VTTM No. 52267 project. Several commentors were concerned that
animals and habitat in Steep Canyon, located just south of the VTTM No. 52267 development area
would be destroyed by the proposed project.
Response: The potential impacts from development of the VTTM No. 52267 site were evaluated
by two consulting companies using staff with extensive experience with the habitats and wildlife
species present on the site. The entire 339 acre site was surveyed to document existing habitats
and biological resources and the proposed development area (consisting of 65 acres of the 339
acre site) was intensively surveyed to document its existing resources and to determine the
potential impacts of developing the proposed project. Focused spring surveys were also conducted
in March and April 1997 for endangered plants, and the endangered California gnatcatcher,
respectively.
As noted in the Draft EIR, no sensitive or endangered plants were observed during these surveys
and no gnatcatchers were found onsite. The results of the gnatcatcher surveys were reported to
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service as required by the survey protocol and the provisions of the
special permit held by the biologist who conducted the survey. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
did not comment upon the results of the surveys. The California Department of Fish and Game
was provided a copy of the Draft EIR and did not provide comments to the City.
The specific characteristics of the proposed VTTM No. 52267 project are described in pages 2-1
through 2-5 of the Draft EIR and were used in conducting the biological impact analysis. As noted
in Figure 3.3-1 (VTTM No. 52267 Biological Resources) of the Draft EIR, the development area
inclusive of residential lots, manufactured slopes, and fuel modification areas, would not directly
impact the Steep Canyon drainage (also referred to as upper Sycamore Canyon by some
commentors). This drainage and its biological resources would be left in its existing natural
condition. The draft EIR does acknowledge that adverse indirect impacts would occur from
development of the VTTM No. 52267 site, and notes that these were not considered significant and
therefore did not require mitigation. The indirect effects would result from noise and dust
generated by construction, potential urban runoff from the project site, and future residents.
Since plant and wildlife resources in Steep Canyon (as well as other resources in the 273 acres of
the 339 acre site that would be preserved in its existing natural state) would not be removed by
development, the animals that currently inhabit the area would most likely continue to do so. It is
likely that animal use of the Steep Canyon drainage will be reduced during construction of VTTM
No. 52267; however, animal use after such activities are completed would be expected to return
to pre -development levels.
One commentor questioned the adequacy of the EIR by reading from the executive summary
(Table 1.1 on pages 1-9 through 1-19). Using this approach, the commentor suggested that the
listing of sensitive species in the Executive Summary table was incomplete, and other impact topics
(e.g., night lighting, culturaUhistoric resources) were inadequately addressed. None of these
comments made any reference to the separate sections in the Draft EIR addressing these issues.
The commentor is referred to the main sections of the EIR for answers to his questions.
Visual Impacts
Overview: Commentors noted that the Draft EIR's visual simulations portrayed the VTTM No.
52267 development -as being visible from homes west of Diamond Bar Boulevard, as well as to
viewers traveling northbound and southbound on Diamond Bar Boulevard. One commentor
requested that wider angle visual simulations be provided to depict the proposed development from
a point further south along Diamond Bar Boulevard and from the residential area west of the site.
Res onse: The viewpoints provided in the Draft EIR were selected by the City's environmental
consultant and were approved in advance by City staff. These viewpoints were selected as being
representative of the view impacts that would result after completion of the proposed project.
Producing additional viewpoint exhibits from the areas requested by the commentors, would not
show any additional impact areas, and would replicate the same impact analysis albeit from longer
range views. The Draft EIR notes on page 3.5-6 that the visual impacts from development of
VTTM No. 52267 are significant. Further analysis would not alter this finding and is not considered
necessary.
Dust from Grading
Overview: Commentors noted that the Draft EIR states that development of the VTTM No. 52267
project would create fugitive dust emissions during grading and during the "limited blasting" that
may be required for site development. Commentors referred to the Draft EIR's statements that 1.8
million cubic yards of earth movement would occur to complete the VTTM No. 52267 development
and that grading operations would occur over a four month period.
Response: The air quality analysis in the Draft EIR, Section3.7-1, was prepared by an air quality
expert who worked for the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) for over 10
years and who is considered one of the most qualified air quality analysts in Southern California.
The requirements of the most current version (November 1993) of the SCAQMD's CEQA Air
Quality Handbook were followed in conducting the air quality analysis in the Draft EIR.
As indicated in Table 3.7D of the Draft EIR, a total of 4,224 pounds per day of fugitive dust (also
called PM10) emissions would occur from grading operations attributable to both the proposed
VTTM No. 52267 project and the previously proposed VTTM No. 52308 development. Since these
proposed projects were to have been developed concurrently, the Draft EIR analyzed them
together using a conservative assumption that a maximum of 85 acres would be disturbed during
grading of VTTM No. 52267 and a maximum of 75 acres would be disturbed during grading of
VTTM No. 52308. On a percentage basis, 53.13% of the total emissions would therefore be
generated from grading of the VTTM No. 52267 site, corresponding to a total of 2,242 pounds per
day of fugitive dust emissions.
As noted in the Draft EIR, the SCAQMD's threshold of significance for fugitive dust (PM10) of 150
pounds per day would be exceeded by project development, resulting in a significant impact before
mitigation. After incorporation of SCAQMD recommended dust -suppression measures, a 60%
reduction of PM10 emissions is possible, as indicated in Table 3.7F of the Draft EIR. Applying this
reduction would result in the generation of 898 pounds per day of fugitive dust emissions after
mitigation for the VTTM No. 52267 development, and therefore remain a significant impact as
noted on page 3.7-15 of the Draft EIR.
The Draft EIR analysis of air quality impacts from construction and operation of the proposed VTTM
No. 52267 site is considered to adequately address the potential impacts of project development.
Deed Restrictions
Overview: Commentors noted that the Draft EIR indicates that deed restrictions on the VTTM No.
52267 site restrict development of residences to Lot 6, which is a smaller area than the area
currently included in the proposed development. Commentors requested that the development be
limited to the boundaries of Lot 6.
Response: The Draft EIR indicates that the proposed VTTM No. 52267 development extends
beyond the boundaries of Lot 6 for remedial grading activities in support of the proposed 130 single
family residences (page 3.4-23). The Draft EIR also notes that the Diamond Bar General Plan
Land Use Element designates Planning Area Sub -Area A, which includes the VTTM No. 52267
site, for development of a maximum of 130 single-family detached dwelling units. The proposed
development is therefore consistent with this provision of the General Plan and would not be
considered incompatible with existing land uses.
While the deed restriction itself is not an environmental issue, it is a factor that the Planning
Commission and City Council will consider during their deliberations on the proposed VTTM No.
52267 project. The necessity of developing outside the boundaries of Lot 6 will be reviewed as part
of these deliberations. The Draft EIR analyzed the potential environmental impacts from the
proposed project which the City can use in its decision making for the VTTM No. 52267 site.
Fiscal Impacts
Overview: Commentors indicated that there appeared to be little economic benefit to the City from
development of the VTTM No. 52267 site, because the property tax and sales tax revenues to the
City from residential projects do not typically cover the costs of providing services.
Response: This is not an environmental issue. However, it should be noted that projects do pay
various fees to school districts, water and sewer agencies, and other utility providers to insure that
these services provided. In addition, the City's General Plan designates this area for development
of residential uses and thereby acknowledges that some costs to the City will occur. The Planning
Commission and City Council deliberations on the VTTM No. 52267 site will consider this factor.
R. VY*ct3%DBar%PC-R2C210N
Diamond Bar Planning Commission
gg SLB 1 `.? Publ caHearing of September 23, 1997
Responses to Comments
A public hearing on Vesting Tentative Tract Maps Numbers 52267 and 52308 (VTTM Nos. 52267
and 52308) was held on September 23, 1997. Approximately 150 members of the community were
present during the hearing; a total of 21 individuals provided testimony to the Planning
Commission.
Generally, those who spoke addressed the following issues (listed in order of number of
commentors speaking to the issue):
- Traffic and circulation
- Biological resources impacts
- Appropriateness of gated communities
- Loss of open space
- Hillside grading/visual impacts
- School capacity
Responses to each of these subjects are provided below.
Traffic and Circulation
Overview: The commentors conveyed a concern that the traffic from the proposed projects would
adversely affect circulation conditions along Diamond Bar Boulevard and Gold Rush Drive (VTTM
No. 52267) and Pantera Drive (VTTM No. 52308).
Response: Traffic impacts from the proposed projects were evaluated in a technical traffic study
completed by O'Rourke Engineering, the traffic consultant retained by the City's EIR consultant.
O'Rourke Engineering is one of the traffic engineering companies on the City's approved list of
traffic engineers. The approach used by O'Rourke was approved in advance by the City's Public
Works Department and the results of the traffic study were independently reviewed by another
traffic consultant retained by the City specifically for this project prior to release of the Draft EIR.
These reviews determined that the traffic study followed applicable traffic engineering methods and
complied with the City's earlier direction.
The technical traffic impact analysis is Appendix E of the Draft EIR; results of the analysis are
summarized in Section 3.6 of the Draft EIR. Implementation of the VTTM No. 52267 project would
generate 1,242 average daily trips (ADT), with 96 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 131
trips during the p.m. peak hour. The VTTM No. 52308 site would generate 573 average daily trips,
with 44 trips occurring during the a.m. peak hour and 62 trips during the p.m. peak hour.
Combined, the two sites would generate 1,815 average daily trips, with 140 a.m. peak hour trips
and 192 p.m. peak hour trips. Based on the City of Diamond Bar's criteria for determining
significance, the increase in vehicular traffic associated with both project sites is not significant and
does not require mitigation.
Page 1
In addition, a queuing analysis was also conducted at the project entry from Diamond Bar
Boulevard at Tin Drive to insure that the project entry design would provide adequate space for
vehicle "stacking" onsite during peak periods when vehicles could be waiting to pass through the
private gate. This analysis concluded that the design provided adequate "stacking" distance onsite
thereby preventing queuing onto Diamond Bar Boulevard. However, turning movement
considerations at this location resulted in a requirement for the VTTM No. 52267 project to pay
for the provision of a traffic signal at this location.
In further response to the questions raised by commentors at the hearing, the City directed
O'Rourke Engineering to clarify its earlier report to address the questions raised, as well as to
investigate the potential additional traffic impacts from relocating the private access gate to the
VTTM No. 52267 site eastward to a location near the existing Highcrest Drive/Goldrush Drive
intersection, thereby incorporating the existing homes on Highcrest into the gated community. This
suggestion had been raised by commentors at the hearing. Additionally, the City directed the traffic
consultant to consider the traffic impacts of replacing the gate at the eastern tract boundary at
Highcrest Drive with an access that would be for emergency use only.
The results of the traffic consultant's work is provided as Attachment A to this responses to
comments document from the September 23, 1997 Planning Commission hearing.
Biological Resources Impacts
Overview: The majority of comments focused on the loss of natural habitat from development of
the VTTM No. 52267 site. Loss of oak trees, California gnatcatcher habitat (represented by coastal
sage scrub vegetation), and deer seen in the vicinity of the VTTM No. 52267 site were mentioned
by several commentors.
Response: The biological resources of both project sites were evaluated by two biological
consulting companies using staff with extensive experience with the habitats and wildlife species
present on the sites. One company was retained by the applicant and the other was the City's EIR
consultant. Separate focused surveys for gnatcatchers were conducted for both sites in 1996 and
1997 by permitted biologists at each consulting company. The February 1997 survey protocol
specified by the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service was used for the 1997 focused survey that was
conducted by the City's EIR consultant. Gnatcatchers were not detected at either site in either of
the surveys, although coastal sage scrub habitat was present. This situation is not unusual,
especially in the inland regions of Los Angeles County, where temperatures and elevations are not
optimal for the gnatcatcher.
The Biological Resources Section 3.3 of the Draft EIR states that a total of 410 oak trees and 30
walnuts would be lost from development of the VTTM No. 52267 project and 10 oaks and 10
walnuts would be lost from development of the VTTM No. 52308 site. The Draft EIR specifies that
implementation the following mitigation measures would reduce these biological resources impacts
to a less than significant level:
— Development and implementation of a Biological Resources Management Program (BRMP)
to mitigate for loss of oak and on
woodlands; the City of Diamond Bar must approve the
BRMP prior to issuance of a grading permit for either project site. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, California Department of Fish and Game, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will
also review the BRMP prior to approval by the City;
Page 2
— Compliance with the City's Oak Tree Ordinance that requires replacing at least 2 oak trees
for each oak tree lost to development;
— Replacement of lost walnuts at a ratio of at least 2 walnut trees for each tree lost to
development;
— Mitigation locations are to be sited in suitable areas, as determined by the City's project
biologist, generally in appropriate locations in permanent open space areas and outside of
fuel modification areas. The mitigation further indicates that "planting of native trees and
shrubs within the fuel modification areas or within the interior of the developed project site
(i.e., project landscaping) will not be credited towards any tree replacement requirements of
the City of Diamond Bar or the California Department of Fish and Game" (page 3.3-28 of the
Draft EIR); and
— The applicable requirements of the California Department of Fish & Game and the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers will be followed in development of the BRMP, and may result in additional
biological mitigation beyond that specified in the Draft EIR.
While site specific surveys were not conducted for bobcats, coyotes, or deer, the biological report
(Appendix D of the Draft EIR) does indicate that these species were observed on the VTTM No.
52267 site; these species were not observed on the VTTM No. 52308 site.
Appropriateness of Gated Communities
Overview: Several commentors voiced the concern that the proposed gated communities would
be out of place in their respective adjacent neighborhoods, and might adversely affect property
values in the existing areas that are not gated. Although this concern is not an environmental issue
per se, it is a land use policy that the decision makers will need to consider for the proposed
projects.
Response: The gated community concept was developed after the City informed the applicant that
the open space lots within the boundaries of each tentative map, as well as other common
landscaping and mitigation areas, would have to be owned and maintained by a homeowners'
association to insure proper care of these areas in perpetuity without placing any financial burden
on the City. Since the costs of such maintenance was considered to be substantial, a gated
community concept was suggested as a means of providing an additional benefit to future residents
of these projects to offset the homeowners' association monthly fees. It should be noted that the
proposed projects include streets and curbs that meet public street standards, even though they
will be privately owned and maintained by the homeowners' associations.
While there is no data that the City has seen in this regard, homes in gated communities are often
sold at premiums over comparable homes in adjacent neighborhoods. This condition generally
leads to increases in the values of homes adjacent to the gated communities rather than
decreases. Also, it should be noted that for the VTTM No. 52267 project site, the gated
community concept would also stop through traffic that might otherwise try to use the primary
project roadway as an alternate to Gold Rush Drive.
Page 3
Loss of Open Space
Overview: Comments generally related to the loss of hillside areas and views of these open spaces
from adjacent areas.
Response: The City's General Plan designates the VTTM No. 52267 site for development of up
to 130 dwelling units. Development of this area was considered in the General Plan and General
Plan EIR and found to be acceptable. While the current vacant status of this site would be
changed by development, the proposed development is compatible with the City's General Plan.
The proposed development also conforms to the City's hillside management requirements and
incorporates landform/contour grading techniques. The remainder of the VTTM No. 52267 site
consisting of 273.9 acres would remain in permanent open space as it exists today.
The VTTM No. 52308 site is designated in the City's General Plan as Open Space. The loss of
this open space area was not anticipated in the City's planning process and would require an
amendment to the General Plan to allow for development of the proposed project. The Draft EIR
acknowledges that this loss is a significant and unavoidable impact.
Hillside Grading/Visual Impacts
Overview: Comments related to the hillside grading that would be required for the proposed
developments and the related visual impacts to adjacent areas in the City.
Response: The proposed grading for both project sites incorporates landform/contour grading
concepts that conform to the City's hillside grading ordinance. These requirements generally allow
ridge lines in the City to be graded for development of residential uses, a practice that is evident
in existing projects throughout the City. The Draft EIR includes computer generated simulations
of the developed areas of the project sites from key viewpoints in areas adjacent to each
development. The Draft EIR indicates that residential units in the proposed projects would be
visible along the ridge lines from adjacent areas. The Draft EIR proposes mitigation measures that
would reduce, but not eliminate, the visual impacts from the proposed developments by requiring
adjustment to the grading programs to reduce the visibility of the hilltop homes.
School Capacity
Overview: Comments addressed the potential impact of the proposed developments on available
and future school capacities, especially the proposed but unbuilt Pantera Elementary School,
located across Pantera Drive from the VTTM No. 52308 site.
Response: The students to be generated by the VTTM No. 52267 site were anticipated in the
City's General Plan and EIR. The students from the 60 dwelling units proposed for the VTTM No.
52308 site were not anticipated, since as noted above, the General Plan designates the site as
Open Space. Development projects are required by state law to pay school fees to offset the
impacts from new students. Any additional fees needed by the school district to fund the
construction of the new Pantera School will be determined through discussions between the
developer and the school district.
Page 4
STAFF REPORTS
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning commissioners
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner q�'"'
SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 52267
DATE: May 8, 1998
At the April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting, the Commission
received comments from the public and closed the public hearing.
After discussing the referenced project and its entitlements, the
Commission directed staff to prepare the legal documents that
would lead to recommending approval. to City Council of VTTM No.
52267 and its entitlements.
Attached are two draft resolutions for the Commission's
consideration. The draft resolutions include the following
additional conditions for the Commission's consideration:
1. Blasting and/or dynamiting shall not be permitted.
2. In exchange for the removal of map and deed
restrictions, the applicant shall fulfill the following
requirements prior to the final map's recordation:
(a) Dedicate to the City as public open space: all of
Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479, approximately 86 acres;
portions of Lots 4, 5, and 7 of Tract No. 31479,
approximately 274.3 acres, excluding manufactured
slopes; and
(b) Contribute $ 250,000.00 to the City's Parks and
Facility Development Fund.
3. The applicant shall comply with the following standards
and provisions of the Biological Resources Management
Plan as specified in EIR No. 97-2:
(a) Oak trees removed which are between 36 and 48
inches in diameter shall be replaced at a 3:1
ratio;
(b) Oak trees larger than 48 inches in diameter shall
be replaced at a 4:1 ratio; and
(c) Each acre of coastal sage scrub lost shall be
replaced with two acres (2:1 ratio).
1
The above additional conditions ar::� included in the Mitigation
Monitoring Program and will be incorporated into the Biological
Resource Management Plan.
Staff has discussed the above conditions of approval and all other
conditions of approval for this project with the applicant. A
majority of the conditions are acceptable to the applicant.
However, a condition requiring the proposed development's
secondary access gate be utilized for emergency access only is not
acceptable to the applicant.
The applicant would like the Commission to delete this condition.
The applicant states that throughout the project's planning and
design, access via Highcrest Drive has remained a viable
consideration. The applicant believes that the incorporation of
access security gates will effectively eliminate external traffic
from passing through the project. Additionally, a majority of the
project's residents will utilize the gate at Tin Drive/Diamond Bar
Boulevard. The gate at Highcrest Drive will be utilized as the
most direct route to Pantera Elementary School and Pantera Park.
The applicant states that the project's residents will not use the
Highcrest Drive gate access for another destination because it
does not provide direct/effective access to any destination beyond
the school and park.
A traffic study dated April 1997 and a revised traffic study dated
February 6, 1998, prepared by O'Rourke Engineering, analyzed the
applicant's proposal to utilize the Highcrest Drive access gate
for emergency use only and as a secondary access. As a secondary
access, the analysis consider trips to Pantera Elementary School
and Pantera Park as a part of the whole analysis. The result
indicated that the project will generate 1,242 trips per day.
Ninety-five percent (1,179.9) of the trips will utilize the gate
at Diamond Bar Boulevard/ Tin Drive; and five percent (62.1) of
the trips will utilize the gate at Highcrest Drive.
According to the Pomona Unified School District's Assistant
Planner, Isela Lavado, the project's residents will be within
Pantera Elementary School boundaries. Therefore, the Highcrest
Drive access gate would provide the most direct access to the
school and park. The staff and the Commission have stated that
the Highcrest Drive access gate will be utilized for emergency
only. Emergency access only will eliminate traffic passing
through the existing neighborhoods in the Highcrest Drive area,
thereby minimizing traffic impacts within this area. The
Commission may desire to consider this issue.
As present in previous staff reports, this project involves the
removal of map and deed restriction for development outside of Lot
6. Pursuant to the General Plan, in order to remove map and deed
restrictions, a significant benefit to the City shall be provided.
The staff has been negotiating with the applicant on this issue.
2
In exchange for the removal of map and deed restrictions, the City
is requiring that the applicant: dedicate to the City as public
open space all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479, approximately 86
acres; portions of Lots 4, 5, and 7 of Tract No. 31479, approx-
imately 274.3 acres, excluding manufactured slopes; and a
contribution of $ 250,000.00 to the City"s Parks and Facility
Development Fund.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve:
1. Draft Resolution: RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267 AND
RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 97-2 (SCH NO. 97031005) AND RECOMMENDING
APPROVAL OF THE MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM SET FORTH
THEREIN; and
2. Draft Resolution: RECOMMENDING CONDITIONAL APPROVAL OF
HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-03,
OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 98-01, THE REMOVAL OF MAP AND DEED
RESTRICTIONS AND THE DEDICATION OF 274.3 ACRES OF TRACT
NO. 52267 AND ALL OF LOT 9 OF TRACT NO. 31479 TO PUBLIC,
OPEN SPACE.
Attachments:
1. Two Draft Resolutions;
2. Responses to Comments dated April 28, 1998;
3. Statement of Overriding Consideration (Exhibit "B";
4. Mitigation Monitoring Program (Exhibit "C");
5. Correspondence from the applicant, dated May 6, 1998,
regarding secondary access gate; and
6. Correspondence from the applicant dated May 8, 1998.
3
CC -sb5
a division of CWC, Ined
'98 MAY 11 9 : 1
May 6, 1998
Mr. James DeStefano — Deputy City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive
Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Re: Diamond Hills Ranch (Tentative Tract Map No. 52267) Circulation
Dear Mr. DeStefano,
Throughout the planning and design of the project, the access via Highcrest Drive has remained a
viable consideration. The environmental impact report identified the distribution of traffic
assigned to Highcrest Drive to be a minimal 5% of project generated vehicle trips.
The proposed project will incorporate security gates into the private street system that will
effectively eliminate traffic external to the project from passing through the project. Future
project residents will utilize the projects main entrance to Diamond Bar Boulevard for the
majority of ingress and egress. These residents may identify access via Highcrest Drive as the
efficient route to Pantera Elementary School and Pantera Park. It is inconceivable that Diamond
Hills Ranch residents would seek Highcrest Drive as access for another destination. As you are
aware, Highcrest does not provide direct or effective access to any destination beyond the school
or park.
The Diamond Hills Ranch residents would have a longer route and would generate additional
vehicle miles traveled and turning movements should they be forced to use Diamond Bar
Boulevard to reach the school or park. It is apparent that using Highcrest Drive for school and
park access will benefit the majority of the circulation system in the local area.
I am requesting that the City staff evaluate the utilization of Highcrest Drive as an access route
for ingress and egress for Diamond Hills Ranch residents to reach Pantera School and Park.
Concurrently, we need this request guided through the appropriate City decision-making process.
I appreciate your time and consideration and am ready to work with the City on this matter.
Please feel welcome to contact me if additional information is necessary.
ger
�'tno V T q Pa1ma CIlitP Tl • Anaheim CA 92S07 • (714) 693-6700 • Fax (714) 693-6730
May 8, 1998 (*VIA FACSIMILE: 909 / 861-3117*
Mr. James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
di .of CWC; loa`:
Re: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership Program / Park Obligation iiml eu I
City Parks and .Acquisition Fund
Dear Mr. DeStefano:
The Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership project team has worked dili;
y tc
fy E
.!q '., ,le
program to provide for the Quimby Act park obligation and the
-'s 1 :
ind i
qu -; t:Orl
fund. Specifically, to address the Planning Division's Conditions
�ppl i ,
10
d $ as
recommended by the Planning Commission at its regularly schedule
~i i eetin; .
.pri
. 8,
The Diamond Hill Ranch Partnership proposes to address these con, , ins t17r.:.:. i th oll, �,, ,ng
program:
• Dedication of approximately 273 acres of the project area -\CIU(l1[jL11 e
Manufactured slopes);
• Dedication of the remaining natural portions, not proposed for the V] I M
52267 development, of Lots 4, 5, 7 and all of Lot 9; and
• A one-time contribution of $250,000 to be paid upon issuance of the first
building permit for a residential dwelling unit.
Mr. DeStefano, we are proposing this equitable program to address the City's Conditions of
Approval and to benefit the citizens of Diamond Bar. This program will fulfill, in total, the
Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership compliance with the aforementioned Conditions of Approval.
Please feel free to contact me if additional information in necessary
you towards the completion of the Diamond Hills Ranch project.
Respectfully,
ARTNERSHIP
We are ready to work with,
5109 E. La Palma, Suite D • Anaheim, CA 92807 • (714) 693-6700 • Fax (714) 693-6730
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING C0MVIISSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.1
REPORT DATE: April 21, 1998
MEETING DATE: April 28, 1998
CASE/BILE NUMBER: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
52267 (VTTM No. 52267), Conditional
Use Permit No. 98-03, Oak Tree
Permit No. 98-01 and Environmental
Impact Report No. 97-2, Volume I and
II.
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
Proposes to: subdivide 65 acres of a
339.3 acre site into 141 lots for
the development of 130 detached
single family residences; remove and
replace oak and walnut trees; and
remove map and deed restrictions on
a portion of the 65 acres. The
balance of the 339.3 acre site
(274.3 acres) and a portion of Lot 9
of Tract No. 31479 will be dedicated
to the City of Diamond Bar as public
open space.
VTTM No. 52267 is generally located
east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
north of Grand Avenue, at the
extension of Highcrest Drive.
PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership
5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite D,
Anaheim, CA 92807
APPLICANT: Todd Kurtin
SunCal Companies
5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite D,
Anaheim, CA 92807
1
BACKGROUND:
The proposed project was first presented to the Planning Commission
on February 10, 1998. At that time, the Commission continued the
public hearing to February 24, 1998 to allow the applicant and
staff time to respond to comments presented at the public hearing
and any Commission concerns. The applicant, in a correspondence
dated February 19, 1998, requested a continuance to March 10, 1998.
However, at the February 24, 1998 hearing, the applicant verbally
requested another continuance to March 24, 1998. At the March 24,
1998, the applicant again requested a continuance in order to
provide required information to respond to public comments.
The responses to comments are addressed in "Response to Comments"
documents for the Planning Commission public hearings dated
February 10, 1998, February 24, 1998 and March 24, 1998. From the
February 24, 1998 public hearing comments, the applicant was asked
to prepare a "Response to Comments" Alternative.
The "Response to Comments" Alternative is presented as a 120 lot
subdivision for the eventual development of single family homes
within a gated community. The "Response to Comments" Alternative
is similar to the "Refined Design Alternative" evaluated in the
draft EIR for VTTM No. 52267 and presented on Figure 5-1 of the
draft EIR. Its location is generally on the ridgeline, extending
from the terminus of Highcrest Drive to Diamond Bar Boulevard at
Tin Drive, as anticipated by the City's General Plan. With this
Alternative, all residential lots are confined to Lot 6 of Tract
No. 31479 which is without map and deed restrictions. However,
remedial grading will occur outside of Lot 6. Additionally, the
subdivision design of this Alternative varies from the applicant's
proposal of VTTM No. 52267.
The following is a comparison of the "Response to Comments"
Alternative and the applicant's proposal of VTTM No. 52267.
2
PROPOSED VTTK NO. 52267
RESPONSE TO COMMENTS ALTERNATIVE
Location/Description:
Location/Description:
Along the proposed extension of
Same;
Highcrest Dr. to an intersection with
Diamond Bar Blvd. at Tin Dr.;
Proposed as a gated community;
Same;
130 single-family detached residences
120 single-family detached
residences
clustered on approximately 65 acres
clustered on approximately
50 acres
(inclusive of streets, manufactured
(inclusive of streets and
slopes, and a water tank site);
manufactured slopes and a water tank
site);
Some residences will be located
Residences confined to Lot
6;
within Lots 6, 5 and 7;
Approximately 273.9 acres (80.78)
Approximately 279.9 acres
(82.4%)
will remain in natural open space.
will remain in natural open space.
Product Type:
Product Type:
Home size - 2,800 to 3,300 sq. ft.
Home size - Unknown
Min. pad size - 6,000 sq. ft.
Min. pad size - 5,000 sq.
ft.
Min. lot size - 6,000 sq. ft.
Same;
Max. lot size - 26,000 sq. ft.
Unknown;
Average lot size - 10,900 sq. ft.
Unknown;
Gross density - 0.4 units per acre
Same;
Net density - 3.16 units per acre
3.65 units per acre;
Max. building height - 2 stories/35
Same;
ft.
Minimum setbacks:
Same;
Front yard - 20 ft.
Rear yard - 20 ft.
Side yard - 5 and 10 ft.
Grading:
Grading:
Balanced on site;
Same;
Approximately 1.8 million cubic yards
Approximately 1.4 million
cubic yards
of cut;
of cut;
Approximately 1.8 million cubic yards
Approximately 1.4 million
cubic yards
of fill.
of fill.
Oven Space•
Consists of manufactured slopes and
natural open space;
Approximately 24.2 acres, landscaped
and maintained by the HOA;
Remainder - approximately 273.9 acres
will be dedicated to the City as
public open space.
Open Space-
Same;
Approximately 26.8 acres, landscaped
and maintained by the HOA;
Remainder - Approximately 279.6 acres
will be dedicated to the City as
public open space.
Water Reservoir:
Water Reservoir:
Walnut Valley Water District has 2
Same;
planned water reservoir sites;
Same;
Not needed to serve this project but
to meet District's long-term needs;
One reservoir to be located on Lot
Does not identify a water reservoir
131; other to be located within the
on-site; to accommodate the
project site but outside the
District's needs, approximately 9 of
development area.
the 120 proposed dwelling units could
not be constructed.
Circulation:
Circulation-
Points of access proposed - 2;
Same;
East - Highcrest Dr. extension;
West - Diamond Bar Blvd./Tin
Dr.;
Left hand turn pocket will be
Same;
provided at Diamond Bar Blvd. for
southbound traffic turning left into
the project site;
Traffic signal will be installed on
Same;
Diamond Bar Blvd. at Tin Dr.;
circulation is circuitous.
Circulation is less circuitous with a
circulation pattern that will provide
a straight run from top to bottom,
similar to Gold Rush Drive.
Infrastructure Improvements:
Infrastructure Improvements:
All utilities will be underground;
Same;
Extend an 8 -inch sewer across Diamond
Same;
Bar Blvd. into Tin Dr. and down
Bridle Dr. for a total distance of
approximately 330 feet and connect to
existing sewer line;
Extend a 14 -inch water service line
same;
from site to Diamond Bar Blvd., and
connect to existing water line;
Extend a 48 -inch storm drain line
Same;
approximately 450 ft. to south of Tin
Dr. along Diamond Bar Blvd. to
connect with existing drainage basin.
Anticipated Proposed Proiect Phasing:
Anticipated Proposed Project Phasing•
Tentative Map Approval - 9/98
Same or similar;
Final Map Approval - 3/99
Initiate Grading - 4/99 (duration:
approximately 4 months)
Models Open - 4/00
Complete Home Sales - 9/02.
Discretionary Action:
Discretionary Action:
EIR certification;
Same;
Conditional Use Permit - hillside
development;
Vesting Tentative Tract Map;
Map and Deed restriction removal (due
to dwelling units and remedial
Dwelling units confined to Lot 6, but
remedial grading outside of Lot 6;
grading outside of Lot 6);
therefore, map and deed restriction
removal is required;
Subsequent City Actions;
Grading permit;
Oak tree permit;
Same;
Building permit;
State of California:
NPDES permit;
Dept. of Fish and Game -
Same;
Sections 1601 and 1603 permits
(possibly required);
Federal:
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers -
Same.
Section 404 permit (possibly
required).
The Response to Comments Alternative requires additional technical
assessments regarding grading, hydrology and biology. Due to the
similarities between VTTM No. 52267 and the Response to Comments
Alternative and the draft EIR evaluation of an altenative tha is
also similar, it was determined that technical assessments beyond
those mentioned are not required.
GRADING•
As delineated in the comparison chart, a grading reduction of 0.4
million cubic yards of cut and fill will occur with the Response to
Comments Alternative. Grading will still occur outside of Lot 6,
but covering a smaller area. A variable width keyway, to stabilize
the northerly facing natural slope will be located on the north
side of Lot 6. It will vary from 100 to 160 feet in width,
tapering to 50 feet in width to the east. The easterly facing
slope, adjacent to Lots 55 through 65 will require stabilization
through the use of buttress and shear keys. The buttress will be
50 feet wide and the shear key wi11 be 50 feet wide. Less
contour/landform grading will be utilized. Therefore, compliance
to the Hillside Management Ordinance will be to a lesser degree.
Additionally, the City has determined that blasting will not be
permitted with the proposed VTTM No. 52267 or the Response to
Comments Alternative. No new significant impacts are anticipated
with the Response to Comments Alternative. Therefore, all
recommended mitigation measures for VTTM No. 52267 will be
applicable to the Alternative.
HYDROLOGY•
A revised hydrology study was prepared for the Response to Comments
Alternative. Pre- and post- conditions of VTTM No. 52267 and the
Alternative were compared. It is determined that existing storm
drain facilities are adequate to accommodate the post -development
flows for both projects. New impacts are not anticipated. All
recommended mitigation proposed for VTTM No. 52267 will be
applicable to the Alternative. However, the following additional
improvements will be required for the Alternative:
1. Catch basins at the project entrance to pick up all storm
runoff before it enters Diamond Bar Boulevard;
2. Catch basins at the north side of the four-way
intersection on the main street through the site; and
3. Main storm drain pipe to be installed at the
development's upstream end shall be 24 inches in
accordance with Los Angeles County standards.
BIOLOGY•
As previously mentioned, the Response to Comments Alternative's
grading limits are different than proposed VTTM No. 52267. As a
result, a supplemental oak and walnut tree survey was conducted by
6
BonTerra Consulting (City's Consultant) in March 1998. The survey
indicated that within the grading limits of the Alternative, 35
coast live oak trees will be impacted that would not be impacted by
proposed VTTM No. 52267. The majority of these trees are located
along the site's western boundary (adjacent to Diamond Bar
Boulevard). As a result of the new grading limits, approximately
25 coast live oak trees will be preserved that would be impacted
with VTTM No. 52267's proposed grading. The majority of the
preserved trees are located along the northern boundary of the
project's development area. Therefore, there will be a net
increase of ten impacted coast live oak trees. The impacts to
coast live oak woodland and oak trees can be mitigated to a level
considered less than significant through the mitigation monitoring
program set forth in the draft EIR for proposed VTTM No, 52267.
Overall, the the Response to Comments Alternative will result in
similar biological impacts as proposed VTTM No. 52267.
With regards to grading, hydrology and biology, Response to
Comments Alternative's impacts can be reduced to a level that is
considered less than significant. Utilizing the mitigation
measures recommended for proposed VTTM No. 52267 will cause this to
occur.
LAND USE•
As presented in the General Plan's land use designation of Planning
Area 2, a maximum 130 single-family detached dwelling units may be
developed, concentrated along the anticipated extension of
Highcrest Drive, with a minimum of 75 percent to the total acreage
set aside as dedicated open space. In order to minimize
environmental impacts and maximize clustering, residential lots
shall range from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet. Both projects, the
proposed VTTM No. 52267 and the Response to Comments Alternative,
are consistent with the number and type of development identified
within the General Plan. However, both projects are not consistent
with some goals, objectives, and strategies within the General
Plan. These inconsistencies are identified and discussed in the
draft EIR. The inconsistencies will be addressed in the Statement
Of Overriding Considerations.
VISUAL/AESTHETICS:
Visual/Aesthetic impacts of proposed VTTM No. 52267 and the
Response to Comments Alternative are the same in that both projects
require the cutting of ridges and filling of some canyon areas on
the site to create building pads and roadways. Proposed VTTM No.
52267 incorporates contour/landform grading that generally complies
with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance. The proposed
entrance road to the site, at Tin Drive from Diamond Bar Boulevard,
will require cutting through the existing slope bank which will
create cut slopes on both sides of the new road. The slopes will
be approximately 40 to 60 feet in height. Additionally, two large
7
engineered fill slopes, one located along the southern edge
(adjacent to Lots 112 to 125) of the development and the other
along Diamond Bar Boulevard downslope of Lots 8 to 20, will be
visible after development. Both fill slopes will be approximately
150 feet high. A smaller fill slope, 110 feet high, will also be
visible along Diamond Bar Boulevard, downslope of Lots 2 to 5.
With the Response to Comments Alternative, the residences will
shift closer to and contiguous to Diamond Bar Boulevard and the on-
site access road. The proposed entrance road to the site, at Tin
Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard, will require cutting through the
existing slope bank similar to proposed VTTM No. 52267. A large
cut slope, approximately 105 feet higher than the Diamond Bar
Boulevard's existing elevation, on the north side of the on-site
access road will be visible from Diamond Bar Boulevard. On the
entrance road's south side, six residences are proposed paralleling
and approximately 50 feet east of and 20 to 30 feet above Diamond
Bar Boulevard. Three large engineered fill slopes will be visible
after development of the Alternative. One will be located along
the southern edge of the development area in the same location
identified for the proposed map; howerver, it extends further to
the east than the proposed map. The manufactured slope height will
be approximately 80 feet (compared to 150 feet for the proposed
map). The second engineered slope is along Diamond Bar Boulevard
adjacent to the on-site access road with a height of approximately
105 feet; this slope is higher and wider than the slope in this
part of the proposed map. The third manufactured slope will occur
in the north -central portion of the development area to accommocate
the remedial grading (buttress/keyway emplacement) needed for the
Alternative. This manufactured slope condition will cover less
area and be somewhat less visible then the remedial grading for the
proposed map. More residential development and manufactured slope
area will be visible from Diamond Bar Boulevard than with the
proposed map.
TRAFFIC/CIRCULATION:
Traffic study was prepared and incorporated into the draft EIR for
VTTM Nos. 52267 and 52308 by O'Rouke Engineering in April 1997.
Due to the applicant's withdrawal of VTTM No. 52208 and the
resubmittal of VTTM No. 52267, an updated traffic study was
prepared (February 1998) addressing potential traffic impact of
VTTM No. 52267 by itself. The updated study indicated that VTTM
No. 52267 will generate 1,242 daily trips. Ninety-six will occur
in the a.m. peak hours and 131 trips in the p.m. peak hours based
on 9.55 vehicle trips per day, per dwelling unit. Also a queuing
analysis was conducted at the project's entry from Diamond Bar
Boulevard at Tin Drive. It was concluded that the project's design
provided adequate "stacking" distance on-site, thereby preventing
queuing on Diamond Bar Boulevard. However, turning movements will
require a traffic signal at the Diamond Bar Boulevard project
8
entrance, thereby mitigating traffic impacts to a level considered
less than significant.
The Response to Comments Alternative will generate 1,146 daily
trips based on a trip generation factor of 9.55 trips per dwelling
units. This is a reduction of 96 trips per day. Therefore, the
Alternative will not result in any new significant traffic impacts.
The Alternative will also require a traffic signal at the Diamond
Bar Boulevard project entrance, thereby mitigating traffic impacts
to a level considered less than significant.
AIR QUALITY•
The draft EIR indicates the proposed VTTM No. 52267 will result in
construction -related nitrogen oxides (NOx) and particulate matter
(PM10) impacts. The draft EIR identifies measures as conditions of
approval to minimize the impacts. However, the impact will not be
reduced to a level of less than significant. Therefore, a
Statement of Overriding Considerations is required.
The Response to Comments Alternative proposes reduced grading
quantities. Even with reduced grading quantities and the
implementation of mitigation measures, impacts will not be reduced
to a level of less than significant. Therefore, a Statement of
Overriding Considerations is also required.
VEHICULAR NOISE/CONSTRUCTION NOISE:
Noise studies were conducted for the draft EIR assessing potential
vehicular noise associated with the implementation of proposed VTTM
No. 52267 (also included VTTM No. 52308 not longer part of this
project). The projected noise increases at Diamond Bar Boulevard/
Tin Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard/Gold Rush Drive generally range
from 0.3 to 1.3 dbA (1 to 3 dbA is difficult to detect). At
Diamond Bar Boulevard/Tin Drive, in the eastward direction into the
site, the increase over existing noise levels will be 3.8 dbA for
the a. m. peak hour and 9.1 dbA for the p.m. peak hour. The
increase is large because there is no existing roadway in this
location. In all locations, the resulting noise levels will range
from 46.8 to 52.1 Leq which is less than the criteria for
determination of a significant impact.
The Response to Comments Alternative will result in noise increases
at the intersections of Diamond Bar Boulevard/Tin Drive and Diamond
Bar Boulevard/Gold Rush Drive. These noise levels will not be
greater than those associated with the proposed VTTM No. 52267.
However, the Alternative proposes residences adjacent to Diamond
Bar Boulevard that are not part of the proposed map. The proposed
residences along Diamond Bar Boulevard may experience noise levels
that exceed the City's noise standards. Therefore, the following
mitigation measure is suggested to reduce vehicular noise level to
9
less than significant in addition to mitigation measures identified
in the draft EIR for the proposed map:
Prior to the approval of the vesting tentative tract map,
residential units shall be located outside of the 45 dbA
exterior nighttime (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) and the 50 dbA exterior
daytime (7 a.m. to 10 p.m.) noise levels, or noise attenuation
shall be provided, as recommended in a noise study prepared by
a licensed acoustical engineer. Said determination shall be
made prior to the insurance of the first building permit.
Proposed VTTM No. 52267's development is expected to take two to
three years. Grading activities which generate the most noise will
take approximately four to six months. Existing residences will
probably experience noise levels exceeding the City's noise
standards, depending on the distance from operating construction
equipment. However, mitigation measures/ conditions of approval
within the draft EIR will reduce the noise levels. Furthermore,
construction noise is considered a short-term significant impact
that cannot be avoided. This impact remains significant and
unavoidable and will be addressed in the Statement of Overriding
Considerations.
The Response to Comments Alternative's development is expect to
take two to three years with grading activities lasting
approximately four to six months. With grading activities
occurring further from residences along Gold Rush Drive, these
residences may experience fewer construction noise related impacts.
Residences along Highcrest Drive and adjacent to Steep Canyon Road
could be impacted. As with the proposed map, the construction
noise impacts associated with the Alternative is considered
significant and unavoidable and will be addressed in the Statement
of Overriding Considerations.
CULTURAL/PALEONTOLOGICAL RESOURCES:
An archaeological records search and a walk -over survey of the VTTM
No. 52267 site was conducted and is referenced in the draft EIR.
Based on the archaeological assessment, there are no known
prehistoric or historic resources on-site. Because buried
resources cannot be detected and only 10 to 15 percent of the area
could be viewed during the walk -over survey and vegetative cover,
it is possible that buried artifacts or sites could be found during
construction activities and accidental damage could occur.
Therefore, mitigation measures, recommended in the draft EIR as
conditions of approval, will safeguard any artifacts undetected by
the walk -over survey. Additionally, the site is underlain by
middle to upper Miocene aged rock of the Soquel Member of the
Puente Formation. Grading, trenching and other earth moving
activities could significantly impact vertebrate, invertebrate, and
plant fossil remains. Therefore, mitigation measures recommended
10
in the draft EIR as condition of approval will safeguard the
possible referenced remains.
The Response to Comments Alternative site was reviewed with the
cultural and paleontology survey conducted for VTTM No. 52267.
Under the Alternative, impacts, mitigation measures and conditions
of approval will be similar or the same as with the proposed map,
thereby reducing the potential significant impacts to a level that
is considered less than significant.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the City has determined that an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is required for this project. Environmental Impact
Report NO. 97-2 (SCH No. 97031005), Volume I and II has been
prepared. The DEIR review period began July 10, 1997 and ended
August 25, 1997.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Continued public hearing notices for April 28, 1998 were mailed to
approximately 1,055 property owners within a 500 foot radius of the
project site on March 27, 1998.
CONCLUSION:
VTTM No. 52267 and the Response to Comments Alternative are
consistent with the location, number and type of development
identified in the General Plan for Planning Area 2. However, there
are several issues for the Planning Commission to consider when
reviewing both proposals. The issues are as follows:
1. The appropriateness of each proposals design when
considering configuration and lot and pad size and lot
shape;
2. Each proposals' compliance with the standards and
guidelines of the City's Hillside Management Ordinance;
3. Each proposal's development with respect to aesthetics
and views from off-site and on-site; the increase of rear
yard setbacks for residential units of perimeter lots to
reduce view and aesthetic impacts; and perimeter fencing
with maximum three feet high block walls with wrought
iron, glass or open work fencing on top of block wall to
reduce view and aesthetic impacts;
4. The project area is not a major wildlife corridor to
11
Tonner Canyon. However, the perimeter fencing should
allow for the movement of on-site wildlife;
5. The appropriateness of tree removal, mitigation measures
within the draft EIR and the transplanting of on-site
trees to other locations, on-site and/or off-site;
6. The removal of map and deed restrictions and in exchange
for their removal, what will be the significant benefit
to the City, as required by the General Plan. The
dedication of approximately 274 acres as public open
space (which does not include the manufactured slope) may
be considered a minimum significant benefit at a minimum.
The non-binding Memorandum of Understanding attached to
the project site and Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 dedicates
all of Lot 9 as public open space. The contribution to
the City's parks and acquisition fund could be considered
as part of a significant benefit to the City.
The Planning Commission's conclusions to these issues will assist
staff in crafting the final documents for this project.
The Planning Commission has serval available options:
1. Direct staff to prepare resolutions of approval;
2. Direct staff to prepare resolutions of denial; and
3. Continue the project to provide the applicant and staff
the opportunity to respond to any Planning Commission
issues.
RECOMMENDATION:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: open the public
hearing; receive comments on the project; close the public hearing
and begin deliberations on VTTM No. 52267 and its entitlements;
working toward a conclusion with recommendations for City Council's
consideration; and direct staff to prepare appropriate docu-
mentation in support of the Planning Commission's recommendations.
Staff is in support of the. 130 unit project subject to the
following: approximately 273 acres of the project area (excluding
the manufactured slopes and including the remaining natural
portions of Lots 4, 5 and 7 and all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 be
dedicated to the City as public open space; and a contribution to
the City's parks and acquisition fund.
Prepared by:
Ann L/g' s iate Planner
12
Attachments:
1. VTTM No. 52267 Comparative Environmental Evaluation: Proposed
Project and EIR Project Alternative;
2. Memorandum dated April 21, 1998 from BonTerra Consulting
regarding Results of Supplemental Tree Survey for EIR Project
Alternative;
3. Response to Comments documents dated September 23, 1997,
February 10, 1998 and March 24, 1998;
4. EIR Grading Alternative for development confined to Lot 6
(Exhibit);
5. Memorandum to Planning Commission dated April 23, 1998 with
correspondences received from residences regarding VTTM No.
52267; and
6. Planning Commission Staff Report for the February 10, 1998
meeting.
13
INTEROFFICE
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner 4 -
SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267
DATE: March 19, 1998
The proposed project was first presented to the Planning
Commission on February 10, 1998. At that time, the Commission
continued the public hearing to February 24, 1998 to allow the
applicant and staff time to respond to comments presented at the
public hearing and any Commission concerns. The applicant, in a
correspondence dated February 19, 1998, requested a continuance to
March 10, 1998. However, at the February 24, 1998 hearing, the
applicant verbally requested another continuance to March 24,
1998. The continuance request was to allow additional time to
respond to comments. In a correspondence dated March 18, 1998
(see attachments), the applicant is requesting another continuance
to April 14, 1998.
From the February 24, 1998 public hearing the comments, the
applicant was asked to prepare a "Response to Comments"
Alternative. The "Response to Comments" Alternative, provided by
the applicant, is presented as a 120 lot subdivision for the
eventual development of single family homes within a gated
community. Its location is generally on the ridgeline, extending
from the terminius of Highcrest Drive to Diamond Bar Boulevard at
Tin Drive, as anticipated by the City's General Plan. With this
alternative, all residential lots are confined to Lot 6 of Tract
No. 31479 which is without map and deed restrictions.
Additionally, the subdivision design of this Alternative varies
from the applicant's proposal of VTTM No. 52267.
With the information that has been provided to the City as of the
date of this memorandum, there is an attachment which compares
the "Response to Comments" Alternative prepared by the applicant
and the applicant's proposal of VTTM No. 52267. This Alternative
shows that development can be confined to Lot 6 of Tract No.
31479. However, this Alternative does not address the following:
the water tank's location or its impact on the subdivision design;
the Highcrest Drive extension to Diamond Bar Boulevard which
creates a single street through the development with grades as
steep as 14 percent creating unfavorable road characteristics;
that lot sizes within the Alternative plan are not consistent with
development surrounding the proposed map which are a minimum of
7,000 square feet; biological impacts which are being assessed
through a survey conducted by BonTerra (City's consultant) in
relationship to the Alternative's proposed development's proximity
to Diamond Bar Boulevard; the visual and aesthetic impact of
development adjacent to Diamond Bar Boulevard; issues related to
hydrology; and issues concerning geological impacts relating to
the northerly facing natural slope subjacent to Lot 18-20, 31, 32,
and 37-51, the locations and sizes of two buttress fills/shear key
that may be needed below Lot 101-104 and the natural slope
subjacent to Lots 55-65 which may necessitate a buttress fill
also.
when all the referenced issues are addressed, it may be possible
to direct and shape development that: complies with the General
Plan; is confined to Lot 6 of Tract No. 31479; reduces and
minimizes impacts; and does not require the removal of deed and
map restrictions.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
The continued public hearing notice of March 24, 1998 for this
project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune on March 3, 1998. Public hearing notices
were mailed to approximately 1055 property owners within a 500
foot radius of the project site on March 2, 1998.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the public
hearing to April 28, 1998.
Attachments:
1. "Response to Comments" Alternative;
2. Comparison of the proposed VTTM No. 52267 and the "Response
to Comments" Alternative;
3. Correspondence dated March 18, 1998 from Sun Cal Companies;
4. Staff report for the February 10, 1998 Planning Commission
meeting; and
5. Three correspondences from residents within the City.
COMPARISON (CONT'D.)
� a„
Raw grading outside the
Raw grading contained within
boundaries of Lot 6;
the boundaries of Lot 6;
Major slopes contoured/
Major slopes somewhat
landform grading;
contoured;
Major slopes pulled back
Major slopes pushed out to
from Diamond Bar Boulevard;
Diamond Bar Boulevard;
Buttress fill for out of
Buttress fill in the north
slopes north facing bedding
canyon to stabilize out of
plains, to the north
slope bedding plains (out of
(subjacent to Lots 18-20,
Lot 6's.boundaries);
31, 32, and 37-51);
Upper lots are approximately
20 feet lower;
Grading stays out of
Grading stays out of
Sycamore Canyon;
Sycamore Canyon;
Utilities
Utilities
Water and sewer demands will
Water and sewer demands will
be approximately equal for
be approximately equal for
both projects;
both.projects;
A water tank will be
A water tank site needs to
accommodated within the
be provided within the
project's boundaries on Lot
project's boundaries; this
.130;
will displace approximately
9 units;
Hydrology
Hydrology
Impacts and mitigation are
Additional hydrology
presented in the DEIR;
information will be
provided;
Project will incorporate
urban pollution basins to
Project will incorporate
catch runoff from
urban pollution basins to
residential lots and
catch runoff from
streets;
residential lots and
streets;
Tree Impacts
Tree Impacts
Impacts to Oak and Walnut
Biological survey._is being
trees are as presented in
prepared because of the
the DEIR
project's location adjacent
to Diamond Bar Boulevard;
Habitat corridor along
No habitat corridor provided
Diamond Bar Boulevard
along Diamond Bar Boulevard;
provided;
COMPARISON
VTTM NO. 52267
"RESPONSE TO COMMENTS"
ALTERNATIVE
Lots
Lots
130 residential lots;
120_residential lots;
Minimum lot and pad size -
Minimum lot size.- 6,000
6,000 square feet;
square feet;
Minimum pad size - 5,000
square feet;
Development begins approxi-
Development begins approxi-
mately 440 feet from Diamond
mately 45 feet from Diamond
Bar Boulevard;
Bar Boulevard;
Development will occur on
Development will occur only
approximately 1.18 acres of
within Lot 6;
Lot 5 and 4.33 acres of Lot
7;
No development will occur on
Lot 4;
The portions of Lots 5 and 7
Lot 6 does not have map and
where development is
deed restrictions;
proposed requires the
removal of map and deed
restrictions;
circulation
Circulation
Connects from the terminus
Connects from the terminus
at Highcrest Drive to
at Highcrest Drive to
Diamond Bar Boulevard in a
Diamond Bar Boulevard in a
circuitous route;
straight run, similar to
Gold Rush Drive;
Steepest portion of the
Steepest portions of the
street is at a 14 percent
street is 14 percent with
grade with no houses
houses fronting the street;.
fronting the street;
Creates protected neighbor-
Majority of the residential
hoods with 1-2 percent grade
units are on unprotected
cul-de-sacs dominating;
through street;
Proposes gated community to
Proposes gated community.to
deter through traffic;
deter through traffic;
Grading
Grading
1.8 million cubic yards of
1.4 million cubic yards of
earth, balanced on-site;
earth, balanced on-site;
3 d.YiSiOil Ul CVJC. Inc.
March 18. 1998 .
Ms. Ann Lungti
City of Diamond Bar .
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, Ca. 91765-4177
Re: Diamond Hills Ranch Tract 52267
Dear Ann:
Diamond Hills Ranch Partners would like to -request a continuance from the Planning
Commission session on March 24"'. We will continue the submittal of Tract 52267 with
the Planninb Commission on April 14, 1998.
If you have any questions, please call me. Thank you for your assistance on this matter.
Vett' Truly Yours,
Todd Kurtin
President, Diamond Hills Ranch Partners, Ltd.
5109 E. La Palma, Suitt D • Anaheim, CA 92807 • (714) 693-6700 • Fax (714) 693-6730
rE �` ?10YE1l3.�r:
March 15, .1998 F�Liu-. E��JG.. t'i�={i. C�%L Afl� .
fi- ff
'98 1'1?R 1 o P 1 :04 ` G"
Planning Division
Community and Development e
Services Department
City of Diamond Bar
21660 Copley Dr., Ste. 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Ref: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267.
Conditional Use Permit No. 98-3 and Oak Tree Permit No. 98-1
My name is Martin Shaw. 1 reside at 23403 East Clayhorn Drive within the City
of Diamond Bar and am a property owner within the 500 foot radius of the.
proposed development. I wish to comment on that development and its potential
impact on the tract that I live in:
This tract was the original Presley Parkside Estate development within Diamond
Bar, built between 1973 to 1975. 1 am the original owner of this property, having
moved in during the month of October 1974. 1 have seen considerable
development since that time. 1 recognize that it is the semi -rural "feeling" of
Diamond, Bar that has created its popularity, and that each succeeding
development wave wished to "bum the bridge" behind them and prevent further
development. I also recognize that it isn't realistic.
A development of 130 single-family residences will have no over-all substantial
impact on Diamond Bar infrastructure, and be scarcely noticeable in terms of
traffic in general.
It could however have a noticeable impact on our tract if you maintain the current
plan. It permits their egress to Diamond Bar Boulevard to become a
continuation of Tin Drive.
Residents of the proposed tract, who are heading north and east to the 57 and
60 freeways will turn right, without a problem to us. Those who wish to go south
or west on those freeways will turn left (you will definitely need to put up traffic
lights at Tin and Diamond Bar Blvd.) to Grand. This will bring them to two of the
most crowded intersections in Diamond Bar, due to the heavy traffic to and from
Chino hills — Grand and Diamond Bar Blvd. followed by Grand and Golden
Springs.
Some, possible many, may elect to continue on across Tin, through.one ,of the
two alternate routes I have noted on the attached ' maps : This would bring'them
to the intersection of Golden Springs. and Golden Prados, with an easy left tum
(a light that is very responsive to traffic on Golden'Prados) and a relativeiy*quick
right tum on Grand, to the freeways-_,,
While the reasonably anticipated volume of cars in a 130 resident tract have`a
low impact overall in Diamond Bar, they could become difficult in our tract during
rush hours. There are six cul-de-sacs along those two routes` (1 live;on one of -
them). `Getting in- and out may be more difficult
Further, the intersections 'of Tin (a street so small that its name on a map is.."
proportionally larger than it 'is) are a :major; part of the' two `alternate :routes
available to shoricut to Golden Springs It has a connection to Bridle Drive;` on
the left, and'ends at the juncture of Great Bend and Farb 6n Drive "all within
about six car lengths. You may need a light at that junction; and the possibility '
of it tying' up traffic back into Diamond Bar Blvd. is substantial.
I'm certain that actions could be taken to .discourage this: stop signs, speed
bumps, making the light at Golden Springs and Golden Prados -less responsive —
but this would inconvenience us as much, based on usage probably more, as it
would those using the route as a shortcut.
In 1978 to about 1980, 1 had the privilege of being on the first advisory planning
committee, for our portion of the County's general plan, when we were not yet a
city, and we had a Municipal Advisory Council. At the time we were finishing up
the plan, we were advised that someone intended to build what would have been
the biggest single track ever in the County, in the area that now comprises all
the.tracts that run from Leyland and Summit, north of Grand and east to the
County line.
The planned. Diamond Bar Blvd. egress for that enormous tract was to have
been at Tin Drive. The problems of our tract's streets becoming a shortcut for
the residents of that tract was discussed, but no actions were taken as their was
no actual filing. In the following recessionary period, the tract owner could not'
obtain adequate financing and the property was sold off in the many smaller
tracts that now exist there. When completed, the egress to Diamond Bar Blvd.
occurred at Goldrush Drive. This route did not develop into a major shortcut
through our tract as it curves substantially around on our side of Diamond Bar
Blvd. and has an appreciable grade to it. It isn't a significant time saver.
I would suggest, in viewing the map for the proposed tract, that Goldrush Drive
be looked at as a more viable alternative for this development as well. There is
no development at the Southeast corner of Goldrush and Diamond Bar Blvd. and
only minimal development near it; it should be feasible.
{ ♦ /- .1 �•
_ CIR•� -.. NLl �``t_ ,. 3 r \ OP qP a0 d O CHOLA
. _ � 0 Cl ` , �� O � a� L � � TFC ••�\ _ 'HE ti ! �:
r CIR
J J a' ` bEE a
{yjyFt / SO =DRYS CREEK o� ��`' f 04 .:ES z � tN ;YLVVA
N A``Et�5 q _ �� Rry D S�.Q3 M�� o is f to Rx
f _ RO
EAG W Y � ro GS 4 SSP �` 4t•K+T'. E •may
A-
3 oQ ? 2* OAP dam. i RMITC
f C7 > o MINK i
' 4' rte.. p� D F tRtC _ •/ 7
'.• j O O O �- A
o. 0 4 v
9 'o r - i Q�
I o E u `•.� o
Tit,9pO ��E0./ Ad` •O �C. O rF 9
000
t -
' � ''�• � F v .. op � �� '� � Jar E,po�%a• _ ;, }
F y •�
y j •- c s {"fi 6LSfTAS DR i-Q � + C ,h�pa` P �- *
I - INDUSTRY s ;. � o .� _.�o.`Q _ � ��.p4 °� oa `F4E?� L
1tHLS
rt ?4 :. 04 pRUSy ioM w' a-Cc h At
IR
t —:,._ ? ; z"6C►.T'"Q`' - z- Zo
Vkc 40
%'"•�... _c���+ �i O'P .; #.Aar...? o 'i• -� � { 8•-
i� N DR F
s ot,46.,
CANTON;
cl-
B
m - �o •-' 6�y �
xJ` DIAMOND N
c%Y
BARo ��
�' -- =tea.: +•, ?".rf 3 w a �b . W w ' -r u" --b 3� o-i`cC1
/, yV RIO LOBOS n RD00
� _ o 4b�
RD wN SpRlN W '
CN RDCWNAY 1;DR T ' FIRE STA. �7 _ ? ��hC
C1
V. Ll HALL r
MONUMENT Cii�NYON
us. Q V� Q. N ti DR I
O p tF l F 1 qGF U4 �o W4�4�P°�yCi o- P.O_
O .� c s 0 C b�Z
4pS ESE 4 �. gyp, - p0.AA
a t.Qt .. YdeE Gq 4T yEh b o
N1LL PIG, r u PARE S O '�2 yT`' +i^9 "`T CO({ '9{y� <O� AVE
��ni ,`�`4 �2QAll 'Mr X NTS}Vo w,u�ilrr OI
ata ;*�y d� cq�: 1y�• "K MJT o ` � ' T / dAx�c ' o\51
LnUWREt ,g cP
� ,aL
(go i s CP
4' �° c * q 1 �N � PAR7C 2 2 y ? 'OSE = m 9 �j• Sp OR
CT
4 CQ1 Z° Oy �L e'jJ�?` io . O I(.p x'" 'ti �•TiS, { �, i
otea' ��� o,0
l°J T{hT,y 4 ,� Glt• r'PO /PD
RO f �``•.F - 'P Q RZ° - D ' tr'
`fT °I- 1116 ° '� y 40 I _
4'D 1 OAF
°gThf't � SROKEN R IG \' \� — — — �/ / / M{ C � � o
R
Qf
6R
424 J o- Ory MFA�`u Cocwrxt' PARK
P U'413.., 51-0G.. EN,`!-- I+ rz h
'98 MAR -2 Al 1 :0NIIIS
N11P S1 1 11 #ON
_tY
We need your support!
Help stop the developers from destroying our lastopen hillsl
Developers are trying to build 130 houses on the open land east of Diamond
Bar Blvd., south of Goldrush Drive and north of Steep Canyon_Rd. =If this project _
is approved by OUR City Council, we will be subjected to 3 years of di st and :.
pollution while the hillsare'flattened and the'canyon is filled .They will be moving
approximately 1.8 mMon cub*c ds of dirt includin uce of exnlo4wf resulting
insignificant degradation'of au guaLty s tE ` ` r .
130 new homes means more traffic on our already overcrowded streets Tin
Drive will be extended to"Iii crest Dr. `and a traffic si al installed at 'Cin Drive
and Diamond Bar Blvd.: We do NOT need more cars on our streets and
signals to control traffic. The City Council should be finding Ways to reduce - -
the existing traffic nightmare, not contribute to it -
The "Country Living" that is the reason most of us chose to live in
Diamond Bar is slowly being taken from us. This is just one more example.
These are the last untouched hills left in our city. There are deer and many other
sensitive wildlife that live in this areawhich will be forced from their homes. More
than 800 oak and walnut trees will be cut down.
How can you help? The only way to stop the developers is for the citizens of
Diamond Bar to express their opposition at the Planning Commission Meeting.
The first meeting was Feb. 10, 1998, and sadly there were only a few concerned
citizens to speak out. We need your help!!!!! Please come to the next meeting
on Feb. 24, 1998, at 7:f.:0pm.
Don't be fooled. Your City Council may not be looking out for your best
interest. When notices were distributed about the first meeting, only residents
within 500 foot radius of the development site were notified. This was after the
Planning Commission agreed to notifying residence to at least a 1,000 foot radius.
Did they simply forget? Some residents who live on 1`Lghcrest (now a cul-de-sac)
did not receive notice of this proposed development, which will turn their street
into a thoroughfare. Coincidence? Oversight? Maybe, Maybe not. You decide.
Come to the meeting. Help us speak out.
Public Hearing: Tuesday, February 24,1998 coo
South Coast Air Quality Auditorium (AQMD Bldg.)
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA (Gateway Business Center) C
For more information call the City of Diamond Bar (909) 396-5676 v
Ask about VTTM52267
� i
to
To: - City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission
City of Diamond Bar Manager
City Consul of Diamond Bar
From:��USQA A MAR 1N
Address: ��`�5Q GOLD njt,�T AVF
DNAMOND MRL& ID&
C c ---�D s
'SB I•I?P, -C ? :41
Subject: VTTM 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of Diamond Bar. Official
We, -10 E N E1 6 U [AOR NG residents of Diamond Bar are against the
proposed plan to build the land on Diamond Bar Blvd. also known as VTTM 52267. The
following are some of the reasons why you should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during construction.
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust fumes.
3. Destruction of natural beauty. by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
_ 5. Increase of number of cars in already over congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
We understand that the builder can not build his current plan unless you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. I ask you not to
remove this `Deed Restriction" or allow any type of building construction on this land.
We came to live in Diamond Bar for it's open spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
has become less attractive as more congestion has been added until it Iooks like down town Los
Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this to go on.
Sincerely
• �r�x��e. � � n . wn
KeA
J
'7P7aIJER$ `'T,V I ♦
�//��--ttESDALE CrT E�Fy 3 v- O OP QO / O r CHOLA p - N�
[T �, ` , QP , O q� �� • f /JFITC/
v' V
.41 DRY CREEK c,`�o� i �� vee n WANG
`:P•� _} O� e D F4D4 ,: o' 7 9! 2 � �• RD i ,
JU VAN CU
z-Zi O ^X+
O
_ o o
- O x L �i_y.', ~ Q AVE E -..;� p ,Z y`' (-r 'qC ~' g�E`I•`aS X
*PO- 'QQ.Soa p13�C�fo 't+
f `s- C4SETA5 DR _ O O v o4i� ` �j. ^ p�
' INDUSTRY*,+;... = oQ "1 a 4 �4 oR _ �,+rte
.IL :aOma! -O �Q..r:' ! .�T` Y _ * ' fy o �� .• o VEM PL_ •i.��
IORSEER Ysrq,Cb¢F c• SEP D +' "C
HE SCF1 - O o :. P - ,{ •�
y.4D.
CoqE •pt I F.�
OL oQ `L m
��
a
LLB
wL x < o D Pte` m 6 i
a
i xs{4�AY a °DIAMOND EP CAN -,` 9�i•
P_WiBAR
s� - Y.� "Yy+ +i#�J:O � w a E O W W ' � � '-'o "� " r � •4E
RIO LOBOS o RD 2t"�' N z Y ' 3 as Cr
RG mQ�O o.,rr3 � 2 o rnNG CR - `2
VO jQA�( �� IQ - RD a+%N SPREN LN i
G 1
CHT
DO+`JNAY ° i Lio+EST FIRF STA. 2 ? SAS! C i w
2 ♦.CITY HALL ^,'^•• a f P tit 7 UB- OSP V2�4 -f �o MONUMENTCAN" -c>•t-
Z
*y� ,3N '+ j - •{4, a
j qGg .oc r Fi4s '�7 v.o. 0OcT JG>? ! avG T
q W `"o o Gy�Or LFA
pO E -f tAA
.f w a�'
RRE
�lcr�p R O{A PRAL M41TK Nj OTO SLJMIWT
' � �_ � J�, G♦ � .c c pR z /wrD. sar. ti� ��' D ? Ry O �.
n Z �q��, N� Mfi b „DO o y 'P y VlF1y BARK-. "aS 4 STA
KmbUWrAW ALAUWREI CN 4
``( 0d��i�`�Q� Q v e* `,�5 3 �'� NN •T �a PArd C. zo i � c4 F �•
�fF E.PJi- `♦E i� PARXW 2 c� O,L°Ti A 9 �,r SIRS DR J -k a
5 cf' f: � i o{ � . q it �C. �e - � tj{�, •4�i c, �c.J,
7NTA OAF J'NJ aa,•`' O, qo /QO o
A F tH 14A
.f���,, S
Zogt q `�Nti �1y ' f /. — — _J z F I
1 70 r $ t � Sp RD
�jyF t LMS gApKV4TWIG C
RD
Lo A* ER
R R F�
OM
ry EADOW d rowrxr PARK / *o
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner V—
SUBJECT:
Vesting Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 52267,
Conditional Use Permit No. 98-03, Oak Tree Permit
No. 98-01 and Environmental Impact Report (EIR)
No. 97-2
DATE: February 19, 1998
The referenced project was presented to the Planning Commission on
February 10, 1998. At that time, the public hearing was opened
and comments were received on the project. The public hearing was
continued to February 24, 1998. The continuance's purpose was to
allow time for the applicant and staff to respond to comments
presented at the public hearing and any Commission concerns.
In a correspondence dated February 19, 1998, the applicant
requested a continuance to March 10, 1998.
RECOMMENDATION:
The applicant has requested and staff recommends that the Planning
Commission continue this project to March 10, 1998.
Attachment:
1. SunCal Companies correspondence dated February 19, 1998.
I
February 19,1998
Ann Lungu
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, California 91765-4177
Re: Diamond Hills Ranch
Dear Ann:
Diamond Hills Ranch Partners would like to request a continum (. e from t rlc Planr is g
Commission session on February 246. We will continue the su) nittal 1-11 la ct 5:': 67
with the Planning Commission on March 10`x.
If you should have any questions or comments please contact m aad I iv 1 be hap, y tc
assist you -
Very Truly Yours,
�j 7�7�
Todd Kurtin
Principal
TK:ew
C -
S 1IlU F T a palma CnirA r] • anah�ir» ! A 07RfYl f7111 !.0 Lf.7f1A . F.... 171AN 402-/C71A
TOTAL P.02
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNWG COMMSSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.3
REPORT DATE: February 2, 1998
MEETING DATE: February 10, 1998
CASE/FILE NUMBER: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No.
52267 (VTTM No. 52267), Conditional
Use Permit No. 98-03, Oak Tree
Permit No. 98-01 and Environmental
Impact Report No. 97-2, Volume I and
II for VTTM No. 52267.
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
Proposes to: subdivide 65 acres of a
339.3 acre site into 141 lots for
the development of 130 detached
single family residences; remove and
replace oak and walnut trees; and
remove the map restriction on a
portion of the 65 acres. The balance
of the 339.3 acre site (274.3 acres)
and all or a portion of Lot 9 of
Tract No. 31479 will be dedicated to
the City of Diamond Bar.
VTTM No. 52267 is generally located
east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
north of Grand Avenue, at the
extension of Highcrest Drive.
PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership
5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite D,
Anaheim, CA 92807
APPLICANT: Todd Kurtin
SunCal companies
5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Suite D,
Anaheim, CA 92807
BACKGROUND:
The property owner, Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership and applicant,
suncal Companies are requesting approval to: subdivide 65 acres of
1
a 339.3 acre site into 141 lots (130 lots for the development of
130 detached single family residences, 10 open space lots and one
reserved for the Walnut Valley Water District); remove and replace
oak and walnut trees; remove the map restriction; and certify the
Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 97-2 which has been
prepared to evaluate the impacts the project may have upon the
environment and identify mitigation measures that will reduce the
effects of any negative impacts. The balance of the 339.3 acre
site (274.3 acres) and all or a portion of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479
will be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar.
VTTM No. 52267 consists of one contiguous property (identified as
Lots 4 through 7 of Tract 31479). It is generally located east of
Diamond Bar Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue. The General Plan
land use designation is Planning Area -2 (see attachment) which
includes Lot 9 (75 acres) of Tract No. 31479. The project site is
within the Residential Planned Development -Minimum Lot Size -20,000
Square Feet -2 Units Per Acre (RPD -20,000-2U) Zone. Generally, the
following zones surround VTTM No. 52267: to the north and east is
the RPD -20,000-2U Zone; to the south is the Single Family
Residence -Minimum Lot Size 40,000 Square Feet and the RPD -20,000-2U
Zones; and to the west is the Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot
Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000) Zone. These zones consist
predominately of single-family residential development and vacant
land.
VTTM No. 52267 along with VTTM No.52308 was presented to the
Planning Commission on September 23, 1997. The applicant withdrew
both projects on October 3, 1997. On January 8, 1998, the
applicant submitted VTTM No. 52267 as being presented in this staff
report.
ANALYSIS:
PROJECT OVERVIEW:
The project site is predominantly vacant with characteristics such
as slopes and ridges, and natural vegetation including oak and
walnut trees. It is distinguished by a northeasterly trending
ridge running through the site. An eastwest trending ridge joins
the main ridge on the north side. A large northeasterly trending
canyon dominates the project's southern side. Small canyons and
draws exist off of the ridgelines. Located on the project site are
utility easements associated with flood control, water, and
electrical services.
As previously stated, VTTM No. 52267 is part of Tract No. 31479,
Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Development will occur on Lot 6 and
portions of Lot 5 and 7. The proposed development plan for VTTM
No. 52267 consists of 141 lots. One hundred and thirty lots are
proposed for the development of detached single family homes within
a proposed private gated community. Lot 131 is reserved for the
Walnut Valley Water District. Lots "A" through "J" are designated
as open space (natural open space and manufactured slopes). The
2
proposed Lot and manufactured slopes are clustered on approximately
65 acres of the 339.3 acres site. The residences will be located
along the proposed extension of Highcrest Drive to the intersection
of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Tin Drive. Two access points are
proposed. From the east, access will be provided from an extension
of Highcrest Drive and from the west, access will be provided from
Diamond Bar Boulevard.
Residences are proposed to be constructed on lots ranging from
6,230 (Lot 15) to 26,560 (Lot 111) square feet with an average lot
size of approximately 10,900 square feet. The gross density is 0.4
dwelling units per acre (130 du/339.3 ac) with a net density of
approximately 2.06 dwelling units per acre (130 du/63 ac). Pad
areas will range in size from 5,850 (Lot 98) to 19,150 (Lot 2)
square feet. The proposed residences will range in size from 2,800
to 3,300 square feet. The proposed density and anticipated homes
are compatible with surrounding developments.
The Walnut Valley Water District has two planned water reservoir
sites within the VTTM No. 52267's development area. These
reservoirs are not needed to serve the project. However, the
reservoirs are needed to meet future water service requirements.
One reservoir can be accommodated within the proposed residential
development's boundaries. The project's applicant has indicated a
desire to locate the second reservoir, within the project's
boundaries but outside the grading limits for the residential
units.
OPEN SPACE:
As stated above, VTTM No. 52267 is part of Tract No. 31479, Lots 4,
5, 6, 7 and 9. Lot 6, where the majority of development will
occur, is 49.76 acres. Lot 5 (Lot "B" of VTTM No. 52267) is 130.84
acres. Development will occur on 1.18 acres, thereby leaving
129.66 acres as public open space. Lot 7 (Lot "A" of VTTM No.
52267) is 42.63 acres. Development will occur on 4.33 acres,
thereby leaving 38.3 acres as public open space. Lot 4 (Lot "C" of
VTTM No. 52267) consist of 116.13 acres. The entire Lot 4 (Lot "C"
of VTTM No. 52267) will remain public open space. The proposed
development plan with its clustering of residential units retains
the vast majority of , the tract in permanent public open space. All
or a portion of Lot 9 will be dedicated to the City as permanent
public open space by the applicant.
MAP RESTRICTION REMOVAL:
Pursuant to the General Plan, VTTM No. 52267 is within Planning
Area -2. General Plan Objective 1.6 states "Consistent with the
Vision Statement, provide flexibility in the planning of new
development as a means of encouraging superior land use by means
such as open space and public amenities". Strategy 1.6.1 states "
A master plan shall be developed for each area of the City
designated as a Planning Area". The description and contemplated
land use designation for Planning Area -2 is defined as follows:
"PA -2 is comprised of approximately 400 vacant acres located
in two non-contiguous areas. Sub -Area A consists of approxi-
mately 325 acres located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard, north
of Grand Avenue, south of Gold Rush Drive, at the terminus of
Highcrest Drive. Sub -Area B consists of approximately 75
acres located east of Pantera Park. Appropriate land uses for
this 400 + acre non-contiguous area include a maximum 130
single family detached residential dwelling units concentrated
along the anticipated extension of Highcrest Drive, a minimum
of 75 percent of the total 400 acre area set aside as dedicat-
ed open space. A two acre area located at the southeast
corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Gold Rush Drive should be
developed for public facilities or commercial uses. In order
to minimize environmental impacts and minimize clustering,
residential lots shall range in size from 6,000 to 10,000
square feet."
VTTM No. 52267's proposes a 130 unit development envelope of 65.4
within PA -2. These units will be clustered on approximately 30
acres and concentrated along the anticipated extension of Highcrest
Drive. Lot 131, reserved for the Walnut Valley Water District, is
2.4 acres. Lots "A", "B", and "C" are natural open space and not
within the proposed development envelope. Lots "D" through "J",
proposed as manufactured, landscaped slopes are included in the
development envelope.
Pursuant to the General Plan's Land Use Element, Strategy 1.5.4,
vacant land burden with deed or map restrictions shall be subjected
to public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council
before any action can be taken to remove the restrictions.
However, the restrictions' removal must be of a significant benefit
to the City. As previously stated, the proposed map is part of
Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Tract No. 31479. Lots 4, 5, 7 and 9 of
Tract 31479 have a map restriction that grants the City the right
to prohibit the construction of residential structure on these
lots. The development envelope for VTTM No. 52267 includes the
following: all of Lot 6 which does not have the map restriction;
portions of Lots 5 and 7 which has the map restriction; and no
development will occur on Lot 4. In order to retain the proposed
development envelope, the map restriction removal is required to
comply with General Plan Strategy 1.5.4. Therefore, in the spirit
of Strategy 1.5.4, the applicant proposes to dedicate to the City
the remaining undeveloped 274 acres of VTTM No. 52267 and all or a
portion of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 (PA -2).
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-03/ GRADING:
Development of VTTM No. 52267 would result in significant topo-
graphical changes associated with grading activities. The project
site has 71.9 percent of its natural slopes at 35 percent or more,
is in an urban hillside management area, and proposes residential
development. As such and pursuant to Code (Section 22.56.215),
approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required for this project
because slopes are in excess of' 10 percent. The Conditional Use
Permit's purpose is to protect resources contained within a
4
hillside management area which may result in or have the potential
for environmental degradation and to the extent possible, maintain
and enhance the remaining biotic resources and natural topography
while allowing for limited controlled development.
The Hillside Management Ordinance's guidelines and standards are
required to ensure that development will complement the character
and topography of the site. City policy requires the application
of good hillside planning and the use of the landform grading and
revegetation concept. Furthermore, exceptions to these standards
with appropriate findings and facts require a Conditional Use
Permit. These guidelines and standards (specified in Section 8 of
the City's Hillside Management Ordinance) are applicable to the
proposed project due to grades in excess of 10 percent.
The proposed grading quantities are approximately 1.8 million cubic
yards of cut and 1.8 million cubic yards of fill. Grading will be
balanced on site. The proposed grading concept utilizes landform
grading (series of non-linear concave and convex forms with varying
slope gradients) where feasible. Therefore, the proposed project
is consistent with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance.
However, it is inconsistent with the General Plan and Hillside
Management Ordinance in relationship to the project's visibility
along the prominent ridgelines of the site.
In general, soils materials will be cut from higher areas and used
as fill to create level area for buildings. Two large engineering
fills encompass the majority of the earthwork required for the
proposed project. One is located along the southern edge of the
development area, below Lot 112 through 130. The other is located
along the northern portion of the development, below Lots 9 through
20. Additional smaller fills are located throughout the
development area. Engineering features such as shear keys and
buttress fills have been incorporated into the grading design and
will be reviewed and approved by the City. The maximum depth of
cut is approximately 80 feet and a maximum fill depth is
approximately 180 feet. Engineered slopes onsite do not exceed 2:1
(horizontal:vertical) and are required to meet the City's
requirements for stability.
In compliance with the Hillside Management Ordinance's standards
and guidelines, the proposed project's grading will: follow the
natural topography of the site, where feasible; where large visible
cuts and fills are proposed, landform grading will be utilized;
concave and convex forms will be utilized throughout the site;
slopes will not be linear in plan view; manufactured slope
gradients will vary from 2:1, 3:1 and 4:1; lot shapes will vary;
pads will maintain irregular configurations; trees will be
concentrated in concave areas, similar as in nature; and street
slopes to the east will remain in their natural, undisturbed state.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES/OAK TREE PERMIT:
The VTTM No. 52267 site does not function as an important regional
wildlife corridor because it is entirely surrounded by development.
5
Local corridors likely occur between the northern and southern end
of the site but these are restricted to use by the resident animal
species.
The project site provides potentially suitable habitat for a
variety of sensitive wildlife species. However, due to the low
sensitivity of these species, the limited amount of anticipated
impacts to these species are considered adverse but not
significant. Additionally, no coastal California gnatcatchers were
observed.
Base on a several focused surveys for sensitive plant species, no
plants listed as sensitive are known to occur within VTTM No.
522671's development area. However, the site does contain the
following plant communities and their impact area due to
development: coastal live oak woodland - 9.6 acres; walnut
woodland- 0. 0 acres, coastal sage scrub - 18.7 acres; scrub oak
chaparral - 8.5 acres; Mexican elderberry woodland - 1.1 acres; and
annual grassland - 27.7 acres. Approximately 410 coastal live oak
trees and 30 walnut trees will be removed and replaced as a result
of the proposed development.
Pursuant to the General Plan, and the City's Oak Tree Permit
process, the developer shall provide for the replacement and
relocation of oak and walnut trees. Therefore, oak and walnut
trees removed during the project's implementation are subject to
replacement. Walnut trees and oak trees will be replaced at a 2:1
ratio. To ensure the replacement of ecosystem values and not just
of trees, native understory plant species will be included in the
project's Mitigation Monitoring Program. Replacement walnut and
oak trees will consist of varying sizes. Details concerning the
exact quantity, sizes and off-site locations will be incorporated
into a Biological Resource Management Plan which will be reviewed
and approved by the City before the issuance of any City permits.
The conceptual landscape exhibit suggests a revegetation concept.
This concept appears to located the trees in a soldier like
fashion. Pursuant to the Hillside Management Ordinance, the plan
will be revised so that trees be concentrated in concave areas,
similar as in nature.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) incorporates the following:
avoidance of approximately 273 acres of a variety of plant
communities; protection througl, a Biological Resource Management
Plan of habitat replacement and revegetation and their protection
during construction; and restoration of coastal sage scrub plant
species and oak and walnut tree replacement. MMP will include
measures for habitat replacement and revegetation, protection
during construction and performance standards for habitat
replacement, maintenance and monitoring. These measures also
include appropriate permits from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
California Department of Fish and Game. Through the MMP and
appropriate permits, the biological impacts can be mitigated to a
level that is considered less than significant.
6
AIR QUALITY•
Preparation of the project site for development will produce two
types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction
equipment and fugitive dust from soil movement. These construction
emissions are considered short-term and will terminate upon the
project's completion. However, the proposed project's development
will result in significant air quality impacts related to Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOx) and fugitive dust (PM 10). As a result, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of the project
against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts must .be
adopted by the City.
TRAFFIC•
A traffic study was prepared for VTTM No.52267. The project site,
with the proposed development, will generate approximately 1,242
trips on an average weekday.
A signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of Tin
Drive at Diamond Bar Boulevard. The result indicated that a
traffic signal is warranted by 1999. Implementation of this signal
would be the responsibility of this project. With the imple-
mentation of the signal, the proposed project will not result in
any significant traffic impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA), the City has determined that an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) is required for this project. Environmental Impact
Report NO. 97-2 (SCH No. 97031005), Volume I and II has been
prepared.
The purpose of an EIR is to provide objective planning and
environmental information. The information is utilized to guide
and assist the City staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and
the public in the consideration and evaluation of the potential
environmental implication that may result from the proposed
project's development.
The EIR's preparation is based on the Initial Study completed by
the City. The Initial Study Questionnaire identifies areas where
the project may produce an impact of significance. The proposed
project was deemed to have impacts which necessitated the pre-
paration of the EIR document currently before the Planning
Commission.
The procedure for the EIR's preparation includes the distribution
of a Notice Of Preparation (NOP) to agencies who have or may have
responsibility for providing a service to the project or may be
impacted by the project's implementation. The NOP requests, within
30 days, that responsible agencies provide the lead agency with
7
specific detail about the scope and content of the environmental
information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory
responsibility which must be included in the Draft EIR. The EIR is
then prepared using the Initial Study and comments received in
response to the NOP to guide the analysis in areas of particular
interest, although the EIR is not limited to these areas.
As soon as the "Draft" EIR is completed, a Notice of Completion and
Availability is filed with the Office of Planning and Research.
The DEIR is reviewed through the State review process handled by
the State Clearinghouse. The lead agency will distribute the DEIR
to responsible agencies requesting a copy.
The Notice of Completion and Availability begins the DEIR's 30 to
45 day review period depending on the nature, local versus regional
significance of the document. VTTM No. 52267's review period began
July 10, 1997 and ended August 25, 1997.
At the conclusion of the public comment phase, the comments are
responded to and included in the DEIR reviewed by the decision
makers. Certification of the "Final" EIR is attained when the
legislative body gives the document acknowledgement that it
adequately identifies potential impacts, measures to mitigate those
impacts, and also impacts which may occur as a result of the
project but are unable to be mitigated. Additionally, a Mitigation
Monitoring Program (MMP) is part of the "Final" EIR. CEQA requires
public agencies to set up monitoring programs for the purpose of
ensuring compliance with those mitigation measures adopted as
conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects identified in the EIR. The MMP is adopted at
the time of the EIR's certification. For substantial or potential-
ly substantial environmental effects which can not be mitigated to
a level of insignificant, a Statement of Overriding Considerations
is prepared. CEQA requires the decision makers to balance the
proposed project's benefits against its unavoidable environmental
risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the
proposed project's benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be
considered acceptable. For proposed VTTM No. 52267 a Statement of
Overriding Consideration will be prepared for air quality,
construction noise and aesthetic resources.
The public hearing is a forum in which the City's residents and
surrounding communities can discuss the environmental issues
related to the proposed project's development. At the conclusion
of the public hearing, the City will respond to these issues.
The City has hired BonTerra Consulting for the preparation of this
project's EIR. A presentation of the DEIR will be provided to the
Planning Commission by Tom Smith of BonTerra Consulting.
8
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin
and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on January 21, 1998. Public
hearing notices were mailed to approximately 929 property owners
within a 500 foot radius of the project site on January 20, 1998.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public
hearing, receive comments on the project and its requested
entitlements and continue the public hearing.
Prepared by:
Ann J. Lungu, ssociate Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft EIR No. 97-2 (SCH No. 97031005), Volume I and II dated
July 1997 (previously transmitted to the Planning Commission);
2. Responses to Comments dated September 1997;
3. General Plan, Land Use Element, Page I-17 (b), Planning Area
2.
4. Exhibit:
VTTM No. 52267;
Landscape Mitigation;
Slope Analysis Map;
Slope Profile Map;
Cut and Fill Map;
5. Applications; and
6. Correspondence date January 21, 1998.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner q&)P
SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map Nos. 52267 and 5238
DATE: October 6, 1997
The above referenced project was present to the Planning
Commission on September 23, 1997. At that time, the Planning
Commission continued the project's public hearing to October 14,
1997.
Attached is a correspondence, dated October 3, 1997 from the
project's applicant. The correspondence states that the applicant
is withdrawing the project.
Attached:
1. Correspondence dated October 3, 1997 from SunCal Companies.
October 3, 1997 (*VIA FACS][MDLE: 909/861-3117*)
Mr. James DeStefano
Director of Community Development
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Re: Diamond FEL's Rmch
Dear Tun:
Diamond Hills Ranch Partners, L.L.P. requests that Tract 52267 and 52308 be withdrawn from
consideration by the Planning Commission. We will reapply at a future date.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Very trul
WAZ
Todd Kurtin
President
T Aek
550 W. Oranvetharpe • Placentia. CA 92870 • (714) 996-6700 • Fax (714) W-1455
1
zoo 'd SSfii9666i ='131 IVON11S 09:SI 118,0:6.50-'100
a
Z) division
of CVC.
InG.,
October 3, 1997 (*VIA FACS][MDLE: 909/861-3117*)
Mr. James DeStefano
Director of Community Development
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
Re: Diamond FEL's Rmch
Dear Tun:
Diamond Hills Ranch Partners, L.L.P. requests that Tract 52267 and 52308 be withdrawn from
consideration by the Planning Commission. We will reapply at a future date.
If you should have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Very trul
WAZ
Todd Kurtin
President
T Aek
550 W. Oranvetharpe • Placentia. CA 92870 • (714) 996-6700 • Fax (714) W-1455
1
zoo 'd SSfii9666i ='131 IVON11S 09:SI 118,0:6.50-'100
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COAD41SSION
Staff Report
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
7.3
REPORT DATE:
September 11, 1997
MEETING DATE:
September 23, 1997
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
Vesting Tentative
Tract Maps No.
52267, Conditional
Use Permit No.
96-13, and Oak Tree
Permit No. 96-3;
General Plan Amendment No. 96-2,
Vesting No. 52308,
Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-16 and Oak Tree Permit
No. 96-5; and
Environmental Impact Report No. 97-
2, Volume I and II for VTTM No.
52267 and VTTM No. 52306
APPLICATION REQUEST: Proposes to: change the General Plan
Land Use density for Planning Area
2; subdivide 65 acres of a 339.3
acre site into 132 lots for the de-
velopment of 130 detached single
family residences; subdivide 36.7
acres of an 86.3 acres site into 60
lots for the development of 60
detached single family residences;
remove and replace oak and walnut
trees; and remove map restrictions.
Additionally, the request has the
potential for the acquisition of
publicly owned property.
PROPERTY LOCATION: VTTM No. 52267 is generally located
east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
north of Grand Avenue;
VTTM No. 52308 is generally located
northeast of Pantera Drive and South
of Bowcreek Drive.
PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership
550 W. Orangethorpe Avenue
Placentia, CA 92870
1
APPLICANT: SunCal Companies
550 W. Orangethorpe Avenue
Placentia, CA 92870
BACKGROUND:
The property owner, Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership and applicant,
SunCal Companies are requesting approval to: change the General
Plan Land Use density for Planning Area 2; subdivide 65 acres of a
339.3 acre site into 132 lots and three open space lots for the
development of 130 detached single family residences; subdivide
36.7 acres of an 86.3 acres site into 60 lots for the development
of 60 detached single family residences; remove and replace oak and
walnut trees; remove map restrictions; and certification of Draft
Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 97-2 which has been prepared
to evaluate the impacts the project may have upon the environment
and identify mitigation measures that will reduce the effects of
any negative impacts. Additionally, the approval request has the
potential for the acquisition of publicly owned property.
The proposed project consists of two non-contiguous properties,
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267 (VTTM No. 52267) and Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 52308 (VTTM No. 52308). VTTM No. 52267 is
generally located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and north of Grand
Avenue. VTTM No. 52308 is generally located northeast of Pantera
Drive and South of Bowcreek Drive.
The General Plan land use designation for both properties is
Planning Area 2. Both properties are zoned Residential Planned
Development -Minimum Lot Size -20,000 Square Feet -2 Units Per Acre
(RPD -20,000-2U). Generally, the following zones surround VTTM No.
52267: to the north, east is the RPD -20,000-2U Zone; to the south
is the Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 40,000 Square Feet
and the RPD -20,000-2U Zones; and to the west is the Single Family
Residence -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000) Zone.
VTTM No. 52308 is generally surrounded by the following zones: to
the north is the R-1-8,000 Zone; to the south is the RPD -20,000-2U
Zone; to the west is the RPD -20,000-2U and R-1-8,000 Zones; and to
the East is the Heavy Agricultural -1 Unit Per Acre (A-2-1) Zone.
These zones consist predominately of single-family residential
development and vacant land.
7.3 a) ANALYSIS OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267:
PROJECT OVERVIEW:
The project site for VTTM No. 52267 is predominantly vacant. It is
characterized by slopes and ridges, and natural vegetation
including oak and walnut trees. The site is distinguished by a
northeasterly trending ridge running through the site. An eastwest
trending ridge joins the main ridge on the north side. A large
2
northeasterly trending canyon dominates the project's southern
side. Small canyons and draws exist off of the ridgelines. Also
located on the project site are utility easements associated with
flood control, water, and electrical services.
VTTM No. 52267 is part of Tract No. 31479, Lots 4, 5, 6 and 7.
Development will occur on Lot 6 and portions of Lot 5 and 7. The
proposed development plan for VTTM No. 52267 consists of 132 lots
and Lots "A", "B" and "C" designated as open space lots (natural
open space and manufactured slopes). Of the 132 lots, 130 lots are
proposed for single family residences. Lot 131 is owned by the
Walnut Valley Water District and Lot 132 is cited for. community
facilities. The 130 lots will eventually be developed with
detached single family dwelling units clustered on approximately 65
acres of the 339.3 acres site. The development is proposed as a
private, gated community. The residences will be located along the
proposed extension of Highcrest Drive to an intersection with
Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive. Two access points are
proposed. From the east, access will be provided from an extension
of Highcrest Drive and from the west, access will be provided from
Diamond Bar Boulevard.
Residences will be constructed on lots ranging from 6,000 to 26,000
square feet with an average lot size of 10,900 square feet. The
gross density is 0.4 dwelling units per acre (130 du/339.3 ac) with
a net density of approximately 2.06 dwelling units per acre (130
du/63 ac). Pad areas will range in size from 5,850 to 19,150
square feet. The residences will range in size from 2,800 to 3,300
square feet. The proposed density is compatible with surrounding
developments.
The Walnut Valley Water District has two planned water reservoir
sites within the VTTM No. 52267's development area. These
reservoirs are not needed to serve the project. However, the
reservoirs are needed to meet future water service requirements.
One reservoir can be accommodated with in the proposed residential
development's boundaries. The project's applicant has indicated a
desire to locate the second reservoir, within the project's
boundaries but outside the grading limits for the residential
units.
OPEN SPACE•
As stated above, VTTM No. 52267 is part of Tract No. 31479, Lots 4,
5, 6 and 7. Lot 6, where the majority of development will occur,
is 49.76 acres. Lot 5 (Lot "B" of VTTM No. 52267) is 130.84 acres.
Development will occur on 1.18 acres, thereby leaving 129.66 acres
as public open space. Lot 7 (Lot "A" of VTTM No. 52267) is 42.63
acres. Development will occur on 4.33 acres, thereby leaving 38.3
acres as public open space. Lot 4 (Lot "C" of VTTM No. 52267) is
116.13 acres. No development will occur. The entire lot will
remain public open space. The proposed development plan with its
clustering of residential units retains the majority of the tract
in permanent public open space.
3
GRADING:
Development of VTTM No. 52267 would result in significant topo-
graphical changes associated with grading activities. The pro-
posed map contains natural slopes of 25 percent or more, is in an
urban hillside management area, and proposes residential
development. As such and pursuant to Code (Section 22.56.215),
approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required for this project.
The Conditional Use Permit's purpose is to protect resources
contained within a hillside management area which may result in or
have the potential for environmental degradation and to the extent
possible, maintain and enhance the remaining biotic resources and
natural topography while allowing for limited controlled
development.
The Hillside Management Ordinance's guidelines and standards are
required to ensure that development will complement the character
and topography of land containing grades in excess of 10 percent.
Specifically, the City desires the application of good hillside
planning and the use of the landform grading and revegetation
concept. Furthermore, exceptions to these standards with
appropriate findings and facts require a Conditional Use Permit.
These guidelines and standards (specified in Section 8 of the
City's Hillside Management Ordinance) are applicable to the
proposed project due to grades in excess of 10 percent.
The proposed grading quantities are approximately 1.8 million cubic
yards of cut and 1.8 million cubic yards of fill. Grading will be
balanced on site. The proposed grading concept utilizes landform
grading (series of non-linear concave and convex forms with varying
slope gradients) where feasible. Therefore, the proposed project
is consistent with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance.
However, it is inconsistent with the Hillside Management Ordinance
in relationship to the project's visibility along the prominent
ridgelines of the site.
No large landslides have been mapped on the VTTM No. 52267 site.
Small scale landslides and soil creep zones occur on the steep
slopes. These zones have been identified and are subject to
further geotechnical investigation. However, slope stability is
required to comply with a minimum safety factor of 1.5.
Engineering features such as shear keys and buttress fills have
been incorporated into the grading design to accomplish the
required minimum safety factor.
In compliance with the Hillside Management Ordinance's standards
and guidelines, the proposed project's grading will: follow the
natural topography of the site, where feasible; where large visible
cuts and fills are proposed, landform grading will be utilized;
concave and convex forms will be utilized throughout the site;
slopes will not be linear in plan view; manufactured slope
gradients will vary from 2:1, 3:1 and 4:1; lot shapes will vary;
pads will maintain irregular configurations; trees will be
concentrated in concave areas, similar as in nature; and street
slopes to the east will remain in their natural, undisturbed state.
4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES/OAK TREE PERMIT:
The VTTM No. 52267 site does not function as an important regional
wildlife corridor because it is entirely surrounded by development.
Local corridors likely occur between the northern and southern end
of the site but these are restricted to use by the resident animal
species.
A variety of sensitive animals were observed during site surveys
for VTTM No. 52267 including the coastal western whiptail, white-
tailed kite, Cooper's hawk, San Diego cactus wren and southern
California rufous -crowned sparrow. No coastal California
gnatcatchers were observed.
Base on a several focused surveys for sensitive plant species, no
plants listed as sensitive are known to occur within VTTM No.
52267's development impact area. However, the site does contains
the following plant communities and their impact area due to
development: coastal live oak woodland - 9.6 acres; walnut woodland
- 0 acres, coastal sage scrub - 18.7 acres; scrub oak chaparral -
8.5 acres; Mexican elderberry woodland - 1.1 acres; and annual
grassland - 27.7 acres. Approximately 410 coastal live oak trees
and 30 walnut trees will be removed.
Pursuant to the General Plan, and the City's Oak Tree Permit
process, the City should provide for the replacement and relocation
of oak and walnut trees. Therefore, Oak and walnut trees removed
during the project's implementation are subject to replacement.
Walnut trees and oak trees will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. To
ensure the replacement of ecosystem values and not just of trees,
native understory plant species will be included in the project's
Mitigation Monitoring Program. Replacement walnut and oak trees
will consist of varying sizes.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) incorporates avoidance,
protection and restoration. MMP will include measures for habitat
replacement and revegetation, protection during construction and
performance standards for habitat replacement, maintenance and
monitoring. These measures also include appropriate permits from
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and
Game. Through the MMP and appropriate permits, the biological
impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than
significant.
AIR QUALITY•
Preparation of the project site for development will produce two
types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction
equipment and fugitive dust from soil movement. These construction
emissions are considered short-term and will terminate upon the
project's completion. However, the proposed project's development
will result in significant air quality impacts related to Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOx) and fugitive dust (PM 10). As a result, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of the project
5
against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts must to be
adopted by the City.
TRAFFIC•
A traffic study was prepared for VTTM No.52267. The project site,
with the proposed development, will generate approximately 1,242
trips on an average weekday.
A signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of Tin
Drive at Diamond Bar Boulevard. The result indicated that a
traffic signal is warranted by 1999. Implementation of this signal
would be the responsibility of this project. With the imple-
mentation of the signal, the proposed project will not result in
any significant traffic impacts.
7.3 b) ANALYSIS OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52308:
PROJECT OVERVIEW:
The project site for VTTM No. 52308 is predominately vacant and
approximately 86.3 acres. It is characterized by slopes and
ridges, and natural vegetation including oak and walnut trees. The
site is distinguished by a north-easterly trending canyon on the
eastern side and small canyons and draws tending to the west from
the ridgeline. Also located on the project site is the Eastgate
water reservoir, owned and operated by the Walnut Valley Water
District. The reservoir site is a separate lot surrounded by VTTM
No. 52308 and is not a part of the map. A planned but not
constructed Los Angeles County Fire Department helipad site is
located within the boundaries of the map and near the reservoir
site.
VTTM No. 52308 is within Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479. The proposed
development plan for VTTM No. 52308 will be clustered on 36.7
acres. Sixty lots (Lots 1-60) are proposed for detached single
family residences. Lots "A", "B", "C", "D", "E", and "F" are
homeowners, association maintained. Lots "G", and "H" are proposed
as dedicated open space. Lots "I" and "J" are existing open space.
Therefore, open space totals to 49.6 acres. Development is
proposed as a gated community. Residences will be located east of
Pantera Park and south and north of existing single family
residences. One point of ingress/egress will be provided from a
connection to Pantera Drive through an undeveloped (southern)
portion of Pantera Park. This access, as proposed, will not
displace any park uses. The access road will only serve the
proposed residential development.
Residences will be constructed on lots ranging from 8,000 to 41,750
square feet. The gross density is 0.7 dwelling units per acre (60
du/86.3 ac) with a net density of approximately 1.63 dwelling units
per acre (60 du/36.7 ac). Pad areas will range in size from 7,230
to 18,350 square feet. The residences will range in size from
M
3,100 to 3,600 square feet.
OPEN SPACE:
Open space consists of manufactured slopes associated with grading
for the development of the residences and natural open space. Lots
"A" through "F" total approximately 13 acres that will be
landscaped, manufactured slopes maintained by the homeowners'
association. Lots "I" and "J" total approximately 26.7 acres and
will be dedicated to the City as public open space.
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT/DEED AND MAP RESTRICTIONS' REMOVAL:
VTTM no. 52308 is within the General Plan Planning Area 2 which
identifies a maximum 130 dwelling units within Planning Area 2. As
previously stated, 130 dwelling units are proposed for VTTM No.
52267 (also in. Planning Area 2). Because the two maps together
propose 190 dwelling units, a General Plan Amendment is required.
Additionally, both proposed maps have deed and map restrictions
which grant the City the right to prohibit the construction of
residential structure on Lots 4, 5, 6, 7,(VTTM No. 52367) and 9
(VTTM No. 52308) of Tract 31479.
Pursuant to the General Plan's Land Use Element, Strategy 1.5.4,
vacant land burden with deed or map restrictions shall be subjected
to public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council
before any action can be taken to remove the restrictions.
However, the restrictions' removal must be of a significant benefit
to the City. The applicant proposes the following significant
benefits to the City:
1. Provide an approximately seven acre site, adjacent to
Summit Ridge Park (on City owned property) graded with
extended infastructure to the site's entrance, construct
an access road from Grand Avenue to the site, landscape
perimeter slopes, fund the engineering of the
community/civic center, and fund a portion of the design
of the community/civic center.
2. All engineering and consultant work would be provided for
the site's completion.
3. Applicant would provide up to $50,000.00 for the City to
determine the community/civic center's optimal use and
design.
GRADING•
Development of VTTM No. 52308 would result in significant topo-
graphical changes associated with grading activities. The pro-
posed map contains natural slopes of 25 percent or more, is in an
urban hillside management area, proposes residential development.
As such and pursuant to Code (Section 22.56.215), approval of a
Conditional Use Permit is required for this project. The Con -
7
ditional Use Permit's purpose is to protect resources contained
within a hillside management area which may result in or have the
potential for environmental degradation and to the extent possible,
maintain and enhance the remaining biotic resources and natural
topography while allowing for limited controlled development.
The Hillside Management Ordinance's guidelines and standards are
required to ensure that development will complement the character
and topography of land containing gradds in excess of 10 percent.
Specifically, the City desires the application of good hillside
planning and the use of the landform grading and revegetation
concept. Furthermore, exceptions to these standards with
appropriate findings and facts require a Conditional Use Permit.
These guidelines and standards (specified in Section 8 of the
City's Hillside Management Ordinance) are applicable to the
proposed project due to grades in excess of 10 percent.
In general, soils materials will be cut from higher areas and used
as fill to create level pad areas. The largest fill areas are
located below Lots 43 through 55 and adjacent to Lots 23 through
42. Smaller fills are located in the site's southern and western
areas. Slope stability is required to comply with a minimum safety
factor of 1.5.
The proposed grading quantities are approximately 750,000 cubic
yards of cut and fill. Grading will be balanced on site. The
proposed grading concept utilizes landform grading (series of non-
linear concave and convex forms with varying slope gradients) where
feasible. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the
City's Hillside Management Ordinance. However, it is inconsistent
with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance as it relates to the
visibility of the proposed project along the prominent ridgeline of
the site behind Pantera Park.
In compliance with the Hillside Management Ordinance's standards
and guidelines, the proposed project's grading will: follow the
natural topography of the site, where feasible; where large visible
cuts and fills are proposed, landform grading will be utilized;
concave and convex forms will be utilized throughout the site;
slopes will not be linear in plan view; manufactured slope
gradients will vary from 2:1, 3:1 and 4:1; lot shapes will vary;
pads will maintain irregular configurations; trees will be
concentrated in concave areas, similar as in nature; and street
slopes to the east will remain in their natural, undisturbed state.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES/OAK TREE PERMIT:
The VTTM No. 52308 site does not function as an important regional
wildlife corridor nor is it integrated into the Tonner Canyon
valley floor. Additionally, it does not contribute to the
significance of Tonner Canyon's wildlife resources.
One sensitive animal, San Diego cactus wren, was observed during
site surveys. No coastal California gnatcatchers were observed.
8
Based on several focused surveys for sensitive plant species, no
plants listed as sensitive are known to occur within VTTM No 52308.
However, the site does contains the following plant communities and
their impact area due to development: coastal live oak woodland -
0.43 acres; coastal sage scrub - 5.29 acres; scrub oak chaparral -
0.48 acres; poison oak chaparral - 0.05 acres; mulefat scrub - 0.02
acres, Ruderal - 1.84 acres and annual grassland - 26.42 acres.
Approximately, 10 coastal live oak trees and 10 walnut trees will
be removed.
Pursuant to the General Plan, and the City's Oak Tree Permit
process, the City should provide for the replacement and relocation
of oak and walnut trees. Therefore, Oak and walnut trees removed
during the project's implementation are subject to replacement.
Walnut trees will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. Oak trees will be
replaced at a 4:1 ratio. To ensure the replacement of ecosystem
values and not just of trees, native understory plant species will
be included in the project's Mitigation Monitoring Program.
Replacement oak trees will consist of the following sizes: 5
percent - 5 gallons; 25 percent 15 gallons; 50 percent 24 inch box;
and 20 percent 36.inch box.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) incorporates avoidance,
protection and restoration. MMP will include measures for habitat
replacement and revegetation, protection during construction and
performance standards for habitat replacement, maintenance and
monitoring. These measures also include appropriate permits from
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and
Game. Through the MMP and appropriate permits, the biological
impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than
significant.
AIR OUALITY:
Preparation of the project site for development will produce two
types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction
equipment and fugitive dust from soil movement. These construction
emissions are considered short-term and will terminate upon the
project's completion. However, the proposed project's development
will result in significant air quality impacts related to Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOx) and fugitive dust (PM 10). As a result, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of the project
against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts must to be
adopted by the City.
TRAFFIC•
A traffic study was prepared for VTTM No.52308. The project site,
with the proposed development, will generate approximately 573
trips on an average weekday. Pursuant to the traffic study,
implementation of'this project will not result in any significant
traffic impacts.
E
VTTM NO 52267 AND VTTM NO. 52308:
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the provisions of the of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) is required for this project. Environmental
Impact Report NO. 97-2 (SCH No. 97031005), Volume I and II has been
prepared.
The purpose of an EIR is to provide objective planning and
environmental information. The information is utilized to guide
and assist the City staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and
the public in the consideration and evaluation of the potential
environmental implication that may result from the proposed
project's development.
The EIR's preparation is based on the Initial Study completed by
the City. The Initial Study Questionnaire identifies areas where
the project may produce an impact of significance. The proposed
project was deemed to have impacts which necessitated the pre-
paration of the EIR document currently before the Planning
Commission.
The procedure for the EIR's preparation includes the distribution
of a Notice Of Preparation (NOP) which is sent to agencies who have
or may have responsibility for providing a service to the project
or may be impacted by the project's implementation. The NOP
requests, within 30 days, that responsible agencies provide the
lead agency with specific detail about the scope and content of the
environmental information related to the responsible agency's area
of statutory responsibility which must be included in the Draft
EIR. The EIR is then prepared using the Initial Study and comments
received in response to the NOP to guide the analysis in areas of
particular interest, although the EIR is not limited to these
areas.
As soon as the Draft" EIR is completed, a Notice of Completion and
Availability is filed with the Office of Planning and Research.
The DEIR is reviewed through the State review process handled by
the State Clearinghouse. The lead agency will distribute the DEIR
to responsible agencies requesting a copy.
The Notice of Completion and Availability begins the DEIR's 30 to
45 day review period depending on the nature, local versus regional
significance of the document. For Vesting Tentative Tract Maps No.
52267 and No. 52308, the review period began July 10, 1997 and
ended August 25, 1997.
At the conclusion of the public comment phase, the comments are
responded to and included in the DEIR that is reviewed by the
decision makers. Certification of the "Final" EIR is attained when
the legislative body gives the document acknowledgement that it
adequately identifies potential impacts, measures to mitigate those
impacts, and also impacts which may occur as a result of the
10
project but are unable to be mitigated. Additionally, a Mitigation
Monitoring Program (MMP) is part of the "Final" EIR. CEQA requires
public agencies to set up monitoring programs for the purpose of
ensuring compliance with those mitigation measures adopted as
conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects identified in the EIR. The MMP is adopted at
the time of the EIR's certification.
The public hearing is a forum in which the City's residents and
surrounding communities can discuss the environmental issues
related to the proposed project's development. At the conclusion
of the public hearing, the City will respond to these issues.
The City has hired BonTerra Consulting for the preparation of this
project's EIR. A presentation of the DEIR will be provided to the
Planning Commission by Dana Privitt of BonTerra Consulting.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Bulletin
and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on September 2, 1997. Public
hearing notices were mailed to approximately 1,158 property owners
within a 500 foot radius of the project site on August 29, 1997.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public
hearing, receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report
No. 97-2 (SCH 97031005) Volume I and II and project entitlement and
continue the public hearing.
Prepared by:
Ann J. Lunc
YU, 9"ociate Planner
Attachments:
1. Draft EIR No. 97-2 (SCH No. 97031005), Volume I and II dated
July 1997 (previously transmitted to the Planning Commission);
2. DEIR Responses to Comments;
3 Exhibit "A" - VTTM No. 52267 and Landscape Mitigation Plan
dated September 23, 1997;
4. Exhibit "B" - VTTM No. 52308 and Landscape Mitigation Plan
dated September 23, 1997;
5. Exhibit "C" Draft Mitigation Monitoring Program;
6. Applications;
7. Slope Analysis Map;
8. Existing Vegetation Survey;
9. Slope Profile Map; and
10. Cut and Fill Map.
11
PLANNING COMMISION
MINUTES
D
AUDIO TAPES
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 12,1998
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Kuo.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairman Steve Tye, and Commissioners
George Kuo, Steve Nelson and Joe Ruzicka.
Also Present: 'James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; George Wentz, Director of Public
Works; Catherine Johnson, Senior Planner, and Ann Lungu, Associate
Planner.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Randy Nydo spoke about the SunCal project and explained why he does not believe the proposed
project will result in a significant benefit to the city. He said he believes that the developer should
be fairly compensated for their efforts. He asked that the Planning Commission consider
recommending to the City Council that the city determine the fair market value of the property and
the developer's anticipated profit, purchase the property from the developer and preserve the entire
area as open space. He further recommended that the city procure funds for the purchase by means
of a bond measure.
Henry Porsand, 1008 Quiet Creek Lane, said he is concerned that an adequate cumulative impact
analysis and adequate alternative project analysis was not done for the SunCal project. He asked
what the appeal period is in the event that the City Council approves the project. He also asked if
an amendment to the City s General Plan is required in order to lift the deed restriction for the project.
Ron Tehran, 745 View Lane, concurred with Mr. Porsand's statements. He agrees that the EIR did
not answer many issues such as traffic impacts, pollution impacts, tree replacement, etc. as well as,
the significant benefit to the city for this project. He said the grading report is not correct because
-Je the boundarir:- :�.`. Lot' unless they wart to add more
the developer does not have to :: eutsi
units. The grading can be done vertically in order to reach competent material. He pointed out that
there is a good potential for hillside failure in the future.
MAY 12, 1998 PAGE 2
George Davidson, 23426 Wagon Trail Road, asked if there was ever a proposal submitted to the
Planning Commission that contained the project within Lot 6.
DCM/DeStefano responded that on April 28, 1998, the Planning Commission meeting public hearing
for the SunCal project included an alternative proposal which identified the proposed project
completely within the boundaries of Lot 6. He reminded the Commission that the public hearing for
this matter was closed on April 28, 1998.
Randy Nydo disagreed that the SunCal public hearing was closed on April 28, 1998. He said he
believes all comments made today should be a part of the SunCal public hearing comments and
remarks.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the record clearly reflects that the SunCal project public hearing was
closed at the April 28, 1998 Planning Commission meeting. The prior comments will be noted in
these meeting minutes under Public Comments and are not a part of the official record of the SunCal
project.
VC/Tye stated that he takes exception to disparaging remarks about staff and implications that
members of the public are being prevented from speaking. This body has followed the proper
procedure. He noted that on Page 11 of the April 28, 1998 Planning Commission minutes it is clearly
stated that Chair/McManus closed the SunCal public hearing.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of April 28, 1998.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve the minutes of April 28, 1998 as
presented. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
OLD BUSINESS:
1. .Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional Use Permit No. 98-03, Oak
Tree Permit No. 98-01 and Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2, Volume I
and II for VTTM No. 52267. - VTTM No. 52267 is proposed for 130 single-family
detached residential dwelling units clustered on approximately 65 acres of a 339.3
acre site. The development is proposed as a private, gated community. Lots will
range in size from 6,000 square feet to 26,000 square feet with an average lot size of
10,900 square feet. The gross proposed density is 0.4 dwelling units per acre with a
net density of approximately 2.06 dwelling units per acre.
Property Address: Generally located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and north
of Grand Avenue.
MAY 12, 1998 PAGE 3
Property Owner: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership, 550 W. Orangethorpe
Avenue, Placentia, CA 92870
Applicant: Todd Kurtin, SunCal Companies
5109 E. LaPalma Avenue, Anaheim, CA
DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. He reported that he was handed
correspondence from Sam Safarri tonight containing preprinted letters with different
signatures addressing concerns that the project should not be approved. This is the
same letter that was presented to the Planning Commission on prior occasions.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission consider the proposed resolution
recommending approval to the City Council of VTTM No. 52267, Conditional Use
Permit No. 98-03, Oak Tree Permit No. 98-1, and Mitigation Monitoring Program
and recommend certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (SCH No.
97031005).
DCM/DeStefano confirmed C/Ruzicka's statement that approximately 380 acres will
be dedicated to open space as a result of the proposed project. In addition, the
project will include about 25 acres of landscaped perimeter area.
C/Nelson said that although he agrees with Mr. Nydo, he believes that the community
would not pass a bond measure to purchase the SunCal property. The community is
more likely to pass a bond measure for purchase of ballfields.
DCM/DeStefano explained to C/Nelson that if the project does not permit a
secondary access road at Highcrest Drive, residents would most likely exit the project
at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Tin Drive, tum north and proceed to Goldrush Drive,
proceed in an easterly direction on Goldrush Drive to Highcrest, with a left turn onto
the small portion of Armitos Place and on to Pantera Drive. The park is situated at.;
the corner of Bowcreek Drive and Pantera Drive and Pantera Elementary School will
be located across the street from the park.
DCM/DeStefano explained to C/Nelson that if the project permitted a secondary
access road at Highcrest Drive, the Diamond Bar Boulevard and Goldrush Drive
portions of the route would be eliminated. Staffs reason for recommending against
the Highcrest Drive secondary access was the intrusion to the existing cul-de-sac
neighborhood. The streets can handle the traffic capacity and there is some merit to
the applicant's request.
C/Ruzicka stated that this is the most thorough, exhaustive and protective resolution
that he his r -e ad in sorat brie. It incorporates the use of many professionals to insure
that if the work gets started, that it gets done properly in accordance with rules,
regulations and law. Who pays for all of the professionals that will insure that the
work proceeds properly?
MAY 12, 1998 PAGE 4
DCM/DeStefano responded that all projects are paid for by development fees that are
paid for by the developer. These fees pay for staff and consultants who insure that
the work progresses in accordance with the project conditions. In accordance with
the city's philosophy, development pays for itself.
Lex Williman, Hunsaker & Associates, asked that the Planning Commission consider
a condition to allow the use of Highcrest Drive as a permanent secondary access road
for the development. It is anticipated that only five percent of the traffic generated
by the project will utilize the Highcrest Drive route for access to school and park
facilities. Use of the secondary access road will relieve traffic on Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
Mr. Williman asked for consideration of the use of Highcrest Drive as an access to a
"staging area" for equipment during the construction phase in order for the grading
to begin at the upper portion of the project and continue down to the intersection of
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Tin Drive. The Tin Drive entrance into the project area
from Diamond Bar Bouelvard is a 2:1 slope. He said he is concerned that creating a
one-time move -on staging area adjacent to Diamond Bar Boulevard would place the
equipment considerably further from the construction site than the Highcrest Drive
location. He asked that the condition remain as written with the addition of "unless
otherwise authorized by the City Engineer" in the event that the request is
forthcoming.
Mr. Williman asked the Planning Commission to consider allowing the grading to
begin prior to recordation of the Final Map.
DPW/Wentz responded to C/Ruzicka that he favors writing the condition such that
it does not "tie the city's hands" and allows some flexibility to make a determination
once the applicant's final grading proposal has been submitted. It may prove to be
more beneficial for the city to allow access for the staging area on Highcrest Drive or'
it may involve other types of problems or issues not yet determined.
Mr. Williman confirmed to Chair/McManus that if the Highcrest Drive access is
permitted, the construction equipment will be removed from the site via Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
VC/Tye asked DCM/DeStefano to explain how Quimby Funds are generated.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the city's formula contained with, the City Code
involves a calculation based upon the City's General Plan statement that there ought
to be five acres of parkland for every 1,000 people that live in the city. (3.2 persons
p(> household tiroacs the number of dwelling units and the amount of money paid for
the property by the developer to establish a market value which generates the amount
of acres or contribution of funds for purchase of or enhancement of park facilities.)
The acreage calculation for this project equals 2.2. Since the city has nearby Pantera
Park and the project involves a significant amount of open space dedication, the in
MAY 12, 1998 PAGE 5
lieu contribution of money was deemed by staff to be more appropriate for this
project. The $250,000 contribution to the City's Parks and Development Fund
includes approximately $80,000 of Quimby Funds.
C/Nelson stated that with respect to replacement of oak and walnut trees, he
requested (as stated in the April 28, 1998 minutes) that the "strongest possible
language" be used to insure that the trees are replaced within the city limits of
Diamond Bar. He pointed out that the resolution does not contain such language.
He requested that language be incorporated to insure replacement of all trees within
the city limits of Diamond Bar.
DCM/DeStefano responded with the following suggested language for tree
replacement: Add Condition No. 29 on Page 14 of the Tract Map Resolution and
Condition No. 29 on Page 15 of the Conditional Use Permit Resolution to read as
follows: "All mitigation measures related to implementation of the Biological
Resources Management Plan required by the Mitigation Monitoring Program and EIR
No. 97-2 shall occur within the city limits of Diamond Bar."
The Commission concurred to accept the proposed language.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to recommend to the City Council, approval
of Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional Use Permit No. 98-3, Oak
Tree Permit No. 98-1, and Mitigation Monitoring Program, recommend certification
of Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (SCH No. 97031005) with inclusion of
Condition No. 29 to the Tract Map Resolution and to the Conditional Use Permit
Resolution (language as recommended by staff ), and permit access to Highcrest
Drive for the staging area as deemed appropriate by the City's Engineer.
VC/Tye stated that his statement of April 28, 1998 reflects his understanding that the
General Plan includes Lot 9 as a contribution to the city's open space which is.
included in the applicant's proposal. He asked what the specific benefit to the city
would be if Lot 9 was not included in the proposal as suggested by the developer.
Prior to the motion of April 28, 1998, he stated he was not comfortable considering
the motion to recommend approval unless he understood the "significant benefit" to
the city.He said he does not understand, based upon what he has heard tonight, what
the significant benefit is. He reiterated his concern that staffs memo seems to indicate
that the applicant's contribution of $250,000 is over and above anything that is already
generated by 'an act such as Quimby. He again asked "What is the (project's)
significant benefit to the city?
DCM/DeStefano stated that from staffs perspective, it is the totality of the open space
and.the contribution toward the City's Parks and Acquisition Fury b >sed up :n the
most recent project approval wherein removal of map and deed restrictions were
'= contemplated. Within the prior approval, there was no opportunity for the city to
obtain parkland. There was an additional cash contribution proposed to a Parks
Development Fund. Based upon the city's history and the policy that was set by a
MAY 12, 1998
PAGE 6
previous Planning Commission and City Council in coordination with the open space
that is being proposed, staff believes that the obligation of "significant benefit to the
city" has been met. Further, it is staffs view that the dwelling units proposed to be
constructed outside the confines of Lot 6 and the proposed contribution are
appropriate for removal of the map and deed restrictions. The ultimate decision with
respect to "significant benefit to the city" rests with the Planning Commission and City
Council.
DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/McManus that the removal of map and deed
restrictions allows for what staff believes to be a more appropriate configuration of
this future neighborhood. Staff believes that a project should be developed along this
ridgeline in accordance with the City's General Plan and that the most appropriate
proposal is for the 130 unit project now before the Planning -Commission. The
proposed project incorporates features that pulls the project significantly away from
Diamond Bar Boulevard which staff believes creates a better living environment for
the people living within the project. The project incorporates fencing to enclose
approximately 45 acres of the project with the balance remaining natural and allowing
for the movement of wildlife.
Motion was carried with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka,
Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Tye
ABSENT: 'COMMISSIONERS: None .
RECESS: Chair/McManus recessed the meeting at 8:20 p. m.
RECONVENE: Chair/McManus reconvened the meeting at 8:30 p.m.
NEW BUSINESS: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-1 and Development Review No. 98-1 (pursuant
to Code Sections 22.56, Part 1 and 22.72.020A), is a request to construct and operate
an unmanned Bank of America Automated Teller Machine in the Country Hills
Towne Center, within an area between the existing Wherehouse Music store and the
Diamond Bar Boulevard entrance to the center.
Project Address: Country Hills Towne Center, Diamond Bar Boulevard,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Applicant: Bank of America, 600 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA
90017
MAY 12, 1998 PAGE 7
Property Owner: M&H Realty Partners, 1721 W. Imperial Highway #G, La
Habra, CA 90361
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and file the applicant's letter
of withdrawal. The Commission concurred.
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Development Review No. 98-4 (pursuant to Code Section 22.28.210 and
22.72.020. A. 1), is a request for the construction of a 4,994 square foot, one story
commercial unit on a vacant pad in an existing commercial center.
Property Location: 21050 Golden Springs Drive (northeast corner of Golden
Springs Road and Brea Canyon Road)
Applicant: The Withee Malcolm Partnership, Architects, 1983 West
190th Street, Suite 200, Torrance, CA 90504
Property Owner: Diamond Creek Village Center, LLC, 2967 Thousand Oaks
Boulevard, Suite G, Westlake Village, CA 91362
SP/Johnson presented staffs report. She stated that the city received two letters from
residents who expressed concern that the pernlitted use not generate excess noise, etc.
In addition, they expressed concern that trees be provided at the site to provide for
screening their view of the project site. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission approve Development Review No. 984, subject to the Conditions of
Approval and Findings of Fact contained within the resolution.
C/Ruzicka asked if a request will come before the Planning Commission at the time
a prospective tenant requests use of the facility?
SP/Johnson responded that whether or not the request comes before the Planning
Commission is determined by the proposed use. If the use is permitted by right of the
City's Code, the applicant would go through a counter approval process for tenant's
improvements.
SP/Johnson explained to C/Nelson that the applicant has agreed to provide trees for
screening the project site in accordance with the adjacent resident's requests and at
the Planning Commission's direction, staff will add the appropriate language.
SP/Johnson responded to VC/Tye that the trees would most likely be place on the
(rr ` applicant's property.
Dan Withee said he read staffs report and concurs with the conditions of approval.
He stated he believes the property owner is willing to supplement the trees on the
MAY 12, 1998
PAGE 8
slope to screen the view of the project site. The project is proposed in order to
complete the mall area.
Mr. Withee said, in response to C/Ruzicka's question, that he is not aware of any
prospective tenant for the site. He stated that it is fairly typically to construct a shell
building for future occupancy. Most shopping centers are built out in a similar
fashion. This type of project would most likely attract a clothing store, boutique or
similar type of occupancy.
VC/Tye said he is concerned about another vacant store front in Diamond Bar.
Mr. Withee responded that the center seems to have no difficulty in finding tenants.
Mr. Withee indicated to Chair/McManus that the building will not be extended to the
full depth of the adjacent buildings in order to provide additional parking at the rear
of the building.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this item.
Chair/McManus closed the public hearing.
C/Nelson moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Development Review No. 984,
subject to the Conditions of Approval and Findings of Fact contained within the
resolution subject to the added Condition to plant trees determined to be suitable to
screen the views between the existing residences and commercial development. The
trees will be maintained by the owner of the property on which the trees are planted.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye,
Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Variance No. 97-1 and Development Review No. 98-6 (pursuant to Code Section
114.a and 110.5) is a request for the installation of an off-site, freeway -oriented pole
sign.
Property Location: Pathfinder Road (southwest corner of Brea Canyon Road and
PaLIider Road)
Applicant: ; Robert Fiscus Associates, 1050 S. Santa Cruz, #2100,
Anaheim, CA 92805
1
MAY 12, 1998
PAGE 9
Property Owner: Denny's Restaurant, 21316 Pathfinder Road, Diamond Bar,
CA 91765
In accordance with a May 11, 1998 written request from the applicant, staff
recommends that the Planning Commission continue this item to the May 26, 1998.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this item.
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye seconded to continue the matter to May 26, 1998.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye,
Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS:
C/Nelson stated he appreciated Mr. Nydo's eloquent and polite presentation regarding the proposed
SunCal project. He reiterated his belief that a bond measure to purchase the property for open space
would not be passed by the Diamond Bar voters. He believes in open space but he does not believe
that people will pay for it. He stated he believes the action that the Planning Commission took was
the right thing to do.
C/Ruzicka said that Mr. Nydo's presentation was a perfect example of how people can disagree
without being disagreeable. Although Mr. Nydo made a rational and reasonable argument he
proposed to put the city hugely in debt to obtain 420 acres. The motion that was made and passed
by the Commission gets 380 of those acres for the city without going into debt at all.
C/Kuo said that the Planning Commission has deliberated for many months on the SunCal proposal.
He said he does not believe it is reasonable to ask the citizens to buy back the land from the
developer. He hopes that residents will offer more creative suggestions and support to the City
Council and not treat the Council Members and staff as their enemies. City staff and the Planning
Commission has done its best to be fair to all parties involved in this matter.
Chair/McNIanus thanked staff and the Commissioners for their time and effort in consideration of the
SunCal proposal.
f`
UWORhTATIONAL ITEMS
DCNMeStefano stated that on Monday, May 18, 1998 the City Council will hold a special meeting
because there will not be a quorum for the regular Tuesday, May 19, 1998 meeting. On May 18 the
City Council will likely request staff to prepare final documents for adoption of the City's
r
MAY 12, 1998 PAGE 10
Development Code on June 2, 1998. He reported that Pantera Park is near completion with the grand
opening scheduled for the end of July/middle of August, 1998. At its May 5, 1998 meeting, the City
Council approved draft of a Joint Powers Agreement with the City of Chino Hills to examine
potential uses of the 2700 acre Tres Hermanos Ranch area.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the Wireless Telecommunications Ordinance will likely come before the
Planning Commission for review in June, 1998.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS as listed in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to adjourn the meeting to May 26, 1998. There being no
further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting
at 9:12 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
JaiiWs DeStefano
Secretary to the Pl nning Commission
Attest:
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 28, 1998
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:05
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium past in the
Drive, Diamond Bar, California. 21865 East Copley
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chairman Tye.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman
McManus, Vice Chairman Tye, and
Commissioners Kuo, Nelson and Ruzicka.
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Director
Of Public Works George Wentz, and Associate
Planner Ann Lungu.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted.
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of April 14, 1998.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded
l to minutes as presented. The motion was carri dp5-0 a the
.OLD BUSINESS:
1• Planning Commissioner's Policies & Procedures Manual..
AstP/Lungu presented the revised manual which included
the comments and recommendations received at the A ri
14, 1998 Planning Commission. P 1
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission receive and
file the adopted Planning Commission Policies and
Procedures Manual.
The Planning Commission unanimously concurred to receive
and file the Planning Commission s and Procedures
Manual as presented. Policies -
NEAT BUSINESS - Nohe
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
4
I'
f
APRIL 28, 1998
PAGE 2
1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional Use
Permit No. 98-03, Oak Tree Permit No. 98-01 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2, Volume I and II for
VTTM No. 52267. VTTM No. 52267 is proposed for 130
single-family detached residential dwelling units
clustered on approximately 65 acres of a 339.3 acre site.
The development is proposed as a private, gated
community. Lots will range in size from 6,000 square
feet to 26,000 square feet with an average lot size of
10,900 square feet. The gross proposed density is 0.4
dwelling units per acre with a net density of
approximately 2.06 dwelling units per acre. (Continued
from the February 24, 1998 meeting.)
Property Address: Generally located east of Diamond
Bar Boulevard and north of Grand
Avenue.
Property Owner: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership
550 W. Orangethorpe Avenue
Placentia, CA 92870
Applicant: Todd Kurtin, SunCal Companies
5109 E. LaPalma Avenue, Anaheim, CA
AstP/Lungu presented staff's report. The alternatives
include a proposal for 120 units and a second proposal
for 130 units on Lot 6.
The City's Environmental Consultant Tom Smith, Bontara
Consulting, presented an overview of the Environmental
Impact Report (EIR). He explained the differences
between the two proposals. He stated that three
technical areas received special studies as part of the
evaluation of the Response To Comment Alternative:
Grading, Hydrology and Biology.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission: Open ,the
public hearing; receive comments on the project; close
the public hearing and begin deliberations on VTTM No.
52267 and its entitlements, working toward a conclusion
with recommendations for City Council's consideration;
and direct staff to prepare appropriate documentation in
support of the Planning Commission's recommendations.
Staff is in support of the 130 unit project.subject to
the following: Approximately 273 acres of the project
area (excluding the manufactured slopes and including the
remaining natural portions of Lots 4, 5, & 7, and all of
Lot 9 of Tract 31479 dedicated to the City as public open
space, and a contribution to the City's Parks and
Acquisitions Fund.
APRIL 28, 1998
PAGE 3
DCM/DeStefano stated that all public correspondence
received by the City of .Diamond Bar regarding this
project have been forwarded to the Planning Commission.
DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/McManus that staff has
discussed a specific amount of contribution from the
developer. Staff has not discussed this matter with the
developer.
Bruce Elieff, SunCal Companies, said it his hope that in
the time this project has been before the City for
consideration that the public would have the facts of the
proposed development and not be confused with fiction.
He stated that his company sent approximately 2,000
brochures explaining the proposed project to residents
surrounding the proposed project. Return cards were
enclosed with the brochure. SunCal received three
completed return cards. He said that Suncal believes the
130 unit project presents the superior alternative and
enables the city to take ownership of many acres of
native land. He stated he read staff's report. With
respect to conditions, he explained that his company will
pay appropriate fees to mitigate the city's parks system.
However, SunCal feels it is inappropriate to deed Lot 9
to the city at this time because it is a separate legal
parcel which is not a part of this application.
Lex Williman, Planning Director, Hunsaker and Associates,
San Diego, gave the Planning Commission a perspective
under which this project was conceieved, how it relates
to the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and to dispel
some of the rumors and misinformation that has been
presented during past public hearings. He concluded
stating that 273 acres is a significant amount of land to
be donated to a public entity and due to its natural
habitat, it is a significant benefit to the city.
C/Nelson asked Mr. Williman to compare the grade of the
street with the straight run down street A.' of
approximately 750 feet with the analogous street on the
Response to Comments Alternative which has a straight run
of only 500 feet and incorporates curves.
Mr. Williman used the overhead maps to compare the
various grades and length of grades for the two plans.
C/Ruzicka asked Mr. Williman to explain his statement
that giving 273 acres to the city is a significant
benefit when the staff report indicates it to be a
minimum benefit. He stated that the canyons and hillside
grades are such that Jt�is almost impossible to build in
the area without the a expenditure of significant dollars.
APRIL 28, 1998
PAGE 4
Mr. Williman responded that the hillside grades on the
273 acres are no different from the hillside grades on
Lot 6. Therefore, the cost to build would be
approximately the same. He reiterated his statement that
the natural habitat is a significant benefit to the city.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
Steve Lasser, 23403 Stirrup Drive, reiterated his
concerns about "negative cashflow" to the city for the
proposed dwelling units. He asked why the city needs
this project. He said that "SunCal isn't giving anything
back to the city that it doesn't already have. It's deed
restricted and they knew it was deed restricted when they
purchased it." If SunCal is allowed to build, they
should be restricted to portion for which they have a
right to build.
Sue Page, 1333 Sims Place, said she is confused about the
proposal. She has received propaganda for and against
this project. She stated her concerns regarding the
proposed elimination of 430 oak trees, additional
traffic, and use of dynamite during construction.
DCM/DeStefano stated that staff's position is that if
this project is approved, there will be no dynamiting at
this site.
Chair/McManus responded to Sue Page that this project
will tip the air quality threshold during construction
only.
Sue Page asked the Commission to maintain the property as
open land and not allow this project.
VC/Tye reiterated Lex Williman's statement that the
project is proposed on privately owned vacant land and
not open space.
Karen Mahoney, 23834 Country View Drive, talked about the
cutthrough traffic in her neighborhood. She explained
that her husband was killed on Diamond Bar Boulevard and
not gift of land can replace her husband. The city has
enough traffic from Chino Hills.
Michael Burch, 605 S. Hoss Street, said his major concern
is increased traffic as a result of the proposed project.
The developers right to build should not overshadow what
is best for the public good and this project is not good
for the public.
Sam Saffari, 24075 Highcrest Drive, stated his concerns
regarding visual impact, cut and fill of millions of
cubic feet of dirt, the amount of dust, exhaust and noise
APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 5
generated by grading two million cubic yards of cut and
fill and its impact to surrounding residents, and no
significant benefit to the city. The city should follow
the Hillside Development Code. The grade is steep and
only a minimum number of lots should be allowed limited
to 2.5 lots per acre. Lots should be contour graded to
minimize disturbance. This project does not minimize
grading or disturbance, and incorporates no contour
grading. This project should be redesigned to comply
with the city's Oak Tree Ordinance. He presented a map
of Lot 6 which shows six raptor nests that will be
destroyed. He stated that Lot 5 will become a 10 acre
technical island. He said it is his opinion that the
amount of sediment pollution from 40 acres of hillside
acres to the natural water course and the plant and
animal habitat, cannot be mitigated. By virtue of the
fact that the land has been vacant for a long period of
time, it has become an important open space for the
surrounding residents. He said that if the commission
approves this project and staff says there is no
dynamiting allowed, it's just something that staff says
and not necessarily what will happen. He stated that
there are a lot more oak trees at the project site than
are being reported. If the builder is going to give this
land to Diamond Bar, and the City of Diamond Bar has
ownership of this land, will the city have a declaration
that says it will make the area into the park and never
sell it to another builder because the coffers are empty,
or because the city is going out of business? Is there
any guarantee that this land is ours and nobody elses -
we the people of Diamond Bar own that land and there is
nobody who will every have the right to build on it? He
said he understands from his counsel attorney that the
MOU is non-binding on the builder. There is nothing in
writing that states this is a binding contract which the
city has to honor. He showed a map he acquired from Los
Angeles County which shows 61 residents, the map the
Bramalee offered to the city. He asked that the builder
not be allowed to build outside of Lot 6. He presented
a 2,000 signature petition opposing the project and
stated that the -2,000 signatures represent 700
households.
Allen Wilson, 22809 Hilton Head Drive Unit 17, said he
moved to Diamond Bar two years ago into a project that
was built by a developer and if it was not for this
project he would not be living in Diamond Bar and
participating in such events as the Friends of the
Library and the Solid Waste Task Force. He stated he is
concerned about the impact of the project on -traffic and
solid waste removal. He said he believes the project
will be good for the city. The developer is proposing to
give the city almost 300 acres of land which will triple
the city's open space which tracks with the General Plan.
APRIL 28, 1998
PAGE 6
He believes the developer has address staff's concerns.
There was debate in the last City Council campaign about
open space and considering the city will triple its open
space, let's not deny this opportunity.
Adnan Ayoub, 23656 Gold Nugget Avenue, said the freedom
for the developer to build the project should stop
because his freedom starts. Therefore, he is against the
project.
Ron Tehrani, 745 View Lane, asked if it is correct that
the city made a non-binding agreement with the developer
which it does not have to follow. He said there is no
benefit for the city to remove the restriction on this
land and removal of the restriction is betraying the
public trust. Everyone in the process will be liable.
This property is restricted from any building.
Dedication is not a benefit to the city. He asked that
the geotechnical will not fail and if it does, that the
city will not be liable. The environmental document
should have been sent to the Fish and Game Department
which never saw the document and did not comment on the
document. He requested that the Planning Commission
direct staff to review and find options to keep these
areas open space permanently and have the Parks
Department maintain the area. The city should look into
have a special election to let the people vote on this
project.
Gene Mulinex spoke about his concerns regarding the
increased rate of fluid flow on paved roads during rain
storms and whether Sycamore Canyon will be able to handle
the increased runoff.
Albert Perez, Pantera Drive, stated he does not want to
take away the developer's legal right to build. He said
"the Planning Commission can recommend a development that
is so construed that it would make it impossible for them
to build what they want to build".
Christina Goode, 624 Moss, stated the developer said they
did not want to give up Lot 9 to the city which would
make the 273 acre donation much less. She pointed out
that a significant amount of air pollution of more than
10 times over the threshold resulting from construction
will have deleterious effects which she believes should
stop this.project.
Sandra Erickson said she is purchasing a home at 24008
Highcrest Drive. She asked if where the community gates
will be located, what effect 200 additional cars will
have on Goldrush Drive, and what streets will be used to
move construction equipment to and from the site.
APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 7
Randy Nydo, Hillcrest Drive, said the fact that this
_ issue has gone on as long as it has should make it clear
to the Commission that this matter will result in a
cantankerous, torturous issue that will tear the city
apart. He said he believes that because the normal ratio
is 1:10, 2,000 signatures means that there are actually
20,000 people who do not want project. The city should
buy this land back from the developer for 2.7 million
dollars, the price he paid, plus accrued interest by
means of a 10 or 20 year bond.
Leonard Doyle, 626 Junewood Place, said the developer has
speculated on this development and they most likely have
a portfolio of developments throughout California. He
stated that if this development goes forward, he loses.
Julie Gomez, Chandell Place, stated her daughter has
severe allergies and she is concerned about the
pollutants that will result from the project's grading.
She asked what recourse she has against the city or
developer if she is unable to live in her home during the
construction period. She asked if the 273 acres that
will be deeded to the city as a result of this project is
usable land and suitable for a park. If the land is not
developable, it is of no benefit to the developer and
therefore not a benefit to the city. She asked the
Commission to consider an alternative to the proposed
plan and restrict the building to Lot 6.
Mike Ritchie, Leyland Drive, asked for an explanation of
the inconsistencies of this project with the city's
General Plan stated by Mr. Smith. He is concerned about
the traffic that will be generated by the proposed
project.
Lex Williman, in response to questions, stated that the
project proposes to have two gates. The project will
have private streets that are maintained by the
Homeowners Association and not by the city. He explained
that Lot 9 is.ngt included in the 273 acres the developer
has agreed to deed to the city.
DCM/DeStefano responded to speaker's questions and
concerns. With respect to the concern about negative
cash flow related to projects of this type, he estimated
that a house selling for $300 - $350,000 is about a break
even proposition for taxes as opposed to goods and
services purchased for the household. The project is
proposed to be a gate -guarded self-contained community
which significantly reduces the city's associated costs.
_,-.Street maintenance, street lighting, hillside maintenance
and fire services costs would be borne by the association
and not passed to the city. He stated that if the
Planning Commission recommends approval of this project,
APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 8
staff will prepare conditions to prohibit the use of
dynamite. This project will generate an insignificant
amount of additional traffic on the city's streets. The
access off of Tin Drive is proposed to be this
development's primary access. Highcrest Drive will be
used only as a secondary emergency ingress/egress point
for emergency vehicles. This project will utilize the
new Pantera Elementary School as its primary point for
public education in the immediate area. The
Environmental Impact Report recognizes the fact that
there is significant grading which generates significant
particulant emissions and that has a negative impact
which cannot be fully mitigated down to a level of what
is termed "significance". The EIR recognizes that the
aesthetic change is a significant change that cannot be
mitigated down to a level of insignificance. Regarding
statements that the use of grading techniques are not in
compliance with the city's ordinances, staff believes
that the project as proposed to use concave and convex
grading and to deviate the horizontal and the vertical
delineation of the grading lines to create undulation in
the slopes is in compliance with the city's grading
ordinance. The landscape plan requires that revegetation
techniques be employed that puts the new landscaping
where the existing landscaping was or may be found in
nature in compliance with the city's requirements.
Regarding the project's proximity to Sycamore Canyon, the
area known as Sycamore Canyon is the park immediately
west of Diamond Bar Boulevard across the street from the
general direction of the proposed project. The canyon on
the east side of Diamond Bar Boulevard and adjacent to
the proposed development is sometimes referred to as
Upper Sycamore Canyon or Steep Canyon. It is difficult
to pull the project away from the canyon because there
are landslides in that area that need to be remediated.'
Fish and Wildlife and authorities of the ilk were
notified of this project and did comment on the project.
Generally, these types of agencies are opposed, to
projects of this sort. However, that does not preclude
their approval of projects of this nature - they do so.
We live on them. These agencies require mitigation which
attempts to mimic what was in place at the time of
development and acquiring land for permanent open space.
The project will result in the removal of about 430 oak
trees and about 30 walnut trees. The City of Diamond Bar
has an Oak Tree Ordinance. It does not say preserve all
of the oak trees and work around them - don't build. The
ordinance desires to make such a statement and it also
states that if the. oak trees need to be removed for
development and the development is deemed appropriate,
they must be replaced according to the ordinance's
replacement schedule. Currently, walnut trees are not
protected by any ordinance. The replacement of walnut
APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 9
trees is an additional requirement because they exist in
the area.
DCM/DeStefano continued his response to public testimony.
He explained the history of the Memorandum of Understand
regarding development of Lot 6 which was inherited by the
city from the County of Los Angeles upon incorporation.
The County kept the restricted property in private hands.
However, the restriction could be removed through a
public process with the County of Los Angeles or with the
local city. Diamond Bar faces issues similar to other
cities that have incorporated within the past 15 years.
If the County had accepted this property as their own,
they would have passed the ownership to the City of
Diamond Bar along with the parks. The issue of keeping
the development entirely within Lot 6 has to do with the
best use of the land for Lot 6 and is the developer's
proposed configuration appropriate, or is a configuration
that goes beyond Lot 6 more appropriate. And if
development goes beyond Lot 6, what is the benefit to the
community for giving up map and deed restrictions. Those
are decisions the Planning Commission must make in
looking at an environment that will exist for many
decades if approved on this ridgeling. Therefore, the
Commission should not be looking at the constraints of
Lot 6 but rather at the best land use for the ridgeling.
DCM/DeStefano stated that with respect to the comment
regarding the Memorandum of Understanding, the 1992 City
Council approved a non-binding agreement with Bramalee.
for the contemplated future development of up to 135.
single family units on the ridgeling. The documents that
accompanied the City Council's decision to approve -that
non-binding agreement showed a bubble on the ridgeling
it did not show a.specific development of what the 135
units might look like and did show Lot 9 as being
transferred to the City of Diamond Bar along with the
balance of Lots 4, 5 and 7. In addition, it showed a
possible public facility or commercial use on the flat
portion of property at Goldrush Drive and Diamond Bar
'Boulevard. The adopted 1995 General Plan said build up
to 130 units on this ridgeling and for the public to be
given the opportunity to capture the property for public
open space which does not necessarily mean that it would
be open to the public.
Chair/McManus explained that there are two references to
building on this property: The Memorandum of
Understanding and the City's General Plan.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the EIR has determined that the
proposed project mitigates fluid flow based upon the
connections to the storm drain systems to a level of
insignificance.
APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 10
DCM/DeStefano stated that with respect to a comment about
conditioning a project to the extent that it goes away,
a Planning Commission, a City Council, a City's staff
legally cannot knowingly condition a project in such a
manner. If the decision-making bodies wish to deny a
project, they must determine why the project is
inappropriate for the community. DCM/DeStefano explained
that with respect to the use of Highcrest Drive for
transporting construction equipment, the city can and has
conditioned projects to not use certain city streets.
Projects are stopped by staff for non-compliance with
project conditions.
Chair/McManus stated in response to concerns regarding
cut -through traffic that because this project proposes
one gate at the terminus of Tin Drive, cut -through
traffic will be non-existent in the adjacent
neighborhoods as a result of this project.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the Planning Commission is
considering all options and not just the 120 and 130 unit
proposal presented this evening.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Nelson that in 1992 when the
east leg of Grand Avenue opened the city's license plate
survey concluded that 40 percent of the traffic traveling
in the area was transient traffic. The proposed project
will not create any noticeable change to the traffic in
Diamond Bar. A far greater impact to the city's streets
is presented by the 800 new residential units being built
by the City of Chino annually.
DCM/DeStefano confirmed to C/Ruzicka that the total
acreage for Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9 is approximately 400.
Lot nine is approximately 83 acres and the applicant
proposes to deed approximately 273 acres to the City of
Diamond. The remaining 65 acres are proposed to 'be
graded with the residential units being placed: on
approximately 40 of the 65 remaining acres. The
remaining 25 graded acres are slated to be regraded,
relandscaped slopes that would be owned by and maintained
by the homeowners association. The city has the
prerogative of lifting map and deed restrictions in order -
to insure the best use of the land and that the project
is as aesthetically pleasing to the city as possible.
C/Kuo said the time has come to render a decision
regarding this matter with constructive and positive
input from all sides of the issue. The builder has the
right to request approval to build up to 130 houses. The
Planning Commissioner's are charged with the
responsibility of listening to all sides and making a
fair decision for the good of the entire community. The
APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 11
Commission has not pre -judged this issue. The Commission
is considering all input before reaching a conclusion.
VC/Tye said that for some time the Commission has heard
comments that this decision is being ramroded through the
system. He stated he believes those present would be
pleased to have a quick decision if it was a decision
with which they were happy. That is a difficult thing to
balance. He asked DCM/DeStefano to elaborate on the
remediation of Lot 5.
DCM/DeStefano stated that it is his understanding that
there are significant landslides on both the north and
south sides of the proposed project which impact Lots 5
and 7. In order to produce a project on this hillside,
regardless of the number of homes, those -landslides must
be mitigated which will require significant grading to
render the hillside safe.
DPW/Wentz generally concurred with DCM/DeStefano that the
reason for relooking at alternatives for Parcel No. 6.
Because of the soils and geology for the entire area
there would be significant impact regardless of the final
look of the proposed tract.
VC/Tye stated his understanding that the General Plan
includes consideration of Lot 9.
DCM/DeStefano responded that it is staff's opinion that
VC/rye's understanding is correct. The Memorandum of
Understanding clearly discusses the dedication of Lot 9
in whole to the City of Diamond Bar. The 1992 version of
the General Plan discusses up to 130 units on the
ridgelines, a minimum of 75 percent of the balance of the
property in permanent public open space and no.
development on Lot 9.
VC/Tye asked what the significant benefit to the city
would. be if Lot 9 was not included in the proposal,' as
suggested by the developer.
DCM/DeStefano said that the developer stated during
previous meetings that they were willing to grant
approximately 50 acres of Lot 9 to the city. The issue
of whether or not the city should receive only a portion
of Lot 9 is ultimately a decision of the Planning
Commission and the City Council. Likewise, the issue of
significant benefit for the lifting of map and deed
restriction is the issue of those bodies. Staff believes
that the proposal should include all of Lot 9.
__ Chair/McManus closed the public hearing.
APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 12
C/Nelson said he has concerns regarding the biological
mitigation. He understands that a Biological Resource
Management Plan cannot be prepared at this time because
there is no project upon which to base the details. He
stated he believes that the Commission should consider
the following conditions for the proposed project. He
said he did not see a requirement that the oak tree
mitigation occur within the City of Diamond Bar.
DCM/DeStefano stated it is not contained within the
report. It is the city's policy to require that such
mitigation be accomplished within the City of Diamond Bar
and within, to the extent possible, the site that is
being developed.
C/Nelson stated he wants the strongest possible language
stating that the mitigation will occur within the city
limits of Diamond Bar.
C/Nelson said that although he agrees that the loss of
410 oak trees is significant, he does not agree that the
replacement of all oak trees lost at a 2:1 ratio will
reduce the level of significance to less than the
threshold. Based on his count, 59 trees that are between
two and three feet diameter, 19 at between three and four
feet and 12 over four feet in size. He suggested a
sliding scale on the replacement ratio for trees above 36
inches with 3:1 between 36 and 48 inches and 4:1 above 48
inches. He indicated he has the same type of concern
regarding the replacement of the 18.7 acres Coastal Sage
Scrub which would be lost. He recommended.a 2:1 ratio
replacement. He stated he would like to see part of the
funds that. are being discussed for putting toward the
city's Parks and Acquisitions. fund, go to the study_and
development of a spine system that connects Sycamore Park
and Summitridge Park.
C/Ruzicka stated he has listen to both sides of the
debate, studied all of the information that is available
with respect to the proposed project and he visited the
site. He further stated he takes the responsibility of
his position as a City Council appointed Commissioner
very seriously and his motion is couched in that
responsibility.
C/Ruzicka moved to direct staff to prepare a resolution
recommending that the City Council approve Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional Use permit No.
98-3 and Oak Tree Permit No. 98-1 as recommended by staff
and including the four additional conditions of approval
recommended by Commissioner Nelson.
C/Nelson asked Lex Williman how realistic the limits of
grading to the north and south of the project are in
APRIL 28, 1998
PAGE 13
light of the landslides to the north and the south of the
project shown in the 107 unit alternative (Figure V-1).
Lex Williman responded to C/Nelson responded that the
grading that is shown in the alternative does not reflect
the remedial grading necessary to stabilize those out -of -
bed slopes.
C/Nelson asked Lex Williman if he could speculate as to
the number of units that could be built if the grading
was kept within the boundaries of Lot 6 or slightly
beyond the boundaries.
Lex Williman stated the approximately 70-80 units might
be feasible. However, in order to determine an accurate
count, a study similar to that conducted for the
alternative would need to take place. Due to slope
instability it may not be feasible to construct a road to
the building sites.
Lex Williman confirmed to VC/Tye that if there is no off-
site grading the road could not go through the building
site.
VC/Tye said he is not comfortable considering the motion
unless he understands that there is a significant benefit
to the city.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the Planning Commission may
determine. Staff is working toward a contribution from
the developer for the Parks Land Acquisition and
Development fund to the effect of the Quimby funds that
would normally relate to this project. The Planning
Commission can recommend anything that it requires that
inure to the benefit of the community and warrants the
removal of map and deed restrictions needed for the 130
unit project. If the Planning Commission directs staff
to prepare the legal documents that would lead to project
approval, � that will take a certain period of time to
complete. When the documents are brought back to'the
Planning Commission for further discussion, staff could
bring back the results of the discussion with the
developer regarding funds.
C/Nelson seconded C/Ruzicka's motion. The motion was
carried 5-0 by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka,
VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
None
None
RECESS: Chair/McManus recessed the meeting at 10:25 p.m.
APRIL 28, 1998
PAGE 14
RECONVENE: Chair/McManus reconvened the meeting at 10:35 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARING:
2. Development Review 97-7 and Parking Permit 98-1, pursuant
to Code Section 22.72.020 dnd 22.56.990), is a request
for a family restaurant in an existing commercial center.
The proposal involves combining and remodeling two
existing vacant units into one 2,700 square foot
restaurant. This proposal also includes a request for a
Parking Permit for the shared use of the existing parking
within the commercial center.
Project Address: 1126 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard
(northeast corner of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and Grand Avenue)
Applicant: Johnny Chan, 123 S. Lincoln Avenue,
Monterey Park, CA 91754
Property Owner: Nikko Capital Corporation, 3961
MacArthur Boulevard, Suite 105,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends
that the Planning. Commission continue Development Review
No. 97-7 and Parking Permit No. 98-1 to the meeting of
Tuesday, April 28, 1998 to allow the applicant additional
time to revise a required parking analysis.
DCM/DeStefano confirmed to C/Ruzicka that staff will
review the parking permit issue to insure compliance with
the conditions of approval.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
'Stan Heikennen, Nikko Capital Corporation, stated he read
staff's report and concurs with the conditions- of
approval. He stated he believes that the proposed
restaurant will be a positive amenity for the community.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this
item.
C/Kuo requested that staff indicate the number of parking
spaces by zone for future projects.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to approve Development
Review 97-7 in accordance with staff's recommendation.
The motion was carried 5-0 with the following Roll Cali
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka,
VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
APRIL 28, 1998
PAGE 15
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
3. General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel.Map No.
24646, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree
Permit No. 96-4 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21 -
Subdivision, Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992)
and Part 16-22.26 Oak Tree Permit). The subject request
proposes to change the General Plan land use designation
for 5.88 acres within a 132 acre parcel located in a
gated community identified as "The Country Estates". The
land use designation will change from Open Space to Rural
Residential. The remaining 126.12 acres will continue as
Open Space. The proposal includes; Subdividing the 5.88
acres into four lots, each a minimum of one acre, for the
eventual development of four single family custom homes;
the removal and replacement of oak and walnut trees; and
the removal of a map restriction. Continued from January
27, 1998.
Property Address: Easterly side of Blaze Trail across
from the intersection of Timbertop
Lane.
Property Owner/ Diamond Bar Country Estates
Applicant: Association, 22615 Lazy Meadow
Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission continue the public hearing
on General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map
No. 246461 Hillside Management Conditional Use Permit No.
96-14 and Oak Tree Permit No. 96-4 to June 23, 1998.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this
item.
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to continue General
Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24646,
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree Permit No.
96-4 to June 23, 1998. The motion was carried 5-0 with
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka,
VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: 'COMMISSIONERS: None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-2 and Development Review
No. `98-2 (pursuant to Code Section 22.28.210 and
APRIL 28, 1998
PAGE 16
22.72.020.A.1), is a request for the construction of a
38,000 square foot L.A. Fitness health club/gymnasium on
a 4.6 acre vacant site.
Project Location: North side of Golden Springs Drive,
south of the 60 Freeway between
Lemon Avenue and Brea Canyon Road.
Applicant: L.A. Fitness, 100 Bayview 14000,
Newport Beach, CA 92660
Project Owners: Lawrence R. Michaels, 20709 Golden
Springs Drive, Suite 208, Diamond
Bar, CA 91765 and,
The Warren Companies, 3218 E. Holt
Avenue #200, West Covina, CA 92660
DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission approve Development Review
No. 98-5, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as
listed within the resolution.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
Todd Von Sprecken, L.A. Fitness, Inc., Director of Design
Construction, stated there are two parcels with different
owners. The option to purchase the Michaels Family Trust
35000 acre portion was not available and a compromise
exchange was arranged for the Trust to acquire the most
easterly 35000 acres. L.A. Fitness will own
approximately 201,000 square feet and the Michaels Family
Trust will assume ownership of the easterly parcel. He
stated that his firm is in substantial agreement with the
conditions of approval .with the following exceptions. He.
asked that the staff be allowed to review and approve the
revised site plan to accommodate a required entrance and
signal installation at Rapidview Drive on Golden Springs
Road which requires that the building be shifted 35 feet
to the west of the proposed location. As a result of
shifting the building, the height of the northerly
retaining wall will be increased four to five feet which
will require a change of the site plan. He asked that
the review and approval of the site plan be reviewed and
approved at staff level. Regarding Item 5.d. of the
Resolution, he agreed to comply with the requirement to
install a non -irrigated hydroseeded ground cover.
Todd Van Sprecken asked that Condition 5.i. be changed to
include "best effort" to reach an agreement with the
property owner to the east because they do not know the
property owner. Page 4 of staff's report indicates that
L.A. Fitness will pay for its "fair share" of median
island construction. He requested that Condition 5.q. be
APRIL 28, 1998
PAGE 17
reworded to indicate that L.A. Fitness will contribute a
"fair share" of construction cost.
Bob Kahn, President of RKJK and Associates Traffic
Engineers, asked for consideration of a "fair share" of
50 percent of the cost or a maximum amount of $60,000 or
to be determined based upon the actual traffic
contribution at the, intersection toward for the
contribution of the traffic signal installation at
Rapidview and Golden Springs Road. Condition 5.t. deals
with the off-site traffic contribution to intersections.
He asked for consideration of a fair share contribution
of these improvements in the amount of $20,000 based upon
his firm's calculations instead of the $50,000
recommended by staff.
DCM/DeStefano stated that upon direction from the
Planning Commission, staff will work with the applicant
to reorient placement of the building to comply with the
condition to align the driveway with Rapidview Drive.
Staff is in agreement with the modifications proposed by
the applicant.
DPW/Wentz request that Page 8, Item H be clarified with
the insertion of "after lot line adjustment or parcel
merger as directed by the City's Engineer". With respect
to the Item i., the second word "will" be changed to
"may" be required. Regarding Item s., he stated he has
no objection to changing the amount to $60,000. without
having a maximum or minimum. He agreed to an amount of
$20,000 for Item t.
Following discussion, the applicant agreed to accept 50%
of the cost of median construction as their "fair share".
VC/Tye moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Conditional'
Use Permit No. 98-2 and Development Review No. 98-2
subject to the Findings of Fact and Conditions :of
Approval listed in the resolution as amended. The motion
was carried 5-0 with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
2. Development Review No. 98-5
Code Section. 22.72.020.A.)
20,500 square foot, one story
medical offices/urgent care
Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka,
VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
None
None
is a request (pursuant to
for the construction of a
building to be utilized as
center.
Project Location: 1514 Valley'Vista Drive, (Lot 11,
Tract No. 39679), Diamond Bar, CA
91765
APRIL 28, 1998 PAGE 18
Applicant: St. Jude Medical Center, 101 E.
Valencia Mesa Drive, Fullerton, CA
92634
Property owners: Diamond Bar Business Associates, 707
Wilshire Boulevard, 13030, Los
Angeles, CA 90017
AstP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission approve Development Review
No. 98-5, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as
listed within the resolution.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
Steve Gilbert, St. Jude Medical Center, stated he read
staff's report and concurs with the recommended
conditions of approval. He further stated he believes
the placement of this facility will bring technology and
synergies that will allow the center to better serve the
community.
Debra Little Pultz and Associates, landscape architects,
asked that staff concur with the applicant's intent to
place 60 trees within the parking lot and approximately
50 trees, within the pad area of the building. There are
existing trees on the slope banks and the slope banks
have been landscaped. She requested she be allowed to
work with staff to determine the number of additional
trees that would be required to be added to the slope
banks in compliance with the Gateway Corporate Centers
requirements.
Dr. Doug Starr stated that he began his practice in
Diamond Bar as a medical student in 1978, became an
employed physician in 1980, set up his own family group
medical practice in 1984 and merged and formed a non-
profit agency with St. Judes Hospital four years ago._ -He
believes the proposed facility offers Diamond Bar the
opportunity of a full medical center. By increasing the
space to the proposed level, the proposed facility can
offer additional diagnostic services and expand urgent
care. The center proposes to bring in outside sub-
specialists not presently available to the community.
Allen Wilson asked why the building is not proposed to be
a two story facility.
Steve Gilbert responded that a single story facility
offers better public access and staff effectiveness.
Following discussion, C/Nelson moved, C/Ruzicka seconded,
to approve Development Review No. 98-5, Findings of Fact
and conditions of approval as listed within the
APRIL 28, 1998 1 PAGE 19
resolution. The motion was carried 5-0 with the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka,
VC/Tye, Chair/McManus
None
None
DCM/Destefano stated that tonight he approved an Administrative
Development Review for an increase in square footage from 3600 to
7200 at 2595 Wagon Train Lane in "The Country Estates".
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS as listed in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to adjourn the meeting to May 12,
1998. There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 11:25 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Ja s DeStMfaSecretary 0 e Planning Commission
Attest:
r
v l:
e Mc anus
hairman
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 24, 1998
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McManus called themeeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Nelson.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman McManus, Vice Chairman Tye, and
Commissioners Kuo, Nelson and Ruzicka.
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano and
Associate Planner Ann Lungu.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: -None
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As submitted.
r CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of March 10, 1998.
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Tye seconded, to approve the minutes
of March 10, 1998 as submitted. The motion was carried
5-0.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional Use
Permit No. 98-03, Oak Tree Permit No. 98-01 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2, Volume I and II for
VTTM No. 52267. VTTM No. 52267 is proposed for 130
single-family detached residential dwelling units
clustered on approximately 65 acres of a 339.3 acre site.
The development is proposed as a. private, gated
community. Lots will range in size from 6,000 square
feet to 26,000 square feet with an average lot size of
101900 square feet. The gross proposed density is 0.4
dwelling units per acre with a net density of
approximately 2.06 dwelling units per acre. (Continued
from the February 24, 1998 meeting.)
MARCH 24, 1998 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
Property Address: Generally located east of Diamond
Bar Boulevard and north of Grand
Avenue.
Property owner: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership
550 W. Orangethorpe Avenue
Placentia, CA 92870
Applicant: Todd Kurtin, Suncal Companies
5109 E. LaPalma Avenue, Anaheim, CA
AstP/Lunge presented staff's report.
DCM/DeStefano stated that anticipating that this evening
would be a public hearing to hear the merits of the
original project and any responses to comments, the
City's staff sent out over 1000 public hearing notices to
surrounding property owners. He reported that letters
received from residents regarding this item have been
included in the Commissioner's packets. Upon receipt of
a letter from the developer on Thursday, March 19, staff
immediately sent out a copy of the developers letter and
a notice to the effected property owners that the
developer had requested a continuance. Staff recommends
that the Planning Commission open the public hearing,
receive testimony, and continue the matter to April 24,
1998.
Bruce Elieff, President of Suncal Companies, asked the
Planning Commission to grant a continuance in order to
allow the developer additional time to prepare, study and
present an alternative plan. He concurred with staff's
recommendation to continue the matter to April 24, 1998.
Chair/McManus read the following statement:
In "William Tell", the rural swiss realized their ancient
liberties'Were in danger when the new bailiff road up. -to
reprimand one of them for the offense of erecting a
dwelling on. his own land. "I am the Regent in the
Emperor's stead and will not have the peasants building
houses of their own wi11 and living lives as freely as if
they were the masters in this country." The peasants
feared before long, the new overlords would turn their
properties into game preserves for their own amusement.
Today it is routine to read of a landowner denied
permission to build a house, lay down a gravel path. or
plant or trim a tree.
Today, once it is proven that swamps or trees are
ecologically valuable, you've. proven the case for
ordering the owners to maintain them forever at whatever
sacrifice., "This is the equivalent of an admiral saying
MARCH 24, 1998 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
that because the U.S. needs a navy, the government can
take your land for a dockyard without paying you."
It used to be that Uncle Sam and other entities would buy
land when they needed to expand a park or set aside a
wildlife refuge._ That's the method contemplated in the
Bill of Rights, whose Fifth Amendment reads, in part,
"nor shall private property be taken for public use
without just compensation".
Having to'pay for takings imposes both a pragmatic and a
moral discipline on those who wield power: "If you must
pay, then it forces thought about what is really valuable
and what is not. If the property is free, the outcome is
obvious, take everything you can get your hands on.
Please do not ask us (The Planning commission) to leave
title with the owner and freeze the use. while we
realize there is no physical taking, consider the moral
side of this issue. Pro -property forces should stand
firmly where they belong, on the moral high ground.
How will you feel when someone demands you donate your
property to their cause?
Chair/McManus stated that this body is not the City
Council - it is a Commission whose members are not
elected but appointed. The Planning Commission does not
have the final say in this matter. The property in
question had been in private hands long before Diamond
Bar was incorporated. When SunCal purchased the
property, a contract with a Memorandum of Understanding
in place was entered- into with the understanding that
they could develop this property. . He said that while
residents come before the Planning Commission and state
they want the Commission to leave the property in its
present state, this body would prefer that the residents
make recommendations as to how the property can :be
developed in a manner that is acceptable to the residents
and not put the'City in jeopardy of a lawsuit.
George Davidson, 23426 E. Wagon Trail Road, asked if a 14
or 21 day restriction could be placed on public hearing
changes or continuances to give the residents more prior
notice. He asked if the EIR will be reopened.
DCM/DeStefano responded that he is not aware of any
provision. that would compel the City to require the
developer. to give such extended notice of a requested
continuance. The applicant has significant riuhts to
process and may even request a continuance in the middle
of a public hearing.
Ron Tehrany, 745 View Lane, said he believes two weeks is
not enough time for staff and the public to review the
MARCH 24, 1998
PAGE 4
PLANNING COMMISSION
revised plan and that the EIR should be reopened for
public comment.
DCM/DeStefano stated the EIR public comment period has
been closed. and further public comments are addressed
in the "Response to Comments" portion of the document.
Until all facts regarding the revised proposed project
are presented, staff will not make a -determination.
regarding possible recirculation of the project.
Sam Saffari, 24075 Highcrest Drive, said that the main
reason he is present tonight is to make certain the
Commission understands that these delays are a ploy by
the developer to wear down the citizens. He stated that
there are never answers.provided to resident's questions.
He said that at the last meeting, he asked that more than
1000 people be noticed about this project and he does not
think the developer would have a problem with wider
notification. Notifying people is a requirement if they
are going to be exposed to 1.8 billion cubic feet of dirt
in the air for three years. 1000 households is not even
remotely the number of people that will.be effected by
this project. He said he believes the whole of Diamond
Bar will be effected. The EIR has to be opened -because
the project will be different. He said he heard the
north face buttress proposed to be installed by the
developer is as big as Hoover Dam. To him it is a joke
because he doesn't know how you can hold this project up.
At the bottom of the project next to Diamond Bar
Boulevard there used to be a corridor for animals and now
there isn't. He stated that the new project is impacting
a different type of area and people and the EIR is
required to be opened. He said he believes an option for
the City of Diamond Bar that has no surplus funds is to
buy the land and you can put it. to a vote of the people.,.
He further stated that the residents are sick and tired'
of the traffic and do not want explosions next to their
houses six days a week. -
A Diamond ;Bar citizen living at 508 Rexford Court, asked
what it takes to approve the project. He likes the
project but he would like to see the criteria used to
evaluate a project of this type so that an unbiased
decision can be reached. He spoke about his concerns
regarding the staff costs involved in a project of this
type and asked the Commissioners to take this matter
under consideration and decide whether these
continuations are a waste of Diamond Bar's resources.
The City needs for land to remain in its natural state
and not necessarily for the citizens to purchase the land
to build parks.
Nina Goncharov, 23631 Gold Nugget Avenue, said she lives
close to the project and was not notified of any
meetings. She asked to be placed on the City's mailing
MARCH 24, 1998 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
list. She also asked for a copy of Chair/McManus'
statement.
Carol Long, 1044 Summitridge Drive, said she was told by
a former City Council Member, that if this project is
pushed through that there is a parcel of*land that the
developer owns which is situated on Summitridge Drive
between Summitridge park and the neighborhood park and
that the land will be given to the City of Diamond Bar
for construction of a new City Hall. She asked if this
information is correct.
DCM/DeStefano stated that Summitridge Park is owned by
the City of Diamond Bar. The hill on Summitridge Park
which is'parallel to Summitridge Drive is City -owned
property. Discussions have taken place regarding the
need for .a City Hall facility and sites are being
contemplated for that purpose including the City -owned
Summitridge Park site. He presented a map which shows no
known developer owned property adjacent to Summitridge
Drive. The only access to the developer's property is
Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive and a proposed
emergency gate at Highcrest Drive.
Mr. Elieff offered to answer any questions the public may
have. He asked that concerned residents call Mr. Todd
Kurtin or Bruce Elieff at (714) 693-6700.
Chair/McManus closed the public hearing.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to reopen the public
hearing and continue the matter to April. 28, 1998. The
motion was carried 5-0.
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-1 and Development Review
No. 98-1 (pursuant to Code Section 22.56 -Part 1 and
22.72.020.A) is a request to construct and operate an
unmanned Bank of America Automated Teller Machine Kiosk
in the Country Hills Towne Center within an area between
the existing The Wherehouse music and video store and ;the
Diamond Bar Boulevard entrance to the center. (Continued
from February 24, 1998)
Project Address: Country Hills Towne Center, Diamond
Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar
Applicant: Bank of America,_ 600 Wilshire
Boulevard, Los Angeles, CA 90017
Property Owner: M & H Realty Partners, 1721 W.
Imperial Highway #G, LaHabra, CA
90361
DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. Staff recommends
that this project be continued to April 14, 1998 to allow
the applicant time to submit revised plans.
MARCH 24, 1998 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this
item.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Kuo seconded, to continue the public
hearing for Conditional Use Permit No. 98-1 and
Development Review No. 98-1 to April 14, 1998. The
motion was carried 5-0.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
C/Nelson stated that with respect to the SunCal project, he
listened to the prior meeting tapes and was disappointed about the
applicant's continual reference to "highest and best use". He said
he certainly believes. in the Fifth Amendment to the United States
Constitution and indicated he supports Chair/McManus' earlier
statement. He said he is also disappointed in the opposition to
the project and the exaggerations that have been expressed and the
degradation of the City's staff. He stated he will keep an open
mind and will consider all prior statements as well as, his own
unbiased opinion from 24 years of experience in this field when
considering this project.
C/Kuo stated he shares C/Nelson's concerns and disappointments. He
said he is present to become acquainted with his job as a
Commissioner. He believes that together, the Commissioners can do
a great job for the City of Diamond Bar as long as they keep and
open mind, set ground rules and maintain the laws.
C/Ruzicka thanked DCM/DeStefano for reiterating that the developer
bears the burden of project related costs. -
VC/tye stated that this is his seventh Planning Commission meeting
and it is time to set the record straight because he has been
hearing a fair amount of misinformation from the speakers podium..,:-
He
odium,,`He is concerned that residents do not understand the process the
City must go through to consider a proposed project and if they.do
understand the process, they do not appear to appreciate it. This
landowner is entitled to due process and he is entitled to a
continuance if he so desires. Continuances are not a ploy. He
understands that it is difficult for people to speak their minds
and stay away from the emotional buzz words like "ploy", "illegal",
"lawsuit", etc. Mr. Saffari made a reference to 1.8 billion cubic
yards of dirt being moved. The report clearly states that 1.8
million cubic yards of dirt is proposed to be moved. It .is this
kind of misinformation that can be stated over and over again if it
is not challenged. He said he feels that the people who are
addressing this issue and getting the neighborhood residents
excited are as well -versed as they chose to be.
Chair/McManus thanked the Commissioners and staff for their
objectivity.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
MARCH 24, 1998 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/Destefano stated that on April 14, 1998 in addition to the
unmanned Bank of America automated Teller Machine Kiosk Conditional
Use Permit, the Planning Commission will consider a restaurant
proposed to be located in the Ralphs Shopping Center just north of
Enterprise Car Rental in a space of about 3,000 square feet.and the
adoption of the revised Planning Commissioner's Manual. In
addition, the City, Attorney will provide the Commission with, an
orientation of the Brown Act and other pertinent legal issues.
DCM/DeStefano indicated that earlier this evening he approved
.construction of a.4800 square foot single family home at 689
Leyland Drive and continued to April 8, 1998, a proposed 10,000
square foot home at 22818 Canyon View Drive in "The Country
Estates".
DCM/DeStefano pointed out that on April 18, 1998, the City will
participate in a county -wide Household Hazardous Waste Roundup.
Items may be dropped at 1300 Bridge Gate Drive in the Gateway
Corporate Center.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS as listed in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
VC/Tye moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to adjourn.the meeting to April
14, 1998. There being no further business to come before the
t; Planning Commission, Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 8:30
p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Act)
J es DeStefa o
Secretary to the Planning Commission
Attest:
-&) 0 C,
McManus
irman
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF -THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 24, 1998
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:12 p.m. in the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Vice Chairman McManus.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman McManus, and
Commissioners, Fong, and Goldenberg.
Commissioner Tye arrived at 8:12 p.m.
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Senior
Planner. Catherine Johnson and Associate
Planner Ann Lungu.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PIIBLIC COMMENTS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of February 10, 1998.
VC/McManus moved, C/Fong seconded, to approve the minutes of
February 10, 1998 as submitted. The motion was carried 4-0.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
PIIBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 98-1 and Development Review No. 98-
1 (pursuant to Code Section 22.56 -Part 1 and 22.72.020.A) is
a request to construct and operate an unmanned Bank of America
Automated Teller Machine Kiosk in the Country Hills Towne
Center within an area between the existing The Wherehouse
music and video store and the Diamond Bar Boulevard entrance
to the center.
Project Address: Country Hills Towne Center, Diamond Bar
Boulevard, Diamond Bar
Applicant: Bank of America, 600 Wilshire Boulevard,
Los Angeles, CA 90017
FEBRUARY 24, 1998 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
Property Owner: M & H Realty Partners, 1721 W. Imperial
Highway #G, LaHabra, CA 90361
5801 S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90040
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue the
project to March 24, 1998.
C/Goldenberg moved, vC/McManus seconded, to continue the
matter to March 24, 1998. The motion was carried 4-0 with the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, VC/McManus,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Tye
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional Use Permit
NO. 98-03, Oak Tree Permit No. 98-01 and Environmental Impact
Report No. 97-2, Volume I and II for VTTM No. 52267. VTTM No.
52267 is proposed for 130 single-family detached residential
dwelling units clustered on approximately 65 acres of a 339.3
acre site. The development is proposed as a private, gated
community. Lots will range in size from 6,000 square feet to
26,000 square feet with an average lot size of 10,900 square
feet. The gross proposed density is 0.4 dwelling units per
acre with a net density of approximately 2.06 dwelling units
per acre. (Continued from the February 10, 1998 meeting.)
Property Address: Generally located east of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue.
Property Owner: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership
5109 E. LaPalma Avenue, Anaheim, CA
Applicant: Todd Kurtin, SunCal Companies
5109 E. LaPalma Avenue, Anaheim, CA
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public
hearing, receive a presentation from the applicant, receive
public comments, and continue the public hearing to March 10,
1998.
Todd Kurtin asked that the proposed project be continued to
March 24, 1998. He stated the applicant is currently working
on an alternative plan to propose construction on Lot 6 only
and does not feel that staff will have adequate time to review
the proposed project prior to March 10, 1998.
Chair/Ruzicka asked if a new public hearing notice will be
advertised if the project is continued to March 24, 1998.
FEBRUARY 24, 1998 PAGE 3 . PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano responded that if the intent of the applicant to
request a continuance to March 24, 1998 is to review a new
alternative to the currently proposed project, it is advisable
to renotice the project.
C/Goldenberg asked for an opportunity to address the audience
following their comments. At the last Planning Commission
meeting, many inaccurate comments were made by the audience
and need to be addressed in order to be fair to the City and
staff.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
DCM/DeStefano responded that at the behest of the Commission,
staff will answer questions that can be addressed with the
information that is available.
Don Guilette, 1027 Banner Ridge Road, said he is a 20 year
resident of the City and he and his wife have grown to like
the open space and the illusion of "country living" which is
rapidly disappearing due to development. He said is there any
wonder why there is so much contempt and distrust for the
politicians and elected officials when you see projects like
this proposal. He asked why the effected homeowners were not
advised of the "impending destruction of the canyon". He said
he found out about this matter through a flyer he received on
Sunday afternoon. He indicated he resides approximately 1000
feet from the property and asked why he was not notified. He
wanted to know why there is a discussion regarding deed
restricted property. He stated the officials should have told
the builder that there was no building allowed in the area.
He said this open space belongs to the people of Diamond Bar
and it is not the City's property to give up. He spoke about
his concerns regarding three years of construction and heavy
trucks on already congested streets. He asked that the
Planning Commission recommend that the City Council deny this
attempt to destroy the City's open space.
Steve Lasser, 23403 Stirrup Drive, said the City has not done•
a good job in handling this matter like a business decision
because. only 300 flyers were sent out to people advising them
about a three year massive grading project. He said he lives
a block away from the project and he did not receive a flyer.
He talked about the costs of the project and the liability
exposure due to the potential of several class action lawsuits
as a result of this construction. He said that because of
Proposition 13, the proposed structures will not generate
sufficient revenue to support the infrastructure. He spoke
about the benefits: SunCal's offer to give the citizens six
acres for a park out of the 340 acres they want to develop;
they will replace 30 of the 600 plus oak trees that will be
removed; the community will be located behind a guarded gate;
_. and installation of one traffic light. These benefits are
proposed in exchange for traffic congestion, diminished
quality of life, and all of the things the residents moved
FEBRUARY 24, 1998 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
here to avoid. Diamond Bar is not the
because the property is protected.
property left as it is and they do not
getting money from developers.
place for development
The people want the
want the politicians
Dr. Chrishna Goode, 624 Hoss Street, asked the Commission to
comment on the Environmental Impact Report which she said she
understands is grossly polluted. She said she believes that
the dynamite blast's particle output will certainly lead to
serious health problems in the area. She asked if the area
schools are prepared to accommodate the additional 200 or 300
middle school children of families who purchase property in
this development. She said she does not understand why the
City is discussing deed ]restricted property.
Ken Martinez, 772 S. Farben Drive, said he does not understand
why this project is before the City. The citizens do not want
this project and he asked the Planning Commission to make a
decision tonight.
George Davidson, 23426 E. Wagon Trail Road, asked for
clarification of the notification process. He said he
believes a decision should be made tonight regarding this
project.
Henry Pourzand, 1008 Quiet Creek Lane, again commented on
information contained in the EIR.
Clyde Hennessee, a Diamond Bar resident, said the Planning
Commission is doing exactly what it is supposed to do. He
invited the residents to attend City Council meetings and
voice their opinions because the Council will have the final
decision regarding this project. He commented that statements
made by a citizen regarding Proposition 13 are not correct.
Sam Saffari, 24075 Highcrest Drive, asked the Commission to,
make a decision tonight with respect to this project. He
asked why SunCal paid 2.7 million for property that is worth
hundreds of millions of dollars and put the project in the
City's General Plan when no one was looking. He said he
wants the Planning Commission to propose a "no building"
initiative. He indicated staff did not explain how many
people have left messages at City Hall about this project.
Gene Mullinax, 23424 Mane Drive, spoke about the EIR. He
stated his concerns regarding the runoff and resulting damage
that will be created by the proposed project.
A citizen residing at 23646 E. Gold Nugget Avenue, said she
does not want deed restrictions lifted. More houses mean more
schools. Diamond Bar should not be dealing with problems like
those experienced by Chino Hills.
Ron Tehrany, 745 View Lane, asked the Commission to request
the applicant to provide a new EIR for the alternative
FEBRUARY 24, 1998 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
proposal. He requested the Commission to recommend an
initiative against building in open space.
Jeremy Bluto, 304 Navajo Springs Road, asked that if the
project is continued to March 24, 1998,- that notice be mailed
to all Diamond Bar residents.
Steve Swanson, 23966 Gold Nugget Avenue, said this project
reminds him of the Raging Waters project. He wants to know
why the Planning Commission continues to consider this project
when the citizens are against it 999 to 1.
Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing.
Responding to Chair/Ruzicka's request to speak to citizen's
concerns, DCM/DeStefano stated the following: Some of the
remarks require the response of the City's Environmental
Consultant who is not present this evening. With respect to
comments pertaining to the development, he presented a graphic
showing 340 acres owned by the developer with about 65 acres
being proposed for development. The developer proposes to
build 130 dwelling units from the extension of Highcrest Drive
down the existing hill to a proposed intersection opposite Tin
Drive on Diamond Bar Boulevard. The developer has proposed to
provide the City with the balance of the 340 acres
(approximately 275 acres) as permanent public open space in
addition to the developer's holding (approximately 60-70
acres) that exists on a hill behind Pantera Park off of
Pantera Drive.
Commissioner Tye arrived at 8:12 p.m.
DCM/DeStefano continued. The lot on which the developer
proposes to build dwelling units is not map and deed
restricted. The properties on either side of the proposed
development have map and deed restrictions. The current
proposal requests that the 130 homes be developed on a portion
of the adjacent map and deed restricted property.- According
to the City's General Plan, if a developer or property owner
wants permission to remove or modify map restrictions, they
must go through the type of process that is currently before
the Planning Commission and ultimately, before the City
Council with the Planning Commission's recommendation. In
some cases the City Council has lifted the map and deed
restrictions, and in some cases it has not lifted the map and
deed restrictions. According to the General Plan, the
applicant must demonstrate that there is a significant benefit
to the City in lifting map and deed restrictions. He pointed
out that the project as presently proposed, not require the
flattening or filling of all of the property owned by the
applicant. The project is designed to be developed only along
the ridgeline and the immediately adjacent property. On the
Goldrush Drive side of the property there is a significant
stand of trees -and an ancient landslide. On the south side of
the project near Steep Canyon Road there is a second ancient
FEBRUARY 24, 1998
PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
landslide. Both landslides need to be mitigated. He
emphasized that Diamond Bar is fraught with landslides.
Nearly every project in the City has had to deal with the
removal of this type of geological formation in order that
to
render the area safe. The developer is not proposing
the area adjacent to Steep Canyon Road be filled as speakers
have indicated. According to the developer's proposal, the
canyon will remain
intact
m t gate the north existingsting landslideyto
would be reconfigured The proposed grading
secure the area for safety purposes.
incorporates about 1.8 million cubic yards of earth. nts a
the type of p s
amount of earth will generate
previous speaker identified. The City's employed
Environmental Conltant cannot 1 be fully nts out inmitigatedat this duringthvel
e
of air pollution
construction phase which is not uncommon during a construction
project of this size. This fact.does not determine whether
the project will be approved or denied. In addition,
points out the loss of a virgin hillside to 130 homes which is
a factor that cannot be mitig o al of denial of the projectand it does not mean .
such factor will result in app
The Environmental Consultant has deter
canned be mitigatedthatoto some
tc
as impacts to schools, traffic, e
degree which eliminates the project's impacts (ie: a traffic
explained that developers are
signal at Tin Drive). He
required by law to pay to the school district $1.84 per square
foot for school impact fees.
DCM/DeStefano stated that with
Commis to on directed staff
the previous project,ublic notice for
proposed project
to notice residents within ant
feet withdrew
the the proposal, P staff
radius. When the applicant This,
noticed everyone within 2000 feet of the projects.
project is smaller in size and magnitude. This project was
noticed within 500 feet of the perimeters of340 cre site
notices were
- approximately 1000 people. In addition, public as required by
T a, �_�Bul l etin and ? hL
placed in posted on the
the City's current Code. Notices the Citso library, South
City's electronic bulletin board,
Y
Coast Air Quality Management, and on the display board at City
Hall. ld
With respect to the comments and that the projethis ct should roject o not not
be considered a "open s ace", DCM/D_eStefano
approved because the property is op P
explained that a property owner has a right to "ask" that his
project be considered which does not necessarilyo all? that
a
property owner has a right to "receive" apP
additions are handled
project of this scale sreviewed by the planningyCommissi n
which in turn makes its recommendation to the City Council.
Decisions for approval or denial are made based upon the facts
of
of the
ding the
environmental
case, the acts, understandingthe
enviro effects,
ronmental imp ngthedetrimental
understanding the positive effects with the Planning
FEBRUARY 24, 1998 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
Commission making its recommendation to the City Council and
the City Council making factual and supportable decisions in
compliance with State law and local Codes that the project is
either appropriate or unappropriated for Diamond Bar. This
project has a long way to go before it reaches the decision
making .process. The Planning Commission is not in a legal
position to take action tonight to either approve or deny the
project. Facts have not been presented to the Commission in
order for it to support a recommendation to Council.
Regarding the speaker's comment that staff did not reference
any letters received from the public since the last public
hearing, DCM/DeStefano explained that copies of all letters
are transmitted to each Planning Commissioner. The City has
received no correspondence since the February 10, 1998
Planning Commission meeting.
Responding -to C/Fong, DCM/DeStefano confirmed that the
_-- - Planning Commission has the right to modify the project.
VC/McManus moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to continue the
public hearing to March 24, 1998. -
C/Goldenberg stated he has heard a number of misleading
statements during* the public hearings. He pointed out that
one of the benefits of this project is the opening up of about
300 acres to the public. He said he is concerned that the
developer might propose to reduce the size of the lots in
order to build more homes on Lot 6. He referred to a February
24, 1998 speaker who said he would like to have the City
remain as it was when he moved here three years ago. He said
that. frankly, he would have preferred the City to remain as it
was when he moved here 22 years ago and there were 7,000
residents, no traffic lights and no traffic. Many residents
protested the Pantera tract development which was built prior
to cityhood under Los Angeles County's jurisdiction. He said
he thought a citizen's suggestion to buy back the property was
a good idea., He said he is concerned about the lack of
courtesy toward the applicant and staff. While this is' -an
emotional issue, the Planning Commission is charged. with
hearing all of the facts related to the proposed project. He
stated the Planning Commission listens to _the citizens and
asks that the citizens extend the same courtesy to the
Commissioners who are residents of this community. He pointed
out that the Commission did not hear the same type of
community outpouring when two and one-half million yards of
dirt were moved during the construction of Diamond Ranch High
School.
C/Fong asked what the developer plans to propose as an
alternative.
DCM/DeStefam reiterated Mr. KurtinIs previous statement that
he intends tapropose an alternative to place the development
entirely X!Min Lot 6 which will not require map and deed
FEBRUARY 24, 1998 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
restriction removal. The details of the proposal have not yet
been provided to the City's Planning staff.
C/Goldenberg called for the question.
The motion was carried 5-0 with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, Tye, VC/McManus,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: None
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS as listed in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
VC/McManus moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to adjourn the meeting to
March 10, 1998. There being no further business to come before the
Planning Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 8:42
p.m.
Respe, tful ly SubT' tted,
James DeStefano.
Deputy City Mana er
Attest:
t
�T aia4
Chai
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
FEBRUARY 10, 1998
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:13 p.m. in the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Commissioner Goldenberg.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman McManus, and
Commissioners, Fong, Goldenberg, and Tye.
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Senior
Planner Catherine Johnson, Associate Planner
Ann Lungu and Director of Public Works George
Wentz.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of January 27, 1998.
VC/McManus moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to approve the
minutes of January 27, 1998 as submitted. The motion was
carried 5-0.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS - None
PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Variance No. 97-2 is a request (pursuant to Code Chapter
22.56 -Part 2 and Sign Ordinance No. 5A-1991) to install a
monument sign approximately seven feet six inches tall.
Currently, the City's Sign Ordinance permits one monument
sign, with a maximum height of six feet for the project site.
Property Address: 800-880 North Diamond Bar Boulevard,
Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
Property Owner: Trammel Crow So. Cal. Retail II, Inc.,
5801.S. Eastern Avenue, Suite 100
Los Angeles, CA 90040
Applicant: Citrus Valley Medical Offices
210 W. San Bernardino Road
Covina, CA 91723-1901
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
AstP/Lunge presented staff's report. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 97-2, Findings of
Fact and conditions as listed within the resolution.
VC/McManus asked the proposed sign's proximity to the Acapulco
Restaurant sign.
AstP/Lungu responded that lot frontage is 360 feet. The
proposed sign is at the halfway point and the Acapulco sign is
at the northern property line.
C/Goldenberg asked if the Acapulco sign is slated to be
removed if the proposed sign is approved.
AstP/Lungu indicated that the Acapulco sign was legally
installed prior to approval of the City's Sign Ordinance. The
sign will remain.
C/Tye asked if_ the Acapulco sign could be retrofitted to
include the applicant's sign.
AstP/Lungu stated the Acapulco sign is permitted exclusively
for the restaurant.
Responding to C/Tye, AstP/Lungu indicated the proposed sign
will include signage for other tenants.
Janell Prazak, ASI Sign Systems, representing Citrus Valley
Medical Offices, explained that the proposed monument sign is
8 inches over the six foot limit specified in the Sign
Ordinance. It has six interchangeable panels on either side
in addition to the 32 inch panel for the Citrus Valley logo
and location address. She asked that the variance be approved
at 6 feet eight inches to maintain the three inch sign
visibility. The proposed sign will accommodate two eight inch
by five foot panels for other tenants.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Goldenberg that the 1991 Diamond
Bar Sign Ordinance was adopted after eighteen months, of
Planning Commission and City Council review. The height
maximum was specified in order to provide the City with low -
scale signage that was thought to be most harmonious with the
community setting.
C/Goldenberg asked the applicant to state the hardship that
would justify the request for variance.:
Ms. Prazak responded that through calculations, the engineers
arrived at the proposed height.
C/Goldenberg stated he believes the City should follow the _
established guidelines.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
Ross Pfautz, Trammel Crow So. Cal Retail II, Inc., said the
shopping center's layout poses a visibility problem for the
tenants. He pointed out that the quality of the proposed sign
is architecturally pleasing and offers exposure for other
tenants.
Clyde Hennessee spoke in favor of the proposed signage.
Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/Fong seconded, to accept Variance No.
97-2 with staff's recommendations. The motion failed 2-3 with
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg, Fong
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, VC/McManus, Chair/Ruzicka
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
VC/McManus moved, Chair/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Variance
No. 97-2 to install a second sign at a height of 98 inches (80
inches for the sign and 18 inches for the base.
DCM/DeStefano asked that the following changes to the
Resolution be accepted by the maker and seconder of the
motion: Section D, Page 2, "the proposed variances request to
install a free standing monument sign with a sign face area of
31 feet and a height of .7.5 feet. "A revised sign plan
receive February 3, 1998 proposes a sign at eight foot 4
inches tall." Condition D, Page 4 is changed to read "The
free standing sign shall not exceed eight feet,. 4 inches."
VC/McManus and Chair/Ruzicka accepted the changes.
The motion failed 2-3 with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/McManus, Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, Tye
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
C/Goldenberg pointed out that in order to grant a variance,
special circumstances must exist and asked for explanation of
how the City can justify a variance for the causes presented.
Mr. Pfautz responded to C/Tye that it is not reasonable to
expect that the Acapulco Restaurant would agree to retrofit
their sign to accommodate other tenants. He pointed out that
Health Valley is comprised of several groups and not just one
tenant.
Ms. Prazak responded to Chair/Ruzicka that the applicant is
willing to decrease the sign base by eight inches to a total
of 10 inches for a total sign height of 90 inches.
VC/McManus moved, Chair/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Variance
No. 97-2 Findings of Fact and conditions as*listedwithin the
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
resolution with Condition (d) on Page 4 amended to read as
follows: "The freestanding monument sign height shall not
exceed 7.5 feet or 90 inches. The proposed 18 inch concrete
base may be reduced by 8 inches in order to permit a sixth, 8
inch, changeable panel. A revised elevation reflecting the
referenced. standards shall be submitted to the Planning
Department for review and approval." The motion was approved
3-2 with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/McManus, Chair/Ruzicka, Fong
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Goldenberg, Tye
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional Use Permit
No. 98-03, Oak Tree Permit No. 98-01 and Environmental Impact
Report No. 97-2, Volume I and II for VTTM No. 52267. VTTM No.
52267 is proposed for 130 single-family detached residential
dwelling units clustered on approximately 65 acres of a 339.3
acre site. The development is proposed as a private, gated
community. Lots will range in size from 6,000 square feet to
26,000 square feet with an average lot size of 10,900 square
feet. The gross proposed density is 0.4 dwelling units per
acre with a net density of approximately 2.06 dwelling units
per acre.
Property Address: Generally located east of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue.
Property Owner: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership
550 W. Orangethorpe Avenue
Placentia, CA 92870
Applicant: Todd Kurtin, SunCal Companies
550 W. Orangethorpe Avenue
Placentia, CA 92806
AstP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive .a
presentation from the applicant, receive public comments, and
continue the public hearing.
DCM/DeStefano stated the City received letters of opposition
to the.proposed project from Marlene and Gil Yanow, 23356
Wagon Trail Road and Kahle and Linda Meyers, 23363 Wagon Trail
Road.
Tom Smith, BonTerra Consulting, presented a brief summary of
the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
Todd Kurtin presented an overview of the proposed project. He
pointed out the proposal for 130 single family residential
units and dedication of 75 percent of the SunCal property to
open space is consistent with the City's General Plan.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
Darlene Epperly 23508 Twin Spring Lane, said she understands
that the property in question is deed restricted. The EIR is
lacking. She said she believes there is a significant
environmental impact presented by the underground spring that
f lows through the bottom of Steep Canyon. The proposed
residences will create runoff that will cause mass destruction
to flora and fauna in the canyon bottom. She stated that
because the City leaders have never listened to the people's
voices, she feels the only way to stop the project is by
filing a lawsuit.
Stan Granger, 23800 Gold Nugget Avenue, said he moved here
eighteen years ago and was told by the developer that the site
would remain open space because the. property was deed
restricted.
Steve Lasser, 23403 Stirrup Drive, asked the developer why
anyone would approve a project like this. What's in it for
Diamond Bar. He alluded to financial arrangements which would
benefit the City in exchange for increased traffic congestion,
loss of lifestyle, and increased costs to citizens for
infrastructure maintenance. He said he believes the Planning
Commission and City Council need to look out for all citizens
and not just special interest groups such as SunCal.
Don Schad said the proposed project is the most idiotic thing
that has happened to this City. Families and students will
lose the joy of exploring the unique open spaces that have
been given up to developers. He took exception to numerous
EIR findings. He stated this project is not. in keeping with
the citizen's version of the General Plan. The EIR is totally
unacceptable. This project should not occur.
Sam Saffari, 24075 Highcrest Drive, pointed out that the area
maps shows that the developer is entitled to build on Lot 6
only. Lot 6 will accommodate only 80 houses. The remaining
lots are deed restricted.
Doug Heideman, 656 Blenfield Place, said he believes this
project is a ploy. He stated he believes there is collusion
and game playing. He asked for guarantees that deed
restrictions will not be removed.* He spoke about a pattern of
deception. He said a lot of citizens thought this project had
been withdrawn. He has not heard one citizen speak in favor
of this project and he is confused.
Glen Maughan, 23353 Wagon Trail Road, spoke in opposition to
the project. He said his mortgage increased because of road
reconstruction and his mortgage will increase again to repair
what has just been fixed. He wants the City to remain as it
was when he moved here three years ago.
Albert Perez, 703 Pantera Drive, said he believes that some of
the Planning Commissioners have reached a conclusion with
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
respect to this project and that they are just going through
the motions.
Chair/Ruzicka assured Mr. Perez that the Commission's decision
will be based upon the proposed project and public testimony.
The public hearing will be continued.
Mr. Perez continued stating he believes more people should be
noticed about this project. Notice is very restricted by the
City of Diamond Bar. He said the notice was publicized on
January 1, 1998 and he thinks very few people read the paper
on that date. He also said he is concerned about the
conflicting statements in the EIR and will not stand in a
court battle. The developer has a right to develop Lot 6.
The General Plan presented by the citizens was rewritten by
the City Council and he does not agree with the approved
General Plan. He said the Planning Commission should tell the
City.Council that the citizens are against this project.
Todd Kurtin showed a 1978 aerial photo of the City. He
pointed out that homes owned by many of the speakers did not
exist at that time. He reiterated that Suncal is giving 75
percent of its land to the City of Diamond Bar to be preserved
as open space. Mr. Lasser mentioned 25-30 acres. In fact,
SunCal is giving in excess of 300 acres of open space to the
City. He is not aware of any developer donating that amount
of land to the City. He said he believes the proposed homes
will increase the value of the adjacent neighborhoods. He
stated the ongoing maintenance of the proposed development
will be paid by the homeowners who benefit by a gated
community.
Art O'Daly, 24075 Falcons View Drive, spoke about people
seeking to deprive others of their property rights. He agrees
that every citizen who lives in Diamond Bar has depleted the
supply of open space. He said he is disappointed about untrue.
statements that have been made during this public hearing. He
pointed out ways that the City could benefit through further
negotiations with this developer.
Jan Martinez, 772 Farben Drive, spoke against the project.
She suggested the citizens should buy back the property.
Henry Pourzand, 1008 Quiet Creek Lane, commented on statements
contained in the EIR.
Dave Kersey, 23403 E. Wagon Trail Road, questioned statistics
regarding trees and traffic contained in the reports. He said
that he paid a premium for his property because he was told
that the hill would remain as open space. He indicated he is
opposed to removing deed restrictions. The developer should
build within Lot 6 as intended.
Glenn Vickers, 52 Briole Drive, said he moved here several
years ago for country living and he is concerned about the
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
_ City's ever increasing congestion. He said that there is no
way this project can be approved if the Commission and City
Council listen to the citizens of Diamond Bar.
Ron Tehrany, 745 View Lane, asked the City to notify more
people of the public hearing. The environmental document
should be open to comment. He said was denied access to
review the project proposal at City Hall.
Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing.
VC/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded, to continue the public
hearing to February 24, 1998. The motion was approved 5-0
with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, Tye, VC/McManus,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
3. Development Review No. 97-8 (pursuant to Code Section
22.72.020) is a request for design review in order to
construct 107 single family homes within approved subdivisions
identified as Tract No.'s 32400, 52203, 52204 and 52228. The
proposed request consists of four, two-story plans with two
and three car garages ranging from approximately 3,472 square
feet to 4,244 square feet. Each plan will ,have three
architectural styles. Additionally, the request includes
entry designs and landscaping and walls.
Property Address: 1400 block of Brea Canyon Road (west side
of Brea. Canyon Road, south of Golden
Springs Drive and north of Pathfinder
Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91789.
Property Owner: Standard Pacific Corporation
1565 W. MacArthur Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Applicant: Dana Bieber, Standard Pacific Corporation
1565 W. MacArthur Boulevard
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
DCM/DeStef ano- presented staff's report. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approve Development Review No. 97-8,
Findings of Fact and conditions as listed within the
resolution.
Dana Bieber, Applicant, presented an overview of the proposed
project.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
VC/McManus moved, C/Goldenberg seconded, to approve
Development Review No. 97-8, Findings of Fact and conditions
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
as listed within the resolution. The motion was carried 5-0
with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, Tye, VC/McManus,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Diamond Bar Subdivision Ordinance: Review of Article I,
Purpose and Applicability; Article II, Subdivision Review
Procedures; Article III, Subdivision Design and Development,
and Article IV, Subdivision Ordinance Definitions.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public
hearing, receive testimony, review and discuss the Articles of
the Subdivision ordinance, and recommend City Council
approval.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this item.
Following discussion, VC/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded, to
recommend that the City Council approve the Articles of the
Subdivision Ordinance as recommended by staff. The motion was
carried 5-0 with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, Tye, VC/McManus,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
C/Tye said that tonight's meeting was particularly interesting for
him. He stated that .he is concerned about people "getting::
personal" in their comments. With respect to the SunCal project,
Mr. Perez's comments regarding the public hearing notification
being January 1, 1998 was incorrect. In fact, staff's report
indicates that the hearing notice was posted January 21, 1998.;
VC/McManus concurred with C/Tye that he does not approve of
personal attacks against Commissioners and staff members.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano stated that at its February 3, 1998 meeting, the City
Council approved the JCC Development Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 50314 -project and the three lot parcel map at the Best Western
Hotel. AstP/Lungu recently attended the Planning Commissioners
Forum in Rancho Cucamonga. Seminar information is included in the
Commission packets.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS as listed in the agenda.
FEBRUARY 10, 1998 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Tye moved, C/Fong seconded, to adjourn the meeting to February
24, 1998. There being no further business to come before the
Planning Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 11:07
p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
-2
JWY
J s DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OCTOBER 14, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:08 p.m. in the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by River McIntoush.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, and
Commissioners Fong, Goldenberg and McManus
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, Senior
Planner Catherine Johnson, Associate Planner
Ann Lungu and Planning Technician Susan Cole.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: Bob Zirbes, Diamond Bar
Improvement Association, asked the Planning Commission to
reschedule its October 28, 1997 meeting in order for the
Commission's three City Council candidates to participate in the
Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce forum.
Sam Saffari spoke about the withdrawn SunCal project (agenda Item
6.1). He asked the Planning Commission to establish a moratorium
on single family residential developments in the City of Diamond
Bar.
Chair/Ruzicka asked that the record reflect that Mr. Saffari was
allowed additional speaking time for purposes of this item.
River McIntoush talked about the large amount of traffic on the
City's streets.
Gary Neeley, Executive Director, Diamond Bar Caucus made _the
following statement: "Good Evening. My name is Gary Neeley. I'm
the Executive Director of the Diamond Bar Caucus. Our offices are
at 1155 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, Suite 'R, Diamond Bar, CA. It
came to my attention recently that, well, first of all, there's an
item on your agenda, number 6.2 that discusses a project in Tonner
Canyon that I understand is going to have a continuance on it this
evening. But before that happens, before you get to that agenda
item if you are going to have a continuance I'd like to"discuss
that at this point in time, much like they're discussing SunCal
because there's going to be a continuance there. Is that okay?"
C/Ruzicka: "Fine with me, Mr. Neeley."
Mr. Neeley: Recently I received some information that -said that
one of the wives of one of your colleagues is working for that
developer. I know for a fact that this particular Planning
Commissioner, Mr. Schad, has, in fact, participated in the
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
discussion regarding this project. This project is the only
development in Tonner Canyon. Mr_ Schad of course, is well known
for his ""save Tonner Canyon"" diatribes. The gentleman before me
talked about the problem that we're having with traffic. I think
we all know, who have been around for awhile, that if we were
fortunate enough to get a regional bypass road around Tonner Canyon
that it would, in fact, and it has been professionally documented,
that it takes 30,000 cars a day off the surface streets of Diamond
Bar. We're talking Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue, the
very problem this gentleman (Mr. McIntoush and Mr. Saffari) was
just talking about - 30,000 cars a day. If, in fact that road was
built in or around Tonner Canyon, it would have to be financed
through developer fees. Developer fees for those developers who
are developing in Tonner Canyon. The very same people that are
employing one of your board member's wives. The very board member
who has spoken against not only building in Tonner Canyon but
building this road. I see a direct conflict of interest here. A
prosecutable conflict of interest here. I'd like to know whether
this particular Planning Commissioner's wife does truly work for
this developer. I've asked him in a public forum on city on-line
and he's refused to answer me. I find myself, I don't normally
like to come down to the microphone and participate in this manner,
but I can't get an answer any other way. Mr. Chairman, could you
determine an answer to that question and whether or not your
colleague there has a conflict of interest. I think it is that
important. We need to solve the traffic problem and having
somebody whose wife is being paid by the only developer in Tonner
Canyon stand up and stop the solution to our traffic problem and
piously cry ""save Tonner Canyon"" in his next breath is just
appalling to me. Could you find out the answer to that question
for me, Mr. Chairman?"
DCM/DeStefano responding to public comment, stated that the SunCal
project has been withdrawn by the applicant. If the applicant
chooses to reapply, property owners surrounding the proposed
development will be noticed via the public hearing notice
procedure.
DCM/DeStefano indicated that issues related to traffic impacts
effecting Diamond Bar are largely a result of neighboring city
buildouts. The City continues to mitigate the cumulative effect of
projects within adjacent communities such as Chino Hills and the
City of Industry.
DCM/DeStefano stated that from time to time, Planning Commissioners
and City Council Members may have a conflict of interest on a
particular project. They are responsible for disclosing the
conflict of interest with legal counsel and for recusing themselves
from any discussion and decision making process related to the
project. Commissioners, Council Members and staff receive regular
updates regarding the status of the law regarding conflict of
interest issues. Questions should be forwarded to the City
Attorney.
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/McManus stated the following: "If since Mr. Schad has already
sat through two hearings on the Windmill Development project, I
believe we have a right to know if, in fact, there is a conflict of
interest or not, and if his wife is in the employ of JCC or one of
their associates, then we have a right to know."
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of September 23, 1997.
2. A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR DENYING CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 97-3, A REQUEST
TO ALLOW THE SALE OF BEER AND WINE IN AN EXISTING MINI -MART AT
THE CHEVRON GAS STATION AT 21324 PATHFINDER ROAD, DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve Consent
Calendar Items 1.1 and 1.2. The motion was carried 5-0 with
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Following discussion regarding
Commission meeting, the Commission
matters to October 27, 1997.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS: - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
Goldenberg, McManus, Fong,
VC/Schad, Chair/Ruzicka
None
None
the October 28, 1997 Planning
concurred to continue unresolved
1. General Plan Amendment No. 96-2, Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 52267, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52308,"
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-13, Conditional Use Permit
No. 96-16, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-3 and Oak Tree Permit
No. 96-5. Pursuant to Code Sections Title 21 -
Subdivision, 22.56.215 -Part 1, Hillside Management Area,
Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992) and 22.26 -Part
'16 -Oak Tree Permit, the project request consists of the
following:
a) VTTM No. 52267, Conditional use Permit No. 96-13 and
Oak Tree Permit No. 96-3 is proposed for 130 single
family detached residential dwelling units clustered on
approximately 65 acres of a 339.3 acre site. The
development is proposed as a private, gated community.
Lots will range in size from 6,000 square feet to 26,000
square feet. The gross proposed density is 0.4 dwelling
units per acre with a net density of approximately 2.06
dwelling units per acre; and
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
b) VTTM No. 52308, General Plan Amendment No. 96-2,
Conditional Use permit No. 9.6-16 and Oak Tree Permit No.
96-5 is proposed for 60 single-family detached
residential dwelling units clustered on approximately
36.7 acres of the 86.3 acre site. The development is
proposed as a private, gated community. Lots will range
in size from 8,000 square feet to 41,750 square feet.
The gross proposed density is 0.7 dwelling units per acre
with a net density of approximately 1.63 dwelling units
per acre.
Additionally, the project includes a General Plan
Amendment to allow additional residential development in
excess of 130 dwelling units within General Plan Planning
Area 2, and the removal of deed and map restricts and the
potential for acquisition of publicly owned property
adjacent to Pantera Park.
Property Address: VTTM No. 52267 is generally located
east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
north of Grand Avenue. VTTM No.
52308 is generally located northeast
of Pantera Drive and south of
Bowcreek Drive. City of Diamond
Bar, California.
Applicant: SunCal Companies, 550 W.
Orangethorpe Avenue, Placentia,
California 92806
The Developer has requested that the project be
withdrawn. Staff recommends that the letter of
withdrawal be received and filed.
C/McManus addressed Mr. Saffari's comments regarding this
project as follows: "Yes, Mr. Safarri, you started out
talking about the honesty, candor and forthrightness of"
the City. I have a flyer here that was printed up and
passed out in your neighborhood that has some gross
misrepresentations in it. It says here ""last chance -
last hearing I'll and it keeps hammering on that same thing
- last chance, last hearing and that was for the last
meeting which is, in fact, the first chance and the first
hearing. Some people who live up there also told me that
they understood SunCal bought that property for $150,000.
I will tell you right now that if you can get that
property for $150,000, I will buy it and donate it to the
City. No problem. So there's a lot..of gross
misrepresentations that are going on within your own
group. Also, you asked why the announcement was sent out
- the yellow sheet - since there was no announcement that
it was being continued. It was announced here at a y
public meeting. Therefore, we had to send that
announcement out. The City had to send to send that
announcement out. And I believe, and Mr. DeStefano can
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
_ confirm this, the piece of property that you're talking
about, the big piece of property, at the point in time
that it was sold, was sold with a Memorandum of
Understanding in place which means that whoever bought it
had a right to develop it under certain constraints. You
said something about 65 homes. The one I read said 130.
I will defer to Mr. DeStefano to answer that. But they
have a legal right, when they bought the property it was
already approved, to develop that part of it. And the
property is in private hands. Would you want somebody to
come in and say okay, we're going to take your land away
and destroy your home because we want a park here. Think
about that. I happened to have lived here for 18 years.
And I live right off Grand Avenue. So Mr. Mclntoush, you
talk about the traffic, I hit it every morning. And it
takes me sometimes - I have a business here in Diamond
Bar - and it's less than a mile away from my home. It
sometimes takes me 15 minutes to get home in the evening.
When they wanted to broaden that corner - widen Diamond
Bar and Grand - I was unalterably opposed to it. I feel
if you build wider lanes then you bring more traffic and
sure enough, it did. But most of that traffic does come
from out of the community. Now we need to work on
something to resolve that specific problem - to get that
traffic from other communities off of our streets. And
long before we became a City, a bypass cut -through Tonner
Canyon was proposed. And I remember the Highway Patrol
coming down to a municipal advisory counsel meeting that
they had done a study that (concluded) the minute Grand
Avenue was opened, it would be at 110 percent capacity.
So we knew it before we were incorporated. So, as Mr.
Fong is pointing out, a lot of that flows from past
leadership - the mistakes they made, shortsightedness,
all that sort of thing. And we don't want, and I don't
want those hills developed either, in all candor. I
would rather see it all remain open space. But, somebody
has invested money in it. And if we can't reimburse them
for it, we need to find an amicable solution. Some way
to work it out."
C/McManus continued: "And I do believe with all my heart
and soul that Mr. Schad owes an explanation to the
Community of Diamond Bar about his wife working for a
developer that has a project down here."
The Commission concurred to receive and file the
applicant's letter of withdrawl.
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change
96-1 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21, and Title
22.56.215, 22.26 Part 16 and 22.16 Part 2) are requests
to approve a 15 lot subdivision on approximately 44
acres. The average lot size will be 2.92 acres. Six of
the proposed lots are part of two approved tracts.
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
Therefore, VTTM 50314's development will result in a net
increase of 13 residential lots. The project site is
within Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area No.
15. The Zone Change will convert the current zoning of
R-1-20,000 and A-2-2 to R-1-40,000. Continued from
August 26, 1997.
Project Address: Southeast of the most southerly
intersection of Steeplechase
Lane and Wagon Train Lane.
Project Owner/Applicant: Kurt Nelson, Windmill
Development, 3480 Torrance
Boulevard, Suite 300, Torrance,
CA 90503
Due to the applicant's request for a continuance to
October 28, 1997, staff recommends that the Planning
Commission continue the public hearing to October 27,
1997.
Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing.
Gary Neeley: "I'm just amazed that first of all, Mr.
Schad, you haven't answered the question. Does your wife
work for the developer or doesn't she work for the
developer? If she doesn't, just lean forward to the
microphone and say no, she doesn't."
VC/Schad: "NO. Is that it?"
Mr. Neeley: "She does not work in any way, any capacity,
in any way shape or form, she's not on the payroll for
JCC, Jack Cameron, any of his derivities? Is that right?
Never has been."
VC/Schad: "Paul, turn up the volume. This man's having
trouble hearing."
Mr. Neeley: "I take it that's a "no"? We'll look into
that. We'll have the district attorney look into that,
Mr. Schad. Thank you very much."
Chair/Ruzicka. "Thank you, Mr. Neeley."
C/McManus moved, C/Fong seconded, to continue Vesting
Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use Permit No.
96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change 96-1 to
October 27, 1997. The motion was carried 5-0.
3. General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map No.
24646, conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree l
Permit No. 96-4 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21 -
Subdivision, Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992)
and Part 16-22.26 Oak Tree Permit). The subject request
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
proposes to change the General Plan land use designation
for 5.88 acres within a 132 acre parcel located in a
gated community identified as "The Country Estates". The
land use designation will change from Open Space to Rural
Residential. The remaining 126.12 acres will continue as
Open Space. The proposal includes: subdividing the 5.88
acres into four lots, each a minimum of one acre, for the
eventual development of four single family custom homes;
the removal and replacement of oak and walnut trees; and
the removal of a map restriction.
Property Address: Easterly side of Blaze Trail across
from the intersection of Timbertop
Lane.
Property Owner/ Diamond Bar Country Estates
Association,
Applicant: 22615 Lazy Meadow Drive, Diamond
Bar, California 91765
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue
the public hearing on General Plan Amendment No. 96-1,
Tentative Parcel Map No. 24646, Hillside Management
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree Permit No.
96-4 to January 27, 1998.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
Art O'Daly asked if the Planning Commission received the
requested information regarding "The Country Estates"
Homeowners Association survey. He asked.if there is a
reason this item is being continued to January 27, 1998.
DCM/DeStefano explained that the applicant requested this
matter be continued to January 27, 1998.
AP/Lungu responded to C/Fong that the applicant indicated
that approximately 300 homeowners were surveyed. Of
those who responded, 80 percent were in favor of
proceeding with the development by obtaining revenue from
the project's sale to build new recreational facilities,
and 20 percent were in favor of a personal assessment.
Frank Shu spoke in favor of the project.
C/McManus moved, VC/Schad seconded, to continue General
Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map No. 24646,
Conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree .Permit No.
96-4 to January 27, 1998- The motion was carried 4-1
with.the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Schad, Goldenberg,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
4. Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment 2CA 97-1
and Negative Declaration No. 97-3). . Review of all
Articles of the Draft Development Code, Draft Subdivision
Code, and Draft Design Guidelines.
DCM/DeStefano explained that the Subdivision Code will be
presented at a future Commission meeting as a separate
document.
Chair/Ruzicka reminded staff that the following items
were discussed and agreed upon by the Commission: Adult
Businesses - the Commission concurred that the code
should be the most restrictive code permitted by law;
Signs - that signs should include the maximum amount of
English permitted under the law; View Protection - the
Commission concurred that the Laguna Beach Ordinance was
appropriate to Diamond Bar; and, with respect to Tree
Preservation and Protection, Item A. under Exemptions on
Page III -131 was revised to the following language (See
August 26, 1997 Planning Commission minutes): "Trees,
except those designated by the City Council as a
historical or cultural tree, and trees required to be
preserved, relocated or planted as a condition of
approval of a discretionary permit, located on all
developed properties prior to adoption of this
Development Code."
SP/Johnson presented the updated Draft Development Code
and explained the document revisions.
C/Goldenberg said he believes the Commission agreed to
require 4" inch digits with respect to address numbers
(Article III - Page 117, Table 3-X, Section I "Additional
Requirements").
DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/Ruzicka that the 4"
requirement does not effect any other portion of the.
-Development Code.
C/McManus asked about the standard required for curbside
digits.
Following discussion, the Commission concurred to require
9'0" x 1910" (nine feet by nineteen feet) commercial
parking spaces with no provisions for compact parking
spaces.
Bob Zirbes said he supports the Commission's
recommendation for larger parking stalls.
Ed MacDonald suggested that the Commissioner consider a
10 foot residential side yard setback to allow for
additional on-site parking.
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano referred Mr. MacDonald to Page II -11 of the
proposed Development Code. The table suggests a minimum
residential side yard setback of five (5) feet on one
side and 10 feet on the other side with a minimum
requirement of 15 feet between dwelling units. In
addition, a minimum three (3) feet safety clearance is
required.
C/Fong asked that cross-references . pages to figures and
figures to pages - be cited in connection with (Figures).
ie, Page III -13, 22.16.090 Setback Regulations and
Exceptions 4. b:, last line (Figure 3-3).
C/Fong asked that dimensions be included in the Figures.
ie, figure at the top of Page III -14 appears to lack an
indication of a five (51) Imaginary Rear Property Line
setback.
C/Fong asked that the following be in Paragraph 4.under
B. Grading standards on Page III -44: "Exploratory
trenches and access roads should be properly backfilled
and erosion treatment and revegetation be provided." The
Commission concurred.
C/Fong asked that ", except individual detached single-
family residences" be removed from the first sentence of
A. under Applicability on Page III -65. The Commission
concurred.
C/Fong again discussed Paragraph A. under 22.38.060
Exemptions on Page III -148. Following discussion, the
Commission referred to the August 26, 1997 minutes which
state the Commission's concurrence that the language read
as follows: "Trees, except those designated by the City
Council as a historical or cultural tree, and trees
required to be preserved, relocated or planted as a
condition of approval of a discretionary permit, located'
on all developed properties prior to adoption of this
Development Code."
VC/Schad asked that consistent with the General Plan,
"arroyo" be included in Paragraph B. under 22.38.030 -
Protected -Trees so that it reads: "Native oak, walnut,
sycamore, arroyo willow, and naturalized. California
Pepper trees with a DBH of eight inches or greater."
DCM/DeStefano responded that staff will check the
paragraph and advise if the insertion is appropriate.
The Commission concurred with C/Fong to change the second
sentence of the second paragraph entitled DBH under D.
Definitions, "D". to read as follows: 'The diameter of
a tree trunk measured in inches at a height of 4.5 feet
at the average point of the natural grade, etc."
OCTOBER 19, 1997 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
VC/Schad again asked that Paragraph 3, Item B. under
22.38.130 - Tree •Replacement Relocation Standards be
changed to include certified arborist.
DCM/DeStefano referred VC/Schad to the Definitions
Chapter Article VI, Page VI -5 of the Development Code.
C/Goldenberg reminded the Commission that it had
requested staff to provide them with a copy of the Laguna
Beach View Protection Ordinance for possible adoption.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the matter was most recently
discussed by the Laguna Beach City Council on October 7,
1997 for first reading of the Ordinance. The council was
concerned that the proposed ordinance was a potential
"bureaucratic nightmare". He indicated staff will review
the matter and present the Commission with an update at
its October 27, 1997 meeting.
VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue the Draft
Development Code, Draft Citywide Design Guidelines, and
Negative Declaration No. 97-3, and, if appropriate, adopt
the Resolutions recommending City Council approval, and
continue the Hearing Subdivision Code review to October
27, 1997.
PUBLIC HEARING - None
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano• responded to C/Goldenberg that due to VC/Schad's
request for information regarding the Department of Fish and Game's
Code 1600 Permitting Process, as is customary, copies were provided
to all Commissioners_
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano reported that at its October 7, 1997 meeting, the
City Council approved distribution of a bid package for
construction of traffic signals at Golden Springs Drive at
Calbourne Drive, and Diamond Bar Boulevard at Palomino Drive.
DCM/DeStefano stated he approved two new residential construction
projects for JCC Development and a residential addition within "The
Country Estates".
DCM/DeStefano indicated that the Traffic and Transportation
Commission is continuing to pursue the School Traffic Study.
DCM/DeStefano revealed that at its October 7, 1997 meeting, the
City Council agreed to appoint two City Council Members, two Parks
and Recreation Commissioners, and two members from each school
district to a Parks Master Plan priority and funding implementation
plan subcommittee.
OCTOBER 14, 1997 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano reported that the California Legislature approved and
the Governor signed Assembly Bill 1226 co-sponsored by Assemblyman
Miller which allows Diamond Bar to receive an additional two year's
subvention which amounts to approximately $2,000,000.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS as listed in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 10:02 p.m. to
Monday, October 27, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Auditorium.
Respectfully Submitted,
—P
Ja es DeStefa ?o, --Secretary
Attest:
Joe Ruzic
Chairman
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Ruzicka called the meeting to order at 7:07 p.m. in the
South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by City Engineer George Wentz.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Ruzicka, Vice Chairman Schad, and
Commissioners Goldenberg and McManus
Commissioner Fong arrived at 7:15 p.m.
Also Present: Deputy City Manager James DeStefano, City
Engineer George Wentz, Senior Planner
Catherine Johnson, Associate Planner Ann Lungu
and Planning Technician Susan Cole.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS - None
CONSENT CALENDAR:
1. Minutes of September 2, 6 and 9, 1997.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve the
September 2, 6 and 9 minutes as presented. The motion was
carried 4-0, with C/Fong being absent.
OLD BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS: - None
CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS:
1. Draft Development Code (Zoning Code Amendment ZCA 97-1)
Review of all Articles of the Draft Development Code and
Draft Design Guidelines.
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue
this item to its October 14, 1997 meeting.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this
item.
Without objections, the Commission concurred with staff's
recommendation to continue Draft Development Code review
to its October 14, 1997 meeting.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
rV�
2. Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use
Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change
96-1 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21, and Title
22.56.215, 22.26 Part 16 and 22.16 Part 2) are requests
to approve a 15 lot subdivision on approximately 44
acres. The average lot size will be 2.92 acres. Six of
the proposed lots are part of two approved tracts.
Therefore, VTTM 50314's development will result in a net
increase of 13 residential lots. The project site is
within Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area No.
15. The Zone Change will convert the current zoning of
R-1,200 and A-2-2 to R-1-40,000. Continued from August
26, 1997.
Project Address: Southeast of the most southerly
intersection of Steeplechase
Lane and Wagon Train Lane.
Project Owner/Applicant: Kurt Nelson, Windmill
Development, 3480 Torrance
Boulevard, Suite 300, Torrance,
CA 90503
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission reopen the
public hearing, receive testimony and continue the public
hearing to October 14, 1997.
Chair/Ruzicka reopened the public hearing.
Martha Bruske, 600 South Great Bend Drive stated her
concerns about project monitoring. She said she is
opposed to any development within the Significant
Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15.
DCM/DeStefano responded to Mrs. Bruske that this project
requires a Conditional Use Permit which if approved,
mandates specific oversight and conditions of the
development with reference to such items as hillside
slope construction, landscaping and environmental
mitigation. Conditional Use Permits are monitored
through a Mitigation Monitoring Plan (regular site visits
and reporting by. staff and City consultants) that
generally lasts for five years after the project has been
approved and developed.
Kurt Nelson, project manager, confirmed his request to
have this item continued to October 14, 1997. He
explained that with respect to this project, native oak
trees that are contract grown from acorns gathered from
the project site's graded areas are reintroduced on-site
at a 2:1 replacement ratio.
C/Goldenberg moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 50314, Conditional Use
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
Permit No. 96-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 96-1 and Zone Change
96-1 to October 14, 1997. The motion was carried 5-0
with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, McManus,
VC/Schad, Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
7. PUBLIC HEARING:
1. Conditional Use Permit No. 97-3 is a request (pursuant to
Code Section 22.56.010) to allow the sale of beer and
wine in an existing mini -mart at the Chevron Gas Station.
Property Address: 21324 Pathfinder Road, Diamond Bar,
CA 91765
Applicant: Mohamad Salimnia, 21324 Pathfinder
Road, Diamond Bar, CA
Property Owner: Chevron U.S.A., Inc., P.O. Box 285,
Houston, Texas 77001
PT/Cole presented staff's report. Staff recommends that
the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 97-3, Findings of Fact and conditions as listed
within the Resolution.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
Bob Zirbes said he is concerned about the proximity of
the proposed site to Diamond Bar High School and that he
is opposed to approval or Conditional Use Permit No. 97-
3. He said he is surprised that the Walnut Valley School
District and Sheriff's Department have signed off on this
item.
Martha Bruske urged the Commission not to support
Conditional Use Permit No. 97-3 because the site is too
close to the Diamond Bar High School.
Rivers Mcintoush said he is opposed to having beer and
wine sold in close proximity to Diamond Bar High School.
Marco Brambilla, 1021 S. Brand Boulevard, Glendale,
speaking on behalf of.the applicant, spoke in favor of
the application.
Chair/Ruzicka closed the public hearing.
- Following discussion, C/Goldenberg moved, VC/Schad
seconded, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of
Denial for consideration at the Planning Commission's
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
October 14, 1997 meeting. The motion was carried 5-0
with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, McManus,
VC/Schad, Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
2. General Plan Amendment No. 96-1, Tentative Parcel Map No.
24646, conditional Use Permit No. 96-14 and Oak Tree Permit
No. 96-4 (pursuant to Code Sections Title 21 -Subdivision,
Hillside Management Ordinance No. 7 (1992) and Part 16-22.26
Oak Tree Permit). The subject request proposes to change the
General Plan land use designation for 5.88 acres within a 132
acre parcel located in a gated community identified as "The
Country Estates". The land use designation will change from
Open Space to Rural Residential. The remaining 126.12 acres
will continue as Open Space. The proposal includes:
subdividing the 5.88 acres into four lots, each a minimum of
one acre, for the eventual development of four single family
custom homes; the removal and replacement of oak and walnut
trees; and the removal of a map restriction.
Property Address: Easterly side of Blaze Trail across from
the intersection of timbertop Lane.
Property Owner/ Diamond Bar Country Estates Association,
Applicant: 22615 Lazy Meadow Drive, Diamond Bar,
California 91765
AP/Lungu presented staff's report. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission open the public hearing, receive comments
on the Negative Declaration and project entitlements, and
continue the public hearing to October 14, 1997.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
Loren Phillips, project applicant's representative, explained
the proposed project to the Commission.
DCM/DeStefano stated the City received two letters of
oposition to the project from residents living on Indian Creek
Road, Diamond Bar.
Jan Dabney, Claremont, stated he is present representing
Assemblyman and resident Gary Miller's views. He said Mr.
Miller is not against the development of property that has map
restriction. However, he is against the development of this
specific parcel. It is Mr. Miller's opinion that all property
owners within "The Country Estates" would need to be in
agreement in order for the project to proceed.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
Gary Neeley, Diamond Bar Caucus Executive Director, said he
was also asked by Assemblyman Miller to speak in opposition to
this project. He indicated that a key element of the City's
General Plan is that the lifting of deed and map restrictions
would result in a significant benefit to the community. He
said he believes this project does not significantly benefit
the community.
Art O'Daley, Falcons View Drive, said he believes many
residents of "The Country Estates" are not aware of the
proposed project and because they are opposed to the lifting
of restrictions on Lots 60 and 61, would not agree to lifting
restrictions on the proposed site.
Dr. Peter Chung, Falcons View Drive, Vice President of "The
Country Estates" Board of Directors, said that due to the
recent CC&R changes, an overwhelming 90 percent of the
property owners voted for new facilities including the
proposed subdivision.
Chair/Ruzicka stated the Commission concensus is to request
"The Country Estates" Homeowners Association provide data to
substantiate Mr. Chung's claim.
Vargas Zeropian, Falcons View Drive, spoke in favor of the
project.
Donald Sizemore said he believes that if "The Country Estates"
wants to fix the road, they should pay for it and not invite
a developer to participate in trade-offs.
Mr. Phillips stated this project has been periodically
summarized in "The Country Estates" monthly newsletter.
Dr. Chung responded to C/Goldenberg that all homeowners of,
"The Country Estates" will participate in a final vote with
respect to approval of this project.
Following discussion, VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded,s to
continue the public hearing to October 14, 1997. The motion
was carried 5-0 with the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, McManus, VC/Schad,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
3. General Plan Amendment No. 96-2, Vesting Tentative Tract Map
No. 52267, Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52308, Conditional
Use Permit No. 96-13, Conditional Use Permit No. 96-16, Oak
Tree Permit No. 96-3 and Oak Tree Permit No. 96-5.
Pursuant to Code Sections Title 21 -Subdivision, 22.56.215 -Park
1 -Hillside Management Area, Hillside Management Ordinance No.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
7 (1990 and 22.26 -Park 16 -Oak Tree Permit, the project request
consists of the following:
3. a) VTTM No. 52267, Conditional use Permit No. 96-13 and
Oak Tree Permit No. 96-3 is proposed for 130 single family
detached residentila dwelling units clustered on approximately
65 acres of a 339.3 acre site. The development is proposed as
a private, gated community. Lots will range in size from
6,000 square feet to 26,000 square feet. The gross proposed
density is 0.4 dwelling units per acre with a net density of
approximately 2.06 dwelling units per acre; and
3. b) VTTM No. 52308, General Plan Amendment No. 96-2,
Conditional Use permit No. 96-16 and Oak Tree Permit No. 96-5
is proposed for 60 single-family detached residential dwelling
units clustered on approximately 36.7 acres of the 86.3 acre
site. The development is proposed as a private, gated
community. Lots will range in size from 8,000 square feet to
41,750 square feet. The gross proposed density is 0.7
dwelling units per acre with a net density of approximately
1.63 dwelling units per acre.
Additionally, the project includes a General Plan Amendment to
allow additional residential development in excess of 130
dwelling units within General Plan Planning Area 2, and the
removal of deed and map restricts and the potential for
acquisition of publicly owned property adjacent to Pantera
Park.
Property Address: VTTM No. 52267 is generally located east
of Diamond Bar Boulevard and north of
Grand Avenue. VTTM No. 52308 is
generally located northeast of Pantera
Drive and south of Bowcreek Drive. City
of Diamond Bar, California.
Applicant: SunCal Companies, 550 W. Orangethorpe
Avenue, Placentia, California 92806
DCM/DeStefano presented staff's report. He indicated that the
City received letters from John and Patricia McCaughin and
from the Munandar family stating their oposition to the
proposed project.
Chair/Ruzicka opened the public hearing.
Martha Bruske said she is opposed to a General Plan amendment.
She questionned whether the removal of a deed and map
restriction is ever in the best interest of the residents.
Hugh Clary, 24411 Deepsprings Drive, said he is concerned
about the effect of hillside view loss on his property value.
He asked whether replacement of the storm drain, if required,
may impact completion of Pantera Park. He further stated he
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
is concerned about the grading activity, increased traffic and
the effect of a gated community on the.surrounding property
values.
John Clemons, 667 Boxcove Place, concurred with Mr. Clary's
comments.
Michelle Hickey, 775 Leyland Drive, said she did not received
notice of the public hearing. She requested notices be sent
to residents in tracts that will be significantly effected by
this project especially in light of the fact that the project
proposes to change the City's General Plan. She indicated
that Bramalea promised the land would remain open space. At
this time, traffic on her street is unnaceptable.
Kwang Ho Lee, 23746 Goldrush Drive, said that traffic is
currently too heavy on Goldrush Drive and Diamond Bar
Boulevard. He wants the natural setting around Summitridge
Park preserved. He spoke about the disadvantages of a gated
community and asked the developer to find a more appropriate
location.
Al Perez, 703 Pantera Drive, said he and his neighbors did not
receive notice of this public hearing. Residents do not want
this development. He indicated he is opposed to amending the
City's General Plan and does not want this project approved.
Sam Saffari, 24075 Highcrest Drive, spoke about the adverse
effects of the proposed project with respect to traffic,
noise, pollution and aesthetics. He cited inconsistencies
between the project and the City's General Plan and Hillside
Management Ordinance. He stated the EIR does not provide for
mitigation of the biological losses. He referred to species
of animals he has seen in the proposed project area. He
indicated the reason that the traffic study for this project
states there is no significant impact is that the City's major"
intersections are currently over capacity. He stated that
although gnatcatchers were not found to be present in the area
by the City's consultants, their food source is present. He
asked the Commissioners to fight for the citizens and deny the
proposal to build on one of the City's last natural hillsides.
Donald Sizemore spoke in support of a street connecting the
project to a regional bypass highway from Leyland Drive to
remove the traffic from the City's streets. He said a benefit
to the City would be to make the project an open (not gated)
community.
Bob Schwartz, 24038 Highcrest Drive, spoke about the
biological diversity in the area which he does not want
destroyed. He does not believe the proposed project is
consistent with the area and he is opposed to the development.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
Ron Tehron, 745 View Lane, spoke in opposition to the project.
He said the City should initiate a plan to purchase the
property, maintain it as open space for the citizens and
insure an uninterrupted connection between Sycamore Canyon and
Summitridge Park.
Lydia Plunk said she does not support or oppose the project,
she favors the process. She encouraged the City to pursue a
regional bypass road.
Doug Heideman, 656 Benfield Place, said when he purchased his
property he was told there would be no development in the area
of the proposed project. He spoke about water problems he and
his neighbors experience from the project site.
Henry Barela, 661 Benfield Place, spoke about the loss of the
natural open space and his opposition to changing the City's
General Plan.
Ken Martinez, 772 South Farben Drive, stated that some years
ago, Los Angeles County Municipal Advisory Committee agreed
that development should be kept away from the proposed area
and that the open space should be preserved for Diamond Bar
residents. He said he believes prior promises should be
honored.
L
Jan Freeze -Martinez, (the hawk lady of Diamond Bar), said she
moved here to enjoy the natural open spaces. She is very
concerned about the present level of traffic on the City's
streets and the additional impact the proposed project will
have on the community.
Andrew Wang, 23505 Goldrush Drive, stated his concerns about
traffic on City streets. He asked the Commission to honor the
City's General Plan.
Rivers Mcintoush, 23515 E. Grand Rim Court, said he was told
by Transamerica when he bought his home that the proposed
project site would be kept as open space. He spoke about
traffic on City streets.
Ed MacDonald, 23417 Wagon Trail Road, said he believes enough
information has been presented to stop this project. He spoke
about his concerns regarding potential slope failure as a
result of this project.
Paul Diebold, 23346 Wagon Trail Road, said he believes the
proposed gated community is inappropriate at this location
because it will prevent connection between areas of the City.
He suggested that as a part of the proposed project the City
consider improvements to the intersection of Tin Drive and
Diamond Bar Boulevard to mitigate site safety concerns. He
expressed his enthusiasm for the City's potential opportunity
to obtain permanent open space and a connection between
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
Summitridge Park and Sycamore Park. Although he has
reservations about the proposed project, he is open to
consideration of trade-off's and consistency with the General
Plan.
David Kersey, 23403 E. Wagon Trail Road, said he believes that
the EIR contains misstatements, inaccurate information and
lack of information with respect to impacts to schools,
traffic counts, demographics and tree replacement mitigation.
Who will reimburse residents for loss of views for which they
paid a premium when they purchased their homes? What
guarantees do residents have that as a result of this project
they will not be subjected to landslides, traffic congestion
and noise?
Danielle Torres, 23411 Wagon Trail Road, spoke about
overcrowding of school classrooms and related impact to the
children of the community. She recommended the proposed site
be used as a park setting for nature classes.
Katherine Box, 927 Pantera, said she was appalled that she did
not receive notice of public hearing for this proposed
project. She is opposed to gated communities because it will
adversely effect surrounding property values and traffic in
the area. She stated she bought in Diamond Bar to enjoy its
tranquility. Pantera Park construction is adversely effecting
her environment and she cannot imagine living through the
construction of the proposed project. She requested that the
Planning Commission act to protect the interests and concerns
of the residents of Diamond Bar.
Mr. Saffari announced that over 100 signatures were collected
this evening.
VC/Schad moved, C/McManus seconded, to continue the public
hearing to October 14, 1997. The motion was carried 5-0 with
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Fong, Goldenberg, McManus, VC/Schad,
Chair/Ruzicka
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
The Commission concurred to direct staff to send notices of
the October 14, 1997 public hearing to property owners within
a 2,000 foot radius of the proposed project.
PLANNING COMMISSION ITEMS: VC/Schad thanked the audience
participants.
C/Fong thanked staff and the Commissioners for their expressions of
concern for his well being.
SEPTEMBER 23, 1997, PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Ruzicka thanked the audience members for their participation
in tonight's meeting.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - None
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As scheduled.
ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, Chair/Ruzicka adjourned the meeting at 11:13 p.m. to
Tuesday, October 14, 1997 at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Auditorium.
Respectfully Submitted,
Deput ity Ma ger James DeStefano
Attest:
J Ruz cka
C airma
PLANNING COMMISSIONS
RESOLUTIONS
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 98-11
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO.
52267 AND RECOMMENDING CERTIFICATION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-2 (SCH NO.
97031005) AND RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE
MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM SET FORTH
THEREIN, FOR A 141 LOT SUBDIVISION FOR THE
EVENTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF 130 SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF DIAMOND BAR
BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF GRAND AVENUE AT THE
EXTENSION OF HIGHCREST DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS.
1. The property owner, Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership and
applicant, SunCal Companies has filed an application for
.Vesting Tentative Map (VTTM) No. 52267 and certification
of Environment Impact Report (EIR) No. 97-2 (SCH NO.
97031005) in order to subdivide a 339.3 acpe parcel into
141 lots for the eventual development of 130 detached
single family homes. The project site is generally
located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard, and north of Grand
Avenue at the extension of Highcrest Drive, Diamond Bar,
Los Angeles County, California, as described above in the
title of this Resolution. The request also includes: a
Conditional Use Permit for development within an urban
hillside management area (CUP No. 98-3), an Oak Tree
Permit (OT No. 98-1) for the removal of Oak trees, the
removal of a map restriction, and the dedication of 274.3
acres of Tract No. 52267 and all of Lot 9 of Tract No.
31479 to public, open space collectively attached hereto
as Exhibit "A" - subdivision map and mitigation landscape
plan, Exhibit "B" - Statement of Overriding
Consideration, Exhibit "C" - Mitigation Monitoring
Program and Exhibit "D" - Environmental Impact Report No.
97-2 (SCH No. 97031005).
2. 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 its Ordinance No. 14
(1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as
the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 2A and
22 of the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development
Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently
applicable to development applications, including the
subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
1
3. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on
February 10, 1998 conducted a duly noticed public hearing
on CUP No. 98-03 and OT No. 98-01. The public hearing
was opened and comments were received on the project and
Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (SCH NO.
97031005) and on CUP No. 98-03 and OT No. 98-01. At that
time, the public hearing was continued to February 24,
1998. The public hearing was again continued to March
24, 1998 and to April 28, 1998. On April 28, 1998 public
comments were received and then the public hearing was
closed. At that time, the Commission directed staff to
prepare appropriate documents and return them to the
Commission on May 12, 1998.
4. Notification of the Application's public hearing has been
made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley
Daily Bulletin newspapers on January 21, 1998. Nine
hundred and twenty-nine property owners within a minimum
500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail
on January 20, 1998.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that
all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby determines khat the
project identified above in this Resolution requires an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). EIR No. 97-2 (SCH NO.
97031005) has been prepared according to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and
the guidelines promulgated thereunder. Furthermore, this
Planning Commission has reviewed the EIR in reference to
VTTM No. 52267. The Planning Commission recommends
adoption of the Statement of Overriding Consideration
recommends certification of the EIR and recommends
approval of the Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP).
3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein,
this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
(a) The project relates to a vacant parcel of
approximately 339.3 acres (Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7) of
Tract No. 31479. Additionally, the project relates
to Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 which in its entirety
will be dedicated to public, open space.
(b) The project proposes to subdivide 65 of the 339.3
acres into 141 lots for the development of 130
detached single family homes within a private, gated
community; remove and replace oak and walnut trees;
and remove the map restriction on a portion of the --
65 acres. The balance of the 339.3 acres (274.3
acres) and all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 will be
dedicated to the City as public open space.
(c) The project site has a General Plan land use
designation of Planning Area 2. The proposed
project complies with the General Plan and Planning
Area 2 as defined in the General Plan. The project
site is zoned Residential Planned Development
Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet -2 Units Per Acre
(RPD -20,000-2U).
(d) Generally, the following zones surround the project
site: to the north and east is the RPD -20,000-2U
Zone; to the south is the Single Family Residence -
Minimum Lot Size 40,000 Square Feet (R-1-40,000) and
the RPD -20,000-2U Zone; and to the west is the
Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 8,000
Square Feet (R-1-8,000) Zone.
Tentative Tract Map
(e) The proposed map is consistent with applicable
general and specific plans as specified in
Government Code Section 65451.
The General Plan's land use designation provided for
the project site is Planning Area 2. Planning Area
2, consisting of approximately 400 acres, allows a
maximum 130 detached single family residential
dwelling units concentrated along the anticipated
extension of Highcrest Drive. It requires a minimum
of 75 percent of the total 400 acres be set aside as
dedicated open space. Additionally, in order to
minimize environmental impacts and maximize
clustering, residential lots shall range from 6,000
to 10,000 square feet in size.
The proposed map delineated 141 lots with 130 lots
for detached single family residential dwelling
units. The lots are clustered along the anticipated
extension of Highcrest Drive. The minimum lot size
is 6,230 square feet. Of the 400 acres, approxi-
mately 335 acres will be dedicated to public, open
space. As such, the proposed map is consistent with
applicable general and specific plans as specified
in Government code Section 65451.
(f) The design or improvement of the proposed
subdivision is consistent with applicable general
and specific plans.
The proposed subdivision is designed utilizing the
standards and guidelines of the City's Hillside
Management Ordinance and a revegetation plan
implemented through 'a Mitigation Monitoring Program
(MMP). This will ensure that the proposed
subdivision is in compliance the General Plan Land
Use Element Strategy 1.2.3 (a), (b) and (c) and
compatible with open space resources. This
compatibility is due to the retention of the area's
hillside character through landform grading; the
dedication of approximately 335 acres as public,
3
open space; the Revegetation Plan which will replace
the vegetation with the same species as those
removed; and the planting of vegetation in concave
areas, similar to nature.
(g) The proposed project site is physically suitable to
the type of development.
As referenced in Finding 3. (e), the proposed map is
in compliance with the maximum allowable development
as envisioned by the General Plan and consistent
with the Zoning. Additionally, the EIR addresses
the proposed map's suitability for the project site
and finds that with the incorporated mitigation
measures that the proposed development is physically
suitable for the project site.
(h) The proposed project site is physically suitable for
the proposed density of development.
As referenced in Finding 3. (e) and (g), the
proposed development's density is physically
suitable for the project site. Additional, the
proposed density is consistent with the density of
existing development which surrounds the project
site.
(i) The design of the subdivision or the proposed
improvements are not likely to cause substantial
environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habipat.
Prior to the grading permit's issuance, a mitigation
plan addressing potential impacts on streambed,
wetlands, and riparian habitats shall be prepared by
the applicant in conjunction with an application for
U.S. Clean Water Act, Section 404 permit from the
U.S. Army Coprs of Engineers (USACE) and State Fish
and Game Code, Section 1603 Streambed Alteration
Agreement with the California Department of Fish and
Game (CDFG). Through these agencies, replacement :of
lost habitat values will occur. Provisions to
insure the long-term preservation of habitat values
are identified, reviewed and approved by USACE and
CDFG. These provisions will be implemented as soon
as practical following completion of the project's
grading. The MMP, with its five year monitoring
period, Revegetation Landscape Plan, and the
riparian habitat value replacement will ensure that
the proposed development retain sufficient natural
vegetation cover and/or open spaces to buffer
critical resource areas from the proposed
development. Additionally, the applicant is
dedicating approximately 335 acres of natural vacant
land to public, open space. Therefore, the design
of the subdivision and the proposed improvements are
not likely to cause substantial environmental damage
or substantially and avoidably injure fish, wildlife
or their habitat.
4
(j) The
design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is not likely to cause serious public
health problems.
The
proposed subdivision's design or improvements
are
not likely to cause serious public health
problems due to the following:
(1)
The proposed grading plan is consistent with
the City's Hillside Management Ordinance and
will be developed with the benefit of
appropriate City permits and inspections;
(2)
Slope instability will not occur due to the
introduction of project features like shear
keys and buttress fills which have been.
incorporated into the project's grading design
in accordance with the recommendations of the
applicant's geotechnical engineer and the
City's grading ordinance requirements for slope
stability;
(3)
Engineered slopes on-site do not exceed 2:1 and
meet the City's stability requirements.
(4)
No active faults are known to transect the
project site or the immediate site vicinity.
The probability of on-site surface rupture or
deformation from an earthquake is considered
very low. However, ground shaking hazards
caused by earthquakes along active regional
faults do exist. All structural improvements
will be designed in accordance with the Uniform
Building Code requirements applicable to
geologic conditions at the project site;
(5)
The project site varies from an elevation of
approximately 810 above sea level (msl) along
the western boundary to approximately 1,150 msl
at its eastern edge. Several natural drainages
convey site runoff from the proposed develop-.
ment area and existing adjacent residential,.
projects to culverts in Diamond Bar Boulevard.
The balance of the 339.3 acres will remain,'in
its natural conditions. During the geotech-
nical evaluation of the project site, no
groundwater was encountered. Although the
proposed project will alter the existing
natural drainage patterns on-site, drainage
will be conveyed by on-site storm drain systems
to existing natural drainage courses, which
then drain to existing culverts in Diamond Bar
Boulevard. The receiving storm drain systems
are adequately sized and have adequate
available capacity to accommodate these flows.
Drainage from the project site will not alter
natural drainage or impact rare or threatened
biological resources;
5
(6) During construction, short-term water quality
impacts may occur from erosion and siltation
from soils exposed by grading activities. The
Federal Clean Water Act establishes a framework
for regulating potential water quality impacts
from construction activities through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Therefore, the applicant is
required to obtain a permit from the Regional
Water Quality Control Board. Stormwater
pollutant prevention plans are required which
includes both structural and nonstructural Best
Management Practices (BMPs) to reduce water
quality impacts;
(7) Erosion control will be required. Full
compliance with applicable local, State and
Federal water quality standard by the applicant
will reduce impacts to less than significant;
(8) The proposed project will comply with the
required standards of the Los Angeles County
Fire Department. A fuel modification plan,
appropriate access and turnarounds for fire
equipment, and fire hydrants in appropriate
locations with adequate flow are conditions of
approval as specified by the Fire Department;
and
(9) The project will result in short-term con-
struction impacts related to fugitive dust and
equipment exhaust emissions. Short-term
emissions will exceed the SCAQMD's 100
pounds/day threshold for nitrogen oxides (NOx)
and its 150 pounds/day threshold of particulate
matter (PM10). Mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project to reduce the
construction related air quality emissions to
the extent feasible. However, the emissions
can not be mitigated to a level considered less
than significant. Therefore, the City will
require that all construction comply with the
SCAQMD's regulations, including Rule 402 and
403. As a result, these unavoidable effects
are acceptable when balanced against the facts
set forth in the project's Statement of
Overriding Consideration.
(k) The design of the subdivision or the type of
improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
Conditions of approval are incorporated into the
project which provide for future street easements,
the installation and maintenance of utilities, slope
and drainage easements, "restricted use" area
easements and appropriate access easements.
Therefore, the design of the subdivision or the type
6
of improvements will not conflict with easements,
acquired by the public at large, for access through
or use of, property within the proposed subdivision.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above,
the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of
VTTM No. 52267 subject to the following conditions:
a. General:
(1) The project site shall be developed in sub-
stantial conformance to the VVTM No. 52267, CUP
No. 98-03 and OT No. 98-01 submitted to and
approved by the Planning Commission
collectively attached hereto as Exhibit "A" -
subdivision map and mitigation landscape plan,
Exhibit "B" - Statement of Overriding
Consideration and Exhibit "C" - Mitigation
Monitoring Program dated May 12, 1998.
(2) The project site shall be maintained in a
condition which is free of debris both during
and after the construction, addition or
implementation of the entitlement granted
herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and
refuse, whether during or subsequent to
construction shall be done only by the property
owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste
contractor, who has been authorized by the City
to provide collection, transportation and
disposal of solid waste from residential,
commercial, construction, and industrial areas
within the City. It shall be the applicant's
obligation to insure that the waste contractor
utilized has obtained permits from the City of
Diamond Bar to provide such services.
(3) This approval is granted subject to the
conditions of approval of Hillside Management
Conditional Use Permit No. 98-03 and Oak Tree;'
Permit No. 98701.
(4) This approval shall not be effective for any
purpose until the applicant and owner of the
property involved have filed within 15 days of
approval of this map, at the City of Diamond
Bar's Community and Development Services
Department/Planning Division, their Affidavit
of Acceptance stating that they are aware of
and agree to accept all the conditions of this
approval. Further, this approval shall not be
effective until the applicant pays remaining
Planning Division processing fees.
(5) In accordance with Government Code �cction
66474.9 (b)(1), the applicant shall defend,
indemnify, and hold harmless from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
7
aside, void or annul, approval of VTTM No.
52267 brought within the time period provided
for Government Code Section 66499.37.
(6) The applicant shall comply with the 1994
adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code and the
1993 National Electric Code and all other
applicable construction codes, ordinances and
regulations in effect at the time the
application was deemed complete.
(7) Notwithstanding any previous subsection of this
resolution, the Department of Fish and Game
requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section
711.4 of the Fish and Game Code. Said payment
shall be made by the applicant within five days
of this grant's approval.
(8) Applicant shall pay development fees
(including, but not limited to Planning,
Building and Safety, Public Works and,
Engineering Divisions and Mitigation
Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to
final map approval, issuance of building or
grading permits (whichever comes first), as
required by the City. School fees shall be
paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit. Additionally, the applicant shall pay
all remaining prorated City project review and
processing fees prior to the Map's recordation
as required by the City.
(9) All equipment staging areas shall be located on
the project site. The staging area, including
material stockpile and equipment storage area,
shall be enclosed with a six foot high chain
link fence. All access points in the fence
shall be locked whenever the construction site
is not supervised.
(10) VTTM No. 52267 is valid for two years. An
extension of time may be requested in writing
and shall only be considered if submitted to
the City no less than 30 days prior to this
approval's expiration date. Final map approval
will not be granted unless either the map is in
substantial compliance with VTTM No. 52267
including all conditions or the applicant has
entered into a subdivision approvement
agreement to the satisfaction of -the City
Attorney.
(11) The project site shall be maintained and
operated in full compliar.ce with the conditions
of this approval and all laws, or other
regulations applicable.
(12) This grant shall be null, void and of no effect
if the City Council fails to approve CUP No.
98-03 and OT No. 98-01 and the removal of deed
and map restrictions.
b. Planning Division:
(1) The Mitigation Monitoring Program outlined in
Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (SCH NO.
97031005) and approved by the City shall be
implemented and complied with rigorously. The
mitigation monitoring fees shall be deposited
with the City 90 days prior to the issuance of
a grading permit. All costs related to the
ongoing monitoring shall be secured from the
applicant and received by the City prior to the
final map's approval.
(2) Conditions, Covenants, Restriction and
Reservations (CC&Rs) and Articles of
Incorporation of a homeowners' association are
required and shall be provided to the Deputy
City Manager and the City Attorney for review
and approval prior to the recordation of the
final map. A homeowners' association shall be
created and responsibilities thereof shall be
delineated with the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs and
Articles of Incorporation shall be recorded
concurrently with the final map or prior to the
issuance of any City permits, whichever occurs
first. A recorded copy shall berprovided to
the City Engineer.
(3) VTTM No. 52267's CC&Rs shall incorporate at a
minimum, provisions which will establish a
maintenance program for urban pollutant basins
and all mitigation measures within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
(4) A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&Rs•'
which requires disputes involving interpre-
tation or application of the CC&Rs (between,•
private parties) to be referred to a neutral
third party mediation service prior to any,
party initiating litigation in a court of
competent jurisdiction. The cost of such
mediation shall be borne equally by the
parties.
(5) Applicant shall incorporate within the CC&Rs a
reference to the availability of the "Buyers
Awareness" Package and the fact that a copy is
on file in the City of Diamond Bar's City .
Clerk's office. This package shall include,
but is not limited to, information pertaining
to geologic issues regarding the property,
wildlife corridors, oak and walnut tree
preservation issues, Exhibit "A" which
delineates each lot's building envelope,
E
explanatory information pertaining to
restrictions on use of properties as necessary
and similar related matters. The applicant
shall give each buyer a copy of the "Buyers
Awareness" Package and shall document their
receipt of the same in the escrow instructions
of each lot and document their receipt to the
City.
(6) Applicant, through the "Buyers' Awareness
Program", shall encourage the segregation of
green waste for reuse as specified under the
City's Source Reduction Recycling Element and
County Sanitation District's waste diversion
policies.
(7) The proposed model home units shall comply with
the City's Development Review Ordinance.
(8) All residential dwelling units are required to
obtain Development Review approval. Additional-
ly, residential dwelling units shall utilize
the following development standards:
(a) Front yard setbacks shall be a minimum of
20 feet from the front property line.
Architectural styles/front elevations
shall vary. The same style front
elevation shall not be utilized on
adjacent home. The homes shall provide a
perspective along a street khat utilizes
varying plane, giving the appearance of
varying setbacks;
(b) Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 5
feet and 10 feet from the property line.
The distance between dwelling units shall
be a minimum of 15 feet;
(c) Rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum of
20 feet from the property line; however,
all two story homes on the subdivision's
perimeter lots (Lots 3, 4, 8 through 20,
50, 52, 65 through 68, 71 through 77, 112
through 123, 126 through 129 ) shall
maintain a 30 foot rear yard setback in
order to reduce view and aesthetic impacts
from off-site and on-site;
(d) Maximum building height shall not exceed
two stories and 35 feet;
(e) Accessory structures may be permitted
utilizing setback distances consistent
with the residential zoning designation
for the property at the time of permit �.
issuance;
(f) Minimum lot size 6,000 square feet; and
10
(g) Perimeter fencing shall consist of three
foot high block walls with wrought iron,
glass, or open work fencing not to exceed
three feet to reduce view and aesthetic
impacts. Additionally, the perimeter
fencing shall allow for the movement of
on-site wildlife.
(9) All ground mounted utility appurtenances (i.e.
A.C. condenser units, transformers, etc.) shall
be located out of public view and adequately
screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or
landscaping to the satisfaction of the
Community and Development Services Department/
Planning Division.
(10) Grading and/or construction activities shall be
restricted to 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday. All equipment utilized for
grading and/or construction shall be properly
muffled to reduced noise levels. Transpor-
tation of equipment and materials and the
operation of heavy grading shall also be
restricted to 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday. Dust generated by grading
and construction activities shall be reduced by
watering the soil prior to and during the
activities and in accordance with South Coast
Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and
Rule 403. Reclaimed water shallrbe used
whenever possible.
(11) All terrace drains and drainage channels shall
be constructed in muted earth tones so as to
not impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace
drains shall follow landform slope con-
figuration and shall not be placed in exposed
positions. All down drains shall be hidden in
swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope
face.
(12) Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all'oak
and walnut trees and plant species shall be'
installed according to ratio, locations, and
palette mix•specified in EIR No. 97-2 (SCH NO.
97031005) and its associated Biological
Resource Management Plan (BRMP). The BRMP
shall be implemented and maintained by the
applicant for a five year period following
installation with compliance documented through
the adopted Mitigation Monitoring Program.
(13) The final landscape plan shall substantially
comply with the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, EIR No 97-02 and Hillside
Management Ordinance. Final landscape plan
shall include fencing details, tree staking,
soil preparation, planting details, automatic
irrigation systems and the incorporation of
xerotropic landscaping wherever feasible.
Additionally, the final landscape plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the City prior.to the
issuance of a grading permit.
(14) The grading plan shall substantially conform to
VTTM No. 52267 as recommended for approval by
the Planning Commission. The approved VTTM No.
52267 and Hillside Management Ordinance shall
supersede all other standards and requirements
relating to this project. Surety bonds shall
be posted to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and City Attorney.
(15) All slope planting and irrigation shall be
continuously maintained in a healthy and
thriving condition by the applicant 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 all slope
planting is in satisfactory condition.
(16) All off-site landscaping, grading and other
improvements shall be completed prior to the
occupancy of any units, with the exception of
the Biological Resources Management Plan which
has a five year compliance period.
(17) Emergency access shall be provided, maintained
free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide, at
all times during construction and in accordance
with the Fire Department requirements.
(18) Prior to the issuance of any building permits
for combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Fire Department that temporary
water supply for fire protection is available,
pending completion of the required fire pro-
tection system.
(19) Discharge of sewage from this project site into
the public sewer system shall not violate the
requirements of the California Regional Water
Quality.Control Board (CRWQCB,) pursuant to
Division 7, Section 13000 of the Water Code. A
letter of compliance from the CRWQCB shall be
submitted to the City prior to the issuance of
construction permits.
(20) Based on soils and hydrology studies, the
applicant shall provide a plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and the co -
permittees related thereto, pursiIan t to the
NPDES requirements.
(21) The urban pollutant basins shall be maintained
by the applicant or it's successor in con -
12
formance with all applicable standards. The
applicant shall convey to the City the non-
exclusive right to maintain, at its sole
election, such urban pollution basins in the
event the party responsible fails to maintain
the basins.
(22) VTTM No. 52267 shall comply with all
requirements of the zoning Ordinance and of the
underlying zoning unless set forth in this
permit or shown on the approved plans.
(23) Applicant shall obtain approval from the County
sanitation District on the location of
structures affecting the County sanitation
easements and submit written evidence to the
City prior to the grading permit's issuance.
(24) Any lighting fixtures adjacent to interior
property lines shall be approved by the Deputy
City Manager as to type, orientation and
height.
(25) Blasting and/or dynamiting shall not be
permitted.
(26) In exchange for the removal of map and deed
restrictions, the applicant shall fulfill the
following requirements:
(a) Dedicate to the City as pubic open space:
all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479,
approximately 86 acres; portions of Lots
4, 5, and 7 of Tract No. 31479,
approximately 274.3 acres excluding
manufactured slope; and
(b) Contribute $ 250,000.00 to the City's
Parks and Facility Development Fund.
(27) The applicant shall comply with the following
standards and provisions of the Biological
Resources Management Plan specified in the EIR
No. 97-2:
(a) Oak trees removed which are less than 36
inches in diameter shall be replaced at a
2:1 ratio;
(b) Oak trees removed which are between 36 and
48 inches in diameter shall be replaced at
a 3:1 ratio;
(c) Oak trees larger than 48 inches :in
diameter shall be replaced at a 4:1 ratio;
and
(d) Coastal sage scrub shall be replaced at a
13
2:1 ratio (for each acre of coastal sage
scrub lost, two acres shall be replaced).
(28) All mitigation monitoring related to.the
implementation of the Biological Resources
Management Plan required by the Mitigation
Monitoring Program and Environmental Impact
Report No. 97-2 shall occur within the city
limits of Diamond Bar.
C. Fire Department:
(1) A fuel modification plan, landscape/irrigation
plan approved by a registered landscape
architect shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Los Angeles County Fire Depart-
ment prior to the issuance of any City permits.
(2) Access shall comply with Section 902 of the
Fire Code which requires all weather access.
All weather access may require paving.
(3) Fire Department access shall extend to within
150 feet distance of any exterior portion of
all structures.
(4) Where driveways extend further than 300 feet
and are of single access design, turnarounds
suitable for fire protection equipment use
thall be provided and shown on the final map.
Turnarounds shall be designed, cpnstructed and
maintained to insure their integrity for Fire
Department use. Where topography dictates,
turnarounds shall be provided for driveways
which extend over 150 feet.
(5) Vehicular access shall be provided and
maintained serviceable throughout construction
to all required fire hydrants. All required
fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and';
accepted prior to construction.
(6) Applicant shall provide Fire Department or,City
approved street signs and building access
numbers prior to occupancy.
(7) Required fire flow for public fire hydrants at
this location shall be 1250 gallons per minute
at 20 psi for a duration of seven hours, over
and above maximum daily.domestic demand.
Hydrant(s) flowing simultaneously may be used
to achieve the required fire flow.
(8) Applicant shall provide information on the
location of all existing firE hydrants.
(9) All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2 1/2"
brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA
standard C503 or approval equivalent. All
14
hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25
feet from a structure or protected by two hour
fire wall.
(10) All required fire hydrants shall be installed,
tested and accepted prior to construction.
Vehicular access shall be provided and
maintained serviceable throughout construction.
(11) Applicant shall provide three additional maps
for fire hydrant placement and distribution.
d. Public Works Division:
General•
(1) Discharge of sewage from this project site into
the public sewer system shall not violate the
requirements of the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), pursuant to
Division 7, Section 1300 of the Water Code. A
letter of compliance from the CRWQCB shall be
submitted to the City prior to the issuance of
construction permits.
(2) Based on soils and hydrology studies, the
applicant shall provide a plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and the co -
permittees related thereto, pursuant to the
NPDES requirements.
r
(3) Applicant shall maintain the urban pollutant
basins in conformance with all applicable
standards.
(4) Prior to the grading permit's issuance, the
applicant shall obtain approval from the County
Sanitation District on the location of
structures affecting the County Sanitation
easements and submit written evidence to the
City.
(5) Prior to any construction, the applicant shall
submit to the City all applicable construction
permit fees and construction permit
applications.
(6) Access to the project site for construction
and/or grading equipment -shall be approved by
the City Engineer.
Public Works/Engineering:
(1) Prior to final map approval, the applicant
shall submit to the City written certification
that all utility services and any other service
related to the site shall be available to serve
the proposed project. Such letters shall be
issued by the district, utility and cable
15
television company, within ninety (90) days
prior to final map approval.
(2) All easements existing prior to final map
approval shall be identified and shown on final
map. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate
in nature, a statement to that effect shall be
shown on the final map in lieu of its location.
(3) Prior to final map approval and when final map
is submitted for plan check, a title report/
guarantee showing all fee owners, interest
holders, and nature of interest shall be
submitted. The account shall remain open until
the final map is filed with the County
Recorder. Ten working days prior to final map
approval, an updated title report/guarantee and
subdivision guarantee shall be submitted to the
City.
(4) New boundary monuments shall be set in
accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act
and as required by the City Engineer.
(5) Prior to final map approval, if any public or
private improvements required as part of this
map have not been completed by applicant and
accepted by the City, the applicant shall enter
into a subdivision agreement with the City and
shall post the appropriate security. All bond
amounts shall be provided by the applicant and
approved by the City Engineer.
(6) Prior to final map approval, all site grading,
landscaping, irrigation, street, sewer and storm
drain improvement plans shall be approved by the
City Engineer, L.A. County Fire Department, and
appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. California
Department of+Fish and.Game, etc.).
(7) Applicant, at the applicant's sole cost and
expense, shall construct all required public and
private improvements. If any required
improvements have not been completed by the
applicant and accepted by the City prior to the
final map approval, the applicant shall enter
into a subdivision agreement with the City and
shall post the appropriate security, guaran-
teeing completion of the improvements, prior to
final map approval. A detailed engineering cost
estimate shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for bonding purposes prior to the submittal of
these securities guaranteeing completion of the
improvements.
(8) House numbering plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance
of building permits.
16
(9) The detail drawings and construction notes
shown on the vesting tentative map are
conceptual only and the approval of this map
shall not constitute approval of said notes.
(10) Precise grading plans for each lot shall be
submitted to the Community and Development
Services Department/Planning and Public Works
Divisions for approval prior to issuance of
building permits. (This may be on an
incremental or composite basis.)
(11) All identified geologic hazards within the
vesting tentative tract boundaries which cannot
be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer
shall be indicated on the final map as
"Restricted Use Area" subject to geologic
hazard. The applicant shall dedicate to the
City the right to prohibit the erection of
buildings or other structures within such
restricted use areas shown on the final map.
(12) Prior to final map approval and the issuance of
grading permit(s), the applicant shall post
surety and execute an agreement guaranteeing
completion of all drainage facilities necessary
for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer.
(13) Easements for disposal of drainage water onto
or over adjacent parcels shall by delineated
and shown on the final map, as approved by the
City Engineer.
(14) Prior to finalization of any development phase,
sufficient street, sewer, and drainage
improvements shall be completed beyond the
phase boundaries to assure secondary access,
proper outfall for sewers and drainage
protection to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to
lot lines shown on the final map.
(15) Prior to final map approval, applicant shall
submit the detail cost estimates for bonding
purposes of all public improvements to the City
Engineer.
(16) Prior to any work being.performed in public
right-of-way, applicant shall pay fees and
obtain a construction permit from the Public
Works Division in addition to any other permits
required.
(17) Prior to final map approval, --applicant shall
pay its fair share of other traffic
improvements required based upon amended
traffic study as approved by City Engineer.
17
(18) Applicant shall label and delineate on the
final map any private drives or fire lanes to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(19) Any existing easement for open space,
utilities, riding and hiking trails shall be
relocated and/or grading performed, as
necessary, to provide, for the portion within
the subdivision, continued and practical access
for the intended use.
(20) Prior to recordation of the final map, VTTM No.
52267 shall be annexed 130 homes and all open
space to Landscape Maintenance District 38.
Those portions of VTTM No. 52267 currently
within Landscape Maintenance District 39 shall
be remove from said Landscape District and as
deemed appropriate, be incorporated into VTTM
No. 52267 Homeowners' Association and Landscape
Maintenance District 38.
(21) All boundary monuments not found at the time of
making the survey for the final map shall be
set in accordance with the State Subdivision
Map Act and the City Subdivision Code, and
shall be subject to approval by the City
Engineer. Street centerline monuments shall be
subject to approval by the City Engineer.
Street centerline monuments shall be set to
mark the intersections of streets, inter-
sections of streets with the trapt 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. Centerline
monument ties shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval in accordance with City
standards.
(22) Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer
and the utility companies, for public utility
and public services purposes shall be offered
and shown on the final map for dedication to
the City.
(23) After the final map records, applicant shall
submit to the Engineering Division, at no cost
to the City, a full size reproducible copy of
the recorded map. Final approval of the public
improvements shall not be given until the copy
of the recorded map is received by the
Engineering Division.
(24) As built mylars, stamped by appropriate
individuals -certifying -the plan, shall be
provided at no cost to the City for all --
improvements.
18
(25) All improvements for proposed VTTM No. 52267
shall be coordinated with any existing or
proposed maps.
(26) Applicant shall contribute funds to a separate
engineering trust deposit against which charges
can be made by the City or its representatives
for services rendered. Charges shall be on an
hourly basis and shall include any City admin-
istrative costs.
(27) Applicant shall provide digitized information
in an Auto Cadd format defined by the City for
all related plans, at no cost to the City.
(28) All activities/improvements proposed for this
map shall be wholly contained within the
boundaries of the map. Should any off-site
activities/improvements be required, approval
shall be obtained from the affected property
owner as required by the City Engineer.
(29) All improvement plans (i.e., grading, erosion
control, storm drain, sewer, street, etc.)
shall comply and follow NPDES guidelines for
construction and include appropriate Best
Management Practices (BMP°s).
(30) Prior to the initiation of grading operations,
the applicant shall obtain all applicable
construction, stormwater and NPDgS permits as
may be required by the City, Los Angeles County
and the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board for the discharge of urban
pollutants. All improvement plans and
construction shall comply with the City's NPDES
requirements. .
Grading
(1) Grading of the subject property shall be in
accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading Ordinance 7 (1992), Hillside Management
Ordinance and acceptable grading practices:
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
precise grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the grading plan approved as a
material part of VTTM No. 52267.
(2) The maximum grade of driveways serving building
pad areas shall be 15%.
(3) At the time of submittal of the 40 -scale
grading plan for plan check, a detailed soils
and geology report shall be submittedto the
City Engineer for approval. Said report shall
be prepared by a qualified engineer and/or
geologist licensed by the State of California.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
19
report shall address, but not be limited to the
following:
(a) Stability analyses of daylight shear keys
with a l:l.projection from daylight to
slide plane; a projection plane shall have
a 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;
(c) "Restricted use" areas and structural
setbacks shall be considered and
delineated prior to recordation of the
final map;
(d) Soil remediation measures shall be
designed for a "worst case" geologic
interpretation subject to verification in
the field during grading;
(e) The extent of any remedial grading into
natural areas shall be clearly defined on
the grading plans;
(f) Areas of potential for debris flow shall
be defined and proper remedial measures
implemented as approved by the City
Engineer; ,
(g) Gross stability of all fill slopes shall
be analyzed as part of geotechnical
report, including remedial fill that
replaces natural slope;
(h) Stability of all proposed slopes shall be
confirmed by analysis as approved by the
City Engineer;
(i) 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; and
(j) All geotechnical and soils related
findings and recommendations shall be
reviewed and approved.by the City Engineer
prior to issuance of any grading permits
and recordation of the final map.
(4) Grading plans shall be signed and stamped by a
California registered Civil Engineer,
registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered
Engineering Geologist.
(5) Final grading plans shall be prepared in a 24"
x 36" format and designed in compliance with
the recommendations of the final detailed soils
and engineering geology reports. All remedial
earthwork specified in the final report shall
be incorporated into the plans.
(6) Final.grading plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Engineer.
(7) An erosion control plan shall be approved by
the City Engineer. Erosion control plans shall
be made in accordance to the City's NPDES
requirements.
(8) 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 in
conformance with the Biological Resources
Management Plan and to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and a permanent irrigation system
shall be installed.
(9) No grading or any staging or any construction
shall be performed prior to final map approval
by the City Council. All pertinent improvement
plans shall be approved by the City Engineer
prior to final map approval by the City
Council.
Drainage
(1) Applicant shall post surety and an agreement
executed guaranteeing completion of all
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.
(2) Easements for disposal of drainage water onto'
or over adjacent parcels shall be delineated
and shown on the final map as approved by the
City Engineer.
(3) All drainage improvements necessary for
dewatering and protecting the subdivided
properties shall 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.
(4) 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 (if
applicable) from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and an agreement with the California
Department of Fish and Game (if applicable)
21
shall be obtained and submitted to the City
Engineer.
(5) The applicant shall provide drainage facilities
to remove any flood hazard and dedicate and
show necessary easements and/or rights of way
on the final map to the satisfaction of City
Engineer. Storm drainage facilities shall be
constructed within the street right-of-way or
in easements satisfactory to the City Engineer
and the Los Angeles County Flood Control
Districts.
(6) A permit from the County Flood Control District
shall be required for work within its
right-of-way or connection to its facilities.
A permit from CALTRANS shall be required for
work within its right-of-way.
(7) Vehicular access shall be provided to all
"Urban Pollutant Basins" with a minimum width
of 15 feet, with 12 feet of pavement and with a
maximum slope no greater than 15% unless
otherwise approved the City Engineer.
(8) Prior to recording of final map, applicant
shall construct or post bonds for drainage
improvements and offer easements needed for
street and slope drainage as required by the
City Engineer.
(9) A final drainage study and final ?drainage/storm
drain plan in a 24" x 36" sheet format 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 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&Rs.
(10) Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a
complete hydrology and hydraulic study shall be
prepared by a registered Civil Engineer to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Streets
(1) Street improvement plans in a 2411x 36" sheet
format, prepared by a registered Civil
Engineer, shall.be submitted to and approved by
the City Engineer. The design and construction ---
of street improvements for the full width shall
be required as shown on the tentative map.
22
(2) Prior to final map approval, the applicant
shall submit street names for City review and
approval. Street names shall not duplicate
existing streets within the City of Diamond
Bar's postal services zip code areas.
(3) New.street centerline monuments shall be set at
the intersections of two or more streets,
intersections of streets with tract boundaries
and to mark the beginning and ending of curves
or the points of intersection of tangents
thereof. Survey notes showing the ties between
all monuments set and four (4) durable
reference points for each shall be submitted to
the City Engineer for approval in accordance
with City Standards, prior to issuance of
Certificate of Occupancy.
(4) Street improvement plans in a 24" x 36" sheet
format, prepared by a California registered
Civil Engineer, shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Engineer. Security shall
be posted and an agreement executed guarantee-
ing completion of the public and/or private
street improvements, prior to final map
approval.
(5) No street shall exceed a maximum slope of 12%
except that portion of Tin Drive which has a
maximum slope of 14% for approximately 4001.
(6) Prior to recording of final map,rapplicant
shall construct base and asphalt concrete
pavement for all streets in accordance with
soils report prepared by a California
registered soils engineer and approved by the
City Engineer•or as otherwise directed by the
City Engineer.
(7) Applicant shall provide and install street name
signs to the satisfaction of the City Engineer
prior to issuance of a Certificate of
Occupancy.
(8) Applicant shall construct curb and gutters per
City standards subject to approval by the City
Engineer.
(9) The connection to Highcrest Drive from VTTM No.
52267 shall be utilized as a secondary access
into VTTM No. 52267.
Utilities
(1) All -utility lines shall be underground in
r :frontage of the VTTM No. 52267.
(2) Applicant shall construct street lights along
all streets, as required, per City standards
23
and as approved by the City Engineer. The
street lights shall be annexed into the appro-
priate street lighting districts, or shall be
operated and maintained by a homeowners
association.
(3) Prior to the approval and recordation of the
final map, the applicant shall submit written
certification to the City from the Walnut
Valley Water District (WVWD) that adequate
water supply and facilities are available to
serve the project; from the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District (LACSD) that adequate
sewage conveyance and treatment capacity are
available to serve the project; and from each
public utility and cable television purveyor
that adequate supplies and facilities are or
will be available to serve the proposed
project. Such letters shall be issued by the
districts, utility companies and cable
television company within ninety (90) days
prior to final map approval.
(4) Prior to final map approval, a water system
with appurtenant facilities to serve all
lots/parcels in the land division designed to
the WVWD specifications shall be provided and
approved by the City Engineer. The system
shall include fire hydrants of the type and
location as determined by the Los Angeles
County Fire Department. The water mains shall
be sized to accommodate the total domestic and
fire flows to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department.
(5) Prior to final map approval, the applicant
shall construct or enter into and improvement
agreement with the City guaranteeing con-
struction of the necessary improvements to the
existing water system according to WVWD
specifications to accommodate the total
domestic and fire flows as may be required by
the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department.
(6) Applicant shall provide separate underground
utility services to each parcel, including
water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable
TV, in accordance with the respective utility
company standards. Easements required by the
utility companies shall be approved by the City
Engineer prior to granting.
(7) Applicant shall relocate and underground any
existing on-site utilities to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer and the respective utility
owner. -
(8) Prior to submittal of the final map, written
certification from Walnut Valley Water
24
District, GTE, SCE, SCG and Century
Communications stating that adequate facilities
are or will be available to serve the proposed
project shall be submitted to the City.
(9) Underground utilities shall not be constructed
within the drip line of any mature tree or any
tree planted in the mitigation monitoring area
except as approved by a registered arborist.
(10) Based on a determination by the City Engineer,
the City reserves the right to require the
applicant to plan and incorporated into the
homeowners' association obligations to the
future installation of main and service lines
capable of delivery of reclaimed water to all
homeowners' association maintained common area
landscaped portions of VTTM No. 52267, prior to
final map approval. The system shall be
designed to permit "switch over" of non-
domestic services on each area within the
homeowners' association maintained landscaped
common area at time of availability of
reclaimed water, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and designed to the specification
of the WVWD.
(11) Applicant shall post security guaranteeing
completion of all utility improvements, prior
to the final map approval. r
Traffic
(1) Traffic improvement plans shall be prepared by
a registered Civil Engineer in a 2411x36" sheet
format and submitted to and approved by the
City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an
agreement executed guaranteeing completion of
traffic improvements prior to final map
approval.
(2) Intersection line of sight designs shall be.'
submitted to the City for approval may be
required by the City Engineer.
(3) Traffic control signing and striping plans
shall be prepared for any construction
affecting traffic on Diamond Bar Boulevard in
accordance with City requirements and submitted
to and approved by the City Engineer prior to
approval of the final map.
(4) Prior to final map approval, the applicant
shall pay its fair share of traffic signal
.' improvements-zequired (Tin Drive/Diamond Bar
Boulevard) pursuant to the approved EIR. Based
upon recommendations presented in the traffic
study, this fair share is 100 percent of the
25
costs for traffic signal installation.
Applicant shall also be responsible for other
traffic modification improvements such as
median, signing and striping for left and right
turn lane pockets. The applicant shall, at his
sole cost and expense, install full sidewalks
of five feet minimum in width along the
property frontage on Diamond Bar Boulevard
between Goldrush Drive and Steep Canyon and
full sidewalks of five feet minimum in width
and curb and gutter along Steep Canyon between
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Clear Creek Drive.
All improvements shall comply with current
American Disabilities Act standards.
sewers
(1) Sewer system improvement plans (24" x 36" sheet
format, 2 pages per sheet) prepared by a
California registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer,
Los Angeles County Public Works Department, and
Los Angeles County Sanitation District prior to
final map approval.
(2) Prior to final map approval, applicant shall
submit a sanitary sewer area study to the City
Engineer verifying that capacity is available
in the sewerage system to be used as the
outfall for the sewers in this land division.
If the system is found to be of insufficient
capacity, the problem shall be resolved to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(3) 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 the
City or District sewer system. -Said system,
shallbe of the size, grade and depth approved
by the City Engineer, County Sanitation
District and Los Angeles County Public'Works
Division prior to approval of the final`map.
(4) Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s)
from the City and County Sanitation District
prior to issuance of building permits. The
area within the tentative map boundaries shall
be annexed into the -County Consolidated Sewer
Maintenance District and appropriate easements
for all sewer main and trunk lines shall be
shown on the final map and offered for
dedication on the final map.
(5) Appl'icant-; at apj. icant's sole cost and
expense, shall construct the sewer system in
accordance with the City, Los Angeles County
Public Works Department and County Sanitation
District standards.
7.6
(6) 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.
(7) Security shall be posted guaranteeing
completion of the improvements and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan, prior to final map approval.
(8) Applicant shall convey access and property
easement and rights-of-way to the Los Angeles
County Sanitation District, as deemed necessary
by the County and City Engineer for the
construction and maintenance of sewer lines and
associated facilities prior to final map
approval.
The Planning Commission shall:.
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this
Resolution, by certified mail, Diamond Hills Ranch
Partnership, 5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Ste. D,
Anaheim, CA 92807 and SunCal Companiep, 5109 E. La
Palma Avenue, Ste. D, Anaheim, CA 92807.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF May, 1998, BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
BY:
Joe McManus, Chairman
I, Jam DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify
that a foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted
by th Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of May, 1998,
by the following vote:
AYES: McManus, Ruzicka, Nelson, Kuo
NOES: Tye
ABSENT:
ABST
ATTEST:
Ja�W DeStefano Secretary
27
PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 98-12
A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING CONDITIONAL
APPROVAL OF HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT CONDITIONAL
USE PERMIT NO. 98-03, OAR TREE PERMIT NO. 98-
01, THE REMOVAL OF MAP AND DEED RESTRICTIONS
AND THE DEDICATION OF 274.3 ACRES OF TRACT NO.
52267 AND ALL OF LOT 9 OF TRACT NO. 31479 TO
PUBLIC, OPEN SPACE FOR VESTING TENTATIVE MAP
NO. 52267, A 141 LOT SUBDIVISION FOR THE
EVENTUAL DEVELOPMENT OF 130 SINGLE FAMILY
HOMES GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF DIAMOND BAR
BOULEVARD AND NORTH OF GRAND AVENUE AT THE
EXTENSION OF HIGHCREST -DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA.
A. RECITALS.
1. The property owner, Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership and
applicant, SunCal Companies has filed an application for
Vesting Tentative Map (VTTM) No. 52267 in order to
subdivide a 339.3 acre parcel into 141 lots for the
eventual development of 130 detached single family homes.
The project site is generally located east of Diamond Bar
Boulevard, and north of Grand Avenue at the extension of
Highcrest Drive, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County,
California, as described above in the title of this
Resolution. The request also includes: a Conditional Use
Permit for development within an urban hillside
management area (CUP No. 98-3), an Oak Tree Permit (OT
No. 98-1) for the removal of oak trees, the removal of a
map restriction, and the dedication of 274.3 acres of
Tract No. 52267 and all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 to
public, open space.
2. 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 its Ordinance No. 14
(1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as
the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and
22 of the Los Angeles County Code contain the.Development
Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently
applicable to development applications, including the
subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar.
3. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on
February 10, 1998 conducted a duly noticed public hearing
on CUP No. 98-03 and OT No. 98-01. The public hearing
was opened and comments were received on the project,
1
draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (SCH NO.
97031005), CUP No. 98-03 and OT No. 98-01. At that time,
the public hearing was continued to February 24, 1998.
The public hearing was again continued to March 24, 1998
and to April 28, 1998. On April 28, 1998 public comments
were received and then the public hearing was closed. At
that time, the Commission directed staff to prepare
appropriate documents and return them to the Commission
on May 12, 1998
4. Notification of the Application's public hearing has been
made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland valley
Daily Bulletin newspapers on January 21, 1998. Nine
hundred and twenty-nine property owners within a minimum
500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail
on January 20, 1998.
B. Resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that
all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby determines that the
project identified above in this Resolution requires an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR). EIR No. 97-2 (SCH NO.
97031005) has been prepared according to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, gs amended, and
the guidelines promulgated thereunder. Furthermore, this
Planning Commission has reviewed the EIR in reference to
CUP No. 98-03 and OT No. 98-01.
3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein,
this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows:
(a) The project relates to a vacant parcel of
approximately 339:3 acres (Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7) of
Tract No. 31479. Additionally, the project relates
to Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 which in its entirety
will be dedicated to public open space.
(b) The project proposes to subdivide 65 of the 339.3
acres into 141 lots for the development of 130
detached single family homes within a private, gated
community; remove and replace oak and walnut trees;
and remove the map restriction on a portion of the
65 acres. The balance of the 339.3 acres (274.3
acres) and all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 will be
dedicated to the City as public, open space.
(c) The project site has a General Plan land use
designation of Planning Aiaa 2. The proposed
project complies with the General Plan and Planning -
Area 2 as defined in the General Plan. The project
site is zoned Residential Planned Development -
KA
Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet -2 Units Per Acre
(RPD -20,000-2U).
(d) Generally, the following zones surround the project
site: to the north and east is the RPD -20,000-2U
Zone; to the south is the Single Family Residence -
Minimum Lot Size 40,000 Square Feet (R-1-40,000) and
the RPD -20,000-2U Zone; and to the west is the
Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 8,000
Square Feet (R-1-8,000) Zone.
Conditional Use Permit
Hillside Management Area
(e) The proposed project is located and designed so as
to protect the safety of current and future
community residents, and will not create significant
threats to life and/or property due to the presence
of geologic, seismic, slope instability, fire,
flood, mud flow, or erosion hazard.
The on-site effects from the development of VTTM No.
52267 will not result in any significant geologic,
seismic, slope instability, fire, flood, mud flow,
or erosion hazard because the project's grading plan
is consistent with the City's Hillside Management
Ordinance and will be developed with the benefit of
appropriate city permits and inspections.
Slope instability will not occur due to the
introduction of project features like shear keys and
buttress fills which have been incorporated into the
project's grading design in accordance with the
recommendations of the applicant's geotechnical
engineer and the City's grading ordinance
requirements for slope stability. Additionally,
engineered slopes on-site do not exceed 2:1 and meet
the City's stability requirements.
No active faults are known to transect the project,
site or the immediate site vicinity. The
probability of on-site surface rupture or
deformation from an earthquake is considered very
low. However, ground shaking hazards caused by
earthquakes along active regional faults do exist.
All structural improvements will be designed in
accordance with the Uniform Building Code
requirements applicable to geologic conditions at
the project site.
The project site varies from an elevation of
approximately 810 above sea level (msl) along the
western boundary to approximately 1,150 msl at its
eastern edge. Several natural drainages convey site
runoff from the proposed development area and
existing adjacent residential projects to culverts
in Diamond Bar Boulevard. The balance of the 339.3
acres will remain in its natural conditions. During
the geotechnical evaluation of the project site, no
groundwater was encountered. Although the proposed
project will alter the existing natural drainage
patterns on-site, drainage•will be conveyed by on-
site storm drain systems to existing natural
drainage courses, which then drain to existing
culverts in Diamond Bar Boulevard. The receiving
storm drain systems are adequately sized and have
adequate available capacity to accommodate these
flows. Drainage from the project site will not
alter natural drainage or impact rare or threatened
biological resources. Additionally, during
construction, short-term water quality impacts may
occur from erosion and siltation from soils exposed
by grading activities. The Federal Clean Water Act
establishes a framework for regulating potential
water quality impacts from construction activities
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. Therefore, the applicant is
required to obtain a permit from the Regional Water
Quality Control Board. Stormwater pollutant
prevention plans are required which includes both
structural and nonstructural Best Management
Practices (BMPs) to reduce water quality impacts.
Erosion control will be required. Full compliance
with applicable local, State and Federal water
quality standards by the applicant will reduce
impacts to less than significant.
The proposed project will comply with the required
standards of the Los Angeles County Fire Department.
A fuel modification plan, appropriate access and
turnarounds for fire equipment, and fire hydrants in
appropriate locations with adequate flow are
conditions of approval as specified by the Fire
Department.
The project will result in short-term construction
impacts related to fugitive dust and equipment
exhaust emissions. Short-term emissions will exceed
the SCAQMD's 100 pounds/day threshold for nitrogen
oxides (NOx)•and its 150 pounds/day threshold of•
particulate matter (PM10). Mitigation measures are
incorporated into the project to reduce the
construction related air quality emissions to the
extent feasible. However, the emissions can not be
mitigated to a level considered less than
significant. Therefore, the City will require that
all construction comply with the SCAQMD's
regulations, including Rule 402 and 403. As a
result, these unavoidable effects are acceptable
when balanced against the facts set forth in the
project's Statement of Overriding Consideration.
It is the above referenced standards that will
reduce the threat to life and/or property.
4
(f) The proposed project is compatible with the natural,
biotic, cultural, scenic and open space resources of
the area.
The compatibility of the proposed project with the
natural, biotic, cultural, scenic and open space
resources was reviewed through the EIR process. A
biological reconnaissance survey and cultural
resource studies were taken according to industry
standards and practices. Additionally, scenic and
open space resources were reviewed.
The EIR incorporates a Mitigation Monitoring Program
(MMP) that mitigates potentially significant impacts
to the natural and biotic resources. The measures
within the MMP are based on the -findings from the
biological resources survey and previously adopted
conditions by the City placed on projects containing
similar resources. The MMP also incorporates the
following: avoidance of approximately 274 acres of a
variety of plant communities; protection through a
Biological Resource Management Plan of habitat
replacement and revegetation and their protection
during construction; restoration of coastal sage
scrub species and oak and walnut tree replacement;
and appropriate permits from U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and California Department of Fish and
Game. Through the MMP and appropriate permits, the
biological impacts can be mitigated to a level that
is considered less than significant. A Mitigation
Landscape Plan, a condition of approv&l for this
project, will incorporate the necessary requirements
to comply with the mitigation measures, thereby
ensuring this project's compatibility with the areas
natural and biotic resources.
No know or recorded prehistoric or historic sites
are located with the proposed project. However,
ground visibility was poor. The lower and less
steep benches that overlook the canyon and lower
drainage, are likely locations for prehistoric camp
sites. Therefore, to reduce the impact on cultural
resources, the MMP incorporates measures such as an
archaeologist and paleontologist to monitor all'
clearing, brushing and grading activities on the
project site. This will ensure appropriate actions
for the exploration and/or salvage of the cultural
findings.
When combined with other projects that may be
developed and existing development in this area of
the City, the proposed project is not expected to
contribute to cumulative aesthetics/visual impacts.
The General Plan indicates that a single family
-development of 130 homes would be allowed'in this
area. Compliance with the City's -Hillside
5
Management Ordinance is required to ensure that
potential view impacts are mitigated to the extent
feasible. Aesthetic and visual impacts will be
mitigated through techniques stated within the
Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP). It is unknown
whether the mitigation measures identified in the
MMP will reduce the project's aesthetic impacts to a
level that would be considered less than
significant. Therefore, the impacts identified
within the EIR are considered significant and
unavoidable and a Statement of Overriding
Consideration will be prepared addressing this
issue.
(g) The proposed project is conveniently served by
neighborhood shopping and commercial facilities, can
be provided with essential public services without
imposing undue costs on the total community, and is
consistent with the objectives and policies of the
General Plan.
Previously mentioned findings confirm that the
proposed project is consistent with the objectives
and policies of the General Plan. Pursuant to the
EIR, this project and area surrounding the project
is served by the Los Angeles County Fire and Sheriff
Departments, as well as the Pomona Unified School
District. The facilities of the Pomona Unified -
School District are inadequate and elementary
facilities demand the construction of the new
Pantera School. The district has only 50 percent of
the resources to commit to the new school's
construction. Unfortunately, school mitigation fees
from this tract will only provide less than an
additional 25 percent. A supplemental fee to create
a 50 percent contribution by the applicant is being
considered by the school district to mitigate this
issue. Additionally, the applicant will provide its
fair share for infrastructure related to this
project. Furthermore, adequate shopping and
commercial facilities are provided within
approximately one miles of the project site.
(h) The proposed development demonstrates creative and
imaginative design, resulting in a visual quality
that will complement community character and benefit
current and future community residents.
The proposed development demonstrates creative and
imaginative design through the utilization of the
standards and guidelines of the city's Hillside
Management Ordinance; the varying shape lots with
irregular pad configuration; density pursuant to the
General Pla.a:,; the dedication of nu: -ural, public,
open space; the retention of the area's hillside
character through landform grading and the
R
Revegetation Plan, which will concentrate the
planting of vegetation in concave areas, similar as
in nature. All these measures will complement the
community's character, benefitting current and
future community residents.
Oak Tree Permit
(i) The proposed construction or proposed use will be
accomplished without endangering the health of the
remaining trees on the subject property.
Pursuant to the City's Development Code, Biological
Resource Management Plan, the project's MMP,
preconstruction meetings and the project biologist,
remaining trees shall be protected at all times
during construction.
(j) The removal or relocation of the oak tree(s)
proposed will not result in soil erosion through the
diversion of increased flow of surface waters which
cannot be satisfactorily mitigated.
Pursuant to the City's grading permit process and
the project's MMP, during construction measures to
prevent erosion, such as the use of silt fencing or
hay bales shall be installed at the grading limits.
Additionally, the revegetation plan will be
implemented after feasible when grading is
completed. Therefore, soil erosion will be
satisfactorily mitigated. r
(k) The removal or relocation of the oak tree(s)
proposed is necessary, as continued existence at
present location(s) frustrates the planned
improvement of proposed use of the subject property
to such an extent that placement of such tree(s)-
precludes the reasonable and efficient use of such
property for a use otherwise authorized.
The removal of oak and walnut trees is necessary to
provide slope stability by the introduction of
project features like shear keys and buttress fills
in accordance with the recommendations of the
applicant's geotechnical engineer and the City's
grading ordinance requirements. Additionally, the
project's development area as cited within the
General Plan, also causes the removal of oak and
walnut trees. However, the MMP requires oak trees
with a trunk diameter less than 36 inches will be
._replaced at a 2:1 ratio; oak trees with diameters
` between'36 inches and 48 inches will be replaced at
a 3:1 ratio; oaks trees with diameters greater than
48 inches will -be replaced at a 4:1 ratio; and
walnut.tree.replacement at a.2:1 ratio. All tree
replacement will include understory to ensure the
7
replacement of the ecosystem values. Each acre of
coastal sage scrub lost, two acres will be replaced
(2:1 ratio). Additionally, a five year monitoring
will occur with performance standards of 90 percent
coverage by the fifth year.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above,
the Planning Commission hereby recommends approval of CUP
No. 98-03, OT No. 98-01 and the removal of map and deed
restrictions subject to the following conditions:
a. General:
(1) The project site shall be developed in sub-
stantial conformance to the VVTM No. 52267, CUP
No. 98-03 and OT No. 98-01 submitted to and
approved by the Planning Commission
collectively attached hereto as Exhibit "A" -
subdivision and mitigation landscape plan,
Exhibit "B" - Statement of Overriding
Consideration and Exhibit "C" - Mitigation
Monitoring Program dated May 12, 1998
(2) The project site shall be maintained in a
condition which is free of debris both during
and after the construction, addition or
implementation of the entitlement granted
herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and
refuse, whether during or subsequent to
construction shall be done only by the property
owner, applicant or by a duly pet-mitted waste
contractor, who has been authorized by the City
to provide collection, transportation and
disposal of solid waste from residential,
commercial, construction, and industrial areas
within the City. It shall be the applicant's
obligation to insure that the waste contractor
utilized has obtained permits from the City of
Diamond Bar to provide such services.
(3) This approval is granted subject to the
conditions of approval for VTTM No. 52267.;-
(4) This approval shall not be effective for any
purpose until the applicant and owner of the
property involved have filed within 15 days of
approval of this map, at the City of Diamond
Bar's Community and Development Services
Department/Planning Division, their Affidavit
of Acceptance stating that they are aware of
and agree to accept all the conditions of this
approval. Further, this approval shall not be
effective until the applicant pays remaining
Planning Division processing fees.
8
(5) In accordance with Government Code Section
66474.9 (b)(1), the applicant shall defend.,
indemnify, and hold harmless from any claim,
action, or proceeding against the City or its
agents, officers, or employees to attack, set
aside, void or annul, approval of VTTM No.
52267 brought within the time period provided
for Government Code Section 66499.37.
(6) The applicant shall comply with the 1994
adopted Uniform Building Code, Uniform
Mechanical Code, Uniform Plumbing Code and the
1993 National Electric Code and all other
applicable construction codes, ordinances and
regulations in effect at the time the
application was deemed complete.
(7) Notwithstanding any previous subsection of this
resolution, the Department of Fish and Game
requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section
711.4 of the Fish and Game Code. Said payment
shall be made by the applicant within five days
of this grant's approval.
(8) Applicant shall pay development fees
(including, but not limited to Planning,
Building and Safety, Public Works and,
Engineering Divisions and Mitigation
Monitoring) at the established rates, prior to
final map approval, issuance of building or
grading permits (whichever comesrfirst), as
required by the City. School fees shall be
paid prior to the issuance of a building
permit. Additionally, the applicant shall pay
all remaining prorated City project review and
processing fees prior to the Map's recordation
as required by the City.
(9) All equipment staging areas shall be located on
the project site. The staging area, including
material stockpile and equipment storage area,
shall be enclosed with a six foot high chain
link fence. All access points in the fence
shall be locked whenever the construction site
is not supervised.
(10) This grant is only valid, provided that con-
struction is begun within two years from the
date of this approval. A one year extension of
time may be requested in writing and shall only
be considered if submitted to the City no less
than 30 days prior to the approval's expiration
date.
;. (11) The. project site shall be maintained and
operated in full compliance with the conditions
9
of this approval and all laws, or other
regulations applicable.
(12) This grant shall be null, void and of no effect
if the City Council fails to approve VTTM No.
52267 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program and
certify EIR No.. 97-2 (SCH NO. 97031005).
b. Planning Division:
(1) The Mitigation Monitoring Program outlined in
Environmental Impact Report No. 97-2 (SCH NO.
97031005) and approved by the City shall be
implemented and complied with rigorously. The
mitigation monitoring fees shall be deposited
with the City 90 days prior to the issuance of
a grading permit. All costs related to the
ongoing monitoring shall be secured from the
applicant and received by the City prior to the
final map's approval.
(2) Conditions, Covenants, Restriction and
Reservations (CC&Rs) and Articles of
Incorporation of a homeowners' association are
required and shall be provided to the Deputy
City Manager and the City Attorney for review
and approval prior to the recordation of the
final map. A homeowners' association shall be
created and responsibilities thereof shall be
delineated with the CC&Rs. The CC&Rs and
Articles of Incorporation shall be recorded
concurrently with the final map or prior to the
issuance of any City permits, whichever occurs
first. A recorded copy shall be provided to
the City Engineer.
(3) VTTM No. 52267's CC&Rs shall incorporate at a
minimum, provisions which will establish a
maintenance program for urban pollutant basins,
and all mitigation measures within the
Mitigation Monitoring Program.
(4) A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&Rs
which requires disputes involving interpre-
tation or application of the CC&Rs (between
private parties) to be referred to a neutral
third party mediation service prior to any
party initiating -litigation in a court of
competent jurisdiction. The cost of such
mediation shall be borne -equally by the
parties.
(5) Applicant shall incorporate within the CC&Rs a
reference to the availability of the "Buyers E
Awareness" Package and the fact that a copy is
on file in the City of Diamond Bar's City
10
Clerk's office. This package shall include,
but is not limited to, information pertaining
to geologic issues regarding the property,
wildlife corridors, oak and walnut tree
preservation issues, Exhibit "A" which
delineates each lot's building envelope,
explanatory information pertaining to
restrictions on use of properties as necessary
and similar related matters. The applicant
shall give each buyer a copy of the "Buyers.
Awareness" Package and shall document their
receipt of the same in the escrow instructions
of each lot and document their receipt to the
City.
(6) Applicant, through the "Buyers' Awareness
Program", shall encourage the segregation of
green waste for reuse as specified under the
City's Source Reduction Recycling Element and
County Sanitation District's waste diversion
policies.
(7) The proposed model home units shall comply with
the City's Development Review Ordinance.
(8) Residential dwelling units shall utilize the
following development standards:
(a) Front yard setbacks shall be a minimum of
20 feet from the front property line.
Architectural styles/front elevations
shall vary. The same style front
elevation shall not be utilized on
adjacent home. The homes shall provide a
perspective along a street that utilizes
varying plane, giving the appearance of
varying setbacks;
(b) Side yard setbacks shall be a minimum of 5
feet and 10 feet from the property line.`
The distance between dwelling units shall
be a minimum of 15 feet;
(c) Rear yard setbacks shall be a minimum'of
20 feet from the property line; however,
all two story homes on the subdivision's
perimeter lots (Lots 3, 4, 8 through 20,
50, 52, 65 through 68, 71 through 77, 112
through 123, 126 through 129 ) shall
maintain a 30 foot rear yard setback in
order to reduce view and aesthetic impacts
from off-site and on-site;
(d) Maximum building height shall not_ exceed
,. two stories and 35 feet;
11
(e) Accessory structures may be permitted
utilizing setback distances consistent
with the residential zoning designation
for the property at the time of permit
issuance;
(f) Minimum lot size 6,000 square feet;
(g) Perimeter fencing shall consist of three
foot high block walls with wrought iron,
glass, or open work fencing not to exceed
three feet to reduce view and aesthetic
impacts. Additionally, the perimeter
fencing shall allow for the movement of
on-site wildlife.
(9) All ground mounted utility appurtenances (i.e.
A.C. condenser units, transformers, etc.) shall
be located out of public view and adequately
screened through the use of a combination of
concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or
landscaping to the satisfaction of the
Community and Development Services Department/
Planning Division.
(10) Grading and/or construction activities shall be
restricted to 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday. All equipment utilized for
grading and/or construction shall be properly
muffled to reduced noise levels. Transpor-
tation of equipment and materialt and the
operation of heavy grading shall also be
restricted to 7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday
through Saturday. Dust generated by grading
and construction activities shall be reduced by
watering the soil prior to and during the
activities and in accordance with South Coast
Air Quality Management District Rule 402 and
Rule 403. Reclaimed water shall be used
whenever possible.
(11) All terrace drains and drainage channels shall
be constructed in muted earth tones so as to
not impart adverse visual impacts. Terrace
drains shall follow landform slope con-
figuration and shall not be placed in exposed
positions. All down drains shall be hidden in
swales diagonally or curvilinear across a slope
face.
(12) Prior to issuance of occupancy permits, all oak
and walnut trees and plant species shall be
installed according to ratio, locations, and
palette mix specified in EIR No. 97-2 (SCH NO.
97031005) and its associated Biological
Resource Management Plan (BRMP).- The BRMP
12
shall be implemented and maintained by the
applicant for a five year period following
installation with compliance documented through
the adopted Mitigation'Monitoring Program.
(13) The final landscape plan shall substantially
comply with the recommendations of the Planning
Commission, EIR No 97-02 and Hillside
Management Ordinance. Final landscape plan
shall include fencing details, tree staking,
soil preparation, planting details, automatic
irrigation systems and the incorporation of
xerotropic landscaping wherever feasible.
Additionally, the final landscape plan shall be
reviewed and approved by the City prior to
issuance of a grading permit.
(14) The grading plan shall substantially conform to
VTTM No. 52267 as recommended for approval by
the Planning Commission. The approved VTTM No.
52267 and Hillside Management Ordinance shall
supersede all other standards and requirements
relating to this project. Surety bonds shall
be posted to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer and City Attorney.
(15) All slope planting and irrigation shall be
continuously maintained in a healthy and
thriving condition by the applicant 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 all slope
planting is in satisfactory condition.
(16) All off-site landscaping, grading and other
improvements shall be completed prior to the
occupancy of any units, with the exception of
the Biological Resources Management Plan which
has a five year compliance period. `
(17) Emergency access shall be provided, maintained
free and clear, a minimum of 26 feet wide, at
all times during construction and in accordance
with the Fire Department requirements.
(18) Prior to the issuance of any building permits
for combustible construction, evidence shall be
submitted to the Fire Department that temporary
water supply for fire protection is available,
pending completion of the required fire pro-
tection system.
-(19) Discharge of sewage from this project,:,t e into
the public, -sewer, system shall not vioate the
requirements of the California Regional Water
13
Quality Control Board (CRWQCB,) pursuant to
Division 7, Section 13000 of the Water Code. A
letter of compliance from the CRWQCB shall be
submitted to the City prior to the issuance of
construction permits.
(20) Based on soils and hydrology studies, the
applicant shall provide a plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and the co -
permittees related thereto, pursuant to the
NPDES requirements.
(21) The urban pollutant basins shall be maintained
by the applicant or it's successor in con-
formance with all applicable standards. The
applicant shall convey to the City the non-
exclusive right to maintain, at its sole
election, such urban pollution basins in the
event the party responsible fails to maintain
the basins.
(22) VTTM No. 52267 shall comply with all
requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the
underlying zoning unless set forth in this
permit or shown on the approved plans.
(23) Applicant shall obtain approval from the County
Sanitation District on the location of
structures affecting the County Sanitation
easements and submit written evidence to the
City prior to the grading permit*s issuance.
(24) Any lighting fixtures adjacent to interior
property lines shall be approved by the Deputy
City Manager as to type, orientation and
height.
(25) Blasting and/or dynamiting shall not be
permitted.
(26) In exchange for the removal of map and deed,
restrictions, the applicant shall fulfill the
following requirements:
(a) Dedicate to the City as public open space:
all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479,
approximately 86 acres; portions of Lots
4, 5, and 7 of Tract No. 31479,
approximately 274.3 acres excluding
manufactured slope; and
(b) Contribute $ 250,000.00 to the City's
Parks and Facility Development Fund.
14
(27) The'applicant shall.comply with the following.
standards and provisions of the Biological
Resources Management Plan specified in the EIR
No. 97-2:'
(a) Oak trees removed which are less than 36
inches in diameter shall be replaced at a
2:1 ratio;
(b) Oak trees removed which are between 36 and
48 inches in diameter shall be replaced at
a 3:1 ratio;
(c) Oak trees larger than 48 inches in
diameter shall be replaced at a 4:1 ratio;
and
(d) Coastal sage scrub shall be replaced at a
2:1 ratio (for each acre of coastal sage
scrub lost, two acres shall be replaced).
(28) All mitigation monitoring related to the
implementation of the Biological Resources
Management Plan required by the Mitigation
Monitoring Program and Environmental Impact
Report No. 97-2 shall occur within the city
limits of Diamond Bar.
C. Fire Department:
(1) A fuel modification plan, landscape/irrigation
plan'approved by a registered landscape
architect shall be submitted for review and
approval by the Los Angeles County Fire Depart-
ment prior to the issuance of any city permits.
(2) Access shall comply with Section 902 of the
Fire Code which requires all weather access.
All weather access may require paving.
(3) Fire Department access shall extend to within
150 feet distance of any exterior portion of
all structures. '
(4) Where driveways extend further than 300 feet
and are of single access design, turnarounds
suitable for fire protection equipment use
shall be provided and shown on the final map.'
Turnarounds shall be designed, constructed and
maintained to insure their integrity for Fire
Department use. Where topography dictates,
turnarounds shall be provided for driveways
which extend over 150 feet.
(5) Vehicular access shall be provided and
maintained serviceable throughout construction
15
to all required fire hydrants. All required
fire hydrants shall be installed, tested, and
accepted prior to construction.
(6) Applicant shall provide Fire Department or City
approved street signs and building access
numbers prior to occupancy.
(7) Required fire flow for public fire hydrants at
this location shall be 1250 gallons per minute
at 20 psi for a duration of seven hours, over
and above maximum daily domestic demand.
Hydrant(s) flowing simultaneously may be used
to achieve the required fire flow.
(8) Applicant shall provide information on the
location of all existing fire hydrants.
(9) All hydrants shall measure 6" x 4" x 2 1/2"
brass or bronze, conforming to current AWWA
standard C503 or approval equivalent. All
hydrants shall be installed a minimum of 25
feet from a structure or protected by two hour
fire wall.
(10) All required fire hydrants shall be installed,
tested and accepted prior to construction.
Vehicular access shall be provided and
maintained serviceable throughout construction.
(11) Applicant shall provide three additional maps
for fire hydrant placement and distribution.
d. Public Works Division:
_General -1
(1) Discharge of sewage from this project site into
the public sewer system shall not violate the,.,'
requirements of the California Regional Water'
Quality Control Board (CRWQCB), pursuant to
Division 7, section 1300 of the Water Code.', A
letter of compliance from the CRWQCB shall be
submitted to the City prior to the issuance of
.construction permits.
(2) Based on soils and hydrology studies, the
applicant shall -provide a plan for review and
approval by the City Engineer and the co -
permittees related thereto, pursuant to the
NPDES requirements.
(3) Applicant shall maintain the urban pollutant
basin" in conformance with all applicable
standards. -
16
(4) Prior to the grading permit's issuance, the
applicant shall obtain approval from the County
Sanitation District on the location of
structures affecting the County Sanitation
easements and submit written evidence to the
City.
(5) Prior to any construction, the applicant shall
submit to the City all applicable construction
permit fees and construction permit
applications.
(6) Access to the project site for construction
and/or grading equipment shall be approved by
the City Engineer.
Public Works/Engineering:
(1) Prior to final map approval, the applicant
shall submit to the City written certification
that all utility services and any other service
related to the site shall be available to serve
the proposed project. Such letters shall be
issued by the district, utility and cable
television company, within ninety (90) days
prior to final map approval.
(2) All easements existing prior to final map
approval shall be identified and shown on final
map. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate
in nature, a statement to that effect shall be
shown on the final map in lieu of its location.
(3) Prior to final map approval and when final map
is submitted for plan check, a title report/
guarantee showing all fee owners, interest
holders, and nature of interest shall be
submitted. The account shall remain open until
the final map is filed with the County
Recorder. Ten working days prior to final map
approval, an updated title report/guarantee and
subdivision guarantee shall be submitted to .the
city.
(4) New boundary monuments shall ' be set in
accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act
and as required by the City Engineer.
(5) Prior to final map approval, if any public or
private improvements .required as part of this
map have not been completed by applicant and
accepted by the City, the applicant shall enter
into a subdivision agreement with the City and
shall post the appropriate security. All bond
amounts.shall --be provided by the applicant and
approved by the'City Engineer.
17
(6) Prior to final map approval, all site grading,
landscaping, irrigation, street', sewer and storm
drain improvement plans shall be approved by the
City Engineer, L.A. County Fire Department, and
appropriate regulatory agencies (e.g. California
Department of Fish and Game, etc.).
(7) Applicant, at the applicant's sole cost and
expense, shall construct all required public and
private improvements. If any required
improvements have not been completed by the
applicant and accepted by the City prior to the
final map approval, the applicant shall enter
into a subdivision agreement with the City and
shall post the appropriate security, guaran-
teeing completion of the improvements, prior to
final map approval. A detailed engineering cost
estimate shall be submitted to the City Engineer
for bonding purposes prior to the submittal of
these securities guaranteeing completion of the
improvements.
(8) House numbering plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance
of building permits.
(9) The detail drawings and construction notes
shown on the vesting tentative map are
conceptual only and the approval of this map
shall not constitute approval of said notes.
(10) Precise grading plans for each lot shall be
submitted to the Community and Development
Services Department/Planning and Public Works
Divisions for approval prior to issuance of
building permits. (This may be on an
incremental or composite basis.)
(11) All identified geologic hazards within the
vesting -tentative tract boundaries which cannot
be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer
shall be indicated on the final map as '.
"Restricted Use Area" subject to geologic
hazard. The applicant shall dedicate to the
City the right to prohibit the erection of
buildings or other structures within such
restricted use areas shown on the final map.
(12) Prior to final map approval and the issuance of
grading permit(s), the applicant shall post
surety and execute an agreement guaranteeing
completion of all drainage facilities necessary
for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction
of the city.Engineer.
18
(13) Easements for disposal of drainage water onto
or over adjacent parcels shall be delineated
and shown on the final map, as approved by the
City Engineer.
(14) Prior to finalization of any development phase,
sufficient street, sewer, and drainage
improvements shall be completed beyond the
phase boundaries to assure secondary access,
proper outfall for sewers and drainage
protection to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer. Phase boundaries shall correspond to
lot lines shown on the final map.
(15) Prior to final map approval, applicant shall
submit the detail cost estimates for bonding
purposes of all public improvements to the City
Engineer.
(16) Prior to any work being performed in public
right-of-way, applicant shall pay fees and
obtain a construction permit from the Public
works Division in addition to any other permits
required.
(17) Prior to final map approval, applicant shall
pay its fair share of other traffic
improvements required based upon amended
traffic study as approved by City Engineer.
(18) Applicant shall label and delinetate on the
final map any private drives or fire lanes to
the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(19) Any existing easement for open space,
utilities, riding and hiking trails shall be
relocated and/or grading performed, as
necessary, to provide, for the portion within
the subdivision, continued and practical access
for the intended use.
(20) Prior to recordation of the final map, VTTM.'No.
52267 shall be annexed 130 homes and all open
space to Landscape Maintenance District 38:,
Those portions of VTTM No. 52267 currently
within Landscape Maintenance District 39 shall
be remove from said Landscape District and as
deemed appropriate, be incorporated into VTTM
No. 52267 Homeowners' Association and Landscape
Maintenance District 38.
(21) All boundary monuments not found at the time of
making the survey for the final map shall be
set in accordance with the State Subdivision
Map Act and..±he City.Subdivision Code, and
shall be subject to approval by the City
19
Engineer. Street centerline monuments shall be
subject to approval by the City Engineer.
Street centerline monuments shall be set to
mark the intersections of streets, inter-
sections of streets with the 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. Centerline
monument ties shall be submitted to the City
Engineer for approval in accordance with City
standards.
(22) Easements, satisfactory to the City Engineer
and the utility companies, for public utility
and public services purposes shall be offered
and shown on the final map for dedication to
the City.
(23) After the final map records, applicant shall
submit to the Engineering Division, at no cost
to the City, a full size reproducible copy of
the recorded map. Final approval of the public
improvements shall not be given until the copy
of the recorded map is received by the
Engineering Division.
(24) As built mylars, stamped by appropriate
individuals certifying the plan, shall be
provided at no cost to the City for all
improvements. '
(25) All improvements for proposed VTTM No. 52267
shall be coordinated with any existing or
proposed maps.
(26) Applicant shall contribute funds to a separate
engineering trust deposit against which charges
can be made by.the.city or its representatives;
for services rendered. Charges shall be on an
hourly basis and shall include any City admin-
istrative costs.
(27) Applicant shall -provide digitized information
in an Auto Cadd format defined by the City for
all related plans, at no cost to the City.
(28) All activities/improvements proposed.for this
map shall be wholly contained within the
boundaries of the map. Should any off-site
activities/improvements be required, approval
shall be obtained from the affected property
owner as required by the City Engineer.
(29) All improvement plans (i.e., grading, erosion
control, storm drain, sewer, street, etc.)
M
shall comply and follow NPDES guidelines for
construction and include appropriate Best
Management Practices (BMP's).
(30) Prior to the initiation of grading operations,
the applicant shall obtain all applicable
construction, stormwater and NPDES permits as
may be required by the City, Los Angeles County
and the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board for the discharge of urban
pollutants. All improvement plans and
construction shall comply with the City's NPDES
requirements.
Grading
(1) Grading of the subject property shall be in
accordance with the Uniform Building Code, City
Grading ordinance 7 (1992), Hillside Management
ordinance and acceptable grading practices.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
precise grading plan shall be in substantial
conformance with the grading plan approved as a
material part of VTTM No. 52267.
(2) The maximum grade of driveways serving building
pad areas shall be 15%.
(3) 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.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, 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; a projection plane shall have
a 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;
(c) "Restricted use" areas and structural
setbacks shall be considered and
delineated prior to recordation of the
final map;
(d) Soil remediation measurFs shall be
>: designed for a "worst case" geologic
21
interpretation subject to verification in
the field during grading;
(e) The extent of any remedial grading into
natural areas -shall be clearly defined on
the grading plans;
(f) Areas of potential for debris flow shall
be defined and proper remedial measures
implemented as approved by the City
Engineer;
(g) Gross stability of all fill slopes shall
be analyzed as part of geotechnical
report, including remedial fill that
replaces natural slope;
(h) Stability of all proposed slopes shall be
confirmed by analysis as approved by the
City Engineer;
(i) 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; and
(j) All geotechnical and soils related
findings and recommendations shall be
reviewed and approved by the City Engineer
prior to issuance of any grading permits
and recordation of the final map.
(4) Grading plans shall be signed and stamped by a
California registered Civil Engineer,
registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered
Engineering Geologist.
(5) Final grading plans shall be prepared in a 24"
x 361''format and designed in compliance with
the recommendations of the final detailed soils
and engineering geology reports. All remedial
earthwork specified in the final report shall
be incorporated into the plans.
(6) Final grading plans shall be submitted to and
approved by the City Engineer.
(7) An erosion control plan shall be approved by
the City Engineer. Erosion control plans shall
be made in accordance to the City's,NPDES
requirements.
(8) All slope banks in excess of five (5) feet, in
vertical height shall be seed,d with native
grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs,
and trees for erosion control upon completion
22
of grading or some other alternative method of
erosion control shall be completed in con-
formance with the Biological Resources
Management Plan and to the satisfaction of the
city Engineer and a permanent irrigation system
shall be installed.
(9) No grading or any staging or any construction
shall be performed prior to final map approval
by the City Council. All pertinent improvement
plans shall be approved by the City Engineer
prior to final map approval by the City
Council.
Drainage
(1) Applicant shall post surety and an agreement
executed guaranteeing completion of all
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.
(2) Easements for disposal of drainage water onto
or over adjacent parcels shall be delineated
and shown on the final map as approved by the
City Engineer.
(3) All drainage improvements necessary for
dewatering and protecting the subdivided
properties shall 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.
(4) 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 (if
applicable) from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and an agreement with the California
Department of Fish and Game (if applicable),'
shall be obtained and submitted to the City
Engineer.
(5) The applicant shall provide drainage facilities
to remove any flood hazard and dedicate and
show necessary easements and/or rights of way
on the final map to the satisfaction of City
Engineer. Storm drainage facilities shall be
constructed within the street right-of-way or
in easements satisfactory to the City Engineer
and the Los Angeles County Flood Control
Districts.-
23
istricts.
23
(3) Prior to the approval and recordation of the
final map, the applicant shall submit written
certification to the City from the Walnut
Valley Water District (WVWD) that adequate
water supply and facilities are available to
serve the project; from the Los Angeles County
Sanitation District (LACSD) that adequate
sewage conveyance and treatment capacity are
available to serve the project; and from each
public utility and cable television purveyor
that adequate supplies and facilities are or
will be available to serve the proposed
project. Such letters shall be issued by the
districts, utility companies and cable
television company within ninety (90) days
prior to final map approval.
(4) Prior to final map approval, a water system
with appurtenant facilities to serve all
lots/parcels in the land division designed to
the WVWD specifications shall be provided and
approved by the City Engineer. The system
shall include fire hydrants of the type and
location as determined by the Los Angeles
County Fire Department. The water mains shall
be sized to accommodate the total domestic and
fire flows to the satisfaction of the City
Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department.
(5) Prior to final map approval, the applicant
shall construct or enter into anti improvement
agreement with the City guaranteeing con-
struction of the necessary improvements to the
existing water system according to WVWD
specifications to accommodate the total
domestic and fire flows as may be required by
the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department.
(6) Applicant shall provide separate underground
utility services to each parcel, including
water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable
TV, in accordance with the respective utility
company standards. Easements required by the
utility companies shall be approved by the City
Engineer prior to granting.
(7) Applicant shall relocate and underground any
existing on-site utilities to the satisfaction
of the City Engineer and the respective utility
owner.
(8) Prior to submittal of the final map, written
certification from Walnut Valley Water
District, GTE,-SCT�, SCG and Century
Communications stating that adequate facilities
26
are or will be available to serve the proposed
project shall be submitted to the City.
(9) Underground utilities shall not be constructed
within the drip line of any mature tree or any
tree planted in the mitigation area except as
approved by a registered arborist.
(10) Based on a determination by the City Engineer,
the City reserves the right to require the
applicant to plan and incorporated into the
homeowners' association obligations to the
future installation of main and service lines
capable of delivery of reclaimed water to all
homeowners' association maintained common area
landscaped portions of VTTM No. 52267, prior to
final map approval. The system shall be
designed to permit "switch over" of non-
domestic services on each area within the
homeowners' association maintained landscaped
common area at time of availability of
reclaimed water, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer and designed to the specification
of the WVWD.
(11) Applicant shall post security guaranteeing
completion of all utility improvements, prior
to the final map approval.
Traffic
r
(1) Traffic improvement plans shall be prepared by
a registered Civil Engineer in a 2411x36" sheet
format and submitted to and approved by the -
City Engineer. Security shall be posted and an
agreement executed guaranteeing completion of
traffic improvements prior to final map
approval.
(2) Intersection line of sight designs shall be
submitted to the City for approval may be
required by the City Engineer.
(3) Traffic control signing and striping plans
shall be prepared for any construction
affecting traffic on Diamond Bar Boulevard in
accordance with City requirements and submitted
to and approved by the City Engineer prior to
approval of the final map.
(4) Prior to final map approval, the applicant
shall pay its fair share of traffic signal
improvements required (Tin Drive/Diamond Bar
Boulevard) pursuant to the approved EIR. Based,
upon recommendations presented in the traffic
t, study, this fair share is 100 percent of the
27
costs for traffic signal installation.
Applicant shall also be responsible for other
traffic modification improvements such as
median, signing and striping for left and right
turn lane pockets. The applicant shall, at his
sole cost and expense, install full sidewalks
of five feet minimum in width along the
property frontage on Diamond Bar Boulevard
between Goldrush Drive and Steep Canyon.and
full sidewalks of five feet minimum in width
and curb and gutter along Steep Canyon between
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Clear Creek Drive.
All improvements shall comply with current
American Disabilities Act standards.
Sewers
(1) Sewer system improvement plans (24" x 36" sheet
format,.2 pages per sheet) prepared by a
California registered Civil Engineer shall be
submitted to and approved by the City Engineer,
Los Angeles County Public Works Department, and
Los Angeles County Sanitation District prior to
final map approval.
(2) Prior to final map approval, applicant shall
submit a sanitary sewer area study to the City
Engineer verifying that capacity is available
in the sewerage system to be used as the
outfall for the sewers in this land division.
If the system is found to be of insufficient
capacity, the problem shall be resolved to the
satisfaction of the City Engineer.
(3) 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 the
City or District 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
Division prior to approval of the final map.
(4) Applicant shall obtain connection permit(s)
from the City and County Sanitation District
prior to issuance -of building permits. The
area within the tentative map boundaries shall
be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer
Maintenance District and appropriate easements
for all sewer main and trunk lines shall be
shown on the final map and offered for
dedication on the final map.
(5) Applicant, at applicant's sole cost and
expense, shall construct the sewer system in
28
accordance with the City, Los Angeles County
Public Works Department and County Sanitation
District standards.
(6) 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.
(7) Security shall be posted guaranteeing
completion of the improvements and Mitigation
Monitoring Plan, prior to final map approval.
(8) Applicant shall convey access and property
easement and rights-of-way to the Los Angeles
County Sanitation District, as deemed necessary
by the County and City Engineer for the
construction and maintenance of sewer lines and
associated facilities prior to final map
approval.
The Planning Commission shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this
Resolution, by certified mail, Diamond Hills Ranch
Partnership, 5109 E. La Palma Avenue, Ste. D,
Anaheim, CA 92807 and SunCal Companies, 5109 E. La
Palma Avenue, Ste. D, Anaheim, CA 928x7.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 12TH DAY OF MAY, 1998, BY THE
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Joe McManus, Chairman
I, Jame DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify
that t foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted
by the lanning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular
meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 12th day of May, 1998,
by the following vote:
AYES: McManus, Ruzicka, Nelson, Kuo
NOES: Tye
ABSENT:
ABST
ATTEST:
Jam4 DeStefano, secretary
29
i
MEMORANDUMS TRANSMITTING
CORRESPONDENCE
RECEIVED FROM RESIDENTS
TO
PLANNING COMMISION
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner
"r9'J
SUBJECT: Correspondences Received From Residents Regarding
VTTM No. 52267
DATE: April 28, 1998
Attached is the latest correspondences received from a residents
and not included in the Planning Commission packet.
Attachments:
Correspondence:
1. The Holmans, date stamped April 27, 1998;
2. James McDowell, dated 4/20/98; and
3. Edie McDowell, dated 4.22/98.
iomn < Elf n c h\J�-�'� A�
Dewe! • _
--
If you I ; 1:: t ( r have ilscall you - • ':��
pleasE {- r u `_
NAME ��� <
__ ... -� 2
ADDRESS'm Su o ter
�O
CRY Co
1 -want o. offend'
TEL a- U c eeting.
E-MAIL] 1 wou`!d like ,to
- ---- �e perso
;;,c
$ -- -
�� �; -- ' NO POSTAGE
NECESSARY IF
MAILED IN THE
UNITED STATES
T
1
P-USINESS REPLY MAIL
FIrST CIASS bL11L PERMIT N0.1178 ANAHEIM CA
P6;TAGE WILL BE PAID BY ADDRESSEE . �.
�I Diamond Hills Ranch Partners, Ltd.
5109 East La Palma Avenue Suite D
Anaheim, California 92807 '
- i
IIIIiII11111!Lnll I1111ui►inludludl161ubR
To:
Post -It ` t -and. fax transmittal memo 767,
From 1"r- James I. Mc Dowell
627 Radbury Place
mea'— Diamond Bar Hills, CA 91765 –
Date:
b`ubjat; VTTM 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills oa DWoond Bar Blvd. betweep Gold
R=h Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of Diamond Bar Official
Wc, residents of Diamond Bar are agaku the
propo plan to build the lard on Dlasnond Bar Blvd. also known as Y1TM 52267. The
following ere some ofthe ratsm why you should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during construction.
2. Air polhrdon fm dust and exhaust fumes -
3. Destruction of nattier Amy by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
S. Increase of number of con in already over congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The cad of "Country Lfviag" In Diamond Bar.
We taodantand that the builder can not build his current plan wess you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" fmm open land where the builder Is not allowed to build. l auk you W to
remove this "Deed Restriction" or allow any type of building conmrocdon on tbis.WA
We came to Sive in Diamond Bar to it's open and quiet living. In the past years this of j
has bow= toss attractive as tame m8estion has baa added until it took: tiles down town Los
Angeles. You as ray rtpee�Ve must not allow this io to on.
`;Q 2
From -
yIg6-s'
Subject: VTTM 52267 (PLM to build hrnues on the hills -on Diarnond Bar Blvd: boweea Gold
Rmnh Dr. and ChM Ave.)
Dar City of Diamond Bar OtSdal
We, L i V �
raideuu of Diamond Bar are against the
PmPond pLn to build abs on Diamond Bar Blvd. also kAown as VTTM 52267. The
following are so= of the reasons why you should pot approve this project:
1. Noise pollutiion during construction.
I. Air pollution f/om dust and exhaust fivmcs.
I Destruction of natwai beauty by daboying thousands of 50 year old oak wd walnut t M.
4. Destruction of animal habitats:
3. bWM@aa of omanber of Cary in already ova emlested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Omod Ave.
6. TDe and of "Country Living" in Diamond Bu.
We nodcrsttad thu tht builder cam not build his curMt plan matlen you approve the moval of
"Deed Restriction" from opec land when the builder is not allowed to bWld. I ask you not to
remove this "Deed Restriction" or allow any type of building construction an this Lnd.
We tame 1n live in Diamond Ser fot it's open onsets and quiet livits. in the pest years this city
bas beoosas less attractive as snore co VSdon bas bm added mil It looks like down town Lm
Angeles. You as my Motive must bot allow this to go on.
c.�
To: City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission
City of Diamond Bar Manager
City Consul of Diamond Bar
From: 0 IV �T D i`� �l Date: _
Address: 112
r
03
O
Subject: VTIM 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diamond Baz Blvd. between Gold '=
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of Diamond Bar Official
Foie, �
iG{J . 1 ! !�t9 J residents of Diamond Bar are against the
proposed plan to build the land on Diamond Bar Blvd. alsoknown as VTTM 52267. The
following are some of the reasons why you should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during construction.
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust fumes.
3. Destruction of natural beauty by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
5. Increase of number of cars in already over congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
We understand that the builder can not build his current plan unless you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. I ask you not to
remove this "Deed Restriction" or allow any type of building construction on this land.
we came to live in Diamond Bar for it's open spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
has become less attractive as more congestion has been added until it looks like down town Los'
Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this to go on.
�V
To: City of Diamond Bar Planning Co�,isslon�
City of Diamond Bar Manager
City Consul of Diamond Bar
From:C%I-IPA Date: —
Address: Y– = ,
Subject: VTIM 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of Diamond Bar Official
residents of Diamond Ear are against the
proposed�DAld�thet�,,.Diamond Bar Blvd. also known as VTTM 52267. The
following are some of the reasons why you should not approve this project:
I. Noise pollution during construction.
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust flumes.
3. Destruction of natural beauty by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
5. Increase of number of can in already over congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
We understand that the builder can not build his current plan unless you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. I ask you riot to
remove this "Deed Restriction" or allow any type'of building construction on this land.
We came to live in Diamond Bar for it's open spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
has become less attractive as more congestion has been added until it looks like down town Los
Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this to go on.
i 5iAH0NFj `:AR
CWII
To: City of Diamond Bar Plannia Co, ion
City of Diamond Bar Ma 4 �`'� 712 :4 3
City Consul
/of Diamond Bar
From:
A Mo K -D 3/�rZ e� c11i��N
Date: 3 - Z � - I b
Subject: VTTM 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of Diamond Bar Official
We, Coy—
KFC IZctil residents of Diamond Bar are against the
proposed plan to build the land on Diamond Bar Blvd. also known as VTTM 52267. The
following are some of the reasons why you should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during construction.
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust fumes.
3. Destruction of natural beauty by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
5. Increase of number of cars in already over congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
We understand that the builder can not build his current plan unless you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. I ask you not to
remove this "Deed Restriction" or allow any type of building construction on this land.
We came to live in Diamond Bar for it's open spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
has become less attractive as more congestion has been added until it looks like down town Los
Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this to go on.
Sincerely
. .
C-07-1
&X.
MM
To: City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission
City of Diamond Bar Manager
City Consul of Diamond Bar
ec ., hl,7
From: _1)r h� /1n 9 Dale: AY
Addmo: hZ l D rPYlrP,J �I.
Subject: VTiM 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of Diamond Bar official
we, 42zZl�� 2j,, /C�i 7/H �} residents of Diamond Bar arc against the
proposed plan to build the land onDiarmond Bar Blvd. also known as VTTM 52267. The
following are some of the reasons wiry you should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during Construction.
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust fumes.
3. Destruction of natural beauty by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
5. Increase of number of cars in already over congested Diamond Bar BIvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
We understand that the builder can not build his current plan unless you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. l ask you not to
remove this "Decd Restriction" or allow any type of building construction on this land.
We tame to live in Diamond Bar for it's open spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
has become less attractive as more congestion has been added until it looks like down town Los
n Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this to go on.
n:
T- = C
- y Sincerely
Cil
-- - f ha kf e lin
pwatters@mwd.dst.ca, 08:34 AM 3/24/98 , Re: City Planning Commission H
To: pwatters@mwd.dst.ca.us
From: info <info@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us>
Subject: Re: City Planning Commission Hearing
Cc:
Bcc:
Dear Ms. Watters:
Thank you for utilizing the City of Diamond Bar's Internet web site for communicating your
questions, comments, and concerns. We hope that you found this process to be quick and
convenient, and that you will use it again, when the opportunity presents itself.
With regard to your specific comments concerning residential development, I am forwarding
your message to the appropriate staff representative, so that they may make your comments
known to the Planning Commission.
Sincerely,
Mike Nelson
Director of Communications and Marketing
City of Diamond Bar
At 09:03 AM 3/23/98 -0800, you wrote:
>City Planning Commission:
>My husband and I are opposed to further development of the hillside
>areas in Diamond Bar. We respectfully request you do not allow the
>projected development of 130 homes in the hills above South Diamond Bar
>Blvd., near Golden Springs Road.
> Sincerely,
> Patricia A. Watters, PhD, and
> Richard K. Lashbrook
> 914 Pantera Drive
> Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Printed for info <info@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us> 1
To: City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission
City of Diamond Bar Manager
City Consul of Diamond Bar
From: P -s z �,-
Address: VD / -Z) e- e &
CITY 'CLERK
98 "A 24 An 9:32
Date: 3 a 3 AV
Subject: VTIM 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of Diamond Bar Official
We, _ %- L ,)l , residents of Diamond Bar are against the
proposed plan to build the land on DiamondBar BI d. also known as VTTM 52267. The
following are some of the reasons why you should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during construction.
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust fumes.
3. Destruction of natural beauty by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
5. Increase of number of can in already over congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
We understand that the builder can not build his current plan unless you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. I ask you not to
remove this "Deed Restriction" or allow any type of building construction on this land.
We came to live in Diamond Bar for it's open spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
has become less attractive as more congestion has been added until it looks like down town Los
Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this to go on.
ONO
C1�
I:
P C,., -E�LD E1?G i.
To: City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission '98 'MAR 24' P 1 '39
City of Diamond Bar Manager
City Consul of Diamond Bar
From: \ J < <U 1• i f� ot A Date: �, . 2v . G'
Address: (o (-,l P A -r\) i c RL �- D-1 .
Subject: VTIM 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of Diamond Bar Official
We, :rpm I L q residents of Diamond Bar are against the
proposed plan to build the land on Diamond Bar Blvd. also known as VTTM 52267. The
following are some of the reasons why you should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during construction.
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust fumes.
3. Destruction of natural beauty by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
5. Increase of number of cars in already over congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
We understand that the builder can not build his current plan unless you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. I ask you not to
remove this "Deed Restriction" or allow any type of building construction on this land.
We came to live in Diamond Bar for it's open spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
has become less attractive as more congestion has been added until it looks like down town Los
Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this to go on.
Sincerely
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner 7;
SUBJECT: Correspondences Received From Residents Regarding
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267
DATE: March 24, 1998
Attached are correspondences.received from residents in regards to
VTTM No. 52267.
Attachments:
Correspondences:
1. HELP SAVE OUR HILLS, flyer date stamped 3/2/98;
2. DANGER, flyer date stamped 3/3/98;
3. Melissa A. Martin, dated 3/3/98;
4. Hong Soon Lee, dated 3/15/98;
5'. Uhon Sook Lee, dated 3/15/.98;
6. Martin Shaw, dated 3/15/98;
7. Lee and Karen Cox, dated 3/23/98;
8. Dr. William and Linda Tang, dated 3/23/98;
9. Patricia A. Watters, PhD, and Richard K. Lashbrook,
dated 3/24/98;
10. James and Cherie Hawley, dated 3/23/98; and
11. V. Bach Family, dated 3/20/98.
i)1AINCtlu i', , O
�i
'98 MAR -2 All
0N'EIP.9IF'EIIffBNIIIS
i
We need your support!
Help stop the developers from destroying our last open hills!
Developers are trying to build 130 houses on the open land east of Diamond
Bar Blvd., south of Goldrush Drive and north of Steep Canyon Rd. If this project
is approved by OUR City Council, we will be subjected to 3 years of dust and
pollution while the hills are flattened and the canyon is filled. They will be moving
approximately 1.8 million cubic yards of dirt (including use of explosives) resulting
in significant degradation of air quality.
130 new homes means more traffic on our already overcrowded streets. Tin
Drive will be extended to Highcrest Dr. and a traffic signal installed at Tin Drive
and Diamond Bar Blvd. We do NOT need more cars on our streets and more
signals to control traffic. The City Council should be finding ways to reduce
the existing traffic nightmare, not contribute to it.
The "Country Living" that is the reason most of us chose to live in
Diamond Bar is slowly being taken from us. This is just one more example.
These are the last untouched hills left in our city. There are deer and many other
sensitive wildlife that live in this area which will be forced from their homes. More
than 800 oak and walnut trees will be cut down.
How can you help The only way to stop the developers is for the citizens of
Diamond Bar to express their opposition at the Planning Commission Meeting.
The first meeting was Feb. 10, 1998, and sadly there were only a few concerned
citizens to speak out. We need your help!!!!! Please come to the next meeting
on Feb. 24, 1998, at 7:C-Opm.
Don't be fooled. Your City Council may not be looking out for your best
interest. When notices were distributed about the first meeting, only residents
within 500 foot radius of the development site were notified. This was after the
Planning Commission agreed to notifying residence to at least a 1,000 foot radius.
Did they simply forget? Some residents who live on Highcrest (now a cul-de-sac)
did not receive notice of this proposed development, which will turn their street
into a thoroughfare. Coincidence? Oversight? Maybe, Maybe not. You decide.
Come to the meeting. Help us speak out.
Public Hearing: Tuesday, February 24,1998
South Coast Air Quality Auditorium (AQMD Bldg.)
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA (Gateway Business Center)
For more information call the City of Diamond Bar (909) 396-5676
Ask about VTTM52267
***DAL'lN
Diamond B
ER***
Residents
Bu Uders are going to �e ;explosives, to destroy thie
Iargest canyon on DiamoAd Bar -Blvd. To add IX home!
3 years of dust, - fumand; es,- an* no J -ung problems specially iia
children
I eA a6d elderly-
-2000 car trips.per day adde� to Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand.
We StQP tb-i DW J eat before
mP- "Mead Restdcdons"I
The City
Planning Commi Si
.9n wants to know if there are eno6
gh
residents against this project to stop them from issuing the
permit
Come to Public nearing ' T e
U �da y' M A Pc- H 24, 1998 at 7:00 QPM
Souill Coast Air QuaUty-Anditorium (ApNw. Building) I
21365 E. Copity Dr. Diamond Bar (on Volden Springs passed Grand Ave-)
For more in&rw2tjon c" City of DiasnBar 909-396-5676
zoo la KOSQIaFd w L0tZT30806 Iva G;:ST W4/0
TOTAL P.02
To: City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission
City of Diamond Bar Manager
City Consul of Diamond Bar
Address: ??,L GOLD MAGGE T' AVE
AD 17,- 1 hi W_
C C ---�D.S
r•,--.,; aE. Fi0f'�ti aft,
•98 ITT —6 ? :41 -
Subject: VTTM 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of Diamond Bar, Official
We, 1 kAE NEI U ROI Na residents of Diamond Bar are against the
proposed plan to build the land on Diamond Bar Blvd. also known as VTTM 52267. The
following are some of the reasons why you should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during construction.
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust fumes.
3. Destruction of natural beauty by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
5. Increase of number of cars in already over congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
We understand that the builder can not build his current plan unless you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. I ask you not to
remove this `'Deed Restriction" or allow any type of building construction on this land.
We came to live in Diamond Bar for it's open spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
has become less attractive as more congestion has been added until it looks like down town Los
Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this to go on.
Sincerely
i
March 15, 1998
Planning Division
Community and Development
Services Department
City of Diamond Bar
21660 Copley Dr., Ste. 190
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
i FLOG.. E;i
If you do not alter the development's currently planned egress at Tin Drive,
would request that you not proceed without performing,.a traffic impact study
focused on the impact within our tract. Tin Drive is not capable of handling more ._
than a few waiting cars, and the problem of exiting from the many cul-de-sacs in
our development may place a substantial limitation in our comfortable and safe
egress to the small streets that were designed for our exit from this tract — not as
thoroughfares for other traffic.
Sincerely,
Martin Shaw
(909) 861-7316
Vir
OF
(!)tm OR P
CA
PA
&V
IM ft
0.0
RD
•ID
.... DR
DR
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman and Planning Commissioners
FROM: Ann Lungu, Associate Planne r
SUBJECT: Correspondences Received From Residents Regarding Vesting Tentative Tract
Map No. 52267
DATE: April 23, 1998
Attached are correspondences received from residents in regards to VTTM. No. 52267.
Attachments:
Correspondences:
1. Cecilia Frazier and Theresa Frazier, dated February 24, 1998
2. Carol J. Drighton, dated February 24, 1998
3. C. Lane & Family, dated March 25, 1998
4. Cecilia Frazier, dated February 21, 1998
5. Mike Frazier, dated March 25, 1998
6. Frank and Romila Santini, dated March 23, 1998
7. Willie and Shirlie Douglas, dated March 25, 1998
8. Mr. & Mrs. Habib Mohammedy, dated March 31, 1998
9. Parker Drive Neighbor, dated April 3, 1998
10. Ronaldo, Belen, Joui, and Berry Cachio, dated March 24, 1998
11. Susan Mercado, dated April 12, 1998
Cr 131AMUND ?AR
PLN -'G-. ':SLUG.. ENGR.
2-4
C:7
V7 Tjvt
CID
N �j—
Ln n
N
�' W
To: City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission
City of Diamond Bar Manager
City Consul of Diamond Bar
From:
Address:CW
Cy$
Date -
Subject: VTr`M 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.) .
Dear City of L)iamond Bar ¢ficial
We, of Diamond Bar are against the
proposed plan to build the land amo Bar Blvd. also known as VTTM 52267. The
following are a of the reasons why y u should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during constrw:tion.
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust fumes.
3. Destruction of natural beauty by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
5. Increase of number of cars in already over congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
We understand that the builder can not build his current plan unless you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. I ask you not to
remove this "Deed Restriction" or allow any type of building construction on this land.
came to live in Diamond Bar for it's open spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
_ _has become less attractive as more congestion has been added until it looks like down town Los
Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this to go on.
N
Carol Herrera
Mayor
Wen Chan,
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Robert S. Huff
Council Member
Deborah H. O'Connor
Council Member
Recycled paper
U .
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100. Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 860-2489 • Fax(9041861-31,17,
.9.? �y11 —� ' 2
Internet: http://mvw.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us •City Online (865): (909) 860-5463
March 27, 1998.
NOTICE OF CONTINUED PLANNING COMMISSION PUBLIC
HEARING FOR VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267
Dear Diamond Bar Property Owner:
The purpose of this correspondence is to inform you that the
Planning Commission has continued the public hearing for the
referenced project to Tuesday, April 28, 1998, at 7:00 p.m.
VTTM 52267 is a proposal by SunCal Companies to construct a
130 unit single family residential development on a --65 acre
portion of their -339 acre site located adjacent to Diamor
Bar Boulevard. The hearing location is the South Coast Aim
Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. You are welcome to attend the
public hearing and will be given the opportunity to speak at
that time.
Should you have any questions or desire additional
information, please contact me at (909) 396-5676.
Sinci�e4P
Tcn
Assoznnr
r n 1 C,
.
iYYL�zzu �`-'.�-7$-G•-zcJ o tom- / '��.�y �
'`"�
l .�
To: City of Diamond Bar Planning Commission
City of Diamond Bar Manager '
City Consul of DiamondBar
From: 69 CL -C--->- t o ) 0.�, -=�y
Address: a s3
'93 r,PP -9 P 1 :11
cP74,b
Date: --a/ --;) V -P/ %z
Subject: VTIM 52267 (Plan to build houses on the hills on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Gold
Rush Dr. and Grand Ave.)
Dear City of Diamond Bar Official
We, residents of Diamond Bar are against the
propos.-d plan to build the land on Diamond Bar Blvd. also known as VTTM 52267. The
following arc some of the reasons why you should not approve this project:
1. Noise pollution during corstruction.
2. Air pollution from dust and exhaust fixmes.
3. Destruction of natural bratty by destroying thousands of 50 year old oak and walnut trees.
4. Destruction of animal habitats.
5. Increase of number of cars in already ovrr congested Diamond Bar Blvd. and Grand Ave.
6. The end of "Country Living" in Diamond Bar.
3t61Jd -iissi .i,; ii41der ran not build his current plan unless you approve the removal of
"Deed Restriction" from open land where the builder is not allowed to build. I ask you not to
remove this "Deed Restrictio:i" or allow any type of building construction on this land.
We came to live in Diamond 113ar for it's open spaces and quiet living. In the past years this city
has become less attractive as more congestion has been added until it looks like down town Los
Angeles. You as my representative must not allow this to go on.
Sincerely
s� e t o
j3 EPL /NI CA CWI
— kyn Lf t tz, G A c-.-4
n T. 2 R v n FZ . C-4 Com[ r D
'J_
,( l
I. PLO V. ENG _ 670 S. Shady Place .
Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ,
'98 APR 20 P12:18 April -12, 1998. �= :
Diamond Bar City Council
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 100 ;
Diamond Bar, CA 91765 - r
Dear Sir or Madam: -�
About a month or so ago I happened to see signs posted up on our city
streets about- a proposed building project that was to be located on a canyon
near my home. The canyon I am speaking of is located off of Diamond Bar
Blvd. between Golden Springs and Grand Avenue. I was. able to read that
the canyon is to be leveled off to build new homes. I am sure that the
building of these homes are beneficial to our city but at the same time I
know that the construction may cause many inconveniences to the residents
nearby. My main concern is that in that canyon I have seen animals such as
coyotes, raccoons, snakes, squirrels, and many others roam through the
canyon, and I am wondering what will happen to all those animals if and
when the construction begins. I am aware that there was a public hearing on
this issue but unfortunately I was unable to attend. I do not know if this plan
is still to taking place or not but I would appreciate it if you could send me
more details on this topic and if the animals are being considered in this
development. Thank you.
Sincerely,
Susan Mercado
MEMO FROM
BONTERRA CONSULTING
TREE SURVEY
BI/lll erra Consulting
An Environmental Planning/Resource Management Corporation
April 21, 1998
MEMORANDUM
To: Ann Lungu
City of Diamond Bar
From: Tom Smith
Subject: Results of Supplemental Tree Survey for VTTM No. 52267 EIR Grading Alternative
This memo describes the results of a supplemental tree survey conducted by BonTerra Consulting
in March 1998 for the VTTM No. 52267 site. The purpose of the survey was to determine the
differences in the number of oak and walnut trees potentially impacted by development of the
proposed VTTM No. 52267 grading design for 130 single-family residential lots and an alternative
grading design for 120 lots contained largely within the boundaries of Lot 6 of VTTM No. 52267.
The supplemental tree survey was necessary because the apparent limits of disturbance for the
EIR grading alternative extended into some areas of the project site that were not previously
surveyed for oak trees by Sweetwater Environmental Biologists, Inc. (Sweetwater). Surveyors were
Ann Johnston, Christina Andersen,and Ron Menguita of BonTerra Consulting.
METHODS
The limits of grading for the EIR grading alternative provided by Pacific Soils Engineering, Inc.
(Pacific) in its February 27, 1998 report were overlayed onto the 1" = 200' topography map
prepared by Sweetwater in December 1996 that documented the locations of oak and walnut trees
on the VTTM No. 52267 site. All trees were mapped and marked with aluminum tags that were
numbered sequentially starting with Number 501. All trees in proximity to previously tagged trees
were inspected thoroughly to insure that trees were not tagged twice. After each tree was mapped
and tagged, its trunk(s) and canopy diameter(s) were measured and recorded. Trees that were
growing on cliff edges or were in other ways not accessible were not physically tagged but were
given a tag number, mapped, and measured by estimation. -
The trunk diameter(s) of each tree were measured individually and added together when multiple
trunks were present; the total number of trunks for each tree was noted. The canopy diameter of
each tree was estimated by measuring the distance between dripline edges. The survey results are
described in Table A. Tree measurement data is provided in Appendix A.
RESULTS
In summary, a total of 10 additional coast live oak trees would be impacted from development of
the EIR grading alternative. Within the limits of grading specified for the EIR grading alternative,
a total of 35 additional coast live oak trees were tagged and would be impacted if this alternative
were developed. The majority of these impacted trees are located along the western boundary of
20321 Birch Street, Suite 201 Newport Beach, CA 92660 (949) 475-9520 (949) 475-9511 FAX
Table A
Tree Survey Data
EIR Grading Alternative
VTTM No. 52267
Tree Type
Tag No.
Trunk
Diameter
In Inches
Canopy
Diameter
in Feet
Comment
QA
501
118.0
60.0
12 trunks
QA
502
11.0
20.0
1 trunk
QA
503
16.0
35.0
1 trunk
QA
504
192.0
60.0
8 trunks
QA
505
6.0
15.0
1 trunk
QA
506•
57.5
45.0
5 trunks
JC
507
41.0
40.0
5 trunks
JC
508
28.0
20.0
3 trunks
JC
509
7.0
15.0
4 trunks
JC
510
12.5
20.0
5 trunks
QA
511 •
39.5
65.0
4 trunks
OA
512'
13.0
35.0
1 trunk
OA
513'
15.0
40.0
2 trunks
QA
514'
13.0
35.0
1 trunk
OA
515'
14.0
40.0
1 trunk
QA
516'
16.5
35.0
1 trunk
OA
517•
16.0
45.0
1 trunk
QA
518'
24.0
65.0
1 trunk
OA
519'
14.0
45.0
2 trunks
QA
520
52.0
40.0
3 trunks
QA
521
22.0 1
35.0
1 trunk
QA
522'
7.0
20.0
1 trunk
QA
523'
26.0
50.0
2 trunks
QA
524•
45.0
70.0
2 trunks
QA
525•
39.0
50.0
2 trunks
QA
526•
29.5
40.0
3 trunks
QA
527•
23.0
65.0
1 trunk
OA 1
528'
57.0
55.0
3 trunks
QA
529•
20.0
45.0
1 trunk
QA
530'
59.0
60.0
2 trunks
QA
531
57.5
50.0
3 trunks
QA
532
27.0
45.0
3 trunks
OA
533
20.0
55.0
1 trunk
QA
534
31.0
50.0
4 trunks
OA
535
80.0
65.0
5 trunks
QA
536
20.0
35.0
3 trunks
OA
537
28.0
45.0
2 trunks
QA
538
26.0
45.0
4 trunks
OA
539
56.0
40.0
4 trunks
QA
540
320
35.0
4 trunks
OA
541
25.0
40.0
1 trunk
OA
542
43.0
25.0
7 trunks
OA
543
88.0
60.0
4 trunks
QA
544
22.0
50.0
1 trunk
QA
545'
50.0
65.0
3 trunks
QA
W.
129.0
70.0
9 trunks
OA
547'
53.0
55.0
4 trunks
OA
548'
42.0
50.0
3 trunks
QA
549'
44.0
80.0
1 trunk
QA
550•
49.0
45.0
3 trunks
QA
551•
8.0
15.0
1 trunk
QA
552'
71.0
45.0
5 trunks
OA
553'
75.0
50.0
5 trunks
OA
554'
10.0
30.0
1 trunk
QA
555'
50.0
60.0
3 trunks
OA
556'
30.0
30.0
4 trunks
QA
557'
12.0
15.0
5 trunks
QA
558'
50.0
6.5.0
1 trunk
12A1
5V
33.0
1 40.0
2 trunks
QA
560'
1 18.01
15.0
5 trunks
OAK TREES WITHIN THE LIMITS OF EIR GRADING ALTERNATIVE
QA=OAK TREE JC=WALNUT TREE
COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL
EVALUATION:
PROPOSED PROJECT AND EIR
PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: July 7, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional
Use Permit No. 98-03, Oak Tree Permit No. 98-01 and
Environmental Impact Report No. 97-02 (SCH
97031005).
ISSUE STATEMENT: Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership and SunCal
Companies are requesting approval to subdivide 65 acres of a 339.3
acre site into 141 lots for the development of 130 detached single
family residences, 10 open space lots and one lot reserved for the
Walnut Valley Water District; remove and replace oak and walnut
trees; and remove map restrictions on a portion of the 65 acres.
The balance of the 339.3 acre site (274.3 acres) and all of Lot 9
of Tract No. 31479 will be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar as
open space. The project site is generally located east of Diamond
Bar Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue, at the extension of
Highcrest Drive. The Planning Commission concluded its review on
May 12, 1998 and recommended approval.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive
a presentation from staff, open the public hearing, receive
testimony and continue the matter to August 3, 1998.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: N/A
BACKGROUND:
The property owner, Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership and applicant,
SunCal Companies are requesting approval to: subdivide 65 acres of
a 339.3 acre site into 141 lots (130 lots for the development of
130 detached single family residences, 10 open space lots and one
lot reserved for the Walnut Valley Water District's future
reservoir); remove and replace oak and walnut trees; remove map
restrictions; and certify the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(DEIR) No. 97-02 which has been prepared to evaluate the impacts
1
mitigation
the project may have upon the environment and idem impacts. The
measures that will reduce the effects of any negative
all of Lot 9 of
balance of the 339.3 acre site (274.3 acres)
Tract No. 31479 will be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar as
open space.
property (identified as
VTTM No. 52267 consists of one contiguous
Lots 4 through 7 of Tract 31479). It is generally located east of
Diamond Bar Bousion of
levard and north
site'is venue at General the Plan ten
land use
Highcrest Drive. Th project roximately
designation is Planning Area -2 whichincludes
p oject Lsite is within the
75 acres) of Tract No. 31479.
Residential Planned Development -00012U) Zone.m Lot S1ZeGenerally Square
Feet-2 Units Per Acre (RPD -20,
following zones surround VTTM No 52so6u t is the rSingle eFamily
the RPD -20,000-2U Zone;
to -Minimum Lot Size 40,000 Square Feet and the RPDinimu 0Lot
Residence
Zones; and to the west is theSin8gle Family
arm y Residenc These zones
Size 8,000 Square Feet (R
predominately consist of single-family residential development and
vacant land.
VTTM No. 52267 along with VTTM No.planning Commission2308 Lot9of onr act No. September 423,
was first presented to the
projects on October 3, 1997. On
1997. The applicant withdrewboth
p
nt submitted VTTM No. 52267 as
January 8, 1998, the app
represented in this staff report.
VTTM No. 52267 was first presented to the Planning Commission on
ic hearings, the
February 10, 1998. After several12,1998orecommended ntinued l certification of
Planning Commission on May 12,
Draft Environmental Impute Report Conditional Use NO. 97-02 1SPermit No.O 98-03,
recommended approval of P •
Oak Tree Permit No. 98-01 and Mitigation Monitoring Program
ANALYSIS:
PROJECT OVMIEW•
vacant with characteristics such
The project site is predominantly oak and
as slopes and ridges, and natural vegetation including
walnut trees. It is distinguished by a northeasterly trendingdins
ridge running through the site. An eastwest trending ridge
the main ridge on the roject sorth side.
southern side. Smallxcanyons and
canyon dominates P
elines. Located on the project
wa arta an
draws exist off of the ridgd
utility easements associated with flood control,
electrical services.
As previously stated,
VTTM No. 52267 is part of Tract No. 31479,
Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Development will occur on Lot 6 an
The proposed development plan for VTTM
portions of Lot 5 and 7.
lots are
No. 52267 consists of 141 lots. One hundred a
lopment of detached single family nd thirty
within
proposed for the devefor
a private gated community. Lot 131 is rese Ten lot theWalnut
"A"
Valley Water Districts future reservoir.
through "J") are designated as open space (natural open space and
2
manufactured slopes). The proposed lots and manufactured slopes
are clustered on approximately 65 acres of the 339.3 acres site.
The residences will be located along the proposed extension of
Highcrest Drive to the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
Tin Drive. Two access points are proposed. From the east, access
will be provided at the extension of Highcrest Drive and from the
west, access will be provided at Diamond Bar Boulevard.
Residences are proposed to be constructed on lots ranging from
6,230 (Lot 15) to 26,560 (Lot 111) square feet with an average lot
size of approximately 10,900 square feet. The gross density is 0.4
dwelling units per acre (130 du/339.3 ac) with a net density of
approximately 2.06 dwelling units per acre (130 du/63 ac). Pad
areas will range in size from 5,850 (Lot 98) to 19,150 (Lot 2)
square feet. The proposed residences will range in size from
approximately 2,800 to approximately 3,300 square feet. The
proposed density and anticipated homes are compatible with
surrounding developments.
The Walnut Valley Water District has one planned water reservoir
site within the VTTM No. 52267's development area. This reservoir
is not needed to serve the project. However, the reservoir is
needed to meet future water service requirements. The reservoir
can be accommodated within the proposed residential development's
boundaries.
Pursuant to the General Plan, VTTM No. 52267 is within Planning
Area -2. General Plan Objective 1.6 states "Consistent with the
Vision Statement, provide flexibility in the planning of new
development as a means of encouraging superior land use by means
such as open space and public amenities". Strategy 1.6.1 states "A
master plan shall be developed for each area of the City designated
as a Planning Area". The description and contemplated land use
designation for Planning Area -2 is defined as follows:
11PA-2 is comprised of approximately 400 vacant acres located
in two non-contiguous areas. Sub -Area A consists of approxi-
mately 325 acres located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard, north
of Grand Avenue, south of Goldrush Drive, at the terminus of
Highcrest Drive. Sub -Area B consists of approximately 75
acres located east of Pantera Park. Appropriate land uses for
this 400 ± acre non-contiguous area include a maximum 130
single family detached residential dwelling units concentrated
along the anticipated extension of Highcrest Drive, a minimum
of 75 percent of the total 400 acre area set aside as dedicat-
ed open space. A two acre area located at the southeast
corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Goldrush Drive should be
developed for public facilities or commercial uses. In order
to minimize environmental impacts and minimize clustering,
residential lots shall range in size from 6,000 to 10,000
square feet."
VTTM No. 52267's proposes a 130 unit development envelope of 65
acres within PA -2. These units will be clustered on approximately
30 acres and concentrated along the anticipated extension of
Highcrest Drive. Lot 131, reserved for the Walnut Valley Water
3
District, is 2.4 acres. Lots "A", "B", and "C" are natural open
space and not within the proposed development envelope. Lots "D"
through "J", proposed as manufactured landscaped slopes are
included in the development envelope.
Pursuant to the General Plan's Land Use Element, Strategy 1.5.4,
vacant land burden with deed or map restrictions shall be subjected
to public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council
before any action can be taken to remove the restrictions.
However, the restrictions' removal must be of a significant benefit
to the City. As previously stated, the proposed map is part of
Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Tract No. 31479. Lots 4, 5, 7 and 9 of
Tract 31479 have a map restriction that grants the City the right
to prohibit the construction of residential structures on these
lots. The development envelope for VTTM No. 52267 includes the
following: all of Lot 6 (65 acres) which does not have the map
restriction; portions of Lots 5 (1.18 acres) and 7 (4.33 acres)
which has the map restriction; and no development will occur on Lot
4. In order to retain the proposed development envelope, the map
restriction removal is required to comply with General Plan
Strategy 1.5.4. Therefore, the applicant proposes to dedicate to
the City the remaining undeveloped 274 acres (excluding
manufactured slopes) of VTTM No. 52267 and all of Lot 9 of Tract
No. 31479 for open space. Additionally, in exchange for the
removal of map restrictions, the applicant has offered to
contribute $250,000.00 to the City's Parks and Facility Development
Fund.
In an attempt to eliminate the removal of map restrictions, reduce
the project's impacts and respond to comments from the February 24,
1998 Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant prepared a
"Response to Comments" Alternative. The "Response to Comments"
Alternative was presented as a 120 lot subdivision for the eventual
development of 120 detached single family homes within a gated
community. The "Response to Comments" Alternative is similar to
the "Refined Design Alternative" evaluated in the draft EIR for
VTTM No. 52267 and presented on Figure 5-1 of the draft EIR. The
"Response to Comments" Alternative is generally located on the
ridgeline, extending from the terminus of Highcrest Drive to
Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive, as anticipated by the City's
General Plan. With this Alternative, all residential lots would be
confined to Lot 6 of Tract No. 31479 which is without map
restrictions. However, remedial grading would occur outside of Lot
6. Additionally, this Alternative varies from the proposed VTTM
No. 52267 in that it did not address the following: water tank's
location and its impact on the subdivision's design; the extension
of Highcrest Drive to Diamond Bar Boulevard which would create a
single street through the development with grades as steep as 14
percent creating unfavorable road characteristics, i.e. Goldrush
Drive; the inconsistency with respect to lot sizes or surrounding
developments; lack of land form grading; biological, visual and
aesthetic impacts due to development approximately 45 feet from
Diamond Bar Boulevard; hydrology issues; and issues concerning
geological impacts relating to the northerly facing natural slope
subjacent to Lots 18-20, 31, 32, and 37-51, the locations and sizes
of two buttress fills/shear key that may be needed below Lots 101-
104 and the natural slope subjacent to Lots 55-65 which may
necessitate a buttress fill also.
4
When all the above referenced issues relating to "Response to
Comments" Alternative were addressed, the Planning Commission
decided to recommend approval on the proposed VTTM No. 52267 as
presented in this report.
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-03J GRADING:
Development of VTTM No. 52267 would result in significant topo-
graphical changes associated with grading activities. The slope
analysis area (see Slope Analysis exhibit) consists of 127 acres of
the project site. The 127 acres includes all of Lot 6 and portions
of Lots 5 and 7. This slope analysis area indicates that 91.3
acres or 71.9 percent of the 127 acres has natural slopes at 35
percent or more. Additionally the proposed project is in an urban
hillside management area and proposes residential development. As
such and pursuant to Code (Section 22.56.215), approval of a
Conditional Use Permit is required for this project because slopes
are in excess of 10 percent. The Conditional Use Permit's purpose
is to protect resources contained within a hillside management area
which may result in or have the potential for environmental
degradation and to the extent possible, maintain and enhance the
remaining biotic resources and natural topography while allowing
for limited controlled development.
The Hillside Management Ordinance's guidelines and standards are
required to ensure that development will complement the character
and topography of the site. City policy requires the application
of good hillside planning; the use of the landform grading; and a
revegetation concept. Furthermore, exceptions to these standards
with appropriate findings and facts require a Conditional Use
Permit. These guidelines and standards (specified in Section 8 of
the City's Hillside Management Ordinance) are applicable to the
proposed project due to grades in excess of 10 percent.
The proposed grading quantities are approximately 1.8 million cubic
yards of cut and 1.8 million cubic yards of fill. Grading will be
balanced on site. The proposed grading concept utilizes landform
grading (series of non-linear concave and convex forms with varying
slope gradients) where feasible. Therefore, the proposed project
is consistent with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance.
In general, soils materials will be cut from higher areas and used
as fill to create level areas for residences. Two large engineer-
ing fills encompass the majority of the earthwork required for the
proposed project. One is located along the southern edge of the
development area, below Lots 112 through 130. The other is located
along the northern portion of the development, below Lots 9 through
20. Additional smaller fills are located throughout the develop-
ment area. Engineering features such as shear keys and buttress
fills have been incorporated into the grading design and will be
reviewed and approved by the City. The maximum depth of cut is
approximately 80 feet and a maximum fill depth is approximately 180
feet. Engineered slopes on site do not exceed 2:1 (horizontal:
vertical) and are required to meet the City's requirements for
stability.
In compliance with the Hillside Management Ordinance's standards
and guidelines, the proposed project's grading will: follow the
5
natural topography of the site, where feasible; where large visible
cuts and fills are proposed, landform grading will be utilized;
concave and convex forms will be utilized throughout the site;
slopes will not be linear in plan view; manufactured slope
gradients will vary from 2:1, 3:1 and 4:1; lot shapes will vary;
pads will maintain irregular configurations; trees will be
concentrated in concave areas, similar as in nature; and street
slopes to the east will remain in their natural, undisturbed state.
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES/OAK TREE PERMIT:
The VTTM No. 52267 site does not function as an important regional
wildlife corridor because it is entirely surrounded by development.
Local corridors likely occur between the northern and southern end
of the site but these are restricted to use by the resident animal
species.
Base on several focused surveys for sensitive plant species, no
plants listed as sensitive are known to occur within VTTM No.
52267's development area. However, the site does contain the
following plant communities and their impact area due to
development: coastal live oak woodland - 9.6 acres; walnut
woodland- 0. 0 acres, coastal sage scrub - 18.7 acres; scrub oak
chaparral - 8.5 acres; Mexican elderberry woodland - 1.1 acres; and
annual grassland - 27.7 acres. Approximately 410 coastal live oak
trees and 30 walnut trees will be removed and replaced as a result
of the proposed development. Additionally, no coastal California
gnatcatchers were observed.
Pursuant to the General Plan, and the City's Oak Tree Permit
process, the developer shall provide for the replacement and
relocation of oak and walnut trees. Therefore, oak and walnut
trees removed during the project's implementation are subject to
replacement. Walnut trees and oak trees will be replaced at a 2:1
ratio. To ensure the replacement of ecosystem values and not just
of trees, native understory plant species will be included in the
project's Mitigation Monitoring Program. Replacement walnut and
oak trees will consist of varying sizes. Details concerning the
exact quantity, sizes and off-site locations will be incorporated
into a Biological Resource Management Plan which will be reviewed
and approved by the City before the issuance of any City permits.
The conceptual landscape exhibit suggests a revegetation concept.
This concept appears to locate the trees in a soldier like fashion.
Pursuant to the Hillside Management Ordinance,'it is require that
the plan be revised so that trees will be concentrated in concave
areas, similar to nature.
The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) incorporates the following:
avoidance of approximately 273 acres of a variety of plant
communities; protection through a Biological Resource Management
Plan of habitat replacement and revegetation and their protection
during construction; and restoration of coastal sage scrub plant
species and oak and walnut tree replacement. MMP will include
measures for habitat replacement and revegetation, protection
during construction and performance standards for habitat
replacement, maintenance and monitoring. These measures also
include appropriate permits from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
California Department of Fish and Game. Through the MMP and
6
appropriate permits, the biological impacts can be mitigated to a
level that is considered less than significant.
AIR OUALITY•
Preparation of the project site for development will produce two
types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction
equipment and fugitive dust from soil movement. These construction
emissions are considered short-term and will terminate upon the
project's completion. However, the proposed project's development
will result in significant air quality impacts related to Oxides of
Nitrogen (NOx) and fugitive dust (PM 10). As a result, a Statement
of Overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of the project
against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts must be
adopted by the City.
TRAFFIC:
A traffic study was prepared for VTTM No.52267. The project site,
with the proposed development, will generate approximately 1,242
trips on an average weekday. A majority of the generated trips
will utilized the main gate at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Tin Drive.
The secondary gate, located at the extension of Highcrest Drive,
will most likely be utilized for trips to and from Pantera School.
A signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of Tin
Drive at Diamond Bar Boulevard. The result indicated that a
traffic signal is warranted by 1999. Implementation of this signal
would be the responsibility of this project. With the imple-
mentation of the signal, the proposed project will not result in
any significant traffic impacts.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
Pursuant to the provisions of the of the California Environmental
Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) is required for this project. Environmental
Impact Report No. 97-02 (SCH 97031005), Volumes I and II has been
prepared by the City's consultant, BonTerra Consulting. This
environmental document has been reviewed by the Planning
Commission.
The purpose of an EIR is to provide objective planning and
environmental information. The information is utilized to guide
and assist the City staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and
the public in the consideration and evaluation of the potential
environmental implication that may result from the proposed
project's development.
The EIR's preparation is based on the Initial Study completed by
the City. The Initial Study Questionnaire identifies areas where
the project may produce an impact of significance. The proposed
project was deemed to have impacts which necessitated the pre-
paration of the EIR document currently before the City Council.
The procedure for the EIR's preparation includes the distribution
of a Notice Of Preparation (NOP) which is sent to agencies who have
7
or may have responsibility for providing a service to the project
or may be impacted by the project's implementation. The NOP
requests, within 30 days, that responsible agencies provide the
lead agency with specific detail about the scope and content of the
environmental information related to the responsible agency's area
of statutory responsibility which must be included in the EIR. The
EIR is then prepared using the Initial Study and comments received
in response to the NOP to guide the analysis in areas of particular
interest, although the EIR is not limited to these areas.
As soon as the "Draft" EIR (DEIR) is completed, a Notice of
Completion and Availability is filed with the Office of Planning
and Research. The DEIR is reviewed through the State review
process handled by the State Clearinghouse. The lead agency will
distribute the DEIR to responsible agencies requesting a copy.
The Notice of Completion and Availability begins the DEIR's 30 to
45 day review period depending on the nature, local versus regional
significance of the document. For VTTM No. 52267, the review
period began July 10, 1997 and ended August 25, 1997.
At the conclusion of the public comment phase, the comments are
responded to and included in the DEIR that is reviewed by the
decision makers. Certification of the "Final" EIR is attained when
the legislative body gives the document acknowledgement that it
adequately identifies potential impacts, measures to mitigate those
impacts, and also impacts which may occur as a result of the
project but are unable to be mitigated. Additionally, a Mitigation
Monitoring Program (MMP) is part of the "Final" EIR. CEQA requires
public agencies to set up monitoring programs for the purpose of
ensuring compliance with those mitigation measures adopted as
conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant
environmental effects identified in the EIR. The MMP is adopted at
the time of the EIR's certification. For substantial or potential-
ly substantial environmental effects which can not be mitigated to
a level of insignificant, a Statement of Overriding Considerations
is prepared. CEQA requires the decision makers to balance the
proposed project's benefits against its unavoidable environmental
risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the
proposed project's benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse
environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be
considered acceptable. For proposed VTTM No. 52267 a Statement of
Overriding Consideration will be prepared for air quality,
construction noise and aesthetic resources.
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on June 12 , 1998.
Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 1,055 property
owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site on June 5,
1998.
8
CONCLUSION:
The proposed project is consistent with the goals of the City's
General Plan and complies with the City's Zoning and Subdivision
Code. The proposed project will enhance the quality of life in
Diamond Bar and provide a balance between development and economic
viability and the preservation of significant open space and
distinctive natural features of the area. Additionally, this
projects development standards are compatible with recently
approved tracts. The envisioned product will be compatible with
the existing development in the area. Furthermore, this project
will provide approximately 360 acres of land dedicated to the City
of Diamond Bar and a $250,000.00 contribution to the City's Parks
and Development Facility Fund.
PREPARED BY:
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Documents transmitted to the City Council on June 19, 1998:
Environmental
Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I and II
Mitigation Monitoring Program
Statement of Overriding Consideration
Response to Comments, dated September 1997,
February 10, 1998, March 24, 1998 and April 28,
1998;
Planning commission Stan Reports/ Memorandums
Staff reports dated September 23, 1997, October 6,
1998, February 10, 1998, February 19, 1998, March
19, 1998, April 28, 1998 and May 8, 1998;
Planning commission Minutes
September 23, 1997
October 14, 1997
February 10, 1998
February 24, 1998
March 24, 1998
April 28, 1998
May 12, 1998;
Planning Commission public Hearing Tapes
February 10, 1998
February 24, 1998
March 24, 1998
April 28, 1998
May 12, 1998;
9
Planning Commission Resolutions
Resolution No. 98-11
Resolution No. 98-12;
Petitions/ Correspondence
Petitions - approximately 933 pages with 1300
signatures
Correspondence presented to the Planning Commission
in Memorandums dated March 24, 1998, April 23, 1998
and April 28, 1998;
Naps/Ezhibits
VTTM No. 52267 - Subdivision Map
Landscape Mitigation Plan
Response to Comments Alternative Map
Slope Profile Map
Slope Analysis Map
Cut and Fill Map
Oak Tree Survey Map;
Response to Comments Alternative
Housing development confined to Lot 6
VTTM No. 52267 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
of Proposed Project and Alternative .Project
Alternative dated April 23, 1998
Results of Supplemental Tree Survey for VTTM No.
52267 Regarding the Alternative dated April 21,
1998; and
Project Brochure prepared by the applicant.
10
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA N0. 7, Z a
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: July 7,1998 REPORT DATE: June 23,1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Landscaping Assessment District Number 38.
SUMMARY: The City Council at the May 18, 1998 meeting approved the Engineer's Report and adopted
Resolution No. 98-29 to declare City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District No. 38. The
Council commenced the public hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7, 1998 on the levy of the
proposed assessments on assessable lots within this District for Fiscal Year 1998-99.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to set the
assessment for Fiscal Year 1998-99 for Landscaping Assessment District Number 38.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: _X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
I Resolution _ Bid Specifications
_ Ordinances(s) X Other. Engineer's Report
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 415 vote?
Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
NIA
—Yes —No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
NIA
—Yes —No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
NIA
—Yes _ No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belanger James DeStefano
City Manager Deputy City Manager
C:1WP601LINDAKAYWGEN-981DIST#38.707
�Wre me���
David G. Liu
Deputy Director of Public Works
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: July 7, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Landscaping Assessment District Number 38
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City Council at the May 18, 1998 meeting approved the Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No.
98-29 to declare City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District No. 38. The Council commenced
the public hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7, 1998 on the levy of the proposed assessments
on assessable lots within said District for Fiscal Year 1998-99.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to set the assessment for Fiscal Year
1998-99 for Landscaping Assessment District Number 38.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The revenues generated by this District will finance the cost There will be no impact on the City's General
Funds.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION:
The landscaping improvements to be maintained by District 38 are the parkways along the northerly side of
Grand Avenue (between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Summitridge Drive) and along the southerly side of
Temple Avenue (between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs Drive), and the medians throughout
the City. This reflects a total maintenance area of 6.23 acres. The maintenance and servicing of public
landscaping improvements installed and constructed in public places in the City provides a special benefit
which is received by each and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value. The
estimated number of parcels within the District is 17,435 parcels. The amount assessed upon the lands within
District No. 38 for Fiscal Year 1997-98 was $15.00 per parcel. The amount to be assessed for Fiscal Year
1998-99 is to remain at $15.00 per parcel.
The proposed assessment is for the purpose of financing (1) operating/maintenance expenses including staff
wages, and purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment or materials, and (2) Capital Improvement Projects.
Landscaping Assessment District Number 38
July 7, 1998
Page 2
This proposed assessment has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of Proposition 218 as set
forth in Section 5(a): Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance the capital costs or maintenance and
operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers, water, flood control drainage systems or vector control.
Prepared By:
David G. Liu
C:1WP601LINDAKAYICCR-%\DIST#38.707
2
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99.
A. EMTTnT.e .
(i) By its Resolution No. 98-29, this Council approved a
report of the City Engineer related to City of Diamond Bar
Assessment District No. 38 prepared pursuant to California Streets
and Highways Code Section 22623, described the improvements thereon
and gave notice of and fixed the time and place of the hearing on
the question of assessment thereon for fiscal year 1998-99. A
diagram of the area encompassed by said assessment district is
attached hereto as Exhibit °A-1."
(ii) Said hearing was duly and properly noticed, commenced at
the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California on June 16, 1998, continued
to July 7, 1998, and was concluded prior to the adoption of this
Resolution.
(iii) At said public hearing, the City Engineer presented
to the City Council certain proposed modifications to the
Engineer's Report. Such modifications result in no increase in the
amount of the assessment and no increase in the amount of the
assessment against any individual parcel within the District.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
1
does hereby find, determine and order as follows:
1. The Recitals, as set forth in Part A of this Resolution,
are in all respects true and correct.
2. The City Council hereby orders the proposed modifications
to the Engineer's Report to be made. The Engineer's Report is
hereby approved as so modified. A copy of the Engineer's Report,
as modified, shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk and
open for public inspection.
3. This City Council hereby expressly overrules any and all
protests filed objecting to the proposed improvements specified
herein or the assessment levied therefor.
4. Based upon its review of the report of the City Engineer
referred to hereinabove, and other reports and information, the
City Council hereby finds that (i) the land within the said
District will be benefitted by the improvements specified in said
report, (ii) said District includes all of the lands so benefitted,
and (iii) the net amount to be assessed upon the lands within said
District for the 1998-99 fiscal year, in accordance with said
report, is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly
distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in
proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such
lot or parcel from the improvements.
5. The improvements specified in the report hereinabove
referred to which is on file with the City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar are hereby ordered to be completed.
6. The assessment diagram contained in the report referred
to hereinabove and the assessment of $15.00 for each assessable lot
F,
located within said District are hereby adopted and confirmed and
said assessment hereby is levied for the 1998-99 fiscal year.
7. The assessment is in compliance with the provisions of
the Act, and the City Council has complied with all laws pertaining
to the levy of an annual assessment pursuant to the Act. The
assessment is levied for the purpose of paying the costs and
expenses of the improvements described in the report referred to
hereinabove for fiscal year 1998-99.
8. The City Treasurer shall deposit all moneys representing
assessments collected by the County to the credit of a special fund
for use in City of Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 38.
9. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file
the diagram and assessment with the County Auditor, together with
a certified copy of this Resolution upon its adoption.
10. A certified copy of the assessment and diagram shall be
filed in the office of the City Clerk and open for public
inspection.
11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
9
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 1998.
MAYOR
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved
and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1998, by
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\RESO-98\RES098R.707
4
k
srx
n
!MEET 10E I SHEET
Xlk
lex
4
EXHIBIT "A-1"
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38
FISCAL YEAR 1998-99
for the
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Update of
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38
Fiscal Year 1998-99
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Preliminary: May 18, 1998
Modified and Confirmed: July 7, 1998
Prepared by:
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 230
Riverside, CA 92506
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Revenue
Appropriations
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL
EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A-1" - Assessment Diagram
Exhibit "B-1" - Improvement Map
P
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, this report is prepared in
compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972,
Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.
This report presents the engineering analysis for the 1998-99 Fiscal Year for the district known
as:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
(Hereinafter referred to as "District").
This District, by special benefit assessments, provides funding for the maintenance of landscaped
areas owned by the City of Diamond Bar which are located in public rights-of-way within the City
of Diamond Bar.
Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be levied according
to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be
apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all
assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by
each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the improvements
shall be made pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 (commencing with
Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California]."
As the assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee, not a tax,
and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.
Properties owned by public agencies, such as a city, county, state or the federal government,
are not assessable by law.
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
The boundary of the District is completely within the City limits of the City of Diamond Bar and
is shown on the Assessment Diagram (on file in the office of the City Clerk at the City Hall of
Diamond Bar as Exhibit "A-1 "). All parcels of real property included within the District are
described in detail on maps on file in the Los Angeles County Assessor's office.
2
IMPROVEMENTS
The facilities and items of servicing and maintenance included within the District are as follows:
Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any
fountains, or the maintenance of any other improvements.
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual
maintenance, operation and servicing of any improvement, including:
1. Repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any landscape improvement.
2. Providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including without
limitation, cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or
injury.
3. The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste.
Improvements to be serviced and maintained include, but are not limited to, median island and
parkway landscaping on major streets and thoroughfares in the City of Diamond Bar. Exhibit
"B-1," attached hereto, shows the location and extent of the landscaping improvements to be
maintained by the proceeds from this assessment district.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The estimated funding for maintenance and servicing of landscaping for the update of Assessment
District No. 38 for the 1998-99 Fiscal Year is as follows:
L. •V.
.7111 1071 M.
Appropriation Fund Balance (from FY 1997-98) $ 338,205
Property Tax and Assessments 261,525
Interest Revenue x,000
TOTAL $ 607,730
Personal Services
Salaries
$ 6,980
City Paid Benefits
100
Benefits
1,130
Worker's Compensation Expense
150
Medicare Expense
110
Cafeteria Benefits
1,100
Operating Expenses
Advertising
700
Utilities
86,100
Maintenance -Grounds & Bldg
15,000
Professional Services
25,300
Contract Services
40,800
Capital Improvements
4,500
Transfer to CIP Fund `
300,000
Reserve for Future Capital Improvements
125,760
TOTAL $ 607,730
Future capital improvements includes the construction of landscaped
medians in Golden Springs Drive between Lemon Avenue and Gong Court
(estimated cost of construction and project administration - $400,000).
Plans and specifications showing the general nature, location and extent of the proposed
improvements are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection.
19
UPT140D OF APPORTIONMENT
The net amount to be assessed upon lands within the District in accordance with this report is
apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the amount among all assessable lots
or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each lot or parcel from the
improvements, namely the maintenance and servicing of public landscaping improvements within
such District. The maintenance and servicing of public landscaping improvements installed and
constructed in public places in the City of Diamond Bar provides a special benefit which is
received by each and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value.
The primary benefits of landscaping are as set forth below:
1. Beautification of the streets which are used by all of the residents in Diamond Bar.
2. A sense of community pride resulting from well-maintained green spaces.
3. The enhancement of the value of property which results from the foregoing benefits.
Existing land use information indicates that well over 90 percent of the parcels within the City of
Diamond Bar are residences. Because the special benefits derived apply equally to all residents
and parcels, it has been determined that all assessable parcels would receive the same net
assessment.
5
ASSESSMENT
The amount to be assessed upon the lots and parcels within the District and the amount apportioned
to each assessable parcel within the District is shown in the table below.
Estimated Assessment Requirements:
$ 261,525
Estimated Number of Parcels:
17,435
Estimated Assessment Per Parcel:
$
15.00
1997-98 Assessment Per Parcel:
$
15.00
1998-99 Assessment Per Parcel:
$
15.00
Difference:
$
0'00
M
ASSESSMENT ROLL
The individual 1998-99 assessments, tabulated by Assessor's parcel number, are shown on an
Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar as Exhibit "C"
and are made a part of this report by reference. (The Assessment Roll is not included in this report
due to its volume.)
D. ♦ ea, Z9 199,V
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
FRiFa��Fy�
O S z
NO. 27861 * AHXA.'FRM'DR1tH--
EXP. 3 'I
fl9j CIVIL aQ
OF Al -\F
7
0
SHEET 1 CF I 34EE,
�N
EXHIBIT *A-1"
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0.38
FISCAL YEAR 1998-99
for the
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
.-
T=
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. z b
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: July 7, 1998 REPORT DATE: June 23,1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Landscaping Assessment District Number 39.
SUMMARY: The City Council at the May 18, 1998 meeting approved the Engineer's Report and adopted
Resolution No. 98-30 to declare City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District No. 39. The
Council commenced the public hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7, 1998 on the levy of the
proposed assessments on assessable lots within this District for Fiscal Year 1998-99.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to set the
assessment for Fiscal Year 1998-99 for Landscaping Assessment District Number 39.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
Resolution _ Bid Specifications
_ Ordinances(s) _X Other. Engineer's Report
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 415 vote?
Majority
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
NIA
—Yes —No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
NIA
—Yes —No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
NIA
—Yes —No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belang4 James DeStefano avid G. Liu
City Manager Deputy City Manager Deputy Director of Public Works
CAWPOLINDMArAGEN-981DISTSM.707
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: July 7, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Landscaping Assessment District Number 39
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City Council at the May 18, 1998 meeting approved the Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No.
98-30 to declare City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District No. 39. The Council commenced
the public hearing June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7, 1998 on the levy of the proposed assessments on
assessable lots within said District for Fiscal Year 1998-99.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to set the assessment for Fiscal Year
1998-99 for Landscaping Assessment District Number 39.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The revenues generated by this District will finance the cost There will be no impact on the City's General
Funds.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION:
The landscaping improvements to be maintained by District 39 are the mini parks, slopes, and open space
areas. This reflects a total maintenance area of 60.65 acres. The maintenance and servicing of public
landscaping improvements installed and constructed in public places in the City provides a special benefit
which is received by each and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value. The
estimated number of parcels within the District is 1,269 parcels. The amount assessed upon the lands within
District No. 39 for Fiscal Year 1997-98 was $130.00 per parcel. The amount to be assessed for Fiscal Year
1998-99 is to remain at $130.00 per parcel.
This proposed assessment has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of Proposition 218 as set
forth in Section 5(b): Any assessment imposed pursuant to a petition signed by the persons owning all of the
parcels subject to the assessment at the time the assessment is initially imposed.
Prepared By:
David G. Liu
CAWP6KWDAKAYICCR-WGSTN39.707
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99.
A. RECITALS.
(i) By its Resolution No. 98-30, this Council approved a
report of the City Engineer related to City of Diamond Bar
Landscaping Assessment District No. 39 prepared pursuant to
California streets and Highways Code Section 22623, described the
improvements thereon and gave notice of and fixed the time and
place of the hearing on the question of assessment thereon for
fiscal year 1998-99. A diagram of the area encompassed by said
assessment district is attached hereto as Exhibit "A -2. -
(ii) Said hearing was duly and properly noticed, commenced at
the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California on June 16, 1998, continued
to July 7, 1998, and was concluded prior to the adoption of this
Resolution.
(iii) At said public hearing, the City Engineer presented
to the City Council certain proposed modifications to the
Engineer's Report. Such modifications result in no increase in the
amount of the assessment and no increase in the amount of the
assessment against any individual parcel within the District.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
1
does hereby find, determine and order as follows:
1. The Recitals, as set forth in Part A of this Resolution,
are in all respects true and correct.
2. The City Council hereby orders the proposed modifications
to the Engineer's Report to be made. The Engineer's Report is
hereby approved as so modified. A copy of the Engineer's Report,
as modified, shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk and
open for public inspection.
3. This City Council hereby expressly overrules any and all
protests filed objecting to the proposed improvements specified
herein or the assessment levied therefor.
4. Based upon its review of the report of the City Engineer
referred to hereinabove, and other reports and information, the
City Council hereby finds that (i) the land within the said
District will be benefitted by the improvements specified in said
report, (ii) said District includes all of the lands so benefitted,
and (iii) the net amount to be assessed upon the lands within said
District for the 1998-99 fiscal year, in accordance with said
report, is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly
distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in
proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such
lot or parcel from the improvements.
5. The improvements specified in the report hereinabove
referred to which is on file with the City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar are hereby ordered to be completed.
6. The assessment diagram contained in the report referred
to hereinabove and the assessment of $130.00 for each assessable
2
lot located within said District are hereby adopted and confirmed
and said assessment hereby is levied for the 1998-99 fiscal year.
7. The assessment is in compliance with the provisions of
the Act, and the City Council has complied with all laws pertaining
to the levy of an annual assessment pursuant to the Act. The
assessment is levied for the purpose of paying the costs and
expenses of the improvements described in the report referred to
hereinabove for fiscal year 1998-99.
8. The City Treasurer shall deposit all moneys representing
assessments collected by the County to the credit of a special fund
for use in City of Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 39.
9. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file
the diagram and assessment with the County Auditor, together with
a certified copy of this Resolution upon its adoption.
10. A certified copy of the assessment and diagram shall be
filed in the office of the City Clerk and open for public
inspection.
11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
3
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of
MAYOR
1998.
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved
and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar held on the
the following Roll Call vote:
day of , 1998, by
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\RESO-98\RES098R.707
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
4
M
EXHIBIT "A-2"
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0.39
FISCAL YEAR 1998-99
forths
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
woman re.
13. m Y
s ..�
0.'..rdawm .WINO n M
ria I1MRf 0.10.O.
.I�n.1p 4011 Wr 01...a� O. L�uOwn�
ro11.a1.1. •e.Orf .411n• 1I�r. a ti .
i 10..11..s cal.rrr .�.aon
a n. an mar o rr an a a.,.a.e
■ YI=jM VAIN 0. C.Y/OIY rr. _
u—
c"amnnN
an of Durno rut
W. r.. COW" Yl0rMK aware n 10.
CM00"SA."N 0.•n
1 —
an c. vwow.
an OF 0-10"o W
GF% IEDRICH
lr ASSOC. INC.
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Update of
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39
Fiscal Year 1998-99
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Preliminary: May 18, 1998
Modified and Confirmed: June 16, 1998
Prepared by:
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 230
Riverside, CA 92506
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Revenue
Appropriations
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL
EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A-2" - Assessment Diagram
Exhibit "B-2" - Improvement Map
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, this report is prepared in
compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972,
Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.
This report presents the engineering analysis for the 1998-99 Fiscal Year for the district known
as:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
(Hereinafter referred to as "District").
This District, by special benefit assessments, provides funding for the maintenance of landscaped
areas owned by the City of Diamond Bar which are located in public rights-of-way within the City
of Diamond Bar.
Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be levied according
to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be
apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all
assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by
each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the improvements
shall be made pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 (commencing with
Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California]."
As the assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee, not a tax,
and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIHA of the California Constitution.
Properties owned by public agencies, such as a city, county, state or the federal government, are
not assessable by law.
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
The boundary of the District is shown on the Assessment Diagram (on file in the office of the City
Clerk at the City Hall of Diamond Bar as Exhibit "A-2"). All parcels of real property included
within the District are described in detail on maps on file in the Los Angeles County Assessor's
office.
2
IMPROVEMENTS
The facilities and items of servicing and maintenance included within the District are as follows:
Landscaping
Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any
fountains, or the maintenance of any other improvements.
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual
maintenance, operation and servicing of any improvement, including:
1. Repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any landscape improvement.
2. Providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including without
limitation, cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or
injury.
3. The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste.
The purpose of Assessment District No. 39 is for the maintenance and servicing of mini -parks,
slopes and open spaces within the District. Exhibit "B-2," attached hereto, shows the location and
extent of the landscaping improvements to be maintained by the proceeds from this assessment
district.
3
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The estimated funding for maintenance and servicing of landscaping for the update of Assessment
District No. 39 for the 1998-99 Fiscal Year is as follows:
Reserve Fund Balance (from FY 1997-98) $ 83,600
Property Tax and Assessments 164,970
Interest Revenue 2.500
TOTAL $ 251,070
Personal Services
Salaries
$ 6,980
City Paid Benefits
100
Benefits
1,130
Worker's Compensation Expense
150
Medicare Expense
110
Cafeteria Benefits
1,100
Operating Expenses
Advertising 700
Utilities 57,750
Maintenance -Grounds & Bldg. 15,000
Professional Services 6,200
Contract Services 46,800
Capital Improvements 2,000
Reserve for Future Capital Improvements 113,05
TOTAL $ 251,070
Plans and specifications showing the general nature, location and extent of the proposed
improvements are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection.
4
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The net amount to be assessed upon lands within the District in accordance with this report is
apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the amount among all assessable lots
or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each lot or parcel from the
improvements, namely the maintenance and servicing of public landscaping improvements within
such District. The maintenance and servicing of public landscaping improvements installed and
constructed in public places in the City of Diamond Bar provides a special benefit which is
received by each and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value.
The primary benefits of landscaping are as set forth below:
1. Beautification of the streets which are used by all of the residents in Diamond Bar.
2. Public parks which can be utilized and enjoyed by all residents within the District.
3. A sense of community pride resulting from well-maintained green spaces.
4. The enhancement of the value of property which results from the foregoing benefits.
Existing land use information indicates that all of the parcels within the District are residences.
Because the special benefits derived apply equally to all residents and parcels, it has been
determined that all assessable parcels would receive the same net assessment.
5
ASSESSMENT
The amount to be assessed upon the lots and parcels within the District and the amount apportioned
to each assessable parcel within the District is shown in the table below.
Estimated Assessment Requirements:
$ 164,970
Estimated Number of Parcels:
1,269
Estimated Assessment Per Parcel:
$
130.00
1997-98 Assessment Per Parcel:
$
130.00
1998-99 Assessment Per Parcel:
$
130.00
Difference:
$
0.00
rl
ASSESSMENT ROLL
The individual 1998-99 assessments, tabulated by Assessor's parcel number, are shown on an
Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar as Exhibit "C"
and are made a part of this report by reference. (The Assessment Roll is not included in this report
due to its volume.)
Dated: -Y4�rI e 1,43 , 1998
FESS/1 GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
p. FRIF���,yn \
Z
z
NO. 27 61
EXP I T1
C1 EDRI H � N FRIED Q
�Of I
7
I
EXHIBIT "A-2"
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0.39
FISCAL YEAR 1998-99
for the
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
0 w — w —
YN�1 1q 4p lof M ruC6 .�.— +�
1�7 MI\1 M�1l1 Y �9W0 n ti
IYf Y�.00'.0/,11
�4buol LOT On rulntawo
I'm .n•—
a M IaldORi r�IlC�I LWf ? ^l
I li
Q M QTY Mm OM n4 c T w Mrdo
• PAMMM RAA a CAAVW 1Ma_
If—
W. no COUN" Norton town a —
CAUP004 TW UT
_Is_
CRT Cleo OF n4
QM1 d OYYdo Out
GF"FI RICH
4 /LSSOC.. INC.
EXHIBIT "B-2"
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0.39
FISCAL YEAR 1998-99
forth•
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
• +r .s •s nr
LEcew
«mwq ..7.�
i.va un.00
T w► w.00
GFBFRIEDRICH
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA N0. Z �-
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: July 7, 1998 REPORT DATE: June 23,1998
FROM: Terrence L Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Landscaping Assessment District Number 41.
SUMMARY: The City Council at the May 18, 1998 meeting approved the Engineer's Report and adopted
Resolution No. 98-31 to declare City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District No. 41. The
Council commenced the public hearing on June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7, 1998 on the levy of the
proposed assessments on assessable lots within this District for Fiscal Year 1998-99.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to set the
assessment for Fiscal Year 1998-99 for Landscaping Assessment District Number 41.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: _X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
Resolution _ Bid Specifications
_ Ordinances(s) Other. Engineer's Report
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority or 415 vote?
3. Has environmental impact been assessed?
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
�11y_"I �
ik
iG�
nce L. Belang r
City Manager
C.IWP6D,LINDAKAMGEN-%\DIST#41.707
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
_X Yes _ No
Majority
WA _ Yes —No
NIA —Yes —No
NIA —Yes —No
David G.
Liu
Deputy Director of Public Works
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: July 7, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Landscaping Assessment District Number 41
ISSUE STATEMENT:
The City Council at the May 18, 1998 meeting approved the Engineer's Report and adopted Resolution No.
98-31 lo declare City's intention to levy and collect assessments for District No. 41. The Council commenced
the public hearing June 16, 1998 and continued to July 7, 1998 on the levy of the proposed assessments on
assessable lots within said District for Fiscal Year 1998-99.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached Resolution to set the assessment for Fiscal Year
1998-99 for Landscaping Assessment District Number 41.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The revenues generated by this District will finance the cost There will be no impact on the City's General
Funds.
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION:
The landscaping improvements to be maintained by District 41 are the slopes, and open space areas. This
reflects a total maintenance area of 15.5 acres. The maintenance and servicing of public landscaping
improvements installed and constructed in public places in the City provides a special benefit which is received
by each and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value. The estimated number of
parcels within the District is 554 parcels. The amount assessed upon the lands within District No. 41 for Fiscal
Year 1997-98 was $220.50 per parcel. The amount to be assessed for Fiscal Year 1998-99 is to remain at
$220.50 per parcel.
This proposed assessment has been deterrnined to be exempt from the provisions of Proposition 218 as set
forth in Section 5(b): Any assessment imposed pursuant W a petition signed by the persons owning all of the
parcels subject to the assessment at the time the assessment is initially imposed.
Prepared By:
David G. Lou
C:1WP601LINDAKAY%CCR,%vDIST#41.707
RESOLUTION NO. 98-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99.
A. RECT'TLLE .
(i) By its Resolution No. 98-31, this Council approved a
report of the City Engineer related to City of Diamond Bar
Landscaping Assessment District No. 41 prepared pursuant to
California Streets and Highways Code Section 22623, described the
improvements thereon and gave notice of and fixed the time and
Place of the hearing on the question of assessment thereon for
fiscal year 1998-99. A diagram of the area encompassed by said
assessment district is attached hereto as Exhibit "A-3."
(ii) Said hearing was duly and properly noticed, commenced at
the South Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium, 21865 East
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California on June 16, 1998, continued
to July 7, 1998, and was concluded prior to the adoption of this
Resolution.
(iii) At said public hearing, the City Engineer presented
to the City Council certain proposed modifications to the
Engineer's Report. Such modifications result in no increase in the
amount of the assessment and no increase in the amount of the
assessment against any individual parcel within the District.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this
Resolution have occurred.
B. RF.-gnT iTTON,
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
1
does hereby find, determine and order as follows:
1. The Recitals, as set forth in Part A of this Resolution,
are in all respects true and correct.
2. The City Council hereby orders the proposed modifications
to the Engineer's Report to be made. The Engineer's Report is
hereby approved as so modified. A copy of the Engineer's Report,
as modified, shall be on file in the office of the City Clerk and
open for public inspection.
3. This City Council hereby expressly overrules any and all
protests filed objecting to the proposed improvements specified
herein or the assessment levied therefor.
4. Based upon its review of the report of the City Engineer
referred to hereinabove, and other reports and information, the
City Council hereby finds that (i) the land within the said
District will be benefitted by the improvements specified in said
report, (ii) said District includes all of the lands so benefitted,
and (iii) the net amount to be assessed upon the lands within said
District for the 1998-99 fiscal year, in accordance with said
report, is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly
distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in
proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each such
lot or parcel from the improvements.
5. The improvements specified in the report hereinabove
referred to which is on file with the City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar are hereby ordered to be completed.
6. The assessment diagram contained in the report referred
2
to hereinabove and the assessment of $220.50 for each assessable
lot located within said District are hereby adopted and confirmed
and said assessment hereby is levied for the 1998-99 fiscal year.
7. The assessment is in compliance with the provisions of
the Act, and the City Council has complied with all laws pertaining
to the levy of an annual assessment pursuant to the Act. The
assessment is levied for the purpose of paying the costs and
expenses of the improvements described in the report referred to
hereinabove for fiscal year 1998-99.
8. The City Treasurer shall deposit all moneys representing
assessments collected by the County to the credit of a special fund
for use in City of Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 41.
9. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file
the diagram and assessment with the County Auditor, together with
a certified copy of this Resolution upon its adoption.
10. A certified copy of the assessment and diagram shall be
filed in the office of the City Clerk and open for public
inspection.
11. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this
Resolution.
3
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of , 1998.
MAYOR
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved
and adopted at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar held on the day of It 1998, by
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
C:\WP60\LINDAKAY\RBS0-98\RES098R.707
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
4
EXHIBIT "A..3"
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0.41
FISCAL YEAR 1998-99
for the
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
M �...YWM1 Yom. rpt .rW .M 0. rr.4l .'rtr� ll�
OR.KT . +y �.....q.y r�.m r►r/1 Y �Y9rD n TN
C011,II'I d 1O..YDRI. �..O.yr{ 0/-Q.
M tMf .10 O.rb.gls rw uu. tar d.rp a u.n wnr,
�M ORnYCT u..qM DY M �.�YDI.f rrwo. r... D. ti r
M Orifi. a M.D. DwraB C01M� Y.®DM1
vr[ w evwrnr a
e.a varmw
. ... r r ...
. a. ne a v v..e-
a or �
r�nrrv, aa+m v . a
cL AM
a a.uow w
GFBfRIEDRICN
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Update of
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41
Fiscal Year 1998-99
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Preliminary: May 18, 1998
Modified and Confirmed: July 7, 1998
Prepared by:
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 230
Riverside, CA 92506
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Revenue
Appropriations
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL
EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A-3" - Assessment Diagram
Exhibit "B-3" - Improvement Map
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, this report is prepared in
compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972,
Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California.
This report presents the engineering analysis for the 1998-99 Fiscal Year for the district known
as:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
(Hereinafter referred to as "District")
This District, by special benefit assessments, provides funding for the maintenance of landscaped
areas owned by the City of Diamond Bar which are located in public rights-of-way within. the City
of Diamond Bar.
Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be levied according
to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may be
apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount among all
assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by
each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the improvements
shall be made pursuant to the Improvement Act of 1911 (Division 7 (commencing with
Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of California]. "
As the assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee, not a tax,
and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIHA of the California Constitution.
Properties owned by public agencies, such as a city, county, state or the federal government, are
not assessable by law.
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
The boundary of the District is shown on the Assessment Diagram (on file in the office of the City
Clerk at the City Hall of Diamond Bar as Exhibit "A-3"). All parcels of real property included
within the District are described in detail on maps on file in the Los Angeles County Assessor's
office.
2
IMPROVEMENTS
The facilities and items of servicing and maintenance included within the District are as follows:
Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the operation of any
fountains, or the maintenance of any other improvements.
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual
maintenance, operation and servicing of any improvement, including:
1. Repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any landscape improvement.
2. Providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including without
limitation, cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, or treating for disease or
injury.
3. The removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste.
The purpose of Assessment District No. 41 is for the maintenance and servicing of mini -parks,
slopes and open spaces within the District. Exhibit "B-3," attached hereto, shows the location and
extent of the landscaping improvements to be maintained by the proceeds from this assessment
district.
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The estimated funding for maintenance and servicing of landscaping for the update of Assessment
District No. 41 for the 1998-99 Fiscal Year is as follows:
Revenue:
Appropriation Fund Balance (from FY 1997-98) $ 233,637
Property Tax and Assessments 122,157
Interest Revenue --10-.000
TOTAL $ 365,794
Personal Services
Salaries $ 6,980
City Paid Benefits 100
Benefits 1,130
Worker's Compensation Expense 150
Medicare Expense 110
Cafeteria Benefits 1,100
Operating Expenses
Advertising
700
Utilities
63,000
Maintenance -Grounds & Bldg
10,000
Professional Services
7,340
Contract Services
Contract Services
24,000
Weed/Pest Abatement
15,000
Capital Improvements
2,000
Reserve for Future Capital Improvements
234,184
TOTAL $ 365,794
Plans and specifications showing the general nature, location and extent of the proposed
improvements are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public inspection.
4
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The net amount to be assessed upon lands within the District in accordance with this report is
apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the amount among all assessable lots
or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each lot or parcel from the
improvements, namely the maintenance and servicing of public landscaping improvements within
such District. The maintenance and servicing of public landscaping improvements installed and
constructed in public places in the City of Diamond Bar provides a special benefit which is
received by each and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value.
The primary benefits of landscaping are as set forth below:
Beautification of the streets which are used by all of the residents in Diamond Bar.
2. Public parks which can be utilized and enjoyed by all residents within the District.
3. A sense of community pride resulting from well-maintained green spaces.
4. The enhancement of the value of property which results from the foregoing benefits.
Existing land use information indicates that all of the parcels within the District are residences.
Because the special benefits derived apply equally to all residents and parcels, it has been
determined that all assessable parcels would receive the same net assessment.
5
ASSESSMENT
The amount to be assessed upon the lots and parcels within the District and the amount apportioned
to each assessable parcel within the District is shown in the table below.
Estimated Assessment Requirements: $122,157
Estimated Number of Parcels:
554
Estimated Assessment Per Parcel: $ 220.50
1997-98 Assessment Per Parcel: $ 220.50
1998-99 Assessment Per Parcel: $ 220.50
Difference:
2
ASSESSMENT ROLL
The individual 1998-99 assessments, tabulated by Assessor's parcel number, are shown on an
Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar as Exhibit "C"
and are made a part of this report by reference. (The Assessment Roll is not included in this report
due to its volume.)
Dated: /_, 1998
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
p,, FR1F F
rz 0 S mX')
* NO. 27861
EXP.3.3/•/ A. PRWMIUCH
J! CIVIL Q
qlf OF CAttFORa�
7
EXHIBIT "A-3"
ASSESSMENT DIAGRAM
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0.41
FISCAL YEAR 1998-99
for the
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
J
COUR. O.�A ..yla Y!!�e/s WR7. Y rgwlD R iN
T. ws .w orwor.eO ua. wr a....cz v w...n.
ne o.�wci w mow a. n� .raOar�...ot r.w e. na .
.w oww d *� w..�enn evam rasa
w w mwrtn v
M Ori v..06"
L,
Ma MM 0..=a. MQ CW.wUA COUWN OF UM
w. a u_
an cum OF —.
an OF v..ow w
.aa.. nm a.v v tm cow," .wrm alas. v . a
.wam& mw O. CLOW..& ..• v
n_.
an a OF nw
orn d or..o�o w
GEBFRIEDRICH
srt r.m
EXHIBIT "B-3"
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT N0.41
FISCAL YEAR 1998-99
for the
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
L_
lE�_
C5R rMlN I" Aan
SAM wa. mm
TW ffAmo sr.
GFgFHIEDlNCH '
4 A�SSOC.. INC
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO,'O,
IV: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: July 7, 1998 REPORT DATE: July 2,1998
FROM: Bob Rose, Community Services Director
TITLE: Acceptance of work completed in Environmental Enhancement and Mitigation (E.E.M) Tree Planting
Project.
SUMMARY: The E.E.M. Tree Planting Project along the 57 Freeway and at the 60 Freeway/Brea Canyon
Road interchange has been completed. A total of 421 trees have been planted and a drip irrigation system
utilizing reclai reed water has been installed. Total cost of the project is $154,757, which is within the contract
amount of $158,405. All costs for this project will be reimbursed to the City by the State of California and on-
going maintenance is the responsibility of Caltrans.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council accept work completed in the E.E.M. Tree
Planting Project and direct the City Clerk to file the proper. Notice of Completion. Itis further recommended that
the City Council authorize the release of the retention in the amount of $15,475.71 (10°%) 35 days after the
recording of said notice.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: _ Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinance(s)
_ Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been
Public Hearing Notification
_ Specifications (on file in City Clerk's office)
X Other: Notice of Completion
reviewed by the City Attorney?
Yes
X No
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
What Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
Yes
X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: n/a
_
REVIEWED BY:
AenceL.
ger James DeStefano Bob Rose
yanager Deputy City Manager Community Services Director
RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO
Name City of Diamond Bar
Street 21660 E. Copley Drive, Ste 100
Ad3ress Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
City 8
LState
L J
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
Notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093, must be filed within 10 days after completion. (See reverse side for Complete requirements.)
Notice is hereby given that:
1. The undersigned is owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described:
2. The full name of the owner is City of Diamond Bar
3. The full address of the owner is 21660 E. Copley Drive #100 Diamond Bar CA 91765-4177
4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is; In fee.
(If other than fee, strike In fee" and insert, for example, "purchaser under contract of purchase," or "lessee")
5. The full names and full addresses of all persons, if any, who hold title with the undersigned as joint tenants or as tenants in common are:
NAMES ADDRESSES
& A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on June 1, 1998 The work done was:
T andserovenmts a1mg Route 57 NY and 60 Fwy in Diamond Bar
7 The name of the contractor, if any, for such work of improvement was Terra -[:al ron-citniction- Inc
March 3 1998
(If no contractor for work of improvement as a whole, insert "none'.) (Date of Contract)
8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the city of Diamond Bar
County of Los Angeles , State of California, and is described as follows: Route 57 Fwy to the north
_ and south at Pathfinder Road; and Route 60 Fwy at the Brea Canyon Road
interchange.
9. The street address of said property is None
(If no street address has been officially assigned, insert "none".)
Dated: July 6, 1998
Verification for Individual Owner
Signature of owner or corporate officer of owner
named in paragraph 2 or his agent
VERBATIM
I, the undersigned, say: I am the City Manager the declarant of the foregoing
("President of'. "Manager of", "A partner of". "Owner of'. etc.)
notice of completion; I have read said notice of completion and know the contents thereof; the same is true of my own knowledge.
I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
Executed on July 6 19 98 at Diamond Bar California.
(Date of signature.) (City where signed.)
(Personal signature of the individual who is swearing that the contents of
the notice of completion are true.)
NOTICE OF COMPLETION—WOLCCTTS FORM 1114—REI 6 74 ("Uass3) 8 pt. type or larger
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR in
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORSip—
JUNE 16, 1998 0�
CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Huff called the meeting to order at 10:20 p.m.
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, Chair/Huff.
VC/Ansari was excused.
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, Executive Director; Michael
Jenkins, Agency Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Liu,
Deputy Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Mike
Nelson, Communications and Marketing Director; Linda Magnuson, Assistant
Finance Director and Tommye Nice, Assistant Agency Secretary.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chair/Huff, speaking for citizen Paul Aikens, asked what
the City expects to obtain from the property owners for the artist's renderings of
conceptual plans for the five shopping centers. He felt it would be too much money
for the Agency to spend in exchange for what the City is getting and that the notion
is akin to telling a parent how to raise a child.
K]
4
ED/Belanger stated that the intent of schematic planning is to involve the property
and business owners in the process. Property and business owners who have
been contacted favor the process and have volunteered their input.
CONSENT CALENDAR: AM/Herrera moved, AM/Chang seconded, to approve the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried by following Roll Call vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS - Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, Chair/Huff
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS - None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS - VC/Ansari
3.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Regular Meeting of June 2, 1998 as submitted.
3.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER dated June 16, 1998 in the amount of
$11,715.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1 RESOLUTION NO. RA -98-06: A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING AND ADOPTING A BUDGET
FOR THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 1998 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 1999,
INCLUDING THE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS FOR ACCOUNTS,
DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS, OBJECTS AND PURPOSES THEREIN SET
FORTH.
JUNE 16, 1998 PAGE 2 REDEV. AGENCY
AM/Herrera moved, AM/Chang seconded, to adopt Resolution No. RA -98-06
approving and adopting the budget for FY 98/99 for the D.B. Redevelopment
Agency. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBER - Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, Chair/Huff
NOES: AGENCY MEMBER - None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBER - VC/Ansari
7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: AM/Herrera felt it was unfortunate that the
Agency must allocate $80,000-$90,000 in public funds for legal services for the
Redevelopment Agency lawsuit.
Chair/Huff pointed out the Redevelopment Agency budget items that will benefit the
City. Even though funds are loaned to the Agency at this time, the City will be
reimbursed by property tax monies that will be returned to the City.
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct,
Chair/Huff adjourned the meeting at 10:30 p.m.
ATTEST:
Chair
TOMMYE NICE
Assistant Agency Secretary
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Chairman Huff and Board of Directors
FROM: Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, July 7, 1998
DATE: July 6, 1998
Attached is the Voucher Register dated July 7, 1998 for the Diamond
Bar Redevelopment Agency. The checks will be produced after any
recommendations and the final approval is received.
Payment of the listed vouchers in the amount of $62,933.00 is
hereby allowed from the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency Fund.
APPROVED BY:
46ann Gitmed
Senior Accountant
/ lwl'pvc� v/ ��y4rtlL--
Terrence L. Belanger
Executive Director
Robert S. Huff
Chairman
Eileen R. Ansari
Vice Chairman
**tr Diamond Bar RDA **
FUN TIME: 12::3207/06/98 VOUCHER REGISTER
DUE THRU.............07/07/98
PAGE 1
VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID. * * PREPAID * *
ACCOUNT PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/N0. ENTRY/DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHER.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dewan Lundin k Assoc. Dewan
*002-4110-6411 R0298 10 80707A 01/7014 07/02 06/30 015-2-
Hall
15-2
Hall & Foreman Hall&Forem
*002-4110-6411 R0698 8 80707A O1/7017A 07/02 06/30 36438
INCA Engineers Inc INCAEng
*002-4110-6411 R0498 12 80707A 01/7016
07/02 06/30 22167
CIF-BrCyn/Pthfdr-DesgnSvc 10,400.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 10,400.00
CIP-G1Spr/Grnd/TorLn-4/98' 10,657.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 10,657.50
DesgnSvcs-BrCyn/Lenin/G1Sp 26,623.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 26.623.00
Norris-Repke Inc. NorrisRepk:
*002-4110-6411 R()198 14 80707A 01/7015 07/02 06/30 4703-3 CIP-BrCyn/61dSp/Pthfdr 14,953.50
*002-4110-6411 R0198 16 80707A 01/7015 07/02 06/:0 9703-4 GIP-BrCyn/G1dSp/Pthfdr .'.99.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR ---------) 15, 52.50
TOTAL PREPAID -----------> 0.00
TOTAL DUE ---------------> 62,93:3.00
TOTAL REPORT ------------1 62,933.00
amonC :':a nDA #
RJN TIME. 12:32 07/06/98 O U Cu H E P R E G I S T E R PAGE 1
FUND SUMMARY REPORT
DUE THRU.............07/07/'98
DISBURSE G/L GJE WILL POST GJE HAS POSTED FUTURE TRANSACTIONS
FUND TOTAL DIRECT PAY REVENUE EXPENSE REVENUE EXPENSE REVENUE EXPENSE
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
002 DB Redevelopment 62,933.00 62,933.00
TOTAL------------ ------------ ------------
ALL FUNDS 62,'73:_ .00 6',933.00
AGENDA NO. RA 3.2
DUE TO UNFORSEEN PROBLEMS VOUCHER REGISTER WILL BE
AVAILABLE ON MONDAY, JULY 6, 1998
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 860-2489 . Fax (909) 861-3117
Internet: http://www.ci.diamond43ar.ca.us • City Online (BBS): (909) 860-5463
July 1, 1998
Dr. James Price
Diamond Canyon Christian Church
3338 Diamond Canyon Road
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Dr. Price:
This is to confirm your participation to provide the invocation at the
Diamond Bar City Council Meeting on Tuesday, July 7, 1998, at 6:30
p.m. The meeting will be held in the Air Quality Management District
Auditorium located at 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. In that we
have many cultures and religions within our community, an ecumenical
invocation would be appreciated.
It is a pleasure to have representation from various churches within
Diamond Bar participate at the City Council Meetings.
Carol Herrera
Mayor
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to share with us.
Wen Chang
Mayor Pro Tem
Sincerely,
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
'.l�• �: �-
Robert S. Huff
Marisa Somenzi, Secretary for
Council Member
Lynda Burgess, CMC/AAE
Deborah H. O'Connor
City Clerk
Council Member
LB/ms
Recycled paper
Next Resolution No. 98-42
Next Ordinance No. 04(1998)
1. CLOSED SESSION:
2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m., July 7, 1998
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor
INVOCATION:
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari,
Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem
Chang, Mayor Herrera
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time
reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an
opportunity for members of the public to directly address the
Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to
the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on
this agenda. 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
comglete a Sneaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk
(completion of this form is voluntary), There is a five
minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council,
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - July,8, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - Doo Wah
Riders (Country�Testern/Bluegrass) , Sycamore Canyon Park
5.2
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
- July 9, 1998 -
7:00 p.m., AQMD Board
Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3
PLANNING COMMISSION
- July 14, 1998 -
7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Dr.
5.4
CONCERTS IN THE PARK
- July 15, 1998—
6:30 p.m. - Film
at Eleven and the Late
Breaking Horns
- (Classic 601s),
Sycamore Canyon Park
5.5
CITY COUNCIL MEETING
- July 21, 1998 -
6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Dr.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 2
5.6 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - July 22, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - Mid
West Coast Band (Top 40 Contemporary), Sycamore Canyon
Park
�B L�.ea y � 1-4 -
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
6.1.1 Study Session of June 16, 1998 - Approve as
submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of June 16, 1998 - Approve as
submitted.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated July 7,
1998 in the amount of
Requested by: City Manager
6.3 TREASURER'S REPORT - Submitted for the City Council's
review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the
month of May, 1998.
Requested by: City Manager
6.4 CLAIM FOR DAMAGES - Filed by Leslie Bellegia on June 3,
1998.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council deny the Claim for Damages filed and refer the
matter for further action to Carl Warren & Co., the
City's Risk Manager.
Requested by: City Clerk
7. PUBLIC HEARING: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as
matters can be heard.
7.1 SUN -CAL PROJECT -
Recommended Action:
Requested by: Planning Division
7.2 (a) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99 -
Recommended Action:
(b) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
JULY 7, 1998
PAGE 3
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99 -
Recommended Action:
(c) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 1998-99 -
Recommended Action:
Requested by: Public Works Division
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 NOTICE OF COMPLETION - 57 FWY TREE PLANTING PROJECT -
Recommended Action:
Requested by: Community Services Division
T
8.2 RESOLUTION NO: -'96-53G: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
_11) BAR SETTING FORTH PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS
REGARDING THE PAYMENT OF SALARIES, SICK LEAVE, VACATIONS,
LEAVES OF ABSENCES AND OTHER REGULATIONS -
Recommended Action: --~
Req ted b
41 `d Y : City Mana�-.. _
8.3 MODIFICATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL AT GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE
AND B CANYON ROP,,E`�
i
2ecoma ende Act' 'n:
Re-qdested by: Public Works Division
9. NEW BUSINESS:
9.f, RECREATION S�RVICES WIDER -
Recommended A tion•
Roqueested by: unity ery ces Divis'
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next Resolution No. RA -98-07
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 4
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera,
O'Connor, VC/Ansari, C/Herrera
2. 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
Redevelopment Agency on Consent Calendar items or matters of
interest to the public that are not already scheduled for
consideration on this agenda. Although the Redevelopment
Agency values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the
Agency generally cannot take any action on items not listed on
the posted agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and sive
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of June 16, 1998 -
Approve as submitted.
Requested by: Agency Secretary
3.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated July 7,
1998 in the amount of
Requested by: Executive Director
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
5. OLD BUSINESS:
6. NEW BUSINESS:
7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Agency
Members are for agency discussion. Direction may be given at
this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT:
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Council
Members are for agency discussion. Direction may be given at
this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
12. ADJOURNMENT: