HomeMy WebLinkAbout8/18/1998r
!City
COUc-t(n
AGENDA
Tuesday, 7ugust
.1998
4:00 p.m., Special Meeting CC -8
7:00 - 10:00 p.m. Workshop
South Coast Air Quality Management District
Auditorium
21865 East CopleyDrive
Diamond Bar, 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 unentation 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 an
accommodation(s) in order to communicate at anCieed of any type of special equipment, assistance or
a minimum of 72 hours prior o tY Public
1 scheduled met In t nform the City Clerk
Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking
in the Council Chambers.
The City ofDiamond Bar uses rec cled 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.
1. CLOSED SESSION:
2. CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
Lutheran Church
Next Resolution No. 98-48
Next Ordinance No. 04(1998)
CC -8 4:00 p.m., August 18, 1998
Mayor
Reverend Dennis Stuve, Mt. Calvary
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff,
O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Businesses of the Month:
3.1.1 Presentation of City Tile to Frank Piermarini,
owner of Piermarini Construction
3.1.2 Presentation of City Tile to Terrence Ketcham,
Manager of Coco's Restaurant
3.1.3 Presentation of City Tile to SEMA
3.2 COMMUNITY RECOGNITIONS:
3.3 INTRODUCTION OF D.B. TEAM LEADER
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
complete --a Sneaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk
(comtiletion of this form i voluntary). There is a five
minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 2
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - August 25, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 "DIAMOND BAR NIGHT AT THE QUAKES" - August 26, 1998 - Bus
Pickup - 5:15 p.m., in front of City Hall - 7:15 p.m.,
Quake Stadium
5.3 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - August 27, 1998 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 1, 1998 - 6:30 p.m.,
AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 LABOR DAY HOLIDAY - City Offices will be closed Monday,
September 7, 1998 in observance of Labor Day. Offices
will reopen Tuesday, September 8, 1998.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
6.1.1 Special Meeting of July 30, 1998 - Approve as
submitted.
6.1.2 Study Session of August 4, 1998 - Approve as
submitted.
6.1.3 Regular Meeting of August 4, 1998 - Approve as
submitted.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.2 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.2.1 Regular Meeting of April 23, 1998 - Receive
and File.
6.2.2 Regular Meeting of May 28, 1998 - Receive and
File.
6.2.3 Regular Meeting of June 25, 1998 - Receive and
File.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.3 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated August
18, 1998 in the amount of $531,116.07.
Requested by: City Manager
AUGUST 18, 1998
PAGE 3
6.4 AWARD OF CONTRACT TO THE CITY OF BREA FOR RECREATION
SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - At its meeting on
August 4, 1998, selected the City of Brea to provide
recreation services for the City. The new contract is
effective September 1, 1998 and continues until August
31, 2001, unless terminated earlier. The contract
includes a 90 day termination clause. Programs in the
contract include recreation classes, youth and adult
sports, tiny tots pre-school program at both Heritage and
Pantera Parks, summer day camp, bus excursions for youth
and a tee leadership training program. Total
expenditures for the first year of the contract are
$518,357 with estimated revenues of $405,046, resulting
in a net cost of $113,311.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council award the recreation services contract to the
City of Brea in the amount of $518,357.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.5 APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH J. MICHAEL HULS,
R.E.A., TO RESEARCH AND REPORT ON THE SOLID WASTE
STANDARDS TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS - On August 4,
1998, Council reviewed the staff report on
recommendations of the Solid Waste Standards Task Force
(SWSTF) and directed staff and J. Michael Huls, (JMH) to
proceed with the five studies required to fully evaluate
the SWSTF recommendations. The City desires to retain J.
Michael Huls, R.E.A., for this assignment based on the
skills and experience of Mr. Huls with respect to solid
waste and recycling issues, his overall understanding of
the community, and familiarity as the facilitator of the
Solid Waste Standards Task Force. The five SWSTF
recommendations requiring further study will be done
concurrently and individual report/study will be
presented to Council as analysis is completed.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council authorize the Mayor to execute a contract
amendment with J. Michael Huls in an amount not -to -exceed
$5,000.
Requested by: Engineering Division
6.6 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING ADVANCE &
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER 9 WITH THE DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - In September 1996, the
Redevelopment Agency proceeded with a redevelopment plan
adoption process for the Diamond Bar Economic
Revitalization Area. Included within this project area
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 4
is the Gateway Corporate Center. The $12,000 requested
in this Advance and Reimbursement Agreement #9 will be
used to fund the appraisal and economic cost/benefit
analysis of Lot 2 located within the Gateway Corporate
Center.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX approving Advance and
Reimbursement Agreement Number 9 with the D.B.
Redevelopment Agency, in the amount of $12,000.
Requested by: City Manager
6.7 AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
BONTERRA CONSULTING REGARDING ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR
PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267 (VTTM NO.
52267 (SUN CAL))- In order to provide additional
environmental services necessary to complete the
environmental analysis of the proposed 130 -unit
residential project, staff recommends approval of an
amendment to the existing consulting services agreement
with BonTerra Consulting.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council approve an amendment to the agreement with
BonTerra consulting in the amount of $3,950.
Requested by: City Manager
7. OLD BUSINESS:
7.1 SECOND READING - ORDINANCE NO. 26B(1989): AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 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 - On July
21, 1998, Council adopted Resolution No. 89-88B,
approving an amendment to the contract with the Board of
Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement
System. At the same meeting, Council approved for first
reading Ordinance 26B(1989) also authorizing an amendment
to the contract with the Board of Administration of the
Public Employees' Retirement System. Due to the
Government Code requirement (Section 20471), "approval of
the contract shall be by ordinance adopted by the
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the
governing body, not less than 20 days after the adoption
of the resolution of intention..." This is the first
regularly scheduled meeting that Ordinance 26B(1989)
could be brought back to Council.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 5
Council approve second reading by title only, waive full
reading and adopt Ordinance No. 26B(1989): An Ordinance
of the City of Diamond Bar Amending Ordinance 26(1989),
Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar and the Board of
Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement
System.
Requested by: City Manager
7.2 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 03(1998): AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF TITLE
8 OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 8 AND DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 11 OF THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AND REVISING THE CITY HEALTH
CODE - First reading held August 4, 1998.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council approve second reading by title only, waive full
reading and adopt Ordinance No. 03(1998): An Ordinance
of the City of Diamond Bar Amending Chapter 8.24 of Title
8 of the Diamond Bar City Code, Adopting by Reference
Division 1 of Title 8 and Division 1 of Title 11 of the
Los Angeles County Code, and Revising the City Health
Code.
Requested by: Planning Division
8. NEW BUSINESS: None
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.1 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FINDING THE CITY OF DIAMONE
BAR TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM (CMP)AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION
REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65089 - The Congestion Management Program (CMP)
requires the City to track development activity and
transportation improvements by adopting a Local
Implementation Report (LIR). The LIR, which is to be
submitted to the L.A. County Metropolitan Transportation
Authority (LACMTA), ascertains that the City complies
with the conformity criteria of the 1997 CMP. The City,
based on its construction and demolition activities
occurring between June 1, 1997 and May 31, 1998,
generated 292 debits. These debits were offset by the
City's total transportation credit claims of 66,613
points (carry-over credit of 65,757 plus credit claims of
856). Based on the City's ability to achieve a positive
credit balance of 66,321 points (66,613 - 292), the City
will remain in compliance with the CMP.
AUGUST 18, 1998
PAGE 6
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX adopting the Local
Implementation Report (LIR) and certifying that the City
of Diamond Bar meets the conformity criteria of the 1997
Congestion Management program (CMP).
Requested by: Engineering Division
10. COUNCIL SUB-COM1KITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL MEMEER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Council
Members are for Council discussion. Direction may be given at
this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next Resolution No. 98-07
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera, O'Connor,
VC/Ansari, C/Huff
2. PUBLIC C014MSNTS: "Public Comments" is the time
reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an
opportunity for members of the public to directly address the
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
Aaency Secretary (completion of this form is voluntary)
There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the
Redevelopment Agency.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of August 4, 1998 -
Approve as submitted.
Requested by: Agency Secretary
3.2 RESOLUTION NO. RA 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING ADVANCE & REIMBURSEMENT
AGREEMENT NUMBER 9 WITH THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - In
September 1996, the Redevelopment Agency proceeded with
a redevelopment plan adoption process for the D.B.
Economic Revitalization Area. Included within this
project area is the Gateway Corporate Center. The
$12,000 requested in this Advance and Reimbursement
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 8
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council receive a presentation from staff and the
applicant, reopen the public hearing, conduct the public
workshop and direct staff as appropriate.
Requested by: Planning Division
12. ADJOURNMENT:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: �fo `�/ �� /� DATE:
ADDRI`SS: PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENIDA #/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 CLERKIn
< %
FROM: a DATE:
1
ADDRESS: 2 �C �' 3 rr d 1-: ( PHONE:'
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: C -,� <r 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.
Signature
D
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
Ci
FROM:
ADDRESS: .� D
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
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; r
t-. ,_ 4 _ __ , �; DATE: .,
ADDRESS: ; ;V . - r PHONE..
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
ignature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: 41. .1 DATE:
ADDRESS: lg6,2 PHONE: 6d3`9�?i,G
ORGANIZATION:�rSZrC�r`—
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
10 ✓1 ^✓ �� c� IC", DATE: — —
�r�c1 /rz
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
6nature
p
'TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
DATE:
Sa �
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 nCLERK
FROM: �� t� b��"� DATE:
ADDRESS: PHONE
ORGANIZATION: 2 e s + a ,� vt ��l:( LJ
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.n i
l I
Signature
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
1 i
y2- `le ���i✓�
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:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
i p DATE:
i �. , ✓ , ., 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: I�\1G�Ct �'� ��',i� l t ��� 2� DATE:
ADDRESS: PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:='��V�-'
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
gnature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
DATE:���
25 l rC�tYt�z CJ , PHONE:C
CkWe
i�,c Li --�10'11 -c, �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
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
!�-
DATE: S
PHONE:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: / WoU4,p "kri- 7-0 �-��C4 E
M l 7-1 M lF 7-0 iJf 6-' •�-ro 2 n/�= .•+- N� .��/4'/h/�.=
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signat e
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM:--L--C, S ,J rJ
DATE: < 1 r 8
ADDRESS: H 2 w t} �,� -� L PHONE S61-�
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: S
U
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: 4,��t���d� �GLC�DATE:
ADDRESS: �� C���✓��� f Cl PHONE:
ION: �i�Irr,Or7Jc� C t ���8G1JC�� j'
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:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
7 y ,E� G� 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.
T
S '1g n al u r e---
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
�I
CITY CLERK
DATE:
PHONE:. , 9 fV-'?0Cz4
\ 4-
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.
Signature
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: 14-4r CI -,14 c c_ �`TyS DATE:
ADDRESS:/3S5C 1 41
PHONE:z23-9,�53t3
ORGANIZATION: cs- K�
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Signature
TO:
FROM:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
6 �h1�
DATE: , >/T/Tdc
ADDRESS: Jf j I -),4 C, l.� . �f s u� S�. D ; PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:yak�sjj %C-Car��y
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 ure,
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM: j ddb �U DATE:
ADDRESS: �I(J S LS l�%, l�}Zlt - ., l��s�e� PHONE:
ORGANIZATION: / ��-.�Els 2 �h e ✓
AGENDA #/SUBJECT: 2--
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
F�
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
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.
Sign re
D
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
CZ�11
Ste y2
/U�J �- � �- �� bi- Coy
'��r�Gt" s--�Gt.l��f�P�ri ; �-G•
AGENDA WSUBJECT: 0�6 C- 66moi Pf1' e-k1t} C
DATE:
PHONE:(,/,, z (,)
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
14 z^
IA -A
Signature
��; �f J �. rh.•
D.
POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
DISTRICT BUILDOUT IMPACT
Assumes 15,000 new housing units and 15 million square ft of non -residential -
(average unit of 1,700 sq. ft.)
Existing Fees (per housing unit) .
Residential @ 1.84 per sq. ft
Non-residential
Total development fees per unit.
Total PUSD Facilities Cost per New Housing Unit.
Proposed Revenue Structure
Existing Development Fees
State Program
South Garey Redevelopment Agreement
Unused Local Bonds
TOTAL
UNFUNDED
Additional fee
Total fee: $3.90 ($1.84 + $2.06)
Cost of existing fees per 17,000 sq ft unit: $3128.00
Additional new fees per 17,00t? sq ft unit: $3514.00
(a) note appendix A.
$3128.00
$280.00
$3408.00
$10,349.00(a)
3408.00
2200.00
561.00
666.00
$6835.00
($3514.00)
2.06 per sq ft
Pomona Unified School District
Facilities Planning, Growth, & Development
Development Mitigation Calculation
December 1995
School Mitigation Cost Analysis
K-5
6-8
9-12
1
Student Capacity / School
700
1,000
1'600
(BCE Budget Poiicy)
(3301670)
_
2
Year -Round Education Allowance
42
0
0
(SAB) .30 x ((1.20 x 91) - #1)
3
Students Housed / Classroom
30.50
30.75
27.50
(BOE Budget Policy)
4
Square Footage 1 Student
59
59180
92
(OPSC Allowance)
5
Square Footage/ School
41,300
73,070
147,200
(#1) x.(#4)
6
Construction Cost / Sq. Ft. / School
$120
$120
$120
(Estimated OPSC Average)
7
Construction Cost / School
$4,956,000
$8,768,400
$17,664,000
(Estimated include: Bldg, Utilities, Off-site, Service -Site
Fire Code, A/E.Fees, Test & Inspect, Contingencies)
(95) x (#6)
8
Furniture & Equipment Allowance
$227,150
$482,262
$1,133,440
(OPSC Elem: SS/s.f., Mid: $6/s.f., High: $7/s.f.) x Index
($5/$61$7) x (#5) x (1.10)
9
Acres / School
11.0
21.5
40.0
(BOE Policy/ DOE recommended)
10
Land Cost / Acre
$400,000
$400,000
$400'0
(Estimated Vacant / Unimproved)
11
Land Cost / Site
$4,400,000
$8,600,000
$16,000,000
(49) x (910)
12
General Site Improvement Allowance
$685,006
$1,249,246
$2,456,006
OPSC ((8% x 11J) + ($15K x 09)) x 1.22
13
Total Cost / School
$10,268,156
$19,099,908
$37,253,446
(97) + (#S) + (#111) + (#12)
14
Total Cost / Student
$13,838
$19,100
$23,283
(#13) / (#1 +42)
15
Student Generation Factor / Dwelling Unit
0.351
0.151
0.112
(1992 Dev. Fee Justification, K-112=.614)
16
Mitigation 1 School Type
54,857
$2,884
$2,608
(#14) x (#15)
17 Mitigation per Dwelling Unit
$10,349
POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL. DISTRICT
Capital Facilities Program Management
October
17, 13-0-G
POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTP,ICT K-12 ENROLLMENT VS, STATE CAPACITY
SCHOOLS WITHIN THE CITY OF POMONA
Dlatrict Enrollment State Calculatod
Fhool Site
M
Loading
YHE
Alcott Elementary
October 1998 • Houaln
Capacity,
plfferonce
Percenla e
MTYRE
Allison Elementary
_ 1,047
462
-58_5
2P7%
Arroyo Elementary
521
416
125%
Barfield Elementary
_ 1,130
870
_-105
260 •_•.
130g�
Decker Elementary
732 _--
531
-201
138°0
Harrison Elementary
-'- 722 _
755
-
33
-- 9G'/°
Kellogg Elementary STYRE
_— 491 _
485
-6
_ 101%
Kingsley Elementary
592
_ 442
-150
134%
Lexington Elementary
786
781
•5
_ 101°;
Lincoln Elementary
_ 802
758
-44
�
106 /°
_�_
Madison Elementary
694
409
-285 _
170%
_
Mendoza Elementary MTYRE
871
709
•162 _
123%
_.
Montvue Elementary
685
567
_i i g
—
o
121%
Philadelphia Elementary MTYRE
516
— 1,197
422
-94
12210
_
_
Pueblo Elementary# STYRE
393
811
-386
148%
Ranch Hills Elements �'"•
-•
0
•393
Roosevelt Elementary MTYRE
576
1.083
574
-2
100°�
San Antonio Elementary#-"
811
---
.272
- 134%
—
San Jose Elementary
571:0.
'
=571
0%
Vejar Elementary' ' MTYRE
486
689 -
472
- - --
-14
�...._.. 103%
Washington Elementary MTYRE
--.. •_
-
846
834
145
83%
-
--'—
_
Westmont Elementary —
- _
621'
-225
13G°o
Yorbs Elementary
754
528
_ -226
143%
SUBTOTAL
408
258
150
16,602
12.520
-4,082
Emerson Middle School
918
Fremont Middle School
888
—'
-30
103%
Marshall Mlddle School
967
1,106
139
_ 979,�
Palomares Middle School
961
-- 921
-40
_ 104%
Simons Middle School
717
_ 862
145
83%
1,111
1,228
117
SUBTOTAL
4,674
5,005
331
Ganesha High School
1,511
Garay High School
1,228_
-283fj]
Pomona High School
2,217
1,420
-797
SUBTOTAL
1,645
1,348
-297
5,373
3,996
-1,377
w.
TOTAL
25,649
21,521
-5128
Note:
Enrollment as of Qctober 17, 1996 and includes all
K-12 students, axcept Soc,
Capacity represents the State of California guidelines for students housing in consideration
" State loading at 120%,
of Class
Size ,ea�;;,on•
- Project currently acknowti edge) as 7erncorary Campus
in State of California program. '-w -L
!'
APPENDIX B:
THE IMPACT OF SCHOOL QUALITY ON HOUSING MARKETS.
The suggested school impact fees for housing facilities are the most directly related to housing market
values of any facility fee collected by local government.
The price of housing to the consumer is a result of the market value of housing . The market value
of housing is determined by the level of value which can be realized for the housing, not the cost of
housing construction. There are a variety of factors which contribute to that market value. They
include:
1. General economic strength: More buyers in market.
2. Proximity to jobs: The more remote from jobs the lower the values.
3. Perception of security: Areas with high crime, or perceived high crime suffer loss in value.
4. Perceived quality of education: recent studies attribute locational choice to perceived
quality of education as the most determinative factor.
The reality of these factors clearly result in a significantly different market for housing between
neighboring communities and within different areas within a single community. I.E. Phillips Ranch
vs. South Garey.
When considering the economic_ viability of housing developments there is a relationship between
the maximum market value and costs of development. Should factors of cost be increased in areas
where there is no impact upon market value, you may reach the point where the development is not
economically viable.
In the case of school facilities fees there is in fact a direct correlation between the added cost and an
increase in market value. Overcrowded school facilities will decrease market values of housing within
the area of the overcrowding. Conversely, of overcrowding will provide a negative impact on market
values.
The relationship of school quality to value in the market provides the following support to the
feasibility of profitable housing developments. It equates to increased costs resulting in increased
market value.
MARKET VALUE
- LAND + CONSTRUCTION COST
- SOFT COST (Fees, etc)
= PROFIT
MARKET VALUE + INCREASE
- LAND + CONSTRUCTION COST
- SOFT COST + SCHOO_ L FEE
= PROFTT
The increased cost of school fees is off set by increased market value, maintaining proftt margin.
A positive economic climate requires a community to address those factors which impact housing
market value. Public safety, street lighting, neighborhood maintenance, availability of open space are
all factors. On the top of the list is the quality of the elementary and secondary schools. Addressing
school overcrowding is an investment in housing development.
';e
PIERMARINI
ENTERPRISES INC.
BACSnUIX TRANSMISSION
DATE; 4�jy% Q TIME:
TO: TELEFA% NUMBER ---,f
TO: INDIVIDUALS'S NAME:
COMPANY NAME:
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLU ING ER LETTER:
(If you not re'
possiblee)
eive all the pages, plc*se call back as soon as
FROM: PIERMARINI ENTERPRISES, INC.
PAX N0. (909) 627-2020
2100 S. RESERVOIR ST.
POMONA. CA. 91766
A (909) 590-4809
MESSAGE:
2100 SOUTH RESERVOIR POMONA. CALIFORNIA 91766
Uoense *283724 TELEPHONE (WO) 590 4$09
FAX (809) 627-2020
t
TO: TELEFA% NUMBER ---,f
TO: INDIVIDUALS'S NAME:
COMPANY NAME:
TOTAL NUMBER OF PAGES INCLU ING ER LETTER:
(If you not re'
possiblee)
eive all the pages, plc*se call back as soon as
FROM: PIERMARINI ENTERPRISES, INC.
PAX N0. (909) 627-2020
2100 S. RESERVOIR ST.
POMONA. CA. 91766
A (909) 590-4809
MESSAGE:
2100 SOUTH RESERVOIR POMONA. CALIFORNIA 91766
Uoense *283724 TELEPHONE (WO) 590 4$09
FAX (809) 627-2020
Piermarini Homes
President Frank Piermarini
2559 Wagon Train Lane
Diamond Bar, CA 91785
EDUCATION
High School: Graduated from Glendora High School
Glendora, Ca in 1967
College: Attended Mf. San Antonio College
Walnut, Ca from 1967-1971 studying
Business and Finance
JOBS
1867-1970 Carpenter Apprentice
197Q-1973 Carpenter Journeyman
Worked for numerous building contractors doing rough framing and finish
carpentry. Additional experience included carpentry of hotels, homes.
commercial buildings, freeway construction, flood controls, patios, and room
additions.
April 1973 Obtained a B-1 license and founded Piermarini Enterprises (with
savings of $4,O00), a custom home and light commercial architectural designer
and general contractor. Building throughout Southern California mainly in the
Diamond Bar, Ca. Area. In 1977, Piermarini Enterprises was incorporated. In
1996, Piermarini Homes is celebrating 25 years in business.
GENERAL INFORMATION
Since we have been in business, we have designed and built approximately 173
custom homes, 3 light commercial office/retails buildings, and I Catholic Church.
Approximately, 141 of theses homes have been in the Country Estates,
Diamond Bar, CA., and we have designed and/or built custom homes in
Claremont, Glendora, West Covina, Alta Lorna, Santa Ynez, Lake Arrowhead,
Dana Point, Murrieta, and Westlake Village. In 1989 we completed St. ' Denis
Catholic Church in Diamond Bar, Ca., a 7 million-dollw project.
Page Two
Resume
P_ ersonat,St s _ qA ugUSt 9, 1998
Age — 48 years dd. Married � John Louisiml(3 Years Oldrini since - living n Diamond gar
74. TWO chikirOn
Lisa Angela, 20 years off, a
since 1974 (24 years).
CURRENT PROD CTS
Building three homes in ,' vee; Diamond Bnd ar, in Chino Hills, projects
ufftr design in Cypress,
3.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
"QUICK CAP" MINUTES
AUGUST 18, 1998
CALL TO ORDER: M/Herrera called the meeting to order at 4:09 p.m.
in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District 21865 E. Copley
Dr., Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
Church.
ROLL CALL:
Chang, M/Herrera.
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by C/O'Connor.
Reverend Dennis Stuve, Mt. Calvary Lutheran
Council Members Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Amanda Susskind,
Assistant City 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
Manager and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: No changes suggested.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Businesses of the Month:
3.2.1 Presented City Tile to Frank Piermarini, owner of Piermarini
Construction.
3.2.2 Presented City Tile to Specialty Equipment Market Association
(SEMA). Deputy Mark St. Amant thanked SEMA for its efforts in
getting donations for repair of the Crime Prevention Bureau's Ford
Aerostar Van.
3.2 Presented Special Recognition Tile to Kellee Fritzal, Assistant to the City
Manager, for her assistance in rescuing the parents of Assistant City
Attorney Amanda Susskind on May 14, 1998 during an automobile accident.
3.3 INTRODUCED NEW D.B. TEAM LEADER FROM WALNUT SHERIFF
DEPARTMENT - Lt. Stothers introduced Tim Perkins.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Clyde Hennessee re Century Communications -
Pointed out that the Preview Channel often contains inaccurate information.
Understood that several items that were expected from Century by the City are
overdue.
Mary Hall, representing the Chamber of Commerce, announced the Chamber's next
Business Expo to be held on Saturday, October 24, 1998 from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. in
the KMart shopping center.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - August 25, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.2 D.B. NIGHT AT THE QUAKES - August 26, 1998 - Bus Pickup - 5:15 p.m.,
in front of City Hallo - 7:15 p.m., Quakes Stadium.
5.3 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - August 27, 1998 - 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 1, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 LABOR DAY HOLIDAY - City offices will be closed Monday, September 7,
1998 in observance of Labor Day. Offices will reopen Tuesday, September
8, 1998.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by C/Huff, seconded by C/Ansari to
approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item No. 6.4. Motion carried
5-0 by Roll Call vote:
6.1 APPROVED MINUTES:
6.1.1 Special Meeting of July 30, 1998 -As submitted.
6.1.2 Study Session of August 4, 1998 - As submitted.
6.1.3 Regular Meeting of August 4, 1998 - As submitted.
6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
MINUTES:
6.2.1 Regular Meeting of April 23, 1998.
6.2.2 Regular Meeting of May 28, 1998.
6.2.3 Regular Meeting of June 25, 1998.
6.3 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER dated August 18, 1998 in the amount
of $531,116.07.
6.5 APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH J. MICHAEL HULS, R.E.A.,
TO RESEARCH AND REPORT ON THE SOLID WASTE STANDARDS
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS - Authorized the Mayor to execute an
amendment in an amount not -to -exceed $5,000.
6.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 9849: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING ADVANCE AND
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER 9 WITH THE DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY - to fund the appraisal and economic
cost/benefit analysis of Lot 2 located within the Gateway Corporate Center
in the amount of $12,000.
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 3
6.7 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH BONTERRA CONSULTING REGARDING
ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES FOR PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 52267 (VTTM NO. 52267 - SUN CAL) - in the amount of
$3,950.
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.5 AWARD OF CONTRACT TO THE CITY OF BREA FOR RECREATION
SERVICES FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR -
In response to C/O'Connor, CM/Belanger stated that the amount of the
insurance premium would not be changed even though the word "sole" was
removed from Section 8(b).
C/O'Connor asked about the purchasing of supplies from local vendors.
M/Herrera asked about termination of the contract as specified in Section 4.
She suggested that the language be changed to make sure that D.B. has the
right to terminate the contract. Asked that the language be amended prior
to her approval.
CM/Belanger pointed out that If the contract is not approved by September
1st, there will be no recreation services provider as of September 2nd.
C/Ansari moved, seconded by MPT/Chang to approve the contract as
amended. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
7. OLD BUSINESS:
7.1 SECOND READING - ORDINANCE NO. 266(1989): AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 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 - Moved by MPT/Chang,
seconded by C/Ansari to approve second reading by title only, waive full
reading and adopt. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
7.2 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 03(1998): AN ORDINANCE OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF TITLE 8 OF
THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION
1 OF TITLE 8 AND DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 11 OF THE LOS ANGELES
COUNTY CODE.
Martha Bruske asked that the County Code not be amended but rather
AUGUST 18, 1998
PAGE 4
enforced. Appears as though City's changes would make things easier on
the business community.
Clyde Hennessee - Stated that he has seen some pretty unhealthy
conditions in local restaurants. Should never lighten up on health codes.
C/O'Connor stated that the only adjustment made by Council is that
businesses can make a request for a re -inspection in a shorter amount of
time. This is not easing up on the rules.
Moved by C/O'Connor, seconded by MPT/Chang to approve second reading
by title only, waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No.3(1998). Motion
carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
8. NEW BUSINESS: None
9. PUBLIC HEARING:
9.1 RESOLUTION NO. 98-50: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FINDING THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO
BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION
REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 65089 -
M/Herrera declared the Public Hearing open.
There being no testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the Public Hearing.
Moved by C/O'Connor, seconded by C/Huff to adopt Resolution No. 98-49
declaring the City to be in conformance with the Congestion Management
Program. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 5:20 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff called the meeting to order at 5:20
p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E.
Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California.
2. ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera, O'Connor,
VC/Ansari, Chair/Huff
AUGUST 18, 1998
4
3.
4
EJ
D
PAGE 5
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, Executive Director; Amanda Susskind,
Assistant 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 Manager and Lynda Burgess, Agency Secretary.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jeff Koontz, Interim Director, D.B. Chamber of
Commerce - announced upcoming Chamber activities.
CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by VC/Ansari, seconded by AM/Chang to
approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote.
3.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Regular Meeting of August 4, 1998 - As submitted.
3.2 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. RA 98-07: A RESOLUTION OF THE
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY APPROVING ADVANCE
AND REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER 9 WITH THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR.
PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
OLD BUSINESS: None
NEW BUSINESS: None
7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS:
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss,
Chair/Huff adjourned the meeting at 5:27 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 5:27 p.m.
RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 5:27 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 6:44 p.m.
9. PUBLIC HEARINGIWORKSHOP:
Following presentations by staff and representatives from the City's EIR consultant,
Bonterra Consulting, the Public Hearing was re -opened by M/Herrera.
The following persons spoke regarding the project:
Don Gravdahl
Bob Schwartz - Supported limiting development to Lot 6.
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 7
MPT/Chang indicated that he had also spoken with residents and representatives
of the developer.
There being no further testimony offered or questions to be made of the applicant,
M/Herrera closed the Public Hearing.
12. ADJOURNMENT: Following discussion, M/Herrera adjourned the meeting
at 10:57 p.m. and declared that the discussion would continue at the September 1,
1998 meeting.
1.
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL o
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AUGUST 4, 1998 941
CLOSED SESSION: 6:00 p.m., Room CC -3 & 5
Conference with legal counsel regarding anticipated litigation pursuant to California
Government Code Section 53956.9(b).
CA/Jenkins reported that before recessing into Closed Session, by a 4-0 vote
Council added one item to the session. The item was a threat of litigation included
in a letter from a law firm on behalf of its client, Nextel, which required immediate
action. Therefore, this matter met the standard for adding an item to an agenda
under the Brown Act. Council conducted its Closed Session and took no reportable
action.
2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to order at 6:53
p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
ROLL CALL:
Chang, Mayor Herrera
Council Member Huff
Pastor Dennis Morales, Calvary Chapel
Council Members Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem
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; Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant and
Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
APPROVED AGENDA: As presented.
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Pam Williams, representing Congressman Jay Kim, presented
Congressional Recognition to the City on the occasion of the July 25, 1998
Grand Opening of Pantera Park.
3.2 Presented Captain Richard Martinez, Walnut Sheriffs Station, with a
Proclamation proclaiming Tuesday, August 4, 1998 as "National Night Out."
Dr. Ron Hockwalt, representing the Walnut Valley Rotary Club and Pam
Williams, representing Congressman Jay Kim's Office, also presented
Captain Martinez with Certificates acknowledging "National Night Out."
Captain Martinez stated that at the August 5, 1998 Concert in the Park, the
Walnut Sheriffs Station will have booths which include "Kids Print", McGruff,
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
the Bike Patrol, Sane Deputies, etc. The booths will be open from 5:30 p.m.
M/Herrera proclaimed the week of August 10 through August 16, 1998 as
Bicycle Safety Awareness Week.
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Clyde Hennessee returned his Parking Task
Force Certificate of Recognition to the City.
Alan Wilson, 22809 Hilton Head Dr., said he was offended by the number of
lawsuits that have been filed against the City and felt that the citizens' money could
be used more wisely for needed public facilities instead of having to defend the City
against lawsuits.
Art O'Daly, D.B. Chamber of Commerce President, congratulated Council and staff
on the opening of Pantera Park. He introduced Jeff Kuntz, Chamber of Commerce
Interim Executive Director.
Mr. Kuntz spoke about his qualifications and the expertise that he brings to the
Chamber of Commerce and to the City.
CMD/Nelson introduced Laurie Kajiwara and Steve Tamaya, who recently joined the
City's Communications & Marketing Division.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - Bobby Cochran & the Rock Around the Clock
Show (50's) August 5, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 E.
Golden Springs Dr.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - August 11, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - Alturas (Latin Jazz) - August 12, 1998 - 6:30
p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 E. Golden Springs Dr.
5.4 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - August 13, 1998 -
SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 REDEDICATION OF DIAMOND BAR LIBRARY - Saturday, August 15, 1998
- 10:00 a.m., 1061 S. Grand Ave.
5.6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - August 18, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.7 "DIAMOND BAR NIGHT AT THE QUAKES" - August 26, 1998 - 7:15 p.m.
"Food Fair Package" is available for $5.00 which includes transportation,
admission to the game, hot dog and drink. Tickets are available at the
August 5 Concerts in the Park and at City Hall.
Council Member Ansari arrived at 7:25 p.m.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by C/Ansari, seconded by MPT/Chang, to
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
approve the Consent Calendar, with the exception of Item No. 6.10. 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
6.1 APPROVED MINUTES:
6.1.1 Regular Meeting of July 7, 1998 -As amended. Continued from July
21, 1998.
6.1.2 Special Joint Meeting of July 17, 1998 - As submitted.
6.1.3 Regular Meeting of July 21, 1998 - As submitted.
6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MINUTES - Regular Meeting of June 11, 1998.
6.3 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated August 4, 1998 in the amount
of $1,063,838.26.
6.4 REVIEWED AND APPROVED TREASURER'S REPORT for the month of
June, 1998.
6.5 APPROVED EXTENSION OF CONSULTING AGREEMENT WITH J.
MICHAEL HULS, R.E.A., FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
SERVICES - Authorized the Mayor to extend the Consulting services
Agreement with J. Michael Huls, R.E.A., in an amount not -to -exceed $43,276
for services relating to administration of the City's solid waste permit system,
coordination of AB 939 and program activities, and implementation of
NPDES permit requirements.
6.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-460 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING INSTALLATION
OF A STOP SIGN INSTALLATION AT THE INTERSECTING LEG OF
GOLDEN PRADOS DRIVE AND BRIDLE DRIVE.
6.7 APPROVED EXTENSION OF VENDOR SERVICES FOR BUS EXCURSION
RECREATION PROGRAM - Authorized additional work to be performed by
Inland Empire Stages, Ltd. and Main Street Tours for providing bus
excursion services for FY 98/99. The total amount to be awarded to these
vendors for services rendered this FY shall not exceed $11,000 for Inland
Empire Stages, Ltd. and $49,000 for Main Street Tours.
6.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-47: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING PROGRAM
AUGUST 4, 1998
PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
SUPPLEMENT NO. 002 TO THE STATE -LOCAL TRANSPORTATION
PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT NO. SLTPP 5455 FOR GRANT FUNDS
UNDER THE STATE -LOCAL TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP
PROGRAM FOR THE DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD STREET
REHABILITATION PROJECT - Appointing the City Manager as agent for the
City to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, and
directing the City Clerk to forward the two originals to the State of California
Department of Transportation for final execution.
6.9 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-48: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE
DESTRUCTION BY THE CITY CLERK OF CITY RECORDS AND
DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED AS PROVIDED
UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 34090.
MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.10 APPROVAL OF LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT WITH
STANDARD PACIFIC CORPORATION FOR PROPERTY LOCATED ON
BREA CANYON ROAD AT DIAMOND CREST LANE -
Following staffs presentation, C/O'Connor moved, MPT/Chang seconded,
to approve Landscape Maintenance Agreement with Standard Pacific
Corporation for property located on Brea Canyon Rd. at Diamond Crest Ln.
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 HEARING: None
8. OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 3(1998): AN ORDINANCE OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF TITLE 8 OF THE
DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF
TITLE 8 AND DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 11 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY
CODE, AND REVISING THE CITY HEALTH CODE - CM/Belanger advised
that although this item had been advertised as a second reading, the City
Attorney indicated that substantive changes were made to the ordinance
which requires a reintroduction of the Ordinance for first reading.
DCM/DeStefano presented staffs report of substantive changes.
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
Martha Bruske asked Council not to change the ordinance and let L.A.
County do its job.
Following discussion, MPT/Chang moved, C/Huff seconded, to approve for
first reading by title only and waive full reading of Ordinance No. 03(1998).
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
8.2 STAFF REPORT ON RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE DIAMOND BAR
SOLID WASTE STANDARDS TASK FORCE.
Red Calkins said the Legislators who passed AB 939 should tell the cities
how to reduce trash and that D.B. should have at least two haulers.
Don Gravdahl expressed concern that the cost for greenwaste recycling will
be borne by the single family residents.
Clyde Hennessee agreed with the previous speakers. He asked who pays
for greenwaste recycling for larger lots such as one acre lots.
Dave Reynolds stated that the Task Force considered multi -family recycling
service through non -mandatory participation. He explained that "open
systems are negotiated between the citizens and the hauler and cities
cannot get involved. It appears that residents are not concerned that one of
the City's two haulers charges more for waste pickup. On the other hand,
with a franchise process, the City will have control over the franchisee, the
system and the programs. Close to true costs can be revealed and a price
ceiling can be placed based on those costs. Also with a franchise system,
there won't be a many trucks traveling through the neighborhoods as
currently exist. The $5,000 for the proposed study, which is available
through AB 939, is a fantastic investment for what the City could get in
return.
C/Huff stated that, as Chair of the Task Force, he would recommend that
Council study and consider implementing all 5 recommendations.
C/O'Connor asked staff if they could address the issue as to how many multi-
family complexes have green waste programs. What is currently happening
to their green waste.
Mr. Huls explained that the green waste program is multi -faceted and
extends to business, commercial and residential (single and multi -family).
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
Much of the materials collected by gardeners is taken to Spadra or Puente
Hills where it is converted to "alternative daily cover." The school systems
practice "grasscycling" which means that lawn clippings are left on the fields
to decompose and fortify the ground. Approximately 20% of D.B. residents
practice some form of grasscycling or home composting. In the case of
single and multi -family residences, those with gardening services take the
materials to County facilities because there is a break in disposal costs.
C/O'Connor asked how many people who live in multi -family complexes have
lawns of their own that they take care of. Isn't the majority common property
which is maintained by a homeowners association.
Mr. Huls responded that, in most cases, yes. Some complexes have small
areas which are maintained solely by the homeowner. He indicated that he
could not give exact figures on how much green waste is currently being
diverted through multi -family complexes.
In response to C/O'Connor, CSD/Rose reported that the clippings from the
turf in City parks and in the medians are mulched and left in place.
Regarding the statement concerning $21bin in additional costs, C/O'Connor
reminded everyone that if the City does not comply with reducing its waste
stream as stipulated by AB 939, the City could be fined up to $10,000/day
which adds up to $3,650,000/year. Read a couple of quotes for the benefit
of the public which were contained within the report.
M/Herrera explained that approval of the recommendations of the Task
Force would authorize staff to continue to research and provide a more in-
depth report. She asked if staff could come back with more information
earlier than six months as recommended in the report.
CM/Belanger explained that the report calls for a series of time frames, i.e.
a variable rate system should be back to Council within two months.
C/O'Connor moved, C/Ansari seconded, to look at all five recommendations
and direct staff and the consultant to proceed with the schedule as
presented. 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
8.3 SELECTION OF RECREATION SERVICES PROVIDER.
In response to M/Herrera, CM/Belanger stated that the purpose of a 3 -year
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
contract is to provide some level of certainty in which recreation services will
be provided. This eliminates the need to go out for proposals each year
when the contract is up for renewal. If Council wishes to look into providing
services in-house rather than approving the contract for another year, it
could send a termination notice to the City of Brea.
In response to C/O'Connor, CM/Belanger stated that changing the contract
date to August 31st would not have a budget impact. The new contract
would be brought to Council for approval on August 18, 1998.
In response to MPT/Chang, CM/Belanger explained that staff has negotiated
contract prices with the City of Brea after proposals have been submitted.
MPT/Chang suggested that staff discuss the possibility of negotiating with
the City of Brea.
In response to M/Herrera, CSD/Rose explained that the contract amount was
adjusted both revenue and expenditure -wise due to addition of several
programs. In the current proposal, revenues were increased by
approximately $72,000 and expenditures increased by approximately
$60,000.
C/Ansari asked what percentage of new programs have been added.
CSD/Rose responded that an adult soccer program, a youth soccer indoor
program, a leadership training program, a teen excursion program and the
Tiny Tot program at Pantera Park have been added. Approximately 40 more
children can be included in the Pantera Park Tiny Tot Program. 80 children
are currently involved in the Tiny Tot Program at Heritage Park.
C/O'Connor moved, C/Ansari seconded, to award a contract to the City of
Brea as the City's recreation services provider for the period September 1,
1998 through August 31, 2001 (3 one-year contracts, giving the City, as well
as the City of Brea the opportunity to terminate the contract at each of those
year milestones with a 90 -day notice) and directed staff to bring back the
proposed contract.
No public comments were offered.
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
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
9. NEW BUSINESS: None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 9:05 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 9:10 P.M.
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS AND COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
C/Ansari announced that she had attended 2 water quality workshops in L.A. and
Baldwin Park since the last Council meeting. She and the other Council Members
attended the Pantera Park Grand Opening and thanked staff for their efforts toward
completion of the park. Council met with Supervisor Don Knabe on July 31, 1998
for an exchange of concerns. She welcomed Jeff Kuntz as the Interim Chamber of
Commerce Director.
MPT/Chang congratulated Parks & Recreation Department staff for their efforts
toward the opening of Pantera Park. He stated that Council held a study session
prior to tonight's Council meeting to discuss how to enhance the City's
communications and marketing with residents and businesses.
C/O'Connor stated she, the Mayor and the City Manager attended a three day
League of Cities Conference. She, the Mayor and Mayor ProTem attended the D.B.
Pop Warner League's opening ceremonies. She further stated she attended the
blood drive for Jeffrey Stoddard and commended the Rotary Club and American
Red Cross for their sponsorship. She asked interested residents to contact the City
if they wish to serve on the Mayor's Telecommunications Facilities Task Force. The
first meeting will be held on September 2, 1998 with bi-weekly meetings to follow
until October 31, 1998. She thanked the Minutes Secretary for preparing 51 pages
of verbatim minutes for the July 7, 1998 meeting with respect to the SunCal project.
She welcomed Jeff Kuntz to the Chamber of Commerce as well as new Marketing
Coordinator staff members Laurie Kajiwara and Steve Tamaya.
C/Huff stated that the Sanitation District recently voted to annex the Diamond
Ranch High School into its District. He reiterated his concerns about the need to
reduce waste. He spoke about the opening of Pantera Park and reminded Council
that, with the approval of the Parks Master Plan, there is still much that the City
needs to accomplish. He commented that he enjoys working with his fellow Council
Members and although they do not always agree on the issues, they reach
conclusions based upon careful consideration. The Mayor has appointed Task
Forces which has placed an additional burden on staff members who have been
very helpful and supportive of Council.
M/Herrera spoke about the League of Cities Conference on Leadership which
included several sessions on how to be a good Council Member. She looked
forward to seeing samples of work from the expanded Communications & Marketing
team. She reminded the public that Bulletin Boards have been placed throughout
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 9
CITY COUNCIL
the City to keep the public informed. She talked about her fellow Council Members
and their ability to work together in a cohesive and professional manner.
11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Herrera
adjourned the meeting at 9:26 p.m. in memory of Colleen Fritzal, mother of staff
member Kellee Fritzal.
ATTEST:
Mayor
Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk
2
DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
SPECIAL "MEET AND GREET" SESSION
WITH SUPERVISOR DON KNABE
JULY 30, 1998
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to order
at 9:20 a.m. in Conference Room A, Diamond Bar City Hall, 21660 E. Copley
Dr., Suite 100, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Herrera
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Chang, M/Herrera
Also present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Michael Jenkins,
City Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Fred Guido, Chief
of Staff for Supervisor Knabe; Mishal Montgomery, Field Representative for
Supervisor Knabe and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
MATTERS OF MUTUAL INTEREST
M/Herrera thanked Supervisor Knabe for participating in the Pantera Park
Grand Opening Ceremony.
S/Knabe commended the City on the park and said he appreciated the
opportunity to participate.
M/Herrera stated the Council is looking forward to the rededication of the
library on August 15, 1998.
S/Knabe believed that the library renovation is one of the best cooperative
ventures that has taken place in the State. He further stated that he
appreciated the opportunity to meet with Council on a regular basis and be
of assistance to the community.
MPT/Chang welcomed Supervisor Knabe and his staff members. He had
heard that the County may be interested in selling the D.B. Golf Course and
stated that if there is an opportunity, the City would like first right of refusal
to acquire the property.
S/Knabe said he was not aware of any plans to offer the golf course for sale.
There has been discussion to hire a consultant to propose improvement
plans only.
C/Ansari pointed out that D.B. has no facility to accommodate large
weddings or banquets. If the Clubhouse were to be expanded and
refurbished, it would be an excellent opportunity for the County.
Ms. Montgomery explained that the Park Preservation Act prohibits certain
uses of park property for uses other than recreation. Therefore, a joint use
JULY 30, 1998 PAGE 2 COUNCIUSUPV. KNABE
CM/Belanger stated that a reasonable case could be made for using the facility for
other purposes such as offices that are not consuming land that would otherwise
be used for recreation purposes.
C/O'Connor asked how many parking spaces are available
S/Knabe said that there are a good number of parking spaces and as square
footage is increased, expansion of the number of spaces could take place.
CM/Belanger stated that discussions have included use of the facility to include a
permanent City Hall.
Supervisor Knabe indicated that such a venture would require a good deal of
political discussion.
CM/Belanger believed it would be less difficult at the golf course location than
consideration of a virgin piece of ground that had no active use.
S/Knabe stated that it may be a possibility. There is consideration of expansion of
the clubhouse which can be accomplished on a short term basis. There are a
number of restrictions on use of open space.
CM/Belanger suggested that the parking lot could be turned into a parking structure
with the upper profile being used for a second level of parking. There are ways to
accomplish expansion if everyone is interested in creating such a facility.
Presently, there is a great deal of wasted space because the facility was
constructed on a single story. Consideration could be given to a three story
structure in the area of the asphalt around the greens with golf carts being located
at the street level, which would change the look of the entire facility.
C/Ansari stated that there is a considerable amount of useable space to the right
of the driveway as you enter the facility from Golden Springs Dr.
C/Huff said that part of the problem is that in D. B., there is a north/south mentality.
There are different school districts which has led to some housing differentials. A
civic center needs to be somewhat centrally located in order to bring the community
closer together. The County has an excellent property from that standpoint. The
property is centrally located, easily accessible to the freeways, located in the
flatlands and would not infringe on virgin territory unlike any other location that may
be proposed within the City. From the City's perspective, it is a good deal and the
Council is interested in entertaining the idea of working jointly with the County to
accomplish such a use.
M/Herrera stated that the City is interested in having its own facility and has tried
to be creative in figuring out solutions with respect to locations. This is one idea,
which may or may not be the most feasible.
JULY 30, 1998 PAGE 3 COUNCIL/SUPV. KNABE
S/Knabe said that the County can certainly look at the possibility; however, he
would not want to give the City a ray of hope at this particular point.
C/Huff said the City appreciates the fact that the tenant has cleaned up the fence
areas.
CM/Belanger indicated that the tenant is currently dealing with the drainage
problem on the back 9 which has been a retention basin for years. Flood waters
from higher elevations flow down into the golf course. It is an evaporation area and
therefore, during certain times of the year following the rainy season, a couple of
the fairways are inundated.
CM/Belanger stated that the Redevelopment Agency has forwarded its check for
the library renovation. In future relationships, the County will be aware that it has
a solvent partner which pays its debts on time.
C/Ansari asked for an update on the effectiveness of the Alzheimer houses.
S/Knabe reported that database collection has occurred. The County was
concerned that it was being inundated with such facilities. There is no control over
licensing the facilities and it is difficult to determine how many exist. He said he is
not aware of the current status of the collection efforts.
Mr. Guido indicated that he would look into the matter and get back to Council with
the information.
C/Ansari reported that a resident who attended the most recent Council meeting
told her that she has five Alzheimer houses in D.B.
M/Herrera wondered if the woman was concerned about parking on the street.
CM/Belanger responded that the woman was, in fact, concerned about parking on
the street. She said she had called in complaints about people parking in front of
some of her group homes because they interfered with the operation of her group
homes.
S/Knabe did not believe they were all Alzheimer homes.
CM/Belanger stated there are a couple of homes that house teenagers with
problems.
S/Knabe indicated that one of the things they are trying to do is not make it so
profitable for people to have these types of facilities. He further stated that
someone approached him at the Pantera Park Grand Opening Ceremonies to talk
about motorhomes parked on City streets. He indicated that the County has had
an ongoing battle with this same concern in Cerritos. The matter was upheld three
JULY 30, 1998 PAGE 4 COUNCIUSUPV. KNABE
or four times by a ballot vote. Cerritos created an Ordinance to allow flexibility for
loading and unloading. The City works a permit process through the Community
Safety Office which approves a sticker for homeowners to park operating and
licensed vehicles on the street. The Ordinance bans overnight parking.
C/O'Connor said a Senior Patrol officer with Walnut Sheriff has questioned Walnut
residents about their overnight parking ban. Many stated they are used to the ban
and work with the Ordinance. Walnut issues free permits.
C/Huff said D.B. may want to issue free permits to take some of the sting out of it.
M/Herrera spoke about SB 2010 and AB 1281 and said she is very pleased with the
action that the Board of Supervisors took yesterday to finally oppose the double
joining, which she believed was a significant step.
S/Knabe appreciated the Council's participation, which he believed was important
to the issue. He understood his colleagues' efforts to get some compromise. What
is dangerous about SB 2010 is that it creates a whole new agency with a $15
million budget, another funnel of money to an agency that is not accountable to
anyone.
M/Herrera stated that originally in Senate Bill 2, there was about $70 million the
budget for this new conservancy.
S/Knabe felt that SB 2010 is dead in the water in Sacramento. As a courtesy to the
Chairman, the bill will be heard again, so the opposition cannot let up.
M/Herrera expressed concern that it may come down to where the City gets only a
couple of hours of notice, which will not provide enough time for cities, water
agencies or environmental groups to get to Sacramento.
S/Knabe asked if the City had a contract lobbyist.
CM/Belanger said the City has Gonsalves to take care of the matter.
S/Knabe said that this issue is critical. "The Board of Supervisors has worked so
hard on LACTA. A million people are going to be paying abhorrent insurance rates.
We've worked hard to get bipartisan support. All of a sudden Hayden writes the
Office of Management and Budget and the President of the United States saying
you might want to slow this thing down a little bit. I think we have another solution
to this whole thing - clearly undermining what we've worked so hard to accomplish.
If you can imagine, we have Barbara Boxer and Steve Warner on the same side.
Its like a miracle. She got $40 million on the Senate side and Steve got $60 million
on the Congressional side."
M/Herrera said whoever would have thought that all of the environmental groups
JULY 30, 1998 PAGE 5 COUNCIUSUPV. KNABE
would line up with the cities and the water district on a single issue. Everybody is
adamant about opposing SB 2010.
S/Knabe responded that they are accountable to no one. They make false
problems as it relates to the expenditure of money.
M/Herrera said that people have asked her why Senator Hayden is fighting so
fiercely for SB 2010. My answer is that it is a good question - why, indeed. As of
yesterday, everything is still the same that it was on June 29. There have been no
amendments.
Mr. Guido stated that one answer, and it's only speculation, is that he will return to
the valley and take control of that agency somewhere down the line.
M/Herrera said she did not realize until yesterday's testimony that there are 20
lawsuits pending against the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy.
S/Knabe responded that most of the lawsuits have to do with failed promises to
purchase people's property.
M/Herrera said she guessed that Edmiston's response to some of the judgements
that have been made against him is that he is a State entity and that he is not liable
and that the attorneys are now going to go after the JPA and the cities that
participate in the JPAs with Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy to collect.
C/Ansari asked if Edmiston had a recent sizeable judgement filed against him.
M/Herrera responded that it was for $six million. This is the attorney that is now
going to turn and file against all of the JPAs that the Santa Monica Mountains
Conservancy participates in and that's us. That's WCCA. She said she was talking
with Council Member Marty Siminoff from Brea who was very concerned about that
issue and expressed that perhaps it is time to cut some ties. What would occur if
that were the overall sentiment, if this became a reality where a lawsuit was filed
against all of the JPAs and cities started severing ties and these different JPAs
began falling apart because everybody was leaving?
S/Knabe responded that he felt the City's Attorney may be better able to answer
M/Herrera's concern. Most of the JPAs were uniquely formed.
CM/Belanger stated that JPAs were created to extend the influence and authority
of the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy beyond their statute boundaries. SB
2010 makes the JPAs an irrelevancy because they would then have authority over
those same areas without having had joint agreements because they realize that
the joint agreements are not all what they were intended to be.
S/Knabe said that this is probably another reason they are pushing so hard on SB
JULY 30, 1998 PAGE 6 COUNCIUSUPV. KNABE
2010.
CM/Belanger explained that the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy will have
authority over all of those areas without having to have JPAs.
M/Herrera felt that they should have discovered by now how JPAs can become
problematic such as WCCA, where you have one city and then two cities that don't
necessarily buy into everything that they are espousing. She wondered what would
happen if WCCA ceases to exist.
S/Knabe responded that WCCA is specified in the Bond Act as the recipient of the
$10 million. If WCCA ceased to exist as a result of SB 2010...
M/Herrera said "or ceases to exist because the cities don't want to be liable for what
the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy is doing, exit."
CM/Belanger said that if there is no longer a WCCA and the Santa Monica
Mountains Conservancy said that they should stand in the shoes of WCCA,
arguably, the County could decided to purchase the specific allocation and stand
in the shoes of that agency.
S/Knabe indicated that it may now be more apparent why he stood firm on this
issue. There is something to be said for local control. There are still some
environmentalists who hit him pretty hard on the issue but not as heavily because
the issue has exposed problems in other areas.
CM/Belanger said that people have had the benefit of time to see those other
problems exposed which would not have been apparent with a loss of a million
dollars of Proposition A money because the Santa Monica Mountains Conservancy
tried to change the terms of the deal and the other party involved said "I don't have
to take it or leave it." It was a $3 million deal with $1 million down and the
Conservancy said "we only want to give you $1.8 million." He said "no, you said $3
million and its $3 million." And the court said the claimant is right, they have a right
to $3 million. Some of these matters such as the $6 million judgement came to light
after the County decided to take control of that money.
M/Herrera believed that because there has been no final agreement on some very
key major points of the deal, it is significant that the Boy Scouts are very hesitant
about going through with it.
S/Knabe said that the Boy Scouts were dealing in good faith and got burned a
couple of times already. And they are really leery of the way deals are formed by
so-called friends.
Ms. Montgomery reported that she had spoken to Susan of Kosmont who told her
that the appraisal of the Boy Scout property came in at about $3,500/acre for a total
JULY 30, 1998 PAGE 7 COUNCIUSUPV. KNABE
of $28 million, which is significantly higher than previous estimates.
CM/Belanger spoke about Brea Canyon Oil proposing to sell their Orange County
property to a residential development at $37,000 per acre. The property is
immediately adjacent to the Boy Scouts property. Part of the reason the Boy Scout
property was reappraised was because they heard that $37,000/acre was out there
for residential development and they were only talking about a $4,000/acre deal
with the JPA and they were concerned about the significant difference.
S/Knabe said that he has a good relationship with Orange County Supervisor
Spitzer.
CM/Belanger suspected that S/Knabe will also have a good relationship with
Supervisor Aquirre in San Bernardino because it is as important or more important
to that district and to San Bernardino County that there is some kind of access
through that area.
CA/Jenkins thanked S/Knabe for the efforts his office has made with respect to the
transfer of joint liability trust fund and identification of locations over to SAFER. The
process has been delayed pending further negotiation of the agreement.
S/Knabe explained that he was the person who made the motion to delay the matter
for 60 days.
CA/Jenkins reported that the next month or so is going to be a critical time in terms
of negotiation of some minor points in that agreement. He encouraged S/Knabe
and his office to remain engaged in the process.
S/Knabe believed the matter is a Contract Cities problem. If the item comes back
to the Board in some other form than it is today, he is not sure he can get the three
necessary votes. He has advocated that the simplest way to deal with the issue is
to change the makeup of the review process to let contract cities be at the table.
CA/Jenkins stated that money is clearly one of the factors and that he was aware
that the County would like to shift that liability over to the cities. There were a lot
of smaller points that he believed could be solved because they are more technical
issues and not so much money issues.
S/Knabe believed the issue of money is the primary concern.
C/O'Connor asked if there is a possibility that the County would consider locating
a regional park in the D.B. area.
S/Knabe was not aware of any available space.
C/Huff said the Council has considered a 78 acre piece of property owned by the
JULY 30, 1998 PAGE 8 COUNCIL/SUPV. KNABE
school district.
C/O'Connor said the City would like the County to give D.B. a piece of property.
S/Knabe answered that the only piece of property of any significant size that the
County owns in this area is the golf course and he doesn't see that happening. A
regional park, city hall and golf course cannot all reside on the same piece of
property. A regional park is at least 80 acres.
C/O'Connor asked if counties ever work together to form a regional park.
S/Knabe said that it is a possibility for the counties to work together. You can
always build a park. What needs to be considered is the long- term operations of
the facility. Somehow in government, monies are found to build things, but monies
are not available for long-term operations. From his perspective, he is willing to
look at anything. He said he has been candid about the golf course. He believed
there were possibilities with the City of Industry and/or another county.
M/Herrera explained that the City is hopeful that it can arrange to swap church
property for school district property.
S/Knabe suggested that a portion of the Boy Scout property could be considered
for a regional park.
M/Herrera said there is an appraisal amount and there is an amount that the Boy
Scouts might accept. Their primary interest is in building their camp and getting the
permits to do so, getting their access roads, settling who will maintain the roads, the
location of the main access road and the secondary access road, etc.
S/Knabe pointed out that this location is the Boy Scout's single largest asset. This
camp has been in the area for many years and there are emotional issues
surrounding the area. There are some very powerful people involved as directors
of the Boy Scouts. It is a phenomenal facility. He said that Council should keep in
mind that the Boy Scouts are considering all options, which could include
consideration of a park.
M/Herrera thanked S/Knabe for his participation
RECESS: M/Herrera recessed the meeting to Closed Session at 10:15
a.m. for discussion of:
3.1 Conference with Real Property Negotiator Pursuant to California
Government Code Section 54956.8. Property: 21700 Gateway Center Dr.
(Lot 2, Tract No. 39679); Negotiating Parties: City of Diamond Bar and
A.E.W./Tooley & Company.
JULY 30, 1998
PAGE 9 COUNCIUSUPV. KNABE
3.2 Conference with Legal Counsel Regarding Anticipated Litigation Pursuant
to California Government Code Section 59456.9(b).
RECONVENE: M/Herrera reconvened the Council meeting at 11:10 a.m.
3
CA/Jenkins announced that no reportable actions were taken by Council during
Closed Session.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further items for discussion, M/Herrera
adjourned the meeting at 11:10 a.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
LYNDA BURGESS
City Clerk
2
(C7 i t i G_
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING Ap,
AUGUST 4, 1998
CITY COUNCIL CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the study session to
order at 5:10 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District, Rooms CC -3
& 5, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Huff, O'Connor, and
Mayor Pro Tem Chang and Mayor Herrera. Council Member Ansari was absent.
Also present were: 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
& Marketing Director; Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant; Anne Haraksin,
Administrative Assistant; Laurie Kajiwara, Marketing Coordinator; Steve Tamaya,
Marketing Coordinator and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
COMMUNICATIONS AND MARKETING:
CMD/Nelson introduced Laurie Kajiwara and Steve Tamaya who have joined the
staff as Marketing Coordinators. He then presented an overview of current and
ongoing communications and marketing projects and programs:
Communications - Public Information - Public Education
Ongoing projects/programs
• Media advisories and story placement; media relations
• Community Newsletter and Recreation Guide (quarterly)
• Administration of City's website
• Community Calendar (quarterly)
• Public requests for information
• Coordination of public information activities for community events
• Community information bulletin boards
• Interdepartmental communications support
Planned projects/programs:
• Procurement, planning and implementation of an Automated Citizens
Information System.
• Website Enhancement
• Development of Communications and Market Strategic Plan and
Standard Operating Procedures
• Development of monthly internal employee communication media
• Development of speciality publication piece
• Development of 10th Anniversary promotional piece
• Ongoing development and enhancement of City information pieces
AUGUST 4, 1998
PAGE 2 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MARKETING AND BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT
Ongoing projects/programs
• Coordination and implementation of Business Visitation Program
(M/Herrera responded to C/O'Connor that the Economic Development
Committee conducts business visitations)
• Continued response to business-related requests for information
• Development of marketing materials and advertising content
• Continued research of business and economic trends, financing
mechanisms and business assistance resources for local business
community
• Continued development of commercial/retail tenant database
• Continued development and promotion of City's Business
Marketplace Program
• Continued participation, preparation and involvement in economic
development trade shows, expositions and events
• Continued marketing support for economic development/ redevelop-
ment projects and programs, as required
Planned projects/programs
• Coordination and assistance in development of the City's Economic
Development Strategic Plan
• Development of Economic Development contact database
• Development of "Business Brief' hot sheet
• Development and implementation of business registration program
• Development of quarterly business seminar program for local
business community
• Development of commercial brokers information tour and incentive
program
• Enhanced marketing effort for local Business Marketplace Program
Information Technology
Ongoing projects/programs
• Continued maintenance of local area network, computer hardware
and software
• Continued support for off-site systems, as needed
• Continued assistance and end-user support (Council and staff)
• Continued maintenance and monitoring of City -on -Line BBS
Planned projects/programs
Development, coordination, and implementation of citywide
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 3 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
management information system upgrade
Coordination and hardware/software surplus effort for outdated
equipment
Development and coordination of in-house software training ("just the
basics") program for Council/staff; coordination of supplemental
software training ("advanced") with outside consultants, as needed
Development of long-range MIS plan for incorporation into
Communications and Marketing Strategic Plan and Standard
Operating Procedures
M/Herrera said that communication is very important to the success of the city's
programs. Council Members often encounter citizens who express concern that
they are not aware of what is occurring in the City. She suggested that additional
consideration be given to providing residents with more timely information.
C/Huff expressed concern about the quality of the programs and projects the City
is attempting. He believed that the Newsletter is geared toward recreational
activities and because a fair number of residents are not concerned with these
activities, it is disregarded. He felt the Newsletter is too expensive for the amount
of information it provides. He suggested a survey be conducted to determine
whether the Newsletter is effective. He would like to see a monthly community
Newsletter that could be sent on an as -needed basis so that the City does not
waste its resources. Comments in the Windmill and other publications is a good
idea and probably less expensive than a city -produced Newsletter with some kind
of Council briefs or actions so that people know what things are going on. He
recommended that CMD/Nelson's department produce certificates and plaques and
asked for a City -on -Line meeting to discuss the bulletin board system. He would
like Communications & Marketing Division to assist Council with its letters. He
suggested the Council Members coordinate their efforts in producing Newsletters.
He would like a plethora of positive messages conveyed to the public.
MPT/Chang felt that communication should be improved for the residents and
recommended that one page, two-sided or two page, four-sided Newsletters be sent
to residents on a bi-monthly basis that would include messages from the Mayor and
Council Members, City events, new Ordinances, State Bills and proposals and other
items of concern. The website is very well done and needs to be enhanced to
include all City events, etc. Local publications should be utilized to the fullest
extent - the Windmill, yew, etc. and communication efforts should be coordinated
with the Chamber of Commerce.
In response to C/O'Connor, CMD/Nelson stated that the City averages one website
hit every two minutes.
C/O'Connor believed the two areas of concern are 1) marketing the City and 2)
communicating with the citizens. She liked the idea of trying to develop something
for the citizens. It is difficult to determine the answer to getting information to the
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 4 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
public. She is very concerned about the marketing of the businesses and filling the
shopping centers. She asked what the new staff members will be assigned to
accomplish.
CMD/Nelson indicated that new staff members will be assigned on a project -by -
project basis depending on their abilities.
C/O'Connor said she would like for the City to maintain ongoing communication with
our Sacramento lobbyist regarding pending legislation. She would like to see D.B.
featured more frequently in a positive manner in The Tribune and Daily Bulletin.
C/Huff has noticed that ads are continued on Century Cable beyond their effective
date. Similarly, outdated information is posted on the City's Bulletin Board. One
of the reasons the Bulletin Board is no longer effective is because it has not been
reliable. He would like to see all communication efforts be more timely and
accurate with respect to what will occur rather than what has occurred.
CM/Belanger stated that one of the reasons for enhancing the Communications &
Marketing Division was to create capacity for some of the things that have not
previously been accomplished because of time constraints. Staff now has the
capacity to accomplish some of the things Council has mentioned and new staff
members have the skills to produce the information in a timely manner.
M/Herrera summarized that the Council's primary concern is getting information to
the residents. One method she likes is the bulletin boards located at the grocery
markets. She also would like to see a one-page Council brief talking about what
is newLhighlighting what action was taken at each Council meeting included in the
' community bulletin boards)She believed that as people become more aware of the
bulletin boards, they will gravitate to that media to find out what is happening in
their City. Further, she would like the City to use cable more for communicating
with the public with emphasis on using graphics. She indicated she would like to
have the Communications & Marketing Division regularly advise Council about
pending legislation, have staffs assistance with writing letters to legislators, and
have staffs assistance in writing the "Mayor's Corner" article.
C/Huff said it would be helpful to have staff members sit in on meetings and take
notes when Council Members are not available.
M/Herrera stated that other organizations have representatives who attend
community events and meetings and she felt it would be good for the City to have
more representation at these functions.
C/O'Connor suggested that the City's representative be available to attend sports
organizations' functions opening and closing ceremonies and special functions.
CM/Belanger explained that Council recommendations will be incorporated into the
AUGUST 4, 1998
PAGE 5 COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
Communications & Marketing Division's FY 98-99 Overview and Objectives
document and used as the outline for the department's work program. He
cautioned Council that this is a new activity and approach for the City and there
may be times when things are not going as quickly as Council believes they should.
M/Herrera stated that it is important that staff be successful and rely on the support
of Council.
CM/Belanger stressed that the future of government hinges on its ability to provide
information to the community through a variety of media which necessitates the
application of resources to insure a return to the City. D.B. is in competition with
other community governments throughout the State for investment. "The only way
you can let the public know who you are, what you are and what is available to them
is to communicate with them. D.B. has some very talented people who we believe
will help us in communicating internally and with investors that the City wishes to
attract."
CA/Jenkins asked Council to add an item to its Closed Session Agenda as a result
of a letter received today (after the Closed Session Agenda was posted) from a law
firm representing NexTel indicating threat of litigation involving the City's Antenna
Moratorium. There is a need to take action on this matter by August 5, 1998. This
matter requires a motion and 4/5 vote of Council.
C/Huff moved, C/O'Connor seconded, to add the matter of threatened litigation to
the Closed Session Agenda. 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
RECESS: Mayor Herrera recessed the Study Session at 6:14 p.m. to open
Closed Session.
RECONVENE: Mayor Herrera reconvened the Study Session at 6:45 p.m.
4. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to discuss, Mayor Herrera
adjourned the Study Session at 6:45 p.m.
ATTEST:
Mayor
TOMMYE CRIBBINS, Deputy City Clerk
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
NOTICE OF PUBLIC MEETING
AND AFFIDAVIT OF POSTING
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES ) SS.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR )
The Diamond Bar City Council will hold a Special
Meeting/Workshop beginning at 4:00 p.m., in Room CC -8, located at
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California on August 18,
1998.
I, LYNDA BURGESS declare as follows:
I am the City Clerk in the City of Diamond Bar; that a copy
of the agenda for the Special Meeting/Workshop of the Diamond Bar
City Council, to be held on August 18, 1998 was posted at their
proper locations.
I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
State of California that the foregoing is true and correct and
that this Notice and Affidavit was executed this 14th day of
August, 1998, at Diamond Bar, California.
/s/ Lynda Burgess
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
Carol Herrera
Mayor
Wen Chang
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Robert S. Huff
Council Member
Deborah H. O'Connor
Council Member
Recycled paper
August 13, 1998
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 860-2489 • Fax (909) 861-3117
Internet: h"P://www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us . City Online (BBS): (909) 860.5463
Reverend Dennis Stuve
Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church
23300 Golden Springs Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Reverend Stuve:
This is to confirm your participation to provide the invocation at the
Diamond Bar City Council Meeting on Tuesday, August 18, 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.
Thank you for taking time out of your busy schedule to share with us.
Sincerely,
v
Lynda Burgess, CMC/AAE
City Clerk
LB/ms
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TO: Fellow Council Members
FROM: Mayor Carol Herrera C,k
SUBJECT: Recognition of Community Members
DATE: August 7, 1998
It has been suggested to recognize those individuals for their community -mindedness and
involvement in maintaining quality -of -life in Diamond Bar. It would be those members
of the community that "take care of business" in a quiet manner and are not necessarily
acknowledged at any other time. I know you have some neighbors that have "turned a
good deed", such as those walking their dog and keeping our sidewalks/areas clean in
the process, the picking up of trash in the public right-of-ways, parks, etc., as well as any
other ventures our "unsung heros" perform.
Be sure to get the names of those individuals that you would like recognized to Nancy
for the August 18 agenda.
nbw
cc: City Manager
City Clerk
Carol Herrera
Mayor
Wen Chang
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Robert S. Huff
Council Member
Deborah H. O'Connor
Council Member
Recycled paper
August 10, 1998
City of Diamond Bar
21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 • Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 860-2489 • Fax (909) 861-3117
Internet: hlip://www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us - 06, Online (BBS): (909) 860.5463
Terrence Ketcham, Manager
Coco's
20955 Golden Springs
Diamond Bar, CA 91789
Dear Mr. Ketcham:
First, let me express appreciation for the contribution Coco's has made to the
City of Diamond Bar and its local economy. All too often we only hear the
negatives, but it is a pleasure to acknowledge your establishment as a positive,
productive business servicing the community.
Further, the Diamond Bar City Council would like to formally recognize Coco's
at the City Council meeting Tuesday, August 18, 1998. The meeting will be held
at 6:30 p.m., at the Air Quality Management District (AQMD) auditorium, 21865 E.
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. Please contact my secretary, Nancy Whitehouse,
909/396-5666, to confirm your availability.
I look forward to seeing you on August 18!
Sincerely,
�V4 4 We,
Carol Herrera
Mayor
CH:nw
cc: City Council
City Clerk
Carol Herrera
Mayor
Wen Chang
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Robert S. Huff
Council Member
Deborah H. O'Connor
Council Member
Receded pape.
August 13, 1998
City of Diamond Bar
21660E. Copley Drive, Suite 100 -Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4177
(909) 860-2489 - Fax (909) 861-3117
Internet: http://www.ci.diamond-bar.ca.us • City Online MS8 . (909) 860.5463
Don Norton, Human Resources Director
Specialty Equipment Market Association (SEMA)
1575 S. Valley Vista
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Dear Mr. Norton:
First, let me express appreciation for the contribution Specialty Equipment Market
Association has made to the City of Diamond Bar and its local economy. All too
often we only hear the negatives, but it is a pleasure to acknowledge your
establishment as a positive, productive business servicing the community.
Further, the Diamond Bar City Council would. like to formally recognize Specialty
Equipment Market Association at the City Council meeting Tuesday, August 18,
1998. The meeting will be held at 6:30 p.m., at the Air Quality Management
District (AQMD) auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar. Please contact
my secretary, Nancy Whitehouse, 909/396-5666, to confirm your availability.
I look forward to seeing you on August 18!
Sincerely,
�4JOAAJI_tl
Carol Herrera
Mayor
CH:nw
cc: City Council
--"City Clerk
U. �_ 1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
HEARING BOARD ROOM OF S.C.A.Q.M.D.
21865 Copley Drive
APRIL 23, 1998
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Finnerty called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Pruitt.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Finnerty, Vice Chairman Nolan, and Commissioners, Anis,
Holder, and Pruitt
Staff: Community Services Director Bob Rose, and Community Services
Supervisor Wendy Bowman
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
Thorn Pruitt, President of Diamond Bar Pop Warner Football and Cheerleading Association,
thanked the Parks and Recreation Commissioners and City staff for their assistance with the
April 6, 1998 Celebrity Golf Tournament fundraiser at the Via Verde Country Club, 1400
Avenida Entrada, San Dimas. The organization raised in excess of $6,000 for the youth of
Diamond Bar.
Vince Polimeni, AYSO Region 31 Regional Commissioner and Diamond Bar resident, spoke
about his concerns for consistent practice and play fields and that the City of Diamond Bar
has not acted on his January, 1998 proposal to co-sponsor lights at Pantera Park. He stated
that if the City is not interested in the $100,000 contribution, the organization will have to
reallocate the funds.
CSD/Rose responded that although the response letter from the City was not specific, the
1998/1999 Fiscal Year Capital Improvement Plan proposal to the City Council includes a
proposal for lighting of both fields at Pantera Park at an estimated cost of about $300,000.
Further construction cannot take place while the park is under construction by the current
contractor. The park will not be accepted until sometime in July. At this point, it has not
APRIL 28, 1998 Page 2 Parks & Recreation Commission
been determined how the $100,000 offer would best benefit the Community. AYSO is the
largest youth sports organization in the community and they will have shared use of the
Pantera Park facility.
Mr. Polimeni responded to VC/Nolan that the organization would like to have a decision
regarding the offer prior to August 1, 1998 and preferably within 30 days from this date if the
donation is refused.
Jesse Perez, 1227 Devon Road, voiced his concern about the lack of sports facilities in the
City. He supports Mr. Polimeni with respect to lighting Pantera Park. He offered to provide
temporary lighting for AYSO and other groups.
CSD/Rose explained that the City will respond to a written request to use temporary lighting.
George Martindale, 521 Navajo Springs Road, said he is involved with Little League and
AYSO. The organizations have lost participation due to the lack of lighting. It is difficult for
children to begin practice at 4:00 p.m. because many parents work. He believes the City
needs lighted fields.
In response to CH/Finnerty, Thom Pruitt briefly explained the facility usage and requirements
for the Diamond Bar Pop Warner organization.
VC/Nolan spoke about his disappointment regarding lack of use of facilities. He asked the
organizations to work with the school districts to secure cooperation.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.1 Approval of Minutes of March 26, 1998 Regular Meeting.
1.2 Transmittal of Response Letter to AYSO dated April 8, 1998.
1.3 Transmittal of Letter from C.A.P.R.C.B.M. dated March 27, 1998.
1.4 Transmittal of Information regarding the California State Games, San Diego,
July 10 through 19, 1998.
C/Anis asked that the spelling of her name be corrected in the first line of Paragraph 2 under
1.2 Election of Vice Chairman on Page 2 of the March 26, 1998 minutes (Consent Calendar
Item 1.1). C -/Pruitt moved, C/Anis seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar with Item 1.1
corrected. The motion was approved 5-0.
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
APRIL 28, 1998 Page 3 Parks & Recreation Commission
2. Recreation Update
CSS/Bowman presented the recreation update.
3. CIP Project Update -Oral Report
a. Pantera Park
CSD/Rose presented staff's report. He stated that the project is slated to
be completed by July 22, 1998 with a Grand Opening date of July 25,
1998.
b. Ronald Reagan/Heritage Park ADA Retrofit
CSD/Rose reported that David Evans Associates has provided a packet
that includes all of the required improvements to meet the ADA law.
Heritage Park will require about $117,000 of improvements and Ronald
Reagan Park will require about $104,000 of improvements. Staff has
presented an extensive list of items to the design team to be considered
as improvements for both parks. Those items have not been included
in the proposal. Currently, both projects are within the CDBG budget
funds. Some of the contemplated improvements are not eligible for
CDBG. Therefore, other funding mechanisms will be sought.
4. 9th Anniversary Celebration Oral Report
CSD/Rose reported that the event's evaluation meeting is scheduled for 9:00
a.m. on Thursday, April 30, 1998 at City Hall. The Commissioner's concurred
that the 9th Anniversary Celebration was phenomenally successful.
CSS/Bowman thanked Commissioner's Holder and Pruitt for their assistance.
C/Pruitt thanked staff for their efforts toward making the event so successful and
flawless. She reported that she and several attendees felt this year's event was
far superior to prior events.
VC/Nolan said that he heard only positive comments. The game section was
awesome. He especially thanked C/Holder for the games section and stated
that the participants enjoyed a high level of enthusiasm to the extent that they
were encouraging others to participate.
APRIL 28, 1998
Page 4 Parks & Recreation Commission
CSD/Rose stated that staff will survey the organizations that participated to
determine their level of satisfaction and to determine what amount of funds
were realized.
C/Holder stated that the profit for the two games booths operated by Castle
Rock Elementary was $354.45.
VC/Nolan stated that the ice cream both made $400.
CSS/Bowman offered to assist with contacting the organizations. She said the
raffle raised $333 and the train raised $273.50 toward the volunteen program.
C/Pruitt suggested that if the pony ride event returns next year, the City ought
to provide specific guidelines with respect to setup and takedown. She said
that the Velcro wall needs more Velcro.
CSD/Rose stated that there is a feeling among staff members that the event
should not be lengthened to three days. The Commission agreed that the
celebration should remain a one day event and that it should not be
commercialized.
CJPruitt said she believes personal contact helped get vendors to participate in
the event.
Chair/Finnerty commented that the setup and placement of the stage allowed
maximum exposure for vendors, craftsmen and game participants. The stage
and its placement was excellent and the entertainment was excellent.
C/Pruitt stated that anyone who wishes copies of pictures of the celebration can
order them through "The Workstation". The pictures can be viewed on the
computer screen and ordered by number. C/Pruitt commented that she heard
the 5K-1 OK Walk/Run was successful. She suggested that all participants should
have a ribbon as a memento of their participation.
VC/Nolan said he believes that if one of the youth organizations participated
or co-sponsored the Walk/Run that it would be even more successful.
CSD/Rose expressed his desire to include professional entertainment for future
events.
APRIL 28, 1998 Page 5 Parks & Recreation Commission
C/Holder suggested including a chili-cookoff.
Commissioner's Anis and Pruitt volunteered to serve on the 10th Anniversary
Celebration subcommittee.
VC/Nolan volunteered to assist with the 5K -10K Walk/Run.
CSD/Rose reported that the 5K -10K Walk/Run realized a negative return of
about $1,200. Most of the cost was for shirts, many of which are available for
sale at $10 each. He asked Commissioner's to help spread the word that shirts
are available for sale. The event director is seeking assistance for the 10th
Anniversary Celebration.
C/Pruitt suggested staff contact The View and request an article about the 5K -
10K Walk/Run which would include the information that shirts are available
for sale and who to contact. She recommended that the event director seek
sponsorship from local businesses to defer some of the costs.
VC/Nolan said he believes such an event requires a committee of volunteers
to go into the community and seek support.
OLD BUSINESS
5. Commission's Goals
CSD/Rose presented staff's report.
The Commission concurred to merge Item No. 5 with Item No. 1 and include
a Mission Statement, a purpose statement and a benefit statement, and merge
Item No. 6. with Item No. 3 with the emphasis that outreach is not supposed
to be political in nature. The Commission further concurred to continue this
matter to the next Parks and Recreation Commission meeting.
6. Facility Use Policies
CSD/Rose reported that the facility use policies were adopted by the City
Council in March, 1994. With the opening of Pantera Park slated for July 25,
there will be new park facilities available for public use that are not included
in the current policy manual. Facilities use fees should be reviewed. He
explained that his 1998/1999 Fiscal Year recommended budget includes funds
APRIL 28, 1998 Page 6 Parks & Recreation Commission
to hire a weekend staff person to monitor the City's parks for use reservation
compliance. The staff person would maintain the areas reserved for use and
offer assistance to persons with reservations.
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission review the current
Facilities Use Policies, determine whether use fees should be charged and
recommend changes including revised and new fees as appropriate.
NEW BUSINESS:
7. Pantera Park Grand Opening Celebration
CSD/Rose reported that Pantera Park is schedule to open in July with the Grand
Opening celebration slated for July 25, 1998 to commemorate the facility's
opening.
Staff recommends that the Parks and Recreation Commission appoint two
Commissioners to the Pantera Park Grand Opening Celebration subcommittee
to assist in the planning and operation of this event.
Chair/Finnerty appointed herself and CJAnis to the subcommittee. C/Pruitt and
VC/Nolan offered their assistance.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
C/Anis said she has tickets available for the Friends of the Library Wine Tasting Soiree on
Sunday, April 26, 1998.
VC/Nolan stated he attended the New Commissioner's Workshop which he thought was
worthwhile. He commented that one of the gold donors for the Cerritos Performing Arts
Center is Southern California Edison and the City of Diamond Bar may wish to consider
contacting them for assistance with the city's lighting program.
C/Pruitt recommended placement of receptacles for feminine hygiene items in the women's
restrooms of the city's parks. She stated that a resident has called the City of Diamond Bar
several times regarding a wall in Upper Sycamore Canyon Park that is covered with graffiti
and needs painting. The YMCA is hosting a flag football benefit on May 10, 1998 for 7 to 14
year olds. She invited everyone to attend the Little League Chili Cookoff at 7:00 p.m. on May
1, 1998 at Kick's.
APRIL 28, 1998 Page 7 Parks & Recreation Commission
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Pruitt moved, C/Anis seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no other business to
come before the Commission, Chair/Finnerty adjourned the meeting at 11:05 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
/s/ Bob Rose
Bob Rose
Secretary
Attest:
/s/ Annette Finnerty
Annette Finnerty
Chairman
U . G, t_
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
HEARING BOARD ROOM OF S.C.A.Q.M.D.
21865 Copley Drive
MAY 28, 1998
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Finnerty called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Commissioner Anis.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Finnerty, Vice Chairman Nolan, and Commissioners, Anis
and Pruitt.
Absent: Commissioner Holder was excused from the meeting.
Staff: Community Services Director Bob Rose, and Community Services
Supervisor Wendy Bowman
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE:
Thom Pruitt thanked the Commission and staff for getting the schedule for intended use of the
park facilities out in advance so that the groups can record their interests. He announced that
the annual Pop Warner Carnival will be held Thursday, lune 4 through Sunday, lune 7, 1998.
CSD/Rose responded to Chair/Finnerty that 40 four year olds will be graduating to
kindergarten. Four busloads are scheduled to participate in the Getty Museum Excursion.
One busload will go on lune 10 and other busloads will attend in July.
Chair/Finnerty appointed VC/Nolan to serve on the User Group Subcommittee.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.1 Approval of Minutes of April 23, 1998 Regular Meeting.
VC/Nolan moved, C/Anis seconded, to approve the Minutes of April 23, 1998
as corrected. The motion was approved 4-0 with C/Holder being absent.
MAY 28, 1998 PAGE 2 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
2. Recreation Update
CSS/Bowman presented the recreation update. She stated that the Sunday
men's softball league currently has seven teams and the coed league has seven
teams scheduled to participate. She said that the)une report will be a summary
of the 1997/1998 contract year with a comparison between the summer and
fall of 1997 and the winter and spring of 1998. She confirmed that in
accordance with Chair/Finnerty's request, the press release for the California
State Games was mailed out.
CSS/Bowman stated that there has been increased cooperation from the school
districts with respect to use of facilities.
3. Pantera Park - Update
CSD/Rose presented staff's report. He stated that the project is slated to be
completed by July 22, 1998 with a tentative Grand Opening date of July 25,
1998. He explained that staff is concerned about the turf.
OLD BUSINESS
Responding to Chair/Finnerty, CSD/Rose stated that staff held its 9th Anniversary Celebration
evaluation meeting. He does not yet have information available from all of the participating
sponsors to report on the financial outcome. He indicated there were concerns voiced
regarding the banners, parking and the fact that there was a charge for the games this year
whereas last year there was no charge for the games. He said the point of charging was to
create a fundraiser for the participating organizations. The city did not expect organizations
to donate their time.
C/Pruitt said that after June 11, 1998, thank you mailers will be sent to the participating
groups. The mailer will include an evaluation form for the 9th Anniversary Celebration and
applications for the 10th Anniversary Celebration.
VC/Nolan asked if there is consideration for changing the length of the event. He said he and
others feel that the event should be kept to one day.
CSD/Rose responded that he believes that the community is best served by a one day event
MAY 28, 1998 PAGE 3 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
rather than a three day event. Currently, the budget for the 10th Anniversary Celebration is
$20,000.
Chair/Finnerty suggested that the subcommittee solicit Fred Meyer to cover the cost of the
banners. She also recommended that the event not be used as a political forum.
VC/Nolan stated he believes there are opportunities for corporate sponsorship if they are
contacted early in the process.
4. Commission's Goals
CSD/Rose presented staff's report.
CSD/Rose responded to Chair/Finnerty that the budget will be considered by
City Council on June 16, 1998. The figures proposed for the recreation
program are based upon Brea's program for Diamond Bar. He explained the
criteria under which an in-house program is being considered.
Responding to VC/Nolan, CSD/Rose stated that the proposed costs involved in
running a recreational program are about the same with Brea, Chino Hills and
Diamond Bar. Other considerations involved with an in-house are the hiring
of additional staff as well as, placing additional responsibilities on the current
staff.
CSS/Bowman explained that her staff will move into City Hall the weekend of
June 26. She stated that her department will have a significant impact on the
Copley location.
Chair/Finnerty stated that although there may be additional synergy by bringing
the program in-house, she believes that the current Brea program offers a
significant amount of synergy.
CSD/Rose stated he believes the department could be significantly enhanced
and that other opportunities could be pursued through an in-house program.
With the elimination of the motor vehicle license fees, Diamond Bar stands to
lose about 25 percent of its annual operating budget which needs to be taken
into consideration.
Chair/Finnerty said she believes that an evaluation of an in-house program is
beyond the scope of the responsibility of the Parks and Recreation
MAY 28, 1998 PAGE 4 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
Commission.
CSD/Rose suggested that #2 be reworded to "Pursue an in-house recreation
program".
Chair/Finnerty said she believes an in-house program would be wonderful and
beneficial to the city. Bringing the program in-house should be a means to a
goal and not a goal in itself. The city's goal should be to continue to provide
the type of recreational opportunities and facilities that the community wants
provided to them.
C/Anis concurred with Chair/Finnerty. She believes Diamond Bar needs to
grow as a city and that the city could move toward an in-house program once
a community center facility is in place.
C/Pruitt said she agrees that it is difficult to determine whether an in-house
program is feasible without being able to compare bottom line figures. She
stated she doesn't know how the city can grow much more beyond its current
needs for a recreational program and she believes an in-house program may be
feasible. She said she believes that staff morale would improve with an in-
house program.
VC/Nolan concurred with Chair/Finnerty. He said he is concerned about the
loss of in -lieu fees. He believes that a 501-C-3 non-profit foundation needs to
be established with a community center facility in place in order to properly
administer an in-house recreation program.
Chair/Finnerty recommended that each Commissioner maintain
communication with specific community organizations.
CSD/Rose stated the Commission has recommended as a policy statement that
as a part of the Parks Master Plan a 501-C-3 non-profit foundation be
established.
Chair/Finnerty recommended that Items #1 and #5 be combined into one
statement to indicate that a 501-C-3 non-profit foundation be established to
assist with the implementation of the Parks Master Plan.
Following discussion, the Commission concurred to agendize discussion of a
501-C-3 non-profit foundation for its June meeting.
MAY 28, 1998 PAGE 5 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
CSS/Bowman reminded the Commission that their Mission Statement is
important to the success of the foundation.
The Commission concurred to remove Goal #2.
Chair/Finnerty asked staff to provide a list of groups and organizations for the
outreach project in connection with Goal #3.
C/Pruitt recommended that the Commission develop guidelines and objectives
for the outreach program.
Chair/Finnerty asked that C/Pruitt's suggestion be placed on the June agenda.
NEW BUSINESS - None
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
C/Pruitt asked that the June agenda include discussion of a recommendation to City Council
with respect to the issue of Spanner Banners. She stated that in May she attended the
Evergreen Elementary School tree planting ceremony at Heritage Park. She stated that any
youth group that is interested in participating in a fundraising event can participate in the Pop
Warner Carnival. The basic cost for a booth for the weekend is $75. She reported that the
10th Anniversary Celebration subcommittee met and is formulating plans for the event. She
reminded VC/Nolan that he is in charge of the 5K/10K Walk/Run.
VC/Nolan reported his involvement with the AYSO Soccer Tournament held at Mt. SAC.
Approximately 100 teams of 15 youths per team participated. AYSO sign up began this
evening at Heritage Community Center. The goal is to increase membership by at least five
percent to about 1500 participants. He commented that as a result of visiting a senior citizens
residence complex he learned that the residents are very pleased with activities and support
provided by the city. He stated he will play in the first annual Diamond Ranch High School
Golf Tournament on Monday. He reported that he has spoken with a member of the Pomona
Unified School District about the city's use of facilities. He suggested that a self-defense class
could be offered to students through the recreation program.
CSD/Rose responded to VC/Nolan that the city has determined that at this time it is not
necessary to hire additional personnel to work with the school districts. Communication
between the City Council and the school districts has improved dramatically.
CSS/Bowman said she is pleased with the cooperation between the school districts and her
MAY 28, 1998 PAGE 6 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
staff and programs.
VC/Nolan thanked CSD/Rose for his presentation to the AYSO Board. He indicated that the
organization would be making a revised proposal to the city.
C/Anis reported that the Friends of the Library Soiree was successful and netted approximately
$17,000 for library improvements. She said he son is involved with the recreational
program's bowling league. She pointed out how much the kids and parents like and
appreciate Joy Yip. She stated that when she conducted her park visit, she suggested that
youth groups might be willing to plant flowers around the park entrance signs.
C/Pruitt reported that the Evergreen Elementary ENC field trip was a great event. She
recommended that the city plan an excursion to the location.
Chair/Finnerty stated that the city's landscape contractor volunteered to plant ground cover
at Paul C. Grow Park on the erosion damaged south slope at the park's entrance at no
additional charge if the city would provide the plants. She recommended honeysuckle.
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Anis moved, C/Pruitt seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no other business to
come before the Commission, Chair/Finnerty adjourned the meeting at 9:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
b ose
Secretary
Attest:
/s/ Annette Finnerty
Annette Finnerty
Chairman
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
HEARING BOARD ROOM OF S.C.A.Q.M.D.
21865 Copley Drive
JUNE 25, 1998
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Finnerty called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by Chairman Finnerty.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Finnerty, and Commissioners Anis, Holder and Pruitt.
Absent: Vice Chairman Nolan was excused from the meeting.
Staff: Community Services Director Bob Rose, and Community
Services Supervisor Wendy Bowman
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE - None
1. CONSENT CALENDAR:
1.1 Approval of Minutes of May 28, 1998 Regular Meeting.
Chair/Finnerty asked that the minutes be amended as follows: The last
sentence on Page 3 be changed to read: "Chair/Finnerty said she believes that
an evaluation of an in-house program is beyond the scope of the responsibility
of the Parks and Recreation Commission. She asked that the second paragraph
on Page 4 be changed as follows: Delete the second sentence and insert the
following in its place: "Bringing the program in-house should be a means to
a goal and not a goal in itself."
C/Pruitt moved, C/Anis seconded, to approve the minutes of May 28, 1998 as
amended. The motion carried 3-0-1 by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Anis, Pruitt, Chair/Finnerty
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
Holder
June 25, 1998
Page 2 Parks & Recreation Commission
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
VC/Nolan
INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
2, Recreation Update
CSS/Bowman presented the recreation update.
C
SS/Bowman responded to C/Pruitt that the maximum day am is 20 enrollment
is 50 and the maximum enrollment for the tiny tot program
Responding to C/Anis, CSS/Bowman stated that children may continue to sign
up for youth baseball until the league start on July 6. After July 6, the entry fee
is pro -rated.
CSS/Bowman stated the City is seeking sponsors fora nine hole "Night -Glow"
golf tournament for age 12 and up to be held at the Diamond Bar Golf Course
late in October. Per hole sponsorship is $50.
3• Pantera Park -Update
port. He stated that the project is slated to be
CSD/Rose presented staff's re1 ggg with Grand Opening ceremonies tentatively
completed by July 22, 25, 1998 at 10:00 a.m. He stated that the
proposed for Saturday, July concerned about the field use. As a
landscape architect for the park is very practices or
result, the AYSO user group volunteered to not schedule any p
games at Pantera Park for the fall season.
OLD BUSINESS:
4• Commission's Goals for Fiscal Year 1998/1999•
the
Discussion of 501-C-3 non-profit foundation communityImembers inn
in
Foundation members made p of
addition to a representative of the City Council and the
parks Tem seran ve on he
Commission; that whoever holds the office of May r
holds the
foundation and that whoever e Chairmanship �Chairmanship vice
the foundation so that the slots
the Parks and Recreation Commission serve on
continue with the position and not with individuals.
June 25, 1998
Page 3 Parks & Recreation Commission
C/Pruitt moved to present to the City Council the concept of putting together
a committee to coordinate the setting up of a 501-C-3 non-profit foundation
which will consist of one member of the City Council, one member of the
Parks and Recreation Commission and community members. C/Anis seconded
the motion.
Following discussion, C/Pruitt amended her motion as follows: That a
subcommittee of the Parks and Recreation Commission consisting of
Chair/Finnerty and C/Pruitt meet with CSD/Rose on July 7, 1998 at 2:00 p.m.
at City Hall to formulate a purpose and direction for establishing a 501-C-3
non-profit foundation for the sole purpose of funding the implementation of the
Parks Master Plan. Further, the Parks and Recreation Commission recommends
that if established, the 501-C-3 non-profit foundation shall consist of one
member of the City Council, one member of the Parks and Recreation
Commission as well as, community members recommended by the Parks and
Recreation Commissioners. The subcommittee will present its findings to the
Commission on July 23, 1998 in order for the Commission to request staff to
forward its recommendation to the City Council. C/Anis seconded the
amended motion. The motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Anis, Holder, Pruitt, Chair/Finnerty
None
VC/Nolan
C/Anis reminded the Commission that C/Pruitt had made a recommendation
that guidelines be provided for proposed Goal 2. - Outreach.
Following discussion, C/Holder moved, C/Anis seconded, to adopt the three
goals presented in staff's June 4, 1998 memorandum for Fiscal Year 1998/1999.
The motion carried 4-0 with VC/Nolan being absent.
NEW BUSINESS:
5. Spanner Banner.
CSD/Rose presented staff's report.
Following discussion, C/Holder moved, Chair/Finnerty seconded, to
recommend to the City Council that a minimum of four double -sided middle -
of -the -block full street width spanner banners be purchased to advertise City
June 25, 1998 Page 4 Parks & Recreation Commission
sponsored events only. The banners are recommended to be placed near the
intersections of Grand Avenue and Diamond Bar Boulevard (one on Grand
Avenue and one on Diamond Bar Boulevard), on Golden Springs Drive at
Brea Canyon Road, and Diamond Bar Boulevard near the Kmart center.
Motion carried 4-0 with VC/Nolan being absent.
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
C/Holder stated that she has received complaints about the condition of the flags that are on
display in the City.
CSD/Rose explained that the City has new replacement flags on hand. The flags are being
replaced as time permits.
C/Holder spoke about the success of the booths at the Castle Rock Flementary carnival. She
thanked the City for the use of the walkie-talkies. The 24 games grossed over $11,000 and
netted in excess of $6,000 for three and one-half hours, the food booth made $1,400 and the
raffle made $1,100.
C/Anis reported on her involvement with the Pantera Park Grand Opening and the 10th
Anniversary Celebration subcommittees. She asked if the City can sponsor a youth center in
the vicinity of the Country Hills Towne Center because there are a significant number of
teenagers who use the parking lot for skate boarding.
CSD/Rose recommended placing the matter of a teen center on a future agenda for
discussion.
C/Pruitt suggested that the City look into providing a Police Athletic League (PAL) sponsored
youth facility.
CSD/Rose recommended that staff ask Mark St. Amat to provide information regarding the
PAL programs at a future meeting.
Chair/Finnerty suggested that different service organizations such as the Rotary or Kiwanis
Clubs might sponsor a youth facility.
C/Pruitt said the June 18 through 20 Walnut Rotary hosted Football Camp and Celebrity Golf
Tournament was very well attended by professionals and interested youth. Pop Warner hosts
Flag Football on Sundays. She noted that many young people participated in and enjoyed
indoor soccer. She attended Little League closing ceremonies on June 20. On Saturday, July
June 25, 1998
Page 5 Parks & Recreation Commission
25, Pop Warner will hold its opening day ceremonies. Beginning at 10:00 a.m. at the
Diamond Bar High School on Sunday, July 26, Pop Warner children and the Diamond Bar
Rotary will co-sponsor a blood drive/pancake breakfast entitled "Kids Helping Kids" to benefit
the Stoddard family. She stated the third annual Pop Warner Carnival was a huge success.
She thanked all who participated.
Chair/Finnerty spoke about the June 17 User Group meeting. Sixteen groups were well
represented. She said that at some point the City may need to consider charging non-
residents for the use of Diamond Bar facilities.
ADJOURNMENT:
C/Pruitt moved, Chair/Finnerty seconded, to adjourn the meeting. There being no other
business to come before the Commission, Chair/Finnerty adjourned the meeting at 10:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Boh Rose
Bob Rose
Secretary
Attest:
/s Annette Finnerty
Annette Finnerty
Chairman
!1. E
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Mayor Herrera and Councilmember O'Connor
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson 'Assistant Finance Director
SUBJECT: Voucher Register, August 18, 1998
DATE: August 13, 1998
Attached is the Voucher Register dated August 18, 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.
J
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL
The
attached listing o+ vouchers
dated 081898 have been
reviewed, approved, and recommended
for payment.
Payments are
hereby allowed from the following
funds in these
amounts
FUND DESCRIPTION
PREPAID
VOUCHERS
TOTAL
001
GENERAL FUND
87,489'94
186,419.45
273,909.39
010
LIBRARY SERVICES
.00
246.59
246.59
112
PROP A - TRANS I[ FUND
'00
13,405.29
13,405.29
115
INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FUND
.0O
6.39
6.39
118
AIR QLTY IMPR FD (AB2766)
.00
346.02
346.02
125
COM DEV FUND
.00
255.39
255.39
126
CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SFTY
.00
103.96
103.96
138
LLAD 438 FUND
.00
16,873.17
16,873.17
139
LLAD #39 FUND
.00
7,381.20
7,381.20
141
LLAD #41 FUND
.00
128.00
128.00
250
CAPITAL IMPROV/PROJ FUND
.00
218,460.67
218,460.67
REPORT FOR ALL FUNDS
16.0/
443,626.13
87,489.94
APPROVED BY:
Carol Herrera
Assistant Finance Director Mayor
L. 2elanger �eborah H' O'Connor
RUN DATE:08/13/19''r 17:05:11 VOUCHER REGISTER
_ PAGE' i
DUE THRU: 08/18/1998
FUND !SECT -A:CT-P'RO_ECT-=;CC"
A-1 EQUIPMENT REN -A-5
0015313 -42130 --
ACCURATE LANDSCAPE
0015311-42'210--
0015`'22-4210--
001531'-42210--
0015319-42210--
�
1JJJi95152 : - 422
r5539-4210--
0015 20--42210
0015316 -42210 --
0015:331 -42210 --
139553'7 -42210 --
1385538 -42210 --
1395539 -42210-
0015310 -41200 --
0015350 -45305 --
ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT
250551A-46411-12498-46411
Pu 4
INVOICE
DESCRIPTION
7 :50A
11-333 32-07
EQUIP RENT-PANTERA PARK; D
PREPAIDS
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL
TOTAL VOUCHERS
2,090.31
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
DUE VENDOR
235-DPEN
ADD'L MAINT-PGROW-JUNE
62=5 -OPEN
ADD'L MAINT-RN REAGAN-JNE
0014440-42315-- 7585
1;2=°5 -OPEN
ADD'L MAINT-SYC CYN -JUNE
2,724.40
623 -OPEN
ADD'L MAINT-PETERSN-JUNE
62&.
001.1165:ADD'L
MAINT-CLAD 39 -JUNE
6206.
710199
ADD'L MAW-LLAD 39 -JUNE
6225-OFEN
ADD'L MAINT-SUMTRDGE-JUNE
2,724.40
62835-9PEN
ADD'L MAINT-MPL HILL -JUNE
6285 -OPEN
ADD'L MAINT-SYC CYN -JUNE
6286:
710190
ADD'L MAINT-LLAD 39 -JUNE
7156
MEDIAN LANDSCAPE SVCS
628x_,
007167
ADD'L MAINT-LLAD 39 -JUNE
6135
7185
PAPER SUPPLIES -PARKS
7422
DUE VENDOR
STAGE SET UP -CON IN PRF.
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
PREPAID
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
547.65
.00
547.65
547.6`
194.80
269.05
65.70
370.69
200.00
20.50
347.25
315.92
200.00
284.86
3,920.00
50.00
4'36.00
200.00
.00
6,874.77
6,874.77
??4'_ 6524 DBAR-REHAB CONSTRUCTION 141,148.80
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 141,148.80
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 141,148.80
ALL AMER CAN CRANE
001-2 00
32-- 471';'; SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND 50.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 50.Ch)
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 50.00
AMERICOMF IMAGING SYSTEMS
0014090-46230-- 7126"
17634HP-400
LASER PRINTER
2,090.31
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
2,090.31
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
2,090.31
AREA D - OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SRVCS
0014440-42315-- 7585
AREA D DUES FOR 1998-99
2,724.40
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
2,724.40
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
2,724.40
ARMENTROUT CONSULTANTS
0014440-44040-- 7771
EMERGNCY PREP SVCS-JULY98
1,380.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
1,380.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
1,380.00
4UCHER REGIS'+ER
PAGE: 2
DUE THRU: �19,11Q/199$
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PC #
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
PREPAID
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
AT&T
0014090-42125--
LONG DIST PHONE SVCS
7.32
TOTAL PREPAIDS
,00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
7.32
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
7.32
MICHELLE BAGWELL
001-34780--
26570 RECREATION REFUND
60.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
60.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
60.00
BECKLEY CARRY GROUP
0015350-41200--
0015350-41200--
7496
583.71967 TABLES -TINY TOTS PROGRAM
600.79
7496
5$352277 TABLES -TINY TOTS PROGRAM
856.07
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,456.86
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,456.86
LAVONNE BEMENT
001-347330--
47062 REFUND FOR SENIOR EXCURSI
25.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.GO
TOTAL VOUCHERS
25.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
25.00
BEST WESTERN ISLAND PALMS
0014030-4222,30--
MMASC CONF-/5-7-FP.TZL
439.80 08/18/1998 36938
TOTAL PREPAIDS
439.80
Iv H
0TAL
1VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
439.80
BNi BUILD TNO NEWS
0015511 :--
-4'x;2 _
;.� ,.
1'7 =
1 �"��� �9'9� GREEN BOGY: 5UPF'LIMNT
24,83
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
24.83
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
24.83
BONTERRA CONSULTING
471 PROF SRVCS-FEF 96-2
836.50
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
8;..6...,0
TOTAL DUE VENDOR.
86.50
IT
..QTY OF BREA
001535:;-41200--
cn-C.
,,pyo
-. -,:,
6421. REC SUPPLS-DAYCAMP/SOCCER
13,182.99
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TDTA VOUCHERS
13,182.99
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
13,18..99
BULK TRANS
n`?��f� `--
:
47102
- SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND
50.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50.00
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
KATHLEEN BURCIAGA
001 -23002 --
CABLING SYSTEM WAREHOUSE
0014095 -46130 --
CALMAT
2505510-46411-09998-46411
2505510-46411-10298-46411
CALVARY CHAPEL/POMONA VALLEY
00 1 -23002 --
CASTLE MONUMENT
2505,10-46415-06596-4.6415 ,10-46415-0659 c -46 .4 15
�•_ :
CERTIFIED TRANSF'ORTATIOPr
11'2536;0-4` 10 --
CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES INC
%015::10-4552--
0015510-45506--
0{ i 1-1301'2--
iO1-23012--
0015510-45502--
0015510-45227--
0015510-45502--
0015510-4527--
t 14)1.5_ .510- 45217--
0015551-45223--
0015510-45227--
0015510-45227--
PO # INVOICE
VOUCHER REGISTER
DUE THPU: 0"!18/1998
?ESCPIPTION
SH DEP'CEI" REFUND
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHEF..,
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
9417 CDM^TR' SUPPLS/CABLES
TOTAL PREPAIDS,
TOTAL VOJCHEPE
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
PAGE: 3
PREPAID
AMOUNT DATE CHECK:
50.00
.00
50.00
50.00
40.85
.00
40.89-
40. Sic
540,85
5958 #4FINAL
CIF'-BREA CYN RD 25,954.83
5950 #4FINAL
CIF' -PATHFINDER ROAD 25
TOTAL PREPAID
c 954.84
TOTAL VOUCHERS .00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 51,909,67
51,909.67
463- SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND
TOTAL PREPAIDS 50.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS '00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 50'00
50.00
61`` PANTER'A-
PA,.. R PLA:UE
TOTAL F'R'EF'AIDS
1,131.7
TOTAL VOUCHEFS
.00
CTAL DUE VENDOR
!,131.37
JULY -MARKING SIGNING
1,131.37
7 40 C1-270° 6 DAY CAME' EXCURSIONS
TOTAL PREPA,Dc 206.0:;
DOTAL VOUCHERS .00
TOTAL D2106.UE VENDOR 206.(0'
. 03
77';
7570
049-4;01 1
049-401
JULY -RIGHT OF WAY MAINT
1,537.00
151
JULY -MARKING SIGNING
4,986.25
FLAN CHECK SVCS -EN 96- 151
111.50
147
PROF SVCS RE:FPL 96-49
870.00
144
PLAN CHECK SVCS -EN 96-151
112.50
7571
049-401
PLAN CHECK5VCS-EN 96-151
JULY ROAD MAINT
215.00
6772
743'2
143
04909'?
RETAIN WALL INSPECTNS-JUN
15,215.50
112.50
ROAD MAINTENANCE -JUNE
7171
146
ENGR INSPECTN SVCS -JUNE
88
6+130.50
6567
6730
14'
STORM DRAIN INSPCTNS-JUNE
142. 2
2
6568
145
143
PLAN CHECK SVCS -JUNE
,103.312
5312
141
SEWER INSPECT SVCS-JUNE140.38
5,5:30.42
TOTk PREPAIDS
ENGR INSPECTN SVCS -JUNE
116.01
TOTAL VOUCHERS
00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
57,534.77
'37,534.77
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
WENDY CHIEM
001-23002--
CINTAS CORPORATION
0015310-42130--
0015310-42130--
COFFEESMITH COMPANY
0014090 -42130 --
COMMUNITY INDUSTRIES
0'?15558-45521--
COMP USA
001409 �^�
_ -461 _. _�--
CONTROLS CORP.
001-2300�_-
D&.J ENGINEERING
0015220-45201--
0015 "Y
' �u?-45201--
DAVID• EVANS AND ASSOCIATES
2505310-46415-11798-46415
2505::10-46415-11798-46415
VOUCHER REGISTER
DUE THRU: 48/18/1998
PAGE: 4
#
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
PREPAID
NT DATE CHECK
48020 SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND
5d'
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERE
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50'00
50.00
7539
150176:3 UNIFORMS -RENTAL 7/27 1.
050177217 UNIFORMS -RENTAL 7/lc;
9 47
TOTAL PREPAIDS
1`-'.4,7
TOTAL 'a'OUCHERS
00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
34
38.994
6034
8617 JUNE-EOUIF RENT
TOTAL PREPAIUS
18.45
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
195
188..95
5895
JUNE -LITTER ABATE SVCS
8., o9, 44
TOTAL PREF'AID5
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
839.44
839.44
7582173:;381=:
WINDOWS 910 UPGRADE
96.34
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
96.34
96.34
47156 SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND
50'00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50,00
50.00
7677
7677
98DB-OR BLDG & SFTY 91CS-7/1-17
24,391.87
9BUB-09 BLDG &. SFTY SVCS -7/18-8/.3
TOTAL PREFAIDS
^ ,2,,90 64
TOTAL VOUCHERS
-00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
46,720.51
46,720.51
7007
7007
05613 ADA RETROFIT-RON REAGAN
1,53'.75
05681 3 ADA RETROFIT -HERITAGE PRK
4,959.25
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
6,49.00
6,492.00
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 5
DUE THRU: OS/18/1998
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO 4
INVOICE
PREPAID
DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT
DATE CHECK
DELTA CARE PMI
001-21104--
TOTAL PREPAIDSAUG-DELTA CARE PREMS
258.22
08/18/1998 36945
TOTAL VOUCHERS
258 �,,
DUE VENDOR
.00TOTAL
258.22
DELTA DENTAL
001-21104--
AUG -DENTAL PREMS
TOTAL PREPAIDS
1,310.20
08/18/1935 36946
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,310.20.00
TOTAL 'DUE VENDOR
1,310.20
CAROL DENNIS
0014040-44000--
0015553-44000--
7450
DBC, --Q8-41 MINUTES CTY CNCL 7/7-21
580.00
0015210-44000--
74501
�;
`1 MINUTES T/T MTG. 7;3/98
140.00
7450
PC 980409 PROF SVCS-PLNG COM JULY
220.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
940.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
940.00
DEWAN LUNDIN & ASSOCIATES
2505510-46411-12498-46411
7385
016-1 INSFECTN SVGS-DBR/FLMNO
5,008.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.40
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
5,008.00
5,008.00
DIAMOND BAR INTERNATIONAL DELI
U'Ji4t�3Cf-42 25--
, _jr
r -CGNCL STDY SESSION 8/4
.99.25
1
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.0U
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
89.25
89.25
DIAMOND BIR PETTY CASH
001-21iO3__
SUPPLS-HRTGE COMM CTR
25.57
')01= ,,,-�_ 23,10--
2ND DTR MEDICARE PYMNT
15,96
FUEL-PRK • REC
`�1-`141:'''1-4121ji -_
SUPPLS-COMM SVCS
10.73
0015,5110-41200--
GEN SUPPLS-CCNCL
20.32
1 5`215-412011--
MTO SUPPLS-PUB WKS
�
16.213
Q(I., 50-45310--
SUPPLIES-CDBG-SENIORS
9.24
0014096-42325--
SUPPLS-CS EXCURSION
14.03
0015`:50-41200--
MTG SUPPLS-CCNCL
44.76
0014010-423-
SUPPLS-COMM SVCS
68.94
0014010-4235--
MTGS SUPPLS-CCNCL
27.65
MTG SUPPLS-CCNCL
4.51
TOTAL PREPAIDS0
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
266.86
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
001-131511--
ADVNCE-7/21 EXPENDITURES
6,442.04
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.000
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
h,442.0
6,442.04
�lAlLF���1�
PAGE: 6
DUE THRU: 08!18/'.998
FUND,'t3::
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE 6
DUE THRU: x$/18/1998
PREPAID
FUND I::C'f-f(:CT-'=Rl3LE(:T-4Cf;'
PO # INVOICE DESCRIP71DN
AMOUNT DATE
CHECK.
DIVE]-SIF:EI PARNTRANB'T IhiC
767: DIAL A RIDE SVCS -7/1-15
9,907.15
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
9,907.15
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
9,907.15
DOUBLETREE HOTEL
0014()3ii-42 '30--
ACCOM-LEAD CONF-CMGR
137.50 08/18/1998
36+936
ACCOM-LEAD CONF-CCNCL
550.00 08/18/1998
36936
4Q15^-1"-42=:0--
ACCOM-LEAG CONF-DESTEFANO
275.00 08/18/1998
369',6
TOTAL PREPAIDS
962.5';
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
962.50
EMBASSY SUITES/PALM DESERT RESOF1
001409--42~:30--
ICSC CONF-9/24-25
258.33
TOTAL PREPAIDES
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
255.33
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
258.3�'
ENV! Cort
7457 JUNE PROF SVCS-FER-91-02
.1,575.26
1(xJi-23 (-)ii--
7457 JUNE PROF SVCS-FER-91-02
8,396.21
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
11,971.47
TGTAL DUE VENDOR
11,971.47
ANION NA ESCIUERRA
48017 RFND/DEPST-HRTG COM CTR
200.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
Lv1
7%OTA' VOUCHERS
200.1
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
.200.00
COLLEEN FALLON
26644 RECREATION REFUND
25.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
25.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
25.00
FOOD SYSTEMS INC.
0014000-4:'��--
766:4 -OPEN MTG-ALAMEDA CORRIDOR 7/22
26.09
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
26,09
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
26.09
CINDY FUTRELL
001-=4760-'
RECREATION REFUND
10.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
10.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
10.00
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE' 7
DUE THRU: 08/18/19%
PREPAID
FUND,:-_CI-A3CT-PR2LE[,l-=CI:`
FC #
INVOICE DE3CC;I�TION
AMOUNT DATE CHEC1;
GASSER O;.DS CO 'INC
001531-42.:!0--
7385
09042 PLAQUE-OSCAR LAW BENCH
87.0
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
81.02
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
GFB rR.IE1RI':H & ASSOCIATES JNC
1M,538-44(00--70112
po ,_
:�0, ciE JUNE-PROF SVCS-CLAD 38
,..061
1«.q
1415 41-#4;??t?--
??'12
9007-06 JUNE PROF SVCS-LLAD 41
128.00
139553--44000--
701
9307-06 JUNE PROF SVCS-CLAD 39
1'8.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.UO
TOTAL VOUCHERS
384.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
384.00
GRAFFITI CONTROL SYSTEMS
001555-45520--
7546:
DB0798 JULY-GRAFFITI REMOVAL
2,370.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
2,370.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
2,370.00
GTE CALIFORNIA
0105355-421_i5--
PHNE SVCS-LIBRY-APR-JUNE
246.59
1185093-421125--
PHONE SVCS-CITY ON LINE
166.77
1185093-4212`--
BBS MODEM SVCS-MAY-JUNE
179.30
0014096-42125--
PHONE SVCS-CITY HOTLINE
35.41
0014043-X2125--
PHONE SVCS-MODUM LINE
108.40
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
736.48
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
736.48
GTE LEASING
00141?a3-Y2130--
-1, 8C
:0=4957 AUG+-NORSTAR EQiUIP RENT
466.79
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
466.79
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
466.79
H°:L CHARTE4
112`36:'?-45310--
75';
'9.3100 TRANSP-GETTY EXCUR 7/17
417.00
0015350-45310--
7551
7980100 EXCUR-GETTY CTR-7/17
529.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
946.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
946.00
HALL & FOREMAN
001-23012--
36430 PROF SVCS-EN 96-140-APR
3,000.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
3,000.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
3,000.00
HAYWOOD TILTON & ROLAPP
001-23002--
47142 REFND/DEPST-PETERSN PRIG
50.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50.00
RUN DATE: 08/13/1998 17:05:11
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 8
DUE THRU: 0$/18/199$
PREPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO #
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
DEBRA HAZIANIA
001-23002--
46339 REFND/DEPST-RON REAGN
50.00
TOTAL PREPAID
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50.00
DONNA HEIMAN
001-23002--480i,
REFND/DEPST-PETERSN
50.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50.00
CAROL HERRERA
0014010-42_.25--
MILEAGE REIMBURSEMENT
101.40
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
101.40
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
101.40
HIGHPOINT
0014095-42211--
7514
_31 L' PRE -PRESS SVCS -BUS CARDS
21.65
0014095-42111--
7 514
Q148 PRE -PRESS SVCS-FALLNWSLTR
711.20
0014095-42111--
7514
63143 PREPRES SVCS-ADS/CERTFCTE
303.10
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,035.95
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,035.95
HIRSCH & ASSOCIATES
2505310 -46425 -065`? -46415
467113�
RE12 PANTERA PRK:-CONST MGMT
74.73
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
74.73
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
74.73
HOME DEPOT
00'15310-411200--
7534 -OPEN MISC PARK SUPPLIES
15.20
0015310-41200--
755134 -OPEN MISC PARK SUPPLIES
80.03
0015310-41200--
7534 -OPEN MISC PART:: SUPPLIES
7.95
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
103.18
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
103.18
P.D. HONEA
Oijl-2300 -
47C,91 REFND/DEPST-HRTG COM CTR
200.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
200.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
200.00
MICHELLE HSIAO
001-4760--
RECREATION REFUND
121.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
121.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
121.00
RUN DATE: 08/13/1998 17:05:11
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE:
9
DUE THRU: 08/18/1998
PREPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACG'
'C
INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
DATE CHECK
CHI YIN HUANG
001-34780--
26899 RECREATION REFUND
30.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
V)
TOTAL VOUCHERS
30.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
3G.U0
IEEP
0014010-42325--
AIR QUALTY MTG-8/21-ANSRI
45.00
08/18/1998 36947
TOTAL PREPAIDS
45.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
45.00
IMAGE IV SYSTEMS INC
0014090-42200--
6456
278713 JUNE-KONICA COPIER MAINT
162.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
162.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
162.00
INDUSTRY EQUIPMENT RENT
1'25521`-42130--
7516
IE197624 TRK RENT -7/23 -SNR FD DRVE
67.54
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
67.54
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
67.54
INLAND EMPIRE
1125360-45310--
7690
08269?; TRNSP-QUAKES GAME 8/26
656.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
656.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
656.00
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
11rl+--
LEGAL AD -FPL 98-029
46.80
001-23010--
LEGAL AD -FPL 98-37
46.80
001-2113010;--
LEGAL AC? -FPL 98-28
46.80
LEGAL AD -FPL 93-028
96.53
0=1-23011?--
LEGAL AD -FPL 98-36
46.80
LEGAL AD -FPL 96-49
134.55
0?i-2c t ii--
LEGAL AD -FPL y6-2,-
93.60
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
511.88
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
511.88
INT'L COUNCIL OF SHOPPING CENTERS
0,714095-42330--
ICSC CONF REG13T-9123-25
1,140.00
08/18/1998 36930
0014095-42330--
ICSC REGIST-9/23-25-TAMAY
285.00
08/18/1992 36935
TOTAL PREPAIDS
1,425.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,425.00
YU HUA kAO LEE
001-34760--
RECREATION REFUND
213.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
213.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
21'3.00
R11 DATE: 08/13/1998 17:05:11 VOUCHER REGISTER WAGE: 10
DUE THRU: 08/1511998
PREPAID
FIND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMBIT DATE CHECK
GORGE KUO
Oc115210-44100-- PANG COMM MTGS-JULY 14,98 60.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS 60.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 60.00
LA CE'_LULAR
1264411-42125--
CELL
PHNE
SVCS -SHERIFF
103.96
0014090-42125--
CELL
PHNE
SVCS-CCNCL
64.77
0014090-42125--
CELL
PHNE
SVCS -GN GOVT
81.27
0014030-42125--
CELL
PHNE
SVCS-CMGR
122.2=
0014415-4212:5--
CELL
PHNE
SVCS-VLTR PTRL
71.93
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
REFUND OF SECURITY DEPOSI
50.00
444.16
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
444.16
LAC DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
0015-410-4521'_--
7640
98-0216 LEGAL SRVCS-MAY-CODE ENF
52.65
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
52.65
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
52.65
MARSHA LATTIMORE
001-23002--
47146:
REFUND OF SECURITY DEPOSI
50.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOT'A'L
VOUCHERS
50.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
50.00
LEAGUE OF CA CiTIE=:
0140?V)-42j25--
GEN MTG d!6-CMGR
23.00
08/18/1998 36939
0014010-42325--
GEN MTG-8/6-HERRERA
23.00
08/18/1998 36939
0'?14010-423:30,--
REGIST-CONT 8!26-28-CCNCL
750.00
OR/18!1990' 36937
0014030-42::.'0--
REGIST-CONE /26-28-CMr,R
250.00
08/18/1998 36937
0C'1521C?-423:30--
CONE 8!2'6-28-DESTEFANO
.50.00
OS/18/1998 36937
14010-42,30--
COP1F-; '6 -28 -HUFF
250.00
03/18/1998 36940
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
1,546.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
1,546.00
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES
CC?i-230112--
5730
SOILS REVIEW -EN 96-140
653.50
X505310-46415-06598-41415
6769
:369=<
'ERA PARK:-NOV
295.50
2505310-46415-06598-46415
5769
3968
CIP-PANTERA PARK-NOV-DEC
1,895.00
ooi -23012--
5,008
GEOTECH REVIEW -EN 95-139
803.14
2505''10-46415-06598-46415
t?
3480
CIF'-PANTERA PARK -SEF' -OGT
3,835.50
25O=ioli-46415-U65R8-46415
5769
426
CIP-PANTERA PARK -DEC -JAN
1,416.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
8,966.64
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
8,968.64
LETTER PERFECT SIGNS
2`r`"10-46411-12498-46411
7587
2489
DBAR REHAB SIGNS
33,037.50
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
3,037.50
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
3,037.50
RUN DATE: 08/13/1998 17:05:11 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 11
DUE THRU: 08/18/1998
PREPAID
FUND SECT -ACCT -PROJECT -ACCT Fp INVOICE L'EECR7PTION AMOUNT RATE CHECK:
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUPLIC 4iU=1'-:
x}415''`1-45?(!0-- hlof 980000015907 JUNE -SUMP PUMP MAINT 532.81
TOTAL PREPAIDS 00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 532.81
VICKI LUN
001-34780-- RECREATION REFUND 24.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL 'VOU'CHERS 24.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 24.00
MAIN STREET TOURS INC
0015:51? -45310--
?549
251111; 251;11
SENIOR EXCURS-07/02/98
1,364.00
1125360-45310--
7549
25010,25011
SENIOR EXCURS-07/02/98
380.00
1125360-45310--
7..91'
25018
EXCURS-HLLYWD BWL-8/18/98
490.00
112536+;-45':10--
?55
25028,25029
EXCURS-GETTY CTR
870.00
001 350-45310--7.;50
TOTAL VOUCHERS
25028,25029
EXCURS-GETTY CTR
2,550.00
1:1015350-45310--
r?5E:
25001
EY.CURSION-BAJA BLAST -6/27
4,676.00
01.15:,0-45310--
??S'+
2501;;
EXCURS-HLLYWD BWL-8/18/98
783.00
1125:;6,")-45310--
6.956:
25001
TRANSP-BAJA BLAST -6/27
225.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
11,338.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
11,338.00
MAINTEY
00 15:314-42--
HE C7 PRK-MAINT SUP?L.:
47.96
0015:,14-41'2:10--
7`2`:
^3`�L;::
HERiTGE PRK:-MAINT SUPPLS
79.04
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
127.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
127.00
MARIPOSA 'ORTICi1LTURAL ENTERPRISES
,:*855,j`: 42'11,--
12965
ADD1 MAINT-LLAD 38 -JUNE
55.94
i:d553;:-42210--
6207 1-i,�t:
ADD`L MAINT-JUNE-LLAD 38
213.50
13855 ;'-4'2210--
62:_7 -. 64
ADD" L MAINT-JUNE LLAD 36
745.77
1:335538-455019--
58'2 12963
JUNE MAINT-LLAD 3;,
3,319.49
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
4,334.70
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
4,334.70
MARRIOTT DESERT SPRINGS RESORT
0014095-42330-- ICSC ACCOM-9/23-25-TAMAYA 433.82 08/18/1998 36934
0014095-42330-- ICSC CONF ACCOM-9/23-25 2,670.50 08/18/1998 36929
TOTAL PREPAIDS 3,104.32
TOTAL VOUCHERS .00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 3,104.32
MONTEREY MARRIOTT
0014095-42330-- ICSC CONF ACCOM-9/23-25 2,670.50 08/18/1998 36929
0014095-42.320-- CORRECTION -2,670.50 08/18/1998 36929
TOTAL PREPAIDS .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS .00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR .00
RUN DATE: 08/.-/199S 17:0`:11
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAuE: 12
DUE THRU: 08/i0J/1998
PREPAID
FUND!SECT-AICT-PROUECT-ACCT
°'� 0
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
LANETTE MCHENRY
001-2.'.:02--
4`0,12
REFND-PARK DEPOSIT
50.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
50.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
50.0-;!
JOE MCMANUS
0015210-44106--
PLNG COMM MTO-7/141198
60.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
60.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
60.00
MCS ARCHITECTURAL SIGNS
0014095-46 250-
?335
98592
DISPLAY CABINETS-PROMOTNS
3,886.95
TOTAL
PREF'AIDES
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
3,886.95
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
3,886.95
MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT
01?153 2-42210--
754:3
68
MAINT. ON PARK EQUIPMENT
303.15
0i:1531:-44:410--
7495
458898 PARK BENCHES -MAPLE HILL
1,147.45
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
1,450.60
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
1,450.60
MON73EY MARRIOTT
0014010-423:30--
LEAGUE CONF-8/ 4:198
286.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
286.00
TnTAL
DUE VENDOR
286.00
MARY MCuS
C!0i-34 K,
4780
RECREATION REFUND
40.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
40.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
40.00
C.IAH NAYEM
47120
PARS. RESERVATION -REFUND
50.00
TCTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHER:
50.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
50.00
STEVEN G. NELSON
0015210-44100-
PLNG COMM MTG-7/14/98
60.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
60.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
60.00
NIKK.O CAPITAL
0r1-230i'�--
REFUND: EN 97-188
775.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
775.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
775.00
"I DATE: 08/13/1998 17:05:11
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 13
DUE THRU: 08/18/1998
PREPAID
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
''u 4 INVOICE DESCRIFTION
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
DANIEL NOLAN
0015310-42330--
REIMB-CPRS CONF-3/12-14
109.13
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
109.13
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
109.13
OFFICE DEPOT
0014440-41200--
51998 -OPEN SUPPLS-EMER PREP
247.09
0015350-41200--
5994-OFEN CREDIT MEMO -COMM SVCS
-37.29
0015510-41200--
5992 -OPEN SUPPLS-PUB WKS
126.83
0014030-41'200--
5998 -OPEN SUPPLS-CMGR
62.48
00i5350-41200--
5998 -OPEN SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
37.29
0015210-41200--
5992 -OPEN CREDIT MEMO-PLNG
-179.05
0014030-41200--
5999 -OPEN CREDIT MEMO-CMGR
-62.48
0015350-41200--
5998 -OPEN SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
37.29
0015350-41200--
5998 -OPEN CREDIT MEMO COMM SVCS
-37.29
TOTAL FREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
194.07
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
194.07
HARSHAD PATEL
001-23002--
48001 SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND
50.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50.00
RITA PATEL
47135 RECREATION REFUND
50.00
TOTAL FREPAID5
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50.00
PAYROLL TRANSFER
001 -10200 --
001 -10200 --
001 -10200 --
PEOPLE IN GOVERNMENT
0014010 -42325 --
PERS HEALTH
001-21103--
0014090-4005:1,--
PP15-PAYROLL TRANSFER 59,300.00
CORRECTION -59.800.00
PAYROLL TRANSFER-PP16 56,300.00 03/18/1998 16
TOTAL PREPAIDS 56,300.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS .00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 56,300.00
GEN MTG-8/7-ANSARI
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
AUG -HEALTH INS PREMS
AUG -ADMIN FEES
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
25.00 08/18/1998 36941
25.00
.00
25.00
9,359.15 08/18/1998 36942
50.37 00/18/1398 36941
9,409.52
.00
9,409.52
DUE THRU' 03,118/1998
PREPAID
FUND;'SEC(-fa;CT-*'RO�CT-4CC'
PO #
INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
DATE CHECK
PERS P:-TIREMENT FUND
001-2110'-
FF15-RETIRE CONTRIB-ER
3,310.69 08/18/1998
36931
001-2110--
PP15-RETIRE CONTRIB-EE
3,763.38 08/18/1998
36931
001-21109-•-
PP12-ADJUSTMENT
3.00 08/18/1998
36931
001-211U'-
PP15-MILITARY BUYBACK
509.69 08/18/1998
36931
TOTAL PREPAIDS
7,586.76
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
7,586.76
PITNEY, B3WES INC
0rp14 -4 2' i
7657
3E:16180 --JY' !='-D'UMCHNfMAILEQUIP-JULY
369.90
TOTAL PREPAID_
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
369.90
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
369.90
POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL_ DIS'RT-7
0015:0:'-4d-40--
6,;?4
y"11='-1 FACILITY RNT-APR-JUNE98
60.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL 'VOUCHERS
60.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
60.00
POOL SAVER
001-2:100%"--
446=-27 SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND
50.00
TOTAL P'REF'AIDS
.00
IOTA! VOUCHERS
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50.00
PROTECT113N SER": ICE ^TR E :
� ItdIU�,N.
-:j,•�c_1-r�.��--
7531
0424: SYC CYN SECRTY-7/90-9/9E3
8.68
i)C11`'14-42126--
7j.51
tt424'.'a5 HRTG GRK FIRE -7/93-9/98
63.60
0:15._14-4211_,--
75_*i
6424996. HRTG PRI:: SEC -7/98-9/98
69.96
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TDI LTA; VOUCHERS
216.24
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
216.24
QUEEN OF PEACE
47106 REFND/DEPST-SUMTRDG PRK
50.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50.00
R °: D ZL'JEPRINT
0":155=1-4211n--
7672
24416 COFIES-OFF STE PRKG RPRT
321.13
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
321.13
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
321.13
RAGING WATERS
0015:50-45310--
7406
0009271i DAY CAMP EXCURSION -07%21
617.47
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
617.47
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
617.47
RUN DATE: 03/13/1998 17:05:11
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 15
DUE THR"U: 081115/11?"
PREPAID
FUN6/SECT-ACCT-F'RDJEC?-ACC7
INVOICE DESCRIPTION
AMOUNT DATE CHECK:
RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY
0014090-42:25--
7687 -OPEN MT' SUPPLS-8/1
21.72
0015.350-41200--
95239 REC SUPPLS-TINY TOTS
8.19
0014090-42325--
7687 -OPEN MTC SUPPLS-7/23
26.10
0015:350-41200--
95239 RE= SUPPLS-SENIORS
17.72
0015350-412'00--
952::4 REC SUPPLS-DAY CAMP
44.3=,
0015350-41200--
95239 REC SUPPLS-DAY CAIS'
23.86
0014090-42325--
7687 -OPEN MTO SUPPL51-7/6
9.03
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS150.95
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
150.95
REGAL CINEMAS
0015350-45310--
7316
DA" CAME EXCURSION -6/25
306.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
306.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
306.00
REMEDY
001405A-44000--
7445A
55c" TEMP SRVCS-FIN W/E 7/5/198
310.42
001405D-44000--
7445A
8146 TEMP SRVCS-FIN 7/19
405.44
0014050-44000--
7445A
4455 TEMP SRVCS-FIN WJE 7/12
399.11
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,114.97
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,114.97
ROBERT F. DRIVER ASSOCIATES
001-22004--
SPEC EVENT INS -RPR -JUNE
1,040.00 08/1311998 36933
TOTAL PREPAIDS
1,040.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,040.00
DIANA ROBERTS
r, ;1-34?t'+'__
H-7 RECREATION REFUND
25.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
?CTAT. VOUCHERS
25.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
15.00
CHARLES ROSSCO
001-23012--
7637 -OPEN REFND/DEPST-EN 97-187
1,707.50
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,707.50
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,707.50
ROTARY CLUB OF WALNUT VALLEY
0014090-42115--
7651
AD-FOOTBLL CAMP/GOLFTRNMT
500.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
500.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
500.00
JACK. L. RUEHLMAN
001-:3002--
47125 REFND/DEPOST-HRTG COM CTR
50.00
TOTAL PREP 1DS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
50.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50.00
RU"1 DATE: 08/13/1?ig 17:05:11
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: to
DUE THRU: 08/18/1998
PREPAID
FLND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
=`C # INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT
DATE CHECK;
JOSEPH RUZICKA
0015210-441C10--
PLNG COMM MTG-7114/98
0.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
60.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
SAN GABRIEL 'VALLEY TRIBUNE
001-2'1,010--
00702
LEGAL AD -FPL 98-029
66.24
001-23010--
00702
LEGAL AD -FPL 98-037
&.. 24
001- ;ca10--
`162-'
LEGAL AD -FPL 96-218
136.0:
LEGAL AD -FPL 96-28
001
00712
LEGAL AD -FPL 98-028
66.24
001-: Oli's--
0070.
LEGAL AD -FPL 98-030
66.24
0015210-4'115--
1715.`
LEGAL Air -EXTENSION ORD#4
99.36
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
650.16
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
650.16
KAREN SANCHEZ
001-1300 -
47141
REFND/DEPST-HRTG COM CTR
200.00
001-36610--
47141
STAFF/FACILTY CHRGS
-26.68
TOTAL
PREPAID
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
173.12
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
173.12
SHALIMAR TOURS & CHARTER
1125360-45310--
?328 i15':8
TRNSP DEPOSIT -ROSE PARADE
200.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
200.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
200.00
ELENA SILGUER;O
:J'J?-14780--
27120
RECREATION REFUND
75.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
75.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
75.00
MARISA EOMENZI
001-34780--
26 82
RECREATION REFUND
22.00
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHERS
22.00
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
22.00
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
0015510-42126, -
ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CNTRL
147.29
0015510-42126--
ELECT SVCS-TRFC CNTRL
154.32
0015.510-42126--
ELECT SVCS-TRFC CONTROL
4,273.85
0015510-42126--
ELECT SVCS-TRFC CNTRL
131.46
TOTAL
PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL
VOUCHER'S
4,706.92
TOTAL
DUE VENDOR
4,706.92
RU" DATE: 081113/199:3 17:05:11
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 17
DUE THRU: 081'18/19913
PREPAID
FUNDISECT-ACCT-°ROjEC--ACC-
FC 4
INVOICE DEECRiF'TiON AMOUNT
DATE CHECK
SOUTHE-':N CALIFORNIA GAS. COI F,!N
0015;'14-42126--
GAS SVCS-HRTG PRK
47.14
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
47.14
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
47.14
SPICERS PAPER, INC.
0015_18-41400--
756834 PAPER SUPPLS-PANTERA PRY:
117.64
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
117.64
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
117.64
STANDARI{ INSURANCE OF OREGAN
001-211106--
AUG -LIFE INS PREMS
4332.10 08/18/1993 36944
001-21106--
AUG-SUPPL LIFE INS PREMS
222.40 08/18/1993 36944
TOTAL PREPAIDS
654.50
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
654.50
SUBWA`!
1155515-42325--
SOLD WSTE MTG SUPPLE -5/i
6.39
0014090-42:2`--
7661 -OPEN MTG-ALAMEDA CORRIDOR -7/22
11.97
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
18.36
TOTAL DUE VENDDR
18.36
KENDRICK TAUGHER
001-34'i;tJ--
267'2 RECREATION REFUND
25.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
25.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
25.00
THE COBB GROUT
00'1409'5-4'3'20--
10014456 SUBSCRIPTION RENEWAL
99.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
99.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
99.00
TIME OUT PERSONNEL
0`14040-44000--
758.31
3312. TEMP SVCS-PLNG-W/E 7/17
258.24
001521U-44000--
7556
331'2 TEMP SVCS-PLNG-W/E 7/17
312.04
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
570.28
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
570.28-
LUC TRUMP
001-334720--
34780 RECREATION REFUND
30.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
30.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
30.00
VOUCHER REGISTER
PAGE: 18
DUE THRU: 08/1811998
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT
PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION
PREPAID
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
MING CHUNG TSAI
001-73012--
PROF SVCS-EN 97-201
275.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00TOTAL
VOUCHERS
275.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
275.00
STEVEN TYE
0015210-44200--
PLNG COMM MTG-7/14/98
69.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
60.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
60.00
U.S. POSTMASTER
0014095-42120--
POSTAGE-FEES FALL NWSLTR
2,500.00 08/18/1993 36932
TOTAL PREPAIDS
2,500.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
2,500.00
TONYA UMBERO
001-34760--
REFUND
10.00
TOTAL PREPAIDSRECREATION
.GO
TOTAL VOUCHERS
10.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
10.00
UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE
REPLENISH
REPLENISH POSTAGE METER
1,500.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,500.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,500.00
UNIVERSAL STUDIOS
7413 12:'542 DAY CAMP EXCURSION 07t00
00
1. 056,00
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
1,056.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
1,056.00
VAN WINKLE AND AFFILIATES
2505 10-46415-06598-46415
627' :J' , DE P ,r
-- 1:�,�QGRA.HY SRt:,S-PANTERA
2,146.60
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
2,146.60
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
2,146.60
VANTAGE POINT PRODUCTIONS
0014090-4.4000--
1423 VIDEO TAPE DUPLICATN-RDA
17.21
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
17.21
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
17.21
VERNON COMPANY
0014095-42352--
7382 463054JE' COM PROMO SUPPLS-PENS
736.20
TOTAL PREPAIDS
.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
736.20
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
736.20
IOUC;HERREGISTER
DUE 'HRU: 03/18,'1998
PAGE: 19
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PRQJECT-ACCT
FQ # INVOICE DFBCF?F"'�+;
PREPAID
VISION SERVICE FLAN
AMOUNT DATE CHECK
001-21107--
AUO-VISION PREMS
TOTAL PREPAID.
Fw3,12 08/18/1998, a
3694_
TOTAL VOUCHERS
8 :x.12
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
.00
WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT
RK5.12
0015319-42126--
1385538-42126--
DATER USAGE -PETERSON
1 ,
1x955.19-4212..--
W4TER S. C
J�,S-CLAD 38
8,4911.47
0015331-4'21'26--
; }^
+IATEk S,,,S-LAS. 39
'
6607.840015328-42126--
W -TER E__y!
USAG C d PRK
1 70.34
WATE'r,' USAGE-SUMMTRDGE
7TAL PREPAIDS
4'`49,22
'
TOTAL VOUCHERS
00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
22 960.3:7
PAUL WARD
22,960.00
001-23002--
4�'!'?=' REFNG/DEFST-RON REAGAN
TOTAL PREPAID-
50.00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
50.00
WEST COAST ARRDRIS7 INC
50.00
0015558-455x --
0015558-45509--
'="`'_° TREE MAINT SVCS -JUNE
5 '0.00
LANT
TREE F G ,SVCS -JUNE
?QTAL PREFAIDF
2125 .00
TOTAL VOUCHERS
TOTAL DUE dENOO:F.
3,005.00
WEST END UNIFORMS
3,005,00
;10;14415-41 2 ;`l--
.'014415-412;),7--
7 -O
76..
4t:-' UNiFORm5-vLNTF PATROL
01), 44' ?-_
,
:.
7 ''`-' ;ARMS
4 4 . UNIF -VLTR F'TR'
179.94
-
0014415-41�! 0--
7
" ,
4;56;?;.; ,*
UN.FROMS-VLTR PTRL
3t.._._
7:_:Si-'
48:961 UNiFRNS-VL G
TR : TR_
j,, 4
,:.9
TOTAL PREFAIDS
179.94
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.nil
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
572.15
WESTERN GIFT DISTRIBUTORS
572.15
11.5;215-412t?0--
765:
61444:_ BINGO SUPPLIES -SENIORS
TOTAL PREPAIDS
178'61
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.001
TOTAL DU E VENDOR
173,61
NANCY WHITEHOUSE
17'61
11'25553-45529--
REIMB-LAMINATOR-DRDECARDS
TOTAL PREFAiDS
54.11
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
54.11
CECILIA WONG
54.11
0011-34780--
261,84 RECREATION REFUND
TOTAL PREPAIDS
TOTAL VOUCHERS
.00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
25.00
25.00
VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 20
DUE THRU: 08/18/1998
FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PR # INVOICE r`cJF• :r❑-., PREPAID
^�'r� AMOUNT DATE CHECK
MICHELLE WRAC
{x.11-23002--
43532 ;cF,![/DEPST-SUMTRDGE PRK
00
TOTAL PREPAID50'
S
TOTAL VOUCHERS .00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR 50.00
50.00
PAUL WRIGHT
0014090-44000-- 7584
AUDIO/VISL SVCS -7/28-8/4 15.00
TOTAL PREPAIDS '
00
T0TAL VOUCHERS 315,00
TOTAL DUE VENDOR
315.00
REPORT TOTAL PREPAIDS
REPORT TOTAL VOUCHERS 43,429.94
443
REPORT TOTAL
443,626M
531,116.07
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT ,^
AGENDA NO.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 18,1998 REPORT DATE: August 12,1998
FROM: Bob Rose, Community Services Director
TITLE: Award of Contract to the City of Brea to Provide Recreation Services for the City of Diamond Bar
SUMMARY: At its meeting on August 4, 1998, the City Council selected the City of Brea to provide
recreation services for the City of Diamond Bar. The new contract is effective September 1, 1998 and continues
until August 31, 2001, unless terminated earlier. The contract includes a 90 day termination clause.
Recreation programs in the contract include recreation classes, youth and adult sports, tiny tots pre-school
program at both Heritage and Pantera Parks, summer day camp, bus excursions for youth and a teen
leadership training program. Total expenditures for the first year of the contract are $518,357 with estimated
revenues of $405,046, resulting in a net cost of $113,311.
RECOMMENDED ACTION: It is recommended that the City Council award the recreation services contract
to the City of Brea for $518,357.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report
_ Resolution(s)
_ Ordinance(s)
X Agreement(s)
_ Public Hearing Notification
_ Bid Specifications (on file in City Clerk's office)
X Other: Proposal from City of Brea
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: City of Brea
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been
reviewed by the City Attorney?
X Yes _
No
2. Does the report require a moority 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:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belan
City Manager
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
iBoose
Community Services Director
RECREATION SERVICES AGREEMENT
This Agreement is made and entered into this 18th day of August-, 1998, between the
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "DIAMOND
BAR") and the CITY OF BREA, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "BREA")
(i) BREA has heretofore provided DIAMOND BAR with certain recreational
services.
(ii) DIAMOND BAR now desires to again retain BREA to perform such services,
including advice and assistance to DIAMOND BAR, DIAMOND BAR's City Council, Parks
and Recreation Commission and staff, necessary to implement a recreational program in
DIAMOND BAR, for a three (3) year period.
(iii) BREA represents that it is qualified to perform such services and is willing to
perform such services as hereinafter set forth.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between DIAMOND BAR and BREA as
follows:
B. Agreement
1. Definitions: The following definitions shall apply to the following terms, except
where the context of this Agreement otherwise requires:
(a) Proiect: The Provision of recreation services described in Exhibit "A" hereto
including, but not limited to, programs, policies, athletic programs, classes, summer day
camp, tiny tots, teen programs, support of community activities and attendance at Park and
Recreation Commission meetings as requested.
(b) Services- Such services as are reasonably necessary to be performed by BREA
City of Diamond Bar Recreation Services Agreement
in order to implement the Project.
2. BREA agrees as follows:
(a) BREA shall forthwith undertake to implement the Project in accordance with
Exhibit "A" hereto and all in accordance with Federal, State and DIAMOND BAR statutes,
regulations, ordinances and guidelines, all to the reasonable satisfaction of DIAMOND BAR.
(b) BREA shall, at BREA's sole cost and expense, secure and hire such other persons
as may, in the opinion of BREA, be necessary to comply with the terms of this Agreement.
All such persons shall be employees of BREA, and DIAMOND BAR shall not be responsible
for the payment of wages, benefits, or any other form of compensation for such persons. In
the event any such other persons are retained by BREA, BREA hereby warrants that such
persons shall be fully qualified to perform such services required hereunder. BREA further
agrees that subcontractors retained by BREA shall be upon the consent of DIAMOND BAR.
For purposes of this Agreement, the term "subcontractor" shall not include program or class
instructors or sports event officials (ie., umpires and referees).
3. DIAMOND BAR agrees as follows;
(a) To pay BREA for the performance of the services required herein, a maximum
sum of Fort --Three Thousand, One Hundred Ninety -Six dollars. ($43,196 per month, for the
twelve (12) month term hereof. Beginning with the second and third years of this Agreement,
said sum may be adjusted upon mutual written consent, following a review of revenues
collected and the costs to BREA of recreational services requested. Said sum shall cover the
cost of all staff time and all other direct and indirect costs or fees, including the work of
employees, consultants and subcontractors to BREA. Payment to BREA, by DIAMOND BAR,
shall be made in accordance with the schedule set forth below.
City of Diamond Bar 2 Recreation Services Agreement
(b) Payments to BREA shall be made by DIAMOND BAR in accordance with the
invoices submitted by BREA, on a monthly basis, and such invoices shall be paid within a
reasonable time after said invoices are received by DIAMOND BAR. All charges shall be in
accordance with BREA's proposal either with respect to hourly rates or lump sum amounts
for individual programs.
(c) Additional services: Payments for additional services requested, in writing, by
DIAMOND BAR, and not included in BREA's proposal as set forth in Exhibit "A". Charges
for additional services shall be invoiced on a monthly basis and shall be paid by DIAMOND
BAR within a reasonable time after said invoices are received by DIAMOND BAR.
(d) Purchase of Supplies: BREA shall purchase all supplies required to provide the
services set forth in Exhibit "A". DIAMOND BAR shall reimburse BREA for the cost of
supplies, including sales tax, plus 22% for overhead. BREA shall invoice DIAMOND BAR for
supplies on a monthly basis, and said invoice shall include back-up documentation from
vendor where purchase was made. When possible and economically practical, DIAMOND
BAR businesses shall be utilized as vendors.
(e) Any and all revenues collected by BREA from recreation program participants
shall be tendered monthly to DIAMOND BAR in accordance with administrative policies and
procedures established by DIAMOND BAR's City Manager, provided that BREA shall retain
fifty percent (50%) of all such revenues exceeding an annual total, or "revenue goal", of Four
Hundred Five Thousand, Forty -Six dollars, ($405,046). Said revenue goal shall be effective
for the first year of this Agreement, however, beginning with the second and third years of this
Agreement, said sum may be adjusted upon mutual written consent, following a review of
revenues collected and the costs to BREA of recreational services requested.
City of Diamond Bar 3 Recreation Services Agreement
(a) Information and assistance as needed to provide services identified in Exhibit
"A" hereto.
(b) Copies of documents and other information, as available, which BREA considers
necessary in order to complete the Project.
(c) Such information as is generally available from DIAMOND BAR files applicable
to the Project.
(d) Assistance, if necessary, in obtaining information from other governmental
agencies and/or private parties. However, it shall be BREA's responsibility to make all initial
contact with respect to the gathering of such information.
5. Ownership of Document • All documents, data, studies, surveys, drawings,
maps, models, photographs and reports prepared by BREA pursuant to this Agreement shall
be considered the property of DIAMOND BAR and, upon payment for services performed by
BREA, such documents and other identified materials shall be delivered to DIAMOND BAR
by BREA. BREA may, however, make and retain such copies of said documents and materials
as BREA may desire.
6. Termination• This Agreement, or any program or service provided hereunder,
may be terminated by either party upon the giving of a written "Notice of Termination" to the
other party at least ninety (90) days prior to the date of termination specified in said Notice.
In the event this Agreement, or any program or service provided hereunder, is so terminated,
BREA shall be compensated at BREA's monthly rate as specified herein, or pro -rated program
or service charges, as the case may be, pro -rated on the basis of a thirty (30) day month. In
no event, however, shall BREA receive more than the maximum specified in paragraph 3(a),
City of Diamond Bar 4 Recreation Services Agreement
above, or Exhibit "A", as applicable, except as otherwise provided herein.
7. Notices and DPSir •+ Rgpre�ntatives Any and all notices, demands,
invoices and written communications between the parties hereto shall be addressed as set
forth in this paragraph 7. The below named individuals, furthermore, shall be those persons
Primarily responsible for the performance by the parties under this Agreement:
FRANK BENEST TERRENCE L. BELANGER
City Manager City Manager
City of Brea City of Diamond Bar
Number One Civic Center Circle 21660 E. Copley Drive, Ste 100
Brea, CA 92621 Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Any such notices, demands, invoices and written communications, by mail, shall be deemed
to have been received by the addressee forty-eight (48) hours after deposit thereof in the
United States mail, postage prepaid and properly addressed as set forth above.
8. Insurance BREA shall neither commence work under this Agreement until it
has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies acceptable to
DIAMOND BAR nor shall BREA allow any subcontractor to commence work on a subcontract
until all insurance required of the subcontractor has been obtained. BREA shall takeout and
maintain at all rta,-
commencing work, shall sign and file with DIAMOND BAR a certification as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of Labor Code which require
every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self
insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this Agreement"
(b) Public Liability and Propffly Damae . Throughout the term of this Agreement,
at BREA's sole cost and expense, BREA shall keep, or cause to be kept, in full force and effect,
for the mutual benefit of DIAMOND BAR and BREA, comprehensive, broad form, general
public liability and automobile insurance against claims and liabilities for personal injury,
death, or property damage arising from BREA's activities, providing protection of at least One
Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for bodily injury or death to any one person or for any one
accident or occurrence and at least One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) for property
damage.
(c) General Insurance Requirements: All insurance required by express provision
of this Agreement shall be carried only in responsible insurance companies licensed to do
business in the State of California and policies required under paragraphs 8. (a) and (b) shall
name as additional insureds DIAMOND BAR, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents
and representatives. All policies shall contain language, to the effect that: (1) the insurer
waives the right of subrogation against DIAMOND BAR and DIAMOND BAR's elected
officials, officers, employees, agents and representatives; (2) the policies are primary and
noncontributing with any insurance that may be carried by DIAMOND BAR; and (3) they
cannot be cancelled or materially changed except after thirty (30) days' notice by the insurer
to DIAMOND BAR by certified mail. BREA shall furnish DIAMOND BAR with copies of all
City of Diamond Bar 6 Recreation Services Agreement
such policies promptly upon receipt of them, or certificate evidencing the insurance. BREA
may effect for its own account insurance not required under this Agreement,
(d) Self-insurance: For the purpose of this Agreement, the term "insurance" shall
include a self-insurance program as approved by DIAMOND BAR.
9. Indemnification:
(a) BREA shall defend, indemnify and save harmless DIAMOND BAR, its elected
and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees, from all liability, from loss, damage
or injury to persons or property, including the payment by BREA of any and all legal costs and
attorneys' fees, in any manner arising out of the acts and/or omissions of BREA pursuant to
this Agreement, including, but not limited to, all consequential damages, to the maximum
extent permitted by law.
(b) DIAMOND BAR shall defend, indemnify and save harmless BREA, its elected
and appointed officials, officers, agents and employees, from all liability from loss, damage
or injury to persons or property, including the payment by DIAMOND BAR of any and all
legal costs and attorneys' fees, in any manner arising out of the acts and/or omissions of
DIAMOND BAR pursuant to this Agreement, including, but not limited to, all consequential
damages, to the maximum extent permitted by law.
10. Assignment: No assignment of this Agreement or of any part or obligation of
performance hereunder shall be made, either in whole or in part, by BREA without the prior
written consent of DIAMOND BAR.
11. IndependentContractor- The parties hereto agree that BREA and its employees,
officers and agents are independent contractors under this Agreement and shall not be
construed for any purpose to be employees of DIAMOND BAR.
City of Diamond Bar 7 Recreation Services Agreement
12. Governing Law: This Agreement shall be governed by and construed in
accordance with the laws of the State of California.
13. Attorne 'sy _ Fees- In the event any legal proceeding is instituted to enforce any
term of provision of the Agreement, the prevailing party in said legal proceeding shall be
entitled to recover attorneys' fees and costs from the opposing party in an amount determined
by the court to be reasonable.
14. Mediation• Any dispute or controversy arising under this Agreement, or in
connection with any of the terms and conditions hereof, shall be referred by the parties hereto
for mediation. A third party, neutral mediation service shall be selected, as agreed upon by
the parties and costs and expenses thereof shall be borne equally by the parties hereto. In the
event the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the mediator to be selected hereunder,
the DIAMOND BAR City Council shall select such a neutral, third party mediation service and
said City Council's decision shall be final. The parties agree to utilize their good faith efforts
to resolve any such dispute or controversy so submitted to mediation. It is specifically
understood and agreed by the parties hereto that referral of any such dispute or controversy,
and mutual good faith efforts to resolve the same thereby, shall be conditions precedent to
the institution of any action or proceeding, whether at law or in equity with respect to any
such dispute or controversy.
15. Term. The effective date of this Agreement shall be September 1, 1998, and
it shall remain in effect through and including August 31, 2001, unless sooner terminated.
16. Entire AP-reement• This Agreement supersedes any and all other agreements,
either oral or in writing, between the parties with respect to the subject matter herein. Each
party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representation by any party which is not
City of Diamond Bar 8 Recreation Services Agreement
embodied herein nor any other agreement, statement, or promise not contained in this
Agreement shall be valid and binding. Any modification of this Agreement shall be effective
only if it is in writing signed by the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed the Agreement as of the day
and year first set forth above:
ATTEST:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Mayor
ATTEST:
CITY OF BREA
Mayor
City Clerk City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar 9 Recreation Services Agreement
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal
September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Expenditures
Administration
Benefits
Mileage
Training/Memberships
Contract Classes
Adult Sports
Youth Sports
Tiny Tots
Summer Day Camp
Teen Excursions
Teen Leadership/Training
Concerts in the Park Support Staff
Revenue Projections
Contract Classes
Adult Sports
Youth Sports
Tiny Tots
Summer Day Camp
Youth Excursions
Teen Excursions
Teen Leadership/Training
Subtotal:
22% Overhead:
Liability Insurance:
Total Contract Costs:
Exhibit "A"
August 6, 1998
$149,003
38,421
2,198
1,714
80,100
43,117
20,166
52,173
23,843
1,371
975
1,556
$414,637
91,220
12,500
$518,357
$143,500
62,148
55,868
90,580
47,500
2,500
2,300
650
Total Revenue Projection: $405,046
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 2
Administrative
Community Services Supervisor (FT)
$49,472
(Overtime 75 hrs)
2,650
Community Services Specialist I/Contract Classes (PT Regular)
(32 hrs/wk x 26 wks x $14.91/hr - 32 hrs/wk x 26 wks x $15.68/hr)
25,451
Community Services Specialist I/Youth and Adult Sports (PT Regular)
(35 hrs per wk x 52 wks x $15.29/hr)
27,828
Community Services Coordinator/Youth and Adult Sports (PT Regular)
(20 hrs per wk x 52 wks x $10.83/hr)
11,263
Administrative Clerk I (PT Regular)
(30 hrs per wk x 52 wks x $13.17/hr)
20,545
Administrative Clerk I/Front Counter Receptionist (PT Intermittent)
(20 hrs per wk x 52 wks x $11.34/hr)
11,794
Benefits
Full Time Staff
PERS
Medicare
Flex Benefits
Vacation Accrual
Sick Leave Accrual
Workman's Compensation
Part Time Staff
PERS
Medicare
Vacation Accrual
Sick Leave Accrual
Workman's Compensation
Liability Insurance
Total Administrative Costs: $149,003
$3,849
744
7,404
1,928
2,311
1,796
Total Full Time Staff Benefits: $18,032
0
2,963
5,937
7,118
4,371
Total Part Time Staff Benefits: $20,389
$12,500
Total Liability Insurance: $12,500
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 3
Mileage
Administration (80 miles/wk x $0.325/mile x 52 wks) $1,352
Contract Classes (25 miles/wk x $0.325/mile x 52 wks) 423
Youth and Adult Sports (25 miles/wk x $0.325/mile x 52 wks) 423
Total Mileage: $2,198
Training/Memberships
CPRS Memberships (1 at $135)
$135
CPRS Conference - Santa Clara
a. Registration (1 at $199)
199
b. Travel/Air Fare - San Jose
200
C. Lodging ($130/day x 3 days)
390
d. Food ($40/day x 3 days)
120
e. Parking/Car Fare
50
LERN Membership (Basic)
95
Women in Leisure Services Membership (2 at $30/each)
60
SCMAF Membership (3 at $25/each)
75
SCMAF Sports Institute ( 3 at $30/each)
90
Miscellaneous Staff Training
300
Total Training/Memberships: $1,714
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 4
Contract Classes
Provide a variety of fee based classes and instruction for Tots, Youth, and Adults encompassing
Sports, Dance, Music, Computers, Special Events, Martial Arts, Arts and Crafts, Enrichment, and
Fitness. Facilities are available through the City, Homeowner's Associations, and Joint Use
Agreements with Walnut Valley and Pomona Unified School Districts.
Revenue
Contract Classes
Administration Fee
$5 x 3500 participants
Expenditures
Contract Class Instructors
$81,000 x 60%
$45,000 x 70%
$126,000
17,500
Total Revenue: $143,500
$48,600
31,500
Total Expenditures: $80,100
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 5
Adult Athletics
Participant Estimates:
Basketball: 54 teams/648 participants
Volleyball: 16 teams/ 160 participants
Softball: 72 teams/1080 participants
Adult Men's Basketball
League provides three levels/divisions of competitive play. Round robin leagues are 11 weeks long
consisting of one practice and ten league games. Leagues run all year round. Officials are
contracted by the Recreation Department. A team trophy and individual awards are given to the first
place team and the second place team receives a team trophy.
Revenue
18 teams x 3 leagues x $450 team $24,300
Total Revenue: $24,300
Expenditures
Senior Leader (office)
13 wks x 2 hrs/wk x 3 leagues x $8.52 hr $665
Senior Leader (on-site/supervisory)
13 wks x 9 hrs/wk x 3 leagues x $8.52 hr 2,991
Leader (scorer/timer) '
13 wks x 9 hrs/wk x 3 leagues x $7.33 hr 2 573
Officials '
8 games/wk x 13 wks x 3 leagues x 2 officials x $21/game 13,104
Total Expenditures: $19,333
Adult Coed Volleyball
Coed volleyball league provides an l 1 week round robin format of play consisting of one practice
and ten league games. Leagues run all year round and officials are contracted by the Recreation
Department. A team trophy and individual awards are given to the first place team and the second
place team receives a team trophy.
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 6
Coed Volleyball (cont)
Revenue
6 teams x 4 leagues x $230 team $5,520
Total Revenue: $5,520
Expenditures
Officials
3 matches/wk x 11 wks x 4 leagues x 1 official x $19/match $2,508
Setup/Take down
11 wks x 4 leagues x 1 official x $10/wk 440
Senior Leader (on-site/supervisory)
11 wks x 3 hrs/league x 4 leagues x $8.52/hr 1,154
Total Expenditures: $4,073
Adult Softball
Leagues are available for men's teams on Wednesday nights and Sundays. Coed leagues are offered
on Sundays. League play is an 11 week round robin format consisting of one practice and ten league
games. Leagues run all year round utilizing contracted officials from Tri -County. A team trophy
and individual awards are given to the first place team and the second place team receives a team
trophy.
Revenue
8 teams x 4 leagues x $399 team - Wednesday $12,768
10 teams x 4 leagues x $399 team - Sunday 15,960
Total Revenue: $28,728
Expenditures
Senior Leader (office)
11 wks x 3 hrs/wk x 4 leagues x $8.52 hr $1,154
Senior Leader (on-site field prep/supervisory)
11 wks x 11 hrs/wk x 4 leagues x $8.52 hr 4,124
Leader (scorer)
11 wks x 10 hrs/wk x 4 leagues x $7.33 hr 3,548
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 7
Adult Softball (cont)
Expenditures (cont)
Officials
11 wks x 9 games x 4 leagues x $21/game
$8,316
Total Expenditures: $17,113
Adult Soccer - Lorbeer Middle or Pantera Park
Fall league only. League format will be one practice game and 10 league games. A team trophy and
individual awards are given to first place team and the second place team receives a team trophy.
Officials will be contracted by Diamond Bar Recreation staff.
Revenue
8 teams x 1 league x $450 team
Expenditures
$3,600
Total Revenue: $3,600
Senior Leader (on-site field prep/supervisory)
11 wks x 8 hrs x $8.52 hr
Officials
i t wks x 4 games x 1 league x 2 officials x $21/game
$750
1,848
Total Expenditures: $2,598
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 11, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 8
Youth Sports
Participant Estimates
Baseball: 36 teams/432 participants
Basketball: 24 teams/240 participants
Soccer: 14 teams/140 participants
Track and Field: 450 participants
Youth Baseball - Paul C. Grow/Boys and Girls 4-5 years-T-ball/6-7 years Coach Pitch
Designed to enhance skills and knowledge with emphasis on fundamentals, motor skills, and game
situations. League goals are to build self esteem and develop basic fundamentals in a non-
competitive, safe, and positive environment. League play is seven weeks with teams playing games
twice a week. Participants receive a shirt, hat, and trophy. Volunteer coaches are utilized and
Recreation Department staff officiate league games. Reduced fee reflects $5.00 discount for
additional child in same family.
Revenue
227 participants at S64 each
15 participants at $59 each
Expenditures
Total Revenue:
Coaches Training
Senior Leader
10 hrs x $8.52 hr
Sign-up Day
Senior Leader
4hrsx$8.52hr
Leader
2 staff x 4 hrs x $7.33 hr
Games/Field Prep
Senior Leader
5.5 hrsx5 days x 7 wks x $8.74 hr
Leader
5.5 hrs x 5 days x 7 wks x $7.33 hr
$14,528
885
$15,413
$85
34
59
1,683
1,411
Total Expenditures: $3,272
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 9
Youth Baseball - Heritage Park/Boys and Girls 8-13 years
Designed to enhance skills and knowledge with emphasis on fundamentals, motor skills, and game
situations. League goals are to build self esteem and develop basic fundamentals in a non-
competitive, safe, and positive environment. League play is seven weeks with teams playing games
twice a week. Participants receive a shirt, hat, and trophy. Volunteer coaches are utilized and
Recreation Department staff officiate league games. Reduced fee reflects $5.00 discount for
additional child in same family.
Revenue
180 participants x $64
10 participants x $59 each
Expenditures
Total Revenue:
Summer Staff Training
Senior Leaders
4 staff x 4 hrs x $8.52 hr
Leaders
4 staff x 4 hrs x $7.33 hr
Skills Day/8-11 years
Senior Leader
5hrs x$8.52hr
Leader
4 staff x 5 hrs x $7.33 hr
Skills Day/12-13 years
Senior Leader
2.5 hrs x $8.52 hr
Leader
2.5 hrs x $7.33 hr
Draft
Senior Leader
6 hrs x $8.52 hr x 2 leagues
Field Preparation
Senior Leader
6 hrs x 7 wks x $8.52 hr
Officials
Senior Leader
5 hrs x 5 days x 7 wks x $8.52 hr
Leader
5 hrs x 5 days x 7 wks x $7.33 hr
Senior Leader
10 hrs (Saturday ) x 7 wks x $8.52
$11,520
590
$12,110
$136
118
43
147
21
18
51
358
1,491
1,283
597
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 10
Youth Base -ball - Heritage Park/Boys and Girls 8-13 years (cont)
Expenditures (cont)
Leader
10 hrs (Saturday) x 7 wks x $7.33
513
Total
Youth Basketball - South Point Middle School/Boys and Girls 4- 8 vrs (Maple Hill Park backup)
Designed to teach fundamentals and skills and emphasize team work and fun.
with games once a week. Shirt, shorts, and trophpants.y Ten week program
utilized and Recreation Department staff officiate league tgameS. Reduced Vol e reflects h$5.0 e
discount for additional child in same family. 0
Revenue
225 participants x $64 each
15 participants x $59 each
Total Revenue:
Expenditures
Coaches Training
Senior Leader
Skills Day 8 hrs x $8.52 hr
Senior Leader
5 hrs x $8.52 hr
Leader
Draft S hrs x $7.33 hr
Senior Leader
4 hrs x $8.52 hr
Practices/Set-up
Senior Leader
Officials 12 wks x 5 days x 5 hrs/day x $8.52 hr
Senior Leader
Leader l0wks x 13 hrs x $8.52 hr
Scorer 10 wks x 13 hrs x $7.33 hr
Worker
10 wks x 13 hrs x $6.18
Total
$14,400
885
$15,285
68
43
37
34
2,556
1,108
953
803
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 11
Youth Indoor Soccer - Lorbeer Middle School/Boys and Girls 4-9 years
League is designed to teach and enhance soccer skills in a fun and recreational atmosphere. Eight
week league format with games once a week consisting of a half hour of instruction on fundamentals
followed by 45 minutes of game play coached by staff. Shirt, shorts, and trophy provided to
participants. Reduced fee reflects $5.00 discount for additional child in same family.
Revenue
130 participants x $64 each
10 participants x $59 each
Total Revenue:
Expenditures
Coaches/Staff Training
Professional Trainer
Senior Leader
2 staff x 6 hrs x $8.52 hr
Leader
2 staff x 6 hrs x $7.33 hr
Worker
2 staff x 6 hrs x $6.18 hr
Skills Day/Player Draft
Senior Leader
2 staff x 6 hrs x $8.52 hr
Leader
2 staff x 6 hrs x $7.33 hr
Worker
2 staff x 6 hrs x $6.18 hr
Coaches/officials/Scorekeeper
Senior Leader
8wksx8.5hrs x$8.52hr
Leader
Worker 3 staff x 8 wks x 8.5 hrs x $7.33 hr
2 staff x 8 wks x 8.5 hrs x $6.18 hr
Total
$8,320
590
$8,910
$200
102
88
75
102
88
74
580
1,495
841
$3,645
an
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 12
Youth Track and Field - Diamond Bar High School/Boys and Girls 7-15 years
Provide participants with the opportunity to compete in events that include shot put; softball throw,
50, 100, 200, 400, and 800 meter run; and a team 400 meter relay. Participants have a chance to
qualify for Southern California Municipal Athletic Federation (SCMAF) track and field
championships. First through fourth place ribbons are awarded.
Revenue
450 participants x $7 each
SGVMAA and SCMAF Championships
200 participants x $5.00 each
Total Revenue:
Expenditures
Starter (contract)
Announcer (contract)
Specialist
10 hrs x $15.25 hr
Senior Leader
Leader
2 staff x 10 hrs x $8.52 hr
15 staff x 10 hrs x $7.33 hr
SGVMAA and SCMAF Track Meet
Senior Leader
2 staff x 2 meets x 10 hrs x $8.52 hr
Recreation Coordinator
Leader
10 hrs x 2 meets x $10.45 hr
10 hrs x 2 meets x $7.33 hr
SVGMAA Track Meet Fee
$3,150
1,000
$4,150
$ 150
100
153
175
1,100
341
209
147
500
Total Expenditures: $2,871
Tins - Heritage Community Center and Pantera Park/Boys and Girls 3-5 years
Supervise and staff a five day a week morning and afternoon program at Heritage and a three day
a week morning and two afternoons at Pantera for preschoolers. Program is designed to offer
children the opportunity to gain knowledge and experience, of life, through organized recreational
activities. Social, emotional, physical, and intellectual skills are emphasized.
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 13
Tiny Tots
Fall Session - 12 weeks/September 8 -December 4, 1998
Revenue
Heritage
40 participants x $246 (3 days - M/W/F mornings and afternoons) $9,840
40 participants x $174 (2 days - T/Th mornings and afternoons) 6,960
Total Revenue: $16,800
Pantera
20 participants x $246 (3 days/MWF mornings and afternoons)
$4,920
20 participants x $174 (2 days/MW mornings and afternoons)
3,480
Total Revenue:
$8,400
Winter Break - 2 weeks/December 7-11 and December 14-18, 1998
Revenue
Heritace
20 participants x $35 x 2 wks $1,400
Total Revenue: $1,400
Pantera
20 participants x 35 x 2 wks $1,400
Total Revenue: $1,400
Winter Session - 11 weeks/January 4 -March 19, 1999
Revenue
Heritage
40 participants x $231 (3 days - M/W/F mornings and afternoons) $9,240
40 participants x $154 (2 days - T/Th mornings and afternoons) 6,160
Total Revenue: $15,400
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 14
Tiny Tots Winter Session -11 weeks/January 4 -March 19, 1999 (cont)
Pantera
20 participants x $231 (3 days/MWF mornings and afternoons) $4,620
20 participants x $154 (2 days/MW mornings and afternoons) 3,080
Total Revenue: $7,700
Spring Session - 10 weeks/March 29 -June 11, 1999
Revenue
Heritaize
40 participants x $210 (3 days - M/W/F mornings and afternoons) $8,400
40 participants x $140 (2 days - T/Th mornings and afternoons) 5,600
Total Revenue: 514,000
Pantera
20 participants x $210 (3 days/MWF mornings and afternoons) $4,200
20 participants x $140 (2 days/MW mornings and afternoons) 2,800
Total Revenue: $7,000
Summer Session - 9 weeks/June 21 -August 20, 1999
Revenue
Heritaee
40 participants x $182 (3 days - M/W/F mornings and afternoons) $7,280
40 participants x $126 (2 days - T/Th mornings and afternoons) 5,040
Total Revenue: $12,320
Pantera
20 participants x $182 (3 days/MWF mornings and afternoons) $3,640
20 participants x $126 (2 days/MW mornings and afternoons) 2,520
Total Revenue: $6,160
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 15
Tiny Tots - (cont)
Expenditures
Heritage
CS Specialist - Administrative
6 hrs/wk x $14.54 hr x 52 wks
Senior Leader
30 hrs/wk x $9.54 hr x 49 wks
Leader
2 staff x 19 hrs/wk x $7.69 hr x 49 wks
Pantera
CS Specialist - Administrative
6 hrs/wk x $14.54/hr x 52 wks
Senior Leader
19 hrs/wk x $8.52 hr x 49 wks
Leader
19 hrs/wk x $7.33 hr x 49 wks
Total Expenditures:
Total Expenditures:
Summer Day Camp - Sycamore Canyon Park/Boys and Girls 6-12 years
$4,537
14,024
14,319
$32,880
$4,537
7,932
6,824
$19,293
Program is designed to involve children in a fun, active, educational, and safe environment. Options
are available for attendance with two alternative daily time schedules and payment opportunities.
Weekly community trips and excursions, to major amusement parks, are offered once a week.
Revenue
Extended Day
15 children x 10 wks x $109 each
Regular Day
35 children x 10 wks x $89 each
Total Revenue:
Expenditures
Program Set-up
Coordinator
80 hrs x $10.83 hr
$16,350
31,150
$47,500
$866
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 16
Day Camp (cont)
Expenditures (cont)
Camp Set-up
Coordinator
3 hrs x $10.83 hr
33
Senior Leader
2 staff x 3 hrs x $8.52 hr
50
Leader
2 staff x 3 hrs x $7.33 hr
44
Worker
3 hrs x $6.04 hr
18
Camp Staff
Coordinator
43 hrs/wk x 10 wks x $10.83 hr
4,657
Senior Leader
2 staff x 43 hrs/wk x 10 wks x $8.52 hr
7,327
Leader
2 staff x 43 hrs/wk x 10 wks x $7.33 hr
6,304
Worker
2 staff x 28 hrs/wk x 10 wks x $6.04 hr
3,382
Lifeguard/beach trip
10 hrs x $7.02 hr
70
Camp/Tear Down
Coordinator
6 hrs x $10.83 hr
65
Senior Leader
2 staff x 6 hrs x $8.52 hr
102
Leader
2 staff x 6 hrs x $7.33 hr
88
Worker
6 hrs x $6.04 hr
36
First Aid/CPR Training
800
Total Expenditures: $23,843
Youth Excursions
Youth excursions will be incorporated into the Summer Day Camp program utilizing summer day
camp staff to reduce costs. These trips will be open to the public and will be taken once per week
to major amusement sites such as Disneyland, Wild Rivers, Universal Studios, Magic Mountain, etc.
Staff costs for youth excursions are included in day camp expenditures.
Revenue
10 participants x 10 excursions x $25 each
$2,500
Total Revenue: $2,500
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 17
Teen Programs
Participant Estimates:
Excursions: 210
Leadership TrainingNolunteer: 10-15
Teen Excursion/Movie Nights - Sycamore Canyon Park
Program to present opportunity for teens of community to get together for recreational activities and
fun. Day camp staff will be utilized to run program.
Revenue
35 participants x 2 movie nights x $5/each
Expenditures
Senior Leader
2 staff x 2 nights x 2 hrs x $8.52 hr
Leader
2 staff x 2 nights x 2 hrs x $7.33
$350
Total Revenue: $350
$68
59
Total Expenditures: $127
Teen Excursion/Minature Golf - Speed Zone, Puente Hills
Revenue
40 participants x $10 each
Expenditures
Miniature Golf
40 participants x $6
Senior Leader
2 staff x 2 hrs x $8.52 hr
Leader
2 leaders x 2 hrs x $7.33 hr
$400
Total Revenue: $400
$240
34
Total Expenditures: $303
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 18
Teen Excursion/Swim Party - Brea Plunge
Revenue
25 participants x $10 each $250
Total Revenue: $250
Expenditures
Senior Leader
2 staff x 2 hrs x $8.52 hr $34
Leader
2 staff x 2 hrs x $7.33 hr 29
Assistant Pool Manager
2 hrs x $10.98 hr 22
Lifeguard
2 staff x 2 hrs x $7.02 hr 28
Total Expenditures: $113
Teen Excursion/Beach Bonfire - Huntington Beach
Revenue
30 participants x $10 each $300
Total Revenue: $300
Expenditures
Coordinator
4 hrs x $10.83 hr $43
Senior Leader
2 staff x 4 hrs x $8.52 hr 68
Leader
4 hrs x $7.33 hr 29
Total Expenditures: $140
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 19
Teen Overnite Campout - Sycamore Canyon Park
Revenue
50 participants x $20 each
Expenditures
Coordinator
16hrs x$10.83
Senior Leader
2 staff x 16 hrs x $8.52 hr
Leader
2 staff x 16 hrs x $7.33 hr
$1,000
Total Revenue: $1,000
$173
273
235
Total Expenditures: $681
Leadership Training/Volunteen Program - 13-15 years/support summer programs
Pilot leadership training program for boys and girls ages 13 through 15 interested in receiving work
experience and training in recreation. Volunteens will be assigned as aides to summer day camp
(maximum of 5), youth baseball (maximum of 5), tiny tots (maximum of 2), and concerts in the park
(maximum of 2) programs. Total number of volunteens in program could range from 10-15.
Revenue
Raffle at Anniversary Celebration
Ride Operation at Anniversary Celebration
Expenditures
Recreation Coordinator (program set up)
40 hrs x $10.83 hr
Recreation Coordinator (on-site supervisory)
5 hrs/wk x 10 wks x $10.83 hr
$ 350
300
Total Revenue: $650
$433
542
Total Expenditures: $975
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Proposal - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 20
Concerts in the Park Support Staff - Sycamore Canyon Park
Support staff provided to assist in set up and tear down of site. Staff provides customer service,
monitors parking and concert areas, hands out flyers, and crowd control.
Expenditures
Program Set-up/Tear Down
Senior Leader
2 staff x 1 hr x 9 concerts x $8.52 hr $154
Concert Staff
Senior Leader
3 staff 4 hrs x 9 concerts x $8.52 hr 920
Leader
4 hrs x 9 concerts x $7.33 hr 264
Worker
4 hrs x 9 concerts x $6.04 hr 218
Total Expenditures: $1,556
Tenth Anniversary Birthday Celebration
Recreation Supervisor will be on celebration committee. A separate decision package will be
submitted when staffing needs are determined.
Marketing Plan
Among the many opportunities to market and promote the Recreation Contract Programs, the
following resources will be utilized to gain the optimum participation from the community:
• Quarterly promotion through City of Diamond Bar newsletter.
• News releases to local newspapers including the San Gabriel Valley Tribune, Highland,
Diamond Bar 91765 and 91789, Windmill, Los Angeles Times, Inland Valley Bulletin,
community PTSA newsletter.
• Flyer and brochure distribution through Pomona Valley School District, Walnut Valley
School District, private schools, local businesses, service clubs, Chamber of Commerce,
Home Owner's Associations, and Los Angeles County Library.
• Direct mail to past participants of programs and current interest lists.
• Community service announcements through Century Cable.
• Distribution of program information at all special events.
• Program information packets distributed through Chamber of Commerce businesses
targeting larger employee populations.
• Promote programs and services at local colleges, job fairs, community relations activities,
etc.
0 Promotional information included with registration receipt mailings.
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Equipment/Supplies List - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 21
City of Diamond Bar
Budget 1998-1999
Equipment/Supplies List
Adult Basketball - 54 Teams
Basketballs - 3 @ $80 $240
First aid 40
Awards - 12 @ $8.75 x 3 divisions x 3 leagues 945
Trophies - 6 @ $15 x 3 leagues 270
SCMAF team registration - 48 @ $7 336
Staff shirts - 2 @ $10 20
Staff sweatshirts - 2 @ $12 24
Subtotal: $1,875
Adult Coed Vollevball - 24 Teams
Volleyballs - 2 @ $50 $100
First aid 40
Awards - 12 @ $8.75 x 4 leagues 420
Trophies - 2 @$15 x 4 leagues 120
SCMAF team registration - 16 @ $7 112
Staff shirt - 1 @ $10 10
Staff sweatshirt - 1 @ $12 12
Subtotal: $814
Adult Softball - 72 Teams
Softballs - 10 @ $4.50 x 44 weeks
$1,980
Awards - 16 @ $8.75 x 5 divisions x 4 leagues
2,800
Bases
420
Chalk - 32 bags x $5.50/bag
176
Trophies - 6 @ $15 x 4 leagues
360
First aid
40
SCMAF team registration - 72 @ $7
504
Staff shirts - 2 @ $10
20
Staff sweatshirts - 2 @ $12
24
Subtotal: $6,324
Adult Soccer - 8 Teams
Soccer balls - 2 @ $30
$60
First aid
40
Awards - 18 @ $8.75 x 1 league
158
Trophies - 2 @ $15
30
SCMAF team registration - 8 @ $7
56
Staff shirt - 1 @ $10
10
Staff Sweatshirt - 1 @ $12
12
Subtotal: $366
Adult Sports Total: $9,379
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Equipment/Supplies List - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 22
Youth Baseball/Paul C. Grow - 242 Participants
Baseballs - 19 dozen @ $25
$475
Shirts - 308 @ $6
1.848
Hats - 368 @ $5.75
2.116
Equipment - (bats, bags, pvc piping)
600
Chalk - 18 bags x $5.50/bag
99
First aid
50
Trophies - 264 @ $3.50, 44 @ $5.25
1,155
Fingerprinting - 34 @ $35
1,190
Staff shirts - 10 @ $10
100
Staff sweatshirts - 7 at $12
84
Subtotal:
$7,717
Youth BasebalUHeritage Park - 190 Participants
$98
Baseballs - 25 dozen @ $31
$775
Shirts - 308 @ $6.25
1,925
Hats - 368 @ $5.75
2,116
Equipment - (bats, bags, catcher's equipment)
600
Chalk - 22 bags x $5.50/bag
121
First aid
50
Trophies - 204 @ $3.50, 44 @ $5.25
945
Fingerprinting - 38 @ $35 x
1,330
Subtotal: $7,862
Youth Basketball - 240 Participants
$98
Basketballs - 15 @ $5.25
$79
Shirts - 240 @ $6
1,440
Shorts - 240 @ $6.25
1,500
Trophies - 240 @. $3.50, 48 @ $5.75
1,116
Equipment
210
Portable hoops - 2
3,000
First aid
40
Fingerprinting 48 @, $35
1,680
Staff shirts - 3 @ $10
30
Staff sweatshirts - 3 @ $12
36
Subtotal: $9,131
Youth Indoor Soccer - 140 Participants
Soccer balls - 4 @ $24.50
$98
Mini soccer goals (one time start up cost)
600
Shirts - 140 @ $6
840
Shorts -140 @ $5
700
Trophies - 140 @ $4
560
First aid
40
Equipment
100
Staff shirts - 6 @ $10
60
Staff sweatshirts - 6 @ $12
36
Subtotal: $3,034
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Equipment/Supplies List - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 23
Youth Track and Field Meet - 400 Participants
Ribbons - 180 x 2 (3`d and 4`h place) x $0.30 $108
Ribbons - 500 participant x $0.30 150
Medals - 180 (1'-2`d place) x 2 x $1.75 630
Misc Equipment 100
Staff shirts - 10 @ $10 100
Sound equipment rental 500
Subtotal: $1,588
Youth Sports Total: $29,332
Tiny Tots Equipment/Supplies
Equipment 2,400
Supplies - $560/session x 4 sessions 4,480
Supplies - $280/holiday workshop x 2 workshops x 2 1,120
Tiny Tot Total: $8,000
Day Ca=
Arts/Crafts Supplies
$1,700
Durable Equipment
750
Consumable Supplies
750
Staff Training
250
Water Cooler/Water
400
Staff shirts - 18 @ $10
180
Staff sweatshirts - 6 @ $12
75
Transportation (bus for excursions)
5,000
Admissions to major and minor excursions
12,000
Day Camp Total: $21,105
Teen Excursions
Consumables $420
Teen Excursions Total: $420
Volunteen Consumables/Stipends
Consumables $500
60 hrs x # volunteens = $55 each
90 hrs x # volunteens = $80 each
120 hrs x # volunteens = $100 each
Maximum 15 x $100 1500
Volunteen Total: $2,000
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Equipment/Supplies List - September 1, 1998 - August 31, 1999
Page 24
Office Eauipment/Supp-lies
Computer (P200 mid tower, 32 MB RAM, 1.44 floppy $2,000
drive, mouse w/pad-3 button, 15" SVGA monitor,
2.1 GB hard drive, CD Rom, internal tape backup,
internal fax modem 33.6, enhanced keyboard)
Windows `95 or higher 150
Microsoft Office for Windows `95 500
HP Fax ink cartridges 300
Miscellenous 500
Office Equipment/Supplies Total: $3,450
Miscellaneous
Easy ups - 2 x $500/ea (for use at day camp, track meet, adult softball) $1,000
Total: $1,000
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Decision Package - September 1, 1998 -August 31, 1999
FAMILY NIGHT ON THE FAIRWAYS -Diamond Bar Golf Course/8 years and older
This event will be held in conjunction with the City of Yorba Linda. The expenditures will be split
between the two cities and dependent upon the percent of participants from each city (ie: 60% of the
participants from Diamond Bar equals 60% of the expenditures we will be responsible for.)
The decision packet is based on the assumption that 50% of the participants will be from Diamond Bar.
BROCHURE DESCRIPTION:
"Looking for something fun and different to do as a family or foursome? We have the event for
you! Nine holes of golf in the DARK. Yes, the dark! With special glow in the dark golf balls
(provided for you) and fairways lined with light sticks, even the non -golfer will have fun. For the
more experienced golf fanatic, we will also be hosting a `closest to the pin' competition. Prizes
will be awarded. This will be a shot gun start and the event should not exceed 3 hours. You
must pre -register by Friday, October 16te. No registration will be taken on the day of the event.
All participants under age 18 MUST have a parent or guardian enrolled in the program with
them. Carts will be provided. Space is limited so register early".
LOCATION: Diamond Bar Golf Course
8 -Adult Friday October 23 7:00 - 10:00 PM $25/person
REVENUE:
Maximum 24 participants X $25.00 = $600.00
EXPENDITURES:
Staff. (1 Coordinator & 1 Leader) $108.96
$7.33 X 6 hours = $43.98
$10.83 X 6 hours = $64.98
Green Fees: $14.50 X 24 participants = $348.00
Glow Balls: $6.00 X 48 (2 per participant)= $288.00
Light Sticks: $2.50 X 50 = $125.00
Awards: $10.00 X 6 = $ 60.00
Staff Expenditure: $ 108.96
Equipment Expenditure: $ 821.00
Expenditure Sub -Total: $ 929.96
Contract 22%:2$ 04.59
Expenditure Total: $1,134.55
Revenue: $ 600.00
*Donation: $ 534.55
Totals: $ 0.00
*NOTE: As of August 12, 1998, $200.00 in donation has already been received.
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Decision Package - September 1, 1998 -August 31, 1999
Rose Parade Excursion
Two busses to Rose Parade. Two volunteers will be needed to support staff and two tables and a
coffee warmer provided at City Hall.
Revenue
94 participants x $55 each
Expenditures
Senior Leader
2 staff x 9 hrs x $8.58
Consumables
$5,170
Total Revenue: $5,170
$155
100
Subtotal: $255
22% Overhead: 56
Total Expenditures: $311
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Decision Package - September 1, 1998 -August 31, 1999
Kids Play Days - boys and girls 3-5 years
Program format 9:30 am -2:30 pm. Children make crafts, socialize with friends, play games and
activities, and have lunch while parent has a day off.
Revenue
22 participants x $16 $352
Total Revenue: $352
Expenditures
Promotion/Flyers/Marketing
Specialist
$14.54 hr x 4 hrs
$58
Staff
Specialist
$14.54 hr x 2 hrs
29
Senior Leader
$8.36 hr x 7 hrs
59
Leader
$7.35hrx7hrs
51
Supplies
80
Subtotal: $277
22% Overhead: 61
Total Expenditures: $338
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Decision Package - September 1, 1998 -August 31, 1999
Boredom Busters - boys and girls 7-11 years
Program format 9:30 am -2:30 pm. Children make crafts, socialize with friends, play games and
activities, and have lunch while parent has a day off.
Revenue
22 participants x $16
Expenditures
Promotion/Flyers/Marketing
Specialist
$14.54 hr x 4 hrs
Staff
Specialist
$14.54 hr x 2 hrs
Senior Leader
$8.36hrx7hrs
Leader
$7.35hrx7hrs
Supplies
$352
Total Revenue: $352
$58
29
59
51
80
Subtotal: $277
22% Overhead: 61
Total Expenditures: $338
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Decision Package - September 1, 1998 -August 31, 1999
Breakfast with Santa
Revenue
75 adults @ $10/each
75 children @ $8/each
Expenditures
Senior Leader
6hrs x$8.36hr
Leader
6 hrs x $7.35 hr
Specialist
15 hrs x $13.84 hr
Table decorations (one time cost)
Breakfast
80 participants x $7 each
Santa Visit
$750
600
Total Revenue: $1,350
$50
44
208
150
560
50
Total Expenditures: $1,062
22% Overhead: 234
Grand Total: $1,296
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Decision Package - September 1, 1998 -August 31, 1999
Name of Activity: Pirates in the Park
Location of Activity: Sycamore Canyon Park
Date of Activity: April 15, 1998
Time and Duration: 2:00 pm -4:00 pm/2 hr. (plus 1 1/2 hrs. set-up)
Ages of Participants: 6-10 yrs. old
Fee: $5/1 meeting
min./max.:
20-70 participants
Description:
This an activity that would provide kids from the community with
an opportunity to be involved in an adventure filled with games
and fun. There will be a treasure hunt where kids attempt to find
the hidden treasure through the use of clues made by staff. There
will be a water balloon fight & a slip n' slide. "Capture the Flag"
and "Quick Draw" are also some of the activities to be conducted.
Certificates will be handed out to 1st, 2nd, and 3rd places.
Revenue
70 participants x $5
$350
Expenditures:
Staffing Costs:
Sr. ldr @ 8.58 x 6 hrs. $51
(Yorba Linda for equipment pick-up and return,
Purchase time for supplies)
2 ldrs @ 7.35 x 4 hrs. $59
2 workers @ 5.94 x 4 hrs $48
Staff expenditures:
Supply Needs/Costs: Slip n' Slide (borrow)
cardboard (borrow)
boxes for capture the flag (borrow)
water guns (borrow or purchase)
walkie talkies (borrow)
2 shovels (borrow)
2 bags of gold covered rocks (borrow or make)
hammers/nails
maps to treasure (staff)
dye for quick draw (purchase)
sand bags (borrow)
H2O balloons (purchase)
Supply Expenditures
Subtotal'
+ 22% overhead:
Total Cost of Program:
$158
$40
$40
$30
$110
$268
$59
$327
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Decision Package - September 1, 1998 -August 31, 1999
Name of Activity: Gladiator Night/Day
Location of Activity: Heritage Park/Sycamore Canyon Park
Date of Activity: Easter Break/Christmas Vacation
Time/Duration: 4 hrs. (1 hr. set up time)
Ages of Participants: 7-12 yrs. of age
Fee: $7/1 meeting
min./max.: 40 min.
Description: Event to be held during Easter break or Christmas vacation. Kids
participate in a variety of activities. Such activities include a
jousting competition, an obstacle course (called the eliminator), a
chicken fight, power ball, the Gauntlet, and Dog Bone. All
activities give the participants the chance to compete against other
kids and staff in a friendly competition.
Revenue
40 participants x $7 $280
Expenditures:
Staffing Costs: spclst @ $14.54 x 6 hrs $87
sr. ldr. @ $8.58 x 6 hrs $ 5 1
(equipment pick-up and return)
2 wrkrs @ $5.94 x 4 hrs $48
Staff expenditures $186
Supply needs/costs: gymnastics mats (borrow)
stage props triangles (borrow)
tennis balls
towels
2 joust poles (borrow or make)
cones
2 milk crates
bat
stop watches/score clock (borrow)
bull horn (borrow)
Supplies expenditures SO
Subtotal $186
+22% overhead $41
Total Cost of Program $227
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Decision Package - September 1, 1998 -August 31, 1999
Name of Activity:
Wild Wild West
Location of Activity:
Sycamore Canyon Park
Date of Activity:
Summer of 1998
Time/Duration:
12:00 pm -3:00 pm/5 hrs. (2 hrs. set-up time)
Ages of Participants:
7-12 yrs. of age
Fee:
$7/1 meeting
min./max.:
20-60 participants
Description:
A 3 hr. summer activity for kids involving a variety of activities.
Kids would participate in various games such as a treasure hunt,
water pistol and balloon fight, a quick draw competition, and
capture the flag. The treasure hunt gives kids a challenge to search
for the hidden treasure through the use of clues (staff makes).
Capture the flag involves two teams on opposite ends competing to
capture a flag. Water pistols are used to eliminate participants
from each team. The quick draw competition will be held in
tournament fashion where kids attempt to shoot their competitor
before being shot (dye is used in the water pistols). Certificates
will be handed out to 1 st, 2nd, and 3rd place.
Revenue
60 participants x $7
$420
Expenditures:
Staffing Cost:
sr.ldr @8.58 x 8 hrs $69
(Yorbal Linda for equip. pick-up and return, set-up time)
21drs @ 7.35 x 5 hrs $74
2 wrkrs @ 5.94 x 5 hrs $59
Staff expenditures $202
Supply needs/cost:
slip n' slide (borrow)
water pistols' $40
walkie talkies (borrow)
2 shovels (borrow)
hammers/nails
H2O balloons $40
Dye for quick draw $30
sand bags (borrow)
2 bags of gold covered rocks (borrow or make)
supply expenditures $110
Subtotal $212
+22 % overhead $69
Total Cost of Program: $381
Diamond Bar Recreation Services Decision Package -September 1, 1998 -August 31, 1999
Name of Activity: Tri -city Basketball Tournament
Location of Activity: Brea Community Center/Yorba Linda Gymnasium, Diamond Bar HS
Date of Activity: To Be Determined
Time/Duration: 1 or 2 day tournament
Ages of Participants: 16+
Fee: per team/to be determined
min./max.: To Be Determined
Description: The proposal for this special event is not complete. Tournament will
only be open to teams involved with the Cities of Diamond Bar, Brea, or
Yorba Linda. Tournament classifications will include D, D+, and C
levels of competition. Teams will be guaranteed two games and
individual awards will be given to 1 st and 2nd place teams in each
division. Currently in initial stages of planning. Once tournament site is
determined, the min/max number of teams, team fees, staffing and supply
expenditures can be determined.
m
rn
V
C
O
V
C
V
wN
c �
o c
q �
C co
u_ a
Z o M
W N m rn
�2
LL c U
O Er)
E o Im
o
m �
O
C OY
S 00
A 0)
0 r
0
O
U
O
I-
N
N
f
C
s
u
r CD O Q Q Q Cl)
N
GD t() O N O - r O M M Nr OOM OM NQN
r r r r r W
r
O
co M Lo Q O) r r O Q Q N N r r
Q
p Q r Ln In In (D
O M OLn r M M M N
Cl)
r r r 0 0 0 O O N N Q
It - - a M O Ln Q 'it0 0 0 Ln to � DD
Cl)
Cl)
O M O Ln (D (O COGO
A
ci C6 KO 43i CO to 00 aD (D (+i (+i r
M (D CD CV v r
GD
CD N r r
OD
r
M r r
_ Lr)O) ti
N
p O M lT (O m r r M r r O O O O
r M M M O Q CO N N r (D (D N N r r
r
W
L j M (D r O O)
C' i v Lr Lr (G (C (C CO
(p Oi tO tt1 1� GO CV l('i r- r- of Di
O Ln M M N N
(D OQ Q Q
r
M c
r O N
fD
O Q
M
LO Q CQO
GOO
(y Q Q r Q O) N N
r N O M Ln r co 00 Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
O
O
Ln Go Q Di Q\ Q Q Q
(7
O GO Q Oi L1'i r r r
O M M Q Q Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
M
O (D Z Z Z Z Z
tn
�
QQj Z Q M M (D M M
M (O
C4
N
LO
C)
Cl) T Ln (D (D CA v v O
LA M Ln Q� (D Q Q Q Q Q Q Q
Q
O) CO M O O
Z Lf N N Z Z Z Z Z Z Z
0
r
co Ln O O Z Z Z Z Z
r M Cl) N
Q
c-
N
r
CD (N r N CA 0) to to
CO
M r O r (D O r r r CD (D Lo Ln r r
r (D N (D O r pp Q Q O O N N
W
r
r O r LO- r r r
r
r
Q M Q CP O r M Ln Ln N N
N�pp Ln Lo Go co
r
N Q O (D. co co m GD
r O M N co O GO r
Q
v
�
CO O T )r O O Q $ O O � CD
(�aornoQNo(D
r
r(qR Ln LnlnGD
to Q Q Q r
P-7
M O r LT Go r r r (D Q Q M M r
r
N'T
(O N r
O
O
O
O
Q
r
Q N r N 00 co 00 D)
(D
C) r O O r r r
O O N N M O O) D) N N
r
lli o co C 1 Lo Ln Lo CY)
Q
O O , _ _ O (D m Oi CD
Ll) O r co Ln Ln Ln LO
(O
O
_
o Lo Ln N
V Qri r N O O O O CO to Ln 'a tt N N
N
N O (O (O CO (O N
r
r N r r r N r r
N
Q N
r
M
O
r , , , , , , , L
GO
co
cct
M
co
Q O Q o O
r
N
Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0(D 0 0 0 0 0 0
N (D N (D Q r' N N O Q Q r r
N
O N N t0 co t0 N
r
N
r O co � O� O r N
GNo
C. f�1 M N N N CN
Q to CD N N N O
r
O
Ln C. CMO (NO [On
M_ to r O r CD Ln Ln Cb O Q GO O
(D
M � GO N Ln to (n r
M
O a CO r M r r Ln Q Q M M r
Qi Q Lo r Q Q Q r
(D
r
in N r
O
N r r
r
01 N N M M M M c
r r Ln N M M O O m N N M M Q Q
O r Lo Ln M Q (D CD G0 Ln Lo M 00 O
N Lo Lo Go M M M T
v M v
Lo w w or r r (D
_
N r r
(A fR U3. N9 ul Vi 4f! 69 to 69 Ni 69 FA (A fA to EA (A (A 49 (f! (A to to
Lon O Gro � r r r �
GD r co O (O (D to N
w � �
as a
aa_a
as aaa~aaaa
O O O Q o 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
GO CD S N W GO r O W Lo r L* r r 0 0
(D L() (D O O Q) O Ln Q Q Q Q M M
N r r r
U) c
w w
a a
LL a (l L CL d CL a CL CL CL m CL CL m (L
_ c
o 1m c c U
y U m
C r
OL CL Z Z m M
C'41
(!) U U r Cn 'O (Zj U C C C CS ( CD
ITQ `000 8 U U
c dZ �v= m a4)U (D (D Z2
(O� a)�==�mm000U
U 'O .O L: -0 N N N N
Ec.Ea)mc�mw-6 mm00
C E 7 c) L N a) a) d� Cn a) a) >
m O Q Q' Cn J J CL C/)J J 7
rn
CD
O �
GMp O
v CD
(D
N Q
N Q
01
C'4 co
Lo co
O GO
LO L
M
r (D
N Ort
N
O
O
r
cr) (n
r
roi r
C
O
r
c6
cq I-
� n
NI lo
cc
�
O
(D
Ln
to
Lr_
Q
U)
w
LU
EL
a
0
rn
U
r
r O
to r
c0
O
F�
M
C
N
to CO
G
M
U
co
N
d at
2
aa
to J u
M
Q
Or N
C A
0
ONi
O) r
2
R
((o
M O r
V !7
R V
M
M
� Q
O
M r
CD 0
F
r
L
V
�
w
c
O
�
O
L C
C
is
O N
OD
N
i
r
p c
C
U O
s
V
c A
a
Z•°m
W N l6 rn
V
m 0)
0
LL c U
O c)
E 6
c
r0,1
E
V 0 0 7
U
a
v
O Q 00
N
A d L
m
c
u
C LO
O ao CD
to
P-
ROO)
N i
0
m
O)
a
X w
O
v 0
CL
d
O
Y?,
N
14
7
O
s
U.
LL
S.
co Iq
N
tO
OD r
T r N
r O
to r
O
OD
N
N
to CO
(A
M
M
co
N
00 �
aa
O
M
V IT N
Or N
M
ONi
O) r
r
((o
M O r
r
M
M
d
O
M r
CD 0
r
r
t)
Oi M M
N I-
W
O
Qi Lo O)
v CO
e7
O N
OD
to M y
O M
co
Cl)
tO N Q
r O
Cl)
W
r0,1
F-
CD
O Q 00
N
r
M
O ao CD
to
P-
N
"
N
(o O
N
O1
X w
O
v 0
O O
O
LO F-
N
V fp--
N 1.-
WA
co
to co r-
lQ -V
tr-
I
N N
�
� to Co
M
co
r
Of
r tD
r
r
M
N
M
to
(p
O
N co O
M
O
N
N r 0
M
W
O
r N M
(o
M
N
r M M
r
C
Cl)
M
O r N
o)
O
0
N
�
Cl)
N
(OO
m
N
v
v
M M o
a
N
o o
r
v
N
N
N N
M
O
N O N
r' -
%r
v O
V
to
N
Cl) to O
Co
co
M
M
O O O
O
O
O
O M O
M i
co
CN
oo
O
c0
to
N 'grN
O
c
N N-
M
to
O
O
a n
co
n
O
C) N r
O)
co
N
N
-
N
-
O
P.:
(D
CO
M CO
OD to
to
01
M CO
M N
O
M O
M N
O O
r
O
N N
O)
O
m O
a
v N LV
m
r
�
M O
M
cOD O
v
M �
N
O W
I-
-
v
co W
O M
(o
O
r
M to O
O to
O
r
M N O
CO co
to
O N
r
CD N v
r M
r
N
(D
O O
N
CD
O
O
o
�
r O)
(D
O 00
CO to
v
O
0 co m
v O
O
O u)
v
rn r
to O
r
r
O r
M O
o>
co 1-�
(O
V f, R
N LL7
N
r
w g v
fA M
O O
O
C O R
V N
r
co
st c0 IW
N M
r M
r N 0
to O
N
M
r -V (D
— tD
r
nj
r
N
C7
I
rn
co
v
w
00
c6
�
oc
O
M
M
M
M
o o
0 o
v
v O 0
LO r
m
N
r
N � O
O
N
tD
N to W)M
r
M
r
r V r
Cl)
N
M
r N r
O (o
Cl)
O)
O
N (D
O) r
00
to W
M CO
M
Z'
C N
M
MCNV
O 'N
to
cor
r
O r
Lo C14
O N Iq
� CO
to
N
N O
r
N
E
J
Q
�I
IL
Q
Or WI
O
O
a
O
O
W
~
d
m
p
p
O
O
N
O
E
IL
Q
O
a
O
O
~
~
m
p
p
O
O
N
O
U)
b>_
Cl)
W
W
W
a
LL
a
X w
D:
a
as
a
u- as
a
LL
E
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT AGENDA N0. �s
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: August 18,1998 REPORT DATE: August 12, 1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Approval of Contract Amendment with J. Michael Huls, R.E.A., to research and report on the Solid
Waste Standards Task Force Recommendations
SUMMARY: On August 4,1998, the City Council reviewed the staff report on recommendations of the Solid
Waste Standards Task Force (SWSTF) and directed staff and J. Michael Huls (JMH) to proceed with the five
studies required to fully evaluate the SWSTF recommendations.
The City desires to retain J. Michael Huls, R.E.A., for this assignment based on the skills and experience of
Mr. Huls with respect to solid waste and recycling issues, his overall understanding of the community, and
familiarity as the facilitator of the Solid Waste Standards Task Force. The five SWSTF recommendations
requiring further study will be done concurrently and individual reportlstudy will be presented to the City Council
as analysis is completed.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract
amendment with J. Michael Huls in an amount not -to -exceed $5,000.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
_ Resolution _ Bid Specifications
_ Ordinances(s) _S Other. Amendment#7,
J. Michael Huls Proposal, dated 8/10/98
Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1.
Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
X Yes _ No
by the City Attorney?
2.
Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote?
Majority
3.
Has environmental impact been assessed?
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?
WA —Yes —No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belange James DeStefano David G. Liu
City Manager Deputy City Manager Deputy Director of Public Works
OMP6KINUAKAYMCEN-MULW-818
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
Agenda No.
MEETING: August 18, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Approval of Contract Amendment with J. Michael Huls, R.E.A., to research and
report on the Solid Waste Standards Task Force Recommendations
ISSUE STATEMENT:
To amend the contract with J. Michael Huls QMH), the City of Diamond Bar's Integrated
Environmental Services Coordinator, to research and report on the Solid Waste Standards Task
Force recommendations.
RECOW4 ENDATION:
That the City Council approve and authorize the Mayor to execute the contract amendment with
J. Michael Huls in an amount not -to -exceed $5,000.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The City has budgeted $40,000 of Integrated Waste Management Fund and $10,000 General Fund
in Fiscal Year 1998-99 for environmental management services. The major funding sources are
Used Oil Block Grant, AB 939, and the reimbursement program under a recently executed
Memorandum of Understanding with the County of Los Angeles for the NPDES Educational Site
Visit Program.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
On August 4, 1998, the City Council reviewed the staff report on recommendations of the Solid
Waste Standards Task Force (SWSTF). The City Council directed staff and J. Michael Huls to
proceed with the five studies required to fully evaluate the SWSTF recommendations.
The five SWSTF recommendations requiring further study include:
• Variable Rate System;
• Automated Collection System for Single -Family Sector;
• Yard Waste Collection Program for Single -Family Sector;
• Extending Mandatory Recycling Service to Multi -Family Sector; and
0 Selecting a Single Service Provider for Single -Family Sector.
J. Michael Huls
August 18, 1998
Page 2
These five studies will be done concurrently and individual report/study will be presented to the
City Council as analysis is completed. The attached JMH proposal, dated August .10, 1998,
details the process and expected results.
Staff recommends that the City retain JMH to execute this work program based on the skills and
experience of Mr. Huls with respect to solid waste and recycling issues, and his overall
understanding of the community. J. Michael Huls has capabilities to perform the five studies
within the time line established in the proposal.
Prepared by:
C:\WP60\L NDAKAY\CCR-98\HULs#7.818
AIEIDMEr1T NO. 7 TO THE CITY'S PROFESSIONAL
SERVICES AGREEMBrI'r FOR ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES
This Agreement (Amendment No. 7) is made and entered into this
day of , 1998, between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a
Municipal Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "CITY") and J.
Michael Huls (hereinafter referred to as "CONSULTANT").
A. Recitals:
(i) The CITY entered into an Agreement, with J. Michael
Huls to provide Environmental Management Services with Respect to
the Development and Implementation of an Integrated Environmental
Management Program, which the Agreement was dated August 15, 1995,
and was amended by Amendment No.l dated June 18, 1996, Amendment
No. 2 dated July 16, 1996, Amendment No. 3 dated August 5, 1997,
Amendment No. 4 dated February 3, 1998, Amendment No. 5 dated June
2, 1998, and Amendment No. 6 dated August 4, 1998 (as amended, the
"Agreement").
(ii) The City requested a proposal to research and report
on the Solid Waste Standards Task Force recommendations.
(iii)CONSULTANT submitted a proposal, a full, true and
correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "H" to provide
research and report on the Solid Waste Standards Task Force
Recommendations at a not -to -exceed cost of 55.000.
(iv) It is in the City's best interest to amend the
Agreement for the services in order to ensure consistency and
continuity of the services already being provided by CONSULTANT.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and CONSULTANT:
Section 1: Section 3 of the Agreement is hereby amended
to read as follows:
"3. Compensation. CITY agrees to compensate
Consultant for each service which CONSULTANT performs to the
satisfaction of City in compliance with the schedule set forth in
Exhibits •G' AND 'H'. Payment will be made only after submission
of proper monthly invoices in the form specified by City. Total
payment to CONSULTANT pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed
FORTY EIGHT THOUSAND TWO HUNDRED SEVENTY-SIX DOT•T,ARS (548.276.00)."
Section 2. Exhibits 'G' and "H" of the Agreement are
hereby attached hereto and incorporated herein.
Section 3. Each party
1
to this Amendment No. 7
acknowledges that no representation by any party which is not
embodied herein nor any other agreement, statement, or promise not
contained in this Amendment No. 7 shall be valid and binding. Any
modification of this Amendment No. 7 shall be effective only if it
is in writing signed by the parties.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this
Amendment No. 7 as of the day and year first set forth above:
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
ATTEST:
City Clerk
DATE:
C:\WPWI NDAKAY\AGREE-9Y\ANMND7hub.i19 2
CONSULTANT:
J. MICHAEL HULS
J. Michael Huls
Principal
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Mayor
J. AAiCkCked i --I L41 s, R.C.A.
568 East Foothill Boulevard, Suite 107
Azusa, CA 91702-2527
August 10, 1998
David G. Liu, P.E.
Deputy Director of Public Works
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Registered
Envi ronmzntnl
Assessor
E-Jvtail: jm(lren@flnsti.net
(626) 969-7816 Fax: (626) 969-7854
RE: PROPOSAL TO RESEARCH AND REPORT ON SOLID WASTE STANDARDS
TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS
Dear Mr. Liu:
J. Michael Huls, R.E.A. (JMH) is pleased to submit this proposal to research and report on the Solid
Waste Standards Task Force (SWSTF) Recommendations as directed by City Council on August
4, 1998. The research and reporting project is to address five recommendations as formulated by
the SWSTF.
JMH has previously provided a preliminary evaluation of the recommendations, and has identified
probable expectations of the reports. In this proposal, JMH details the process and expected results,
and provides a not -to -exceed price for conducting the work.
Scope of Work
JMH proposes five separate tasks composed of one or more subtasks to accomplish the objectives
of the project which are to:
1. Prepare succinct analytical reports on the five SWSTF recommendations
2. Provide City Council with adequate information to make informed decisions about the
SWSTF recommendations
Proposal to Diamond Bar
SWSTF Recommendations Research Project
August 10, 1998
Page 2
The five tasks are listed and described below.
Task 1 Report on Variable Rate System
The purpose of this task is to work with the permitted haulers to develop a viable variable rate
system, determine the cost structure, and then codify the new system so that all permitted haulers
implement a common program for residents and businesses. The variable rate system will apply to
all sectors of Diamond Bar including single-family residences, multi -family residences, and
businesses.
Normally, variable rates for residences (e.g., container -served customers) are premised on volume
and/or numbers of containers. Additional containers cost extra. One issue that will be discussed
is what type of incentives could be structured to reward residents who are already reducing their
waste or only need small refuse containers. For instance, the standard barrel could be 96 gallon
capacity, but a 64 gallon capacity barrel could be obtained by a resident at a lower rate.
For bin -served customers, rates traditionally have favored larger generators. Small generators pay
about $13 per cubic yard and large generators pay less than $2 per cubic yard. A new variable rate
structure would decrease the cost per volume for the smaller generators who produce much less that
larger generators, but increase the cost for larger generators. The higher cost should cause larger
generators to implement recycling (since recycling bins cost about half that of normal refuse bins)
and waste prevention. Recycling is more easily accommodated since larger generators have
multiple bins picked up several times per week. Smaller generators usually only have one bin
picked up once per week. Smaller generators make up 70% of the rate payers yet only produce 30%
of the waste.
The task consists of five subtasks:
Subtask 1-1 Meet with the Permittees and Standardize Program
JMH will organize a meeting with the haulers for Friday, August 7, 1998 for the
purpose of discussing the variable rate system (as well as automated collection,
green waste, and single -hauler selection) and establishing one or more common
f Proposal to Diamond Bar
SWSTF Recommendations Research Project
August 10, 1998
Page 3
programs for the establishment of cost elements
Subtask 1-2 Obtain Cost Elements
Pursuant to the Subtask 1-1 meeting, the permittees will be asked to evaluate the
common program(s) and prepare preliminary cost estimates for late comparative
analysis by the consultant.
Subtask 1-3 Conduct Route Sampling
A common question asked of the City Council is whether three barrels are necessary.
Besides the fact that separation into three categories requires three barrels, it is
important to properly size the containers so that cost can be reduced to the minimum.
JMH will conduct a sampling of routes to identify the amount and volume of waste
collected at the curb in the single family residential sector.
Subtask 14 Comparative Analysis of Costs
JMH will conduct a comparative analysis of cost using the submitted pricing
structure from the permittees and information obtained from similar cities with
programs of similar nature to that proposed for Diamond Bar.
Subtask 1-5 Pre= Report of Findings
JMH will prepare the report of findings. JMH will formulate recommendations
based on the results. The report will be issued on or about October 20, 1998. This
report will contain the specifications of the program, issues of implementation and
design, and their resolution, identification of incentive actions that reward waste
prevention and recycling, documentation of probable costs, presentation of a
timetable for implementation, and provision of text for adoption of the program into
the City Code.
Proposal to Diamond Bar
SWSTF Recommendations Research Project
August 10, 1998
Page 4
Task 2 Report on Automated Collection System for Single -Family Residential (SFR)
Customers
This task entails some if not much of the activity prepared under Task 1. However, there are some
design issues, implementation questions, and cost implications from selection of the appropriate
system. The principal issue from the cost perspective is the barrels themselves since they can cost
up to $100 each. Amortization of the barrels presupposes a set period of amortization. Yet
Diamond Bar permits have traditionally been held to two years. We will need to discuss the
lengthening of the permit period and cost proposals from the haulers should be structured in the
following increments: two years, five years, and ten years.
The task will be accomplished in three subtasks:
Subtask 2-1 Meet with Permittees
See Subtask 1-1 for details. The permittees will specify the program based on the
requirements of the City.
Subtask 2-2 Comparative Analysis of Automated Collection Systems
JMH will compare the specifications ofthe proposed program with similar programs
already implemented elsewhere. Design and implementation issues will be
identified and commented on.
Subtask 2-3 Prepare Report of Findines
JMH will prepare the report of findings. JMH will formulate recommendations
based on the results. The report will be issued on or about October 20, 1998. This
report will contain the specifications of the program, issues of implementation and
design, and their resolution, identification of incentive actions that reward waste
prevention and recycling, documentation of probable costs, presentation of a
timetable for implementation, and provision of text for adoption of the program into
the City Code.
«`x , Proposal to Diamond Bar
SWSTF Recommendations Research Project
August 10, 1998
Page 5
Task 3 Report on Yard Waste Collection Program
From comments gathered from the audience of the two City Council meetings held July 21, 1998
and August 4, 1998, there are some misconceptions about green waste generation, collection, and
recycling. This report will attempt to clear these up as well as address the issue of implementing
a green waste program that serves the best interests of the City. To date, it is known that over 90%
of all yard wastes originates from single-family residents (see the SRRE). Nearly all yard wastes
derived from apartments and town home complexes are either recycled into alternative daily cover
at County Sanitation Facilities or composted.
Therefore, it is the intent of this task to focus on development of a yard waste collection effort
aimed solely at single family residents. There will be three subtasks undertaken:
Subtask 3-1 Meet with the Permittees
As discussed in Subtask 1-1, the City will meet with the permittees to discuss the
design of the program, and to provide a standard of operation that will allow the
permittees to identify the probable cost.
Subtask 3-2 Analyze the Data
JMH will obtain information from the permittees and others and make a comparative
study of the design and implementation issues for green wastes. It is known that
there are alternative designs that could have a bearing on cost of the containers. For
instance, odor could be a factor in design as some expensive barrels have the ability
to allow moisture to evaporate, thereby reducing anaerobic decomposition which
causes foul odor.
Also, there are about 20% of the residential population that grass cycles and home
composts and may not have much if any yard waste to recycle in the curbside
program. There should be some consideration of the negative impacts of
apportioning the full costs of the program to every residential unit. Some ways of
exempting residents who do not generate yard waste because they already recycle
Proposal to Diamond Bar
SWSTF Recommendations Research Project
August 10, 1998
Page 6
could be documentation of the presence of a composting unit obtained through the
City's seminar program; self -certification of practicing grass cycling reducing yard
waste to negligible levels; or some other mechanism. However, simply not
participating would not be an adequate exemption from the cost. Of course,
certifications would need to be cross checked at least on a sample basis. If sampling
showed that some residents were claiming grass cycling inappropriately, then further
measures or proof might be required before any resident could claim the exemption.
Subtask 3-3 Prepare the Report of Findings
WE will prepare the report of findings. WE will formulate recommendations
based on the results. The report will be issued on or about September 15, 1998.
This report will contain the specifications of the program, issues of implementation
and design, and their resolution, identification of incentive actions that reward waste
prevention and recycling, documentation of probable costs, presentation of a
timetable for implementation, and provision of text for adoption of the program into
the City Code.
Task 4 Report on Extending Mandatory Recycling Service to Multi -Family Housing
This task will take some time to conduct since it requires extensive input from the
public, and there are significant design issues to be resolved. There are three tasks
proposed:
Subtask 4-1 Meet with the Permittees MFR Owners and Operators and Tenants and Tenant
Associations
Similar to previous tasks, the City will meet with the aforementioned parties to
develop a coherent strategy to implement recycling and waste prevention in the
multi -family sector. Issues will be identified through this outreach work, and one
or more provisions for recycling and waste prevention will be developed for testing
and application.
F Proposal to Diamond Bar
SWSTF Recommendations Research Project
August 10, 1998
Page 7
Subtask 4-2 Conduct One or More Pilot Projects for MFR Recycling
JMH will work with one or more owners/associations to set up pilot projects for
recycling by no later than September 20, 1998 or Waste Prevention Week. The
intent of this effort is to demonstrate the viability of the selected alternatives, and to
document the participation of tenants in the programs. The programs will be paid
for with fees from the Integrated Waste Management Fund. It is anticipated that the
cost will be minimal, and could be negligible based on arrangements to be made
between permittees and customers.
Subtask 4-3 Develop the Program for MFR Recycling in the City and Codify Elements in the City
Code
Based on the preliminary results of the on-going pilot program, a standard(s) for
MFR recycling provision will be developed and codified. As part of this standard,
costs and implementation issues will be identified, and JMH will describe working
programs conducted elsewhere as a comparison.
Subtask 44 Prepare Report of Findings
JMH will prepare the report of findings. JMH will formulate recommendations
based on the results. The report will be issued on or about December 29, 1998.
This report will contain the specifications of the program, issues of implementation
and design, and their resolution, documentation of probable costs, presentation of a
timetable for implementation, and provision of text for adoption ofthe program into
the City Code.
Task 5 Report on Selecting a Single Service Provider for SFRs
Among the recommendations by the SWSTF was for the City Council to consider selecting a single
service provider for the single family residential customers. Most if not all urban cities in California
provide for a single service provider as this can often lead to lower costs, improved service, and
increased benefits to the city. Among the benefits include greater liability acceptance for
t Proposal to Diamond Bar
SWSTF Recommendations Research Project
August 10, 1998
Page 8
environmental regulations and revenues in the form of franchise fees. The usual reluctance by
residents to single hauler systems is the apparent lack of choice among diverse haulers. The
attraction of the competitive environment is the seeming improved price that customers can obtain
by shopping for services, although a review of area pricing shows that franchise cities have lower
residential rates than open, competitive cities. The mechanisms used to obtain a single -hauler
include competitive requests for bid or requests for proposal, or negotiation with an existing
provider. Normally, the jurisdiction would issue a 5 -year notice to other haulers informing them
of the intent to franchise or extend exclusive arrangements.
To best address this task, JMH will undertake three subtasks:
Subtask 5-1 Meet with the Permittees
See Subtask 1-1 for a detailed explanation of the subtask.
Subtask 5-2 Analyze the Information
JMH will comparatively evaluate two or more mechanisms for selecting a single
hauler. JMH will present the costs and benefits of having one hauler instead of an
open environment. Rates for cities with and without franchises will be listed and
evaluated based on their specific conditions, so that a comparative study with
Diamond Bar can be made.
Subtask 5-3 Prepare the Report of Findings
JMH will prepare the report of findings. JMH will formulate recommendations
based on the results. The report will be issued on or about February 2, 199,89 This
report will contain the specifications of the program, issues of implementation and
design, and their resolution, documentation of probable costs, presentation of a
timetable for implementation, and provision of text for adoption of the program into
the City Code. Benefits and costs will be detailed in this report, along with the best
mechanism (see above discussion) to select the single hauler if the City Council so
choose to proceed.
Proposal to Diamond Bar
SWSTF Recommendations Research Project
August 10, 1998
Page 9
Cost Estimate
JMH proposes a cost of $5,000 to complete this work program. The budget is detailed below:
Budget Estimate*
Title Hr ELte Hours cost
Principal $75/hr 42 3,150
Associate Consultant $40/hr 46 1,840
N isc. 10
Total $5,000
*JMH reserves the right to reallocate hours and personnel as the need arises.
Qualifications
JMH is one of the southern California area's most dynamic environmental consultants. Since
inception in January 1995, JMH has served nearly 40 clients. JMH staff is diverse, reflecting the
inherent diversity in many of its client communities. JMH staff is experienced, representing years
of work in municipal government and recycling as well as broader environmental themes. WE is
a recycling consultant to Fortune 500 companies as well such as GTE. JMH has consulted to
Diamond Bar since 1994, and is currently the Integrated Environmental Services Coordinator for
the City.
If there are any questions concerning this proposal, please feel free to contact the undersigned at
(626) 969-7816.
Sincerely,
J. Michael Huls, REA
Principal
enclosure
•4n
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
FROM: Linda G. Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director
DATE: August 12, 1998
SUBJECT: Advance and Reimbursement Agreement Number 9
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt a resolution approving Advance and
Reimbursement Agreement Number 9, with the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency, in the
amount of $12,000.
Discussion•
In September 1996, the Redevelopment Agency proceeded with a redevelopment plan adoption
process for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area. Included within this project area is
the Gateway Corporate Center. The $12,000 requested in this Advance and Reimbursement
Agreement 49 will be used to fund the appraisal and economic cost/benefit analysis of Lot 2
located within the Gateway Corporate Center.
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING ADVANCE AND
REIMBURSEMENT AGREEMENT NUMBER 9
WITH THE DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar hereby finds, determines, resolves
and orders as follows:
SECTION 1. The Advance and Reimbursement Agreement Number 9 for
Administrative and Overhead Expenses, attached here to as Exhibit "A", is hereby approved. The
mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute such Advance and Reimbursement Agreement
Number 9 for and on behalf of the City.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED 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, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1998, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
ABSENT
0.03 W,111►10
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. G-7
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 18, 1998 REPORT DATE: August 11, 1998
FROM: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
TITLE: Amendment No. 2 to a Professional Services Agreement with BonTerra Consulting
regarding Environmental Services for proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267 (VTTM No.
52267 [SunCal]).
SUMMARY: This report requests approval of an amendment to an existing consulting services
agreement with BonTerra Consulting in order to provide additional environmental services necessary
to complete the environmental analysis of the proposed 130 -unit residential.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to the
agreement between the City and BonTerra Consulting in the amount of $3,950.
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: BonTerra, SunCal
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
REVIEWED BY:
n�
Terrence L. Bel r
City Manager
aAsuncala.men
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
by the City Attorney? N/A
_ Yes
_ No
2.
Does the report require a majority vote or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY
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?
_Yes
XNo
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWED BY:
n�
Terrence L. Bel r
City Manager
aAsuncala.men
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: August 18, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Amendment No. 2 to a Professional Services Agreement with BonTerra Consulting
regarding Environmental Services for proposed Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267 (VTTM No.
52267 [SunCal]).
ISSUE STATEMENT: This report requests approval of an amendment to an existing consulting
services agreement with BonTerra Consulting in order to provide additional environmental services
necessary to complete the environmental analysis of the proposed 130 -unit residential.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve an amendment to the
agreement between the City and BonTerra Consulting in the amount of $3,950.
FINANCIAL STATEMENT: Costs associated with processing the project are funded through
developer fees paid by the project applicant to the City.
BACKGROUND: In December 1996, the City entered into a contract for $83,645 with BonTena
Consulting to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for proposed VTTM No. 52267. SunCal is
proposing a 130 -unit project to be developed on 65 acres of a 340 -acre site located on the east side
of Diamond Bar Boulevard near Tin Drive.
The City Council approved a $28,508 amendment to the contract in March, 1998. BonTerra
Consulting is requesting a budget increase of $3,950 to reflect an expanded scope of work required
as a result of the necessary analysis of a recently prepared alternative design.
BonTerra Consulting has submitted a revised scope of work and proposed fees for the continued
processing of the EIR.
PREPARED BY:
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
attachments: Amendment No. 2 to the Consulting Services Agreement
Exhibit "A" - Revised Scope of Work and Fees
aAsuncal2 rpt
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO. _7 1
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 18,1998 REPORT DATE: August 7, 1998
FROM: Joann M. Gitmed, Senior AccountanQ �'�
TITLE:
Second Reading - Ordinance 26B (1989), An Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar Amending Ordinance 26
(1989), 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.
SUMMARY:
On July 21, 1989, the City Council adopted Resolution 89-88B, approving an amendment to the contract
between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System and the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar. At the same meeting, the City Council approved for first reading Ordinance 26B (1989)
also authorizing an amendment to the contract between the Board of Administration of the Public Employees'
Retirement System and the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar. Due to a Government Code requirement
(CGC Section 20471), "approval of the contract shall be by ordinance adopted by the affirmative vote of a
majority of the members of the governing body, not less than 20 days after the adoption of the resolution of
intention...". The first regularly scheduled meeting that Ordinance 26B (1989) could be brought back to the
City Council for second reading and final adoption is the August 18, 1998 City Council meeting.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve for second reading, waive full reading and adopt Ordinance 26B (1989) An Ordinance of the City of
Diamond Bar Amending Ordinance 26 (1989), Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract Between the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar and the Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement
System.
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: e Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification
Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's office)
XX Ordinance(s) XX Other: "Exhibit" - Contract Amendment
_ 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?
_ Yes
_ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission?
_ Yes
_ No
Which Commission?
5. Are other departments affected by the report?
_ Yes
—No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
RE WED BY: ^, DEPARTMENT HEAD:
Terrence L. Belanger Linda G. Magnu o
City Manager Assistant Finance Director
ORDINANCE NO. 26B (1989)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AMENDING ORDINANCE 26 (1989), 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
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. That an amendment to the contract between the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar and the Board of Administration, California Public Employees' Retirement
System is hereby authorized, a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, marked "Exhibit",
and by such reference made a part hereof as though herein set out in full.
SECTION 2. The Mayor of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar is
hereby authorized, empowered, and directed to execute said amendment for and on behalf of said
Agency.
SECTION 3. This Ordinance shall take effect 30 days after the date of its
adoption, and prior to the expiration of 7 days from the passage thereof shall be posted in at least
three public places within the City of Diamond Bar and thenceforth and thereafter the same shall
be in full force and effect.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of ,1998.
Mayor
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar held on the day of , 1998, and was finally passed at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of ,
1998, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
City Clerk of the
City of Diamond Bar
EXHIBIT
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT
BETWEEN THE
BOARD OF ADMINISTRATION
OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIREMENT SYSTEM
AND THE
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
The Board of Administration, Public Employees' Retirement System, hereinafter referred to as
Board, and the governing body of above public agency, hereinafter referred to as Public Agency,
having entered into a contract effective November 18, 1989, and witnessed October 17, 1989
which provides for participation of Public Agency in said System, Board and Public Agency
hereby agree as follows:
A. Paragraphs 1 through 9 are hereby stricken from said contract as executed effective
November 18, 1989, and hereby replaced by the following paragraphs numbered 1
through 10 inclusive:
1. All words and terms used herein which are defined in the Public Employees'
Retirement Law shall have the meaning as defined therein unless otherwise
specifically provided. "Normal retirement age" shall mean age 60 for local
miscellaneous members.
2. Public Agency shall participate in the Public Employees' Retirement System from
and after November 18, 1989 making its employees as hereinafter provided,
members of said System subject to all provisions of the Public Employees'
Retirement Law except such as apply only on election of a contracting agency and
are not provided for herein and to all amendments to said Law hereafter enacted
except those, which by express provisions thereof, apply only on the election of a
contracting agency.
3. Employees of Public Agency in the following classes shall become members of
said Retirement System except such in each such class as are excluded by law or
this agreement:
a. Employees other than local safety members (herein referred to as local
miscellaneous members).
4. In addition to the classes of employees excluded from membership by said
Retirement Law, the following classes of employees shall not become members of
said Retirement System:
a. SAFETY EMPLOYEES.
PLEASE DO NOT SIGN "EXHIBIT. ONLY"
5. The percentage of final compensation to be provided for each year of credited
prior and current service as a local miscellaneous member shall be determined in
accordance with Section 21353 of said Retirement Law (2% at age 60 Full).
6. Public Agency elected and elects to be subject to the following optional
provisions:
a. Section 20356 (Extension of Reciprocity Rights for Elective Officers).
b. Section 20938 (Limit Prior Service to Members Employed on Contract
Date).
C. Section 21024 (Military Service Credit as Public Service), Statutes of
1976.
d. Section 21574 (Fourth Level of 1959 Survivor Benefits).
7. Public Agency shall contribute to said Retirement System the contributions
determined by actuarial valuations of prior and future service liability with respect
to local miscellaneous members of said Retirement System.
8. Public Agency shall also contribute to said Retirement System as follows:
a. Per covered member, $3.50 per month on account of the liability for the
1959 Survivor Benefits provided under Section 21574 of said Retirement
Law. (Subject to annual change.) In addition, all assets and liabilities of
Public Agency and its employees shall be pooled in a single account,
based on term insurance rates, for survivors of all local miscellaneous
members.
b. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment
within 60 days of date of contract to cover the costs of administering said
System as it affects the employees of Public Agency, not including the
costs of special valuations or of the periodic investigation and valuations
required by law.
C. A reasonable amount, as fixed by the Board, payable in one installment as
the occasions arise, to cover the costs of special valuations on account of
employees of Public Agency, and costs of the periodic investigation and
valuations required by law.
9. Contributions required of Public Agency and its employees shall be subject to
adjustment by Board on account of amendments to the Public Employees'
Retirement Law, and on account of the experience under the Retirement System
as determined by the periodic investigation and valuation required by said
Retirement Law.
/. Z
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF TITLE 8 OF THE
DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 8 AND DIVISION 1 OF TITLE
11 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AND
REVISING THE CITY HEALTH CODE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 8.24 of Title 8 of the Diamond Bar
City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 8.24 PUBLIC HEALTH
"Sec. 8.24.010. Adoption by reference.
Division 1 of Title 8 (Public Health Licenses) and.
Division 1 of Title 11 (the Health Code) of the Los Angeles
County Code, as amended and in effect on August 1, 1998, are
hereby adopted by reference and shall henceforth collectively be
known as the Health Code of the City of Diamond Bar.
"Sec. 8.24.020. Copies available for inspection.
A certified copy of Division 1 of Title 8 and Division
1 of Title 11, as adopted in Section 8.24.010, have been
deposited in the office of the City Clerk and shall be at all
times maintained by the City Clerk for use and examination by the
public.
"Sec. 8.24.030. Division 1, Title 8 - Amendments.
"(a) section 8.04.165 amended. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this Chapter, Section 8.04.165
of Chapter 8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los Angeles
County Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
`Section 8.04.165 Food Official Inspection
Report. "Food Official Inspection Report" means the
written notice prepared and issued by the county health
officer after conducting a routine inspection, and/or
reinspection in the event a timely request for
reinspection has been filed, of a food facility to
determine compliance with all applicable federal, state
and local statutes, orders, ordinances, quarantines,
rules, regulations, or directives relating to the
public health.'
"(b) subsections A and B of Section 8.04.225 amended.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this
980326 10572-00001 (sj 1950180.2 (2)
Chapter, subsections A and B of Section 8.04.225 of Chapter
8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los Angeles County Code
are hereby amended to read as follows:
`A. "Grading" means the letter grade issued by the
county health officer at the conclusion of the routine
inspection, and/or reinspection in the event a timely
request for reinspection has been filed, of a food
establishment. The grade shall be based upon the scoring
method set forth in this section resulting from the Food
Official Inspection Report and shall reflect the food
establishment's degree of compliance with all applicable
federal, state and local statutes, orders, ordinances,
quarantines, rules, regulations, or directives relating to
the public health.
B. "Letter Grade Card" means a card that may be
posted by the county health officer at a food establishment
upon completion of a routine inspection, and/or reinspection
in the event a timely request for reinspection has been
filed, that indicates the letter grade of the establishment
as determined by the county health officer using the scoring
method set forth in this section. For the purposes of this
provision, a food establishment shall include a food
establishment operating in conjunction with a food
processing establishment.
Upon completion of a routine inspection of a food
establishment, the county health officer shall advise the
owner or operator thereof, in writing, of the actual grading
and basis therefor as determined by the health officer. The
Letter Grade Card shall be immediately posted by the health
officer and shall remain posted unless and until
reinspection is timely requested as provided herein. If
reinspection is timely requested, posting shall be
immediately suspended pending regrading following the
reinspection.
Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit the county
health officer from creating, posting or otherwise using an
Inspection Score Card in combination with a Letter Grade
Card. The county health officer, in his discretion, shall
determine whether to post the Inspection Score Card, the
Letter Grade Card, or both.'
"M Section 8.04.275 amended. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this Chapter, Section
8.04.275 of Chapter 8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los
Angeles County Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
`Section 8.04.275 inspection Score Card.
A. "Inspection Score Card" means a card that may
be posted by the county health officer at a food
980326 10572-00001 lsj 1950180.2 (2) — 2 —
establishment, upon completion of a routine inspection,.
and/or reinspection in the event a timely request for
reinspection has been filed, that indicates the total
numerical percentage score for the establishment as
determined by the county health officer and as set forth in
the Food Official Inspection Report. For the purposes of
this provision, a food establishment shall include a food
establishment operating in conjunction with a food
processing establishment.
Upon completion of a routine inspection of a food
establishment, the county health officer shall advise the
owner or operator thereof, in writing, of the actual grading
and basis therefor as determined by the health officer. The
Inspection Score Card shall be immediately posted by the
health officer and shall remain posted unless and until
reinspection is timely requested as provided herein. If
reinspection is timely requested, posting shall be suspended
pending regrading following the reinspection.
Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit the county
health officer from creating, posting or otherwise using an
Inspection Score Card in combination with a Letter Grade
Card. The county health officer, in his discretion, shall
determine whether to post the Inspection Score Card, the
Letter Grade Card, or both.
B. The county health officer, in his discretion,
may immediately close any food establishment which, upon
completion of the routine inspection, or reinspection where
applicable, achieves a total numerical percentage score less
than seventy percent (70%) as set forth in Section 8.04.225.
Nothing in this provision shall prohibit the county health
officer from immediately closing any food establishment if,
in his discretion, immediate closure is necessary to protect
the public health.'
"(d) Section 8.04.402 added. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this Chapter, a new
Section 8.04.402 is hereby added to Chapter 8.04 of Division
1 of Title 8 of the Los Angeles County Code to read as
follows:
`8.04.402 Request for Reinspection. "Request for
Reinspection" means a written request, filed with the office
of the county health officer or a county health department
inspector while present on an inspected premises, within
three (3) business days of a routine inspection of a food
establishment conducted for purposes of preparing a Food
Official Inspection Report, Letter Grade Card, and/or
Inspection Score Card, therein requesting reinspection of
such establishment, which request may be made not more than
980326 10572-00001 (Si 1950180.2 (2) - 3 -
once in any twelve month period. A written acknowledgment
of receipt of the reinspection request shall be provided.
Reinspection shall be conducted not less than
fourteen (14) calendar days following the timely filing of a
request for reinspection and shall be limited to those
violations and areas and items of noncompliance identified
during the prior routine inspection. Following
reinspection, a revised Food Official Inspection Report
shall be prepared and the establishment shall be regraded
and posted based upon the revised Report. The scores
obtained with respect to areas and items which were found to
be in compliance during the prior routine inspection,
combined with scores obtained as a result of the
reinspection, shall be the sole basis upon which a Letter
Grade Card and/or Inspection Score Card may be prepared and
posted following reinspection.
A request for reinspection may only be filed by the
owner or operator of the food establishment of which such
routine inspection was conducted. Said three (3) day period
within which to request reinspection shall not commence
unless and until posting following a routine inspection has
occurred or the owner or operator has otherwise been
provided written notice of the actual grading and basis
therefor as determined by the county health officer
following the routine inspection, whichever occurs first.,
"(e) Subsections A, C and E of section 8.04.752
amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.24.010
of this Chapter, subsections A, C and E of Section 8.04.752
of Chapter 8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los Angeles
County Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
`A. Subject to the provisions of Sections
8.04.225 and 8.04.275 of this Chapter, following a routine
inspection, or reinspection if timely requested, or
otherwise as permitted or required by this Code, the health
officer shall post at each inspected food establishment the
Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score Card, or both, as
determined by the health officer, so as to be clearly
visible to the general public and to patrons entering the
establishment. "Clearly visible to the general public and to
patrons" shall mean posted in the following order of
priority:
1. Posted in the front window of the
establishment within five (5) feet of the front door.
If such posting is not reasonably possible in the
determination of the health officer, then posting shall
occur as provided in subsection 2, below.
2. Posted in a display case mounted on the
outside front wall of the establishment within five (5)
980326 10572-00001 lsj 1950180.2 (2) — 4 —
feet of the front door. If such posting is not
reasonably possible in the determination of the health
officer, then posting shall occur as provided in
subsection 3, below.
3. Posted in such location as directed and
determined in the discretion of the health officer to
ensure the most effective notice to the general public
and to patrons.'
`C. Except as provided in Sections 8.04.225 and
8.04.275 of this Chapter, and subsection A of this Section,
neither the Letter Grade Card nor the Inspection Score Card
shall be defaced, marred, camouflaged, hidden or removed,
and it shall be unlawful to operate a food establishment
unless posting of either Card, or both Cards, as determined
by the county health officer, has occurred. Removal of the
Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score Card, or both, is a
violation of this Chapter and may result in the suspension
or revocation of the public health permit and shall be
punishable as specified in Section 8.04.930.'
`E. The Food Official Inspection Report upon
which the Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score Card, or
both, are based and all subsequent reports issued by the
county health officer shall be maintained at the food
establishment and shall be available to the general public
and to patrons for review upon request. The food
establishment shall keep the Food Official Inspection Report
and all subsequent reports until such time as the county
health officer completes the next routine inspection, or
reinspection as provided in this Chapter, of the
establishment and issues a new Food Official Inspection
Report.'
"(f) Section 8.04.755 amended. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this Chapter, Section
8.04.755 of Chapter 8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los
Angeles County Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
`Section 8.04.755 Letter Grade Card and Inspection
Score Card - Period of validity. A Letter Grade Card, an
Inspection Score Card, or both, shall remain valid until the
county health officer completes the next routine inspection,
or reinspection as provided in this Code, of the food
establishment.",
SECTION 2. Penalties for Violation of Ordinance.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership
or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with
any of the requirements of the Ordinance, Codes or portions
thereof hereby adopted. Any person, firm, partnership or
corporation violating any provision of this Ordinance, or the
980326 10572-00001 lsi 1950180.2 (2) — 5 —
Codes or portions thereof hereby adopted, or failing to comply
with any of their requirements shall be deemed guilty of a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall be punished by a
fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,000.00), or by
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine
and imprisonment. Each and every person, firm, partnership, or
corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each
and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation
of any of the provisions of this Ordinance, Codes or portions
thereof hereby adopted, is committed, continued or permitted by
such person, firm, partnership or corporation, and shall be
deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. Civil Remedies.
The violation of any of the provisions of the
Ordinance, Codes or portions thereof hereby adopted shall
constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City through civil
process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent
injunction or in any other manner provided by law for the
abatement of such nuisances.
SECTION 4. Severabilit
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, portion,
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the
remaining sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, portions, or
phrases of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that
it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section,
subsection, sentence, clause, portion, or phrase thereof
.irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, portions, or phrases of the
Ordinance might subsequently be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
1998.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK ( SEAL)
980326 10572-00001 lsj 1950180.2 (2) — 6 —
ORDINANCE NO.
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF TITLE 8 OF THE
DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 8 AND DIVISION 1 OF TITLE
11 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AND
REVISING THE CITY HEALTH CODE.
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES ORDAIN
AS FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Chapter 8.24 of Title 8 of the Diamond Bar
City Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"CHAPTER 8.24 PUBLIC HEALTH
"Sec. 8.24.010. Adoption by reference.
Division 1 of Title 8 (Public Health Licenses) and
Division 1 of Title 11 (the Health Code) of the Los Angeles
County Code, as amended and in effect on August 1, 1998, are
hereby adopted by reference and shall henceforth collectively be
known as the Health Code of the City of Diamond Bar.
"Sec. 8.24.020. Copies available for inspection.
A certified copy of Division 1 of Title 8 and Division
1 of Title 11, as adopted in Section 8.24.010, have been
deposited in the office of the City Clerk and shall be at all
times maintained by the City Clerk for use and examination by the
public.
"Sec. 8.24.030. Division 1, Title 8 - Amendments.
"(a) Section 8.04.165 amended. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this Chapter, Section 8.04.165
of Chapter 8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los Angeles
County Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
`Section 8.04.165 Food Official Inspection
Report. "Food Official Inspection Report" means the
written notice prepared and issued by the county health
officer after conducting a routine inspection, and/or
reinspection in the event a timely request for
reinspection has been filed, of a food facility to
determine compliance with all applicable federal, state
and local statutes, orders, ordinances, quarantines,
rules, regulations, or directives relating to the
public health.'
"(b) Subsections A and B of Section 8.04.225 amended.
Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this
980326 10572-00001 lsj 1950180.2 (2)
Chapter, subsections A and B of Section 8.04.225 of Chapter
8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los Angeles County Code
are hereby amended to read as follows:
`A. "Grading" means the letter grade issued by the
county health officer at the conclusion of the routine
inspection, and/or reinspection in the event a timely
request for reinspection has been filed, of a food
establishment. The grade shall be based upon the scoring
method set forth in this section resulting from the Food
Official Inspection Report and shall reflect the food
establishment's degree of compliance with all applicable
federal, state and local statutes, orders, ordinances,
quarantines, rules, regulations, or directives relating to
the public health.
B. "Letter Grade Card" means a card that may be
posted by the county health officer at a food establishment
upon completion of a routine inspection, and/or reinspection
in the event a timely request for reinspection has been
filed, that indicates the letter grade of the establishment
as determined by the county health officer using the scoring
method set forth in this section. For the purposes of this
provision, a food establishment shall include a food
establishment operating in conjunction with a food
processing establishment.
Upon completion of a routine inspection of a food
establishment, the county health officer shall advise the
owner or operator thereof, in writing, of the actual grading
and basis therefor as determined by the health officer. The
Letter Grade Card shall be immediately posted by the health
officer and shall remain posted unless and until
reinspection is timely requested as provided herein. If
reinspection is timely requested, posting shall be
immediately suspended pending regrading following the
reinspection.
Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit the county
health officer from creating, posting or otherwise using an
Inspection Score Card in combination with a Letter Grade
Card. The county health officer, in his discretion, shall
determine whether to post the Inspection Score Card, the
Letter Grade Card, or both.'
"M Section 8.04.275 amended. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this Chapter, Section
8.04.275 of Chapter 8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los
Angeles County Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
`Section 8.04.275 Inspection Score card.
A. "Inspection Score Card" means a card that may
be posted by the county health officer at a food
980326 10572-00001 lsj 1950180.2 (2) — 2 —
establishment, upon completion of a routine inspection,
and/or reinspection in the event a timely request for
reinspection has been filed, that indicates the total
numerical percentage score for the establishment as
determined by the county health officer and as set forth in
the Food Official Inspection Report. For the purposes of
this provision, a food establishment shall include a food
establishment operating in conjunction with a food
processing establishment.
Upon completion of a routine inspection of a food
establishment, the county health officer shall advise the
owner or operator thereof, in writing, of the actual grading
and basis therefor as determined by the health officer. The
Inspection Score Card shall be immediately posted by the
health officer and shall remain posted unless and until
reinspection is timely requested as provided herein. If
reinspection is timely requested, posting shall be suspended
pending regrading following the reinspection.
Nothing in this Chapter shall prohibit the county
health officer from creating, posting or otherwise using an
Inspection Score Card in combination with a Letter Grade
Card. The county health officer, in his discretion, shall
determine whether to post the Inspection Score Card, the
Letter Grade Card, or both.
B. The county health officer, in his discretion,
may immediately close any food establishment which, upon
completion of the routine inspection, or reinspection where
applicable, achieves a total numerical percentage score less
than seventy percent (70%) as set forth in Section 8.04.225.
Nothing in this provision shall prohibit the county health
officer from immediately closing any food establishment if,
in his discretion, immediate closure is necessary to protect
the public health.'
"(d) Section 8.04.402 added. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this Chapter, a new
Section 8.04.402 is hereby added to Chapter 8.04 of Division
1 of Title 8 of the Los Angeles County Code to read as
follows:
18.04.402 Request for Reinspection. "Request for
Reinspection" means a written request, filed with the office
of the county health officer or a county health department
inspector while present on an inspected premises, within
three (3) business days of a routine inspection of a food
establishment conducted for purposes of preparing a Food
Official Inspection Report, Letter Grade Card, and/or
Inspection Score Card, therein requesting reinspection of
such establishment, which request may be made not more than
980326 10572-00001 lsj 1950180.2 (2) — 3 —
once in any twelve month period. A written acknowledgment
of receipt of the reinspection request shall be provided.
Reinspection shall be conducted not less than
fourteen (14) calendar days following the timely filing of a
request for reinspection and shall be limited to those
violations and areas and items of noncompliance identified
during the prior routine inspection. Following
reinspection, a revised Food Official Inspection Report
shall be prepared and the establishment shall be regraded
and posted based upon the revised Report. The scores
obtained with respect to areas and items which were found to
be in compliance during the prior routine inspection,
combined with scores obtained as a result of the
reinspection, shall be the sole basis upon which a Letter
Grade Card and/or Inspection Score Card may be prepared and
posted following reinspection.
A request for reinspection may only be filed by the
owner or operator of the food establishment of which such
routine inspection was conducted. Said three (3) day period
within which to request reinspection shall not commence
unless and until posting following a routine inspection has
occurred or the owner or operator has otherwise been
provided written notice of the actual grading and basis
therefor as determined by the county health officer
following the routine inspection, whichever occurs first.'
"(e) Subsections A, C and E of Section 8.04.752
amended. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 8.24.010
of this Chapter, subsections A, C and E of Section 8.04.752
of Chapter 8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los Angeles
County Code are hereby amended to read as follows:
"A. Subject to the provisions of Sections
8.04.225 and 8.04.275 of this Chapter, following a routine
inspection, or reinspection if timely requested, or
otherwise as permitted or required by this Code, the health
officer shall post at each inspected food establishment the
Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score Card, or both, as
determined by the health officer, so as to be clearly
visible to the general public and to patrons entering the
establishment. "Clearly visible to the general public and to
patrons" shall mean posted in the following order of
priority:
1. Posted in the front window of the
establishment within five (5) feet of the front door.
If such posting is not reasonably possible in the
determination of the health officer, then posting shall
occur as provided in subsection 2, below.
2. Posted in a display case mounted on the
outside front wall of the establishment within five (5)
980326 10572-00001 lsj 1950180.2 (2) — 4 —
feet of the front door. If such posting is not
reasonably possible in the determination of the health
officer, then posting shall occur as provided in
subsection 3, below.
3. Posted in such location as directed and
determined in the discretion of the health officer to
ensure the most effective notice to the general public
and to patrons.'
`C. Except as provided in Sections 8.04.225 and
8.04.275 of this Chapter, and subsection A of this Section,
neither the Letter Grade Card nor the Inspection Score Card
shall be defaced, marred, camouflaged, hidden or removed,
and it shall be unlawful to operate a food establishment
unless posting of either Card, or both Cards, as determined
by the county health officer, has occurred. Removal of the
Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score Card, or both, is a
violation of this Chapter and may result in the suspension
or revocation of the public health permit and shall be
punishable as specified in Section 8.04.930.'
°E. The Food Official Inspection Report upon
which the Letter Grade Card, the Inspection Score Card, or
both, are based and all subsequent reports issued by the
county health officer shall be maintained at the food
establishment and shall be available to the general public
and to patrons for review upon request. The food
establishment shall keep the Food Official Inspection Report
and all subsequent reports until such time as the county
health officer completes the next routine inspection, or
reinspection as provided in this Chapter, of the
establishment and issues a new Food Official Inspection
Report.'
"(f) Section 8.04.755 amended. Notwithstanding the
provisions of Section 8.24.010 of this Chapter, Section
8.04.755 of Chapter 8.04 of Division 1 of Title 8 of the Los
Angeles County Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
`Section 8.04.755 Letter Grade Card and Inspection
Score card - Period of Validity. A Letter Grade Card, an
Inspection Score Card, or both, shall remain valid until the
county health officer completes the next routine inspection,
or reinspection as provided in this Code, of the food
establishment."'
SECTION 2. Penalties for Violation of Ordinance.
It shall be unlawful for any person, firm, partnership
or corporation to violate any provision or to fail to comply with
any of the requirements of the Ordinance, Codes or portions
thereof hereby adopted. Any person, firm, partnership or
corporation violating any provision of this Ordinance, or the
980326 10572-00001 lsj 1950180.2 (2) — 5 —
Codes or portions thereof hereby adopted, or failing to comply
with any of their requirements shall be deemed guilty
ofab a
misdemeanor and upon conviction thereof shall beo)� punished by y
fine not exceeding One Thousand Dollars ($1,0
0
imprisonment not exceeding six (6) months, or by both such fine
and imprisonment. Each and every person, firm, partnership, or
corporation shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each
and every day or any portion thereof during which any violation
of any of the provisions of this Ordinance, Codes or portions
thereof hereby adopted, is committed, continued or permitted by
such person, firm, partnership or corporation, and shall be
deemed punishable therefor as provided in this Ordinance.
SECTION 3. Civil Remedies.
The violation of any of the provisions of the
Ordinance, Codes or portions thereof hereby adopted throw ll
h civil
constitute a nuisance and may be abated by the City g
process by means of restraining order, preliminary or permanent
injunction or in any other manner provided by law for the
abatement of such nuisances.
SECTION 4. Severability.
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, portion,
or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid
or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent
jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity fthe
remaining sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, portions,
phrases of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that
it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section,
subsection, sentence, clause, portion, or phrase thereof
irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections,
subsections, sentences, clauses, portions, or phrases of the
Ordinance might subsequently be declared invalid or
unconstitutional.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED this day of
. 1998.
MAYOR
ATTEST:
( SEAL)
CITY CLERK
980326 10572-00001 lsj 1950180.2 (2) 6
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS 44P
AUGUST 4, 1998
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Huff called the meeting to order at 9:05 p.m. in the
Auditorium of the South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 E. Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, Vice
Chairman Ansari, Chairman Huff.
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 & Marketing Director; Joann Gitmed, Senior Accountant and
Tommye Cribbins, Deputy Agency Secretary.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR: CM/Belanger responded to Clyde Hennessee that the
major portion of the voucher register expenditure (Consent Calendar Item 3.2) is the
amount of $130,440 for the Agency's share of the D.B. Library renovation.
VC/Ansari moved, AM/Chang seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
AGENCY MEMBERS - Chang, O'Connor, VC/Ansari, Chair/Huff
NOES:
AGENCY MEMBERS - None
ABSENT:
AGENCY MEMBERS - Herrera
3.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Regular Meeting of July 21, 1998 as submitted.
3.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER dated August 4, 1998 in the amount of
$144,682.12.
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: Chair/Huff spoke about the Redevelopment
Agency's participation in funding the Library renovation.
AUGUST 4, 1998 PAGE 2 REDEV. AGENCY
AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct,
Chair/Huff adjourned the meeting at 9:10 p.m.
ATTEST:
Chairman
TOMMYE CRIBBINS
Deputy Agency Secretary
F0 3.e -
MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Chairman and Redevelopment Agency Members
VIA: Terrence L. Belanger, Executive Director `` �Y
,�•1
FROM: Linda G. MagnusonAssistant Finance Director
DATE: August 12, 1998
SUBJECT: Advance and Reimbursement Agreement Number 9
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the Redevelopment Agency adopt a resolution approving Advance and
Reimbursement Agreement Number 9, with the City of Diamond Bar, in the amount of $12,000.
Discussion:
In September 1996, the Redevelopment Agency proceeded with a redevelopment plan adoption
process for the Diamond Bar Economic Revitalization Area. Included within this project area is
the Gateway Corporate Center. The $12,000 requested in this Advance and Reimbursement
Agreement #9 will be used to fund the appraisal and economic cost/benefit analysis of Lot 2
located within the Gateway Corporate Center.
Carol Herrera
Mayor
Wen Chang
Mayor Pro Tem
Eileen R. Ansari
Council Member
Robert S. Huff
Council Member
Deborah H. O'Connor
Council Member
Recycled paper
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.diamond-bar.ca.us • City Online (BBS): (909) 860-5463
NOTICE OF ADJOURNMENT
Notice is hereby given that the Diamond Bar City Council, at their
Regular meeting of August 4, 1998, adjourned said meeting to Tuesday,
August 18, 1998 at 4:00 p.m., for a Special Meeting, in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Room CC -3 & 5, located at 21865 E. Copley
Dr., Diamond Bar, California.
Dated: August 5, 1998
/s/Tommye Cribbins
Tommye Cribbins
Deputy City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
MEETING DATE: August 18, 1998 REPORT DATE: August 11, 1998
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
TITLE: Resolution No. 98 -XX adopting the Local Implementation Report (LIR) and certifying
that the City of Diamond Bar meets the conformity criteria of the 1997 Congestion Management
Program (CMP).
SUMMARY: The Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires the City of Diamond Bar
to track developmental activity and transportation improvements in the City by adopting a Local
Implementation Report (LIR). The LIR, which is to be submitted to the Los Angeles County
Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA), ascertains that the City complies with the
conformity criteria of the 1997 CMP. The City, based on its construction and demolition activities
occurring between June 1, 1997 and May 31, 1998, generated 292 debits. These debits were
offset by the City's total transportation credit claims of 66,613 points (carry-over credit of
65,757+credit claims of 856). Based on the City's ability to achieve a positive credit balance of
66,321 points (66,613 - 292), the City will remain in compliance with the CMP.
RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council open the public hearing, receive testimony, and
adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX adopting the Local Implementation Report (LIR) and certify that
the City of Diamond Bar meets the conformity criteria of the 1997 Congestion Management
Program (CMP).
LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report — Public Hearing Notification
X Resolution(s) — Bid Specification (on file in City
Clerk's office)
— Ordinance(s) X Other: Local Implementation Report.
— Agreement(s)
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION:
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been XYes
— No
reviewed by the City Attorney?
2. Does the report require a majority vote? Majority — 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? Yes
X No
Report discussed with the following affected departments:
REVIEWE BY:
J
Terrence L. Belan r James DeStefano David G. Liu
City Manager Deputy City Manager Deputy Director of Public Works
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: August 18, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
SUBJECT: Resolution No. 98 -XX adopting the Local Implementation Report (LIR) and
certifying that the City of Diamond Bar meets the conformity criteria of the
1997 Congestion Management Program (CMP)
ISSUE STATEMENT:
Adopt the Local Implementation Report (LIR) which tracks development activity and transportation
improvements in the City of Diamond Bar and certify that the City of Diamond Bar meets the
conformity criteria of the 1997 Congestion Management Program (CMP).
RECOMMENDATION:
That the City Council open the public hearing, receive testimony, and adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX
adopting the Local Implementation Report (LIR) and certify that the City of Diamond Bar meets the
conformity criteria of the 1997 Congestion Management Program (CMP).
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The City of Diamond Bar receives various gas taxes, State and Federal Funds as sources for Public
Works operations and Capital Improvement Projects (CIP). The City must report it's compliance
with Congestion Management Plan requirements annually. If the City does not comply, the State may
withhold our monies for non-compliance.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The Congestion Management Program (CMP) was enacted by the state legislature with the passage
of Assembly Bill 471 (1989), as amended by Assembly Bills 1791 (1990), 1435 (1992), 3093 (1992),
1963 (1994), and 2419 (1997). The passing of the CMP statute was aimed at addressing congestion
relief and the diminishing quality of life occurring in many communities. The requirements of the
CMP became effective with voters' approval of Proposition 111 in June 1990. The Los Angeles
County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA) is the agency responsible for the
administration of the CMP.
The CMP requires the City to track development activity and transportation improvements in the City
of Diamond Bar. Development activity is associated with debits and transportation improvements
generate credits. These debits and credits are determined based on specific calculation formulas as
referenced in the 1997 CMP.
Page Two
CMP
August 18, 1998
The intent is to balance the two factors. The CMP requires jurisdictions to adopt and submit to
LACMTA a Local Implementation Report (LIR) which states the City's positive balance. Those
jurisdictions with negative balance are in noncompliance with the CMP which may result in the
withholding of gas tax revenues or eligibility for transportation grant funds.
The purpose of the attached LIR is to demonstrate that the City of Diamond Bar complies with the
requirements of the 1997 CMP. According to the 1997 CMP, the LIR must include the following:
* Resolution of Conformance;
* Deficiency Plan Status Summary
* New Development Activity Report; and
* Transportation Improvements Credit Claims.
The City of Diamond Bar, based on the construction of 43 new homes (primarily within the Country
Estates) and demolition activities occurring between June 1, 1997 and May 31, 1998, generated 292
debits. These debits were off -set by the City's total transportation credit claims of 66,613 points
(carry-over credit of 65,757+credit claims of 856). These credits were developed based on
transit/transportation-related improvements such as park -n -ride lot, transit subsidy program, and
intersection modifications. Based on the City's ability to achieve a positive credit balance of 66,321
points (66,613-292), the City will remain in compliance with the CMP.
attachment: Draft Resolution No. 98 -XX
Prepared By:
David G. Liu/Tseday Aberra
RESOLUTION NO. 98-,
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR, CALIFORNIA FINDING THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO BE IN
CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM
(CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL IMPLEMENTATION REPORT,
IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65089
A. RECITALS.
(i) The Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority
("MTA"), acting as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, adopted the
1997 Congestion Management Program in November 1997; and
(ii) The adopted CMP requires that MTA annually determine that the
County and cities within the County are conforming to all CMP requirements; and
(iii) The adopted CMP requires submittal to the MTA of the CMP local
implementation report by September 1, 1997; and
(iv) The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held a noticed public
hearing on August 18, 1998.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the City Council has taken all of the following actions, and that the
City of Diamond Bar is in conformance with all applicable requirements of the 1997 CMP.
By June 15, 1999, the City of Diamond Bar will conduct annual traffic counts and
calculated levels of service for selected arterial intersections, consistent with the requirements
identified in the CMP Highway and Roadway System Chapter.
The City of Diamond Bar has locally adopted and continues to implement a
transportation demand management ordinance, consistent with the minimum requirements
identified in the CMP Transportation Demand Management Chapter.
The City of Diamond Bar has locally adopted and continues to implement a land use
analysis program, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Land Use
Analysis Program Chapter.
4-
The City of Diamond Bar has adopted a Local Implementation Report, attached hereto
as Exhibit "A' and made a part hereof, consistent with the requirements identified in the
CMP. This report balances traffic congestion impacts due to growth within the City of
Diamond Bar with transportation improvements, and demonstrates that the City of Diamond
Bar is meeting its responsibilities under the County -wide Deficiency Plan.
SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and
shall forward a copy of this Resolution to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED 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, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on day of
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
1998 by the
ATTEST:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
IN!
Local Implementation Report
DEFICIENCY PLAN STATUS SUMMARY
REPORTING PERIOD: JUNE 1, 1997 - MAY 31, 1998
l Current Congestion Mitigation Goal (-)
292
Transportation Improvement Credit Claims (+)
856
F3.Carryover
Subtotal Current Credit (_)
564
Credit from Last Year's Local (+)
ementation Re ort
65,757'
NET DEFICIENCY PLAN BALANCE (_)
66,321
1.1 1u P—uuig rvr i r% approval.
—I—
The Planning Center City of Diamond Bar
Reporting Period., June 1, 1997 - May 31, 1998
Local Implementation Report
NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
Number of Dwelling Units
Impact Sub -total
Value
Single Family
Multi -Family
Group Quarters
43
x 6.80 = 292
x 4.76 =
x 1.98 =
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY
Category
Thousands of
Gross Square Feet
Value per Sub -total
1000 sq. ft.
Commercial 0-299 KSF
Commercial 300+ KSF
Free Standing
Eating and Drinkin
x 22.23 =
x 17.80 =
x 66.99 =
NON -RETAIL DEVELOPMENT
ACTIVITY
Category
Thousands of
Gross Square Feet
Value per Sub -total
1000 sq. ft.
Lodging
Industrial
Office 0-49 KSF
Office 50-299 KSF
Office 300 + KSF
Medical
Government
Institutional/Education
University
x 7.21 =
x 6.08 =
x 16.16 =
x 10.50 =
x 7.35 =
x 16.90 =
x 20.95 =
x 7.68 =
x 1.66 =
Per Student
Other (Describe)
Daily Trips
Impact Sub -total
Value
x 0.71 =
ADJUSTMENTS (OPTIONAL) - Complete Part 2 = +0
TOTAL CURRENT CONGESTION MITIGATION GOAL (POINTS) = 292
—2—
The Planning Center City of Diamond Bar
Reporting Period: June 1, 1997 - May 31, 1998
Local Implementation Report
Transit Fare Subsidies
1. Project Number
2. Strategy
1
1
331. Transit Fare Subsidy Program
3. Project Description
The City subsidizes transit passes at 20% and 50% discount for the general public and
seniors/handicapped, respectively. General pass sales have increased from 310 per month sold
between 6/1/96 and 5/31 /97 to 411 per month sold between 6/1/97 and 5/31/98. Senior/disabled pass
sales have increased from 50 per month between 6/1/96 and 5/31/97 to 62 per month between 6/1/97
and 5/31/98.
3a. Reference Documentation
Available upon request.
4. Project Scope (Units)
5. Credit Factor
6. Project Credit Value
101 passes/month (general)
0.2/100 passes (general)
<1
12 asses/month (sen/dis)
37/100 passes (sen/dis)
4
7. Expected Completion Date
8. Project Cost
9. Local Participation (%)
current
Prop A
100%
10. Current Milestone
11. Milestone Factor
12. Net Current Value
3
100%
4
Intersection Improvements
1. Project Number
2. Strategy
2
244.1. CMP Arterial
3. Project Description
Intersection improvements were completed in November 1995 at Grand Avenue (CMP Route)
and Golden Springs Drive which included a new right turn lane.
3a. Reference Documentation
Thomas Guide Page #680 A2
4. Project Scope (Units)
5. Credit Factor
6. Project Credit Value
I CMP Intersection
575/CMP Intersection
575
7. Expected Completion Date
8. Project Cost
9. Local Participation (%)
November 1995
--
100%
10. Current Milestone
11. Milestone Factor
12. Net Current Value
1
3
100%
575
Note: Credit for the Grand Avenue and Golden Springs intersection improvement was submitted to MTA as part of Retroactive credit
claims (April 30, 1998). As discussed with Heather Hills on June 3, 1998, MTA did not consider the strategy to be "retroactive"
and requested that it be submitted as part of the 1998 LIR.
-3-
The Planning Center City of Diamond Bar
Reporting Period. June 1, 1997 - May 31, 1998
Local Implementation Report
Park -n -Ride Expansion
1. Project Number
2. Strategy
3
246 Park & Ride Facility
3. Project Description
The City, in coordination with the State of California, is in the construction phase of expanding the
Diamond Bar Blvd @ 60 Freeway park -n -ride facility. Based on the high usage of the existing 260
space.facility an additional 125 spaces are being constructed.
3a. Reference Documentation
Thomas Guide Page #640 B7
4. Project Scope (Units)
5. Credit Factor
6. Project Credit Value
125 spaces
9.6 credits/space
1,200
7. Expected Completion Date
S. Project Cost
9. Local Participation (%)
July 1998
$214,000
33%
tlocurrent Milestone
11. Milestone Factor
12. Net Current Value
2
70%
277
P:1DIA-01ICALLIR.998
—4—
The Planning Center City of Diamond Bar
Reporting Period. June 1, 1997 - May 31, 1998
Next Resolution No. 98-48
Next Ordinance No. 04(1998)
1. CLOSED SESSION:
2. CALL TO ORDER: 4:00 p.m., August 18, 1998
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor
INVOCATION: Reverend Dennis Stuve, Mt.
Calvary Lutheran 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
complete a Speaker'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 PLANNING COMMISSION - August 25, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
s. Z 7" ern
-
5.3 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - August 27, 1998 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5 ) CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 1, 1998 - 6:30 p.m.,
AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
:
5.,4' LABOR DAY HOLIDAY - City Offices will be closed Monday,
September 7, 1998 in observance of Labor Day. Offices
will reopen Tuesday, September 8, 1998.
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 2
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
6.1.1 Study Session of August 4, 1998 - Approve as
submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of August 4, 1998 - Approve as
submitted.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated August
18, 1998 in the amount of
Requested by: City Manager
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m:—or as soon thereafter as matters
can be heard..
7.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING - SUNCAL DEVELOPMENT
8.
go
Recommended Action:
Requested by: Planning Division
OLD BUSINESS:
8.1 SECOND READING - ORDINANCE NO. 26B(1989): AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 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 - First
reading was held July 21, 1998.
Recommended Action:
Requested by: City Manager
8.2 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 03(1998): AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF TITLE
8 OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, ADOPTING BY REFERENCE
DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 8 AND DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 11 OF THE
LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AND REVISING THE CITY HEALTH
CODE -
Recommended Action:
Requested by: Planning Division
NEW BUSINESS:
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 3
Next Resolution No. 98-07
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera,
O'Connor, VC/Ansari, C/Huff
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
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(combletion of this form is voluntarvl.
There is a five minute maximum time limit when addressing the
Redevelopment Agency,
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of August 4, 1998 -
Approve as submitted.
Requested by: Agency Secretary
3.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated August
18, 1998 in the amount of
Requested by: Executive Director
.��
P BLIC HEARINGS: None
.f
5. OLD BUSINESS: None `�'
1 r
•c'
6. NEW BUSINESS: N=ie - -- Vcry,
7. AGE
NCY MEMBER CO1d4ENT6: 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 council discussion. Direction may be given at
this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
12. ADJOURNMENT:
1. CLOSED SESSION:
2. CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
ROLL CALL:
Next Resolution No. 98-48
Next Ordinance No. 04(1998)
CC -8 4:00 p.m.,
August 18, 1998
Mayor
Reverend Dennis Stuve, Mt.
Calvary Lutheran Church
Council Members Ansari,
Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem
Chang, Mayor Herrera
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
3.1 Businesses of the Month:
3.1.1 PIERMARINI CONSTRUCTION -
3.1.2 COCO'S RESTAURANT -
3.1.3 SEMA
3.2 COMMUNITY RECOGNITIONS:
3.3 INTRODUCTION OF D.B. TEAM LEADER -
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 complete a Speaker'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 PLANNING COMMISSION - August 25, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 2
5.2 "DIAMOND BAR NIGHT AT THE QUAKES" - August 26, 1998 -
Bus Pickup - 5:00 p.m., in front of City Hall - 7:15
p.m., Quake Stadium
5.3 PARRS & RECREATION COMMISSION - August 27, 1998 - 7:00
p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 1, 1998 - 6:30 p.m.,
AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.5 LABOR DAY HOLIDAY - City Offices will be closed Monday,
September 7, 1998 in observance of Labor Day. Offices
will reopen Tuesday, September 8, 1998.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
6.1.1 Study Session of August 4, 1998 - Approve as
submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of August 4, 1998 - Approve
as submitted.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.2 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.1.1 Regular Meeting of April 23, 1998 - Receive
and File.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of May 28, 1998 - Receive and
File.
6.1.3 Regular Meeting of June 25, 1998 - Receive
and File.
Requested by:Community Services Divison
6.3 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated
August 18, 1998 in the amount of
Requested by: City Manager
6.4 CONTRACT FOR RECREATION SERVICES WITH THE CITY OF BREA
Recommended Action:
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.5 CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH J. MICHAEL HULS -
Recommended Action:
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 3
Requested by: Engineering Division
6.6 ADVANCE & REIMBURSEMENT NO. 8 WITH THE DIAMOND BAR
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY -
Recommended Action:
Requested by: City Manager
RA�j�" AMEN I (3FFT DE OR OFl�,1:fi�E
IT ORE
Recl ended Action:
Requested by: City Manager
7. OL� BUSINESS:
7.1 SECOND READING - ORDINANCE NO. 26B(1989): AN ORDINANCE
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 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 - First
reading held July 21, 1998. On July 21, 1998, the City
Council adopted Resolution No. 89-88B, appproving an
amendment to the contract between the Board of
Administation of the Public Employees' Retirement
System and the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar.
At the same meeting, the City Council approved for
first reading Ordinance 26B(1989) also authorizing an
amendment to the contract between the Board of
Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement
System and the City Council. Due to the Government
Code requirement (CGC Section 20471), "approval of the
contract shall be by ordinance adopted by the
affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the
governing body, not less than 20 days after the
adoption of the resolution of intention...". The first
regularly scheduled meeting that Ordinance 26B(1989)
could be brought back to the City Council for second
reading and final adoption is the August 18, 1998 City
Council meeting.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council approve for second reading, by title only,
waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 26B(1989) An
Ordinance of the City of Diamond Bar Amending Ordinance
26(1989), Authorizing an Amendment to the Contract
Between the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar and
the Board of Administration of the Public Employees'
Retirement System.
Requested by: City Manager
7.2 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 03(1998): AN ORDINANCE
AUGUST 18, 1998
PAGE 4
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING CHAPTER 8.24 OF
TITLE 8 OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE, ADOPTING BY
REFERENCE DIVISION 1 OF TITLE 8 AND DIVISION 1 OF TITLE
11 OF THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CODE, AND REVISING THE
CITY HEALTH CODE -
Recommended Action:
Requested by: Planning Division
8. NEW BUSINESS: None
9. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
9.1 RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE LOCAL
IMPLEMENTATION REPORT (LIR) AND CERTIFYING THAT THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MEETS THE CONFORMITY CRITERIA OF
THE 1997 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) - The
Congestion Management Program (CMP) requires the City
to track development activity and transportation
improvements in the City by adopting a Local
Implementation Report (LIR). The LIR, which is to be
submitted to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan
Transportation Authority (LACMTA), ascertains that the
City complies with the conformity criteria of the 1997
CMP. The City, based on its construction and
demolition activities occurring between June 1, 1997
and May 31, 1998, generated 292 debits. These debts
were offset by the City's transportation credit/claims
which totalled 66,613 points. Based on the City's
ability to achieve a positive credit balance of 66,321
points (66,613-292), the City will remain in compliance
with the CMP.
Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City
Council adopt Resolution No. 98 -XX adopting the Local
Implementation Report (LIR) and certifying that the
City of Diamond Bar meets the conformity criteria of
the 1997 Congestion Management program (CMP).
Requested by: Engineering Division
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
Next Resolution No. 98-07
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera,
O'Connor, VC/Ansari, C/Huff
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
AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 5
the 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 is
voluntary). There is a five minute maximum time limit when
addressing the Redevelopment Agency.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
3.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Regular Meeting of August 4, 1998
- Approve as submitted.
Requested by: Agency Secretary
3.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated
August 18, 1998 in the amount of
Requested by: Executive Director
3.2 ADVANCE & REIMBURSEMENT NO. 8 WITH THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR -
Recommended Action:
Requested by: Executive Director
4. PIIBLIC HEARINGS: None
5. OLD BIISINESS: None
6. NEW BIISINESS:
B.� AGREEMENT WITH ROSENOW SPEVACEK GROUP, INC. FOR
ECONOMIC STUDY/ANALYSIS -
(� Recommended Action:
Requested by: Executive Director
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:
9. PIIBLIC HEARING/WORK SHOP: 7:00 - 10:00 P.M.
9.2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING/WORKSHOP -VESTING TENTATIVE
TRACT MAP NO. 52267, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-03,
AUGUST 18, 1998
PAGE 6
OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 98-01 AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT NO. 97-02 (SCH 97031005 ) - Continued from July
7, 1998.
Recommended Action:
r,Requested by: Planning Division
,4 0. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS:
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Council
Members are for council discussion. Direction may be given
at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a
future meeting.
r
12. ADJOURNMENT:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
AGENDA NO.
TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager
MEETING DATE: August 18, 1998 REPORT DATE: August 11, 1998
FROM: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
TITLE: 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).
SUMMARY: 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 (86 +/- acres)
will be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar as open space (360.3+/- acres total), which is 84.7%
of SunCal Companies land. 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. The City Council conducted a public
hearing on July 7, 1998.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from
the staff and the applicant, open the public hearing, conduct the public workshop and direct staff as
appropriate.
EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: None
SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST:
1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed
by the City Attorney? N/A Yes _ No
2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? MAJORITY
3. Has environmental impact been assessed? X Yes _ No
4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No
Which Commission? Planning
5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes —No
Report discussed with the following affected departments: Public Works Division
REVIEWED BY:
Terrence L. Belang¢r
City Manager /
aAvttm.rpt
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: August 18, 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 ( SunCal Project )
DATE: August 11, 1998
SunCal Companies is the owner of a 339.3 -acre site identified as Lots 4, 5 , 6, and 7 of Tract No.
31479 (the former Bramalea 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 No. 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 General Plan (PA -2) permits up to 130 single-family residential units.
Also, the General Plan requires the dedication of 75% of the land in Planning Area 2 for open
space. The developers proposal would dedicate for open space 84.7% (360 +/- acres) of the land.
Lots 4, 5, 7, and 9 contain a map restriction that dedicates to the City the right to prohibit the
development of residential buildings. The applicants have requested the removal of the map
restriction on portions of lots 5 and 7 to permit the proposed development.
On July 7, 1998, the City Council received a presentation on the proposed 130 -home project. The
City Council concluded its discussion and continued the matter in order for the staff to prepare
responses to several questions presented by members of the public. In addition, the developer was
directed to prepare an alternative site plan designed to incorporate a development entirely within
Lot 6 of the developers property.
Responses to the questions raised at the July 7, 1998, meeting have been prepared by the Planning
staff and the City's environmental consultant, BonTerra Consulting. Assertions raised within two
letters previously received from the law firm of Johnson & McCarthy LLP are responded to by the
City Attorney. The questions and responses are contained within the attached memorandums.
CITY COUNCIL REPORT
AGENDA NO.
MEETING DATE: August 18, 1998
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Managers
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 ( SunCal Project )
DATE: August 11, 1998
SunCal Companies is the owner of a 339.3 -acre site identified as Lots 4, 5 , 6, and 7 of Tract No.
31479 (the former Bramalea 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 No. 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 General Plan (PA -2) permits up to 130 single-family residential units.
Also, the General Plan requires the dedication of 75% of the land in Planning Area 2 for open
space. The developers proposal would dedicate for open space 84.7% (360 +/- acres) of the land.
Lots 4, 5, 7, and 9 contain a map restriction that dedicates to the City the right to prohibit the
development of residential buildings. The applicants have requested the removal of the map
restriction on portions of lots 5 and 7 to permit the proposed development.
On July 7, 1998, the City Council received a presentation on the proposed 130 -home project. The
City Council concluded its discussion and continued the matter in order for the staff to prepare
responses to several questions presented by members of the public. In addition, the developer was
directed to prepare an alternative site plan designed to incorporate a development entirely within
Lot 6 of the developers property.
Responses to the questions raised at the July 7, 1998, meeting have been prepared by the Planning
staff and the City's environmental consultant, BonTerra Consulting. Assertions raised within two
letters previously received from the law firm of Johnson & McCarthy LLP are responded to by the
City Attorney. The questions and responses are contained within the attached memorandums.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from the staff and the applicant,
open the public hearing, conduct the public workshop and direct staff as appropriate.
PREPARED BY:
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attachments
1. July 7, 1998, City Council minutes (letters from Johnson & McCarthy LLP,
dated June 19, 1998, and July 7, 1998)
2. Responses to Comments for July 7, 1998, Council hearing from BonTerra Consulting
3. City Attorney Response, dated August 12, 1998
4. Comparative Environmental Evaluation: Proposed Project Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative
5. Matrix Comparison of 130 lots, 120 lots, 113 lots, and 53 lots
6. Oblique drawings of 130 lots (Design Ground 4), 113 lots (Design Ground 0), and
53 lots (Design Ground 9)
7. VTTM No. 52267
8. Response to Comments Alternative --120 lots
9. Alternative with 113 lots
10. Alternative with 53 lots
11. July 7, 1998, City Council staff report
a:\52267.ipt
VTTM NO. 52267
Please bring Environmental Impact
Report - Volumes I & II
and all other documents previously
distributed to the City Council
�.�V,1,. ..... v.. �.. �. �.� 1 1�1 .. 1T 11 ..11.. �i�r�.�4'��.�� � .r.JI v ..L :. ..iLL/J... ..J ,, ri .1 '�. .:��'J ��/�'':iv •• L
RICHARDS, WATSON & C3ERSHON
MEMORANDUM
To: Members of the City Council
FiioM: Michael Jenkins, City Attorney
DATE: August 12, 1998
SUBJeCT: Responses to Comments re SunCal Project
As you from the law a
firm Of Johnson re aware, s&eMcCarthy, LLP has eonebehalf d two lof letters
community group known as "RAID" ("RAID* herein), in connection
with that group's opposition to the proposed SunCal development
now under consideration by the City Council (Vesting Tentative
Tract Map No. 52267) ("the Project" herein). The two letters
assert various legal deficiencies in connection with the planning
Commission's recommendation of approval of the Project, including
failure of the Project to comply with one or more provisions of
the City's General Plan, failure to comply with other applicable
regulations of the City (such as the hillside grading ordinance),
and insufficiency of the environmental impact report ("BIR"
herein). The purpose of this memorandum is to address each of
the issues raised by the RAID attorney as well as the comments of
legal significance raised during the Council's July 7, 1998
Public hearing on the Project.
As a preliminary matter, I believe that it would be
helpful to provide a brief overview of State law as it relates to
general plans and the processing of development applications
thereunder. It has been said that the general plan is the
constitution for all future development within the city to which
any local decision affecting land use and development must
conform. Citizens of Goleta valley v. Board of supervisors, 52
Cal. 3d 553, 570 (1990).. Further, the supreme Court has also
held that any decision affecting land use that is not consistent
with a current and legally adequate general plan is "invalid at
the time it is passed." Lesher communications, Inc. v. City of
Walnut Creek, 52 Cal. 3d 531, 544 (1990). Furthermore, the
foregoing cases hold that a court's primary task when considering
whether or not a project is consistent with a general plan, is to
determine whether or not a conflict exists, not whether or not
the
cit proposed project is a good idea or will be of benefit to a
Y•
Other authorities provide further guidance in
determining whether or not a conflict between a proposed project
and a city's general plan exists. For example, the State of
California office of Planning and Research General Plan
Guidelines state:
V...11..A.1, 1'1.. a)V..Li�, J,..,,.�i��...�,� �'�.�,�i .'• ..L .: .,.•LL/J... ;; ��. •: .',. u.,i.'�•.i�
Films, WATUOwl A Ogftamom
MEMORANDUM
Memb*rs ,,>f the City Council
.August l;i, 1998
Page Z
'Aa action, program or project is consistent with
the general plan if, considering all its aspects, it
wil", further the objectives and policies of the general
n
plaand not obstruct their attainment."
While these G3"delines are merely advisory, they are relied upon
by courts. in determining compliance with the State's general plan
laws.
State law also addresses general plan consistency in
the context of subdivision applications by specifically requiring
a proposed subdivision to be found consistent with a city's
general plan before it can be validly approved. Government Code
§§ 66473.5 and 66474. However, case law also holds that an exact
match between a proposed may and the general plan is not
required. Rather, the proposed map need only be in agreement or
harmony with the general plan. Greenebaum v. City of Los
Angeles, 153 Cal. App. 3d 391 (1984). A more recent case has
held that a proposed project which includes a subdivision map
need not be in perfect conformity with each and every general
plan policy inasmuch as no project would likely satisfy every
policy stated in a general plan; and, indeed, state law does not
impose such a requirement. Sequoyah Hills homeowners'
Association v. City of Oakland, 23 Cal. App. 4th 704 (1993) .
California courts acknowledge that a general plan must
try to accommodate a wide range of competing interests including
those of developers, homeowners, environmentalists, business
owners, and so forth. As such, it is the duty of each city
council to examine the specifics of each proposed project for
purposes: of determining whether or not it would be in harmony
with the policies stated in the general plan. Greenebaum, supra,
p. 406.
Finally, in determining the ultimate issue of whether a
map is consistent with a general plan, when there is conflicting
evidence before a city council, "'[i]t is for the agency to weigh
the preponderance of conflicting evidence. [Citation.) Courts
may reverse the agency's decision only if, based on the evidence
before the agency, a reasonable person could not reach the
conclusion reached by the agency.' [Citation deleted.]"
(Emphasis in original.) Id., pp. 407-408. In other words, great
weight is accorded to a city council's -interpretation of its
general plan.
DCF:lsj
10572-00001 1950303.11
�..�J.N. ..�., V.�,l�6�w�.-1'1��1�J„14�J. i.'. Uir�.�,J.� ��'.rd� . ..L i� ..i •Li��.�. .�J., i/�v. ..��..�i. .,.� .. ..
FtK2H6%IWe. IINArgiON 6 GepjeF1oN
MEEM0RAO]13UM
Members of the: City Council
August 'L.!, 195+8
Page '3
based upon the foregoing, it is the task of the City
Council when reviewing the various aspects of the Project as
proposed, to determine whether or not the Project, and each
aspect thereof, would be in harmony with the general plan
policies, when the general plan is viewed in its entirety. This
requires the general plan to be read as an integrated document,
which ba__ances competing interests, and sets forth a combination
of polices, objectives and stratcgies to ultimately accomplish
each goa'.. when considering each of RAID's various assertions,
it will be necessary for you to ascertain, given the context of
the general plan language referenced, whether a mandatory
development standard was intended to be created, or if it was the
intent of the City Council to simply set forth a policy, however
phrased, by which future city councils may be guided.
For ease of reference, each issue raised is first set
forth in bold (incorporating any underlining in the original), in
the sequence presented beginning with the June 19, 1998
correspondence, followed by our response.
rI [ ' _.-:
Assertion No. 1:
"State law requires that all developments within the
city be consistent with the general plan. in this regard, we
note that the project is inconsistent with the following
Provisions of the Land IIse Zles►ent of your General plans
Strategy 1.1.8 on page i-12 reads as follows:
Areas designated as Planning Areas (PA) are
designed to conserve open space resources and are to be
applied to properties where creative approaches are
needed to integrate future developsent with existing
natural resources. All proposed develoea;ent within
Strategy i.s.1 on page I -IS reads as follows:
DeYelgp an Open Space program which will identify and
Preserve open space land and rank its importance
DCF _lsj
10572-00001 1950307.ou
PUCMAMS, WATaOM a OWW"ON
MEMORANDUM
Members of the City Council
August 12, 1998
Page 4
consistent with eommimity needs, objectives and
financial capability. As part of the 81o2e Deasitw
Scale 0rAJRA&gs, develop a formula for the preservation
of open space.
Each of the highlighted directives ham not been
complied with.•
Response to Assertion No. 1:
Strategy 1.1.e appears under the section entitled "Land
Use Goals, Objectives and Strategies" on page 1-10 of the Land
Use Element. Immediately thereunder is "GOAL 1," which provides:
Consistent with the Vision Statement, maintain a mix
of land uses which enhance 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."
Thereunder appear six "objectives," each with its own
set of strategies. Strategy 1.1.8 appears under objective 1.2,
which provides:
"Establish a land use classification system to guide
the public and private use of land within the City and
its Sphere of Znfluence."
As will be discussed below, the Project as currently proposed
would be constructed within Planning Area 2. Planning Area 2 is
discussed under Objective 1.6 in the General Plan, where it is
described as an area of approximately 400 vacant acres located in
two non-contiguous areas. Appropriate land uses for this
approximately 400 -acre non-contiguous area are stated to be a
maximum of 130 single-family detached residential dwelling units
on residential lots ranging in size from 6,000 to 10,000 square
feet in area, and a minimum of 75V of the total 400 acre area to
be set aside as dedicated open space. Planning Area 2 describes
a two -acre area located at the southeast corder of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and Gold Rush Drive as being appropriate for "public
facility or commercial uses."
DCF:laj
10572-00002 1960303.mj
... ..�V... ...•.. v..... .... •..� •...� V, '....... •i. ....V. i .J..) V'• ..L i V' ..J LJ'� L'... ., J �� i�.� H. ':V�'v •.Jr �./ V �� V
Fvow►R00, WATUO" w Oe n ton
MEMORANDUM
Members of the City Council
August 12, 1998
Page 5
The land use map adopted July 25, 1995 and made part of
the General Plan clearly sets forth the four "Planning Areas",
and the letters "SP" have been included next to each Planning.
Area designation, indicating that each is subject to a specific
plan overlay.
RAID's argument that a specific plan is required before
the Project may be approved must be examined in light of the
entirety of the Land Use Element of the General Plan, and the
council discussion that preceded adoption of this portion of the
Plan. City staff has historically read Strategy 1.1.8 in the
context of Strategies 1.1.9 and 1.6.3, which read as follows:
"1.1.9 Encourage the innovative use of land
resources and development of a variety of
housing and other development types, provide
a means to coordinate the public and private
provision of services and facilities, and
address the unique needs of certain lands by
recognizing specific plea (SP) overlay
designation:
(a) for large scale development areas in
which residential, commercial, recreational,
public facilites, and other land uses may be
permi tted; and,
(b) large acreage property(ies) in excess of
ten (10) acres that Are proposed to be
annexed into the city."
"1.6.3 Designate the larger properties as future
Specific Plan (SP) areas. This designation is an
overlay to the base land use category providing for
mixed use projects in the future subject to approval of
a Specific Plan consistent with Government Code Section
65450. The issues to be addressed and the type and
maximum intensity of development within the future
Specific Plan area is defined below.
(a) Pisnning mess 1-4 as described within
Strategy 1.6.1
(b) aphsre of -Influence The 3600 acre
multiple ownership Sphere of Influence area
DCF:lsj
10672-00001 lasoaor.W
AL
' =4^Ft0s, WAIMON A GZ WMM
MEMORANDUM
Members of the City Council
August 12, 1998
Page 6
contains unique biological and open space!
resources. The formulation of a future
Specific Plan should incorporate provisions
to protect existing resources while
minimizing future adverse impacts to both the
human and natural environment of the City, as
well as the region (see Strategy 1.1.4 of the
Circulation Element)." (Emphasis added).
The foregoing Strategies, particularly the emphasized
language, arguably modify Strategy 1.1.8 by confining the
requirement of a specific plan to those planning areas that are
to be developed with complex mixed uses. At a minimum, they
create an ambiguity, and to the extent that they do, there is
room for City Council interpretation of the relevant provisions.
And, it is permissible and useful in interpreting the meaning and
intent of general plan language to review the administrative
record of the General Plan deliberations involving this issue.
In that regard, City staff has reviewed the minutes and
tape recordings of the various hearings and meetings which were
held prior to adoption of the July 25, 1995 General Plan in order
to determine whether or not it was the City Councils intent that
development within Planning Area 2 be subject to adoption of a
specific plan. The record of those meetings suggests the
following:
* The Council's discussion of Planning Area 2 focused
on purely residential development.
* The absence of a need for a specific plan for
Planning Area 2 was expressly discussed in contrast to the other
Planning areas, which were deemed more suitable for mixed use
development.
* The Council expressed its understanding that the
type of development of Planning Area 2 was not in dispute, and
that it would be a residential project, largely in conformance
with the Bramalea MOO.
* The Council clearly expressed a desire to require.
specific plans for other properties with multiple ownerships and
land use issues.
DCF:lsj
10572-00001 19s0703.nv
i0 --
A
0
a OWNWON
MEMORANDulM
Members =;pf the: City council
August 1:2, 1998
Page 7
L 91E)ecific plan is a "mini" general plan for specific
geographic at-eas, a planning device that allows for creation of a
very specif.i::, detailed document governing development and design
standarda3, infrastructure, and distribution of buildings and uses
for large parcels that require special attention. As a practical
matter, an t::xis instance a specific plan would add nothing to the
discretionary permits already required for the Project; i.e. it
would be redundant in that the General Plan's designation of
appropriate uses and use restrictions for Planning Area 2, as
well as the tract map and other discretionary permits, already
address in detail the very matters which would be addressed in a
specific plan. As such, no benefit would be gained and
unnecessary expense would result to both the developer and the
City if Strategy 1.1.8 is interpreted as requiring a specific
plan.
Ultimately, the Council must interpret its General Plan
in light of the foregoing legal standards and factual
circumstances. Though Planning Area 2 is identified in the Plan
with a specific plan overlay, other text in the Plan suggests
that the overlay is confined to mixed use projects, an
interpretation to which City staff has historically subscribed.
If the council determines thaC it was not the intent of the Plan
to require a specific plan for this parcel, then it may reject
RAID's objections as to this point.
RAID next points to Strategy 1.5.1 and its requirement
that an open space preservation program be developed. Strategy
1.5.1 appears under Objective 1.5 which reads:
"Maintain a feeling of open apace within the community
by identifying and preserving an adequate amount of
open land."
As a strategy to achieve an objective, which is part of
a stated goal, neither Strategy 1.5.1 nor any other provision of
the Land Use Element sets forth any particular time frame within
which the program or formula must be developed, and neither make
development of such a program or formula a precondition to
processing and approving development applications. Purthermore,
there is no suggestion in the Land Use Element that development
should simply cease unless and until an open space program and
preservation formula are created. Accordingly, we do not believe
that approval of the Project would be precluded by the provisions
of Strategy 1.5.1.
DCF:lsj
10571.00001 2950]8].w
�. �.'a U.Y.. ..�., v.�J1�:��. ..'.1.� V� �, M,1i.i�".�i�.�, �. i' ,..d.i � .. L 7 � ., i • LJ/ .i .�. �. I� .. i / . �'�. .. � J'... i'..: i v ., i
MCWPOI . WATWON & 13kRS"ON
NAE: MORA N+DIU M
MEember.a (.l the City Council
August ]., . 19 98
Page H
:Mc)]:eover, the Project as proposed does precisely what
is required ry this objective, by clustering development and
preserving 3()-o acres of open space.
Assertion No. ; :
"8traten :1.6.1 reads as follows:
A master plan shall be developed for each area of the City
designated as a planning Urea (pA). The location of each
Planning Area is shown on Figure I-2. Descriptions of each area
and the contemplated land use designations are defined as
follows:
(b) Planning Area 2
PA -2 is c=Wrised of approximately 400 vacant acres located in
two non-contiguous areas. Sub -Area A consists of approximately
325 acres located east of Diamond Sar Boulevard, north of Grand
Avenue, south of gold Rush Drive, at the terminus of sigherest
Drive. Sub -Area 8 consists of approzimately 73 acres located
east of Pantera Park. Appropriate land uses for this 400 t acre
non-contiguous area include a maxim m of 130 single-family
detached residential dwelling units concentrated along the
anticipated extension of Righcrest Drive, a minimum of 75 percent
of the total 400 acre not aside as dedicated open space. A two
acre area located at the southeast corner of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and gold slush Drive should be developed for public
facility or commercial uses. In order to minimize wnvirft"-t!:1
We note that at page I-23 of the Land Use Element,
Sectien 2 entitled Land Use Intensity/Density, the following
language appearst
=lemeat indicate the ;tea densities and intensities
permitted within the Lard Use Plan.
The tentative map contemplates multiple lots far in
excess of the square foot parameters.•
DCF: lsj
10571-00001 19so2n .mi
.,.�w',Y., „�,.�'�'�.',..�� /1,.Ju,�i,LJ,S.',.1.',u� �'...�� � ..L .`'� ..J•L�IO.,...J .,�/,��. ..,,,,.....,..� ...
FbG' KRM, WAn4GO1 a; 06FIGHON
MEM0RAN10 SIM
Members nit t:ize: city council
August :i,),, L:)!;s
Page 9
Respaaso to ,lutsertion No. 21
RA::D suggests here, and more pointedly in its follow-up
JUly 7, _998 correspondence, that creation of a master plan for
each Plwiring Area must precede processing of development
applicar.-Or►s. The phrase "master plan" is not defined in the
,aaneral :Flan, the zoning ordinance or in State planning law.
City stal:f believes a coaster plan to be a comprehensive plan for
a development. area, including land use development standards and
c:l.rculat:Lon, patterns. It is our view that the development
approvalkr, taken as a whole, constitute the "master plan" for the
planning area.. Renee, the Council may find Strategy 1.6.1
satisfied.
The balance of RAID•s arguments concerning strategy
:1.,6.1 appear to deal with permitted lot sizes in Planning Area 2.
The plain language of this Strategy arguably sets forth minimum
and maximum lot sizes permitted to be developed. The clear
purpose of this requirement is to encourage concentration of
development and maximize retention of dedicated open space by
limiting the maximum size of lots. I am informed that those
portions of the lots which exceed 10,000 square feet are unusable
Slopes, which will be left as open space. Thus, the purpose of
the maximum square footage requirement is satisfied either
leaving by the existing lot configuration as is, or by reducing
the size of the "over'iize" lots in order to comply with the
10,000 square foot standard and treating the balance as common
area.
At bottom, the Project complies -with the purpose of
strategy 1.6.1 because it maximizes the retention of open space
and stays within the 130 Single-family dwelling maximum; after
construction the Project would outwardly appear precisely the
same whether the oversize lots were reduced in size or not. The
only difference would be whether the areas in question would be
owned and maintained by individual lot owners or the homeowner's
association. The Council should make this determination.
Assertion No. 3:
08tsat&W 1.6.3 reads as follows:
'f' Ir. ..r
;�.
DCF :lsj
10572.00001 195070..
FROM R1CiA:;�U.1tG.�:a:�.: ►.�
RlotihNA�Ns,. WwrtioN & ,C3i ensHON
MEM0RA14DuKOI
motd)axg; of t,tw City Council
August ...: , 391:18
Pages
cwii.gnation is an overlay to the bass land
11.80 category providing for mixed use projects
in the future subject to approval of a
Vpoc!ific Plan consistent with Govarament Code
section 65450. The issues to be addressed
and the type and maximus intensity of
development within the future Specific Plan
arcus► is csic' defined below.
(a), Planning Areas 2-4 as described within
strategy 1.6.1.
08trategy 2.2 .4 reads as follows:
Require that new developments be designed so
as to respect the views of existing
developmental uroyide view corridors which
are oriented toward existing or proposed
community asenities, such as a park, open
space, or natural features. As part of the
Development Code, adopt clear standards to
identify the extent to which viers can, and
will, be protected from impacts by new
development and intensification of existing
development.
'Strategy 3.2.1 reads as follows:
Prgjeots. Within topographically rugged and
rural areas, emphasise the preservation of
natural landforno and vegetation.
■Strategy 3.3.4 reads as follows:
DCF:lsj
10579-00001 19So703.W
MONARD0. WATSON & dCFWHoN
MEMORANDUM
Members of the City Council
August 12, 1998
Page 11
Response to Assertion No. 3:
Though RAID does not specifically address any of the
foregoing underlined language, we interpret the highlighting to
refer to a purported inconsistency with the City's general plan,
and we will address each to the extent a complaint appears to be
made. with respect to Strategy 1.6.3, reference is made to the
discussion above in our Response to Assertion No. 1.
With respect to Strategy 2.2.4, dealing with view
corridors and view protecting development standards, no precise
standards are set forth concerning what steps should be taken
with respect to view preservation. Rather, a great degree of
discretion has been left with the City to determine, on a case-
by-case basis, whether or not a proposed development has
sufficiently addressed maintenance of existing views. The
project is located at a higher elevation than neighboring
properties and has no adverse effect on distant scenic views or
view corridors. Further, the dwelling units in the Project will
have unimpaired views of the surrounding area.
Further, view preservation standards are contained in
the City's Hillside Development Ordinance and in the soon to be
adopted Development Code. This Project complies with the view
Preservation standards in those documents.
With respect to Strategy 3.2.1, this language leaven
substantial discretion to the City to determine the nature and
quantity of open space and recreational areas which must be
incorporated into the design of new projects. As such, it again
appears that development projects must be considered on a case-
by-case basis. By incorporating 360 acres of open space into the
development, the Council may certainly find that the Project
satisfies this Strategy.
Similarly, when Strategy
limited "to the minimum necessary,n
nature of a goal than a standard.
the City has substantial discretion
of grading to be permitted on each
considered on a case-by-case basis
allow reasonable development of the
DCF:lsj
10572-00001 1950303.W
3-3.4 requires grading to be
this is really more in the
As such, we again believe that
on the issue and the amount
Project may properly be
as to what is -necessary^ to
property.
aOK U fiW*. WAT*c*4 & OffMHoN
MEMORANDUM
Members of the city Council
August 12, 1998
Page 12
Assertion mo. 4:
The suisting Land Use map appearing on page I-6 will
require formal amendsent to the extent the project will •take
away development restrictions for land which is designated as
open space. -
Response to Assertion No. 4:
The map on page I-6 merely shows existing land uses as
of the adoption of the General Plan. It is a= the official land
use map of the Land Use Element and does not show land use
designations. The property at issue is designated as a planning
area in the official land use map, and none of the lots involved
in the Project are designated as open space. Hence, no general
Plan amendment is required.
The General Plan includes a process for removing
development restrictions. The City must comply with that
process. It need not, however, process a map amendment when it
is doing nothing more than the General Plan.
Assertion No. 5:
Tables I-1 through 2-4 will require amending since the
Project would be decreasing the number of acres of ezisting open
space, and increasing the number of acres to he residentially
developed.
Response to Assertion No. 5:
These tables show existing and proposed land uses as of
1993, and are not official land use designations. Hence, for the
reasons discussed above in response to Assertion No. 4, no
amendment is required.
This concludes our review of the June 19, 1998
correspondence.
DCF:lej
20572-00001 J%c303.a7
A., 5. ►
1�1��.�. :1.. l..'1'C� J, r, '.:1,J� `.l fl, ., L .. 7 : L I / ) .. ; : ,. 1 /. iJ. [:," b U„ ).- L; � b .. „ Sr
Rrco~wwos, WATW)ft & 3e WWW
MEMORANDUM
Members of ttie city council
August 1.:!, 1 5►98
Page 13
This correspondence opens with a discussion of; the
legal recsuirement that elements within a general plan be
consistent with one another, both at the time the general plan is
adopted and as amendments are made. I do not disagree.
Assertion, No., 1:
"With respect to your Resource�anaQemeat •lsstsnt, we
attached as uwhibit `A' for your consideration, pages ZZI-1 and
III -Z discussing in detail the need to protect open space is your
court.-aty. changing heretofore designated open space on lots
adjacent to Lot 6 is directly inconsistent with these provisions.
"The contention that the city is smahow gaining open
space for the cOmmunity by obtaining the dedication of other land
already considered open space is not persuasive. Tho land that
is be `dedicated, is already not aside as open space."
Response to Assertion No. I.-
Page
:
Page III -1 of the Resource Management Element contains
language stating:
"It is the intent of the Resource Management
Element to:
Create and retain an open space system which will
conserve natural resources, preserve scenic beauty,
promote a healthy community atmosphere, provide open
space for outdoor recreation, and protect the public
safety.
Identify limits on the natural resources needed to
support urban and rural development within the City and
its Sphere of Influence, and insure that those
resources are used wisely and not abused.
Provide a park, recreation and open space system
which enhances the livability of urban and suburban
areas by -providing -parks for residential neighborhoods;
preserving significant natural, scenic, and other open
DCF:lej
10571-00oo1 1930303.,U
P"014Aa. WATOON & GEAW90N
MEMORANDUM
Members of the City Council
August 12, 1998
Page 14
)3496 : i5
space resources; and meeting the open: space and
recreational needs of Diamond Har residents."
The foregoing language set :Forth in the Resource
Management Element makes clear that intelligent use and
preservation of. the City's open space is a matter of great
importance to the residents and the City Council. However, it is
a statement of policy to be used in guiding decisions of the City
Council as it considers development proposals. So long as
consideration has been given to preservation of open space, the
City Council has arguably fulfilled its legal obligation.
In this instance, the lots adjoining Lot 6 are not
presently "set aside" an open space, but merely exist as open
space at the present time.
restriction that may be lifted at any time. The counciThey are subject to a development
ed
Properly find that obtaining a dedication of these lands as
Permanent open space gives them an enhanced status and
accomplishes the open space preservation strategies of the
General Plan as set forth in Strategy 1.5.3. As proposed, the
Project preserves 75V of Planning Area 2 as open space.
Assertion No. 2;
`Accordingly, not only does the General Plan
require, as a matter of law, smaller lot sizes than the
proposal by the appl;cant, but not coincidentally, use
Of smaller lot sizes will allow the applicant to build
the project within Lot 6.9
Response to Assertion So. 2:
See Response to Assertion No. 2 above, relative to the
June 19 letter, with regard to lot sizes. A reduction in lot
size would not necessarily allow development of the same number
of units confined entirely within Lot 6; rather, I am informed
that a reduction of units would be required, pads would be
undesirably small and streets would be steeper than desirable.
DCF:lsj
10572-00001 11i0303.KT
RX:F e, WATUM & GMUNON
MEMORANDUM
Members of the City Council
August 11, 1998
Page 15
Assertion No. 3:
'Ne further attach for your review as Zchibit `C'
Pages III -10 through 13, which deal with the directive
that the City create and maintain an open space system
in the eosmsmity. The proposed project is inconsistent
with almost every objective and strategy stated on
those pages.
objective 1.3 reads as follows: %maintain a
system of recreatIOR Ucilitiei and open space
preservation Which Meets the active and passive
recreational needs of Dtamand Bar residents of all
We call your attention to Strategies 1.3.1 I`As
quickly as possible, eoeplete a Reareational Heeds
Analysis to determine the present and future recreation
and park needs and update this analysis at intervals of
not more than five years'], 1.3.2 (`Am quickly as
Possible, CONIV1ete and adopt a comprehensive Master
Plan of parks which analyses present and future
recreation, park and open space Preservation needs'),
1.3.3 I`Through the Master Plan of parks, strive to
Provide neighborhood and 000002nity park facilities,
such that a rate of 5.0 acres per 1,000 residents is
ultimately achieved'), 1.3.4 [`Maintain an inventory of
open lands which were set aside for open space uses as
Part of previous development approvals through the
County, and require verification as to the existence of
any potential Open space restrictions previously
approved on the subject property, prior to accepting
development p;oposajs'], and 1.3.6 ["Pursue the
development of a system of greenbelts within the
community, ] . •
Reepoase to Assertion No. 3:
Again, the Resource Management Element makes clear that
intelligent use of open space areas in the City of Diamond Bar is
important to Diamond Bar residents and the City Council.
However, it is important to note that the referenced sections
serve to reflect desired goals and some of the ways by which
those goals may be realized. Nothing in any of the sections
DCF: 115j
10572-00001 19s0703,W
PJOHAROs. WATCON a GERSHON
MEMORANDuM
Members of the City Council
August 12, :1998
Page 16
mentioned directly or indirectly prohibits the processing of
development applications. Nothing in the sections mentioned even
remotely suggests that some action to implement the goals set
forth in those sections must be taken as a condition to
processing a development application. Furthermore, with respect
to Strategies 1.3.1, 1.3.2 and 1.3.3, it is clear that while the
City should act "as quickly as possible", no particular time
frame is set forth within which the City must complete any of the
listed tasks.
Moreover, the City adopted a Parks and Recreation
Master Plan in early 1998, implementing these provisions of the
General Plan and setting forth a comprehensive plan for present
and future park and recreation needs of the community. The
Project is not inconsistent with this Plan. Indeed, the Project
allows for creation of a direct link between Summit Ridge Park
and Sycamore Canyon Park, a project which is addressed in the
Master Plan. This Project allows the City the opportunity to
create recreational trails to link these parks.
Strategy 1.3.4 discusses inventory of land suitable to
be set aside for open space which may have County -imposed open
space restrictions. It appears clear that throughout the
processing of the Project, the City has identified those parcels
and any restrictions thereon. Nothing further is required of the
City prior to processing a development application.
Finally, Strategy 1.3.6 simply requires the City to
"pursue the development of a system of greenbelts." Again, this
strategy imposes no specific time frame, but rather sets forth an
issue to be addressed in considering new development proposals.
How much greenbelt should be established and in what period of
time are matters not addressed and are left to the discretion of
the City Council. As such, Strategy 1.3.6 simply identifies a
strategy which will serve to assist in achieving objective 1.3.
Assertion No. 4s
•Ke also call your attention to Objective 2.6 on
P&90 =zx-18, which reads as followss
Parsuant to Dover=eat Code 65303(d) and (e), the
eoasesva"OD 's3essent ead-thO open space zleaeot v112 be prepared.
DCF:lej
1OS72-00001 1950303.x7
wFCKVM. WATS M tk GE-FISNON
MEMORANDUM
Members cif the City Council
August 12, :_998
Page 17
Strategy 2.6.1 provides that 'The Resource Managownt
Plan will be developed in coordination with any countywide water
agency plans. We question whether this Mamgewent Plan
has been prepared. The.topies to be included within the Plan all
seem to be relevant to the proposed SunCa1 develop Bent.
Strategy 2.6.2 provides that an 'Open Space Plan will
be prepared. . . We understand that an Open Space Plan has
= been prepared. If the plan had been prepared, we would
expect a detailed discussion of the significance of selling off
heretofore designated open space in exchange for a cash payment.
Based on these Resource Management Zlement provisions
and the statements in your Land Use 61ewmt requiring the
preparation of a Master Plan and a specific plan before the area
can be developed, the City is without authority to approve this
subject project.
In effect, the General Plan itself is out of date.
Critical guidelines and resource identification to be
accomplishad in the context of the preparation of a cotmunity-
wide Open Space Plan, as wall as the preparation of a Master Plan
and a Specific Plan for the proposed development in Question must
be completed before this Project can go forward."
Response to Assertion So. 4:
The Open Space Element and the Conservation Element
were incorporated into the Resource Management Element as
permitted under State.planning law. Hence, this assertion is
factually inaccurate. Further, no time frame is established for
formulating an Open Space Plan, and nothing in the General Plan
precludes approval of development projects as the City moves
toward achieving certain goals. The issues pertaining to the
Master Plan and Specific Plan have already been addressed above_
Assertion No. 5:
We call_ your attention to lage.3.3-21, under Biological
resources of the RtR. Therein under the subject of `Cumulative
Impacts,' the BIR states that the project will result in the
DCF .lsj
10672-00001 1960303.111
.....111,.1,. ...1., v..11..1....r1 11.E b' V.. 11,. J-.
MONA iDs. WATSON & GERSHON
MEMORANDUM
Members of the City Council
August 12, 1998
Page 18
1 ..I.V 1 V .. �. v V .. / % ♦ / �.... .. J .. / •.1 V . .. V V v i. I � .. V V •. ..
continuation of fragmentation of renaining co�ities and
habitats into smaller patches.' Given this statement, the BIR
should analyze other projects that are currently in the planning
pipeline and the impacts they will have on Wildlife habitat.*
Response to Assertion No. 5:
The EIR consultant, Bonterra Consulting, will respond
to this assertion.
Assertion No. 6:
*The BIR should also discuss other projects as they
Would have a cumulative impact on open space city wide. Since,
however, the City has not, contrary to the directives in the
General Plan, prepared an Open space Plan, nor prepared a Blaster
Plan or specific Plan for the area in question, the EM preparers
lack critical information they need to make such an analysis.*
Response to Assertion: No. 6:
We have already responded to the Open Space Plan,
Master Plan and Specific Plan issue raised in this assertion.
The EIR consultant will respond to the cumulative impact issue.
We note that the absence of an Open -Space Plan does not impair
evaluation of cumulative impacts.
Assertion No. 71
On Page 3.5-7 under `Aesthatica/visual Resources,' the
BIR addresses the City's Hillside Management ordinance as
follows:
The proposed project is consistent with so" provisions
of the ordinance (e.g. general use of landform grading
techniques) and IMonsistaat with others. The most
significant inconsistency relates.to..the visibility of
the proposed project along the praminent ridgelines of
the site.
DCF!lsj
10572.00001 1950303W
. .
'1u�.Y. :5.. '1i1..,'I/l.,Ju'.�l(J 'J...���1 i7',..., v. ..L ....,J•..i ....JJ...� .. ti.
RIChIARIDfd, WAIUCHO & CIFFISHON
NI E'ISAC,R,A141 [IIIA
Me:tabere ,:he: City Council
AU(1116t.
Palge ].9
Not only :Ls tkia project inconsistent with the Hillside Xanagement
Os-dinance, huIt, it is admitted in the ESR that the project is
Inconsistent iwtth the Land Use and Resource ]elements of the
Ge neral ; Iiiii . ,t
:Itedponse to Assertion No. T
'Pc) the extent that the Hillside Management Ordinance
qe:neralll; diEw-curages ridgeline development, the General Plan
,.,B scu$SiCii Of' this planning Area (Strategy 1.6.1) expressly calls
for ridgellne development, and governs in this instance.
Purther, the Ordinance allows for deviations through approval of
,it Conditional. rise Permit, which CUP has been processed as part of
this Project application. Hence, the Project is in full
<-ompliance with the Ordinance and the General Plan in this
regard; the E,iR consultant will prepare a response to comments
that clarifies this point:
Assertion No. St
"As stated at page 3.5-6 under `Diamond Bar General
Flan,:
The proposed project is inconsistent witb the General
Plan resources element strategies for protection of
ridges and associated views from development.
At page 3.9-1 under `Archeological Resources,, the RZR
2"to that there bas not been a full review of the site for
archeological resources. It goes on to state that the areas in
question:
`have a moderate to high potential for buried or
undetected surface sites. prehistoric sites have been
found in other similar contezts with water, food, and
raw materials sources such as those noted....•
At gaga 4-1 of the RIR under `Long -Term Implications,'
the report identifies only three areas of significant unavoidable
Impacts. These are aesthetics, air quality and noise.
This recitation of significant unavoidable impacts is
obviously incomplete.•
DCF:Isj
10372-00001 10160303.17
F004 1FWS. WATSON & GERSNON
MEMORANDUM
Members of the City Council
August 12, 1998
Page 20
Response to Assertion No. a:
We have previously commented on the ridgeline and view
protection issues. The EIR consultant: will respond to the
remaining assertions.
Assertion No. 91
Page 4-3, under `Growth-Znducing Impacts' makes a
Passing reference to the serious growth -inducing impacts
associated with the proposed action. It states, in relevant
part:
III could be eneculated that additional developslent
within planning Area 2`or other areas in the city
designated as open space could be proposed for
conversion to urban land uses.
This is Meetly the issue that the EZR lJWVd be
�1]Mina in detail. This is not an issue of speculation. There
is no doubt that once you set a precedent of converting
designated open space to residential uses, you are opening the
door to every other development project in the City seeking to do
the same thing in the future. Once you have set that precedent.
developers will predictably press the City very aggressively in
tsrms of getting 'equal treatment,. They will argue that a
refusal to lift map and deed restrictions on their project is
arbitrary and capricious.
From both a planning and legal standpoint, it should be
apparent that it is much better to have consistent and clear
Precedent that is 4160 consistent with a well thought out General
Plan.*
Response to Assertion No. 9.-
This
:
This assertion raises policy, not legal, arguments.
Actions on individual projects do not set precedents for future
action. This is not an EIR issue.
DCF:lej
10572-00001 1950303.19
., �.�r, i, .,... .....Y �.,.� r I.„vV, .. r.J...a ....r, i..r�Ii Y ..L 7�Y .,/•JU; v... ..J•.. J/..1 y. ''!w'J...iJ�:7J .. LL
MCHARDC, WATsON d GERBHON
MEMORANDUM
Members of the City Council
August 12, 1998
Page 21
Assertion No. los
•Ssnaliea of s_r„-y+...Q iy wt�e=> e
As previously mentioned, the Project Alternatives
section starting at Pape S-1 of the SIA is substantially
deficient.
Without repeating the prior discussion regarding the.
ability to develop the project within the confines of Lot 6, we
also ante at page 5-2 under •Landforn/Topography,' the
observation that maintaining the development within Lot 61
would slininate the large fill slope along the northern
edge of the VTTX No. 52167 development area.
Not surprisingly, as stated at Page S-3 under
Biological resources,
This alternative would reduce the impacts of the
proposed project on biological resources in the
proposed development area of VTTK 52267.
We understand that the developer has recently come
forward with a revision to the project which proposes 120 units.
This essentially opens the door for redesign of the project so it
will fit within the Lot 6 area. ■
Response to Assertion No. lo:
The EIR consultant will respond to this assertion.
Assertion No. lis
•We also direct your attention to Page 5-9 under
`Design Alternativa,r wherein a 76 lot subdivision could be
built. This would There would be a
reduction of fill by 1.4 million cubic yards, down from 1.8
million under the proposed plan.
On this point, we call your attention to page Iv -6 of
the Public Health and -Safety Element. Section C, Public Bealth
DCF:lej
30572-00003 2950303,m
Lr
RKsiAFM. WATSON a (JERBHON
MEMORANDUM
Members of tr►e city council
August 12, X5198
Page 22
and Safety :issues, subparagraph 1 entitled •Geology and
Seismicity,' states as follows:
Because of the high seismic and diverse geological
conditions, there are moderate to high geological
constraints for development in Diamond Bar, especially
in hillside areas.
The plan sloes on to state as follows:
The City needs to develop policies to protect existing
and future residents frost local ,geologic and se3snic-
related hazards.
The Council has became aware, we understand through
other sources, that there has been at least on major slide that
effected a development previously built by $uncal Companies. It
is a matter of common sense that the more fill material you
eliminate on a site, the lesser the risks of slides and/or
structurally damaging settlesteat underneath project homes.
It should be the goal of the City to do whatever it can
to prevent massive fill projects which create inherently long-
term instability under a housing develepmtent.■
Response to Assertion No. 11:
The SIR consultant will respond to this assertion.
Assertion No. 11:
"At Page 1V-9 under section D, Public Health and
Safety domes, objectives, and Strategies,' Objective 1.1 states
as follows:
X"nimi:• the potential for loss of lite, physical
:Lnj"ZY• and PrOPerty damage from seismic groundshaking
and other geologic hazards.
'The City Council Mould he well within its rights in
citing this particular provision of the general Plan as well as
other provisions Of the general plan and requiring that this
DCF. lej
30572-00001 :950303.W
FIICH^PM. WxmIoN & Ci[-mmm
MEMORANDUM
Members cf t:he City Council
August 12, 1998
Page 23
project be modified to substantially, if not dramatically, reduce
the amount of fill.■
Response to Assertion No. 12:
The EIR consultant will respond to this assertion.
Assertion No. 13:
"sistencsr
We urge the City Council to deny the current project
proposal and to insist upon a revised plan that stays within Lot
6. The project is generally and specifically inconsistent with
the City's General Plan. The Council will be on firm legal
grounds in taking such a position_•
Response to Assertion No. 13:
we have previously addressed all of the specific
allegations of inconsistency above_
Assertion No. 14:
"=n addition, your General plan and related City laws
are not up to date in that the General plan directs that an open
Space Plan be developed, a Master Plan be developed, and that a
Specific plan be developed as part of any approvals for
developslent in Planning Area 2.
As discussed above, by not having undertaken these
mandated planning studies, there are a number of obvious gaps and
deficiencies associated with the ZIR analysis of the proposed
project. by law the General Plan is neither complete nor updated
for purposes of authorizing the proposed project.•
Response. to Assertion No. 14:
We have previously addressed these allegations above.
DCF:lej
10577-00001 1950307.w
RICHAPICS. WATSON & 00WHON
MEMORANDUM
Members of the Cicy Council
August 12, 1998
Page 24
Assertion No. 15:
"Deed Restrictions
Aside frost the General Plan and Municipal Code issues
raised to date, we also have seen no specific authority for the
right of the City to lift deed restrictions on lots adjacent to
Lot 6. While the City has taken the position that it is only
lifting map restrictions, (we have not seen documentation showing
the City as the authority to do so), the ZiR is replete with
references to dead restrictions on the property. For example, at
Page 3-2 under Project Alternatives, paragraph 1, the last line
states as follows: 'Deed restrictions on both sides have been
previously recorded to implasuent these requirements.
"Absent additional docuawntation giving the City the
right to lift map and dead restrictions, it is our belief that
said restrictions can not be unilaterally lifted by the City.
•The title reports that we have reviewed for the parcel
and'lots in question clearly reflect restrictions an building
rights on the property. We attach by May of example the Grant
Deed recorded an August 21, 1996, affecting Lots 4 through 7 and
Lot 9 of Tract 31479. The last page of that doaument notes in
the lower right-hand corner that 'construction of residential
buildings restricted within Lots 4, 5, 7 and 9, TR. No. 31479.10
Response to Assertion No. is:
The City is the beneficiary of the map restrictions
imposed on private property by the County in connection with past
subdivision approvals, and has established a procedure in the
General Plan for removing those restrictions in appropriate
circumstances. As the benefitted party, the City has the
absolute right to relieve a property owner of%a map restriction.
Despite references in the
restrictions," we are unaware of any
development or development rights on
knowledge, approval of this Project
any such rtstrictions.
DCF:lej
30572.00001 1950303.KT
EIR and elsewhere to "deed
deed restrictions limiting
the subject parcels. To our
does not entail removal of
"CHARDS, WAI V361 -1. 1' ERSHON
IV, E %10 R A IN in I,) 1A
Ple.mbers c:f ::i,;: City council
:Pw.c�tl�lt '.L: , 1.5' S►1?
Pa.cre 25
"AILIM-w:►lau"
"We also believe that the project should not be
approved .because the ZIR is inadequate. There has not been a
proper analysis of growth -inducing impacts, nor has there been
any reasonable attempt at a cumulative impact analysis,
particularly with respect to the open space and grading impacts
that will eme with the project as proposed."
Response to AAsertion No. is:
The RIR consultant will respond to this assertion.
This concludes our written responses to the issues
raised in the Johnson letters.
rA
1. Is the City responsible if a landslide occurs on
the property in the future? No. The City has no responsibility
for landslides occurring on private property.
2. Is there a need to protect dedicated open space
from possible development in the future? property dedicated for
open space by a private property owner cannot be used for any
other purpose absent action by the city Council.
3. Would a reduction in dwelling units constitute a
"taking" of private property?. No, unless the property were
deprived of all economic value.
4. Must map restrictions be removed on Lots 5 and 7 in
order to allow grading on those lotm? The map restriction in
question dedicates to the County (now City) -*the right to
prohibit the construction of residential buildings within Lots 1,
4, 5, 7 and 9." Read literally, this language restricts only the
construction of residential buildings and, accordingly, would not
require the City to lift the restriction in order to allow
grading activities on those lots.
DCF:lsj
10372-ocon 19son.w
. L ..):;.. J.,• ..J:,,),,, 3) . . :
,;� 7'J ..
..3u,Y. ,5..�,..la.:.�. , 'rt„Je,h.ia,;.J,J,'. � ,��,.,�, D. .. 1'„ o!,G - Li
Rjctvdm, %W -s 014 & 431=-MHON
ME; MORANDV M
MCInbez-s c,f the City council
August: 3.,”, 1!i9s
Page 2 6
On ..he other hand, the language could reasonably be
read atore. broadly, prohibiting all activity or construction in
support of c>r incidental to residential buildings. This broader
interpretation arguably more effectively carries out the intent
of` the. reStriction. It would be prudent for the City Council to
consider removing the map restriction to the extent necessary to
permit the activities in question if it chooses to do so.
!i Must mrp restrietioas be raa3oved in order to allow
the water t:amA to be constructed an Lot S or 7? See discussion
above.
6. What recreational aMenities may be constructed cm
dedicated open wee land? Among other things, trails and
similar kinds of passive infrastructure designed to facilitate
public access are permitted to be constructed on open space land.
This concludes our written responses to legal questions
raised during the July 7 hearing.
ncF:lsj
10372-00001 1230303.W
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267
COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
PROPOSED PROJECT AND LOT 6 EIR PROJECT ALTERNATIVES
Prepared for:
City of Diamond Bar
21660 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Contact:
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Prepared by:
BonTerra Consulting
151 Kalmus Drive, Suite E-200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
(714) 444-9199
Contact:
Thomas E. Smith, Jr., AICP
August 13, 1998
VTTM No. 52267
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. Introduction............................................................1
II. Organization of Analysis .................................................. 1
III. VTTM No. 52267 Location and Site Characteristics .............................. 1
IV. Proposed Project Development ............................................. 2
V. Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative Development .................................... 5
VI. Environmental Issues Focused Out of the VTTM No. 52267 Project
Through the CEQA Initial Study ............................................. 7
VII. Comparative Environmental Analysis ......................................... 9
P:MarlLot 6 Evaluation 081398 1 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267
COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
PROPOSED PROJECT AND LOT 6 EIR PROJECT ALTERNATIVE
INTRODUCTION
This evaluation compares the potential impacts from development of the proposed Vesting
Tentative Tract Map (VTTM) No. 52267 project to the potential impacts that would result from
development of an alternative project ("Lot 6 Alternative") in the same general area of the VTTM
No. 52267 site. The Lot 6 Alternative that would restrict all development and development -related
activities within the boundaries of Lot 6. Variations of the Lot 6 Alternative were evaluated in the
draft EIR.
At the direction of the Diamond Bar City Council and based on comments received from the
community to provide a site plan alternative that would confine all aspects of the proposed
development within the boundaries of Lot 6, the applicant has submitted the Lot 6 Alternative for
Council consideration.
ORGANIZATION OF ANALYSIS
This evaluation is organized as follows: the first section of each impact category (e.g., Hydrology)
summarizes the potential impacts that were previously described in the draft EIR for the originally
proposed project and the mitigation measures that were proposed. The second section in each
impact category summarizes the potential impacts that would result from the implementation of the
Lot 6 Alternative, compares the potential impacts to those that would occur if the project were
developed as originally proposed, and describes any adjustments to mitigation measures in the
draft EIR that would be necessary to develop the Lot 6 Alternative.
III. VTTM NO. 52267 LOCATION AND SITE CHARACTERISTICS
The VTTM No. 52267 site is a 339.3 -acre site generally located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard
and north of Grand Avenue. The site is surrounded by single-family residential development, open
space, and vacant land. Land uses adjacent to the VTTM No. 52267 site include:
• North—Gold Rush Drive and existing single-family residences.
• Northeast—Existing single-family residences along Highcrest Drive and Leyland Drive.
• South—Existing single-family residences along Steep Canyon Drive and Diamond Bar
Boulevard, commercial/retail uses at Grand Avenue, and open space. The vacant open
space is a part of VTTM Nos. 52267 and 31479.
• East—Open space within VTTM No. 52267 and existing single-family residences.
• West—Diamond Bar Boulevard and existing single-family residences further to the west.
The VTTM No. 52267 site is located in Planning Area 2 of the City of Diamond Bar General Plan
and is designated Planning Area 2/Specific Plan (PA-2/SP); PA-2/SP permits residential
development. The General Plan notes that "appropriate land uses for ... (Planning Area 2) include
a maximum of 130 single-family detached residential dwelling units concentrated along the
P.DSaALot 6 Evaluation 081398 1 comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
anticipated extension of Highcrest Drive, with a minimum of 75 percent of the total 400 acre area
set aside as dedicated open space."
Onsite elevations range from approximately 810 feet above mean sea level (msl) to 1,150 feet msl.
The site is traversed by northerly tending ridges that bisect the site. The site contains a large
northeasterly -westerly trending canyon which dominates the southern portion of the area of the
VTTM No. 52267 site where development is proposed.
IV. PROPOSED PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The proposed project for the VTTM No. 52267 site would allow for the development of a gated
community of 130 single-family detached residences clustered on approximately 65 acres of the
site (inclusive of streets, manufactured slopes, and a water tank site). This proposed development
was evaluated in the draft EIR for the VTTM No. 52267 site prepared in July 1997. Approximately
273.9 acres (80.7 percent) of the site would remain in natural open space (see Figure 2-5 of the
draft EIR). Table 1 below identifies the proposed land uses for the site.
TABLE 1
PROPOSED PROJECT LAND USES
Lot Number
Use
Acres
1-130
Single-family Residential
30.1
131
Walnut Valley Water District
2.4
A, B, C
Natural Open Space
273.9
D -J
Manufactured Slopes
24.2
n/a
Streets
8.7
Total
339.3
Source: VTTM Nos. 52267 and 52308 Draft EIR, 1997.
Residential Development
The 130 single-family detached residential dwelling units would be clustered on approximately 41.2
acres (inclusive of streets and water tank site) of the 339.3 -acre site. Residences would be located
along the proposed westerly extension of Highcrest Drive to an intersection with Diamond Bar
Boulevard at Tin Drive. No residences would front onto the primary road through the site.
Product Type Information:
Home Size:
Minimum Pad and Lot Size;
Maximum Lot Size:
Average Lot Size:
Gross Density:
Net Density:
Maximum Building Height:
Minimum Yards (setbacks):
Ranging from 2,800 to 3,300 square feet
6,000 square feet
26,000 square feet
10,900 square feet
0.4 units per acre
3.16 units per acre
Two stories, not to exceed 35 feet
Front yard: 20 feet; Back yard: 20 feet
Side yard: 5 feet and 10 feet
P:DBanLot 5 Evaluation 081398 2 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
Grading for the residential development project will be balanced on the site. Proposed grading
would involve approximately 1.8 million cubic yards of cut and 1.8 million cubic yards of fill;
manufactured slopes and some lots would extend outside of the boundaries of Lot 6.
Open Space
Proposed open space would consist of manufactured slopes associated with grading for the
residential development and natural open space. Lots D through J on the vesting map, totaling
approximately 24.2 acres, would be landscaped in the residential project and maintained by a
homeowners' association.
The remainder of the open space (approximately 273.9 acres of natural area) would be dedicated
to the City of Diamond Bar and set aside as public open space as set forth in the City's General
Plan for Planning Area 2.
Other Land Uses: Water Reservoirs
The Walnut Valley Water District has planned two water reservoir sites within the proposed
development area for VTTM No. 52267. These water reservoirs (tanks) have been designated for
locations at elevations 1,050 feet above mean sea level (msl) and 1,200 feet msl. Although the
reservoirs are not needed to serve the project, they are needed to meet the District's long-term
water service requirements. The water reservoir at elevation 1,050 feet is proposed for a site within
the proposed residential development area. The project applicant has indicated a desire for the
elevation 1,200 feet reservoir to be sited in a different location to accommodate the maximum
number of dwelling units (130 units) proposed for the site. This alternative location for the elevation
1,200 feet reservoir is within the boundaries of VTTM No. 52267, but outside of the limits of grading
for the project and in an area identified in the General Plan as dedicated open space.
Circulation and Other Infrastructure Improvements
Circulation
Two points of access are proposed for the residential development. From the east, access would
be provided from an extension of Highcrest Drive and from the west, access would be provided
from Diamond Bar Boulevard through an extension of Tin Drive. A left -turn pocket would be
provided by the applicant in Diamond Bar Boulevard for southbound traffic turning left into the
project site.
Other Infrastructure
All utilities will be underground. The following improvements would be required and implemented
as a part of the project:
• Extend an 8 -inch sewer westerly across Diamond Bar Boulevard into Tin Drive and down
Bridle Drive for a total distance of approximately 330 feet and connect to an existing sewer
line.
• Extend a 14 -inch water service line westerly from the site into Diamond Bar Boulevard and
connect to an existing water line.
• Extend a 14 -inch water service line easterly from the proposed 1,050 elevation feet
reservoir (tank) to connect to an existing water line in Highcrest Drive.
RDBaALot 6 Evaluation 081398 3 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
• Extend a 48 -inch storm drain line approximately 450 feet to the south of Tin Drive along
Diamond Bar Boulevard to connect with an existing drainage basin.
Proposed Project Phasing
The following phasing is anticipated:
Tentative Map Approval
January 1999
Final Map Approval
July 1999
Initiate Grading
August 1999 (duration: approximately 4 months)
Models Open
July 2000
Complete Home Sales
January 2003
Proposed Project Discretionary Actions
• Certification of a final Environmental Impact Report
• Conditional Use Permit: The VTTM No. 52267 site is zoned RPD 20,000 2U and would
require a Conditional Use Permit to comply with the Hillside Management Ordinance.
• Vesting Tentative Tract Map Approval
• Map Restrictions: The VTTM No. 52267 site consists of several lots. Existing map
restrictions on the VTTM No. 52267 site require that all development be confined to Lot 6.
The majority of the proposed development would occur within Lot 6. However, some
remedial grading would result in development -related activities and some lots being located
outside the boundaries of Lot 6 and onto adjacent lots. These adjacent lots have map
restrictions prohibiting development activities. The applicant is requesting that a portion of
the development be constructed on those lots. If an applicant wants map restrictions to be
lifted or modified, the applicant must go through the CEQA process which requires review
and action by the Planning Commission and City Council. To receive approval for
modification of map restrictions, the applicant must show that there is "significant benefit"
to the City. "Significant benefit' is not specifically defined by the City, and is determined on
a project -by -project basis based on applicant proposals.
Subsequent City Actions
• Grading permit
• Building permit
• Oak tree permit
State of California
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit
• Department of Fish and Game. The project may require a California Department of Fish
and Game permit pursuant to Sections 1601 and 1603 of the Fish and Game Code.
P: DBarlLot 6 Evaluation 081398 4 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
Federal
• Section 404 Permit. The project may require a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
Section 404 permit if any portion of an area proposed for development is determined by the
USACE to be "waters of the U.S."
V. LOT 6 ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT
As with the proposed project, the Lot 6 Alternative for the VTTM No. 52267 site would be
developed as a gated residential community. The Lot 6 Alternative would result in the construction
of 53 single-family detached residences, a reduction of 77 units (or 59 percent) when compared
to the originally proposed project. Residences would be clustered on approximately 30.6 acres
of the site (inclusive of streets, water tank site, and manufactured slopes). Approximately 308.7
acres (approximately 91 percent) of the site would remain in natural open space. Table 2
compares the proposed project's land uses to the Lot 6 Alternative's land uses. Exhibit A depicts
the configuration of the Lot 6 Alternative.
TABLE 2
LAND USE COMPARISON
PROPOSED PROJECT AND LOT 6 ALTERNATIVE
Proposed Project
Lot 6 Alternative
Lot Number
Use
Acres
Lot Number
Use
Acnes
1-130
Single-family Residential
30.1
1-53
Single-family Residential
10.1
131
Water Tank
2.4
Water Tank
0.9
A, B, C
Natural Open Space
273.9
Natural Open Space
308.7
D -J
Manufactured Slopes
24.2
Manufactured Slopes
15.4
n/a
Streets
8.7
n/a
Streets
4.2
Total
339.3
Total
339.3
Source: VTTM Nos. 52267 and 52308 Draft EIR 199T Hunsaker 8r Associates 1998.
When compared to the site plan for the proposed project, the Lot 6 Alternative site plan is
elongated in an east -west direction and is narrowed in a north -south direction. More residences
are shifted to the west and closer to Diamond Bar Boulevard under Lot 6 alternative. The proposed
project would require grading along Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive to create an access road
into the site; no residences would be located closer than approximately 700 feet from Diamond Bar
Boulevard. Lots associated with the Lot 6 Alternative would be sited as close as 25 feet from
Diamond Bar Boulevard. Under this alternative, additional grading not associated with the originally
proposed grading plan would occur along Diamond Bar Boulevard, primarily to locate residential
lots along the project entrance road.
The proposed 53 single-family detached residential dwelling units would be clustered on
approximately 15.2 acres (inclusive of streets and water tank site) of the 339.3 -acre site. Access
to the site would occur from a new entry road into the site from Diamond Bar Boulevard in the
general location of existing Tin Drive. Differing from the proposed project, no ingress or egress
to the site would be provided from an extension of Highcrest Drive into the site.
P'. DBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 5 Comparative Environmentai tvaivanon
"Zo
Product Type Information:
Home Size:
Minimum Pad Size:
Minimum Lot Size:
Maximum Lot Size:
Average Lot Size:
Gross Density:
Net Density:
Maximum Building Height:
Minimum Yards (setbacks)
VTTM No. 52267
Ranging from 2,200 to 3,000 square feet
5,000 square feet
6,000 square feet
9,000 square feet
8,300 square feet
0.16 units per acre
3.5 units per acre
Two stories, not to exceed 35 feet
Front yard: 20 feet; Back yard: 20 feet
Side yard: 5 feet and 10 feet
Grading for the Lot 6 Alternative will be balanced on the site. Proposed grading would involve
approximately 933,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, a reduction of approximately 867,000 cubic yards
(approximately 52 percent) of cut and fill when compared to the proposed project. Differing from
the proposed project, no grading would occur outside of Lot 6 under this alternative.
Open Space
The Lot 6 Alternative would also provide open space, including: manufactured slopes associated
with grading for the residential development and natural open space. Approximately 15.4 acres
would be landscaped, incorporated into the residential project, and maintained by a homeowners'
association.
Under this alternative, the remainder of the open space (approximately 308.7 acres) would be
dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar and set aside as public open space as set forth in the City's
General Plan for Planning Area 2. Approximately 34.8 acres of additional natural open space
would result from this alternative as compared to the proposed VTTM No. 52267 project.
Other Land Uses: Water Reservoirs
As previously noted, the Walnut Valley Water District has planned two water reservoir sites within
the VTTM No. 52267 site at elevations 1,050 feet msl and 1,200 feet msl. Although the reservoirs
are not needed to serve the project, they are needed to meet the District's long-term water service
requirements. The Lot 6 Alternative site plan includes a water reservoir (tank) on the site at
elevation 1,050 feet. As with the proposed project, the project applicant has indicated a desire for
the elevation 1,200 feet reservoir to be sited in a different location than the development area
associated with the Lot 6 Alternative. The alternative location for the elevation 1,200 feet reservoir
is within the boundaries of VTTM No. 52267 but outside of the limits of grading for the project and
in an area identified in the General Plan to be set aside for dedicated open space (see Exhibit 2-7
of the draft EIR).
Circulation and Other Infrastructure Improvements
Circulation
Under the Lot 6 Alternative, one point of access would be provided into the residential development
from Diamond Bar Boulevard through an easterly extension of Tin Drive. The access road would
terminate on the site in a cul-de-sac. No through access to Highcrest Drive to the east would
occur from the Lot 6 Alternative.
P DBarTot 6 Evaluation 051395 6 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
For both the proposed project and Lot 6 Alternative, a left -turn pocket would be provided in
Diamond Bar Boulevard for southbound traffic turning left into the project site.
Other Infrastructure Improvements
As with the proposed project, all utilities will be underground in the Lot 6 Alternative. The following
improvements would be required and implemented as a part of this alternative:
• Extend an 8 -inch sewer across Diamond Bar Boulevard into Tin Drive and down Bridle Drive
for a total distance of 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 14 -inch water service line from the water tank to an existing water line in Highcrest
Drive.
• Extend a 48 -inch storm drain line approximately 450 feet to the south of Tin Drive along
Diamond Bar Boulevard to connect with an existing drainage basin.
Lot 6 Alternative Phasing
The expected that the phasing plan for the Lot 6 Alternative would be the same as the proposed
project as follows:
Tentative Map Approval
January 1999
Final Map Approval
Initiate Grading
July 1999
August 1999 (duration: approximately 4 months)
Models Open
July 2000
Complete Home Sales
January 2003
Lot 6 Alternative Discretionary Actions
Discretionary actions for this alternative would differ from the proposed project. The Lot 6
Alternative would not require modifications to map restrictions. The proposed project would require
map restriction modifications because remedial grading activities and some lots would occur
outside of the boundaries of Lot 6. The Lot 6 Alternative confines all grading and development
activities within the boundaries of Lot 6. Because no modifications to map restrictions would be
required, the applicant would not be required to provide a "significant benefit' to the City of
Diamond Bar because the "the significant benefit' factor is associated with modifications to map
restrictions which would not be required under this alternative.
All other discretionary actions identified for the proposed project would be applicable to the Lot 6
Alternative.
VI. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES FOCUSED OUT OF THE VTTM NO. 62267 PROJECT
THROUGH THE CEQA INITIAL STUDY
In an initial environmental evaluation prepared by the City of Diamond Bar in February 1997 prior
to the preparation of the draft EIR, the following issues were deemed to have no potential impact
on the site or surrounding areas and were not discussed in the EIR for Vesting Tentative Tract
Maps 52267 (see Volume II of the draft EIR). These issues are as follows:
PDBar\Lct 6 Evaluation 081398 7 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
• Land Use:
— impacts on agricultural activities
— disruption/division of established communities
• Population and Housing:
— cumulative exceedance of official regional or local population projections
— substantial growth inducement
— displacement of existing houses
• Geologic Problems: seiche, tsunami, or volcanic hazard
• Water:
— exposure of persons to flooding
— changes in the amount of surface water in any water body
— changes in currents or course/direction of water movement
— change in the quantity of groundwater
— alter direction or flow of groundwater
— impacts to groundwater quality
— reduction in groundwater for public water supplies
• Air Quality:
— alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature; changes in climate
— creation of objectionable odors
• Transportation/Circulation:
— insufficient parking
— hazards or barriers for pedestrians or bicyclists
— conflicts with policies supporting alternative forms of transportation
— rail, waterborne, or air traffic impacts
• Energy and Mineral Resources:
— conflict with adopted energy conservation plans
— use of non-renewable resources in a wasteful and inefficient manner
— loss of known mineral resources
• Hazards:
— risk of accidental explosion or release of hazardous substances
— possible interference in an emergency response plan or emergency evacuation plan
— creation of health hazard
— exposure of persons to existing sources of health hazards
— increased fire hazards
• Public Services: impacts to fire, police, schools, public facilities, or other governmental
services
• Utilities and Service Systems: power or natural gas, communication systems, local/regional
water treatment or distribution facilities, sewer/septic/wastewater treatment and disposal,
storm water drainage, solid waste, or locallregional water supplies.
• Recreation:
— increased demand for neighborhood or regional parks or other recreational facilities
— affects on existing recreational opportunities
P.DSar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 8 comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
Environmental issues identified in the Initial Study as having no potential significant impacts
associated with the proposed project (identified above) also apply to the Lot 6 Alternative.
VII. COMPARATIVE ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
The following provides a summary comparative analysis of the environmental impacts identified in
the draft EIR for the proposed VTTM No. 52267 project consisting of 130 dwelling units and the
potential impacts associated with the 53 -unit Lot 6 Alternative.
As part of the analysis for the Lot 6 Alternative, additional technical evaluations were conducted
to address geology and grading factors (Pacific Soils Engineering, August 1998).
Due to the substantial similarities in the two projects, the City determined that additional technical
evaluations beyond those noted above were not required to analyze the Lot 6 Alternative.
Earth Resources
Proposed Project: Earth Resources
There are no known active faults along or crossing the project site. The site has the potential to
be impacted by earthquakes and earthquake -related hazards, mainly the effects of groundshaking.
The site would be subject to moderate to strong ground motion during an earthquake. Seismic
activity could result in potentially significant impacts to the project.
Approximately 1.8 million cubic yards of cut and 1.8 million cubic yards of fill (balanced on the site)
would be required to develop the proposed project. Grading is required to create flat building pads
and to remediate existing slope stability conditions, and would require grading outside of Lot 6.
Buttress and stabilization fills would be required. Maximum depth of cut is approximately 80 feet
and maximum fill depth is approximately 180 feet. A buttress fill will be required in the northfacing
slope adjacent to residential lots 18 through 20, 31, 32, and 37 through 51. Daylighted bedding
in the natural slope area adjacent to lots 55 through 65 will require a buttress fill in this location.
Due to the presence of oversteepened natural slopes and a possible landslide, a sheer key may
be required at the southwesterly facing slope adjacent to lots 101 through 104.
The grading design conforms to the City's Hillside Grading Ordinance with respect to the use of
landform grading in areas of cut and fill slopes to create varying lot shapes and pad configurations.
To the extent practicable, the proposed grading has followed the natural topography of the site in
making the connection between Highcrest Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard.
The following measures were recommended in the draft EIR as conditions of approval for the
originally proposed project:
1. 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 are 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.
P'. DBa6Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 9 �Vn�Na'ou.c.
VTTM No. 52267
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 the 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. 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
Ind I lmq m GIS
1�11�i
I
I I �
go
IN Irl illy,
o: oo11owiioiic c.iai Clio 0001111JI ! Yl jllo� IlI pyl IIIA
..r. _. ..._
..... ......
submit a detailed geologic and soils engineering report meeting the requirements of the City
of Diamond Bar Subdivision Ordinance.
Implementation of these measures would reduce potential impacts of the proposed project to a
level that is considered less than significant.
Lot 6 Alternative: Earth Resources
VTTM No. 52267
Hydrology
Proposed Project: Hydrology
Proposed development would alter the existing natural drainage patterns on the site. Building pads
would drain to the street system. Drainage would then be conveyed by onsite storm drain systems
to existing natural drainage courses, which then drain to existing culverts in Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
As a part of the proposed project, a 48 -inch storm drain would be extended from the site
approximately 450 feet to the south of Tin Drive along Diamond Bar Boulevard to connect with an
existing drainage basin. The existing receiving storm drain system is adequately sized and has
adequate available capacity to accommodate flows from the project site.
The following measures were recommended in the draft EIR as conditions of approval on the
proposed project:
1. 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 existing drainage facilities downstream.
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 an 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 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 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.
Implementation of these measures would reduce potential impacts to a level that is considered less
than significant.
Lot 6 Alternative: Hydrology
Hydrological calculations have not been prepared for the Lot 6 Alternative. However, stormwater
flows from development of the Lot 6 Alternative would be approximately 50 percent less than the
proposed project and would not result in any new significant impacts not associated with the
proposed project.
P:DBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 11 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
As with the proposed project, existing storm drain facilities are adequate to accommodate the post -
development flows associated with the Lot 6 Alternative. No new impacts are anticipated. All
recommended mitigation for the proposed project would be applicable to this alternative.
All impacts of the Lot 6 Alternative can be mitigated to a level that is less than significant.
Biological Resources
Proposed Project: Biological Resources
The proposed project would allow for the development of approximately 65 acres of the 339.3 -acre
site; the remainder of the site would be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar as permanent open
space. The following biological resources identified on the site and the amount of loss associated
with project implementation were described in the draft EIR and are noted below in Table 4.
TABLE 4
BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES IMPACTS
PROPOSED PROJECT
Plant Community
Existing
Area'
Impact
Area-
Presented
Area*
Venturan-Diegan Transitional Coastal Sage Scrub
125.2
18.7
106.6
Scrub Oak Chaparral
37.7
8.5
29.2
Poison Oak Chaparral
0.9
0.0
0.9
Annual Grassland
67.7
27.7
40.0
Ruderal
4.2
0.0
4.2
Mulefat Scrub
1.3
0.0
1.3
Southern Willow Scrub
0.9
0.0
0.9
Southern Sycamore Riparian Woodland
1.7
0.0
1.7
Coast Live Oak Woodland
Coast Live Oak Trees
Walnut Trees
48.3
Unknown
Unknown
9.6
410 trees
30 trees
38.7
Mexican Elderberry Woodland
4.5
1.1
3.4
Walnut Woodland
40.1
0.0
40.1
Disturbed/Developed Areas
6.7
0.1
6.6
Total
339.3
65.7
1 273.6
* acres
Source: Sweetwater Environmental 1996.
Impacts to Venturan-Diegan transitional coastal sage scrub and coast live oak woodland (including
loss of 410 coast live oak trees and 30 walnut trees) are considered significant. In addition, the
loss of any active raptor nests would be considered significant. No sensitive bird species were
identified on the VTTM No. 52267 site.
The following measures were recommended for adoption as conditions of approval for the
proposed project:
P.DBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 12 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No 52267
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.
k. Specific 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. In conjunction with construction activity, the grading contractor shall control dust
accumulation on natural vegetation at the source of disturbance by standard wetting
P:DBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 061398 13 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No 52267
techniques. Under the guidance of the project biologist, natural vegetation shall be
periodically sprayed with water to reduce dust accumulation on leaves.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. 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.
9. 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.
10. 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.
11. 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.
RDBarlLot 6 Evaluation 081398 14 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No 52267
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. The following side slope 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.
RDBarlLot 6 Evaluation 081398 15 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No 52267
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
P. DBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 16 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
introduction of additional container stock will be implemented as directed by the project
biologist.
16. 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.
• 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.
17. 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
VTTM No. 52267 site.
18. 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 Bar or the
California Department of Fish and Game.
19. Mitigation shall consist of planting oak and walnuts at a replacement ratios identified
below or as otherwise deemed appropriate by the California Department of Fish and
Game:
a. Oaks with trunk Diameters at Breast Height (dbh) of less than 36 inches shall be
replaced at a ratio of 2:1 with one 5 -gallon container size and one transplant tree;
b. Oaks with trunk dbh between 36 inches and 48 inches shall be replaced at a ratio of
3:1 with one 5 -gallon, one 15 -gallon, and one transplant tree.
P:DBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 17 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
c. Oaks with trunk dbh of greater than 48 inches shall be replaced at a ratio of 4:1 with
one 5 -gallon, two 15 -gallon, one 24 -inch box, and one transplant tree.
Note: 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:
a. For oaks with trunk dbh of less than 36 inches: substitute one 15 -gallon size for one
transplant.
b. Oaks with trunk dbh between 36 inches and 48 inches: substitute one 15 -gallon for one
transplant.
c. Oaks with trunk dbh of greater than 48 inches: substitute one 24 -inch box size for one
transplant.
20. Mitigation shall consist of planting oak and walnuts at a replacement ratio of no less than
2:1 (2 trees replaced for every 1 tree removed) or as otherwise deemed appropriate by
the California Department of Fish and Game. 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.
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.
P:DBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 18 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
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.
Quino Checkerspot Butterfly
Subsequent to the preparation of biological surveys for the proposed project, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) listed the Quino checkerspot butterfly (Euphydras editha quino) as
endangered under the federal Endangered Species Act. The historic range of the habitat for this
species includes southern and eastern Los.Angles County, a small area of southwestern San
Bernardino County, western Riverside County, Orange County, and coastal San Diego County.
Official guidelines for determining the presence/absence of the Quino checkerspot butterfly within
the species' historic range were published by the USFWS on November 4, 1997. Since the Quino
checkerspot was not listed as endangered at the time surveys were conducted, directed surveys
for the butterfly's host plants were not necessary. Further, because the biological surveys were
conducted in summer, it was not possible to observe the butterfly in flight (its active flight period
is between February and late April).
BonTerra Consulting, the City's EIR Consultant, conducted Phase I focused surveys for potential
habitat for the Quino checkerspot butterfly in March 1998. Suitable habitat for the butterfly includes
rock outcrops, ridgetops, and native vegetation with areas of sparse vegetation along ridgetops.
The presence of the two host plants—dwarf plantain (Plantago erecta) and owl's clover (Castilleja
exserta)—is also required. The densest colonies of the Quino checkerspot butterfly are typically
associated with clay or cryptogramic soils. The VTTM No. 52267 site is dominated by hills that
form ridgelines with steep slopes. No extensive flat areas occur. The site supports a mixture of
plant communities; no dwarf plantain or owl's clover were observed. Large areas of cryptogramic
soils are not present.
The VTTM No. 52267 site does not appear to support suitable habitat for the Quino checkerspot
butterfly due to the absence of large areas of cryptogramic soils, if any, and the apparent absence
of the dwarf plantain host plant. The general lack of sparsely vegetated areas and the high density
of non-native grasses on the site further reduce the potential for the butterfly. Owl's clover may
occur in limited amounts and the site provides some suitable topography for hill -topping adults.
Nectar plants such as the popcorn flower and common fiddleneck are present on the site. Because
these nectar plants and the owl's clover are widespread and common in this part of the butterfly's
historic range, such as the Chino Hills, it would appear that these habitat characteristics alone are
not sufficient to sustain populations of this butterfly. No impacts are therefore anticipated.
Lot 6 Alternative: Biological Resources
The Lot 6 Alternative would allow for the development of approximately 30.6 acres of the 339.3 -
acre site; the remainder of the site would be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar as permanent
open space. This alternative would result in similar biological impacts as the proposed project;
however, approximately 50 percent less natural habitat would be impacted.
PDBar\Lat6 Evaluation 081398 19 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
Within the limits of grading for the Lot 6 Alternative, approximately 220 coast live oak trees and 30
walnut trees would be impacted, including some oaks near Diamond Bar Boulevard that would not
be impacted by the proposed project. The majority of these trees are located along the western
boundary of the site (along Diamond Bar Boulevard). Conversely, the limits of grading for the Lot
6 Alternative would avoid approximately 190 coast live oak trees that would be impacted by the
proposed project. The majority of the trees that would be avoided are located along the northern
slopes near Gold Rush Drive.
The Lot 6 Alternative's impacts to Venturan-Diegan transitional coastal sage scrub and coast live
oak woodland (including the loss of 220 coast live oak trees and 30 walnut trees) are considered
significant. These impacts are considered significant under either the proposed project or the Lot
6 Alternative. In addition, the loss of any active raptor nests would be considered significant but
can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant. No sensitive bird species were
identified. Impacts to coast live oak woodland and oak trees can be mitigated to a level that is
considered less than significant through the implementation of the mitigation program set forth
above for the proposed project.
Land Use:
Proposed Project: Land Use
The City of Diamond Bar General Plan designates the VTTM No. 52267 site for development of
up to 130 single-family detached dwelling units. In accordance with map restrictions, development
is to be confined to Lot 6. While the current vacant condition of the site would be changed by the
proposed development, the number of units and type of development proposed is consistent with
the General Plan designation for the site. The development also conforms to the City's hillside
management requirements and incorporates landform/contour grading techniques.
Implementation of the proposed project would be inconsistent with some goals, objectives, and
strategies of the City's General Plan, but this is not considered a significant impact.
Measures to mitigate potential effects of the proposed project are presented in the draft EIR,
Sections 3.1 through 3.3 and Sections 3.5 through 3.9. Should the proposed project be approved,
the development will be subject to all applicable regulations of the City's General Plan, zoning
ordinance, and all requirements and enactments of federal, state, county, and City authorities, and
any other governmental entities, and all such requirements and enactments will, by reference,
become conditions of project implementation.
Lot 6 Alternative: Land Use
As noted above, the City's General Plan designates the VTTM No. 52267 site for up to 130 single-
family detached dwelling units. In accordance with map restrictions, development is to be confined
to Lot 6. The Lot 6 Alternative would develop 53 single-family detached units.
The Lot 6 Alternative is more consistent with the goals, objectives, and strategies of the City of
Diamond Bar General Plan because of its compliance with applicable map restrictions. Unlike the
proposed project, all grading for the Lot 6 Alternative would occur within Lot 6. No map restriction
modifications would be required for the Lot 6 Alternative. The Lot 6 Alternative 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, limits grading
and development activities within the boundaries of Lot 6, and incorporates a mitigation program
to revegetate graded areas consistent with natural materials on the project site. However,
somewhat less landform/contour grading would occur with the Lot 6 Alternative.
P:DBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 20 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
The Lot 6 Alternative is consistent with the City's General Plan and the adverse impacts associated
with the proposed project would not occur with the Lot 6 Alternative.
Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Proposed Project: Aesthetics/Visual Resources
Implementation of the proposed 130 -unit project would require the cutting of ridge lines and filling
of some canyon areas on the site to create building pads and roadways. Approximately 1.8 million
cubic yards of cut and 1.8 million cubic yards of fill, balanced onsite, would be required. The
grading for the site incorporates landform/contour grading concepts that generally conform to the
City's hillside grading requirements. These requirements generally allow ridgelines in the City to
be graded for the development of residential uses, a practice that is evident in existing projects
throughout the City.
Constructing the entrance road into the site at Tin Drive from Diamond Bar Boulevard will require
cutting through the existing slope bank. Extending Tin Drive into the site will create cut slopes on
the site on either side of the new road; these slopes will be approximately 40 to 60 feet in height.
In addition, two large engineered fill slopes will be visible after development. One will be located
along the southern edge of the development area adjacent to lots 112 to 125; this slope will have
a height of approximately 150 feet. The other is along Diamond Bar Boulevard downslope of lots
8 to 20 with a height of approximately 150 feet. A smaller fill slope will also be visible along
Diamond Bar Boulevard downslope of lots 2 to 5, with an approximate height of 110 feet.
The draft EIR included computer generated simulations of the developed areas of the site from key
viewpoints. The draft EIR noted that proposed residences would be visible along the ridgelines
from adjacent areas. Significant impacts would occur at the following viewpoints:
View 1, near the intersection of Steep Canyon Road and Clear Creek Canyon Drive. The
development would be visible along the top of the prominent ridge in the southern portion
of the development area. A large engineered fill slope and fuel modification areas would
also be visible.
View 2, near Kidd Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard. Residences would be visible along
the northern ridge; the engineered fill slope would also be visible.
View 3, from the top of Gold Rush Drive near its intersection with High Crest Drive.
Proposed residences would the extension of High Crest Drive would be visible along the
top of the northern ridge in this area. Residents on the south side of Gold Rush Drive
would have view from their backyards across the unnamed canyon to the development.
The proposed project is inconsistent with the General Plan Resources Element strategies related
to the protection of ridges and associated views from development areas.
The draft EIR proposes measures intended to provide concepts to the City and applicant to reduce
aesthetic impacts associated with the proposed project as follows:
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 proposed residential units
along the prominent ridges. Visual simulations or cross sections of the revised plan shall
be required prior to issuance of grading permits.
P:DBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 21 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
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.
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.
It is unknown whether these measures would reduce aesthetic impacts to a level considered less
than significant. Further, it is speculative whether these recommended changes could be feasibly
implemented by the project applicant or if they are desirable to the City's decision makers.
Therefore, aesthetic impacts are considered significant and unavoidable.
Lot 6 Alternative: AestheticsNisual Resources
Implementation of the 53 -unit Lot 6 Alternative would also require the cutting of ridgelines and filling
of some canyon areas on the site to create building pads and roadways. A reduction in grading
from 1.8 million cubic yards of cut and 1.8 million cubic yards of fill (balanced onsite) associated
with the proposed project to 933,000 cubic yards of cut and fill (balanced onsite) for the Lot 6
Alternative will occur. The grading for the site under the Lot 6 Alterative incorporates limited
landform/contour grading concepts resulting in less conformance to the City's hillside grading
requirements than grading associated with the proposed project.
The Lot 6 Alternative would shift residences approximately 300 feet closer and contiguous to
Diamond Bar Boulevard than the proposed project. The westerly access to the site from Diamond
Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive will occur at approximately the same location as the proposed project.
Constructing this entrance road to the site will require cutting through the existing slope bank.
Different than the proposed project, a large cut slope on the north side of the onsite access road
will be visible from Diamond Bar Boulevard; the top of this slope will be approximately 100 feet
higher than the existing elevation of Diamond Bar Boulevard. On the south side of the entrance
road, five residences are proposed with backyards paralleling Diamond Bar Boulevard; no
- residences are sited in this location as a part of the proposed project. The proposed residences
under this alternative are approximately 30 feet east of and 17 to 22 feet above Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
Similar to the proposed project, three large engineered fill slopes will be visible after development
of the Lot 6 Alternative. One will be located along the southern edge of the development area in
the same general location identified for the proposed project. However, to confine grading within
the boundaries of Lot 6, grading activities in this location would create two smaller fill slopes. The
southeasterly slope extends into an area where residential development would occur as a part of
the proposed project. The southwestern manufactured slope height would be approximately the
same as for the proposed project: 150 feet. The southeastern manufactured slope height would
also be approximately the same as for the proposed project: 170 feet.
The second engineered slope is along Diamond Bar Boulevard adjacent to and north of the onsite
access road with a height of approximately 100 feet; this slope is higher and wider than the slope
that would be part of the proposed project. The third manufactured slope will occur in the north -
central portion of the development area. The manufactured slope in this location will be
approximately 140 in height in a location assumed for residential development as a part of the
P.DBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 22 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
proposed project. The north -central slope for the proposed project is further to the north and
extends beyond the boundaries of Lot 6.
Development of the site under the Lot 6 Alternative would, like the proposed project, be visible from
viewpoints in the adjacent community. Similar to the proposed project, the Lot 6 Alternative would
be visible from View 1 (near the intersection of Steep Canyon Road and Clear Creek Canyon Drive)
and View 2 (near Kidd Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard). With respect to View 3 (from the top
of Gold Rush Drive near its intersection with High Crest Drive), it is not expected that residences
within the development area of the VTTM No. 52267 site would be visible because all construction
and development are within the boundaries of Lot 6, and, therefore, much further to the south and
away from existing residences.
More residential development and manufactured slope area would be visible from Diamond Bar
Boulevard in the vicinity of Tin Drive under the Lot 6 Alternative than would be visible with the
proposed project. As with the proposed project, post -development views of the site are considered
significant impacts.
Similar to the proposed project, the Lot 6 Alternative is not consistent with the General Plan
Resources Element strategies related to the protection of ridges and associated views from
development. Measures identified for the proposed project are also applicable for the Lot 6
Alternative. Aesthetic impacts for both the proposed project and Lot 6 Alternative are considered
significant and unavoidable.
Traffic and Circulation
Proposed Project: Traffic
A traffic study was prepared and incorporated into the draft EIR for VTTM No. 52267 by O'Rourke
Engineering in April 1997. Upon the applicant's withdrawal of the VTTM No. 52308 for
consideration as a part of the project, O'Rourke Engineering updated the traffic analysis to address
the potential traffic impacts of the VTTM No. 52267 project by itself; this subsequent analysis was
prepared in February 1998.
The VTTM No. 52267 project proposes the development of 130 single-family dwelling units. The
Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation Manual, 50 Edition was used to develop
traffic generation rates associated with the project. These rates were validated by the City's traffic
engineer and another traffic consultant hired by the City to evaluate the O'Rourke Engineering
traffic study.
The traffic study included the following roadways and intersections:
Roadways
• Diamond Bar Boulevard
• Grand Avenue
• Golden Springs Drive
Intersections
• Diamond Bar Boulevard/SR-60 eastbound
• Diamond Bar Boulevard/SR-60 westbound
• Diamond Bar Boulevard/Gold Rush
• Diamond Bar Boulevard/Grand Avenue
P DBar\Lot 5 Evaluation 081398 23 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
• Diamond Bar Boulevard/Sunset Crossing
• Diamond Bar Boulevard/Golden Springs
• Grand Avenue/Golden Springs
• Summitridge/Grand Avenue
• Tin Drive/Diamond Bar Boulevard
The proposed project would generate 1,242 daily trips, of which 96 trips would occur in the a.m.
peak hour and 131 trips in the p.m. peak hour based on a traffic generation rate of 9.55 vehicle
trips per day per dwelling unit. Using the City of Diamond Bar criteria for determining significance
and the Los Angeles County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) criteria, the increase in vehicular
traffic associated with the project is not significant and does not require mitigation.
As a part of the original draft EIR traffic analysis, a queuing analysis was also conducted at the
project entry from Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive to determine whether the project entry
design would provide adequate space for vehicle "stacking" onsite during peak periods when
vehicles would be waiting to pass through the private entry gate. The traffic analysis concluded
that the project design provided adequate "stacking" distance onsite thereby preventing queuing
onto Diamond Bar Boulevard. However, turning movements at this location would require a traffic
signal at the project entrance from Diamond Bar Boulevard. Therefore, as a part of the project, the
project applicant will be required to provide a traffic signal and southbound left -turn pocket on
Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive.
The following mitigation measure was proposed in the draft EIR as a condition of approval of the
project:
Prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the first dwelling unit at the VTTM
No. 52267 site, a traffic signal shall and southbound left -turn pocket 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 these traffic improvements.
Traffic impacts can be fully mitigated with the implementation of this mitigation measure.
Lot 6 Alternative: Traffic
The Lot 6 Alternative would allow for the development of 53 single-family residences, a reduction
of 77 units from the proposed project. Based on a daily trip generation factor of 9.55 trips per
dwelling unit, the Lot 6 Alternative would generate 506 daily trips, a reduction of 736 trips per day
when compared to the proposed project. Of the 506 average daily trips (ADT), approximately 39
trips would occur during the a.m. peak hour and approximately 54 trips would occur during the p.m.
peak hour (compared to the proposed project's 96 a.m. peak hour trips and 131 p.m. peak hour
trips).
The Lot 6 Alternative would result in a change in the traffic distribution patterns assumed for the
proposed project because there would not be through traffic associated with this project alternative.
No access into the site from Highcrest Drive would occur. All access to the site would be provided
from a new access road into the site from Diamond Bar Boulevard.
As noted above, the proposed project would not result in any significant traffic -related impacts, with
the exception of the need for a traffic signal on Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive. The Lot 6
Alternative would not result in any new significant traffic impacts not previously identified for the
project; the project applicant would also be required to provide the traffic signal for this alternative.
Implementation of this measure would mitigate traffic impacts to a level that is considered less than
significant.
P'OBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 24 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
Air Quality
Proposed Project: Air Quality
The draft EIR identifies that the project will result in construction -related impacts from emissions
of nitrogen oxides (Noy) and particulate matter (PM,O). It should be noted that these findings are
based on the development of both the VTTM Nos. 52267 and 52308 sites. No ozone impacts
would occur with the proposed project.
The following measures were identified in the draft EIR as conditions of approval for the proposed
project:
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 day or during very dry
weather in order to 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 operating 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.
P. DBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 25 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
Although mitigation is required as a part of the proposed project, construction -related emissions
of nitrogen oxides and PM, would remain significant after mitigation.
Lot 6 Alternative: Air Quality
The Lot 6 Alternative would result in less grading activities than the proposed project (933,000
cubic yards compared to 1.8 million cubic yards of cut and fill balanced on the site). While the
reduction in grading and the implementation of the mitigation measures would result in the
reduction of the project's air emissions, total emissions after mitigation would remain above the
threshold limits for No, and PM,o, and would be considered significant and unavoidable.
Noise
Proposed Project: Noise
Vehicular Noise
The noise study conducted for the draft EIR assessed potential vehicular noise associated with the
implementation of the VTTM No. 52267 and 52308 project sites; the VTTM No. 52308 is no longer
proposed for development as a part of the project or Lot 6 Alternative. 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
and Tin Drive in the eastward direction into the site, the increase over existing noise levels would
be approximately 3.8 dbA for the a.m_ peak hour and 9.1 dbA for the p.m. peak hour. These
increases are large because there is no existing roadway in this location. In all locations, the
resulting noise levels would range from 46.8 to 52.1 Leq which are less than the criteria for
determination of a significant impact.
Construction Noise
Development of the site is expected to take two to three years. However, the grading activities that
generate the most noise would occur over an approximate four to six month period. Existing
residences could experience noise levels exceeding the City's noise standards depending on their
distance from operating construction equipment. Residences along Highcrest Drive, as well as
those along Gold Rush Drive and adjacent to Steep Canyon Road, could be impacted.
As noted in the discussion of Earth Resources above, the City of Diamond Bar has determined that
no blasting will be permitted as a part of project implementation. Therefore, Mitigation Measure
3 in the draft EIR related to blasting activities is no longer needed.
The following mitigation measures were proposed in the draft EIR as conditions of approval of the
proposed project:
Construction activities shall be limited to Monday to Saturday between the hours of 7:30
a.m. to 5 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.
Construction noise is considered to be a short-term significant impact that cannot be avoided; this
impact remains significant and unavoidable.
PDBarlLot 6 Evaluation 081398 26 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTfM No. 52267
Lot 6 Alternative: Noise
Construction Noise
Development of the Lot 6 Alternative is expected to take two to three years. Similar to the
proposed project, grading activities for the Lot 6 Alternative would occur over an approximate four -
to six-month period. Existing residences could experience noise levels exceeding the City's noise
standards, depending on their distance from operating equipment. However, under the Lot 6
Alternative, development -related activities would be more distant from residences along Gold Rush
Drive and Highcrest Drive and residents in these areas would experience fewer construction noise -
related impacts. Residences adjacent to Steep Canyon Road could be impacted similarly to the
proposed project. This short-term construction noise impact, although reduced, is considered
significant and unavoidable.
Vehicular Noise
As with the proposed project, implementation of the Lot 6 Alternative would result in noise
increases at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard/Tin Drive. Because no vehicular access
would be provided into the site from the extension of Highcrest Drive, no significant noise increases
would be expected at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard/Gold Rush Drive. Because of the
reduction in project -related vehicular traffic, noise levels will be less than those associated with the
proposed project. The Lot 6 Alternative proposes residences in a development area adjacent to
Diamond Bar Boulevard that were not considered as a part of the proposed project. Proposed
onsite residences along Diamond Bar Boulevard may experience vehicular noise levels that exceed
the City's noise standards. This is a potential impact that would not occur with the proposed
project.
The following mitigation measure is proposed for the Lot 6 Alternative in addition to the measures
identified in the draft EIR for the proposed project:
3. Prior to issuance of the first building permit, 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.
The above -stated measure would reduce potential vehicular noise impacts to a level that is
considered less than significant.
Cultural Resources
Proposed Project: Cultural Resources
Prehistoric and Historic Archaeological Resources
An archaeological records search and a walk -over survey of the site was conducted by Petra
Resources in 1997. Based on the archaeological assessment, there are no known prehistoric or
historic resources on the project site. Because buried resources cannot be detected and only 10
to 15 percent of the area could be viewed during the walkover survey because of vegetative cover,
it is possible that buried artifacts or sites could be found during construction activities. Accidental
damage to these resources could occur. Resources may also be buried beneath the accumulation
of erosional sediments in this area that has occurred in the past. Based upon the known type of
regional prehistoric occupation, it is possible that camp sites, single activity sites, rock features,
and/or isolated tools could be found.
P. DBar\Lot 6 Evaluation 081398 27 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
VTTM No. 52267
Mitigation measures recommended in the draft EIR as conditions of approval for the proposed
project are as follows:
1. 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.
be
5. A final monitoring re including o the South Ce tral Coastal Inform tion Center atshall
sent to the property owner andthe
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 anldCreess) arch
rch
interest in the materials such as the Fowler Museum of Cultural History
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.
Paleontological Resources
The site is underlain by middle to upper Miocene aged rock of the Soquel Member of the Puente
Formation; the Soquel Member is known to be highly fossiliferous. Grading, trenching, and other
earth moving activities in the Soquel Member could significantly impact vertebrate, invertebrate,
and plant fossil remains.
Mitigation measures recommended in the draft EIR as conditions of approval for the proposed
project are as follows:
7. A qualified paleontologist shall be retained to produce a mitigation plan for the VTTM No.
52267 site. This paleontologist shall attend pre -grade meetings to discuss the monitoring,
collecting, and safety procedures for the project and shall supervise the paleontologic
monitoring during. earth moving activities in the area.
8. Full-time monitoring shall be conducted by a paleontological monitor during earth moving
activities within the high sensitivity Soquel Member. The 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.
28 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
P:DBaALot 6 Evaluation 081398
9. Screening of sediments shall routinely be conducted during monitoring under the
supervision of the paleontologist to sample significant small vertebrate remains.
10. The paleontological monitorshall have
the
ed authofossilrity
tomattemporarily divert or redirect
grading to allow time to evaluateY
11. 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 datshall
Iso be USGS 7.5' CSeries This
topographicinclude
quadrangle,
descriptions, localities plotted ona
photographs, and field notes.
12. 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.
13. 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.
With implementation of the above mitigation measures,
impacts could ebeered ed
to aall
leveethat
ial
significant impacts to archaeological and paleontological
is considered less than significant.
Lot 6 Alternative: Cultural Resources
As a part of the literature review and walkover VTTMand paleontological resources
No. 52267 site, the entire site
was reviewed. Under this alternative, pacts to archaeological
would be similar or the same as for the proposed project.
Nonellewgationmitigation measueasures �eshorPevis ons
roposed
project are therefore applicable to the Lot 6 Altemative
to the existing measures are required. Compliance with these measures would reduce the
potentially significant impact to a level that is considered less than significant.
29 Comparative Environmental Evaluation
P. DBarlLot 6 Evaluation 081398
H
•�
�4 C
01
C
O
C'
O
O
O
O54
OX�L°1
M
41 Id
o
°D
a
41
° >
a a
m
O
m Im..4
0 1
'
'
mo
ca
"' E
°
vbE4
p
a
,4,M
4-4
.4
C
° J
N
Na
01
0 J.
"4
h
m14
4n
mN.a�
mm
1,
mJ
.4
Jd 0
Ca
am
m
�rs.1
4J
°E
r
4J 44 Id
v
>
0a
Ga
°m
4 m0
>
14
E
O 4 d �
4
qV
ww44
Nm
.4
>0
'0� �
V°1
4J Do
°
m1s4
p>
a
••aEe4b
a>0s4$4 0>pbM
-•a•Ea44
m
1
Q 41-4
m.m
C tia'a
.1wcm4ma
L+ xm
ommea°a"o
,�o033
;
oft
0o a
O-4Q
z6
Uaa 3c�
'4TFAA
o n
O >< 0
V -4
m a
0
c
m >°4 E
a o>
a
a ao
o
a0
u Ln 04-E+
°
-+ �'
'� a
E
41.�
m mia
Ob$4
0 4J 34 90
N
-1
3 a
C a�
b .11
m
m
N 01a
C:J •4
OEm
I
.yJC
m U+1
Ia 0C
+� J
r+
4� ++ ++ w
L4 41 - 47
0 m 014 14
4 9 J °° c
y
041
„'Q4 -�41
w
a41
wm
041 C >
.4m 41u,W
yJs4
C-4.4j.1
-44
>�m►4a14
U WmawA
w
wd'•4
«gra°U
,° ..°4>rN
MGD
34
oa.0
>0 $
Jm041
aV.0
a
00
Nmo
�
�J
U
a°
Ead
4aen
cm 5Q
mnb
aIn m
�433r
za0 H R%4
Vrogm�
I O
COC
T,,,c
4 [
x OO
°E
%00
.0
4-
-4
b>
O
a
E)04q
C
ato
a+;
Q
ro
ouO
Q'lian 00
OU
4-1
'
04
J
•�
.04
I
I
C4
Oa
4C
C 0
0
-444
�+Ec
O 4
4 Jco
3
>m
"4p
41 as
o
W W
tV41
+4 .d .o4
Va4mmm
Iti mQ4D�
..
..
m
A,�o
14
0 Ra 0i
C
o i
aV
N
4J
4J 4J J
�
C
O►
4
a>0
4 C ..4
iW0
•�m,4
4
a41
.04)M
0
O $4
°>
Du
44
Qbp
v
M
m
aNt
m-4
-I 4
�00k�V
JLam1
aa►
54
aN m
am o>.o
a$4
m°
4C m
a
a
.-.4m
4-4
yJm
m0.arbb
�
aiDo°mta4
-4
-14
> tT 0 ro ro
4i 0 0 a
e� �.°1
SEm
gem
.Cm oarod
-J4�i ..
PC 3:
ia° F4430ro
°J»4V0
Uaamc�
p
-
x a
°
a0
bna
$140
O
O
OoOi
°m
m
a 0D.
Cm
1 4
14 oto
$40i
�
°
4
'a
cm p
41
0 0 a
mm4•.
JO 'aC
$4
I 'aI
14
c
O CD >
-4 4J '4m$4m
O J
N
C
a,,,
4u ..4
,.0..a�
mC
sd0
.
4+ J
.. W
40
ma
m O $4 $r
11
u8m0b40e
E4 .-I
41
m
o>
J 4
CJ
o"4m
m
wam
,001
4
%4
.
0
> E'41
0140C4
"4
V
�
�a
m w
0In a
�+ E0
E544
4d tai -4 4
flout
k�
>�� 0.
��V°
at
-4a
--4a
►4a mm
m0
�' ar�om
'0 1441E
m 402
C = u
G4J
EGad
obi-Olr
0
4
CEr
c 14
I
0
.Z00
4 0�
H
N
c
w
m
0 -4
°4
a°
O
G •. C a, e
W
0m
o
41•moo
�fd
c
0 c ro
.J
10
'►1�
a� U
kv•.°1
°m
+'
oTs
3 m a ami 3w
b
O J: 41
m m W
m w
to l
-4
3
C
b
U w °
o
a
40.14
�C
3W>
Ti
11 yJ
CJ;mC C41
m
3 $4
.°•1 s°1
b°
W
A W
0 V m WE m
4J
�
y
m
C
A
b
>, b
c
O
7 7
MO O 3
O
'O
«O -I dP
.� t��t
.�
a
u
'm
m
a o
$4 W
o- C 11 c 0
C
O
+1 w
d O
4 •.
C .c
U 01
U
•.1 C
JJ
m
m
fa
R
3
O m
a W 11
A m C
C U
a
A 10
c
W
m
W 11
W W O m W W
>J;A.,1 > 14
>,
d
a 10
W
O
A O
AIC
O .�
U a
O
U
a •.
0T1
0410
Om
04.) ala ••
y
m
Aro O+
m C
�m W
«1 I 11
3 JJ
A
a 004 'O
y�J•.J
mW10+�
o
O
O+
C
m $4
m •O
UM -4 O M t)%-4 0
Al $4
a m
W W 11
W C
W W
N I m 0
b ,
W 01
• .IJ
.
TI
a
O 1J
C
O F,
C 44 id C 11
•1 11 0 -d 11 U
b 11
CO
-.4
W
11 -1W
0)110
.aAW
X1041
NJ 11
10
nc
rm
0 m TI 7=
roUOl•.r
b a
W
VA1 W
CN+) U ° m
od 0)
C9b
r'1 a
11 •.
a O
04•.1
aU0
11 U CA 11 U•.1
aU
11 >,
41 dp
aO
rn W
G7�o
U
O
0 04J1J 0 Ow
O
`4
O
10
1J
w
O
-4.4
+'111°4
3w
4J O 0
V
N
4Jm
4 •.
W
+�
O
O JJ O .1J
m+
,►.'[
c
w-4
w
010
Cv�
0 a
IdwJ
C
•
O +1
m W
O W
a m
>• 1
"
a
11
.1
W m •. .1 .1 O
w
->,
a U
++ 041
0 +1
w
C
0 `�
A
A
3
O 10
A W C -- 3 •.1 .�
O
m
E 10
mc .310)
11O
Oa►
fr
W>
41 N«1m wm
0 4
0..
1
U
O
-11 m 44
y
y
a11
O ro
>. U
m
CCi
+
W
o
0 7
•1 .J 0411 O m 0
O c
'
-4dp
d
11.1
14
-
040
m
-
A+a 4
.� O+ 3 11 +1
p
m
•4
W0)
$ y m
O
a)
W C
41 CP
m 0
f
m
m
rc
"4
OlaV
a 1J
ON
o•1
am
04.
11
&ro
.1 m ••1 O 11 yJ O
v1 130 Wti
a Id
m U
14
a
11
•.1 ro
A
O W
O T1
O m
010.0 1J A W
,1U
m
Wm ,
O X W
m c
041 J 1• a
V 10)1 C
,1 10 O
0 .0
...1
1
O+11
.4 W
m11
.a
m•O
m 11 W m N
m Am aW••lO+
W
011
c 0 0 .-I
a11L.0
aW+1
11 0
m
-.1
E1A1
cod
s C
7
O1°J
c
O °
W C y W 11 ,-1 C
�'4 Cb
C O
b
040410
11 04•-4
W 1Wi 0
O1 y 10i
° y1
et 11
a '�
r c
r
1WJ >°,04W
1J c o 11
W ro JC ••1
V mw
10.0
0
�+1
Nal
tf• O
10
11 0
a 0
04•.1
;1 10 b
7 a.-1 0 0 (D 4J W
to U
W >,
A JJ a
a W 0>
r1 W
C7A
z U
z O
m UM 0 x $4 m.0
C9 EQ
3 AA 10
m
°
w
0
m
W
•.)
�1
w
O
O
�°1
+CJ V
3 0
1AJ 0
0) X01
m W
A
O j1 o
W
m >r
.�1 •.
V 11
41
7
010
C O
0
G b a
0 C4J
m QI
a w
a m
>,
C
in
41 4)
4J
I
C
0 %0
J.
.0
3
T) Id
W c �►
O
m
EQw
�U
a
q 310)1
(a1
0
q
°1 0
iJ 4J
W
W>
J: W
1J N..I m
.1 od W
•
b
1°1
0
7 7
„
�
as
°
O dp m
.c go
V
•O
ATI
W
W 04
'O
•.c1 -moi p,'�
O a
$1 . �+
+1 v
Ja .•1 W
1.1 a 0)
W e
OU
U U
•11 w
m
04 0
m
A a
.-I a CIV
m >°,
j
3 y0 pl
O C
W
W C 14
J.1 01
od :1
0
c
c Id
m o
V
m
W
m
.-1 1J Q Q
>1 c
•
+'
W to 4J
a 4) 1J
0 0 1
00
0 .i
O m
04 ••
W 11
04 04
-.1 m +1 O
W V 0
Id a
to E U
+J 0 0%>,
W
11
m
•.1 to
A
0 0
0b
Om
0bA
yJ U
m
-. I a) ••
>i r,0)
0J1J-.4
abbl
.0
WA
.-1
-.1
0+11
..1 W
mN
.-1
m'0
m 1J W
m Am
tow14Q
aW1J
11
c od
a
c
W e •
01 10)1
c o
aaa
H O
0
n 4
E4
b a
O�
0 °
+"1 �,p,W
11 04 .i
W od JC ••1
J
im1
a o
° ;J
et 1J
a C
-n C
-r'1
1.1 c 0041
a U
41 41 a
vii mw
C
�w
11 0
NV
10
.1 0
11 0
a o
U
a•.1
7 a.-1 0
$4CSA >
m
3 41 0 m
q
U m a
>,
C d
.1
4-J0,-
"
O
$4
1
11
3 0
ro�°
x c
u i
o a
o10
NE
m.4
w
>,
1J 14 -.1•.1
,
W
i ,
C U
4 -�1
Q
A
ON 4.)
W TJ
C
a •.1
10 m
•.
10)1
7
0 J: 14 O
w
¢ a U
O dp O
t%1 O�
w
C)
>• I
0%0
O
Ct O
O 0+11 •. 11
O
M
6 9 10
X 11
O O1 c
a
Q
U O
43 {J
y0i
.Wim
$1 --.ci 0 V r -I 0044
41
01
V
C .-J w
W ..1
U 1 J
•4
O
c 0
.-1 11
O U C O uJ 10
O
"�
Id
>, U
•
•1 a al
U N N
1J
O41
'd
O C
° (G
w 10 .4 1
C1
41
y1 .1
$4
W
T
•.
V
0
.-1 C O m 11 11
O1J
m >,
W W ••
3 m
iJ m
Cd
v '••1 •"1
O
+J 01
04
c
In O
m to
OV
-4 An V 1J od W
>10
41
W a JJ
a 0
$.
ro
aJ
�'
O
0410
m E U
m •[
a 1J 'O
w
•-+ aO
W
0
0
O
4.4s.04Jc mo
a
O yJ c v
,1U
.40..
••1
m .0
-4 A
••1
.-i E
-4 �
•�
m e W O
m
0
0
0) +J c
m m
W U
m�
,4
01 11
m 11
m-.1
m .0 . .•11.1
0+11
c O O .•1
a 11 UA
040 W
W W J: W
11 m idO$4
0)a
04 0)
E !~
C od
.1.O
'O
O
1J w
A
11
W M M Id W
N$4 p► c n e•1 W
c 0
.J
� aa�e
W 11 A W
W O 1 I
0 +J
aJ
00 11
C
a
O b
-n
o f
V C1,-•1 A a► w
b
0l 10 ,C ..1
+J 1.1 -.I 41
w m 3 m
1+ o W
11 a)
• ro
O
11 O
C
a to
-n 0
a 11
+1 0 od 0 . 04
0 .1 .-J m .1 040
a U
14
4J 4.1 10
U Jr T)
a •O
.•1 W
C7 A
T i-1
w
m m N
oto I
SAA 10
N
M
W
0
0
ro
U1
0
N4-1
YT m W
N
41
>r
4J I�
'O
O 7 (d w
1n
.I
ro m •d 0)
C 1
.-1 O O
�M
W
w a m W
a
rob W
W
41
0-..1 W w
r
.+ m
w OA m
A 41 '0(dW
m w +)
+1
10 W
-0 ro m -.1 41 0
o a
b1•.4
E
w 10 m
u
0 a) •�
W> W ro a
'0
.-1 aro
04 E
a
0 w O
b W a E ••1
E
.-10
m
U 0100.
3 H M
-a .-1 0 4)-4
3 •a M
w
w
•,i O w Idrl
x Ix 1
0 0 d1 0 W>
4
a
•.1
ro- ro
w CO •i 3 4.) •-+
C) +1 m
b.
04
.-I +.1 w m
0
0 m O m
a tr1.-1 w
4.) -,.1 4-)
ro
-4 0 w +1
0
W W
w C -A m W A
•,.1 3 0
-'4 r-1 0 0
w
W w W W
4.1 ro -.1 a ro .0
m a
m
3,4 C .•1
H
> U > w
ro M U 4J A
•�
•.a
0 0
-.1 ro -.I N
J-) ro %D . m
w W C
V w w +
a a
..4.0 w -4 w W
W •0 W
w
U ro
Ln +1
A 0 4.1 ro 0 w
11 •.1 W
w •.
0)q .0 ••1
J.1 y) U
to 0 4 O w U
(d>3
Om
•r-%ro041
m0 m 0
AF, 4.)004JA
3 0 41
C m
O A 1) G
id 11 ro 14
w 41 m Q+
wW
OW
wwroW
O O ro
0••1 044ro0)-•1
FC LLA
a•-1
04�JUb
Uv U 3
z 9 zOr3pC
O
Id
0
A
O
4.) I
M
ro
-11
>.
O -•1 W w
r
id W
$4
3 +1 0 ..
.4 •.
p, m w A
A
>>
b ro
00.m
Wyl
w ro m
-,.1 4
W>
0
roam
x°010
quq
O'b
-4.°11
4.)iaroa
W
>0
--Iami
A
E -r+
eawa
■
W�
M -.q N C
10i
.1 O
••1 O w ro
H
N
O 0
oa
04°°
41ma%
�,
wm
m
•40)
s~ -a+1
m
w
.1 Owrl
O
W
w
id 3 0 M
04 +1
-11 r+ 0 0
w
+1 ro
4J CO
a r.
.pi .i
H
E
Id o0
'0 - Ii
b� 3
4J
4.)
w W 0 U
41 Aa w .4
-A .I
-a 15
0104)(d
440
U id
x
A0
x.1•.1 U).1
wM
0) CA -4
0 7
ro 0
ro> 3 a
o.i
*r-% 90 U4.)
w
G E
3041m
0.04-10
040
ro
w0-.1
0
wwtd
04N
o•a
4 04.0 '0
94-)
w 7 U '0
1c •4
z 0
O m >r
.-1
O
;'
idW
1 CN
c
.0 W
A m
1
N E
w C m m
to
ro d
a) +1 m -•1
>1
0 -A W w
Is
•-1 m
14
bm
a•ao
b+
Wal
wro to
u
o W •-
W>
W-•4 w w
0
A U
OA E
a
O w O
0 W
41CId04
ed 4)
U OQ
04
3
..14.1.•0 04
S -m
C C w C
#I
> 7
M a (d�°,
•1 O
0 W ro
H
x x 1
0 0
3
0
y
0 0
04
x 00 0)
a
.-1 w m
o
m
1~0A0
m
w
.404-4+1
O
W
w
ro W ro
a +1
-a •-1 0 o
w
W •, W W
4-1 (d
•0 m ,-1
040
3.4 a •-I
H
> m > w
(d as
-A • 04 ..
ro .-1
0 7
•.1 a) •,.1 H
.11
w> 41 m m
+1 04 w .-1
a w a
••1.0
0) 0 U •.1 +1
w 0
U ro
U A
.0 C
+1 w 0) '0 -A
w M
0) C 4-.4
V 1d V 7
ro 0E
ro w •r+ 0
0 .i
•n a U V
to m 0
x
3 O >r U
C
0.0 A r.
rd %D (d .A
1d
m
0)wro
00
ww001
0 0 to
0-A
4A04E(31
041
a0u00
U 3
z0
0
a
1 d
b
b
W }OI
W C
4J
0
A
O
W m
•+ H
o
A r. W
tp
A w
04 m C
v
'0 W
•.1 -.4
�
id
w ro (dU
O W
0
r-1 4 w
0
IT
O A S
a
0 w O
.4 4-I ro
1
••1 W
U O m
04
3 F M
•.1
-.1 -.i '0
4J
0 0 w y)
0
o
330
10i
+�
^'a�+�
~
b m 1
xb O
a+
a
.a41w
o
0 o m
01
q
C: MA
pp
'0 -•1
•4 0 w '-4
o
W
o
(d al
q
••1 r-4 O ro
w
W •� W W
r+ ••
41 ro m
ro 'd
3 -4 A -A
N
> m > w
ro '0
'0 .
W
0 7 4-) •-
-.a W •11 H
w
w0+1
m+1
V awr.m
aw a
u1d
WU
+) r.
U W 41
U +)
ro>
al W
U W
W O aC 10 W
a) ro +1 7
V W
ro 0 •n •.
ro m
•n ro U -A W
m m C
-,.1 .-4
3
fd d)
0 0 N
to O
V w cq
E w
54 $4 41
�Croa14
H04
P60uwm
I
Um U 3
=m
M
- ,- _- _ -- .._ _�_ ., � --�_ ��_. i..c, �,c,c. �'.��'� Hug. :._ :.�`J�� ..�•.._-` -�
VTTM No, 52267
Part Two
Diamond Bar City Council
Public Hearing of July 7, 1998
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 62267
Conditional Use Permit No. 98-03
Oak Tree Permit No. 80-1
Environmental Impact Report No. 9702 (SCH 970031005)
Responses to Comments -continued
Comment 11
Cumulative biological impacts of the proposed project with other projects previously approved or
currently in early stages of entitlement processing.
Overview: The commentor expressed the opinion that cumulative biological impacts of the
proposed project should be considered in light of other approved or pending projects in the City.
Response 11
The commentor referenced page 3.3-21 of the Biological Resources section of the EIR which
discussed the cumulative impacts to biological resources from development of the VTTM No.
52267 site and stated that the EIR should analyze the cumulative effects. The EIR analysis did
consider other projects in the general vicinity of the project site that have either been previously
approved (and were not yet built) and those that were known to be in the planning stages. These
projects included Pantera Park (not under development when the draft EIR was prepared), a 20
unit single family project at Highcnest Drive and Armitos Place, and a 109 room business hotel on
Golden Springs and Copley Place (see page 3.6-8). These projects were used in the EIR traffic
analysis and were considered in other sections, as applicable, in considering cumulative impacts.
The VTTM No. 52267 site is one of the largest undeveloped sites within the City limits. The only
larger site is Planning Area 1, an approximate 720 acne site located south of the Pomona Freeway
and west of Chino Hills Parkway, along the eastern edge of the City of Diamond Bar. This area
is also known as the Tres Hermans area. Most of Planning Area 1 has been used for cattle
grazing for many years, and little natural biological resources remain. Since the VTTM No. 52267
site Is surrounded by developed single family uses, there are no direct connections to the Tres
Hermans area or other open space areas adjacent to the site (such as the existing Sycamore
Canyon Natural Park, located west of Diamond Bar Boulevard). The retention of the majority of
the VTTM No. 52267 site in natural open apace (approximately 273.9 acres) offsets the project -
specific and cumulative biological impacts from development of the approximate 65 acres proposed
for development. As indicated in the EIR on page 3.3-22, the loss of biological resources on the
65 acre site would not result In significant cumulative biological impacts.
Comment 12
Cumulative effect of other projects and the proposed project on open space city wide.
Oyeryiew� The commentor noted that the EIR should discuss the cumulative impact of the project
and other projects in the City on the open space resources throughout the City.
Hug.
VTTM No. 52267
Response 12
This comment has apparently not considered the context of the proposed development area of the
VTTM No. 52267 site and the broader context of the project site within this area of the City. As
noted in response to comment 11 above, 273.9 acres of the 339.3 acro site will remain in natural
open space and be dedicated to the City. The only other open space area of any significant size
in this portion of the City is the 720 acre Tres Hennanos area, which is not contiguous to the VTTM
No. 52267 site_ There are no development plans for Tres Hermans at this time and none are
expected in the immediate future. Additionally, as noted in the EIR on page 3.424 under the
heading of "Loss of Open Space", the VTTM No. 52267 site is within designated Planning Area 2,
Sub Area A of the Diamond Bar General Plan, which allows for the constriction of up to 130 lots
on the project site. Considering all these factors, the loss of 65 acres from development of the
proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to open space areas in the City.
Comment 13
Clarify the EIR analysis that indicates that the proposed project is inconsistent with provisions of
the general plan related to visual and aesthetic resources.
Overview- The commentor has quoted two sentences from page 3.5-7 of the EIR which refer to the
consistency of the proposed project with the Hillside Management Ordinance and has asserted that
the EIR indicates that the proposed project is also inconsistent with the Land Use and Resources
Elements of the General Plan.
Response113
The commentor has not quoted the complete discussion in the EIR on page 3.5-7 concerning the
consistency of the proposed project with the Hillside Management Ordinance. The complete EIR
statement Is as follows:
"The proposed project is consistent with some provisions of the ordinance (e.g., general use
of landlord grading techniques) and inconsistent with others. The most significant inconsistency
relates to the visibility of the proposed project along the prominent ridgelines of the site. The
project site is visible from many locations in the City, both south and north of the development
location. As shown in the visual simulations, the homes in the proposed development will be very
visible along the southern and northern edges of the site. In addition, the large engineered 611
slopes will also be visible, further impacting the views of the site. Approval of the project will
require the Planning Commission and City Council to make appropriate findings as specified in
Section 8 of the ordinance."
The last sentence of the EIR analysis repeated above regarding the Section 8 findings would allow
for the project approval under these circumstances, and thereby overcome the noted
inconsistencies.
The oommentoes assertion that the EIR indicates that the project is also inconsistent with the Land
Use and Resource Elements of the General Plan is also taken out of context. While the EIR does
indicate on page 3.5-6 that the proposed project is "inconsistent with the General Plan Resources
Element strategies for protection of ridges and associated views from development', the next
sentence in the EIR states "However, the General Plan Land Use Element describes a 130 dwelling
unit project at this location, suggesting that such a project would be permitted once appropriate
development approvals were obtained! This apparent dichotomy is not unusual between elements
of General Plans which are inherently single purpose in their approach to specifying goals and
VTTM No. 52267
policies. The General Plan Land Use Element and zoning ordinance provisions allow for the
development of the VTTM No. 52267 site with up to 130 dwelling units. These provisions would
govern the goals and policies of other General Plan elements, and when coupled with the
requested Conditional Use Permit for compliance with the Hillside Management Ordinance, would
set the stage for Council certification of the EIR and approval of the proposed project with adoption
of appropriate CEQA and related land use findings.
Comment 14
The EIR listing of significant unavoidable impacts for aesthetics, air quality, and noise is
incomplete.
Overview The commentor references statements from the EIR related to general plan consistency,
archaeological resources, and long tern implications and offers an opinion that the EIR's findings
regarding significant unavoidable impacts is incomplete.
Response 14
The commentor's reference to the EIR's statement on page 3.5-6 that there is an inconsistency
between the proposed project and the General Plan Resources Element strategies for protection
of ridges and associated views from development is addressed in Response 13 above.
The commentor's opinion that page 3.9-1 EIR indicates that there "has not been a full review of the
site for archaeological resources' has overlooked the conclusion by the archaeologist on page 3.9-
5 of the EIR which states: The following recommendations are provided to identify and evaluate
any significant prehistoric remains within both sites, and to reduce any adverse impacts to these
resources to a level that is considered Was than significant".
The EIR discussion then lists six mitigation measures that must be followed during site
development to insure that any archaeological resources that might be buried within the proposed
project development area aro evaluated and, if appropriate, recovered. One of these mitigation
measures, as is common practice in Diamond Bar and many other jurisdictions, expressly
authorizes the onsite archaeological monitor present during construction grading to "temporarily
divert or direct grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed prehistoric or historic materiar
(measure 5, page 3.9-6).
It should be noted that the approach used by the EIR archaeologists (who are certified by the
Society of Professional Archaeologists- SOPA) is standard in CEQA documents. Since
archaeological resources are typically buried, it is impractical to dig up a site looking for potential
remains. Remnants of significant archaeological resources (such as villages, or burial locations)
can sometimes be seen during a site walkover surrey, depending on the extent of vegetative cover.
In this case -the literature search for previously recorded sites, and the walkover surrey did not
indicate the potential presence of archaeological resources within the development area of VTTM
No. 52267 (EIR, papa 3.9-1), although the vegetative cover precluded a detailed walkover. Under
these conditions, which are typical of development projects throughout Southern California,
professional archaeologists have taken the approach of specifying mitigation measures that provide
for continuing examination for cultural resources during site preparation and grading.
The commentor's opinion that the EIR listing of aesthetica, air quality, and noise impacts as being
the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project is incomplete because it does not also
reference the general plan and archaeological resouross impacts overlooks the purpose of this
section. The purpose of the section is to recap only those significant impacts that "would result
3
FROM : BONTERPA CONSULTING PHONE NO. : 714 444 9599 Aug. :.� 1998 08:51AM -`
VTTM No. 52267
even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures" (EIR, page 4-1, opening paragraph).
Impacts discussed in the various sections of the EIR, including those noted in this comment 14,
are not listed in this section because the specified mitigation measures would reduce the identified
impacts to less than significant levels. Each section of the EIR includes a listing of the criteria that
were used to determine whether an impact is significant or not ager mitigation as required by
CEQA. As discussed in the EIR sections related to Aesthetics, Air Quality , and Noise, the
application of mitigation measures would not eliminate or reduce the impacts of the proposed
project on these analysis topics to less than significant levels.
Comment 15
The Project Altematives section of the EIR is deficient because it did not evaluate an altemative
project design that does not extend beyond the boundaries of Lot 6.
Overview: The commentor states an opinion that the alternatives analysis is deficient by
referencing EIR statements for the No Project Alternative (addressing development within Lot 6)
that indicate that fewer impacts to landlord/topography and biological resources would result from
this alternative in comparison with the originally proposed project.
Response 16
The purpose of the altematives analysis in an EIR is to provide decision makers with an analysis
of how the impacts identified for a proposed project might be reduced through the consideration
of 'reasonable alternatives' that incorporate refinements to the proposed project design or
proposed uses [CEQA Guidelines Section 15126(d)). The commentoes reference to statements
in the Alternatives section appear to be concurring with the impact analysis findings that the No
Project Alternative would generate fewer impacts to biological resources and landform alteration
than would the proposed project. The EIR altematives analysis also indicates that the No Project
Alternative would result in significant impacts to views from ridgetop development similar to the
originally proposed project.
Comment 16
The Design Alternative discussion in the Project Alternatives section of the EIR is preferable to the
proposed project because there would be less grading.
Oterview: The oommentor notes that the Design Alternative discussion in the EIR Project
Alternatives section indicates that construction of a 76 lot subdivision would eliminate the need for
two fills, thereby reducing the onsite fill from 1,8000,000 cubic yards for the proposed project to
400,000 cubic yards for the Design Alternative. The commentor then states that a goal of the City
should be to "prevent massive fill projects which create inherently long-term instability under a
housing development".
Response 16
The commentor has overlooked a significant adverse impact of this (Design Alternative stated on
page "of the EIR : the elimination of the two onsite figs, would require that 1,400,000 cubic yards
of fill material be exported from the site to an unspecified receiving location. This material would
be generated by cutting onsite ridges to form building pads and roads. As noted in the EIR
analysis of this alternative, the exportation of this excess material from the site would generate
significant traffic, air quality, and noise impacts that would not occur A the material were used onsite
for development of the proposed project.
4
FROM gON7i=RRq CONSLLT I NG PHONE NO. ,1 a
VTTM
unstable. Hillside
The commentor appears to believe that engineered fills are "inherently" usin cutting and
development in Diamond Bar and adjacent communities has been dthe imp " from exportation
filling grading techniques that are typically balanced onsite to prevent design criteria and related
of excess soil material. The City's engineering staff have developed safety and
margins of safety for cut and fill slopes that are sufficient to protect public health abed y the
which conform to other requirements such as seismic safety.
ues have been ineffective in Providing stable conditions for housing
commentor that these techniq
development in the City.
Comment 17
rates fill designs that conflict with the provisions of the Public
The proposed project design incorpo
Health and Safety Element of the General Plan.
The commentor cites Objective 1.1 of the Public Health and Sa
_QWM
element as providing
a �ssfety for the City Council to require that the proposed Project be modified to reduce the amount
Of fill.
Response 17
As noted in Response 16 above. development in the hillside areas of Diamond Bar has traditionally
involved grading techniques that cut ridgelines and use this material to fill canyons a b Mag"
to create building pads and roads. This process is carefully regulated and inspected Y
retained by project
Public Works engineering staff and fleotechnical engineering consultants
applicsrits. Some of the grading in hillside development areditions. The as is required to remediate unsafe
natural conditions such as landslides he other
unstable
le COn hillside bpment objective insure
appears to be intended to insure that City dam
the protection of public health and safety and to minimize Property 29e.
comment 18
The City does not have the authority to lift map and deed restrictions to allow development outside
Lot 6 of the VTTM No. 52267 site.
OvenAffic The commentor notes that the EIR contains references to map and deed restrictions and
states an opinion that "said restrictions cannot be unilaterally lifted by the City".
Response 18
The references in the EIR to map and deed restrictions used the terms interchangeable in error.
AMreferences in the EIR to map and deed restrictions are hereby corrected to refer only to map
should not be Considered as
restrictions. The EIR's terminology is inter throis opc a��orandum to the nd
a leyat u terpretildW. The City Attorney
Bar City Council.
Comment 19
The proposed VTTM No. 52267 project should not be approved because the EIR is inadequate.
Overview: The commentor believes the EIR is inadequate because It does not provide a proper
analysis of growth4nducing impacts, nor has there been any reasonable attempt at a cumulative
impact analysis" with respect to open space and grading impacts.
5
pug. ..� _�•w-
VTTM No. 52267
Response 19
The EIR does provide an analysis of growth inducing impacts on pages 4-2 and 4-3. The analysis
concludes that the proposed project is not growth inducing because the project site is specifically
referenced in the General Plan for development of up to 130 dwelling units. The existing zoning
for the site would also allow the proposed development and the requested Conditional Use Permit
would allow for site development under the City's Hillside Management Ordinance. Further, the
General Plan EIR that was certified by the City analyzed the potential impacts of the land uses
described in the General Plan, including this site with up to 130 dwelling units, and specified
appropriate mitigation measures for all significant impacts.
With respect to the commentor's assertion that the EIR discussion of cumulative open space and
grading impacts is inadequate, the commenter has not provided any specific information regaruing
such inadequacies. The cumulative impacts of project development on open space areas in the
City are specifically described in Section 3.4 Land Use (page 3.4-24) and in Section 3.5
AestheticsNisual Resources (page 3.5-9) of the EIR. The General Plan designation of the site for
development of up to 130 dwelling units is a key factor in this determination.
The grading impacts of the proposed project are described in Section 3.1 Earth Resources (pages
3.1-3 through 3.1-5) of the EIR. The analysis concludes that these impacts are not cumulatively
significant, primarily because development on the project site is consistent with the City's General
Plan and Hillside Management Ordinance, and the City's engineering requirements for hillside
projects will insure that building areas are safe for developmerrt.
The following environmental comments were submitted by Councilwoman O'Connor in a
followup to the July 7, 1998 City Council meeting and responded to below.
Comment 2b
Whose responsibility is it to grade the pad for the water tanks?
Response 2b
The Walnut Valley Water District has two planned water reservoir sites within the proposed
development area for VTTM No. 52267. These water reservoirs (tanks) have been designated for
locations at elevations 1,050 feet above mean sea level (mel) and 1,200 feet mel. These
reservoirs are not needed to serve the project; they are needed to meet the District's long -tern
water service requirements.
The water district has a planned water reservoir at elevation 1,050 feet located within the VTTM
No. 52267 development area. A 2.4 -acre pad site is a part of the proposed project site pian and
is shown as Lot 131. The second planned water reservoir would be at elevation 1,2000 feet. To
accommodate the maximum number of dwelbng units designated for the site (130 tests), the project
applicant has indicated a desire for this reservoir to be sited in a different location. This akemative
location for the elevation 1,200 foot reservoir would be within the boundaries of VTTM No. 52267,
but outside of the limits of grading for the project and in an area identified in the General Plan to
be set aside for dedicated open space. To implement a reservoir at an alternative location within
the property at elevation 1,200, an access road would need to be constructed and a pad graded;
it is expected that the pad would be of similar size as for the elevation 1,050 feet reservoir. The
proposed alternative location for the water reservoir is depicted in the draft EIR as Figure 2-7
following page 2-4.
6
Z- - --- I I- _ -• •.I. _�>__ -ug. — ..___
VTTM No. 52267
Because neither of the water reservoirs are required to serve the project, the Walnut Valley Water
District would be the lead agency responsible for the environmental review associated with and
implementation of the reservoirs.
Comment 2c
What would the impact be to Open Space for the siting of these tanks?
Response 2c
Because the elevation 1,050 foot water reservoir is within the development footprint for the
proposed project, no new impacts, including effects on open space, beyond those identified in the
draft EIR would be expected.
With respect to the requested relocation of the elevation 1,200 fest water reservoir, the altemative
location is within the boundaries of VTTM No. 52267 but outside of the development boundaries
and in an area to be dedicated for public open space. Public infrastructure improvementsifacilities
can be permitted by the City of Diamond Bar in open space areas. Should the proposed project
be approved by the City of Diamond Bar and once the remainder of the site is dedicated to the City
for open space, the City (as property owner) would need to work with the Walnut Valley Water
District to determine if such a use is appropriate. As noted above and in the draft EIR (see page
2-4), separate environmental review would be required prior to the construction of the elevation
1,200 foot water reservoir.
Comment 4
Please explain the changes in visual impact by the residential lots staying in Lot 6 (i.e., the six
homes on Diamond Bar Boulevard, the elevation of Highorest, etc, as alluded to at the July 7, 1998
public meeting).
Response 4
The project applicant has submitted for review and evaluation by the City an alternative site plan
that confines all development and development -related activities within the boundaries of Lot 8.
Referred to as the Lot 6 Alternative, this alternative site plan assumes the development of 53
residences with one point of ingresslegress occurring from Diamond Bar Boulevard. Similar to the
comparative environmental evaluation prepared for the EIR ProjectAkemative (120 residences).
an environmental evaluation comparing the potential impacts of the Lot 6 Alternative to the
proposed project has been prepared and has been provided to the City Council under separate
ever. This compwaative evaluation addresses all environmental topics analyzed in the draft EIR,
including aesthetics.
Comments Sa and Sb
If this project is limited to Lot 6, would the grading be balanced onsite or would there be a need to
export dirt offsite because there would be less fill needed? What impact would that have?
Responses lea and 5b
The Lot 6 Alternative would require approximately 939,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, to be
balanced on the project site. The proposed project would require approximately 1.8 million cubic
yards of cut and fill, also balanced on the site. The Lot 6 Alternative would therefore result in a
- --_,- .._o__ ..� -'-_�_ ._, ,..<. ...c.._. �::>__ -u9. ..� ..coo _:>•��-'
VTTM No. 52267
reduction in grading activities of 869,000 cubic yards of cut and fill (or approximately 48 percent).
This issue is discussed in greater detail in the Lot 6 comparative evaluation provided to the City
Council under separate cover.
Comment 8
Can the EIR Project Altemative be made to conform with the City's hillside management
requirements?
Response 8
The City of Diamond Bar General Plan Resource Management Element establishes strategies for
effectively managing local natural resou, to prevent waste, destruction, or neglect. Strategies
outlined in the Resource Management Element applicable to preserving significant visual resources
which are within, or are visible from the City of Diamond agar with an emphasis on the preservation
of remaining natival hillside areas are summarized below:
• Develop regulations for the protection of ridgelines, slope areas, canyons, and hilltops.
Require contour or landform grading, clustering of development, or other means to
minimize visual and environmental impacts to ridgelines or prominent slopes.
• Require that dwelling units and structures within hillside areas be sited in such a manner
as to use ridgelines and landscape plant materials as a backdrop for the strictures and the
structures themselves to provide maximum concealment of cut slopes.
• Preserve to the maximum extent feasible existing vegetation within undeveloped hillside
areas.
• Pursue the preservation of areas within Diamond Bar and its Sphere of Influence of
outstanding scenic, historic, and cultural value.
• To the greatest extent possible, require that dwelling uniits, structures and landscaping be
sited in a manner which:
- Protects views for existing development
- Retains opportunities for views from dwellings
Preserves or enhances vistas, particularly those seen from public places
- Preserve* mature trees, natural hydrology, native plant materials, and areas of visual
interest
Uses grading permit procedures to ensure that site designs for development proposals
for hillside areas conform to the natural terrain, and consider the visual aspects:
The Diamond Bar Hillside Management C rdinanoe implements the General Plan provisions noted
above and regulates hillsides with slopes over 10 percent. The VTTM No. 52287 Sita has slopes
that exceed 10 percent and therefore must comply with the ordinance requirements, unless the City
graft a conditional use permit to waive/modify compliance with the ordinance. The applicant has
requested a conditional use permit to allow for modifications from the Hillside Management
Ordinance. Standards and guidelines within the ordinance are used by the City to determine
8
FROM : BONTERRA CONSLL':;NV PHONE NO. : 714 444 9599 Aug. 12 1998 05:24PM P10
MW No. 52267
conformity with the ordinance as well as applicable requirements of the General Pian. Landform
grading is required to limit development impacts on natural terrain as well as ensure that
development areas follow natural landforms. Development on ridgetops that affect views requires
a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for approval.
As noted above regarding the strategies of the Resource Management Element, emphasis is
placed on the protection of "ridgedines, slope areas, canyons, and hilltops. Require contour or
landform grading, clustering of development, or other means to minimize visual and environmental
impacts to ridgslines or prominent slopes." The Land Use Element designates the VTTM No.
52267 site for up to 130 single-family detached dwelling units and states that these residences
should be `concentrated along the anticipated extension of Highcrest Drive...' The existing
tentative map also shows the development occurring in this area. This part of the VTTM No. 52267
contains ridgelines, canyons, and slopes.
Therefore, the proposed project, the Project Alternative, and the Lot 6 Alternative attempt to
balance the sometimes competing General Plan objectives of ridge6ne and canyon preservation
with the land use designation which would, allow for development of homes on an area containing
these natural topographical features. Each of these alternatives, as well as the other alternatives
in the draft EIR, incorporates many of the requirements of the Hillside Management Ordinance but
none of these alternatives could accomplish all of the ordinance requirements.
Comment 4 of Page 2
EIR Volume 1, Page 3.3-4 states that "A formal USACE and CDFG jurisdictional wedan d delineation
of VTTM No_ 52267 has not been prepared." Does this need to be done.
Response 4
A USACE and CDFG jurisdiction wetland delineation is not required for the City of Diamond Bar
to consider certification of the final EIR and approval of a project. The wetland delineations are
required to determine if a 404 permit will be required from the USACE and/or a streambed
alteration agreement is required from the CDFG. Therefore, the wetland delineations would be
prepared after City approval and as a part of the required documentation to support subsequent
approvals from these two regulatory agencies. Until action on the project is taken by the City, the
extent of potential w61td wnpacts cannot be completely determined. For example, should the City
approve an alternative to the project that would have a lesser effect on potential biological
resources (i.e., wetland resources, etc.), the extent of the resources under the jurisdiction of the
USACE and CDFG cannot be finalized.
Comment 5 of Pape 2
EIR Volume 1, Page 3.3-28 states "Prior to determining the full extent of mitigation required for
coast live oak woodland i ftects, a formal USACE and CDFG jurisdictional delineation shah be
conducted...' Has this been done?
Response S
Aa noted in Response 4 above with respect to wetland resources, the extent of mitigation required
for coast live oak woodlands where these resources would be under the jurisdiction of the USACE
and CDFG cannot be fully determined until a project is approved by the City.
9
F RfN a BON —"—W— NO. r'l4 QQCPug. :.':�98 Ltj:
VTTM No. 52287
Comment 6 of page 2
EIR Volume I, Page 3.4-4 states "A two acre area located at the southeast corner of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and Gold Rush Drive should be developed for public facility or commercial uses! What
is going to happen to this site? Will it become part of the dedicated Open Space? Can this be
considered a significant benefit to the City?
Response 6
The General Plan Land Use Plan does identify this two -acre site for public facility or commercial
uses. The two -acre area is located contiguous to Diamond Bar Boulevard and Gold Rush Drive
and is not a part of the proposed development area for the VTTM No. 52267 site. It would become
a part of the dedicated open space provided to the City.
Comment 8 of Page 2
EIR Volume 1, Page 3.4-20 states "A written agreement is required prior to allowing development
that may threaten, harm, or destroy existing wildlife habitats within areas of CDFG jurisdiction." Do
we have this written agreement?
Response 8
Please refer to the responses to Comments 5 and 6 above.
Comment 9 of Page 2
EIR Volume 1, Page 3.4-22 states "A separate environmental review would be needed prior to the
development of the elevation 1,200 feet reservoir at an alternative site." Whose responsibility is
it, SunCal or the Water District? Does this need to be done before we can approve this project?
Response 9
Please refer to the responses to Comments 2a and 2b, above. The environmental documentation
for the water reservoir site does not need to be prepared at this time. The water reservoirs are not
required to serve the project, and an alternative site is available within VTTM No- 52267 (outside
the proposed development area) to accommodate the elevation 1,200 foot reservoir.
Comment 10 of Page 2
EIR Volume 2, Department of Transportation Letter. "We recommend that large-sized trucks be
limited to off-peak commute periods.' Is this going to be adhered to?
Response 10
While limiting construction -related large truck traffic to off-peak commute periods may have
freeway traffic benefits, time City of Diamond Bar limits the hours of construction sc Ovities to
Monday to Friday between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., and on Saturdays from 0 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Therefore, to restrict large truck traffic to off-peak hours would require trucks to leave their point
of origin to arrive at the oft prior to 8 a.m. (but not commence construction) or leave their point of
origin after 9 a.m. to arrive at the site in the morning period. During the evening period, trucks
would have to leave the sits to reach their point of origin prior to 3 p.m. or leave at 7 p.m. This off-
peak scenario is therefore not practical for several masons: 1) the EIR tn0f C study determined that
10
-"JN-_ NU. . 1.:e- 444 J599 Aug. _� O5:ASPM
V7TM No. 52267
no significant traffic impacts would occur with the project; 2) many of the large trucks will stay on
the site and will not travel off/on the property on a daily basis; 3) noise impacts could increase
because of potential buck traffic earlier in the morning, and 4), the construction period for the
project could be longer to accommodate a potentially shorter work day. While all efforts will be
made to minimize construction traffic, particularly all large -size trucks, the Caltrans
recommendation is not strictly feasible.
Comment 11 of Page 2
EIR Volume 2, Walnut Valley Water District Letter dated May 9, 1997, ".._we encourage the
installation of separate irrigation systems to common areas and green boles, in anticipation of future
supplies and facilities." is this going to be done?
Response 11
Separate non -potable water lines are not required as a part of the project. The City will encourage
the applicant to coordinate with the water district_ The use of non -potable water is encouraged if
the water district can provide such service to the site.
Comment 12 of Page 2
EIR Volume 2. Appendix B page 11, 'Stripping. Excessive vegetation, debris and other deleterious
materials should be removed and wasted from the site prior to commencing removals and
replacement of compacted fills.' Is this being done or is it all being stockpiled for revegetation?
If it is being done, how many truck trips will be involved?
Response 12
This statement is made in the geotechnical evaluation in reference to the removal and/or
recompaction of materials (e.g., alluvial sills) to satisfy the engineering requirements for the site.
The only "vegetation" that would be expected to be relocated would be oak and walnut trees, where
feasible. Because cut and fill activities will balance on the site, the number of truck trips to remove
debris, etc. (e.g., materials that have been dumped on the site, etc.) are expected to minimal (less
than the average daily traffic associated with project buildout).
11
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JULY 7, 1998
CLOSED SESSION: None
2. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the meeting to order
at 6:35 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium,
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Captain Martinez, Walnut Sheriffs
Department
INVOCATION: Dr. James Price, Diamond Canyon
Christian Church
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; Joann Gitmed, Senior
Accountant and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: None
4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Clyde Hennessee said he did not receive
the July 6, 1998 Special Council meeting agenda until that afternoon. He felt
that the personnel matters could have been continued to tonight's meeting.
He expressed concern that street sweeping is taking place every other week
instead of weekly and certain areas such as alleyways are not maintained.
He questioned how Concerts in the Park benefit the community.
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., SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.3 PLANNING COMMISSION - July 14, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 CONCERTS IN THE PARK - July 14, 1998 - 6:30 p.m. - Film at
Eleven and the Late Breaking Horns - (Classic 60's), Sycamore
Canyon Park
5.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - July 21, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
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 PANTERA PARK GRAND OPENING - July 25, 1998 - 10:00 a.m. -
738 Pantera Dr.
5.8 DIAMOND BAR LIBRARY GRAND RE -OPENING - August 15, 1998 -
10:00 a.m., 1061 S. Grand Ave.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by MPT/Chang, seconded by
C/Ansari to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. 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
6.1 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 Fiscal Year 1997-1998 and $189,854.31
for Fiscal Year 1998-1999, 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 were planted and a drip irrigation system utilizing
reclaimed water was installed_ Total cost of the project is $154,757,
which is within the contract amount of $158,405. All costs will be
reimbursed to the City by the State and ongoing maintenance is the
responsibility of CalTrans.
JULY 7, 1998
PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
In response to C/Ansari, CSD/Rose stated that 15 gal. walnut, oak
and sycamore trees were planted.
In response to M/Herrera, CSD/Rose indicated that all of the funding
for this project will be reimbursed by the State.
MPT/Chang moved, C/Huff seconded, to accept work completed in
the E.5.M. Tree Planting Project, direct the City Clerk to file the
Notice of Completion and authorize release of the retention in the
amount of $15,475.71 (10%) 35 days after recordation of said notice.
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
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 6:58 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 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 residence, 10
open space lots and one lot reserved for the W.V. 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 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, Bonterra Consulting, the City's Environmental
Consultant, presented an overview of the Environmental Impact
Report.
In response to C/O'Connor, CM/Belanger explained that a map
restriction is a condition that says the City has a right to prohibit
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
residential construction. It is not a prohibition of residential
development, it is a right to prohibit residential development and,
therefore, in this instance, Council retains the right to prohibit or allow
residential construction. Deed restrictions, which do not apply to the
proposed project, are generally restrictions that are placed in deeds
that are conveyed to property owners. The most common types of
deed restriction in D.B. is the kind that occur as a result of CC&R's
that are promises to do or not do certain things in relationship to the
use of private property and are between private property owners.
The City is not a party to private property deed restrictions and no
action that the City takes changes deed restrictions.
CM/Belanger stated that the City received two letters from the law firm
of Johnson & McCarthy, LLP regarding the proposed project, one
dated June 19, 1998 and one dated July 7, 1998. He recommended
that these letters be entered into the record.
Applicant Todd Kurtin, Diamond Hills Ranch Partners and SunCal
companies, stated that over the past two years, SunCal has analyzed
all of the various elements to design the best and safest land use
plan for the site and for the community in general. During the same
period of time, the City's staff and outside consultants have reviewed,
analyzed and critiqued the plans. Once staff completed its review
and the EIR was made available for public comment, the project was
forwarded to the Planning Commission, which recommended
approval. He believed the controversy surrounding this project is
centered around two issues - property rights_ and achieving the
highest quality development for this property. His company's right to
develop the property is clearly stated in the City's General Plan under
Planning Area II. The General Plan describes the basic parameters
for this development: A maximum of 130 single family detached
residential dwelling units to be connected along the extension of
Highcrest Dr. and that 75% of the total acreage be set aside and
preserved as Open Space. There is no discussion in the General
Plan which restricts the development to Lot 6. The framework behind
this land use plan of Planning Area II was a Memorandum of
Understanding (MOU) between the City and the previous owner,
Bramalea. In the MOU, the City and Bramalea agreed to allow for the
development of not less than 110 and not more than 135 homes on
Lots 5, 6 and 7 - what is referred to as the retained property. The
basic understanding agreed to in the ,MOU has withstood three
revisions of the General Plan. 2/3 of D.B. voters showed support for
the General Plan by voting down Measure D. He explained that the
County had placed map restrictions on hundreds of properties in So.
Calif. prior to the areas becoming cities. Many of these cities have
removed the restrictions and allowed development to occur. The
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
proposed project offers the following significant benefits to the City:
360 acres of vacant land dedicated to the City and preserved as
Open Space (an increase of approximately 2 112 times what the City
presently holds as Open Space); $250,000 contribution to the City's
Parks Development Fund; consistency with the General Plan's Vision
Statement; preservation of Sycamore Canyon, and design of a
neighborhood that offers safety and enjoyment.
Lex Williman, Planning Director for Hunsaker & Associates, the
applicant's engineer, explained the proposed project.
Dean Armstrong, Engineering Geologist for Pacific Soils, explained
the geotechnical considerations for the proposed project.
James Anderson, 23342 Stirrup Dr.: 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 D.B. Blvd. 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 Ln.: I have been a .citizen and a
taxpayer of D.B. 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 D.B. Blvd. I go on D.B. Blvd. during the
morning rush hour and I come back every evening and it's a total
mess between 57 and 60 or 71 and up Grand Ave. since it's been
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 - D.B. 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 D. B. Blvd. and
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
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 D.B.
Blvd. 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 D.B. Blvd. 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 Ave.: 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 D.B. 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
D.B. 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 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 D. B. makes
one wonder what stake the city managers have in this development
when they should be concerned with the desires of the residents who
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
pay their salaries. So it seems that the Planning Commission doesn't
want to represent the residents of D. B. And the City Manager doesn't
want to represent the residents of D.B. 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 Dr.: Thank you Mayor. Mayor, Council
Members, people of D.B. - I'm going to go through this fast because
I'm on a time clock of five minutes. I live at 24075 Highcrest in D.B.
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 pian
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% 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 - 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
forward. 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.
Mr. Saffari: I would like to ask all the people who are against this
project to please stand up if you are a D.B. resident. Thank you,
ladies and gentlemen. Please be seated. I would like to, any D.B.
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 D.B.
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 D.B. 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 D.B., 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
the City of D.B. 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 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
Corp. 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 Dr.: 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 D.B. 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 D.B. Maybe live in LA. But I chose D.B.
because of the way it looks and I hope that you choose 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
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 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 we're 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: I moved here in 1975 and got involved on the D.B.
Improvement Association Board and was President. I'm now the
President of the D.B. 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 D.B.I.A. for years fought the original zoning and got the zoning
downgraded from multiples all along D.B. Blvd. to single family
residences. It was a constant battle against the County. The only
reason that the County ever put a map restriction on 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
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 D. B. 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 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 D. B. 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 Gravdahl: 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 D.B. Blvd. on Golden Springs Rd.
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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL
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 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.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL
Dave Kersey, 23403 E. Wagon Trail Dr.: 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 D.B. Blvd.
in the evening towards north D.B., but it took me 25 minutes when I
turned onto D.B. Blvd. from Brea Canyon Rd. 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 oak trees and 10 were going to be
destroyed. In each instance, exactly 50%of the trees, or I'm sorry -
1/3 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 D.B. Blvd. all the way
back to Summitridge Park. And we're going to take exactly 1/3 of
them out on D.B. Blvd. 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 D.B. Blvd. There's an area
there that says be careful extra water and they stick signs out there.
Tin Dr. 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,
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL
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 D.B. residents have that are
commuting up and down D.B. Blvd. 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 Dr. and I remember
that that mud rushed all the way down Gold Rush, down D.B. Blvd. all
the way to Golden Springs. 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
D.B. 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 Rd.: 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, 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 D.B. 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 its 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL
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%. 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. 40%. 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 tome 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 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 Dr.: Good evening. My name is
Randy Nayudu. I live on 24059 Highcrest Dr. 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL
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 lie
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 D.B. transferred from the
hands of Bramalea to SunCal somewhere in the period of the last
couple of years for a price of $2.7 million. The question I ask is, $2.7
million is peanuts for 500 acres in the heart of D.B. Why did not
somebody in the City of D.B. make a bid to buy this land instead for
maybe $3 million. Because if they did, we would not be having this
issue today. $3 million for the City of D.B. 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 D.B. 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 D.B. 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 and Grand Ave.
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 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 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 D.B. The last meeting was frankly, a disgrace. The people
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL
of D.B. were insulted, were shouted at, and I, for the first time in my
life, 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 D.B. Blvd. up
to a launching pad on Highcrest Dr. The second was Mr. Todd, as a
gentleman had given me his word as a gentleman that the gate on
Highcrest 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 think 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. I say the City of D.B. should have the
guts to tell SunCal look, we respect you and admire you...
Sandy Erickson, 22806 Ridge Line Rd.: Thank you, Madam
Chairman and City Council Members. I currently live at 22806 Ridge
Line Dr. but we will be relocating to Highcrest. 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, 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 by opening up a gate right
there that's going to dump right on to Gold Rush down the street into
D.B. Blvd. You're increasing the amount of traffic going in and out of
Gold Rush down an already crowded busy dangerous street. That's
the only place if they come out Highcrest that they will be able to
access D.B. Blvd. is off of Gold Rush. So the safety issue is critical.
Gold Rush 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 up Highcrest, highly densely populated areas, and using
Highcrest 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 Dr. Build Tin
Dr. first, then use that area which is not populated currently for your
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL
staging. Well, like this gentleman says, in the last five minutes that
was changed. They were allowed to use Highcrest 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 EI 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 St.: My name is Dr. Christina Goode.
I reside at 624 Hoss St., D.B., 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
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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL
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 D.B. for 11 years, the mother of two small children and
a PhD lab chemist doing research into biochemistry and the effects
on 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 D.B., 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: 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL
sell it to another developer. 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 Ln.: 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 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 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL
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 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 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 Ln.: Good evening, Council
Members. My name is Henry Pourzand. I live at 1008 Quiet Creek
Ln. I've been a resident of D.B. 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 -
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL
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 Dr.: Good evening, Council. I'm a
D.B. 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 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.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 23 CITY COUNCIL
Nick Anis: Good evening. My name is Nick Anis. I'm a D.B. resident.
My wife and I are active community volunteers. I wish we could get
so many people to tum 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 D.B. 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. 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 St. and there's 10 houses on that
street, if you say to them would you like another house built on your
street, who's going 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 EIR's 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 24 CITY COUNCIL
at this project. Is that 10% 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 D.B. I live in the Summitridge area. My
front yard overlooks the largest open space in the City of D.B. 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 Dr.: I've heard a lot of comments today -
good evening, 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 D.B. You have a City Attorney from
Richards, Watson & 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 D.B. standards, what the people of D.B. want, what's
good for D.B., 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 25 CITY COUNCIL
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 D.B. 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.
M/Herrera stated that Mr. Johnson would have 30 minutes in which
to make his comments.
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. 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? Allright, 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 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 26 CITY COUNCIL
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 II in your Land Use Element a 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 27 CITY COUNCIL
benefits of a project. The City of L.A., 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 D.B. Blvd. 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 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 28 CITY COUNCIL
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% 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' 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% when there's 80' 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 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 29 CITY COUNCIL
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 So. Calif. 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, took, 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, 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 2% 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 D. B. Blvd. They should be paying good money
into your coffers as part - that has a plan to actually deal with the
traffic problem on D.B. 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 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
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 30 CITY COUNCIL
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 threw that out 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 further presentation made by the
applicant. Thank you very much. Any questions, I'm happy to field
them at this time. Thank you.
Lex Williman explained that he had not read Kevin Johnson's letters
and could not, therefore, respond to his comments about the General
Plan issues at this time. He said the applicants' feel that findings can
be made that the proposed project is in conformance with the General
Plan. One can make findings for or against any project. With respect
to traffic, the report points out that D.B. suffers from existing traffic
problems that are not directly related to any one local project and are,
in fact, related to regional issues. The proposed project's impact to
existing traffic patterns is minimal. Any kind of grading operation will
create dust for a certain period of time. There is a significant impact
with respect to the dust, however, it is a temporary situation. The
noise impacts occur during. construction. He explained that because
of the current economy, construction will take place at a rapid pace
in order for sales to proceed. There was a study presented for
retaining the construction within Lot 6 which would place the access
road to Highcrest Dr. an additional 20' higher which would create
more of a visual impact than the proposed project. In addition, the
grading would be pushed out to D.B. Blvd. The proposed project
attempts to push the grading back from D.B. Blvd. as much as
possible. He explained why a project wholly contained within Lot 6
may be aesthetically less pleasing than the proposed project. He
stated there will be impacts with respect to aesthetics. However, the
project proposes natural looking slopes and natural looking
landscaping in accordance with the City's wishes. With respect to
hydrology, studies have determined that there is adequate capacity
in all of the pipes and the velocities are within acceptable limits.
There will be no runoff onto D.B. Blvd. and down into Sycamore
Canyon. All of the drainage will be picked up by pipes.
Todd Kurtin explained that the project has been designed to be
developed on approximately 38 acres. Lot 6 consists of 40-45 acres.
The proposed project does not propose construction that would
exceed the acreage of Lot 6. 25 acres of the development will be
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 31 CITY COUNCIL
open space manufactured slopes. The applicant is not asking to
develop on more acreage than was contemplated in Lot 6. He said
he believes that by containing the development wholly within Lot 6
and reducing the lot sizes, the values of the project homes as well as
the surrounding homes would be reduced. SunCal has no desire to
enter into litigation with the City and the subject has never been
discussed. The soils engineer for the proposed project is not the
same soils engineer that was used for the San Juan Capistrano
project. The San Juan Capistrano landslide did not occur on the
applicant's property and was most likely caused by EI Nino.
Jim Castles of Pacific Soils explained why SunCal's project in San
Juan Capistrano and the proposed D.B. project are not comparable.
With respect to Mr. Johnson's statement implying that it would be
better to place houses on cut rather than fill, the Pacific Soils report
recommends that fills greater than 50 feet in depth be placed on the
project site at a 93 percent compaction standard. This is not
mandated by the City. He said he disagrees with the implication that
cut is better than fill. A properly engineered fill will generally perform
as well if not better than cut lots.
M/Herrera closed the public comments portion of the meeting and
opened Council deliberation. She requested that staff present its
response to questions by the public and by Council in writing at the
August 4, 1998 meeting.
C/O'Connor: I'm not planning to ask all of the questions that I have
because I know that other Council Members have some, too. I do
want the audience to know that all of the Council were given audio
tapes of all of the Planning Commission meetings and the public
hearings. I have listened to those and taken notes so hopefully, I am
up to speed as to what your concerns have been. And I must say that
I agree with many of you that in reviewing everything, I don't
understand why the developer has never presented a plan wholly
inside Lot 6 with no grading on restricted property. They knew when
they bought (the property) that there were restrictions on Lot 4, 5, 7
and 9. So I, too, would like to see a plan on Lot 6 alone with no
grading outside of those lots. I have looked at the petitions that were
signed by the residents. As a matter of fact, I computerized them so
that the Council could take a look at what streets were involved. I
don't guarantee that I could read all the writing of all the numbers and
all the streets as well as, peoples names, but I think it's given us a
good indication of where the residents live. I do have a question on
map restricted property. I know that we've received information that
they cannot build residential property on map restricted property, but
does that prevent them from grading on the other lots?
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 32 CITY COUNCIL
CA/Jenkins: Mayor, Council Member O'Connor. That's a good
question. I mean, the literal language of the dedication prohibits the
right, or, gives to the City the right to prohibit construction of
residential buildings. And that is all it says.
C/O'Connor: So that would not prevent them from grading outside of
Lot 6 in order to shore up property to put homes on Lot 6 along.
CA/Jenkins: That would be a fair interpretation.
C/O'Connor: Now I'm a little concerned about the deed that was
shown up on the screen by one of the speakers and unfortunately, I
wasn't able to write down the exact verbiage of that as far as possible
deed restrictions so I'm hoping that we will be presented with that
information and what effect, if any. I know that you have said that the
City is not involved with deed restrictions between private property
owners.
CA/Jenkins: We did have an opportunity to look at the deed a little
bit earlier and I do not believe that it is a deed restriction as it has
been represented. It is a deed between Bramalee and the current
applicant. It merely references the existence of map restrictions -
those map restrictions that were included in the original map. In other
words, in my judgement it merely provides notice to the applicant of
the existence of those restrictions. It does nothing more than attach,
in essence, the tract map to the deed. A true deed restriction is
different. A true deed restriction is a situation where the grantor is
reserving some right such as an easement or a reversion area
interest when granting property interest to a grantee. That is not the
case here. All that is the case here is a mere notation on a map that
gives notice to the grantee of the existence of County imposed map
restrictions. So, as far as I can judge from my preliminary review of
it this evening, it is not a deed restriction_
C/O'Connor: Now we inherited that map restriction when we became
a City from LA County?
CA/Jenkins: That is correct.
CM/Belanger: Madam Mayor. One aside. There was another
presentation that indicated a grant deed. The date on that was April
7, 1972. Obviously we don't have that and we would appreciate it
because there were some references made to that deed in terms of
this property and that has not been indicated in any title reports that
we're aware of. We would be interested in getting a copy of that deed
to see what it in fact reflects. If the individual who had a copy of that
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 33 CITY COUNCIL
would make it available to the City Clerk we would appreciate it.
C/O'Connor: That was the one I was referring to. I was able to read
it but I couldn't write down fast enough to put that down. Another
concern I have is the water tank locations that whether they are
mandatory to be on Lot 6 or whether they would be allowed to be put
off Lot 6. 1 assume that since they are not a residential building that
they would be allowed to relocate those water tanks onto the map
restricted property? Is that a true assumption?
CM/Belanger: The property that is restricted by the map provides the
City Council the right to prohibit residential construction. I don't
believe that extends to the construction of water facilities.
CA/Jenkins: Ah, right. But to carry that thought forward I think we
would have to take a further look at whether a water tank would be a
permitted use as a primary and sole use on a piece of property under
our Zoning Ordinance which is a separate question.
C/O'Connor: There's been a lot of talk tonight about the particulant
matter and the construction pollution. During grading, how far does
the dust flow? How far - does it go a mile? Does it go 10'? Does it
go...
CM/Belanger: It depends. It depends on wind currents.
C/O'Connor: Now, I believe I read in there that if the wind was more
than 25 mph that they could not do grading. Is that correct?
CM/Belanger: That's correct.
C/O'Connor: I don't know how comparable the Standard Pacific
project is. Did we have any grading problems with that site as far as
neighbors having health problems with the dust that we know of?
CM/Belanger: Not that we know of.
DCM/DeStefano: There was one house at the end of Rapidview Dr.
which is the only house for a long stretch of Rapidview that had some
concerns about the amount of dust that was coming into their property
with respect to the dust that was going into their pool, specifically.
And Standard Pacific took charge of that issue and during that time
where construction was in that area, regularly cleaned and
maintained that property for the particular resident. And that's the
only one that we're aware of, but that wasn't necessarily a health-
related issue.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 34 CITY COUNCIL
C/O'Connor: I'll just ask one more question and then pass this on. Is this
property geotechnically similar to the property that Diamond Ranch High
School graded? And has anybody talked to Diamond Ranch High School,
the PUSD, about grading problems that they had to see if there could be
some potential problems with this site that Diamond Ranch had?
CM/Belanger: I don't believe that question was asked unless the applicant
independently analyzed that. That would be the kind of question we would
research and get you an answer but I don't know that anybody is prepared
this evening unless they correct me, that would be able to answer that
question for you and that would be one of the written responses that you
would get - is whether the geomorphology of the high school site is
comparable to the project site.
C/O'Connor: Has there ever been a development that the dust has been
under the AQMD standards when there's grading involved?
DCM/DeStefano: Madam Mayor and Council Members. My recollection is
that the Piermarini project was under the threshold at that time. The
standards have been modified. It would not likely have been under the
standard today. But at the time it was approved, I believe that project was.
C/O'Connor: There's been questions asked about having the City potentially
buy this property and setting up a bond or assessment district to have
residents pay. I would just like to state that when I was involved with the
Parks Master Plan, we did a questionnaire. And it was a random
questionnaire of 500 residents of D.B. And the question was asked whether
they would be willing to pay for increased park improvements. And it started
- unfortunately, I don't remember the exact numbers - but it started with, let's
say, $36 per year and dropped on down. And the overwhelming response
was "no" that they were not willing to even pay $24 a year toward park
improvements. So those of you that say that you think the citizens of D.B.
would be willing to add hundreds of dollars maybe to their property taxes to
buy this property, I'm not so sure that that would be a realistic achievement.
I'll yield to the rest of the Council.
M/Herrera: Ok. Thank you. Mrs. Ansari. Did you have questions that you
would like staff to research.
C/Ansari: Well, number one, I'd like those questions answered because in
listening to the tapes, some of the questions that were asked tonight were
ones that were asked during the Planning Commission hearings. And
looking at the notes from the Planning Committee, the minutes of the
meeting, and listening to the tapes - I think I got more out of the tapes than
going back and looking at the notes. I'd like some of the answers given to
us. I don't know if we'll be able to get them by August 4 so that the people
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 35 CITY COUNCIL
who have attended many of those Planning Committee meetings will
be able to get the answers for them and be able to see them in a
timely way. I think the question about having a workshop was a very
good point. I think then we would be able to have some give and take
and discuss this openly. I think when you get 2,000 signatures, and .
I know people were saying those 2,000 signatures are from some
areas of the City that were not even near this property, I think it
determines the whole City, this project that's determined. It's not only
the people that live near the project. It's an area that impacts the
whole City. Granted most of the traffic mitigations, the amount of
houses that are being built - there are 130 - when you have, if you
double that on cars it brings it to 260 and I think much of our traffic
impact, and this does impact the traffic problem, comes from across
Grand and I think, what are they approving over in Chino Hills - 800
homes last month? So those are concerns that I have, too. But I
really, one of the issues that really concerned me was the fact of
there was never a project development or there was never a map for
them building on the unrestricted property which is Lot #6. And that
was not done. In fact, even listening to the notes and the minutes of
the notes, listening to the tapes, I don't even know if that was
discussed much. Didn't seem like it was. So I have a little concern
about that. And I'm not saying that these developers have not tried
to work with the community. I think they have. But I think maybe
these issues need to be discussed maybe in a town - maybe in a
workshop that we can discuss this, and that we can discuss this
openly back and forth and try to iron out these issues. Some of them
may be but to talk about these concerns that we have and maybe a
less informal, less intimidating session and not have it go on for
months and months with anger escalating. We need to talk about this
project and see where it's going to go. And I'm not ready to pass the
project where I have many questions that I feel were not answered
yet. And they were not answered for the people that attended those
meetings. And I'd like to see the answers. Thank you.
M/Herrera: Thank you, Mrs. Ansari. Mr. Chang.
MPT/Chang: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Well, first of all, we
certainly want to thank these many residents who are concerned
about our community and have taken the time to come over here to
express yourselves. I believe several things make this issue so
important or so touchy. Number one, we talk about property right and
I'm glad that most of the people tonight who expressed themselves
respect property rights which is good. And that means that we do not
allow developers to do anything at all. So basically, the property right
is in Lot 6 and I think that's what we're concerned about. Number
two, because there is a map restriction, therefore, it causes a
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 36 CITY COUNCIL
problem. Without this map restriction, the whole thing would be
easier. Number three, the significant benefits are already recited in
the General Plan. So, what is really a significant benefit to the
community is something we have to figure out - Council and everyone
in the community. And of course, the EIR report which we understand
doesn't 100% fulfill, the requirement. The other concern is that if we
bring the whole thing down to Lot 6, will that still fulfill the
requirements of the EIR criteria threshold? That I would also like to
know as well. But luckily this is a temporary situation and of course,
temporary situations need to be concerned. But I believe this is
manageable. If somewhere down the line we have to make a
decision, this is something that can be managed. Of course, the
betterment of the community will be considered. That is the number
one concern. The quality of our life. I mean, that is all that we talk
about here. Traffic situation, yes. We do realize that we have a
traffic problem and we do realize that 130 houses maximum might
create some impact to the traffic to make bad into worse like some of
you people said. We need a better analysis on how bad it might be
and to give us a better analysis so that we can really make the
decision - a smart intelligent decision. Right now, I think we are all
here to listen to each other and to exchange our opinions. There's
nothing that we want to make the decision tonight. And we are glad
that we still can communicate here peacefully, respect each other and
respect the property rights, and respect your right of living in a quality
community and hopefully we can all keep it that way. But I do have
a concern that we should see a project that stays within Lot 6 only to
see what is going to come up. Without see that, it is kind of hard for
us to talk about further. And besides, since the property right remains
in Lot 6 only, I think the developer should come up with a Lot 6
proposal versus the other proposal as well instead of just one and
only proposal. So I think that's probably what I would suggest we
look into that as well. But anyhow, before then, we welcome you for
your expression and thank you for your expression. So I think,
Madam Mayor is going to make some announcement whether we're
going to have another hearing again or not. Thank you.
M/Herrera: Thank you, Mr. Chang. Mr. Huff.
C/Huff: Thank you, Madam Mayor. It's been a long evening as you
have sat there and opened up your hearts and told us your concerns.
I share many of those concerns and yet, I try to balance that also,
with what is in the best interest of the community because that is what
we do up here as Council Members, hopefully. And tonight we sit
here not as legislators creating law, but we sit here in a quasi-judicial
mode trying to interpret things. So it's a little different role than
maybe we're normally use to. And also in that role we have to be
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 37 CITY COUNCIL
careful that we're not swayed by shear numbers. There has to be
logic. We have to make findings or we find ourselves vulnerable to
lawsuits. And so from that standpoint we do need to proceed
carefully, wisely, thoughtfully, and make sure that the product we
come out with reflects the interest of the community, the desire of the.
community as a whole, but also doesn't. compromise our own
positions or the future. We don't want to just give something to
somebody because you're coming and asking, but we also don't want
to deny them just because we don't want it. We have to make the
decision wisely. I too share the concern about this deed that we saw
tonight, the 1972, and I would like to see that come back and I
understand that that is in the process and we will hopefully get a copy
of that and we can review that and see if it applies to us here. The
common theme that came up tonight was the traffic. And certainly we
do know that traffic is a problem. I would like staff to give us a little
bit of a report or perhaps the applicant next time, but I think it's more
correctly staff, to look at what the traffic counts are coming from
outside of the City. I believe we do fairly regular traffic counts. I
know we did a Quail Summit Traffic Study showing Grand Ave. at
32,000 vehicles and that roadway is rated for about 30,000 as I recall.
D.B. Blvd. is a major arterial. Where are we right now as far as the
regional impacts. What are we seeing on the streets of D.B?
CM/Belanger: We take periodic measurements of traffic coming
across the Chino Hills/City of D.B. incorporation line. For a short
period of time it was on about a monthly basis. We're now doing it on
a quarterly basis. We will take your comment in the form of a
question and we'll provide that data or the data that we have and give
you an indication of what the changes, if any, are in terms of the
traffic counts, they're 24 hour counts so they give us a snapshot of
an entire day, just to give you a flavor of what's coming across the
line and then how that traffic dissipates in a variety of directions at
Grand Ave. and D.B. Blvd.
C/Huff: Good. I'd appreciate that because I was caught up in the
traffic on D.B. Blvd. tonight. Actually, that's why I was 5 minutes late.
It is a nasty thing. We'll talk more about that later, but I'd like to see
how this project impacts the traffic. I've heard two different studies.
I know the first traffic report looked ridiculously low and one of the
speakers mentioned that tonight. And I heard a higher traffic count
later on so let's sort through and see what the real impact of this is -
our best guess - because that's really all it is, the best guess. If you
have 130 homes out there they may or may not generate four trips a
day per vehicle or whatever, but it is a guess, but let's try to get that
nailed down. There is also a concern about schools - overcrowding
of schools. And while one speaker said that wasn't our venue - the
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 38 CITY COUNCIL
schools do their own thing and have an assessment from the
developers, I would like us to quantify, if you could bring that back
next time, about what will happen with this. I understand there are
some plans for the Pomona School District to develop Pantera
Elementary School and if we could get some report from the Pomona
School District about how this would impact them - negatively or
positively, that would be helpful. Not that it is our venue, but just as
collateral information because that is a concern to the residents here.
Also on the aesthetics, clearly something that is the way it is when
you buy it, you like it, or it's okay or you wouldn't buy a house. And
so any change is going to have a resistance, whether that is a change
for the better or a change for the worse because it's really a change
to the unknown and people do resist the unknown. And we've looked
at the applicant. There's a nice little foam model down here which I
haven't had an opportunity to look at. The 3D model. We have a lot
of maps, pictures, but really trying to visualize how something is going
to look is a difficult thing. I know when I was on the Planning
Commission I was viscerally reacting against development that was
taking place in the Country area called the back Country, in the SEA,
Significant Ecological Area, and yet looking at that 4 years, 5 years
down the road, it looks significantly different than it did at the time of
grading. Why is that? Because there was a plan. And the plan was
that they grade the jeepers out of this thing which is what I was
looking at and reacting to, but when they did compact it and fill it up
and try to form those roads and pads into a flowing kind of pattern
which is similar to what you see here, when you get that revegetated
and the native vegetation on the slopes - it's growing slowly at this
point, but the other vegetation on the pads is growing better - it takes
on a totally different characteristic. Is that as good as the naked
hills? No. Is it acceptable to the community? I guess that's a
judgement call. But I would like staff to speak a little bit to what we're
trying to achieve through the General Plan and through the most
recent Development Code that we've just adopted of excellence in
planning because that's what we've been trying to achieve. The
County did not achieve excellence in planning. One of the speakers
tonight talked about the early streets that were made where you could
hardly have two cars passing at the same time. They're very narrow.
That houses are all jumbled together. We had a slope failure in D.B.
with this 100 year rain this year on one of those older tracts also. But
could someone from staff speak to what we're looking at when we're
looking at a project that has 120 or 100 put onto Lot 6 or if we're
looking at something like we see here on Lot 5, 6 and 7 where it's
overlapping, what makes one project more of an excellence in design
as opposed to the other one which may be an easier decision for us
to make. Obviously, from the comments we've heard tonight it's a lot
easier for us to just approve something on Lot 6 and forget 5 and 7.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 39 CITY COUNCIL
So what is the difference that we should be looking for.
CM/Belanger: It depends on what your premise is. If your premise
is you can have 120 homes the outcome on aesthetics is going to be
different than you can build an aesthetic project and we'll give you
whatever the land grants you. In essence, it could be from 1 to 120.
So what your premise is in terms of what you're looking at will dictate
the aesthetics. If you don't start with a specific number that you're
trying to reach and instead say we want to see a project that meets
some aesthetics standard and that whatever the number of lots are
that evolve from that become what you consider, that's one way to
look at aesthetics. The other is you can have 120 lots. Let's see
what it looks like. There can be two completely different analyses in
terms of aesthetics. In terms of Lot 6 proposal Council has indicated
they want to see a proposal on Lot 6. There are a couple of issues
and I'm sure the property owner heard that and if he's been paying
close attention he probably ought to do that. The question is whether
you want to see a project within the lines or do you want to see a
project that allows for grading outside the lines to support a project.
There are some issues here in terms of what do you mean by Parcel
6 and the kinds of project alternative you want to see come back to
you. Or maybe one of each. One that shows, that has grading
outside the lines but you build lots within the lines and one where
everything has to take place within the lines. It would be useful in
terms of direction to the staff as well as, to the property owner how
that would be undertaken. Because that will also have an impact on
your question of aesthetics as to how you do that.
C/Huff: Maybe you can answer the question right now. How much on
this 130 home tract that we see now, how much of the Lot 5 and Lot
7, those are the map restrictions and possibly deed restrictions, how
much of that is encroached upon for grading and how much of it is for
actual pad on those two lots?
CM/Belanger: For actual grading the number is - I'll just use a
number and Mr. DeStefano can correct me - it's 19 acres. For actual
construction...
C/Huff: That's a combination of both lots?
CM/Belanger: Yes. The applicant has indicated that the actual
construction is on a smaller amount but you have to grade it all in
essence to create the lots on the lesser amount. So you grade 19
acres in order to build on, I don't know what it is, 4 or 5 acres.
C/Huff: What's the breakdown of how much of the lot is disturbed as
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 40 CITY COUNCIL
opposed to how much of the lot is undisturbed. In other words, is it
a 150 acre lot and you're messing with 10 acres of that? What is that
ratio? The number?
CM/Belanger: I'm not sure I'm understanding your question.
C/Huff: Ok. We know we have X number of acres, 43 acres or
whatever it was, on Lot 6. I've seen two different things that confuse
me. Actually, I've seen a lot more than that that confuses me. I've
seen a total building pad I thought somewhere of like 65 acres. And
yet there's another number that added up to 10 less. What I would
like to know is how much are we disturbing of Lot 5 and how much
are we disturbing of Lot 7 and what is the total size of Lot 5 and what
is the total size of Lot 7.
MPT/Chang: Council Member Huff, I think probably one of the
information I counted may be helpful to answer your question here.
Basically, it's the 19 acres on Lot 5 and 7 being used and then they
will build on like Mr. Belanger said, about 4 to 5 acres. However, a
total of about 42 of the lots fall into 5 and 7. Basically, roughly. On
Lot 5 about 12 houses. On Lot 7 it's about lots, pads. So probably
that would help you to figure out.
CM/Belanger: You're asking how many of the acres of Lot 7 are
going to be utilized in relationship to the totality of Parcel 7 and the
same for Parcel 5. 1 don't have that number before me but I'm sure
somebody over here does and they'll get it for us in a moment. If we
can't readily get it for you it will again be one of the written responses.
C/Huff: I would like to see, and I think we're going to generate some
kind of response to the attorney's letters and his written comments.
I would like to see that and I think you're bringing that back to us at
the next meeting so that would be helpful.
CM/Belanger: It will be brought back not at the next meeting but
August 4. And any information that is provided to City Council is also
provided to the public. And we'll try to do it in a way where the public
has it in enough time to read and analyze it and the City Council has
enough time to read and analyze it.
C/Huff: Ok. That's it for my comments or questions tonight and I look
forward to sorting through these comments and trying to find some
more common denominators and looking for answers to that because
when we get through this process at least we want to have your
questions answered. It may not be answered to your liking, but at
least we'll try to answer them and then we'll make a decision on top
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 41 CITY COUNCIL
of that.
M/Herrera: Ok, thank you. Mr. Chang, you had another question?
MPT/Chang: Thank you, Madam Mayor. Mr. Belanger, in terms of a -
proposal within the boundaries of Lot 6, 1 would rather see everything
inside of Lot 6 instead of grading on Lot 5 and 7 again because if
that's the situation we're going back to day one again. So we might
as well just stay within Lot 6 only including the grading so that it will
be easier for us to figure out unless the other Council Members do
not agree with that.
M/Herrera: Thank you, Mr. Chang. Given to us was a Comparative
Environmental Evaluation Proposed Project and EIR Project
Alternative, and I believe this alternative was regarding building just
in Lot 6. 1 believe 120 units within Lot 6. And there was an analysis
of what that would mean and I would just like to point out a couple of
things that concern me. "The grading design for the EIR Project
Alternative provides less contour grading than the proposed project
although major slopes are somewhat contoured. This grading design
conforms with the Hillside Grading Ordinance to a lesser extent than
the proposed project." Another point that concerns me is construction
noises. "if the alternative is taken (and that is just building on Lot 6)
implementation of the project alternative would (tape pauses between
side 5 and 6) at the intersections of D.B. Blvd., Tin Dr. and D.B. Blvd.
and Gold Rush Dr. However, these noise levels will not be greater
than those associated with the proposed project. The EIR Project
Alternative proposes residences in a development area adjacent to
D.B. Blvd. that were not part of the proposed project. Proposed on-
site residences along D.B. Blvd. may experience vehicular noise
levels that exceed the C'ity's noise standards." And so while you're
saving maybe noise in your neighborhood, you're transferring it to
somebody else's neighborhood which may not necessarily be a good
thing. A lot of questions have been raised. I have some of my own.
Is Ron Tehran still here? Okay. He was the one that shared with us
a copy of the map restriction that was dated 1972. And I don't have
a phone number for him. I do have an address. If somebody has a
phone number for him we could contact him and get a copy of that.
I would just like to ask staff to research. Mr. Huff has already talked
(about) and several residents brought up, the traffic point. If we could
have a little summary for the large part, the traffic along D.B. Blvd.
Where does it originate and where does it go to? Is it in town traffic
or is it out-of-town traffic, regional traffic. Schools, Mr. Huff
addressed that. Overcrowding of schools and where are we going to
put the kids. The school will be within PUSD and I believe they are
already planning to build another elementary school near that site.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 42 CITY COUNCIL
But if you could address that briefly. A question was asked about
trees and how is it determined which trees go. The tree replacement
and what is the ratio - if you could just briefly talk about that. A
question was raised about pollution in the air. What mitigating things
could be done to reduce that, if possible? A question was raised
about the Arciero project - that there were map and deed restrictions
on that property; we lost trees. If you could briefly address that.
What trees were taken out and in what number were they replaced.
I've already mentioned about getting a copy of the map restriction
dated 1972 from Ron Tehran and if that is a valid copy - deed
restriction - does that supersede our copy of 1967 that was shown to
us? The copy that was put up on the...
CM/Belanger: That was 1981. That's the date of the registration of
the engineer.
M/Herrera: Ok. Then how does that work. If there was a 1972 copy
of something, does something else dated 1981 take precedence over
it?
CM/Belanger: Without seeing both documents, it would be difficult to
say.
M/Herrera: Ok. Could you perhaps address that question.
CM/Belanger: Yes.
M/Herrera: Ok. That concludes my comments or questions, rather.
As I'm counting, I did count three individuals that want to see
something brought back on Lot 6. Would that need to be in the
nature of a motion?
CA/Jenkins: Mayor, I also counted at least three and we've been
talking about that here. It seems to me that the applicant has the
option of going forth with the current proposal or acceding to the
wishes of at least three of you to have the opportunity to compare the
current proposal with a proposal that is limited to Lot 6 and I don't
think it requires a motion but I do think at some point we need to know
whether or not the applicant is willing to prepare that alternative
document or whether the applicant wishes to just move forward with
what we have. And then I'm going to reserve for the moment the
question of what happens if the applicant does prepare an alternative
document and the Council prefers it to the existing proposal because
it will require some additional analysis as to whether or not A) it must
go back to the Planning Commission and B) whether or not there
needs to be any supplement to the EIR. So the only real issue that
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 43 CITY COUNCIL
is before you right now in that regard is whether or not the developer
is interested in coming forward with an alternative and whether or not
they are able to do that by August 4 or whether they are going to
need additional time to put that sort of a proposal together.
M/Herrera: Can I make a suggestion then to Council. Many
questions have been asked and we've asked staff to draft responses
to us. Can I suggest that we kind of hold up on any request to
change the project until we see the responses to the questions. And
those I anticipate can be brought back on August 4. And at that time
if the Council want to make a serious request to change the project
it can be done at that time. Okay. Mrs. Ansari. You have a question.
C/Ansari: Yeah. There's one other issue, too. For this proposal
that's coming before us to lift map and deed restrictions so they can
build on Lot 5 and 7. 1 don't know if what they're proposing to the City
is of significant benefit to us. They have a good project. It's going to
look aesthetically nice. They're giving us land that already has
restrictions on it and $250,000. 1 don't necessarily think that's a
significant benefit to the City. Just that alone to be honest with you.
M/Herrera: Ok. What is the Council's opinion on my suggestion that
I just made to kind of hold in abeyance any formal request to the
applicant to change their project until we review the responses to all
of the questions that we've just put before them. Mr. Huff, you wanted
to say?
C/Huff: I guess the real question hinges on what Council Member
Ansari just said. Is the dedication of the open space to the City a
significant benefit? Because if we want to thumb our nose to that and
force them back to just Lot 6, then that's a decision we can make. I
will say that when the applicant - I don't know if they were in escrow
with the property, but they were looking at the property - Bramalee
had gone into bankruptcy and so it was on the market, and they did
approach various Council Members - I know they approached me and
they asked me about my impression of the Memorandum of
Understanding. And I was on the General Plan Advisory Committee
back when we dealt with this thing and I had heard about the MOU
and in fact, the General Plan was written trying to encapsulate the
essence of the MOU in there. The concern always was from the
group that I was involved in - the GPAC - from what I heard before,
that the developer would find a way to wiggle around the MOU. Now
I find it a little bit ironic that it's sort of on the other foot now. The
General Plan was written - it was thought to be a good development
at the time. Although it was a concept, this is the first time the City
was getting something of significance. We were in the middle of or
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 44 CITY COUNCIL
through fighting the Sandstone Canyon thing where the City had a
couple of different options including preserving 72 acres of the
sensitive canyon bottom. And that evaporated and what you see over
there now is the result. In this particular case, we had a willing seller
or the willing developer and the City who is looking for open space
and we were writing our elements to try and find more ways to finance
more open space for the City and this is something we had in mind,
that what a great deal. Without spending public funds you can get
300 plus acres into the City for open space. So the question before
us is, is that no longer a significant benefit? And we do have a good
cash reserve for the City. Is that something we want to spend on
buying open space? I submit to you that there was also someone
talking tonight about his 20 year old streets that are cracking.
Because we are a relatively new City our infrastructure needs are not
as great as they will be some day. The cities that are cash-strapped
are generally older cities because they have not set aside enough
money to take care of their infrastructure concerns. So, for me, if I
look at something that we can get 75% of this for free, or we can pay
X number of dollars for something and then compromise our position
to use that money for something else down the road, as long as they
are following the design standards that we have carefully been
crafting over the last nine years we've been a City - and I'm not
saying that I buy off on their plan yet, I still want some of these
questions answered - but to me, having that open space deeded to
the City, and if we're worried that the City is going to develop it or sell
it off, then have it revert to some wildlife agency; somebody else so
that we can never develop it for commercial or residential and that
would take care of one of the concerns that I heard and it would also
satisfy the City's need to have some kind of a trails element. One of
the speakers did, or maybe it was the applicant, talked about how this
does connect Sycamore Canyon Park which we have currently
developed, with Summitridge Park, it's already an unofficial trail. I
used to walk my dog on it every day and ride my bike on it when I
lived on Clear Creek Canyon Dr. Just because we've gotten used to
it doesn't mean it's ours. There's nothing to preclude the applicant
from sticking up a fence along there and saying keep out. Because
we look at it all of the time, because we have access to it, we feel
very proprietary like it's ours. It is not. But if it is deeded to the City
then the City can control it and you will continue to elect officials to
make sure that it stays that way. And, since there is that lack of trust,
we put a reverter on so that it goes to some other agency if we decide
we want to try to do something with it. I think this is a good thing for
the City. The open space part. As far as having the size of the
development they have before us, I think maybe we can still do
something within that. But, if you're asking for the applicant to come
back with something strictly limited to Lot 6 then I think that what
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 45 CITY COUNCIL
you're saying is that you do not think it is a significant benefit to the
City. So that's the question I believe you have to answer for
yourselves.
M/Herrera: Well, and in a great sense I agree with Mr. Huff. We're
required to be prudent with the public's monies. And I cannot justify
why we would buy something, pay for something, if somebody is
willing to give it to us for free. I cannot justify that. I'm going to repeat
again that I would like to see the Council hold off on a formal request
to the applicant to change the plan until we see the responses back
from staff regarding all of the different questions that we've asked.
Mrs. Ansari.
C/Ansari: Then, if we're going to have those questions answered that
people in the audience felt that were not answered before, I would
suggest that we have a Town Hall Meeting or a Saturday meeting
where people could have those questions answered for them and
maybe we can discuss that freely and look like we're working with the
people in the community and discuss this. Now, the amount of open
space that we would get with this development is very very nice when
you think of this as open space. However, what the issue is, is how
do the people in the community feel about it. And if this is going to be
decided by us and we're going to vote on it, I think that we need to
have a forum where we can talk about it, have a Town Hall type of
thing on a Saturday to discuss it openly. This is our first meeting.
We received this packet, although we had gotten the EIR's a year
ago, July was the first EIR I got, we got this packet of the tapes was
a week ago Monday - a week and a half ago I received the tapes.
And I've been listening to them since then. And so the tapes and all
of the information that we went through, I think there's still some
questions and I think we need to have a meeting where we can talk
about this freely with the people in the community and then maybe
put some closure on it and decide where we're going to go from there
-whether or not we ... if you want we can hold off on whether to build
on Lot 6 until after we have this Town Hall meeting but I think it's
something that needs to be discussed. Now also, the alternative
suggestion that they had in this book, yes, Mr. Belanger, in this book,
does not have a map. It does not have a map of how they were going
to develop it even though they answered it in the request of the
alternatives. Where is the map. Well, it didn't go in, and this was not
given to everybody that was at when they had this at the meeting. It
was never discussed fully if you read the minutes of the meeting
where this was brought up - the alternative. And I think maybe this
needs to be discussed to. I listened to those tapes.
M/Herrera: Mrs. O'Connor, did you have something?
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 46 CITY COUNCIL
C/O'Connor: I think we would be doing a disservice to the citizens of
D.B. if we did not have the applicant come back with a presentable
development on Lot 6. 1 can't say at this point in time which one
would be aesthetically better. I don't like the idea of the one that is
on Lot 6 or the proposal of having the six homes right off D.B. Blvd.
But I think we have to let the citizens see both plans so that they can
decide for themselves whether aesthetically the proposed plan is
better than the Lot 6 plan. We've heard the developer say that they
don't think that it would be the best possible plan on Lot 6 but we've
also heard from the majority of the residents here that they want,
they're not against the development on Lot 6 which causes me a little
problem because you hear a lot of questions about the air pollution
and the noise. Well, if it's developed on Lot 6 there's still going to be
the air pollution and there's still going to be the noise. So I really
think that we need to present a viable project on Lot 6 so that the
citizens can see that yes, the proposal on Lot 6 is not as good as this
proposal or, Lot 6 is as good as this proposal. And without that
information - I know they made an attempt, but there's still a lot of
open items on this alternative and I just feel that personally, I will not
be able to make a decision one way or the other without seeing the
Lot 6 proposal and I think we owe it to the citizens who have said they
want the project on Lot 6, to show them what it would look like.
M/Herrera: Ok. First point. Do we want this brought back on August
4 or August 8 which is a Saturday?
CM/Belanger: You're asking the applicant to prepare an alternative....
M/Herrera: No, no. Right now you only have one Council Member
asking for that alternative.
CM/Belanger: Let's just presume for the moment that somewhere in
this discussion that three of you decided that you wanted to see a
project alternative, you need to get from the applicant how much time
they need to do that and whether August 8 is sufficient.
M/Herrera: Ok. First point of order then, we need to see if there are
three individuals that are asking the applicant to do that.
C/Ansari: Well, whether it's August 8th or not, eventually I'd like to
see it on Lot 6 so we may as well have them do..I would like to see it
on Lot 6.
MPT/Chang: Yes, I would like to see it on Lot 6 because basically,
the procedure to this is suppose to have Lot 6 be proposed and then
to have something else prepared. Meaning, if Lot 6 is not good
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 47 CITY COUNCIL
enough, then how Lot 6 will similarly cross the border onto Lot 5 and
7. To me that sounds more logical for them to apply to the City and
have the matter before us to make the judgement not only just to the
Council but also to the residents. I think probably that would make
more logic. Disregard what is of more significant benefit to the .
community for right now. And that is something else we certainly
want to put a consideration.
M/Herrera: Ok. Then we have three Council asking for a proposal
on Lot 6. So next point of order would be to find out whether they are
interested in doing that and how much time do they need to do that.
So we're perhaps talking beyond August 8th time. Do we need that
response right now at this point in time, Mr. Jenkins? Or...
CA/Jenkins: No, we don't, but if they don't provide it then what we
should do is continue this to a date certain from which we can then
continue it depending on their response. So, for example, if they
were to give us their response within the next week you could
continue this for two weeks solely for the purpose of them continuing
it either to August or beyond.
M/Herrera: So, let's see. The next meeting would be the 21 st so we
could continue this to the 21 st for the sole purpose of hearing back
from them whether or not they are interested in doing that and then
continue it again to a point in time where they think that they would
have the plans ready. Meanwhile we'll know if we have to go through
the Planning Commission process.
CA/Jenkins: Right. If they decline then we could continue it to your
first meeting in August simply to answer the questions that have been
raised.
M/Herrera: Do we need a motion to continue this item to August
21 st?
CA/Jenkins: I'm sorry. Did they indicate a response back?
M/Herrera: Do you need time to think about...?
Todd Kurtin: I have two comments. One—we need time to think about
it, number one. But more importantly, to me, we need to fully
understand what you're looking for. Councilwoman O'Connor just
mentioned that our other alternative was inadequate. I don't know
what that means. We need to know what you're really looking for so
that we can understand what to deliver and if that's appropriate or
not.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 48 CITY COUNCIL
M/Herrera: Ok. You need more time so we can continue this to July
21 st and Mrs. O'Connor, if you could clarify so that they would be
better able to evaluate what you meant by the plan was inadequate -
the alternative.
C/O'Connor: I guess I'm not sure. Would a new EIR have to be
made if you're just doing a Lot 6 project? Again, I come back to my
question about whether grading would be allowed on Lot 5 and Lot 7
with a map restriction. So I'm not sure either what I'm asking -
whether I'm asking if all grading and all residents have to stay on Lot
6 or whether you would be able to grade outside in order to build on
Lot 6. So, until we had that answer, but I'm sorry, I thought there
were parts in here that were not complete, in this alternative as far as,
and I can't come up with them right now. Water tank location would
be one item that you don't address here and whether you're allowed
to put the water tanks outside. That would be one. I guess I would
have to sit down and look at this and come up with the list of things
that I would like to see you try to present to us. So I guess I'm not
prepared to do that tonight either. I just feel for the citizens and you
have heard them say they want it on Lot 6. 1 don't know what that
exactly means. Hopefully when they realize that aesthetically it is not
a pretty as this proposal, potentially, that they might decide well, hey,
let's go back to this one. I don't see that the noise and the dust is
going away. If you develop on Lot 6 you're still going to have the dust
and you're still going to have the noise. So that's not going to go
away. And yet, most of them said they want it on Lot 6. So there's -
is the word dichotomy there.
Todd Kurtin: So I guess through the City or you will get back to me
on what you are looking for, I guess. I don't know how to handle this.
C/O'Connor: Maybe we just need to have more discussion on this
alternative. And I don't know whether you can do any pretty maps like
you have for your project to give the citizens a better view of what Lot
6 is going to look like and whether that would remedy the problem.
Todd Kurtin: Talking to our team, we will be ready by August 4 or
August 8 whatever date, but the question comes back and we have
to be considerate of the staff that they need time to analyze our work
so that they can give you feedback on how they understand and
analyze this new project. My understanding right now is that the
Council is looking for a project strictly on Lot 6 - grading and where
the homes will be and all the grading will be contained, in Lot 6.
M/Herrera: Well, that was Mr. Chang's expression. I don't know if
that was Mrs. O'Connor's expression.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 49 CITY COUNCIL
Todd Kurtin: Because she later said it depends on if the map
restrictions would allow us to grade on Lots 5 and 7 which we have
prepared an analysis like that already. And so now I need to know,
do you want us to complete that analysis that there are some holes
there or to go to Mr. Chang's analysis?
MPT/Chang: Again. This is personal. Just coming from the sense
that on Lot 6, you have a right to build. Then come in with the best
solution that you think can maximize your benefits either up to 130
houses or 85 houses or something I don't know. But it make it still
quality that you think can attract the residents and attract the Council
and also to bring the best benefit to the community. Then at your
discretion, come up with the best proposal that might work. Then
think with that in hand in front of us, it will be better to make an
analysis and one that is fair.
M/Herrera: So, you have some options. We can continue this to the
July 21st Council meeting so you could wait until that meeting to
respond if you want to go forward. Perhaps we'll have a little bit
better clarity in what different people mean, exactly, or are looking for
exactly, whether just the building is on Lot 6 and you grade outside
or exactly what ... it's after 11:00 p.m. and we've been talking about
this for 5 hours. And we do have another agenda item that we must
take care of.
Todd Kurtin: We will go forward to Aug. 8 and discuss with staff what
to prepare for that meeting. We'll have alternatives ready by then.
M/Herrera: Ok. That's a Saturday. And staff at that point will have
responses to all the different questions asked so we will schedule the
Council meeting for Aug. 8, Sat. Ok? So, Mr. Jenkins, is the public
hearing still open?
CA/Jenkins: Yes.
M/Herrera: ...or do I close the public hearing?
CA/Jenkins: No. I would suggest you continue it to Sat., Aug. 8.
M/Herrera: All right. Then this public hearing is still open and this
matter is continued to Aug. 8.
CM/Belanger: Madam Mayor. We would need a time when that
would occur.
M/Herrera: 9:00 a.m.
JULY 7, 1998 PAGE 50 CITY COUNCIL
M/Herrera continued the public hearing to a Town Hall Meeting to be
held on Sat., Aug. 8, 1998 at 9:00 a.m. in the SCAQMD Auditorium for
reviewing alternative project proposals and staffs answers to
questions posed during the public hearing and in written form.
7.2 (a) PUBLIC HEARING - CONTINUED FROM JUNE 16, 1998 -
RESOLUTION NO. 9842: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND AR 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 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 98-1999.
(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
1998-1999 - 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 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
98-99.
(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
1998-1999 - 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 98-99.
Consultant John Friedrich presented information regarding LLAD Nos. 38,
39 and 41.
M/Herrera reopened the Public Hearing.
There being no testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the Public Hearing.
MPT/Chang moved, C/Ansari seconded, to adopt Resolution Nos. 98-42, 98-
JULY 7, 1998
PAGE 51 CITY COUNCIL
43 and 98-44 levying assessments on Assessment District Nos. 38, 39 and
41 for Fiscal Year 1998-1999. 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
9. NEW BUSINESS: None
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 11:15 p.m.
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 11:16 p.m.
10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS: None
11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: MPT/Chang spoke about a
successful and patriotic July 4th celebration.
C/O'Connor encouraged residents to attend the Concerts in the Park.
Quakes night for D.B. will be Wednesday, August 26, 1998. She and
M/Herrera discussed their opposition to Senate Bill 2010 with the California
Legislature and the L.A. County Board of Supervisors.
M/Herrera spoke about the Monday, July 6, 1998 Special City Council
meeting. She stated she will establish a Telecommunications Facilities Task
Force consisting of two residents appointed by each Council Member, two
Council Members (Cable Subcommittee Representatives) three members of
the telecommunications industry and staff representatives as deemed
appropriate by the City Manager. This task force will begin work on
September 1, 1998 and conclude meetings by October 31, 1998 with their
report to the Planning Commission no later than January 1, 1999 for its
review and recommendation to Council. The number of Task Force
meetings will be determined by staff.
12. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Herrera
adjourned the meeting at 11:21 p.m.
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
ATTEST:
ekui 4&1J, _.
Mayor
FROM : BONTERRA CONSULTIt4G
VTTIN NO. 52267
Part One
Diamond Bar City Council
Public Hearing of July 7, 1998
vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267
Conditional Use Permit No. 8843
Oak Tree Permit No. 80.1
Environmental impact Report No. 8702 (SCH 9700310M)
Responses to Comments
A public hearing on Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 52267 (VTTM No. 52267) was held on
July 7,19N. Approximately 100 members of the community were present during the hearing; 20
individuals provided testimony to the City Council.
Testimony addressed the following environmental issues (listed in order of commentors speaking
to the issue):
• Potential impacts of developing a proposed project totally within the boundaries of Lot 6
• Traffic and congestion
• Existing Diamond Bar Boulevard congestion between Pathfinder and Grand Avenue
• Impacts of trips into/out of project site onto Diamond Bar Boulevard
• Traffic safety impacts on Goldrush Drive from project traffic exiting the project site via
Highcrest Drive
• Traffic safety impacts from construction equipment staging from Higherest Drive vs. Tin
Drive extension into the site from Diamond Bar Boulevard
• Loss of open spocWvisual impacts
• School overcrowding
• Clarification of numbers of oaks and walnut trees impacted and replaced
• Drainage alterations and site runoff from project development area
• Health effects from air quality emissions during construction period (dust and other
pollutants)
• Safety of cut and fill slopes created during site grading.
Members of the community also provided testimony about elements of the proposed protect design
and the City approvals required before constriction could begin. issues raised in these comments
referred to: the limitations on proposed development outside Lot 6 from map restrictions on the
property; the value of the extraordinary benefits to the City in retum for removing or altering map
restrictions; consistency of the proposed project with the Open Space Element and other provisions
of the General Plan; and, whether the City Council could deny the proposed project without
FROM : BONTERRA CONSULTING
VTTM No. 52267
incurring legal liability. These issues do not address environmental concerns and, are therefore,
not addressed in the following Response to Comments documentation.
• ��• • •.1 L. ll • 1• 11i- � Ali 1 • I _ � - - •
Responses to the environmental issues listed above are provided in the paragraphs that follow.
Similar questions that were addressed to the Planning Commission are summarized in the
responses, where applicable, with reference to the date of the Planning Commission hearing when
the issue was raised in public testimony.
Comment 1
Potential impacts of developing a proposed project totally within the boundaries of Lot 6.
Overview: Commentom noted that the applicant has not provided the City with a proposed project
design that limits all activities, including all necessary remedial grading, to within the boundaries
of Lot 6. These commentors presented the opinion that restrictions on the adjacent lot", 5, and
7 -preclude development of any type, thereby requiring that any development on Lot 6 be contained
within its boundaries.
Responsel
This issue was raised in testimony before the Planning Commission, and was addressed in the
Responses to Comments document prepared for testimony that was presented at the February 10,
1998 public hearing. While the subject of the restrictions is not an environmental issue parse, It
has been raised during public testimony. Please refer to the February 10, 1998 Responses to
Comments document for further information on this topic as presented to the Planning
Commission.
At the July 7, 1998 City Council hearing, the City Attorney was asked by the Council if the
restrictions would preclude any development -related activity. He opined that the restrictions on the
adjacent lots 4, 6, and 7 did not seem to speak directly to the issue of whether remedial grading
for residential development on Lot 6 would be considered development under the provisions of the
restrictions for the adacent lots. Subsequent to the July 7, 1998 hearing, further research on this
issue has been completed by the City Attorney.
Comment 2
Traffic Impact of the proposed project on existing Diamond Bar Boulevard congestion between
Pathfinder and Grand Avenue.
v0 ervrew Commentors noted that existing traffic congestion in the stretch of Diamond Bar
Boulevard "between Pathfinder and Grand Avenue during the p.m. peek hour is unacceptably
heavy. Commentors felt that the impacts of the proposed 1304"ling unit project on this
congestion would only worsen an already unacceptable condition.
Response 2
The topic of traffic and the existing congestion in this segment of Diamond Bar Boulevard was
raised at three of the four Planning Commission public hearings. The Responses to Comments
documentation prepared for the public hearings of September 23, 1997, February 10, 1998, and
April 28, 1998 addressed various aspects of the potential traffic impacts of the proposed proled,
2
FROM : BONTERRA CWSIAT I NG
V rm No. 52267
the mitigation measures recommended by the EIR traffic consultant and concurred with by City
staff, and factors that contribute to the existing congestion on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Please
refer to these documents for elaboration on the traffic impacts from the proposed project -
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 associated with the 130 -dwelling unit VTTM No. 52267
project would not result in significant impacts on Diamond Bar Boulevard (or any other street)
because the traffic from the proposed project would not exceed the significance thresholds of the
two agencies. Mitigation is therefore not required. However, the EIR traffic analysis indicated that
the proposed project would be required to provide a traffic signal on Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin
Drive and a left -turn iane for southbound traffic entering the site.
To further clarify the EIR traffic analysis, the key components of the approach used be the traffic ated
consultant are summarized below, The EIR traffic consultant, O'Rourke Engineering,
with the City's Public Works staff to develop a distribution of traffic and trips from the project site.
The resulting distribution considered the locations where future residents of the site would likely
work, areas where they would shop, and locations where they might go for recreation or
entertainment. The distribution that was used In the traffic analysis is as follows-.
Northward 55% (toward the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden
Springs, and points north, east, and west)
Southward 15°x6 (toward the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand
Avenue, and points south, west, and east)
Eastward 10% (toward Pantera Drive, and points south, east, and west)
Westward 20% (toward Golden Springs, and points south, north, and west)
Total 100%
The EIR traffic analysis projected the total number of average daily trips (ADT) using generation
factors published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE), Trip Generation Manual, e
Edr ion. The single-family land use trip generation factor (LU 210) was used to generate the total
daily trips from the proposed 130 lots. The LU 210 trip generation factor specifies that 9.55 trips
per average weekday would be generated for each single-family dwelling. Based on these factors,
the proposed 130 -unit project would generate 1,242 average daily trips (9.55 trips x 130 dwelling
units).
The key effects of ADTe on existing intersections are typically experienced during the peak travel
periods of an average weekday: one during the morning commute period (a.m. peak) and one
during the evening commute period (p.m. peak). These periods are defined as 6 a.m. to 9 O.M.
and 3 p.m. to 7 p.m., respectively. The EIR traffic analysis used the ITE generation factors to
determine how many of the ADTe would actually leavelenter the site dying the a.m. and p.m. pear
periods, and then further determine the one hour during the a.m. and p.m. peak period with the
highest number of trips. This one-hour period serves as the a.m. and P.M. peak hour for the
project. The factor's used in the analysis were 0.74 trips per dwelling unit leaving the site in the
a.m, peak period and 1.01 trips per dwelling unit entering the Bite during the p.m• peak period. The
p.m. peak rate is higher than the a.m. peak rate to reflect the experience of traffic engineers that
residents of single-family developments conduct trips related to shopping, recreation to �
functions in the tate afternoons, adding to the retum work trips- Applying
these
3
FROM : BONTEP,RA CONSIAT I NG
VTTM No. 52267
proposed 130 lots results in a projected a.m, peak of 96 trips and a p.m. peak of 131 trips. The
balance of the 1,242 average weekday trips 0.015 trips) are distributed throughout the day during
non -peak periods.
The next step in the EIR traffic analysis was to distribute the a.m. and p.m. peak period trips from
the site to the various roads and intersections using the general distribution percentages noted
above. The traffic conditions likely to exist on the road system cin the
future � year
counda a and
proposed project would be completely
built out were prof using m the City that
adding a growth factor to account for the intervening years, and including projects
have been previously approved but are not yet built The analysis assumes proposed Project
buildout. The results of the analysis are summarized below for the intersections analyzed by the
EIR traffic consultant.
Seconds of delay was used in the analysis, since the inwSecdon is currently unsignalized. The proposed
project is responsible for installing a signal and a southbound left turn lane as mitigation.
As shown in the analysis summarized above, with the exception of the intersection of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and Tin Drive, the proposed project would not change the level of service at any of the
intersections analyzed when it is fully occupied. Although the project traffic would incrementally
change the calculated Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) rates by no more than 0.01, this
increment was not considered significant using the City and County's significance criteria.
With respect to the existing congestion on Diamond Bar Boulevard, it should also be rated that the
EIR for the City's General Pian addressed the environmental impacts (including traffic) from
developing the General Man land uses. As indicated in the draft EIR for the proposed project 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 F.R.
4
1997 Existing
Future Conditions
Future Conditions
Conditions
Without Project
With Project
0stlCU
Intersection
OMCU
-�---
i ncncU
--
6M
PM
A
AM
EM
Diamond Bar/SR-60 ES
A/0.60
C/0.73
9/0.65
C/0.79
B10.66
C/0.80
Diamond Bar/SR-80 WB
8/0.67
B/0.70
C/0.72
C/0.76
C/0.73
C/0.77
Diamond Bar/Gold Rush
B/0.63
A/0.52
B/0.70
A/0.58
C/0.71
A/0.58
Diamond Bar/Grand Ave.
C/0.78
F/1.08
D/0.86
F/1.18
D/0.87
F/1.18
Diamond Bar/Sunset
C/0.74
C/0.7e
D/0.82
D/0.87
0/0.82
0/0.87
Crossing
Diamond Bar/Golden
D/0.84
810.65
E/0.92
C/0.71
E/0.92
C/0.72
Springs
Grand/Gdden Springs
D/O.a4
F/1.05
E/0.93
F/1.16
E/0.93
F/1.16
Summitridge/Grand
8/0.66
B/0.67
B/0.70
C/0.73
8/0.70
C/0.73
Diamond BaKTin Drive
A/1.6
A/1.0
A/2.2
A/1.4
A13A
A/3.9
seconds of delay'
Seconds of delay was used in the analysis, since the inwSecdon is currently unsignalized. The proposed
project is responsible for installing a signal and a southbound left turn lane as mitigation.
As shown in the analysis summarized above, with the exception of the intersection of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and Tin Drive, the proposed project would not change the level of service at any of the
intersections analyzed when it is fully occupied. Although the project traffic would incrementally
change the calculated Intersection Capacity Utilization (ICU) rates by no more than 0.01, this
increment was not considered significant using the City and County's significance criteria.
With respect to the existing congestion on Diamond Bar Boulevard, it should also be rated that the
EIR for the City's General Pian addressed the environmental impacts (including traffic) from
developing the General Man land uses. As indicated in the draft EIR for the proposed project 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 F.R.
4
FROM : BONTERRA CONSULTING
VMW No. 52267
At the April 28, 1998 Planning Commission hearing, City staff also noted that traffic D amoes
conducted by the City have shown that approximately 40 percent of the traffic through
Bar eouievard/Grand Avenue intersection during peak periods is transient traffic moving through
the city of Diamond Bar. mostly to and from the cities of Chino Hills and Chino. Literally thousands
of dwelling units in these adjacent cities are generating the transient traffic, and this percentage
Of transient traffic is expected to increase in the future as these areas continue SII not signild out. Traffic
ficantly lcantly affect
from the proposed 130 dwelling units at the VTTM No. 52267 project
site the transient traffic conditions.
Comment 3
Potential traffic safety impacts to Goldrush Drive from proposed Project traffic exiting the VTT M No.
52257 project site via Highorest Drive.
overview: The oommentor was concerned about the impacts to traffic safety from residents of the
proposed project choosing to exit the site via Highcrest Drive, which could then require new
residents to use Goldrush Drive to reach Diamond Bar Boulevard.
Response 3
This issue was addressed during the EIR traffic analysis and traffic engineer's response to
comments that were provided at the September 23, 1997 Planning Commission public healing.
Please refer to these documents (provided to the Planning Commission as part of its agenda
packet for the February 10, 1998 public hearing) for further information on this concern.
in summary, the traffic engineer's response noted that the traffic study projected that approximately
10 percent of the daily trips from the site (10 percent of 1,242 average daily trips, or 124 trips)
would use the Highcrest Drive extension access to the project site_ Most of these trips were
assumed to be directed southerly from this location, with destinations of Pantera Park and the
future Pantera School. The trips would not be expected to use Gold Rush Drive to reach Diamond
Bar Boulevard, since this route is not as direct as using the onsite Tin Drive route to Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
Residents of the proposed project are not likely to use the Highcrest Drive exit to get to Diamond
Bar Boulevard because it is a much more circuitous route than to use the road system within the
nd Bar Boulevard. The trips exiting the project site via
project site which (inks directly to Diamo
Highcrest Drive aro expected
to have destinations to the southeast of the site, primarily the future
school on Panters Drive and Pantera Park. These trips and destinations were addressed in the
traffic studies referenced above.
Comment 4
Traffic safety impacts from staging of construction equipment at the existing terminus of Highcrest
Drive.
C3ygryisw: The commentor expressed concern over the Planning Commission's concurrence at
on
its April 28, 1998 meeting with the applicant's request to allow staging of grading equipment
the project site just west of the existing terminus of Highcrest Drive instead of requiring that staging
occur onsite adjacent to Diamond Bar Boulevard.
5
VT71N No. 52267
Response 4
In order to accomplish this staging location requested by the applicant, construction equipment
would have to travel through residential areas along Highcrest Drive for the initial equipment travel
to the site; construction personnel would use this route daily for approximately 11 months: four
months associated with grading activities and seven months associated with construction activities.
In requesting the Planning Commission's approval of this request, the applicant's engineer noted
that the ging could be more expediently (and efficiently) completed by working from the higher
elevations to the lower elevations onsite, as opposed to staging equipment along Diamond Bar
Boulevard, cutting through the approximate 30 -foot -high slope bank at the proposed extension of
Tin Drive into the site, and conducting the grading operation from the lower elevations to the upper
elevations.
With respect to the traffic safety considerations of the Planning Commission's recommendation to
the City Council that the applicant's request be granted, tradeoffs must be considered. Staging
construction equipment along Diamond Bar Boulevard would result in daily traffic disruption and
related traffic safety considerations until the cut through the slope bank is completed and an
alternate staging area is constructed onsite adjacent to Diamond Bar Boulevard. Once the staging
area has been established, construction personnel would use Diamond Bar Boulevard for ingress
and egress to the grading operation.
In practice, it is inefficient to conduct grading from lower elevations of a site to the upper elevations;
use of a lower elevation staging area could require more time to complete onsite grading, resulting
in greater dust and other construction emissions than would occur from use of a staging area in
the upper elevations of the site. AN else being equal, shorter grading projects will generate less
dust and other constucbon equipment operating emissions than longer grading programs. Please
also refer to Response to Comment 9, below, for further discussion of the air quality emissions and
health effects from project grading and construction.
Comment 5
Loss of open space and visual impacts from development of VTTM No. 52267.
QMrV w Commentors generally opposed the loss of natural hillside areas and views of these
undeveloped open spaces from adjacent areas. Commentors noted that the VTTM No. 52267 site
is one of the most visible hillside areas in the City; development of the proposed project would
replace these open space views with views of residential development
Response 5
This Concern was raised at the September 23, 1997 and February 10, 1998 Planning Commission
Public hearings. As noted in the Responses to Comments documents for each of these hearings
(provided to the Planning Commission in its agenda packet at the subsequent hearings), Section
3.5, AestheticWisual Resources, of the draft EIR (page 3.5-10) acknowledges that the visual
impacts of Vmk4xoposed project are significant and unavoidable. However; the draft EIR also notes
that the City's General Plan designates the VT -TM No. 52287 site for development of up to 130
dwelling units. Development. of this area was considered in the General Plan and the General Plan
EIR and found to be acceptable. While the current vacant status of this site would be changed by
development, the proposed project is consistent with the City's General Plan which designates this
site for residential development.
6
FROM : BONTERRA CONSOLTiNG
VTTM No. 52267
Comment 6
Potential school overcrowding from development of the proposed project.
Overview: Commentors noted that schools are currently overcrowded and that development of the
proposed project would make this problem worse.
Response 6
This concern was raised at the September 23, 1997 Planning Commission public hearing. The
Response to Comment document provided to the Planning Commission in the agenda packet for
its February 10, 1998 meeting addresses this issue. Phase refer to this document for additional
information.
In summary, the students that would be generated by development of the VTTM No. 52267 site
were anticipated in the City's General Plan and EIR because up to 130 dwelling units are
designated by the General Plan for this site. The applicant has met with the Pomona School
District to ensure that adequate capacity would be available for students generated from the
project.. The school district has indicated that such capacity would be available. Development
projects are required by state law to pay school fees to offset the impacts from new students. The
current feed is 51.93 per residential building square foot. Assuming an average of 3,000 square
feet per residence on the proposed project site, these fees would total approximately $753,000
($1.93 x 3,000 sq.ft. X 130 units). The applicant is therefore required to pay applicable fees to the
Pomona School District to mitigate its school impacts. Pantera School is currently under
construction and will be open when the first residents would begin occupying homes on the VTTM
No. 52267 site (early year 2000).
Comment 7
Clarification of numbers of oak trees and walnut trees to be impacted and replacement ratios.
OOv _iew The commentor noted that the numbers of oak and walnut trees to be preserved was
twice the amount of trees to be removed. He cited the preservation of 820 oak trees and the loss
of 410 oak trees as being confusing. Clarification was requested.
Response 7
The commentor has misinterpreted the draft EIR's reference to loss of a certain number of trees
and the recommended mitigation for these impacts by planting of replacement trees at specified
ratios between tow Iola and replacement trees.
The methodology used in the draft EIR with respect to determining the numbers of trees that would
be removed by development, was to count the number of two within the limits of grading for the
VTTM No. 52267 development area. This approach determined that 410 individual coast live oak
trees and 30 walnut trees within the coast live oak woodland would be lost to development. The
draft EIR recommends that impacted trees be replaced at a ratio of no less than 2 to 1 ratio:
application of this ratio results in a minimum requirement for 820 replacement trees for the loss of
410 oak trees and 60 walnut trees for the loss of 30 walnuts. Due to the large number of oak trees
throughout the VTTM No. 52267 site in the approximate 274.3 acres not proposed for
development, the total number of oak and walnut trees on the VTTM No. 52267 site has not been
determined.
7
FROM : R NTEPPA CONSULTING
VTTM No. 52267
It should also be noted that the Planning Commission directed that the minimum 2:1 mitigation ratio
specified in the draft EIR be revised as follows:
• oaks with trunk diameters less than 36 inch", 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.
If adopted by the City Council, use of this revised mitigation ratio program would result in
substantially more than 820 trees to replace the 410 oaks that would be lost to development.
Additionally, the Planning Commission directed that existing trees be transplarrted. where feasible,
as part of the mitigation program.
Comment 8
Potential impacts of drainage alterations and site runoff from project development area.
Overview: Commentors were concerned with the potential impacts of altering natural drainage
patterns and also questioned where the runoff from the site would be discharged once the site was
fully developed.
Response 8
As noted in Section 3.2, Water Resources, of the draft EIR on pages 3.2-2 through 3.24,
development of the site would fill in some local drainage courses within the development area to
create residential lots. The use of subdrains in these drainage anus would ensure that the natural
flows from upstream areas is passed through the site as it did prior to grading. The developed
areas of the site would be graded to direct stormweter from development areas into the streets,
where it would be conveyed along gutters to stormwater collection systems beneath the streets.
The oollected stormwater from the onsite development areas would then be conveyed by the
stormwater system into urban depollutwt basins constructed as part of the proposed project, and
from there into existing stormwater conveyance systems in Diamond Bar Boulevard operated by
the Los Angeles County Flood Control District.
The manufactured slope areas of the project site would drain into Sycamore Canyon or into the
unnamed canyon to the north of the site and south of Goldrush Drive. The quality of runoff from
the manufactured slopes would potentially contain residue from slope landscaping (such as
fertilizers) that would not be present in runoff from the natural grain. However, the volume of the
slope runoff compared to the volume of runoff from natural upstream tribAary areas is expeded
to be relatively low and diluted by the upstream runoff so that water quality in the receiving
drainages would not be significantly impacted. The volume of runoff from the manufactured slope
areas would not be significantly different than the runoff volume from the natural stupes that now
enters these drainages.
Development of the site would not result in an increase in the rate of stormwater runoff from the
site after development in comparison to the runoff rate from the natural site conditions (see Table
3.3-B on page 3.2-4 of the draft EIR). Although there would be an increase in the amount of
impermeable surfaces within the development area compared to the permeability of the natural
conditions, the stomswater collection system within the proposed project design will slow the runoff
as it is transported through the onsite stormwater system sufficiently to ensure that the rate of
discharge after development is equal to or less than the pre -development conditions. This
requirement is a standard condition of urban stormweter systems in the City and throughout
8
FROM : BONTERRA CONSULTING
VTTM Mo. 52267
southem California. In summary, the quality and quantity of runoff from the site after development
is not expected to result in significant impacts to natural drainage flows or surface water quality.
Comment 9
Potential health effects from fugitive dust emissions during the construction period.
Overview= Commentors referred to the air quality analysis in the draft EIR which indicated that the
projected amount of dust (PM10) emissions from site grating would substantially exceed the South
Coast Air Quality Management District's (SCAQMD) significance criterion of 130 pounds per day
after use of mitigation measures. Commentors were concerned about the potential health effects
of these emissions on residents adjacent to the VTTM No. 52267 site.
Response 9
The comments concerning dust emissions from site grading and development were raised at the
February 10 and April 28, 1998 Planning Commission public hearings. Response to Comments
documents addressing this air quality concern were prepared and provided to the Planning
Commission as part of its agenda packet for the March 24, 1998 public hearing; the City Council
received a complete set of Response to Comments documentation as part of the agenda packet
for the July 7, 1998 public hearing.
The responses that were prepared to address the Planning Commission public hearing testimony
on this issue are also applicable to this comment at the July 7, 1998 City Council hearing. In
summary, the draft EIR (see page 3.7-15) analysis concludes that atter mitigation, the air quality
construction dust emissions (technically referred to as PM10) would exceed the 150 pounds per
day SCAQMD significance criterion, and would therefore be considered significant.
Attempting to correlate the projected exceedence of the dust significance threshold from site
grading over an approximate three to four month grading period with adverse health effects to local
residents would require an analytical approach to analysis of construction dust emissions that is
not required by the SCAQNID for CEQA air quality analyses. There are many variables that would
have to be considered in any such analysis, such as the projected daily local climatic conditions
during site grading, the amount of earth moving that would occur each day, the types of equipment
involved each day, the sensitivity of local residents to dust particles etc. Additionally, the period
over which dust emissions are generated during construction is relatively short, typically precluding
any meaningful analysis of the effects, of the dust emissions on the health of local residents.
It should also be noted that exceedance of the SCAQMD threshold does not mean that human
health would necessarily be affected adversely, only that such exceedsirices could result in regional
air quality standards being violated if the threshold was exceeded regularly throughout the region
over a number of years. The SCAQMD is currently updating its CEQA Air Quaffty Handbook
(expected to be adopted by and of year 1998). No modifications have been made to the
methodologies for projecting dust emissions or to the 150 pounds per day significance criterion
since the draft EIR for the proposed project was prepared.
The City Council can decide to approve the proposed VTTM No. 52267 project with unavoidable
significant air quality impacts by adopting a statement of overriding considerations as provided by
CEQA-
9
FROM : BONTERRA CONSULTING
VTTM No. 52267
Comment 10
Safety of cut vs. fill slopes created during site grading.
QMltele : Commentors expressed concern over the stability of the cut and fiB slopes created by
site grading and the safety of these engineered conditions for future project residents, as well as
residents in neighborhoods adjacent to the site.
Response 10
As noted in the geotechnical analysis that was included in the draft EIR, the recommended
engineering components of the proposed project design meet the applicable requirements of the
City's Building Department as we0 as the Uniform Building Code. The City's geological engineering
consultant has reviewed the proposed grading design, including the recommended remedial shear
keys and buttress fills, and has determined that they exceeded the factors of safety required by
the City. Regular inspection of the grading operation will be conducted by the City, as well as the
applicant's geotechnical engineer, thereby ensuring that conditions encountered in the field are
addressed appropriately to maintain the necessary margins of safety for manufactured slopes.
FROM : BONTERRR CONSUL'ING RHONE NO. c =y='' Hu _"
VTTM No. 52267
Part Two
Diamond Bar City Council
Public Hearing of July 7, 1998
Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267
Conditional Use Permit No. 98-03
Oak Tree Permit No. 80-1
Environmental impact Report No. 9702 (SCH 970031005)
Responses to Comments -continued
Comment 11
Cumulative biological impacts of the proposed project with other projects previously approved or
currently in early stages of entitlement processing -
Overview: w: The commentor expressed the opinion that cumulative biological impacts of the
proposed project should be considered in light of other approved or pending projects in the City.
Response 11
The commentor referenced page 3.3-21 of the Biological Resources section of the EIR which
discussed the cumulative impacts, to biological resources from development of the VTTM No.
52267 site and stated that the EIR should analyse the cumulative effects. The EIR analysis did
consider other projects in the general vicinity of the project site that have either been previously
approved (and were not yet built) and those that were known to be in the planning stages. These
projects included Pantera Park (not under development when the draft EIR was prepared), a 20
unit single family project at Highcrest Drive and Armitos Place, and a 109 room business hotel on
Golden Springs and Copley Place (see page 3.6-8). These projects were used in the EIR traffic
analysis and were considered in other sections, as applicable, in considering cumulative impacts.
The VTTM No. 52267 site is one of the largest undeveloped sites within the City limits. The only
larger site is Planning Area 1, an approximate 720 acre site located south of the Pomona Freeway
and west of Chino Hills Parkway, along the eastern edge of the City of Diamond Bar. This area
is also known as the Tres Hermanos area. Most of Planning Area 1 has been used for cattle
grazing for many years, and little natural biological resources remain. Since the VTTM No. 52267
site is surrounded by developed single family uses, there are no direct connections to the Tres
Hermanos area or other open space areas adjacent to the site (such as the existing Sycamore
Canyon Natural Park, located west of Diamond Bar Boulevard). The retention of the majority of
the VTTM No. 52267 site in natural open space (approximately 273.9 acres) offsets the project-
specific
rojectspecific and cumulative biological impacts from development of the approximate 65 acres proposed
for development. As indicated in the EIR on page 3.3-22, the loss of biological resources on the
65 acre site would not result In significant cumulative biological impacts.
Comment 12
Cumulative effect of other projects and the proposed project on open space city wide.
Overview- The commentor noted that the EIR should discuss the cumulative impact of the project
and other projects in the City on the open space resources throughout the City.
I
FROM : BONTERRA CONSULTING PHONE NO. . 714 444 -459y tiu 9. •. = - _ - •• _ -
VTTM No. 52267
Response 12
This comment has apparently not considered the context of the proposed development area of the
VTTM No. 52267 site and the broader context of the project site within this area of the City_ As
noted in response to comment 11 above, 273.9 acres of the 339.3 acro site will remain in natural
open space and be dedicated to the City. The only other open space area of any significant size
in this portion of the City is the 720 acre Tres Hermans area, which is not contiguous to the VTTM
No. 52267 site. There are no development plans for Tres Hermans at this time and none are
expected in the immediate future. Additionally, as noted in the EIR on page 3.424 under the
heading of "Loss of Open Space", the VTTM No. 52267 site is within designated Planning Area 2,
Sub Area A of the Diamond Bar General Plan, which allows for the construction of up to 130 lots
on the project site. Considering all these factors, the loss of 65 acres from development of the
proposed project would not result in significant cumulative impacts to open space areas in the City.
Comment 13
Clarify the EIR analysis that indicates that the proposed project is inconsistent with provisions of
the general plan related to visual and aesthetic resources.
Overview: The commentor has quoted two sentences from page 3.5-7 of the EIR which refer to the
consistency of the proposed project with the Hillside Management Ordinance and has asserted that
the EIR indicates that the proposed project is also inconsistent with the Land Use and Resources
Elements of the General Plan.
Response 13
The commentor has not quoted the complete discussion in the EIR on page 3.5-7 concerning the
consistency of the proposed project with the Hillside Management Ordinance. The complete EIR
statement is as follows:
"The proposed project is consistent with some provisions of the ordinance (e -g., general use
of landlord grading techniques) and inconsistent with others. The most significant inconsistency
relates to the visibility of the proposed project along the prominent ridgelines of the site. The
project site is visible from many locations in the City, both south and north of the development
location. As shown in the visual simulations, the homes in the proposed development will be very
visible along the southem and northern edges of the site. In addition, the large engineered fill
slopes will also be visible, further impacting the views of the site. Approval of the project will
require the Planning Commission and City Council to make appropriate findings as specified in
Section 8 of the ordinance."
The last sentence of the EIR analysis repeated above regarding the Section 8 findings would allow
for the project approval under these circumstances, and thereby overcome the noted
inconsistencies.
The oommentor's assertion that the EIR indicates that the project is also inconsistent with the Land
Use and Resource Elements of the General Plan is also taken out of context. While the EIR does
indicate on page 3.5-6 that the proposed project is "inconsistent with the General Plan Resources
Element strategies for protection of ridges and associated views from development", the next
sentence in the EIR states "However, the General Plan Land Use Element describes a 130 dwelling
unit project at this location, suggesting that such a project would be permitted once appropriate
development approvals were obtained." This apparent dichotomy is not unusual between elements
of General Plans which are inherently single purpose in their approach to specifying goals and
06
FROM : BONTERRA CONSULTING PHONE NO. : Ila aaa 9599 --
VT rm No. 52267
policies. The General Plan Land Use Element and zoning ordinance provisions allow for the
development of the VTTM No. 52267 site with up to 130 dwelling units. These provisions would
govern the goals and policies of other General Plan elements, and when coupled with the
requested Conditional Use Permit for compliance with the Hillside Management Ordinance, would
W the stage for Council certification of the EIR and approval of the proposed project with adoption
of appropriate CEQA and related land use findings.
Comment 14
The EIR listing of significant unavoidable impacts for aesthetics, air quality, and noise is
incomplete.
The commentor references statements from the EIR related to general plan consistency,
archaeological resources: and tong term Implications and offers an opinion that the EIR's findings
regarding significant unavoidable impacts is incomplete.
Response 14
The commentor's reference to the EIR's statement on page 3.5-6 that there is an inconsistency
between the proposed project and the General Plan Resources Element strategies for protection
of ridges and associated views from development is addressed in Response 13 above.
The commentor's opinion that page 3.9-1 EIR indicates that there "has not been a full review of the
site for archaeological resources' has overlooked the conclusion by the archaeologist on page 3.9-
5 of the EIR which states: The following recommendations are provided to identify and evaluate
any significant prehistoric remains within both sites, and to reduce any adverse impacts to these
resources to a level that is considered less than significant.
The EIR discussion then lists six mitigation measures that must be followed during site
development to insure that any archaeological resources that might be buried within the proposed
project development area are evaluated and, if appropriate, recovered. One of these mitigation
measures, as is common practice in Diamond Bar and many other jurisdictions, expressly
authorizes the onsite archaeological monitor present during construction grading to "temporarily
divert or direct grading to allow time to evaluate any exposed prehistoric or historic material'
(measure 5, page 3.9-6).
It should be noted that the approach used by the EIR archaeologists (who are certified by the
Society of Professional Archaeologists- SOPA) is standard in CEQA documents. Since
archaeological resources are typically buried, it is impractical to dig up a site looking for potential
remains. Remnants of significant archaeological resources (such as villages, or burial locailons)
can sometimes be seen during a site walkover survey, depending on the extent of vegetative cover.
In this case, .the literature search for previously recorded sites, and the walkover survey did not
indicate the potential presence of archaeological resources within the development area of VTTM
No. 52267 (EIR, page 3.9-1), although the vegetative cover precluded a detailed walkover. Under
these conditions, which are typical of development projects throughout Southern California,
professional archaeologists have taken the approach of specifying mitigation measures that provide
for continuing examination for cultural resources during site preparation and grading.
The commentor's opinion that the EIR listing of aesthetics, air quality, and noise impacts as being
the significant unavoidable impacts of the proposed project is incomplete because it does not also
reference the general plan and archaeological resources impacts overlooks the purpose of this
section. The purpose of the section is to recap only those significant impacts that "would result
3
BONTERRA CONSULTING PHONE NO. : 714 444 9599 Aug. 13 1998 08:51AM P2
VTTM No. 52267
even with the implementation of feasible mitigation measures" (EIR, page 4-1, opening paragraph).
Impacts discussed in the various sections of the EIR, including those noted in this comment 14,
are not listed in this section because the specified mitigation measures would reduce the identified
impacts to less than significant levels. Each section of the EIR includes a listing of the criteria that
were used to determine whether an impact is significant or not after mitigation as required by
CEQA. As discussed in the EIR sections related to Aesthetics, Air Quality , and Noise, the
application of mitigation measures would not eliminate or reduce the impacts of the proposed
project on these analysis topics to less than significant levels.
Comment 15
The Project Altematives section of the EIR is deficient because it did not evaluate an altemative
project design that does not extend beyond the boundaries of Lot 6.
Overview: The commentor states an opinion that the alternatives analysis is deficient by
referencing EIR statements for the No Project Alternative (addressing development within Lot 6)
that indicate that fewer impacts to landlord/topography and biological resources would result from
this alternative in comparison with the originally proposed project.
Response 15
The purpose of the aftematives analysis in an EIR is to provide decision makers with an analysis
of how the impacts identified for a proposed project might be reduced through the consideration
of "reasonable altematives" that incorporate refinements to the proposed project design or
proposed uses (CEQA Guidelines Section 15126 (d)j. The commentoes, reference to statements
in the Alternatives section appear to be Concurring with the impact analysis findings that the No
Project Alternative would generate fewer impacts to biological resoumes and landform alteration
than would the proposed project. The EIR aitematives analysis also indicates that the No Project
Alterative would result in significant impacts to views from ridgetop development similar to the
originally proposed project.
Comment 16
The Design Alternative discussion in the Project Alternatives section of the EIR is preferable to the
proposed project because there would be less grading.
Overview, The commentor notes that the Design Altemative discussion in the EIR Project
Altematives section indicates that construcWn of a 76 lot subdivision would eliminate the need for
two fills, thereby reducing the onsite fill from 1,8000,000 cubic yards for the proposed project to
400,000 cubic yards for the Design Altemetive. The commentor then states that a goal of the City
should be to "prevent massive fill projects which create inherently long-term instability under a
housing development'.
Response 16
The commentor has overlooked a significant adverse impact of this Design Alternative stated on
page 5-9 of the EIR : the elimination of the two onsite fills, would require that 1,400,000 cubic yards
of fill material be exported from the site to an unspecified receiving kxmtkm. This material would
be generated by cutting onsite ridges to form building pads and roads. As noted to the EIR
analysis of this alterative, the exportation of this excess material from the site would generate
significant traffic, air quality, and noise impacts that would not occur if the material were used onsite
for development of the proposed project.
FROM : BONTERRA CONSLILT I NG PHONE NO. : 71 a 444 z4t�': Huy. - - • • -•-
VTTM No. 52267
The commentor appears to believe that engineered fills are "inherently" unstable. Hillside
development in Diamond Bar and adjacent communities has been developed u�� cutting
and
filling grading techniques that are typically balanced onsite to prevent the impacts from
and related
of excess soil material. The City's engineering staff have developed design
margins of safety for cut and fill slopes that are sufficient to protect public health and safety and
which conform to other requirements such as seismic safety. There is no evidence cited by the
commentor that these techniques have been ineffective in providing stable conditions for housing
development in the City.
Comment 17
The proposed project design incorporates fill designs that conflict with the provisions of the Public
Health and Safety Element of the General Plan.
Qyga iew. The commentor cites Objective 1.1 of the Public Health and Safety element as providing
a basis for the City Council to require that the proposed project be modified to reduce the amount
Of fill.
Response 17
As noted in Response 16 above, development in the hillside areas of Diamond Bar has traditionally
involved grading techniques that cut ridgelines and use this material to fill canyons and drainages
to create building pads and roads. This process is carefully regulated and inspected by the City's
Public Works engineering staff and geotechnical engineering consultants retained by project
applicants. Some of the grading in hillside development areas is required to remediate unsafe
natural conditions such as landslides or other unstable conditions. The referenced objective
appears to be intended to insure that the City continue to regulate hillside development to insure
the protection of public health and safety and to minimize property damage.
Comment 18
The City does not have the authority to lift map and deed restrictions to allow development outside
Lot 6 of the VTTM No. 52267 site.
Overview: The commentor notes that the EIR contains references to map and deed restrictions and
states an opinion that "said restrictions cannot be unilaterally lifted by the City".
Response 18
The references in the EIR to map and deed restrictions used the terms interchangeable in error_
All references in the EIR to map and deed restrictions are hereby corrected to refer only to Map
restrictions. The EIR's terminology is intended for the lay reader and should not be considered as
a legal interpretation. The City Attorney has addressed this topic a memorandum to the Diamond
Bar City Council.
Comment 19
The proposed VTTM No. 52267 project should not be approved because the EIR is inadequate.
Overview: The commentor believes the EIR is inadequate because it does not provide a "proper
analysis of growth -inducing impacts, nor has there been any reasonable attempt at 8 cumulative
impact analysis" with respect to open space and grading impacts.
FROM : BONTER.RA CONSULTING PHONE NO. : '14 44.=- 2--- -,u9. — .. _ _ _ _ _ __
V77M No. 52267
Response 19
The EIR does provide an analysis of growth inducing impacts on pages 4-2 and 4-3. The analysis
concludes that the proposed project is not growth inducing because the project site is specifically
referenced in the General Plan for development of up to 130 dwelling units. The existing zoning
for the site would also allow the proposed development and the requested Conditional Use Permit
would allow for site development under the City's Hillside Management Ordinance. Further, the
General Plan EIR that was certified by the City analyzed the potential impacts of the land uses
described in the General Plan, including this site with up to 130 dwelling units, and specified
appropriate mitigation measures for all significant impacts.
With respect to the commentor's assertion that the EIR discussion of cumulative open apace and
grading impacts is inadequate, the commentor has not provided any specific information regarding
such Inadequacies. The cumulative impacts of project development on open space areas in the
City are specifically described in Section 3.4 Land Use (page 3.424) and in Section 3.5
AestheticsNisual Resources (page 3.5-9) of the EIR_ The General Plan designation of the site for
development of up to 130 dwelling units is a key factor in this determination.
The grading impacts of the proposed project are described in Section 3.1 Earth Resources (pages
3.1-3 through 3.1-5) of the EIR. The analysis concludes that these impacts are not cumulatively
significant, primarily because development on the project site is consistent with the City's General
Plan and Hillside Management Ordinance, and the City's engineering requirements for hillside
projects will insure that building areas are safe for development.
The following environmental comments were submitted by Councilwoman O'Connor in a
followup to the July 7, 1998 City Council meeting and responded to below.
Comment 2b
Whose responsibility is it to grade the pad for the water tanks?
Response 2b
The Walnut Valley Water District has two planned water reservoir sites within the proposed
development area for VTTM No. 52267. These water reservoirs (tanks) have been designated for
locations at elevations 1,050 feet above mean sea level (mst) and 1,200 feet msl. These
reservoirs are not needed to serve the project; they are needed to meet the District's long -tern
water service requirements.
The water district has a planned water reservoir at elevation 1,050 feet located within the VTTM
No. 52267 development area. A 2.4 -acre pad site is a part of the proposed project site plan and
is shown as Lot 131. The second planned water reservoir would be at elevation 1,2000 feet. To
accommodate the maximum number of dwelling units designated for the site (130 units), the project
applicant has indicated a desire for this reservoir to be sited in a different location. This alternative
location for the elevation 1,200 foot reservoir would be within the boundaries of VTTM No. 62267.
but outside of the limits of grading for the project and in an area identified in the General Plan to
be set aside for dedicated open space. To implement a reservoir at an alternative location within
the property at elevation 1,200, an access road would need to be constructed and a pad graded;
it is expected that the pad would be of similar size as for the elevation 1,050 feet reservoir. The
proposed alternative location for the water reservoir is depicted in the draft EIR as Figure 2-7
following page 2-4.
6
FROM : BONTERRA CONSULTING PHONE NO. : = -U9.
VTTM No. 52267
Because neither of the water reservoirs are required to serve the project, the Walnut Valley Water
District would be the lead agency responsible for the environmental review associated with and
implementation of the reservoirs.
Comment 2c
What would the impact be to Open 5p9c9 for the siting of these tanks?
Response 2c
Because the elevation 1,050 foot water reservoir is within the development footprint for the
proposed project, no new impacts, including effects on open space, beyond those identified in the
draft EIR would be expected.
With respect to the requested relocation of the elevation 1,200 feet water reservoir, the alternative
location is within the boundaries of VTTM No. 52267 but outside of the development boundaries
and in an area to be dedicated for public open space. Public infrastructure imprawernentsrfadlities
can be permitted by the City of Diamond Bar in open space areas. Should the proposed project
be approved by the City of Diamond Bar and once the remainder of the site is dedicated to the City
for open space, the City (as property owner) would need to work with the Walnut Valley Water
District to determine If such a use is appropriate. As noted above and in the draft EIR (see page
2-4), separate environmental review would be required prior to the construction of the elevation
1.200 foot water reservoir.
Comment 4
Please explain the changes in visual impact by the residential lots staying in Lot 6 (i.e., the six
homes on Diamond Bar Boulevard, the elevation of Highcmet, etc- as alluded to at the July 7,1998
public meeting).
Response 4
The project applicant has submitted for review and evaluation by the City an alternative site plan
that confines all development and development -related acfivitiea within the boundaries of Lot S.
Referred to as the Lot 6 Alternative, this alternative site plan assumes the development of 53
residences with one point of ingress/egress occurring from Diamond Bar Boulevard. Similar to the
comparative environmental evaluation prepared for the EIR Project Alternative (120 residences),
an environmental evaluation comparing the potential impacts of the Lok 6 Alternative to the
proposed project has been prepared and has been provided to the City Council under separate
ever. This comparative evaluation addresses all environmental topics analyzed in the draft EIR,
including aesthetics.
Comments 5a and Sb
If this project is limited to Lot 6, would the grading be balanced onsite or would there be a need to
export dirt offsite because there would be less fill needed? What impad would that have?
Responses 5a and 5b
The Lot 6 Alternative would require approximately 931,000 cubic yards of cut and fill, to be
balanced on the project site. The proposed project would require approximately 1.8 million cubic
yards of cut and fill, also balanced on the site. The Lot 6 Alternative would therefore result in a
FROM : BONTERRA CONSULTING PHONE NO. : 714 444 9599 Hug.
VT TIW No. 52267
reduction in grading activities of 869,000 cubic yards Of Cut and fill (or approximately 4tpercent).theCity
This issue is discussed in greater detail in the Lot 6 comparative evaluation provided
Council under separate cover.
Comment 8
Can the EIR Project Alternative be made to conform with the City's hillside management
requirements?
Response 8
The City of Diamond Bar General Plan Resource Management Element establishes strategies for
effectively managing local natural resources to prevent waste, destruction, or neglect. Strategies
outlined in the Resource Management Element applicable to preserving significant visual Twourees
which are within, or are visible from the City of Diamond Bar with an emphasis on the preservation
of remaining natural hillside areas are summarized below:
• Develop regulations for the protection of ridgellnes, slope areas, canyons, and hilltops.
Require contour or landform grading, clustering of development, or other means to
minimize visual and environmental impacts to ridgelines or prominent slopes.
• Require that dwelling units and struplant materials hillsidetures within
as to use ridgetines and landscapepe ppas a backdrop for the structures and the
structures themselves to provide maximum concealment of cut Stopes.
• Preserve to the maximum extent feasible existing vegetation within undeveloped hillside
areas.
Pursue the preservation of areas within Diamond Bar and its Sphere of Influence of
outstanding scenic, historic, and cultural value.
• To the greatest extent possible, require that dwelling units, structures and landscaping be
sited in a manner which:
- Protects views for existing development
- Retains opportunities for views from dwellings
- Preserves or enhances vistas, particularly those seen from public places
- Preserves mature trees, natural hydrology, native plant materials, and areas of visual
interest
- Uses grading permit procedures to ensure that site designs for development Proposals
for hillside areas conform to the natural terrain, and consider the visual aspects.
The Diamond Bar Hillside Management Ordinance implements the General Pian provisions noted
above and regulates hillsides with slopes over 10 percent. The VTTM No. 52267 site has slopes
that exceed 10 percent and therefore must comply with the ordinance requirements, unless the City
grants a conditional use permit to waive/modify compliance with the ordinance. The applicant has
requested a conditional use permit to allow for modifications from the Hillside Management
Ordinance. Standards and guidelines within the ordinance are used by the City to determine
8
FROM : BONTE-PRA CONSULTING PHONE N0. : 714 444 9599 Hug. -' • = - •• _
VTTM No. 52267
conformity with the ordinance as well as applicable requirements of the General Plan. Landform
grading is required to limit development impacts on natural terrain as well as ensure that
development areas follow natural landforms. Development on ridgetope that affect views requires
a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for approval_
As noted above regarding the strategies of the Resource Management Element, emphasis is
placed on the protection of "ridgelines, slope areas, canyons, and hilltops. Require contour or
landform grading, clustering of development, or other means to minimize visual and environmental
impacts to ridgelines or prominent slopes. The Land Use Element designates the VTTM No.
52267 site for up to 130 single-family detached dwelling units and states that these residences
should be "concentrated along the anticipated extension of Highcrest Drive..." The existing
tentative map also shows the development occurring in this area. This part of the VTTM No. 52267
contains ridgelines, canyons, and slopes.
Therefore, the proposed project, the Project Alternative, and the Lot 6 Alternative attempt to
balance the sometimes competing General Plan o4ectives of ridgeline and canyon preservation
with the land use designation which would allow for development of homes on an area containing
these natural topographical features. Each of these alternatives, as well as the other atterativea
in the draft EIR, incorporates many of the requirements of the Hdiside Management Ordinance but
none of these alternatives could accomplish all of the ordinance requirements.
Comment 4 of Page 2
EIR Volume I, Page 3.3-4 states that "A formal USACE and CDFG jurisdictional wetland delineation
of VTTM No. $2267 has not been prepared." Does this need to be done.
Response 4
A USACE and CDFO jurisdiction wetland delineation is not required for the City of Diamond Bar
to consider certification of the final EIR and approval of a project. The wetland delineations are
required to determine if a 404 permit will be required from the USACE and/or a streambed
alteration agreement is required from the CDFG. Therefore, the wetland delineations would be
prepared after City approval and as a part of the required documentation to support subsequent
approvals from these two regulatory agencies. Until action on the project is taken by the City, the
extent of potential wed" impacts cannot be completely determined. For example, should the City
approve an alternative to the project that would have a lesser effect on potential biological
resources (i.e., wetland resources, etc.), the extent of the resources under the jurisdiction of the
USAGE and CDFG cannot be finalized_
Comment 6 of Page 2
EIR Volume 1, Page 3.3-28 stages "Prior to determining the full extent of mitigation required for
coast live oak woodland irhpacts, a formai USACE and CDFG jurisdictional delineation shall be
conducted..." Has this been done?
Reaponse 5
As noted in Response 4 above with rasped to wetland resources, the extent of mitigation required
for coast live oak woodlands where these resources would be under the jurisdiction of the USACE
and CDFG cannot be fully determined until a project is approved by the City.
9
FROM : PONTEPRA CONSULTING PHONE NO. : 714 444 9599 Hug.
VTT'M No. 52287
Comment 6 of Page 2
EIR Volume 1, Page 3-4-4 states "A two acre area located at the southeast corner of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and Gold Rush Drive should be developed for public facility or commercial uses." What
is going to happen to this site? Will it become part of the dedicated Open Space? Can this be
considered a significant benefit to the City?
Response 6
The General Plan Land Use Pian does identify this two -acre site for public facility or commercial
uses- The two -acre area is located contiguous to Diamond Bar Boulevard and Gold Rush Drive
and is not a part of the proposed development area for the VTTM No. 52267 site. It would become
a part of the dedicated open space provided to the City,
Comment 8 of Page 2
EIR Volume 1, Page 3.4-20 states "A written agreement is required prior to allowing development
that may threaten, harm, or destroy existing wildlife habitats within areas of CDFG jurisdiction." Do
we have this written agreement?
Response 8
Please refer to the responses to Comments 5 and 6 above.
Comment 9 of Page 2
EIR Volume 1, Page 3.4-22 states "A separate environmental review would be needed prior to the
development of the elevation 1,200 feet reservoir at an alternative site." Whose responsibility is
it, SunCal or the Water District? Does this need to be done before we can approve this project?
Response 9
Please refer to the responses to Comments 2a and 2b, above. The environmental documentation
for the water reservoir site does not need to be prepared at this time. The water reservoirs are not
required to serve the project, and an alternative site is available within VTTM No. 52267 (outside
the proposed development area) to accommodate the elevation 1,200 foot reservoir.
Comment 10 of Page 2
EIR Volume 2, Department of Transportation Letter. "We recommend that larg"ized trucks be
limited to off-peak commute periods! Is this going to be adhered to?
Response 10
While limiting oonstruction-related large truck traffic to off-peak Commute periods may have
freeway traffic benefits, the City of Diamond Bar limits the hours of construction activities to
Monday to Friday between the hours of 7 a.m. to 6 p.m., and on Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 4 p.m.
Therefore, to restrict large truck traffic to off-peak hours would require trucks to leave their point
of origin to arrive at the site prior to 8 a.m. (but not commence construction) or leave their point of
origin after 9 a.m. to arrive at the site in the morning period. During the evening period, trucks
would have to leave the site to reach their pant of origin prior to 3 p.m. or leave at 7 p.m. This off-
peak scenario is therefore not practical for several reasons: 1) the EIR traffic study determined that
10
FROM : WNTERRA CONSULTING PHONE NO. : 714 444 9599 Aug. 12 1998 05:25PM P12
VTTM No. 52267
no significant traffic impacts would occur with the project; 2) many of the large trucks will stay on
the site and will not travel offlon the property on a daily basis; 3) noise impact could increase
because of potential truck traffic earlier in the morning, and 4), the construction period for
project could be longer to accommodate a potentially shorter work day. While all efforts will be
made to minimize construction traffic, particularly all large -,size trucks, the Caltrans
recommendation is not strictly feasible.
Comment 11 of Page 2
EIR Volume 2, Walnut Valley Water District Letter dated May 9, 1997, O., -we encourage the
installation of separate irrigation systems to common areas and green belts. in anticipation of future
supplies and facilities is this going to be done?
Response 11
Separate nonix table water lines are not required as a part of the project. The City will encourage
the applicant to coordinate with the water district. The use of non -potable water is encouraged if
the water district can provide such service to the site.
Comment 12 of Page 2
E1R Volume 2, Appendix B page 11, "Stripping. Excessive vegetation, debris and other deleterious
materials should be removed and wasted from the site prior to commencing removals and
replacement of compacted fills.' is this being done or is it all being stockpiled for revegetation?
If it is being done, how many truck trips will be involved?
Response 12
This statement is made in the geotechnical evaluation in reference to the removal and/or
recompaction of materials (e.g., alluvial soils) to satisfy the engineering requirements for the site_
The only"vegetetion" that would be expected to be relocated would be oak and walnut trees, where
feasible. Because cut and fill activities will balance on the site, the number of truck flips to remove
debris, etc. (e.g., materials that have been dumped on the site, etc.) are expected to minimal (km
than the average daily traffic associated with project buildout).
11