Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/1/1998Citti f1e1w �i C �� AGENDA Tuesday, September 1, 1998 5:00 p.m., Study Session CC -3 & 5 6:3 0 p.m. Regular Meeting South Coast Air Quality Management District Auditorium 21865 East Copley Drive 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 relating to agenda items, are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 860-2489 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation(s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. T ��I.l� AYD RAR Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking " 7F The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper in the Council Chambers.; . — . ✓ 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 Rem 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(x) 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 Rem 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. THIS MEETING 1S BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY CENTURY COMMUNICATIONS FOR MIRING ON CHANNEL 12, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE -BROADCAST ON THE SATURDAY FOLLOWING THE COUNCIL MEETING AT 10:00 A.M. ON CHANNEL 12. Next Resolution No. 98-51 Next Ordinance No. 04(1998) STUDY SESSION - 5:00 p.m. - Off -Site Parking CC - 3 & 5 1. CLOSED SESSION: 2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m., September 1, 1998 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor INVOCATION: Dr. James Price, Diamond Canyon Christian Church ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 3.1 Certificate of Recognition to Assembly Member Sally Havice for her efforts to stop SB 2010. 3.2 Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to Diamond Bar Senior Little League for becoming "Senior Little League World Series Champions." 3.3 COMMUNITY RECOGNITIONS: 3.3.1 Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Karen Escarcega for her civic -mindedness in maintaining public areas 3.4 Proclaiming September 19, 1998 as "Coastal Cleanup Day." 3.5 Proclaiming September 14-19, 1998 as "Pollution Prevention Week." 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 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Page 2 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 LABOR DAY HOLIDAY - September 7, 1998 - City Offices will be closed. Will reopen Tuesday, September 8, 1998 5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - September 8, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - September 10, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 15, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Special Meeting/Workshop of August 18, 1998 - Approve as submitted. Requested by: City Clerk 6.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated September 1, 1998 in the amount of $470,811.78. Requested by: City Manager 6.3 TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of July, 1998 - Approve and receive. Requested by: City Manager 6.4 EXONERATION OF CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF GRADING BOND (FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE, LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR 2720 SHADOW CANYON IN DIAMOND BAR - The Owner, Piermarini Enterprises, Inc. requests release of his Cash Deposit in Lieu of Grading Bond for improvement security as required in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. The City Engineer finds that the owner performed all work as shown on the grading plan on file with the City. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve exoneration of Cash Deposit in the amount of $9,234 posted with the City on December 2, 1996 and direct that the City Clerk notify the Owner and Surety of this action. Requested by: Engineering Division SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Page 3 6.5 REDUCTION OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT BONDS (FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE AND LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR TRACT NO. 47850 (DIAMOND BAR WEST PARTNERS) - Consider reduction in security amount (surety bond) commensurate with progress of work for various improvements required in accordance with the Subdivision Agreement for Tract No. 47850. The Subdivider has satisfactorily completed a substantial amount of the work and has requested a reduction in the amount of certain bonds be authorized. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the following reductions: (a) Bond No. 418853S - Grading Bond in the amount of $3,192,558 be reduced to $1,596,279; (b) Bond No. 4188545 - Sewer/Street S.D. in the amount of $1,365,892 be reduced to $682,946; (c) Bond No. 418855S - Domestic Water in the amount of $416,803.20 be reduced to $208,401.60; (d) Bond No. 418857S - Monumentation in the amount of $8,500 be reduced to $4,250; and (e) direct the City Clerk notify the Principal and Surety of these actions. Requested by: Engineering Division 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as may be heard. 7.1 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-1, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 95-2 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-2 - Warren Dolezal of The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, is requesting approval of a one-year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 in order to subdivide 2.55 acres into four lots for development of four detached single family residences. The request also includes an amendment to the Oak Tree Permit for the removal and replacement of one oak tree. The project site is located in the 3000 Block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane, at the terminus of Hawkwood Rd., adjacent to "The Country Estates." At the July 14, 1998 Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission recommended approval of the extension of time and the removal of one oak tree at a 20:1 replacement ratio. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Amended Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2, Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 and Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program. Requested by: Planning Division SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Page 4 8. OLD BUSINESS: 8.1 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 proposing to develop 130 detached single family residences on 65 acres of a 339.3 -acres site. The site is generally located east of D.B. Blvd. and north of Grand Ave., at the extension of Highcrest Dr. On August 18, 1998, Council conducted a public workshop on the referenced project. The public discussion centered on project alternatives. After the discussion, the public hearing was closed. The propose of the September 1, 1998 Council meeting is to allow Council to continue its discussion. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from staff, proceed with Council discussion and direct staff as appropriate. Requested by: Planning Division 8.2 CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE SUB- COMMITTEE. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Mayor make appointments as necessary. Requested by: Mayor 9. NEW BUSINESS: 9.1 AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT FROM OFFICE DEPOT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 - For FY 1998-99, the City budgeted $31,000 for purchase of office furniture and equipment. Due to Purchase Order limitations on the City Manager's ability to purchase more than $10,000 worth of items/services with one vendor, approval from the City Council is required to exceed the $10,000 threshold. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase of office furniture and equipment from Office Depot in an amount not to exceed $15,000. Requested by: City Manager RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Page 5 Next Resolution No. RA 98-08 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, VC/Ansari, C/Huff 2. PUBLIC COI4MENTS: "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 (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 - Special Meeting of August 18, 1998 - Approve as submitted. Requested by: Agency Secretary 3.2 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated September 1, 1998 in the amount of $40,563.25. Requested by: Executive Director 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None S. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Agency Members are for agency discussion. Direction may be given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a future meeting. AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS: 11. COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Council Members are for Council discussion. Direction may be SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Page 6 given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a future meeting. 12. ADJOURNMENT: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY /' CLER��`rK r�/} xy FROM:. DATE: ADDRESS: PHONE: ORGANIZATION: i AGENDA #/SUBJECT: V- I expect to address the Council on the subject a enda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above.' } r ignature L/+#] VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK I l FROM:1�c�0 �v'TZ_ DATE: 96 ADDRESS: b -r), N" . PHONE: ` ,9,9-52Z-2_ ORGANIZATION: It 0,4 AGENDA #/SUBJECT: ni 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 ZCLRK LrI DATE: PHONE: I vo 1 i90 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 Tn- r117V r`i =1z I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. 4, J& (4'-" Signature i� TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA #/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK A/z "nx/ I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item name and address as written above. Signature DATE: PHONE: Please have the Council Minutes reflect my DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL O "QUICK CAP" MINUTES SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 STUDY SESSION - 5:15 p.m. - Off -Site Parking AQMD Room CC - 8 Present: Council Members Ansari, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Chang and Mayor Herrera. Council Memher Huff 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; Linda Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director; Lynda Burgess, City Clerk; Kellee Fritzal, Assistant to the City Manager; Ann Haraksin, Administrative Assistant; Rose Manela, Asst. Civil Engineer; Steve Tamaya, Communications & Marketing Coordinator; Capt. Richard Martinez, Walnut Sheriff; Lt. Dave Stothers, Walnut Sheriff and Deputy Tim Perkins, Walnut Sheriff. Regarding Motion #1, Option #1, Capt. Martinez and Lt. Stothers responded to C/O'Connor's questions concerning Community Service Officers. C/Ansari requested more information on other cities that have Public Service Officer(s). MPT/Chang requested more input from Sheriff on Motion #1, #1, 2, 4 5 and 6. Also desire more input from Sheriff on Motion #3, #2. C/Ansari - obtain samples and forms from other cities. Motion #5 - obtain more information and forms for all four items. Motion #6 - Create a draft ordinance. Bring back for second meeting in October at a Study Session. Staff directed to answer all questions that were asked at previous discussion. RECESS: 1. CLOSED SESSION: 2. CALL TO ORDER: order at 6:42 p.m. Quality Management Bar, California. 6:21 p.m. None Mayor Herrera called the meeting to in the Auditorium of the South Coast Air District, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 2 "QUICK CAP" PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Assembly Member Sally Havice 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 Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Mike Nelson, Communications & Marketing Director; Linda Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. APPROVED AGENDA: Mayor 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 3.1 Presented Certificate of Recognition to Assembly Member Sally Havice for her efforts to stop SB 2010. 3.2 Presented Certificates of Recognition to Diamond Bar Little League Senior Division for becoming "Senior Division Little League World Series Champions." RECESS: 7:12 p.m. RECONVENE: 7:38 p.m. 3.3 COMMUNITY RECOGNITIONS: Presented Certificate of Recognition to Karen Escarcega for her civic -mindedness in maintaining public areas 3.4 Proclaimed September 19, 1998 as "Coastal Cleanup Day." 3.5 Proclaimed September 14-19, 1998 as "Pollution Prevention Week." 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Dr. Lawrence Rhodes reminded everyone to take special precautions during the current heat wave and to try to conserve energy whenever possible in order to avoid brown outs. Jeff Koontz, Interim Director, Chamber of Commerce - announced Candidate's Forum on October 13 at 6:00 at AQMD. Business Expo will be held on October 24 in K -Mart Parking Lot. Chamber Mixer on September 17 will be held at Kellogg West. "D.B. Where the Action Is" will return to Cable TV next Tuesday. Business mixer will also be held on September 24 at Ontario Airport. SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 3 "QUICK CAP" Lydia Plunk - regarding political flyer prepared by anonymous sources. Reminded everyone that flyers placed in mail boxes do not conform to postal regulations nor do they conform with FPPC regulations. Clyde Hennessee - Agreed with Mrs. Plunk's comments regarding the flyer. Sandy Erickson - Has several questions remaining regarding the Sun Cal project. CA/Jenkins reminded everyone that the Public Hearing was closed at the last workshop. No further testimony can be taken at this time. Public Hearing can only be re -opened if it is properly noticed. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 LABOR DAY HOLIDAY - September 7, 1998 - City Offices will be closed. Will reopen Tuesday, September 8, 1998 5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - September 8, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - September 10, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 15, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.5 DEDICATION OF MEMORIAL TO OSCAR LAW - September 15, 1998 - 10:00 a.m., Heritage Park 5.6 RECOGNITION DINNER HONORING LITTLE LEAGUE, SENIOR DIVISION WORLD CHAMPIONS - Sunday, September 20, 1998 - 5:30 p.m. - Diamond Bar Country Club - Tickets $10. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Moved by C/O'Connor, seconded by C/Ansari to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote. 6.1 APPROVED MINUTES - Special Meeting/Workshop of August 18, 1998 - As submitted. 6.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated September 1, 1998 in the amount of $470,811.78. 6.3 RECEIVED AND APPROVED TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of July, 1998. 6.4 EXONERATED CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF GRADING BOND (FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE, LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR 2720 SHADOW CANYON IN DIAMOND BAR - in the amount of $9,234 posted with the City on December 2, 1996 and directed the City Clerk to notify the Owner and Surety of this action. 6.5 REDUCED SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT BONDS (FAITHFUL SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 4 "QUICK CAP" PERFORMANCE AND LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR TRACT NO. 47850 (DIAMOND BAR WEST PARTNERS) - (a) Bond No. 418853S - Grading Bond in the amount of $3,192,558, reduced to $1,596,279; (b) Bond No. 4188545 - Sewer/Street S.D. in the amount of $1,365,892, reduced to $682,946; (c) Bond No. 4188555 - Domestic Water in the amount of $416,803.20, reduced to $208,401.60; (d) Bond No. 418857S - Monumentation in the amount of $8,500, reduced to $4,250; and (e) directed the City Clerk to notify the Principal and Surety of these actions. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as may be heard. 7.l EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-1, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 95-2 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-2. Following Council questions, M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing. Kurt Nelson, representing the Estates at Crystal Ridge, asked Council to clarify the map regarding access to the Dolezal development. Warren Dolezal - Pointed out that the clarification was recently made by a judge in Trial Court. Dave Kersey - Wagon Trail Rd. - asked how the oak tree replacement policy was determined. DCM/DeStefano indicated that the Planning Commission was concerned about the loss of the massive oak tree. The Commission felt that a 20-1, 36" box tree would be appropriate in this case. Mr. Kersey suggested that the City come up with a standard formula for replacement of trees. There being no further testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the Public Hearing. Moved by C/Huff, seconded by C/Ansari to direct staff to come back with a resolution of denial of the extension until the applicant can demonstrate access to his property through "The Country Estates." Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote. 8. OLD BUSINESS: 8.1 VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 98-03, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 98-01 AND SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 9 PAGE 5 "QUICK CAP" ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-02 (SCH 97031005). C/Huff - reduce lots to 10,000 sq. ft.; staging area for grading off of D.B. Blvd., not Highcrest; MPT/Chang moved to propose a new project consisting of 78 homes on lot 6. He did not feel that the City would be receiving significant benefit sufficient for removal of the map restriction. C/Huff moved, seconded by M/Herrera to send the matter back to staff to negotiate a more significant benefit as well as other matters that were discussed. (Includes the design of 130 parcels on lots between 6,000 to 10,000 sq. ft.) To be discussed again on September 15, 1998. Motion carried 3-2 (Chang and Ansari voted no). 8.2 CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE SUB- COMMITTEE. Moved by C/Ansari, seconded by MPT/Chang to appoint C/O'Connor to the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority with C/Huff to serve as alternate. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll Call vote. M/Herrera appointed C/O'Connor to the Finance Subcommittee with MPT/Chang to serve as alternate. NEW BUSINESS: 9.1 AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE PURCHASE OF OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT FROM OFFICE DEPOT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 - Moved by C/Ansari, seconded by C/Huff to approve. Motion carried 5-0 by Roll call vote. RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 11:14 p.m. 1. CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Huff ROLL CALL: Agency Members Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, VC/Ansari, C/Huff 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; Linda Magnuson, Assistant Finance Director and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 PAGE 6 "QUICK CAP" 3. 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 - Special Meeting of August 18, 1998 - As submitted. 3.2 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTER - dated September 1, 1998 in the amount of $40,563.25. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None S. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7 . AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: None AGENCY ADJOURHIMENT: 11:16 p.m. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 11:16 p.m. 10. COUNCIL SUB-COMMTTEE REPORTS: 11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: 12. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Herrera adjourned the meeting at 11:35 p.m. in memory of former Chamber President Gordon Vihlen. Presentations to Little League, Senior Division: from Congressman Jay Kim's Office, Pam Williams from Senator Richard Mountjoy, Pam Williams from Assemblyman Miller's Office, Bruce Kehe from Mt. San Antonio College, Dexter MacBride from Walnut'"ary, Joe Ruzicka - I E yAw mtar ION_F—_ ;Y-E-f- F- rrn ,11E -- . ....... ....... . _ k v,6 s' 0401�� 4c) �i2 `/ �vr // � 1,5iti�/Uei August 6, 1998 Honorable Robert S. Huff City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Dr., Ste. 100 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 2701 Ocean Park Blvd., Suite 150 Santa Monica CA 90405 310.581.4188 fax 310.581.4195 htb@heafthebay.org www.healthebay.org/heafthebay Honorable Ma or Huff, On Saturday September 19th, the 14th Annual International Coastal Cleanup Day will take place across the globe. Thousands of volunteers will take individual action by combing our beaches, parks, rivers, streams and neighborhoods for trash. Coastal Cleanup Day raises public awareness of the threat posed by trash and other .debris to people and the marine environment. This event gives the public an opportunity to take a positive action and help clean up the coast! The `97 Coastal Cleanup brought more than 50,000 volunteers from the Oregon border to Baja, to clean 1,100 miles of coastline and remove over 500,000 pounds of trash and recyclables. In Los Angeles County alone, 14,000 volunteers of all ages picked up over 23,000 pounds of trash and 4,222 pounds of recyclables. Heal the Bay is the Los Angeles County Coordinator for the `98 Coastal Cleanup Day. We are a non- profit environmental organization dedicated to making Southern California coastal waters safe and healthy again for people and marine life. We use research, advocacy, outreach and public education to achieve these goals. We are requesting that your city issue a proclamation (sample enclosed) declaring its participation in the 14th Annual Coastal Cleanup Day. Your proclamation will definitely make a difference by demonstrating your city's commitment -to enviTT9,Mtol_. awareness and ecological improvement. We would appreciate your prod atlon by September 1, 1998. Please`f free to contact me at (3 10) 581-4188 x128 for further informati n. On behalf of the Board of Direct and staff of Heal the Bay, I applaud your acknowledgment and support. For a healthy Bay, 1� V !/X _ Alix Gerosa Programs Director X a Enclosure V Earth Sharo 4Q _ 0. x Film 1999 "EffEAS, for economic, aesthetic and environmental reasons, the' a s Angeles County beaches is a paramount concern to all residents; WHEREfS, "COASTAL CLEANUP DAY" is an international cele #ati i vidual commitment to preserving our coastal environment; and WIERE4S, Saturday, September 19, 1998 has been set aside as 'eci people to gather and undo some of the damage to our beaches; an y � �xN 4, WffERE4S, "COASTAL CLEANUP DAY" is sponsored in Califo ' nia Coastal Commission, with regional funding by Lincoln Merc an �ve% in Los Angeles County is coordinated by Heal the Bay, with assist '' � r Lqs dv Angeles County Department of Beaches and Harbors. NOJY THF-REFOR& BE,1T RESOL IEE TAT,�! � ;r the City Counc of $ i f�ia mond Bar does hereby proclaim Saturday, September 19, 199 CLEANUP DAY" in the City of Diamond Bar and ur e all resi g maintaining our beaches. gs to - maintaining ate in DATED: September 1, 1998.,.. ,,' MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL O REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUGUST 18, 1998 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor 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 Drive, Diamond Bar, California. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member O'Connor INVOCATION: Reverend Dennis Stuve, Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera Also Present were: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager; Amanda Susskind, Assistant City Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; George Wentz, Director of Public Works; David Liu, Deputy Director of Public Works; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Mike Nelson, Communications & Marketing Director; Linda Magnuson, Assistant Finance Manager and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 3.1 Business of the Month: 3.1.2 Presented City Tile to Frank Piermarini, owner of Piermarini Construction. 3.1.2 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 DIAMOND BAR TEAM LEADER FROM WALNUT SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT - Lt. Stothers introduced Tim Perkins. 4. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Clyde Hennessee expressed frustration that the Century Communications Preview Channel often runs outdated and incorrect information. Services that were promised to cable users have not been implemented. Mary Hall, representing the Chamber of Commerce, announced that the Chamber's AUGUST 18, 1998 5 PAGE 2 next Business Expo on Saturday, October 24, 1998 from 9:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. in the Kmart Shopping Center parking lot. She stated that flyers had been sent to members of the business community and over 1000 members of the community are expected to participate. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 PLANNING COMMISSION - August 25, 1998 - 7:00 P.M. SCAQMD 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., Quakes Stadium. 5.3 PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION - August 27, 1998- 7:00 p.m., SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 1, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD Hearing Board Room, 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 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 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 MINUTES: 6.2.1 Regular Meeting of April 23, 6.2.2 Regular Meeting of May 28, 6.2.3 Regular Meeting of June 25, AND RECREATION COMMISSION 1998. 1998. 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. AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 3 6.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 98-49: 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. 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: 6.4 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 explained that the amount of the insurance premium would not be changed even if the word "sole" was removed from Section 8(b). CSD/Rose indicated to C/O'Connor that bids received from local vendors for purchasing can be broken into categories. M/Herrera expressed concern about language within the contract that does not clearly state that the contract may be cancelled at each one year anniversary of the three year term. CM/Belanger stated that if the contract is not approved by September 1, D. B. will be without a recreation services provider as of September 2, 1998. Following discussion of contract wording, C/Ansari moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to approve the contract as amended to read: "This agreement or any program or service provided hereunder may be terminated at any time by either party by giving a written notice of termination to the other party at least 90 days prior to the termination specified in said notice" and the deletion of "sole" on Page 6 under Item B. 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 18, 1998 PAGE 4 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. MPT/Chang moved, C/Ansari seconded, to approve second reading by title only, waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 2613(1989). Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang, M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 7.2 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 urged that the County Code not be amended and instead, enforced as written, because it appears that the City's changes would make things easier for the business community. Clyde Hennessee said he had observed unhealthy conditions in local restaurants and believed that the City should not set aside health considerations. C/O'Connor, C/Ansari and MPT/Chang explained that the Council's only adjustment is to allow businesses to request a reinspection in a shorter amount of time, which does not constitute relaxation of the health code. In response to M/Herrera, DCM/DeStefano explained that D.B.'s proposed Health Code includes the following items that the L.A. County Health Code does not include: 1) Posting of the letter grade card within 5' of the food establishment's front door and plainly visible to patrons, and 2) shortening of the reinspection time period. C/O'Connor moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to approve second reading by title only, waive full reading and adopt Ordinance No. 3(1998). Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 5 AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Chang, M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS - None 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 THEO LOCAL ESTIOIN MANAGEMENT NT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE C ON REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089. M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing. There being no testimony offered, M/Herrera closed the Public Hearing. C/O'Connor moved, C/Huff seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 98-49 declaring the City to be in conformance with the Congestion Management Program. 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 10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS: C/Ansari stated that on Friday, August 7, she attended a "People in Government" meeting concerning the regional transportation plan. It is anticipated that the Federal Government will release $68,000,000 for improvement to the SR57/60 interchange. She asked that CM/Belanger look into the matter. She reported on the September 27, 1998 opening of the new Ontario Airport terminals. She further stated that she and C/O'Connor recently attended a Contract Cities meeting. She indicated that she had expressed to SCAG her concern that the ports of Long Beach and L.A. are not open 24-hrs/day, seven days a week which may affect the planning of truck routes and truck lanes through the Alameda Corridor. She attended the Library reopening and reported that the Senior Citizens have extended an invitation to all Council Members to attend their Luau on Thursday, August 20 at 11:30 a.m. MPT/Chang said that the senior citizens are very concerned about a senior center. He reportedly told them that a Senior Center, combined with a Community Center UST 18 1998 PAGE 6 AUG , zens have is a high priority goal for Council. He further stated that spoke about the itimeet n9 he, asked if it is possible to expand the current facility. He pal Theater personnel. Further CM/Belanger and CMD/Nelson held with Reg meetings are scheduled for next week. He attendedtheCity, L.A. Counotyy and Friends he believed was a very good joint effort betweench City, of the Library. He extended a special thank you Chinese ilib aryAssociation and Chinese School for donating in excess of 400 books to M/Herrera spoke about the Council Members attending ing thae reedeediicSattii n of the Library, which was well attended by communitymembers isor Knabe and Assemblyman Gary Miller. It was riwonderful he L'brary. The project �s the Redevelopment Agency, the County and Friends o well received by the public. She has extended �invitation order to honor Member Sally Havis to attend the September 1 Council9 a City Tile in gratitude for all of her fine efforts in opposing S.B. 2010. Assembly Member Havice has accepted the City's invitation. 11. COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Ansari announced that she has established her headquarters artery and for her the Congressional campaign, indicated that she will be very Y Council's indulgence. C/O'Connor congratulated the D.B. Senior Little League team, which is competing in the second round of the Senior Little League World Series. on September I. will be held on Saturday and the Council will hon or thanked the many volunteers who have contributed to the group's success- MPT/Chang also congratulated the D.B. Senior ries Little and eaguqu tea of the nd congratulated staff on the Concerts in the Each concert enjoyed performers. The final concert was held la to enjoy the performances. about 800 to 1000 attendees who app M/Herrera reminded Council that the Contract T itiiebsuba barbecue at 4 00 would be held the the next day at the Pitchess Detention Cente r. commended staff for the wonderful Concerts in the Park series. She residents who attended the series that "Alturas" was outstanding. She said that rian for the community to come together commented that it was a wonderful opportunity and rebuild community spirit and camaraderie. Everyone she spoke with stated that all of the groups that participated in this year's series were very gam• RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING: 5:20 P.M. RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 5:27 p.m. RECESS CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 5:27 P.M. AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 7 RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 6:44 p.m. 9. PUBLIC HEARINGIWORKSHOP: 9.2 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGIWORKSHOP - 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). Following presentation by staff and representatives from the City's EIR consultant, Bonterra Consulting, the Public Hearing was reopened by M/Herrera. Don Gravdahl: "Madam Mayor, Council Members. Last Thursday or Friday we had delivered to our door about four pounds of paper and I went through this as well as I could and after looking at the various projects that were outlined in that packet, I still favor what I saw on the 7th of July's meeting - the 130 project site. I think that would be a good one for the City. It appears to be something that the homeowners will enjoy living in. It is off of the street and I think it could do an excellent job. However, I have a caveat. As I recall, if this project were to go forward the builder was going to deed the balance of the land to the City as open space and in addition, give the City $250,000 for whatever - recreation services or whatever for the benefit of the community. And very frankly, that evening I think I made a statement of getting all you can from the builder. This evening, I would like to quantify what I didn't quantify that evening. Our community is, shall we say, somewhat disconnected. There's been parts added to it when it was incorporated. It has spread out into several areas. We have two different school districts that are tied in geographically in the City and everything else. What we need, I feel, is a large community building - one that is a multi- purpose building, one that is used for the general public and the City of Diamond Bar. In addition to the $250,0001 feel that going from 50 lots which is obviously what the builder would get on Lot 6 without doing any other grading or anything else, and going to 130 lots, the difference in the lot situation, if you were to approve the larger project, behooves that builder to build that building in addition to this project. Now, I believe there is part of this project, or part of that vacant land that is laying along Diamond Bar Boulevard; there is a part of it that goes off from Grand Avenue and in the general area of Shotgun, in that area, where either one of those sites would not impact a residential neighborhood for putting a building in of that size and to have local neighborhoods use that building. And that's my caveat for putting together a 130 unit site. I thank you." Bob Schwartz, 24038 Highcrest Drive: "Good evening, and I want to thank you very much for letting me address you in this forum. I've had an opportunity to look over the plans briefly in the last couple of days, and it AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 8 certainly shows that the developer has looked at some alternates, going from 130 homes, and also showing that he's looked at a 53 home, 120 home and a 113 home type of development. But it doesn't necessarily say that while he's taken the effort to do that, that that is the best that can be done for that kind of a development. I live off of Highcrest right now and obviously, I like to see whatever - I'm not against the development of that land on Lot 6. What I want to see is I want to see the best development that can go in there that's going to be reflective of what's beneficial to the City that's not going to be tearing up the hillsides and the slopes, that's not going to cause traffic impacts. The things that really concern me are, you know, obviously noise issues, safety issues, sliding issues. What I'm asking of you is to say, listen—as a developer, limit yourself to Lot 6 which is your right to build on. But let's not trade away the other kinds of things that we've got for a mere $250,000 and to take on the additional liabilities that we take as a City when they donate that kind of land to us because then it becomes our responsibility. Some of the issues they're talking about, well, we're looking at a 14 degree, a 14 percent grade on the new development. And Highcrest, er, Goldrush, is, as he says, about a 14 percent grade. That's really steep. That's really nothing to be overly proud of. If you lived off of that street which I don't, but you notice that cars going up that street have to really rev their engines to get there. It's steep, it's noisy. There's no way that once these guys have put the development in that it's not going to be a daily type thing. Just the normal traffic going up that kind of grade is loud. There's no way you can avoid that. Anytime you have a steep slope, that's the way it is. I'd like to see the City look at this in terms of acting like this is be good businessmen. Be smart and be wise and judicious in the negotiations that you undertake. Obviously, that you have a negotiation that you're going on. The builder has offered a certain amount of money and a certain piece of land. That land is worth certainly a lot more than the quarter of a million dollars and we ought to be entitled to it. But we ought to look at it in terms of we have Lot 6 - let's build within Lot 6 and do the best that you can within that. The layout of that map that shows the placement of the water towers and all those other homes, I mean, there's other opportunities to be able to grade and there's other choices that they can make. It's just that they ought to be staying within the confines of that. One of the things that's true when you have very, very steep manufactured slopes is, its very difficult to landscape. If you go on hills like Goldrush, you'll notice that homeowners have a difficult time trying to maintain any kind of a landscape on a steep hill. And that's because manufactured hills have landscaping which is typically not native to it and as a result, it doesn't stick. There may be a couple of seasons that it will be there but that's about it. We don't need to have slopes that steep and I think that they can design around that. Anyway, I want to thank you very much. That was all I had." Sam Saffari: Mrs. Mayor, member of the City Council. I'd like to ask before I start. Is this the workshop part of this meeting because are we still limited AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 9 with the five minutes and what is the difference between the workshop and what we normally do on a City Council meeting? M/Herrera: "The workshop part of it is that we are taking additional greater time to ask questions and review information but yes, you're still limited to five minutes." Sam Saffari: "Okay. Thank you. My name is Sam Safarri. I reside at 24075 Highcrest. I'm an 11 year resident of Diamond Bar. I'm making five very quick points since I have five minutes. The General Plan requires the owner of this land to give up 75 percent of this land when they build this land. Therefore, when the developer dedicates this land to the City of Diamond Bar they are following the rule, they are not doing us a favor. And when they do so, two things occur: One, the City of Diamond Bar takes over the burden of liability and tax, fire hazard, and too, the assessment district, which, when making the main consideration for the future of this situation, when your costs increase for upkeep of that land, you cannot arbitrarily increase it - you have to go to a vote of the people and that's going to become a very big problem. So therefore, the developer is actually should thank us for taking this land off of their hand and they should pay us, really, for taking this land off of their hand. They are not doing us a favor - we are doing them a favor. That's very important to remember. My second point is, the $250,000 the builder is giving us for developing 133 homes is short by $4,750,000 for the Lot 6 and getting out of Lot 6. If you take any number for a good land in Diamond Bar and multiply the number of acres they are getting out of Lot 6 the 133 original plan, they should pay us $5,000,000, not $250,000 as a City. My third point is, the builder and, in particular, Todd Kurtin, has mentioned to me and my wife and we pointedly asked him, if you are forced to build on Lot 6, would you? He said "no". And builder's engineer who is also in attendance today and he's on audio and video tape last City Council told you that he, if it was to be developed only on Lot 6 he will not wanting to build it. So there is something here already against building in Lot 6 from both the developer and his engineer. My fourth point is, most of the responses from the City staff, City Attorneys and Council has always been to answer the residents without taking any consideration which one of our points are correct. What basically we hear and see on your papers coming back to us is the staff and your Council telling us why this project should go through as the builder wants it and not why the people of Diamond Bar are right. So sometimes I believe the people of Diamond Bar should be considered and their points should be considered by the City staff in their writing and when they present this to you that why we may be right and the builder may be wrong. My fifth point and last point is that directly relates to my last point is, the City Council of Diamond Bar and its members are not judges. As Council Member Huff mentioned in the last meeting which he compared you to them - to a judge. If there are two groups such as the builder and such as us, the residents who are worried about this project AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 10 come before you and give you options that are legal and within parameters, we believe that you who are the City of Diamond Bar Council Members, your decisions should favor us, the Diamond Bar residents. When everything is equal, the balance should favor toward us. And when they do so, it is then you are the ones who have been voted into office by us because you're looking after our interest, not a company who is in business for profit and is not part of Diamond Bar, is not a resident of Diamond Bar and has no dealings in Diamond Bar and the minute that they finish and they reap their benefits, they're out of here. So the people who are watching us in their homes right now - there are many peoples I found out that they do. And many of these peoples do watch because they did vote for you. They would like you to hear them. That's why I brought a six inch thick 2,000 - and it's in your hands - petitions of these people who are sitting at home watching and listening to this. This is going to effect them. This is in the heart of the City of Diamond Bar and they will all see and remember what you vote for. Thank you very much." George Davidson: "Madam Mayor, Council Members. Please don't start the clock. I'm going to open up some maps. (Pause) Okay. Sorry about that. First of all I want to say that I appreciate the opportunity for this format today. I understand that it's suppose to be interactive. is that correct?" M/Herrera: "Well, it's interactive in the sense that we are going to continue to take public comment, but it is also interactive in the sense that this is now the time for the Council to ask back and forth questions, not the public ask back and forth questions." George Davidson: "Just wanted a clarification. My concern with this plan as you all know, and I've spoken with everybody now, my concern has always been with this plan to get the best development for Diamond Bar, what would be the best development. I haven't wavered in that. And the concerns that we had before was to get a development within Lot 6 and a proposal has been submitted to you all and I do appreciate the fact that the City got copies out to many of the concerned citizens. Really. I mean, that was great. But I have some concerns regarding this development again. I just want the best possible development. And looking at this particular development, it just seems that there might have been, there's some differences. First question that I do have, and I don't know if I can get this answered now, but it says here, a geotechnical setback line. I never saw this before on any other development proposal and I don't know what that is. Why wasn't it on any of the other plans and what does it mean. Is there any way I can get an answer?" M/Herrera: "Well, I think Mr. DeStefano referenced that, that you can't really go where your fingers are. You can't go above that point without involving the whole area way up above the boundary line that's going into the other AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 11 lot. You can't do something with just the top section, you've got to involve the whole greater area and I believe that's what Mr. DeStefano said." George Davidson: "Okay. The questions that I have concerning this plan are, and again, looking at the plan I want to see a good development within Lot 6. 1 know that many of the Council Members said they were concerned to get a realistic plan. And it seems as though maybe a different mindset was being used and I'll give you an example if you can zoom in on this plan here. Here's the original proposal before you. You notice, for instance, the water tank here on this particular proposal is way down here in the lower right hand comer. Its not obstructing any views or anything like that. 1 have concern why in this particular proposal the water tank is smack in the middle. Is this the water tank that sits above the ground? If it sits above the ground, wouldn't that impede many of the views here for the houses that are within this particular development proposal? Also, I notice that there's only 53 houses and I'm curious to know, is that the maximum amount of houses that SunCal can develop within Lot 6? 1 don't know that, but I'd like to know if this is the best possible development proposal before them." M/Herrera: "Well, and that goes back to what Mr. DeStefano said earlier. At the top portion you can't develop the top corner without involving the greater corner that's outside of the line and I think probably the same thing goes for the bottom portion. And you've got to involve the grading and stabilization in the entire area so you're going outside of Lot 6, then." George Davidson: "Right. I just wanted the clarification, though, that this would be the absolute best plan... M/Herrera: "Yes." George Davidson: "Okay. We've taken the time - we've got somebody here today from the Stevens Planning Group and one other thing - we haven't really had a lot of time to review this. I'm hoping that we're going to get some more time, maybe another chance to discuss this like in the open forum that we're doing today. But anyway, he'll speak later on. He might have some real good feedback for us. A couple of other quick issues that I had regarding the open space plan. In the response that City Attorney had given, I noticed that the no time frame, the statement that there was no time frame put on the open space plan and that was why that they didn't feel they had to have an open space plan. I just would like to say that it would make logical sense that you would want to develop an open space plan before you actually destroyed some of that open space. I mean, you don't build a house and then build the blue prints. So I think logically, maybe we might want to consider that. And the last thing that I wanted to reiterate that Mr. Saffari had brought up was the $250,000. We're talking about the original plan of 130 acres, I mean 130 houses. That's 19 acres of prime land in Diamond AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 12 Bar. What is the fair market value for something like that. I believe it might be a considerable amount higher than $250,000." A.J. Wilson, Pomona Unified School District: (Using an overhead exhibit with copies to each City Council Member). "I'm A.J. Wilson representing the Pomona Unified School District. And we are here tonight just simply to try to make the point that as you continue your work with the developer that we would hope that you would cooperate with us in trying to require that the developer complete conversations that they've had in the past with the district to work out mitigation of potential school impacts. We know that here in Diamond Bar your citizens and yourselves have been very, very active in supporting our efforts to provide adequate school facilities. Mayor and Mrs. O'Connor, you were very active in the last campaign that we had on the Bond issue which was thankfully successful to the tune of 70 percent throughout the entire district which is the highest vote count we've ever had in the history of the district as far as a Bond issue. The problem that we're really faced with is that in spite of that success, we continue to be faced with a limited level of State funding and a structure of local government funding for schools that requires truthfully, a partnership between City government and your school districts. And the reason I say that is that with the State mandated fee cap, the only way to make sure that there is full ultimate mitigation, is for the cooperation of the cities where the districts are located to require through your General Plan process that there be mitigation for the remainder of the impacts. Because we were successful on the Bond issue, there will be less impact fiscally than there would have been otherwise. And we have said throughout our work and I want to say to you that SunCal was kind enough to send a representative for a number of months to a working group that we had, so we certainly appreciate the fact that they have been a development company that has shown a sensitivity to the importance of educational facilities. The other issues you're going to be looking at, obviously we're not involved in. It's a pleasure as an old City Manager to sit in the back and hear a community concerned about quality issues. I haven't always heard that when I sat in Mr. Belanger's seat and it's nice to hear that Diamond Bar focuses on those issues. But I guess our message is education needs to be on the top of that list and we want to make sure even as we're committing funds through the Pantera School construction and also through Diamond Ranch High School which finally responds to a need for secondary education that each developer throughout the district have a fair share participation in that process where State and local bond funds are insufficient to meet that need. I've simply brought an old exhibit that we use to show you the problem of funding and then I'll leave it in your hands and be happy to work with you and your staff in greater detail because certainly this is not the time and place to work out the specifics. What this exhibit tries to show is that when we did a previous study in 1993 that the average cost per unit throughout the Pomona Unified School District for educational facilities was over $10,000. That presumes that each housing unit of an AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 13 average of 1700 square feet created .6 students per house. Obviously that didn't mean that there were truncated kids, it meant that that was an average throughout the district. With that relationship and the existing fee at the time of $1.84 that has been slightly incrementally increased, the fees actually produced by that housing unit were $3,100, meaning that the gap was about $7,000. Now State funding ends up, practically speaking, with a cap of 50 percent because you cannot be competitive for State funding beyond the point of 50 percent. So we end up with a gap which we show here at the bottom and that is, if we take the existing fee level of about $3400, if we presume that the average amount of money that we have been receiving from the State program is $2,200 - and in the past we had shown some funds from South Garey Redevelopment Agreement with the City of Pomona which unfortunately have been zeroed out, but I adjusted the chart that you have to reflect an increase of participation from the previously and recently passed Bond issue. We still end up with a gap of about $6,800 which leaves us an underfunded level per housing unit of about $3,500 which means that we still need to capture approximately $2.00 per square foot. We're not suggesting necessarily that be a fee, we're suggesting a way of jointly participating with the development community in negotiating a satisfactory approach to that and we're simply asking as you work on this Tentative Map if you would reinforce to the SunCal company to continue with us to see if we can't work out a satisfactory way to address that gap that exists in financing. That's our testimony tonight. Thank you very much." Tom Windham: "Madam Mayor and Council Members. I'm here in favor of the SunCal project and what I find troubling is that these people already own this land and we have a lot of people here tonight thinking that they should pay more money for this land. And I (dis)agree. I would like to see what the first gentleman said, I'd like to see a town center meeting hall also, but is it fair to ask them to build it? I don't think so. It seems like a lot of people are upset that these gentlemen or this company might make a profit. I don't think that we should be looking at that. I think what we should be looking at is one, the tax dollars that are going to be generated by more people coming here to Diamond Bar. I own a business in Diamond Bar. I would sure like to see more people coming in and spending more money at my place of business. 2, they've offered $250,000. That might not seem like much, but eventually, in my experience, this land is going to be built on. And if we send them off and don't allow them to build and they don't build, five, ten, fifteen, twenty, maybe fifty years down the road, somebody else is going to get this land and a new Council Member, new Council people, new homeowners are going to allow them to build and the City might not get anything out of this project. 360 plus acres given to the City. From my understanding and from my review of the records and things, they're going to put some trails in it and everything, and I think that's something that this City needs. It's the first time I've heard anybody in this City get up and actually speak against open space. Every time I've watched City Council AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 14 meetings, everybody's talking about more dedication of open space. It's a gated community. That means it probably won't cost the City anything to maintain the roads and the lighting and the hillsides and things that are inside the gate. I think this is a great project. I speak in favor of it and thank you for this time." Thom Pruitt: "Good evening, Madam Mayor, City Council Members. I also speak very much in favor of this project. I've had an opportunity to speak with most of our civic leaders here in the City, City administrators who are involved with analyzing this project. Also, Council Members. I've also had an opportunity to meet on numerous occasions with SunCal developers along with leaders of other organizations here within the City who have particular concerns about the open space and both passive and active recreational needs and preferences of our citizens. I've had an opportunity to review much of the documentation - pretty much all of it that's been presented and prepared concerning this project. And, as it turns out, my own personal determination is very much in line with the response that our City Attorney has provided to the legal representatives of the people involved with the organization called Raid??? The response from the City Attorney is very specific to specific items raised in letters from the Raid?? legal representatives item by item and very clearly, the project as proposed by SunCal clearly is within the provisions of the General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar and also the Parks and Recreation Master Plan specifically referred to in the Land Use Element and the Resource Management Element in Planning Area II of the Land Use Element. In terms of the involvement of SunCal in the City, it has been my direct experience to find out that this is not an organization that's in and out of the City just trying to make a profit but in fact, is a good friend of the City and for some time has been very much involved with various organizations in a support role - very strong support role. I won't go into the details of all of those activities, but they are known to many of us within the City. I've met with, again as I said, leaders of other organizations along with the SunCal people and we have found them to be very definite and very responsible in not only making commitments to become involved with the long and short term needs of the residents of our City but they've backed up those commitments in my experience one hundred percent. Thank you very much." Marty Torres: Good Evening. My name is Marty Torres and I'm a Diamond Bar resident. I live on Highcrest which is near the epicenter of all of this that's going to happen. I just want to thank the Council and the staff for all of the information. I appreciate that. That packet that we received last week. That's great and in the spirit of full disclosure it was just nice to be a part of the process. I just had a few comments. One, on traffic, the discussion regarding that about the significant threshold would not be exceeded but that doesn't mean zero impact. And I think that's important because what impact is significant depending on what assessment or what AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 15 assumptions you use. And the statement was mentioned that on Highcrest itself there'd only be a 10 percent increase and that was thought not to be very significant. But the issue with that is that you really have a neighborhood there, and Diamond Bar is really infamous for cut -through traffic, and although someone can get up here and say that because its a circuitous route you won't really find traffic movement down to Diamond Bar, but the bottom line is it is circuitous and it is a little bit longer, but if you're going 45 to 50 miles an house, I mean, you can get there quickly. So you have to really look at the cost of one, monitoring that and the cost of enforcement. I don't know if we want to have our law enforcement people be traffic cops as opposed to other activities in the City, although that would increase revenue I would imagine. Another issue is the dust threshold. Although one of the presenters said that 150 pounds a day is easy to exceed, you know its still a standard and I don't know if that's enough in anyone's mind to stop a project. I mean, that's an opinion. And the health risks are directly related - I would agree with that. You know, long term this is going to be a three or four month grading project when all that dust hits us. But again, the issue with that is that you have these conditions and laws that people are well thought out based on grade engineering assumptions, but who's going to monitor the stoppage of that once you exceed the threshold. We're not really set up to do that. I mean when the Santa Ana's blow, I'd like to know who's the officer in charge of going out with a stop order on the project. You know, that's never going to happen. That's just reality. And I'm sure people are going to wet down the project and mitigate the dust, but again, who's going to monitor that? I mean, we're just not set up to do that. That's just something, again, that in the total scheme of things I think it has to be considered. Whether it's enough it's a knockout or not that's anyone's opinion. But I'm bringing up these two points because in terms of my support for this project I think we I support it as long as it's say, Lot 6 only. Because that's their legal right. I support their legal right a hundred percent. If they make money off it, great. That's the American way. But again, I think we should give the developer what they legally have rights to. I don't want them spilling over into other lots. Another reason I think for this I'm a little concerned about the staging area and there's an issue of Highcrest at the cul-de-sac - they call it the terminus - versus down on Diamond Bar, but I understand the efficiency related with grading from up high to down below. But the issue there is that you have a neighborhood at the terminus of Highcrest. And if you use that as a staging area - they say about 11 months time frame , and whether its 10 months, 12 months, I think that's irrelevant. But just that area, you have really a neighborhood there with children and families and you're going to ruin the integrity of the neighborhood. And to me the safety concerns of having children on bikes in that neighborhood far overrides cars traversing Diamond Bar Boulevard because they would be forced to have stop men and of course there's going to be traffic flow problems down below, but you don't have families walking on Diamond Bar Boulevard. You certainly don't have children skateboarding, rollerblading. AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 16 So to me, the traffic risks are much less severe in terms of personal injury down on Diamond Bar Boulevard than they would be having that heavy equipment in a residential area. And that's something to consider. And to me, that's going to be the cost of their project. They have to budget for that. That's just the cost of doing business. Unfortunately the grading is an area of concern - Goldrush - I feel sorry for our residents that live there. Its 14 percent. 14 percent is no great thing to brag about if it's your street. But unfortunately, the project variations that were presented in that matrix quote 14 percent in all of the different variations. I support a Lot 6 only project. Unfortunately, in the opinion of the people that presented that matrix, that Lot 6 only has the greater proportion of a 14 percent grade. That's unfortunate, but if there's something that can be done to mitigate that then that is great. But the bottom line is that I support the builder in their efforts to build a beautiful plan on what they have a legal right to do with Lot 6. And thank you for the time." Sandy Erickson: "Thank you very much City Council Members. I, like the rest of the people I guess who spoke at the last couple of meetings received a package like this on like Thursday or Friday at my home. And I've gone through it as best as I can. I would certainly appreciate more time to look it over and to digest what I have here. What I keyed in and concentrated on though, was the comparative environmental evaluation that was done by Bonterra Consulting. And the one thing that caught my eye immediately out of this was their own verbiage that says 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 the Lot 6 alternative has been designed to be compatible with surrounding areas, retains the majority of attractive 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. As I went through and I looked at this and I tried to keep an open mind as to looking at the 130 versus containing it all in Lot 6 each and every aspect of the concerns of the citizens were mitigated by wholly containing the project within Lot 6. Each and every one of them. If you look at this, the grading is reduced by over 50 percent, traffic is reduced by over 50 percent, the dust particles reduced by over 50 percent, simply by wholly containing it within the Lot 6 perspective which is what the citizens have been up here saying all along is present us something within Lot 6 and let us look at that. Well, they finally have done it and now we see that if we were to take and do a matrix and show side by side, what are the significant benefits by allowing them to go out of Lot 6 versus containing them within Lot 6. What is the significant benefit to the City by allowing that? I couldn't see it. Not in this, anyway. And I'm sure if I did a matrix and presented it to our 100,000 plus, however many citizens we had and asked which of these would you rather AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 17 see in your City, they would probably say, well, contained within Lot 6 given the parameters of going outside of Lot 6 and the resulting negative things that happen by allowing them to go outside of Lot 6. And you've got it too, so I don't need to go step by step, but you can see just how much everything is mitigated by containing them within Lot 6 which is their right. Its there right to build there. Whether or not what they propose to us is the best they can do within Lot 6 1 don't know. I haven't had an engineer look at it to say no, they could do this, they could do that by reducing the lot to the 10,000 square foot size; they could indeed build 70 homes, 75 homes, 90 homes, I don't know. It's interesting that when we did adopt the 130 project it seemed as though there were only about 40 houses that's built off into the adjoining lots. There were about 90 homes contained within Lot 6. And I understand the grading has something to do with also. But I just don't know. I'm not an expert. And I would hope that you, as stewards of our City would make them prove or maybe get a second opinion as to whether or not this is the best design within wholly contained within Lot 6. Is it? Do we take their word for it or do we get a second opinion similar to what we do with a medical condition. We go get a second opinion. Is this the best? Again, looking at it I didn't see, I mean we're in order to lift the map restrictions I understand we have to have significant benefit to the City. $250,000 to me is not a significant benefit. Allowing them to build 53 houses or 70 houses is not a significant benefit. The open land comes back to us if we want it which is another decision you're going to have to make. Do we really want it? Do we want the liability? Do we want the upkeep costs that are entailed with it? Actually, we get more open space deeded back to us if we want it with the project being wholly contained within Lot 6. We get an additional, I don't know, 30 some acres that come back to us. So as far as the issue of open space and what we get and that being part of our General Plan, we get more by containing them within Lot 6. So that to me is a plus to having it contained. That's it. Thank you." Ron Tehran: "Good evening Council Members, ladies and gentlemen. One question. Some people that they come and say good thing about this project they don't indicate their address. Is there any exception between pro and con? Does it seem that they follow the same rules that we have to follow. My name is Ron Tehran, I live in 745 View Lane. I hear people that they come in and talk about the project and they are for the project - they don't say their address. Very unusual. As you can see and everybody indicated, we have the plan for 53 lots - an alternative. As you can see, this is much better, safer and less destructive than 130 unit; 50 percent less grading instead of 1.8 million cubic yard only 900,000 cubic yard. Still a big magnitude but at least cut in half; 50 percent less destruction; 50 percent less pollution and dust; 50 percent less contamination; 50 percent less destruction of valuable oak tree and walnut tree that cannot be replaced, and habitat area with corridor between Lot 5 and 7. As you can see there's a big portion that they leave open. So this lot is not an island so there is an open AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 18 space passing through. By the 130 that they had only a little bit of space on the top. This lot is very steep. Per hillside grading practices and ordinance every two acre should be only one lot allowed to build. They have about 40 acre divided by two - that should give them 20 lots for this type of hillside. If not, maybe 30. Only on the ridgeline. Not super pad extended few hundred feet from each direction which masquerading of super build of 8 million cubic yards. They talk about ridgeline - building on ridgeline. This is a ridgeline. They're building close to the ridgeline. The other proposed 130 unit, they are super pad. They are not building on the ridgeline. Building on the ridgeline is minimized grading to build the house on the pad. Not going a couple hundred feet either direction is a super pad to build so many houses. That's not building on the ridgeline. That's masquerading super build. Council should decide whether $250,000 is significant benefit to the City by allowing ??8 million cub yard of grading. The residents, they have much more medical problem and cost than that. Everyone know if you approve this project you are condemning children, elderly and sick residents to suffer and pay a lot more money than you call benefit $250,000. That would be nothing, insignificant compared to the medical problem that everyone is going to have and the cost associated with that. And the suffering. We have you here to look for our welfare and safety - not some entrepreneur money -making with good connections. As you have seen, people with expertise that they live in the neighborhood beg you not to approve this magnitude grading same as EIR document recognizing that. If you approve, you are condemning the residents with no choice beside the legal action. Now one question that the staff indicated there is no emergency access or secondary access for this proposal 50 units. I think that to solve they can have a paved road graded to Highcrest for emergency access. That doesn't seem to be a big problem to solve. They don't need to have a cul-de-sac. They could have emergency road graded only for emergency vehicle. That should not be any problem as far as this plan concerned. There was another point brought up that there are residents next to Diamond Bar Boulevard which they don't like. They can reduce that. Eliminate this section. That would eliminate the residents next to Diamond Bar Boulevard. This plan is good. We can work with it. But it does not have any negative benefit. If they want to they can adjust it to make it work. Is that the five minutes?" WHerrera: "Yes it is. But before you leave, the Council would like to know if you have left with City staff, a copy of the deed you showed us at the July 7 meeting. You put on the overhead a copy of the deed restriction. Did you leave a copy with us?" Ron Tehran: "No I didn't." M/Herrera: "Can you do that today please?" AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 19 Ron Tehran: "I don't have a copy with me but I believe the City, your staff have access to the same document that I have. They should be able to find the same document." M/Herrera: "Well, in the event that they can't, would you leave us a copy please?" Ron Tehran: "I can look for it." M/Herrera: "Okay. Thank you. We appreciate that." Kevin Johnson, Attorney with Johnson & McCarthy: "Good evening Mayor, Members of the Council. Kevin Johnson with the firm of Johnson & McCarthy, 550 West C Street, Suite 1150, San Diego, California. I don't want to thank you for sending that big package of materials to me. It was, frankly, a big pain to get and to go through. No, actually, seriously I do appreciate the work and effort that's gone into this in terms of looking into some of these issues that were raised earlier and I know everybody's struggling to make the right decision. I want to comment initially on the Lot 6 only alternative. I was very happy with the results of the last meeting when the Council said we need to look at a Lot 6 only alternative and we need to look at it very carefully. And 1 told my clients though, right afterward you'd better be careful with that because what I've seen in the past happen before is that the alternative is designed to fail. And I would respectfully submit that this particular alternative that has been given to you has been designed to fail. It in many respects stands out as I think a kind of a brilliant strategic maneuver because you can say gee, we went to all this effort to show that there be a 50 percent reduction here and a 50 percent reduction there, and a 60 percent reduction there, but ultimately we think the Council's going to say but they're entitled to a 130 units and boy, we're going to have to give them something like that so we can't take them down as low as 53 so obviously 53 goes out the door. That would be how I read the strategy behind that particular alternative. Now, hold that thought for a minute and let's assume that the 53 units is the very best that they think they can get without going through this massive grading and without going out onto Lots 5 and 7. Now let's assume too that when they bought this property they looked at it - that they surveyed it - that they saw that there was a landslide in that area - they saw that there were going to be problems but going beyond the basic building area that they've outlined in the 53 unit objective. So then they went ahead and they bought it with the understanding that there were constraints on that property and they understood that the General Plan said that they were suppose to build only with Lot 6. They paid 2.7 million dollars as I understand for the land which works out to about $50,000 per lot. 50,000 by 53 by my calculations is about 2.7 million. Now land to sale price ratios typically are in the 8 to 10 to one ratio so that if you bought a piece of land for $50,000 a lot and you were going to sell it at say 8 times AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 20 that you'd market the home built on it for $400,000. So they paid, under this scenario, $50,000 a lot. If they're going to market the homes for $400,000 they are selling it then - the land and the new home, right within that standard ratio of 8 to 1. That would have been their expectation when they bought the property and they planned to build. Now, enter the salesmanship and the politics. We're going to parlay this investment. We want better than an 8 to 1 ratio. And I don't mean to be too sarcastic about this because the profit motive and the plan and the goal to make more money and to get a better deal is something that's out there and is what makes our country great. But its your job, and a very difficult one it is, to balance the drive and the energy and the salesmanship of private industry against the long-term interests of the City and its citizens. Now, what they want you to do now is, they don't want you to say build 53 homes here, they want you to say build 130. That takes the ratio to about 20 to 1. Each lot at 130 lots is about $20,000. Now that's quite a deal. So that, I submit to you for purposes of discussions, is a type of analysis and expectation that these people would have when they buy this land and they come forward to you to convince you that now they need to get 130 units on this particular property. Getting that much benefit - if they can get it, it's great, more power to them. But what is the price that the City is going to pay as a result of giving them all of these extra units? You're going to set a precedence of saying when we have land that is restricted and you can't build on it you're going to tell the world and every future developer that comes along that it's okay to come in and try to convince us that we should give away this land to facilitate your development. And trust me, it's going to happen. Once you lift deed restrictions of land that is open space that's going to happen. And if you don't give the same type of treatment to the next person who comes along they're going to yell at you and they're going to say, they're not going to yell at you but they may suggest to you forcefully that how come you let this person do this and you don't let us do this. And for those of you who have been around in the land use process you know that those types of arguments do come up. You're treating them differently than you're treating us. Why is that? They try and put you on the defensive so that you go ahead and you give them the vote that they want so that they get the increase in the land values. Now going back to the 53 lot scenario, you'll hear from Mike Stevens who is a very respected planner from the San Diego area and in talking about the project with him - and I don't want to put words in his mouth - but, it's my assessment that easily, they could go ahead and they could get another 20 to 30 lots within number 6. So don't look at 53 versus 130 or 53 versus 120 because if they really work at it in terms of how they configure the lots and where they place them and the size of the lots, what they do with the water tank where that line is there that they show you up to the north where they say we can't build beyond this, otherwise we're going to have to do all this grade and fill. If they work at that they can add a number of additional lots to this project and I would encourage you to ask Mr. Stevens about that and how that might work. He will tell you that he AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 21 hasn't had an opportunity to study everything quite in depth but he has enough experience to tell you that there are very logical avenues to pursue here and how you could actually increase the number of lots there, not have to do this horrendous unprecedented grading and create a project which inherently long-term is going to be much safer and much more of an asset to the citizens of Diamond Bar. Now there was one point that I wanted to pick up on that was made by one of the speakers earlier. They were sort of commenting generally about gee, how come it is that we had all of these points that we made in our letters and in our testimony and the City staff has come on and just consistently knocked out every one of them. They've got an argument or response to every one of them. I didn't see a single concession like, well gee, the citizens have a good point or Mr. Johnson had 20 bad points but he had one good one. And I would submit to you that you need to think carefully about the fact that respectfully I will say that staff is really in a very aggressive advocacy mode here. I've seen a lot of City Councils, I've seen a lot of City Attorneys, I've seen a lot of Planning staffs and they're being very aggressive here in terms of advocating exactly the project that this developer wants and that does not necessarily serve you well in terms of your ability to sort through and deal with these things. I'm sure they're doing their job as it has been outlined to them and they're doing a very good job of being advocates for a project. But I would respectfully submit that I don't think that's their job in this setting. Their job should be to objectively look at things and give you the best objective advise rather than trying to think up arguments to beat down the position of the neighbors. Now. In that regard, I want to comment just briefly on this General Plan issue. Some of you I believe were involved in helping frame the General Plan for this City, some of you were involved in amendments for this City. It was a very lengthy - I didn't see it personally but I've seen General Plans, I've sat on General Plan committee's myself - it's a very lengthy time consuming process and everybody who was involved in that probably worked much harder than they ever anticipated. The money that was put in to create a document that was supposed to be the constitution for land use for this City probably exceeded hundreds of thousands of dollars. Now, ultimately, if you condense it into a nutshell in terms of what you have been told by the City Attorney is, is that, forget about all of that. We can construe this any way we want. And however we do it the courts will uphold us because they give us tremendous discretion in terms of how we choose to interpret this. Now. Is that what you want to be the position of your General Plan? Just get a lawyer, have them make an argument and we're going to go ahead and decide it and we're going to do what we want to do. Now interestingly from a consistency standpoint, the developer and staff and the City Attorney will say well gee, they've got 130 units so we'll give'em 130 units. It's important. The General Plan says that. But then we turn around and they look at language in the General Plan which says that you shall develop the planning area in the context of a specific plan consistent with the specific requirements of the government code. And it sites the government AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 22 code section and they give you an interpretation which completely reads that language out of the General Plan. That is the lack of objectivity that I want to point out to you here. And I also want to point out to you that the State law - nowhere in the State laws does it say that if there's specific language that tells you what to do you then have the ability to read it out of the General Plan because you can think of policy arguments suggesting that it's not appropriate. That's the bottom line of most of the analysis that I see legally that's been put forward to you. They come up with an argument oh well, we don't need to do a specific plan because we've taken care of it anyway. Well, the admission is, is that they didn't do a specific plan. Your General Plan says do it. Now. If you want to change the General Plan, go ahead and change the General Plan but don't read it out of existence. We're going and coming here in terms of being consistent. And ultimately, and I like to quote this. I had a fun time reading his biography, but Harry Truman always talked about, you know, intellectual honesty. And if you're consistent in how you look at this project and you look at each issue and you look at the issue of what the General Plan says, you know, 130 units versus maybe something less, what it says about specific plans and the size of lots and things like that. If you're consistent in terms of trying to objectively read the document, this particular plan is inconsistent with your General Plan. As I've pointed out in my letters and as the EIR consultants point out over and over and over again, this project is inconsistent with your General Plan. The only people saying this is consistent with your General Plan are the developer and the staff. Outside consultants, your citizens, are saying that's not the case. On a couple of quick concluding points, I was raised in the West Covina area and watched it low along with this whole Diamond Bar area over a number of years. I've watched the air quality get a little bit better. I've watched less and less greenery and open space be in existence anywhere in the area. And I just want to note that, you know, you have an opportunity here to make some good long-term decisions for your community; to really look to say okay, we have to do what we can to protect our air quality. Every extra car you know you put on the street as a result of giving an extra bonus of units to a builder means more pollution, means less health for people. Every extra day you add onto the grading, it means less healthful conditions for children and people living in this community. If you're a neighbor the difference between two months of grading and four months of grading is pretty darn significant in terms of noise, in terms of dust, in terms of your health impacts. They say well, what's the difference between 1.8 million cubic yards versus 900(000) cubic yards - two months, four months, big deal - it's all temporary. Ladies and gentlemen. If the City of Diamond Bar and every city in this area has that same attitude it builds up and you have an impact on everybody in this region. And you really need to look at that issue in terms of how it's going to effect things. You've got to have good reasons to give them all of these things that they're asking which are far beyond what they expected reasonably when they bought this property. Finally, you have no obligation to give them 130 units. You have no obligation to give them AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 23 120 units. They have, as your own staff report does admit at one point, unless you deprive them of all economic value of this land you are not taking their property. And if you balance all of the factors you look at what your City law says, your General Plan says, it doesn't make sense to give them all these units. And I don't want to sort of buy into their strategy of saying its got to be 53 units because then it makes me and my clients look like we're being extremists. But you can build within the confines of Lot 6 and you can build more than 53 units. And if you get a reputable engineer up here and you ask him under penalty of perjury to say oh, no - we can't get any more than 53 units in there, I don't think you're going to get anybody who's going to say that. So I do encourage you on that subject to talk to Mr. Stevens. Do ask him - I've found him to be - this is the first time I've had the privilege of working with him - I've found him to be very knowledgeable - he usually works for the developers side and knows the ins and outs of these types of situations and I would submit that he will be able to provide you with some very helpful information on this. Thank you very much for your time and attention." C/C/O'Connor: "Madam Mayor, may I ask Mr. Johnson a question on my own time and I'll ask for a short response. Mr. Johnson, you refer to a standard ratio of 8 to 1 for homes to sell. Where does that standard ratio come from?" Mr. Johnson: "You can ask Mr. Stevens about that. What it is, it's the ratio of the land value to the sales price of the home." C/O'Connor: "I understand that. But where does that standard ratio - does that come from Realtors or does that come from development world or where does that standard come from?" Mr. Johnson: "My understanding is it's the general standard in the building industry. The numbers change and can be different in different circumstances." C/O'Connor: "So we could contact the building industry to confirm that standard ratio?" Mr. Johnson: "I believe so." Michael Stevens: "Thank you Honorable Mayor and Council Members. I guess one of the benefits of coming last is that you hear just about everyone hear just about everyone say some of the things that you intend to say. But I'll try then to be somewhat in the role of summarizing things that you've heard, some of the things that have struck me. And I too, share Mr. Johnson's observation that I've seldom heard such an eloquent and forceful presentation in favor of a project by a staff. I've been in that role of staff. AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 24 I've been in this business for over 24 years on both sides. But I'm here to tell you that everything is not all smooth with the documentation that I've seen. And there's an awful lot of it. I believe that when you look at the facts you'll make different conclusions about environmental impacts and about your role in addressing those impacts. I won't go deeper into the General Plan conformance but I did hear comments about specific plans. They are authorized by State law and in my experience they have different processing requirements, different findings, different obligations by your Council and by developers. If your General Plan truly does specify a specific plan for this property, it has not been prepared. Regarding the sizes of the lots and the density I'm not going to be presumptuous to tell you I can take a brief look at this person's property and tell you I can redesign it better than his professional team. They have done quite a job. They have provided you with a lot of graphics, charts, comparisons, but, a couple of things that I heard during especially Mr. DeStefano's presentation, struck me. He mentioned that any grading on this site would be significant. Any grading. Truly the quantities that we're talking about are more than significant and I can base that on experience in a lot of jurisdictions. But he went on to say that the larger lots, several of them were on the periphery of the development. They abut cut slopes and fill slopes. By definition then, don't those larger lots on the outskirts of the development push these slopes out farther than they would if the lots were the smaller size contemplated by the General Plan and the zone? I think they clearly do. That to me is one easy and logical step that could be taken to reduce not only the quantity of the grading but its extent in area. I'm going to shotgun a couple of other points and then get back to this grading issue. I did hear mention about the traffic of 9.6 average daily trips per single family dwelling and in my experience that's lower than the low end of the range. It is in truth, closer to 10 to 12 for single family detached homes. We are simply driving more and driving more places than ever in the past in my experience and those numbers are going up not down. Considerable discussion occurred tonight about a north facing slope and a habitat of cost live oak woodlands. That, Mayor and Council Members, is a significant environmental resource. One that has diminished down to a few single digit percentiles of its original distribution throughout Southern California. Everywhere that we work as land use professionals, coast live oak woodlands are treated with much greater care. Especially when they exhibit trees with trunk sizes up to 48 inches. It take hundreds of years to establish trees and a habitat of that significance. And north facing slopes is of course, one of the rare sub -ecosystems that those trees love. You can't replenish them. Especially at a 2:1 ratio. The standard in this industry is 5 to 10:1. Please ask your staff for more information on the oaks and the possibility of their survival. If visual and aesthetic impacts are a significant unmitigable impact surely the grading that causes them must also be determined significant and not mitigable. We do not know if exceedance of Air Quality Management District standards is a health risk. Why then do we have them? Why are there Air Quality Management District standards AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 25 if they can be exceeded. You would be asked, in approving a project like this, to make findings - not findings that pertain to air quality, not findings that pertain to aesthetics, but findings of overriding benefits. That's purely an apples to oranges analysis. That's an admission that the project, as designed, cannot solve its environmental problems. The California Environmental Quality Act sets up that quandary for you as decision -makers. What type of overriding benefit findings can outweigh some of these impact issues? You must decide. And I haven't even seen the candidate findings to support that. Cumulative impacts as we've heard mainly deal with the conversion of land use. But there's a greater impact - cumulative - that will haunt this Council and it will be in the form of other developers with mass grading projects, complete cut and fill grading projects, be they balanced or unbalanced, and it will be difficult to say no if they compare the measurements. We have less than 1.8 million cubic yards. A staggering amount. We have less than 500 foot planned view slope faces. Surely our project deserves approval. And we're not asking for a General Plan amendment or a de facto General Plan amendment. General Plan amendments are a serious undertaking as you well know. You can only do it several times a year. A different procedure altogether. I've heard this likened to a General Plan amendment. My reading of your General Plan supports that. If the gradient of these streets are so gentle from 2 to 14 percent, why can't this project be designed to truly be a natural landform project. The only thing natural I see is the simulation of nature. If the terrain allows grades so gentle can't the streets meandered somewhat to conform to the natural land form? I find the answer somewhat in the fact that this is built atop an ancient landslide. Landslides don't like to hold still. It takes heroic measures. You must excavate down to, I saw 80 feet of depth. You must install buttress structures, shear keys, all sorts of things. But when do those get designed? Is it at the tentative stage? Are you the City Council liable for any of these if they fail? I find that at the final plan, the final improvement stage, the soils engineer makes detailed specifications - soils mechanics; geotechnical reports; grading, paving, compaction recommendations. Just the shrink -swell factor in soils can alter the geometry of this grading to a point that you can't consider in substantial conformance with the Tentative Map. It happens all of the time. Especially when you're dealing with such terrific volumes of material. The lots as you said are large. The alternate designs we've seen are what I call sketch plans. They do not have the same level of detail. They're not as reliable as a Tentative Tract Map. You've seen a water tank that migrates within these various plans. The water tank is not necessary for the service of this project. Its hydraulic radiant isn't there. Its in the middle of the project. Some of the lots are higher, some of the lots are lower. Those tanks are not for the service of this project. They could serve some of the lots. I've heard in testimony that they're not for the project at hand. But they're tremendous space consumers. I saw elevations outside the boundaries of this project where the tanks could be located in the alternative. And that would reduce AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 26 grading. It has to. The tanks are huge. I've given you a bit of an overview of some of what I think are the salient issues of the project. I'd like to invite your questions to me. Especially regarding the CEQA issues. I'd like you to search the testimony, both mine and the staffs and ask the proponent of the project questions. Find out how other jurisdictions handle grading of this quantity. There's almost 14,000 cubic yards of earth moved per single home site in this project. That ladies and gentlemen is just too much. It can be done better. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you." Jack Gutowski: "My name is Jack Gutowski. I live at 1856 Kiowa Crest Drive in Diamond Bar which is in the southern end of the City far away from this project. And I've heard the people who live near this project who spoke and are effected by the project. I would have asked them to come in the past years when other projects were being developed that were approved that have brought us to this point: The destruction of Sandstone Canyon which for me when people ask me if I live in Diamond Bar I'm almost embarrassed me riding down the 57 freeway what happened to that beautiful stretch of land that we once had there. And I think that was a watershed kind of development that makes this development look like peanuts. To call this area Lot 6 an alternative plan, the 53 housing development, to even call it an alternative lets people know there's something more at work here. Because that's the only, according to our map restrictions and whatever, the only project that would be allowable, and to call that an alternative would let people know there's some kind of deal already in with the staff. And to listen to Mr. DeStefano spend such a great amount of time talking about the two main proposals and then to talk about the 53 housing development in tones that were almost of disappointment. There was almost a disappointment to his voice when he was discussing those projects. You know, it should alarm people in the community. I mean, if you ever wanted to see what development is like in this community, go to City Hall and see that the counters are meant for individuals like myself and other people in the community and developers have access to this City like no one would believe so that the people who bought this particular property knowing that we had map restrictions and somehow bemoaning the fact that they can't somehow lift those map restrictions and blaming the rest of us 1 think is disingenuous on their part. And I really don't have much faith in this City Council as its constituted today to work on behalf of the citizens of Diamond Bar. I think that our community has been emasculated in the 10 or so years that we've been a City. We incorporated because we wanted to get away from the County and now the simple restrictions that the County had in place 10 years ago we're talking about removing wholesalely because developers want to give us a paltry $250,000 plus the responsibility of taking care of property that they rightfully should take care of. It's kind of a disgusting situation that we've been brought to in this particular City. And I'm kind of ashamed because this is a beautiful community. And we bought here because we loved the ridgelines, we loved the hillsides. We all live in AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 27 ridgelines at the bottoms and the tops of canyons. And here you are destroying them. Plowing them over into a big hole and calling that progress. I think it's disgusting and I'm ashamed of all of us for letting it happen. Thank you." Todd Kurtin spoke about his proposed project and addressed citizen's concerns. Lex Williman, Hunsaker & Associates, responded to resident's concerns. M/Herrera: "Does any Council have questions?" C/Ansari:,Yeah. I have a question. I have a question mainly of Todd Kurtin. He did mention the fact that legally he was entitled to 130 houses because of the Planning 2. 1 wrote it down when he said that. It is a maximum that you are allowed in Planning but legally, you could have one if we so say." Todd Kurtin: "That's correct. You're correct. I'm not an attorney. You're correct." C/Ansari: The other issue is that I believe that you said was about the fact of other areas in Diamond Bar that you had built upon. However, the other areas in Diamond Bar that you designed did not have deed restrictions. Is that not so? Okay." Todd Kurtin: "These don't have deed restrictions, these have map restrictions." C/Ansari: "Alright. Map restrictions then. But they did not have map restrictions, the other properties that you designed. Okay. Thank you." Todd Kurtin: "Since it came up, I'd just like to point out one more thing that's on the matrix that Mr. Smith provided. It shows ... (outburst from the audience) Is our time up? If our time's up, Madam Mayor..." M/Herrera: "Excuse me, audience, but this is a dual process hearing and this is the applicant. Go ahead, Mr. Kurtin." C/Ansari: "Be careful." Todd Kurtin: "On the comparison matrix, I'd just like to point out one more fact - that we're asking to develop in Lot 5 and 7. This points out that development will occur on approximately 1. 18 acres of Lot 5 and 4.33 acres of Lot 7. So a total of 5 acres it says we're going outside of Lot 6. 1 think to develop the highest and best plan for this and just to exceed Lot 6 by 5 acres AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 28 I think that's reasonable to get the best plan possible. Thank you very much." M/Herrera: "Okay. Thank you Mr. Kurtin. Okay. Mrs. O'Connor, you have a question." C/O'Connor: "Mr. Williman, if you could come back up and put up that chart that you had. I need a little bit more. You made the comment that there will be a hundred foot, I'm not sure if you said fill above the project. Could you explain that a little bit more." Lex Williman: "Yes, I will. In order to maximize what little developable area we do have, its actually a combination cut and fill. There is a horseshoe cut in this area to allow both the water tank to occur and to get some lots in this area. This is the ridge right here. It actually comes down like that." C/O'Connor: "I guess my question, did you say that it will be a hundred feet above the homes?" Lex Williman: "Yes. Councilman O'Connor, this actually does show it a little better. Its a colored map of the geotechnical constraints on the site and the cuts and the fills. With this in order to get developable area in here with this ridge right here and to get a water tank site at the right elevation, we've created a cut in here. Now I originally didn't do a fill in here but what I was told both here and along these is because of the steep nature of the existing slopes that they wanted to have what essentially is a buttress fill but it'll keep mud flows and that sort of thing from coming down into these lots and that we needed to go ahead and put a fill in there that is essentially a 2:1 as opposed to something steeper." C/O'Connor: "But you're saying it will be a hundred feet above the homes. Is that what you said?" Lex Williman: "Absolutely." C/O'Connor: "Well how is that going to prevent mud flow coming down off that hundred foot mountain?" Lex Williman: "What you don't see, and the space is there, that there will be benches - terraces. I didn't have a lot of time to do this, but..." C/O'Connor: "Why do you have to have the hundred foot?" Lex Williman: "I don't. But if I don't have that hundred foot basically, everything in here goes away. I can't even get a road in there. I mean, that cut is to create this pad area. I was struggling to get everything I possibly AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 29 could in the little area that we had." C/O'Connor: "I'm sorry. I guess I don't see this. You're cutting that, but it's still going to be a hundred feet above the homes down below." Lex Williman: "Yes. There's... okay. Let me give you an example. This pad right here is at 1,000. Lot 40. As you go up actually the top of the peak right here is at an elevation of 1114 ... oops I take that back. 1142. 1 can't read. So its actually even higher. And again, I mean it's not something I want to do but that's the existing topography. And I can't get this road up any quicker. I'm already coming up at 14 percent and flattening out through intersections but I've got 14 percent here and 14 percent through here just to get up to get a water tank site. And if I can't do this cut I can't get the water tank in a cut area. I'm restricted over here. I mean these fills are already pretty maxed out as far as staying within Lot 6 so I can't push this over. It's very confining. I mean, I wish it was otherwise but it is very confining." C/Ansari: I have another question to ask when you have a chance. I have another question to ask. Is that a requirement - the water tank for 53 houses?" Lex Williman:,Yeah. The 1050, the Water District, and I'll be truthful, I'm not sure of the exact status right at the moment. They originally had two water tank sites on this. The 1200 was sort of an option and they're doing their master plan as we speak but it's been delayed somewhat. But the 1050 has been consistent from the very beginning in early discussions with the water district and so we have kept it in there from the very beginning. Obviously, it shows on the proposed Tentative Map. And so, in terms of the alternatives we didn't make the original assumption on the 120 that okay, if we take it out maybe we can find an alternative location for it, but they would prefer it to be within the subdivision because what they want to do, its a little technical, but they want to have their water lines running past and through it because they want water circulating through these things on a constant basis in order for the water quality - if the water sits there too long it gets stagnant, it essentially stagnates - so they want that the tank actually be within the subdivision." C/Ansari: "The reason I'm asking this is I was just looking at the houses that are on Diamond Bar Boulevard - one through five - and if it didn't need the water tank I was thinking you said you could put more houses if you didn't need that tank where 1050 is and I'm thinking maybe some of those houses could be shifted that way and not have them on Diamond Bar Boulevard." Lex Williman: "Yeah. When I had looked at that I can get approximately three to four lots where the 1050 tank is, is what I could do." AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 30 C/Ansari: "Okay. And then you wouldn't have those houses on Diamond Bar Boulevard." Lex Williman: "Well, I'd still want those. You're already taking away. Don't take any more. Yeah. Right now as far as we're concerned, the water tank is a given for the Water District. Thank you very much." M/Herrera: "Are there any other questions?" C/Ansari: "I have my questions buried under here." M/Herrera: "I know .... oh. Mr. Kurtin." Todd Kurtin: I just want to clarify that the Water District owns land there right at this time so right where we have the water tank is where they own land." M/Herrera: "Oh. So that's why it's in that spot." C/Ansari: "They own the land." Todd Kurtin: "They own the land. We're negotiating with them, or we're in discussions with them to move one off-site because right now they don't need it. They only need one more tank for potable water. Now they're doing their master plan over again. They don't need it for that. They're looking at a reclaim system - water system right now. And they don't think they need it but they're doing a study and we'll find out in a couple of months if they need it and at what elevation. But they own two sites on our property. So they have the right to build on those locations at this time." M/Herrera: "Okay. Thank you for that clarification. I know some of us were wondering why was it in that spot. Mr. Belanger, a technical question. The Council - I imagine each one of us, has a series of questions that we would like now to ask. Would we close the public hearing now then? And then the Council will get into the business of analyzing and asking questions." CM/Belanger: "If the City Council chooses to close the public hearing they certainly can do so." C/Ansari: "I had a lot of questions, still." C/O'Connor: "I believe I need to make a statement for the record. During the week following the July 7 public hearing I had discussions with not only SunCal but also public members or citizens about this project and also on July 21 1 took a physical tour of the area with Deputy City Manager Jim DeStefano. Thank you." AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 31 M/Herrera: "Can I ask the City Attorney, do each of us need to declare if we've had conversations?" ACA/Susskind: "Yes. It's a good idea and just to add an answer to the question you asked before about closing the public hearing it would be a good idea to leave it open if you're going to have questions of the applicant or any member of the public. If your questions are directed at staff and consultants then it would be appropriate to close." M/Herrera: "Okay. Okay, first we'll get into declarations. Mr. Huff." C/Huff: "I have talked to various residents of the community as well as, the applicant and have been out to the site, so, just for the public record." M/Herrera: I also have talked to the applicant but that was about a year and a half ago. But 1 guess I could declare that and I've been out to the site. Anybody else?" C/Ansari: I had requested of Mr. Kurtin to talk with him. I also a month ago I also had relayed communication through Mr. DeStefano but Mr. Kurtin has not returned any questions I had. And I had met with citizens in the community to have questions asked of me. Thank you." MPT/Chang: "I don't really think we have to declare this. Why are we to declare whether we talked to Mr. Kurtin or not, but basically Mr. Kurtin talked to me one time when I was running the campaign. And that is it. But I think all of what we consider here is the benefits for the community and of course, if meanwhile we can commit the developer being benefited and also benefit the community, why not we do that. But of course, our priority is the community's benefits. I think that's what we consider here. Some of the residents here saying they do not have the faith of the Council Members, I think it's a little bit too far. I think we are here to try and consider the best benefits for the community. Thank you." M/Herrera: Okay. Thank you Mr. Chang. Then I guess we'll leave the public hearing open then because I don't know if individual Council have any question of any members of the audience or their attorney. So just in case, I would..." ACA/Susskind: "Well, you could ask the Council if anybody does and if they all say no then you could close the public hearing." M/Herrera: "Oh. Thank you. Okay. Looking at the various questions that each of us probably have, do any Council have any questions of any members of the audience or of Mr. Johnson or of Michael Stevens?" AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 32 C/Ansari: "Yes. I'd like to ask a question of Bonterra concerning a question that was raised about from the planner - I forgot his name." M/Herrera: "Bonterra is our consultant." C/Ansari: "I know." M/Herrera: "We would want to get in the questions of the audience first and then we're going to close the public hearing. C/Ansari: "Well, the question I had was about the coastal oaks Okay. Thank you. Okay." C/O'Connor: "I'm not sure whether this falls into what we need to do but there were a few statements made by citizens that I would like to have clarified by staff. Now I'm not sure if that's part of the public hearing process..." ACA/Susskind: "No. If you're asking questions of staff - responses, clarifications - whether its staff or the City's consultants, you would not need to leave the public hearing open. I was just suggesting that if you had questions directly of audience members and the applicant to make sure that their responses to your questions were in the hearing record, you might want to keep that open." M/Herrera: "It appears that we don't have questions of the audience or of Mr. Johnson or of Michael Stevens and so....." CM/Belanger: "Madam Mayor, do you have questions of the applicant?" M/Herrera: "Yes. Would that fall under the.... CM/Belanger: "Yes, ma'am." M/Herrera: "Okay. Council. Which questions do you have of the applicant?" C/Ansari: One of the questions that the audience, the citizens kept asking is the burden of taking over 85 percent of the property and the cost of caring for that property for fire, safety, liability, for the City if we take it over. I would like to ask the applicant, what is the cost for the maintenance of those slopes now and your liability and you know, the protection of that area per year you know, for fire protection, etc." Todd Kurtin: We have insurance on the property. I was talking to my partner. We don't know off the top of our head, but this is just a vacant land. AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 33 We think our insurance on this property is about $5,000 to $6,000 a year. We have weed abatement that we are required to do and that probably runs us and I would guesstimate again, a couple thousand dollars. You know, this is basically natural open space. There is not a lot of maintenance to this property." C/Ansari: "Okay. Thank you." M/Herrera: "Does anyone else have questions of the applicant?" (Council conferring) C/Huff: "I would like to ask the applicant - you presented different plans to us. In the presentation you said that some of for illustrative purposes only. We're buzzing up here trying to figure out if we should be leaning toward one of the plans other than 130. And maybe this is something staff answer, but what does that mean to you, what does that mean to us. The City Attorney would like to tackle that first, I think. No, now they're passing that back and forth." ACA/Susskind: "No, we've got it. The application before you is for 130. The other alternatives that have been considered are for hypothetical purposes, really. And if you want to consider another alternative, it really needs to go back - it may need to go back to the Planning Commission and may even possibly need to be submitted as a new application." C/Huff: "So just to clarify, then, we have the 130 that has gone through the Planning Commission that has come to us. We either accept it or you know, tweak it within the abilities that the applicant will take it or deny it." ACA/Susskind: "That's right." C/Huff: "Okay. Thank you." CM/Belanger: "We already sent it back to the Planning Commission. You remanded to the Planning Commission to have them consider something else." C/Huff: "Okay". M/Herrera: "Okay. So I think that probably concludes our questions of the applicant and what remains then are questions of staff. And so at 10:38 (p.m.) I will close the Public Hearing. And who wants to jump in with their questions? Yes, Mr. Huff." C/Huff: "You know, I'd like a clarification first because I did say, and this is AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 34 something the City Attorney can speak to, I made the comment at the last meeting that we were not sitting up here as legislators like we normally do but we were sitting here in a quasi-judicial mode. One of the speakers tonight basically contested that. And I would just, you know, maybe I'm wrong. if you could elucidate for us, you know, what is our role here, I would appreciate that." ACA/Susskind: "if you were to consider a General Plan amendment or a Zoning Code amendment, that would be legislative even though it might be done in the context of an application for a specific development. But tonight you are sitting in judgement of a particular development application that does not include a General Plan amendment, does not include a Zone Code amendment. And so, as such, it is simply a quasi judicial matter tonight." C/Huff:11 So do you see it as more or less judges here trying to decide whether this is fair within the context of, you know, what is before us in our y laws and stuff. Having said that, most judges get an opportunity to go to their chambers and deliberate a little bit before they come out and we're looking at 20 minutes 'til 11:00 (p.m.) when we try to get out of here. For continuity on my part, I would prefer to go back and synthesize this information and come up with some intelligent questions because I have bits and pieces all over the place. I'd be happy to move forward if that is the Council's wishes, but my preference would be to be, now that we've closed the public hearing, to go back and look over our stuff and come back with some intelligent, hopefully, questions at the next time." M/Herrera: "Okay. I anticipate that we will be scheduling this for another date to continue conversation on it. I don't anticipate that we would be able to synthesize everything tonight. We've been given a lot of information and people in the audience have commented that they haven't had many days to review all the new information. The Council has had the same amount of very few days that you have had and so we need a little bit of time to consider and contemplate, also. There are just a couple of questions and clarification that I would like to make. Mr. Marty Torres asked the question, who monitors the shutdown when its too windy? And I know that we're going to have various environmental people monitoring different things..." CM/Belanger: "Mr. DeStefano will tell you all about the mitigation monitoring requirements." DCM/DeStefano: "Mayor, Members of the Council. Should the project be approved and the EIR certified, there would be an accompanying document called a Mitigation Monitoring Plan. And in order to implement that, the City would employ professional consultants to deal with the variety of disciplines they have to examine out in the field. There would be on-site monitors throughout the duration of the project for various aspects. One of the issues AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 35 would be this whole concern over grading and the wind conditions and so forth. There are conditions that are typically added to a project like this that say that when the winds exceed a certain level that the grading must cease. And if the City employed monitors, that does happen. Projects have been slowed down, stopped, in this City and others as a result of the weather. And we get reports on what the weather conditions are so that as the contractor, so they know ahead of time whether it's going to be a windy day and whether they ought to show up or not. And using that example, that's how we monitor it through the technical consultants that are employed that the developer pays the City for. It is not a cost burdened by the City. It's the price of doing business in the development field." M/Herrera: "Okay. Thank you." C/O'Connor: "Is that person or monitoring done during each hour the development is going on?" DCM/DeStefano: "Yes. Particularly in the early stages because there's more activity. The archaeologists are out there. The paleontologists and so on." C/O'Connor: "So there's always somebody there 10 hours a day or however long the activity is going on?" DCM/DeStefano: "in the initial stages of the development, yes. Particularly during the grading. Beyond that there's less need for those monitors and more frequent need for inspectors of the public infrastructure or the dwelling units or whatever the stage of development is." C/O'Connor: "I want to follow up on a comment made by Mr. Torres concerned about the staging area on Highcrest. Could you explain just a little bit more exactly what that means and how far that staging area would be from, let's say, the residents there on Highcrest, and how much movement other than the workers coming in is there really of heavy equipment." PWDNVentz: "Mayor and Members of Council: In relationship to the staging area, that was discussed quite a bit at the Planning Commission level as well and concern over proximity of where the equipment would be housed if I can use that term, during construction. And all staging really means is where does the contractor keep his equipment overnight and when it is not operating and where do they originate from as they continue their work. So they do their work during the day, they move their equipment back there during the end of the day and its stored there. The workers would come, for example, in the morning to get their equipment. They do their repair work at that location. Those kinds of activities are what typically take place in a AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 36 staging area. The mission would be to keep the staging area for the least amount of time necessary because they can move that equipment to different locations on the site, if you will, depending on how the project is being phased. They would give that to us as part of the construction plan, as part of their grading plan. So, our goal is to keep whatever staging area is proposed as far away from residences as possible, as unseen as possible, and with the least impact. The proposal is to move it up to Highridge (Highcrest) because as someone stated earlier, it is best to work from an upper elevation to a lower elevation when you're starting a project. Starting it up down at Diamond Bar Boulevard for example, creates some other kinds of problems in terms of having to drive up to the top of the project every day, for example, for all of that equipment to start working up there. It's less productive, potentially, from the developers point of view and it might be more noisy. So we look at those kinds of questions and when they propose their grading we'll look at staging area and make those kinds of decisions in terms of the least impact for the residents primarily." C/O'Connor: "So we're not talking about heavy equipment coming up Goldrush and Highcrest on a daily basis. Once it gets there it's going to stay there until the grading is finished or until the equipment is done. So the traffic that we're talking about, once that equipment is there, is going to be the workers and their trucks and cars coming up there and parking for the day." PWD/Wentz: "That's correct. It will be an initial time as you just stated, when all of the equipment has to be moved to the site. We try to restrict that and we try to make sure we know when that's going to occur and try to coordinate that unless there's a specialized piece of equipment that they need to bring in alone as the project goes, but it certainly would not be routine, that's right." C/O'Connor: "Thank you." C/Ansari: "I think I'll have questions when I look over my notes as I quickly wrote them down and I'd like to be able to write those questions down and submit them to the staff that I have. Today I think there were some speakers that were there that gave me some thought in some other areas I hadn't thought about including the north slope oaks. I'd like to ask questions on that. Thank you." M/Herrera: "I would like to comment on what some of the speakers said regarding the City staffs presentation regarding the proposed project. When Mr. DeStefano began his presentation he stated that he was delivering verbally what our City Attorney had prepared. And what our City Attorney had prepared was a response to various allegations made by Kevin Johnson who sent two letters to the City saying that the City didn't have any legal AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 37 rights to approve this project. The City Council asked staff to look into these allegations and prepare a response. The City Attorney did that and Mr. DeStefano delivered that as part of his presentation. And so I think the criticism that was expressed about his presentation was unfair and unfounded. Does anybody else have any questions? Okay. I think I'm going to adjourn this meeting then this evening and various Council have expressed the desire to think about the statements that were made tonight, all the testimony that was given, all the questions that were asked. We would like the opportunity to evaluate all of this information and we will bring this matter back at the next scheduled Council meeting on September 1. C/O'Connor: "Is September 1 going to give the Council enough time to write their questions and staff enough time to respond? I mean I really don't want to postpone it either, but is that going to give staff enough time to respond to Council comments?" CM/Belanger: "It'll depend at least in part, as to when we get them." M/Herrera: Lets aim for September 1. I don't have that many questions of staff I don't think at this point. Let's aim for the first meeting in September and if it appears that there are a lot of questions from Council then we will defer it to the second meeting in September. Thank you all for coming and have a good evening." 11. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the City Council, M/Herrera adjourned the meeting at 10:58 p.m. ATTEST: Mayor LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Huff and Board of Directors FROM: Linda G. Magnuson, Asst. Finance Director SUBJECT: Voucher Register, September 1, 1998 DATE: August 27, 1998 Attached is the Voucher Register dated September 1, 1998 for the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency. The checks will be produced after any recommendations and the final approval is received. Payment of the listed vouchers in the amount of $40,563.25 is hereby allowed from the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency Fund. APPROVED BY: Linda G. Magn son Robert S. Huff Asst. Finance Director Chairman Terrence L. Belanger Executive Director Eileen R. Ansari Vice Chairman CITY OF DIAMOND BAR VOUCHER REGISTER APPROVAL The attached listing of vouchers dated 090198 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 77,831.25 291,599'00 369,430.25 010 LIBRARY SERVICES .0O 1,091.07 1,091.07 112 PROP A - TRANSIT FUND .00 48,361.12 48,361.12 115 INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FUND .00 117.00 117.00 118 AIR 01 -TY IMPR FD (AB2766) .00 7,797.31 7,797.31 126 CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SFTY 328.77 77.26 406.03 138 LLAD #38 FUND .00 7,366.16 7,366.16 139 LLAD #39 FUND .00 9,329.98 9,329.98 141 LLAD #41 FUND .00 12,240.98 12,240.98 250 CAPITAL IMPROV/PROJ FUND .00 14,671.88 14,671.88 REPORT FOR ALL FUNDS 392,651.76 470,811.78 78,160.02 APPROVED BY: Assistant Finance Director *V� -44�_ Terrence 1—Belan City 111i--kriager _ Carol Herrera Mayor Deborah H. O'Connor Council Member CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: I DUE THRU: 09/01/1998 PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK, A&B BUS COMPANY 1125360-45310-- 7399 2114 TRANSP-DAY CAMP -JULY 1,275.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 1,275.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 1,275.00 A.G. INDUSTRY 0014090-42205-- 6958 21177 COMPUTER MONITOR REPAIRS 95.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 95.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 95.00 ABBEY EVENT SERVICES 0105355-42130-- 7725 SUPPLS-8115-LIBRARY OPENG 107.40 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 107.40 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 107.40 ACCURATE LANDSCAPE 1385538-45500-- 7780 0711267 MAINT-LLAD 3R-JUL/AUG 6,800.00 0015319-45300-- 7780 0711267 MAINT-PETERSN PRk:-JUL/AUG 2,908.76 138.5538-42210-- 7543/0711171 ADD'L MAINT-LLAD 38 -AUG 280.47 0015331-45301-- 7780 0711267 MAIM-SYC CYN PRK.-JUL/AUG 1,381.66 0015318-45300-- 7730 0711267 MAINT-PANTERA PRY-JUL/AUG 2,917.84 0015322-42210-- 7543/0711171 ADD'L MAINT-AUG RON REAGN 163.56 001525-45300-- 7780 0711267 MAINT-STARSHINE-JUL/AUG 690.92 0015319-42210-- 7543/07111,11 ADD'L MAINT-AUG PETERSON 168.81 0015316-45300-- 7780 0711267 MAINT-MPL HLL PRY-JUL/AUG 1,381.66 0015328-45300-- 7780 0711267 MAINT-SUMMITRIDGE-JUL/AUG 4,001.02 0015313-45300-- 7780 0711267 MAINT-HRTG PRY-JUL/AUG 1,174.42 1395539-45500-- 7780 0711267 MAINT-LLAD 39-JUL/AUG 7,800.00 1415541-45500-- 7780 0711267 MAINT-LLAD 41-JUL/AUG 4,000.00 0015311-45300-- 7780 0711267 MAINT-P GROW PRY-JUL/AUG 1,727.08 0015322-45300-- 7780 0711267 MAINT-RON REAGAN JUL/AUG 2,026.50 0015316-42210-- 7543/0711171 ADD'L MAINT-MAPLE HILL 240.43 0015311-42210-- 7543/0711171 ADD'L MAINT-PAUL GROW 94.52 0015313-42210-- 7543/0711171 ADD'L MAINT-HERITGE PRY 76.73 1395539-42210-- 7543/0711171 ADD'L MAINT-LLAD 39 -AUG 364.36 1415541-42210-- 7543/0711171 ADD'L MAINT-LLAD 41 -AUG 260.15 001528-42210-- 7543/0711171 ADD'L MAINT-AUG SUMTRDG 149.02 0015331-42210-- 7543/0711171 ADD'L MAINT-AUG SYC CYN 112.55 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 38,720.46 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 308,720.46 MARY ALBA 001-23002-- 46332 REFUND/DEPST-HRTG PRY 50.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 50.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 50.00 CITY OF DIAMOND BAF: RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 2 DUE THRU: 09/01/19.98 PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK. APR CONSULTING, INC 0014095-44000-- 7645 DB980819 PROF SVC-COMPUTER SYSTEM 2,000.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 2,000.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 2,000.00 JERRY ARNET 001-34780-- 25764 RECREATION REFUND 54.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 54.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 54.00 AT&T 0014095-42125-- LONG DISTANCE PHNE SVCS 13.76 0014090-42125-- LONG DISTANCE PHNE SVCS 26.48 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 40.24 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 40.24 ELEANORE BELL 001-34780-- 26218 RECREATION REFUND 29.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 29.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 29.00 BEST LIGHTING 0015313-42210-- 7783 L10232 LIGHT REPAIRS-HRTGE PARK, 863.09 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 863.09 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 863.09 BILL'S LOCK AND SAFE 0015310-41200-- 7540-OPEN KEYS-PARKS 24.57 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 24.57 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 24.57 BRYAN STIRRAT & ASSOCIATES INC 0015.510-45227-- 7641A 980785 INSP SVCS-DERRINGER 58.50 0015510-45227-- 7782A 980785 INSP SVCS-BENTLEY WY 58.50 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 117.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 117.00 CABLING SYSTEM WAREHOUSE 0014095-46230-- 7598 950086 COMPTR SUPPLE-SWITCH BOX 26.20 0014095-46230-- 7598 950082 COMPUTER NETWORK, SUPPLS 200.05 TOTAL PREPAIDS .DO TOTAL VOUCHERS 226.25 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 226.25 �:-y OF D?AMONL jA- RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 3 DUE THRU: 05/01/1998 PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPT113N AMOUNT DATE CHECK RONALD CARLSON 001-34760-- 27385 RECREATION REFUND 187.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS w TOTAL VOUCHERS 187.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 187.00 CCCA 0014010-42325-- C COUNCIL-SHERIFF'S BBQ 51.00 09/01/1998 35123 0014415-42325-- VOL PATRL-SHERIFF'S BBQ 300.00 09/01/1998 35123 0014030-42325-- CMGRISTAFF-SHERIFF'S BBQ 105.00 09/01/1998 35123 TOTAL PREPAIDS 456.00 TOTAL VOUCHERS .00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 456.00 CERTIFIED TRANSPORTATION 1125360-45310-- 7400 01-27097 TRANSP DAYCAMP-EXCUJR7/29 388.94 TOTAL PREPAIDS •00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 388.94 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 388.94 CHARLES ABBOTT ASSOCIATES INC 0015558-45510-- 7788 049-402 JULY-TREE WATERING SVCS 1,745.04 001-23010-- 153 PROF SVCS-FPL 96-49 870.00 0015558-45508-- 7788 049-402 JULY-WEED/PRKWY MAINT 4,525.08 1125553-45527-- 7788 049-402 JULY-BUS SHELTER INSPECTN 500.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 7,640.12 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 7,640.12 CHILDCRAFT 0015350-41200-- 7594 632842001 SUPPLS-TINY TOTS 105.74 TOTAL PREPAIDS •00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 105.74 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 105.74 CINTAS CORPORATION 0015310-42130-- 7539 150179506 UNIFRMS-PRK. STAF-W/OF8/17 19.47 0015310-42130-- 7539 150178369 UNIFRMS-PRK STAF-W/OF8/10 19.47 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 38.94 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 38.94 COFFEESMITH COMPANY 0014090-42325-- 7665 1134 COFFEE/MTG SUPPLIES 37.90 0014090-42130-- 7665 2067 AUG-EQUIP RENT 17.95 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 55.85 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 55.85 KAREN COLLIER 001-23402-- 46333 REFUJND/DEPST-PANTERA 50.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 50.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 50.00 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 4 DUE THRU: 09/01/1998 PREPAID FIND/SECT-ACCT-PRDJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE DECK COMMERCE CITY MAINTENANCE COMPANY 0015314-42210-- 7538 74171 MAINT SVCS-HRTG COM CTR 440.00 TOTAL PREPAIOS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 440.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 440.00 COMMUNITY INDUSTRIES 0015556-45521-- 7545 JULY -LITTER ABATE SVCS 839.44 0015558-45503-- 5895 PKWY MAINT-APRIL-JUNE 2,136.38 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 2,975.82 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 2,975.82 D&J ENGINEERING 0015220-45201-- 7677 98DB-10 BLDG & SFTY SVCS -8/4-18 177534.34 TOTAL PREFAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 17,534.34 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 17,534.34 CAROL DENNIS 0014040-44000-- 7757 DBCC980411 MINUTES-MTGS-7/30-8/4 360.00 0015350-44300-- 7757 PRR9807 MINUTES-P&R MTG 7/23/98 80.00 0014040-440(N)-- 7757 DKC980409 MINUTES-MTGS 7/6,7 340.00 0015553-44000-- 7757 98-11 MINUTES-T&T MTG 8113/98 60.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 840.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 840.00 DEWAN LUNDIN & ASSOCIATES 0015510-45227-- 7417 008M-1 REATINING WALL INSPECTION 112.50 2505510-46411-12498-46411 7385 016-2 CONST ADMIN-DBB REHAB 11.,944.00 0015551-4522-- 7362 008L-1 PLAN CK -GRADING, RET.WALL 770.18 001-23012-- 081-2 PLAN CK -EN 97-186 595.00 0015551-45223-- 5569 008C-2 PLAN CK -GRADING, RET WALL 282.73 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 13,704.41 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 13,704.41 DIAMOND BAR BUSINESS ASSOCIATES #19 0014090-42210-- 7830 CAM-#100-JUL1#190-JUL-AUG 1,677.00 0014040-42140-- 7830 CITY HALL LEASE-JUL-SEPT 52,083.90 TOTAL PREFAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 53,760.90 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 53,760.90 DIAMOND BAR CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 0014090-44000-- 7795A 217/289 PROF SVCS-JULY/AUG 2,000.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 2,000.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 2,000.00 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 5 DUE THRU; 09/01/1998 PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK DIAMOND BAR CYCLERY 1264411-42200-- 7729 243006 REPAIR-LASD PATROL BIKE 79.25 09/01/1998 35121 TOTAL PREPAIDS 79.25 TOTAL VOUCHERS .00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 79.25 DIAMOND BAR HIGH SCHOOL 0014095-42115-- 7769 AD-DDBHS FOOTBALL PROGRAM 75.00 TOTAL PREPAID .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 75.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 75.00 DIAMOND BAR IMPROVEMENT ASSOCIATION 0014090-42115-- 7670 2127 NEWSPAPER ADS-JULY/AUGUST 440.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 440.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 440.00 DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 001-13150-- 40,563.25 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 40,563.25 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 40,563.25 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY 0015350-41200-- 7595 200186890001 CRAFT SUPPLS-TINY TOTS 68.98 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 68.98 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 68.98 DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT INC 1125553-45529-- 7671 DIAL A CAB PRGRM-7/16-31 10,190.18 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 10,190.18 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 10,190.18 ESTHER EDMONSON 001-34780-- 26223 RECREATION REFUND 27.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 27.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 27.00 EGA 001-23012-- 6808031A319 PRO= SVCS -EN 97-200 300.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 300.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 300.00 FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF MINNEAPOLIS 001-21114-- PP16/17 P/R DEDUCTIONS -SVGS BONDS 100.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 100.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 100.00 RUN DATE' 08/27/1998 16:02:13 'TOUCHER REGISTE; PAGE' 6 DUE THRU' 091(jl/l998 PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO N INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK FESS PARKER'S DOUBLETREE RESORT 0014030-42330-- CJPIA CONT-10120-21-FRTZL 283.94 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 283.94 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 283.94 GSM SERVICE 0015210-42200-- 7691 11118 MICROFICHE PRINTER REPAIR 140.00 0015210-42200-- 7691 11152 MICROFICHE PRINTER REPAIR 21.65 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 161.65 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 161.65 GFB FRIEDRICH & ASSOCIATES INC 0015551-45223-- 7633 9808-12 GRADING PLN CHECK SVCS 538.08 0015510-45227-- 7,903 F109-0103 INSP SVCS-PLATINA-JULY 112.50 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 650.53 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 650.58 MICHELLE GILCHRIST 001-34760-- 27453 RECREATION REFUND 104.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 104.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 104.00 GIRL SCOUT TROOP 207 0015350-45305-- 7784 MEALS-JULY 1-8 CON IN PRK 155.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 155.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 155.00 OLDEN WEST GRAPHICS 0014050-42110-- 7639 016851 PRINTING-TIME CARDS 243.79 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 243.79 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 243.79 GRAND MOBIL 0015210-4200-- 7786 1344 TRUCE:: REPAIR-PLANNING 325.07 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 325.07 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 325.07 GRAPHICS UNITED 0014095-42110-- 7759 6904 PRTG-COMM NWSLTR-FALL 4,775.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 4,775.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 4,775.00 ANNE HARAKSIN 0105355-41400-- SUPPLS-LIBRARY OPENING 11.77 0014030-42330-- REIMB-MMASC CONF-8/5-7 92.96 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 104.73 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 104.73 CAROL HERRERA 0014010-42330-- LEAGUE CONF REIMR-7/24 12.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 12.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 12.00 HIGHPOINT 0014095-42111-- 7514 63231 PREPRESS SRVCS-BOOKMARK 37.89 0014095-42111-- 7514 63236 PREPRESS SRVCS-BOOKMARK 177.53 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 215.42 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 215.42 HYATT REGENCY SAN DIEGO 0014030-42330-- NATOA CONF-9/9-12-FRITZL 381.24 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 381.24 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 381.24 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST -457 001-21108-- PP16/17-PAYROLL DEDUCTINS 1,728.00 0014030-40080-- SEPT -CONTRACT SVCS 400.00 001-21108-- PP16/17-CONTRB-ALL DEPTS 11,118.29 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 13,246.29 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 13,246.29 ""Y OF D':AMUNI Bkn, RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTE-, PAGE: 7 DUE THRU: 09/01/19?8 PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO 8 INVOICE DESCRIPIION AMOUNT DATE CHECK GTE CALIFORNIA 1185098-42125-- PHONE SVCS -CITY ON LINE 167.06 0015331-42125-- PHONE SVCS-SYC CYN PRK 63.14 0015313-42125-- PHONE SVCS-HRTGE PRK. 56.21 0015314-42125-- PHONE SVCS-HRTG COMM CTR 72.54 0014090-46200-- INSTALLTN-NW PHNE SYSTEM 215.00 0014095-42125-- PHONE SVCS-ECON DEV JULY 37.04 0015316-42125-- PHONE SVCS -MAPLE HILL PRK. 43.31 0015331-42125-- PHONE SVCS-SYC CYN PRK 56.21 0015331-42125-- PHONE SVCS-SYC CYN PRK 62.02 0015331-42125-- PHONE SVCS-SYC CYN PRY. 165.46 0014090-42125-- GEN PHONE SVCS -JUNE 1,918.66 0014090-42125-- PHONE SVCS -GEN GOVT JULY 3,108.76 0015322-42125-- PHONE SVCS-RON REAGAN 44.05 0015319-42125-- PHONE SVCS -PETERSON PRK 43.74 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 6,053.20 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 6,053.20 ANNE HARAKSIN 0105355-41400-- SUPPLS-LIBRARY OPENING 11.77 0014030-42330-- REIMB-MMASC CONF-8/5-7 92.96 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 104.73 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 104.73 CAROL HERRERA 0014010-42330-- LEAGUE CONF REIMR-7/24 12.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 12.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 12.00 HIGHPOINT 0014095-42111-- 7514 63231 PREPRESS SRVCS-BOOKMARK 37.89 0014095-42111-- 7514 63236 PREPRESS SRVCS-BOOKMARK 177.53 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 215.42 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 215.42 HYATT REGENCY SAN DIEGO 0014030-42330-- NATOA CONF-9/9-12-FRITZL 381.24 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 381.24 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 381.24 ICMA RETIREMENT TRUST -457 001-21108-- PP16/17-PAYROLL DEDUCTINS 1,728.00 0014030-40080-- SEPT -CONTRACT SVCS 400.00 001-21108-- PP16/17-CONTRB-ALL DEPTS 11,118.29 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 13,246.29 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 13,246.29 CITY OF DIAMONI' Bk RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 8 DUE THRU; 09/01/1998 PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK ICMA RETIREMENT -401 001-21108-- PP16/17-DEF COMP CONTRIB 1,342.30 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 1,342.30 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 17342.30 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN 001-23010-- 31503860 LEGAL AD -FPL 96-049 129.60 001723010-- 31503403 LEGAL AD -FPL 98-10 114.08 0014040-42115-- 7578 31503958 AD -PUB HRG CMP RESO 70.20 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 313.88 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 313.88 INT'L COUNCIL OF SHOPPING CENTERS 0014095-42330-- COW REG-FRT2L,HARAY.SIN 570.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 570.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 570.00 JOBS AVAILABLE 0014090-42115-- 7777 815035 JOB AD-DVLPMT SVCS ASST 79.20 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 79.20 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 79.20 JOE A GONSALVES & SON 0014010-44000-- 7797 JULY/AUG LEGIS SVCS 6,000.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 6,000.06 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 6,000.00 DORIS JOHNSON 001-34730-- 44575 REFUND -AARP CLASS 8.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 8.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 8.00 K&V BLUEPRINT 0014090-42200-- 7199 61696 ANL SVC AGREEMNT-XER 2510 360.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 360.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 360.00 KENS HARDWARE 0015319-42210-- 7580 -OPEN PETERSON PK, MAINT SUP 7.87 0015331-42210-- 7580 -OPEN SYCAMORE CYN PK MAINT SUP 5.18 0015310-41200-- 7580 -OPEN PARKS MAINT SUPPLIES 256.68 0015318-42210-- 75,,$0 -OPEN PANTERA PK MAINT SUR 52.88 0014090-42210-- 7580 -OPEN CITY HALL MAINT SUP 22.60 0015316-42210-- 7580 -OPEN MAPLE HILL PK MAINT SUP 2.48 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 347.69 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 347.69 CITY OF DIAMOND BAx RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTER DUE THRU: 09/01/1938 FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT KNOTTS BERRY FARM 0015350-45310-- 7402 760538 DAYCAMP EXCURS-7/15 TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR LA' CELLULAR 0014090-42125-- GENGOVT-PHNE CHCS JUL-AUG 0014090-42125-- COUNCIL-PHNE CHGS JUL-AUG 0014415-42125-- VOLPTRL-PHNE CHCS JUL-AUG 1264411-42125-- SHERIFF-PHN CHCS JUL-AUG 0014030-42125-- CMGR-PHONE CHCS JUL-AUG 0014440-42125-- EMER PREP CELL PHONE CHCS TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR LA COUNTY AGRICULTURE COMMISSIONER 1415541-45519-- 7360 3196C WEED ABATE SVCS-LLAD 41 1395539-42210-- 7360 3196C WEED ABATE SVCS-LLAD 39 0015331-42210-- 7360 3196C WEED ABATE SVCS-SYC CYN TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR LEAGUE OF CA CITIES 0014010 -42325 -- 0014030 -42325 -- LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (Y)14090 -42320 -- LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES 0014010 -42330 -- 0414030 -42330 -- 0014040 -42330 -- STEPHANIE LEE 001-23002-- MTG-9/03-OCNNR,HUFF,CHANG MTG-9/03-CITY MGR TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR 1998 CITY HALL RESRCE BK TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR PAGE: 9 PREPAID DATE CHECK 566.50 .00 566.50 566.50 81.27 57.32 62.97 77.26 142.23 93.10 .00 514.15 514.15 7,655.88 9',23.86 5,572.31 .00 14,152.05 14,152.05 105.00 35.00 .00 140.00 140.00 60.00 .00 60.00 60.00 ANNL CONF REGISTR-COUNCIL 1,475.00 ANNL CONF REGISTR-CMGR 295.00 ANNL CONF REG -CITY CLERK. 295.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 2,065.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 2,065.00 SEC DEPOSIT REFUND 50.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 50.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 50.00 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:0213 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 10 DUE THRU: 09/01/1998 PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK LUCILE LOHAN 001-34730-- 47030 REFUND-STATELNE EXCURS 35.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 35.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 35.00 NANCY LYONS 001-34760-- 26596 RECREATION REFUND 11.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 11.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 11.00 METROLINK 1125553-45535-- 7764 6000462 JULY-METROLINK: TICKETS 1,750.00 1125553-45533-- 7768 106582 JULY-TRANSIT SUBSIDY 5,493.00 1125553-45535-- 7768 106582 JULY-TRANSIT SUBSIDY 21,88$.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 29,131.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 29,131.00 MICROAGE COMPUTERMART DIAMOND BAR 0014095-46230-- 7781 22385 REPLACEMENT HARD DISK DR 204.59 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 204.59 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 204.59 MICROLINK ENTERPRISES 0105355-46230-- 7600 60456 LIBRY CMPTR SYS NETWK HOW 851.93 0014095-46230-- 7644 60491 COMPUTER NETWORK HARDWARE 2,763.62 0014095-46230-- 7581 660432 COMPUTER NETWORK HARDWARE 2,868.63 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 6,484.18 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 6,484.18 MIRACLE RECREATION EQUIPMENT 0015310-41200-- 459409 PARK MAINT SUPPLIES 40.40 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 40.40 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 40.40 MOBILE MODULAR MANAGEMENT GROUP 0015350-42140-- 7524 93529/100075 LEASE-REC BLDG JULY&AUG 833.52 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 833.52 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 833.52 MOONLIGHT PRESS 0015510-42110-- 7511-OPEN PRTG-PUB NOTICE ENVELOPES 218.73 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 218.73 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 218.73 -'I OF 1AMON 9H,; RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 �AXJCHER RESISTER PAGE: 11 Jlk: THRU PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE OESMIP113N AMOUNT DATE CHECK MT. BALDY UNITED WAY 001-21112-- PP16/17 PIR DEDUCTIONS-PP16/17 92.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 92.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 92.00 MUSIC TO GO 0015350-44300-- 7727 SENIOR LUAU 8/20-ENTRTMNT 100.00 09/01/1998 35122 TOTAL PREPAIDS 100.00 TOTAL VOUCHERS .00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 100.00 NATOA 0014030-42330-- ANNL CONE 9/9-12, FRITZAL 550.00 09/01/1998 36948 TOTAL PREPAIDS 550.00 TOTAL VOUCHERS .00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 550.00 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 12 DUE THRU: 09/01/199$ PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PRGJECT-ACCT PO t INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK OFFICE DEPOT 0015350-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -COM SVCS 215.31 0014040-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CITY CLERK 146.99 0015510-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES-PWKS 5.27 0015350-41200-- 5998 -OPEN OFC SUP -COM SVCS 29.94 0015510-41200-- 5998 -OPEN OFC SLIP -CREDIT MEMO-PWKS -10.63 0014050-41300-- 5998 -OPEN SM TOOLS & EBUIP-FINANCE 94.18 0014010-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CITY COUNCIL 106.04 0014050-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -FINANCE 76.79 0014090-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -GEN GOVT 643.64 0014040-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CITY CLERK 84.44 0015510-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES-PWKS 114.28 0014090-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -GEN GOVT 62.79 0014050-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CR MEM FINANCE -6.97 0014040-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CITY CLERK 23.82 0014030-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CITY MGR 3.90 0014090-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CR MEM GEN GDVT -72.20 0014030-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CITY MGR 106.04 0014010-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CITY COUNCIL 503.22 0014090-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CR MEMO GEN GOVT -20.26 0014030-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CR MEM CMGR -52.70 0014095-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -COM & MKTG 30.71 0015210-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -PLANNING 411.84 0014440-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES-EMER PREP 33.50 0015350-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -COM SVCS 267.42 0015350-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CR MEMO COM SVCS -42.78 0015210-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -PLANNING 87.95 0014010-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CR MEMO CCOUNCIL -52.70 0014090-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -GEN GOVT 229.59 0014030-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CITY MANAGER 204.77 0014090-41200-- 5998 -OPEN OFC SUF-GEN GOVT 40.23 0014090-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -GEN GOVT 36.87 i1)14090-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -GEN GOVT 8.53 0015210-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -PLANNING 6.28 0014010-41200-- 7666 -OPEN SUPPLIES -CITY COUNCIL 30.70 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 3,346.80 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 3,346.80 OHANA POLYNESIAN DANCERS 0015350-44300-- 7728 SR LUAU 8/20 ENTERTAINMT 200.00 09/01/1998 36949 TOTAL PREPAIDS 200.00 TOTAL VOUCHERS .00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 200.00 FANNIE OWU 001-34780-- 27487 RECREATION REFUND 170.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 170.00 TOTAL DLP VENDOR 170.00 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 13 DUE THRU: 09/01/1998 PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK PAL INTERNATIONAL 0014090-46310-- 7442 08598 BACK. WALL DESIGN-STE190 420.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 420.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 420,00 PAYROLL TRANSFER 001-10200-- PAYROLL TRANSFER - PP17 58,100.00 09/01/1998 17 001-10200-- PP15-PAYROLL TRANSFER 59,800.00 001-10200-- CORRECTION -59,800.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS 58,100.00 TOTAL VOUCHERS .00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 58,100.00 PERS RETIREMENT FUND 001-21109-- RETIREMENT COM-PP16 3,269.40 09/01/1998 35126 001-21109-- RETIREMENT CONTR-PP16 3,716.45 09/01/1998 35126 001-21109-- MILITARY BUY BACK-PP17 509.69 09/01/1998 35125 001-21109-- RETIREMENT CONTR-PP17 3,859.44 09/01/1998 35125 001-21109-- MILITARY BUY BACK-PP16 509,69 09/01/1998 35126 (O1-21109-- RETIREMENT CONTR-PP17 3,395.19 09/01/1998 35125 TOTAL PREPAIDS 15,259.86 TOTAL VOUCHERS .00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 15,259.86 POMONA JUDICIAL DISTRICT 001-32230-- JULY 98 -PARKING ACTIVITY 470.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 470.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 470.00 POMONA VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY 0014431-45403-- 7566 9600-42500-8 ANIMAL CONTROL SVCS -AUG 4,959.17 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 4,959.17 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 4,959.17 RADIDSHACK 0014040-41200-- 7796 230038 TELEPHONE HEADSET -C CLERK 54.11 0014095-41200-- 229492 CASH RECEIPTS SYSTEM-SUPP 23.43 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 77.54 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 77.54 RALPHS GROCERY COMPANY 0105355-41400-- 7687 -OPEN LIBRARY RE -OPENING SUPP 24.21 0015318-41400-- 7787 95242 PANTERA PARK-GRND OPENING 704.46 0015350-41200-- 7526 OPEN244-46,9 TINYTOTS/DAYCAMP SUPPLIES 141.85 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 870.52 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 870.52 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CITY MGR ASSOC 0014030-42315-- ANNL MEMBERSHIP DUES TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR PAGE; 14 PREPAID AMOUNT DATE CHECK 27.00 .00 27.00 27.00 525.81 .00 525.81 525.81 124.40 387.90 494.57 54.20 .00 1,061.07 1,061.07 717.50 117.00 2,155.80 10,136.38 .00 13,126.68 13,126.68 380.92 112.50 .00 493.42 493.42 141.93 .00 141.93 141.93 25.00 .00 25.00 25.00 -ITi OF DIAMOND HAS: RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTER DUE THRU: 09/01/1998 FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION GWEN REIMANN 001-34780-- 25760 RECREATION REFUND TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR REMEDY 0014050-44000-- -7445A 11928,15831 TMP SVCS -FINANCE 7/26,8/2 TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR REPRO -GRAPHICS PRESS 0014050-42110-- 7699 9197 PRTG-CASH RECEIPTS 0014010-42110-- 7694 9221 PRTG-PROCLAMATION CERTS 0014095-42110-- 7794A 9224 PRTG-LIBRARY BOOKMARKS 0014090-42110-- 7499 9192 BUSINESS CARD MASTERS TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR RICHARDS WATSON & GERSHON 0014020-44021-- LEGAL SVCS -IPS -JUNE 1155515-44000-- LGL SVC -SOLID WASTE -JUNE 0014020-44021-- SP LGL SVC -JUNE BCH-COUR 0014020-44020-- GEN LEGAL SVCS -JUNE TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR RKA CIVIL ENGINEERS INC 0015551-45223-- 7279 6948 GRADING PLAN CHECK 0015510-45227-- 7298 6949 RETAINING WALL INSP TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR S&S 0015350-41200-- 7596 MISC SUPPLIES -TINY TOTS TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CITY MGR ASSOC 0014030-42315-- ANNL MEMBERSHIP DUES TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR PAGE; 14 PREPAID AMOUNT DATE CHECK 27.00 .00 27.00 27.00 525.81 .00 525.81 525.81 124.40 387.90 494.57 54.20 .00 1,061.07 1,061.07 717.50 117.00 2,155.80 10,136.38 .00 13,126.68 13,126.68 380.92 112.50 .00 493.42 493.42 141.93 .00 141.93 141.93 25.00 .00 25.00 25.00 Y OF DIAMOND HA-; RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 15 DUE THRU; 09/1/19/8 PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHECK SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVTS 0014090-42315-- DUES-FY98-99 2,250.00 1185098-42315-- DUES-FY98-99 AIR QLTY X 6,876.00 1125553-42315-- DUES-FY98-99 TRNSPTN % 6,876.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 16,002.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 16,002.00 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE 2505215-46420-06798-46420 7676A 18035 PUB NOTICE -BIDS CDBG PROJ 110.86 0014040-42115-- 7579 22598 PUBLIC HRG NOTICE -CMP 91.44 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 202.32 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 202.32 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBUNE 001-23010-- PUB NOTICE -FPL 96-49 177.12 001-23010-- PUB NOTICE -FPL 96-49 167.76 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 344.88 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 344.88 SCATS 001-23013-- TSR 97-12 REF -TEMP SIGN DEP 100.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 100.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 100.00 SCHOLASTIC SPORTS 0014095-42115-- 7770 043 AD-DBHS FOOTBALL POSTER 249.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 249.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 249.00 SHILD HILLTOP SUITES 1264411-42340-- 7851 SHERIFF TRAINING -RM RNTL 249.52 09/01/1998 35124 TOTAL PREPAIDS 249.52 TOTAL VOUCHERS .00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 249.52 SHRUGARD OF WALNUT (x114090-42140-- 7730 STORAGE FAC RENT-FY98-99 1,086.40 09/01/1998 36950 TOTAL PREPAIDS 1,086.40 TOTAL VOUCHERS .00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 1,086.40 WARREN C. SIECKE 2505510-46412-12598-46412 7492 4121 PROF SVCS -DBE @ MONTEFIND 2,617.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 2,617.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 2,617.00 RUN DATE' 08/27/1998 1002:13 'AWdER REGIE F, PAGE: 16 Ul#: THRU : i j i I l 1/ 1'i98 FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON 0015316-42126-- 1385538-42126-- 0015322-42126-- 1415541-42126-- 1395539-42126-- 0015328-42126-- 0015311-42126-- 1415541-42126-- 0015325-42126-- 0015314-42126-- 0015331-42126-- 0015313-42126-- 0015319-42126-- RITA STITH 001 -34780 -- SUBWAY 0105355-41400-- 0014090-42325-- TELSTAR SYSTEMS 0014090 -44030 -- THE PLANNINO CENTER 1185098 -44000 -- TIME OUT PERSONNEL 0015210 -44000 -- TRADE SHOW ELECTRICAL 0014095 -42140 -- PO # INVOICE DES3IPIIDN AMOUNT r_E: 5w''"�-MAP_EHILL PK ELE SVCS -L -AD #36 .LE," SVCS-REAGAN F*: ELECTRIC SVCS-LLAD #41 ELE" SVCS-LLAD #39 ELEC SVCS- SUMMITRIDGE PK ELE" SVCS -P GROW PK: ELEC SVCS-LLAD #41 ELEC SVCS-STARSHINE K. ELEC SVCS -HERITAGE PK CC ELEC SVCS -SYCAMORE CYN K. ELEC SVCS -HERITAGE PK ELEC SVCS -PETERSON PARK: TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR 25731 RECREATION REFUND TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR OPEN -7661 LIBRARY REDEDICATION -SUP? OPEN -7661 MTG SUPPLIES -CC MTG 8/4 TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR PREPAID DATE CHECK 244.98 285.69 546.04 180.14 241.76 153.14 35.32 144.81 16.40 853.28 339.58 477.62 683.78 .00 4,204.54 4,204.54 27.00 .00 27.00 27.00 95.76 7.98 .00 103.74 103.74 7230 21097 PHONE b CMPTR CABLING SVC 8,352.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 8,352.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 8,352.00 7027 25712 PROF SVCS -CONGESTION MGT 754.25 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 754.25 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 754.25 7556 3331 TEMP SVCS-PLNG W/E 7/24 312.04 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 312.04 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 312.04 7849 ICSC-CITY BOOTH ELECT 144.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 144.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 144.00 CITY OF DIAMOND B* RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 VOUCHER REGISTER PAGE: 17 DUE THRU: 09/01/19?8 PREPAID FUND/SECT-ACCT-PRDJECT-ACCT PO # INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHEU, JUDY TURNER 001-34780-- 26935 RECREATION REFUND 25.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 25.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 25.00 GERALDINE TURNER 001-23002-- SECURITY DEPOSIT REFUND 50.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 50.ur) TOTAL DUE VENDOR 50.00 UNITED PARCEL SERVICE 0014090-42120-- 9632780027-1 EXPRESS MAIL -GEN GOVT 17.E TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 17.25 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 17.25 BENJAMIN VEGA 001-34730-- 48008 REFUND -LA FAIR EXCURS 5.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 5.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 5.00 WELLS FARGO BANK 0014010-42330-- AIRLINE CREDIT-CHANG -286.00 0014010-42330-- LEAGUE COW -7/28 CHANG 346.00 0014010-42330-- LEAGUE CONF 7/25-O'CONNOR 248.60 0014010-42.330-- SB2010-SACMNVTO-HERRERA 36.00 09/01/1998 35127 0014030-42310-- CITY MGR -FUEL 60.42 09/01/1998 35128 0014010-42325-- MEETINGS-HERRERA 99.39 09/01/1998 35127 0014036-42330-- CITY MGR-ICMA CONF 214.20 09/01/1998 35128 0014030-42330-- CITY MGR -LEAGUE CONE 352.99 09/01/1998 35128 0014030-42225-- CITY MGR -MEETINGS 214.29 09/01/1998 35128 0014010-42330-- LOUE CONF 7/24-25-HERRERA 331.19 09/01/1998 35127 0014010-42330-- ECON DEV -7/28 29-HERRERA 363.24 09/01/1998 35127 0014030-42330-- CITY MGR-ECON DEV CONF 346.00 09/01/1998 35128 0014030-42330-- CITY MGR-SE2010 SACRAMNTO 61.27 09/01/1998 35128 TOTAL PREPAIDS 2,078.99 TOTAL VOUCHERS 308.60 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 2,387.59 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 0015.558-45509-- 7547 14040 TREE MAINT SVCS 7/15 1,650.00 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 1,650.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 1,650.00 PAUL WRIGHT 0014090-44000-- 7584 AV SVCS -PC 8/111CC 8/4,18 472.50 TOTAL PREPAIDS .00 TOTAL VOUCHERS 472.50 TOTAL DUE VENDOR 472.50 RUN DATE: 08/27/1998 16:02:13 FUND/SECT-ACCT-PROJECT-ACCT XEROX CORPORATION 0014090 -46200 -- 0014090 -41200 -- KIM YAP 001 -34780 -- YOSEMITE WATERS 0015314-41200-- 0015310-42130-- ZELLERBACH 0014090-41200-- SHEMIN ZHU 001-34760-- t �'r ! HM',1V i 3H- �AJUCHER REG] ;TE=; )JR7 THRU: 09i(111' �8 PO N INVOICE UES:RIPIION 7444 X:=R01 5100A COPIERS 7826 166036905 COPIER STAPLE CARTRIDGES TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE 'VENDOR RECREATION REFUND TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR 7518 JLLY58292 DRINKING WTR-HRTG COM CTR JULY58292 EQUIP RNTL-JULY & AUG TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR 7698 L1 -57516 -IIS 20 CASES COPY PAPER TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR 26230 RECREATION REFUND TOTAL PREPAIDS TOTAL VOUCHERS TOTAL DUE VENDOR REPORT TOTAL PREPAIDS REPORT TOTAL VOUCHERS REPORT TOTAL PAGE: 18 PREPAID AMOUNT DATE CHECK 44,382.50 148.30 .00 44,530.80 44,530.80 120.00 .00 120.00 120.00 228.16 14.00 .00 242.16 242.18 579.14 .00 579.14 579.14 104.00 .00 104.00 104.00 78,160.02 392,651.76 470,811.78 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. C0 , '� TO: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998,fi�n\ REPORT DATE: August 27,1998 FROM: Linda G. Ma nuso4, ssistant Finance Director TITLE: Treasurer's Report - July 31, 1998 SUMMARY: Submitted for the City Council's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the month of July, 1998. RECOMMENDATION: Review and approve. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's office) _ Ordinance(s) _ Other: _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes —No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority vote? _ Yes _ No 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? N/A _ Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? N/A _ Yes —No Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? N/A _ Yes _ No Report discussed with the following affected departments: REVIEWED BY: DEPARTMENT HEAD: errence L. Belanger Linda G. Magnuso City Manager Assistant Finance Director CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Treasurer's Statement - July 31, 1998 ISSUE STATEMENT: Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer's Statement for the City Council's review and approval. RECOMMENDATION: Approve the July, 1998 Treasurer's Statement. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: No fiscal impact. BACKGROUND: Submitted for the Council's review and approval is the Treasurer's Statement for the month of July, 1998, This statement shows the cash balances for the various funds, with a breakdown of bank account balances, investment account balances and the effective yield earned from investments. The City's Deferred Compensation balances which are managed by ICMA are also being reported. The City receives ICMA statements on a quarterly basis. The balances reported are as of June 30, 1998. PREPARED BY; Linda G, Magnuson TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT July 31, 1998 GENERAL FUND $13,126,460.64 $1,269,009.28 $923,604.89 $13,471,865.03 LIBRARY SERVICES FUND 108,852.03 515.68 108,336.35 COMMUNITY ORG SUPPORT FD (1,125.03) 7,312.71 (8,437.74) GAS TAX FUND 3,091,935.33 107,724.53 3,199,659.86 TRANSIT TX (PROP A) FD 1,715,445.50 93,179.00 62,555.30 1,746,069.20 TRANSIT TX (PROP C) FD 2,180,936.71 47,422.00 2,228,358.71 ISTEA FUND 10,280.43 10,280.43 INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FD 175,085.45 11,594.35 29,359.25 157,320.55 AIR QUALITY IMPRVMNT FD 133,907.88 1,119.65 132,788.23 TRAILS & BIKEWAYS FD (SB 821) 28,838.65 28,838.65 PARK FEES FUND 448,685.91 448,685.91 S PARKS GRANT (PRP A) FD (455,097.32) (455,097.32) FACILITIES & PARK DEVEL. FD 1,337,215.32 1,337,215.32 COM DEV BLOCK GRANT FD 41,662.15 13,142.45 28,519.70 CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SAFETY FD 265,251.90 14,385.67 250,866.23 NARCOTICS ASSET SEIZURE FD 314,918.61 314,918.61 LANDSCAPE DIST #38 FD 440,607.23 2,674.67 7,081.25 436,200.65 LANDSCAPE DIST #39 FD 136,565.65 1,811.21 9,270.37 129,106.49 LANDSCAPE DIST #41 FD 290,299.39 889.12 10,238.67 280,949.84 GRAND AV CONST FUND 139,130.78 139,130.78 CAP IMPROVEMENT PRJ FD (544,723.49) 110,046.69 (654,770.18) SELF INSURANCE FUND 785,618.41 152,347.00 633,271.41 TOTALS $23,770,752.13 $1,534,304.16 $1,340,979.58 $0.00 $23,964,076.71 SUMMARY OF CASH: DEMAND DEPOSITS: GENERAL ACCOUNT ($34,975.95) PAYROLL ACCOUNT 815.43 CHANGE FUND , 200.00 PETTY CASH ACCOUNT 500.00 TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS ($33,460.52) INVESTMENTS: US TREASURY Money Market Acct. $715,155.00 TIME CERTIFICATES 0.00 COMMERCIAL PAPER 0.00 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD 23,282,382.23 TOTAL INVESTMENTS $23,997,537.23 TOTAL CASH $23,964,076.71 Note: The City of Diamond Bar is invested in the State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund. All funds are available for withdrawal within 24 hours. Investment in the Local Agency Investment Fund is allowed under the City's formally adopted investment policy. As a secondary investment option, the City continues to maintain the US Treasury Sweep Account with Wells Fargo. Any excess funds are "swept" on a daily basis from the City's bank accounts and are invested overnight into an investment pool of US Treasury Notes. Interest is credited to the City's bank account on a monthly basis. L.A.I.F - Effective Yield for July 1998 5.620% Money Markel -Effective Yield for June 1998 4.730% CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT July 31, 1998 INVESTMENT: DEFERRED COMPENSATION ACCOUNT (AS OF 6/30/98) ICMA Retirement Corporation - 457 Plan: AGGRESSIVE OPPORTUNITY FUND 5,912.69 INTERNATIONAL FUND 9,493.73 OVERSEAS EQUITY INDEX FUND 6,559.56 GROWTH STOCK FUND 111,053.49 MID/SMALL CO. INDEX 6,301.08 BROAD MARKET FUND 8,880.67 500 STOCK INDEX FUND 6,638.82 EQUITY INCOME FUND 13,318.72 ASSET ALLOCATION FUND 49,970.63 SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY FUND 0.00 CORE BOND FUND 15,573.18 US TREASURY FUND 12,074.95 CASH MANAGEMENT FUND 3,370.14 PLUS FUND 369,322.67 GUARANTEED FUND 0.00 CONSERVATIVE GROWTH 2,640.39 TRADITIONAL GROWTH 52,636.74 LONG TERM GROWTH 11,134.82 MS MOMTM GROWTH 6,929.68 MS CAPITAL APPRECIATION 14,683.84 MS GROWTH 4,403.22 MS CONTR GROWTH 3,717.57 MS GROWTH & INCOME 18,320.85 MS SP SITUATION 10,061.27 TOTAL OF DEPOSITS 743,198.71 Note: These investment options are at the discretion of the employees. Due to the complexity of the funds, which are solely handled by ICMA, the City is only reporting the balances available in in the various instruments The reporting period reflects the most current quarter reported by ICMA to the City. TOTAL CASH AND INVESTMENTS $24,707,275.42 All investments are placed in accordance with the City of Diamond Bar's Investment Policy. The above summary provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six month's estimated expenditures. errence L. Belanger, Treasurer CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. .y TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 REPORT DATE: August 24, 1998 FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager TITLE: Exoneration of Cash Deposit in Lieu of Grading Bond (Faithful Performance, Labor & Material) for 2720 Shadow Canyon in Diamond Bar. SUMMARY: The Owner, Piermarini Enterprises, Inc. requests the release of his Cash Deposit in Lieu of Grading Bond for improvement security as required in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. The City Engineer finds that the Owner performed all works as shown on the grading plan on file with the City. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the exoneration of Cash Deposit, in the amount of $9,234.00 posted with the City on December 2, 1996 and that the City Clerk notify the Owner and Surety of this action. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) _ Bid Specification _ Ordinances(s) x Other: Certificate of Deposit on file with _ Agreement(s) the City Clerk EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or;4/5 vote? 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? Report discussed with the following affected departments: 1.7 MT/IZIVATJ 017:�'ii Terrence L. Bel r City Manager James DeStefano Deputy City Manager N/A Yes No Majority N/A _ Yes _ No N/A _ Yes _ No N/A _Yes —No 4A �GU�u�� Deputy Director of Public Works CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 REPORT DATE: August 24, 1998 FROM: Terrence L Belanger. CiV Manager TITLE: Reduction of Subdivision Improvement Bonds (Faithful Performance and Labor & Material) for Tract No. 47850 (Diamond Bar West Partners). SUMMARY: Consider reduction in security amount (surety bond) commensurate with progress of work for various improvements required in accordance with the subdivision agreement for Tract No. 47850. The Subdivider has satisfactorily completed substantial amounts of the work and has requested a reduction of the amounts of certain bonds be authorized. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council move that: a) Bond No. 418853S - Grading Bond in the amount of $3,192,558.00 be reduced to $1,596,279.00; b) Bond No. 4188545 - Sewer/Street/S.D. in the amount of $1,365,892.00 be reduced to $682,946.00; c) Bond No. 4188555 - Domestic Water in the amount of $416,803.20 be reduced to $208,401.60; d) Bond No. 418857S - Monumentation in the amount of $8,500.00 be reduced to $4,250.00; and e) the City Clerk notify the Principal and Surety of these actions. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report -Resolution(s) _ Ordinances(s) Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification Bid Specification x Other: Subdivision Improvement Bonds are on file with the City Clerk 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority or 4/5 vote? 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? Which Commission? 5. Are other departments affected by the report? REVIEWED Y: Terre ce L. Belan City Manager James DeStefano Deputy City Manager N/A Yes —No Majority N/A —Yes —No N/A —Yes —No N/A _Yes —No i David G. Liu Deputy Director of Public Works CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Reduction of Subdivision Improvement Bonds (Faithful Performance and Labor & Material) for Tract No. 47850 (Diamond Bar West Partners). ISSUE STATEMENT Consider reduction in security amount (surety bond) commensurate with progress of work for various improvements required in accordance with the subdivision agreement for Tract No. 47850. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the City Council move that: a) Bond No. 418853S - Grading Bond in the amount of $3,192,558.00 be reduced to $1,596,279.00; b) Bond No. 418854S - Sewer/Street/Storm Drain in the amount of $1,365,892.00 be reduced to $682,946.00; c) Bond No. 418855S - Domestic Water in the amount of $416,803.20 be reduced to $208,401.60; d) Bond No. 418857S - Monumentation in the amount of $8,500.00 be reduced to $4,250.00; and e) the City Clerk notify the Principal and Surety of these actions. FINANCIAL SUMMARY This action has no fiscal impact on the City. BACKGROUND In accordance with Section 66462 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City entered into agreement with the Subdivider to complete various improvements. The Subdivider guaranteed faithful performance of this agreement by posting with the City various surety bond - bond for Grading Improvements, Streets, Sewer, and Storm Drains Improvements, Domestic Water Improvements and Monumentation. While the entirety of the agreement has not been achieved, the Subdivider has satisfactorily completed substantial amounts of the work and has requested a reduction of the amounts of certain bonds be authorized. DISCUSSION Based on the progress completed, the following bonds are recommended for reduction: Account Number: 418853 S Grading Bond Original Amount: $3,192,558.00 New Reduced Amount: $1,596,279.00 Account Number: 4188545 Sewer/Street/S.D. Bond Original Amount: $1,365,892.00 New Reduced Amount: $682,946.00 Account Number: 4188555 Domestic Water Bond Original Amount: $416,803.20 New Reduced Amount: $208,401.60 Account Number: 4188575 Monumentation Bond Original Amount: $8,500.00 New Reduced Amount: $4,250.00 Prepared by: Rose Manela CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. �_ Honorable Mayor and City Council MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 REPORT DATE: August 24, 1998 FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager TITLE: Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2. SUMMARY: Warren Dolezal of The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership is requesting approval of a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 in order to subdivide 2.55 acres into four lots for the development of four detached single family residences. The request also includes an amendment to the Oak Tree Permit for the removal and replacement of one oak tree. The project site is located in the 3000 Block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane, at the terminus of Hawkwood Road, adjacent to "The Country Estates". At the July 14, 1998 Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission recommended approval of the extension of time and the removal of one oak tree at a 20:1 replacement ratio. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Amended Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2, Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 and Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report X Resolution(s) Ordinance(s) _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: Public Hearing Notification Bid Specification _ Other: (see staff report attachments) 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority vote? X Yes _ No 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? X Yes _ No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes _ No Which Commission? Planning Commission 5. Are other departments affected by the report? X Yes —No Report discussed with the following affected departments: Public Works Division REVIEWED BY: ellujovv-�J-A Terrence L. Belanger am e f City Manager Deputy City anager CITY COUNCIL DFPODT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Extension of Time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2. ISSUE STATEMENT: Warren Dolezal of The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership is requesting approval of a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 in order to subdivide 2.55 acres into four lots for the development of four detached single family residences. The request also includes an amendment to the Oak Tree Permit for the removal and replacement of one oak tree. The project site is located in the 3000 Block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane, at the terminus of Hawkwood Road, adjacent to "The Country Estates". At the July 14, 1998 Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission recommended approval of the extension of time and the removal of one oak tree at a 20:1 replacement ratio. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Amended Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2, Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 and Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program. FINANCIAL STATEMENT: N/A BACKGROUND: The property owner/applicant, Warren Dolezal, is requesting a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The extension's purpose is to allow the property owner/applicant additional time to resolve outstanding issues and modify conditions related to the project approval. The project was first presented to the Planning Commission on April 24, 1995. On May 22, 1995, the Planning Commission recommended the project's approval to the City Council. On June 20, 1995, the City Council approved the project. The approved project will subdivide a 2.55 acre parcel into four residential lots for the eventual development of four custom single family residences ranging from 4,000 to 8,000 square feet. Lots will vary in size from .55 to .90 acres as delineated in the matrix below. 1 LOT NUMBER GROSS ACRES/ SQUARE FOOTAGE NET ACRES/ SQUARE FOOTAGE YAU AGWriat SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 .90/39,204 .62/27,001 .14/6,098 2 .55/23,958 .55/23,958 .13/5,663 3 .55/23,958 .55/23,958 .15/6,534 4 .55123,958 .55/23,958 .14/6,098 TOTAL 2.551111,078 2.27/98,875 .56/24,393 The project site has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential -Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-1-3DU/Acre). The project complies with the General Plan in that the proposed density is 1.56. dwelling units per acre. The project site is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000). The project complies with the zoning in that the minimum lot size is 23,958 square feet. Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north is the R-1-20,000 Zone and the Commercial - Recreational (C-R) Zone; to the south is the R-3-8,000 Zone; to the east is the R-1-20,000 Zone; and to the west is the R-1-9,000 Zone. ANALYSIS: Pursuant to the requirements of the Subdivision Map Act in existence at the time of the June 20, 1995 City Council approval, Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 was valid for two years. During that two year period, it was required that the conditions of approval be satisfied or the tentative parcel map would expire. In 1996, the Subdivision Map Act was amended. At that time, if a map had not expired by May 14, 1996, it automatically was extended one year. Additionally, any permits issued in conjunction with a tentative map were not to expire earlier than the related map. As a result, Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 expiration date became June 20, 1998. Prior to the map's expiration, upon an application by the subdivider to extend the map, the map shall be automatically extended for 60 days or until the application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first. The extension of time request for this project was submitted before Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 expired. The extension of time request does not alter the map's design or any standards or conditions of approval related to the Subdivision or the Conditional Use Permit. However, the time extension request includes amending Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The approved Oak Tree Permit application requires the preservation and protection of one multi -trunk oak tree (two trunks, approximately 116 inches in circumference, measured 41k feet above the mean natural grade, with a canopy approximately 50 feet in diameter) located within the center front portion of Lot 3. The original parcel map exhibit approved by Council located the oak tree on Lot 3 but adjacent to the side lot line shared by Lots 3 and 4. The issue of the oak trees location was brought to the City's attention after the parcel map's approval. Additionally, the tree is located within a landslide area. In order to mitigate the landslide area with the required buttress fill as prescribed by the City's engineering consultant performing the grading plan check, the oak tree must be removed. The possible relocation of the oak tree was discussed with an environmental consultant (Michael Brandman Associates) employed by the City. It was determined that this oak tree's chance of survival would be slim because of its large size. Therefore, the oak tree is proposed to be removed. The Planning Commission's recommendation advises that the oax tree be ruplacc at a 20.1 aal:- ,.-:th 31; iu_l� boxed oak trees due to the tree's magnitude. As many as possible of the replacement oak trees are to be located on-site, as prescribed by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist, or biologist paid for by the applicant. The following minimum replacement oak tree count shall be located on-site: Lot 2 - two located adjacent to front property line; Lots 3 - one located adjacent to front property line; and Lot 4 - one located adjacent to front property line; oak trees which can not be located on-site shall be located off-site within the City of Diamond Bar. The off-site location shall be approved by the City. If an off-site location is not designated, a specified dollar amount in -lieu fee shall be contributed by the application to the City's tree replacement fund. On-site replacement oak trees shall be planted and irrigated when grading is completed. Planting shall be supervised by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist or biologist. Currently, the applicant is achieving progress toward final map approval. However, several issues need to be addressed. The primary issue is related to access through The Country Estates" gates which must be resolved before final map approval. The project site is not within "The Country Estates".It is adjacent to "The Country Estates". As a condition of approval, prior to the final map, the applicant is required to make a bona fide annexation application to "The Country Estates" Association, which the applicant has done. Further, the project site is not part of the TADCO agreement. Consequently, access through "The Country Estates" is not available to the project site unless the project is annexed. Another issue was related to an access easement over Steeplechase Lane. In a July 28, 1998 judgement of the court, it has been determined that the applicant has an easement over Steeplechase Lane. Other matter which must be resolved are: an appropriate driveway access for Lot 1 from Steeplechase Lane that must be delineated on the Map exhibit; clarification of statements within the CC&Rs and the "Buyers' Awareness Package"; providing "will serve" letters from the utility companies within 90 days of the final map's approval; providing a Subdivision Agreement; submitting an Erosion Control Plan, landscape/irrigation plan and sewer, water and storm drain improvements plans to be reviewed and approved by the City; providing easements for drainage and sewer purposes which will be dedicated to the City; and a plan detail for the installation of lighting at the end of Hawkwood Road. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-5 was prepared and adopted by the City Council on June 20, 1995. Due to the removal of one oak tree, this environmental document (pursuant to CEQA Section 15162) was amended to reflect issues related to the removal and replacement of the one oak tree in accordance with the Planning Commission's recommendation. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice for this project was published in the Inland Vallty Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on August 10, 1998. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 71 property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site on August 5, 1998. CONCLUSION: The applicant is working toward resolving the referenced issues in order to comply with all conditions of approval. The applicant cannot resolve outstanding issues or satisfy conditions of approval related to the applications unless the one year extension of time is granted. Compliance with all conditions of approval and resolving the referenced issues to the City's satisfaction is required before the final map approval. 3 PREPARED BY: nn . Lui J�gl� Associate Plat6dr Attachments: 1. City Council Resolution approving the extension of time; 2. Planning Commission Resolution No. 98-17 recommending approval of the extension of time; 3. Planning Commission staff report dated July 14, 1998 and meeting minutes; 4. City Council Resolution Nos. 95-36 and 37; 5. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 (revised March 1995) and Mitigation Monitoring Program dated March 1995; 6. Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 Amended June 1998 and Mitigation Monitoring Program Amended June 1998; 7. Correspondence dated July 14, 1998 for John Guy, attorney representing "The Country Estates" Association; 8. Correspondence dated July 28, 1998 from Robert E Knudsen, Attorney at Law and Judgement of the Court dated July 28, 1998; 9. Exhibit "A" subdivision map for TPM No. 23382; and 10. Rough Grading Plan for TPM No.23382. 4 A. CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-1, AMENDED OAR TREE PERMIT NO. 95-2, AMENDED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-2 AND AMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE 3,000 BLOCK (NORTH SIDE) OF STEEPLECHASE LANE, AT THE TERMINUS OF HAWKWOOD ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. RECITALS. 1. The property owner/applicant, Warren Dolezal of The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, has filed an application for a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The request also includes an amendment to the Oak Tree Permit, to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 and to the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The project site is located at the 3,000 Block (north side of Steeplechase Lane, at the terminus of Hawkwood Road), Los Angeles County, California, as described above in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Extension of Time, Amended Oak Tree Permit, Amended Negative Declaration and Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be referred to as the "Applica- tion". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14 (1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. Action was taken on the subject application as to the consistency with the General Plan. It has been determined that the Applications are consistent with the General Plan. 4. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar on September 1, 1998 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 1 5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Vev Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on August 10, 1998. Seventy-one property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on August 5, 1998. B. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Pursuant to the guideline of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-5 was prepared and adopted by the City Council on June 20, 1995, along with the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Due to the removal of one oak tree, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-5 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program was amended, pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, in order to address issues related to the removal and replacement of the one existing oak tree. 3. The City Council hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this City Council that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this City Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this City Council hereby finds as follows: (a) The Application relates to a project approved by the City Council on June 20, 1995. The approved project will subdivide a 2.55 acre parcel into four residential lots for the eventual development of four custom single family residences ranging from 4,000 to 8,000 square feet. Lots will vary in size from .55 to .90 acres. (b) The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential -Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-1-3DU/Acre). It is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000). (c) Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north is the R-1-20,000 Zone and the Commercial -Recreational (C-R) Zone; to the south is the R-3-8,000 Zone; to the east is the 000 Zone. Zone; and to the west is the R-1-9, (d) The City Council approval for the dpresenue toted project expires June 20, 1995. However, Subdivision Map Act amendment, the project received an automatic one year extension of time. As a result, the project's approval expired June 20, 1998. Prior to the project's expiration, the applicant requested an extension of time, in writing, to the City. As a result, the project's approval was automatically extended for 60 daysor until the application for the extension is app conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first. (e) The extension of time request does not alter the map's design or any standards or conditions of approval related to the subdivision or the Conditional Use Permit. However, the time extension request includes amending Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The City Council approval included preserving and protecting the one existing oak tree located on Lot 3. Now, the applicant is seeking to amend the Oak Tree Permit approval by removing the one existing oak tree. OAK TREE PERMIT (f) The proposed construction or proposed use will be accomplished without endangering the health of the remaining trees, if any, on the subject property. The project site contains one oak tree located on Lot 3, adjacent to the side property line shared by Lots 3 and 4. Therefore, the proposed construction or proposed use will be accomplished without endangering the health of the remaining trees, because there are no remaining trees on the subject property. (g) The removal or relocation of the oak tree proposed will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Erosion will be readily controlled by various management practices and techniques though he agradinq erosion control plan and NPDES permit. permit and NPDES permit is designed to insure that potential erosion effects are maintained at a level of insignificance. Therefore, the removal of one oak tree will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. 3 (h) The removal or relocation of the oak tree proposed is necessary as continued existence frustrates the planned improvement or proposed use of the subject property that placement of such tree(s) precludes the reasonable and efficient use of such property. The oak tree is located within the front portion of Lot 3, in the center of the lot. Additionally, the tree is located within a landslide area. In order to mitigate the landslide area, the oak tree must be removed. The possible relocation of the oak tree was discussed with an environmental consultant employed by the City. It was determined that this oak tree's chance of survival would be slim because of its large size. Therefore, the oak tree will be removed. It is required that this oak tree be replaced at a 20:1 ratio and with 36 inch boxed oak trees. The following minimum replacement oak trees count will be located on-site: Lot 2 - two located adjacent to the front property line and each side property line; Lot 3 - one located adjacent to the front property line and southerly side property line; and Lot 4 - one located adjacent to the front property line and southerly side property line. However, as many oak trees as possible will be located on-site, as prescribed by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist, or biologist. Oak trees which can not be located on-site will be located off-site within the City of Diamond Bar, as approved by the City; or a specified dollar amount in -lieu fee will be contributed to the City's tree replacement fund. Therefore, the removal of the oak tree is necessary as continued existence frustrates the planned improvement of the subject property. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the City Council hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditions: (a) Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 shall be developed in substantial conformance to plans dated July 14, 1998, labeled Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" - Mitigation Monitoring Program dated March 1995 and Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program date June 1998, as submitted and approved by the City Council. (b) The site shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris both during and after the con- struction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the 4 property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) All conditions of approval listed within City Council Resolution No. 95-36 and Resolution No. 95- 37 shall remain in full force and effect unless amended as a part of this action. (d) Applicant shall replace the one existing oak tree which is cited for removal at a 20:1 ratio with 36 inch boxed oak trees. As many as possible of the replacement oak trees shall be located on-site, as prescribed by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist, or biologist paid for by the applicant. The following minimum replacement oak tree count shall be located on-site: (1) Lot 2 - two located adjacent to front property line; (2) Lots 3 - one located adjacent to front property line; and (3) Lot 4 - one located adjacent to front property line; Oak trees which can not be located on-site shall be located off-site within the City of Diamond Bar. The off-site location shall be approved by the City. If an off-site location is not designated, a specified dollar amount in -lieu fee shall be contributed to the City's tree replacement fund. On-site replacement oak trees shall be planted and irrigated when grading is completed. Planting shall be supervised by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist or biologist. (e) Applicant shall protect and preserve the replacement oak trees pursuant to the City's Oak Tree Permit process and as follows: chain link fencing, with a minimum height of 4 feet, shall be installed 5 feet outside each tree's drip line or 15 feet from each tree's trunk, whichever is greater. Fencing shall be installed immediately after the oak trees' planting and shall remain during the construction of the homes. Fencing shall not be remove until each home has receive final Planning Division inspection or Certificate of Occupancy. 5 (f) Replacement oak trees shall be maintained in perpetuity with a 100 percent survival rate. At the Applicant's expense, replacement oak trees shall be monitored for a 5 year period with periodic inspections and reports by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist or biologist, submitted to the City. The first year inspections shall occur quarterly; the second year semi annually; and the third, fourth, and fifth year annually. (g) Planting material which may be installed within the replacement oak trees' drip line shall be drought .tolerant only. Irrigation shall be installed in conjunction with the oak trees' planting. Irrigation installed within this area shall be appropriate for drought tolerant planting material. (h) The future homeowners' shall receive a "Buyers' Awareness Package at escrow, with a signed receipt from the future homeowner, submitted to the City, acknowledging the future homeowner's receipt of the package. This package shall include proper care and maintenance of the replacement oak trees. (i) This grant is valid for one year from June 20, 1998 to June 20, 1999 and shall be exercised (i.e. construction started) within that period or the grant shall expire. (j) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (k) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. 0 The City Council shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Warren Dolezal, The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, 4251 S. Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 1ST DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 1998, BY THE City Council OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Mayor I, Lynda Burges, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 1st day of September, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar 7 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 98-17 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING THAT THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-1, AMENDED OAR TREE .PERMIT NO. 95-2, AMENDED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-2 AND AMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED IN THE 3,000 BLOCK (NORTH SIDE) OF STEEPLECHASE LANE, AT THE TERMINUS OF HAWKOOOD ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. RECITALS. 1. The property owner/applicant, warren Dolezal of The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, has filed an application for a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The request also includes an amendment to the Oak Tree Permit, to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 and to the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The project site is located at the 3,000 Block (north side of Steeplechase Lane, at the terminus of Hawkwood Road), Los Angeles County, California, as described above in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Extension of Time, Amended Oak Tree Permit, Amended Negative Declaration and Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program shall be referred to as the "Applica- tion". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14 (1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. Action was taken on the subject application as to the consistency with the General Plan. It has been determined that the Applications are consistent with the General Plan. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on July 14, 1998 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 1 B. 5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on June 19, 1998. Seventy-one property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on June 15, 1998. Resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Pursuant to the guideline of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-5 was prepared and adopted by the City Council on June 20, 1995, along with the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Due to the removal of one oak tree, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-5 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program was amended, pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, in order to address issues related to the removal and replacement of the one existing oak tree. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The Application relates to a project approved by the City Council on June 20, 1995. The approved project will subdivide a 2.55 acre parcel into four residential lots for the eventual development of four custom single family residences ranging from 4,000 to 8,000 square feet. Lots will vary in size from .55 to .90 acres. (b) The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential -Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-1-3DU/Acre). It is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000). 2 (c) Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north is the R-1-20,000 Zone and the Commercial -Recreational (C-R) Zone; to the south is the R-3-8,000 Zone; to the east is the R-1-20,000 Zone; and to the west is the R-1-9,000 Zone. (d) The City Council approval for the presented project expires June 20, 1995. However, due to the 1995 Subdivision Map Act amendment, the project received an automatic one year extension of time. As a result, the project's approval expired June 20, 1998. Prior to the project's expiration, the applicant requested an extension of time, in writing, to the City. As a result, the project's approval was automatically extended for 60 days or until the application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first. (e) The extension of time request does not alter the map's design or any standards or conditions of approval related to the subdivision or the Conditional Use Permit. However, the time extension request includes amending Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The City Council approval included preserving and protecting the one existing oak tree located on Lot 3. Now, the applicant is seeking to amend the Oak Tree Permit approval by removing the one existing oak tree. OAK TREE PERMIT (f) The proposed construction or proposed use will be accomplished without endangering the health of the remaining trees, if any, on the subject property. The project site contains one oak tree located on Lot 3, adjacent to the side property line shared by Lots 3 and 4. Therefore, the proposed construction or proposed use will be accomplished without endangering the health of the remaining trees, because there are no remaining trees on the subject property. (g) The removal or relocation of the oak tree proposed will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Erosion will be readily controlled by various management practices and techniques though an erosion control plan and NPDES permit. The grading permit and NPDES permit is designed to insure that potential erosion effects are maintained at a level of insignificance. Therefore, the removal of one oak tree will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. 3 (h) The removal or relocation of the oak tree proposed is necessary as continued existence frustrates the planned improvement or proposed use of the subject property that placement of such tree(s) precludes the reasonable and efficient use of such property. The oak tree is located within the front portion of Lot 3, in the center of the lot. Additionally, the tree is located within a landslide area. In order to mitigate the landslide area, the oak tree must be removed. The possible relocation of the oak tree was discussed with an environmental consultant employed by the City. It was determined that this oak tree's chance of survival would be slim because of its large size. Therefore, the oak tree will be removed. It is required that this oak tree be replaced at a 20:1 ratio and with 36 inch boxed oak trees. The following minimum replacement oak trees count will be located on-site: Lot 2 - two located adjacent to the front property line and each side property line; Lot 3 - one located adjacent to the front property line and southerly side property line; and Lot 4 - one located adjacent to the front property line and southerly side property line. However, as many oak trees as possible will be located on-site, as prescribed by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist, or biologist. Oak trees which can not be located on-site will be located off-site within the City of Diamond Bar, as approved by the City; or a specified dollar amount in -lieu fee will be contributed to the City's tree replacement fund. Therefore, the removal of the oak tree is necessary as continued existence frustrates the planned improvement of the subject property. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditions: (a) Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 shall be developed in substantial conformance to plans dated July 14, 1998, labeled Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" - Mitigation Monitoring Program dated March 1995 and Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program date June 1998, as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. (b) The site shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris both during and after the con- struction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or 4 subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained.permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) All conditions of approval listed within City Council Resolution No. 95-36 and Resolution No. 95- 37 shall remain in full force and effect unless amended as a part of this action. (d) Applicant shall replace the one existing oak tree which is cited for removal at a 20:1 ratio with 36 inch boxed oak trees. As many as possible of the replacement oak trees shall be located on-site, as prescribed by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist, or biologist paid for by the applicant. The following minimum replacement oak tree count shall be located on-site: (1) Lot 2 - two located adjacent to front property line; (2) Lots 3 - one located adjacent to front property line; and (3) Lot 4 - one located adjacent to front property line; Oak trees which can not be located on-site shall be located off-site within the City of Diamond Bar. The off-site location shall be approved by the City. If an off-site location is not designated, a specified dollar amount in -lieu fee shall be contributed to the City's tree replacement fund. On-site replacement oak trees shall be planted and irrigated when grading is completed. Planting shall be supervised by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist or biologist. (e) Applicant shall protect and preserve the replacement oak trees pursuant to the City's Oak Tree Permit process and as follows: chain link fencing, with a minimum height of 4 feet, shall be installed 5 feet outside each tree's drip line or 15 feet from each tree's trunk, whichever is greater. Fencing shall be installed immediately after the oak trees' planting and shall remain during the construction of the homes. Fencing shall not be remove until each home has receive final Planning Division inspection or Certificate of Occupancy. 5 (f) Replacement oak trees shall be maintained in perpetuity with a 100 percent survival rate. At the Applicant's expense, replacement oak trees shall be monitored for a 5 year period with periodic inspections and reports by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist or biologist, submitted to the City. The first year inspections shall occur quarterly; the second year semi annually; and the third, fourth, and fifth year annually. (g) Planting material which may be installed within the replacement oak trees' drip line shall be drought tolerant only. Irrigation shall be installed in conjunction with the oak trees' planting. Irrigation installed within this area shall be appropriate for drought tolerant planting material. (h) The future homeowners' shall receive a "Buyers' Awareness" Package at escrow, with a signed receipt from the future homeowner, submitted to the City, acknowledging the future homeowner's receipt of the package. This package shall include proper care and maintenance of the replacement oak trees. (i) This grant is valid for one year from June 20, 1998 to June 20, 1999 and shall be exercised (i.e. construction started) within that period or the grant shall expire. (j) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community and Development Services Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (k) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. 6 The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Warren Dolezal, The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, 4251 S. Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, 1998, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Joe McManus, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of July, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: McManus, Tye, Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka NOES: None ABSENT: None ABSTAIN: None ATTEST: ames DeSte I ano, Secretary 7 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: REPORT DATE: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY LOCATION: PROPERTY OWNERS/APPLICANT: City of Diamond Bar PLANNNG COM USSION Staff Report 8.1 July 6, 1998 July 14, 1998 Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 A one year extension of time. Additionally, the request includes amending Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. 3,000 Block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane, at the terminus of Hawkwood Road, adjacent to "The Country Estates" Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Warren Dolezal The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership 4251 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 The property owner/applicant, Warren Dolezal, is requesting a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The extension's purpose is to allow the property owner/applicant additional time to obtain a final map. The project site is located at the 3,000 Block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane, at the terminus of Hawkwood Road, adjacent to "The Country Estates". It has a General Plan Land Use designation 1 of Low Density Residential -Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-1- 3DU/Acre). The project complies with the General Plan in that the proposed density is 1.56. dwelling units per acre. The project site is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000). The project complies with the zoning in that the minimum lot size is 23,958 square feet. Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north is the R-1- 20,000 Zone and the Commercial -Recreational (C-R) Zone; to the south is the R-3-8,000 Zone; to the east is the R-1-20,000 Zone; and to the west is the R-1-9,000 Zone. The approved project will subdivide a 2.55 acre parcel into four residential lots for the eventual development of four custom single family residences ranging from 4,000 to 8,000 square feet. Lots will vary in size from .55 to .90 acres as delineated in the matrix below. LOT NUMBER GROSS ACRES/ SQUARE FOOTAGE NET ACRES/ SQUARE FOOTAGE PAD ACRES/ SQUARE FOOTAGE 1 .90/39,204 .62/27,001 .14/6,098 2 .55/23,958 .55/23,958 .13/5,663 3 .55/23,958 .55/23,958 .15/6,534 4 .55/23,958 .55/23,958 .14/6,098 TOTAL 2.55 111,078 2.27 98,875 .56 24,393 The referenced project was first presented to the Planning Commission on April 24, 1995. On May 22, 1995 the Planning Commission recommended approval of this project to City Council. On June 20, 1995, the City Council approved this project. ANALYBIs - E%TENSION OF TIME: The project was approved by City Council on June 20, 1995. The approval was valid for two years and was required to be exercised within that two year period or it would expire. The approval was not exercised. In 1996, the Subdivision Map Act was amended. At that time, if a map had not expired by May 14, 1996, it automatically was extended one year. Additionally, any permits issued in conjunction with a tentative map shall expire no earlier than the approved map. As a result, Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 expired on June 30, 1998. Prior to the map's expiration, upon an application by the subdivider to extend the map, the map shall be automatically extended for 60 days or until the application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first. The 2 extension of time request for this project was submitted before Vesting Tentative Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 expired. The extension of time request does not alter the map's design or any standards or conditions of approval related to the subdivision or the Conditional Use Permit. However, the time extension request includes amending Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The approved Oak Tree Permit application requires the preservation and protection of one multi -trunk oak tree (two trunks, approximately 116 inches in circumference, measured 4h feet above the mean natural grade, with a canopy approximately 50 inches in diameter) located within the front portion of Lot 3, adjacent to the side lot line shared by Lots 3 and 4. However after the Map's approval, it was brought to the City's attention that the oak tree was located within the front portion of Lot 3, but in the center of the lot 2(see Rough Grading Plan exhibit). Additionally, the tree is located within a landslide area. In order to mitigate the landslide area with the required buttress fill as prescribed by the City's engineering consultant performing the grading plan check, the oak tree must be removed. The possible relocation of the oak tree was discussed by an environmental consultant employed by the City. It was determined that this oak tree's chance of survival would be slim because of its large size. Therefore, the oak tree is proposed to be removed. It is required that this oak tree be replaced at a 4:1 ratio and with 24 inch boxed oak trees. The replacement oak trees will be located as follows: Lot 2 - two located adjacent to the front property line and each side property line; Lot 3 - one located adjacent to the front property line and southerly side property line; and Lot 4 - one located adjacent to the front property line and southerly side property line. Currently, the applicant is achieving progress toward final map approval. However, primary issues relating to access on Steeplechase Lane and access through "The Country Estates" gates must be resolved before final map approval. The project site is not within "The Country Estates". It is adjacent to "The Country Estates". As a condition of approval, prior to the final map, the applicant is required to make a bona fide annexation application to "The Country Estates" Association, which the applicant has done. The project site is not part of the TADCO agreement. As such, access through "The Country Estates" is not available to the project site. Additionally, the project site does not have access on Steeplechase Lane. However, in a recent court decision, the applicant states that an easement over Steeplechase Lane has been granted. The City is requiring written verification of the court's decision. Another issue relates to Lot 1's access. The applicant is required to specify Lot 1's access on the map exhibit. The applicant is working toward resolving the referenced issues and compliance with all conditions of approval. Inorder to accomplish this, the one year extension of time is needed. Compliance with all conditions of approval and resolving the referenced issues to the City's satisfaction is required before the final map approval. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the guidelines of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-5 was prepared and adopted by the City Council on June 20, 1995. Due to the removal of one oak tree, this environmental document (pursuant to CEQA Section 15162) was amended to reflect issues related to the removal and replacement of the one oak tree. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on June 19, 1998. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 71 property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site on June 15, 1998. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to City Council of a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Amended Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2, Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2, Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the attached resolution. Prepared by: rzlLWL';�- 44-42�'� Ann Lunqu ss iate Planner Attachments: 1. Draft resolution for the 2. City Council Resolution approved June 20, 1995; 3. Tentative Parcel Map No. 4. Rough Grading Plan; 5. Extension of Time requests 6. Correspondence dated July and 7. Correspondence dated July extension of time; No. 96-36 and Resolution No. 96-37 23382; dated May 8, 1997 and May 12, 1998; 6, 1998 from Diamond Bar Associates; 7,1998 from Robert E. Knudsen. 4 PLANNING COMMISSION DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 98 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR RECOMMENDING APPROVING TO CITY COUNCIL FOR A ONE YEAR EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-1, AMENDED OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 95-2, AMENDED MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-2 AND AMENDED MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM. THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED AT THE 3,000 BLOCK (NORTH SIDE) OF STEEPLECHASE, AT THE TERMINUS OF HAWKWOOD ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA. A. RECITALS. 1. The property owner/applicant, Warren Dolezal of The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, has filed an application for a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The request also includes an amendment to the Oak Tree Permit, to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 and to the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The project site is located at the 3,000 Block (north side of Steeplechase Lane, at the terminus of Hawkwood Road), Los Angeles County, California, as described above in the title of this Resolution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Extension of Time, Amended Oak Tree Permit shall be referred to as the "Application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal corporation of the State of California. Thereafter, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 14 (1990), thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contain the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. Action was taken on the subject application as to the consistency with the General Plan. It has been determined that the proposed Extension of Time and 1 B. Amended Oak Tree Permit are consistent with the Ge*i: Plan. 4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on July 14, 1998 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 5. Notification of the public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on June 19, 1998. Seventy-one property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on June 15, 1998. NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Pursuant to the guideline of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-5 was prepared and adopted by the City Council on June 20, 1995, along with the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. Due to the removal of one oak tree, Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-5 was amended, pursuant to CEQA Section 15162, in order to address issues related to the removal and replacement of the one existing oak tree. 3. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the record as a whole including the findings set forth below, and changes and alterations which have been incorporated into and conditioned upon the proposed project set forth in the application, there is no evidence before this Planning Commission that the project proposed herein will have the potential of an adverse effect on wild life resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence, this Planning Commission hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: (a) The Application relates to a project approved by the City Council on June 20, 1995. The approved project will subdivide a 2.55 acre parcel into four residential lots for the eventual development of kA four custom single family residences rangincP44'. 4,000 to 8,000 square feet. Lots will vary in size from .55 to .90 acres. (b) The project site has a General Plan Land Use designation of Low Density Residential -Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per Acre (R-1-3DU/Acre). It is zoned Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000). (c) Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north is the R-1-20,000 Zone and the Commercial -Recreational (C-R) Zone; to the south is the R-3-8,000 Zone; to the east is the R-1-20,000 Zone; and to the west is the R-1-9,000 Zone. (d) The City Council approval for the presented project expires June 20, 1995. However, due to the 1995 Subdivision Map Act amendment, the project received an automatic one year extension of time. As a result, the project's approval expired June 20, 1998. Prior to the project's expiration, the applicant requested an extension of time, in writing, to the City. As a result, the project's approval was automatically extended for 60 days or until the application for the extension is approved, conditionally approved, or denied, whichever occurs first. (e) The extension of time request does not alter the map's design or any standards or conditions of approval related to the subdivision or the Conditional Use Permit. However, the time extension request includes amending Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The City Council approval included preserving and protecting the one existing oak tree located on Lot 3. Now the applicant is seeking to amendment the Oak Tree Permit approval by removing the one existing oak tree. (f) The proposed construction or proposed use will be accomplished without endangering the health of the remaining trees, if any, on the subject property. The project site contains one oak tree located on Lot 3, adjacent to the side property line shared by Lots 3 and 4. Therefore, the proposed construction or proposed use will be accomplished without endangering the health of the remaining trees, because there are no remaining trees on the subject property. 3 (g) The removal or relocation of the oak tree(s) proposed will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. Erosion will be readily controlled by various management practices and techniques though an erosion control plan and NPDES permit. The grading permit and NPDES permit is designed to insure that potential erosion effects are maintained at a level of insignificance. Therefore, the removal of one oak tree will not result in soil erosion through the diversion or increased flow of surface waters which cannot be satisfactorily mitigated. (h) The removal or relocation of the oak tree(s) proposed is necessary as continued existence frustrates the planned improvement or proposed use of the subject property that placement of such tree(s) precludes the reasonable and efficient use of such property. The oak tree is located within the front portion of Lot 3, in the center of the lot. Additionally, the tree is located within a landslide area. In order to mitigate the landslide area with the required buttress fill as prescribed by the City's engineering consultant performing the grading plan check, the oak tree must be removed. The possible relocation of the oak tree was discussed with an environmental consultant employed by the City. It was determined that this oak tree's chance of survival would be slim because of its large size. Therefore, the oak tree will be removed. It is required that this oak tree be replaced at a 4:1 ratio and with 36 inch boxed oak trees. The replacement oak trees will be located as follows: Lot 2 - two located adjacent to the front property line and each side property line; Lot 3 - one located adjacent to the front property line and southerly side property line; and Lot 4 - one located adjacent to the front property line and southerly side property line. Therefore, the removal of the oak tree is necessary as continued existence frustrates the planned improvement of the subject property. However, tree replacement will be done as referenced above. 5. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby approves the Application subject to the following conditions: (a) Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 shall be developed in substantial conformance to plans dated July 14, 1998, labeled Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" - Mitigation Monitoring Program dated March 1995 and Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program date June 1998, as submitted and approved by the Planning Commission. (b) The site shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris both during and after the con- struction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. (c) All conditions of approval listed within City Council Resolution No. 95-36 and Resolution No. 95- 37 shall remain in full force and effect unless amended as a part of this action. (d) Applicant shall replace the one existing oak tree which is cited for removal at a 4:1 ratio with 36 inch boxed oak trees. The replacement oak trees shall be located as follows: (1) Lot 2 - two located adjacent to front property line; (2) Lots 3 - one located adjacent to front property line; and (3) Lot 4 - one located adjacent to front property line; Oak trees shall be planted when grading is completed. Planting shall be supervised by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist or biologist. (e) Applicant shall protect and preserve the four replacement oak trees pursuant to the City's Oak Tree Permit process and as follows: chain link fencing, with a minimum height of 4 feet, shall be installed 5 feet outside each tree's drip line or 15 feet from each tree's trunk, whichever is greater. Fencing shall be installed immediately after the oak trees' planting and shall remain during the 61 construction of the homes. Fencing shall not be remove until each home has receive final Planning Division inspection or Certificate of Occupancy. (f) Replacement oak trees shall be maintained in perpetuity with a 100 percent survival rate. Replacement oak trees shall be monitored for a 5 year period with periodic inspections and reports submitted to the City. (g) Planting material which may be installed within the replacement oak trees' drip line shall be drought tolerant only. Irrigation shall be installed in conjunction with the oak trees' planting. Irrigation installed within this area shall be appropriate for drought tolerant planting material. (h) Applicant shall provide periodic inspections, by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist or biologist shall occur quarterly the first year, semi-annually the second year and annually for the third, fourth, and fifth year. (i) The future homeowners' shall receive a "Buyers' Awareness" Package at escrow, with a signed receipt from the future homeowner, submitted to the City, acknowledging the future homeowner's receipt of the package. This package shall include proper care and maintenance of the replacement oak trees. (j) This grant is valid for one year from June 20, 1998 to June 20, 1999 and shall be exercised (i.e. construction started) within that period or the grant shall expire. (k) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed, within fifteen (15) days of approval of this grant, at the City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department, their affidavit stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this grant. Further, this grant shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining City processing fees. (1) If the Department of Fish and Game determines that Fish and Game Code Section 711.4 applies to the approval of this project, then the applicant shall remit to the City, within five days of this grant's approval, a cashier's check of $25.00 for a documentary handling fee in connection with Fish and Game Code requirements. Furthermore, if this R &"'.rZL L project is not exempt from a filing fee imposed because the project has more than a deminimis impact on fish and wildlife, the applicant shall also pay to the Department of Fish and Game any such fee and any fine which the Department determines to be owed. The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Warren Dolezal, The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, 4251 S. Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 14TH DAY OF JULY, 1998, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. BY: Joe McManus, Chairman I, James DeStefano, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 14th day of July, 1998, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: James DeStefano, Secretary 7 THE DOLEZAL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 4251 South Higuera Street, Ste 100, San Luis Obispo, California 93461 (805) 544-3990 FAX (805) 544-3994 N - 8 May 1997 Mr. James DeStefano, Director o, Ms. Ann J. Lungu, Assistant Planner Community Development Department City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100 Diamond Bar, California 91765-4177 RE: Tentative Map 23382 (TPM 23382) and City Council Resolutions No. 95- 36 and 95-37 Dear Mr. DeStefano and Ms. Lungu, An additional one year extension to the approvals we received by City Council Resolutions No. 95-36 and 95-37 on June 20, 1995 is requested. At the same time we would like to have the question that if the one existing, Non heritage, Oak tree has to be removed to comply with conditions No. 14, and 15 in Section B, Public Works Department, Grading to provide the buttressing required by the approved geology plan, we would like approval to replace that tree with two (2) 36 inch box Oak trees at locations to be determined by the Planning Director upon grading final completion. It is also requested that in resolution 95-37 the Resolution Statement 4(t) "Oak Tree Permit" be slightly revised to read as follows: "The proposed project will be accomplished without endangering the health of the remaining oak tree or suitable replacement trees (two 36 inch box oak trees) be provided if removal is necessary." Enclosed is a check for $500.00 to add to our reserve fund to initiate action for the previous items requested. Thank you for your help in this matter. Please call me if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, Warren Dolezal, General Partner THE DOLEZAL FAMILY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP 4251 South Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, California 93401 (805) 5443990 12 May 1998 Mr. James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager W Ms. Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner Community Development Department City of Diamond Bar J 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, California 91765-4177 RE: Tentative Map 23382 (TPM 23382) and City Council Resolutions No. 95-36 and 95-37 Dear Mr. DeStefano and Ms. Lungu, An additional one year extension, to that requested on May 8, 1997, to the approvals we received by City Council Resolutions No. 95-36 and 95-37 on June 20, 1995 is requested. As requested in our May 8, 1997 extension letter we would like to have the question that if the one existing, Non heritage, Oak tree has to be removed to comply with Public Works Department Conditions No. 14, and 15 in Section B, ming. to provide the buttressing required by the approved geology plan, we would like approval to replace that tree with two (2) 36 inch box Oak trees at locations to be determined by the Planning Director upon grading final completion. The Quite Title legal action that the city required of us to fully establish our easement rights onto Steeplechase Lane, as we have represented from the beginning of our application in January 1992, has been completed and our full rights to that 60 foot wide street area that abuts our property for access, ingress and egress since December 20, 1976 has been affirmed by the Superior Court. We do not expect any further delays in the final processing of our Parcel Map as all conditions of our approvals had been completed including plan check except for the easement and Oak tree questions mentioned above. It is therefore requested that: (1.) In resolution 95-37 the Resolution Statement 4(t) "Oak Tree Permit" be slightly revised to read as follows: "The proposed project will be accomplished without endangering the health of the remaining oak tree or suitable replacement trees (two 36 inch box oak trees) be provided if removal is necessary." (2.) That we be permitted to complete our final plan check and (3.) That we be scheduled for final approval of our Parcel Map by the City Council to provide for its recording. Thank you for your help in this matter. Please call me if I can be of any further assistance. Sincerely, / Warren Dolezal, General artner 13:48 JCC-HOME6 5406257 PLACE. 2. nd Bar Associates ,ance Blvd., Ste. 300 CA 90503 Bar Planning Commission n DeStefano, Deputy City Mgr. ipley Drive, Ste. 190 Sar, CA 511763 telephoee (310) 540-3990 famimik (310) 316-7133 July 6, 1998 ive Parcel Map No. 23382 - Dolezal Family Ltd. Partnership 1, -ceived notice that the above referenced parcel map is set to be considered on before the Planning Commission on July 14, 1998. We did not appear 1 or comment upon this subdivision when it was originally before you, e applictait, Mr. Dolezal, had earlier represented to us that he possessed cess easement to our portion of Steeplectuise bane, and additional access ,ugh the gates of Diamond Bar Country Eslates ("DBCE"). of 1997, when our Tract 47850, which contains the area -of Steeplechase } � �.'testion, came before the City Council for final approval, . Mr. Dolezal :. iaiming that his property would become landlocked if our. map were �^ eci to record 'therefore, at the City's request, we offered a portion of our for the dedication of a alight extension of Huwkwood Rd, a V11b& street g w; thin approximately 60 feet of the applicant's property. The City accepted :z �tortion of Hawkwood for public use, so that the Dolezal parcel would have r a1 r it k c ess to a public street. ,'poaremill, not satisfied with having public street access, Mr. Dolezal pursued an ac tion its Superior Court for an easement over Steeplechase Lane. The court's tetlrative decision is that there is an "implied" easement over some portion of ` teorplechase bane, but the matter is still in some dispute. As adjacent landowners affected by this subdivision, we have the following ::*o n unen.ts and requests: I ) We object to any extension of this map due to the questionable manner by w'tuch its original approval was obtained, since it is now dear that whatever the court's ultimate ruling concerning our portion of Steeplechase, no easement rights exitted through the gam of Diamond Bar Country Estates. We feel we should have the right to participlite in public hearings for any new map submittal. 19:48 JCC-HOME6...r�. 540625? PAGE 2, 2, 2.', nd Bar Associates ante Blvd., Ste. 300 CA 9OL'i"P03 Bar Plamung Comnussion a DeStehno, Deputy City Mgr. Apley Drive, Ste. 190 iar, CA 111765 t9icPhmwe (310) 54&3990 %acsimik (310) 316-7133 July 6, 1998 the Parcel Map No. 23382 • Dolezal Family Ltd. Partnership ceived notice that the above referenced pArcel map is set to be considered in before the Planning Commission on Juky 14, 1998. We did not appear or conunent upon this subdivision when it was originally before you, e applicant, Mr. Dolezal, had earlier represented to us that he possessed ,cess easement to our portion of Steeplechase Lane, and additional access ugh the gates of Diamond Bar Country Estates ("DBCE"). Of 1997, when our Tract 47850, which contains the area: of Steeplechase ii,estion, came before the City Council for final approval, Mr. Dolezal t Aaiming Hutt his property would become landlocked if our.map were Pca }r record. '['herefore, at the City's request, we offered a portion of our w t w if the dedication of a slight extension of Rawkwood Rd, a 12uhhe street ,,I' K w ,;thin approximately 60 feet of the applicant's property. The City accepted �rrioa of Hawkwood for public use, so that the Dolezal parcel would have an, tic c,2ss to a public street. s f oa.rend , not satisfied with having public street access, Mr. Dolezal pursued an ,1c"011 ir Superior C:ourt for an easement over Steeplechase Lane. The court's tentative decision is that there is an "implied" easement over some portion of Stwplechaw Lane, but the matter is still in some dispute. "kf adjacent landowners affected by this subdivision, we have the following r;-R:rniments and rets: 1) We object to any extension of this map due to the questionable manner by wuch its original approval was obtained, since it is iww clear that whatever the court's ultimate ruling concerning our portion of Steeplechase, no easement rights exii,ted through the gates of Diamond gar Country Estates. We feel we should have the right to participate in public hearings for any new map submittal. P Diamond Har Planning C-ommi"lon July 6,19%, page 2 2) If it is represented that access will now be taken from Hawkwood, we believe that no extension should be granted, since this would constitute a substantial departure from the original map. A new application and public hearing should be required, particularly if any combined use of both Hawkwood and Steeplechase is contemplated, since the boundaries of the "The Country" would be compromised. 3) Although we are not certain of all the legal ramifications, we don't believe that the City should approve any subdivision lying jUbd& a gated community, which takes access f m it private street lying -entirely b►j$in the gated community. 4) If none of the above objections are sufficient to require a new map submittal, we still object to any subdivision lying outside of our gated community which utilizes a portion of the private roadway which we constructed and are independently obligated to nwintain, unless satisfactory conditions are imposed with respect to maintenance and reimbursement of <xsts for the installation of both the roadway and appurtenant infrastructure. Thunk, you for your consideration of this matter. It it; our plan to appear at the hearing and raise these issues, but we wished. to givot written notice, since the issues are somewhat complex, and time limitations may prevent adequate oral testimony. Sincerely, xul t Nelson Diamond Bar Associates cc Warren Dolezal Eric t ardiere JUL—c,a.-•.rt: 11 :br c•n Lr•w OF -C wuiErT r KNUL::LN r -. Hz RO'Do FRT L. KNUDSEN Attorney at Law Teslap)zozec (909) 482-1096 pt►COMIle (909) 621-3964 121 North Harvard Avenue. c mail Knudsenlawoaolxom Claremont, California 91711 July 9, 1998 Warren F. Dolezul , Oenar. al Partzzcr The Dolezal Family Limited Purtnerohip 4251 South Higuera Street, Suite 301 Ban Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: DF11P v. Diamond Bar A6000iatc:A By Facaimi.le and U.B. Mail Dear Warrens Aa you are aware, I have submitted a proposed attltement of deeial.on and judgment to the court in accordance with the court's request and Ltzo tentative statentcz,t of decision. Not. surprisingly, the defendants have tiled objections. I da not anticipate that the objeet:ions will have any effect on the outcome: c1f the case and should be considered to be part of the ordinary post triad paperwork. The court has set a hea<zing oil July 24, 1998 fo) review of the cit-fendar,ts, objections to Lhe proposed Htatement of decision and judgment. As the defendants have formally objected, the court is required to consider and rule upon the objections. Although phis process delays the final entry of judquiont, as a practi.cul matter, at is generally a formality which has no effect on the ultimate outcome of the case as was determined by the court's wri i.t:e:n deoi Ai cm after trial which determined that you were the prevailing party ar trial. within 10 days of that hearil,V, Lhe court w331 sign and file A final statement of decision and Judgment in this matter which 1 expect to be consistent with Lhe t.Pntative stale -meat, of decisivtz. Z know Lhat you find Lhese delayer frustrating buL 1 am moving matters along as fact as: I can. These post trial proceedings should be viewed as a nclrmtll (albeit time consuming) part of the process which will not have any effect on your easement rights other then the delays while the final judgment iv processed and uiyzied. I hope this clari.fiAe matters for You and answers your clut-stion9 conoerning the reasons for the delays. 3 c:xpvcL that this will be tho last delay prior to cnLry of judgment Laid that we should be in F, povition to record a final judgment regarding your easement rights: week of Auquot 3, 1995. 1.f you have any quoutions or corameIL es please call me. sincerely, � R carr. I;, Knudsenn R£K:cl JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 2 1. Extension of Time for Approved Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 (pursuant to Code Sections 21.40.280, 22.56.140 and 22.56.2250) is a request for a one year extension of time of the City's approval dated June 20, 1995. The approval permitted a four lot residential subdivision of a 2.55 acre parcel within a significant ecological and hillside management area. The project site contained one oak tree to be preserved and protected. The extension of time also includes a request to amend the Oak Tree Permit. The proposed amendment involves the removal of the one oak tree and its replacement at a 4:1 ratio with 24 inch box oak trees. Project Address: 3000 .Block (north side) of Steeplechase lane at the terminus of Hawkwood Roo' adjacent to "The Country Estates". Property Owner/ Warren Dolezal Applicant: 4251 S. Higuera Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 AstP/Lungu presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Amended Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2, Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2, Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nelson asked if the oak tree that is slated to be replaced has been looked at by an arborist and is the tree a Heritage Oak? AstP/Lungu explained that the current Oak Tree Permit process does not distinguish "Heritage" oaks. Bob Laurie from Michael Brandman Associates looked at the tree. Although the tree is in good condition, it is his opinion that it would not survive relocation and a 4:1 replacement ratio is appropriate. C/Nelson said he believes a 4:1 ratio for a tree of such magnitude is inadequate. CE/Wentz responded to C/Ruzika that Kramer and Associates determined that the tree needed to be removed to mitigate the landslide. DCM/DeStefano indicated to Chair/McManus that if the applicant is denied access via Steeplechase Lane, the current application may be rendered untenable. However, the applicant could request access via Hawkwood Road from the City. CE/Wentz, responding to Chair/McManus stated that at the time Parcel Map No. 47850 was approved, the City required that portion from the end of Hawkwood Road up to the private portion of Steeplechase Lane be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar. Therefore, that opportunity exists as a possible access to the sight for Mr. Dolezal should he not be able to demonstrate that he has access from Steeplechase Lane. This scenario would require the applicant to come back to the City with a alternative proposed map. If the oak tree remained, JULY 14, 1998 PAGE 3 the applicant may be able to construct fewer lots on his parcel map. JCC Development proposes to install a gate at the end of Crystal Ridge where Hawkwood Road terminates. In response to VC/Tye, CE/Wentz stated he believes that taking access from Hawkwood Road is discretionary and would not warrant a denial of any kind of extension to allow Mr. Dolezal time to try to address this issue and other issues that remain with this proposed map. Should he not be successfiil, he would be required to resubmit an application to the City with a different map layout and at that time, the Commission and the City Council could address the issue of access to insure that there is no violation of the privacy of "The Country Estates". Chair/McManus opened the Public Hearing. Warren Dolezal stated that when this property was acquired in 1976, Diamond Bar Development Company represented to him that the property in question was a part of "The Country Estates". The court affirmed that we had access to Steeplechase Lane. An extension of time is required in order for the applicant to finalize legal matters. Application has been made to "The Country Estates" for access and negotiations are proceeding. With respect to the oak tree that is required to be replaced, the soils test revealed that the old landslide material runs under the oak tree. He agreed with CE/Wentz that in order to have a buildable lot, the oak tree will have to be removed. He said he has no objection to the replacement using 36 inch boxed trees. A 36 inch box is about 4 inches in diameter and about eight feet in height. Mr. Dolezal responded to C/Ruzicka that negotiations with "The Country Estates" are proceeding on a very friendly basis. There being no fiuther public testimony offered, Chair/McManus closed the Public Hearing. Following discussion, C/Nelson moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to concur with staff to recommend approval to the City Council of a one year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Amended Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2, Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2, Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program, Findings ofFact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution, with the recommendation that the oak tree in question be replaced at the ratio of 20:1 with 36 inch boxed oak trees. As many replacement trees as possible are to be placed on-site and the balance will be placed off-site within the City of Diamond Bar or a dollar amount for in lieu tree contribution be placed in a replacement fund to be used for other City projects. Location of the trees to be approved by City staff. Motion was carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kuo, Nelson, Ruzicka, VC/Tye, Chair/McManus NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: None CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 95-36 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382 AND XXTIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-2' FOR A REQUEST TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT THE EXTREME NORTRWRSTERN EDGE OF TONNER CANYON/CHINO RILLS SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA (SEA) NO. ISl AT 3000 BLOCK (NORTH BIDE) OF STEEPLECRASE LANE. A. Recitals 1. The property owner/applicant, Warren Dolezal of Dolezal Family Limited Partnership has filed the "Application" for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 for a request to divide one parcel into four residential lots located at the extreme northwestern edge .of Tonner Canyon/Chino Hill Significant Ecological Area No. 15. The project site is located at 3,000 block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described in the title of this Resolu- tion. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map application is.referred to as the "Application". 2; On April -18,. 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization of 'the State of CaliTornia.' On'that date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency to the Draft General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Office of Planning and Research extension granted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65361. 4. Notification of the Planning Commission public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley 1 B. Tribune and the Inland Valley Bulletin newspapers on March 31, 1995. one hundred and eighty-five (185) property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on March 28, 1995. 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on April 24, 1995 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. At that time, the public hearing was continued to May 8, 1995. On May 8, 1995, the public hearing was continued to May 22, 1995. The Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council on May 22, 1995. 6. Notification of the City Council public hearing for this project has been made in the Can Gabriel Valley Tribune and the TnIand Valley Bulletin newspapers on May 30, 1995. One hundred and eighty-five (185) property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on May 26, 1995. 7. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, on June 20, 1995 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. S. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu- tion have occurred. Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the .City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The City Council hereby specifically f inds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that having considered the record as a whole, there is no evidence before this City Council that the project as proposed by the Application, and conditioned for approval herein, will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before this City Council, the Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The City Council hereby finds that the initial study review and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 has been prepared by the City of Diamond Bar in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder. Further, the Mitigate Negative 2 L•9 Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this City Council, hereby finds as follows: (a) The project request relates to a vacant parcel of 2.55 gross acres located at the extreme northwestern edge of SEA No. 15 in the 3000 block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane at the terminus of Hawkwood Road and adjacent to a gated community identified as "The Country Estates". (b) The project site is located within the Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000) Zone. It has a draft General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential -Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per Acre (RL - 3 Du/Acre). (c) Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north are the Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet (R-1-20,000) and Commercial -Recreational (C-R) Zones; to the west is the Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 9,000 Square Feet (R- 1-9,000) Zone; to the east is the R-1-20,000 Zone; and to the south is the R-3-8,000 Zone. (d) The proposed parcel map is consistent with the City's draft General Plan and zoning standards. (e) The design and improvements of the proposed subdivision complies with the City's draft.General Plan, local ordinances, and State requirements. (f) The project site is physically suitable for this type of subdivision. (g) The design of the proposed subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. (h) The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. (i) The design of th improvements will acquired by the through or use of, subdivision. 3 e subdivision or the type of not conflict with easements, public at large, for access property with in the proposed 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth above, the City Council hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: A. PLANNING DIVISION (1) Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 shall be developed in substantial conformance to plans dated June 20, 1995, labeled Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" as submitted and approved by the City Council. (2) The approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 is granted subject to the approval of the Hillside Management and Significant Ecological Area Conditional Use Permit' No. 92-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2. (3) The approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed within f ifteen (15 ) days of approval of this map, at the City of Diamond Bar's Community Development Department, their Affidavit of Acceptance stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this map. Further, this approval shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining Planning Division processing fees. (4) In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9 (b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City. or, its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void - or annul, approval of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, which action is brought, within the time period provided for Government Code Section 66499.37. (5) The site shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation. of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, _whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits, from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 11 (6) All requirements of the Zoning Ordinance and of the underlying zoning of the subject property shall be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in the permit or shown on the approved plans. (7) The applicant shall satisfy the City's park obligation by contributing an in -lieu fee to the City prior to recordation of the final map per Code Section 2124.340. (s) The applicant shall pay development fees (including, but not limited to, Planning and Building and Safety Divisions and school fees) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permits, as required by the Community Development and Public Works Directors. (9) Prior to approval of the final map, the owner shall make a bonafide application to "The Country Estates" Association to annex this subdivision to that association. The owner shall be required to agree to annex upon recordation of the final map if all fees assessed by "The Country Estates" Association do not exceed the fees assessed per lot for annexation to "The Country Estates" Association for Tract No. 47722. (10) Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of a homeowner's association are required and shall be provided to the Community Development Director and the City Attorney for_ review and approval prior to the recordation of the final. map. A homeowners' association shall be created and responsibilities -there of shall be delineated within the CC&R's or the homeowners' association shall be incorporated into "The Country Estates". - The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or prior to the issuance of any City permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provide to the City Engineer. (11) The CC&R's shall incorporate Exhibit "B" which delineates each lot's building envelope. (12) The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2. (13) The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) fees shall be deposited with the City prior to issuance of a grading permit. All costs related to the ongoing monitoring shall be secured from the subdivider 5 and received by the City prior to the final map approval. (14) The parcel map shall be designed so as to substantially comply with the CC&R's implemented by the adjacent development known as "The Country Estates". The CC&R's shall incorporate at a minimum, provisions which would establish a maintenance program for urban pollutant basins and all mitigation measures within the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The CC&R's shall, to the fullest extent possible, be consistent with "The Country Estates'" CC&R's. (15) A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&R's which requires disputes involving interpretation or application of the CC&R's (between private parties), to be referred to a neutral third party mediation service (name of service may be included) prior to any party initiating litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction. The cost of such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. (16) Grading and/or construction activities shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. All equipment utilized for grading and/or construction shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. Transportation of equipment and materials and the operation of heavy grading shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All equipment staging areas shall be located on "the subject property. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. (17) Construction equipment and/or related construction traffic shall not be permitted to enter the project site from Hawkwood Road. (18) Parcel Map No. 23382 shall maintain a minimum 20 foot wide (open clear to the sky) paved access road along and within that public utility nion and public services easement on the westerly p of'Lot 1 and between the cul-de-sac of Hawkwood Road and the knuckle of Steeplechase Lane, tothe satisfaction of the Los Angeles County F Department and the City Engineer. The access shall be indicated on the map as a "Fire Lane". Vehicular or pedestrian gates obstructing the access shall be of an approved width and shall be provided only with locking devices and/or override 6 mechanisms which has been approved by the Fire Chief . ;(19) The applicant shall prepa Community Development Direc to the sale of the first lo' "Buyers" Awareness Package' but, not limited to,- infc geologic issues regarding corridors, oak and waln issues, the existence and to SEA No. 15 and Tonner Ca delineates each lot's buil story information pertain] use of properties as necess matter. The applicant sha �_ _—_t...ae Aal ivsry of A -e and submit to the for for approval prior of the subdivision, a which shall include, rmation pertaining to .he property, wildlife it tree preservation constraints pertaining iyon, Exhibit "B" which ling envelope, explan- ng to restrictions on sry and similar related 11 institute a program cony of the "Buyers' Awareness Package" to each prospective purchaser and shall keep on file in the applicant's office a receipt signed by each such prospective purchaser indicating that the prospective purchaser has received and read the information in the package. The applicant shall incorporated within the CC&R's a reference to the availability of the package and the fact that a copy thereof is on file in the City of Diamond Bar's City Clerk's office. (20) The project applicant, through the "Buyer Awareness Program", shall encourage the segregation of green wastes for reuse as specified under the City's' Source Reduction Recycling Element and county Sanitation District's waste diversion policies. (21) All down drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. (22) Slopes in excess of five feet in vertical height shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control. slope landscaping and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual lot or unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for the units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine compliance with this condition. (23) Variable slope ratios of 2:1 to 4:1 shall be utilized within the indicated grading areas of each lot to the satisfaction the City Engineer. (24) The emergency access gate at the terminus of Hawkwood Road shall be consistent, in design and 7 materials, with existing gates located at other access areas within "The Country Estates". (25) Notwithstanding any previous subsection of this resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment therefore shall be made by the Applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. (26) The subject property shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulations applicable to any development or activity of the subject properties. (27) This grant is valid for two (2) years and must be exercised (i.e. construction) within that period or this grant shall expire. A one (1) year extension may be requested in writing, submitted to the City, 30 days prior to this grants expiration date. B. PUBLIC WORM DEPARTXMN'P (1) Prior to approval and recordation of the parcel map, written certification shall be submitted to the City from the 'Walnut valley water District (WVWD) that adequate water supply and facilities; from . Los Angeles County - Sanitation District (LACSD) that adequate sewage conveyance and treatment capacity; and from each public utility and cable television purveyor that adequate supplies and facilities; are or.will be available to serve the proposed project. Such letters must have been issued by the districts, utility companies and cable television company within ninety (90) days prior to parcel map approval. (2) A title report/guarantee and subdivision guarantee showing all fee owners and, interest holders, and nature of interest shall be submitted when a parcel map is submitted for map check. The account with the title company shall remain open until the parcel map is filed with the County Recorder. An updated title report/ guarantee and subdivision guarantee shall be submitted ten (10) working days prior to parcel map approval. (3) All easements existing prior to parcel map approval shall be identified and shown on parcel map. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate 8 in nature, a statement to that effect shall be shown on the parcel map in lieu of showing its location. (4) Based on a field survey boundary monuments shall be set in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act and local subdivision ordinance and shall be subject to approvalby the City Engineer. (5) The Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct all required public improvements. if any required public improvements have not been completed by Applicant/ Subdivider and accepted by the City prior to the .approval of the parcel map, Applicant/Subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City and shall post the appropriate security, guaranteeing completion of the improvements, prior to parcel map approval. (6) Plans for all site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street, sewer, water and storm drain improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to parcel map approval. . (7) House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to -issuance of building -permits. (8) The detail drawings and construction notes shown on the submitted tentative map are conceptual only and the approval of this tentative map shall not constitute approval of said notes. Grad (9) The final subdivision grading plans (1" - 40' or larger scale, 24" x 36" sheet format) shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building or grading permits and prior to parcel map approval. (10) The Applicant/Subdivider, at the Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall perform all grading in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer. For grading not performed prior to Parcel Map approval an agreement shall be executed and security shall be posted, guaranteeing completion of the improvements prior to Parcel Map approval. (11) Applicant/Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail grading and drainage 4 construction cost estimate for bonding purposes of all grading, prior to approval of the parcel map. (12) Precise final grading plans for each parcel shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance of building or grading permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis.) (13) Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code and City's Hillside Management Ordinance, and acceptable grading practices. The final subdivision and precise final grading plans shall be in substantial conformance with the grading shown as a material part of the approved Tentative Map. No driveway serving building area(s) shall exceed 15% grade. (14) All landslide debris shall be completely removed prior to fill placement or other approved remedial measures implemented as required by the final geotechnical report and approved by the City Engineer. (15) At the time of submittal of the final subdivision grading plan for plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall be submitted in compliance with City guidelines to the City Engineer for approval. The report shall be prepared by a qualified registered geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist licensed by the State of California. All geotechnical and soils related findings and recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading permits and recordation of the parcel map. The report shall address, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading. (b) The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly defined on the (c) (d) (e) grading plans. Areas of potential for defined and proper implemented as approved Gross stability of all analyzed as part of the including remedial fill slope. debris flow shall be remedial measures by the City Engineer. fill slopes shall be geotechnical report, that replaces natural Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as approved by the City 10 Engineer. Unstable slopes shall be redesigned or stabilized utilizing slope reinforcement. (f) All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations shall be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the final subdivision grading plan as a base. (g) Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane; projection plan shall have a minimum safety factor of 1.5. (h) All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e. landslides, shear key locations, etc.) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. (i) All landslides must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map. Specific remedial measures shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of City Code and Ordinances. (j) Stability of back cuts (i.e. excavation of natural slopes) must be analyzed. (16) Final subdivision grading plans shall be designed in compliance with the recommendations of the final detailed ' soils and. engineering geology reports. All remedial earthworm specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the plans. (17) Grading plans shall be signed and stamped by a California registered Civil Engineer, registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered Geologist. (18) All identified geologic hazards within the tentative subdivision boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be indicated on the parcel map as "Restricted Use Area" subject to geologic hazard. The subdivider shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within such restricted use areas shown on the parcel map. (19.) A drainage study and drainage improvement plans (24" x 36" sheet format) prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to parcel map approval. All drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed as required by the City 11 Engineer and in accordance with County of Los Angeles standards. (20) The Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct all drainage improvements in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer. For drainage improvements - not constructed prior to parcel map approval an agreement shall be executed and security shall be posted, guaranteeing completion of the improvements, prior to parcel map approval. Applicant/ Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate for bonding purposes for all drainage improvements prior to parcel map approval. (21) The Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct all facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the city Engineer. For dewatering facilities not constructed prior to parcel map approval an agreement shall be executed and security shall be posted, guaranteeing completion of the improvements, prior to parcel map approval. Applicant/Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate for bonding purposes for all dewatering improvements prior to parcel map approval. (22) Easements for disposal of drainage water onto or over adjacent parcels shall be delineated and shown on the parcel map as -approved by the City Engineer. - (23) All drainage improvements necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties shall be installed prior to issuance of building permits for construction upon any parcel that may be subject to drainage flows enter, leaving, or within that parcel for which a building permit is requested. (24) An erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. (25) An offer of easements for drainage and drainage improvements, as required by the City Engineer, shall be made on the parcel map prior to parcel map approval. 12 Streets (26) Street improvement plans (24" x 36" sheet format) prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to parcel map approval. (27) The Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct all street improvements in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer. For street improvements not constructed prior to parcel map approval an agreement shall be executed and security shall be posted, guaranteeing completion of the improvements, prior to parcel map approval. Applicant/ Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate for bonding purposes for all street improvements prior to approval of the parcel map. (28) New street centerline monuments shall be set at the intersections of streets, intersection of streets with the westerly boundary of Parcel 1 and the easterly boundary of Parcel 3 of Parcel. Map 1528, and to mark the beginning and ending of curves or the points of intersection of tangents thereof. Survey notes showing the ties between all monuments set and four (4) durable reference points for each shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval in accordance with City Standards, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. (29) Prior to any work being performed in public right- of-way, fees shall be paid andk a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office for work in the City of Diamond Bar in addition to any other permits required. (30) No street shall exceed a maximum slope of 12% unless approved by the City Engineer. (31) Base and pavement on all streets shall be constructed in accordance with a soils report and pavement thickness calculations shall be prepared by a qualified and registered engineer and shall be approved by the City Engineer or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer. (32) The street light at end of Hawkwood cul-de-sac shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. 13 (33) All utility lines shall be placed underground in and adjoining the proposed tentative subdivision map. (34) Curbs and gutters for cul-de-sac at end of Hawkwood shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sewer and Water (35) Prior to parcel map approval the subdivider shall submit an area study to the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to determine whether capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the outlet for the sewers. in this land division. If the system is found to be of insufficient capacity, the problem shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. (36) Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary sever system serving the subdivision shall be* connected to the City sewer system. (37) Sewer system improvement plans (24" x 36" sheet format, 2 pages per sheet) prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, and Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts prior to parcel map approval. (38) The Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and. expense, shall construct all sewer system improvements. For sewer system improvements not constructed prior to parcel map approval an agreement shall be executed and security shall be posted guaranteeing completion of the improvements prior to parcel map approval. Applicant/ Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate for bonding purposes for all sewer system improvements prior to approval of the parcel map. (39) The Applicant/ Subdivider shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Department and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. The subdivision area within the tentative map boundaries shall be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 21. 14 (40) An offer of easements for sewer system improvements, as required by the City Engineer, shall be made on the parcel map prior to parcel map approval. (41) Domestic water system improvement plans, designed with appurtenant facilities to serve all parcels in the land division and designed to Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications, shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer and WVWD. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The main lines shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. (42) Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct all domestic water system improvements. For water System improvements not constructed prior to parcel map approval an agreement shall be executed and security shall be posted, guaranteeing completion of the improvements, prior to parcel map approval. Applicant/ Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate for bonding purposes for all domestic water system improvements prior to approval of the parcel map. (43) Separate underground -utility services shall be provide to each parcel, including water, gas, electric power,, telephone and cable TV service, in accordance with the respective utility company standards. Easements that may be required by the utility companies, shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to granting.. (44) An offer of easements for public utility and public services purposes, as required by the City Engineer, shall be made on the parcel map prior to parcel map approval. (45) Applicant/Subdivider shall relocate and underground any existing on-site utilities as necessary and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. (46) Reclaimed water system improvement plans, designed with appurtenant facilities capable of delivering reclaimed water to all portions of the subdivision and serving each parcel in the subdivision and designed to Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications, shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer and WVWD. 15 (47) Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/ Subdivider `s sole cost and expense, shall construct reclaimed water system improvements, including main and service lines capable of delivering reclaimed water to all portions of the subdivision. Applicant/Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate for bonding purposes for all reclaimed water system improvements prior to approval of the parcel map. (48) As reclaimed water supply is not currently available,- Subdivider shall enter into agreement to design and construct system, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Walnut Valley Water District. The system shall be designed to permit "switch over" of non-domestic services on each lot at such time a reclaimed water supply is available to the subdivision. Irrevocable security shall be posted to guarantee the performance of this agreement. (49) The Applicant/Subdivider shall install portions of the reclaimed water system (main and irrigation service lines) capable of delivering reclaimed -water to those designated areas, if any, of the subdivision for which the homeowners association is responsible for irrigation and/or landscape maintenance. This installation shall provide for a present connection to the domestic water system and shall include provisions .for the switch -over to the future reclaimed water system. The City Clerk shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; (b) This City Council hereby provides; notice to Warren Dolezal of the Dolezal Family Limited Partnership that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this resolution must be sought. is governed by the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6; and (c) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to: Warren Dolezal of the Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, 4251 S. Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 1995, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY:�-' / 4pyj�jZjs E. Pape , Mayor 16 I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of June, 1995, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL, MEMBERS: Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner and M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ATTEST: 'Lynda Burgess, City Clerk 17 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION No. 95-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING HILLSIDE MANAGEMENT AND SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-1, OAx TREE PERMIT NO. 95- 2, AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95- 2 FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL NAP NO. 23382 WHICH I8 A REQUE8T TO DIVIDE ONE PARCEL INTO FOUR RESIDENTIAL LOTS LOCATED AT THE EZTREME NORTHWE8TERN EDGE OF TONNER CANYON/CHINO HILLS SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA (SEA) NO. 15, AT 3000 BLOCS (NORTH BIDE) OF STEEPLECHASE LANE. A. Recitals 1. The property owner/applicant, Warren Dolezal of Dolezal Family Limited Partnership has filed the "Application" for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 for a request to divide one parcel into four residential lots located at the extreme northwestern edge of Tonner Canyon/Chino Hill Significant Ecological Area No. 15. The project site is located at 3,000 block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane, Diamond. Bar, Los Angeles County, California, as described,'in the title of this Resolu- tion. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject Tentative Parcel Map application is referred to as the "Application". 2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was established as a duly organized municipal organization of the State of California. On that date, pursuant to the requirements of the California Government Code Section 57376, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopted its Ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles County Code contains the Development Code of the County of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development applications, including the subject Application, within the City of Diamond Bar. 3. The City of Diamond Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, action was taken on the subject application, as to consistency to the Draft General Plan, pursuant to the terms and provisions of the Office 1 of Planning and Research extension granted pursuant to California Government Code Section 65361. 4. Notification of the Planning Commission public hearing for this project has been made in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Bulletin newspapers on March 31, 1995. One hundred and eighty-five (185) property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on March 28, 1995. 5. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on April 24, 1995 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. At that time, the public hearing was continued to May 8, 1995. On May 8, 1995, the public hearing was continued to May 22, 1995. The Planning Commission recommended approval to the City Council on May 22, 1995. 6. Notification of the City Council public hearing for this project has been made in the Ban Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Bulletin newspapers on May 30, 1995. One hundred and eighty-five (185) property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site were notified by mail on May 26, 1995, 7. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, on June 20, 1995 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application. 8. All legal,prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu- tion have occurred. B. ' Resolution NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as .follows: 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that having considered the record as a whole, there is no evidence before this City Council that the project as proposed by the Application, and conditioned for approval herein, will have the potential of an adverse effect on wildlife resources or the habitat upon which the wildlife depends. Based upon substantial evidence presented in the record before this City Council, the Council hereby rebuts the presumption of adverse effects contained in Section 753.5 (d) of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. 3. The City Council hereby finds that the initial study review and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 has been prepared by the City of Diamond Bar in compliance with the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended, and guidelines promulgated thereunder. Further, said Mitigate Negative Declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City of Diamond Bar. 4. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth herein, this City Council, hereby finds as follows: (a) The project request relates to a vacant parcel of 2.55 gross acres located at the extreme northwestern edge of SEA No. 15 in the 3000 block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane at the terminus of Hawkwood Road and adjacent to a gated community identified as "The Country Estates". (b) The project site is located within the Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000) Zone. It has a draft General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential -Maximum 3 Dwelling Units Per Acre (RL - 3 Du/Acre). (c) Generally, the following zones surround the project site: to the north are the Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 Square Feet (R-1-20,000) and Commercial -Recreational (C-R) Zones; to the west is the Single Family Residential -Minimum Lot Size 9,000 Square Feet (R- 1-9,000) Zone; to the east is the R-1-20,000 Zone; and to the south is the R-3-8,000 Zone. CONDITIONAL USE PERXIT (d) The proposed project will not be in substantial conflict with the draft General Plan, local ordinances, and State requirements. (e) The proposed project will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area. (f) The proposed project will not be materially detrimental to the use, enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the site. (g) The proposed project will not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to public health, safety or general welfare. (h) The project site is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading facilities, landscaping and other development features prescribed within City ordinances, or as otherwise required in order to integrate the use with uses in the surrounding area. (i) The project site is adequately served by highways or streets of sufficient width and improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity of traffic such use would generate. SIGNIFICANT ECOLOGICAL AREA (SEE) (j) The proposed project is designed to be highly compatible with the biotic resources present, including the setting aside of appropriate and sufficient undisturbed areas. (k) The proposed project is designed so that wildlife movement corridors (migratory paths) are left in an undisturbed and natural state. (1) The proposed project retains sufficient natural vegetative cover and/open spaces to buffer critical resource areas from the requested project. (m) Where necessary, fences or walls are provided to buffer important habitat areas from development. (n) The proposed project is designed.to maintain water bodies, watercourses, and their tributaries in a natural state. (o) The roads and utilities serving the proposed project are located and designed so as not to conflict with critical resources, habitat areas or migratory paths. HILLSIDE MANAGM(ENT AREA (p) The proposed project is located and designed so as to protect the safety of current and future community residents, and will not create significant threats to life and/or property due to the presence of geologic, seismic, slope 4 instability, fire, flood, mud flow, or erosion hazard. (q) The proposed project is compatible with the natural, biotic, cultural, scenic, and open space resources of the area. (r) The proposed project is conveniently served by (or provides) neighborhood shopping and commercial facilities, can be provided with essential public services without imposing undue costs on the total community, and is consistent with the objectives and policies of the Draft General Plan. (s) The proposed project demonstrates creative and imaginative design, resulting in a visual quality that will complement community character and benefit current and future community residents. OAK TREE PERMIT (t) The proposed project will be accomplished without endangering the health of the remaining oak tree. 5. Based upon the findings and conclusions set forth above, the City Council hereby approves this Application subject to the following conditions: A. PLANNING DIVISION (1) Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 shall be developed in substantial conformance to plans dated June 20, 1995, labeled Exhibit "A" and Exhibit "B" as submitted and approved by the City Council. (2) The approval of the Hillside Management Ordinance and Significant Ecological Area Conditional Use Permit No. 92-1, Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2, and Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 is granted subject to the approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382. (3) The approval of Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 shall not be effective for any purpose until the permittee and owner of the property involved (if other than the permittee) have filed within f ifteen (15) days of approval of this map, at the City of Diamond Bar's Community Development Department, their Affidavit of Acceptance stating that they are aware of and agree to accept all the conditions of this map. Further, this approval ig shall not be effective until the permittee pays remaining Planning Division processing fees. (4) In accordance with Government Code Section 66474.9 (b) (1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees to attack, set aside, void or annul, and approval of the Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 which action is brought within the time period provided for Government Code Section 66499.37. (5) The site shall be maintained in a condition which is free of debris both during and after the construction, addition, or implementation of the entitlement granted herein. The removal of all trash, debris, and refuse, whether during or subsequent to construction shall be done only by the property owner, applicant or by a duly permitted waste contractor, who has been authorized by the City to provide collection, transportation, and disposal of solid waste from residential, commercial, construction, and industrial areas within the City. It shall be the applicant's obligation to insure that the waste contractor utilized has obtained permits from the City of Diamond Bar to provide such services. 01 (6) All requirements. of the Zoning Ordinance and of the underlying zoning of the subject property shall be complied with, unless otherwise set forth in the permit or shown on the approve plans. (7) The applicant shall satisfy the City's park. obligation by contributing an in -lieu fee to the City prior to recordation of the final map per Code Section 2124.340. (8) The applicant shall pay development fees (including, but not limited to, Planning and Building and Safety Divisions and school fees) at the established rates, prior to issuance of building or grading permits, as required by the Community Development and Public Works Directors. (9) Prior to approval of the final map, the owner shall make a bona fide application to "The Country Estates" Association to annex this subdivision to that association. The owner shall be required to agree to annex upon recordation of the final map if all fees assessed by "The Country Estates" Association do not exceed the fees assessed per 6 lot for annexation to "The Country Estates" Association for Tract No. 47722. (10) Conditions, Covenants, and Restrictions (CC&R's) and Articles of Incorporation of a homeowner's association are required and shall be provided to the Community Development Director and the City Attorney for review and approval prior to the recordation of the final map. A homeowners' association shall be created and responsibilities there of shall be delineated within the CC&R's or the homeowners' association shall be incorporated into "The Country Estates". The CC&R's and Articles of Incorporation shall be recorded concurrently with the final map or prior to the issuance of any City permits, whichever occurs first. A recorded copy shall be provide to the City Engineer. (11) The CC&R's shall incorporate Exhibit "B" which delineates each lot's building envelope. (12) The applicant shall comply with the Mitigation Monitoring Program for Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2'. (13) The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) fees shall be deposited with the City prior to issuance of a grading permit., Additionally, all costs related to the ongoing monitoring shall be secured from the subdivider and received by the City prior to the final map approval. (14) The parcel map shall be designed so as to substantially comply with the CC&R's implemented by the adjacent development heretofore know as "The Country Estates". The CC&R's shall incorporate at a minimum, provisions which would establish a maintenance program for urban pollutant basins and all mitigation measures within the Mitigation Monitoring Program. The CC&R's shall, to the fullest extent possible, be consistent with "The Country Estates'" CC&R's. (15) A clause shall be incorporated into the CC&R's which requires dispute involving interpretation or application of the agreement (between private parties), to be referred to a neutral third party mediation service (name of service may be included) prior to any party initiating litigation in a court of competent jurisdiction. The cost of 7 such mediation shall be borne equally by the parties. (16) Grading and/or construction activities shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Saturday. All equipment utilized for grading and/or construction shall be properly muffled to reduce noise levels. Transportation of equipment and materials and the operation of heavy grading shall be restricted to 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the subject property. Dust generated by grading and construction activities shall be reduced by watering the soil prior to and during the activities. Reclaimed water shall be used whenever possible. (17) Construction equipment and/or related construction traffic shall not be permitted to enter the project site from Hawkwood Road. (18)iParcel Map No. 23382 shall maintain a minimum 20 foot wide (open clear to the sky) paved access road along and within that public utility and public services easement on the westerly portion of Lot 1 and between the cul-de-sac of Hawkwood Road and the knuckle of Steeplechase Lane, to the satisfaction of the Los Angeles County Fire Department and the City Engineer. The access shall be indicated on the map _as a "Fire Lane". Vehicular or pedestrian gates obstructing the access shall be of an approved width and shall be provided only with locking devices and/or override mechanisms which has been approved by the Fire Chief. (19) The applicant shall prepare and submit to the Community Development Director for approval prior to the sale of the first lot of the subdivision, a "Buyers' Awareness Package" which shall include, but, not limited to, information pertaining to geologic issues regarding the property, wildlife corridors, oak and walnut tree preservation issues, the existence and constraints pertaining to SEA No. 15 and Tonner Canyon, Exhibit "B" which delineates each lot's building envelope, explan- atory information pertaining to restrictions on use of properties as necessary and similar related matter. The applicant shall institute a program. to include delivery of a copy of the "Buyers' Awareness Package" to each prospective purchaser and shall keep on file in the applicant's office a 8 receipt signed by each such prospective purchaser indicating that the prospective purchaser has received and read the information in the package. The applicant shall incorporated within the CC&R's a reference to the availability of said package and the fact that a copy thereof is on file in the City of Diamond Bar's City Clerk's office. (20) The project applicant, through the "Buyer Awareness Program", shall encourage the segregation of green wastes for reuse as specified under the City's Source Reduction Recycling Element and County Sanitation District's waste diversion policies. (21) All down drains and drainage channels shall be constructed in muted earth tones so as not to impart adverse visual impacts. (22) Slopes in excess of five feet in vertical height shall be landscaped and irrigated for erosion control. Slope landscaping and irrigation shall be continuously maintained in a healthy and thriving condition by the developer until each individual lot or unit is sold and occupied by the buyer. Prior to releasing occupancy for the units, an inspection shall be conducted by the Planning Division to determine compliance with this condition. (23) Variable slope ratios of 2:1 to 4:1 shall be utilized within the indicated grading areas of each lot to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (24) The emergency access gate at the terminus of Hawkwood Road shall be consistent, in design and materials, with existing gates .located at other access areas within "The Country Estates". (25) Adjacent front yard setbacks shall vary no less than five (5) feet, beginning with a minimum setback of 20 feet from the front property line and no adjacent lots shall utilize the same front yard setback. Minimum required rear yard setbacks are 15 feet from the buildable pad's edge. Minimum side yard setbacks shall be 10 and 15 feet from the buildable pad's edge. (26) All proposed single family residential structures are required to comply with the City's Development Review ordinance. 9 (27) Notwithstanding any previous subsection of this resolution, if the Department of Fish and Game requires payment of a fee pursuant to Section 711.4 of the Fish and Game Code, payment therefore shall be made by the Applicant prior to the issuance of any building permit or any other entitlement. (28) The subject property shall be maintained and operated in full compliance with the conditions of this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or other regulations applicable to any development or activity of the subject properties. (29) This grant is valid for two (2) years and must be exercised (i.e. construction) within that period or this grant will expire. A one (1) year extension may be requested in writing, submitted to the City, 30 days prior to this grants expiration date. B. PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT General (1) Prior to approval and recordation of the parcel map, written certification shall be submitted to _ the City from the Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) that adequate water supply and facilities; from Los Angeles County Sanitation District (LACSD) that adequate sewage conveyance and treatment capacity; and from each public utility and cable television purveyor that adequate supplies and facilities; are or will be available to serve the proposed project. Such letters must have been issued by the districts, utility companies and cable television company within ninety (90) days prior to parcel map approval. (2) A title report/guarantee and subdivision guarantee showing all fee owners and, interest holders, and nature of interest shall be submitted when a parcel map is submitted for map check. The account with the title company shall remain open until the parcel map is filed with the County Recorder. An updated title report/ guarantee and subdivision guarantee shall be submitted ten (10) working days prior to parcel map approval. (3) All easements existing prior to parcel map approval shall be identified and shown on parcel map. If an easement is blanket or indeterminate 10 in nature, a statement to that effect shall be shown on the parcel map in lieu of showing its location. (4) Based on a field survey boundary monuments shall be set in accordance with the State Subdivision Map Act and local subdivision ordinance and shall be subject to approval by the City Engineer. (5) The Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct all required public improvements. If any required public improvements have not been completed by Applicant/ Subdivider and accepted by the City prior to the approval of the parcel map, Applicant/Subdivider shall enter into a subdivision agreement with the City and shall post the appropriate security, guaranteeing completion of the improvements, prior to parcel map approval. (6) Plans for all site grading, landscaping, irrigation, street, sewer, water and storm drain improvements shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to parcel map approval. (7) House numbering plans shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of building permits. (8) The detail drawings and construction notes shown on the submitted tentative map are conceptual only and the approval of this tentative map shall not constitute approval of said notes. (9) The final subdivision grading plans (1" = 40' or larger scale, 24" x 36" sheet format) shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any building or grading permits and prior to parcel map approval. (10) The Applicant/Subdivider, at the Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall perform all grading in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer. For grading not performed prior to Parcel Map approval an agreement shall be executed and security shall be posted, guaranteeing completion of the improvements prior to Parcel Map approval. 11 (11) Applicant/Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail grading and drainage construction cost estimate for bonding purposes of all grading, prior to approval of the parcel map. (12) Precise final grading plans for each parcel shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval prior to issuance of building or grading permits. (This may be on an incremental or composite basis.) (13) Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the current Uniform Building Code and City's Hillside Management Ordinance, and acceptable grading practices. The final subdivision and precise final grading plans shall be in substantial conformance with the grading shown as a material part of the approved Tentative Map. No driveway serving building area(s) shall exceed 15% grade. (14) All landslide debris shall be completely removed prior to fill placement or other approved remedial measures implemented as required by the final geotechnical report and 'approved by the. City Engineer. (15) At the time of submittal of the final subdivision grading plan for plan check, a detailed soils and geology report shall .be submitted in compliance with City guidelines to the City Engineer for approval. The report shall be prepared by a qualified registered geotechnical engineer and engineering geologist licensed by the State of California. All geotechnical and soils related findings and recommendations shall be reviewed and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of any grading permits and recordation of the parcel map. The report shall address, but not be limited to, the following: (a) Soil remediation measures shall be designed for a "worst case" geologic interpretation subject to verification in the field during grading. (b) The extent of any remedial grading into natural areas shall be clearly defined on the grading plans. (c) Areas of potential for debris flow shall be defined and proper remedial measures implemented as approved by the City Engineer. 12 (d) Gross stability of all fill slopes shall be analyzed as part of the geotechnical report, including remedial fill that replaces natural slope. (e) Stability of all proposed slopes shall be confirmed by analysis as approved by the City Engineer. Unstable slopes shall be redesigned or stabilized utilizing slope reinforcement. (f) All geologic data including landslides and exploratory excavations shall be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map using the final subdivision grading plan as a base. (g) Stability analyses of daylight shear keys with a 1:1 projection from daylight to slide plane; projection plan shall have a minimum safety factor of 1.5. (h) All soils and geotechnical constraints (i.e. landslides, shear key locations, etc.) shall be delineated in detail with respect to proposed building envelopes. Restricted use areas and structural setbacks shall be considered and delineated prior to recordation of the final map. All landslides. must be shown on a consolidated geotechnical map. Specific remedial measures shall be implemented pursuant to the requirements of City Code and Ordinances. (j) Stability of back cuts (i.e. excavation of natural slopes), must be analyzed. (16) Final subdivision grading plans shall be designed in compliance with the recommendations of the final detailed, soils- and engineering geology reports. All remedial earthworm specified in the final report shall be incorporated into the plans. (17) Grading plans shall be signed and stamped by a California registered Civil Engineer, registered Geotechnical Engineer and registered Geologist. (18) All identified geologic hazards within the tentative subdivision boundaries which cannot be eliminated as approved by the City Engineer shall be indicated on the parcel map as "Restricted Use Area" subject to geologic hazard. The subdivider shall dedicate to the City the right to prohibit the erection of buildings or other structures within such restricted use areas shown on the parcel map. 13 Drainage (19) A drainage study and drainage improvement plans (24" x 36" sheet format) prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to parcel map approval. All drainage facilities shall be designed and constructed as required by the City Engineer and in accordance with County of Los Angeles standards. (20) The Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct all drainage improvements in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer. For drainage improvements not constructed prior to parcel map approval an agreement shall beexecuted and security shall be posted, guaranteeing completion of the improvements, prior to parcel map approval. I Applicant/ Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate for bonding purposes for all drainage improvements prior to parcel map approval. (21) The Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct all facilities necessary for dewatering all parcels to the satisfaction of the City : Engineer. For dewatering facilities not constructed prior to parcel map approval an agreement shall be executed and, security shall be posted, guaranteeing completion of the improvements, prior to parcel map approval. Applicant/Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate for bonding purposes for all dewatering improvements prior to parcel map approval. (22) Easements for disposal of drainage water onto or over adjacent parcels shall b� deiapproved l n the City ted and shown on the parcel map as app Engineer. (23) All drainage improvements necessary for dewatering and protecting the subdivided properties shall be installed prior to issuance f building t marmite its for construction upon any parcel subject to drainage flows enter, leaving, or within that parcel for which a building permit is requested. 14 (24) An erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to issuance of grading permits. (25) An offer of easements for drainage and drainage improvements, as required by the City Engineer, shall be made on the parcel map prior to parcel map approval. Streets (26) Street improvement plans (24" x 36" sheet format) prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to parcel map approval. (27) The Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct all street improvements in accordance with plans approved by the City Engineer. For street improvements not constructed prior to parcel map approval an agreement shall be executed and security shall be posted, guaranteeing completion of the improvements, prior to parcel map approval. Applicant/ Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate for bonding purposes for all street improvements prior to approval of the parcel map. (28) New street centerline monuments shall be set at the intersections of streets, intersection of streets with the westerly boundary of Parcel 1 and the easterly boundary of Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 1528, and to mark the beginning and ending of curves or the points of intersection of tangents thereof. Survey notes showing the ties between all monuments set and four (4) durable reference points for each shall be submitted to the City Engineer for approval in accordance with City Standards, prior to issuance of Certificate of Occupancy. (29) Prior to any work being performed in public right- of-way, fees shall be paid and a construction permit shall be obtained from the City Engineer's Office for work in the City of Diamond Bar in addition to any other permits required. (30) No street shall exceed a maximum slope of 12% unless approved by the City Engineer. 15 (31) Base and pavement on all streets shall be constructed in accordance with a soils report and pavement thickness calculations shall be prepared by a qualified and registered engineer and shall be approved by the City Engineer or as otherwise directed by the City Engineer. (32) The street light at end of Hawkwood cul-de-sac shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (33) All utility lines shall be placed underground in and adjoining the proposed tentative subdivision map. (34) Curbs and gutters for cul-de-sac at end of Hawkwood shall be constructed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Sewer and Water (35) Prior to parcel map approval the subdivider shall submit an area study to the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works to determine whether capacity is available in the sewerage system to be used as the outlet for the sewers in this land division. If the system is found to be of insufficient capacity, the problem shall be resolved to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and Los Angeles County Department of Public Works. (36) Each dwelling unit shall be served by a separate sewer lateral which shall not cross any other lot lines. The sanitary - sewer system serving the subdivision shall be connected to the City sewer system. (37) Sewer system improvement plans (24" x 36" sheet format, 2 pages per sheet) prepared by a California registered Civil Engineer shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer, Los Angeles County Department of Public Works, and Los Angeles County Sanitation Districts prior to parcel map approval. (38) The Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct all sewer system improvements. For sewer system improvements not constructed prior to parcel map approval an agreement shall be executed and security shall be posted guaranteeing 16 Aw completion of the improvements prior to parcel map approval. Applicant/ Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate for bonding purposes for all sewer system improvements prior to approval of the parcel map. (39) The Applicant/ Subdivider shall obtain connection permit(s) from the City, Los Angeles County Public Works Department and County Sanitation District prior to issuance of building permits. The subdivision area within the tentative map boundaries shall be annexed into the County Consolidated Sewer Maintenance District and Los Angeles County Sanitation District No. 21. (40) An offer of easements for sewer system improvements, as required by the City Engineer, shall be made on the parcel map prior to parcel map approval. (41) Domestic water system improvement plans, designed with appurtenant facilities to serve all parcels in the land division and designed to Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications, shall be provided and approvedby the City Engineer and WVWD. The system shall include fire hydrants of the type and location as determined by the Los Angeles County Fire Department. The main lines shall be sized to accommodate the total domestic and fire flows to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, WVWD and Fire Department. (42) The Applicant/Subdivider, at Applicant/ Subdivider's sole cost and expense, shall construct all domestic water system improvements. For water system 'improvements not constructed prior to parcel map approval an agreement shall be executed and security shall be posted, guaranteeing completion of the improvements, prior to parcel map approval. Applicant/Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate for bonding purposes for all domestic water system improvements prior to approval of the parcel map. (43) Separate underground utility services shall be provide to each parcel, including water, gas, electric power, telephone and cable TV service, in accordance with the respective utility company standards. Easements that may be required by the utility companies shall be approved by the City Engineer prior to granting. 17 (44) An offer of easements for public utility and poses, as required by the City. public services pur Engineer, shall be made on the parcel map prior to parcel map approval. (45) Applicant/Subdivider shall site re o utilities cate aas underground any existing necessary and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the respective utility owner. (46) Reclaimed water system improvement plans, designed with appurtenant facilities capable of delivering reclaimed water to all portions of the subdivision and serving each parcel in the subdivision and designed to Walnut Valley Water District (WVWD) specifications, shall be provided and approved by the City Engineer and WVWD. (47) Applicant/Subdivider, at 'Applicant/ Subdivider Is sole cost and expense, shall construct reclaimed water system improvements, including main and service lines capable of delivering reclaimed water to all portions of the subdivision. Applicant/Subdivider shall submit to the City Engineer the detail cost estimate for bonding purposes for all reclaimed water system improvements prior to approval of the parcel map. W. (48) AS reclaimed water supply is not currently available, Subdivider shall enter into agreement to design and construct system, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer and the Walnut Valley Water District. The system shall be designed to permit "switch over" of non-domestic services on each" -lot at such time a reclaimed water supply is available to the subdivision. Irrevocable security shall be posted to guarantee the performance of this agreement. (49) The Applicant/Subdivider shall install portions of the reclaimed water system (main and irecla irigaon service lines) capable of delivering of the med water to those designated areas, if any, subdivision for which the homeowners association is responsible for irrigation and/or landscape maintenance. This installation shall provide for tion to the domestic water system a present connec and shall include provisions for the switch -over to the future reclaimed water system. 18 The City Clerk shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; (b) This City Council hereby provides notice to Warren Dolezal of the Dolezal Family Limited Partnership that the time within which judicial review of the decision represented by this resolution must be sought is governed by the provisions of the California Code of Civil Procedures, Section 1094.6; and (c) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to: Warren Dolezal of the Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, 4251 S. Higuera Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401; APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF JUNE, 1995, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR BY: pfiyllis E. Pape , Mayor I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 20th day of June,.1995, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Ansari, Harmony, MPT/Werner and M/Papen NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ATTEST: � 1�� Lyr_ Burgess, City Clerk 19 CC - hS l - ROBERT E. KNUDSEN Attorney at Law Telephone (909) 482-1086 Facsimile (909) 621-3964 121 North Harvard Avenue a mail Knudsenlaw@aol.com Claremont, California 91711 July 28, 1998 James DeStefano Deputy City Manager City of Diamond Bar 21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dear Mr. DeStefano: As you are probably aware of, I represent the Dolezal Family Limited Partnership. During the proceedings for the City approval of maps 47850 by Diamond Bar Associates and map 22382 by the Dolezals, my clients have maintained that they have easement rights for ingress and egress over that portion of Steeplechase Lane which abuts their property. Diamond Bar Associates denied that the Dolezals had easement rights when the issue was raised with regard to map 47850 and map 22382. Litigation over the Dolezals easement claims went to trial in the Pomona Superior Court earlier this year. A judgment was entered in favor of the Dolezals on July 24, 1998. A copy of that judgment is enclosed for your reference. As you can see from that judgment, the Court determined that the Dolezals are entitled to an easement over that portion of Steeplechase Lane which abuts their property. The judgment of the Court also enjoins Diamond Bar Associates and Joseph Gilbeau, and their successors in interest and assigns, from interfering with the Dolezals use of that easement. Given certain actions taken by the City, and certain other actions which have apparently been contemplated by the City regarding the Dolezal and Diamond Bar Associates properties, it is apparent that the City has acted in several instances based on an assumption that the Dolezals did not have easement rights over Steeplechase Lane. As the Court has agreed with the Dolezals and determined that they do have easement rights over Steeplechase Lane several actions taken or contemplated by the City now need to be addressed. The most significant of these items are briefly discussed below. ROBERT E. KNUDSEN Attorney at Law James DeStefano Deputy City Manager City of Diamond Bar July 28, 1998 Page 2 1. The extension of Hawkwood Road: As transactions regarding the approval of map 47850 Associates, the City acquired a sixty foot strip road Steeplechase Lane where it abuts my clients' part of the by Diamond Bar of the private property. My clients wish to make certain that the City understands that this section of road is burdened by the Dolezals easement for ingress and egress to their property and their ingress and egress over the remainder of Steeplechase Lane where it abuts their property. As the City, with regard to any rights it has in this portion of Steeplechase, is a successor in interest of Diamond Bar Associates, the City is bound by the terms of the judgment regarding the Dolezals easement rights over Steeplechase Lane. 2. The contemplated barrier to be constructed between Steeplechase Lane and the Hawkwood extension: The map approved for 47850 requires Diamond Bar Associates to construct a barrier on Steeplechase Lane which would restrict the use of Steeplechase Lane for ingress and egress by my clients. This barrier has not yet been constructed. Under the terms of the Court judgment, Diamond Bar Associates and its successors and assigns are permanently restrained and enjoined for taking any action which will interfere with the Dolezals use of Steeplechase Lane for ingress and egress to their property. The construction of a physical barrier on Steeplechase Lane which completely prevents my clients from enjoying and exercising their easement rights is thus prohibited by the Judgment. Please understand that it is not the intent of this letter to initiate any controversy with the city. My clients have enjoyed working with the city and its staff in the past and look forward to continuing to work with them again as the complete their plans for development of the property. They would like to work with the city and the adjoining property owners so that the respective properties can be developed in a manner which is of benefit to all involved. The intent of this letter is merely to clarify for the city what the Dolezals easement and access rights are regarding the use of Steeplechase Lane in the hopes that all issues which exist can be quickly and amicably resolved. Because of the various issues raised by the judgment, my clients have requested annexation to the Diamond Bar Country Estates as annexation would simplify or eliminate a number of the issues. Annexation should be encouraged by everyone including the ROBERT E. KNUDSEN Attorney at Law James DeStefano Deputy City Manager City of Diamond Bar July 28, 1998 Page 3 City as it is the best solution to a number of problems. If you would like to meet and discuss these issues and appropriate means of resolving them please let me know. My clients and I would be pleased to meet with you or any of your staff members to discuss these matters. I look forward to your prompt and constructive reply. Sincerely, aobe/Pnudsen REK:cl CC; Warren Dolezal enc: Copy of judgment after trial by court n RECORDING REQUEST BY WHEN RECORDED %MAIL TOO NAME ����j/`-'L✓Q,�GjZ�i� MAILING ADDRESSCITYSTA ZIP DE�S/�/�/�//S 98 1302015 RECORDED/FILED IN OFFICIAL RECORDS RECORDER'S OFFICE LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA 1:01 FM JUL 28 1998' SPACE ABOVETHIS UNE RESERVED FOR RECORDER'S USE A426 619A f l 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 V1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FILED LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUL 2 4 1998 JOHN A. CLgAKE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER BY G. J NSOTv SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EAST DISTRICT - POMONA 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766 THE DOLEZAL FAMILY LIMITED ) PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada Limited Partnership, WARREN F. DOLEZAL, ) General Partner, ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) i DIAMOND BAR ASSOCIATES, INC., a California Corporation, BANK OF ; AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, WELLS FARGO BANK (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION), VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL TRUST BANK CORPORATION, A' S TRUSTEE FOR THOMAS J. OSTERSTOCK, AND AS TRUSTEE FOR KERN O. OSTERSTOCK, JOSEPH GILBEAU, TRANSAMERICA REALTY SERVICES, DOES 1 through 25 and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 25, Inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. KCO24481 JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL BY COURT 49F""edl This case came on regularly for trial on March 30, 1998 in department R of the above -entitled court before the Honorable Dan Thomas Oki, Judge, sitting without a jury, a jury having been duly waived by both plaintiff and defendants. // 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9' 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 V1 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 FILED LOS ANGELES SUPERIOR COURT JUL 2 4 1998 JOHN A. CLgAKE, EXECUTIVE OFFICER BY G. J NSOTv SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES EAST DISTRICT - POMONA 400 Civic Center Plaza, Pomona, CA 91766 THE DOLEZAL FAMILY LIMITED ) PARTNERSHIP, a Nevada Limited Partnership, WARREN F. DOLEZAL, ) General Partner, ) Plaintiff, ) vs. ) i DIAMOND BAR ASSOCIATES, INC., a California Corporation, BANK OF ; AMERICA NATIONAL TRUST AND SAVINGS ASSOCIATION, WELLS FARGO BANK (NATIONAL ASSOCIATION), VALLEY NATIONAL BANK, CALIFORNIA CENTRAL TRUST BANK CORPORATION, A' S TRUSTEE FOR THOMAS J. OSTERSTOCK, AND AS TRUSTEE FOR KERN O. OSTERSTOCK, JOSEPH GILBEAU, TRANSAMERICA REALTY SERVICES, DOES 1 through 25 and ROE CORPORATIONS 1 through 25, Inclusive, Defendants. CASE NO. KCO24481 JUDGMENT AFTER TRIAL BY COURT 49F""edl This case came on regularly for trial on March 30, 1998 in department R of the above -entitled court before the Honorable Dan Thomas Oki, Judge, sitting without a jury, a jury having been duly waived by both plaintiff and defendants. // I Plaintiff Dolezal Family Limited Partnership appeared by its attorney Robert E. Knudsen. 2 Esq. Defendants Diamond Bar Associates, Inc. and Joseph Gilbeau appeared by their attorney Eric 3 G. Lardiere. Esq., of the law offices of Heenan Blakie. 4 Oral and documentary evidence was presented by both parties and the matter was argued and 5 submitted for decision. `:he `'s •A"d h "T n 6 " 7 , b7 8 IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED AS FOLLOWS: 9 1. Plaintiff Dolezal Family Limited Partnership declared to be the owner of a nun- 10 exclusive easement. This easement is appurtenant to, and for the use and benefit of, the real property 11 in the City of Diamond Bar described as: 12 " Parcel 3 of Parcel Map 7409 in the County of Los Angeles, as per Map recorded 13 in Book 74, Pages 3 and 4 of Parcel Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of 14 said County." 15 2. Plaintiff's easement is over that portion of defendants' property in the City of Diamond 16 Bar, County of Los Angeles, commonly referred to as Steeplechase Lane which is adjacent to the 17 southerly boundary of plaintiffs property. Plaintiffs easement is over that portion of the 18 defendants' property described more particularly as: 19 "All of those areas of said property shown as "Future Street" and as "Steeplechase 20 Lane" on Parcel Map 1528, as filed in Book 26, Pages 19 through 30 of Parcel Maps 21 in the office of the County Recorder of said County. 22 Also known as: 23 "All of those areas shown as "Steeplechase Lane" on Tract Map No. 47850, including 24 Lots 1, 28, 29, and 50, in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of 25 California, as per map recorded on October 28, 1997, Book 1225, Pages 88 through 26 99, Inclusive, of Maps in the Office of the County Recorded of said County." 27 28 -2- 4 •• 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Also known as the area shown as `Steeplechase Lane', a street 60 feet wide on the southerly boundary of Parcel 3 on sheet 2 of 2 of Parcel Map 7409, as recorded on December 9, 1976 in Book 74, Pages 3 and 4, of Maps, in the office of the County Recorder of said County.." 3. Plaintiff's easement is declared to be a non-exclusive easement used in common with ani ... others for ingres�, egress. a ' purposes over that portion of Steeplechase Lane described above. Plaintiff's title to that easement is quieted against the claims of the defendants. 4- The defendants Diamond Bar Associates, Inc. and Joseph Gilbeau, and each of them. their successors in interest and/or assigns are permanently restrained and enjoined from interfering 'With plaintiff's use of the easement described above. 5. Plaintiff is awarded costs of suit. .Dated: Dan homas Oki (� Judge of the Superior Court THE DOCUM94T T.7 WHi;'H fii1S CERTtF_'n EIS Copy of THE oR GiNALL 0.14 �e AND OFCREECORD IN i Jnr oFF• . 81998 ATTEST' ,� HN A. LARKS tir . _ do I \Los An9Nes. . D�Rn'I ay R. Danko -3- This is a true and certified copy of the recon if it bears the seal, imprinted in purple ink, of the Registrar-Reorner/County Clerk JUL 28 1998 REOSM41ECOtoER/COLMP CIFJ LOS ANGELES COUNTY. CALIFORNIA JOHN GUY JOHN GUY LAWYER XIOMARA REYES POST OFFICE BOX 7000-162 1650S. PACIFIC COAST HIGHWAY, SUITE 306 REDONDO BEACH, CALIFORNIA 90277 July 14, 1998 Ann Lungu Associate Planner DIAMOND BAR PLANNING COMMISSION 21660 E. Copley Drive, Suite 190 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 RE: Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382 (Dolezal) Dear Ms. Lungu: TELEPHONE (310)540-8323 FACSIMILE (310)540-8563 P•Cw 71 O The Diamond Bar Country Estates Association is interested in resolving the issue of access rights regarding the property identified by tentative parcel map number 23382. The owner of that property is believed to be Mr. Warren Dolezal. Recently, two separate law firms were engaged to determine whether Mr. Dolezal has ingress and egress rights through the private gates of 'The Country". Each law firm was able to determine that Mr. Dolezal does NOT have any right of access through 'The Country" for the property identified on tentative parcel map number 23382. Based on the legal research and the known facts, it has been concluded that the Dolezal property does not have access rights. Sincerely, cc: Diamond Bar Country Estates Association JAMES ANDERSON ROSIE BERN STAN GRANGER 23342 STIRRUP DR. 1010 S. PARK SPRING LN. 23800 GOLD NUGGET AVE. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 SAM SAFFARI 24075 HIGHCREST DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 JOHN FORBING 23209 CHARWOOD PL. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 GEORGE DAVIDSON 23426 E. WAGON TRAIL DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 DR. CHRISTINA GOODE 624 HOSS ST. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 HENRY POURZAND 1008 QUIET CREEK LN. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 ALBERT PEREZ 703 PANTERA DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 DENNIS O'NEIL HEWITT & McGUIRE 19900 MacARTHUR #1050 IRVINE, CA 92612 THOM PRUITT 24242 BRECKENRIDGE CT DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 DON GRAVDAHL 23988 MINNEQUA DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 RANDY NAYUDU 24059 HIGHCREST DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 MARTHA BRUSKE 600 GREAT BEND DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 MARTY TORRES 24832 HIGHCREST DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 KEVIN JOHNSON JOHNSON & McCARTHY LLP 550 WEST "C" ST. SAN DIEGO, CA 92101 WENDY ANN GOIN 809 BRIDLE DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 DAVE KERSEY 23403 E. WAGON TRAIL DR. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 SANDY ERICKSON 22806 RIDGELINE RD. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 RON TEHRAN 745 VIEW LN. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 NICK ANIS 1125 BRAMFORD CT. DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 TODD KURTIN SUNCAL 5109 E. LA PALMA AVE., #D ANAHEIM, CA 92807 AGENDA ITEM NO. 8.1 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) NOTE: 1) FOR THE VERBATIM TRANSCRIPT OF THE PUBLIC COMMENTS ON AUGUST 18, 1998, PLEASE REFER TO AGENDA ITEM NO. 61 2) PLEASE BRING ALL MATERIALS PREVIOUSLY SUPPLIED REGARDING THIS MATTER. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. 5�1 Honorable Mayor and City Council MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 REPORT DATE: August 26, 1998 FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, 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 proposing the development of 130 detached single family residence on 65 acres of a 339.3 -acre site. The project site is generally located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue, at the extension of Highcrest Drive. On August 18, 1998, the City Council conducted a public workshop on the referenced project. The public discussion centered on project alternatives. After the discussion, the public hearing was closed. The purpose of the September 1, 1998 City Council meeting is to allow the Council to continue its discussion. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from the staff, proceed with the Council discussion and direct staff as appropriate. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report Resolution(s) _ Ordinance(s) _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: _ Public Hearing Notification Bid Specification X Other: August 18, 1998 verbatim minutes; Response to Comments of August 18, 1998 meeting; and July 7, 1998 City Council Staff Report 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed X Yes No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority vote? X Yes No 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? X Yes No 4. Has the report been reviewed by a Commission? X Yes No Which Commission? 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. Belanger City Manager ANT James -. Deputy City Manager CONSULTING FAX COVER SHEET DATE: August 26, 1998 TO: Annu_ng,i FAX NUMBER: _ 17 CLIENT CODE; Dftr FROM: Tom PROJECT CODE: mi PAGES: REGARDING: MESSAGE: Following are Responses to Comments for the Diamond Bar City Council Continued Public Hearing of August 18, 1998. 161 KAIrnus Drive- Suite E-200 Coate Mesa, CA 9262e (?14)444-9199 (714) 444-959.9 FAX Diamond Bar City Council Continued Public Hearing of August.18,1998 Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267 Conditional Use hermit No. 98-03 Oak Tree Permit No. 804 Environmental Impact Report No. 9702 (SCH No. 970031005) Responses to Comments A continued public heipring on Vesting Tentative Tract Map Number 52267 (VTT1M No. 52267) was held on August 18, 1998. Approximately 50 members of the community were present during the hearing: 13 individuals provided testimony to the City Council. Testimony addressed the folkrwing issues (listed in order of commentors speaking to the issue): • Reduced impacts from the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative (53 lots) • Explanation of the meaning of the geotechnical setback line on the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative (53 lots) • Health effects from air quality emissions during construction period (dust and other -pollutants) • School district impact fees • Explanation of how mitigation monitoring is assured by the City • Coast live oak woodlands mitigation ratios Six commentors voiced support for the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative consisting of 53 residential lots; three commentors favored the originally proposed project consisting of 130 residential lots. Members of the community also commented that the City Council should approve whichever project generated the most benefits to the City and its residents. Issues raised by these commentors referred to the limitations on proposed development outside of Lot 6 by map restrictions on the property and the value of the extraordinary benefits provided to the City in return for removing or altering map restrictions:. These issues do not address environmental concerns, and therefore are not addressed in the following Response to Comments documentation. ltesnnn:a: to Com -M2012 for the August 18 1988 City Council Continued Public Hearing Responses to the environmental issues listed above are provided in the paragraphs that follow. Comment 1 The potential impacts of developing the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative (53 residential iota) totally within the boundaries of Lot 6 are Was than those identified for the originally proposed project. Qvervicw: Commentore noted that the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative provided by the applicant as requested at the July 7, 1998 hearing would generate fewer impacts overall than the originally proposed project consisting of 130 residential lots with grading and some lots occurring outside of Lot 6. P"e 1 - - -- --- --,= .;-. . ­' —.. HkAg. cb Response 1 As noted in the "Comparative Environmental Evaluation: Proposed Project and Lot 6 EIR Project Altematives' document provided to the community and the City Council prior to the August 18, 1998 continued public hearing, the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative would generate less impacts than the proposed project. The reduction in impacts noted by the commentors results from the reduction in dwelling units (from 130 to 53), as well as from the smeller development footprint achieved by confining the development area to the boundaries of Lot 6. The Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative would still result in some unavoidable environmental impacts. Visual and aesthetic impacts from the Lot 6 EIR Project ARemative would contirxie to be significant and unavoidable (similar to the proposed project) because of the visibility of the proposed development along the prominent ndgeline onsite, as well as by the visible manufactured slope that would front onto Diamond Bar Boulevard. While total traffic generation would be less under the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative, traffic generated by the project site would not be significant under either development scenario. Onsite circulation under the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative would involve steeper street grades than those in the proposed project. Although the projected dust emissions from grading for the Lot 6 EIR Project Akemative would be reduced by approximately one-half in comparison with the proposed project, the projected dust emissions would still exceed the significance thresholds specified by the South Coast Air Quality Management District. Short-term noise impacts from grading operations would be significant under either the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative or the proposed project Comment 2 Explanation of the meaning of the geotechnical setback line on the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative (53 lots) Overview: The commentor requested clarification about the geotechnical setback Nne that appears on the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative site plan. Response 2 During the hearing, Mayor Herrera provided an explanation of this notation on the site plan. In summary, the geotechnical setback line is the boundary within which all residential lots must be placed to insure that appropriate safety standards are met and to keep all grading within Lot 6. Comment 3 Potential health effects from fugitive dust emissions during the construction period. OveG Commentors referred to the comparative air quality analysis referencing the originally proposed project and the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative which showed that the reduced project would still exceed the significance criterion for dust set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). Response 3 The comments concerning dust emissions from site grading and development were raised at the February 10 and April 28, 1998 Planning Commission public hearings as well as the City Council July 7, 1998 public hearing. The criterion of 150 pounds per day of fugitive dust (PM10) is very low and most grading projects in the region exceed this threshold after application of all available mitigation measures. In the experience of the BonTerre Consulting, the City's EIR consultant, the Papp 2 short-term and temporary nature of these impacts is typically incorporated into adopted statements of over-riding considerations required by CEQA for unavoidable impacts. A statement of overriding considerations would be required for the VTTM No. 52267 project if the Council were to approve either the proposed project or the Lot 6 EIR Project Alternative. Comment 4 A representative from the Pomona Unified School District asked the City Council to consider the financial impact on the District from the VTTM No. 52267 project, noting that the District's studies have shown that the costa of educating new students exceed the -state -mandated fees required of new development. Overview: The representative from the Pomona Unified School District provided a 1993 analysis to the Council that demonstrated the referenced shortfall in costs vs. fees. It was mentioned during this testimony that the District needs to obtain approximately $2.00 per square foot of residential construction, using an analysis that assumed a 1,700 square foot house and 0.6 students per house. The District's representative noted that the applicant had discussed this issue with the District, indicating that the applicant and the District have not finalized an agreement to date. Response 4 As noted in Part One of the Responses to Comments document prepared to address comments provided at the July 7, 1986 public hearing, the current state -mandated fee is $1.93 per residential building square foot. Assuming an average of 3,000 square feet per residence, the originally proposed project would generate approximately $753,000 in fees (51.93/sq. ft. x 3,000 sq. ft. x 130 units). The Lot 6 Alternative would generate approximately $266,000 in fees ($1.93/sq. fL x 2,600 sq. ft. x 53 units). Under either project scenario, the state mandated school fee is appropriate, since neither a General Pian amendment nor a zone change is being requested. Also, it appears from the District's comments about a fee rate of $2.00 per square foot assuming a 1,700 square foot house, that the 3,000 square foot house size targeted for VTTM No- 52267 will provide fees that exceed the District's calculated need. Comment 5 Explanation of how mitigation monitoring is assured by the City. BOG The commentor asked how the City would assure that grading was stopped, as indicated in the Draft EIR mitigation measure, when Santa Ana wind conditions were evident. Response 5 During the hearing, Mayor Herrera asked Deputy City Manager, Jim DeMefano, to answer this question. In summary, Mr. DeStefano indicated that the City and the State CEQA Guidelines, which govem the EIR process statewide, require that Mitigation Monitoring Plans be adopted as part of an EIR certification by the City Council. The City of Diamond Bar contracts with environmental planning consultants, paid for by the applicant, to monitor the various stages of project development for compliance with the mitigation measures speoified in the Mitigation Monitoring Plan (MMP). AM mitigation measures in the EIR aro contained in the MMP and are monitored at the appropriate intervals (daily, weekly, or at specified milestones) by consultants to the City. Disciplines represented during MMP implementation typically include biologists, restoration ecologists, archaeologists, paleontologists, environmental planners, geologists, noise experts, etc. Regular reports are provided to the City regarding compliance. The monitors haw the authority to require construction activities to be stopped immediately, if required by the MMP, to insure compliance. Grading activities in the City of Diamond Bar have, for example, been Pope 3 _ . . .. - -,-:z Hu 9, e -b 998 12 : 34PM P5 stopped by environmental monitors during Santa Ana conditions to insure MMP compliance. Comment 6 Coast Live Oak woodlands mitigation ratios_ A planning consultant for the RAID dozens group commented during his testimony that coast live oak woodlands are a significant environmental resource. He commented that the 'standard' mitigation ratio in the industry is S - 1 o to 1 (S to 10 replacement trees for each tree lost to development). Response 6 The value of coast live oak woodlands within the development area, throughout the 339 -acre VTTM No. 52267 site, and r0gionaYy is acknowledged in the EIR. The EIR also notes that approximate) 410 oak trees and 30 walnut trees, that are part of the coast live oak woodland habitat onsite, would be removed by the proposed project. The comparative environmental evaluation of the tot 6 EIR Project Akemative indicates that construction of the 53 residential lots and related grading for roads and infrastructure within Lot 6 would remove 210 oak and 30 walnut trees. While the significance of this less is noted in the EIR, mitigation measures which include specified mitigation ratios in the Draft EIR (as amended by the Planning Commission recommendation for increasing the ratios, depending on trunk diameters, up to 4 to 1) would mitigate these impacts to a level that is lest than significant according to the City's EIR consultant. Further, the EIR notes that while the coast live oak woodlands lost to deueeMunent for the proposed project would total 9.6 acres, the undeveloped portion of the VTTM No. 52267 site that is proposed to be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar and remain in natural open space contains 38.7 acres of coast live oak woodlands. These factors considered together adequately mitigate the impacts to coast live oak woodlands as wool as the interspersed walnut tops. It should be noted that the 5 -10 to 1 mitigation ratio referenced in the commentoes testimony is not "standard" in the experience of the City's EIR consultant. Individual cities and counties have their own oak tree ordinances, which typically require a 2:1 replacement ratio. Oak woodlands that occur in riparian habitats under the jurisdiction of the California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) under Section 1600 at seq of the Fish and Game Code, are often required to be mitigated at a 10:1 ratio by CDFG; depending on quality of the impacted habitats, CDFG will adjust the 10:1 ratio downward. Pop CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO Terrence L. Belanger, City er MEETING DATE: July 7, 1998 REPORT DATE: June 23, 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 Wills 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 Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 will be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar as open space. The project site is generally located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue, at the extension of Highcrest Drive. The Planning Commission concluded its review on May 12, 1998 and recommended approval. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from staff, open the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the matter to August 3, 1998. LIST OF ATTACH)WE TS:__2L_ Staff Report Resolutions Ordinance(s) Agreement(s) Public Heating Notification Bid Specification (on file in City Clerk's office) Other. EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been Yes No reviewed by the City Attorney? NIA 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? Planning Commission 5. Are other departments affected by the report? _� Yes No Report discussed with the following affected departments: Public Works Division REVIEWED BY: Terrance L. Belanger James DeStefano City Manager Deputy City Manager CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: July 7, 1998 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROK: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Vesting Tentative Tract Map No. 52267, Conditional Use Permit No. 98-03, Oak Tree Permit No. 98-01 and Environmental Impact Report No. 97-02 (SCH 97031005). ISSUE STATEILENT1 Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership and SunCal Companies are requesting approval to subdivide 65 acres of a 339.3 acre site into 141 lots for the development of 130 detached single family residences, 10 open space lots and one lot reserved for the Walnut Valley Water District; remove and replace oak and walnut trees; and remove map restrictions on a portion of the 65 acres. The balance of the 339.3 acre site (274.3 acres) and all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 will be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar as open space. The project site is generally located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue, at the extension of Highcrest Drive. The Planning Commission concluded its review on May 12, 1998 and recommended approval. RECO;NZMATION: It is recommended that the City Council receive a presentation from staff, open the public hearing, receive testimony and continue the matter to August 3, 1998. FINANCIAL STATzmENT: N/A BACEGROUND: The property owner, Diamond Hills Ranch Partnership and.applicant, SunCal Companies are requesting approval to: subdivide 65 acres of a 339.3 acre site into 141 lots (130 lots for the development of 130 detached single family residences, 10 open space lots and one lot reserved for the Walnut Valley Water District's future reservoir); remove and replace oak and walnut trees; remove map restrictions; and certify the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) No. 97-02 which has been prepared to evaluate the impacts 1 the project may have upon the environment and identify mitigation measures that will reduce the effects of any negative impacts. The balance of the 339.3 acre site (274.3 acres) and all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 will be dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar as open space. VTTM No. 52267 consists of one contiguous property (identified as Lots 4 through 7 of Tract 31479). It is generally located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and north of Grand Avenue at the extension of Highcrest Drive. The project site's General Plan land use designation is Planning Area -2 which includes Lot 9 (approximately 75 acres) of Tract No. 31479. The project site is within the Residential Planned Development -Minimum Lot Size -20,000 Square Feet -2 Units Per Acre (RPD -20,000-2U) Zone. Generally, the following zones surround VTTM No. 52267: to the north and east is the RPD -20,000-2U Zone; to the south is the Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 40,000 Square Feet and the RPD -20,000-2U Zones; and to the west is the Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 8,000 Square Feet (R-1-8,000) Zone. These zones predominately consist of single-family residential development and vacant land. VTTM No. 52267 along with VTTM No. 52308 (Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479) was first presented to the Planning Commission on September 23, 1997. The applicant withdrew both projects on October 3, 1997. On January 8, 1998, the applicant submitted VTTM No. 52267 as represented in this staff report. VTTM No. 52267 was first presented to the Planning Commission on February 10, 1998. After several continued public hearings, the Planning Commission on May 12, 1998 recommended certification of Draft Environmental Impact Report No. 97-02 (SCH 97031005) and recommended approval of the Map, Conditional Use Permit No. 98-03, Oak Tree Permit No. 98-01 and Mitigation Monitoring Program. ANALYSIS: The project site is predominantly vacant with characteristics such as slopes and ridges, and natural vegetation including oak and walnut trees. It is distinguished by a northeasterly trending ridge running through the site. An eastwest trending ridge joins the main ridge on the north side. A large northeasterly trending canyon dominates the project's southern side. Small canyons and draws exist off of the ridgelines. Located on the project site are utility easements associated with flood control, water, and electrical services. As previously stated, VTTM No. 52267 is part of Tract No. 31479, Lots 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9. Development will occur on Lot 6 and portions of Lot 5 and 7. The proposed development plan for VTTM No. 52267 consists of 141 lots. One hundred and thirty lots are proposed for the development of detached.single family homes within a private gated community. Lot 131 is reserved for the Walnut Valley Water District's future reservoir. . Ten lot (Lots "A" through "J") are designated as open space (natural open space and 2 manufactured slopes). The proposed lots and manufactured slopes are clustered on approximately 65 acres of the 339.3 acres site. The residences will be located along the proposed extension of Highcrest Drive to the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Tin Drive. Two access points are proposed. From the east, access will be provided at the extension of Highcrest Drive and from the west, access will be provided at Diamond Bar Boulevard. Residences are proposed to be constructed on lots ranging from 6,230 (Lot 15) to 26,560 (Lot 111) square feet with an average lot size of approximately 10,900 square feet. The gross density is 0.4 dwelling units per acre (130 du/339.3 ac) with a net density of approximately 2.06 dwelling units per acre (130 du/63 ac). Pad areas will range in size from 5,850 (Lot 98) to 19,150 (Lot 2) square feet. The proposed residences will range in size from approximately 2,800 to approximately 3,300 square feet. The proposed density and anticipated homes are compatible with surrounding developments. The Walnut Valley Water District has one planned water reservoir site within the VTTM No. 52267's development area. This reservoir is not needed to serve the project. However, the reservoir is needed to meet future water service requirements. The reservoir can be accommodated within the proposed residential development's boundaries. MAP RESTRICTI9 REMOVAL: Pursuant to the General Plan, VTTM No. 52267 is within Planning Area -2. General Plan Objective 1.6 states "Consistent with the Vision Statement, provide flexibility in the planning of new development as a means of encouraging superior land use by means such as open space and public amenities". Strategy 1.6.1 states "A master plan shall be developed for each area of the City designated as a Planning Area". The description and contemplated land use designation for Planning Area -2 is defined as follows: "PA -2 is comprised of approximately 400 vacant acres located in two non-contiguous areas. Sub -Area A consists of approxi- mately 325 acres located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard, north of Grand Avenue, south of Goldrush Drive, at the terminus of Highcrest Drive. Sub -Area B consists of approximately 75 acres located east of Pantera Park. Appropriate land uses for this 400 ± acre non-contiguous area include a maximum 130 single family detached residential dwelling units concentrated along the anticipated extension of Highcrest Drive, a minimum of 75 percent of the total 400 acre area set aside as dedicat- ed open space. A two acre area located at the southeast corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Goldrush Drive should be developed for public facilities or commercial uses. In order to minimize environmental impacts and minimize clustering, residential lots shall range in size from 6,000 to 10,000 square feet." VTTM No. 522671's proposes a 130 unit development envelope of 65 acres within PA -2. These units will be clustered on approximately 30 acres and concentrated along the anticipated extension of Highcrest Drive. Lot 131, reserved for the Walnut Valley Water 3 District, is 2.4 acres. Lots "A", "B", and "C" are natural open space and not within the proposed development envelope. Lots "D" through "J", proposed as manufactured landscaped slopes are included in the development envelope. Pursuant to the General Plan's Land Use Element, Strategy 1.5.4, vacant land burden with deed or map restrictions shall be subjected to public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council before any action can be taken to remove the restrictions. However, the restrictions' removal must be of a significant benefit to the City. As previously stated, the proposed map is part of Lots 4, 5, 6, and 7 of Tract No. 31479. Lots 4, 5, 7 and 9 of Tract 31479 have a map restriction that grants the City the right to prohibit the construction of residential structures on these lots. The development envelope for VTTM No. 52267 includes the following: all of Lot 6 (65 acres) which does not have the map restriction; portions of Lots 5 (1.18 acres) and 7 (4.33 acres) which has the map restriction; and no development will occur on Lot 4. In order to retain the proposed development envelope, the map restriction removal is required to comply with General Plan Strategy 1.5.4. Therefore, the applicant proposes to dedicate to the City the remaining undeveloped 274 acres (excluding manufactured slopes) of VTTM No. 52267 and all of Lot 9 of Tract No. 31479 for open space. Additionally, in exchange for the removal of map restrictions, the applicant has offered to contribute $250,000.00 to the City's Parks and Facility Development Fund. In an attempt to eliminate the removal of map restrictions, reduce the project's impacts and respond to comments from the February 24, 1998 Planning Commission public hearing, the applicant prepared a "Response to Comments" Alternative. The "Response to Comments" Alternative was presented as a 120 lot subdivision for the eventual development of 120 detached single family homes within a gated community. The "Response to Comments" Alternative is similar to the "Refined Design Alternative" evaluated in the draft EIR for VTTM No. 52267 and presented on Figure 5-1 of the draft EIR. The "Response to Comments" Alternative is generally located on the ridgeline, extending from the terminus of Highcrest Drive to Diamond Bar Boulevard at Tin Drive, as anticipated by the City's General Plan. With this Alternative, all residential lots would be confined to Lot 6 of Tract No. 31479 which is without map restrictions. However, remedial grading would occur outside of Lot 6. Additionally, this Alternative varies from the proposed VTTM No. 52267 in that it did not address the following: water tank's location and its impact on the subdivision's design; the extension of Highcrest Drive to Diamond Bar Boulevard which would create a single street through the development with grades as steep as 14 percent creating unfavorable road characteristics, i.e. Goldrush Drive; the inconsistency with respect to lot sizes or surrounding developments; lack of land form grading; biological, visual and aesthetic impacts due to development approximately 45 feet from Diamond Bar Boulevard;- hydrology issues; and issues concerning geological impacts relating to the northerly facing natural slope subjacent to Lots 18-20, 31, 32, and 37-51, the locations and sizes of two buttress fills/shear key that may be needed below Lots 101- 104 and the natural slope subjacent to Lots 55-65 which may necessitate a buttress fill also. 4 When all the above referenced issues relating to "Response to Comments" Alternative were addressed, the Planning Commission decided to recommend approval on the proposed VTTM No. 52267 as presented in this report. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO 98-03/ GRADING- Development of VTTM No. 52267 would result in significant topo- graphical changes associated with grading activities. The slope analysis area (see Slope Analysis exhibit) consists of 127 acres of the project site. The 127 acres includes all of Lot 6 and portions of Lots 5 and 7. This slope analysis area indicates that 91.3 acres or 71.9 percent of the 127 acres has natural slopes at 35 percent or more. Additionally the proposed project is in an urban hillside management area and proposes residential development. As such and pursuant to Code (Section 22.56.215), approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required for this project because slopes are in excess of 10 percent. The Conditional Use Permit's purpose is to protect resources contained within a hillside management area which may result in or have the potential for environmental degradation and to the extent possible, maintain and enhance the remaining biotic resources and natural topography while allowing for limited controlled development. The Hillside Management ordinance's guidelines and standards are required to ensure that development will complement the character and topography of the site. City policy requires the application of good hillside planning; the use of the landform grading; and -a revegetation concept. Furthermore, exceptions to these standards with appropriate findings and facts require a Conditional Use Permit. These guidelines and standards (specified in Section 8 of the City's Hillside Management ordinance) are applicable to the proposed project due to grades in excess of 10 percent. The proposed grading quantities are approximately 1.8 million cubic yards of cut and 1.8 million cubic yards of fill. Grading will be balanced on site. The proposed grading concept utilizes landform grading (series of non-linear concave and convex forms with varying slope gradients) where feasible. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the City's Hillside. Management Ordinance. In general, soils materials will be cut from higher areas and used as fill to create level areas for residences. Two large engineer- ing fills encompass the majority of the earthwork required for the proposed project. One is located along the southern edge of the development area, below Lots 112 through 130. The other is located along the northern portion of the development, below Lots 9 through 20. Additional smaller fills are located throughout the develop- ment area. Engineering features such as shear keys and buttress fills have been incorporated into the grading design and will be reviewed and approved by the City. The maximum depth of cut is approximately 80 feet and a maximum fill depth is approximately 180 feet. Engineered slopes on site do not exceed 2:1 (horizontal: vertical) and are required to meet the City's requirements for stability. In compliance with the Hillside Management ordinance's standards and guidelines, the proposed project's grading will: follow the 5 natural topography of the site, where feasible; where large visible cuts and fills are proposed, landform grading will be utilized; concave and convex forms will be utilized throughout the site; slopes will not be linear in plan view; manufactured slope gradients will vary from 2:1, 3:1 and 4:1; lot shapes will vary; pads will maintain 'irregular configurations; trees will be concentrated in concave areas, similar as in nature; and street slopes to the east will remain in their natural, undisturbed state. BIOLOGICAL RESOURCES/OAK TREE P T: The VTTM No. 52267 site does not function as an important regional wildlife corridor because it is entirely surrounded by development. Local corridors likely occur between the northern and southern end of the site but these are restricted to use by the resident animal species. Base on several focused surveys for sensitive plant species, no plants listed as sensitive are known to occur within VTTM No. 52267's development area. However, the site does contain the following plant communities and their impact area due to development: coastal live oak woodland - 9.6 acres; walnut woodland- 0. 0 acres, coastal sage scrub - 18.7 acres; scrub oak chaparral - 8.5 acres; Mexican elderberry woodland - 1.1 acres; and annual grassland - 27.7 acres. Approximately 410 coastal live oak trees and 30 walnut trees will be removed and replaced as a result of the proposed development. Additionally, no coastal California gnatcatchers were observed. Pursuant to the General Plan, and the City's Oak Tree Permit process, the developer shall provide for the replacement and relocation of oak and walnut trees. Therefore, oak and walnut trees removed during the project's implementation are subject to replacement. Walnut trees and oak trees will be replaced at a 2:1 ratio. To ensure the replacement ofecosystem values and not just of trees, native understory plant species will be included in the project's Mitigation Monitoring Program. Replacement walnut and oak trees will consist of varying sizes. Details concerning the exact quantity, sizes and off-site locations will be incorporated into a Biological Resource Management Plan Which will be reviewed and approved by the City before the issuance of any City permits. The conceptual landscape exhibit suggests a revegetation concept. This concept appears to locate the trees in a soldier like fashion. Pursuant to the Hillside Management ordinance, it is require that the plan be revised so that trees will be concentrated in concave areas, similar to nature. The Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) incorporates the following: avoidance of approximately 273 acres of a variety of plant communities; protection through a Biological Resource Management Plan of habitat replacement and revegetation and their protection during construction; and restoration of coastal sage scrub plant species and oak and walnut tree replacement. MMP will include measures for habitat replacement and revegetation, protection during construction and performance standards for habitat replacement, maintenance and monitoring. These measures also include appropriate permits from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and California Department of Fish and Game. Through the MMP and 6 appropriate permits, the biological impacts can be mitigated to a level that is considered less than significant. AIR QUALITY: Preparation of the project site for development will produce two types of air contaminants: exhaust emissions from construction equipment and fugitive dust from soil movement. These construction emissions are considered short-term and will terminate upon the project's completion. However, the proposed project's development will result in significant air quality impacts related to oxides of Nitrogen (NOx) and fugitive dust (PN 10). As a result, a Statement of overriding Considerations balancing the benefits of the project against its unavoidable adverse environmental impacts must be adopted by the City. TRAFFIC: A traffic study was prepared for VTTN No.52267. The project site, with the proposed development, will generate approximately 1,242 trips on an average weekday. A majority of the generated trips will utilized the main gate at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Tin Drive. The secondary gate, located at the extension of Highcrest Drive, will most likely be utilized for trips to and from Pantera School. A signal warrant analysis was conducted for the intersection of Tin Drive at Diamond Bar Boulevard. The result indicated that a traffic signal is warranted by 1999. Implementation of this signal would be the responsibility of this project. With the imple- mentation of the signal, the proposed project will not result in any significant traffic impacts. AL ASSESSMENT: Pursuant to the provisions of the of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the City has determined that an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) is required for this project. Environmental Impact Report No. 97-02 (SCH 97031005), Volumes I and II has been prepared by the City's consultant, BonTerra Consulting. This environmental document has been reviewed by the Planning Commission. The purpose of an EIR is to provide objective planning and environmental information. The information is utilized to guide and assist the City staff, Planning Commission, City Council, and the public in the consideration and evaluation of the potential environmental implication that may result from the proposed project's development. The EIR's preparation is based on the Initial Study completed by the City. The Initial Study Questionnaire identifies areas where the project may produce an impact of significance. The proposed project was deemed to have impacts which necessitated the pre- paration of the EIR document currently before the City Council. The procedure for the EIR's preparation includes the distribution of a Notice Of Preparation (NOP) which is sent to agencies who have 7 or may have responsibility for providing a service to the project or may be impacted by the project's implementation. The NOP requests, within 30 days, that responsible agencies provide the lead agency with specific detail about the scope and content of the environmental information related to the responsible agency's area of statutory responsibility which must be included in the EIR. The EIR is then prepared using the Initial Study and comments received in response to the NOP to guide the analysis in areas of particular interest, although the EIR is not limited to these areas. As soon as the "Draft" EIR (DEIR) is completed, a Notice of Completion and Availability is filed with the Office of Planning and Research. The DEIR is reviewed through the State review process handled by the State Clearinghouse. The lead agency will distribute the DEIR to responsible agencies requesting a copy. The Notice of Completion and Availability begins the DEIR's 30 to 45 day review period depending on the nature, local versus regional significance of the document. For VTTX No. 52267, the review period began July 10, 1997 and ended August 25, 1997. At the conclusion of the public comment phase, the comments are responded to and included in the DEIR that is reviewed by the decision makers. Certification of the "Final" EIR is attained when the legislative body gives the document acknowledgement that it adequately identifies potential impacts, measures to mitigate those impacts, and also impacts which may occur as a result of the project but are unable to be mitigated. Additionally, a Mitigation Monitoring Program (MMP) is part of the "Final" EIR. CEOA requires public agencies to Ubt up monitoring programs for the purpose of ensuring compliance with those mitigation measures adopted as conditions of approval in order to mitigate or avoid significant environmental effects identified in the EIR. The MMP is adopted at the time of the EIR's certification. For substantial or potential- ly substantial environmental effects which can not be mitigated to a level of insignificant, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is prepared. CEQA requires the decision makers to balance the proposed project's benefits against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the proposed project's benefits outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered acceptable. For proposed VTTM No. 52267 a Statement of Overriding Consideration will be prepared for air quality, construction noise and aesthetic resources. NOTICE OF PUBLIC BEARINgl Notice for this project was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gab iat Valley Tribune on June 12 , 1998. Public hearing notices were mailed to approximately 1,055 property owners within a 500 foot radius of the project site on June 5, 1998. 8 CONCLUSION: The proposed project is consistent with the goals of the City's General Plan and complies with the City's Zoning and Subdivision Code. The proposed project will enhance the quality of life in Diamond Bar and provide a balance between development and economic viability and the preservation of significant open space and distinctive natural features of the area. Additionally, this projects development standards are compatible with recently approved tracts. The envisioned product will be compatible with the existing development in the area. Furthermore, this project will provide approximately 360 acres of land dedicated to the City of Diamond Bar and a $250,000.00 contribution to the City's Parks and Development Facility Fund. PREPARED BY: 1. Documents transmitted to the City Council on June 19, 1998: Environmental Draft Environmental Impact Report Volume I and II Mitigation Monitoring Program Statement of Overriding Consideration Response to Comments, dated September 1997, February 10, 1998, March 24, 1998 and April 28, 1998; Planning Commission staff Reports/ Memorandums Staff reports dated September 23, 1997, October 6, 1998, February 10, 1998, February 19, 1998, March 19, 1998, April 28, 1998 and May 8, 1998; Planning Commission Ninutes September 23, 1997 October 14, 1997 February 10, 1998 February 24, 1998 March 24, 1998 April 28, 1998 May 12, 1998; Planning Commission Public Hearing Tapes February 10, 1998 February 24, 1998 March 24, 1998 April 28, 1998 May 12, 1998; 9 Planning commission Resolutions Resolution No. 98-11 Resolution No. 98-12; Petitions/ Correspondence Petitions - approximately 933 pages with 1300 signatures Correspondence presented to the Planning Commission in Memorandums dated March 24, 1998, April 23, 1998 and April 28, 1998; laps/azhibits VTTM No. 52267 - Subdivision Map Landscape Mitigation Plan Response to Comments Alternative Map Slope Profile Map Slope Analysis Map Cut and Fill Map Oak Tree Survey Map; Response to Constants Alternative Housing development confined to Lot 6 VTTM No. 52267 Comparative Environmental of Proposed Project and Alternativ Alternative dated April 23, 1998 Results of Supplemental Tree Survey foi 52267 Regarding the Alternative dated 1998; and Project Brochure prepared by the applicant. 10 Evaluation e project VTTM No. April 21, AGENDA NO. 8.2 NO DOCUMENTATION AVAILABLE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA REPORT AGENDA NO. 9J l TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 REPORT DATE: August 25, 1998 FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager TITLE: Authorization to Approve the Purchase of Office Furniture and Equipment from Office Depot in an Amount not to Exceed $15,000. SUMMARY: For the Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the City budgeted $31,000 for the purchase of office furniture and equipment. Due to Purchase Order limitations on the City Manager's ability to purchase more than $10,000 worth of items/services with one vendor, approval from the City Council is required to exceed the $10,000 threshold. RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase of office furniture and equipment from Office Depot in an amount not to exceed $15,000. LIST OF ATTACHMENTS: X Staff Report _ Public Hearing Notification _ Resolution(s) — Bid Specification _ Ordinance(s) _ Other: _ Agreement(s) EXTERNAL DISTRIBUTION: SUBMITTAL CHECKLIST: 1. Has the resolution, ordinance or agreement been reviewed _ Yes _ No by the City Attorney? 2. Does the report require a majority vote? _Yes _ No 3. Has environmental impact been assessed? _ 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: REVIEWED BY: 4- Terrence L. Belan e City Manager Anne M. Hara6n Administrative Assistant CITY COUNCIL REPORT AGENDA NO. MEETING DATE: September 1, 1998 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Terrence L. Belanger, City Manager SUBJECT: Authorization to Approve the Purchase of Office Furniture and Equipment from Office Depot in an Amount not to Exceed $15,000. ISSUE STATEMENT: Shall the City Council authorize the purchase of office furniture and equipment from Office Depot in an amount not to exceed $15,000? RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase of office furniture and equipment from Office Depot in an amount not to exceed $15,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: For the Fiscal Year 1998-1999, the City budgeted $31,000 for the purchase of office furniture and equipment. Currently, the City has encumbered $8,784.63 with Office Depot for the purchase of office furniture and equipment. Three or more competitive bids were collected for each item purchased, and each purchase was awarded to the lowest responsible bidder. Per the Purchasing Policy and Procedures Manual, the City Manager is authorized to bind the City for the payment of services, supplies, materials, equipment, labor or other valuable consideration furnished to the City in an amount not to exceed Ten Thousand Dollars ($10,000). If Office Depot is the lowest responsible bidder for the remainder of the furniture and equipment (desk, table, file cabinets, chairs), the amount encumbered will exceed $10,000. Therefore, it is recommended that City Council authorize an amount not to exceed $15,000 with Office Depot for office furniture and equipment. In addition, Office Depot was the lowest bidder for office supplies. Hence, the City has opened a not to exceed Purchase Order in the amount of $15,000, for office supplies, for Fiscal Year 1998-1999. The total Fiscal Year 1998-1999 Purchase Order amount for office supplies, furniture and equipment with Office Depot would be an amount not to exceed $30,000. REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AUGUST 18, 1998 CALL TO ORDER: Chair/Huff called the meeting to order at 5:20 p.m. in Room CC -9 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; Amanda Susskind, Assistance Agency Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Deputy Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Mike Nelson, Communications & Marketing Director; Linda Magnuson, Assistant Finance Manager and Lynda Burgess, Agency Secretary. 2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jeff Koontz, Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce Interim Director, reported that Gordon Vihlen, former Chamber President, recently passed away. He then announced that the August 20 Mixer had been cancelled and that the September 17 Mixer will be held at Kellogg West on the CalPoly Pomona campus. On October 24, the Chamber will hold a business expo in the Kmart Shopping Center parking lot and will target small and home-based businesses. He congratulated the Agency for its participation in the redevelopment of the Library. 3. CONSENT CALENDAR: VC/Ansari moved, AM/Chang seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS - Chang, Herrera, 'O'Connor, VC/Ansari, Chair/Huff NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS - None ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS - None 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. 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: AWO'Connor stated that the Library looks great and was pleased that the Agency was able to participate in its completion. AUGUST 18, 1998 PAGE 2 AM/Herrera echoed AM/O'Connor's sentiments regarding the Library. She was proud and pleased about this wonderful joint project in which the D.B. Redevelopment Agency participated and she looked forward to future wonderful projects that the Agency will participate in to improve D.B. VC/Ansari concurred with prior comments regarding the Library project. She indicated that it took 4 1/2 years to complete and was pleased with the outcome. Chair/Huff reported that he was pleased that the Agency has followed through with its proposed agenda. It is good to see funds used to assist in procuring tenants for the Gateway Corporate Center, which has been sitting vacant far too long. AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, Chair/Huff adjourned the meeting at 5:27 p.m. ATTEST: Chairman LYNDA BURGESS Agency Secretary DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM TO: Chairman Huff and Board of Directors FROM: Linda G. MagnusonAsst. Finance Director SUBJECT: Voucher Register, September 1, 1998 DATE: August 27, 1998 Attached is the Voucher Register dated September 1, 1998 for the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency. The checks will be produced after any recommendations and the final approval is received. Payment of the listed vouchers in the amount of $40,563.25 is hereby allowed from the Diamond Bar Redevelopment Agency Fund. APPROVED BY: ck�� h tLu�� Linda G. Magn son Asst. Finance Director Terrence L. Belanger Executive Director Rohert S. Huff Chairman Eileen R. Ansari Vice Chairman +¢# Diamone Bar kiH# RONTIK—:150808/27/98 VOUCHER REGISTER DUE THRU.............06/30/'78 PAGE 1 VENDOR NAME VENDOR ID. * * PREPAID * * ACEM PROJ.TX-NO BATCH PO.LINE/N0. ENTRY /DUE INVOICE DESCRIPTION AMOUNT DATE CHED.' ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Dewan Lundin & Assoc. Dewan 002-4110-6411 R0298 46 909028 01/7014 08/27 06/30 015-3 CIP-BrCyn/Pthfdr 23,395.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 23,395.00 INCA Engineers Inc INCAEng 002-4110-6411 R04% 42 90902R 01/7016 08/27 06/30 22319 DesgnSvcs-BrCyn/Lenin 11,340.00 002-4110-6411 R0598 44 90902R 02/7016 08/27 (16/30 22319 CIP-BrCy/lemon 5,670.60 002-4110-6411 R0598 48 90902R 02/7016 08/27 06/:30 2231' CORRECTION 5,670.60- 002-4110-6411 R0598 50 909028 02/7016 08/27 06/30 22319 CIP-BrCy/Lemon 5,670.00 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 17,010.00 Richards Watson & Gershon RichardsWa 002-4110-4020 29 90902R 01/7243 08/27 06/30 99701 RDALegalSvcs-June 158.25 TOTAL DUE VENDOR --------) 158.25 TOTAL PREPAID -----------) 0.00 TOTAL DUE ---------------) 40,563.25 TOTAL REPORT ------------) 40,563.25 *� Diamond Bar RDA ## RLI TIME: 15:08 08/27/98 V O U C H E R R E G I S T E R PAGE 1 FUND SUMMARY REPORT DUE THRU.............06/30/99 DISBURSE G/L GJE WILL POST GJE HAS POSTED FUTURE TRANSACTIONS FUND TOTAL DIRECT PAY REVENUE EXPENSE REVENUE EXPENSE REVENUE EXPENSE ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 002 DB Redevelopment 40,563.25 40,563.25 TOTAL------------------------------------------------ ------------------------------------------------ ALL FUNDS 40,563.25 40,563.25 Next Resolution No. 98-51 Next Ordinance No. 04(1998) STUDY SESSION - 5:00 p.m. - Off -Site Street Parking CC - 3 & 5 1. CLOSED SESSION: 2. CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m., September 1, 1998 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor INVOCATION: Dr. James Price, Diamond Canyon Christian Church ROLL CALL: Council Members Ansari, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Chang, Mayor Herrera APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor 3. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 3.1 Certificate of Recognition to Assembly Member Sally Havice for her efforts to stop SB 2010. 3.2 Presentation of Certificates of Recognition to Diamond Bar Senior Little League for becoming "Senior Little League World Series Champions." 3.3 COMMUNITY RECOGNITIONS: 3.3.1 Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Karen Escarcega for her civic -mindedness in maintaining public areas 3.4 Proclaiming September 19, 1998 as "Coastal Cleanup Day." 3 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 SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Page 2 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 LABOR DAY HOLIDAY - September 7, 1998 - City Offices will be closed. Will reopen Tuesday, September 8, 1998 5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION - September 8, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION - September 10, 1998 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD Board Hearing Room, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 5.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING - September 15, 1998 - 6:30 p.m., AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.,k- APPROVAL OF MINUTES - Special Meeting/ Workshop of August 18, 1998 - Approve as submitted. Requested by: City Clerk 6 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated September 1, 1998 in the amount of Requested by: City Manager TREASURER'S REPORT - Month of July, 1998 - Approve and receive. Requested by: City Manager 6EXONERATION OF CASH DEPOSIT IN LIEU OF GRADING BOND (FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE, LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR 2720 SHADOW CANYON IN DIAMOND BAR - The Owner, Piermarini Enterprises, Inc. requests release of his Cash Deposit in Lieu of Grading Bond for improvement security as required in accordance with the Subdivision Map Act. The City Engineer finds that the owner performed all work as shown on the grading plan on file with the City. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve exoneration of Cash Deposit in the amount of $9,234 posted with the City on December 2, 1996 and direct that the City Clerk notify the Owner and Surety of this action. Requested by: Engineering Division 6 REDUCTION OF SUBDIVISION IMPROVEMENT BONDS (FAITHFUL PERFORMANCE AND LABOR & MATERIAL) FOR TRACT NO. 47850 (DIAMOND BAR WEST PARTNERS) - Consider reduction in security amount (surety bond) commensurate with progress of work for various improvements required in accordance with the Subdivision Agreement for Tract No. 47850. The Subdivider has satisfactorily completed a substantial SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Page 3 amount of the work and has requested a reduction in the amount of certain bonds be authorized. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the following reductions: (a) Bond No. 4188535 - Grading Bond in the amount of $3,192,558 be reduced to $1,596,279; (b) Bond No. 4188545 - Sewer/Street S.D. in the amount of $1,365,892 be reduced to $682,946; (c) Bond No. 418855S - Domestic Water in the amount of $416,803.20 be reduced to $208,401.60; (d) Bond No. 4188575 - Monumentation in the amount of $8,500 be reduced to $4,250; and (e) direct the City Clerk notify the Principal and Surety of these actions. Requested by: Engineering Division 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as may be heard. 7.-4 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR TENTATIVE PARCEL MAP NO. 23382, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 93-1, OAK TREE PERMIT NO. 95-2 AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-2 - Warren Dolezal of The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership, is requesting approval of a one-year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 in order to subdivide 2.55 acres into four lots for development of four detached single family residences. The request also includes an amendment to the Oak Tree Permit for the removal and replacement of one oak tree. The project site is located in the 3000 Block (north side) of Steeplechase Lane, at the terminus of Hawkwood Rd., adjacent to "The Country Estates." At the July 14, 1998 Planning Commission public hearing, the Commission recommended approval of the extension of time and the removal of one oak tree at a 20:1 replacement ratio. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve a one-year extension of time for Tentative Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 93-1, Amended Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2, Amended Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 and Amended Mitigation Monitoring Program. Requested by: Planning Division 8. OLDBUSINESS: 8�1 %VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 52267, PERMIT NO. 98-03, OAK TREE PERMIT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT NO. 97-02 Continued from August 18, 1998 meeting. Recommended Action: CONDITIONAL USE NO. 98-01 AND (SCH 97031005) - SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Page 4 Requested by: Planning Division 8,,2-"- CITY COUNCIL APPOINTMENTS TO THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITY AND THE CITY COUNCIL FINANCE SUB- COMMITTEE. ;. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the Mayor make appointments as necessary. Requested by: Mayor 9. NEW BUSINESS: 9. 1,_ AUTHORIZATION TO APPROVE THE PURCHASE OFFICE FURNITURE AND EQUIPMENT FROM OFFICE DEPOT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $15,000 - For FY 1998-99, the City budgeted $31,000 for purchase of office furniture and equipment. Due to Purchase Order limitations on the City Manager's ability to purchase more than $10,000 worth of items/services with one vendor, approval from the City Council is required to exceed the $10,000 threshold. Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council approve the purchase of office furniture and equipment from Office Depot in an amount not to exceed $15,000. Requested by: City Manager RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING Next Resolution No. RA 98-08 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 (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 - Special Meeting of August 18, 1998 - Approve as submitted. SEPTEMBER 1, 1998 Page 5 Requested by: Agency Secretary 3 VOUCHER REGISTER - Approve Voucher Register dated September 1, 1998 in the amount of�- Requested by: Executive Director 4. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Agency Members are for agency discussion. Direction may be given at this meeting or the item may be scheduled for action at a future meeting. AGENCY ADJOURNMENT: RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING: 10. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS: 11. COUNCIL MEMBERS 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: MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-2 for Dolezal Family Limited Partnership Parcel Map No. 23382 Conditional Use Permit No. 92-1 Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 Prepared by: The City of Diamond Bar Community & Development Services Department Planning Division Amended June 1998 DOLESAL FAMILY PARTNERSHIP PROJECT PARCEL MAP NO. 23382, CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 92-1 AND OAX TREE PERMIT NO. 95-2 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR oiect Descriptj The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership filed an application with the City of Diamond Bar requesting approval of Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The Parcel Map proposes to subdivide a 2.55 gross acre parcel into four residential lots. The Conditional Use Permit is required by the City of Diamond Bar Hillside Management Ordinance for grades in excess of 10 percent and for lots which are in or partly in an area designated as a significant ecological area. The project applicant proposes a private development containing four custom homes. Homes would range in size from approximately 4,000 to 8,000 square feet and would be marketed to upper income families. Access to the site will be provided through "The Country Estates" development. "The Country Estates" development is a private community having restricted access. The project site is proposed to be annexed to "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association. An emergency access only route will be provided through a gated connection between Steeplechase Lane and Hawkwood Road. Street lighting in not proposed. Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit No. 92-1 and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 was approved on June 20, 1995 by the City Council of Diamond Bar. This approval was valid for two years, expiring June 20, 1997. However, with the Subdivision Map Act amendment in 1996, this project was given an automatic one year extension of time. Therefore, this project expired June 20, 1998. The applicant is requesting a one year extension of time before the projects expiration date. With the one year extension of time request, an amendment to the Oak Tree Permit was also requested. Due to a landslide located on Lot 3 and measures required to mitigate the landslide, the only existing oak tree must be removed. The proposed removal of the oak tree requires an amendment to the Oak Tree Permit ap- proval and a revision to Mitigated Negative Declaration No. 95-2 and the Mitigation Monitoring Program. 1 AMENDED INITIAL STUDY EXPLANATION OF "YES", "NO" AND •'MAYBE" ANSWERS Amended Initial Study - Findings of Fact 4. Plant Life (a -d) Potential Impact: Site development will result in removal of all on-site vegetation including the one existing oak tree located within Lot 3. The oak tree is located within a landslide area of which, in part, traverses the drip line of the oak tree's canopy. In order to mitigate the landslide area with the required buttressing fill as prescribed by the City's engineering consulting (RKA Civil Engineering Inc.) performing the grading plan check, the oak tree must be removed. Discussion: The project site has been severely disturbed by past grading, surface scraping and disking. The project site is disked regularly by Los Angeles County for fire prevention purposes. The oak tree is multi -trunk. The combined circumference of the two trunks is approximately 116 inches, as measured 4h feet above the mean natural grade. The tree's canopy is approximately 50 feet in diameter. Currently, the City's Oak Tree Permit process requires the preservation of multi -trunk oak trees with a combined circumference of any two trunks which is at least 38 inches measured 4h feet above the mean natural grade. When an oak tree's circumference is larger than 25 inches and the canopy has a diameter larger than 30 inches, the tree's survival rate, when relocated, is very slim. Since the City has identified oak trees as a valuable resource, through the City's Oak Tree Permit process, the applicant will replace the oak tree as follows (see attached Oak Tree Exhibit): a. At a 20:1 ratio with 36 inch box oak trees; b. As many as possible of the replacement oak trees shall be located on-site, as prescribed by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist or biologist; C. The following minimum replacement oak tree count shall be located on-site (see attached Oak Tree Exhibit); 1. Lot 2 - two located adjacent to front property line; 2. Lots 3 - one located adjacent to front property line; and 2 3. Lot 4 - one located adjacent to front property line; d. Oak trees which can not be located on-site shall be located off-site within the City of Diamond Bar. The off-site location will be approved by the City. If an off-site location is not designated, a specified dollar amount in -lieu fee will be contributed to the City's tree replacement fund; e. The on-site replacement oak trees are required to be planted when grading is completed. Planting shall be supervised by a certified and licensed landscaper, arborist or biologist. The on-site replacement oak trees shall be protected and preserved, pursuant to the City's Oak Tree Permit process and as follows: chain link fencing, with a minimum height of 4 feet, shall be installed 5 feet outside each tree's drip line or 15 feet from each tree's trunk, whichever is greater. Replacement oak trees shall be maintained in perpetuity with a 100 percent survival rate. Replacement oak trees shall be monitored for a 5 year period with periodic inspections and reports submitted to the City. Planting material which may be installed within the replacement trees' drip line shall be drought tolerant only. Irrigation installed within this area shall be appropriate for drought tolerant planting material. f. "Buyers' Awareness" Package (given to each future homeowner at escrow, with a signed receipt from the future homeowner, submitted to the City, acknowledging the future homeowner's receipt of the package) shall include proper care and maintenance of the replacement oak trees. Finding: Because the oak tree is located within a landslide area of which, in part, traverses the tree's drip line, the tree's removal is required to mitigate the landslide area with the required buttressing fill as prescribed by the City's engineering consulting (RKA Civil Engineering Inc.) performing the grading plan check. Additionally, the site has been severely disturbed by past grading, surface scraping and disking which occurs regularly by Los Angeles County for fire prevention. Therefore, it is not anticipated that the removal of one oak tree will result in a significant impact to plant life because it will be replaced at a 20:1 ratio with 36 inch box oak trees. As many as possible will be located on-site as possible. The remaining replacement oak trees will be located off-site, within the City of Diamond Bar, at a City approved location. Orwok, � k • lei; � (� -� r L IV Vol ;::! I jj'� [ftz, I I i 0. SO y Cd Cd CA W N LV V � CV w o ^ � • ba "a vs to � N-1431 0 00 1 � y Nu �3 A a) H yOCf) w O W chi V � -5 u l^ rAA W ..i'"•i r. w 3 W � � � � a'3 Gd Cd- i0 C� ami w � J".o ;;, U Utz SO y Cd Cd CA W N LV V � CV w o ^ � • ba "a vs to � N-1431 0 00 1 � y Nu �3 A a) H yOCf) w O W chi V � -5 u l^ rAA W ..i'"•i r. w 3 W � � � � a'3 Gd Cd- i0 C� ami ° � 3 J".o ;;, b � ,:.i Q � •fib. �U ba y 0 SO y Cd Cd CA W N LV V � CV w o ^ � • ba "a vs to � N-1431 0 00 1 � y Nu �3 A a) H yOCf) w O W chi V � -5 u l^ rAA W ..i'"•i r. w 3 W � � � � a'3 Gd Cd- i0 C� ami ° � 3 J".o ;;, b � ,:.i Q � •fib. �U ba SO y Cd Cd CA W N LV V � CV w o ^ � • ba "a vs to � N-1431 0 00 1 � y Nu �3 A a) H yOCf) w O W chi V � -5 u l^ rAA W ..i'"•i r. w 3 W � � � � a'3 Gd Cd- i0 C� �y w 40 t .i w y a.+ C� 71 it iii C� •L •••� y b [V pw � y O 'E ^`a c� C cv 8 60 71 co Jo 4. go C C y _ �+ ° I �•+~-'w O 0 .� C -t w � ���•� � � �^V., +may►+ ��•�"'cy•�" .0'0°�4calb 0r,�•.°3 �� o y o a s �'O'�� �, O y � y 1--1 � •" � � � it ..� i•.. G� y W y � ° V � tri � •.�• o i� c U w c�4 c� A. r cd cd 04 cd to 00 � � � q y �•" cG� � C�V � � � � Qi b b � • 3 �•r � ty/1 � Q� � •� IV tn 14 N vi C O ,O o •5 � •�C �' H 3 ami •� � 3 cd � y � w tom. � Ca y � '.� d.i air d •Q% U � y a a a Q �y w 40 t .i w y a.+ C� 71 it iii C� •L •••� y b [V pw � y O 'E ^`a c� C cv 8 60 71 co Jo 4. go C C y _ �+ ° I �•+~-'w O 0 .� C -t w � ���•� � � �^V., +may►+ ��•�"'cy•�" .0'0°�4calb 0r,�•.°3 �� o y o a s �'O'�� �, O y � y 1--1 � •" � � � it ..� i•.. G� y W y � ° V � tri � •.�• o i� c U w c�4 c� A. r cd cd 04 cd to 00 � � � q y �•" cG� � C�V � � � � Qi b b � • 3 �•r � ty/1 � Q� � •� IV tn 14 N W; cl W 3 � o W h � y � oU Q � � W; cl :: 0.V�� ip.Ir7ral I/f0 � fotftrlr uftl ^ e�• O.. Olt 7111�f+q 00c, w•nr lan nr - rrr.-nf Ir.n Mrr Yrrlr YLf//rM rrNM , ZT f.l = YYr f!N rr fN1/J/Nl1! rr/fl»l, iMIMMI!/ I LA rn Z tfr '07f/f Nrl fllrllO• Yl7rSN:IN �;IT 1. am W O }Lf Z - 10 O� 16 oT lZilD to Z 0 °I I- I- cl >n d' r�S I r. Yful i A U Z O< W 1!. W < Txri atn0 W Z O Y WU1 fN Yd NZ© Z 0 W L'7 W 07 ZO)� < n 10 Z�— O N C O W V Z W VI 2 WW ".' C Z 000 ZC- W<C 111 . LrJ C C C� eq y r4 9 04 Goa U" en `r' A vi r Z p O\ Q • A ,� L•.arr ; N c o rC¢j Q �_ au O aaW ¢oo 0AU o a Wd'W ccd�' d p+ >,�.,5 r- t- oz vz V. c U cx ao� vCd � V � 1.�•1 .04 O A U N (0 O 0 0 w U �D Y cs 0ca d a A A A A D A A 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 °p to oca 00 a ° O L7 v � eye FA 00 � •a4 � a a Op N eo S to ° to 00 _ 04 cds N 3 a. In oo 2 d I, js •U C fn Fly o $ 3 eo •d y � '� r{ a� � c 3 '� w oo � D •a O m O N '° `� V aC as 0 0-8 o v� � .a •� a � w vVi � a.� 8 4 w a y, to .0 410 a a8 a Q.9 m 8v�i w m� Cg ° c3. •w U 3 U 3 a .. N to et V1 •• C4 w d H w b 3 Y cs 0ca d a A A A A D A A 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 °p to oca 00 a ° O L7 v � eye FA 00 � •a4 � a a Op N eo S to ° to 00 _ 04 cds N 3 a. In oo 2 d I, js •U C fn Fly o $ 3 eo •d y � '� r{ a� � c 3 '� w oo � D •a O m O N '° `� V aC as 0 0-8 o v� � .a •� a � w vVi � a.� 8 4 w a y, to .0 410 a a8 a Q.9 m 8v�i w m� Cg ° c3. •w U 3 U 3 a .. N to et V1 •• C4 w d H b b L= cis a. a• b Ll•�, A'm �A y m oA oA �•� 3 3 3 w ° •� y U V V ,� CL �U,, O • Q2 N U� C� y •O V°e O O ° 0. O'48 N C 00 m oo v to t w ° o Q � A A -v w di a 3 p N i ate+ b a N °04 d N 4. ��> a0 ,��3�� �.� ooh �� .•=��� 00 -00 ta ta MA '`yea 33�°�'b•� '$ c°� '��''�a A� :�>,Q pr H d O U y •1i a+ O. r '{�' C�. Qr W r2 0 vi o U O y .O ti V MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 95-2 for Dolezal Family Limited Partnership Parcel Map No. 23382 Conditional Use Permit No. 92-1 Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 Prepared by: David Tanner & Associates and The City of Diamond Bar Community Development Department Prepared: April 1993 Revised: March 1995 Dolezal Family Limited Partnership Project Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit 92-1, and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 City of Diamond Bar PROJECT DESCRIPTION - INrrIAL STUDY Introduction This Initial Environmental Study has been prepared in accordance with Section 15063 of the Guidelines for implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The initial study provides the factual and analytical basis for a Negative Declaration or to focus an EIR on the significant effects of a project. This initial study addresses the potential impacts associated with the Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, and Oak Tree Permit applications and ultimately, development of the property. Project Description The Dolezal Family Limited Partnership filed an application with the City of Diamond Bar requesting approval of Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit 92-1, and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2. The Parcel Map proposes to divide a 2.55 gross acre parcel into four residential lots. The Conditional Use Permit is required by the City of Diamond Bar Hillside Management Ordinance for grades in excess of 10% and for lots which are in or partly in an area designated as a significant ecological area. The project applicant proposes a private development containing four custom homes. Homes would range in size from approximately 4,000 to 8,000 square feet and would be marketed to upper income families. Access to the site will be provided through the "The Country Estates" development. "The Country Estates" development is a private community having restricted access. The project site is proposed to be annexed to "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association. A secondary emergency access route will be provided through a gated connection between Steeplechase Lane and Hawkwood Road (Baldwin, Tract 32974). Street lighting is not proposed. Parcel Map No. 23382 has been provided for review in Figure 1. Location and Access Location: T2S R9W '/4 OF NW 1/4 SEC. 28 (YORBA LINDA 7.5' QUADRANGLE) SBBM) APN: 8713-017-08 Access: Regional access to the project vicinity is provided by the 57 Freeway. Arterial access to the project vicinity from the 57 Freeway is provided by Diamond Bar Blvd. Local access to the project site from Diamond Bar Boulevard is obtained from Shadow Canyon Drive, south to Steeplechase Lane, then southwest to its terminus at the southeastern boundary of the project. A Location map is provided on Figure 2 for review. prepared: April 1993 revised: March 1995 Figure 2 PROJECT WKWOOD RD. LOCATION �N ,0 Not to Scale David J. Tanner Location Map I & Associates, Inc. 3 Tentative Parcel Map 23382 Diamond Bar General Plan The contemplated Diamond Bar General Plan Land Use Element designates the project site as Low Density Residential (RL) maximum 3 du/ac. Site Zoning The project site is zoned R-1 (8,000). R-1 (8,000) zoning permits development of single family residential dwellings with a minimum lot site of 8,000 square feet. Significant Ecological Area The project site is located at the extreme northwestern edge of the Tonner Canyon/Chino Hills Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15, pursuant to the Los Angeles County Significant Ecological Area Study completed in 1976. This study was prepared for Los Angeles County Department of Regional Planning by England and Nelson Environmental Consultants. According to this study, in order for an area to be designated "ecologically significant", it must contain undisturbed biotic communities and possess resources that are uncommon, rare, unique, or absolutely critical to the maintenance of wildlife. Based on this study, the SEA within Los Angeles County contains eight classification, each with its own criteria. These classifications and their criteria are as follows: Classification Criteria Class 1 Habitat of rare, endangered, and threatened plant and animal species; Class 2 Biotic communities, vegetative associations, and habitat of plant and animal species that are either one of a Idnd, or are restricted in distibution on a regional basis; Class 3 Biotic communities, vegetative associations, and habitat of plant and animal species that are either, one of a Idnd, or are restricted in distiution in L. A. County; Class 4 Habitat that at some point in the species' life cycle or group of species, serves as a concentrated breeding, feeding, resting, or migrating grounds and is limited in availability; Class 5 Biotic resources that are of scientific interest because they are either an extreme in physical/geographical limitations, or they represent an unsual variation in a population or community; Class 6 Areas important as game species habitat or as fisheries; Class 7 Areas that would provide for the preservation of relatively undisturbed examples of the natural biotic communities in L. A. County; Class 8 Certain area that are worthy of inclusion, but do not fit any of the above criteria. 4 The project site (located within Tonner Canyon/Chino Hills SEA No. 15) is in Class 7. This particular SEA Class contains undisturbed stands of southern oak woodland, chaparral, coastal sage scrub, riparian woodland complex, California Walnut, and intermitent stream in the canyon bottom. However, the project site contains only one oak tree and is denude of any vegetation due to annual surface scraping/disking by the Los Angeles County Fire Department conducted over many year. As such, the project site does not meet the prerequisites or citeria for being in an SEA. Additionally, boundaries chosen for SEAS are based on ridgelines, toe of slope, interpretation of aerial photographics, and cultural features such as freeways, dams, and development. Steeplechase Lane (abutting the project site) is a ridgeline and could be a natural delineatation for the SEA. The project site falls north of this ridgeline. Based on this natural delineation and the fact that the site is reqularly disturbed and denude of vegetatation, it may be reasonable to suggest that the project site should not be designated as an SEA as it no longer meets any of the SEA criteria. Site Description Landform: The project site is irregular in shape, encompassing 2.55 gross acres. Elevations on- site range from 1077± at the southern property line to 1022± along the northern property line. The site slopes downward to the north averaging 15-20%. Approximately 75% of the site has been previously graded. Prior grading activities included: remedial grading to correct an unstable slope condition over the western/central portion of the site, grading for Steeplechase Lane along the southern boundary of the site, construction of an emergency access road along the western site boundary and remedial grading to construct a shear key along the northern property line for the Las Brisas Condominium project. Site Photos have been included in Figures 3 & 4 for review. Existing Land Use: The project site is privately owned vacant land. The entire project site is disked regularly by the County for fire prevention purposes. The project applicant is not utilizing the property in anticipation of development. Man-made Improvements: Six foot perimeter chain-link fencing has been erected on the north, east and west to restrict access. A 40 foot general utility and access easement containing a 20 foot paved emergency access drive for the Las Brisas Condominium project is located along the western site boundary. A concrete "V" ditch to control surface runoff has been constructed atop a manufactured slope (shear key) paralleling the northern property line. The entire site has been previously disturbed by grading and or disking. Numerous pieces of 12 inch ACP water pipe left over from the construction of Steeplechase Lane are present on the property, along with isolated areas of domestic litter. The project site lies adjacent to Steeplechase Lane, an unpaved private dirt road connecting Hawkwood Road (Baldwin, Tract 32974) on the west to Wagon Train Lane (serving PM -1528 to the south) and "The Country Estates" development (Tract 30289) on the east. Steeplechase Lane has a 60 foot right-of-way. Once improved, Steeplechase Lane will have two 14 foot travel lanes. An underground water main and fire hydrant have been constructed within the right-of-way of Steeplechase Lane adjacent. k, View from 57 Freeway looking south. Project site is located just below ridgeline and above the Las Brisas Condominium project in center of photo. k rNe f — "I Telephoto view from the 57 Freeway looking south. Site Photos Photo Taken: March 1993 R Figure 3 David J. Tanner & Associates, Inc. Tentative Parcel Map 23382 View from the high point on the site looking north. Las Brisas Condominium project in foreground, 57 Freeway in background. View from the high point on the site looking northeast. Las Brisas Condominium project in foreground. The Country development to far right. Site Photos Photo Taken: March 1993 David J. Tanner & Associates, Inc. Tentative Parcel Map 23382 View looking east along the site's northern boundary. Photo taken from north- western corner of site. Figure 5 View looking south along eastern site boundary. Photo taken from northeastern corner of site. Steeplechase Lane (a private dirt road) shown along left side of photo. Site PhOtOS David J. Tanner & Associates, Inc. Photo Taken: March 1993 8 Tentative Parcel Map 23382 View looking southeast across center of site. Photo taken near the northwestern corner of the site. Figure 6 View looking north along western site boundary. Photo taken from southwestern corner of site. Photo of the emergency access road for the Las Brisas Condo. project. Site Photos Photo Taken: March 1993 David J. Tanner & Associates, Inc. Tentative Parcel Map 23382 Public Utilities and Services Fire Suppression: The City of Diamond Bar contracts with the County of Los Angeles Fire Department for fire protection services. Station 119, located at 20480 East Pathfinder Avenue, Walnut, CA. 91789 is the closest station. Station 119 will provide primary fire suppression and emergency paramedic response to the project site. Estimated response times range from 3-5 minutes. Law Enforcement: The City of Diamond Bar contracts with the County of Los Angeles Sheriffs Department for law enforcement services. The nearest Sheriffs substation is located in Walnut. Telephone: The project site lies within the service area of the General Telephone Company of California. Electricity:_ The project site lies within the service area of the Southern California Edison Company. Natural Gas: The project site lies within the service area of the Southern California Gas Company Water: The project site is within the service area of the Walnut Valley Water District. An existing 12 inches ACP line has been installed beneath Steeplechase Lane adjacent to the site. The District has indicated that they can provide water to the project. Sewer: The City of Diamond Bar contracts with the County of Los Angeles Sanitation Department for sewage treatment. The District has indicated that they can provide sewer service to the project site. Schools: The project site lies with in the boundary of the Walnut Valley Unified School District. Students generated from the project would most likely attend Castle Rock Elementary, South Pointe Middle School and Diamond Bar High School. The District is experiencing overcrowding and has enacted a school impact fee mitigation program in accordance with Senate Bill 201. With the payment of impact fees, the District will be able to provide adequate school service to facilitate the project needs. Library: The City of Diamond Bar contracts with the County of Los Angeles for library services. Solid Waste Disposal: The City of Diamond Bar contracts with the County of Los Angeles Sanitation District for solid waste disposal. Solid waste from the City of Diamond Bar is deposited in the Spadra Landfill. The City contracts with a private hauler for solid waste disposal in this area. Surrounding Land Uses The project site is located in an area which has experienced significant growth over the past decade. The project site is surrounded by existing and or planned residential developments. Single family residential custom and tract developments lie adjacent to the project site on the east I1] ("The Country Estate/development, Tract 30289) and west (Baldwin, Tract 32974). Multi -family housing lies adjacent to the project site on the north (The Las Brisas Condominium project, PM 15434). Single family residential land uses have been approved or are proposed on the south (Parcel Map 1528 & proposed Vesting Tentative Tract 47850) but not constructed. The California Division of Forestry utilizes a portion of Parcel Map 1528 located south of the project site as a temporary emergency helicopter landing pad. The boundary of the Tonner Canyon/Chino Hills Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15 is believed to lie immediately east of the project site. SEA 15 encompasses approximately 3,600± gross acres. In total, the County of Los Angeles has established 52 SEA's to maintain the integrity of the County's varied ecological resources. SEA 15 was originally established by the County to protect relatively undisturbed stands of Southern Oak Woodland, Chaparral, Coastal Sage Scrub and Riparian Woodland complex. Existing Environmental Setting Drainage: Surface runoff sheet flows to the north where it is intercepted by a concrete lined "V" ditch paralleling the northern property line. From this point runoff flows easterly into the Las Brisas Condominium project where it is channeled into an underground storm drain system. Flora and Fauna: Two biological site investigations have been conducted on the project site. The first was conducted under contract with the project applicant in August of 1992 '. The second survey was conducted under contract with the City of Diamond Bar in March 1993 2. The purpose of the second survey was to have an independent evaluation of the applicant provided biological survey. Both biological site surveys concluded that the site has been severely disturbed by past surface scraping/disking. The project site is disked regularly by the County for fire prevention purposes. Pre -disturbance ve etg ation, based on extant remnants, consisted of coastal sage shrub and California Walnut Woodland, a designated special interest community. The site is bordered on all sides by development, further fragmenting the remnants of the walnut woodland. The wildlife potential on-site has been effectively removed due to past disturbance. Implementation of the project will eliminate approximately 0.5 acre of remnant walnut woodland. Biological Site Assessment, Parcel Map 23382 O'Farrell Biological Consultants, August 4, 1992 2 Biological Site Assessment, Parcel Map 23382 Biological Assessment Services, March 10, 1993 11 Because of the existing disturbed site and lack of wildlife developed habitat and the adjacent development surrounding the site, the impact to sensitive wildlife is deemed non- significant. Past disturbance on-site has removed most components of the walnut woodland. There is no longer a viable plant association. The remnants of this community on-site comprise isolated individual plants with no interactive understory. CuituralResources: A preliminary archaeological assessment of the project site was conducted in February 1993 3. Evaluation of the project site consisted of: 1) background research to determine if the property had been previously surveyed and if cultural resources had been recorded within a one -mile radius of the project site: and 2) an intensive pedestrian survey of the project site. The records survey indicated that no cultural resources have been identified on-site or within a one -mile radius of the project site. The pedestrian survey did not find any evidence of cultural resources on-site. The archaeologist concluded that development of the project site poses no threat to known cultural resources. Visual Resources: The project site is situated on the northern flank, near the top of a prominent ridgeline. This ridgeline trends in an east -west direction. Nearly all of the northern flank has been developed for residential land uses. Diamond Bar Boulevard has been constructed along the base of this slope. Farther north, lies the 57 Freeway. The majority of the project site is visible from the 57 Freeway (from 1/2 mile north of the Diamond -Bar Boulevard interchange to the Pathfinder Avenue interchange in both directions). In general, views of the site increase as the distance from the site increases. This results because the Las Brisas Condominium project and its landscaping substantially block views from the lower elevations closest to the bottom of the slope. Only limited vistas of the site can be obtained from Diamond Bar Boulevard. 3 Archaeological Assessment, Parcel Map 23382, Diamond Bar, CA, Scientific Resource Surveys, February 22, 1993 12 1. Background 1. Name of Applicant: Warren Dolezal 2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent: Dolezal Family Limited Partnership 4251 South Hieuera Street San Louis-Obiisr9 CA 93401 Phone: (805) 544-3990 3. Name, Address and Phone Number of Project Contact: iT.._s er And Associates San Diego Inc. - 10179 Hunnekens Street San Diego CA 92121 Phone: (6 9) 558-4500 - - iJ/ JJ Contact Person: Mr Lex Williman 4. Date of Environmental Information Submittal: February 17 1992 5. Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal: April 5 1993 6. Lead Agency (Agency Required Checklist): City of Diamond Bar 7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdivision): Tentative Parcel Map 23382. Conditional Use Permit 92-1 and Oak Tree Permit NO. 95-2. 8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental determination): Site Development Permit( Grading Plan(s) & Building Permit(sJ Yes No Variance: — x Conditional Use Permit: x — Zone Change: _ x General Plan Amendment: _ x Oak Tree Permit x — Tract Map x x (Attach Completed Environmental Information Form) 13 YES NO POSSIBLY b. Changes in absorption rates, drainage patterns, or the rate and amount of surface run-off? C. Alterations of the course or flow of flood waters? • d. Changes in the amount of surface water in any body of water? •C. Discharge into surface waters, or in any alteration of surface water quality including but not limited to dissolved oxygen and turbidity? f. Alteration of the direction or rate of flow of ground waters? g. Change in the quantity of ground waters. either through direct additions or withdrawals, or through interception of an aquifer by cuts or excavations? • h. Substantial reduction in the amount of water otherwise available for public water supplies? • i. Exposure of people or property to water related hazards such as flooding? 4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in: • a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of plants (including trees, shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)? b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare of endangered species of plants? C. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat areas or plant communities which are recognized as sensitive? d. Introduction of new species of plants into an area, or in a barrier to the normal replenishment of existing species? • e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural crop? 15 II. Environmental Impacts: (Explanations and additional information to supplement all "yes" and "possibly" answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets) YES NO POSSIBLY a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? 14 1. Earth. Will the proposal result in: • a. Unstable earth conditions or changes in geologic substructures? • b. Disruptions, displacements. compaction or overcovering of the soil? •C. Mange in topography or ground surface relief features? • d. The destruction. covering or modification of any unique geologic or physical feature? • e. Any increase in wind or water erosion of soils, either on or off the site? • f. Changes in deposition, erosion of stream banks or land adjacent to standing water, changes in siltation, deposition or other processes which may modify the channel of constant or intermittently flowing water as well as the areas surrounding permanent or intermittent standing water? • g. Exposure of people or property to geologic hazards such as earthquakes, landslides, mudslides, ground failure, or similar hazards? 2. Air. Will the proposal result in: a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration of ambient air quality? b. The creation of objectionable odors? C. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or temperature, or any changes in climate, either locally or regionally? 3. Water. Will the proposal result in: a. Changes in currents or the course or direction of water movements? 14 YES NO POSSIBLY 4. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in: • a. Change in the diversity of species, or number of any species of animals (birds, land animals including reptiles, fish, and shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)? • b. Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare or endangered species of animals? C. Introduction of new species of animals into an area, or in a barrier to the normal migration or movement of resident species? • d. Ileduction in size or deterioration in quality of existing fish or wildlife habitat? 6. Noise. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant increases in existing noise levels? L b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels? 7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in: a. Significant new light and glare or contribute significantly to existing levels of light and glare? 8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in: • a. A substantial alteration of the present or planned land use in an area? 9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in.- a. n:a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural resources? 10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in: • a. A risk of an explosion or the release of hazardous substances (including but not limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or radiation) in the event of an accident or upset condition? 16 YES NO POSSIBLY C� b. Probable interference with an emergency response plan or an emergency evacuation plan? 11. Population. Will the proposal: a. Alter the location. distribution, density, or growth rate of the human population of an area? 12. Housing. Will the proposal affect: a. Existing housing, or create a demand for additional housing? 13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal result in: a. Generation of Substantial additional vehicular movement? b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new parking? C. bLbstantial impact on existing transportation systems? d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or movement of people and goods. e. Alterations to waterborne, rail or air traffic? f. Increase in traffic hazards to motor vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians? 14. Public Services. Will the proposal: a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need for new or altered governmental services in any of the following areas: 1. Fire Protection? 2. Police Protection? 3. Schools? 17 YES NO POSSIBLY 4. Parks or other recreational facilities? • 5. Maintenance of public facilities. including roads? • 6. Other governmental services? 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in: a. Use of substantial amounts of fuel or energy? b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing energy sources or require the development of new sources of energy? 16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in: a. A need for new systems, or Substantial alterations to public utilities? 18 17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in: • a. Creation of any health hazard or potential health hazard (excluding mental health)? • b. Exposure of people to potential health hazards? 18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in: a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view open to the public, or will the proposal result in the creation of an aesthetically offensive site open to the public view? 19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in: �• a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of existing recreational opportunities? 20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in: • a. The alteration of or the destruction of a prehistoric or historic archaeological site? 18 YES NO POSSIBLY b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a prehistoric or historic building, structure or object? C. A physical change which would affect unique ethnic cultural values? • d. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred uses within the potential impact area. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance? 19 a. Does the proposed project have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish orwildlife species, cause a fish or v.ildlife population to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? • b. Does the proposed project have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long -term, -environmental goals? C. Does the proposed project pose impacts which are individually limited but cumulatively considerable? d. Does the project pose environmental effects which will cause substantial adverse effects on human .beings, either directly or indirectly? 19 III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION: (Attach Narrative) IV. DETERMINATION: On the basis of this initial evaluation: I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment, and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. • I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described on the attached sheet have been incorporated into the proposed project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. Date:—s'" q,3 Signature- Title: C o A)SAU aN For the City of Diamond Bar. California 20 Dolezal Family Limited Partnership Project Parcel Map No. 23382, Conditional Use Permit 92-1, and Oak Tree Permit No. 95-2 City of Diamond Bar INITIAL STUDY EXPLANATION OF "YES", "NO" AND "MAYBE" ANSWERS Initial Study - Findings of Fact 1. Earth: (a -g) Potential Impact: The proposed project will result in grading over the majority of the site to create residential building pads and yard areas. Approximately 2,300 cubic yards of earth redistribution is anticipated. Grading of the 2.55± acre site will alter the existing contour of the land. Grading will have the potential to result in short term soil erosion, and may induce accelerated sedimentation/siltation of downstream flood control facilities. Grading will also result in disruption, displacement and compaction of these erodible soils. Site development will subject future residents to earthquake hazardous typically experienced throughout Southern California. Discussion: Approximately 75% of the site has been previously graded. Prior grading activities included; remedial grading to correct an unstable slope condition over the western/central portion of the site, grading for Steeplechase Lane along the southern boundary of the site, construction of an emergency access road along the western site boundary and remedial grading to construct a shear key along the northern property line for the Las Brisas Condominium project. The site is disked regularly by the County for fire prevention purposes. The impact to the natural landform from site grading is considered insignificant. Erosion and sedimentation can be readily controlled by various management practices and techniques through an erosion control plan. An erosion control plan and National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit are required prior to site grading. These programs incorporate the following erosion control measures to insure that the potential for increased erosion and sedimentation during grading are maintained at a level of insignificance. Erosion Control Measures Erosion control measures will be implemented during all phases of construction to revent the loss of on-site soils as required by the City of Diamond Bar. All appropriate cleared areas will be re -planted immediately after grading to prevent the erosion of soils by wind or water. These plantings may be permanent or temporary in nature. All cleared areas will be regularly watered to prevent erosion by wind or water. Watering will be increased on excessively hot or windy days; grading activities will cease when wind speeds exceed 15 mph and during Santa Ana conditions and during Stage I smog episodes. 21 During the rainy season, erosion control dikes and sandbags shall be placed at appropriate intervals in roadway cuts. Install construction equipment wheel washes at the entrance/exits of the construction sites. Public roadways providing access to the construction sites shall be cleared of soil on a regular basis. The project site is located in a region known for its seismic activity. While no known active faults occur on the property, the site could be impacted by earthquakes generated from the Whittier, Chino and San Anderas fault zones. Seismic activity on these faults has the potential to generate strong ground shaking. Because of the proximity of the site to these active earthquake faults and the intensity of ground shaking anticipated during a major event, project development will expose people and property to geologic hazards; damage to residential structures may be experienced in a major earthquake. However, buildings designed to the standards of the Uniform Building Code will reduce this exposure to an acceptable level of risk and the effect is therefore considered insignificant. Finding: Site development may have a significant impact on the environment. However, existing regulations mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 2. Air: (a -c) Potential Impact: The proposed project will generate both short and long-term, primary and secondary air emissions. Short-term pollutants will be generated locally by construction equipment emissions and by dust from grading activities. Long-term pollutants will be generated locally from the use of natural gas for cooling and space heating and through use of the automobile by future residents. Long-term pollutants will be generated off-site at electrical generation facilities. Discussion: The project is not anticipated to result in the creation of objectionable odors, or in alteration of air movements, moisture, temperature, or climate. The project site lies within the South Coast Air Basin. The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) regulates airborne emissions within the basin. The SCAQMD has released "Guidelines For Implementing the 1989 Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The proposed project will contribute incremental quantities of air pollutants locally, at levels well below the threshold criteria suggested by the SCAQMD for determining significance. The project developer(s) is required to comply with SCAQMD Rule 403 to protect against windblown soil erosion during grading. Emissions from construction equipment are also regulated by the AQMP. The Uniform Building Code, Title 22 requires utilization of 22 energy efficient appliances and building practices. Combined, these measures minimizing the potential for significant impacts to air resources. Finding: Site development may have a significant impact on the envirorunent. However, existing regulations mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 3. Water: (a -i) Potential Impact: Site development will increase the amount of impervious surfaces on-site and result in an incremental increase in off-site runoff. Landscape irrigation will incrementally increase the amount of water absorbed into the soil. Site grading has the potential to increase erosion on-site and increase off-site siltation of down stream storm drain facilities. Discussion: Site development will not result in the need for new or upgraded off-site drainage facilities. The incremental increase in off-site runoff and on-site absorption anticipated from site development is considered insignificant. Erosion and sedimentation can be readily controlled by various management practices and techniques through an erosion control plan and NPDES permit. The grading permit and NPDES process is designed insure that potential erosion and siltation effects to water resources are maintained at a level of insignificance. Finding: Site development may have a significant impact on the environment. However, existing regulations mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 4. Plant Life: (a -d) Potential Impact: Site development will result in removal of all on-site vegetation with the exception of one oak tree within lot #3. Site grading and development in close proximity to this oak tree could destroy it. New urban landscapes will be planted by the individual home owners following development. Discussion: The project site has been severely disturbed by past grading, surface scraping and disking. The project site is disked regularly by the County for fire prevention purposes. The site is bordered on all sides by existing and or planned development. The project site is located at the extreme northwestern edge of the Tonner Canyon/Chino Hills Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15. The City has identified oak trees as a valuable resource. Oak woodlands have been rapidly decreasing in size throughout Southern California as a result of wide -spread urban development. The City has adopted an Oak Tree Permit process to protect these oak resources. While the proposed project does not propose to remove the singular oak tree on-site. The following measures shall be considered during the site plan review stage to minimize accidental damage to the oak tree. 23 a. Prior Construction Damage: The large concentration of concrete pipes stacked against the trunk and accumulated soil shall be removed. The area within the dripline should be hand aerated to rectify soil compaction which has occurred. b. Protection/Preservation Measures: . Pursuant to the City's Oak Tree Permit process, chain link fencing, with a minimum height of four (4) feet, shall be installed five (5) feet outside the tree's dripline or 15 feet from its trunk, shich ever is greater. C. Maintenance Guidelines: In addition, improper care and maintenance by the homeowner can result in damage and or death to the oak tree. The site developer and future homeowner shall be provided a copy of the Oak Tree Management Guidelines contained in the Biota report review attached hereto. Finding: Because of the small scale of the project, its disturbed nature and location adjacent to urban developments, site development is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to plant life. 5. Animal Life: (a -d) Potential Impact: Site development will result in the displacement of all wildlife onsite. Site development may result in the introduction of domestic cats and dogs onto the site and the SEA. Upon completion of landscaping, wildlife compatible with urban areas is anticipated to utilize the project site for nesting and foraging. Discussion: The wildlife potential on-site has been effectively removed due to past disturbance. Because of the existing lack of wildlife developed habitat and the adjacent development surrounding the site, the impact to sensitive wildlife is deemed non- significant. The project site is located at the extreme northwestern edge of the Tonner Canyon/Chino Hills Significant Ecological Area (SEA) No. 15. The potential impact to the SEA from site development is not considered significant. However, the following measure is recommended to help maintain the biologic integrity of the Tonner Canyon/Chino Hills SEA. a. During the site plan review stage, consideration shall be given to minimize excessive amounts of light and glare directed toward the SEA (southeast). Consideration may include architectural design, lighting location, type of lighting, use of shields and landscaping. Finding: Because of the small scale of the project, its disturbed nature and location adjacent to urban developments, site development is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to animal life. 24 6. Noise: (a -b) Potential Impact: Site development will result in the generation of both short and long- term noise. Short-term construction noise will be generated locally during the construction of each residential unit. The use of the automobile by future residents will result in an incremental increase in long-term noise levels within the community. Discussion: Ambient noise levels within the project site are considered low. Existing ambient noise is generated by low densityr residential in excess of state oroval of the project localstandards for is not anticipated to subject people to no interior and/or exterior residential uses. The project developer(s) is required to comply with existing regulations that govern construction noise, minimizing potential impacts to nearby noise receptors. Finding: Site development may have a significant impact on the environment. However, existing regulations mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance. 7. Light and Glare: Potential Impact: Site development may result in the generation of long-term light and glare. Discussion: Ambient levels of light and glare on the project site are considered low. Existing ambient light and glare is generated by low and medium density residential land uses to the north east and west as well as the 57 Freeway to the north. - Site development will add incremental quantities of light and glare to the project vicinity. No street lighting is proposed. The potential impact to the SEA from project -related light and glare is not considered significant. However, the following measure is recommended to help maintain the biologic integrity of the Tonner Canyon/Chino Hills SEA. a. During the site plan review stage, consideration shall be given to minimize excessive amounts of light and .glare directed toward the SEA (south). Consideration may include architectural design, lighting location, type of lighting, use of shields and landscaping. Finding: Because of the small scale of the project, site development is not anticipated to result in a significant generation of light and glare. 8. Land Use: Potential Impact: Approval of the proposed project will permit development of four custom homes on the project site. 25 Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the City's contemplated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project site is surrounded by existing residential and or planned residential land uses. Finding: For the reasons discussed above, site development is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to land use. 9. Natural Resources: Potential Impact: Site development will consume both renewable and non-renewable natural resources over the life of the project. Non-renewable natural resources include the use of fossil fuels (for the generation of electricity and fuel for automobiles) and natural gas (for space heating). Renewable lumber products will be used as a construction material. Discussion: Site development is not anticipated to use abnormally large quantities of natural resources. The project developers) and future homeowners are required to comply with existing regulations to reduce the generation of solid wastes to off-site landfills (AB939) and are encouraged to recycle which further minimize the consumption of natural resources. Finding: For the reasons discussed above, site development is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to natural resources. 10. Risk of Upset: (a -b) Potential Impact: Site development may involve the temporary storage of fuels and oils used by grading equipment. While the risk of spillage and or leakage of small quantities of diesel fuel or engine oil is considered remote, this potential exists at any construction site. Discussion: The project will not involve the risk of explosion or the release of hazardous substances. The project will not interfere with emergency response plans or emergency evacuation plans. The project developers is required to comply with existing regulations to protect against the risk of spillage and or leakage of toxic materials including diesel fuel and engine oil. In addition. the project developers is required to mitigate off-site waterborne construction pollutants through the existing NPDES permit process. Combined, these measures minimizing potential the risk of upset from site development. Finding: Because of the projects small scale and existing regulations in effect, the proposed project is not anticipated to result in a significant risk of upset. 26 11. Population: Potential Impact: Site development will result in a population increase of approximately 14 residents. Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the City's contemplated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project site is surrounded by existing residential and or planned residential land uses. Site development is consistent with growth projections for the project site. Finding: For the reasons discussed above, site development is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to population. 12. Housing: Potential Impact: Site development will increase the City's housing stock by four single family detached homes. Discussion: The proposed project is consistent with the City's contemplated General Plan and Zoning Ordinance. The project site is surrounded by existing residential and or planned residential land uses. Site development is consistent with growth projections for the project site. Finding: For the reasons discussed above, site development is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to housing. 13. Transportation/Circulation: (a -f) Potential Impact: Site development will generate approximately 48 average daily trips to the local circulation system. Access to the site will be provided by Steeplechase Lane, a private street having restricted access. Discussion: Because of the small scale of the proposed project, the site development will have minimal impact on existing traffic levels or circulation patterns. The project will not result in alterations to waterbome, rail or air traffic. Finding: For the reasons discussed above, site development is not anticipated to result in a significant impact to Transportation/Circulation. 14. Public Services: (a, 1-6) Potential Impact: Project development will incrementally increase the demand for public services; e.g., law enforcement, fire protection, school and park facilities. Discussion: The project will contribute development fees as required by the City for law enforcement, fire protection and public park facilities. These funds will ensure that 27 sufficient services and facilities are provided to accommodate the demand generated by this development. The project site lies with in the boundary of the Walnut Valley Unified School District. The District is experiencing overcrowding and has enacted a school impact fee mitigation program in accordance with Senate Bill 201. With the payment of impact fees, the District will provide adequate school services to facilitate the project's needs. Finding: Existing regulations mitigate potential impacts to a level of insignificance 15. Energy: (a -b) Potential Impact: Site development will consume both renewable and non-renewable energy resources. Non-renewable energy resources include fossil fuels (generation of electricity and fuel for automobiles) and natural gas (space heating and cooldng). Discussion: Site development is not anticipated to result in the use of substantial amounts of fuel, or a substantial increase in demand for energy or the development of new sources of energy. The project developers) and future homeowners are required to comply with existing regulations to reduce the use of non-renewable energy resources. These regulations include; compliance with energy efficient design standards, use of emergency efficient household appliances and recycling programs (AB939). Renewable solar energy will be used for passive space heating and cooling of residential dwellings and swimming pools. Finding: Insignificant effect. 16. Utilities: Potential Impact: Project development will incrementally increase the demand for public utilities; e.g., water and sewer service, electricity and natural gas. Discussion: Utilities are available adjacent to the project site and will be extended from Steeplechase Lane onto the project site. The project will pay connection fees as required by the City. Finding: Insignificant effect. 17. Human Health: (a -b) Potential Impact: The proposed project is not anticipated to result in the creation of any health hazards or the exposure of people to potential health hazards. Existing regulations are in-place which regulate construction materials used in residential construction. Finding: Insignificant effect. 28 18. Aesthetics: Potential Impact Approval of the proposed project will permit site development of four custom homes near the top of a ridge within the viewshed of the 57 Freeway and residential/commercial areas north of Diamond Bar Boulevard. Site development will require recontouring of the land to create residential building pads and yards. Approximately 2,300 cubic yards of earth redistribution is anticipated. Discussion: The natural appearance of the project site has been disturbed by past grading activities and contains litter from the construction of a water main along Steeplechase Lane. The project site is disked regularly by the County for fire prevention purposes. The site contains one large oak tree which is proposed to be incorporated in the design of the project. The project site is located in an area which has experienced rapid urban development. The entire site is surrounded by existing and or planned residential land uses. The project site is situated on the northern flank, near the top of a prominent ridgeline. Nearly all of the northern flank has been developed for residential land uses. The majority of the project site is visible from the 57 Freeway (from the Diamond Bar Boulevard interchange to the Pathfinder Avenue interchange in both directions). In general, .views of the site increase as the distance from the site increases. This results because the Las Brisas Condominium project and its landscaping substantially block views from the lower elevations closest to the bottom of the slope. Only limited vistas of the site can be obtained from Diamond Bar Boulevard. Upon site development, the upper portions of the four homes will be visible from the north. Site development will be seen from adjacent areas with the Baldwin development to the west, the Country development to the east. and Las Brisas Condominium project to the north. Residential land use on this site is consistent with the City's contemplated General Plan. The design of the proposed parcel map is consistent the City's zoning ordinance. This type of development will be similar in character to adjacent development on the east ("The Country Estates") and west (Baldwin Tract) and at a lower density than adjacent development on the north (Las Brisas Condominiums). The proposed project will be similar in character to planned residential development on the south (Parcel Map 1528). The project developer(s) is required to comply with the City's Hillside Management Ordinance which is designed to, preserve and protect the views to and from hillside areas in order to maintain the identity,image and environmental quality of the City of Diamond Bar". Each homesite will be required to undergo individual site plan review for conformance with the Development Review Ordinance. Combined, these measures insure that the potential adverse aesthetic impacts from site development is maintained at a level less than significant. Finding: Under these conditions, project development is not considered to be of aesthetic 29 significance. 19. Recreation: Potential Impact: Implementation of the proposed project will incrementally increase the demand on the City's existing recreational facilities. Discussion: In accordance with State regulations, the City requires the payment of in -lieu park improvement fees for developments of this size. The City utilizes this fee to acquire and/or improve new park and recreation facilities. Finding: Insignificant effect. 20. Cultural Resources: (a -d) Potential Impact: Approximately 2,300 cubic yards of earth redistribution will be required to construct residential building pads. Discussion: A records search and site investigation for cultural resources was preformed in February 1993. The records survey indicated that no cultural resources have been identified on-site or within a one -mile radius of the project site. The pedestrian survey did not find any evidence of cultural resources on-site. The archaeologist concluded that development of the project site poses no threat to known cultural resources. Finding: Insignificant effect. 21. Mandatory Findings of Significance: a. Discussion: The project site has been previously disturbed by grading activities. The site is disked on a regular basis by the County for fire prevention purposes. The site is fenced on the north, east and west. No rare or endangered species have been observed on or are anticipated to utilize the project in it's current state. No cultural resources have been reported within a one mile radius of the project site and none were observed during a site investigation. Finding: The project does not have the potential to degrade the quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife species to drop below self sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate or significantly reduce a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory. b. Discussion: The proposed project implements the long-term goals of the City's contemplated General Plan for development of this site and completes the improvement of Steeplechase Lane. 30 Finding: The project will not have the potential to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage of long-term, environmental goals. C. Discussion: Site development will continue the planned implementation of the City's contemplated General Plan for this area. Increased urbanization adjacent and within significant ecological areas will increase pressure on those species sensitive to urban encroachment. Continued urban development within Diamond Bar will increase long-term service demands on public service and utility companies. Continued urban development will increase the number of automobiles utilizing local roadway and may necessitate the need for new and/or improved roadways. Long range infrastructure planning is based on the level of development anticipated by buildout of the contemplated General Plan. The proposed project and others approved in the project vicinity are consistent with the contemplated General Plan. Finding: The cumulative impact of the proposed project combined with other planned developments in the project vicinity is not considered significant. d. Discussion: The project does not involve the use of hazardous materials, pose the risk of explosion nor is it located in close proximity to such uses. Finding: The approval of the proposed Parcel Map, Conditional Use Permit, Oak Tree Permit, and ultimate construction of four custom homes is not anticipated to cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. DETERNIINATION: I find that although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because the mitigation measures described herein have been added to the project. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION WILL BE PREPARED. 31 DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION SEPTEMBER 1,.1998 5:00 P.M. OFF-SITE PARKING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS OFF SITE PARKING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS MOTION #1 INCREASE ENFORCEMENT OF PARKING REGULATIONS Current Enforcement: Los Angeles County Sheriff s Department Options: 1) Redeployment of Community Service Officers — Utilize one CSO for report taking/writing and assign one CSO for parking enforcement in the City. Cost Estimate: No additional expenditures. Implementation: Sheriffs Scheduling, 2 weeks. 2) Community Service Officer/Overtime — Create overtime hours for a CSO to perform parking enforcement as a primary assignment . Deployment could be for the CSO to work four overtime hours per day, five days per week, for one year. Cost Estimate: $21,500. Implementation: After City Council budget approval, two weeks, as overtime hours are filled. 3) Community Service Officer/Full-Time — Amend contract with the Sheriff s Department for an additional full-time CSO. Assignment would be parking enforcement. Cost Estimate: $27,756. Implementation: City Council contract/budget amendment, one month. 4) Sheriff Parking Control Officer - Increase contract with Sheriff s Department for part-time or full-time Parking Control Officer. Cost Estimate: $28,817 - $57,634 Implementation: City Council contract/budget amendment, one month. 5) Code Enforcement Officer/Citation Authority — Create the necessary Ordinance/Resolutions to authorize the position of Code Enforcement Officer to have citation authority for issuance of parking citations. Cost Estimate: $0, $42,500, $69,000 (no cost allocation of current Code Enforcement Officer; part-time position, with vehicle/training; full-time position, with vehicle/training). Implementation: Four months for the implementation of the citation authority approval and training. 6) Diamond Bar Public Service Officer — Create a new position of Public Service Officer for the issuance of parking citations. Cost Estimate: $35,000 - $70,000, part- time or full-time position, training and vehicle. Implementation: Four to six months, creation of the position, citation authority, recruitment and training. 7) Volunteer Enforcement of Parking Regulations — City Council pass the necessary Ordinance/Resolution to create a City Volunteer Group, to issue parking citations as a part of their assignments. The Volunteers would need to be recruited, trained and supervised by the City. The City would need to cover the Volunteers with the necessary insurance (Worker's Compensation/Liability Insurance). Cost Estimate: $30,000 to $65,000 (vehicle, uniforms, training, and insurance). IIMplementation: Three to six months to adopt the necessary ordinance/resolutions, recruitment, training, and purchasing. OFF SITE PARKING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS MOTION #2 PUBLIC INFORMATION CAMPAIGN Options: 1) Develop a Pamphlet to be Sent to All Homes. The pamphlet would explain existing ,pertinent regulations. The pamphlet could be sent via the City's Newsletter or the Windmill. Pamphlet could also be placed on vehicles violating the parking restrictions. Cost Estimate: Will depend on size, and distribution of pamphlet. Implementation: Varies on distribution, estimation of two months. 2) Develop a Public Service Announcement to be Aired on CATV - Develop a video segment for general information on existing parking regulations as part of the CATV show " Diamond Bar Where the Action Is". The PSA could also be shown at various times on Channel 12 and Channel 17. Cost Estimate: Staff Time Implementation: Need to coordinate with Chamber, Century Communications and develop the appropriate script. 3) Prepare Press Releases for Distribution to All Newspapers. Press Releases could be on different parking regulations topics. Cost Estimate: Staff Time. implementation: Two weeks. 4) City On Line/Internet - Place information on the City's BBS and on the Internet Page. Cost Estimate: Staff Time IMlementation: Two weeks. 5) Information Hotline - As mentioned in Motion #3, establish and advertise an information hotline regarding the enforcement of parking regulations. Residents could leave messages/complaints/requests. If they would like a return message, staff would call back in 24 hours. Cost Estimate: Staff Time (would use existing hotline number) Implementation: Two weeks. OFF SITE PARKING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS MOTION #3 pARKING TICKET ENFORCEMENT DATA Sheriffs Department writes the parking citations. The citations are left Current Status: 's parking Administrator for on the vehicles and forwarded to the City payment processing. k Force Recommendation: Council desires igation of the Sheriffs Department, if the City Based upon review/invest ed exactly in the to collect the data as describmotion, officer o is wouldcause the Sheriffs additional 3 to 5 minutes writing each citation. Department to fill out the additional data sheet reuir month. Currently, upontheeas Department is issuing approximately 100 citationsp steps would average additional 3 to 5 minutes per citation, h rec This does oe notincludethe additional time to approximately 8 man hours per mon analyze the data. As a result, there will be a decrease in the time of the new forme enforcement of the parking regulations, due to the filling out he information desired by the task force is: ..11 What time of day or night, what day of T where was the location commercial or residential, what week - weekday or holiday, art of the City was it in, what was the violation, who wrote ted ticket/citationcer o (was , P was viola Sheriff s Department, Code Enforcement), warnings were issued, what was the called in by a resident or other party, how many action taken and when (figures by the week and by the month), did the citations increase or decrease over a period of time..." Options: ffl� Re�ommendali Currently, the following information is written on the District (Map attached); citation: Time of Day; Date; Location - Address only; Dist Violatioze the data. n; Who wrote the citation. Cost Estimate: Time tocitations a for he months of i,,,,,1P*nentation: Sheriffs Department reviews the parking October, November and December. reate the 2) Task Force Recomm� Request the Sheriff s Department ?te: to cAdditional 8 necessary additional form to gather all requested data. �- Sheriff s man hours per month, plus development/implementation cost. Irnnhtation De artment reviews the parking citations for the months of October, November and P December. tri 0 co ;a OFF SITE PARKING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS MOTION #5 CONSIDER DISPENSATION/PERMIT PROGRAM FOR PARKING UNATTACHED TRAILER AND BOATS ON CITY STREETS FOR A PERIOD OF 24 HOURS Current Status: It is a violation of the City's Municipal Code to park an unattached trailer or boat on a City Street (DBMC 10.16.190). In addition, there are areas within the City which prohibit parking during various times (adjacent to schools). Options: 1) Create an An 1 Parking it Program - The annual parking permit program is used to identify a vehicle which can park annually on local streets. See attached draft Policy and program. 2) Create a Temnnrary Prking Permit Program - The temporary parking permit program is used to identify a vehicle which can park up to five days on the street. See attached and draft policy and program. 3) Create a Weight - To protect the safety and condition of the neighborhood streets, it is recommended that it be unlawful for any person to park: (1) any motor vehicle over 6,000 pounds maximum gross vehicle weight (CVC 35701(a)); or (2) any motor vehicle over 7 feet in width; or (3) any motor vehicle with a length of more than 25 feet. 4)_ Preferen ial Parkin Prig - Establish preferential parking districts within the different parking regulations, DBMC Division 6, Title 10 (Attached). Cost City. The residents request the establishment of the district, each district could create Estimate: Unknown, signage. Implementation• Varies. An application for . Applicant v s Name ❑ NEW 13 RENEWAL ❑ REPLACEMENT APPLICATi N FOR PARKING F -RMIT �- applica- on Fee Parking permit(s) is herebv submitted for the following property and vehicles as identified below: Date (last tee) (first name) Applicant I s Phone Address No. Type of building at above address (check one) ❑ single family home ❑ condominimum ❑ apartment ❑ other Permit Request number of permits requested For muiltiple family rental units only Manager s number of on site parking spaces Name number of current permits rhone No. Below list all rno,etarari rnnt^. • -i.. 1 ._.L._L City use only ess APPROVED FOR PERMITO SUEMITTAL DATE - - - - - ..•� +� �,o,,. aiaou at me ermtt anal DATE PAID ISSUED:DY DENIAL DATE CURRENT VEHICLE APPEAL DATE DECISION � � � ate■ CALIFORNIA LICENSE YEAR OF MAKE OF MODEL OF REGISTRATION NUMBER VEHICLE VEHICLE VEHICLE (yes or no) 1 2 3 4 5 6 City use only ess APPROVED FOR PERMITO SUEMITTAL DATE PERMIT FEES PERMIT NUMBERS ISSUED APPROVAL DATE PERMIT DEPOSIT ISSUE DATE DATE PAID ISSUED:DY DENIAL DATE REASON APPEAL DATE DECISION � � � ate■ Approval assumes the vehicle is in compliance with all program regulations (application continued on the back) DRAFT 1. The parking permit(s) must be displayed at all times when a vehicle is parked in the street. 2. A parking permit(s) shall only be displayed in a vehicle identified as "APPROVED" on the application. 3. The parking permit(s) shall not be used on any approved vehicle when it is more than 300', from the applicant's residence. 4. The parking permit is not an authorization to violate any association, local, state or federal parking regulations. S. The parking permit must be displayed in the front left portion of the driver's front window (windshield), not less than 2", nor more than 6", below the upper edge of the window glass. Nothing shall be placed in the vehicle or on the glass which will obstruct the visibility of the permit from the street side of the vehicle. The parking permit shall not be displayed on any recreation vehicle, commercial vehicle, boat, camping trailer, utility trailer, special purpose trailer, inoperable vehicle, unregistered vehicle, or out of state registered vehicle. PERMIT APPLI ANT OIJALIFICATIONS 1. The applicant must be of legal age to operate a motor vehicle. 2. The applicant must possess a valid California drivers license. 3. The applicant must have his/her principal residence within the City of Diamond Bar. 4. The applicant must reside at the address for which the permit is being applied. S. The property must be in compliance with all City codes prior to application submittal. 6. The property must be zoned for residential use. STATE—MEN-1-OF PERMIT 01JALIFICATION I, the undersigned, certify that under the provisions of the City of Diamond Bar's Parking Permit Program I am entitled to the number of permits requested by this application. I have reviewed the Parking Permit Policies and Procedures Manual. I understand the regulations pertaining to the use of a parking permit, and I agree to comply with said regulations. Further, I understand that failure to comply with these regulations may result in some form of legal action by the City. Such action may include the revocation of any permits, issuance of parking citations, the filing of a criminal complaint or any combination of these actions. Applicant's Signature Date DRAFT PARKING PERMIT APPLICATION INSTRUCTIONS These instructions are being provided to assist you in filling out the application form correctly, therefore, minimizing the processing time required to review your request. Incomplete or incorrect information will result in significant delays in completing the review process and will likely result in the denial of a parking permit. Type of Permit - mark the appropriate box indicating whether this is a new permit, renewal of an existing permit, or a replacement of a lost or damaged permit. Applicant's Name - name of person requesting permit. Date - date application is submitted for review. Applicant's Address - residential address of person requesting permit (permit will be assigned to this address only). Phone No. - indicate telephone number where applicant can be reached during the day. Type of Building - indicate the type of residential building that is at applicant's address. Permit Request - indicate the number of permits the applicant is requesting, the number of parking spaces which exist on site (include all garage, carport, driveway and pad areas which were originally designed as parking areas regardless of their current use), and the number of parking permits that have already been issued to the applicant's address. Manager Name/Phone No. - applicant's who live in multi -unit complexes only list the manager's name and telephone number. Vehicle License No. - indicate the license number of each registered vehicle at the applicant's address. - Vehicle Year - indicate the model year of the vehicle. Vehicle Make - indicate the manufacturer of the vehicle to be permitted. Vehicle Model - indicate the model of the vehicle to be permitted. Current California Registration - indicate with a yes or no whether the vehicle has a current California registration. Applicant's Signature/Date - the person applying for the permit must sign and date the form. NOTICE Applicant assumes responsibility for the accuracy of all information provided on the application and compliance with all parking permit requirements. Should it be determined that any information is incorrect or the permit requirements are being violated after permit(s) have been issued the City may suspend or revoke said permit(s). Applications which have not been completely filled out will be returned to the applicant for completion prior to issuance of any permits. 2 rte• ,•.-. .. DEE ITTITIONS L The following definitions have been developed to help clarify the intentions of the Parking Permit. These definitions shall apply only to this policy and may not be consistent other City regulations. with similar definitions in APPLICANT The person whose name appears on the parking permit application. The applicant must be a resident of Diamond Bar, reside at the address shown on the application, be in legal possession of the vehicle(s) for which a permit is being requested, and be of legal age to operate the vehicle. APPROVED VEHICLE Any vehicle currently registered in the State of California, under the control of the property owner/tenant, in compliance operating on public streets, has as its primary function the most current California Vehicle Code requirements for Peounction the trans Special Purpose Vehicles shall not be considered Approved Vehicles egardlesslof their place. e fromee 1 Of compliance with this definition. MULTIPLE FAMILY RESIDENCE One or more structures containing a total of two or more dwelling units on a parcel of land and which was designed for and intended for use by two or more families. NEIGHBORHOOD All property within 300 feet of the of the property for which a permit has been issued. NON -ACCESSIBLE PARKING SPACE Those parking areas which are designed and intended for the parking of vehicles but are actually available for parking due to actions b the roe not ypically these actions would include, among other things, the conversion of garage rot or pace to other uses, using the parking area for storage of goods or materials, construction of walls or fences across parking areas, storage/parking of non -approved vehicles in such a manner that they block access to other vacant parking spaces. ON SITE PARKING Any hard surface area of sufficient size to provide a parking space d which has direct hard surface access to a public way intended for use by vehicles. an PARKING AREA Those hard surface areas including garages, carports, driveways, and parking pads whose Primary design and intended use is a place for vehicles to park. 3 Wed. ZjiQ ■ PARKING SPACE vehicle will be left A portion of the parking area which has been assigned n the ped as an area three (3) lace where a vehfeet wider than standing for any period of time. The space shall be defin the widest vehicle dimension and three (3) feet longer than the vehicle's longest dimension. PERMIT OFFICERcoordinate the day to day activities of the program. A member of the City staff designated to RECREATION VEHICLE Purposes, Any vehicle which is designed for and intended to be used Primarilyftrailecrs, boats, a11t terrain including but not limited to such vehicles as motor homes, camping vehicles, aircraft or any type of vehicle designed for competitive racing. REGISTERED VEHICLE provided Any vehicle which is legally licensed by a governmental agency (such as a state), p such license authorizes said vehicle to travel the public roadways. SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE a arcel of land and which was A single structure containing one dwelling unit occupying p designed for and intended to be used by one family. SPECIAL PURPOSE VEHICLES ecific uses other than those for Approved Vehicles Vehicles which have been designed for sp including such vehicles as recreational vehicles, motor ent s�ommerc al vehiclels, military boats, competitive racing vehicles, construction equipment, vehicles, airplanes, off-road vehicles or vehicles rated over 3/4 ton (1,500 lbs.). STORED VEHICLE standing in one parking. space for seventy-two (72) hours or more Any vehicle which remains without any evidence of being moved and providing some benefit to the owner. 4 rmb J-7 MCI DRoftift Ar TYPES OF PERMITS The Parking Permit Program has established the "annual permit", and the "temporary permit" to provide a flexible permit process which serves the unique needs of various parking situations. Anyone or a permit should review the ions below, most appropriate Permit descri considering applying fand determine the Permit to address their specific situation. Applying for the wrong permit could result in a permit being declared null and void after it is issued. If there are any questions regarding which type of permit is appropriate for a specific situation, contact the Permit Officer, at (909) 396-5671. ANNUAL PERMIT The annual permit is used to identify a vehicle which cannot park on private property due to a parking area which is not sufficiently large enough to meet the property owner/test's long term needs.Thi permit will be issued to the property based on the information provided on the application. The pen -nit may be affixed to any approved vehicle at that address which is in compliance with all of the conditions and restrictions set forth in this manual. To apply for a permit the property owner/tenant must fill out an application and submit it alongwith the processing fee to the Permit Officer. The application will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy of the information provided and those found to be acceptable will be processed. Upon completion of the processing, the permit will be mailed toe with address on the application instructions regarding the display of the permit. TEMPORARY PERMIT The temporary permit is used to identify a vehicle, which cannot park on private property due to a medium term condition which does not allow the available parking area to meet the property owner/tenant's needs. Typically, the temporary P P rty storage for construction materials, replacement o parking areawoulhard suurrfface buying/sellor use of fl he m o f area as (transition from old to new vehicle), temporary story a of g vehicles apply for a permit, the Property g Personal belongings or vehicle repairs. To P perty owner/tenant fill out an application and submit it along with the Processing fee to the permit officer. The permit application will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy of the information provided and those found to be acceptable will be processed. Upon completion of the processing, a limited period permit (24 hours to 5 days) will be given to the applicant with instructions regarding the display of the permit. Any person of legal age to operate a motor vehicle who is a resident of the City of Diamond Bar may apply for a parking permit. The applicant should evaluate the different types of permits and complete an application form for the permit which meets their specific need. The completed form along with the processing fee and any required deposit may be hand delivered Monday -Friday between the hours of 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. to the Permit Officer in the Public Works Division at the City of Diamond Bar, 21660 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. All applications received will be evaluated for completeness and accuracy of the information related to the type of permit requested. Those applications not found to be complete will be rejected and the applicant informed of the reason(s) for the rejection. The applicant may submit a revised application for re-evaluation. When an application is determined to be complete the permit(s) requested will be presented to the applicant or mailed to the address to which it has been assigned. The permit may be affixed to any approved vehicles at that address in accordance with the established standards for displaying the permit. Proper placement and attachment of the permit shall be the responsibility of the applicant. Failure to properly display the permit may result in a citation being issued as specified in Ordinance # , Section Should a permit be lost, stolen, damaged, or defaced during the period of time for which it was issued, the original applicant may apply for a new permit. The applicant shall verify that the information on the original application is still accurate or provide information regarding any changes in status. Upon paying the replacement fee the replacement application will be processed and a new permit issued. Any person found to be in possession of and using a permit which has been declared lost, stolen, damaged or defaced may be prosecuted for a misdemeanor violation as specified in Ordinance Section 6 ftwo IT OIIALIFI ATION RTT'Ci27e k � r The following criteria has been established as the requirements for qualification of any individual and Property desiring to obtain a parking permit to park on any public street. General I • The applicant must be of legal age to operate a motor vehicle. 2. The applicant must have a valid California drivers license. 3. The applicant must reside at the address for which the permit is being applied. 4. The property must be in compliance with all City Code requirements for on site parking before applying for a parking permit. 'These requirements include: a) All required garage parking spaces must be available for the parking of vehicles. b) All parking areas must be free of any materials or obstructions which would block access to one or more parking spaces or vehicles. C) Vehicles shall not park in a manner which obstructs access to other vacant parking spaces. S. Only properties zoned for residential use shall be eligible for a permit. Properties zoned for residential use but occupied by some other use shall not be entitled to any permit. Erlj/ The following restrictions have been established for the use and display of parking permits on any vehicle which is parked on any public street. 1. The permit shall be displayed in accordance with the Permit Display Standards on page 1 of this policy. 2. The permit shall only be displayed on one of the vehicles identified as approved during the application review process. 3. The permit shall only be displayed on a vehicle when the vehicle is within 300 feet of the property to which the permit is assigned. 4. The permit shall not be transferred to or used in conjunction with any property except the property to which it is issued. 5. The permit shall not authorize the applicant or any other individual to violate any other parking regulations adopted by any other governing body including any homeowner association, local, state or federal agency. The permit shall be valid for the time period indicated ou the permit unless a written notice is given by the City of Diamond Bar changing the time period. The permit shall not be valid until all required fees established by the City Council have been paid. The maximum number of permits which will be issued to an address shall be as follows: a) single family residence - 2 permits b) each multi -family residence unit - 1 permit C) for Temporary Permits there is no limit to the number of permits that may be issued. However, each request will be considered separately and each request must comply with all of the permit requirements stated above. d) requests for additional permits will be evaluated to establish need prior to issuance of additional permits. 8 m '_.0 Because the parking permit is transportable among various vehicles at an address the following standards have been developed to define how and where the permit must be displayed. Failure to comply with these standards could result in the issuance of a parking citation even though a property has been issued a permit and the permit may be within the vehicle. The requirements for display include: The parking permit must be continuously displayed in the vehicle while it is parked on any public street within the neighborhood to which the permit is assigned. The permit shall be considered displayed when it complies all of the following criteria: a) the permit is located on the driver's side of the windshield. b) the upper edge of the permit is not less than two inches (2") nor more than six inches (6") below the upper edge of the windshield. C) nothing is placed in or on the vehicle which will obscure the visibility of the permit from the street side of the vehicle. d) nothing shall be done to the permit to deface or obscure the permit. e) the permit is attached to the vehicle in such a manner that it is clearly visible from the street side of the vehicle. f) the permit may be attached to the vehicle by any means chosen by the applicant, however, the applicant assumes all responsibility should the method of attachment fail and the permit become dislodged. Display of a permit which has expired or been declared null and void may result in the vehicle's owner being prosecuted for a misdemeanor. violation under Section Ordinance# of 9 DRAFT i REVOCATION PROCESS Permits which have been issued, are subject to revocation for failure to comply with the conditions and restrictions of this policy. At such time as the Permit Officer becomes aware of a possible non- compliant condition an inspection will be conducted to evaluate the situation. Upon determination of a non=compliance condition, a "Notice of Non -Compliance" will be sent to the permit applicant at the address listed on the application form The notice will include the nature of the non-compliant condition(s) and will establish a date by which the condition must be corrected. After that date, a re- inspection will be conducted to determine the current status of the conditions(s). If the conditions(s) is found to still exist a "Notice of Revocation" will be issued to the applicant. This notice shall set a time and date when the permit will become null and void. Revocation shall be considered an action against the property to which the permit was issued. For a period of six months from the date of revocation no permit application received from that property will be evaluated nor will a permit be issued. After six months a new application may be submitted. The application will be evaluated based on program regulations in effect at the time of the new submittal. APPEAL PROCESS The applicant for a parking permit may appeal the decision of the Permit Officer to the City Manager or his/her Designee. Any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk, in writing, within ten business days from the date a written decision is issued by the Permit Officer. The appeal in writing, shall be accompanied by the fee required for the filing of any such appeal which fee shall be set by the City Council by Resolution. Upon the receipt of an appeal in writing, the City Clerk shall set a hearing before the City Manager or his/her Designee. The decision of the City Manager or his/her Designee may be appealed to the City Council. Any such appeal shall be filed with the City Clerk, in writing, within ten business days from the date a written decision is issued by the City Manager or his/her Designee. The appeal in writing, shall be accompanied by the fee required for the filing of any such appeal which fee shall be set by the City Council by Resolution. Upon the receipt of an appeal in writing, the City Clerk shall set a hearing before the City Council. HEARING BEFORE CITY MANAGER At the time and place set for the appeal hearing before the City Manager or his/her Designee, the City Manager or his/her Designee shall review the decision of the Permit Officer and shall afford the appellant a reasonable opportunity to be heard in connection therewith. Upon consideration of the 10 K E evidence presented to the City Manager or his/her Designee at the � e� v y Manager or his/her Desi y hearing on the appeal, the City Designee may sustain the action of the Permit Officer, modify the action or reverse the action as a result of information presented at the hearing. The City Manager or his/her Designee may continue the hearing on the appeal from time to time if such continuance is deemed warranted in the Manager's sole discretion. Upon conclusion of the appeal hearing, the City Manager or his/her Designee shall within ten (10 business days, issue a resolution of findings and determinations with respect to the appeal. The decision of the City Manager -or his/her Designee shall be the final step in the appeal process. NOTICE OF CITY MANAGER DETERMINATION A copy of the determination of the City Manager or his/her Designee shall be mailed to the property owner, or other person in control or in charge of the permit within five (5) business days of making the determination. LL IL EXHIBIT "A" PARKING PERMIT FEES New annual permit application $10.00 New temporary permit application $5.00 Replacement permit application $5.00 Appeal process $30.00 12 L § 10.16.1030 DIAMOND BAR CODE Sec. 10.16.1030. Notice to owner of removed vehicle. Whenever the sheriff removes a vehicle from a highway as a orized by this division, and he knows or is able to ascertain from the registration ds in the vehicle or from the registration records of the state department of motor v icles the name and address of the owner thereof, the sheriff immediately shall notify i 'ting such owner of the fact of such removal, the grounds thereof, and of the place tow ch such vehicle has been removed. If any such vehicle is stored in a public garage, he sh deliver a copy of such notice to the proprietor of the garage. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.530), 6 -27 - Sec. 10.16.1040. Notice to.deparfinent of motor vehicles required in certain circum- stances. Whenever the sheriff emoving a vehicle from a highway under this division does not know and is not able t ascertain the name of the owner of such vehicle, as provided in this division, and if the v isle is not returned to the owner within a period of 120 hours, then and in that event the eriff immediately shall send a written report of such removal by mail to the department of otor vehicles at Sacramento, and shall file a copy of such notice with the proprietor o any public garage in which the vehicle may be stored. He shall make such report Zeof urnished by such department. The report shall include a complete description of the e date, time and place from which removed, the grounds for such removal, and the e garage or place where the vehicle is stored. 4(1989), § 2(15.64.540), 6-27-89) Secs. 10.16.1050-10.16.1200. Reserved. DIVISION 6. PREFERENTIAL PARKING Sec. 10.16.1210. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this division, shall have the mean- ings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Dwelling unit means a house, apartment, condominium, mobilehome or other type of residence, in conformance with the city's zoning ordinance and related zoning maps, having an address assigned consistent with the house numbering maps maintained by the city. Apart- ments having numbers or letters assigned in addition to the street address shall be deemed as a dwelling unit. Employee of merchant means any person employed by a merchant within a preferential parking district. Guest means any person visiting or intending to visit, for any purpose, either a resident or merchant located in a preferential parking district. CD10:36 § 10.16.1250 DIAMOND BARZODE within a preferential parking district shall be subject to the parking restrictions and penalties as provided in this division. (b) A preferential parking permit shall not guarantee or reserve to the holder thereof an on -street parking space within the designated preferential parking district. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.640), 6.27-89) Sec. 10.16.1260. Exemption of certain vehicles. No person shall, without a permit therefor, park or leave standing any vehicle or trailer in a preferential parking district in excess of the parking restrictions authorized pursuant to this division, except for the following: (1) Repair, maintenance, refuse, utility, fuel or delivery vehicles doing business in the preferential parking district, and (2) Vehicles delivering life.support and health commodities to residential areas and schools located in the preferential parking district. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.650), 6-27-89) Sec. 10.16.1270. Exemption of emergency g c3' vehicles. The provisions of the state exemption of emergency vehicles shall apply in preferential parking districts. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.660), 6-27-89) Sec. 10.16.1280. Application for and duration of permit. Except as otherwise provided, each parking permit issued by the city engineer shall be valid for the period set forth in the ordinance establishing the district. Permits may be re- newed upon reapplication in the manner prescribed by the city engineer. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.670), 6-27-89) Sec. 10.16.1290. Permit fees. The fee for a preferential parking permit shall be established by order of the city council. In the absence of any such order, the fee shall be $2.00. (Ord. No. -14(1989), § 2(15.64.680), 6-27-89) Sec. 10.16.1300. Deposit of permit fees. Permit fees collected under the provisions of this division shall be paid into the treasury of the city, and deposited in the preferential parking program fund. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.690), 6.27.89) Sec. 10.16.1310. Penalty provisions, (a) Unless exempted by provisions of this division, no person shall stand or park a motor vehicle in any preferential parking district established pursuant to this division in violation CD10:38 § 10.16.1340 DIAMOND BAR CODE Sec. 10.16.1340. Dissolving a dict. The designation process as set forth in this division shall be utilized by the city council determining whether to dissolve a preferential parking district. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.730), 6-27-89) in CRF'rER 10.20. ABANDONED OR INOPERATIVE VEJUCLES* Sec. 10.20.010. Vehicles deemed public nuisance in certain cases; statutory ry authority., In addition to and in accordance with the determination made and the authority by the state under Vehicle Code § 22660 to remove abandoned or anted erative vehicles or parts thereof as public nuisances, the city council hereby makes the fol. lowing findings and declarations: The accumulation and storage mantled or inoperative vehicles orof parts thereof on private or blicb�perty, wrecked, Vis_ to highways, is found to create a condition tending to reduce the value of private property, promote blight and deterioration to ' property, not including attractive nuisance creating a hazard to the health and safe of g, to create fire hazards, to constitute an for rodents and insects, and to be in' safety mors, to create a harborage the presence of an abandoned, injurious to the health, safety and general welfare. Therefore, private or public property, wrecked, dismantled or inoperative vehicle, or parts thereof, on P party, not including highways, except asressl chapter, is declared to constitute a ublic nuisance which maP Y Permitted in this with the provisions of this chapter. Y be abated as such in accordance (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.80,010), 6-27.89) Sec. 10.20.020. Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this chapter, shall have the mean. ings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a di meaning. fferent Owner of land means the owner of the land on which the vehicle, or parts thereof, is located, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll. Owner of vehicle means the last registered owner and legal owner of record. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.80.020), 6-27-89) Cross reference—Definitions generally, § 1.00.070. Sec. 10.20.030. Chapter provisions not exclusive. This chapter is not the exclusive regulation of abandoned, wrecked, dismantled or ino - erative vehicles within the city. It shall supplement and be in addition to the other regulatory P *Cross reference Solid waste, recyclable and comPostable materials, ch. 8.16. State law reference—Authority to establish abatement and removal procedures, Vehicle Code § 22660. CD10:40 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC § 10.16.1330 of any parking restrictions established pursuant to this division. A violation of this section shall constitute an infraction. (b) No person shall falsely represent himself as eligible for a parking permit or furnish false information to the city engineer in an application for a -preferential parking permit. (c) No permit issued pursuant to this division shall thereafter be assigned, transferred or used for any consideration, monetary or otherwise. (d) No person shall copy, produce or create a facsimile or counterfeit parking permit, nor shall any person use or display a facsimile or counterfeit preferential parking district permit. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.700), 6-27-89) Sec. 10.16.1320. Permit revocation procedure. (a) Any permittee who has violated the provisions of subsections (b), (c) or (d) of section 10.16.1310 shall be subject to having the permit revoked, and shall be notified in writing of the permit revocation. Upon notification of such revocation, the permittee shall, within 15 working . days of receipt of such notice, either surrender the permit to the city engineer or request, in writing, a hearing before the city engineer or designated representative. (b) A timely request for a hearing made within 15 days of the receipt of the notice of revocation shall stay any revocation until five working days after the hearing decision is rendered. (c) A hearing shall be held by the city engineer or designated representative, unless continued by agreement, within five working days of the request for a hearing. At the hearing, any person may present evidence or argument as to whether the permittee has violated any provisions of this division and whether the permit should be revoked. (d) A decision shall be rendered, by the -city engineer or designated representative within five working days after the close of the hearing. (e) The city engineer or designated representative may give oral notice of the decision at the close of the hearing, or may send notice of the decision by mail to the permittee. The decision of the city engineer or designated representative shall be final and conclusive. (f) If the revoked permit is not surrendered, the sheriff's department shall be notified so that appropriate enforcement action may be taken against the vehicle with the revoked permit the same as any other vehicle parking in the district without a permit. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.710), 6-27-89) Sec. 10.16.1330. Visitor permits. The rules governing the issuance of visitor permits shall be specified in the ordinance establishing the district. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.720), 6-27-89) CD10:39 VEHICLES AND TRAFFIC § 10.16.1250 Merchant means a person who, as proprietor, operates a commercial business involved in the retailing of goods or services within a preferential parking district. Preferential parking district or district means a residential area with streets or boundaries designated by the ordinance establishing the district, wherein vehicles displaying a valid permit shall be exempt from parking restrictions established pursuant to this division. Resident means a person who lives in a dwelling unit located in a preferential parking district. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.600), 6.27-89) Cross reference—Definitions generally, § 1.00.070. Sec. 10.16.1220. Designation of districts. The city council may, by ordinance, at its discretion or upon receipt of a petition signed by residents or merchants living or working in two-thirds of the dwelling units or businesses comprising not less than 50 percent of the developed frontage of the area proposed for desig- nation, designate a certain area to be a preferential parking district. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.610), 6-27-89) Sec. 10.16.1230. Issuance of permits. (a) Parking permits for preferential parking districts shall be issued by the city engineer. (b) The number of permits to be issued to any one dwelling unit or to any merchant's business establishment, including its employees, shall be determined by the parking condi- tions within each district and set forth in the ordinance establishing the district. (c) Parking permits may be issued only to the following persons: residents, merchants, employees of merchants, or guests within the prescribed preferential parking district. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.620), 6-27-89) Sec. 10.16.1240. Posting signs in permit parldng area. Upon the adoption by the city council of an ordinance designating a preferential parking district and the specified parking regulations applicable thereto, the city engineer shall cause appropriate signs to be erected in the district, indicating prominently thereon the parking limitation, period of the day for its application, and the fact that motor vehicles with valid permits shall be exempt therefrom. (Ord. No. 14(1989), § 2(15.64.630), 6-27.89) Sec. 10.16.1250. Permit parldng exemption. (a) A motor vehicle on which is displayed a valid parking permit affixed to the left side of the rear bumper shall be permitted to stand or be parked in the preferential parking district for which it is issued without being limited by parking restrictions established pursuant to this division. Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section, all other motor vehicles parked CD10:37 OFF SITE PARKING TASK FORCE RECOMMENDATIONS MOTION #6 CONSIDER NO PARKING ON STREET SWEEPING DAYS Current Status: Street sweeping is conducted bi-weekly. There are no restrictions to parking on the streets during the street sweeping days, resulting in the street sweeper going around parked vehicles and missing that portion of curb and gutter. Options: 1) Create No Parking on Street Sweeping. Days - The City provides, through a contract, street sweeping services for health, safety, and community aesthetics. The Task Force recommended the implementation of No Parking on Street Sweeping Days throughout the City. Cost Estimate: The cost to post signs at all entrances to neighborhoods and cul de sacs would be approximately $136,000. Implementation: City Council would create an Ordinance, and signs would be ordered and installed within two months.