HomeMy WebLinkAbout9/16/2003THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY ADELPHIA FOR AIRING ON
CHANNEL 17, AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR
PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE -BROADCAST
EVERY SATURDAY AT 9:00 A.M. AND EVERY TUESDAY AT 6:30 P.M. ON
CHANNEL 3.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003
STUDY SESSION: 5:30 p.m.
Resolution No. 2003-53
Ordinance No. 2003-03
DISCUSSION REGARDING LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE OF PRIVATE
SLOPES
Public Comments
CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor
INVOCATION: Monsignor James Loughnane,
St. Denis Catholic Church
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, O'Connor, Zirbes,
Mayor Pro Tem Huff, Mayor Herrera
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
BUSINESS OF THE MONTH:
1.1 Presentation of City Tile to Grand Mobil as Business of the Month,
September 2003 and display of Business of the Month video — Continued
from September 2, 2003.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each
regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to
directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to
the public
that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda. Although the
City
Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council generally
cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted agenda. Please
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
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.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT: Under the Brown Act, members of the
City Council may briefly respond to public comments but no extended discussion
and no action on such matters may take place.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION MEETING — September 18, 2003 — 7:00
p.m., Government Center/AQMD Room CC -8, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
5.2 YOUTH MASTER PLAN STAKEHOLDERS MEETING - September 20,
2003 — 9:00 a.m., Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon
Road.
5.3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — September 23, 2003 — 7:00 p.m.,
Government Center/AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Dr.
5.4 GERNDAL/ADEL NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING WITH CALTRANS -
September 24, 6:30 p.m., Government Center/AQMD Room CC -6,
21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar.
5.4 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING -
September 25, 2003, 7:00 p.m., Government Center/AQMD Hearing
Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
5.5 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE — October 3 — 7:00 p.m., Walnut/Diamond
Bar Sheriff's Station, 21895 E. Valley Boulevard, Walnut.
5.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — October 7, 2003 — 6:30 p.m., Government
Center/AQMD Auditorium, 21865 E. Copley Drive.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular meeting of August 12,
2003, and Adjourned Regular Meeting of August 13, 2003 — Receive and
file.
6.2 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular
Meeting of August 14, 2003 - Receive and file.
6.3 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting
of July 24, 2003 — Receive and file.
6.4 APPROVE WARRANT REGISTERS dated September 4, 2003, and
September 11, 2003, in the amount of $1,724.280.36.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
6.5 REJECTION OF CLAIMS:
6.5.1 Filed by Carlos De La Roca September 2, 2003.
6.5.2 Filed by Amy Wang January 6, 2003.
Recommended Action: Approve rejection of Claims for Damages.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.6 ALLOCATE $587,000 FROM UNAPPROPRIATED PROPOSITION C
FUND BALANCE; AWARD A CONTRACT FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL
MODIFICATION PROJECT AT GRAND AVENUE/SHOTGUN LANE,
BREA CANYON ROAD/LYCOMING STREET, AND GOLDEN SPRINGS
DRIVE/BALLENA DRIVE, TO MOORE ELECTRICAL CONTRACTING,
INC., IN THE AMOUNT OF $510,321, AND AUTHORIZE A
CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $76,679 FOR CHANGE ORDERS TO BE
APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION
AMOUNT OF $587,000.
Recommended Action: Approve allocation and award contract.
Requested by: Public Works Division
6.7 APPROVE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND 2003-04) FOR
THE PROPOSED SUMMITRIDGE LIBRARY PROJECT AND ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -XX.
Recommended Action: Approve and Adopt Resolution.
Requested by: Planning Division
6.8 ALLOCATE $23,000 FROM UNAPPROPRIATED PROP C FUND
BALANCE AND AWARD CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WARREN C.
SIECKE FOR DESIGN ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR GOLDEN
SPRINGS DRIVE AT ADEL STREET AND AT HIGH KNOB ROAD
TRAFFIC SIGNALS PROJECTS IN THE AMOUNT OF $16,200, AND
AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $6,800 FOR CHANGE
ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL
AUTHORIZATION OF $23,000.
Recommended Action: Approve allocation and contract amendment.
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
Requested by: Public Works Division
6.9 APPROVE AMENDMENT #2 TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT WITH
WEST COAST ARBORISTS FOR CITY-WIDE STREET TREE
MAINTENANCE AND PLANTING SERVICES IN THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR FOR 2003/04 FISCAL YEAR IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $215,000.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.10 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -XX APPROVING THE APPLICATION
FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM
FOR THE SYCAMORE CANYON PARK TRAILS PROJECT.
Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.11 APPROVE SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 02(2003)
RELATING TO A DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT PERTAINING
TO SETBACK REGULATIONS, DRIVEWAYS AND SITE ACCESS, TREE
PRESERVATION AND PROTECTION, RESIDENTIAL ACCESSORY
STRUCTURES, SECOND UNITS, TELECOMMUNICATIONS FACILITIES
AND LEGAL NON -CONFORMING STRUCTURES.
Recommended Action: Approve Second Reading of Ordinance No.
02(2003) by title only, waive full reading and adopt.
Requested by: Planning Division
6.12 APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE FY 2003-04 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT
OF $10,000 TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE PAINT THE TOWN
PROJECT.
Recommended Action: Approve amendment.
Requested by: Community Development Division
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
SEPTEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
8.1 APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSIONER TO FILL VACANCY
OF UNEXPIRED TERM.
0
Recommended Action: Mayor to appoint member.
Requested by: Mayor
8.2 APPROVE FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. XX(2003),
ENTITLED, AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DIAMOND BAR
PREFERENTIAL PARKING DISTRICT NUMBER ONE TO ESTABLISH
PREFERENTIAL PARKING RESTRICTIONS ON SUNBRIGHT DRIVE
AND WHITE STAR DRIVE AND AMENDING THE DIAMOND BAR
MUNICIPAL CODE ACCORDINGLY.
Recommended Action: Approve first reading by title only and waive full
reading of Ordinance.
Requested by: Public Works Division
8.3 FORMATION OF THE SPORTS COMPLEX TASK FORCE.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Mayor
8.4 CONSIDERATION OF COUNCIL GOAL: CODE OF ETHICS
Recommended Action: Direct staff as appropriate.
Requested by: Council Member O'Connor
COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS/ COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Study Session Item
Meeting Date: September 16, 2003
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: Honorable Mayor and Member of the City Council
FROM: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
VIA: Linda CLowry, City Manager
SUBJECT: Slope Maintenance Study Session
DATE: September 9, 2003
UUUU❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑u uuuuuuuuuuuuuu❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑❑ ❑
Ytt�3:(rL'��1�LU�
At the September 2, 2003 City Council meeting, staff presented Development Code
Amendment 2003-01. The City Council approved the first reading of the Development
Code amendment ordinance with the exception ofstandards related to slope maintenance
and tempo ra ry/el ecti on signs. The Council directed staff to research both issues and
present the information related to slope maintenance ata study session on September 16,
2003. Temporary/elect ion signs are to be presented to the Council the first meeting after
the November 2003 election.
The staff presented the following Development Code sections related to property
maintenance standards for amendment: Section 22.34.030 - Single -Family Standards,
Section 22.34.040 - Multi -Fa mily Standards, Section 22.34.050 -Commercial Standards
and Section 22.34.060 - Industrial Standards. The current standard and recommended
amendment contained the following language for single-family residential, multi -family
residential, commercial and industrial:
(Note: Italic/bold delineates recommended amendment. Strikeout/bold delineates deletions.)
Current:
Landscape maintenance. Yards and setback areas shall be landscaped with lawn,
trees, shrubs, orother plant material, and shall bepermanently maintained in a neat
and orderly manner and substantially free ofweeds, debris and dead, diseased or
dying vegetation and broken ordefective decorative elements ofthe landscaped
area. Foliage in landscaped areas shall bemowed, groomed, trimmed, pruned and
adequately watered so as to maintain healthy growing conditions so as not to
detract from the appearance atthe immediate neighborhood. Irrigation systems
shall be maintained to prevent public health or safety hazards.
Recommended Amendment:
Landscape maintenance. Yards and setback areas shall be landscaped with lawn,
trees, shrubs, orother plant material, and shall bepermanently maintained in a neat
and orderly manner and substantially free of weeds, debris and dead, diseased or
dying vegetation and broken or defective decorative elements of the landscaped
area. Foliage in landscaped areas shall bemowed, groomed, trimmed, pruned and
adequately watered so as to maintain healthy growing conditions seas and not to
detract from the appearance at- ofthe immediate neighborhood. Irrigation systems
shall be maintained to prevent public health orsafety hazards.
(1) Slopes adjacent to a public highway shall be maintained in a neat and
clean manner, free of weeds and debris. Apublic highway shall include
local streets, the entire width of every highway including all portions
dedicated for highway purposes, such as the sidewalks, parkways and
roadways. Said slopes shall be watered manually or by way of an
automatic irrigation system . Plant material shall be neatly trimmed and
shall not encroach into the public right-of-way. Erosion control
methods shall be utilized to maintain slope stability. Groundcover shall
substantially cover a slope within two years of planting. Walls, fences
and/or slope plant material shall be maintained in a manner that does
not detract from the appearance of the immediate neighborhood.
Overgrown vegetation that harbors rats or other vermin, or attains such
growth as to be come a fire hazard when dry or that is otherwise
noxious, dangerous or unsightly shall be prohibited. Failure to
maintain said slopes inthe manner described isdeclared unlawful and
a public nuisance endangering the health , safety and general welfare of
the public and detrimental to the surrounding community and shall be
abated pursuant to Section 22.34.070.
DISCUSSION:
After discussing the recommended amendment for slope maintenance on private
property, the Council wanted to consider the following: a slope definition; fine tuning
the recommended amendment by quantifying standards; drought tolerant plants;
slope erosion and slippage, fire safety; and cost to the resident for slope
maintenance. The City of Diamond Bar is concerned with both aesthetics and safety
with regards to slope maintenance standards.
A. Slope Definitions
1. The City of Diamond Bar's hillside management standards apply to
slopes 10 percent or greater and utilize the following as threshold
measurement ofa slope.
a. 10 percent slope equals 10:1 (horizontal :vertical) ratio with a
5 degree angle.
2. City of Rancho Cucamonga defines a slope bank that requires
planting as:
a. Five feet or greater in vertical height and of 5:1 or greater
slope.
3. City of San Dimas defines a slope that requires planting as:
a. Cut and fill slopes with a vertical height of five feet or greater.
4. California Uniform Building Code 2001
a. Slope isan inclined ground surfaceof which isexpressed asa
ratio of horizontal distance to vertical distance.
5. Majority of the cities surveyed merely defined a slope as exposed
surface of cut orfill which forms an incline
a. Cities surveyed are San Dimas, Chino Hill, Walnut, Yorba
Linda, Laguna Hills, Rancho Cucamonga, Claremont, La
Habra, Calabasas, Carlsbad, Glendora, and Norco.
B. Drought Tolerant Plants; Slope Erosion and Slippage and Fire Safety.
1. Of the cities surveyed general standards related to slope vegetation.
a. Height specifics of slope vegetation are not incorporated into
the standards.
b. Standards adopted relate to aesthetics, maintaining slope
stability and erosion control.
C. All cities require slope vegetation that is both aesthetic and
functional.
d. Overgrown vegetation that becomesa fire menace when dryor
which are otherwise noxious, dangerous or unsightly is
prohibited and considered a public safety issue.
2. The City of San Dimas listssuggest ed plant material to be utilized for
slope vegetation and require that ground cover completely cover the
slope within two years from time of planting.
a. San Dimas' list of suggested ground cover.
Plant Name
Description
Baccharis pilularis prostratus (dwarf coyote bush)
Deep-rooted, good soil binder, needs some
supplemental irri atiom grows to 18 inches.
Hedera canariensis (Algerian ivy)
Widely used; large glossy leaves; once established
grows rapidly; will not cant' fire easily; prefers heat &
sun; needs irrigation.
3
Helianthemum nummularium sunrose
Grows to 1 ft. high; flowers inspring in many colors.
Osteospermum fruiticosum (African creeping
Good hardy cover for slopes and erosion control;
daisy)
vigorous trailing growth; attractive light green foliage with
flowers.
Rosmarinus officinalis prostrata (creeping
I Gives quick, drought-resistan ce cover; blue flower.
rosemary)
3. Los Angeles County Department of Public Works Homeowners'
Planting Guidelines.
a. This planting guide offers plant species — drought and fire
resistant, erosion control methods and fire safety suggestion
for slope maintenance.
C. Quantified Standards.
1. City of Calabasis
a. Methods of Revegetation
(1.) Hydro -mulching, orthe planting ofnative plant materials
with equivalent germination rates.
(2.) Plant materials shall bewatered atintervals sufficient to
ensure survival and growth.
(3.) Encourage the use of drought tolerant, fire resistive
native plant materials.
City of Claremont
a. Require vegetation to be viable (alive).
(1.) Do not require irrigation.
b. Vegetation is not allowed to grow into the public right-of-way;
therefore it must be kept trimmed.
C. Require dead vegetation to be removed and disposed of
properly.
d. Weeds 12 inches ortaller shall be removed.
City ofYorba Linda
a. Slope protection and maintenance requirement for cut and fill
slopes in excess of seven feet in vertical height on private
p ro p erty.
(1.) Plant materials should be installed to protect slopes
from soil erosion and slippage and to minimize the
visual effects of grading, erosion and construction on
hillside areas.
(2.) Installation ofpermanent, full -coverage irrigation system
adequate to sustain existing and developed slope
plantings and to protect against potential fire hazards.
4
4. City of Chino Hills
a. Slope Planting Purpose.
(1.) Landscaping is to be both functional and aesthetic.
(2.) Transition between development and adjacent
roadways or various other uses.
(3.) Improve the physical appearance of manufactured
slopes and unify slope with adjacent area.
(4.) Hold slope and prevent erosion.
b. Irrigation
(1.) Shall be required for any landscaped areas to insure
plantings are adequately watered.
5. California Uniform Building Code.
a. The face or cut slope shall be prepared and maintained to
control against erosion by effective planting.
D. Resident's Cost for Slope Maintenance.
1. City of Claremont offers a landscape grant through their
Redevelopment Agency.
a. The city provides a maximu m $500.00 which is required to be
matched bythe property owner fora maximum total amount of
$1,000.00
(1.) Qualifying for this grant is based on income.
II. Landscaping of Selected Slopes Along Major Boulevards in Diamond Bar
A. Presented to the City Council July 16, 2002.
1. Standards based on Levels A -F.
a. Level A being excellent and Level F. being the worst level of
maintenance.
b. Minimum standard suggested atthat time was Level C.
(1.) Irrigated or not irrigated; maintained in a neat, clean
and weed -free manner.
CONCLUSION:
The purpose of slope maintenance standards is to provide guidelines that will achieve an
acceptable level of aesthetics, thereby preserving property values; and protect the public
health, safety and welfare by ensuring that erosion and slippage of slopes do not occur.
As a result, drought tolerant, fire resistant plant materials should be considered as well as
native plant species. Plant materials should be watered at intervals sufficient to ensure
survival and growth. The use of drought tolerant and native plant material will minimize
water usage. Slopes could be planted with ground cover or in combination with shrubs and
trees. Covering slopes with plant material will require some irrigation depending on the
5
season. Without some form of plant materials, an acceptable level of aesthetics and safety
may not be achieved.
Staff recommends that the City Council consider the following:
• Slope Definition.
A slope is an inclined ground surface manuf actured or natural of which is
expressed as a ratio of horizontal distance to vertical distance.
Quantified Standard.
o Level Cwhich will require watering forthe establishment ofvegetation and
seasonal watering for mature vegetation to ensure survival and healthy
growth.
o Neat, clean, weed -free, debris free, trimmed so that plant material is not
within the public right-of-way.
o Maintain slope stability and erosion control.
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct Staff as appropriate.
Attachments:
Los Angeles County Department of Pub IicWorks Homeowners' Planting Guideline;
Graphic ofvarious slope gradients;
Preparing a Hillside;
Photos of slopes.
Agenda Item No. 6.1
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 12, 2003
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:02 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management/Gover nment Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Vice Chairman Nolan led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Steve Tye; Vice Chairman Dan Nolan; and
Commissioners Steve Nelson; Joe Ruzicka; and Jack Tanaka.
Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Linda Smith,
Development Services Assistant; Lorena Godinez, Planning
Intern; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Approval of July 22, 2003, Regular Meeting minutes.
Chair/Tye asked that the minutes beco rrected to reflect his absence and that
the Attest be corrected to indicate Vice Chairman Dan Nolan at the end of
Page 8. C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve the July 22,
2003, minutes as corrected. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, Tanaka, VC/Nolan
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Chair/Tye
AUGUST 12, 2003
5. OLD BUSINESS:
5.1 Sign Regulations
Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano announced that this item would be discussed at the
Adjourned Regular Meeting on Augus t 13, 2003, at City Hall, 21825 E.
Copley Dr.
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1 2002 General Plan Annual Report.
DCM/DeStefano presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the
Planning Commission recommend City Council approval for filing ofthe 2002
General Plan Annual Report.
C/Ruzicka asked for grammatical corrections: Change 50 to 500 on page 2,
third paragraph under Land Use should read "a banquet room that will
accommodate 500 (instead of50) fordining; "Under Housing, firstparagraph,
fourth line, "continues tooffer (eliminate "s");page 4,third paragraph, second
to last line "free ofcharae '(instead offree ofchange). Under Public Health &
Safety, second paragraph, "Uniform Building Code continues to mandate
(rather than mandates); page 6, fourth line, "Additiona Ily, in the year 2002,
slurry seal for residential neighborhoods was completed in Area 4 which is
one of the..." (instead of in); Public Services & Facilities, last paragraph on
page 6 "Construction of the new Comm unity/Senior Center .... and provide
opportunities forthe community "without regard to" age (instead of"no matter
age).
VC/Nolan suggested that page 6, line 14, should read "In 2002 the City
implemented striping modifications to Diamond Bar Boulevard" (instead of
stripping).
VC/Nolan asked if the First Time Home Buyer program included
condominiums.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the program includes single family homes
only.
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano confirmed to VC/Nol an that the General Plan changes
recommended by the Planning Commission at the end of 2002 were not
made because the trailer park project was withdrawn.
The Planning Commission unanimously concurred to approve the 2002
General Plan Annual Report with changes and forward the document to the
City Council for review and approval.
W1:]0lM:l:F_'1Vh111e1.1
7.1 Development Review No. 2003-14 (pursuant to Code
Sections 22.48.020(A) is a request to construct a two story, single family
residence of approximatel y 11,358 gross square feet including balconies,
porch, attached four car garage and two siteretaining walls with a maximum
exposed height of six feet and forty-two inches.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3068 Windmill Drive
(Lot 5 of Tract No. 48487)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: Windmill Estates, LLC
3480 Torrance Blvd. #300
Torrance, CA 90503
PI/Godinez presented staffs report. Staff recommends Planning
Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-14, Findings of Fact,
and conditions ofapproval aslisted within the resolution.
Kurt Nelson, applicant, said his firm reviewed staffs report and concurs with
the conditions ofapproval.
C/Nelson asked Kurt Nelson if his firm was responsible fortheplanting palate
for landscape ofhis properties.
Mr. Nelson responded yes. The CC&R's forall ofthe Windmill Estates, LLC
tracts including the proposed project under review specifically prohibit the list
of invasive plant species that go back to the original concerns about the SEA
when the firstphase was approved bythe CityCouncil. Further, they prohibit
any intrusion into the natural area. He serves on the architectural review
committee for all associations in their tracts and he reviews all projects with
respect to Diamond Bar issues reTonner Canyon and its vegetation.
AUGUST 12, 2003
Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Tye opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Tye
closed the public hearing.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Development Review
No. 2003-14, Findings of Fact, and conditions ofapproval as listed within the
resolution. Motion carried bythe following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Ruzicka, Nelson, Tanaka, VC/Nolan
Cha ir/Tye
None
None
7.2 Development Review No. 2003-12 and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. 2003-10 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020, 22.56, and 22.42.080(3))
is a request for an intensificati on of land use in the commercial center's retail
suites to a restaurant use with outdoor dining ("It's A Grind").
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1121/1123 Diamond Bar Boulevard
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Bar/Grand LLC
2717 West Coast Highway
Newport Beach, CA 92663
APPLICANT: Sunmin Won
364 E. Trabuco Canyon
Brea, CA 92821
DSA/Smith presented staffs report. Staff recommends Planning
Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-12 and Minor
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-10, Findings of Fact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the resolution.
C/Tanaka said that as more businesses request variances and tend to
encroach on the parking structures, what happens to parking for the overall
cen ter?
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
DSA/Smith explained that the City looks ateach business on a case-by-case
basis. Each project includes a review of the overall parking for the center.
Taco Factory, for instance, eliminated parking spaces. This project does not
eliminate parking spaces. So far, parking has not reached capacity ornear
capacity in this center.
C/Ruzicka asked how long the space was vacant.
DSA/Smith explained that the space currently occupied bythe travel agency
is being vacated. In addition, the nail shop is leaving the center.
C/Ruzicka asked if clientele would beserved byemployees orpurchase food
items inside and move outside to the seating area?
DSA/Smith understood that patrons would purchase food items inside the
restaurant and proceed to outside seating.
Chair/Tye asked ifthe dining tables could beplaced against the wall thereby
leaving the sidewalk area open.
DSA/Smith responded thatwhatChair/Tye outlined isstaffs recommendation
absent the wrought iron.
Chair/Tye asked if the Commission could waive physical confinement by
eliminating the wrought iron?
DSA/Smith responded "yes."
DCM/DeStefano explained that absent a defined area, there would be an
open seating arrangement that could be more consistent with "The Country
Hills Towne Center" food court. If the wrought iron were removed, there
would be more walking space. Howeve r, you would lose the defined space
and some problems could result. If the tables and chairs were confined to an
identifiable area, violations would be eas ilydetected. The tables and chairs
could be moved closer to the building glass as long as there is an adequate
path of travel that meets the building code requirem ents — about a four foot
wide area.
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
Toby Foreman, LLC, speaking on behalf of the applicant, explained that the
applicant would agree to move the tables to the glass side creating a
walkway toward the parking lot. The objective is to create an attractive space
for patrons and the center.
Mr. Foreman responded to Chair/Tye that he would prefer not to have the
wrought iron in place. Alternatively, the applicant could place planters atthe
curb to define the space and create a more pleasing ambiance.
Mr. Foreman assured VC/Nolan that it was acceptable to the applicant to
have tables on the Grand Avenue side away from the glass and tables on the
Diamond Bar Boulevard side against the glass.
Chair/Tye opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Tye
closed the public hearing.
C/Ruzicka moved, VC/Nolan seconded, to approve Development Review
No. 2003-12 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-10, Findings of
Fact, and conditions ofapproval as listed in the resolution in accordance with
the applicant's wishes with the addition of a condition that provides a final
review by the City's Building Official to insure that code requirements are
met.
C/Tanaka wanted staff to work out the details and present the item to the
Commission at a later date for consideration.
C/Nelson was concerned about what would prevent customers from turning
the tables into seating for four on the pillar side thereby reducing the pass
through foot traffic area.
Using overhead graphics, DCM/DeStefano explained the possible
configurations and requested Commission confirmation of changes to be
incorporated in Condition (r) on Page 8 (revisions to the outdoor dining plan).
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, VC/Nolan, Nelson, Chair/Tye
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Tanaka
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
7.3 Development Review No. 2003-16 and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. 2003-11 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020, 22.56, and 22.42.080(3))
is a request for an intensificati on of land use in a commercial center's retail
suite from a take out use to a restaurant use and outdoor dining ("Cold Stone
Creamery.")
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1127 Grand Avenue
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Bar/Grand LLC
2717 West Cost Highway
Newport Beach, CA 92663
APPLICANT: Cold Stone Creamery, Ken Hamilton
1127 Grand Avenue
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning
Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-16 and Minor
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-11, Findings of Fact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the resolution.
Ken Hamilton, owner, Cold Stone Creamery, stated he would comply with
staffs recommendations.
Mr. Hamilton responded to VC/Nolan that he was initially unaware that
outside seating was not allowed. Therefore, hehas committed to the review
process.
Mr. Hamilton indicated to Chair/Tye that he has one table. There is sufficient
access and lobby width for people and wheelchair access. He could
accommodate one additional table in the spacetoward the front ofthe store.
With respect to wrought iron, he would comply with the conditions of
approval. He would prefer to incorporate something more attractive, if
possible.
Chair/Tye opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Tye
closed the public hearing.
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Nelson moved, C/Ruzicka seconded, to approve Development Review
No. 2003-16 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-11, Findings of
Fact, and conditions as listed within the resolution.
Chair/Tye asked that the motion be amended to strike the requirement for
wrought iron and direct staff to work with the applicant to arrive at an
acceptable alternative that is aesthetically pleasing and consistent.
C/Nelson and C/Ruzicka accepted the amendment.
Motion carried bythe following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Ruzicka, Tanaka, VC/Nolan,
Ch a i r/Tye
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
7.4 Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-03(1) (pursuant to Code
Section 22.66.060(2)) is request tomodifythe existing permit to add 1,300
square feet from an existing adjoining retail suite to be used for the
Montessori Elementary School and to convert the existing elementary
classroom to child day care use.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 23555 Palomino Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: AP Diamond Bar LLC
12383 Lewis Street #200
Garden Grove, CA 92840
APPLICANT: Diamond Bar Montessori Academy
23555 Palomino Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
DSA/Smith presented staffs report. Staff recommends Planning Commission
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2000-03(1), Findings of Fact, and
conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
Tige and Christy Licato, owners, concurred with staffs conditions ofapproval.
Mr. Licato responded to VC/Nolan that construction ofthe computer lab was
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
delayed due to lack offunding. They intend to commence construction within
the two-year timeline.
In response to C/Tanaka, Mr. Licato indicated current enrollment is 98 in
accordance with original CUP licensing requirements.
Chair/Tye expressed his appreciation for the school and its requests for
expansion.
Chair/Tye opened the public hearing.
Chris Perhatch commended the Licatos on their project.
Chair/Tye closed the public hearing.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve 2000-03(1), Findings of
Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, Tanaka, Nelson, VC/Nolan,
Ch a i r/Tye
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
7.5 Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04 (pursuant to Code Section 22.58) is
request for approval of an exercise facilityfor women identified as Contours
Express in an existing shopping center.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 968 North Diamond Bar Boulevard
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: Beal Bank
6000 Legacy Drive
Plano, TX 75024
APPLICANT: Suzette Douglas
4195 Chino Hills Parkway #258
Chino Hills, CA 91709
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
DSA/Smith presented staffs report. Staff recommends Planning
Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-04, Findings of
Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
Suzette Douglas, applicant, said she read staffs report and concurred with
conditions of approval.
Chair/Tye opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Tye
closed the public hearing.
C/Ruzicka moved, C/Nelson seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 2003-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the
resolution. Motion carried bythe following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Ruzicka, Nelson, Tanaka, VC/Nolan
Cha ir/Tye
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS: Cha ir/Tye said itwas exciting
that so many businesses were interested in locating and expanding in Diamond Bar. He
hoped to see everyone atthe last 2003 Concerts in the Park tomorrow evening.
9. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
9.1 DCM/DeStefano asked that two Commissioners to serve on a Home of the
Month or Business ofthe Month recognition subcommittee to reward those
who maintain a high quality landscape maintenance of their properties.
Chair/Tye recommended C/Tanaka and VC/Nolan.
DCM/DeStefano reported that the August 25 dinner with the City Council has been
canceled. Two dates for further consideration are September 15 or September 29.
DCM/DeStefano reported that otherthan tomorrow night's adjourned meeting, the only
item scheduled for the August 26 meeting is consideration of sign code changes to the
development code. Development Code changes recently forwarded tothe Council are
slated for their consideration in September. Further development code changes are
contemplated. DCM/DeStef ano reported that EPC closed its Diamond Bar business.
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
The City Council is looking at the one -acre site immediately adjacent to the
Community/Senior Center as potential for a new library project. The City Council will
review the Mitigated Negative Declaration for the exempt project in mid-September ,
early October. He explained why earlier this evening he considered two projects that
were continued to the middle of September.
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in the Agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning
Commission, Chairman Tye adjourned the meeting at 8:45 p.m. to the 5:30 p.m. August 13,
2003 Adjourned Regular Meeting, City Hall, Conference Room B.
Respectfully Submitted,
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
Chairman Steve Tye
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 12 PLANNING CONIMISSION
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 13, 2003
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Tye called the Adjourned Regular meeting to order at 5:30 p.m. at City Hall,
Conference Room B, 21825 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765.
Present: Chairman Steve Tye, Vice Chairman Dan Nolan, and
Commissioners Steve Nelson, Joe Ruzicka and Jack Tanaka.
Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Mike Jenkins, City
Attorney; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, and
Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
MCCIgo] :i�]1►ltlLC�3
DCM/DeStefano explained that tonight's meeting was scheduled to discuss certain
issues with CA/Jenkins, one being the provision for the amount of English that would
be required or appropriate on signs and two, standards for modifications to the
political signs.
C/Ruzicka felt strongly about commercial signs because hehas received input from
so many residents. He expressed his belief that the ability to co -exist in a
framework of cultural diversity would be destroyed if citizens could not read and
understand each other. Signs are the first step toward that mutual understanding.
Once signs are created that only a certain segment of the population can read and
understanding will undermine that framework. He believed the Planning
Commission should exercise its unique and influential position with the City Council
by forwarding a report that conveys the importance of retaining the "common
language bond" in the community. In his opinion, more important than percentages
is the City's obligation and responsib ilityto provide for the public need.
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Tye concurred. His children attended public school in which 15 different
languages were spoken. This City would have difficulty administering percentages
absent a common standard. Perhaps signage could be one issue and there could
still be an aspect of expression to convey a message whether it is through
advertising, etc. He would liketo maintain a community of country living rather than
a community with the look of Rowland Heights.
C/Tanaka concurred. As he travels through parts of other cities he is unable to
determine what kind of business exists behind certain signs. He likes the direction
taken by City Council with respect to signage.
C/Nelson felt the concern was about Chinese characters. He asked himself if he
would feel the same way about Spanish, Russian or Czech signage. Diamond Bar
does not want to appear that itis fragmented. It does not seta good precedent and
he felt the same way about English only in schools. He felt it was important that
people could pursue and remain proud ofthei rethnic and cultural backgrounds and
that the issue ofsignage has nothing to do with suppressi on of any particular group
but to show that Diamond Bar is united.
C/Ruzicka asked why ifthat were true would the aviation community throughout the
world use English -only?
C/Nelson asked if the City could vote for English -only signs?
CA/Jenkins stated that the People could not adopt an unconstitutio nal law.
VC/Nolan said that everything the other Commissioners have talked about is very
"slippery slope." To him it is easier to craft where signs go than to determine what
can besaid on signs. What hetook from the background information was that cities
could not regulate what signs say.
CA/Jenkins thanked the Commissioners for adjusting their schedules to fit his
commitments. This issue came up in 1998. Atthat time headvi sed the City Council
that they could not, constitutionally , prevent businesses from placing on their
business sign, other language and/or characters. He said that hefe Itconfident that
the City had a compelling interest in requiring businesses to at least identify
themselves byhaving their nameor type of business in English characters for public
safety reasons. As a result, the fire department and code enforcement would know
the nature of the business and could identify that business in the event of an
emergency. In fact, as direct result of that, the code currently provides that "each
business must provide identification signage in English characters not less than 4
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 14 PLANNING COMMISSION
inches in height. All commercial businesses shall contain the address or unit
number or letter of the occupant. Units shall be in English alphabet. Address
numbers shall be in Arabic numerals. All letters and numerals shall be provided in
digits which are visible from the adjacent street or parking lot drive aisle. "That is
what heconsidered to be a legitimate and compelling interest that was served byan
ordinance that requires certain basic information to be English characters.
CA/Jenkins provided legal analysis and cited constitutional law regarding First
Amendment Rights to Freedom of Speech.
C/Ruzicka said that according to informa tion hereceived, commercial speech isthe
least protected form of speech. CA/Jenkin s said that the information provided to
C/Ruzicka was not correct.
CA/Jenkins said that in fact, commercia I speech is accorded a very high degree of
protection. "To be valid an ordinance that restricts commercial speech that
concerns lawful activity and isnot misleading the regulation mustseek to implement
a substantial government interest. It must directly advance that interest and itmust
reach no further than necessary to accomplish the given objective. "Also, it is the
law that regulation of speech may not be content based. We can only regulate
speech with reference to time, place and manner — not content.
CA/Jenkins said that if cities were to disallow non-English characters, whether
Chinese or Russian, and also disallow wo rds in foreign language, businesses such
as Del Taco, EI Pollo Loco and other bus inesses with names in foreign languages -
most particularly Spanish -become verboten. So now we're telling majorfranchises
that they have to change their names to English because we only want to see
English on our signs. This is a complicated problem and the worst thing we can do
isventure into this morass ofsign lawand FirstAmendment litigation. In most ofthe
cases where these types of ordinances are challenged, cities lose.
He cited the 1998 case Asian American Business Group v. City of Pomona. This
case was decided by United States District Court in the Central Districtof California.
Ithas never been overruled. It is published law. Itis good law. The case involved a
challenge to an ordinance passed by a neighboring city, the City of Pomona. It
required that 50 percent of the sign area be devoted to English alphabetical
characters. The ordinance was challenged and the Court found that the ordinance
was unconstitutional on three distinct grounds: 1) That the city failed to meet the
burden of having a compelling state interest and having the ordinance narrowly
drawn to advance that interest. The interest that was cited by the city was
"identification of the business." The Court said itwas a legitimate business but you
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 15 PLANNING COMMISSION
do not have to require 50 percent of the sign in order to advance that interest. You
could require that the name and address bein English lettering without itnecessarily
being 50 percent and it would still be visible from the street and to fire and police
personnel and it would serve your legitimate interest. Footnote: That is not the
interest that you are asserting 2)The Court relies on a second ground to invalidate
the ordinance, and that is, that it discriminates on the basis of national origin.
Discrimination on the basis of national origin violates the constitution. The Court
says that speech/language, is an important part of and flows from national origin.
"People expressing themselves in their own language" is part of who they are and
where they're from. When we tell people that they cannot speak in their own
language weare discriminating against them based on their national origin. He cited
two examples; and 3) That it is content based. In order to know whether the sign is
legal orillegal you have to read the sign. Unless wehave a compelling interest, we
cannot regulate content.
This case isgood law and ithas never been overruled. Itwas decided in the Central
District ofCalifornia and other Courts have cited this case lawbeing good law. As a
lawyer, when a client says to him "what is the laud' he looks for case law because it
is these cases that are decided by Courts that make up the law. And I say, "here is
a case that is on all fours." There is no gray. And case law says, this type of
ordinance isunconstitutio nal —not for one ortwo reasons, but for three reasons. So,
I report that to my client. That is the law. If you do not follow the law, there is risk.
That is all I do as a lawyer. And you have to be the judge of whet her or not you are
prepared to accept that risk.
Other cities may very well have such ordinances on their books. It would not
surprise him ifthere were cities throughout California and the United States that had
many unlawful ordinances on their books. Justlast March in the election campaign
in another city he happens to represent, some enterprising citizen discovered that
imbedded in the municipal code was a provision that made itunlawful for unmarried
people to have sex in the city. He decided that this was worth talking about. He
contacted a few newspapers and it made national headlines. The law was clearly
unlawful, pre-empted by state law. It was an invasion of privacy and not
enforceable. It has been on the books since 1958. 1 had never seen it and I have
been that city's attorney for over 20 year s. Newer cities like Diamond Bar do not
have laws that incorporate ancient and archaic laws that have long -since left the
books of most cities. There are lots of laws on the books of cities that are there
because they were adopted before the law was cleared up or they were adopted
without the benefit of legal advice, or, they simply have not been challenged.
Whether they are enforced or not is another question. Whether they would
withstand scrutiny if they were challenged is yet another question. Curiously and
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 16 PLANNING COMMISSION
entirely unrelated, cityatto nneys have an email network and communicate on issues
of the day. On any given day he receives 25 to 50 emails from other city attorneys
on numerous issues. An attorney with a law firm in Fullerton asked ifthere were any
cities that required commercial signs to be in English -only and are there any
problems with such a requirement? The first response came from his partner to wit:
"I do not, but there is a significant FirstAmendment issue. Unless there is a public
healthy, safety or welfare issue I see no way for such a ruling. "He cited other
emails that read similarly.
CA/Jenkins spoke about the problem of liab ility. When a city enacts a law, the City
Council has "legislative immunity." That means that individual citycouncil members
cannot beheld liable in damages for violating people's rights byvirtue of their voting
to enact a law. However, the flip side isthat you are not just enacting a law, you are
enforcing a law. And so, when you enact a law and then you say to your staff, go out
and enforce that law, you are no longer protected by legislative immunity. Now all
you have is something called "qualified immunity." Legislative immunity is absolute.
It means that you cannot get past it. Qualified immunity is just what that states — it
is qualified. You are only immune from liability for damages for violating someone's
constitutional rights if you acted in "good faith." The question of whether or not you
act in good faith depends, in part, on whether ornot there is clearly established law.
The Ninth Circuit Court ofAppeals, in a case dealing with an ordi nance that itfound
to be unconstitutional stated "here, the city officials are not entitled to qualified
immunity. For over 50 years ithas been clearly established that a licensing scheme
is impermissible ifitallows officials unfettered discretion to impos eprior restraints on
speech. Because the city officials, in attempting to enforce the ordinance, violated
clearly established constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have
known, they are not entitled to qualified immunity. "In other words, if city enacts
unconstitutional law and the city has good reason to know that the law is
unconstitutional , an aggrieved party can file a suit for violation of constitutiona I
rights. They sue the city as an entity. The city, as an entity, has no immunities at
all. If the law is found to be unconstitutional and to have violated someone's
constitutional rights, the city is automatica Ily libel. The city can be held libel in
damages and for attorney's fees. The person mayalso sue individual officers ofthe
city including Commissioners, Council Members, DCM/DeStefano, his code
enforcement officer, and whoever else isout there enforcing an unconstitutio nal law.
This case says that ifeveryone involved had good reason to know that the law was
unconstitutional you have no "qualified immunity. "You cannot defend by saying "I
thought it was valid — I thought it was constitutional. "You are personally "on the
hook" for damages. The city isnot ina position to compensate orreimburse you for
damages that are imposed against you. Plaintiffs cannot recover punitive damages
against cities. Cities are immune from punitive damages. Punitive damages are
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 17 PLANNING COMMISSION
awarded when a person is found to be acting in bad faith or with malice. Punitive
damages can beawarded against individuals, even ifthey are cityofficials. Punitive
damage awards would be paid out of individual pockets if found libel for
constitutional rights. Why do I emphasize this so strongly? Because there is risk
and risk analysis involved. And the question is who wants to take that risk? If this
were a questionable case and there weren't a case directly on -point decided right
here in the Central District of California — if the law
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 18 PLANNING COMMISSION
were fuzzy, (would tell you. Ido not believe the law isfuzzy and Itell you that there
is riskbecause itis not just the city's money we're talking about, itis the potential for
personal liability.
CA/Jenkins returned to the issue ofhis earlier footnote. Even ifthe City set aside
the national origin discrimination problem and put aside the content regulation
problem, is there a legitimate governmental interest? The standard is that the City
must seek to implement a substantial governm ental interest. To the extent that this
City has content -based regulation, the interest must bea "compelling" interest. Are
there any cases that suggest that this interest —this goal that you have put forth, is,
as a legal matter, a compelling governmental interest? His sense is that when you
are controlling your own employees or your own workplace there may be interests
that are substantial. What is this City's interest in a government in assuring
uniformity ofspeech? He said hehad the sense from his passion about the subject
that C/Ruzicka felt it was compelling and substantial that the City should have a
community that in effect speaks with, if not one voice, in one language. He was not
aware ofany case that woul d say that that is compelling. Additionally, the Pomona
case and other cases suggest that an equally compelling aspect of this country's
citizens respect diversity of the population. While C/Ruzicka respects the diversity
ofthe population and wants itto speak in one voice, there isan equal argument that
suggests that one respects the diversity of the population by allowing people to
speak in their own languages.
C/Ruzicka said he was not trying to say he wanted everyone to speak with one
voice. He was saying that when we speak to each other in the form of commercial
signs weought to speak in one language, oras close to it aswe possibly can. That's
what makes this City the great City that it is— because there is so much respect for
culture, race, national origin — that we attempt to honor and respect all of those
things. That's why he attempted to emphasize that this City would encourage
fragmentation if we segmented the population by allowing the kinds of signs that
speak to only one segment of the population.
CA/Jenkins said he understood C/Ruzicka's message. Without making value
judgments, it is a sociologica I issue — would it meet the test of being a compelling
state interest so as to override those precious FirstAmendment rights?
C/Ruzicka stated that he did not rea lize the risk was so great. Unless he was
absolutely assured that Diamond Bar had a compelling interest he would not push
anything that would put the City or its employees and residents at that great of a
risk. He wondered if there was somethi ng that could be done that exceeded staffs
report to communicate with residents and could the state and the constitution
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 19 PLANNING COMMISSION
recognize that the City was attempting alleviate anguished feelings among and
between culturally diverse ethnic groups as well as, minimize social problems?
CA/Jenkins said the City could certainly consider doing something beyond what it
already does. He asked if C/Ruzicka had any ideas. He pointed out that it is an
area that has a lot of land mines. There are many that would, for example, take an
opposite point ofview —people who would say, "go to Chinatown —go to Little Tokyo
— go to Little Saigon, etc. One can go to areas of cities in Southern California that
have character all their own that demonstrat ethe diversity of our population, that
this is a country that draws people from all parts of the world and accommodates
them by allowing free expression based on their own culture. There are many
different points of view about what is best for our communities, what brings us
together and what makes our communities des irable places to live. Bottom line, the
question iswhat isconstitutiona land what isnot based on the standard. He invited
the Commissioners to offer some additional suggestions. He reminded them that
the City does require businesses to be identified in English.
Chair/Tye asked why someone would not challenge the City's current requirement
for 4" English character letters?
CA/Jenkins explained that the City determined four inches was the minimum height
that allowed police and fire personnel to identify the business. In his judgment, the
Court would uphold that it was a reasonable determination.
Chair/Tye asked how itwould infringe on freedom of speech rights to require a 24 -
inch channel sign to have 15 inches devoted to English characters and six inches
devoted to whatever language and characters the business owner wanted to use to
communicate? How would reversal of today's code infringe on speech?
CA/Jenkins responded "because our law has to advance our interest which is
identification of the business.
Chair/Tye asked what if his interest was the economic well being of his community
and cohesiveness about which C/Ruzicka spoke?
CA/Jenkins responded that a)he did not believe the Court would find that argument
compelling enough to justify the incursion on the First Amendment rights of the
speaker and b)that the Courtwould likelyfind that itwas discriminatory based on
national origin. And, itwould bean end run around the Pomona case that says you
cannot have a 50/50 rule because you would be relegating their speech to 50
percent orless ofa percent ofthe sign. If, on the other hand, you said that ifyou had
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 20 PLANNING COMMISSION
a sign of width you have a minimum of inches. But if you had a sign of width
then you must have a minimum of 10 inches, still leaving the rest of the sign for
other expression, that ispossible. For instance, if you had a standard 14 x 48 -foot
billboard and required 4 inch lettering, the rest ofthe message on the billboard might
overpower it. One could certainly argue that 4 inches isn't enough in that situation.
However, 4 inches would certainly be enough on the X dimension. Could the
ordinance contain "relativity? He believed that itcould.
DCM/DeStefano asked if the City had the flexibility to base size on public safety
wherein public officials were able to say that 4 inch letters was not sufficient and that
they needed to be six or eight inches high in order to be clearly seen from the
street?
CA/Jenkins felt itwas possible if evidence was placed in the record.
DCM/DeStefano said there were several businesses that resided well away from the
street and some were very near the public street. Perhaps there was a method for
arriving ata standard that had to do with distance aswell.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Nelson that the minimum standard for monument
signs is six inches.
C/Nelson pointed out that monument signs are on the street. What was the reason
for implementing those standards?
DCM/DeStefano explained that the standard was implemented to eliminate the
clutter of 10 signs that are all two inches high. Individual signage placement on
monument signs is usually negotiated between the property owner and the tenant.
VC/Nolan asked if the City could regulate fonts and color to create uniformity
throughout the community?
CA/Jenkins responded that cities were able to regulate the appearance of a sign
with respect to color, font, etc., to achieve some uniformity. Some communities
were very restrictive with respect to commercial signage, color of buildings, etc.
Some cities have been sued because they attempted to get franchise restaurants to
change signage and/or building color, for instance. Cities have a lotof power to try
to achieve aesthetic uniformity.
VC/Nolan felt that part of the issue was aesthetics
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 21 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Tye asked CA/Jenkins ifhe felt itwould not bedefensible from a "compelling
interest of the community" if people were not able to identify the nature of the
business.
CA/Jenkins said that he not only believed it would not be compelling, he also
believed itwould not be nece ssarily credible because itis evident that businesses
with foreign language signage thrive and that they may enhance economic viability
of community and attract people from other areas. If Diamond Bar attempted to
support a law with evidence that diversity of language on its signage detracts from
our economic vitality asa community, there would have to be evidence to prove that
claim.
VC/Nolan felt that masking those sorts of laws overrides what the City is trying to
accomplish. To Chair/Tye's point on the 50/50, 4 -inch rule and pu blicsafety issues,
if it takes 10 strokes of the hammer to put the nail in you don't need a hundred
strokes. That's where the 50/50 rule comes in. So instead, we're suggesting that it
could be hidden under the guise of public safety and make it a 50/50 proposition
when 50/50 is unrealistic. To him it seemed difficult to circumvent the law. If there
were a sign about a business that was unfavorable to a majority of the residents
they would not do business there and the business would close and go away. If it
goes the other way itwould mean that thedemographics and/or the dynamics ofthe
community were changing. Hefelt itwas difficult to stem the tide based on litigation
and code. To him, the best method would beto figure out how to control itthrough
aesthetics orsize. He felt there was real merit to alienation of people who were not
aware ofwhat business was being conducted. That needed to be remedied. He felt
that over time, all neighborhoods had transitioned.
C/Nelson felt that VC/Nolan had a point. As much as he did not disagree with
Chair/Tye he felt that country living looked great on a logo but it was something
more or less in the eye of the beholder.
Chair/Tye agreed that things were changing. Even asdynamics change, the City is
seeking uniformity and continuity. How is that accomplished? And, if economics is
not a compelling interest, what is a compelling interest that works?
CA/Jenkins could not cite a compelling interest that would work in this situation. He
felt that there were some things over which municipalities had little control.
C/Tanaka suggested that during the City's approval process for signage that staff
and the Chamber could work with businesses to recommend a certain type of
signage that would assist the business owner in reaching all segments of the
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 22 PLANNING COMMISSION
community
CA/Jenkins said that the Chamber could play that role far more easily than could a
government. The Chamber is a private organization. If they want to provide
materials in an attempt to establish a certain business community character, that is
exactly within their role.
Richard Malooly asked if the Chamber could promote a suggested business
standard?
CA/Jenkins concurred that it was important for new businesses coming into the
community to understand the prevailing sentiment about how they advertise and
express themselves. The Chamber'sjob isto assistbusiness inbeing healthy, vital
and vibrant members ofthe business community.
Chair/Tye felt that in order for the law to change, someone had to step forward and
challenge it.
C/Ruzicka said he was not interested in placing the City or its employees in a
position that invited a lawsuit merely to challenge the law.
CA/Jenkins assured the Commissioners that he would retain C/Ruzicka's well-
written memorandum and report backto the City in the event that similarlaws were
challenged and overturned.
B. POLITICAL SIGNS.
CA/Jenkins reported that there was good guidance about what was and was not
permitted with respect to political signs. Some communities allowed political signs
on public property and many communities did not. Cities cannot discriminate or
regulate on the basis of content, only on the basis of time, place and manner. One
of the biggest problems with allowing for political signs on public property is that
once it is determined that sign can be placed on the public right-of-way and if it
conveys a message pertaining to acts, cities are then involved in content regulation.
Asa municipality, Diamond Bar isa government of "limited" powers. Under the law,
the United States is unlike other countries. This is essentially the only Country that
is government of limited powers that respects private and individual rights. We are
not in the business oftelling people what they believe and what they can and cannot
say as long as it isnot illegal, misleading orfraudulent. In short, once you open the
public right-of-way to signage itbecomes very difficult to control what people can put
up. You can prohibit signs in the public right-of-way. However, if you do so, you
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 23 PLANNING COMMISSION
must prohibit all signs in the public right-of-way except for traffic signs. And, you
cannot discriminate on the basis of content. Some cities allow for political signs in
the public right-of-way and, in his opinion, those ordinances are always subject to
challenge to the extent that cities do not allow any other signs expressing any other
message.
Cities that do not allow political signs in the public right-of-way do so primarily
because they think signs in the right-of-way add to clutter, they make a mess, they
are distracting, and they usually don't get picked up following an election.
Additionally, the signs are not really reflective of public sentiment about the
candidate, they are only reflective of the candidate's wealth orwillingness to devote
resources to producing a large number of signs and plastering them about. So,
these cities allow signs only on private property and they regulate them to make
sure they fall within certain parameters.
This community has allowed political signs on public property. Do you want to
recommend that wewant them only on privat eproperty and not in the public right-of-
way? If you do that, you get into issues of how big, how many and how long. He
referred the Commissioners to his March 1, 2002, memorandum to DCM/DeStefano
called "Political Signs" that accompanied an ordinance he prepared.
Hereiterated his recommendations ifthe Commission recommended placement of
political signs on private property only. For instance, four square feet would
probably be the minimum size. The City could regulate height of the sign. He felt
that 60 days prior to an election would be the minimum standard. There are a
number ofcases that held that various different time Iimitswere impermissible. One
case said that 30 days was unconstitutional . Another case cited 45 days as
unconstitutional . One case upholds 60. How many days after the election can you
require they beremoved? There is much moreflexibility on this issue because after
the election, the signs have no particular First Amendment value because the
election is over. Therefore, the City could require remova I within 3, 5, or 10 days.
He was asked if the City could require a bond to assure sign removal. That
particular question is most often raised when cities allow signs in the public right-of-
way. We could say that within a certain number of days ofthe election the signs are
to be removed. If those signs were on public property, the City could advise the
party that the City would remove the signs and bill the individual for the removal
cost. Cities cannot require owners to give written consent as a condition of placing
signs on private property. However, he did write language that said the City could
require them to show that the owner consent ed to placement on t heir property ifthe
sign was in a location that wasn't visible from the house. The City's interest was in
avoiding sign clutter, avoiding clutter of the rights-of-way by assuring that private
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 24 PLANNING COMMISSION
property owners know their property is being used for signage. He believed that
was not an issue when the sign was in the front yard and clearly visible. Itwas an
issue when signs were placed on hillside slopes near streets and away from the
viewofthe house. There was also discussion about limiting the number ofsigns per
property. There is case law that says you cannot do that. He felt that in Diamond
Bar the City would not have people putting 100 signs on their property. If there are
three candidates, there could be three signs in the front yard and three signs in the
side yard. Again, the City could impose size limitation so those signs would not
create a huge problem.
CA/Jenkins reported that the Council brought up an issue recently that hecontinues
to grapple with — the question of political signs in private commercial parking lots.
For instance, candidates place their political signs high on a utility pole/light
standard. It is private property; it is not a public right-of-way. The private property
owner may or may not consent to it but he doesn't want to expend the resources to
remove the sign. The Council wanted to know what could bedone in that situation.
He said he was still not quite sure what to do about that situation and how to
address it in such a way that itwould meet the standards set forth by the City.
C/Ruzicka had no problem with political signs going up 90 to 120 days ahead ofthe
election. Getting them down after the election and making the City look good again
is his only concern.
Chair/Tye felt that 30 days was sufficient. He felt the biggest issue was eliminating
signs from the public right-of-way. It is unbe lievable to him that not allowing signs in
the public right-of-way is not an infringement on someone's right to free speech,
right of association and right to expre ss constitutiona Ily protected privilege.
CA/Jenkins said the Court was very clearthat cities could restrict placement ofsigns
in the public right-of-way as long as cities did not discriminate on the basis of
content. Cities could decide that its streets were for pedestrian and vehicular traffic
only and that the only signage should be traffic signage. Other signage is a
distraction to motorists and clutters upthe community. To the contrary, in driving his
community that only allows signs on private property during elections he can tell
which candidates seem to have the grass roots support because they have more
signs in his neighbor's front yards. Signs can easily beplaced in the public right-of-
way. It doesn't mean anything to him other than it creates blight on the area. One
point of view is not favorable over the other.
CA/Jenkins pointed out that real estate signs could beprohibited in the public right-
of-way. Real estate directional signs could not be prohibited on private property.
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 25 PLANNING COMMISSION
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 26 PLANNING COMMISSION
Richard Malooly felt itwould be difficult to maintain the meridian if itwere filled with
signs. Certain cities restrict the number of signs. It inhibits his real estate business
not to be able to put up directional signs. However, it is in the agent's best interest
to remove the sign on Sunday night.
CA/Jenkins said that cities that prohibit signs in the public right-of-way would also
include open house directional signs. However, cities could not prevent them from
being placed on private property. As a practi cal matter, most cities do not conduct a
lot of code enforcement between 10:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m. on Sunday.
VC/Nolan felt more signs were ripped from public property than from private
p ro p erty.
Chair/Tye reiterated his concern about telling people they could notput signs on the
public right-of-way.
C/Ruzicka said hewould favor eliminating signs in the public right-of-way.
Responding to C/Nelson, CA/Jenkins said that to the extent the City allowed signs in
the public right-of-way itcould limittime, place and manner.
Chair/Tye asked if the City currently limits time, place and manner.
DCM/DeStefano responded that signs were not allowed to be any larger than the
largest commercial sign. Therefore, someone could have a 72 square foot sign on
private property. On public property, the limit is about 6 square feet.
CA/Jenkins stated that height limitations do not apply to private parking lots.
DCM/DeStefano said the City does not have a height restriction on public property.
However, signs are not permitted on trees and utility poles, etc.
VC/Nolan asked ifthe municipalities CA/Jenk ins represents restrict po litica I signs in
the public right-of-way?
CA/Jenkins responded "all signs."
C/Nelson asked if cities enforce unequally?
CA/Jenkins said he did not know that any of the cities he represented had routine
code enforcement on Sundays. However, he knew that political sign enforcement
AUGUST 12, 2003 Page 27 PLANNING COMMISSION
was vigorous during elections.
Chair/Tye said he did not want to ban signs from the public right-of-way and he did
not feel it should be the direction of the Planning Commission or the City Council.
DCM/DeStefano stated this matter would be on the August 26, 2003, Planning
Commission agenda for discussion and recommendation to the City Council.
The Commissioners thanked CA/Jenkins for his assistance and insight.
ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was concluded at 7:45 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
Chairman Steve Tye
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Agenda Item No. 6.2
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
August 14, 2003
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chair Pincher called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management/Gover nment Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Kashyap led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Vice Chair Pincher and Commissioners Kashyap and Torng.
Chair Morris and Commissioner Virginkar were excused.
Also Present: David Liu, Public Works Director, Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer;
Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst; John Ilasin, Assistant Engineer; Debbie
Gonzales, Administrative Assistant and Deputy Diane Dodd.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. Minutes of July 10, 2003.
C/Kashyap moved, C/Torng seconded to approve the July 10, 2003 minutes
as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered with
Chair/Morris and C/Virginkar being absent.
III. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None Offered.
IV. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Louis Altenhofel, 2085 Tierra Loma Drive,
wanted to know why he could not obtain a variance for his new driveway approach.
Kathryn Altenhofel, 2085 Tierra Loma Drive, was very upset with the trauma of
trying to get a variance for their driveway approach. She asked for help to get the
matter settled.
C/Kashyap explained how he attempt ed to help Mr. And Mrs. Altenhofel.
Bill Longacre, 559 Great Bend, wanted the sheriffs department to find a creative
way to deter speeding vehicles on his street. He presented a petition signed by 90
percent of residents in his neighborhood who favored speed humps. He said he
would never allow permanent speed humps on his street.
V. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
VI. ITEMS FROM STAFF
AUGUST 14, 2003 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION
A. Traffic Enforcement Update — Report by Deputy Dodd - Received and filed
on the following items:
1. Citations: June 2003
2. Collisions: June 2003
3. Radar Trailer Development
4. Results of Traffic Operations
5. Future Deployment of the Radar Trailer
1y/I1 6611 7:11RiIZ1**15
A. Residential Street Centerline Striping in Slurry Seal Area 5
AE/Ilasin presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic and
Transportation Commission reinstall all existing centerline striping on
Armitos Drive, Leyland Drive and Seagreen Drive.
C/Tonng moved, C/Kashyap seconded, to approve reinstallation of all
existing centerline striping on Armitos Drive, Leyland Drive and
Seagreen Drive. Motion carried bythe following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Kashyap, Torng, VC/Pincher
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Virginkar, Chair/Morris.
VIII. NEW BUSINESS: None
IX. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS: Report by PWD/Liu.
X. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS: C/Torng met with residents regarding
speeding on Santaquin Drive. He asked if the radar trailer could be stationed on
th a street.
C/Kashyap felt staff should take a sympathetic approach to the 20 -day limit
imposed on Mr. and Mrs. Altenhofel.
PWD/Liu explained that tonight's meeting was not the proper forum to consider the
matter. He said he would be happy to arrange a meeting with the property owners
to discuss the matter.
AUGUST 14, 2003 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION
XI. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
A. Speed Hump Policy/Moratorium
B. Diamond Bar High School Traffic Signals
C. CalTrans 57/60 interchange
XII. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS — as agendized.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Traffic and
Transportation Commission, Vice Chairman Pincher adjourned the meeting at 7:50 p.m.
Resp ectfu I I y,
David G. Liu, Secretary
Attest:
Vice Chair Liana Pincher
Agenda Item No. 6.3
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
HEARING BOARD ROOM OF S.C.A.Q.M.DJTHE GOVERNMENT CENTER
21865 E. Copley Drive
JULY 24, 2003
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Hull called the meeting to order at 7:11 p.m. in the SCAQMD/Governmen t
Center Building Hearing Board Room, 21865 E. Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California
91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Chairman Hull led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Hull, Vice Chairman Grundy and Commissioners
Lui, Lyons and Torres
Staff: Bob Rose, Director of Community Services; Kim Crews, Senior
Management Analyst; Sara West, Recreation Supervisor, and
Debbie Gonzales, Administrative Assistant.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None Offered.
CALENDAR OF EVENTS: As presented.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
1.1 Regular Meeting Minutes for June 26, 2003.
VC/Grundy moved, C/Lyons seconded, to approve the minutes of June 26,
2003 regular meeting as presented. Without objection, the motion was so
ordered with Chair/Hull abstaining.
RECOGNITION OF DAY CAMP STAFF AND VOLUNTEENS WHO PROVIDED
EXTRAORDINARY SERVICE AND SUPPORT TODAY CAMP PARTICIPANTS DURING
AND AFTER THE BUS INCIDENT ON JULY 9, 2003.
2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
2.1 Recreation Program Report —by RS/West.
2.2 Diamond Bar Community Foundati on Oral Report — Chair/Hull.
Chair/Hull reported that the Diamond Bar Community Foundation sold in
excess of $60,000 of brick tiles for placement atthe new Community/Senior
Center. The initial order was placed and sales will continue for another year.
JULY 24, 2003 PAGE 2 P&R COMMISSION
The Foundation made about $600 profit from the sale of glow necklaces,
glow sticks and bracelets at the 4th of July celebration. The foundation is
looking to sell or giveaway the leftover bracelets and glow sticks.
CSD/Rose said staff felt the glow items would begood to offer atthe haunted
house festivities.
2.3 C.I.P. Program Report — Oral Report by Bob Rose, Community Services
Director
a. Sycamore Canyon ADA Retrofit
CSD/Rose reported that Phase Il will beconstructed during the Fall of
2003. Phase III will be presented during the 2004/05 FY Budget
process for Council consideration.
b. Starshine Park ADA Retrofit
CSD/Rose reported that the City Council decided to delay work on
Starshine Park until the next fiscal year.
c. Trail Development at Sycamore Canyon Park
CSD/Rose reported that the RMC indicated that the Sycamore
Canyon Park trail as their highest rated project for Proposition 40
funds. The RMC has a "common ground" document that covers a
number of cities. D.B. was the only city that voted against the
"common ground" document because it is in conflict with the D.B.
General Plan. RMCwas ready to award the $124,000 on the condition
that Council revise its position on the "common ground" document.
There is nothing in the grant document that states the city must
support the "common ground" document and Council believes D.B. is
entitled to the funds regardless of its position.
SMA/Crews stated that MPT/Huff reported to her that the report he
presented to the RMC was well received and he awaits their
response. She further stated that this isa veryworthwhile project and
other grant monies would likelybeava ilable. She felt comfortable that
D.B. would beable to obtain grant money to proceed with the project.
CSD/Rose explained that the Council is more willing to allocate the
$124,000 from the general fund than to reverse their position on the
"common ground" document.
3. OLD BUSINESS
3.1 Review of Draft Facility Use Policies for new Community/Senior Center.
VC/Grundy said he reviewed the document and received answers to his
JULY 24, 2003 PAGE 3 P&R COMMISSION
questions. He felt comfortable moving forward to adopt the Facilities Use
Policy.
SMA/Crews responded to C/Lyons that the proposed fees are similarto what
other cities charge.
SMA/Crews indicated that CA/Jenkins submitted hiscomments regarding the
document, most of which were related to clarification and not content. More
revisions were slated and the document would be returned to the City
Attorney for his final blessing before the document is submitted to the City
Council. Staff would like to submit the document to the City Council atthe
August 5 Study Session. She thanked VC/Grundy for his input.
CSD/Rose said that CA/Jenkins suggested omitting "no red wine" until carpet
samples were obtained and a determination made about whether the
language was needed. His other comment (Page 12) was that with the
variance being so broadly written it puts the staff and Council in a very
difficult position re consistency and opens the door to discriminatio n claims.
Herecommended that types ofvariances be listed such as hour sof use, etc.
Lastly, he recommended that the documen t definitively state the policy on
fees. Staff is inclined to recommend that the document read that fee waivers
would not be considered. However, there may be reimbursement fee for
D.B. based non-profit organizations.
CSD/Rose explained to C/Lui when security would be present.
VC/Grundy moved, C/Lyons seconded, that the Parks and Recreation
Commission recommend City Council adopti on of the corrected Facility Use
Policiesforthe new Community/Senior Center. Without objection, the motion
was so ordered.
4. NEW BUSINESS
4.1 2004 CPRS Conference Early Registration.
CSD/Rose stated that all Commissioners are registered to attend the
Conference. If any Commissioner is unable to attend, please advise staff.
VC/Grundy said hehad not yet decided whether hewould attend the regular
sessions. He may, however, want to attend the exhibits. He felt the
educational opportunities were varied and some were poor.
CSD/Rose suggested that VC/Grundy be registered. If he decided not to
attend, a staff member could attend in his stead.
VC/Grundy felt D.B. should be a presenter at the conference because this
City could do a better job and that other cities would benefit from things D.B.
has done.
JULY 24, 2003 PAGE 4 P&R COMMISSION
RS/West stated that she and CSD/Rose are participating on the opening
session committee this year.
Chair/Hull said hewould not beavailabl eto attend the conference due to a
conflict with AYSO duties.
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS : C/Lui said hewas very impressed with the design and
construction ofthe new Community/Senior Center. Hefelt the senior groups would want to
schedule their activities at the new center and would recommend that his group move
th ere.
C/Lyons said she really enjoyed the 4th of July celebration. It was excellent and everyone
seemed to enjoy the festivities. She stated she would not be in attendance atthe August
meeting. The Friends of the Library is moving forward with the October "Read Together
Diamond Bar' and a 5K run.
C/Torres was impressed with the Volunteers reaction during the bus incident on July 9. He
heard concerns from community members that there was not a high-ranking staff member
on the bus. He heard that the lead car was nowhere to be found when the incident
occurred and that the Community Services Leader I's and II's were on their own with the
Volunteers.
RS/West explained that Arthur was in the car that was behind the bus. Both drivers were
corresponding via cell phones. As a result, Arthur was able to get to the accident shortly
after the bus was able to pull to the side of the road. There were several Community
Service Leader II's in attendance, well-qualified paid staff members.
VC/Grundy thanked staff and DCM/Doyle for the tour ofthe Community /Senior Center. He
was very impressed with what he saw in person. Thanks to staff for the great 4th of JUIy
celebration — great fireworks and excellent entertainment.
Chair/Hull thanked DCM/Doyle and DCM/DeSte fano for taking time from their busy
schedules to give the Commission a guided tour of the new Community/Senior Center.
Thanks to the SMA/Crews, RS/West and CSD/Rose for supplying much needed
nourishment. He thanked RS/West for her idea about the Diamond Bar Community
Foundation providing bracelets for the haunted house event. Heagreed that the 4th of JUIy
celebration was great and staff did a super job. He asked that the matter of park
walkthroughs be placed on the August agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: Upon motion by VC/Grundy, seconded by C/Lui and there being no
further business to come before the Parks and Recreation Commission, Chairman Hull
adjourned the meeting at 8:48 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bob Rose Secretary
Attest:
Chairman Jeff Hull
AGENDA #6.4
NOTICE REGARDING THE WARRANT REGISTER
Please note that the Warrant Register has not been included
in the electronic versions of the City Council Agenda
Packets on the City's Web Site because severe formatting
errors occur when attempting to convert this material. If you
are interested in receiving a copy of the Warrant Register,
please contact the City Clerk's office at 909-860-2489 to
receive a FAXed copy or to pick one up in person.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Rejection of Claim —Carlos De La Roca
Agenda # __ 6.5.1
Meeting Date: September 16, 2003
AGENDA REPORT
RECOMMENDATION:
Carol Warren & Co., the City's claims administrator, recommends the City Council reject the claim
filed by Carlos De La Roca.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial implication associated with rejecting this claim. The claim for damage(s) is in the
amount of $500.
BACKGROUND:
On August 22, 2003, approximately mid-morning, the driver of Mr. De La Roca's vehicle was traveling
the 500 block of Featherwood Drive. Mr. De La Roca alleges that due to wet slurry in the middle of
the roadway, the vehicle lost traction and collided with the curb, causing damage to the body, under
carriage, and exterior paint ofhis vehicle. He further stated that thewet slurryseal roadway was not
clearly marked.
The City's claims administrator reviewed and researched standard practices and procedures by City
staff and its contractor for these types of projects. It was determined there was little to no liability to
the City and to reject theclaim filed.
PREPARED BY:
Nancy B. Whitehouse, Acting City Clerk
REVIEWED BY:
Deputy City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Rejection of Claim —Amy Wang
Agenda # __ 6.5.2
Meeting Date: September 16, 2003
AGENDA REPORT
RECOMMENDATION:
Carol Warren & Co., the City's claims administrator, recommends the City Council reject the claim
filed by the Law Offices of David L. Roark on behalf of Amy Wang.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial implication associated with rejecting this claim. The claim for damage(s) is an
undetermined amount atthis time.
BACKGROUND:
On July 3, 2002, atapproximately 11:30 a.m., Ms. Wang stated that wh ilewalking on the sidewalk in
front ofthe building at 1111 Grand Avenue, she tripped and fell over a raised portion of sidewalk
pavement causing injury to her right knee. A claim was filed on December 31, 2002.
After review by the City's claims administrator, it was determined that the City reject the claim for
damage(s) filed.
PREPARED BY:
Nancy B. Whitehouse, Acting City Clerk
1::0MiUT1091: ]7I
Deputy City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6.6
Meeting Date: September 16, 2003
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Appropriate $587,000.00 From Unappropriated Proposition C Fund Balance,
Award Contract for the Traffic Signal Modification Project at Grand
Avenue/Shotgun Lane, Brea Canyon Road/Lycoming Street, and Golden
Springs Drive/Ballena Drive to Moore Electrical Contracting, Inc. in the
Amount of $510,321.00 and Authorize AContingency Amount of $76,679.00
for Change Orders to be Approved by the City Manager, for a Total
Authorization Amount of $587,000.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Appropriate funds and award the contract.
FISCAL IMPACT:
On August 19, 2003, the City accepted Dynalectric's rescission of a contract which had been
awarded in F/Y 2002-2003. At this time, to fund the construction, it is necessary to re -
appropriate $557,000.00 of Prop C fund balance in order to budget the contract in the current
fiscal year.
BACKGROUND/DISCU SSION:
As part ofthe Community/Senior Center project, to accommodate access to the center, and
enhance the traffic circulation, the following improvements are required:
1. Modification of the traffic signal at Grand Avenue/Shotgun Lane.
2. Modification of the traffic signal at Grand Avenue at Summitridge Drive and
extension of the left turn-po cket for eastbound Grand Avenue traffic.
3. Removal of the existing river rock hardscape median on Summittridge Drive to
accommodate left -tum, right -turn and through movements.
4. Modification of the existing median on Grand Avenue between Shotgun Lane and
Summitridge Drive.
Furthermore, in addition to the Community Center Project, the overa II Capital Improvement
Program included the left -turn signals for the intersections of Brea Canyon Road/Lycoming
Street and Golden Springs Drive/Ballena Drive. The contract documents to construct these
three projects were combined as one contract. Upon accepting the rescission of contract on
August 19, 2003, this project was re -advertised. On September 3, 2003, the following 3 -bids
were received:
Company Total Bid Amount
1) Moore Electrical Contracti ng, Inc. $ 510,321.00
2) Steiny and Company Inc. $ 533,280.00
3) DynaIectric $ 542,523.00
Moore Electrical Contracting Inc., submitted the lowest responsible bid. Staff has verified their
state contractor's license and projects completed with other cities. They have satisfactorily
completed many similar projects for other Cities in Southern California. The project schedule is
tentatively set as follows:
Award Contract
Start Construction
Construction Completion
PREPARED BY:
Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu
Director of Public Works
September 16, 2003
October 6, 2003
January 20, 2004
Date Prepared: September 8, 2003
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attachment: Consultant Agreement with Moore Electrical Contracting, Inc.
Agenda # 6.7
Meeting Date: September 16, 2003
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: APPROVE A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION (ND 2003-04) FOR THE
PROPOSED SUMMITRIDGE LIBRARY PROJECT AND ADOPT RESOLUTION
NO. 2003 -XX
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and adopt Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
The City has initiated planning effo its to construct a new public library atSummitridge Park. An
environmental evaluation ofthe project was prepared in November 2002 to identify potential
environmental effects associated with the construction and use of library of approximately 25,000
square feet. The environmental evaluation resulted in the preparation of Mitigated Negative
Declaration (MND), which was approved by the City Council in December 2002.
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND 2003-04), currently before the City Council, was
prepared as the Library planning effort has resulted in a larger structure which exceeds the size ofthe
building previously analyzed and as a result of the Library Bond Act requi rement that the MND be
provided to the State Clearinghouse for review. The City is currently in the process of preparing an
application for the next Library Bond Act funding cycle. The completion of all environmental
documentation is mandatory component of the application.
Project Characteristics
On an approximate 0.8 acre graded pad located within Summitridge Park, the proposed library would
be located west ofthe Community/S enior Center now under construction. The library building would
consist of single -story structureno larger than 30,000 square -feet. Facilities to be provided atthe
library include, but would not be limited to the following: book stacks and seating, reference
collection, Friends of the Library area, computer areas, study and meeting rooms, lounge area,
lobby/checkout/r egistration area, cultural/histori cal display, children's library area, offices,
communication room and homework center. Amaximum of 20 library staff would beon duty atany
given time to operate the facility.
Parking spaces to accommodate library users are presently under construction. To augment the
existing parking spaces within the park site, eighty-one parking spaces will be provided adjacent to
the library. An additional 198 spaces are presently under construction adjacent to the
Community/Senior Center that will be available for library patrons. Access to the site will be provided
from Grand Avenue.
To ensure visual consistency, the proposed library project will include landscaping and exterior
architectural treatments consistent with the Community/Senior Center . Wood, stone, and earth -toned
concrete would be used to give a natural/classi c expression. Native vegetation will be incorporated
into the landscape plan.
The proposed site plan, floor plan and schematic architectural elevations (west and south) for the
library building are presented within the Mitigated Negative Declaration.
DISCUSSION:
The proposed construction of a Library at Summitridge Park is a "project' pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). As referenced, the City
determined that the preparation of a new Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND 2003-
04) was necessary for the proposed project. Pursuant to the Public Resources Code
Section 21080(c) (2), a Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared.
Based on the environmental checklist form prepared for the project and supporting environmental
analysis, the proposed construction of the proposed project would have no impact or less than
significant impacts in the following environmental impact areas: Agricultural resources; hazards and
hazardous materials; hydrology and water quality; population and housing; land use and planning;
biological resources; noise; mineral resources; public services; recreation; transportation/t raffic;
utilities and service systems; cultural resources; and geology and soils.
The IS/MND identifies potentially significant effects on the environment in the following environmental
impact areas of aesthetics and air quality. Constructi on of the library will alter views of the site from
certain off-site locations. The single story structure will not substantially affect such views.
Landscaping placed throughout the site will serve to soften the visual appearance of the proposed
stru ctu re.
Public Review / Resoonse to Public Comments
On August 8, 2003, the City published a Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt the Mitigated
Negative Declaration within the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune.
Approximately 440 notices were mailed to residents and property owners surrounding the project site.
Notices were posted upon the project site and at seven locations throughout the City of Diamond Bar.
The Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration have been distributed to affected public
agencies, the State Clearinghous e (SCH No. 2003081055) and placed within the Library and at City
Hall for public review. The public review and comment period closed on September 9, 2003.
Comments have been received from the Caltrans, County Sanitation District, Edison and the Walnut
Valley Water District. None of the comment letters received requires a response or change to the
document.
Mitigation Monitorina Program:
The Mitigated Negative Declaration has identified potential significant effects upon the environment
as a result of the development of the proposed project. As required by CEQA, a Mitigation Monitoring
Program (MMP) has been prepared which addresses the environmental impacts and recommends
measures to mitigate these impacts. The MMP includes measures to mitigate the aesthetics and air
quality impacts identified in the report.
XG]Zlei IL -iWZI
The Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared in accordance with CEQA to identify the
environmental impacts associated with the construction and operation of Library at Summit Ridge
Park. Changes have been incorporated within the project design and mitigation measures have been
created to reduce the potential effects of the development resulting in a less than significant impact
upon the environment. No new environmental issues have been raised as a result of the comments
received from agencies, organizations or individuals.
AMitigation Monitoring Program has been prepared to ensure that the identified mitigation measures
are implemented throughout the final design and construction of the project. The City of Diamond
Bar, as the lead agency, is responsible for the implementation of the Program.
PREPARED BY:
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attachments:
Mitigated Negative Declaration No.2003-04 (Sections 1-7 previously transmitted)
MND Sections 8, 9, 10
Resolution No. 2003 -XX
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVING A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION
MONITORING PROGRAM (ND 2003-04) FOR THE SUMMITRIDGE LIBRARY
PROJECT
A. RECITALS.
(i) The City of Diamond Bar proposes development of a 30,000 square foot Library upon a site comprised
of approximately 0.8 — acre within the northern portion of the existing 17.3 acre Summitridge Park located at
the northwest corner of Grand Avenue and Summitridge Drive (the "Project' hereinafter.)
(ii) In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, Public Resources Code
Sections 21000 et. seq. ("CEQA"), the State CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14,
Sections 15000 et. Seq., the City prepared an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (ND 2003- 04)
(State Clearinghouse No. 2003081055) dated August 2003, (the "IS/MND") and Mitigation Monitoring Plan
("MMP") to analyze the proposed Project.
(iii) On August 8, 2003 in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15072, 15073, 21091 and 21092 a
Notice of Availability and Intent to Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration was published within the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Daily Tribune. In addition, on August 8, 2003, copies of the
Notice were posted on-site and displayed off-site at seven public locations within the City of Diamond Bar.
Approximately 440 owners of property located within 1,000 feet of the Project were mailed a copy of the
Notice.
(iv) A public review period for the proposed IS/MND was provided from August 8, 2003 through September
9, 2003. Copies of the proposed IS/MND were made available for public review at the Diamond Bar Library
and at City Hall.
(v) In accordance with CEQA Guidelines, the IS/MND was circulated to interested parties and agencies for
public comment. In response to the circulation of the IS/MND, the City received written and oral comments
regarding the adequacy of the IS/MND. The City caused preparation of written responses where required to all
comments which raised project related environmental issues. The City has incorporated the comments and
responses into the MND where appropriate.
(vi) On September 16, 2003 the City Council held a duly noticed public meeting on the IS/MND. At the
meeting, interested parties were provided an opportunity to present oral and written comments regarding the
IS/MND. On September 16, 2003, the City Council concluded the public meeting.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby 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 finds and determines that the public and governmental agencies have been afforded
ample notice and opportunity to comment on the IS/MND.
3. In accordance with CEQA, the City Council finds and determines that the IS/MND has been
independently analyzed by the City and its staff, and that the IS/MND represents the independent judgment of
the lead agency with respect to the Project.
4. The Project will not result in significant impacts to the environment; that said IS/MND and MMP are
adequate to serve as the required environmental documentation for the Project based on the finding that the
documents reflect the independent judgment of the lead agency; that it has considered the IS/MND and MMP
together with any comments and responses received during the public review and meeting process; and
further finding on the basis of said documents that there is no substantial evidence that, with the
implementation of the mitigation measures identified in MMP, the Project will have a significant effect on the
environment.
5. The City Council, after due inspection, investigation and study made by itself and in its behalf, and after
due consideration of all evidence and reports offered at said meetings determined that the IS/MND and the
MMP were prepared in compliance with the requirements of California Environmental Quality Act and State
CEQA Guidelines.
6. The City Council approves and adopts the IS/MND and MMP for the proposed Project, attached hereto
as Exhibit "A" and incorporated herein by reference as the environmental documentation for the Project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 16th DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2003.
I, Lynda Burges , City Clerk of the City of Diamond, do
was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting
Bar held on 16th day of September, 2003.
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Lynda Burges, City Clerk
Carol Herrera
MAYOR
hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution
of the City Council of the City of Diamond
Agenda # _6.8
Meeting Date: September 16, 2003
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Allocate $23,000.00 From Unappropriated Proposition C Fund Balance, Approve a
Contract Amendment with Warren C. Siecke for Design Engineering Services for
the Golden Springs Drive at Adel Avenue and at High Knob Road Traffic Signals
Project in the Amount of $16,200.00, and Authorize a Contingency Amount of
$6,800.00 for Change Orders to be Approved by the City Manager, for a Total
Authorization Amount of $23,000.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Allocate Proposition Cfunds and approve the contract amendement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The Fiscal Year (FY) 03/04 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) did not include these signal projects.
Atthis time, a total of $23,000.00 of Proposition C Fund Balance mustbe appropriated for preparation
ofthe Plans, Specifications and Estimates.
BACKGROUND:
The residents of the neighborho od bounded by Golden Springs Drive to the north and Brea Canyon
Road to the west have raised their concerns over access and cut -through traffic in their
neighborhood. The residents have indicated that it is almost impossible to exit from their
neighborhood (both from Adel Avenue to Golden Springs Drive and Gerndal Street to Brea Canyon
Road). Further, to avoid the intersection of Brea Canyon Road at Golden Springs Drive, it was
reported that cut -through traffic utilizes Adel Avenue and Gerndal Street. In response to these
concerns, the City retained the services of Katz, Okitsu and Associates (KOA) to perform a
neighborhood traffic calming study. The recommendations of the study are as follows:
1) Install traffic signal at the intersection of Golden Springs Drive and Adel Avenue.
2) Install turning restriction signs at Golden Springs Drive/Adel Avenue.
3) Install turning restriction signs at Brea Canyon Road/Gerndal Street.
4) Construct a median island on Adel Avenue south of Golden Springs Drive.
5) Construct a median island on Gerndal Street east of Brea Canyon Road.
6) Implement a 1 -year monitoring program.
Over one hundred (100) area residents were invited to attend a neighborhood traffic management
meeting held on September 4, 2003. Staff and KAO made a presentat ion to fifty-five attendees, and
the residents participated with their inputs and comments. At this meeting, the residents unanimously
supported KOA/staffs recommendation.
Additionally, the Golden Springs Drive/High Knob Road intersection was previously identified as one
of the intersections in need of signal improvements. Aprior study evaluated and prioritized the need
for traffic signals at various intersections in the City. By combining these two intersections as one
project, we can take advantage of the economy of scale, and may realize some savings.
111 [0] Z A
Warren C. Siecke is the City's primary traffic and transportation on call consultant. In response to
staffs request, Mr. Siecke submitted a proposal to provide the required traffic and civil engineering
services required for both projects. The scope of services will include design, drafting of plans, and
preparation of contract specifications and estimates for construction of the traffic signals, median
islands and signage. This project schedule is tentatively set as follows:
Start Project Design
Complete Design
Award Construction
Start Construction
Construction Completion
PREPARED BY:
Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer
1:7 OP U9O921-Y 1
David G. Liu, Director of Public Works
September 22, 2003
November 28, 2003
January 6, 2004
January 19, 2004
May 28, 2004
Date prepared: September 12, 2003
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
Attachment: Warren C. Siecke's Proposals, dated September 10, 2003
2
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda #-6.9
Meeting Date; 9-16-03
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: AMENDMENT # 2 TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT WITH WEST COAST ARBORISTS
FOR CITY-WIDE STREET TREE MAINTENANCE AND PLANTING SERVICES IN THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR THE 2003/04 FISCAL YEAR IN TH E AMOUNT NOT TO
EXCEED $215,000.
RECOMMENDATION : Approve Amendment.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds totaling $215,000 for this contract amendment are included in the
2003/04 fiscal year budget, per the following breakdown:
Street & Parks Tree Maintenance & Planting $190,000
Street Tree Watering 15,000
LLAD #38 Tree Maintenance & Planting 5,000
LLAD #39 Tree Maintenance & Planting 2,000
LLAD #41 Tree Maintenance & Planting 3,000
TOTAL $215,000
BACKGROUND: On July 5, 1994, the City Council awarded a contract to West Coast Arborists for
City -Wide Street Tree Maintenance. Section 33 of the specifications of the contract allows the City
Council to extend the contra ct on an annual basis if an extension is deemed to be in the best interest
of the City. On November 18, 1997, the City Council awarded a contra ct to West Coast Arborists for
City -Wide Street Tree Planting services. Section 14 of the contract allows the City Council to extend
this contract. Officials at West Coast Arborists have offered to extend the contract with no unit price
increases.
DISCUSSION: The City -Wide Street Tree Maintenance and Planting contracts include the following
services in Diamond Bar: tree -trimming, tree planting, tree and stump removal, emergency work and
watering of trees along the major arterials not serviced by automatic irrigation systems. Services are
provided in the following areas of the city: along the major boulevards, medians & parkways,
residential neighborhoods, lighting and landscape maintenance districts and City Parks. Staff believes
that West Coast Arborists have done an excellent job maintaining the trees in Diamond Bar and that
the contract should be extended for one year.
Attachments: City -Wide Street Tree Maintenance and Planting Contracts, Amendments # 1 &
2, Unit Prices for 03/04 FY
REVIEWED BY:
Bob Rose James DeStefano
Community Services Director Deputy City Manager
AMENDMENT #2 TO CONTRACT AGREEMENT
THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT is made this 15th day of September, 2003 by and between the
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation of the State of Califom is ("CITY") and WEST
COAST ARBORISTS, ("CONTRACTOR")
Recitals:
a. WEST COAST ARBORISTS entered into a 12 month AGREEMENT with CITY effective July
1, 1994 ("the MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT") for City -Wide Street Tree
Maintenance.
b. The MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT has been extended annually by the City Council per
Section 33 of the specifications of the agreement, the last annual term
concluding on June 30, 2003.
c. Amendment #1 of the MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT was approved by the City Council on
July 18, 2000 adding Tree Watering to the scope of work to be performed by the
Co n tra cto r.
d. WEST COAST ARBORISTS entered into an annual AGREEMENT with CITY effective
November 18, 1997 ("the PLANTING AGREEMENT") for City -Wide Street Tree
Planting.
e. The PLANTING AGREEMENT has been extended annually by the City Council per Section
14 of the agreement, the last annual term concluding on June 30, 2003.
f. WEST COAST ARBORISTS has continued to provide City -Wide Street Tree maintenance
and planting service on a month -to -m onth basis since July 1, 2003.
g. Parties desire to amend the MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT and PLANTING AGREEMENT
to extend the term for the period of July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
Now, therefore, the parties agree to amend the MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT and PLANTING
AGREEMENT as follows:
Section 1 - Section 3 of the MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT is revised in its entirety to read:
1. TERMS OF CONTRACT --Agreement and unit prices shall remain in force,
unless terminated sooner, for the period of July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
Agreement may be extended annually at the option of the City Council per Section 33 of
the specifications."
Section 2 - Section 3 of the PLANTING AGREEMENT is revised in its entirety to read:
"3. TERMS OF CONTRACT --Agreement and unit prices shall remain in force,
unless terminated sooner, for the period of July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
Agreement may be extended annually at the option of the City Council per Section 14 of
the agreement."
Section 3 - Total amount to be paid to CONTRA CTOR by CITY for period of July 1, 2003
through June 30, 2004 shall not exceed $215,000.
Except as provided above, the MAINTENANC E AGREEMENT and PLANTING AGREEMENT are in
all other respects in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDM ENT #2 TO CONTRACT
AGREEMENT on the date and year firstwritten above.
FWAVINORIN
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
A Municipal Corporati on
Of the State of California
Signed
Ca ro I Herrera
Title: Mayor
APPROVED TO FORM
----------- ----- --
City Attorney
WEST COAST ARBORISTS
Co n tra cto r
Sig n ed
Title
----------------
Lynda Burgess
City Clerk
Agenda # — 610
Meeting Date: 9/16/03
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lo wry, City Manager
TITLE: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE
RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM FOR THE SYCAMORE CANYON PARK
TRAILS PROJECT.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Resolution.
BACKGROUND: The City Council adopted the Trails Master Plan in May 2001. The highest
priority project in the plan includes trail and trailhead improvements in Sycamore Canyon Park.
Estimated cost to fund these improvements is $244,694. The City has been awarded a grant
from the Land and Water Conservation Fund for $118,903. We are still waiting for a final
decision from the Rivers and Mountains Conservancy about our grant application for that grant
request in the amount of $124,000. Therefore, staff believes it prudent to seek these funds from
the Recreational Trails Program.
DISCUSSION: The City's contracted grant writer, Applied Development Economics with
assistance from Community Services staff, is preparing the Recreational Trails Program grant
application. The application is due October 1, 2003. This Resolution is a required element of
the grant application.
The Recreational Trails Program grant requires a 20% match from the City. The grant from the
Land and Water Conservation Fund can be used to cover 15% of the City's matching funds
requirement. Therefore, if the Recreational Trails Programgrant request of $124,000 is
approved, the combined grants will fund $232,459 (after deduction of State administrative costs)
and the City of Diamond Bar will be responsible forfunding only $12,235 of the total estimated
project cost of $244,694.
REVIEWED BY:
Bob Rose James DeStefano
Director of Community Services Deputy City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE RECREATIONAL
TRAILS PROGRAM FOR THE SYCAMORE CANYON PARK TRAILS PROJECT
A. Recitals
(i) The Transportation Equity Act For The 21 st Century provides funds to the State of
California for grants to state, local, and non-profit organizations to acquire, develop and/or
maintain motorized and non -motorized trail purposes; and
(ii)The State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility
for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures
governing project applicatio n under the program; and
(iii) Said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation
require the applicant to certify by resolution the approval of the applicati on and the availability of
local matching funds before submission of said application to the State; and
(iv) The applicant will enter into an agreement with the State of California to complete the
p roj ect;
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar that the City Council:
Approves the filing of an application for the Recreat ional Trails Program; and
2. Certifies that said agency has orwill have available priorto the commencement of any
work on the project included in the application, sufficient funds to operate and maintain the
p roj ect; an d
3. Certifies that the project is compatible with the land use plans of those jurisdictions
immediately surrounding the project; and
4. Appoints the City Manager as agent of the City to conduct all negotiations, execute and
submit all documents, including, but not limited to, applications, agreements, amendments,
payment requests, billing statements, and so on which may be necessary for the completion of
the aforementioned project.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2003.
CAROL HERRERA
Mayor
I, LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk of the City of Dia mond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar held on 16 t', day of September 2003 , by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS
LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # —611--
Meeting
.11_Meeting Date: September 16, 2003
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2003-01 Pertaining to Setback
Regulations, Driveways and Site Access, Tree Preservation and Protection, Residential
Accessory Structures, Second Units, Telecommunications Facilities and Legal Non -
Conforming Structures.
RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the second reading occur by title only for adoption of
Ordinance No. 2003-02
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
BACKGROUND/DISCU SSION:
Ordinance No. 2003-02 provides for changes to the City's Development Code related to setbacks for
walls/fences, tennis courts and guest houses; driveway widening in residential zoning districts; tree
protection and preservation with regards to pepper trees; fencing height for tennis courts; deleting a
discretionary review for second units per State law; permitted locations for telecommunications
facilities; and standards for legal non -conforming structures. A public hearing on the City initiated
amendment was concluded on September 2, 2003. First reading of the Ordinance occurred at the
September 2, 2003 City Council meeting. Upon approval of second reading, the referenced
amendment will be effective October 16, 2003.
PREPARED BY:
Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner
Attachment:
Ordinance No. 2003-02
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
ORDINANCE NO. ----- (2003)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT NO. 2003- 01
AND AMENDING THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE AND
ADOPTING NEGATIVE DECLARATION NO. 2003-01.
A. RECITALS .
1. On July 25, 1995, the City of Diamond Bar adopted its General Plan. The General Plan
establishes goals, objectives and strategies to implement the community's vision for its
fu to re.
2. On November 3, 1998, the City of Diamond Bar adopted a Development Code. Title 22
of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code containsthe Development Code now currently
applicable to the development applications within the City of Diamond Bar.
3. Administering the Development Code for almost five years demonstrated that certain
clarifications and modifications are needed based on the City's experience. The City of
Diamond Bar has determined that the following existing standards within the
Development Code require clarification and/or modification:
Article III
Section 22.16.090 -Setback Regulations and Exceptions: Amendment relates to
setbacks for walls and fences on a reverse corner lot.
Section 22.30.080 -Driveways and Site Access: Amendment relates to the pavement
width of driveway in a single-family residential zoning district.
Sections 22.38.010 -Tree Preservation and Protection: Amendment relates to the
preservation ofnaturaliz ed California pepper trees.
Sections 22.38.030 —Tree Preservation and Protection: Amendment relates to the
preservation of naturaliz ed California pepper trees.
Sections 22.38.060 —Tree Preservation and Protection: Amendment relates to the
preservation ofnaturalized California pepper trees.
Section 22.42.060 -Guest Houses: Amendment relates to lot coverage for guest
houses.
Section 22.42.110, Table 3-15 -Residential Accessory Uses and Structures:
Amendment relates to setbacks fora tennis court and guesthouse.
Section 22.42.110 - Residential Accessory Uses and Structures: Amendment relates to
the maximum height of tennis court fencing.
Section 22.42.120 -Secondary Housing Units: Amendment relates to changing the
current Minor Conditional Use process to a ministerial review process to comply with
Government Code 65852.2.
Section 22.42.130 - Radio and Television Antenna and Wireless Telecommunicatio ns
Antenna Facilities. Amendment relates to the number oftelecommunica tions facilities
on a parcel in residential zoning districts.
ARTICLE V
Section 22.68.030 - Restrictions on Non- Conforming Structures: Amendment
relates to when a structure shall be deemed non -conforming.
The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar on May 13, 2003, June 24, 2003
and July 18, 2003 conducted a duly noticed public hearing with regard to the
Development Code amendment. The Planning Commission concluded the public
hearing on a portion of the Development Code Amendment on May 13, 2003 and on the
remaining portion of the Development Code Amendment concluded the public hearing
on July 8, 2003 and recommended approval of sa id amendment to the City Council.
Notification of the public hearing for consideration of Development Code Amendment
No. 2003-01 was provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily
Bulletin newspapers on August 11, 2003. Pursuant to Planning and Zoning Law
Government Code Section 65091 (a)(3), if the number of property owners to whom a
public hearing notice would be ma iled is greater than 1,000, a local agency may provide
notice by placing a display advertisement of at least one -eight page in at least one
newspaper of general circulation. The City placed a one -eight page display
advertisement in the above mentioned newspaper s of general circulation. Furthermore,
public notices were posted in nine public places (City Hall/South Coast Air Quality
Management District, Diamond Bar Library, Country Hills Town Center Community
Board, Vons/Sav-On Community Board, Ralph's shopping center -Diamond Bar
Boulevard, 21070 Golden Springs Drive - JoAnne Fabrics, 990 Diamond Bar Boulevard
—Oak Tree Shopping Center, 1235 Diamond Bar Boulevard -Albertson's and Heritage
Park)on August 10, 2003.
On September 2, 2003, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly
noticed public hearing with regard to the Development Code Amendment. At that time,
the City Council concluded the public hearing.
Following due consideration of public testimony, staff analysis and the Planning
Commission's recommendation, the City Counc it finds that the Development Code
amendment set forth herein is consistent with the General Plan.
The City Council hereby finds that there is no substantial evidence that the
Development Code amendments will have a significant effect on the environment and
therefore Negative Declaration No. 2003-01 has been prepared, pursuant to the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970, as amended,
and guidelines promulgated thereunder, pursuant to Section 15070 of Article 19 of
Chapter 3, Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations.
The City Council hereby specifically finds and determines that, having considered the
record as a whole, including the finding set forth below, there is no evidence before this
City Council that the Development Code amendments proposed herein will have the
potential of an adverse effect on the wildlife resources orthe 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.
B. Ordinance .
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby ordain as
follows:
Section 22.16.090. Seta ck reaulations and exceptions of Article III, Title 22 of the City
of Diamond Bar Municipal Code is here by amended to read as follows:
8. Fences and Walls.
a. On a reverse corner lot, setbacks for fences and walls higher than 42 inches and not
exceeding six feet in height shall comply with setbacks as described in Table 2-4.
The Director may reduce the required ten -foot setback to a minimum five feet for
fences and walls on a reverse corner lot where a clear line of site is maintained for
vehicular and pedestrian traffic.
Section 22.30.080. Driveways and site access of Article III, Title 22 of the City of
Diamond Bar Municipal Code is here by amended to read as follows:
(5) Driveway width and length.
Single-family uses.
Driveways are intended only to provide access to required off-street
parking spaces in garages. No other paving, except walkways,
shall beallowed within the front yard area. An extension ofthe
primary driveway may be approved if the pavement width of the
extension does not exceed 12 feet, is located toward the nearest
side or rear yard and the total hardscape area of the front yard
does not exceed 50 percent ofthe existing front yard area. Front
yard area shall be measured from the front property line to the front
building line.
Front Yard
Section 22.38.010. Purpose of Article III, Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar Municipal
Code is here by amended to read as follows:
General Plan, as the overall policy document for the City, requires the preservation and
maintenance of native trees including oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, significant trees of
cultural or historical value and pepper trees where appropriate. The purpose of this
Chapter is to protect and preserve these trees and when removal is allowed as a result
of new development to require their replacement.
Section 22.38.030. Protected Trees of Article III, Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar
Municipal Code is here by amended to read as follows:
A. Aprotected tree is any of the following:
Native oak, walnut, sycamore and willow trees with a DBH of eight inches
or greater; pepper trees with a DBH of eight inches or greater where
appropriate;
Section 22.38.060. Exemptions of Article III, Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar
Municipal Code is here by amended to read as follows:
(8) Native oak, walnut, sycamore, willow, or pepper trees located upon a lot 1/2 acre
or less are exempted from these regulations.
Section 22.42.060. Guest houses of Article III, Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar
Municipal Code is here by amended to read as follows:
Parcel coverage. The guest houses, along with the main dwelling and any other
accessory structures, shall not exceed an overall parcel coverage as required in
the zoning districts specified in Table 2-4.
Section 22.42.110. Residential accessory uses and structures. Table 3-5 of Article III,
Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar Municipa I Code is here by amended by inserting the
following standards to read as follows:
TABLE 3-15
REQUIRED SETBACKS -ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
Sinale-Family Detached Homes
Accesso Structure
Type ofSetback1
Re uired Setback2
Tennis Court
Sides, rea r3
10 feet
Street side
As required for main
Front
stru ctu re
As required for main
stru ctu re
Guest house
Sides, rea r3
As required for main
Street side
structure
As required for main
stru ctu re
REQUIRED SETBACKS -ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES
Multi -Family_ Attarhed/Detarhe d Hemel
Accessory Structure
Type ofSetbackl
Required Setback2
Tennis Court
Sides, rear3
10 feet
Street side
As required for main
Front
stru ctu re
As required for main
stru ctu re
Section 22.42.110. Residential accessory uses and structures of Article III, Title 22 of
the City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code is here by amended to read as follows:
(7) Tennis and other recreational courts. Noncommercial outdoor tennis courts and
courts for other sports (e.g., racquetball etc.) accessory to a residential use are
subject to the following requirements:
a. Fencing. Shall not exceed a maximu m height often feet. When retaining
walls/wall are utilized to create the tennis court pad, the maximum total
height of fencing and wall together shall not exceed ten feet.
Section. 22.42.120. Secondary housing units of Article III, Title 22 of the City of
Diamond Bar Municipal Code is here by amended to read as follows:
This section provides standards for the establishment of secondary residential units.
(1) Secondary residential units may be allowed in the zoning districts specified in
Section 22.08.030 (Residential district land uses and permit requirements)
subject to the approval of the Director. The applicant shall be the owner and
resident ofthe main dwelling.
(2) Number of units allowed. Only one secondary dwelling unit shall be allowed on a
single-family parcel.
(3) Site requirements. Theparcel proposed for a second dwelling unit shall comply
with all the following requirements:
a. The parcel shall have a minimum area of 10,000 square feet, a minimum
width of 50 feet, a minimum depth of 100 feet, and a minimum buildable
pad size of 400 square feet, exclusively for the secondary units; and
b. The parcel shall be developed with only one existing owner -occupied
single-family detached main dwelling unit.
(4) Location of secondary unit. A secondar y dwelling unit may be within, attached
to, or detached from the existing main dwelling unit. If detached, the secondary
unit shall be separated from the main dwelling unit a minimum of 10 feet.
(5) Design standards. A second dwelling unit shall:
a. Have a floor area not exceeding 30 percent of the existing living area of
the main dwelling for an attached unit, or 1,200 square feet to the floor
area for a d eta ch ed unit;
b. Be architecturally compatib lewith the main dwelling units;
C. Comply with heightened setback requirements for the main dwelling;
d. Contain separate kitchen and bathroom facilities and have a separate
entrance from the main dwelling.
(6) Parking. The secondary dwelling unitshall provide one covered off-street
parking space in a carport or garage, in addition to the required parking for the
main dwelling unit, in compliance with Chapter 22.30 (Off -Street Parking and
Loading Standards).
(7) Rental of units. A secondary dwelling unit may be rented, although rental isnot
required.
(8) Compatibility. The secondary dwelling unitshall becompatible with the design of
the main dwelling unit and the surrounding neighborhood in terms of scale,
exterior treatment, height, setbacks and landscaping and shall not sufficiently
change the character of the surrounding residential neighborhood.
(9) Second kitchens shall be permitted within the Rural Residential (RR) zone in
single-family residences that are a minimu m of 6,000 square feet in floor area. A
second kitchen shall not constitute approval of second unit and such kitchen
shall not be so located as to facilitate the establishm ent of the second
independent dwelling including a servant's quarters.
Subsection (p) (4) of Section 22.42.130. Radio and television antenna and wireless
telecommunicatio ns antenna facilities of Article III, Title 22 of the City of Diamond Bar
Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
(g) Wireless telecommunicatio ns antenna facility approval process.
(4) Conditional use permit. All wireless telecommunica tions antenna facilities
other than those meeting the criteria for an administrativ ereview approval
or minor conditional use permit specified above must be authorized by
conditional use permit. These facilities may be located in the OP, OB,
CO, C-1, C-2, C-3, and I, zoning districts, or as identified on the city
telecommunicatio ns facilities opportuni ties map. These facilities may be
located in residential zoning districts but on properties that do not contain
residential structures (i.e., church properties, schools, water tanks or
similar type facilities), provided that the facility is in compliance with the
following requirements:
a. Narrative. The applicant must provide a written narrative describing
why the facility does not meet the criteria for an administrativ e
review or minor conditional use permit.
b. Development standards. The facilitywill be located, constructed,
and maintained in accordance with all applicable development
standards that are set forth below in paragraph (h) (Development
standards).
C. Wireless telecommunicatio ns antenna facilities shall only be
located in residential zoning districts if on a church property, school,
water tank, public property, or similar type facilities. Wireless
telecommunicatio ns antenna facilities shall not be located on
residential properties developed with residential structures orsited
for residential development.
d. The siting of multiple antenna structures within the same parcel
(know as "antenna farms") shall be prohibited. Multiple antennas
attached to an existing or proposed freestanding antenna support
structure (know as "piggy- backing") is allowed.
Section. 22.68.030. Restrictions on non-conformin a structures of Article V, Title 22 of
the City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code is here by amended to read as follows:
(a) Building envelope. A structure shall be deemed nonconformi ng if the structure
fails to conform to the building envelope regulations (e.g., lot coverage, height, or
setback requirements) identified in Article II, TABLE 2-4, RESIDENTIAL
DISTRICT GENERAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, TABLE 2-7,
COMMERCIAL/INDUS TRIAL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT GENERAL
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS and Article III, TABLE 3-15, REQUIRED
SETBACKS -ACCESSORY USES AND STRUCTURES.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF 2 003, BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Carol Herrera, Mayor
I, Lynda Burgess, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance was introduced at a regul ar meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on
the _____ day of________2003 and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar held on the _____ day of________
2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6.12 _
Meeting Date: September 16, 2003
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: APPROVE AN AMENDMENT TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2003-2004 COMMUNITY
DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $10,000
TO PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE PAINT THE TOWN PROJECT AND ADOPT
RESOLUTION NO. 2003 -XX
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve and adopt Resolution.
BUDGET IMPLICATION:
Approval of funding for the Paint the Town Program will be incorporated into the City's Fiscal Year
2003-2004 CDBG Program Budget. The CDBG Progra m does not impact the General Fund budget
of the City.
BACKGROUND:
On December 17, 2002, the City Council approved the Fiscal Year 2003-2004 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funding in the amount of $388, 495. CDBG Program
funds are targeted to benefit low- and moderate -income households and to eliminate slums and
blight. Subsequent to the City's approval of the CDBG Program budget, the Los Angeles County
Community Development Commission (CDC) notified the City of Diamond Bar that an additional
$58,745 became available for projects and programs. The increase in the CDBG allocation is based
on the CDC's re -calculation of Fiscal Year 2003-2004 funds using Census 2000 data. This agenda
report requests approval to utilize $10,000 of the additional allocation to fund the Paint the Town
Project for FY 2003-2004.
Paint the Town has received CDBG funding during the past several years. The Fiscal Year 2002-
2003 allocation totaled $10,000. The Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA) used these
funds to complete exterior improvements at three (3) income -eligible homes.
DISCUSSION:
The Diamond Bar Improvement Association (DBIA) has submitted an application requesting $10,000
in CDBG funds to implement the Paint the Town Program during Fiscal Year 2003-2004. It is
anticipated that five (5) homes will be assisted.
The Paint the Town Program provides exterior rehabilitation assistance to homeowners meeting
Federal low and low- to moderate -income eligibility requirements. Rehabilitati on activities are limited
to exterior improvements that include exterior painting, replacement of doors, windows, yard clean up,
debris removal, lighting, and irrigation.
The request for CDBG funding for Paint the Town may be allocated from the additional CDBG funds
made available to the City for Fiscal Year 2003-2004. Upon City Council approval of funding for the
Paint the Town Program, the City will prepare and submitthe necessary project documents to the Los
Angeles County Community Development Commission to amend the 2003-2004 CDBG Program in
order to allocate $10,000 for Paint the Town.
It is recommended that the City Council approve funding for this proposal. City staff will execute the
CDBG documents required for the implementation of the program
PREPARED BY:
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attachments:
Resolution 2003 -XX
CDBG Project Application
RESOLUTION 2003-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE CITY'S
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENTBLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR2003-2004 TO
PROVIDE FUNDING FOR THE PAINT THE TOWN PROGRAM
WHEREAS, on August 22, 1974, the President of the United States signed into law the
Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 (Act); and
WHEREAS, the primary goals of Title 1 of the Act are the development of viable urban
communities by providing decent housing and a suitable living environment, and expanding economic
opportunities, principally for persons of low and moderate income; and
WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar receives an annual allocation of Federal Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds to fu rther the attainment of these goals; and
WHEREAS, on December 17, 2002, the City of Diamond Bar approved the City's Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 with funding in the amount of
$388,495; and
WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Barhas received notification ofthe availability ofan additional
$58,745 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds during Fiscal Year 2003-2004; and
WHEREAS, the City of Diamond Bar has received an application from the Diamond Bar
Improvement Association for the Paint the Town Program; and
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as
follows:
Section 1. The funding allocation for the 2003-2004 Program year shall be amended to
include CDBG funding in the amount of $10,000 for the Paint the Town Program.
Section 2. That the City Manager or her designee is authorized to execute the contractual and
related documents to be prepared by the County of Los Angeles, which are required for the
implementation of the program set forth herein.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect from and after the date of its passage and
adoption.
3
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 16 th day of September, 2003.
Mayor
I, Lynda Burges, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution Number 2003- was duly and regularly passed, approved and adopted by the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its regular meeting held on the 16 th day of
September, 2003, by the fo Ilowing vote, to wit:
AYES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN:
COUNCILMEMBERS:
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar, California
Agenda # _8.2
Meeting Date: Sept. 16, 2003
CITY COUNCIL ;..- AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: First Reading of Ordinance No. XX (2003), An Ordinance amending
Diamond Bar Preferential Parking District Number One to Establish
Preferential Parking Restrictions on Sunbright Drive and White Star Drive
and Amending the Diamond Bar Municipal Code Accordingly.
RECOMMENDATION :
It is recommended that the City Council receive testimony, introduce the first reading,
and waive full reading of Ordinance No. XX (2003).
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The installation ofparking signs will cost approximately $1,000 and will befunded bythe
City's signing and striping maintenance budget allocated for this FY 2003-2004.
BACKGROUND/DISCO SSION:
On January 19, 1999 the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 3 (1999) creating
Preferential Parking District Numbers One and Two. Preferential Parking District
Number One (see Exhibit A) was established to facilitate short term parking and the
efficient use of street parking spaces by residents. During school days, the streets
surrounding Diamond Bar High School are impacted by the shortage of parking spaces
on the school site.
Currently, there are ten (10) residential streets utilizing thepermit program within District
Number One. These are Birch Hill Drive, Broken Arrow Drive, Cazadero Place,
Evergreen Springs Drive, Fern Hollow Drive, Los Cerros Drive, Lost River Drive,
Pathfinder Frontage Road, Tambo Place, and Viento Verano Drive. On these streets,
parking is regulated by "l Hour Parking, 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m., School Days Only,
Except by Permit".
This matter was brought to our attention by residents of White Star Drive and Sunbright
Drive who were having difficulty parking in thei r respective street due to student parking.
To gauge the interests of the residents, a letter was first sent to every residence
requesting a call ore -mail to inform the City as to their preference. Afollow-up survey
postcard was then mailed to each residence requesting their written response to their
preference to be included in the Preferential Parking Program.
Twenty-eight (28) postcards were sent out to the residents on White Star Drive. Of
those twenty-eight, nine (9) postcards were returned in favor of the program and six (6)
were returned against initiating the program.
Forty-six (46) postcards were sent to the residents on Sunbri ght Drive. Of those forty-
six, fourteen (14) postcards were returned in favor of the program and eight (8) were
returned against initiating the program.
Under this program, each household may choose to obtain any of the following types of
permits:
• 1)Annual permits for two family members at no cost;
• 2) Temporary permits for thei rvisitor(s) at no cost (valid for 24 hours to five days;
and
• 3) 24-hour permits to be utilized with unattached trailers/boats.
In order for the Sheriff's Department to be able to distinguish a resident's vehicle from a
non -permitted vehicle, residents will be requir ed to apply for annual parking permits that
will be placed on the rearview mirror. Both annual and temporar y permits are at no
cost to the resident. The City will work with the residents who have special
circumstances on a case-by-case basis.
All affected residents have been invited to attend tonight's City Council Meeting
PREPARED BY:
Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu James DeStefano
Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager
ATTACHMENT: Ordinance No. XX (2003)
Exhibit A, Map of Preferential Parking District Number One
2
ORDINANCE NO. XX (2003)
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING DIAMOND BAR PREFERENTI AL PARKING DISTRICT
NUMBER ONE TO ESTABLI SH PREFERENTIAL PARKING RESTRICTIONS
ON SUNBRIGHT DRIVE AND WHITE STAR DRIVE AND
AMENDING THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE
WHEREAS, there is a shortage of on -street parking on certain residential streets
within the City, and parking restrictions have been imposed to facilitate short term
parking and the efficient use of street parking spaces; and
WHEREAS, the City wishes to increase the availability of street parking spaces
for residents and their guests as permitted by Section 22507 of the California Vehicle
Code.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Subsection (c) of Section 10.16. 1350 of Division 6 of Chapter 10.16 of
Title 10 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"(c) Parking Restrictions. No parking for more than one (1) hour from 7:00
a.m. to 4:00 p.m. on school days except with an Annual or Temporary Parking Permit:
Street Location
Evergreen Springs Drive: Both sides of the street from Sunbright Drive to 2017
Evergreen Springs Drive (2017 to 2338 Evergreen Springs Drive).
Lost River Drive: Both sides of the street from Evergreen Springs Drive to Castle
Rock Road (21504 to 21612 Lost River Drive).
Birch Hill Drive: Both sides of the street from Evergreen Springs Drive to Castle
Rock Road (21515 to 21651 Birch Hill Drive).
Cazadero Place: Both sides of the street from Evergreen Springs Drive to the end of
the cul de sac (21503 to 21519 Cazadero Place).
Viento Verano Drive:Both sides of the street from Evergreen Springs Drive
to 1980 Viento Verano Drive (1980 - 2035 Viento Verano Drive).
Broken Arrow Drive: Both sides of the street from Viento Verano Drive to 21453 Broken
Arrow Drive/ Both sides of the street from Fern Hollow Drive to 21364 Broken
Arrow Drive.
Tambo Place: Both sides of the street from Pathfinder Road to the end ofthe cul
desac (21305 to 21325 Tambo Place).
Fern Hollow Drive: Both sides of the street from Pathfinder Road to Los Cerros Drive
(1953 -2036 Fern Hollow Drive).
Pathfinder Road: Both sides of the street from Evergreen Springs Drive to the end of
(Frontage Road) the cul de sac (21501 to 21536 Pathfinder Road).
LOS CERROS DRIVE BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET CUL-DE-SAC (1946, 1947,
1954, 1955, 1960, 1961, AND 1963 LOS CERROS DRIVE).
Sunbright Drive: Both sides of the street from Fountain Springs Road to end of
cul-de-sac at 2400 Sunbright Drive (2400 to 2565 Sunbright Drive).
White Star Drive: Both sides of the street from Viento Verano Drive to end of cul-
de-sac at 1983/1987 White Star Drive (1903 to 1987 White Star Drive).
Section 2.
The City Clerk is directed to certify to the passage and adoption of the Ordinance and to
cause itto be published or posted as required bylaw.
Section 3
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, portion, or phrase of this Ordinance is for
any reason held to be invalid or unconstituti onal by a decision of any court of any
competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, portions, orphrases ofthis Ordinance. The
City Council hereby declares that itwould have passed this Ordinance and each and
every section, subsection, sentence, clause, portion, orphras ewithout regard to
whether any other section, subsection, sentence, clause, portion, orphrase ofthe
Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutio nal.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of _____________ _, 2003
Carol Herrera, Mayor
I, Lynda Burgess, the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was introduced ata regular meeting ofthe City Council ofthe City
of Diamond Bar, California, held on the day of , 2003, and was
finally passed ata regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, held
on the day of , 2003, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
Agenda # _8.3
Meeting Date; 9-16-03
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: FORMATION OF THE SPORTS COMPLEX TASK FORCE.
RECOMMENDATION :
Review formation proposal and direct staff as necessary.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Costs to fund this task force will be nominal and should not impact the current fiscal year
budget. Task force members will be volunteer s with support from existing City staff.
BACKGROUND:
Atthe City Council meeting on September 2, 2003, Mayor Carol Herrera established a Sports
Complex Task Force to study the sports facility needs of the community. She requested that
the task force research and develop a report, with prioritized recommendations, for the City
Council to consider about what amenities should be in a sports complex. The Mayor
appointed Council Member Bob Zirbes as the Chairman of the Sports Complex Task Force
and directed staff to report on the development of the task force atthe September 16 City
Council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
Section Five ofthe Parks MasterPlan (Pages 82-84) identifies the need for a sports complex
in Diamond Bar as a high priority. In response to this need, the City Council included in its
Goals and Objectives for the 2003/04 fiscal year two objectives related to a sports complex:
1. Establishment of the process to evaluate sports facility needs within the
community.
2. Consideration for development of a sports complex.
These goals were adopted unanimously bythe City Council attheir August5, 2003 meeting.
The creation of the Sports Complex Task force meets the first goal, and the report and
recommendations that will be developed will allowthe City Council to then meet the second
goal. To ensure community input, Chairman Bob Zirbes will select approximately 20
community members to serve on the task force. Task Force members will be representativ es
of local sports programs, the two school districts, the Community Foundation, local non-profit
service organizations, the Parks and Recreation Commission, and interested community
members. The work ofthe task force is expected to take about six months to complete and
will include:
Research of facility use patterns, both current and projected.
Analysis of opportunities to meet current and future needs.
Study of cost considerations, including:
a. Land acquisition
b. Capital Development and Improvements
C. On-going Maintenance and Operations
Ultimately, the task force will develop a comprehensive report and deliver to the City Council
prioritized recommendations about:
The potential site(s) for a sports complex.
The prioritized list of facilities an d amenities to include in the complex.
Estimated cost and recommend source(s ) of funding to construct and operate
the complex.
REVIEWED BY:
Bob Rose James DeStefano
Director of Community Services Deputy City Manager