Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
08/07/2012
City of Diamond Bar City Council Agenda Tuesday, August 7, 2012 6:30 p.m. — Regular Meeting The Government Center South Coast Air Quality Management District/ Main Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ling -Ling Chang Jack Tanaka Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Ron Everett Carol Herrera Steve Tye Council Member Council Member Council Member City Manager James DeStefano • City Attorney Michael Jenkins City Clerk Tommye Cribbins Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 839-7010 during regular business hours. In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title 11 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation (s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Have online access? City Council Agendas are now available on the City of Diamond Bar's web site at www.CityofDiamondBar.com Please refrain from smokin& eating or drinking in the Council Chambers. The City of Diamond ear uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same. M THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE FOR VIEWING ON TIME -WARNER CABLE CHANNEL 3 AND VERIZON ROS TELEVISION CHANNEL 47, AS WELL AS BY STREAMING VIDEO OVER THE INTERNET AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE -BROADCAST EVERY SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AT 9:00 A.M. AND ALTERNATE TUESDAYS AT 8:00 P.M. AND ARE ALSO AVAILABLE. FOR LIVE AND. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA August 7, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: INVOCATION: ROLL CALL: APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Next Resolution No. 2012-41 Next Ordinance No. 12 (2012) 6:30 p.m. Mayor Monsignor James Loughnane, St. Denis Catholic Church Council Members Everett, Herrera, Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Tanaka, Mayor Chang Mayor SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 1.1 Presentation by Rick Meza from Southern California Edison, 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda. Although the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council generally cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk (completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council. Written materials. distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting are available for public inspection immediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's Office at 21810 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours. August 7, 2012 PAGE 2 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 Concerts in the Park — NATIONAL NIGHT OUT - August 8, 2012 - 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., The Alley Cats (Doo Wop) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive. 5.2 Movies Under the Stars — August 8, 2012 — Cars 2 - Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive. 5.3 Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting — August 9, 2012 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill Community Room, Diamond Bar City Hall, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.4 Planning Commission Meeting — August 14, 2012 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.5 Concerts in the Park — August 15, 2012 - 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Mike Sullivan Band (Acoustic Melodies) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive. 5.6 Movies Under the Stars — August 15, 2012 — Tin Tin - Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive. 5.7 City Council Meeting — August 21, 2012 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. 5.8 Last Concerts in the Park — August 22, 2012 - 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., Cash Up Front (Tribute to Johnny Cash) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive. Sponsored by the Diamond Bar Community Foundation. 5.9 Movies Under the Stars — August 22, 2012 — Puss in Boots - Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 City Council Minutes — Regular Meeting of July 17, 2012 — Approve as submitted. August 7, 2012 PAGE 3 6.2 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting of May 24, 2012 6.3 Ratification of Check Register — Dated July 12, 2012 through August 1, 2012 totaling $ $3,267,611.39. Requested by: Finance Department 6.4 Treasurer's Statement — Month of June, 2012. Recommended Action: Approve. Requested by: Finance Department 6.5 Approval of Second Reading and Adopt Ordinance No. 11 (2012): Amending The Diamond Bar Municipal Code to Add Sections 12.00.430, 12.00.440, 12.00.450 and 12.00.460 Establishing Rules for the Safe and Healthy Operation of the Dog Park at Pantera Park. Recommended Action: Adopt. Requested by: Community Services Department 6.6 Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Contract with Architerrera Design Group for Design of Construction Documents for the ADA Retro -Fit of Three (3) Mini -Parks in Lighting and Landscape Assessment District (LLAD) #39 for Additional Services in the Design of Silver Tip Park and Construction Observation Services for Silver Tip Park in the Amount of $14,000 for a Total Authorization of $77,300 and to Extend the Contract to June 30, 2016; Plus Appropriate $14,000 in Park Development Funds to the Project's Budget for a Total Authorization of $77,300. Recommended Action: Approve. Requested by: Community Services Department 6.7 Approval of Amendment No. 1 to the Contract with Architerrera Design Group for Sycamore Canyon Park Trail Phase IV in the Amount of $4,250 to Design Three Interpretive Panels to be Placed Along the Sycamore Canyon and Summit Ridge Park Trails, for a Total Authorization of $70,250 and to Extend the Contract to June 30, 2013. Recommended Action: Approve. Requested by: Community Services Department August 7, 2012 PAGE 4 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:45 p.m., or as soon thereafter as matters may be heard. 7.1 Public Hearing - Adopt Resolution No. 2012 -XX: Denying the Appeal and Affirming the Planning Commission's Decision to Deny Revisions to Development Review and Minor Variance No. PL 2011- 387, A Request to Approve As -Built Changes to a New Single -Family Residential Project Under Construction by Increasing Building Pad and Finished Grade Elevations on a Lot Located at 22909 Ridge Line Road, Diamond Bar CA 91765, and Further Identified Assessor's Parcel Number 8713-005-006 ("Project Site"). Recommended Action: Receive Staffs Report, Open the Public Hearing, Receive Public Testimony, Close the Public Hearing and Adopt. Requested by: Community Development Department 7.2 Public Hearing — Adopt Resolution No. 2012 -XX: Finding the City of Diamond Bar to be Conformance with the 2010 Congestion Management Program (CMP) and. Adopting the CMP Local Development Report, in Accordance with California Government Code Section 65089 for Los Angeles County as Prepared by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority. Recommended Action: Receive Staff's Report, Open the Public Hearing, Receive Public Testimony, Close the Public Hearing and Adopt. Requested by: Community Development Department COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: 10. ADJOURNMENT: Agenda No. 6.1 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JULY 17, 2012 D FR A I CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ling -Ling Chang called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:32 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Carol Herrera led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Pastor Jeanne Favreau-Sorvillo, Diamond Bar United Church of Christ, gave the invocation. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ron Everett, Carol Herrera, Mayor Pro Tem Jack Tanaka, and Mayor Ling -Ling Chang. Absent: Council Member Steve Tye was excused. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle, Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Dianna Honeywell, Finance Director; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Rick Yee, Senior Civil Engineer; Ryan McLean, Assistant to the City Manager; Isaac Aziz, Network Systems Administrator; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CM/DeStefano requested that the City Council consider an item be added to the Agenda entitled "Rejection of Bid from Kormx, Inc. for construction of the accessible walkway at the Pantera Park Dog Park due to contractor's failure to consummate the terms required by the project specifications within the specified timeframe". CM/DeStefano stated that this matter came up after the agenda had been posted and that the item would be added under Council Consideration, item 8.2 in order for Council to consider rejection of the contact as well as all other bids and direct staff to take the project back out to bid. C/Herrera moved, C/Everett seconded, to add Item 8.2 to tonight's agenda for Council Consideration. Without objection, the motion was so ordered (4-1 C/Tye absent.). 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 1.1 Carol Quan, Special Assistant with LA County Tax Assessor's office stated that there are many tax programs available to property owners through the Assessor's Office website at www.accessor.lacounty.gov she also provided folders to the Council outlining the different programs. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: CM/DeStefano reported on the status of the ongoing code enforcement case against the property owners responsible for the construction of the Shell Gasoline Station at Diamond Bar Boulevard and Palomino. He stated that there JULY 17, 2012 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL is a hearing scheduled for August 29 and that the process has taken longer than staff would have liked due to a number of steps needed to be taken for a successful outcome. CM/DeStefano thanked staff person, Andee Tarazon who was responsible for coordination of the 4th of July Celebration that took place at Lorbeer Middle School. Not only is this a major event for the City every year, this year was more significant because of the new venue at Lorbeer. Logistics were significantly different than Diamond Bar High School and Sycamore Canyon Park so the event required extensive effort and tremendous coordination and cooperation with LA County Fire, Sheriff's Department, the City's Public Works Department, the City's Public Information office as well as many other staff and support services. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Steven Huang spoke about the State's plans to close Lanterman Developmental Center and authorize private organizations to purchase 14 residential properties in the surrounding area to re -locate mentally ill patients currently residing at Lanterman. Private individuals have recently purchased a house in his neighborhood to house about five Lanterman patients and the residents are very concerned about safety and the impact on property values as well as, lack of proper patient care. They have contacted the State of California to voice their opposition to this project and the residents are asking the City Council to use its influence to stop this program. Tony Tai, 579 Rancheria Road, also spoke about his concerns of having the residential care program in his neighborhood. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: Responding to the two speakers, CM/DeStefano stated that the Lanterman Center is a facility that has been adjacent to DB for 80 plus years. As a result of decisions made by the State 10-12 years ago the facility is slowing eliminating all of its services to the many clients it has served. At one time there were approximately 1700 clients served by about 3500 employees. Today it has 260 clients and about 900 employees. The State made a decision to begin the process of relocating clients that were served by Lanterman to a variety of other placement facilities throughout the State. By policy of various departments of the State that oversee this type of effort and direction through legislative actions, these measures have been occurring. Of the 260 current clients it is CM/DeStefano's understanding that these are the most severely handicapped — not mentally challenged, but significantly and severely physically handicapped persons, ones that require 24/7 care by registered licensed professionals. As Lanterman continues to reduce its population placements are being made in a variety of communities throughout California. The facility on Meadcliff Place is one that is intended to house five clients from Lanterman. Five human beings JULY 17, 2012 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL that have significant daily needs. There are to be licensed nurses, LVN's, with oversight by other agencies and the State. This is one of many placements that Lanterman has made throughout the State. CM/DeStefano said it is his understanding that it is likely there will be only one more placement within the City for that type of home to care for those types of clients. Although there are 260 remaining clients at Lanterman, based upon their specific needs and available facilities and point of origin they will likely be relocated to cities away from DB in other places within the State of California. If a client from Lanterman originated from San Luis Obispo, for example, the client would most likely be relocated to an appropriate facility in that area. The decision to relocate a client is based upon the client's needs, family member desires, available facilities and the point of origin for the individual. With respect to the property on Meadcliffe, the State of California 20-25 years ago took away from local cities any ability to regulate the placement of what is called "Residential Care Facilities" which house six persons or less. If the facility is six persons or less, DB, like all other cities, is mandated by the State of California to treat that property no differently than a single family home. That is why when an application for a license to run the business of providing care for human beings in a residential property is submitted to the City of DB, the City is obligated to approve that request. The City has to ensure that the property meets health and safety and fire codes as is the case with any other single family home as well as to approve that request. Cities have no real discretion and that is why there is no requirement for noticing and hearing for discussion, debate, decision-making, and impact analysis. Building a brand new home in DB requires certain permitting activities. If this were a brand new facility it would require the same type of permitting activities. DB has no authority to prohibit this type of land use which has been the case for many, many years. The State determined that housing these individuals in commercial areas was not the way to treat these human beings and to acclimate and assimilate folks back into the communities.. There are some communities that have larger facilities that require different levels of licensing. DB does not now or anticipates having any larger facilities. Over the years cities have attempted unsuccessfully to change the law because cities have been concerned about the potential for impacts. There have been no adverse issues in DB with these types of facilities. Each year there are proposals for changes and each year those proposals fail to make it out of committee. This year there was a measure to provide additional oversight through a licensing process proposed by a northern California assemblyman who upon sensing the feelings and the impact of his colleagues in committee withdrew his proposal. Both Senator Huff and Assemblyman Hagman have had experiences working within their municipalities with these types of programs. Senator Huff and Council Member Herrera were closely involved with the closure plan for Lanterman that resulted from DB's successful opposition to the proposed enlargement of the Lanterman facility. Folks can certainly express their feelings to state officials but it is unlikely that the State will be swayed from its position with respect to these developmentally challenged human beings. JULY 17, 2012 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL C/Herrera stated that Lanterman does not have mentally ill patients or clients. Mentally ill clients are housed in mental hospitals. Lanterman has developmentally challenged individuals and these are mentally and physically developmentally challenged individuals. The few clients that remain at Lanterman are the most extreme developmentally disabled. They most likely do not walk around, they will not be outside unless someone puts them in a wheelchair and takes them outside. These are not mobile individuals. When it comes down to the last remaining client(s) they will most likely go into a regional center which DB does not have. These individuals need oxygen and other extreme measures to keep them alive. Safety of residents of DB is of primary concern to this City Council and staff and the City always watches out for situations that might compromise the safety of its individuals and if necessary, take aggressive action to keep residents from harm. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Concerts in the Park — July 18, 2012 — 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., "The Answer" (Classic Rock) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive. 5.2 Movies Under the Stars — July 18, 2012 — Grease — Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive. 5.3 Planning Commission Meeting —July 24, 2012 —7:00 p.m., Windmill Room, Diamond Bar City Hall, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.4 Concerts in the Park — July 25, 2012 — 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m., "The Silverado's" (Country Variety) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive. 5.5 Movies Under the Stars — July 25, 2012 — Winnie the Pooh — Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive. 5.6 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — July 26, 2012 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill Room, Diamond Bar City Hall, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.7 Grand Opening of the Diamond Bar Branch of the Los Angeles County Library — July 28, 2012 — 10:00 a.m., 21800 Copley Drive. 5.8 City Council Meeting — August 7, 2012 — 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. JULY 17. 2012 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Herrera moved, MPT/Tanaka seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, Herrera, MPT/Tanaka, M/Chang NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tye 6.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES — Regular Meeting of June 19, 2012 — Approved as submitted. 6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.2.1 Regular Meeting of April 10, 2012 6.2.2 Regular Meeting of May 22, 2012 6.3 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of May 10, 2012 — Received and Filed. 6.4 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER dated June 14, 2012 through July 11, 2012 totaling $4,214,583.42. 6.5 APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT for May 2012. 6.6 ADOPTED RESOUTION NO. 2012-34: ESTABLISHING LOCATIONS FOR POSTING OF CITY ORDINANCES, RESOLUTIONS, AND/OR PUBLIC NOTICES REQUIRED BY LAW TO BE PUBLISHED OR POSTED. 6.7 APPROVED AN UNLIMITED USE SERVICE PROPOSAL WITH BLACKBOARD CONNECT FOR GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE CONNECT-CTY EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM SERVICE THROUGH AUGUST 14, 2013 AT A COST OF $34,830.98. 6.8 AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE A CITY HALL EMERGENCY GENERATOR FOR A NOT -TO -EXCEED COST OF $130,000. 6.9 AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE HEWLETT PACKARD SERVERS AND ADDITIONAL HARDWARE REPLACEMENTS FROM HEWLETT PACKARD, CISCO AND VENDORS ON THE CURRENTLY APPROVED VENDOR LIST THROUGHOUT FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 FOR AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED $132,500. JULY 17, 2012 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL 6.10 APPROVED A THREE YEAR CONTRACT WITH COMDYN GROUP, INC. FOR AS -NEEDED INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY SERVICES FOR AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED $110,000 FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2012 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2015. 6.11 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT WITH EXCEL LANDSCAPE TO ADD WASHINGTON PARK TO THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 IN AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $3,900 PER YEAR, RESULTING IN A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $333,575; PLUS A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $27,000 FOR AS -NEEDED WORK, FOR A TOTAL 2012-13 FISCAL YEAR AUTHORIZATION OF $360,575. 6.12 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONTRACT WITH VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE TO ADD THE MESA TRAIL AT SYCAMORE CANYON PARK TO THE SCOPE OF WORK FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 IN AN ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $6,000 PER YEAR, RESULTING IN A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $368,995; PLUS A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR AS -NEEDED WORK, FOR A TOTAL 2012-13 FISCAL YEAR AUTHORIZATION OF $393,995. 6.13 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2012-35: AMENDING THE CITY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) PROGRAM FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 TO CANCEL CDBG FUNDING FOR THE ADA RETROFIT IMPROVEMENTS -LONGVIEW SOUTH MINI -PARK PROJECT AND REPROGRAM FUNDS TO THE CURB RAMP INSTALLATION PROJECT IN THE VICINITY OF PEACEFUL HILLS AND VICINITY OF GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER. 6.14 APPROVED EXTENSION OF CITYWIDE GRAFFITI REMOVAL CONTRACT WITH GRAFFITI CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13 IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED $59,280. 6.15 APPROVED CONTRACT WITH J.H. DOUGLAS & ASSOCIATES FOR A COST OF $24,905 PLUS A 20 PERCENT CONTINGENCY OF $5,000 FOR A TOTAL COST NOT -TO -EXCEED $29,905 TO COMPLETE THE 2013 HOUSING ELEMENT UPDATE. 6.16 APPROVED FREEWAY AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW WESTBOUND ON-RAMP AT GRAND AVENUE AND STATE ROUTE 60. JULY 17, 2012 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL 6.17 AWARDED A THREE YEAR CONTRACT TO SJC 3 CONSULTING TO ADMINISTER THE CITY'S HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HIP) FOR AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED $20,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012- 13. 6.18 AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A SOFTWARE LICENSE AND SERVICE AGREEMENT WITH SYMPRO, INC. TO PROVIDE INVESTMENT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE FOR A NOT -TO - EXCEED COST OF $30,000. 7. PUBLIC HEARING: 7.1 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012-36: AMENDING THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE FOR DESIGNATED CITY PERSONNEL AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2010-29 IN ITS ENTIRETY (ADDING THE POSITION OF FACILITIES SUPERVISOR). CC/Cribbins reported that every two years the FPPC requires cities to review their Conflict of Interest Code and if necessary, make any changes to accurately reflect job classifications that may fall under the Conflict of Interest Code. On June 5, 2012 the City Council adopted Resolution No. 2012-32 establishing job classifications and salary schedules. In order to accurately match the city's personnel system, the City's Conflict of Interest needs to be adjusted to include the position of "Facilities Maintenance Supervisor". There are no other additions, changes or deletions that need to be made. M/Chang opened the Public Hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, M/Chang closed the Public Hearing. C/Herrera moved, MPT/Tanaka seconded, to adopt Resolution 2012-36. Without objection, the motion was so ordered (4-1 Tye absent). 7.2 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE DISTRICTS 38, 39 AND 41. A) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012-37: LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13. B) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012-38: LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO, 39 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13. JULY 17, 2012 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL C) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2012-39: LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2012-13. CM/DeStefano stated that District No. 38, the City Wide District for landscape assessment levy of $15 remains unchanged generating about $268,000; District No. 39 remains at $130 as it has for decades, generating about $162,000; and District No. 41 remains at a rate of $220.50 generating a total of $122,157 in assessment revenue. There are no changes to the number of parcels and to the assessment amounts within the districts. The City Council received a preview on these matters as part of the budget process and its adoption in May and June. Staff recommends that the City Council conduct a Public Hearing and conclude by approving and adopting the three resolutions. PWD/Liu provided a Power Point presentation and stated that the total annual budget for District No. 38 is $281,217. Of that budget amount, $267,720 is expected as assessment revenue at a rate of $15 per parcel together with an approved budget of $13,497 from the General Fund the annual budget will pay for the operation and maintenance of District No. 38. District No. 38 contains a maintenance area of slightly more than 10 - acres consisting of 17,848 parcels. District No. 39 annual budget is $244,382 of which $162,630 revenue is anticipated from the $130 per parcel levy rate. Together with an approved budget amount of $81,752 from the General Fund the annual budget will pay for the operation and maintenance of District No. 39. The total maintenance area is 60.45 acres with an estimated 1,251 parcels within the district. District No. 41 budget is $159,180 and of that budget amount, $122,157 in assessed revenue is anticipated from the $220 per parcel levy rate. Together with an approved budget of $20,000 from the Prop A State Parks Fundus well as, $17,023 from the General Fund this annual budget will pay for the operation and maintenance for District No. 41. The maintenance area for District 41 contains 15.6 acres and includes an estimated 554 parcels. M/Chang opened the Public Hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, M/Chang closed the Public Hearing. C/Everett moved MPT/ Tanaka seconded to adopt Resolution No. 37, Resolution No. 38 and Resolution No. 39 as presented by staff. Without objection, the motion was so ordered (4-1 C/Tye absent). JULY 17, 2012 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL 7.3 ADOPT ORDINANCE NO. 10A (2012): EXTENDING ORDINANCE NO. 10(2012) PROHIBITING THE ISSUANCE OF PERMITS FOR GUESTHOUSES AND SECOND UNITS IN THE LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (RL) ZONING DISTRICT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858. CDD/Gubman reported that on June 19 a moratorium was adopted by the City Council in response to the discovery of a potential proliferation of guesthouses and second units in a neighborhood in the City that potentially posed a threat to the single family character of the existing neighborhood due to relatively lax development standards for those particular land uses. To properly ameliorate the issue that could potentially occur if the current standards are not amended, additional time is needed to revise the City's Development Standards as they pertain to guesthouses and second units. The initial 45 -day moratorium was adopted as an urgency measure to stop the further issuance of permits for these land uses. Now that the urgency measure has been taken, staff recommends that an additional 10 months and 15 days be added to the time of the moratorium so that staff can properly study the matter and come back to the Council with a replacement ordinance that would govern the replacement and criteria that would have to be met for future guesthouses and second dwelling units to be allowable in a single family neighborhood. M/Chang opened the Public Hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, M/Chang closed the Public Hearing. C/Herrera moved, C/Everett seconded, to adopt Ordinance No. 10A(2012): Extending Ordinance No. 10(2012) Prohibiting the Issuance of Permits for Guesthouses and Second Units in the Low Density Residential (RL) Zoning District in Accordance with the Provisions of Government Code Section 65858. Without objection, the motion was so ordered (4-1 Tye absent). 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 8.1 FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 11(2012): ADDING SECTIONS 12.00.430, 12.00.440, 12.00.450 AND 12.00.460 TO THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE ESTABLISHING RULES FOR THE SAFE AND HEALTHY OPERATION OF THE DOG PARK AT PANTERA PARK AND AMENDING THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE. CSD/Rose stated that the City Council authorized construction of a dog park at Pantera Park. If issues with the contractor are resolved this week the dog park is scheduled to open by the end of summer 2012. For the JULY 17, 2012 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL safe and healthy operation of the dog park and to reduce the City's exposure to liability, it is necessary to develop rules that will be incorporated into the Municipal Code. The Draft Rules have been developed with input from the following five sources: 1) Southern California Joint Powers Insurance Authority; 2) the City Attorney; 3) Inland Valley Humane Society; 4) a review of existing dog park rules from the Cities of Fullerton, San Dimas, Claremont, Huntington Beach, Los Angeles and Arcadia; and, 5) the Parks and Recreation Commission on June 28 with unanimous recommendation for adoption. Twenty-six rules are recommended for operation of the Dog Park, which are intended to provide a safe, healthy and pleasant experience for use of the Dog Park for users and their dogs. The rules are very similar to rules used at dog parks in other cities. C/Everett asked if staff solicited input from the LA County Sheriff's Department. CSD/Rose responded No. C/Herrera asked if the Parks and Recreation Commission unanimously adopted the 26 rules and whether the Commissioners opted not to recommend adding any other than the 26 presented to the Council. CSD/Rose responded that in fact, the Commissioners removed a couple of rules from the optional list which included eliminating "spiked collars" and "users must obey all other park rules'. The remaining items the Commissioners chose not to include in the list of proposed rules. C/Herrera commented that dog owners cannot be in any of the compounds and asked what type of fencing would be used to separate small and large dogs. She was concerned that small dogs might be able to gain access to the large dog compound. CSD/Rose explained that both dog park areas would be fenced with chain link fencing and the two dog parks would be separated by a concrete walkway. In addition, there are double entry gates into each dog park area. C/Everett took exception to the order of items and felt "dog owners using the dog park are using it at their own risk" should be the first thing dog owners see. The other significant item is "the City is not responsible for injuries to owners and/or dogs or illnesses dogs may contract from other dogs". He encouraged the Council to take time to discuss this further and wanted to see a signoff that the interested parties who participate in this dog park have reviewed the list. He would like to have the Sheriff's Department included for input and review because likely the Sheriffs Department would be the first department called in the event of a problem JULY 17, 2012 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL at the park. There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter. C/Herrera moved, MPT/Tanaka seconded, to approve for First Reading by Title Only, Waive Full Reading of Ordinance No. 11 (2012): Adding Sections 12.00.430, 12.00.440, 12.00.450 and 12.00.460 to the Diamond Bar Municipal Code Establishing Rules for the Safe and Healthy Operation of the Dog Park at Pantera Park and Amending the Diamond Bar Municipal Code. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, MPT/Tanaka, M/Chang NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Tye 8.2 TERMINATION OF KORMX, INC. CONTRACT. CM/DeStefano stated that staff is asking the City Council to consider rejection of the bid from Kormx for construction of the accessible walkway at the Pantera Dog Park due to the contractor's failure to consummate the terms required by the project specifications within the specified timeframe. Also, reject all other bids submitted for this project and direct staff to take this project back out to bid. Today at about 5:11 p.m. staff received a letter from Kormx which basically states that the outstanding document, the bond that is needed will be provided to the City of DB no later than Thursday, July 19. CSD/Rose reported that on June 5, 2012 the City Council awarded a contract to Kormx, Inc. to construct the accessible walkway to the Pantera Park Dog Park. Paragraph 16, Page 9 of the specification requires the contractor to "secure all insurance and bonds as herein provided within 10 days from the date of written notice of award. Failure or refusal to enter into a contract as herein provided or to conform to any of the stipulated requirements in connection therewith shall be just cause for the annulment of the award". Written notice of the award was sent to Kormx in a letter dated June 7, 2012 from the City Clerk's office. As of tonight, the contractor has failed to submit the required bonds to the City. This failure on the contractor's part is just cause for the City Council to annul the award. As previously mentioned, the City received a letter from Kormx this afternoon promising to submit the required bonds to the City of DB by this Thursday, July 19. The original recommendation is for the City Council to reject the bid from Kormx, reject all other bids received for this JULY 17, 2012 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL project and direct staff to take this project back out to bid. Should the City Council wish to hear from Kormx and grant them until Thursday to submit the bonds, staff would have an alternative recommendation that the City Council may wish to consider which would be to grant Kormx, Inc. until Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 5:30 p.m., to deliver the required bonds. Should Kormx, Inc. be unable to perform, staff is then authorized to 1) notify Kormx, Inc. that their bid is rejected, 2) reject all other bids, and 3) direct staff to go back out to bid with this project. Joseph Cardenas, Jr. stated that he would appreciate it if the Council gave Kormx the additional time to provide the bonds. He further stated that Kormx is an SBA bonded company and that Kormx has provided all documentation except the final bonds which were not obtainable due to the SBA requirements. He said he understands it is at the owner's discretion to keep the job awarded. SBA is currently not able to provide the bonds fast enough but Kormx has been aggressively pursuing this matter. Kormx takes great pride in being able to obtain the job in the City of DB. Kormx's schedule has not been affected as of this date and Kormx still plans to put this job in phase and in process. Kormx feels confident it will be able to provide the final bonds for this project by the end of this week meeting the submittal portion of the project and continue next week with construction of the park. He asked staff and the City Council to consider keeping Kormx on the project and felt that if the City goes out to rebid it will result in a much longer delay of the project and believes Kormx can get the project completed as originally intended. C/Everett asked Mr. Cardenas to confirm that he expects to have the bonds to the City no later than July 19, 2012. Mr. Cardenas replied that they would be able to provide the necessary bonds by the end of the day on Thursday, JUly 19tH C/Herrera moved, C/Everett seconded, to give Kormx until Thursday, July 19, 2012 at 5:30 p.m. to provide the bond; if the bond is not provided by that time the City Council rejects the bid from Kormx, rejects all other bids and directs staff to go out to bid again for this project. Without objection, the motion was so ordered (4-1 Tye absent). 9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Herrera thanked her colleagues for approving the resolution to allow a Park 'n Ride facility on Caltrans property. She believed the project would be tremendously beneficial to residents of DB, many of whom have come to her on numerous occasions to ask for more Park 'n Ride spaces. Residents have been ticketed for parking in business parking lots, they are going to neighborhoods in the south end of DB, and there have been hearings at the Traffic and JULY 17, 2012 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL Transportation Commission meetings on this matter. Residents are frustrated because there are not enough Park `n Ride spaces so this will be a great benefit for the residents of DB and would reduce traffic and improve air quality by taking cars off of the roadways. On June 26 there was a meeting with DB, Foothill Transit and Caltrans and Caltrans was very impressed that DB already had a resolution from its City Council and is now working on a cooperative agreement between Caltrans and DB which should be ready by the end of August. At the last meeting CM/DeStefano explained that Caltrans will not work with public agencies such as Foothill Transit, they will only work with cities and/or counties and they want to work with DB to complete the agreement. At the same time, DB will begin working with Foothill Transit on preparing a Memorandum of Understanding on the different components, who will pay for what, who will maintain the facility, etc. Of course, Foothill Transit will assume all of the costs. On June 29 at the Foothill Transit Executive Board Meeting Foothill agreed to spend $88,000 on an EIR and $142,000 on architectural drawings which is great progress. C/Herrera said she looked forward to this project coming to fruition. On July 5 she attended a SCAG meeting and on the agenda was the topic "Summer Readiness and San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station Update." She explained that two units have been shut down due to malfunctions and leakages, which reduces the electrical supply for the area. Two units that were retired from service have been regenerated and returned to service and will function until December 2012. C/Herrera asked staff to invite Rick Mesa from Southern California Edison to come to a future meeting to explain the possibility of rotating blackouts and what residents might be able to do to conserve energy to avoid that eventuality. M/Chang stated that she sits on the Southern California Edison Government Affairs committee and was told that conservation measures will happen in Orange County due to San Onofre and that they are working on a contingency plan for the summer. She agreed it would be a good idea to have Rick Mesa attend a City Council meeting and speak to the issue. C/Everett thanked the speakers who spoke about the Lanterman closing issue and thanked CM/DeStefano and C/Herrera for providing additional information. He also thanked the Traffic and Transportation Commissioners for their diligence and staff members who support the Commissioners. He encouraged residents to review the May 10 minutes to better understand what the Commission does and join them for a future meeting. He spoke about volunteer groups and thanked and congratulated MPT/Tanaka and his wife, Wanda jointly named by the Lions Club International as "Lion of the Year" last month. The award is the highest award and the Tanaka's were chosen from a field of 1.4 million Lions and 46,000 clubs in 208 countries. The Tanaka's were honored for their perfect attendance and many philanthropic projects. MPT/Tanaka reported on his attendance at the DB Women's Club meeting where he installed the new 2012-13 officers; and the Housing Scoping meeting at Pantera Park. He congratulated Nathan Chan, DB's newest Eagle Scout from JULY 17, 2012 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL Troop 737 who was the Valedictorian last May and will attend Pepperdine University this fall. On June 30 he attended "Corp of the Crest" held at Mt. SAC and hosted by Pacific Crest; on July 3 Lanterman Developmental Center held its Freedom Day Parade and fireworks show. On July 4 he attended the City's annual fireworks show and entertainment at Lorbeer Middle School and thanked CSD/Rose, CSC/Tarazon and staff members. Only positive remarks were received and the show was enjoyed by all. On July 11 he attended the first of the season Concerts in the Park series and Movies Under the Stars. On Thursday the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority held a teleconference meeting and reorganization with no significant or reportable items. He congratulated DB's newest Eagle Scout, Charlie Lugar from Troop 730 and a recent DBHS graduate. He asked that tonight's meeting be adjourned in memory of Bob Crawford, retired Parole Agent for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation and Christy Cunico. MPT/Tanaka offered condolences to both families. M/Chang reminded residents to follow her on Twitter, Facebook and Foursquare for updates on City activities in which she participates. She thanked staff for sponsoring a great Contract Cities meeting. Senator Bob Huff spoke and participants commended DB for its beautiful Diamond Bar Center. The 4th of July Blast was attended by the most enthusiastic crowd she had ever witnessed. She congratulated CSC/Tarazon and CSD/Rose and his staff for a great event. Last week was the first Concerts in the Park which was well attended and she thanked the Community Services staff for their efforts. She congratulated MPT/Tanaka and Wanda Tanaka for their award and thanked them for all they do for the community. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Chang adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:50 p.m. in memory of Bob Crawford and Christy Cunico. TOMMYE CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of 2012. LING -LING CHANG, MAYOR CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Agenda No. 6.2 MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION DIAMOND BAR CITY HALL - THE WINDMILL ROOM 21810 COPLEY DRIVE, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 MAY 24. 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Herndon called the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to order at 7.00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Grundy led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Dave Grundy, Ted Owens, Dave Roberto and Chairman Lew Herndon Absent: Vice Chairman Benny Liang was excused. Staff Present: Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Anthony Jordan, Parks and Maintenance Superintendent; Christy Murphy, Recreation Superintendent; Allison Meyers, Community Services Coordinator; Phil Williams, Facility Attendant ll; Robin Crawford, Community Services Coordinator, and Debbie Gonzales, Administrative Coordinator. D134YOUTH — RECOGNITION OF OUTGOING/INCOMING BOARD MEMBERS — CSC/Meyers MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None CALENDAR OF EVENTS: As presented by CSD/Rose. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR: 1.1 Approval of Minutes for the April 26, 2012 Regular Meeting. C/Grundy moved, C/Owens seconded, to approve the April 26, 2012 Regular Meeting Minutes with the notation that the meeting recordation failed. Motion carried with C/Roberto and Chair/Herndon abstaining and VC/Liang being absent. 1.2 Received and Filed transmittal of July 2012 Parks and Recreation Month Proclamation. C/Owens moved, C/Roberto seconded, to receive and file the transmittal. Without objection, the motion was so ordered with VC/Liang being absent. MAY 24, 2012 PAGE 2 P&R 2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS - 2.1 Recreation Program Update — RS/Murphey C/Owens asked how many Volunteens were selected and RS/Murphey responded about a hundred. C/Roberto asked the difference between major and minor excursions for the Summer Day Camp. RS/Murphey responded that major excursions are to amusement parks and minor excursions include roller and ice skating. Each week participants take advantage of both. C/Roberto asked if staff knew why the Diamond Bar Center rentals were so low as compared to last year and RS/Murphey responded that it happens to be the way the revenue was collected. The City is actually ahead of where it was last year at this point with revenue. C/Grundy asked when figures would be available for the City Birthday Party and wondered whether staff had enough information to know how much moving the date impacted the financial summary. CSD/Rose said staff knows that the revenue for the games and rides was lower by about $3000. Figures will be available for the entire event next month. C/Owens asked how many kids were registered for youth baseball last year and RS/Murphey thought about 150-200. C/Owens asked if notification went to all user groups and RS/Murphey said staff has an email list and notification is sent to all on the list including anyone who calls and inquires. 2.1.1 Power Point Presentation on the Diamond Bar Center Comment Cards — CSC/Crawford C/Grundy said he hoped that staff had the (Power Point Presentation) pictures in a photo album that prospective renters could look through because to him it would be a great way to sell folks on what could be done with the facility. CSC/Crawford responded that they have a picture book that staff gives out to prospective clients and she tries to keep it as up to date and diverse as possible, especially with newer events happening. C/Grundy said he had no idea that event planners were going to such length to decorate the facility. CSD/Rose stated that next year's budget contains about $150,000 to upgrade the technology at the Diamond Bar Center which will address some of the concerns addressed by renters on the comment cards. Chair/Herndon asked if the City would raise fees to compensate for the budget item and CSD/Rose said there would be no increase because the City is satisfied with the fees and the City Council supports a CPI increase as -needed. MAY 24, 2012 PAGE 3 P&R COMMISSION 2.2 Parks Report– PMS/Jordan C/Owens recommended the Commission send a thank you letter to the LDS Church for their volunteer effort. C/Owens asked if the wall is painted on an annual or as -needed basis and PMS/Jordan responded "as needed." 2.2.1 Power Point Presentation on Summitridge Trail Maintenance – PMS/Jordan C/Roberto asked if the City compensates the Conservation Corp and PMS/Jordan responded yes. DB has funds available for "at - risk" youth and the California Conservation. Corp qualifies for that funding. C/Roberto asked the cost per year and PMS/Jordan responded that he had not yet received a bill for the year but typically, DB pays about $35,000 per year for the CCC Services. CSD/Rose explained that the Youth at Risk Funds are part of the Safe Parks Act and can only be used to pay a group or youth that qualify as "at -risk" youth and the California Conservation Corp qualifies by definition. The CCC also helps with graffiti removal and firebreaks in District 41. 2.3 CIP Projects – CSD/Rose 2.3.1 Washington Park – CSD/Rose reported that the park has been completed and the Notice of Completion was recorded by the LA County Recorder's office. The contractor is finishing up their maintenance responsibilities. Dedication Ceremonies are scheduled for Saturday, June 2. Invitations have been sent to all residents in the neighborhood and a letter was sent to all of the individuals who completed tiles that are in the park. 2.3.2 Sycamore Canyon Park Trail —Phase IV – CSD/Rose stated that this project was completed and Notice of Completion was recorded by the LA County Recorder's office. Work is complete except for installation of the interpretive panels which are on order and should be received about the end of June. Staff is still looking at the exercise station signs to see if they need to be more explicit with respect to use of the equipment. 2.3.3 Silver Tip Mini -Park – CSD/Rose indicated that the Notice of Completion has been recorded and the contractor is performing the landscape maintenance. Dedication ceremonies are scheduled for Saturday, June 16 at 10:00 a.m. Notices to the neighborhood will go out early next week. 2.3.4 Trails Free Standing Interpretive Exhibits – Design & Construction – see Item 2.3.2 MAY 24, 2012 PAGE 4 P&R COMMISSION 2.3.5 Dog Park at Pantera Meadow — CSD/Rose reported that bid opening took place on Tuesday and the apparent low bidder is Kormx, Inc. with a low bid of $96,875. Six bids were submitted. This item will go to City Council on Tuesday, June 5 for award of contract. Construction is anticipated to commence early July with completion early to mid-August with opening late August Chair/Herndon asked if the project came in at or under budget and CSD/Rose explained that the original budget for the sidewalk was about $25,000 but because of the elevations, existing drainage structures and ADA requirements, the cost increased significantly. The handrails added more than $41,000 to the cost. The original budget was about $131,600 and the current estimate is $235,000. 2.3.6 ADA Improvements at Longview South and Stardust Mini Parks — Design — CSD/Rose stated that these improvements are described in the CIP packet with tonight's agenda. These two projects have been delayed due to funding issues. The City has the CDGB funds but not the matching funds. Therefore, Longview South has been pushed out to FY2014-15 and Stardust has been pushed out to FY2015-16. 2.4 Presentation on Diamond Bar High School's new swimming pool. CSD/Rose presented staffs report and referred the Commissioners to the design drawings to explain the proposed layout and intended uses. Chair/Herndon asked if the City would charge for lessons or contract out the swimming lessons. CSD/Rose said that YMCA offers swim lessons at the Hills Club and it may be left to the YMCA to work with the school to offer lessons. The other option would be for the City to hire instructors and to advertise the classes on a break-even basis. The school would like for the City to help subsidize the cost of operating the pool but there would have to be a community benefit for that to occur. C/Owens asked if the City was involved in the design to which CSD/Rose responded "no." 3. OLD BUSINESS: 3.1 Discussion of Updated 5 -year CIP Program — CSD/Rose C/Owens asked if the projects are consistent with the Parks Master Plan to which CSD/Rose responded "yes." CSD/Rose stated that two projects not on the list are Larkstone Park and the Site D development park because they will be funded by developer fees. However, when those two parks are constructed the City will be MAY 24, 2012 PAGE 5 P&R COMMISSION responsible for ongoing maintenance costs. Chair/Herndon asked if the athletic improvements to Lorbeer and South Point costs were broken down by item in the Master Plan. CSD/Rose responded that within the Master Plan there is a breakdown of development costs for elements that are part of these projects which is not necessarily listed under each facility. C/Roberto asked if it was common for the City to miss the estimate by as much as it did on the Dog Park and CSD/Rose responded that when an estimate is done prior to getting engineers on site, anything can happen. In this case, the surprise was the fact that it was not feasible to dig out the ground sufficiently to eliminate the elevation differences due to the underground flood control system. ADA requires handrails once the grade exceeds five percent. In addition, the path width was measured at five feet. However, in order to accommodate maintenance vehicles hand rails reduce the width of the pathway so the path had to be widened to eight feet which required more concrete. 4. NEW BUSINESS: None 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/Roberto attended the City Birthday Party which seemed to him to be quieter than usual, perhaps due to the fact that it took place during Mother's Day weekend. He also attended the DB4Youth Dance. He announced that he would be out of town on June 2 Washington Park opening. C/Roberto thanked staff for the very informative reports. C/Grundy agreed with C/Roberto that the City Birthday Party was a very nice event. The Mesa opening was a nice event and staff did a really great job with the opening and construction which serves as a nice addition to the trails system. C/Grundy commended staff on reports and most especially the Power Point presentations. C/Owens echoed his colleague's comments regarding the City Birthday Party. He thought the event was more spread out which may have given an appearance of fewer attendees. The event was well done and he enjoyed it. He too, enjoys the Power Point presentations and said he had not previously realized how elaborate some of the events at the Diamond Bar Center were until tonight's presentation. He thanked staff for the Power Point on the trails system. Chair/Herndon said if the Commissioners were intended to be recipients of shirts next year he would appreciate a little larger size. He was on vacation during the last meeting and visited parks in the Washington D.C. and New York/Ellis Island area along with all of the monuments and facilities. It is nice to be home and appreciate DB and its parks and all of staffs good work. MAY 24, 2012 PAGE6 P&R ADJOURNMENT: C/Roberto moved, C/Owens seconded, to adjourn the meeting. With no further business before the Parks & Recreation Commission, Chair/Herndon adjourned the meeting at 8:40 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this244ay of May 2012. Respectfully Submitted, B ECRETARY Attest: LEW HERNDON, CHAIRMAN CITY COUNCIL Agenda # 6.3 Meeting Date: August 7th, 2012 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James DeStefano, City TITLE: Ratification of Check Register d ted July 12, 2012 through August 1, 2012 totaling $ 3,267,611.39. RECOMMENDATION: Ratify. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Expenditure of $ 3,267,611.39 in City funds. BACKGROUND: The City has established the policy of issuing accounts payable checks on a weekly basis with City Council ratification at the next scheduled City Council meeting. DISCUSSION: The attached check register containing checks dated July 12, 2012 through August 1, 2012 for $ 3,367,611.39 is being presented for ratification. All payments have been made in compliance with the City's purchasing policies and procedures. Payments have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate departmental staff and the attached Affidavit affirms that the check register has been audited and deemed accurate by the Finance Director. •::_M Luisa Fua Accounting Technician REVIEPED BY 0v\ �,` I Finance Director Attachments: Affidavit and Check Register — 07/12/12 through 08/1/12. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CHECK REGISTER AFFIDAVIT The attached listings of demands, invoices, and claims in the form of a check register including checks dated July 12, 2012 through August 1, 2012 has been audited and is certified as accurate. Payments have been allowed from the following funds in these amounts: Description Amount General Fund $1,845,986.15 Com Org Support Fund $1,000.00 Prop A - Transit Fund $56,018.27 Prop C - Transit Tax Fund $58,943.67 Integrated Waste Mgt Fund $23,623.55 AB2766-Air Qlty Mgt Fund $8,907.60 Com Dev Block Grant Fund $31,776.23 COPS Fund $206.08 LLAD 38 Fund $25,453.62 LLAD 39 Fund $27,265.57 LLAD 41 Fund $27,147.53 Capital Imp Projects Fund $599,475.22 Self Insurance Fund $452,276.00 Computer Eq Repl Fund $109,531.90 $3,267,611.39 Signed: A Dianna Honeywell Finance Director City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/12/2012 1 100034 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC CRIME INS -FY 12/13 5104081 1 47200 1 1,373.001 $1,373.00 7/12/2012 100035 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC INS -CONCERTS 7/11-8/22 0015350 1 45305 1 2,196.75 $2,196.75 7/12/2012 j MICHAEL KOBAYASHI FACILITY CHRGS-SYC CYN 001 23004 -50.00 7/12/2012 1 100036- ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC INS -TEEN NIGHT OUT 0015350 45300 391.57 $391.57 7/12/2012 1 100037 BENESYST FLEX ADMIN SVCS -AUG 1 0014060 42346 100.00 $100.00 7/12/2012 1 100038 CALIFORNIAJPIA INS -POLLUTION LIABILITY 1 5104081 1 47210 1 9,024.00 $9,024.00 7/12/2012 100039 CALIFORNIAJPIA INS -WORKERS COMPENSATION 5104081 1 47210 1 441,879.00 $4411879.00 7/12/2012 100040 CDW GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES-I.T. 0014070 1 41200 1 130.50 $130.50 7/12/2012 100041 DELTA CARE USA JUL 2012 -DENTAL PREMIUM 001 21104 1 152.96 $152.96 7/12/2012 1 100042 DISNEYLAND EXCURSION -DAY CAMP 0015350 1 42410 1 13,570.00 $13,570.00 7/12/2012 1 100043 GOVIS LLC COMP NIAINT-TRANSIT 1185098 42205 5,000.00 $5,000.00 7/12/2012 1 100044 GRANICUS INC MONTHLY SVCS -FY 12/13 0014070 44030 12,000.00 $12,000.00 7/12/2012 100045 1 HARRIS COMPUTER SYSTEMS COMP MAINT-CITY VIEW 0014070 1 42205 1 23,854.00 $23,854.00 7/12/2012 1 100046 IMMUNITY SOLUTIONS COMP MAI NT-I.T 0014070 1 42205 1 2,920.00 $2,920.00 7/12/2012 1 100047 IN -N -OUT BURGER FOOD -LIBRARY EVENT 0014095 1 44000 21275.00 $2,275.00 7/12/2012 1 100048 INTERACT EVENT PRODUCTIONS FIELD GAMES-REC 0015350 1 45300 1 2,024.00 $2,024.00 7/12/2012 1 100049 JACKSON'S AUTO SUPPLY VEH MAINT-COMM SVCS 0015310 1 42200 1 278.92 $278.92 7/12/2012- 100050 MICHAEL KOBAYASHI FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 23002 200.00 $150.00 7/12/2012 j MICHAEL KOBAYASHI FACILITY CHRGS-SYC CYN 001 23004 -50.00 7/12/2012 100051 GRETCHEN LASTRA FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 500.00 $1,065.35 7/12/2012 j GRETCHEN LASTRA FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 36615 565.35 Page 1 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number) Vendor Name I Transaction Description I Fund/ Dept I Acct# I Amount 7/12/2012 1 100052 IMOBILE RELAYASSOCIATES INC REPEATER SVCS-JULY2012 - 0014440 42130 78,751 $78.75 7/12/2012 001407042205 QUINN RENTAL SERVICES EQ RENTAL -JULY 4TH 0015350 42130 237.77 SUNGARD 7/12/2012 1 100053 IMOONLIGHT PRESS PRINT SVCS -BUDGET BOOKS 0014090 1 42110 1 456.751 $456.75 4,522.87 7/12/2012 1 100054 IPOMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT FACILITY RENTAL-LORBEER 0015350 1 42140 1 900.00 1$900.00 $173.22 7/12/2012 1 100055 PYRO COMM SYSTEMS INC ALARM SVCS -CITY HALL 0014093 1 45000 1 135.00 $135.00 7/12/2012 100056 QUINN RENTAL SERVICES EQ RENTAL -JULY 4TH 0015350 42130 292.26 $530.03 7/12/2012 001407042205 QUINN RENTAL SERVICES EQ RENTAL -JULY 4TH 0015350 42130 237.77 SUNGARD 7/12/2012 1 100057 IRAGING WATERS SAN DIMAS EXCURSION -DAY CAMP 0015350 1 42410 1 500.00 $500.00 SYS 001407042205 22,552.19 $27,075.06 7/12/2012 SUNGARD 7/12/2012 1 100058 ISECTRAN SECURITY INC. COUIER SVCS-JUL 2012 0014090 1 44000 1 308.461 $308.46 7/12/2012 1 100059 IRACHEL SERRATO FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 23002 1 50.00 $50.00 7/12/2012 100060 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PENTAMATION ANNL MAINT-FIN SYS 001407042205 22,552.19 $27,075.06 7/12/2012 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PENTAMATION ANNL MAINT-FIN SYS 0014070 42205 4,522.87 7/12/2012 1 100061 1CHE TANG REFUND -FPL 2012-457 1 001 1 23010 1 719.781 $719.78 7/12/2012 1 100062 JTHEANSVVFRBAND INC BAND -CONCERT IN PARK 1 0015350 1 45305 1 1,200.00 1$1,200.00 7/12/2012 1 100063 ITIME WARNER CABLE IN ODEM SVCS -COUNCIL 1 0014010 1 42130 1 173.22 $173.22 7/12/2012 1 100064 ACCESS CONTROL SECURITY ISECURITY SVCS -DBC 0015333 1 45010 1 954.00 $954.00 7/12/2012 1 100065 AFFORDABLE GENERATOR SERVICES INC INSPECTION SVCS -GENERATOR 1 0015333 1 45300 1 225.00 $225.00 7/12/2012 1 100066 IDAISYANAND RECREATION REFUND 1001 34780 1 129.00 $129.00 7/12/2012 1 100067 ASCI SECURITY COMP EQ -HARDWARE 0014093 1 46230 1 3,340.00 $3,340.00 7/12/2012 1 100068 AT & T PH.SVCS-GENERAL 1 0014090 1 42125 1 45.13 1$45.13 Page 2 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/12/2012 100069 BEAR STATE AIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN HVAC SVCS -JUN DBC 0015333 45300 773.00 $773.00 7/12/2012 100070 MICHELLE BOYKIN RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 132.00 $132.00 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 0014070 46230 164.43 7/12/2012 1 100071 BSN SPORTS CORP EQ -RECREATION 0015350 1 41200 1 2,498.47 $2,498.47 7/12/2012 100072 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -13. 0014070 46230 590.84 $123,217.37 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 0014070 46230 164.43 7/12/2012 - CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 0014070 46230 108.15 $667.06 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT SUPPLIES -IT. 0014070 41200 67.43 7/12/2012 100075 CDW GOVERNMENT TRNG SUPPLIES-I.T 0014070 42340 342.05 $57.00 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP MAI NT-I.T 0014070 42205 7,695.00 7/12/2012 100076 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 0014093 46230 568.20 $91.00 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 0014093 46230 624.23 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 5304070 46230 10,965.00 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 5304070 46230 567.00 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 5304070 46230 2,409.40 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 5304070 46230 5,929.83 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 5304070 46230 11,851.58 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 5304070 46230 210.00 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 5304070 46230 68,671.91 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 5304070 46230 4,463.59 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -LIBRARY 0014093 45000 120.06 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -LIBRARY 0014093 45000 2,924.02 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -LIBRARY 0014093 - 45000 211.36 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -LIBRARY 0014093 45000 269.70 7/12/2012 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -HARDWARE 5304070 46230 4,463.59 7/12/2012 1 100073 CENTRAL POWDER COATING BANNER FRAMES -COMM SVCS 1 0015340 1 42210 1 204.73 $204.73 7/12/2012 100074 CERTIFIED TRANSPORTATION SVCS INC EXCURSION -SR 1125350 1 45310 1 667.06 $667.06 7/12/2012 100075 JALPACHAUDHARI RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34780 1 57.00 $57.00 7/12/2012 100076 CHICAGO TITLE HIP PROG-1040 PK SPRING 1 1255215 -1 44000 1 26.00 $91.00 Page 3 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/12/2012 100076.., CHICAGO TITLE IHIP PROG-204 PROSPECTORS 1255215 44000 65.00 $91.00.- 1 7/12/2012 1 100077 CONSTRUCTION HARDWARE SUPPLIES -PARKS 1 0015340 1 41200 1 421.41 $421.41 7/12/2012 100078 DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP LEGAL SVCS -MAY 0014020 44023 6,251.93 $19,556.81 7/12/2012 DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP LEGAL SVCS-DECORAH TRUST 0014020 44023 11,131.02 7/12/2012 100083 DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP LEGAL SVCS-MCCABE 0014020 44023 590.16 $90.00 7/12/2012 DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP LEGAL SVCS -SHELL STATION 0014020 44023 1,583.70 7/12/2012 100079 DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES INC PROF.SVCS-FPL 2009-375 001 23010 125.09 $460.59 7/12/2012 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC ADMIN FEES -FPL 2009-375 001 23010 22.52 7/12/2012 100083 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC ADMIN FEES -FPL 2009-375 001 34430 -22.52 $90.00 7/12/2012 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC PROF.SVCS-FPL 2011-428 001 23010 335.50 7/12/2012 100084 DAVID EVANS ANDASSOCIATES INC ADMIN FEES -FPL 2011-428 001 23010 60.40 $886.00 7/12/2012 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC ADMIN FEES -FPL 2011-428 001 34430 -60.40 7/12/2012 100080 JOANNE DELIO RECREATION REFUND 001 34730 162.00 $439.00 7/12/2012 JOANNE DELIO RECREATION REFUND 001 34730 282.00 7/12/2012 100083 JOANNE DELIO RECREATION CHRGS 001 34730 -5.00 $90.00 7/12/2012 100081 CAROL DENNIS PROF.SVCS-P/C MTG 0015210 44000 180.00 $355.00 7/12/2012 1 CAROL DENNIS PROF.SVCS-P & R MTG 0015310 44000 175.00 7/12/2012 1 100082 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS 1 0014060 1 42345 1 32.00 $32.00 7/12/2012 EVERGREEN INTERIORS PLANT MAINT-LIBRARY 0014090 42210 1 107.00 1 7/12/2012 1 100083 MAYADEVI CONTRACT CLASS -SPRING 1 0015350 1 45320 1 90.001 $90.00 7/12/2012 1 100084 DIANA CHO & ASSOCIATES PROF.SVCS-CDBG JUN 1 1255215 1 44000 1 886.00 $886.00 7/12/2012 1 100085 DIGITAL NETWORKS GROUP INC TRAFFIC MNGMNT SYS 2505510 1 46412 1 33,478.79 $33,478.79 7/12/2012 100086 EVERGREEN INTERIORS PLANT MAINT-CITY HALL 0014090 42210 230.00 $337.00 7/12/2012 EVERGREEN INTERIORS PLANT MAINT-LIBRARY 0014090 42210 1 107.00 1 7/12/2012 100087 EXCELLANDSCAPE IRRIGATION REPAIR -DIST 39. 1395539 42210 264.58 $2,080.55 7/12/2012 EXCELLANDSCAPE IRRIGATION REPAIRS-DIST38 1385538 42210 629.05 Page 4 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/12/2012 100087... EXCELLANDSCAPE IRRIGATION REPAIR -DIST 38 1385538 42210 352.81 $2,080.55 ... 7/12/2012 100094 EXCELLANDSCAPE IRRIGATION REPAIR -DIST 38 1385538 42210 720.71 $168.00 7/12/2012 EXCELLANDSCAPE IRRIGATION REPAIR -DIST 39 1395539 42210 113.40 7/12/2012 100088 EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL 0014090 42120 14.85 $85.85 7/12/2012 EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 2011-452 001 23010 35.50 7/12/2012 100094 EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE ACCOUNT EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 2011-463 001 23010 35.50 $168.00 7/12/2012 100089 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL -DBC 0015333 45300 75.00 $235.00 7/12/2012 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL -DBC 0015333 45300 40.00 7/12/2012 100094 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL -PETERSON 0015340 42210 50.00 $168.00 7/12/2012 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL -HERITAGE 0015340 42210 40.00 7/12/2012 100098 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL-PANTERA 0015340 42210 30.00 $125.00 7/12/2012 - 100090 FEDEX EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL 0014090 42120 69.10 $159.49 7/12/2012 FEDEX EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL 0014090 42120 90.39 7/12/2012 1 100091 GLOBAL LEARNING SYSTEMS SAFETY VESTS -SHERIFF 1264411 1 46250 1 206.08 $206.08 7/12/2012 1 100092 IGOVIS LLC DEV SVCS -TPS SYS 1 1185098 1 46235 1 3,907.60 $3,907.60 7/12/2012 100093 GRAFFITI CONTROL SYSTEMS GRAFFITI REMOVAL -JUN 0015230 1 45520 1 4,940.00 $4,940.00 7/12/2012 HARDY & HARPER INC ADDL ROAD MAINT-JUN 0015554 45502 4,300.00 7/12/2012 1 100094 SHANNON GRIFFITHS CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 1 45320 1 168.00 $168.00 7/12/2012 100095 HARDY & HARPER INC ROAD MAINT-JUN 0015554 45502 2,102.39 $40,287.80 7/12/2012 HARDY & HARPER INC ADDL ROAD MAINT-JUN 0015554 45502 4,300.00 7/12/2012 100097 HARDY & HARPER INC ROAD MAINT-MAY 12 0015554 45502 16,159.40 $370.29 7/12/2012 HARDY & HARPER INC ROAD MAINT-JUNE 0015554 45502 17,726.01 7/12/2012 1 100096 TRACY HARLOW RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34760 1 45.00 $45.00 7/12/2012 1 100097 HASLERINC I EQ RENTAL -POSTAGE 0014090 1 42130 1 370.29 $370.29 7/12/2012 1 100098 AMYHUANG RECREATION REFUND 001 34760 1 125.00 $125.00 Page 5 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct# Amount Total Check Amount 7/12/2012 100099 INCONTACT INC LONG DIST SVCS -JUN 0014090 42125 35.94 $35.94 7/12/2012 100100 INLAND EMPIRE STAGES EXCURSION -SAN DIEGO 0015350 45310 554.58 $3,547.00 7/12/2012 INLAND EMPIRE STAGES TRANSPORTATION -EXCURSION 1125350 45310 472.42 7/12/2012 100103 INLAND EMPIRE STAGES SR EXCURSION -SAN DIEGO 0015350 45310 2,520.00 $216.00 7/12/2012 100101 INTERIOR OFFICE SOLUTIONS FURNITURE -CITY HALL 0014093 46220 761.25 $45,866.79 7/12/2012 INTERIOR OFFICE SOLUTIONS FURNITURE -LIBRARY 0014093 46220 21320.67 7/12/2012 100103 INTERIOR OFFICE SOLUTIONS FURNITURE -LIBRARY 0014093 46220 42,784.87 $216.00 7/12/2012 1 100102 JINTERIOR OFFICE SOLUTIONS FURNITURE -CITY HALL 1 0014093 1 46220 1 470.77 $470.77 7/12/2012 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP LEGAL SVCS -COM DEV 0014020 44020 982.80 7/12/2012 1 100103 IMOHAMAD R JAHANVASH CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 1 0015350 1 45320 1 216.00 $216.00 7/12/2012 100104 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP LEGAL SVCS -JUN 2012 0014020 44020 2,129.40 $5,733.00 7/12/2012 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP LEGAL SVCS -COM DEV 0014020 44020 982.80 7/12/2012 100108 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP LEGAL SVCS -COMM SVCS 0014020 44020 200.20 $756.00 7/12/2012 JENKINS & LOGIN, LLP LEGAL SVCS-PNVORKS 0014020 44020 1,164.80 7/12/2012 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP LEGAL SVCS -FINANCE 0014020 44020 18.20 7/12/2012 JENKINS & HOGIN, LLP LEGAL SVCS -SITE D 0014020 44020 1,237.60 7/12/2012 1 100105 JOHN KAISON RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34740 1 20.00 $20.00 7/12/2012 100106 KAL PLANNING SERVICES LLC PROF.SVCS-FPL 2012-466 001 23010 300.00 $300.00 7/12/2012 KAL PLANNING SERVICES LLC ADMIN FEES -FPL 2012-466 001 23010 54.00 7/12/2012 100108 KAL PLANNING SERVICES LLC ADMIN FEES -FPL 2012-466 001 34430 -54.00 $756.00 7/12/2012 1 100107 IGURPREET KAUR IFECREATION REFUND 001 34780 1 233.00 $233.00 7/12/2012 LA COUNTY DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE LANDSCAPE MAINT-DIST 39 1395539 45519 14,705.80 7/12/2012 1 100108 IGABRIELA KLEIN CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 1 0015350 1 45320 1 756.00 $756.00 7/12/2012 100109 LA COUNTY DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE LANDSCAPE MAINT-PARKS 001534042210 9,731.84 $45,316.30 7/12/2012 LA COUNTY DEPT. OF AGRICULTURE LANDSCAPE MAINT-DIST 39 1395539 45519 14,705.80 7/12/2012 LA COUNTY DEPT OFAGRICULTURE LANDSCAPE MAINT-DIST 41 1415541 45519 20,878.66 7/12/2012 1 100110 ITZU CHIA LAI RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34760 1 219.00 $219.00 Page 6 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 7/12/2012 100113 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. CONTRACT SVCS -JUN 2012 0014411 45401 403,044.57 $403,380.97 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name HELICOPTER SVCS -MAY 2012 Transaction Description 45401 Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount PRISCILLAMALAD RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 84.00 $84.00 7/12/2012 MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP 7/12/2012 1 100111 LELAND INTERNATIONAL FURNITURE -CITY HALL 0014093 1 46220 1 30,657.55 $30,657.55 RECREATION REFUND 001 34730 1 44.00 $44.00 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC 7/12/2012 1 100112 lCONSTANCE J LILLIE ICONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 1 45320 1 524.40 $524.40 7/12/2012 100113 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. CONTRACT SVCS -JUN 2012 0014411 45401 403,044.57 $403,380.97 7/12/2012 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT HELICOPTER SVCS -MAY 2012 0014411 45401 336.40 7/12/2012 1 100114. PHYLLIS MACH RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34760 1 255.00 $255.00 7/12/2012 1 MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP HELIUM -COMM SVCS 0015350 42325 87.06 7/12/2012 1 100115 PRISCILLAMALAD RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 84.00 $84.00 7/12/2012 MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP HELIUM -COMM SVCS 0015350 42325 -87.06 7/12/2012 1 100116 AJIT MEHTA RECREATION REFUND 001 34730 1 44.00 $44.00 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 10.09 7/12/2012 100117 MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP HELIUM -COMM SVCS 0015350 42325 16.00 $0.00 7/12/2012 1 MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP HELIUM -COMM SVCS 0015350 42325 87.06 7/12/2012 MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP HELIUM -COMM SVCS 0015350 42325 -16.00 7/12/2012 MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP HELIUM -COMM SVCS 0015350 42325 -87.06 7/12/2012 100118 MULTIVISTA LA PROF.SVCS-ANTRNG 0014093 45000 550.00 $1,050.00 7 /1 212 01 2 1 MULTIVISTA LA CONTRACT SVCS -AN TRNG 0014093 1 45000 500.00 1 7/12/2012 100119 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 7.37 $7,091.67 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 223.48 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 165.79 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 223.48 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 34.21 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 10.09 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 370.98 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 178.79 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 147.56 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 70.29 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-CMGR 0014030 41200 28.28 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-H/R 0014060 41200 11.12 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-H/R 0014060 41200 30.86 7/12/2012 IOFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 1 0014090 1 41200 1 27.36 Page 7 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/12/2012 100119... OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 92.93 $7,091.67... 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 178.79 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC MEMO CREDIT -GENERAL 0014090 41200 -70.29 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 56.38 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 178.79 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 78.83 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 51.21 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -SHERIFF 0014411 41200 13.44 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -BLDG & SFTY 0015220 41200 653.00 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 0015310 41200 416.25 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 0015310 41200 56.06 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 90.85 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 443.43 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 12.70 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 0015350 41200 160.77 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-PNVORKS 0015510 41200 66.64 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-PANORKS 0015510 41200 157.82 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-P/WORKS 0015510 41200 22.80 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 0015350 41200 190.74 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 178.79 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 72.47 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 11.12 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -SHERIFF 0014411 41200 42.22 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-EOC 0014440 41300 91.15 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-PLNG 0015210 41200 255.08 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC CREDIT MEMO-PLNG 0015210 41200 -6.56 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-PLNG 0015210 41200 994.25 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-PLNG 0015210 41200 167.44 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-PLNG 0015210 41200 225.07 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 445.18 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC MEMO CREDIT -DBC 0015333 41200 -12.70 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-PANORKS 0015510 41200 93.80 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC - SUPPLIES-CMGR 0014030 41200 25.38 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-CMGR 0014030 41200 4.55 Page 8 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct# Amount Total Check Amount 7/12/2012 100119... OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-CMGR 0014030 41200 32.57 $7,091.67... 7/12/2012 100125 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-CMGR 0014030 41200 27.81 $129.00 7/12/2012 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -FINANCE 0014050 41200 63.25 7/12/2012 1 100120 ANDRE ORMOND RECREATION REFUND 001 134740 1 79.00 $79.00 7/12/2012 100121 PLAY WELL TEKNOLOGIES CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 45320 772.80 $2,980.80 7/12/2012 PLAY WELL TEKNOLOGIES CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 45320 2,208.00 7/12/2012 100122 DENISE QUAN-GONZALEZ RECREATION REFUND 001 34760 255.00 $255.00 7/12/2012 100123 REINBERGER PRINTWERKS PRINT SVCS -BUS CARDS 0014090 42110 70.69 $209.89 7/12/2012 REINBERGER PRINTWERKS PRINT SVCS -LETTERHEAD 0014090 42110 139.20 7/12/2012 100124 [TERESARIVERA0 RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34740 1 79.00 $79.0 0/12/2012 7/12/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 676.41 7/12/2012 1 100125 -SABINASINGH RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 129.00 $129.00 7/12/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 45.26 7/12/2012 1 100126 ISOLARWINDS.NET INC. COMP MAINT-IT. 0014070 1 42205 1 2,000.001 $2,000.00 7/12/2012 100127 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -DBC 0015333 42126 7,588.71 $11,446.14 7/12/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 676.41 7/12/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 274.98 7/12/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 45.26 7/12/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 2,021.16 7/12/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 138.37 7/12/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 448.61 7/12/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 252.64 7/12/2012 100128 SPARKLETTS WATER SUPPLIES -CITY HALL 0014090 41200 174.87 $228.56 7/12/2012 SPARKLETTS EQ RENTAL -CITY HALL 0014090 42130 10.75 7/12/2012 SPARKLETTS EQ RENTAL-SYC CYN PK 0015340 42130 12.00 7/12/2012 SPARKLETTS WATER SUPPLIES-SYC CYN 0015340 41200 28.47 7/12/2012 SPARKLETTS WATER SUPPLIES-SYC CYN 0015340 42130 2.47 7/12/2012 1 100129 IGLENN STEINBRINK I PROF SVCS -FINANCE WK6/28 1 0014050 1 44000 1 750.00 $750.00 Page 9 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date (Check Number Transaction Description I Fund/ Dept I Acct# I Amount 7/12/2012 100130 STITCHES UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY JERSEYS -RECREATION 0015350 41200 5,755.01 $5,811.84 7/12/2012 1 STITCHES UNIFORMS & EMBROIDERY JERSEYS -RECREATION 0015350 41200 56.83 7/12/2012 1 100131 STUDENT TRANSPORTATION OF AMERICA DAYCAMP-EXCURSION 1125350 45310 1 8,265.00 $8,265.00 7/12/2012 100132 WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST FACILITY RENTAL -MAY 0015350 42140 189.00 $1,856.40 7/12/2012 1 WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST FACILITY RENTAL -MAY 0015350 42140 739.20 7/12/2012 100134 WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST FACILITY RENTAL -MAY 0015350 42140 739.20 $57.00 7/12/2012 WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST FACILITY RENTAL -JUN 0015350 42140 189.00 7/12/2012 1 100133 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER SVCS -DIST 38 1385538 1 42126 1 1,828.01 $1,828.01 7/12/2012 1 WEST COASTARBORISTS INC WATER SVCS -JUN 2012 0015558 45510 1 690.00 7/12/2012 1 100134 SCOTT WATKINS RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 57.00 $57.00 7/12/2012 1 100135 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY SUPPLIES -CITY HALL 1 0014093 1 41200 1 42.011 $42.01 7/12/2012 100136 WEST COASTARBORISTS INC TREE MAINT-JUN 2012 0015558 45509 12,632.23 $13,322.23 7/12/2012 1 WEST COASTARBORISTS INC WATER SVCS -JUN 2012 0015558 45510 1 690.00 7/12/2012 1 100137 THERESAWINECKI CONTRACT SVCS -SUMMER 1 0015350 1 45320 1 11258.80 $1,258.80 7/19/2012 BEAR STATE AIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN HVAC SVCS-PANTERA 0015340 42210 85.00 7/12/2012 1 100138 DENNIS WONG RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 82.00 $82.00 7/12/2012 1 100139 JEAN YEH RECREATION REFUND 001 34740 1 79.00 $79.00 7/19/2012 1 100140 ASCI SECURITY UPGRADE -ASCI SECURITY 0014093 42210 1 23 969.001 $23,969.00 7/19/2012 1 100141 TESS ASPURIA RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 1 94.001 $94.00 7/19/2012 1 100142 IBASHFORD ENTERPRISES HIP PROG-20580 CALPET 1255215 1 44000 1 3,067.00 $3,067.00 7/19/2012 100143 BEAR STATEAIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN HVAC SVCS -HERITAGE 00153411 42210 155.00 $240.00 7/19/2012 BEAR STATE AIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN HVAC SVCS-PANTERA 0015340 42210 85.00 7/19/2012 1 100144 BEE REMOVERS BEE SVCS-SYC CYN PK 1 0015340 1 42210 1 375.00 $375.00 Page 10 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/19/2012 1 100145 IJIM BERNERT IRECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 25.001 $25.00 7/19/2012 1 100146 CALIFORNIA CREATIONS LANDSCAPE MAINT-DIST 39 - 1385538 1 42210 2,000.00 $2,000.00 7/19/2012 DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP LEGAL SVCS-DECORAH TRUST 0014020 44023 16,788.11 7/19/2012 1 100147 CARDIAC SCIENCE CORP AED EQ -CITY HALL 1 0014440 1 41300 1 2,287.80 $2,287.80 7/19/2012 DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP LEGAL SVCS -SHELL STATION 0014020 44023 4,410.90 7/19/2012 1 100148 COMMUNITY INDUSTRIES PARKWAY MAINT-JUN 2012 1 0015558 1 45503 1,982.76 $1,982.76 7/19/2012 1 100149 CA PARKS & REC SOC -DIS XIII WG-REC LEADER 6/9 001531 0 42325 150.00 $150.00 7/19/2012 100150 DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP LEGAL SVCS -JUNE 2012 0014020 44023 6,258.90 $27,631.16 7/19/2012 DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP LEGAL SVCS-DECORAH TRUST 0014020 44023 16,788.11 7/19/2012 100153 DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP LEGAL SVCS-MCCABE 0014020 44023 - 173.25 $675.00 7/19/2012 DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVAK LLP LEGAL SVCS -SHELL STATION 0014020 44023 4,410.90 7/19/2012 100151 DIAMOND BAR HAND CAR WASH CAR WASH -POOL VEH 0014090 42200 186.84 $234.80 7/19/2012 DIAMOND BAR HAND CAR WASH CAR WASH-NGHBRHD IMP 0015230 42200 23.98 7/19/2012 100153 DIAMOND BAR HAND CAR WASH CAR WASH-P/WORKS 0015554 42200. 10.99 $675.00 7/19/2012 DIAMOND BAR HAND CAR WASH CAR WASH -COMM SVCS 0015310 42200 12.99 7/19/2012 1 100152 IDIAMOND BAR MOBIL FUEL -COMM SVCS 0015310 1 42310 1 241.201 $241.20 7/19/2012 GLENN'S REFRIGERATION CORP SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 1 41200 295.00 7/19/2012 1 100153 DIAMOND BARNVALNUT YMCA CHILD CARE PROG-APR-JUN 1 1255215 1 42355 1 675.00 $675.00 7/19/2012 1 100154 DUNN'S FENCE COMPANY TEMP FENCE-PANTERA 1 0015340 1 42210 1 2,212.50 $2,212.50 7/19/2012 100155 1 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC FIRE ANTS -HERITAGE PK 0015340 1 42210 1 125.00 $125.00 7/19/2012 GLENN'S REFRIGERATION CORP SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 1 41200 295.00 7/19/2012 100156 AURORA FENG RECREATION REFUND 001 34760 1 125.00 $125.00 7/19/2012 100157 GLENN'S REFRIGERATION CORP SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 1,380.00 $1,675.00 7/19/2012 GLENN'S REFRIGERATION CORP SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 1 41200 295.00 7/19/2012 1 100158 INTERIOR OFFICE SOLUTIONS FURNITURE -CITY HALL 0014093 1 46220 1 295.00 $295.00 7/19/2012 1 100159 JOHN L HUNTER &ASSOC. INC NPDES UPDATE -JUN 2012 0015510 1 44240 1 230.00 $230.00 Page 11 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/19/2012 1 100,160 ITRACY KERR RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 99.001 $99.06- 7/19/2012 1 100161 LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS ST LIGHT ASSESSMNT-11/12 0015340 1 42126 1 39.00 $39.00 7/19/2012 1 MCE CORPORATION RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINT-JUN 12 0015554 45522 1,910.54 7/19/2012 1 100162 ILEAD TECH ENVIRONMENTAL IHIP PROG-20580 CALPET 1255215 1 44000 1 460.00 $460.00 7/19/2012 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC MONTHLY HOSTING -JUN 0014070 44030 180.00 7/19/2012 1 100163 SHERI LIEBE CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 1 45320 1 381.00 $381.00 7/19/2012 100164 ANNABELLE LIM RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34780 1 60.00 $60.00 7/19/2012 1 100165 ILOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS INDUSTRIAL WASTE -APR 12 0015510 45530 1,970.561 $1,970.56 7/19/2012 100166 MCE CORPORATION ROAD MAINT SVCS -JUN 0015554 45502 8,754.15 $10,664.69 7/19/2012 1 MCE CORPORATION RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINT-JUN 12 0015554 45522 1,910.54 7/19/2012 1 100167 IONWARD ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION-C/HILLS PKWY 2505510 1 46411 1 7,500,001 $7,500.00 7/19/2012 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC MONTHLY HOSTING -APR 0014070 44030 180.00 7/19/2012 1 100168 CHUL HONG PARK RECREATION REFUND _ 001 34780 1 355.00 $355.00 7/19/2012 1 100169 BARBARA PARKER RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34720 1 112.00 $112.00 7/19/2012 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC MONTHLY HOSTING -APR 0014070 44030 180.00 7/19/2012 1 100170 TIEN PHAM RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 84.00 $84.00 7/19/2012 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC MONTHLY HOSTING -JUN 0014070 44030 180.00 7/19/2012 1 100171 IRKA CONSULTING GROUP EVALUATION SVCS -PARKS 0015310 1 44300 1 1,194.56 $1,194.56 7/19/2012 1 100172 IJANIS SAWAYA RECREATION REFUND 001 34730 1 88.00 $88.00 7/19/2012 1 100173 ISOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -CITY HALL 1 0014093 42126 1 26,932.90 $26,932.90 7/19/2012 1 100174 TENNIS ANYONE INC CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 1 0015350 1 45320 1 3,148,251 $3,148.25 7/19/2012 1 100175 TRI -CITIES POOL SERVICE & REPAIR FOUNTAIN MAINT-DBC JUN 1 0015333 1 45300 1 160.001 $160.00 7/19/2012 100176 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC COMP MAINT-VERISIGN 0014070 42205 449.00 $989.00 7/19/2012 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC MONTHLY HOSTING -APR 0014070 44030 180.00 7/19/2012 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC MONTHLY HOSTING -MAY 0014070 44030 180.00 7/19/2012 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC MONTHLY HOSTING -JUN 0014070 44030 180.00 Page 12 Check Date I Check City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Transaction Description I Fund/ Dept I Acct# I Amount I Total Check Amount 7/19/2012 100177 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER SVCS -PARKS 0015340 42126 20,959.66 $48,405.11 7/19/2012 1 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER SVCS -DIST 38 1385538 42126 17,510.23 7/19/2012 100179 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER SVCS -DIST 39 1395539 42126 9,012.66 $87.60 7/19/2012 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER SVCS -DIST 41 1415541 42126 439.12 7/19/2012 100180 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER SVCS -CITY HALL 0014093 42126 483.44 $125.00 7/19/2012 1 100178 WELLDYNERX SHAPRS PROG-JUNE 12 1 1155515 1 44000 1 64.64 $64.64 7/19/2012 1 KIMALEGADO FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA 001 36620 100.00 7/19/2012 1 100179 THERESAWINECKI CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 1 0015350 1 45320 1 87.60 $87.60 7/19/2012 1 100180 OIN YU RECREATION REFUND 001 34760 1 125.00 $125.00 7/19/2012 100181 11 ST JON INC EQ RENTAL -4TH JULY BLAST 0015350 1 42130 1 2,485.68 $2,485.68 7/19/2012 100182 HANIABUERSHAID FACILITY REFUND -DBC 1 001 1 23002 1 350.00 $350.00 7/19/2012 100183 KIMALEGADO FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA 001 23002 200.00 $300.00 7/19/2012 1 KIMALEGADO FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA 001 36620 100.00 7/19/2012 1 100184 MRYNA BAIG FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 1 23002 700.00 $700.00 7/19/2012 100185 SAMIR BELANI FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 550.00 $565.90 7/19/2012 1 SAMIR BELANI FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 36615 15.90 7/19/2012 1 100186 BENESYST 7/20/12-P/R DEDUCTIONS 001 1 21105 1 1,035.79 $1,035.79 7/19/2012 1 100187 1 KATHY BREAUX CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 1 45320 1 2H.001 $288.00 7/19/2012 1 100188 CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOC. MEMBERSHIP DUES -12/13 1 0014090 1 42315 1 3,822.00 $3,822.00 7/19/2012 1 100189 CYNTHIACASTANON FACILITY REFUND-REAGAN 001 1 23002 1 50.00 $50.00 7/19/2012 1 100190 SANDRA CLARKE REIMB-SHERIFF DEPT 0014415 1 42325 1 65.81 $65.81 7/19/2012 1 100191 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION HIP PROG-1781 AUTUMNGLOW 125 1 36700 1 5,288.001$5,288.00 Page 13 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total CheckAmount 7/19/2012 1 100192 ICOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION IMP PROG-2911 RISING STAR 125 36700 7,733.001 $7,733.00 7/19/2012 100193 DOLPHIN RENTS INC EQ RENTAL -4TH OF JULY 0015350 42130 679.931$679.93 $1,510.20 7/19/2012 1 DIPAK DOSHI REFUND -EN 10-770 001 23012 820.00 7/19/2012 1 100194 DOLPHIN RENTS INC EQ RENTAL -LIBRARY 1 0014095 1 44000 1 2,276.36 $2,276.36 7/19/2012 100195 DIPAK DOSHI REFUND -EN 10-670 001 23012 690.20 $1,510.20 7/19/2012 1 DIPAK DOSHI REFUND -EN 10-770 001 23012 820.00 7/19/2012 1 100196 DENISE EVERITT FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 1 001 1 23002 1 50.001 $50.00 7/19/2012 1 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN LEGALAD-LLAD#39 1395539 42115 2,153.80 7/19/2012 f 100197 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL -CITY HALL 1 0014093 1 42210 1 150.00 $150.00 7/19/2012 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN LEGAL AD -ORDINANCE 0015210 42115 569.48 7/19/2012 1 100198 FIRE EXPLORES POST 19 FOOD REIMB-4TH OF JULY 001535 1 41200 1 25.00 $25.00 7/19/2012 1 100199 MIKE HEIL BAND -CONCERT IN PARK 1 0015350 1 45305 1 1,100.001 $1,100.00 7/19/2012 1 100200 LUIS HERNANDEZ FACILITY REFUND -DBC 1 001 1 36615 1 400.001 $400.00 7/19/2012 1 100201 BRIAN HINTON FACILITY REFUND -DBC 1 001 1 23002 1 100.001 $100.00 7/19/2012 100202 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN LEGALAD-LLAD#38 1385538 42115 1,871.90 $6,875.74 7/19/2012 1 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN LEGALAD-LLAD#39 1395539 42115 2,153.80 7/19/2012 100205 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN LEGALAD-LLAD#41 1415541 42115 2,280.56 $483.72 7/19/2012 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN LEGAL AD -ORDINANCE 0015210 42115 569.48 7/19/2012 100203 INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY ANIMAL CONTROL -AUG 12 0014431 454039,465.58 12,459.15 $10,715.58 7/19/2012 1 INLAND VALLEY HUMANE SOCIETY FACILITYASSESSMENT-AUG 0014431 45403 1 1,250.00 7/19/2012 1 100204 INTERIOR OFFICE SOLUTIONS FURNITURE -CITY HALL 1 0014093 1 46220 1 12,459.15 $12,459.15 7/19/2012 1 100205 JMJ EQUIPMEN INC MAINT-DBC 1 0015333 1 42210 1 483.72 $483.72 7/19/2012 1 100206 IKEENAN SUPPLY DRINKING FOUNTAIN-PANTERA 2505310 1 46415 1 4,729.731$4,729.73 7/19/2012 1 100207 GEORGIE KINGSTON REFUND -EN 12-778 1 001 1 23012 1 11000.00 $1,000.00 Page 14 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acd # Amount Total Check Amount 7/19/2012 1 100208 ICONNIE KWAN IRECREATION REFUND 001 1 34780 193.001 $193.00 7/19/2012 1 100209 GLORIA LAN FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 1 23002 1 200.00 $200.00 7/19/2012 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA CITY SUBSI DY -JULY 2012 1125553 45533 783.75 7/19/2012 1 100210. JOSE LOPEZ FACILITY REFUND -DBC 1 001 1 36615 1 400.00 $400.00 7/19/2012 100211 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA MTA PASSES-JUL 2012 1125553 45535 2,643.75 $3,427.50 7/19/2012 1 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA CITY SUBSI DY -JULY 2012 1125553 45533 783.75 7/19/2012 100212 MERCURY DISPOSAL SYSTEMS INC RECYCLING FEES-JUL 2012 1155515 1 44000 1 1,039.341 $1,039.34 7/19/2012 JEANETTE MORALES FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 36615 50.00 7/19/2012 1 100213 JOSE MEZA FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 1 500.00 1$500.00 7/19/2012 1 100214 MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP CABLE -CITY HALL 0014093 1 42210 1 735.93 $735.93 7/19/2012 100215 JEANETTE MORALES FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 23004 208.36 $458.36 7/19/2012 JEANETTE MORALES FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 36615 50.00 7/1 912 01 2 JEANETTE MORALES FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 23002 200.00 7/19/2012 1 100216 MUSIC N SMART CORP CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 1 45320 1 149.401$149.40 7/19/2012 100217 SABAPAREKH FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 350.00 $683.00 7/19/2012 SABA PAREKH FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001. 23002 500.00 7/19/2012 SABA PAREKH FACILITY CHRGS-DBC 001 36615 -167.00 7/19/2012 1 100218 PASCO DOORS MAINT-DBC 1 0015333 1 42210 1 157.50 $157.50 7/19/2012 100219 ROSEPEREZ FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 500.00 $800.00 7/19/2012 ROSE PEREZ FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 300.00 1 7/19/2012 100220 PERS HEALTH AUG 2012 -HEALTH INS PREM 001 211 05 37,621.88 $38,397.82 7/19/2012 PERS HEALTH AUG 2012 -RETIREE HEALTH P 0014090 40086 672.00 7/19/2012 PERS HEALTH AUG 2012 -HEALTH ADMIN FEE 0014060 40093 103.94 7/19/2012 100221 PERS RETIREMENT FUND RETIRE CONTRIB-EE 001 21109 45.57 $12,421.27 7/19/2012 1 PERS RETIREMENT FUND RETIRE CONTRIB-ER 001 21109 12,375.70 1 Page 15 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct# Amount Total Check Amount 7/19/2012 100222 1 PLAY WELL TEKNOLOGIES CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 1 45320 1 3,110.401 $3,110.40 7/19/2012 100223 PROTECTION ONE INC ALARM SVCS -DBC 0015333 42210 59.62 $164.41 7/19/2012 1 PROTECTION ONE INC ALARM SVCS -HERITAGE 0015340 .42210 1 104.79 7/19/2012 1 100224 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVT TAC MTG-LIU/YEE 1 0015551 1 42325 1 50.00 $50.00 7/19/2012 1 SMART& FINAL SUPPLIES -SR BINGO 0015350 41200 1 127.19 7/19/2012 1 100225 ISILVERADO STAGES INC SHUTTLE SVCS -CONCERTS 1125350 1 45310 1 1,243.92 $1,243.92 7/19/2012 100226 SMART& FINAL SUPPLIES -SR BINGO 0015350 41200 45.39 $172.58 7/19/2012 1 SMART& FINAL SUPPLIES -SR BINGO 0015350 41200 1 127.19 7/19/2012 100227 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -DIST 38 1385538 42126 69.58 $518.50 7/19/2012 1 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -DIST 41 1415541 42126 22.95 7/19/2012 100229 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -PARK 0015340 42126 31.46 $981.00 7 /1 912 01 2 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -DIST 38 - 1385538 42126 46.64 7/19/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -DIST 38 1385538 42126 24.60 7/19/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 323.27 7/19/2012 1 100228 ITHE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR LEGALAD-NOTICE 1 0015210 1 42115 1 499.281 $499.28 7/19/2012 1 TSR CONSTRUCTION RETENTIONS PAYABLE 250 20300 1 -920.00 7/19/2012 1 100229 TRANE SERVICE GROUP INC HVAC MAINT-DBC 0015333 1 45300 1 981.00 $981.00 7/19/2012 100230 TSR CONSTRUCTION BUS STOP RELOCATION PROJ - 2505510 46412 18 400.00 $17,480.00 7/19/2012 1 TSR CONSTRUCTION RETENTIONS PAYABLE 250 20300 1 -920.00 7/19/2012 1 100231 UNITED TRAFFIC SERVICES SUPPLY SUPPLIES -4TH OF JULY 1 0015350 1 42130 1 3,105.94 $3,105.94 7/19/2012 100232 VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE MAINT INC MAINT-4TH OF JULY BLAST 0015350 45300 675.00 $1,146.23 7/19/2012 VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE MAINT INC IRRIGATION REPAIRS-LORBR 0015350 45300 1 471.23 7/19/2012 100233 VANTAGEPOINTTRNSFRAGNTS-303248 7/20/12-P/R DEDUCTIONS 001 21108 4,069.93 $5,746.40 7/19/2012 VANTAGEPOINTTRNSFRAGNTS-303248 7/20/12 -LOAN DEDUCTIONS 001 21108 1,676.47 7/19/2012 1 100234 JOCELYN VARNAL FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 1 23002 1 50.001 $50.00 Page 16 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct# I Amount I Total Check Amount 7/19/2012 1 100235 IJAIME DIETZ VELEZ DEP. REFUND -FPL 2012-455 1 001 23010 1 786.051 $786.05 7/19/2012 100236 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-GENERAL 0014090 42125 154.86 $983.77 7/19/2012 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-GENERAL 0014090 42125 92.96 7/19/2012 100238 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-GENERAL 0014090 42125 30.39 $1,244.03 7/19/2012 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-CITY HALL 0014090 42125 98.08 7/19/2012 100246 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-GENERAL 0014090 42125 439.76 $551.40 7/19/2012 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-HERITAGE C/CTR 0015340 42125 39.05 7/19/2012 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-CITY HALL 0014093 42125 36.28 7/19/2012 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-HERITAGE ALARM 0015340 42125 92.39 7/19/2012 100237 VERMONT SYSTEMS INC COMP ANNL MAINT-I.T 1 0014070 1 42205 1 4,260.001 $4,260.00 7/19/2012 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY SUPPLIES -CITY HALL 0014093 41200 91.42 7/19/2012 1 100238 JANMOD VIG REFUND -FPL 2012-459 001 1 23010 1 1,244.03 $1,244.03 7/19/2012 100239 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY SUPPLIES -CITY HALL 0014093 41200 878.29 $2,312.46 7/19/2012 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY SUPPLIES -CITY HALL 0014093 41200 91.42 7/19/2012 100241 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY SUPPLIES -HERITAGE 0015340 41200 695.29 $500.00 7/19/2012 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 647.46 7/19/2012 1 100240 WESTBROOK TECHNOLOGIES INC COMP MAINT-FORTIS 1 0014070 1 42205 1 6,840.00 $6,840.00 7/26/2012 ACE CONSTRUCTION RETENTIONS PAYABLE 250 20300 -993.32 7/19/2012 1 100241 WILDLIFE CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AUTH MEMBERSHIP DUES -12/13 1 0014090 1 42315 1 500.001 $500.00 7/26/2012 100242 ACE CONSTRUCTION SYC CYN TRAIL PROJ 2505310 46415 9,933.24 $8,939.92 7/26/2012 ACE CONSTRUCTION RETENTIONS PAYABLE 250 20300 -993.32 7/26/2012 100243 ALLAMERICAN ASPHALT CHINO HILLS PKWY PROD 2505510 46411 1 518,214.29 $492,303.58 7/26/2012 ALLAMERICAN ASPHALT RETENTIONS PAYABLE 250 20300 1 -25,910.71 7/26/2012 1 100244 CHARLESANDREU PKNG CITATION HEARING-JUL 1 0014411 1 45405 1 70.00 $70.00 7/26/2012 1 100245 ASSOCIATED RESTAURANT CONTRACTORS REFUND -ENCROACHMENT PMT 1001 1 23001 1 1,560.001 $1,500.00 7/26/2012 1 100246 JOHN E BISHOP CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 45320 551.40 $551.40 Page 17 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct# Amount Total Check Amount 7/26/2012 7/26/2012 100247 BURGER CONTINENTAL BURGER CONTINENTAL DINNERS -SR LUAU DINNER -SR LUAU 0015350 0015350 45300 45300 291.99 1,192.98 $1,484.97 7/26/2012 1 100248 ICACONSTRUCTION IPK IMPMNT-SILVER TIP 2505310 1 46415 1 5,792.641 $5,792.64 7/26/2012 1 CDW GOVERNMENT FURNITURE -LIBRARY 0014093 46220 1 568.20 7/26/2012 1 100249 CAPIO MEMBERSHIP DUES -ROA 0014095 1 42315 1 225,001$225.00 $1,500.00 7/26/2012 100250 CDW GOVERNMENT COMP EQ -LIBRARY 0014093 450002,188.00 11932.00 $2,756.20 7/26/2012 1 CDW GOVERNMENT FURNITURE -LIBRARY 0014093 46220 1 568.20 7/26/2012 1 100251 AMANDAJ CLICK CONTRACT CLASS-SUMMER0015350 001409042110 1 45320 11932.00 $1,932.00 7/26/2012 1 DAY & NITE COPY CENTER PRINT SVCS -DOG PARK 2505310 11 210.43 7/26/2012 100252 COLD DUCK PRODUCTIONS INC BAND -CONCERT IN PARK 8/1 0015350 45305 1,500.001 $1,500.00 7/26/2012 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH SUPPLIES -RECREATION 0015350 41200 5.00 7/26/2012 1 100253 ICOMMUNITY BANK IRETENTIONS PAYABLE -156432 250 1 20300 25,910.711 $25,910.71 7/26/2012 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH SUPPLIES -BLDG & SFTY 0015220 41200 19.14 7/26/2012 1 100254 ICOUNT7Y OF LOS ANGELES LAFCO FEES -FY 12/13 0014090 1 44000 1 572.781 $572.78 7/26/2012 1 100255 JCUCAMONGA GUASTI REGIONAL PARK EXCURSION -DAY CAMP 0015350 42410 1 838.001 $838.00 7/26/2012 100256 DAY & NITE COPY CENTER PRINT SVCS -SITE D 001409042110 1 42355 1 108.75 $319.18 7/26/2012 1 DAY & NITE COPY CENTER PRINT SVCS -DOG PARK 2505310 46415 210.43 7/26/2012 100257 ISYBIL DELAHOUSSAY REWARD-SYC CYN PK 1 0114010 1 42355 1 1,000.00 $1,000.00 7/26/2012 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH SHORTAGE -BLDG & SFTY 001 36900 14.01 7/26/2012 100258 IDIAMOND BAR FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY LI BRARYGALA 10014090 1 42325 1 280.001 $280.00 7/26/2012 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH SUPPLIES -RECREATION 0015350 41200 5.00 7/26/2012 1 100259 IDIAMOND BAR MOBIL IVEH MAINT-COMM SVCS 1 0015350 1 42200 1 33.19 $33.19 7/26/2012 100260 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH PARKING -EXCURSION 0015350 42410 59.00 $245.61 7/26/2012 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH SHORTAGE -BLDG & SFTY 001 36900 14.01 7/26/2012 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH MTG SUPPLIES -ENG 0015551 42325 26.09 7/26/2012 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH SUPPLIES -RECREATION 0015350 41200 5.00 7/26/2012 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 15.99 7/26/2012 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH SUPPLIES -BLDG & SFTY 0015220 41200 19.14 7/26/2012 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH SUPPLIES -COM DEV 0015210 42325 7.00 Page 18 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct# Amount- Total CheckAmount 7/26/2012 100260... DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH SUPPLIES -RECREATION 0015350 41200 24.77 $245.61 ... 7/26/2012 100262 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH PARKING -EXCURSION 0015350 42410 15.00 $225.00 7/26/2012 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH REIMB-MILEAGE 0014050 42335 32.19 7/26/2012 DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH REIMS -MILEAGE 0014050 42335 27.42 7/26/2012 1 100261 ENNISTRAFFIC SAFETY SOLUTIONS SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT 1 0015554 1 41250 1 5,101.25 $5,101.25 7/26/2012 1 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC RODENT CONTROL -DBC 0015333 45300 40.00 7/26/2012 1 100262 RODERICK L ERTEL CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 1 45320 1 225.00 $225.00 7/26/2012 100263 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC. PEST CONTROL -DBC 0015333 45300 75.00 $235.00 7/26/2012 1 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC RODENT CONTROL -DBC 0015333 45300 40.00 7/26/2012 100267 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL -PETERSON 0015340 42210 50.00 $600.00 7/26/2012 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL -HERITAGE 0015340 42210 40.00 7/26/2012 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL-PANTERA 0015340 42210 30.00 7/26/2012 1 100264 FEDEX EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL 1 0014090 1 42120 1 76.15 $76.15 7/26/2012 100265 JAIME GARCIA FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 23002 50.00 $70.00 7 /2 612 01 2 1 JAIME GARCIA FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 36625 1 20.00 7/26/2012 1 100266 GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER ASSOC CAPITAL CONTRIBUTION -AUG 10014093 42210 1 1,785.00 $1,785.00 7/26/2012 1 INLAND EMPIRE STAGES TRANSPORTATION -EXCURSION 1125350 45310 775.00 7/26/2012 1 100267 STEVE HIGGINS MAGIC SHOW -COMM SVCS 1 0015350 1 45300 1 600.00 $600.00 7/26/2012 100268 INLAND EMPIRE STAGES SR EXCURSION-GRIFFITH 0015350 45310 697.00 $1,472.00 7/26/2012 1 INLAND EMPIRE STAGES TRANSPORTATION -EXCURSION 1125350 45310 775.00 7/26/2012 1 100269 INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN LEGALAD-PUBLIC HEARING 1 0014030 1 42115 1 166.70 $166.70 7/26/2012 100270 JOE A. GONSALVES & SON INC. LEGISLATIVE SVCS-JUL 0014030 44000 3,000.00 $6,000.00 7/26/2012 1 JOE A. GONSALVES & SON INC. LEGISLATIVE SVCS -AUG 0014030 1 44000 3,000.00 7/26/2012 1 100271 KEITH JOHNSON ENTERTAINMENT -SR LUAU 0015350 45300 350.00 $350.00 7/26/2012 1 100272 1 DORA LONYAI CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 1 45320 312.00 $312.00 Page 19 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct# Amount Total Check Amount 7/26/2012 7/26/2012 1 100273 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA MTA PASSES-JUL CITY SUBSIDY-JUL 1125553 1125553 45535 45533 60.00 15.00 $75.00 7/26/2012 1 100274 MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK AUG 2012 -EAP PREM 1 001 1 21115 1 154.44 $154.44 7/26/2012 1 ISMITHANAIR FACILITY REFUND-REAGAN 001 36625 20.00 7/26/2012 1 100275 MEDIEVALTIMES EXCURSION -DAY CAMP 0015350 1 42410 1 2,607.001 $2,607.00 7/26/2012 PROTECTION ONE INC MAINT-CITY HALL 0014093 42210 25.55 7/26/2012 1 100276 CHARLES MORALES CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 1 45320 1 523.20 $523.20 7/26/2012 100277 SMITHA NAIR FACILITY REFUND-REAGAN 001 23002 50.00 $70.00 7/26/2012 1 ISMITHANAIR FACILITY REFUND-REAGAN 001 36625 20.00 7/26/2012 100278 LORENA OJEDA FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 23002 50.00 $70.00 7/26/2012 1 LORENA OJEDA FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 36625 20.00 7/26/2012 100279 ONE SOURCE BUILDING MAINT COPR MAI NT -CITY HALL 1 0014093 1 42210 1 1,550.00 $1,550.00 7/26/2012 1 PERS RETIREMENT RETIRE CONTRIB-EE 001 21109 20 3.66 7/26/2012 100280 PACIFIC TELEMANAGEMENT SERVICES PAY PHONE SVCS -AUG 1 0015340 1 42125 1 495.84 $495.84 7/26/2012 100281 PERS RETIREMENT SURVIVOR BENEFIT 001 21109 8.00 $21 1.66 7/26/2012 1 PERS RETIREMENT RETIRE CONTRIB-EE 001 21109 20 3.66 7/26/2012 100282 PROTECTION ONE INC MAINT-DBC 0015333 42210 811.31 $1,084.41 7/26/2012 PROTECTION ONE INC MAINT-DBC 0015333 42210 46.05 7/26/2012 100285 PROTECTION ONE INC MAINT-DBC 0015333 42210 160.00 $75.00 7/26/2012 PROTECTION ONE INC MAINT-CITY HALL 0014093 42210 25.55 7/26/2012 100286 PROTECTION ONE INC MAINT-SYC CYN 0015340 42210 41.50 $1,243.92 7/26/2012 100283 S & S WORLDWIDE INC SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 41200 175.70 $382.31 7/26/2012 S & S WORLDWIDE INC SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 41200 206.61 7/26/2012 1 100284 SCAN NATOA MEMBERSHIP DUES-DOYLE 1 0014030 1 42315 1 80.00 $80.00 7/26/2012 1 100285 SCMAF AD-H/R 1 0014060 1 42115 1 75.00 $75.00 7/26/2012 1 100286 SILVERADO STAGES INC SHUTTLE SVCS -CONCERTS 1125350 1 45310 1 11243.92 $1,243.92 Page 20 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct# Amount Total Check Amount 7/26/2012 100287 SO COASTAIR QUALITY MGT DISTRICT RENTAL-MTG FACILITY AUG 0014090 42140 2,000.00 $2,000.00 7/26/2012 100288 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 467.67 $1,155.31 7/26/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 135.17 7/26/2012 100291 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -DIST 38 1385538 42126 23.50 $3,148.25 7/26/2012 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRFFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 269.16 7/26/2012 100296 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS-TRRFC CONTROL 0015510 42126 259.81 $43.00 7/26/2012 100289 STANDARD INSURANCE OF OREGON AUG 12 -LIE INS PREMS 001 21106 1,073.51 $3,195.56 7/26/2012 STANDARD INSURANCE OF OREGON AUG 12-SUPP LIFE INS PREM 001 21106 261.00 7/26/2012 100291 STANDARD INSURANCE OF OREGON AUG 12-STD/LTD 001 21112 1,861.05 $3,148.25 7/26/2012 100290 GLENN STEINBRINK CONSULTANT SVCS -FIN 7/9 0014050 44000 550.00 $550.00 7/26/2012 THE GAS COMPANY GAS SVCS -CITY HALL 0014093 42126 876.35 7/26/2012 100291 TENNIS ANYONE INC CONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 1 45320 1 3,148.25 $3,148.25 7/26/2012 100292 THE GAS COMPANY GAS SVCS -HERITAGE 0015340 42126 64.73 $1,213.39 7/26/2012 THE GAS COMPANY GAS SVCS -CITY HALL 0014093 42126 876.35 7/26/2012 100295 THE GAS COMPANY GAS SVCS -DBC 0015333 42126 272.31 $24,111.60 7/26/2012 100293 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR _ LEGALAD-DOG PARK 2505310 46415 220.52 $391.36 7/26/2012 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR LEGALAD-PUBLIC HEARING 1 0014030 42115 170.84 7/26/2012 1 100294 THE SAUCE CREATIVE SERVICES PRINT SVCS -CONCERTS 0015350 42110 215.31 $215.31 7/26/2012 1 100295 THL INVESTMENT LLC REFUND -EN 11-722 1 001 23012 24,111.60 $24,111.60 7/26/2012 1 100296 AMANDA VANVONDEREN RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34780 1 43.001 $43.00 7/26/2012 1 100297 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-TELEWORKACIS 1 0014090 1 42125 1 184.40 $184.40 7/26/2012 1 100298 VISION SERVICE PLAN AUG 2012 -VISION PREMIUMS 1 001 1 21107 1 1,330.20 $1,330.20 7/26/2012 1 100299 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 1 0014093 1 41200 1 98.82 $98.82 7/26/2012 1 100300 WELLDYNERX ISHARPS PROGADMIN FEE 1155515 1 44000 1 16.16 $16.16 Page 21 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/26/2012 100301 WILLDAN ENERGY SOLUTIONS REIMB-FACILITY ENERGY 0014090 44000 15,115.50 $15,115.50 7/26/2012 1 100302 PAUL WRIGHT AN SVCS-CNCL MTG 7/17 0014090 44000 1 150,001 $150.00 7/26/2012 100303 YAMADA ENTERPRISES MURAL -LIBRARY 0014093 46220 1,817.95 $100,954.99 7/26/2012 YAMADA ENTERPRISES FURNITURE -LIBRARY 0014093 1 46220 99,137.04 1 7/26/2012 100304 ALBERTO YAP CONTRACT CLASS—SUMMER 1 0015350 1 45320 1 576.001 $576.00 7/26/2012 EXCELLANDSCAPE IRRIGATION REPAIRS -#38 1385538 42210 376.59 7/26/2012 1 100305 CORRINEACUNA RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34760 1 45.00 $45.00 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECK 0015551 45223 528.11 7/26/2012 100306 AGRICULTURAL COM WGHTS & MEASURES COYOTE CONTROL SVCS -JUN 1 0014431 1 45406 1 632.40 $632.40 7/26/2012 1 100307 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC SPCL EVENT INS -APR -JUN 1 001 1 23004 1 10,535.271 $10,535.27 7/26/2012 1 100308 SAYURI CHANG RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 7.00 $7.00 7/26/2012 1 100309 CITY OF WALNUT EQ MAINT-SHERIFF 1 0014411 1 42200 1 170.00 $170.00 7/26/2012 1 100310 CM SCHOOL SUPPLY SUPPLIES -TINY TOTS 1 0015350 1 41200 1 66.84 $66.84 7/26/2012 1 100311 DIVERSIFIED TRANSPORTATION INC DIAMOND RIDE SVCS -JUN 12 1135553 1 45529 42,111.501 $42,111.50 7/26/2012 1 100312 JEAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT PARKING CITE ADMIN -JUN 12 001 32230 3,269.50 $3,269.50 7/26/2012 100313 EXCELLANDSCAPE IRRIGATION REPAIRS -PARKS 0015340 42210 152.23 $1,544.15 7/26/2012 EXCELLANDSCAPE IRRIGATION REPAIRS -#38 1385538 42210 376.59 7/26/2012 100315 EXCELLANDSCAPE IRRIGATION REPAIRS -#39 1395539 42210 1,015.33 $7.00 7/26/2012 1 100314 PAUL FERGUSON RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34760 1 125.00 $125.00 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PRORSVCS-PLAN CHECK 0015551 45223 64.71 7/26/2012 1 100315 CHRISTINAGALEANO RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 7.00 $7.00 7/26/2012 100316 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 11-747 001 23012 546.25 $4,364.76 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PRORSVCS-PLAN CHECK 0015551 45223 64.71 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-INSPECTIONS 0015510 45227 571.26 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECK 0015551 45223 528.11 Page 22 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/26/2012 100316... HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 11-747 - 001 34650 -98.33 $4,364.76 ... 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 11-747 001 23012 98.33 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 07-555 001 23012 284.40 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 07-555 001 34650 -284.40 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 07-555 001 23012 1,580.00 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 07-560 001 23012 115.00 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 07-560 001 23012 20.70 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 07-560 001 34650 -20.70 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 11-747 001 23012 287.50 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 11-747 001 23012 51.75 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 11-747 001 34650 -51.75 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROFSVCS-EN 04-453 001 23012 287.50 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 04-453 001 23012 51.75 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 04-453 001 34650 -51.75 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROESVCS-MAP REVIEW 0015551 45223 255.00 7/26/2012 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECK 0015551 45223 129.43 7/26/2012 1 100317 JOYCE Y LEE RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 1 7.00 $7.00 7/26/2012 100318 KENS HARDWARE SUPPLIES -CITY HALL 0014093 42210 44.48 $740.63 7/26/2012 KENS HARDWARE SUPPLIES -PARKS 0015340 41200 454.58 7/26/2012 KENS HARDWARE SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 0015310 42200 110.67 7/26/2012 KENS HARDWARE SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 130.90 7/26/2012 100319 LEIGHTON &ASSOCIATES, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 07-560 001 23012 1,875.50 $2,650.50 7/26/2012 LEIGHTON &ASSOCIATES, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 12-767 001 23012 566.00 7/26/2012 LEIGHTON &ASSOCIATES, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 12-767 001 23012 101.88 7/26/2012 LEIGHTON &ASSOCIATES, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 12-767 001 34650 -101.88 7/26/2012 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 09-641 001 23012 209.00 7/26/2012 LEIGHTON &ASSOCIATES, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 09-641 001 23012 37.62 7/26/2012 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 09-641 001 34650 -37.62 7/26/2012 LEIGHTON &ASSOCIATES, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 07-560 001 34650 -337.59 7/26/2012 LEIGHTON &ASSOCIATES, INC. JADMIN FEE -EN 07-560 001 1 23012 337.59 7/26/2012 1 100320 LISA LI RECREATION REFUND 001 34760 130.00 $130.00 Page 23 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date I Check Number) Vendor Name I Transaction Description I Fund/ Dept I Acct # I Amount I lotal CheckAmount 7/26/2012 100321 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA MTA PASSES -JUN 1125553 45535 120.00 $150.00 7/26/2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA CITYSUBSIDY-JUN 1125553 45533 30.00 7/26/2012 100322 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. STAR DEPUTY SVCS -JUN 0014411 45401 8,632.09 $15,946.65 7/26/2012 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. CALVARY CHAPEL -JUN 0014411 45402 1 7,314.56 7/26/2012 100323 LPA INC ARCHITECTURAL SVCS -JUN 0014093 45000 14,603.75 $15,189.80 7/26/2012 LPA INC ARCHITECTURAL SVCS -JUN 0014093 45000 586.05 7/26/2012 100324 TAYLOR MASON RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 1 85.00 $85.00 7/26/2012 ONWARD ENGINEERING DESIGN SVCS -RD MAINT 0015510 44000 1,210.65 1 7/26/2012 1 100325 MCE CORPORATION VEGETATION CONTROL -JUN 1 0015558 1 45508 1 8,452.29 $8,452.29 7/26/2012 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER CITY SUBSI DY -MAY 2012 1125553 45533 2,387.75 7/26/2012 100326 DANNY MENDOZA FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 1 23004 176.15 $176.15 7/26/2012 1 100327 MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP HELIUM -COMM SVCS 1 0015340 1 42210 1 16.00 $16.00 7/26/2012 1 100328 NEXTEL COMMUNICATIONS A/R CHRGS-P/W,C/S,C/D 1 0014090 1 42125 1 710.03 $710.03 7/26/2012 100329 CO NGUYEN RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 7.00. $7.00 7/26/2012 100330 ONWARD ENGINEERING DESIGN SVCS -RD MAINT 2505510 46411 2,908.90 $4,119.55 7/26/2012 ONWARD ENGINEERING DESIGN SVCS -RD MAINT 0015510 44000 1,210.65 1 7/26/2012 100331 PACIFIC MH CONSTRUCTION INC RETENTIONS PAYABLE 125 20300 -7,235.50 $12,355.00 7/26/2012 PACIFIC MH CONSTRUCTION INC HIP PROG-438 N ROCK RIVER 1255215 44000 1,235.50 7/26/2012 100333 PACIFIC MH CONSTRUCTION INC HIP PROG-438 N ROCK RIVER 1255215 44000 12,355.00 $208.35 7/26/2012 1 100332 PEACE PARTNERS INC TRNG-COMM SVCS 1 0015350 1 45300 1 1,250.00 $1,250.00 7/26/2012 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER CITY SUBSIDY -JUN 2012 1125553 45533 3,032.41 7/26/2012 1 100333 PRECISION DYNAMICS CORPORATION WRISTBANDS -EXCURSION 1 0015350 1 41200 1 208.35 $208.35 7/26/2012 100334 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER - TAP PASSES -JUN 2012 1125553 45535 12,129.66 $27,100.83 7/26/2012 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER CITY SUBSIDY -JUN 2012 1125553 45533 3,032.41 7/26/2012 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER TAP PASSES -MAY 2012 1125553 45535 9,551.01 7/26/2012 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER CITY SUBSI DY -MAY 2012 1125553 45533 2,387.75 Page 24 Check Date (Check City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Transaction Description I Fund/ Dept I Acct# I Amount 7/26/2012 1 100335 SCMAF CONTRACT CLASS INS 0015350 1 45320 1 531.20 $531.20 7/26/2012 WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST FACILITY RENTAL -JUN 12 0015350 42140 1,478.40 7/26/2012 100336 SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL MNGMT COM CONSULTING SVCS -JUN 12 1155515 44000 165.00 $165.00 7/26/2012 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL ADMIN FEE -EN 04-453 001 34650 -66.60 7/26/2012 100337 SYSTEM SOURCE FURNITURE -LIBRARY 1 0014093 1 46220 1,143.22 $1,143.22 7/26/2012 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL ADMIN FEE -EN 11-747 001 23012 133.20 7/26/2012 100338 ITHOMSON WEST PUBLICATIONS -CA CODE 0014030 1 42320 1 312.131 $312.13 7/26/2012 100339 MAI TRAN RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 68.00 $68.00 7/26/2012 100340 US BANK CITY CREDIT CARD -JUN 12 0014411 1 45405 1 19,174.32 $19,174.32 7/26/2012 1 100341 JUS BANK CITY CREDIT CARD -MAY 2012 1 0014411 1 45405 1 20,728.681 $20,728.68 7/26/2012 1 100342 US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 1 0014060 1 42345 1 238.00 $238.00 7/26/2012 100343 WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST FACILITY RENTAL -JUN 0015350 42140 1,635.90 $3,114.30 7/26/2012 WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DIST FACILITY RENTAL -JUN 12 0015350 42140 1,478.40 7/26/2012 100344 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER SVCS -PARKS 0015340 42126 2,254.55 $5,780.79 7/26/2012 WALNUT VALLEY WATER DISTRICT WATER SVCS -DIST 41 1415541 42126 1 3,526.24 7/26/2012 100345 WEST COASTARBORISTS INC WATERING SVCS -JUN 12 0015558 45510 345.00 $11,316.00 7/26/2012 WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC TREE NIAINT SVCS -JUN 12 0015558 45509 10,971.00 7/26/2012 100346 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL PROF.SVCS-EN 11-747 001 23012 740.00 $1,110.00 7/26/2012 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL PROF.SVCS-EN 04-453 001 23012 370.00 7/26/2012 100348 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL ADMIN FEE -EN 04-453 001 23012 66.60 $233.00 7/26/2012 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL ADMIN FEE -EN 04-453 001 34650 -66.60 7/26/2012 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL ADMIN FEE -EN 11-747 001 34650 - -133.20 7/26/2012 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL ADMIN FEE -EN 11-747 001 23012 133.20 7/26/2012 100347 SHELLYYAO RECREATION REFUND 001 34760 125.00 $125.00 7/31/2012 1 100348 STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION SALES TAX DUE -APR -JUN 1 001 1 36650 1 233.00 $233.00 Page 25 City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 07/12/2012 thru 08/01/2012 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/26/2012 12 -PP 15 PAYROLLTRANSFER P/R TRANSFER-12/PP 15 001 10200 182,025.81 $196,391.24 7/26/2012 PAYROLLTRANSFER P/R TRANSFER-12/PP 15 112 10200 3,829.62 7/26/2012 PAYROLLTRANSFER P/R TRANSFER-12/PP 15 113 10200 5,353.17 7/26/2012 PAYROLLTRANSFER P/R TRANSFER-12/PP 15 115 10200 4,784.41 7/2 612 01 2 PAYROLL TRANSFER P/R TRANSFER-12/PP 15 125 10200 398.23 7/12/2012 CALPERS CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0014010 40080 3,257.00 $394,659.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0014030 40080 61,835.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0014050 40080 24,330.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0014060 40080 12,707.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0014070 40080 27,399.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0014095 40080 19,625.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0014096 40080 7,137.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0015210 40080 33,481.00 7/1 212 01 2 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0015220 40080 7,535.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0015230 40080 14,448.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0015310 40080 22,474.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0015333 40080 9,518.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0015340 40080 10,418.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0015350 40080 46,982.00 7/1212012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0015510 40080 24,173.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13. 0015551 40080 15,052.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 0015554 40080 15,664.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 1125553 40080 8,768.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 1135553 40080 11,479.00 711212012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 1155515 40080 17,554.00 7/12/2012 CA PUBLIC EMPL RETIREMENT SYSTEM CONTRIBUTION -FY 12/13 1255350 40080 823.00 $3,267,611.39 Page 26 CITY COUNCIL ��kPOA:ltM$ TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council �('fir VIA: James DeStefano, City Manakre���� TITLE: Preliminary Treasurer's Statement — June 2012 RECOMMENDATION: Approve the June 2012 Preliminary Treasurer's Statement. FINANCIAL IMPACT: No Fiscal Impact BACKGROUND: Agenda # 6.4 Meeting Date: Aug. 7, 2012 AGENDA REPORT Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer's Statement for the City Council's review and approval. This statement shows the preliminary cash balances for the various funds, with a breakdown of bank account balances, investment account balances, and the effective yield earned from investments. This statement also includes a separate investment portfolio report which details the activities of the investments. All investments have been made in accordance with the City's Investment Policy. Since there are still adjustments being made to the cash balances between the various funds for the Fiscal 11-12 year end, the statement being presented has been termed preliminary. Once the year end numbers have been finalized a revised June treasurer's statement will be presented to the City Council for approval. PREPARED BY: Susan Full, Senior Accountant REVIEWED BY: Dianna L Honeywell, Finan4birector s Attachments: Preliminary Treasurer's Statement, Investment Portfolio Report CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT June 30, 2012 (Preliminary) James DeStefanoi Treasurer BEGINNING TRANSFERS..- <ENDING BALANCERECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS IN {OUT) BALANCE GENERAL FUND $18,780,608.45 725,442.66 3,098,881.79 9,365.00 $16,416,534.32 COMMUNITY ORG SUPPORT FD 3,630.00 3,630.00 MEASURE R LOCAL RETURN FD 521,344.41 54,110.17 575,454.58 GAS TAX FUND 681,463.59 141,708.43 823,172.02 TRANSIT TX (PROP A) FUND 424,352.29 174,281.42 324,845.14 273,788.57 TRANSIT TX (PROP C) FUND 1,787,989.96 72,139.29 79,538.51 1,780,590.74 TEA Fund 0.00 0.00 INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FD 920,558.30 58,837.01 861,721.29 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENT FUND 383,729.78 150,000.00 3,298.11 530,431.67 AIR QUALITY IMPRVMNT FD 161,173.46 5,733.09 155,440.37 TRAILS & BIKEWAYS FUND 0.00 50,000.00 - 50,000.00 Prop 1B BOND FUND 15,666.13 15,666.13 PARK FEES FD 10,876.28 10,876.28 PROPA- SAFE PARKS ACT FUND (110,981.21) 67,131.00 (43,850.21). PARK & FACILITIES DEVEL. FUND 225,904.33 225,904.33 COM DEV BLOCK GRANT FUND (22,704.16) 109,476.00 33,412.41 (86,771.00) (33,411.57) CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SAFETY FD 113,638.89 508.67 113,130.22 NARCOTICS ASSET SEIZURE FD 265,066.20 265,066.20 CA LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIP PRGM 40,824.05 40,824.05 E BYRNE JUSTICE ASSIST GRANT -R (0.28) (0.28) E BYRNE JUSTICE ASSIST GRANT (15,387.93) (15,387.93) LANDSCAPE DIST #38 FUND 39,986.71 43,706.20 (3,719,49) LANDSCAPE DIST #39 FUND 47,496.32 34,120.57 13,375.75 LANDSCAPE DIST #41 FUND 81,067.45 14,230.28 66,837.17 ENERGY EFF & CNSVTN BLK GRT (17,954.27) 278,540.00 260,585.73 CAP IMPROVEMENT PRJ FUND (509,923.99) 9,365.00 281,100.82 77,406.00 (704,253.81) PFA DEBT SERVICE FUND 0.00 0.00 SELF INSURANCE FUND 1,167,340.13 1,167,340.13 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 216,070.26 216,070.26 COMPUTER REPLACEMENT FUND 194,244.92 12,231.89 182,013.03 PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY FUND 574,278.95 _ 574 277.00 1 95 TOTALS $25,§805962$1 832 193.97 $4 564 721 49 $0.00 $23 247831.50 SUMMARY OF CASH: DEMAND DEPOSITS: GENERALACCOUNT ($580,443.23) PAYROLL ACCOUNT 41,311.95 CHANGE FUND 1,000.00 PETTY CASH ACCOUNT 500.00 TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS ($537,631.28) INVESTMENTS: US TREASURY MONEY MARKET ACCT $1,915,210.11 LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD 9,911,250.72 BONDS & CERTIFICATE DEPOSITS 11,959,000.00 CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT: 1.95 TOTAL INVESTMENTS $23,785,462.78 TOTAL CASH $23,247,831.50 Note: The City of Diamond Bar is invested in the State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund. The account's funds are available for withdrawal within 24 hours. In addition, the City has started investing in longer term investments. These investments are detailed on the attached Investment Report. All investments are in compliance with the investment policy adopted by the City of Diamond Bar. The alcove sumRary provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six month's James DeStefanoi Treasurer CITY OF DIAMOND BAR INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REPORT for the Month of June 2012 (Preliminary) Total Investments $ 23,785,463 $ 23,792,286.56 2011-12 Budgeted Interest Income $213,200.00 Actual Year -To -Date Interest Income Issue Maturity 79.516% Curr Par I Market Fair Market Coupon Investment Type Cusip Rating Date Date Term Orig Par Price Value * Rate BE Cap Corp 36962G5Q3 AAA 01/30/12 01/30/15 3.0 Yrs 1,000,000 98.314 983,146.00 1.375% BE Cap Corp 36962G5T7 AAA 02/18/12 02/08/16 4.0 Yrs 1,000,000 99.299 992,993.00 1.550% Fed Nall Mtg Assn Note 3136FTFW4 AAA 10/26/11 10/26/16 5.0 Yrs 1,000,000 100.331 1,003,316.00 1.500% Fed Nall Mtg Assn Note 3136FTLL1 AAA 11/16/11 11/16/16 5.0 Yrs 1,000,000 100.477 1,004,775.00 1.813% Fed Nall Mtg Assn Note 3136FTNKI AAA 11/21111 11/21/16 5.0 Yrs 1,000,000 100.175 1,001,753.00 2.000% Fed Farm Credit Banks Funding Bnd 3133EAGY8 AAA 03/13/12 03/13/17 5.0 Yrs 1,000,000 100.005 1,000,053.00 1.200% Fed Home Loan Bank Bond 313379EPO AAA 05/30/12 05/30/17 5.0 Yrs 1,000,000 99.719 997,194.00 1.170% Negotiable CD- Aurora Bank 05155THP6 AAA 06/29/11 06/28/13 2.0 Yrs 248,000 100.323 248,802.28 0.900% Negotiable CD- Compass Bank 20449E3C8 AAA 09/30/11 09/30/13 2.0 Yrs 248,000 100.367 248,910.40 1.000% Negotiable CD- American Exp Bk 02587DBJ6 AAA 07/14/11 01/14/14 2.5 Yrs 248,000 100.712 249,767.99 1.050% Negotiable CD - Bank of China NY 06425HYAB AAA 01/27/12 01/27/14 2.0 Yrs 248,000 100.223 - 248,553.28 0.900% Negotiable CD- Huntington Nutt Bk 446438NS8 AAA 01/27/12 01/27/14 2.0 Yrs 248,000 100.316 248,785.16 0.800% Negotiable CD - Ally Bank UT 02005QVNO AAA 10/05/11 10/06/14 3.0 Yrs 248,000 100.591 249,465.92 1.300% Negotiable CD- Sallie Mae Bank 79545ONF8 AAA 11/01/11 12/01/14 3.0 Yrs 248,000 100.557 249,381.60 1.400% Negotiable CD - Medallion Bank 58403BYC4 AAA 06/08/12 12/08/14 2.5 Yrs 248,000 99.668 247,177.13 0.750% Negotiable CD- Satre Nat'l Bank NY 786580YA2 AAA 01/30/12 01/30/15 3.0 Yrs 248,000 100.517 249,284.39 1.000% Negotiable CD - CIT Bank 17284AUM8 AAA 06/29/11 06/29/15 4.0 Yrs 248,000 101.761 252,369.51 1.600% Negotiable CD- First Bank Puerto Rico 33764JEH4 AAA 06/08/12 06/18/16 4.0 Yrs 249,000 99.319 247,304.55 1.250% Negotiable CD - World Fin Conti Bank 98146QBNO AAA 11/16/11 11/16/16 5.0 Yrs 246,000 101.689 252,188.96 1.500% Negotiable CD- Barclays Bank 06740KFH5 AAA 12/21/11 12/21/16 5.0 Yrs 248,000 101.104 250,738.91 2.000% Negotiable CD- Goldman Sachs Bk 35143AMV4 AAA 03/21/12 03/21/17 5.0 Yrs 248,000 99.817 247,547.40 1.600% Negotiable CD - Discover Bank 2546705F5 AAA 03/21/12 03/21/17 5.0 Yrs 246,000 99.817 247,547.40 1.600% Negotiable CD - State Bank India 856284D76 AAA 03/23/12 03/23/17 5.0 Yrs 248,000 99.807 247,522.84 1.650% Negotiable CD - JP Morgan Bank 48124JAH1 AAA 03/29/12 03/29/17 5.0 Yrs 246,000 99.847 245,623.86 1.000% Negotiable CD -BMW Bank 06568PV95 AAA 04/13/12 04/13/17 5.0 Yrs 248,000 99.474 246,696.01 1.750% Negotiable CD -GE Capital Bank 36157QCN5 AAA 05/04/12 05/04/17 5.0 Yrs 248,000 99.362 246,419.00 1.750% Negotiable CD -GE Capital Bank 3616OWK57 AAA 05/04/12 05/04/17 5.0 Yrs 248,000 99.362 24641900 1750% Total Securities & CDs $ 11,959,000 $ 11,953,735.59 Local Agency Investment Fund AAA 9,911,251 9,923,338.91 0.358% US Treasury Money Markel AAA $1,915,210 1,915 210.11 0,010% Total Liquidity $ 11,826,461 $ 11,838,549.02 Union Bank -(Fiscal Agent) AAA 2 1.95 0.000% Total Investments $ 23,785,463 $ 23,792,286.56 2011-12 Budgeted Interest Income $213,200.00 Actual Year -To -Date Interest Income $169,528.74 Percent of Interest Received to Budget 79.516% Allocation of Book Value of Investment by Type (By Percent) Federal & Corp Securities 29,43% U.S Treasury Money Market 8.05% Source J Total Investment- 23785463 LAIF Fund 41.67% Certificate Deposits 20.85% TYPE OF INVESTMENTS: Federal Agency Security Federal Agency Securities are issued by direct U.S Government agencies or quasi -government agencies. Many of these issues are guaranteed directly or indirectly by the United States Government. The City Investment Policy places a 40% limit on this type of investment and the security investment is currently held in a custodial account by Wells Fargo Institutional Securities LLC for safe -keeping services. Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) LAIF is an investment pool for local agencies which is managed by the Stale Treasurer and regulated by the State law. The City Investment Policy places no limit on this type of investment. U.S. Treasury Money Market Fund Money Market Funds are comprised of short term government securities, certificates of deposit and highly rated commercial paper. The City Investment Policy places no limit on this type of investment. Negotiable Certificate Of Deposit A certifcate of deposit with a minimum face value of $100,000. These are insured by FDIC up to $250,000 per owner for single accounts. Agenda # 6,5 Meeting Date: 817112 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members91 the City Council FROM: James DeStefano, City Ma?ND TITLE: APPROVAL OF THE SECR ADING OF ORDINANCE NO. 11 (2012) AMENDING THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO ADD SECTIONS 12.00.430, 12.00.440, 12.00.450, and 12.00.460 ESTABLISHING RULES FOR THE SAFE AND HEALTHY OPERATION OF THE DOG PARK AT PANTERA PARK. RECOMMENDATION: Approve. FINANCIAL IMPACT: The three signs stating the rules that will be posted at the dog park will cost approximately $3,000. BACKGROUND: The first reading of this ordinance was approved by the City Council at their July 17, 2012 meeting. If the second reading is approved by the City Council, the ordinance becomes effective in 30 days. The rules included in the ordinance were developed by staff with input from the sources below. After the July 17 meeting, the LA County Sheriff's Department representative reviewed this ordinance, and they agree to enforce the ordinance as presented. 1. Southern California Joint Powers Insurance Authority 2. City of Diamond Bar City Attorney 3. Inland Valley Humane Society 4. Review of existing dog park rules posted on-line by the following agencies: City of Fullerton, City of San Dimas, City of Claremont, City of Huntington Beach, City of Los Angeles and City of Arcadia. 5. Review of proposed dog park rules by the Parks & Recreation Commission on June 28, 2012 and their unanimous recommendation that they be adopted by the City Council. DISCUSSION: Adoption of this ordinance will authorize the enforcement of the dog park rules. The rules are intended to provide a safe and pleasant experience at the dog park for both users and their dog(s). PREPARED AND REVIEWED BY: Director of Community Services Attachment: Ordinance No. 11 (2012) ORDINANCE NO. 11 (2012) AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ESTABLISHING THE RULES FOR PUBLICLY - OWNED OR PUBLICLY -OPERATED DOG PARK FACILITIES. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby ordain as follows: Section 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to establish rules for the safe and healthy operation of City dog parks. Section 2. Title 12, Chapter 12.00 of the of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code is amended to add thereto new Sections 12.00.430, 12.00.440, 12.00.450 and 12.00.460 to read as follows: "Sec. 12.00.430 Dog Park Rules. The following rules govern the use of dog parks in the City. No person shall violate or allow his or her dog to use a dog park in violation of the following rules: (a) Dog Park hours are from one-half hour before sunrise to one-half hour after sunset. (b) The dog park is for use by dog owners and their dogs only. All other activities are prohibited. No animals aside from dogs are permitted. (c) Handlers may not bring more than three (3) dogs at any one time. (d) Dog owners must leash their dog(s) outside of the fenced area of the dog park. (e) Leashed dogs are not permitted within the fenced area of the dog park. (f) Dogs with spiked collars are not allowed. (g) Adults must accompany children under the age of 14 years. (h) Dogs must never be left unattended. (i) All Dogs must wear a current license and vaccination tags. 0) Unruly dogs are not allowed. For purposes of this paragraph, an unruly dog is a dog that consistently exhibits dominant aggression toward other dogs. (k) Female dogs in heat are not allowed. (1) Dogs are allowed only in the area that is designated for their weight class. Small Dogs are under 25 lbs; Large Dogs are 25 lbs and over. (m) Puppies under four months old are not permitted inside the dog park. (n) Dog owners must clean up after their dog(s). (o) Owners must stop their dog(s) from digging. Any holes created must be filled by the owner of the dog(s). (p) No alcohol or drug use is permitted. (q) No spectators are permitted inside the fenced area of the dog park. (r) Unauthorized pieces of equipment, obstacles, or apparatus are not allowed in the dog park. (s) No food or eating is allowed in the fenced area of the dog park. (t) Glass containers are not allowed in the fenced area of the dog park. (u) Special events or contests are not allowed in the dog park without first obtaining written authorization from the Community Services Department. (v) Users must obey all other park rules. Section 12.00.440. Terms of Use. Dog park users use the dog park at their own risk. The City is not responsible for injuries incurred by or illnesses contracted by persons or dogs as a result of their use of the dog park. Section 12.00.450. Penalties. Violation of Section 12.00.430 or of any provisions thereof shall in addition to any other remedies contained in this code, be deemed an infraction and punishable as provided in Section 1.04.010(b) of the Municipal Code. Any person violating any of the rules set forth in Section 12.00.430 shall be deemed guilty of a separate offense for each and every day or portion thereof during which any violation of the dog park rules is committed, continued, or permitted. The City reserves the right to eject anyone from the dog park for violating posted rules. Section 12.00.460, Signs. Signs shall be posted at the dog park providing reasonable notice of the requirements of Section 12.00.430 and the penalties for failing to comply with the requirements of that section." PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this _ day of , 2012. Mayor I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS: ATTEST: City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar CITY COUNCIL TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Amended Agenda # 6.6 Meeting Date: 8/7/12 AGENDA REPORT FROM: James DeStefano, City Manager TITLE: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT WITH ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP FOR THE DESIGN OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR THE ADA RETRO -FIT OF THREE (3) MINI -PARKS IN LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (LLAD) #39 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES IN THE DESIGN OF SILVER TIP PARK AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES FOR SILVER TIP PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,000, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF $77,300, AND TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TO JUNE 30, 2016; PLUS APPROPRIATE $14,000 IN PARK DEVELOPMENT FUNDS IN FISCAL YEAR 2011/12 TO THE PROJECT'S BUDGET, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF $77,300. RECOMMENDATION: Approve. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This contract amendment requires the appropriation of $14,000 in Park Development funds for this project. Approval of the amendment will increase the total contract amount to $77,300 BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded a contract to Architerra Design Group in the amount of $63,300 on September 15, 2009 to design the ADA retro -fit of three (3) mini -parks in lighting and landscape assessment district #39. The three parks included in this contract are Silver Tip, Star Dust and Longview South. The construction documents for all three projects have been completed, but two items were added to the Silver Tip Park project that required additional services from Architerra Design Group. The two services included a hydrology study and a drainage plan that were not a part of the original scope of work for this project. Also, staff requested Architerra Design Group to provide bidding and construction observation services that were not a part of the original contract. Total cost of the additional services is $14,000. DISCUSSION: Architerra has completed the construction documents for all three parks, Silver Tip, Star Dust and Longview South. The construction of Silver Tip Park has also been completed. Construction of Longview South is scheduled for the 2014/15 FY and Star Dust is scheduled for the 2015/16 FY. It is expected that staff will request Architerra Design Group to provide bidding and construction observation services for these two park projects, but the cost of those services will not come before the City Council for consideration until the Council awards the construction contract for each park project. However, in anticipation of these future projects, staff is seeking City Council approval to extend the contract with Architerra Design Group until June 30, 2016, the expected completion date of the two construction projects. Total City Council authorization staff is seeking, including the original contract amount of $63,300 and Amendment #1 of $14,000, is $77,300. PREPARED AND REVIEWED BY: sev Director of Community Services Attachments: Amendment #1 dated August 7, 2012 Contract with Architerra Design Group dated September 15, 2009 AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT is made this 7th day of August 2012, by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation ("City") and ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP, INC. ("CONSULTANT"). Recitals: a. CONSULTANT entered into an agreement with CITY on September 15, 2009 (the "AGREEMENT") in the amount not to exceed $63,300 for design services for the ADA Retro -Fit of Three (3) Mini -Parks in Lighting and Landscape Assessment District (LLAD) #39. b. Parties desire to amend the AGREEMENT to add a hydrology study, drainage plan and construction observation services to their Scope of Services for an amount not to exceed $14,000 and to extend the Term of Agreement to June 30, 2016. Now, therefore, the parties agree to amend the AGREEMENT as follows: Section 1 — Section 1.A. of the AGREEMENT is amended by adding a hydrology study, drainage plan and construction observation services for Silver Tip Park to the Scope of Services. Section 2 — Section 2 of the AGREEMENT is amended by extending the Term of Agreement to June 30, 2016. Section 3 -- Section 3 of the AGREEMENT is amended to add compensation in the amount of $14,000 for a total authorization not to exceed $77,300. Except as provided above, the AGREEMENT is in all other respects in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT on the date and year first written above. ATTEST: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR A Municipal Corporation of the State of California Signed Ling -Ling Chang Mayor APPROVED TO FORM City Attorney ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP, INC. Consultant Signed Title City Clerk CITY COUNCIL Agenda # 6,6 Meeting Date: 817112 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James DeStefano, City Man TITLE: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT WITH ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP FOR THE DESIGN OF CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS FOR THE ADA RETRO -FIT OF THREE (3) MINI -PARKS IN LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT (LLAD) #39 FOR ADDITIONAL SERVICES IN THE DESIGN OF SILVER TIP PARK AND CONSTRUCTION OBSERVATION SERVICES FOR SILVER TIP PARK IN THE AMOUNT OF $14,000, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF $77,300, AND TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TO JUNE 30, 2016; PLUS APPROPRIATE $14,000 IN PARK DEVELOPMENT FUNDS TO THE PROJECT'S BUDGET, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF $77,300. RECOMMENDATION: Approve. FINANCIAL IMPACT: This contract amendment requires the appropriation of $14,000 in Park Development funds for this project. Approval of the amendment will increase the total contract amount to $77,300 BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded a contract to Architerra Design Group in the amount of $63,300 on September 15, 2009 to design the ADA retro -fit of three (3) mini -parks in lighting and landscape assessment district #39. The three parks included in this contract are Silver Tip, Star Dust and Longview South. The construction documents for all three projects have been completed, but two items were added to the Silver Tip Park project that required additional services from Architerra Design Group. The two services included a hydrology study and a drainage plan that were not a part of the original scope of work for this project. Also, staff requested Architerra Design Group to provide bidding and construction observation services that were not a part of the original contract. Total cost of the additional services is $14,000. DISCUSSION: Architerra has completed the construction documents for all three parks, Silver Tip, Star Dust and Longview South. The construction of Silver Tip Park has also been completed. Construction of Longview South is scheduled for the 2014/15 FY and Star Dust is scheduled for the 2015/16 FY. It is expected that staff will request Architerra Design Group to provide bidding and construction observation services for these two park projects, but the cost of those services will not come before the City Council for consideration until the Council awards the construction contract for each park project. However, in anticipation of these future projects, staff is seeking City Council approval to extend the contract with Architerra Design Group until June 30, 2016, the expected completion date of the two construction projects. Total City Council authorization staff is seeking, including the original contract amount of $63,300 and Amendment #1 of $14,000, is $77,300. PREPARED AND REVIEWED BY: Director of Community Services Attachments: Amendment #1 dated August 7, 2012 Contract with Architerra Design Group dated September 15, 2009 AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT is made this 7th day of August 2012, by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation ("City") and ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP, INC. ("CONSULTANT'). Recitals: a. CONSULTANT entered into an agreement with CITY on September 15, 2009 (the "AGREEMENT") in the amount not to exceed $63,300 for design services for the ADA Retro -Fit of Three (3) Mini -Parks in Lighting and Landscape Assessment District (LLAD) #39. b. Parties desire to amend the AGREEMENT to add a hydrology study, drainage plan and construction observation services to their Scope of Services for an amount not to exceed $14,000 and to extend the Term of Agreement to June 30, 2016. Now, therefore, the parties agree to amend the AGREEMENT as follows: Section 1 — Section 1.A. of the AGREEMENT is amended by adding a hydrology study, drainage plan and construction observation services for Silver Tip Park to the Scope of Services. Section 2 — Section 2 of the AGREEMENT is amended by extending the Term of Agreement to June 30, 2016. Section 3 -- Section 3 of the AGREEMENT is amended to add compensation in the amount of $14,000 for a total authorization not to exceed $77,300. Except as provided above, the AGREEMENT is in all other respects in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT on the date and year first written above. ATTEST: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR A Municipal Corporation of the State of California Signed Ling -Ling Chang Mayor APPROVED TO FORM City Attorney ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP, INC. Consultant Signed Title City Clerk CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of September 15, 2009 by and between the City of Diamond Bar, a municipal corporation ("City") and Architerra Design Group ("Consultant"). RECITALS A. City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide consulting services to City as set forth in the City's Request for Proposals. B. Consultant represents that it fully qualified to perform such consulting services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the covenants and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Services. A. Scope of Services. The nature and scope of the specific services to be performed by Consultant are as described in Exhibit "B" the Consultant's Response, dated July 31, 2009 to the City's Request for Proposals. B. Level of ServiceslTime of Performance. The level of and time of the specific services to be performed by Consultant are as set forth in Exhibit "B." 2. Term of Agreement. This Contract shall take effect September 15, 2009 and shall continue until June 30, 2014 unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions herein. 3. Compensation. City agrees to compensate Consultant for services which Consultant performs to the satisfaction of City in compliance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B." Payment will be made only after submission of proper invoices in the form specified by City. Total payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed Fifty -Nine Thousand Three Hundred dollars ($59,300) plus $4,000 for raimhursahles for a total authorization of $63,300. 4. General Terms and Conditions. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. 5. Addresses. City: Consultant: City Manager Richard Krumwiede City of Diamond Bar Architerra Design Group 21825 Copley Drive 10221 Trademark Street Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 6. Status as Independent Consultant. A. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. B. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant under this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. In the event that City is audited by any Federal or State agency regarding the independent contractor status of Consultant and the audit in any way fails to sustain the validity of a wholly independent contractor relationship between City and Consultant, then Consultant agrees to reimburse City for all costs, including accounting and attorney's fees, arising out of such audit and any appeals relating thereto. C. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law regarding Consultant and Consultant's employees. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable worker's compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 6. 7. Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all work at the standard of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession under similar conditions. 8. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by CITY, and hold harmless CITY, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including without limitation reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Consultant's negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct in the performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this AGREEMENT, except such loss or damage which is caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY (meaning that Consultant shall indemnify and defend CITY notwithstanding any alleged or actual passive negligence of CITY which may have contributed to the claims, damages, costs or liability). Should CITY in its sole discretion find Consultant's legal counsel unacceptable, then Consultant shall reimburse the CITY its costs of defense, including without limitation reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. The Consultant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the CITY (and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers) with respect to claims determined by a trier of fact to have been the result of the Consultant's negligence, recklessness or willful misconduct. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and.will survive termination of this Agreement. 9. Insurance. Consultant shall at all times during the term of this Agreement cafry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, with an insurance company authorized to do business in California and approved by the City (1) a policy or policies of broad - form comprehensive general liability insurance with minimum limits of $1,000,000.00 combined single limit coverage against any injury, death, loss or damage as a result of wrongful or negligent acts by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, and independent contractors in performance of services under this Agreement; (2) property damage insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00; (3) automotive liability insurance, with minimum combined single limits coverage of $500,000.00; (4) professional liability insurance (errors and omissions) to cover or partially cover damages that may be the result of errors, omissions, or negligent acts of Consultant, in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per claim; and (5) worker's compensation insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00 or the amount required by law, whichever is greater. City, its officers, employees, and volunteers shall be named as additional insureds on the policy (ies) as to comprehensive general liability, property damage, and automotive liability. The policy (ies) as to comprehensive general liability, property damage, and automobile liability shall provide that they are primary, and that any insurance maintained by the City shall be excess insurance only. A. All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be canceled, (except through the addition of additional insureds to the policy) by the insurance carrier without the insurance carrier giving City thirty (30) day's prior written notice thereof, except 10 days for non-payment of premium. Consultant agrees that it will not cancel, reduce or otherwise modify the insurance coverage as to the minimum coverage's specified above. B. All policies of insurance shall cover the obligations of Consultant pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; shall be issued by an insurance company which is authorized to do business in the State of California or which is approved in writing by. the City; and shall be placed with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less that A VII. C. Consultant shall submit to City (1) insurance certificates indicating compliance with the minimum worker's compensation insurance requirements above, and (2) insurance policy; endorsements indicating compliance with all other minimum insurance requirements above, not less that one (1) day prior to beginning of performance under this Agreement. Endorsements shall be executed on City's appropriate standard forms entitled "Additional Insured Endorsement", or a substantially similar form which the City has agreed in writing to accept. Additional Insured Endorsements shall be executed in a manner acceptable to both parties. 10. Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access to confidential data of City, private individuals, or employees of the City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant prepares reports of a proprietary nature specifically for and in connection with certain projects, the City shall not, except with Consultant's prior written consent, use the same for other unrelated projects. 11. Ownership of Materials. All materials provided by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City. The City acknowledges such documents are instruments of Consultant's professional services. The City agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Consultant harmless from and against any claims, costs, losses and damages as a result of the City's misuse or reuse of such drawings, specifications whether in print or in electronic form. 12. Conflict of Interest. A. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, director or indirect, which may be affected by the services to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of its services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest which would conflict in any manner with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement. B. Consultant covenants not to give or receive any compensation, monetary or otherwise, to or from the ultimate vendor(s) of hardware or software to City as a result of the performance of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 13. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause upon fifteen (15) days' written notice to the other party. However, Consultant shall not terminate this Agreement during the provision of services on a particular project. The effective date of termination shall be upon the date specified in the notice of termination, or, in the event no date is specified, upon the fifteenth (15th) day following delivery of the notice. In the event of such termination, City agrees to pay Consultant for services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of termination. Immediately upon receiving written notice of termination, Consultant shall discontinue performing services. 14. Personnel. Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement. All of the services required under this Agreement will be performed by Consultant or under it supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be qualified to perform such services. Consultant reserves the right to determine the assignment of its own employees to the performance of Consultant's services under this Agreement, but City reserves the right, for good cause, to require Consultant to exclude any employee from performing services on City's premises. 15. Non -Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity. A. Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation, in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to this Agreement, and will comply with all rules and regulations of City relating thereto. Such nondiscrimination shall include but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfers, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. B. Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Consultant state either that it is an equal opportunity employer or that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation. C. Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts for any work covered by this Agreement except contracts or subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials. D. Executive Order 11246 requires that during the performance of this Agreement, CONSULTANT agrees not to discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, sex, color or national origin. CONSULTANT will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed, and that employees are treated during employment, without regard to their race, religion, sex, color or national origin. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer, rates of pay or other forms of compensation, and selection for training, including apprenticeship. CONSULTANT agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices to be provided by the CONSULTANT setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause. E. Section 3 of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1968, as amended, 12 U.S.C. 1701 et. seq., requires that, to the greatest extent feasible, opportunities for training and employment be given to lower income residents of the project area and contracts for work in connection with the project be awarded to business concerns which are located in or owned in substantial part by persons residing in the area of the project. 4 16. Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 provides that no person shall, on the ground of race, color or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subject to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance. 17. Section 109, Title I of the Housing and Community Development Act of 1974 provides that no person shall, on the grounds of race, color, national origin, or sex be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program of activity funded in whole or in part with funds made available under this title. 18. Any prohibition against discrimination on the basis of age under the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, or with respect to an otherwise qualified handicapped individual, as provided in Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, shall also apply. 19. Assignment. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of Consultant's obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of City, and any attempt by Consultant to so assign this Agreement or any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect. 20. Performance Evaluation. For any contract in effect for twelve months or longe, a written annual administrative performance evaluation shall be required within ninety (90) days of the first anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and each year thereafter throughout the term of this Agreement. The work product required by this Agreement shall be utilized as the basis for review, and any comments or complaints received by City during the review period, either orally or in writing, shall be considered. City shall meet with Consultant prior to preparing the written report. If any noncompliance with the Agreement is found, City may direct Consultant to correct the inadequacies, or, in the alternative, may terminate this Agreement as provided herein. 21. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and local governments. 22. Non -Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Consultant, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default. 23. Attorney's Fees. In the event that either, party to this Agreement shall commence any legal or equitable action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including costs of expert witnesses and consultants. 24. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand during regular business hours or by facsimile before or during regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreement, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this section. 25. Governing Law. This Contract shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 26. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 27. County Lobbying Certification. The Consultant certifies that: (1) It is understood that each person/entity/firm who applies for a Community Development Commission contract, and as part of that process, shall certify that they are familiar with the requirements of Los Angeles County Chapter 2.160, (Los Angeles County Ordinance 93-0031) and; (2) That all persons/entities/firms acting on behalf of the above named firm have and will comply with the County Code, and; (3) That any personlentity/firm who seeks a contract with Community Development Commission shall be disqualified there from and denied the contract and, shall be liable in civil action, if any lobbyist, lobbying firm, lobbyist employer or any other person or entity acting on behalf of the above named firm fails to comply with the provisions of the County Code. 28. Federal Lobbying Certification The Consultant certifies that: -(1.)_ No Federal appropriated funds have been paid, or will be paid, by or on behalf of the Consultant, to any person for influencing or attempting fo"influence an officer or employee of any agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an making of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation renewal, amendment, or modification of any Federal contract, grant, loan-br cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than Federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any, person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any agency;: Member of Congress, an officer of employee of employee of any agency, Member of Congress in connection with this Federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the Consultant shall complete and submit Standard Form - LLL, "Disclosures Form to Report Lobbying", in accordance with its instructions. (3) The Consultant shall require that the language of this certification be included in all subcontracts and that all subconsultants shall certify and disclose accordingly. 29. Records and Audits. The Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property and financial records, adequate to identify and account for all costs pertaining to this Agreement and such other records as may be deemed necessary by the City to assure proper accounting for all project funds, both federal and non-federal shares. These records will be made available for audit purposes to the City or any authorized representative, and will be retained five years after the expiration of this Agreement unless permission to destroy them is granted by the City. 30. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents incorporated herein by specific reference, represent the entire and integrated agreement between Consultant and City. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. Amendments on behalf of the City will only be valid if signed by the City Manager or the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. 31. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. "City" ATTEST: By: Tomm e Cribbins 'City Clerk ' Approved as to fora: - M1 By: City Attorney CITY OF DIAMOND BAR By: Ron Everett, Mayor "CONSULTANT" Its: Title of Company CITY COUNCIL ���rlw \' TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James DeStefano, City Man t9 "I Agenda # 6.7 Meeting Date: 8/7/12 AGENDA REPORT TITLE: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT WITH ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP FOR SYCAMORE CANYON PARK TRAIL PHASE IV IN THE AMOUNT OF $4,250 TO DESIGN THREE INTERPRETIVE PANELS TO BE PLACED ALONG THE SYCAMORE CANYON AND SUMMIT RIDGE PARK TRAILS, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF $70,250, AND TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TO JUNE 30, 2013. RECOMMENDATION: Approve. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds for this work is included in two different grants the City has already received; Prop 84 Nature Education Facility Program Grant and Recreation Trails Grant, and the funds from these grants have been appropriated for this project. BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded a contract to Architerra Design Group in the amount of $66,000 on May 20, 2008 to design the Sycamore Canyon Park Phase IV Trail. This trail project included seven interpretive panels that were all designed by Architerra Design Group as part of the project. The City then received a grant from the Prop 84 Nature Education Facility Program that required the design of three additional interpretive panels. Since Architerra had designed the other seven panels, staff requested that Architerra design the additional three panels. The cost to design the three additional panels was $4,250. DISCUSSION: Architerra has completed the design of all ten panels and the panels are now in production by the manufacturer, Fossil Industries. The panels will be installed by our Trails contractor, ACE Construction, as soon as the completed panels are delivered to the City. ACE Construction also is responsible for maintaining the landscaping planted as a part of the Sycamore Canyon Park Phase IV Trail project. This responsibility continues until June 30, 2013. Staff will have Architerra Design Group assist during the final stages of the maintenance period to verify that all planting materials are viable and accounted for. Therefore, staff is also seeking City Council approval to extend the contract with Architerra Design Group until June 30, 2013. Total City Council authorization staff is seeking, including the original contract of $66,000 and Amendment #1 of $4,250, is $70,250. PREPARED AND REVIEWED BY: Bo se Director of Community Services Attachments: Amendment #1 dated August 7, 2012 Contract with Architerra Design Group dated May 20, 2008 AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT THIS AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT is made this 7th day of August 2012, by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation ("City") and ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP, INC. ("CONSULTANT'). Recitals: a. CONSULTANT entered into an agreement with CITY on May 20, 2008 (the "AGREEMENT") in the amount not to exceed $66,000 for design services for the Sycamore Canyon Park Trail Phase IV Project. b. Parties desire to amend the AGREEMENT to add design of three additional interpretive panels to their Scope of Services for an amount not to exceed $4,250 and to extend the Term of Agreement to June 30, 2013. Now, therefore, the parties agree to amend the AGREEMENT as follows: Section 1 — Section 1.A. of the AGREEMENT is amended by adding the design of three additional interpretive panels to the Scope of Services. Section 2 — Section 2 of the AGREEMENT is amended by extending the Term of Agreement to June 30, 2013. Section 3 -- Section 3 of the AGREEMENT is amended to add compensation in the amount of $4,250 for a total authorization not to exceed $70,250. Except as provided above, the AGREEMENT is in all other respects in full force and effect. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT #1 TO AGREEMENT on the date and year first written above. ATTEST: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR A Municipal Corporation of the State of California Signed Ling -Ling Chang Mayor APPROVED TO FORM City Attorney ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP, INC. Consultant Signed City Clerk CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of Mav 20, 2008 by and between the City of Diamond Bar, a municipal corporation ("City") and Architerra Design Group, ("Consultant'). RECITALS A. City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide consulting services to City as set forth in Exhibit "A", the City's Request for Proposals. B. Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such consulting services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the covenants and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Services. A. Scope of Services. The nature and scope of the specific services to be performed by Consultant are as described in Exhibit "B" the Consultant's Response, dated March 25. 2008 to the City's Request for Proposals. B. Level of Services/Time of Performance. The level of and time of the specific services to be performed by Consultant are as set forth in Exhibit "B." 2. Term of Agreement. This Contract shall take effect May 20, 2008 and shall continue until December 31, 2009 unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions herein. 3. Compensation. City agrees to compensate Consultant for services which Consultant performs to the satisfaction of City in compliance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "B." Payment will be made only after submission of proper invoices in the form specified by City. Total payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed $66,000. 4. General Terms and Conditions. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. 5. Addresses. City: City of Diamond Bar Consultant: Architerra Design Group James DeStefano, City Manager Richard Krumwiede, President 21825 Copley Drive 10221-A Trademark Street Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 6. Status as Independent Consultant. A. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. B. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant under this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. In the event that City is audited by any Federal or State agency regarding the independent contractor status of Consultant and the audit in any way fails to sustain the validity of a wholly independent contractor relationship between City and Consultant, then Consultant agrees to reimburse City for all costs, including accounting and attorney's fees, arising out of such audit and any appeals relating thereto. C. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law regarding Consultant and Consultant's employees. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable worker's compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 6. 7. Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all work at the standard of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession under similar conditions. a. Indemnification. Consultant agrees to indemnify the City, its officers, agents, volunteers, employees, and attorneys against, and will hold and save them and each of them harmless from, and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations, or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision or other organization arising out of the negligent acts, errors or omissions of Consultant, its agents, employees, subcontractors, or invitees, including each person or entity responsible for the provision of services hereunder. In the event there is more than one person or entity named in the Agreement as a Consultant, then all obligations, liabilities, covenants and conditions under this Section 8 shall be joint and several. 9. Insurance. Consultant shall at all times during the term of this Agreement carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, with an insurance company admitted to do business in California and approved by the City (1) a policy or policies of broad -form comprehensive general liability insurance with minimum limits of $1,000,000.00 combined single limit coverage against any injury, death, loss or damage as a result of wrongful or negligent acts by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, and independent contractors in performance of services under this Agreement; (2) property damage insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00; (3) automotive liability insurance, with minimum combined single limits coverage of $500,000.00; (4) professional liability insurance (errors and omissions) to cover or partially. cover damages that may be the result of errors, omissions, or negligent acts of Consultant, in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence; and (5) worker's compensation insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00 or the amount required by law, whichever is greater. City, its officers, employees, attorneys, and volunteers shall be named as additional insureds on the policy (ies) as to comprehensive general liability, property damage, and automotive liability. The policy (ies) as to comprehensive general liability, property damage, and automobile liability shall provide that they are primary, and that any insurance maintained by the City shall be excess insurance only. A. All insurance policies shall. provide that the insurance coverage shall not be non - renewed, canceled, reduced, or otherwise modified (except through the addition of additional insureds to the policy) by the insurance carrier without the insurance carrier giving City thirty (30) day's prior written notice thereof. Consultant agrees that it will not cancel, reduce or otherwise modify the insurance coverage. B. All policies of insurance shall cover the obligations of Consultant pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; shall be issued by an insurance company which is admitted to do business in the State of California or which is approved in writing by the City; and shall be placed with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less that A VII. C. Consultant shall submit to City (1) insurance certificates indicating compliance with the minimum worker's compensation insurance requirements above, and (2) insurance policy endorsements indicating compliance with all other minimum insurance requirements above, not less that one (1) day prior to beginning of performance under this Agreement. Endorsements shall be executed on City's appropriate standard forms entitled "Additional Insured Endorsement", or a substantially similar form which the City has agreed in writing to accept. 10. Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access to confidential data of City, private individuals, or employees of the City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant prepares reports of a proprietary nature specifically for and in connection with certain projects, the City shall not, except with Consultant's prior written consent, use the same for other unrelated projects. 11. Ownership of Materials. All materials provided by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City. 12. Conflict of Interest. A. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, director or indirect, which may be affected by the services to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of its services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest which would conflict in any manner with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement. B. Consultant covenants not to give or receive any compensation, monetary or otherwise, to or from the ultimate vendor(s) of hardware or software to City as a result of the performance of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 13. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause upon fifteen (15) days' written notice to the other party. However, Consultant shall not terminate this Agreement during the provision of services on a particular project. The effective date of termination shall be upon the date specified in the notice of termination, or, in the event no date is specified, upon the fifteenth (15th) day following delivery of the notice. In the event of such termination, City agrees to pay Consultant for services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of termination. Immediately upon receiving written notice of termination, Consultant shall discontinue performing services. 14. Personnel. Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement. All of the services required under this Agreement will be performed by Consultant or under it supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be qualified to perform such services. Consultant reserves the right to determine the assignment of its own employees to the performance of Consultant's services under this Agreement, but City reserves the right, for good cause, to require Consultant to exclude any employee from performing services on City's premises. p. 15. hFon-t)iCr'rmination and Equal Employment Opportunity. A. Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation, in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to this Agreement, and will comply with all rules and regulations of City relating thereto. Such nondiscrimination shall include but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfers, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. B. Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Consultant state either that it is an equal opportunity employer or that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, 'medical condition, or sexual orientation. C. Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts for any work covered by this Agreement except contracts or subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials. M Assignment. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of Consultant's obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of City, and any attempt by Consultant to so assign this Agreement or any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect. 1T. Performance Evaluation. For any contract in effect for twelve months or longer, a written annual administrative performance evaluation shall be required within ninety (90) days of the first anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and each year thereafter throughout the term of this Agreement. The work product required by this Agreement shall be utilized as the basis for I eview, and any comments or complaints received by City during the review period, either orally or in writing, shall be considered. City shall meet with Consultant prior to preparing the written report. If any noncompliance with the Agreement is found, City may direct Consultant to correct the inadequacies, or, in the alternative, may terminate this Agreement as provided herein_ 18. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and local governments. 19. Non -Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Consultant, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default. 20. Attorney's Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any legal or equitable action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including costs of expert witnesses and consultants. 21. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand during regular business hours or by facsimile before or during regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreement, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this section. 22. Governing Law. This Contract shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 23. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 24. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents incorporated herein by specific reference, represents the entire and integrated agreement between Consultant and City. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. Amendments on behalf of the City will only be valid if signed by the City Manager or the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. 25. Exhibits. All exhibits -referred to in this Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. "City" ATTEST: By:�� TommyeZribbns, City C{erk "CC IN Its: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR By: EDA2 Jack Tanaka, Mayor CITY COUNCIL TO: VIA: TITLE: APPELLANTS: Agenda #7.1 Meeting Date: August 7, 2012 AGENDA REPORT Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council James DeStefano, City Ma(a, r Appeal of Planning Commission Lecision to Deny Revisions to Development Review and Minor Variance No. PL 2011- 387 • PROPERTY OWNER: Paul Ghotra, 1241 S. Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 • APPLICANTS: Sam Bhogal, 23415 Pleasant Meadow, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 and Pete Volbeda, 180 N. Benson #D, Upland, CA 91786 PROJECT LOCATION: 22909 Ridge Line Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Number 8713-005-006) SUMMARY: The Appellants are requesting approval of as -built changes to a new residence under construction at 22909 Ridgeline Drive in The Diamond Bar Country Estates ("The Country"). The project has been halted at the foundation stage after it was discovered that a survey error resulted in the building pad elevation to be approximately two feet higher than what the Planning Commission originally approved in 2007. It was also found that several retaining walls were constructed with exposed heights that were substantially taller than what was depicted on the approved plans. The contractor has since cut back some of the retaining walls, and the project engineer have devised a plan to reduce the exposed heights of the rest of the walls to comply with the height limits set forth when the project was originally approved. The project architect also revised the architectural plans to reduce the overall height of the house by two feet in order to offset the raised pad elevation. The Appellants are requesting as -built approval for the elevated pad and finished grade elevations, which average approximately two feet higher than the originally approved plans, but propose to increase the landscaping along the westerly side yard to mitigate the visual impact of this elevation change between the subject property and the neighboring downslope residence. The proposed changes comply with the Development Code standards. However, the issue facing the Council is whether the Development Review findings can still be made in the affirmative, as set forth under Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48.040. The Planning Commission reviewed the current proposal at its February 28, 2012 meeting, and adopted a resolution to deny the requested revisions at its March 13, 2012 meeting. The Commission determined that the revisions cannot be approved because it was unable to make all of the required findings for approval. The Planning Commission's denial left the Appellants with two options: 1) demolish the improvements completed thus far, including retaining walls and a foundation slab, and regrade the site to the previously approved elevations; or 2) request the City Council's reconsideration of the Planning Commission's decision. The Appellants elected to file an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision, and have submitted additional information for the Council to consider. If the City Council rejects the appeal, the decision becomes final. If the City Council overturns the Planning Commission's decision and approves the request, the Appellants may proceed with obtaining building permits for the proposed revisions. Any separate HOA approvals that the owner may be subject to would not preempt the City's permitting authority. RECOMMENDATION: After holding the public hearing and considering all testimony, staff recommends that the City Council take one of the following actions: 1. Reject the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's decision to deny the proposed revisions to a previously approved single family residence, based on the findings set forth in the attached Resolution (Attachment 1); N' 2. If the City Council determines that there is new evidence or information to support findings for approval, continue the matter to August 21, 2012, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval based on the positive findings articulated by the Council. BACKGROUND: Site Description The project site is located on the north side of Ridge Line Road, within The Country. The property is legally described as Lot 30 of Tract No. 30091, and the Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 8713-005-006. Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Page 2 22835 Ridge Line Road 1 Proiect Histo Project Site: 22909 Ridge Line Road July 24, 2007 - The Planning Commission approved Development Review No. 2006-38 for an 11,321 square -foot, three-story residence, and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 to reduce the front setback to 24 feet (30 feet is required in the Rural Residential zoning district) and increase the height of the proposed retaining walls to 8 feet (6 feet is the maximum height allowed by the Development Code). The staff report and resolution are provided as Attachments 2 and 3. August 13, 2008 - Grading plans were approved, and a grading permit was released on August 25, 2008. Retaining wall permits were issued on April 26, 2010. The project is currently in the foundation stage, where the foundation has been poured for the lower building pad. June 28, 2011 - Dr. Michael B. Madanat attended the Planning Commission meeting to raise concerns that the project at 22909 Ridge Line Road was not being built according to approved plans. Dr. Madanat's family resides at 22835 Ridge Line Road, which is next door and downslope from the subject property. Dr. Madanat expressed concerns regarding the visual impacts that the project's retaining walls had created, as a result of being too tall and having been built on elevated grades, and provided the Commission with photographs of the walls in question. The minutes for this meeting are provided as Attachment 4. Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Page 3 June 30, 2011 - In response to Dr. Madanat's concerns, the City's Grading Inspector visited the site and found that the retaining wall heights were not in conformance with the approved grading plans. The grading inspector's report is provided as Attachment 5. July 19, 2011 - Staff met with Jim Gardner, The Country's General Manager, and Debbie Simonian, The Country's Community Services Director to discuss the subject property. They informed staff that The Country hired an engineer to survey the site and found that the walls and building pad elevations were on average two feet higher than the approved plans. The Building Official also confirmed that the wall heights in excess of eight feet were not in conformance with the approved retaining wall plans and permits. July 20, 2011 - Mr. Gardner sent the property owner a letter to stop all work on the property until the height of the retaining walls and the building pads were lowered to comply with the Planning Commission approved plans. November 19, 2011 - Staff received a letter from George Madanat, 22835 Ridge Line Road, stating his family's opposition to anything other than what was originally approved by the Planning Commission. The letter is included as Attachment 6. Mr. Gardner also indicated to staff that the HOA would likely not approve as -built grading plans to reflect the current field conditions on the project site (The owner is required to obtain both Planning Commission and HOA approval to modify the project). Staff has had a number of meetings with the applicants„ property owner, and civil engineer to address and discuss solutions to the existing issues on site. The project proponents were advised that any proposal other than lowering the grades to be consistent with the originally approved plans would be referred back to the Planning Commission. February 28, 2012 - The Planning Commission denied a request to allow an approximately two -foot increase in height for the building pad and finished grade elevations. The Planning Commission staff report, minutes, and resolution are included in Attachments 7 and 8. March 23, 2012 - The property owner/applicant, filed an appeal requesting that the City Council reconsider the Planning Commission's decision to deny the revisions and submitted additional supporting information (See Attachment 9). Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Page 4 ANALYSIS: Review Authority (Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.74) A land use decision rendered by the Planning Commission may be appealed to the City Council within ten days after the decision date. The City Council may take any of the following actions when considering an appeal: 1. Affirm, affirm in part, or reverse the action of the decision or determination that is the subject of the appeal; 2. Adopt additional conditions of approval, that may address the issues or concerns of the subject of the appeal; and 3. Refer the matter to the Commission for further consideration. The decision of the Council shall be final and becomes effective upon adoption of the resolution by the Council. Proiect Description The Appellants are requesting that the City Council approve the following modifications to their project currently under construction: • To maintain the as -built, elevated heights of the building pads; • To lower the overall height of the structure by two feet to effectively negate the elevated pad heights, so that the building envelope remains consistent with the height that was originally approved; • To reduce the exposed height of the retaining walls to comply with the heights originally approved by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2007; however, because the finished grades adjacent to the walls are higher than what is shown on the original plans, the walls would be at higher elevations; • To build a retaining wall, approximately 3 - 4 feet in exposed height at the west property line (adjacent to 22835 Ridge Line Road); and • Install additional trees and shrubs along the west portion of the property to screen the retaining walls and structure. The graphics on the following page will assist in understanding the two -foot reduction of the main structure and reduction in wall heights that is proposed. Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Section Showing the Changes in the Proposed Finished Floor (Section A -A of the Grading Plan included in Attachment 11) Approved Building Height -35 feet Proposed Building Height — 33 feet Rear I Approved Finished Floor -1189 Proposed Finished Floor— 1190.8 )proved Finished Floor— oposed Finished Floor— 1181 Legend Previously Approved Height/Elevation Proposed Height/Elevation Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Ridge Line Rd. Existing Wall Heights in the Rear 11.3' 6.1' 6.2' 11.0' 6.2' 7.3' 5.4' Proposed Wall Heights in the Rear 8.0' Proposed Landscaping 7' 2:1 slope 7.4' The Appellants are proposing to modify the landscaping plan to have additional landscaping within the side and rear yards adjacent to 22835 Ridge Line Road for additional screening. Shrubs such as Texas Privet and New Zealand Flax are being Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 proposed adjacent to the west property line. Both of these shrubs grow to approximately eight feet in height. New Zealand Flax is a perennial and Texas Privet is an evergreen, therefore, landscaping will be foliated year-round. In addition, three 24" box Brisbane Box trees are proposed along the west property line for additional screening. The proposed landscape plan is provided in Attachment 11. Planning Commission's Findings In compliance with State law, specific "findings" must be made before a decision-making body may approve a land use application that is quasi-judicial in nature. Findings are an analysis of facts, regulations and policies that explain how the conclusions of the decisionmakers were reached. Findings should: 1) provide a framework for making principled decisions, enhancing the integrity of the administrative process; 2) help make analysis orderly and reduce the likelihood that the agency will randomly leap from evidence to conclusions; and 3) help to persuade the parties that the decision-making is careful, reasoned and equitable. This requires decisionmakers to identify the reasons supporting a decision prior to taking action. As stated previously, the proposed changes meet the Development Code standards, and are consistent with the Minor Variance approved in 2007. Nevertheless, the Planning Commission was required to still make all of the Development Review findings in the affirmative, as set forth under Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48.040. The findings originally made by the Planning Commission are found on page 2 of Resolution No. 2007-37 (Attachment 3). The Commission revisited the Development Review findings in light of the proposed changes to the project to determine whether the following findings can still be made in the affirmative. The following discussion summarizes the deliberative process that the Planning Commission undertook to reach its conclusion to deny the Appellants' request: Finding No. 1: Is the design and layout of the proposed development consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, and development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments)? Yes. The proposed single-family residence and accessory structures are consistent with the RR zone's Development Standards and the City's Design Guidelines. In addition, the proposed project with the original conditions of approval placed on Development Review No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 is consistent in terms of mass, scale and appearance of the surrounding single-family dwelling units. Finding No. 2: Will the design and layout of the proposed development not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will it create traffic or pedestrian hazards? Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Page 8 No. In order to establish the pad elevations originally approved for the Project, a series of fill -supporting retaining walls are required to create terracing that incrementally builds up to the pad elevations. The consequence of raising the main floor and basement level building pads by approximately two feet - as contemplated by the requested Project Revisions - is that the terraced retaining walls and their abutting finished grades must also be raised to meet the pad elevations. Because constructed slopes may not exceed 2:1, an additional retaining wall would have to be constructed to splice the vertical gap in between the approved and proposed grades. Among the locations that these elevated grades and retaining walls would begin to ascend is the area commencing at the common property line between the Project Site and the neighboring downslope property at 22835 Ridge Line Road. In this location, the retaining walls and constructed slopes would run parallel to this common property line (as they would under the originally approved plans) but with much more vertical exaggeration than the originally approved plans — by as much as 3.5 feet in certain locations — to the extent that the increased visible bulk of the development creates a negative visual impact to adjacent and downslope parcels (including, without limitation, 22835 Ridge Line Road), as well as to parcels with sight lines to the Project Site, and therefore would have the effect of interfering with the occupants' use and enjoyment of the downslope and adjacent parcels. Finding No. 3: Is the architectural design of the proposed development compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will it maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48: Development Review Standards, the City's Design Guidelines, the City's General Plan, or any applicable specific plan? Yes. The design of the proposed single-family residence and accessory structure is consistent with the terms and conditions of the long-range planning policy documents adopted by the City of Diamond Bar. The proposed home is compatible with the scope, scale, and appearance of the surrounding existing homes. The proposed project is an infill development that will complete the neighborhood residential character. Finding No. 4: Will the design of the proposed development provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, color, and will remain aesthetically appealing? Yes. The project's design and use of construction material are consistent with other single-family residences in the neighborhood. Finding No. 5: Would the proposed entitlement not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city? No. The visual impact of the requested Project Revisions to the adjacent and downslope parcels (including, without limitation, 22835 Ridge Line Road), as well as to Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Page 9 parcels with sight lines to the Project Site, would be significantly increased by substantially elevating the finished grades and retaining walls and constructing an additional retaining wall to splice the vertical gap as proposed, as detailed in Section 2.b. above, will be detrimental to the welfare of the occupants of the aforementioned properties. Finding No. 6: Has the proposed entitlement been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)? Yes. The denial of this application will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment and is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 (Projects Which are Disapproved) of the CEQA Guidelines. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission could not make findings 2 and 5 required to approve the requested revisions, and denied the application. Basis for Appeal The Appellants submitted additional documents stating the basis for their appeal, summarized below. The supporting documents are included in Attachment 9. After reading the appeal, staff believes that the Appellants' arguments can be distilled down to the following four key points: • The property is located in a hillside community, with development challenges due to the natural topography of the hillside. The existing lots and private streets were created when the subdivision was approved in 1969. Hence the street grades determine the relative position of each house. The street grade in front of the Appellant's property is at an approximately 7 percent slope. The proposed building pad and finished grade elevations are relatively at level with the street grade. A vertical difference of two feet is not substantial in the context of the steep roadway grade. The street grade in front of the neighboring property located at 22835 Ridge Line Road is at an approximately 8 percent slope. A portion of the neighbor's house (the side next to the Appellant's property) is approximately 9 feet lower than the street. As shown in the photo below, the construction chain link fence which abuts the street is above the first floor of the house. Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Page 10 The building pad of the property directly across the street at 22840 Ridge Line Road is approximately 15 feet above the street, as shown in the photo below. Therefore, there are homes in the neighborhood that have varying building pads due to the natural topography of the hillside. The Appellant has provided a pictorial view of each house and the rendering of the Appellant's house on a scaled drawing to show the perspective from the street, included in Attachment 9. ® The two -foot increase in finished grades does not result in a substantially different visual impact to the downslope property. To mitigate any negative visual impact from the neighboring property to the west, a 3 to 4 -foot high Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Page 11 izlo retaining wall is being proposed along the west property line (adjacent to 22835 Ridge Line Road) and the sloped area would be landscaped with trees and shrubs to screen the retaining walls and structure. Therefore, the exposed portions of the retaining walls would be screened and camouflaged in a relatively short time. Approved Site Section 1220 UW OF 6RR tn5 RIP 09 ROOF 1M6 qn� Izlo 1210 lzos b 1200 _ - PND fLWR FF I2W � ._..._.°...._.. NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE -. -. `-Sw 1,—gas' m„e - -_ _ _ -......------- 119^ _ ___ � ,_ __ __�__________ __ _______ . ' FlR9T BOOR fF 1189 .Y=1 22835 RIDGE LINErocvnRw+ - - - ._.. Proposed Site Section with Screening UK OF NOTE: SINCE THE PAD WAS RAISED 2 FT (APPROX) AND THE BUILDING WAS LOWERED BY 2 FT THE TOP OF ROOF IS THE SAME AS ORIGINAL APPROVAL PROPOSED SITE SECTION E E 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 FT Appeal of DR and VIV No. PL 2011-387 Page 12 Proposed 3 to 4 -Foot High Retaining Wall and Landscaped Screening ® Top of roof line remains the same from original approval. The height of the building will be lowered by two feet by reducing the ceiling height in the first and second floors. Therefore, the building envelope remains consistent with the height that was originally approved. If the revisions are not granted, the Appellant will need to tear everything down and start all over again. This would result in wastage of materials and resources. In addition, it would be cost prohibitive for the Appellant, causing an extreme financial and emotional hardship to continue with the project. QUESTIONS BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL: The key issue before the Council in this matter is to determine whether or not the Appellants provided new evidence or information that, in light of all other evidence and testimony comprising the entire record, would lead the Council to conclude that all six Development Review findings can be made in the affirmative. Appeals of Planning Commission decisions are afforded de novo reviews by the City Council, and although the Appellants' information presents insights that were not as deeply explored previously, the questions raised in the February 28, 2012 staff report to the Planning Commission pertaining to Findings 2 and 5 remain. Because the appeal does not challenge Findings 1, 3, 4 and 6 (which the Planning Commission made in the Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Page 13 affirmative), staff recommends that the City Council focus on Findings 2 and 5 as the basis for discussion to reject or uphold the appeal. Finding No. 2: Will the design and layout of the proposed development not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will it create traffic or pedestrian hazards? The Appellants argue that there is an extreme topographical variation at the shared property line between the Appellants' property and the neighbor downslope located at 22835 Ridge Line Road. These properties are located on a hillside with steep terrains and roadway grades. The roadway in front of these two properties have a 7-8 percent slope (i.e. for every 100 lineal feet, there is an elevation change of seven to eight feet). A portion of the neighbor's house (the side next to the Appellant's property) at 22835 Ridge Line Road is approximately 9 feet below the street grade. The property across the street located at 22840 Ridge Line has a pad which is approximately 15 feet above the street. Unlike these properties, the Appellant is proposing the house on a building pad that is relatively at level with the street grade and follows the slope of the street by having the garage pad stepped lower than the first floor of the house. The Appellant's house is also set back approximately 36 feet away from the neighbor's house at 22835 Ridge Line Road, providing more than the minimum 25 -foot setback between structures required by the Development Code. The Appellants are also proposing to mitigate the visual impact from the adjacent neighbor at 22835 Ridge Line Road by: 1) lowering the overall building height of the structure by two feet to effectively negate the elevated pad heights so that the building envelope remains the same as the original approval; 2) building a new 3-4 feet retaining wall at the west property line (adjacent to the neighbor); and 3) installing trees and tall shrubs along the west portion of the property to screen the retaining walls and structure. Therefore the Council would need to reconsider whether a vertical difference of raising the building pad two feet is severe and has a substantially visible impact on neighboring properties in a hillside area with steep terrains and roadway grades, and if so, have the impacts been effectively mitigated. Finding No. 5: Would the proposed entitlement not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the city? In contrast to the finding made by the Planning Commission, the Appellants contend that, due to the extreme topographical variation in the area, the proposed revisions will not significantly increase the visual impact to the parcels with sight lines to the subject property, including the neighboring property at 22835 Ridge Line Road. The question before the Council is whether or not the Appellants have provided evidence to support their contention. Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Page 14 CONCLUSION: In light of the analysis provided in this report, staff recommends that the City Council take all factors, history, and issues into account and consider the Appellant's proposal, and take the one of the actions listed under Alternatives. ALTERNATIVES: After holding the public hearing and considering all testimony, the City Council may take one of the following actions: 1. Reject the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's decision to deny the proposed revisions to a previously approved single family residence, based on the findings set forth in the attached Resolution (Attachment 1); OR 2. If the City Council determines that there is new evidence or information to support findings for approval, continue the matter to August 21, 2012, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval based on the positive findings articulated by the Council. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: On July 27, 2012, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 - foot radius of the project site, and on July 27, 2012, the notice was published in the Inland Valley Daily Tribune and San Gabriel Valley Tribune newspapers. The project site was posted with a notice display board, and a copy of the public notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. 1401y/l:l.],114IJAI 40rrc1W_F-y**ydil21011p This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 under Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Prepared by: �e S. Senior Planner Reviewed by: Greg Gubman, AICP Community Development Director Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Page 15 Reviewed by: 0:0 David Doyle Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Draft City Council Resolution No. 2012-XX.to Deny the Proposed Revisions 2. Planning Commission Staff Report dated July 24, 2007 3. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-37 4. Planning Commission Minutes dated June 28, 2011 5. Grading Inspector's Report 6. Letters from Neighbor Located at 22835 Ridge Line Road 7. Planning Commission Staff Report and Minutes dated February 28, 2012 8. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-09 9. Appeal Application and Supporting Documents 10. Planning Commission Approved Plans from July 24, 2007 11. Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, Sections Appeal of DR and MV No. PL 2011-387 Attachment 1 CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA ("CITY"), DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO DENY REVISIONS TO DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MINOR VARIANCE NO. PL 2011-387, A REQUEST TO APPROVE AS -BUILT CHANGES TO A NEW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT UNDER CONSTRUCTION BY INCREASING BUILDING PAD AND FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS ON A LOT LOCATED AT 22909 RIDGE LINE ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 8713-005- 006 ("PROJECT SITE"). THE CITY COUNCIL DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: A. THE CITY COUNCIL FINDS AND DECLARES THAT: 1. On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Development Review No. 2006-38 for an 11,321 square -foot, three-story residence, and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 to reduce the front setback to 24 feet (30 feet is required in the Rural Residential zoning district) and increase the height of the proposed retaining walls to 8 feet (6 feet is the maximum height allowed by the Development Code) on the Project Site, as depicted on the preliminary grading, site, landscaping and architectural plans on file with the City's Planning Division ("Project"). 2. On August 13, 2008, the City approved the grading plan for the Project. 3. On August 25, 2008, the City issued a grading permit authorizing earthwork to commence on the Project Site as prescribed by the approved grading plan. 4. April 26, 2010, the City issued a building permit authorizing the construction of the Project's retaining walls. 5. On October 11, 2010, the Project's engineer of record at the time, Gerald E. Ronnebeck (R.C.E. 42853, exp. 3-31-12) certified the rough grading elevations and retaining walls on the Project Site to be in compliance with the elevations prescribed on the approved grading plan. 6. On November 15, 2010, the City's Public Works Inspector ("Inspector") inspected the rough grading conditions and related documentation pertaining to the project site, including, among other things, the rough grading certification letter from the Project's engineer of record. The Project "passed" the rough grading inspection on the basis of the Inspector's finding that the earthwork completed on this date was in compliance with the stipulations set forth on the grading permit. 7. On June 30, 2011, the Inspector reinspected the Project Site and found that alterations to the earthwork and retaining walls had occurred subsequent to the 1 November 15, 2010 rough grading inspection. 8. On July, 15, 2011, land surveyor James S. McDonough (LS 6823, exp. 9-30-12) prepared a survey map of the Project Site after surveying the pad and wall elevations on the Project Site. The survey map documents that the building pad elevations on the Project Site are, in general, approximately two feet higher than the building pad elevations specified on the approved Project grading plan. 9. On September 22, 2011, applicants Pete Volbeda and Sam Bhogal, on behalf of property owner Paul Ghotra, filed Application No. PL 2011-387 with the City, requesting that the Planning Commission approve modifications to the Project ("Project Revisions"). The requested Project Revisions include the following items: • To maintain the as -built, elevated heights of the building pads; • To lower the overall height of the dwelling by two feet to effectively negate the elevated pad heights; • To reduce the exposed height of the retaining walls to comply with the heights originally approved by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2007, (however, because the finished grades adjacent to the walls are higher than what is shown on the original plans, the walls would be at higher elevations); • To build a retaining wall, approximately 3.5 feet in exposed height, at the west property line (adjacent to 22835 Ridge Line Road); and • Install landscaping along the west portion of the property to screen the view of the retaining walls from 22835 Ridge Line Road. 10. The legal description of the parcel on which the Project Site is located is Lot 30 of Tract 30091. 11. On February 17, 2012, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. 12. On February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, concluded said hearing on that date, directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the requested Project Revisions, and continued the matter to March 13, 2012. 13. On March 13, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar adopted Resolution No. 2012-09, denying the requested Project Revisions. 14. On March 23, 2012, the applicant, Sam Bhogal and property owner, Paul Ghotra filed an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to deny the Project Revisions. 15. On July 27, 2012, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San `a Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. 16. On August 7, 2012, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date; and 17. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the proceedings upon which the City's decision is based are located at the City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning Division, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. B. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. Based upon substantial evidence in the administrative record, the City Council finds as follows: 1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in Part A of this Resolution are true and correct. 2. Pursuant to Section 22.48.040 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, the City Council makes the following findings and conclusions regarding revisions to Development Review and Minor Variance No. PL 2011-387: a. The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable zone district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevard or planned developments.) The proposed single-family residence and accessory structures are consistent with the RR zone's Development Standards and the City's Design Guidelines. In addition, the proposed project with the original conditions of approval placed on Development Review No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 is consistent in terms of mass, scale and appearance of the surrounding single-family dwelling units. b. The design and layout of the proposed development will interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments. In order to establish the pad elevations originally approved for the Project, a series of fill -supporting retaining walls are required to create terracing that incrementally builds up to the pad elevations. The consequence of raising the main floor and basement level building pads by approximately two feet—as contemplated by the requested Project Revisions—is that the terraced retaining walls and their abutting finished grades must also be raised to meet the pad elevations. Because constructed slopes may not exceed 2:1, an additional retaining wall would have to be constructed to splice the vertical gap in between the N approved and proposed grades. Among the locations that these elevated grades and retaining walls would begin to ascend is the area commencing at the common property line between the Project Site and the neighboring downslope property at 22835 Ridge Line Road. In this location, the retaining walls and constructed slopes would run parallel to this common property line (as they would under the originally approved plans) but with much more vertical exaggeration than the originally approved plans—by as much as 3.5 feet in certain locations—to the extent that the increased visible bulk of the development creates a negative visual impact to adjacent and downslope parcels (including, without limitation, 22835 Ridge Line Road), as well as to parcels with sight lines to the Project Site, and therefore would have the effect of interfering with the occupants' use and enjoyment of the downslope and adjacent parcels. C. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Development Code Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. The design of the proposed single-family residence and accessory structure is consistent with the terms and conditions of the long-range planning policy documents adopted by the City of Diamond Bar. The proposed home is compatible with the scope, scale and appearance of the surrounding existing homes. The proposed project is an infill development that will complete the neighborhood residential character. d. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. The project's design and use of construction material are consistent with other single-family residences in the neighborhood. e. The proposed development will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious [e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property] to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The visual impact of the requested Project Revisions to the adjacent and downslope parcels (including, without limitation, 22835 Ridge Line Road), as well as to parcels with sight lines to the Project Site, would be significantly increased by substantially elevating the finished grades and retaining walls and constructing an additional retaining wall to splice the vertical gap as proposed., as detailed in Section 2.b. above, will be detrimental to the welfare of the occupants of the aforementioned properties. CI f. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The denial of this application will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment and is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 (Projects Which are Disapproved) of the CEQA Guidelines. C. DENIAL. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the City Council hereby affirms the Planning Commission's decision to deny this Application because it cannot make all of the findings required by Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48.040 and hereby denies the revisions to Development Review and Minor Variance No. PL 2011-387. The City Council shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail to the property owner: Paul Ghotra, 1241 S. Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, CA 91765; and the applicant Sam Bhogal, 23415 Pleasant Meadow, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. D. RELIANCE ON RECORD. Unless otherwise provided, each and every one of the findings and conclusions in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and conclusions constitute the independent findings and conclusions of the City Council in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Unless otherwise provided, all summaries of information in this Resolution are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7th DAY OF AUGUST 2012, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. ME Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the 7th day of August 2012, by the following vote: 0 AYES: Council Member: NOES: Council Member: ABSENT: Council Member: ABSTAIN: Council Member: ATTEST: Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar 0 Attachment 2 �wcruaq =�s PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT 21£25 COPLEY DRIVE—DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765—TEL(909) 839-7030—FAX (909) 861-3117—�v Cityofdiamondbar.com AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: MEETING DATE: CASE/FILE NUMBER: PROJECT LOCATION: APPLICATION REQUEST: PROPERTY OWNERS APPLICANTS: STAFF RECOMMENDATION: 7.4 July, 24, 2007 Development Review No. DR 2006-38 & Minor Variance No. MV 2007-06 22909 Ridgeline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 To construct an 11,321 sq. ft, three-story single-family residence with an attached 1,350 sq. ft. garage on a 50,767 sq. ft. (1.16 -acre) parcel of land. The applicant is requesting relief from the required front setback and the maximum allowable height of retaining walls. Paul Ghotra 24251 Delta Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Sam Bhogal 23415 Pleasant. Meadow Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Conditional Approval BACKGROUND: A. Project Description: The applicant requests approval of a Development Review Application to construct a new 3 story, 11,321 square foot single-family residence with an attached 1,350 square foot garage, a swimming pool and a gazebo. The project includes a request to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 24 feet and increase the allowable retaining wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet. B. Site Description: The site is located on the north side of Ridgeline Road approximately 450 feet west of Rocky View Road. It is legally described as Lot 30, Tract 30091 and the Tax Assessor Parcel No. is APN 8713-005-006. The lot is 50,767 gross square feet in size and currently undeveloped. The site slopes downward in a northerly direction at an average slope in excess of 50%, therefore it is subject to the City's Hillside Management Ordinance (Section 22.22). ANALYSIS: lad 0 C Review Authority (Chapter 22.48) and (Chapter 22.52) The construction of a single family residence requires approval of a Development Review Application. The reduction of the front yard setback from the required 30 feet to 24 feet and the increase in retaining wall height from 6 foot to 8 feet requires approval of a Minor Variance. The Director is the review authority for Minor Variance; in this case, it is the Planning Commission. Site and Surrounding General Plan Zoning and Uses Development Review (22.48) 1. Residential District General Development Standards: The following Table. 2 compares the proposed project with the City's Development Standards for Residential Development in the R-1 (40,000) RR Zone: General Plan Zone Uses Site Sin le Famil Residential R-1 40,000 RR Vacant North Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Residential South Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Water Reservoir East Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Residential West Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Residential Development Review (22.48) 1. Residential District General Development Standards: The following Table. 2 compares the proposed project with the City's Development Standards for Residential Development in the R-1 (40,000) RR Zone: Page 2 DR 2006-38 R-1(40,000) RR— . - Meets Development Development Proposed - Requirements Feature Standard Minimum lot area: 1 Acre 1.16 -acre. - Yes - Page 2 DR 2006-38 Residential density 1 single-family, unit 1 single-family unit Yes No Front setback 30 feet 24 feet Requires a Minor Variance I— 15 ft on one side and 10 ft on 26'-9" - West side Yes the other- 17 ft- East side Side setbacks 25 ft between structures on 25 ft between structures adjoining parcels on adioining parcels 25 ft from property line or 10 to 32 ft from edge of Rear setback buildable pad on a descending- buildable pad and Yes slo e whichever is a licable avera e more than 25 ft - Lot coverage - 30% - - - 12.5% Yes 4 -ft to create a building pad No Retaining Wall Height - 6 -ft" permitted - 6 -ft. high retaining walls Requires a Minor 7 -ft allowable by Director - - Variance Building height limit - 35 feet maximum - 35 feet Yes - No information provided Conditional - Landscaping - 50% of Front Yard Appears to comply.. approval One permitted - _ Number of driveways If site has 70 ft. of frontage two ;_ 2 driveways - Yes - are permitted - Width of Drive 14 ft, maximum permitted 14 fL - Yes - Approach Parking - - 2 spaces fully enclosed 6 spaces fully enclosed Yes 2, Site and Grading: The house pad is sited on the relative flat portion of the lot. A two tier terraced retaining walls are used to create a level pad from the edge of the house. Because of the steepness of the lot at the northeast side of the house, the rear yard pad closest point is 10 feet and the further point is 32 feet; however, the average rear yard is more than 25 feet. Staff believes it meets the intent of the setback. The :applicant has used terraced retaining wall of 4 feet or less to create the house pad, which is allowed by Hillside Ordinance. The higher retaining wall of 6 to 8 feet is used to create the pad for the pool deck. This design solution is unique and can be considered necessary because of the site's topography- The applicant indicates that the project will require the import of 4,500 cubic yards of fill to create the building pad. 3 Elevations: The architecture is contemporary with tile roof, stuccowall and a tower entry element with corithian columns and stained glass. The building design is further treated with elements such as arched and multi -pane windows, multiple Corinthian columns and balustrades. The rear elevation is a three-story building plane with roof decks, which create bulk. The building mass at the rear. elevation should be reduced by stepping the roof decks, - - - - Page 3 - DR 2006-38 which would give the visual impression of terracing. A condition of approval is placed in the attached resolution to eliminate the roof deck at the second floor. 4. Landscaping: The applicant indicates that there are no existing mature trees within the proposed building site. The submitted landscape. plan indicates that seventeen (17) Twenty-four inch boxtrees are to be planted as part of the proposed project. The Development Code requires that at least 50% of the required front yard setback be landscaped. The applicant has not provided the requested calculations; however, it appears that the proposed project complies with this standard. Staff recommends that a condition of approval to require compliance with the standards for front yard landscaping. D. Compliance with Hillside Management Ordinance The house pad is sited on a relative flat portion of the lot and oriented parallel to the contours. It used a two-tier terraced retaining wall at 4 feet o r less to create the pad for the house as well as the rear yard. The house comply with the maximum height of 35 feet, however the rear elevation shows excessive bulk. With the condition of approval that eliminates the second story roof deck, the rear elevation would appear to be terraced. As such, staff believes that the project would comply with the Hillside Ordinance. E. Minor Variance Review The applicant requests approval of a Minor Variance from the following development standards: 1. A 20% reduction of the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 24 feet. 2. An increase in the maximum allowable height of a retaining wall from 6 feet to 8 feet. In reviewing the request, staff found that the, site's topography and it's shape are unusual that justified for the minor deviation from the development standards. F Additional Review The Public Works Department, the Building and Safety Department reviewed this project. Their comments are included in both the report and the recommended conditions of approval. - Page 4 .. - - DR 2008-38 G. HOA Review. The applicant has been advised to submit the project plans to the Diamond Bar Country Estates Homeowners Association for review and approval. The City's file does not contain any information that this has been accomplished. The project architect has indicated that submittal to the HOA will be accomplished at a later date. H. General Plan Design Guidelines and Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed project complies with the goals and objectives as set forth in the adopted General Plan in terms of land use and density The proposed projectwill not negatively affect the existing surrounding land uses and the design and appearance of the proposed dwelling unit is compatible with the existing neighborhood. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15303 and 15332 of the CEQA guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution conditionally approving Development Review No. DR 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 subject to the conditions set forth in the attached resolution. Prepared by: Any b David D. Meyer n. ,-AICP. LDM Associates, Inc. Commun t Develop nt Director Planning.Consultant - Page 5 - DR 2006-38 BACKGROUND: A. Project Description: The applicant requests approval of a Development Review Application to construct a new 3 story, 11,321 square foot single-family residence with an attached 1,350 square foot garage, a swimming pool and a gazebo. The project includes a request to reduce the front yard setback from 30 feet to 24 feet and increase the allowable retaining wall height from 6 feet to 8 feet. B. Site Description: The site is located on the north side of Ridgeline Road approximately 450 feet west of Rocky View Road. It is legally described as Lot 30, Tract 30091 and the Tax Assessor Parcel No. is APN 8713-005-006. The lot is 50,767 gross square feet in size and currently undeveloped. The site slopes downward in a northerly direction at an average slope in excess of 50%, therefore it is subject to the City's Hillside Management Ordinance (Section 22.22). ANALYSIS: lad 0 C Review Authority (Chapter 22.48) and (Chapter 22.52) The construction of a single family residence requires approval of a Development Review Application. The reduction of the front yard setback from the required 30 feet to 24 feet and the increase in retaining wall height from 6 foot to 8 feet requires approval of a Minor Variance. The Director is the review authority for Minor Variance; in this case, it is the Planning Commission. Site and Surrounding General Plan Zoning and Uses Development Review (22.48) 1. Residential District General Development Standards: The following Table. 2 compares the proposed project with the City's Development Standards for Residential Development in the R-1 (40,000) RR Zone: General Plan Zone Uses Site Sin le Famil Residential R-1 40,000 RR Vacant North Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Residential South Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Water Reservoir East Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Residential West Single Family Residential R-1 (40,000) RR Residential Development Review (22.48) 1. Residential District General Development Standards: The following Table. 2 compares the proposed project with the City's Development Standards for Residential Development in the R-1 (40,000) RR Zone: Page 2 DR 2006-38 R-1(40,000) RR— . - Meets Development Development Proposed - Requirements Feature Standard Minimum lot area: 1 Acre 1.16 -acre. - Yes - Page 2 DR 2006-38 Residential density 1 single-family, unit 1 single-family unit Yes No Front setback 30 feet 24 feet Requires a Minor Variance I— 15 ft on one side and 10 ft on 26'-9" - West side Yes the other- 17 ft- East side Side setbacks 25 ft between structures on 25 ft between structures adjoining parcels on adioining parcels 25 ft from property line or 10 to 32 ft from edge of Rear setback buildable pad on a descending- buildable pad and Yes slo e whichever is a licable avera e more than 25 ft - Lot coverage - 30% - - - 12.5% Yes 4 -ft to create a building pad No Retaining Wall Height - 6 -ft" permitted - 6 -ft. high retaining walls Requires a Minor 7 -ft allowable by Director - - Variance Building height limit - 35 feet maximum - 35 feet Yes - No information provided Conditional - Landscaping - 50% of Front Yard Appears to comply.. approval One permitted - _ Number of driveways If site has 70 ft. of frontage two ;_ 2 driveways - Yes - are permitted - Width of Drive 14 ft, maximum permitted 14 fL - Yes - Approach Parking - - 2 spaces fully enclosed 6 spaces fully enclosed Yes 2, Site and Grading: The house pad is sited on the relative flat portion of the lot. A two tier terraced retaining walls are used to create a level pad from the edge of the house. Because of the steepness of the lot at the northeast side of the house, the rear yard pad closest point is 10 feet and the further point is 32 feet; however, the average rear yard is more than 25 feet. Staff believes it meets the intent of the setback. The :applicant has used terraced retaining wall of 4 feet or less to create the house pad, which is allowed by Hillside Ordinance. The higher retaining wall of 6 to 8 feet is used to create the pad for the pool deck. This design solution is unique and can be considered necessary because of the site's topography- The applicant indicates that the project will require the import of 4,500 cubic yards of fill to create the building pad. 3 Elevations: The architecture is contemporary with tile roof, stuccowall and a tower entry element with corithian columns and stained glass. The building design is further treated with elements such as arched and multi -pane windows, multiple Corinthian columns and balustrades. The rear elevation is a three-story building plane with roof decks, which create bulk. The building mass at the rear. elevation should be reduced by stepping the roof decks, - - - - Page 3 - DR 2006-38 which would give the visual impression of terracing. A condition of approval is placed in the attached resolution to eliminate the roof deck at the second floor. 4. Landscaping: The applicant indicates that there are no existing mature trees within the proposed building site. The submitted landscape. plan indicates that seventeen (17) Twenty-four inch boxtrees are to be planted as part of the proposed project. The Development Code requires that at least 50% of the required front yard setback be landscaped. The applicant has not provided the requested calculations; however, it appears that the proposed project complies with this standard. Staff recommends that a condition of approval to require compliance with the standards for front yard landscaping. D. Compliance with Hillside Management Ordinance The house pad is sited on a relative flat portion of the lot and oriented parallel to the contours. It used a two-tier terraced retaining wall at 4 feet o r less to create the pad for the house as well as the rear yard. The house comply with the maximum height of 35 feet, however the rear elevation shows excessive bulk. With the condition of approval that eliminates the second story roof deck, the rear elevation would appear to be terraced. As such, staff believes that the project would comply with the Hillside Ordinance. E. Minor Variance Review The applicant requests approval of a Minor Variance from the following development standards: 1. A 20% reduction of the required front yard setback from 30 feet to 24 feet. 2. An increase in the maximum allowable height of a retaining wall from 6 feet to 8 feet. In reviewing the request, staff found that the, site's topography and it's shape are unusual that justified for the minor deviation from the development standards. F Additional Review The Public Works Department, the Building and Safety Department reviewed this project. Their comments are included in both the report and the recommended conditions of approval. - Page 4 .. - - DR 2008-38 G. HOA Review. The applicant has been advised to submit the project plans to the Diamond Bar Country Estates Homeowners Association for review and approval. The City's file does not contain any information that this has been accomplished. The project architect has indicated that submittal to the HOA will be accomplished at a later date. H. General Plan Design Guidelines and Compatibility with Neighborhood The proposed project complies with the goals and objectives as set forth in the adopted General Plan in terms of land use and density The proposed projectwill not negatively affect the existing surrounding land uses and the design and appearance of the proposed dwelling unit is compatible with the existing neighborhood. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was posted at the site, and a copy of the legal notice was posted at the City's designated community posting sites. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The City has determined that this project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Sections 15303 and 15332 of the CEQA guidelines. RECOMMENDATION: - Staff recommends that the Planning Commission adopt a Resolution conditionally approving Development Review No. DR 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 subject to the conditions set forth in the attached resolution. Prepared by: Any b David D. Meyer n. ,-AICP. LDM Associates, Inc. Commun t Develop nt Director Planning.Consultant - Page 5 - DR 2006-38 Attachment 3 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2007-37 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, CONDITIONALLY APPROVING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW N0, 2006-38 AND MINOR VARIANCE NO, 2007.06 FOR THE REQUEST TO CONSTRUCT A THREE-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ON LOT NO.30 OF TRACT 30091, LOCATED AT 22909 RIDGELINE ROAD, - APN: 8713-005-006 A. RECITALS 1. The Planning Commission. considered an application filed by Mr. Sam Bhogal, on behalf of the property owner, Mr. Paul Ghotra; requesting, approval of plans to construct a new three-story, 11,312 square foot single-family residence with an attached 1,350 square foot garage, a swimming pool and a gazebo at 22909 Ridgeline Road. 2. The subject property is zoned R1-(40,000) RR and it contains 50,767sq. ft. of land area 3. The subject property is legally described as Lot 30, Tract 30091 and the Assessor Parcel Number Js (APN) 8713-005-006. 4. Public Hearing notification was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Baily Bulletin newspapers and property owners within a 500 -foot radius of the project site were notified of the proposed project by mail. Further, a public hearing notice display board was posted at the site, and at three other locations within the project vicinity. 5. On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, and concluded said hearing on that date: B. RESOLUTION NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the Recitals Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct. 2 The Planning Commission hereby determines that the proposed project is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) in accordance to Sections 15303 and 15332 of the CEQA Guidelines. 3. Based upon the information contained in the submitted plans, the associated staff report and testimony given at the public hearing the Planning Commission hereby finds as follows: MiNOP. VARIANCE a. There are special circumstances applicable to the property so that the strict application of this development code denies the property owner privileges enjoyed by other property owners in the vicinity and under identical zoning districts or creates an unnecessary and non -self-created, hardship or unreasonable regulation which makes it obviously Impractical to require compliance with the development standards: The subject property has an average slope in excess of 50% and the buildable portion of the site is substantially reduced because of the natural lot configuration. In an effort to create a dwelling consistent with the size and mass of the surrounding dwellings the project architect has requested that the front yard setback be reduced from 30 feet to 22 feet; and that retaining walls reaching a height of 8 feet be allowed. b. Granting the minor variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of substantial property rights possessed, by other property owners in the same vicinity and zoning ,district and denied to the property owner for which the minor variance is sought. The adjacent dwelling units were constructed in compliance with development standards that are no longer applicable in the City of Diamond Bar. The current more restrictive development standards significantly impact the designalternatives available to the project architect. In an efferf..fo meet the setback requirements the standard design solution would be to construct more terraced retaining walls. 1 The additional retaining walls may reach. a point of being cost prohibitive and the appearance of the numerous walls is contrary to the City's design objectives. c Granting the minor variance is consistent with the general plan and any applicable specific plan The granting of the setback variance and the increase in the allowable height of retaining walls will aid in achieving fhe design goals and objectives of the community. The use of additional retaining walls . will require additional site grading and the import of substantially more fill material. d. The proposed entitlement would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience or welfare of the city. The public welfare and safety would be enhanced by the reduction of grading of the portion' of the: site that will be left in a natural state if the setback and wall height variances are approved. 4 Based upon the findings and conclusion set forth above, the Planning Commission hereby apptoves this Application subject to the following conditions: 3 J. Buildinq and Safety Division (1) Fire Department approval is required. Please contact the Fire Department (2) Applicant shall provide temporary sanitation facilities while under construction (3) Applicant shall submit an application to the Walnut Valley Water District to obtain a 'Will. Service" certificate that will meet the domestic and Fire Flow requirements.forthe proposed project. Written verification shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division prior to the issuance of building permits. C. Standard Conditions. The applicant shall comply with the standard development conditions attached hereto: The Planning Commission shall a. Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and b Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mei! to Mr_ Paul Ghotra, 24251 Delta Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765, and Mr. Sam Bhogal, 23415 Pleasant Meadow, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 24TH DAY OF JULY 2007, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. B Y eve Nelson, Chairman I, Nancy Fong, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 24th day of July 2007, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners:. Nolan, - Chair/Nelson, - Lea, VC/Torng -. NOES: Commissioners. Wei ABSENT: Commissioners: None ABSTAIN Commissioners: None ATTEST. Nancy Fon rotary 5 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT STANDARD CONDITIONS r � USE PERMITS, COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL NEW AND REMODELED STRUCTURES PROJECT No: Development Review No. 2006.38 & Minor Variance No. MV 2007.06 SUBJECT: Construction of a new 3 -story Single -Family Dwellinq and Accessory Structures PROPERTY Mr. Paul Ghotra OW4ER 24251 Delta Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT:: Mr. Sam Bhogal 23415 Pleasant Meadow Diamond Bar, CA 91765 LOCATION: 22909 Ridgeline Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 ALL OF THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS APPLY 70 YOUR PROJECT. APPLICANT SHALL CONTACT THE PLANNING DIVISION AT (909) 839.7030, FOR COMPLIANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. GENERAL REQUIREMENTS' 1. In accordance with Government Code Section 66474,9(6)(1), the applicant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City, and its officers, agents and employees, from any claim action,, or proceeding to attack, set=aside, void or annul, the approval of Development Review No 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 brought within the time period provided by Government Code Section 66499 37, In the event the city and/or its officers agents and employees are made a party of any such action. (a) Applicant shall provide a defense to the City defendants or at the City's option reimburse `the City its costs of defense, including reasonable attorneys fees, incurred in defense of such claims. 6 fees as required shall be paid prior to the issuance of building permit. In addition, the applicant shall pay all remaining prorated City project review and processing fees prior to issuance of grading or building permit, whichever comes first. 2. Prior to any plan check, all deposit accounts for the processing of this project shall have no deficits. C. TIME LIMITS 1. The approval of Development Review No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 shall expire within two years from the date of approval if the use has .not been exercised as defined per Municipal Code Section 22,66.050(b)(1). The applicant may request in writing a one year time extension subject to Municipal Code Section 22.60,050(c) for Planning Commission approval. D. SITE DEVELOPMENT 1. The project site shall be developed and maintained in substantial conformance with the approved plans submitted, to, approved, and amended herein by the Planning Commission, collectively referenced herein as Exhibit "A including: site plans, floor plans, architectural elevations, exterior materials and colors,, landscaping, and grading on file in the Planning_ Division, the conditions contained herein, and the Development Code regulations. 2. All ground -mounted utility appurtenances such as transformers, air conditioning condensers, etc shall be located but of public view and adequately screened through the use of a combination of concrete or masonry walls, berms, and/or landscaping to the satisfactionof the Planning Division. 3 All roof mounted,equipmentshall be screened from public view. 4. All structures, including walls, trash enclosures,:. canopies. etc, shall be maintained in a structurally sound, safe manner with a clean, orderly appearance. All graffiti shall be removed within 72 hours by the property ownerloccupant. E. LANDSCAPE, PRESERVED AND PROTECTED TREES 1. Prior to issuance of any permits, detailed landscape and irrigation plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review and approval 2 Prior to plan check submittal, a final landscapeliFrig ation plan shall be submitted with the type of planting materials, color, size, quantity and location including proposed sites for the planting of protected/preserved trees and additional species to mask the retaining wall height. . 3. Prior to the Planning Division's final inspection and/or Certificate of Occupancy. issuance, the landscaping/irrigation shall be installed or replaced. Any dense plant material or fencing proposed in the front setback shall not exceed 42 inches maximum height. 4. Prior to releasing occupancy, an inspection shall he conducted by the Planning Division to determine that any and all slope vegetation is in satisfactory condition. 8" `/ hnnmg Commission R,,dhlbo N, 70013/ 2. Upon approval of the geotechnical report, the applicant shall submit drainage and grading plans prepared by a Civil Engineer, licensed by the State of California, prepared in accordance with the City's requirements for the City's review and approval. A list of requirements for grading plan check is available from the Public Works Department. All grading (cut and fill) calculations shall be submitted to the City concurrently with the grading plan._ 3. Finished slopes shall conform to City Code Section 22.22.080 -Grading. , 4. All easements and flood hazard areas shall be clearly identified on the grading plan: 5. The grading plan shall show the location of any retaining walls and the elevations of the top of walllfootinglretaining and the finished grade on both sides of the retaining wall. Construction details for retaining walls shall be shown on the grading plan. Calculations and details of retaining walls shall be submitted to the Building and Safety Division for review and approval. 6. All equipment staging areas shall be located on the project site. Staging area, including material stockpile and equipment storage area, shall be enclosed within a 6 foot-high.chain link fence. All access points in the defense shall be locked whenever the construction site is not supervised: 7 Grading of the subject property shall be in accordance with the California Building Code, City Grading Ordinance, Hillside Management Ordinance and acceptable grading practices. 8.1 The maximum grade of driveways serving building pad areas shall be 15 percent. In hillside areas driveway grades exceeding 15 percent shall have parking landings with a minimum 16 feet deep and shall not exceed five (5) percent grade or as required by the City Engineer driveways with a'slope of 15 percent shall Incorporate grooves for traction into the construction as required by the City Engineer. 9. All slopes shall be seeded per landscape plan and/or fuel modification plan with native grasses or planted with ground cover, shrubs, and trees for erosion control upon completion of grading or some other alternative method of erosion control shall be completed to the satisfaction of the. City Engineer. 10. Submit a stockpile plan showing the proposed location for stockpile for grading export materials and the route of transport - 11. Prior to the issuance of building permits, a pre -construction meeting shall be held at the project site with the grading contractor, applicant, and city grading inspector at least 48 hours prior to commencing grading operations. 12. Rough grade certifications by project soils engineer shall be submitted prior to issuance of building permits for the foundation of the residential structure. Retaining wall permits may be issued without a rough gradeee ificate. o 6 This project shall comply with the energy conservation requirements of the State of California Energy Commission. Kitchen and bathroom lights shall be fluorescent. - 7. Submit Public Works Department approved grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining walls locations 8. A height survey shall be required at completion of framing. 10. Building setback from any slope (toe, or top) shall meet Chapter 18 of the 2001 California Building Code. 11. All balconies shall be designed for 601b. live load. 12. Guardrails shall be designed for 20 load applied laterally at the top of the rail 13. indicate all easements on the site plan. 14. Fire Department approval shall be required. Contact the Fire Department to check the fire zone for the location of your property, if this project is located in High Hazard Fire Zone it shall meet of requirements of the five zone. a. All unenclosed under -floor areas shall be constructed as exterior wall. b. All openings into the 'attic, floor and/or other enclosed areas shall be covered with corrosion -resistant wire mesh not less than 1l4 inch or more than 112 inch in any dimension except where such openings are equipped with sash or door. 15 Submit grading plans showing clearly all finish elevations, drainage, and retaining wall locations. No building permits shall be issued prior to submitting a padcertification. 16. The project shall be protected by a construction fence and shall comply. with the NPDES & BMP requirements (sand bags, etc,): 17. Check'' drainage patterns with Engineering Department. Surface water shall drain away from building at a 2% minimum slope: 18. Specify location of tempered glass as required by code. 19 Specify 114'/ft slope for all flat surfaces/ decks with approved water proofing material. Also provide guardrail connection detail (height, spacing, etc.). 20. Private property sewer/septic system shall be approved by the Los Angeles County Health Department and the California Water Control Board, End 12' Planning Commission Re,.tu ion No. 2007 3/ Attachment 4 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BPR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JUNE 28 2011 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Shah called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jimmy Lin, Steve Nelson and Tony Torng, Vice Chairman Kwang Ho Lee and Chairman Jack Shah. Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of May 24, 2011. VC/Lee moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve the May 24, 2011, Regular Meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, VC/Lee, Torng, Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 5, OLD BUSINESS: None S. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Development Review PL 2011-50 Under the authority of Diamond Bar Development Code Section 22.48, the applicants requested approval to construct a new 11,083 square foot single family residence, 925 square foot second unit, and two garages and a workshop totaling 4,857 square feet on an 8.51 gross acre (370,695 square foot) lot. The subject is zoned Rural JUNE 26, 2011 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2244 Indian Creek Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Mike Tsai 18240 Senteno Street Rowland Heights, CA 91748 APPLICANT: Roland. Wahlroos-Ritter WRoad, LLC 2404 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 9E Los Angeles, CA 90057 CDD/Gubman stated that the applicant requested that this matter be continued to July 12, 2011, to allow for changes to the grading plan to reduce the overall project impact. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. i C/Torng moved, C/Nelson seconded, to continue the public hearing to July 12, 2011. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Nelson, Tomg, VC/Lee Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Development Review No. PL2010-401 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Development Code Section 22.48, the applicants requested approval to construct a new 11,266 square -foot single family residence, 1,666 square -foot garage and 588 square feet in patio covers and porches, on a 1.68 gross acre (73,283 square foot) lot. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with a consistent underlying General Plan land use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADRESS: 2127 Derringer Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Sumermal Vardhan 320 Woodruff Walnut, CA 91789 JUNE 28; 2011 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda 180 N. Benson Avenue, Suite D Upland, CA 91786 PT/Tobon presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. PL 2010-401, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Nelson asked what would happen to the second parcel when the 1,000 plus yards is moved to the project site. Is there erosion potential, how will it be restored and what it will look like. PT/Tobon explained that the applicant is currently grading at 2137 Derringer and whatever is being graded for pools and footing is being brought to the project site. C/Nelson asked for confirmation that 2137 Derringer needed to lose some fill and PT/Tobon concurred. C/Lin said that based on the drawing, the garage will be constructed on top of an easement and wondered if the easement had been relocated or vacated. CDD/Gubman said that he did not see a clear delineation of the easement but as he recalled there will be some flat work improvements within the easement area but no structures which may be acceptable to the utility that the easement favors. , C/Lin asked if staff knew who owned the easement and CDD/Gubman- responded that since there is no clarification on the plans, he would refer the Commissioner to the architect: Pete Volbeda, Architect, stated that at last week's meeting two designs were presented — one house for each lot. And the easement is actually on the southern lot and no plans have yet been submitted for the southern lot. The easement, 'a sewer easement owned by LA County, is not on the subject property and is about 30 feet away from the southern property line. Chair/Shah asked if the easement was moved and Mr. Volbeda responded that rather than moving the easement, they moved the property line between the two parcels farther north of the sewer easement because he realized he could only build ,south of the easement to make the middle lot look bigger. Chair/Shah asked if the easement stopped on the west end of the project site. Mr. Volbeda explained that the six foot easement runs from the road to the rear property line where it stops. Chair/Shah asked how muchdirt would be imported and Mr. Volbeda said he expected the maximum import that would be needed on the site would be less than 1000 cubic yards. There is some extra dirt available on the lot but there is pool excavation, backfilling and final grading to be done so the dirt from the project site will be used first and whatever else is needed will come from outside of the lot. He does not expect the final amount will be anywhere near a 1000 cubic yards but wanted to provide an envelope of that amount just in case. JUNE 2b, 2011 PAGE 4 PLANNING CONIMlSSION.. Mr. Volbeda confirmed to C/Torng that the easement is the same easement referred tout the last Planning Commission meeting. C/Torng said that during the last meeting the applicant indicated they would pave over the easement but not construct a building over the easement. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Shah closed the public hearing. C/Nelson moved, C/Torng seconded, to approve Development Review No. PL 2010-401, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEfPUBLIC COMMENTS: C/Shah reopened Public Comments: CDD/Gubman advised the Commission that no action can be taken on items raised during public comments., Chair/Shah repeated to the Commission that no action was to be taken and the matter would be taken under advisement only: Dr. Michael Madanat, 22835 Ridge Line Road, read from a prepared statement regarding apparent misrepresentations to the City and "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association with respect to the 22909 Ridge Line Road project next door to his home which has been shut, down by the State of California. He encouraged the Commission to implement more effective safeguards to prevent against unlicensed activity in .the future. Dr. Madanat submitted photographs of the projectand its possible adverse affects on his property to city staff Chair/Shah thanked Dr. Madanat and said that they would take his statements under advisement, Dr, Madanat responded to VC/Lee that the retaining wall between his property and 22909 Ridge Line has been built and he is unaware if the wall had been inspected. He asked if he could show photos of the site. JUNE 28, 2011 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Torng suggested that staff be given an opportunity to respond to Dr. Madanat's statements before the Commission continued to ask questions or review the photos. Chair/Shah repeated that it is his intention to only take the matter under advisement. At C/Shah's request, CDD/Gubman reiterated his advice that the matter being presented to the Commission is not within its purview. The Commission is a land use authority and not building commission. His understanding is that the speaker's legal counsel has advised him to make this presentation to the Commission; however, it is totally outside the purview of this Commission. If there are violations of the building code, construction without permits, if there is a contractor who is operating in violation of his license, these are matters that are taken up at City Hall and not by the Planning Commission. C/Nelson asked that if at any point that a Violation has been determined, would this Commission be asked to take any action and CDD/Gubman responded no, unless part of that remedy is to seek some land use approval for something that was not previously permitted. For example, if there is illegal and unpermitted construction and that construction requires as an alternative to demolition or other correction of the violation to seek approval of that improvement, the property owner may wish to apply for a variance or seek some other type of entitlement in which case it would come before the Commission. C/Nelson said that he would advise that the speaker be very specific about the violations.' Dr. Madanat continued showing the photographs. Chair/Shah requested that the Commission stop discussions on this matter because it was not within the jurisdiction of the Commission, and suggested that. Dr. Madanat share the photos with city staff. He advised Dr. Madanat to take the matter up with the proper city department, state agencies and ,any other agencies that may be involved, and the Commission will take it under advisement. C/Nelson asked if the neighbor removed the speaker's fence without permission and Dr. Madanat responded yes. C/Nelson told Dr. Madanat that the matter of the fence was an important issue. CDD/Gubman said he was very concerned about what he was hearing and although this is not -a matter for the Planning Commission to deliberate or decide, these are serious issues that have been raised and he is more than happy to begin a dialogue with the speaker and work with staff to find out what the background is on this matter and pursue resolution. He preferred to know more about the issue and it is a bit unconventional to have it brought to his attention in this forum but he is lookingforward to looking into the matter and would be glad to follow up with the Commission as a JUNE 28, 2011 IMAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION i matter of interest as to what further actions, if any, will be taken. CDD/Gubman said that there were enforcement issues raised and there are certain limitations to how much he can respond when allegations of that nature are made but he asked that it be perfectly clear that as the director that oversees Code Enforcement and Building and Safety Divisions, he and his staff are very active and very aggressive in dealing with buildingand zoning' violations and staff actively pursues the abatement and prosecution methods to deal with those issues. He assured the Commission that staff does not hesitate to deal with these matters, takes them very seriously and proceed appropriately. Whatever direction the Commission wishes to provide this evening is well -taken but he again assured the Commission that staff takes all of these issues very seriously. Staff deals with a'rather sizeable caseload in the enforcement and prosecution matters and staff, does follow through. While this isnot a matter that the Commission considers, this is something that as the Director, CDD/Gubman deals with on a daily basis and he has the resources to deal with these issues appropriately. C/Torng agreed with C/Nelson that he would like for the Commission to be given an update at the appropriate time as to how these matters will or have been resolved. CDD/Gubman said he would be happy to comply with that request and it would most likely be in a sequence of updates because his experience in these matters is that the City is headed down a long path in pursuit of remedy. _- C/Lin said he agreed with his colleagues but he cautioned that tonight the Commission is hearing one side of the story. He cautioned the Commission that as CDD/Gubman stated, this matter is outside the jurisdiction of the Commission. C/Lin indicated to Dr. Madanat that the proper forum for him to voice his concerns is the City Council and not the Planning Commission. C/Shah said he agreed with his colleagues that this matter should be referred to the proper departments and he concurred with his fellow Commissioners that he too would appreciate updates on a regular basis and especially regarding the matters that reflect the land use. 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COCy MENTSIINFOZMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Nelson said he understood that the Commission made land use decisions but he believed the Commission had to show some degree of accountability and even though it may not be the Commissions final decision about enforcement or, violation actions, he believed that the Commission had to give speakers like Dr. Madanat the benefit of the doubt and assure them that they would look into the matter and he appreciated CDD/Gubman's cooperation in that effort. If this body makes decisions and those decisions are not upheld, why is the Commission making decisions at all, and that is the way he feels. VC/Lee said that Dr. Madanat complained about many things which had to do with construction and clearly, this matter should be dealt with by Code .Enforcement. As C/Lin' said, all sides must be considered - People can share their concerns about JUNE 29, 2011 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION anything from their point of view and the Commission should not spend its time dealing with matters that are not of their concern. The speaker can call the City's Building and Safety Department to state his concerns and the proper department will follow up to make certain the project applies with the code:` C/Lin asked if the City allowed two side by side and vacant properties to raise elevations by building retaining walls by as much as 15 or 20 feet and CDD/Gubman responded that generally speaking, the property would have to be extremely wide to get a series of four foot tall terraced retaining walls to reach that ultimate pad elevation.If he had more information about what type of entitlements were granted, whether a variance was granted, when a project, if any was approved and so forth, but generally speaking, based on what he heard, it is not something that is provided for in the code without granting a variance. Chair/Shah stated that he believes there is more that meets the eye on the project that the speaker discussed during Public Comments. The Commission does not have the whole story and it should be up to staff to investigate and take any action necessary. 9. STAFF COMM ITEMS: 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. CDD/Gubman stated that a project the Planning Commission approved for 2488 Alamo Heights Drive was contiguous to a neighboring existing development that has been doing unpermitted grading and construction of retaining walls which has had an effect on the site where the house is proposed because there is potential' redirection of drainage onto the new site where the home has been permitted. ,These unpermitted improvements are preventing the developer's ability to proceed with construction of the project. This is one case where staff is moving forward with filing of a misdemeanor complaint. This is one example and there are others wherein the City deals with these kinds of complaints and takes appropriate action. This is one example of when these situations occur where the project is unpermitted, un -entitled and is creating a nuisance, obstruction or potential hazard staff is doing its best to correct those violations: CDD/Gubman stated that there are two projects on the July 12 agenda, the ' project that was Indian Creek that was on tonight's agenda and has been continued as well as, a proposed` single -story addition to a two-story home on Cold Stream. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed, in tonight's agenda; JUNE 26, 2011 PAGE F Pi_P WNG CO@I MISS.M ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Shah adjourned the regular meeting at 8:05 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 26th day of July, 2011. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubmar Community Development Director Jack Shah, hairmah PUBLIC WORKS DIVISION REQUEST FOR INSPECTION Attachment 5 21825 EAST COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765.4177 909-839-7040 FAX 909-561-3117 SIGNED - COPY TO File INSPECTOR :DATE• 0/30/2011 JN: 070198-0070 - DATE: 6/30/11 TO: Hall & Foreman, Inc. PLAN CHECK NO:. ATTENTION: Edward Oune -PERMIT NO: FROM: Erwin Ching - JOB LOCATION: 22909 Ridge Line Road NAME OF OWNER Mr. Sam Bhogal TELEPHONE NO. (909) 455-2320 GRADING RETAINING WALLS - SEWER Pre -Contract . . . . [ J. Pre -Contract . . . . .(J Pre -Contract . . .. .( j Clearing & Grubbing.. - ( ) Footing Excavation ,( ] Excavation . . . . . .[ J - Rough Grading .. (XI Reinforcing Steel ( P Laying Pipe ... ( } Sub Drains . . . .. ( JWall Construction [X ). Manholes.. . . . . . .[ J Terrace & Down Drains { J Grouting . . .( 7 Air Pressure Test (J Final, Grading [ Drainage . . . . . . .[ ) Balling . . [ J - Other I ) Final . . . . . ( } Final - Other ( ) Other STORM DRAINS: STREETS UTILITIES Pre -Contract . . . . . . [ ) Pre -Contract . . .7. ) Pre -Contract .( j Excavation _ . . . . . . [ ) Subgrade _ .'.[.j Edison . . . . . . . O ..Gas Laying Pipe [ ] Base . . . d ) . . . . [ 1 Manholes . . . [ J- Curb and. Gutter . . . C ) GTE Catch Basins . . . . . ( ) Sidewalk . . . -[ ]` Cable. T.V. . . _[ ) Reinforcing Steel . . . . ( d Driveway Approach .l J Final . . _ . ... [ 1 Other Structures .. (. J Cross Gutter . . . . .I ) . Other.. . . . [ ) Final [ ]- Final . . . . ( 1 Other . . . [ ) Other . . . . . ... - REMARKS: Please forward all comments to Erwin at Fax N 909-861-3117 Thank You! - Monday - Tuesday Wednesday F__Thursd`ay__1 Friday Morning 8:00 am - ATTACHED: SUBMITTED: .PERMITS . ... . . ( ) - PERMIT & PLANS ON PLANS .... . . . . . . . . .. 1. ] REMARAS: Inspect retaining wall heights for verification and changes to approved grading plans.. The middle southwesterly retaining looks to have additional retaining.. wall height added to the original construction and extended since the last inspection back on 11/30/10. Additional slope grading has also been added along this portion of the retaining wall and side yard. Theupper most retainingwallhas been buried over except for the front yard. portion, which is still visible. The buried depth is 12"- to 18" deep .over the upper most retainiiag"wall Most of the retainingwall heights are not in conformance with the approved. grading plan. The wall height elevations range between +/-S'.0 - - Edward T Oune SIGNED - COPY TO File INSPECTOR :DATE• 0/30/2011 Attachment 6 George M. Madanat 22835 Ridge Line Rd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 November 16, 201-1 Mr. Greg Gubman Community Development Director City of Diamond Bar 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765_ Dear Mr, Gubman; First and foremost, my family and I want to thank you (and your staff) for your effort the last several months in examining the series of violations that have emerged from the. development of our neighbor's property at 22909 Ridge Line Rd. As you are aware, the project at 22909 Ridge Line has caused me and my family to suffer from an enormous amount distress, especially at a time when the cost to renovate our fire damaged home is approaching the $2 million mark. My family and I have placed a great deal of trust in the City of Diamond Bar and the Country Estates Association, and we have gone great lengths to remain patient and compliant with the rules and regulations of both the City of Diamond Bar and the Country Estates Association. To date, the Contractor's State Licensing Board, EDD, CAL OSHA, the Country Estates Association, the City of Diamond Bar, and licensed surveyors have all conducted investigations into the project at 22909 Ridge Line, all of which have confirmed their suspected violations. As you are probably aware, the surveyor retained by Mr. Bhogal and Mr. Ghotra a couple of months ago indicated in writing (directly on the walls immediately adjacent to my family's home) by how many feet each retaining wall should be cut. This surveyor's findings were consistent with those of the City of Diamond Bar and the Country.Estates Association. Our understanding is that Mr. Bhogal and Mr. Ghotra are attempting to submit new development plans reflecting their site "as built. I want to emphasize that my family - will not agree to anything different from what was originally approved by the Country Estates Association and the City of Diamond Bar, or anything that should not have been approved by the City of Diamond Bar to begin with. This is not a standard appeal where Mr. Bhogal and Mr. Ghotra might be able to prove that no violation has been committed, or that there isn't enough evidence to enforce a corrective sanction. On the contrary, Mr. Bhogal and Mr. Ghotra have been proven without doubt of knowingly committing a series of very severe violations, violations of which have and continue to substantially interfere with my family's rights, and the submission of "as built" plans are ultimately nothing more than air opportunity to escape punishment, the enforcement of which is necessary to preserve, my family's rights. , The nearly $2 million my family has spent thus far designing and renovating our home was done in reliance that neither the City of Diamond Bar nor the Country Estates Association would allow the lot at 22909 Ridge Line to be engineered to such a horrific state. My family has no desire to modify our landscape or hardscape plans from what was originally planned and appioved because any such modification will be contrary to our original intention to take advantage of the pre-existing abundance of natural light, unobstructed panoramic views from indoors and outdoors, and all other natural characteristics of the terrain that have added not only to the use and enjoyment of our property, but to its desirability and overall value as well. Our expectation is that the City of Diamond Bar and the Country Estates Association will fulfill all of their respective obligations without more delay. Otherwise, my family and 1 will be left with no choice but to exercise our other options. We sincerely hope that: this will be, avoided. Thank you for your time. George M. Madanat Cc: Steve.Tye@ci.dianiond-bar.ca.us Ling-Ling-Chaiig@ci-diai-noiad-bar.ca.us CityClerk@diamondbarca.gov - TheCountryGM@verizon.net City of Diamond Bar ,. 22909 Ridge Sampling Photographic Of 22835 Ridge 'r. Presented By: i �I I I I a I 4 a W I I I I � I Pa I I 1�1lC', hl w= Before After Before After Before After (From 1st Floor Sunroom) From 151 Floor Sunroom Before After Photos Taken From 2nd Floor Rooms (East Side of 22835 Ridge Line) Before After - View Ruined From Terrace "Development will not interfere with use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future development" Re: decking Page 1 of 3 61?Ace 6E76 From: Sandi Miller <Sandisundek@yahoo.com> To: georgemadanat <georgemadanat@aol.com> Subject: Re: decking Date: Wed, Jul 25, 2012 1:36 pm M 12 . 1'n ASA NA l iZc: Q/f2C�L � X1/3 — 005 —oO( Z2 O rI7( —f Here are my concerns about your nieghbors property. A seam in the middle of the wall is called a cold joint. It is where one concrete pore buts up against an earlier pore. It is a weakness in the wall and is never used to retain that much dirt. Anything retaining that much dirt needs to be a continuious pore. I can not believe the city of Diamond Bar would permit such an a glaring no -no. My concerns would be that that area was not inspected and done after the inspecter left. You have no idea if the proper amount of steel was used and if the cornors were tied to code. It could take a much smaller earthquake then the Northridge to burst that joint. I think you need to get a city engineer out there to look this situation over. After all you have been through you don't need another nightmare because of someones intentions to beat the system. These codes are for all our own good. Sandi Attachment 7 am _ - PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA REPORT tjg9 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR - 21810 COPLEY DRIVE - DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 - TEL. (909) 839-7030 - FAX (909) 861-3117 AGENDA ITEM NUMBER: 7.3 MEETING DATE: February 28, 2012 CASE/FILE NUMBER: Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 PROJECT LOCATION: 22909 Ridge Line Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 (APN 8713-005-006) PROPERTY OWNER: Paul Ghotra 1241 S. Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANTS: Pete Volbeda Sam Bhogal 180 N. Benson #D 23415 Pleasant Meadow Upland, CA 91786 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Summary On June 28, 2011, it was brought to the Planning Commission's attention that the new residence under construction at 22909 Ridge Line Road was not being built per the approved plans. Staff inspected the site and found that portions of the site were graded to higher elevations than what was indicated on the approved plans, and that retaining walls exceeded maximum permissible heights. The Country Estates Homeowner's Association (HOA) was also aware of the discrepancies and ordered the owner to halt work on the project. Staff and HOA representatives have since met with the property owner and construction manager several times to determine how the issue of noncompliance can be addressed. The applicants are requesting approval for revisions to the height of the building pad for the new single-family residence that was approved by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2007. The project designers have devised a plan to reduce the exposed heights of the retaining walls to comply with the height limits set forth when the project was originally approved; but are requesting as -built approval for the elevated pad and finished grade elevations, which average approximately two feet higher than the originally approved plans. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission conduct a hearing for this matter, take all factors into account, consider the applicant's proposal, and direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve or deny the applicant's request. BACKGROUND: Site Description: The project site is located within The Diamond Bar Country Estates (The Country) and is located on the north side of Ridge Line Road. The property is legally described as Lot 30 of Tract No. 30091, and the Assessor's Parcel Number (APN) is 8713-005-006. Project History On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Development Review No. 2006-38 for an 11,321 square -foot, three-story residence, and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 to reduce the front setback to 24 feet (30 feet is required in the Rural Residential zoning district) and increase the height of the proposed retaining walls to 8 feet (6 feet is the maximum height allowed by the Development Code). The original staff report and resolution are provided as Attachment 4. Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 2 of 9 Grading plans were approved on August 13, 2008, and a grading permit was released on August 25, 2008. Retaining wall permits were issued on April 26, 2010. The project is currently in the foundation stage, where the foundation has been poured for the lower building pad. On June 28, 2011, Dr. Michael B. Madanat attended the Planning Commission meeting to raise concerns that the project at 22909 Ridge Line Road was not being built according to approved plans. Dr. Madanat's family resides at 22835 Ridge Line Road, which is next door and down slope from the subject property. Dr. Madanat expressed concerns regarding the visual impacts that the project's retaining walls had created as a result of being too tall and high, and provided the Commission with photographs of the walls in question. The minutes for this meeting are provided as Attachment 5. In response to Dr. Madanat's concerns, the City's Grading Inspector visited the site on June 30, 2011, and found that the retaining wall heights were not in conformance with the approved grading plans. On July 19, 2011, staff met with Jim Gardner, general manager, and Debbie Simonian, Community Services Director, from The Country to discuss the subject property. They informed staff that The Country hired an engineer to survey the site and found that the walls and building pad elevations were on average two feet higher than the approved plans. The Building Official also confirmed that the wall heights in excess of eight feet were not in conformance with the approved retaining wall plans and permits. On July 20, 2011, Mr. Gardner sent the property owner a letter to stop all work on the property until the height of the retaining walls and the building pads were lowered to comply with the Planning Commission approved plans. On November 19, 2011, staff received a letter from George Madanat, 22835 Ridge Line Road, stating his family's opposition to anything other than what was originally approved by the Planning Commission. The letter is included as Attachment 2. Mr. Gardner also indicated to staff that the HOA would likely not approve as -built grading plans to reflect the current field conditions on the project site. (The owner is required to obtain both Planning Commission and HOA approval to modify the project.) Staff has had a number of meetings with the applicants, property owner, and civil engineer to address and discuss solutions to the existing issues on site. The project proponents were advised that any proposal other than lowering the grades to be consistent with the originally approved plans would be referred back to the Planning Commission. Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 3 of 9 Applicant's Request The applicants are requesting Planning Commission approval to maintain the height of the building pads, and lower the height of the structure by two feet so that the building envelope remains consistent with the height that was originally approved. The applicants are also proposing to reduce the exposed height of the retaining walls to comply with the height approved by the Planning Commission; however, because the finished grades adjacent to the walls are higher than what is shown on the original plans, the walls would be at higher elevations. In addition, the applicants are proposing to build a retaining wall, maximum fou -foot high, at the west property line (adjacent to 22835 Ridge Line Road) and install landscaping along the west portion of the property to screen the retaining walls and structure. The graphics below will assist in understanding the reduction in wall heights and the two- foot reduction of the main structure that is proposed. Existing Wall Heights Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 4 of 9 4.6' 4.7' 11.3' I _ 7.4' 7.8' 61' 10.2' 10.7' 4.5' Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 4 of 9 Rear Proposed Wall Heights 2AM., Section Showing the Changes in the Proposed Building Height (Section A -A of the Grading Plan included in Attachment 7) pproved Finished Floor— 1179 Proposed Finished Floor - 181.30 Approved Finished Floor— 1189 Proposed Finished Floor — 1190.8 =� = Z Legend ®®: Previously Approved Height/Elevation Proposed Height/Elevation - Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Ridge Line Rd. Page 5 of 9 Landscaping: The applicants are proposing to modify their landscaping plan to have additional landscaping within the side and rear yards adjacent to 22835 Ridge Line Road for additional screening. Shrubs such as Texas Privet and New Zealand Flax are being proposed adjacent to the west property line. Both of these shrubs grow to approximately eight feet in height. New Zealand Flax is a perennial and Texas Privet is an evergreen, therefore, landscaping will be there year-round. In addition, three 24" box Brisbane Box trees are proposed along the property line for additional screening. ANALYSIS: Review Authority: Staff is referring the proposed project revisions to the Planning Commission because staff deems them to be major changes. "Major changes" to a project as defined under Development Code Section 22.66.060, include revisions to features of the project that were (1) a basis for finding in a negative declaration or an environmental impact report; or (2) specifically addressed or were a basis for conditions of approval for the project that was a specific consideration by the review authority in the approval of the permit. Any major changes shall only be approved by the review authority through a new entitlement or modification, processed in compliance with the Development Code (Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.66.060). Required Findings for Approval: While the proposed changes meet the Development Code standards, and are consistent with the Minor Variance approved in 2007, the Planning Commission must also be able to still make all of the Development Review findings in the affirmative, as set forth under Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48.040. The findings originally made by the Planning Commission are found on page 2 of Resolution No. 2007-37 (Attachment 4). Staff recommends that the Planning Commission revisit the Development Review findings in light of proposed changes to the project, and determine if the findings can still be made in the alternative. Finding No. 1: Is the design and layout of the proposed development consistent with the applicable elements of the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, and development standards of the applicable district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevards or planned developments)? Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 6 of 9 Staff Discussion: The proposed changes to the approved plans are consistent with the City's General Plan, City Design Guidelines, and development standards. Therefore, staff believes that this finding can still be met. Finding No. 2: Will the design and layout of the proposed development not interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments, and will it not create traffic or pedestrian hazards? Staff Discussion: The neighbors, most directly affected by the project expressed objections about the heights of the retaining walls and elevated pad that were not built to the approved grading plans and Planning Commission approved plans. The applicant has tried to address these issues by lowering the overall height of the residence by two feet and lowering the height of the existing retaining walls and adding landscaping to screen the walls. The Planning Commission must determine if the proposed changes are sufficient so that this finding can still be made in the affirmative; or if additional measures must be taken, up to and including regrading the entire site to be consistent with the approved plans. Finding No. 3: Is the architectural design of the proposed development compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will it maintain and enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Chapter 22.48: Development Review Standards, the City's Design Guidelines, the City's General Plan, or any applicable specific plan? Staff Discussion: The proposed changes will not change the architectural design of the residence. It is designed to be compatible with the eclectic character of the neighborhoods in The Country. Therefore, staff believes this finding can still be met. Finding No. 4: Will the design of the proposed development provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public as well as its neighbors through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, color, and will remain aesthetically appealing? Staff Discussion: No changes to the materials, textures, and colors that were approved with the Planning Commission approved plans are proposed. Therefore, staff believes that this finding can still be met. Finding No. 5: Will the proposed development not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious [e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property] to the properties or improvements in the vicinity? Staff Discussion: The neighbors have gone on record at the Planning Commission meeting and in writing that the increased grading elevations and retaining walls have a negative effect on the enjoyment of their property. The HOA has stated that it is not inclined to approve the modifications to the site. In response to these concerns the applicant is proposing to reduce the height of the retaining walls and enhance the screening between the subject property and the down-slope property. The Planning Commission must consider these factors and determine whether the remedies Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 7 of 9 proposed by the applicant ameliorate those concerns raised by the affected parties to the extent that this finding can still be made in the affirmative. Finding No. 6: Has the proposed project been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)? Staff Discussion: The proposed changes do not change the intensity of the project and are exempt from CEQA. Therefore, staff believes that this finding can still be met. Based on staff's discussion, staff finds recommends Findings 2 and 5 as the basis for the Commission's discussion on whether approve or deny the project. ALTERNATIVES: After holding the public hearing and considering all testimony, the Planning Commission may take one of the following actions: 1. Determine that the findings for the changes of the Development Review approval, contained in Section 22.48 of the Diamond Bar Development Code cannot be made, continue the matter to March 13, 2012 and direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial based on the negative findings articulated by the Commission; OR 2. If the Planning Commission determines that there is evidence and information to support findings for approval, continue the matter to March 13, 2012, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval based on the positive findings articulated by the Commission; OR 3. Continue the matter to a later date for additional information. CONCLUSION: In light of the analysis provided in this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission take all factors, history, and issues into account and consider the applicant's proposal, and provide direction to staff. Additional Review The Public Works Department and Building and Safety Division reviewed this project, and their comments will be included in the resolution as conditions of approval if the project is approved. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: On February 17, 2012, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. A notice display board was Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 8 of 9 posted at the site, and a copy of the notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: This project has been reviewed for compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Based on that assessment, the City has determined the project to be Categorically Exempt from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to the provisions of Article 19 Section 15304 (minor alterations to land) of the CEQA Guidelines. No further environmental review is required. Prepared by: Natalie Tobon Planning Technician Attachments: Reviewed by: Greg Gubman Community Development Director 1. Applicant's Written Request and Burden of Proof 2. Neighbor's Letter 3. Photo Index 4. Staff Report and Approved Resolution from July 24, 2007 5. Minutes from the June 28, 2011 6. Grading Inspector's report 7. Planning Commission Approved Plans from July 24, 2007 8. Site Plan, Floor Plan, Elevations, Sections Revisions to Development Review Planning Case No. PL 2011-387 Page 9 of 9 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION FEBRUARY 28, 2012 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Shah called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: C/Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Jimmy Lin, Steve Nelson, Tony Torng, Vice Chairman Kwang Ho Lee, and Chairman Jack Shah Also present: Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Bradley Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; Raymond Tao, Building Official; Kimberly Young, Associate Engineer, and, Stella Marquez, Administrative Coordinator. 2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered. 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 24, 2012. C/Torng moved, Chair/Shah seconded, to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of January 24, 2012, as amended. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: 5. OLD BUSINESS: 6. NEW BUSINESS COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: COMMISSIONERS: 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None None Lin, Nelson, Torng, Chair/Shah None VC/Lee None 7.1 Development Code Amendment No. PL2011-454 — Under the authority of Diamond Bar Municipal Code (DBMC) Section 22.70 this was a request to amend the following sections of Title 22 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Attachment 8 PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 2012-09 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA ("CITY"), DENYING DEVELOPMENT REVIEW AND MINOR VARIANCE NO. PL 2011-387, A REQUEST MODIFY A PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PROJECT (DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO 2006-38) BY INCREASING BUILDING PAD AND FINISHED GRADE ELEVATIONS ON A LOT LOCATED AT 22909 RIDGE LINE ROAD, DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765, AND FURTHER IDENTIFIED ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBER 8713-005-006 ("PROJECT SITE"). THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: A. THE PLANNING COMMISSION FINDS AND DECLARES THAT: 1. On July 24, 2007, the Planning Commission approved Development Review No. 2006-38 for an 11,321 square -foot, three-story residence, and Minor. Variance No. 2007-06 to reduce the front setback to 24 feet (30 feet is required in the Rural Residential zoning district) and increase the height of the proposed retaining walls to 8 feet (6 feet is the maximum height allowed by the Development Code) on the Project Site, as depicted on the preliminary grading, site, landscaping and architectural plans on file with the City's Planning Division ("Project"). 2. On August 13, 2008, the City approved the grading plan for the Project. 3. On August 25, 2008, the City issued a grading permit authorizing earthwork to commence on the Project Site as prescribed by the approved grading plan. 4. April 26, 2010, the City issued a building permit authorizing the construction of the Project's retaining walls. 5. On October 11, 2010, the Project's engineer of record at the time, Gerald E. Ronnebeck (R.C.E. 42853, exp. 3-31-12) certified the rough grading elevations and retaining walls on the Project Site to be in compliance with the elevations prescribed on the approved grading plan. 6. On November 15, 2010, the City's Public Works Inspector ("Inspector") inspected the rough grading conditions and related documentation pertaining to the project site, including, among other things, the rough grading certification letter from the Project's engineer of record. The Project "passed" the rough grading inspection on the basis of the Inspector's finding that the earthwork completed on this date was in compliance with the stipulations set forth on the grading permit. 7. On June 30, 2011, the Inspector reinspected the Project Site and found that alterations to the earthwork and retaining walls had occurred subsequent to the November 15, 2010 rough grading inspection. 1 10. 11 12. On July, 15, 2011, land surveyor James S. McDonough (LS 6823, exp. 9-30-12) prepared a survey map of the Project Site after surveying the pad and wall elevations on the Project Site. The survey map documents that the building pad elevations on the Project Site are, in general, approximately two feet higher than the building pad elevations specified on the approved Project grading plan. On September 22, 2011, applicants Pete Volbeda and Sam Bhogal, on behalf of property owner Paul Ghotra, filed Application No. PL 2011-387 with the City, requesting that the Planning Commission approve modifications to the. Project ("Project Revisions"). The requested Project Revisions include the following items: • To maintain the as -built, elevated heights of the building pads; • To lower the overall height of the dwelling by two feet to effectively negate the elevated pad heights; • To reduce the exposed height of the retaining walls to comply with the heights originally approved by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2007, (however, because the finished grades adjacent to the walls are higher than what is shown on the original plans, the walls would be at higher elevations); • To build a retaining wall, approximately 3.5 feet in exposed height, at the west property line (adjacent to 22835 Ridge Line Road); and • Install landscaping along the west portion of the property to screen the view of the retaining walls from 22835 Ridge Line Road. The legal description of the parcel on which the Project Site is located is Lot 30 of Tract 30091. On February 17, 2012, public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and the notice was published in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley DatV Bulletin newspapers. A _notice display b_oar_cLwas posted -at the site, and a_copy of the notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. On February 28, 2012, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals, concluded said hearing on that date, directed staff to prepare a resolution denying the requested Project Revisions, and continued the matter to March 13, 2012. B. FACTUAL FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. Based upon substantial- evidence in the administrative record, the Planning Commission finds as follows: 1. The Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in Part A of this Resolution are true and correct. 2 2. Pursuant to Section 22.48.040 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, the Planning Commission makes the following findings and conclusions regarding Development Review and Minor Variance No. PL 2011-387: a. The design and layout of the proposed development are consistent with the General Plan, development standards of the applicable zone district, design guidelines, and architectural criteria for special areas (e.g., theme areas, specific plans, community plans, boulevard or planned developments.) b. C. The proposed single-family residence and accessory structures are consistent with the RR zone's Development Standards and the City's Design Guidelines. In addition, the proposed project with the original conditions of approval placed on Development Review No. 2006 38 and Minor Variance No. 2007-06 is consistent in terms of mass, scale and appearance of the surrounding single-family dwelling units. The design and layout of the proposed development will interfere with the use and enjoyment of neighboring existing or future developments. In order to establish the pad elevations originally approved for the Project, a series of fill -supporting retaining walls are required to create terracing that incrementally builds up to the pad elevations. The consequence of raising the main floor and basement level building pads by approximately two feet—as contemplated by the requested Project Revisions—is that the terraced retaining walls and their abutting finished grades must also be raised to meet the pad elevations. Because constructed slopes may not exceed 2:1, an additional retaining wall would have to be constructed to splice the vertical gap in between the approved and proposed grades. Among the locations that these elevated grades and retaining walls would begin to ascend is the area commencing at the common property line between the Project Site and the neighboring downslope property at 22835 Ridge Line Road. In this location, the retaining walls and constructed slopes would run parallel to this common property line (as they would under the originally approved plans) but with much more vertical exaggeration than the originally approved plans -by as much as 3.5 feet in certain locations -to the extent that the increased visible bulk of the development creates a negative visual impact to adjacent and downslope parcels (including, without limitation, 22835 Ridge Line Road), as well as to parcels with sight lines to the Project Site, and therefore would have the effect of interfering with the occupants' use and enjoyment of the downslope and adjacent parcels. The architectural design of the proposed development is compatible with the character of the surrounding neighborhood and will maintain and 3 enhance the harmonious, orderly and attractive development contemplated by Development Code Chapter 22.48, the General Plan, or any applicable specific plan. The design of the proposed single-family residence and accessory structure is consistent with the terms and conditions of the long-range planning policy documents adopted by the City of Diamond Bar, The proposed home is compatible with the scope, scale and appearance of the surrounding existing hornes. The proposed project is an infill development that will complete the neighborhood residential character. d. The design of the proposed development will provide a desirable environment for its occupants and visiting public, as well as its neighbors, through good aesthetic use of materials, texture, and color that will remain aesthetically appealing. The project's design and use of construction material are consistent with other single-family residences in the neighborhood. e. The proposed development will be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious [e.g., negative effect on property values or resale(s) of property] to the property or improvements in the vicinity. The visual impact of the requested Project Revisions to the adjacent and downslope parcels (including, without limitation, 22835 Ridge Line Road), as well as to parcels with sight lines to the Project Site, would be significantly increased by substantially elevating the finished grades and retaining walls and constructing an additional retaining wall to splice the vertical gap as proposed., as detailed in Section 2.b: above, will be detrimental to the welfare of the occupants of the aforementioned properties. f. The proposed project has been reviewed in compliance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The denial of this application will not have a substantial adverse impact on the environment and is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15270 (Projects Which are Disapproved) of the CEQA Guidelines. C. DENIAL. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the Planning Commission cannot make all of the findings required by Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.48.040 and hereby denies Development Review and Minor Variance No. PL 2011-387. The Planning Commission shall: (a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and (b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to: Paul Ghotra, 1241 S. Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, CA 91765; Pete Volbeda, 180 N. Benson, #D, Upland, CA 91786; and Sam Bhogal, 23415 Pleasant Meadow, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. D. RELIANCE ON RECORD. Unless otherwise provided, each and every one of the findings and conclusions in this Resolution are based on the competent and substantial evidence, both oral and written, contained in the entire record relating to the project. The findings and conclusions constitute the independent findings and conclusions of the Planning Commission in all respects and are fully and completely supported by substantial evidence in the record as a whole. Unless otherwise provided, all summaries of information in this Resolution are based on the substantial evidence in the record. The absence of any particular fact from any such summary is not an indication that a particular finding is not based in part on that fact. E. Any legal challenge to the decision of the Planning Commission made as a result of the public hearing on this application, after a formal appeal to the City Council in accordance with the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, must be filed within the time limits set forth in the Code of Civil Procedure. Any person wishing to challenge the above action in Superior Court may be limited to raising only those issues they or someone else raised at the public hearing, or in written correspondence delivered to the City at or prior to the public hearing. APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13th DAY OF MARCH 2012, BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. p BY: Planning Com ssion Chairman I, Greg Gubman, Planning Commission Secretary, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission held on the 13th day of March 2012, by the following vote: AYES: Commissioners: Farago, Torng, VC/Nelson, _Chair/Lin NOES: Commissioners: None ABSENT: Commissioners: shah ABSTAIN: Commissioners: None ATTEST: Greg Gubman, Secretary 5 FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION Code: 22.43; 22.10.040; 22.10.030 Table 2-5 and Table 2-6; 22.42.100, 22.38.030, 22.36.130 Table 3-14, 22.34.030; 22.42.130(g)(3)(d); 22.56.020; 22.47.020; 22.68.030(b); 22.66.050(c) and (d); 22.80.020; 22.22.080(b)(6); 22.16.060, 22.22.120; 22.20.040; 22.22.080(b)(7), 22.42.110(c); 22.42.060(2)0); 22.22.100(a). PROJECT ADDRESS: APPLICANT: Citywide Diamond Bar, CA 91765 City of Diamond Bar CDD/Gubman stated that as of the publication deadline for this matter, staff's report was not completed. Therefore, staff recommends that the Planning Commission open the public hearing for this item and continue the matter to the March 13, 2012, agenda. By opening the public hearing the matter can be continued without re -noticing. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. C/Lin moved, C/Lee seconded, to continue the public hearing to March 13, 2012. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None 7.2 Conditional Use Permit No. PL2012-08 - Under the authority of DBMC Section 22.58 the applicant., Jamie Dietz-Felez and the property owner, Diamond Bar/Grand LLC, requested Conditional Use Permit approval for a jiu-jitsu studio for students ages four years and older Mondays through Fridays from 4:00 p.m. to 8:30 p.m. and Saturdays from 11:30 a.m. to 12:30 p.m. The subject property is zoned Regional Commercial (C-3) with an underlying General Plan Land Use designation of General Commercial. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1273 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard Diamond bar. CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Diamond Bar/Grand LLC APPLICANT: 2717 West Coast Highway Newport Beach, CA 92663 PT/Tobin presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission approval of Conditional Use Permit No. PL2012-08, based on FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. C/Lin asked for clarification of Condition 4. CDD/Gubrnan stated that the approval resolution includes the operating conditions by which the applicant must abide and approves, by reference, the plans that were submitted depicting how the business operation would be laid out in that particular tenant space. By approving this condition the Commission is limiting the number of students, the hours and other operating parameters for this use. If the applicant or the successor is found to violate any of the conditions they are potentially subject to Conditional Use Permit revocation. Under the project description submitted by the applicant staff found that there is sufficient parking to satisfy the parking demand generated by this use. CDD/Gubman recommended that the Commission strike Condition 4 and renumber the rest of the conditions in the Resolution because he concurred that this condition as written may be vague and perhaps somewhat unnecessary because there are other provisions in the Municipal Code where staff could bring this matter back to the Commission should staff find that this use creates a nuisance or some other land use impact. ACANdohlenberg stated that once a Conditional Use Permit has been issued and the applicant has expended the money and effort to construct their business and begin operating, Conditional Use Permits essentially vest at that point. Once that has happened, the City cannot merely revoke a Conditional Use Permit without a hearing. If there were a violation of the City's parking standards, it would be something staff would have to schedule for hearing and notice the applicant. PT/Tobin responded to VC/Lee and pointed to the non load bearing walls on the overhead stating they are within the locker room. The area where the students will be practicing is a different area which she pointed out on the PowerPoint. BO/Tao responded to C/Lee that the wall to the left of the locker room is shown incorrectly on the plan. Generally, these small tenant spaces consist of non-bearing walls. When staff visits the site that will be verified FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION and staff will ask for proper modifications to the plan if required. BO/Tao said a condition could be included so that staff verifies the site structure prior to issuance. Chair/Shah said they did not have to be bearing walls as long as it is structurally strong enough to withstand the intended use and it should be left to staff to determine whether the structure is safe. CDD/Gubman said staff would add a new Condition #5 to the effect that "the entire perimeter of the open mat area should be either load-bearing walls or walls that are constructed to withstand potential impacts that may occur during the course of activities." Jaime Dietz, applicant, offered to respond to Commissioner's questions. VC/Nelson said he felt C/Lee had brought up a very good point and asked Mr. Dietz if there was any problem with the structure. Mr. Dietz responded that C/Lee's concern was valid. Mr. Dietz has taught for many years. Students can hit the walls and create holes in walls so the impact can be serious and one hundred percent agreed that the wall would need to be strong whether load-bearing or non load-bearing. The wall will be padded which will soften some of the blows but the wall needs to be solid. Chair/Shah opened the public hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Shah closed the public hearing. C/Lee moved, C/Lin seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit No. PL2012-08, based on the Findings of Fact, and subject to the conditions of approval as listed within the resolution, with the removal of Condition DA and addition of a condition to ensure that the wall is safe and secure. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lin, Nelson, Torng, VC/Lee, Chair/Shah NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None Chair/Shah recused himself from discussion of Item 7.3. Prior to leaving the meeting, he thanked C/Lee for his past service to the Commission and said he would be missed. C/Lin asked if Chair/Shah would have a conflict of interest because he knows the applicant. ACA/Wohlenberg responded that there would only be a conflict of interest if Chair/Shah felt he would be unable to render an unbiased decision. That said, it is a frequent practice FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION for office holders to choose to recuse themselves from a matter in order to avoid any appearance of impropriety. C/Lin said that Item 7.3 was a fairly significant itern and for the Commission to discuss and felt it would warrant a conclusion from the entire Commission. Chair/Shah said he appreciated C/tin's concerns and felt he was honor bound to recuse himself and believed the Commission would make the appropriate decision. C/Torng suggested to staff that it might be appropriate for another Commissioner to assume control of the meeting in place of VC/Lee since he will be leaving the Commission and would not be available to participate in the discussion should Item 7.3 be continued. ACA/Wohlenberg responded that since VC/Lee is the Vice Chairman he would normally be the person to receive the gavel in the absence of the Chairman. The Planning Commission will be reorganized and there could be a change at that point anyway. The decision on who should chair the rest of the meeting is a parliamentary issue which resides with the Chairman and is not open to a vote of the Commission. Chair/Shah passed the gavel to VC/Lee and left the meeting at 7:35 p.m. 7.3 Revision to Development Code Review No. 2006-38 and Minor Variance No 2007-06 (Planning Case No. PL2011-387) — Under the authority of DBMC Section 22.66.060, applicants Pete Volbeda and Sam Bhogal as well as, property owner Paul Ghotra requested approval for revisions to the height of the building pad and finished grades for a new single family residence approved by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2007. The subject property is zoned Rural Residential (RR) with an underlying General Plan Land Use designation of Rural Residential. PROJECT ADDRESS: 22909 Ridge Line Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNERS: Paul Ghotra 1241 S. Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANTS: Pete Volbeda 180 N. Benson Avenue, Suite D Upland, CA 91786 And Sam Bhogal 23415 Pleasant Meadow Diamond Bar, CA 91765 FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION CDD/Gubman presented staff's report and recommended the Planning Commission open the public hearing, consider all testimony and evidence, direct staff to prepare a resolution to approve or deny the requested revisions, and continue the matter to March 13, 2012, for adoption of said resolution. RECESS: VC/Lee recessed the meeting at 8:00 p.m. RECONVENE: VC/Lee reconvened the meeting at 8:05 p.m C/Nelson asked if he heard correctly that staff stated that the new retaining wall would be reduced in height by putting down slope of the wall a 2:1 slope so that visibility of the wall would be what is within the eight foot condition but in effect, it would still go down as far as it is currently. CDD/Gubman responded that C/Nelson was correct. At one point, a new retaining wall was introduced on the site at the lower level to then allow the 2:1 slop to be built up to cover up the exposed faces. The footings are where they are and they are where they are proposed to remain. C/Nelson asked for confirmation that the point was so that the actual i visibility of the retaining wall would be reduced but it would still be the same size to which CDD/Gubman responded that C/Nelson was correct. C/Nelson asked CDD/Gubman if he understood correctly that "The Country Estates" Homeowner's Association is opposed to this and CDD/Gubman responded yes, that the HOA has requested that the grading be restored to what was on the approved plans. C/Nelson asked if the 2:1 slope would start at the property line and go up and CDD/Gubman responded that along the side property line that was the case so that part of the wall would be buried. C/Lin referred to Page 7, last paragraph, 5`h line from the bottom of staff's report it indicates that "The Country Estates" HOA is "not inclined" to approve the modification to the site. C/Lin asked if the City approved the project and the HOA said no it would serve no purpose and the applicant should have the blessing of the HOA before coming to the City for approval. CDD/Gubman stated that the property owner has to serve the two masters. The HOA and the City have no accountability to one another. The City does not require HOA approval as a prerequisite to its approval and visa versa. Ultimately, however, the City and the HOA have the ability to veto each other, the City through its police powers and the HOA through the contract that exists between the property owner and the HOA. C/Lin said he observed the property line between the subject property and property to the south has a trench that has been dug. Abutting the trench FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION there is a stair that was constructed from the neighboring property that immediately abuts the property line. The landing goes nowhere and said he was curious why that was constructed. With respect to whether this project interferes with the neighboring property and the neighbor said he was opposed to the height and was curious why two feet would suddenly make a difference and the potential impacts to resale of the property. Does staff have sound statistics that a two -foot higher wall would affect those two questions the Commission is asked to consider. CDD/Gubman responded to the two -foot height concern by setting up the projection screen to show the neighbor's property and proposed new residence. The blue line shows the proposed new finished floor elevation for the new pad. A two -foot differential from this perspective does not appear to be much of a difference. The question is whether it is a serious enough differential to place it in the negative column. Looking at the record of the original approval there was no discussion that where the proposed elevations were on the original plan pushed the project to the acceptable threshold. There is nothing in the previous approval that says that at a certain height the wall becomes intolerable. He has only the response from the HOA and from the neighbor that they find this change to be objectionable and based on that controversy he made the determination that this is a decision that should not be relegated to staff making an over the counter decision but that it was an important decision that needed to come back to the Planning Commission for full discussion. To the second question about Finding #5 and whether there is any tangible evidence about how this affects property values, the affect on property values is generally too speculative to make a decision on whether the findings can be made. C/Lin asked if the Commission is today considering this as a new application due to the revision or is the Commission considering this application relative to its original approved plan. CDD/Gubman responded that under the Development Code this application can be considered a revision to something that was previously approved. It is not regarded as a "new" project. C/Lin asked if it was true that any decision this body makes must take the original approval into consideration and CDD/Gubman responded yes. Staffs advice is for the Commission to revisit the findings that were made. when the project was originally approved in light of these changes and determine whether those original findings still track with the proposed changes or with the changes in combinationwith the efforts the applicant proposes to mitigate the raised pads would potentially create. ACA/Wohlenberg said that in the end, the Commission's decision will stand on its own and the facts in the record. Because it is a modification to an existing approval the record includes all of the facts and information that was before the Commission in the previous decision. The reconsideration includes a determination as to FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSpON whether the facts have changed enough to change those conclusions. C/Lin said the only difference was that he remembered that three weeks ago the Commission was talking about a project that had a two foot setback and the difference in this instance is this consideration is after the fact because the construction has been completed and now the project is in an "as built' condition for consideration. He said it was important to him because if the Commission considers this as a brand new application it requires a different mindset. If this is a modification that the Commission has to tie into with an original approval, he believes his thinking will be different. C/Torng asked if the 2011 aerial photograph depicted the current status and CDD/Gubman responded that he believed the applicant had lowered and cut back that particular wall. The wall has been cut down to where the hinge point angled it up and the amount that extended forward was demolished. So the wall has been restored to its original layout. C/Torng asked if in addition to the violations the rest of the plan would remain unchanged and CDD/Gubman responded "essentially, yes." The house height was lowered and the pad height was increased. C/Torng asked if the project met all of the Hillside Management standards and CDD/Gubman responded affirmatively. C/Torng asked if the City has codes to prevent these types of violations from occurring. CDD/Gubman responded that the development standards allow for retaining walls to be terraced in that manner and when the project was approved it was found that the findings could be made. C/Torng felt that Finding No. 2 "development will not interfere with use and enjoyment with the existing neighborhood or future development' which to him was an important consideration in this instance. When this code was set up why was there no follow up or determination of this violation by the City's building department? If the neighbor had not complained there apparently would never have been a finding and the issue would not have come before the Planning Commission. CDD/Gubman responded that when the project was inspected the walls were as shown in the Power Point presentation. Subsequent to that inspection additional construction and extension of the wall occurred which occurred after the project passed inspection for rough grading and another inspection had not yet been scheduled. Ultimately, this would have been caught without it having been brought to staff's attention by the neighbor. VC/Lee said the Commission must comply with the law and wanted to make sure the City did not have a "view easement" or an "air easement" and CDD/Gubman responded that VC/Lee was correct. FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Nelson wanted to know how this happened. C/Lin asked BO/Tao about the recent changes. BO/Tao responded that since June 30, 2011, modifications that have occurred were in relation to getting the project closer to the original approval. Staff requested the applicant to lower the wall and bring it back to closer to the original approval and subsequent to that, the survey was done by the HOA which indicated that there were even more discrepancies. BO/Tao reiterated to C/Torng that the project currently does not meet the code and cannot unless it is modified. The lower slab has already been poured but it has to be brought down. C/Torng asked BO/Tao if the CUP approval would satisfy the code and meet the development code. BO/Tao said the project could technically meet the development code but it would not be in compliance with the original plan. VC/Lee asked if based on her professional opinion, AE/Young felt an eight -foot retaining wall was safe. AE/Young deferred to the Building Official because retaining walls are reviewed by the City's Building Department. BO/Tao said the City typically does not allow standard details. There is a detail on the original plans for a maximum nine foot tall retaining wall so anything beyond that was not designed appropriately. VC/Lee opened the public hearing Pete Volbeda, applicant, said this project is on hold due to a surveying error and the applicant had no reason to question his survey. It was not the applicant's intent to raise the pad by two feet. In fact, the HOA found the error by hiring another surveyor. Original approval was received for this house in 2007 and many lots on Ridgeline are steep and do not have usable rear yards. At that time, the applicants and property owner were encouraged to find more of a usable rear yard and that was the reason there was a front yard reduction of 24 feet granted which would allow the project to increase the rear yard. In addition, with the variance, the project was allowed to raise the walls from four to six to .eight feet high to accommodate a larger usable rear yard. The photos look bad because the walls are not stuccoed to match the house and there are not plantings to screen the walls. But once the work is completed they will dissolve into the landscaping and wall coverings. Some of the walls are above the eight foot height and will either be cut down or fill dirt will be placed in front or, some of the steps will be modified so that the wall heights do not exceed eight feet. Because the house pad is two feet higher, to mitigate any view the structure might be impairing, they have volunteered to lower FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION the building elevations to where the ridge height is the same as it was in the previously approved plan. The project will reduce the ceiling heights in order to accommodate the lower ridge height. The major views on Ridgeline are to the north and the valley out and those will not be impacted too much by the adjacent homes. He understands the neighbor's concern about views adjacent but the major views are not to the side or to the left, they are to the north to the valley. In addition, the neighbor to the left is much lower than the project site and the neighbor to the right is slightly higher than the project and the owner and applicants feel the impact with neighbors looking to the side will be very minimal. In addition, the applicants propose to increase the landscaping in conjunction with the revised proposal. More shrubs and trees will be planted and those plantings will grow eight feet (the height of the retaining wall) or higher so that in a couple of years the neighbors should be seeing virtually only green landscape. The project has since retained a new engineer to help with the surveying and he is present this evening if the Commission has questions. Ed Eckert, Gilbert Engineering Company, said he was hired last year to look into what had transpired at this site. He does not have a long history with the site but he did inspect the walls and found that the elevations were higher than per the approved plan and his firm submitted a plan to the City for mitigation which has been passed on to the Commission. C/Nelson asked of the builder why when he has a project with approved plans that stipulate a certain retaining wall height and a surveyor comes out and surveys it and all of a sudden that height increases, where are the "checks and balances" and who says "wait, that's not what was approved." In this case, that was not done and who is the person that should have taken care of this matter? Mr. Eckert said that if his firm staked the walls for construction his firm stakes the location and gives the applicant a cut OF fill to the footing. Beyond that, the top of the wall is based off the top of that footing and if the plan calls for a six-foot wall that is what the builder should build. If they are building beyond that his firm sometimes gets involved and sometimes not. C/Nelson asked who the backup person would be that would see and recognize that error. Mr. Eckert responded that the wall builder and general contractor should FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION become aware of it from the wall contractor. C/Nelson asked if the general contractor was present. Sam Bhogal, contractor, said he lives in "The Country Estates" and has built homes there for many years. It is nice that the Commission is asking questions to make the right decision. It is good that this picture has been taken and that C/Lin is concerned and answering questions. The wall is too big and it was a mistake made by his sub -contractor. As soon as he found out that his sub -contractor made a mistake the wall was removed right away. He does not intend to build anything wrong. If the entire house is built two feet higher than what was approved what would it benefit the owner? In "The Country Estates" there are 700 lots and houses and out of those. 700 about 20 percent of the houses are 20 feet higher than the street or lower than the street and how would a house that is two feet up or down affect the neighbors negatively? But if the neighbor wants to complain and hurt the job, this house was never built until now and he has been living there for 15 or 20 years and he feels the side lot should be empty. C/Nelson explained to Mr. Bhogal that it does make a difference. First, if you are the next door neighbor, two feet higher creates more of a shadow effect. Second, the wall and pad were constructed in spite of the City's conditions and if this Commission sets a precedent for allowing this to happen then everybody will start to feel that it is easier to request forgiveness than to play by the rules. Third, as CDD/Gubman pointed out to him several weeks ago, even though the Commission does not need to consider the HOA's feelings .in its decision-making, they represent the community and this Commission's primary charge is to serve the community and to do what is right for the community. So, the contractor telling him that it does not make any difference does not compel him to override the feelings of the community and the fact that the conditions of approval were violated. VC/Lee said that C/Nelson has pointed out so many things the Commissioner's value. This is a community that pursues common interests in spite of the City not having a view easement. Subcontractors must comply. Subcontractors are under the authority of the general contractor and must comply with the regulations — no exceptions. Mr. Bhogal has presented himself as a professional and is trying to blame his subcontractor for making a mistake which is unacceptable. Surveyors are professionals and whereas a two inch tolerance might be acceptable, two foot mistakes are not acceptable. VC/Lee advised Mr. Bhogal to accept responsibility because a two -foot mistake by professionals is not acceptable. Mr. Bhogal said that he builds long walls and even the City Inspector did not catch this error. VC/Lee reminded Mr. Bhogal that it was not the City Inspector's job to catch a survey error. Mr. Bhogal said that is FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION why they are cutting down the height of the house. VC/Lee said he understood that is a logical compromise. C/Lin asked Mr. Eckert if he agreed that the error was not from the benchmark but instead was merely shoddy work. Mr. Eckert said the error was in the construction of the walls themselves. C/Lin asked the property owner why he was not willing to tear down and rebuild the walls to code and Mr. Ghotra responded it was for financial reasons because he has already spent almost one-half million dollars on the retaining walls and grading. C/Lin explained that every engineering firm carries professional liability insurance and the owner can file a claim against the engineering firm for the cost to rebuild. Mr. Ghotra said that timing is an issue as well. It is a mistake and he apologizes for that. He is not an engineer. He is just a resident of Diamond Bar. He never tried to make it difficult for his neighborhood because he wants to be a good neighbor and have a good relationship with the doctor. He felt he had a good relationship with his neighbor and does not know how these things happened and why he has to spend all of this time on these kinds of issues. He needs help from his neighbors, from the Commission and from the City staff to tell him how he can resolve this matter and survive. C/Lin said that he read in staff's report that the engineer admitted in writing that it was his error. Mr. Ghotra said he had no idea if that was so. He cannot even read the report. Fadi Madanat, 22835 Ridgeline, explained that earlier the Commission was discussing whether to review the project as it currently exists or whether to go back and disregard the original approval and the City Attorney mentioned whether the facts have changed enough to make a difference. When C/Nelson asked for the general contractor to come up and speak he asked how something like this could happen. This happened because someone parades around the City representing himself as a contractor and builder and does not have a license. That is how these things happen. So have the facts changed enough to make a difference? Well, this is a project being built by someone who is not a licensed contractor who puts the City and the HOA at risk for liability and puts the residents in jeopardy as well. Earlier staff showed photos of the retaining walls when the project was first approved which shows retaining walls of two feet, four feet, six feet, eight feet and five feet and the project was given a variance and the state licensing board put a hold on the project. Subsequently, the HOA and the City surveyed the project and marked walls after conducting a comprehensive study. And the Commission has been provided evidence of the wall markings indicating the amount by which the walls exceeded what was approved. So if the FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION Commission compares the diagram to what was originally approved, it will see that the amount of feet by which the walls exceed the approved height and the amount they need to be cut to the height originally approved. Many areas were actually graded to the height they would have been graded if the walls had been built to the proper according to the plan. The issue is not just a two -foot error at the very top. There are 3.43 and 4.18 foot errors."The Country Estates" homeowners take their plans to the HOA to determine and when the HOA sees a plan that shows a four -foot retaining wall and a three-foot retaining wall and a two -foot retaining wall it is easy for the members to sit back and say it seems like it is going to be okay and in good faith the HOA assumes the owners are not trying to misrepresent their project and the HOA members assume that the City is acting according to regulations. So when a project suddenly turns into a twelve foot wall here, a fourteen and one-half foot wall there and so forth, what there is, is not a two -foot error, it is a major differential. The before picture Mr. Madanat provided shows what the property looked like before any work was done by Mr. Bhogal. The after picture taken by Mr. Madanat this afternoon shows the dramatic effect of the construction. The pad was engineered to sit higher than the roofline of Mr. Madanat's house. The plan provided to the Association shows a three-foot, four -foot and two -foot retaining wall and does not represent that the pad would turn into what it has become. He summarized by stating that he believed the applicant had broken the law and compromised the neighborhood and the City. He recommended that the Planning Commission deny the requested revisions. VC/Lee asked if Mr. Madanat had any proof that the applicant broke the law. Mr. Madanat reiterated the blatant disregard for City codes, regulations and ordinances and the fact that the contractor is not and was not licensed. C/Lin asked Mr. Madanat if he knows for a fact that the general contractor does not have a contractor's license and Mr. Madanat deferred to staff. VC/Lee asked if the City has a way to verify whether`a contractor is licensed and ACA/Wohlenberg responded that the City has general rules that anyone operating a business within the City has to comply with all applicable law. Enforcement of the contractor licensing and standards is handled at a state level and generally, if there is a state or federal law being broken the City does not have an independent criminal authority to enforce that. BO/Tao stated that the City raised that question originally and contacted the contractor license board to verify whether or not it was appropriate to FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION allow Mr. Bhogal to be the project manager under a licensed contractor and the state indicated it was acceptable. There were issues with respect to the applicant receiving a citation from the contractor's license board and the allowance of them to issue the permit and have that contractor be the contractor and have Mr. Bhogal act as the project manager which was acceptable to the contractors licensing board. VC/Lee asked if Mr. Bhogal was licensed and BO/Tao responded that Mr. Bhogal is not licensed but is acting on behalf of a contractor. VC/Lee said this was a very important point and he wants to make sure he has the correct answer before moving forward. Was the permit issued under an owner -builder license and BO/Tao responded no that is incorrect, it is actually a separate contractor by a different name. VC/Lee asked when the building permit expires and BO/Tao responded that the two year permit expires sometime in April for the Planning Review, The Building permit is valid for 180 days from the last inspection. VC/Lee asked if the Building Permit has expired and BO/Tao responded that it has not expired because there was progress on the project. VC/Lee asked if the applicant is acting legally and BO/Tao responded affirmatively. George Madanat, neighbor of Mr. Ghotra, said he is a member of a civilized society and he lives by the law and no one should take the law into his own hands. His family lives in the house and they have had a difficult time during the past five years. His house burned down on March 18, 2007, so he and his family lived in a hotel for several months and then rented a place. He wanted to sell the house but his wife loved the house so he proceeded with the rebuild. So far he has spent $2.4 million to rebuild their home. So far, Mr. Ghotra's house is a manmade disaster. Certain words spoken by CDD/Gubman during his staff report struck him such as, "conceal, to mitigate, to change" words that indicate one can proceed with impunity. This is truly unfortunate that someone is allowed to proceed in this manner. Mr. Ghotra was talking with Mr. Madanat's son Michael, after he tore down the fence between their two properties he said he would rather do things his way and apologize later. Mr. Madanat said he had documentation of this event and went on to explain that this is what he has been dealing with from his neighbor. He would love to have nice neighbors with whom he could visit and share his home. Unfortunately, this is not the case. He has a gorgeous sun room in his home but unfortunately, the sun cannot get to the sunroom because of the 30 foot wall next to it. He and his family are miserable. There is no FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION reason for Mr. Ghotra to do what he has done. His property is the same elevation as the speaker and he could have gone down 10 feet and had a gorgeous horse. He asked for everyone to be reasonable and play by the rules. For Mr. Ghotra to claim he does not have the money is not an accurate statement. RECESS: VC/Lee recessed the meeting at 9:07 p.m. RECONVENE: VC/Lee reconvened the meeting at 9:15 p.m. C/Lin said that Mr. Madanat's speech was very compelling but based on C/tin's assessment is that if the house is built according to plan, Mr. Madanat would still have shadows in his sunroom. However, the. approved plan does not dismiss the fact that the approved plan was violated. But as it stands, if the project is built as approved it will still be in the shadow of the house. Agop Calliene, designer and contractor, asked CDD/Gubman if he could show the picture of the cross section. Mr. Eckert is a good engineer and does not know what happened. The dark area is filled with excess soil and they could have cut and filled and these problems would have been avoided. Unfortunately, it is done. Vice Chair/Lee closed the public hearing C/Torng asked staff to provide the Commission with a scale of the approved plan versus the current status, especially at the lower end. Also, he wants to see if the retaining wall in the approved plan is that high and whether the current proposal will resolve the issue. He understood the neighbors were suffering as a result of this project but hope that staff can communicate with Mr. Madanat and the builder to understand how they can reach a mutual understanding about the project. He would like to have this be a win-win situation for both neighbors. As a last resort, the applicant would have to redo the project according to the original plan but that has not yet been decided and hoped that all parties could reach a conclusion that would resolve this matter. C/Nelson said he too would like to see a mutually satisfactory conclusion to this dilemma and was not sure that would happen. He thinks the Commission is held to a standard and that standard would be grossly violated if it did not hold a property owner to the conditions that were set forth when the project was approved. It is almost irrelevant to him whether this was an "error" or not. The responsibility does not lie on the applicant's neighbors to accommodate the mistake, the responsibility lies with the FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION property owner. And if the mitigation does not resolve the matter, he will find for the neighbors because what happened was not what they expected to happen and regardless of whether it was an honest error, the responsibility still lies on the owner and he feels very strongly about that. He wants to leave the Commission as someone who can be known as a Commissioner who did his best for the community and not for individual interests. A couple of years back the Commission denied a cell phone tower at Ronald Reagan Park and the decision was based not on the fact that the Commission could not judge it on the basis of any health effects which was illegal, but it was based on the fact that it created a stigma for the surrounding community and that it was a bad thing that would create a pall over the community. Despite the fact the Commission could not judge the matter on the health issue, it based its decision on the community benefit. C/Lin found when he looked at Finding No. 2 that after all of the testimony he is of the conclusion that the neighboring property has indeed been interfered with. If the Commission has to consider all six findings in order to approve this revision he finds it puzzling whether the Commission should grant approval even though it could represent significant financial difficulties for the applicant. He is inclined to recommend denial of the application. VC/Lee said he understood that staff brought several suggestions and the Commission must carefully consider all of the issues involved. People live in a democratic society and must respect private property owners and their rights. Owners have a right to proceed as long as they comply with the law. He reiterated that the City does not have a View Easement law and even though the project might cover certain view areas for the neighbors, the Commission cannot enforce that because of the law. The applicant suggested they increase the elevation by two feet but they cut down the building so overall the end result is that the height of the building has not changed. Humans can make mistake and if the applicant claims it was a mistake the Commission must accept their word. Also, the neighbor said the contractor is not licensed but in fact, they can build the project as long as the person who pulled the permit is licensed so it is not illegal construction. The City and this Commission must evaluate all _ factors and if the applicant complies with the conditions of approval, it must be approved. If the Commission and the City do not act in this way, it is liable and can be sued. FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 17 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Lin asked CDD/Gubman to again recite the three options open to the Commission. CDD/Gubman stated that the three alternatives presented for the Commission's consideration are 1) to determine that the findings for the changes of the project cannot be made and continue the matter to March 13, 2012, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for denial; 2) to determine that the findings can still be made in the affirmative, continue the matter to March 13, 2012, and direct staff to prepare a resolution for approval; and, 3) continue the matter to a later date for further information. ACA/Wohlenberg stated that because the Commission is dealing with a decision that requires factual findings by the Commission he said he wanted to walk through the issues to make certain the Commission is properly following all of the issues in the Code that are required by law. The staff report discusses how staff determined that this was a major change to the existing entitlement based on the criteria contained in the Municipal Code Section 22.66.020 and what that says as contained within the staff report is that those kinds of changes can only be approved by the review authority in this case the Planning Commission, through a new entitlement application or modification process in compliance with the Development Code. And what the Development Code says in that regard (Section 22.52.040) as to findings and decisions as part of the approval process, is that a Minor Variance application shall not be approved, modified, conditioned or disapproved by the Director (so the Director has exercised his ability to send the matter forward to the Planning Commission) unless all of the following findings can be made. One of the questions from C/Lin was whether this was a new decision or a modification. The Code does not really differentiate between a new decision and a modified decision. If there is a modified decision the Commission still has to make all of the findings that are required by the Code which again, are all discussed in staff's report. If is common (also discussed in the Commissioner's Handbook) that when the Commission has a factually intensive decision like this the Commission makes a tentative decision and then directs staff to prepare a formal written set of findings and decision for the Commission to adopt at a later meeting as CDD/Gubman stated. If the Commission has any facts or issues that it wishes to add to the discussion tonight to make sure those can be taken into account to create the findings in support of the Commission's decision, please make sure each Commissioner has placed those comments into the record or emphasize those to staff so that when staff prepares the decision it will properly reflect the Commission's findings and conclusions. From what he has heard so far it sounds like the Commission is leaning toward being unable to make the Finding #2 and Finding #5 that are discussed in the staff report. Finding #2 is "will the design and layout of the proposed development not interfere with the use FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 18 PLANNING COMMISSION and enjoyment of neighboring existing and future development and will it not create traffic or pedestrian hazards" and he wanted to make sure that there was general consensus about C/Nelson's comment; Finding #5 is "will the proposed development not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare or materially injurious to properties and improvements in the vicinity" as discussed by C/Lin and other Commissioners. As CDD/Gubman pointed out, the other Findings probably have not changed that much but ACA/Wohlenberg wanted to make certain that Findings 2 and 5 were brought out in sufficient detail to support the Commission's decision. C/Lin asked if the motion should cite the Findings. ACA/\Nohlenberg responded that the Commission makes a tentative decision for or against the request and direct staff to prepare a resolution appropriate to the Commission's decision and staff will make certain all of the items in the record will be called out to support the decision. Tonight's decision is a tentative decision because staff will bring back a full discussion and explanation of all of the facts in writing for final consideration. C/Torng said he would like more information from staff in order to be able to make a good decision. C/Lin moved, C/Nelson seconded, to direct staff to prepare a Resolution of Denial based on the negative findings. Motion approved by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMISSIONERS: Lin, Nelson, VC/Lee NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSTAIN COMMISSIONERS: Torng ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Shah 8. PLANNING COMMISSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: C/Torng thanked VC/Lee for his service on the Planning Commission and wished him well in his future ventures. C/Nelson said it had been a pleasure serving with VC/Lee who has often expressed alternative perspectives on issues which is important for this Commission. C/Nelson thanked VC/Lee for his good service to the Commission. C/Lin wished VC/Lee good fortune. Tonight, one of C/Nelson's statements really touched him which was the fact that this Commission is charged with protecting the public interest, and he feels that was accomplished this evening. FEBRUARY 28, 2012 PAGE 19 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Lee thanked staff for their support and his colleagues for their support as well. While he has truly enjoyed his time with the Commission he has other things to pursue and we will meet in another time and place. 9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: CDD/Gubman stated that for the March 13 meeting which will be held in the Windmill Room, there are three agenda items: 1) Resolution for Denial for Item 7.3 that was heard this evening; 2) Development Code Amendment cleanup; 3) seat the new Planning Commissioner and have a reorganization of the Planning Commission. CDD/Gubman, on behalf of staff, thanked Commissioner Lee for his years of service to the Planning Commission and the City. CDD/Gubman said he enjoyed working with Commissioner Lee and enjoyed being challenged by Commissioner Lee with tonight being no exception, and for his finale Commissioner Lee went out with a bang! CDD/Gubman said he was very impressed this evening with VC/Lee's management of item 7.3. 9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects. 10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in tonight's agenda. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission, Chairman Shah adjourned the regular meeting at 9:15 p.m. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 13th day of March, 2012. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, Greg Gubman Community Development Director Planning yommissio Chairman Attachment 9 I•�LI r I PlanningDivisionE Et 6 a Application Form R-HA,ry.) Part I '999 ZQlZ�PR23 � >fi;ll: Community Development Department – 21810 Copley Drive – Diamond Bar, CAW 765 – (909) 839-7030 - www.DiamondBarCA.gov Name of Proposed Project: Location of Project: (J} 22809, 12tb6ups, Legal Description of Project (Assessor's Parcel No.): Lor 3 a, f c r 3 00 C1 I M B 8��sr -7 Applicant's Name: Address: 2 36 Legal Owner's Name (if different from above): Phone Number: Fax Number: E tut -1-H o -T 2,4- (q Address N Type of Review Requested (Please Check All Applicable Boxes) ❑ Administrative Review ❑ General Plan Amendment ❑ Annexation ❑ Minor Conditional Use Permit ❑ Comprehensive Sign Program JR Minor Variance ❑ Conditional Use Permit ❑ Planned Unit Development ❑ Development Review ❑ Plot Plan ❑ Development Agreement ❑ Preliminary Review ❑ Development Code Amendment ❑ Specific Plan Amendment ❑ Subdivision ❑ Tree Permit ❑ Variance ❑ Zone Change ❑ Zoning Clearance Other: Detailed Description of Proposed Project (Attach Additional Sheets if Necessary) M 1r roR-- VA-0-14-Ai0� &^3 H e -i &t* r- Remi Uu L_Q.tre-f f� o e, 2a o t- K Wt J- 1� 1 �� �-s e 4 aa kn I certify that I am presentlythe legal owner of the above-described property. Further, I acknowledge the filing of this application and certify that all of the above information is true and correct. (If the undersigned is different from the legal property owner, a letter of authorization must accompany the frmi Date: Signature: Da Signa Pr' t Name and Title: - PrintAame and Title: f11,( L _ - _'�,nJ Vs -&O -6A -L, BUIL-2 Comm Dev/Appl/UmformAppl/Uniform Application—Updated 1/6/2012 Page 1 of 2 Planning Division 40_k� Application Fora Part 2 Community Development Department - 21810 Copley Drive -Diamond Bar, CA 91765 - (909) 839-7030 - www.DiamondBarCA.gov GENERAL REQUIREMENTS (Print or Type) Project Location: nCnA � ?6 S_ Staff Use Only - 2 2-110 fZt � Cr L I rJ E � a I Case No. Applicant: f� S fJ D Concurrent Case No. Contact Person: Address: 2.3 LI -IS We� tJ 17 6 Phone N ber. Fax: E -Mail Address: 0 4 - z > � b a g(,r 6 � @� t_- CUH Additional Contact Person: (Please specify name, company, title) P �: T � —. \'/D l_ d3 &&6 � Address: �a A) Phone Number. Y V` F E -Mail Address: foe 7 3 Legal Property Owner. I11'_n Architect: Address:� � n g o pv� �J v� q�?5 b Phone um c F x: Engineer: Address: 2Z Pho eNumbN Fa 626 . Landscape Architect: I Ir Address: Phone N rter� 1/ Comm Dev/Appl/UniformAppl/Uniform Application—Updated 1/612012 E -Mail Address: E -Mail Address:. �c' '(A- 91?�C E -Mail Address: dAr age 2 of 2 i 'P1 July 23 2012 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council, Diamond Bar, California Submitted on behalf of Pete Volbeda and Sam Bhogal, Applicants and Paul Ghotra Property Owner Subject: Appeal Hearing for 22909 Ridgeline Road, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Scheduled for August 7, 2012 Executive Summary The subject property was approved for construction in July 2007 with the adoption of Planning Commission resolution No. 2007-37. About a year ago, it was discovered that the pad elevation was constructed about 2 feet higher as a result of a survey error. Construction was halted and the property owner was asked to lower the pad to comply with the approved plans. The Contractor removed two feet of dirt from the lower pad elevation but on the next level up it was resulting in exposed footings and it was impractical short of tearing everything down and starting all over again, which of course would result in wastage of materials and resources. The applicants then submitted new plans maintaining the overall height of the building with the pad two feet above the approved elevation along with a plan to bring rear walls in conformance with the approved plans. There were objections from the neighbor at 22835 Ridgeline Road and to mitigate the concerns on the west property line the walls were cut down to the height per approved plans. Also, additional landscaping and screening measures were proposed. The Planning Commission denied the request to modify the building pad. Since then the property owner has retained a California licensed surveyor to get an independent and accurate record of what has been constructed so far, such that this survey map can be utilized to take the corrective actions as required to bring the walls in conformance with the approved plans. The property is subject to the City's Hillside Management Ordinance. The developments in hillside communities require a lot of challenge, foresight, innovation and resources to be able to take advantage of the views afforded by the sheer nature of topography regardless of whether those views are from the hilltops or natural canyon views. Minor deviations from development standards are not unusual. Such privileges for property owners to develop their properties in the vicinity have been included. The relative position of the two adjoining houses relative to the street grade included in the package show the development challenges in a hillside community. Three renderings showing the front, rear and side elevations have also been included with the details of landscaping and screening measures. Also submitted are plans for the rear walls to be in conformance with the approved plans. It is requested that the City Council overturn the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012-09 denying development review and Minor Variance No.PL 2011-387, a request to modify a previously approved Single Family Residential Project by increasing building pad and finished grade elevations on the lot located at 22909 Ridgeline Road. Furthermore, that the City Council to instruct and counsel the property owners at 22835 and 22909 Ridgeline Road to resolve their differences and come to a mutually amicable solution. Background The findings on this property were made by the Planning Commission on July 24, 2007 and the plans were approved with the adoption of its Resolution No. 2007-37. Due to a survey error the pad elevation was constructed higher by approximately 2 feet. To comply with the overall height requirement of 35 feet, the storey height was lowered by one foot in each storey, i.e. the overall height of the house was maintained at 35 feet. Relative Location Section 1 of the documents submitted along with this letter in support of the City Council appeal on August 7, 2012 includes a section view of the property at 22909 Ridgeline Road, both as approved and as proposed. Section Nos. referred to in this letter would mean a reference to these documents. This Section 1 also shows the outline of the adjoining homes at 22835 Ridgeline Road and at 22925 Ridgeline Road, on the west and east of the subject property respectively. It is important to note that the top of the roof line of the 22909 Ridgeline Road property is the same in as approved and as proposed view, the difference in the raised pad elevation of two feet being accommodated by reducing the ceiling height from approximately 10 feet to approximately 9 feet in each storey. The proposed plan meets the overall requirement of not to exceed the overall 35 feet height. Also, the street elevation is plotted as a reference in relationship to the 22909 Ridgeline Road as well as the neighbor's properties. Of the three properties, the street elevation is the lowest at 22835 Ridgeline Road, the road in front of 22835 and 22909 Ridgeline Road going east at a slope of 8% and 7% respectively and almost flat (2%) in front of the 22925 Ridgeline Road as can be seen in the photographs in Section 4 of the documents submitted. The relative position of each house in relationship to the road gradient further illustrates how each lot was planned in relationship to the road, i.e. it was predetermined as soon as the road was built following the approval of Tract Map 30091 in August 1969, (included in Section 4). Also provided in Section 1 are a pictorial view of each house and a perspective rendering of applicant's house on a scaled drawing. Even with the two feet raised elevation, a close examination of the two views would reveal that there is no appreciable difference in what was approved and what has been constructed. Nevertheless, it is acknowledged that what has been constructed is not what was approved due to the survey error. Architectural Renderings and Landscaping Since the last hearing where landscaping plans were submitted to the City, the property owner has worked with the architect and a landscape architect and created the front elevation of the proposed house as well as the rear elevation and a side elevation as viewed by the neighbor at 22835 Ridgeline Road. These three elevations are included in Section 2. As was mentioned in the staff report dated February 28, 2012, additional landscaping has been provided within the rear and side yards adjacent to 22835 Ridgeline Road for additional screening. "Shrubs such as Texas Privet and New Zealand Flax are being proposed adjacent to the west property line. Both of these shrubs grow to approximately eight feet in height. New Zealand Flax is a perennial and Texas Privet is an evergreen, therefore, landscaping will be there year round. In addition, three 24" box Brisbane Box trees are proposed along the property line for additional screening." With more shrubs and trees included in the landscaping plan, the landscape architect is of the opinion that the exposed portions of the walls would be camouflaged relatively soon following the completion of construction. Mitigation Actions Taken Some of the undated pictures obtained from the City that were submitted by the neighbor were reviewed. The walls on the west of the property, adjoining the neighbor on 22835 Ridgeline Road that were higher than approved plans have been cut down to conform to the approved plans. This is shown in Section 3. The rear walls will be in compliance with the maximum height of 8 feet approved in the initial design. This is accomplished in the proposed plans that include stairs with landings and show separation of individual walls and the walls following the alignment of the revised stairs with handrails complying with the OSHA and other governing code regulations. Following the discovery of the two feet error in the survey, the applicant also tried to cut down the walls to lower the pad. The two feet of dirt was removed at the lower level but on the next level up it was resulting in exposed footings and was impractical short of tearing everything down and starting all over again, which, of course, would result in wastage of materials and resources. The property owner feels that such wastage is not conducive with the "green" initiative that is sweeping the nation and is being incorporated and promulgated by agencies such as AQMD for the businesses such as his. Furthermore, it would be cost prohibitive causing an extreme financial and emotional hardship. The proposed plans show the wall heights conforming to the approved plans. These proposed drawings along with a grading plan are included in Section 5. New Survey In June 2012, the property owner also retained the services of a California licensed surveyor to get an independent and accurate record of what has been constructed so far, such that this survey map can be utilized to take the corrective actions as required to bring the walls in conformance with the approved plans. This map will be utilized to set the criteria for wall removal, cutting or other corrective measures as necessary. It is included in Section 7. Hillside Development The fact of the matter is that the developments in hillside communities require a lot of challenge, foresight, innovation and resources to be able to take advantage of the views afforded by the sheer nature of topography regardless of whether those views are from the hilltops or natural canyon views. As is evident in the staff report for the meeting of July 24, 2007 when this project was approved it states "This site slopes downward in a northerly direction at an average slope in excess of 50%, therefore it is subject to the City's Hillside Management Ordinance." The report further acknowledges that "The applicant has used terraced retaining walls of 4 feet or less to create the house pad, which is allowed by the Hillside Ordinance. The higher retaining walls of 6 to 8 feet is used to create the pad for the pool deck. This design solution is unique and can be considered necessary because of the site's topography." History and Analysis of Findings When you review the history of the development of "The Country Estates" the first findings must have been made by the then Planning Commission when the Tract No. 30091 map was approved and recorded in August 1969. This tract map shows the Ridgeline Road along the subject property and adjoining lots. As described earlier, the gradient of the road thus determined the relative position of each house on each side of the subject property. The lot across from the street (22840 Ridgeline Road) has an access driveway going up from east to west, i.e. in the opposite direction of the slope of Ridgeline Road and the lot thus is approximately 15 feet above the Ridgeline Road as can be seen in the photographs below. Note the overall height of the wall and pad above the street level The driveway of 22840 Ridgeline Road -Note up slope in opposite direction of the slope on Ridgeline Road The views across the street from top of the access road which is about the same elevation as the pad can be found in Section 6. The staff requested findings the Planning Commission in March 2012 to re -review the findings which was done by the various commissioners (both incoming and outgoing commissioners) on a subjective basis based on the public testimony of one neighbor at 22835 Ridgeline Road. We believe the neighborhoods as a whole along with the hillside community considerations were not adequately evaluated. The purpose of a harmonious culturally diverse community is to work together to find solutions that are beneficial and in the overall interest of the community rather than engaging in confrontational and contentious behavior. In the end, the overall decision must reflect what is in the best interest of the community as a whole and not the noise over a squabble between the two neighbors who are professional, intelligent and capable of achieving a win-win situation for themselves through mutual discussions. We most humbly request the City Council to overturn the Planning Commission Resolution No. 2012- 09 denying development review and Minor Variance No.PL 2011-387, a request to modify a previously approved Single Family Residential Project by increasing building pad and finished grade elevations on the lot located at 22909 Ridgeline Road. Furthermore we request the City Council to instruct and counsel the property owners at 22835 and 22909 Ridgeline Road to resolve their differences and come to a mutually amicable solution. Respectfully Submitted, Ash Dhingra j Planning Commissioner and Chairman 1989-2005 City of San Dimas Advisor to Property Owner UPDATED PHOTO LOG STATUS OF HALTED CONSTRUCTION AT 22909 RIDGELINE ROAD DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765 JULY 23, 2012 West terraced walls in the rear looking north \gest terraced NN all in the front looking so stir Rear terraced )sails looking south West Full loo® Nt o �outheas't Rear Evans in northeast section, looking south adjacent to house on 22425 Ridgeline Road '`dos tho est c€€s a r of avest wall Iookingsouthn est to house at 22835 Rid geIine Road Steep slope behind 22909 Ridgeflne Road looking south adjacent to house on 22925 Ridgel€ne Road, on the left Rear �s all an the northwest side towards 2283 Rid ;efsne Road lookim', stolfless est Base €e� e€ coustruction looking, cast, house on 2292-5 RSdgeiine Road in the tack €12!1e€i c (Nmruct «n at the f i q floor teve !eveI tookijf„< %N€" Base level construction, first floor plumbing pipes an the left, 1 oli ng, �s est Attachment 10 LL _ LOT 30 TRACT 30091 QL� f ARE! 8713 030 006 O LOT AREA 50,767 Sq FT. r� BLDG FOOTPRINT 6350 SO FT ~ m LOT COVERAGE 12.5 9 LLJ - BASEMENT LIVING Area = 2493 SF m 2ND FLOOR LIVING Area = 4204 SF � p 1ST FLOOR Area = 4624 SF 11,321 SO FT 5. GARAGE AREA 1350 50 FT W o 1C�rye RL RAP TO APPEAR (HAA' r % -O ON 0 - LIKE DRY RIVER BED °qzz'% �q� >•S9r ER 45 UL GOTHRA 860 Z �.N fpr Jp zseoa uD _ _ J � 0 INDEX TO PLANS 3pp9j aTS t Lv d r O*s n 1 SITE PLAN ayen( T �N 17 - 2 GRADINGPLAN C- 1140 3 LANDSCAPE PLAN N I RIP RAP TO APPEAR _ 1160 �u LIKE DRY RIVER BED 4 BASEMENT PLAN I VC 6" DRAIN PIPE 5 1ST FLOOR PLAN 1150. 6 2ND FLOOR PLAN >;e } 7 ROOF PLAN 1" 8 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS X160 9 EXTERIOR ELEVATIONS 1 SS SITE SECTION A B SS2 SITE SECTION D �® gn (� 0A4MFAT fF 11>B f � j EXIST PFS L— y 1180 �5 qpy gg v�Alno aE PN i I 1 L. In r s9°0 ttl_o no : i 5H - vasa Tse - O ROAD o ¢RIDGE LINE H W o F- rae>FO W Q Approved With of y Conditions 6y An nn ah ro'a,Iloe F. o a m pl BCo NGiy z �� Q Q z ..a.tuber °'v<4a«_„AD. An, 7-3 — a crawl e.mmc Tn am6_�. F�N✓ROo ]-o{, LIT Of SITE PLAN u) SCALE 1 INCH = 16 FT a�T 1)12 2.0.7-36 "- - PRELIMINARY PLANT LEGEND HET 9OTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIS REMARKS � m TREES z " LAG La9aat pLiw - Crope yyrtle OI1A Ooerms c o�cllo Comt LI Oak Z4' box 15 gol MNtI trunk WU - RHV RNoe n A ... Soma. VA, '] SHRJBS Pool pen NII A k R k B ^Iaa G .AM .AM G p tl M»i y M»t Y G N I ay k In la V iaM1Rorr, v t pp c a s g 1 s m O " LI LI on owort neiavenly 90 A. J Z NAH NonE1n amn atica Ho,, -P Bworf. Bompoo oemomn ho ryana .sweet p1 i s sm W tp PMD9.1 R PM1oen Helen Pgm Doi Palm PoH Poaoc P M1 k I' L gy Do Yallow woos PIT Pit,. tool 15_ multi 15 go11 So. Q _ f hfq h'p M ek Ormi9a TIB ilpcucpl III ono P n s {lower 15 5 gal W RIP RAP i0 LIKE DRY RIVER APPEAR BED (� �4 "'O PIT. Pletaepovm tmlm Mock Oronpe 5 pol Q O SOq. f V PmAt, SHRUBS N Cn RRD % APP ApaPo M f t ue Pat P Dwor( LOY the Nle 1 p �0 U HEM N mem Nf M1tb las poylily LIR V iapa muevcr 90l 1 pel mixes colors w (\ zME " .COT 1jS0 Llnope 1 gal Q Ln GROUNDCOWR 1— "PELTyPelor CT \ Tell Powe PPP 1'."P MYO Myoporvm Pv. '." \„\� M pommum a Mmafi 1 equal pogol Q 3 oos Plant 6.' o.c Q Q `t PRIOR TO PLANNING COMMISSION A. LANDSCAPE W o " ?-Ro �akp HU Rnu WIL BE SUBMITTED SHOWING NUMBER OF SPECIES 140 BY A. LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT. z _ RIP RAP TO APPEAR N d II60 - LIKE DRY RIVER BED. 11 * * 1150. RHUBAD " p— 1160 WMP T fF i1'l9 5 pER dao o -T .ham 1190 6 4'45 u O o RIDGE q ROAD LINER w m p 0 f. U] U 0 M O DID Q.O LANDCSAPE CONCEPTS 66 � 3 { 7 \^^\ � do uS .a coin € u >, E-` c Lands apeP, eau s .-•' z,a'racu I - UNDISURBED SLOPE ' a x U � n GAZEBO PLAN - SCOPE OF WORK o of - „ ! i 1.iIFElIlill 1. L__ m„ GAZEB �- y�GAZ5B0 E„�„„ SECTION �a - - / RESIDENCE U a I _ go IM /1111 IF FFF,W A IM Y C4 ca vas x.c F—E o� -11111E°. ` RIDGE. LINE ROAD —r—�.`�. - g .PAL ea __._ e. IOU IlIlT - - .1 0` 20' 40'50' 50' I1 z in w of 3. :xEv,� L _ 1 REVISIONS By PLANTING NOTES ..M`.T"` ®"t 1. Contractor IsII to plane,verify ! a pl t q at r t c u e Contractor F -take A i sole rasIonslb rty f r t a d t t a f Kst g trd' Pl . c material q t r ed f r the p nw of the Contractor,ar. Actual number a cymbals shall Fa„e ty o q. t, designated L Lonffctz ° PL[ir,1T LEGEND b t theN tl thesepl , ,thin from piano scall 4 bronchi t t it f the pard—Ipp Architect X p Landscape « tion. Any d f ( ) f Onttha plans p 'll £ Ill t[ necessary sary r¢I KIT BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME 512E REMARI_s the/°r suchLandscape Architect'. TM1e _an.. r sFa« ass e fU« responslh Uty r ecll neC ¢ry reels ars due to failure to give such naffkeilor TREE” - % d n ess OLE Oleo AuropenSeen Pl FF.Mals. dike Tree 24' boz °° c. -N Contraction F« t q L' p vl thesite t« times'dU g t through mpL tl 5 A sy q ff flue P 1 4' baz PI k P k RI T tan f.11 Priebe- F 24' box C°°°PSI TE—/11 SHRUB. vv, g The Contractor h ll rclels,itsr,dAd s thin cID Coat of finish g d Commencement f work indicates Contons, B °cEt` 3 f t' 6 4 des And dltl . s, F'n¢I grades shun badjusted b Contractor as directed by Owner's BIG% 6; "� ax acceptance representative. A« grading sna« be completed Prior to ce ent of planing opera'.lor, Sus m /epoo un i.xanum Texas Pr vet xwaad 5 gol mme"`� VICINITY MAP N.T.S. N e 4, The Contractor small f h d far PERENNIALS D pay pU ll acs mer gresp t F b a d/sodd d Fyd a hes, N6 Agapeplanar f s 'Peter Pon' pw Gly f the We T mol s and plant ground covers. The Contractor shall also be responsible f ,d pry F planting, staking, and gup oatee of UB -0eri. FOTtn 9ht Gly 1 00 Y nil pl¢nt mater ¢ls See pleating details for pirating and staking/g y g' q en s. HEN H me II' ty tl Uoyl ly 1 gal n'izetl colors a! PYA Phm um tenax Atmpul'pureum Nex Zealantl Flox 5 gol I 5. The Landscape Architect and/or erne, sh¢ll approve Plant natzrl l-0lacem.rt by Contracts, prior to Installation GROUN9COVER / MTP M)oporum parvTolum PF-brota Mmopa,um Slats plant'Aa12' a` ry@. 6,. Fertilizer for all town ¢ shall be a slow-release, high nitrogen fertilizer incorporated Into the so][ during PILL Pelarpa. um Fclatan Ivy G lois pl of ® 12'1 _ o 'Ad plantln9 - LAWN Trachelosper m las kn&2A Stat J secs PI not ® 12 { _ s he m5o Tall . cuen spat Ma th n II equol Nno 7 se T, For ¢tiers is be t tl I d and rrgated, the P ll wag amendments shall be uniformly broadcast and thorouohly 1 - Q ip, incorporated 6" deep by s a rotatlller c q pL ry F N «wUAs Anaunt °er 1000 f et ual, q T COM'T i na m Scvz 4 cu, Yds ri t"i staiNfo tl g Po t - - m 50 Pounds 9 1 It 1 SYP EXY PLANT SYMBOL g p_. v ' 8, The planting are £ t we sF « b dog threethe diameter f thet b Il d two h « than the - s oLLLe p t'co-Api The pia tl g pt to be dog theter Of the tiled snailbed aide o and Y sha[l r x - d han, the ,optima«. Planting pts cr snrabs and perennials shml be nag .wire as Aide as n a half Ines as deep LEAHER LINE UNDISTURBED SLOPE nJ no to tan 9. The Land, C t t F« nintibi I"Ported show, the 1 9 of I' 't d to) t dl (butat rn9, pruning, edging, Cable, for a period ff tNl ty (3c> days aftercompletion f project tl Acceptance by Owner - "� � dmjpe J 10. The Landscape Contractor n h warranty tl replace any plant b L that shows signs of Lock f 19 or other I I gN cnh,I(thl,l AIAF,ebor.nize withinn ty 090 days of mmpletler of P,t,Pet.T s that have been topped tF wise Improperly pruned by the Contractor shale be removed and replaced by the Contractor at no cost to the Owner. U I _SCOPE OF WORKwe .. haccesses"°s<.T we Fe. IF Fe AFAL r d /aa-ams° s we 0 0 Adm��T xw mush LIALLE 3 Llll`ll.11L1111per .1ka wIs 4R,na vi, ,G easedu f 4` / O uelufu �"� ¥O i -x�'`owi xrnw r / ,Flsu he. t11good. an �Fsopei ass F. else IF HILE pand A mor e wcem onnFs xn /! 28:{1 R man, a, ..aa.w.0Aboadenei - ! 1. _S REE PLANTING DETAIL IN SECTION GROUNDCOVER PLANTING SDETAIL_ — e `\✓ NOT �o scgLE JI ..-��., MULCH INSTALLA ICacrrs: ! / J I. ��•�� Aft n egat i, a s operations 1 P ' j( Je 1%ar`a' h m e far.. °-1.1 s ode `� t RESIDENCE 4 e t p. L by R y d wood FinaaCle szs-eta Taoo) or agaclJ / 1 °' �-�,1✓ —�==� / + I. 0 �? Cao � � Iia men car_ ! I O nk Gq r (pN7111v, v71Imo 9 M d� OOQ v I con.— on pe rvnr.0 sm _ Il _ GP .Pll9 P Iwwry 1 easi UwN % P O) k _FF I IAwN 1..€ eW.B x shad pas OF Hal New To und SHRUB PANTING D AILg LLwx� � oP�ffn uwx led g NGT To scALE m o � 1 ! �� f/18"m1 0 ---- -- ---" ------------- ff, - RIDGE LINE. ROAD _ - _ rry no -Z 1111 gn 5 FEV IS IONS BY l (HF (/N,d ✓r eR F PLANT LEGEND / ccFSSeF KEY BOTANICAL NAME COMMON NAME SIZE REMARKS TREE I OLE OI p 5 v11I1' tl 01' ee 24 boz g SPA Sy m o P 24 b - b TRI T to t f B.' 6 6 24° boz � _I SHRUB / y BUX B -I joy 6 ood gal P I £ LIG Lg strum bponcum Texonum' Tea— PrivetW 5 ael- PERENNIALS - 3 AGP A9 p th f' P - P D rf Lly f the Nle 9 ��� ;V. DIB Det b Fortnight Lly t got ;� �'to ge � HEM H IIS hyb d D ylly 1 g Imed. lore _ �� PHA Phorrr um en—F Af purpur_um N Z d 'lox 5 I GPOUNDCOVER / `/\�, Zh\ 6 w ycai w @Jaz MYP my.,.,. parvfol P t f Myopomm Flat plant ® 12 I ` PEL P pelta Iry G Plat Plant ®t2 I I \7 `Y LL m TRA T h 1 p m m lasm no des Sf J m flat plant 0 12 x - a -AWN II f c nspp ed M ... th n II or ual/H 3M .RLL S`mJ to PLANT COUNT / �0 I 4vz E LANT SYMAOL c r 1A-1 5 DIB 0 EM $ �'Lalxisap `LlAhl IRE I � _n 5 B i s q eU P4 0 161 LIG ac LIG I 14H M. o 5s g :LIG 18 I 9 UX 8 RESIDENCEEpp ea LIG 4St 2 IM of I 1 ILY- _ I A _ g :8 TRP I I H H M 16 TR, 0A SYA2 SYA fl GP T N k' �� / 7 IDL p .N n gy ® ,4 Q nw ac � r Lr �' 15 HFtJ L'1y Nm cn im am cn C3 c Q a 96 LAWN LAWN S �. / fv cIaWN' �15 € "LS. LAWN E o.es X9 PHA a 10 -DB OB tal rote 8 H M RIDGE LINE ROAD aElw Owl N 2 STORAGE Je'M MIRROR TiEA1RE EF 1170 38-e ry N n• MAIO�5 BGEDROOM BAT M i c x 222 • _ 66' 6" oe AUDIO/MEG WINE RACK m I I FLOOR ABOVE. z w. __-________—_\ �.-. L______B_____� L am. < z r- w LLJ L --------_.--___----_-_._____________J M W (9 � o Z rn BASEMENT PLAN Q�O �° m. N _ SCALE -1/4"=l' 4 o �l o LLJ m CD ' e W ¢ N Lo E Lo0 99'-6" w - __-- Q 21'-0 G ��0 Q CD -------------------------------- 25'-4" LLJ \\ PATIO BE OW `V °i BALCONY BALCONY. I I BALCONY GLABB BLOCK WALL bhI / m Ly1 / LNORY n FAMILY RM 2 GAME RM // � � �'p I g PRAYER .ROOM f POOL 'n TV = 13._°.. - TABLE /. EE 1z o I '. ` I ^ MASTER BERGGM 2 i -. \\ kO a ATV �.. BEG COM 4 I m F I I I I I \`\ \\\ I I MASTER BERG M 2 CLOS \ IDII OPENTO B LOW OPEN TO BELOW VANITY TV BE OOM 2LJ go L� o ~ z I i w a GLASS BLOCK-� a o --------- - _O SEAT _____— I L J m L 0 t '° °� 2 D FLOOR PLAN z� m SCALE-1/4"=1' �.... ----- ---- -- I I -- -- I _-- .. -- -- ---.----------- -.- - - - -- - - - - -- -- I - - 4a2 I I I 4:12 .\ 1/4" ROOF SLOPE \ ROLL ROOFING COLOR TO MATCH III£ ROOF - 4:12 - \ \ I A O 1/4' ROOF SLOPE n 4:12 1/4" ROOF SLOPE / 1/4" ROOF SLOPE - -- 612 4:12 rn 4:12 6 _ w o Z0 w M F Lou w 4,12 ------------- K .4:12. i O M W w a o ------------------I Of 0 z 0 m 1 N ROOF R F PLAN SCALE 1/4" = 1 FT -0 IN. Bmf - 6 T --_-- -- CD ---- CONCRETE ROOF TILE z --- - - -� __ -- PRECAST-CONCRETt-- -------- ------ W 4 N o f - - - -- -- - PtAST -OVER 2X6- WD-Or-TRIM0 0 L .e „ EXTERIOR PLASTER o s o FF 12 y- ---------- ------ ------C� z --------- -- --------------------- ¢ S Uo W W m :q NEEP SCREED N FF 118 ea -_ 1 ----------------------- _- __ AGEFF 1188 ---- ------------------------------ ____ __ --- -_- --_ -- as - Fs els PL FF 1 78 5 m F5 81.0 �0;p{ml F51 JJ.S Bo FF 117 . e 1179 -._ SIDE WEST ELEVATION SCALE IE,!'- I FT -0 IN. r e ------------- - wpoggo^ a CONCRETE ROOF TILE- --------\ - t4'-0' is^ LT Jf�l-------_- _____ __ _..... I U) -- L o — z --- PRECAST -CONCRETE - ------ O PLASTER OVER 2X6 WDO TRIM - --------------------EXTER OR-PCASTER _ ---- n - - e W ------------- -- ------- --- _ J> , o o I W zM ------------------------------------------SRABE TF-DRIOEWAY—__ -_I�pI�I77II�{I�� GRADE AT PL i ~ W Q -- --------------- -WEEP _SCREED ------------------- -- -' ---------.------- --------- - > ---- --- ----------------------------------------------__ ` ------ ------------------ --- - — -- z � c� o _- trey. _- - - ._ 85 85 8 W 80 n Bs e B5 8 W -__ .. _ .. . m ._ FS 785I� :Am (LLD m 0 BJ 80 _80- 5 g� ] 5 JJIJJJ O ' N- SIDE_ EAST,SELEVATION SCALE V,' IFT-j IN 75 _._._ 7575 ------ - 75 .._. 9f1 TW 72 - BW 59 o� I z� �Q Cl- LO0 o o¢� wo �z �Qa r _ _— -- - CONCRETE ROOF TILE T z PR_CASTCJNCRETE e. - v .__�--_�>--RLRSTER'OVER2X55tl00-TRIM r 1 x EXTERIOR PLASTER k. NE 1P10 -_ v IIJI �J MEEP SCREED to _ - - 1 - PGE3F6� JI4@_ _ ___ __ - @ - Pi - ¢ ";,,, oo - SIDE WEST ELEVATION SCALE 1,9 IN=IFT_0IN SEE 1/4" ELEVATIONS ---------------- •_` _ ON SHEET 9 CONCRETE ROOF ME .�� f m a _ _ _ =—C ______ _ _ -o Jwi^ Z mq .Ek' ---------------------------m AREEAST-EBNCREiT? -- -P- _.� -_ ____- __ ___._____ ------ a m PLASER OAR 2X6 MD TRIM E ¢ D --------------------------- Ilry�ryll p x - - _------- - - - _-___- - _ _. ___- ------------------------------------iii m Z e \ _ -- w - ,.._. -SIDE EASTnELEVATION - _ >a - SCALE 1/9 IN = 1 FT 0 IN wn .n I - _ CO U w ¢ _ ¢ nc -. UD - - 0 p _ V. w ¢ Z a _I _. W. NO ,w o ¢ o g6 m tel.. -- --- - TOP OF WALL 1 arROOF ---_CD ____—______ t U U-�- z 45 J.,.. ee -- ----- --- --- --- 35 FT Hi IJMIT __ - __------------------ c J u R00F UNE AT REAR SECTION' 90 Z ¢ N----------------------------------------------------- J U m z` m K R IIi i ___ _ __ _ ___ _ TW 11777 w -___ _ _ _. s O Z 9W 1173 15—°' t 99' 6" _- _ BW _1113 w U H=a FT 1179 "Bn6269 _°_._. ._ _¢U O L _ —1111 � -1111—G IIII III _IIII mill- -III =I v z o ° N ° °� IIII IIII-IIIllll IIII-IIII (IIII. 11 -IIII- IIII IIII=IIII-=.III Illlnl-111' = -1 = — _ _ ilOi - � III—If1-1111 '1111_.111- II — I ' — — -- .� III. III. In 1111 ILI�III, IIII IIII IIII=-=illrllll � ,,,� - _ — , .L-11—u1 I n-1_il-nil lu�lill-liil :IIII —u l-rill-l,rlm-u[I-r� Im=liu-rill nn Iln_ Ilr-u11-1 � w N ..,.__: ,_ Iln -n11=`III=x111 �t11= ➢[f=lin=IIII=1111-IIII IIL—IIII_ II =II _ _ = - = - i Ili — — - — — — _ _ _ _ I 1 11 . f — � _ _, � II I�� LIL nl1 n.l ➢1 III��117=IIII lll�lll�lll IIII � I � ,. °. Q � � F5 1160 � _ � j1 1i=4111 li Ilf 1p 1111 IIII, I� IIII IIIIIIIHnI IIII- Inl-loll-lnl n0 il_, l IIII,Tn�I �I�n nn nl Iln-nn— , .I_1 _ � z �n I = —= ._ r--�t�+1--Irl_r--�•>=-1+1�--r4—a�—aTF�i-wfi��T—H11—uu--un�ul—;u. — Q i Rr� niripl-llf 1� tttl-1lYstltl--tn—:ni—lm--h., ' III nl� 11 ,;, l_IHII',IIII_IIJ ll� IIII�I L-'.IIII-UII-1111 IIII III,=IIII. IIII ,IIII-IIII IIII IIIHIII-CI' IIII _IIII-IIII I_II-IIII=1111 IIII -T=IIII=IIII=IIII-„' ”' - IIII =III =1111 1111=1111-'III 'III Ili_IIII IIII, IIII;=11IIIIIIIIIII'lllllllllllllilllllllllllllllllllllllillll llllllllllllllll. SITE SECTION D D z _ ` a — - -- 1y --- 35 FT HT WMIT 45 tle re _ ROOF LINE 3 2ND FLOOR FF 1200 I. g ----- FIRST FLOOR 11896 IIII-1111 IIII IIII - , i Ili -IIII¶ IIII IIII IIII=IIII IIII � I=IIII IIII- 1 IIII=IIIb�IIII IIII=IIII (IIII"=IIII rllll IIII IIIIHII— IIII dIIIIII III =1111-IIII IIII IIII=illl !III III=1_II - 11 III IIII IIII- - _ — — 41 1111=111 III IIII IIII=II -IIII—IIgill I -IIII — _ r.1Y nn — ru awn �u u�— R T f s f ���f / — _ o gm 0 SITE SECTION E E U a M x0 V)O - "t, n.✓1` JV S ice•, z < W L'J K � __.�-NSO kMmdu2lsn H'p Z W O 5166 - .baa N+l2 ern-n^nwe r � � N =z.pa SSL 89Pa GRADING GENERAL NOTES 1, AIgeding 9Da11.cdmplyweW thepmnsiouofSection1803 avd AMPRIIul ofthc Celifose Theldon, Code Culif, and ell ammdmwtTedcpted byPoe City, R All lvllaidegmLug Nlpesia flOhshnllbovryty NW fLllde Mvugemeti Omioa'o5c mdatmll TSP ally [IX e.tl2:1. 3 No grading ahntl deradvalsor FLY beer barmel by OF Cry ofD®end Hae. 4, All fdleiopes shall be �nPut'edmnntleathan 90 paamtvfIDememumm,dvutry. 5: SSafgasiteotgof soilPropvtie+,incmdivg roil tyPesand ffimratehgnbs shellberoadedvimggrzding .palatiwACEI iifycompliav[ewiWdengncntenx Theresulte ofaochtestiag'sha➢M1erepmreairt0e dn. a—.ded ofAticpemity M1e tote tadtwfollowO urupovrequvstnfthe City A a- rmb¢.vfvelti JelMity [ennrttvbemedeas followed: OnckA fmxsclltwv-footvekcel bfb b. CveYedtmwc6100N.cvbic3vds 0fineleaal pletei K AsvfficieWnvmbecoffmah slopefskYo vedfycompectionof WeskpenuGecC " 6. Ta fiU stiedtieplazedlNN aNppingoi vcgAeSbry rem"ovalbfwacitg6le wils,aotlIdshllamt of subdeads, FfddMVd)'.t andertma by the amts dederaef AN tomdeermg gaologaL T. No fillahell beplaeed mail the places -t alone.. 2®dol medsute fe the pmjOft IN 6ERVandbylOr C7ly. g. The wdasigvad Civil Fngmeeihourly, .riles that Wer, plwswould pepased by him ofmde, his aopemirim and Sort Day Iare donformb all perdueoepmviudos of Sent 1803, Exeavadon, Gadmg and Eill ave Appedua 1, Grading of BeCalifornia Boiling Coda CID! 0). ReginQed Rngneu R.CE Date 9. AppNvtlpmtecavemeasmumdkmpotarydnwa TovidooasbObep[ itled Mp t'idjoiamg RopaNp hal dermehim oferaterial or dreried Bowed NOW during and after, 0 pboea ofw cdm Ia. All oRdteimprovavevrs fordEbecomplehd kthe aa&sfirmcn oft4e Ohl Hugiueec II. RirughC diUgu fitzie"laM medipedl,,esti add avilmgWese efxamad andzppmvedbyllR. City df specmr prim iv ievunebatHuild W g Amenia. Prom 12. AllhtitssballtCad idea ad mgmaddr,ggenldgisl Otrecorddurine grlilidgmtbet anyetlVelsa. Wtiq.t x ..gored a am LED My TAROJESERS. dra AT UVmgu m, the pp agr➢dwg pJars darralleppaavedb3'We any. Ia. All pede3 done mmt6evearLaageawdea, Mason, maaWv dramsgaderied, afloo ed al awl ,edam, a.g IANadark W ender mafenal DPSwMthu.6"irttliemel¢vrill be plaoal in We fill tmleastcunwv�tlati'mItl f a'vchPladement Dave been aobmi2d by We ouldmar,add a,holedm adveum bythc City. 13, Gran, gp—W4.3 mud be edadueted uva "r We wntinb"usobseralicltoftbe sols mgineYS anal. mgivev geologrod RWAMPJ VEEzcavadooslet stability KIM; entlremoval MOdAnnilnatlemils inert he observed ma ardor ted a siting" by tae soils..ginned., arlmantro mst of—rd pri,to. theplaomg of 18.1bes.Esengmeae®Ntitmgiaesmg Bdoloaild ofresord mart dMmmmtmd aooepfmugb gredfgby Lndrryoriprimbrappaovalbylhesty. hebual.sport must ivclvde.ands-gadedgwtxhmcel map, 19.'f6naolleenpAv _ mrdmedgivwmggmlogistotrevoN murtmakcdfiodiuB In acemdavaetiiW scdtimlllnfthe lna Angeles comhyHUOdwgcoae fe, WegredNdte pdtvte eppmval byWeCiry. iO. Pomdetioo ardlogirs aoddipmostoplaed, aged 'endmond, WwnVagtiy Wetoite "evgines&. �veedvg g.oiogid dfmmrdPnsbpiazing Heel ormncrete. 21,ARegihWred evil impal SIMS mrsam a Giiaidg fERB f ed the CE, Imposer me dwg 10 worlivg daysvp " pledmuffinalgmNngvperetians Qmdoete otOrcop dY hli bciasued mbjec[JoWe GYty.BTgnfar'aepyovelntasia9ngiacerae49is=+e.. £mad gmtlivg.Tnnatbeeppmvea by the CitybeforeoccepaneyNbuildiv�wal beallowed. ZZ. The smismd'Galogy Aepoifpreperedby dna Haled add allaefshnerA and rniaew.eliapmistigmdbelow shall OthertevibcnmeapaGNRddj geoing plan ended xsommrndaliouo womived Weal. abe116e striNyudhmed b. exed report'are as follows: 23.AcopyofWegradingpemlltendappmVsg dingplmamuibew Wepossesnon Ofaaesponsible perov and avaJeble el As Utom NI time. 24. Final& Wingmvsabe approved befog"omcpancy ofbubdings will be allowed. 25, pheseplmu bavcbnca=hmkd by We City ofl irmomd And mlyforo=A mmca NED Ory SoRdself ommiancewithdeveloment cothilmns Rod for geveml .ower tunl J,Vovm ofthewaildI add parkway imprwemaots shown M1ame. No delsiled malbcmvdral cM1eck wRs metle for We azcmacyif Wa waWtg m'mopowd dimwsiotv,Imw,mgredw sM1omiaoludivgell e»shgmillties sbown nrnnt shown. 26, Gndasorshm daddy the dry EXUREI's often at PINK) 839-7040 forty fight (48) hours in ademce of mtenden be bepm gating 27. C ndadmf shall comply whdW We Calif mid Storm Water But MdEGmnmt Pra=fims Handbooks add We pmiada Slmtlazd Orb. Simon Was., MiMal plea (BURNED) raluiremenls as nwessary, 28. If—, all ...M, ry h.fil Ps'^ws areaz. 29. SUEhimt lest JARS Sails shall be made dwng We gredingto Randy Wel We soaspmperties comply wish Pootlesi@rrequiremeols,ss doomed by Far EogiSDOAg LiwlogKOGREGAR d&xgmeer inshem, soilsE as, abear anmgth preamsss and cartespoo&ng holt weights. 34 R -value All aball ad owdu=I df , all pabli, and privat=roadway ireptmam=nle m monfify HE Cham BAS SETT xhoumal ae=,on regaheman6 for NB die, under, Omerwiaenot mgd%hm byme um 31.Rype V oemomshad be hard o, .11 random work wend.,m dams with me Mound, Hales, oWmwis= - nonrated by We pUMDC'. edit -,is— SY GFAOQ Alam naq]vhlex Or tr.,,.N nOf q,,pm,ni an da Isaaopea nufheay grading Equipment Hall EeMenta..lc NA,... Heh— V 7 USam and ECS porta not mr5o96 5amE, Fud re odDl E FdOng aEd KAKE =OenacNilieaaad,d be Pruned by wFori,He suit Piurt, and star, HEAhea and in cDldane wlln South Coast Air QUellly MaHromeh OHNCI Rue 4022 a rd Rule 403 SnAle mad Haler shag be used whonener CE -Se Addeorally, all wnNndlon equipmentSall be prop,dy m,M,d to EdDe olse Laved SUSMP NOTES: 1_ DETERMINE AND PROVIDE THE PRE AND POST DEVELOPMENT PREVIOUS ANO IMPERVIOUS AREAS CREATED BY THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PPERSHOUS AREANT PENDIDIO AGER,, 02BACRES PERCENT IMPERVIOUS 22% PERVIOVS AREA 1L2 ACRES PERCENT PERVIOUS TBY. PRE DEVELOPMENT IMPERVIOUS AREA OACRES PERCENT IMPERVIOUS 0% PERVIOUS AREA 1.31 ACRES PERCENT PERVIOVS tC0% 2 ANY MOD] OCATIONS TO THE APPROVED SUSMP PLAN MUST BE RESUBMITTED TO THE CITY OF DIAMOND RAR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS. a. A COPY OF APPROVED SUSMP PLAN MUST BE IN THE POSSESSION OF A RESPONSIBLE PERSON AND AVAILABLE AT THE SITE ALL TIMES. k ALL STRUCTURAL BMP'S SHALL BE ACCESSIBLE FOR INSPECTION AND MAINTENANCE. M PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK WITHIN THE ROAD RIGHT OF WAY ANDIOR CONNECTION TO COUNTY MAINTAINED SEEMS GRAIN. AN ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FROM PUBLIC WORKS IS REQUIRED [(AG) SPARdle, AS WELL AS PROOF OF PERMIT FROM THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY CONSTRUCTION DIVISION. PERMIT SECTION HISS 4583129). 6. PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF ANY WORK ANDIOR DISCHARGE OF DRAINAGE TOA WATERCOURSE, A PERMIT FROM BOTH THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF FISH AND GAME AND U S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS MAY BE REQUIRED. T., AS THE CIVIL ENGINEER OF THE PROJECT, I HAVE REVIEWED THE OEVELHOPMENT PLANNING FOR STORM WATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE STANDARD URBAN STORMWATER MITIGATION PLAN ISUSMAS ANO HAVE PROPOSED THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE PERMANENT BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES PDA S) APPLICABLE TO EFFECTIVELY MINIMIZE THE NEGETIVE IMPACTS OF THE PROJECTS STORMWATER RUNOFF. THE SELECTED DMFS WILL WILL MINSTCTUALLED PER THE APPROVED PLANS AND AS RECOMMENDED BY THE PRODUCT MANUFARER AS APPLICABLE. EC ECKFM RCE 3459] STORM WATER POLLUTION PLAN NOTES ATTACHMENTA NOTES: 1. EVERY EFFORT SHOULD BE MA DE TO ELIMINATE THE DISCHARGE OF NON STORMWATER FROM THE PROJECT SITE AT ALL TINES. E. ERODED SEDIMENT AND OTHER POLLUTANTS MUST BE RETAINED ON SITE AND MAY NOT BE TRANSPORTED FROM THE VIA SHEET, SWALEB, AREA NATURAL DRAINAGE COURSES OR WIND. X STOCKPILES OF EARTH AND OTHER CONSTRUCTION RELATED MATERIALS MUST BE PROTECTED FROM BEING TRANSPORTED FROM THE SITE BY THE FORCES OF WIND OR WATER. 4, FUELS, OILS SOLVENTS, AND OTHER TOXIC MATERIALS MUST BE STORED IN ACCORUANCE WITH THEIR LISTING AND ARE NOT TO CONTAMINATED THE SOILS AND SURFACE WATERS. ALL APPROVED STORAGE CONTAINERS ARE TO BE PROTECTED FROM THE WEAT, HER. SPILLS MUST BE CLEANED UP IMMEDIATELY AND DISPOSED OF IN A PROPER MANNER. SPILLS MAY NO BE WASHED AWAY IWO THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. d. EXCESS WASTE CONCRETE MAY NOT BE WASHES INTO THE PUBLIC WAY OR ANY OTHER DRAINAGE SYSTEM. PROVISIONS SHALL BE MADE TO RETAIN CONCRETE WASTES ONSITE THEY CAN BE DISPOSED OF AS SOLID WASTE. I. TRASH AND CONSTRUCTION RELATED SOLID WASTES MUST BE DEPOSITED INTO A COVERED RECEPTACLE TO PREVENT CONTAMINATION OF RAINWATER AND DISPERSAL BY WINO, T. SEDIMENTS AND OTHER MATERIALS MAY NOT BE TRACKED FROM THE SITE BY MIDDLE TRAFFIC. THE CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE ROADWAYS MUST BE STABILIZED 50 AB TO INHIBIT SEDIMENTS FROM BEING DEPOSITED INTO THE PUBLIC WAY. ACCIDENTAL DEPOSITIONS MUST BE SWEPT UP IMMOEGATELY AND MAY NOT BE WASHED DOWN BY RAIN OR OTHER MEANS. S ANY SLOPES WITH DISTURBED SOILS OR DENUDED OF VEGRATION MUST BE STABILIZED SO AS TO INHIBIT EROSION BY WINO AND WATER. A TTACHMENTB NOTES THE FOLLOWING DMFS AS OUTLINGE IN, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE BEST (MANAGEMENT PRACTICE HANDBOOK, CALIFORNIA STORMWATER QUALITY TASK FORCE, SACRAMENTO. CALIFORNIA 2009, OR THE LATEST REVISED EDITION, PR YINLY DURING THE CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT IAOOITIONAL MEASURES MAY BE REQUIRED IF DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY COUNTY INSPECTORS): CA001 - DEWATERING OPERATIONS CA002 - PAVING OPERATIONS CANOED - STRUCTURE CONSTRUCTION AND PAINTING Cp010 - MATERIAL COUNTRY AND STORAGE CA011 - METERIAT USE CA012 - SPILL PREVENTION AND CONTROL SARA - SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT CAGN - HAZARDOUS WASTE MANAGEMENT GA022 CONTAMINATED SOIL MANAGEMENT .D 23 - CONCRETE WASTE MANAGEMENT CAB30 - VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT CLEANING " GADO - VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT FUELING CARDS - VEHICLE AND EQUIPMENT MAINTANCE CAME - EMPLOYESIUBCCNTRACTOR MINING ESC01 - SHEDULING ESCo2 - PRESERVATION OF EXISTING VEGETATION ESC 10 - SEEDING AND PLANTING CI- MULCHING - PROW - GEOTEXTHES AND MATS ,a.I - DUST CONTROLS ESCAS - TEMPORARY STREAM CROSSING ESCE, - CONSTRUCTION ROAD STABILIZATION SCOW - 51 ABILIZED CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE EAMF - EARTH END BANCO - TEMPORARY CRAWS AND FWALES . ESCS2 - SLOPE MEAN ESC40 - OUTLET PROTECTION ESC41 CHECK DANS LEGEND TO TOP OF CURB ELEVATION R FLOW UNE ELEVATION NG - NATURAL G RADE ELEVATION FG - FINISHED GRACE ELEVATION FS FINISHED SURFACE ELEVATION AS - ASPHALTIC CONCRETE ELEVATION TW - TOP OF WALL ELEVATION IF - TOP OF FOOTING ELEVATION WE - WALL FACE SHOWING DIMENSION H WALL HEIGHT DIMENSION TG TOP OF GRATE ELEVATION INV - INVERT ELEVATION HE HIGH POINT ELEVATION FF FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION PAD - R NISHEC PAD ELEVATION ME - GARAGE FLOOR ELEVATION NEAR- GARAGE PAD ELEVATION EP - EDGE OF PAVEMENT ELEVATION a3 IPLACATES POWER POLE 6 INDICATES FIRE HYCRAM PA INDICATES PLANTER AREA INDICATES HANDICAP PARKING AREA --�� INDICATES CONCENTRATED FLOW PATH �-- INDICATES SHEET FLOW DIRECTION 0%. MIN HARDSCAM 2% OR DIRT) DINVCATESACPAVEMENT INDICARTS CONCRETE PAVEMENT ®ABDICATES REMOVAL OF IMPROVEMENT INDICATES BLOCK RETAINING WALL rTTITT INDICATES BLOCK GARDEN WALL fnOND EISE ND SERVICE ALERT lM1 TOLLLL RISE FREE DA all tan .1. DAYS aBtwe mu 9la NOTES TO CONTRACTORS 1. ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS PERFORMING WORK SHOWN ON OR RELATED TO THESE PLANS SHALL CONDUCT THEIR OPERATIONS SO THAT ALL EMPLOYEES ARE PROVIDED A SAFE PLACE TO WORK AND THE PUBLIC IS PROTECTED. 2, ALL CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS PERFORMING WORK SHOWN ON OR RELATED TO THESE PLANS SHALL CONDUCT THEIR OPERATIONS SO THAT ALL EMPLOYEES ARE PROVIDES ASAFE PLACE TO WORK AND THE PUBLIC IS PROTECTED. 3. THE CIVIL ENGINEER SHALL NOT BE RESPONSIBLE IN ANY WAY FOR THE CONTRACTORS AND SUBCONTRACTORS COMPLIANCE WITH ANY OF THE GOVERNMENT, STATE OR Cltt RULES AND REGULATIONS. CONTRACTORS FURTHER AGREES THAT HE SHALL ASSUME SOLE AND COMPLETE RESPONSIBILTTY FOR THE JOB SITE CONUMONS DURING THE COURSE OF CONSTRUCTION OF THIS PROJECT, INCLUDING PLUS SAFETY OF ALL PERSONS AND PROPERTY, THAT THIS REQUIREMENT SHALL APPLY CONTINUOUSLY AND NOT BE LIMITED TO NORMAL WORKING HOURS; THAT THE CONTRACTOR SHALL DEFEND, INDEMNIFY AND HOLD THE OWNER MOTHS CIVIL ENGINEER HARMLESS FROM ANY AND LIABILITY, REAL OR ALLEGED, IN CONNECTION WITH THE PERFORMANCE OF THE WORK ON THIS PROJECT, EXCEPT FDR THE LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF THE OWNER OR ENGINEER 4. THEEXISTENCE AND LOCATION OF ANY UNDERGROUND UTILITY PIPES OR STRUCTURAL SHOWN ON THREE PLANS ARE OBTAINED BY A SEARCH OF THE AVAILABLE RECORDS. TO THE BEST OF OUR KNOWLEDGE, THERE ARE NO EXISTING UTILITIES EXCEPT AS SHOWN ON THIS MAP. THE CONTRACTORS REQUIRED TO TAKE DUE PRECAUTIONARY MEASURES TO PROTECT THE UTILITY LINES SHOWN AND ANY OTHER LINES NOT OF RECORD OR NOT SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING. PRIOR TO EXCAVATION THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CALL UNDERGROUND SERVICE ALERTAT I-3064221133. ESC42 - SLOPE ROUGHENINGITERRACING EARTHWORK QUANTITIES PREPARED BY: EBGSD - - SILT"Fal GILBERT ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. THE PLAN CHECK FEES BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY, THE GRACING CONRWCTOR LEBARRIER - SAND SHOULD SUPPLY THE PROJECT OWNER WITH A COMPLETE 810 BASED KEVIN ESCS2 FIE DO - DAN BARRIER COMPLETE GRADING PROJECT. sJC9 EAST RJOTE E6, 03 ESC53 HFUSH OR - BRUSH OR ROCK FILTER SOILS ENGINEER INDORA .CFUTORNIA P174G A u' ' E$C64 - SORA DRAIN INLET PROTECTION 2712 DOW AVENUE (62s)S52-LDDC ESC55 - SEDIMENTTRAP 714s05ES40 AS (E23) epi -16J" awoi-ill bertcJvilSgmM,00m Eal - SEDIMENT BASIN Attachment 11 VICINITY MAP TOPOGRAPHIC SOURCE PERFORMED BY BOYD SCHNIEDERWENT. I.S. BENCH MARK BASIS OF BEARINGS TEMPORARYBENCHMARK THIS BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE THE CENTERLINE BEG. CURVE CENTERLINE OF RIDGE LINE ROAD BEING AB BROWN ON STORE NMKIM45"E. AS SHOWN ON TRACT 30091, ELEV.=11Bl RECORDED AS MB TB915145 EARTHWORK QUANTITIES n e �`y 9'] THE PLAN CHECK FEES BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY, THE GRACING CONRWCTOR nam SHOULD SUPPLY THE PROJECT OWNER WITH A COMPLETE 810 BASED KEVIN l,n COMPLETE GRADING PROJECT. SHEET INDEX OWNER n� SOILS ENGINEER i1J GLOBAL GEO-ENGINEERINGJNL Vf 2712 DOW AVENUE OVEREXCAVATION £:96Y— TUSTIN, CA 92780 DIAMOND BAR, CA TON 714s05ES40 PROJECT NO. S326,Y7 TOPOGRAPHIC SOURCE PERFORMED BY BOYD SCHNIEDERWENT. I.S. BENCH MARK BASIS OF BEARINGS TEMPORARYBENCHMARK THIS BASIS OF BEARINGS ARE THE CENTERLINE BEG. CURVE CENTERLINE OF RIDGE LINE ROAD BEING AB BROWN ON STORE NMKIM45"E. AS SHOWN ON TRACT 30091, ELEV.=11Bl RECORDED AS MB TB915145 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE THIS FUN HAS BEEN RENEWED BY CLODAL CEO -ENGINEERING, INC. AND DEEMED TO BE INCONFORNPRCE SITH THE RECDMIKENCATIOUS IN OUR REPORT DATED DEFENDED 4, 2007. REVIEN WAS UMITEO TO THE GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE PUN ONLY - YIE MAKE NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCJRACY OF DIIAMSIONS, MEASUREKENTS, CALCUUTONS OR ANY PORTION OF DESIGN, 11-1ad CITY OF DIAMOND BAF, REVIEWED FOR THE CITY OF MASONIC BAR BY: HALL AND FOREIJ,AN, INC. 177B2 nth STREET, SUITE 200 NSTIN, CA 92750 )714)655-0500 .I On F BOLA ROFOI S RCE 3D242 DATE, Ad A. BHOGAL 2SA15 PLEASANT MEADOW DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, De 91765 909-455-232C 22909 RIDGE LINE ROAD IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BA GRADING PLAN I- ACT 1DFI EARTHWORK QUANTITIES THE£ARTRWORK QUANTITIES SHOWN ARE FOR THE PURPME OF CALCULATING THE PLAN CHECK FEES BY THE GOVERNING AGENCY, THE GRACING CONRWCTOR SHOULD SUPPLY THE PROJECT OWNER WITH A COMPLETE 810 BASED KEVIN COMPLETE GRADING PROJECT. SHEET INDEX OWNER CUTYARDAGE es^ ROD C', Shell One- PRESHEET SAM SPECIAL FILLYARDAGE M6BBEV— 300 CY. Sheet TOO PRECISE GRACI NO PLAN 23415 PLEASANT MEADOW DRIVE OVEREXCAVATION £:96Y— SIR: Three SECTIONS DIAMOND BAR, CA TON TOTAL DISTRUBED AREA +A doll BE 9MA65-2320 STARTOFGRACING hPRlE2]0& MAR, 2012 ENEOFGRNDRUSL HQalra4 OCT 2D12 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE THIS FUN HAS BEEN RENEWED BY CLODAL CEO -ENGINEERING, INC. AND DEEMED TO BE INCONFORNPRCE SITH THE RECDMIKENCATIOUS IN OUR REPORT DATED DEFENDED 4, 2007. REVIEN WAS UMITEO TO THE GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE PUN ONLY - YIE MAKE NO REPRESENTATION AS TO THE ACCJRACY OF DIIAMSIONS, MEASUREKENTS, CALCUUTONS OR ANY PORTION OF DESIGN, 11-1ad CITY OF DIAMOND BAF, REVIEWED FOR THE CITY OF MASONIC BAR BY: HALL AND FOREIJ,AN, INC. 177B2 nth STREET, SUITE 200 NSTIN, CA 92750 )714)655-0500 .I On F BOLA ROFOI S RCE 3D242 DATE, Ad A. BHOGAL 2SA15 PLEASANT MEADOW DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, De 91765 909-455-232C 22909 RIDGE LINE ROAD IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BA GRADING PLAN I- ACT 1DFI aD s. Nzp9ssvw Ax 3 ----------------3...—__ ___:. -- _ — = r mai RIVER ROCK RIPHAS PAD 6�1 I� 3HE; � EG - WM' 4Ar, t�^ T5•� �1 / II W THICKCONGRETE ORUNITewi SasrmryG WIREMESH 1 I YJ B 8 WALL GUTTER 2— DETAIL --DETAIL NOT TO SCALE 1„ l �A/>y, ✓ 7 °y5PWOP -I nn 3 �I I Ee T 2I F I II WH 59,i P.OG FF' .. 4H ,t61.4Fc I msrALLAoo r1I TIG EIT UI _I ExsE L. A T AxmMM lneo OF oBFs j eo ,ns4 preop TW ?° t aM +e 'i°e I wH _ 7 A G ,1586 EG G 1,71. / l,� j PE 11590 E I In ¢I 3 I ^ 2 q 21Y� ./ T:ISLOPE WI I 4wM*sp 3'aBTINow�L,o°` �12s I F f H RIVER ROCK RIP RAP PADC 1 Ikh l II H II W� levo v e \ l N77°1,22. e Ec EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWNAS "AS -BUILT" IN AUGUST, 2011 AND WILL BEE MODIFIED AS LISTED BELOW: 1 CONSTRUCT V -DITCH AND RIP -RAP PADS ALONG BOUNDARY LINES PER APPROVED GRADING PLAN. 2 WALLS ALONG NORTH SIDE OF EXISTING STEPS WILL BE CUT TO A HEIGHT OF 18" ABOVE THE STEPS. MA B HIGH,B WOE EE 3 A 2:1 SLOPE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN TO REDUCE THE WALL HEIGHT TO 8'. 4 ADD ADDITIONAL STEPS AS SHOWN TO REDUCE WALL HEIGHTS TO 8' MAXIMUM. NOTE: EROSION CONTROL PER GRADING PLAN APPROVED AUGUST 13, 2008 C E 3 0 LL W ou� a. LL G.F. 1188.80 \ I- ^OF Y i t IFB)gD.. � AFc I � � 4 X -a _J °� , G, \ y -� LU (9 CONSTRUCTION NOTES REMTRUCT PER SOILS ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS M 21 OPE AND RE-GRAGE AND R FLATTER OCONSTRUCT 4" THICK CONCRETE WITH SM 10 GA WIRE MESH OINSTALL 12 -.12- GRATE AND BASIN CONSTRUCT CONORETE DRIVE APPROACH -SEE PIAN FOR W ANO % QINSTALL 4"PVC PIPE CONSTRUCT WALL GVRER PER DETAIL HEREON Q] INSTALL42" HIGH FENCE ON TOP OF EXISTING WALL �B EXISTING WALL ANO G.G BEHIND, TO REMAIN WH = WALL HEIGHT TW = TOP OF WALL EG = EXISTING GRADE FG = FINISHED GRADE D W-1�"� so eN s °nry v°l 9 BT9g RE'AININ Nh E `H /a / 1 C ° ry^ E J � I FS>Po FXISTI NOSLOPE R"SCM' - GEOTECHNICAL STATEMENT OF OF DIAMOND BAR ELI " NO SCALE THIS PNN BEEN BY GED -ENGINEERING, a�<. �,..�..�, `FGR'T BEVIEN'EB EHBOEM WITH THE INC. AND DEEMED i0 BE ANCE Z CONSTRUCTION NOTES REMTRUCT PER SOILS ENGINEER'S RECOMMENDATIONS M 21 OPE AND RE-GRAGE AND R FLATTER OCONSTRUCT 4" THICK CONCRETE WITH SM 10 GA WIRE MESH OINSTALL 12 -.12- GRATE AND BASIN CONSTRUCT CONORETE DRIVE APPROACH -SEE PIAN FOR W ANO % QINSTALL 4"PVC PIPE CONSTRUCT WALL GVRER PER DETAIL HEREON Q] INSTALL42" HIGH FENCE ON TOP OF EXISTING WALL �B EXISTING WALL ANO G.G BEHIND, TO REMAIN WH = WALL HEIGHT TW = TOP OF WALL EG = EXISTING GRADE FG = FINISHED GRADE D W-1�"� so eN s °nry v°l 9 BT9g RE'AININ Nh E `H /a 08ECDOHO oNsrRNISO, C ° ry^ E Pp uT°T.MRAIN I I STAINING FXISTI NOSLOPE R"SCM' - GEOTECHNICAL STATEMENT OF OF DIAMOND BAR SECTION) W -W -- COMPLIANCE NO SCALE THIS PNN BEEN BY GED -ENGINEERING, a�<. �,..�..�, `FGR'T BEVIEN'EB EHBOEM WITH THE INC. AND DEEMED i0 BE ANCE E OF D1AMONB BAR BI". PREPARED BY : RECOI.:ME. IN OUR REPORT GATES BECEIABEF 2007. REPORT GATES HALLREVAND FOREMHE [NO HELL AND FOREMAN,INC. E LBE RT ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. REVIEWNLY uuRED TO THE GEOTECHNICAL ASS F HUMS THE SUITE 2oa 2028 EAST ROUTE Sfi, SUITE 20] TO H PDP ONLY - WF. MAKE NOERAND REPRESENTATION AS L THE TUBTIN CA52IB0 TUSTIN17MI CA92 80 (itS)6fi5-0RED eLENDORA, pAOTORNM 9nav ACCURACY OF BIIAENEIONE, MEASUREMENS, CALCULATIONS OR PGRrION OF PESGrv. G AIII7est-s0oAnw T r ysu)ar-1Em ..mml- Imen�nn�meLmr EO ECKERT-RCE 34581 UATE: - �� ort - JOSE BOURGEOIS. RCE3022 OATEN GRAPHIC SCALE I. GNI 1 DI -. 10 tt ILUWAC AM 6HOGAL 23415 PLEASANT MEADOW BRIEt CAMPED BAR, CA 91765 eO9-<55-2]20 X22909 RIDGE L lNE ROAD IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR GRADING PLAN 2 OF 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT I1195j. - 11191 45° (1195) 11190) ---' -- 32 dF F 11K I0 PNG WALL �iO RFf.1A�J III RO O EO P W Y IISOS FA=^SO 1 _ 22S' 5'4 ER. 1190.60 .-TIN. WALL ITT, REMAI. RGpOSEO tlR VEWAT 11 99 !1165) AND DIET °) g PR�bSE➢ _- �. X1165) - _ IT nx nygso 1116.51 E% T GW sy XO y. ]O FNISHE95LIRFACE FF ItBtA. _ EX REMAINNOWALL RMAIN POSEtl GR PRO AOEJ LL �T EMPIN l F NIS EOS°PEACE 1.1 NO PROPCS cO GRN9E Infis, — p,FFFC' mroNrnw u _ PPOP�otpi' EX STING SLOPE_ (1 eo _ utas n o one,1�� RDELN ,reJ ^ UNIT INCH e �� (�'> �aimuluAu 11ne1 < ` RETAINING WALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED ExlsnNc wnu T. nEw TO REMAIN Pnel SECTION _GALE: H 6V-,"- 10,0' m TO _ __ __... 11 1 a) RFGRAOEPUMEP IO ACHEWBMAX 4P09E0 ASG LJJJ- _ rynol _ _ _ __ 69A1 �{�5 - WPLL TO ` J - _ _ _ _ - .. _- — _— pp91 __ PROPOSE, REM AN BIAMX ESIOfiEO STEPS TOREFFOE ttfi6?° Ona) IflE= REt, H, 21 MAN . SLOPE_ ___ ____ __ _ __ _ _ _ _. —_. ___ _._ — - _ asst TOS' FS 11 6 - V-0DITCH ] 2'1 TO F6Y0 M E6 MAX. 0 III Ex ALL - —.. ry1m) -. _ — �yL 111501 E Ax T M �EXI ING DIRT IETry TO0.cMN -� E%I i. OIRT� \ N 71I ` uemnG nmsISnNG Girer GRnG �, 1 — — — — — — — - - uiss 11 i - L T _ f1T5Ss01 --__ n1sF L " EXISTNG GIRTGRAOE nuo _.. _ 11,501 _ _ % —. —� _— 1•.1591 SECTION A -A SCALEH6V-, _10 SECTION B -B SOPUEH6V-t .10 35 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT 45° I,f6rs) - 111951 FA=^SO 1 EXISTING V -DITCH AND DIET °) I ITw _ nx nygso E% T GW _ EX REMAINNOWALL RMAIN ADI i IS FFMAN LL �T EMPIN FF / _ PPOP�otpi' EX STING SLOPE_ _ ,reJ ^ UNIT INCH 11ne1 < ` RETAINING WALL TO BE CONSTRUCTED Pnel SECTION _GALE: H 6V-,"- 10,0' EXISTING WALL HEIGHTS FEE I PROPOSED WALL HEIGHTS .,ICA �Is GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S STATEMENT OF aor<oSO CITY OF DIAMOND BAR owrv� `v LOT 3G OF iR4Ci 30091 I.IB ]09 51-]5 COMPLIANCE A. ^xrvm, sun BHOGAL H95 STAN HAS BEEN REVIEWER BY GLOBG AL _C -ENGINEERING _ m m" ONO qR, 33411 PLDAN OA MEADOW DRIVE FOE �'�~ OUM91765 µ INC, ANR DEEMED TO BE INCONFJRMCE Wll!1 THE REVIEOFOR THE CITY OF OIAMONR BAR BY: 909-455-2320 PREPAFEO BY RECOM M ENOATOWS IN OUR REPORT FATED DECEMBER 4, 200], MALLARD FOREMAN INC GILBERT ENGINEERING COMPANY, INC. REeTEx WAS UNITED TO TIE GEOTECHNICAL ASPECTS OF THE 177U 1]N.STREET, SNITE 200 22909 RIDGE LINE ROAD 2DC6 EAST ROME 66, SLID 2D0 PLAN ONLY - ME MAKE NO REPRESEIJTATIGN AS TO LEE TUS I IN, CA S3780 H/� TY I� q AO D BAR R SAARI ..ufoRNIA 911FD ACCURACY OF DIMENSIONS, MESSUREMENI5, GALCW- IONS, OR (]11) 5551511. IN THE CITY O( DIAIVIVNL• Ultll —I '622) 852-1600 YY PORTON BE DESIGN. FAR (626) 0x2-1601 / .—I _ PlRO 1Ml.'mdF— I---- SECTIONS —Eo EOMERT-ROE e%5ei OATe N JON E aoUROEOIS, ROE ao3a2 DATE °N" an ✓R cHK'0 �e c salt'.- Q of 4 N, " CL RIDGE LINE wuy FF 1190.8 1190 ,leo FF „q5 - PL - _ 1 65--- 165 - i/N/\i�j��i/�jt'/T/ - - --- /�i / /\ / / 1175 a n u.a 1i/ /\\%\\///�j/\/%\%\/ 1175 _. 1170 1165 1 / %S✓f _ -- _ ..1165 - 1160 ___ 1160_._ 1155_w"'i ___ .. .... 1155__ _ --- _'_.S E S TI 1150 1150 __. 1150 1145 ,_--- 1145 _ - 1145 –__ -- _ — ._ _ -__ __. _– --._ __.. __ –__ – _ - SCALE 1 INCH = 10 FT 1140 1140 1135 1135 NOTE: SINCE THE PAD WAS RAISED 2 FT (APPROX) AND. LEGEND THE BUILDING WILL BE LOWERED BY PROPOSED _________ PREV APPROVAL 2 FT THE TOP OF ROOF IS THE SAME AS ORIGINAL APPROVAL 1155 1150 1140 1135 1150 1145 1140_-_ 1135 CL 1185 1180 1175 1170 1165 � z 1160. - w g w 1155 ¢ 1150. .. 1145 a 1140 - 1135 z a II IK WF xrFF 1190 9 CL RIDGE LINE of WW.O n . 90 ns6 FF nez PL 1190 __— 1851185 ---. _1180 00 1 80 FF 11913 VAr`//A)/j/%j�`iT` 1180 - --- 1175 annex �� /��` \`\\%\/\o /`� /,l �'`_-' ...-- --- -- - �\ ����L---- 1170 . \/ / -- ----- 1175 �¢' 1170 1 70 1165 1 /�`"� _ 1165 — W s� 1-1-60 _. -._... 1160.__.-_._-_ w p o 11_5 WLL VPos _ .]155_-._ �Zgrn „5D SECTION - 1150A --A-- 1150 o� 1145 -._ 1145 1145 H' sCALE1INCH =IG FT 1135 1135 - - NOTE: SINCE THE PAD WAS RAISED 2 FT (APPROX) AND, LEGEND PROPOSED THE BUILDING WILL BE LOWERED BYs ----- PREV APPROVAL 2 FT THE TOP OF ROOF 1S THE SAME AS ORIGINAL APPROVAL lit 3 DIN3q '1S'gk. b CL 1190 1190 1� FF 1189 - - ._ __. nso.a _- 11 _ 1,90 85_ _ _- __ „85 - F� IIII"IIrrIIII IIII—���� - ,Illi—PL - — — -- — 1,8,5 1180 1175 1170 1165 _ 1180 _._ .— -__ 1180 -- - III 1160 e1. 111IID IIII IIIA. 1180 - 1155 _ 1175.. 1175 wnu _.. d _ (IIII IIII- IIII ll�--iii{`�rll ��=IIII....__ 2 - 1.1.75 1170_- _ _ 9 n E� 5F➢ 1170 IIII —IIII Illi 1170__ _ 1165...-- IIII 1165 1160._ __ - s nervosm WALL 1160- III 1160_ - __ 1155 -'I�S�. _._.--. __-_ 1155._. __.__.. 1150 1150 - _ 1150 1145 1145 1140 .1135 - 1135 - 1135 SECTION B SCALE B , INCH - ,o ET 1180 1175 1170 1165 o W o 1160 1155 d 1150 2 o 1145 'a z a 1140 - - � o 1135 a o mN �N" nsa SCALE 1 INCH = 10 FT nso crnic 1 INCH = 10 FT - LEGEND SITE SECTION E E SCALE 1 INCH = 10 FT - M�-_'aa--. PROPOSED PREV APPROVAL PREVIOUS APPR OVAL PROPOSED BUILDING x R o� !�� ----------------- ---------- 100 _ NOTE: SINCE THE PAD WAS a RAISED 2 FT (APPROX) AND o � THE BUILDING WILL BE LOWERED BY vl U 2 FT THE TOP OF ROOF IS z It's THE SAME AS ORIGINAL o �o �J APPROVAL w �o NOTE: SINCE THE PAD WAS 9mg� RAISED 2 FT (APPROX) AND LEGEND THE BUILDING WILL BE LOWERED BY PROPOSED 2 FT THE TOP OF ROOF IS ' W M --------- PREV APPROVAL U THE SAME AS ORIGINAL K � APPROVAL F Q 1220 1215 O U p --ALL-EXPOSED-RETAI NI NG._WALLS-_SHALL_.BE--- __-- _1-210 ... _.__._.....____-_.____- _ _ __ _ _ _ _ ___ _ ___ _________ < W IWA SLUMP 13LOCK TAN COLOR AS WELL T J — SCREENED--BY-LANDSCAPING-SEE-LS-PLAN---- 11205 N W Z K C9 1200 2ND F OOR 'i ff 1201.8 11 j it ~ Z m � < o 1195. z N 1ST Fl.00R I J � N 9ffT SS3 11901190 1190 FF 1190.8 i' N 1190 1190 1185 _____.___BASEMENT__ _ '.1180._..___ L _... ___.._____.1175 175 � 11751170 1170 170, 1170 11651165 wcu --1165 __11651160___. _ _,___1100- 1160 �1160 1155_--____ _ 1155_. _ --- _-'' .__ __.__._. __ 1155_ _ J 155. - 1150 1150 1150 1150 1145 11 - 1145 1140 1140 - 1.140_ __. __—... 1135 1135 - 1135 _SECTION F F SCALE 1 INCH = 10 FT o� z� w Q-¢ Q- °' O o N o M LLJ ¢ N iou7 W Lo ¢rn CD Q z � J ¢ d J LSI zN 8p ' 9mg� z o W M U W Q K � F Q p O O U p N O J J < W IWA Q Z d J J Q N W Z K C9 W O � ~ Z m � < o z N J � N 9ffT SS3 ROOF TILE MISSION TILE BERMUDA BLEND, US TILE /SHUTTERS PAINT PAINT DUNN EDWARDS / QUIET SPLENDOR 5323 PLAEi ONER 2X6 WOO 4� / PLASTER OVER EOAV� / PLASTER OVER 2X6 WOO TRIM mmIFF 1201.8 FF 1190.8 5 IT IE WAY WINDOW FRAMES ENTRY DOOR, GARAGE DOORS, FRENCH DOORS DUNN EDWARDS DES211 OFFWHITE EXTERIOR WALL STUCCO _ LA HA13RA X-82 HACIENDA SMOOTH STUCCO EXTERIOR STUCCO ACCENT, PRECAST STONE SAVE, PRECAST STONE TRIM, WINDOW SILLS ETC CORONADO STONE OFFWHITE HEIGHT OF ROOF FROIl RIDGE LINE IS THE SAI'lE AS ORIGINALLY APPROVEC BY PLANNING COMMISSION ____Bloc_Nv_ELoae_____________________________�_ _________ 1216.91 m -------------------- FF 1190.8 REVISED FRONT ELEVATION SCALE 3/W' = I FT -0 IN. WROUGHT IRON RAILING, CHIMNEY CAPS FRONT ENTRY DOORS. CHARCOAL COLOR GRADE AT FACE OF BUILDING INSIDEYARD STREET ELEVATION ALL EXPOSED RETAINING WALLS SHALL BE COLOR COATED TO MATCH HOUSE STUCCO COLOR AND BE SCREENED BY LANDSCAPING SEE LS PLAN PLANTING NOTES 1. Contractor Is to review plans, verfy site mnditians old a plant quntities pin rlor to stallatbn. Contractor shall take sole resp onslbllity for Any cast Incurred due to do amage existing utluties. Plant materialguanticee are listed for the o of the Contractor Actual number of symbols shall have priority over quantity eslgnated. Conflicts between the Dener and these plans or within these clans shall be brought to the attention of the Landscape ArcMtect Prior to landscape Installation. Any deviation(=) from the plans or specifications will require written approval Prem the Owner —door Landscape Architect The Contractor shall assume full responsrobty for all necessary revisions due me falWre to give such notiflcaHcn 2. The Contractor shall malmtaln o quallfled solm rvlsor on the site at all clues during constructlan through completion of plan -up work. 3. The Contractor shall receive site graded within D.10 fact of finish grade. Commencement of work Indicates Contractor's acceptance of existing grades and conditions Final grades shalt be adjusted by Contractor as directed by Owner's representative. All grading shall be completed prior to comnenc eat of planting operation. 4. The Contractor shot( furnish and pay for oil mntalner grown trees, shrubs, v eededrocktad turf, hydromWohes, and flatted grounded—Irs. The Contractor shall also be responsible for and pay for planting, staking, and guarantee of .It plant materials, See planting details for planting and staking/guying requirements, ua s The Landscape. Architect and/or Owner shau approve plant material placement by Contractor prior to bestmlatron 6. Fertilizer for all lawn areas shall be a slow-release, high -nitrogen F—cluzer Incorporated Into the soli curing planting, ]. For areas to be lands coped and Irrigated, the Following amendments shall be unlformly broadcast and thoroughly Incorporated 6' deep by means of a rototiller or equal. Amount o r )DR) s spacefeet 4 cu, Ydse nitrcgenustablOzed organic rompast 50 pounds agrl Itural gypsum 8. The planting areas for trees shalt be dug three times the diameter of the root halt and two inches shallower than the octant, The planting pit, to be dug in the center of the tilled area, shall be a wide a wer nntl two Inches. shollo than, the roatbalL Planting pits for shrubs and perennials shall bedug twice as wide as one -and -a -half times as deep as tha roatJdI 9, the Landscape Contractor shalt malntaln all planted areas shown on the plans, Including (but not limited tot watering,, pruning, edging, and mowing, for a period of thirty (30)days after completion of project and acceptance by Owner. 16, The Landscape Contractor shalt warranty and replace any plant material thet shows signs of lack of vigor o other unhealthful appearance within nlnetyr(90) days of completion of ontract Trees that have been tapped or otherwise improperly pruned by the Contractor shall be removed and replaced by the Contractor at no cost to the Owner. Two al OR MI R, hare r 0 4 O O Queen Palm u lrlr uo� unurr ] loos[ W =rues to ii .. 0 mwv e( wa Ireareeks v. 0 0 0 Two al OR MI R, hare r 24" box 4 be 11 Fl. R in. III Queen Palm u lrlr uo� unurr ] loos[ W =rues to lswe mwv e( wa Ireareeks v. 5 OT mix � TO p 56 make nGROUNDCOVER PLANTING DETAIL ups, rogrounk an. L, Los 11 n °r was dor, , TREE PLANTING DETAIL IN SECTION NOT i0 SGLE SYMBOL BOTANICAL NAME TREE Olea europea 'Swan Hill' Syagrus romnnzofficnum Tnotania conferte SHRUB Buxus micro. joponica - Phormium tenox Atropurpureum' vJ� Ugustrnim japonicurn -Texonum' PERENNIALS Agoplenthus africonme 'Peter Pan' Dieter bicolor � c Hemerocalli_s hybrids GROUNDCOVER LAWN Myaporum porvifol'mm Pelargonium peltatcm _ - Trachelospermum jTeminaides MULCH INSTALLATION After all planting and -I opem(lo ns a omelet¢, .... all expoxed landscape a wiM c 3 Byer of sh,bddbd wrest ceI a mmove by Rerycled dead Thre cte (626-E13-7400) or equal 0 24" box 4 \vwnO Queen Palm u lrlr uo� unurr 8 lswe 24" box 5 OT mix Japanese Boxwood p 56 mO OIL nGROUNDCOVER PLANTING DETAIL `� NCT TO SOLE \A - PLANT LEGEND COMMON NAME SIZE QTY. REMARKS Fruitless Olive Tree 24" box 4 Queen Palm 24" box 8 Brisbane box 24" box 5 Japanese Boxwood 5 gal 56 New Zealand Flax 5 gal 65 � Texas Privet 5 901 176 Rix Dwarf Lily of the Nile 1 gal 112 CA well well ed Fortnight Lily 1 gal 45 C ®� Daylily, i gal 109 mixed colors TallFescue spp. sod sod Marathon 11 or equal Prostrate Myaporum flats flats plant 9 12" a.c. Ivy Geranium flats flats plant 0 12" o.A. Star Jasmine flats flats plant � 17` o.c. SHRUB PLANTING DETAIL NOT To scALE RIDGE LINE ROAD e / I p F Pv: eha SITE) VICINITY MAP N.T.S. NII 7,vl77,7ev =E :3 'o SF c � Rix ca CA well well ed C ®� m y M co e a rai 90 ggtl� �9j� o 3 Ci S cmc q v.lxa kis------------------ kin we P.M.ly sP a� 5V0&O6 N qe 1/16•.=1'-0" a DE114 �g 4e Gg n w- 2 NOTE: SINCE THE PAD WAS RAISED 2 FT (APPROX) AND THE BUILDING WAS LOWERED BY 2 FT THE TOP OF ROOF IS THE SAME AS ORIGINAL APPROVAL --------------------------- - --------------------------------- ----------------------= ---------------------- N-3-5— 35 Fi HT LIMIT ----------------------------------------- ___ _ _________________ ___ I`_0_0_F_ L I_N_E----------------- ----------------------------------------------- 1201.9 1190.8 FF it9 , SITE SECTION E E SCALE 1 INCH = 10 FT Oa U U z� wm 0 c�O �w z zE- E 0 0 xz �z � x H W p E V) � � �S V a -- ?w«. a:y2«i m»K+:,a«A+24§29 ?#r 22f+f f4+x ywf#=+ :I+» Benson Ave.,©«i # Upland, « « 91217 Mai Sam #§+f« 2?¥<c «!=s w « 2 w=¥+« Property Owner: PaulG . »,w ?«+»4 ILE-7-T*4 July 23, 2012 Table of Contents Section No Description 1. Section view with Neighbor's house on East and West to scale Pictorial view with Neighbor's house on East and West to scale 2. Front Elevation Perspective 22909 Ridgeline Road Side Elevation from 22835 Ridgeline side looking East Rear Elevation Ridgeline Road 3. Walls on the West side of 22909 Ridgeline showing sections that have been removed (on 3 pictures submitted by the neighbor on last hearing) Picture of portion of rubble from walls removed 4. Picture of Steep road grade in front of 22835 Ridgeline Road Picture of showing continuation in front of 22909 Ridgeline Road Picture of relatively flat grade in front of 22925 Ridgeline Road Tract No. 30091 sheet 7 of 25 filed August 20, 1969 with County Recorder showing Lot 30 (22909 Ridgeline Road) and adjacent 2 lots 5. Grading Plan showing walls on West side of 22909 Ridgeline Road (cut to approved plan height) Various Sections Existing and Proposed Walls in the Rear- Showing proposed method to conform to 8 ft. maximum wall height. 6. Pictures from across the street from 22909 Ridgeline Road Pad Level Looking North (2 Pictures) View of property across the street (22840 Ridgeline Road) from 22909 Ridgeline Road showing grade differential 7. Recent (June 2012) Topographic Map Showing Existing Conditions SECTION 1 Section view with Neighbor's house on East and West to scale Pictorial view with Neighbor's house on East and West to scale NEIGHBOR'S HOUSE 22835 RIDGE LINE 1210 22835 RIDGE LINE PI 1220 jr UNE OF 1215 1210 1205 ._ LINE OF SIGHT NOTE: SINCE THE PAD WAS RAISED 2 FT (APPROX) AND THE BUILDING WAS LOWERED BY 2 FT THE TOP OF ROOF IS THE SAME AS ORIGINAL APPROVAL 1 1210 I AS APPROVED SITE SECTION E E SCME I INCH a 10 FT PROPOSED SITE SECTION E E 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 FT TOP OF ROOF 1 NEIGHS 22925 TOP OF ROOF 1211.2' 1220 1215 1210 1205 1200 1190 .1 uwT 0o uue 2ND FLOOR FF 1200 F1RCT FI OOR FF 1189 %JREET VIEW SCHEMATICOF 3 HOUSES 1210 TW OF ROW 1291.2 HWSF_.. NEIGHBOR'S HOU 22925 RIOGEUNE 1194.L-AfF �_.. )IN 2 ovation Perspective 22909 Ridgeline Road vation from 22835 Ridgeline side looking East vation Ridgeline Road 0 -qqq� ` sh���'r SECTION 3 Walls on the West side of 22909 Ridgeline showing sections that have been removed (on 3 pictures submitted by the neighbor on last hearing) Picture of portion of rubble from walls removed : § �y \ /�/ � ( � }� / }� \ ) )� \ ° y � / \ § Picture of Steep road grade in front of 22835 Ridgeline Road picture of showing continuation in front of 22909 Ridgeline Road Picture of relatively flat grade in front of 22925 Ridgeline Road Tract No. 30091 sheet 7 of 25 filed August 20, 1969 with CountyRecorder showing Lot 30 (22909 Ridgeline Road) and adjacent 2 lots �, P, ca C Y. J oa f in F- W LU LI) 6 N a U r 10 W F- LLJ Z 6 to —^ Yb 909 J +'DI1 33S 3-'>9,Do,zs 11 1 1 1 1 a\ d o SI tt1 I � Q a m � � I s� ^, Z 9.6 M15 •C C-/61/IaC1i .%_ „_..,¢z�1.1Z b4.51 0� °'�d4 E1 / 01N J g9Clb VZI 9 . BL ¢L 11 U ` Ellul S.f `,y V — y `n ir GO LO co °. It% � 5s m NI o m y./.. `p' LX — LX to✓I Com; VJ/'� =/N N m i ry fes. 4.A�.I : iI a v a 2 Im r J- �P W N —^ Yb 909 J +'DI1 33S 3-'>9,Do,zs 11 1 1 1 1 a\ d o SI tt1 I � Q a m � � I s� ^, Z 9.6 M15 •C C-/61/IaC1i .%_ „_..,¢z�1.1Z b4.51 0� °'�d4 E1 / 01N J g9Clb VZI 9 . BL ¢L 11 U 1, ♦l `,y V — y `n zl fll .. 65 k GO O I °. It% � 5s m NI o m oa 1Ll .10.i1 =/N N m i a �Cla r � y� a v a 2 Im r J- 1 a W N s Iz I 5/ �i le N y Q 1 (9 t d . Ln t69 L1 7 rl r m E5H ' osl 9'ecl: so te.]1 ,l.,ey.gl:v ' 0 :>_5'L15 .3..56. b5 o£CN L''iry5 .B ..LZ S x'041 � —^ Yb 909 J +'DI1 33S 3-'>9,Do,zs 11 1 1 1 1 a\ d o SI tt1 I � Q a m � � I s� ^, Z 9.6 M15 •C C-/61/IaC1i .%_ „_..,¢z�1.1Z b4.51 0� °'�d4 E1 m i�C L. J g9Clb VZI 9 . BL ¢L 11 U 1, ♦l `,y V — y `n zl fll .. 65 k GO >y Cp °. It% � 3°0 m oa 1Ll .10.i1 =/N N m i a S r � y� a v a r J- 1 a W N 5/ �i le N y Q (9 t d . Ln t69 L1 7 rl —^ Yb 909 J +'DI1 33S 3-'>9,Do,zs 11 1 1 1 1 a\ d o SI tt1 I � Q a m � � I s� ^, Z 9.6 M15 •C C-/61/IaC1i .%_ „_..,¢z�1.1Z b4.51 0� °'�d4 E1 m i�C L. 1•�. Cf 9fi"E/.,y `I^ Dz 99F=Y r\\ J' g9Clb VZI 9 . BL ¢L 11 ✓ oo5'H P9 ~ Iz DD.s tV klAl `,y - •o yyBO. B� •94 ffl/. /1.51 P i,cE �� 3 zl fll .. 65 k GO >y Cp °. It% � 3°0 .zE5,8 a Lfl oa 1Ll .10.i1 =/N N m i a S r � y� I al P1 W W N 5/ �i le e1 d . Ln t69 I Im r m v a ° 1 t� 11 N 0 is n n N V } OO %£s ,00•9Z 2, -'- h � d� w .x r u >y Cp N' 4 G #N � oz V W W N .SL d . Ln t69 SECTION 5 Grading Plan showing walls on West side of 22909 Ridgeline Road (cut to approved plan height) Various Sections Existing and Proposed Walls in the Rear- Showing proposed method to conform to 8 ft. maximum wall height. Cd _in -c IWa�� Y 17 I I 3 f., IN JJ ]f I�I��' R{VER RGCK RIRRAP PAV "`i,� 4"TiHCK GVNITE YVI 6x611010 o M. /J WALL GUTTER DETAIL /w / P, ,�/ I j �/� ( SBD I I NGT To Se ;It 1 M167 M1V�� 1 = FIII� � I I J'ep/cw TM1CWrAW� xynmp I S M ti6T 9ttFW fW 2 Z F I I I I yytp541,F11EG r pyS{pyYDDRiDNAl5iEF9 0] I I 4roREnwEPWsrF+Gwru.L UI � 3 I I HFio+rsTOeunwmuM a,J+- r I I III W�8" (11a66G)Tw ,ks .tl i+a 61 (,nsa�d lsa EG y46 � s FG A / U PE -1169,0 j 3TF,onswawxeGlira .11`2,51 BUMAIMIIN RMERRccK WP+WPF0.D / / � RH-<s ,, + \iW495M1N III Ip�¢As41Yr (9T 7 IL�C�ff)) L\r��\'\ III � a�„ In°r122.w K+Y EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN AS "AS -BUILT" IN AUGUST, 2011 AND WILL BE MODIFIED AS LISTED BELOW: CONSTRUCT V -DITCH AND RIP -RAP PADS ALONG 1 BOUNDARY LINES PER APPROVED GRADING PLAN. WALLS ALONG NORTH SIDE OF EXISTING STEPS 2 WILL BE CUT TO A HEIGHT OF 18" ABOVE THE STEPS. A• 2:1 SLOPE WILL BE CONSTRUCTED AS SHOWN TO 3 REDUCE THE WALL HEIGHT TO W. ADD ADDITIONAL STEPS AS SHOWN TO REDUCE WALL 4 HEIGHTS TO T MAXIMUM. �_- R ry ITaPT GR�9i ioa•rwH, e'wmE P.ETAevmc—dI IamnsxucTEo snncswPE SECTION W -W NOSCPIE. ��A9 1 tt9 M'0 C5 6 T j --lits,}�� )I mM gHGGaGpy gNGGu I � CW6'IRVCT 4"TNILKCDNCRETEWRii6x6 i6GA'NIRE ILL ® � t N� SYi g�LOy<SS-n2320 Jy/�C 59,j RI � �Z/�9r0 ��`uF �IYrN�q�nlp 1 �- c rosy W�tb' �� ° X=� Id' ...CONSTRUCTION NOTFFOO ESOGT Tt (t'Mol G#SliNG 5L5 MMENDA�TIONS 7. 21-FRIATTE0 Lv BAR m9 ueLOT 3O OFT CT -m9 ue ,mea_- LOT 30 OFF CT -m9"' PER SDR9 GIIi F AIE=H j --lits,}�� )I mM gHGGaGpy gNGGu COMPLIANCE CW6'IRVCT 4"TNILKCDNCRETEWRii6x6 i6GA'NIRE zwt5 PLE45AM e�Fsnow GRVE pIAMGND fl2R. CA 91]65 INiS F1, HAS REGI RIGMIG ll BY cLOON-GED-E:iGItiEFRINC. TO 6£ INOGNFORNWW WIH i1tE REmm,EDFoPiHE cfTY OF DIPM11 GAR BY: g�LOy<SS-n2320 Jy/�C 59,j RI � �Z/�9r0 ��`uF �IYrN�q�nlp INL. AIG DEEMED RECGMMfliDATONS IN OUR RFFORT GATU DGCEkRER 4, 2 ,,. W0.5 11•dHED l0 THE GEOtECHNICFI A9PECT5 OF THE 'g ".FORERWN.ING iJla2 t]MgTREGT,FUlfE_O NST_. LA 92190, � M3TALL"T 'T GRhTEN4D gA=1N 1114)6016500 I E V/3 1/QJ� GDNCPETE DRIVE MPRDALH'SEE PtIW FDRW ANOX P pb RAD {Y RAD ANY PoWKIN OF OESIBN. CONStRVGT MSrAl4-PVGRM COH1TR1CTINALLGUITERFERCCTAILHER W WSTPLL41" HIGH FENCE ON IOP OF E.•CLSTING4YALL QE%15tING N'ALLRND GUTfF326EHIND,TO REM1tAIN / •L t PPEFPPEO 6T: GILBERT ENGINEERING COMPANY, 202X EASTFQ0 66. FUHE 203 L=FYtO 266}152_ ff. FA%(82s) &52 -ISN PdOTE. EROSION CONTROL PER GRADING PLAN APPROVED AUGUST 13, Aman - GmI — LEGEND WH = WALL HEIGHT TW =TOP OF 6VALL EG = EXISTING GRADE FG = FINISHED GRADE BAR m9 ueLOT 3O OFT CT -m9 ue ,mea_- LOT 30 OFF CT -m9"' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS STATEMENT OF CITY OF DI,4MOND )I mM gHGGaGpy gNGGu COMPLIANCE A zwt5 PLE45AM e�Fsnow GRVE pIAMGND fl2R. CA 91]65 INiS F1, HAS REGI RIGMIG ll BY cLOON-GED-E:iGItiEFRINC. TO 6£ INOGNFORNWW WIH i1tE REmm,EDFoPiHE cfTY OF DIPM11 GAR BY: g�LOy<SS-n2320 Jy/�C 59,j RI � �Z/�9r0 ��`uF �IYrN�q�nlp INL. AIG DEEMED RECGMMfliDATONS IN OUR RFFORT GATU DGCEkRER 4, 2 ,,. W0.5 11•dHED l0 THE GEOtECHNICFI A9PECT5 OF THE 'g ".FORERWN.ING iJla2 t]MgTREGT,FUlfE_O NST_. LA 92190, /a@TV fly, DtAdVIQI /pr T[ HEW V N REVIEW 'Im ONLY - WE %M1iE ND REPIiE5D4@t10N AS TO THE HFA9DREMENTs, CALLVUIWNO� M, 1114)6016500 I E V/3 ACCUPTCT OF OMJV90N5. P pb RAD {Y RAD ANY PoWKIN OF OESIBN. G^ Y I G.F, s 1188.80 � I U 1 {hI/ � � W 16• 0 x t �nrnEq Lu cl R2TNWNa WNt-T08E \� 1 ^ �`�QC.O NNiTRN +B � a^`' � ^ ^^1g• E PPEFPPEO 6T: GILBERT ENGINEERING COMPANY, 202X EASTFQ0 66. FUHE 203 L=FYtO 266}152_ ff. FA%(82s) &52 -ISN PdOTE. EROSION CONTROL PER GRADING PLAN APPROVED AUGUST 13, Aman - GmI — LEGEND WH = WALL HEIGHT TW =TOP OF 6VALL EG = EXISTING GRADE FG = FINISHED GRADE DATE: 2 oro BAR m9 ueLOT 3O OFT CT -m9 ue ,mea_- LOT 30 OFF CT -m9"' GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS STATEMENT OF CITY OF DI,4MOND )I mM gHGGaGpy gNGGu COMPLIANCE ys." zwt5 PLE45AM e�Fsnow GRVE pIAMGND fl2R. CA 91]65 INiS F1, HAS REGI RIGMIG ll BY cLOON-GED-E:iGItiEFRINC. TO 6£ INOGNFORNWW WIH i1tE REmm,EDFoPiHE cfTY OF DIPM11 GAR BY: g�LOy<SS-n2320 Jy/�C 59,j RI � �Z/�9r0 ��`uF �IYrN�q�nlp INL. AIG DEEMED RECGMMfliDATONS IN OUR RFFORT GATU DGCEkRER 4, 2 ,,. W0.5 11•dHED l0 THE GEOtECHNICFI A9PECT5 OF THE 'g ".FORERWN.ING iJla2 t]MgTREGT,FUlfE_O NST_. LA 92190, /a@TV fly, DtAdVIQI /pr T[ HEW V N REVIEW 'Im ONLY - WE %M1iE ND REPIiE5D4@t10N AS TO THE HFA9DREMENTs, CALLVUIWNO� M, 1114)6016500 I E V/3 ACCUPTCT OF OMJV90N5. P pb RAD {Y RAD ANY PoWKIN OF OESIBN. G^ Y DATE: 2 oro Pt99— — .__ — —_ — — — — — _— � — ;2 I1 vss91 — I — .—. Ines) en9oea n1M Rtes)— �- '�' �- - AB> Z �p FItl9HEDSUPVf Fiisnnrwm.L Uf AREM04£ - — 11:e0) — PEp;TON-CFW%S ti I.t E%ISiING WALL F�aEDSURF.GGE — .tl611W111EW mluNi iORIN.ALi N'ie] nEvPIDE N.rviEA nl m I I� 11iw�1 iSHIE'F_6'MP%.EKPG �iifi G - I1no1— �`a Ensnnc v+uLm REueiN.O'Ma'e EtvOSED P:1 MPX. SI-GPE _ tiles) — h6iG I� V -DITCH _ GRFOE210.0JEiG G ff'3RT — 16635 AGIIEVE@M1iA%EWYS'cO ' _ ,,,O,- ,1,i9)- -/---------------- 111,`0 ---------------SECTION A -A 66A:EH BV-1'=IV 25 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT 65 _ — E]ASIING VA Tu (Y 196)— 1 es FT 114601 >�-`•.F.=TT6E.w I -+L EMsiMs rVPLL $P _ — — — — — I�`ro--ON -- ExLInno wnu 'i — (1Yb6) —�"✓� EN6nNG FAVI TOREAINN F£.=tn,9Y 3t Y10o)— _ — —} _ _ _ G� T1w/ epti'-E%1_TMG SLOPE __ — — — — — -- — — _ Bl— / _ _ ^ CON6'f, VAPGM�- �- -� --SECTION C -C RETAINMG WILLL TO flE GONSTRWCTED sCPLEH&Sr.T=fa GELBERT ENGINEERING COMPANY, f� YOa6 G.gs1 RWTE 96. AN, 2c3 gII10 Ia.)5."ol ]� Fqy {6E6} A92 -16U1 a11m - enm;owaam�.m^ CEIRMCHNICAL ENGINEER'S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OBED NCI AM1'DNOEENEBEENR To SENMCONFORNFNCE WR OhENGWEfP,INGr RECDV.NENC4n0N5 IN WR REPORT I= IA:mBER 3' 2D67. FL ONLY a MAKE ND BUMEFNNTATON CPEWS AS TO THETME AGCIIpl.CY OF DIMENSIONS, NFASUR^w'EM1't5. CALCLIATIDNS. OR .\NY PORION OF DEEM —Ot951 —(1198) — tltss) —{n0E1 — (1nE1 —(trio) DIAMOND BAP, LDT 3D DF -7`6` 1 -` sm:a sAu SHMAL '3 1, PEASANTIAFAGOW. MOE DOVOND BARS CA 61]55 a11 AMGNP RI 6Y: 909-0. -2320 PATE: iN THE CI Ty OF DIAMI SECTIONS 3 OF — I — .—. Ines) en9oea n1M aovoseo owVEOy —U15o1— —Eaw' Ste' Fiisnnrwm.L PPW059G(UOE— F�aEDSURF.GGE —i11 G1 T'O 1161 W�I��psiviG J=J, 11iw�1 -�Iltenl -- -- wut Ims) _ _ _ -{49:0) EXi941NG1WJ.LTG REIAVN, BA_t'AP%EYPWFL _ — 16635 V1NINEIC+N2 a6TC —11166)— I _ _ _ - 1t 1601 —{flen) EonWGwou .r � __ Ittssl �..NtI.NRTCRPCE �- — —H1e0E— -T— — - - - - - - - SECTION El -B - 6�P R, -,•=,p 25 FOOT HEIGHT LIMIT 65 _ — E]ASIING VA Tu (Y 196)— 1 es FT 114601 >�-`•.F.=TT6E.w I -+L EMsiMs rVPLL $P _ — — — — — I�`ro--ON -- ExLInno wnu 'i — (1Yb6) —�"✓� EN6nNG FAVI TOREAINN F£.=tn,9Y 3t Y10o)— _ — —} _ _ _ G� T1w/ epti'-E%1_TMG SLOPE __ — — — — — -- — — _ Bl— / _ _ ^ CON6'f, VAPGM�- �- -� --SECTION C -C RETAINMG WILLL TO flE GONSTRWCTED sCPLEH&Sr.T=fa GELBERT ENGINEERING COMPANY, f� YOa6 G.gs1 RWTE 96. AN, 2c3 gII10 Ia.)5."ol ]� Fqy {6E6} A92 -16U1 a11m - enm;owaam�.m^ CEIRMCHNICAL ENGINEER'S STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE OBED NCI AM1'DNOEENEBEENR To SENMCONFORNFNCE WR OhENGWEfP,INGr RECDV.NENC4n0N5 IN WR REPORT I= IA:mBER 3' 2D67. FL ONLY a MAKE ND BUMEFNNTATON CPEWS AS TO THETME AGCIIpl.CY OF DIMENSIONS, NFASUR^w'EM1't5. CALCLIATIDNS. OR .\NY PORION OF DEEM —Ot951 —(1198) — tltss) —{n0E1 — (1nE1 —(trio) DIAMOND BAP, LDT 3D DF -7`6` 1 -` sm:a sAu SHMAL '3 1, PEASANTIAFAGOW. MOE DOVOND BARS CA 61]55 a11 AMGNP RI 6Y: 909-0. -2320 PATE: iN THE CI Ty OF DIAMI SECTIONS 3 OF GILBERT ENGINEERING COMPANY, z02e Easr RWE m, sul>< zm q&N (929i �FORI 09640 w 0.) 952-tfi01 .mak — 111 «11 ..I — GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEER'S STATFAAENT OF COMPLIANCE rWs pUN 4AS SEEN RWED BY GLOB GER-ENCWEERIWO. INC. MO DOOMED TO 6E INCONNRMANCE YIRN l E RECOMNENDATONS INOUR REPORT O,T OFi .RER 4, 2007. REWEW WN' LINKED TO 1HE GQGi -MOO, ASPECS OF r E PLW ONLY - WE N E NO REPR6EMA9'N AS TO PIE ACCURACY OF OM,,SI0M5, MFPSURFMEKTS, CALO.ONS, OR ANY PoRMOH OF DESIGN. DIAMOND BAP I LOT Jo OF T x0091 V.F 25415 PLUS MT MFADOM DRIVE S OF DIMIC:JD BkR FY; Db^40_W%& CA 91165 22909 RIDGE UNE ROJAD IN Tf;E CITYOFDIAMOND @AR SECT'ICNS 4 OF4 Pictures from across the street from 22909 Ridgeline Road Pad Level Looking North (2 Pictures) View of property across the street (22540 Ridgeline Road) from 22909 Ridgeline Road showing grade differential v"rc �+ s gib:. � a,,,„_ ��.. x`y ,'tee .. f. k . �o-,..-,. .�, w SECTION 7 Recent (June 2012) Topographic Map Showing Existing Conditions 0 20 40 60 FEET P-20' N A LOT 30 TRACT NO. 30091 i _ - - - - - ' FOUND SPIKE & WASHER, 2" BELOW PAVEMENT,NO REFERENCE.USED FOR CENTERLINE RIDGE LINE ROAD. SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A CLIENT PAUL GHOTRA TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MADE BY. ME AT 8713-005-006 THE REQUEST OF PAUL GHOTRA IN FOUND SPIKE & WASHER; 2" BELOW LS 6599MANUEL M.CORTEZ CORTEZ LAND SURVEYING & MAPPING PAVEMENT. NO REFERENCE. USEOFO)R & SUBDIVISION SURVEYS CENTERLINE RIDGE LINE ROAD. TEL' 909 210 8549 / / j 5 / / /� / - / / TOP Q WALL TOE WALL WALL HEIGHT 6 �-- y,��s' / 1 1188.74' 2 1185.33' 1106.1' 1182.2' 2.6' 3.1' 3.5' / 3 1183.13' 1179.6' 3.5' 4 1180.89' 1177.4' �iys 5 1180.51' 1176.0' 4.5' / @ g'S / 6 1100.73' 1176.4' 4.3' / 8 1176.50' 1172.3' 4.P' / / 9 1175.44' 1167.9' 7.5' 10 1175.62' 1167.8' 7.8' Y / 11 1180.76' 1169.6' 11.1' / N 12 1168.76' 1159.2' 9.5' , / 13 1163.04' 1159.0' 4.0' 14 1162.59' 1162.4' 0.2' / / 15 1159.75' 1154.0' 5.0' /16 1159.81' 1153.9' 5.9' / 17 1159.61' 1153.4' 6.2' / 10 1159.35' 1153.3' 6.0' / 19 1158.97' 1153.0' 6.0' 20 1159-17' -1157.7' 1.5' / / 21 1163.87' 1159.1' 4.8' /22 FOUND SPIKE & EBELOW 1163.96' 1163.1' 0.9 ' PAVEMENT. NO REEFERFERENCCE.E.USED FOR 23 1173.66' 1166.5' 7.2' CENTERLINE RIDGE LINE ROAD. 24 1173.75' 1171.8' 2.0' 25 1175.31' 1774.9' 0.4' - 26 1180.47' 1175.2' 5.3' 27 1180.59' 1176.0' 4.6' 28 1188.76' 1187.0' 1..0' SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT: THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A CLIENT PAUL GHOTRA TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MADE BY. ME AT 8713-005-006 THE REQUEST OF PAUL GHOTRA IN JUNE 2012. nn-�At!v%�Nn� LS 6599MANUEL M.CORTEZ REGISTRATION EXPIRES: DECEMBER 31, 2013 -I(FENCE CONCRETE WALL ® EXISTING BUILDING CONCRETE �»- EXISTING PAVEMENT BASIS OF BEARINGS: THE BASIS OF BEARINGS OF THIS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IS THE CENTERLINE OF RIDGE LINE ROAD SHOWN AS N53"54'45"E ON TRACT NO. 30091, MAP BOOK 789, PAGES 51 THIRD 75, LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDS. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: LOT 30 IN TRACT NO. 30091, RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 789, PAGES 51 THIRD 75, LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDS: BENCHMARK USED: SPIKE AND WASHER AT BC OF RIDGE LINE ROAD, SHOWN ON THIS MAP AS! "®" ELEVATION - 1189.77'PER PLANS SHEET 2 OF 6. oR1m 9r -w ECn Eo 9Y omlH4 No. M.C. M. C. 12-006 JOB INNCINSHEET 12-006 06/20/12 1 OF 1 TOPOGRAPHIC MAP CLIENT PAUL GHOTRA ASSESNLA PARCEL NNBER 8713-005-006 PCOR.1 ACCRE55 22909 RIDGE LINE ROAD DIAMOND BAR„ CA 91765 CORTEZ LAND SURVEYING & MAPPING BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHIC, & SUBDIVISION SURVEYS 27075 PILGRIM ROAD REDLANDS. CA. 92373 TEL' 909 210 8549 oR1m 9r -w ECn Eo 9Y omlH4 No. M.C. M. C. 12-006 JOB INNCINSHEET 12-006 06/20/12 1 OF 1 EL -1189.4 EAVE \I I I 1 sl*l i OHY RFS -� LL=1211.3 Il1Y EL -1217.2 TOP HOUSEEL=1188.3 FG- / - - EL=1181.1 FG tt OP'HOUSE - ELa7194.1 FG / ^+ � 110.5- 0 / 170-= JS 5*1�1 cl WU / ,AGE EAVE 1.4 EAVE ME 1.4 FG FRONTAGE 167.82 a ;t1 0 / OLOP,E= s i s i FOUND SPIKE & WASHER, 2' BELOW PAVEMENT, NO REFERENCE. USED FOR CENTERLINE RIDGE ENE ROAD. SURVEYOR'S STATEMENT / / / FOUND SPIKE & WASHER, 2' BELOW PAVEMENT, NO REFERENCE. USED FOR CENTERUNE RIDGE UNE ROAD. THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY MADE BY ME AT THE REQUEST OF PAUL GHOTRA IN JUNE 2012. MANUEL M. LS 99 R 31, REGISTRATION EXPIRES: DECEMBER 31, N EXPIRES' 20139 LEGEND FENCE CONCRETE WALL ® EXISTING BUILDING. 6 CONCRETE �L EXISPNG PAVEMENT FOUND SPIKE & WASHER, 2' BELOW PAVEMENT, NOREFERENCE DFOR RIDGE GE UNE ROAD.. TOP TOE WALL O WALL WALL HEIGHT 1 1188.74' 1186.1' 2.6' 2 1185.33' 11822' 3.1' 3 1183.13' 1179.6' 3.5' 4 1180.89' 1177.4' 3.5' 5 1180.51' 1176.0' 4.5' 6 1180.73' 1176.4' 4.3 7 1178.83' 1175.8' 3.0' 8 1176.50' 7772.3' 4.2' 9 1175.44' 1167.9' 7.5' 10 1175.62' 1167.8' 7.8' 11 1180.76' 1169.6' 11.1' 12 1168.76' 1159.2' 9.5' 13 1163.04' 1759.0' 4.0' 14 1162.59' 11624' 0.2' 15 1159.75' 1154.0' SO' 16 1159.81' 1153.9' 5.9' 17 1159.61' 1153.4' 6.2' 18 1159.35' 1153.3' 6.0' 19 1158.97' 1753.0' 6.0' 20 1159.17' 1157.7' 1.5' 21 1163.87' 1159.1' 4.8' 22 1163.96' 1163.1' 0.9' 23 1173.66' 1166.5' TV 24 1173.75' 1171.8' 2.0' 25 1175.31' 1174.9' 0.4' 26 1180.47' 1175.2' 5-3' 27 1180.59' 1176.0' 4.6' 28 1188.76' 1187.8' 1.0' BASIS OF BEARINGS THE BASIS OF BEARINGS OF THIS TOPOGRAPHIC MAP IS THE CENTERUNE OF RIDGE UNE ROAD SHOWN AS N53" 54'45'E ON TRACT NO. 30091, MAP BOOK 789, PAGES 51 THRU 75, LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDS. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: LOT 30 IN TRACT NO. 30091, RECORDED IN MAP BOOK 789, PAGES 51 THRU 75, - LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDS BENCHMARK USED: SPIKE AND WASHER AT BC OF RII UNE ROAD, SHOWN ON THIS MAP A5: ELEVATION - 1189.77' PER PLANS SHEET 2 OF 6. 08/01/2012 NOTES 1. THE ORIGINAL TOPOGRAPHIC MAP HAS BEEN OVERLAIN BY A LAYER TO SHOW THE HOUSES ON THE EAST AND WEST OF 22909 RIDGE UNE ROAD AND PERTINENT FINISH GRADE AND TOP OF HOUSE ELEVATIONS. 2. THE FRONTAGE AND CENTER UNE TO ROAD DISTANCES SHOWN BASED ON TRACT NO. 30091. MAP BOOK 789, PAGES 51 THRU 75 LOS ANGELES COUNTY RECORDS. 3. ROAD SLOPE (GRADIENT) SHOWN ARE CALCULATED BASED AN ELEVATIONS AND DISTANCES ON THE CENTER UNE OF ROAD. TOPOGRAPHIC MAP a.Nl PAUL GHOTRA - A PMOL 8773-3- 005-006 nesvin .wc�ca I 22909 RIDGE LINE ROAD DIAMOND BAR„ CA 91765 CORTEZ LAND SUREYIY NG & MAPPING BOUNDARY, TOPOGRAPHIC, & SUBDIVISION SURVEYS 27075 PILGRIM ROAD REBIANDS CA. 92773 TEL: 908.210.9548 ww1 n o4a®n wlwm w. M.C. M.C. 12-006 12-006 !06/20/12 I 1 OF 7 CITY COUNCIL Agenda # 7.2 Meeting Date: August 7, 2012 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members (of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Man gr, n' TITLE: RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -XX: FIND G THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE '2010 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089 FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY AS PREPARED BY THE METROPOLITAN TRANPORTATION AUTHORITY RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: The Congestion Management Program (CMP) conformance is required for the City of Diamond Bar to receive State Gas Tax funds and to preserve our eligibility for other State and Federal transportation funding. Acting as Los Angeles County's Congestion Management Agency, the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LACMTA or "Metro") requires the City of Diamond Bar to prepare an annual CMP compliance report. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The adoption of Proposition 111 (Traffic Congestion Relief and Spending Limitation Act) in 1990 mandates all counties to have a congestion relief program where funding would reflect the needs of California's developing population. The revenue would be used to provide new infrastructure, such as new highways, public transit, new roads, etc. Since 1990, Metro has managed the Congestion Management Program and requires annual updates from Los Angeles County and the local jurisdictions. The CMP requires local jurisdictions to: • Assist in monitoring the CMP highway and transit system; Implement a transportation demand management ordinance; 1 • Implement a program to analyze the impacts of local land use decisions on the regional transportation system; and • Participate in the Countywide Deficiency Plan. Metro continues to explore the feasibility of implementing a countywide congestion mitigation fee to address the regional transportation impacts of new development. The fees would be used to fund regionally significant projects. The Congestion Mitigation Fee Study consists of four parts: 1. Feasibility Study; 2. Local Project Identification; 3. Nexus Study; and 4. Local Implementation. Metro recently completed the project identification phase and is currently conducting the Nexus Study to see how the projects will relate to the region. While a Congestion Mitigation Fee Study is underway, local jurisdictions report only the new net development activity on the Local Development Report (LDR) and adopt the self -certification resolution. Development activity for Diamond Bar from June 1, 2011 to May 31, 2012 includes the completion of the following new development projects: • Two single family residences in The Country Estates, which includes a demolition and rebuild of one single-family residence. Previously, Metro used a credit and debit system to monitor compliance with the CMP. This system would take debits for new development activities. To offset the debits, there would be credits allotted to cities for their transportation improvements, such as Transit and Diamond -Ride programs, Web page users, on-line services, and the Transportation Capital Improvements. As Metro is working on a new countywide mitigation fee feasibility study, they have frozen all jurisdictions' credits since 2003 and have yet to determine what consideration will be given to cities that have accumulated credits. Diamond Bar monitors a credit balance of 78,651. As in past years, the City of Diamond Bar remains in compliance with the Congestion Management Program for Los Angeles County. Prepared by: Gr S. Le Senior Planner Reviewed by--- D d G�Ciu Director of Public Works 2 Greg Gubman, AICP Community Development Director Attachments: 1. Resolution 2012 -XX 2. City of Diamond Bar 2012 CMP Local Development Report Attachment 1 RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA, FINDING THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (CMP) AND ADOPTING THE CMP LOCAL DEVELOPMENT REPORT, IN ACCORDANCE WITH CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65089 A. RECITALS. WHEREAS, CMP statute requires the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority ("LACMTA"), acting as the Congestion Management Agency for Los Angeles County, to annually determine that the County and cities within the County are conforming to all CMP requirements; and WHEREAS, LACMTA requires submittal of the CMP Local Development Report by September 1 of each year; and WHEREAS, the City Council held a noticed public hearing on August 7, 2012. B. RESOLUTION. NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES HEREBY RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. That the City Council has taken all of the following actions and that the City of Diamond Bar is in conformance with all applicable requirements of 2010 CMP adopted by the LACMTA Board on October 28, 2010. By June 15, of odd -numbered years, the City of Diamond Bar will conduct annual traffic counts and calculated levels of service for selected arterial intersections, consistent with the requirements identified in the CMP Highway and Roadway System chapter. The City of Diamond Bar has locally adopted and continues to implement a transportation demand management ordinance; consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Transportation Demand Management Chapter. The City of Diamond Bar has locally adopted and continues to implement a land use analysis program, consistent with the minimum requirements identified in the CMP Land Use Analysis Program Chapter. The City of Diamond Bar has adopted a Local Development Report (LDR), attached hereto and made a part hereof, consistent with the requirements identified in the 2010 CMP. This report balances traffic congestion impacts due to growth within the City of Diamond Bar with transportation improvements, and demonstrates that the City of Diamond Bar is meeting its responsibilities under the Countywide Deficiency Plan consistent with the LACMTA Board adopted 2003 Short Range Transportation Plan. SECTION 2. That the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution and shall forward a copy of this Resolution and the Local Development Report to the Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority, Stacy Alameida, Transportation Planning Manager, Metro Long Range Planning, Mailstop #99-23-2, One Gateway Plaza, Los Angeles County, CA 90012-2952. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 7 1 DAY OF AUGUST 2012 BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR. in Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 7th day of August, 2012, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar 2 Attachment 2 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Date Prepared: July 31, 2012 2012 CMP Local Development Report Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2011 - MAY 31, 2012 Contact: Esmeralda Magallanes Phone Number: (909) 839-7020 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT PROGRAM FOR LOS ANGELES COUNTY IMPORTANT: All "#value!" cells on this page are automatically calculated. Please do not enter data in these cells. DEVELOPMENT TOTALS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Single Family Residential Multi -Family Residential Group Quarters COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.) Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more) Freestanding Eating & Drinking NON -RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Lodging Industrial Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.) Office (50,000-299,999 sq.ft.) Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more) Medical Government Institutional/Educational University (# of students) OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY ENTER IF APPLICABLE ENTER IF APPLICABLE EXEMPTED DEVELOPMENT TOTALS Exempted Dwelling Units Exempted Non-residential sq. ft. (in 1,OC Dwelling Units 1.00 0.00 0.00 1,000 Net Sq.Ft 2 0.00 0.00 0.00 1,000 Net Sa.Ft.Z 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Daily Trips 0.00 0.00 a Page 1 2. Net square feet is the difference between new development and adjustments entered on pages 2 and 3. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Date Prepared: 2012 CMP Local Development Report Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2011 - MAY 31, 2012 Jury 31, 2012 Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0." DEVELOPMENTPART 1: NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category Dwelling Units Single Family Residential 2.00 Multi -Family Residential 0.00 Group Quarters 0.00 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category 1,000 Gross Square Feet Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.) 0.00 Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more) 0.00 Freestanding Eating & Drinking 0.00 NON -RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category 1,000 Gross Square Feet Lodging 0.00 Industrial 0.00 Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.) 0.00 Office (50,000-299,999 sq.ft.) 0.00 Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more) 0.00 Medical 0.00 Government 0.00 Institutional/Educational 0.00 University (# of students) 0.00 OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Description (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Daily Trips (Enter "0" if none) ENTER IF APPLICABLE 0.00 ENTER IF APPLICABLE 0.00 Page 2 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Date Prepared: 2012 CMP Local Development Report Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2011 - MAY 31, 2012 July31,2012 Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0." PART 2: NEW DEVELOPMENT IMPORTANT: Adjustments may be claimed only for 1) development permits that were both issued and revoked, expired or withdrawn during the reporting period, and 2) demolition of any structure with the reporting period. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ADJUSTMENTS Category Dwelling Units Single Family Residential 1.00 Multi -Family Residential 0.00 Group Quarters 0.00 COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category 1,000 Gross Square Feet Commercial (less than 300,000 sq.ft.) 0.00 Commercial (300,000 sq.ft. or more) 0.00 Freestanding Eating & Drinking 0.00 NON -RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Category 1,000 Gross Square Feet Lodging 0.00 Industrial 0.00 Office (less than 50,000 sq.ft.) 0.00 Office (50,000-299,999 sq.ft.) 0.00 Office (300,000 sq.ft. or more) 0.00 Medical 0.00 Government 0.00 Institutional/Educational 0.00 University (# of students) 0.00 OTHER DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY Description (Attach additional sheets if necessary) Daily Trips (Enter "0" if none) ENTER IF APPLICABLE 0.00 ENTER IF APPLICABLE 0.00 Page 3 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Date Prepared: July 31, 2012 2012 CMP Local Development Report Reporting Period: JUNE 1, 2011 - MAY 31, 2012 Enter data for all cells labeled "Enter." If there are no data for that category, enter "0." DEVELOPMENTPART 3: EXEMPTED (NOT INCLUDED IN NEW DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY TOTALS) Low/Very Low Income Housing Dwelling Units High Density Residential Dwelling Units Near Rail Stations Mixed Use Developments 0 1,000 Gross Square Feet Near Rail Stations 01 Dwelling Units Development Agreements Entered 1,000 Gross Square Feet into Prior to July 10, 1989 0 Dwelling Units Reconstruction of Buildings 1,000 Gross Square Feet Damaged due to "calamity" 1 01 Dwelling Units Reconstruction of Buildings 1,000 Gross Square Feet Damaged in Jan. 1994 Earthquake 01 Dwelling Units Total Dwelling Units 0 Total Non-residential sq. ft. (in 1,000s) 1 0 Page 4 Exempted Development Definitions: 1. LowNery Low Income Housing: As defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development as follows: - Low -Income: equal to or less than 80% of the County median income, with adjustments for family size. - Very Low -Income: equal to or less than 50% of the County median income, with adjustments for family size. 2. High Density Residential Near Rail Stations: Development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger station and that is equal to or greater than 120 percent of the maximum residential density allowed under the local general plan and zoning ordinance. A project providing a minimum of 75 dwelling units per acre is automatically considered high density. 3. Mixed Uses Near Rail Stations: Mixed-use development located within 1/4 mile of a fixed rail passenger station, if more than half of the land area, or floor area, of the mixed use development is used for high density residential housing. 4. Development Agreements: Projects that entered into a development agreement (as specified under Section 65864 of the California Government Code) with a local jurisdiction prior to July 10, 1989. 5. Reconstruction or replacement of any residential or non-residential structure which is damaged or destroyed, to the extent of > or = to 50% of its reasonable value, by fire, flood, earthquake or other similar calamity. 6. Any project of a federal, state or county agency that is exempt from local jurisdiction zoning regulations and where the local jurisdiction Is precluded from exercising any approval/disapproval authority. These locally precluded projects do not have to be reported in the LDR. D OND'BAR VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: r 6v r2 r i� A- '�) r- ✓wA--J DATE: ADDRESS:2Z C: `">SPHONE: Tc 624 ZUt, ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJ T. I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. PicRecordsAct. atureThis document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Pu T i �a VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: Ul L C77 UD 7,12A DATE: ADDRESS: -D F 1 ( l7 12— PHONE: �� ' 6f 8AP- c/9 51 6F ORGANIZATrBJE1-" AGENDA#/S 2a909 9-d L-"; I� I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. ignature This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.