HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/13/1991AGENDA
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR PLANNING
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
BOARD MEETING ROOM
880 SOUTH LEMON STREET
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91789
May 13, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: 7:00 pm
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
ROLL CALL: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, MacBride, Lin, Vice
Chairman Harmony, Chairman
Schey
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS:
This is the time and place for the general public to address
the members of the Planning Commission on any item that is
within their jurisdiction. Generally, items to be discussed
are those which do not appear on this agenda.
1. MINUTES:
A.
Minutes
of
January 10, 1990
B.
Minutes
of
July 9, 1990
C.
Minutes
of
April 22, 1991
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS:
2. Conditional Use Permit No. 90-0125,
A request for a Conditional Use Permit to construct a two
story office building, approximately 6,400 square feet in
size, with 15 subterranean parking stalls. The subject site
is located east of Diamond Bar Boulevard and westerly of
Sunset Crossing Road at Navajo Spring Road. The subject site
is in a Commercial Manufacturing (CM) zone and is surrounded
by commercial/office and residential development. Environ-
mental Determination - Negative Declaration
Applicant: Ed and Shirley Jaworsky
Location: 23475 Sunset Crossing
(Continued from April 22, 1991)
PLANNING COMMISSION AGENDA
Page Two
May 13, 1991
3. Development Agreement No. 91-2
A request for Development Agreement to construct a self-ser-
vice gasoline station, automated car wash, automotive detail
facility, offices and a restaurant. Environmental Determi-
nation - Negative Declaration
Applicant: Gary Clapp
Location: 22000 Golden Springs Drive
OLD BUSINESS: (No Items)
NEW BUSINESS:
4. Review of FY 1991-1992 Capital Improvement Program for com-
pliance with Section 65401 of the California Government
Code.
5. Presentation on upcoming Economic Development Strategy Study
ANNOUNCEMENTS:
6. Staff
7. Planning Commissioners
ADJOURNMENT:- June 10, 1991
DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
JANUARY 10, 1990
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL:
21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE, SUITE 100
DIAMOND BAR, CA 91765
ROBERT VAN NORT CALLED THE FIRST
MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PLANNING COMMISSION AT 7:00 PM
WAS LED BY PLANNING DIRECTOR,
MATTHEW FOURATT
ALL COMMISSIONERS WERE PRESENT:
GROTHE, HARMONY, SCHEY, LIN AND KANE
SWEARING IN OF COMMISSIONERS: MAYOR PAPEN ADMINISTERED THE OATH OF
OFFICE TO THE COMMISSIONERS
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE
AND PUBLIC COMMENTS:
DISCUSSION AND INFORMATION:
THERE WERE NONE
BILL CURLEY, THE DEPUTY CITY
ATTORNEY, PRESENTED THE HIGHLIGHTS
OF THE BROWN ACT. MR CURLEY
CONTINUED WITH THE PROCEDURES OF
CONDUCTING A COMMISSION. MR CURLEY
EXPLAINED "THE CONFLICT OF INTEREST"
FORM. HE STATED THAT THESE FORMS
WERE DUE WITHIN 30 DAYS OR A PENALTY
WOULD BE ASSESSED.
REPORTS: MR. FOURATT DISTRIBUTED THE ZONING
CODE. HE ALSO PROCEEDED TO GIVE AN
OVERVIEW OF THE CITY PERMIT
PROCEDURE.
ACTION: THE COMMISSION DISCUSSED DATES AND
TIMES FOR FUTURE MEETINGS OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION, BUT FAILED TO
I AGREE ON A REGULAR MONTHLY MEETING
DATE. COMMISSION REQUESTED THE
STAFF TO LOOK INTO. ALTERNATIVE
MEETING FACILITIES.
ADJOURNMENT:
NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION
MEETING:
8:10 P.M.
JANUARY 24, 1990, 7:00 P.M., CITY
HALL, 21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE,
DIAMOND BAR
MATTHEW FOURATT
PLANNING DIRECTOR
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
APRIL 22, 1991
CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Schey called the meeting to order at 6:35
p.m. in the Walnut Valley School District Board
Meeting Room, 880 South Lemon Street, Diamond Bar,
California.
PLEDGE OF The audience was led in the Pledge of Allegiance by
ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Harmony.
ROLL CALL: Commissioner Lin, Commissioner MacBride, Vice
Chairman Harmony, and Chairman Schey. Commissioner
Grothe arrived at 6:50 p.m.
Also present were Planning Director Ames
DeStefano, Associate Planner Robert Searcy,
Planning Technician Ann Lungu, City Engineer Sid
Mousavi, and Contract Secretary Liz Myers. City
Planner Emeritus Irwin Kaplan arrived at 8:15 p.m.
MINUTES:
Motion was made
by
C/MacBride,
seconded
by
VC/Harmony
and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
to approve
the
March 11, 1991
Minutes of
March 11,
1991.
April 8, 1991
Motion was
made
by
VC/Harmony,
seconded
by
C/MacBride
and CARRIED
UNANIMOUSLY
to approve
the
Minutes of
April 8,
1991.
PUBLIC HEARING: Associate Planner Robert Searcy stated that the
request to develop, in two phases, the build -out of
CUP 90-0127 an existing mobile home park, is a continued public
Diamond Bar hearing from the April 8, 1991 meeting. He
Estates presented staffs' recommendations of the conditions
of approval for the parking and open space
requirements, as well as the specifications of the
sound wall. He stated that the City Engineer will
make a presentation regarding the hydrology report.
Staff recommended that the Commission consider the
following alternatives: Approve the project,
subject to present and future conditions of
approval; deny the project; or continue the project
until the applicant supplies staff with all
necessary data.
Planning Director James DeStefano specified that
the acreage amount and the dollar amount
recommended by staff for open space area are a
maximum requirement. The specifics will have to be
worked out with the developers. He also noted that
the stated conditions regarding the lighting plan
would be changed to indicate that the plan would be
subject to the review and approval of the City.
22, 1991
Page 2
City Engineer Sid Mousavi stated that the
calculations in the hydrology report, submitted by
the applicant, are lower than what staff
anticipated. He indicated that the applicant did
not identify how the storm drain system will be
taken care of. The system proposed is inadequate
and needs
identify
informed
City of
willing
existing
-matters.
more accurate calculation and analysis to
appropriate mitigation measures. He
the Commission that the officials from the
Industry have indicated that they would be
to work with the developer to up -grade the
culvert in order to mitigate the drainage
The Public Hearing was declared opened.
Richard Simonian, applicant, reviewed the
conditions of approval. To mitigate the open space
area, he indicated that he would incorporate the
other portion of the property, into the CUP, to be
used for the additional recreation area for the
mobile home park. He requested some leeway, based
on grading, for the final location of the sound
wall. In regards to the drainage issue, he
maintained that the property is responsible for
retaining water used by the park only. The deeper
basin will adequately take care of percolation.
VC/Harmony inquired why the applicant did not get a
percolation test, as was requested.
Mr. Simonian responded that they had not thought
one would be needed. If the Commission requires
one, it will be provided.
VC/Harmony indicated a recent discussion with
officials from the City of Industry who very
receptive to working with the developer to mitigate
the drainage problem.
Mr. Simonian maintained that the City of Industry
has not given a "down stream water letter" to
permit the flow of water into their area. He
stated that he would either request a continuance,
if the Commission thought the project possible, or
he would withdraw the application,
Terry Bono, residing at the Diamond Bar Estates,
expressed concern for the safety of the children
residing so close to the railroad tracks.
22, 1991 Page 3
Diane Caldwell, residing at the Diamond Bar
Estates, complained about the weeds behind the
property, and it's potential fire hazard. She also
suggested that the levers on the garbage door be
lowered so children can dump trash without spilling
it.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
Deputy Attorney Bill Curley cautioned the
Commission against trying to remedy all the
potential park deficiencies relating back to the
entirety of the project. He advised that a
conditional negative declaration should be based on
mitigation measures that are known and included
into the plans.
Chair/Schey stated that he is inclined to approve
the project and minimize the requirement for open
space or in -lieu fees that would be applicable to
the additional units. He would approve the second
phase at such time as the storm drain issue is
resolved. He inquired what is lacking in the
hydrology report.
CE/Mousavi explained that the proposed retention
basin will not adequately hold a reasonable storm
fall because the soil condition is clay, causing
slow percolation, and creating nuisance water.
Because of this, there is a need for a sump pump.
The applicant has not furnished information
concerning the design of this pump. He reiterated
that the City of Industry is willing to work with
the developer in putting in a storm drain system,
within the railroad right of way only. The off
size, in the existing drain, could be utilized to
take care of�the drainage problem.
VC/Harmony noted that the sump area appears to have
been a temporary measure, approved by the County,
until a storm drain system was developed. This
concept will eventually have to be mitigated.
However, there is no economic incentive for the
applicant to ever get this done right of way. The
project can be accomplished, but the problem must
be appropriately solved, with consideration to any
concerns of the railroad company.
C/Lin concurred that there needs to be more open
space in the project. She stated that she is also
concerned with percolation because it can be.very
costly in the future to correct. The drainage
problem needs to be addressed and the system
designed properly.
April 22, 1991 Page 4
VC/Harmony stated that he favors continuing the
project as indicated in the third alternative of
staffs' recommendations.
C/MacBride concurred with allowing a continuance
until information concerning the additional
recreational area and the percolation data is
submitted by the applicant.
C/Grothe agreed with allowing the continuance. He
requested staff to draft the appropriate
resolution.
Chair/Schey indicated that The Quimby Act,
regarding the recreation open space, should be
pegged at the 29 additional units rather than
trying to right the wrongs of the past.
Mr. Simonian concurred with continuing the public
hearing, and waiving all time lines. He requested
a 45 day continuance to allow time to address all
the issues.
Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by
VC/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to continue the
matter to the meeting of June 10, 1991, with
direction to staff to obtain information on the
exact performance and specifications of the
retention basin; what the actual dedication of open
space and lieu fees should be; clarifications of
the set back from the sound wall and/or the tracks;
and clarification from the City of Industry as to
what their intent is, and what the possibility
would be for ultimate mitigation for this matter.
The city engineer is encouraged to attempt to
receive a definitive response from them.
I
Chair/Schey called a recess at 7:50 p.m. The
meeting was called to order at 8:00 p.m.
CUP 90-0125 Staff recommended that the matter be removed from
the calendar until such time as all information has
Office Project been received and analyzed.
The Public hearing was declared open.
The Public Hearing was declared closed.
VC/Harmony requested that the public hearing be
renoticed. A 500 foot radius should be utilized
for the notice, given the constraints of the
property's location.
April 22, 1991 Page 5
PD/DeStefano stated that, to avoid appearing
selective in the notification standards, it is
advised that the Commission develop a policy
whereby all projects have a 500 foot radius for
notification, starting with this one.
VC/Harmony suggested leaving the radius to 400
feet, but requested a sign be posted on site.
PD/DeStefano indicated that a dilemma is created by
changing the standards of the notification process
for a project already a public hearing process.
C/MacBride commented that some of the surrounding
neighbors possibly did not receive notices. He
requested that attention be given to this matter.
VC/Harmony requested a special letter be sent to
the manager of the Racquet Club.
C/MacBride stated that he must abstain from voting
on this matter due to a potential conflict of
interest.
Motion was made by C/Grothe, seconded by C/Lin and
CARRIED to continue the public hearing to May 13,
1991, with direction to staff to examine the
mailing system to establish it's adequacy.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Grothe, Lin, Harmony, and
Chair/Schey.
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None.
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: MacBride,
NEW BUSINESS: PD/DeStefano informed the Commission that
information was received from the Los Angeles
LACTC County Transportation Commission (LACTC) regarding
a draft Congestion Corridor Action Plan. He stated
that he and CE/Mousavi will be responding back to
the LACTC. Comments from the Commission are
requested to aid in that response.
CE/Mousavi presented a brief introduction to the
Congestion Management Plan (CMP). To address the
urban congestion threat, the CMP focuses on the
following purposes: To make the most effective use
of all transportation modes in managing congestion
through the CMP process; to require local
jurisdictions to examine the impact of land use
decisions on the regional transportation system and
to be responsible for mitigating these impacts; and
to develop a transportation solution that also
works toward improving air quality. The CMP must
also identify a system of highways and roadways;
transit standards for frequency and routing of
transit services; a trip production and travel
April 22,, 1991 Page 6
demand management elements; program to analyze the
impact of local land use decisions on the regional
transportation system; and a 7 year capital
improvement program.
CE/Mousavi addressed the Commission regarding the
Congestion Corridor Action Plan. He explained that
the reason it is important for the Commission to
comment on this plan is because it directly impacts
land use issues within the cities impacted by the
corridors. He specified that once a street in the
City of Diamond Bar is designated a CMP route, then
it can never be deleted from the system. The
requirement also states that we would have to
manage and monitor the system. The corridor that
impacts Diamond Bar, in the plan, is the San
Bernardino/Pomona Freeway corridor.
CE/Mousavi discussed the immediate strategies to
the Congestion Corridor Action Plan which include:
the community rail system; the extension of the bus
area into the LA county route; and the improvements
to relieve congestion within the intersection of
the 60/57. The long term strategies of the plan
are: the extension of the Foothill Freeway, and
the Corona Expressway; the extension of the HOV
lanes through the 60 and the 57; the connection of
all the HOV lanes within the whole system of the
State routes; and bring the metro rail system from
San Bernardino to the L.A. area.
Chair/Schey inquired which streets have been
indicated as possible alternative routes to the 60
and 57 freeway.
CE/Mousavi stated that Colima coming from Golden
Springs and connecting with Diamond Bar Blvd. and
the 60 freeway, Diamond Bar Blvd, and Grand Ave.
have been indicated.
PD/DeStefano suggested that, if the Commission
agrees, it would also be appropriate to have the
DKS consultants give a generalized presentation to
the Planning Commission on the circulation element
on issues impacting Diamond Bar, as well as a
presentation from the economic developer.
City Planner Emeritus Irwin Kaplan stated that
economic development and circulation are two parts
of the puzzle that yield the land use element of
the General Plan. He explained that the focus of
April 22, 1991 Page 7
the General Plan is to try and identify what the
best policies would be for the community, then deal
with regional needs afterwards. He suggested the
Commission take this attitude regarding comments to
the Congestion Corridor Action Plan.
VC/Harmony suggested that Diamond Bar needs to
expedite current traffic flows; redirect future
traffic away from Diamond Bar; endorse the
development of a local congestion management
program; lobby to make sure that the Foothill
Freeway be continued on out east; up -grade the
Corona Expressway to a freeway system; not develop
Tonner Canyon; encourage an Orange County link with
the eastern area to move towards the Riverside
Freeway; encourage engineering studies which will
facilitate the 57/60 interchange with consideration
to double decking to increase it's capacity and
reflect 2 freeway systems; and encourage transpor-
tation systems to be brought out to Diamond Bar and
beyond.
CE/Mousavi explained that CalTrans has begun a
study to come up with alternatives to mitigate
traffic problems within the 57/60 interchange.
Some of the items recommended have been double
decking, and increasing the number of the lanes
with the addition of HOV lanes coming from 57 and
connecting with the 60 freeway. He inquired what
the Commission thought about the alternative of
converting one of our major streets into a CMP, and
make the rest of them localized.
VC/Harmony responded that definitely Grand could be
converted. He has concerns with Golden Springs but
is definitely opposed to converting Diamond Bar
Blvd. i
Chair/Schey stated that it is the consensus of the
Commission that they would not like Diamond Bar
Blvd. to be converted to an official alternate
route.
C/MacBride noted that Diamond Bar Blvd. is an
alternative route at Sunset Crossing. There is a
need for traffic management at the north/south
movement on the 57/60 where Diamond Bar Blvd. is
partially a freeway.
C/Grothe emphasized the need for a regional mass
transit program within the area.
Chair/Schey suggested that if there were no further
comments, the Commission should proceed on to the
next matter. The Commission concurred.
'April 22® 1991
Page 8
Review of the PD/DeStefano requested that the Commission review
Draft Development the memorandum drafted by CPE/Kaplan, then discuss
Code design review.
Design Review C/MacBride indicated his approval of the concept
stated in the memorandum.
CPE/Kaplan, in response to VC/Harmony's request,
explained item 8 of the memorandum. A plan would
come to the Commission at the preliminary level,
followed by staff who would then determine if the
final plans are faithful to the originals. if
there is any doubt, staff would return any plans
for redesign, or back to the Commission for further
review.
Chair/Schey stated that he endorses that procedure.
He stated that the Planning Commission's review
should be more conceptual rather than plan check.
CPE/Kaplan explained that there are two levels of
the Design Review Process:
a. Set guidelines that would set standards for
design, such as parking lots, etc.
b. Contextual designs that will not have strict
design guidelines as to what the building
should look like. This is the point that the
Commission may want to bring in a design
professional to give an independent
evaluation.
VC/Harmony stated that he would support any system
whole heartedly as long has he has a sense that
there is some architectural review process going
on. He indicated that the Commission has a
tendency to be lenient with the developer. If the
Commission is going to be committed to using the
process, and not as a way to avoid costing a few
dollars to the developer, then he would support the
program. The guidelines should be focused to the
criteria and expectations of the Commission.
CPE/Kaplan confirmed that there will be a real
application process for design purposes. The
intent is to provide a distinct function apart from
the project review, that will deal with the urban
design aspect of it.
Chair/Schey stated that there is a consensus from
the Commission that the basic outline of the design
review put forth in CPE/Kaplan's memorandum is a
fair representation of the direction the Commission
wants to take.
April 22, 1991 Page 9
Section 1.4 CPE/Kaplan suggested that density should be looked
Residential at in the context of hillside development, which is
Districts the potential development in the community. The
ordinance will still have a basic density confi-
guration, however, it would be viewed starting with
hillside, then working backwards to flat land.
The Commission agreed to put the matter aside until
such time that staff develops a proposal that
relates to the hillside potential of the community.
CPE/Kaplan referred to the Residential District
section. He suggested that the Commission review
the uses allowing a CUP, and determine if it should
remain as such, and if it should indicate use
allowed only in certain locations.
Boarding Rooming Houses:
CPE/Kaplan pointed out that the definition of this
use is not much different than that of a hotel.
Chair/Schey stated that transient occupancy of five
or more is not appropriate in a residential zone.
It should be dealt with in a commercial zone. The
Commission concurred.
Senior Independent Living Uses:
C/Grothe stated that the definition needs to
specifically state that it is referring to senior
citizens.
DA/Curley suggested using the existing state law
definition of senior citizen housing.
Chair/Schey specified that this use should be for
permanent living quarters for senior citizens, not
used as a boarding house or a hotel for the general
publico
CPE/Kaplan stated the it will be defined as
specifically as possible.
Congregate Care Assistant Living:
CPE/Kaplan noted that the definition will have to
be better defined, to include the size and the
location that would make the use appropriate.
The Commission concurred that it should require a
CUP within the multi -family zone.
April 22, 1991
Page 10
Convalescence Care Living:
The Commission concurred that it should require a
CUP within the multi -family zone.
Bed and Breakfast:
The Commission concurred to eliminate this use from
residential zones.
Post Office:
- The Commission concurred to eliminate this use from
residential zones.
Public and Ouasi-Public:
CPE/Kaplan stated that day nurseries and nursery
schools with six or less children will be permitted
in all zones; 7 - 12 children will require a CUP
and permitted in all zones; and 12 plus children
will be permitted in a commercial zone,
Churches:
CPE/Kaplan stated that staff will develop a
proposal differentiating churches which fit into a
residential zone with a minor development review,
and churches that would require a CUP because it
might be out of character with the residential
area.
C/Grothe stated that churches should not be
permitted in a single family and a rural
residential zone. The churches existing in those
zones now can be left non -conforming. The
Commission cgncurredo
Educational Uses:
The Commission concurred that it should be
permitted with a CUP in a residential zone.
Clubs, Lodges, Fraternity and Sorority
The Commission concurred to eliminate this use from
residential zones.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: C/MacBride expressed his concern regarding the
permissive attitude towards allowing further
housing developments amidst the water shortage.
April 22, 1991 Page 11
VC/Harmony directed staff to request a report from
the Traffic and Transportation Commission regarding
the intersection of Carpio and Golden Springs. He
stated that there appears to be a good number of
accidents. He suggested that the Traffic
Commission review the area, recommend a solution,
and indicate what measures can be taken for future
developments to connect accesses in and out of that
area.
ADJOURNMENT: Motion was made by C/MacBride, seconded by
VC/Harmony and CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY to adjourn the
meeting at 10:15 p.m.
Respectively,
James DeStefano
Secretary/Planning Commission
Attest:
I
David Schey
Chairman
Planning Commission
July 9, 1990
Page No. 3
Preliminary Draft The Commission discussed the Draft Ordinance. They also discussed the
Sign Ordinance possibility of holding a special meeting for signage only in August.
Vacation Schedule for the Commission:
Grothe - August 11th - 17th
Harmony - July 23rd - 29th
Schey - July 20th - 22nd
The meeting was proposed to be held July 29th - August 4th for a half day to
review Ordinance.
Motion was made by Chair/Schey and seconded by C/MacBride to postpone
setting a date in .August for the Special Meeting to review the Sign Ordinance.
Motion carried.
ANNOUNCEMENTS: There were none.
AD,J'OCJRNMENT: Motion was made by C/MacBride and seconded by C/Grothe to adjourn the
meeting at 10:35 to July 23, 1990. Motion carried.
David Schey/Chairman
Attest:
Dennis Taranto
Secretary/Ptanning Commission
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
2
May 8, 1991
May 13, 1991
Conditional Use Permit 90-125
This is a request to construct a two
(2) floor office building approxi-
mately 6,400 square feet in size,
with on-site parking provided in an
underground parking structure.
23475 Sunset Crossing
Diamond Bar, CA
Lots 8 & 9
Ed and Shirley Jaworsky
3349 Paloma
LaVerne, CA
Fred and Norma Janz
2683 Shady Ridge
Diamond Bar, CA
This project is a continued public hearing from the April 22, 1991,
Planning Commission meeting. At that hearing, the Commission continued
the public hearing to the May 13, 1991, meeting in order for the appli-
cant to be present to voice his preference as to the action being tak-
en.
The Commission had directed staff to complete a traffic study and sub-
mit that study to the Traffic/Transportation Committee for their re-
view. Currently, the traffic study is being completed and will be
placed on the earliest available agenda for the TTC. The TTC meets one
time per month and the exact date of this project's appearance in front
of them is not known at the present time.
The applicant has intimated to the planning staff that a parcel map
application for the site may be submitted to the City in the very near
future. If this is does occur, every effort will be made to have all
applications before the Commission at one time and as compliance to the
Permit streamlining Act may allow. All notices and renoticing of all
applications will be made at such time a public hearing is set.
AGENDA ITEM
May 13, 1991
Page Two
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that this item be tabled until such time that the ap-
plication has been before the TTC and is renoticed for public hearing
before the Planning Commission.
RLS: pjs
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER:
REPORT DATE:
MEETING DATE:
CASE/FILE NUMBER:
APPLICATION REQUEST:
PROPERTY LOCATION:
APPLICANT:
PROPERTY OWNER:
BACKGROUND:
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
3
May 10, 1991
May 13, 1991
Development Agreement 91-2
A request for a Development Agreement
to allow the sale of gasoline, in-
cluding self-service; automated car
wash; six bay automotive detail fa-
cility, corporate offices for the
developer and a restaurant, not to
include take-out.
22000 Golden Springs Drive
Gary Clapp
Toran Development and Construction
23441 Golden Springs Drive
Diamond Bar, California 91765
Arciero & Sons, Inc.
950 North Tustin Avenue
Anaheim, California 92807
The applicant, Toran Development & Construction is proposing a project
consisting of a restaurant, an automatic car wash, a two story struc-
ture to house six bays, an automotive detail facility on the first sto-
ry and corporate offices of the applicant on the second story, and gas-
oline island for self-service gasoline sales.
The proposed project is in a C -2 -BE (Neighborhood Business, Billboard
Exclusion) zone. The restaurant and offices are permitted in this zone
by right. The automotive detail facility is permitted as an accessory
use in the C -2 -BE zone. An automatic car wash is not permitted in this
zone by right or by Conditional Use Permit. Therefore, a Development
Agreement is necessary to allow this use in the C -2 -BE zone. The Com-
munity Plan designation is commercial for this site.
Generally, the following uses surround the subject site: to the North
is the Pomona Freeway; to the South is C-M-BE-U/C (Commericial-Manufac-
turing-Billboard Exclusion - Unilateral/Contract) zone; to the West is
the Pomona Freeway and C -2 -BE zone; to the East is Open Space (OS) zone
which consists of a golf course.
AGENDA ITEM
May 13, 1991
Page Two
This proposed project was first presented to the Planning Commission on
February 25, 1991 at a public hearing. Following the direction of the
Planning Commission, Toran Development and Construction was asked to
address the issues of traffic and safety, architectural style, con-
venience store/snack shop, and the use of a development agreement as
the method of approval for this project to allow the use of an automat-
ic car wash in a C -2 -BE zone.
On March 25, 1991, Toran Development and Construction addressed the
Planning Commission concerning the above mentioned issues. After care-
ful deliberation, the Planning Commission recommended denial. As a
result, Toran Development and Construction withdrew the proposed pro-
ject.
At this time, Toran Development and Construction is proposing a newly
designed project. This newly designed project will address the issues
that the Planning Commission had concerning the last proposed project
presented on March 25, 1991.
APPLICATION ANALYSIS:
The newly proposed project is located on a vacant 4.70 acre triangular
shaped parcel. This includes a pad area of approximately 106,000
square feet and slope area on the perimeter of the property. Grading
on this site will result in the moving of approximately 250 cubic yards
of soil to be balanced on the site.
The proposed project area to be covered by structure is about 19,050
square feet. The landscaping and open space will equal approximately
86,000 square feet. The restaurant structure will be approximately
6,500 square feet and will have seating for 175. The car wash struc-
ture will equal 7,600 square feet. The office structure and six detail
bays will equal 5,850 square feet and will be two stories.
I
The car wash equipment will be automatic, with one shift - 8 am to 6
pm, and will have twenty-five (25) employees to operate it and the de-
tail facility. Unocal 76 gasoline sales will be self-service, open
twenty-four (24) hours a day, with three (3) shifts, and one(1) atten-
dant for each shift. It is estimated that the restaurant will have
thirty-two (32) employees and the hours of operation are not confirmed.
The architectural style of the proposed project is English Carriage
House. The architectural styles in the City of Diamond Bar are eclec-
tic. Although the architectural style of the proposed project is not
consistent with the Gateway Corporate Center which will be the backdrop
for this project, the applicant believes it will be in harmony with the
country living in Diamond Bar.
AGENDA ITEM
May 13, 1991
Page Three
The materials used for the exterior of the structures of this proposed
project are Sierra tile, Vermont blend for the roof and La Habra stucco
and Belgian Castle Rock for the walls. The wood facia will be painted
the color of limestone and Del Piso Endicott Brick for the chimneys.
On designated areas of the site plan (Exhibit "A-1" and "A-211), fenc-
ing will be provided. Materials used for fencing will be rough wood
painted white, Belgian Castle Rock,and red brick. Gas lantern type
lighting will be provided on rock pillars of the fencing.
A complete sign program for this project has not been submitted. The
applicant will be required to submit a complete sign program to the
Planning Department of the City of Diamond Bar for review and approval
by the Planning Commission.
The landscape requirements in a C-2 zone is a minimum of ten percent
(10%) of the parcel area. The landscaping for this site as proposed
meets this ten percent (10%) requirement.
On the final set of landscape plans presented to the City for review
and approval, the staff would like the applicant to indicate the place-
ment of 24 inch box trees throughout the parking area of the site. The
staff feel that these trees would be a natural aesthetic resource which
would help define the City. Not only is this important considering the
location of the site, but it is also important ecologically.
The proposed site plan indicates fifty-eight (58) parking spaces for
the restaurant with an occupancy load of one hundred seventy-five
(175); eighteen (18) parking spaces for the car wash: ten (10) parking
spaces for the offices. All parking spaces will have a minimum back-up
area of twenty-six (26) feet.
The applicant is pursuing letters of confirmation of intent from Marie
Callendar's, Hoff's Bar & Grill, Tony Roma's and other restaurants of
this caliber to occupy the restaurant structure on this site. As of
the date on this staff report, the only letter of intent submitted to
the City is from Seven Fortune's Denny's Restaurant.
Three driveways are proposed for this project. Two of the proposed
driveways are located on Golden Springs Drive. One driveway is an exit
only. The other driveway which is the main driveway, is two lanes, and
for entrance only. The third driveway is at the west end of the sub-
ject site, is two lanes, and exit only. The three driveways as desig-
nated on the site plan Exhibit "A-111, will allow traffic to flow is a
safe and systematic manner, allowing for easy ingress and egress for
large fuel trucks and automobile as well as for the other uses on the
subject site. The driveway which is planned for an "entrance only"
will need to have proper signs installed to inform drivers that they
should exit from one of the other two project driveways.
AGENDA ITEM
May 13, 1991
Page Four
To accommodate the proposed driveway opposite Gateway Center Drive,the
necessary signal modifications will need to be installed. When the
signal modification is designed the appropriate striping and signing
information will need to be incorporated with the modification.
The median opposite the left -turn land into the subject site will need
to be modified and lengthened to discourage vehicles from exiting from
the "entrance only" driveway. This lengthened median section should be
designed to allow vehicles, including trucks, to safely make a left
turn into the site. The driveway width at this location should be de-
creased to thirty (30) feet to discourage exiting traffic movement.
The two rows of parking which are parallel to Golden Springs Drive be-
tween the project entry and the restaurant exit will need to be angled.
This angled parking will remind restaurant patrons that they should
exit at the west driveway.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
The environmental evaluation shows that the proposed project could have
a significant effect on the environment. There will not be a signifi-
cant effect in this case because mitigation measures shall be incorpo-
rated into this proposed project and a Mitigated Negative Declaration
has been prepared.
NOTICED OF PUBLIC HEARING:
This item has been advertised in the San Gabriel Valley Tribute and the
Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers. Notices were mailed to prop-
erty owners within a three hundred foot radius of the project site on
April 29, 1991.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
Staff recommends that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated
Negative Declaration and Development Agreement 91-2 with conditions as
listed.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit
"A-1"
Exhibit
"A-2"
Exhibit
"A-3"
Exhibit
"A-4"
Exhibit
"B-1"
Exhibit
"B-2"
Exhibit
"B-3"
Exhibit
"B-4"
MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION
Case Number: DA 91-2
Applicant: Gary Clapp
Toran Development & Construction
23441 Golden Springs Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Proposal: A request to allow the sale of gasoline, including
self-service; automated car wash; automotive de-
tail facility; corporate offices for the develop-
er; and a restaurant, not to include take-out,
through the Development Agreement.
Location: 22000 Golden Springs Drive
Environmental
Findings: The proposed project, as determined in the City of
Diamond Bar, could have a significant effect on
the environment. There will not be a significant
effect in this case because the mitigation mea-
sures described on the attached sheet have been
incorporated into the proposed project.
II. Discussion of Environmental Evaluation:
Mitigated Negative Declaration
Explanation to supplement "yes" and "possible" answers given
in initial study.
Environmental Impacts:
1. Earth
b. Disruption, displacements, compaction or over -
covering of the soil? yes.
Explanation•
There will be the !displacement of approximately two hun-
dred and fifty (250) cubic yards of soil.
Mitigation-
The two hundred and fifty (250) cubic yards of soil will
be balanced on the site.
7. Light and Glare
a. Will the proposal result in significant new
light and glare or contribute significantly
to existing levels of light and glare. Pos-
sibly
Explanation
The proposed uses for this site will introduce
lighting to this site which could possibly create
glare.
10.
Mitigation:
Lighting plan shall be submitted to the Planning
Department showing the lighting arranged and
shielded in such a manner as to prevent glare or
direct illumination to surrounding uses.
8. Land Use
a. A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use in an area. Possibly
Explanation:
The proposed use of an automated car wash is not
permitted in this zone by right or by CUP.
Mitigation:
A Development Agreement with appropriate condi-
tions shall be drawn up to allow the use in this
zone.
9. Natural Resources
a. An increase in the rate of use of any natural
resources. Possibly
Explanation:
The proposed use of an automated car wash can pos-
sibly cause an increase in the usage of water.
The irrigation of landscaping could possibly cause
an increase in water usage.
Mitigation:
Ninety percent (90%) of the water to be used for
the proposed car wash will be recyclable. Accord-
ing to the Walnut Valley Water District, the irri-
gation for the landscaping can come from reclaimed
water. i
Risk of Upset
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of haz-
ardous substances (including, but not limited
to oil, pesticides, chemicals', or radiation)
in the event of an accident or upset condi-
tion. Possiblv
Explanation:
When flammable chemicals, solvents, and gasoline
are used, there is always the possibility of ex-
plosion and release of hazardous substances.
Mitigation:
The only chemical to be used would be paint thin-
ner applied to a cloth for cleaning at the detail
12
facility. All cloths used would be laundered.
There are four gasoline storage tanks to be in-
stalled for this proposed project. Gasoline tanks
will be double walled, fiberglass and totally
rust -proof. For each tank, there will be a "built-
in" monitoring system and a continuous precision
tank tester. The hydrostatic monitor continuously
monitors and tests the tanks every day of the year
against potential leaks. This monitoring system
can detect leaks in either the inner or outer
walls of the gasoline tanks.
Transportation/Circulation
a. Generation of substantial additional vehicular movement?
Yes
b. Effects on existing parking facilities or demand for new
parking? Yes
d. Alterations to present patterns of circulation or move-
ment of people and goods? Possibly
Explanation•
a. This project is proposed on a vacant parcel. The uses:
car wash, gasoline sales, restaurant and detail bays and
corporate offices will add more vehicular movement in
this area.
b. The new uses to the vacant parcel will require new park-
ing facilities.
d. The proposed uses of this site will create more and new
patterns of circulation and movement of people and
goods.
Mitigation•
a. According to the traffic study report, a significant
portion of the project traffic is expected to be "pass-
er-by" traffic that is already on Golden Springs Drive.
b. Applicant shall provide adequate parking for the uses on
this site.
d. Implement conditions contained within the Development
Agreement.
RESOLUTION NO. DA 91-
A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVAL OF DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT 91-2,
AN APPLICATION TO ALLOW THE SALE OF GASOLINE, AUTOMATED CAR WASH,
SIX BAY AUTOMOTIVE DETAIL FACILITY, CORPORATE OFFICES AND A RES-
TAURANT AT 22000 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE - ASSESSOR'S PARCEL #8717-
001-006.
A. Recitals
1. Gary Clapp, on behalf of Toran Development and Construc-
tion has filed an application for a Development Agree-
ment (D.A.) located at 22000 Golden Springs Dr., Diamond
Bar, California, as described in the title of this Reso-
lution. Hereinafter in this Resolution, the subject De-
velopment Agreement application is referred to as "ap-
plication".
2. On April 18, 1989, the City of Diamond Bar was establi-
shed as a duly organized municipal corporation of the
State of California. On said date, pursuant to the re-
quirements of the California Government Code Section
57376, Title 21 and 22, the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar adopted it Ordinance No. 1, thereby adopting
the Los Angeles County Code as the ordinances of the
City of Diamond Bar. Title 21 and 22 of the Los Angeles
County Code contains the Development Code of the County
of Los Angeles now currently applicable to development
applications, including the subject Application, within
the City of Diamond Bar.
3. Because of its recent incorporation, the City of Diamond
Bar lacks an operative General Plan. Accordingly, ac-
tion was taken on the subject Application, as to consis-
tency to the General Plan, pursuant to the terms and
provisions of California Government S 65360.
4. The Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, on
May 13, 1991 conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
said Application and concluded said public hearing on
that date.
5. All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolu-
tion have occurred.
B. Resolution
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. This Planning Commission hereby specifically finds that
all of the facts set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of
this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The Planning Commission hereby finds that the Mitigated
Negative Declaration has been prepared in compliance
with the CEQA of 1970, as amended, and guidelines pro-
mulgated thereunder, and, further this Planning Commis-
sion has reviewed and considered the information con-
tained in the said Mitigated Negative Declaration with
respect to the application.
3. Based upon substantial evidence presented to this Com-
mission during the above -referenced May 13, 1991, public
hearing and oral testimony provided at the hearing, this
Commission hereby specifically finds as follows.
(a) The project relates to a site which is comprised
of 4.70 acres of vacant land within the C -2 -BE
zone on the North side or Golden Springs Drive,
City of Diamond Bar, California.
(b) Generally, to the north is the Pomona Freeway, to
the south is C-M-BE-U/C zone, to the east is OS
(open space) which consists of a golf course.
(c) This property is designated by the Community Plan
for Commercial development.
(d) The nature, condition, and size of the site has
been considered. The site is adequate in size to
accommodate the type of development being proposed
as depicted within Exhibits A,, AZ, A31 A4, B,, B 2
B3, and B4.
(e) The Development Agreement will not have an adverse
impact on adjacent or adjoining residential com-
mercial uses. It will not be materially detrimen-
tal to the use, enjoyment, or valuation of proper-
ty of other persons located in the vicinity and
the Development Agreement will not adversely af-
fect the health or welfare of persons residing or
working in the surrounding area.
(f) The subject property shall be maintained and oper-
ated in full compliance with the conditions of
this grant and any law, statute, ordinance or oth-
er regulations applicable to any development or
activity of the subject property. Failure of the
permittee to cease any development shall be a vio-
lation of these conditions.
4. Based upon the substantial evidence and conclusion set
forth herein above, and conditions set forth below in
this Resolution, presented to the Planning Commission on
May 13, 1991, public hearing as set forth above, this
Commission in conformance with the terms and provisions
of California Government Code § 65360, hereby finds and
concludes as follows:
(a) The development shall conform to all plans as sub-
mitted to and approved by the Planning Commission
labeled Exhibits A-1, A-2, A-3, and A-4, B-1, B-2,
B-3, and B-4, dated 5-13-91.
(b) This grant allows for the development of a commer-
cial project with structures equaling approximate-
ly 19,950 square feet on a 4.70 acre site.
(c) Revised lighting, landscaping with 24 inch box
trees throughout the parking area, irrigation, and
fencing plan (which is to surround the site) shall
be submitted to the City Planning Department and
the Director of Parks and Maintenance for review
and approval within sixty (60) days of the pro-
ject's final approval from the City Council.
(d) The subject site and landscaping shall be
maintained in good condition.
(e) The CUP and Development Review shall be required
for the proposed restaurant upon submittal of ap-
plication.
(f) The hours of operation for the car wash and detail
bay shall be between the hours of 8 am and 6 pm.
The hours of operation for self-service gasoline
sales shall be 24 hours a day. The hours of oper-
ation for corporate offices shall be 8 am to 5 pm.
(g) Delivery of gasoline fuel to this site shall be
limited to between the hours of 10 pm and 6 am.
(h) A sign program for all uses on the site shall be
submitted tolthe City for a Development Review and
approval by the Planning Commission.
(i) The custom polish detail shop shall not include
auto body and fender work or auto paint work.
(j) All detailing functions shall take place within
the confines of the detail bays.
(k) There shall be no outdoor displays of merchandise
of any kind on this site.
(1) Outside speaker volumes shall be modulated so as
to not exceed ten decibels over ambient noise lev-
els at property line.
(m) All mechanical equipment needs for all uses on
this site shall be enclosed within the appropriate
building.
(n) Water reclamation and conservation devices shall
be incorporated into the design of the car wash
and irrigation system for landscaping.
(o) The chemicals and detergents used for cleaning of
the vehicles shall be composed of biodegradable
compounds.
(p) Petroleum waste products shall be disposed of by
appropriate methods and shall not be discharged
into the public sewer system except as allowed by
law.
(q) The proposed restaurant for this site shall be of
the size and caliber of a Marie Callender's, Hof's
Bar & Grill, or Tony Roma's.
(r) All on-site utility services shall be installed
under ground.
(s) Any work to be done within the City right-of-way
requires prior approval from the Engineering De-
partment of the City of Diamond Bar. The appro-
priate permits are to be obtained and all con-
struction is to be per City specifications.
(t) The applicant shall comply with all traffic miti-
gation conditions listed in the Revised Traffic
Report dated March, 1991 and the Traffic Analysis
Revised Site Plan dated May 3, 1991
(u) Mitigation measures' fair share cost is only de-
termined for the intersection of Grand Avenue and
Golden Springs Drive and that is based on esti-
mates of 198§. This cost estimate must be updated
and fair share costs must also be developed for
the left turn lane addition to the traffic signal
on Brea Canyon Road at Golden Springs Drive/Colima
Road. In the absence of these calculations, the
fair share cost of the developer for the intersec-
tion improvements at Golden Springs Drive/ Grand
Avenue and Brea Canyon Road/Golden Springs/Colima
Road is recommended to be $50,000.
(v) The applicant shall provide the necessary signal
modifications which are needed to accommodate the
proposed driveway opposite Gateway Center Drive.
The applicant shall also provide the necessary
stripping and signing information to incorporate
this modification.
(w). The applicant will be required to dedicate two (2)
feet of subject property along Golden Springs
Drive for street improvements.
(x) Grading plans and drainage plans shall be submit-
ted to the Planning Department and Engineering
Department for review and approval.
(y) Any broken or damaged curbs, gutters, sidewalks
and pavement on streets within or abutting this
project shall be repaired by the applicant.
(z) Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence
until such time as all Uniform Building Codes,
State Fire Marshall's regulations, and Planning
requirements have been complied with.
(aa) All special assessments, utilities, sewers or
storm drain connection fees are to be paid prior
to recordation.
(ab) The applicant shall pay for all costs associated
with plan check, review of documents, permits and
inspections required by the City of Diamond Bar.
(ac) Occupancy of the facilities shall not commence
until such time as all Uniform Building Codes,
State Fire Marshall's regulations, and Planning
requirements.
(ad) This grant shall not be effective for any purpose
until the permittee and the owner of the property
involved. (if other than the permittee) have
filed, at the City of Diamond Bar Planning Depart-
ment, their affidavit stating that they are aware
of and agree to accept all the conditions of this
grant.
5. This Commission hereby provides notice to Gary
Clapp for Toran Development that the time within
which judicial review of the decision represented
by this Resolution must be sought is governed by
the provisions of the California Code of Civil
Procedure Section 1094.6
The Planning Commission Secretary shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Reso-
lution, by certified mail, return receipt request,
to Gary Clapp at the address as set forth on the
application.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 13TH DAY OF MAY, 1991.
PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Kys
ATTEST:
David Schey, Chairman
James DeStefano, Secretary
I, James Destefano, Secretary of the Planning Commission of the
City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolu-
tion was duly introduced, passed, and adopted by the Planning Com-
mission of the City of Diamond Bar, at a regular meeting of the
Planning Commission held on the 13th day of May, 1991, by the fol-
lowing vote -to -wit:
AYES:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
NOES:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
ABSENT:
[COMMISSIONERS:]
Lynda Burgess
City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 104
Diamond Bar, California 91765
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO, 91.-2 CONCERNING PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 22000 GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE,
DIA11OND BAR., CALIFOR$TA
THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the
"Effective Date" set forth herein by and between ARCIER,O 8 SONS,
INC., a California corporation, and GARY CLAPk> a sole
proprietox, ("Developer" hereinafter aol.leotively) and the CITY
OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation organized and existing
under the laws of the State of California ("City").
W I T N E S s A m Hs
A. Recitals,
(i) California Gov=ernment Code Sections 65864, et seq.
authorize cities to enter into binding development agreei±rents
with persons having legal or equitable interests in real property
for the development of such property,
(ii) Developer owns all interest in and to that real
property located entirelF within City, the common and legal
desoLiption of which is set forth in Exhibit "_;" attached
hereto and incorporated herein by this reference and hereinafter
is referred to as "the Site."
(iii) The Site is now zoned C -2 -B-E (Neighborhood
Business, Billboard Exclusion zone) pursuant to the provisions of
City's Zoning Ordinance and zoning Map, as amended to date
hereof, Developer and City desire to provide through this
Development Agree=ment pore specific development controls on the
Site which will provide for maximum efficient utilization of the
Site in accordance with sound planning principles.
(iv) On_ 1991, City adopted its
Ordinance No. thereby"approving this Development
Agreement with�Derelcper and said ordinance was effective on
1991.
1
D.
re ent.
NOW, THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1• Aefinitions. In this A
otherwise requires, the follgreeMent, unless the context
meaning; g terns shall have the following
a. "City" is the City of Diamond Bar.
b. "Developer+' is ARC
any assignee reof, SUNS'
IMC. and GARY CLAPP or
tne
c• "Development Plan" are those plans and specifications
attached hereto, marked as Exhibit " ++
incorporated herein by this reference and
Of the documents i.rcluding, but not elandIiInitecom rised
landscape plan, a site plan, design elevations,
and site utilization map, stamped "Received
" The Develc;pment Plan attache
hereto inclixdes variouE conditions of approval set
forth in Exhibit " " hereto which are not changed,
altered or rectified ky this Development
unless specifically set Agreement
forth herein. Thproject
e
also includes the records of applications bye
y Developer,
the proceedings before the Planning Cory fisson and City
in these
Council, and all such records and files
matters are incorporated herein by this reference as
though set forth in full.
d. "Project" is that development apbroved for the Site as
Provided in this Development Agreement comprised of a
automated car wash, six_ bay automotive detail facility,
corporate offices for the developer and. restaurant,
all as reflected in the Development Flans attached
hereto as the
" "
Exhibit and the conditions set forth ;n
" +� --
e. "Effective Date" shall mean
ell
the,
on31st pcalendar
dayAgreement by the Ordinance this
s
Gity Council.
f
"Restaurant Parcel" shall mean that portion of the Site
identified on Exhibit ++ ++
bounds legal descriptiorelatedincltheret-he metes and
• sto s. The Recitals are part
the parties and shall be enforced and
Provision of this Agreement.
Of the agreement between
enforceable as any other
t9 (4 If, — 1 0—'D 1 FP. I 1 2 4 E., M A R K M A b4 al ARCZYNSK I
P.0?.'1._.
3. xntare4t of 13Typarty Owner. Developer warrants and
represents that it has full legal title to the Site, that it has
full legal right to enter into this Agreement and that the
persons executing this Agreement on behalf of Developer are duly
authorized to do so and thereby bind DEVELOPER to the terms and
conitions of this Agreement.
4. DindAng V_ffoot of hgr ement. Developer hereby subjects the
Project and the lanai described in Exhibit " hereto to the
covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth in this
Agreement. The City and the Developer hereby declare, represent
and warrant that their specific intent that the covenants,
reservations and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed
covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding
upon Developer's successors and assigns in title or interest• to
the Project. Each and every contract, deed or other instrument
hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the Project or any
portion thereof shall conclusively be held to have been executed,
delivered and accepted subject to the covenants, reservations and
restrictions expressed in this Agreement, regardless of whether
such covenants, reservations and restrictions are set forth in
such contract, deed or other instrument.
City and Developer hereby declare their understanding
and intent that the burden of the covenants, reservations and
restrictions set forth herein touch and concern the land in that
the Developer's legal interest in the Project is rendered less
valuable thereby. The City and Developer hereby further declare
their understanding and intent that the benefit of such covenants
touch and concern the land by enhancing and increasing the
enjoyment and use of the Development by Developer and the future
occupants of the Project, the .intended beneficiaries of such
covenants, reservations and restrictions, and by.furthering the
public purposes for which tis Agreement is adopted. further,
the parties hereto agree that such covenants, reservations and
restrictions benefit all other real property located in the City
of Diamond Bar, provided, however, that only City shall be
entitled to enforce the provisions hereof pursuant to paragraph
16, below.
S. Relationship 2f agartigg. It is understood that the
contractual relationship between City and Developer is such that
Developer is an independent party and is not the agent of city
for any purpose whatsoever and shall not be considered to be the
agent of City for any purpose whatsoever.
6. TPXm 91 Acrra-qA!nt. The term of the Agreement shall commence
on the effective date and shall expire on December 31, 2016, so
long as Developer remains in material compliance with this
Agreement, as from time to time amended.
MAY— 1 0—•=� 1 FP_ I I'' 4.3 MARK t•7 AN
A RCZYNS N: I P _ 04.' 1 e.
7• con t ructign. Developer Shall conplete construction work
for the project on the Site, and all phases thereof, including,
but not limited to, landscaping and all off-site improvements,
pursuant to a building permit or permits issued by City within
( ) years following the Effective Date. Notwithstanding
ithin
any other term or provision of this Agreement, Developer shall
Complete rough grading of the Site, in accordance with approved
grading plans, within eighteen (18) months of the effective date,
subject to the provisions of paragraph 28 hereinbelow, the
failure to construct the Project shall cause this Agreement to be
void and of no further force and effect; provided, however, that
completion of the car wash portion of the Project, together with
requirements,reqird off-site improvements and perimeter landscaping
d compliance with the terms of this Agreement
Pertaining to the car wash portion shall not render this
Agreement void as to the car plash portion.
8' ani rs, z_ssi<ntvent a Asupbrances Developer shall
have the right to sell, lease, ground le:ass,. Mortgage,
hypothecate, assign or transfer all or any portion of this site
(as may be subsequently subdivided), to any person or entity at
any time during the term of this Development Agreo ent. Any such
transfer shall be deemed to include an assignment of all rights,
duties and obligations
respect to all or any created, by this Development Agreement with
portion of the Site. The assumption of any
or all of the obligatin. ons of Developer under this Agreement
Pursuant to any such transfer shall relieve Developer, without
any act or concurrence by the city, of its legal duty to perform
those obligations except to the extent that: Developer is in
default with respect to any and all obligations at the time o;:
the proposed transfer.
9. Ge_ n r I F3tandardg and estrn do"* �art�Yrii7 to Dsv lo7mep=
gf the RAS. The following specific restrictions shalt apply to
the use of t;��>. Site pursuant( to this Development Agreement!
a. Developer shall have the right to develop the Project
on the Site in accordance with the terms and conditions
of this Agreement and City shall have the right to
control development of the Site in accordance with
the provisions of this Agreement.
b. The density and intensity of use, the uses allowed,
size of proposed buildings, provisions for the the
reservation or dedication of land for public purposes,
the maximum height of proposed buildings and location
of public improvements, together with other terms and
conditions of development applicable to the Site, shall
be as set forth in this Development Agreement and the
attached Development Pian.
Mr -.Y - 10- F., 1 FF.: I 1 :, : 4�4 !NREM riH G)
10. Vff9ot 9-9 City Rs_gylAtiO-ns gn Ds��s._lo_pm83tt pot P. o Wit,
Except as expressly provided in this Development Agreement, all
substantive and procedural requirements and provisions contained
in city's ordinances, specific plans, rules and regulations,
including, but not limited to, the Zoning Ordinance, in effect as
of the effective date of this Development. Agreement, shall apply
to the construction and developr:;ent of the Site.
a. The provisions of this paragraph 10 shall not preclude
the application to the development of the Site those
changes in City ordinances, regulations, plans or
specifications which are specifically mandates and
required by changes in state or federal laws or
regulations as provided in California Government Code
Section 65859.5 or any successor provision or
provisions.
b. The payment of fees associated with the construction
of the Project, including land use approvals,
development fees, building permits, etc., shall be
pursuant to those fees in effect at the time
application is made for such approvals or permits.
c. City may apply any and all new ordinances, rules,
regulations, plans and specifications to the
development of the Site after the effective elate
provided such new rules and regulations do not
conflict with the terns of this Development
Agreement as of the effective date.
d.
Nothing herein shall. prevent the application of
health and sa`ety regulations (i.e., fire,
building, seismic, plumbing and electric codes)
that become applicable to the City as a whole.
I
11.e mi ta4 Vses. Those uses allowed on the Site shall he as
follows:
a. Permit' ed Us � .
1. Sales;
Art Galleries.
Art supply stores.
Automobile service stations, limited to autor..obile
accessories and facilities necessary to
dispensing petroleum products only,
Automobile supply stores.
Automobile washing, waxing and polishing, car
washes.
Bakery Shops, including baking only when
incidental to retail sales fron the premises.
61
rt AY — 1 0--? 1 FR I 1 2: 50 PIARKMAN at
A P 0 z Y S. K I
P. GSE. -' 1 0
Bookstores.
Confectionery or candy stores, including making
only when incidental to retail sales from
the premises.
Delicatessens.
Florist shops.
Gift shops.
Hobby supply stores.
Ice cream shops.
Jewelry stores.
Leather goods stores.
Notions or novelty stores.
Photographic equipment and supply stores.
Silver shops.
Sporting goods stores.
Stationery stores.
Tobacco shops.
Toy stores.
2. Ser`_l_icea-
Barber shops.
Beauty shops.
Bicycle rentals.
Locksmith shops
Lodge halls,
Offices, business or professional.
Photography studios.
Shoe repair shops.
Tailor shops.
Watch repair shops.
b. 11ses F? uiriX-,2 C Indina
t'ol �'se Pani
Restaurants and other eating establishments.
C. 't1 Council Apnjoval of Uses.
Each use which requires the approval of a
Conditional use Permit shall, prior to City
acceptance of such application, be reviewed
and approved by the City Council. The
Councils review shall consider, among other
factors, the reputation of restaurant, the
experience of the operator and the design of
the proposed facility.
12. Annyal Review. During the term Of this Development
Agreement, City shall annually review the extent of good faith
compliance by Developer with the terms of this Development
Agreement. Developer shall file an annual report with the City
indicating information regarding compliance with the terms of
6
V1 A`.'— 1 0 y 1 FR I 1 : Is0 MAR F:: h1 AN A R C 2 Y MSF:: I F _ 0
this Development Agreement no later than March 15 of each
calendar year.
13. Ind am L ion. Developer agrees to, and shall, hold City
and its elected officials, officers, agents and employees
harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for
personal injuries, including death, and claims for property
damage which may arise from the direct or indirect operations of
Developer or those of his contractor, subcontractor, agent,
employee or other person acting on his behalf which relate to the
construction and operation of the Project. Developer agrees to,
and shall, defend City and its elected officials, officers,
agents and employees with respect to actions for damages caused
or alleged to have been caused by reason of Developer's
activities in connection %ith the Project. This hold harmless
provision app7.ies to all damages and claims for damage suffered
or alleged to have been suffered by reason of the operations
referred to in this Development Agreement regardless of whether
or not the City prepared, supplied or approved the plans,
specifications or other documents for the Project.
14.M ne dme . This Agreer.:ent may be amended or canceled, in
whole or in part, only by mutual Written consent of the parties
and then in the manner provided for in California Government Code
Sections 65868, et seq., or their successor provisions.
16. Minor Ariend. tc_ Develoment, Plan. Capon the written
application of Developer, minor modifications and changes to the
Development Plan may be approved by the Director of Planning
pursuant to the terms of city's Honing Ordinance.
15. VDta 9gMMt;. With the sole exception of the provisions set
forth in paragraph 28, in t�e event of ,a default under the
provisions of this Agreement by Developer., City shall give
written notice to Developer (or its successor) by registered or
certified mail addressed at the address stated in this Agreement,
and if such violation is not corrected to the reasonable
satisfaction of City within sixty (60) days after such notice is
given, or if not corrected within such reasonable time as may be
required to cure the breach or default if said breach or default
cannot be cured within sixty (60) days (provided that acts to
cure the breach or default must be commenced within said sixty
(60) days and must thereafter be diligently pursued by
Developer), then City may, without further notice, declare a
default under this Agreement and, upon any such declaration of
default, City may bring any action necessary to specifically
enforce the obligations of Developer growing out of the operation
of this Development Agreement, apply to any court, state or
federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by Developer
of any provision of this Agreement, or apply for such other
relief as may be appropriate.
MAY—i._,-9i FR.x i _ci r-1AF.-:_MAH :D Ns.r_Z",H'_:rcx F.c,=,sic.
17. went Qf Die alt, Developer is in default under this
Agreement upon the happening of one or more of the following
events or conditions:
a. If a material warranty, representation or statement
is made or furnished by Developer to City and is
false or proved to have been false in any material
respect when it was made;
b. If a finding and determination is made by city
following an annual review pursuant to paragraph 12
thahereinabove, upon the basis of substantial evidence,
that Develaper has not camplied in good faith with
any material terms and conditions of this Agreement,
after notice and opportunity to tura as described
in paragraph 16 hereinabove; or
C. A breach by Developer of any of the: provisions or
terms of this Agreement,
to cure as Provided nintparagraph16hereinand bovetUY'ty
18. No *a Ver It fe"91MY Cit
d waive
defect in performance by Developer ifJonoteriodicarey ieaim of
w Cit
does not enforce this Agreement. Nonperformance byDeveloper
shall not be excused because performance by Developer of the
obligations herein contained ,could be unprofitable, difficult or
expensive or because of a failure of any third party or entity,
other than City, All other ron8dies at law or in equity which
are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement are available to
the parties to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this
Development Agreement. No waiver by City of any breach or
default under this Development Agreement shall be deemed to be a
waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default
hereunder.
19. Rights 91 Lendjgj UnderA his A
i �_ _5�'�g_mant. Should Developers
Place or cause to be placed any encumbrance or lien on the
Project, or any part thereof, the beneficiary ("Lender") of saved
encumbrance or lien shall have the right at any time during the
term Of this Agreement and the existence of said encumbrance or
lien to:
a. Da any act or thing required of Developer under this
Agreement, and any such act: or thing done or performed
by Lender shall be as effective as if done by
Developer;
b. Realize on the security afforded by the encumbrance or
lien by exercising foreclosure proceedings ar power of
sale or other remedy afforded in law or in equity or by
the security document evidencing the encumbrance or
lien (hereinafter referred to as "a trust deed");
1 0-•y 1 F F: 1 1 2 _S 2 MA R V' M AN G) A R. C: Z Y tJ SK I F 0S
C. Transfer, convey or assign the title of Developer to
the Project to any purchaser at any foreclosure sale,
whether the foreclosure sale be conducted pursuant to
court order or pursuant to a power of sale contained
in a trust deed; and
d. Acquire and succeed to the interest of Developer by
virtue of any foreclosure sale, whether the fore-
closure sale be conducted pursuant to a court order
or pursuant to a power of sale contained in a trust
deed.
20. Not to IPPV r. City shall give written notice of any
default or breach under this Agreement by Developer to Lender (if
known by City) and afford Lender the opportunity after service of
the notice to:
a. Cure the breach or default within sixty (60) days
after service of said notice, where the default can
be cured by the payment of money;
b. Cure the breach or default within sixty (60) days
after service of said notice where the breach or
default can be cured by something other than the
Payment of money and can be cured within that
time; or
C. Cure the breach or default in such reasonable time
as may be required where something other than
payment of money is required to cure the breach
or default and cannot be performed within sixty (6o)
days after said notice, provided that acts
to cure the breach or default are commenced within
a sixty (60) day period after service of said
notice of default on Lender by City and are
thereafter diligently continued by Lender.
21. Act D by cedar. Notwithstanding any other provision of
this Agreement, a Lender may forestall any action by City for a
breach or default under the te,_7ns of this Agreement by Developer
by commencing proceedings to foreclose its encumbrance or lien o;:
the Project. The proceedings so comx�enced may be for foreclosure
of the encumbrance by order of court or for foreclosure of the
encumbrance under a paver of sale contained in the instrument
creating the encumbrance or lien. The proceedings shall not,
however, forestall any sack action by the City for the default or
breach by Developer unless:
a. They are commenced within sixty (50) days after
service on Developer of the notice described herein-
above;
9
� - _ v. U . . .-f f. 1. 1-1 M ,v y M r^: ,_. � Y n �; r::. 1 F y yl 1 F.
b. They are, after having been commenced, diligently
pursued in the manner required by law
and to completion;
c. Lender keeps and performs all of the terms,
covenants and conditions of this Agreement requiring
the payment or expenditure of money by Developer
until the foreclosure proceedings are complete or
are discharged by redemption, satisfaction or
payment.
22• Notice. Any notice required to be given by the terms of
this Agreement shall be provided by certified mail, return
receipt requested, at the address Of the respective parties as
specified below or at any other such address as may be later
specified by the parties hereto:
TO Developer: AP.CIERO & SONS, INC.
950 North Tustin. Avenue
Anaheim, California 92807
GARY CLAPP
Toran Development and Construction
23441 Golden Springs
Diamcnd Bar, California 91765
To City: City Of Diamond Bar
21660 East Copley Drive, Suite 100
Diamond Bar., California 91765
Attention: City Manager
23. At orners• eea. In any proceedings arising from the
enforcement of this Development Agreement or because of an
alleged breach or default hereunder, the prevailing party shall
be entitled to recover its oasts and reasonable attorneys, fees
incurred during the proceeding as may be fixed within the
discretion of the court.
24. kinding gfftlh. This Agreement shall bind, and the benefits
and burdens hereof shall inure to, the respective parties hereto
and their legal representatives, executors, administrators,
successors and assigns, wherever the context requires or admits.
25. Apb11cAble Law. This Agreement shall be construed in
accordance with and governed by the laws of the State of
California.
26. PartJyj invalidity. If an) provisions of this Agreement
shall be deemed to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the
validity, legality or enforceability of the remaining provisions
M i', y— 1 0—S 1
F F:I 1 = 53 rl A R. K r'7 HH :1 HR C: Z Y'NSK I
P _ 1 1 % 1 e.
hereof shall not in any way be affected or impaired thereby
27. Record on. This Agreenent shall, at the expense of
Developer, be recorded in the official Records of the County
Recorder of the County of Los Angeles within ten (10) business
days following the Effective Date.
28. "NOTICE TO PARTIES: SECTION 28 CONTAINS PROVISION A7fIICH IdfAY
RESULT IN THZ CONVEYANCE CIF REAL PROPERTY TO ThHE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR.,
Conv y anc of B-Ovstau ant P rcel. If the Restaurant Parcel
is not fully developed with a. restaurant Which is actually
Operating and open for business to the general Public on or
before the Effective Date then CITY may, at its sole option,
request DEVELOPER to convey the Restaurant parcel to CITY. if
CITY elects to request conveyance of the Restaurant Parcel to
itself, CITY shall dispatch written notice of such election to
DEVELOPER. Upon receipt of written notice of such election by
CITY, DEVELOPER shall, on or refore thirty (30) calendar days
have lapsed, execute a grant deed conveying fee title in the
Restaurant Parcel to CITY and shall deliver such grant deed to
CITY. Such grant deed shall be in a form satisfactory to the City
Attorney. Title to the Restaurant parcel shall he free and clear
of all liens, mortgages or other encumbrances.
CITY shall not pay, convey, reimburse, compensate or
otherwise provide any consideration to DEVELOPER in exchange for
the conveyance of the Restaurant Parcel. Further DEVELOPER shall
indemnify, defend and hold haraless CITY from any claim, d.enand,
request or lav;suit which seeks damages or equitable perforr.ance
by CITY in regard to the conveyance from DEVELOPER to CITY.
City's Initials Developer's Initials
IN WITNESS Ark:EREJ, this Agreement has been executed by
the parties and shall be effective on the effective date set
forth hereinabove.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
a municipal corporation
Dated:^
ATTEST:
By__
Forbing,
11
Lynda Burgess, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
FRAyIR AR Ic. ERO, Title .--"- - •-�
GARY CLAPP Title -
STATE OF CALIFORNIA �
COUNTY or LOS ANGELS ) ss.
On
Notary Put11 is an" �I - -- LS91, before me
appeared Gar Por said County and 5tatethe undersigned, a
basis o Y L. Werner. and Lynda Bur personally
this instrumentaasO y evidence to be gess prov?
d to me or
,da the persons � the
Bar, a munic=pal cor orr and City Clerk oP the who executed
laws of the State p anon existin City ot- Diamond
City of Diamond Barfexecutednit. and�ackd organized u, do
no ledged to i the
me that the
?lo rY Public in--
and for said State
STATE OF
COUNTY OF
On
Notary Pub.1 - '— 199
c 1n anrj p-rY before me
appeared FINK A-RcIERO Said county and 5ta_r the undersignOf ed a
P prove
the
p rson It
instrumentctory evidencartaG��Ythe persons o rae on the basis
1'ho executed this
Pdctary Public_
�n and fo said State
�`'"0121DA91-2DHInz ,
i FF..I 1
ALTERNATIVE
nPve�oUmsnt of *�tystaurans Pare lE the Restaurant,
28 • ham ---D develcped with a restaurant which is actually
Parcel is not fully general public on or
operating and op
en for business to the g at its sole option,
before the Effective Data then
tU CITY CITY ariyamcunt of mo las
require DEVEIFER to
on4ey
equivalent to the reasonably estimstonizevthatsastimationerived inm
use. The parti.� process and
such a restaurant Which suc?
such an amount is a difficult and ir�edcupanlfAtor by
q to be calculated. Lhs parties agree that DEVF:LVF R
therefore desire to astab_zsh zn ag an amount
amount i. v without c e_. -and by
M CIT s,
Shall Convey to CIT-, arOu o£ the gross ravanues aoCumulated
eq'aivalent to ten (10) pzocp.ding thelva (i2} month period.
by the car wash in the r
s eub5equent to the Effective Date.
DEV di�3ytcY+ such monies to the CITY not less
than
ten tlo} v and all books,
DrVETAPER grants CITY the �right
BEVELOPrRwinnregard to the
ledgers, and accounts mainta_n•.d by
ed to
such materials shall be exercised in
carwasp to determine the dollar amount due to ba conveyed
rmed
CITY. CIT'YIS right to audit currently
a reasonable manner. CITY'S caloulatrinci.olaslasamay LoU�allar
using generally rccepted accounting p pion as to th_
be in effect genera., such time. CITY'S conclusi
amDEVELOPERunduewfrom
DEVELOPER
then sha
remaur11 se tonDEVELOPER.
o binding upon
re duel DEV£iOpER shall PaY
In the avant DEVELOPER fails to cnrvey such mon1esaeseK-y1»s
in addition tgIthe overciva amours+, a late char,
due to CITY, on the date such nnnias a- r arrest ,er
to CITY, rime rate of interest F
, e.vailing p ,.,e rate
to Bank of America s then p eroent over such P -
annum plus an additional three (d p Payment was dug until
an said overdue amount from the lots sump Compensate
provision ie, intended to cempe"sate CITY for all.
paid. This p nrtunities, legal costs, and
losses, including lost interest opp
the administrative costs involved in this matter. are
At such time as the monirr due, hens notwithstanding any
raament, the DEVELOPER shall be
calculated to be 90 days in arrears then, n
other provision of this e other remedies
Conclusively deemed to be in default upon this Agreement.
conclusively
agrees that'notwithstanding angree-Ment, including
ursuant to this Ag the carwash
available to DEVELOPER
APER shall cease operating
paragraph l6, aid,
facility until such time as all monies due CITY aro p
including interest.
3
�9
't X
� i
Ic
. .�
° a SITE PIAN 7�R,w r.]nv�tc
N E
� �AMTuh rrw.0 TRT G.�W.ni{ RUNYAN ENGINEERING, INC.
} SITE PLAN
an��'-No axwrar caRuecp
RUNYAN ENGINEERING. INC.
....s ....... •. ...........
e
m
i
11AF.1-- ..�.., ....
T¢w T 6U.
LEA
RUNYAN ENUINEERINQ, INC.
DrMtgb CeWnn �/..ctJµH
rud.OW nq �. .u. ..° um ruuu urr.nu o
�It ItIVt-LO°�
0
""•"` '"`• ELEVATIONS (CARWASH) �•"'
Fo
•"••• •"•••• ""e.••' RUNYAN ENGINEERING, INC.
• xe. o,x,.ou n,. n,n, r,,,o,e,.eu,w,xu mat
' lat e)e re-te"e
e,
0
""•"` '"`• ELEVATIONS (CARWASH) �•"'
Fo
•"••• •"•••• ""e.••' RUNYAN ENGINEERING, INC.
• xe. o,x,.ou n,. n,n, r,,,o,e,.eu,w,xu mat
' lat e)e re-te"e
y��
'
YDYI-Ya clD+al
1011•YIX•DIIIYD'YM•0YIYI'1.011 '•I.Y T0MX XY0'0Y 1.
'ONI 'ONRI33NION3 NvANOU
+D•ro•1
'
u•XDX .uXD
Dt.l. .
y��
xlm
•M..T lllt•
I.Ni
Y.YII.MI.
1..1
RUNYAN ENGINEERING, INC.
6
u ll.
.L NN .. n. . eunoYY
•� 'A.11.1
•i
le Cels Ta eas
C
6 --
-
8
i
1 _
S
t e
xlm
•M..T lllt•
I.Ni
Y.YII.MI.
1..1
RUNYAN ENGINEERING, INC.
u ll.
.L NN .. n. . eunoYY
•� 'A.11.1
•i
le Cels Ta eas
...�....�...�. v..n +..............
•'DNI'DNItl33NIDN3 Ntl ANOtl N>VMyY> ArnMv> arnua�a p
NVId DNµNtlld >
G�
�W
jam. F i
�� ZE
�L
\
' 414.
_ p
1
YN
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING
21660 E. Copley Drive Suite 190
(714)860-2314 Fax (714)860-3117
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION
Record Owner(s).
Namek-rL lL S�YS_1V�t
(Last nave first s
Addrggss%_0 \u.S
City+�?n\n iwyGA
Zip `11%&+
Phone (-+W ) & 2,3'-
Case#
Recvd
Fee $77115T-00
Receipt 13 i
Bv0��P
Applicant
23441 �,i Ieu.5oviwcn Ise
0-111)-Izs
Applicant's Agent
(--Iq) %0
(Attach separate sheet if necessary, including names, addresses, and signatures
of members of partnerships, joint ventures, and directors of corporations)
CONSENT: I consent to the submission of the application accompanying this request
Ar%z4bro & SQ11 Inc.
SignedBY X CIIE l� CL'L`JCGj Date
(All recorded ovners)
Certification: I, the undersigned, hereby certify under penalty of perjury that
the information herein provided is correct to the best of my knowledge.
Printed Name:
v Si
Loc a
icanl or Agtn
cant of A,ent)
(Street address Or tr4t and lot nunber)
Zoning &Z --0E mim IWC 'T
Previous Cases 2FCa 4651 PV4\\3514 _E6 '11041
Present Use of Site -
Domes tic
ite
Project Size (gross acres)A O±aCitE'S Project density
Domestic Water SourceWo\mt li;'el 4 Company/District
Method of Sewage disposal
Grading of Lots by Applicant?
(Shoe necessary grading design on site plan or tent nap)
Sanitation District LA i L1 ,Vf4io^
Yes V No
APPROPRIATE BURDENS OF PROOF MUST ACCO,itPANY REQUEST
(all ownership comprising the proposed lot(s)/parcel(s)
Area devoted to structures ( 000
Residential Project:
(gross area)
Proposed density
Landscaping/Open space S-4,000
and --
(No. of lots)
(Units/Acres)
Parking Required Provided
Standard j0
Compact (�
Handicapped 3 3
Total pty
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE—BURDEN OF PROOF
In addition to the information required in the application, the
applicant shall substantiate to the satisfaction of the Zoning
Board and/or Commission, the following facts:
A. That the requested use at the location proposed will not:
1. Adversely affect the health, peace, comfort or
welfare of persons residing or working in the
surrounding area, or
2. Be materially detrimental to the use, enjovment or
valuation of property of other persons located in
the vicinity of the site, or
3. Jeopardize, endanger or otherwise constitute a
menace to the public health, safety or general
welfare.,
�re-vac•; ,��\V �a.��ip��t���
B. That the proposed site is adequate in size and shape to
accommodate the yards, walls, fences, parking and loading
facilities, landscaping and other development features
prescribed in this Title 22, or as is otherwise required
in order to integrate said use with the uses in the
surrounding area.
C. That the proposed site is adequately served:
1. By highways or streets of sufficient width and
improved as necessary to carry the kind and quantity
of traffic such use would generate, and
By other public or private service facilities as are
required.
1'Yey\Ou k� Su-hVvliLm
(staff use)
PROJECT NUABER(s):
INITIAL STUDY QUESTIONNAIRE
A. GENERAL INFORMATION
/Project Applicant
(Owner): t i Project{ Representative:
Tr�r,-titni:t%IG�iJbl2
NAME NAME
ADDRESS ADDRESS
17iayye c.4'A —6e-ar� CA 110(4�T
�i-f4� his - ILLS
PHONE # PHONE #
1. Action requested and project description
2. Street location of pr`o'ject: ?ZUi» G�1ra�V� -Gyne D;
3a. Present use of site: VftC(-Uk
3b. Previous use of site or structures:
4. Please list all previous cases
(if any) related to this project: cG SOS) piyl
5. Other related permit/approvals required.
Specify type and granting agency. V5e-u
6. Are you planning future phases of this project? Y No
If yes, explain
7. Project Area: (1 ot)00
Covered by structures, paving: 84U v` X461)
Landscaping, open space: Z b; AcVe �11
Total Area: k06.600 1p Klet
'q Jo E 6 rbS'>jk- e-5
8. Number of floors:Z-o e• b . C Y9
9. Present zoning: C`L — Zt-
10. Water and sewer service:
Domestic Public
Water Sewers
Does service exist at site?
(D
N
CY N
If yes, do purveyors have
capacity to meet demand of
project and all other approved
projects?
CY) N
N
If domestic waterpuplic sewers are
not
avai lable,
how will these
services be provided?_ Q� slid �ao�-u�
cv�
CnlniP.vt
Residential Projects:
11. Number and type of units:
12. Schools:
What school district(s) serves
Are existing school /facilit'YES NO
If not, what
classrooms?
4he property?
adequate to meet project needs?
will be made for additional
Non -Residential projects:
13. Distance to neare§t residential use or�sensitive use (school, hospital,
r
etc.) thnc o/
sensitive
Number and floor area of buildings
15. Number of employees and shifts:
16. Maximum employees per shift: 3"
Cctrw�ln+S w.-L%yvv. ii
17.eratinghours:`:2ns -'>�tU.vilh F.Ve Mcn ct\
OP l�Gu.v's
18. Identify any: End prod is PIN
Waste p oducts 'ae_u' >l >E'
Means of disposal D"VkeAT c_ 4;c:ry c_e_
19. Do project operations use, store or produce hazardous substances such as
oil, pestici chemicals, paints, or radioactive materials?
YES
20
If yes, explain
Do your operations require any pressurized tanks?
YES NO
21. Identify any flammable, reactive or explosive materials to be located on-
site. 6afdLn! -; uv":v\eraA -a D1CA—S selVoo:k
22. Will delivery or shipment trucks travel through residential areas to reach
the nearest highway?
YES NO
If yes, explain
B. ENVIRONMENTAL INFORMATION
1. Environmental Setting --Project Site `1
a. Existing use/structures Qa_cotowy
b. Topography/slopes
*c. Vegetation LoeeAc&
*d. Animals N311A
*e. Watercourses
f. Cultural/historical resources
g. Other
2. Environmental Setting -- Surrounding Area
a. Existing uses l
structures ,(types,de.�nsities):
l^SG'- C `cam p CAiin�,> y00MA
b. Topography/ slopes S k\io"i'V e CIV\ us l"
\CA o'
*c. Vegetation iUTA
*d. Animals w
*e. Watercourses ' 1
f. Cultural/historical resources IN)��
g. Other —
* Answers are not required if the area does not contain natural,
undeveloped land.
3. Are there any major trees on the site, including oak trees?
YES NO
If yes, type and number:
4. Will any natural watercourses, surface flow patterns, etc., be changed
through project development?:
YES NO
If yes, explain:
5. Grading:
Will the project require grading? NO
3
If yes, how many cubic yards?
Will it be balanced on site? NO
If not balanced, where will dirt be obtained or deposited?
6. Are there any identifiable landslides or other major geologic hazards on
the property (including uncompacted fill)?
YES NO
If yes, explain:
7. Is the property located within a high fire hazard area (hillsides with
moderately dense vegetation)?
YES (NO j
Distance to nearest fire station: 1.Z Vtn��eS
8. Noise: 1
Existing noise sources at site;Gi1 P_\'k:�G�i.�,yN1,.,lV�t%eP1,ucu�li�GiSt�
Noise to be generated by project:>J :CU�tx�S
9. Fumes:
Odors generated by project: _ k)OV1e-
Could toxic fumes be generated? _N d
10. What gnergy- onserving d signs or mat rial will be used?
J: I hereby certify that the statements furnished above and in:
the attached exhibits present the data and information required
for this initial evaluation to the best of my ability, and that
the facts, statements, and information presented are true and
correct to the best ofv knowledge and b lief.
Date Signatu�
�"kNeA'n!i eye \'Ato"',
Gh1 hO 110\1 :41 Iyw 0C �F.` 09:011M
I. Background
1. Name of Applicant: i ��\)f�� f IF_�Sr_ D e'alos7"gUc-�1ION
2. Address and Phone Number of Proponent:
3. Name, Address and Phone of Project Contact:
4
5
6
Date of Environmental Information Submittal:
/—i7 moi/
Date of Environmental Checklist Submittal:
<,-9
Lead A g e n c v (Agency Required Checklist):
7. Name of Proposal if applicable (Tract No. if Subdivision):
8. Related Applications (under the authority of this environmental
determination): t' ,
mEN5r )1F_u1
YES M
Variance: 5/
Conditional Use Permit:
Zone Change: v�
General Plan Amendment:
l»V-)-OJF'IFrjf 'c\Lr'FfEEME�
(Attach Completed Envifonmenta6 Information Form)
M
II. Environmental Impacts:
(Explanations and additional information to supplement all "yes" and "possibly"
answers are required to be submitted on attached sheets)
YES
NO POSSIBLY
1. Earth. Will the proposal result in:
a.
Unstable earth conditions or changes in
geologic substructures?
/
V
b.
Disruptions, displacements, compaction or
overcovering of the soil?
C.
Change in topography or ground surface relief
features?
d.
The destruction, covering or modification
of any unique geologic or physical feature?
e.
Any increase in wind or water erosion of
soils, either on or off the site?
f.
Changes in deposition, erosion of stream
banks or land adjacent to standing water,
changes in siltation, deposition or other
Processes which may modify the channel of
constant or intermittently flowing water as
well as the areas surrounding permanent or
intermittent standing water?
/
V
g.
Exposure of people or property to geologic
hazards such as earthquakes, landslides,
mudslides, ground failure, or similar
hazards?
2. Air. Will the proposal result in:
V/ a. Substantial air emissions or deterioration
/ ( of ambient air quality?
V b. The creation of objectionable odors?
V c. Alteration of air movement, moisture, or
temperature, or any changes in climate,
either locally or regionally?
3. Water. Will the proposal result in:
a. Changes in currents or the course or
direction of water movements?
YES NO POSSIBLY
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare
of endangered species of plants?
I/
C. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat
areas or plant communities which are
recognized as sensitive?
d. Introduction of new species of plants into
area, in barrier the normal
replenishment
existing of existing specec ies?
e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
b.
Changes in absorption rates, drainage
patterns, or the rate and amount of surface
run-off?
C.
Alterations of the course or flow of flood
waters?
/
V
d.
Changes in the amount of surface water in
any body of water?
4
e.
Discharge into surface waters, or in any
alteration of surface water quality including
but not limited to dissolved oxygen and
turbidity?
/
f.
Alteration of the direction or rate of flow
of ground waters?
e.
Change in the quantitv of ground waters,
either through direct additions or
withdrawals, or through interception of an
aquifer by cuts or excavations?
h.
Substantial reduction in the amount of water
otherwise available for public water
supplies?
t/
i.
Exposure of people or property to water
related hazards such as flooding?
4. Plant Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of plants (including trees,
shrubs, grass, crops, and aquatic plants)?
b. Reduction in the numbers of any unique rare
of endangered species of plants?
I/
C. Reduction in the size of sensitive habitat
areas or plant communities which are
recognized as sensitive?
d. Introduction of new species of plants into
area, in barrier the normal
replenishment
existing of existing specec ies?
e. Reduction in acreage of any agricultural
crop?
YES NO POSSIBLY
V
t/
V
4. Animal Life. Will the proposal result in:
a. Change in the diversity of species, or number
of any species of animals (birds, land
animals including reptiles, fish, and
shellfish, benthic organisms and insects)?
b. Reduction in the numbers of nay unique rare
or endangered species of animals?
C. Introduction of new species of animals into
an area, or in a barrier to the normal
migration or movement of resident species?
d. Reduction in size or deterioration in quality
of existing fish or wildlife habitat?
6. Noise. Will the proposal result in:
a. Significant increases in existing noise
levels?
b. Exposure of people to severe noise levels?
7. Light and Glare. Will the proposal result in:
a. Significant new light and glare or contribute
significantly to existing levels of light
and glare?
8. Land Use. Will the proposal result in:
a. A substantial alteration of the present or
planned land use in an area?
9. Natural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. An increase in the rate of use of anv natural
resources?
10. Risk of Upset. Will the proposal result in:
a. A risk of an explosion or the release of
hazardous substances (including but not
limited to, oil, pesticides, chemicals or
radiation) in the event of an accident or
upset condition?
YES NO POSSIBLY
b. Probable interference with an emergency
response plan or an emergency evacuation
plan?
11. Population. Will the proposal:
a. Alter the location, distribution, density,
or growth rate of the human population of
an area?
12. Housing. Will the proposal affect:
a. Existing housing, or create a demand for
additional housing?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal:
a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need
for new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas:
1. Fire Protection?
2. Police Protection?
3. Schools?
13. Transportation/Circulation. Will the proposal
result
in:
a.
Generation of Substantial additional
vehicular movement?
b.
Effects on existing parking facilities or
demand for new parking?
/
C.
Substantial impact on existing transportation
systems?
d.
Alterations to present patterns of
circulation or movement of people and eoods.
e.
Alterations to waterborne, rail or air
traffic?
/
1/
f.
Increase in traffic hazards to motor
vehicles, bicyclists or pedestrians?
14. Public Services. Will the proposal:
a. Have an effect upon, or result in the need
for new or altered governmental services in
any of the following areas:
1. Fire Protection?
2. Police Protection?
3. Schools?
YES NO POSSIBLY
4. Parks or other recreational facilities?
5. Maintenance of public facilities,
including roads?
6. Other governmental services?
/ 15. Energy. Will the proposal result in:
a. Useof substantial amounts of fuel or energy?
b. Substantial increase in demand upon existing
energy sources or require the development
of new sources of energy?
16. Utilities. Will the proposal result in:
a. A need for new systems, or Substantial
alterations to public utilities-?
17. Human Health. Will the proposal result in:
✓
a. Creation of any health hazard or potential
health hazard (excluding mental health)?
/
b. Exposure of people to potential health
hazards?
18. Aesthetics. Will the proposal result in:
V
a. The obstruction of any scenic vista or view
open to the public, or will the proposal
result in the creation of an aesthetically
offensive site open to the public view?
/
19. Recreation. Will the proposal result in:
a. An impact upon the quality or quantity of
existing recreational opportunities?
20. Cultural Resources. Will the proposal result in:
a. The alteration of or the destruction of a
prehistoric or historic archaeological site?
YES NO POSSIBLY
V/ b. Adverse physical or aesthetic effects to a
prehistoric or historic building, structure
or object?
C. A physical change which would affect unique
ethnic cultural values?
Vd. Restrictions on existing religious or sacred
uses within the potential impact area.
21. Mandatory Findings of Significance?
a.
Does the proposed project have the potential
to degrade the quality of the environment,
substantially reduce the habitat of a fish
orwildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife
population to drop below self sustaining
levels, threaten to eliminate or
significantly reduce a plant or animal
community, reduce the number or restrict the
range of a rare or endangered plant or animal
or eliminate important examples of the major
periods of California history or prehistory?
I/
b.
Does the proposed project have the potential
to achieve short-term, to the disadvantage
of long-term, environmental goals?
/
V
C.
Does the proposed project pose impacts which
are individually limited but cumulatively
considerable?
/
V
d.
Does the project pose environmental effects
which will cause substantial adverse effects
on human beings, either directly or
indirectly?
III. DISCUSSION OF ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION:
(Attach Narrative)
IV. DETERMINATION:
On the basis of this initial evaluation:
I find that the proposed project COULD NOT have a
significant effect on the environment, and a
/ NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared.
I find that although the proposed project could have a
significant effect on the environment, there will
not be a significant effect in this case because the
mitigation measures described on the attached sheet
have been incorporated into the proposed project.
A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FILL BE PREPARED.
I find that the proposed project MAY have a significant
effect on the environment, and an ENVIRONMENTAL
IMPACT REPORT is required.
Date:�IS lI Signature���.j�r�t�
Ti t 1 e: Y���fir(�szlirt d L
For the City o 1J,
iamond Bar, California
AFFIDAVIT OF ACCEPTANCE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT CASE NO.
I, the undersigned state:
We
I am the owner
We are
of the real property described in the above -numbered conditional
use permit.
I am aware of, and accept, all the stated conditions in said
We are
Conditional Use Permit Case No.
Executed this day of , 19_
I certify (or declare) under the penalty of perjury that the
We
foregoing is true and correct.
(Where the owner and applicant are not the same, both must sign)
Type or Print
Applicant NameC�Lckv-q 11. �a.11e
II Address?- 4 Cac�ci� rc D-,
City, State T)CUAnuVdl.
Signature
Owner
Name
Address_
City, State
Signature_
This signature must be acknowledged by a notary public. Attach
appropriate acknowledgements.
City of Diamond Bar
PLANNING COMMISSION
Staff Report
TO: CHAIRMAN AND PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
FROM: JAMES DeSTEFANO, DIRECTOR OF PLANK it
SUBJECT: REVIEW OF FY 91-91 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP)
FOR CONFORMITY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN PURSUANT TO SEC-
TION 65401 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE
DATE: MAY 10, 1991
California Government Code Section 65401 requires the Planning Commis-
sion to review public works projects proposed for. the ensuing fiscal
year and determine compliance with the General Plan.
City staff has prepared the attached CIP which briefly outlines each
proposed project. The projects include park improvements and a variety.
of street improvements.
Staff has reviewed the CIP and finds that the projects listed are con-
sistent with the proposed General Plan under study and consideration.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Commission review and approves the FY 91-92
CIP finding conformity with the proposed General Plan and forward a
recommendation the City Council for its adoption on May 21, 1991.
Ill -E Capital Imp. Programming 1
Capital Improvements
Programming
Local jurisdictions use both police and corporate powers to serve their
residents. Planners have traditionally relied upon the police powers to protect
public health, safety and welfare through zoning and subdivision regulations.
The corporate powers of local government, however, also have a major
impact on land use issues. Corporate powers are used to develop physical
facilities which have long term usefulness. These physical facilities include
streets and highways, public buildings, water and sewer lines, and park and
recreation facilities.
Capital improvements programming is the multiyear planning of public
infrastructure improvements. Since local government can seldom pay for these
facilities through an annual operating budget, numerous techniques have
evolved to finance capital improvements over a longer period. The total in-
vestment, therefore, includes not only the cost of purchase or of design and
construction, but also the cost of long term financing. Financing techniques
include the use of current operating budgets, various types of bonding, special
districts, special assessments, state and federal grants, and tax increment
financing. The capital improvements program must take a longer view than the
annual budget process, and must anticipate when new public facilities will be
needed or when existing facilities must be replaced.
The capital improvements program is a valuable implementation tool for
carrying out the general plan. Because the general plan establishes policies
for the direction, intensity, and rate of future growth, the capital improvements
program is instrumental in maintaining the local government's control of de-
velopment. Government Code Section 65402 requires that acquisition or dis-
posal of real property be reviewed by the planning agency for conformity with
the general plan. Acquisition includes dedications for street, park or other public
purposes as well as construction of public buildings or structures. Disposal
includes street vacations or abandonments as well as the sale of public lands.
Special districts, school districts, and joint powers agencies must also refer
their capital improvements programs to the planning agency of each affected
city or county for review of consistency with the applicable general plan. How
these capital improvements projects fit the goals and policies of the general
plan will determine to a large extent the success of the planning program.
The capital improvements program is also � useful planning tool. The avail-
ability of public facilities can serve as a basis for approval or denial of devel-
opment proposals. In many cases, the costs of public improvements are borne
by the private developer and eventually passed through to the home buyer or
the commercial/industrial user. In other cases, local government will pay im-
provement costs for developments which will provide significant employment
opportunities, increase sales tax revenues, or further adopted goals and poli-
cies. The prioritized list of capital improvements, therefore, must be flexible to
respond to development opportunities, yet must be guided by the long term
benefits which will accrue to the local jurisdiction and its residents.
There are four basic steps in developing a capital improvements program:
project identification, prioritization, reconciliation, and adoption. Needed capital
improvements should be identified and reliable preliminary cost estimates
should be prepared. Once identified, projects should be listed according to
need. This listing should include why each project is important and what the
consequences will be if it is or is not funded. The next step is to reconcile this
prioritized listing into a comprehensive capital improvements program which
coordinates improvement scheduling and recognizes the constraints of mun-
cipal financing. Finally, the capital improvements program should be formally
reviewed and adopted by the local government.
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
TO: JIM DeSTEFANO, PLANNING DIRECTOR �s /�✓
FROM: SID JALAL MOUSAVI, CITY ENGINEER/DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS
SUBJECT: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
DATE: MAY 9, 1991
Attached is a copy of the City of Diamond Bar's proposed Capital Improvement
Projects description pamphlet. I have also included two proposed summary
charts. These charts outline the implementation process from Fiscal Year
1990-91 through Fiscal Year 1994-95. The first chart shows the implementa-
tion by percentage and the second one by the cost. Wherever you find a
discrepancy in cost estimate, or funding source, between these charts and
project description pamphlet the chart's information supersede.
If you have any questions please let me know.
\
k
>
»\
��
«
-
-o
¥)m/
\
0V
°
)`3
q
(
(
,
<
2§
\
SI
Cf)
e
7
:
-
-
-
-
-
--
-
-
-
--
2
\
.
tM
°®
eo0
a
I
mmtu
E
f
)f];\`��`°a\/
.:);
\
)®!a!/�\
{/
.
E3°$
;/�&
Jim�
/
m
m\
`
/
/
`
a;
°)
�
§«!
-
;rG-e
§m
!
)\
Eo
a
a
u
-
.
WE
a�
0
cco
ma
azz
<�
00
u ¢
O�
UIQ
J
U
I
Emil
I
immmum
I
1111
Mon
I
M
0
a
r
t
a
a_o
a'n
Op
�D
m0
O�
O
c�
i
M
0
D
r.
21
BIMINI
I
I
T TEM NO _ So
CSTY OF'. DS A1viOND SAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT IMPROJECTS 1990 - 1994
VE
PROJECT- Sidewalk on the north side of Golden Springs
Drive from Grand Avenue to Brea Canyon
Sidewalk width should be 4.5' wide.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST_ $50,000.00 Part of this cost could be borne
by developer on the north side of Golden
Springs Drive between Gateway Center Drvie and
Copley Drive.
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING: TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
2 TF�M NO _ 4 9
C 1 TY OF D= AMON'D BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
PROJECT: Senior Center
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST: Not Known
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING: Not Known
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION: Not Known - NO MAP PROVIDED
9
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
C STY OF DS A.MOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
ATHLETIC FACILITIES
Athletic field lighting at Lorbeer Jr. High.
ESTIMATED COST: $180,000.00
FUNDING SOURCE: General Fund
SCHEDULING: FY 91 792
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
m
Z TEM NO _ 4 -7
C=TY" OF DSAMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
ATHLETIC FACILITIES
PROJECT:
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Upgrades of track and playing field at Lorbeer
Jr. High.
$140,000.00
General Fund
FY 91 -92
r
= TF,M NO _ 4 6
C=w OF D=AMOND BAI2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
PROJECT: Rennovation of Heritage Park Building.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
$200,000.00
Robert-Z'Berg General Fund
FY 93 -94
RD
e
R105; a
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
x TEM NO _ 4 5
Cxa7Y oF- Dx.�ribND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
Landscape Parkways on Temple Avenue between
Golden Springs Drive and Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
$60,000.00 The northerly parkway is within
the City of Pomona.
LLAD #38
FY 93 -94
LOCATION:
�4. y5 orl�
pF trY 'coir ZN v,
FRAA'X D c Z
LANTERMAN
' STATE HOSP & - p
r MENTAL-
% CENTER r•
G(Jk4 OAS .
y�J r ,✓COY
07 -ES P1.
Q Tool °R1T • �n FELT!
}$ S F C�o� T. 2/ o c . ♦n SAN
`_, R !t` J•��,0 �`LE i CY vRA1O _ vnto.a %' RN PLA.EL
CF rF p RA!'CHir40S' ('CL CES
.b RIDE �•pt1 ? /Gh h' S n° f v�
h,GHLp�D Lua (: r 'r. Ry 5/VT
d F1z•'E
OC ly CL
PL 4/c,
CY
INN N FO F DOESr, a G�q •°P? t•0/O '
OOff= Q e
ORS
w
i YC4�S/r._
A/.: ✓.__4�o oC4't' f u cw P ^.`vii L .00 OivNi Y�
=TEM NO _ 4 4
CS'TY' OF D=AMOND BAi2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
PROJECT: Landscape frontage road and medians at various
locations:
1. Tin Road at Bridle
2. Goldrush at Diamond Bar Blvd.
3. Golden Springs at Rancheria
4. Golden Springs at Platina
5. Golden Springs at Ballena
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST: $75,000.00
FUNDING SOURCE: LLAD # 38
SCHEDULING: FY 92 —93
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
I
c
PROJECT:
=TEM X70 - 43
C='TY OX' ID=AMOXTD BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
PARKS AND RECREATION
Replace wooden play equipment at Softwind and
Summitridge (Mini Park)
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
$20,000.00
LLAD #39
FY 91 -92
�
n
GP>yP'`�t 0i ➢ I I
2�C '�Q? °; •.�� `C�PrOT
u�N\E�"IOE�
fF�n'.:�i ��•u�
�3'
°�
¢`'�J
_�4T+�
CRc_;C
1GUIETC
�qP/
EiKULY
3 GUIEi CP'cEX Lv-
1G^�}a�SHim°( Fri °9 iK�=/V
0.004
Pi`
os 2?h4 9q 0 e ca W 2 oa 9 ..
(. _
SK4/
CIV_S
CCi
Da V
'L�A�O e�ey •ro
-�
SUMMIT
NUGG
. t n RIDGE
•�pOOe3_ 69
cQ' ark pa GFT AV PAR,
S4:1.\ryT QQtJi 0.1��^JD A\/Zxv.
J„S'N
f. _
y.p,
LYU(GUN OECTq
:eoc We 3a :a= o �"• -- _.
1
%2
1
20 Cp40 2 $ s Ll
9cr
Cc �c`� --
2.
RI
Mp
r
=TF1�1 NO _ 4 2
CITY OF DSAMONID BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
PARKS AND RECREATION
PROJECT: Install playground equipment and tot lot at
Softwind and Summitridge (Mini Park)
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED.COST: $30,000.00
FUNDING'SOURCE: LLAD 439
SCHEDULING: FY 91 -92
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
VIER
FO
=TEM NO _ 4 1.
C=�Y OF' D=AMOND 'BAI.2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
PARKS AND RECREATION
PROJECT-_ Replacement of obsolete and/or damaged
playground equipment at Heritage and Sycamore
Canyon Parks.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST: $45,000.00
FUNDING SOURCE: Pepsi Grant / General Fund
SCHEDULING: TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
='TEM NO _ AO
C= TY OF D= AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
PARKS AND RECREATION
PROJECT-_ Conversation of park signage, which currently
reads "Los Angeles County", to read "City of
Diamond Bar".
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
TBA
General Fund
TBA
Citywide - NO MAP PROVIDED
STEM NO _ 3 9
C S TY OF DS AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
PARKS AND RECREATION
PROJECT: Develop the .sites of Larkstone and Pantera
Parks.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
COST: TBA
FUNDING SOURCE: General Fund
SCHEDULING: TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
I•,
I?9 rfN.EANDEAING
O0.
at' ii
3 aCT r —'
Com.
9
5nT"
•ao"
- y PYA'
n
�T1 ]] ] OVill Pfla
tM C p
��MM p
�.�0, A� tVEN-
I•,
I?9 rfN.EANDEAING
O0.
at' ii
3 aCT r —'
GREEK
gq
�T1 ]] ] OVill Pfla
tM C p
A
i
2¢ C
3y y C aP
[R OiW000 it
s
c Si 3 / ti-+-.
`%
STEM I�YO _ 38
CS TY OF DS AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
City Hall / Community Center.
go
General Fund
M
go
11
f
= TEM N O _ 3 -Z
C = TY OF D= AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS
PROJECT: Upgrading of existing sewer pump stations
throughout the city.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST: TBA
FUNDING SOURCE: County and City
Los Angeles County is currently working on
design for the sewer pump systems.
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION: Citywide - NO MAP PROVIDED
C= Z`Y OF D= AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
WATER SYSTEMS
PROJECT: Development and deployment of a water
reclamation system, as per the city's master
plan.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATES) COST: $17,301,000.00
FUNDING SOURCE: General Fund and MWDSC
SCHEDULING: TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION: Citywide - NO MAP PROVIDED
Z TEM NO _ 3-5
C=TY OF' D=AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
,FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
Establishment of a city parkway tree trimming
program.
May utilize city maintenance unit.
$165,000.00
General Fund
TBA - Could begin as soon as program is
formulated.
LOCATION: Citywide - NO MAP PROVIDED
:E-X]F—m
CxE' DSP,MOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 1994
ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
PROJECT- Underground existing overhead electrical and
telephone lines, ridding the area of unsightly
overhead wires.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
$200,000.00
SCE Rule 20A Funds
TBA
, t , I 'L
LD BLU
CHICI
tLU
=TF.M NO _ 3 3
C = TY OF D= AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Construction of medians on Colima Road from
Gona Court to Lemon Avenue.
$190,000.00
General Fund
TBA
=TF'.M NO _ 3 2 -
CAPITAL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENT
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
Correct widespread deficiences of sidewalks,
curbs, and gutters.
$50,000.00 per year.
General Fund
SCHEDULING: Seven-year plan, with city divided into seven
phase areas. One phase area per year will be
administered until project is complete.
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION: Citywide - NO MAP PROVIDED
=TEM NO _ 31
C=TY OF D=A.MON'D BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
PROJECT: Constructionof medians on Pathfinder Road
from Brea Canyon Cutoff to Brea Canyon Road.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
$600,000.00
General Fund
TBA
�,yp1,E• .a'=rte, �3 ,�,as•� , -"P� .<l 4, J,;'
o' FL g�iy„..•+f~11G•�,.(`-L' m �� O�� I Pp Q Oq PI�•: E;
LLI
1C pts yj N •• o j�MUCRT�I,, ST
2050C sr=s•,+e C/4XE ' `Wcc� 1A
c y CJ S, 0 704 0 DR
P RDB •-od2~,?�NIN< <�
RD 6FJ�''w �A.NN o '� Oqe �NOat
C
I� M5VARY9
Dq RIDGE ADbN d ;
OLCFSARTEL[oo %.M'BDPApqTL0H`FF�7+IfiNge
�
71400 C
- W Dq • �F.P;EaciS QUAIL RUN QQ
HIGH COVNTRY O.R
..2 p of R1 0 4
g1CXFp9 'arpR ec c .. M C OR 3 a
QF [is
O r q�ZG -0 �n DIAMOND SA
LN °O. Z 0 fZ Z HS
RD > �9h r OyO .. ' I. C
N c S YpoN' 1- t O
E r
LF4R
cI CT. Fc�� NyOrycla C L[O P[N a U
OPC'E eJ y ' 57
<$ 7J Fi(i
��
< DR TLIh•E .. �, � a ,p e ySso y��
. NT a e°v i',o J=e Itioe'oJ oy
.(�4. RIM ♦ oI O o' 9
HcF'TRAGE7 S 9 lJ Jr.
po PA
r
STEM NO _ 3 O
G STY" OF DS AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
PROJECT: Construction of medians on Golden Springs
Drive from Grand Avenue to Avenidas Rancheros.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
$1,.425,600.00
FUNDING SOURCE:
General Fund
SCHEDULING:
TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
=TEM NO _ 2-90
C=TY OF D=AMON D BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
PROJECT: Installation of entry signs reading "City of
Diamond Bar" on major arterial roads at the
city limits.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST: TBA
FUNDING SOURCE: General Fund
SCHEDULING: TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION: Citywide - NO MAP PROVIDED
I
P
C= TY OF D= AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
PROJECT: Completion of median construction on Grand
Avenue.
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNSING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
$100,000.00
General Fund
TBA
DCTEM zq(D-
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 1994
-LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
PROJECT: Construction of sound walls along the
convergence of the 57 and 60 freeway; possibly
a joint City-CalTrans project.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES: Possibly joint City / State
ESTIMATED COST: TBA
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING: TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
DR
yc
t0
STEM NO_ 26
CSTY OF' DSA.MOND BAR.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
TRAFFIC CONTROL'
PROJECT: Installation of a traffic signal at Brea
Canyon Cutoff and the southbound exit from the
57 freeway.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
COST:
FUNDING SOURCE
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
City / Cal -Trans
$100,000.00
C'E-KERL FDrtP
TBA
_d }GE
I� CUT H a,: I G`N
)0 �.C� •�_ n
wp
Z
PARK
! 32uo B P
o°
/'a70g o .rte
CJE%= OF' D=AMOISD BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
TRAFFIC CONTROL
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Refurbishment of bicycle lanes on Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
$15,000.00
S.B. 821 FUNDS
TBA
From northern to southern city limits on
Diamond Bar Boulevard. - NO MAP PROVIDED
S TEM NO _ Z 4
CSTY Off' DSAMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
PARKS AND RECREATION
PROJECT: Park Improvements at Peterson Park.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST: $260,000.00
FUNDING SOURCE: Genral Fund
SCHEDULING: TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
c/
PL
CERA V 0.
a
CT
PROJECT:
AGENCIES:
2 TF.M NO _ 23
C--1 OF ID=AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Establishment and demarcation of bicycle
routes on Brea Canyon Road.
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
$50,000.00
S.B. 821 FUNDS
Currently in planning.
LOCATION: Citywide along Brea canyon Road. Perhaps a
joint effort with the City of Brea can be
explored. - NO MAP PROVIDED
STEM NO _ 22
CS �Y OF DS AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
TRAFFIC CONTROL
PROJECT: Reconfiguration of the intersection of Golden
Springs Drive and Grand Avenue.
CORRDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST: $100,000.00
FUNDING SOURCE: S.B. County and Developers Fees
SCHEDULING: TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER: A
LOCATION:
=TENS NO _ Z 1
C2 TY OF 1D=2%MONiD BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
TRAFFIC CONTROL
PROJECT: Construction of circulation barrier to deter
traffic using Quail Summit Drive and Rolling
Knoll Drive as an alternate accross between
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue.
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
$10,000.00
General Fund
Currently in planning.
=TF -M NO _ 20
C=`t'Y OF D=AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
TRAFFIC CONTROL
PROJECT: Construction of bus turnouts along regularly
traveled bus routes. Construction of concrete
bus pads.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
TBA
Prop. A Funds
TBA
LOCATION: Citywide - NO MAP PROVIDED
S TEM NO _ 1 9
C STY OF DS AMOND B�2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
TRAFFIC CONTROL
PROJECT:
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Po
Installation of traffic signal at Kiowa Crest
Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard.
$100,000.00
General Fund
Set for completion in the fall of 1990. This
project is being administered by the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works, who
has set the schedule.
CH
I
STEM NO _ 18
CSTY C F' DSAMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
TRAFFIC CONTROL
PROJECT: Signal installation and realignment for
Pathfinder Road bridge widening. The county is
currently designing the project.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
County and Cal -Trans
$150,000.00
Prop. A and FAU Funds
SCHEDULING: TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER: A
LOCATION:
CK
/• - /1
S j f '
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
2 TEM NO _ Z 7
C7 TY OF ID=AMOND BA32
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Widening of Brea Canyon Road from Copper
Canyon Road to the southern city limits.
ESTIMATED COST: $50,000.00
FUNDING SOURCE: Gas Tax
SCHEDULING: TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:,
LOCATION:
v
�'
J
s '
c/;Q'040-/o
t
=TEM NO _ 1 6
C=TY O]E' D=AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
Resurface Grand Avenue from 57 freeway to San
Bernardino County line.
$870,000.00
General Fund
RM
Z TEM NO _ 3-5
4--:1C TY OF D= AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT: Widening of westbound portion of Lycoming
Street from Glenwick Avenue to Lemon Avenue.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST: $40,000.00 This cost can be borne by
developer of the north side of Lycoming
Street.
FUNDING SOURCE: General Fund
SCHEDULING- TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER;
LOCATION:
r, ...,-r
=TEM 140 _ 14
C Z TY OF D= AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
.STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT: Slurry resealing on city streets.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST: $150,000.00 for AREA 1 of 7 areas.
FUNDING SOURCE: General Fund
SCHEDULING: Seven-year plan, with city divided into seven
phase .areas. One phase will be administered
per year.
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER: Annual
LOCATION: Citywide - NO MAP PROVIDED
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
Z TEM NO _ 1 3
CSTY OF' D=P.iKONL7 B,Al2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
ESTIMATED COST
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Construction of improvements on Brea Canyon
Road from Colima Road to Pathfinder Road.
$200,000.00
General Fund
• t t
STEM NO _ 12
CS'�Y OF DSAMON"D SAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT- Widening to full width of Brea Canyon Cutoff
from Pathfinder Road to 57 freeway.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES• County of Los Angeles and Cal -Trans
ESTIMATED COST: ,$250,000.00
FUNDING SOURCE: General•Fund
SCHEDULING: TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
?ten, Cats�C;%4J
_LLcu z
EAP
. C7,./.,OTIC
e.
s\PO �r. I�> ; P�DGt 2 �•� q7 .a
/4:V
1 CV i
DR ZS %:O,c - u. ` p CN 9✓� q, Cab C9.p�,
Cp.cSTLIk,E
RIMY/ <':. ,\
W �/DOS
Q U
X TEM NO _ 1 1
C = Z�Y OF D= AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT: Improvements as specified in the adopted
Traffic Circulation Element / Traffic
Congestion Management Plan.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:. L A C T C
ESTIMATED COST: TBA
FUNDING SOURCE: Traffic Circulation Consultant S ReEOMm eN D14T)an/S,
SCHEDULING: Contingent upon adoption of TCE / TCM and
general plan. The award of contract to a
traffic engineering firm for preparation of a
Traffic Circulation Element is scheduled for
the first Council meeeting in December.
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION: Citywide.- NO MAP PROVIDED .
0
=TEM NO _ 1 O
C = TX' OF D= AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT: Modification of western terminus of Sunset
Crossing Road including possible extension
into City of Industry.
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST: $50,000.00
FUNDING SOURCE: General Fund
SCHEDULING: TBA
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
r
STEM TTO _ 9
CSTY Off' D=AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Improvements to complement modifications of
57/60 freeway interchange.
CAL - 'r RP NS
Contingent upon planning for interchange works.
On surface street in vicinity of interchange.
NO MAP PROVIDED
It
S TEM NO _ 8
CSTY OF' D=AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT: Widening westbound Colima Road from Brea
Canyon Road to Lemon Avenue.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
$70,000.00 Part of this cost could be borne
by the developer on the north side of Colima
Road in the vicinity of Banning Way.
General Fund
TBA
PROJECT:
STEM NO _ 7
C=TY OF D=IAMOND B2%I2
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Resurface Mountain Laurel Way from Fox Glen
Drive to Diamond Bar Boulevard, and Maple Hill
Road from Mountain Laurel Way to Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Q
CH
$75,000.00
General Fund or Gas Tax
TBA
i
. m I
S TEM NO _ 6
CSTY OF' DSAMON� BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Resurface Sunset Crossing Road from Diamond
Bar Boulevard to Golden Springs Drive.
$90,000.00
General Fund or Gas Tax
TBA
wu%}- , n—
qcE.+ _ YR
n\ LL\
. f '
=TEM NO _ 5
C = TY OF : D= AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT: Resurface Colima Road from Gona Court to Brea
Canyon Road. ,
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
w NORTH
d ST N <O
,V
LImKSTONF
• � U
L' -s
$80,000.00
GENERAL FUND OR GAS TAX
TBA
ay �
0
0
N
QO/ e. \N W�INi I9Y -BE
CH
u -
i
a�
Og 3� 2i� oo �Q
PROJECT:
S TEm NO _ 4
C :]C OF DS AMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
Resurface Brea Canyon Road from Lycoming
Street to Colima Road.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
$100,000.00 Part of this cost could be borne
by the "Santa Fe Industrial Park" currently
under construction within the City of
Industry.
GENERAL FUND OR GAS TAX
TBA
S TEM NO _ 3
CS'Z'Y OF DS.i�.MON"D BAFL
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Resurface Golden Springs Road from Grand
Avenue to Brea Canyon Road.
$500,000.00
GENERAL FUND AND DEVELOPERS FEES
�1
I
C = TY OF D= AMOND BAR.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
PROJECT: Pathfinder Road bridge at the 57 freeway will
be widened to four lanes. A possible joint
City-CalTrans venture in conjunction with
proposed Park -and Ride facility. The County is
administering this project.
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
ESTIMATED COST
FUNDING SOURCE:
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
COUNTY IS ADMINISTRATOR
$1,500,000.00
PROP. A FUND AND FAU FUND
1991 - 1992
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
2 1;_M NO _ 1
CST`Y OF' D2AMON.� BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Construct improvements on Brea Canyon Road
from Fountain Springs Road to Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
$700,000.00
GENERAL FUND OR GAS TAX
no
R CT.NHTRY
y z �
L,
Gy tN
Bk,
,
PROJECT:
COORDINATING
AGENCIES:
2 1;_M NO _ 1
CST`Y OF' D2AMON.� BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990 - 1994
STREET IMPROVEMENTS
ESTIMATED COST:
FUNDING SOURCE
SCHEDULING:
PROJECT /
PRIORITY NUMBER:
LOCATION:
Construct improvements on Brea Canyon Road
from Fountain Springs Road to Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
$700,000.00
GENERAL FUND OR GAS TAX
no
R CT.NHTRY
y z �
L,
Gy tN
Bk,
r
Table of Contents (Continued)
LANDSCAPING AND IRRIGATION
Item No. 27
Item No. 28
Item No. 29
Item No. 30
Item No. 31
Item No. 35
Item No. 44
Item No. 45
ELECTRICAL SYSTEMS
Item No. 34
WATER SYSTEMS
Item No. 36
SEWER AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEMS
Item No. 37
MUNICIPAL BUILDINGS AND FACILITIES
Item No. 38
Item No. 49
TRAFFIC CONTROL
Item No. 18
Item No. 19
Item No. 20
Item No. 21 I�
Item No. 22
Item No. 23
Item No. 25
Item No. 26
57 & 60 Freeways
Grand Avenue
City Entrance Signs
Golden Springs Drive
Pathfinder Road
Parkway Tree Trimming
Landscape Frontage Roads
Temple Avenue
Diamond Bar Boulevard
Water Reclamation System
Sewer Pump System
City Hall/Community Center
Senior Center
Pathfinder Road
Kiowa Crest & Diamond Bar Blvd.
Bus Turnouts
Rolling Knoll & Quail Summit Drive
Golden Springs Drive & Grand Ave
Brea Canyon Road
Diamond Bar Blvd.
Brea Canyon Cutoff & 57 Freeway
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS 1990-1994
TABLE OF CONTENTS
(By Subject)
STREETIMPROVEMENTS
Item No. 1
Item No. 2
Item No. 3
Item No. 4
Item No. 5
Item No. 6
Item No. 7
Item No. 8
Item No. 9
Item No. 10
Item No. 11
Item No. 12
Item No. 13
Item No. 14
Item No. 15
Item No. 16
Item No. 17
Item No. 32
Item No. 33
Item No. 50
PARKS AND RECREATION IMPROVEMENTS
Item No. 24
Item No. 39
Item No. 40
Item No. 41
Item No. 42
Item No. 43
Item No. 46
Item No. 47
Item No. 48
Brea Canyon Road
Pathfinder Road Bridge
Golden Springs Drive
Brea Canyon Road
Colima Road
Sunset Crossing Road
Mountain Laurel Way & Maple HillsRoad
Colima Road
57/60 Freeway
Sunset Crossing Road
Traffic Circulation Element/
Congestion Management Plan
Brea Canyon Road
Brea Canyon Road
Slurry Seal
Lycoming Street
Grand Avenue
Brea Canyon Road
Sidewalk & Curb & Gutter Repair
Colima Road
Golden Springs Drive
Peterson Park
Larkstone & Pantera Parks
Park Sinage
Heritage & Sycamore Canyon Parks
Softwind & Summitridge Parks
Softwind & Summitridge Parks
Heritage Park
Lorbeer Jr. High
Lorbeer Jr. High
P.ESOLUTiON 140. ?.C. 91-
ING COMMISSION Or
TiiE
yptjVa FINDINGS PURSUANT
TKE YLANN 65401
p, RESOLUTION OF *iMENT CORE SECTSON1991-92
OF DSAMOND BAR
CIT- Ip GOVECSTY�S FISCAL YEAR
TO CALIFOd To TxE
VERTAININ SENT PROJECTS.
CAPITAL IMPROVE.
nment Code Section
65401 requires
rojts
rJpfor the
ec
A' fornia Goer
(i) Cali sed public works p
to reV3. P othereof with the
this Commission
to deterraine c°mpliance
ensuing fiscal Year of the City of
CM
IS General Plan. and City Ensineer
The City p,anager roposed Capital
pr a P which
d Sar have heretofore. P , 1.91- fiscal ye
s a 92 osed to
Diamon for t.- Cit} rop
Prof vrorks of lmpr°vement p-
2mprOvemen� cram ects include, y,ut
certain public
del -92
92 Fiscal tear. Said Fro?
briefly traffic
1991- iMnrove*nents I
during the hie way and.
pCGltr street
and j,mQT°V em,entS r
are not limited to,
�• fications, Part;
and mo_
signal installations, ticed
has conducted a duly n
improvements year
median Commission Bar Fiscal
This of Diamond
4on the city
discus ,.ojects contained
oeting disc 7 and the P`
public m ent Procira.•., to the ad°ption °f
Capital Zmprovem Prior
1991-92 sided said discussions
therein, and concluded
this Resolution- ;on of the City cf
eso sit the on• nning Commis_
B. Pia as follora%
t10y� ) R'HEREFORr•, and resolve
Diamond Bar does hereby find, determine
1
1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part
A, of this Resolution.
2. The City of Diamond Ear was incorporated on April
18, 1989 and is proceeding in a timely fashion with.the
preparation of a general plan.
3. Based upon the facts and evidence presented during
the public hearing conducted by this Commission regarding the
City's Fiscal Year 1991-92 Capital Improvement Program, including
oral and documentary evidence provided by City staff, this
Commission, in accordance with the provisions of California
Government Code Section 65360, hereby finds as follows,
(a) There is a reasonable probability that the
public works projects identified in the City's proposed Fiscal
Year 1991-92 Capital Improvement. Program will be consistent with
the general plan proposal being considered and studied by the
City;
(b) There is little or no probability that the
public works projects identified in the City's Fiscal Year
1991-92 Capital Improvement Program will be of substantial
detriment to, or interfere�lwith, the proposed general plan; and
(c) The proposed public works projects comply with
all other applicable requirements of State law and local
ordinances, regulations and standards.
4. This'Resolution shall serve as the Planning
Commission's report to the City Council regarding the conformity
of the public works projects proposed in the City's Fiscal Year
E
1991-92 Program as required by California Government Code Section
65801.
5. The Secretary to the Planning Commission shall:
(a) Certify as to the adoption Of this Resolution;
and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy hereof to
the City Council of the City of Dianond Bar for use in its
deliberations regarding said Budget.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this T_____ day of may, 1991.
---------
I, , Secretary to the
Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify
that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at
a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar held on the day of May, 1991, by the following
vote:
AXES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
d
C0101ISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAINED:
COMMISSIONERS:
ATTEST:
Secretary to the Planning -
Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar
L11011�65401RE51Le 5.1 3
Item 5:
Staff will be making a presentation.
AGENDA NO.2.C-3
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
AGENDA REPORT
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DATE: April 11, 1991 MEETING DATE: April 16, 1991
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Robert L. Van Nort, City Manager
FROM: Irwin M. Kaplan, City Planner, Emeritus
SUBJECT: Economic Development Strategy
Attached is a proposal for the preparation of an Economic Development Strategy,
which was submitted by the firm of Kotin, Regan and Mouchly at our request.
A meeting was held on April 4 with Allan Kotin, Councilmembers Papen and
Nardella, representatives from the Chamber of Commerce and staff. The purpose
of the discussion was to design a workshop which would result in an economic
development strategy for Diamond Bar.
Although Mr. Kotin originally proposed a one=day community workshop, the partic-
ipants at the April 4 meeting felt that the process would not succeed unless the
workshop:
1. Is preceded by an educational process in which there is discussion of the
issues having to do with revenue generation, the trade-offs involved with dif-
ferent economic development policies, and the risks and rewards associated with
pursuing a particular development policy, and
2. Is designed to expand the opportunity for broad community participation in
the process.
As a result of the meeting, the attached proposal was submitted, at a cost of
$8,500.00, which incorporated both the educational and public participation pro-
cesses by piggybacking the program on to an expanded General Plan Advisory Com-
mittee (GPAC) effort. Shortly after the workshop is concluded, an action docu-
ment would be prepared which wouldl summarize the results of the workshop, out-
line the next steps for those strategies for which there is consensus and sug-
gest roles and responsibilities for key players whose participation is needed to
advance the effort.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Amount Requested $8,500.00
Budgeted Amount $ N/A
In Account Number
Deficit: $ N/A
Revenue Source:
REVIEWED by:
%c////G _w /lil1140W11y/r'% � YLJI MVU— L I/ "
Robert L. Van Nort Andrew V. Arczynski Terrence L. Belanger
City Manager City Attorney Assistant City Manag
SENT BY:KOTIN REGAN MOUCHLY 4-11-91 ; 4:14PM
KOTIN, REGAN 010UCHLY, Inc.
Real Estate Consultants
11611 San Vicente Boulevard
Suite 700
Los Angeles, California 90049
213!820-0900 FAX: 213i820.1703
Mr. Robert L. Van Nort
City Manager
City of Diamond Bar
21600 East Copley Drive
Suite 100
Diamond Bar, California 9-1765
12138201703—CITY OF DIAMOND BAR :R 2
April 11, 1991
RE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT -':TRATE--Y CONSULTING SERVICES PROPOSAL
Dear Mr. Van Nort:
I enjoyed very much the opportunity to meet with you, your colleagues on the City staff and
representatives of the community, and City Council on April 7 in your offices. As a result of
that meeting, Kotin, Regan & Mouchly, Inc. (KR`4) is pleased to submit an ex;,anded and
refined proposal for consulting services.. This letter represents a more formal and better
defined proposal than the prior conceptual proposal dated April 1, 1991 and fully supersedes
that proposal in al; respects.
As you requested, I have attempted to incorporate into this revise, and expanded proposal
many of the issues that were raised at the meeting with respect to the character and future of
the community. I have also addressed the issue of preparation for an economic development
strategy meeting with emphasis on dra*�ing a better connection in the mind of many of the
community planning participants between economic development. land use and other pure
"Planning, elements.
Background and Framework of Issues
Based on earlier discussions with Irwin Kaplan, as well as our meeting yesterday, it appears to
KRM that there is a group of interrelated issues which collectively constitute the framework for
determining an economic development strategy. These issues appear to fall into four ma ar
categories which are listed beiow in no particular order of importance or precedence:
1. Maintaining and, ideally, improving the business environment within the City as
reflected in two possible ways: improving market support for existing businesses
and expanding the business base.
21660 EAST COPLEY DRIVE • SUITE 100
DIAMOND BAR, CA 917654177
714-860-2489 • FAX 714-861-3117
April 18, 1991
Allan Kotin
KOTIN, REGAN & MOUCHLY
11611 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 600
Los Angeles, CA 90049
Dear Allan,
CITY OF
DIAMOND S"R
APR2 2 1991,r�
_.
c •. c.T
Your proposal to conduct activities in support of an Economic
Development Strategy for the City of Diamond Bar was approved by
the City Council at its April 16, 1991, meeting. The contract
will be sent to you under separate cover.
Attached is a copy of a map outlining the area which was
referenced in the April 11 letter from Mr. Van Nort. In review-
ing that letter, however, I believe the intent was to do an
analysis of the economic development potential of Golden Springs
Drive between Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. I will
verify this with Mr. Van Nort when he returns at the end of the
month, but I would suggest that you prepare your response in
accordance with this letter and the attached map.
As a separate item, the City may also wish to conduct a similar
study for that section of Brea Canyon Road between Golden Springs
Drive and Pathfinder (which is outlined separately on the
attached map).
The timing of these efforts }nay be such that the Economic Devel-
opment Strategy effort may ,flake place concurrently with these
area -specific studies, so we would need to coordinate the various
activities so that they will be mutually supportive.
Sjincerely,
P. -i I v
Irwin M. Kaplan
City Planner, Emeritus
IMK:nbw
Enclosures
cc: City Manager
Planning Director
JOHN A. FORBING JAY C. KIM PHYLLIS E. PAPEN DONALD C. NARDELLA GARY H. WERNER ROBERT L. VAN NORT
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem Councilmember Councilmember
Councilmember City Manager
SENT �BY:KOTIN REGAN MCUCHLY 4-11—Q1 k:75Flrl ;
KCI IN, REGAN & iMOUCHLY Inc.
Economic Development Strategy Consulting Services Proposal
12138201703—CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ;# 3
April 11, 1991
2. Identifying the character of non-residential development in the area explicitly
and determining whether or not the office, retail and other non-residential
elements of Diamond Bar should be "high end" in a manner consistent with the
current housing prices or should be targeted to serve a broader income -based
market population.
3. A focus on central and integrated new non-residential development versus
geographically externa' or development of such uses on the periphery of the
City.
4. Identification and establishment of a balance between ne,, revenue sources as
between new tax -generating development and better mechanisms to tax the
existing population.
Listening to the group, some other aspects of community awareness and other elements
became apparent in the discussion. Perhaps the most important one of these is that the
current GPAC, which is reviewing the proposed general plan, is dealing almost exclusively with
land use elements and has rot drawn the connection between land use elements, fiscal impact
and the ultimate economic health of the community. One of the participans ves.*.erday
I the fact that there is a lane faction that favors maintaining the present land use mix
which, without any material change, would sustain and perhaps intensify the potential
economic problems of an inadequate commercial base to support the required community
services. We at KRM feel it is critical that this connection be established in the minds of those
reviewing the plan before the plan, is adopted. An economic development strategy cannot and
should not be developed separately from a slew general plan, particularly if the bvo are being
considered at all' contemporaneously.
Another factor which emerged is that the trade-offs or Issues having to do v✓ith revenue
generation are not widely understood, The risks and rewards associated with attractingmajor
retail development need to be explored and discussed. They are materially different if the
retail development is, in fact, a part pf an internal high-end or specialty environment as
distinguished from peripheral hi;h volume middle -to -low-income mass merchandising along
the freeway.
This leads to the related fact that geographic decisions as to land use also are re':ated very
much to economic development strategies. They have very different implications for the
success of the local merchant base and different implications for the competitive position that
the City may find itself in with respect to other cities in the Route 60 corridor. One fact did
seem to emerge as a theme for an economic development strategy, namely that the eastern
San Gabriel Valley lacks a "high-end" focus for retail, office or mixed-use development. It may
be that Diamond Bar is a suitable place for such development.
2
SENT BY:KOTZN REGAN MOUCHLY ; 4-11-91 ; 4:17PM ;
KOTIN. REGAN & iNIOUCHLY. Inc.
Economic Development Strategy Consulting Services Proposal
Proposed Scope of Services
12138201703-CiTY OF D?AMCNO BAR 4
KRM proposes a three-phase consulting effort along the following general lines:
April 11, 1991
Phase 1 Develop with City staff and designated other community participants a
series of issue lists with pros and cons for distribution at CPAC meetings
and other public everts to raise public awareness and solicit public
comment to the extent that it is forthcoming.
Phase 2 Within hvo to three months, review the results of this Phase 1 outreach
program and conduct a series of intensive debriefings with community
representatives; counsel (or City Council) and staff to form an agenda
oriented to specific issues and critical questions for an economic
development strategy meeting.
Phase 3 Conductand subsequentlydocumentan economic develcpmentstrategy
meeting,
The Phase 1 effortwould largely be advisory and would probably involve one extended session
similar to the one on April 7 but this time taking careful notes and developing a series of
Issues, The purpose here would not be in-depth anaiysls but rather consciousness -raising
showing the pros and cons and problems and benefits of different courses of action so that
they may be brought up at the GP.AC meetings for public comment. This public comment is
important to solicit for two critical reasons. First, there are people who %will feel cheated if the
ultimate strategy meeting is not a public meeting. At the same time, this- strategy meeting
should not be an open public hearing or it will degenerate and not focus. It is also important
that all potential objectors be given the opportunity to voice their cpinions so that they do not
feel left out of the process.
The second phase of the proposed effort is the preparation of a clear agenda and well defined
issues for an economic development strate&y sleeting. Included Within this would be selecting
the attendees and the observers. I stress the word observers rather than audience because,
while this could be broadcast on a public basis, it should not be a large public meeting If it
is to be effective and focused.
The critical output of thls second phase would be a briefing book and agenda for the meeting
distributed to the participants and, at your discretion, the observers as well.
The third and final phase of the effort would be undertaken at a one -day meeting with a lunch
break at a selected location within the City. That meeting would involve myself as a
moderator, a key staff member of my firm as a coordinator and a trained "facilitator" to record
and structure the information and ideas as they flow through the group.
`QA1Y MOUCHLY
; 4-17-91 4:19PM ;
KOTIN, RECAN C VIOUCHLY, Inc.
12133201703,027Y OF DIAMOND BAP .„ 5
Economic Development Strategy Consuldng Services Proposal
r
The output of this phase would be both the meeting itself and whatever elements o,` consensus
or agreement that emerged as well as a document summarizing the meeting,
The document would, to the extent that the meeting generated consensus, provide an outline
of a formal economic development strategy.
,the issues creating a development strate It would in any case provide clear discussion of
areas of agreement, prerequisites for implemend lntextent
towhicbhPthere was a consensus. In
elements of a near-term action program. identified together g-` r with
Budget and Schedule
Since the CPAC meetings meat monthly, the schedule for Phase 1 may require 60 -9G d'
since we would have to prepare the material and then distribute it equine 60aF
successive CPAC meetings.days
presumably , two
Given the general flow of seasonal activity this Phase 1 timetable suggests that the economic
development strategy meeting itself wo
the fall in September. It might be possible tohcld at the end of the summer or beginning
reduce the attendance level p get ii into June or Jul but I think that ung of
J yF
might
bVith respect to budget, KR,tii would be
of approximately $8,500, While KRM wouldpcommit only to aktotal budgreared to unertae the et,
fora budget
below for your information a tentative breakdo��,n of the budget as bet;�een pf;Se?rovided
Phase 1 ....
Phase Z , ..... $1,000
Phase 3 1 .................... . ....... $3,000
Total $j 00
The cost of Phase 3 include; the rte= $8,500
ention
the initial briefing book and sof a formal facilitator and the preparation of both
ubsequent report.
The client will be charged only for the actual costs incurred by KRM in accordance with its
standard rate schedule a copy h is attached hereto as Exhibit A
any g l �f which '.
agreement between the Ci and KRM. In addition, the client will be billed montmade a hly for
costs incurred to date and all bills are due and payable in 30 days.
Qualifications
KRM has enclosed with this proposal a co
selected assignments showing a wide range of public and private transactions. Of its cororate brochure py oour
d KRM would
SENT BY:KOTIN REOAN MOUCHLY ; 4-11-91 ; 4:20PM
KOTIN, REGAN & MOUCHLY, Inc.
Economic Development Strategy Consulting Services Proposal
12138201703—CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ;# c
April 11, 1991
specifically direct you to David Davis, Director of Planning and Community Development for
the City of Santa Barbara, As I discussed in our meeting, community meetings are not a
primary focus of our business. Our major experience in the area of community outreach
meetings is with h",r. Davis in a growth management strategy meeting we chaired for him. He
may be reached at (805) 56-1-5455.
Authorization and Acceptance
if this proposal meets with your approval, please sign the enclosed copy and return it to us as
authorization to commence vrork. it your City procedures require a different form of contract
or purchase order, please feel free to prepare such a contract for our review provided that it
includes directly or by reference the critical elements of this proposal and the aitached Exhibit
A.
The consulting effort will be conducted and managed by me. I will be assisted by Davida
seliger, who',Nill prepare the actual roports and briofing materials under my rupervidon.
As I mentioned in our meeting, I think this is a particularly exciting and unusual challenge.
Both the change in the real estate market and the particular position in the City's history
provide significant challenge and a real opportunity to shape future growth.
AGREED TO AND AUTHORiLED BY:
(Company)
(Name)
(Tide)
cc: Irwin Kaplan, City Planner Emeritus
Enclosure
C: \FILES\1,1I5199\W P\O8ARPRO?:ADK i a
5
RespectUly subm;tted,
Allan D.
Kotir,
(Date)
SENT BY:KOTIN REGAN MOUCHLY : 4-11-91 4:21PM : 12133201703—CITY OF DIAMOND BAR :# 7
KOTIN, KCAN & N/lOUCHLY Inc.
Real Estate Consultants
11611 San Vicente Boulevard
Suite 700
Los Angeles, California £00119
213;820-0900 FAX: 213%820-1703
Exhibit .A
SCHEDULE OF CHARGES
1991
Other
Data Entry
Standard Rates
Public A-encies
Professional Fees *
Hourly
Hourly
Principals
$200
3160
Senior Associates
$130
$120
Associates (A)
595
$90
Associates (6)
$70
70
Associates (C)
$50
$50
Other
Data Entry
$30
$3C
Client -Directed Production Services
$30
$30
In -House Professional Ccmputer (Jse
S15
$1
Designated Contractors
Cost + 150/o
Cost + 159.
Out -of -Pocket Expenses
At Cost
At Cost
' Expert witness testimony and international assignments are subject to special aran2erners.
BILLING POLICIES
1. Bills are due and payable in full within 301 days of invoice date. Past dub invokes will accrje interest at
Prime plus 29o.
2.uesdons about billings must be addressed is writing to KR:M widlin 21 days of date of Invoice. The absence
o any such inquiries shall be deemed acknowledgement of KRA9's services and agreement with KRM's
charges for such services. If a dispute arises under the agreement of which this schedule Is part, &,,e prevailing
party in such dispute shall be enilded to reasonable aflorney's fees and cuub ui suit —
�.gunnd.tnrmnrl P�Lth�nri-r�d burr