HomeMy WebLinkAbout3/7/2006THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY ADELPHIA FOR AIRING ON
CHANNEL 3 AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR
PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE -BROADCAST
EVERY SATURDAY AT 9:00 A.M. AND EVERY TUESDAY AT 8:00 P.M. ON.
CHANNEL 3.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
March 7, 2006
Next Resolution No. 2006-17
Next Ordinance No. 04(2006)
CLOSED SESSION: 5:00 p.m., Room CC -8
Public Comments on Closed Session Agenda
► Government Code Section 54956.9(c) Initiation of Litigation -1 case
► Government Code Section 54956(b) (3)(E)
Conference with Legal Counsel — Potential Litigation - 1 Case
STUDY SESSION: 5:15 p.m., Room CC -8
► Library Survey
ON. AB 1234 Reimbursement Policy
► Public Safety Committee
Public Comments
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
6:30 p.m.
Mayor
Ahmad H. Sakr, Ph.D.,
Islamic Education Center
Council Members Chang, Tanaka, Tye,
Mayor Pro Tem Zirbes, Mayor Herrera
Mayor
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 Certificates of Recognition to Meredith Morris, Caitlen Kemble and
Genessis Holguin being named to the "2006 Sound of America Honor
Band and Chorus".
MARCH 7, 2006 PAGE 2
BUSINESS OF THE MONTH:
1.2 Presentation of City Tile to Bob and Kelli Reed, Owners of Diamond Mail
and Shipping as Business of the Month, March, 2006 and slide
presentation.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each
regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to
directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to
the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda.
Although the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the
Council generally cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted
agenda. Please complete a_ Speaker's Card and „give it to the City Clerk
(completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five-minute maximum time limit
when addressing the City. Council.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT: Under the Brown Act, members of the
City Council may briefly respond to public comments but no extended discussion
and no action on such matters may take place.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING — March 9,
2006 — 7:00 p.m., Hearing Board Room, AQMDIGovernment Center,
21865 Copley Dr.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — March 14 2006 — 7:00 p.m.,
Auditorium, AQMDIGovernment Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.3 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — March 21, 2006 — 6:30 p.m., Auditorium,
AQMDIGovernment Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 City Council Minutes:
6.1.1 Study Session of February 21, 2006 — Approve as submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of February 21, 2006 — Approve as submitted
6.2 Planning Commission Minutes:
6.2.1 January 10, 2006 - Receive and file.
6.2.2 January 24, 2006 — Receive and file.
MARCH 7, 2006 PAGE 3
6.3 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting of
January 26, 2006 - Receive and file.
6.4 Ratification of Check Register - Ratify Check Register containing
checks dated February 23 and March 2, 2006 totaling $1,232,864.68.
6.5 Treasurer's Statement- month of January, 2006 - Review and approve.
6.6 Approval of Amendment No. 4 in an Amount Not -to -Exceed $47,000
with Valley Crest Landscape Maintenance to Refurbish the Lower
Athletic Field at Summit Ridge Park, Including Re -Grading of Field,
Refurbishing of Irrigation System and Installation of New Sod; and
Approval of a General Fund Appropriation of $40,000 to Spend a
$40,000 Retention Forfeiture from KPRS for Construction of the
Diamond Bar Center.
Recommended Action: Approve and Appropriate.
Requested by: Community Services Department
6.7 Second Reading by Title Only, Waive Full Reading of and Adopt
Ordinance No. 03(2006) Approving Zone Change No. 2005-03
Changing the Existing Zoning for General Plan Compliance From R-
1-20,000 to Rural Residential (RR) for Property Located Directly
South of Rocky Trail Rd. and Alamo Heights Dr. and West of Horizon
Ln., Identified by APN Nos. 8713-023-002, 8713-023-004
8713-023-005, 8713.024-001 'and 8713-024-002 (Millenium/Cheung
Project).
Recommended Action: Approve for Second Reading, Waive Full Reading
and Adopt.
Requested by: Planning Department
6.8 Ratify the Appropriation of $4,781 from General Fund Reserves to
Pay Southern California Edison for Installation of Traffic Signal Meter
Pedestals at the Intersections of Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Dr.,
Golden Springs Dr. and Target Driveway, and Diamond Bar Blvd. and
Maple Hill Rd.
Recommended Action: Ratify.
Requested by: Public Works Department
MARCH 7, 2006 PAGE 4
6.9 Approval of Amendment No. 2 to a Professional Services Agreement
with BonTerra Consulting in an amount Not -to -Exceed $15,470 for
Preparation of an Updated Spring Survey for Tentative Tract Map No.
53430 (Millennium/Stanley Cheung).
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Planning Department
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 Appointments/Reappointments to Commissions:
8.1.1 Planning Commission
8.1.2 Parks and Recreation Commission
8.1.3 Traffic and Transportation Commission
Requested by: City Council
9. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTSICOUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Study Session #1
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES February 20-21, 2006
DIAMOND BAR LIBRARY IMPROVEMENT SURVEY
220-1928
FT N=400
Time Began
Time Ended
Minutes
Hello, I'm from FMA, a public opinion research company. I am definitely NOT trying to sell you
anything or asking for contributions. We are conducting an opinion survey about the Diamond Bar library,
and we are only interested in your opinions. May I speak to ? YOU MUST SPEAK TO THE
VOTER LISTED. VERIFY THAT THE VOTER LIVES AT THE ADDRESS LISTED, OTHERWISE
TERMINATE.
1. 1 would like to speak with you about the existing Diamond Bar Library located on Grand Avenue. It
was built in 1977 and is nine thousand, nine hundred thirty-five square feet. The facility has 28
parking spaces and some people have complained about a lack of access from the street. Also, the
building does not meet current earthquake safety standards and lacks technology associated with
libraries in the Twenty-first Century. My first question is, how often do you or your family members
visit the Diamond Bar library? (READ OPTIONS)
Often --------------------------------------------13%
Sometimes------------------------------------- 24%
Rarely------------------------------------------ 39%
Never-------------------------------------------23%
(DON'T READ) Don't Know ---------------- 1 %
2. The City is considering constructing a new, state of the art, library next to the Diamond Bar Center.
This new library would be three times larger than the existing library and would have more than 30
computers with internet access for public use and an expanded collection of books, magazines and
other materials. The new library would also include a Global Citizen Center to teach children about
cultures around the world and a Homework Center that will provide tutoring and academic assistance
for Diamond Bar school children. Do you favor or oppose building this new Diamond Bar library?
Favor-------------------------------------------- 75%
Oppose-----------------------------------------15%
(DON'T READ) Need more information - 9%
(DON'T READ) Don't Know ---------------- 2%
The new library can only be built with financial assistance from the community. The City Council will
contribute $3 million toward the construction of the new library, but the rest of the construction costs
must come from Diamond Bar residents. The City is considering placing a measure on an upcoming
ballot that would ask property owners to pay $42 dollars per parcel for 30 years to pay for the
construction of the new library building. In addition, the city is going to ask property owners to pay
an additional $11 dollars a year to pay for half of the increased operating costs, with the City paying
the remaining operating costs. This $11 dollar assessment for library operations will increase each
year by CPI to keep up with inflation.
FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN & ASSOCIATES 220-1928 FT PAGE 2
3. 1f the city were to place a measure on the ballot asking voters to approve the$53 annual assessment
to build the new Diamond Bar library, would you vote yes or no?
Gender: By observation
Party: From file
Name
Address
City
Zip
Yes---------------------------------------------- 46%
No------------------------------------------------ 34%
(DON'T READ) Need more info ----------17%
(DON'T READ) DK/NA ---------------------- 4%
THANK AND TERMINATE
Male---------------------------------------------48%
Female------------------------------------------ 52%
Democrat --------------------------------------- 38%
Republican ------------------------------------- 44%
Decline-to-state/Independent -------------16%
----------------------- °
Other party--------------- 3 0
Page #_
Voter ID #
Precinct
Interviewer
POLICY AND PROCEDUR
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
Number:
Authority: city council Minute order
Effective: March 7, 2006
1. Purpose
Study Session 42
---------- --------- NO. F-5
The City of Diamond Bar recognizes the constructive value of attendance by City
officials and employees at professional conferences, seminars, and meetings. In
addition, the City recognizes that it is desirable and sometimes necessary for City
officials and employees to attend meetings with other government officials, business
organizations, community organizations and constituents, and to attend ceremonial
events and other activities that promote or benefit the City. It is in the public interest to
reimburse expenses incurred in connection with these activities consistent with the
provisions of this policy. This policy has been prepared in compliance with California
Government Code Sections 53232.2 and 53232.3.
2. Application
The City reimburses its officials and employees for expenses incurred in
connection with business related travel and attendance at meetings and events, in
amounts designated in the approved City budget. The establishment of reasonable
limits on expense reimbursement assures a prudent and responsible use of public funds
and allows more officials and employees to attend beneficial conferences, seminars and
meetings. Except as otherwise noted, this policy applies to all City elected and
appointed officials and all City employees. Absent unusual circumstances and only with
the permission of the City Council, expense reimbursements will not exceed the
amounts set forth in this policy. "Reimbursement" for purposes of this policy means all
forms of payment for expenses incurred by City officials and employees in the course of
their official duties whether paid directly by the City (including without limitation, with a
City -issued credit card) or advanced by City officials and employees with personal funds
and later reimbursed from City funds.
3. Procedure
Requests for authorization to travel shall indicate inclusive dates of travel,
destination, purpose of trip, persons involved and mode of transportation. Requests
shall be made to the City Manager or her/his designee. In the event of "short notice"
POLICY AND PROCEDU
NO. F-5
trips, department heads, in their own best judgment, may travel or authorize travel,
subject to subsequent approval by the City Manager.
Where travel involves overnight lodging, authorization shall be by the City
Manager or Assistant City Manager.
4. Method of Travel
City officials and employees must use the most economical mode and class of
transportation reasonably consistent with scheduling needs and cargo space
requirements, using the most direct and time -efficient route. Government and group
rates must be used when available if they are the least expensive fare.
a) Automobile
City officials and employees who do not receive an automobile
allowance should use City vehicles to the extent possible. When
necessary to use private automobiles, reimbursement to officials
and employees who do not receive an automobile allowance will be
at the official IRS rate for person vehicle miles driven in the course
of official City business. Mileage will be measured to and from City
Hall. Mileage reimbursement does not include bridge and road tolls
and parking, which are also reimbursable. For those officials or
employees receiving an auto allowance, only travel for City
business outside of a radius of 60 miles from the City is authorized
for mileage reimbursement. Out -of -area trips shall be reimbursed at
the lesser of actual mileage expense or the least expensive
available airfare.
City Councilmembers may elect to receive a flat monthly expense
reimbursement of $250 to reimburse them for automobile expenses
related to performance of their duties within a 60 mile radius of the
City. The City Council finds that this amount accurately reflects
actual automobile expenses for routine automobile expenses within
the City and its immediate environs; no monthly bill is required for
reimbursement of this amount.
b) Air travel
Reimbursement shall be calculated on the basis of the cost of travel
by air using the shortest and most direct route. All air travel shall be
booked at least fourteen (14) days in advance, when possible, so
as to receive the lowest fares possible. Airfares that are equal or
less than those available through the Enhanced Local Government
Airfare Program offered through the League of California Cities
POLICY AND PROCEDU
NO. F-5
(www.cacities.org/travel), the California State Association of
Counties (www.csac.counties.org/default.asp?id=635) and the
State of California are presumed to be the most economical and
reasonable for purposes of reimbursement under this policy. Flight
insurance, in-flight beverages or flight entertainment shall not be
included in a claim for reimbursement.
C. Car rental.
Rental rates that are equal or less than those available through the
State of California's website (www.catraveismart.com/default.htm)
are considered the most economical and reasonable for purposes
of reimbursement under this policy.
d. Taxis/Shuttles.
Taxi or shuttle fares may be reimbursed, when the cost of such
fares is equal or less than the cost of car rentals, gasoline and
parking combined, or when such transportation is necessary for
time -efficiency. When feasible, the lowest cost transportation
provider should be utilized. Gratuities are considered incidental
expenses and reimbursable as part of per diem.
e. Airport Parking.
Airport parking is reimbursable; long-term parking must be used for
travel exceeding 24hours.
5. Lodging
Lodging expenses will be reimbursed for when travel on official City business
reasonably requires an overnight stay. Lodging expenses will be reimbursed only at the
single occupancy rate for rooms. When an additional charge is imposed for
internet/broadband access, that charge may be reimbursed as part of the room rate.
Con ferences/Meefings. If lodging is associated with a conference, lodging
expenses must not exceed the group rate published by the conference sponsor for the
meeting in question if such rates are available at the time of booking.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE ------------------------------- ------------------------------------------------ ----------- NO. F-5
Other Lodging. Travelers must request government rates, when available. A
listing of hotels offering government rates in different areas is available at
www.catraveismart.com/lodguideframes.htm. Lodging rates that are equal or less to
government rates are presumed to be reasonable and hence reimbursable for purposes
of this policy. In the event that government rates are not available at a given time or in
a given area, lodging rates that do not exceed the IRS per diem rates for a given area
are presumed reasonable and hence reimbursable.
6. Out of Town Meals and Incidentals
For meals and incidental expenses associated with City business outside of a 60
mile radius of the City where an overnight stay is required, a City official or employee
may claim a per diem of $70 per day. Baggage handling fees and gratuities are
incidental expenses and reimbursed as part of per diem.
The time calculations for per diem starts when the City official or employee
begins travel. For each 24-hour period thereafter, the City official or employee can
claim the full per diem amount. If there is a period of time at the end of the trip that is
less than 12 hours, the City official or employee cannot claim more than one-half (1/2)
the per diem rate.
Receipts are not required to claim per diem.
Any reimbursement claim for expenses that exceed the per diem rate may
constitute additional income for tax purposes.
7. Locall Meal Reimbursement
Meals associated with City business within a 60 mile radius of the City will be
reimbursed in amounts not to exceed the following amounts:
Breakfast:
$15
Lunch:
$20
Dinner:
$35
8. Telephone/Fax/Cellular
City officials and employees will be reimbursed for actual telephone and fax
expenses incurred when traveling on City business. Telephone bills should identify
which calls were made on City business.
City Councilmembers may elect to receive reimbursement for actual minutes of
cellular telephone use devoted to City business upon submission of annotated billings,
or in the alternative, may elect to receive a flat allowance for City cellular telephone
expenses or a cellular telephone provided by the City for use in connection with City
POLICY AND PROCEDURE --------------- ------------------------------- --- ------------------------------------ NO. F-5
business. City Councilmembers may elect to be provided a facsimile machine and
dedicated facsimile line at their home for use in connection with City business. The City
Council finds that the cost of the cellular phone or the flat cellular allowance accurately
reflects the cost of actual cell phone usage; should Councilmembers elect either of
those options, no monthly bill is required for reimbursement. City Councilmembers
electing to receive the flat allowance must, however, provide proof annually that they
have purchased continuous cellular telephone services.
In addition, to facilitate internet connectivity so that City Councilmembers may
access City files, e-mails from City staff, and respond to constituent concerns via e-mail,
City Councilmembers may elect to receive broadband internet access at the City
Councilmember residence at City expense.
9. City Events
This policy is not applicable to meals provided in connection with City sponsored
events and promotional activities. Records, including a list of those entertained,
affiliation and purpose of entertainment to benefit the City must be maintained.
10. Registration fees
Registration fees for approved conferences and seminars are reimbursable, but
shall be paid in advance by the City whenever feasible.
11. Unauthorized Expenses
No personal expenses, such as laundering or barbering, etc. shall
be allowed.
No claim for entertainment shall be allowed except when it is a
regularly scheduled part of the meeting being attended.
The City will not pay for expenses incurred by a city official for his
or her spouse, significant other or family members in connection
with conference registration, meals, transportation or miscellaneous
expenses.
The personal portion of any trip is not reimbursable. For example,
if a City Official elects to travel to an event in advance or stay
longer on personal business, the City need only reimburse the City
Official for roundtrip travel costs and costs incurred during the
event's duration;
Political or charitable contributions or events are not reimbursable.
POLICY AND PROCEDURE---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NO. F-5
Personal losses incurred while on City business are not
reimbursable.
Expenses for which City Officials receive reimbursement from
another agency are not reimbursable.
12. Claim Substantiation
All reimbursement claims other than per diem and flat allowances shall be
substantiated by attaching receipts to a claim reimbursement form and filing with the
Finance Department for further action.
Expense reports must document that the expense in question met the
requirements of this policy. For example, if a meeting is with a legislator, the City official
should explain whose meals were purchased, what issues were discussed and how
those relate to the City's adopted legislative positions and priorities.
City officials and employees must submit their expense reports within thirty (30)
days after an expense is incurred, accompanied by receipts documenting each
expense. Unless included within a per diem, restaurant receipts, in addition to any
credit card receipts, are also part of the necessary documentation.
Inability to provide such documentation in a timely fashion may result in the
expense being borne by the City official or employee.
13
All expenses are subject to verification that they comply with this policy.
Advances
Officials or employees attending meetings or traveling on official
City business may request an advance of funds to cover anticipated
expenses for meals, lodging, travel and other reimbursable
expenses.
Normally, the City Manager is to receive requests for advance at
least seven calendar days prior to need. The City Manager may
waive the time constraint if deemed appropriate.
All advances must be reported
submitted, but never more than
receipt. Any unexpended funds
Finance Department.
14. Credit Card Use Policy
on the next expense statement
thirty (30) calendar days from
must be returned promptly to the
POLICY AND PROCEDURE
NO. F-5
City Councilmembers may use credit cards issued to them by the City for any
expense allowed by this policy.
City credit cards may not be used for personal expenses, even if the City
Councilmember subsequently reimburses the City.
15. Sister City and Other Out of Country Travel
Notwithstanding other provisions set forth herein above, payment for Sister City
visits and/or other such foreign country travel shall be limited to the payment of coach
class air travel from LAX by the most direct route to the approved foreign city
destination. In order to have such foreign travel paid, the City Council must authorize
the visit and approve the Council member's or employee's travel. It is presumed that
host foreign cities will provide the City approved delegate(s) with lodging and meals.
Consequently, lodging and meals related to an approved foreign visit will not be paid by
the City. Local foreign travel expenses, i.e., taxis or buses, or delegates' personal and
incidental travel expenses shall not be reimbursed by the City. Any variance to this
policy shall be considered and the decision related thereto shall be made at a regular or
special meeting of the City Council.
16. Reports to Legislative Body
At the meeting following an activity, each elected and appointed official must
briefly report on meetings attended at City expense. If multiple City officials attended, a
joint report may be made.
17. Compliance With Laws
Some expenditures may be subject to reporting under the Political Reform Act
and other laws. All agency expenditures are public records subject to disclosure under
the California Public Records Act.
18. Violation Of This Policy
Use of public resources or falsifying expense reports in violation of this policy
may result in any or all of the following:
Loss of travel and/or reimbursement privileges;
A demand for restitution to the City;
The City's reporting the expenses as income to the City official and employees to
state and federal tax authorities;
POLICY AND PROCEDU
NO. F-5
Civil penalties of up to $1,000 per day and three times the value of the resources
used; and
Prosecution for misuse of public resources;
Removal from an appointed commission or board; and
Discipline of City employees, up to and including termination.
Study Session #3
Diamond Bar's Public Safety Commission.
Mission Statement: The purpose of the Diamond Bar's Public Safety
Commission is to promote the City's Public Safety programs in the community and
receive input from the community on matters concerning all aspects of public safety.
The Commission, a partnership with City Council appointed Neighborhood Public Safety
Representatives and staff professionals, shall work in conjunction with the City Council
and Community to disseminate effective public safety information to all residents and
businesses in Diamond Bar.
Public Safety Agencies Commissioners could include:
• Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department (Station Designee, Captain or Lieutenant)
• Los Angeles County Fire Department (A/Chief or area Captain)
• Inland Valley Humane Society (Animal Control representative)
• Diamond Bar Building & Safety (Dennis Tarango, or City Staff Rep)
• Diamond Bar Code Enforcement (A/City Manager, or Code Rep)
• Diamond Bar Emergency Preparedness (Brenda Hunimiller, or City Staff)
• California Highway Patrol (CHP Rep)
• California Red Cross (area representative)
(We have participation commitment from Sheriff, Fire, Animal Control, CHP and of
course the City)
The Commission would consolidate the Public Safety, and the Traffic and
Transportation Commissions. These Commissioners would assume the position of
Neighborhood Public Safety Representatives to the Public Safety Advisory Commission.
Commission would meet four times yearly.
Commission would meet within the AQMD Council Chambers, 6:30 PM, the meeting
televised and highly promoted through all facets including neighborhood watch,
newsletters, weekly, newspapers, etc, etc, etc.
Allow public comments on public issues under the advisory scope of the Commission
such as questions about public safety programs that could be answered by the
respective public safety professional.
At the first meeting a Chairperson and Vice -Chairperson could be elected among the
Commissioners, to hold office for one year.
Neighborhood Representatives would be "eyes and ears of the community" on
public safety matters and would address the Commission on public safety matters
especially within their geographic areas of responsibilities.
Neighborhood Representatives would not be notified on any specific public safety
activity, investigations, or matters deemed confidential by those agency representatives,
however they could be advised on specific issues that would fall under their specific
geographic area of responsibilities. They would represent the Advisory Commission at
all neighborhood watch meetings within their geographic area of responsibility. They
would also participate in all public safety sponsored events within the City and act as
liaison to the Public Safety Advisory Commission. The Representatives would not be
authorized to set policy or give directions to the City's public safety agencies on matters
of public safety. The Commission would work in conjunction with the neighborhood
representatives, to promote and disseminate to Diamond Bar residents and business
effective public safety measures.
Five Diamond Bar City Council Appointees, or current Public Safety and T&T
commissioners would serve for the first year:
Appointed for one year term
Must be Diamond Bar residents
The purpose of the Commission would be to increase awareness and the attention to all
aspects of public safety in the City of Diamond Bar. This would be achieved by
improving communications and involvement among the community to the public safety
agencies within the City of Diamond Bar on services, needs and programs. Each
agency would be responsible for presenting programs that are available, resources,
agency policies, current trends, presentations on specific areas of community concerns:
brush clearing efforts, crime prevention matters, EOC preparedness information, etc,
etc.
The Commission would review and analyze issues, and if appropriate based on public
input, provide information and or make recommendations to City Council in the areas of
public safety including crime prevention options, fire protection, traffic safety,
emergency preparedness, homeland security, code enforcement, building and safety,
animal control, etc.
The Commission would provide agendas to the community prior to meetings listing
specific matters of interest to the community in areas of responsibilities from each public
or private agency within the Public Safety Advisory Commission. Each meeting,
Commissioners would provide information to the community on current programs,
specific matters of interest, and ideas for enhancing their efforts in public safety within
the City of Diamond Bar. The recommendations could be discussed and information
and comments would be sought from the community, and or residents in attendance.
Specific issues brought forth from the community at large, or by the Neighborhood
Representatives, would be handled by the specific agency with the responsibility over
that area or issue of concern. The information would be analyzed and appropriate
measures taken to provide impute on the issue and provide a response to the request,
either during the next meeting or through the public agency channels of communication.
Agenda No. 6.1.1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
FEBRUARY 21, 2006
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Pro Tem Zirbes called the Study Session to
order at 4:36 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Chang, Tanaka, Mayor Pro Tem
Zirbes. C/Tye arrived at 4:38 p.m. and Mayor Herrera arrived at 4:45 p.m.
Also Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; David Doyle, Assistant
City Manager; John Cotti, Asst. City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob
Rose, Community Services Director; Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development
Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Sharon Gomez, Senior Management
Analyst; Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer; Fred Alamoholda, Consulting Engineer;
Kim Crews, Human Resources Manager; Ken Desforges, IS Director, and Tommye
Cribbins, Executive Assist.
1) DISCUSSION OF LEMON AVENUE ON/OFF RAMP IMPROVEMENTS
John Ballas, City of Industry, reported that this project began 15 years ago with a
proposal to construct the on/off ramps at Lemon Ave. and at that time Caltrans
responded that the distance between Lemon Ave. and Brea Canyon Rd. was too
short and that there was a lead-in conflict with the current ramps. As a result, the
project went dormant. With City of Industry's development proposal for the area
east of Brea Canyon, Industry's then Mayor suggested bringing truck traffic in
and out of Lemon Ave., north on Lemon, east on Currier Rd. to Brea Canyon in
order to relieve the truckload at the intersection of Brea Canyon Rd. at Colima
Rd. In order to prove the feasibility of a Lemon Ave. on/off ramp Industry sought
to mitigate the industrial park by contributing to the hiring of the design team as
well as a 20 percent contribution of matching funds for the $15 million dollar
project. Industry prepared plans to widen Currier Rd. in conjunction with the Brea
Canyon Grade Separation Project. In addition, Congressman Miller appropriated
$9.6 million for the project.
Chou Chang said that his firm (JE Jacobs) was hired last year by the City of
Industry to follow up on the Caltrans project. Three alternatives were initially
identified and the number was expanded to five. During the last three months his
firm has held discussion with Caltrans, City of Industry and D.B. staff with the
consensus that the project would move forward based on three build alternatives.
JE Jacobs is prepared to present the scope of the Project to the residents of D.B.
As a result of a 1968 agreement between LA County and Caltrans this Project
seemed very unlikely. However, without the new interchange, studies show that
by the year 2025 both interchanges (Fairway Dr. and Brea Canyon Rd.) would
not be able to handle the projected traffic and the proposed Lemon Ave.
interchange would be necessary to relieve the congestion on the neighboring
interchanges. The SR57/60 interchange is very congested and the
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION
weaving lane is considerably below Caltrans standards and there is an
opportunity to improve the standard with this project. He reported on the following
alternatives.
1) Partial interchange and no improvements on the SR60; this alternative
would confuse the traveler — anticipated cost $9 million — not
recommended.
2) Partial interchange, closure of Banning Way, no improvement on SR60
(no additional right-of-way required) — no significant improvement over
Alternative 1.
3) Addition of an eastbound on-ramp (remove on/off ramp) — no need to redo
the current agreement.
4) Full service interchange, safety improvement on SR60, eliminate
bottleneck resulting in high construction cost, more right of way impact
and an impact to existing businesses.
5) Suggested by D.B. staff — remove the Brea Canyon Rd. on/off ramp to
improve circulation — potential impact to existing businesses; Relocate the
on/off ramp to the area between Brea Canyon Rd. and Lemon Ave.;
Improve weaving on the SR60, eliminate bottleneck on Golden Springs Dr.
Mr. Chang said his firm proposed to move forward with the following alternatives:
1) Mandatory No Build (an option not mentioned above).
2) Alternative 2
3) Alternative 3
4) Alternative 4
In short, all four alternatives will be presented to the residents.
At the request of Mr. Ballas, Mr. Chang explained the role of the cities versus the
role of Caltrans in selecting an alternative for the final selection. Because this
Project is receiving Federal funding, a Federal level environmental document
must be prepared. Caltrans is the lead agency as well as the project owner. As
part of the process, JE Jacobs will present the alternatives to the public and give
them an opportunity for input to the Technical Environmental Study. At the same
time Mr. Chang's team will work with Caltrans on the environmental standard
issues and produce a draft environmental document that will be circulated
through the cities for review and comment. Once comments are reviewed, his
firm will evaluate which alternative would present the least impact. Cities can
take a position as to their preferred alternatives or remain neutral. Ultimately,
Caltrans has a majority stake in choosing the alternative along with the public,
City officials and other resource agencies. The entire process is likely to take
about two years to complete.
Mr. Chang outlined the proposed project development procedure: The Project
Study Report approved February 2003; Move forward with a project report on the
environmental document and final design on the preferred alternative. If the
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION
preferred alternative is "no project" the process stops. At the end of this process
the final design would require Caltrans oversight (review documents, drawings,
specifications, process, etc.). Once Caltrans approves the final design a Caltrans
Encroachment Permit is produced and cities have the option to do their own
construction or have Caltrans do the construction. The project goes out to bid
and finally, the project is built.
Chris Stevens said that this was a CEQA/NEPA process with Caltrans serving as
the lead local agency and NEPA serving as the Federal lead agency. Not every
alternative needs to be considered but agencies must look at what CEQA defines
as a "reasonable range of alternatives." There are a host of things that will be
done in concert with Caltrans, Federal Highways and the two cities to make
certain that the public and appropriate agencies are involved through a
submission of initiation of studies, letter to elected officials, responsible agencies
and interested members of the public. In addition, there will be a scope and
public information meeting and JE Jacobs will work closely with the City's
Information Officer to make sure that known outlets are used to distribute
information to the public (websites, local newspapers, etc), conduct technical
studies and prepare an environmental document for approval and distribution. JE
Jacobs also recommends that during the public `review process the City of D.B.
conduct a formal Public Hearing on the project documents.
Mr. Chang proposed the following project milestones:
1) Project kickoff meeting November 2005
2) Public Scoping Workshop March 2006
3) Circulation of Draft Environmental Document January 2007
4) Selection of Preferred Alternative April 2007
5) Project Approval July 2007
6) Begin Final Design July 2007
7) Final Design Approval July 2008
8) Bid and Award Contract December 2008
9) Commence Construction 2009 and complete construction July 2010.
Mr. Ballas explained that with respect to Alternative 3 the new HOV connector
road currently under construction passes over the top of Brea Canyon Rd. and
connects back to the through lanes on the westbound SR60.
CM/Lowry asked if Alternative 4 involved more of a taking of the School District
property adjacent to Lemon Ave.
Mr. Chang and Mr. Ballas said the area in Alternative 3 involved only the existing
right-of-way.
Mr. Ballas said he would love to do Alternative 4 but if the road goes up to
residents' back doors there would be a problem. If more of the back yard areas
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION
were intact Alternative 4 might be feasible and preliminary engineering would
provide the details of the severity or benefit of those alternatives.
C/Chang asked if there was a cost estimate connected with Alternative 4.
Mr. Chang estimated it would add four to five million dollars to the project.
Alternative 3 is estimated to be $14 to $15 million at today's cost.
CM/Lowry asked if the analysis would address the economic impact to the City.
Mr. Stevens responded yes and said that it was difficult to estimate the economic
impact but that the report would look at existing traffic volumes, future traffic
volumes and the impacts to the traffic volumes using the various alternatives.
Mr. Stevens responded to C/Chang that Caltrans owns the Brea Canyon on/off
ramp land. If the ramp were closed, Caltrans could build a park and ride, retain it
as land for retention basins or maintenance facilities or, sell the property and
eliminate it from the State right-of-way.
ICDD/Fong reminded Council that this was a subject discussed during the
Economic Development Workshop and if Caltrans were to give up its property
the City could plan for future use of the available land.
Public Comments: None Offered.
2) BUDGET AMEN DMENT/PERSON NEL RESOLUTION
CM/Lowry gave a presentation on the proposed Budget amendment regarding
personnel/salary indicating that it was staff's belief that the proposed changes
would bring salaried positions into alignment with cities that resemble D.B. Staff
is requesting further adjustments similar to the previous realignment of the
Assistant City Manager position that the salary be adjusted to five percent below
the median of the scheduled cities. With other positions in the upper portion of
the salary structure involving mostly senior technical positions, Division Heads
and Department Heads. In reviewing these positions staff took an average rather
than a median of the other cities. Staff's report includes an explanation for each
of the positions for which staff seeks an adjustment. Some of the positions have
incumbents, and Department Heads are proposed to have the largest and
immediate increases of 15 percent. Staff's theory remains that the adjustments
take the Department Heads to five percent below the market average. Staff is
further recommending funding for the City Clerk position in an amount that would
exceed the amount of only one city, the City of Walnut. The two senior technical
positions are currently vacant. D.B. is having a problem recruiting for the Senior
Engineer and Senior Planner because the positions and salary do not compete
well in the marketplace. Staff believes that if the City becomes more competitive
it will attract a larger pool of qualified applicants. The upside is that with the
adjustment the City would not be paying the fees currently being paid for
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION
consultants to provide the services. CM/Lowry explained that the amendment
would abolish two titles for part time positions in the Community Services
Division and new titles would be implemented to better define the duties and
responsibilities of changes with the opening and operation of the Diamond Bar
Center. In addition, the changes in mid-level management would provide internal
operational efficiencies that do not currently exist with respect to purchasing and
personnel policies.
CM/Lowry stated that these adjustments would result in a full fiscal year budget
adjustment increase of $169,150 with the current year request for funding at
$59,000. She said that the lower positions in the proposed salary structure are
decently compensated at the median or mean market salary and remain
competitive. However, with the current upper management remaining more
stable, those positions have not been marketed and have fallen behind the
competing cities. CM/Lowry said she believed that D.B. Department Heads were
one of the City's best assets and that the fact that many had been with the City
since incorporation brought added value to the City that the Council and
residents rely on for day-to-day service to the community. In fact, bringing the
salaries to within five percent of the median is an appropriate goal. This is a
matter that has been ignored long enough and the amendment would get the City
to the point where everyone would feel a sense of adequate and equitable
compensation and security so that the City would be able to quickly market for
replacements. CM/Lowry also commented that the proposed adjustment for the
Human Resources Manager would bring the position to a division head level and
authorize that position to appropriately deal with current policies and procedures.
The Senior Engineer adjustment was 100 percent market driven.
C/Tye asked if staff felt that the Senior Engineer position adjustment would allow
the City to hire qualified applicants to the position.
PWD/Liu said that he received very few applications for the position and in
talking with other cities he believed that the marketplace was very competitive
and that cities were paying a much higher salary for the quality of individual D.B.
was seeking.
C/Tye said he was concerned that such a small difference in the salaries of
competing cities would not allow D.B. to attract individuals from neighboring
cities. In addition, the private sector jobs probably pay more so how can D.B.
compete.
ACM/Doyle pointed out that there are other factors in recruiting such as people
living in D.B. and working in Calabasas for example and the adjustment would
allow D.B. to be more competitive in the marketplace. On the other hand it would
not make sense for someone to move from Chino Hills to D.B.
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 6 CC STUDY SESSION
M/Herrera felt that although the City had lost some good people there were many
wonderful employees that worked very hard and the City would want to retain
those employees by being competitive.
Public Comments:
Clyde Hennessee wanted to know what cities were compared with D.B. in the
analysis.
CM/Lowry responded Walnut, Chino Hills, Yorba Linda and La Mirada.
Mr. Hennessee said that the comparisons were unfair because the other cities
had much greater populations and budgets compared to D.B. People change
jobs and positions for reasons other than money and D.B. should not compare
itself to surrounding cities. D.B. has to live within its budget and if D.B. cannot
afford to buy stamps to send out agendas it cannot afford a 15 percent across
the board increase for employees.
3. GRAND AVENUE TREES
CSD/Rose stated that the first proposed project was the removal of all trees on
Grand Ave. medians between the SR60 and Diamond Bar Blvd. followed by the
planting of fifty-one (51) 24" box replacement trees for a lump sum amount of
$20,213. Fourteen (14) trees on these medians have died and been removed
and staff believes that this is an opportunity to move away from the use of large
eucalyptus trees to a more decorative Camphor and Ginkgo tree and that these
trees when mature will enhance this City entry. If approved, staff would complete
the work in two phases with Phase One replacement of trees from the SR60 to
approximately Cahill PI. and Phase Two replacement from Cahill PI. to Diamond
Bar Blvd. Staff further recommended a second project that resulted from an
Arborist's evaluation for the removal of nine (9) sycamore trees at Sycamore
Canyon Park to be replaced with nine (9) 24" box London Plane replacement
trees for a lump sum amount of $7,562.
C/Zirbes wondered if the street improvement contractor would be good for
replacement of some of the trees.
CSD/Rose said that there may be some remuneration but staff knew there was a
risk of losing trees on public right-of-ways when curbs were being cut.
M/Herrera asked if any of the trees were flowering trees
CSD/Rose said he believed that both species provided flowering growth
M/Herrera asked if it would cause a problem on the median.
CSD/Rose said that staff would maintain the area.
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 7 CC STUDY SESSION
C/Tye asked how tall a 24" box tree is.
CSD/Rose responded that it was not very tall. In addition, there was a significant
price difference between 24" and 36" box ($200 to $500 or $600 per tree). And, if
trees are younger when planted they have a better chance at acclimation and
faster growth.
C/Chang felt that eucalyptus and pine trees were not good for the City streets
and recommended that the City plant more Camphor and Ginkgo trees along the
City streets.
CSD/Rose reported that tonight's agenda item 8.2 contained a request for
removal of nine sycamore trees at Sycamore Canyon Park. There are 10
sycamore trees scheduled for removal as part of the ADA retrofit project at the
park and he wanted the City Council to be aware that a total of 19 sycamore
trees would actually be removed at Sycamore Canyon Park.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City
Council, M/Herrera adjourned the Study Session at 6:00 p.m.
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this
CAROL HERRERA, Mayor
day of , 2006.
Agenda No. 6.1.2
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FEBRUARY 21, 2006
STUDY SESSION:
4:36 p.m., Room CC -8
► Discussion of Lemon Avenue On/Off Ramp Improvements
IN. Budget Amendment/Personnel Resolution
► Grand Avenue Trees
M/Herrera adjourned the Study Session at 6:00 p.m. to the Regular City Council Meeting.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the Regular City Council meeting
to order at 6:30 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.,
Diamond Bar, CA.
M/Herrera announced that the City Council began its evening with a Study Session at 4:30
p.m. to discuss the Lemon Avenue On and Off Ramp Improvements; discussed a budget
amendment and personnel resolution and discussed various types of replacement trees for
the Grand Ave. median between the SR60 and Diamond Bar Blvd.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
ROLL CALL:
Zirbes and Mayor Herrera.
M/Herrera led the Pledge of Allegiance.
None Offered.
Council Members Chang, Tanaka, Tye, Mayor Pro Tem
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; David Doyle, Assistant City
Manager; John Cotti, Asst. City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose,
Community Services Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Nancy Fong, Interim
Community Development Director; Ken Desforges, Information Systems Director; Marsha
Roa, Public Information Manager; Ann Lungu Associate Planner; Kimberly Molina,
Assistant Engineer; Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst, Debbie Gonzales,
Senior Administrative Assistant and Tommye Cribbins, Executive Asst.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 C/Tye acknowledged Tom Mangham's accomplishments on the occasion of
his retirement. Because Mr. Mangham was unable to attend tonight's
meeting the City Tile would be mailed.
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
BUSINESS OF THE MONTH:
1.2 MlHerrera presented a Certificate Plaque to Harry Yan, Owner, Champs
Elysees Bakery as Business of the Month for February 2006.
OTHER PRESENTATIONS:
1.3 Video presentation by the L.A. County Library regarding "Homework Help
Online" presented by Mary Yogi, Young Adult Librarian. Kathleen Newe
encouraged students to take advantage of the free on-line service. She
invited residents to attend the "Friends of the Library' 13t" Annual Wine
Soiree at the Diamond Bar Center on March 26. Tickets are on sale for $45
at the library, Basically Books, Diamond Mail and Shipping, PFF Bank and
Vineyard Bank or individuals may call 861-2002 for tickets. All proceeds
benefit the Diamond Bar Library.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
2.1 Presentation regarding the Trailhead at Sycamore Canyon Park.
CSD/Rose reported that later this evening the City Council would consider
the Notice of Completion for this project. The ribbon -cutting ceremony is
slated for Saturday, February 25 at 10:00 a.m. Parking is available on the
west side of Diamond Bar Boulevard and the City will provide shuttles from
inside the park and from Clear Creek Canyon. Additionally, shuttles will be
available to transport trail hikers from the park back up to the trailhead for
those who wish to hike the trail. He presented a slide presentation of the
recently completed 100 percent grant funded trailhead.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Rainbow Yeung, Public Affairs Department,
SCAQMD, was recently assigned as liaison to an additional geographical area that
includes D.B. and said she would soon schedule time with staff to provide updates
on the District's initiative and services. She said she hoped to have an opportunity
to work with each Council Member in the near future. She thanked MlHerrera,
C/Tye and CM/Lowry for agendizing Consent Calendar Item 6.12 requesting
adoption of a resolution opposing AB2015 seeking expansion of the AQMD Board.
Lydia Plunk reported that the March edition of The Windmill had gone to print and
should be in homes on March 4. The publication is dedicated to individuals who
have refused to be knocked down. Individuals wishing to be included in the April
edition should contact her at the.windmill@horizon.net. She thanked the community
for their support.
Clyde Hennessee reiterated his call for people to reject any calls regarding the
library, to just say "No" and not tax themselves.
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — February 23, 2006 -- 7:00 p.m.,
Hearing Board Room, AQMDIGovernment Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.2 Ribbon Cutting at Sycamore Canyon Park Trail Head — February 25, 2006 —
10:00 a.m., Diamond Bar Blvd.
5.3 Planning Commission Meeting — February 28, 2006 — 7:00 p.m., Auditorium,
AQMDIGovernment Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.4 City Council Meeting — March 7, 2006 — 6:30 p.m., Auditorium,
AQMDIGovernment Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.5 Traffic and Transportation Commission — March 9, 2006 — 7:00 p.m., Hearing
Board Room, AQMDIGovernment Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPTIZirbes moved, C/Tanaka seconded to approve the
Consent Calendar as presented with the exception of Items 6.1.2 and 6.9. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPTIZirbes,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:
6.1.1 Study Session of February 7, 2006 —as submitted.
6.2 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER—containing checks dated February 3, 2006
to February 16, 2006 totaling $1,309,254.62.
6.3 ACCEPTED WORK PERFORMED BY C.S. LEGACY FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS AT SYCAMORE CANYON PARK
TRAILHEAD; DIRECTED CITY CLERK TO FILE THE NOTICE OF
COMPLETION AND RELEASE THE RETENTION THIRTY-FIVE DAYS
AFTER THE RECORDATION DATE; INCREASE THE CONTRACT BY
$3,734.96 FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $462,363.51.
6.4 APPROVED $28,601 INCREASE IN THE CONTRACT WITH ADVANTEC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT OF
$53,101.00.
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
6.5 APPROVED SECOND READING BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVED FULL
READING ANDADOPTED ORDINANCE NO. 02(2006) APPROVING ZONE
CHANGE NO. 2005-01 CHANGING THE EXISTING ZONING OF
COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL PROPERTIES CITY WIDE IN ORDER
TO COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION AND
AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY.
6.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2006-09: APPROVING THE CITY'S
RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULES AND AUTHORIZING
DESTRUCTION OF CERTAIN CITY RECORDS.
6.7 APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 8 TO ADD MAINTENANCE
OF SYCAMORE CANYON PARK TRAILHEAD AND SUMMITRIDGE MINI -
PARK TO CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT WITH
TRUGREEN LANDCARE FOR EIGHTEEN MONTHS; JANUARY 1, 2006
THROUGH JUNE 30, 2007 IN THE ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF $11,850,
FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF $508,863; PLUS AUTHORIZATION
FOR AS -NEEDED WORK AS APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR
DESIGNEE IN THE AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED $80,000 FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005106 AND $80,000 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006107.
APPROVED.
6.8 APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT IN THE AMOUNT OF $30,000
WITH A.C.T. GIS, INC. FOR ADVANCED GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION
SYSTEMS (GIS) SERVICES AND SUPPORT FOR A TOTAL
AUTHORIZATION OF $55,000.
6.10 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2006-10: APPROVING FINAL TRACT MAP
NO. 62482, FOR THE SUBDIVISION OF 14.3 ACRE SITE INTO 180
CONDOMINIUMS (BROOKFIELD HOMES) LOCATED ON THE WEST
SIDE OF GRAND AVENUE SOUTH OF GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE.
6.11 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO, 2006-11: AMENDING THE CITY'S
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM FOR FISCAL
YEAR 2005106 TO INCREASE FUNDING TO $26,375 FOR THE DIAMOND
BAR YMCA CHILDCARE PROGRAM BY REALLOCATING $8,000 FROM
THE DIAMOND BAR YMCA DAY CAMP PROGRAM.
6.12 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2006-12: OPPOSING ASSEMBLY BILL 2015
TO EXPAND THE SIZE OF THE SCAQMD GOVERNING BOARD.
6.13 APPROPRIATED $162,959 FOR THE INSTALLATION AND INSPECTION
OF ELECTRICAL SUBSTRUCTURE FACILITIES WITHIN SOUTHERN
CALIFORNIA EDISON EASEMENT ACROSS TARGET PROPERTY
LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE AND
GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE.
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
ITEMS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1.2 MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING OF FEBRUARY 7,
2006.
C/Tye asked that Item 8.4 reflect a unanimous vote supporting the
amendment.
MPT/Zirbes moved, C/Chang seconded to approve Consent Calendar Item
6.1.2 as amended. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPT/Zirbes,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6.9 APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH DH
MAINTENANCE FOR SERVICES FOR JANITORIAL AND BUILDING
MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO INCREASE AUTHORIZATION FOR AS -
NEEDED WORK, AS APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR HER
DESIGNEE BY $50,000, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF $225,194
FOR THE PERIOD OF JULY 1, 2005 TO JUNE 30, 2006.
C/Tye asked CM/Lowry to explain the need for a contract amendment that
was in excess of 20 percent.
CSD/Rose explained that the contract was a service contract based on the
amount of use and the amount of time spent maintaining Diamond Bar
Center. The actual standard contract for ongoing maintenance is $25,494
and that has not changed. What has changed is that D.B. has DH
Maintenance providing four staff members who support the City's recreation
staff that run the facility. The estimated hours based on the way the facility
was being used at the beginning of last summer have significantly increased.
The basis for renting space is determined by how quickly staff can take down
one facility, clean the premises and be ready for the next event. Staff has set
a standard from a 400 (person) setup to another 400 to 500 (person) setup in
about two hours. DH Maintenance provides staffing assistance for this work
and in some cases DH Maintenance provides as many as six employees at
one time on a Sunday to change the facility from a church use to a reserved
wedding reception later in the afternoon. One person is provided for in the
initial contract and additional assistants are paid in addition to the initial
contract. Initially staff estimated annual revenues of $315,000 and based on
use, the estimate has increased to $440,000. Any increase in the contract
requires City Council approval. The request for an additional $50,000 is to
make certain that revenues are available to cover the balance of the current
fiscal year even though the entire amount may not be spent. And, whatever
amount is spent will be covered by additional revenue for use of the facility.
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
C/Tye moved, C/Chang seconded to approve Consent Calendar Item 6.9.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPT/Zirbes,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 (a) FIRST READING BY TITLE ONLY, WAIVE FULL READING OF
ORDINANCE NO. 03 (2006) APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2005-03
CHANGING THE EXISTING ZONING FOR GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE
FROM 4-1-20,000 TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) FOR PROPERTY
LOCATED DIRECTION SOUTH OF ROCKY TRAIL ROAD AND ALAMO
HEIGHTS DRIVE AND WEST OF HORIZON LANE IDENTIFIED BY APN
NO.S 8713-023-002, 8713-023-004, 8713-023-005, 8713-024-001 AND
8713-024-002 (MILLENNIUM/CHEUNG PROJECT).
(b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-13: CERTIFYING THE
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (EIR) (SCH NO. 2003051102) AND
APPROVING MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM FOR TTM NO. 53430
AS SET FORTH THEREIN FOR A 48 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION
LOCATED DIRECTLY SOUTH OF ROCKY TRAIL ROAD AND ALAMO
HEIGHTS DRIVE AND WEST OF HORIZON LANE.
(c) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-14: APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 53430, A 48 LOT RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION LOCATED
DIRECTLY SOUTH OF ROCKY TRAIL ROAD AND ALAMO HEIGHTS
DRIVE AND WEST OF HORIZON LANE, AND DENYING THE APPEAL
FILED BY DR. HUFU WU, ET. APN NO'S 8713 -023 -002,8713-023,8713-
023-005,
713-023-002,8713-023,8713-
023-005, 8713-024-001 AND 8713-024-002.
(d) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-15: APPROVING HILLSIDE
MANAGEMENT CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-01, VARIANCE
NO. 2005-03 AND TREE PERMIT NO. 2005-10 FOR TENTATIVE TRACT
MAP NO. 53430.
ICDD/Fong reported that the proposed project within "The Country Estates"
is an approximate 80 -acre site. The project requires rezoning to be
consistent with the City's General Plan that allows for one unit per acre. The
applicant has proposed 48 lots, well within the density requirement. The
project is accessible from Alamo Heights and the extension of Alamo Heights
requires retaining walls to deal with the significant difference between the
street grade and contour of the lots that back up to the street. Initially, the
applicant proposed to build a retaining wall to a maximum height of 26 ft.
within the existing 50 -ft. easement for slope purposes and existing 40 -ft.
easement for street improvements. At the conclusion of its review of the
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
Project, staff recommended that the applicant work with the residents to
acquire an additional easement area for off-site grading to eliminate the
necessity for a retaining wall. The applicant has attempted to explain how an
easement would benefit all parties. However, the adjacent property owners
are opposed to granting the additional grading easement. The Planning
Commission also asked the applicant to work more closely with the adjacent
property owners and to look into the feasibility of lowering Alamo Heights as
suggested by resident Dr. Wu. As a result, the applicant submitted revised
plans to build two retaining walls with a maximum height of 15 ft. within the
90 -ft. easement. In addition, the applicant studied a third alternative to lower
Alamo Heights. The study revealed that in order to build Alamo Heights the
applicant would have to construct three retaining walls. Ultimately, the
Planning Commission determined that the project should include fewerwalls
and recommended two retaining walls within the 90 -foot easement.
ICDD/Fong continued that the project required an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) because the project would have some impact to the physical
environment. The EIR process was completed and notices were mailed to
adjacent residences in August 2004. In addition, the Draft EIR was circulated
to the proper State and Federal agencies for review and comment. The City's
geotechnical consultants have reviewed the grading concept and determined
it to be feasible.
Tom Smith, Bon Terra Consulting, stated that the EIR included eight
separate topic areas that were evaluated in detail. The most significant topic
was biological resources. There are seven multi -faceted mitigation measures
proposed to address the loss of oak and walnut trees as well as habitat
values and biological resources on the site. The significant ecological area of
Tonner Canyon is the major canyon drainage feature that trends somewhat
northeast and southeast and lies adjacent to the project site and "The
Country Estates." While the proposed Project would fill a local drainage the
drainage area is not a major movement area. In addition to the mitigation
measures the City proposes to place on the Project, permits will be required
from the Army Corps of Engineers, California Department of Fish and Game
and the Regional Water Quality Control Board, permits that the applicant is
required to obtain prior to the City's issuance of a grading permit. In short,
Bon Terra believes there is adequate protection for the City to make sure
that the environmental resources that would be impacted by the project
would be mitigated in compliance with all City, State and Federal
requirements.
In response to MPT/Zirbes, Mr. Smith indicated that the stream on the
proposed development site is a blue line stream. City staff has ensured
sufficient mitigation to move the water through the project back into Tonner
Canyon through a storm drain pipeline beneath the fill. According to the
geotechnical borings the water is not native to the site and is believed to be
coming from upstream development in the form of excess irrigation runoff
and runoff from upstream areas.
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
CDD/Fong reported that adjacent residents have filed an appeal of the
project. In addition, staff this evening handed the Council additional
conditions of approval as recommended by the City's Attomey. The applicant
was notified of the additional conditions. Staff and the Planning Commission
recommend project approval.
ICDDIFong explained to MPTIZirbes that the retaining wall is within the
neighboring lots. However, there is an existing dedicated and recorded
easement controlled by the LA County Flood Control District and the
applicant would have to obtain authorization to build the retaining walls within
that easement. She further indicated to MPTIZirbes that she was certain the
applicant had approached LA County forthe authorization in order to prepare
the plans for the retaining walls and the affected residents would have full
knowledge of the recorded easement.
M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing.
John Bostik, Millennium Diamond Road Partners, LLC, 3731 Wilshire Blvd.,
Los Angeles, CA 90010 gave a slide presentation to orient the City Council
to the project. The presentation included a picture of the Tentative Tract
Map, the alternative of the Tract Map assuming that the applicant would
reach an agreement with the adjacent landowners and achieve a slope
instead of using retaining walls; an aerial view of the proposed project area
(indicating the area of ridgeline used for cut to fill the lots), 3-D drawings of
what the project would look like from the lots on Kicking Horse toward Alamo
Heights Rd. with the depiction including the retaining walls and absent the
retaining walls with acquisition of an easement from the adjacent property
owners; a view from the end of Rocky Trail Rd. showing the lot pads that
would accommodate future homes; a view from Horizon Ln. directly across
the site; and a view from the highest point on Lot 47 looking at the highest
point of the requested retaining wall.
Mr. Bostik explained that his firm worked with local contractors to come up
with solutions for well-designed and architecturally pleasing retaining walls
and showed samples of the finished product. Mr. Bostik offered to return to
the podium to respond to public comment concerns.
MPTIZirbes verified with Mr: Bostik that the use of Shotcrete was the result
of a Planning Commission condition. MPTIZirbes said it was his
understanding that the applicant had settled on the two 15 -ft. retaining wall
options. MPTIZirbes asked if the applicant planned further discussions with
the residents to obtain an easement to eliminate the retaining walls.
Mr. Bostick said he planned to continue discussing the matter after the
hearing because he felt the easement would afford the applicant the best
way to build the project. Mr. Bostick indicated to MPTIZirbes that "The
Country Estates" attorney wrote a letter to the City verifying that the project
had access rights into the property along Alamo Heights, Rocky Trail and
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
Horizon Ln. The project cannot be annexed until the details of the approved
project are available to the HOA for approval. An annexation approval would
follow the City Council's approval of the project.
MPT/Zirbes asked if it was the applicant's intention to do all of the grading at
one time or in phases.
Bostick responded that it would all be done at one time and the cut and fill
would be balanced on-site.
CITye asked for clarification of what road would be used to access the
development.
Mr. Bostick reiterated that the three points of access were Horizon Lane,
Alamo Heights and Rocky Trail Rd. There has been no discussion with "The
Country Estates" Homeowners Association about a specific route. If there
were no agreement the project would be accessed via Alamo Heights and
Horizon Ln.
Gary McGavin, 447 LaVerne St., Redlands said he is a Professor of
Architecture and Structures at Cal Poly Pomona and former Seismic Safety
Commissioner for the State of California. He commented that grading along
Street A takes water to the south with termination adjacent to lot 44. There is
only a single outfall at that point that puts Lots 41, 42, 43 and 44 at risk for
flooding should the drainage ever clog up. The below -grade drainage may be
excessive for outfall velocities at Lot A and could cause excessive erosion
and/or sedimentation within the undeveloped area. The proposed
development is dumping water collected inside the proposed development
and allowing it to drain outside of the development and could cause
sedimentation and/or erosion in the area. The proposed 15 -ft. high retaining
wall along Alamo Heights would place existing homeowners at risk and they
cannot sign away their liability. The excessive grading in the area does not
appear to have taken into account any of the natural dip slopes that are
within the grades beneath the grading. There is no indication on the tract
map for any de -watering below the fills. All of the de -watering is done at the
surface. He said he could guarantee that all ground systems have ground
water and ground water tables fluctuate over time. The proposed
development is altering and burying a stream wetland and while it is not
completely natural it is somewhat natural and is, in fact a wetland.
Hofu Wu, a Fellow of the American Institute of Architects, 22368 Kicking
Horse Dr. contiguous to the Development, showed slides of the project area.
He said that the proposed project would cut the hill 50 ft.instead of running
the street on Rocky Trail and the fill will be used to fill the canyon, a very
devastating situation for the entire development. He pointed out the mature
trees that would be removed and replaced by less mature trees and the
animals he felt would be displaced. The major fill would obscure the natural
terrain and redirect the water under the ground. What the applicant did not
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
show was the hill on the other side. The applicant said that the project site
would be flat. The so-called slope easement so that when there is a hill the
road would have 50 ft. on either side to accommodate the road but the
applicant does not want to sacrifice any of their slopes and instead want to
build retaining walls. The old maps show most developments along the
ridgelines and most residences were built on hillsides instead of cutting hills
and flattening the areas for building. He said he was surprised to see a new
developer using techniques that were used in the 60's and 70's that caused
a lot of environmental damage.
Paul Aikin, 22505 Lazy Meadow Drive within walking distance of the project,
said he was not opposed to the project but pointed out that he has lived in
the area for 30 -years and although not as abundant, there is still wildlife in
the area. Last week he saw a bobcat in his backyard with a rabbit in its
mouth. He and his neighbors have heard Coyotes in the area and there is
ground water throughout "The Country Estates." He wanted the applicant to
explain why there would not be an access on Rocky Trail to mitigate traffic. If
the applicant were allowed to cut off the top of the ridge it would be a first for
the area. All of the other homes are built on the ridge to provide views. He
said that annexation was his biggest concern because of the problems with
Crystal Ridge and hoped there would be an honest effort between "The
Country Estates" and the applicant toward annexation. He encouraged the
City Council to withhold approval until both sides reach common ground.
Evelyn Leong, 22372 Kicking Horse Dr. said that based on the proposed
project the negative environmental impact would be enormous. Almost 1000
trees would be gone and the stream that animals and plants depend on
would also be gone. About 2 million cubic feet of landfill would be dumped
into the canyons and valleys to make an artificial plain. She asked the
Council if they believed this type of construction would be able to withstand
natural disasters such as earthquakes. She begged the Council to give this
project sufficient consideration to make sure it moved forward responsibly.
Kimberly Yi, 22376 Kicking Horse Dr. felt that retaining walls in excess of the
City's six-foot code were unacceptable. After the Planning Commission
continued this project on December 13, 2005 the Developer made a slight
change in the wall height and the final recommendation of the Planning
Commission reverted back to the original unacceptable and dangerous wall
height.
Tim Zhu, 22360 Kicking Horse Dr. felt that both sides of the road should be
used to accommodate the street, not just the side where he and his
neighbors live.
Mr. Bostik responded to Mr. Gavin's comments. The storm drain system was
designed by a civil engineer and reviewed by the City's civil engineers.
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
Charlie Liu, Focus Engineering, said that this project was not a special or
unusual case. The final design of the storm drain system includes a large
catch basin and storm drain in the flat cul-de-sac area to make sure that the
water above the intersection flows easterly. This plan was reviewed and
approved by the City's Engineer. The picture of the pipe blocking the water
that was shown by Dr. Wu does not depict what will happen in this case. In
fact, the water flowing out of the property will meet the current condition and
when the water is released from the property line to the adjacent property
(City of Industry and/or County of Los Angeles) the velocity will remain equal
or less than the current condition. He explained how the system would work
to meet those conditions. He said he did not believe there would be any
erosion in accordance with the agreement between the applicant, the LA
Flood Control District and the City of Industry. Mr. Liu said that although the
retaining wall exceeds the City's six-foot standard 15 -foot retaining walls are
not unusual to the City of D.B and he believed the 15 -foot wall would be
approved in accordance with proper engineer design.
Mr. Bostik said in response to Mr. Gavin's comments about excessive
grading and fill, that the applicant was not in the business of moving dirt and
that the project was progressing based on the City's standards for flat pad
areas and lot sizes. Soils reports are official documents reviewed by the
City's Engineer and that in addition, this project is 40% below the density
called out in the City's General Plan.
Mr. Liu stated that most homes in "The Country Estates" are built on hills so
that water naturally flows down the hill. If the homeowner were watering the
back yard the chemicals would flow into the drainage system. This project
controls the water quality before it is released into the natural system. In his
opinion, this project would provide a much better water quality standard than
other projects in "The Country Estates."
Mr. Bostik responded to Mr. Gavin that the project does in fact include
subsurface drains behind all of the retaining walls and in the area of Lot A.
The proposed project requires permits from the entities that control wetlands
and he needs approval of the basic plan before he requests the permits from
the proper agencies. With respect to Dr. Wu's comment about cutting the
ridgeline to fill the canyon, the ridge needs to be cut to provide fill for the
canyon in order to create lots that meet the City's Ordinances and Building
Standards. In this case, the project does not contemplate moving excessive
dirt because the project is 40 percent below density outlined in the City's
General Plan. He said that it would not serve a useful purpose nor would it
make sense to lower the other side of the road in order to raise the road. The
slope along Horizon Ln. flows naturally down to the grade where the road is
contemplated. Mr. Bostik said that he has been unsuccessful in several
attempts to get Dr. Wu to understand this premise. Again, it would not make
sense to build the road up high with slopes on both sides. The old map that
Dr. Wu showed indicates a density that the project could not meet. It is not a
recorded map and promotes a project that would not be feasible. Mr. Bostik
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL
responded to a speaker that the watershed size is controlled by the
requirements of the City and County to control the water as it flows off-site.
Mr. Liu responded to Mr. Aikin's comment about accessing Rocky Trail Rd.
that the control point and elevation is Alamo Heights according to the City's
approved Tract Map. There are two possible solutions to make the canyon
usable. One is to import the dirt and create better water quality control and
make a smoother access road. However, an emergency use access road is
required so the project has created the emergency access from Rocky Trail
to the site, a road that was approved by the Los Angeles County Fire
Department.
Mr. Bostik said that Mr. Aikin commented he would prefer annexation to take
place with one person and not 48 homeowners and he completely agreed
with that statement. Also, it is the reason that the applicant agreed to the
condition to make a good faith effort negotiation to annex prior to recordation
of the final map.
Mr. Bostik responded to Mrs. Leong he believed that Tom Smith answered
her comments about the trees and wildlife. Kimberly Yi's comment about a
variance request for a 26 -foot high retaining wall is incorrect. The variance
request is for 15 -foot walls. Mr. Zhu wanted the applicant to share the
easement and slopes on both sides of Alamo Heights and again, it would not
make sense to build the road up high and slope both sides of the road. If the
road could be lowered it would be done. However, the Planning Commission
and staff did not like the outcome of that analysis.
Mr. Bostik said that as a developer he takes all public input very seriously
and took extra time at the Planning Commission level to develop a study
based on Dr. Wu's comments. While he continues to respect the public's
input he found that there were no new comments beyond those presented at
the Planning Commission level and all of the aforementioned comments
were addressed during the Planning Commission's Public Hearing. He asked
for Council approval of the project based on staffs reports and
recommendations.
In response to C/Tye's request that he comment on the problems with putting
Alamo Heights at a lower elevation Mr. Bostik referred Council to staff's
report and the comments regarding the alternative study of street grade and
location of three walls. If Alamo Heights Rd. was lowered beginning at the
control point — the approved entrance for Jerry Yeh's property would begin a
gradual down slope of Alamo Heights Rd. It would conflict with the
approved lots and create a 10 -foot high retaining wall between the lot and
the street (Attachment 11-1). This process would create a dip in Alamo
Heights Rd. and necessitate three retaining walls instead of two retaining
walls. The major issue with a third retaining wall is that it would fall eight ft.
from Alamo Heights Rd. allowing insufficient room to add landscaping and
mitigation for a 10 -foot high retaining wall. Staff and the Planning
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL
Commission decided that it would be better to eliminate the dip from Alamo
Heights Rd. and place the wall on the other side of the street.
MPT/Zirbes asked how the applicant would ensure the integrity of a 50 -foot
deep fill. Mr. Bostik said that fill is done under controlled conditions in one to
two feet segments and the City's Engineer tests each lift for structural
integrity before the next lift can be constructed. Additionally, before a home
can be constructed on the fill, settlement survey monuments are established
on the properties to check future settlement and until the test is satisfactorily
completed homes cannot be constructed on the site. In fact, if the tests were
negative the lifts would have to be redone and retested.
MPT/Zirbes asked if the applicant would build the homes once the grading
was completed and pads were in place.
Mr. Bostik responded that his pro -forma is to sell lots to individuals and the
individuals would hire a custom homebuilder to build their homes.
M/Herrera closed the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m.
C/Chang pointed out that other projects within "The Country Estates"
involved more cut and fill than this project. In addition, certified engineers
closely monitor the cut and fill process to ensure integrity. He said he would
like to avoid the two 15 -foot retaining walls and said he preferred to have Mr.
Bostik continue negotiating toward an agreement with the adjacent
homeowners in order to eliminate the retaining walls but agreed that the
developer had the right to build the walls. He also encouraged the applicant
to continue negotiating for annexation.
M/Herrera said she had been aware of this project for many years and had
knowledge that the applicant had worked with staff and the Planning
Commission for several years to bring this project to fruition. There were
issues the property owner needed to overcome and with today's
recommendation for approval she ventured that the property owner
successfully overcame the hurdles and if the City Council approves the
project tonight the applicant still has many more hurdles to jump. She was
pleased it had come to this point and that staff and the Planning Commission
were recommending approval.
C/Tanaka said he too had followed the project for several years and was
happy that the Developer was sensitive to the residents' needs and concerns
and had made a good faith effort toward resolving several issues. He felt it
would be an excellent project for the City.
C/Tye stated that he had also been involved with this project for several
years during the time that he, MPT/Zirbes and C/Tanaka were on the
Planning Commission and that Mr. DeStefano outlined three criteria for
considering projects: Was it right for the location, was it a good project and
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 14
IM 1019111Rol L!
was it good for the City. After listening to speakers he had written down
several questions that Mr. Bostik answered before he asked them. It seemed
to him that the applicant had made every effort to make sure that everyone
was heard and everyone's comments were considered. He felt that citizens
were most interested in an excellent project and that this project met that
test. He concurred that this project should move to the next level.
MPT/Zirbes moved, C/Tanaka seconded to approve First Reading by Title
Only, waive full reading of Ordinance No. 03 (2006) approving Zone Change
No. 2005-03 changing the existing zoning for General Plan compliance from
4-1-20,000 to Rural Residential (RR) for property located direction south of
Rocky Trail Road and Alamo Heights Drive and west of Horizon Lane
identified by APN No's 8713-023-002, 8713-023-004, 8713-023-005, 8713-
024-001 and 8713-024-002 (Millennium/Cheung project). Motion carried by
the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPT/Zirbes,
M/Herrera
None
None
M/Chang moved, CITye seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2006-13
Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2003051102) and
approving Mitigation Monitoring Program for Tentative Tract Map No. 53430
as set forth therein for a 48 lot residential subdivision located directly south of
Rocky Trail Road and Alamo Heights Drive and west of Horizon Lane. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPTIZirbes,
MlHerrera
None
None
CITye moved, MPTIZirbes moved, to adopt Resolution No. 2006-14
approving TTM No. 53430 a 48 lot residential subdivision located directly
south of Rocky Trail Road and Alamo Heights Drive and west of Horizon
Lane, and denying the Appeal filed by Dr. Hufu Wu, et. APN No's 8713-023-
002, 8713-023, 8713-023-005, 8713-024-001 and 8713-024-002 subject to
the following amendments: The Council would prefer the applicant to
continue to make every effort to work with the neighbors to reach an
agreement to eliminate the retaining walls. In lieu of an agreement the City
Council approves construction of the two 15 -foot high retaining walls as
recommended and, directs the applicant to work closely with "The Country
Estates" Homeowners Association to reach agreement for annexation prior
to commencement of grading. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPT/Zirbes,
M/Herrera
None
None
MPTIZirbes moved, C/Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2006-15:
approving Hillside Management Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-01,
Variance No. 2005-03 and Tree Permit No. 2005-10 for Tentative Tract Map
No. 53430 subject to the following amendments: The Council would prefer
the applicant to make every effort to work with the neighbors to reach an
agreement to eliminate the retaining walls. In lieu of an agreement the City
Council approves construction of the two 15 -foot high retaining walls as
recommended and, directs the applicant to work closely with "The Country
Estates" Homeowners Association to reach agreement for annexation prior
to commencement of grading, Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPTIZirbes,
M/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-16: ESTABLISHING SALARY RANGES
FOR ALL CLASSES OF EMPLOYMENT EFFETIVE FEBRUARY 21, 2006
RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2005-58 IN ITS ENTIRETY IN ORDER
TO IMPLEMENT SALARY ADJUSTMENTS FOR VARIOUS FULL TIME
POSITIONS; TITLE CHANGES FOR VARIOUS PART TIME POSITIONS;
AND, APPROPRIATION OF $57,250 FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES
TO FUND PAY ADJUSTMENTS.
CM/Lowry reported that each year Council includes as part of the budget
adoption process, approval of a compensation structure for all City
employees including part time, regular and exempt employees. As changes
are required staff requests adjustments within the salary structure. Tonight's
request to adjust the City's salary structure was formulated because in the
fall when she requested an adjustment to the Assistant City Manager's
position the City had lost one of its Assistant City Managers who took a
position with a neighboring City and she was afraid the second Assistant City
Manager would accept a position with another City. The City Council
responded by approving the request. At the same time she requested similar
increases for Department Heads and was told it was not an appropriate time.
She included requests for salary adjustments in tonight's request as a result
of the job market and the City's unsuccessful attempts to fill current
vacancies. This evening Council received testimony from the applicant's very
experienced engineers and consultants. D.B. needs experienced engineers
as well and D.B. needs to compete with the private sector and with other
cities in order to woo them to work for D.B. With staffs workload and the
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL
magnitude of projects that the Council embraces it is essential for D.B. to
attract the best staff possible. Because of Senior Planner and Senior
Engineer vacancies the City is paying consultant wages to have responses to
project demands and to continue with the very demanding public works
schedule and public transportation issues. In order to adjust current salaries
to barely remain at a competitive market level staff is seeking an increase
that would raise the Senior Engineer position to just five percent below the
level of the current Public Works Director level. The current City Engineer
has been with the City for well over a decade and if you approve the
adjustment allowing him to have a fair chance of recruiting a qualified
engineer he would very likely have an employee under his management
working for five percent less the salary that he currently earns. She believed
that it was time for the City to address the salaries of the Department Heads
that are currently about 20 percent below the market that includes the
contract cities of Walnut, Chino Hills, La Mirada and Yorba Linda that have
similar or smaller populations and similar budgets. CM/Lowry said she was
not asking the Council to raise the salaries to the level of the adjacent cities,
merely to please grant a 15 percent increase to the department heads which
would still leave the salaries at five percent below market competition level.
CM/Lowry stated that D.B. enjoys very dedicated and long-term Department
Heads and she is concerned that they will decide they can no longer justify
making 20 percent less than they could make with another City. She believed
that it was her job as City Manager to encourage the strongest organization
possible that would guarantee a continued level of service that the
community has come to enjoy. Waiting for the system to become more
broken is not necessarily the best answer and this resolution seeks
promotions for staff that have been working through the years and that have
taken on additional responsibilities. As the Council knows the Public Works
Department has been short a number of staff people and has had
considerable turnover. Despite these changes the remaining staff members
have willingly taken on additional duties without remuneration.
CM/Lowry said that with all of the added responsibilities and increased level
of service to the community through the Information Services division, etc.
the City must create an additional layer of management as reflected in the
recommendation under a separate schedule of manager positions.
CM/Lowry explained that the changes would allow the City to have an
appropriate position in the marketplace and still leave the City at the bottom
rung of the competing salary levels. This change would allow D.B. to have
relationships inside of the compensation structure that would provide integrity
between positions within the City; it allows staff to create promotions where
appropriate and gives opportunities to current and future employees. The
recommendation seeks $57,000 in the current year and $169,000 in annual
adjustments for the 20 positions. She recommended that if the Department
Head increase was unacceptable to the Council that it at least approve the
salary tables as recommended with the Department Heads at the F Step
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL
rather than the G Step for a 10 percent increase and Department Heads to
move to Step G at the beginning of the new fiscal year for an additional five
percent increase. In this scenario the current fiscal year request would be for
$42,390, a reduction of $14,860 over the initial request.
MPTIZirbes felt that CM/Lowry had assembled a terrific team and those who
preceded CM/Lowry were essential to the team. He had no major issue with
the request but felt that it could wait until the new fiscal year on July 1.
CM/Lowry responded that her reason for bringing this matter to the Council
at this time was because of the need to recruit the two positions. And when
these types of salary adjustment requests are bundled in a budget process
they tend to not get the kind of consideration that they deserve and that she
feels is so important. This item presented at this time allows for the request
to have its own discreet discussion and deliberation and it also allows for
dialogue that sets a tone for future negotiation.
MPTIZirbes reiterated his feeling that the increases should be effective July
1, 2006. CM/Lowry agreed that it would be a good faith response to approve
the recommendations now to be effective July 1, 2006. MPTIZirbes agreed
that D.B. should be competitive with respect to recruiting for the new
positions and approve the balance of the increases for July 1, 2006.
M/Herrera said she viewed this request in a different light and felt that timing
was everything. D.B. has experienced, well-qualified and knowledgeable
employees and the City is dealing with a number of very complicated
projects. Today the Council was discussing an additional on/off ramp at
Lemon Ave. When Council Members are not knowledgeable on a host of
topics they looks to staff to supply their recommendations and she would not
want the good employees to leave D.B. for a higher salary nor would she
want it to be known that all D.B. could afford was entry-level staff. D.B.
accomplishes a tremendous amount within the region considering that the
City has a population of 58,000 with about 44 full time staff members.
Council Members are busy promoting the City and look to staff to provide
support and prepare Council Members to participate in the organizations that
allow D.B. to compete with larger cities for dollars, rights -of -ways, roadways,
etc. She felt the best way to thank people for the work they perform is
through their salary. We give staff a lot of public accolades which is nice, but
the bottom line is that staff has to make a decent living in order to support
themselves and their families.
C/Tanaka agreed that timing is everything and he believed this evening was
the time to adopt the resolution as presented. He believed that D.B. had an
outstanding staff that worked very hard on behalf of the residents and in
order for the City to be competitive and move with greater economic
development it must depend on a professional staff.
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL
CITye said that for years he has bragged about D.B. staff and now he has
the privilege of serving on the City Council and brag that D.B. is a lean -mean
operating machine. When he can rely on ICDD/Fong to be at City Hall until
6:30 on a Friday evening in order to get a packet to him for the next Council
meeting and when Bob Rose has been with the City for 15 plus years and
David Liu has been with the City for how many years it is time to
acknowledge their service. And, he does not hear anybody saying that the
City Council had better do this tonight or staff members will leave. As a City
D.B. scrambled to do what it could to keep Jim DeStefano. C/Tye believed
that D.B. was able to get more done with fewer people than all of the
adjacent cities mentioned in the discussion. This is not a matter of merit
increases or raises - this is a matter of adjusting current salaries to be
competitive in the current marketplace. Even at that the City Manager is
commenting that the increase will bring the level to "only five percent less
than everybody else." D.B. needs to be competitive and keep good
employees. If this is the right thing to do it is the right thing to do now.
C/Tanaka believed that there should not be compaction and that there
should be separation between supervisors and managers and the rank and
file, and that everyone should be compensated accordingly.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
M/Herrera moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2006-16:
Establishing Salary Ranges for all classes of employment effective February
21, 2006 rescinding Resolution No. 2005-58 in its entirety in order to
implement salary adjustments for various full time positions, title changes for
various part time positions and, appropriate $57,250 from the General Fund
Reserves to fund the pay adjustments. Motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPT/Zirbes,
M/Herrera
None
None
CM/Lowry thanked the Council Members on behalf of all of the Department
Heads and staff.
8.2 APPROVE AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH WEST COAST ARBORISTS FOR
TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR REMOVAL/REPLACEMENT OF
ALL TREES ON GRAND AVENUE MEDIANS FROM THE SR60 TO
DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AND NINE (9) TREES AT SYCAMORE
CANYON PARK: TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES AS AUTHORIZED BY
THE CITY MAANAGER OR HER DESIGNEE; AND APPROPRIATION
FROM THE GENERAL FUND RESERVES OF $27,775 FOR A TOTAL
FISCAL YEAR 2005/06 AMOUNT OF $235,125.
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL
CSD/Rose reported that this request was for removal and replacement of all
trees on the Grand Avenue medians from the SR60 to Diamond Bar
Boulevard as well as removal and replacement nine (9) trees at Sycamore
Canyon Park. The request also includes an authorization to perform tree
maintenance services as authorized by the City Manager or her designee for
the remainder of the fiscal year. If items one and two are approved the
appropriate from the General Fund Reserves would be $20,231 and $7,562
respectively. Also, 10 additional trees will be removed at Sycamore Canyon
as a result of the ADA retrofit project and removal of these trees will result in
a significant impact to the park. CSD/Rose gave a slide presentation
depicting the proposed work. Staff recommends approval and appropriation
of the funds.
Lydia Plunk, 1522 Deerfoot Dr. pointed to the General Plan's Vision
Statements that the City would retain the country living character and create
a nurturing community environment. She asked that during deliberation of
this item the City Council remember those two points. She understood that
diseased trees needed to be removed but questioned why a ramp could not
be moved around a tree. The loss of the large trees completely changes the
character of the park. She felt that the London Plane tree was an excellent
choice for replacement of the Sycamore trees. However, she disagreed that
Camphor trees were more interesting and while Gingko's were excellent
urban trees they were sometimes listed as inappropriate for streetscape
because of the canopy size and problems with the roots. When D.B. became
a City the trees in the parkway became more interesting and she hoped that
D.B. would not revert back to the county's way of finding the cheapest tree
for replacement trees. She liked the current assortment and felt it provided a
more interesting look and was more in keeping with what the citizens
responded to most favorably since D.B. became a City.
CSD/Rose responded that the primary reason the trees on Grand Ave. were
being considered for removal was that several had died and it was time to
make a decision about how Grand Ave. would look in the future. This was an
opportunity to create a different type of entry look at what will surely be one
of the City's most heavily traveled access points when the new Target
Project is completed. Based on staff's research, the type of eucalyptus tree
that currently resides on Grand Ave. is not recommended for medians and
street areas. Eucalyptus trees tend to be brittle and present a safety hazard
on a heavily traveled boulevard. Staff believes that the Evergreen Camphor
tree with its canopy offers a beautiful entry statement. Because of the current
condition of the Eucalyptus trees staff believes it is time to make a decision
about changing the treescape forthe area. CSD/Rose affirmed to C/Tye that
the Camphor and Gingko trees would be used for the Grand Ave. median
from the SR60 to Diamond Bar Blvd. only and that other median varieties
would remain in place. CSD/Rose confirmed to M/Herrera that the 19
Sycamore trees slated for removal would be replaced with 24 Sycamore
trees.
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL
C/Chang moved, MPT/Zirbes seconded, to approve Amendment No. 1 with
West Coast Arborists for Tree Maintenance Services for removal and
replacement of all trees on Grand Ave.medians from the SR60 to Diamond
Bar Blvd.and nine (9) trees at Sycamore Canyon Park; Tree Maintenance
Services as authorized by the City Manager or her designee; and,
appropriation from the General Fund Reserves of $27,775 for a total FY
2005/06 appropriation of $235,125.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPT/Zirbes,
M/Herrera
None
None
9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
C/Tanaka attended the Seniors Valentine Dinner and Dance; attended the LA
County Division League of California Cities meeting at Paramount Studios in
Hollywood. Alex Padillo, President, used the studio to show a movie and showcase
the region to point out how important the movie industry was to the Southern
California economy; attended the Council of African-American Parents Cultural
Faire at Sycamore Canyon Park, listened to good music, ate good food and
purchased a few items; learned from the Three Valley's Water District Leadership
Breakfast Meeting how important water is to the area and to keep it clean and
preserve it for cities like D.B.; attended the Neighborhood Watch meeting on
Gerndal and stood outside of the motorhome due to the large attendance; attended
the Miss Diamond Bar Fashion Show and attended the Lyons District 404 Teen
Dinner and presentation during which two D.B. students were recognized.
C/Chang said that he and other Council Members attended many meetings during
the two-week period between Council meetings. He enjoyed the African-American
Cultural Faire but had to leave early to attend another event. He joined the Red
Cross annual party and continues to support the organization in their fundraising
efforts. He was invited to Washington, D.C. by Congress to attend the meeting at
the Chinese Embassy to discuss how China could attract small businesses and
import products from America as well as create more traffic and trade between the
two countries. The Pomona Fair Board requested that he ask D.B. residents to
promote the Diamond Bar Day at the LA County Fair. He spoke with staff about
Kaiser-Permanente's desire to open a service center in D.B.
C/Tye again congratulated Tom Mangham on his retirement. He complimented
CSD/Rose and his team on the outstanding Sycamore Canyon Trailhead Project.
He reiterated that the Project was paid for 100 percent by grant money and it came
in under budget. He was excited to see benches dedicated to the memory of Steve
Tamaya and Hal Sturm. He was proud to report that the Walnut Valley Rotary Club
also installed a bench at the entryway and it was heartwarming to see it used on a
regular basis. Last week he joined M/Herrera at the California Contract Cities
FEBRUARY 21, 2006 PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL
Association and it was his privilege to vote in favor of a resolution to support the
2006 California State Library Bond. He was confident that ACM/Doyle would fight
for a fair share of the bond money should it be approved in June. On Saturday he
participated in the Counsel of African-American Parents at Sycamore Canyon Park
and it was especially nice to hear compliments about staff. The President of the
Counsel wrote a note acknowledging Ryan Wright and his staff for their fine work.
CITye asked CSD/Rose to pass on his thanks for the terrific work staff does on
behalf of the City.
MPTIZirbes commented that the trailhead looks great and people who are using the
trailhead and benches are thrilled with the project. He encouraged everyone to join
the Council for the dedication ceremonies on Saturday at 10:00 a.m. The Miss D.B.
Pageant is scheduled for March 25 at Mt. San Antonio College. Unfortunately he will
be out of town and unable to host the Pageant this year. In his stead, Bob Huff has
agreed to host the event. All nine contestants are outstanding and he believed it
would be a wonderful evening. If interested in attending, please call the pageant at
909-861-8454. He congratulated D.B.H.S. and D.R.H.S. varsity boys' teams. Both
advanced to the CIF playoffs. The girls' varsity soccer team from D.B.H.S. also
advanced to the playoffs and played and lost a tough game to an outstanding team.
It was exciting for him to see so many D.B. residents attend the games. D.B. is a
great City in which to live and he is honored to serve on the City Council.
MlHerrera said that it had been a long evening and she would not repeat the many
events she and her colleagues attended during the past two weeks. She thanked
Council Members for their resolve and residents for their interest and for attending
tonight's meeting.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, MlHerrera adjourned the regular
City Council meeting at 9:34 p.m.
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of
CAROL HERRERA, MAYOR
Agenda No. 6.2.1
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
,JANUARY 10, 2006
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairperson Ruth Low
and Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee and Tony Torng.
Commissioner Dan Nolan was excused.
Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director;
John C. Cotti, Assistant City Attorney; Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner, Linda K.
Smith, Development Services Associate, Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative
Assistant and Tom Smith, BonTerra Consulting.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCEIPUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the Study Session of December 13, 2005.
VC/Low asked that on Page 2, last paragraph, that the end of the first sentence be
corrected to read:..." ... to mitigate the traffic outside of "The Country Estates."
VC/Low moved, CILee seconded, to approve the minutes of the December 13,
2005, study session as corrected.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Lee, Torng, Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan
4.2 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of December 13, 2005.
C/Torng moved, CILee seconded to approve the Minutes of the Regular Meeting of
December 13, 2005, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING(S):
Torng, Lee, VC/Low, Chair/McManus
None
Nolan
7.1 TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53430 ZONE CHANGE NO. 2005-03,,
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 2002-01, VARIANCE 2005-03 AND
TREE PERMIT NO. 2005.10 - In accordance with the Subdivision Map Act,
City's Subdivision Ordinance — Title 21 and Development Code — Title 22,
Sections 22.70, 22.58, 22.22, 22.54 and 22.38) this was a request to
subdivide approximately 80 acres into 48 single-family residential lots forthe
eventual development of single-family custom homes. The Zone Change
was related to changing the existing zoning from R-1-20000 to Rural
Residential (RR); the Conditional Use Permit was related to grading and
development within a hillside area; the Variance was related to retaining
walls that were proposed at a height greater than six feet, and the Tree
Permit was related to the removal/replacement/protection of oak and walnut
trees. (Continued from December 13, 2005)
PROJECT ADDRESS: Directly south of Rocky Trail Road and
Alamo Heights Drive, and west of
Horizon Lane, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER/ John Bostick
APPLICANT: Millennium Enterprises
3731 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 850
Los Angeles, CA 90010
AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report and commented on responses made
during public comments placed in evidence during the December 13, 2005,
meeting. Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend the
following to the City Council: Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact
Report (SCH#2003052202) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 53430; Zone Change No. 2005-03; Conditional Use
Permit No. 2002-01; Variance No. 2005-03; Tree Permit No. 2005-10,
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
Statement of Overriding Consideration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the Resolutions.
John Bostick, applicant, stated that he has continued to meet with the
adjacent landowners and respond to their concerns. In the spirit of taking
public input very seriously Millennium Enterprises spent considerable time
and effort to come up with a design to lower Alamo Heights Road and
respect the approval for the JerryYeh property. He said he believed Dr. Wu's
proposal was not the best solution and that Millennium had been able to
show that the lowering of Alamo Heights would most likely create more and
not less of an impact. In short, the applicant has responded to the direction
of the Planning Commission by responding to the adjacent landowners and
lowered the wall height to a maximum height of 15 feet. Mr. Bostick assured
the Commissioners that the applicant would continue to work with the
adjacent landowners and staff to arrive at the best solution for the
construction of Alamo Heights Road.
VC/Low said she appreciated Mr. Bostick's consideration for the project and
his attention to the concern of the adjacent landowners. She asked for
clarification of Mr. Bostick's comments regarding the increased impact to
lowering the road. Mr. Bostick said that because of the conditions of approval
for Mr. Yeh's property, lowering the road puts a 10 -foot retaining wall
adjacent to the street. Tonight's request for approval is for no walls over 15 -
feet high. In the area there is only eight feet to mitigate the wall with tree
plantings. As he explained to the landowners, he believed the better plan
was to have the wall on the property owners' side, that he would be able to
provide better mitigation and that the end result would be a better product
that was less visible and properly mitigated.
VC/Low asked if Mr. Bostick had addressed the cost of building and
maintaining the walls and the matter of liability with the landowners.
Mr. Bostick stated that he explained to the landowners that the project
included conditions requiring the creation of a homeowner's association with
CC&Rs and a budget. The budget would have to cover the maintenance of
on-site and off-site landscaping as well as walls built on and off-site. City
staff and the DRE (State Department of Real Estate) review the budget.
VC/Low asked if the applicant had offered financial incentives to the
landowners in exchange for the grading easement. Mr. Bostick responded
affirmatively and explained that during the January 5 meeting the residents
were told that they would be compensated for providing easements in the
form of a wall and landscaping. VC/Low asked what remedy Mr. Bostick
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
would pursue in the event some landowners failed to grant the easement?
Mr. Bostick explained thatthe road would not change. If a landowner refused
to grant the easement the applicant would work with staff to accommodate
that scenario. The ultimate goal was to minimize the number of wails. He
said he felt certain that he could work with the individual homeowners to
coordinate the plan.
C/Torng asked how many homeowners had agreed to the easement and
Mr. Bostick responded that one landowner had indicated full agreement and
others were in limbo. C/Torng asked staff to respond as to the City's position.
ICDD/Fong stated that with respect to Jerry Yeh's concern the condition was
intended to seek the cooperation of adjacent residents. She offered that staff
could meet with Mr. Yeh and discuss Condition 2 that intends to provide
flexibility for the applicant to work with the residents to complete the
extension of Alamo Heights. Mr. Bostick responded that Mr. Yeh was not
opposed to the project until the applicant proposed to work through the
concept of lowering Alamo Heights Road. Again, by attempting to lower
Alamo Heights Road it calls for a wall that is difficult to mitigate and that was
Mr. Yeh's concern as well as the applicant's concern. Mr. Yeh's letter was in
response to his concern about the possibility of another wall being placed on
his property. Mr. Bostick appealed to the Planning Commission to
acknowledge staffs support of the project and stated that although he is at
Tract approval and does not have the exact solution for Alamo Heights Road
he has a set of conditions that staff has indicated would create a good
project for the City of Diamond Bar. He asked for Commission approval that
included a substantially reduced variance.
C/Lee believed that Dr. Wu's concern about the possibility of the wall
collapsing due to water retention was legitimate and asked Mr. Bostick to
respond. Mr. Bostick explained that there was always a possibility and that
the engineers had done everything possible to make this project as safe as
possible. The technology for real estate land development has dramatically
improved in recent years. He stated that retaining walls will be designed to
meet the criteria set forth by the City. C/Lee felt Dr. Wu's concerns should be
given credibility because Dr. Wu worked in this field. ICDD/Fong explained
that retaining wails must meet the City's Code. The Building Department
intends to plan check the construction thoroughly to assure that it meets
code and is safe. Mr. Bostick explained that his opinion of Dr. Wu's concern
was that all of the walls were signed and stamped by a state certified civil
engineer who does the math and calculations to say that those walls will
stand up and meet the criteria of the City. He said he could not testify as to
Dr. Wu's credentials and did not know if he was a state certified civil
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
engineer. If Dr. Wu is a state certified civil engineer the applicant would be
pleased to provide him with the calculations. He assured CILee that staffs
approval was for a structurally sound wall and believed that in accordance
with code the applicant.must rely on a state certified civil engineerto approve
the project.
CILee reiterated that Dr. Wu said that it was possible water could smear into
the landfill and CILee said he wanted to know if that statement was accurate.
Mr. Bostick explained that a drain channel is installed behind the retaining
wall to relieve hydrostatic pressure. When retaining walls are built in today's
marketplace a drainage channel must be provided. CILee said that Dr. Wu
was concerned because he felt the retaining wall was too high.
Charlie Liu, project engineer for applicant, said that it was true that in the
past retaining walls had failed due to water build up behind and under the
wall. He said he had been in business for 35 years and during that time
engineers had learned from past problems. This project has a major fill and
he and the soils engineer have worked together to provide a project that
would meet the requirements set forth by the Code. Mr. Liu proceeded to
described in detail as to how the retaining wall would be built.
Chair/McManus explained that the Commission was charged with approving
projects that were approved to code and that if CILee wanted to meet with
the engineer on his own to get lessons on how to build retaining walls he
could do so.
ICDDIFong explained staffs procedure for assuring the proper design of
facilities to ensure safety. She further explained to CILee that if Dr. Wu was
seeking assurance that the project was safe he should discuss the matter
with staff and to date, Mr. Wu had not made any such inquiries.
VC/Low felt CILee wanted to know how safe the wall would be and the
engineer responded that based on industry standards and 35 years of
experience the wall would be 99.99 percent safe because no one could
guarantee at a level of 100 percent. in addition, he built a 35 -foot wall in San
Francisco where there is more rainfall and there have been no incidents with
the retaining wall in San Francisco. In addition, his license is on the line to
make certain that the wall is built in a sound manner.
VC/Low wanted to know if staff had determined how underground water
would affect massive earth movement in the project area. Tom Smith
responded yes. Contained in the Environmental Report and backup studies
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
the City required the applicant's civil engineer to conduct a hydrology study
to determine the existing runoff conditions from the site priorto development
as well as runoff conditions post development. Generally speaking, ground
water is not near the surface in hillside areas. The EIR speaks to regional
water basins and the nearest major ground water basin with an aquifer is
near the SR605 and SR60. Generally, local areas of perched ground water
and local aquifers exist in the canyon bottoms. The on-site subsurface
borings did not detect any ground water. The geologist did note that in the
canyon bottom, because of all of the vegetation, there was no opportunity to
do borings and was unable to determine whether there would be a perched
groundwater condition. When the time comes to do the detailed grading
design and during grading the City inspectors will be on-site daily to inspect
the grading and related conditions. If perched water conditions arise the City
will require engineering solutions as the fill is placed. VC/Low asked if these
procedures were set forth in the draft resolution. TCDD/Fong responded that
that procedure was part of the environmental mitigation referred to as part of
the environmental condition.
Chair/McManus asked if staff was working with Mr. Yeh to resolve his
concerns. ICDD/Fong said she believed so and whether the wall was located
on Mr. Yeh's side of the street would be determined during the final design
phase for Alamo Heights.
Chair/McManus reopened the public hearing.
David Leong, 22372 Kicking Horse Drive, said he and his wife appreciated
the Millennium representatives meeting with the homeowners. However,
contrary to Mr. Bostick's statement, Mr. Leong said his understanding was
that there was no agreement with the project. He said that on January 7'
2006, Charlie Lui stated that the modified plan provided that no walls would
be greater than 10 -feet tall. And yet tonight he heard Mr. Bostick asked for
approval of a variance forwalls to a maximum of 15 feet. Another example of
conflicting information was when VC/Low asked Mr. Bostick whether the
developer had offered incentive or compensation to make it more palatable
for homeowners to cooperate with this project and Mr. Bostick responded
affirmatively. Mr. Leong said that he took from the December 5, 2005,
meeting that Mr. Bostick categorically stated "no compensation." At the same
time during a simultaneous meeting in a language that was not English those
homeowners were given the impression that there would be financial
compensation. Until the December 13, 2005, Planning Commission meeting
neither the City nor the consultants acknowledged the existence of a creek
running along his property. He said he had questioned Mr. Bostick about the
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
responsibility of maintaining the slope along the wall and the liability issues to
the homeowners since the structures would lie on the homeowners'
properties. To date he had not received any assurance to his satisfaction. It
was presented to him that "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association
would assume responsibility and liability for maintaining the structures. Yet,
the homeowners association has indicated there has been no such
agreement. Mr. Bostick indicated that it could be a separate homeowners
association and how could Kicking Horse homeowners and Millennium enter
into a binding agreement for a homeowners' association that was not yet in
existence. He said he appreciated CILee's questions because the
homeowners' have safety concerns and because there are so many
unanswered questions, the homeowners have not been able to reach an
agreement with Millennium.
Paul Akin, 22505 Lazy Meadow Drive, said he was concerned about
annexation of this property into "The Country Estates." He recommended
that the developer meet with "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association
and move forward with annexation as a single owner rather than wait until 48
homeowners were involved.
ICDDIFong said that a Condition of Approval requires the applicant to
negotiate with "The Country Estates" for annexation of the property.
Hofu Wu, 22368 Kicking Horse Drive, felt the design detail of the retaining
wall was correct. The City ordinance requires a maximum height of six feet
and felt that the engineering for a six-foot wall would be fairly easy to attain.
In his opinion, when a wall exceeded a certain height no one could
guarantee its success rate. He said he was also concerned about water in
the canyon and how the water would affect the proposed fill. He wanted to
know why the homeowners were being asked to favor the easement when
there were no concessions provided by the developer. He felt his
recommendations were much better for the project because the retaining
wall would be set on solid existing ground instead of fill. Using the drawings
he commented the red lines indicated that the pad sizes for the 48 proposed
homes exceeded the 33 percent lot coverage. He said he was not against
the development but he was against the way the developer was proposing to
fill the canyon that in his opinion was against the flow of nature's forces. He
also favored an agreement between "The Country Estates" Homeowners'
Association and the developer.
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/McManus asked if Mr. Wu met with staff to discuss his concerns.
Mr. Wu said that he had not because he felt that Millennium would address
his concerns this evening.
Kyoung Yi, 22376 Kicking Horse Drive, said she shared the concerns about
the negative impacts that would be generated by this development as
presented by Professor Wu on December 13 and this evening. She does not
like the construction of a high wall, the cutting of old oak trees and loss of the
creek on her property not to mention the noise, dust and loss of privacy in
her backyard during construction. The homeowners met with Millennium and
no agreement was reached and further negotiations are necessary to reach
an agreement that is mutually satisfactory.
Mr. Bostick agreed that there was no formal agreement with Mr. Leong and
was merely expressing that current conditions on the Tentative Map were
more restrictive than those contained within the original project based on
public input. The other language spoken during the meeting was Korean.
Millennium's President is fluent in Korean and a couple of the homeowners
indicated they were more comfortable discussing the matter in Korean. With
respect to the wall height Millennium proposed a 10 -foot high wall plan for
study only and Mr. Bostick again stated that he did not believe it was a good
plan. Mr. Bostick clarified that he did not believe there would be any
compensation for existing easements but that there was a possibility of
compensation for additional easements. With respect to acknowledging a
creek along the property, the flow line of the creek is shown on all of the
Tentative Map submittals. The water and drainage concerns are covered in
the Drainage and Hydrology report and the creek is also discussed in the
EIR. Mr. Bostick clarified that the developer's intent was to annex into "The
Country Estates" Homeowners' Association. Annexation requires a vote of
the HOA members and that has not yet been done nor could he guarantee
the vote outcome. As earlier stated by ICDDIFong, the project approval
contains a condition requiring that the developer negotiate with `The Country
Estates" for annexation into their HOA. Millennium has met with HOA
President Steve Solis and committed to meet with the Crystal Ridge
Homeowners Association on ,January 23. Homeowners are bound by an
HOA and its CC&R's to maintain landscaping and retaining walls and he
must have a plan and approved project before he can put together a budget
and assemble a HOA.
Mr. Bostick assured the Commission that if he received their approval for the
project he would continue to work with Mr. Leong on the issues he raised.
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
With respect to Mr. Akin's concern about annexation staff had conditioned
the project accordingly.
Mr. Bostick responded to Dr. Wu's comment that walls higher than six feet
are not safe and that there are many walls that exceed six feet. For example,
walls at the Target location exceed six feet in height and whether these types
of walls are located behind a commercial projector a residential project they
must be rendered safe. The project has limitations on how much drilling and
exploratory research can be done without a Tentative Map approval such as
the one being sought from the Commission this evening. Once an approval is
achieved Millennium would be able to go into the areas to determine the
feasibility of the proposal. Diamond Bar has an excellent soils engineer that
would oversee the drilling and he believed that the project area boasted no
unique features that had not already been developed in other ridgelines
within "The Country Estates." With respect to pad heights, they remain the
same but the proposal previously set forth lowered the road. The slope
easement was not recommended for the development side because all of
the area of the project with the exception of the pad areas has slope. He was
mystified by Dr. Wu's assertion that the pad areas did not meet the required
percentage. In fact, the pad areas meet the requirements and design of the
City and its codes. If not, there would have been no hearing in December.
Mr. Wu mentioned that he was opposed to filling the canyon and Mr. Bostick
said he understood and appreciated Mr. Wu's concerns but in fact, the
highest and best use of the property as called out in the City's approved
General Plan was "one unit per acre development" and this project was
actually at .6 units per acre which is a 40 -percent reduction below the
General Plan requirement. This requires a fill of the canyon similar to
projects adjacent to and in the area of this project.
VC/Low asked for further explanation of the existing road easementfrom the
Kicking Horse properties. Mr. Bostick stated that at the maximum an
additional 50 feet would be required to eliminate all retaining walls. If
Millennium could acquire an additional 15 feet for example, it would reduce
the height of the retaining walls. The reason Millennium would not place
retaining walls on the project side of Alamo. Heights Road is because they
would be more difficult to mitigate with only eight feet between the right-of-
way and the asphalt. On the Kicking Horse side there is 50 feet within which
to mitigate a wall. He explained the options and what he felt was the best
solution. Mr. Bostick confirmed to VC/Low that if Millennium were
unsuccessful in obtaining the additional easement from the Kicking Horse
Drive homeowners the project would require a maximum 15 foot height for
the retaining walls.
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Bostick responded to Chair/McManus that he was comfortable with the
conditions of approval at this stage of the process. Mr. Bostick reiterated that
the applicant has worked diligentlywith staff to provide a good project and he
asked the Commission to believe that staff has presented the best possible
project for approval.
VC/Low asked what input the City had to the conditions of the CC&R's.
ICDD/Fong responded that the City Attorney would respond to the proposed
CC&R's and the CC&R's would reflect the conditions imposed upon the tract.
Ultimately, the CC&R's are approved by the City Council. VC/Low asked if
the developer's statements were binding to the project. ICDD/Fong stated
that there was no condition binding the developer to pay compensation for
the easement and in fact that matter was outside of the City's purview.
ICDDlFong said she believed that the wall would vary from seven feet to 15
feet at its highest point if walls were needed within the existing 40 -foot
easement. The variance is required to meet the maximum height needed.
There is a condition requiring the applicant to negotiate with "The Country
Estates" Homeowners' Association for annexation. In addition, the project
must form another association so that ultimately the 48 homes would have
two associations as reflected in the CC&R's.
TCDD/Fong agreed with Chair/McManus that the 48 homeowners would have
their own association for purposes of liability and maintenance of common
areas whether or not they were annexed into 'The Country Estates"
Homeowners' Association.
Bill Liu, President, Crystal Ridge Association, disagreed with ICDDlFong.
Crystal Ridge is a separate association even though it pays money to "The
Country Estates" Homeowners' Association for limited security and gate
enforcement. ICDD/Fong responded that in fact, Crystal Ridge was not
annexed into "The Country Estates." The Millennium project requires that
Millennium negotiate with "The Country Estates" for annexation. In addition,
Millennium must form its separate association for maintenance of common
areas.
ACA/Cotti explained that the project was conditioned that it form its own
association as well as conditioned to require Millennium to negotiate in good
faith to annex into "The Country Estates" Homeowners' Association. Should
that not occur, there would be an association in place that was fully funded
as per the state DRE requirements to assure the ongoing maintenance of
common areas.
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. Aiken agreed to a certain point. He said that if the project were annexed
into "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association there would be no need
for them to have a separate association.
Chair/McManus explained that the City could not require the project to be
annexed into "The Country Estates."
ACA/Cotti responded to VC/Low that to the extent that the conditions were
negotiated in good faith toward annexation it would not further bind the
developer. All that the developer was required to do was to make a good
faith attempt to negotiate and there was no requirement that those conditions
be finalized.
ICCDIFong responded to Chair/McManus that staff had imposed a
considerable number of conditions on the project for the good of the City.
Mr. Leong said that it was incorrectly implied that the homeowners had
accepted the 10 -foot wall. If the Commissioners approve the proposed plan it
would put the homeowners in a difficult situation of having to choose
between a 15 -foot high wall and an easement.
Chair/McManus said that negotiations were still open.
Mr. Leong felt that there should be a memorandum of understanding of
annexation before the homeowners could make a decision because the
homeowners might be in a position of having to maintain the wall.
Chair/McManus asked if Mr. Leong understood that if there was no
successful negotiation a separate and binding homeowners association
would be established that would be responsible for maintaining the wall.
Mr. Leong asked if that was binding and ICDD/Fong responded that it was.
ACA/Cotti responded to Mr. Leong that he could not respond to Mr Leong's
statement that he could state there would be no possibility that the
homeowners could be left "holding the bag" and in all likelihood the
homeowners would have to take that into consideration during the
negotiations for granting of the easement.
C/Torng asked Mr. Leong if the residents could come together to reach a
decision. Mr. Leong said that the real process of the developer explaining
and disclosing took place after the December 13 Commission meeting and
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION
he felt it was necessary for the homeowners and Millennium to continue
negotiating so that the homeowners would not be left "holding the bag."
TCDD/Fong responded to C/Torng that staff held a meeting in August for the
homeowners. C/Leong reiterated that during the meetings prior to
December 13, there was no advice to the homeowners as to their rights and
there was no full disclosure of possible problems such as liability, etc.
C/Torng said he participated in a hearing for South Point West and the
detailed plan was submitted at that time. He believed that about 30
homeowners participated in that meeting. According to the City's code of
procedure it must invite residents to participate in such hearings prior to the
matter coming before the Planning Commission. C/Leong said that in his
opinion, much more information came to light after the December 13
Planning Commission meeting. Some homeowners may have believed they
agreed and might have done so because of a misunderstanding of the facts
presented. He said that some of his neighbors believed they had no choice
but to agree to a 26 -foot wall or an easement with no alternative. He felt it
was incumbent upon Millennium to continue talking with the homeowners
before they were stuck in an adverse situation.
ICDD/Fong stated that a 40 -foot easement already exists and Millennium
could grade and build the walls within the 40 -foot easement. The only
question before the Planning Commission was how high Millennium could
build the walls. The first time, Millennium proposed walls up to 26 feet high.
Since the Commission's recommendation for the applicant to work with the
adjacent property owners Mr. Bostick decided that if he had to work within
the 40 foot easement he would be able to build two walls with the wall on one
side of the street being five feet and the wall on other side being 10 to 15
feet.
Mr. Leong asked if it was correct that if Millennium wanted an additional 50 -
foot easement they would have to negotiate with the homeowners and
ICDD/Fong responded "correct." Mr. Leong said the homeowners were told
that the applicant would not have to negotiate because they already had a
total of 90 feet for the easement. ICDD/Fong said she did not believe
Mr. Leong was correct. Mr. Leong felt that staff needed to provide the
homeowners with accurate information because Millennium told the
homeowners they had no choice but to grant the 90 -foot easement.
ICDD/Fong recalled that at the last neighborhood meeting staff attended it
was made clear that there was an existing 40 -foot easement and that
Millennium was asking for a 50 -foot easement.
JANUARY 10, 2006 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/McManus advised Mr. Leong that this was a request for a tentative
approval, not a final approval and in order for Millennium to move forward
they needed a tentative approval to proceed with certain items that they had
to complete. Staff has repeatedly and categorically stated that there is room
for negotiation between the homeowners, Mr. Yeh and Millennium.
Mr. Leong believed the homeowners were asking that because the
homeowners were not provided accurate information and he felt that the
Commission should grant additional time for Millennium to talk with the
homeowners because once approved, the homeowners would be between a
rock and a hard place.
Chair/McManus asked Mr. Leong if he understood that this was not a final
approval and that there were a lot of additional hoops that Millennium had to
jump through before receiving final approval and that the project has already
been continued for one month.
Mr. Bostick said that at the very first meeting in May at the HOA, the HOA's
legal counsel was present and explained that the easements were existing
on all of these properties according to the current recorded tract map for the
lots on Kicking Horse Drive. From the centerline of the street there is 40 feet
for the street and a 50 -foot slope easement resulting in a total of 90 feet of
easement on all of the heights to build Alamo Heights Road, a fact that has
never been in dispute. He felt he had made every good effort to explain the
situation and work with the homeowners in good faith for several months.
Mr. Bostick further stated that the developer has another 9 to 12 months of
preliminary engineering and design work before one scoop of dirt could be
moved and during that time the applicant will continue to work with staff and
the homeowners in good faith. The easements are in place and are not in
dispute.
Chair/McManus invited Mr. Wu to contact the City with his concerns and
assured Mr. Wu that the City would not be contacting him for his expertise.
Chair/McManus closed the public hearing.
VC/Low detailed the review process and said that it seemed to her that
Millennium had made considerable effort and progress toward discussing
and resolving various issues with concerned citizens as directed by the
Planning Commission on December 13. Therefore, it appeared there would
be no benefit to further continuance of this matter as suggested by some of
the comments. The applicant has a right to the use and development of his
land according to code and the City cannot deny that right. The easement
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION
currently exists and the applicant is entitled to build in the easement area.
The question is whether the Commission wants to grant a variance allowing
a wall to be constructed up to a maximum height of 15 feet and the City has
allowed construction of such walls in the past.
VC/Low moved, C/Lee seconded, to recommend the following to City
Council: Certification of the Draft Environmental Impact Report
(SCH#2003052202) and Mitigation Monitoring Program; approval of
Tentative Tract Map No. 53430, Zone Change No. 2005-03, Conditional Use
Permit No. 2002-01, Variance 2005-03 and Tree Permit No. 2005-10,
Statement of overriding Consideration, Findings of Fact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the Resolutions including additional conditions
provided by staff today. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Lee, Torng,
Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nolan
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
8.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04 and Development Review
No. 2005-23 — In accordance with Code Sections 22.42, 22.58 and 22.48,
this was a request to install a wireless telecommunications facility with
antennas mounted on the roof -top concealed by the facade and mansard
roof and equipment cabinets in a retail suite. The Development Review
related to architectural/design review forthe replacement of faux stucco and
roofing materials.
PROJECT ADDRESS:
PROPERTY OWNER/
APPLICANT:
1155 Diamond Bar Boulevard
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar Town Center, LLC
Pacific West Asset Management
3191-D Airport Loop Drive
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
Chair/McManus recused himself and left the dais.
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION
DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission
approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-04 and Development Review
No. 2005-23, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the
Resolution.
Danielle Brandenburg, representing Cingular Wireless, MMI Titan,
responded to C/Torng that this project would improve the wireless phone
reception in Diamond Bar. She responded to VC/Low that she concurred
with staffs recommendations and conditions of approval.
VC/Low opened the public hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
ClTorng moved, CILee seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 2005-04 and Development Review No. 2005-23, Findings of Fact, and
conditions of approval as listed within the Resolution. Motion carried by the
following Rall Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Chair/McManus returned to the dais.
Tomg, Lee, VC/Low
None
Chair/McManus
Nolan
9. PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
C/Torng felt that concerned residents should participate more fully in the projects
that come before the City. He believed that the applicant would work with the
residents to come to a satisfactory resolution of their concerns and wished
Millennium a good project.
C/Lee said he expected Millennium to follow through with their promises to the
residents and thanked them for their patience.
VC/Low echoed CILee's comments and thanked staff for working hard with the
applicant to bring together a good project. She thanked Millennium for their last
minute improvements and wished them good luck in winning over the homeowners
and moving forward with a good project.
JANUARY 10, 2006
PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/McManus wished everyone a Happy New Year and congratulated Millennium
on moving their project through the Planning Commission. He asked
Commissioners to get a copy of Roberts Rules of Order to refresh themselves on
meeting conduct. Before coming on the Planning Commission he spent the better
part of a day going through orientation and reviewing the responsibilities of Planning
Commissioners and recommended that for those that had not done so it would be
especially useful for them to take the time to review Planning Commission and
Commissioner's procedures and responsibilities.
10. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
10.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.
1CDDIFong said she had not forgotten about Form Based Code and Art in
Public Places. Staff intends to present information in the near future so that
the Commission can discuss the matter and forward its recommendation to
the City Council.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in tonight's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chair/McManus adjourned the meeting at 9:40 p.m.
Ily submitted,
Fancy Fong
Interim Com
McManus, Chairman
nity Development Director
Agenda No. 6.2.2
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
JANUARY 24, 2006
CALL TO ORDER:
SAA/Marquez called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California 91765.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Commissioners Kwang Ho Lee, Dan Nolan and
Tony Torng.
Chairman Joe McManus, and Vice Chairperson Ruth
Low were excused.
Also present: Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director;
Bradley Wohlenberg, Assistant City Attorney; Ann J. Lungu, Associate Planner,
Sandra Campbell, Contract Senior Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services
Associate and Stella Marquez, Senior Administrative Assistant.
C/Torng nominated C/Nolan to serve as temporary presiding officer. C/Lee
seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. Roll Call:
CILee Yes
C/Torng Yes
C/Nolan Yes
C/Nolan assumed the gavel.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Lee led the Pledge of Allegiance.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the Study Session of January 10, 2006. Continued to
February 14, 2006.
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
JANUARY 24, 2006 PAGE 2
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. PUBLIC HEARING(S):
PLANNING COMMISSION
7.1 Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-02 Development Review No. 2005-15
and Minor Variance No. 2005-03 - In accordance to Code Sections 22.42,
22.58, 22.48 and 22.54, this was a request to install a wireless
telecommunications facility with antenna mounted on a monopole
camouflaged as a broadleaf tree and equipment cabinets. The Development
Review relates to architectural/design review. The Minor Variance relates to
the height of the broadleaf tree monopole that exceeds the maximum
allowable 35 -foot height.
PROJECT ADDRESS:
PROPERTY OWNER:
Eastgate Water Reservoir
24995 Eastgate Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Walnut Valley Water District
271 S. Brea Canyon Road
Walnut, CA 91789
APPLICANT: Cingular Wireless
12900 5t' FI — Park Plaza Drive
Cerritos, CA 90703
APPLICANT'S AGENT: Infranext, Inc., Jim Fitzsimmons
2200 Orangewood Avenue#228
Orange, CA 92868
DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended Planning Commission
approval of Conditional Use Permit 2005-02, Development Review
No. 2005-15 and Minor Variance No. 2005-03, Findings of Fact, and
conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
AC/Nolan asked for a definition of "co -location." DSA/Smith stated that the
vendor requested co -location because their grid was lower than the existing
grids and it was common to group such facilities. Acting Chair/Nolan asked if
any noise would emit from the use and DSA/Smith explained that there might
be an on-site generator, however, there would otherwise be very little noise.
Kenny Zwick, applicant's representative, explained that the application made
sense because the applicant had complied with the City's requirement to
locate the facility at a preferred facility for wireless applications. It was
JANUARY 24, 2006 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
8.
customary for such facilities to be placed on or near water tanks since it
offered a symbiotic use and afforded the City an opportunity to gain revenue.
In this case, the site was being built for coverage and not capacity and as
systems mature antenna centerlines tend to be lowered. He stated that the
applicant read staff's report and concurred with the conditions of approval.
Mr. Zwick responded to C/Lee that the total weight of the antenna was
approximately 50 pounds.
C1Torng asked if the applicant intended to request additional sites. Mr. Zwick
indicated that Cingular was going to a higher frequency in order to provide
better signal. These sites tend to expand and contract depending on usage.
For example, with the current system the 30th person attempting to make a
call on a sector would not have good reception and with the installation the
usage capability should about double.
C/Torng moved, CILee seconded, to approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 2005-02, Development Review No. 2005-15 and Minor Variance
No. 2005-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the
resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Lee, Torng, AC/Nolan
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Low, Chair/McManus
PLANNING COMMSSIONER COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
C/Torng wished his colleagues a Happy Lunar New Year, the Year of the Dog.
9. STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.
9.2 Form Based Codes (Continued to February 14, 2006)
9.3 Art in Public Places (Continued to February 14, 2006)
ICDD/Fong stated that at the February 14, 2006, meeting she would forward a staff
report that discussed what was meant by "public convenience and "necessity" as
well as the process for determining the duties.
ICDD/Fong commented that the date for the Planners Institute should be March
instead of May. She asked the Commissioners to read the publication on the
JANUARY 24, 2006 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
Monterey conference and indicate to SAA/Marquez whether they would like to
attend. AC/Nolan said he highly recommended that his colleagues attend the
conference.
AC/Nolan asked if ACA/Wohlenberg would comment on a recent Supreme Court
case involving aesthetics for cell sites. ACA/Wohlenberg explained that the 9t'
Circuit Court decision dealt with cell facilities that were installed in the public right-of-
way. The Court decided that aesthetic concerns a city may have was not something
that was allowed to be regulated under state law. However, 7901.1 allows some
"time, place and manner" regulation but the court decided that aesthetics did not fall
within those parameters. He felt that the City of La Canada Flintridge may very well
appeal the decision because there was a substantial body of law that discusses how
local government does have an aesthetic interest in the public rights-of-way.
AC/Nolan stated that a home on Golden Springs Drive north just past Sycamore
Canyon Park and Golden Prados has a smashed retaining wall between the house
and the sidewalk and since the wall had remained in bad condition for several
weeks he wondered if the City could step in to facilitate repairs. ICDD/Fong said she
would report the matter to Code Enforcement. AC/Nolan offered that the
Neighborhood Improvement Association or a local service club might be able to
assist the property owner if necessary.
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in tonight's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
AC/Nolan adjourned the meeting at 7:32 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
iA q Nancy Fong
Interim Comunit Jelopment Director
-a
a� W— - -
Dan Nolan, Acting Chairman
Agenda No. 6.3
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
HEARING BOARD ROOM OF S.C.A.Q.M.D./THE GOVERNMENT CENTER
21865 Copley Drive
JANUARY 26, 2006
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Nancy Lyons called the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to order at
7:01 p.m. in the SCAQMD/Government Center Building Hearing Board Room, 21865
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Owens led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Nancy Lyons, Vice Chairman Dave Grundy and Commissioner Ted
Owens.
Commissioners Ling -Ling Chang and Benny Liang were excused.
Staff Present: Bob Rose, Director of Community Services; Anthony Jordan, Parks
and Maintenance Superintendent; Ryan Wright, Recreation Supervisor; Alison Meyers,
Recreation Specialist and Marisa Somenzi, Administrative Assistant.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None Offered.
CALENDAR OF EVENTS: As Listed in the Agenda and reported by CSD/Rose.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
1.1 Approval of Minutes of November 17, 2005 Regular Meeting.
VC/Grundy moved, C/Owens seconded to approve the Minutes of the
Regular Meeting of November 17, 2005. Without objection, the motion was
so ordered with C/Chang and C/Liang being absent.
2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
2.1 Recreation Program Report — RS/Wright
VC/Grundy asked what is "Yes, It's Ceiling Tile Art" and who comes up with
these types of events. RS/Wright said he would have to check with
RS/Murphy. VC/Grundy said he loved off-the-wall humor and would love to
know who came up with the idea. VC/Grundy said the USS Midway tourwas
great and he would highly recommend it. VC/Grundy asked if staff kept stats
on how many individuals were turned away from programs due to
overbooking. RS/Wright explained that staff maintains a "wait" list and
JANUARY 26, 2006 PAGE 2 P&R COMMISSION
contacts individuals when a spot becomes available during the season as
well as modifies the numbers for the next season based on last year's
interest.
C/Owens asked what time the Easter Egg Hunt would take place and
RS/Wright responded that the hunt takes place at 10:00 a.m. A Pancake
Breakfast is served beginning at 8:30 a.m. and pictures of kids with the
Easter Bunny are taken throughout the day. C/Owens asked what time the
youth basketball games start on Saturday. RSNVright responded that there
are two sites and both begin their games at 8:30 with the last game at 4:30
p.m. with games played every hour. CSD/Rose explained to C/Owens that
the senior groups are open membership and have their own rules and
regulations. The groups run their own programs and the City runs a program
that includes all seniors. In fact, groups outside of the City are looking at
changing their incorporation papers so they can be D.B. based.
CSD/Rose responded to Chair/Lyons that there is enough time available to
accommodate additional groups. If the senior program is D.B. based and
incorporated the group can sign up to use the facility. If there is a time
conflict the group that has more participants takes priority.
Chair/Lyons stated that a senior class instructor failed to show. CSD/Rose
responded to Chair/Lyons that the Summer Day Camp program would be
held at Heritage Park.
RS/Wright read the description of the "Yes, It's Ceiling Tile Art" program.
CSD/Rose indicated to VC/Grundy that it is usually the instructor that comes
to the City with the idea for a program.
Chair/Lyons said she had been watching the rapid forward movement of
Pomona's Youth Master Plan. She felt it would be good to have the July 4th
Fireworks show at D. B.H.S. Chair/Lyons wondered if it would be a good idea
to add a second night per week for the adult volleyball program. RS/Wright
said staff would like to add another night but that the facility was not
available. Chair/Lyons said the Winter Snow Fest was excellent and felt that
Santa Claus and Mrs. Claus did a very good job and should receive a thank -
you note from the Commission. Chair/Lyons also wanted to know if thank -
you notes were sent to event sponsors as recommended by C/Owens.
2.2 Diamond Bar Community Foundation Oral Report — None Offered.
2.3 Youth Master Plan Oral Report — RS/Meyers reported the collaborative met
on four occasions and named the group "D.B. 4 Youth." The 4 stands for
Activity, Opportunity, Community and Diversity. Last Monday the youth met
and names themselves "DB 4 Youth In Action." The first thing the youth
wanted to do was a middle school dance and decided to do the dance in
September so that they could start the events with a high school dance in
May. The proms and other high school events are very expensive and the
youth decided they would like to have a more casual and less expensive
JANUARY 26, 2006 PAGE 3 P&R COMMISSION
event while bringing together both of the high schools. The discussion
included how the group might be able to incorporate youth from the private
schools as well. The one night the group selected was by chance available at
the Diamond Bar Center so the event is penciled in and plans are moving
forward. In addition, the National League of Cities has asked the City hold
monthly conference calls with them. She asked for participation by the
Commissioners and thanked VC/Grundy for his participation with the
collaborative. The National League of Cities will be in D.B. on April 3 and 4
and have asked to participate in the City Council meeting. In addition, they
will be performing their site visit on April 5 and 6 and staff intends to
schedule a meeting with the collaborative at that time. The National League
of Cities uses the D.B. Youth Master Plan as an example for all of the cities
with which they are working. RS/Meyers said that she had shared some of
her concerns with the National League of Cities such as the fact that staff
and the Commissioners were concerned about how to initially move forward
and that the Walnut Unified School District had not adopted the plan. They
said they would offer suggestions as to how to overcome those obstacles.
Any input from the Commissioners would be greatly appreciated. RS/Meyers
responded to Chair/Lyons that staff requested a study session with Walnut
Unified School District.
Chair/Lyons said that Dean Conklin left and she offered to send an email to
see who was assuming this project. CSD/Rose said it was possible that other
board members felt there was no need to get back to D.B. staff until March
when the new board was settled in.
RS/Meyers stated that the youth collaborative would be making a
presentation about the dance to the adult collaborative on Monday at 4:30 in
Room CC -3.
Chair/Lyons asked if the City had money set aside for the dance. CSD/Rose
explained that the U.S. Department of Education grant would be considered.
RS/Meyers said that the group discussed how they would pay for events and
thought about running a game booth or ride at the City's Birthday Celebration
to raise funds.
2.4 Parks Report — PMS/Jordan recapped recent projects and invited the
Commissioners to schedule park walk-throughs.
Chair/Lyons asked that AA/Somenzi communicate on this matter with all
Commissioners via email.
2.5 CiP Program Report— CSD/Rose
a. Trail and Trail Head Development at Sycamore Canyon Park—RS/Wright
reported that the project was finished. CSD/Rose stated that a dedication
ceremony was tentatively slated for Saturday, February 25 at 10:00 a.m.
b. Picnic Shelters at Pantera Park — AA/Somenzi reported that the project
was completed at the beginning of December and there were now two
JANUARY 26, 2006 PAGE 4 P&R COMMISSION
beautiful sheltered picnic tables at the back of the park and that they
were available by reservation.
c. Sycamore Canyon Park ADA Retrofit — Phase III — Staff presented a
conceptual plan exhibit to the Commission. In addition to the two
completed phases, the retaining wall must be replaced and new
equipment and patio area installed. The City budgeted about $1 million
for the project and construction should commence within two to three
months.
d. Lorbeer Ball Field — Artificial Turf/Restrooms — Still awaiting response
from the Pomona Unified School District and staff were looking at various
alternatives.
e. Paul C. Grow Park — Staff is meeting with Purkiss-Rose next week to
discuss their conceptual plan. At its last meeting the City Council
allocated about $100,000 of CDBG funds for the ADA portion of the
project and staff will request additional funds from the City's General
Fund for park improvements.
f. Design of Restroom/Storage Building at Pantera Park — RJM Design
Group is working on the conceptual plans for the February Commission
meeting.
g. Design of Trail Access Points — Group Delta is designing the trail access
points at Clear Creek Canyon and at Steep Canyon up to the Diamond
Bar Center at Summitridge Mini -Park. Staff intends to update the
Commission on the progress of the project at its February 23 meeting.
3. OLD BUSINESS:
3.1 Review of Athletic Facilities Use and Allocation Process.
VC/Grundy and C/Owens met with staff to review the existing policy and
recommend a simple change to add text that differentiates the participants of
D.B. residents to wit: The groups that have 60 percent or greater D.B.
resident participation will be included in the first tier selection. Groups with
less than 60 percent would be included in the second tier.
RSNVright presented staff's report and recommended that after review of the
proposed language for qualifying user groups the Commission set a March
date for consideration for approval to allow time for the D.B. based
organizations to be invited to participate.
Chair/Lyons asked for clarification of Page 6, Item 1.a. 2) and CSD/Rose
responded that the first priority for allocation was whether the group had 60
percent D. B. residents and then staff would consider the number of
participants.
C/Owens asked if the document needed to define "resident." VC/Grundy felt
that a "resident" must live in D.B. C/Owens felt the document should include
the definition and RSNVright agreed.
Chair/Lyons thanked the subcommittee and staff for their work on this item.
JANUARY 26, 2006 PAGE 5 P&R COMMISSION
CSD/Rose said the document will be presented for public input at the March
23 Commission meeting, with the Commission's concurrence.
The Commission concurred to receive staff's report in February and then to
schedule the item for public discussion at the March 23, 2006 Commission
meeting.
4. NEW BUSINESS: None
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS:
Chair/Lyons congratulated RS/Meyers for her perseverance. She congratulated
CSD/Rose on his recognition by the Diamond Bar Community Foundation as
"Community Hero" at their December gala.
CSD/Rose announced that at the CPRS Conference in March D.B. would receive
the Award of Excellence for the Diamond Bar Center design. Reservations are
being accepted for the Saturday night March 18 dinner at the Doubletree Inn in
Ontario. All commissioners are invited to attend and should notify AA/Somenzi of
their intent. VC/Grundy said he would like to attend.
ADJOURNMENT: Upon motion by VC/Grundy, seconded by C/Owens and with no
further business before the Parks & Recreation Commission, Chair/Lyons adjourned the
meeting at 8:20 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bob Rose, Secretary
Attest:
Nancy Lyons, Chairman
Agenda # 6.4 _
Meeting Date: Murch ? , 2006
CITY COUNCIL 11 72�7x AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Ratification of Check Register dated February 17, 2006 through March 2,
2006
RECOMMENDATION;
Ratify Check Register containing checks dated February 17, 2006 through March 2,
2006 totaling $1,232,864.68.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Expenditure of $1,232,864.68 in City funds.
BACKGROUND:
The City has established the policy of issuing accounts payable checks on a weekly
basis with City Council ratification at the next scheduled City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The attached check register containing checks dated February 17, 2006 through March
2, 2006 for $1,232,864.68 is being presented for ratification. All payments have been
made in compliance with the City's purchasing policies and procedures. Payments
have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate departmental staff and the
attached Affidavit affirms that the check register has been audited and deemed accurate
by the Finance Director.
PREPARED BY:
Linda G. Magnuson
Finance Director
REVIEWED BY:
I 0c
Finance Direbtor Assistant Cit ager
Attachments: Affidavit and Check Register— 02/16/06 through 03/02/06
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CHECK REGISTER AFFIDAVIT
The attached listing of demands, invoices, and claims in the form of a check register
including checks dated February 16, 2006 through March 2, 2006 has been audited and
is certified as accurate. Payments have been allowed from the following funds in these
amounts:
Fund #
Description
Amount
001
General Fund
$948,398.10
011
Community Organization Support Fd
1,500.00
112
Prop A - Transit Fund
17,327.83
115
Int. Waste Mgt Fund
1,650.90
118
AB2766 - AQMD Fund
3,090.97
125
CDBG Fund
1,956.29
138
LLAD #38 Fund
6,649.58
139
LLAD #39 Fund
3,056.08
141
LLAD #41 Fund
1,497.65
250
Capital Improvement Project Fund
247,737.28
$1,232,864.68
Signed:
1X.1411 b
Lifida G. MaghLfgon
Finance Director
SUNGARD PENTAMATION
INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
PAGE NUMBER: 1
DAT,,: 03/0.3/06
CITY OF DIAMOND
BAP
ACCTPA21
TIME: 09:4':23
CHECK REGISTER -
DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA_
transact. ck_date>'20060216
00:00:00.0'
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD:
9/06
FUND -
001 - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK
NO
ISSUE DT
--- ----------
VENDOR --
FUND/DIVISION
- --DESCRIPTION------
SALES TAX
AMOUNT
10100
69646
02/23/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
2505510
TRFFC SIGNAL-GRAND/G/S
0.00
2072.00
10100
69646
02/23/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
2505510
TRFFC SIGNAL-G/SPRINGS
0.00
1801.00
10100
69646
021,'23/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
2505510
TRFFC SIGNAL-D/B/MAPLE
0.00
908.00
TOTAL CHECK
0.00
4781.00
10100
69647
02/23/06
ADELPHTA
ADELPHIA
0014010
MODEM SVCS -COUNCIL
0.00
46.95
10100
69648
02/23/06
AGGCOMWE
AGRICULTURAL COM WGHTS &
0014431
COYOTE CONTROL SVCS -DE
0.00
818.46
10100
69649
02/23/06
APWA
AMERICAN PUBLIC WORKS AS
0015551
MTG-MOLINA/GOMEZ
0.00
270.00
10100
69650
02/23/06
AMERICOM
AMERICOMP GROUP INC
0014070
SUPPLIES -TONER
0.00
162.38
10100
69650
02/23/06
AMERICOM
AMERICOMP GROUP INC
0014070
SUPPLIES -TONER
0.00
81.19
10100
69650
02/23/06
AMERICOM
AMERICOMP GROUP INC
0014070
SUPPLIES -TONER
0.00
107.17
10100
69650
02/23/06
AMERICOM
AMERICOMP GROUP INC
0014070
SUPPLIES -TONER
0.00
279.29
10100
69650
02/23/06
AMERICOM
AMERICOMP GROUP INC
0014070
SUPPLIES -TONER
0.00
173.20
TOTAL CHECK
0.00
803.23
10100
69651
02/23/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015554
UNIFORMS -ROAD MAINT
0.00
193.70
10100
69652
02/23/06
ARROYOGE
ARROYO GEOTECHNICAL CORP
001
ADMIN FEE -EN 02-352
0.00
54.00
10100
69652
02/23/06
ARROYOGE
ARROYO GEOTECHNICAL CORP
001
ADMIN FEE -EN 02-352
0.00
-54.00
10100
69652
02/23/06
ARROYOGE
ARROYO GEOTECHNICAL CORP
001
ADMIN FEE -EN 02-343
0.00
214.20
10100
69652
02/23/06
ARROYOGE
ARROYO GEOTECHNICAL CORP
001
ADMIN FEE -EN 02-343
0.00
-214.20
10100
69652
02/23/06
ARROYOGE
ARROYO GEOTECHNICAL CORP
001
PROF.SVCS-EN 02-352
0.00
300.00
10100
69652
02/23/06
ARROYOGE
ARROYO GEOTECHNICAL CORP
001
PROF.SVCS-EN 02-343
0.00
1190.00
TOTAL CHECK
0.00
1490.00
10100
69653
02/23/06
BENESYST
BENESYST
001
02/24/06-P/R DEDUCTION
0.00
537.67
10100
69654
02/23/06
BEVACQUA
RON BEVACQUA
0015350
CONTRACT CLASS -WINTER
0.00
72.00
10100
69655
02/23/06
BUSINESS
BUSINESS TELECOMMUNICATI
001.4090
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0.00
199.00
10100
69656
02/23/06
CPRSXIII
CA PARKS & REC SOC -DIS X
0015350
CPRS MTG-REC STAFF
0.00
30.00
10100
69657
02/23/06
CDW-G
CDW GOVERNMENT INC.
0014070
SUPPLIES-I.T
0.00
305.27
10100
69658
02/23/06
CENTERIC
CENTER ICE SKATING ARENA
0015350
CONTRACT CLASS --WINTER
0.00
276.fl0
10100
69659
02/23/06
CHIENALI
ALICE CHIEN
0015350
CONTRACT CLASS -WINTER
0.00
241.80
10100
69660
02/23/06
COUNTYLA
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
001
RECORDING FEES -FPL 05-
0.00
210.00
10100
69661
02/23/06
COUNTYOF
COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO
001
SLRY ATTCHMT-DN95994
0.00
407.36
10100
69662
02/23/06
MMARRIOT
COURTYARD MARRIOTT
0014010
NAT LEAGUE MTG-COUNCIL
0.00
1083.19
RUN DATE 03/03/06 TIME 09:47:24 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
SUNG. D PENTAMATION
INC - F?;T•iD ACCOUNTING
PACE 'NUMBER: 2
DATE
03/03/06
CITY OF DIAMOND
BAi2
ACCTPA21
TIME
09:47:23
('i.: -CK REGISTER -
DISBUPSEMENT FUND
SEI,FC1ION
CRITERIA:
transac!.ck
date>'20060216 00:.x:00.0'
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD:
9/06
FUND - 001 - GENERAL
FUND
CASH
.aCCT CHECK NO
ISSIiE DT
--------------
VEN:;OR-------------
FUND/DIVTSTON
-----DESCRIPTION------
SALES TAX
AMOUNT
10101:1
69663
02/23/06
DJMUNICI
D & J MUNICIPAL SERVICES
0015220
BLDG & SFTY SVCS 1/1-1
0.00
45196.59
10100
69664
02/23/06
DENNISCA
CAROL DENNIS
0015510
PROF.SVCS-T & T MTG
0.00
100.00
10100
69665
02/23/06
DBFRIEND
DIAMOND BAR FRIENDS OF T
0014095
AD -WINE SOIREE
0.00
250.00
10100
69666
02./23/06
DBMOBIL
DIAMOND RAR MOBIL
0015310
FUEL -COMM SVCS
0.00
224.57
10100
69666
02/23/06
DBMOBIL
DIAMOND RAR MOBIL
0015230
FUEL-NGHBRHD LMP
0.00
35_49
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
260.06
10100
69667
02/23/06
DTVERSIF
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT
1125553
DIAMOND RIDE -1/16-1/31
0.00
14141.38
10100
69668
02/23/06
DREWJOHN
JOHN T DPLW
001
REFUND -EP 06-3433
0.00
500.00
10100
69669
02/23/06
EXPRESSM
EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE A
001
EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 05-15
0.00
13.65
10100
69669
02/23/06
EXPRESSM
EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE A
001
EXPRESS MAIL -PPL 05-15
0.00
13-65
10]00
69669
02/23/06
EXPRESSM
EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE A
001
EXPRESS MAIL -FPL, 02-09
0.00
13.65
10100
69669
02/23/06
EXPRESSM
EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE A
0014090
EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL
0.00
21.05
10100
69669
02/23/06
EXPRESSM
EXPRESS lltA IL CORPORATE A
0014090
EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL
0.00
22.20
10100
69669
02/23/06
EXPRESSM
EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE A
001
EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 05-14
0.00
14.40
10100
69669
02/23/06
EXPRESSM
EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE A
001
EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 05-14
0.00
14.40
10100
69669
62/23/06
EXPRESSM
EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE A
001
EXPRESS MAIL -FPL 05-14
0.00
14.40
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
127.40
10100
69670
02/23/06
FAITHCEN
FAITH CENTER MINISTERIES
001
PK REFUND -DBC 2743
0.00
350.00
10100
69671
02/23/06
FOODFROM
FOOD FROM THE HEARTH CAT
0015350
SR PROGRAM-V/UAY DANCE
0.00
2441.25
10100
69672
02/23/06
HYATT
HYATT REGENCY SUITES PAL
1185098
ESRI TRNG-DESFORGES
0.00
333.70
10100
69673
02/23/06
HYATT
HYATT REGENCY SUITES PAL
1185098
ESRI TRNG-AZIZ
0.00
138.47
10100
69674
02/23/06
GFBFRIED
GFB FRIEDRICH & ASSOCIAT
1385538
LDSCAPE ASStSSMNT-01ST
0.00
638.17
10100
69674
02/23/06
GFBFRIED
GFB FRIEDRICH & ASSOCIAT
1395539
LDSCAPE ASSESSMNT-DIST
0.00
638.16
10100
69674
02/23/06
GFBFRIED
GFB FRIEDRICH & ASSOCIAT
1415541
LDSCAPE ASSESSMNT-DIST
0.00
638.17
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
1914.50
10100
69675
02/23/06
GLASSEYE
GLASS EYE PRODUCTIONS
0014095
DHTV VIDEO-NTMP
0.00
1166.67
10100
69676
02/23/06
GOVPARTN
GOVPARTNER
1185098
REQUEST PARTNER SVCS -F
0.00
850.00
10100
69677
02/23/06
GRAPHICS
GRAPHICS UNITED
0014095
PRINT SVCS -NEWSLETTER
0.00
1746.28
10100
69678
02/23/06
GRIEGONA
NATALIE GRIEGO
001
PK REFUND-PANTERA 273
0.00
245.00
10100
69679
02/23/06
HILTONFA
HILTON FARNKOPF & HOBSON
1155515
AUDIT SVCS -SOLID WASTE
0.00
233.76
10100
69680
02/23/06
HIRSCHAS
HIRSCH & ASSOCIATES INC.
2505310
CIP PROD-SYC CYN PK
0.00
138.78
RUN DATE 03/03/06 TIME 09:47:25 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
SUNGARD PENTAMATION
INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
PAGE 'NUMBER: 3
DATE:
03/03/06
CITY OF DI_MOND
BAR
ACCTPA21
TIM$:
09:47:23
CHECK REGISTER -
DISBUPSEMENT FUND
SELECTION
CRITERIA:
transact.ck-date>'2006C216
00.00:00.0'
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD:
9/06
FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND
CASH
ACCT CHECK NO
ISSUE DT
--------------
VENDOR -------------
FUND DIVISION
-----DESCRIPTION------
SALES TAX
AMOUNT
10100
69681
02/23/06
HYATT
HYATT REGENCY WASHINGTON
0014010
NAT LEAGUE CONF-COUNCI
0.00
1117.52
10100
69682
02/23/06
INLANDEM
INLAND EMPIRE STAGES
0015350
SR EXCRSN-AGUA CALIENT
0.00
1040.00
10100
69683
02/23/06
IVDB
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULL
001
LEGAL AD -FPL 2002-09
0.00
241.20
10100
69684
02/23/06
JOEGONSA
JOE A. GONSALVES & SON 10014030
LEGISLATIVE SVCS -FEB
0.00
3000.00
10100
69685
02/23/06
KVBLUEPR
K&V BLUEPRINT SERVICE 1N
0015510
SUPPLIES-P/WORKS
0.00
106.96
10100
69686
02/23/06
KADKIAN
KIAN KAD
001
RECREATION REFUND
0.00
85.00
10100
69687
02/23/06
LEADTECH
LEAD TECH ENVIRONMENTAL
1255215
HIP PROG-20902 MOONLAK
0.00
225.00
10100
69688
02/23/06
LEAGUE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CIT
0014010
LEAGUE MTG-COUNCIL
0.00
35.00
10100
69688
02/23/06
LEAGUE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CIT
0014010
LEAGUE TRNG-COUNCIL
0.00
35.00
10100
69688
02/23/06
LEAGUE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CIT
003.4010
LEAGUE TRNG-COUNCIL
0.00
35.00
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
105.00
10100
69689
02/23/06
LEAGUE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CIT
0014010
LEAGUE MTG-COUNCIL
0.00
35.00
10100
69690
02/23/06
LEAGUE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CIT
0014010
LEAGUE MTG-COUNCIL
0.00
35.00
10100
69691
02/23/06
LEIGHTON
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, 1
001
ADMIN FEE -EN 05-500
0.00
47.33
10100
69691
02/23/06
LEIGHTON
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, I
001
ADMIN FEE -EN 05-500
0.00
-47.33
10100
69691
02/23/06
LEIGHTON
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, 1001
ADMIN FEE -EN 03-397
0.00
175.50
10100
69691
02/23/06
LEIGHTON
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, 1
001
ADMIN FEE -EN 03-397
0.00
-175.50
10100
69691
02/23/06
LEIGHTON
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, 1
001
ADMIN FEE -EN 04-449
0.00
60.95
10100
69691
02/23/06
LEIGHTON
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, I
001
ADMIN FEE -EN 04-449
0.00
-60.95
10100
69691
02/23/06
LEIGHTON
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, I
001
ADMIN FEE -£N 04-449
0.00
8.46
10100
69691
02/23/06
LEIGHTON
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, 1
001
ADMIN FEE -EN 04-449
0.00
-8.46
10100
69691
02/23/06
LEIGHTON
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, I
001
PROF.SVCS-EN 04-449
0.00
46.92
10100
69691
02/23/06
LEIGHTON
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, 1
001
PROF.SVCS-EN 04-449
0.00
338.60
10100
69691
02/23/06
LEIGHTON
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, I
001
PROF.SVCS-EN 05-500
0.00
262.92
10100
69691
02/23/06
LEIGHTON
LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, I
001
PROF -SVCS -EN 03-397
0.00
975.00
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
1623.44
10100
69692
02/23/06
LIEBERTC
LIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE
0014060
LEGAL SVCS--H/R
0.00
936.00
10100
69693
02/23/06
LACDA
LOS ANGELES COUNTY DIST.
001
SLRY ATTCHMT-BY0426064
0.00
307.82
10100
69694
02/23/06
MCDERMOT
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY L
0014020
LEGAL SVCS -DEC 05
0.00
2231,25
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA
OFFICEMAX CONTRACT INC
0015350
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0.00
78.26
10100
69595
02/23/06
OFFICEMA
OFFICEMAX CONTRACT INC
0015350
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0.00
3.98
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA
OFFICEMAX CONTRACT INC
0015350
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0.00
48.10
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA
OFFICEMAX CONTRACT INC
0015350
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0.00
25.53
RUN DATE 03/03/06 TIME 09:47:25 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
SUNGARD PENTAMATION IN(_ - FUND ACCOUNT'NG
DATE: 03/03/06 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TIME: 09:47:23 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA: transGct.ck date>';0060216 00:00:CO.O'
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/66
PAGE NUMBER
ACCTPA21
FUND - 001 -
GENERAL FUND
CASH
ACCT CHECK NO
ISSUE DT
VENDOR------
------
FUND/DIVISION
-----DESCRIPTION---
- SALES TAX
AMOUNT
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICI.MA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015510
SUPPLIES-P/WORKS
0.00
227.52
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
1125553
SUPPLIES -TRANSIT
0.00
21.44
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014060
SUPPLIES--H/R
0.00
45.42
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014070
SUPPLIES -MIS
0.00
65.44
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
993.58
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
TNC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
169.13
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
9.96
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
29.10
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
13.56
10100
69693
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
TUC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
17.15
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
12.20
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFTCF.MA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
B.77
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0614090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
89.38
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014415
SUPPLIES--`J/PATROL
0.00
6.77
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015210
SUPPLIES-PLNG
0.00
47.55
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015230
SUPPLIES-NGHBRHD IMP
0.06
149.57
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFTCEMA OFFTCEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES -DBC
0.00
268.12
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES -DSC
0.00
73.37
10100
69695
02/23/06
OPPICFMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES -DRC
0.00
91.51
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES -DBC
0.00
2.34
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES -DBC
0.00
3.82
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES -DBC
0.00
50.60
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES -DBC
0.00
43.69
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES -DBC
0.00
137.01
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES -DBC
0.00
102.91
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFTCEMA OFFTCFMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES -DBC
0.00
12.95
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES -DBC
0.00
99.64
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFTCFMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015350
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0.00
121.87
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015350
SUPPLIES --COMM SVCS
0.00
54.17
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015350
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0.00
17,47
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFTCEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015510
SUPPLIES-P/WORKS
0.00
59.19
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015510
SUPPLIES-P/WORKS
0.00
50.77
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
1125553
SUPPLIES -TRANSIT
0.00
48.00
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
1125553
SUPPLIES -TRANSIT
0.00
5.24
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
1125553
SUPPLIES -TRANSIT
0.00
5.71
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014060
SUPPLIES-H/R
0.00
37.45
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
56.12
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFTCEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
76.00
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
11.14
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
MEMO CREDIT -GENERAL
0.00
-23.03
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015210
SUPPLIES-PLNG
0.00
29.62
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015350
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0.00
405.99
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFTCEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015510
SUPPLIES-P/WORKS
0.00
21.04
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015510
SUPPLIES-P/WORKS
0.00
72.42
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
1125553
MEMO CRE'DI'T' -TRANSIT
0.00
-0.47
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015350
SUPPLIES --COMM SVCS
0.00
6.93
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015350
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0.00
38.39
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015350
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0.00
21.62
RUN DATE 03/03/06 TIME 09:47:25
SUNGARD
PENTAMATION INC -
FUND ACCOUNTING
SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - -iJND ACCC'UNTING
DATE: 03/03/06 CS_Y OF DIAMCLID BAR
TIME: 09:47:23 CHECK REG'STER - DJSi?URSEMENT FUND
SL'LECTION CRITERIA: t.ransact.ck date>'20060216 00:00:00.0'
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/fl6
PAGE NUMBER: 5
ACCTPA21
FUND -
001 -
GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK
NO
ISSUE DT
--------------VENDOR-------------
FUND/DIVISION
-----DESCRIPTION----
SALES TAX
AMOUNT
70100
69695
02:23/06
OPFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015350
SUPPLIES COMM SVCS
0.00
18.46
10100
69695
02,23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015510
SUPPLIES P/WORKS
0.00
13.00
10100
69695
02-'23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015510
SUPPLIES P/WORKS
0.00
3.34
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014010
SUPPLIES CITY COUNCI[,
0.00
35.26
10100
69695
02-23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014030
SUPPLIES C/MGR
0.00
8.41
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014030
SUPPLIES-C/MGA
0.00
23.73
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014050
SUPPLIES -FINANCE
0.00
8.44
10100
69695
02,'23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014070
SUPPLIES -MIS
0.00
1.19.55
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
326.55
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
.INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
497.43
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
226.56
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
33.25
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES -GENERAL
0.00
7.99
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFTCEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES GENERAL
0.00
249.29
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015210
SUPPLIES-PLNG
0.00
145.23
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015210
SUPPLIES-PLNG
0.00
50.96
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015230
SUPPLIES-NGHBRHD IMP
0.00
20.06
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES -DHC
0.00
115.40
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0035333
SUPPLIES -DBC
0.00
51.96
10100
69695
02/23/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015333
SUPPLIES DEC
0.00
82.39
TOTAL,
CHECK
0.00
6101.27
10100
69696
02/23/06
OLYMPIC OLYMPIC STAFFING SERVICE
0015210
TEMP SVCS -WK 2/9
0.00
158.88
10100
69697
02/23/06
PERSHEAL PERS HEALTH
OOI
MAR 06 -HEALTH INS PREM
0.00
20839.64
10100
69697
02/23/06
PERSHEAL PERS HEALTH
0014090
MAR 06 -HEALTH INS PREM
0.00
129.20
10100
69697
02/23/06
PERSHEAL PERS HEALTH
0014060
MAR 06 -HEALTH INS PREM
0.00
68.88
10100
69697
02/23/06
PERSHEAL PERS HEALTH
001
MAR 06 -HEALTH INS PREM
0.00
753.10
TOTAL
CHECK.
0.00
21790.82
10100
69696
02/23/06
PERSRFTT PERS RETIREMENT FUND
001
RETIRE CONTRIB-ER
0.00
332.66
10100
69698
02/23/06
PERSRETI PERS RETIREMENT FUND
001
RETIRE CONTRIB-EE
0.00
208.88
IN 00
69698
02/23/06
PERSRETI PERS RETIREMENT FUND
001
SURVIVOR BENEFIT
0.00
8.00
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
549.54
10100
69699
02/23/06
PERSRETI PERS RETIREMENT FUND
001
RETIRE CONTRIP-ER
0.00
11080.41
10100
69699
02/23/06
PERSRETI PERS RETIREMENT FUND
001
RETIRE CONTRIB-EE
0.00
6957.58
10100
69699
02/23/06
PERSRETI PERS RETIREMENT FUND
001
SURVIVOR BENEFIT
0.00
40.92
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
18078.91
10100
69700
02/23/06
PRINCESH PRINCE SHANT CORP
0015230
FUEL-NGHBRHD IMP
0.00
263.36
10100
69700
02/23/06
PRINCESH PRINCE SHANT CORP
0015554
FUEL -ROAD MAINT
0.00
228.52
10100
69700
02/23/06
PRINCESH PRINCE SHAN'T CORP
0014090
FUEL -GENERAL
0.00
240.39
10100
69700
02/23/06
PRINCESH PRINCE SHANT CORP
0015310
FUEL -COMM SVCS
0.00
617.17
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
1349.44
10100
69701
02/23/06
PTMDOCUM PTM DOCUMENT SYSTEMS
0014090
PRINT SVCS -1099 FORMS
0.00
51.74
RUN
DATE 03/03/06 TIME 09:47:25
SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
SUNGARD PENTr MA ION INC - FUND ACCO'.JNTING
DATE: 03/03/[6 CI'T'Y OF DIAMOND BAR
TIME: 09:47:.3 CHECK REGISTEF - DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CR:TERIP.: transact.ck_date>'20060216 00:00:00.0'
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/06
PAGE: NUMBER: 6
P.CCTPA21
RUN DATE 03/03/06 TIME 09:47:25 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
FUND -
(01 -
GENERAL FUND
CASH
ACCT CHt:CK
NO
ISSUE DT
------
VENDOR-------------
FUND/DIVISION
-----DESCRIPTION -----
SALES
TAX
AMOUNT
10100
69702
02/23/06
REINBERG
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
0014095
PRINT SVCS -DB CALENDAR
0.00
7014.60
10100
69703
02/23/06
REMEDY
REMEDY
0015240
TEMP SVCS -WK 1/15
0.00
288.00
10100
69704
02/23/06
SGVT
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TPlBI1
001
LEGAL AD -FPL 2006-167
0-00
283.25
10100
69704
02/23/06
SGVT
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBU
001
LEGAL AD -FPL 2005-161
0.00
275.72
10100
69704
02/23/06
SGVT
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBU
001
LEGAL AD -FPL 2006-187
0.00
211.80
10100
69704
02/23/06
SGVT
SAN GABRIEL VALLEY TRIBI,
1255215
LEGAL AD-CDBG 1/3
0.00
154.40
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
925.17
10100
69705
02/23/06
SAYEDSTE
STELLA SAYED
001
RECREATION REFUND
0-00
170.00
10100
69706
02/23/06
SKATEEXP
SKATE EXPRESS
0015350
CONTRACT CLASS -WINTER
0.00
192.00
10100
69707
02/23/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
0015510
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CON
0.00
54.58
10100
69707
02/23/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
0015510
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CON
0.00
68.25
10100
69707
02/23/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
0615510
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CON
0.00
41.31
10100
69707
02/23/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
0015510
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CON
0.00
35.46
10100
69707
02/23/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
0015510
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CON
0.00
89.84
10100
69707
02/23/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
0015510
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CON
0-00
68.88
10100
69707
02/23/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
0015510
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CON
0.00
51.03
10100
69707
02/23/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
0015510
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CON
0.00
105.60
10100
69707
02/23/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
0015510
ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CON
0-00
58.50
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
573.45
10100
69708
02/23/06
SCGAS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
0015340
GAS SVCS -HERITAGE PK
0.00
324.37
10100
69708
02/23/06
SCGAS
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS
0015333
GAS SVCS -DSC
0.00
1931.06
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
2255.43
10100
69709
02/23/06
SPORTPIN
SPORT PINS INTERNATIONAL
0014095
DEPOSIT -CITY PINS
0.00
970.00
10100
69710
02/23/06
STANDARD
STANDARD INSURNCE OF ORE
001
MAR 06 -LIFE INS PREMS
0.00
643.80
10100
69710
02/23/06
STANDARD
STANDARD INSURNCE OF ORE
001
MAR 06-SUPP LIFE INS P
0.00
42.00
10100
69770
02/23/06
STANDARD
STANDARD INSURNCE OF ORE
001
MAR 06-STD/LTD
0.00
1117.81
10100
69710
02/23/06
STANDARD
STANDARD INSURNCE OF ORE
001
MAR 06 -LIFE INS PREMS
0.00
14.50
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
1818.11
10100
69711
02/23/06
STUBBIES
STUBBIES PROMOTIONS
0014095
PROMO ITEMS -INFO SYS
0.00
1546.25
10100
69712
02/23/06
TELEPACI
TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIO
0014070
Ti INTERNET SVCS -FEB 0
0.00
502.89
10100
69713
02/23/06
TENNISAN
TENNIS ANYONE
0015350
CONTRACT CLASS -WINTER
0.00
3167.50
10100
69714
02/23/06
THECOMDY
THE COMDYN GROUP INC
0014070
CONSULTING SVCS-I.T.
0.00
900.00
10100
6971.5
02/23/06
TITADEGU
TITA DE GUZMAN INC
001
PK REFUND -DBC 27594
0.00
100.00
10100
69716
02/23/06
TOWNECEN
TOWNE CENTRE TRAVEL
001
PK REFUND -DBC 27390
0.00
500.00
RUN DATE 03/03/06 TIME 09:47:25 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
SUNGP,RD PENTAMATION
INC - FUND A'COUNTING
PAGE NUMBER:
DATE:
03,03/06
CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR
ACCTPA21
TIME:
09:47:23
CHECK EG=STER -
DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION
CRITERIA:
transacL.Ck
date>'20060216
00:00:00.0'
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD_
9/06
FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND
CASH
ACCT CHECK NO
ISSUE DT
--------------VENDOR--
-- - --
FUND/DIVISION
---DESCRIPTION------
SALES TAX
AMOUNT
10100
69717
02/23/06
TRAFFTCC
TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE
0015554
SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT
0.00
255.00
10100
69717
02/23/06
TRAFFICC
TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE
0015554
SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT
0.00
76.99
10100
69717
02/23/06
TRAFFICC
TRAFFIC CONTROL SERVICE
0015554
SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT
0.00
51-.61
10100
69717
02/23/06
TRAFFICC
TRAFFIC CONTROL, SERVICE
0015554
SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT
0.00
119.2.9
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
502.89
10100
69718
02/23/06
UPS
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE
0014090
EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL
0.00
127.47
10100
69719
02/23/06
USHEALTH
US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL G
0014060
PPE -EMPLOYMENT PHYSICA
0.00
110.00
10100
69720
02/23/06
VANTAGEP
VANTAGEPOINT TRANSFER AG
001
2124/06-P/R DEDUCTIONS
0.00
5688.19
10100
69721
02/23/06
VERMASEE
SEEMA VERMA
001
RECREATION REFUND
0.00
37.00
10100
69722
02/23/06
VISIONIN
VISION INTERNET PROVIDER
0014070
WEB HOSTING SVCS -FEB 0
0.00
150.00
10100
69723
02/23/06
WCMEDIA
WEST COAST MEDIA
0014095
All -FEB 06
0.00
475.00
10100
69724
03/01/06
LEAGUE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CIT
0014010
LEAGUE TRNG-COUNCIL
0.00
35.00
10100
69725
03/01/06
CHINOPOS
US POSTAL SERVICE
0014095
POSTAGE -BULK MAIL
0.00
5000.00
10100
69726
03/02/06
ADELPHIA
ADELPHIA
0015340
INTERNET SVCS -HERITAGE
0.00
39.95
10100
69727
03/02/66
ALBERTSO
ALBERTSONS
0015350
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0.00
43.62
10100
69728
03/02/06
ANGELICH
CHRISTINE ANN ANGELI
0015350
CONTRACT CLASS -WINTER
0. GO
4S-00
10100
69729
03/02/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015310
UNIFORM SVCS -COMM SVCS
0.00
13.76
10100
69729
03/02/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015554
UNIFORM SVCS -ROAD MAIN
0.00
12.99
10100
69729
03/02/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015310
UNIFORM SVCS -COMM SVCS
0.00
13.16
10100
69729
03/02/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015554
UNIFORM SVCS -ROAD MAIN
0.00
12.99
10100
69729
03/02/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015310
UNIFORM SVCS -COMM SVCS
0.00
13.76
10100
69729
03/02/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015554
UNIFORM SVCS -ROAD MAIN
0.00
12.99
10100
69729
03/02/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015310
UNIFORM SVCS -COMM SVCS
0.00
13.76
10100
69729
03/02/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015554
UNIFORM SVCS -ROAD MAIN
0.00
12.99
10100
69729
03/02/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015310
UNIFORM SVCS -COMM SVCS
0.00
13.76
10100
69729
03/02/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015554
UNIFORM SVCS -ROAD MAIN
0.00
12.99
10100
69729
03/02/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015310
UNIFORM SVCS -COMM SVCS
0.00
13.76
1.0100
69729
03/02/06
ARAMARK
ARAMARK WORK APPAREL & U
0015554
UNIFORM SVCS -ROAD MAIN
0.00
12.99
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
160.50
10100
69730
03/02/06
AWARDSBY
AWARDS BY CATHEY
0015350
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0.00
172.40
10100
69731
03/02/06
BASHFORD
SASHFORD ENTERPRISES
1255215
HIP PROG-20902 MOONLAK
0.00
976.97
10100
69732
03/02/06
BLANKENH
JANICE BLANKENHORN
001
RECREATION REFUND
0.00
40.00
RUN DATE 03/03/06 TIME 09:47.25 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
SUNGARD PENTAMATION
INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
PAGE NUMBER: 8
DATE:
03/03/06
CITY OF DIAMOi1D
BAR
ACCTPA21
I'I."IE:
09:47:23
CHECK REGISTER -
DIS 3UPSEMENT FUNI]
SELECTION
CRITERIA:
transacL-ck
date>'20060216 09:60:00.0'
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD:
9/C6
FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND
CASH
ACCT CHECK NO
ISSUE DT
VENDOR -------------
FUND/DIVISION
-----DESCRIPTION------
SALES TAX
AMO[INT
10100
69733
03%02/06
CATABALL
CATALJNA BALLAST BULB CO
0015333
SUPPLIES -DBC
0.00
48.71
10100
69733
03/02/06
CATABALL
CATALINA BALLAST BULB CO
0015340
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0.00
193.61
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
242.32
0100
69734
03/02/06
CCACIIMC
CCAC-1IMC
0014030
PUBLICATIONS-CMGR
0.00
25.00
L0100
69735
03/02/06
CHINOLUM
CHINO LZ!MBRR & HARDWARE
0015340
SUPPLIES SYC CYN PK
0.00
92.41
10100
69736
03/02/06
CINGULAR
LINGULAR WIRELESS
001.4090
CELL CHRGS-POOL VEH
0.00
13.94
10100
69736
03/02/06
CINGULAR
CINGULAR WIRELESS
0014090
CELL CHRGS-POOL VEH
0.00
10.87
10100
69736
03/02/06
CINGULAR
CINGULAR WIRELESS
0014090
CELL CHRGS-POOL VEH
0-00
13.85
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
38.66
10i00
69737
03/02/06
CSLEGACY
CS LEGACY CONSTRUCTION 12505310
CONTRCTN-SYC CYN TRAIL
0.00
23054.09
10100
69738
03/02/06
DAPEERRO
DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVA
0015230
LEGAL SVCS -DEC 05
0.00
5213.73
10100
69738
03/02/06
DAPEERRO
DAPEER ROSENBLIT & LITVA
001.5230
LEGAL SVCS -SAN 06
0.00
2399.41
TOTAL
CHECK
0-00
7613.14
10100
69739
03/02/06
DAYNITEC
DAY & NTTE COPY CENTER
001
PRINT SVCS -FPL 2002-09
0.00
45.69
10100
69739
03/02/06
DAYNITEC
DAY & N1TE COPY CENTER
001
PRINT SVCS FPL 2002-09
0.00
5.14
10100
69739
03/02/06
DAYNITEC
DAY & NITE COPY CENTER
0015350
PRINT SVCS SR NEWSLTTR
0.00
45.47
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
96.30
10100
69740
03/02/06
DENNISCA
CAROL DENNIS
0014030
PROF.SVCS-CC/SS MTG
0.00
450.00
10100
69741
03/02/06
DESMONDM
DESMOND, MARCELLO & AMST
0015240
PROF.SVCS-D/B HONDA SI
0-00
1650.00
10100
69742
03/02/06
DBBREAKF
DIAMOND BAR BREAKFAST LI
0015350
REIMS -SUPPLIES
0.00
25.93
101.00
69742
03/02/06
DBBREAKF
DIAMOND BAR BREAKFAST LI
0015350
REIMB-SUPPLIES
0.00
403.64
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
429.57
10100
69743
03/02/06
DBCHAMBE
DIAMOND BAR CHAMBER OF C
0014095
AD -MEMBERSHIP DIRCTRY
0.00
2500.00
10100
69743
03/02/06
DBCHAMBE
DIAMOND BAR CHAMBER OF C
0015240
CONTRACT SVCS -FEB 06
0.00
2000.00
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
4500.00
10100
69744
03/02/06
DBDELI
DIAMOND BAR INTERNATIONA
0015310
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0.00
95.00
10100
69745
03/02/06
EVERGREE
EVERGREEN INTERIORS
0014090
INSTALL -PLANTS LIBRAR
0.00
1450.00
10100
69746
03/02/06
EXECUTIV
EXECUTIVE PROMOTIONAL PR
0014095
PROMO ITEMS -DSC
0.00
530.66
10100
69747
03/02/06
FIRSTREG
FIRST REGIONAL BANK
250
RETENTION PAYABLE-SEQU
0.00
10279.91
10100
69748
03/02/06
GATEWAYF
GATEWAY FRIENDS CHURCH
001
PK REFUND -HERITAGE 27
0.00
50.00
10100
69749
03/02/06
HAJUSTIN
JUSTIN HA
001
PK REFUND -DBC 27242
0.00
500.00
RUN DATE 03/03/06
TIME 09:47:25
SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND
ACCOUNTING
SUNGARD PENTAMATION
INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
PAGE
NUMBER: 9
DATE:
03/03/06
CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR
'7%CCTPA21
TIME:
04:47:23
CHECK REGISTER -
DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION
CRITERIA:
transact.ck
date>'20060216 00:00:00.0'
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD:
9/06
FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND
CASH
ACCT CHECK NO
ISSUE DT
--------------VENDOR-------------
FUND/DIVISION
--- DESCRIPTION------
SALES TAX
AMOUNT
10100
69749
03/02/06
HAJUSTIN
JUSTIN HA
001
REFUND -INSURANCE
0.00
181.80
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
681.80
10100
69750
03/02/06
HALLFORE
HALL & FOREMAN, INC_
0015510
PROF.SVCS-INSPECTIONS
0.00
3447.50
10100
69750
03/02/06
HALLFORE
HALL & FOREMAN, INC.
0015510
PROF.SVCS-INSPECTIONS
0.00
1027.50
10100
69750
03/02/06
HALLFORE
HALL & FOREMAN, INC.
001
PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECK
0.00
3248.83
10100
69750
03/02/06
HALLFORE
HALL & FOREMAN, INC.
0015551
PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECK
0.00
8020.00
10100
69750
03/02/06
HALLFORE
HALL & FOREMAN, INC.
0015551
PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECKS
0.00
5793.67
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
21537.50
10100
69751
03/02/06
INLAEMPI
INLAND EMPIRE MAGAZINE
0014095
AD -MAR 06
0.00
895.00
10100
69752
03/02/06
1NLANDR0
INLAND ROUNDBALL OFF'ICIA
0015350
OFFICIAL SVCS-JAN/FEB
0.00
2476.50
10100
69753
03/02/06
KASHIWAB
SUSAN KASHIWABARA
001
PK REFUND-PANTERA 2756
0.00
200.00
10100
69754
03/02/06
KOHLISHE
SHELLY KOHLI
001
PK REFUND -DBC 2759
0.00
500.00
10100
69755
03/02/06
KUPKECHR
CHRISTINE KUPKE
001
RECREATION REFUND
0.00
53.00
10100
69756
03/02/06
LACREGIS
L A COUNTY REGISTRAR REC
2505310
FEE-SYC CYN TRAIL
0.00
36.00
10100
69757
03/02/06
LANDAMER
LANDAMERICA GATEWAY TITL
1255215
HIP PROG-21223 SILVER
0.00
70.00
10100
69758
03/02/06
IARRYSDE
LARRY AGUILAR
0014095
PROMO ITEMS-D/B DECALS
0.00
1151.85
10100
69759
03/02/06
LATINWOE
ERIKA LATINWO
001
PK REFUND -HERITAGE
0.00
200.00
10100
69760
03/02/06
LEAGUE
LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CIT
OOJ4090
MEMBERSHIP DUES -2006
0.00
15327.00
10100
69761
03/02/06
LASHERIF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERI
0014411
CALVARY CHAPEL -JAN 06
0.00
6521.03
10100
69761
03/02/06
LASHERIF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERI
0014411
SPCL EVENT-TRFFC SCHL
0.00
2413.32
10100
69'761
03/02/06
LASHERIF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERI
0014411
STAR DEPUTY SVCS -JAN 0
0.00
8698.98
10100
69761
03/02/06
LASHERIF
LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERI
0034411
CONTRACT SVCS -JAN 06
0.00
348497,22
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
366130,55
10100
69762
03/02/06
MACADEF
MACADEE ELECTRICAL CONST
2505510
TRFFC IMPRV-D/B/MAPLE
0.00
51666.65
10100
69762
03/02/06
MACADEE
MACADEE ELECTRICAL CONST
2505510
TRFFC IMPRV-D/B/C/SPRN
0.00
63148.12
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
114814.77
10100
69763
03/02/06
MANAGEDH
MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK
007
MAR 06 -EAP PREMIUMS
0.00
134.00
10100
69764
03/02/06
MARTINDA
CAROL MARTINDALE
001
PK REFUND -HERITAGE 27
0.00
200.00
10100
69765
03/02/06
MCDERMOT
MCDERMOTT WILL & EMERY L
0014020
LEGAL SVCS -JAN 06
0.00
3834.05
10100
69766
03/02/06
MISSDIAM
MISS DIAMONDBAR PAGEANT
0114010
COMM ORG SUPPORT FUND
0.00
1500.00
RUN DATE 03/03/06 TIME 09:47:25 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
Sl;NGARD PENTAMATION
-NC - FUND ACCOUNTING
PAGE NUMBER: 10
DATE:
03/:)3/06
CITY
OF DIPMOND
BAR
ACCTPA21
TIME:
09:47:23
CHECI R::GISTER -
DISBURSEMENT
FUND
SELECTION
CRITERIA:
t.ransact.ck
date>'20060216 00:0C:iiO.f:'
ACCOUNTING PERIOD:
',/06
FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND
CASH
ACCT CHECK NO
ISSUE DT
-------------- VENDOR -------------
FUND/DIVISION -----DESCRIPTION------
SALES TAX
AMOUNT
10100
69767
03/02/06
NATIONAL NATIONAL BUSINESS FURNIT
0015210
FURNITURE-COMM DEV
0.00
2346.63
10100
69767
03/02%06
NATIONAL NATIONAL BUSINESS FURNIT
0015210
INSTALL SVCS-COMM DRV
0.00
206.25
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
2552.88
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014030
SUPPLIES-CMGR
0.00
230.45
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFTCEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014030
SUPPLIES-CMGR
0.0O
42-07
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014050
SUPPLIES-FINANCE
0.00
67.54
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014060
SUPPLIES-H/R
0.00
22.86
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFTCFMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014070
SUPPLIES-MIS
0.00
357.60
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014070
SUPPLIES-MIS
0.00
32.03
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES-GENERAL
0.00
30.65
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES-GENERAL
0.00
213.68
10300
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES-GENERAL
0.00
0.19
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES--GENERAL
0-00
15.56
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES-GENERAL
0.00
275.25
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFTCEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES-GENERAL
0.00
31.30
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFTCEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES-GENERAL
0.00
21.82
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES-GENERAL
0.00
3.72
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES-GENERAL
0.00
474.72
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES-GENERAL
0.00
2.44
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014090
SUPPLIES-GENERAL
0-00
36-22
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0014440
SUPPLIES-£MER PREP
0.00
65.57
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015210
SUPPLIES-PLNG
0.00
25.73
10100
69768
03/02/06
OFFICEMA OFFICEMAX CONTRACT
INC
0015210
SUPPLIES-PLNG
0.00
1.81
TOTAL
CHECK
0,00
1951.21
10100
69769
03/02/06
OLYMPIC OLYMPIC STAFFING SERVICE
0015210
TEMP SVCS-WK 12/20
0.00
158.88
10100
69770
03/02/06
PASCUAAL ALAN PASCUA
001
PK REFUND-PANTERA
0.00
200.00
10100
69770
03/02/05
PASCUAAL ALAN PASCUA
001
PK REFUND-PANTERA
0.00
22.50
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
222.50
10100
69771
03/02/06
PORTERPA PAULA PORTER
001
PK REFUND-HERITAGE 27
0.00
50.00
10100
69772
03/02/06
PSI PROTECTION SERVICE
INDUS
0015333
ALARM SVCS-DBC MAR
0.00
50.00
10100
69772
03/02/06
PSI PROTECTION SERVICE
INDUS
0015340
FIRE ALARM-HERITAGE
0.00
74.76
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
124.76
10100
69773
03/02/06
PURKISSR PURKISS ROSE RSI
2505310
ADA PROJ-PAUL GROW
0.00
2113.50
10100
69774
03/02/06
RALPHS RALPHS GROCERY/FOOD
4 LE
0015350
SUPPLIES-DAY CAMP
0.00
33.00
10100
69775
03/02/06
PENAISSA RENAISSANCE
0014030
NAT LEAGUE CONF-DOYLE
0.00
1213.70
10100
69776
03/02/06
REPUBLIC REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
0015554
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT--F
0.00
9250.00
10100
69776
03/02/06
REPUBLIC REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
0015554
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT-J
0.00
3108.00
10100
69776
03/02/06
REPUBLIC REPUBLIC ELECTRIC
0015554
TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTJA
0.00
3194.97
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
15552.97
RUN DATE 03/03/06 TIME 09:47:25
SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND
ACCOUNTING
SUNGARD PENTAMATION
INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
PAGE NUMBER: 11
DATE:
03/03/06
CITY OF DIAMOND
_i,-,R
ACCTi'A21
TIME.:
09:47:23
.'HECK REGISTER -
DISBURlEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRITERIA:
trar:sact.cx date>'20060216 00:00:10.0'
ACCOUNTING PERIOD:
9/0f;
FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO
ISSUE DT
--------------VF,NDOR-------------
FUND/"iVISION
----- DESCRIS'TION------
SALES TAX
AMOUNT
10100
69777
03/02/66
SCAN
SCAN
0014030
SCAN NATOA MTG-DOYLR
0.00
15.00
7.0100
69778
03/02/06
SEQUELCO
SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC
250
RETENTION PAYABLES-SEQ
0.00
-10279.91
10100
69778
03/02/06
SEQUELCO
SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC
2505510
CONSTRUCTION-GRAND AVE
0.00
102799.14
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
92519.23
10100
69779
03/02/06
SHAMIMAM
AMBREEN SHAMIM
001
PK REFUND-DBC 27707
0.00
500.00
10100
69779
03/02/06
SHAMIMAM
AMBREEN SHAMIM
001
PROPERTY DAMAGE-DSC
0.00
-212.00
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
288.00
10100
69780
03/02/06
SINGHBAH
BAHADUR SINGH
001
PK REFUND-DBC 27425
0.00
500-00
10100
69780
03/02/06
SINGHBAH
BAHADUR SINGH
001
PROPERTY DAMAGE-DBC
0.00
-100.00
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
400.00
10100
69781
03/02/06
SCAQMD
SO COAST AIR QUALITY MGT
0014090
LEASE-CITY HALL MAR
0.00
21204.75
10100
69782
03/02/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
1385538
ELECT SVCS-DIST 38
0.00
39.80
10100
69783
03/02/06
SCE
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS
0015510
RELOC-ELECT TOWER
0.0-0
162958.44
10100
69784
03/02/06
SPSI
SPSI -- SEMPER PARATUS SE
0014440
TRNG-YANOW 5/15-5/17
0.00
325.00
10106
69785
03/02/06
STANPOOR
STANDARD AND POORS
0014090
RATING SVCS-REVENUE BO
0.00
2000.00
10100
69786
03/02/06
THEKOSMO
THE KOSMONT COMPANIES
0015240
CONSULTANT SVCS-JAN 06
0.00
2737.50
10100
69787
03/02/06
TONGDAVI
DAVID TONG
001
PK REFUND--HERITAGE
0.00
50.00
10100
69787
03/02/06
TONGDAVI
DAVID TONG
001
SPECIAL EVNTS INS
0.00
122.46
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
172.46
10100
69788
03/02/06
TOSHIBAB
TOSHIBA BUSINESS SOLUTIO
0015333
COPIER MAINT-FES/MAR
0.00
56.82
10100
69789
03/02/06
TREVINOL
LYNN TREVINO
001
PK REFUND-HERITAGE 274
0.00
200.00
101.00
69790
03/02/06
TRUGREEN
TRUGREEN LANDCARE
0015340
LNDSCAPE MAINT-PARKS
0.00
768.51
10100
69790
03/02/06
TRUGREEN
TRUGREEN LANDCARE
1385538
LNDSCAPE MAINT-DIST 38
0.00
2906.07
10100
69790
03/02/06
TRUGREEN
TRUGREEN LANDCARE
1395539
LNDSCAPE MAINT-DIST 41
0.00
1558.46
10100
69790
03/02/06
TRUGREEN
TRUGREEN LANDCARE
0015340
INSTALL SAND-HERITAGE
0.00
2240.00
10100
69790
03/02/06
TRUGREEN
TRUGREEN LANDCARE
0015340
LANDSCAPE MAINT-PARKS
0.00
1239.81
10100
69790
03/02/06
TRUGREEN
TRUGREEN LANDCARE
0015340
LANDSCAPE MAINT-PARKS
0.00
891-62
10100
69790
03/02/06
TRUGREEN
TRUGREEN LANDCARE
0015340
LANDSCAPE MAINT-PETERS
0.00
3500.00
10100
69790
03/02/06
TRUGREEN
TRUGREEN LANDCARE
0015340
LANDSCAPE MATNT-PARKS
0.00
734.51
10100
69790
03/02/06
TRUGREEN
TRUGREEN LANDCARE
1385538
LANDSCAPE MAINT-DIST 3
0.00
706.11
10100
69790
03/02/06
TRUGREEN
TRUGREEN LANDCARE
1385538
LANDSCAPE MAINT-DIST 3
0.00
1500.00
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
16045-09
10100
69791
03/02/06
UNITEDSI
UNITED SITE SERVICES OF
0015340
EQ RENTAL-LORBEER SCHL
0.00
292.23
RUN DATE 03/03/06
TIME 09:47:25
SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND
ACCOUNTING
SUNGARD PENTAMATION
INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
PAGE NUMBER: 12
DATE:
03/03/06
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ACCTPA21
TIME:
09:47:23
CHECK REGISTER -
DISBURSEMENT
FUND
SELECTION
CRITERIA:
t.ransact.ck_date>'20060216
00:00:00.0'
ACCOUNTING
PERIOD:
9'06
FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND
CASH
ACCT CHECK NO
ISSUE DT
--------------VENDOR
----
FUND/DIVI:SION -----DESCRIPTION-----
SALES TAX
AMOUNT
;0100
69792
03/02/06
VERIZONC
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
0015340
PH.SVCS-SYC CYN PK
0.00
90.06
10100
69793
03/02/06
VERIZONW
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
0014030
CELL CHRGS-CMGR
0.00
42.41
10100
69793
03/02/06
VERI70NW
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
0014440
CELL CHRGS-EOC
0.00
115.29
10100
69793
03/02/06
VERIZONW
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
0014090
CELL CHRGS-GENERAL
0.00
38-43
10100
69793
03/02/06
VERIZONW
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
0014090
CELL CHRGS-GENERAL
0.00
36.53
10100
69793
03/02/06
VERIZONW
VERIZON WIRELESS -LA
0014070
CELL CHRGS-DESFORGES
0.00
65.26
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
297.92
30100
69794
03/02/06
VERMONTS
VERMONT SYSTEMS INC
1185098
WEB TRAC MAINT-JAN-JUN
0.00
1064.25
10100
69794
03/02/06
VERMONTS
VERMONT SYSTEMS INC
1185098
PHONE TRNG-FEB 06
0.00
95.00
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
11.59.25
10100
69795
03/02/06
VISIONCO
VISION COMMUNICATION CO
0015333
SUPPLIES -DBC
0.00
434.34
10100
69796
03/02/06
VSP
VISION SERVICE PLAN
001
MAR 06 -VISION PREMS
0.00
1107-58
10100
69796
03/02/06
VSP
VISION SERVICE PLAN
001
MAR 06 -COBRA VISION
0.00
46.77
10100
69796
03/02/06
VSP
VISION SERVICE PLAN
001
MAR 06 -VISION PREMS
0.00
8.11
10100
69796
03/02/06
VSP
VISION SERVICE PLAN
001
MAR 06 -VISION PREMS
0.00
18.12
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
1180.58
10100
69797
03/02/06
GRAINGER
W.W. GRAINGER INC.
0015340
MAINT-PETERSON PK
0.00
34.72
10100
69798
03/02/06
WELLSFAR
WELLS FARGO BANK
0014030
MTG-DOYLE
0.00
56.11
10100
69799
03/02/06
WELLSFAR
WELLS FARGO BANK
0014030
MTGS-CMGR
0-00
33.19
10100
69799
03/02/O6
WELLSFAR
WELLS FARGO BANK
0014010
NAT LEAGUE CONP-COUNCI
0.00
335.00
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
368.19
10100
69800
03/02/06
WELLSFAR
WELLS FARGO BANK
0014010
MTGS-COUNCIL
0.00
37.28
10100
69800
03/02/06
WELLSFAR
WELLS FARGO BANK
0014010
CONE -COUNCIL
0.00
519.89
TOTAL
CHECK
0.00
557.17
10100
69801
03/02/06
WRIGHTP
PAUL WRIGHT
0014090
A/V SVCS-MTGS
0.00
385.00
10100
69802
03/02/06
YUJANE
JANE YU
001
PK REFUND-REAGAN 2792
0.00
100.00
10100
000001
07/28/08
UNIONBAN
UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA
0014090
DBC -DEBT SVC PMT
0-00
38016.59
10100
06 -PP 04
02/23/06
PAYROLL
PAYROLL TRANSFER
001
P/R TRANSFER-06/PP 04
0.00
102776.79
16100
06 -PP 04
02/23/06
PAYROLL
PAYROLL TRANSFER
112
P/R TRANSFER-06/PP 04
0.00
3106.53
10100
06 -PP 04
02/23/06
PAYROLL
PAYROLL TRANSFER
115
P/R TRANSFER-06/PP 04
0.00
1417.14
10100
06 -PP 04
02/23/06
PAYROLL
PAYROLL TRANSFER
118
P/R TRANSFER-06/PP 04
0.00
609.55
10100
06 -PP 04
02/23/06
PAYROLL
PAYROLL TRANSFER
125
P/R TRANSFER-06/PP 04
0.00
529.92
10100
06 -PP 04
02/23/06
PAYROLL
PAYROLL TRANSFER
138
P/R TRANSFER-06/PP 04
0.00
859.43
10100
06 -PP 04
02/23/06
PAYROLL
PAYROLL TRANSFER
139
P/R TRANSFER-06/PP 04
0.00
859.46
10100
06 -PP 04
02/23/06
PAYROLL
PAYROLL TRANSFER
141
P/R TRANSFER-06/PP 04
0-00
859.48
RUN DATE 03/03/06 TIME 09:47:25
SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND
ACCOUNTING
SUNGARD PENTAt7ATION _NC - FUND ACCOUNTING
DATE: 03/03/06 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TIME: 09:47:21 CHECK REGISTER DISBURSEMENT FUND
SELECTION CRI'I'ERrA: cransact.ck_date>'2006'd% 6 00:00:00.0'
ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/06
FUND - 002 - GEEIERAL FUND
CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR------------ - FUND/DIVISION
TOTAL CHECK
TOTAL CASH ACCOIJNT
TOTAL FUND
TOTAL REPORT
Pr.GR NUMBER: 13
AICTPA21
----- DF.SCPIPTION ------ SALES TF.X
AMOUNT
0.00
111018.30
0.00
1232864.68
0,00
1232864.68
0.60
1232864.68
RUN DATE 03/03/06 TIME 09:47:25 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC - FUND ACCOUNTING
11
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manag
TITLE: Treasurer's Statement — January 2006
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the January 2006, Treasurer's Statement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No Fiscal Impact
BACKGROUND:
Agenda # 5 , 5
Meeting Date: Mar. 7, 2006
AGENDA REPORT
Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer's Statement for the City
Council's review and approval. This statement shows the preliminary cash balances for the various
funds, with a breakdown of bank account balances, investment account balances, and the effective
yield earned from investments. This statement also includes a separate investment portfolio report
which details the activities of the investments. All investments have been made in accordance with
the City's Investment Policy.
PREPARED BY:
Linda G. Magnuson, Finance Director
44-- �j Aqoaz��
DepartmbIHead
Attachments:
Treasurer's Statement, Investment Portfolio Report
fV
Deputy City Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT
January 31, 2006
SUMMARY OF CASH:
BEGINNING
TRANSFERS
EN171PiG
($24,599.29)
BALANCE
RECEIPTS
DISBURSEMENTS IN OUT
BALANCE
GENERAL FUND
$25,346,185.10
$3,903,441.32
$1,174,720.31
$28,074,906.11
LIBRARY SERVICES FUND
0.00
($12,865.68)
INVESTMENTS:
0.00
COMMUNITY ORG SUPPORT FD
(3,339.68)
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD
28,324,752.80
(3,339.68)
GAS TAX FUND
711,731.71
5,706.20
FED HOME LOAN BANK NOTE - 1.5 yr
717,437.91
TRANSIT TX (PROP A) FD
1,117,107.52
275,248.41
586,841.15
805,514.78
TRANSIT TX (PROP C) FD
1,013,325.53
163,336.23
1,000,000.00
1,176,661.76
ISTEA Fund
0.00
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD
0.00
INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FD
539,211.46
48,090.56
23,164.70
564,137.32
A82928 -TR CONGESTION RELIEF FD
74,336.99
47,766.54
122,103.53
AIR QUALITY IMPRVMNT FD
88,527.06
1,060.49
4,350.50
85,237.05
PROP A - SAFE PARKS ACT FUND
(2,016.41)
(2,016.41)
PARK & FACILITIES DEVEL. FD
1,915,147.61
14,130.04
1,929,277.65
COM DEV BLOCK GRANT FD
(81,016.38)
15,268.00
12,912.15
(78,660.53)
CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SAFETY FD
302,372.85
2,110.82
5,633.03
298,850.64
NARCOTICS ASSET SEIZURE FD
322,344.35
2,378.27
324,722.62
CA LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIP PRG
72,953.14
538.25
73,491.39
LANDSCAPE DIST #38 FD
(70,150.27)
28,669.60
26,773.41
(68,254.08)
LANDSCAPE DIST #39 FD
161,558.80
17,537.79
17,688.34
161,408.25
LANDSCAPE DIST #41 FD
204,961.93
14,560.70
9,640.33
209,882.30
GRAND AV CONST FUND
0.00
0.00
CAP IMPROVEMENT PRJ FD
(1,207,683.21)
28,294.24
420,335.94
(1,599,724.91)
SELF INSURANCE FUND
1,360,272.09
10,035.90
6,909.00
1,363,398.99
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
139,949.31
1,380.00
141,329.31
COMPUTER REPLACEMENT FUND
31,684.09
233.77
31,917.86
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY FUN275
681.01
1,727.28
33,431.90
243 976.39
TOTALS
$32 313,144.60
$4 581,514.41
$2,322,400.76 $0.00
$34 572 258.25
SUMMARY OF CASH:
DEMAND DEPOSITS:
GENERAL ACCOUNT
($24,599.29)
PAYROLL ACCOUNT
10,983.61
CHANGE FUND
250.00
PETTY CASH ACCOUNT
500.00
TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS
($12,865.68)
INVESTMENTS:
US TREASURY Money Market Acct.
$1,016,394.74
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD
28,324,752.80
FED HOME LOAN BANK NOTE - 1.0 yr
1,000,000.00
FED HOME LOAN BANK NOTE - 1.5 yr
1,000,000.00
FED HOME LOAN BANK NOTE - 2.0 yr
1,000,000.00
FED FARM CREDIT NOTE - 2.5 yr
1,000,000.00
FED HOME LOAN SANK NOTE - 1.5 yr
1,000,000.00
CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT:
US TREASURY Money Market Account
242,309.29
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD
1,667.10
(Bond Proceeds Account)
TOTAL INVESTMENTS
34,585,123.93
TOTAL CASH $34472,258.25
!Vote: The City of Diamond Bar is invested in the State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund. There are two LAIF
accounts set up. The regular account's funds are available for withdrawal within 24 hours. The LAIF Bond Proceeds
account's withdrawals require 30 days notice. In addition, the City has started investing in longer term investments.
These investments are detailed on the attached Investment Report.
All investments are placed in accordance with the City of Diamond Bar's Investment Policy.
The above summary provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six month's
estim d expenditures.
Linda C. Lowry, Treasurer
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
INVESTMENT PORTFOLIO REPORT
for the Month of January 2006
11
Monthly
Interest
Purchase
Maturity
Amount
Market
Interest
Received
Institution Investment Type Rating Date
Date Term
At Cost
Value
Accrued
in Jan '06
Rate Yield
State of California Local Agency Inv Fund AAA
28,324,752.80
28,255,699.29
93,353.66
251,372.83
3.955% 3.955%
Wells Fargo Bank US Treasury Money Market AAA
1,016,394.74
1,016,394.74
-
4,437.19
3.320% 3.320%
Union Bank -(Fiscal Agent) US Treasury Money Market AAA
242,309.29
242,309.29
-
387.08
3.840% 3.840°/%
Union Bank -(Fiscal Agent) Local Agency Inv Fund AAA
1,667.10
1,667.10
5.90
1,396.04
4.250% 4.250%
Wells Fargo Inst Securities Federal Home Loan Note AAA 09/29/05
09/29/06 1.0 Yr
1,000,000.00
994,900.00
3,625.00
4.350% 4.350% (1)
Wells Fargo Inst Securities Federal Home Loan Note AAA 10/20/05
04/20/07 1.5 Yr
1,000,000.00
993,500.00
3,541.67
4.250% 4.250% (2)
Wells Fargo Inst Securities Federal Home Loan Note AAA 09/28/05
09/28/07 2.0 Yrs
1,000,000.00
992,300.00
3,375.00
4.050% 4.050% (3)
Wells Fargo Inst Securities Federal Farm Credit Note AAA 09/27/05
03/27/08 2.5 Yrs
1,000,000.00
992,400.00
3,783.33
4.540% 4.540% (4)
Wells Fargo Inst Securities Federal Home Loan Note AAA 11/09/05
05/09/07 1.5 Yrs
1,000,000.00
994,500.00
3,833.33
4.600% 4.600% (5)
Totals for month
$ 34,585,123.93
$ 34,483,670.42
$ 111,517.90
$ 257,593.14
Less Investments matured during the month
0.00
0.00
Investment Portfolio at 01/31/06
$ 34,585,123.93
$ 34,483,670,42
2004-05 Actual Interest Income
$687,186.07
2005-06 Budgeted Interest Income
$517,500.00
Actual Year -To -Date Interest Income
$535,202.14
Percent of Interest Received to Budget
103.421%
(1) Callable 12/29/05
(2) Callable 04/20/06
(3) Callable 10/28/05
(4) Callable 12/27/05
(5) Callable 12/09/05
11
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6.6
Meeting Date: 03/07/06
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager w9k.111,
TITLE: APPROVAL OF AMENDMENT #4 IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $47,000
TO CONTRACT WITH VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE TO
REFURBISH LOWER ATHLETIC FIELD AT SUMMIT RIDGE PARK, INCLUDING RE-
GRADING OF FIELD, REFURBISHING OF IRRIGATION SYSTEM AND
INSTALLATION OF NEW SOD; AND APPROVAL OF A GENERAL FUND
APPROPRIATION OF $40,000 TO SPEND A $40,000 RETENTION FORFEITURE
FROM KPRS FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE DIAMOND BAR CENTER.
Recommendation: Approve and Appropriate
Financial Impact: $40,000 of this cost is available from the retention held by the City from the
contract of KPRS. The remaining $7,000 is available in the adopted 2005106 FY budget.
Background: The scope of services included in the contract with KPRS for the construction of the
Diamond Bar Center included restoration of the lower athletic field at Summit Ridge Park to the
condition that existed prior to construction. KPRS failed to follow the plans and specifications for this
portion of the project and the work performed by KPRS was never accepted by City staff. For the past
two years, staff has negotiated in good faith with KPRS representatives to seek resolution of this
issue. In September 2005, KPRS began to perform restoration work as negotiated with staff, but it
became immediately apparent that KPRS was again deviating from the approved plan. Staff stopped
the work being performed by KPRS and the lower athletic field has sat in a torn up condition ever
since. Additional negotiations with KPRS representatives have failed to achieve an acceptable
resolution. Staff, therefore, solicited bids from qualified contractors to complete this work.
Discussion: Staff received bids from four (4) qualified contractors for this work ranging from a low of
$47,000 to a high of $57,650. ValleyCrest Landscape Maintenance submitted the low bid. Scope of
work includes:
1. Removal and disposal of torn up grass and dirt.
2. Rough grading and finish grading of site.
3. Up -grade of irrigation system including new rotor turf heads.
4. Providing and planting seven (7) 24" box trees.
5. Providing and planting 35,000 sq. ft. new athletic field sod.
This work will commence as soon as weather permits. After the work starts, it should take no more
than 30 calendar days to complete. The first $40,000 of the cost will be paid from the KPRS retention
now being held by the City. The remaining $7,000 will be paid from Parks Maintenance operating
funds already in the adopted 2005106 budget.
Attachments: Contract Agreement dated April 8, 2003
Amendment #4 dated March 7, 2006
REVIEWE
Community Services Director
AMENDMENT #4 TO CONTRACT AGREEMENT
THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT is made this 7th day of March, 2006 by and between the CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY") and VALLEYCREST
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, ("CONTRACTOR")
Recitals:
a. CITY awarded a contract to CONTRACTOR for Landscape Maintenance services at locations
listed in Exhibit A effective April 1, 2003.
b. The CITY has regularly extended its Landscape Maintenance Contract with CONTRACTOR,
most recently for the period of July 1, 2005 through June 30, 2006 in the lump sum amount of
$217,680.
C. Parties desire to amend the contract to authorize CONTRACTOR to perform the following scope
of work at Summit Ridge Park in the amount not to exceed $47,000:
1. Remove and dispose of torn up grass and dirt.
2. Rough grade and finish grade project site.
3. Up -grade irrigation system to include new rotor turf heads.
4. Provide and plant seven (7) 24" box trees.
5. Provide and plant 35,000 sq. ft. new athletic field sod.
Now, therefore, the parties agree to amend the AGREEMENT as follows:
Section I Scope of Work of the AGREEMENT provided in Section 1 is revised to authorize
CONTRACTOR to perform the following work at Summit Ridge Park in the amount not to exceed
$47,000:
1. Remove and dispose of torn up grass and dirt.
2. Rough grade and finish grade project site.
3. Up -grade irrigation system to include new rotor turf heads.
4. Provide and plant seven (7) 24" box trees.
5. Provide and plant 35,000 sq. ft. new athletic field sod.
Section 2 -- Except as provided above, the AGREEMENT is in all other respects in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT #4 TO AGREEMENT on the
date and year first written above.
ATTEST:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
A Municipal Corporation
Of the State of California
Signed
Bob Zirbes
Title: Mayor
VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
Contractor
Signed
Title
APPROVED TO FORM
City Attorney
Linda Lowry
City Clerk
AGREEMENT
The following agreement is made and entered into, in duplicate, as of the date
executed by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk, by and between, Va�est
Landscaoe Maintenance, Inc., hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR" and the
City of Diamond Bar, California, hereinafter referred to as "CITY."
WHEREAS, pursuant to Request For Proposals (R.F.P.), proposals were
received, on December 20 2002; and
WHEREAS, City did accept the proposal of CONTRACTOR
Valle Crest Landscape Maintenance Inc.; and
WHEREAS, City has authorized the Mayor to execute a written contract with
CONTRACTOR for furnishing labor, equipment and material for the Landscape
Maintenance Services at Pantera and Peterson Parks in the City of Diamond Bar.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained,
it is agreed:
1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK: CONTRACTOR shall furnish all necessary
labor, tools, materials, appliances, and equipment for and do the work for the
Landscape Maintenance Services at Pantera and Peterson Parks in the City of
Diamond Bar. The work to be performed in accordance with the City -Wide Landscape
Maintenance Specifications dated June 4, 1998,
2. INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED
COMPLEMENTARY: The City -Wide Landscape Maintenance Specifications are
incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof with like force and effect as if
set forth in full herein. The specifications, CONTRACTOR'S Proposal dated
December 20, 2002, together with this written agreement, shall constitute the contract
between the parties. This contract is intended to require a complete and finished piece
of work and anything necessary to complete the work properly and in accordance with
the law and lawful governmental regulations shall be performed by the CONTRACTOR
whether set out specifically in the contract or not. Should it be ascertained that any
inconsistency exists between the aforesaid documents and this written agreement, the
provisions of this written agreement shall control.
3. TERMS OF CONTRACT
The CONTRACTOR agrees to commence contract work on April 1, 2003 and
to complete contract work requirements as stated in the specification.
Agreement and unit prices shall remain in force, unless terminated sooner, until June
302004. Agreement may be extended per Section 14.
City of Diamond Bar Agreement
4. INSURANCE: The CONTRACTOR shall not commence work under this
contract until he has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or
companies acceptable to City nor shall the CONTRACTOR allow any subcontractor to
commence work on his subcontract until all insurance required of the subcontractor has
been obtained. The CONTRACTOR shall take out and maintain at all times during the
life of this contract the following policies of insurance:
a. Workers' Compensation Insurance: Before beginning work, the
CONTRACTOR shall furnish to the City a certificate of insurance as proof
that he has taken out full workers' compensation insurance for all persons
whom he may employ directly or through subcontractors in carrying out
the work specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the State of
California. Such insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect
during the period covered by this contract.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor
Code, every CONTRACTOR shall secure the payment of compensation to
his employees. The CONTRACTOR, prior to commencing work, shall
sign and file with the City a certification as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which
requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers'
compensation or to undertake self insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before
commencing the performance of work of this contract."
b. For all operations of the CONTRACTOR or any sub -contractor in
performing the work provided for herein, insurance with the following
minimum limits and coverage:
1) Public Liability - Bodily Injury (not auto) $500,000 each person;
$1,000,000 each accident.
2) Public Liability - Property Damage (not auto) $250,000 each person;
$500,000 aggregate.
3) CONTRACTOR'S Protective - Bodily Injury $500,000 each person;
$1,000,000 each accident.
4) CONTRACTOR'S Protective - Property Damage $250,000 each
accident; $500,000 aggregate.
5) Automobile - Bodily Injury $500,000 each person; $1,000,000 each
accident.
6) Automobile - Property Damage $250,000 each accident.
2
City of Diamond Bar Agreement
c. Each such policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. shall:
1) Be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by City, which
is admitted to do business in the State of California.
2) Name as additional insured the City of Diamond Bar, its officers,
agents and employees, and any other parties specified in the bid
documents to be so included.
3) Specify it acts as primary insurance and that no insurance held or
owned by the designated additional insured shall be called upon to
cover a loss under the policy.
4) Contain a clause substantially in the following words:
"It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be
canceled nor the amount of the coverage thereof reduced until thirty
(30) days after receipt by City of a written notice of such cancellation
or reduction of coverage as evidenced by receipt of a registered letter."
5) Otherwise be in form satisfactory to the City.
d. The policy of insurance provided for in subparagraph a. shall contain an
endorsement which:
1) Waives all right of subrogation against all persons and entities
specified in subparagraph 4.c.(2) hereof to be listed as additional
insureds in the policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. by
reason of any claim arising out of or connected with the operations of
CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor in performing the work provided
for herein.
2) Provides it shall not be canceled or altered without thirty (30) days'
written notice thereof given to City by registered mail.
e. The CONTRACTOR shall, within ten (10) days from the date of the notice
of award of the Contract, deliver to the City Manager or his designee the
original policies of insurance required in paragraphs a. and b. hereof, or
deliver to the City Manager or his designee a certificate of the insurance
company, showing the issuance of such insurance, and the additional
insured and other provisions required herein.
5. PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the
provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the
CONTRACTOR is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem
wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public works is
City of Diamond Bar -
Agreement
performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday
and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial
Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general
prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages
are on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, Suite 100, 21660 E.
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, and are available to any interested party on
request. City also shall cause a copy of such determinations to be posted at the job
site.
The CONTRACTOR shall forfeit, as penalty to City, not more than twenty-five
dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed for each calendar
day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the
general pre- vailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under this
Agreement, by him or by any subcontractor under him.
6. APPRENTICESHIP EMPLOYMENT. In accordance with the provisions of
Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code, and in accordance with the regulations of the
California Apprenticeship Council, properly indentured apprentices may be employed in
the performance of the work.
The CONTRACTOR is required to make contribution to funds established for
the administrative of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or
journeymen in any apprenticeable trade on such contracts and if other
CONTRACTOR'S on the public works site are malting such contributions.
The CONTRACTOR and subcontractor under him shall comply with the
requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.
Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules and other
requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex -officio the
Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of
Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices.
7. LEGAL HOURS OF WORK: Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal
day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract, and the
CONTRACTOR and any sub -contractor under him shall comply with and be governed
by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours set forth in
Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as
amended.
The CONTRACTOR shall forfeit, as a penalty to City, twenty-five dollars
($25.00) for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed in the execution of the
contract, by him or any sub- CONTRACTOR under him, upon any of the work
hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which the laborer, workman or
mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of the
Labor Code.
4
City of Diamond Bar Agreement
8. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE PAY: CONTRACTOR agrees to pay travel
and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this
contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable
collective bargaining agreements filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8.
9. CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY: The City of Diamond Bar and its officers,
agents and employees ("Idemnitees") shall not be answerable or accountable in any
manner for any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof, or for
any of the materials or other things used or employed in performing the work; or for
injury or damage to any person or persons, either workmen or employees of the
CONTRACTOR, of his subcontractor's or the public, or for damage to adjoining or other
property from any cause whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the
performance of the work. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for any damage or
injury to any person or property resulting from defects or obstructions or from any cause
whatsoever.
The CONTRACTOR will indemnify Indemnitees against and will hold and
save indemnitees harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or
property, penalties, obligations or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any
person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision, or other organization arising out of
or in connection with the work, operation, or activities of the CONTRACTOR, his
agents, employees, subcontractors or invitees provided for herein, whether or not there
is concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of City. Contractor shall not
indemnify City from liability for damages for death or bodily injury to persons, injury to
property or any other loss, damage or expense, arising from the sole negligence or
willful misconduct of the City. In connection therewith:
a. The CONTRACTOR will defend any action or actions filed in connection
with any such claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will
pay all costs and expenses, including attomeys' fees incurred in
connection therewith.
b. The CONTRACTOR will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the
CONTRACTOR or Indemnitees covering such claims, damages,
penalties, obligations and liabilities arising out of or in connection with
such work, operations or activities of the CONTRACTOR hereunder, and
the CONTRACTOR agrees to save and hold the Indemnitees harmless
therefrom.
In the event Indemnitees are made a party to any action or proceeding
filed or prosecuted against the CONTRACTOR for damages or other
claims arising out of or in connection with the work, operation or activities
hereunder, the CONTRACTOR agrees to pay to Indemnitees and any all
costs and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in such action or proceeding
together with reasonable attorneys' fees.
City of Diamond Bar Agreement
So much of the money due to the CONTRACTOR under and by virtue of the
contract as shall be considered necessary by City may be retained by City until
disposition has been made of such actions or claims for damages as aforesaid.
This indemnity provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement and is
in addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law.
This indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability
of any insurance coverages which may have been required under this Agreement or
any additional insured endorsements which may extend to Indemnitees.
CONTRACTOR, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it,
hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees, while
acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising our of
or incident to activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the Indemnitor
regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the
Indemnitees.
10. NON-DISCRIMINATION: Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1735, no
discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons in the work contemplated by
this Agreement because of the race, color or religion of such person. A violation of this
section exposes the CONTRACTOR to the penalties provided for in Labor Code
Section 1735.
11. CONTRACT PRICE AND PAYMENT: City shall pay to the CONTRACTOR
for furnishing all material and doing the prescribed work the unit prices set forth in the
Price Schedule in accordance with CONTRACTOR'S Proposal dated December 20.
2002 in the amount of One Hundred Sevent -Four Thousand Three Hundred Ninet -
Five Dollars ($174.395).
12. ATTORNEY'S FEES: in the event that any action or proceeding is brought
by either party to enforce any term of provision of the this agreement, the prevailing
party shall recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred with respect
thereto.
13. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by the City, without
cause, upon the giving of a written "Notice of Termination" to CONTRACTOR at least
thirty (30) days prior to the date of termination specified in the notice. In the event of
such termination, CONTRACTOR shall only be paid for services rendered and
expenses necessarily incurred prior to the effective date of termination.
14. EXTENSION OPTION: The City Council shall have the option to extend this
Agreement up to five (5) additional one (1) year periods, subject to the same terms and
conditions contained herein, by giving Contractor written notice of exercise of this option
City of Diamond Bar Agreement
to renew at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the initial term of this
Agreement, or of any additional one (1) year extensions.
In the event the City Council exercises its option to extend the term of this
Agreement for one or more additional one year periods, the Contractor's unit prices
shall be subject to adjustment at the commencement of the extended term and annually
thereafter ("the adjustment date") as follows:
Any increase in compensation will be negotiated between the City and the
contractor, with the limits being no increase to a maximum of the cost of living.
The increase, if any, will be calculated with reference to cost of living during the
previous year. If the increase is approved by the City Council, the increase will
be calculated by adding the Contractor's monthly compensation, the amount, if
any, obtained by multiplying the contractor's compensation as of the adjustment
date by the percentage by which the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") for the Los
Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside metropolitan area for the month immediately
preceding the Adjustment Date (the "Index Month") reported by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, has increased over
the CPI for the month one year prior to the Index Month. If the Index is
discontinued, the Director's office shall, at its discretion, substitute for the Index
such other similar index as it may deem appropriate.
City of Diamond Bar
Agreement
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement with
all the formalities required by law on the respective dates set forth opposite their
signatures.
State of California "CONTRACTOR'S" License No.
By:
TITLE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
By: &-L� Al,"
Dae MAYOR
ATTEST:
By. 9L <
Date CITY CLERK
CONTRACTOR'S Business Phone
Emergency Phone at which
CONTRACTOR can be reached at any time
Date
8
City of Diamond Bar Agreement
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6 . 7
Meeting Date: March 7, 2006
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
4
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manage
TITLE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 03 (2006), ADOPTING ZONE CHANGE
NO. 2005-03 WHICH CHANGES THE EXISTING ZONING OF A PROPERTY
LOCATED DIRECTLY SOUTH OF ROCKY TRAIL AND ALAMO HEIGHTS DRIVE AND
WEST OF HORIZON LANE FROM R-1-20,000 TO RR (RURAL RESIDENTIAL) TO
COMPLY WITH THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE DESIGNATION FOR THE
PROPERTY AND AMENDING THE ZONING MAP OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
THE PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED BY ACCESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 8713-023-002,
8713-023-004, 8713-023-005, 8713-024-001 AND 8713-024-002.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance No. 03 (2006).
FINANCIAL IMPACT: NIA
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION:
Ordinance No. 03 (2006) provides for Zone Change No. 2005-03 which amends the City's Zoning
Map, thereby bringing the subject property's zoning in compliance with the General Plan. The
amended zoning designation for the subject property is as delineated in Exhibit "A" attached to
Ordinance No. 03 (2006).
A public hearing was concluded and the first reading of the Zone Change occurred on February 21,
2006. Upon approval of second reading, the referenced Zone Change will be effective April 6, 2006.
PREPARED BY:
n J. L u n ,
A sociate Planner
Attachment:
Ordinance No. 03 (2006)
r
ORDINANCE NO. 03 (2006)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
ZONE CHANGE NO. 2005-03 WHICH CHANGES THE EXISTING
ZONING FOR GENERAL PLAN COMPLIANCE FROM R-1-20,000
TO RURAL RESIDENTIAL (RR) FOR A PROPERTY LOCATED
DIRECTLY SOUTH OF ROCKY TRAIL ROAD AND ALAMO
HEIGHTS DRIVE AND WEST OF HORIZON LANE, DIAMOND
BAR, CALIFORNIA IDENTIFIED BY APN NOS. 8713-023-002,
8713-023-004, 8713-023-005, 8713-024-001 AND 8713-024-002.
A. RECITALS
1. The property owner/applicant, Millennium Diamond Road Partners,
LLC, has filed an application for Zone Change No. 2005-03 for a
property identified by APN Nos.8713-023-002, 8713-023-004,
8713-023-005, 8713-024-001 and 8713-024-002 located directly south
of Rocky Trail Road and Alamo Heights Drive and west of Horizon
Lane, Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject Zone Change shall be referred to as the
"Application."
2. On February 1, 2006 public hearing notices were mailed to
approximately 180 property owners of record within a 1,000 -foot radius
of the project site. On February 1, 2006 public hearing notices were
posted in three public places within the City of Diamond Bar and the
project site was posted with a display board. On February 9, 2006,
notification of the public hearing for this project was provided in the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers.
Additionally, and pursuant to Public Resource Code, Section 21092.5,
on February 6, 2006, agencies commenting on the project's
Environmental Impact report were notified in writing of the February 21,
2006 City Council public hearing.
3. On December 13, 2005, the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the
Application and continued the public hearing to January 10, 2006.
4. On January 10, 2006, the Planning Commission opened the continued
public hearing and concluded the public hearing on the application. At
that time, the Planning Commission recommended approval to City
Council of Zone Change 2005-03
City Council Ordinance No. 03 (2006)
5. On February 21, 2006, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
conducted and concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the
Application.
6. Following due consideration of public testimony, staff analysis and the
Planning Commission recommendation, the City Council hereby finds
that Zone Change No. 2005-03 set forth within amends the Zoning Map
and is consistent with the General Plan.
B. RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council
of the City of Diamond Bar as follows.
This City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The City Council hereby finds that the zone change identified above in
the resolution was addressed in the Environmental Impact Report
(SCH No. 2003051102) prepared for Tentative Tract Map No. 53430
according to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated there under and determined
not to have a significant effect on the environment.
3. The City Council hereby finds as follows:
(a) The proposed Zone Change relates to a vacant property located
directly south of Rocky Trail Road and Alamo Heights Drive and
west of Horizon Lane within a gated community identified as
"The Country Estates" which consists of large single-family
homes. The project site is directly south of Alamo Heights Drive
which would be extended to provide access to the project site
with Rocky Trail Road as a secondary emergency access.
(b) Generally to the north, south, east and west, the Single Family
Residence -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square feet (R-1-20,000)
and R-1-40,000 zoning districts surround the project site.
(c) The project site has a General Plan land use designation of
Rural Residential (RR) Maximum 1 DU/AC and a current zoning
designation of Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size
20,000 square feet (R-1-20,000).
(d) The Application request is for approval to change the existing
zoning designation to Rural Residential (RR) Maximum 1
DU/AC, which is in compliance with the General Plan land use
designation for the project site.
2
(e) The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby
approve Zone Change No. 2005-03 based on the following
findings, as required by Municipal Code Section 22.70.050 and
in conformance with California Government Code Section 65853
and 65860 is consistent with the General Plan.
(1) Zone Change No. 2005-03 changes the existing zoning from
Single Family Residence -Minimum Lot Size 20,000 square
feet (R-1-20,000) to Rural Residential (RR).
(2) Pursuant to the General Plan, the maximum gross density
for the RR land use designation is 1.0 dwelling units per acre
or less.
(3) The Rural Residential (RR) zone implements the Strategies
of the General Plan. Furthermore, the RR zoning district is
used to identify hillside areas intended for rural living,
including the keeping of animals, with supporting accessory
structures.
(4) The property the zone change affects is compatible with the
General Plan land use designation description and will be
able to adhere to the development standards for the RR
zoning district as prescribed in the City's Development Code.
The City Council shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Ordinance; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution by certified
mail: to Millennium Diamond Road Partners, LLC, 3731 Wilshire
Blvd., Suite 850, Los Angeles, CA 90010.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF FEBRUARY
2006, BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
Allm
Carol Herrera, Mayor
I, Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City
of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 2006 and was
finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council held on the day of
2006, by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
4
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk,
City of Diamond Bar
Agenda # 6 . g
MeetingDate:_March 7, 2006
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members o the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager U!'
TITLE: RATIFY THE APPROPRIATION OF $4,781 FROM GENERAL FUND
RESERVES TO PAY SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON FOR
INSTALLATION OF TRAFFIC SIGNAL METER PEDESTALS AT THE
INTERSECTIONS OF GRAND AVENUE AND GOLDEN SPRINGS
DRIVE, GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE AND TARGET DRIVEWAY, AND
DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AND MAPLE HILL ROAD.
RECOMMENDATION:
Ratify.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds will be transferred from the General Fund Reserves to the Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) budget in the amount of $4,784. The three intersections were part of the
FY 200405 CIP budget and funds were encumbered at that time for the construction
contracts. In years past, the costs for the electrical pedestals were included in the
construction contract. However, Southern California Edison (SCE) now requires their
own crew perform the installation of the electrical pedestal for the meters. In order to
accurately track the project budget, funds need to be transferred to the CIP budget.
BACKGROUND:
The two traffic signal improvements at Grand Avenue/Golden Springs Drive and Golden
Springs Drive/Target Driveway are part of the Grand Avenue Improvements Project,
Phase I. All of the CIP budget for the Phase I project has been encumbered to the
prime contractor, Sequel Construction, from the budget for FY 2004-05. At the time of
award of contract, the charges from SCE were not known.
The third intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard/Maple Hill Road is part of a traffic
signal installation and modification project for five (5) intersections throughout the City.
The funding for the five intersection project was also encumbered from the FY 2004-05
budget and the SCE charges were also not known at that time.
DISCUSSION:
These three projects are carry-over projects from FY 2004-05. The charges from SCE
were not anticipated. As a matter of fact, the charges for electrical pedestals for these
three intersections are a first. In the past, the City's design engineer would include the
work for the electrical pedestal as part of the traffic signal installation cost. However,
SCE no longer allows the City contractor to perform the work.
In order to accurately record all charges made against a CIP project, staff recommends
$4,781 be transferred from the General Fund Reserves to the CIP budget for FY 2005-
06.
PREPARED BY:
Sharon Gomez, Public Works Services Manager Date Prepared: March 2, 2006
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu, Director of Public Works
2
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda #
Meeting Date: March 7, 2006
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manage wxmn
TITLE: Amendment No. 2 to a Professional Services Agreement with BonTerra Consulting in
an amount not -to -exceed $15,470.00 for preparation of an updated Spring Survey for
Tentative Tract Map No. 53430, Millennium/Stanley Cheung.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
FISCAL IMPACT:
All costs associated with the preparation of the environmental analysis are the responsibility of the
developer via development processing fees paid to the City. The developer has previously entered
into an Agreement with the City to provide the City with all funds necessary to process the proposed
project.
BACKGROUND:
In March 2002, the City entered into a contract agreement with BonTerra Consulting in the amount of
$140,664.00 to prepare an Environmental Impact Report for a 48 lot residential subdivision proposed
by Millennium/ Stanley Cheung. On June 15, 2004, City Council approved an Amendment No. 1 to
the Agreement in the amount of $77,610.00 due to several modifications to the project area boundary
and tract map design that have occurred since the project inception.
The last biological survey was done in 2003, and an updated survey in spring of 2005 was required
by the regulatory agencies. Therefore, BonTerra has requested a contract amendment in the amount
of $15,470, with a not to exceed maximum amount of $233,744.00, to reflect an updated spring
survey. The project developer was well aware of the additional Scope of Work and had specifically
requested the City consultant to conduct the survey so the project could be moved forward for
Planning Commission and City Council review. On February 21, 2006, the Council certified the
Environmental Impact Report and approved the project.
Prepare y:
Nancy Fong, AIDavid Doyl
Interim Commu ity pment Director Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
1. Amendment No. 2
2. Request for Budget Augmentation
-\I / 100,
C IT Y OF
DIAMOND BAR
LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
21825 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Phone: (909) 839-7030
Fax: (909) 861-3117
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
PLANNING DIVISION
TO: Thomas E. Smith, Jr. AICP FROM: Stella Marquez
BonTerra Consulting Senior Administrative Assistant to
320 N. Halstead St., Suite 130 Nancy Fong, AICP
Pasadena, CA 91107 Interim Community Development Director
SUBJECT: Tract 53430 — Amendment No. 2 to Contract Agreement
DATE: March 1, 2006
Dear Tom:
As we briefly discussed a few weeks ago, we will be going to the City Council at its
March 7, 2006, meeting to request approval of the enclosed Amendment to Agreement
to increase the existing Consultant's Agreement in the amount of $15,470 per your
request for an augmentation relative to the preparation of the Environmental Impact
Report, dated February 17, 2005.
Please review the Amendment, sign and return your signature via fax so that we may
attach your approval to staffs report. Two originals of the Amendment will be
forwarded to you via mail. Please sign both originals and return them to our office.
Upon final execution of the Agreement, an original will be returned to you for your file.
If you have any comments or questions, please call.
Tom, we apologize that this matter was inadvertently overlooked not being presented to
the City Council for approval when proposed to this office in February 2005. However,
please be assured that the developer was made aware of the revised scope of work,
approved it, and additional funds were collected from the developer to cover the
adjustment.
Enclosures
03/01/2006 14:55 FAI 626 351 2030 BONTERRA CONSULTING 0 003
Map ni 06 12:03p City of Diamond Bar 949-396-748 p.4
Section 3:
All otherterms and conditions of1he Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WETNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendmen No. 2
as of the day and year first set forth above -
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
BonTerra Counsulting:
Thomas E_ Smith, Jr. AICP
320 N. Halstead St„ Ste. 130
Pasadena, CA 99107
BY:
City Attorney Thomas E. Smith, Jr.
Principal
ATTEST:
City Clerk
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Carol Herrera, Mayor
K
Agenda # 8.1
Meeting Date: March 7, 2006
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: APPOINTMENTS TO VACANCIES ON CITY COMMISSIONS
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that each member of the City Council make appointments to each
Commission as desired and that the City Council, as a body, ratify the appointments
with an effective date of March 1, 2006.
BACKGROUND:
Ordinances 256(1989), 24B(1989) and 286(1 989) establish two-year terms of office for
Commissioners appointed to the Planning, Parks and Recreation, and Traffic and
Transportation Commissions, respectively. Said terms expire on the last day of
February of even numbered years. As a result, five vacancies exist on each
Commission effective February 28, 2006.
In compliance with the Maddy Act (Government Code Section 54972), staff has posted
vacancy notices on the City' website, the City's Public Access Channel, Channel 3 and
posted the Notice at the three (3) designated locations (City Hall, Heritage Park and
D.B. Library). The City Council may make new appointments to each Commission or
they may choose to re -appoint Commissioners. As of this date, staff has not received
any requests for applications.
The City Council will receive a brief presentation regarding the proposed Public Safety
Commission at tonight's study session. The proposal will include a merger of the former
Public Safety Committee at the DB/Walnut Sheriff Station with the City's Traffic and
Transportation Commission. If directed by Council, we will present the appropriate
documents to create the new Public Safety Commission for Council consideration on
March 21, 2006. At that time we will request the existing Traffic and Transportation
Commissioners be automatically appointed as the initial members of the Public Safety
Commission along with one member of the Public Safety Committee. Therefore, it is
appropriate for the Council to appoint members to the Traffic and Transportation
Commission tonight.
PREPARED BY:
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
REVIEWED
David Doyle, AsVLQK Manager
TO:
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA #/SUBJECT:
CITY CLERK
K DATE:
n�
�0` �- -ii.�.�� PHONEgflc'-
I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my
name and address as written above.
Si atur
-k.