Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
07/20/2010
0 City of uiamond Bar City Council Agendi Tuesday, July 20, 2010 6:30 p.m. — Regular Meeting The Government Center South Coast Air Quality Management District/ Main Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Carol Herrera Steve Tye Mayor Mayor ProTem Ling -Ling Chang Ron Everett Jack Tanaka Council Member Council Member Council Member City Manager James DeStefano City Attorney Michael Jenkins City Clerk Tommye Cribbins Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 839-7010 during regular business hours. In an effort to complywith the requirements of Title I/ of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodations) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting. Have online access? City Council Agendas are now available on the City of Diamond Bar's web site at www.CityofDiamondBar.com Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Council Chambers. The City of Diamond Bar uses recycled paper and encourages you to do the same. ..... . . . . . . P DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RULES Welcome to the meeting of the Diamond Bar City CounCU. Meetings are open to the public and are broadcast live on Time -Warner Cable Channel 3 and Verizon Fi{)8bakaVision Channel 47. You are invited tOattend and participate. PUBLIC INPUT K8e0b8re of the public may address the Council on any item of business on the agenda during the time the item is taken Up by the COUDCi[ In addition, 0eDlbe[G of the public may, during the Public Comment period address the Council oDany Consent 'Calendar item orany matter not VOthe agenda and within the Council's subject matter jurisdiction. Persons wishing to speak should submit a speaker slip tothe City Clerk. Any material tobesubmitted t0the City Council stthe meeting should be submitted through the City Clerk. Speakers are limited to five minutes per agenda item' unless the Mayor determines otherwise. The Mayor may @diUEtthis tiDl8liOlitdepending OOthe DUDlberofpeople VViShiOgtOspeak, the CORlpleXity ofthe Dla�er''the length ofthe agenda, the hour and any- other relevant consideration. Speakers may address the Council only once on an agenda item, except during public heahnge. when the applicant/appellant may baafforded arebuttal. Public comments must be directed to the City Council. Behavior thot disrupts the orderly conduct of the nOeetiDg[noyresult inthe speaker being FeOnoved�onithe CoUO�i|chambers. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL Agendas for regular City Council meetings are available 72 hours prior to the meeting and are posted in the City's regular posting locations, on OBlV Channel 3. Time -Warner Cable Channel 3. FiOG television Channel 47and onthe City's website Afull agenda packet is 8V3i|@b|e for [8Vi8VV during the 0BetiDQ, in the foyer 'USt outside the Council ch8nlbB[g. The City Council may take action oOany item listed onthe agenda. ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE DISABLED AcOndkeGS microphone is available for those persons with nnObilh« impairments who cannot 8CCeBa the podium in order to make 8 public COOODl8Ot. Sign language interpretation is gV@i|8b|e by providing the City Clerk three business days' notice inadvance ofemeeting. Please telephone (SDB)O3S-7O1O between 7:3Oo.[n.and 5:3Op.[O.Monday through Thursday and 7:3Da.Ol.tO4:3Op.Ol.nOFridays. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of agendas, rules of the Council, CassetteNideo tapes of meetings: (909) 839-7010 Computer access toagendas: General information: (909) 839-7000 THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE FOR VIEWING ON TIME -WARNER CABLE CHANNEL 3 AND VERIZON ROS TELEVISION CHANNEL 47, AS WELL AS BY STREAMING VIDEO OVER THE INTERNET AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE -BROADCAST EVERY SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AT 9-00 A.M. AND ALTERNATE TUESDAYS AT 8:00 P.M. AND ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FOR LIVE AND ARCHIVED VIEWING ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE AT WWW.Cl.TYOFDIAMONDBAR.COM CALL TO ORDER: INVOCATION: ROLL CALL: CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA July 20, 2010 Next Resolution No. 2010-25 Next Ordinance No. 04 (2010) me Bill • 11715M Pastor Randy Lanthripe Church of the Valley Council Members Chang, Everett, Tanaka, Mayor Pro Tern Tye, Mayor Herrera Mayor 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 1.1 Presentation of a Check in the Amount of $57,557.50 from the Walnut Valley Water District for the City's Water Conservation Program. NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH: 1.2 Presentation of Certificate Plaque to "DA Kine Hawaiian Grindz Restaurant, 958 N. Diamond Bar Blvd., as New Business of the Month, July, 2010. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Written materials distributed to the City Council within 72 hours of the City Council meeting are available for public inspection imfnediately upon distribution in the City Clerk's Office at 21825 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California, during normal business hours. July 20, 2010 ' PAGE 2 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 voluntarV). 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 Concerts in the Park — July 21, 2010 — 6:30 — 8:00 p.m., Doo Wah Riders (Country) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Slogs. Dr. 5.2 Movies Under the Stars — July 21, 2010 — Monsters vs. Aliens Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Spgs. Dr. 5.3 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — July 22, 2010 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.4 Planning Commission Meeting — July 27, 2010 - 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.5 Concerts in the Park — July 28, 2010 - 6:30 — 8:00 p.m., County Line (Contemporary Rock), Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Spgs. Dr. 5.6 Movies Under the Stars — July 28, 2010 — Imagine That — Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Spgs. Dr. 5.7 City Council Meeting — August 3, 2010- 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 City Council Minutes — Regular Meeting of July 6, 2010 — Approve as Submitted. 6.2 Ratification of Check Register — July 1, 2010 through July 14, 2010 totaling $2,002,359.46. July 20, 2010 PAGE 3 Requested by: Finance Department 6.3 Approve the Contract with the Regional Chamber of Commerce — San Gabriel Valley for Business Development and Retention Services in the Amount Not -to -Exceed $12,000. Recommended Action: Approve. Requested by: City Manager 6.4 Adopt Resolution No. 2010 -XX: Authorizing City Staff to Apply for Federal Disaster Relief Funds. Recommended Action: Adopt. Requested by: City Manager 6.5 Adopt Resolution No. 2010 -XX: Authorizing Submittal of a Used Oil Payment Program (OPP) Application to the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute any Agreements, Contracts, and Requests for Payment as Necessary to Implement the Program, Until Rescinded. Recommended Action: Adopt. Requested by: Public Works Department 6,6 Approval of Notice of Completion for Traffic Signal Interconnect Links — Phase 11 Project Along Brea Canyon Rd., Diamond Bar Blvd. Gateway Center Dr. and Golden Spgs. Dr. Recommended Action: Approve. Requested by: Public Works Department 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as matters may be heard. 7.1 Continued Public Hearing- A Public Hearing to Consider Various Actions Pertaining to Site D (a Site Comprised of Approximately 30.36 Acres Located at the Southeast Corner of Brea Canyon Rd. and Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, California (Assessors Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 and 8714-015-001) Including General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2007-04, Specific Plan No. 2007-01 ("Site D Specific Plan"), Tentative Tract Map No. 70687, and Consideration of Certification of Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 (SCH No. 2008021014). July 20, 2010 PAGE 4 (a) Resolution No. 2010 -XX: Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2008021014) and Approving the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program and Adopting Findings of Fact and a Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Site D Specific Plan and Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 for a Site Comprised of Approximately 30.36 Acres Located at the Southeast Corner of Brea Canyon Rd. and Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, California (Assessors Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002- 902, 8714-002-903 and 8714-015-001). (b) Resolution No. 2010 -XX: Approving General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 and Zone Change No. 2007-04 for Property Comprised of Approximately 30.36 Acres Located at the Southeast Corner of Brea Canyon Rd. and Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, California (Assessors Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002- 902, 8714-002-903 and 8714-015-001). (c) Resolution No. 2010 -XX: Approving Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 for Subdivision of 30.36 Acre Site for Residential and Commercial Purposes with 202 -Unit Residential Units and 153,985 Gross Sq. Ft. of Commercial Use on Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Brea Canyon Rd. and Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, California (APN 8714-002-900, 8714-002-903 and 8714- 045-001). (d) Ordinance No. 0X(2010): Approving Zone Change No. 2007-04 Changing the Existing Zoning to Specific Plan for Property Comprised of Approximately 30.36 Acres Located at the Southeast Corner of Brea Canyon Rd. and Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, California, (Assessors Parcel Number 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 and 8714-015-001). (e) Ordinance No. 0X(2010): Approving Site D Specific Plan, Specific Plan No. 2007-01, for Property Comprised of Approximately 30.36 Acres Located at the Southeast Corner of Brea Canyon Rd. and Diamond Bar Blvd., Diamond Bar, California (Assessors Parcel Number 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 and 8714-015-001). Recommended Action: Re -Open the Public Hearing, Receive testimony and direct Staff as necessary. 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None. 9. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: 10. ADJOURNMENT: Agenda No. 6.1 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JULY 6, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Herrera led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Reverend Jeanne Farreau-Sorvillo, Diamond Bar United Church of Christ, gave the invocation. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ling -Ling Chang, Jack Tanaka, Mayor Pro Tern Steve Tye and Mayor Carol Herrera. Absent: Council Member Ron Everett was excused. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle, Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager; Rick Yee, Senior Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer; Isaac Aziz, Network Systems Administrator; Anthony Santos, Management Analyst, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS 1.1 C/Tanaka proclaimed July 2010 Parks and Recreation Month and presented Parks and Recreation Vice -Chairman Dave Grundy with the Proclamation. NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH: 1.2 MPT/Tye presented a City Tile to Mohamad and Amanda Jahan-Bash and students representing Red Dragon Karate Champions Training Center, 341 South Diamond Bar Blvd. as Business of the Month for July 2010. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None Offered. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: None. 5.1 Concerts in the Park — July 7, 2010 — 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., "The Answer" (Classic Rock) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. JULY 6, 2010 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL 5.2 Movies Under the Stars — July 7, 2010 — "Planet 51" — Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 5.3 Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting — July 8, 2010 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Dr. (Dark). 5.4 Planning Commission Meeting — July 13, 2010 — 7:00p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.5 Concerts in the Park — July 14, 2010 — 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., "Suave" (Latin) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 5.6 Movies Under the Stars — July 14, 2010 — Shorts — Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 5.7 City Council Meeting — July 2010 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPT/Tye moved, C/Chang seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Tanaka, MPT/Tye, M/Herrera None Everett 6.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES — Regular Meeting of June 15, 2010 — As submitted. 6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of May 25, 2010. 6.3 RECEIVED AND FILED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of May 27, 2010. 6.4 RECEIVED AND FILED TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of May 13, 2010. 6.5 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER — Dated June 9, 2010 through June 30, 2010 totaling $1,274,349.26. 6.6 APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT— Month of May 2010. 6.7 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH AND 1 OFFICIALS EXTENDING THE CONTRACT PERIOD TO JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011 IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED $35,000. JULY 6, 2010 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL 6.8 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE AGREEMENT WITH TENNIS ANYONE EXTENDING THE CONTRACT PERIOD TO JULY 1, 2010 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2011 IN THE AMOUNT OF $70,000. 6.9 AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO EXCEED PURCHASING AUTHORITY OF $25,000 TO EXTEND VENDOR SERVICES FOR SENIOR AND ADULT EXCURSIONS PROVIDED BY INLAND EMPIRE STAGES LTD., IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED $70,000 FOR FY 2010-11. 6.10 APPROVED EXTENSION OF CITYWIDE GRAFFITI REMOVAL CONTRACT WITH GRAFFITI CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR FY 2010-11 IN THE AMOUNT OF $62,400. 6.11 APPROVED NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR CLEGHORN DR./GOLD NUGGET AVE. NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (NTMP) PROJECT. 6.12 APPROVED LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH CLEAR WIRELESS, LLC, A NEVADA CORPORATION (CLEAR WIRE) TO CONSTRUCT A WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SITE AT PETERSON PARK. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 8.1 APPOINTMENT OF TWO MEMBERS TO THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE: CM/DeStefano explained that the City of D.B. is a charter member of the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority and a member of its City Council sits on that Board. WCCA also has an Advisory Committee that meets separately. Each Member agency of WCCA has the ability to appoint two members to the Advisory Committee. The Council appointed members Stephen Davis and Rick Rogers who have served on the Advisory Committee. Mr. Davis has indicated that he is interested in continuing his service beyond the expiration of July 1. Mr. Rogers however, has indicated in a letter to the City Council his intent to resign to pursue other interests. Technically, the City Council has two appointments to make — one is consideration of the reappointment of Mr. Davis and two is to fill the spot vacated by Mr. Rogers. The positions were opened to the public via the City's website, press releases and articles in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune. As Mr. Davis has served the City well in his capacity during the past two years it is staffs recommendation that the Council consider reappointing Mr. Davis. Further, it is staffs recommendation that Council consider one of the three public members who applied for the seat vacated by Mr. Rogers. JULY 6, 2010 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL M/Herrera asked if anyone who applied wished to speak on behalf of their desire to seek an appointment to the WCCA Advisory Committee. Jennifer Mahlke, one of possible appointees, spoke about her qualifications and her desire to be appointed to the Committee. M/Herrera asked for nominations to the WCCA Advisory Committee. M/Herrera nominated Stephen Davis. MPT/Tye seconded the nomination. With the following Roll Call vote, motion carried 4-0-1 as follows: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: C/Chang, C/Tanaka, MPT/Tye, M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None. ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: C/Evereft MPT/Tye nominated Jennifer Mahlke. C/Chang seconded the nomination. With the following Roll Call vote motion carried 4-0-1 as follows: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: C/Chang, C/Tanaka, MPT/Tye, M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None. ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: C/Evereft 9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Tanaka reported that two weeks ago he attended the League of California Cities Public Safety Committee meeting in Sacramento. He also attended a couple of Neighborhood Watch meetings on Cottonwood Ln. and Gold Canyon Dr.; the Pomona Unified School Board meeting; Lanterman Developmental Center's July 4th Parade; and the City's 4th of July Blast. C/Chang stated that she attended and spoke at the Lorbeer Middle School promotion. She also attended the League of California Cities Prop 22 Strategy Session and 4th of July Blast. She asked staff to look into a parade and/or 5K run/walk to take place prior to the fireworks show and ask the Diamond Bar Community Foundation to participate. MPT/Tye again congratulated Mohamad and Amanda on starting and sustaining their Karate business in D.B. for the past 25 years. He thanked everyone who applied to serve on the WCCA Advisory Committee and congratulated Jennifer Mahlke for being selected to the Committee and said he looked forward to her efforts and input. M/Herrera welcomed the Boy Scouts who were present at tonight's meeting and thanked City staff for their hard work in preparing for the 4th of July Blast. She JULY 6, 2010 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL stated that in these difficult economic times when there are a lot of cities that are making budget cuts and facing severe shortages she was grateful to live in D.B. and that the City's finances are good and solid. D.B. continues to benefit from an outstanding staff that works very, very hard to put on programs for the City's residents. The two big things the residents enjoy are the 4th of July Blast with 10,000 in attendance, and the City's Birthday Party. D.B. continues to promote these great events for the residents as well as the upcoming annual Concerts in the Park and Movies under the Stars, all free to residents. D.B. is able to continue to provide these free events because the City has been very prudent with its expenditures and has managed its money very well over the years. She again commended staff for having such a good handle on the City's finances and the City Council for making good solid decisions for the benefit of the residents. She especially commended staff members who worked on the 4th of July Blast and thanked them for all of their hard work for presenting D.B. with such a great event. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Herrera adjourned the Regular City Council meeting at 7:05 p.m. TOMMYE CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of )2010. r4 A.6 Agenda # A - 2 Meeting Date: July 20, 2010 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: James DeStefano, City Man - 1, TITLE: Ratification of Check Register date July 1, 2010 through July 14, 2010 totaling $2,002,359.46. RECOMMENDATION: Ratify. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Expenditure of $2,002,359.46 in City funds. BACKGROUND: The City has established the policy of issuing accounts payable checks on a weekly basis with City Council ratification at the next scheduled City Council meeting. DISCUSSION: The attached check register containing checks dated July 1, 2010 through July 14, 2010 for $2,002,359.46 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. Linda G. Magnuson Finance Director REVIEWED BY: CW -j Finance f DQector Assistant City Manager Attachments: Affidavit and Check Register — 07/01/10 through 07/14/10. L silk's zMeibl-11AZU" am The attached listings Ofdemands, invoices, and claims iDthe form ofRcheck register including checks dated July 1.2010through July 14.2b10 has been audited and iS certified BSaccurate. Payments have been 8flDVVBdfrom the following funds iOthese BD0OUnlS: Description Amount General Fund $1,357,978.66 Community [rOSupport Fund 500.00 PropA-TnanaitFund 35.066.81 Community OevBlock Grant Fund 39.787.32 Int. Waste Mgt Fund 6.219.44 LLAD38Fund 2.252.18 LLAD3QFund 550.18 LLAD41 Fund 385.09 Self Insurance Fund 491.880.00 Capital Imp Projects Fund 64.140.68 Computer Eq Replacement Fund 13,599.09 Finance Director City of Diamond h• 0 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/8/2010 10 -PP 14 PAYROLL TRANSFER P/R TRANSFER-10/PP 14 001 10200 165,884.84 $178,233.46 7/8/2010 90331 PAYROLL TRANSFER P/R TRANSFER-10/PP 14 112 10200 8,755.84 $29.38 7/8/2010 PAYROLL TRANSFER P/R TRANSFER-10/PP 14 115 10200 2,768.46 7/8/2010 PAYROLL TRANSFER P/R TRANSFER-10/PP 14 125 10200 824.32 7/1/2010 1 90328 999 FOR KIDS COMM ORG SUPPORT FUND 1 0114010 1 42355 1 500.001 $500.00 7/1/2010 90329 HANI ABUERSHAID FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 350.00 $266.68 7/1/2010 HANI ABUERSHAID FACILITY CHRGS-DBC 001 231 -83.32 7/1/2010 90330 AGRICULTURAL COM WGHTS & MEASURES COYOTE CONTROL -MAY 1 0014431 1 45406 370.851 $370.85 7/1/2010 JALLIANT ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC RENEWAL -CRIME INSURANCE 5104081 47200 1 1,419.00 711/2010 90331 ALBERTSONS [SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 1 0015350 1 41200 1 29.381 $29.38 7/1/2010 90332 INSURANCE SERVICES INC SPCL EVENT INS -4TH OF JUL 0015350 45300 1 1,874.00 $3,293.00 7/1/2010 JALLIANT ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC RENEWAL -CRIME INSURANCE 5104081 47200 1 1,419.00 7/1/2010 90333 JALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC SPCL EVENT INS -APR -JUN 10 1 001 1 23004 1 8,184.62 $8,184.62 7/1/2010 JARROWHEAD ARROWHEAD SUPPLIES -WATER DBC 0015333 41200 1 49.53 7/1/2010 90334 FRANKALVARADO RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 60.00 $60.00 711/2010 90335 JAT&T MOBILITY EQ RENTAL -DBC 0015333 42130 12.06 $61.59 7/1/2010 JARROWHEAD ARROWHEAD SUPPLIES -WATER DBC 0015333 41200 1 49.53 7/1/2010 1 90336 JAT&T MOBILITY CELL CHRGS-CMGR 0014030 1 42125 1 54.50 $54.50 7/1/2010 CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL LIGHTING SPPL SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 78.00 7/1/2010 1 90337 PJ BRANNEN ENTERTAINMENT -SR DANCE 1 0015350 1 45300 1 250.00 $250.00 7/1/2010 90338 CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL LIGHTING SPPL SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 130.49 $410.99 7/1/2010 CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL LIGHTING SPPL SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 78.00 7/1/2010 90340 CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL LIGHTING SPPL SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 133.90 $540,092.00 7/1/2010 CALIFORNIA COMMERCIAL LIGHTING SPPL SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 68.60 7/1/2010 1 90339 CALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOC. MTG-CMGR 0014030 1 42325 1 33.00 $33.00 7/1/2010 1 90340 CALIFORNIA JPIA MTG-J GARCIA . 0015510 1 42325 1 50.00 $540,092.00 Page 1 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/112010 7/1/2010 90340... CALIFORNIA JPIA CALIFORNIA JPIA LIABILITY PROG CONTRIBUTN WORKERS COMP PROG-10111 5104081 001 47210 21111 482,726.00 57,316.00 $540,092.00 ... 7/1/2010 1 90341 CAPRCBM ANNL DUES-JUL - JUN 2011 1 0015310 1 42315 1 175.00 $175.00 7/1/2010 1 CAROL DENNIS PROF.SVCS-P/C MTG 0015210 44000 75.00 7/1/2010 1 90342 SHAWN CRAWFORD EXCURSION -DAY CAMP 0015350 42410 600.00 $600.00 7/1/2010 EXCEL LANDSCAPE ADDL MAINT-DIST 39 1395539 42210 137.04 7/1/2010 1 90343 IMYUNG CHOI RECREATION REFUND 1 001 34780 173.00 $173.00 7/1/2010 1 90344 ICHRISTOPHER D RAMOS REIMB-SUPPLIES 0015350 42410 50.00 $50.00 7/1/2010 1 90345 CITY OF HUNTINGTON BEACH EXCURSION -DAY CAMP 0015350 42410 300.00 $300.00 7/1/2010 1 90346 CRAFCO INC SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT 0015554 1 41250 743.85 $743.85 7/1/2010 1 90347 DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIATES INC PROF.SVCS-EN 07-555 001 1 23012 387.23 $387.23 7/1/2010 1 90348 DELTA DENTAL JULY 2010 -DENTAL PREMIUMS 001 21104 3,243:33 $3,243.33 7/1/2010 90349 CAROL DENNIS PROF.SVCS-CC MTG 0014030 44000 400.00 $475.00 7/1/2010 1 CAROL DENNIS PROF.SVCS-P/C MTG 0015210 44000 75.00 7/1/2010 1 90350 IDEPT OF TRANSPORTATION ITRFFC SIGNAL MAINT-APR 0015554 1 45507 551.94 $551.94 7/1/2010 90351 MAINTENANCE JANITORIAL SVCS -DBC JUN 0015333 45300 12,250.83 $12,986.00 7/1/2010 1 JDH DH MAINTENANCE JANITORIAL SVCS-PKS JUN 0015340 1 42210 735.17 1 7/1/2010 90352 DIAMOND BAR SENIOR CITIZENS CLUB REIMB-INSURANCE 1255215 1 44000 1 500.00 $500.00 7/1/2010 EXCEL LANDSCAPE ADDL MAINT-DIST 38 1385538 42210 1,655.35 7/1/2010 1 90353 DUNN'S FENCE COMPANY TEMP FENCING-PANTERA 1 0015340 1 42210 2,725.00 $2,725.00 7/1/2010 90354 EXCEL LANDSCAPE PROF.SVCS-DIST D 0014090 44000 420.00 $2,363.45 7/1/2010 EXCEL LANDSCAPE ADDL MAINT-DIST 38 1385538 42210 1,655.35 7/1/2010 EXCEL LANDSCAPE ADDL MAINT-DIST 41 1415541 42210 151.06 7/1/2010 EXCEL LANDSCAPE ADDL MAINT-DIST 39 1395539 42210 137.04 7/1/2010 1 90355 EXTERIOR PRODUCTS INC BANNERS -CONCERTS IN PK 0015350 1 45305 3,300.001 $3,300.00 Check Date (Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description I Fund/ Dept I Acct# i Amount Notal Check Amount 7/1/2010 1 90356 FUN EXPRESS SUPPLIES -4TH OF JULY 0015350 41200 1 377.20 $377.20 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 07-560 001 34650 -87.50 7/1/2010 1 90357 IRENE GARCIA FENCING -PARKS 0015340 1 42210 1 400.001 $400.00 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECK 0015551 45223 92.40 711/2010 1 90358 GM BUSINESS INTERIORS SUPPLIES -ROAD MAINT 0015510 1 41200 1 1,536.631 $1,536.63 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECK 0015551 45223 297.83 7/1/2010 1 90359 GO LIVE TECHNOLOGY INC PROF.SVCS-CITY VIEW 712 1001 1 23005 1 3,600.00 $3,600.00 7/112010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 07-560 001 23012 350.00 7/1/2010 1 90360 GRAND MOBIL IVEH MAINT-COMM SVCS 0015310 1 42200 1 10.00 $10.00 7/112010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 09-650 001 23012 236.25 7/1/2010 1 90361 TRINI GUTIERREZ RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 57.00 $57.00 7/1/2010 90362 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 09-650 001 34650 -59.06 $1,866.87 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 07-560 001 34650 -87.50 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECK 0015551 45223 238.98 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECK 0015551 45223 92.40 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECK 0015551 45223 127.50 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECK 0015551 45223 297.83 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-PLAN CHECK 0015551 45223 148.91 7/112010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 07-560 001 23012 350.00 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 07-560 001 23012 87.50 7/112010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 09-650 001 23012 236.25 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 09-650 001 23012 59.06 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 03-393 001 23012 300.00 7/1/2010 HALL & FOREMAN, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 03-393 001 23012 75.00 7/1/2010 1 90363 VICTOR HAN RECREATION REFUND 001 34760 1 105.00 $105.00 7/1/2010 90364 MARJORIE HARMAN REFUND -PERMIT 001 34140 42.50 $68.50 7/1/2010 MARJORIE HARMAN REFUND -PERMIT 001 34200 25.00 7/1/2010 MARJORIE HARMAN REFUND -PERMIT 001 34310 1.00 7/1/2010 90365 HIRSCH PIPE AND SUPPLY INC MAINT-PARKS 0015340 42210 185.75 $542.60 7/1/2010 HIRSCH PIPE AND SUPPLY INC MAINT-SYC CYN PK 0015340 1 42210 356.85 Page 3 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/1/2010 90366 BETH HOUSE RECREATION REFUND — 001 34760 95.00 $95.00 7/1/2010 1 90367 JINLAND EMPIRE MAGAZINE AD -JULY 2010 1 0014095 1 42115 1 695.00 $695.00 7/1/2010 90368 INLAND EMPIRE STAGES EXCURSION-L/BEACH TOUR 0015350 45310 1,665.00 $2,487.00 7/1/2010 JINLAND EMPIRE STAGES TRANSPORTATION -EXCURSION 1125350 45310 1 822.00 7/1/2010 90369 KEITH JOHNSON ENTERTAINMENT -SR DANCE 0015350 45300 350.00 $350.00 7!1/2010 AMANDA LAMPA FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA 001 23002 50.00 7/1/2010 90370 JUDICIAL DATA SYSTEMS CORPORATION PARKING CITE ADMIN -MAY 0014411 45405 639.641 $639.64 7!1/2010 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 07-598 001 23012 124.83 7/1/2010 90371 KEEP AMERICA BEAUTIFUL INC PROMO SUPPLIES -CRAYONS 1155516 41400 308.251 $308.25 7/1/2010 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 09-656 001 23012 100.71 7/1!2010 90372 SYLVIA KHOURY RECREATION REFUND 001 34760 235.001 $235.00. 7/1!2010 1 90373 ICINDY KIGHT RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 45.001 $45.00 7!112010 90374 LA MIRADA SPLASH EXCURSION -DAY CAMP 0015350 42410 515.00 $515.00 7/1/2010 1 90375 ILAE ASSOCIATES INC PROF.SVCS-ENG MAR -MAY 0015551 45221 825.001 $825.00 7/1/2010 90376 AMANDA LAMPA FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA 001 36625 25.00 $75.00 7!1/2010 AMANDA LAMPA FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA 001 23002 50.00 7/1/2010 90377 LANTERMAN DEV CENTERICOMM INDUSTRIE 1PARKWAY MAINT-MAY 1 0015558 45503 1,982.76 $1,982.76 7/1/2010 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 10-684 001 23012 310.55 7/1/2010 90378 LEARNING RESOURCES NETWORK IMEMBERSHIP DUES-REC STAFF 0015350 42325 395.00 $395.00 7!1/2010 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 07-598 001 23012 124.83 7!1/2010 1 90379 YEE LEE RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 65.00 $65.00 7/1/2010 90380 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 10-684 001 23012 1,725.30 $4,174.35 7/1/2010 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 10-684 001 23012 310.55 7!1/2010 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 07-598 001 23012 693.50 7!1/2010 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 07-598 001 23012 124.83 7/1/2010 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 09-656 001 23012 559.50 7/1/2010 LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. ADMIN FEE -EN 09-656 001 23012 100.71 City of Diamond Register 07/01/10 thru 07/14/10 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/1/2010 7/1/2010 90380... LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. LEIGHTON & ASSOCIATES, INC. PROF.SVCS-EN 10-690 ADMIN FEE -EN 10-690 001 001 23012 23012 559.29 100.67 $4,174.35 ... 7/1/2010 1 90381 LEWIS ENGRAVING INC. EMP REC PROG-H/R 0014060 1 42347 1 15.14 $15.14 7/1/2010 1PREMIER PAVING INC RETENTION-PROJ #22310 250 20300 -1,496.20 7/1/2010 1 90382 ILIEBERT CASSIDY WHITMORE MEMBERSHIP RENEWAL -10/11 0014020 1 44021 1 3,329.00 $3,329.00 7/1/2010 1 90383 LIVESOUND CONCEPTS ISOUND SYS -4TH OF JULY 1 0015350 1 42130 1 1,480.00 $1,480.00 7/1/2010 1 90384 LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT-APR 1 0015554 1 45507 1 262.42 $262.42. 7/1/2010 1 90385 IMARIA LUK RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 125.00 $125.00 7/1/2010 1 90386 MAGIC AND VARIETY ENTERTAINMENT BALLOONIST -4TH OF JULY 0015350 1 45300 1 1,495.001 $1,495.00 7/1/2010 1 90387 MCE CORPORATION IVEGETATION CONTROL -MAY 1 0015558 1 45508 1 7,199.141 $7,199.14 7/1/2010 1 90388 MEDIEVAL TIMES EXCURSION -DAY CAMP 0015350 1 42410 1 2,262.50 $2,262.50 7/1/2010 1 90389 NICOLE MOLINA RECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 45.00 $45.00 7/1/2010 1 90390 JORANGE COUNTY APA 771:FRNG-G GUBMAN 1 0015210 1 42340 1 20.00 $20.00 7/1/2010 1 90391 LEONARD PEREZ RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34760 1 95.00 $95.00 7/1/2010 1 90392 PRECISION DYNAMICS CORPORATION SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 1 41200 1 222.75 $222.75 7/1/2010 90393 PREMIER PAVING INC CONSTRTN-CLEGHORN 2505510 46412 14,962.00 $13,465.80 7/1/2010 1PREMIER PAVING INC RETENTION-PROJ #22310 250 20300 -1,496.20 7/1/2010 1 90394 PRIORITY MAILING SYSTEMS INC SUPPLIES -INK CARTRIDGE 1 0014090 1 41200 1 268.72 $268.72 7/1/2010 90395 PROFORMA ELEMENT 7 PROMO SUPPLIES -RECYCLING 1155516 41400 352.42 $3,142.73 7/1/2010 PROFORMA ELEMENT 7 PROMO SUPPLIES -RECYCLING 1155516 41400 591.53 7/1/2010 PROFORMA ELEMENT 7 PROMO SUPPLIES -RECYCLING 1155516 41400 2,198.78 7/1/2010 1 90396 PROTECTION ONE INC JALARM SVCS-SYC CYN 0015340 1 42210 1 50.811 $51.57 Page 5 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/1/2010 7/1/2010 90396... PROTECTION ONE INC PROTECTION ONE INC MEMO CREDIT -ALARM SVCS ALARM SVCS -HERITAGE PK 0015340 0015340 42210 42210 -91.58 92.34 $51.57 ... 7/1/2010 90397 IPUBLIC STORAGE #23051 STORAGE RENTAL -UNIT 2303 0014090 1 42140 1 122.00 $122.00 7/1/2010 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC TRFFC SIGNAL MAINT-MAY 0015554 45507 1 2,148.50 1 7/1/2010 90398 PYRO SPECTACULARS INC FIREWORKS -4TH OF JULY 0015350 45300 6,150.001 $6,150.00 7/1/2010 1 90399 IREINBERGER PRINTWERKS PRINT SVCS -BUS CARDS 0014095 42110 142.68 $142.68 7/1/2010 90400 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC TRFFC SIGNAL MAINT-MAY 0015554 45507 4,190.00 $6,338.50 7/1/2010 REPUBLIC ELECTRIC TRFFC SIGNAL MAINT-MAY 0015554 45507 1 2,148.50 1 7/1/2010 90401 JENNIFER RIVERA RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 95.00 $95.00 7/1/2010 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CITY MGR ASSC MTG-CMGR 001 25500 1 -100.00 7/1/2010 90402 RJ NOBLE COMPANY IRETENTION PROJ #24108 250 20300 30,105.32 $30,105.32 7/1/2010 1 90403 RONALD M EVERETT REIMB-SCAG CONF 0014010 42330 107.001 $107.00 7/1/2010 90404 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CITY MGR ASSC MTG-CMGR 0014030 42325 100.00 $7,832.27 7/1/2010 SAN GABRIEL VALLEY CITY MGR ASSC MTG-CMGR 001 25500 1 -100.00 7/1/2010 1 90405 SEQUEL CONTRACTORS INC IRETENTION PAYABLE -GRAND 250 20300 7,832.27 $7,832.27 7/1/2010 SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC DESIGN SVCS-P/INFO 0014096 44000 2,510.34 7/1/2010 1 90406 SIGN CONTRACTORS INC BANNERS -ARMED FORCES 0015350 45300 2,006.551 $2,006.55 7/1/2010 90407 SILVER STATE COACH INC TRANSPORTATION -EXCURSION 1125350 45310 640.00 $640.00 7/1/2010 90408 SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC PRINT SVCS-P/INFO 0014095 44000 1,875.00 $4,385.34 7/1/2010 SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC DESIGN SVCS-P/INFO 0014096 44000 2,510.34 7/1/2010 1 90409 BIKRAM SINGH RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34780 1 84.001 $84.00 7/1/2010 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL 0015510 42126 530.02 7/1/2010 1 90410 ISJC 3 CONSULTING HIP PROG-MAY 2010 1255215 1 44000 4,050.00 $4,050.00 7/1/2010 90411 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL 0015510 42126 295.04 $1,346.00 7/1/2010 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL 0015510 42126 530.02 7/1/2010 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL 0015510 42126 520.94 = Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # I Amount I Total Check Amount 7/1/2010 90412 SOUTHWEST SALES INC SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 41200 419.03 $549.41 7/1/2010 ISOUTHWEST SALES INC SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 41200 1 130.38 1 7/1/2010 1 90413 THE ANSWERBAND INC BAND -CONCERT IN PARK 1 0015350 45305 1,200.00 $1,200.00 7/1/2010 VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE MAINT INC LANDSCAPE MAINT-PARKS 0015340 45300 4.111 7/1/2010 1 90414 THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR LEGAL AD -ROAD MAINT 0015510 42115 158.00 $158.00 7/1/2010 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL CHRGS-DESFORGES 0014070 42125 45.01 7/1/2010 90415 TIME WARNER MODEM SVCS -COUNCIL 0014010 42130 48.99 $48.99 7/1/2010 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL CHRGS-LASD MODEM 0014411 42125 45.01 7/1/2010 1 90416 TIME WARNER MODEM SVCS -COUNCIL 0014010 1 42130 1 48.99 $48.99 7/1/2010 1 90417 ITRES HERMANOS CONSERVATION AUTHORIT IMEMBER CONTRIBUTION -09/10 1 0014090 1 44000 1 5,000.001 $5,000.00 7/1/2010 1 90418 ICHIA HUA TU REFUND -TRANSIT TICKET 1112 1 34850 1 158.60 $158.60 7/112010 90419 IYEMI UBAJEKWE IRECREATION REFUND 001 1 34780 1 80.001 $80.00 711/2010 1 90420 US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICAL 1 0014060 1 42345 1 168.00 $168.00 7/1/2010 90421 VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE MAINT INC LANDSCAPE MAINT-DBC JUN0015333 0014030 45300 5,645.47 $30,249.58 1 7/1/2010 VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE MAINT INC LANDSCAPE MAINT-PARKS 0015340 45300 4.111 7/1/2010 90422 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL CHRGS-CMGR 0014030 42125 120.42 $323.12 7/1/2010 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL CHRGS-EOC 0014440 42125 57.83 7/1/2010 90424 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL CHRGS-EOC 0014090 42125 9.82 $436.32 7/1/2010 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL CHRGS-DESFORGES 0014070 42125 45.01 7/1/2010 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL CHRGS-I.T. 0014070 42125 45.03 7/1/2010 VERIZON WIRELESS CELL CHRGS-LASD MODEM 0014411 42125 45.01 7/1/2010 1 90423 VISION INTERNET PROVIDERS INC COMP MAINT-P/INFO 0014070 42205 4,500.00 $4,500.00 7/1/2010 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL ADMIN FEE -EN 10-680 001 34650 -133.20 7/1/2010 1 90424 WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 436.32 $436.32 7/1/2010 90425 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL ADMIN FEE -EN 10-683 001 34650 -66.60 $1,110.00 7/1/2010 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL ADMIN FEE -EN 10-680 001 34650 -133.20 7/112010 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL PROF.SVCS-EN 10-680 001 23012 740.00 'm Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/1/2010 90425... WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL ADMIN FEE -EN 10-680 001 23012 133.20 $1,110.00 ... 711/2010 90427 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL PROF.SVCS-EN 10-683 001 23012 370.00 $95.00 7/1/2010 WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL ADMIN FEE -EN 10-683 001 23012 66.60 7/1/2010 90426 JUDY YANG RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34760 140.00 $140.00 7/8/2010 AT & T PH.SVCS-GENERAL 0014090 1 42125 30.59 7/1/2010 90427 PATRICK ZHANG RECREATION REFUND 001 34760 95.00 $95.00 7/8/2010 90428 ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVICES INC LIABILITY INS -TEEN N/OUT 0015350 1 45300 1 391.371 $391.37 7/8/2010 1 90429 JUSTINE ALVAREZ FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 001 23002 50.00 $50.00 7/8/2010 1 90430 IFELIXAQUINO FACILITYREFUND-PANTERA 001 23002 50.00 $50.00 7/8/2010 1 90431 JARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC IDESIGN SVCS -MINI PARKS 2505310 46415 2,737.30 $2,737.30 7/8/2010 90432 AT & T PH.SVCS-GENERAL 0014090 42125 40.30 $70.89 7/8/2010 AT & T PH.SVCS-GENERAL 0014090 1 42125 30.59 7/8/2010 90433 AT&T MOBILITY CELL CHRGS-POOH VEH 0014090 42125 11.06 $22.12 7/8/2010 AT&T MOBILITY CELL CHRGS-POOH VEH 0014090 42125 11.06 7/8/2010 90434 ROSEANGELI AYSON IFACILITY REFUND-REAGAN 001 23002 50.00 $50.00 7/8/2010 90435 RAFAELA BACA FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 500.00 $398.00 7/8/2010 RAFAELA BACA FACILITY CHARGES -DBC 001 36615 -102.00 7/8/2010 1 90436 JJARIZZ BARROGA IFACILITY REFUND-PANTERA 001 1 23002 1 50.00 $50.00 7/8/2010 90437 BASHFORD ENTERPRISES RETENTION PAYALBE 125 20300 -1,493.60 $13,442.40 7/8/2010 BASHFORD ENTERPRISES HIP PROG-435 WILLAPA 1255215 44000 14,936.00 7/8/2010 90438 BEAR STATE AIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN MAINT-DBC JUN 2010 0015333 45300 773.00 $1,013.00 7/8/2010 BEAR STATE AIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN MAINT-HERITAGE JUN 0015340 42210 155.00 7/8/2010 BEAR STATE AIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN MAINT-PANTERA JUN 0015340 42210 85.00 Page 8 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/8/2010 90439 BENESYST 7/9/2010-P/R DEDUCTIONS 001 21105 722.01 $722.01 7/8/2010 1 90440 CALIFORNIA JPIA IPROPERTY INS -FY 10/11 5104081 1 47200 1 7,735.00 $7,735.00 7/8/2010 90441 CAPIO MEMBERSHIP DUES-ARELLANO 0014095 42315 225.00 $675.00 7/8/2010 CAPIO MEMBERSHIP DUES -HIDALGO 0014095 42315 225.00 7/8/2010 90443 CAPIO MEMBERSHIP DUES -ROA 0014095 42315 225.00 $50.00 7/8/2010 1 90442 CARE FOR THE CHILDREN REFUND -EN 10-687 001 1 23012 1 1,000.00 $1,000.00 7/8/2010 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. HP SERVERS-I.T. 5304070 46230 12,067.02 7/8/2010 1 90443 CYNTHIA CASTANON IFACILITY REFUND-REAGAN 001 23002 50.001 $50.00 7/8/2010 90444 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. COMP SOFTWARE-I.T. 5304070 46230 1,190.00 $13,599.09 7/8/2010 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. HP SERVERS-I.T. 5304070 46230 12,067.02 7/8/2010 90447 CDW GOVERNMENT INC. COMP EQ-I.T. 5304070 46230 342.07 $50.00 7/8/2010 90445 SANJAY CHAUHAN REFUND -EN 02-348 001 23012 173.25 $173.25 7/8/2010 SANJAY CHAUHAN ADMIN FEE -EN 02-348 001 23012 296.10 7/8/2010 90447 SANJAY CHAUHAN ADMIN FEE -EN 02-348 001 .34650 -296.10 $50.00 7/8/2010 1 90446 CHRIS CHEN FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 36615 400.00 $400.00 7/8/2010 DFS FLOORING CORP MAINT-PANTERA JUNE 10 0015340 42210 385.00 7/8/2010 1 90447 ROBERT CHILI FACILITY REFUND-REAGAN 001 23002 50.00 $50.00 7/8/2010 1 90448 IGRACE CHUNG FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 100.00 $100.00 7/8/2010 1 90449 D & J MUNICIPAL SERVICES INC JBLDG & SFTY SVCS -JUN 0015220 45201 18,491.35 $18,491.35 7/8/2010 1 90450 DELTA CARE USA JULY 2010 -DENTAL PREMIUMS 001 1 21104 310.66 $310.66 7/8/2010 90451 DFS FLOORING CORP MAINT-DBC JUN 2010 0015333 42210 1,085.00 $1,855.00 7/8/2010 DFS FLOORING CORP MAINT-PANTERA JUNE 10 0015340 42210 385.00 7/8/2010 DFS FLOORING CORP MAINT-HERITAGE JUN 10 0015340 42210 385.00 7/8/2010 90452 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 41200 119.85 $227.66 7/8/2010 DISCOUNT SCHOOL SUPPLY SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 41200 1 107.81 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/8/2010 90453 FRED DURAN ENTERTAINMENT -TEEN NIGHT 0015350 45300 250.00 $250.00 7/8/2010 90454 ELITE CONSTRUCTION RETENTION PAYABLE 125 20300 -418.90 $3,770.10 7/8/2010 ELITE CONSTRUCTION HIP PROG-758 NEWBURY 1255215 1 44000 4,189.00 7/8/2010 90455 CRISTINA EVANGELISTA FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 100.00 $16.68 7/8/2010 CRISTINA EVANGELISTA FACILITY CHARGES -DBC 001 23004 -83.32 7/8/2010 90456 EVERGREEN INTERIORS PLANT SVCS -DBC JUN 2010. 0015333 45300 177.00 $1,036.00 7/8/2010 EVERGREEN INTERIORS PLANT SVCS -HERITAGE 0015340 42210 135.00 7/8/2010 EVERGREEN INTERIORS PLANT MAINT-C/HALL MAY 0014090 42210 230.00 7/8/2010 EVERGREEN INTERIORS PLANT MAINT-C/HALL JUN 0014090 42210 230.00 718/2010 EVERGREEN INTERIORS PLANT MAINT-LIBRARY MAY 0014090 42210 107.00 7/8/2010 EVERGREEN INTERIORS PLANT MAINT-LIBRARY JUN 0014090 42210 107.00 7/8/2010 EVERGREEN INTERIORS REPLANTING -LIBRARY MAY 0014090 42210 50.00 7/8/2010 90457 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL -DBC JUN 0015333 45300 75.00 $235.00 7/8/2010 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL -DBC JUN 0015333 45300 40.00 7/8/2010 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL -PETERSON PK 0015340 42210 50.00 7/8/2010 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC PEST CONTROL -HERITAGE 0015340 42210 40.00 7/8/2010 EXTERMINETICS OF SO CAL INC MAINT-PANTERA 0015340 42210 30.00 7/8/2010 90458 FAMILY KEEPERS FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 600.00 $700.00 718/2010 IFAMILY KEEPERS FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 100.00 7/8/2010 90459 FEDEX EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL 0014090 42120 73.79 $170.63 7/8/2010 FEDEX EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL 0014090 42120 1. 96.84 7/8/2010 90460 KAUSUALYA HETTIARAICHI FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 700.00 $478.00 7/8/2010 KAUSUALYA HETTIARAICHI FACILITY CHARGES -DBC 001 36615 -222.00 1 7/8/2010 1 90461 MARTAWIBAWA INDRIANTI FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA 001 1 23002 1 50.00 $50.00 7/8/2010 90462 JK CONSTRUCTION RETENTION PAYABLE 125 20300 -1,010.00 $16,090.00 7/8/2010 JK CONSTRUCTION HIP PROG-23411 ROBINBROOK 1255215 44000 7,000.00 7/8/2010 JK CONSTRUCTION HIP PROG-356 GUNSMOKE 1255215 44000 10,100.00 •� 7/8/2010 90471 JANET LIAO FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 350.00 $200.00 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/8/2010 90463 CRAIG JOHNSON RECREATION REFUND 001 34760 60.00 $60.00 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA CITY SUBSIDY -APR 2010 1125553 45533 37.20 718/2010 90464 SILVANA KEMBLE IRECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 77.001 $77.00 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA CITY SUBSIDY -MAY 2010 1125553 45533 49.60 7/8/2010 1 90465 LANDY KWANG RECREATION REFUND 001 134780 1 250.00 $250.00 7/8/2010 1 90466 CITY OF LA VERNE PRKG CITE HRGS-JUN 2010 0014411 1 45405 1 150.00 $150.00 7/8/2010 1 90467 IMELISSA LANDIS FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN 1 001 1 23002 1 50.00 $50.00 7/8/2010 1 90468 IN SOCK LEE FACILITY REFUND -DBC 1 001 1 23002 1 100.001 $100.00 7/8/2010 1 90469 YEE LEE IRECREATION REFUND 001 1 34780 1 77.00 $77.00 7/8/2010 1 90470 ILEWIS ENGRAVING INC. BADGE -HIR 0014060 1 42347 1 11.25 $11.25 7/8/2010 90471 JANET LIAO FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 350.00 $200.00 7/8/2010 JANET LIAO FACILITY CHARGES -DBC 001 36615 -150.00 1 7/8/2010 1 90472 ILIVESOUND CONCEPTS ISOUND SYS -CONCERT IN PK 0015350 1 45305 1 $640.00 7/8/2010 90473 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA MTA PASSES -MAY 2010 1125553 45535 3,477.25 $4,916.50 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA CITY SUBSIDY -MAY 2010 1125553 45533 1,005.25 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA MTA PASSES -APR 2010 1125553 45535 148.80 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA CITY SUBSIDY -APR 2010 1125553 45533 37.20 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA MTA PASSES -MAY 2010 1125553 45535 198.40 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA CITY SUBSIDY -MAY 2010 1125553 45533 49.60 7/8/2010 1 90474 LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS SUMP PUMP MAINT-MAY 0015340 1 42210 1 53.11 $53.11 7/8/2010 90475 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. STAR DEPUTY SVCS -APR 0014411 45401 8,790.38 $844,821.35 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. CONTRACT SVCS -APR 2.010 0014411 45401 401,239.11 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. STAR DEPUTY SVCS -MAY 0014411 45401 8,790.68 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. CALVARY CHAPEL -APR 2010 0014411 45402 6,437.78 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. CLAVARY CHAPEL -MAY 2010 0014411 45402 8,196.41 Page 11 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/8/2010 90475... LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. TRANSIT SALES -APR 2010 1125553 45402 129.22 $844,821.35 ... 7/8/2010 90477 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. TRANSIT SALES -MAY 2010 1125553 45402 129.22 $50.00 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. HELICOPTER SVCS -MARCH 10 0014411 45401 576.62 7/8/2010 90478 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. CONTRACT SVCS -MAY 2010 0014411 45401 401,741.25 $3,823.11 7/8/2010 LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT. STAR DEPUTY SVCS -JUNE 10 0014411 45401 8,790.68 7/8/2010 1 90476 TERESA MARQUEZ RECREATION REFUND 001 34740 79.00 $79.00 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 0015350 41200 151.89 7/8/2010 90477 CARRIE MORITA IFACILITY REFUND -HERITAGE 001 23002 50.001 $50.00 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-P/WORKS 0015510 41200 21.69 7/8/2010 90478 MUNICIPAL CODE CORPORATION IMUNI CODES -CITY CLERK 0014030 44000 3,823.111 $3,823.11 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -CITY MANAGER 0014030 41200 78.58 7/8/2010 90479 VICTORIA NAZARENO IFACILITY REFUND -HERITAGE 001 23002 200.00 $200.00 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -CITY MANAGER 0014030 41200 4.65 7/8/2010 1 90480 JESSICA NUNEZ IFACILITY REFUND -MAPLE HIL 001 23002 50.00 $50.00 7/8/2010 90481 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 0015350 41200 20.11 $2,167.76 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS 0015350 41200 151.89 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-PMORKS 0015510 41200 12.46 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-P/WORKS 0015510 41200 21.69 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -CITY MANAGER 0014030 41200 31.13 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -CITY MANAGER 0014030 41200 78.58 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -CITY MANAGER 0014030 41200 42.28 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -CITY MANAGER 0014030 41200 4.65 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -FINANCE 0014050 41200 57.80 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-H/R 0014060 41200 20.22 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES-I.T. 0014070 41200 31.60 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 430.29 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 53.85 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 21.51 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 315.56 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 3.51 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 35.26 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 7.75 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 186.27 Page 12 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/8/2010 90481... OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 15.02 $2,167.76... 7/8/2010 90483 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -GENERAL 0014090 41200 20.94 $840.57 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 209.19 7/8/2010 90487 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 245.14 $52.42 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 135.75 7/8/2010 OFFICEMAX INC SUPPLIES -DBC 0015333 41200 15.31 $54.08 7/8/2010 1 90482 IPACIFIC MH CONSTRUCTION INC HIP PROG-20949 MOONLAKE 1255215 1 44000 1 1,110.50 $1,110.50 7/8/2010 PERS RETIREMENT FUND RETIRE CONTRIB-EE 001 21109 10,979.13 7/8/2010 90483 PAETEC COMMUNICATIONS INC. LONG DIST CHRGS-GENERAL 0014090 1 42125 840.571 $840.57 7/8/2010 90484 PERS RETIREMENT FUND RETIRE CONTRIB-ER 001 21109 16,982.75 $28,009.31 7/8/2010 PERS RETIREMENT FUND RETIRE CONTRIB-EE 001 21109 10,979.13 7/8/2010 90486 PERS RETIREMENT FUND SURVIVOR BENEFIT 001 21109 47.43 $2,859.50 7/8/2010 90485 PLAY WELL TEKNOLOGIES ICONTRACT CLASS -SUMMER 0015350 1 45320 4,195.20 $4,195.20 7/8/2010 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER CITY SUBSIDY -MAY 2010 1125553 45533 1,962.70 7/8/2010 90486 POMONA JUDICIAL DISTRICT PARKING CITATION FEES -MAY 0014090 42110 2,859.50 $2,859.50 7/8/2010 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER CITY SUBSIDY -APR 2010 1125553 45533 1,940.39 7/8/2010 1 90487 PRECISION DYNAMICS CORPORATION SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 1 0015350 1 41200 1 52.421 $52.42 7/8/2010 190488 PROTECTION ONE INC ALARM SVCS -DBC 0015333 42210 54.08 $54.08 7/8/2010 1 90489 RAQUEL PUERTA IRECREATION REFUND 001 34780 120.00 $120.00 7/8/2010 1 90490 UMA PURI FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 500.00 $500.00 7/8/2010 1 90491 SEUNGHEE PYIO RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34780 1 84.00 $84.00 7/8/2010 90492 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER TAP PASSES -MAY 2010 1125553 45535 7,850.79 $19,515.43 7/8/2010 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER CITY SUBSIDY -MAY 2010 1125553 45533 1,962.70 7/8/2010 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER TAP PASSES -APR 2010 1125553 45535 7,761.55 7/8/2010 REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CENTER CITY SUBSIDY -APR 2010 1125553 45533 1,940.39 7/8/2010 1 90493 MICHELLE RIVERA IRECREATION REFUND 1 001 1 34780 1 120.00 $120.00 Page 13 1pil,�Ipllil 111111 11 Jill III JAM Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/8/2010 90494 S & S WORLDWIDE INC SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 41200 179.55 $834.19 7/8/2010 90496 S & S WORLDWIDE INC SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 41200 263.00 $1,350.00 7/8/2010 S & S WORLDWIDE INC SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 . 41200 391.64 7/8/2010 1 90495 SCAN NATOA MEMBERSHIP DUES -FY 10111 0014095 1 42315 1 75.00 $75.00 7/8/2010 SMART & FINAL SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 41200 234.91 7/8/2010 1 90496 ED SLEDGE EQ RENTAL -TEEN NIGHT OUT 0015350 1 45300 1,350.00 $1,350.00 7/8/2010 90497 SMART & FINAL SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 41200 395.15 $1,043.43 7/8/2010 SMART & FINAL SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 41200 234.91 7/8/2010 90500 SMART & FINAL SUPPLIES -DAY CAMP 0015350 41200 237.58 $834.50 7/8/2010 SMART & FINAL SUPPLIES -SR BINGO 0015350 41200 175.79 7/8/2010 90498 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -DIST 38 1385538 42126 24.88 $8,706.80 718/2010 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL 0015510 42126 2,213.33 7/8/2010 90500 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL 0015510 42126 246.82 $834.50 7/8/2010 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -TRAFFIC CONTRL 0015510 42126 742.21 7/8/2010 90504 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -PARKS 0015340 42126 4,260.44 $382.38 7/8/2010 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -DIST 38 1385538 42126 571.95 7/8/2010 90505 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -DIST 39 1395539 42126 413.14 $160.00 7/8/2010 SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON ELECT SVCS -DIST 41 1415541 42126 234.03 7/8/2010 90499 SUAVE THE BAND BAND -CONCERT IN PARK 0015350 1 45305 1 1,000.00 $1,000.00 7/8/2010 THE GAS COMPANY GAS SVCS -DBC 0015333 42126 1 424.46 7/8/2010 90500 THE COMDYN GROUP INC PROF.SVCS-GIS WK 6/18 0014070 1 44000 1 834.50 $834.50 7/8/2010 90501 THE GAS COMPANY GAS SVCS-HRTG COMM CTR 0015340 42126 1 54.99 $479.45 7/8/2010 THE GAS COMPANY GAS SVCS -DBC 0015333 42126 1 424.46 7/8/2010 1 90502 DOROTHY THOMPSON IFACILITY REFUND -HERITAGE 001 1 23002 1 50.00 $50.00 7/8/2010 1 90503 TIME WARNER IMODEM SVCS -HERITAGE 0015340 1 42126 1 116.01 $116.01 7/8/2010 1 90504 ITNT PRINTING PRINT SVCS -DBC 0015333 1 42110 1 382.381 $382.38 7/8/2010 1 90505 TRI -CITIES POOL SERVICE & REPAIR IFOUNTAIN MAINT-DBC MAY 0015333 1 45300 1 160.001 $160.00 Page 14 7/8/2010 1 90508 BRECK VELASCO FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 700.00 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name BRECK VELASCO Transaction Description 001 Fund/ Dept Acct# Amount Total Check Amount 90511 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-DIAL IN MODEM 0014090 42125 76.89 $231.15 7/8/2010 7/8/2010 1 90506 VALLEY TROPHY SUPPLIES -RECREATION 0015350 1 41200 1 653.00 $653.00 7/8/2010 90512 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-GENERAL 0014090 42125 $28,709.40 7/8/2010 1 90507 IVANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-303248 7/9/10-P/R DEDUCTIONS 001 21108 1 28,709.40 7/8/2010 1 90508 BRECK VELASCO FACILITY REFUND -DBC 001 23002 700.00 $400.00 7/8/2010 1 BRECK VELASCO IFACILITY CHARGES -DBC 001 36615 -300.00 1 7/8/2010 90509 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-DBC 0015333 42125 265.38 $577.36 7/8/2010 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-DBC 0015333 42125 109.39 7/8/2010 90511 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-DIAL IN MODEM 0014090 42125 76.89 $231.15 7/8/2010 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-DATA MODEM 0014090 42125 36.55 7/8/2010 90512 VERIZON CALIFORNIA PH.SVCS-GENERAL 0014090 42125 89.15 $700.00 7/8/2010 1 90510 MARCIA WALL FACILITY REFUND -HERITAGE 1 001 1 23002 1 200.00 $200.00 7/8/2010 WIMPLUS INC IREFUND GRADING BOND 001 23001 1 3,915.00 7/8/2010 1 90511 IWAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY SUPPLIES -PARKS 0015340 1 41200 1 231.15 $231.15 7/8/2010 WINZLER & KELLY ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608 001 23012 1,082.18 7/8/2010 1 90512 WEST COAST MEDIA AD -JULY CONCERTS/MOVIES 0014095 1 42115 1 700.00 $700.00 7/8/2010 90513 WIMPLUS INC REFUND -EN 03-393 001 23012 17424.08 $5,339.08 7/8/2010 WIMPLUS INC IREFUND GRADING BOND 001 23001 1 3,915.00 7/8/2010 90514 WINZLER & KELLY PROF.SVCS-EN 08-608 001 23012 380.00 $25,529.00 7/8/2010 WINZLER & KELLY ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608 001 23012 38.00 7/8/2010 WINZLER & KELLY PROF.SVCS-EN 08-608 001 23012 10,821.80 7/8/2010 WINZLER & KELLY ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608 001 23012 1,082.18 7/8/2010 WINZLER & KELLY PROF.SVCS-EN 08-608 001 23012 6,718.30 7/8/2010 WINZLER & KELLY ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608 001 23012 671.83 7/8/2010 WINZLER & KELLY PROF.SVCS-EN 08-608 001 23012 7,608.90 7/8/2010 WINZLER & KELLY ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608 001 23012 760.89 7/8/2010 WINZLER & KELLY ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608 001 34650 -38.00 7/8/2010 WINZLER & KELLY ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608 001 34650 -1,082.18 7/8/2010 WINZLER & KELLY ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608 001 34650 -671.83 7/8/2010 WINZLER & KELLY ADMIN FEE -EN 08-608 001 34650 -760.89 Page 15 Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # Amount Total Check Amount 7/8/2010 90515 PING Yl RECREATION REFUND 001 34780 105.00 $105.00 7/8/2010 1 90516 JULIE ZULLO RECREATION REFUND 001 1 34780 1 171.00 $171.00 $2,002,359.46 Page 16 CITY COUNCIL Agenda # 6.3 Meeting Date: July 20, 2010 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City ManagV TITLE: APPROVE THE CONTRACT W11H THE REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE— SAN GABRIEL VALLEY FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $12,000. Approve. Fd f i7ml, 1 rel fil I I Vi XOT",ft 6 There are sufficient funds allocated in the FY 2010-11 budget. DISCUSSION: The Regional Chamber of Commerce—San Gabriel Valley (Chamber) serves businesses in Diamond Bar, Walnut, Hacienda Heights, Rowland Heights, La Puente and Valinda. The Chamber has been active during the past year with economic development and business retention services within the City of Diamond Bar. It has conducted several grand opening and ribbon cutting ceremonies, as well as distributing City information through the Chamber's Business Newsletter. Similar to the previous contract, the Chamber will provide the services described in Exhibit A, which include the continuation of its Grand Opening events, small business assistance training and development opportunities, and provide the City with information on available commercial and office space in the City. Although the Chamber's offices are no longer included in Diamond Bar, the Chamber is committed to continuing to provide high quality services to Diamond Bar businesses. It is recommended that the City Council approve the contract with the Chamber in the amount not to exceed $12,000 for FY 2010-11. Prepared by Anthony Santos Management Analyst Reviewed DO David Doyle Assistant City Manager Attachment: 1. Consulting Services Agreement. 2. Exhibit A. CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made as of , 2010 by and between the City of Diamond Bar, a municipal corporation ("City") and Regional Chamber of Commerce—San Gabriel Valley, ("Consultant"). RECITALS A. City desires to utilize the services of Consultant as an independent contractor to provide consulting services to City as set forth in Exhibit "A". B. Consultant represents that it is fully qualified to perform such consulting services by virtue of its experience and the training, education and expertise of its principals and employees. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of performance by the parties of the covenants and conditions herein contained, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Consultant's Services. A. Scope of Services. The nature and scope of the specific services to be performed by Consultant are as described in Exhibit "A". B. Level of Services/Time of Performance. The level of and time of the specific services to be performed by Consultant are as set forth in Exhibit "A." 2. Term of Agreement. This Contract shall take effect July 1, 2010, and shall continue until June 30, 2011, unless earlier terminated pursuant to the provisions herein. 3. Compensation. City agrees to compensate Consultant for each service which Consultant performs to the satisfaction of City in compliance with the schedule set forth in Exhibit "A." Payment will be made only after submission of proper invoices in the form specified by City. Total payment to Consultant pursuant to this Agreement shall not exceed twelve thousand dollars ($12,000). 4. General Terms and Conditions. In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Agreement and Consultant's proposal, the provisions of this Agreement shall control. 5. Addresses. City: Consultant: James DeStefano, City Manager Heidi Gallegos, Executive Director City of Diamond Bar Regional Chamber of Commerce 21825 Copley Drive 19720 E. Walnut Drive South, Suite 201 Diamond Bar, CA 91765-4178 Walnut, CA 91789 6. Status as Independent Contractor. A. Consultant is, and shall at all times remain as to City, a wholly independent contractor. Consultant shall have no power to incur any debt, obligation, or liability on behalf of City or otherwise act on behalf of City .as an agent. Neither City nor any of its agents shall have control over the conduct of Consultant or any of Consultant's employees, except as set forth in this Agreement. Consultant shall not, at any time, or in any manner, represent that it or any of its agents or employees are in any manner agents or employees of City. B. Consultant agrees to pay all required taxes on amounts paid to Consultant under this Agreement, and to indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all taxes, assessments, penalties, and interest asserted against City by reason of the independent contractor relationship created by this Agreement. In the event that City is audited by any Federal or State agency regarding the independent contractor status of Consultant and the audit in any way fails to sustain the validity of a wholly independent contractor relationship between City and Consultant, then Consultant agrees to reimburse City for all costs, including accounting and attorney's fees, arising out of such audit and any appeals relating thereto. C. Consultant shall fully comply with the workers' compensation law regarding Consultant and Consultant's employees. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with applicable worker's compensation laws. City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement any amount due to City from Consultant as a result of Consultant's failure to promptly pay to City any reimbursement or indemnification arising under this Section 6. D. Consultant shall, at Consultant's sole cost and expense fully secure and comply with all federal, state and local governmental permit or licensing requirements, including but not limited to the City of Diamond Bar, South Coast Air Quality Management District, and California Air Resources Board. Consultant further agrees to indemnify and hold City harmless from any failure of Consultant to comply with the requirements in Section 6. Additionally, the City shall have the right to offset against the amount of any fees due to Consultant under this Agreement for any amount or penalty levied against the City for Consultant's failure to comply with Section 6. 7. Standard of Performance. Consultant shall perform all work at the standard of care and skill ordinarily exercised by .members of the profession under similar conditions. 8. Indemnification. Consultant shall indemnify, defend with counsel approved by City, and hold harmless City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers from and against all liability, loss, damage, expense, cost (including without limitation reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation) of every nature arising out of or in connection with Consultant 's performance of work hereunder or its failure to comply with any of its obligations contained in this Agreement, regardless of City's passive negligence, but excepting such loss or damage which is caused by the sole active negligence or willful misconduct of the City. Should City in its sole discretion find Consultant's legal counsel unacceptable, then Consultant shall reimburse the City its costs of defense, including without limitation reasonable attorneys fees, expert fees and all other costs and fees of litigation. The Consultant shall promptly pay any final judgment rendered against the City (and its officers, officials, employees and volunteers) covered by this indemnity obligation. It is expressly understood and agreed that the foregoing provisions are intended to be as broad and inclusive as is permitted by the law of the State of California and will survive termination of this Agreement. 9. Insurance. Consultant shall at all times during the term of this Agreement carry, maintain, and keep in full force and effect, with an insurance company admitted to do business in California and approved by the City (1) a policy or policies of broad -form comprehensive general liability insurance with minimum limits of $1,000,000.00 combined single limit coverage against any injury, death, loss or damage as a result of wrongful or negligent acts by Consultant, its officers, employees, agents, and independent contractors in performance of services under this Agreement; (2) property damage insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00; (3) automotive liability insurance, with minimum combined single limits coverage of $500,000.00; (4) professional liability insurance (errors and omissions) to cover or partially cover damages that may be the result of errors, omissions, or negligent acts of Consultant, in an amount of not less than $1,000,000 per occurrence and at least $1,000,000 aggregate; and (5) worker's compensation insurance with a minimum limit of $500,000.00 or the amount required by law, whichever is greater. City, its officers, employees, attorneys, and volunteers shall be named as additional insureds on the policy(ies) as to comprehensive general liability, property damage, and automotive liability. The policy (ies) as to comprehensive general liability, property damage, and automobile liability shall provide that they are primary, and that any insurance maintained by the City shall be excess insurance only. A. All insurance policies shall provide that the insurance coverage shall not be non -renewed, canceled, reduced, or otherwise modified (except through the addition of additional insureds to the policy) by the insurance carrier without the insurance carrier giving City thirty (30) day's prior written notice thereof. Consultant agrees that it will not cancel, reduce or otherwise modify the insurance coverage. B. All policies of insurance shall cover the obligations of Consultant pursuant to the terms of this Agreement; shall be issued by an insurance company which is admitted to do business in the State of California or which is approved in writing by the City; and shall be placed with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less that A VII. C. Consultant shall submit to City (1) insurance certificates indicating compliance with the minimum worker's compensation insurance requirements above, and (2) insurance policy endorsements indicating compliance with all other minimum insurance requirements above, no ' t less that one (1) day prior to beginning of performance under this Agreement. Endorsements shall be executed on City's appropriate standard forms entitled "Additional Insured Endorsement", or a substantially similar form which the City has agreed in writing to accept. 10. Confidentiality. Consultant in the course of its duties may have access to confidential data of City, private individuals, or employees of the City. Consultant covenants that all data, documents, discussion, or other information developed or received by Consultant or provided for performance of this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed by Consultant without written authorization by City. City shall grant such authorization if disclosure is required by law. All City data shall be returned to City upon the termination of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent Consultant prepares reports of a proprietary nature specifically for and in connection with certain projects, the City shall not, except with Consultant's prior written consent, use the same for other unrelated projects. 11. Ownership of Materials. All materials provided by Consultant in the performance of this Agreement shall be and remain the property of City without restriction or limitation upon its use or dissemination by City. Consultant may, however, make and retain such copies of said documents and materials as Consultant may desire. 12. Conflict of Interest. A. Consultant covenants that it presently has no interest and shall not acquire any interest, director or indirect, which may be affected by the services to be performed by Consultant under this Agreement, or which would conflict in any manner with the performance of its services hereunder. Consultant further covenants that, in performance of this Agreement, no person having any such interest shall be employed by it. Furthermore, Consultant shall avoid the appearance of having any interest which would conflict in any manner with the performance of its services pursuant to this Agreement. B. Consultant covenants not to give or receive any compensation, monetary or otherwise, to or from the ultimate vendor(s) of hardware or software to City as a result of the performance of this Agreement. Consultant's covenant under this section shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 13. Termination. Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause upon fifteen (15) days' written notice to the other party. However, Consultant shall not terminate this Agreement during the provision of services on a particular project. The effective date of termination shall be upon the date specified in the notice of termination, or, in the event no date is specified, upon the fifteenth (15th) day following delivery of the notice. In the event of such termination, City agrees to pay Consultant for services satisfactorily rendered prior to the effective date of termination. Immediately upon receiving written notice of termination, Consultant shall discontinue performing services. 14. Personnel. Consultant represents that it has, or will secure at its own expense, all personnel required to perform the services under this Agreement. All of the services required under this Agreement will be performed by Consultant or under it supervision, and all personnel engaged in the work shall be qualified to perform such services. Consultant reserves the right to determine the assignment of its own employees to the performance of Consultant's services under this Agreement, but City reserves the right, for good cause, to require Consultant to exclude any employee from performing services on City's premises. 15. Non -Discrimination and Equal Employment Opportunity. A. Consultant shall not discriminate as to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation, in the performance of its services and duties pursuant to this Agreement, and will comply with all rules and regulations of City relating thereto. Such nondiscrimination shall include but not be limited to the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, transfers, recruitment or recruitment advertising; layoff or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. B. Consultant will, in all solicitations or advertisements for employees placed by or on behalf of Consultant state either that it is an equal opportunity employer or that all qualified applicants will receive consideration for employment without regard to race, color, creed, religion, sex, marital status, national origin, ancestry, age, physical or mental handicap, medical condition, or sexual orientation. C. Consultant will cause the foregoing provisions to be inserted in all subcontracts for any work covered by this Agreement except contracts or subcontracts for standard commercial supplies or raw materials. 16. Assignment. Consultant shall not assign or transfer any interest in this Agreement nor the performance of any of Consultant's obligations hereunder, without the prior written consent of City, and any attempt by Consultant to so assign this Agreement or any rights, duties, or obligations arising hereunder shall be void and of no effect. 17. Performance Evaluation. For any contract in effect for twelve months or longer, a written annual administrative performance evaluation shall be required within ninety (90) days of the first anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, and each year thereafter throughout the term of this Agreement. The work product required by this Agreement shall be utilized as the basis for review, and any comments or complaints received by City during the review period, either orally or in writing, shall be considered. City shall meet with Consultant prior to preparing the written report. If any noncompliance with the Agreement is found, City may direct Consultant to correct the inadequacies, or, in the alternative, may terminate this Agreement as provided herein. 18. Compliance with Laws. Consultant shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state, and local governments. 19. Non -Waiver of Terms, Rights and Remedies. Waiver by either party of any one or more of the conditions of performance under this Agreement shall not be a waiver of any other condition of performance under this Agreement. In no event shall the making by City of any payment to Consultant constitute or be construed as a waiver by City of any breach of covenant, or any default which may then exist on the part of Consultant, and the making of any such payment by City shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to City with regard to such breach or default. 20. Attorney's Fees. In the event that either party to this Agreement shall commence any legal or equitable action or proceeding to enforce or interpret the provisions of this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action or proceeding shall be entitled to recover its costs of suit, including reasonable attorney's fees and costs, including costs of expert witnesses and consultants. 21. Mediation. Any dispute or controversy arising under this Agreement, or in connection with any of the terms and conditions hereof, shall be referred by the parties hereto for mediation. A third party, neutral mediation service shall be selected, as agreed upon by the parties and the costs and expenses thereof shall be borne equally by the parties hereto. In the event the parties are unable to mutually agree upon the mediator to be selected hereunder, the City Council shall select such a neutral, third party mediation service and the City Council's decision shall be final. The parties agree to utilize their good faith efforts to resolve any such dispute or controversy so submitted to mediation. It is specifically understood and agreed by the parties hereto that referral of any such dispute or controversy, and mutual good faith efforts to resolve the same thereby, shall be conditions precedent to the institution of any action or proceeding, whether at law or in equity with respect to any such dispute or controversy. 22. Notices. Any notices, bills, invoices, or reports required by this Agreement shall be deemed received on (a) the day of delivery if delivered by hand during regular business hours or by facsimile before or during regular business hours; or (b) on the third business day following deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, to the addresses heretofore set forth in the Agreement, or to such other addresses as the parties may, from time to time, designate in writing pursuant to the provisions of this section. 23. Governing Law. This Contract shall be interpreted, construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California. 24. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be the original, and all of which together shall constitute one and the same instrument. 25. Entire Agreement. This Agreement, and any other documents incorporated herein by specific reference, represent the entire and integrated agreement between Consultant and City. This Agreement supersedes all prior oral or written negotiations, representations or agreements. This Agreement may not be amended, nor any provision or breach hereof waived, except in a writing signed by the parties which expressly refers to this Agreement. Amendments on behalf of the City will only be valid if signed by the City Manager or the Mayor and attested by the City Clerk. 26. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are incorporated herein by this reference. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above. "City" 141111y&*1 By: By: Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk Approved as to form: By: City Attorney "CONSULTANT" By: Its: Carol Herrera, Mayor CITY COUNCIL TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Counci VIA: James DeStefano, City Man TITLE: APPROVE DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S STATE AGENCIES RECOMMENDATION: Adopt. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. DISCUSSION: Agenda # 6.4 Meeting Date: July 20, 2010 AGENDA REPORT As a result of storm related damage from the January 2010 Winter Storms, the City of Diamond Bar submitted an application to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the California Emergency Management Agency (Cal EMA) for reimbursement of storm damage and temporary protective measures such as k -rails and sandbags. The City was notified by Cal EMA that it was necessary to provide an updated Designation of Applicant's Resolution certifying the staff authorized to execute documents on behalf of the City. The Designation of Applicant's Agent Resolution was last adopted in 2005, and the revised Resolution authorizes the City Manager, Assistant City Manager, and Public Works Director to execute disaster related application materials. Upon approval, a certified copy of the Resolution will be provided to Cal EMA to continue the processing of our application and reimbursement request. Prepared by: Anthony Santo's Management Analyst Attachment: 1. Resolution. Reviewed RyacLean Assivsnt to the City Manager Stole of calilomia OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES OES ID # 037-19192 DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION FOR NON -STATE AGENCIES BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR (Governing Body) (Name of Applicant) THAT CITY MANAGER ,OR (Title of Authorized Agent) ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER OR (Title of Authorized Agent) PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR (Title of Authorized Agent) is hereby authorized to execute for and in behalf of the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR , a public entity (Name of Applicant) established under the laws of the State of California, this application and to file it in the Office of Emergency Services for the purpose of obtaining certain federal financial assistance under P.L. 93-288 as amended by the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act of 1988, and/or state financial assistance under the California Disaster Assistance Act. THAT the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR , a public entity established under the laws of the State of California, (Name of Applicant) hereby authorizes its agent(s) to provide to the State Office of Emergency Services for all matters pertaining to such state disaster assistance the assurances and agreements required. rX This is a universal resolution and is effective for all open and future disasters. ❑ This is a disaster specific resolution and is effective for only disaster number(s) Passed and approved this day of 20 CAROL HERRERA, MAYOR (Name and Title of Governing Body Representative) (Name and Title of Governing Body Representative) (Name and Title of Governing Body Representative) CERTIFICATION I TOMMYE CRIBBINS , duly appointed and CITY CLERK of (Name) (Title) CITY OF DIAMOND BAR , do hereby certify that the above is a true and correct copy of a (Name of Applicant) resolution passed and approved by the CITY COUNCIL on the (Signature) OES Fonn 130 (03/06) DAD Fomi (Governing body) day of 120 ofthe CITY OF DIAMOND BAR (Name of Applicant) CITY CLERK (Title) Page I Agenda # 6.5 Meeting Date: July 20, 2010 CITY COUNCIL 7 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council .-, VIA: James DeStefano, City Mana ` , TITLE: ADOPTION OF RESOLUTI N 2010 -XX AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A USED OIL PAYMENT PROGRAM (OPP) APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY (CALRECYCLE), AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AGREEMENTS, CONTRACTS, AND REQUESTS FOR PAYMENT AS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM, UNTIL RESCINDED C •1111 '•es FINANCIAL IMPACT: If authorized, the City will receive annual funds of approximately $8,000 in FY 10-11 for the promotion and collection of used motor oil and filters. The California Oil Recycling Enhancement Act requires the State of California to provide funding to local governments for the development and operation of local used oil collection programs. Due to the passage of Senate Bill (SB) 546, there were several changes to the way the used oil funds are distributed to local governments. On January 1, 2010, SB 546 replaced the Used Oil Block Grant Program with the Oil Payment Program (OPP). In addition, the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery ("CalRecycle") replaced the CIWMB ("California Integrated Waste Management Board") as the funding agency for the block grants. Starting FY 10- 11, the City will receive funds through the Used Oil Payment Program, awarded by CalRecycle. The attached Resolution will authorize the City to submit OPP applications to CalRecycle and is effective until rescinded by the City. DISCUSSION: CalRecycle requires new resolutions authorizing the City to apply for grant funds under the new Oil Payment Program. This attached resolution ensures that the City will be able to continue to apply for and receive grant funds under the new program. As recommended by CalRecycle, to streamline the application process and to improve efficiency, the attached resolution is "open ended" until rescinded by the City Council. The OPP funds will be used to educate the community about the proper disposal of used oil through the implementation of various programs. Current and previous programs include distributing used oil recycling educational materials at City events, monitoring used oil collection centers in the City and advertising used oil recycling programs and services in the City News and City's environmental newsletter, Envirolink. In FY 10-11, the City expects an estimated funding of approximately $8,000 for the OPP. The precise amount has not yet been calculated by CalRecycle. Patrick Gallegos, Management Analyst REVIEWED B EVI 77;& Davi G. Liu,.E. Director of Public Works Attachments: Resolution No. 2010 -XX Page 2 of 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AUTHORIZING THE SUBMITTAL OF A USED OIL PAYMENT PROGRAM (OPP) APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF KESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY (CALRECYCLE) WHEREAS, pursuant to Public Resources Code 48690, the Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery (CalRecycle), formerly known as the California Integrated Waste Management Board, has established the Used Oil Payment Program (OPP) to make payments to qualifying jurisdictions for implementation of their used oil programs; WHEREAS, in furtherance of this authority CalRecycle is required to establish procedures governing the administration of the Used Oil Payment Program; and I WHEREAS, CalRecycle's procedures for administering the Used Oil Payment Program require, among other things, an applicant's governing body to declare by resolution certain authorizations related to the administration of the Used Oil Payment Program. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City of Diamond Bar authorizes the submittal of a Used Oil Payment Program application to CalRecycle; and 1. The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar authorizes the submittal of a used oil payment program application to CalRecycle; 2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to execute in the name of the City of Diamond Bar all documents, including but not limited to, applications, agreements, annual reports including expenditure reports and amendments necessary to secure said payments to support the City's used oil outreach and activities; and 3. This authorization is effective until rescinded by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar. ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 20t" day of July 2010. Carol Herrera, Mayor I, TOMMYE CRIBBINS, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was passed, adopted and approved at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on 20'h day of July, 2010, by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: NOES: F-IT-Mr-Iffiffill-d COUNCIL MEMBERS: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ATTEST: Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk City of Diamond Bar Agenda # 6.6 Meeting Date: July 20, 2010 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Mar lag", TITLE: NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT LINKS — PHASE 11 PROJECT. RECOMMENDATION: File a Notice of Completion. FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial impact. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The City Council awarded a construction contract to C.T. & F., Inc. on June 16, 2009 in an amount not to exceed $356,258.87 with a contingency amount of $36,000.00 for a total authorization amount of $392,258.87. The City authorized the Notice to Proceed for the construction project on August 4, 2009. C.T. & F., Inc. has completed all work required as part of this project in accordance with the plans and specifications approved by the City. Phase 11 of the Traffic Signal Interconnect Links Project completed the network of the interconnected (fiber and copper) traffic signals along Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar Boulevard, Gateway Center Drive, and Golden Springs Drive for traffic signal synchronization The final construction cost of the project is $372,534.60 which is $19,724.27 under budget. One (1) contract change order was issued for additional miscellaneous material/equipment as warranted by field conditions. PREPARED BY: Christian Malpica, Associate Engineer REVIEW a - David drl iL4-bire"'ctor of Public Works Attachments: Notice of Completion Date Prepared: July 14, 2010 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21825 COPLEY DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765 ATTENTION: CITY CLERK NOTICE OF COMPLETION Notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093, must be filed within 10 days after completion. Notice is hereby given that: 1. The undersigned is the owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described: 2. The full name of the owner is City of Diamond Bar 3. The full address of the owner is 21825 Copley Drive Diamond Bar CA 91765 4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is; "In fee" (If other than fee, strike "In fec' and insert, for example, "purchaser under contract or purchase;' or'9essce) 5. The full names and full addresses of all persons, if any, who hold title with the undersigned as joint tenants or as tenants in common are: NAMES ADDRESSES 6. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on March 9, 2010. The work done was: Phase II of the Traffic Signal Interconnect Links Project completed the network of the interconnected (fiber and copper) traffic signals along Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar Boulevard Gateway Center Drive, and Golden Springs Drive for traffic signal synchronization 7. The name of the contractor, if any, for such work of improvement was C.T. & F. Inc. June 16, 2009 (Irno contractor for work of improvement as a whole, insert "none') (Date of Contmet) 8. The property on which said work of improvement was completed is in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, and is described as follows: Phase II of the Traffic Signal Interconnect Links Project completed the network of the interconnected (fiber and copper) traffic signals along Brea Canyon Road Diamond Bar Boulevard, Gateway Center Drive and Golden Springs Drive for traffic signal synchronization 9. The street address of said property is Dated: verification for Individual Owner (If no street address has been officially assigned, insert "none') CITY OF DIAMOND BAR Signature of owner or coporale officer cf owner named in pamgmph 2 or his agent VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, say: I am die Director of Public Works the declarant of the foregoing ("resident or', "Manager of," "A partner or," "Owner of," etc.) notice of completion; I have read said notice of completion and know the contests thereof, the same is true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 20 _, at Diamond Bar , California. ( Date of signalutc) (City where signed) Agenda 4 7. 1 Meeting Date: July 20, 2010 CITY COUNCIL, r �� �AGENDA R REPORT T� TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Maria �F, TITLE: General Plan Amendment No. 007-03, Zone Change No. 2007-04, Specific Plan No. 2007-01 ("Site D Specific Plan"), Tentative Tract Map No. 70687, and Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 (SCH No. 2008021014). PROJECT APPLICANT: Walnut Valley Unified School District and City of Diamond Bar LEAD AGENCY: City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department PROJECT LOCATION: Site D is comprised of approximately 30.36 acres located at the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard (Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 and 8714-015-001). SUMMARY: The City Council continued this item from the June 15, 2010 meeting after receiving testimony from 12 speakers who raised concerns over air quality, traffic, conservation of open space, removal of existing trees, visual impacts, lack of alternatives and public involvement, commercial viability, among other things. The July 20, 2010 meeting has been scheduled for staff to respond to the public and Council's questions and comments from the previous meeting, and to explore further alternatives. ANALYSIS: Response to Questions and Comments from the June 15, 2010 Council Meeting The information below is provided in response to questions and comments raised during the last meeting that pertain to technical, environmental or procedural issues associated with the proposed Specific Plan and EIR. 1. The Site D Specific Plan will result in development of 253 low-income apartments. Under State law, should a developer choose to incorporate a certain percentage of affordable units into a residential development, they would be eligible for a density bonus of up to 35% over the "otherwise maximum allowable residential density under the applicable zoning ordinance and land use element of the general plan" [Cal. Govt. Code §65915(g)(1)]. The presumption made by the commenters appears to be that the future residential developer of Site D will elect to pursue a 25% density bonus above the 202 maximum allowable units specified in the Specific Plan, and then develop the entire project as "low income apartments." In order to achieve a 25% density bonus, a developer would have to incorporate one of the following categories of affordable housing into the project: 13% of the units designated for "low income" households (51-80% of area median income, or "AMI"); ® 7% of the units designated for "very low income" households (31-50% of AMI); or 30% of the units designated for "moderate income" households (81-120% of AMI). Staff regards any assumption concerning the provision of a density bonus to be speculative, and therefore, beyond the scope of CEQA. Because of the high land values, development costs and other factors in this region, developers do not typically regard the incentives to develop affordable housing viable unless they receive public subsidies or are mandated by the jurisdiction to incorporate affordable housing pursuant to an Inclusionary housing" ordinance, neither of which is applicable in Diamond Bar. With respect to the concerns that apartments would be developed on Site D, there has not been an apartment complex developed in Diamond Bar since the City's incorporation, and staff believes it to be unlikely that an apartment complex would be proposed on Site D. Nevertheless, to address concerns that apartments would be developed on the site, staff suggests that language be added to the Specific Plan development standards to require that the future residences be limited to for -sale units and that they must be owner -occupied for a minimum of 2 years after initial purchase or resale. 2. How many Oak trees are being removed? What is the protected tree inventory? There are 75 California black walnuts, six willows, and two coast live oaks that will be impacted by the proposed project, all of which are indigenous, and are classified as "protected tree" species in the City's Tree Preservation and Protection Ordinance. GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 2 These trees will be required to be replaced with indigenous species at a 3:1 ratio (249 total). The recommended conditions of approval for the Specific Plan also include a requirement for the re-establishment of California walnut woodland on manufactured slopes within the future development. 3. The City did not contact Native American groups regarding the project. The property has cultural significance to Native Americans. In accordance with the State's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines" (April 15, 2005), the City has fully complied with all applicable noticing requirements with regards to outreach efforts, including sending a "Local Government Tribal Consultation List Request" to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on February 1, 2008 and sending copies of the Notice of Preparation to the NAHC, the Gabrieleno/Tongva Tribal Council, the Gabrielino Tongva Nation, and the Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians. The mailing list was obtained from the NAHC website (accessed in late January 2008) which lists the names/contact information for tribal organizations throughout the state. In addition, a Phase I cultural and paleontological resource assessment was prepared as a technical appendix to the EIR. The assessment included direct consultation with the NAHC. The NAHC performed a Sacred Lands File (SLF) record search, which failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. Moreover, the NAHC provided the consulting archaeologists with Native American contact list, and letters were sent to each of the eight contacts via Certified Mail with return receipts requested, and no responses were received. Seven of the eight contacts were affiliated with the Gabrielino/Tongva Nation in some manner, including the San Gabriel -based Gabrielino/Tongva Tribal Council. Still, as indicated in the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 11 -1 requires that a qualified archaeologist shall monitor initial vegetation removal activities in the event that cultural resources, Native American or otherwise, are encountered. A letter and corresponding documents from the City's environmental consultant, Environmental Impact Sciences, is included as Attachment 15 to the June 15, 2010 City Council Staff Report. The Covina -based Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, representatives of which were present at the June 15, 2010 City Council meeting, was not among the list of contacts provided by the NAHC. 4. Has the City conducted a historic archaeological study? The site is home to the Native Americans and Ranch to Frederick E. Lewis. A Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment was completed, dated January 24, 2008 which determined the potential impacts to cultural resources associated with the proposed project. The assessment included a review of historic aerial photographs and topographic maps, a review of relevant online historical GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 3 literature, a cultural resources records search through the California Historical Resources Information System — South Central Coastal Information Center, a Sacred Lands File Search through the California Native American Heritage Commission and follow-up Nation American consultation, a paleontological records search through the Natural History Museum of L.A. County, and a pedestrian survey of the study area for cultural and paleontological resources. There is no historical record of the site being home of the Diamond Bar Ranch that Lewis formed in 1918. A structure was present within the eastern portion of the project site from at least 1928. Two other structures were located adjacent to the northern boundary of the project site, which is the current site of the Diamond Bar Evangelical Free Church located at 3255 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. It is unclear as to which of the structures identified in this area is that of Lewis' or his superintendent's residence or any other structure. 5. The Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) states that the City is to be reimbursed for the preparation of the Specific Plan and EIR if processed by a certain date. is this a gift of public funds if the City does not recoup the costs? Cities can and do invest in the preparation of specific plans, general plan amendments and zone changes on non city -owned public or private land which may or may not benefit the owners. This practice is not a gift of public funds. It was also suggested during public comments that, under the MOU, should the City Council not approve the Site D Specific Plan by November of 2010, that the School District would be relieved of any obligation to reimburse the City for the cost of preparing the Specific Plan. Amendment No. I to the MOU (only one amendment was made to date) actually states that should the City Council not approve the Site D Specific Plan by November 2010, then either party may terminate the MOU upon providing written notice to the other party, and then the District would be released from the reimbursement obligation; there is no automatic release of obligation It was further suggested during public comments that the potential for the School District to terminate the MOU after November places pressure on the City Council to approve the SDSP simply to recover the expense of preparing the Specific Plan and EIR. However, the Mayor Pro Tern stated at the June 15, 2010 meeting that the City Council is not compelled to approve the Site D Specific Plan and would not do so simply to recoup costs. At no other time was the matter of recovering these costs raised by staff, the Planning Commission or the City Council. The decision whether to approve or deny the Site D Specific Plan will be based solely on the merits of the plan in light of the public policy objectives it is intended to further, and that has been the focus thus far. 6. A violation of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) occurred, during Planning Commission meetings. Residents were told they could not speak at the GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP . o. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 4 April 27 and May 11, 2010 Planning Commission meetings and therefore did not allow for opportunities for alternatives. No violation of CEQA or any public hearing procedural process occurred during the Planning Commission meetings. The Planning Commission opened public hearing on April 13, 2010 and closed the public hearing at the same meeting after all members of the public had the opportunity to speak. Once public hearing is closed, residents are not able to speak unless the Commission reopens the public hearing. The majority of the Commission chose not to reopen the public hearing and began deliberations at the April 27, 2010 meeting. 7. The City's General Plan is outdated. The General Plan was adopted on July 25, 1995. Since then, there have been amendments to its Elements as necessary to reflect changing needs and priorities. The housing element is the only element that State Law expressly mandates cities and counties to periodically update, and Diamond Bar has complied with this requirement. In response to claims that the Resource Management Element is outdated or inadequate because it identifies a deficiency in improved open space, this Element includes implementation measures to complete and periodically update a recreational needs analysis (Strategy 1.3.1), and adopt a Master Plan of Parks which includes as an ultimate goal "to provide neighborhood and community park facilities, such that a rate of 5.0 acres per 1000 residents is ultimately achieved" (Strategies 1.3.2 & 1.3.3). The first Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Master Plan was completed in 1998, and the City has been very successful in adding to the community's recreational land and amenities inventory since that time. An updated Needs Assessment was completed in 2008 and is the basis for the current Draft Parks & Recreation Master Plan, which will be presented to the City Council in the near future. The Community Services Director's recommendations for a park facility at Site D are included in Attachment 6. 8. The City's Housing Element is outdated. The City has been working diligently with the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HDC) on its Housing Element Update. The third Administrative Draft is currently being reviewed by HCD staff, and comments are due at the end of July. The issues remaining from the previous round of comments were clarifications to the City's proposed strategy for providing sufficient acreage to accommodate its obligation to meet the region's affordable housing needs. Site D is not among the inventory of potential affordable housing sites being considered. GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 5 9. The EIR consultant should have no relationship with the City. Cities choose EIR consultants based on expertise in environmental law, similar experience in types of projects, familiarity and knowledge of the City, estimated work schedule and cost, among other things. Environmental Impact Sciences was chosen for the reasons stated above in addition to a positive experience processing other environmental documents for other projects in the City. 10. The EIR traffic study is outdated. The traffic study was updated in 2008 and again in 2009. The updates included some refinements to the study (including trip generation numbers and fair share costs) as well as a reassessment of the cumulative impact of the proposed NFL stadium. Regarding traffic counts, these were conducted in Late 2007 (October and December), so the data is roughly 2 Y2 years old. Based on the industry and consultation with our traffic engineers, the 2007 existing data is still relevant for use in this project. In fact, given what our traffic engineers have observed, any data collected for present day would likely show a'drop in peak hour traffic due to current economic conditions. Most importantly, the critical measure in determining the relevance of traffic data is the forecast of traffic into the year 2010 and 2030 — because this is what the mitigations and fair share costs are based upon. 1. The traffic study did not analyze worst case scenario and the intersection of Brea Canyon Road and Copper Canyon Drive. The traffic analysis study area is generally comprised of a subregion which has the greatest potential to experience significant traffic impacts due to the proposed project. In the traffic engineering practice, the study area generally includes those intersections that are: ® Immediately adjacent or inclose proximity to the project site; In the vicinity of the project site that are documented to have current or projected future adverse operational issues; and In the vicinity of the project site that are forecast to experience a relatively greater percentage of project -related vehicular turning movements (e.g., at freeway ramp intersections). GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 207-02 Page 6 In addition, the list of study intersections that were assessed in the EIR traffic study were identified by applying the criteria outlined in the "Congestion Management Program (CMP) for Los Angeles County" for analyzing intersections (i.e., any intersection where the project adds 50 or more peak hour trips should be analyzed) and in consideration of the City's "Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis ReporL" The intersections selected for analysis are consistent with the criteria described above. Although not every intersection has been selected for analysis along every roadway, the traffic analysis study area included several intersections immediately adjacent to the project site, key intersections in the project vicinity that may have existing or future operational issues and a relatively higher percentage of project - related turning movements, as well as intersections located at important freeway ramp intersections (e.g., SR -57), with the majority of the intersections assessed in the EIR meeting the "50 -trip" threshold criteria. With regards to the Brea Canyon Road at Copper Canyon Drive, this intersection was not previously identified for inclusion in the traffic impact because the "50 -trip" threshold criterion was not met. However, based on the trip distribution patterns identified in the traffic study, the traffic impacts on Brea Canyon Road can be addressed by mitigations proposed at the signalized intersection of Brea Canyon Road and Silver Bullet Drive. At this intersection, the project developer is required to provide a fair -share contribution toward mitigation efforts (consisting of additional lane restriping and traffic signal modifications) in a manner proportionate to the net traffic impact resulting from the project. Congestion at Copper Canyon Drive is an existing condition which will not be significantly affected by the development of Site D. The situation at this intersection should be studied as a separate neighborhood traffic management issue. The appropriate venue to address this matter is through the Traffic and Transportation Commission. 12. The addition of 51 density bonus units was not analyzed in the EIR. The EIR did not analyze the possibility of the inclusion of density bonus units. Any assumptions concerning the provision of a density bonus with regards to the site's development would appear speculative, and therefore, beyond the scope of this environmental review. If a subsequent site developer were to propose an increase in the number of dwelling units in excess of those presented in the Site D Specific Plan and addressed in the Draft Environmental Impact Report, those actions and the revised project would be subject to further environmental review and analysis. Regardless of the speculative nature of a density bonus scenario, staff calculated the trip generation impact of a 25% density bonus, and found that a de minimis increase in peak hour trips would result. Increasing the residential unit count from GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 7 202 units to 253 units would result in about 23 additional a.m. and 27 additional peak hour trips. The probability of effecting a change to a lower level of service is very unlikely, as once the added trips are distributed throughout the area, only the intersections closest to the Level of Service threshold (which would only be Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Blvd.) would potentially be at risk. However, once the trips are distributed to this intersection, the probability of this occurring is very unlikely. Still, to further pursue this question, a supplemental traffic analysis was submitted to the City on July 7, 2010. The results are similar to that of the proposed project evaluated in the April 2009 traffic study/June 2009 DEIR. However, the added trips generated by t ' he 25% density bonus would require additional mitigation beyond those identified in the April 2009 traffic study for the intersection of Brea Canyon Road at Diamond Bar Boulevard. The additional mitigation consists of the addition of a dedicated right turn lane at eastbound Brea Canyon Road and an increase in project fair share traffic mitigation fees. The addition of the right -turn lane is illustrated below: Mixed use with 202 dwellings , Mixed use with 253 dwellings Based on this analysis, should a density bonus project be proposed that results in more than the 202 units currently proposed in the SDSP, then additional mitigation measures would include the above improvements to the Diamond Bar/Brea Canyon intersection, as well as adjustments to the fair -share mitigation fees for the other affected study intersections. 13./t is confusing as to whether the project will be required to complete the traffic improvements or to pay fair -share contributions. Mitigation 6.1 states that the future developer will be required to pay fair -share contributions. The future developer(s) will be required to make existing roadway improvements at the time of development as part of implementing the Specific Plan as well as pay fair share fees of the construction costs to implement additional improvements to mitigate the cumulative traffic impacts of existing traffic, future non -project traffic, and project -related traffic. GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 8 The following roadway improvements will be required at the time of development, when the project is completed: Cherrydale Drive at Diamond Bar Boulevard: Provide an option left/through lane and a separate right -turn lane on the northbound approach; restripe southbound approach to provide an option left/through/right-turn lane on Cherrydale. Widen eastbound approach to provide a separate right -turn lane. Modify median and restripe Diamond Bar Boulevard to provide dual westbound left -turn lanes. Install traffic signal. The implementation of this improvement may require some modification to existing signing and striping on Cherrydale Drive or Diamond Bar Boulevard; and Widen and/or restripe NB approach on Brea Canyon Road to provide a second right -turn lane. Widen and/or restripe EB approach and departure on Diamond Bar Boulevard to a third through lane. Re -stripe WB approach on Diamond Bar Boulevard to provide a second left -turn lane. The implementation of this improvement may require some modification to existing traffic signal equipment (i.e. recut/install new vehicle loop detectors, modification to traffic signal controller), as well as the termination of the existing bike lane. The project will also provide a fair -share contribution to cumulative traffic Improvements, and are included as mitigation measures. 14. Does approval of the Specific Plan as presented limit a potential developer? Yes, there are maximum allowances for residential and commercial uses. It is a detailed policy document which replaces the land use designation and zoning of the underlying properties with more detailed criteria and performance standards. The Specific Plan defines the types of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses that will be appropriate for the project site and for the project setting, defines reasonable limits to the type, intensity, and density of those uses, and establishes the design and development standards for those uses. Approval of a Specific Plan also reduces uncertainty by providing assurances to the City and future developers by prescribing, to a greater level of specificity than conventional zoning, the types and characteristics of permitted land uses and development on the site. 15. Were there additional alternatives for this project? Yes, the EIR evaluated at five different alternatives: No Project, Public Facilities, Community Commercial, Low -Density Residential, and High -Density Residential. The City Council has the ability to adopt any of the alternatives described in the EIR or direct staff to examine additional alternatives besides those presented in the EIR. GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 9 Refinements to some of these alternatives, including the addition of a neighborhood park, have been formulated and are addressed later in this staff report. 16. Is a commercial development viable on Site D? Commercial may not be ripe for development in the current state of the economy. However, it may be feasible two to three years from now, when the economy and real estate market recovers. 17. How much annual sales tax revenue could reasonably be expected to be generated from a commercial development on Site D? With the inclusion of a neighborhood park, the commercial pad would be reduced to approximately 8.4 acres and could feasibly yield 75,000 to 90,000 square feet of commercial floor area. A likely type of commercial development that the site could support would be a neighborhood -serving shopping center with a grocery store and drug store as anchors, a drive-through restaurant pad, and supporting retail and restaurant uses. A review of sales tax revenue figures for these types of uses in Diamond Bar over the past three years indicates that such a center potentially could generate approximately $100,000 in annual sales tax revenue. This by itself is not a significant revenue source to the City, but would enhance the City's portfolio of revenue -generating assets. In addition to the potential for a commercial development to provide a revenue stream to the City, the City Council should also view the commercial component of the SDSP as an opportunity to provide neighborhood -serving commercial uses in the southern portion of the City which currently are not available. 18. If the City is unable to attract commercial, can it be rezoned later to all residential? Yes, if a commercial developer is not on board at the outset, construction phasing can begin on the residential pads. The entire site would still need to be mass graded at one time. If a commercial developer is not on board by the time the residential phases are completed, and there is no longer a desire by the City to reserve the site for a shopping center, residential development could proceed on the commercial pad. Land Use Alternatives The Council asked staff to explore the following development alternatives, and to include a two -acre neighborhood park into the land use plan: 1) reduced commercial; 2) 100% residential; and 3) school district headquarters and technology/research/ educational campus. GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 10 A memorandum from Community Services Director Bob Rose with specific recommendations regarding the size, design and programming for a neighborhood park on Site D is provided in Attachment 6. Reduced Commercial The Specific Plan provides a numerical allowance of 153,954 sq. ft. commercial with 202 residential units. These numbers were derived by calculating a commercial floor area ratio (FAR) of .35 on the 10.1 -acre commercial pad and a residential density of 20 units per acre on the combined 10.1 -acre residential pads, and are considered the "worst case" scenario as the basis for preparing the EIR. When designing a project, the development standards such as uses, setback, height, and parking regulations; and site features such as topography, grading, parcel configurations, etc., usually result in a lower density and FAR that the maximum allowed. Further study of Site D as a mixed-use development, and factoring in such constraints as the shape of the property, setbacks and parking requirements, and the incorporation of a 3.2 gross acre park, the site is more likely to yield a 75,000 to 90,000 square -foot shopping center and approximately 133 attached residential units, as shown in Land Use Diagram 1A/B (Attachments 1-2). The reduced commercial alternative achieved simply by performing the density/intensity yield study illustrated in this diagram. 100% Residential Option under Diagram 1A/B Approval of Land Use Diagram 1A/B, allows the Council to approve a commercial component, with a flexibility to allow the site to convert to all residential later, should it fail to attract a commercial developer at some point in time, in which case the site could accommodate approximately 266 attached residential units. 100% Residential (No Commercial Option) Land Use Diagram 2 (Attachment 3) explores an all residential concept with a 3.9 gross acre (2.0 net acres) public park, and two residential pads totaling 24.1 gross acres (15.9 net acres) specifying the range of possible number of units and product types. The park is located adjacent to Posada Drive, to provide easier access to the existing neighborhood. An all residential concept results in much less grading costs than a commercial and residential mixed-use concept because the residential pad would not be lowered close to street level grade as a commercial pad would require, but would reduce the usable pad area compared to Land Use Diagram 1A/B, and thus reduce the number of potential dwelling units. Another consideration that the Council may want to keep in mind is that the existing L.A. County Flood Control Channel may be uncovered and will remain in its existing condition. The cost of covering the Flood Control Channel increases the construction cost. The covering of this Channel may add value to the GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 11 commercial concept as it adds usable land for parking and access, but does not add value to an all residential concep . t. Therefore, the likelihood of the City -owned property on Diamond Bar Blvd. and Brea Canyon Road being undeveloped will be greater, and the use of this land will have to be considered. Under this alternative, the site would allow for approximately maximum of 238 attached residential units, which, due to the reduced pad sizes, yields approximately 28 fewer units than Land Use Diagram 1A/B School District Headquarters/R&D Campus The Walnut Valley Unified School District is not interested in exploring this alternative as it conflicts with its objective of disposing of the property and raising revenue for the District. Planning Commission Discussion of Public Park vs. Privately Owned Public Space/Plaza During Planning Commission deliberations, the Commission asked staff to present an analysis of incorporating a neighborhood park feature into the Specific Plan. There were two options the Commission considered with respect to the incorporation of a park/public space component, summarized as follows: Option #1: Traditional Public Park Space: A public park, dedicated to the City with a minimum specified acreage and amenities such as a tot lot, picnic tables, and shade structures. Advantages of a Public Park Space * Increases park space serving the neighborhood; ® Provides public amenities that residents can enjoy; and ® Affords the City full control over the maintenance, programming, and long-range planning after the park is constructed. Disadvantages of a Public Park Space 0 Requires ongoing City maintenance costs such as expense and liability for providing such a facility; and 0 Depending on the size, may impact the type and size of a commercial development. The opportunity to incorporate significant, pedestrian -oriented amenities into the commercial development may be constrained. GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 12 Option #2: Interactive Public Open Space: The incorporation of one or more interactive public open spaces such as social gathering spaces with a park -like feel comprised of a minimum specified aggregate acreage that incorporates amenities such as a tot lot, picnic tables, shade structures and public art integrated into the future commercial development. Advantages of an Interactive Public Open Space ® Allows for a more viable, feasible commercial development. Further reducing the commercial pad to incorporate a traditional public park may result in a neighborhood strip center; ® Takes into account the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Walnut Valley School District that stipulated a minimum of fifty percent of the designated area for residential development and fifty percent designated for commercial use, exclusive of necessary infrastructure; • Allows a potential developer to creatively design the site with a quasi -public space by having the public open space area incorporated and designed when the types of 11 uses are known; and ® Creates a focal point in the commercial component with a complementary 'public space to support the commercial development. Adding the interactive public open space area can enhance the commercial component as well as enhance the experience to visitors and residents of the area. Disadvantages, of an Interactive Public Open Space © Certain amenities found in a traditional neighborhood park, such as barbeque and picnic facilities, and small sports courts, may not be feasible in this type of a setting; and ® The City would not own the property or facilities comprising the spaces, and would not have the opportunity to program or revise the features after initial development is completed. If the Council would like to retain the commercial component of the land use plan, consideration of integrating an interactive open space into the commercial development may be something to consider, allowing for a more viable commercial development. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Modifying the SDSP in accordance with the alternatives discussed in this staff report may require some revisions to the EIR, but would not require recirculation. The project GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 13 would remain substantially the same as the project description and alternatives, but the overall density and intensity would be reduced. In addition, the City should not engage in an analysis of speculative density bonus impacts, which is not presently a part of the proposed Specific Plan. Absent a formal development proposal, it is speculative to assume what, if any, further California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation would be required and the nature of any findings presented therein. The project was continued from the June 15, 2010 City Council meeting, and therefore no further noticing was required. I The June 15, 2010 City Council staff report, attachments to the report, draft Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report were also posted on the City's website, and hard copies are available for review at City Hall and the Diamond Bar Branch of the Los Angeles County Library. As of this writing, staff received six e-mail correspondences in opposition to the proposed Specific Plan, which are included as Attachments 7 thru 12. :1 i1ir i I I � 511i% ll"1r Continue public testimony and provide staff with direction on next steps. Prepared by: Reviewed by: Gra S. Lie- Greg Gubman, AICP Senior Planner Community Development Director Reviewed by: David Doyle Assistant City Manager Attachments: 1. Alternative Land Use Diagrams #1 A 2. Alternative Land Use Diagrams #1 B 3. Alternative Land Use Diagrams #2 4. CC Staff Report dated June 15, 2010 5. CC Minutes of June 15, 2010 GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 14 6. Memorandum from Bob Rose, Community Services Director 7. E -Mail from Shabbir Basrai dated June 29, 2010 8. E -Mail from Jean Jou dated June 30, 2010 9. E -Mail from Peter Au-Yeung dated July 6, 2010 10. E -Mail from Helena Young dated July 10, 2010 11. E -Mail from Helena Young dated July 10, 2010 12. E -Mail from Helena Young dated July 10, 2010 GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 15 ora m t0 o a 1 Residential Gross, -11;9-.Ac `Net 62Ac EVI c'S r l fr sjs I ^p 1 t + Goad t i ... Am6GshPr s Sf,.e E'f , JULY 9, 2010 TRG Land u� a��( i r ,Z { Z f 'Y Resident►al 3 Y r Gross'3.3Ac i t' Net 2.7 Ac (/-� r i ss32Ac �t,i�ff„ i; � ctsa � P J O S Gross Net Residential 15.2 Ac 8.9 Ac LM Commercial 12.0 Ac 8.4 Ac Park 3.2 Ac 1.7 Ac ALTERNATIVE 1A SITE "®" A7 L Ga / Residential e Gross 12.0 Ac77 Qjte Net 8.4 Ac _ 'r 4 i}; RIsjctentral Gross 8 3 Ac ° Net 2 7 Ac Parl+; t- '\. �ross 3 2 Ac 1 , r �r Nit 1 7 AC ......�lr J4 t f A � r R 4 i6 4sh�'�S QO - Gross Net Residential 27.2 Ac 17.3 Ac Park 3.2 Ac 1.7 Ac ALTERNATIVE 1 B SITE "D" JJuL�Y 9. 2010 TRG Lan !; p 1 zav tree Gas a boa 3 Net 2 r F t c F „ r / s So -Per r = o°a P� QoSaJ -. Residential Gross Net 24.1 Ac 15.9 Ac Park 3.9 Ac 2.0 Ac Road 8.0 Ac A.LTERNATIyE 2 JuuLy 9, 2010 SITE «®» TRG Lant1 /N> 0 wo, 209 0 CD Attachment 4 Agenda # 7: Meeting June ]5,2010 It, — CITY COUNCIL"I AGENDA REPOR TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: James DeStefano, City Manager TITLE: General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2007-04, Specific Plan No. 2007-01 ("Site D Specific Plan"), Tentative Tract Map No. 70687, and Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 (SCH No. 2008021014). PROJECT APPLICANT: Walnut Valley Unified School District and City of Diamond Bar LEAD AGENCY: City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department PROJECT LOCATION: Site D is comprised of approximately 30.36 acres located at the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard (Los Angeles County Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 and 8714-015-001). SUMMARY: The Site D Specific Plan (SDSP) was prepared to facilitate the processing and approval of future development proposals and associated discretionary and administrative approvals on a 30.36 -acre property referred to as Site D. The City and the Walnut Valley Unified School District agreed to collaborate in the planning efforts for the property so that each may advance its respective objectives for the disposition of the property. Key objectives of the Specific Plan are as follows: > Allow for a maximum of 202 residential dwelling units; > Allow for a maximum of 153,985 gross square feet of commercial use; > Provide approximately 10 acres of open space areas, easements and rights-of-way; > Establish an "A -Level" development framework that provides details for the backbone vehicular circulation system, the creation of master development pads to organize land uses on site, and the infrastructure plan; A Establish architectural guidelines to promote unifying design elements; > Prescribe the architectural, landscape and streetscape design criteria to create a visual continuity throughout Site D property; and > Deliver a "green" and sustainable community through the use of energy efficiency, healthy indoor air quality, waste reduction, water efficiency, pedestrian and bicycle links to reduce vehicle trips, use of renewable and recyclable materials for building construction, water -efficient landscaping featuring indigenous, non-invasive and climate appropri,ate plant types, etc. The required energy standards for the project exceed those currently mandated by State Title 24. The Specific Plan is a detailed policy document, which replaces the land use designation and zoning of the underlying properties with more detailed criteria and performance standards. It is not a development plan to construct the residential and commercial buildings. Future developers will be required to submit project -specific development plans in accordance with the criteria set forth in the Specific Plan, which will be subject to review and approval by the City. 1. Certify Environmental Impact Report 2007-02; 2. Adopt Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations for the Site D Specific Plan based on findings that the Specific Plan would result in identified economic and social benefits that will accrue to the City, the School District, and the region, and important public policy objectives will result from the implementation of the proposed Specific Plan, which override the significant environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated to less -than -significant levels; 3. Adopt General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 to change the land use designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C) to Specific Plan (SP); 4. Adopt Zone Change No. 2007-04 to ' change the zoning districts from Low Density Residential (RL), Low/Medium Density Residential (RLM), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan; 5. Adopt Specific Plan No. 2007-01 for Site D Specific Plan, establishing the land use and development standards to facilitate the construction of up to 202 residential dwelling units; ,up to 153,985 gross sq. ft. of commercial floor area; and a minimum of 10.16 acres of open space areas, easements and rights-of-way; and 6. Approve Tentative Tract Map No. 70687 to establish separate residential, commercial, and open space parcels; create an internal circulation system and common open space areas; and establish easements and other rights-of-way for utility and other purposes. GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 2 BACKGROUND: The Site D Specific Plan project area consists of 30.36 acres, comprised of the following properties: * The Walnut Valley Unified School District owns 28.71 acres. As early as the 1970s, the District has found the property unnecessary for future school use and declared it surplus property; * A 0.98 -acre strip of land along Brea Canyon Road owned by the City; and * A 0.67 -acre segment of'a flood control channel, owned and maintained by the Los Angeles County Flood Control District, separates the City and School District properties. Under the proposed Specific Plan, the channel will be covered and used for parking, non -habitable structures, and Ian ' dscape and circulation elements, which would be allowed under a lease agreement with the Flood Control District. Prior Development Proposals In 1990, the School District prepared a tentative tract map to subdivide Site D into 87 lots for the purpose of developing single-family detached residences. This effort prompted the City to study the feasibility of purchasing the land from the District for the purpose of developing a community park, which was supported by a School Board appointed advisory committee (the 7-11 Committee"). In 1991, the City pursued park development grants for Site D and the Pantera Park site, but received grant monies for Pantera Park only. In the years following this endeavor, the City completed upgrades to nearby Heritage Park, and the School District upgraded the recreational facilities at Castlerock Elementary School (the City and School District have joint -use agreements for the recreational facilities at all of the schools located in Diamond Bar). The City and School have since agreed to work cooperatively in the planning efforts for Site D so that each may advance its respective objectives for the disposition of the property. ANALYSIS: The Planning Commission staff reports in Attachment 6 provide a detailed analysis of the project objectives, surrounding land uses, site characteristics, key elements of the Specific Plan, development standards, circulation and traffic improvements, and the EIR process. Graphic exhibits are included in Attachment 16. GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 3 Framework of Site D Specific Plan/Project Objectives: The Walnut Valley Unified School District desires the disposition of the property to yield the maximum return to the District for the benefit of its constituents and its educational mission. The City believes that it is in the community's best interest to establish a comprehensive, enforceable planning strategy for Site D, and to do so prior to putting the property on the market. To further this goal, staff determined that a Specific Plan would be the most appropriate planning tool to better ensure a predictable outcome for the eventual build -out of Site D. On July 1, 2007, the City and the Walnut Valley Unified School District executed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) whereby the parties agreed to collaborate in the planning of the future land use for the project site—through the creation of a Specific Plan—so that both parties may each 'advance their respective objectives for the disposition of the property. The MOU furth.er stipulates that "(o)f the usable acreage, on Site D, a minimum of fifty percent (50%) will be designated for residential development, and fifty percent (50%) will be designated for commercial use, exclusive of necessary infrastructure." A copy of the MOU is provided as Attachment 4. The land use parameters set forth in the MOU establish the following additional project objectives: Pursue the establishment of site-specific land use policies that allow, in reasonable comparable acreage, the development of both commercial and residential uses of the property, accommodating the provision of additional housing opportunities and the introduction of revenue -generating uses; and Establish a specific plan as the guiding land -use policy mechanism to define the nature and intensity of future development, and to establish design and development parameters for the project site, so as to allow conveyance of the subject property to one or more developers and/or master builders, and provide to the purchasers reasonable assuranceas to the uses that would be authorized on the project site and the nature of those exactions required for those uses. The District and the City are currently not partnered with or in formal discussions with any developers. The focus at this time is solely to adopt a prescriptive land use plan while the public entities, as the property owners, are in a position to exert maximum control/influence over the outcome of subsequent development. Fulfillment of Goals and Objectives in City's General Plan California Government Code states that a Specific Plan shall include a statement of the relationship of the Specific Plan to the General Plan, and further, that it may not be adopted or amended unless found to be consistent with the General Plan. GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 4 Consistency with the General Plan is achieved when the various land uses within the Specific Plan are compatible with the objectives, policies, general pattern of land uses and programs contained in the General Plan. While there is tension among several General Plan policies — such as meeting regional housing needs, preserving open space, promoting economic development, and reducing traffic congestion — the role of the City's decision makers is to determine which goals and policies should be furthered, given the objectives, context, and opportunities associated with each decision under consideration, and thus balance that tension given all the factors in play. The Site D Specific Plan implements the vision of the City's General Plan as follows: Contributes to the diversity of the City's housing stock in order to provide attractive housing which accommodates people of all ages, cultures, occupations and levels of financial status; Promotes viable commercial activity. While Diamond Bar has established local control by incorporating into a City, attendant to that is the responsibility for planning for the economic well being of the City through opportunities for generation of sales tax revenue. Moreover, the proposed commercial component of the Specific Plan provides the opportunity to better serve the southern part of the City by enhancing the range of conveniently -located neighborhood retail uses; and Creates ' a community environment which nurtures social and recreational opportunities for its residents. As recommended by the Planning Commission, a neighborhood public park space of 1.3 net acres . is to be incorporated into the commercial development. The Specific Plan further meets the goals and objectives as listed in the Draft Specific Plan and Finding of Fact attached to the Draft Resolution in Attachment 1. SpeGifiG.Plan/Project Benefits The proposed Specific Plan would result in a number of identifiable community benefits, some of which include: Defines the types of permitted and conditionally permitted land uses that will be appropriate for the project site and for 'the project setting, defines reasonable limits to the type, intensity, and density of those uses, and establishes the design and development standards for those uses; Serves as a valuable regulatory tool for the systematic implementation of the City's General Plan; Imposes reasonable development controls and standards designed to ensure the integrated development of the project site; Im GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 5 Facilitates the School District's efforts to sell the surplus* property by providing a subsequent purchaser reasonable certainty as to the type, intensity, and general configuration of allowable on-site land uses; Optimizes the benefits of the School District sale of surplus property of the benefit of its constituents and its educational mission; 0 Results in the production of 202 new housing units within the City, thus helping the City to respond to the identified housing demand outlined in the current Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA). This project would represent about 18.5 percent of the projected housing needs for the period between 2005-2014; a Increases the diversity of housing types in the City; Presents homebuyers with additional purchase options and price variations allowing homebuyers to better match housing choices with household needs and demands through construction and sale of attached residential condominium, units; 0 Creates a mixed-use development that will promote the attainment or regional jobs - to -housing ratio objectives established by regional governmental entities and produce corresponding environmental benefits, consistent with Southern California Association of Governments Policies; Implements Senate Bill 375 which drives land use development to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by: > Promoting a mixed-use development by providing both residential and commercial uses on the same site which serve to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) and corresponding air quality benefits; > Promoting alternative modes of transportation by providing bike and pedestrian trails and bus stops located adjacent to Site D and facilitate alternative modes of transportation. Transit is expected to be provided by the Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA), Foothill Transit, and the City's fixed -route transportation system; and > Integrating green building strategies into its design through energy efficiency; water -efficient land use and development using drought -tolerant landscaping and use of low -flow toilets, showerheads, and other fixtures; use of renewable and recyclable materials for building construction, solar panels, and low energy lighting, etc. Allows for the productive use of an underutilized property in the City's General Plan, converting a tax-exempt property to a private use, and introduces a land use that will generate sales and other taxes for the benefit of the City and its constituents; GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 6 • Provides traffic improvements to the Diamond Bar Boulevard/Brea Canyon Road intersection which will improve traffic flow in and through that intersection; and • Facilitates the ability of the City and other agencies to undertake improvements to specific public facilities through payment of school impact, park, and traffic impact fees and other exactions. Environmental Impact Report In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the Site D Specific Plan. The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts associated with the development of the specific Plan area, identifies mitigation measures to lessen those impacts, and analyzes a range of project alternatives. Outreach efforts to solicit citizen and public agency input throughout the EIR process included the following actions: Notice of 'Preparation: The City circulated a Notice of Preparation (NOP) to public agencies, special districts, and members of the public requesting such notice for a 30 day period commencing February 1, 2008 and ending March 5, 2008. Scoping Meeting: During the NOP period, the City advertised a public scoping meeting on February ' . 21, 2008 held at the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center, Room CC -6. The meeting was intended to facilitate public input. Approximately 20 residents attended the meeting with the majority from the Ambushers Street neighborhood. Several issues raised at this meeting include impacts of view from Cherrydale, noise, traffic, buffer from commercial development, need for green space at entryway, preference to see residential development with less commercial, and to consider senior housing development. Notice of Completion/Availability: The Draft EIR was prepared by the City's environmental consultant, Environmental Impact Sciences on June 2009. A Notice of Completion and Availability was filed with the Office of Planning and Research on June 22, 2009. The 45 -day public review period was from June 25, 2009 through August 10, 2009. Neighborhood Meeting: On August 3, 2009, a neighborhood forum was held at the Heritage Park Community Center to provide the public with an additional opportunity to ask questions and comment on the Draft EIR, prior to the close of the 45 -day public review period. All written and verbal public testimony was taken, and written responses to the comments and issues raised are provided in the Response to Comments on the Draft EIR. The Response to Comments includes all comments received during the 45 - day public review period. CEQA requires that the City evaluate comments on environmental issues received from persons or agencies who prepared a written response. GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 7 Findings. of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations Prior to approving the proposed Specific Plan, the City Council must first certify that the Final EIR has been completed in accordance with CEQA; that the Final EIR was presented, reviewed and considered by the City Council; and that the Final EIR reflects the City's independent judgment and analysis. The Council is required to adopt findings in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 when significant effects have been identified in the Draft EIR which cannot feasibly be mitigated to less -than -significant levels. As documented in the Draft EIR, all potential impacts associated with the proposed Specific Plan can be mitigated to less -than -significant levels, except air quality impacts. Specifically, it was determined that construction and operational air quality impacts would exceed daily emissions thresholds established by the Air Quality Management District (AQMD). No alternatives (excluding the "No Project" alternative) or mitigation measures were identified which could reduce air quality impacts below a level of significance; this is largely attributable to the fact that the South Coast Air Basin is already subject to unhealthful air quality levels. Even though a review of environmental impacts shows that an environmentally superior alternative exists, the City can still approve the proposed project. According to Section 15093 of the CEQA Guidelines, CEQA requires that the City balance the benefits of a proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks in determining whether to approve the project. If the benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable adverse environmental effects, the adverse environmental effects may be considered "acceptable." In order to do this, the public agency -must adopt a "Statement of Overriding Considerations" - a document that states the reasons for why the project should be approved even though there are environmental impacts that cannot be mitigated. The Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations are attached as Exhibit A to the draft resolution certifying the EIR and adopting the mitigation reporting and monitoring program (Attachment 1). The Findings _pjEadt-d-e-ofify econmia_wd social benefits that will accrue to the City, to the School District, and to the r 1gion ,_As, w-ell-��i-s-i-m-p-o-ffa-nT-p-uffi-c-p-oric-y-ob-j�cf-wilI result from the implementation of thp, objectives that \N oJec. �e re the Council pro os je�c ere ore, the City Council may find that the propose project's ore, � City C i' 0 quality os 0 s. ere �thproject's air quality impacts. e" i s e project's Mir a�lity�i ro identified b�ene override Comment Letters Received Correspondence received to date is included in the Draft EIR, Response to Comments on*the Draft EIR and Planning Commission Staff Reports. Correspondences not published in these documents are included in Attachments 10 through 14. On May 23, 2010, a letter from Andy Salas, Chairman of the GabrieWo Band of Mission Indians is included as Attachment 14. The letter contends that. the City failed to GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 1 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 8 perform adequate outreach to the Native American tribes that. may have a cultural connection to the area. In accordance with the State's "Tribal Consultation Guidelines" (April 15, 2005), the City has fully complied with all applicable noticing requirements with regards to outreach efforts, including sending a "Local Government Tribal Consultation List Request" to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) on February 1, 2008 and sending copies of the Notice of Preparation to the NAHC, the Gabrielenof-Fongva Tribal Council, the Gabrielino Tongva Nation, and the Gabrielino, Band of Mission Indians. The mailing list was obtained from the NAHC website (accessed in late January 2008) which lists the names/contact information for tribal organizations throughout the state. In addition, a Phase I cultural and paleontological resource assessment was prepared as a technical appendix to the EIR. The assessment included direct consultation with the NAHC. The NAHC performed a SacredLandsFile (SLF) record search, which failed to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. Moreover, the NAHC provided the consulting archaeologists with Native American contact list, and letters were sent to each of the contacts via certified mail, and no responses were received. Still, as indicated in the Draft EIR, Mitigation Measure 11-1 requires that a qualified archaeologist shall monitor initial vegetation removal activities in the event that cultural resources, Native American or otherwise, are encountered. A letter from the City's environmental consultant, Environmental Impact Sciences, is included as Attachment 15. Specific, Plan Amendments Among the public comments received, it was noted that Section 6.5 of the Specific Plan may grant the Community Development Director overly broad authority to approve revisions to the Specific Plan. To address this concern, staff drafted modified language to more clearly define the limits to the Director's authority. The proposed revised Section 6.5 is provided as Attachment 9, and will be incorporated into the document if the Specific Plan is approved. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION: On April 11, 2010, the Commission opened the public hearing to take public testimony from the public regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report and all land use entitlements, closed the public hearing, and continued the matter to the April 27, 2010 meeting. Eleven members of the public spoke, and voiced opposition to some or all aspects of the proposed Specific Plan. Concerns revolved largely around the following issues: 9 Traffic impacts; © Visual and aesthetic impacts; © opposition to commercial development; GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, Page 9 TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 a Conservation of existing open space and preservation of existing trees on-site; and a Air quality and construction impacts. A detailed summary of the public testimony is provided in the minutes, which are included in Attachment 7 of this report. At the conclusion of deliberations during the April 27 meeting, three of the four Commissioners expressed intent to recommend certification of the Environmental Impact Report, and adoption of the General Plan Amendment and Zone Change. The same three Commissioners also expressed support for *the Specific Plan with the addition of a recommendation to incorporate a neighborhood park feature into the plan and directed staff to prepare a revised resolution that reflects the majority's recommendation, and continued the matter to the May 11, 2010 meeting. At the May 11, 2010 meeting, staff presented an analysis of park alternatives to assist the Commission in determining the size and type of public space to recommend to the City Council. By a 3-1 vote, the Commission recommended certification of the EIR and Statement of Overriding Considerations, adoption of the General Plan Amendment/Zone Change, and approval of the Specific Plan with the added recommendation to incorporate a 1.3 net acre usable neighborhood public park within the area of the project site designated for commercial development, adjacent to slope areas or water quality management areas, and which shall incorporate features such as, but not limited to, a tot lot, picnic tables, seating areas and shade structures. The Commission stated that the park shall be constructed to City standards, and then dedicated to the City. The staff reports, minutes and resolutions adopted at these meetings are attached as Attachments 6-8. Neighborhood Park Recommendation: In addition to making the above recommendations, the Planning Commission recommended incorporating a 1.3 net acre usable neighborhood public park within the commercial component, adjacent to the slope areas or Water quality management areas. The recommendation to include a neighborhood park is solely that of the Planning Commission. Should the City Council support the concept, it may also wish to consider the area adjacent to the terminus of Posado Drive as an alternative site. Although not within the commercial subarea of the land use plan, it does have a more direct linkage and access point to the existing neighborhood adjacent to Site D. ALTERNATIVES TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS In addition to the staff's recommendation on Page 2, the following alternative actions available to the Council have been identified: GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 10 Alternative Environmental Actions: 1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report, but determine that the Findings of Fact do not warrant the adoption of the Statement of Overriding Considerations, continue the matter and direct staff to prepare the necessary resolution; OR 2. Identify the reasons why the Final EIR should not be certified, specifying the deficiencies in the environmental analysis and/or conclusions, and recommend that the City Council direct staff to revise the environmental analysis accordingly, continue the matter and direct staff to prepare the necessary resolution; OR 3. Continue the item for additional information or revisions to the environmental documents. Alternative Project Actions: 1. Approve the proposed project as recommended by the Planning Commission (which includes a public park amendment) and adopt the resolutions and ordinances included as Attachments I through 5, with or without amendments; OR 2. Approve the proposed project and adopt the resolutions and ordinances with additional modifications and amendments as determined by the City Council; OR 3. Deny the proposed project and direct staff to prepare the necessary resolutions OR 4. Remand the proposed project to the Planning Commission with specific direction from the City Council. NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING: Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site on June 4, 2010, and the notice was published in the Inland Valley Daily Tribune and San Gabriel Valley Tribune. newspapers. The project site was posted with - a notice display board, and a copy of the public notice was posted at the City's three designated community posting sites. The draft Specific Plan and Environmental Impact Report were also posted on the City's website, and hard copies are available for review at City Hall and the Diamond Bar Branch of the Los Angeles County Library. RECOMMENDATION FOR THE JUNE 15, 2010 MEETING: Open the public hearing to take public testimony from the public regarding the Draft Environmental Impact Report and all land use entitlements, and continue the matter to a date specified by the City Council. GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, Page 11 TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Prepared by: P-0 M -A Gr c S.Lee Seitior ■ Reviewed by: David Doyle Assistant City Manager Attachments: Reviewed by: Greg GubmA"n—_,_AICP Community Development Director 1 Draft Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Certification of the FEIR and Adoption of the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program and Statement of Overriding Considerations) 2. Draft Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of GPA) 3. Draft Resolution No. 2010 -XX (Approval of TTM) 4. Draft Ordinance No. XX (2010) (Approval of ZC) 5. Draft Ordinance No. XX (2010) (Approval of SP) 6. PC Staff Reports dated April 13 & 27, May 11, 2010 7. PC Minutes of April 13 & 27, May 11, 2010 8. PC Resolution Nos. 2010-12,13,14 9. Revised Section 6.5 of the Specific Plan RE Amendments 10. E-mail from David R. Busse dated May 10, 2010 11. Letter from Mary E. Rodriguez dated May 7, 2010 12. Letter from James Eng dated May 13, 2010 13. Letter from Lindsay Maine dated May 16, 2010 14. Letter from Andy Sala * s, Chairman of the Gabrieleho Band of Mission Indians dated May 23, 2010 15. Letter from Environmental Impact Sciences Regarding Tribal Consultation dated June 9, 2010 16. Aerial Photo, Land Use Plan, Landscape Concept Plan, Site Sections and Tentative Tract Map GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04,,SP No. 2007-01, TTM No. 70687, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 12 June 8`2O10 Attachment 15 to Attachment 4 | �.=` E�K/0LxU�Kor\���i L�[i�tg��\�(_v��c// m.a�z� � 26051Via Conch -a M\s�,ionM��Caffomba92G-S .5614 9.410,857.11-95 94/119.b57,51955 Fax Greg Gub[nan, Director City of Diamond Bar Community 21825Copley Drive Diamond Bar, California S17O5'4178 Subject: "Site D" Specific Plan - Tribal Consultation Dear Greg: During the Planning Commission's recant deliberations concerning the proposed "Site [/ oPlan" �SDSF1and �sancornpo 'ng"Draft Envronnnanto\ImpactRe �for the'S�e[/ -'-�Plan" 'DE\R0�the QtvofOiornondBar (ChnorLead Agency) received correspondence, Specific��ay 23` 2010,''fronn' Andy Sa|ea. Chairman of the Gobhe\e�o Bond of Mission Indians dated May The 'Thbm alleged the project's environmental impact report (BF<) "was handled �''~~/� erroneously by not giving sufficient 'otificeUVn to all the \ore| Native American tribes." This letter issubmitted inresponse tothe Tribe's letter. Background Senate Bill (SB) 18 (Chapter 905, Statutes of 2004), signed into law by Governor Arnold SchvarzenagOer in September 2004, requires cities and counties to notify and consult with � Tribes about local land -use NativeA American ms ou proposed a prop p\anning decisions for the purpose of protecting Traditional Tribal Cultural Places. Starting on March 1. 2005. cities and counties must send their general plan proposals to those California Native American Tribes that are on the Native Arnehoon Heritage Commission's (NAHC) contact list and have traditional lands located within the city or county's jurisdiction. After March 1, 2005, if requested, cities and counties must also conduct consultations with those tribes prior to adopting or amending their general plans. To help local officials meet these nb|igaUono. SB 18 required the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (DPN) to amend its "General Plan Guidelines" to include advice to local governments on hnvv to consult with California Native American Tribes. On March 1. 3005. (}PN issued interim guidelines and on April 15. 2005 issued "Tribal Consultation Guidelines." On Nbvwrnber 14, 2005. 0PRissued "Tribal Consultation Guidelines Supplement toGeneral Plan Guidelines" (2OO5Gupp|ennenh. \naccordance with the statutory requirements of 8B 18, the 2005 Supplement (also known as Tribal Consultation Guidelines) provides advisory guidance to cities and counties on the process for consulting with Native American Indian tribes during the adoption or amendment of local general plans o[specific plans. Greg Gubman.Community Development Director "Site WSpecific Plan —Tribal Consultation June S.281O . Page Fo[puof consultation with tribes, as required bySections 85352.3and O5562.5of the California Government Code (CG[). the NAHC maintains a list of California Native Amehcan Tribes with vvhuOl local governments must consult. The "California Tribal Consultation List" is deve\opadandnlBintainedbytheNAHCUnde[authohtvg[oOtadUndcrSeotionsG5O82.G5352. and 65352.3 of the CGC. Section 85352.3 requires local governments to consult with tribes prior to the adoption or amendment of QeVa[a| plan or specific plan proposed on or after March 1, 2005. As specified therein, only if tribe is identified by the NAHC and that tribe requests consultation after being contacted by a local government must local government consult with the tribe uDthe p|aO.proposa|. Notification and Outreach Efforts In accordance with the "Tribal Consultation Guidelines," the City has fully complied with all applicable" noticing requirements with regards to tribal outreach efforts, including: U\ on February 1. 2008, sending a "Local Government Tribal Consultation List Request" to the NAHC; CQ on February 1. 2008. sending copies of the "Notice of Preparation" UN[)P1 to the NAHC and to the following tribal organizations: /o\ the Gabia(eho/ToOgVa Tribal Council, (b) the Gabhm|eho Tongva Nation, and (c) the Gabhe|iho Band of Mission Indians; and (3) on June 19. 2008. sending copies of the "Notice of Completion" (N(}C) to the NAHC and to the following tribal organizations: (o)the Gabim|eho/7ongVaTribal Council, (b)the Gebrie|ehoTongva Nation, and (o) the Gab[ie|iho Band of Mission Indians. It is noted that the NAHC Dever responded to the City's initial oUtnaooh efforts. In the absence of response from the NAHC to the City's "Local Government Tribal Consultation List Request," the tribal contact information and mailing list was obtained from the NAHC website. No responses to any of the above referenced notices were received from the NAHC and/or from any tribal organization. Copies of the Lead Agency's "Local Government Tribal Consultation List Request" and NOP are included in the OBR. & copy ofthe N[)C is included in the "Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the'Site D' Specific Plan" (RTC). In oddition, as indicated inthe [)BR. PCR Services Corporation (PCR) separately undertook consultation with the NAHC and with "Native American groups and individuals identified by the NAHC" (Appendix K. p. 15). /n the preparation of this |etter. BS asked PCR to provide clarification of its actions. PCR provided the following response: As part of our cultural resources esaooarnent of the Site D project, PCR commissioned o Sacred Lands File (SLF) records search of the study area through the California Native AnnehoaD Heritage Commission (NAHC) on October 8, 2007. The NAHC SLF records search results did not indicate any known Native American cultural resources within the study area or surrounding vicinity (sae attached letter from NAHC). As per NAHC suggested procedure, follow-up letters were sent via certified mail on November 21, 2007 tothe eight individuals and organizations identified by the NAHC as being affiliated with the vicinity of the study area to request any additional information or concerns they may have about Native American cultural resources that may be affected by the proposed Site [) development (see attached list and letters). Each Native American group end/or individual listed was sent a project notification letter and map and was asked to convey any Native American issues or concerns with the proposed project. The letter included information such as study area location and a brief description of the proposed development. As of today (in our report it Greg Gubmen.Community Development Director "Site i}"Specific Plan —Tribal Consultation June 0.201O Page states 'as ofFebruary - 22.2008').PCR has not received a response from any of the Native American individuals or organizations. Acopy ofthe NAHC'sresponse letter to PCR'oRLFrecords search, dated October 1O.2007`is included iD(Nat�a American Heritage Commission. Letter [October 10. 20071) and ~~----- ` from fr PCR, dated November 21. 2UO7 copies of correspondence . ` to each of the tribal organizations identified by the NAHC are included in Exhibit 2 (Solicitations for Tribal Participation [November 21. 20071) herein. As evidenced by the extent of Lead Agency offode, the Citvfu|k/'ompUedvvith all outreach and consultation obligations concerning the NAHC and California' ~ Native American Tribes. Any allegations to the contrary are. therefore. Unfounded. Request for a Native American Monitor in correspondence dated May 23. 2010` the Tribe stated that "vve as o tribe find �inn to [Native American] monitor No nXoeobons^e[siu]accootad" EIS believes that nobasis exists tosupport that request. Based on the findings of o records search and fioN reconnaissance survey, the [)E|R concluded: "No prehistoric archaeological resources have been previously recorded within one mile of the project site and no prehistoric resources were identified on the subject property during the pedestrian survey. Prehistoric sites identified inthe general project vioinitvconsistof relatively snne|| collections of surface artifacts. The distribution of subsurface prehistoric deposits in the vicinity is unknown. Given the lack of prehistoric materials identified on the surface of the project site and surrounding radius. in light of multiple previous surrounding studies, the potential for subsurface prehistoric deposits in the study area appears to be low" (p. 4.11-15). Although the potential for prehistoric deposits was deemed to be \nv, based on the site's associations with Frederick E. Levis (owner and operator the Diamond Bar Ranch from 1818 until 1946) and the early ranching history of southern California, the potential exists for unearthing historic artifacts during initial site grading and grubbing operations. The [}BRino|uded a mitigation measure (Mitigation Measure 11-1) requiring that "qualified archaeologist" be present to monitor initial vegetation removal activities. The on-site presence of a qualified archaeologist will ensure that, should any prehistoric and/or historic features be identifind, appropriate actions are taken to protect those features in accordance with applicable statutory and regulatory obligations. EIS believes that no further actions are necessary with regards to the Tribe's letter. Sincerely, Peter Lewandowski, Principal Exhibits: U)Nat�eAnnehcenHer�aOeCnmm|s�nnLetter K)chzber1O.2OD7) ' 'So|ioitoUonsforThb8|PerUcjpaUon(Novennber21.2OD7) 10,,11/200-1 06:38 F.LK 916 657 5390 Q.1001,002 NATIVE ANIFREGAN HERITAGE GOMMISSION 9 F CAPITOL MAL_ P009 &-4 SACRAMENTO, CA --ZM e (916) esa-ansl F= (" 6) e57-5390 Vab She WWW nano "Gang_ S-MB11' rahcGottLn October 10, 2007 Mr. Kyle Garcia, Associat te Archaeologist PCR SERA CES COMPORATIOM One Venture, Suits 150 I rvine, CA 92618 Sent by FAX to: 949-753-7002 Number of pages: 2 Re: Gural Resource IdentifigaUgn SWdylSacred Lands File Search for SHe D PraEEcl: City o Dianvand liar. Lo* Angeles County, Catitornia Dear Mr. Garcia: The Native American Heritage Cornrnission was able to perform a record search of its Sacred Lands File (SLF) for the affected project area. The SLF failed -to indicate the presence of Native American cultural resources in the immediate project area. The absence of specific site inforwafiori in the Sacred Lands File does not guarantee the absence of cutturai resources in any ,area of patental affact (APE)' Early consultation With Native American tribes in your area is the best way to avoid unanticipated discoveries once a project is underway. Enclosed are the nearest tribes that may have Immiedge of cultural resources in ft project area. A List of Kawe Arrormart cqntacts are attached to assist you. The Gomrrti-,sian rroke!5, no recommendation of a single iricfWidual or group over another. It is advisable to contact the person fisted; if they cannot supply you with specific infbr=9oP about'die impact on cultural resources, tfiey may be able to refer you to another tribe or person knowledgeable of the cultural resources in or hear Wile affected project area (ARE). Lack of surface evidence of aric�r kgic*fl resources class not precilude the existence Of archeological resources. Lead agencies should consider avoidance, as defined in Section 15370 of the Cafffbmia Environmental Quality Act (CE0A) when significant cultural resources could be affected by a project_ Also, Public; Resources Code Section 5097.98 and Health & Safety Code Section 7050.5 provide for provisions far accidentally discovered archeological resources during const-uaffan and mandate the processes to be followed in the event of an accidental discovery of any humans rernains in a prujact location other than a'dedivatBd CEirneter}r_ Discmsian of these should be included in your environmental documents, as appropriate. If you have arty quesffons about this response to your request, please do not hesitate to contact me at (916) 653-6251. Dave Siriglato Program am ArTa t Attachment NatK-,eAm-e6canCGntacTLLzzt 10/11,12007 06:38 FA_X 91G 657 5390 N.A.HC Native Amer -man cantar"ts Los AngWes CO'Umr October 10, 2007 LA City/County Native Amerfcan Indian Comm Ron Andrade, Director 3175 West M Street, Rm. 403 Los Angeles , CA 9GO20 (213) 351-5324 (213) 386-3995 FAX TVAt Society Cindi Alvitre 6602 ZeIzah Avenue Gabrielino Reseda , CA 91335 qg1vitre@?yahop.com (714) 504-2468 Gell Tongva Ancestral Territorial Tribal Nation John Tornmy Rosas, Tribal Adminstrator 4712 Admiralty way, Suite 172 Gabriefino, T ongva Marina Del Rey , CA 90292 310-570-6567 GabriefenofFongiva Trfbal Council Anthony Morales, Chairperson PO Box 693 Gabrielino, Tongva San Gabriel CA 91778 ChiafRl3Wtfe(La)aol.com (626) 286-1632 (626) 288-1755 - Hon -h-_ (626) 286-1262 Fax This I[ -,d Is C:urrerrt only as of the date of. this d=ument 0 0 2 /0 0 2 Gabdelino/Tongva Council / Gabriellno Tongva Nation Sam Dunlap, Tribal Secretary 761 Tanninal met; Bldg 1, 2nd floor Gabrielino Tongva LOS Angeles , QA 90021 office Ca)tonwatribe.nat (213)489- 1 - Officer (909) 262-9351 - cell (213) 489-5002 Fax Gabrielino Band of Mission Indians of CA k4s. Susan Frank PO Box 3021 Gabrielino Beaumont CA 92223 (951) 897-2536 Phone/Pax Gabrielino Tongva Indians of Caffforrija Tribal Council Robert Dorame, Tffbal Chair/CUItUral Resources 5450 Sfauson, Ave, Suite 151 pmB Gabrielino Tongva Culver City , CA 90230 gtongvagverizon.net 62-76I--6417 -voice 562-920-9449 - fax Gabriellno Tongva Indians of Gatiforriiia. Tribal councif Mercedes Dorame, Tribal Administrator PO Box 59OB09 Gabrielino Tongva San Francisco , CA 94159 Plutc)05�hotmaii.com Distribution of this HV does not relieve any peri ofstatAory —p—sbIft as: aeffried In Sectfan 7DSG.5 aftf-Pa P&alth and t SU of the aisly Code, Socnon 5OR754 of UP -a Pubj5o Re�Eources cade andsac jOjj 50i7, This list is only aappff-csble far cantac-Ong [=-O Pftdva Auea�,a wfregard to cuftural rcs-cpurr-es for the proposed MamD rid Bar site D Pralect; Io�ed in sour eastern LOS Angems County, Callfamh for virhk-_h a Sacred Ls;nicts Rje search and Mad -ea Amarimn C*ntm;t ftt V. -as requested. Exhibit.2 SoUcitations for Tribal ParticipaUon. (November 21,2007) November 21, 2007 Ron Andrade, Director I.A. CITY/COUNTY NATIVE AMERICAN INDIAN COMM. 3175 West 6' Street, Rm. 403 Los Angeles, CA 90020 ........... Re: - PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR -SITE D PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, 4_ 1F Dear Mr. Andrade: PCR Services Corporation (PCR) is conducting a cultural resources investigation for the proposed Diamond Bar -Site D project in the City of Diamond, County of Los Angeles, California. The proposed development of the approximately 30 -acre area includes the installation of residential and commercial buildings dividing the project site in half. Both the residential and commercial buildings will take up approximately 10. 1 acres of the project site leaving the remaining acreage for the development of streets, off -streets, parkway separated walks and on -street bike trails As part of this effort, and in compliance with federal, state and local environmental regulations, we are writing to invite your comments and concerns with respect to the cultural research process. In order to ensure that any areas containing cultural resources or sacred lands are considered, PCR requests any information you are willing to share regarding Native American resources (including properties, places, or archaeological sites) in the vicinity of the project site that may be C) . ty affected by the proposed project. The project site is located in: Township 2 South, Range 9 West, Section 29, of the Yorba Linda, CA 1964 (photo -revised 1981) 7.5'USGS Quadrangle. The project site is also illustrated on the enclosed map. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance with our efforts to address Native American concerns that may be raised by the proposed project. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact me at (310) 451-4488 or via email at m.rockman@pcinet.com. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION �ai�c,y--N Ekman, Ph.D. Acting Director/Principal Archaeologist One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618 INTERNET wwv/.pernet.corn TEL 949.753.7001 FAX 949.753.7002 OWO RMN m. ®r November 21, 2007 Cindi Alvitre- WAT SOCIETY 6602 Zekzah Avenue Reseda, CA 91335 Re: PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR -SITE D PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dear Ms. Alvitre: PCR Services Corporation (PCR) is conducting a cultural resources investigation for the, proposed Diamond Bar -Site D project in the City of Diamond, County of Los Angeles, California. The proposed development of the approximately 30 -acre area includes the installation of residential and commercial buildings dividing the project site in half. Both the residential and commercial buildings will take up approximately 10 - I acres of the project site leaving the remaining acreage for the development of streets, off -streets, parkway separated walks and on -street bike trails As part of this effort, and in compliance with federal, state and local environmental regulations, we are writing to invite your comments and concerns with respect to the cultural research process. In order to ensure that any areas containing cultural resources or sacred lands are considered, PCR requests any information you are willing, to share regarding Native American resources C, (including propel -ties, places, or archaeological sites) in the vicinity of the project site that may be L' affected by the proposed project. The project site is located in: Township 2 South, Range 9 West, Section 29, of the Yorba Linda, CA 1964 (photo -revised 1981) 7.5'USGS Quadrangle. The project site, is also illustrated on the enclosed map. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance with our efforts to address Native American concerns that may be raised by the proposed project. If you have any questions or would like additional infolmation, please contact me at (310) 451-4488 or via email at m.roclu-nan@pcmet.com. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION /i�aircy---Iec� ,an Ph.D. Aaiiia Director/Principal Archaeologist Acoria I One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618 INTERNET vrvw.pernet.001T1 TEL 949.753.7001 1AX 949,753.7002 S November 21, 2007 John Tommy Rosas, Tribal Adminstrator TONGVA ANCESTRAL TERRITORIAL TRIBAL NATION 4712 Admiralty Way, Suite 172 Marina del Ray, CA 90292 Re: PROPOSED DIAMOND BA.R-SITE D PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Rosas: PCR Services Corporation (PCR) is conducting a cultural resources investigation for the proposed Diamond Bar -Site D project in the City of Diamond, County of Los Angeles, California. The proposed development of the approximately 30 -acre area includes the installation of residential and commercial buildings dividing the project site in half. Both the residential and commercial buildings will take up approximately 10.1 acres of the project site leaving the remaining acreage for the development of streets, off -streets, parkway separated walks and on -street bike trails As part of this effort, and in compliance with federal, state and local environmental regulations, we are writing to invite your comments and conceims with respect to the cultural research process. In order to ensure that any areas containing cultural resources or sacred lands are considered, PCR requests any information you are willing to share regarding Native American resources (including properties, places, or archaeological sites) in the vicinity of the project site that may be affected by the proposed project. The project site is located in: Township 2 South, Range 9 West, Section 29, of the Yorba Linda, CA 1964 (photo -revised 1981) 7.5USGS Quadrangle. The project site is also illustrated on the enclosed map. Thank you for your. cooperation and assistance with our efforts to address Native American concerns that may be raised by the proposed project. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact me at(310) 451-4488 or via email at m.rockman@pernet.coin. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION arcy ckman, Ph.D. Actxil'g Director/Principal Archaeologist One Venture, suite 150, Irvine, California 92618 INTER14ET wvtw.pernet.cnnl TEL 949.753.7001 FAX 949,753.7002 ............... gE R November 21, 2007 Anthony Morales, Chairperson GABRIELENO/TONGVA TRIBAL COUNCIL P.O. Box 693 San Gabriel, CA 91778 Re: PROPOSED DWIOND BAR -SITE D PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dear 1\&-. Morales:, PCR Services Corporation (PCR) is conducting a cultural resources investigation for the proposed Diamond Bar -Site D project in the City of Diamond, County of Los Angeles, California. The proposed development of the approximately 30 -acre area includes the installation of residential and commercial buildings dividing the project site in half. Both the residential and commercial e for buildings will take up approximately 10.1 acres of the project site leaving the remaining acreage the development of streets, off -streets, parkway separated walks and on -street bike trails As part of this effort, and in compliance with federal, state and local environmental regulations, we are writing to invite your Comments and concerns with respect to the cultural research process. In order to ensure that any areas containing cultural resources or sacred lands are considered, PCR requests any information you are willing to share regarding Native American resources (including properties, places, or archaeological sites) in the vicinity of the project site that may be affected by the proposed project. The project site is located in: Township 2 South, Range 9 West, Section 29, of the Yorba Linda, CA 1964 (photo -revised 1981) 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. The project site is also illustrated on the enclosed map. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance with our efforts to address Native American concerns that may be raised by the proposed project. if you have any questions or would ac additional information, please contact me at (310) 451-4488 or via email at m.rockman@pcmet.com. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION Warcy-Roclanan, Ph -D, Acting Director/Principal Al -chaeolocrist 949.753.7001 One Venture, suite 150, Irvine, California 92618 INTER14ET www.pernet.COM TEL FAX 949.753.7002 Ii 1�11�i��ij �Il�..✓` � ;s' i�; �::�; " ,'fir ' ,. �,��°ter November 21, 2007 Sam Dunlap, Tribal Secretary GABRIELIN®/T®NGVA COUNCIL/ GABRIELIN® T®NGVA NATION 761 Terminal Street, Building 1, 2nd Floor Los Angeles, CA 90021 Re: PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR -SITE D PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dear Mr. Dunlap: PCR Services Corporation (PCR) is conducting a cultural resources investigation for the proposed Diamond Bar -Site D project in the City of Diamond, County of Los Angeles, California. The proposed development of the approximately 30 -acre area includes the installation of residential and commercial buildings dividing the project site in half Both the residential and conunercial buildings will take up approximately 10.1 acres of the project site leaving the remaining acreage for the development of streets, off -streets, parkway separated walks and on -street bike trails As part of this effort, and in compliance with federal, state and local enviromuental regulations; we are writing to invite your comments and concerns with respect to the cultural research process. In order to ensure that any areas containing cultural resources or sacred lands are considered, PCR requests any information you are willing to share regarding Native American resources (including properties, places, or archaeological sites) in the vici.nity'of the project site that may be affected by the proposed project. The project site is located in: Township 2 South, Range 9 West, Section 29, of the Yorba Linda, CA 1964 (photo -revised 1981) 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. The project site is also illustrated on the enclosed map. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance with our efforts to address Native American concerns that may be raised by the proposed project. If you have any questions or would like additional infoimation, please contact me at (310) 451-4488 or via email at m.rocla-nan@peinet.com. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION airy-Okman, Ph.D. Acttifg Director/Principal Archaeologist One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618 INTERNET vmA/.pernet.com TEL 949.753.7001 Fax 949.753.7002 @2M November 21, 2007 Ms. Susan Frank GABRIELINO BAND OF NUSSION INDIANS OF CA P.O. Box 3021 Beaumont, CA 92223 Re: PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR -SITE D PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY5 CALIFORNIA Dear Ms. Frank: PCR Services Corporation (PCR) is conducting a cultural resources investigation for the proposed Diamond Bar -Site D project in the City of Diamond, County of Los Angeles, California. The proposed development of the approximately 30 -acre area includes the installation of residential and commercial buildings dividing the project site in half. Both the residential and commercial buildings will take up approximately 10. 1 acres of the project site leaving the remaining acreage for the development of streets, off -streets, parkway separated walks and on -street bike trails As part of this effort, and in compliance with federal, state and local environmental regulations, we are writing to invite your comments and concerns with respect to the cultural research process. In order to ensure that any areas containing cultural resources or sacred lands are considered, PCR requests any information you aie willing to share regarding Native American resources (including properties, places, or archaeological sites) i 11 the vicinity of the project site that may be affected by the proposed project. The project site is located in: Township 2 South, Range 9 West, Section 29, of the Yorba Linda, CA 1964 (photo -revised 1981) 7.5'USGS Quadrangle. The project site is also illustrated on the enclosed map. Thank you . u for your cooperation and assistance with our efforts to address Native American concerns that may be raised by the proposed project. if you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact me at (310) 451-4488 or via email at m.rockinaii@pcmet.com. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION p4atcy�-5�Kckinan, Ph.D. Acti g Director/Principal Archaeologist One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618 INTERNET wwvv.pernet.com ... 949.753.7001 FAX 949,753.7002 November 21, 2007 Robert Dorame, Tribal Chair/Cultural Resources GABR1ELIN0 TONGVA INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA TRIBAL COUNCIL 5450 Slauson Ave., Suite 151 PMB Culver City, CA 90230 Re: PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR SITE D PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dear Mi. Dorame: PCR Services Corporation (PCR) is conducting a cultural resources investigation for the proposed Diamond Bar -Site D project in the City of Diamond, County of Los Angeles, California. The proposed development of the approximately 30 -acre area includes the installation of residential and commercial buildings dividing the project site in half. Both the residential and commercial buildings will take up approximately 10. 1 acres of the project site leaving the remaining acreage for the development of streets, off -streets, parkway separated walks and on -street bike trails As part of this effort, and in compliance with federal, state and local environmental regulations, we are writing to invite your comments and concerns with respect to the cultural research process. In order to ensure that any areas containing cultural resources or sacred lands are considered, PCR requests any information you are willing to share regarding Native American resources I (including propel -ties, places, or archaeological sites) in the vicinity of the project site that may be affected by the proposed project. The project site is located in: Township 2 South, Range 9 West, Section 29, of the Yorba Linda, CA 1964 (photo -revised 1981) 7.5'USGS Quadrangle. The project site is also illustrated on the enclosed map. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance with our efforts to address Native American concerns that may be raised by the proposed project. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact me at (310) 451-4488 or via email at m.roclanan@pcmet.com. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION Ckman, Ph.D. Acta g Director/Principal Archaeologist One Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618 INTERNET wvrw.pernet.COM TEL 949.753.7001 FAX 949.753.7002 November 21, 2007 Mercedes Dorame, Tribal Administrator ' GABRIELINO TONGVA INDIANS OF CALIFORNIA TRIBAL COUNCIL P.O. Box 590809 San Francisco, CA 94159 Re: PROPOSED DIAMOND BAR -SITE D PROJECT, LOS ANGELES COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Dear Ms. Dorame: PCR Ser -Aces Corporation (PCR) is conducting a cultural resources investigation for the City of Diamond, County of Los Angeles, California. proposed Diamond Bar -Site D project in the 117, The proposed development of the approximately 30 -acre area includes the installation of residential and commercial buildings dividing the project site in half. Both the residential and commercial buildings will take up approximately 10. 1 acres of the project site leaving the remainino, acreage for the development of streets, off -streets, Parkway separated walks and on -street bike, trails As part of this effort, and in compliance with federal, state and local environmental regulations, we are writing to invite your comments and concerns with respect to the cultural research process. In order to ensure that any areas containing0 cultural resources or sacred lands are considered, PCR requests any information you are willing to share regarding Native American resources (including properties, places, or archaeological sites) in the vicinity of the project site that may be affected by the proposed project. The, project site is located in: Township 2 South, Range, 9 West, Section 29, of the Yorba Linda, CA 1964 (photo -revised 1981) 7.5' USGS Quadrangle. The project site is also illustrated on the enclosed map. Thank you for your cooperation and assistance with our efforts to address Native American concerns that may be raised by the proposed project. If you have any questions or would like additional information, please contact me at (310) 451-4488 or via email at m.rocicman@pci-net.com. Sincerely, PCR SERVICES CORPORATION lvfarcr-R ckinan, Ph.D. Acting Director/Principal Archaeologist One, Venture, Suite 150, Irvine, California 92618 114TER14ET WVV\'1f.PGrnet.corn TEL 949.753.7001 FAX 949.753.7002 Attachment 5 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 15, 2010 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. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Herrera led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Pastor Mark Hopper, Evangelical Free Church, gave the invocation. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ling -Ling Chang, Ron Everett, Jack Tanaka, Mayor Pro Tern Steve Tye and Mayor Carol Herrera. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle, Asst. City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; Ken Desforges, IS Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Ryan McLean, Assistant to the City Manager; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; Christian Malpica-Perez, Associate Engineer (Traffic); Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer; Patrick Gallegos, Management Analyst; Anthony Santos, Management Analyst; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. Also Present: Mark Rogers, TRG Land and Peter Lewandowski, Environmental Impact Sciences (consultants for Site D) APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS 1.1 Steve Remige, President of Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, (ALADS), presented a plaque to the City Council as a thank you to the City for its ongoing support for quality public safety services. Lt. Maxey joined the Council for the photo opportunity. NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH: 1.2 MPT/Tye presented City Tiles to Charlie Cobb, Manager and Bob Chu, owner of Burger King located at 2711 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. and 527 S. Grand Ave., as Business of the Month. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None Offered. 3. ' PUBLIC COMMENTS: Allen Wilson asked the Council to amend its City Charter to forbid City Council. Members from participating in CalPers, collecting medical JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL retirement and other "perks". Jessee Lantz, Librarian, spoke about the Diamond Bar Library's summer reading programs. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: CM/DeStefano responding to Mr. Wilson, stated that the incidents that have occurred in other San Gabriel Valley cities involving Council Members is certainly not reflective of the City of D.B. The five members that currently serve and the 14 members prior to these five have served with honor and dignity for the City and its residents extraordinarily well over the past 21 years. The speaker referred to the need to develop an ordinance or to draft a Charter amendment with respect to the potential for City Council Members seeking unemployment benefits after they have concluded their service. D.B. is not a Charter City. D.B. is a General Law City and therefore must follow State Law. There are agencies outside of the City of D.B. that determine whether unemployment benefits are appropriate for former City Council Members. At this point there is no need for any follow up. To reiterate, this type of behavior is not reflective of the history of D.B. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Planning Commission Meeting — June 22, 2010 .— 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.2 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — June 24, 2010 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.3 4th of July Blast — July 4, 2010 — 5:00 p.m., Diamond Bar High School, 21400 Pathfinder Rd. Music and Entertainment begin at 5:30 p.m. - Fireworks begin at 9:00 p.m. Free parking and shuttle service is available from the Cal Trans Park and Ride on Pathfinder Rd. 5.4 4th of July Holiday — Monday, July 5, 2010 — City Offices closed in observance of 4th of July. Offices reopen Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at 7:30 a.m. 5.5 City Council Meeting — July 6, 2010 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.6 Concerts in the Park — July 7, 2010 — 6:30 to 8:00 pm, "The Answer" (Classic Rock) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL 5.7 Movies Under the Stars — July 7, 2010 — Planet 51 — Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Tanaka moved, C/Everett seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Everett, Tanaka, MPT/Tye M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 6.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6.1.1 Study Session of May 18, 2010—as submitted. -6.1.2 Regular Meeting of May 18, 2010 — as submitted. 6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of May 11, 2010. 6.3 RECEIVED AND FILED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES— Regular Meeting of April 22, 2010. 6.4 RECEIVED AND FILED TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of March 11, 2010. 6.5 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER— Dated May 14, 2010 through June 8, 2010 totaling $1,312.182.17. 6.6 APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT — Month of April 2010. 6.7 CITY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT: a) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-18: DECLARING THE CITY'S SUPPORT FOR AN ENERGY PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON AND THE CITY OF D.B. b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-19: CONSENTING TO INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE INCORPORATED AREA OF THE CITY IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ENERGY PROGRAM TO FINANCE DISTRIBUTED GENERATION RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, APPROVING THE REPORT SETTING FORTH THE PARAMETERS OF THE REFERENCED PROGRAM AND CERTAIN MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL c) APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH FIELDMAN/ROLAPP & ASSOCIATES. d) APPROVED THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE 2010 EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM. e) APPROVED COST OF LIVING INCREASE TO THE HOURLY RATES FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY JENKINS & HOGIN. 6.8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTS: a) APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 4, TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DIANA CHO AND ASSOCIATES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) LABOR AND CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000 FOR FY 2009-10. b) APPROVED CONTRACT WITH DIANA CHO AND ASSOCIATES FOR CDBG CONTRACT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR A NOT -TO -EXCEED AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR FY 2010-11. c) APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CITY'S AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION. WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK, LLP. • �'l9roTaNNORNM a) APPROVED CONTRACT WITH REPUBLIC ITS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR THREE FISCAL YEARS (FY 2010-2011, FY 2011-2012 AND FY 2012-13). b) APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARDED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH RJ NOBLE COMPANY FOR RESIDENTIAL AREA 6 (NORTH OF SR 60 FWY AND EAST OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD) RESIDENTIAL ROAD MAINTENANCE PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $908,712; AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $91,000 FOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $999,712. c) APPROVED NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR PREVENTATIVE STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (ZONE 3 AND ZONE 4 ARTERIAL STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT) FEDERAL JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL PROJECT NO. ESPL-5455(013). d) APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARDED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR PATHFINDER MEDIAN PROJECT BETWEEN THE NORTHBOUND STATE ROUTE 57 ON/OFF RAMPS AND FERN HOLLOW DRIVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,937.50 TO KASA CONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $18,000 FOR CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $107,937.50. e) APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARDED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD RAISED MEDIAN MODIFICATION PROJECT (IN FRONT OF THE DIAMOND BAR POST OFFICE) IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,843.50 TO ELITE COMPANIES US, INC. AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $5,500 FOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $60,343.50. APPROVED NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL BATTERY BACKUP SYSTEM PROJECT. 6.10 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTS: a) APPROVED INCREASE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT FOR MEGA WAY ENTERPRISES IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,731 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SYCAMORE CANYON TRAIL PROJECT — PHASE III. b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-20: APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION FOR FUNDING TO CONSTRUCT FREESTANDING OUTDOOR INTERPRETIVE EXHIBITS ALONG SYCAMORE CANYON PARK TRAIL. 5.11 IS DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTS: a) AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIVE YEAR AGREEMENT WITH COMPUCOM FOR MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO - EXCEED $105,651.65 ($21,130.33 ANNUALLY). b) AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE VARIOUS NETWORKING EQUIPMENT AND COMPUTER HARDWARE FROM CDWG, 1N FY 2010-11 FOR AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED $181,000. JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL 6.12 FINANCE DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTS: a) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-21: SETTING PROPOSITION 4 (GANN) APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY - 2010 -11 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 9 OF TITLE 1 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE. b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-22: ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-11. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE DISTRICT NO'S 38, 39 AND 41: a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-23: LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR'S LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR FY 2010-11. b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-24: LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR'S LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE FY 2010-11. c) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-25: LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR'S LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE FY 2010-11. PWD/Liu reported that the City has an annual maintenance program for landscaping and open space improvements for District's 38, 39 and 41. District 38 has a proposed levy rate of $15 per parcel which will generate about $268,000 in assessment for FY 2010-11. This assessment rate of $15 per parcel has remained the same since the date of incorporation in 1989. As a result of the rising operational and maintenance costs of the district the City has been using its General Fund to maintain service levels. For FY 2010-11 $14,867 from the General Fund is proposed to be used to pay for the operation'and maintenance costs in District 38. Not reflected in the District 38 budget is $36,100 from the General Fund for personnel service costs. The total annual budget for District 38 is $282,617. Landscaping improvements maintained by District 38 include an estimated 17,850 parcels and parkways and medians JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL throughout the City for a total area of approximately 10.34 acres. Staff recommends that the assessment district amount of $15 for each assessable lot within District 38 be confirmed and that the resolution levying an assessment for FY 2010-11 be adopted. District 39 has a proposed levy rate of $130 per parcel which will generate approximately $164,190 in assessments. Similar to District 38, costs have outpaced the revenues and the current assessment rate is inadequate to maintain and improve District 39 without utilizing the General Fund. For FY 2010-11, $57,042 General Fund monies are proposed to pay for the operation and maintenance costs and $36,100 'General Fund monies for personnel services costs. The District budget totals $221,232. Landscaping improvements maintained by District 39 include the mini parks, slopes and open space area within the district consisting of a total maintenance area of almost 61 acres. The estimated number of parcels within the District is 1,263. Staff is recommending that District 39 assessment value of $130 per parcel be confirmed and that the resolution levying an assessment for FY 2010-11 be adopted by the City Council. District 41 has a proposed levy rate of $220.50 which will generate approximately $122,157 in assessments. This assessment is inadequate to maintain and improve District 41 without utilizing the General Fund. For FY 2010-11, $20,000 of Prop A State Park funds are proposed to pay for the operation and maintenance costs and $36,100 of General Fund for personnel services costs. The District budget totals $183,368. Landscaping improvements to be maintained by District 41 include slopes and open space consisting of a total maintenance area of almost 16 acres. The estimated number of parcels within the District is 554. Staff recommends that the assessment amount of $220.50 for each assessable lot within District 41 to be confirmed and that the resolution levying an assessment for FY 2010-11 be adopted. M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing at 7:11 p.m. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, M/Herrera closed the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. MPT/Tye thanked PWD/Liu for his comprehensive report. He reiterated that the assessment rates remain the same as the rate applied at the date of D.B.'s incorporation 21 years ago. C/Everett asked why the report refers to "estimated" parcel numbers rather than exact numbers. JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL PWD/Liu stated that staff confirmed the number of parcels within each assessment district with the help of the City's Assessment Engineer and the numbers presented to Council are close to the latest available information. "Estimates" are used to convey staffs report is as close to reality as possible based on information available at the time of the survey. C/Everett moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to adopt Resolution 2010- 23, 2010-24 and 2010-25 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Everett, Tanaka, MPT/Tye, M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 7.2 A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VARIOUS ACTIONS PERTAINING TO SITE D (A SITE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 AND 8714-015-001) INCLUDING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-03, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2007-04, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2007-01 ("SITE D SPECIFIC PLAN"), TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 70687, AND CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2007- 02 (SCH NO. 2008021014). a) RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX: CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2008021014) AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SITE D SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 70687 FOR A SITE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8714-002- 900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 AND 8714- 015-001). b) RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX: APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-03 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 2007-04 FOR PROPERTY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714- 002-903 AND 8714-015-001). c) RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX: APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 70687 FOR SUBDIVISION OF 30.36 ACRE SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PURPOSES WITH 202 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 153,985 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN 8714-002-900, 8714-002- 903 AND 8714-045-001). d) ORDINANCE NO. OX (2010): APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2007-04 CHANGING THE EXISTING ZONING TO SPECIFIC PLAN FOR PROPERTY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 8714-002-900, 8714-002- 901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 AND 8714-015-001). e) ORDINANCE NO. OX (2010): APPROVING SITE D SPECIFIC PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2007-01, FOR PROPERTY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 AND 8714-015- 001). CDD/Gubman stated that the plan presented to the Council for, consideration this evening is the result of a cooperative effort between the City of Diamond Bar and the Walnut Valley Unified School District. This effort began in June 2007 with the City Council's approval of a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between the School District and the City where it was agreed that the two agencies would embark on a planning process to establish a comprehensive and forceful planning strategy for Site D and to do so prior to putting the property on the market for sale. To further this goal, it was agreed that a specific plan would be the most appropriate planning tool to better ensure a predictable outcome for the eventual buildout of the site. The City and School District agreed to engage the services of Planning Firm TRG Land to prepare the Specific Plan which includes both the physical plan for the site and the regulations that would govern its buildout. TRG JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL specializes in hillside design so the company was well qualified to formulate a buildable and aesthetically appropriate design solution for Site D's complex topography. Staff selected Peter Lewandowski, principal of the firm Environmental Sciences to prepare the Site D Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mr. Lewandowski has worked with the City to provide other EIR's and provided other environmental consulting services over the years and is an excellent analyst who consistently delivers detailed, exhaustive, transparent and . defensible environmental documents for D.B. CDID/Gubman then presented an overview of the decision making process which included an explanation of what is a Specific Plan, the purposes of an Environmental Impact Report and conclude the discussion with a project overview and explanation for the decisions the Council will be making at the end of the hearing process. A Specific Plan is a detailed blueprint to guide future development over a specific geographic area. A Specific Plan is a much more robust prescription for development than conventional zoning designations. It is not a project development plan that one would see for a shopping center or residential subdivision; however, it does specify the criteria to which such future developments must adhere. The Site D Specific Plan includes a land use diagram that is very much like a zoning map in that it shows the boundaries for development designated for residential and commercial uses but goes beyond that. This Specific Plan contains development regulations and architectural design guidelines, provides graphic and written specifications for onsite improvements and describes the public improvements that will be required as part of the plan's implementation. An adopted Specific Plan will enable the City to exert much more control over the outcome of subsequent development after the property is sold than what would be possible if the property is sold "as is". CDD/Gubman explained the purpose of an Environmental Impact Report using a slide presentation. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process is prescribed under the California Environmental Quality Act (SEQA) and because of the potential environmental impacts that this project poses, an EIR is required. The framework for an EIR as called out in SEQA provides basic mandates the city must follow through the environmental process. One important function of the SEQA process is to inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential environmental effects on proposed activities. Also, SEQA is intended to identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. SEQA was also created to prevent significant avoidable damage to the environment by JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the government agency finds the changes to be feasible. The purpose of SEQA is to disclose to the public the reasons why a government agency approved the project in a manner the agency chose if significant environmental impacts are involved. The bottom line of SEQA and those basic purposes is to provide an objective process to disclose and to minimize. environmental damage. CDD/Gubman stated that the purpose of the EIR is to inform other governmental agencies as well as the public of the environmental impact of the proposed project. There are two major milestones in the EIR process. One is the drafting of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which is collectively referred to as the Draft EIR; and, two the process of .bringing the Draft EIR to the public and respond to any comments and make any changes if defects in the document are identified such as an eventual decision on a land use matter that the EIR was prepared to analyze. For Site D the Draft EIR process began in earnest with the publication of a Notice of Preparation. There was a 30 day notice period February 1 through March 5, 2008 wherein the City informed public agencies through the State's Clearinghouse, direct outreach to public agencies and notification to property owners within a 1000 ft. radius of Site D that an EIR was going to be prepared with the objective of having early identification to the City of what types of environmental issues are of concern that should be looked at. During the Notice of Preparation period the City also conducted a public scoping meeting on February 21, 2008, which provided a public forum to hear in a collective, efficient setting what the concerns were pertaining to environmental issues. Following the NOP process, the City drafted the Draft EIR which was completed in late Spring of 2009 after several screen check drafts were vetted through staff. When the document was ready for public review the City issued a Notice of Completion which started a 45 -day public review period for public agencies and residents to review the Draft EIR and provide comments on Environmental issues that were believed to be inadequately addressed or if questions were raised as to how the EIR analyzed certain issue areas. At the conclusion of the public review period staff collected all of the written and oral comments and began the process of a final EIR. CDD/Gubman further stated that the final EIR in terms of the document is comprised of several volumes including the Draft EIR, technical appendices which are the scientific and technical/engineering reports that provide , the data, and the specialized scientific analysis of the environmental impacts that are then collected and summarized in the Environmental Impact JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL Report. The final EIR also includes all of the comments received during the public review period and all responses to those comments. Ultimately, the role of the EIR in the decision making process is for the public agency to review the disclosures contained in that document and not to decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either the project, as approved, doesn't have a significant effect on the environment; or, that the agency has eliminated or substantially lessened all of the significant affects on the environment, where feasible, and determined that any remaining significant affects on the environment are found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding considerations. He reiterated that every comment that raises environmental issues must receive a written response. The EIR process generates many comments that go beyond the scope of environmental issues and as the scope of the environmental review process is as defined, responses are, made to those environmental issues. With respect to Site D's Specific Plan there is the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SEQA provides that the decision making agency would need to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts when determining whether to approve the project. If specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts, then the adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable. CDD/Gubman presented an overview of the site and its proposed land uses including commercial and residential components recommended by TRG Consulting and stated that the proposed project would include, a measurable contribution fair -share fee to improve the functionality of two intersections. CDD/Gubman stated that the Specific Plan, related applications and EIR were presented to the Planning Commission on February 13, 2010. The Commission conducted a Public Hearing that evening and continued discussion over the next two meetings. On May 11, 2010 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, approve the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Tentative Tract Map with the additional recommendation that a 1.3 acre park be included on the commercial site. staff believes that the proposed Specific Plan represents the direction initiated through the 2007 MOU process and provides the City with an appropriate long-term plan for Site D that achieves a number of objectives that are of benefit to the community including providing JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL housing at an appropriate density for the site to add to the City's housing stock to help meet the City's obligation to contribute to the region's housing needs; to provide commercial amenities in this part of the City and at an intersection that is ideally suited for that purpose; the Specific Plan ensures the City's influence on the site's future build out; and, the land sale of the site and its proceeds will help further the WVUSD's educational mission. CDD/Gubman introduced Mark Rogers, TRG Land; Peter Lewandowski, Environmental Impact Sciences; Steve Sasaki, staff's contract traffic engineering consultant; Dr. Cynthia Simms, Superintendent, WVUSD; Carolyn Elfelt, WVUSD Trustee. CM/DeStefano stated that the residential and commercial pads are related to Tentative Tract Map 70687, a copy of which has been provided to the City Council and reviewed by the Planning Commission. This Parcel Map is proposed to generally commence the process of reconfiguring these acres in order to accommodate the proposed land uses. The Map talks about redistributing the acreage into three parcels — one for commercial and two for residential. The Map also identifies seven lettered lots, five of which are set aside for Open Space and two for roadways within the 30 plus acre site. The staff report incorporates 16 additional major exhibits including the aforementioned items as well as, all of the letters that have been received, communications prior to the Planning Commission's Public Hearing, Planning Commission staff reports, actions that occurred at the Planning Commission meetings, minutes of the Planning Commission meetings and all. communication received since the Planning Commission's conclusions including one communication received today. Staff has provided the City Council with all documentation that would allow the Council to make its decision this evening, should it choose to do so. Staff is recommending that the City Council Open the Public Hearing, receive public testimony, bring the matter back to the City. Council for discussion, direct City staff as necessary and continue the matter to a date in July specified by the City Council. This project has been documented on the City's website for many months and staff has provided a City Council agenda that includes all of the supplemental material so that the public has an opportunity to view all materials received by the City Council. M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m. and invited Mark Rogers, TRG Land, and Dr. Cyndy Simms, WVUSD to speak on the matter. Dr. Simms stated that the School District has suffered major budget reductions due to the State's economy and the legislature's JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL decision to make cuts to public schools. As a result, the School District and School Board have had to act very responsibly to balance the District's budget. WVUSD believes that the sale of Site D would provide an opportunity to assist the School District with its operations if the sale takes place within a two-year window. The WVUSD respectfully asks that the City Council approve the recommendations of staff contained in staff's report on Page 2. Margot Eiser, Montebello, spoke in opposition to the project and in favor of leaving the property as open space. Ernie Salas, Andy Salas and Matt Teutimez, Covina, representing the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, San Gabriel, California, said they were never given notice of this project and that their Indian tribe were the inhabitants of this area and oppose the project proposed on historical grounds. Matt Teutimez, biologist for the tribe, said that the natives look at this site as containing components that were utilized by their ancestors. John Martin, 1249 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., asked that the following issue be entered into the Public Hearing record: The SEQA requirement that viable alternatives be presented in any EIR was circumvented by the City's agreement with WVUSD via the MOU. He hoped the Council would give up the $300,000 reimbursement and vote against the proposal. Carolyn Elfelt, Board of Trustees, WVUSD, apologized to the City of D.B. and the community for being so slow to explain why the District needs to sell the property at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Brea Canyon Rd. She is sorry that the rumors about the property are running rampant and causing concern among the citizens. Regardless of the rumors, the harsh reality is there is a fiscal crisis in California. Sacramento has failed to adequately fund schools to continue the programs it demands the Districts to provide. California schools are desperately trying to survive the worst years of funding shortages since the great depression of the 1930's which lasted a decade. Today's budget challenges are not going away anytime soon. In Walnut Valley we are in a perfect storm of declining enrollment, economic cycles and legislative actions that add to educational requirements but fail to provide funding to support and sustain those requirements. There is no good news out of Sacramento for school districts. Walnut Valley, like every other school district in California, is facing staggering budget deficits. Sacramento has failed to adequately fund its schools. So, Walnut Valley has to find its own funding sources to prepare its JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL students to survive in the highly competitive global economy of the 21st century. Walnut Valley must maximize every asset it has to save the programs students need. Funding sources of any kind are desperately needed to fill and backfill budget holes. Selling surplus property such as Site D and using the funds to backfill budget holes is a viable option. The plan before the Council tonight is a result of over 20 years of effort to create a project ' which will benefit the citizens of D.B. and their children's education. The process for the approval is open and public. On behalf of the Board of Trustees of Walnut Valley, thank you City Council and City staff for enabling Walnut Valley to use its surplus property for the benefit of its students. David R. Busse, 21455 Ambushers St., took exception to the claim of an open process and cooperative effort. The people own this land and do not want this project. He presented the City Clerk with a petition opposing the Site D Specific Plan. Mary McCormick, 21455 Ambushers, St., said she believes the proposal violates SEQA guidelines because there was no proper public participation during the Planning Commission hearings. Several residents attended the Planning Commission meetings prior to their decision to approve their recommendation to the City Council. The residents who were in that meeting were told they could not speak, that in fact, they were only allowed to speak at a public hearing. So at the Planning Commission meeting residents attempted to talk about alternatives. Chris Chung, 21470 Cold Spring Ln., asked if his letter was part of the record. He believed there had not been full disclosure of facts in thismatter and mistakes of fact. Due to the lack of disclosure about the total number of units that could be built (253 units) the traffic was not analyzed properly. He pointed out other deficiencies in the General Plan as it related to the proposal. He felt if the Council approved the matter it could easily be challenged. Hilda He, 2911 Rising Star Dr., asked if the cash from the sale of the land would be used to employ more teachers, add more programs for students, etc. She preferred that the City retain the site as open space and for recreation. She asked why the City wanted to build when there were so many apartment vacancies. She was also concerned about the pollution from the additional traffic. Mary Rodriquez, 3419 Pasado Dr., said she was not in favor of developing Site D and did not trust the EIR. D.B. needs more park space and the time to save Site D, a historical and cultural site, is JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL now. Nancy Daugherty, 3010 La Paz Ln., said she wholeheartedly supported her neighbor's comments in opposition to this project. She would support a nature walk or nature park. She supports the School Board and would like to see an alternative plan for the property. School districts need revenue but the City needs to preserve its open space and wildlife habitats. Judy Leung, 21178 Running Branch, said she believed that most residents support public education but she is very concerned about what Jack LeBrun, Budget Manager of WVUSD said in April that this money cannot be used to pay for teacher salaries and school programs. Dr. Simms stated that there is a two year window for use of these funds and would like an explanation. She asked why the public is here to discuss only this plan and no other alternatives. She walked about 12 hours during the past couple of weeks and 90% of her neighbors object to this plan. She took exception to the 1000 ft. radius requirement and asked why bids were not offered to other firms for preparation of the EIR. Robert Poyner, '8115 Preston Rd., Dallas, TX, Country Hills Holding, said he understood the School District and City's financial motive. Country Hills Holding Company does not believe the commercial aspect of this plan is viable in a tough competitive market. His firm believes this plan offers a short-term financial gain and a long-term negative impact to both D.B. and its residents. Gregory Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek, spoke in opposition to the proposed Site D Specific Plan and said he found many errors in the EIR. M/Herrera asked if staff had responses to speaker's comments. CM/DeStefano stated that it is staffs recommendation to bring the matter back to the dais for discussion and that Council may want to direct staff to continue the matter to July 20. On July 20 staff can respond with answers to all of the questions and issues raised during tonight's public hearing testimony. Further, staff would recommend that the City Council continue the Public Hearing to July 20 and at that time Council can decide whether to close the Public Hearing and take action or continue the matter. M/Herrera asked for Council input. MPT/Tye asked staff to address the following issues: Was the Gabrieleno Indian tribes notified; clarification regarding the MOU JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL relative to "reimbursement"; possible violation of SEQA; and staff's opinion regarding the issue of "a taking". C/Tanaka asked staff if the Specific Plan, as presented is approved at a future date would that limit the potential developer to what could eventually be developed on the site. He also asked TRG if any alternatives were presented for Site D Specific Plan. C/Everett asked for clarification of use of funds by the School District because he has heard two conflicting reports regarding what the proceeds from the sale of property can be used for. He did not recall seeing oak trees being killed that may be on the property or Walnut Woodlands. He knows there are lots of Eucalyptus but if there are any other protected tree inventories he would like to have that brought back. He indeed appreciates the comments he heard tonight as well as previous comments he has heard and read. He moved here 32 years ago for the school district and schools for his kids and he feels D.B. is fortunate to have a school district that is ongoing and operating effectively since 1970. He appreciates the school leadership and has an interest in parks, trails and the environment and s * ustainable alternatives and thinks those needs to be a key part of any project. He further believes it would be great to protect that acreage but residents have to be realistic. It is a challenge for D.B. and he wants to balance it. He is here to listen and has heard good ideas that were not previously received because of a technicality and would like it clarified. He would like the alternatives he heard referenced but has not seen them. There is a claim that there have been no alternatives and asked for clarification. He also asked what was considered in the EIR as alternatives and would like to see that clarified as well. He said he was disappointed about the notices about Site D. He understands the frustration that people did not get the mandated notice; however, in the most recent Windmill May/June there is an. article right in the middle about the "Walnut Valley property Site D for sale. This publication goes to every home in our City and has been on the web page. He has spoken to residents throughout the City about Site D and interestingly enough, he finds most of them know about Site D and have minimal concerns. Realistically we want to protect "Country Living" but we've got to be realistic and a property owner has rights. What he wants for Site D is for the neighbors to have something that they can appreciate and respect and something that all .of D.B. can view. He was delighted to see the latest charts presented by Mr. Gubman that show the land use plan. There is a red asterisk on the corner of Brea Canyon Cutoff and Diamond Bar Blvd. that is listed as "Commercial Gateway". To him that red star is the gateway to D.B. and he wants it to be attractive and effective. He thinks the City can do it but needs JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL ideas and support rather than everyone saying "don't do anything". All who have listened to this proposal have lots of ideas. Council doesn't have a corner on the market. He wants to hear some ideas about how this parcel can be made into an attractive place because opportunity is knocking on Site D. He wants to balance this for the best benefit of D.B. and t he residents and not just the School District and not just for the resident who live there. He certainly does not want the project to create a path for traffic to shortcut through the City's side and back streets He thanked staff for its report and thanked M/Herrera for a chance to offer comments and questions. M/Herrera said she attended all of the Planning Commission meetings and the conversation was about a park opposite Cherryvale Dr. She would like staff to explore what a 2 acre park might look like if it were more along the edges of the homes where there could be more green space, buffer, and separation between homes on Ambushers at the very lower end of the commercial pad. At the Planning Commission meeting it was talked about at the corner/intersection of Brea Canyon Rd. and Diamond Bar Blvd. similar to a courtyard with trees and benches and shops on either side that could serve as a gathering place for people.to sit and visit. It might somewhat reduce the commercial usage on that acreage. She would like staff to look at that possibility. She asked for her colleague's input. MPT/Tye said he heard a lot tonight about "alternatives" but he did not hear any specific alternatives offered. He has had conversations with folks at the south end of town and adjacent to the.property and email conversations. He believes staff is correct that the City cannot tell a property owner they cannot do anything with their property. One of the notes he made to himself that he repeats publicly every time this type of project is considered is "undeveloped private property is not open space" and it is not on any plan one can find designated as open space. But what are the alternatives. When he was elected in 2005 one of the first things he attended was the grand opening of the Sprint store at Golden Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd. which he believes did not last a year. The key is that even though it is not up to him, he believes it makes more sense to have more residential. If the School District could develop this property this conversation would not be happening. If Lewis Homes and JCC Partnership had developed it, this conversation would not be happening. Personally, he did not see commercial working and he could not envision what 150,000 sq. ft. of retail would look like there. When he served on the Planning Commission Mr. DeStefano would often tell the Commission that "this is a palate and you get to create it" this is a JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL blank palate and let us create what we want it to look like. So what does that alternative mean compared to what the Council is looking at today? He is not a proponent of commercial on that property. He would rather see 100% residential and would like to know what that would mean. Whether that would be an answer for tonight or a future meeting relative to the process. He would like it made very clear for the public and those who have taken time to be here this evening that they understand that the Council is not driven by an MOU. Council is driven by what is best for D.B. — all of D.B. The property owner is a property owner in D.B. Those that spoke on behalf of the WVUSID are not only representing the School District, they are residents of D.B. Four of the five trustees are residents of D.B. It is not like they can say they only want what is best for the School District. If you have kids in school you want what is best for the School District. He did not hear anyone saying let's not do this so we can see how we can hurt the school district. No one has that in mind. So, what will work? What is the best for that area? What is the best for the School District? And, what is best for the City of D.B. and all of the citizens of D.B. He appreciated everyone's efforts to talk with residents and gather signatures but how many signatures came from people living close to the bowling alley or over by the golf course? When he talks to people around town there is interest in what might happen there but there is no fervor. He understands the fervor if someone lives there and it is their neighborhood. So, how do we craft the best product possible for that location? C/Chang said she studied this packet at length and has taken every comment under consideration. She grew up in D.B. and lives in the area. The *area is very near and dear to her heart but everyone needs to step back and look at this plan in its entirety as objectively as possible. Bottom line is that D.B. needs a project that will benefit the most people and the key phase is "public benefit". There is a school district that is in desperate need of funds and there is the City that needs sales tax revenue to support City needs such as maintenance and operation of existing parks. Within 14.9 sq. miles D.B. has nine parks and has a wildlife corridor with a trail running through it. D.B. has many amenities for its residents. As she sees the situation, these are the options. She hears a lot of folks asking that the property remain in its current condition which is not realistic since the School District owns the property and needs to sell the property. The question is what is best for the School District whether or not that is for the benefit of the residents because if the City has a strong school district it raises the City's property values and affects the -quality of life: Secondly, if this property were developed into a park, unless one were to find a developer that would develop it as a park, it is not feasible, and not realistic for the JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL City to purchase this property and be able to generate sufficient funding to operate and maintain this property as a park. Third, one hundred percent residential would not benefit the City as a whole. Granted, the City would receive a one-time fee for homes sold but it would not make up for the additional daily traffic and the City would lose potential sales tax revenue without commercial/retail which is much needed for the maintenance and upkeep of the City. Additionally, the true value of public benefit would exist only for those homeowners at the new housing development. The Site D Plan as presented is a win-win for the School District, the City and its residents. D.B. gets new residents and a beautiful new shopping center. The beauty of this Specific Plan is that the City gets more control over what the development will look like rather than have it look similar to Kmart. What she envisions is a center that will have an interactive public plaza at its heart very much like the Grove where one can interact with their neighbors. D.B. has 60,000 residents and it is desperately lacking in the selection of goods and services. D.B. needs better shopping options in D.B. and she is making it her priority to attract potential opportunities to open here in D.B. If D.B. is truly unable to attract commercial real estate the area could be rezoned for residential. So what is there to lose by proceeding with the proposed Specific Plan? Economic Development has been a priority goal for D.B. for many years and now the City Council is presented with an opportunity to move a few steps forward toward that goal and this is an opportunity to start with a clean palate. Let us be forward thinking and not pass up this opportunity to reap the most benefit for all concerned out of all of the options. She has studied this at length and her option is to go with the option that benefits the most residents of D.B. MPT/Tye said he was pleased that C/Chang had a goal of attracting good retailers because this Council has tried for 21 years to do just that. She brought up the matter of sales tax revenue which he overlooked and what he would like to know what would work in 150,000 sq. ft. and how much sales tax revenue a grocery store or drug store would produce. The largest producers of sales tax revenue in the City are gas stations. So what would go there? Costco, Lowes, Home Depot or some other retailer and how would someone find a retailer at that location? Many commercial and retail entities have not made it in D.B. and he thinks the last thing D.B. needs is another strip mall or neighborhood center. C/Chang said she was not interested in another strip mall. She thought there were other retail options such as Whole Foods (55,000 sq. ft.) or Trader Joes. What does D.B. have to lose at this moment because she optimistically believes that the City can potentially attract a very nice shopping center. What does the City JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL have to lose because the property could still be rezoned residential so where is the harm in attempting to move this plan forward. If it doesn't work out, rezone the property for residential. M/Herrera asked CM/DeStefano to respond to C/Chang. CM/DeStefano spoke about marketing the property for both residential and commercial purposes as proposed. If the marketing of the commercial is unsuccessful the project could then move to an all -residential mode. Since that might not be what the City Council approved, moving it to an all residential mode would require changes to the existing approved documents which would require a process similar to that which *is occurring, i.e., possible amendments to the environmental documents depending on what the residential project is, sending the project through the process to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. The short answer is that it is possible but there would be various steps along the way that would need to be undertaken and fully exhausted before the City would get to that point. C/Everett said he would not like to get stuck on the traditional comparisons of commercial versus residential but rather get creative. He asked anyone interested to come up with creative ideas and share them with the Council. He suggested a 21't Century model based on the technology research for parks that many corporations and many cities have developed for decades which he believed would be very functional and stimulating. He suggested a possible headquarters for WVUSD which could include a child development center, professional and educational offices and meeting places that would all fit in a park setting with open and play space. The public could use the facility on weekends. In his vision it could be the best representation of a school district anywhere. It would be visible to the City which is a family city, fundamentally built on education so there could be some synergy there. Something of that nature with the aesthetics and appeal for an entry such as water fountains, water works with water flowing to create sound, visual and emotional aesthetics would be phenomenal. If staff could come back with something along those lines certainly that would be more of a decision that would involve the WVUSD and he would ask them to be innovative and join in because that could free up some land that may be much more attractive economically. C/Tanaka felt the most important thing the Council needed to do was to listen to the residents. As long as the public hearing process is still open Council should continue to listen and consider the alternatives. He reiterated that he had not heard or seen JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL alternatives and would like to explore that issue before reaching a conclusion. M/Herrera asked if staff had clear direction. CM/DeStefano said that staff took copious notes and will refer to the meeting tapes and go back and digest Council comments. CA/Jenkins offered the following alternatives to the City Council. One which does not seem likely is for the City Council to close the Public Hearing and make a decision tonight. The second alternative would be to close the Public Hearing and continue it for purposes of getting answers to Council questions and then further deliberate and render a decision at a future meeting. The implications of that option are that the Council would not take any further testimony and would simply come back as a staff with answers to questions and responses to comments that were made by the public. The Council would have a chance to deliberate on what is in front of the City Council and make its decision. The third option is to keep the hearing open and then continue the item to a future meeting. At that future meeting staff would provide responses to comments that were made by the public and would provide answers to Council questions. The City Council would then reserve the opportunity to have more testimony. With respect to this option, the Council might wish to give some consideration now to whether it would simply reopen all testimony so that everyone who spoke tonight could come back and speak again and repeat everything that they said or, take testimony only from people who have not spoken tonight, or only take testimony that is responsive to or reactive to staffs responses and answers to questions. The fourth option is raised by MPT/Tye's comments and that is if three members of the City Council have already decided that they would like this to be all residential then the City Council could remand this back to the Planning Commission for consideration of a one hundred percent residential project. If that is the direction the Council is going it will have to sooner or later remand it back to the Planning Commission so the efficient process would be to remand it back now; but only if the Council has a majority who are prepared to go in that direction. That is because under the governing statute any significant change to what is recommended to the City Council tonight that has not yet been considered fully by the Planning Commission needs to go back to that Commission. CIDD/Gubman and he discussed this matter this afternoon and it is their collective feeling that a one hundred percent residential project was not fully considered by the Planning Commission. JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 23 CITY COUNCIL Following discussion, M/Herrera suggested that the Public Hearing be continued to July 20 wherein staff will come back with responses which will most likely be voiced prior to public input and then the public can comment on staffs responses including those who have spoken this evening. She asked for Council concurrence and Council unanimously concurred. M/Herrera moved, C/Evereft seconded to continue the Public Hearing to July 20, 2010.* Without objection, the motion was so ordered. 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None 9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Everett made general comments regarding events that recently took place. C/Tanaka reported that on May 29 he attended the American Cancer Society D.B. Relay for Life Survivor's Breakfast; the DBHS graduation-, D.B. Chinese American Advocates Association 17th Annual Awards Ceremony; Eagle Scout Ceremony for Shaun McGuire, Troop 730; D.B. Chinese American Association's 20th Annual Gala and Fundraiser; Pantera Elementary School PTA Appreciation Tea; D.B. Tiny Tots Graduation; American Cancer Society's D.B. Relay for Life; Eagle Scout Ceremony for Chris Moncreif; and this evening a retirement event for Principal Denis Paul, DBHS. He asked that tonight's meeting be adjourned in his honor. C/Chang continues to post events she has attended online. She attended Armstrong Elementary and Diamond Point Elementary open houses; the League of California Cities Legislative Day; the Pantera Elementary Volunteer Appreciation Tea; the D13 Relay for Life and Principal Denis Paul's retirement. MPT/Tye said that in consideration of the late hour he wished everyone good night and God bless. M/Herrera wished Principal Denis Paul Good Luck and Godspeed on the event of his retirement. Principal Paul had a big impact on her son and touched many other lives. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Herrera adjourned the Regular City Council meeting at 10:10 p.m. in honor of retiring DBHS Principal Denis Paul. JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 24 CITY COUNCIL TOMMYk CR15BNS"l Cl* CLERK The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 6th day of July 2010. CAROL HERRERA, MAYOR Attachment 6 To: Greg Gubman, Director of Community Develo ment From: Bob Rose, Community Services Director Date: July 14, 2010 Re: Park for Site D Per recommendation from the Planning Commission and comments made by Council Members during deliberations at the June 15, 2010 City Council meeting, a public park is being considered as an addition to the proposed development known as Site D. If this park site is included in the development plan, I make the following recommendations: 1. Require the developer to construct a turn -key park that occupies at least two acres of flat land for public use. 2. Construct the primary access to the park from Pasado Drive. 3. Enter into an agreement with the developer similar to the agreement for the development of Larkstone Park that identifies the elements to be included in the park construction. 4. Conduct a neighborhood meeting to determine the amenities to include in the park. A neighborhood park is appropriate for this location because the nearest park, Heritage Park, is over a mile away from the majority of residents in this neighborhood and is on the other side of a busy street (Diamond Bar Blvd). One of the goals of the Parks Master Plan is to have close -to -home recreation opportunities for Diamond Bar residents (1998, Pg. 59). Two acres of usable, flat park space is the minimum size I recommend for a neighborhood park at this location. The undeveloped land is available and two acres is comparable in size to Starshine Park, which serves its neighborhood well (1998, pg. 16). If you require additional information or have any questions, please let me know. Attachment 7 Grace Lee Subject: FW: No to Site D Development From: Basrai <indoviet@9Inai1.CoM> Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2010 22:26:32 -0700 To: <IingsqLiared@ginaiI.com>; <carol.herrera@ci.dia-mond-bar-ca.us>; <steve.tye@ci.diamond-bar.ca.us>; <Iing.ling-chang@ci.dialnond-bar.ca.us>; <ron.everett@ci.diainond-bar.ca.us>; <jack.tanaka @,ci.diamond- bar.ca.us>;,<nlyons@walnutvalley.kl2.ca.us>; <cruiz@waInutvaIIey.kI2.ca.us>; <celfclt@walliutvalley.kl2.ca.us>; <1ledinger@waliiutvalley.kl2.ca.us>; <1ihaII@waInutvaIIey.kI2.ca.us> Cc: Judy Leu11g<sIiIeung@hotmaiI.com> Subject: No to Site D Development The purpose of this e-mail is to express MY Opposition to the current Site D development plan. Thisplan is ill- conceived and if implemented in its current form, will do long-term harm to the citizens of Diamond Bar and the students of the WYUSD. I oppose the current Site D option for many reasons, namely: ® Diamond Bar has attracted families due to its strategic location, its country -living style and the reputation of its schools. To develop Site D into a commercial zone and high-density living areas as proposed is to destroy this unique feature of our city and irreversibly suppress the property values throughout the City. ® As it is, the traffic along Diamond Bar Blvd and Brea Canyon Cut-Offl'Tonner Canyon all the way to Grand Ave. is dense at peak time. The development of Site D as proposed, will only worsen this congestion, increasing the rate of collision and the risk for pedestrians on the street (especially children walking to and fro from school). 0 Site D is the last remaining undeveloped piece of land in the City, once slated for development into a much needed public park in South Diamond Bar. ® The project is based upon a shoddy, sole -sourced EIR document developed by a long term crony Consultant to the City. The EIR is based upon outdated data which does not even include traffic associated with the newly developed commercial complex anchored by H -Mart and the proposed football stadium only about four miles away. ® The Site D project is fraught with viability issue of its Commercial Complex element of this project. The additional 154,000 sq. ft of the proposed commercial space will further impact the already weak local commercial real estate market reeling with low occupancy rates. ® No other development alternatives were considered. The City residents were not adequately involved or consulted. In summary, the current Site D proposed plan is incongruous with the City's ambience and infrastructure. A partially occupied Commercial complex will serve as a meeting location for unwanted social elements and will increase the crime rate in the City. The new denizens in the 252 apartments on the site will cause additional strain on WVUSD class sizes and impose grave hardship to the Current residents, particularly those living in South Diamond Bar due to the increased traffic and reduction in property values. The $10 million revenue from the sale of this property is only about 10% of WVUSD's annual operating budget and cannot significantly help it in long term. The project benefits only the developer and not the schools, nor the residents of Diamond Bar. May I remind the WVUSD that it owes its success largely to the strong emphasis of educational values by Diamond Bar residents. Diamond Bar families have always worked hard to support the local schools—passed Measures S&Y to support WVUSD. I urge you not to push for the adoption of the Site D development plan in its current form. To do so is to act irresponsibly, serving the developer's interest only while ignoring the interests of Diamond Bar citizens. Shabbir Basrai 21340 E. Running Branch Road 2 Attachment 8 Grace Lee Subject: FW: Site D development plan From: Jean Jou <jj ou28 8 @ginail. com> Date: Wed, 30 Jun 2010 10:10:43 -0700 To: <1ingsquared@gmail. com> Subject: Site D development plan The purpose of this e-mail is to express my opposition to the current Site D development plan. This plan is ill- conceived and if implemented in its current form, will do long-term hann to the citizens of Diamond Bar and the students of the WVUSD. I oppose the current Site D option for many reasons: Diamond Bar has attracted families due to its strategic location, its country -living style and the reputation of its schools. To develop Site D into a commercial zone and high-density living areas as proposed is to destroy this unique feature of our city and irreversibly suppress the property values throughout the City. As it is, the traffic along Diamond Bar Blvd and Brea Canyon Cut-Off/Tonner Canyon all the way to Grand Ave. is dense at peak time. The development of Site D as proposed, will only worsen this congestion, increasing the rate of collision and the risk for pedestrians on the street (especially children walking to and fro from school). Site D is the last remaining undeveloped piece of land in the City, once slated for development into a much needed public park in South Diamond Bar. The project is based upon a shoddy, sole -sourced EIR document developed by a long term crony Consultant to the City. The EIR is based upon outdated data which does not even include traffic associated with the newly developed commercial complex anchored by H -Mart and the proposed football stadium only about four miles away. ue of its Commercial Complex element of this project. The The Site D project is fraught with viability iss additional 154,000 sq. ft of the proposed commercial space will further impact the already weak local commercial real estate market reeling with low occupancy rates. No other development alternatives were considered. The City residents were not adequately involved or consulted. In summary, the current Site D proposed plan is incongruous with the City's ambience and infrastructure. A partially occupied Commercial complex will serve as a meeting location for unwanted social elements and will increase the crime rate in the City. The new denizens in the 252 apartments on the site will cause additional strain on WVUSD class sizes and impose grave hardship to the Current residents, particularly those living in South Diamond Bar due to the increased traffic and reduction in property values. The $10 million revenue from the sale of this property is only about 10% of WVUSD's annual operating budget and cam-iot significantly help it in long term. The project benefits only the developer and not the schools, nor the residents of Diamond Bar. May I remind the WVUSD that it owes its success largely to the strong emphasis of educational values by Diamond Bar residents. Diamond Bar families have always worked hard to support the local schools—passed Measures S&Y to support WVUSD. I urge you not to push for the adoption of the Site D development plan in its current form. To do so is to act irresponsibly, serving the developer's interest only while ignoring the interests of Diamond Bar citizens. Yours Truly, Jean Jou Attachment 9 Grace Lee Subject: FW: (No.Subject) From: payeung [mailto:payeung@aol.com] Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2010 8:27 PM To: Ling -Ling Chang (Off -Site); Carol Herrera; Steve Tye; Ling -Ling Chang; Ron Everett; Jack Tanaka Cc: sljleung@hotmaii.com; indoviet@gmaii.com; jjou288@gmail.com; julia—newton@yahoo.com; dwithers@mail.rowland.k-12.ca.us; pat.moag@qafinc.com; pwwong@adelphia.net; uvchang@yahoo.com; vichovsepiar@yahoo.com; shu1548@hotmail.com; wzhenyi@msn.com; qcheng123@gmail.com; nicknbprokop; vivian123@yahoo.com; rsl@fantasymediainc.com; lindaihrig@yahoo.com; michellesuntan@gmail.com; helena__.t_young@yahoo.corn; angela—wang1968@yahoo.com; bjjabaji@yahoo.com Subject: (No Subject) Dear Mayor and City Councilmernbers: I have been a resident of South Diamond Bar since 1999 and I am writing to express my opposition of your current Specific Plan for Site D. I graduated from West Point (1984) with an Engineering degree and from Peter Drucker's School of Management (Claremont) with an MBA. I was raised in the poorer neighborhoods of Downtown L.A. and have seen how low income people vandalize their own neighborhoods and instill a high crime rate within their community. After serving the Army and living in many other states, I had chosen to return to California. I did much research before concluding that Diamond Bar was the ideal community to raise my children and educate them in its public school system. I am sure that this is one of the primary reasons that parents choose to live in Diamond Bar. It affords safety, peace, and nice amenities for families. I urge you to not to change the demographics and the living conditions for Diamond Bar residents. By voting for your current Specific Plan of commercial and high density/low income apartments on Site D, you are in essence doing that. Since I have been here, I have seen that the existing strip mall directly north of Site D barely hanging on for survival. Numerous small businesses such as Warehouse Records, Baskin Robins, the Theatre, Quiznos, etc. have all gone out of business. There are still plenty of vacant store spaces. The fact is that this location has been proven to not be able to support any type of significant retail other than Mom and Pop stores. In this economy and the next five years, it will continue to be the same. The low income apartments will bring degradation, vandalism, and high crime rate to this neighborhood and will impact not only South Diamond Bar, but also all of Diamond Bar. Additionally, you will be lowering the student standards and test scores for the Walnut Valley School District. The high standards have been what made this school district highly desireable for parents such as myself. Please do not be short-sighted and allow the School District to haphazardly sell this land and for developers to build whatever they want. As Peter Drucker taught me and all other managers, you must do what is best for the long term for a corporation or a community. This one time injection of funds will not help them solve their budgetary crisis. Unlike the current Federal Government who does not listen to its constituents, I urge you, as our Local Government, to listen to your constituents and do what is best for Diamond Bar for the long term. It was clear from the last public hearing, that the residents want other alternatives proposed for Site D. I believe the following alternatives are prioritized as such: 1. Leave Site D as a preserved open and natural space to preserve Diamond Bar's cultural and historical legacies. Rezone Site D as a park so that it could be one of the best parks in this area. This would allow little league baseball games and family outings to occur here. There may also be a continued revenue stream from these activities. The last resort is that if this land must be sold to a developer, keep the zoning of this land for construction of single family homes (with a certain minimum square footage and high standard of architectural appearance). This would attract other high income and high net worth individuals into the Diamond Bar community. Diamond Bar would be able to maintain its reputation for safety and high property value. In surmnary, I urge you to delay any sudden and haphazard decisions without really finding out from the Diamond Bar residents what they support on this site. I urge you to put this issue on a ballot and allow the residents to vote for what they deem as the most desirable alternative to Site D. I thank you, in advance, for your consideration in this matter as I know you will do the right thing for Diamond Bar. Sincerely, Peter Au-Yeung 21351 Running Branch Rd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Confidential Communications The information contained in this e-mail message is intended only for the use of the individual or individuals named above. If the person actually receiving this message or any other reader of the message is not the named recipient or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use, dissemination, distribution, or copying of the communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please immediately destroy AND notify us by telephone at 909.839.7058. 2 Grace Lee Attachment 10 FW: Site Plan ---Ori 'nal Message --- From; Helena Young To: undisclosed recipients: ;<ZnvaIid address>, Subject: Site D -Specific Plan Sent: Jul 10/ 2010 8:48 PM Dear Council Member: I am writing to urge a "NO" vote on the Site D Specific Plan.' This plan is the prelude to development of the last undeveloped land in this city, in an area that appears to be woefully inadequate in park space. Approval of the Site D specific plan would bring untold traffic congestion to a city whose officials have promised but never delivered to mitigate the growing congestion on Diamond Bar Blvd. How could the addition of almost a thousand auto trips a day and untold numbers of commercial vehicles be consistent with a desire to ease traffic problems? This Specific Plan and EIR raise so many unanswered questions that the City Council should take the prudent course -- vote "NO" and refer the whole project back to the Planning Commission for further review and expert input' This piece of property is a unique asset to the city and residents of Diamond Bar, and the city council needs to understand that once it is gone, there is no more property like it. Please vote "NO" for the future of South Diamond Bar. Helena Young Diamond Bar resident 1 Attachment 11 Grace Lee Subject: FW: Site D-SpeoificPlan ----Original Message--- Frnm: Helena Young To: undisclosed recipients: ;xInvaIid address>, Subject: Site.D-Specific Plan Sunt: Jul 10^ 2010 8:42 PM Dear Council Member: I am writing to urge your "No" vote on the Site D specific plan. I am a Diamond Bar resident who appreciates the natural beauty of Diamond Bar. Site "T" represents the last undeveloped piece of land in our city, and simply cannot be approved for sale to developers without a great deal of discussion and citizen input. When this matter has been discussed in various public forums, the overwhelming majority of residents believe that Site should be zoned for some kindof public use. May I remind you that a School Board committee found that 62.5 percent of residents surveyed said Site D should be saved for some kind of public use like o park. It should not be rezoned for commercial and high-density residential and all the traffic and environmental issues that such zoning entails. Diamond Bar is a city of country living. It's also a place where smart people can have on open, intelligent conversation about the future of a very unique piece of land. Please say NO to the rushed campaign of bulldozers, developers, and traffic congestion- Vote "NO" and send this plan back to the City Planning Commission for further review and citizen input. Helena Young 1 Attachment 12 Grace Lee Subject: FW: Site plan ---Ori 'nal Message --- From: Helena Young To: undisclosed recipients: ;<InvaIid address>, Subject: Site D -Specific Plan Sent: ]uI 10, 2010 8:44 PM Dear Council Member: Does Diamond Bar really need another strip mall, more than 200 high-density apartments and the untold nightmare of traffic gridlock in a city where residents list traffic congestion as their #1 *pet peeve?" South Diamond Bar still has countless "For Lease" signs in the windows of existing commercial prnperty. Will the development of 150,000 additional square footage of commercial space really be economically viable, just because an Orange County land developer says so? If this city is committed to easing traffic burdens on local residents, then how can a city approve a project that could add up to 1,000 daily auto trips to Diamond Bar Blvd.? Please use your best dose of common sense and soy "NO" to the Specific Plan currently proposed for the so-called Site D property at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Brea Canyon Road, By voting "'NO" and sending the plan back to the city's planning commission, you will give the citizens of this city a better chance to have a meaningful conversation about the future of South Diamond Bar in general and the so-called Site D property in particular. Sincerely Helena Young, Diamond Bar Resident. 1 TO: CITY CLERK ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: r CU W(AV"DATE: 7'Z� �� k3Tz-0 uff "Ok- �lr, HONE:. I Is *T ('q� 4 -kal�pn V 'TCkL-e-- inn e.S �— -��� �Se r ( �c 1 I expect to address the Council on. the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature, This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: DATE: ADDRESS: a)--"�—IPHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject.item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Si re This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. - ronro VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY[ ITY CLERK FROM: d6 DATE: 712-011to ADDRESS: 21 PHONE: 4 ORGANIZATION: AGENDAWSUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. ME This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Redords Act. I:pgIOND BALI VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: DATE: It ADDRESS: � t PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJEC'T-. I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. OF VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK L411, DATE: 0 FROM: ADDRESS: c. Li PHONE: e) ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject * agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Thiq iment is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK ?Ie -96a DATE: FROM: ADDRESS:% PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: zo -2) I expect to ad I dress the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. t7-"§i`g n ature This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDAWSUBJECT: CITY CLERK �s� _ 4z�, DATE: L PHONE: expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: -,,o z) (>�X_ PHONE: I expect to address the Council on n the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. . S yia`t�u r �ev This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. .VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE (A I Y (;UUN(;IL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: A GENDA#/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK C;,4bW. DATE: 01 W—tu- PHONE: CAAA I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature . This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the. Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST To ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: CITY CLERK bk cSC7 DATE: 2-o, 2-01 3q �hndojourP- ZV, M / PHONE: qOq�'5-q 5- 7 � &'_ AGENDA#/SUBJECT: ? - W, V, U, S-, I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. _ This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK (; l,V- 0 H DATE: 71,!20 2_dpq�_ �aoLp (�_M Dq2- —PHONE: cLvq , 9864 — 2 I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. . Signature This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION:. AGENDA#/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: 90 d a _as- 6/Al/T (Iqd I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST. TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: I CITY CLERK � PA)( IJ DATE: /�'`� ZI tf �S PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: L. I expect toaddress the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my. name and address as. written above. Signature This document is a public: record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. 7W 71 VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK 0 FROM: DATE: ADDRESS: T,`WlCkS PHONE: 24`—.6qZ.A2:-(Dc) ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signaturd L11 ]AtMl TO: CITY CLERK FROM: DATE: ADDRESS: P,11tr% SAvi3Ok- PHONE: 'OL' 0 q S1 9 24 6:7 ORGANIZATION: 74 AGENDA#/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/s . ubject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as, written above. Sign re This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. DW 10N VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: A -Y ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: C DATE:' D n,2 ( I I expect to address the Council on the subject- agenda/subject item. Please h�:v e et ' Council Minutes reflect my name and address as.written, above. 17' Signature This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. ITI (".1 0m." VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK DATE: �itiATE: ADDRESS: PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJ.ECT: &-rL W1,1V �( I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. - Sign ure This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: PHONE: -7i- - 658 - 1-\5-`L`'\ I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. . Signature This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: FROM: ADDRESS: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: CITY CLERK DATE: tl PHONE: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect, my name and address as written above. Si6re. This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: ✓ DATE: 10 ADDRESS: PHONE: 2d irk ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. This document is a public record subject to disclosure undE VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: CITY CLERK FROM: 6422F-rT DATE: 7-;Ze0- uP ADDRESS: SIP440-oci )-:b PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: .I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL, TO: CITY CLERK FROM: -DATE: �2 4 3 - ADDRESS: V 1,flf PHONE: 6 0 ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above.. This document is a public record subject to disclosure L r.the Public Recorft.Act. TO: FROM: ADDRESS: VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE W IT COUNCIL CITY CLERK DATE: —PHONE: ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: u n I expect, to address the Council on the, subject age da/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. Signature This document is a public record. subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act. VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL TO: V CITY CLERK M A- I AR, . FROM: V. C, 71 DATE: ;,C) - '% 0 11) ADDRESS: 3JIq JASkAa A. PHONE: t5isa-01 '- ;_5 ORGANIZATION: AGENDA#/SUBJECT: I expect to address the Council on the subject agenda/subject item. Please have the Council Minutes reflect my name and address as written above. ynature This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.