HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/21/2012City of
Diamond Bar
City Council Agenda
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
6:30 p.m. — Regular Meeting
The Government Center
South Coast Air Quality Management District/
Main Auditorium
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Ling -Ling Chang Jack Tanaka
Mayor Mayor Pro Tem
Ron Everett Carol Herrera Steve Tye
Council Member Council Member Council Member
City Manager James DeStefano 9 City Attorney Michael Jenkins 9 City Clerk Tommye Cribbins
Copies of staff reports or other written documentation relating to agenda items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk, and are available for public
inspection. If you have questions regarding an agenda item, please contact the City Clerk at (909) 839-7010 during regular business hours.
In an effort to comply with the requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, the City of Diamond Bar requires that any person in
need of any type of special equipment, assistance or accommodation (s) in order to communicate at a City public meeting, must inform the City Clerk a
minimum of 72 hours prior to the scheduled meeting.
Have online access? City Council Agendas are now available on the City of Diamond Bar's web site at www.CityofDiamonclBar.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.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
February 21, 2012
CALL TO ORDER:
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
INVOCATION:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Next Resolution No. 2011-05
Next Ordinance No. 01 (2011)
6:30 p.m.
Mayor
Ahmad H. Sakr, PhD
Islamic Education Center
Council Members Everett, Herrera, Tye,
Mayor Pro Tem Tanaka, Mayor Chang
Mayor
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Boy Scout Troop 777
Scoutmaster Martin Cardenas for Receiving the "Silver Beaver Award".
1.2 Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Atharshna Singarajah for
being named "Leo of the Year" by the Lions Club International.
NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH:
1.3 Presentation of Certificate Plaque to Intiraymi Restaurant, 23545
Palomino Drive, Suite F as New Business of the Month, February, 2012.
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 immediately upon distribution in the City
Clerk's Office at 21810 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, California, during normal business
hours.
February 21, 2012 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 voluntary). There is a five-minute maximum time limit
when addressing the City Council.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT: Under the Brown Act, members of the
City Council may briefly respond to public comments but no extended discussion
and no action on such matters may take place.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — February 23, 2012 — 7:00
p.m., Windmill Room, Diamond Bar City Hall, 21810 Copley Drive,
5.2 Planning Commission Meeting — February 28, 2012 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill
Room, Diamond Bar City Hall, 21810 Copley Drive.
5.3 City Council Meeting — March 6, 2012 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government
Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 City Council Minutes — Regular Meeting of February 7, 2012 — Approve
as submitted.
6.2 Ratification of Check Register — Dated February 2, 2012 through
February 15, 2012 totaling $1,275,644.91.
Requested by: Finance Department
6.3 Exoneration of Surety Bond No. TM5053816/6398471 and
TM5040782/63134001 Posted by Brookfield Diamond Bar Village LLC
for Tract 62482 (Vantage Townhomes) to Complete Landscape
Improvements and Monumentation.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Public Works Department
February 21, 2012 PAGE 3
6.4 Adopt Resolution No. 2012 -XX: Declaring Property Located at the
Southeasterly Corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon
Road (APN 8714-105-901) as Surplus Property and Authorizing the
City Manager to Dispose of the Property at Fair Market Value.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
Requested by: City Manager
6.5 Adopt Resolution No. 2012 -XX: Approving Design and Plans for
Construction of the Community Development Block Grant Curb
Ramp Project No. 27012 and CDBG Project No. 601394-11 Pursuant
to Government Code Section 830.6 and Establishing a Project
Payment Account; and, Award the Construction Contract to Gentry
Brothers, Inc. in the Amount of $165,500 and Authorize a
Contingency Amount of $24,000 for Project Change Orders to be
Approved by the City Manager for a Total Authorization Amount of
$189,500.
Recommended Action: Adopt and Award.
Requested by: Public Works Department
6.6 Authorize Purchase of Furniture, Fixtures and Equipment for the New
Los Angeles County Library from Various Vendors Including Interior
Office Solutions, Agati Furniture and Yamada Enterprises in an
Amount Not to Exceed $450,000.
Recommended Action: Authorize
Requested by: City Manager
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 6:45 p.m., or as soon thereafter as matters may be heard.
7.1 General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2007-04;
Specific Plan No. 2007-01 ("Site D Specific Plan"), Development
Agreement No. 2012-01; and Environmental Impact Report 2007-02
(SCH No. 2008021014).
Recommended Action: Receive Staff's Report; Open The Public Hearing;
Receive Testimony; Close the Public Hearing and (1) Adopt Resolution
No. 2012 -XX Certifying the Environmental Impact Report (SCH No.
2008021014) and Approving the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring
Program and Adopting Findings of Fact for the January 2012 Site D
Specific Plan for "Site D", Comprised of Approximately 30.36 Acres
Located at the Southeast Corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar
Boulevard, (Assessors Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901,
February 21, 2012 PAGE 4
8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 and 8714-015-001) Changing the Existing
General Plan Land Use Designation to Specific Plan on Site D; Adopt
Resolution No. 2012 -XX Approving General Plan Amendment No. 2007-
03; (3) First Reading by Title Only, Waiving Full Reading of Ordinance No.
0X(2012) Approving Zone Change No. 2007-04 Changing Existing Zoning
on Site D to Specific Plan (SP); (4) Ordinance No. 0X(2012): Approving
the January 2012 Site D Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 2007-01); and,
(5) Ordinance No. 0X(2012): Approving Development Agreement No.
2012-01.
Requested by: Community Development Department
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 Adopt Resolution No. 2012 -XX: Amending the FYI 1-12 Municipal
Budget.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
Requested by: Finance Department
8.2 City Council Appointment of 2012 Planning, Parks and Recreation
and Traffic and Transportation Commissions:
8.2.1 Planning Commission
8.2.2 Parks and Recreation Commission
8.2.3 Traffic and Transportation Commission
Recommended Action: Ratify Appointments
Requested by: City Council
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
FEBRUARY 7 2012, ` 7
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Ling -Ling Chang called the Regular City
Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium,
21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Tanaka led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Jim Price, Diamond Canyon Church, gave the
Invocation.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Ron Everett, Steve Tye, Mayor Pro
Tem Jack Tanaka, and Mayor Ling -Ling Chang.
Absent: Council Member Carol Herrera was excused.
Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle,
Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; Ken Desforges, IS Director;
David Liu, Public Works Director; Dianna Honeywell, Finance Director; Greg Gubman,
Community Development Director; Ryan McLean, Assistant to the City Manager; Rick
Yee, Senior Civil Engineer; Kimberly Young, Associate Engineer; Christy Murphey,
Recreation Superintendent; Anthony Santos, Management Analyst; Lauren Hidalgo,
Public Information Specialist, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Submitted.
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: None
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Jesse Lanz, Diamond Bar Library Manager, announced that this Saturday the
Library will be kicking off the "Moving of the Mural" event at the library. The
mural that is at the library will be taken down piece by piece; refurbished and
then placed in the new library. He also invited residents interested in the many
events sponsored by the Library to obtain information by calling the library, going
to the event calendar on the Library's website, or by checking Facebook.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 Planning Commission Meeting — February 14, 2012 — Canceled due to
lack of quorum.
5.2 Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting — February 16, 2012 —
7:00 p.m. — Diamond Bar City Hall Windmill Room, 21810 Copley Drive.
FEBRUARY 7, 2012 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
5.3 Presidents Holiday — February 20, 2012 — City Offices Closed — City Office
reopen, 7:30 a.m. February 21, 2012.
5.4 City Hall Open House — February 21, 2012 — 4:00 p.m. to 6:30 p.m.,
21810 Copley Drive, 2nd Floor.
5.5 City Council Meeting — February 21, 2012 — 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive,
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: Cfrye moved, C/Everett seconded, to approve the
Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following Roll Call:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, Tye, MPT/Tanaka, M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera
6.1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES — Regular Meeting of January 17, 2012 -
Approved as submitted.
6.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.2.1 Regular Meeting of October 25, 2011 —Received and Filed.
6.2.2 Regular Meeting of December 13, 2011 — Received and Filed.
6.2.3 Regular Meeting of January 10, 2012 — Received and Filed.
6.3 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER — Dated January 12, 2012 through
February 1, 2012 totaling $3,446,590.23.
6.4 APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT —Month of December 2011.
6.5 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2012-03: CONSENTING TO CHANGE
CONTROL OF NEXTG NETWORKS OF CALIFORNIA, INC.
6.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO, 2012-04: SUPPORTING THE
TRANSFER OF ONTARIO INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT (ONT) TO
LOCAL CONTROL.
6.7 RELEASED SURETY BOND NO, TM5040784/6314003 POSTED BY
BROOKFIELD DIAMOND BAR VILLAGE, LLC FOR TRACT 62482
(VANTAGE TOWNHOMES) TO COMPLETE STREET IMPROVEMENTS.
6.8 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 10 TO EXTEND LICENSE AGREEMENT
WITH COCA-COLA FOR PLACEMENT OF BEVERAGE -SERVING
MACHINES IN CITY PARKS FOR THE PERIOD FEBRUARY 1, 2012
THROUGH JANUARY 31, 2014.
FEBRUARY 7, 2012 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
7
a
6.9 AUTHORIZED PURCHASE OF COMPUTER NETWORK EQUIPMENT
AND PHONE SYSTEM FROM CDW-G FOR THE NEW LA COUNTY
LIBRARY IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED $100,000.
PUBLIC HEARING: None.
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None
9, COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
C/Everett stated that he hoped that everyone would join in the Open House from
4:00 to 6:30 p.m. on February 21 prior to the City Council meeting. He then went
on to announce the events that he attended during the past two weeks including
groundbreaking ceremonies for the Dennis R. Paul Aquatics Center and Math
building which will be completed at DBHS in two years. Dennis Paul served
more than 30 years in the WVUSD. He also attended the Friends of the Library
Appreciation Dinner on Sunday, January 22 and reminded residents about the
Friends of the Library sponsored "Basically Books" store near the intersection of
Golden Springs Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard and that all sale proceeds go
to support the Diamond Bar Library. He also attended the Citibank ribbon -cutting
ceremonies; the Diamond Bar Chinese-American Association celebration of "The
Year of the Dragon; and, a Neighborhood Watch meeting on Palomino near
Platina Drive.
C/Tye said he also had the privilege of attending the DBHS dedication of the
Dennis Paul Aquatics Center. One of the first people who approached him for
help when he was first elected to the City Council was Mike Spence who asked
C/Tye how he would help Mr. Spence get the pool built. He was certain that at
some point Mike and his widow Charlotte would be honored as the impetus
behind the achievement of that goal. He hoped that this Saturday and Sunday
before folks go to the Library to hear about the mural and history of the mural,
that they will take advantage of the Hazardous Waste Collection at the
Northminster Presbyterian Church on February 11 and 12 or at the Corporate
Center the following Saturday. It was his privilege as the City's representative to
attend last month's District 21 Los Angeles Sanitation District meeting and say
Good-bye to Steve McGuinn, General Manager and Chief Engineer, who spent
41 years with the Sanitation District.
MPT/Tanaka attended the DBHS Aquatics Center and Math Building
groundbreaking ceremonies; the Friends of the Library Volunteer Appreciation
Dinner; the American Cancer Society DB Relay for Life kickoff event held at
D'Antonio's Ristorante — this year's event will be held on May 19 and 20 at
Lorbeer Middle School; DB4-Youth in Action at the Diamond Bar Center; last
Thursday's League of Cities Selection Committee meeting that was canceled due
to lack of quorum; the Citibank Grand Opening and ribbon -cutting ceremony; the
Diamond Bar Chinese Association's New Year's Celebration; Maple Hill's
Elementary School reading by Deputy Whitlock; Neighborhood Watch meeting;
FEBRUARY 7, 2012 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
the Evergreen Senior's Chinese New Year's Celebration "Lunar Year of the
Dragon" celebration and Quarterly Birthday and the League of Cities LA County
Division Dinner Meeting with guest speaker former Assembly Member Rob
Pacheco.
M/Chang invited residents to follow her on Facebook, Twitter and Foursquare. A
couple of weeks ago she attended the US Conference of Mayors meeting where
a 2012 employment forecast was released indicating that the government sector
will lose 196,000 jobs and job growth will come as a result of sector trade,
transportation and utilities, education and health services and professional
business services. The Conference featured speaker Ray LaHood, Secretary of
Transportation, Julius Janikowski, FCC Chairman, on Transportation and
Communications; Mayor Bloomberg spoke on education reform in New York City;
and, Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel. In addition, the Mayors were honored to
meet President Barack Obama at the Whitehouse who spoke on the economy,
jobs and the Transportation Reauthorization Bill. M/Chang stated that it is very
important to move this bi-partisan legislation forward which would hopefully
benefit the City with the 57/60 fix. She invited everyone to attend the City Hall
Open House and City Council meeting on February 21. She wished everyone a
Happy Lunar New Year, the Year of the Dragon.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Chang adjourned the
Regular City Council Meeting at 6:53 p.m.
TOMMYE CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of 2012.
LING -LING CHANG, MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Agenda # 6 7
Meeting Date: February 21, 2012
AGENDA REPORT
a
FROM: James DeStefano, City Marl
a
TITLE: Ratification of Check Register dated February 02, 2012 through February
15, 2012 totaling $ 1,275,644.91.
RECOMMENDATION:
Ratify.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Expenditure of $ 1,275,644.91 in City funds.
BACKGROUND:
The City has established the policy of issuing accounts payable checks on a weekly
basis with City Council ratification at the next scheduled City Council meeting.
DISCUSSION:
The attached check register containing checks dated February 2, 2012 through
February 15, 2012 for $ 1,275,644.91 is being presented for ratification. All payments
have been made in compliance with the City's purchasing policies and procedures.
Payments have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate departmental staff and
the attached Affidavit affirms that the check register has been audited and deemed
accurate by the Finance Director.
PREPARED BY:
Luisa Fua
Accounting Technician
REVIEWED BY:
Finance Director
Attachments: Affidavit and Check Register — 02/02/12 through 02/15/12.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CHECK REGISTER AFFIDAVIT
The attached listings of demands, invoices, and claims in the form of a check register
including checks dated February 2, 2012 through February 15, 2012 has been audited
and is certified as accurate. Payments have been allowed from the following funds in
these amounts:
Description
Amount
General Fund
$1,135,790.21
Com Org Support Fund
$4,000.00
Prop A - Transit Fund
$7,735.38
Prop C - Transit Tax Fund
$11,685.73
Integrated Waste Mgt Fund
$2,428.62
Traffic Improvement Fund
$715.40
Com Dev Block Grand Fund
$7,169.00
LLAD 38 Fund
$13,368.45
LLAD 39 Fund
$12,021.20
LLAD 41 Fund
$4,589.06
Capital Imp Projects Fund
$4,451.55
Computer Eq Repl Fund
$71,690.31
$1,275,644.91
Signed:
(,-Haw&ca-
Dianna Honeywell U
Finance Director
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amount
2/2/2012
12 -PP 03
PAYROLLTRANSFER
P/R TRANSFER-12/PP 03
001
10200
172,066.75
$185,904.13
2/2/2012
97787
PAYROLLTRANSFER -
P/R TRANSFER-12/PP 03
112
10200
5,988.88
$1,124.93
2/2/2012
PAYROLLTRANSFER
P/R TRANSFER-12/PP 03
113
10200
5,908.73
2/2/2012
97788
PAYROLL TRANSFER
P/R TRANSFER-12/PP 03
115
10200
1,939.77
$194.15
2/2/20121
97786
ABRAMS GROUP LLC
REFUND -EN 05-490
001
23012 1
339.88
$339.88
2/2/2012
CORNERSTONE RECORDS MGMT
TAPE STORAGE-NOV 11
0014070
45000
645.30
2/2/2012
97787
ACCESS CONTROL SECURITY
SECURITY SVCS -DBC
0015333
45010 1
1,124.931
$1,124.93
2/2/2012
97788
ALBERTSONS
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
1 0015350
41200 1
194.15
$194.15
2/2/2012 1
97789
CHARLESANDREU
PKNG CITATION HEARING -JUN
0014411
45405 1
105.00
$105.00
2/2/2012
97790
ARTESIA ICE SKATING TRAINING CTR LL
CONTRACT CLASS -WINTER
0015350
1 45320 1
283.20
$283.20
2/2/2012
9779
T & T
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
1 42125 1
44.94
$44.94
2/2/2012 1
97792
AT&T MOBILITY
CELL CHRGS-CMGR
0014030
1 42125 1
52951
$52.95
2/2/2012
97793
BENESYST
2/3/12-P/R DEDUCTIONS
001
1 21105 1
741.671$741.67
2/2/2012 1
97794
SHANNON BOBO
FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN
001
136615 1
100.00
$100.00
2/2/2012
97795
BOB'S TOWING
TOWED SVCS -POOL VEH
0014090
42200
30.00
$30.00
2/2/2012
97796
BUCKNAM &ASSOCIATES INC
PAVEMENT MNGMNT-DEC
1 0015510
1 45221 1
62.50
$62.50
2/2/2012 1
97797
BUSINESS TELECOMMUNICATION SYS INC.
PROF.SVCS-ENGINEERING
0014070
1 42125 1
108.75
$108.75
2/2/2012 1
97798
OBDULIA CASE
RECREATION REFUND
001
1 34780 1
89.00
$89.00
2/2/2012
97799
CORNERSTONE RECORDS MGMT
TAPE STORAGE -OCT 2011
0014070
45000
645.30
$1,935.90
2/2/2012
CORNERSTONE RECORDS MGMT
TAPE STORAGE-NOV 11
0014070
45000
645.30
2/2/2012
CORNERSTONE RECORDS MGMT
TAPE STORAGE -DEC 2011
0014070
45000
645.30
2/2/2012
97800
DAPEER ROSENBLIT &LITVAK LLP
LEGAL SVCS -DEC 2011
0014020
44023
9,234.94
$16,860.08
2/2/2012
DAPEER ROSENBLIT &LITVAK LLP
LEGAL SVCS -DEC 2011
0014020
44023
7,625.14
Page 1
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date Check Number Vendor Name Transaction Description Fund/ Dept Acct # I Amount I Total Check Amount
2/2/2012
97801
DAY& NITE COPY CENTER
PRINT SVCS -RECEIPT BOOKS
0014090
42110
1,112.73
$3,639.00
2/2/2012
t__9�
DAY & NITE COPY CENTER
PRINT SVCS -BLDG & SET'
0015220
42110
1,145.14
2/2/2012
97803
DAY & NITE COPY CENTER
PRINT SVCS -CODE ENFRCMNT
0015230
42110
1,381.13
$4,608.29
2/2/2012 1
97802
LAURA DELGADILLO
FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA
1001
36615
25.0ol
$25.00
2/2/2012
t__9�
CAROL DENNIS
PROF SVCS-PLNG MTG
0015210
44000
50.00
2/2/2012
97803
DELTA DENTAL
FEB 2012 -DENTAL PREMIUMS
001
21104
4,608.29
$4,608.29
2/2/2012
2/2/2012
97804
CAROL DENNIS
PROF.SVCS-PLNG MTG
0015210
44000
125.00
$175.00
2/2/2012
t__9�
CAROL DENNIS
PROF SVCS-PLNG MTG
0015210
44000
50.00
2/2/2012 1
97805
DEPARTMENT OF INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
MAINTSVCS-DBC
0015333
1 42210 1
125.00
$125.00
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
GFOA CONF-FINANCE
0014050
42335
18.00
2/2/2012 1
97806
DFS FLOORING CORP
PARK MAINT-PANTERA
0015340
1 42210 1
350.00
$350.00
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES -COMM DEV
0015210
41200
27.89
2/2/2012 1
97807
DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION
COMM ORG SUPPORT FUND
0114010
42355 1
500.00
$500.00
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES -BLDG & SFTY
0015220
41200
8.57
2/2/2012
97808
DIAMOND BAR FRIENDS OF THE LIBRARY
ICOMM ORG SUPPORT FUND
0114010
1 42355 1
1,500.001
$1,500.00
2/2/2012
97809
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
MTG SUPPLIES -HOME DECOR
1155515
42325
28.85
$275.63
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
GFOA CONF-FINANCE
0014050
42335
18.00
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES -TINY TOTS
0015310
41200
16.15
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES -COMM DEV
0015210
41200
27.89
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES -RECYCLING
1155516
41200
20.00
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES -BLDG & SFTY
0015220
41200
8.57
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
PRINT SVCS-P/INFO
0014095
42110
15.71
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0015350
41200
12.31
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES -HIR
0014060
41200
9.98
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
SUPPLIES -FINANCE
0014050
41200
13.04
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
VEH MAINT-COMM SVCS
0015310
42200
45.00
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
MILEAGE -FINANCE
0014050
42335
9.88
2/2/2012
DIAMOND BAR PETTY CASH
VEH MAINT-POOL VEH
0014090
42200
50.25
2/2/2012 1 97810 DIAMOND BARNJALNUT YMCA CDBG PROG-CHILD CARE 1255215 1 42355 1 675.00 $675.00
Page 2
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct#
Amount
Total Check Amount
2/2/2012
2/2/2012
97811
DIANA CHO & ASSOCIATES
DIANA CHO & ASSOCIATES
CDBG SVCS-NOV 2011
CDBG SVCS -DEC 2011
1255215
1255215
44000
44000
2,920.00
1,880.00
$4,800.00
2/2/2012 1
97812
DIRECT CONNECTION INCORP
PRINT SVCS -ZIP CODE SRVY
0014090
1 44000 1
1,328.96
$1,328.96
2/2/2012
EVERGREEN INTERIORS
PLANT SVCS -HERITAGE PK
0015340
42210
1
135.00
2/2/2012 1
97813
ANNETTE DRUMONDE
CONTRACT CLASS -WINTER
0015350
1 45320 1
448.80
$448.80
2/2/2012
GOVPARTNER
REQUEST PARTNEROCT11
0014070
44030
850.00
2/2/2012 1
97814
EAST JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PARKING CITE ADMIN -DEC 11
001
32230 1
2,638.00
$2,638.00
2/2/2012 j
97815
EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
UNE0PLYMNTCHRGS-4THQTR
1 0014060
1 40093
1,095.00
$1,095.00
2/2/2012
97816
EVERGREEN INTERIORS
PLANT SVCS -DBC
0015333
45300
177.00
5312.00
2/2/2012
EVERGREEN INTERIORS
PLANT SVCS -HERITAGE PK
0015340
42210
1
135.00
2/2/2012 1
97817
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
ADDL MAINT-DIST 38
1385538
1 42210 1
340.85
$340.85
2/2/2012
GOVPARTNER
REQUEST PARTNER -DEC 11
0014070
44030
850.00
2/2/2012 1
97818
FEDEX
EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL
0014090
1 42120 1
193.19
$193.19
2/2/2012
GOVPARTNER
REQUEST PARTNEROCT11
0014070
44030
850.00
2/2/2012 1
97819
FEHR & PEERS
TRFFC ENG SVCS -DEC 11
1 1165510
1 R44000 1
715.40
$715.40
2/2/2012 1
97820
GLOBALSTAR USA
JANNL SVCS -SATELLITE PHS
0014440
1 42125 1
2,711.75
$2,711.75
2/2/2012 1
97821
GOOD YEAR AUTO SERVICE CENTER
VEH MAINT-RD MAINT
0015554
1 42200 1
20.00
$20.00
2/2/2012 1 97822 GOVIS LLC COMP SYS ANNL MAINT-2012 0014070 1 42205 1 3,000.00 $3,000.00
2/2/2012
97823
GOVPARTNER
REQUEST PARTNER-NOV 11
0014070
44030
850.00
$3,400.00
2/2/2012
GOVPARTNER
REQUEST PARTNER -DEC 11
0014070
44030
850.00
2/2/2012
97827
GOVPARTNER
REQUEST PARTNER -JAN 12
0014070
44030
850.00
$400.00
2/2/2012
GOVPARTNER
REQUEST PARTNEROCT11
0014070
44030
850.00
2/2/2012 1
97826
GRAFFITI CONTROL SYSTEMS
GRAFFITI REMOVAL -DEC 11
0015230
45520
4,940.00
$4,940.00
2/2/2012 1
97827
ARMANDO IBARRA
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
1 001
1 36615 1
400.00
$400.00
2/2/2012 1
97828
SHINYI IBRAHIM
FACILITY REFFUND-HERITAGE
1 001
1 23002 1
200.001
$200.00
Page 3
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amount
2/2/2012
2/2/2012
97829
INLAND EMPIRE MAGAZINE
INLAND EMPIRE MAGAZINE
AD -DBC DEC 2011
AD -DBC JAN 2012
0014095
0014095
42115
42115
995.00
995.00
$1,990.00
2/2/2012
97830
INLAND EMPIRE STAGES
TRANSPORTATION -EXCURSION
1125350
45310
868.00
$4,247.50
2/2/2012
INLAND EMPIRE STAGES
EXCURSION-HLLYWD HMS
0015350
45310
2,501.00
2/2/2012
97833
INLAND EMPIRE STAGES
TRANSPORTATION -EXCURSION
1125350
45310
878.50
$67.00
2/2/2012
97831
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGAL AD -FPL 2006-197
001
23010
360.00
$1,043.50
2/2/2012
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGALAD-FPL 2011-449
001
23010
342.50
2/2/2012
97833
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGAL SVCS -FPL 2011-448
001
23010
341.00
$67.00
2/2/2012 1
97832
J H DOUGLAS &ASSOCIATES
UPDATES -HOUSING ELEMNT
0015210
1 R44220 1
15,570.00
$15,570.00
2/2/2012
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
ENGRAVING SVCS -TILES
0014090
42113
58.73
2/2/2012
97833
JAMILLA JAMISON
RECREATION REFUND
001
34780
67.00
$67.00
2/2/2012
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
ENGRAVING SVCS -BADGES
0014090
42113
65.25
2/2/2012
97834
1 KELLY ASSOCIATES MANAGEMENT GROUP
ECON WK PLAN -SITED
0014096
44000
2,475.00
$2,475.00
2/2/2012
97835
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
ENGRAVING SVCS -BADGE
0014090
42113
15.77
$276.53
2/2/2012
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
ENGRAVING SVCS -TILES
0014090
42113
58.73
2/2/2012
97837
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
ENGRAVING SVCS -BADGE
0014090
42113
13.85
$557.46
2/2/2012
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
ENGRAVING SVCS -BADGES
0014090
42113
65.25
2/2/2012
97838
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
ENGRAVING SVCS -TILES
0014090
42113
19.58
$140.00
2/2/2012
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
ENGRAVING SVCS -BADGE
0014090
42113
15.21
2/2/2012
LEWIS ENGRAVING INC.
ENGRAVING SVCS -BADGES
0014090
42113
88.14
2/2/2012 1
97836
JOSE LOPEZ
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002
500.001
$500.00
2/2/2012
MCE CORPORATION
RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINT-DEC
0015554
45522
3,265.90
2/2/2012
97837
LOSANGELES COUNTY SHERIFF'S DEPT
HELICOPTER SVCS -SEPT 2011
0014411
1 45401 1
557.46
$557.46
2/2/2012
97838
BIN LU
RECREATION REFUND
001
34760 1
140.00
$140.00
2/2/2012
97839
MCE CORPORATION
ROAD MAINT SVCS -DEC
0015554
45502
6,813.91
$11,049.17
2/2/2012
MCE CORPORATION
RIGHT-OF-WAY MAINT-DEC
0015554
45522
3,265.90
2/2/2012
MCE CORPORATION
STORM DRAIN MAINT-DEC 11
0015554
45512
969.36
2/2/2012 1 97840 IJOSIE MEJIA FACILITY REFUND -DBC 1 001 1 23002 1 100.00 $100.00
Page 4
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date I Check Number
Transaction Description I Fund/ Dept I Acct # I Amount
2/2/2012
97841
SHUSHAMA NAYEM
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002 1
500.00
$500.00
2/2/2012
1
PERS RETIREMENT FUND
SURVIVOR BENEFIT
001
21109
46.50
2/2/2012 1
97842
ALPHAOMEGA
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
1 001
1 23002 I
100.00
$100.00
2/2/2012
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -LETTERHEAD
0014090
42110
85.91
2/2/2012 1
97843
PARADISE SIGNS INC
REFUND -BANNER
001
34430 1
100.00
$100.00
2/2/2012
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -ENVELOPES
0014090
42110
777.56
2/2/2012
97844
PARCELQUEST
COMP NIAINT-PARCEL DATA
1 001407
1 42205 1
1,061.34
$1,061.34
2/2/2012
97845
PERS RETIREMENT FUND
RETIRE CONTRIB-EE
001
21109
11,605.78
$111652.28
2/2/2012
1
PERS RETIREMENT FUND
SURVIVOR BENEFIT
001
21109
46.50
2/2/2012 1 97846 SAMIAH RAHMAN FACILITY REFUND -DBC 1 001 1 36615 1 400.00 $400.00
2/2/2012
97847
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -BUS CARDS
0014090
42110
43.50
$3,322.31
2/2/2012
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -BUS CARDS
0014090
42110
14138
2/2/2012
97850
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -BUS CARD
0014090
42110
90.26
$18,237.06
2/2/2012
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -LETTERHEAD
0014090
42110
85.91
2/2/2012
97851
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVS -LETTERHEAD
0014090
42110
1,353.94
$178.00
2/2/2012
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -ENVELOPES
0014090
42110
777.56
2/2/2012
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -BUS CARDS
0014090
42110
85.91
2/2/2012
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -LETTERHEAD
0014090
42110
85.91
2/2/2012
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -ENVELOPES
0014090
42110
436.09
2/2/2012
REINBERGER PRINTWERKS
PRINT SVCS -SHIPPING LABEL
0014090
42110
221.85
2/2/2012
97848
REPUBLIC ITS INC
TRFFC SIGNAL MAINT-NOV
0015554
45507
4,102.00
$18,744.15
2/2/2012
REPUBLIC ITS INC
TRFFC SIGNAL REPAIRS-NOV
0015554
45507
5,556.68
2/2/2012
97850
REPUBLIC ITS INC
TRFFC SIGNAL MAINT-DEC
0015554
45507
4,102.00
$18,237.06
2/2/2012
REPUBLIC ITS INC
TRFFC SIGNAL REPAIRS -DEC
0015554
45507
2,298.47
2/2/2012
97851
REPUBLIC ITS INC -
TRFFC SIGNAL MAINT-G/WAY
0015554
45507
2,685.00
$178.00
2/2/2012 1
97849
RESTAURANT NEWS
PUBLICATIONS -CITY CLERK
0014010
1 42320 -
24.95
$24.95
2/2/2012 1
97850
RKA CONSULTING GROUP
BLDG & SFTY SVCS -DEC
0015220
1 45201 1
18,237.06
$18,237.06
2/2/2012 1
97851
DIANA ROGERS
RECREATION REFUND
001
1 34780 1
178.00
$178.00
Page 5
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date I Check Numberl Vendor Name I I ransaction Uescription
Fund/ Dept I Acct# I Amount
2/2/2012 1 97852 CHARINA RUELAS FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA 1 001 1 36625 1 235.00 $235.00
2/2/2012
97853
SIMPLEX/GRINNELL INC
MAINT-FIRE SUPPRESSION SY
0014090
42210
589.50
$1,509.87
2/2/2012
SIMPLEX / GRINNELL INC
MAINT-FIRE SUPPRESSION SY
0014090
42210
920.37
2/2!2012
97854
SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC
PROFSVCS-CITY NEWS
0014095
44000
1,775.00
$3,850.00
2/2/2012
SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC
PROF.SVCS-CITY NEWS FEB
0014095
44000
1
2,075.00
2/2/2012 1
97855
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS-BREA CYN RD
1 0014093
1 42126 1
25.18
$25.18
2/2/2012
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-SITE D
0014090
44000
526.88
2/2/2012 j
97856
SPECTRACOM
MAINT-GPS OUTDOORANTENNA
0014093
1 46310 1
1,108.55
$1,108.55
2/2/2012
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-FPL 2011-448
001
23010
347.48
2/2/2012
97857
SUSTAINABLE ENVIRONMENTAL MNGMT COM
SOLID WASTE MGMT-DEC 11
1155515
1 44000 1
440.00
$440.00
2/2/2012 1
97858
JULIE TATOYA
FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA
001
23002
100.00
$100.00
2/2/2012 1
97859
TENNIS ANYONE INC -
CONTRACT CLASS -WINTER
0015350
1 45320
3,216.50
$3,216.50
2/2/2012
97860
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGAL AD -FPL 2006-197
001
23010
391.64
$1,654.88
2/2/2012
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-SITE D
0014090
44000
526.88
2/2/2012
97864
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-FPL 2011-449 -
001
23010
388.88
$35.00
2/2/2012
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-FPL 2011-448
001
23010
347.48
2/2/2012 97861 THE SAUCE CREATIVE SERVICES SUPPLIES-NGHBRHD IMP 0015230 1 41200 1 390.40 $390.40
2/2/2012
97862
TIME WARNER CABLE
INTERNET SVCS -CITY HALL
0014070
44030
257.35
$510.91
2/2/2012
TIME WARNER CABLE
INTERNET SVCS -HERITAGE
0014070
44030
137.55
2/2/2012
97864
TIME WARNER CABLE
INTERNETSVCS-HERITAGE0015340
001
42125
116.01
$35.00
2/2/2012 1
97863
WILLIAM TOWERS
FACILITY REFUND -HERITAGE
1 001
1 23002 1
200.00
$200.00
2/2/2012 1
97864
SURATHEP TRAKULBOON
RECREATION REFUND
001
1 34730 1
35.00
$35.00
2/2/2012
97865
TRENCH PLATE RENTAL CO
EQ RENTAL -STEEP CYN
0015554
1 42130 1
225.00
$225.00
2/2/2012 1
97866
UNION BANK OF CALIFORNIA, NA
ANNL TRUSTEE FEES -BOND
1 0014090
1 42129 1
4,845.00
$4,845.00
Page 6
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
2/2/2012
97869
VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-303248
2/3/12 -LOAN DEDUCTIONS
001
211081,582.96
155.55
$27,711.43
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
2/3/12-P/R DEDUCTIONS
Transaction Description
21108
Fund/ Dept
Acct#
Amount
Total Check Amount
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-DBC
0015333
42125
360.95
$500.00
2/2/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
2/2/2012
1 97867
US POSTAL SERVICE (HASLER)
POSTAGE REPLENISH
0014090
42120
5,000.00
$5,000.00
2/2/2012
1 97868
VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE MAINT INC
CLEAN-UP-W/SNOW FEST
1 0015350
45300
828.751
$828.75
2/2/2012
97869
VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-303248
2/3/12 -LOAN DEDUCTIONS
001
211081,582.96
155.55
$27,711.43
2/2/2012
VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNTS-303248
2/3/12-P/R DEDUCTIONS
001
21108
26,128.47
2/2/2012
97870
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
155.55
$690.13
2/2/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
92.02
2/2/2012
97872
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-DBC
0015333
42125
360.95
$500.00
2/2/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-DBC
0015333
42125
81.61
2/2/2012 1
97871
VERMONT SYSTEMS INC
COMP MAI NT -PAGER SUPPORT
1 0014070
1 42205 1
183.00
$183.00
2/2/2012
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014093
42210
535.09
2/2/2012 1
97872
WALNUT VALLEY EDUCATIONAL FOUNDATIO
COMM ORG SUPPORT FUND
0114010
1 42355 1
500.00
$500.00
2/2/2012
97873
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
SUPPLIES -DBC
0015333
42210
1,048.42
$1,957.61
2/2/2012
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014093
42210
535.09
2/2/2012
97875
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014093
42210
92.61
$404.27
2/2/2012
WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014093
42210
281.49
2/2/2012 1
97874
THERESAWINECKI
CONTRACT CLASS -WINTER
1 0015350
1 45320
732.00
$732.00
2/9/2012
AMERICOMP GROUP INC
MAINT-PRINTERS
0014070
45000
716.00
2/9/2012 1
97875
AAA OFFICE MACHINES
EQ REPAIR -TYPEWRITERS
0014030
1 42200 1
404,27
$404.27
2/9/2012
97876
AMERICOMP GROUP INC
TONERS -PRINTER
0014070
41200
467.51
$1,303.01
2/9/2012
AMERICOMP GROUP INC
MAINT-PRINTERS
0014070
45000
716.00
2/9/2012
AMERICOMP GROUP INC
ADDL MAINT-PRINTERS
0014070
45000
119.50
2/9/2012 1 97877 AMERITECH BUSINESS SYSTEMS INC RICOH COLOR COPIER 5304070 1 46230 1 20,397.15 $20,397,15
2/9/2012
97878
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONSTRUCTION-SYC CYN
2505310
R46415
27.75
$3,696.35
2/9/2012
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONSTRUCTION-SYC CYN
2505310
R46415
476.25
2/9/2012
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
CONSTRUCTION-SYC CYN
2505310
R46415
1,062.50
2/9/2012
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
ADA RETRO -FIT -MINI PARK
2505310
R46415
11.10
Page 7
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amount
2/9/2012
2/9/2012
97878...
1
ARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
iARCHITERRA DESIGN GROUP INC
ADA RETRO -FIT -MINI PARK
ADA RETRO -FIT -MINI PARK
2505310
2505310
R46415
R46415
969.75
1,149.00
$3,696.35 ...
2/9/2012 1
97879
BEAR STATE AIR CONDITIONING SVCS IN
BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL
10014093
1 42210
451.72
$451.72
219/2012
1
CDW GOVERNMENT
COMP MAI NT-I.T
0014070
42205
6,000.26
2/9/2012
97880
BENESYST
FLEXADMIN SVCS
1 0014060
1 42346
162.70
$162.70
2/9/2012
97881
BOY SCOUT TROOP 730
REIMB-FOOD VENDOR
1 0015350
1 45300 1
18.501
$18.50
2/9/2012
97882
BOY SCOUT TROOP 730
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
45300
225.00
$225.00
2/9/2012
97883
BOYSCOUT TROOP 777
REIMB-FOOD VENDOR
0015350
45300 1
111.501
$111.50
2/9/2012
97884BOY
SCOUT TROOP 777
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
1 45300 1
225.00
$225.00
2/9/2012
97885
KATHY BREAUX
CONTRACT CLASSWINTER0015350
1 45320 1
86A01
$86.40
2/9/2012
97886
ICALIFORNIA CONTRACT CITIES ASSOC.
MTG-CMGR JAN 2012
0014030
42325 1
26.001
$26.00
2/9/2012
97887
CARD IMAGING
COMP SUPPLIES-I.T
0014070
412001
210.00
$210.00
2/9/2012
97888
CDW GOVERNMENT
MISC EQ-I.T
0014070
46250
329.52
$57,622.94
219/2012
1
CDW GOVERNMENT
COMP MAI NT-I.T
0014070
42205
6,000.26
2/9/2012
97892
CDW GOVERNMENT
COMPUTER EQUIP -HARDWARE
5304070
46230
51,293.16
$120.08
2/9/2012 97889 CHAPARRAL MIDDLE SCHOOL LEO CLUB PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST 0015350 45300 225.00 $225.00
2/9/2012
97890
CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
45300
225.00
$450.00
2/9/2012
1
ICHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
45300
225.00
2/9/20121
97891
CHRISTIAN LIFE CENTER
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
10015350
1 45300 F772HO01
$225.00
2/9/2012 1
97892
ICONSTRUCTION HARDWARE
HARDWARE -CITY HALL
10014093
1 41200 1
120,081
$120.08
2/9/2012 1
97893
ICORNERSTONE RECORDS MGMT
STORAGE -BACKUP TAPES
001407i
45.301
$645.30
2/9/2012 1
97894
COUNTRY GARDEN CATERERS INC
LUNCH -CONCERT SHARE 1/26
0015350
1 45300 1
1,744.891
$1,744.89
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date ICheckNumberl Vendor Name I Transaction Description I Fund/ Dept I Acct# I Amount I Total Check Amount
2/9/2012
97896
CUB SCOUT PACK 737
OCEEDS-WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
45300
225.00
$675.00
2/9/2012
CUB SCOUT PACK 737
FEST
OCEEDS-WINTER SNOW FEST
rPF
0015350
0015350
45300
45300
2
22/9/2012
2/9/2012 1
97897
CUB SCOUT PACK 737
OCEEDS-WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
45300
225.00
$200.00
2/9/2012
97896
CUB SCOUT PACK 737
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
45300 1
225.00
$225.00
2/9/2012
DIAMOND BAR MOBIL
VEH MAINT-POOL VEH
0014090
1
42200
33.19
1
2/9/2012 1
97897
CHRISTINA DAVID
FACILITY REFUND -HERITAGE
001
1 23002 1
200.00
$200.00
2/9/2012
EXCELLANDSCAPE
ADDL MAINT-DIST 41
1415541
42210
213.08
2/9/2012 1
97898
DAVID G LIU
PER DIEM-MTG 3/7-3/10
0015510
42330
280.00
5280.00
2/9/2012
97899
DELTA CARE USA
FEB 12 -DENTAL PREMIUMS
001
21104
111.68
$111.68
2/9/2012
97900
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS
0014060
1 42345 1
96.00
$96.00
2/9/2012
97901
DIAMOND BAR AAUW
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
45300
225.00
$225.00
219/2012
97902
DIAMOND BAR BREAKFAST LIONS
REIMB-FOOD VENDOR
0015350
45300
5.00
$5.00
2/9/2012 1
97903
DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY PRE SCHOOL
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
1 45300 1
225.00
$225.00
2/9/2012 1
97904
DIAMOND BAR HIGH SCHOOL LEO CLUB
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
1 45300 1
225.00
$225.00
2/9/2012
97905
DIAMOND BAR MOBIL
VEH MAI NT -DBC
0015333
42200
33.19
$66.38
2/9/2012
DIAMOND BAR MOBIL
VEH MAINT-POOL VEH
0014090
1
42200
33.19
1
2/9/2012 1
97906
DIAMOND BAR WOMANS CLUB
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
1 0015350
1 45300 1
225.00
$225.00
2/9/2012
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
ADDL MAINT-DIST 38
1385538
42210
207.70
2/9/2012 1
97907
DOLPHIN RENTS INC
EQ RENTAL -WINTER S/FEST
0015350
1 42130 1
2,208.39
$2,208.39
2/9/2012
EXCELLANDSCAPE
ADDL MAINT-DIST 41
1415541
42210
213.08
2/9/2012 1
97908
ELITE CONSTRUCTION
IHIP PROG-23834 CHINOOK
1 1255215
1 44000 1
1,694.00
$1,694.00
2/9/2012
97909
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
ADDL MAINT-DIST 38
1385538
42210
373.70
$28,426.33
2/9/2012
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
ADDL MAINT-DIST 38
1385538
42210
207.70
2/9/2012
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
ADDL MAINT-DIST 38
1385538
42210
159.03
2/9/2012
EXCELLANDSCAPE
ADDL MAINT-DIST 41
1415541
42210
213.08
2/9/2012
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE MAINT-DIST 38
1385538
45500
11,718.00
Page 9
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct#
Amount
Total Check Amount
2/9/2012
2/9/2012
97909...
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
EXCELLANDSCAPE
LANDSCAPE MAINT-DIST 39
LANDSCAPE MAINT-DIST 41
1395539
1415541
45500
45500
11,610.95
4,143.87
$28,426.33 ...
2/9/2012
97910
FEDEX
EXPRESS MAIL -GENERAL
0014090
1 42120 1
97.50
$97.50
2/9/2012
1
GUNLOCKE
OFFICE FURNITURE-C/HALL
0014093
46220
37,467.90
2/9/2012
97911
MICHAEL FISHER
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002 1
Too.001
$100.00
2/9/2012
GUNLOCKE
OFFICE FURNITURE-C/HALL
0014093
46220
8,018.10
2/9/2012 1
97912
GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER ASSOC
ICAPITAL CONTRIB-C/HALL
1 0014093
42210 1
1,785.00
$1,785.00
2/9/2012
97913
GUNLOCKE
OFFICE FURNITURE-C/HALL
0014093
46220
134,770.11
$232,683.12
2/9/2012
1
GUNLOCKE
OFFICE FURNITURE-C/HALL
0014093
46220
37,467.90
2/9/2012
97919
GUNLOCKE
OFFICE FURNITURE-C/HALL
0014093
46220
49,713.09
$50.32
2/9/2012
GUNLOCKE
OFFICE FURNITURE-C/HALL
0014093
46220
8,018.10
2/9/2012
GUNLOCKE
OFFICE FURNITURE-C/HALL
0014093
46220
1,136.15
2/9/2012
GUNLOCKE
OFFICE FURNITURE-C/HALL
0014093
46220
1,577.77
2/9/2012
97914
HEERY INTERNATIONAL INC
CONSTRUCTION-C/HALL DEC
0014093
46310
35,469.72
$67,583.82
219/2012
1
HEERY INTERNATIONAL INC
CONSTRUCTION-C/HALL NOV
0014093
46310
32,114.10
1
2/9/2012
97915
HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS&ASSOCIATES
SALES TAX -3 QTR 2011
0014090
44010
900.00
$1,336.02
2/9/2012
1
HINDERLITER, DE LLAMAS &ASSOCIATES
AUDIT SVCS -FINANCE
0014090
44010
436.02
2/9/2012 1 97916 IHIRSCH PIPE AND SUPPLY INC MAINT SUPPLIES -CITY HALL 0014093 42210 232.88 $23288
2/9/2012
97917
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0015340
41200
114.09
$258.95
2/9/2012
1
HOME DEPOT CREDIT SERVICES
SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014093
42210
1
144.86
1
2/9/2012 1
97918
HUMANSCALE
MONITORARMS-CITY HALL
0014093
1 46220
7,449.73
$7,449.73
2/9/2012
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGALAD-SITED
1 0014030
42115
534.20
2/9/2012
97919
INCONTACT INC
LONG DIST SVCS -JAN 2012
0014090
1 42125
50.32
$50.32
2/9/2012
97920
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGALAD-DOG PARK
2505310
46415
374.60
$908.80
2/9/2012
INLAND VALLEY DAILY BULLETIN
LEGALAD-SITED
1 0014030
42115
534.20
2/9/2012 1 97921 IPMA-HR MEMBERSHIP DUES -HR 1 0014060 1 42345 1 149.00 $149.00
Page 10
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/201.2
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct#
Amount
Total CheckAmount
2/9/2012
1 97922
ITALIAN CATHOLIC FEDERATION
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
1 45300
1 225.00
$225.00
2/9/2012 1
97923
IJ J KELLER AND ASSOCIATES INC
PUBLICATIONS-H/R
1 0014060
42320 1
107.34
$107.34
2/9/2012
1
LPA INC
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS -DEC
0014093
45000
83,645.25
2/9/20121
97924
YOUNG SEUNG KIM
CONTRACT CLASS -FALL
1 0015350
45320 1
270.001
$270.00
2/9/2012
LPA INC
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS -DEC
0014093
45000
12,443.34
2/9/2012
97925
JEFF KOBAYASHI
FACILITY REFUND-SYC CYN
001
23002 1
50.00
$50.00
2/9/2012
LPAINC
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS -DEC
0014093
45000
6,446.04
2/9/2012
97926
MARGIE KOSSMAN
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
1 23002 1
392.00
$392.00
2/9/2012
LPA INC
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS -DEC
0014093
45000
2,227.50
2/9/2012
97927
LAPINESTRA CATERING
DINNERS -SR DANCE 2/9
1 0015350
45300 1
1,903.13
$1,903.13
2/9/2012
97928
LEXISNEXIS MATTHEW BENDER
PUBLICATIONS -CA CODES
0014411
42325
44.--
$44.03
2/9/2012
97929
CLAIRE LIANG
CONTRACT CLASS -WINTER
0015350
45320
90.00
$90.00
2/912012
97930
LOS ANGELES COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS
SUMP PUMP MAINT-DEC 11
0015340
42210
298.77
$298.77
2/9/2012
97931
LPA INC
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS-NOV
0014093
45000
13,867.33
$136,132.71
2/9/2012
1
LPA INC
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS -DEC
0014093
45000
83,645.25
2/9/2012
97933
LPA INC
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS-NOV
0014093
45000
12,582.74
$1,500.00
2/9/2012
LPA INC
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS -DEC
0014093
45000
12,443.34
2/9/2012
LPA INC
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS-NOV
0014093
45000
2,040.51
2/9/2012
LPAINC
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS -DEC
0014093
45000
6,446.04
2/9/2012
LPA INC
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS-NOV
0014093
45000
2,880.00
2/9/2012
LPA INC
ARCHITECTURAL SVCS -DEC
0014093
45000
2,227.50
2/9/2012 1
97932
MAGIC CARPET
BLINDS -CITY HALL
0014093
46220
4,560.60
$4,560.60
2/9/2012
1
MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0015340
1
41200
8.00
2/9/2012
97933
MISS DIAMOND BAR PAGEANT INC
COMM ORG SUPPORT FUND
1 0114010
42355
1,500.00
$1,500.00
2/9/2012
97934
MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0015340
41200
219.81
$227.81
2/9/2012
1
MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY INCORP
SUPPLIES -PARKS
0015340
1
41200
8.00
2/9/2012 1 97935 MOBILE RELAYASSOCIATES INC REPEATER SVCS -JAN 2012 10014440 42130 78.751 $78.75
Page 11
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fundl Dept I
Acct#
Amount
Total Check Amount
2/9/2012
1 97936
SETH MORRIS
IRECREATION REFUND
1 001
1 34780
1 89.00
$89.00
2/9/2012
97937
NETWORK INNOVATION ASSOCIATES
BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL
0014093
46310
1,517.50
$1,967.50
2/9/2012
NETWORK INNOVATION ASSOCIATES
BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL
0014093
46310
300.00
2/9/2012
97939
NETWORK INNOVATION ASSOCIATES
BLDG MAINT-CITY HALL
0014093
46310
150.00
$606.28
2/9/2012 1
97938
ORKIN PEST CONTROL INC
PEST CONTROL-PANTERA PK
0015340
1 42210 1
89.23
$89.23
2/9/2012
PC MALL GOV INC
BLDG EQ -CITY HALL
0014093
1 46310
1 11,301.02
2/9/2012 1
97939
PAETEC COMMUNICATIONS INC.
LONG DIST CHRGS-JAN/FEB
1 0014090
1 42125 1
606.281
$606.28
2/9/2012
97940
PC MALL GOV INC
BLDG EQ -CITY HALL
0014093
46310
4,416.23
$15,717.25
2/9/2012
PC MALL GOV INC
BLDG EQ -CITY HALL
0014093
1 46310
1 11,301.02
2/9/2012.
97941
ABRAHAM PEREZ
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002
350.00
$316.00
2/912012
ABRAHAM PEREZ
FACILITY CHRGS-DBC
001
36615
-34.00
2/9/2012 1
97942
POMONA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
FACILITY RENTAL -SNOW FEST
0015350
1 42140 1
140.00
$140.00
2/9/2012
QUINN RENTAL SERVICES
EQ RENTAL -COMM SVCS
0015350
42130
108.97
2/9/2012
97943
PROTECTION ONE INC
JAEARM SVCS -DBC
0015333
1 42210
59.621
559.62
2/9/2012
97944
PUBLIC STORAGE #23051
ISTORAGE RENTAL -#2108
0014090
1 42140
1,632.00
$1,632.00
2/9/2012
97945
QUINN RENTAL SERVICES
EQ RENTAL -COMM SVCS
0015350
42130
217.96
$334.71
2/9/2012
QUINN RENTAL SERVICES
EQ RENTAL -COMM SVCS
0015350
42130
108.97
2/9/2012
97947
QUINN RENTAL SERVICES
EQ RENTAL -COMM SVCS
0015350
42130
7.78
$225.00
2/9/2012 1
97946__[N
ARIARAMIREZ
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
1 23002
500.00
$500.00
2/9/2012 1
97947
RELAY FOR LIFE
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOWFEST
0015350
45300
225.00
$225.00
2/9/2012 1
97948
SECTRAN SECURITY INC.
COURIER SVCS -FEB 2012
0014090
1 44000
308.46
$308.46
2/9/2012 1
97949
ISIGN CONTRACTORS INC
BANNERS -COMM SVCS
0015350
1 45300
267.70
$267.70
2/9/2012 1
97950
SO CAL SANITATION
EQ RENTAL -WINTER S/FEST
0015350
1 42130
927.78
$927.78
2/9/2012 1
97951
ISOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -PARKS
0015340
1 42126 1
3,519.71
$4,731.24
Page 12
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amount
2/9/2012
97951...
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DIST 41
1415541
42126
232.11
$4,731.24 ...
2/9/2012
97958
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DIST 39
1395539
42126
410.25
$380.60
2/9/2012
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DIST 41
1385538
42126
522.01
2/9/2012
97959
SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON
ELECT SVCS -DIST 38
1385538
42126
47.16
$161.56
2/9/2012
97952
SPARKLETTS
WATER SUPPLIES -CITY HALL
0014090
41200
160.43
$171.18
2/9/2012
1
SPARKLETTS
EQ RENTAL -CITY HALL
0014090
42130
10.75
2/9/2012 97953 ALICIASPEARE ICONTRACTCLASS-WINTER 0015350 1 45320 81.00 $81.00
2/9/2012
97954
ST DENIS KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
45300
225.00
$450.00
2/9/2012
1
ST DENIS KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
45300
1
225.00
2/9/2012 97955 GLENN STEIN13RINK CONSULTANT SVCS -FINANCE 0014050 44000 2,600.00 $2,600.00
2/9/2012
97956
TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS
T1 INTERNET SVCS-C/HALL
0014093
46310
450.00
$1,342.20
2/9/2012
1
TELEPACIFIC COMMUNICATIONS
T1 INTERNET SVCS -JAN 2012
0014070
44030
1
892.20
2/9/2012 1
97957
THE COMDYN GROUP INC
CONSULTING SVCS-I.T.
0014070
1 44000 1
4,460.841
$4,460.84
2/9/2012
1
TIME WARNER CABLE
INTERNETSVCS-OLDC/HALL
0014070
44030
950.00
2/9/2012 1
97958
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY NEWSPAPER GR
LEGALAD-DOG PARK
2505310
1 46415 1
380.601
$380.60
2/9/2012 1
97959
THE SAUCE CREATIVE SERVICES
SUPPLIES -COMM SVCS
0015350
41200
161.56
$161.56
2/9/2012
97960
TIME WARNER CABLE
INTERNET SVCS -CITY HALL
0014070
44030
252.60
$1,404.81
2/9/2012
1
TIME WARNER CABLE
INTERNETSVCS-OLDC/HALL
0014070
44030
950.00
2/9/2012
97962
TIME WARNER CABLE
INTERNET SVCS-0LDC/HALL
0014070
44030
202.21
$715.68
2/9/2012 1
97961
TIME WARNER CABLE
MODEM SVCS -COUNCIL
0014010
1 42130 1
57.74
$57.74
2/9/2012
1
1ROSEMARIE TRAN
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002
50.00
2/9/2012 1
97962
TOP HEALTH
PUBLICATIONS-H/R
0014060
1 42320 1
715,681
$715.68
2/9/2012
97963
ROSEMARIE TRAN
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002
200.00
$250.00
2/9/2012
1
1ROSEMARIE TRAN
FACILITY REFUND -DBC
001
23002
50.00
2/9/2012 1 97964 JURIEL URBINA FACILITY REFUND -PETERSON 007 23002 1 50.001 $50.00
Page 13
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date
Check Numher
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
I Acct#
Amount
Total CheckAmount
2/9/2012
1 97965
US HEALTHWORKS MEDICAL GROUP PC
PRE-EMPLOYMENT PHYSICALS
0014060
1 42345
1 238.001
$238.00
2/9/2012
97966
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
907.17
$1,380.41
2/9/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-GENERAL
0014090
42125
30.39
2/9/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-HERITAGE
0015340
42125
44.13
2/9/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-FAX LINE CMGR
0014030
42125
209.04
2/9/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
PH.SVCS-CITY HALL
0014093
42125
103.49
2/9/2012
VERIZON CALIFORNIA
ALARM LINES -HERITAGE PK
0015340
42125
86.19
2/9/2012
97967
VERIZON WIRELESS
CELL CHRGS-CMGR
0014030
42125
104.66
$310.28
2/9/2012
VERIZON WIRELESS
CELL CHRGS-EOC
0014440
42125
58.09
2/9/2012
VERIZON WIRELESS
CELL CHRGS-EOC
0014440
42125
15.23
2/9/2012
VERIZON WIRELESS
CELL CHRGS-EOC
0014070
42125
4.92
2/9/2012
VERIZON WIRELESS
CELL CHRGS-DESORGES
0014070
42125
45.01
2/9/2012
VERIZON WIRELESS
CELL CHRGS-AZIZ
0014070
42125
37.36
2/9/2012
VERIZON WIRELESS
CELL CHRGS-SASD MODEM
0014411
42125
45.01
2/9/2012
97968
WALNUT VALLEY ROTARY
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
45300
1 225.00
$675.00
2/9/2012
WALNUT VALLEY ROTARY
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
45300
1 225.00
2/9/2012
WALNUT VALLEY ROTARY
PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST
0015350
45300
1 225.00
2/9/2012 1 97969 WALNUT VALLEY ROTARY PROCEEDS -WINTER SNOW FEST 1 0015350 45300 225.00 $225.00
2/9/2012
979711
WARREN SIECKE
TRFFC CONTRL SVCS-C/HALL
1135553
46412
731.50
$5,777.00
2/9/2012
WARREN SIECKE
TRFFC CONTRL SVCS-C/HALL
1135510
46412
5,045.50
1
2/9/2012
97971
WEST COASTARBORISTS INC
TREE MAINT SVCS -DEC 11
0015558
45509
4,561.66
.$6,301.56
2/9/2012
WEST COASTARBORISTS INC
TREE MAINT SVCS -DEC 11
0015558
45509
1
1,739.90
2/9/2012
97972
WOODCLIFF CORPORATION
CONSTRUCTION -CITY HALL
.0014093
46310
95,912.90
$235,570.00
2/9/2012
WOODCLIFF CORPORATION
CONSTRUCTION -LIBRARY
0014093
1 46310
1 139,657.10
2/9/2012 1 97973 JOIANG ZHOU FACILITY REFUND-PANTERA 001 1 23002 1 100.001 $100.00
2/10/2012
97974
SO COAST AIR QUALITY MGT DISTRICT
CITY HALL LEASE -JAN 2012
0014090 1
42140
1 4,597.00
$8,597.00
2/10/2012
SO COASTAIR QUALITY MGT DISTRICT
LEASE-MTG ROOM FACILITY
0014090
42140
1 2,000.00
Page 14
City of Diamond Bar - Check Register 02/02/2012 thru 02/15/2012
Check Date
Check Number
Vendor Name
Transaction Description
Fund/ Dept
Acct #
Amount
Total Check Amount
2/10/2012
1 97974...
ISO COAST AIR QUALITY MGT DISTRICT
LEASE-MTG ROOM FACILITY
0014090
42140
2,000.00
$8,597.00.
$1,275,644.91
Page 15
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6.3
Meeting Date: February 21, 2012
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Man g
TITLE: EXONERATION OF SURETY ND NO. TM5053816/6398471 AND
TM5040782/63134001 POSTED BY BROOKFIELD DIAMOND BAR
VILLAGE LLC FOR TRACT 62482 (VANTAGE TOWNHOMES) TO
COMPLETE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS AND MONUMENTATION.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
This action has no financial impact on the City.
BACKGROUND:
In accordance with Section 66462 of the Subdivision Map Act, the City entered into
agreement with the subdivider, Brookfield Diamond Bar Village LLC, to complete
various improvements for Tract 62482. The subdivider guaranteed faithful performance
of said agreement by posting with the City a surety bond for grading, erosion control,
drainage improvements, street improvements, sewer improvements, landscape,
irrigation and monumentation for the tract. On May 7, 2008 the City Council approved a
95% reduction of the landscape improvement bond. The remaining 5% was being held
to ensure appropriate plant establishment along slopes.
DISCUSSION:
Upon receiving written request from Brookfield Homes on February 6, 2012, the Public
Works Department has verified with the Planning Division that the landscaping has
adequately been established. Additionally, the engineer of record has submitted proof
that all monumentation and centerline ties have been recorded with Los Angeles
County.
The following surety bonds are recommended for exoneration:
Surety Bond No. TM5040782/63134001 in the amount of $25,500 for monumentation.
Surety Bond No. TM5053816/6398471 in the amount of $39,149.83 for landscape
improvements
These are the final two bonds to be fully exonerated for the development.
PREPARED BY:
Kimberly M. Young, Associate Engineer
REVIEWED BY:
✓�o
David G. Lid. Director of'Public Works
DATE PREPARED:
February 13, 2012
Attachments:
LETTER OF REQUEST dated February 6, 2012
2
' f 840 04. v atg
February 6, 2012
Diamond Bar Public Works
Attention: Kimberly Young
21810 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
RE: Monument Bond #5040782
Landscape Bond # 5053816
Request for Bond Exoneration
Dear Ms. Young,
The tracts are now completed and we are requesting all outstanding bonds be exonerated. The bonds
we would like to have exonerated are:
Monumentation Bond #5040782 -Tract 62482
Landscape Bond #5053816 -Tract 62482
Thank you fortaking the time to look into this matter. If you have any questions please call me at 714-
200-1630.
Regards,
BROOKFIELD LOS ANGELES BUILDERS
Jenna Scherman
3090 Bristol Street, Suite 200
Costa Mesa, California 92626
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6.4
Meeting Date: February 21, 2012
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Man g
TITLE: ADOPT RESOLUTION 2012- DECLARING THE PROPERTY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF DIAMOND BAR
BOULEVARD AND BREA CANYON ROAD (APN 8714-105-901) AS
SURPLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO
DISPOSE OF THE PROPERTY AT FAIR MARKET VALUE
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt,
FISCAL IMPACT:
By adopting this resolution, the City Manager will be authorized to begin the disposition
and sale process, which shall net the City no less than the appraised value of $595,000.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City of Diamond Bar is the owner of a vacant parcel approximately 0.97 acres in
size located at the corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. The
property is adjacent to the Brea Canyon Flood Control Channel and the parcel known
as Site D, and is currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial (C-1).
Per California Government Code requirements for disposal of public property, the City
must:
• Obtain a valid appraisal setting the fair market value of the property, which may
not be sold for less than this figure. This step was completed, with the total
appraised value established at $595,000 (the appraisal assumes the parcel is
subdivided into one commercial pad and two residential pads).
• Find the property's disposition to be consistent with the General Plan's Vision
Statement and Goals, Objectives, and Strategies. The Planning Commission
made this finding by adopting Resolution 2011 -XX at the regular meeting of
December 15, 2011.
• Offer the property to other local public agencies for use as housing or open
space. A letter was mailed by the City to local agencies meeting these
provisions. At the close of the 60 day response period, none have expressed
interest.
With these steps completed, staff recommends the City Council adopt the attached
resolution finding the property to be surplus, establishing the fair market value of the
property, and authorizing the City Manager to complete the disposition via sale. The
sale of the property will be completed per the terms of the Third Amendment of the
Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the City and the Walnut Valley Unified
School District, owners of the adjacent 29 acre property known as Site D. Per this
agreement, the properties will be sold concurrently, and upon completion, the City will
receive appropriate payment for its share.
Prepared b .
Rya clean
Assis nt to the City Manager
Attachments:
A. Resolution 2012 -XX.
RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
DECLARING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEASTERLY CORNER OF
DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AND BREA CANYON ROAD (APN 8714-105-901) AS
SURPLUS PROPERTY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO DISPOSE OF
THE PROPERTY AT FAIR MARKET VALUE
WHEREAS, the property located at the southeasterly corner of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road (APN 8714-105-901) is owned by the City of
Diamond Bar; and
WHEREAS, the property has been identified as surplus with no present or future
value as municipal land with a public purpose; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code Sections 37420-37430 specifies the
procedures for public agencies to dispose of surplus property; and
WHEREAS, the City has followed these procedures, including:
Receiving an appraisal setting the fair market value of the land;
Completing Planning Commission review finding that the disposition of the
property is consistent with the City's General Plan;
Notifying local public agencies of the property's availability for open space
or housing and giving them first right of refusal to purchase
WHEREAS, no agencies have expressed interest in acquiring the property for
such purposes.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 17he City Council of the City of Diamond Bar declares the City -owned
property on the southeasterly corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road
(APN 8714-105-901) to be surplus property.
SECTION 2. The City Manager is authorized to dispose of the property at the fair
market value of no less than $595,000 and to execute any and all documents
reasonably necessary to dispose of the property.
SECTION 3. The Mayor is hereby authorized to affix his or her signature to this
resolution signifying its adoption by the City Council, and the City Clerk, or her duly
appointed deputy, is directed to attest hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21st day of February, 2012.
Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor
I, Tommye A. Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly and regularly passed, approved and
adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its adjourned
regular meeting held on the 21St day of February, 2012, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Tommye A. Cribbins, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6 .5
Meeting Date: February 21 2012
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Man r
TITLE: APPROVE RESOLUTION2 12 -XX APPROVING PLANS AND
SPECIFICATIONS AND EST BLISHING A PROJECT PAYMENT
ACCOUNT; AND AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE
2011-2012 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG)
CURB RAMP INSTALLATION PROJECT TO GENTRY BROTHERS,
INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $165,500.00 AND AUTHORIZE A
CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $24,000 FOR PROJECT CHANGE
ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR A TOTAL
AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $189,500.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution and award the contract.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
The current Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget has $229,572 of Community Development
Block Grant (CDBG) funds appropriated for the curb ramp installation project. To date,
approximately $33,830 has been encumbered for design and construction
administration services of the project.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The project includes the complete construction of 82 new and upgraded curb ramps in
the vicinity of the neighborhoods surrounding Maple Hill Elementary School and
Chaparral Middle School. The project area is bounded to the north by
Birds Eye Drive, Kiowa Crest to the west, Diamond Bar Blvd. to the south and Iron Bark
to the east.
The project went out for bids on January 23, 2012 and bids were opened on February
15, 2012. The engineer's estimate for the project was $195,000.
1
A total of nine (9) bids were received for the project. The results of the bids were as
follows:
Company
Bid Amount
1. Gentry Brothers, Inc.
$ 165,500.00
2. Kormx, Inc.
$ 165,587.00
3. TSR Construction and Inspection
$ 171,850.00
4. Dash Construction Co., Inc.
$ 184,700.00
5. Hardy and Harper
$ 190,405.00
6. EBS General Engineering, Inc.
$ 192,775.00
7. CJ Concrete Construction, Inc.
$ 202,900.00
8. Kalban, Inc.
$ 213,450.00
9. JDC, Inc.
$ 268,150.00
Key aspects of requirements placed upon the contractor include:
• Completion of all work within thirty (30) working days
• Liquidated damages of $500.00 per day for non-conformance
• Compliance with Community Development Block Grant
• Labor compliance with Davis -Bacon Act
The Public Works Department has checked the contractor license and bid bond of
Gentry Brothers, Inc. with the Contractor State License Board and found them valid. A
total of four (4) local jurisdiction references were contacted. One City did not return
staff's phone message but the other three gave excellent feedback on Gentry Bothers
Inc. experience with curb ramp projects and CDBG compliance.
The project schedule is tentatively set as follows:
Award of Contract
Start of Construction
Completion of Construction
PREPARED BY:
Kimberly M. Young, Associate Engineer
REVIEWED
Da °G. Li :Director of Public Works
ATTACHMENTS:
Resolution 2012 -XX
Contract Agreement
February 21, 2011
March 5, 2012
April 20, 2012
DATE PREPARED:
February 16, 2012
RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR APPROVING THE DESIGN AND PLANS FOR THE
CONSTRUCTION OF THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK
GRANT CURB RAMP PROJECT (CITY PROJECT# 27012 AND CDBG
PROJECT# 601394-11) PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 830.6 AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT PAYMENT
ACCOUNT.
The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does resolve as follows:
SECTION 1: The City Council finds and declares as follows:
A. The City retained Infrastructure Engineers ("Consultant") as the engineer
to design and prepare the plans for the Community Development Block
Grant Curb Ramp Project (City Project# 27012 and CDBG Project#
601394-11) ("Project");
B. The Consultant informed the City Engineer that these plans are complete
and that construction of the Project may begin;
C. The City Engineer reviewed the completed design and plans for the
Project and agrees with the Consultant that the plans are complete and
the Project may be constructed;
D. The City Council wishes to obtain the immunities set forth in Government
Code § 830.6 with regard to the plans and construction of the Project.
SECTION 2: Design Immunity; Authorization.
A. The design and plans for the Project are determined to be consistent with
the City's standards and are approved.
B. The design approval set forth in this Resolution occurred before actual
work on the Project construction commenced.
C. The approval granted by this Resolution conforms with the City's General
Plan.
D. The City Engineer, or designee, is authorized to act on the City's behalf in
approving any alterations or modifications of the design and plans
approved by this Resolution.
E. The approval and authorization granted by this Resolution is intended to
avail the City of the immunities set forth in Government Code § 830.6.
SECTION 3: Project Payment Account. For purposes of the Contract Documents
administering the Project, the City Council directs the City Manager, or
designee, to establish a fund containing sufficient monies from the current
fiscal year budget to pay for the Project ('Project Payment Account").
The Project Payment Account is the sole source of funds available for the
Contract Sum, as defined in the Contract Document administering the
Project.
SECTION 4: The City Clerk is directed to certify the adoption of this Resolution.
SECTION 5: This Resolution will become effective immediately upon adoption.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED this 21St day of February, 2012.
Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor
I, Tommye A. Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California, do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution No. 2012 -XX was duly and regularly passed and
adopted by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, at its adjourned
regular meeting held on the 21St day of February, 2012, by the following vote, to wit:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
Tommye A. Cribbins, City Clerk
AGREEMENT
The following agreement is made and entered into, in duplicate, as of the date executed
by the Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk, by and between Gentry Brothers, Inc.
hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR" and the City of Diamond Bar, California,
hereinafter referred to as "CITY."
WHEREAS, pursuant to Notice Inviting Sealed Bids, bids were received, publicly
opened, and declared on the date specified in the notice; and
WHEREAS, City did accept the bid of CONTRACTOR Gentry Brothers, Inc. and;
WHEREAS, City has authorized the Mayor to execute a written contract with
CONTRACTOR for furnishing labor, equipment and material for the 2011-2012 Community
Development Block Grant (CDBG) Curb Ramp Project (City Project# 27012, CDBG
Project# 601394-11) in the City of Diamond Bar.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is
agreed:
1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK: CONTRACTOR shall furnish all necessary
labor, tools, materials, appliances, and equipment for and do the work for the 2011-2012
Communitv Development Block Grant (CDBG) Curb Ramp Project (City Project# 27012,
CDBG Project# 601394-11) in the City of Diamond Bar. The work to be performed in
accordance with the plans and specifications, dated January 2012 (The Plans and
Specifications) on file in the office of the City Clerk and in accordance with bid prices
hereinafter mentioned and in accordance with the instructions of the City Engineer.
2. INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS I'0 BE UUNSIDEKLU
COMPLEMENTARY: The Plans and Specifications are incorporated herein by reference and
made a part hereof with like force and effect as if set forth in full herein. The Plans and
Specifications, CONTRACTOR'S Bid dated February 15, 2012 together with this written
agreement, shall constitute the contract between the parties. This contract is intended to require
a complete and finished piece of work and anything necessary to complete the work properly and
in accordance with the law and lawful governmental regulations shall be performed by the
CONTRACTOR whether set out specifically in the contract or not. Should it be ascertained that
any inconsistency exists between the aforesaid documents and this written agreement, the
provisions of this written agreement shall control.
3. COMPENSATION: CONTRACTOR agrees to receive and accept the prices set
forth in its Bid Proposal as full compensation for furnishing all materials, performing all work,
and fulfilling all obligations hereunder. Said compensation shall cover all expenses, losses,
damages, and consequences arising out of the nature of the work during its progress or prior to
its acceptance including those for well and faithfully completing the work and the whole thereof
in the manner and time specified in the aforesaid contract documents; and also including those
arising from actions of the elements, unforeseen difficulties or obstructions encountered in the
prosecution of the work, suspension or discontinuance of the work, and all other unknowns or
risks of any description connected with the work.
4. TERM OF CONTRACT: The CONTRACTOR agrees to complete the work
within thirty (30) working days from the date of the notice to proceed.
The CONTRACTOR agrees further to the assessment of liquidated damages in
the amount of five hundred ($500.00) dollars for each calendar day the work remains incomplete
beyond the expiration of the completion date. City may deduct the amount thereof from any
monies due or that may become due the CONTRACTOR under this agreement. Progress
payments made after the scheduled date of completion shall not constitute a waiver of liquidated
damages.
5. INSURANCE: The CONTRACTOR shall not commence work under this
contract until he has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or companies
acceptable to City nor shall the CONTRACTOR allow any subcontractor to commence work on
his subcontract until all insurance required of the subcontractor has been obtained. The
CONTRACTOR shall take out and maintain at all times during the life of this contract the
following policies of insurance:
a. Workers' Compensation Insurance: Before beginning work, the
CONTRACTOR shall furnish to the City a certificate of insurance as
proof that he has taken out full workers' compensation insurance for all
persons whom he may employ directly or through subcontractors in
carrying out the work specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the
State of California. Such insurance shall be maintained in full force and
effect during the period covered by this contract.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor
Code, every CONTRACTOR shall secure the payment of compensation to
his employees. The CONTRACTOR, prior to commencing work, shall
sign and file with the City a certification as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code
which requires every employer to be insured against liability for
workers' compensation or to undertake self insurance in accordance
with the provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such
provisions before commencing the performance of work of this
contract."
b. For all operations of the CONTRACTOR or any sub -contractor in
performing the work provided for herein, insurance with the following
minimum limits and coverage:
1) Public Liability - Bodily Injury (not auto) $500,000 each person;
$1,000,000 each accident.
2) Public Liability - Property Damage (not auto) $250,000 each
person; $500,000 aggregate.
3) CONTRACTOR'S Protective - Bodily Injury $500,000 each
person; $1,000,000 each accident.
4) CONTRACTOR'S Protective - Property Damage $250,000 each
accident; $500,000 aggregate.
5) Automobile - Bodily Injury $500,000 each person; $1,000,000
each accident.
6) Automobile - Property Damage $250,000 each accident.
Each such policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. shall:
1) Be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by City,
which is authorized to do business in the State of California.
2) Name as additional insured the City of Diamond Bar, its officers,
agents and employees, and any other parties specified in the bid
documents to be so included;
3) Specify it acts as primary insurance and that no insurance held or
owned by the designated additional insured shall be called upon to
cover a loss under the policy;
4) Contain a clause substantially in the following words:
"It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be
canceled nor the amount of the coverage thereof reduced until
thirty (30) days after receipt by City of a written notice of such
cancellation or reduction of coverage as evidenced by receipt of a
registered letter."
5) Otherwise be in form satisfactory to the City.
d. The policy of insurance provided for in subparagraph a. shall contain an
endorsement which:
1) Waives all right of subrogation against all persons and entities
specified in subparagraph 4.c.(2) hereof to be listed as additional
insured in the policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. by
reason of any claim arising out of or connected with the operations
of CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor in performing the work
provided for herein;
2) Provides it shall not be canceled or altered without thirty (30) days'
written notice thereof given to City by registered mail.
e. The CONTRACTOR shall, within ten (10) days from the date of the
notice of award of the Contract, deliver to the City Manager or his
designee the original policies of insurance required in paragraphs a. and b.
hereof, or deliver to the City Manager or his designee a certificate of the
insurance company, showing the issuance of such insurance, and the
additional insured and other provisions required herein.
f. Self Insured Retention/Deductibles. All policies required by this
Agreement shall allow City, as additional insured, to satisfy the self-
insured retention ("SIR") and/or deductible of the policy in lieu of the
Owner (as the named insured) should Owner fail to pay the SIR or
deductible requirements. The amount of the SIR or deductible shall be
subject to the approval of the City Attorney and the Finance Director.
Owner understands and agrees that satisfaction of this requirement is an
express condition precedent to the effectiveness of this Agreement. Failure
by Owner as primary insured to pay its SIR or deductible constitutes a
material breach of this Agreement. Should City pay the SIR or deductible
on Owner's behalf upon the Owner's failure or refusal to do so in order to
secure defense and indemnification as an additional insured under the
policy, City may include such amounts as damages in any action against
Owner for breach of this Agreement in addition to any other damages
incurred by City due to the breach.
6. PREVAILING WAGE: Since this is a Federally assisted construction project,
Davis -Bacon will be enforced. If Federal and State wage rates are applicable, then the higher of
the two will prevail. The Federal Labor Standards Provisions (Form HUD -4010) and the Federal
Wage Determination are attached and made part of this agreement, and compliance will be
enforced.
Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the provisions of California Labor Code,
Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the CONTRACTOR is required to pay not less
than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for work of a similar character in the locality
in which the public works is performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem
wages for holiday and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of
Industrial Relations of the State of California is required to and has determined such general
prevailing rates of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file
in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California, and are available to any interested party on request. City also shall cause a copy of
such determinations to be posted at the job site.
The CONTRACTOR shall forfeit, as penalty to City, not more than twenty-five
dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed for each calendar day or
portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the general prevailing
rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under this Agreement, by him or by any
subcontractor under him.
7. APPRENTICESHIP EMPLOYMENT: In accordance with the provisions of
Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code, and in accordance with the regulations of the California
Apprenticeship Council, properly indentured apprentices may be employed in the performance of
the work
The CONTRACTOR is required to make contribution to funds established for the
administrative of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or journeymen in
any apprenticeship trade on such contracts and if other CONTRACTOR'S on the public works
site are making such contributions.
The CONTRACTOR and subcontractor under him shall comply with the
requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.
Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules and other
requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex -officio the
Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of
Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices.
8. LEGAL HOURS OF WORK: Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal
day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract, and the CONTRACTOR
and any sub -contractor under him shall comply with and be governed by the laws of the State of
California having to do with working hours set forth in Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of
the Labor Code of the State of California as amended.
4
The CONTRACTOR shall forfeit, as a penalty to City, twenty-five dollars
($25.00) for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed in the execution of the contract, by
him or any sub- CONTRACTOR under him, upon any of the work hereinbefore mentioned, for
each calendar day during which the laborer, workman or mechanic is required or permitted to
labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of the Labor Code.
9. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE PAY: CONTRACTOR agrees to pay travel
and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this contract as
such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable collective bargaining
agreements filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8.
10. CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY: The City of Diamond Bar and its officers,
agents and employees ("Indemnitees") shall not be answerable or accountable in any manner for
any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof, or for any of the materials
or other things used or employed in performing the work; or for injury or damage to any person
or persons, either workers or employees of CONTRACTOR, of its subcontractors or the public,
or for damage to adjoining or other property from any cause whatsoever arising out of or in
connection with the performance of the work. CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for any
damage or injury to any person or property resulting from defects or obstructions or from any
cause whatsoever.
CONTRACTOR will indemnify Indemnities against and will hold and save Indemnitees
harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or property, penalties, obligations
or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any person, firm, entity, corporation, political
subdivision, or other organization arising out of or in connection with the work, operation, or
activities of CONTRACTOR, its agents, employees, subcontractors or invitees provided for
herein, whether or not there is concurrent passive negligence on the part of City. In connection
therewith:
a. CONTRACTOR will defend any action or actions filed in connection with
any such claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will pay
all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees, expert fees and costs
incurred in connection therewith.
b. CONTRACTOR will promptly pay any judgment rendered against
CONTRACTOR or Indemnitees covering such claims, damages, penalties,
obligations and liabilities arising out of or in connection with such work,
operations or activities of CONTRACTOR hereunder, and
CONTRACTOR agrees to save and hold the Indemnitees harmless
therefrom.
C. In the event Indemnitees are made a parry to any action or proceeding
filed or prosecuted against CONTRACTOR for damages or other claims
arising out of or in connection with the work, operation or activities
hereunder, CONTRACTOR agrees to pay to Indemnitees and any all costs
and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in such action or proceeding
together with reasonable attorneys' fees.
Contractor's obligations under this section apply regardless of whether or not such claim,
charge, damage, demand, action, proceeding, loss, stop notice, cost, expense, judgment, civil fine
or penalty, or liability was caused in part or contributed to by an Indemnitee. However, without
affecting the rights of City under any provision of this agreement, Contractor shall not be
required to indemnify and hold harmless City for liability attributable to the active negligence of
City, provided such active negligence is determined by agreement between the parties or by the
findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. In instances where City is shown to have been
actively negligent and where City active negligence accounts for only a percentage of the
liability involved, the obligation of Contractor will be for that entire portion or percentage of
liability not attributable to the active negligence of City.
So much of the money due to CONTRACTOR under and by virtue of the contract as
shall be considered necessary by City may be retained by City until disposition has been made of
such actions or claims for damages as aforesaid.
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. This indemnity
provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement and is in addition to any other rights or
remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law.
This indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability of any
insurance coverage which may have been required under this Agreement or any additional
insured endorsements which may extend to Indemnitees.
CONTRACTOR, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it, hereby
waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees, while acting within the
scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising out of or incident to activities
or operations performed by or on behalf of the CONTRACTOR regardless of any prior,
concurrent, or subsequent passive negligence by the Indemnitees.
11. CONTRACTOR'S WARRANTY OF COMPLIANCE WITH COUNTY'S
DEFAULTED PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM:
A. The Contractor ackriowledges that the County has established a goal of
ensuring that all individuals and businesses that benefit financially from the County through
contract are current in paying their personal and real property tax obligations (secured and
unsecured roll) in order to mitigate the economic burden otherwise imposed upon the County and
its taxpayers. Unless the Contractor qualifies for an exemption or exclusion, the Contractor
warrants and certifies that to the best of its knowledge it is now in compliance, and during the
term of this Contract will maintain compliance, with the County's Defaulted Tax Program, found
at Los Angeles County Ordinance No. 2009-0026 and codified at Los Angeles County Code,
Chapter 2.206.
B. Failure of the Contractor to maintain compliance with the requirements set
forth in the "COUNTY's DEFAULTED PROPERTY TAX REDUCTION PROGRAM" shall
constitute default under this Contract. Without limiting the rights and remedies available to the
City under any other provision of this Contract, failure of the Contractor to cure such default
within 10 days of notice shall be grounds upon which the City may suspend or terminate this
contract pursuant to the County's Defaulted Property Tax Reduction Program found at Los
Angeles County Ordinance No. 2009-0026 and codified at Los Angeles County Code, Chapter
2.206.
12. NON-DISCRIMINATION: Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1735, no
discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons in the work contemplated by this
Agreement because of the race, color or religion of such person. A violation of this section
exposes the CONTRACTOR to the penalties provided for in Labor Code Section 1735.
13. PAYMENT FUND: A City Council resolution established a Project Payment
Account, encumbered money in the current budget, and assigned that money to the Project
G
Payment Account, which is the sole source of funds available for payment of the contract sum
set forth in Section 3 of this Agreement. CONTRACTOR understands and agrees that
CONTRACTOR will be paid only from this special fund and if for any reason this fund is not
sufficient to pay CONTRACTOR, CONTRACTOR will not be entitled to payment. The
availability of money in this fund, and City's ability to draw from this fund, are conditions
precedent to City's obligation to make payments to CONTRACTOR.
13. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by the City, without cause,
upon the giving of a written "Notice of Termination" to CONTRACTOR at least thirty (30) days
prior to the date of termination specified in the notice. In the event of such termination,
CONTRACTOR shall only be paid for services rendered and expenses necessarily incurred prior
to the effective date of termination.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement with all the
formalities required by law on the respective dates set forth opposite their signatures.
State of California
"CONTRACTOR'S" License No. 397682 Class A
Gentry Brothers, Inc.
384 Live Oak
Irwindale, CA 91706
C
Date
TITLE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
By:
LING -LING CHANG, MAYOR
Date
ATTEST:
By:
TOMMYE CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK
Date
CONTRACTOR'S Business Phone
Emergency Phone at which CONTRACTOR can be reached at any time
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
Date
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # --6.,6
Meeting Date: February 21 2011
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
r
VIA: James DeStefano, City Ma r
TITLE: Authorize Purchase of Furniture, I fixtures and Equipment for the new Los
Angeles County Library from various vendors including Interior Office
Solutions, Agati Furniture, and Yamada Enterprises in an amount not to
exceed $450,000
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
There are sufficient funds identified in the project budget for this expenditure. The
necessary funds have been appropriated through the mid -year budget adjustment. The
County of Los Angeles Public Library will reimburse the City the cost of these items.
DISCUSSION:
The City and the County of Los Angeles have partnered together to create a new
community library. The new library will occupy the first floor of the new City Hall
building located at 21810 Copley Drive. The City has provided the facility space and the
County agreed to fund the construction costs including design, construction, and project
management costs. The County has also agreed to pay all the furniture, fixture, and
equipment (FF&E) related costs.
In accordance with the City's purchasing policy all of the furniture, fixtures and
equipment is being purchased through either a sole -source vendor or through a State,
County or local purchasing contract. By utilizing these types of multi -agency purchasing
contracts, the City and the County are able to realize more savings than purchasing
directly from an individual vendor.
At this time, the County has identified furniture, fixtures and equipment valued at
approximately $415,000. However, as the furniture plans develop there may be
additional needs that are identified. Staff recommends the Council authorize an
additional $35,000 for unanticipated FF&E costs. These funds would be utilized at the
County's direction and authorization. Again, all of these costs would be reimbursed by
the County.
PREPARED BY:
MA
David Doyle
Assistant City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 7.1
Meeting Date: February 21, 2012
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Mara
TITLE: General Plan Amendment No. 20 7-03, Zone Change No. 2007-04, Specific
Plan No. 2007-01 ("Site D Specific Plan"), Development Agreement
No. 2012-01, and Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 (SCH
No. 2008021014).
PROJECT Walnut Valley Unified School District and City of Diamond Bar
APPLICANT:
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 following items are presented for City Council consideration and action:
• Specific Plan No. 2007-01 (Site D Specific Plan) — The Site D Specific Plan is the
regulatory document that sets forth the land use and development parameters for
Site D. A specific plan is best viewed as a specially -tailored zoning code, crafted to
address the unique characteristics and opportunities associated with particular site.
The specific plan is a planning tool, established under State Law, which government
agencies may use when it is more worthwhile to undergo the extensive effort required
to craft such a document than it is to rely on conventional, citywide zoning regulations
to guide the development of a site.
The version of the Specific Plan now being presented for City Council approval has
been revised as follows: it no longer provides for commercial development; it enables
GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 1
the development of 200 "for -sale" dwelling units; and requires a two -acre neighborhood
park to be developed on the site.
• Zone Change No. 2007-04 – In order for a Specific Plan to become the new "zoning
code" for a specified planning area, that area must first be stripped of its conventional
zoning designation to eliminate any confusion as to which land use regulations apply.
Zone Change No. 2007-04 will result in a revision to the Diamond Bar Zoning Map by
removing Site D's current zoning designations—Low Density Residential (RL),
Low/Medium Residential (RLM) and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)—and replacing
them with the single zoning designation of SP.
• General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 – In a similar fashion to the zone change, the
General Plan land use designation map must be revised to assure that the zoning map
is consistent with the General Plan. General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 will
effectuate a revision to the Diamond Bar General Plan Land Use Map by changing the
underlying designations of Site D from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C)
to Specific Plan (SP).
• Development Agreement No. 2012-01 – The Walnut Valley Unified School District, as
the owner of 96 percent of the Site D project area, will derive a substantial benefit from
the adoption of the Site D Specific Plan in the form of vested rights to develop 200
residential units on the subject property. This vesting will immediately add value to the
site when the District chooses to dispose of the property on the open market. In return
for this consideration, the District has agreed to enter into a development agreement
with the City whereby the City will receive $15,000 for every dwelling unit constructed,
for a maximum of $3 million if all 200 entitled units are built.
• Certification of Environmental Impact Report No. 2007-02 – The EIR prepared for
the Site D Specific Plan provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts
associated with the development of the site. The EIR includes an analysis of the
Specific Plan as originally proposed—which would have enabled the development of
202 dwelling units and 153,985 square feet of commercial uses (referenced herein as
the "March 2010 Site D Specific Plan)—as well as environmentally superior project
alternatives.
The project now being presented to the City Council for approval does not include a
commercial component, and instead provides for the development of 200 "for -sale"
dwelling units, and requires a two -acre neighborhood park to be developed on the site.
This land use plan is one of the environmentally superior and feasible alternatives to
the March 2010 Specific Plan, and is referred herein as the "January 2012 Site D
Specific Plan." The January 2012 Specific Plan was examined to a comparable level of
detail as that presented for the March 2010 Site D Specific Plan in a separate CEQA
document, identified as Response to Comments No. 2 - Draft Environmental Impact
Report for the Site D Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse No. 2008021014 (RTC2),
released and disseminated by the Department on January 31, 2012. As indicated in
GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 2
RTC2, as mitigated, implementation of the January 2012 Specific Plan would result in
the avoidance or substantial reduction of those significant unmitigable environmental
impacts attributable to the March 2010 Specific Plan.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Certify Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) 2007-02;
2. Select Alternative 6 (January 2012 Site D Specific Plan), as described and analyzed
in the EIR, as the environmentally -superior feasible alternative in lieu of the previously
proposed project, identified therein as the March 2010 Site D Specific Plan;
3. Adopt Findings of Fact for the January 2012 Site D Specific Plan based on findings
that the selected alternative would avoid or substantially lessen those significant
environmental impacts attributable to the previously proposed project and 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;
4. Adopt Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program (MRMP) for the January 2012
Site D Specific Plan for those mitigation measures identified in the EIR;
5. Approve January 2012 Site D Specific Plan (Alternative 6 in the EIR) and adopt the
following with or without amendments or modifications as determined by the City
Council:
• General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 to change the land use designations from
Public Facility (PF) to Specific Plan (SP);
• 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; and
• Specific Plan No. 2007-01 for January 2012 Site D Specific Plan, establishing the
land use and development standards to facilitate the construction of 200 residential
dwelling units and a minimum of two acres of usable public park area.
6. Approve Development Agreement No. 2012-01 pursuant to the Government Code
Section 65864, et seq. and Chapter 22.62 of the City's Development Code, for the
purpose of establishing an agreement between the City and the Walnut Valley Unified
School District setting forth the obligations and benefits to the City and the Walnut
Valley Unified School District; and
7. Direct the City Manager to take such actions as may be reasonable and appropriate to
facilitate the effectuation of the Specific Plan, including, in accordance with City and
State policies and procedures, the disposition of the City's real property holdings and
the capital improvements described therein
GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 3
BACKGROUND:
On December 7, 2010, the City Council directed staff to revise the Site D Specific Plan
(SDSP, or Specific Plan) to eliminate the commercial component, and revise the land use
framework to incorporate a neighborhood public park. In accordance with the Council's
direction, staff has been working with the environmental consultant to update the
environmental analysis to reflect the revised land use plan, and made the necessary
revisions to the Specific Plan document and the Environmental Impact Report (EIR).
The reformulated Specific Plan (identified as Alternative 6 in the EIR) provides for the
development of 200 attached and/or detached residential dwelling units for individual sale,
and a neighborhood park, containing no less than two usable acres, to be improved and
dedicated (turn -key) to the City. Vehicular access to the residential and park uses would
be provided via a signalized intersection at Cherrydale Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard
or at Crooked Creek and Diamond Bar Boulevard.
In addition, peripheral open space, green belt and park areas with some form of entry
feature at the corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard will be
incorporated to mark the entrance into the City of Diamond Bar. A pedestrian access way
into the park will be provided from the adjoining neighborhood at the terminus of Pasado
Drive.
Because the revised Specific Plan is identified as Alternative 6 in the EIR, the terms
"January 2012 Site D Specific Plan" and "Alternative 6" are used interchangeably in this
staff report.
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, separating the City and School District
properties.
ANALYSIS:
As a result of comments received at a community workshop held on October 16, 2010, and
a request from the Walnut Valley School District Board of Trustees and guidance from the
City Council, the following changes have been incorporated into the proposed Specific
Plan and EIR and identified as Alternative 6 therein:
GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 4
• Elimination of the commercial component from the land use plan;
• Limiting the number of dwellings to 200 attached and/or detached units (rather than
increasing the unit count in light of eliminating the commercial designation);
• Introduction of a new neighborhood park consisting of a minimum of two useable acres,
which will be fully developed upon dedication to the City;
• Incorporation of peripheral greenbelt areas with some form of entry feature near the
corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard to mark the entrance into the
City of Diamond Bar; and
• Inclusion of an option to place the signalized entry on Diamond Bar Boulevard at either
the intersection of Cherrydale or Crooked Creek.
Figures 1 and 2 below compare the March 2010 version of the Specific Plan to the
currently proposed January 2012 Specific Plan:
`IoP F Commercial: 10.1 Acres at 0.35 FAR
Residential: 10.7 Acres — 0 to 20 Du/Ac
o�
0iea ,
Open Space: 8 Acres
Figure I — March 2010 Specific Plan
s i4
Legend
e�
Residential
IDENTIAL Minimum 2 -Acre Park
Entry Feature
Minimum 30 -Foot
Landscape Buffer
rrgure � — ✓anuary wlz opec{1ic rtan
GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 5
The precise location, configuration, and amenities to be included in the proposed
neighborhood park will be determined at the time a tentative subdivision map is processed
for the residential development. The parkland shall be dedicated to the City and
constructed to City standards. The tentative and final tract maps shall show the parkland
as a separate parcel (delineating the park boundaries) and offer the parcel for dedication
to the City. The subsequent developer of Site D shall be responsible for designing the
parkland improvements, producing all related construction documents (subject to
Community Development Director and Community Services Director approval) and
constructing the parkland improvements.
In adopting the proposed specific plan, some level of regulatory certainty will be provided
to a subsequent developer of the subject property, thus facilitating its subsequent
disposition by the Walnut Valley Unified School District. Although no tentative subdivision
map is being approved at this time, it is reasonable to assume that a tentative map,
grading plan, and other related entitlements, conforming to the adopted specific plan and
the City's Development Code and Subdivision Ordinance, will be subsequently processed.
Once a tentative map has been submitted to the City, this item will be brought back before
the City Council for the City Council's consideration, a consistency determination with the
adopted Specific Plan, and, as required, further environmental review.
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.
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 some degree of internal 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
January 2012 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, within and
throughout the City, attractive housing which accommodates people of all ages,
cultures, occupations and levels of financial status;
Provides an opportunity to develop 200 new housing units within the City, thus helping
the City to respond to the identified housing demands outlined in the current Regional
Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) and the City's certified and adopted 2008-2014
GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 6
Housing Element Update. These housing units represent about 18.5 percent of the
projected housing needs in the current Housing Element cycle;
• Creates a community environment which nurtures social and recreational opportunities
for its residents. A neighborhood public park space of at least 2.0 net usable acres is
to be incorporated into the residential development;
• Offers an aesthetically pleasing development incorporating community identity through
an entry feature at the corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard to
mark the entrance into the City;
• Incorporates land use principles such as green building strategies and facilitates
energy conservation;
• Payment of appropriate fair -share contributions toward the improvement of areawide
street improvements; and
• Implements the following traffic improvements, which will be completed prior to the
issuance of project certificates of occupancy:
o Pathfinder Road at Brea Canyon Cutoff Road: Widen and/or restripe eastbound
Brea Canyon Cutoff Road to provide one left -turn lane, two through lanes and a
separate right -turn lane. The implementation of this improvement may require
some modification to existing traffic signal equipment (i.e., re-cut/install new vehicle
loop detectors, modification to traffic signal controller); and
o Cherrydale Drive or Crooked Creek 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 or Crooked Creek. 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 the
affected streets.
The Specific Plan further meets the goals and objectives as listed in the January 2012
Specific Plan and Findings of Fact attached to the Draft Resolution in Attachment 1 of this
staff report.
Development Agreement
The Walnut Valley Unified School District, as the owner of 96 percent of the Site D project
area, will derive a substantial benefit from the adoption of the Site D Specific Plan in the
form of vested rights to develop 200 residential units on the subject property. The
residential density that the Specific Plan would entitle on Site D significantly exceeds the
GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 7
density that the current underlying zoning designations of RL and RLM would
accommodate. This vesting will immediately add value to the site when the District
chooses to dispose of the property on the open market.
Development of the Site D Specific Plan will also produce many benefits to the community,
including the addition of a high-quality residential community to the City's housing
inventory, the creation of a new neighborhood park, traffic improvements to help improve
traffic flow at the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road, and the
visual enhancement at one of the key entrances into the City.
One area of community benefit that the reformulated Specific Plan will no longer be able to
provide is the sales tax revenue stream that would have been produced by a commercial
development on a portion of Site D. Moreover, the two -acre neighborhood park that is now
part of the Specific Plan will add to the City's park maintenance expenses.
In light of the foregone sales tax revenue opportunity and added costs associated with the
future park, the District agreed to enter into a development agreement with the City
whereby the City will receive $15,000 for every dwelling unit constructed. This
development fee could generate up to $3 million for the City, or roughly the equivalent of
15 years of in -lieu sales tax revenue and 20 years of park maintenance costs. This
obligation, once recorded will be transferable to the eventual purchasers and developers of
Site D.
Environmental Impact Report
In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), an EIR was prepared
for the Site D Specific Plan. The EIR provides a detailed analysis of potential
environmental impacts associated with the adoption of the Specific Plan and the
development of the Specific Plan area, identifies mitigation measures to lessen those
impacts, and analyzes a range of project alternatives.
The January 2012 Specific Plan constitutes an alternative to the March 2010 Site D
Specific Plan. In response to public comments and testimony, a request by the Walnut
Valley Unified School District to modify the previously proposed development plan, and
guidance from the City Council, a Response to Comments No.2 (RTC2) has been
prepared containing environmental analyses of Alternative 6 (i.e., the January 2012 Site D
Specific Plan). The environmental analysis contained in RTC2 provides substantial
evidence that the January 2012 Specific Plan—a 200 -unit residential housing project with
a 2 -acre public park—will not produce unmitigable significant environmental impacts,
unlike the March 2010 Specific Plan (original conceived as a 202 -unit residential housing
project with 153,985 square feet of commercial use). Therefore, no Statement of
Overriding Considerations is necessary under CEQA.
Findings of Fact
Prior to approving Alternative 6 – January 2012 Site D Specific Plan, the City Council must
first certify that the EIR has been completed in accordance with CEQA; that the EIR was
GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 8
presented, reviewed and considered by the City Council; and that the EIR reflects the
City's independent judgment and analysis. The Council is required to adopt findings
(Findings) in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15091 when significant effects
have been identified which cannot feasibly be mitigated to less -than -significant levels.
As documented in the RTC2 document, all potential impacts associated with Alternative 6
can be mitigated to less -than -significant levels. As reflected in the analysis presented in
the EIR and Findings, this feasible alternative is "environmentally superior" to the March
2010 Site D Specific Plan, therefore, staff recommends that the Council adopt
Alternative 6. Specifically, the March 2010 Site D Specific Plan determined that
construction, operational, and cumulative air quality impacts (inclusive of both criteria
pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions) would exceed daily emissions thresholds
recommended by the South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD). No
mitigation measures were identified which could reduce air quality impacts below a level of
significance.
A comparison of project alternatives of environmental impacts shows that an
"environmentally superior" feasible alternative exists—Alternative 6 (January 2012 Site D
Specific Plan). Pursuant to CEQA's "substantive mandate" (not to approve a project if
there exist feasible mitigation measures or alternatives), the Findings state the rationale for
rejecting the March 2010 Site D Specific Plan and other alternatives. Therefore, the
Findings present the facts supporting the conclusion that no significant impacts result from
the implementation of the January 2012 Site D Specific Plan and why each of the other
alternatives was rejected.
The Findings are attached as Exhibit A to the draft resolution certifying the EIR and
adopting the MRMP (Attachment 1). The Findings identify economic and social benefits
that will accrue to the City, to the School District, and to the region, as well as important
public policy objectives that will result from the implementation of the project. Therefore,
the City Council may find that the Alternative 6 - January 2012 Site D Specific Plan
identified a feasible alternative in lieu of the March 2010 Site D Specific Plan. Under the
March 2010 Site D Specific Plan, there were significant unavoidable environmental
impacts. When staff looked into different alternatives as a result from Council's direction,
staff found that Alternative 6 – January 2012 Site D Specific Plan derives a less
environmentally intrusive project without the need for significant unavoidable
environmental impacts.
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
GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 9
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 Drive, 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: In June 2009, the Draft EIR was prepared by City staff
and the City's environmental consultant, Environmental Impact Sciences. On June 22,
2009, a Notice of Completion and Availability was filed with the Office of Planning and
Research. 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 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 Response to Comments (RTC1). RTC1 includes all
comments received during the 45 -day public review period. CEQA requires that the City
consider comments on environmental issues received from persons or agencies during the
noticed comment period.
Comment Letters Received
Correspondence received to date is included in the Draft EIR, RTC1 and RTC2.
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:
1. Identify the reasons why the 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
2. Continue the item for additional information or revisions to the environmental
documents; OR
3. Return the item to the Planning Commission for further deliberation; OR
4. Deny the project and thus preclude the need for CEQA compliance; OR
5. Certify the EIR and approve the March 2010 Site D Specific Plan.
GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 10
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING:
Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the
project site on February 10, 2012, including all speakers who have previously testified
orally or in writing. 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 January 2012 Site D Specific Plan, Environmental Impact Report, and Response
to Comments 1 and 2 were also posted on the City's website, and hardcopies are available
for review at City Hall.
RECOMMENDED MOTIONS:
1. Open the public hearing to take public testimony from the public regarding the EIR and
all land use entitlements;
2. Close the public hearing; and
3. Approve January 2012 Site D Specific Plan (identified as Alternative 6 in the EIR) and
adopt the following resolutions and ordinances included as Attachments 1 through 4
with or without amendments or modifications as determined by the City Council:
a. Adopt Resolution No. 2012 -XX: Certifying Environmental Impact Report
No. 2007-02 (SCH No. 2008021014) and approving the Mitigation Reporting and
Monitoring Program and adopting Findings of Fact for the January 2012 Site D
Specific Plan;
b. Adopt Resolution No. 2012 -XX: Approving General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03
to change the existing Land Use Designations from Public Facility (PF) and General
Commercial (C) to Specific Plan (SP);
c. Approve for First Reading by title only, waive full reading of Ordinance
No. XX(2012) adopting Zone Change No. 2007-04 to change the existing zoning to
Specific Plan (SP), and schedule Second Reading for March 6, 2012; and
d. Approve for First Reading by title only, waive full reading of Ordinance
No. XX(2012) approving the January 2012 Site D Specific Plan (Specific Plan
No. 2007-01), and schedule Second Reading for March 6, 2012;
4. Approve for First Reading by title only, waive full reading of Ordinance No. 0X(2011)
approving Development Agreement No. 2012-01 between the City and the Walnut
Valley Unified School District setting forth the obligations and benefits to the City and
the Walnut Valley Unified School District, and schedule Second Reading for March 6,
2012; and
GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 11
5. Direct the City Manager to take such actions as may be reasonable and appropriate to
facilitate the effectuation of the Specific Plan, including, in accordance with City and
State policies and procedures, the disposition of the City's real property holdings
located and the capital improvements described therein.
Prepared by:
Grace S. Lee
Senior Planner
Reviewed by:
03)
David oy e
Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
Reviewed by:
Greg Gubman, AICP
Community Development Director
1. Resolution No. 2012 -XX (Certification of the EIR and Adoption of the MRMP)
2. Resolution No. 2012 -XX (Approval of General Plan Amendment)
3. Ordinance No. XX (2012) (Approval of Zone Change)
4. Ordinance No. XX (2012) (Approval of January 2012 SDSP)
5. Ordinance No. XX (2012) (Approval of Development Agreement)
6. Site D Specific Plan dated January 2012
7. Response to Comments No. 2 dated January 2012
GPA No. 2007-03, ZC No. 2007-04, SP No. 2007-01, EIR No. 2007-02 Page 12
ATTACHMENT 1
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA, 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 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).
A. RECITALS
1. On July 1, 2007, the property owner/co-applicant, Walnut Valley School
District, and property owner/co-applicant/lead agency, City of Diamond Bar,
executed a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the parties agreed to
collaborate in the planning of the future land use for the approximately 30.36 -
acre parcel property located at the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road
and Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles,
California, so that both parties may each advance their respective objectives
for the disposition of the property.
2. The following approvals are requested of the City Council [Items (a) through
(d) below are collectively referred to as the 'Project']:
(a) General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 to change the land use
designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C) to
Specific Plan (SP);
(b) 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;
(c) Specific Plan No. 2007-01 to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for the
approximately 30.36 acre site to facilitate the development of 200
residential dwelling units and minimum two acres of neighborhood
public park open space area;
(d) Development Agreement No. 2012-01 to approve an agreement
between the City and the Walnut Valley Unified School District setting
forth the obligations and benefits to the City and the Walnut Valley
Unified School District; and
4. On March 20, 2010, the Lead Agency released and disseminated the
Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report — Site D
Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse No. 2008021014 (RTC1) addressing
written comments received from governmental entities and private parties on
the proposed project.
2. On April 13, 2010, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar
conducted a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all
interested individuals, closed the public hearing, and continued the matter to
May 11, 2010.
3. On April 27 and May 11, 2010, the Planning Commission of the City of
Diamond Bar continued and concluded their deliberations. At that time, the
Planning Commission recommended that City Council certify the
Environmental Impact Report (SCH No. 2008021014) and approve the
Mitigation Monitoring Program and adopt Findings of Fact and a Statement of
Overriding Considerations for the project.
4. On June 15, 2010, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted a
duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested individuals,
and continued the matter to July 20, October 19, November 16, December 7
and on December 21, 2010 closed the public hearing.
8. In response to public comments, on December 2, 2010, the President of the
District's Board of Directors transmitted correspondence to the City stating, in
part, that "the Board of Trustees of the Walnut Valley Unified School District
recommends (1) that Site D be developed 100% residential with minimal
peripheral open space, green belt and park areas with a monument to mark
the entrance into Diamond Bar, and (2) that the residential density be reduced
to less than 20 units per acre."
9. On December 7, 2010, in response to public comments, correspondence from
the President of the Walnut Valley Unified School District's Board of Trustees
dated December 2, 2010, and the City Council's independent deliberations,
the Council directed the Department to formulate a new alternative (identified
as Alternative 6) to the March 2010 Site D Specific Plan eliminating the
commercial component, decreasing the number of residential dwellings from
202 to 200 units, and incorporating a public park consisting of at least two
usable acres. In response, the Department prepared a separate specific plan
alternative identified as the January 2012 Site D Specific Plan.
10. The January 2012 Site D Specific Plan was examined to a comparable level of
detail as that presented for the March 2010 Site D Specific Plan in a separate
CEQA document, identified as Response to Comments No. 2 - Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Site D Specific Plan, State
Clearinghouse No. 2008021014 (RTC2), released and disseminated by the
Department on or about January 30, 2012. As indicated in RTC2, as
mitigated, implementation of the January 2012 Site D Specific Plan would
result in the avoidance or substantial reduction of those significant
2
unmitigable environmental impacts attributable to the March 2010 Site D
Specific Plan.
11. CEQA contains a "substantive mandate" requiring public agencies to refrain
from approving projects with significant environmental effects if there are
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures" that can substantially lessen or
avoid those effects. CEQA guidelines define the term "feasible" as capable
of being accomplished in a successful manner within a reasonable period of
time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and
technological factors. In accordance therewith, the City Council has
determined that, since the January 2012 Site D Specific Plan would result in
the avoidance or substantial reduction of those significant environmental
impacts attributable to the March 2010 Site D Specific Plan, is
environmentally superior thereto, and is feasible, the City Council has
identified Alternative 6 as the preferred project.
5. On February 21, 2012, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar opened
the public hearing, continued and concluded their deliberations.
6. With regard to the January 2012 Site D Specific Plan, the following approvals
are requested of the City Council [Items (a) through (d) below are collectively
referred to as the "Project']:
(a) General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 to change the land use
designations from Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C) to
Specific Plan (SP);
(b) 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;
(c) Specific Plan No. 2007-01 to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for the
approximately 30.36 acre site to facilitate the development of 200
residential dwelling units and minimum two useable acres of
neighborhood public park area;
(d) Development Agreement No. 2012-01 to approve an agreement
between the City and the Walnut Valley Unified School District setting
forth the obligations and benefits to the City and the Walnut Valley
Unified School District; and
(e) Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 to certify the Final Environmental
Impact Report, inclusive of the Draft EIR, RTC1, and RTC2 (Final EIR),
which provides a detailed analysis of potential environmental impacts
associated with the development of the Specific Plan area. The Final
EIR includes mitigation measures alternatives, and identifies the
environmentally superior alternative;
7. Notification of the public hearing for the Project was published in the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on
3
February 10, 2012. Public hearing notices were mailed to property owners
within a 1,000 -foot radius of the Project site and public notices were posted
at the City's designated community posting sites. In addition to the published
and mailed notices, the Project site was posted with a display board and the
notice was posted at three other locations within the Project vicinity.
B. RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in the
Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. The City Council hereby finds that the Project identified above in this
Resolution required an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). EIR (SCH No.
2008021014) has been prepared according to the requirements of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and guidelines promulgated
thereunder. The 45 -day public review period for the EIR began June 25,
2009 and ended August 10, 2009. Furthermore, the Planning Commission
has reviewed the EIR and related documents in reference to the Project.
3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the City Council
hereby finds that the January 2012 Site D Specific Plan constitutes the
environmentally superior feasible alternative and selects that alternative in
accordance with the provisions of CEQA and its guidelines.
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the City Council
hereby finds and determines that standard conditions, performance
standards, and mitigation measures have been incorporated into the Project,
which avoid or substantially lessen significant adverse environmental impacts
identified in Final EIR.
5. The City Council hereby certifies the Final EIR to be complete and adequate;
and adopts the Findings of Facts and Mitigation Report and Monitoring
Program attached herein as Exhibits A and B and hereby incorporated by
reference.
The City Council shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to:
Walnut Valley Unified School District, 880 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut, CA
91789.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21s' DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012, BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
LTJ
Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor
I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of
the City Council held on the 21st day of February, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member:
NOES: Council Member:
ABSENT: Council Member:
ABSTAIN: Council Member:
ATTEST:
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk,
City of Diamond Bar
EXHIBIT "A"
FINDINGS OF FACT
FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2007-02
"SITE D" SPECIFIC PLAN - SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2007-01
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE NO. 2008021014
Section 21081 and 21081.5, California Public Resources Code
Sections 15091, 15092, and 15083, Title 14, Chapter 3, California Code of Regulations
1.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1.1 Project Location
The approximately 30.36 -acre project site is located within the corporate boundaries of the City
of Diamond Bar, an incorporated community situated along the western edge of Los Angeles
County (County). The project site is located in the southwestern portion of the City, generally
near the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. The project site
is bordered on the north by Diamond Bar Boulevard, on the west by Brea Canyon Road, and on
the south, east, and southwest by existing residential neighborhoods. Engineered slope areas,
including v -ditch drainage features, separate the project site from existing single-family
detached homes on the south and west. Commercial and office professional uses are located
to the north of Diamond Bar Boulevard and west of Brea Canyon Road.
The project site is generally located east of State Route 57 (SR -57 Freeway) and Brea Canyon
Road and southeast of the intersection of the SR -57 Freeway, Diamond Bar Boulevard, and
Brea Canyon Cutoff. The project site is located to the north of the terminus of Castle Rock
Road and Pasado Drive.
1.2 Project Site
1.2.1 Project Site Description
The City of Diamond Bar (City or Lead Agency) and the Walnut Valley Unified School District
(WVUSD or District) own separate properties within the corporate boundaries of the City,
separated by an open flood control channel (Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel) operated by
the Los Angeles County Flood Control District (LADFCD), a division of the Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works (LACDPW). The WVUSD's governing body has determined that
the District's approximately 28.71 -acre property (Site D or District Property) is unnecessary for
future school use and has declared it to be "surplus property." As authorized under Section
17455 of the California Education Code (CEC): "The governing board of any school district may
sell any real property belonging to the school district or may lease for a term not exceeding 99
years, any real property, together with any personal property located thereon, belonging to the
school district which is not or will not be needed by the district for school classroom buildings at
the time of delivery of title or possession." As required under Section 17462(a) of the CEC:
"The funds derived from the sale of surplus property shall be used for capital outlay or for costs
of maintenance of school district property that the governing board of the school district
determines will not recur within a five-year period."
The City's approximately 0.98 -acre property (City Property) was acquired so that the City would
have access to real property that could be used to address future traffic impacts and existing
traffic issues. On January 17, 2006, the Diamond Bar City Council (Council) adopted
Resolution No. 2006-02 (A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California
Approving the Purchase of Property Located at 3100 South Diamond Bar Blvd. and Authorizing
the City Manager to Execute all Required Documents). As indicated in the accompanying
agenda report: "The property, located at the corner of Diamond Bar Blvd. and Brea Canyon
Road, is vacant property adjacent to the large vacant parcel known as Site D...The future
development of this site will create traffic circulation impacts on Diamond Bar Blvd. and Brea
Canyon Road. By acquiring this site, the City will have access to property to address future
traffic impacts as well as the existing traffic issues in this area. This property can be used for
dedicated turn lanes or other traffic engineering solutions" (City of Diamond Bar, Council
Agenda No. 6.8, January 17, 2006).
The Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel, which runs generally parallel to Brea Canyon Road,
separates the District Property from the City Property. In the vicinity of the project site, the
LACFCD's approximately 0.67 -acre facility (County Property) is presently an open box culvert.
In accordance with the LACFCD's "Guidelines for Overbuilding and Air Rights," in combination
with such other standards and procedures as may be established by the County, leasehold
interests in the "air rights" above the channel could be conveyed to a non -County entity, thus
allowing the channel to be covered and the lands situated above that facility used for other
public or private purposes.
Based on acreage, the District owns approximately 94 percent of the subject property, thus
making the WVUSD the principal and primary property owner. With regards to the intended use
of the "Site D" property, the District's desire, therefore, plays a significant role in the Lead
Agency's deliberations as well as its environmental compliance and entitlement processes.
Similarly, project proponents can change their minds from time -to -time and independently
decide to pursue different development strategies or cease the processing of a pending
development application.
Since the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), as codified in Section 21000 et seq. of
the Public Resources Code (PRC), and the Guidelines for the Implementation of the California
Environmental Quality Act (State CEQA Guidelines or Guidelines), codified in Sections 15000 et
seq. in Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), constitutes a reactive process, it
must find a way to adapt to the changing desires of project proponents, the project -changing
nature of information which is identified and formulated during project -based analyses, and the
evolutionary nature of virtually every development project. Under CEQA, each non -substantive
change to a project being processed by a local agency does not, in and of itself, necessitate a
recommencement of that process.
1.2.2 Assessor's Parcel Number
Section 327 of the Revenue and Tax Code provides for the existence and organization of
assessor's maps. As specified, in part, therein: "Where any county or county officer possess a
complete, accurate map of any land in the county, or whenever such a complete, accurate map
has been made in compliance with Sections 27556 to 27560, inclusive, of the California
Government Code (CGC), the assessor may number or letter the parcels in a manner approved
by the board of supervisors."
In accordance therewith, the District Property is comprised of the following two Los Angeles
County Assessor (County Assessor) Parcel Numbers (APNs): 871-4002-900 and 871-4002-901.
The City Property has been assigned APN 871-4015-001 by the County Assessor. The Brea
Canyon Storm Drain Channel is comprised of APNs 871-4002-902 and 871-4002-903.
ig
1.3 Memorandum of Understanding
On July 1, 2007 the City and the WVUSD executed a "Memorandum of Understanding" (MOU),
which was subsequently amended, whereby the City and the District agreed to a collaborative
planning process for the District Property and the City Property whereby both entities could
advance their respective objectives for the disposition of their respective real property holdings.
Under the terms of the MOU, as authorized under the provisions of Sections 65450-65457 of
the CGC, the City agreed to prepare and process a "specific plan" for the combined properties
for the purpose of establishing design/development parameters for the subsequent use of those
properties. Section 22.60 (Specific Plans) in Title 22 (Development Code) of the "City of
Diamond Bar Municipal Code" (Municipal Code) authorizes the City to approve and contains
general information concerning City requirements for specific plans.
As envisioned by the parties at that time, the specific plan was to include a mix of residential
and commercial uses based upon a mutually agreed upon site plan. Of the usable acreage, a
minimum of 50 percent will be designated for residential development and 50 percent will be
designated for commercial use, exclusive of necessary infrastructure. The MOU authorized the
City to engage a consultant and set forth reimbursement obligations for the specific plan's
preparation and processing. The MOU identified a performance schedule for the specific plan's
approval. As stated therein: "Nothing herein, however, constitutes a commitment or guaranty
that the City will adopt the specific plan, the Commission and Council retain the discretion to
take any such action each deems appropriate with respect to the specific plan."
The MOU was subsequently amended on November 4, 2008 (First Amendment) to reflect
increased costs for consultant's services. In addition, the revised MOU also set forth different
parameters with regards to the use of the subject property. The MOU was further revised on
September 16, 2010 (Second Amendment) to reflect a further increase in the cost of
consultant's services, to establish a reimbursement schedule, and extend the term of the MOU.
In correspondence from Nancy Lyons, President, VWUSD Board of Trustees (Board) to the
Council, dated December 2, 2010, based on actions by the Board on December 1, 2010, the
District stated that "the Board of Trustees of the Walnut Valley Unified School District
recommends (1) that Site D be developed 100% residential with minimal peripheral open space,
green belt and park areas with a monument to mark the entrance into Diamond Bar, and (2) that
the residential density be reduced to less than 20 units per acre. This decrease in density will
better blend with the existing residences in the vicinity of Site D and will better meet the current
market conditions for the building community. The all residential land use will provide the
District with much needed financial resources to help meet the District's capital facility and
technology needs." In taking its action, following the Lead Agency's release of the "Draft
Environmental Impact Report—'Site D" Specific Plan, SCH No. 2008021014" (DEIR) but before
the Lead Agency's certification of the "Final Environmental Impact Report — `Site D" Specific
Plan, SCH No. 2008021014" (FEIR), the Board amended its application for discretionary
entitlements from the Lead Agency. As such, as the entitlement entity and not as either the
principal landowner or the site's ultimate developer, the Lead Agency is generally obligated to
"follow suit" (follow in the same pattern) and analyze the applied -for entitlements.
In response, on January 19, 2011, the parties executed a further amendment to the MOU (Third
Amendment). At that time and in accordance therewith, the specific plan's conceptual land -use
plan was modified to consist of not more than 200 residential dwellings and dedicated parkland.
The parkland shall consist of at least 2.0 net areas of useable area, dedicated to the City and
constructed to City standards. The Third Amendment also revised the reimbursement schedule
concerning the percentage of proceeds due each party upon sale of the subject property. On
July 19, 2011, the parties again amended the MOU (Fourth Amendment) to extend the
performance schedule for the City's consideration of the specific plan until June 30, 2012.
Although the MOU called for the development of a specific plan, the document acknowledged
that neither the District nor the City would be the ultimate developer(s) of those lands located
within the specific plan's boundaries. For example, the amended MOU noted that the
subsequent purchaser, not the District, would be responsible for designing and constructing the
parkland improvements.
1.4 Environmental Notices
On February 1, 2008, the City's Community Development Department (Department) executed
and disseminated a "Notice of Preparation" (NOP) and, an "Initial Study' (Initial Study)
presenting a preliminary assessment of the potential impacts of the project, identified therein as
the "Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road (Site D) Specific Plan" and the "Site D
Property Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 2007-01)" (February 2008 SDSP). As described in the
Initial Study: "Proposed is the adoption of a General Plan Amendment from 'Public Facility (PF)'
and 'General Commercial (C)' to 'Specific Plan,' with a corresponding Zone Change from 'Low
Medium Residential (R-1 7,500),' 'Low Density Residential (R-1 10,000),' and 'Community
Commercial (C-2)' to 'Specific Plan (SP)' for an approximately 30 -acre site located in the City of
Diamond Bar. Also proposed is the approval of a tentative subdivision map establishing
separate residential and commercial parcels, an internal circulation system, and common open
space areas. As proposed, the 'Site D Property Specific Plan' would allow the construction,
habitation, and occupancy of 202 dwelling units and 153,985 gross leaseable square feet of
commercial use."
The Initial Study concluded that the February 2008 SDSP could potentially result in the
generation of significant environmental effects relative to the following topical issues: (1)
aesthetics; (2) air quality; (3) biological resources; (4) geology and soil; (5) hazards and
hazardous materials; (6) hydrology and water quality; (7) land use; (8) noise; (9) public services;
(10) transportation and traffic; and (11) utilities and service systems. The Initial Study presented
the Lead Agency's rationale for excluding from further analysis those issues that either did not
manifest at a level of significance or which were adequately addressed in a previously certified
EIR.
The NOP announced the Department's scheduling of a pre -circulation scoping meeting for the
purpose of soliciting public and agency comments regarding the potential environmental effects
of the February 2008 SDSP. That scoping meeting was conducted on February 21, 2008 at the
South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center, Room CC -6 (21865 Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar).
On February 5, 2008, the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), in that agency's
role as State Clearinghouse (SCH), acknowledged receipt of the NOP and Initial Study and
commenced a 30 -day comment period for the submittal of comments by State responsible
agencies. That comment period started on February 5, 2008 and ended on March 5, 2008.
For the purpose of assessing, the direct, indirect, and cumulative environmental impacts of the
project, on June 22, 2009, the Department noticed, released, and disseminated copies of the
"Draft Environmental Impact Report — 'Site D' Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse No.
2008021014" (DEIR), "Notice of Completion" (NOC), "Notice of Availability" (NOA), and revised
CI
"'Site D' Specific Plan" (June 2009 SDSP). Both the DEIR and NOC were submitted to the SCH
on June 25, 2009, commencing a 45 -day comment period on the DEIR. The State agency
comment period, as established by the SCH, concluded on August 10, 2009. On June 22, 2009,
the NOC was concurrently filed with and posted in the Office of the County Clerk (County Clerk).
In addition, the NOA was published in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and San Gabriel Valley
Tribune on June 25, 2009.
In addition to the June 2009 SDSP (which previously was the February 2008 SDSP and which
subsequently became the March 2010 SDSP, the DEIR examined a reasonable range of
alternatives. The following conservation -based and development -oriented alternatives were
examined therein: (1) Alternative 1 (No Project); (2) Alternative 2 (Public Facilities); (3)
Alternative 3 (Community Commercial); (4) Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential); and (5)
Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential).
On August 3, 2009, the Lead Agency conducted a noticed neighborhood forum at the Heritage
Park Community Center (2900 S. Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar) to solicit comments
concerning both the June 2009 SDSP, the five alternatives identified by the Lead Agency, and
the information and analysis presented in the DEIR, including the mitigation measures (MM) and
those standard conditions and performance standards (Conditions/Standards) listed therein.
On March 19, 2010, pursuant to Section 21092.5(a) of CEQA, the Lead Agency provided written
draft responses to each of the governmental entities that submitted written comments on the
DEIR, including the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), the County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County (CSDLAC), the County of Los Angeles Fire Department
(LACFD), and the County of Los Angeles Public Library (County Library).
On March 20, 2010, the Lead Agency released and disseminated the "Response to Comments
on the Draft Environmental Impact Report — 'Site D' Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse No.
2008021014" (RTC or RTC1) addressing written comments received from governmental entities
and private parties on the project and DEIR and presenting a revised "'Site D' Specific Plan"
(March 2010 SDSP). Constituting the evolutionary progression of the same specific plan
project, the February 2008 SDSP, the June 2009 SDSP, and the March 2010 SDSP each
assumed the development of 202 dwelling units and 153,985 gross leaseable square feet of
commercial use on "Site D." As indicated therein, the intended commercial use would include
service-oriented and neighborhood -serving commercial development. With regards to the
housing component, although a "for sale" product was specified, the March 2010 SDSP (and its
earlier incarnations) did not preclude the development of any of a variety of housing product
types, including single-family attached and detached, multi -family attached, condominium, and
townhome. While each presented an increasing level of detail and completeness, from a
CEQA-based perspective, no substantive differences existed with regards to those three
planning documents. As such, each of the three versions of the proposed specific plan are
identified as the "March 2010 SDSP" herein and, for the purpose of CEQA compliance, are
assumed to constitute the same project, identified herein as the "proposed project."
With regards to the March 2010 SDSP and its accompanying CEQA documentation, City of
Diamond Bar Planning Commission hearings were held on April 13, April 27, and May 11, 2010.
City of Diamond Bar City Council public hearings were conducted on June 15, July 20, October
19, November 16, December 7, and December 21, 2010.
In addition, on October 16, 2010, the District conducted a community outreach workshop at Castle
Rock Elementary School (2975 Castle Rock Road, Diamond Bar). The workshop included a site
5
tour of the specific plan area. Based, in whole or in part, on information obtained at that
workshop, at a noticed public hearing on December 1, 2010, the District Board of Trustees
approved recommendations for the land -use development of the District Property, On December
2, 2010, the President of the District's Board of Directors transmitted correspondence to the Lead
Agency stating, in part, that "the Board of Trustees of the Walnut Valley Unified School District
recommends (1) that Site D be developed 100% residential with minimal peripheral open space,
green belt and park areas with a monument to mark the entrance into Diamond Bar, and (2) that
the residential density be reduced to less than 20 units per acre."
On December 7, 2010, in response to public comments concerning the March 2010 SDSP,
correspondence from the President of the District's Board of Trustees dated December 2, 2010,
and the Council's independent deliberations, the Council directed the Department to formulate
another alternative to the March 2010 SDSP eliminating the commercial component, decreasing
the number of residential dwellings from 202 to 200 units, and incorporating both a public park
consisting of at least two net usable acres and a greenbelt area separating the development from
abutting residential properties. In response to the Council's directive, the Department prepared an
alternative specific plan document, identified as "Alternative 6" or the "January 2012 'Site D'
Specific Plan" (January 2012 SDSP). The January 2012 SDSP was subsequently introduced and
examined to a comparable level of detail as that presented for the March 2010 SDSP in a
separate CEQA document, identified as "Response to Comments No. 2 - Draft Environmental
Impact Report for the 'Site D' Specific Plan, State Clearinghouse No. 2008021014" (RTC2),
released and disseminated by the Department on or about January 30, 2012.
As stipulated under CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, upon certification of the FEIR, if so
certified, the Department will prepare and file a "Notice of Determination" (NOD) with the County
Clerk within five working days of the Lead Agency's action. Because the specific plan's
implementation will require discretionary approval from one or more State agency, the NOD will
also be filed with the SCH.
1.5 Project Objectives
It is the objective of the City to promote and facilitate the attainment of those goals, objectives,
plans, and policies as contained in the "City of Diamond Bar General Plan" (General Plan).
Specifically, those objectives include, but are not limited to, the following excerpts from the
General Plan: (1) Require that new development be compatible with surrounding land uses
(Strategy 2.2.1, Land Use Element); and (2) Balance the retention of the natural environment
with its conversion to urban form (Strategy 3.3.1, Land Use Element).
As authorized under Section 65450 et seq. in Article 8 in Chapter 3, Division 1 of the CGC, a
specific plan is a regulatory tool that local governments can use to guide development in a
localized area. A specific plan serves as a tool for the systematic implementation of the general
plan and can effectively establish a linkage between the implementing policies of the local
general plan and individual development proposals in a defined area. In accordance therewith,
the City has elected to prepare and process a specific plan for the purpose of defining the types
of permitted and conditionally permitted uses that the City believes to be appropriate for the
project site and the project setting, to define reasonable limits to the intensity/density of those
uses, and to establish the design/development standards for those uses.
On March 18, 2008, as noted in the approved Minutes of the City Council Regular Meeting of
the City of Diamond Bar, Item 4 (Response to Public Comments), the City Manager noted that
the "City has no interest in development of the property other than to have it be an effective,
H
appropriate and suitable land plan for the City." With regards to the March 2010 SDSP, as
indicated in the DEIR, the following broad project objective was derived from Section 22.60.020
(Applicability) and Section 22.60.060 (Adoption of Specific Plan) in Chapter 22.60 (Specific
Plans) in Title 22 (Development Code) of the "City of Diamond Bar Municipal Code" (Municipal
Code): Prepare a specific plan which provides for flexibility, encourages the innovative use of
land, provides for the development of a variety of housing and other development types, assists
in the comprehensive master planning of the project site, and is consistent with the General
Plan and other adopted goals and policies of the City (Objective 1).
Since the MOU between the City and the District constitute a declaration of the intent of both
parties, that document contains information that can be utilized in the formulation of project
objectives. As indicated in the DER, the following objectives were derived from that document
and assigned by the Lead Agency to the WVUSD, in the District's role as project proponent: (1)
District desires the disposition of the School Property to yield the maximum return to the District
for the benefit of its constituents and its educational mission (Objective 2); and (2) City desires
that the School Property and the City Property be developed in a manner as to assure
compatibility with and to meet the needs of the surrounding area and to provide a desirable level
of sales tax revenues to the City (Objective 3). In addition, based on the MOU, the Lead
Agency identified the following additional project -related objectives: (1) With regards to the
project site, pursue the establishment of site-specific land -use policies that allows the
development of the property, accommodating the provision of additional housing opportunities
and the introduction of revenue -generating uses (Objective 4); and (2) Establish a specific plan
as the guiding land -use policy mechanism to define the nature and intensity of future
development and to establish design/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 assurance as to the uses that would be authorized on the
project site and the nature of those exactions required for those uses (Objective 5).
In response to the Lead Agency's receipt of the District's December 2, 2010 correspondence
and based on both the Council's December 7, 2010 directive and the execution of the Third
Amendment to the MOU, as discussed in RTC2, the Lead Agency modified two of the project's
stated objectives to reflect that change. As indicated, in lieu of Objectives 2 and 3, the following
revised objectives were formulated by the Lead Agency: (A) District desires the disposition of
the School Property to yield a reasonable return to the District for the benefit of its constituents
and its educational mission (Objective 2R); and (B) City desires that the School Property and
the City Property be developed in a manner as to assure compatibility with and to meet the
needs of the surrounding area and to ensure an appropriate use of the City Property and
reasonable return to the City (Objective 3R).
As noted, based on both the WVUSD's request that the District Property be developed for
"100% residential with minimal peripheral open space, green belt and park area" and the
absence of a highest -and -best -use real property analysis, when comparing Objective 2 (from
the DER) and Objective 2R (from RTC2), the Lead Agency substituted "reasonable return" for
"maximum return." When comparing Objectives 3 and 3R, based on the elimination of an on-
site sale -tax generator, the Lead Agency substituted "and to ensure an appropriate use of the
City Property and a reasonable return" for "desirable level of sales tax revenues."
1.6 Project Description
With regards to the District Property, the City Property, and the County Property, the "'Site D'
Specific Plan" (SDSP) encompasses approximately 30.36 -acres and contains a number of
FA
related elements, including both specific discretionary actions which are presently before the
City and later discretionary actions which can be reasonably anticipated as a result of those
actions which are presently under review. From a planning perspective, the Lead Agency is
considering the possible adoption of a proposed specific plan (Specific Plan No. 2007-01)
authorizing the development and occupancy of the subject property for the uses, density, and
development standards specified therein. From a project -related perspective, it is assumed that
the project site would be developed to accommodate those permitted and conditionally
permitted land uses authorized under the approved specific plan and developed to the
maximum intensity allowable thereunder.
Based on the site's existing General Plan and zoning designations, the specific plan's
implementation would necessitate a General Plan amendment (GPA No. 2007-03) from "Public
Facility (PF)" and "General Commercial (C)" to "Specific Plan" (SP)," with a corresponding zone
change (ZC) from "Low Medium Residential (R-1 7,500)," "Low Density Residential (R-1
10,000)," and "Neighborhood Commercial (C-1)" to "Specific Plan (SP)." Also proposed is the
approval of Specific Plan No. 2007-01 and such other entitlements as may be required for the
specific plan's effectuation. Prior to taking those actions, the Lead Agency must first certify the
adequacy of the FEIR, adopt applicable CEQA findings, adopt feasible measures to mitigate the
significant adverse impacts of the project, and adopt a statement of overriding considerations
should it be determine that the project the Lead Agency elects to approve will result in
significant environmental effects that are identified in the FEIR but which are not avoided or
substantially lessened through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures or project
alternatives.
Following the adoption of the specific plan, the City and the District may enter into a transferable
development agreement for the purpose of facilitating the implementation of the specific plan
and the development of the project site, cooperate in the sale of the District Property and the
City Property to one or more developers, master builders, or other parties, and take such other
related actions as may be required for the disposition of those properties and the effectuation of
the specific plan.
As indicated in the project's CEQA documentation, with regards to the "Site D" Specific Plan"
(SDSP), a number of conservation -based and development -oriented options are presently
before the Lead Agency's decision-making body. Those options are summarized below.
1.6.1 March 2010 "Site D" Specific Plan (Proposed Project)
As envisioned by the parties at the time of execution of the original MOU on July 1, 2007, the
proposed SDSP was to include a mix of residential and commercial uses based upon a mutually
agreed upon site plan. Of the usable acreage, a minimum of 50 percent will be designated for
residential development and 50 percent will be designated for commercial use, exclusive of
necessary infrastructure. The March 2010 SDSP was, therefore, based on those parameters.
On December 1, 2010, the District's Board of Trustees voted to request that the Lead Agency
alter the original development concept for the "Site D" property to delete the previously
proposed commercial use. The actions of the District's Board of Trustees are outlined in
correspondence from the President of the Board to the Council, dated December 2, 2010. As
indicated therein, the District now requests that "Site D be developed 100% residential." Two
related actions then followed. On December 7, 2010, as referenced in the minutes of that
meeting, the Council voted, in part, "to eliminate the commercial component for Site D and
move to a density of 200 unit project of single family homes." On January 19, 2011, the parties
FI
amended the MOU (Third Amendment) and the development concept for the "Site D" property,
stating, in part, that "[t]he specific plan will entitle a project to consist of not more than 200
residential dwelling units and dedicated parkland."
CEQA may, therefore, differ from other aspects of the entitlement process in that the March
2010 SDSP remains the "proposed project" under CEQA but another development -oriented
option may have gained momentum because it meets the project proponent's objectives and
effectively mitigates the significant environmental effects associated with that project. Although
an alternative specific plan was subsequently prepared by the Department, until such time as an
alternative plan is adopted, if so adopted, the March 2010 SDSP remains under consideration
by the Lead Agency's decision-making body and, as reflected in the project's CEQA
documentation, constitutes the "proposed project" therein. As used herein, the term "proposed
project" is not intended to reflect the project described in the District December 2, 2010
correspondence, the project described in the Council's December 7, 2010 directive, nor the
project described in the January 19, 2011 amendment to the MOU. Rather, the term is used
herein to denote that project and those contemplated discretionary actions described in the
Initial Study, NOP, DEIR, NOC, NOA, and RTC1, namely the March 2010 SDSP.
Under the provisions of the March 2010 SDSP, a maximum of 202 dwelling units and 153,985
square feet of commercial use could be developed on the project site. Development of the
project site would involve approximately 390,000 cubic yards of earth movement to create the
project's major building pads and circulation system. Primary access to both the proposed
project's residential and commercial components would be obtained from Diamond Bar
Boulevard, via a new signalized intersection located at Cherrydale Drive. Secondary access to
the commercial area would be provided along Brea Canyon Road, via a right -in and right -out
only point of ingress and egress. Additional emergency -only access to the project site would be
provided from Pasado Drive.
The County's existing Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel would be covered and become an
underground drainage facility as it traverses the project site. To convey the 50 -year discharge,
the proposed channel section would become a 9 -feet tall by 8 -feet wide, double cell, reinforced
concrete box (RCB) with an average cover of 20 feet. Fifty feet of transition box would be
constructed from the proposed RCB section to the existing culvert section under Diamond Bar
Boulevard. A transition structure downstream of the proposed RCB would be constructed to join
the existing trapezoidal channel.
Potable and reclaimed water will provided by the Walnut Valley Water District (WV WD).
Wastewater collection and treatment will be provided by the City and by the County Sanitation
Districts of Los Angeles County (CSDLAC). With regards to sanitary sewers, sewer flows
originating from the project site would discharge to existing City -operated sewer lines in
Diamond Bar Boulevard. The City operates an 8 -inch diameter vitrified clay pipe (VCP) sewer
line that runs in a southerly direction along Cherrydale Drive to Sewer Pump Station No. 1
(Fountain Springs). The pump station is under the jurisdiction of the CSDLAC. The City also
operates an existing 14 -inch diameter cast iron pipe (CIP) force main that discharges flows from
the same pump station. The project would connect to the existing 8 -inch diameter VCP line.
Based on the topography, an additional sewer lift station may be required. With regards to
potable water, the WVWD operates two potable water lines in Diamond Bar Boulevard,
including a 12 -inch diameter AC line on the south side of the road (Pressure Zone 1050) and a
10 -inch diameter asbestos -cement (AC) line on the north side of the road (Pressure Zone 875).
The project could connect to either line.
M
As outlined in the March 2010 SDSP and the various technical studies accompanying that
document, a number of preliminary engineering plans have been prepared by the Lead Agency.
Those conceptual plans include land -use, grading, drainage, and circulation (including proposed
street sections). The conceptual grading plan illustrated the creation of three "super pads,"
containing approximately 4.02, 6.05, and 10.09 net acres. Two pads (totaling 10.07 net acres)
were allocated for residential use and one pad (totally 10.09 net acres) was allocated for
commercial use. Assuming 202 dwelling units, the resulting residential density authorized under
the March 2010 SDSP was about 20 units/net acre.
Under this development scenario, a tentative subdivision map (Tentative Map No. 70687) is
being concurrently processed. Tentative Map No. 70687 delineated separate development
areas within the subject property for conveyance to subsequent holders of real property
interests, as well as establishing an internal circulation system and common open space areas.
Tentative subdivision maps are governed by the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, as
codified in Section 66410-66499.58 of the CGC, and Chapter 21.20 (Tentative Map Filing and
Processing), Chapter 21.22 (Parcel Maps and Final Maps), and Chapter 21.30 (Subdivision
Design and Improvement Requirements) in Title 21 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code.
1.6.2 January 2012 "Site D" Specific Plan (Alternative 6)
The January 2012 SDSP constitutes the alternative to the March 2010 SDSP resulting from the
District's December 2, 2010 correspondence to the Council, the Council's December 7, 2010
directive, and the January 19, 2011 amendment to the MOU (Third Amendment). An
environmental analysis of the January 2012 SDSP, including those revisions to the DEIR
resulting therefrom, is presented in RTC2. Reference to the DEIR herein is intended to be
inclusive of RTC1.
Under the provisions of the January 2012 SDSP, a maximum of 200 dwelling units and a new
neighborhood park consisting of not less than 2.0 net acres of useable area could be developed
on the project site. No on-site retail commercial, general commercial, or office professional
uses would be authorized on the project site. As indicated in the January 2012 SDSP, unless
otherwise specified, permitted and conditionally permitted uses shall include those allowed
under Section 22.08.030 (RLM Zone) of the Development Code. Through its inclusion and
comparable analysis in the RTC2, the January 2012 SDSP (Alternative 6) constitutes one of a
number of CEQA-authorized alternative development -oriented or conservation -based options
for the "Site D" property.
Assuming a gross area of 30.36 gross acres (rounded to 30.4 gross acres), the resulting
residential density allowable under the January 2012 SDSP is approximately 6.6 dwelling units
per gross acre. If the same approximately 20.16 net acre (rounded to 20.2 net acres)
development footprint associated with the March 2010 SDSP is assumed, residential densities
increase to approximately 9.9 dwelling units per net acre.
The January 2012 SDSP specifies that residential units within project area will consist of
"attached and/or detached, owner -occupied single-family product types." At the density and unit
total allowable under the specific plan, it is unlikely that lots conforming to RLM zoning district
standards (i.e., 8,000 square foot minimum lot size). In order to accommodate 8,000 square
foot minimum lots, residential densities cannot exceed about 5.4 units per acre, thus
necessitating a reduction in the number of dwelling units to be constructed on the project site.
For the purpose of CEQA compliance, the 200 dwelling unit assumption has been maintained.
10
Recent development activity in the City suggests that the historic distinction between "single-
family" and "multi -family" housing products is less clearly differentiated. Medium to high density,
small lot residential subdivisions involving detached "single-family' housing types have been
processed as "condominium" projects. As a result, because it likely reflects the nature of the
resulting development, without precluding the development of other product types, the CEQA
analysis is based on the assumption that the resulting housing product is more characteristic of
"townhouse and condominium" development.
As defined in the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) "Condominium Project Approval and
Processing Guide" (FHA, June 30, 2011), "site condominiums" are "single family totally
detached dwellings (no shared garages or any other attached buildings) encumbered by a
declaration of condominium covenants or condominium form of ownership."
Primary vehicular access to the project site will align with either Crooked Creek Drive or
Cherrydale Drive via a proposed signalized intersection at Diamond Bar Boulevard. Traffic
traveling westbound on Diamond Bar Boulevard will access the primary street via a new single -
lane left -turn pocket to be constructed within the median along Diamond Bar Boulevard.
"Emergency vehicle access" and pedestrian access to and from the project site will be provided
via Pasado Drive.
A new neighborhood park, consisting of not less than 2.0 usable acres, would be constructed
within the specific plan boundaries. Park improvements, including the creation of a connection
to the trail system along Brea Canyon Road, shall be the responsibility of the site's subsequent
developer. Although a minimum 2.0 -acre park dedication is assumed herein, nothing in the
January 2012 SDSP or in the accompanying CEQA documentation would preclude the
dedication of more real property. Vehicular access to the neighborhood park will be provided
via a signalized entry at the intersection of Cherrydale Drive/Diamond Bar Boulevard or at the
intersection of Crooked Creek Drive/Diamond Bar Boulevard. Additional pedestrian access to
the proposed neighborhood park will be provided from Posado Drive. The public park shall
include opportunities for pedestrian and bike trails with linkages to the sidewalks on Brea
Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard.
A landscaped "entry feature" will be established near the corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and
Brea Canyon Road, predominately in the vicinity of the City Property. The entry feature is
intended to establish a visual "landmark" or "gateway" along one of the City's prominent arterial
highways. As specified in the January 2012 SDSP, at minimum, the entry feature shall have a
value not less than one-half (0.005) percent of the building permit valuation of the proposed
residential development. The Lead Agency further seeks to promote the integration of this
design feature into the project's overall visual character, allowing for a unifying design theme
which serves to visually and/or physically link the entry feature with the proposed neighborhood
park and the site's residential development.
Although no conceptual grading plan has been formulated at this time, for the purpose of impact
assessment, it is assumed that the entire project site will be grubbed (denuded of existing
vegetation), graded, and recontoured to accommodate the residential development, park
facilities, and circulation system authorized under the January 2012 SDSP. In the absence of a
conceptual grading plan, with regards to Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), the Lead Agency
has assumed that the physical area of site disturbance, the location of cut -and -fill slopes, the
location and size of retaining walls, and grading quantities generally remain as described in the
DEIR for the March 2010 SDSP. However, under the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), the
southwesterly portion of the project site was extensively graded in order to lower the elevation of
11
the commercial pad and enhance the visibility of the previously proposed commercial use from
abutting streets. Although the January 2012 SDSP continues to illustrate a number of "super
pads" upon which development would occur, the need for or perceived benefit in enhanced
street -scale visibility no longer exists. As a result, actual grading quantities should be less than
assumed as part of the CEQA analysis.
Although no conceptual drainage plan has been formulated for the January 2012 SDSP at this
time, for the purpose of impact assessment, it is assumed that the drainage plan will be similar
to that associated with the March 2010 SDSP and that, absent the previously proposed
commercial component and the impervious surfaces associated with on-site parking, post -
project drainage flows will be at levels less than those assumed in the DEIR.
The conceptual water and sewer systems identified and the improvements described in the
DEIR for the March 2011 SDSP are assumed to remain applicable to the January 2012 SDSP.
Because a lesser intensity of development is proposed under this alternative than associated
with the March 2011 SDSP, some of the improvements identified therein may not be required to
adequately service the subject property or, if required, could be of lesser size or configuration.
With regards to site development, the January 2012 SDSP emphasizes the use of "project
sustainability" and "green building design elements." Numerous energy conservation features
are outlined in the specific plan which, if adopted, constitute design/development obligations
imposed on the subsequent site developer.
Under this alternative, no tentative subdivision map is being concurrently processed; however,
the subsequent processing of that tentative map is an anticipated consequence of the specific
plan's approval.
1.6.3 Other Alternatives
In addition to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) and the January 2012 SDSP
(Alternative 6), as required under Section 15126.6(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines, the FEIR
examined a range of reasonable alternatives. As stipulated therein: "An EIR need not consider
every conceivable alternative to a project. Rather it must consider a reasonable range of
potentially feasible alternatives that will foster informed decisionmaking and public participation."
In addition to the "no project" alternative (Alternative 1), as mandated under Section 15126(e) of
the State CEQA Guidelines, the following development -oriented alternatives were also
examined therein: (1) a "public facilities" alternative (Alternative 2); (3) a "community
commercial" alternative (Alternative 3); (4) a "low-density residential" alternative (Alternative 4);
and (5) a "high-density residential" alternative (Alternative 5). Although other alternatives are
broadly addressed in the DEIR, only the March 2010 SDSP and the January 2012 SDSP are
examined to a comparable level of analytical detail in the FEIR.
To the extent that a specific alternative would reduce or eliminate one or more of the significant
environmental effects of the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), as authorized under and
subject to the stipulations of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, the Lead Agency has the
authority to select a feasible alternative in lieu of the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP). As
used throughout these findings, the term "project" could be equally applied to the March 2010
SDSP, to the January 2012 SDSP, or to any other development -oriented alternative
subsequently selected by the Lead Agency's decision-making body for implementation.
12
1.7 Project Applicant
The State CEQA Guidelines defines "Applicant" to mean "a person who proposes to carry out a
project which needs a lease, permit, license, certificate, or other entitlement for use or financial
assistance from one or more public agencies when that person applies for the governmental
approval or assistance" (14 CCR 15350). Although the District and the City are both working
cooperative to prepare and process the SDSP, including its associated entitlements, it is not
envisioned that either public agency would proceed with the development of the "Site D"
property. The term "Applicant," as used herein and throughout the project's environmental
review record, is intended to apply to not only the District and the City, as the proponents of the
proposed specific plan, but also to that (those) subsequent holder(s) of real property interests
that will serve as the developer(s) and/or master builder(s) for those uses authorized therein
and who may seek discretionary actions from the Lead Agency and from other responsible
agencies for those development activities, infrastructure improvements, and other actions and
programs that may be authorized under the provisions of the adopted specific plan, if so
adopted.
The City is serving in the dual role of both "Applicant" and CEQA "Lead Agency." This dual role
is typical of most public projects and is authorized under CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and established agency practices. Based on the legal and ethical standards to which
governmental agencies are held, no inherent conflict is established when a public agency
serves in that dual role.
2.0 IDENTIFIED HOUSING NEEDS IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
As required under Section 65580 of the CGC: "The Legislature finds and declares as follows: (a)
The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance, and the early attainment of decent
housing and a suitable living environment for every California family is a priority of the highest
order. (b) The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative participation of government
and the private sector in an effort to expand housing opportunities and accommodate the
housing needs of Californians of all economic levels. (c) The provision of housing affordable to
low- and moderate -income households requires the cooperation of all levels of government. (d)
Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the powers vested in them to facilitate
the improvement and development of housing to make adequate provisions for the housing
needs of all economic segments of the community. (e) The Legislature recognizes that in
carrying out this responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to consider
economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community goals set forth in the general plan
and to cooperate with other local governments and the state in addressing regional housing
needs."
As required under California law, each municipality is required to prepare a comprehensive
general plan as a guide for its physical development. Each general plan is required to contain
seven mandatory elements, including a housing element. As specified in Section 65581 of the
CGC, in requiring the preparation of that element, it is the intent of the State Legislature to: (1)
assure that counties and cities recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of
the State housing goal; (2) assure that counties and cities will prepare and implement housing
elements which, along with federal and State programs, will move toward attainment of the
State housing goal; (3) recognize that each locality is best capable of determining what efforts
are required by it to contribute to the attainment of the State housing goal; and (4) ensure that
each local government cooperates with other local governments in order to address regional
housing need, including special needs.
13
State planning law requires that each municipality periodically update the housing element of its
local general plan. On April 19, 2011 (Resolution No. 2011-11), the Council adopted the "City of
Diamond Bar 2008-2014 Housing Element" outlining the City's housing strategy for the 2008-
2014 time period. The updated Housing Element includes the Southern California Association of
Governments (SCAG) adopted Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the 2008-
2014 time period, identifying the number of new housing units (by income category) needed to
accommodate projected growth within the City. As reflected therein, the City's allotted share of
regional growth is represented as 1,090 new housing units, including 284 very -low income units,
179 low-income units, 188 moderate -income units, and 440 above moderate -income units.
In order to address regional housing needs, the CGC contains specific requirements for regional
housing needs assessments (RHNA). Section 65581 of the CGC requires cities and counties to
recognize their responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the State's housing goal and
acknowledges that each locality is best capable of determining what efforts are required. As
indicated in pertinent part in Section 65584(a) of the CGC: "For purposes of subdivision (a) of
Section 65583, the share of a city or county of the regional housing needs includes that share of
the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area significantly affected by a
general plan of the city or county ... The appropriate council of governments shall determine the
share for each city or county consistent with the criteria of this subdivision."
The RHNA is a planning target and not a formal development quota. As part of the Housing
Element update, each municipality is required to analyze the potential development capacity of
vacant or underutilized sites and identify an "inventory" of parcels at appropriate densities that
could accommodate the RNHA allocation of new housing units. The Housing Element analysis
concluded that the City possessed insufficient inventory to accommodate the RHNA allocation
in the "very low" and "low" income categories. As a result, the City is required to create
additional opportunities for affordable housing through a rezoning program. State law
recognizes that cities generally do not build housing and, while cities are not required to achieve
their RHNA targets, they are required to rezone land if there is not adequate capacity to
accommodate the number and type of housing units allocated in the RNHA.
The City's adoption of the Housing Element update did not, in and of itself, produce a change of
zone or amend an existing General Plan land -use. As indicated in "Agenda Report 7-1 (2008-
2014 Housing Element Update [General Plan Amendment No. PL 2011-43])," as presented to
the Council by the Department on April 19, 2011, following adoption of the Housing Element
update, the City will initiate the environmental studies needed to assist the Commission and the
Council in identifying the appropriate sites to be rezoned. Because the implementation of the
proposed SDSP or one of a number of alternatives thereto would resulting in a General Plan
amendment (GPA) and zone change (ZC) of lands within the City from a non-residential to a
residential land use, those actions would serve to further the requirements of State housing law
and the City's obligations thereunder.
3.0 INTRODUCTION TO FINDINGS
3.1 Applicable Provisions of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines
Section 21001(d) of CEQA codifies the important Statewide policy of "ensur[ing] that the long-
term protection of the environment ... shall be the guiding criterion in public decisions." In Laurel
Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents of University of California (1988), the court noted that
"[t]he foremost principle under CEQA is that the Legislature intended the act'to be interpreted in
such manner as to afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable
14
scope of the statutory language."' CEQA contains a "substantive mandate" requiring public
agencies to refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if "there are
feasible alternatives or mitigation measures" that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects'
(Mountain Lion Foundation v. Fish and Game Commission [1997]). The State CEQA Guidelines
define the term "feasible" as "capable of being accomplished in a successful manner within a
reasonable period of time, taking into account economic, environmental, legal, social, and
technological factors" (14 CCR 15364).
Referencing Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hansford (Fifth District, 1990): "State
agencies are required to certify the completion of an EIR 'on any project they propose to carry
out or approve' [Citation]. As a matter of logic, the EIR must be prepared before the decision to
approve the project. Not until project approval does the agency determine whether to impose
any mitigation measures on the project [Citation]. One cannot be certain until then what the
exact mitigation measures will be, much less whether and to what degree they will minimize
environmental effects."
The DEIR, RTC1, and RTC2 identify a number of environmental impacts which have been
categorized as "significant." Relying on the word "or" in Section 21002 and 21002.1 of CEQA
(i.e., "agencies should not approve projects as approved if there are feasible alternatives or
feasible mitigation measures") and understanding the requirement to be disjunctive so that
agencies need only adopt mitigation measures or alternatives but not both, the courts have
stated that agencies need not even consider the feasibility of project alternatives if they adopt
mitigation measures that "substantially lessen or avoid" projects' significant adverse impacts
(Laurel Hills Homeowners Association v. City Council [Citation]. The EIR must 'contain a
meaningful discussion of both alternatives and mitigation measures ... Therefore, we conclude if
there is evidence of one or more potentially significant impacts, the report must contain a
meaningful analysis of alternatives or mitigation measures which would avoid or lessen such
impacts"' (Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford [1990]).
3.2 Findings of Fact and Statement of Overriding Considerations
The following statement of facts and findings (Findings) has been prepared by the Lead Agency
in accordance with the provisions of the CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines. For planning
purposes, the Lead Agency, the SCH, and/or other responsible agencies have or may assign
case or file numbers to certain actions now contemplated by the City, by the SCH, and/or by
those responsible agencies. With regards to the March 2010 SDSP, those case or file numbers
(and the assigning agency) include, but may not be limited to: (1) SCH No 2008021014 (SCH);
(2) Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 (City); (3) GPA No. 2007-03 (City); (4) ZC No. 2007-
04 (City); (5) Specific Plan No. 2007-01 (City); (6) Development Agreement No. 2012-01; and
(7) Tentative Map No. 70687. With the exception of Tentative Map No. 70687, each of those
same case numbers remain applicable to the January 2012 SDSP.
References to the March 2010 SDSP and the January 2012 SDSP herein are intended to be
inclusive of: (1) each of the above referenced discretionary actions; (2) such additional
discretionary and ministerial actions as may be required for or associated with the construction,
habitation, occupancy, use, and maintenance of the specific plan and the real property
thereupon for the residential, non-residential, and infrastructure -related uses proposed within
the geographic area examined in the FEIR; and (4) conditions, standards, and mitigation
measures as may be imposed thereupon by the Lead Agency's decision-making body and the
decision-making bodies of those responsible agencies with jurisdiction over the project or any
aspect thereof.
15
Section 21081 of CEQA "effectuates the 'substantive mandate' of CEQA by requiring an agency
to make certain findings before approving any project with significant effects." Section 21081
provides, in part, that "no public agency shall approve or carry out a project for which an
environmental impact report has been certified which identifies one or more significant effects
on the environment that would occur if the project is approved or carried out" unless, among
other things, the agency makes one or more of three findings with respect to each significant
effect. This document presents the findings of fact and substantial evidence that must be made
by the Council, acting in that body's capacity as the Lead Agency's decision-making body, prior
to determining whether to certify the FEIR and approve or conditionally approve the SDSP.
The possible findings specified in Section 21081(a) of CEQA and Section 15091(a) of the State
CEQA Guidelines, which shall be supported by substantial evidence in the record, include:
(1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project that avoid
or substantially lessen the significant environmental effects, as identified in the final EIR
(Section 21081(a)(1) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines)
This finding shall be referred to herein as "Finding (1)."
(2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another
public agency and not the agency making the findings. Such changes have been
adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency
(Section 21081(a)(2) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(2), State CEQA Guidelines)
This finding shall be referred to herein as "Finding (2)."
(3) Specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other considerations, including
considerations for the provision of employment opportunities for highly trained workers,
make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives identified in the final EIR
(Section 21081(a)(3) of CEQA; Section 15091(a)(3), State CEQA Guidelines).
This finding shall be referred to herein as "Finding (3)."
With respect to those significant effects that are subject to Finding (1), the agency shall also
adopt a program for reporting on or monitoring the changes which it has either required in the
project or made a condition of project approval to avoid or lessen significant environmental
effects. With respect to those significant effects that are subject to Finding (2), the findings shall
not be made if the agency making the findings has concurrent jurisdiction with another agency
to deal with identified feasible mitigation measures or alternatives. With respect to those
significant effects that are subject to Finding (3), the findings shall describe the specific reasons
for rejecting identified mitigation measures and alternatives.
As required under Section 21081(b) of CEQA, with respect to significant environmental effects
which are subject to a finding under Section 21081(a)(3), the public agency shall find that
specific economic, legal, social, technological, or other benefits of the project outweigh the
significant effects on the environment. Section 15093(b) of the State CEQA Guidelines stipulate
that, when the lead agency approves a project which will result in the occurrence of significant
environmental effects which are identified in the final EIR but which are not avoided or
substantially lessened, the agency shall state, in writing, the specific reasons to support its
actions based on the final EIR and/or other information in the record.
16
In Sierra Club v. Contra Costa County (1992), the Court of Appeal explained that "[a] statement
of overriding considerations reflects the final stage in the decision[ -]making process by the
public body. A public agency can approve a project with significant environmental impacts only if
it finds such effects can be mitigated or concludes that unavoidable impacts are acceptable
because of overriding concerns [Citations]. If approval of the project will result in significant
environmental effects which 'are not at least substantially mitigated, the agency shall state in
writing the specific reasons to support its action based on the final EIR and/or other information
in the record' [Citation]. These reasons constitute the statement of overriding considerations
which is intended to demonstrate the balance struck by the body in weighing the 'benefits of a
proposed project against its unavoidable environmental risks' [Citations]. 'Whereas the
[mitigation and feasibility] findings. . .typically focus on the feasibility of specific proposed
alternatives and mitigation measures, the statement of overriding considerations focuses on the
larger, more general reasons for approving the project, such as the need to create new jobs,
provide housing, generate taxes, and the like' [Citation]."
In accordance with Section 15091 of the State CEQA Guidelines, the Council makes the herein
referenced findings for each significant environmental effect identified in the FEIR. Those
impacts are categorized under the corresponding topical headings presented in the FEIR.
Reference to numbers assigned to standard conditions, performance standards, and mitigation
measures in these Findings are as presented therein and may differ from those numbers or
notations subsequently assigned by the Lead Agency should the City's decision-making body
elect to approve or conditionally approve the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) or some
variation thereof.
3.3 Record of Proceedings
For purposes of CEQA and these Findings, at a minimum, the record of proceedings for the
FEIR consists of the following documents and other evidence. All references to the FEIR herein
shall be assumed to be inclusive of each of the following documents and such other
accompanying evidence as may be identified by the Council at the time of certification:
(1) "Initial Study" (February 2008), including all documents expressly cited therein;
(2) "Notice of Preparation" (NOP), "Notice of Completion" (NOC), "Notice of Availability"
(NOA), "Notice of Determination" (NOD), and all other public notices issued by the Lead
Agency in conjunction with this CEQA process;
(3) "Draft Environmental Impact Report—'Site D' Specific Plan, SCH No. 2008021014" and
"Technical Appendix - Draft Environmental Impact Report — 'Site D' Specific Plan, SCH
No. 2008021014" (June 2009) (DEIR), including all documents incorporated by
reference therein and all written comments submitted by public agencies and other
stakeholders during the public review periods established by the NOP and NOA;
(4) "Response to Comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report — 'Site D' Specific
Plan, SCH No. 2008021014" (March 2010) (RTC or RTC1);
(5) "Response to Comments No. 2 on the Draft Environmental Impact Report — 'Site D'
Specific Plan, SCH No. 2008021014" (January 2012) (RTC2)
(6) Other site-specific and/or project -specific technical studies and exhibits not included in
the FEIR but explicitly referenced therein;
(7) "Minutes of the City of Diamond Bar Neighborhood Forum of Site 'D' Specific Plan Draft
Environmental Impact Report, Heritage Park Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon
Road, Diamond Bar, August 3, 2009," as prepared by the City of Diamond Bar
Community Development Department (Department);
17
(8) All written and verbal public testimony presented during noticed scoping meetings and
public hearings for the project at which public testimony was taken;
(9) "Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program" (MRMP), as required under Section
21081.6 of CEQA, as presented in RTC2, and as subsequently adopted by the Council;
(10) All agendas, staff reports, and approved minutes of the Commission and Council relating
to the project;
(11) All maps, exhibits, figure, and text comprising the "'Site D' Specific Plan";
(12) All other public reports, documents, studies, memoranda, maps, and planning
documents relating to the "'Site D' Specific Plan" and/or the FEIR, prepared by the Lead
Agency, consultants to the Lead Agency, or by other responsible and trustee agencies;
(13) Matters of common knowledge to the City including, but not limited to, federal, State, and
local laws, rule, regulations, and standards;
(14) These Findings and all documents expressly cited in these Findings; and
(15) Such other relevant materials required to be in the record of proceedings under Section
21167.6(e) of CEQA.
3.4 Custodian and Location of Records
The following information is provided in compliance with Section 21081.6(a)(2) of CEQA and
Section 15091(e) of the State CEQA Guidelines.
The documents, studies, reports, correspondence, and other material comprising the
administrative record for the project are located at the City of Diamond Bar Community
Development Department (21810 Copley Drive, Second Floor, Diamond Bar, California 91765-
4178) and are, upon appointment, available for review during the regular business hours of the
Department. The Director of the Community Development Department (Director) is the
custodian of record for the project.
3.5 Format of Findings
These Findings have been divided into a number of sections. Those sections and the
information presented therein are briefly outlined below.
Section 1.0 (Project Description). This section provides an overview of the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP), describes its location, and identifies the project's stated objectives. Also
presented herein is a description of the alternatives to the project identified by the Lead Agency
and presented in the project's CEQA documentation.
Section 2.0 (Identified Housing Need in the City of Diamond Bar). This section described the
identified housing need within the City, as identified in the General Plan and the Southern
California Association of Governments (SCAG) adopted RHNA.
Section 3.0 (Introduction to Findings). This section provides an introduction to these Findings,
and describes their purpose and statutory and regulatory bases.
Section 4.0 (General Findings). In addition to the specific findings presented herein, this section
identifies the general CEQA findings of the Lead Agency
Section 5.0 (Findings Regarding the Significant Environmental Effects of the Proposed Project
[March 2010 SDSP] that Cannot Feasibly be Reduced to Below a Level of Significance should it
be Implemented). This section sets forth findings regarding the significant environmental
in
impacts of the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) which cannot feasibly be mitigated to a
less -than -significant level based on the threshold of significance criteria presented in the FEIR
and which will or may which result from the approval, construction, habitation, and/or use of the
proposed project (March 2010 SDSP).
Section 6.0 (Findings Regarding the Rejection of the Proposed Project [March 2010 SDSP] and
the Selection of Alternative 6 [January 2012 SDSP] for Implementation). In compliance with
CEQA's "substantial mandate," in order to avoid or substantially lessen the existence of
significant environmental effects, this section sets forth findings regarding the Lead Agency's
rejection of the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) and selection of Alternative 6 (January
2012 SDSP).
Section 7.0 (Findings Regarding the Environmental Effects of Alternative 6 [January 2012
SDSP] that can Feasibly be Reduced to Below a Level of Significance). This section sets forth
findings regarding the significant environmental impacts of Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP)
that either do not manifest at a level of significance based on the threshold of significance
criteria presented in the FEIR or which can feasibly be reduced to a less -than -significant level
through the imposition of standard conditions (conditions), performance standards (standards),
and/or through the adoption of those mitigation measures included in the FEIR and adopted or
likely to be adopted in the "Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program" (MRMP).
Section 8.0 (Findings Regarding the Lead Agency's Decision not to Recirculate the DEIR Prior
to Certification). This section sets forth findings supporting the Lead Agency's decision not to
recirculate the DEIR prior to its certification.
Section 9.0 (Findings Regarding the Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program). This
section contains findings with regards to the MRMP.
Section 10.0 (Findings Regarding those Alternatives not Selected for Implementation). This
section provides findings regarding those alternatives to the proposed project (March 2010
SDSP) and to Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) that were examined in the FEIR and
considered by the Lead Agency's decision-making body as part of their deliberations but not
selected by the Council for implementation following those deliberations.
Section 11.0 (Statement of Project Benefits). This section presents a number of identifiable
community benefits attributable to the project.
As applicable for each of the above referenced sections, the significant environmental effects
attributable to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) and to Alternative 6 (January 2012
SDSP) and identified in the FEIR have been referenced therein. Following each referenced
environmental effect, the Lead Agency has identified the findings and facts that constitute the
bases for the Lead Agency's actions. The findings set forth in each of the following sections are
supported by substantial evidence in the project's administrative record.
The referenced findings and facts presented herein may have relevancy both in the context of
the specific environmental effect for which those findings and facts are indicated and for other
environmental effects identified in the FEIR and in these Findings. For the purpose of brevity,
those findings and facts presented herein are not duplicated under multiple topical issues but
should be assumed to collectively constitute the factual basis utilized by the Lead Agency's
decision-making body in support of these Findings.
19
Except as otherwise noted in the FEIR, the threshold of significance criteria utilized by the Lead
Agency to assess the significance of project -related and cumulative impacts are based on those
criterion contained in Appendix G of the State CEQA Guidelines and constitute criterion which
have been used by both the Lead Agency with regards to CEQA documentation which it has
prepared for other projects and by other jurisdictions located throughout southern California.
4.0 GENERAL FINDINGS
In addition to the specific findings identified herein, the Council hereby finds that:
(1) The Council finds and certifies that the FEIR constitutes a complete, accurate, adequate,
and good -faith effort at full disclosure under CEQA.
(2) The Council finds and certifies that the FEIR and all environmental notices associated
therewith have been completed in compliance with CEQA, the State CEQA Guidelines,
and local guidelines and procedures;
(3) The Council has independently reviewed and analyzed the FEIR and the FEIR reflects
the independent judgment of the Lead Agency's decision-making body;
(4) The Council has neither made any decisions nor taken any actions that would constitute
an irretrievable commitment of resources toward the project prior to the certification of
the FEIR nor has the Council previously committed to a definite course of action with
respect thereto or with regards to the use and utilization of the project site;
(5) Under CEQA, the City is the appropriate "lead agency" for the project and, during these
proceedings, no other agency has asserted or contested the City's "lead agency' status;
(6) As part of the CEQA process, in compliance with the provisions of Senate Bill (SB) 18
and OPR's "Supplement to General Plan Guidelines — Tribal Consultation Guidelines"
(2005), the Lead Agency notified the appropriate California Native American tribes of the
opportunity to conduct consultation for the purpose of preserving or mitigating impacts to
cultural places, referred the proposed action to those tribes that are listed on the Native
American Heritage Commission's (NAHC) contact list that have or that may have
traditional lands within the Lead Agency's jurisdiction, and send notices to tribes that
have filed a written request for such notices;
(7) Because the real property examined in the FEIR includes separate properties owned by
the City, the District, and the County, the Lead Agency conducted extensive consultation
with those governmental entities identified by the Lead Agency in the FEIR which
constitute "responsible agencies" under CEQA;
(8) Copies of the Initial Study, NOP, DEIR, and NOC were provided to those responsible
agencies identified in the FEIR and each such agency was provided a specified review
period to submit comments thereupon;
(8) In compliance with Section 21092.5(a) of CEQA, at least 10 days prior to the certification
of the FEIR, the Lead Agency provided its written proposed responses to those public
agencies that submitted comments to the Lead Agency on the DEIR;
(9) The potential environmental impacts of the project have been analyzed to the extent
feasible at the time of certification of the FEIR;
(10) A MRMP has been prepared identifying those feasible mitigation measures that the
Council has adopted or will likely adopt in order to reduce the project's significant
environmental effects to the maximum extent feasible;
(11) The mitigation measures adopted or likely to be adopted by the Council will be fully
implemented in accordance with the MRMP, verification of compliance will be
documented, and each measure can reasonably be expected to have the efficacy and
produce the post -mitigated consequences assumed in the FEIR;
20
(12) Each of the issues to be resolved, as identified in the FEIR and/or subsequently raised in
comments received by the Lead Agency during the deliberations of its advisory and
decision-making bodies, have been resolved to the satisfaction of the Council;
(13) The Council reviewed the comments received on the FEIR, including, but not limited to,
those comments received following the dissemination of the DEIR, and the Lead
Agency's responses thereto and has determined that neither the comments received nor
the responses presented add "significant new information," as defined under Section
15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines, to the DEIR;
(14) The Lead Agency's analysis of greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions complies with the
requirements of CEQA and the State CEQA Guidelines, inclusive of those changes
thereto resulting from the approval of SB 97, as approved by the Governor on August
24, 2007 and which became effective on March 18, 2010;
(15) Copies of all the documents incorporated by reference in the FEIR are and have been
available for review during the regular business hours of the City at the office of the
Community Development Department from the custodian of records;
(16) These Findings incorporate by reference such other findings as may be required under
Sections 65454, 65455, 66474, 66474.4, 65853, and 65860 of the CGC and those
corresponding finding required under the Municipal Code; and
(17) Having received, reviewed, and considered all information and documents in the record,
the Council has or will impose conditions, standards, and mitigation measures and has
or will take other reasonable actions to reduce the environmental effects of the project to
the maximum extend feasible and makes the findings stated herein.
5.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE SIGNIFICANT ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE
PROPOSED PROJECT (MARCH 2010 SDSP) THAT CANNOT FEASIBLY BE
REDUCED TO BELOW A LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE SHOULD IT BE IMPLEMENTED
With regards to the March 2010 SDSP, the Council has determined that existing statutes,
regulations, uniform codes, project design features, conditions, standards, and mitigation
measures included in the FEIR will result in a substantial reduction of most but not all of those
environmental effects identified in the FEIR. Notwithstanding the existence of those statutes,
regulations, conditions, standards, codes, features, and measures, the Council finds that no
feasible mitigation measures exist that would reduce those environmental impacts to a less -
than -significant level. The following significant environmental effects will continue to exist
should the Council approve or conditionally approve the March 2010 SDSP. The significant
environmental effects presented herein are extracted from Table ES -1 (Summary of
Environmental Impacts and Level of Significance) and from the corresponding analysis
presented in the DEIR.
5.1 Environmental Effect: Construction of the proposed project [March 2010 SDSP] has the
potential to violate or add to a violation of air quality standards (Air Quality Impact 7-2).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) With regards to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), project -related and
cumulative air quality impacts are addressed, in part, in Section 4.7 (Air Quality)
in the DEIR and in Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated herein by reference.
21
(b) During construction, air quality impacts will occur during site preparation and
construction activities. Major sources of emissions during construction include
exhaust emissions, fugitive dust generated as a result of soil and material
disturbance during grading activities, and the emission of reactive organic gases
(ROGs) during site paving and the painting of structures.
(c) For the purpose of environmental analysis, the terms "reactive organic gases"
(ROGs), "reactive organic compounds" (ROCS), and "volatile organic
compounds" (VOCs) are used interchangeably.
(d) The air quality analysis of the construction and operation of the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP) was conducted in accordance with the then existing
methodology presented in the South Coast Air Quality Management District's
(SCAQMD) "CEQA Air Quality Handbook" (SCAQMD, April 1993), "Localized
Significance Threshold Methodology" (SCAQMD, June 2005), and updates
included on the SCAQMD Internet website. The analysis made use of the
URBEMIS2007 urban emissions model (Version 9.4.2) for the determination of
daily construction and operational emissions, the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's (USEPA) SCEEN3 Dispersion model for localized
construction impacts, the provisions of the California Department of
Transportation's (Caltrans) "Transportation Project -Level Carbon Monoxide
Protocol," and the CALINE4 computer model for on -road carbon monoxide (CO)
dispersion modeling.
(e) The analysis of the potential short-term (construction) air quality impacts of the
proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) was conducted in a manner consistent
with the emissions assessment methodology recommended by the SCAQMD at
the time of the DEIR's preparation.
(f) Based on the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria of 75 pounds of ROG
per day, application of the URBEMIS2007 emissions model indicated that ROG
emissions associated with the application of paints and coatings for those uses
authorized under the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) would result in a
significant short-term air quality impact. Specifically, the URBEMIS2007 model
showed that the residential portion of the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP)
would produce 66.39 pounds of ROG per day from paints and coatings (less than
the recommended threshold) and the commercial portion of the proposed project
would produces 173.62 pounds of ROG per day (more than the recommended
threshold).
(g) With regards to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), because ROG
emissions would exceed the SCAQMD's recommended significance threshold
during the construction phase, the Lead Agency formulated the following
mitigation measures (MM) to reduce that short-term impact to the maximum
extent feasible: (1) All non-residential paints shall contain no more than 0.22
pound/gallon (100 gram/liter) of volatile organic compound (VOC) (MM7-1); and
(2) The Applicant shall abide by any other air pollution reduction measures as
may be approved by the City of Diamond Bar and/or by the SCAQMD (MM 7-2).
(h) In addition to those mitigation measures identified by the Lead Agency, all
projects constructed in the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) are subject to standard
conditions and uniform codes. Compliance with those conditions and codes is
mandatory and, as such, does not constitute mitigation under CEQA. Those
conditions mandated by the SCAQMD include, but are not limited to: (1) Rule
403 requiring the use of Best Available Control Technologies (BACT) during
construction and setting requirements for dust control associated with
construction activities; (2) Rules 431.1 and 431.2 requiring the use of low sulfur
22
fuel for stationary construction equipment; and (3) Rules 1108 and 1113 settings
limitations on ROG content in asphalt and architectural coatings, respectively.
(i) Notwithstanding the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures and the
project's adherence to applicable standard conditions, uniform codes, and
SCAQMD rules and regulations, other than through a substantial reduction in the
size of the project and/or implementation of an alternative to the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP), projected construction -term ROG emissions would remain
at levels in excess of the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria.
(j) One of the alternatives examined in the FEIR is Alternative 6 (January 2012
SDSP) which, among other things, eliminates the 153,985 square feet of
commercial use authorized under the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) and
reduces the number of residential units from 202 to 200 dwellings. The
elimination of the commercial use and the reduction in the number of residential
units would substantially reduce the square footage of allowable on-site
development requiring the application of architectural coatings. The
URBEMIS2007 emissions model shows that the construction of the 202 dwelling
units authorized under the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) would not
exceed the SCAQMD's threshold standard for ROG during the construction
phase.
(i) In February 2011, the SCAQMD released a new analytical tool, the California
Emissions Estimator Model (CaIEEMod) (Version 2011.1.1), capable of
calculating both criteria pollutants and GHG emissions. Although representing
separate methodologies and yielding slightly different results, the general
comparability of the URBEMIS2007 and CaIEEMod analysis was demonstrated
in the FEIR based on a technical comparison prepared by and presented in the
SCAQMD's "Technical Paper — Methodology Reasoning and Policy Development
of the California Emission Estimator Model" (SCAQMD, July 2011).
Q) The potential short-term air quality impacts associated with the implementation of
Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) were analyzed using the CaIEEMod
emissions model. As indicated, with regards to criteria pollutants, all values
(including ROG) were determined to fall below their respective thresholds and
the projected short-term air quality impact of Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP)
alternative would be less than significant.
(k) Based on the CaIEEMod emissions modeling conducted for Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP), with the exception of Alternative 1 (No Project), it can be
reasonably concluded that any residential development project of comparable or
lesser size/scale developed on the project site and operating under the same
general assumptions would produce similar construction -term air quality impacts.
Under Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential), a total of 60 dwelling units would
be constructed on the project site. With regards to criteria pollutants, short-term
air quality impacts attributable to Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) are
assumed to be less than significant.
(I) With regards to criteria pollutants, the implementation of the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP), as feasibly mitigated and conditioned, would not result in
the avoidance of significant short-term air quality impacts
(m) With regards to criteria pollutants, since no significant short-term air quality
impacts would result from their approval, with the exception of Alternative 1 (No
Project), the implementation of Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) or
Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) would reduce short-term air quality impacts
to a less -than -significant level.
23
5.2 Environmental Effect: Operation of the proposed project [March 2010 SDSP] has the
potential to violate or add to a violation of air quality standards (Air Quality Impact 7.3).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) With regards to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), project -related and
cumulative air quality impacts are addressed, in part, in Section 4.7 (Air Quality)
in the DEIR and in Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated herein by reference.
(b) The analysis of the potential long-term (operational) air quality impacts of the
proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) was conducted in a manner consistent
with the emissions assessment methodology recommended by the SCAQMD at
the time of the DEIR's preparation.
(b) With regards to criteria pollutants, the major source of long-term air quality
impacts is that associated with the emissions produced from project -generated
vehicle trips. With regards to mobile source emissions, based on the findings of
the traffic analysis, the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) is estimated to
produce 9,276 average daily vehicle trips (ADT).
(c) Emission projections associated with vehicle trips attributable to the proposed
project (March 2010 SDSP) were based on the URBEMIS2007 emissions model
and assumed site occupancy in 2009. Since emissions per vehicle are reduced
annually due to the tightening of emissions restrictions and the replacement of
older vehicles, the use of 2009 emission factors serves to prevent a worst-case
analysis with regards to air quality impacts associated with the implementation of
the March 2010 SDSP.
(d) For the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), operational ROG, nitrogen oxides
(NOx), and carbon monoxide (CO) emissions were projected to exceed the
SCAQMD recommended threshold of significance values for those criteria
pollutants and the impact is significant. The SCAQMD's recommended threshold
criteria of 55 pounds of ROG per day, 55 pounds of NOx per day, and 550
pounds of CO per day. The URBEMIS2007 emissions model indicated that
ROG, NOx, and CO would be approximately 84.44, 131.95, and 933.86 pounds
per day, respectively.
(e) Operational emission projections for ROG, NOx, and CO exceed the SCAQMD's
recommenced threshold value by approximately 153.5, 239.9, and 169.8 percent,
respectively. Said another way, emission projections would need to be reduced
by about 29.44 (84.44-29.44=55), 76.95 (131.95-76.95=55), and 383.86 (933.86-
383.86=550) pounds per day or by about 34.9 (29.44/84.44=0.349), 58.3 (76.95/
131.95=0.583), or 41.1 (383.86/933.86=0.411) percent per day, respectively, in
order to fall below SCAQMD's recommended threshold of significance. Of these
three criteria emissions, because NOx would require the greatest percentage
reduction (58.3 percent), nitrogen oxides may be the controlling variable with
regards to operational air quality impacts.
(f) With regards to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), because project
operations are projected to create ROG, NOx, and CO emissions in excess of
the SCAQMD suggested daily criteria, the Lead Agency formulated the following
mitigation measures to reduce that long-term impact to the extent as feasible: (1)
Traffic lane improvements and signalization, as outlined in the traffic study, shall
be implemented and will generally improve local traffic flow, thereby reducing
24
emissions created in the project area (MM 7-3); (2) To encourage the use of
mass transportation, the Applicant shall place bus stop shelters at any bus stops
situated or to be situated along any site frontage routes if not already so
equipped (MM 7-4); (3) To encourage the use of localized commercial facilities
and reduce the need for vehicle travel, the Applicant shall include both bike lanes
(where feasible) and bike paths between the residential and commercial
development areas. Additionally, the Applicant shall provide sidewalks and
walking paths to the proposed commercial areas (MM 7-5); (4) The Applicant
shall specify the installation of energy efficient lighting, air conditioning, water
heaters, and appliances for all residential and commercial uses (MM 7-6); and (5)
The Applicant shall specify the installation of energy efficient street lighting (MM
7-7).
(g) Notwithstanding the implementation of the recommended mitigation measures,
other than through a substantial reduction in the number of vehicle trips and/or
implementation of an alternative to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP),
projected operational ROG, NOx, and CO emissions would remain at levels in
excess of the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria.
(h) One of the alternatives examined in the FEIR is Alternative 6 (January 2012
SDSP) which, among other things, eliminates the 153,985 square feet of
commercial use authorized under the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) and
reduces the number of residential units from 202 to 200 dwellings. As
determined by an independent traffic analysis, the elimination of the commercial
use and the reduction in the number of dwelling units would reduce the number
of average daily vehicle trips from approximately 9,276 daily trip ends associated
with the March 2010 SDSP to about 1,182 daily trip ends associated with
Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP). When the two alternatives are compared,
the January 2012 SDSP would produce about 8,094 fewer daily trip ends,
representing a reduction of approximately 87.3 percent.
(i) In February 2011, the SCAQMD released the CalEEMod (Version 2011.1.1),
emissions model. Although representing separate methodologies and yielding
slightly different results, the general comparability of the URBEMIS2007 and
CaIEEMod analysis was demonstrated in the FEIR
(j) The potential long-term air quality impacts associated with the implementation of
Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) were analyzed using the CalEEMod
emissions model. Based on that analysis, emission projections for ROG, NOx,
and CO were determined to be approximately 18.97, 23.22, and 115.19 pounds
per day, respectively. As indicated, with regards to criteria pollutants, all values
(including ROG, NOx, and CO) were determined to fall below their respective
thresholds and the projected long-term air quality impact of Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP) would be less than significant.
(k) Based on the CaIEEMod emissions modeling conducted for Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP), with the exception of Alternative 1 (No Project), it can be
reasonably concluded that any residential development project of comparable or
lesser size/scale developed on the project site and operating under the same
general assumptions would produce similar long-term air quality impacts. Under
Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential), a total of 60 dwelling units would be
constructed on the project site. With regards to criteria pollutants, long-term air
quality impacts attributable to Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) are
assumed to be less than significant.
(1) Based on the CalEEMod emissions modeling conducted for Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP), it is estimated that the January 2012 SDSP will generate
25
approximately 23.22 pounds of NOx per day (Table RTC2-14). The majority of
those emissions (21.61 pounds/day) are attributable to mobile source emissions.
With regards to NOx emissions, based on the SCAQMD's operational threshold
criteria of 55 pounds per day, assuming that all emissions increase linearly, a
residential or non-residential development project developed on the project site
and operated under the same general assumptions could generate an estimated
236.9 (55/23.22=2.369) percent increase in the number of vehicle trips (than the
January 2012 SDSP) and not exceed that threshold. As indicated in the FEIR,
the January 2012 SDSP is estimated to generate about 1,182 daily trip ends. A
236.9 percent increase represents about 2,800 average daily trip ends. Since
Alternative 2 (Public Facilities) (2,478 ADT), Alternative 4 (Low -Density
Residential) (574 ADT), Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential) (2,364 ADT),
and Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) (1,182 ADT) are projected to generate a
lesser number of daily trip ends, with regards to criteria emissions, operational air
quality impacts associated with those alternatives are assumed to be less than
significant.
(m) With regards to criteria pollutants, the implementation of the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP), as feasibly mitigated and conditioned, would not result in
the avoidance of significant operational air quality impacts.
(n) With regards to criteria pollutants, since no significant operational air quality
impacts would result from their approval, with the exception of Alternative 1 (No
Project), the implementation of Alternative 2 (Public Facilities), Alternative 4
(Low -Density Residential), Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential), or Alternative
6 (January 2012 SDSP) would reduce long-term air quality impacts to a less -
than -significant level.
5.3 Environmental Effect: The proposed project [March 2010 SDSP], in combination with
other related projects, has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable increase
in criteria pollutants (Air Quality Impact 7-6).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) With regards to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), project -related and
cumulative air quality impacts are addressed, in part, in Section 4.7 (Air Quality)
in the DEIR and in Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated herein by reference.
(b) Pursuant to SCAQMD's recommended methodology, projects that do not exceed
or can be mitigated to less than SCAQMD's daily threshold values do not add
significantly to a cumulative impact. Conversely, projects that result in significant
unmitigable short-term or long-term air quality impacts, would be deemed to
produce significant cumulative air quality impacts.
(c) With regards to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), since ROG emissions
associated with the application of asphalt, paints, and coatings and ROG, NOx,
and CO mobile source emissions associated with the project's operation are
expected to remain significant after mitigation, the project's incremental
contribution to cumulative air quality impact would be cumulatively considerable.
(d) As indicated in Section 15064(i)(1) of the State CEQA Guidelines, "cumulatively
considerable" means "that the incremental effects of an individual project are
26
considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, the
effects of other current projects, and the effects of probable future projects."
(e) Mitigation for cumulative air quality impacts is as specified for construction and
operational impacts. Even with the adoption of all feasible measures and the
project's adherence to applicable standard conditions, uniform codes, and
SCAQMD rules and regulations, other than through a substantial reduction in the
size of the project and/or implementation of an alternative to the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP), air quality impacts will remain cumulatively significant.
(f) The implementation of the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), as feasibly
mitigated and conditioned, would not result in the avoidance of significant
construction, operational, and cumulative air quality impacts.
(g) Since no significant project -level construction, operational, or GHG emissions
impacts would result from their approval, with the exception of Alternative 1 (No
Project), the implementation of Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) or
Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) would reduce cumulative air quality impacts
to a less -than -significant level.
5.4 Environmental Effect: The project has the potential to generate GHG emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (Air Quality
Impact 7-8).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) With regards to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), project -related and
cumulative air quality impacts are addressed, in part, in Section 4.7 (Air Quality)
in the DEIR and in Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated herein by reference.
(b) The SCAQMD is in the process of establishing a threshold for GHG emissions to
determine a project's regional contribution toward global climate change impacts
for California. On December 5, 2008, SCAQMD adopted an annual threshold of
3,000 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) for residential and commercial
projects for which it is the lead agency under CEQA.
(c) To provide guidance to local lead agencies on determining significance for GHG
emissions in their CEQA documents, the SCAQMD has convened a GHG CEQA
Significance Threshold Working Group (Working Group). As indicated in the
"Minutes of the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold Stakeholders Working Group
#5" (SCAQMD, September 28, 2010), with regards to numerical residential and
commercial GHG significance thresholds, "at the 11/19/2009 stakeholder working
group meeting [SCAQMD] staff presented two options that lead agencies could
choose; option #1 — separate numerical thresholds for residential projects (3,500
MTCO2e/year), commercial projects (1,400 MTCO2e/year), and mixed use
projects (3,000 MTCO2e/year) and option #2 — a single numerical threshold for
all non -industrial projects of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. If a lead agency chooses one
option, it must consistently use that same option for all projects where it is lead
agency. The current staff proposal is to recommend the use of option #2, but
allow lead agencies to choose option #1 if they prefer that approach.
(d) In selecting the identified threshold of significance criteria for GHG emissions for
the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), the Lead Agency is neither making a
determination that the selected criteria will be universally applied to all projects
27
located within the City's jurisdiction in which it serves as "lead agency' under
CEQA nor that an alternative criteria may not be selected in the future based on
information then available to the Lead Agency. With regards to GHG emissions,
for the purpose of CEQA compliance and these specified entitlements, a criteria
of 3,000 MTCO2e was applied to both the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP)
and to Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP).
(e) Construction activities would consume fuel and result in the generation of
greenhouse gases. Construction CO2e emissions are as projected using the
CaIEEMod emissions model. The CalEEMod emissions model indicates that
construction (unmitigated) could generate approximately 764.26 MTCO2e in
2013, 910.28 MTCO2e in 2014, and 223.97 MTCO2e in 2015. All of these values
under the suggested annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year and the impact
of constructing the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) on GHG emissions is
less than significant.
(f) During the operational life of the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), the
majority of GHG emissions, specifically CO2, are due to vehicle travel and energy
consumption. It is projected that all emission sources, including mobile, area
source, energy, waste, and water conveyance, approximately 14,276.99 MTCO2e
would be generated on an annual basis. The resulting operational impact
(unmitigated), exceeds the suggested annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per
year and the impact is considered potentially significant.
(g) Once the project's proposed energy and water conservation measures are
included and the CaIEEMod emissions model rerun, for all sources (i.e., mobile,
area source, energy, waste, and water conveyance), estimated operational GHG
emissions are reduced to approximately 13,156.21 MTCO2e per year. This value
remains over the suggested annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e and the impact of
GHG emissions attributable to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) remains
significant.
(h) In order to mitigate GHG emissions to the maximum extent feasible, the following
mitigation measures were formulated by the Lead Agency: (1) The Applicant
shall specify the installation of energy efficient lighting, air conditioning, water
heaters, and appliances for all residential and commercial uses (MM 7-6); and (2)
The Applicant shall specify the installation of energy efficient street lighting (MM
7-7). As mitigated, the resulting value remains substantially in excess of the
SCAQMD's recommended GHG threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year and the
impact remains significant.
(i) Notwithstanding the implementation of all feasible mitigation measures and the
project's adherence to applicable standard conditions, uniform codes, and
SCAQMD rules and regulations, other than through a substantial reduction in the
size of the project and/or implementation of an alternative to the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP), projected GHG emissions would remain at levels in excess
of the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria.
0) The potential GHG emissions and climate change impacts associated with the
implementation of Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) were analyzed using the
CalEEMod emissions model. As indicated, with regards to both construction and
operation, GHG emissions were projected at values less than the SCAQMD's
threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year and the resulting impact of the "January
2012 SDSP" alternative on climate change would be less than significant.
(k) With the exception of Alternative 1 (No Project), it can be reasonably
concluded that any residential development project of comparable or lesser
size/scale developed on the project site and operating under the same general
0
assumptions would produce similar climate change impacts. Under Alternative 4
(Low -Density Residential), a total of 60 dwelling units would be constructed on
the project site. With regards to GHG emissions and climate change, air quality
impacts attributable to Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) are assumed to be
less than significant.
(1) The implementation of the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), as feasibly
mitigated and conditioned, would not result in the avoidance of significant climate
change impacts
(m) Since no significant project -level or cumulative GHG emissions impacts would
result from their approval, with the exception of Alternative 1 (No Project), the
implementation of Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) or Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP) would reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts
to a less -than -significant level.
5.5 Environmental Effect: The project has the potential to conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases (Air Quality Impact 7-9).
Findincr The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding
(a) With regards to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), project -related and
cumulative air quality impacts are addressed, in part, in Section 4.7 (Air Quality)
in the DEIR and in Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated herein by reference.
(b) Under CEQA, an impact can be significant if the project does not comply with the
applicable plans necessary for the reduction of greenhouse gases. Projects that
generate de minimus GHG emission levels (i.e., less than 3,000 MTCO2e per
year) and do not result in significant project -level impacts or can be mitigated to a
less -than -significant level are deemed to be in compliance with local and regional
policies regarding GHG emissions. With regards to the proposed project (March
2010 SDSP), because project -related operational GHG emissions are projected
to be in excess of the threshold criteria, those emissions are also considered to
be cumulatively significant.
(c) Construction emissions attributable to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP)
are estimated at no more than 910.28 MTCO2e per year. This value is well
below the annual threshold value of 3,000 MTCO2e and the cumulative impact of
construction -term GHG emissions to climate change is less than significant. As
such, construction activities would not conflict with existing plans and policies.
(d) Based on the CalEEMod emissions model, the proposed project (March 2010
SDSP) would result in the generation of approximately 14,276.99 MTCO2e per
year before mitigation and 13,156.21 MTCO2e per year after mitigation. These
values exceed the suggested 3,000 MTCO2e per year threshold and the impact
to climate change remains significant.
(e) The potential GHG emissions and climate change impacts associated with the
implementation of Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) were analyzed using the
CaIEEMod emissions model. As indicated, with regards to both construction and
operation, GHG emissions were projected at values less than the SCAQMD's
threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year. As a result, the impact of Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP) on climate change would be less than significant.
29
(f) With the exception of Alternative 1 (No Project), it can be reasonably concluded
that any residential development of comparable or lesser size/scale than that of
Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) which were to be developed on the project
site and operating under the same general assumptions would produce similar
climate change impacts. Under Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential), a total of
60 dwelling units would be constructed on the project site. With regards to GHG
emissions and climate change, air quality impacts attributable to Alternative 4
(Low -Density Residential) are assumed to be less than significant.
(g) The implementation of ,the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), as feasibly
mitigated and conditioned, would not result in the avoidance of significant climate
change impacts
(h) Since no significant project -level or cumulative GHG emissions impacts would
result from their approval, with the exception of Alternative 1 (No Project), the
implementation of Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) or Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP) would reduce GHG emissions and climate change impacts
to a less -than -significant level.
6.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE REJECTION OF THE PROPOSED PROJECT (MARCH
2010 SDSP) AND THE SELECTION OF ALTERNATIVE 6 (JANUARY 2012 SDSP)
FOR IMPLEMENTATION
With regards to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), the FEIR has identified a number of
significant environmental effects which cannot be feasibly mitigated to a less -than -significant
level should the March 2010 SDSP be implemented. The FEIR identified a number of
alternatives capable of meeting the project's basic objectives, as amended, and which, if
implemented, would result in the avoidance or substantial lessening of those significant
environmental impacts. In compliance with CEQA's "substantial mandate," this section sets
forth findings regarding the Lead Agency's rejection of both the proposed project (March 2010
SDSP) and other alternatives with the potential to avoid or substantial lessen the proposed
project's significant environmental effects and the selection of Alternative 6 (January 2012
SDSP) in lieu thereof.
6.1 Environmental Effect: With regards to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), the
following environmental impacts cannot be mitigated to a less -than -significant level
through the imposition of feasible mitigation measures: (1) Construction of the proposed
project [March 2010 SDSP] has the potential to violate or add to a violation of air quality
standards (Air Quality Impact 7-2); (2) Operation of the proposed project [March 2010
SDSP] has the potential to violate or add to a violation of air quality standards (Air
Quality Impact 7.3); (3) The proposed project [March 2010 SDSP], in combination with
other related projects, has the potential to result in a cumulatively considerable increase
in criteria pollutants (Air Quality Impact 7-6); (4) The project has the potential to generate
GHG emissions, either directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the
environment (Air Quality Impact 7-8); and (5) The project has the potential to conflict with
an applicable plan, policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the
emissions of greenhouse gases (Air Quality Impact 7-9).
Findings: The Council hereby makes Findings (1) and (3).
Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of these
findings:
30
(a) CEQA codifies the important Statewide policy of "ensur[ing] that the long-term
protection of the environment, consistent with the provision of a decent home and
suitable living environment for every Californian, shall be the guiding criterion in
public decisions" (Section 21001 [d], CEQA). "The foremost principle under CEQA
is that the Legislature intended the act `to be interpreted in such manner as to
afford the fullest possible protection to the environment within the reasonable
scope of the statutory language' (Laurel Heights Improvement Assn. v. Regents
of the University of California [1988]). CEQA contains a "substantive mandate"
requiring public agencies to refrain from approving projects with significant
environmental effects if "there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures"
that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects (Mountain Lion Foundation v.
Fish and Game Commission [1997]).
(b) There exist no feasible mitigation measures that would result in the avoidance or
substantially reduction of the significant environmental impacts of the proposed
project (March 2010 SDSP).
(c) A number of alternatives to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) were
examined in the DEIR. Of those alternatives, with the exception of Alternative 1
(No Project) which is specifically mandated under CEQA, only Alternative 4 (Low -
Density Residential) and Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) have the potential to
reduce each of those significant environmental impacts to a less -than -significant
level. In furtherance of CEQA's "substantive mandate," the Lead Agency
evaluated the feasibility of implementing each of those three alternatives in lieu of
the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP).
(1) Alternative 1 (No -Project). With regards to Alternative 1 (No -Project), no
or only minimal physical changes to the project site would occur, the
property would generally remain in its present condition, and no new
development activities would occur thereupon. No grading or other
landform modifications would occur. Maintenance activities, including
weed abatement, would routinely be performed and the existing level of
use would continue generally in the manner now experienced. In keeping
with the general intent of this alternative, one possible variation would
involve the use of all or a portion of the City Property to allow for the
development of identified Year 2030 street improvements to the Diamond
Bar Boulevard/Brea Canyon Road intersection.
(A) With regards to the ability of Alternative 1 (No Project) to result in
the avoidance or substantial lessening of the significant
environmental effects attributable to the proposed project (March
2010 SDSP)
(i) Air Quality (Construction). Since no or only minimal
infrastructure improvements would occur on the project
site, construction -term criteria pollutants would be
eliminated or the quantity of those pollutants would be
substantially reduced. Because the SCAQMD's
recommended threshold standard would not be exceeded,
short-term air quality impacts would be reduced to a less -
than -significant level.
(ii) Air Quality (Operational). Since no or only minimal
infrastructure improvements would occur on the project site
and no new land uses would be introduced thereupon,
operational criteria pollutants would be eliminated or the
31
quantity of those pollutants substantially reduced.
Because the SCAQMD's recommended threshold
standards would not be exceeded, long-term air quality
impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
(iii) Air quality (Cumulative). Under Alternative 1 (No Project)
no significant construction or operational increase in
criteria pollutants would be anticipated since no or only
minimal infrastructure improvements would occur on the
project site. Under the SCAQMD's recommended
methodology, development activities that do not generate
significant air quality impacts, including criteria and/or GHG
emissions, are also assumed not to generate significant
cumulative air quality impacts. Because there would be no
significant contribution to the inventory of regional criteria
pollutants in the SCAB and none of the SCAQMD's
threshold standards would be exceeded, cumulatively
significant air quality impacts would be avoided.
(iv) Air Quality (GHG Emissions). Since no or only minimal
infrastructure improvements would occur on the project site
and no new land uses would be introduced thereupon, no
or only minimal construction and operational GHG
emissions would be produced. Because the SCAQMD's
recommended threshold standards would not be
exceeded, no significant project -level and cumulative
climate change impacts would result therefrom.
(v) For those reasons, the Council finds this alternative would
result in the avoidance or substantial lessening of the
proposed project's (March 2010 SDSP) significant
environmental effects.
(B) With regards to the ability of Alternative 1 (No Project) to
accomplish most of the basic objectives of the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP):
(i) Since no or only minimal infrastructure improvements
would occur on the project site, the Lead Agency would not
proceed with the preparation and adoption of a specific
plan. No site-specific planning document would be
prepared encouraging the innovative use of land and the
development of a variety of housing and other
development types. Alternative 1 (No Project) would not
allow for the attainment of Objective 1
(ii) Because uncertainty with regards to the allowable use of
the "Site D" property would remain, District efforts to
promote the disposition of the District Property would be
thwarted. Alternative 1 (No Project) would not allow for the
attainment of Objective 2R.
(iii) Since no or only minimal infrastructure improvements
would occur on the project site, the City's desire that the
District Property and the City Property be developed in a
manner as to ensure compatibility with and to meet the
needs of the surrounding area and to ensure an
appropriate use and reasonable return to the City would be
32
thwarted. Alternative 1 (No Project) would not allow for the
attainment of Objective 3R.
(iv) Absent a specific plan or other planning tool, no site-
specific land -use policies allowing for the development of
the property and the provision of additional housing
opportunities. Alternative 1 (No Project) would not allow
for the attainment of Objective 4.
(v) Absent a specific plan or other planning tool, no guiding
land -use policy mechanism would exist to define the
nature/intensity of future development, to establish
design/development parameters for the site, or provide
reasonable assurance as to the uses that would be
authorized and the exactions to be extracted from a site
developer. Alternative 1 (No Project) would not allow the
attainment of Objective 5.
(vi) For those reasons, the Council finds that Alternative 1 (No
Project) does not allow for the attainment of the project's
basic objectives and, therefore, rejects this alternative.
(C) With regards to this alternative's economic, environmental, legal,
social, or technological feasibility:
(i) Implementation of Alternative 1 (No Project) would result in
the avoidance or substantial lessening of the proposed
project's (March 2010 SDSP) significant environmental
effects and is, therefore, environmentally feasible.
(ii) Other than through public acquisition, the Lead Agency
cannot permanently prohibit so level of development of the
subject property. As a result, over the long term, retention
of the project site as open space, without compensation to
the property owner, is neither legally nor socially feasible.
(iii) While for the short-term this alternative may be considered
technically feasible in that the property could remain in its
current condition, in light of the District's desire to obtain
revenues from the disposition of the District Property, it is
unrealistic to assume that the subject property would
remain permanently undeveloped.
(iv) Given the site's General Plan and zoning designations,
"Site D" is considered appropriate for development. It is,
therefore, reasonable to assume that some level of
development and economic use of the site would be
pursued over the long-term.
(v) Alternative 1 (No Project) would ultimately be infeasible in
that it could not be accomplished over time because it is
logical from an economic perspective that the principal
landowner would seek some economic use of the property
and, from a political and social perspective, that the City
would seek the implementation of its General Plan land -
use objectives.
(vi) For those reasons, the Council finds that Alternative 1 (No
Project) is economically, legally, and socially infeasible.
(D) Although Alternative 1 (No Project) would result in the avoidance
or substantial lessening of the proposed project's (March 2010
33
SDSP) significant environmental effects, this alternative does not
allows for the attainment of the project's basic objectives and is
economically, legally, and socially infeasible. The Council,
therefore, rejects Alternative 1 (No Project).
(2) Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential). With regards to Alternative 4
(Low -Density Residential), the project site would be developed for
residential use in accordance with the City's "Low Density Residential"
(RL)" standards, as outlined in Chapter 22.08 (Residential Zoning
Districts) of the Development Code. As indicated therein, the maximum
allowable density for new residential subdivisions in the "Low Density
Residential" district is three units per gross acre. Based on the estimated
net acreage (20.2 net acres), under this alternative, a total of about 60
dwelling units could be constructed on the "Site D" property, primarily on
the District Property. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the City
Property would be used primarily to allow for the development of a
landscaped "entry feature" as a visual gateway to the City and for street
improvement purposes.
(A) With regards to the ability of Alternative 4 (Low -Density
Residential) to result in the avoidance or substantial lessening of
the significant environmental effects attributable to the proposed
project (March 2010 SDSP):
(i) Air Quality (Construction). Assuming a similar grading plan,
based on the CalEEMod emissions modeling performed for
Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), with regards to criteria
pollutants, it can be reasonably concluded that any
residential development of comparable or lesser size/scale
developed on the project site and operating under the
same general assumptions would produce similar
construction -term air quality impacts. As a result, short-
term air quality impacts are assumed to be less than
significant.
(ii) Air Quality (Operational). Under Alternative 4 (Low -Density
Residential), the number of projected average daily trips
attributable to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP)
would be reduced from about 9,276 to 574 ADT (based on
an ITE -generated trip generation rate of 9.57 trip ends per
single-family unit). Mobile source emissions would,
therefore, be substantially reduced. Based on that
reduction, with regards to criteria pollutants, operational air
quality impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant
level.
(iii) Air quality (Cumulative). Under SCAQMD's recommended
methodology, development activities that do not generate
significant air quality impacts are also assumed not to
generate significant cumulative air quality impacts.
Because construction and operational air quality impacts
would not exceed SCAQMD's recommended threshold
standards, cumulative impacts would not be deemed
significant.
34
(iv) Air Quality (GHG Emissions). Under Alternative (Low -
Density Residential), about 574 daily trip ends would be
generated during a typical weekday. Based on the
CalEEMod emissions modeling for Alternative 6 (January
2012 SDSP), which generates about 1,182 daily trip ends
and which was determined to be less than significant, GHG
emissions would be predicted not to exceed the
SCAQMD's recommended threshold and the resulting
impact, both project -level and cumulatively, would be less
than significant.
(v) For those reasons, the Council finds that Alternative 4
(Low -Density Residential) would result in the avoidance or
substantial lessening of the proposed project's (March
2010 SDSP) significant environmental effects.
(B) With regards to the ability of Alternative 4 (Low -Density
Residential) to accomplish most of the basic objectives of the
proposed project (March 2010 SDSP):
(i) Although the project could be advanced through the
preparation of a tentative map and may not predicate the
need for a specific plan, the Lead Agency could, at its
discretion, prepare and adopt a specific plan for this
residential use. If prepared, that planning document could
be drafted so as to encourage the innovative use of land
and the development of a variety of housing types.
Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) would allow for the
attainment of Objective 1
(ii) Because uncertainty with regards to the allowable use of
the "Site D" property would not remain, District efforts to
promote the disposition of the District Property would be
facilitated. With regards to the attainment of a "reasonable
return to the District for the benefit of its constituents and
its educational mission," Alternative 4 (Low -Density
Residential) would allow for the attainment or partial
attainment of Objective 2R but likely to a lesser degree
than Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP).
(iii) Development activities would likely occur in a single phase
and would require the integration of both the District
Property and the City Property. Because it would be used
primarily to accommodate both an "entry feature' and
street improvements and because the "Site D" property
would be developed for residential and recreational use,
the City Property would be developed in a manner as to
ensure compatibility with and to meet the needs of the
surrounding area and ensure an appropriate land use.
Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) would allow for the
attainment of a portion of Objective 3R.
(iv) Under the provisions of the MOU, the City and the District
have formulated a revenue sharing agreement relative to
the disposition of the "Site D" property. Because the
approval of Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) would
allow for the effectuation of that agreement and because
35
36
the MOU serves to define what, from the City's
perspective, constitutes a "reasonable return," Alternative 4
(Low -Density Residential) would allow for the attainment of
the remaining portion of Objective 3R but likely to a lesser
degree than Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP).
(v)
Approval of a tentative map and/or adoption of a specific
plan would allow for the imposition of site-specific land -use
policies allowing for the development of the property and
the provision of additional housing opportunities.
Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) would allow for the
attainment of Objective 4.
(vi)
Approval of a tentative map and/or adoption of a specific
plan would allow for imposition of a guiding land -use policy
mechanism defining the nature/intensity of future
development, establishing design/development parameters
for the project site, and providing reasonable assurance as
to the uses that would be authorized and the exactions to
be extracted from a site developer. Alternative 4 (Low -
Density Residential) would allow the attainment of
Objective 5.
(vii)
For those reasons, the Council finds that Alternative 4
(Low -Density Residential) allows for the attainment of most
of the project's basic objectives.
(viii)
As a result of the City's very limited land inventory, a low-
density residential alternative would impede local efforts
toward the achievement of adopted RHNA housing goals.
(C) With
regards to this alternative's economic, environmental, legal,
social,
or technological feasibility:
(i)
Implementation of this alternative would result in the
avoidance or substantial lessening of the proposed
project's (March 2010 SDSP) significant environmental
effects and is, therefore, environmentally feasible.
(ii)
Implementation of Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential)
is technically feasible in that the project site could be
physically developed for this alternative use.
(iii)
Since a GPA and ZC are required in order to authorize a
residential use, the City has some discretionary regarding
the design/development standards governing that use.
Under this alternative, the site would be developed in
accordance with the provisions of the "Low Density
Residential" (RL) zoning district. As such, this alternative
is both legally and socially feasible.
(iv)
Given the difficulties of developing a project of this size on
a property of this complexity, the project must achieve
sufficient economies of scale in order to obtain a
reasonable rate of return. The existing terrain,
geotechnical issues, and the need for improved site access
make this a difficult and costly property to develop.
Because costs need to be passed along to individual
homebuyers, unless designed to cater only to an elite
buyer, the substantial reduction in the number of units
36
authorized under this alternative (60 units) would likely
make the financing of landform alterations and the
provision of infrastructure improvements infeasible. The
resulting costs would limit both the range of housing
products that would be developed on the subject property
and the number of qualifying buyers.
(v) The Applicant is required to dedicate real property and
finance the cost of developing a new neighborhood park
on the project site. The neighborhood park is both a major
priority and public benefit for the City, as well as a
significant up -front investment by the Applicant.
(vi) In recognition of the buyer's need to achieve a reasonable
rate of return, in comparison to other alternatives allowing
for a higher intensity use, implementation of this alternative
would substantially reduce revenue opportunities available
to the District.
(vii) For those reasons, the Council finds that Alternative 4
(Low -Density Residential) is economically infeasible.
(D) Although Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) would result in
the avoidance or substantial lessening of the proposed project's
(March 2010 SDSP) significant environmental effects and allows
for the attainment of most of the project's basic objectives, this
alternative is economically infeasible. The Council, therefore,
rejects Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential).
(3) Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP). With regards to Alternative 6 (January 2012
SDSP), this alternative constitutes a variation of or a revision to the proposed
project (March 2010 SDSP), to Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential), and to
Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential). Under this alternative, 200 dwelling units
and a new neighborhood park containing not less than two net acres of useable
area would be developed on the project site, primarily on the District Property. The
precise location, configuration, and amenities to be included in the new
neighborhood park would be determined at the time a tentative map is processed
for the residential development. Under this alternative, it is assumed that the City
Property would be used primarily to allow for the development of an "entry feature"
as a visual gateway to the City and for street improvement purposes.
(A) With regards to the ability of Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) to
result in the avoidance or substantial lessening of the significant
environmental effects attributable to the proposed project (March
2010 SDSP):
(i) Air Quality (Construction). As determined by the
CalEEMod emissions model, all projected criteria
pollutants generated during the construction of this
alternative fall below their respective thresholds and the
projected air quality impacts attributable to the construction
of the January 2012 SDSP with regards to criteria
pollutants is less than significant.
(ii) Air Quality (Operational). As determined by the CalEEMod
emissions model, all projected criteria pollutants generated
during this alternative's operation fall below their respective
thresholds and the projected air quality impact of the
37
operation of Alternative 6 (January 2012) SDSP with
regards to criteria pollutants is less than significant.
(iii) Air quality (Cumulative). Pursuant to SCAQMD's
recommended methodology, projects that do not exceed or
can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values do
not add significantly to a cumulative air quality impact. With
regards to criteria pollutants, the air quality analysis
demonstrates that construction and operational impacts
will not exceed the specified threshold standards and will
not result in the generation of either significant short-term
or long-term air quality impact. Because the project will not
contribute significantly to the regional inventory of criteria
pollutants, cumulative air quality impacts are less than
significant.
(iv) Air Quality (GHG Emissions). From a project perspective,
with regards to GHG emission, the CaIEEMod emissions
model indicates that, during construction, CO2 equivalent
(CO2e) daily values, measured in metric tons (MTCO2e),
are under the recommended annual threshold value and
the climate change impacts of Alternative 6 (January 2012
SDSP) are less than significant. Similarly, during the
project's operation, CO2e annual values are under the
suggested annual threshold and the climate change
impacts attributable to Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP)
are less than significant. From a cumulative perspective,
an impact can also be potentially significant if the project
does not comply with the applicable plans necessary for
the reduction of greenhouse gases. Projects that generate
de minimus quantities of emissions and do not result in a
significant impact or can be mitigated to a less -than -
significant level would be deemed to be in compliance of
State policies with respect to GHG emissions. Since
construction and operational emissions are projected to
occur below the recommended threshold value, cumulative
climate change impacts are less than significant.
(B) With regards to the ability of Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) to
accomplish most of the basic objectives of the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP):
(i) Specific plan adoption would encourage the innovative use
of land and promote the provision of a variety of housing
types. Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) would allow for
the attainment of Objective 1
(ii) Because uncertainty with regards to the allowable use of
the "Site D" property would not remain, District efforts to
promote the disposition of the District Property would be
facilitated. Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) would allow
for the attainment of a portion of Objective 2R.
(iii) In correspondence to the City, dated December 2, 2010,
the District requested that the "Site D" property be
developed for "100% residential" use and that the
"residential density be reduced" beyond those levels
authorized under the March 2010 SDSP. The Lead
Agency interprets the principal property owner's request as
a declaration of and evidence supporting the determination
that a 200 -unit residential development project would
provide a "reasonable return to the District." Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP) would allow for the attainment of the
remaining portion of Objective 2R.
(iv) Development activities would likely occur in a single phase
and would require the integration of both the District
Property and the City Property. Because it would be used
primarily to accommodate both an "entry feature" and
street improvements and because the "Site D" property
would be developed for residential and recreational use,
the City Property would be developed in a manner as to
ensure compatibility with and to meet the needs of the
surrounding area and ensure an appropriate land use.
Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) would allow for the
attainment of a portion of Objective 3R.
(v) Under the provisions of the MOU, the City and the District
have formulated a revenue sharing agreement relative to
the disposition of the "Site D" property. Because the
approval of Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) would
allow for the effectuation of that agreement and because
the MOU serves to define what, from the City's
perspective, constitutes a "reasonable return," Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP) would allow for the attainment of the
remaining portion of Objective 3R.
(vi) Adoption of a specific plan would allow for the imposition of
site-specific land -use policies allowing for the development
of the property and the provision of additional housing
opportunities. Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) would
allow for the attainment of Objective 4.
(vii) Adoption of a specific plan would allow for the imposition of
a guiding land -use policy mechanism defining the
nature/intensity of future development, establishing
design/development parameters for the project site, and
providing reasonable assurance as to the uses that would
be authorized and the exactions to be extracted from a site
developer. Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) would allow
the attainment of Objective 5.
(viii) For those reasons, the Council finds that Alternative 6 (Site
D Specific Plan) allows for the attainment of the project's
basic objectives.
(C) With regards to this alternative's economic, environmental, legal,
social, or technological feasibility:
(i) Implementation of this alternative would result in the
avoidance or substantial lessening of the proposed
project's (March 2010 SDSP) significant environmental
effects and is, therefore, environmentally feasible.
39
(ii) Implementation of Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) is
technically feasible in that the project site could be
physically developed for this alternative use.
(iii) Since a GPA and ZC are required in order to authorize
residential development, the City has some discretionary
regarding the design/development standards governing
that use. Under this alternative, the site would be
developed in accordance with the provisions of the
adopted specific plan. As such, this alternative is both
legally and socially feasible.
(iv) In correspondence to the City, dated December 2, 2010,
the District requested that the "Site D" property be
developed for "100% residential" use and that the
"residential density be reduced" beyond those levels
authorized under the March 2010 SDSP. The Lead
Agency interprets the principal property owner's request as
a declaration of and evidence supporting the economic
feasibility of a 200 -unit residential development project.
(v) For those reasons, the Council finds that Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP) is economically, environmentally,
legally, socially, and technologically feasible.
(D) Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) would result in the avoidance
or substantial lessening of the proposed project's (March 2010
SDSP) significant environmental effects, allows for the attainment
of the project's basic objectives, and is economically, legally,
socially, and technologically feasible.
(d) Because the environmental effects of the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP)
cannot be mitigated to below a level of significant and because there exists a
feasible alternative which avoids or substantially lessens those unmitigable
environmental effects and which allows for the attainment of the project's basic
objectives, in compliance with CEQA "substantive mandate," the Council selects
Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) for implementation over the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP).
7.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE 6
(JANUARY 2012 SDSP) THAT CAN FEASIBLY BE REDUCED TO BELOW A LEVEL
OF SIGNIFICANCE
With regards to Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), the Council has determined that existing
statutes, regulations, uniform codes, project design features, in combination with those
conditions, standards, and mitigation measures included in the FEIR and adopted or likely to be
adopted by the Council, will result in a substantial reduction of the following environmental
effects and that each of the following environmental effects will either occur at or can be
effectively reduced to below a level of significance.
Note that, with regards to Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP): (1) the environmental effects
presented herein are extracted from Table RTC2-3 ("January 2012 'Site D' Specific Plan" -
Summary of Environmental Impacts and Level of Significance) in RTC2 and the corresponding
analyses presented in the DEIR, RTC1, and RTC2; (2) the conditions and standards are
extracted from Table RTC2-2 ("January 2012 'Site D' Specific Plan" - Conditions of
Approval/Performance Standards) in RTC2 and the corresponding analyses presented in the
S
DEIR, RTC1, and RTC2; and (3) the mitigation measures are extracted from Table RTC2-4
("January 2012 'Site D' Specific Plan" — Draft Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program) in
RTC2 and the corresponding analyses presented in the DEIR, RTC1, and RTC2. The Lead
Agency acknowledges that a portion of Table RTC2-4 ("January 2012 'Site D' Specific Plan" —
Draft Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program), as presented in RTC2, is mislabeled "Table
ES -4 ('January 2012 "Site D" Specific Plan' — Draft Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring
Program)" but is nonetheless a part of Table RTC2-4.
7.1 Land Use
7.1.1 Environmental Effect: New residential and public park uses could introduce land use
compatibility conflicts between the project and existing single-family residential uses
abutting the project site (Land Use Impact 1-1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative land -use impacts are addressed in Section 4.1
(Land Use) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.1 (Land Use) in RTC2 and those
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Chapter 22.48 (Development Review) in Title 22 (Development Code) of the
Municipal Code establishes procedures for reviewing residential, commercial
industrial, and institutional development to facilitate review in a timely and
efficient manner and to ensure that development projects comply with all
applicable design guidelines, standards, and minimize adverse effects on
surrounding properties and the environment.
(d) Single-family attached and/or multi -family residential development is proposed
adjacent and in close proximity to existing single-family detached residential
areas located to the north, south, and east of the project site. Although
residential densities, building configurations, unit placement, lot sizes and
dimensions, and architectural styles between the proposed on-site residential
uses and the existing off-site residential uses may vary, both existing and
proposed residential uses would be expected to possess similar operational
characteristics and use expectations, thus ensuring their compatibility.
(e) As indicated in Section 22.0-8.030 (Residential Zoning District Land Uses and
Permit Requirements) in Title 22 (Development Code) of the Municipal Code,
"parks and playgrounds" are identified as permitted uses in all residential zones.
As such, the City has, through its local land -use policies, deemed park and park -
related uses to be inherently compatible with residential use.
(f) The proposed residential, recreational, and open spaces uses are compatible
with existing and proposed development within the general project area.
(g) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.1.2 Environmental Effect: The project, including the land uses, densities, and development
standards now under consideration, could conflict with the adopted plans and policies of
the City (Land Use Impact 1-2).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
41
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative land -use impacts are addressed in Section 4.1
(Land Use) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.1 (Land Use) in RTC2 and those
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) As specified under Section 65454 of the CGC, no specific plan shall be adopted
or amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the
general plan. As further specified under Section 65457(a) therein, any residential
development project, including any subdivision, or any zoning change that is
undertaken to implement and is consistent with a specific plan for which an EIR
has been certified after January 1, 1980 is exempt from the requirements of
division 13 (commencing with Section 21000) of the PRC.
(c) The General Plan includes a broad array of land -use and other policies that
relate, either directly or indirectly, to the proposed project. Pursuant to Section
65300.5 of the CGC, "the general plan and elements and parts thereof comprise
an integrated, internally consistent and compatible statement of policies." As an
"integrated, internally consistent" document, the Lead Agency's consistency
assessment focused primarily on the Land Use Element of the General Plan.
Consistency with the General Plan is demonstrated by the following core policies:
(1) Encourage the innovative use of land resources and development of a
variety of housing and other development types, provide a means to
coordinate the public and private provisions of services and facilities, and
address the unique needs of certain lands by recognizing Specific Plan
(SP) overlay designations: (a) for large scale development areas in which
residential, commercial, recreational, public facilities, and other land uses
may be permitted; and (b) large acreage property(ies) in excess of ten
acres that are proposed to be annexed into the City (Strategy 1.1.9, Land
Use Element). Based on its size and multiple ownership, the proposed
mixed use (residential and park) specific plan project represents a unique
development opportunity and expands the range of both housing and
recreational options within the City.
(2) Maintain residential areas which provide for ownership of single family
housing and require that new development be compatible with the
prevailing character of the surrounding neighborhood (Strategy 1.2.4,
Land Use Element). Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) includes "for -
sale" residential units at a density reasonably compatible with other
proximal residential neighborhoods.
(3) Broaden the range of, and encourage innovation in, housing types.
Require developments within all residential areas to provide amenities
such as common usable, active open space and recreational areas, when
possible (Strategy 1.2.6, Land Use Element). Public recreational facilities
will be provided on the project site in close proximity to existing/proposed
residential areas.
(4) Encourage clustering within the most developable portions of project sites
to preserve open space and/or other natural resources. Such
development should be located to coordinate with long-term plans for
active parks, passive (open space) parks, and preserve natural open
space areas (Strategy 1.6.4, Land Use Element). In addition to the
proposed park area, it is the City's intent that the on-site slopes and
passive open space areas surrounding the proposed development be
EN
(d)
(e)
(f)
enhanced by planting indigenous materials to blend the project with the
existing surrounding vegetation.
(5) Provide opportunities for development of suitable housing to meet the
diverse needs of existing and future residents (Goal 2, Housing Element).
Under Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), 200 dwelling units would be
constructed on the project site.
(6) Require that dwelling units and structures within hillside areas be sited in
such a manner as to utilize ridgelines and landscape plant materials as a
backdrop for the structures and the structures themselves to provide
maximum concealment of cut slopes (Strategy 1.1.2, Resource
Management Element). The existing site is a gently sloping plateau
tending to the north with the grade flattening out at the intersections of
Brea Canyon and Diamond Bar Boulevard. It is the City's intent that the
project will emulate the existing site conditions in so far as the upper
levels will be maintained high and the slopes that transcend from south to
north will be steepened to a 2:1 ratio to maximize the amount of usable
area for the site. The project is envisioned to have large slopes between
the southern edge and the adjoining residents. Vegetated slopes allow
for a back drop of landscape material to screen the manufactured slopes
and act as an aesthetic backdrop.
(7) Within new residential developments, encourage organizations of
individual neighborhoods and discourage through traffic on local streets
while maintaining pedestrian and bicycle continuity and encourage
neighborhood parks, improvement programs and social events (Strategy
1.5.3, Public Services and Facilities). A neighborhood park is included as
a project component. Although implementation could impact a segment
of a Class II bicycle lane along Diamond Bar Boulevard, the project is
conditioned to ensure bicycle continuity, both during construction and
following commencement of the project's operations.
In addition to General Plan consistency, the project is subject to compliance with
applicable provisions of the Municipal Code, including those contained in Chapter
22.22 (Hillside Management) of the Development Code. In accordance with the
provisions of Section 22.22.040 (Density) of the Development Code, a total of
524 dwelling units could be developed on the site. The 200 dwelling units
authorized under Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) are substantially less than
otherwise allowable under the City's Hillside Management Ordinance.
Although a GPA and ZC would be required to accommodate the proposed
residential use, the proposed densities are allowable in the City. Subject to a
GPA and/or ZC, the project would be deemed consistent with the General Plan.
In order for the County to provide water and sewer service to the project area,
the project must be found to be consistent with SCAG's 2008 "Regional
Comprehensive Plan — Helping Communities Achieve a Sustainable Future'
(SCAG, October 2, 2008) (2008 RCP). Consistency with the 2008 RCP is
demonstrated by the following core policies:
(1) Local government should provide for new housing consistent with State
Housing Element law, to accommodate their share of forecast regional
growth (LU -1, Land Use and Housing Action Plan). Alternative 6
(January 2012 SD SP) will allow for the development of 200 dwelling units
which will facilitate Citywide planning efforts to accommodate the City's
share of the forecasted regional growth forecast.
CKI
(2) Local governments should encourage patterns of urban development and
land use, which reduce costs on infrastructure and make better use of
existing facilities (OSC-8, Open Space and Habitat — Community Open
Space Action Plan). Alternative 6 (January 2012) SDSP encourages
efficient patterns of urban development and land use by clustering
housing and retaining peripheral open space.
(3) Developers should incorporate and local governments should include
land use principles, such as green building, that use resources efficiently,
eliminate pollution and significantly reduce waste into their projects,
zoning codes and other implementation mechanisms (OSC-11, Open
Space and Habitat — Community Open Space Action Plan). Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP) incorporates land -use principles, such as green
building strategies, that encourage energy conservation.
(4) Local governments should include energy analyses in environmental
documentation and general plans with the goal of conserving energy
through the wise and efficient use of energy. For any identified energy
impact, appropriate mitigation measures should be developed and
monitored. SCAG recommends the use of Appendix E, Energy
Conservation, of the California Environmental Quality Act (EN -6, Energy
Action Plan). An energy impact and GHG emissions analysis was
conducted as part of the project's CEQA documentation. Alternative 6
(The January 2012 SDSP) incorporates land use principles, such as
green building strategies, that encourage energy conservation.
(5) Local governments should practice and promote sustainable building
practices by: [1 ] Updating their general plans and/or zoning ordinances to
promote the use of green building practices, which include incorporating
LEED design standards and utilizing energy efficient, recycled -content
and locally harvested or procured materials (AQ -8.1). [2] Developing
incentive programs (e.g., density bonuses) to encourage green building
and resources and energy conservation in development practices (AQ 8-
2). [3] Adopting policies that strive for carbon neutrality for their own
facilities and operations (AQ -8.3) (AQ -8, Air Quality Action Plan).
Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) incorporates land -use principles, such
as green building strategies, that encourage energy conservation.
(6) Developers and local governments should integrate green building
measures into project design and zoning including, but not limited to,
those identified in the U.S. Green Building Council's Leadership in Energy
and Environmental Design, Energy Star Homes, Green Point Rated
Homes, and the California Green Builder Program. Construction reduction
measures to be explored for new and remodeled buildings include: [1]
Reuse and minimization of construction and demolition (C&D) debris and
diversion of C&D waste from landfills to recycling facilities. [2] An
ordinance that requires the inclusion of a waste management plan that
promotes maximum C&D diversion. [3] Source reduction through (1) use
of building materials that are more durable and easier to repair and
maintain, (2) design to generate less scrap material through dimensional
planning (SW -14, Solid Waste Action Plan). Alternative 6 (January 2012
SDSP) incorporates land use principles, such as green building
strategies, that facilitate energy and water conservation and waste
reduction.
MI
(g) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 1-2) designed to provide
notification to SCAG of projected growth within the City, so as to allow SCAG to
more effectively update regional plans.
(h) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.1.3 Environmental Effect: Project implementation requires a General Plan amendment, zone
change, subdivision of the project site, and other discretionary actions to accommodate
the proposed land uses. Each of those actions is subject to specific findings by the City
Council and/or by other responsible agencies (Land Use Impact 1-3).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative land -use impacts are addressed in Section 4.1
(Land Use) in the DER and Section 3.3.1 (Land Use) in RTC2 and those
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) A specific plan is a regulatory tool, authorized under the provisions of Sections
65450-65457 of the CGC, which is intended to guide the development of a
localized area and serve as a tool for the systematic implementation of the
general plan. A specific plan document establishes a link between the
implementing policies contained in an agency's general plan and the individual
development proposal in a defined area. No specific plan may be adopted or
amended unless the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the
agency's general plan. No public works project, no tentative map, and no zoning
ordinance may be approved, adopted, or amended within the area covered by a
specific plan unless consistent with the adopted specific plan.
(c) As indicated in Section 66474, a legislative body of a city or county shall deny
approval of a subdivision map if it finds that: (a) the proposed map is not
consistent with applicable general and specific plans; (b) the design or
improvement of the proposed subdivision is not consistent with applicable
general and specific plans; (c) the site is not physically suitable for the type of
development; (d) the site is not physically suitable for the proposed density of
development; (e) the design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are
likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably
injure fish or wildlife or their habitat; (f) the design of the subdivision or type of
improvements is likely to cause serious public health problems; and/or (g) the
design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will conflict with
easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of, property
within the proposed subdivision. Section 66473.5 restricts local agencies from
approving a final subdivision map for any land use project unless the legislative
body finds that the proposed subdivision, together with the provisions for its
design and improvement, is consistent with the general plan or any specific plan.
A proposed subdivision shall be consistent with a general plan or a specific plan
only if the local agency has officially adopted such a plan and the proposed
subdivision or land use is compatible with the objectives, policies, general land
uses, and programs specified therein.
45
(d) Pursuant to the General Plan, it is the policy of the City to "[e]ncourage the
innovative use of land resources and development of a variety of housing and
other development types, provide a means to coordinate the public and private
provisions of services and facilities, and address the unique needs of certain
lands by recognizing Specific Plan (SP) overlay designations: (a) for large scale
development areas in which residential, commercial, recreational, public facilities,
and other land uses may be permitted; and (b) large acreage property(ies) in
excess of ten acres that are proposed to be annexed into the City" (Strategy
1.1.9, Land Use Element).
(e) The information presented in the FEIR may be used, in whole or in part, by the
City and by other responsible agencies to support specific findings as mandated
by State law and by agency requirements and procedures, both as may be
required under CEQA and as may be required in support of other actions that
may be taken by the City and by other agencies with regards to the project or any
aspect thereof. In the event that the City and/or other responsible agencies are
unable to make requisite findings, those discretionary approvals associated with
those findings cannot be issued. In the absence of the issuance of requisite
permits and approvals, no physical changes to the site would be anticipated to
occur and no environmental impacts would, therefore, result therefrom.
(f) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.1.4 Environmental Effect: Cumulative residential development within the City and the
population increase associated with the introduction of new dwelling units could exceed
the 2010-2015 population growth forecasts presented in the "Regional Transportation
Plan — Destination 2030" (SCAG, 2004) and which serves as a basis for regional
transportation planning (Land Use Impact 1-4).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative land -use impacts are addressed in Section 4.1
(Land Use) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.1 (Land Use) in RTC2 and those
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) On December 20, 2011, SCAG released the "2012-2035 Regional Transportation
Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy" (RTP/SCS). On December 30, 2011,
SCAG subsequently released the "Draft Program Environmental Impact Report -
2012 -2035 Regional Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy,
SCH No. 2011051018" for public review and comment. The formal comment
period for those documents concludes on February 14, 2012. Since the
RTP/SCS has not been adopted and its accompanying program EIR has not
been certified, information from those documents was not cited in the FEIR.
(c) Implementation of the project in combination with other related projects will result
in the further urbanization of the general project area, including the conversion of
vacant or under -developed properties to higher -intensity uses. None of the land
uses that are identified, however, constitute uses or activities that are not
currently present within the City or the region.
(d) Anticipated residential development in the City exceeds the population growth
estimates formulated by SCAG. SCAG's projections are used as the basis for
M
establishing regional transportation plans. By under -estimating local demands,
regional plans may be less effective in responding to transportation needs.
(e) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 1-2) designed to provide
notification to SCAG of projected growth within the City, so as to allow SCAG to
more effectively update regional plans.
(f) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.2 Population and Housing
7.2.1 Environmental Effect: Project construction will increase the local labor force and, through
job creation and the possibility of worker relocation, has the potential to induce
population growth in the general project area (Population and Housing Impact 2-1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative population and housing impacts are addressed in
Section 4.2 (Population and Housing) in the DER and Section 3.3.2 (Population
and Housing) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) During construction, an estimated 72 construction workers would be associated
with the project's 200 dwelling units.
(c) The workforce required for the project's construction, operation, and
maintenance can be reasonably drawn from the available regional labor pool.
(d) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no conditions, standards, and/or mitigation
measures are recommended or required.
7.2.2 Environmental Effect: Project implementation will result in the addition of 200 dwelling
units to the City's existing housing stock and will increase the City's population by
approximately 656 individuals, based on the California Department of Finance's January
2008 Citywide average household size (3.335 persons/unit) and vacancy rate (1.71
percent) (Population and Housing Impact 2-2).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative population and housing impacts are addressed in
Section 4.2 (Population and Housing) in the DER and Section 3.3.2 (Population
and Housing) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) As indicated in California Department of Finance estimates, in January 2008, the
City's population was estimated to be 60,360 individuals. The total number of
dwelling units was estimated to be 18,380 units.
(c) Based on the California Department of Finance's January 2008 Citywide average
household size (3.335 persons/unit) and vacancy rate (1.71 percent), a total of
656 individuals would be added to the City's population. The project represents
an increase in the City's population and housing inventory of about 1.1 percent.
47
(d) Total number of dwelling units now proposed (200) is less than the adopted
SCAG 2008-2014 RHNA for new construction for "above moderate' income
households (440) and only slightly more than identified new construction need for
"moderate" income households (188). The project represents about 18.3 percent
of the projected housing needs (1,090) for the period 2008-2014. Since the
projected increase appears generally consistent with regional projections, the
project will further the attainment of SCAG's regional housing needs assessment.
(e) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.2.3 Environmental Effect: Absent a corresponding and proportional increase in long-term
employment opportunities, projects that increase the City's housing stock would
contribute to the perpetuation of the existing Citywide jobs -housing imbalance
(Population and Housing Impact 2-3).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative population and housing impacts are addressed in
Section 4.2 (Population and Housing) in the DER and Section 3.3.2 (Population
and Housing) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Between 2010 and 2030, the jobs -housing ratio for the City will decrease from
only 0.86 to 0.82. As a result, the City will remain "housing rich" and "jobs poor."
(c) Because few projects are of a sufficient size and scale to include both housing
and non -housing and employment -generating components, attainment of a jobs -
housing balance cannot be examined from the perspective of an individual
development project but must be examined from a broader regional and
subregional perspective.
(d) As indicated in the 2008 RCP, SCAG's goal is to successfully integrate land and
transportation planning and achieve land use and housing sustainability by
implementing the "Compass Blueprint 2% Strategy" by: (1) focusing growth in
existing and emerging centers and along major transportation corridors; (2)
creating significant areas of mixed-use development and walkable, "people -
scaled" communities; and (3) targeting growth in housing, employment, and
commercial development within walking distance of existing and planned transit
stations. SCAG's desired land -use outcomes include, but are not limited to: (1)
significantly increasing the number of general plans consistent with the Compass
Blueprint principles by 2012; (2) significantly increasing the number and
percentage of new housing units and jobs created within the Compass Blueprint
"2% Strategy Opportunity Areas" (SOA) by 2012 and improving the regional jobs -
housing balance; and (3) adding one new housing unit for every three persons in
population growth and one new housing unit for every 1.5 full-time equivalent
jobs, whichever is greater. "Site D" is not located within a SOA and is not within
close proximity to an existing or planned transit station. As such, from a regional
planning perspective, the site does not appear to be a strong candidate for
employment -oriented development.
(e) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
EU
7.3 Geotechnical Hazards
7,3.1 Environmental Effect: Conversion of the project site from a vacant property to an urban
use will expose site occupants to regional seismic hazards and localized geologic and
geotechnical conditions. Should development occur in the absence of an understanding
of those regional and local conditions, site occupants may be subjected to unacceptable
geotechnical hazards (Geotechnical Hazards Impact 3-1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative geotechnical hazards impacts are addressed in
Section 4.3 (Geotechnical Hazards) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.3 (Geotechnical
Hazards) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Information and analysis concerning the existing geologic, geotechnical, seismic,
and soils setting, including specific design/development recommendations
formulated in response thereto, are presented in "Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Report: Site D -Mass Grading, Walnut Valley Unified School District,
Diamond Bar, California" (KFM GeoScience, January 15 2008).
(c) With regards to Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), in the absence of a
conceptual grading plan, alternative -specific geotechnical investigation, and
concurrent processing of a tentative map, for the purpose of CEQA compliance, it
is assumed that the acreage of site disturbance, the quantity of on-site grading
operations, the location of cut -and -fill slopes, and the location and size of
retaining walls would be similar to that associated with the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP). Similarly, with regards to Alternative 6 (January 2012
SDSP, the Lead Agency has assumed that the DEIR's assessment of
geotechnical hazards and feasibility would remain generally applicable to a
lesser -scale development. The level of geotechnical hazards is, therefore,
assumed to be no greater than that assumed for the March 2010 SDSP.
(d) It is reasonable to assume that the required grading will be less than represented
in the DEIR since the commercial use included in the proposed project (March
2010 SDSP) has been eliminated. Under the proposed project (March 2010
SDSP), the southwesterly portion of the project site was extensively graded to
lower the elevation of the commercial pad in order to enhance the visibility of the
previously proposed commercial use from abutting streets. Although the January
2012 SDSP continues to illustrate a number of "super pads" upon which
development would occur, the need for or perceived benefit in enhanced street -
scale visibility no longer exists.
(e) Based on those assumptions, the project appears feasible from a geotechnical
perspective provided that the recommendations presented in the geotechnical
investigations are incorporated into the project's design and construction.
(f) Design/development activities will occur in conformance with applicable Uniform
Building Code (Title 24, Part 2, CCR) standards and requirements.
(g) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of conditions (Condition/Standards 1-1, 3-1, and 3-2) to
ensure that each of the recommendations presented in the project's geotechnical
investigations are incorporated into the project's design, development, and
operation.
1K
(h) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.3.2 Environmental Effect: During the life of the project, structures and other improvements
constructed on the property will be subject to periodic ground shaking resulting from
seismic events along earthquake faults located throughout the region (Geotechnical
Hazards Impact 3-2).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative geotechnical hazards impacts are addressed in
Section 4.3 (Geotechnical Hazards) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.3. (Geotechnical
Hazards) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Information and analysis concerning the existing geologic, geotechnical, seismic,
and soils setting, including specific design/development recommendations
formulated in response thereto, are presented in "Preliminary Geotechnical
Engineering Report: Site D -Mass Grading, Walnut Valley Unified School District,
Diamond Bar, California" (KFM GeoScience, January 15 2008).
(c) The project appears feasible from a geotechnical perspective, provided that the
recommendations presented in the project's geotechnical investigations are
incorporated into the project's design and construction.
(d) Design/development activities will occur in conformance with applicable Uniform
Building Code (Title 24, Part 2, CCR) standards and requirements.
(e) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of conditions (Conditions/Standards 1-1, 3-1, and 3-2) to
ensure that each of the recommendations presented in the project's geotechnical
investigations are incorporated into the project's design, development, and
operation.
(f) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.3.3 Environmental Effect: Los Angeles County is located within a seismically active region.
Since earthquakes have historically occurred throughout the region and can be expected
to occur in the future, development activities that occur throughout the region, including
their occupants and users, will remain subject to seismic forces (Geotechnical Hazards
Impact 3-3).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative geotechnical hazards impacts are addressed in
Section 4.3 (Geotechnical Hazards) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.3 (Geotechnical
Hazards) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Adequate control measures have been formulated to ensure that all public and
private structures are constructed and maintained in recognition of site-specific,
area -specific, and regional geologic, geotechnical, seismic, and soils conditions.
50
(c) Compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code (Title 24, Part 2, CCR)
standards and associated permit -agency requirements will mitigate any potential
cumulative impacts to below a level of significance.
(d) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.4 Hydrology and Water Quality
7.4.1 Environmental Effect: Construction activities may increase sediment discharge and/or
result in the introduction of hazardous materials, petroleum products, or other waste
discharges that could impact the quality of the area's surface and ground water
resources if discharged to those waters (Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4-1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts are
addressed in Section 4.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) in the DEIR and Section
3.3.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Information and analysis concerning the existing hydrologic and water quality
setting, including specific design/development recommendations formulated in
response thereto, are presented in "Preliminary Drainage Report for Site 'D'
Improvements at Intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road,
Diamond Bar, California" (PENCO Engineering, Inc., February 7, 2008, revised
April 6, 2009).
(c) Since no tentative map is being concurrently processed for this alternative, no
alternative -specific hydrologic investigation has been performed and no
conceptual drainage plan has been submitted. Although the amount of
impervious surfaces on the project site would be expected to be less than
projected for the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) as a result of the
elimination of on-site commercial uses, in the absence of a conceptual drainage
plan and precise plan of development, with regards to Alternative 6 (January
2012 SDSP), the Lead Agency has assumed that post -project drainage flows,
quantities, and qualities remain as generally described in the DEIR for the March
2010 SDSP. The City has further assumed that the DEIR's assessment of
hydrology and water quality would remain generally applicable to a lesser -scale
development. The level of hydrology and water quality impacts is, therefore,
assumed to be no greater than that assumed for the March 2010 SDSP.
(d) Water quality protection is ensured through preparation and implementation of
the stormwater pollution prevention plan (SWPPP), as required under the State
Water Resources Control Board's (SWRCB) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System General Permit for Stormwater Discharges Associated with
Construction Activity (Construction General Permit), and through the use of Best
Management Practices (BMPs) designed to ensure that grading and construction
operations involving the transport, storage, use, and disposal of a variety of
construction materials complies with certain storage, handling, and transport
requirements.
51
(e) Pursuant to the Regional Water Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region's
(LARWQCB) fourth -term General National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit (NPDES No. CAS004001) for discharges to the
municipal separate storm sewer system (MS4) in County, a standard urban
stormwater mitigation plan (SUSMP) shall be required, including appropriate
BMPs and guidelines to reduce pollutants in storm water to the maximum extent
possible (MEP).
(f) The Construction General Permit and compliance with SWPPP and MS4 permit
requirements constitute mandatory project measures. Compliance ensures that
project -induced water -borne erosion does not significantly impact downstream
drainage systems.
(g) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of conditions (Conditions/Standards 4-1 and 4-3) requiring
the City Engineer's approval of both a hydrology study consistent with the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Work's (LACDPW)
"Hydrology/Sedimentation Manual" and applicable LACDPW policies and
procedures and SUSMP conforming to the requirements of Section 8.12.1695 of
the Municipal Code.
(h) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.4.2 Environmental Effect: Project implementation will result in the introduction of impervious
surfaces onto the project site and, as a result of the impedance of opportunities for
absorption and infiltration of those waters, has the potential to increase the quantity,
velocity, and duration of storm waters discharged from the project site (Hydrology and
Water Quality Impact 4-2).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts are
addressed in Section 4.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) in the DEIR and Section
3.3.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) According to the recorded plans for the Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel
(Private Drain No. 395), a 25 -year discharge of 2,285 cubic feet per second (cfs)
is shown at the downstream side of the Diamond Bar Boulevard culvert. The Los
Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) stipulated that the
existing County -operated and maintained drainage system accommodate a 50 -
year storm event of 2,602 cfs.
(c) A 50 -year storm creates 68.38 cfs of runoff from the western portion of the
project site and an existing 33 -inch diameter reinforced concrete pipe (RCP)
located to the south of the project site currently carries off-site discharge of
approximately 83.94 cfs. When combined with existing off-site discharge, the 50 -
year storm runoff totals 174.80 cfs (Q50) at the Brea Canyon Storm Drain
Channel (Figure 4.4-4). The summation of 50 -year flows (2,602 + 174.80 =
2,776.8) from the project site and from the channel total approximately 2,777 cfs
at this reach.
52
(d) Drainage improvements are proposed to accommodate projected flows. As
proposed, at this reach, the existing Brea Canyon Channel will be replaced with
reinforced concrete box (RCB). An existing tributary open channel east of the
project site will be replaced with RCB, as well as the proposed entrance to the
site. To convey the 50 -year discharge, the proposed channel section will be
double cells 9 -foot -wide by 8 -foot -high RCB with an average 20 feet of cover.
Approximately 50 feet of transition box will be constructed from the proposed
RCB section to the existing culvert section under Diamond Bar Boulevard. A
transition structure downstream of the proposed RCB will be construed to join the
existing trapezoidal channel.
(e) The Lead Agency has identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 4-2)
requiring receipt of all requisite permits and approvals from the LACDPW
allowing for the overbuilding of the Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel.
(f) To ensure that drainage improvements are consistent with applicable design/
development standards and that post -project drainage flows do not result in any
adverse public safety or other impacts, a mitigation measure (MM 4-1) has been
included in the FEIR and adopted or are likely to be adopted -in the MRMP
specifying that all drainage facilities and improvements are subject to final design
and engineering review and approval by the City Engineer and, for those storm
drain facilities under County jurisdiction, by the LACDPW. Implementation of that
measure will reduce identified impacts to below a level of significance.
7.4.3 Environmental Effect: Continuing urbanization of the general project area will collectively
contribute to surface flows within the Diamond Bar Creek watershed will result in the
introduction of additional urban pollutants that could affect the beneficial uses of existing
surface and ground water resources (Hydrology and Water Quality Impact 4-3).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative hydrology and water quality impacts are
addressed in Section 4.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) in the DER and Section
3.3.4 (Hydrology and Water Quality) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Conversion of the project site to an urban use will generate additional urban
runoff that would be discharged into Diamond Bar Creek. Project -generated
runoff could contribute to cumulative water quality impacts generated by existing
and future land uses within the tributary watershed area.
(c) The project and other related projects will be required to implement BMPs and
fully comply with all applicable State water quality laws and regulations.
(d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of conditions (Conditions/Standards 4-1 and 4-3) requiring
the City Engineer's approval of both a hydrology study consistent with the Los
Angeles County Department of Public Work's (LACDPW) "Hydrology/
Sedimentation Manual" and applicable LACDPW policies and procedures and
SUSMP conforming to the requirements of Section 8.12.1695 of the Municipal
Code.
(e) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
53
7.5 Biological Resources
7.5.1 Environmental Effect: Construction activities and fuel -modification requirements will
result in direct impacts from vegetation removal of about 30.4 acres (Biological
Resources Impact 5-1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative biological resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.5 (Biological
Resources) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Information and analysis concerning the existing biological resource, arboreal,
and jurisdictional setting, including an assessment of project -related impacts, are
presented in the following studies: (1) "Biological Resources Assessment — Site
D, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California" (PCR Services
Corporation, June 24, 2008); (2) "Tree Survey Report — Site D, City of Diamond
Bar, Los Angeles County, California" (PCR Services Corporation, December 18,
2007); (3) "Results of Sensitive Plant Surveys Conducted for the Site D Project
Site, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles County, California' (PCR Services
Corporation, December 18, 2007); and (4) "Investigation of Jurisdictional
Wetlands and Waters of the U.S., Site D, City of Diamond Bar, Los Angeles
County, California" (PCR Services Corporation, June 24, 2008).
(c) In the absence of a conceptual grading plan and precise plan of development,
the Lead Agency has assumed that the level of site disturbance is similar to that
described in the DEIR for the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP). Based on
that site disturbance, with regards to Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), the
Lead Agency has assumed that the DEIR's biological resources assessment
would remain generally applicable to a lesser -scale development. The level of
biological resource impacts is, therefore, assumed to be no greater than the level
assumed for the March 2010 SDSP.
(d) During grading operations, impacts will occur to approximately 20.4 acre of
disturbed/ruderal, 3.6 acre of eucalyptus stand/disturbed, 2.8 acres of mule fat
scrub, 2.1 acres of California walnut woodlands, 0.9 acre of ruderal/goldenbush
scrub, and 0.3 acres of southern willow scrub. With the exception of southern
willow scrub, none of these plant communities are considered rare or of high
priority for inventory by the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB).
(e) Rare natural communities are those communities that are of highly limited
distribution. The most current version of the California Department of Fish and
Game's "The Vegetation Classification and Mapping Program — List of California
Terrestrial Natural Communities Recognized by the California Natural Diversity
Database' (CDFG, 2003) serves as a guide to each community's status.
(f) California walnut woodlands and southern willow scrub are considered high-
priority for inventory under the CNDDB because they are experiencing decline
throughout its range. These on-site habitats are marginal in its value because
they are fragmented (i.e., not contiguous with similar habitats) and not expected
to support sensitive species. Focused sensitive plant surveys were negative and
habitat assessments for sensitive wildlife species (e.g., the least Bell's vireo and
southwestern willow flycatcher) determined that these habitats are not suitable to
support these species.
54
(g) Although California walnut woodlands and southern willow scrub are associated
with United States Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) and Regional Water Quality
Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional areas, the loss, removal, and destruction
of these plant communities on the project site would neither eliminate nor
substantially diminish the functions and values of the on-site drainages as a
regional biological resource.
(h) The project would cause the direct mortality of some common wildlife species
and the displacement of more mobile species to suitable habitat areas nearby.
These impacts, by themselves, would not be expected to reduce general wildlife
populations below self-sustaining levels within the region.
(i) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.5.2 Environmental Effect: The project will permanently impact approximately 2,125 linear
feet of streambed, including approximately 0.20 acres of United States Army Corps of
Engineers (ACOE) and Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) jurisdictional
waters and approximately 4.10 acres of California Department of Fish and Game
(CDFG) jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat (Biological Resources
Impact 5-2).
Findings: The Council hereby makes Findings (1) and (2).
Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of these
findings:
(a) Project -related and cumulative biological resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.5 (Biological
Resources) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Project implementation will result in direct impacts to approximately 2,125 linear
feet of streambed. A total of about 0.20 acre of (ACOE/RWQCB jurisdictional
waters of the United States (WoUS) and approximately 4.10 acres of CDFG
jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian habitat would be impacted by
the proposed development. No direct impacts to jurisdictional waters are
anticipated beyond the confines of the project boundaries.
(c) The project will require a nationwide Section 404 (CWA) permit from the ACOE,
a Section 401 (CWA) water quality certification from the RWQCB, and a Section
1602 (CFGC) streambed alteration agreement from the CDFG. Impacts to
jurisdictional features will be subject to the regulations set forth by the ACOE,
RWQCB, and CDFG and will require mitigation or result in the imposition of other
conditions for the identified impacts.
(d) In recognition of the presence of jurisdictional waters, a mitigation measure (MM
5-1) has been included in the FEIR and adopted or is likely to be adopted in the
MRMP specifying that, unless a greater ratio is required by permitting agencies:
(1) the replacement of ACOE/RWQCB jurisdictional waters and wetlands shall
occur at a 2:1 ratio; (2) the replacement of CDFG jurisdictional streambed and
associated riparian habitat shall occur at a 2:1 ratio. In addition, the measure
specifies that design features shall be incorporated into the project's
design/development enhancing the site's biological resources. Implementation of
that measure will reduce identified impacts to below a level of significance.
55
(e) The Lead Agency has identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 5-1)
requiring that, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant provide
demonstrate receipt of the following permits: (1) Section 401 (Federal Clean
Water Act) water quality certification or waiver of waste discharge requirements
from the RWQCB; (2) nationwide Section 404 (Federal Clean Water Act) permit
from the ACOE; and (3) Section 1602 (California Fish and Game Code)
streambed alteration agreement from the CDFG.
(f) As mitigated, the identified impact would be reduced to a less -than -significant
level and no additional conditions, standards, and/or mitigation measures are
recommended or required.
7.5.3 Environmental Effect: Proposed grading and grubbing activities will result in the removal
of 83 protected ordinance -size trees, including 75 California black walnut, six willow, and
two coast live oak trees, which now exist on the project site (Biological Resources
Impact 5-3),
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative biological resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.5 (Biological
Resources) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) A total of 75 California black walnut, six willow, and two coast live oak trees will
be impacted by the project. Each of these species is protected trees under
Chapter 22.38 of the Development Code. As required therein, the City may
require a tree maintenance agreement prior to removal of any protected tree or
commencement of construction activities that may adversely affect the health
and survival of those protected trees to be preserved.
(c) The project is subject to compliance with the provision of Chapter 22.38 (Tree
Preservation and Protection) of the Development Code.
(d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of conditions (Conditions/Standards 5-2 through 5-4)
requiring the preparation of an arborist -prepared tree study, specified
replacement requirements for qualifying trees and California walnut woodlands,
and promoting vegetation removal activities outside the nesting bird season.
(e) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.5.4 Environmental Effect: Construction activities initiated during the nesting season, typically
extending from February 15 to August 15 of each year, could impact nesting birds and
raptors in violation of the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act (Biological Resources Impact
5-4).
Findinq: The Council hereby makes Findings (1) and (2).
Facts in Support of Findings: The following facts are presented in support of these
findings:
56
(a) Project -related and cumulative biological resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.5 (Biological
Resources) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) One sensitive bird species (Cooper's hawk) was observed within the project area
and three additional species (white-tailed kite, sharp -shinned hawk, and
loggerhead shrike) have the potential to occur within the study area due to the
presence of suitable habitat. Since these species are not protected by federal or
State listings as threatened or endangered and since the loss of individuals
would not threaten the regional populations, while adverse, impacts to these
species are less than significant.
(c) Based on the presence of suitable vegetation, the removal of vegetation during
the breeding season (typically extending between February 15 and August 15)
could constitute a significant impact.
(d) Disturbing or destroying active nests is a violation of the federal Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and nests and eggs are protected under Section 3503 and 3513 of the
CFGC and enforced by the CDFG.
(e) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 5-4) promoting vegetation
removal activities outside the nesting bird season.
(f) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.5.5 Environmental Effect: Project implementation has the potential to impede existing wildlife
movement patterns across the project site (Biological Resources Impact 5-5).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative biological resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.5 in RTC2 and
those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The project site is located to the north of the area identified by the Conservation
Biological Institute as part of the "Puente -Chino Hills wildlife corridor."
(c) Although wildlife movement corridors exist in the general project area, the project
site does not serve any connectivity or linkage role with regards to regional
wildlife movement.
(d) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.5.6 Environmental Effect: If improperly designed and maintained, the proposed on-site flood
control facilities and structural and treatment control Best Management Practices
(BMPs) could potentially provide a habitat for the propagation of mosquitoes and other
vectors (Biological Resources Impact 5-6).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
57
(a) Project -related and cumulative biological resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.5 (Biological
Resources) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Urban stormwater runoff regulations now mandate the construction and
maintenance of structural BMPs for both volume reduction and pollution
management. Those BMPs can create additional sources of standing water and
become sources for mosquito propagation.
(c) In the general project area, vector control is performed by the Greater Los
Angeles County Vector Control District (GLACVCD), a County special district
funded by ad valorum property and benefit assessment taxes.
(d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 5-5) requiring that BMP
devices be designed in consultation with the GLACVCD and be of a type which
minimizes the potential for vector (public nuisance) problems.
(e) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.5.7 Environmental Effect: Implementation of the project, in combination with other
reasonably foreseeable future projects, will contribute incrementally to the continuing
reduction in open space areas in the general project area and contribute to the general
decline in species diversity throughout the region (Biological Resources Impact 5-7).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative biological resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.5 (Biological Resources) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.5 (Biological
Resources) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Implementation of the project and other reasonably foreseeable future projects
will contribute incrementally to the continuing urbanization of the region.
(c) The project will impact approximately 2.1 acres of California walnut woodland
and 0.3 acres of southern willow scrub habitat. As a result, the project will add
incrementally to the regional loss of plant communities considered high-priority
for inventory under the CNDDB.
(d) Although California walnut woodlands and southern willow scrub are considered
high-priority for inventory under the CNDDB, these on-site habitats are marginal
in its value because they are fragmented and are not expected to support
sensitive species. As a result, the incremental reduction in these habitats would
not be cumulatively significant.
(e) Under Section 22.38.030 of the Municipal Code, protected trees, including
"native oak, walnut, sycamore and willow trees with a DBH [diameter at breast
height] of eight inches or greater" shall be replaced at a minimum ratio of 3:1.
(f) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.6 Transportation and Circulation
7.6.1 Environmental Effect: Construction vehicles will transport workers, construction
equipment, building materials, and construction debris along local and collector streets
and along arterial highways within and adjacent to established residential areas and
other sensitive receptors (Traffic and Circulation Impact 6-1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are addressed in
Section 4.6 (Transportation and Circulation) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.6
(Transportation and Circulation) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by
reference herein.
(b) Information and analysis concerning the existing traffic and circulation setting,
including an assessment of project -related impacts, is presented in "Traffic
Impact Analysis Report, WVUSD Site D Mixed -Use Development, Diamond Bar,
California" (Linscott, Law & Greenspan Engineers, April 23, 2009) and "WVUSD
Site D, All Residential Alternative, City of Diamond Bar" (Sasaki Transportation
Services, January 11, 2012).
(c) Construction traffic, including vehicles associated with the transport of heavy
equipment and building materials to and from the project site and construction
workers commuting to and from work, will increase traffic volumes along
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road and, because site access can
be obtained from Castle Rock Road and Pasado Drive, construction workers may
elect to park and construction vehicles could stage along those roadways.
(d) Existing (2007) daily traffic volumes along project area roadway segments
include: (1) Brea Canyon Road (north of Diamond Bar Boulevard) — 4,896
average daily trips (ADT); (2) Brea Canyon Road (south of Diamond Bar
Boulevard) — 12,696 ADT; (3) Diamond Bar Boulevard (north of Cherrydale
Drive) — 20,512 ADT; and, (4) Brea Canyon Cutoff (west of Fallow Field -Diamond
Canyon) — 11,003 ADT.
(e) The exact nature of construction traffic and daily vehicle trips is difficult to predict
since the number of workers and the type of equipment will vary with the
construction phase and because equipment allocations are generally controlled
by and dependent upon the construction contractor. Although construction traffic
volumes cannot be determined with certainty, the number of total daily and peak -
hour trips associated with worker commutes would be expected to be very small
in comparison to existing traffic volumes along affected roadways.
(f) Compliance with and enforcement of speed laws and other provisions of the
California Vehicle Code (CVC) and the safe use and operation of vehicles by
their drivers would be expected to keep public safety issues at a less -than -
significant level.
(g) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of conditions (Conditions/Standards 6-1 through 6-4)
requiring the preparation of a construction workers' parking and equipment
staging plan, construction traffic mitigation plan and traffic control plan, and
restricting construction -term access from and along Castle Rock Road and
Pasado Drive.
59
(g) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.6.2 Environmental Effect: The project is forecast to generate approximately 1,182 daily two-
way vehicle trips, including 90 trips during the AM and 106 trips during the PM peak
hours, and would increase traffic congestion on local and regional roadways (Traffic and
Circulation Impact 6-2).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding
(a) Project -related and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are addressed in
Section 4.6 (Transportation and Circulation) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.6
(Transportation and Circulation) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by
reference herein.
(b) Recent residential development projects, involving small lot subdivisions, have
been processed as "condominium projects" (Section 1351[f], California Civic
Code). As defined in the Federal Housing Administration's (FHA) "Condominium
Project Approval and Processing Guide" (FHA, June 30, 2011), "site
condominiums" are "single family totally detached dwellings (no shared garages
or any other attached buildings) encumbered by a declaration of condominium
covenants or condominium form of ownership." Site condominium conform to the
description of allowable housing products authorized under the January 2012
SDSP (i.e., "attached and/or detached, owner -occupied single-family product
types").
(c) Without specifying the resulting housing product, in order to quantify the
estimated number of vehicle trip ends associated with the January 2012 SDSP,
as a precursor to assigning those trips to the roadway system, "condominium/
townhouse" (ITE Code 230) for the residential units and "County park" (ITE Code
412) was utilized for the neighborhood park.
(d) The project's traffic impact analysis was conducted in accordance with the City's
"Guidelines for the Preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis Report" and, for each of
the 20 study area intersections, included an assessment of the following nine
scenarios: (1) 2007 existing traffic conditions; (2) 2007 existing -plus -project traffic
conditions; (3) 2007 existing -plus -project traffic conditions, with Improvements;
(4) 2010 cumulative -base conditions (existing, ambient growth, and related
projects); (5) 2010 cumulative -base -plus project traffic conditions; (6) 2010
cumulative -base -plus project conditions, with Improvements; (7) 2030
cumulative -base conditions (existing, ambient growth, and related projects); (8)
2030 cumulative -base -plus -project traffic conditions; (9) 2030 cumulative -base -
plus -project traffic conditions, with Improvements.
(e) The 200 residential units associated with Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP)
would generate a total of about 1,172 daily trip ends (TEs), of which 88 (14 In, 74
Out) would occurring during the AM peak hour and 104 (70 In, 34 Out) would
occur during the PM peak hour. The two -acre park would generate about 10 daily
TEs, including two AM peak -hour TEs and two PM peak -hour TEs. Trip
distribution patterns were developed based on the assumptions used for the
residential portion of the March 2010 SDSP.
91
(f) As indicated in the traffic analysis, under "existing traffic conditions," 17 of the 20
study area intersections currently operate at an "acceptable" levels of service
(LOS) during both the AM and PM peak hours, while the following three study
area intersections have "over capacity" operations during at least one peak hour
period: (1) State Route 57 (SR -57) Southbound (SB) Ramps/Brea Canyon Cutoff
(AM and PM); (2) Pathfinder Road/Brea Canyon Cutoff (PM); and (3) Brea
Canyon Road/Silver Bullet Drive (AM and PM).
(g) The January 2012 SDSP's projected trips were then added to the "existing traffic
conditions" so that the intersection analyses could be recalculated for "existing -
plus -project" traffic conditions. With regards to the January 2012 SDSP, 16 of
the 17 study area intersections are operating at "acceptable" levels and three
"over capacity" study area intersections maintain their same pre -project LOS
conditions. Only the proposed access intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard/
Crooked Creek Drive changes from "acceptable" to "over capacity' operations.
(h) The northbound (NB) approach at the Diamond Bar Boulevard/Crooked Creek
Drive intersection is impacted to LOS "F" with the implementation of Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP). Recommended improvements, which would fully mitigate
the project's impacts at the Diamond Bar Boulevard/Crooked Creek Drive
intersection, include the installation of a traffic signal and associated roadway
improvements and the widening and restriping of the eastbound (EB) approach
and departure to accommodate a third through lane and a separate right -turn
lane, as well as modification of any needed signing and associated measures.
The total estimated cost of those improvements is about $454,875. Unless an
alternative funding agreement or improvement plan was first negotiated with the
City, those costs would be borne exclusively by the Applicant prior to the
recordation of the final tract map or issuance of any occupancy permits, as
determined by the City Engineer, for the resulting residential development.
(i) Under "existing -plus -project" traffic conditions, one additional intersection (SR -57
SB Ramps/Brea Canyon Cutoff) continues to have "over capacity' operations
and is also found to be "significantly" impacted by the project. The intersection is
already "over capacity" and the project only represents a portion of the
intersection's improvement needs. Mitigation (in the form of payment of a fair -
share contribution) is, therefore, required at this study intersection. For that
intersection, the anticipated improvements include the installation of a traffic
signal and associated signing and striping modifications, as necessary. The total
estimated cost for those improvements is approximately $228,125.
(j) Under 2030 cumulative -base ("without project") conditions, eleven of the study
area intersections would operate at "acceptable" service levels. The following
nine intersections are, however, projected to be "over capacity" for Year 2030
conditions during the AM or PM peak hour or both: (1) Brea Canyon
Road/Pathfinder Road; (2) Diamond Bar Boulevard//Pathfinder Road; (3)
Diamond Bar Boulevard/Cold Springs Lane; (4) Pathfinder Road/Brea Canyon
Cutoff; (5) SR -57 SB Ramps/Brea Canyon Cutoff, (6) Brea Canyon
Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard; (7) Brea Canyon Road/Silver Bullet Drive; (8)
Diamond Bar Boulevard/Grand Avenue; and (9) Colima Road/ Fairway
Drive/Brea Canyon Cutoff.
(k) The alternative project's trips were added to the 2030 cumulative base ("without
project") conditions and the appropriate analytical methodologies applied to the
2030 cumulative -base -plus -project traffic ("Year 2030 + project") conditions so
that the intersection analyses could be recalculated. Of the eleven intersections
with "acceptable" operations for Year 2030 "without project" conditions, only the
61
Diamond Bar Boulevard/Crooked Creek Drive intersection is impacted to
"unacceptable" operations with the addition of the January 2012 SDSP. With the
implementation of the proposed improvements, this intersection will have
"acceptable" operations. The other nine intersections that were found to be "over
capacity" for 2030 "without project" conditions would, remain "over capacity,"
although the identified improvements to the SR -57 SB Ramps/Brea Canyon
Cutoff intersection would provide "acceptable" operations at that location. With
the exception of the Brea Canyon Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard intersection, the
project's impacts at those "over capacity" locations would not be significant.
(1) Specified improvements to the Brea Canyon Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard
intersection, including dedication of additional right-of-way along the property's
frontages, constitute a component of the January 2012 SDSP and an obligation
upon the Applicant and are neither identified as a mitigation measure nor as a
condition of approval herein. Both the project -related actions and the payment of
the Applicant's fair -share contribution would effectively mitigate the significant
impacts at this location.
(m) In accordance with City's traffic impact analysis (TIA) requirements, the actual
construction of or the Applicant's payment of a "fair share" contribution toward
the construction costs of identified street improvements serves to fully and
effectively reduce the project's transportation and circulation impacts to a less -
than -significant level. In addition to the identified project -specific obligations, the
Applicant's fair -share contribution toward areawide improvements is estimated to
be $102,605. Those improvement costs and the Applicant's associated fair -
share contribution toward those costs are intended as current estimates and are
subject to change and refinement by the City Engineer following receipt of a
formal development application and subsequent design -level engineering studies
specifying the precise nature and cost of the outlined improvements.
(n) To ensure that the Applicant completes, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer,
those street and intersection improvements identified in the traffic impact analysis
and provides a "fair -share" contribution toward the cost of those improvements
identified therein, a mitigation measure (MM 6-1) has been included in the FEIR
and adopted or is likely to be adopted in the MRMP identifying the following
intersections which are subject to that obligation. In addition, a second mitigation
measure (MM 6-2) has been included in the FEIR and adopted or is likely to be
adopted in the MRMP specifying that the final site plan shall include and
accommodate those traffic measures, improvements, and such other pertinent
factors and/or facilities as may be identified by the City Engineer to ensure the
safe and efficient movement of project -related traffic. Implementation of those
measures, including the provision of the identified street improvements and
payment of the Applicant's fair -share contribution, will reduce identified impacts
to below a level of significance.
7.6.3 Environmental Effect: The implementation of the project, in combination with other
related projects, will collectively contribute to existing traffic congestion in the general
project area and exacerbate the need for localized areawide traffic improvements (Traffic
and Circulation Impact 6-3).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
62
(a) Project -related and cumulative traffic and circulation impacts are addressed in
Section 4.6 (Transportation and Circulation) in the DEIR and Section 3.36
(Transportation and Circulation) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by
reference herein.
(b) Prior to implementation of any recommended traffic improvements, the following
twelve intersections are projected to either operate at an adverse level of service
(LOS) in 2030 or for were specific street improvements have been identified: (1)
Brea Canyon Road at Pathfinder Road; (2) Diamond Bar Boulevard at Pathfinder
Road; (3) Brea Canyon Road at Cold Spring Lane; (4) Diamond Bar Boulevard at
Cold Spring Lane; (5) Pathfinder Road at Brea Canyon Cutoff; (6) SR -57 SB
Ramps at Brea Canyon Cutoff; (7) SR -57 NB Ramps at Brea Canyon Cutoff; (8)
Brea Canyon Road at Diamond Bar Boulevard; (9) Crooked Creek or Cherrydale
Drive at Diamond Bar Boulevard; (10) Brea Canyon Road at Silver Bullet Drive;
(11) Diamond Bar Boulevard at Grand Avenue; and (12) Colima Road at Brea
Canyon Cutoff. A project increment of a significant project impact has been
identified at each of those intersections.
(c) Since twelve intersections are forecast to operate at a adverse LOS under 2030
cumulative -plus -project traffic conditions, a number of mitigation measures (MMs
6-1 and 6-2) have been included in the FEIR and adopted or are likely to be
adopted in the MRMP identifying associated street improvements and the
project's obligations toward those improvements and specifying that the final site
plan include and accommodate those traffic measures, improvements, and such
other pertinent factors and/or facilities as may be identified by the City Engineer
for the purpose of ensuring the safe and efficient movement of project -related
traffic. Implementation of those measures, including the provision of the identified
street improvements and the Applicant's payment of an appropriate fair -share
contribution, will reduce identified impacts to below a level of significance.
7.6.4 Environmental Effect: The project has the potential to conflict with adopted policies,
plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities, or otherwise
decrease the performance or safety of such facilities (Traffic and Circulation Impact 6-4).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) The General Plan (Circulation Element) identifies a Class II bicycle route along
Diamond Bar Boulevard and a Class III bicycle path along Brea Canyon Road.
As indicated in the General Plan, a designated Class II bicycle lane exists along
Diamond Bar Boulevard and a designated Class III bicycle route exists along
Brea Canyon Road.
(b) Along all or a portion of the site's Diamond Bar Boulevard frontage, identified
street improvements may require termination of the existing Class II bicycle lane.
To the extent that the joss of that segment was to require that motorists and
bicyclist share a single Class III travel route, elimination may increase safety
hazards for both motorists and bicyclists. Additionally, by eliminating a segment
of a Class II bicycle lane and created a shared roadway, as a result of different
travel speeds of the two forms of transportation, traffic flow along that segment
could be potentially impeded.
63
(c) Based on the high number of variables, clear and consistent information is
lacking with regards to rider safety and the risk-based distinction between Class
II bicycle lanes and Class III bicycle routes.
(d) As indicated in the traffic analysis, identified street improvements may require
either the short-term closure or termination of the existing bicycle lane along a
segment of Diamond Bar Boulevard (adjacent to the site's frontage). Because
the City's "Recreation Trails and Bicycle Route Master Plan" (City Bicycle Master
Plan) acknowledges that Class III bicycle routes can be used to "connect
discontinuous segments" of Class II bicycle lanes, the short-term and/or long-
term conversion of the exiting Class II bicycle lane to a Class III travel route
would not conflict with adopted public policy. Similarly, accident statistics do not
demonstrate that such action would substantively increase public safety hazards
to bicyclists and/or other motorists.
(e) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of conditions (Conditions/Standards 6-5 through 6-6)
requiring that, during the term of any such closure, signage shall be posted and
other reasonable actions designed to enhance public safety and the City
Engineer's review of street improvement plans for Diamond Bar Boulevard to
determine the potential for retention, reconfiguration, and/or reclassification of the
existing Class II bicycle lane along the property's frontage.
(f) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.7 Air Quality
7.7.1 Environmental Effect: Because the project involves a General Plan amendment and
zone change, it has the potential to be inconsistent with the applicable air quality
management plan (Air Quality Impact 7-1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7
(Air Quality) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and those
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) CEQA requires that projects be consistent with the current "Air Quality
Management Plan" (AQMP). A consistency determination plays an essential role
in local agency project review by linking local planning and unique individual
projects to the AQMP in the following ways: (1) it fulfills the CEQA goal of fully
informing local agency decision -makers of the environmental costs of the project
under consideration at a stage early enough to ensure that air quality concerns
are fully addressed; and (2) it provides the local agency with ongoing information
assuring local decision -makers that they are making real contributions to clean
air goals contained in the AQMP.
(c) Only new or amended general plan elements, specific plans, and regionally
significant projects need to undergo a consistency review. This is because the
AQMP strategy is based on projections from local general plans. Projects that
are consistent with the local general plan are, therefore, considered consistent
with the air quality management plan.
0
(d) Ignoring the potential commercial development opportunities associated with the
existing General Plan designations of the City Property, based on the General
Plan's existing "Public Facilities" designation of the District Property and the
assumptions presented in the DEIR's alternatives analysis (Table 6-2),
development under the existing General Plan would likely generate an estimated
2,478 daily vehicle trips during a typical weekday. In comparison, Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP) is projected to generate only about 1,182 daily two-way
vehicle trips. The project, therefore, represents only about 47.7 percent of the
trips that could be generated under build -out in accordance with the existing
General Plan. Because vehicles are the primary source of emissions associated
with site occupancy and because the January 2012 SDSP results in a
substantially lesser number of trip ends than might otherwise be generated under
the policies of the General Plan, the alternative project is consistent with the
emissions projections that would be expected under the existing General Plan.
(e) As specified in Section 22.16.030 (Air Emissions) in Chapter 22.16 (General
Property Development and Use Standards) in Title 22 (Development Code) of
the Municipal Code, the SCAQMD "has established daily and quarterly
significance thresholds for construction exhaust emissions, as identified in the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Air Quality Handbook. All land use
activities shall be conducted in a manner consistent with the provisions of the
South Coast Air Quality Management Plan."
(f) The most recent comprehensive plan is the 2007 "Air Quality Management Plan"
(2007 AQMP), adopted on June 1, 2007. Because Alternative 6 (January 2012
SDSP) would not result in significant localized air quality impacts, it is consistent
with the goals of the 2007 AQMP.
(g) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.7.2 Environmental Effect: Construction of the project has the potential to violate or add to a
violation of air quality standards (Air Quality Impact 7-2).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7
(Air Quality) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and those
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The air quality impact analysis was prepared in accordance with the
methodologies provided by the SCAQMD, as included in the SCAQMD's "CEQA
Air Quality Handbook" (Handbook) and updates included on the SCAQMD
Internet web site. The analysis makes use of the California Emissions Estimator
Model (CalEEMod) emissions model (Version 2011.1. 1) for determination of daily
and yearly construction and operational emissions and guidance included in the
SCAQMD's "Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology." Mobile -
source emissions associated with the occupation of the site are based on the
traffic -projections provided in "WVUSD Site D, All Residential Alternative, City of
Diamond Bar" (Sasaki Engineers, January 11, 2012).
(c) SCAQMD's Rule 403 governs fugitive dust emissions from construction projects.
This rule sets forth a list of control measures that must be undertaken for all
65
construction projects to ensure that no dust emissions from the project are visible
beyond the property boundaries. Adherence to Rule 403 is mandatory and as
such, does not denote mitigation under CEQA. The following analysis assumes
the use of the minimal measures specified in Rule 403 that overlap between the
rule and the URBEMIS model. These include: (1) soil stabilizers shall be applied
to all disturbed, inactive areas; (2) ground cover shall be quickly applied in all
disturbed areas; (3) the active construction site shall be watered twice daily; (4)
stockpiles shall be covered with tarps; and (5) unpaved haul roads shall be
watered twice daily. The CalEEMod emissions model assigns a control
efficiency of 55 percent for twice daily watering and a similar efficiency was
assumed for other controlled dust -producing, heavy equipment activities.
(d) Based on the findings of CaIEEMod emissions model analysis, all construction
emission concentrations for reactive organic compounds (ROG), carbon
monoxide (CO), nitrogen oxides (NOx), sulfur dioxide (SO2), particulate matter
less than 10 microns in diameter (PM10), and particulate matter less than 2.5
microns in diameter (PM2.5) are within their respective threshold values and are,
therefore, less than significant.
(e) Although not considered in the CaIEEMod emissions model, Section 22.16.030
of the City's Development Code includes specific standards regarding air
emissions. As required, those land -use activities that have the potential to create
fugitive dust emissions shall be conducted in a manner so as to create as little
dust or dirt emission beyond the boundary line of the parcel as possible.
Standards applicable to those projects include, but not limited to: (1) Scheduling -
Grading activities shall be scheduled to ensure that repeated grading will not be
required, and that implementation of the proposed land use will occur as soon as
possible after grading; (2) Operations during high winds - Clearing, earth -moving,
excavation operations, or grading activities shall cease in high wind conditions
when dust blows and control methods are no longer effective; (3) Area of
disturbance - The area disturbed by clearing, demolition, earth -moving,
excavation operations, or grading shall be the minimum required to implement
the allowed use; (4) Dust control - During clearing, demolition, earth -moving,
excavation operations, or grading, dust emissions shall be controlled by regular
watering, paving of construction roads or other dust -preventive measures (e.g.,
hydroseeding), subject to the approval of the building official and city engineer;
(5) On-site roads - On-site roads shall be paved as soon as feasible, watered
periodically with reclaimed water, whenever possible, or stabilized in an
environmentally safe manner; (6) Revegetation - Graded areas shall be
revegetated as soon as possible in compliance with the approved landscape plan
and any conditions of approval; and (7) Fencing - Appropriate fences or other
means may be required by the director to contain dust and dirt within the parcel.
(f) Because CO is the criteria pollutant that is produced in greatest quantities from
vehicle combustion and does not readily disperse into the atmosphere, long-term
adherence to State and federal ambient air quality standards (AAQS) is typically
demonstrated through an analysis of localized CO concentrations. In the past,
areas of vehicle congestion had the potential to create "pockets" of CO called
"hot spots." However, the South Coast Air Basin (SCAB) is now designated as
an "attainment' area of both the State and federal CO standards and no "hot
spots" have been reported in the PomonaMalnut Valley Source Receptor Area
(SRA 10) in more than five years. CO is no longer a localized pollutant of
concern near roadways.
(g) Mandatory adherence to the SCAQMD rules would ensure that any construction
impacts from TAC associated with the project remain less than significant.
(h) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.7.3 Environmental Effect: Operation of the project has the potential to violate or add to a
violation of air quality standards (Air Quality Impact 7-3).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7
(Air Quality) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and those
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The major source of long-term air quality impacts for criteria pollutants is that
associated with the emissions produced from project -generated vehicle trips.
With regards to mobile source emissions, at completion, Alternative 6 (January
2012 SDSP) is estimated to produce about 1,182 ADT.
(c) Emissions associated with project -related trips are based on the CalEEMod
emissions model and assume occupancy in 2015. Since emissions per vehicle
are reduced each year due to tightening emissions restrictions and the
replacement of older vehicles, the use of 2015 emission factors presents a worst-
case analysis with regards to operational air quality impacts.
(d) With regards to stationary source emissions, residents would produce emissions
from on-site sources, including the combustion of natural gas for fireplaces and
space and water heating. Landscaping would be maintained, thus requiring the
use of gardening equipment and its attendant emissions. Additionally, the
structures would be maintained and this requires repainting over time, thus
resulting in the release of additional VOC emissions.
(d) Based on the findings of CalEEMod emissions model analysis, all operational
emission concentrations for ROG, CO, NOx, SO2, PM1o, and PM2.5 are within
their respective threshold values and are, therefore, less than significant.
(e) Mandatory adherence to the SCAQMD rules would ensure that any operational
impacts from TAC associated with the project remain less than significant.
(f) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.7.4 Environmental Effect: The project has the potential to expose sensitive receptors to
substantial pollutant concentrations (Air Quality Impact 7-4).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7
(Air Quality) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and those
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
67
(b) As included in SCAQMD's "Final Localized Significance Threshold Methodology'
(June 2003) (LST), the SCAQMD has developed screening tables for the
construction of projects up to five acres in size. The emissions values included in
the screening tables are based on the emissions produced at the site and do not
include mobile source emissions spread over a much larger area. The project
encompasses an area of about 30.4 acres and is larger than the examples
included within the LST; however, because emissions are spread over a larger
area, there is more area for emissions to dissipate before making their way off
the site. If daily emissions do not exceed those for a 5 -acre site, then off-site
concentrations for the 30.4 -acre site would be less than significant.
(c) Screening level allowable emissions are then calculated from the "mass -rate
look -up tables" included in the LST (Appendix C). The highest level of on-site
CO and NOx emissions are produced during site grading and the emissions
model assumes that the effort requires two excavators (0.5 acre each), one
grader (0.5 acre), one dozer (0.5 acre), two scrapers (1.0 acre each), and two
tractors (0.5 acre each) to this task, totaling 5.0 acres per day. PM10 and PM2.5
peak during site preparation and the emissions model assigns three dozers (0.5
acre each) and four tractors (0.5 acre each) to this task totaling 3.5 acres per
day. Based on the SCAQMD's "Fact Sheet for Applying CaIEEMod to Localized
Significance Thresholds," the area of disturbance for grading is to be based on
5.0 acres while that for site preparation is to be based on 3.5 acres. In
accordance with the LST, the allowable level for sites that are between 2.0 and
5.0 acres may be extrapolated from those acreages. In this case, 3.5 acres is
half -way between 2.0 and 5.0 acres and the allowable levels would also be half-
way between the presented levels for projects of those sizes.
(d) For projects of 5.0 acres in size located in SRA 10 with sensitive receptors
located at distances of 25 meters, the most proximate distance to be used in
localized analyses, on-site emissions would not create significant localized
emissions impacts if CO and NOx levels do not exceed 1,566.0 and 488.0
pounds per day, respectively. PM1o, and PM2.5 levels would not create a
localized impact if daily levels do not exceed 9.0 and 5.5 pounds per day,
respectively, for a 3.5 -acre site. Peak day, on-site CO, NOx, PM10, and PM2.5
levels are projected at 52.85, 97.47, 7.59, and 5.94 pounds per day, respectively.
PM2.5 emissions are projected to exceed the 5.5 pounds per day threshold value,
resulting in a potentially significant impact.
(e) The CaIEEMod model indicates that twice daily site watering results in a control
efficiency of 55 percent. Three times daily watering during site preparation would
increase this efficiency to no less than 61 percent, as projected by the emissions
model. The PM2.5 emissions associated with fugitive dust would, therefore, be
reduced from 2.01 to 1.51 pounds per day. When combined with the exhaust
emissions, PM2.5 then totals 5.44 pounds per day. This value is under the
SCAQMD's recommended threshold of significance.
(f) Unlike construction equipment that generates exhaust and dust in a set area, the
primary source of operational emissions is the addition of vehicles on the
roadway system. These emissions are then spread over a vast area and do not
result in localized concentrations in proximity to the site. As such, localized
modeling for a project's operations is not typically prepared for residential, limited
commercial, or light industrial uses that do not include a truck terminal. No
localized operational impacts would, therefore, be projected.
(g) At the broader scale, CO is the criteria pollutant that is produced in greatest
quantities from vehicle combustion and in the past was typically used to
M
demonstrate the potential for localized operational impacts. However, the SCAB
has now been designated as an "attainment" area of both the State and federal
CO standards and no "hot spots" have been reported in SRA 10 in more than five
years. CO is no longer a localized pollutant of concern near roadways and, as
such, this analysis is no longer required.
(h) CO "hot spot" modeling conducted for the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP),
which included both commercial and residential components, generating more
peak -hour traffic that the January 2012 SDSP, and modeled using higher
emitting (older) vehicles, did not result in any localized CO impacts.
(h) Since PM2.6 emissions are projected to exceed the SCAQMD's recommended
threshold standard, a mitigation measures (MM 7-1) has been included in the
FEIR and adopted or is likely to be adopted in the MRMP requiring that site
watering be conducted a minimum of three times daily during site preparation
activities. Implementation of that measure will reduce identified impacts to below
a level of significance.
7.7.5 Environmental Effect: The project has the potential to create objectionable odors (Air
Quality Impact 7-5).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding
(a) Project -related and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7
(Air Quality) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and these
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Project construction would involve the use of heavy equipment creating exhaust
pollutants from on-site earth movement and from equipment transporting
materials to and from the site. In addition, some odors would be produced from
the application of asphalt, paints, and coatings. With regards to nuisance odors,
air quality impacts will be confined to the immediate vicinity of the odor source
and would be of short-term duration. Such brief exposure to nuisance odors
constitutes an adverse but less -than -significant air quality impact.
(c) Operational odors could be produced from on-site food preparation and from
diesel -fueled vehicles operating on the project site. These odors are common in
the environment and subject to compliance with SCAQMD Rule 402 (Nuisance).
(d) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.7.6 Environmental Effect: The project, in combination with other related projects, has the
potential to result in a cumulatively considerable increase in criteria pollutants (Air
Quality Impact 7-6).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Findinq: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7
(Air Quality) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and these
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
.•
(b) Pursuant to SCAQMD's recommended methodology, projects that do not exceed
or can be mitigated to less than the daily threshold values do not add significantly
to a cumulative air quality impact. With regards to criteria pollutants, the air
quality analysis demonstrates that construction and operational impacts, as
mitigated, will not exceed the specified threshold standards and will not result in
the generation of either significant short-term or long-term air quality impact.
Because the project will not contribute significantly to regional air emissions,
cumulative air quality impacts are less than significant.
(c) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.7.7 Environmental Effect: The project has the potential to generate GHG emissions, either
directly or indirectly, that may have a significant impact on the environment (Air Quality
Impact 7-7).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7
(Air Quality) in the DER and Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and these
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) As indicated in the "Minutes of the GHG CEQA Significance Threshold
Stakeholders Working Group #5" (SCAQMD, September 28, 2010), "on
December 5, 2008, the SCAQMD Governing Board adopted a numerical GHG
significance threshold of 10,000 MTCO2e/year [metric tons CO2 equivalent/year]
for industrial projects where the SCAQMD is the lead agency. [SCAQMD] Staff
is now proposing to extend the industrial GHG significance threshold for use by
all lead agencies. Similarly, with regards to numerical residential/commercial
GHG significance thresholds, at the 11/19/2009 stakeholder working group
meeting staff presented two options that lead agencies could choose; option #1 —
separate numerical thresholds for residential projects (3,500 MTCO2e/year),
commercial projects (1,400 MTCO2e/year), and mixed use projects (3,000
MTCO2e/year) and option #2 — a single numerical threshold for all non -industrial
projects of 3,000 MTCO2e/year. If a lead agency chooses one option, it must
consistently use that same option for all projects where it is lead agency. The
current staff proposal is to recommend the use of option #2, but allow lead
agencies to choose option #1 if they prefer that approach."
(c) Note that, in the above excerpt, the "2" (in "MTCO2e/year") is as it is extracted
from the referenced SCAQMD document rather than presented as subscript (as
in "MTCO2e/year"), as it appears in the FEIR. The two notations are intended to
both refer to metric tons of carbon dioxide equivalent per year.
(d) In selecting the identified threshold of significance criteria for GHG emissions for
the project, the Lead Agency is neither making a determination that the selected
criteria will be universally applied to all projects located within the City's
jurisdiction in which it serves as "lead agency" under CEQA nor that an
alternative criteria may not be selected in the future based on information then
available to the Lead Agency. With regards to GHG emissions, for the purpose
of this EIR and these specified entitlements, a threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e will be
applied to this project and to these entitlements.
70
(e) The CalEEMod emissions model indicates that construction could generate
approximately 684.02 MTCO2e per year in 2013, 752.67 MTCO2e per year in
2014, and 193.95 MTCO2e per year in 2015.- All of these values are well under
the suggested annual threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e and the impact of GHG
emissions on climate change is less than significant.
(f) As indicated in the January 2012 SDSP, a fundamental strategy for this project is
to create a "green" and sustainable community. In general, "green" building
design entails the implementation of the following related community goals:
energy efficiency, healthy indoor air quality, waste reduction, water efficiency,
and reduced environmental impacts. To this end, the City will require that the
project be reviewed by a third -party consultant to determine if the development
meets the certification requirements of Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) or an equivalent program be attained by the project.
(g) During the project's operational life, the majority of GHG emissions, specifically
CO2, are due to vehicle travel and energy consumption. It is projected that all
emission sources, including mobile, area source, energy, waste, and water
conveyance, generate approximately 3,185.21 MTCO2e (unmitigated) on an
annual basis. The resulting operational impact exceeds the suggested annual
threshold of 3,000 MTCO2e per year and the impact is considered significant;
however, once the project's proposed energy and water conservation measures
are included and the CalEEMod emissions model rerun, for all sources,
estimated operational GHG emissions are reduced to about 2,959.59 MTCO2e
(mitigated) per year. This value is under the suggested annual threshold of
3,000 MTCO2e and the impact of GHG emissions on climate change is less than
significant. In this context, "mitigated" refers to those measures already included
in the project description.
(h) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.7.8 Environmental Effect: The project has the potential to conflict with an applicable plan,
policy or regulation adopted for the purpose of reducing the emissions of greenhouse
gases (Air Quality Impact 7-8).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative air quality impacts are addressed in Section 4.7
(Air Quality) in the DER and Section 3.3.7 (Air Quality) in RTC2 and these
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Projects that generate de minimus quantities of emissions (i.e., less than 3,000
MTCO2e per year) and do not result in a significant impact or can be mitigated to
a less -than -significant level would be deemed to be in compliance of State
policies with respect to GHG emissions.
(c) As indicated in the CaIEEMod emissions model, the worst-case construction year
is estimated to generate about 752.67 MTCO2e. This value is below the 3,000-
MTCO2e threshold value and the cumulative impact to climate change is less
than significant. As such, the project's construction would not conflict with
existing plans and policies.
71
(d) The project would be LEED-certified and follow "green" techniques as required
by the City and outlined in the January 2012 SDSP. Using these techniques,
based on the CalEEMod emissions model, the project represents an increase of
2,959.60 MTCO2e on an annual basis and is less than the 3,000 MTCO2e annual
threshold suggested by the SCAQMD. As such, the operational impact of the
project on climate change is less than significant.
(e) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.8 Noise
7.8.1 Environmental Effect: Construction activities could result in a substantial temporary
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project (Noise Impact 8-1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.8
(Noise) in the DER and Section 3.3.8 (Noise) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Noise levels associated with construction activities would be higher than the
existing ambient noise levels in the project area but would subside once
construction of the project is completed.
(c) The most proximate residential structures include the existing single-family
homes located to the immediate south and east of the project site. The nearest
of these homes could be on the order of 50 feet from on-site construction
activities. At that distance, the equivalent noise level (Leq) noise levels would be
projected to be as high as 89 A -weighted decibel scale (dBA).
(d) Construction noise is regulated under the provisions of the Development Code.
Pursuant to Section 22.28.080(b) in Chapter 22.28 (Noise Control) therein, no
person shall operate or cause to be operated a source of sound location within
the City or allow the creation of a noise on property owned, leased, occupied, or
otherwise controlled by a person that causes the noise level, when measured on
any other property, to exceed specified noise standards. Although the
Development Code limits the hours of heavy equipment operations, construction
noise will be a short-term nuisance to proximal noise -sensitive receptors.
(e) In recognition of the presence of construction noise and the proximity of existing
residential receptors, a number of mitigation measures (MMs 8-1 through 8-6)
have been included in the FEIR and adopted or are likely to be adopted in the
MRMP designed to reduce short-term noise impacts to the extend feasible.
Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would reduce
construction noise impacts to a less -than -significant level.
7.8.2 Environmental Effect: Project implementation may result in an exceedance of noise
standards established in the General Plan and/or Municipal Code or applicable
standards formulated by other agencies (Noise Impact 8-2).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
72
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.8
(Noise) in the DER and Section 3.3.8 (Noise) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Section 22.28.120 of the Development Code sets a goal level of 50 dBA and 55
dBA for mobile -source noise intrusion on sensitive single-family and multi -family
residential land uses, respectively. The General Plan (Noise Element) allows for
a conditionally acceptable exterior noise level of up to 65 dBA community noise
equivalent level (CNEL) for residential uses as long as the dwelling units are
fitted with forced air ventilation or air conditioning.
(c) As indicated in the acoustical analysis, based on projected traffic volumes, the 65
dBA CNEL along Diamond Bar Boulevard would fall at a distance of about 130
feet from the centerline of the road. The placement of any dwelling units within
that distance could result in the exposure of future "Site D" residents to excessive
noise levels, thus resulting in a significant operational impact.
(d) The normally acceptable exterior 55 dBA CNEL for multi -family residential
development is calculated at a distance of 3,864 feet from the SR -57 Freeway
and would encompass the entire project site. The 65 dBA CNEL deemed suitable
for residential development, equipped with forced air ventilation, would fall at a
distance of about 830 feet from the freeway.
(e) Building constructed in compliance with Title 24 (California Building Code)
standards typically provides 20 dBA of attenuation with the windows closed.
(f) The Lead Agency has identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 8-1)
requiring forced air ventilation designed and installed in accordance with Title 24
standards, thus allowing site occupants to leave windows closed and reducing
interior levels by in excess of 20 dBA.
(g) Based on the potential presence of significant noise impacts, a number of
mitigation measures (MMs 8-7 and 8-8) have been included in the FEIR and
adopted or are likely to be adopted in the MRMP specifying that no residential
units shall be located within 830 feet of the SR -57 Freeway's nearest travel lane
and within 130 feet of the centerline of Diamond Bar Boulevard unless additional
sound attention is provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development
Director. Implementation of the recommended mitigation measures would
reduce operational noise impacts to a less -than -significant level.
7.8.3 Environmental Effect: Project implementation may result in a substantial permanent
increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the
project (Noise Impact 8-3).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.8
(Noise) in the DER and Section 3.3.8 (Noise) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) As traffic volumes in the general project area increase, those areas located in
proximity to the arterial highway system will experience increased traffic noise.
(c) The TIA conducted for the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) concluded that
the implementation of that specific plan would add 9,276 ADT to the roadway
73
network. Modeling indicates that the noise increase attributable to the
introduction those trips along all access roads would not exceed 0.7 dBA CNEL.
The March 2010 SDSP's contribution to ambient noise levels was determined to
be less than significant. In contrast, Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP) adds
only 1,182 daily trip ends to area roadways. Since 9,276 trips were found to be
less than significant, a similar conclusion could be reached with regards to 1,182
trips.
(d) The dominant sources of noise through the project area are from freeway traffic
and traffic along Diamond Bar Boulevard. Noise attenuates with distance and
intervening objects and obstacles serve to further impede the transmittal of
sound energy. The structures associated with the proposed development would,
therefore, serve as a partial sound wall reducing traffic noise at other existing
residential location. The introduction of intervening structures could benefit
adjacent residents by further reducing line -of -sight propagation of mobile source
noise along adjoining roadways.
(e) Residential uses typically generate noise, including both noise associated with
vehicle operation and with other day-to-day activities. Existing sensitive
receptors located adjacent to the "Site D" property may, therefore, experience an
increase in noise generated from the project site. Since residential uses are
deemed to be compatible with other adjacent residential uses, any resulting
noise increase would be less than significant.
(f) All City parks are open daily. Hours of operation are generally limited to one-half
hour before sunrise until one-half hour after sunset. Although low -intensity
security lighting will be incorporated into the facility's design, park amenities are
not anticipated to include any pole -mounted, high-intensity sports lighting that
would allow for organized sporting activities to extend into evening hours.
(g) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.8.4 Environmental Effect: Short-term construction and long-term operational noise
associated with the project, in combination with other related projects, will contribute to
both a localized and an areawide increase in ambient noise levels in proximity to those
projects and along those roadways utilized by project -related traffic (Noise Impact 8-4).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative noise impacts are addressed in Section 4.8
(Noise) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.8 (Noise) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Construction noise impacts are generally localized and limited to each related
project site and those areas proximal to those construction operations.
Cumulative construction noise impacts will be generally localized to each such
project and the roadway network along which construction traffic travels.
(c) As traffic volumes in the general project area increase over time, those areas
located in proximity to the arterial highway system will experience increased
traffic noise. Existing roadway volumes would, however, need to double in order
to produce a perceptible noise increase.
74
(d) Large-scale projects that contribute substantially to traffic volumes along the
arterial highway system are subject to CEQA compliance. Similarly, the noise
element of each agency's general plan specifies those roadways that are subject
to excessive noise levels. Beyond those requirements imposed by each agency's
noise ordinance, land -use entities have the ability to impose additional
conditions, performance standards, and mitigation measures on each project in
order to reduce potential short-term and long-term traffic noise impacts.
(e) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.9 Public Services and Facilities
7.9.1 Environmental Effect: During construction, heavy equipment, materials, and other items
of value will be brought to the project site. As buildings are erected, prior to site
occupancy, structures may remain unsecured and susceptible to unauthorized entry.
The presence of an unsecured site and items of value could result in theft and vandalism
that could increase demands upon law enforcement agencies (Public Services Impact 9-
1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative public services and facilities impacts are
addressed in Section 4.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in the DER and Section
3.3.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Since the project site is presently vacant and since no public use is authorized
thereupon, the property presently places little, if any, demand upon existing
police protection services. With the introduction of construction workers,
equipment, and construction material, an increased demand for police service
will occur during the construction phases.
(c) Increased police surveillance during construction, including enforcement of traffic
laws, would not require construction of any new Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department (LACSD) and/or California Highway Patrol (CHP) facilities or
necessitate the physical alteration of any existing Iw enforcement facilities.
(d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of conditions (Conditions/Standards 9-1 and 9-2) requiring
the preparation of a construction security plan outlining the activities that will be
instituted to secure the construction site from potential criminal incidents and
providing the LACSD the opportunity to review and comment upon building
plans.
(e) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.9.2 Environmental Effect: Project implementation will result in the introduction of equipment,
materials, and manpower into a County -designated fire hazard area prior to the provision
of water system improvements designated to respond to on-site and near -site fire
hazards (Public Services Impact 9-2).
75
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative public services and facilities impacts are
addressed in Section 4.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in the DEIR and Section
3.3.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The project must fully comply with all applicable provisions of the "Uniform
Building Code' (UBC) and "Uniform Fire Code" (UFC), as modified, and other
applicable provisions of the "Los Angeles County Code" (County Code)
established to address fire protection and public safety.
(c) The project is subject to compliance with the Los Angeles County Fire
Department's (LACFD) "Fuel Modification Plan Guidelines for Projects Located in
Fire Zone 4 or Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone" requirements.
(d) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of conditions (Conditions/Standards 9-3 through 9-5)
requiring the Los Angeles County Fire Department's (LACFD) approval of: (1) a
fire protection program and workplace standards for fire safety; (2) a fuel
modification, landscape, and irrigation plan; (3) water improvement plans; and (4)
associated building plans and configuration of the residential development and
neighborhood park.
(e) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.9.3 Environmental Effect: The public school located closest to the project site is Castle Rock
Elementary School (2975 Castle Rock Road). Construction activities could constitute an
attractive nuisance to children located near or passing by the project site and
construction traffic could impose a safety hazard to children and/or become disruptive to
school activities and operations (Public Services Impact 9-3).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative public services and facilities impacts are
addressed in Section 4.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in the DEIR and Section
3.3.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The existing regional workforce is sufficient to accommodate the labor -based
requirements to construct the project. Since no substantial increase in the
number of new households within the general project area would be anticipated,
no direct construction -related impacts on WVUSD facilities have been identified.
(c) Construction traffic accessing the site via Cold Springs Road will cross Castle
Rock Road in the vicinity of Castle Rock Elementary School.
(d) Construction vehicles will transport equipment, building materials, and could
discharge construction debris along streets adjacent to established residential
areas, including the school, where children would be present.
(e) Construction activities may present an attractive nuisance, defined as any
condition which is unsafe or unprotected and, thereby, dangerous to children and
76
which may reasonably be expected to attract children to the property and risk
injury by playing with, in, or on it.
(f) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of conditions (Conditions/Standards 6-2, 6-3, 6-4, and 9-6)
restricting construction traffic along Castle Rock Road and Pasado Drive,
requiring: (1) preparation of a construction traffic safety plan; (2) preparation of a
traffic control plan; and (3) fencing and signage of the construction site.
(g) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.9.4 Environmental Effect: With a resident population of approximately 656 persons and an
existing LACSD staffing ratio of one sworn officer for each 1,082 residents, in order to
maintain existing staffing levels, the LACSD would need an additional 0.61 sworn
deputies (Public Services Impact 9-4).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative public services and facilities impacts are
addressed in Section 4.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in the DEIR and Section
3.3.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The LACSD's actual police protection personnel needs will be determined over
time, based on that department's experience with the project's residential and site
users, areawide incident trends, and other factors, and not derived purely through
a projection of the number of on-site residents.
(c) There is no formal basis to quantify project -related law enforcement impacts, no
established nexus allowing for the collection of developer impact fees for police
protection services, and no direct linkage between approved development and
the expansion of police resources, the purchase of new and/or the replacement
of existing equipment, and the hiring of new sworn and non -sworn personnel.
(e) Neither the LACSD nor the CHP have established a functional mechanism for the
collection of law enforcement -related impact fees.
(f) Because funding for LACSD personnel, equipment, and facilities is derived through
ad valorum taxation and based on yearly allocations by the County, the County
has the ability to effectively respond to increasing and/or shifting LACSD
personnel, equipment, and facility demands.
(g) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 9-2) specifying that, prior to
the issuance of building permits, the LACSD review and comment upon building
plans and the configuration of the residential development and neighborhood
park.
(h) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.9.5 Environmental Effect: The introduction of 200 new residential dwellings and new park
acreage will increase existing demands on LACFD facilities, equipment, and personnel,
predicating an incremental need for facility expansion, the purchase of new and/or
77
replacement equipment, and contributing to the need for addition LACFD personnel
(Public Services Impact 9-5).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative public services and facilities impacts are
addressed in Section 4.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in the DEIR and Section
3.3.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Water service to the project site will be provided by the Walnut Valley Water
District (WVWD), via existing water mains. The LACFD requires a minimum fire
flow of 1,250 gallons per minute (gpm) at 20 pounds per square inch (psi) for a
two-hour duration. Existing water mains operated by the WVWD are capable of
delivering those minimum flows to the project site.
(c) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 9-5) specifying that, prior to
the issuance of building permits, the LACFD shall review and approve final water
improvement and building plans.
(d) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.9.6 Environmental Effect: Based on the Walnut Valley Unified School District's 2008 fee
justification study, since product type remains at the discretion of the Applicant, for the
purpose of CEQA compliance, assuming multi -family dwellings, project implementation
will increase enrollment within the District by an estimated 89 new students, including
approximately 26 new elementary school students (Grades K-5), 24 new junior high
school students (Grades 6-9), and 39 new high school students (Grades 9-12) (Public
Services Impact 9-6).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative public services and facilities impacts are
addressed in Section 4.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in the DEIR and Section
3.3.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) As presented in the WVUSD's 2008 "Justification Report for the Walnut Valley
Unified School District," the student generation rate for single-family dwelling
units (0.682 new students/unit) is higher than the corresponding student
generation rate for multi -family units (0.443 new students/unit). When comparing
single-family and multi -family housing types, similar increases can be identified
for Grades K-5 (0.225 students/single-family and 0.128 students/multi-family
unit), Grades 6-9 (0.170 students/single-family and 0.121 students/multi-family
unit), and Grades 9-12 (0.288 students/single-family and 0.193 multi -family unit).
Neither the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) nor Alternative 6 (January
2012 SDSP) identified the precise nature of the housing product. The DEIR's
analysis of the March 2010 SDSP was, however, predicated on a "multi -family"
91
assumption. For consistency and for analytical purposes, that same assumption
is retained as part of this analysis.
(c) Based on the District's 2008 fee justification study, assuming 200 multi -family
dwellings, project implementation will increase enrollment within the District by an
estimated 89 new students, including about 26 new elementary school students
(Grades K-5), 24 new junior high school students (Grades 6-9), and 39 new high
school students (Grades 9-12). Based on rounding, the estimates for Alternative
5 (January 2012 SDSP) are the same as those identified for the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP).
(d) As reported in the DEIR, notwithstanding statements to the contrary in the
District's 2008 fee justification study, the WVUSD appears to have a relatively
steady-state or decreasing student enrollment, resulting in both the identification
of "Site D" as surplus property and public discussions concerning the possible
shuttering of other District schools. Within the timeframe assumed herein,
sufficient school capacity (inclusive of planned capacity) would appear to exist to
accommodate site-specific growth.
(e) With regards to the "Diamond Bar area" and projected through Fiscal Year 2017,
the anticipated additional school population predicated by the development of
"Site D" does not appear to have been factored into the District's estimation of
"projected regular student generation from new development" and/or "total
projected students from new development based on dwelling unit occupancy,"
both in total and by grade level. However, because the District has declared the
"Site D" property to be surplus and because District has requested that the Lead
Agency consider a residential use for the subject property, it can be reasonably
assumed that the District has sufficient existing and planned school capacity to
accommodate this projected increase in student enrollment.
(f) Payment of applicable fees to the WVUSD or, alternatively, execution of an
Assembly Bill (AB) 2926 mitigation agreement acceptable to the WVUSD
constitutes full and complete mitigation of project -related impacts on the
provision of school facilities from new development.
(f) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 9-7) specifying that, prior to
the issuance of building permits, the City be provided with a certificate of
compliance or other documentation demonstrating that the Applicant has
complied with the District's resolutions governing the payment of school impact
fees or has entered into an AB 2926 authorized school fee mitigation agreement
or is not subject to the school impact fee exaction.
(g) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.9.7 Environmental Effect: Project implementation will increase the resident population of the
City, including the number of school-age children, incremental increasing existing spatial
and resource demands placed on the Diamond Bar Public Library (Public Services
Impact 9-7).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
WO
(a) Project -related and cumulative public services and facilities impacts are
addressed in Section 4.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in the DER and Section
3.3.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The project would add about 656 new residents to the City. That population
increase would create additional demand for library service. Based on the
County Library's service level guidelines, the Diamond Bar Library would require
an additional 328 gross square feet of additional facility space and an additional
1,804 new items.
(c) The Diamond Bar Public Library (1061 S. Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar), a
branch of the County Library System, is located in a 9,935 square foot structure
and houses a collection consisting of 89,446 books and other library materials.
(d) The County Library's current service level guidelines for planning purposes are a
minimum of 0.50 gross square foot of library facility space per capita and 2.75
items (books and other library materials) per capita. Based on an estimated
service area population of 56,233 persons, as derived from United States
Census data, the Diamond Bar Public Library would need a 28,115 square foot
facility and 154,640 items in order to meet that standard.
(e) In 2011, the County entered into a 40 -year lease agreement with the City for a
new library facility to be located at 21810 Copley Drive, comprising the ground -
floor of an approximately 55,000 square foot office building acquired by the City
in 2010 to serve as a new City Hall. The new library facility will have about
18,000 square feet and about 200 parking spaces. The existing Diamond Bar
Public Library will relocate from its existing location, which contains only about 35
parking spaces, and is projected to be in operation at its new site in 2012. The
new library facility is projected to accommodate existing and reasonably
foreseeable future library serve demands within the City.
(f) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.9.8 Environmental Effect: Project implementation will increase the resident population of the
City of Diamond Bar and generate a projected need for 2.10 acres (approximately
91,518 square feet) of additional parkland within the City (Public Services Impact 9-8).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative public services and facilities impacts are
addressed in Section 4.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in the DER and Section
3.3.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Section 21.32.040 (Park Land Dedications and Fees) in Chapter 21.32
(Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code provides for the dedication of real property
and/or the payment of in -lieu fees to the City for park and recreational purposes.
(c) Development -specific park demands can be calculated in accordance with the
formula provided in Section 21.32.040 (Park Land Dedications and Fees) in Title
21 (Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code, as follows: X = 0.005(UP), where "X is
the amount of parkland required in acres, "U" is the total number of approved
dwelling units, and "P" is the unit -type multiplier. The Municipal Code assumes a
We,
multiplier of: (1) 2.1 for multi -family (5 or more dwelling units); (2) 2.9 for attached
single-family (townhouse) dwellings, duplexes, and multifamily dwellings
containing four or fewer dwelling units; and (3) 3.4 for detached single-family
dwellings. Assuming the classification of those units as multi -family dwellings,
the proposed 200 dwelling units would generate a need for 2.10 acres
(approximately 91,518 square feet) of additional parkland within the City.
(d) On July 19, 2011, the City Council adopted the "Parks and Recreation Master
Plan" (P&RMP) identifying the "School District Site D" as a future "site acquisition
opportunity." The following "site analysis" was presented therein: "The parcel is
located on the southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar
Boulevard and is about 30.36 acres in size. Acquisition of the site would serve to
add additional parkland acreage to meet the City's desired 3 acres per thousand
[residents] parkland standard and would serve as a neighborhood park for the
surrounding community. The future developer of the site shall improve and
dedicate a minimum two acre public park. The future developer will be required
to hold neighborhood outreach meetings for the design and location of the public
park as part of the tentative tract map entitlement process." As further indicated
in the P&RMP, specific "site opportunities" include both a "[m]inimum two acre
usable public park and "[p]edestrian and bike trail along Brea Canyon Road."
(e) The proposed includes the dedication and improvement, by the Applicant, of not
less than 2.0 net acres of useable area of public parkland.
(f) With regards to the potential for criminality in the park, incidents of and trends
regarding criminality are difficult to ascertain since both the City and the County
lack crime statistics regarding public safety in public parks. Since there exists no
accepted methodology to equate land -use decisions to the incidence and type of
criminal activities or nuisance, any assumptions that the park will induce, attract,
or generate misconduct would be speculative and beyond the scope of CEQA.
(g) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a number of conditions (Conditions/Standards 9-2, 9-8, and 9-9)
specifying: (1) prior to the approval of the final subdivision map, the Applicant
shall dedicate or conditionally dedicate and improve or commit to improve a
minimum of two net acres of useable area to the City for park purposes and,
unless Quimby Act obligations are otherwise fulfilled by dedication and/or the
provision of Applicant -sponsored park improvements, provide the City with an
additional in -lieu park fee payment in the manner and in the amount authorized
the Subdivisions Code or otherwise specified by the City Council; (2) as part of
the tentative tract map entitlement process, the Applicant shall conduct or
participate in conducting not less than two neighborhood outreach meetings
soliciting public comments concerning the location, configuration, design, and
range of amenities to be included in the on-site public park; and (3) prior to the
issuance of building permits, the LACSD shall be provided the opportunity to
review and comment upon building plans and the configuration of the residential
development and neighborhood park.
(h) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.9.9 Environmental Effect: The approval of other reasonably foreseeable future development
projects within the general project area will increase existing demands on the Los
Angeles County Sheriff's Department and on the Los Angeles County Fire Department,
increase the number of school -aged children served by the Walnut Valley Unified School
N
District, and increase the demand for park and recreational facilities within the City
(Public Services Impact 9-9).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1),
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding
(a) Project -related and cumulative public services and facilities impacts are
addressed in Section 4.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in the DER and Section
3.3.9 (Public Services and Facilities) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Based on a Statewide, regional, areawide, or local assessment of need, public
agencies have the ability to construct new facilities, purchase new equipment,
and add personnel in response to identified demand. Local agencies have the
ability to deny or condition individual development applications based on their
assessment of potential project -related impacts upon law enforcement and fire
protection agencies, facilities, and personnel. Public agencies have the ability to
respond to those changes through increases/decreases in annual budgetary
allocations provided to police and fire protection agencies, including the LACSD
and LACFD.
(c) All qualifying residential and non-residential development projects located within
the WVUSD's boundaries are required to pay school impact fees. The payment
of applicable school impact fees or the execution of an AB 2926 mitigation
agreement constitutes full and complete mitigation for project -related impacts on
WVUSD facilities.
(d) In November 2007, the area's voters approved General Obligation Bond
Measure S ($64.6 million Academic Facilities Measure) and Measure Y ($15.2
million Physical Education Facilities Measure). As a result of those ballot
measures, WVUSD schools will receive needed repairs and upgrades.
(e) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.10 Utilities and Service Systems
7.10.1 Environmental Effect: Wastewater collection facilities do not presently exist on the
project site and will not be available until the infrastructure improvements required to
accommodate the proposed land uses are constructed (Utilities and Service Systems
Impact 10-1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding
(a) Project -related and cumulative utilities and service systems impacts are
addressed in Section 4.10 (Utilities and Service Systems) in the DER and
Section 3.3.10 (Utilities and Service Systems) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The provision of potable water and toilet facilities is required under United States
Department of Labor Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) (29
M
CFR 1926.51) and California Department of Industrial Relations, Division of
Industrial Safety (Cal/OSHA) (Section 1524-1526, CCR) standards.
(c) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.10.2 Environmental Effect: The project's residential and park components are projected to
generate approximately 39,100 gallons of wastewater per day (0.04 mgd). Applying a
peaking factor of 2.7, the peaked flow rate would be about 105,570 gallons of
wastewater per day (0.11 mgd) (Utilities and Service Systems Impact 10-2).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative utilities and service systems impacts are
addressed in Section 4.10 (Utilities and Service Systems) in the DEIR and
Section 3.3.10 (Utilities and Service Systems) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The County Sanitation Districts of Los Angeles County (CSDLAC or Districts) has
formulated average wastewater generation rates for a variety of land uses. The
CSDLAC projects that for multi -family (five units or more) dwelling, each unit will
generate approximately 156 gallons of wastewater per day (gpd). With regards
to public park use, wastewater rates are approximately 100 gpd per each 1,000
square feet of any structures that would generate sewer flows. Although no
comfort facilities are presently proposed, for the purpose of CEQA compliance,
public park use is assumed to generate 100 gallons of wastewater per day.
(c) Peak daily flow rates are higher than daily rates and serve as the basis for facility
planning. Applying a peaking factor of 2.7, the peak flow rate would be about
105,570 gpd (0.11 mgd).
(e) The project generally gravity flows sewage toward the west portion of the
property. Wastewater flow originating from the project will discharge to a local
sewer line (not maintained by the CSDLAC) for conveyance to the Districts No.
21 Outfall Trunk Sewer, located in Brea Canyon Road at Via Sorella. This 18 -
inch diameter trunk sewer has a design capacity of 12.3 mgd and conveyed a
peak flow of 4.9 mgd when last measured in 2005. Assuming that peak flow
rates have not changed substantially since 2005, even with the project's
projected contribution (0.11 mgd), sufficient capacity exists in the Districts No. 21
Outfall Truck Sewer to readily accommodate the proposed development.
(f) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 10-1) specifying that, prior to
the issuance of any grading permits, a sewer area study, prepared by a licensed
civil engineer registered in the State of California, be submitted to and approved
by the City Engineer and the County.
(g) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.10.3 Environmental Effect: Implementation of the project and other related projects would
impose cumulative impacts on those sewage collection and disposal facilities located in
the general project area (Utility and Service Systems Impact 10-3).
M.
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative utilities and service systems impacts are
addressed in Section 4.10 (Utilities and Service Systems) in the DEIR and
Section 3.3.10 (Utilities and Service Systems) in RTC2 and those analyses are
incorporated by reference herein.
(b) At the project -specific level, on an as -needed basis, local agencies require
project proponents to assess the impacts of projects on existing sewer facilities.
Those analyses are conducted to identify any site-specific or project -specific
improvements that may be required to the local and/or CSDLAC-maintained
sewer systems that may be needed to handle increased sewage flows
attributable to each project. As required, all related projects must construct any
requisite local wastewater improvements needed to handle their respective flows.
(c) CSDLAC facilities are sized and improvements phased to serve population and
economic development in accordance with forecasts adopted by SCAG. Projects
that are consistent with SCAG growth forecasts can be adequately served by
existing and planned CSDLAC facilities.
(d) In order to fund planned improvements, each new project within the County is
required to pay connection fees to the CSDLAC. Those fees are used to finance
future expansions and upgrades to the regional trunk sewer system and
wastewater treatment facilities.
(e) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.11 Cultural Resources
7.11.1 Environmental Effect: Ground disturbance activities can result in impacts to on-site
cultural resources meeting California Register of Historic Resources eligibility criteria
(Cultural Resources Impact 11-1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative cultural resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.11 (Cultural Resources) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.11 (Cultural
Resources) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Information and analysis concerning the existing cultural resources setting,
including an assessment of site-specific impacts, is presented in "Phase I
Cultural and Paleontological Resource Assessment of the Proposed Site D
Development, Los Angeles County, California" (PCR Services Corporation,
January 24, 2008).
(c) With regards to Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), in the absence of a
conceptual grading plan and concurrent processing of a tentative map, for the
purpose of CEQA compliance, it is assumed that the acreage of site disturbance,
the quantity of on-site grading operations, and the location of cut -and -fill slopes
would be similar to that associated with the proposed project (March 2010
SDSP). Similarly, with regards to Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), the Lead
MIS
Agency has assumed that the DEIR's assessment of cultural resources remains
generally applicable to a lesser -scale development. The level of cultural
resource impacts is, therefore, assumed to be no greater than that assumed for
the March 2010 SDSP.
(d) 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.
(e) Results of the historic aerial photograph and topographic map review revealed
that a structure (HS -1) was once located within the boundaries of the project site
that was associated with the historic Diamond Bar Ranch Headquarters
Compound (Compound). The Compound included the residence of Frederick E.
Lewis, who owned and operated Diamond Bar Ranch. There is a moderate
potential for the site to retain buried domestic or ranch maintenance components
such as trash pits, privy holes, and similar features.
(f) Results of the survey revealed the identification of a historical archaeological site,
consisting of more than 15 non-native eucalyptus trees and concrete debris
concentration likely associated with the former location of HS -1. The significance
of that site with respect to CEQA is considered to be undetermined.
(g) Based on the potential presence of significant cultural resources impacts, a
number of mitigation measures (MMs 11-1 through 11-3) have been included in
the FEIR and adopted or likely to be adopted in the MRMP requiring that, prior to
the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified archaeologist be retained to monitor
all vegetation removal and ground disturbance to a depth of three feet within
specified areas. If cultural resources are identified during monitoring of the
ground disturbing activities, the archaeologist shall temporarily divert or redirect
grading or excavation activities in the vicinity of those resources in order to make
an evaluation of the find and determine appropriate treatment. If human remains
are encountered unexpectedly during construction excavation and grading
activities, Section 7050.5 of the Health and Safety Code (HSC) requires that no
further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has made the necessary
findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the PRC.
Implementation of those measures will reduce identified impacts to below a level
of significance.
7.11.2 Environmental Effect: Ground disturbance activities could result in impacts to on-site
paleontological resources, including fossil remains, from the Puente Formation (Cultural
Resources Impact 11-2).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative cultural resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.11 (Cultural Resources) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.11 (Cultural
Resources) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Results of the paleontological resources records search revealed that the study
area is underlain by the Puente Formation (also known as the Monterey
Formation in the region), which is a formation known to contain diverse and well-
preserved marine vertebrate fossils. The results of the pedestrian survey
confirmed the exposure of the Puente Formation on the project site and identified
FR
four fossil localities in backdirt piles from geotechnical core sampling. The
project site is considered to be highly sensitive for paleontological resources.
(c) Based on the potential presence of significant cultural resources impacts, a
number of mitigation measures (MMs 11-4 through 11-8) have been included in
the FEIR and adopted or likely to be adopted in the MRMP requiring that, prior to
the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist meeting the
qualifications established by the Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists be
retained to develop and implement a paleontological monitoring plan. A
paleontological monitor, supervised by the paleontologist, shall monitor all
excavations in the Puente Formation or excavations anticipated to extend into
the Puente Formation. The paleontologist shall prepare a final report on the
monitoring. If fossils were identified, the report shall contain an appropriate
description of the fossils, treatment, and curation. A copy of the report shall be
filed with the City and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and
shall accompany any curated fossils. Implementation of those measures will
reduce identified impacts to below a level of significance.
7.11.3 Environmental Effect: Grading activities conducted on other sites located within the
general project area could result in impacts to any historic or prehistoric resources that
may be located thereupon. In addition, earth -moving activities conducted on other
undisturbed sites containing the Puente Formation could result in the loss of recoverable
paleontological resources (Cultural Resources Impact 11-3).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative cultural resources impacts are addressed in
Section 4.11 (Cultural Resources) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.11 (Cultural
Resources) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) All cumulative project activities remain subject to site-specific environmental review
and must fully conform to and comply with all applicable local, State, and federal
requirements. Compliance with those requirements will ensure that all related
project -specific and cumulative impacts upon prehistoric, historic, and
paleontological resources are mitigated to a less -than -significance level.
(c) Since none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the identified impact
would be less than significant and no additional conditions, standards, and/or
mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.12 Aesthetics
7.12.1 Environmental Effect: Excluding those areas that will be retained as open space, the
project site will take on a distinctively urban physiographic character as existing
vegetation is removed, construction equipment introduced onto the site, hillside areas
recontoured, new uses are introduced, and other physical modifications occur (Aesthetic
Impact 12-1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
W.
(a) Project -related and cumulative aesthetics impacts are addressed in Section 4.12
(Aesthetics) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.12 (Aesthetics) in RTC2 and those
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) With regards to Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), in the absence of a
conceptual grading plan and concurrent processing of a tentative map, for the
purpose of CEQA compliance, it is assumed that the acreage of site disturbance,
the quantity of on-site grading operations, the location of cut -and -fill slopes, the
location and size of retaining walls, and grading quantities would be similar to
that associated with the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP). Similarly, with
regards to Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), the Lead Agency has assumed
that the DEIR's assessment of aesthetic impacts remains generally applicable to
a lesser -scale development. The level of visual resource impacts is, therefore,
assumed to be no greater than that assumed for the March 2010 SDSP.
(c) Under those assumptions, the proposed development will consist of three mass -
graded "super pads," connected by an internal roadway system. The pads will
be developed by balanced cut -and -fill grading. Cuts will range from less than five
feet to about 40 feet high. Fill slopes will range in height from a few feet to
approximately 60 feet down-slope from the upper residential pad to Diamond Bar
Boulevard.
(d) City policies encourage the use of contour and landform grading techniques in
order to create more naturalized engineered slope areas. Proposed grading
activities will seek to apply those contour grading principals to the proposed
engineered slope areas, creating, where practical, curvilinear features that
produce a visual transition between engineered and natural open space areas.
(e) A landscaped "entry feature' will be established near the corner of Diamond Bar
Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road, predominately in the vicinity of the City
Property. The entry feature is intended to establish a visual "landmark" or
"gateway" along one of the City's prominent arterial highways.
(f) Development activities conducted on the project site remain subject to the City's
subdivision review (Section 22.08.040, Municipal Code), plot plan review
(Section 22.47.020, Municipal Code), and development review (Section
22.48.020, Municipal Code). Through those existing processes, the City will
ensure that development plans are consistent with land -use authority and
compatible with other proximal land uses.
(g) Although construction is short-term in duration, it serves as precursors to the
long-term visual changes that will occur as a result of those activities. During
development, construction activities may appear disharmonious with the current
perception of the existing property as an open -space area. At the end of the
construction term, the site will take on a distinctively urban character and shall
generally be perceived as an urban use.
(h) Based on the City's interpretation and general application of the visual resource
assessment methodology outlined in the Bureau of Land Management's (BLM)
"Visual Resource Management Program" (BLM, 1986), construction -induced
changes would be considered adverse but less than significant.
(i) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 12-1) specifying the minimum
valuation of the landscaped "entry feature" to be developed in the vicinity of
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road.
(j) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
515
7.12.2 Environmental Effect: The project's implementation will alter the site's existing
topography and necessitate the construction of numerous retaining walls (Aesthetic
Impact 12-2).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding
(a) Project -related and cumulative aesthetics impacts are addressed in Section 4.12
(Aesthetics) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.12 (Aesthetics) in RTC2 and those
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) As specified in the January 2012 SDSP, the exposed height of retaining walls
supporting fill slopes along the project perimeter and entry drive shall not exceed
four feet. Retaining and crib walls up to 18 feet in height shall be permitted. Crib
walls are prefabricated modular walls that consist of stacked interlocking
concrete cells that form a retaining wall. Crib walls are filled with suitable backfill
and live vegetation planted in individual cells. Plant material is generally selected
to fill each cell area so as to function both as a retaining wall and a landscape
element. Landscaping will serve to minimize the potential adverse visual effects
of on-site retaining walls.
(c) Although none of the threshold criteria would be exceeded, the Lead Agency has
identified a standard condition (Condition/Standard 12-2) specifying that the
subsequent development plans include design details, acceptable to both the
City Engineer and to the Community Development Director, for all proposed
retaining walls.
(d) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.12.3 Environmental Effect: The introduction of new residential and public park uses will add
new sources of artificial lighting to the project site and could result in light trespass
extending beyond the project boundaries (Aesthetic Impact 12-3).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding
(a) Project -related and cumulative aesthetics impacts are addressed in Section 4.12
(Aesthetics) in the DEIR and Section 3.3.12 (Aesthetics) in RTC2 and those
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) Outdoor lighting standards are contained in Section 22.16.050 (Exterior Lighting)
of the Municipal Code. As indicated, in part, therein, where the light source is
visible from outside the project boundary, shielding shall be required to reduce
glare so that neither the light source nor its image from a reflective surface shall
be directly visible from any point five feet or more beyond the property line. This
requirement shall not apply to single-family residential uses, traffic safety lighting,
or public street lighting. Section 22.16.050(e) of the Municipal Code provides
specific requirements for the lighting of recreational sports courts.
(c) The Illuminating Engineering Society of North America (IESNA) has established
recommended outdoor lighting illumination levels. As defined by the IESNA, a
widely used light trespass standard is to limit the exterior lighting originating on a
::
property to a maximum of 0.5 horizontal foot candles (HFC) at a distance of 25
feet beyond the property lines. Lighting that conform to those standards would be
assumed to produce a less -than -significant impact.
(d) Spill light is defined as the light shining beyond the area to be illuminated, caused
either by the uncontrolled direct component of luminaires or from light reflected
from the task being illuminated. The California Energy Commission (CEC)
defines "light trespass" as "unwanted light from a neighboring property. Any
source of light can create trespass, but complaints are related mostly to sports
lighting, billboards, and street lighting. Light trespass is annoying, but it can also
become a nuisance or even a serious health and safety risk if it adversely affects
visibility for other tasks. Light trespass may also be a source of glare, including
disabling, discomfort, veiling luminance, and annoyance glare that can also be
serious public health and safety risk."
(d) Increased site utilization will result in the introduction of vehicle headlights along
on-site vehicular travel routes. On-site street gradients and configuration have
not been determined. It, however, can be assumed that certain off-site receptors
(e.g., adjacent residential areas) may experience an increase in light intrusion
attributable to the headlights of automobiles (including trucks) entering the
project site from Diamond Bar Boulevard. Automobile headlights are common
light sources, presently exist within the general project area, and can be
effectively reduced through building placement and introduced landscaping. As
such, the potential intrusion of vehicle headlights is less than significant.
(e) With regard to sports lighting in public park settings, illumination levels
associated with night sports are typically higher that typically encountered in the
nighttime environment. As indicated by the Illuminating Engineers Society of
North America (IESNA), with regards to sports lighting, '[tjhere are limited
choices for outdoor lighting systems compared with the selection for lighting
applications. Since there is usually no surface to redirect the light bounced from
the playing area, outdoor lighting systems primarily consist of direct distribution
floodlights aimed at the playing surface." The IESNA further notes that since
outdoor lighting is generally visible far beyond facility boundaries, careful
consideration should be given to spill light encroaching on neighboring property
and light that contributes to sky glow. Based on the limited size of the proposed
neighborhood park, high-intensity sports lighting is not presently assumed.
(f) In the absence of final plans for site development, the project has the potential to
introduce new source of substantial light and glare that could adversely impact
off-site areas.
(g) Based on the potential presence of significant aesthetic impacts, a mitigation
measure (MM 12-1) has been included in the FEIR and adopted or likely to be
adopted in the MRMP requiring that all pole -mounted or wall -mounted luminaires
installed for the purpose of illuminating homes, public park areas, private
roadways, and driveways conform to appropriate lighting standards and
demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that light trespass will not
exceed 0.5 horizontal foot candle, as measured at the project boundaries
abutting any existing residential use. Implementation of that measure will reduce
identified impacts to below a level of significance.
7.12.4 Environmental Effect: Much of the San Gabriel Valley is already highly urbanized and
the area's remaining open -space areas take on greater visual significance as a respite to
the dominance of urban development (Aesthetic Impact 12-4).
i�7
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative aesthetics impacts are addressed in Section 4.12
(Aesthetics) in the DER and Section 3.3.12 (Aesthetics) in RTC2 and those
analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The City and other municipalities located within the County formulate long-range
planning documents with the intent of directing development activities to those
areas most conducive to growth, based on a variety of planning considerations.
Separate formal planning and environmental review processes exist when a
development proposal seeks to modify those adopted long-range plans.
(c) No development is authorized to occur in the absence of compliance with
adopted agency plans and policies and in the absence of appropriate
environmental review. Compliance with and conformity to adopted plans and
policies helps to mitigate the potential cumulative impacts produced by the visual
changes to existing landscapes associated with future development activities.
While the further intensification of the region may constitute an adverse impact,
the incremental and inevitable changes resulting from those activities would not
be deemed a significant cumulative impact on the region's existing visual
resources.
(c) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.13 Growth Inducement
7.13.1 Environmental Effect: Because the project includes both an amendment to the "City of
Diamond Bar General Plan" and the adoption of a specific plan, the project may result in
on-site development activities that exceed current development assumptions and
necessitate the provision of unplanned services and facilities beyond the project
boundaries (Growth Inducement Impact 13-1).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative growth -inducing impacts are addressed in Section
4.13 (Growth Inducement) in the DER and Section 3.3.13 (Growth Inducement)
in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) California State law requires that every city and county prepare and adopt a long-
term, comprehensive general plan for its future development. The general plan
serves as a "constitution for development" and the foundation upon which all
land -use decisions in a city or county are to be based.
(c) The project's implementation will change existing land -use policies with regards
to the allowable use of the project site, potentially resulting in an intensification of
uses within the City beyond that now envisioned in the City General Plan. Since
planning for public services is, in whole or in part, based on existing and
projected demands for those services, changes in public land -use policies have
the potential to impose additional unplanned demands upon those services and
facilities.
.M
(d) Although the site is designated for "public facilities," the public facility provider
which owns the majority of the project site has declared the property to be
surplus and not required for public facility use.
(e) Although project implementation will result in a modification to existing land -use
policies, based on the limited scale of development, the resulting use is not
anticipated to necessitate the provision of unplanned services and facilities
beyond the project boundaries.
(f) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
7.13.2 Environmental Effect: The construction of 200 new dwelling units will increase the City's
population by an estimated 656 individuals, require an estimated 72 construction
workers to complete, and create an estimated additional 86 indirect and induced job
opportunities (Growth Inducement Impact 13-2).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (1).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) Project -related and cumulative growth -inducing impacts are addressed in Section
4.13 (Growth Inducement) in the DER and Section 3.3.13 (Growth Inducement)
in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by reference herein.
(b) The construction of the 200 housing units would require an estimated 72
construction workers. Construction workers may impose short-term demands on
local businesses, such as nearby restaurants. Those localized demands will,
however, cease upon completion of construction activities. A wide range of
businesses now exists near the project site. Construction -term demands on
those businesses are not anticipated to be so substantial as to warrant business
expansion based solely on project -related activities. Since construction jobs are,
by definition, short-term in duration, they are generally not the type of
employment opportunities that predicate substantial increased localized
demands for goods and services. With regards to the types of commercial uses
typically patronized by construction workers, there exist sufficient existing
businesses operating within the City and in the general project area to
adequately serve those short-term demands.
(c) With regards to long-term employment, once inhabited, jobs associated with
housing include, but are not limited to, landscape and pool maintenance, interior
designers, and associated construction trades. Jobs indirectly related to housing
include medical professionals, manufacturers and retailers, and associated
service providers. Each new residence will, therefore, incrementally increase
existing demands for manufacturing, service -related, and professional jobs. It is
estimated that each job created through residential construction supports an
additional 1.2 jobs. Based on that ratio, the project's 72 estimated construction
jobs would result in an additional 86 indirect and induced jobs.
(d) The size of the project is not sufficient to predicate any substantial in -migration of
new workers into the general project area. The project's incremental contribution
to localized, regional, and national employment opportunities would not create
substantial significant secondary impacts.
a
(e) Project implementation will not result in the removal of economic, physical,
and/or political constraints affecting either the project site or other near -site
properties.
(f) With the exception of off-site traffic improvements, the project does not include
the expansion of any infrastructure systems that would accommodate additional
off-site development. The traffic improvements identified as mitigation measures
herein serve to accommodate the project, ambient growth, and other related
projects and are not intended to add capacity beyond those projections.
(g) Since none of the threshold of significance criteria would be exceeded, the
identified impact would be less than significant and no additional conditions,
standards, and/or mitigation measures are recommended or required.
8.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THE LEAD AGENCY'S DECISION NOT TO RECIRCULATE
THE DEIR PRIOR TO CERTIFICATION
Pursuant to Section 21092.1 of CEQA and Section 15088.5 of the State CEQA Guidelines,
presented herein are findings supporting the Lead Agency's decision not to recirculate the DEIR
prior to its certification.
Section 15088.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines requires recirculation of an EIR prior to
certification of the final EIR when "significant new information is added to the EIR after public
notice is given of the availability of the draft EIR for public review. "New information is not
'significant' unless the EIR is changed in a way that deprives the public of meaningful
opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or a
feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative) that the
project's proponents have declined to implement. 'Significant new information' requiring
recirculation includes, for example, a disclosure showing that: (1) A new significant
environmental impact would result from the project or from a new mitigation measure proposed
to be implemented; (2) A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact would
result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of
insignificance; (3) A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably different
from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant environmental impacts of
the project but the project proponents decline to adopt it; (4) The draft EIR was so
fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in nature that meaningful public review
and comment were precluded" (Laurel Heights Improvement Ass'n v. Regents of Univ. of Cal.
[1993]). Findings regarding each of the four factors specified in Section 15088.5(a) are
separately presented below.
In addition, Section 15008.5(a) of the State CEQA Guidelines notes that "[n]ew information
added to an EIR is not 'significant' unless the EIR is changed in a way that derives the public of
meaningful opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the
project or a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project
alternative) that the project proponents have declined to implement." This additional factor is
also separately addressed below.
8.1 Environmental Effect: A new significant environmental impact would result from the
project or from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented (Section
15088.5(a)(1), State CEQA Guidelines).
Finding: The Council finds that no "significant new information" has been presented
requiring recirculation of the DEIR.
92
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) On June 22, 2009, the Department noticed, released, and disseminated copies of
the DER, NOC, and NOA. Both the DER and NOC were submitted to the SCH
on June 25, 2009. The State agency comment period, as established by the
SCH, concluded on August 10, 2009.
(b) With regards to the GHG emissions analysis of the proposed project (March
2010 SDSP), at the time the analysis was performed, no statutory or regulatory
requirements for inclusion of that analysis and no accepted significance threshold
existed against which projected project -related GHG emissions could be judged.
(b) Based on the 2010 revisions to the State CEQA Guidelines, as established under
Senate Bill (SB) 97 (approved by the Governor on August 24, 2007 and which
became effective on March 18, 2010), an augmented GHG emissions analysis
was performed for the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) and included in the
RTC2. For comparative purposes, a similar analysis was performed for
Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP). That analysis concluded that the proposed
project (March 2010 SDSP) would produce significant project -level (operational)
and cumulative GHG emissions impacts.
(c) Since the DER already states that air quality impacts attributable to the
proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) would be operationally and cumulatively
significant, from an air quality perspective, no new significant environmental
impacts would result from the project's implementation.
(d) The Lead Agency has concluded that no feasible mitigation measures exist that
would reduce GHG emission impacts attributable to the proposed project (March
2010 SDSP) to a less -than -significant level. With regards to the March 2010
SDSP, following the release of the DEIR, no new mitigation measures have,
therefore, been proposed for implementation by the Lead Agency.
(e) Because no new significant environmental impact would result from the project or
from a new mitigation measure proposed to be implemented, the augmented
analysis of GHG emissions in the FEIR does not constitute "significant new
information" requiring recirculation.
8.2 Environmental Effect: A substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact
would result unless mitigation measures are adopted that reduce the impact to a level of
insignificance (Section 15088.5(a)(2), State CEQA Guidelines).
Finding: The Council finds that no "significant new information" has been presented
requiring recirculation of the DER.
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) As indicated in the DER, with regards to the proposed project (March 2010
SDSP), significant, unmitigatable construction, operational, and cumulative air
quality impacts were identified by the Lead Agency. Although no significance
determination for GHG emissions was explicitly presented therein based on the
absence of a supportable threshold of significance, operationally, the DER
stated that approximately 15,889.66 tons of carbon dioxide (CO2) would be
produced annually as a result of the implementation of the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP). Based on the augmented analysis presented in the RTC2,
the Lead Agency estimated that the March 2010 SDSP would produce
approximately 14,084.01 metric tons of CO2 equivalent (MTCO2e) annually
93
ME
during the project's operation. As a result, although the quantities of CO2 and
carbon dioxide equivalent (CO2e) may not be directly comparable, the
recalculated quantity of GHG emissions provided in this RTC2 is less than the
tonnage represented in the DEIR. Based on those projections, no substantial
increase in the severity of any previously identified environmental impacts would
result from the implementation of the March 2010 SDSP.
(b) The Lead Agency has concluded that no feasible mitigation measures exist that
would reduce GHG emission impacts attributable to the March 2010 SDSP to a
less -than -significant level. With regards to the proposed project (March 2010
SDSP), following the release of the DEIR, no new mitigation measures have
been proposed for implementation by the Lead Agency.
(c) Because no substantial increase in the severity of an environmental impact has
been identified, the augmented analysis of GHG emissions in the FEIR does not
constitute "significant new information" requiring recirculation.
Environmental Effect: A feasible project alternative or mitigation measure considerably
different from others previously analyzed would clearly lessen the significant
environmental impacts of the project but the project proponents decline to adopt it
(Section 15088.5(a)(3), State CEQA Guidelines).
Finding: The Council finds that no "significant new information" has been presented
requiring recirculation of the DEIR.
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) In addition to an allowable commercial use, the proposed project (March 2010
SDSP) authorized the construction of 202 dwelling units on the subject property.
(b) The DEIR included an analysis of two residential -only alternatives. Under
Alternative 5 (Low -Density Residential), a total of 60 dwelling units would be
construction on the project site; under Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential), a
total of 404 units would be constructed on the project site. With regards to those
alternatives, the DEIR states that the City's park dedication requirements, as
established under the Municipal Code, could be satisfied through the dedication
and improvement of on-site parkland and/or the payment of in -lieu fees.
(c) Following the release of the DEIR, the CEQA analysis was subsequently
augmented to include, as a stand-alone alternative, a variation of or revision to
both the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) and to those residential -only
alternatives. Under Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), a total of 200 dwelling
units would be constructed on the project site. Park dedication requirements
would be satisfied through a combination of on-site parkland dedication and
improvement and, if further Quimby Act obligations were to exist, the payment of
additional in -lieu fees. Based on the similarities between Alternative 6 (January
2012 SDSP) and other alternatives already included in the DEIR, Alternative 6 is
not considered to be considerably different from either the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP) or from other alternatives analyzed by the Lead Agency.
(d) Because the Lead Agency has adopted or is likely to adopt Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP) rather than the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP), the
inclusion of that alternative in the FEIR does not constitute "significant new
information" requiring recirculation since implementation would clearly lessen the
significant environmental impacts of the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP
and the project proponents did not declined it.
m
8.4 Environmental Effect: The draft EIR was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and
conclusory in nature that meaningful public review and comment were precluded
(Section 15088.5(a)(4), State CEQA Guidelines).
Finding: The Council finds that no "significant new information" has been presented
requiring recirculation of the DER.
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) The Council finds and certifies that the FEIR constitutes a complete, accurate,
adequate, and good -faith effort at full disclosure under CEQA.
(b) No substantial evidence has been presented to the Lead Agency indicating that
the DER was so fundamentally and basically inadequate and conclusory in
nature that meaningful public review and comment was precluded.
8.5 Environmental Effect: EIR is changed in a way that derives the public of meaningful
opportunity to comment upon a substantial adverse environmental effect of the project or
a feasible way to mitigate or avoid such an effect (including a feasible project alternative)
that the project proponents have declined to implement (Section 15088.5(a), State
CEQA Guidelines).
Finding: The Council finds that no "significant new information" has been presented
requiring recirculation of the DEIR.
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) As part of the CEQA process, the Commission held public hearing on the
proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) on April 13, April 27, and May 11, 2010 and
the Council held public hearings on the proposed project on June 15, July 20,
October 19, November 16, December 7, and December 21, 2010. The minutes of
those public hearings are part of the project's administrative record.
(b) The Lead Agency's decision to pursue Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP)
results from public comments received during the numerous public hearing and
community meetings conducted under CEQA for the proposed project (March
2010 SDSP). As a result, rather that "deriving the public of meaningful
opportunities to comment upon. ..a feasible project alternative," the identified
alternative is a direct result of that public participation in the CEQA process.
(b) During the Commission's and the Council's deliberations on the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP), numerous comments requested that the Lead Agency
formulate and consider an alternative similar to Alternative 6 (January 2012
SDSP). For example, drawing from the numerous written and oral comments
submitted to the Lead Agency in response to the dissemination of the DER and
NOC, the following comments are extracted from RTC1: (1) "As voiced by the
majority of participants last Monday A modified plan would be more acceptable,
with the prospect of lower density housing with the incorporation of a park so
greatly needed on the southern end of our city. As we can see by South end
commercial areas, vacancies are many and are slow (years) to fill. The last thing
we need is an abandoned strip mall or another blighted center" (Comment 11-9-
6); and (2) "We do not need another commercial shopping center in our
neighborhood" (Comment 11-23-1).
95
(c) As indicated in correspondence from the President of the WVUSD's Board of
Trustees, dated December 2, 2010, with regards to comments received by the
Applicant at the November 9, 2010 Special Board Meeting/Study Session, the
District noted: "The comments received from the outreach workshop generally
revolve around the same issue we have heard at past public meetings. Based
upon this workshop summary, it was clear to the Board that the community did
not need or want commercial development on Site D, but was supportive of
single family residential development if Site D was to be developed. The
community also supported designating appropriate open space, green belt and
park areas with the development plan for Site D. Therefore, based upon the
above, the Board of Trustees for the Walnut Valley Unified School District
recommends (1) that Site D be developed 100% residential with minimal
peripheral open space, green belt and park areas with a monument to mark the
entrance into Diamond Bar, and (2) that the residential density be reduced to less
than 20 units per acre."
(d) Based on the full extent of public participation, the public has been provided a
meaningful opportunity to comment on the project.
9.0 FINDINGS REGARDING MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM
The Council has adopted or will likely adopt the MRMP set forth in the FEIR for Alternative 6
(January 2012 SDSP). The MRMP is extracted from Table RTC2-4 ("January 2012 'Site D'
Specific Plan" — Draft Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program). The Lead Agency
acknowledges that a portion of Table RTC2-4 ("January 2012 'Site D' Specific Plan" — Draft
Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program), as presented in RTC2, is mislabeled "Table ES -4
('January 2012 "Site D" Specific Plan' — Draft Mitigation Reporting and Monitoring Program)" but
is nonetheless a part of Table RTC2-4. The Council hereby finds that the MRMP presented
therein meets the requirements of Section 21081.6 of CEQA and Sections 15097 and 15126.4
of the State CEQA Guidelines.
10.0 FINDINGS REGARDING THOSE PROJECT ALTERNATIVES NOT SELECTED FOR
IMPLEMENTATION
The Council recognizes that the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) will result in significant
unavoidable environmental impacts that cannot be feasibly reduced to below a level of
significance through the adoption of feasible mitigation measures. In the presence of significant
environmental effects and the absence of feasible mitigation measures, CEQA's "substantive
mandate" directs the Lead Agency to refrain from approving a proposed project where there
exist feasible alternatives that can substantially lessen or avoid those effects.
The Council finds that, with the exception of Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), with regards to
each of the remaining conservation -based and development -oriented alternatives examined in
the FEIR, specified economic, environmental, legal, social, technological, and other
considerations make those alternatives infeasible. In addition, those alternatives will neither
fulfill the project's basic objectives nor feasibly result in the avoidance or substantial lessening of
any of the proposed project's (March 2010 SDSP) significant environmental effects.
10.1 Alternative 1 (No Project)
Alternative 1 (No Project) Description: Under this alternative, no physical changes to the
project site would occur, the property would remain in its present condition, and no new
91
development activities or other public improvements would occur thereupon. No grading
or other landform modifications would occur. Maintenance activities, including weed
abatement, would routinely be performed and the existing level of use would continue
generally in the manner now experienced. In keeping with the general intent of this
alternative, one possible variation would involve the use of all or a portion of the City
Property to allow for the development of identified Year 2030 street improvements to the
Diamond Bar Boulevard/Brea Canyon Road intersection.
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (3).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) The Lead Agency's analysis of project alternatives is presented in Section 6.0
(Alternatives Analysis) in the DEIR and in Section 3.0 ("January 2012 `Site D'
Specific Plan" Alternative) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by
reference herein.
(b) Under Alternative 1 (No Project), no new housing units, commercial square
footage, or recreational facilities would be constructed on the project site.
(c) Alternative 1 (No Project) generally reflects the conditions and associated
environmental impacts that would predictably occur should the Lead Agency
elect to either deny the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) or fail to take
affirmative action on the proposed application, resulting in, at least, the short-
term retention of the site in its existing condition. The denial of the current
development application or the cessation of current processing would, however,
neither preclude the submission of a subsequent development application either
by the current project proponent or another party nor ensure the site's long-term
retention as an open space area.
(d) With regards to the ability of Alternative 1 (No Project) to avoid or substantially
lessen the significant environmental effects of the proposed project (March 2010
SDSP):
(1) With regards to construction air quality impacts, under the proposed
project (March 2010 SDSP), combined emissions or reactive organic
gases (ROG) would exceed the SCAQMD's recommended threshold
criteria. Construction impacts would, therefore, be deemed significant.
Under Alternative 1 (No Project), no or only minimal development would
occur on the project site. Construction -term emissions of criteria
pollutants would, therefore, be eliminated and short-term air quality
impacts would be reduced to a less -than -significant level.
(2) With regards to operational air quality impacts, the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP) is projected to create ROG, NOx, and CO emissions
in excess of SCAQMD's suggested daily threshold criteria. Under
Alternative 1 (No Project), no or only minimal development would occur
on the project site. Operational emissions of criteria pollutants would be
eliminated and associated air quality impacts would be reduced to a less -
than -significant level.
(3) With regards to cumulative air quality impacts, because the construction
and operation air quality impacts attributable to the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP) cannot be reduced to a less -than -significant level,
those emissions would incrementally and significantly contribute to
regional air quality problems. Under Alternative 1 (No Project) no short- or
long-term significant increase in criteria pollutants would be anticipated
97
since no or only minimal development would occur on the project site.
Because there would exist no significant contribution to regional air
emissions in the SCAB, cumulative air quality impacts would be avoided.
(4) With regards to GHG emissions, the construction and operation of the
proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) is projected to generate GHG
emissions at levels in excess of the SCAQMD's recommenced threshold
criteria. Under Alternative 1 (No Project), since no or only minimal
infrastructure improvements would occur on the project site and no new
land uses would be introduced thereupon, no or only minimal construction
and operational GHG emissions would be produced. Because the
SCAQMD's recommended threshold standards would not be exceeded,
both project -level and cumulatively, no significant climate change impacts
would result therefrom.
(e) The Council finds that Alternative 1 (No Project) is "environmentally superior" to
the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) since it would, at least in the short
term, result in the avoidance of significant construction, operational, and
cumulative air quality impacts (including both criteria pollutants and GHG
emissions).
(f) As more thoroughly described in Section 6.1(c)(1)(B) herein, the Council finds
that Alternative 1 (No Project) would not substantially meet the project's basic
objectives.
(g) Although a substantial portion of the project site is owned by the District, the
District has declared the District Property to be surplus and seeks to dispose of
their real property holdings in order to raise funds for other eligible expenditures.
As stipulated in the MOU between the City and the District, upon the approval of
the specific plan for the development of "Site D" (if such approval were to occur),
the "District agrees to use its best efforts to sell the School Property as entitled
by the City for the fair market value, in accordance with the provisions of
California Education Code commencing with Section 17455. City agrees to use
its best efforts to sell the City Property for the fair market value. The parties
agree to cooperatively work with each other to coordinate the sale of Site D." In
the absence of public and/or private purchase of the project site for the purpose
of open space preservation, there exists no mechanism to ensure the long-term
preservation of the project site in an undeveloped condition. As a result, absent
that participation, Alternative 1 (No Project) is deemed to be economically,
legally, and socially infeasible.
10.2 Alternative 2 (Public Facilities)
Alternative 2 (Public Facilities) Description: The District Property is presently designed
"Public Facilities (PF)" in the General Plan. Although there exists no corresponding
zoning designation which relates exclusively to public facilities, this alternative is
predicated upon the geographic expansion of that General Plan designation across the
entire project site and the development of the property in accordance with the declared
intent of that General Plan designation. For the purpose of this alternatives analysis,
under this alternative, it is assumed that the estimated developable area of the project
site (20.2 acres) is developed at a floor -area -ratio of 0.25. Under this alternative, a total
of 220,000 square feet of public facilities use would be developed on the project site. For
the purpose of CEQA compliance, the FEIR assumed the sale of the project site to a
private entity, such as a religious organization or operator of a parochial school.
yii
Under this alternative, the project site would be developed to include a 73,000 square
foot (500 -student) private school and a 147,000 square foot (2,500 -seat) church. A
fellowship area would be developed within the sanctuary building which would be made
available for public use as a banquet facility. Improvements would include a parochial
school campus, including classrooms, library, and approximately 12,000 square foot
(1,000 -seat capacity) multi-purpose auditorium, outdoor recreational facilities, offices
and administrative facilities, maintenance area, and caretaker's residence. The
gymnasium would serve the private school and be available for the community for use
after school hours, including after school programs administered by the Boys and Girls
Club or similar organization. In addition, once operational, other oh -site activities are
assumed to include non-residential child-care services, family -care services, activities
and uses catering to youth groups, music and drama ministries, counseling, prayer
meetings, bible study, nutrition programs, homeless outreach and assistance programs,
and other associated educational, job training, and community services activities. The
campus would also contain 6,000 square feet of retail uses (book store). The
alternative -specific grading plan could closely replicate that associated with the
proposed project (March 2010 SDSP).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (3).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) The Lead Agency's analysis of project alternatives is presented in Section 6.0
(Alternatives Analysis) in the DEIR and in Section 3.0 ("January 2012 'Site D'
Specific Plan" Alternative) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by
reference herein.
(b) With regards to the ability of Alternative 2 (Public Facilities) to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP):
(1) With regards to construction air quality impacts, under the proposed
project (March 2010 SDSP), combined emissions or ROG would exceed
the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria. With regards to criteria
pollutants, construction impacts would be deemed to be significant.
Under Alternative 2 (Public Facilities), although on-site development
activities may be reduced (220,000 square feet of public facility use as
compared to 153,985 square feet of neighborhood -serving commercial
use and 202 dwelling units), maximum daily construction activities would
be anticipated to be similar. As a result, construction -term air quality
impacts would be assumed to be similar to those associated with the
proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) and would, therefore, remain
significant.
(2) With regards to operational air quality impacts, the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP) is projected to create ROG, NOx, and CO emissions
in excess of the SCAQMD suggested daily threshold criteria.
Implementation of this alternative would result in the generation of about
2,478 daily vehicle trips during a typical weekday (as compared to
approximately 9,276 daily vehicle trips for the March 2010 SDSP).
Because this alternative would generate substantially lower volumes of
daily and peak -hour vehicle trips that associated with the proposed
project (March 2010 SDSP), mobile source emissions would be
substantially reduced. Under this alternative, with regards to criteria
••
pollutants, operational air quality impacts would be reduced to a less -
than -significant level.
(3) With regards to cumulative air quality impacts, under the SCAQMD's
recommended methodology, development activities that generate
significant construction and/or operational air quality impacts are also
assumed to generate significant cumulative air quality impacts.
(4) With regards to GHG emissions, based on the CalEEMod emissions
modeling performed for Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), based on the
number of vehicle trips associated with Alternative 2 (Public Facilities), it
can be concluded that project -level and cumulative GHG emissions and
climate change impacts would be significant.
(c) The Council finds that Alternative 2 (Public Facilities) is "environmentally
superior" to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) since it would result in the
avoidance or substantial lessening of significant operational air quality impacts.
(d) Absent a housing component, the Council finds that Alternative 2 (Public
Facilities) would meet some but would not all of the project's basic objectives.
(e) The Council finds that Alternative 2 (Public Facilities) is legally, socially, and
technologically feasible. The District has, however, attempted to market the
District Property to a range of perspective buyers. No perspective buyer with a
declared interest in a public facilities use has been identified. Other than through
public expenditure, costs to develop the project site, including the extensive
grading required to stabilize slope areas and create building pads, likely prohibits
the site's subsequent use for any activities that would generate only limited
revenues. Alternative 2 (Public Facilities) is, therefore, not considered to be
economically feasible.
(f) Alternative 2 (Public Facilities) is not projected to result in the avoidance of
substantial lessening of the following significant environmental impacts
attributable to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP): (1) construction air
quality impacts with regards to criteria pollutants; (2) cumulative air quality
impacts with regards to criteria pollutants; and (3) project -level and cumulative air
quality impacts with regards to GHG emissions and climate change. Except
through the adoption of a statement of overriding consideration, Alternative 2
(Public Facilities) is not considered to be environmentally feasible.
10.3 Alternative 3 (Community Commercial)
Alternative 3 (Community Commercial) Description: Under this alternative, the project
site would be developed for commercial use in accordance with the "Community
Commercial (C-2)" standards outlined in Chapter 22.10 (Commercial/Industrial Zoning
Districts) of the Municipal Code. As specified in Section 22.10.020 (Purpose of
Commercial/Industrial Zoning Districts) therein, the C-2 zoning district is applied to areas
appropriate for a wide range of retail shopping and service uses, primarily intended to
serve the needs of City residents. The allowable floor -area -ratio (FAR) for non-
residential development shall be from 0.25 to 1.00 (Section 21.10.040). Based on a
FAR of 0.35 applied to the estimated net acreage (20.2 net acres), a total of 307,969
square feet of commercial use would be developed on the project site. The site would
be developed as a multi -tenant center including one or more "big -box" uses and a
number of out -pads. Except as provided in the Municipal Coe, building heights would
not exceed 35 feet. On-site parking would be provided at a ratio of one space for each
300 square feet of gross floor area plus one space for each 1,000 square feet of outdoor
100
display area (Section 22.30.030). The alternative -specific grading plan could closely
replicate that associated with the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP).
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (3).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) The Lead Agency's analysis of project alternatives is presented in Section 6.0
(Alternatives Analysis) in the DEIR and in Section 3.0 ("January 2012 'Site D'
Specific Plan" Alternative) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by
reference herein.
(b) With regards to the ability of Alternative 3 (Community Commercial) to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP):
(1) With regards to construction air quality impacts, under the proposed
project (March 2010 SDSP), combined emissions or ROG would exceed
the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria. With regards to criteria
pollutants, construction impacts would be deemed to be significant.
Under Alternative 3 (Community Commercial), on-site development
activities may be increased (307,969 square feet of neighborhood -serving
commercial use as compared to 153,985 square feet of comparable
commercial use and 202 dwelling units). Because mass grading of the
project site would be required to create the site's "super pads" and
because construction of a multi -pad commercial complex would likely be
staged based on financing considerations and market considerations,
maximum daily construction activities would be anticipated to be similar.
With regards to criteria pollutants, construction impacts would significant.
(2) With regards to operational air quality impacts, the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP) is projected to create ROG, NOx, and CO emissions
in excess of the SCAQMD suggested daily threshold criteria. Under this
alternative, the resulting retail shopping center is projected to generate
substantially greater volumes of daily and peak -hour vehicle trips that the
proposed residential and commercial development. Notwithstanding the
elimination of 202 dwelling units, the doubling of the square footage of on-
site commercial uses would result in a net increase in the number of daily
and peak -hour vehicle trips generated under this alternative. Based on
that increase, with regards to criteria pollutants, operational air quality
impacts would be projected to remain significant.
(3) With regards to cumulative air quality impacts, under the SCAQMD's
recommended methodology, development activities that generate
significant construction and/or operational air quality impacts are also
assumed to generate significant cumulative air quality impacts.
(4) With regards to GHG emissions, based on the CalEEMod emissions
modeling performed for Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), based on the
number of vehicle trips associated with Alternative 2 (Public Facilities), it
can be concluded that project -level and cumulative GHG emissions and
climate change impacts would be significant.
(c) The Council finds that Alternative 3 (Community Commercial) is not
"environmentally superior" to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) since it
would not result in the avoidance or substantial lessening of significant
101
construction, operational, and cumulative air quality impacts (including both
criteria pollutants and GHG emissions).
(d) Absent a housing component, the Council finds that Alternative 3 (Community
Commercial) would meet some but would not all of the project's basic objectives.
(e) The Council finds that Alternative 3 (Community Commercial) is economically,
legally, and technologically feasible. The District has, however, indicated that
"Site D [should] be developed 100% residential." As such, the Applicant has
indicated that it does not seek to pursue a commercial development option for
the "Site D" property. Alternative 3 (Community Commercial) is, therefore, not
considered to be socially feasible.
(f) Alternative 3 (Community Commercial) is not projected to result in the avoidance
of substantial lessening of the following significant environmental impacts
attributable to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP); (1) construction air
quality impacts with regards to criteria pollutants; (2) operational air quality
impacts with regards to criteria pollutants; (3) cumulative air quality impacts with
regards to criteria pollutants; and (4) project -level and cumulative air quality
impacts with regards to GHG emissions and climate change. Except through the
adoption of a statement of overriding consideration, Alternative 3 (Community
Commercial) is not considered to be environmentally feasible.
10.4 Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential)
Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) Description: The eastern portion of the project
site is zoned "Low Density Residential (R-1-7,500)" and "Low Medium Density
Residential (R-1-10,000)" on the City's Official Zoning Map. Alternative 4 (Low -Density
Residential) is predicated upon the expansion of the "Low Density Residential (RL)"
zoning designation so as to encompass the entirety of estimated developable area of the
project site (20.2 net acres). At a density of 3 dwelling units per net acre, a total of about
60 dwelling units would be developed on the project site. Under this alternative, the
alternative -specific grading plan could closely replicate that associated with the SDSP.
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (3).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) The Lead Agency's analysis of project alternatives is presented in Section 6.0
(Alternatives Analysis) in the DEIR and in Section 3.0 ("January 2012 'Site D'
Specific Plan" Alternative) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by
reference herein.
(b) With regards to the ability of Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP):
(1) With regards to construction air quality impacts, assuming a similar
grading plan, based on the CalEEMod emissions modeling performed for
Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), with regards to criteria pollutants, it
can be reasonably concluded that any residential development of
comparable or lesser size/scale developed on the project site and
operating under the same general assumptions would produce similar
construction -term air quality impacts. As a result, short-term air quality
impacts are assumed to be less than significant.
102
(2) With regards to operational air quality impacts, under this alternative, the
number of projected average daily trips attributable to the proposed
project (March 2010 SDSP) would be reduced from about 9,276 to 574
ADT (based on an ITE -generated trip generation rate of 9.57 trip ends per
single-family unit). Mobile source emissions would, therefore, be
substantially reduced. Based on that reduction, with regards to criteria
pollutants, operational air quality impacts would be reduced to a less -
than -significant level.
(3) With regards to cumulative air quality impacts, under the SCAQMD's
recommended methodology, development activities that do not generate
significant air quality impacts, including criteria pollutants and/or GHG
emissions, are also assumed not to generate significant cumulative air
quality impacts. Because construction and operational air quality impacts
would not exceed SCAQMD's recommended threshold standards,
cumulative impacts would not be deemed significant.
(4) With regards to GHG emissions, under this alternative, about 574 daily
trip ends would be generated during a typical weekday. Based on the
CalEEMod emissions modeling for Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP),
which generates about 1,182 daily trip ends and which was determined to
be less than significant, GHG emissions would be predicted not to exceed
the SCAQMD's recommended GHG threshold standard and the resulting
impact, both project -level and cumulatively, would be less than significant.
(c) The Council finds that Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) is "environmentally
superior" to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) since it would result in the
avoidance of significant construction, operational, and cumulative air quality
impacts (including both criteria pollutants and GHG emissions).
(d) As more thoroughly described in Section 6.1(c)(2)(B) herein, the Council finds
that Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) would meet the project's basic
objectives. However, as a result of the City's very limited land inventory, a low-
density alternative would impede local efforts toward achievement of the City's
adopted RHNA housing goals.
(e) Given the difficulties of developing a project of this size on a property of this
complexity, the project must achieve sufficient economies of scale in order to
obtain a reasonable rate of return. The existing terrain, geotechnical issues, and
the need for improved site access make this a difficult and costly property to
develop. Because costs need to be passed along to individual homebuyers,
unless designed to cater only to an elite buyer, the substantial reduction in the
number of units authorized under this alternative (60 units) would likely make the
financing of landform alterations and the provision of infrastructure improvements
infeasible. The resulting costs would limit both the range of housing products
that would be developed on the subject property and the number of qualifying
buyers.
(f) The Applicant is required to dedicate real property and finance the cost of
developing a new neighborhood park on the project site. The neighborhood park
is both a major priority and public benefit for the City, as well as a significant up-
front investment by the Applicant. In recognition of the buyer's need to achieve a
reasonable rate of return, in comparison to other alternatives allowing for a
higher intensity of use, implementation of this alternative would substantially
reduce revenue opportunities available to the District. As a result, the Council
finds that Alternative 4 (Low -Density Residential) is not economically feasible.
103
10.5 Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential)
Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential) Description: Under this alternative, the project
site would be developed for residential use in accordance with the "High Density
Residential" (RH)" standards outlined in Chapter 22.08 (Residential Zoning Districts) of
the Development Code. As specified, the maximum allowable density in this district is
20 dwelling units per acre. Based on the estimated net acreage (20.2 net acres), a total
of approximately 404 dwelling units could be constructed on the property. Under this
alternative, the alternative -specific grading plan could closely replicate that associated
with the SDSP.
As stipulated in Section 22.22.040 (Density) of the Development Code, the maximum
number of units that may be allowed on a given parcel subject to the hillside
management ordinance is calculated in compliance with specified requirements. In
accordance with the Hillside Management Ordinance, a maximum of 524 dwelling units
can be constructed within the project area. The number of dwelling units that would be
constructed under this alternative (404 units) is less than the number allowable under
that ordinance.
Finding: The Council hereby makes Finding (3).
Facts in Support of Finding: The following facts are presented in support of this finding:
(a) The Lead Agency's analysis of project alternatives is presented in Section 6.0
(Alternatives Analysis) in the DEIR and in Section 3.0 ("January 2012 'Site D'
Specific Plan" Alternative) in RTC2 and those analyses are incorporated by
reference herein.
(b) With regards to the ability of Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential) to avoid or
substantially lessen the significant environmental effects of the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP):
(1) With regards to construction air quality impacts, under the proposed
project (March 2010 SDSP), combined emissions or ROG would exceed
the SCAQMD's recommended threshold criteria. With regards to criteria
pollutants, construction impacts would be deemed to be significant.
Under Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential), on-site development
activities would consist of 404 attached dwelling units, compared to
153,985 square feet of neighborhood -serving commercial use and 202
dwelling units (202 additional dwelling units would substitute for the
153,985 square feet of commercial use). Because this change would
likely constitute an increase in total square footage of authorized uses,
the resulting construction -term air quality impacts would be likely greater
than associated with the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP). With
regards to criteria pollutants, short-term air quality impacts would remain
similar.
(2) With regards to operational air quality impacts, the proposed project
(March 2010 SDSP) is projected to create ROG, NOx, and CO emissions
in excess of the SCAQMD suggested daily threshold criteria.
Implementation of this alternative would result in the generation of about
2,364 daily vehicle trips during a typical weekday (as compared to
approximately 9,276 daily vehicle trips for the March 2010 SDSP).
Because this alternative would generate substantially lower volumes of
104
daily and peak -hour vehicle trips that associated with the proposed
project (March 2010 SDSP, mobile source emissions would be
substantially reduced. Under this alternative, with regards to criteria
pollutants, operational air quality impacts would be reduced to a less -
than -significant level.
(3) With regards to cumulative air quality impacts, under the SCAQMD's
recommended methodology, development activities that generate
significant air quality impacts are also assumed to generate significant
cumulative air quality impacts.
(4) With regards to GHG emissions, based on the CalEEMod emissions
modeling performed for Alternative 6 (January 2012 SDSP), based on the
number of vehicle trips associated with Alternative 2 (Public Facilities), it
can be concluded that project -level and cumulative GHG emissions and
climate change impacts would be significant.
(c) The Council finds that Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential) is
"environmentally superior" to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP) since it
would result in the avoidance or substantial lessening of significant operational
air quality impacts.
(d) The Council finds that Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential) would meet the
project's basic objectives.
(e) The Council finds that Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential) is economically,
legally, and technologically feasible. The District has, however, indicated that the
"residential density be reduced to less than 20 units per acre. This decrease in
density will better blend with the existing residences in the vicinity of Site D and
will better meet the current market conditions for the building community."
Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential) is, therefore, not considered to be
socially feasible in that it conflicts with and exceeds the Applicant's requested
entitlements.
(f) Alternative 5 (High -Density Residential) is not projected to result in the avoidance
of substantial lessening of the following significant environmental impacts
attributable to the proposed project (March 2010 SDSP): (1) construction air
quality impacts with regards to criteria pollutants; (2) cumulative air quality
impacts with regards to criteria pollutants; and (3) project -level and cumulative air
quality impacts with regards to GHG emissions and climate change. Except
through the adoption of a statement of overriding consideration, Alternative 5
(High -Density Residential) is not considered to be environmentally feasible.
11.0 STATEMENT OF PROJECT BENEFITS
The City Council finds that the selection, approval, and implementation of Alternative 6 (January
2012 SDSP) would result in a number of identifiable community benefits. Those benefits
include, but may not be limited to:
(1) Authorize residential development avoiding or substantially lessening significant effects
to the natural and human environment, thus furthering local, regional, and Statewide
objectives regarding environmental protection, sustainable development, and the
reduction of GHG emissions and its corresponding impacts on global climate change.
(2) Consistent with the City's "Park and Recreation Master Plan," promote the expansion of
the City's park system through the dedication and improvement, without direct costs to
the City, of a new neighborhood park in the southwestern portion of the City consisting of
not less than two net acres of useable area.
105
(3) Optimize the disposal of "surplus" lands owned by the WVUSD, thus providing critical
revenues to the District to be used for capital outlays and/or for costs of maintaining
District property that the Board of Trustees determines will not recur within a five-year
period.
(4) Allow for the construction of critical improvements to components of the City's arterial
street system, thus improving traffic flow and motorist safety.
(5) Creation of a "green" and sustainable residential community promoting energy efficiency,
water conservation, and waste reduction, and serving as a model to other future
development projects in the City.
(6) Establish and maintain a landscaped "entry feature" and establish a visual "landmark" or
"gateway' along one of the City's prominent arterial highways.
(7) Allow for the productive use of vacant property in the City, converting tax-exempt
property to a private use and providing tax and other revenue benefits to the City and its
residents.
(8) Adoption of a specific plan that will serve as a valuable regulatory tool for the systematic
implementation of the City's General Plan, defining the types of permitted and
conditionally permitted uses that the Council believes to be appropriate for the project
site, setting reasonable limits on the type and density of those uses, and establishing the
design and development standards for those uses.
(9) Provide reasonable certainty to a site developer or master builder concerning the type
and intensity of development and general nature of exactions that the City envisions with
regards to the project site.
(10) Expedite subsequent project -level CEQA compliance activities through the adoption of a
comprehensive EIR addressing the specific plan and its corresponding entitlements.
(11) Result in the production of 200 new housing units within the City, thus helping the City
respond to the identified housing demands outlined in the current "Regional Housing
Needs Assessment" (RHNA).
(12) Pursuant to Section 21000(g) of CEQA, further the attainment of the Statewide goal of
"providing a decent home and satisfying living environment for every Californian."
(13) Present future homebuyers with additional purchase options and price variations
allowing homebuyers to better match housing choices with household needs and
demands within the City.
(14) Generate school impact, park, and traffic impact fees and other exactions that will
facilitate the ability of the City and other agencies to undertake improvements to specific
public facilities.
M^
G
I�
V
O
w
a
Z
2
a. R
UO
E Z
3
a�
U) p
pZ
a
w0
N
O
N W
�z
Q Z
zQ
� C7
N
J
Q
Z
E
a
A
M
C
n
O O U
C—
O
E
c a E
m a a E
a 0
` E
O° U Nd
Q
N'r0-
Od
(D
NULL
@ N N ULL
0)<
O
-
-
cK -°
U
a
= @ 0
°
0
m0
T�
T�
E L
U m
E E
Um
O.,a
LU
oma❑
W
w
me
`
C
C O a
v N
�-% N N �` J
N
L
O
N
L >O >
N w
@_ C
m N @
— N
E N
N
760
V'
cc L-' m U E m a O
a)
N N O C Nam m m
`m
22
O U
L
oa`lE
0-0E al
a'm�m�omm _m
L�
3
C6 >
-
-
-
E
@
9a1�
OE[]do�l@@
UE�oe@ao
W•-an`cUC) 00
9m
�3EK ol3 m.m
0
wE
c
W
JE
O a
EU�
O
o °mco
O0
>Jc
N
n
5cU0cof M C)
Ma Na
'NUU
NE-
vJO
Em oEoLL
NNW C)
°
N_m mE;NOE O°m
N
N
N Q
co
M (D.
C C)
.m@-.
N>'cUcw @
mU
N N
=
Oa
CJ O@ ' O@
OU@E3
N Tm
@ O
m>E
aW
E
a-OwJT
w
E OC @ m
E>G U" N E
0O
Od
�o�@0JoC)
tom@UrC
-�
m UC0
E
E mm
O NOQ_
E
—
°
mo
°tScco w
N@ O 0
EwNw mom
OMLU �@
N
E
EJmN
@
LL ->"NENYa
m
m°
�mo�E
yE
Ew�w-O NE°
0oEo0
OMUE@
°
-
E
°N o"mM
E❑m
acow
Emg@o
2
EE
E¢mwom>
oM
Eo
E O wN
.m
_
o
LLam
0E'=a@
E
m
O O
O 0ttL'C
0
N N NcVE
w
mE
EO �
W E Z `@
@
Oa m
m C
ur "0@am
U@ Q @ O d@ a O
Q� -�
p ..T. E N °- @ m r L >
c �.@- f6
0>
°NN
a-°.L„OONr-@a
O
cUCN'�
UU
d...
N
J
y
N m o p w
16
C['U�
an
i6 L O n w N (n m
N G
L
CEN
J
.E « C
N^Em0NOE
77
- y
'O Tw
@.O
NJp
,.a
9
m OI .L..
N
0m �a O_� N m
E
O L` m, -m 0 m
UtG `
@ w
Q `O n
L
N m
@
N d
N
R�
�
EO NNL
O) C L �.^
U
N
mol
vC
NC
o
'6m=@
o
v
O
0'0>00
ccO
0
o
Lj
E
0
0
aE
N°
0a0
E°
o
O@-`
°pQ
O U WN LO
F
LL@ N9— —vC
E
(n N
a
A
M
C
C7
O
w
IL
ZII
QZ
aR
UO
UZ
O
a�
U) p
Z
Q
W V
=Z
� F
N
O
N W
�z
Q Z
O
ZF-
0
F-
J
Q
Z
M
@
C E
� O
CL U
L)
w �
V m
co
N
F-
L) U
C
D_
_
U76
a
10�
.ccD1
y
p
@
O
j
a N
_ 0 6.
m d
c
m
l�6•
�U
T�
� m
J O. �
J O. �-p Y a
c
Eoa
E o a mU'm
o
E m.�
_U '_
m e
W
a
U>
0> o w
a p c
c
r
@
L
m
0
o
y`o`o
13
n
a
E
C n
Oro
C N
C
C
N
3 C
U d
N
:o N
OC
O O p
�.
-p
_
@
>+
O
O
N
J
@ a
« N J
a
@
N
C G C N
o-
C
`O
m«
.-. O@of
N
01
a
m a
@ a> 0
T
y
m
m p
O
a
�Gp w
0
a o
@p
a
@.m
a«00-oo
< 075 E
>.m
'
'
Amo
C
a
m
a m
.. _
m@ a
m 0
co 0
� a>�
GO@
@
m
-O
O C C
C
a uJ W
O WR
inN
O
C-
a m 1 U N
a
E a
`�-
0
N m
02
N
N 0 O= 0
i/1 U N
m
C
L
p
p
C=
a
«
0a
E
O a
m
L
N@ @
.F
C
@ w.2
@
Cp O U
a
WO
m
CC)
a« m
w-
m
O
L
0 m
D @
m N
N
a p)
@ N
C
CC
p O J N
—U Tm E @
;;chino.
-
U)
(miE
aoi .op �w�a@i
N
C
E
a"'C
U@a
N
U@`�-'Oj00@
c6
mw
«O
«O
N O T-
E
@
o-0 r
ci
O@ n O) @ C
wa�.m-
-ao
Z @
ao«c
m
d
Q
a
o
O
m
c
cU@mr
«ap.-OC
E
3 acoym
a0
E
0
:
sw.wm
m
m
0m0c
T
E«mE
a>`:@oaa
@ U
-O
O
'O C
0--
L
0 3 m
api
p
a.o
O p
a -o
T w N
opo? @ a
a>i
O@ m 0
w
��-
E QrE
a
E
asi
a
U'x a
U c o
M-@(
@-
L
�a-C U
a
@
@
C
a
W9
0 OL
N O
0
OL @
a
O @J
w,aam
a
m
C a
mC
0@
0w
N-.
-C
U�
c@
CN'
a=
@ NC
C
w-
a)a
9OLC
v-o:-,CW0Ep
a
O
0
.0aa
J^w0
o
o
w oC
U p
0
j
a..V
0 m
m 0wn
C6
O
W
a L m p
o
C
[7},
OU d N
0CL
C�__
J
p L
O a
C (4 a U p
-+��!
�oo�
O
Um
O".>_.
maps
p`0E
c0
umi
asp
O
pE0c
OEp
o -o;
Lm m
Z
Q2
N
F O UU
ZqZ
NcJ
Uw—)
@o$OU—�)
L �
V
0
C
a
Z
Z
a�
U4
LL Z
UO
0W. 2
Cl) p
Z
a
W
F
N N
N Of
O
N W
z
a z
D
Z a
7
F-
J
a
z
LL
ka u
N
0
0
O
N
N =
oU
r �
o C
N a
O m
Of
75
� @a
U
@ E
E
Ec
ry O
E >->
c c
O W
>
WC
C
cpE
mm:
O
U
—
m o
@
:@ u
a m
'E.2 o
w e
E o 0
`
m e
o >O
U
U °
W
D
U
N@
W« O„D_. Ow r0 Q
N N 3 C@
N N
O
ry N N 00,
O'U
N L
V 0 UO U E E @ N U 'p N G
@ 3 a -
r
p U p C O E
o ccmo,cawopr
c' °@ a) 'O L
:oU«c c
C
o•-cN�
`o.
m
@Lpy,
U
:.
@T30 a) @ N U@ N
0 0r... Um
:�Ec m�Eo Eam=°�mm
-O
ocrw33
coc=w
a
,
0 -O -O O N y m N N
C p J U L N
D- a m
w
U 'U E
@> m m E m M .0
o i°
>' N
a
r
N@
N
U U=
>° O a) Z C
«@
a) .«
°L'�
@
CNN@r N_-dV C N o_M>
om= ir, Eoo
J y.p
cU w
0 oCU@
oE@O:N
o
N m •
E G
U¢E
°N@N(n
U@3
r_Nc
m
8 U c c
2�
m OU ° E
tE0�y'@mC
U_m
ZW-
°VL
«Ua�
U)c, 0=.-
UL m_
U_Zm.O
]odo°�
�E
-O
.cc
@�o-@'«aoOa
d'mmTm°EoE�oEom=
o¢yM`@
os
UmooO`
ci am� mc
a>mOEmN
aE
w 00 c
E°xo
°cm o n. c m 'm -- � L
'O w 0> E -@°
m> E .y
0
aEi
Q m w Q@ @ r c@ N (6 J> >i m
.LO.
'O C _Ln
Z U L
«
ry C
m
o �
cEmcj
O
c
E�°
@
mo— c
ym=
a�
@
0
=��oa
oM.Noo0E--
�6mN '-dEdoO 0o20o `
oO
x`
a'm�_m
'o�mQm�
c O
�
-o d10�E
ocuy
aono
nE
@
@ fO L N
C@ O m - D_ > L >-
N y E m C
r O @ o
O D O
@@
W
C
w
U 0
C r a) y
@L=~
,N
U E
G 1p N r QT m
m.N-
'p « E C
@ C- O O
rC
C
@.
m
mL
U� rj C`O ?
o m
r
-.
U
N T C N 3 U -O .� p. j W y C@>
N° C t0
O d 0 C y
"mON0U@O`C'p 0�TL'p
mU�C@°O
U�cO@
N°
N@
N
m`
O
N N Tw a)-CO..-�C
O =.m m
@U O(«!
�m'lp .-�L
W@C
C OOT
Nmo J@
0Oy'aO@
-- @
E> U 0 ON
'O@O
p
N
,m
OCMN d aa
~>
E
NO@@L
-6
@c
C.2
o@«w @a@OCaO
L U
o 0
oCOmy
@ I
yJ@2@ c
mL
O Oa
Q w E c c
<U c
a)
@ �a
-aa°
N
0
";
U
0nE3Ud�2'@o -co wQn
wmEUc«c
du)E m
Hm
H�
ka u
N
0
0
O
N
N =
oU
r �
o C
N a
O m
Of
75
� @a
U
@ E
E
Ec
ry O
E >->
c c
O W
>
WC
0
w
a
z�
a
Z
CLs
UO
LL Z
UUJ O
(L 2
Wo
❑Z
a
W
F
N w
Na
W
w
aZ
]O
Za
i U
C
J
a
Z
LL
O _
C
0
E
@ U
E
so
0.. O
N'
._ N
0n
G
0
CD
U
m—
U g.
� zp
G16
-O m
c E,2
0
@
O
'U
Ems"
�Q
E o u
vm
:O `O
CO c
Em
0 > 0
W
U:
U
c
m
LL 9 N@
N @
N N
O
.
0 o
o
U N E@ L
C
o@ y
N k
i0 o- 0
s,
@
O
m@
coo
rn-o 0
C o 0 -0
0
0
N d
L
,.�
E,2
00.-
L C
O y
0 y 0
y o p c
o m a
@ o m
0
@
O @
C
'C
O O
UJ m
.O.
-,5
m c
@ J 0@
O E@
c E n 0.2
0
2!`
70 0
c_ m p> U
E
h'0 0 0
c w
w
JL @ ✓�L
Z
Io
a
w
E lz
nxw E�
�Y�
cm@co
N 0>
0 30
N d Z'
N W MI
N
w
N
E.c m
@
o@ U y m
0
0
U @ @
c m
0-O
5
jY T tq
o.'K
o
p'�"c
I@
oat0�
u
J c g
O@oJ-c
c>w-
Wozo
._
0
Eo. L00
mc@i °�-oc
aa�w
r
o�;ac�@
_rn
N
V
O
M
M
oV
n �
N O
tf 0-
� d
v
m E
o m
E �
@
2 E
= c
N O
E >
O W
@
LU .E
LL
ATTACHMENT 2
CITY COUNCIL
RESOLUTION NO. 2012 -XX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR,
CALIFORNIA, APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-03
FOR PROPERY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED
AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND
BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBERS 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 and
8714-015-001).
A. RECITALS
1. On July 1, 2007, the property owner/co-applicant, Walnut Valley School
District, and property owner/co-applicant/lead agency, City of Diamond
Bar (City), executed a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the
parties agreed to collaborate in a specific plan process in order to consider
the possible rezoning of the site consisting of approximately 30.36 -acres,
and comprised of multiple parcels located at the southeast corner of Brea
Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard, Diamond Bar, County of Los
Angeles, California, collectively identified as Site D, so that both parties
may each advance their respective objectives for the disposition and/or
use of their respective real property interests.
2. The following approvals are requested of the City Council:
(a) General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 to change the land use
designations of Site D from Public Facility (PF) and General
Commercial (C) to Specific Plan (SP);
(b) Zone Change No. 2007-04 to change the zoning districts of Site D
from Low Density Residential (RL), Low/Medium Density Residential
(RLM), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan;
(c) Specific Plan No. 2007-01 to adopt the Site D Specific Plan for the
approximately 30.36 acre site to facilitate the development of 200
residential dwelling units and a minimum two net acres of useable
neighborhood public park area;
(d) Development Agreement No. 2012-01 to approve an agreement
between the City and the Walnut Valley Unified School District setting
forth the obligations and benefits to the City and the Walnut Valley
Unified School District with regard to Site D; and
3. In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and its implementing guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the above
referenced entitlements. By prior action, the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar (City Council): (1) certified that the EIR: (a) was completed
in compliance with CEQA; (b) was presented to the City Council and the
City Council reviewed and considered the information contained therein
prior to taking action on the project; and (c) reflects the City Council's
independent judgment and analysis; (2) made specific findings in
accordance with CEQA; and (3) adopted a mitigation reporting and
monitoring program.
4. The January 2012 Site D Specific Plan, identified as Specific Plan No.
2007-01 (Site D Specific Plan), that is being reviewed concurrently with
this General Plan Amendment, includes a land use plan that establishes
planning areas (Residential and Public Park/Open Space) and includes
standards and guidelines for future development of the specific plan site.
5. In recognition that no specific plan may be adopted or amended unless
the proposed plan or amendment is consistent with the agency's general
plan, as specified herein, a consistency assessment has been conducted
by the City Council and the City Council concluded that Specific Plan No.
2007-01 is consistent with the City of Diamond Bar General Plan.
6. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on
February 10, 2012. Public hearing notices were mailed to property
owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and public notices
were posted at the City's designated community posting sites. In addition
to the published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a
display board and the notice was posted at three other locations within the
project vicinity.
7. On April 13, April 27 and May 11, 2010, the Planning Commission of the
City of Diamond Bar (Planning Commission) a duly noticed public hearing
on the application and approved Resolution No. 2010-14 recommending
that the City Council approve Specific Plan No. 2007-01, as conditioned.
Prior to making its recommendation, the Planning Commission considered
several alternative land use plans set forth in the EIR, including various
all -residential and mixed-use scenarios.
8. On June 15, 2010, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing, solicited testimony from all interested parties, and continued the
matter to July 20, October 19, November 16, December 7, and on
December 21, 2010 closed the public hearing.
9. On February 21, 2012, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar re-
opened the public hearing and conducted a duly noticed public hearing on
the project.
(•i
10. The City Council has determined that the proposed General Plan
Amendment represents a consistent, logical, appropriate and rational land
use designation and implementing tool that furthers the goals and
objectives of the City of Diamond Bar General Plan (General Plan).
11. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the
proceedings upon which the City's decision is based are located at the
City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning
Division, 21810 Copley Drive, Second Floor, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
B. RESOLUTION
NOW, THEREFORE, it is found, determined and resolved by the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
the Recitals, Part A, of this Resolution are true and correct.
2. Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 for the Site D Specific
Plan based on the following finding, as required by Section 22.70.050 of
the Municipal Code and in conformance with California Government Code
Section 65358:
The amendment to the General Plan is internally consistent with the
adopted goals and policies of the City and is in the public interest.
General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03 will permit residential and public
park/open space, rather than public facility, in an area adjacent to existing
residential and commercial development. The General Plan Amendment
promotes the following:
• Land Use Element Vision Statement states: It is the overall goal of
the land use element to ensure that the land uses and development
decisions of Diamond Bar maintain and enhance the quality of life for
its residents. Goal 1 states: Consistent with the Vision Statement,
maintain a mix of land uses which enhance the quality of life of
Diamond Bar residents, providing a balance of development and
preservation of significant open space areas to assure both economic
viability and retention of distinctive natural features of the community.
The Site D Specific Plan project is a residential development that
provides quality low -medium to medium -density residential housing
within proximity to a new neighborhood park, and maintains open
space hillside areas.
Land Use Element — Goal 2 states: Manage land use with respect to
the location, density and intensity, and quality of development.
Maintain consistency with the capabilities of the City and special
3
districts to provide essential services which achieve sustainable use
of environment and manmade resources.
The Site D Specific Plan project is located at the corner of a major
and a secondary arterial in the City. This Specific Plan document will
guide the build -out, use, and habitation of Site D in a manner which is
consistent with City and State policies and standards and assures
that the project is developed in a coordinated manner, to be
compatible with surrounding land uses.
• Land Use Element - Goal 3 states: Maintain recognition within
Diamond Bar and the surrounding regions as being a community with
a well planned and aesthetically pleasing physical environment.
The Site D Specific Plan is consistent with the needs of the Diamond
Bar community by offering an aesthetically pleasing development
incorporating community identity through the development of an entry
feature at the corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar
Boulevard to mark the entrance into the City.
• Land Use Element — Goal 4 states: Encourage long-term and
regional perspectives in local land use decisions, but not at the
expense of the quality of life for Diamond Bar residents.
Interweaving low -medium to medium -density residential housing with
a neighborhood park and open space, will allow Site D to be a quality
development that will positively contribute to the City.
• Housing Element Vision Statement states: It is the overall goal of the
housing plan that there is adequate housing in the City, both in
quality and quantity, to provide appropriate shelter for all without
discrimination. Goal 1 states: Consistent with the Vision Statement,
preserve and conserve the existing housing stock and maintain
property values and residents' quality of life.
The Site D Specific Plan has been developed in accordance with the
General Plan's land use strategy for this area and creates logical and
orderly development. Low -medium to medium -density residential
and open space land uses will be carefully sited with regards to
adjacent existing development and the project's tract map application
process. Furthermore, the project may enhance surrounding
property values, which will create a long-term positive fiscal impact to
the City of Diamond Bar.
• Housing Element — Goal 2 states: Provide opportunities for
development of suitable housing to meet the diverse needs of
existing and future residents.
151
The low -medium to medium -density residential housing of Site D
meets the fiscal and culturally diverse needs of both future and
existing City residents by offering additional housing stock of single-
family residences.
The Housing Element adopts the regional housing needs
assessment (RHNA) allocation prescribed by SCAG for the 2008-
2014 planning period, which requires the City to provide land
inventory to accommodate 1,090 new housing units. The project
represents about 18.3 percent of the projected housing needs for the
period 2008-2014. The total number of dwelling units proposed (200)
on Site D is less than the adopted SCAG 2008-2014 RHNA for new
construction for "above moderate" income households (440) and only
slightly more than identified new construction need for "moderate"
income households (188). Since the projected increase appears
generally consistent with regional projections, the project will further
the attainment of SCAG's regional housing needs assessment.
• Housing Element — Goal 3 states: Provide adequate sites through
appropriate land use and zoning designations to accommodate future
housing growth.
The General Plan Land Use Map designates the approximately
30.36 -acre site as a Specific Plan Overlay. The Specific Plan
Overlay designation requires a Specific Plan to be prepared and
adopted to provide direction related to site planning, architectural
design, and site specific development standards. The Site D Specific
Plan provides a means to properly develop the site in a coordinated
manner, taking into account all local goals, policies, and objectives.
Additionally, the Specific Plan area will contain low -medium to
medium -density residential housing, thereby increasing housing
opportunities within the Diamond Bar community.
• Housing Element — Goal 5 states: Encourage equal and fair housing
opportunities for all economic segment of the community.
Site D will provide low -medium to medium -density residential uses in
the form of attached and/or detached housing, which can
accommodate various economic segments of the Diamond Bar
community and its residents by supporting the variation in character
of the Diamond Bar housing stock.
• Resource Management Element Vision Statement states: It is the
overall goal of the resource management element to provide and
maintain adequate open spaces in the City to serve the diverse
recreational needs of its residents, while fostering the wise use of
limited natural resources. Goal 1 states: Create and maintain an
5
open space system which will preserve scenic beauty, protect
important biological resources, provide open space for outdoor
recreation and the enjoyment of nature, conserve natural resources,
and protect public health and safety.
The project will have open space, which includes manufactured
slopes and greenbelts. In addition, a minimum of two net acres of
useable neighborhood public park area will be improved and
dedicated to the City for recreational open space.
• Resource Management Element — Goal 2 states: Identify limits on the
resources needed to support existing and future uses within the City
of Diamond Bar and its Sphere of Influence, and ensure that
resources are used wisely.
The project will provide sustainability performance standards which
will, in comparison to other projects not within this specific plan area,
facilitate energy and water conservation and reduce solid wastes
through the use of specified "green" building techniques and
requirements.
Public Health and Safety Element Vision Statement states: It is the
overall goal of the plan to provide a safe and healthy environment for
the residents of Diamond Bar. Goal 1 states: Create a secure public
environment which minimizes potential loss of life and property
damage, as well as social, economic, or environmental disruption
resulting from natural and manmade disasters.
The Site D residential development will provide a safe and secure
environment for City residents by promoting the policies and ideals
particular to the City. Specific standards are included in this Site D
Specific Plan regulating development within the project area, which
will minimize potential loss of life and property damage. Additionally,
each stage of development and occupancy permitted by this specific
plan will adequately provide vehicular access, public facilities, and
infrastructure for public health and safety.
• Circulation Element Vision Statement states: It is the overall goal of
the plan to provide a safe, adequate and environmentally sensitive
transportation system to meet the circulation needs of the citizens of
Diamond Bar. Goal 1 states: Enhance the environment of the City's
street network. Work toward improving the problems presented by
intrusion of regionally oriented commuter traffic through the City and
into residential neighborhoods. Consider programs to reinforce the
regional transportation and circulation system to adequately
accommodate regional needs.
N
Project -related improvement of interior and exterior roadways and
circulation will ensure safe, direct, and convenient vehicular and
pedestrian access to and through the project's land uses.
• Circulation Element — Goal 2 states: Provide a balanced
transportation system for the safe and efficient movement of people,
goods, and services through the City.
The Site D Specific Plan will contain a strong internal circulation
network that will serve to provide direct and efficient access to the
site. While the automobile will be the predominant form of travel, the
Site D Specific Plan recognizes the importance of alternative modes
of transportation. Bus stops are 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.
• Circulation Element — Goal 3 states: Maintain an adequate level of
service on area roadways.
The required CEQA document and traffic impact analysis associated
with entitlement of the Site D Specific Plan includes an analysis of
project area roadways and existing and build -out levels of service.
Appropriate mitigation measures have been formulated to ensure that
the area's roadways do not operate under the required level of
service as a result of the Site D development.
• Circulation Element — Goal 4 states: Provide or regulate the provision
of the supply of parking to meeting the needs for both residents and
park users.
The Site D development will be consistent with Chapter 22.30, Off -
Street Parking, of the Diamond Bar Development Code.
• Public Services and Facilities Element Vision Statement states: It is
the overall goal of the plan that the City acquire and maintain
adequate resources to meet the needs of its resident. Goal 1 states:
Provide adequate infrastructure facilities and public services to
support development and planned growth.
As required, public services and utilities, including water, sewer, gas,
electricity, telephone, and cable, will be extended into the Specific
Plan area to support the Site D development.
• Public Services and Facilities Element — Goal 2 states: Achieve a
fiscally solvent, financially stable community.
7
Site D will contain a high-quality, residential development, composed
of low -medium to medium -density residential; and open space land
uses. Site D will provide housing opportunities to the City's
residents, which will generate property taxes that can be used for
improvement of public services and facilities.
The proposed General Plan Amendment is consistent with all of
these goals. Therefore, the General Plan Amendment is consistent
with City policies and is in the public interest;
3. The City Council does hereby approve General Plan Amendment No.
2007-03 based on the above finding.
4. The Community Development Director shall modify the Diamond Bar
General Plan Land Use Map in accordance with this resolution that the
real property depicted in Exhibit A.
The City Council shall:
(a) - Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Resolution, by certified mail, to:
Walnut Valley Unified School District, 880 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut,
CA 91789.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21s' DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012, BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
0
Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor
I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was duly introduced, passed, and adopted, at a regular meeting of
the City Council held on the 21 sc day of February, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Council Member:
NOES: Council Member:
ABSENT: Council Member:
ABSTAIN: Council Member:
0
ATTEST:
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
0
EXHIBIT "A"
GENERAL PLAN LAND USE MAP AMENDMENT
OLD LAND USE DESIGNATIONS: PUBLIC FACILITY (PF) & COMMERCIAL (C)
NEW LAND USE DESIGNATION: SPECIFIC PLAN (SP)
ATTACHMENT 3
ORDINANCE NO. XX (2012)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING ZONE
CHANGE NO. 2007-04 CHANGING THE EXISTING ZONING TO SPECIFIC
PLAN (SP) 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).
A. RECITALS
1. On July 1, 2007, the property owner/co-applicant, Walnut Valley School
District, and property owner/lead agency/co-applicant, City of Diamond
Bar, executed a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the parties
agreed to collaborate in a specific plan process in order to consider the
possible rezoning of the site consisting of approximately 30.36 acres, and
comprised of multiple parcels located at the southeast corner of Brea
Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard, City of Diamond Bar, County
of Los Angeles, California, collectively identified as Site D, so that both
parties may each advance their respective objectives for the disposition
and/or use of their respective property interests.
2. In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and its implementing guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for the resulting Site D
specific plan project. The EIR included an analysis of both the proposed
project, subsequently identified as the March 2010 Site D Specific Plan,
and a number of alternatives thereto. The EIR concluded that, as
mitigated, the implementation of the proposed project would continue to
produce a number of significant environmental effects that could not be
reduced to a less -than -significant level.
3. As specified in the EIR, Alternative 6, identified as the January 2012 Site
D Specific Plan, was determined to be the environmentally -superior
feasible alternative since its implementation would allow for the attainment
of the project's stated objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental impacts attributable to the proposed project.
4. CEQA contains a "substantive mandate" requiring public agencies to
refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if
there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures" that can
substantially lessen or avoid those effects. CEQA Guidelines define the
term "feasible" as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
1
environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. In accordance
therewith, the City Council determined that, since the January 2012 Site D
Specific Plan would result in the avoidance or substantial reduction of
those significant environmental impacts attributable to the March 2010
Site D Specific Plan, is environmentally superior thereto, and is feasible,
the City Council identified Alternative 6 as the preferred project.
5. The City Council certified that the EIR was completed in compliance with
CEQA, that the EIR was presented to and reviewed by the Council, that
the Council considered the information contained therein, and that the EIR
reflected the Council's independent judgment and analysis. In accordance
with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a resolution recommending
certification of the EIR, adoption of a mitigation reporting and monitoring
program, and adoption of findings of fact was approved by the City
Council prior to considering this resolution.
6. The January 2012 Site D Specific Plan, identified as Specific Plan No.
2007-01 (Site D Specific Plan), that is being reviewed concurrently with
this application, includes a land use plan that establishes planning areas
(Residential and Public Park/Open Space) and includes standards and
guidelines for future development of the specific plan site.
7. In recognition that no specific plan may be adopted or amended unless
the proposed plan or amendment unless it is consistent with the agency's
general plan, as specified herein, a consistency assessment has
conducted by the City Council and the Council concluded that Specific
Plan No. 2007-01 (Site D Specific Plan) is generally consistent with the
City of Diamond Bar General Plan.
8. The following approval is requested to the City Council:
(a) Approve Zone Change No. 2007-04 changing the zoning districts
from Low Density Residential (RL), Low/Medium Density Residential
(RLM), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1) to Specific Plan (SP).
(b) Adopt Specific Plan No. 2007-01, imposing site-specific design and
development standards governing the approximately 30.36 acre
addressed therein.
9. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley DailV Bulletin newspapers on
February 10, 2012. Public hearing notices were mailed to property
owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and public notices
were posted at the City's designated community posting sites. In addition
to the published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a
display board and the notice was posted at three other locations within the
project vicinity.
2
10. On April 13, April 27, and May 11, 2010, the Planning Commission of the
City of Diamond Bar conducted and concluded a duly noticed public
hearing on the application and approved Resolution No. 2010-13
recommending the City Council approve Zone Change No. 2007-04. Prior
to recommending that the City Council approve the March 2010 Site D
Specific, Plan—with the addition of a neighborhood park—and correlated
zone change, the Planning Commission considered several alternative
land use plans set forth in the EIR, including all -residential, and mixed-use
alternatives.
11. On June 15, 2010, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted
a duly noticed public hearing, solicited testimony from all interested
individuals, and continued the matter to July 20, October 19, November
16, December 7 and on December 21, 2010 closed the public hearing.
12. On February 21, 2012, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar opened
the public hearing, conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the project
and on the EIR, and fully considered the comments submitted during that
hearing, including the Council's own deliberations. On March 20, 2012,
the City Council held a public hearing on a second reading of Specific
Plan No. 2007-01.
13. The City Council has determined that the proposed Zone Change
represents a consistent, logical, appropriate and rational land use
designation and implementing tool that furthers the goals and objectives of
the City of Diamond Bar General Plan.
14. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the
proceedings upon which the City's decision is based are located at the
City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning
Division, 21810 Copley Drive, Second Floor, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
B. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby
ordain as follows:
1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
2. The City Council finds that the initial study prepared for the project
identified above in this Resolution concluded that an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) No. 2007-02 (SCH No. 2008021014) be prepared.
An EIR has been prepared according to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines promulgated
thereunder. On February 21, 2012, the City Council reviewed the EIR and
adopted Resolution No. 2012 -XX certifying the EIR as complete and
adequate after conducting and concluding a duly noticed public hearing.
3
3. This City Council does hereby find, as required by Municipal Code Section
22.70.050 and in conformance with California Government Code Section
65853 and 65860, that the Zone Change No. 2007-04 is consistent with
the General Plan, as follows:
a. The amendment to the Zoning Map is internally consistent with the
General Plan and the adopted goals and policies of the City.
b. The Zoning Map does not presently reflect the General Plan
designation for the property. Zone Change No. 2007-04 will place
the City's Zoning Map in conformance with the General Plan by
designating the Property as SP (Specific Plan), with sub -areas
corresponding to those in the Site D Specific Plan. The existing
approximate 30.36 acres located at the southeast corner of Brea
Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard (Assessors Parcel
Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-
903, and 8714-015-001) shall have a zoning designation of SP —
Specific Plan.
4. The City Council does hereby approve Zone Change No. 2007-04 based
on the above findings, as required by Municipal Code Section 22.70.050
and in conformance with California Government Code Sections 65853 and
65860.
5. The Community Development Director shall modify the Official Zoning
Map in accordance with this ordinance to indicate thereon that the real
property legally described in Exhibits A-1 through A-4 as attached herein
is within the Site D Specific Plan.
The City Council shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Ordinance; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Ordinance, by certified mail, to:
Walnut Valley Unified School District, 880 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut,
CA 91789.
0
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21s' DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012, BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
0
Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor
I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar on the 21St day of February, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
ATTEST:
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
5
EXHIBIT A-1
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF SCHOOL PROPERTY
THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL l:
THAT PORTION OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO
MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 76 (BREA CANYON
CHANNEL) OF TRACT 27577, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 702,PAGES 22 TO 25
INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 3(141' 18"
EAST 245.38 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE
SHOWN ON SAID MAP AS HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH 3641'18" EAST
745.38 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 59°18142" EAST 235.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71000'13" EAST
580.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 340'00" EAST, 120.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 561)0'00" EAST
340.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 400'00" EAST 980.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 2$)7143"WEST
570.00 FEET TO A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD,
AS SHOWN ON MAP OF TRACT 25991, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 702 PAGES 16 TO
21 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2050.00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE
TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 207'43" EAST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD;
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4 F33" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 150.00 FEET; THENCE
TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF
SAID DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD SOUTH 66)3'50" WEST 875.89 FEET TO THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, ALONG THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 2650'10" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 381.83 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF
SAID LOT 76; THENCE SOUTH 3(141'18" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF
SAID LOT 76, 500.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID SECTION 29 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 76 OF TRACT 27577, AS
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 702 PAGES 22 TO 25 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 3(141'18" EAST 259.67 FEET FROM THE
SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE HAVING A BEARING OF
NORTH 3(141'18" EAST AND A DISTANCE OF 745.38 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 76, NORTH 30'41'18" EAST 485.71 FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, AS SHOWN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT
27577; SAID SOUTHERLY LINE BEING A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4� 1'50" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 79.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH H141'18"
WEST 527.99 FEET TO A LINE THAT BEARS SOUTH 63026'06" EAST FROM THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 63026'06" WEST 64.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM SAID LAND ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS
AND MINERALS NOW OR AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER SITUATED THEREIN OR
THEREUNDER OR PRODUCIBLE THEREFROM, TOGETHER WITH THE FREE AND
UNLIMITED RIGHT TO MINE, STORE, DRILL AND BORE BENEATH THE SURFACE OF
SAID LAND AT ANY LEVEL OR LEVELS 500 FEET OR MORE BELOW THE SURFACE OF
SAID LAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING OR REMOVAL OF SUCH SUBSTANCES,
PROVIDED THAT THE SURFACE OPENING OF SUCH WELL AND ALL OTHER SURFACE
FACILITIES SHALL BE LOCATED ON LAND OTHER THAN DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
SHALL NOT PENETRATE ANY PART OF PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED REAL
PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SURFACE THEREOF, AND ALL OF THE RIGHTS SO
TO REMOVE SUCH SUBSTANCES ARE HEREBY SPECIFICALLY RESERVED, INCLUDING
THE RIGHT TO DRILL FOR, PRODUCE AND USE WATER FROM SAID REAL PROPERTY IN
CONNECTION WITH SUCH OPERATIONS, AS EXCEPTED AND RESERVED BY
TRANSAMERICA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION WHICH ACQUIRED TITLE
AS CAPITAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 12, 1964 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 1401.
PARCEL2:
THAT PORTION OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO
BASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 76 OF TRACT 27577, AS
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 702, PAGES 22 TO 25, INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 3(141'18" EAST 259.67 FEET FROM THE
SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE HAVING A BEARING OF
NORTH 3(f41'18" EAST AND A DISTANCE OF 745.38 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 76, NORTH 30'41'18" EAST, 485.71 FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, AS SHOWN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT
27577, SAID SOUTHERLY LINE) BEING A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH CENTRAL
ANGLE OF (4l'50" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 79.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 30'41'18" WEST
527.99 FEET TO A LINE THAT BEARS SOUTH 63026'06" EAST FROM THE POINT OF
BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 63026'06" WEST 64.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS
NOW OR AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER SITUATED THEREIN OR THEREUNDER, TOGETHER
WITH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO DRILL FOR, PRODUCE, EXTRACT, TAKE AND MINE
THEREFROM SUCH OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS AND TO
STORE THE SAME UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND; TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT TO
STORE UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS
AND MINERALS WHICH MAY BE PRODUCED FROM OTHER LANDS, WITH THE RIGHT OF
ENTRY THEREON FOR SAID PURPOSES, AND WITH THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT, USE,
MAINTAIN, ERECT, REPAIR, REPLACE AND REMOVE THEREON AND THEREFROM, ALL
PIPE LINES, TELEPHONE AND TELEGRAPH LINES, TANKS, MACHINERY, BUILDINGS
AND OTHER STRUCTURES WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY AND REQUISITE TO CARRY ON
OPERATIONS ON SAID LAND, WITH THE FURTHER RIGHT TO ERECT, MAINTAIN,
OPERATE AND REMOVE A PLANT, WITH ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES FOR THE
EXTRACTION OF GASOLINE FROM GAS, INCLUDING ALL RIGHTS NECESSARY OR
CONVENIENT THERETO, AS EXCEPTED AND RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM
TRANSAMERICA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED MARCH 29,
1968 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2456, IN BOOK D3955 PAGE 185, OFFICIAL RECORDS AND RE-
RECORDED JUNE 19, 1969 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1776 IN BOOK D4407 PAGE 591, OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
SAID INTEREST WAS CONVEYED TO TRANSAMERICA MINERALS COMPANY, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 20, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT NO.
85-74005.
AN INSTRUMENT PURPORTEDLY QUITCLAIMING, RELEASING AND SURRENDERING
ONLY THE SURFACE RIGHTS TO A DEPTH OF 500 FEET AND PROVIDING FOR REMOVAL
OF ALL GAS, MINERALS AND HYDROCARBONS BELOW SAID DEPTH AS CONVEYED TO
TRANSAMERICA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION BY DEED
RECORDED JANUARY 5, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 87-10522.
raml1.31
MAP OF SCHOOL PROPERTY
P.O.B.
4
N
SCALE �1 "-300'
lam"R.2050.00'
AQ00.
tF2oso'1B" �
L=3x1.94'
t�l62920' Po R,��y0SEEC,� �1
' L=307.B7'0 7 2 j1 R h/
9 `J`l + SSM
&-421'50"
R=1050.00'
L.=79.e7' PARCEL 1
PARCEL 2 28,01 ACRES �°+
0.75 ACRES .,0
00'o
61
ss4bo
PENCO ENQNEERNG INC. DNE TECHNOLOGY PARK J-775. iRMW CA. 92618 (949) 753-8111
i
L
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF CTI'Y PROPERTY
THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY IS:
ALL THAT CERTAIN REAL PROPERTY SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE
OF CALIFORNIA, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT PORTION OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO
MERIDIAN COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER RECORD OF
SURVEY, FILED IN BOOK 76 PAGES 51 THROUGH 56 INCLUSIVE OF RECORD OF SURVEY, IN
THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
BEING DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THAT AREA SHOWN AS "NOT A PART OF THIS SUBDIVISION ON THE MAP OF TRACT NO.
27577, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 702 PAGES 22 THROUGH 2S INCLUSIVE OF MAPS
IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY.
SAID AREA BEING BOUNDED ON THE NORTHWEST BY SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF BREA
CANYON ROAD, AS SHOWN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT 27577; BOUNDED ON THE NORTH BY
THE SOUTHERLY LINE OF DIAMOND BAR EQUILEVARD, AS SHOWN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT
No. 27577; BOUNDED ON THE SOUTHEAST BY THE NORTHWESTERLY LINE OF LOT 76, AS
SHOWN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT NO. 27577; BOUNDED ON THE SOUTHWEST BY THE
NORTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 39, THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF CASTLE ROCK ROAD,
AND THE NORTHERLY LINE OF TEN (10) FOOT WALK, ALL BEING SHOWN ON MAP OF SAID
TRACT NO. 27577,
EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS, MINERALS, AND OTHER HYDROCARBON SUBSTANCES
LYING BELOW THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, BUT WITH NO RIGHT OF SURFACE ENTRY, AS
PROVIDED IN DEEDS OF RECORD.
EXMrf A-4
MAP OF CITY PROPERTY
LWA
ATTACHMENT 4
ORDINANCE NO. XX (2012)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING THE 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 (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL
NUMBERS 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903, and
8714-015-001).
A. RECITALS
1. On July 1, 2007, the property owner/co-applicant, Walnut Valley School
District, and property owner/lead agency/co-applicant, City of Diamond
Bar (City), executed a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the
parties agreed to collaborate in a specific plan process in order to consider
the possible rezoning of the site consisting of approximately 30.36 acres,
and comprised of multiple parcels located at the southeast corner of Brea
Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard, City of Diamond Bar, County
of Los Angeles, California, collectively identified as Site D, so that both
parties may each advance their respective objectives for the disposition
and/or use of their respective property interests.
2. Under the authority of Development Code Section 22.60.040 and
Government Code Section 65451, Specific Plan 2007-01 (Site D Specific
Plan), was crafted to establish land use and development regulations
uniquely applicable to Site D.
3. In accordance with the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) and its implementing guidelines (CEQA Guidelines), an
Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was prepared for Specific Plan No.
2007-01. The EIR included an analysis of both the then proposed project,
subsequently identified as the March 2010 Site D Specific Plan, and a
number of alternatives thereto. The EIR concluded that, as mitigated, the
implementation of the proposed project would produce a number of
significant environmental effects that could not be reduced to a less -than -
significant level.
4. On April 13, April 27, 2010 and May 11, 2010, the Planning Commission
of the City of Diamond Bar (Planning Commission) conducted and
concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the application and approved
Resolution No. 2010-14 recommending that the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar (City Council) approve Specific Plan No. 2007-01, as
conditioned. Prior to making its recommendation, the Planning
Commission considered several alternative land use plans set forth in the
EIR, including various all -residential and mixed-use scenarios.
5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2010-14 included a
recommendation to incorporate a 1.3 net acre usable neighborhood public
park within the Site D area with features such as, but not limited to, a tot
lot, picnic tables, seating areas and shade structures. In addition, the
Planning Commission recommended that the park be constructed to City
standards and then dedicated to the City.
6. On June 15, 2010, the City Council conducted a duly noticed public
hearing, solicited testimony from all interested parties, and continued the
matter to July 20, October 19, November 16, December 7, and on
December 21, 2010 closed the public hearing.
7. As specified in the EIR, Alternative 6, identified as the January 2012 Site
D Specific Plan, was determined to be the environmentally -superior
feasible alternative since its implementation would allow for the attainment
of the project's stated objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental impacts attributable to the proposed project.
8. CEQA contains a "substantive mandate" requiring public agencies to
refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if
there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures that can
substantially lessen or avoid those effects. CEQA Guidelines define the
term "feasible" as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. In accordance
therewith, the City Council determined that, since the January 2012 Site D
Specific Plan would result in the avoidance or substantial reduction of
those significant environmental impacts attributable to the March 2010
Site D Specific Plan, is environmentally superior thereto, and is feasible,
the City Council identified Alternative 6 as the preferred project.
9. Based on the information presented in the EIR, the comments submitted
and responses prepared in response thereto, the recommendations of the
Planning Commission, and the independent deliberations of the City
Council, the City Council subsequently rejected the March 2010 Site D
Specific Plan based on environmental and other considerations and has
elected to advance Alternative 6 (January 2012 Site D Specific Plan) in
lieu thereof. Subsequent references to Specific Plan No. 2007-01 or to
the Site D Specific Plan herein are with regards to the January 2012 Site
D Specific Plan.
10. The City Council has certified that the EIR was completed in compliance
with CEQA, that the EIR was presented to and reviewed by the City
Council, that the City Council considered the information contained
2
therein, and that the EIR reflected the City Council's independent
judgment and analysis. In accordance with CEQA and the CEQA
Guidelines, a resolution recommending certification of the EIR, adoption of
a mitigation reporting and monitoring program, and adoption of findings of
fact was approved by the City Council prior to the City Council's
consideration of this ordinance.
11. Specific Plan No. 2007-01 is being reviewed by the City Council
concurrently with General Plan Amendment No. 2007-03, Zone Change
No. 2007-04, and Development Agreement No. 2012-01.
12. Adoption by the City Council of Specific Plan No. 2007-01 will enable the
City to impose site-specific land use, design, and development standards
govern the build -out, use, and habitation of Site D.
13. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on
February 10, 2012. Public hearing notices were mailed to property
owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and public notices
were posted at the City's designated community posting sites. In addition
to the published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a
display board and the notice was posted at three other locations within the
general project vicinity.
14. On February 21, 2012, the City Council re -opened the public hearing,
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the project and on the EIR,
took testimony, and fully considered the comments submitted during that
hearing, including the City Council's own deliberations. On March 20,
2012, the City Council held a public hearing on a second reading of
Specific Plan No. 2007-01.
15. The City Council has determined that the proposed Specific Plan
represents a consistent, logical, appropriate and rational land use
designation and implementing tool that furthers the goals and objectives of
the City of Diamond Bar General Plan (General Plan).
16. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the
proceedings upon which the City's decision is based are located at the
City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning
Division, 21810 Copley Drive, Second Floor, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
B. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby
ordain as follows:
1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
2. The City Council finds that the initial study prepared for the project
3
identified above in this Ordinance concluded that an Environmental Impact
Report (EIR) No. 2007-02 (SCH No. 2008021014) be prepared. An EIR
was subsequently prepared according to the requirements of CEQA and
CEQA Guidelines promulgated thereunder. On February 21, 2012, the
City Council reviewed the EIR and adopted Resolution No. 2012 -XX
certifying the EIR as complete and adequate after conducting and
concluding a duly noticed public hearing.
3. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth herein, the City Council
hereby finds as follows:
a. As conditioned, the Site D Specific Plan authorizes the conversion of
vacant land comprised of approximately 30.36 acres located at the
southeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard
(Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-
002-902, 8714-002-903 and 8714-015-001) to a developable use
consisting of 200 residential dwelling units and a minimum of two net
acres of useable neighborhood public park area.
b. The current General Plan land use designations for the site include
Public Facility (PF) and General Commercial (C). General Plan
Amendment No. 2007-03 being considered concurrently with the Site
D Specific Plan proposes to change the land use designation of Site
D to Specific Plan. With approval of the General Plan Amendment,
the Site D Specific Plan will be consistent with the underlying General
Plan land use designation.
c. The project site is zoned Low Density Residential (RL), Low/Medium
Density Residential (RLM), and Neighborhood Commercial (C-1).
Zone Change No. 2007-04 being considered concurrently with the
Site D Specific Plan proposes to change the zoning designation of
Site D to SP -Specific Plan. With approval of the zone change, the
Site D Specific Plan will be in conformance with the underlying
zoning designation.
Specific Plan: Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.60.040 and
Government Code Section 65451, the City Council finds as follows:
a. Specific Plan No. 2007-01 contains plans showing the distribution,
location and extent of the uses of land, including open space;
b. The proposed distribution, location, and intensity of major
components of public and private transportation, sewage, water,
drainage, solid waste disposal, energy, and other essential facilities
proposed to be located within the area covered by the plan and
needed to support the land uses are described in the plan;
C. Specific Plan No. 2007-01 includes standards and criteria for
11
development to proceed, and standards for the conservation,
development, and utilization of natural resources;
d. Specific Plan No. 2007-01 includes a program of implementation
measures including regulations and performance standards to carry
out the project; and
e. Specific Plan No. 2007-01 includes a statement attesting to the
consistency of the Site D Specific Plan with the General Plan,
4. Based on the findings and conclusions set forth above, the City Council
approves Specific Plan No. 2007-01 attached herein as Exhibit A with the
following conditions:
a. GENERAL
1. This approval for Specific Plan No. 2007-01 shall be null and
void and of no effect unless the EIR (SCH No. 2008021014) is
first certified, the mitigation reporting and monitoring program,
and findings of facts are previously adopted, and General Plan
Amendment No. 2007-03, Zone Change No. 2007-04, and
Development Agreement No. 2012-01 are approved;
2. Unless subsequently modified by the City Council, in addition to
the conditions in this Ordinance, all conditions of
approval/performance standards in City Council Resolution No.
2012 -XX for Site D Specific Plan shall be complied with. A copy
is attached hereto and referenced herein as Exhibit B; and
3. Unless subsequently modified by the City Council, the project
shall comply with the mitigation reporting and monitoring
program presented in EIR 2007-02 (SCH No. 2008021014). A
copy is attached hereto and referenced herein as Exhibit C.
The City Council shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Ordinance; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Ordinance, by certified mail, to:
Walnut Valley Unified School District, 880 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut,
CA 91789.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21St DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012, BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
5
Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor
I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar on the 21st day of February, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
ATTEST:
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
EXHIBIT "A"
Site D Specific Plan
Copies of the Site D Specific Plan, dated January 2012, are available for public
inspection and review at the City Clerk's Office in City Hall, the Diamond Bar Public
Library, and online at www.DiamondBarCa.gov
EXHIBIT "B"
"JANUARY 2012'SITE D' SPECIFIC PLAN"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL / PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
hia
Condition of Approval,
Land Use
Prior to the issuance of any precise grading permit for the project site, the City Engineer shall conduct a consistency analysis with the City's Hillside
1-1
Management Ordinance, as codified in Chapter 22.22 (Hillside Management) of the Development Code and no grading permit shall be issued unless
reasonable consistency has been determined by the City Engineer.
To the extent that it were to result in an exceedance of any adopted regional projections on population and/or housing growth within the City, following the
1 2
approval of the specific plan and/or any associated amendments to the City's General Plan, the Lead Agency shall provide notification of that action to the
"Regional
Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG), requesting that any subsequent amendments to SCAG's Transportation Plan" (RTP)
and other regional planning forecasts reflect a greater level of population and housing growth within the City during the 2010-2015 time period.
Geotechnical Hazards
Prior to the approval of a tentative tract map or grading permit, a subsequent site-specific and design -specific geotechnical and geologic report shall be
3-1
submitted to and, when acceptable, approved by the City Engineer documenting the project's geotechnical feasibility and the appropriate geotechnical,
geologic, and seismic conditions required to protect the public health and safety. Unless otherwise modified by the City Engineer, any conditions,
recommendations, or mitigation measures contained therein shall become conditions of project approval.
Prior to the issuance of grading and building permits, the Applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, that each of the
recommendations contained in the project's preliminary geotechnical investigation and in any supplemental reports as may be prepared by the Applicant's
3-2
Geotechnical Engineer or by others have been incorporated into the project's design, development, and operation and that such recommendations serve
to demonstrate compliance with applicable Uniform Building Code (Title 24, Part 2, CCR) standards. The project shall be constructed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with those recommendations and with such additional geologic, geotechnical, seismic, and soils recommendations as may
result from further analyses that may be presented to, imposed, or adopted by the City.
Hydrology and Water Quality
Prior to the approval of a tentative tract map or grading permit, the Applicant shall submit and, when acceptable, the City Engineer shall approval a
4-1
hydrology study consistent with the Los Angeles County Department of Public Work's (LACDPW) "Hydrology/Sedimentation Manual" and applicable
LACDPW policies and procedures. Unless otherwise preempted, in accordance with LACDPW's "Interim Peak Flow Standard," all post -development
runoff from a 2 -year, 24-hour storm, and 50 -year capital storm shall not exceed pre -development peak -flow rate.
If the County flood control channel right-of-way is to be utilized as part of the project's development plan, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the
4-2
Applicant shall obtain all requisite permits and approvals from the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works — Flood Control District allowing for the
overbuilding of the Brea Canyon Storm Drain Channel and shall provide the City Engineer with documentation, acceptable to the City Engineer,
demonstrating County approval and authorization, including a complete list of all permit requirements that may be associated therewith.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall prepare and, when acceptable, the City Engineer shall approve a standard urban stormwater
4-3
mitigation plan (SUSMP) conforming to the requirements of Section 8.12.1695 (Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan Requirements for New
Development and Redevelopment Projects) of the Municipal Code and the County's "Manual for the Standard Urban Storm Water Mitigation Plan."
"JANUARY 2012 'SITE D' SPECIFIC PLAN"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL / PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
No�
Condition otAppraval; '
Biological Resources
In order to demonstrate compliance with applicable State and federal resource protection policies designed to protect or compensate for the loss of
biological resources, prior to the issuance of a grading permit, were applicable, the Applicant shall provide the Director with documentation of receipt of the
following permits: (1) Section 401 (Federal Clean Water Act) water quality certification or waiver of waste discharge requirements from the Regional Water
5-1
Quality Control Board, Los Angeles Region; (2) nationwide Section 404 (Federal Clean Water Act) permit from the United States Army Corps of Engineers;
and (3) Section 1602 (California Fish and Game Code) streambed alteration agreement from the California Department of Fish and Game. The Applicant
shall comply with all associated permit requirements.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Community Development Director and, when acceptable, the Director shall
accept for subsequent processing an arborist -prepared tree survey, specifying: (1) the precise number and type of protected trees that will be directly or
indirectly impacted by the project, (2) the number (ratio), type, size, and source of trees that will be planted in compensation thereof; (3) the location of all
5-2
replacement trees; (4) planting notes and irrigation requirements; (4) performance standards for the survivability of replacement trees; (5) a maintenance
agreement stipulating the Applicant's obligations for a minimum 3 -year period, including the annual reporting; and (6) the amount and derivation of the
security deposit required under the City's tree preservation ordinance.
Measures to mitigate impacts to California walnut woodland will be orchestrated in concert with the replanting of trees protected by the City's tree
preservation and protection ordinance. To the extent possible, southern California black walnut trees will be planted on manufactured slopes within the
5-3
development. Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a plan shall be submitted to the Community Development Director and, when acceptable, the
Director shall approve a plan describing the number, size, and location of walnut and other compensatory trees to be planted and outline success criteria
and adaptive management procedures to ensure that the mitigation plan is successful.
As determined feasible by the Community Development Director, initial vegetation removal activities shall be conducted outside the nesting season
(February 15 -August 15) to avoid impacts upon nesting birds. If initial vegetation removal activities occur during the nesting season, prior to the
5-4
commencement of any grading or grubbing activities, all suitable habitat shall first be thoroughly surveyed by a qualified biologist for the presence of
nesting birds. If any active nests are detected, a buffer of at least 300 feet (500 feet for raptors) shall be delineated, flagged, and vegetation removal
activities avoided therein until the nesting cycle is complete, as determined by the surveying biologist or a qualified biological monitor.
Best Management Practices (BMP) devices shall be designed in consultation with the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District and shall be of a
type which minimizes the potential for vector (public nuisance) problems and maintained throughout the project life so as not to contribute to those
5-5
problems. Unless accepted by the County and/or by the City, the responsibilities for and the funding of the maintenance of BMPs shall constitute
obligations of the homeowners' association.
Transportation and Circulation
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit and, when deemed acceptable, the City Engineer shall approve a construction worker
parking and equipment staging plan (PESP) designed to minimize disturbance to the surrounding residences to the greatest extent feasible. Unless
otherwise authorized therein, contractors and other construction personnel performing construction activities in proximity to the project site shall be
6-1
prohibited from parking and/or operating construction equipment, dumpsters, trailers, or other material within a public right-of-way or other public property.
The PESP can be combined with or become a part of the construction traffic safety plan and/or any other construction management plan as may be
required by the City.
"JANUARY 2012 'SITE D' SPECIFIC PLAN"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL / PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
No.Condiiirn
of Appro�ial '
Transportation and Circulation (Continued)
Unless previously approved by the City Engineer, no construction access shall be authorized from and no construction traffic shall be permitted along
6-2
Castle Rock Road and Pasado Drive, except as may be required to construct and maintain any project -related street and other improvements within and
adjacent to those rights-of-way.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit and, when deemed acceptable, the City Engineer shall approve a construction traffic
mitigation plan (CTMP). The CTMP shall identify the travel and haul routes to be used by construction vehicles; the points of ingress and egress for all
construction vehicles; temporary street or lane closures, temporary signage, and temporary striping; location of materials and equipment staging areas;
maintenance plans to remove spilled debris from roadway surfaces, and the hours during which large construction equipment may be brought on/off the
project site. The Applicant shall keep all haul routes clean and free of debris including but not limited to gravel and dirt as a result of its operations. The
6-3
Applicant shall clean adjacent streets, as directed by the City Engineer, of any material which may have been spilled, tracked, or blown onto adjacent
streets or areas. Hauling or transport of oversize loads will be allowed between the hours of 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM only, Monday through Friday, unless
otherwise approved by the City Engineer. No hauling or transport will be allowed during nighttime hours, weekends, or federal holidays. The use of local
streets shall be limited only to those that provide direct access to the destination. Haul trucks entering or exiting public streets shall at all times yield to
public traffic. If hauling operations cause any damage to existing pavement, street, curb, and/or gutter along the haul route, the Applicant will be fully
responsible for repairs. The repairs shall be completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit and, when deemed acceptable, the City shall approve a traffic control plan (TCP). The
TCP shall be consistent with the Southern California Chapter of the American Public Works Association's "Work Area Traffic Control Handbook"
(WATCH), the California Department of Transportation's "Manual of Traffic Controls for Construction and Maintenance Work Zones," or such alternative as
6-4
may be deemed acceptable by the City. The TCP shall describe the Applicant's plans to safely and efficiently maintain vehicular and non -vehicular
access along local roadways throughout the construction period. If any temporary access restrictions or lane closures are proposed by the Applicant, the
TCP shall delineate detour routes, the hours, duration and frequency of such restrictions, and the emergency access and safety measures that will be
implemented during those closures or restrictions. The TCP can be combined with or become a part of the construction traffic safety plan and/or any other
construction management plan as may be required by the City.
As determined by the City Engineer, should project -related construction activities result in the short-term closure of the existing Class II bicycle lanes or
6-5
Class III bicycle paths along Diamond Bar Boulevard and/or Brea Canyon Road, during the term of that closure, signage shall be posted and other
reasonable actions designed to enhance public safety taken within the area of those closures informing both motorists and bicyclists of that action.
Prior to the approval of any subsequent tentative tract map or the initiation of any improvements to Diamond Bar Boulevard that would result in the
elimination of the existing Class II bicycle lane within that right-of-way, the City Engineer shall review street improvement plans for Diamond Bar Boulevard
and determine the potential for retention, reconfiguration, and/or reclassification of the existing Class II bicycle lane along the property's frontage, within
the existing right-of-way or as a result of the dedication of additional public right-of-way along Diamond Bar Boulevard or within the tract map boundaries
6-6
and linking with the existing terminus points beyond the boundaries of the project site. Should the City Engineer determine that none of those options are
feasible or desirable, a study shall be conducted and, when acceptable, approved by the City Engineer ascertaining whether the near -site elimination of
the existing Class II bicycle lane will adversely impact rider safety or traffic flow and what actions can be taken by the City and/or the Applicant to maintain
a sufficient level of rider and motorist safety. The findings of that study and the recommendations contained therein shall be submitted to the City Council
for their consideration.
"JANUARY 2012 'SITE D' SPECIFIC PLAN"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL / PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
COndltion,of Appl"b17a1,
Noise
In order to reduce freeway -related noise impacts, all residential units shall include forced air ventilation designed and installed in accordance with Title 24
8-1
of California Building Code standards.
Public Services and Facilities
Prior to the commencement of grading activities, the Applicant shall prepare and submit for review by the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department
(LACSD) a draft construction security plan outlining the activities that will be instituted by the Applicant to secure the construction site and the equipment
9_1
and materials located thereupon from potential criminal incidents. The Applicant shall incorporate the recommendations of the LACSD, if any, into a final
construction security plan and shall implement that plan during the construction period.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the LACSD shall be provided the opportunity to review and comment upon building plans and the configuration of
9-2
the residential development and neighborhood park in order to: (1) facilitate opportunities for improved emergency access and response; (2) ensure the
consideration of design strategies that facilitate public safety and police surveillance; and (3) offer specific design recommendations to enhance public
safety and reduce potential demands upon police protection services.
Prior to the commencement of grading or grubbing activities, the Applicant shall prepare and submit and the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD)
9-3
shall review and, when deemed acceptable, approve a fire protection program and workplace standards for fire safety outlining those activities to be
undertaken by the Applicant during the construction period. The Applicant shall abide by specific project -level permit conditions identified by the LACFD.
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit and the Los Angeles County Fire Department shall review and, when deemed
9-4
acceptable, approve a fuel modification, landscape, and irrigation plan in compliance with County Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zone (Fire Zone 4)
standards.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Los Angeles County Fire Department (LACFD) will review and, when deemed acceptable, approve (1) final
9-5
water improvement plans including, but not limited to, the location, sizing, design, and fire flow capacity of the proposed water mains and fire hydrants and
proposed access improvements to ensure compliance with applicable Fire Code requirements, and (2) building plans. The project's water system shall be
designed in response to final fire flow requirements identified by the LACFD.
9-6
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, the Applicant shall submit to the Building Official for review and approval a temporary fencing and signage plan
designed to discourage access to any active construction areas by children and other unauthorized parties.
Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Applicant shall present the City with a certificate of compliance or other documentation demonstrating that the
9-7
Applicant has complied with the Walnut Valley Unified School District's School Board resolutions governing the payment of school impact fees or has
entered into an Assembly Bill 2926 authorized school fee mitigation agreement or is not subject to the school impact fee exaction.
It is the City's intent that the Applicant deliver to the City a "turn -key" park facility. Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map, unless an alternative
milestone event or other manner of fulfillment of the Applicant's obligations under Section 21.32.040 (Park Land Dedications and Fees) in Chapter 21.32
9-8
(Subdivisions) of the Municipal Code is first approved by the City Council, the Applicant shall dedicate or conditionally dedicate and improve or commit to
improve a minimum of two usage acres of real property to the City for park purposes and, unless Quimby Act obligations are otherwise fulfilled by
dedication and/or the provision of Applicant -sponsored park improvements, provide the City with an additional in -lieu park fee payment in the manner and
in the amount authorized thereunder or otherwise specified by the City Council.
"JANUARY 2012 'SITE D' SPECIFIC PLAN"
CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL / PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Na
ConditiorYo�Apptioval
Public Services and Facilities (Continued)
In cooperation with the City, as part of the tentative tract map entitlement process, the Applicant shall conduct or participate in conducting not less than
9-9
two neighborhood outreach meetings soliciting public comments concerning the location, configuration, design, and range of amenities to be included in
the on-site public park.
Utilities and Service Systems
Prior to the issuance of any grading permits, a sewer area study, prepared by a licensed civil engineer registered in the State of California, shall be
submitted to the City Engineer and to the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) for review and, when deemed acceptable, for
approval. The sewer area study shall include sewer flow monitoring at specific locations to be determined by the City Engineer and the LACDPW. The
sewer flow analysis shall include calculations for the quantities of sewer flow for the pre -development and post -development conditions and determine the
10-1
impact on all affected City and County -operated sewerage facilities. Should project -related sewer flows be determined to impact the sewer capacity
downstream from the development, the Applicant shall be required to mitigate any potential capacity deficiency by a method approved by the City Engineer
or the LACDPW, subject to appropriate jurisdictional authorities. As stipulated by the jurisdictional authority, unless an alternative funding agreement can
be derived, the Applicant shall be responsible for all costs required to mitigate the potential capacity deficiency, including, but not limited to, upgrading
existing sewer mains.
Aesthetics
The Applicant shall construct a landscaped "entry feature' in the vicinity of the Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon Road. With regards to its design
characteristics, the entry feature shall seek to visually draw from elements of the community and/or its history and serve as a "gateway" informing
12-1
motorists and other viewers that they have entered the City of Diamond Bar. The minimum standard of performance used to measure compliance with
this requirement shall be that the entry feature shall have a value, as determined by the Community Development Director, of not less than one-half
(0.005) percent of the building permit valuation of the residential development.
Subsequent development plans shall include design details, acceptable to both the City Engineer and to the Community Development Director, for all
12-2
proposed retaining walls. Retaining wall plans shall include landscape and irrigation details sufficient to ensure that each of those elements are, as
appropriate, integrated into wall design and that the interrelationship between those elements are considered from both structural integrity and aesthetic
viewpoints.
EXHIBIT "C"
JANUARY 2012 "SITE D" SPECIFIC PLAN
FINAL MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM
Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 January 2012
Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH 2008021014 Page 1
MitigationlVFespre'
CompFiance
Milt! amen,
. kfetEfica h
Mi,es#, in
y and Water Quality
e issuance of grading permits, all drainage facilities and improvements shall be subject to final design
ff
City
Issuance of
eering review and approval by the City Engineer and, for those storm drain facilities under County
Engineer
Grading
n, by the Los Angeles County Department of Public Works (LACDPW) (Mitigation Measure 4-1).
Permits
Biological Resources
In order to reduce impacts to United States Army Corps of Engineers and Regional Water Quality Control Board
(ACOE/RWQCB) and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) jurisdictional waters, prior to the issuance
of a grading permit, the Applicant shall demonstrate, to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director,
receipt of any discretionary permits and approval as may be required from the ACOE, RWQCB, and CDFG and
Community
Issuance of
2
commit to the provision of compensatory jurisdictional resources meeting or exceeding the following minimal
Development
Grading
standards: (1) the on-site and/or off-site replacement of ACOE/RWQCB jurisdictional waters and wetlands at a
Director
Permits
2:1 ratio; (2) the on-site and/or off-site replacement of CDFG jurisdictional streambed and associated riparian
habitat at a 2:1 ratio; and (3) the incorporation of design features into the project's design and development
enhancing the site's biological resources (Mitigation Measure 5-1).
Traffic and Circulation
Prior to the recordation of the final tract map or issuance of occupancy permits for any residential development,
as determined by the City Engineer, the Applicant shall complete, to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, those
street and intersection improvements identified in the traffic impact analysis or any supplement thereto, provide a
Final Tract Map
bond or other acceptable instruct committing to those improvements, and/or provide a "fair -share" contribution
Recordation
toward the cost of the improvements to the following intersections: (1) Brea Canyon Road at Pathfinder Road; (2)
City
or
3
Diamond Bar Boulevard at Pathfinder Road; (3) Brea Canyon Road at Cold Spring Lane; (4) Diamond Bar
Engineer
Issuance of
Boulevard at Cold Spring Lane; (5) Pathfinder Road at Brea Canyon Cutoff; (6) SR -57 SB Ramps at Brea
Occupancy
Canyon Cutoff; (7) SR -57 NB Ramps at Brea Canyon Cutoff; (8) Brea Canyon Road at Diamond Bar Boulevard;
Permits
(9) Crooked Creek or Cherrydale Drive at Diamond Bar Boulevard; (10) Brea Canyon Road at Silver Bullet Drive;
(11) Diamond Bar Boulevard at Grand Avenue; and (12) Colima Road at Brea Canyon Cutoff (Mitigation Measure
6-1).
The final site plan shall include and accommodate those traffic measures, improvements, and such other
City
Site Plan
4
pertinent factors and/or facilities as may be identified by the City Engineer to ensure the safe and efficient
Engineer
Approval
movement of project -related traffic (Mitigation Measure 6-2).
Air Quality
5
Site watering shall be conducted a minimum of three times daily during site preparation activities within disturbed
Building
Construction
areas lacking ground coverage (Mitigation Measure 7-1).
Inspector
Term
Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 January 2012
Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH 2008021014 Page 1
"Site OnSpecific Plan
City of Diamond Bar, California
JANUARY 2012"SITE V SPECIFIC PLAN
FINAL MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM
Environmental Impact Report 2007'02 January 2012
Final Environmental Impact Report, 0CH2008021014 Page
re
to 0
Noise
In accordance with the Development Code, construction shall be restricted to between the hours of 7:00 AM and
6
8:00 PM on weekdays and Saturdays. No construction shall occur at any time on Sundays or on federal
holidays. These days and hours shall also apply any servicing of equipment and to the delivery of construction
materials to or from the site (Mitigation Measure 8-1).
All counrstruction equipment shall be properly maintained and tuned to minimize noise emissions (Mitigation
77]
easure 8-2).
Building
Construction
Inspector
Term
8
All equipment shall be fitted with properly operating mufflers, air intake silencers, and engine shrouds no less
effective than originally equipped (Mitigation Measure 8-3).
The construction contractor shall place temporary noise barriers along the site perimeter when doing any work
9
within 100 feet of any existing residential units. Where feasible, such barriers shall attempt to block the line of
sight between the residents and construction equipment (Mitigation Measure 8-4).
The construction contractor shall specify the use of electric stationary equipment (e.g., compressors) that can
city
10
operate off the power grid where feasible. Where infeasible, stationary noise sources (e.g., generators and
Engineer
compressors) shall be located as far from residential receptor locations as is feasible (Mitigation Measure 8-5).
Building Permit
Issuance
11
Construction shall be subject to any and all provisions set forth by the City of Diamond Bar Planning Department
Planning
(Mitigation Measure 8-6).
Manager
12
No residential units shall be located within 830 feet of the SR -57 Freeway's nearest travel lane unless additional
sound attention is provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director (Mitigation Measure 8-7).
Community
Development
Director
Final Tract Map
Recordation
No residential units shall be located within 130 feet of the centerline of Diamond Bar Boulevard unless additional
13
sound attention is provided to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director (Mitigation Measure 8-8).
Cultural Resources
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified archaeologist shall be retained by the Applicant and
Community
approved by the City to monitor all vegetation removal and ground disturbance to a depth of three feet within the
Development
following portions of the study area: (1) the boundary of SD -Cultural -1; (2) the open valley floor adjacent to SD-
Director
Issuance of
Cultural -1 ' and (3) the riparian areas that were not previously surveyed due to dense vegetation cover. The
and
Grading
archaeologist will determine if additional monitoring below the depth of three feet is warranted based on soil and
City
Permits
bedrock conditions and presence/absence of archaeological materials. No archaeological monitoring is required
Engineer
for ground disturbing activities outside of these monitor areas (Mitigation Measure 11-1)
Environmental Impact Report 2007'02 January 2012
Final Environmental Impact Report, 0CH2008021014 Page
"Site W Specific Plan
City of Diamond Bar, California
Cultural Resources (Continued)
If cultural resources are identified during monitoring of the ground disturbing activities, the archaeologist shall be
allowed to temporarily divert or redirect grading or excavation activities in the vicinity of those resources in order
to make an evaluation of the find and determine appropriate treatment. Treatment will include the goals of
preservation where practicable and public interpretation of historic and archaeological resources. All cultural
resources recovered will be documented on California Department of Parks and Recreation Site Forms to be filed
with the CHRIS-SCCIC. The archaeologist shall prepare a final report about the monitoring to be filed with the
Applicant, the City, and the California Historical Resources Information System South Central Coastal Information
15
Center at the California State University, Fullerton (CHRIS-SCCIC), as required by the California Office of Historic
Preservation. The report shall include documentation and interpretation of resources recovered, if any.
Interpretation will include full evaluation of the eligibility of SD -Cultural -1 with respect to the California Register of
Historic Places and CEQA. The report shall also include all specialists' reports as appendices. The City shall
designate repositories in the event that significant resources are recovered. If cultural resources are identified
Building
Construction
during ground disturbing activities that occur outside the designated monitoring area, ground disturbing activities
Inspector
Term
shall be temporarily redirected away from the vicinity of the find until the retained archaeologist is notified by the
Applicant. The archaeologist shall coordinate with the Applicant as to the immediate treatment of the find until a
proper site visit and evaluation is made by the archaeologist (Mitigation Measure 11-2).
If human remains are encountered unexpectedly during construction excavation and grading activities, Health
and Safety Code Section 7050.5 requires that no further disturbance shall occur until the County Coroner has
made the necessary findings as to origin and disposition pursuant to Section 5097.98 of the Public Resources
16
Code. If the remains are determined to be of Native American descent, the County Coroner has 24 hours to
notify the California Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC). The NAHC will then identify the person(s)
thought to be the Most Likely Descendent of the deceased Native American, who will then help determine what
course of action should be taken in dealing with the remains (Mitigation Measure 11-3).
Prior to the issuance of a grading permit, a qualified paleontologist meeting the qualifications established by the
Society of Vertebrate Paleontologists shall be retained by the Applicant and approved by the City to develop and
Community
17
implement a paleontological monitoring plan. Development of the monitoring plan shall include a site visit by the
Development
paleontologist prior to initiation of project development in order to determine or delineate sensitive areas. The
Director
paleontologist may also perform collections of fossils from the surface and near -surface (Mitigation Measure 11-
Issuance of
4).
Grading
18
The paleontologist shall attend a pre -grade meeting in order to become familiar with the proposed depths and
Per
patterns of grading of the study area (Mitigation Measure 11-5).
City
Engineer
19
The paleontologist shall establish a curation agreement with an accredited facility prior to grading permit issuance
(Mitigation Measure 11-6).
Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 January 2012
Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH 2008021014 Page 3
"Site W Specific Plan
City of Diamond Bar, California
Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 January 2012
Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH 2008021014 Page 4
Cultural Resources (Continued)
A paleontological monitor, supervised by the paleontologist, shall monitor all excavations in the Puente Formation
or excavations anticipated to extend into the Puente Formation. If fossils are found during ground -disturbing
Building
Construction
20
activities, the paleontological monitor shall be empowered to halt the ground -disturbing activities within 25 feet of
Inspector
Term
the find in order to allow evaluation of the find and determination of appropriate treatment (Mitigation Measure 11-
7).
The paleontologist shall prepare a final report on the monitoring. If fossils were identified, the report shall contain
Community
21
an appropriate description of the fossils, treatment, and curation. A copy of the report shall be filed with the City
Development
Grading
and the Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County and shall accompany any curated fossils (Mitigation
Director
Sign -Off
Measure 11-8).
Aesthetics
All pole -mounted or wall -mounted luminaires installed for the purpose of illuminating homes, public park areas,
private roadways, and driveways shall conform to appropriate lighting standards and demonstrate, to the
22
satisfaction of the City Engineer, that light trespass will not exceed 0.5 horizontal foot candle, as measured at the
City
Building Permit
project boundaries abutting any existing residential use. These standards shall not be applied to any public
Engineer
Issuance
streets or to any entry feature or other City -oriented signage to be constructed on or adjacent to the project site
(Mitigation Measure 12-1).
Environmental Impact Report 2007-02 January 2012
Final Environmental Impact Report, SCH 2008021014 Page 4
ATTACHMENT
ORDINANCE NO. XX (2012)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2012-01, FOR PROPERTY COMPRISED
OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST
CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD,
DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NUMBERS 8714-002-
900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903, and 8714-015-001).
A. RECITALS
1. On July 1, 2007, the property owner/co-applicant, Walnut Valley School
District, and property owner/lead agency/co-applicant, City of Diamond
Bar (City), executed a Memorandum of Understanding whereby the
parties agreed to collaborate in a specific plan process in order to consider
the possible rezoning of the site consisting of approximately 30.36 acres,
and comprised of multiple parcels located at the southeast corner of Brea
Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard, City of Diamond Bar, County
of Los Angeles, California, collectively identified as Site D, so that both
parties may each advance their respective objectives for the disposition
and/or use of their respective property interests.
2. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65864, et seq., the City is
authorized to enter into development agreements with persons having
legal or equitable development interests in real property located within the
City.
3. Pursuant to Development Code Section 22.62 and Government Code
Section 65865, the City has adopted rules and regulations for
consideration of development agreements.
4. The City of Diamond Bar is entering into a Development Agreement with
the Walnut Valley Unified School District for the purpose of establishing an
agreement between the City and Walnut Valley Unified School District
setting forth obligations and benefits to the respective parties.
5. The January 2012 Site D Specific Plan, identified as Specific Plan No.
2007-01 (Site D Specific Plan), that is being reviewed concurrently with
this application, includes a land use plan that establishes planning areas
(Residential and Public Park/Open Space) and includes standards and
guidelines for future development of the specific plan site.
6. As specified in the EIR, Alternative 6, identified as the January 2012 Site
D Specific Plan, was determined to be the environmentally -superior
feasible alternative since its implementation would allow for the attainment
of the project's stated objectives and would avoid or substantially lessen
the significant environmental impacts attributable to the proposed project.
7. CEQA contains a "substantive mandate" requiring public agencies to
refrain from approving projects with significant environmental effects if
there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures" that can
substantially lessen or avoid those effects. CEQA Guidelines define the
term "feasible" as capable of being accomplished in a successful manner
within a reasonable period of time, taking into account economic,
environmental, legal, social, and technological factors. In accordance
therewith, the City Council determined that, since the January 2012 Site D
Specific Plan would result in the avoidance or substantial reduction of
those significant environmental impacts attributable to the March 2010
Site D Specific Plan, is environmentally superior thereto, and is feasible,
the City Council identified Alternative 6 as the preferred project.
8. The City Council certified that the EIR was completed in compliance with
CEQA, that the EIR was presented to and reviewed by the Council, that
the Council considered the information contained therein, and that the EIR
reflected the Council's independent judgment and analysis. In accordance
with CEQA and the CEQA Guidelines, a resolution recommending
certification of the EIR, adoption of a mitigation reporting and monitoring
program, and adoption of findings of fact was approved by the City
Council prior to considering this resolution.
9. Notification of the public hearing for this project was published in the San
Gabriel Valley Tribune and the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin newspapers on
February 10, 2012. Public hearing notices were mailed to property
owners within a 1,000 -foot radius of the project site and public notices
were posted at the City's designated community posting sites. In addition
to the published and mailed notices, the project site was posted with a
display board and the notice was posted at three other locations within the
project vicinity.
10. The documents and materials constituting the administrative record of the
proceedings upon which the City's decision is based are located at the
City of Diamond Bar, Community Development Department, Planning
Division, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
B. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council does hereby ordain as follows:
1. The City Council hereby specifically finds that all of the facts set forth in
the Recitals, Part A, of this Ordinance are true and correct.
2. The City Council finds that the initial study prepared for the project
identified above in this Resolution concluded that an Environmental
Impact Report (EIR) No. 2007-02 (SCH No. 2008021014) be prepared.
2
An EIR has been prepared according to the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and CEQA Guidelines promulgated
thereunder. On February 21, 2012, the City Council reviewed the EIR and
adopted Resolution No. 2012 -XX certifying the EIR as complete and
adequate after conducting and concluding a duly noticed public hearing.
3. In accordance with Development Code Section 22.62.030(e) (Findings),
the City Council makes the following findings of fact regarding the
Development Agreement 2012-01:
a. The Development Agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit 1, would be
in the best interests of the city; is consistent with the General Plan,
proposed Specific Plan and the Development Code; and would
promote the public interest and welfare of the city.
b. The Development Agreement is in compliance with the conditions,
requirements, restrictions, and terms of Development Code Sections
22.62.030(d) (Terms and Conditions) and 22.62.040 (Content of
Development Agreement), because the agreement contains all the
mandatory provisions and permissive content required by
Government Code Section 65865.2.
The City Council shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Ordinance; and
(b) Forthwith transmit a certified copy of this Ordinance, by certified mail, to:
Walnut Valley Unified School District, 880 South Lemon Avenue, Walnut,
CA 91789.
APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS 21s' DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012, BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
A
Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor
I, Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was duly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Diamond Bar on the 21St day of February, 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmembers:
NOES: Councilmembers:
3
ABSENT: Councilmembers:
ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:
ATTEST:
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk
3
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
(Site D)
BY AND BETWEEN
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
and
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
DATED 2012
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1. DEFINITIONS..........................................................................................................3
2. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROCESS....................................................7
2.1
Statement of Benefits and Consideration......................................................7
2.2
Public Hearings............................................................................................8
2.3
City Council Findings....................................................................................9
2.4
Property........................................................................................................9
2.5
The Project...................................................................................................9
2.6
Current Project Approvals.............................................................................9
3. VESTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS.......................................................................10
3.1
Vested Rights to Develop...........................................................................10
3.2
Timing of Development...............................................................................12
3.3
Other Rights...............................................................................................13
3.4
Reservations of Power................................................................................14
3.5
Regulation by Other Public Agencies..........................................................16
3.6
Agreement and Assurances on the Part of Owner......................................17
3.7
Public Benefits............................................................................................17
3.8
Public Improvements and Utilities...............................................................18
4. ASSIGNMENT, AMENDMENT AND REVIEW.......................................................20
4.1
Assignment.................................................................................................20
4.2
Changes and Amendments to the Project ...................................................
24
4.3
Annual/Special Review...............................................................................26
5. DEFAULT,
REMEDIES AND TERMINATION.........................................................28
5.1
Enforceability..............................................................................................28
5.2
Termination of Agreement..........................................................................32
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS.......................................................................................33
6.1
Term...........................................................................................................33
6.2
Approval Procedure: Recordation...............................................................34
6.3
Cooperation and Implementation................................................................34
6.4
Legal Challenges........................................................................................35
6.5
Indemnity....................................................................................................
36
6.6
Notices.......................................................................................................
37
6.7
No Third Party Beneficiaries.......................................................................
38
6.8
Time of Essence.........................................................................................38
6.9
Modification, Amendment or Extension.......................................................38
6.10
Conflicts of Law..........................................................................................39
6.11
Waiver........................................................................................................39
6.12
Successors and Assigns.............................................................................39
6.13
Governing State Law..................................................................................40
6.14
Constructive Notice and Acceptance..........................................................40
6.15
Statement of Compliance............................................................................40
6.16
Mortgagee Protection.................................................................................41
6.17
Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing...................................................42
6.18
Covenant of Cooperation............................................................................42
Page
6.19
Justifiable Reliance.....................................................................................42
6.20
Project Is Private Undertaking....................................................................42
6.21
Further Actions and Instruments.................................................................43
6.22
Section Headings.......................................................................................43
6.23
Enforced Delay (Force Majeure).................................................................43
6.24
Emergency Circumstances.........................................................................45
6.25
Severability.................................................................................................46
6.26
Interpretation..............................................................................................46
6.27
Counterparts...............................................................................................46
6.28
Entire Agreement........................................................................................46
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
THIS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ("Agreement') is entered into as of the
day of , 2012, by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a California municipal
corporation ("City"), and the WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, a school district
organized under the California Education Code ("Owner").
RECITALS
A. Owner is the owner of that certain real property in the City of Diamond Bar,
County of Los Angeles, State of California, commonly known as Site D, more fully described in
Exhibit "A" hereto (the "Property").
B. The City is authorized to enter into development agreements with persons having
legal or equitable development interests in real property located within the City pursuant to
Government Code Section 65864, et seq.
C. The City has adopted rules and regulations for consideration of development
agreements, pursuant to Government Code Section 65865, in Chapter 22.62 of the Diamond
Bar Municipal Code.
D. Owner has requested the City to enter into a development agreement with the
Owner, and proceedings have been undertaken in accordance with Chapter 22.62 of the
Diamond Bar Municipal Code.
E. The terms and conditions of this Agreement have been found by the City to be
fair, just and reasonable, and prompted by the unique planning considerations presented by the
Property and the public benefits to adhere in the City.
0
F. The public health, safety and welfare of the residents of the City will be served by
entering into this Agreement due to the fact that the project, as described in Exhibit "B", will
provide for the development of the site with open space (park) and residential units (the
"Project").
G. This Agreement will bind future City Councils to the terms and obligations
specified in this Agreement and limit, to the degree specified in this Agreement, the future
exercise of the City's ability to regulate development on the Property.
H. This Agreement and the Project will serve to implement the policies, objectives,
and standards of the elements of the City of Diamond Bar General Plan and the Site D Specific
Plan and is consistent with the General Plan and the Site D Specific Plan. For example:
• The Project 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;
• The Project will provide vesting to develop 200 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) and the City's certified and adopted
2008-2014 Housing Element Update. These vested housing units represent about 18.5
percent of the projected housing needs the current Housing Element cycle;
The Project creates a community environment which nurtures social and recreational
opportunities for its residents. A neighborhood public park space of 2.0 net usable acres
is to be incorporated into the residential development;
2
The Project offers an aesthetically pleasing development incorporating community
identity through an entry feature at the corner of Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar
Boulevard to mark the entrance into the City;
• The Project incorporates land use principles such as green building strategies and
facilitates energy conservation.
K. This Agreement and the consent of Owner and City to each of its terms and
conditions will eliminate uncertainty in planning and provide for the orderly, development of the
Property, eliminate uncertainty about the validity of exactions imposed by the City, ensure timely
installation of necessary improvements, and generally serve the public interest
AGREEMENT
NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals, the mutual covenants and
conditions herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and
adequacy of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:
DEFINITIONS
For purposes of this Agreement, except as otherwise expressly provided or unless the
context otherwise requires:
Owner.
"Agreement" means this Development Agreement by and between the City and
"Approval Date" means the date on which the Approval Ordinance is adopted by the
City Council.
"Approval Ordinance" means Ordinance No. , adopted by the City Council of
the City on , 2012, approving this Agreement.
"Approved Uses" means those uses permitted for the Project by the Project Approvals.
"City" means the City of Diamond Bar, California.
"City Council" means the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar.
"CEQA" means the California Environmental Quality Act, Section 21000, et seq., of the
California Public Resources Code.
"Code" means the Municipal Code of the City of Diamond Bar.
"Commencement Date" means that date which is 30 days following the Approval Date,
provided, however, (i) if the Approval Ordinance is made the subject of a referendum or other
judicial or administrative challenge to its effectiveness, the Commencement Date shall be the
date when such proceedings have been concluded by any process which results in the Approval
Ordinance becoming effective, and (ii) if litigation challenging any of the Project Approvals, EIR
or this Agreement should be brought after the Approval Date, the Commencement Date shall be
the date such litigation is concluded in a manner that permits the commencement of the parties'
obligations under this Agreement.
"Current Land Use Regulations" means the ordinances, resolutions, rules,
regulations, requirements and official policies of the City in, force as of the Approval Date
governing development agreements, permitted uses of the Property, parking, development
standards, density and building intensity, subdivision, zoning, grading, landscaping, signage and
design and improvement standards (not including building codes as provided by 3.4.1(c)) and
shall also include the Project Approvals/Approved Uses and the Permitted Uses.
"Deemed Complete Date" means the date the City deemed complete the Owner's
applications for the Project Approvals, that date being February 26, 2008.
LI
"Development Agreement Act" means Section 65864 et seq., of the California
Government Code.
"EIR" means that certain Environmental Impact Report for Site D, dated January 2012
prepared pursuant to the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public
Resources Code §§ 21000, et seq.), and certified by the City on February 7, 2012.
"Exactions" means any requirement imposed by the City in connection with or pursuant
to any land use regulation or land use approval process for the dedication of land, construction
of improvement of public improvements or amenities, payment of development fees, or other
mitigation measures required to mitigate the impacts of the development including, without
limitation, all development impact fees or linkage fees, utility capacity fees, service or
connection fees, major facilities fees, park fees, flood control fees, environmental impact
mitigation fees, transportation fees, and any similar governmental fees, charges and exactions
required for the development of projects or property.
"General Plan" means the General Plan of the City.
"Mortgagee" means any mortgagee of a mortgage and beneficiary under a deed of
trust.
"Owner" means WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT and each of its
respective successors and assigns to all or any portion of the Property during such time as such
portion is subject to this Agreement. Owner represents that it is the legal owner of the entire
Property as of the date of adoption of the Approval Ordinance.
"Permitted Uses" means those uses set forth in the Site D Specific Plan.
"Prevent or adversely affect development or construction of the Project" as used
in this Agreement shall include, without limitation, any changes which fundamentally affect the
ability of a Permitted Use to operate within the Project (e.g., prohibit a Permitted Use, change
parking standards or height, bulk, density or any other substantive change for a Permitted Use,
etc.). Changes of City-wide, non-discriminatory applicability which affect internal operational
requirements for the Permitted Uses or Approved Uses (e.g., safety requirements, security
requirements, etc.) and that do not conflict with express provisions of the Project Approvals shall
not be considered to be changes which "prevent or adversely affect the operation of the
Project."
"Processing Fees" means all routine and generally applicable City-wide fees required
by the City for processing applications and permits including, but not limited to, fees for land use
applications, project permits, building applications, building permits, grading permits, maps and
certificates of occupancy. Expressly exempted from Processing Fees are all Exactions.
"Project" means the Property and the proposed development of the Property and the
off-site conditions described in the Project Description contained in Exhibit B.
"Project Approvals" means those certain discretionary actions and approvals granted
by the City on
set forth in Section 2.6.
"Public Benefits" means those improvements to be constructed, services provided
and/or amounts to be paid by Owner to the City as consideration for this Agreement pursuant to
Section 3.7, Section 3.8 and Exhibit C.
"Specific Plan" means the Site D Specific Plan.
"Term" means the term of this Agreement as provided in Section 6.1 of this Agreement.
"Zoning Map" means the Zoning Map of the City of Diamond Bar as incorporated in the
Zoning Ordinance pursuant to Section 22.06.030 of the Zoning Ordinance.
"Zoning Ordinance" means the comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City, found in
Article 22 of the Code of the City of Diamond Bar.
2. THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT PROCESS
2.1 Statement of Benefits and Consideration. The parties hereto have determined
that the Project is a development for which a development agreement is appropriate.
Development of the Project in accordance with a development agreement will provide for the
orderly development of the Property in accordance with the objectives set forth in the General
Plan. Moreover, a development agreement for the Project will eliminate uncertainty in planning
for and securing orderly development of the Project, ensure attainment of the maximum efficient
utilization of resources within the City at the least economic cost to its citizens, and achieve the
provision of public services, public uses, urban infrastructure and other goals and purposes for
which the Development Agreement Act was enacted, all in the promotion of the health, safety
and general welfare of the City of Diamond Bar and its residents. In exchange for these and
other benefits to the City, Owner will receive the assurance that Owner may develop the Project
during the Term of this Agreement, subject to the terms and conditions herein contained. City
has undertaken the necessary proceedings, has found and determined that this Agreement is
consistent with the General Plan and has adopted Ordinance No. approving this
Agreement.
This Agreement does not (1) grant density or intensity in excess of that otherwise
established in the Project Approvals, (2) supersede, nullify or amend any condition imposed in
the Project Approvals, (3) guarantee to Owner any profits from the Project, (4) prohibit or, if
legally required, indicate Owner's consent to, the Property's inclusion in any public financing
district or assessment district, or (5) amend the General Plan (unless otherwise provided for by
the Project Approvals).
The City, as a result of the development of the Property in accordance with this
Agreement, will receive substantial benefits, as set forth in Section 3.7 and Exhibit C, including
the extraordinary public benefits, as set forth therein, in recognition of and in exchange for this
Agreement and the benefits provided to Owner pursuant to this Agreement. The City
acknowledges the adequacy of the consideration, including the Public Benefits, provided by
Owner to the City pursuant to this Agreement.
In consideration of the substantial benefits, commitments and consideration to be
provided by Owner pursuant to this Agreement and in order to strengthen the public planning
process and reduce the economic costs of development, the City hereby provides Owner
assurance that it can proceed with the development of the Property for the Term of this
Agreement pursuant to the land use, density and intensity specified in the Current Land Use
Regulations, the Project Approvals and this Agreement. Owner would not enter into this
Agreement or agree to provide the public benefits, commitments and consideration described in
this Agreement if it were not for the certainty provided by the agreement of the City that the
Property may be developed during the Term of this Agreement in accordance with the Current
Land Use Regulations and the Project Approvals including the land use, density and intensity
set forth in the Project Approvals.
2.2 Public Hearings. On
the Planning Commission of the City, after
giving notice pursuant to Sections 65090 and 65867 of the California Government Code, held
public hearings on Owner's application for this Agreement. The City Council of the City, after
providing public notice as required by law, similarly held public hearings on
0
2.3 City Council Findings. The City Council finds that review of the environmental
impacts of this Agreement and the Project Approvals has been conducted in accordance with
the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA"; Public Resources Code §§
21000 et seq.) and the State and local guidelines adopted thereunder, and the City Council has
given consideration to such environmental review prior to its approval of this Agreement and the
Project Approvals and has undertaken all actions necessary to comply with CEQA, including
adoption of findings, certification of the EIR, adoption of a Statement of Overriding
Considerations, and adoption of a Mitigation Monitoring Program. The City Council further finds
that this Agreement is consistent with the General Plan, the Site D Specific Plan and all other
applicable City plans, policies and regulations.
2.4 Property. The Property includes all real property that is subject to this
Agreement as of the Approval Date, commonly known as Site D in the City of Diamond Bar, Los
Angeles County, as more fully described in Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference.
2.5 The Proiect. The Project consists of specified development, construction and
operations on the Property as and to the extent permitted under this Agreement and the Project
Approvals, which include, without limitation, the development of 200 residential units and a
public park of not less than two (2) net usable acres. The Project is more fully described in the
Project Description set forth in Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by reference.
2.6 Current Proiect Approvals. The Project includes, without limitation, all items
described in the Project Description contained in Exhibit B and the following Project Approvals
that have been approved by the City as of the Approval Date:
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT for Site D, dated January 2012
prepared pursuant to CEQA and certified by the City Council on January 17,
2012;
0
• GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, approved by Resolution No.
on
• ZONE MAP AMENDMENT, as amended by City Council Ordinance No.
on ;
• SPECIFIC PLAN as approved by City Council Ordinance No. on
• ; and
• DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, approved by City Council Ordinance No.
on
3. VESTED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS
3.1 Vested Rights to Develop. Subject to the terms, conditions, and covenants of
this Agreement, including the Reservations of Power in Section 3.4, Owner shall have a vested
right to develop the Property in accordance with, and to the extent of, the Project Approvals and
the Current Land Use Regulations. The approved use of the Property, the density and intensity
of use, the maximum height and square footage of proposed buildings, and provisions for
reservation and dedication of land or public purposes shall be those set forth in the Project
Approvals and on Exhibit B.No thing in this Agreement shall be deemed to obligate Owner to
initiate or complete development of the Project or any portion thereof within any period of time
or at all.
3. 1.1 Certain Changes Prohibited Without Consent of Owner. Except as
otherwise provided in this Agreement, during the Term, the City shall not, as to the Property
and the Project, without the prior written consent of Owner: (a) change the Current Land Use
Regulations, Permitted Uses or Project Approvals as they apply to the Property or Project so
as to prevent or adversely affect development or construction of the Project in accordance with
the Current Land Use Regulations, Permitted Uses or Project Approvals; or (b) apply to the
Property or the Project any new or amended ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation,
requirement or official policy that is inconsistent with the Current Land Use Regulations,
Permitted Uses or the Project Approvals, so as to prevent or adversely affect development or
10
construction of the Project in accordance with the Current Land Use Regulations, Permitted
Uses or the Project Approvals; or (c) apply to the Property or the Project any new or amended
ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, requirement or official policy that requires additional
discretionary review or approval not otherwise required for the Project by the Current Land Use
Regulations; or (d) apply to the Property or the Project any new or amended ordinance,
resolution, rule, regulation, requirement or official policy that materially, adversely affects the
timing or phasing of construction or development, or which limits the availability of utilities or
other infrastructure for the Project.
3.1.2 Rights are Vested. Unless amended or terminated in the manner
specified in this Agreement (and subject to the provisions of this Agreement), Owner shall have
the rights and benefits afforded by this Agreement and this Agreement shall be enforceable by
Owner and the City notwithstanding any growth control measure or any development
moratorium adopted after the Approval Date, or any change in the applicable general or
specific plans, zoning, or subdivision regulations adopted by the City which alter or amend the
Current Land Use Regulations, Permitted Uses or the Project Approvals, or the adoption of any
new or amended ordinance, resolution, rule, regulation, requirement or official policy that is
inconsistent with the Current Land Use Regulations, Permitted Uses or the Project Approvals,
so as to prevent or materially adversely affect development or construction of the Project in
accordance with the Current Land Use Regulations, Permitted Uses or the Project Approvals.
This Section 3.1.2 shall be construed to prohibit the City from applying to the Property or the
Project any development moratorium or growth control measure that is adopted specifically to
prohibit the construction of the Project, or as an interim measure pending contemplated general
plan, specific plan or zoning changes, or as a general growth control management measure
except as provided for pursuant to Section 3.4.
11
3.1.3 Future Changes to Current Land Use Regulations. Following the
Approval Date, if the City modifies the Current Land Use Regulations in a manner that Owner,
in its sole discretion, determines is more beneficial than the Current Land Use Regulations,
then the Owner may choose in its sole discretion to be governed by the modified land use
regulations rather than the Current Land Use Regulations, without Owner being deemed to
have waived or limited any rights, remedies or privileges under this Agreement, as subject to
the limitation set forth in Section 3.5 of this Agreement.
3.2 Timinq of Development
3.2.1 Phasing of Development. The parties acknowledge that Owner cannot
at this time predict when or the rate at which the Project would be developed. Such decisions
depend upon numerous factors which are not all within the control of Owner, such as market
orientation and demand, availability of financing and competition. Because the California
Supreme Court held in Pardee Construction Co. v. City of Camarillo (1984) 37 Cal. 3d 465, that
the failure of the parties therein to provide for the timing of development permitted a later
adopted initiative restricting the timing of development and controlling the parties' agreement, it
is the intent of Owner and the City to hereby acknowledge and provide for the right of Owner to
develop the Project in such order and at such rate and times as Owner deems appropriate
within the exercise of its sole and subjective business judgment. The City acknowledges that
such a right is consistent with the intent, purpose and understanding of the parties to this
Agreement. Without in any way limiting Owner's right under Section 5.2.2 not to proceed with
development of the Project and, in such an event, to terminate this Agreement in its sole and
subjective business judgment, if Owner proceeds with the Project, Owner will use its
reasonable efforts, in accordance with its own business judgment and taking into consideration
market conditions and other economic factors influencing its business decision, to commence
12
or to continue development, and to develop the Project in accordance with the provisions and
conditions of this Agreement, the Current Land Use Regulations, and the Project Approvals.
3.3 Other Rights.
3.3.1 Future Discretionary Land Use Permits. Owner may apply for and the
City may consider, after the Approval Date, certain future applications for discretionary land
use permits, in implementing the Project Approvals and constructing and operating the Project.
The City agrees that it will process and timely consider under the Current Land Use
Regulations, any application for discretionary land use permits, provided Owner reasonably
and satisfactorily complies with all preliminary procedures, actions, payment of Processing
Fees, and criteria generally required by this Agreement and the Current Land Use Regulations.
Owner acknowledges and agrees that City may condition its approval of such Future Project
Applications as is reasonably necessary, in the City's sole discretion, to make the Future
Project Application conform to this Agreement and the Current Land Use Regulations. City will
not impose as a condition of approval for future discretionary land use permits any Exaction,
except as authorized by this Agreement.
3.3.2 Future Ministerial Permits. The Owner will seek additional ministerial
permits as required by the City, including, without limitation, excavation only permits,
foundation only permits, grading permits, demolition permits, building permits, including phased
building permits, public works permits and final tract map approvals, as needed to implement
the Project Approvals and to construct and operate the Project. Collectively, these ministerial
permit applications are called the "Future Ministerial Permits". The City agrees that it will not
unreasonably withhold or unreasonably condition any Ministerial Permits which must be issued
by the City in order for the Project to proceed, provided that Owner reasonably and
satisfactorily complies with all preliminary procedures, actions, payment of Processing Fees
13
and criteria generally required for processing such Ministerial Permits, and provided further that
such Ministerial Permits comply with this Agreement, the Current Land Use Regulations, and
the Project Approvals.
3.4 Reservations of Power.
3.4.1 Limitations, Reservations and Exceptions. Notwithstanding any other
provision of this Agreement, the following subsequent land use regulations shall apply to the
development of the Property:
(a) Processing Fees (but not Exactions) imposed by the City to cover
the estimated actual costs to the City of processing applications for Project Approvals, fees for
monitoring compliance with any Project Approvals, or fees for monitoring compliance with
environmental mitigation measures.
(b) Procedural regulations applied on a City-wide, nondiscriminatory
basis relating to City entities required to review petitions or applications, forms of petitions and
applications, notice requirements, information requested with petitions or applications, conduct
of hearings, form of staff reports, nature and type of recommendations by City entities, appeal
procedures and any other similar matters of procedure.
(c) Regulations governing building codes and similar construction
standards and specifications including, but not limited to, the California and International Codes,
as they may be changed from time to time.
(d) Regulations that are necessary to protect the public health and
safety, including without limitation, development moratorium or limitation on the delivery of City -
provided utility services, which are: (a) based on genuine health, safety and general welfare
concerns (other than general growth management issues); (b) which arise out of a documented
14
emergency situation, as declared by the President of the United States, Governor of California,
or the Mayor or City Council of the City of Diamond Bar; and (c) based upon its terms or its
effect as applied, does not apply exclusively or primarily to the Property or the Project. To the
extent possible, any such regulations shall be applied and construed so as to provide Owner
with the rights and assurances provided under this Agreement.
(e) Regulations that are not in conflict with the Project Approvals,
Current Land Use Regulations or this Agreement. Any regulation, whether adopted by initiative
or otherwise, limiting the rate, timing, phasing or sequencing of development of the Property
shall be deemed to conflict with the Project and shall therefore not be applicable to the
development of the Property. Any regulation limiting the Permitted Uses or Approved Uses of
the Property, the density or intensity of use of the Property, or limiting the size, height or location
of improvements on the Property shall be deemed to conflict with the Project Approvals and
shall therefore not be applicable to the development of the Property.
(f) Regulations that are in conflict with the Project, but as to which the
Owner has given its prior written consent for of such regulations to be applied to the Property or
to the development of the Property.
(g) Regulations applied on a City-wide, non-discriminatory basis that
do not "prevent or adversely affect development or construction of the Project' as defined in
Section 1.
3.4.2 Modification or Suspension by State or Federal Law. In the event that
state or federal laws or regulations, or those of any regional authority having jurisdiction over
the Project or Property, enacted after the Approval Date of this Agreement, prevent or preclude
compliance with one or more of the provisions of this Agreement, such provisions of this
Agreement shall be modified or suspended as may be necessary to comply with such state,
15
federal, or regional authority laws or regulations and to effectuate to the extent possible the
terms of this Agreement.
3.4.3 Police Power. The parties acknowledge and agree that City is restricted
in its authority to limit its police power by development agreement and that the foregoing
limitations, reservations and exceptions are intended to reserve to City all of its police power
which cannot be so limited. This Agreement shall be construed to reserve to City all such
power and authority which cannot be restricted by development agreement.
3.4.4 Taxes. Assessments and Fees. Anything herein to the contrary
notwithstanding, City may impose on the Project any new non-discriminatory, City-wide taxes,
assessments and fees, including but not limited to business license taxes or franchise fees, but
not including any Exaction or other fee designated to mitigate the impact of development of the
Project.
3.4.5 Prevailing Wages. Owner has been alerted to the requirements of
California Labor Code section 1770 et seq., including, without limitation S.B. 975, which require
the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements if it is
determined that any portion of the Project approved by this Agreement constitutes a public
works contract. It shall be the sole responsibility of Owner to determine whether to pay
prevailing wages for any or all work required by this Agreement. As a material part of this
Agreement, Owner agrees to assume all risk of liability arising from any decision not to pay
prevailing wages for work required by this Agreement.
3.5 Regulation by Other Public Agencies. It is acknowledged by the parties that
other public agencies not within the control of the City may possess authority to regulate
aspects of the development of the Property separately from or jointly with City, and this
Agreement does not limit the authority of such other public agencies.
16
3.6 Agreement and Assurances on the Part of Owner.
3.6.1 Project Development. Without in any way limiting Owner's right under
Section 5.2.2 not to proceed with development of the Project and, in such an event, to
terminate this Agreement in its sole and subjective business judgment, if Owner proceeds with
the Project, Owner agrees that it will use commercially reasonable efforts, in accordance with
its own business judgment and taking into account market conditions and economic
considerations, to develop the Project in accordance with the terms and conditions of this
Agreement, the Current Land Use Regulations, and the Project Approvals.
3.7 Public Benefits.
3.7.1 Public Benefits. The parties acknowledge and agree that development
of the Project will result in substantial public needs and further acknowledge and agree that this
Agreement confers unique benefits on Owner. The parties intend by this Agreement to provide
additional consideration to the public to balance the private benefits conferred on Owner by
providing for the satisfaction of all direct, indirect and other public needs resulting from or
relating to the Project, and to provide public assurance that this Agreement is fair, just and
reasonable, and prompted by the necessities of the situation so as to provide extraordinary
benefits to City as provided in this Section 3.7.1.
In addition to the benefits, covenants and consideration otherwise provided by Owner
pursuant to this Agreement, the parties acknowledge and agree that development of the Project
will result in substantial public benefits as set forth in Exhibit "C". Owner shall provide to City
those Public Benefits set forth in Exhibit C at the time or times so indicated in therein. Such
Public Benefits shall be "additional consideration" as provided for by the Development
Agreement Act. The City acknowledges the adequacy of the consideration, including the Public
Benefits, provided by Owner to the City pursuant to this Agreement.
17
3.7.2 Exactions and Processing Fees.
3.7.2.1 Exactions. Owner shall complete and pay to the City the
Exactions imposed under the terms and conditions of the Project Approvals, including payment
of those development fees set forth in Exhibit "D" at the time or times set forth in Exhibit D,
subject to any permitted in lieu of credits or other credit or offset provisions provided for under
the Current Land Use Regulations or Project Approvals and as otherwise permitted under law.
The amount of any Exactions shall not exceed the amount in place as of the Approval Date. No
new Exaction may be imposed on all or part of the Project.
3.7.2.2 Exactions and Other Public Benefits. Owner acknowledges that
a reasonable relationship exists between the Exactions levied by the City pursuant to the
Project Approvals and the impacts of the Project on the City, and community. Owner agrees not
to challenge the legality of the Exactions levied by the City or the City's decision regarding in -
lieu fee credits pursuant to the Project Approvals.
3.8 Public Improvements and Utilities.
3.8.1 Installation Obligations. The parties hereby agree that the obligations to
install public improvements and utilities necessary for the development of the Property shall be
as provided for in the Project Approvals.
3.8.2 City -Provided Utilities: Reservation of Sufficient Capacity. To the extent
that it is within the control of the City, the City shall use its best efforts to ensure that there shall
be sufficient capacity, facilities and services with respect to City -provided utilities to complete
construction of the Project and open the uses thereon to the public. The City agrees that if
limitations in the provision of utilities become necessary due to the existence of an emergency
W.
situation, they shall be applied only to the extent necessary to respond to such emergency, and
shall not be applied against the Property or the Project in a discriminatory manner.
3.8.3 City -Provided Utilities: Nondiscriminatory Rates and Provision of Service.
The City agrees that rates and charges for City -provided utilities for the Property and Project
shall not be set or imposed in a discriminatory manner, but shall be those rates and charges
that are or would be generally applicable to any user of a comparable quantity and quality of
the utility use in the City (i.e., any other entity whose use or consumption of the utility is
comparable to that of Owner), and that the City shall not discriminate against the Property or
the Project in the provision of any City -provided utilities (such as potable and reclaimed water,
sewer and drainage).
3.8.4 Dedications, Reservations and Conditions of Development. The portions
of Property to be reserved or dedicated for public purposes pursuant to this Agreement, if any,
shall be that property described in the Project Approvals. Unless otherwise indicated herein,
the property described in the Project Approvals to be reserved or dedicated for public use shall
be dedicated by Owner not later than the issuance of a building permit for that parcel upon
which the dedicated land is located. The City shall take such actions as may be necessary to
vacate any prior dedications, offers to dedicate and grants of easements that are no longer
necessary for the development of the Project in accordance with this Agreement.
3.8.5 Improvement Security/Insurance. As a condition of approving a final
subdivision map or any future subdivision for all or a portion of the Property, the City may
require the furnishing of appropriate and reasonable improvement agreements and security
pursuant to California Government Code Sections 66462 and 66499 et seq. Nothing in this
Agreement shall be construed as altering or relieving Owner of any obligation imposed
pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.
19
3.8.6 Mitigation Measures and Conditions of Approval. Owner shall at its own
expense timely perform all mitigation measures identified in the EIR's Mitigation Monitoring
Program, and conditions of approval identified in the Project Approvals. However, in no event
shall the City have the right to compel Owner to commence or complete any mitigation
measure or condition of approval prior to: (i) the time set forth in the Project's Mitigation
Monitoring and Reporting Program or elsewhere in the Project Approvals; or (ii) for measures
or conditions for which no such timing is set forth in the Project's Mitigation Monitoring and
Reporting Program or elsewhere in the Project Approvals, the date on which the Project
obtains a certificate of occupancy for its first occupants. Owner shall have no liability with
respect to the completion of mitigation measures or conditions of approval, except as otherwise
set forth in this Agreement, if the contemplated development fails to occur.
4. ASSIGNMENT, AMENDMENT AND REVIEW
4.1 Assignment
4.1.1 Right to Assign. Owner shall have the right to sell, transfer or assign the
Property in whole or in part (provided that no such partial transfer shall be permitted to cause a
violation of the Subdivision Map Act, Government Code Section 66410, et seq.) to any person,
partnership, joint venture, firm or corporation at any time during the Term; provided, however,
that any such sale, transfer or assignment will include the assignment and assumption of the
rights, duties and obligations arising under or from this Agreement with respect to the property
transferred and shall be made in strict compliance with the following requirements:
(a) No sale, transfer or assignment of any right or interest under this
Agreement shall be made unless made together with the sale, transfer or assignment of all or a
part of the Property and then, only in accordance herewith.
20
(b) Concurrently with the closing of such approved sale, transfer or
assignment, Owner shall provide the City with an executed agreement by the purchaser,
transferee or assignee and providing therein that the purchaser, transferee or assignee
expressly and unconditionally assumes the duties and obligations of Owner under this
Agreement to the extent of such transfer or assignment.
(c) The purchaser, transferee or assignee shall provide the City with
security equivalent to any security previously provided by Owner to secure performance of its
obligations hereunder, if any, or under any of the Project Approvals.
(d) Any Event of Default by Owner as defined in Section 5.1.1 that
has occurred and is continuing has been cured.
(e) Upon any such assignment, Owner shall have no further
responsibility for any of the assigned obligations.
Any sale, transfer or assignment under Section 4.1 of this Agreement not
made in strict compliance with the foregoing conditions shall constitute a default by Owner
under this Agreement and any such assignment shall be void and of no effect. Notwithstanding
the failure of any purchaser, transferee or assignee to execute the agreement required by
paragraph (b) of this Subsection 4.1.1, the burdens of this Agreement shall be binding upon
such purchaser, transferee or assignee, but the benefits of this Agreement shall not inure to
such purchaser, transferee or assignee until and unless such agreement is executed.
4.1.2 Assignments Where No City Consent is Needed. Owner may, without
seeking or receiving any City consent, freely sell, transfer or assign the Property in whole or in
part and this Agreement to any person, general partnership, limited partnership, limited liability
company, corporation, firm, joint venture, trust, business trust, joint-stock company,
21
cooperative, association or other lawful entity which: (i) has a tangible net worth of at least fifty
million dollars ($50,000,000); and (ii) is nationally or regionally recognized, or regionally known
in Southern California, as an owner or developer of high-quality real estate projects (altogether,
"Permitted Transfers').
4.1.3 Assignments Where City's Reasonable Consent is Needed. With the
exception of Permitted Transfers as described above, Owner may sell, transfer or assign the
Property in whole or in part and this Agreement to any other person, partnership, joint venture,
firm, corporation, trust or other lawful entity with the City's consent, which consent shall not be
unreasonably withheld or conditioned ("Transfer"). In the event Owner desires to make such
Transfer, Owner shall submit to the City a request for approval at least forty-five (45) days prior
to such Transfer, and City shall cooperate with any reasonable pre -approval process
established by Owner that enables Owner to effectuate the Transfer within applicable statutory
time limits. City's approval of a Transfer shall not be unreasonably withheld. The City may
withhold its approval upon finding of any of the following:
(a) The proposed transferee or assignee lacks the financial ability to
perform the obligations of this Agreement;
(b) The proposed transferee or assignee lacks the necessary
qualifications, competence, experience or capability to implement the development plan
contemplated by the Project Approvals; provided, however, if the proposed transferee or
assignee is a nationally or regionally recognized, or regionally known in Southern California, as
an owner or developer of high quality real estate projects such proposed transferee or assignee
shall be deemed to have met this requirement;
(c) An Event of Default by Owner as defined in Section 5.1.1 has
occurred and is continuing under this Agreement; or
22
of the Property.
(d) Owner no longer has a legal or equitable interest in all or any part
Owner shall provide to the City such information that the City reasonably
requests in order for the City to make any determinations provided for by Subsection 4.1.3
above. Owner agrees to provide such information on a timely basis sufficient to permit the City
to make its determinations within the forty-five (45) day time period. Owner agrees to reimburse
the City for reasonable costs incurred by the City in reviewing requests for assignment from
Owner.
4.1.4 Applicability. The provisions of Subsection 4.1.1 and 4.1.3 shall not be
applicable to (i) a transfer or assignment by a mortgage or deed of trust or (ii) a transfer made
in connection with the enforcement of the security interest of a mortgage or deed of trust or by
deed in lieu thereof. Subject to the provisions of Section 4.1 hereof, said provisions shall be
applicable to any subsequent transfer by a mortgage after it has successfully enforced its
security interest.
4.1.5 Partial Release of Purchaser, Transferee or Assignee of Lot. A
purchaser, transferee or assignee of a lot that has been finally subdivided as provided for in the
Development Plan and for which a site plan for development of the lot has been finally
approved pursuant to the Development Plan, may submit a request, in writing, to CITY to
release said lot from the obligations under this Agreement relating to all other portions of the
Property. Within thirty (30) days of such request, CITY shall review, and if the above site plan
condition is satisfied shall approve the request for release and notify the purchaser, transferee
or assignee in writing thereof. No such release approved pursuant to this Subsection 4.1.5
shall cause, or otherwise effect, a release of Owner from its duties and obligations under this
Agreement as to the remainder of the Property (exclusive of such Lot).
23
4.1.6 Termination of Agreement With Respect to Individual Lots Upon Sale to
Public and Completion of Construction. The restrictions and requirements of Section 4.1 shall
not apply to the sale or lease (for a period longer than one year) of any (i) lot that has been
finally subdivided and/or any (ii) condominium unit that is described on a condominium plan
approved by the City as defined in Civil Code Section 1351(e) (the "Condominium Plan")
individually (and not in "bulk') to a member of the public or other ultimate user. Notwithstanding
any other provisions of this Agreement, this Agreement shall terminate with respect to any lot or
condominium unit and such lot or condominium unit shall be released and no longer be subject
to this Agreement without the execution or recordation of any further document upon
satisfaction of both of the following conditions:
4.1.6.1 The lot has been finally subdivided and individually (and not in "bulk')
sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a member of the public or other ultimate
user;
4.1.6.2 The condominium unit is described on a Condominium Plan approved by
the City and individually (and not in bulk) sold or leased (for a period longer than one year) to a
member of the public or other ultimate user; and,
4.1.6.3 A final certificate of occupancy or similar certificate has been issued for a
building on the lot or for the condominium unit, and the fees set forth in Exhibit C of this
Agreement have been paid.
4.2 Changes and Amendments to the Project.
In the event Owner reasonably finds that a change or amendment in the Project
Approvals is reasonably necessary or appropriate, Owner shall apply for any required changes
to the Project Approvals. Any such application that does not require an amendment to the
Permitted Uses, Approved Uses, Zoning Ordinance, or General Plan or any applicable Specific
24
Plan shall be processed in the normal manner for processing such matters in accordance with
the Current Land Use Regulations, except as otherwise provided by this Agreement, including
the Reservations of Power. Any application that requires an amendment to the Permitted Uses,
Approved Uses, Zoning Ordinance, General Plan or any applicable Specific Plan shall be
processed in the normal manner for processing such matters in accordance with the land use
regulations in effect at the time the application is filed.
4.2.1 Minor Changes to Project — No Amendment of Agreement. The parties
acknowledge that refinements or modifications of the Project may be required during the Term.
The parties agree that refinements and modifications which constitute a "minor' change in the
Project or Project Approvals shall not require an amendment to this Agreement or public notice
and a hearing. For any such minor change, the City shall not impose as a condition to
approval any Exaction, except as authorized in this Agreement. The City Manager, in
consultation with the City Attorney, shall be authorized to make the determination on behalf of
the City whether a requested refinement or modification may be effectuated pursuant to this
Section 4.2.1 or whether the requested refinement or modification is of such a character to
require an amendment to this Agreement pursuant to Section 4.2.2. The City Manager shall be
authorized to approve any minor changes hereunder on behalf of the City. The City Manager
shall not unreasonably withhold or delay its determination that a requested refinement or
modification is a "minor change as that term is used herein. A change to the Project Approvals
shall not be deemed "minor" if such change:
(a) Alters the Approved Uses of the Property as a whole
(b) Requires an amendment to the Permitted Uses, Approved Uses,
Zoning Ordinance, General Plan or any applicable Specific Plan;
25
whole;
(c) Increases the density or intensity of use of the Property as a
(d) Deletes a requirement for the reservation or dedication of land for
public purposes within the Property as a whole;
(e) Constitutes a project requiring a subsequent or supplemental
environmental impact report pursuant to Public Resources Code Section 21166;
(f) Creates a situation adverse to public health or safety;
(g) Materially changes the architecture, design or materials of the
Project as provided for in the Project Approvals; or
(h) Reduces the extraordinary Public Benefits, as described in
Section II of Exhibit C, or Exactions provided for in the Project Approvals or in Section 3.7.2 of
this Agreement.
4.2.2 Other Changes. Any change in the Project which does not qualify as a
.'minor change" as defined herein shall require an amendment to this Agreement as provided in
Section 6.9.
4.3 Annual/Special Review.
4.3.1 Annual Review. The City shall, at least every twelve (12) months during
the Term of this Agreement, review the extent of good faith substantial compliance by Owner
with the terms of this Agreement. Subject to the notice and cure procedure set forth in Section
5.1.2, such a periodic review may result in amendment or termination of this Agreement,
provided a default has been established under the terms of this Agreement. Pursuant to
Government Code Section 65865.1, Owner shall have the duty to file an annual review request
RE
with the City, pay any applicable Processing Fees for such annual review and demonstrate its
good faith compliance with the terms of this Agreement at such periodic review. The parties
recognize that this Agreement and the documents incorporated herein could be deemed to
contain many requirements (i.e., construction standards, landscape standards, etc.) and that
evidence of each and every requirement would be a wasteful exercise of the parties' resources.
Accordingly, Owner shall be deemed to have satisfied its duty of demonstration if it presents
evidence satisfactory to the City of its good faith and substantial compliance with the major
provisions of this Agreement.
4.3.1.1 Any party may address any requirement of this Agreement
during the review. However, ten (10) days' written notice of any requirement to be addressed
shall be made by the requesting party. If at the time of review an issue not previously identified
in writing is required to be addressed, the review at the request of either party shall be
continued to afford sufficient time for analysis and preparation.
4.3.2 Special Review. The City Council may order a special review of
compliance with this Agreement at any time. The Director of Community Development or City
Council, as determined from time to time by the City Council, shall conduct such special
reviews. Any special review shall comply with the procedural provisions of an annual review as
provided by Section 4.3.1.
4.3.3 Opportunity to be Heard. Upon written request to the City by Owner,
Owner shall be permitted an opportunity to be heard orally and/or in writing at a hearing before
the City Council regarding its performance under this Agreement. Owner shall also be heard
before the City Council at any required public hearing concerning a review of action on this
Agreement.
27
4.3.4 Information to be Provided Owner. The City shall, to such an extent as
is practical, deposit in the mail to Owner a copy of staff reports and related exhibits concerning
contract performance a minimum of seven (7) days prior to any such review or action upon this
Agreement by the Planning Commission or the City Council.
5. DEFAULT, REMEDIES AND TERMINATION
5.1 Enforceability.
5.1.1 Default. Subject to Section 5.1.3, failure by any party to perform any
term or provision of this Agreement required to be performed by such party shall constitute an
event of default ("Event of Default"). Notwithstanding anything to the contrary in this
Agreement, if Owner makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or any
proceeding is instituted by or against Owner seeking to adjudicate it as bankrupt or insolvent,
or seeking liquidation, winding up or reorganization of it or its debts under any law relating to
bankruptcy, insolvency or reorganization, such an event shall not constitute an Event of Default
absent failure of the Owner to perform any term or provision of this Agreement, and all
provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. For the purposes of this
Agreement, a party claiming another party is in default shall be referred to as the "Complaining
Party", and the party alleged to be in default shall be referred to as the "Party in Default".
5.1.2 Procedure Regarding Defaults.
5.1.2.1 Notice of Default. The Complaining Party shall give written
notice of default to the Party in Default, specifying the default complained of by the Complaining
Party. The Party in Default shall diligently endeavor to cure, correct or remedy the matter
complained of, provided such cure, correction or remedy shall be completed within the
applicable time period set forth herein after receipt of written notice (or such additional time as
may be deemed by the Complaining Party to be reasonably necessary to correct the matter).
Any failures or delays by a Complaining Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies as to
any default shall not operate as a waiver of any default or of any such rights or remedies.
Delays by a Complaining Party in asserting any of its rights and remedies shall not deprive the
Complaining Party of its right to institute and maintain any actions or proceedings which it may
deem necessary to protect, assert, or enforce any such rights or remedies. If an Event of
Default occurs, prior to exercising any remedies, the Complaining Party shall give the Party in
Default written notice of such default. Without limitation, evidence of default may arise in the
course of the regularly scheduled annual review or a special review described in Section 4.3.
5.1.2.2 Cure Periods. If the default is reasonably capable of being cured
within thirty (30) days, the Party in Default shall have such period to effect a cure prior to
exercise of remedies by the Complaining Party. If the nature of the alleged default is such that it
cannot practicably be cured within such thirty (30) day period, the cure shall be deemed to have
occurred within such thirty (30) day period if (i) the cure is commenced at the earliest practicable
date following receipt of the notice; (ii) the cure is diligently prosecuted to completion at all times
thereafter; (iii) at the earliest practicable date (in no event later than thirty (30) days after the
curing party's receipt of the notice), the curing party provides written notice to the other party
that the cure cannot practicably be completed within such thirty (30) day period; and (iv) the
cure is completed at the earliest practicable date. In no event shall the Complaining Party be
precluded from exercising remedies if a default is not cured within sixty (60) days after the first
notice of default is given. Subject to the foregoing, if a party fails to cure a default in accordance
with the foregoing, the Complaining Party, at its option, may terminate this Agreement pursuant
to California Government Code Section 65868, and Section 5.1.2.3 and 5.21 of this Agreement,
and/or institute legal proceedings pursuant to this Agreement.
019
5.1.2.3 Procedures Regarding City Termination. Notice of intent to
terminate shall be by certified mail, return receipt requested. Upon delivery by the City of notice
of intent to terminate, the matter shall be scheduled for consideration and review by the City
Council within thirty (30) days in accordance with Government Code Sections 65867 and 65868.
Upon consideration of the evidence presented in said review and a determination by the City
Council based thereon, the City may give written notice of termination of this Agreement to
Owner. Any determination of default (or any determination of failure to demonstrate good faith
compliance as a part of annual review) made by the City against Owner, or any person who
succeeds to Owner with respect to any portion of the Property, shall be based upon written
findings supported by substantial evidence in the record. Any purported termination of this
Agreement for alleged default shall be subject to review in the Superior Court of the County of
Los Angeles pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5(c).
5.1.3 Institution of Legal Action. Subject to notice of default and opportunity to
cure under Section 5.1.2, and subject further to the limitation on remedies set forth in Section
5.1.4, in addition to any other rights or remedies, any party to this Agreement may institute
legal action to cure, correct or remedy any default, to enforce any covenants or agreements
herein, to enjoin any threatened or attempted violation hereof, or to obtain any other remedies
consistent with this Agreement. If a legal action or proceeding is brought by any party to this
Agreement because of an Event of Default under this Agreement, or to enforce a provision
hereof, the prevailing party shall be entitled to reimbursement of all costs and expenses,
including reasonable attorneys' fees, incurred in prosecuting such legal action or proceeding.
This provision is separate and several and shall survive the merger of this Agreement into any
judgment on this Agreement.
30
5.1.4 Remedies.
5.1.4.1 Owner Remedies. It is acknowledged by the parties that the City
would not have entered into this Agreement if it were liable in damages under or with respect to
this Agreement or the application thereof. In addition, the parties agree that monetary damages
are not an adequate remedy for Owner if the City should be determined to be in default under
this Agreement. The parties further agree that specific performance or other equitable relief
shall be Owner's only remedy under this Agreement and Owner may not seek monetary
damages in the event of a default by the City under this Agreement. Owner covenants not to
sue for or obtain monetary damages for the breach by the City of any provision of this
Agreement.
5.1.4.2 City's Remedies. The parties agree that the City shall have
limited remedies for monetary damages and specific performance as specifically provided for in.
this Section 5.1.4.2. The City shall not have any right to compel specific performance with
respect to the construction of the Project, or any obligation to construct the Project, including
without limitation Section 3.2. Further, the City shall have no right to monetary damages as a
result of Owner's failure to construct the Project or its failure to comply with Section 3.2. The
City shall have the right to sue for monetary damages for failure by the Owner to pay any
amounts owing under this Agreement including without limitation any amounts owing pursuant
to Sections 3.7, 6.4.12 and 6.5.1. In no event shall the City be entitled to consequential
damages or punitive damages for any breach of this Agreement. City also shall have the right to
seek monetary damages for reimbursement of the actual cost to the City incurred by the City to
construct, complete, demolish, remove or restore any physical infrastructure improvement in the
public right of way which Owner commences construction of but fails to complete.
31
5.1.4.3 Voter Actions. The parties understand that the Development
Agreement Law authorizes this Development Agreement to bind the City even as to actions
taken by voters of City. If a court of competent jurisdiction enters a final, non -appealable order
to the contrary and City fails or refuses to perform its obligations under this Agreement solely to
comply with a measure adopted by initiative after entry of such a final, non -appealable order
subjecting this Agreement to the effects of legislation adopted by initiative after the Approval -
Date, this Agreement shall be modified or suspended to the extent required by Government
Code Section 65869.5 and Owner's remedies by reason thereof shall be limited to reformation
or rescission of this Agreement.
5.1.4.4 Other Actions. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to,
waive or limit any rights and remedies that the parties would otherwise have against the other in
the absence of this Agreement.
5.2 Termination of Aqreement.
As to the Property and all of the rights of Owner hereunder, and except as otherwise
provided in this Agreement, this Agreement shall be deemed terminated and of no further effect
upon the expiration of the Term of this Agreement, unless earlier terminated pursuant to this
Agreement.
5.2.1 Termination Upon Failure to Cure Default. Subject to the notice and
cure provisions set forth in Section 5.1.2, the City shall have the right to terminate this
Agreement as to the Property and the rights of Owner hereunder, in the event Owner defaults
and fails to cure such default within the respective cure period. Subject to the notice and cure
provisions set forth in Section 5.1.2, Owner shall have the right to terminate this Agreement
and the rights of the City hereunder in the event the City defaults and fails to cure such default
within the respective cure period. Upon the termination of this Agreement, neither party shall
32
have any further right or obligation with respect to the Property hereunder except with respect
to any obligation to have been performed prior to such termination or with respect to any
default in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement which has occurred prior to such
termination or with respect to any obligations which are specifically set forth as surviving this
Agreement.
5.2.2 Termination by Owner Prior to Development. The Owner is free, in its
sole and subjective business judgment, not to proceed with development of the Project and, in
such an event, to terminate this Agreement. The City acknowledges that such a right is
consistent with the intent, purpose and understanding of the parties to this Agreement. In the
event Owner decides not to proceed with development of the Project and to terminate this
Agreement, the Owner shall provide written notice to the City of that decision and of the final,
irrevocable termination of this Agreement. Immediately upon the giving of such written notice
to the City, the parties' rights and obligations under this Agreement shall cease, except with
respect to any obligations which are specifically set forth as surviving this Agreement, in which
event the Project Approvals shall terminate.
6. GENERAL PROVISIONS
6.1 Term.
6.1.1 Term. The Term of this Agreement shall be for five (5) years, unless
terminated, modified or extended pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement or the mutual
consent of the parties hereto. The Term shall begin on the Commencement Date provided,
however, that the Term of this Agreement and all payment obligations under this Agreement
shall be tolled during any period of time in which: (1) an initiative involving a challenge to any
of the Project Approvals or this Agreement is pending; (2) a lawsuit involving a challenge to any
33
of the Project Approvals or this Agreement (or any amendment(s) thereto) is pending in a court
of competent jurisdiction; or (3) any Force Majeure Delay as described in Section 6.23 below.
6.1.2 Additional Rights. Expiration or termination of this Agreement shall not
affect any right vested under law independent of this Agreement. The term of any parcel map,
tentative subdivision map, or vesting tentative subdivision map relating to the Property or any
portion thereof shall be extended (pursuant to Government Code § 66452(a)) for the longer of
(i) the Term, or (ii) the term of the particular map otherwise allowed under the Subdivision Map
Act (Government Code §§ 66410 et seq.) and the City's Subdivision Ordinance.
6.2 Approval Procedure: Recordation. The following procedure shall govern
approval of this Agreement (which shall precede the execution hereof by the City):
(a) Prior to City Council approval of this Agreement, Owner shall
execute this Agreement.
(b) City Council shall undertake all necessary proceedings to consider
this Agreement in accordance with the procedures established by the Development Agreement
Ordinance. Approval by the City shall be by adoption of the Approval Ordinance.
(c) As provided in Section 65868.5 of the Development Agreement
Act, the City shall cause a copy of this Agreement to be recorded with the County Recorder
within ten (10) days following the Commencement Date. Any recording costs shall be paid by
Owner.
6.3 Cooperation and Implementation. City represents that it will cooperate with
Owner to the fullest extent reasonable and feasible to implement this Agreement. Upon
satisfactory completion by Owner of all of its preliminary actions and payments of appropriate
fees, City shall promptly commence and diligently proceed to complete all steps necessary for
34
the implementation of this Agreement and the development of the Property in accordance with
the terms of this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the processing and checking of any
and all Project Approvals, agreements, covenants and related matters required under the
conditions of this Agreement, building plans and specifications, and any other plans necessary
for the development of the Property, requests for inspections and certificates of occupancy, filed
by or on behalf of Owner. Owner shall, in a timely manner, provide City with all documents,
plans and other information necessary for the City to carry out its obligations hereunder.
6.4 Leqal Challenges.
6.4.1 If any legal action or other proceeding is instituted by a third party or
parties, other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of the
Project Approvals, of the EIR, or of this Agreement prior to any Transfer of the Property and
this Agreement, Owner and the City shall cooperate in defending any such action. The City
shall notify Owner of any such legal action against City within ten (10) days after the City
receives service of process, except for any petition for immediate injunctive relief, in which
case the City shall notify Owner immediately upon receipt of notice thereof. City and Owner
shall each bear its own respective attorney fees and costs incurred in any such legal action.
6.4.2 If any legal action or other proceeding is instituted by a third party or
parties, other governmental entity or official challenging the validity of any provision of the
Project Approvals, of the EIR, or of this Agreement following any Transfer of the Property and
this Agreement, the Transferee and the City shall cooperate in defending any such action. The
City shall notify the Transferee of any such legal action against City within ten (10) days after
the City receives service of process, except for any petition for immediate injunctive relief, in
which case the City shall notify Transferee immediately upon receipt of notice thereof. The
Transferee shall indemnify, hold harmless and defend the City, and any of its officers,
35
employees or agents for any claim or lawsuit brought to challenge the validity, or enforcement
of the Project Approvals, the EIR, or this Agreement, instituted by a third party or another
governmental entity or official; provided, however, that if the City fails promptly to notify the
Transferee of any legal action against the City, or if the City fails to cooperate in the defense,
the Transferee shall not thereafter be responsible for the City's defense. The Transferee shall
reimburse all of the City's defense costs including, without limitation, court costs, attorneys fees
and expert witness fees. The Transferee shall promptly pay all monetary awards, judgments,
verdicts, court costs and attorneys fees that may be awarded in such action. The City shall be
entitled to select counsel to conduct its defense in any such action; provided, however, that the
City shall instruct such counsel to cooperate with the Transferee as provided in this Section
6.4.1.
6.4.3 Continued Processing. The filing of any lawsuit(s) by a third party (not a
party to this Agreement) after the Approval Date against the City and/or Owner relating to this
Agreement or to other development issues affecting the Project shall not delay or stop the
processing or issuance of any permit or authorization necessary for development of the
Project, unless the City in good faith determines that such delay is legally required.
6.5 Indemnity.
6.5.1 Owner Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Owner hereby
agrees, at its sole cost and expense, to defend, protect, indemnify, and hold harmless the City
and its elected officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, volunteers, successors, and
assigns (collectively "Indemnitees') from and against any and all damages, costs, expenses,
liabilities, claims, demands, causes of action, proceedings, expenses, judgments, penalties,
liens, and losses of any nature whatsoever, including fees of accountants, attorneys,
engineers, consultants or other professionals and all costs associated therewith, arising or
36
claimed to arise, directly or indirectly, out of, in connection with, resulting from, or related to any
act, failure to act, error, or omission of Owner or any of its officers, agents, servants, lessees,
employees, contractors, subcontractors, materialmen, suppliers or their officers, agents,
servants, lessees, or employees, or arising or claimed to arise, directly or indirectly, out of, in
connection with, resulting from, or related to this Agreement or Project Approvals, any
construction permitted pursuant to this Agreement or Project Approvals, or any subsequent use
of the Property, or any portion thereof, permitted by this Agreement or Project Approvals
except for any actions resulting from the gross negligence or intentional acts of an Indemnitee.
6.5.2 Survival of Indemnity. The indemnity provisions contained in this Section
6.5 shall survive the termination of this Agreement and are in addition to any other rights or
remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law. Payment is not required as a condition
precedent to an Indemnitee's right to recover under these indemnity provisions, and an entry of
judgment against an Indemnitee shall be conclusive in favor of the Indemnitee's right to recover
under these indemnity provisions. Owner shall pay Indemnitees for any attorneys fees and
costs incurred in enforcing these indemnification provisions.
6.6 Notices. All notices or other communications required hereunder shall be in
writing and shall be personally delivered (including by means of professional messenger
service), or sent by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt required, or by
electronic facsimile transmission followed by delivery of a "hard" copy, and shall be deemed
received on the date of receipt personally, by registered or certified mail or by facsimile.
Unless otherwise indicated in writing, such notice shall be sent addressed as follows:
If to the City:
City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
37
21810 Copley Drive
Diamond Bar. CA 90069
With a copy to:
Michael Jenkins
Jenkins & Hogin, LLP
Manhattan Towers
1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110
Manhattan Beach, CA 90266
Telephone: (310) 643-8448
Fax: (310) 643-8441
If to Owner:
Walnut Valley Unified School District
880 South Lemon Avenue
Diamond Bar. CA 91789
With a copy to:
Constance J. Schwindt
Atkinson,Andelson, Loya, Ruud and Romo
12800 Center Court Drive, Suite 300
Cerritos, CA 90703
6.7 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is made and entered into for the
sole protection and benefit of the parties to this Agreement and their successors and assigns.
No other person shall have any right of action based upon any provision of this Agreement.
6.8 Time of Essence. Time is of the essence for each provision of this Agreement of
which time is an element.
6.9 Modification, Amendment or Extension. Subject to any notice and hearing
requirements imposed by law, this Agreement may be modified, amended and/or extended from
time to time by mutual written consent of the City and Owner in the same manner as its
adoption by ordinance as set forth in Government Code Sections 65867, 65867.5 and 65868
and Chapter 22.62 of the Municipal Code.
38
6.10 Conflicts of Law. In the event that state, regional or federal laws or regulations
enacted after the Approval Date or the action or inaction of any other affected governmental
jurisdiction prevent or preclude compliance with one or more provisions of this Agreement or
require changes in plans, maps or permits approved by the City, the parties shall (a) provide the
other party with written notice of such state, regional or federal restriction, provide a copy of
such regulation or policy and a statement of conflict with the provisions of this Agreement, and
(b) Owner and the City staff shall, within thirty (30) days, meet and confer in good faith in a
reasonable attempt to modify this Agreement, but only to the minimum extent necessary to
comply with such federal, regional or state law or regulation. The City shall cooperate with
Owner in the securing of any permits which may be required as a result of such modifications.
Owner may, at its option, upon notification by the City of any such required modification, elect to
terminate this Agreement if the required modification that is not acceptable to Owner in its
absolute discretion.
6.11 Waiver. No waiver of any provision of this Agreement shall be effective unless in
writing and signed by a duly authorized representative of the party against whom enforcement
of a waiver is sought and referring expressly to this Section 6.11. No waiver of any right or
remedy in respect of any occurrence or event shall be deemed a waiver of any right or remedy
in respect of any other occurrence or event.
6.12 Successors and Assigns. Except as expressly provided to the contrary in this
Agreement, the burdens and obligations of this Agreement shall be binding upon, and the
benefits of this Agreement shall inure to, all successors in interest to the parties to this
Agreement and all successors in interest to the Property or any portion thereof or any interest
therein, and shall be covenants running with the land.
39
6.13 Governing State Law. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the
laws of the State of California.
6.14 Constructive Notice and Acceptance. Every person who now or hereafter owns
or acquires any right, title or interest in or to any portion of the Property is and shall be
conclusively deemed to have consented and agreed to every provision contained herein,
whether or not any reference to this Agreement is contained in the instrument by which such
person acquired an interest in the Property.
6.15 Statement of Compliance. Within thirty (30) days following any written request, in
accordance with the notice provisions of this Agreement, which either party may make from time
to time, the other party shall execute and deliver to the requesting party a statement certifying
that: (a) this Agreement is unmodified and in full force and effect or, if there have been
modifications hereto, that this Agreement is in full force and effect, as modified, and stating the
date and nature of such modifications; (b) there are no current uncured defaults under this
Agreement or specifying the dates and nature of any such defaults; and (c) any other
information reasonably requested. The failure to deliver such statement within such time shall
be conclusive upon the party which fails to deliver such statement that this Agreement is in full
force and effect without modification except as may be represented by the requesting party and
that there are no uncured defaults in the performance of the requesting party. Said statement(s)
shall be in the form reasonably satisfactory to the City, Owner and to any purchaser, lender, title
company, governmental agency, or other person reasonably requesting such statement(s) in
connection with the sale, use, development, construction, financing or marketing of the
Property. The City and Owner, for their own respective uses, shall also be entitled to obtain a
statement of compliance at any reasonable time.
961
6.16 Mortgagee Protection. The parties hereto agree that this Agreement shall not
prevent or limit the right of Owner at its sole discretion, to encumber the Property or any portion
thereof or any improvement thereon by any mortgage, deed of trust or other security device
(collectively "Mortgage") securing financing of the purchase, development or operation of the
Property or any portion of the Property as provided in this Agreement (including, without
limitation, any combination of purchase financing, construction financing, bridge loans, take-out
and permanent financing); provided, however, that any such Mortgage shall be subordinate to
this Agreement.
The City acknowledges that prospective lenders providing such financing may request
certain interpretations and modifications of this Agreement, and agrees upon request, from time
to time, to meet with Owner and representatives of such lenders to discuss in good faith any
such request for interpretation or modification. The City shall not unreasonably withhold its
consent to any such requested interpretation or modification that the City determines is
consistent with the intent and purposes of this Agreement and protects the interests of the City
under this Agreement. Any Mortgagee of Property shall be entitled to the following rights and
privileges:
Neither entering into this Agreement nor a breach of this Agreement shall defeat, render
invalid, diminish or impair the lien of any Mortgage made in good faith and for value.
If the City timely receives a request from a Mortgagee requesting a copy of any notice of
default given to Owner under the terms of this Agreement, the City shall provide a copy of that
notice to the Mortgagee within three (3) days of sending the notice of default to Owner, as the
case may be. The Mortgagee shall have the right, but not the obligation, to cure the default
during the remaining cure period allowed such party under this Agreement.
41
Any Mortgagee who comes into possession of the Property, or any part thereof,
pursuant to foreclosure of the mortgage or deed of trust, or deed in lieu of such foreclosure,
shall take the Property, or part thereof, subject to the terms of this Agreement. Under no
circumstances shall any such Mortgagee or its successors or assigns be entitled to a building
permit or occupancy certificate until all fees and other obligations due by Owner under this
Agreement have been performed and/or paid to the City, all defaults have been cured, and all
otherwise applicable conditions to such permit or certificate have been satisfied.
6.17 Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing. No party shall do anything which shall
have the effect of harming or injuring the right of the other parties to receive the benefits of this
Agreement.
6.18 Covenant of Cooperation. Owner and the City shall cooperate with and assist
each other in the performance of the provisions of this Agreement, including assistance in
obtaining permits for the development of the Property or the Project which may be required from
public agencies other than the City. Owner reserves the right to challenge any ordinance,
measure, moratorium or other limitation in a court of law if it becomes necessary to protect the
development rights vested in the Property pursuant to this Agreement.
6.19 Justifiable Reliance. The City acknowledges that, in investing money and
planning effort in and to the Project and all public improvements and dedication offers required
hereunder, and in undertaking commencement of the Project, Owner will be doing so in reliance
upon the City's covenants contained in this Agreement and upon the enforceability of this
Agreement, and the City agrees that it will be reasonable and justifiable for Owner to so rely.
6.20 Project Is Private Undertaking. It is specifically understood and agreed to by and
between the parties hereto that: (1) the subject development is a private development; (2)
except for the obligations of the City described herein, if any, the City has no responsibilities for
42
or duty to third parties concerning any public improvement until such time and only until such
time that the City accepts the same pursuant to the provisions of this Agreement or in
connection with any subdivision map approval; (3) Owner shall have full power over and
exclusive control of the real property herein described subject only to the limitations and
obligations of Owner under this Agreement and the Project Approvals; and (4) the contractual
relationship between the City and Owner is such that Owner is not an agent of the City nor is
City an agent of Owner.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, nothing contained in this Agreement shall be deemed to
waive or modify any otherwise applicable obligations the City, acting in its governmental
capacity and not as a party to this Agreement, may have to Owner or any other party, under and
in accordance with all applicable laws.
6.21 Further Actions and Instruments. The parties to this Agreement shall cooperate
with and provide reasonable assistance to the other parties to the extent contemplated in the
performance of all obligations under this Agreement and the satisfaction of the conditions of this
Agreement. Upon the request of any party, the other parties shall promptly execute, with
acknowledgment or affidavit if reasonably required, and file or record such required instruments
and writings and take any actions as may be reasonably necessary under the terms of this
Agreement to carryout the intent and to fulfill the provisions of this Agreement or to evidence or
consummate the transactions contemplated by this Agreement.
6.22 Section Headings. All Article and Section headings and subheadings are
inserted for convenience only and shall not affect any construction or interpretation of this
Agreement.
6.23 Enforced Delay (Force Majeure).
43
(a) In addition to specific provisions of this Agreement, performance
by any party hereunder shall not be deemed to be in default where delays or defaults are due to
war, insurrection, strikes, walkouts, riots, floods, earthquakes, fires, casualties, acts of God,
litigation (including without limitation, third party legal challenges to the Project, the Project
Approvals or the environmental clearance for the Project Approvals and the Project),
governmental restrictions imposed or mandated by governmental entities (but only as to delays
or defaults on the part of Owner), enactment of conflicting state or federal laws or regulations
(but only if the party claiming delay complies at all times with the provisions of this Agreement
pertaining to such conflicting laws), delays caused by the delay or failure by any entity other
than the party claiming such delay to provide financing for or construction of needed public
facilities or infrastructure as contemplated or required by this Agreement, delays due to the
enforcement of environmental regulations, litigation brought by third parties, or similar bases for
excused performance.
(b) An extension of time for any such cause (a "Force Majeure
Delay") shall be for the period of the enforced delay and shall commence to run from the time of
the commencement of the cause, if notice by the party claiming such extension is sent to the
other parties within thirty (30) days of knowledge of the commencement of the cause.
Notwithstanding the foregoing, none of the foregoing events shall constitute a Force Majeure
Delay unless and until the party claiming such delay and interference delivers to the other party
written notice describing the event, its cause, when and how such party obtained knowledge,
the date the event commenced, and the estimated delay resulting therefrom. Any party claiming
a Force Majeure Delay shall deliver such written notice within thirty (30) days after it obtains
actual knowledge of the event.
(c) Notwithstanding the first sentence of paragraph (b), above, the
following shall apply: (i) Owner shall be entitled to a Force Majeure Delay for a period longer
T
than the period of enforced delay if the City Council determines that such longer period is
reasonably required; and (ii) Owner shall be entitled to a Force Majeure Delay notwithstanding
the fact that Owner may not have given timely notice to the City, if the City Council determines
that such Force Majeure Delay is reasonably required.
(d) A Force Majeure Delay shall not include the existence of any
difficult or adverse market or economic conditions.
6.24 Emergency Circumstances.
(a) If, as the result of specific facts, events or circumstances, the City
believes that a severe and immediate emergency threat to the health or safety of the City or its
residents, meeting the requirements of subparagraph (b), below, requires the modification,
suspension or termination of this Agreement, the City will, after reasonable notice to Owner (in
light of all the circumstances), hold a hearing on such facts, events or circumstances, at which
Owner shall have the right to address the City Council. The City shall have the right to modify,
suspend or terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, if, following such hearing, the City
Council determines that such modification, suspension or termination is required in order to
protect the health and safety of the City and its residents.
(b) For purposes of this Section 6.24, an emergency must meet each
of the following criteria: (i) it must be based on genuine health, safety and general welfare
concerns (other than general growth management issues); (ii) it must arise out of a documented
emergency situation, as declared by the President of the United States, Governor of California,
or the Mayor, City Council or City Manager of the City of Diamond Bar; and (iii) based upon its
terms or its effect as applied, it does not apply exclusively or primarily to the Property or the
Project.
45
6.25 Severability. Invalidation of any of the provisions contained in this Agreement, or
of the application thereof to any person, by judgment or court order, shall in no way affect any of
the other provisions hereof or the application thereof to any other person or circumstance, and
the same shall remain in full force and effect, unless enforcement of this Agreement, as so
invalidated, would be unreasonable or inequitable under all the circumstances or would frustrate
the purposes of this Agreement and/or the rights and obligations of the parties hereto.
6.26 Interpretation. The language in all parts of this Agreement shall in all cases be
construed simply, as a whole and in accordance with its fair meaning and not strictly for or
against any party. The parties hereto acknowledge and agree that this Agreement has been
prepared jointly by the parties and has been the subject of arm's length and careful negotiation
over a considerable period of time, that each party has independently reviewed this Agreement
with legal counsel, and that each party has the requisite experience and sophistication to
understand, interpret and agree to the particular language of the provisions hereof. Accordingly,
in the event of an ambiguity in or dispute regarding the interpretation of this Agreement, this
Agreement shall not be interpreted or construed against the party preparing it, and instead other
rules of interpretation and construction shall be utilized.
6.27 Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in duplicate counterpart
originals, each of which is deemed to be an original and all of which when taken together shall
constitute one and the same instrument.
6.28 Entire Agreement. This Agreement consists of _ pages, including _ exhibits
(designated A through _), which constitute the entire understanding and agreement of the
parties; provided, however, that nothing in this Agreement shall affect or modify the
Memorandum of Understanding between the parties pertaining to Site D dated July 1, 2007, as
amended by the First Amendment dated November 4, 2008, the Second Amendment dated
H1-
September 15, 2010, the Third Amendment dated January 19, 2011 and the Fourth Amendment
dated September 22, 2011, which Memorandum of Understanding remains in full force and
effect.
[SIGNATURES TO FOLLOW]
47
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have each executed this Agreement on the date
first written above.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
By:
ATTEST:
By:
City Clerk
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By:
City Attorney
WALNUT VALLEY UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT
By:
Its:
Cfi
EXHIBITS
Exhibit A:
Legal Description of Property
Exhibit B:
Project Description
Exhibit C:
Public Benefits of Project
Exhibit D:
Project Development Fees
LA1876979.21 49
211925-10001
EXHIBIT "A"
LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY
Real property in the City of Diamond Bar, County of Los Angeles, State of California, described
as follows:
THE LAND REFERRED To HEREIN IS SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES,
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
PARCEL 1:
THAT PORTION OF SECTION 29, TOWNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO
MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 76 (BREA CANYON
CHANNEL) OF TRACT 271577, AS PER. MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 702,PAGES 22 TO 25
INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 3041' 19"
EAST 245.38 FEET FROM THE SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE
SHOWN ON SAID MAP AS HAVING A BEARING AND DISTANCE OF NORTH IAI'l 8" EAST
74538 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 5�18'42" EAST 235.80 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 71,60,13" EAST
580.00 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3460'00" EAST, 120,00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 500,00" EAST
340.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 400'00" EAST 980.00 FEET; THENCE NORTH 20743"WEST
570.00 FEET TO A POINT rN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD,
AS SHOWN ON MAP OF TRACT 25991, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 702 PAGES 16 To
21 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF SAID COUNTY; SAID POINT BEING ON A CURVE
CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A RADIUS OF 2050,00 FEET, A RADIAL LINE
TO SAID POINT BEARS SOUTH 207'43" EAST; THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID
CURVE, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD;
THROUGH A CENTRAL ANGLE OF 4'11'33" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 150,00 FEET; THENCE
'TANGENT TO SAID LAST MENTIONED CURVE, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF
SAID DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD SOUTH 6003'50" WEST 875.99 FEET To THE
BEGINNING OF A TANGENT CURVE CONCAVE NORTHWESTERLY AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET; "THENCE SOUTHWESTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE, ALONG THE
SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, THROUGH A CENTRAL
ANGLE OF 205010" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 381.83 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNIER OF
SAID LOT 76; THENCE SOUTH 3%1'18" WEST, ALONG THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF
SAID LOT 76,500.00 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
EXCEPT THAT PORTION OF SAID SECTION 29 DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT' IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 76 OF TRACT 27577, AS
PER MAP RECORl.)ED IN BOOK 702 PAGES 22 TO 25 INCLUSIVE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY, DISTANT THFREON NORTH 3641'18" EAST 259.67 FEET FROM THE
M
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAM LOT 76,14ORTH 3(f4l'l 8" EAST 485.71 FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, AS SHOVTN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT
27577; SAID SOUTHERLY LINE BEING A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH A
CENTRAL ANGLE OF 421'50" AN ARC DISTANCE OF 79.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3641,18"
WEST 527,99 FEET TO A LINE THAT BEARS SOUTH 63°26'06" FAST FROM THE PONT, OF
BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 63°26'06" WEST 64.82 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING,
ALSO EXCEPT THEREFROM SAID LAND ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS
AND MINERALS NOW OR AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER SITUATED THEREIN OR
THEREUNDER OR PRODUCIBLE THEREFROM, TOGETHER WITH THE FREE AND
UNLIMITED RIGHT TO MINE, STORE, DRILL AND BORE BENEATH THE SURFACE OF
SAID LAND AT ANY LEVEL OR LEVELS 500 FEET OR MORE BELOW THE SUR -FACE OF
SAID LAND FORTHE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING OR REMOVAL OF SUCH SUBSTANCES,
PROVIDED THAT THE SURFACE OPENING OF SUCH WELL AND ALI, OTHER SURFACE
.FACILITIES SHALL BE LOCATED ON, LAND OTHER 'THAN DESCRIBED HEREIN, AND
SHALL NOT PENETRATE ANY PART OF PORTION OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED REAL
PROPERTY WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE SURFACE THEREOF, AND ALL OF THE RIGHTS SO
TO REMOVE SUCH SUBSTANCES ARE HEREBY SPECIFICALLY RESERVED, G INCLIT
JDIN
THE RIGHT TO DRILL FOR, PRODUCE AND USE WATER FROM SAID REAL PROPERTY IN
CONNECTION WITH SUCH OPERATIONS, AS EXCEPTED AND RESERVED BY
TRANSAMERICA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION WHICH ACQUIRED TITLE
AS CAPITAL COMPANY, A CORPORATION, IN DEED RECORDED AUGUST 12, 1964 AS
INSTRUMENT NO. 1401.
PARCEL2:
THAT PORTION OF SECTION 29JONATNSHIP 2 SOUTH, RANGE 9 WEST, SAN BERNARDINO
BASE AND MERIDIAN, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT IN THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF LOT 76 OF TRACT 27577, AS
PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 702, PAGES 22 TO 25, INCLUSRTE OF MAPS, RECORDS OF
SAID COUNTY, DISTANT THEREON NORTH 3641'19" EAST 259.67 FEET FROM THE
SOUTHWESTERLY TERMINUS OF THAT CERTAIN COURSE HAVING A BEARING OF
NORTH 3(f4l'18" EAST AND A DISTANCE OF 745.38 FEET; THENCE CONTINUING ALONG
THE SOUTHEASTERLY LINE OF SAID LOT 76, NORTH 3041'18" EAST, 485.71 FEET TO THE
SOUTHERLY LINE OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, AS SHOSVN ON MAP OF SAID TRACT
27577, SAID SOUTHERLY LINE} BEING A CURVE CONCAVE NORTHERLY AND HAVING A
RADIUS OF 1050.00 FEET; THENCE EASTERLY ALONG SAID CURVE THROUGH CENTRAL
ANGLE OF zft1'50" AN ARC DISTA14CE Of, 79.97 FEET; THENCE SOUTH 3(y4l'18" WEST
527.99 FEET TO A LINE THAT BEARS SOUTH 6n6'06" EAST FROM THE POINT OF
BEGINNING;TFIENCE NORTH 6:f2606" WEST 64.82 FEET` TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
LA1876979.21 51
211925-10001
EXCEPT THEREFROM ALL OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS
NOW OR AT ANY TIME HEREAFTER MTUATED THEREIN OR THEREUNDER, TOGETHER
WITH THE EXCLUSIVE RIGHT TO DRILL FOR, PRODUCE, EXTRACT, TAKE AND IVIINE
THEREFROM SUCH OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS AND MINERALS AND TO
STORE THE SAME UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND; TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT' TO
STORE UPON THE SURFACE OF SAID LAND, OIL, GAS AND OTHER HYDROCARBONS
AND MINERALS WHICH MAY BE PRODUCE!) FROM OTH. PR LANDS, WITH THE RIGHT OF
ENTRY THEREON FOR SAID PURPOSES, AND WITH THE RIGHT TO CONSTRUCT, USE,
MAINTAIN, ERECT, REPAIR, REPLACE AND REMOVE THEREON AND THEREFROM, ALL
PIPE LINES, TELEPHONE AND TELE -GRAPH LINES, TANKS, MACHINERY, BUILDINGS
AND OTHER STRUCTURES WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY AND REQUISITE TO CARRY ON
OPERATIONS ON SAID LAND, WITH THE FURTHER RIGHT TO ERECT, MAINTAIN,
OPERATE AND REMOVE A PLANT, WITH ALL NECESSARY APPURTENANCES FOR THE
EXTRACTION OF GASOLINE FROM GAS, INCLUDING ALI, RIGHTS NECESSARY OR
CONVENIENT THERETO, AS EXCEPTED AND RESERVED IN THE DEED FROM
TRANSAMERICA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CORPORATION, RECORDED MARCH 29,
1968 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 2456, IN BOOK D3955 PAGE 105, OFFICIAL, RECORDS AND RB -
RECORDED JUNE 19, 1969 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 1776 IN BOOK D4401 PAGE 591, OFFICIAL
RECORDS.
SAID INTEREST WAS CONVEYED TO TRANSAMERICA MINERALS COMPANY, A
CALIFORNIA CORPORATION, BY DEED RECORDED JUNE 20, 1985 AS INSTRUMENT' N0.
85-74005,
AN INSTRUMENT PURPORTEDLY QUITCLAIMING, RELEASING AND SURRENDERING
ONLY THE SURFACE RIGHTS TO A DEPTH OF 500 FEET AND PROVIDING FOR REMOVAL
OF ALL GAS, MINERALS AND HYDROCARBONS BELOW SAID DEPTH AS CONVEYED TO
TRANSAMERICA DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, A CALIFORNIA CORPORATION BY DEED
RECORDED JANUARY 5, 1987 AS INSTRUMENT NO. 87-10522,
LA1876979.21 52
211925-10001
E20
W,� R�105tF.09"
,' t. -79M' PARCEL. 1
f
0.75 ACRES QCs
4
�. P.O.U. Skyi}t7'7�a
f
SCALE: 1 "-3GO'
LA1 875979.21 53
211925-10001
EXHIBIT "B"
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The Site D Specific Plan will entitle a project to consist of 200 attached and/or detached
residential dwelling units for individual sale and a neighborhood park containing not less than
two usable acres to be dedicated to the City. Vehicular access to the residential and park uses
would be provided via a signalized intersection at Cherrydale Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard
or at Crooked Creek and Diamond Bar Boulevard. The precise location, configuration, and
amenities to be included in the proposed neighborhood park will be determined at the time a
tentative subdivision map is processed for the residential development. In addition, an entry
feature will be constructed near the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon
Road. At minimum, the entry feature shall have a value not less than one half of one percent
(0.5%) of the building permit valuation of the proposed residential development. Off-street,
parkway separated walks and on -street bike trails will be provided within the community to allow
residents to safely travel between the residential areas and the public park. The trails and walks
will pedestrian access to the public park area from adjoining neighborhood at the terminus of
Pasado Drive.
The parkland shall be dedicated to the City and constructed to City standards. The tentative
and final tract maps shall show the parkland as a separate parcel (delineating the park
boundaries) and offer the parcel for dedication to the City. The subsequent developer of Site D
shall be responsible for designing the parkland improvements, producing all related construction
documents (subject to Community Development Director and Community Services Director
approval) and constructing the parkland improvements. No offer of dedication shall be accepted
until construction of the parkland improvements is completed in a manner acceptable to the
Community Services Director.
54
EXHIBIT "C"
PUBLIC BENEFITS OF PROJECT
The Project will offer the following immediate public and project benefits:
A. Vesting to develop 200 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) and the City's certified and adopted 2008-2014 Housing
Element Update. These vested housing units represent about 18.5 percent of the
projected housing needs the current Housing Element cycle;
B. Traffic improvements to be completed prior to the issuance of Project certificates of
occupancy:
• Pathfinder Road at Brea Canyon Cutoff Road: Widen and/or restripe eastbound
Brea Canyon Cutoff Road to provide one left -turn lane, two through lanes and a
separate right -turn lane. The implementation of this improvement may require
some modification to existing traffic signal equipment (i.e. re-cut/install new vehicle
loop detectors, modification to traffic signal controller);
• SR -57 Southbound Ramps at Brea Canyon Cutoff Road/Diamond Bar Boulevard:
Install a traffic signal. The implementation of this improvement may require some
modification to existing signing and striping on Brea Canyon Cutoff or SR -57
southbound ramps; and
Cherrydale Drive or Crooked Creek 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 or Crooked Creek. 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 the
affected streets.
The Project will offer the following proposed extraordinary public benefits:
Residential Fees. Owner shall pay to the CITY a development agreement fee at
the issuance of building permits for each dwelling unit in the Project as follows:
$15,000.00 per Dwelling Unit
Public Park Dedication. Owner shall design and construct public park
improvements as set forth in the Project Description (Exhibit B). Owner's
construction of the park improvements and payment of the Quimby Act Fees fully
and completely satisfies Owner's Quimby Act Fee obligation imposed against the
dwelling units constructed in the Project. The public park land and improvements
shall be conveyed to the City in fee as dedicated parkland.
55
EXHIBIT `D"
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT FEES
Prior to the recordation of the final tract map, the Owner shall provide, to the satisfaction of the
City Engineer, the intersection improvements identified in the EIR traffic impact analysis or
provide a "fair -share" contribution toward the cost of the improvements to the following
intersections: (1) Brea Canyon Road (M at Pathfinder Road; (2) Diamond Bar Boulevard at
Pathfinder Road; (3) Brea Canyon Road at Cold Spring Lane; (4) Diamond Bar Boulevard at
Cold Spring Lane; (5) Pathfinder Road at Brea Canyon Cutoff; (6) SR -57 SB Ramps at Brea
Canyon Cutoff Road; (7) SR -57 NB Ramps at Brea Canyon Cutoff/Diamond Bar Boulevard; (8)
Brea Canyon Road at Silver Bullet Drive; (9) Diamond Bar Boulevard at Grand Avenue; and
(10) Colima Road at Brea Canyon Cutoff.
56
Attachment 6
Site D Specific Plan
Copies of the Site D Specific Plan, dated January 2012, are available for public inspection
and review at the City Clerk's Office in City Hall, the Diamond Bar Public Library, and
online at www.DiamondBarCa.gov
Attachment 7
Site_D Specific Plan EIR Response to Comments 2 (RTC2)
Copies of the complete RTC2 document are available for public inspection and review at
the City Clerk's Office in City Hall, the Diamond Bar Public Library, and online at
www.DiamondBarCa.gov
CITY COUNCIL
cCI���teorzJT��� i
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: James DeStefano, City Man
TITLE: Resolution No
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve
BACKGROUND:
Agenda #
Meeting Date: February 21, 2012
AGENDA REPORT
2012 -XX approvin Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget Amendment
The City Council adopted Resolution #2011-22 on June 7, 2011 approving the FY11-12 Municipal
Budget. The City Council has approved additional appropriations as they have occurred throughout
the year. It is City policy for staff and the City Council to periodically review the annual budget and
make adjustment as deemed necessary.
DISCUSSION:
The City's current adjusted General Fund Budget for FY11-12 shows anticipated resources of
$26,532,719. It is recommended that the resource estimate be increased by $1,236,077 to
$27,768,796. The current approved General Fund appropriations budget equals $26,512,983. It is
recommended that this budget be increased by $1,177,185 to $27,690,168. In addition, the use of
fund balance reserves are being increased to subsidize LLAD 38 ($5,500), LLAD 39 ($10,950), and
LLAD 41 ($23,115). These recommended changes in the General Fund estimated resources and
appropriations will result in an estimated $17,235,949 in General Fund unreserved fund balance at
the end of the fiscal year.
Unreserved Fund Balance @ Beg of FY
$21,268,415
$21,268,415
Less Uses of Unreserved Fund Bal (4,071,529) (39,565) (4,111,094)
Estimated Unreserved Fund Bal @ End of FY $17,216,622 $19,327 $17,235,949
Current Budget
Amendment
Adjusted Budget
Resources
Annual Revenue
$22,461,190
$1,196,512
$23,657,702
Use of Fund Balance Reserve
4,071,529
39,565.00
4,111,094
Total Resources
$26,532,719
$1,236,077
$27,768,796
Total Appropriations
26,512,983
1,177,185
27,690,168
Impact to Fund Balance
$19,736
$58,892
$78,628
Unreserved Fund Balance @ Beg of FY
$21,268,415
$21,268,415
Less Uses of Unreserved Fund Bal (4,071,529) (39,565) (4,111,094)
Estimated Unreserved Fund Bal @ End of FY $17,216,622 $19,327 $17,235,949
General Fund Revenues:
When the FY11-12 Budget was adopted, careful consideration went into the preparation of the
revenue estimates. The state of the economy continues to be of major concern to the City of
Diamond Bar, despite signs that the economy is improving. However, nearly all categories of
revenues are showing some growth. In preparation for the mid -year budget review, staff spent a
considerable amount of time examining the City's revenues to ensure valid revenue estimates in this
time of economic uncertainty.
• Property Taxes – The recommended adjustment to property tax revenues is to increase the
projected apportionments by $50,120. Property tax revenue growth is expected to be
insignificant, since base year values grew only slightly in 2011/12, (.75%). The base year value
growth is calculated using the California Consumer Price Index (CCPI) for all items. Base year
values are expected to grow by a slight percentage once again in 2012/13. The CCPI for property
tax base year values is determined from the October to October period each fiscal year.
• Other Taxes – Included in the "Other Taxes" category are Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax,
Property Transfer Tax and Franchise Tax. This category of revenue has been adjusted upward
by $6,000, due to a slight turnaround in retail sales, as a result of an improving economy. This
growth in sales tax ($68,000) will be offset by a decline in Property tax in lieu of Sales tax
($24,000), due to an over -allocation of revenues by the State in the prior year. Property Tax In
Lieu of Sales Tax is also known as the "triple flip" revenue, which is the 25% of sales tax diverted
by the State in prior years to assist in bailing the State's out of its financial insolvency. There is
also a negative adjustment to Property Transfer Taxes ($38,000), since this revenue source fell
far below expectations in 2010-11, and thus is not expected to meet projections in 2011-12.
• County Revenue—The County of Los Angeles is going to reimburse the City for expenses
incurred for the design, construction management, and construction of the new County Library
located in the Civic Center building. This revenue projection is being increased by $971,000 to
offset an equivalent increase in expenditure appropriations in the Civic Center budget.
• State Subventions – Motor Vehicle in Lieu (VLF) revenues are being eliminated from revenue
projections, since this revenue source was taken away from local government as part of the State
budget for 2011-12. Although the lawsuit challenging this seizure of funds by the State is not yet
resolved, it is expected that the State will prevail since they have fared well in other lawsuits
brought by the League of California Cities. The reduction in VLF revenues will be offset slightly by
an increase in Property Taxes In Lieu of VLF. In addition, the VLF revenues will be replaced with
revenue in the COPS fund in the amount of $100,000 (See adjustment for COPS, Fund 126)
• Current Service Charges –This category includes various development and engineering related
fees. It is recommended that the revenue projections be increased by $190,349 to recognize the
increase in amounts received thus far in the fiscal year compared to budgeted amounts for the
first six months of 2011-12.
2
Use of Money and Property – Investment yields have remained historically low this fiscal year
resulting in lower than anticipated investment revenue. In addition, the City's total investment
portfolio is lower due to the use of General Fund reserves for the Civic Center project, including
the cash purchase of the Civic Center building for nearly $10 million. The overall change in the
projection of revenue from the Use of Money and Property is a reduction of $108,000.
Miscellaneous Revenue—this revenue category is being increased for recoverable legal fees in
the amount of $70,000 related to a code enforcement case.
• Transfers In –Other Funds –The major change in this category is due to the recognition of a
transfer in from the Proposition C Fund ($125,000) to pay for the relocation of the Traffic
Management System to the new Civic Center as part of the move to the new City hall.
• The changes in revenue estimates are outlined in Exhibit A.
General Fund Appropriations:
When the budget was adopted in June 2011 the General Fund appropriations equaled $22,775,776,
which included the use of Fund Balance reserves ($4,071,529), primarily for the City Hall
reconstruction. Prior to these mid -year budget amendments, the City Council had authorized
additional appropriations in the amount of $3,737,207 for a total of $26,512,983. These additional
appropriations consisted of:
on
Construction expenses for the County
Increase in expenses for new City Hall
General Plan
Miscellaneous budget corrections
-ibrary $ 3,463,308.00
181, 588.00
32,633.00
59,678.00
$ 3,737,207.00
The uncertainty over the State's fiscal problems continues to impact all cities in the state. Although
propositions passed by voters over the past few years to protect local revenues have certainly
helped, the State has taken all of the City's remaining Vehicle License Fee revenue, and has only
partially replaced it with restricted COPS funding. The projected revenues in the General Fund have
been reduced by $193,000 in this mid -year budget due to the loss of Vehicle License Fees, even
though the courts have not yet heard the lawsuit challenging this takeaway. However, the
conservative approach is to recognize that the City will not likely ever receive these funds in the
future.
The following are the highlights of the changes in the General Fund appropriations:
City Prosecutor – This budget has been increased by $70,000, due to an increase in code
enforcement activity, with a corresponding increase in revenues, since this cost is recoverable
from the property owner.
• City Manager/City Clerk- This budget has been reduced by $34,967 as a result of savings from
the reorganization plan approved by City Council in November 2011.
• Finance — This department's budget has been reduced by $87,184 to reflect expected
salary/benefit savings from the vacant Director of Finance position, which was not filled until
December of this fiscal year.
• Human Resources -This division's budget has been increased by $13,409 as a result of the
reorganization plan approved by City Council in November 2011. The Human Resources
Technician position has been budgeted at range 17NE Step B, which is a minor change from
range 14NE Step B that was originally part of the reorganization plan. Since the position will not
likely be filled until May 1, 2012, this change results in no additional funds required.
• General Government — This budget has been reduced by $548,065 as a result of transferring the
debt service on the 2002 Fixed Rate bonds to the debt service fund, and reducing the bond costs
no longer incurred for remarketing fees, letter of credit fees, and drawing fees as a result of paying
off the variable rate debt.
• Civic Center- The budget for the new civic center has been increased by $1,370,001, primarily for
costs related to the County Library. These costs will be offset by revenue from the County of Los
Angeles. Approximately $400,000 of this amount is related to the City Hall Project for architectural
services, construction management and unanticipated repairs. Also included in the amount
related to City Hall is $125,000 for the relocation of the traffic management system which is being
paid for with a transfer of funds from Proposition C funds.
• Economic Development— The economic development budget has been increased by $217, due to
the reorganization plan approved by City Council in November 2011.
• Law Enforcement — The law enforcement budget has been reduced by $264,973 due to the fact
that Los Angeles County's Liability Trust Fund was super funded and therefore the City is not
required to pay into the fund this fiscal year. Additionally, the position of Community Resource
Officer has been vacant and is not anticipated to be filled. The City will revisit the status of this
position during the preparation of the fiscal year 2012-13 budget.
• Animal Control - The budget for animal control has been increased by $7,000 due to an increase
in coyote activity within the City this fiscal year.
• Planning -This budget has been increased by $22,686 as a result of the reorganization plan and
also to an expected increase in contract services as a result of the absence of an employee during
FMLA leave.
• Building and Safety — The Building and Safety budget has been increased by $47,500 due to an
increase in costs for the contract provider and as a result of increased building activity in the City
as the local economy begins to recover. A majority of these expenditures have a corresponding
increase in budgeted revenues.
4
• Neighborhood Improvement - This budget has been increased by $717, due to the reorganization
plan and also due to increased costs for the printing of courtesy notices.
• Community Services Admin — This budget has been increased by $20,945 for the reorganization
plan, and due also to increased costs for an ADA transition plan to meet federal requirements.
• Diamond Bar Center- This budget has been decreased by $6,598 primarily due to staff vacancies
and salary savings.
• Park Operations — This budget has been increased by $6,500 to provide funds for overtime,
increased utility expenses at Washington Park, and to commit funds donated to the City for the
maintenance of the grounds/buildings by the MOMS Club.
• Recreation — This budget has been increased by $4,959 to cover encumbrances that should have
been carried over from 2010/11 for Walnut Valley Unified School District ($10,813) which is offset
by salary savings for staff vacancies.
• Public Works — This budget has increased by $46,340. The increase is due to the reorganization
plan, appropriations for the carry-over of encumbrances from 2010/11 and for membership in the
Coyote Creek Watershed Group.
• Engineering — Appropriations have been increased by $24,774 to cover encumbrances carried
over from 2010/11.
• Road Maintenance - Appropriations have been increased by $2,700 to cover encumbrances
carried over from 2010/11.
• Streetscape Maintenance- $30,000 has been added to the tree maintenance budget to pay for
increased tree maintenance at Summit Ridge Park, tree removal in order to complete sidewalk
repair, and for increased service requests this fiscal year.
• Transfer out — Expenses for the Debt Service on the 2002 Fixed Rate bonds will be expensed in
the Debt Service Fund. A transfer of $411,659 from the General Fund to the Debt Service Fund is
needed to cover the debt service payments due 6/1/2012.
• Transfer out- LLAD's-Due to increased expenses for Advertising, Maintenance of
Grounds/Buildings, and Contract Services-Weed/Pest Abatement, an increased transfer is
required in the amount of $5,500 for LLAD 38, $10,950 for LLAD 39, and $23,115 for LLAD 41.
There are brief explanations of all of the adjustments to the General Fund appropriations on page 3 of
Exhibit A.
Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) and Other Funds:
The Mid Year Budget Amendment includes changes to only one capital project in the City's CIP
program resulting in an increase of $1,120,000, for the following:
Lemon Avenue Partial Diamond Interchange Project- This project will be funded by SAFETEA-
LU funds, with a matching grant provided by the City of Industry. The City of Industry match
will not come to the City, so the appropriation required is only for the portion of the project that
will be paid out of the TEA fund.
Proposition A Fund
The Proposition A Fund is being reduced by $11,758 as a result of salary savings from the Finance
Director position, and other position vacancies.
Proposition C Fund
The Proposition C Fund is being increased by $50,000 for increased usage of the Dial A Cab
services.
TEA Fund
The TEA Fund is being increased by $1.12 million in revenue from the SAFETEA-LU program to fund
the Lemon Avenue Partial Diamond Interchange Project.
Integrated Waste Management Fund
This fund is being reduced by $35,367 as a result of salary savings from the Finance Director
position, the reorganization plan, and other position vacancies.
Traffic Improvement Fund
This fund is being increased by $140,003 due to the carryover of encumbrances approved by City
Council in October 2011.
Park and Facility Development Fund
The Park and Facility Fund budget is being increased by a $10,000 interfund transfer to the General
Fund to pay for ADA retrofits required to comply with federal mandates.
Community Development Block Grant Fund (CDBG)
The CDBG budget is being reduced by $9,160 as a result of the vacancy of the Community Services
Specialist position.
COPS Fund
The COPS Fund is expected to receive $100,000, as a partial offset to the elimination of VLF
revenues in the General Fund. Although the lawsuit challenging this grab of local revenues by the
State is yet to be decided by the courts, the $100,000 is being budgeted with an expectation that the
State will prevail in the lawsuit.
LLAD # 38 Fund
The LLAD 38 Fund is being increased to pay for additional advertising, requiring an additional transfer
in from the General Fund in the amount of $5,500.
LLAD #39 Fund
The LLAD 39 Fund is being increased to pay for additional advertising and maintenance of
grounds/buildings, requiring an additional transfer in from the General Fund in the amount of $10,950.
6
LLAD #41 Fund
The LLAD 41 Fund is being increased to pay for additional advertising and weed/pest abatement,
requiring an additional transfer in from the General Fund in the amount of $23,115.
CIP Fund
The CIP fund is being increased by $1.12 million for the Lemon Avenue Partial Diamond Interchange
Project funded by SAFETEA-LU funds.
Debt Service Fund
The debt service fund budget is being increased to recognize the receipt of bond proceeds from the
fixed rate bond issuance, the payoff of the variable rate bonds, and the debt service payments due
6/1/2012 for the fixed rate bonds.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
General Fund
The Mid -Year Budget Amendment includes an increase in estimated revenue for the General Fund
in the amount of $1,236,077 and an increase in General Fund appropriations in the amount of
$1,177,185, which are outlined in Exhibit A.
Capital Improvement Projects
Changes to the Capital Improvement Projects (Exhibit A) list include total changes amounting to an
increase of $1,120,000.
7
Special Funds
Changes to the other funds are outlined in Exhibit A. The following is a brief recap of the changes:
Revenue Appropriations Fund Bal
Increase/ Increase/ Net Increase
(Decrease) (Decrease) (Decrease)
CIP Fund
Lemon Ave. Interchange $ 1,120,000 $ 1,120,000 $
Debt Service Fund
2002 Fixed Rate Bond
Special Funds
Proposition A Fund
Proposition C Fund
TEA fund
Integrated Waste Mgmt. Fund
Traffic Imprrovement Fund
Park and Fac. Dev. Fund
CDBG Fund
COPS Fund
LLAD 38 Fund
LLAD 39 Fund
LLAD 41 Fund
Total Special Fund Changes
General Fund Changes
Grand Totals
12, 616, 659 12, 616, 659
$1,259,565 $1,303,283 ($43,718)
1,236,077 1,177,185 58,892
$16,232,301 $16,217,127 $15,174
Overall the Mid Year Budget amendment proposes an increase in Estimated Revenue of $16,232,301
for all funds and an overall increase in Appropriations of $16,395,125 for all funds.
PREPARED BY:
Dianna L. Honeywell
Finance Director
REVIEWED BY:
Finance Director AssistMt-dWMWager
Attachments: Resolution and Exhibit A - Budget Worksheets
(11,758)
11,758
50,000
(50,000)
1,120,000
1,120,000
0
(35,367)
35,367
140,003
(140,003)
10,000
(10,000)
(9,160)
9,160
100,000
100,000
5,500
5,500
0
10,950
10,950
0
23,115
23,115
0
$1,259,565 $1,303,283 ($43,718)
1,236,077 1,177,185 58,892
$16,232,301 $16,217,127 $15,174
Overall the Mid Year Budget amendment proposes an increase in Estimated Revenue of $16,232,301
for all funds and an overall increase in Appropriations of $16,395,125 for all funds.
PREPARED BY:
Dianna L. Honeywell
Finance Director
REVIEWED BY:
Finance Director AssistMt-dWMWager
Attachments: Resolution and Exhibit A - Budget Worksheets
RESOLUTION NO. 2012-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE
FYI 1-12 MUNICIPAL BUDGET.
WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted Resolution No. 2011-xx, A Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar approving and adopting a budget for the City of Diamond Bar for
the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2011 and ending June 30, 2012 including maintenance and
operations, special funds and capital improvements and appropriating funds for accounts
departments, divisions, object and purposes therein set forth (herein referred to as the "Budget"); and
WHEREAS, the City Council may choose to amend the Budget from time to time throughout
the fiscal year; and
and
WHEREAS, an amendment to the FY 2011-12 Budget is attached as Exhibit A; and
WHEREAS, the Amendment has been presented to the City Council at a City Council meeting;
WHEREAS, all legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar as
follows:
Section 1. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the FYI 1-12 Annual Budget be
amended as set forth in the attached Exhibit A.
Section 2. There are hereby appropriated for obligations and expenditures by the City Manager the
amounts shown on the attached Exhibit. All obligations and expenditures shall be incurred and made
in the manner provided by the provisions of State law and City ordinances and resolutions applicable
to purchasing and contracting.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of 2012.
Ling -Ling Chang, Mayor
9
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 the day of 2012, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk of the
City of Diamond Bar
10
Exhibit A
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
FY2011-12
MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT
GENERALFUND
Uses of Fund Balance Reserves
City Hall Expansion/Move
Adopted
Previous
Current
Mid Year
150,000
150,000
Budget
Adjustments
Budget
Amendment
Adj Budget
Estimated Resources
74,617
74,617
39,565 114,182
Transfer out- CIP Fund
Property Taxes
3,831,820
Subtotal
3,831,820
50,120
3,881,940
Other Taxes
5,482,000
(96,452) 17,216,622
5,482,000
6,000
5,488,000
County Revenue -
-
3,463,308
3,463,308
970,531
4,433,839
State Subventions
4,780,280
4,780,280
(127,893)
4,652,387
Fines and Forfeitures
495,800
495,800
8,200
504,000
Current Service Charges
1,776,007
1,776,007
190,349
1,966,356
Use of Money & Property
1,161,700
1,161,700
(35,795)
1,125,905
Transfers -In Other Funds
1,470,275
-
1,470,275
135,000
1,605,275
Fd Balance Reserves
4,071,529
4,071,529
39,565
4,111,094
Total Estimated Resources
23,069,411-
3,463,308
26,532,719
1,236,077
27,768,796
Appropriations
City Council
161,962
161,962
161,962
City Attorney
265,000
265,000
70,000
335,000
City Manager/City Clerk
1,112,675
1,112,675
(34,967)
1,077,708
Finance
413,097
5,510
418,607
(87,184)
331,423
Human Resources
189,346
189,346
13,409
202,755
Information Technology
740,708
740,708
-
740,708
General Government
1,160,066
6,000
1,166,066
(548,065)
618,001
Civic Center
4,039,243
3,644,896
7,684,139
1,370,001
9,054,140
Public Information
516,514
516,514
516,514
Economic Development
198,669
198,669
217
198,886
Law Enforcement
5,705,439
5,705,439
(264,973)
5,440,466
Volunteer Patrol
7,750
7,750
7,750
Fire
7,500
7,500
7,500
Animal Control
134,645
134,645
7,000
141,645
Emergency Preparedness
64,040
64,040
64,040
Community Development/Planning
646,341
40,713
687,054
22,686
709,740
Building & Safety
341,201
341,201
47,500
388,701
Neighborhood Improvement
318,797
318,797
717
319,514
Community Svcs Admin
316,865
7,500
324,365
20,945
345,310
Diamond Bar Center - Operations
833,504
29,085
862,589
(6,598)
855,991
Park Operations
896,382
663
897,045
6,500
903,545
Recreation
1,758,677
2,840
1,761,517
4,959
1,766,476
Public Works - Admin
592,437
592,437
46,340
638,777
Engineering
293,403
293,403
24,774
318,177
Road Maintenance
1,219,396
1,219,396
2,700
1,222,096
Landscape Maintenance
343,390
343,390
30,000
373,390
Transfer -Out Other Funds
498,729
498,729
451,224
949,953
Total Appropriations
22,775,776
3,737,207
26,512,983
1,177,185
27,690,168
Excess Resources over Appropriations
293,635
(273,899)
19,736
58,892
78,628
Fund Bal Reserves @ Beginning of Yr
21,090,968
177,447
21,268,415
21,268,415
Available Resources
21,384,603
(96,452)
21,288,151
58,892
21,347,043
Uses of Fund Balance Reserves
City Hall Expansion/Move
3,734,412
3,734,412
3,734,412
Prof Services - EIR and Zoning Changes
150,000
150,000
150,000
Economic Development
112,500
112,500
112,500
Transfer out- LLADS
74,617
74,617
39,565 114,182
Transfer out- CIP Fund
-
-
Subtotal
4,071,529
4,071,529
39,565.00 4,111,094
Estimated Fd Bal Reserves @ 06/30/12
17,313,074
(96,452) 17,216,622
19,327 17,235,949
11
Exhibit A
Property Taxes
Current Secured
Current Unsecured
Supplemental Roll
Prior Year Property Taxes
Misc Property Tax
Interest Penalties and Deliquencies
Other Taxes
Sales Tax
Sales Tax Camp Fund
Transient Occupancy Tax
Franchise Tax
Property Transfer Tax
County Revenue
County Contra - Library
Homeowners Exemption
State Subventions
Motor Vehicle in Lieu
VLF - Property Tax in Lieu
Office of Traffic Safety Grant
Fines & Forfeitures
Vehicle Code Fines
General Fines
Municipal Code Fines
Parking Fines
Impound Fees
False Alarm Fees
Current Service Charges
Building Permit Fees
Plumbing Permit Fees
Electrical Permit Fees
Mechanical Permit Fees
Permit Issuance Fees
Inspection Fees
Plan Check Fees
Plan Retention Fees
SMIP Fees
Building Standards Admin
Current Planning Fees
Business License Fees
Business License Delinquency Fees
Engr- Plan Check Fee
Engr- Permit Issuance Fee
Engr-Encroachment Permit
Engr- Inspection Fee
Engr-Soils/Traffic/Misc Engr Fees
Traffic Mitigation - Engineering
Waste Hauler Fees
Waste Hauler Fees
Use of Money & Property
Investment Revenue
Miscellaneous Revenue
Donations
Printed Material Sales
Cost Reimbursements
Transfers In - Other Funds
Transfer in - Prop C
Transfer in - Park & Facility Dev Fund
FY2011-2012
MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND REVENUES
CurrentMid Year
Account# Budget Amendment Adj Budget
Explanation
001-30010
3,554,630
55,970
3,610,600
Property Tax Adjs based upon
001-30020
169,850
(5,650)
164,000
current year receipts compared
001-30050
72,340
001-34130
72,340
to the prior year
001-30100
(8,000)
Permit Activity
(8,000)
13,000
001-30200
2,000
Increased
2,000
001-34200
001-30250
41,000
41878
41,000
Permit Activity
001-34250
3,831,820
50,120
3,881,940
Increased
001-31010
2,507,770
68,313
2,576,083
HDL
00141011
830,230
(24,313)
813,917
HDL
001-31200
600,000
Permit Activity
600,000
1,200
001-31210
1,306,000
Increased
1,306,000
001-34355
001-31250
230,000
(38,000)
192,000
Assume f 1 %growth over last yr
001-34430
5,482,000
6,000
5,488,000
Increased
001-31334
3,463,308
970,531
4,433,839
18,600
001-31340
35,000
001-34561
35,000
2,000
3,000
3,498308
970,531
4,468,839
25,000
00131700
223,280
(193,093)
30,187
State take away; replaced with C
001-31701
4,522,000
63,000
4,585,000
Based on actual received 1/2012
001-31856
0
2,200
2,200
YTD Revenue
ROB installation
4,745,280
(127,893)
4,617,387
35,000
001-32150
310,300
13,700
324,000
Based on average per month
001-32200
24,000
24,000
82,000
001-32210
1,000
5,000
6,000
One time revenue recd
0012230
140,000
(10,000)
130,000
Based on six month average
001-32250
20,000
20,000
001-32270
500
(500)
0
Not expected to collect any rover
495,800
8,200
504,000
Total General Fund Revenue Adjustment
001-34110
170,000
12,550
182,550
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34120
18,750
4,555
23,305
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34130
19,800
4,972
24,772
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34140
13,000
4,284
17,284
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34200
31,250
10,628
41878
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34250
4,500
3,133
7,633
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34300
110,000
42,046
152,046
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34310
4,200
4,967
9,167
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34350
1,200
1,265
2,465
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34355
300
549
849
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34430
47,500
15,000
62,500
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34560
14,200
4,400
18,600
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34561
1,000
2,000
3,000
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34610
25,000
10,000
35,000
Increased
Permit Activity
001-34620
5,000
5,000
001-34630
15,000
70,000
85,000
Verizon-
ROB installation
001-34640
35,000
35,000
001-34650
40,000
40,000
001-34660
82,000
82,000
001-34662
206,000
206,000
001-34665
30,000
30,000
873,700
190,349
1,064,049
001-36100 290,000 (108000) 182,000 Lower yields& portfolio balance
290,000 (108,000) 182,000
001-36660 5,000 1,205 6,205 Donations Received
001-36615 3,000 1,000 4,000 Sales already exceed ong budge
001-36950 70,000 70,000 Recoverable legal fees
8,000 72,205 80,205
001-39113 - 125,000 125,000
001-39124 10,000 10,000
135,000 135,000
$1,196,512
12
MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND APPROPRATIONS
13
Current
Mid Yr
Adjusted
Description
Account#
Budget
Amendment
Budget
Explanation
City Prosecutor
Prof Svcs-Spl legal
44023
80,000.00
70,000.00
150,000.00
Code Enforcement - Recoverable Legal Services
City Manager
Salaries
40010
685,708.00
(14,370.17)
671,337.83
Reorganization
Part Time Salaries
40030
16,395.00
(15,645.00)
750.00
City Paid Benefits
40070
8,766.00
(315.00)
8,451.00
Retirement Benefits
40080
126,856.00
(2,597.50)
124,258.50
Worker's Compensation
40083
10,078.00
(460.00)
9,618.00
Short/Long Term Disability
40084
4,183.00
(338.50)
3,844.50
Medicare/Social Security
40085
11,196.00
(1,255.50)
9,940.50
Cafeteria Plan Benefits
40090
76,842.00
(2,985.00)
73,857.00
Advertising
42115
5,000.00
3,000.00
8,000.00
945,024.00
(34,966.67)
910,057.33
Finance
Salaries
40010
279,852.00
(67,556.84)
212,295.16
Salary savings from vacant Finance Director
City Paid Benefits
40070
4,399.00
(682.42)
3,716.58
position
Retirement Benefits
40080
53,899.00
(11,917,48)
41,981.52
Worker's Compensation
40083
2,330.00
(51528)
1,814.72
Short/Long Term Disability
40084
1,784.00
(392.79)
1,391.21
Medicare/Social Security
40085
4,229.00
(933.86)
3,295.14
Cafeteria Plan Benefits
40090
42,423.00
(5,185 07)
37 237.93
388,916.00
(87,183.74)
301,732.26
Human Resources
Salaries
40010
94,403.00
9,763.21
104,166.21
Reorganization
City Paid Benefits
40070
1,449.00
(315.00)
1,134.00
Retirement Benefits
40080
17,465.00
7,417.29
24,882.29
Worker's Compensation
40083
859.00
(132.00)
727.00
Short/Long Tenn Disability
40084
576.00
(100.50)
475.50
Medicare/Social Security
40085
1,369.00
(239.50)
1,129.50
Cafeteria Plan Benefits
40090
12,735.00
(2,985.00)
9,750.00
128,856.00
13, 408.50
142, 264.50
Information Systems
Overtime Wages
40020
2,000.00
3,500.00
5,500.00
Move related overtime
Professional Services
44000
47,000.00
22,000.00
69,000.00
Move related costs & CityView upgrade
Contract Services
45000
28,550.00
2,500.00
31,050.00
Printer support
Computer Maintenance
42205
189,975.00
(28,000.00)
161 975.00
Savings because of new purchases
267,525.00
0.00
267,525.00
General Government
Banking Charges - LOC Fees
42129
15,000.00
(8,770.00)
6,230.00
Remarketing Fees - savings due to refinancing
Banking Charges - LOC Fees
42129
108,000.00
(60,695.00)
47,305.00
Letter of Credit Fees - savings due to refinancing
Banking Charges - LOC Fees
42129
6,000.00
(5,750.00)
250.00
Draw Fees on LOC - savings due to refinancing
Rental/Lease - Real Property
42140
290,000.00
(290,000.00)
0.00
Principal - Variable Rate Bond
Rental/Lease - Real Property
42140
182,850.00
(182,850.00)
0.00
Interest - Variable Rate Bond
601,850.00
(548,065.00)
53,785.00
Civic Center
Telephone
42125
-
1,200.00
1,200.00
Anticipated telephone costs
Maint of Grounds/Buildings
42210
48,058.00
88,000.00
136,058.00
Estimates for new building
Professional Services
44000
-
23,587.50
23,587.50
Carryover of budget for encumbrances carried ove
Contract Services
45000
215,000.00
337,254.00
552,254.00
LPA contract carryover & relocation of traffic mgm
Building Improvements
46310
6,422,308.00
469,959.00
6,892,267.00
Construction Management for Library
Furniture
46220
925,000.00
450,000.00
1,375,000.00
Furniture for Library
7,610,366.00
1,370,000.50
8,980,366.50
Economic Development
Salaries
40010
65,704.00
178.79
65,882.79
Reorganization
Retirement Benefits
40080
12,155.00
38.21
12,193.21
77,859.00
217.00
78,076.00
13
MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND APPROPRATIONS
Description
Account#
Current
Budget
Mid Yr
Amendment
Adjusted
Budget
- Explanation
Law Enforcement
CS - Sheriffs Department
45401
5,447,689.00
(264,973.00)
5,182,716.00
Savings from superfunding of Liability Trust Fund
& CSO position vacancy
Animal Control
Animal Control
45406
8,000.00
7,000.00
15,000.00
Coyote Control
Planning
Salaries
40010
349,036.00
1,430.33
350,466.33
Reorganization
Retirement Benefits
40080
64,518.00
305.67
64,823.67
Operating Supplies
41200
1,200.00
500.00
1,700.00
Additional supplies needed
Meetings
42325
550.00
450.00
1,000.00
Increased meeting expenses
Travel - Conferences/Researcl
42330
7,300.00
(4,000.00)
3,300.00
Lower expected attendence at conferences
Planning - Projects
44250
500.00
24,000.00
24,500.00
Contractor required during employee FMLA leave
423,104.00
22,686.00
445,790.00
Building & Safety
Operating Supplies
41200
500.00
1,700.00
2,200.00
Additional supplies needed
Printing
42110
700.00
2,200.00
2,900.00
Permit forms, correction notices & door hangers
Contr Svcs - Bldg & Sfty
45201
238,745.00
43,600.00
282,345.00
Fees are based on % of revenue which is up
239,945.00
47,500.00
287,445.00
Neighborhood Improvement
Salaries
40010
170,383.00
178.79
170,561.79
Reorganization
Retirement Benefits
40080
31,521.00
38.21
31,559.21
Reorganization
Printing
42110
1,000.00
500.00
1,500.00
Courtesy Notices
202,904.00
717.00
203,621.00
Community Services Admin
Salaries
40010
224,223.00
9,019.00
233,242.00
Reorganization/Elimination of CS Admin Assist
City Paid Benefits
40070
3,355.00
0.00
3,355.00
Retirement Benefits
40080
41,481.00
1,668.00
43,149.00
Worker's Compensation
40083
3,897.00
72.00
3,969.00
Short/Long Term Disability
40084
1,368.00
55.00
1,423.00
Medicare/Social Security
40085
3,251.00
131.00
3,382.00
Cafeteria Plan Benefits
40090
30,575.00
0.00
30,575.00
PS - Special Studies
44300
7,500.00
10,000.00
17,500.00
ADA Transition Plan
315,650.00
20,945.00
336,595.00
Diamond Bar Center
Salaries
40010
138,250.00
(7,589.00)
130,661.00
Salary Savings for staff vacancies
City Paid Benefits
40070
2,521.00
-
2,521.00
Retirement Benefits
40080
25,576.00
(1,404.00)
24,172.00
Worker's Compensation
40083
9,023.00
(152.00)
8,871.00
Short/Long Term Disability
40084
843.00
(47.00)
796.00
Medicare/Social Security
40085
18,674.00
(111.00)
18,563.00
Cafeteria Plan Benefits
40090
24,096.00
-
24,096.00
PS - Special Studies
44300
10,000.00
2,000.00
12,000.00
Carryover for DBC brochure
Maint of Grounds/Building
42210
23,000.00
705.00
23,705.00
Donation - tiles, flagpole
251,983.00
(6,598.00)
245,385.00
Park Operations
Overtime Wages
40020
3,000.00
2,000.00
5,000.00
Overtime
Utilities
42126
193,500.00
4,000.00
197,500.00
Washington Park
Maint of Grounds/Building
42210
78,863.00
500.00
79,363.00
Donation - MOMS Club
275,363.00
6,500.00
281,863.00
14
Exhibit A
MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT
GENERAL FUND APPROPRATIONS
Current Mid Yr Adjusted
Description Account# Budget Amendment Budget Explanation
Recreation Services
45221
15,000.00
30,000.00
4,148.00
19,148.00
Salaries
40010
504,120.00
(5,032.00)
499,088.00
Salary savings due to vacancies
Overtime Wages
40020
12,000.00
3,000.00
15,000.00
Overtime due to vacancies
City Paid Benefits
40070
12,671.00
(257.00)
12,414.00
Carryover of budget for encumbrances carried ove
Retirement Benefits
40080
107,339.00
(932.00)
106,407.00
83,524.00
Workers Compensation
40083
18,069.00
(101.00)
17,968.00
Short/Long Term Disability
40084
3,538.00
(31.00)
3,507.00
41250
Medicare/Social Security
40085
24,571.00
(73.00)
24,498.00
Carryover of budget for encumbrances carried ove
Cafeteria Plan Benefits
40090
116,121.00
(2,428.00)
113,693.00
Rental/Lease of Real Property
42140
84,317.00
10,813.00
95,130.00
Carryover for WVUSD
882,746.00
4,959.00
887,705.00
Public Works
Salaries
40010
275,402.00
1,430.33
276,832.33
Reorganization
Retirement Benefits
40080
50,949.00
305.67
51,254.67
Professional Services
44000
6,500.00
2,105.00
8,605.00
Carryover of budget for encumbrances carried ove
Prof Services - Environmental
44240
41,000.00
24,278.00
65,278.00
Coyote Creek Watershed; Carryovers
CS - Engineering
45221
25,000.00
13,089.00
38,089.00
Carryover of budget for encumbrances carried ove
CS - Inspection
45227
26,250.00
5,132.00
31,382.00
Alloc chg from 75% to 82%; Carryovers
425,101.00
46,340.00
471,441.00
Engineering
CS - Engineering
45221
15,000.00
30,000.00
4,148.00
19,148.00
Carryover of budget for encumbrances carried ove
CS - Traffic
45222
25,000.00
Ridge Park, increased service requests
8,282.00
33,282.00
Carryover of budget for encumbrances carried ove
CS - Plan Checking
45223
18,750.00
49370
12,344.00
31,094.00
411,659.00
Carryover of budget for encumbrances carried ove
Transfer Out - LLAD 38
49138
58,750.00
5,500.00
24,774.00
83,524.00
Transfer Out - LLAD 39
49139
Road Maintenance
10,950.00
68,652.00
Transfer Out -LLAD 41
49141
14,773.00
23,115.00
Road Maintenance Supplies
41250
50,000.00
2,700.00
52,700.00
525,841.00
Carryover of budget for encumbrances carried ove
Streetscape Maintenance
CS - Tree Maintenance
45509
165,200.00
30,000.00
195,200.00
Tree removal for sidewalk repair, tree maint Sumn
Ridge Park, increased service requests
Transfers
Transfer Out - Debt Service
49370
-
411,659.00
411,659.00
Transfer to Debt Service Fund
Transfer Out - LLAD 38
49138
2,142.00
5,500.00
7,642.00
Transfer Out - LLAD 39
49139
57,702.00
10,950.00
68,652.00
Transfer Out -LLAD 41
49141
14,773.00
23,115.00
37,888.00
74,617.00
451,224.00
525,841.00
Total Appropriation Change
1,177,184.59
15
FY 2011-2012
MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT
SPECIAL FUNDS CHANGES
Integrated Waste Management Fund
Salaries
115-5515-40010
Current Mid Year
(25,139)
Account#
Budget Amendment Adj Budget
Proposition A Fund
3,126
(439)
Transit Subsidy - Salaries
112-5553-40010
94,262 (8,987) 85,275
Transit Subsidy- City Paid Benefits
112-5553-40070
1,864 (101) 1,763
Transit Subsidy- Retirement Benefits
112-5553-40080
17,439 (1,592) 15,847
Transit Subsidy - Worker's Compensation
112-5553-40083
843 (84) 760
Transit Subsidy - Short/Long Term Disabi
112-5553-40084
575 (53) 522
Transit Subsidy - Medicare/Social Secunt,
112-5553-40085
1,367 (126) 1,241
Transit Subsidy - Cafeteria Plan Benefits
112-5553-40090
16,950 (815) 16,135
Cafeteria Plan Benefits
115-5515-40090
133,300 (11,758) 121,542
(4,200)
25,104
Salary savings from Finance Director & position
261,379
vacancies
Proposition C Fund
Traffic Control Improvements
113-5510-46412
125,000 (125,000) -
CS - Dial A Cab Services
113-5553-45529
450,000 50,000 500,000
Transfer Out - General Fund
113-49001
125,000 125,000
575,000.00 50,000.00 625,000.00
Professional Services
Transfer Out to the General Fund for the
-
140,003
relocation of the Traffic Management System in
the new City Hall. Expense will be paid
to encumbrances alread
for out of the General Fund.
carried over by Council
action in October 2011
Dial A Cab Services are averaging $42,000 per mons
therefore the budget needs to be increased.
Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Fund
TEA Revenue
114-31845
- 1,120,000 1,120,000
Transfer Out -CIP Fund
114-49250
- 1,120,000 1,120,000
Lemon Ave. Partial Diamond Interchange Project
Integrated Waste Management Fund
Salaries
115-5515-40010
187,684
(25,139)
162,545
City Paid Benefits
115-5515-40070
3,126
(439)
2,687
Retirement Benefits
115-5515-40080
34,722
(4,609)
30,113
Worker's Compensation
115-5515-40083
2,677
(459)
2,218
Short/Long Term Disability
115-5515-40084
1,145
(154)
991
Medicare/Social Security
115-5515-40085
2,721
(366)
2,355
Cafeteria Plan Benefits
115-5515-40090
29,304
(4,200)
25,104
261,379
(35,367)
226,012
Salary savings from Finance
Director,
reorganization
& position vacancies
Traffic Improvement Fund
Professional Services
116-5510-44000
-
140,003
140,003
Carryover of budget related
to encumbrances alread
carried over by Council
action in October 2011
16
FY 2011-2012
MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT
SPECIAL FUNDS CHANGES
Current Mid Year
Account# Budget Amendment Adj Budget
Park & Facility Development Fund
Transfer Out - General Fund - 124-49001 - 10,000 10,000
Community Development Block
Grant Fund (CDBG)
Salaries
125-5350-40010
City Paid Benefits
125-5350-40070
Retirement Benefits
125-5350-40080
Worker's Compensation
125-5350-40083
Short/Long Term Disability
125-5350-40084
Medicare/Social Security
125-5350-40085
Cafeteria Plan Benefits
125-5350-40090
Citizen's Option for Public Safety (COPS)
Public Safety Grant - State (COPS) 126-31855
LLAD 38 Fund
Revenue
Transfer in - General Fund 138-39001
Advertising 138-5538-42115
Transfer Out to the General Fund for ADA retrofits
9,970
(6,095)
3,875
260
(164)
96
1,750
(1,124)
626
100
(100)
0
60
(37)
23
150
(88)
62
2,510
(1,552)
958
14,800
(9,160)
5,640
Salary savings for position vacancy in Parks & Rec
100,000 100,000
Per Governor's budget - eliminate Vehicle License
Fee revenue and replace with COPS revenue
2,142 5,500
3,000 5,500
7,642
8,500
Anticipated deficit in LLAD 38 fund
at fiscal year end
LLAD 39 Fund
Revenue
Transfer in - General Fund
139-39001
57,702 10,950
68,652
Advertising
139-5539-42115
2,500 7,950
10,450
Maint of Grounds/Buildings
139-5539-42210
5,000 3,000
8,000
Anticipated deficit in LLAD 39 fund
at fiscal year end
LLAD 41 Fund
Revenue
Transfer in - General Fund
141-39001
14,773 23,115
37,888
Advertising
141-5541-42115
2,500 4,575
7,075
CS -Weed/Pest Abatement
141-5541-45519
58,200 18,540
76,740
Anticipated deficit in LLAD 41 fund
at fiscal year end
17
Exhibit A
FY 2011-2012
MID YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENT
SPECIAL FUNDS CHANGES
Current Mid Year
Account# Budget Amendment Adj Budget
CIP Fund
Transfer in - TEA Fund 250-39114 - 1,120,000 1,120,000
Traffic Control Improvements 250-5510-46412-2331: - 1,120,000 1,120,000
To appropriate funds for Project #23312 funded
Lemon Ave. Partial Diamond Interchange Project
funded by SAFETEA-LU funds
Debt Service Fund
Transfer In - General Fund
370-39001
- 411,659
411,659
Cash Held By Fiscal Agent
370-39001
- 162,619
162,619
Bond Premium
370-40090-36710
- 252,381
252,381
Bond Proceeds
370-4090-36700
- 11,790,000
11,790,000
0
Rental/Lease of Real Property - Prin
370-4090-42140
- 320,000
320,000
Rental/Lease of Real Property - Int
370-4090-42140
- 254,278
254,278
0
Principal Repayment
370-4090-47050
- 11,885,000
11,885,000
COI Expense
370-4090-47120
- 157,381
157,381
1. Transfer In from the General Fund for debt
service payment for the DBC bonds and bond
proceeds from the fixed rate bond issuance on
on 12/1/11.
2. Principal & Interest payment due 6/1/2012
3. Payoff of variable rate bonds and associated
costs of issuance for the fixed rate bonds
1EG
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 8.2
Meeting Date: Feb. 21, 2012
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: James DeStefano, City Mana
TITLE: City Council Appointment of 2012 Parks and Recreation, Planning and
Traffic and Transportation Commissions
RECOMMENDATION: Ratify Council Appointments.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY: None.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
The City of Diamond Bar currently has three standing commissions: Parks and
Recreation Commission, Traffic and Transportation Commission and Planning
Commission which serve in an advisory capacity to the City Council. City Council
Members are authorized to appoint one individual each to these commissions, to serve
a two-year term. Upon the end of each term, Council Members may choose to
reappoint standing commissioners or choose new appointees. Attached are the
proposed appointees.
February 29, 2010 marks the end of the current term. At this time, it is appropriate for
the City Council to make their Commission appointments for the next two years.
PRPARED BY:
r )-
Tommye�Gribbins, City Clerk
Attachment
REVIEWED BY:
David Doyle, Asst. ity Manager
Mayor Ling -Ling Chang:
Dave Roberto — Parks and Recreation Commission
Ted Carrera — Traffic and Transportation Commission
Tony Torng — Planning Commission
Mayor Pro Tem Jack Tanaka
Ted Owens — Parks and Recreation Commission
Kenneth Mok — Traffic and Transportation Commission
Frank Farago - Planning Commission
Councilmember Ron Everett
Dave Grundy — Parks and Recreation Commission
Liana Pincher - Traffic and Transportation Commission
Steve Nelson — Planning Commission
Councilmember Carol Herrera:
Benny Liang - Parks and Recreation Commission
Kevin House —Traffic and Transportation Commission
Jack Shah — Planning Commission
Mayor Pro Tem Steve Tye
reappointment
reappointment
new appointment
reappointment
reappointment
reappointment
reappointment
reappointment
reappointment
Lew Herndon — Parks and Recreation Commission reappointment
Jen (Fred) Mahlke — Traffic and Transportation Commission reappointment
Jimmy Lin — Planning Commission reappointment
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK 7"
FROM: ='f'i'r sf/r �r'G:I L'/ DATE: 2,
/� 2,
ADDRESS: 74""x � hGr' ' PHONE: 9t) l d 6d � G
V
ORGANIZATION: �� �'r"r/L✓b7� Get e tJ L�/L
AGENDA#/SUBJECT: f r m e e4,f-� 2✓r�
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.
. cif -k�
Signature
This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.
It
FROM:
ADDRESS:
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
CITY CLERK
J A(f K S t i I l i DATE:Com, J ��
-2z (CMCJ L—STdn�l � lb � Sy PHONE: I USI - i6 11Z-�
ORGANIZATION: `D ian . Ly, !
AGENDA#/SUBJECT: C04A0,44r4z
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 ture
This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.
carr '
P .e 1.-. 1.--..� I_
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FRO M: 1f7� Iy i lac DATE:
ADDRESS: pp. �((kg�a>��� PHONE: tJ�6- Z2.2— SSS Z
ORGANIZATION: )"J, i�Ci(" all-�A,e n/ l/ISk�rdt �—k
AGENDA#/SUBJECT:
I expect to address the Council on the subject ag
reflect my name and address as written above.
lf0 W �
item. Please have the Council Minutes
This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.
�r
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY COUNCIL
TO: CI I Y GLEKK
FROM:*
L- DATE:
ADDRESS: i`llL� G wilw� rV-_S. PHONE:
ORGANIZATION:tj
AGENDA#/SUBJECT: 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.
1
Signature
This document is a public record subject to disclosure under the Public Records Act.
VOLUNTARY REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE CITY CQUNGIL
TO: CITY CLERK
FROM:
ADDRESS:
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA#/SUBJECT:
DATE:—
-"OtPHONE:
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: CITYi CLERK
FROM: I�C� DATE: �2 -2 �,- 2-612-
ADDRESS:
0iyADDRESS: 21452 PHONE( 6 F60 424
6 ) X65 '2.�� C)
ORGANIZATION:
AGENDA#/SUBJECT: TA% L#SComAP— lk—k,— r J_" �
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:
S' e
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:
VAU i D BUSS DATE: X12( Jia/
ADDRESS: 2, t ql &A,vs1 s ST- PHONE: q o c -i
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.