Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout101519 Agenda - Regular Meeting City Council Agenda Tuesday, October 15, 2019 Study Session – 5:30 p.m. – Room CC-8 Regular Meeting - 6:30 p.m. The Government Center South Coast Air Quality Management District/ Main Auditorium 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 CAROL HERRERA Mayor STEVE TYE Mayor Pro-Tem ANDREW CHOU Council Member RUTH M. LOW Council Member NANCY A. LYONS Council Member City Manager Dan Fox • City Attorney David DeBerry • City Clerk Kristina Santana 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 requested, the agenda will be made available in an alternative format to a person with disability as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. 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.diamondbarca.gov Please refrain from smoking, eating or drinking in the Council Chambers. The City of Diamond Bar uses recycle d paper and encourages you to do the same. DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING RULES Welcome to the meeting of the Diamond Bar City Council. Meetings are open to the public and are broadcast live on Spectrum Cable Channel 3 and Frontier FiOS television Channel 47. You are invited to attend and participate. PUBLIC INPUT Members of the public may address the Council on any item of business on the agenda during the time the item is taken up by the Council. In addition, members of the public may, during the Public Comment period address the Council on any Consent Calendar item or any matter not on the agenda and within the Council’s subject matter jurisdiction. Persons wishing to speak should submit a speaker slip to the City Clerk. Any material to be submitted to the City Council at the meeting should be submitted through the City Clerk. Speakers are limited to five minutes per agenda item, unless the Mayor determines otherwise. The Mayor may adjust this time limit depending on the number of people wishing to speak, the complexity of the matter, the length of the agenda, the hour and any other relevant consideration. Speakers may address the Council only once on an agenda item, except during public hearings, when the applicant/appellant may be afforded a rebuttal. Public comments must be directed to the City Council. Behavior that disrupts the orderly conduct of the meeting may result in the speaker being removed from the Council chambers. INFORMATION RELATING TO AGENDAS AND ACTIONS OF THE COUNCIL Agendas for regular City Council meetings are available 72 hours prior to the meeting and are posted in the City’s regular posting locations, on DBTV Channel 3, Spectrum Cable Channel 3, Frontier FiOS television Channel 47 and on the City’s website at www.diamondbarca.gov. A full agenda packet is available for review during the meeting, in the foyer just outside the Council chambers. The City Council may take action on any item listed on the agenda. ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THE DISABLED A cordless microphone is available for those persons with mobility impairments who cannot access the podium in order to make a public comment. Sign language interpretation is available by providing the City Clerk three business days’ notice in advance of a meeting. Please telephone (909) 839-7010 between 7:30 a.m. and 5:30 p.m. Monday through Thursday and 7:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m. on Fridays. HELPFUL PHONE NUMBERS Copies of agendas, rules of the Council, Cassette/Video tapes of meetings: (909) 839-7010 Computer access to agendas: www.diamondbarca.gov General information: (909) 839-7010 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. THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE FOR VIEWING ON SPECTRUM CABLE CHANNEL 3 AND FRONTIER FiOS TELEVISION CHANNEL 47, AS WELL AS BY STREAMING VIDEO OVER THE INTERNET AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE-BROADCAST EVERY SATURDAY AND SUNDAY AT 9:00 A.M. AND ALTERNATE TUESDAYS AT 8:00 P.M. AND ARE ALSO AVAILABLE FOR LIVE AND ARCHIVED VIEWING ON THE CITY’S WEB SITE AT WWW.DIAMONDBARCA.GOV. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA October 15, 2019 Next Resolution No. 2019-38 Next Ordinance No. 02(2019) STUDY SESSION: 5:30 p.m., Room CC-8 Canyon Loop Trail Conceptual Design CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor INVOCATION: Pastor Tim Park, Evangelical Free Church ROLL CALL: Chou, Low, Lyons, Mayor Pro Tem Tye, Mayor Herrera APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: OCTOBER 15, 2019 PAGE 2 "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 other matters of interest not on the agenda that are within the subject matter jurisdiction of the Council. 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 th is form is voluntary). There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: Under the Brown Act, members of the City Council may briefly respond to public comments but no extended discussion and no act ion on such matters may take place. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Restaurant Week Continues Through October 20, 2019. 5.2 Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission – October 22, 2019, 6:30 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.3 Regular Meeting of the Parks and Recreation Commission – October 24, 2019, 6:30 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.4 Halloween Party – October 26, 2019, 9 a.m. to 12:00 p.m., Pantera Park. 5.5 Special Meeting of the Planning Commission – October 30, 2019, 6:30 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: All items listed on the Consent Calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be acted on by a single motion unless a Council Member or member of the public request otherwise, in which case, the item will be removed for separate consideration. 6.1 MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 1, 2019 STUDY SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. 6.1.a Special Meeting of September 25, 2019 6.1.b Study Session of October 1, 2019 6.1.c Regular Meeting of October 1, 2019 OCTOBER 15, 2019 PAGE 3 Recommended Action: Approve the September 25, 2019 Special Joint Meeting minutes, and the October 1, 2019 Study Session and Regular Meeting minutes. Requested by: City Clerk 6.2 CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF COMMISSION MINUTES. 6.2.a Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes of June 13, 20 19 6.2.b Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of August 22, 2019 Recommended Action: Receive and file the June 13, 2019 Regular Meeting minutes of the Traffic and Transportation Commission and the August 22, 2019 Regular Meeting minutes of Parks and Recreation Commission. Requested by: City Clerk 6.3 RATIFICATION OF CHECK REGISTER DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 THROUGH OCTOBER 9, 2019 TOTALING $1,855,333.04. Recommended Action: Ratify the Check Register. Requested by: Finance Department 6.4 SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LAE ASSOCIATES, INC. Recommended Action: Approve, and authorize the Mayor to sign, the Second Amendment to the Engineering Consulting Services Agreement with LAE Associates, Inc. increasing the not-to-exceed contract amount from $124,200 to $223,200. Requested by: Public Works Department 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: NONE 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: NONE 9. COUNCIL SUB-COMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: 10. ADJOURNMENT: Agenda #: 1 Meeting Date: October 15, 2019 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Daniel Fox, City Manager FROM: Ryan Wright, Parks and Recreation Director TITLE: CANYON LOOP TRAIL CONCEPTUAL DESIGN The FY 2019-2020 Capital Improvement Program includes a project to make improvements to the Canyon Loop Multi-Use Trail, which is a 1.29-mile trail loop within the City’s Open Space area north of the Diamond Bar Center. The goal of the project is to enhance the usability and comfort of the trail for recreation, exercise, and enjoyment of the natural environment consistent with the City’s Trails Master Plan. The Canyon Loop Trail is located within the center of the Summitridge Park Trail system comprised of nearly five miles of trail adjacent to the Diamond Bar Center. This s ystem currently consists of five trails and three trailheads. The area of focus for this project includes improvements primarily along the “South Canyon Loop Trail” to realign the trail, stabilize the path, provide water diverts, cobblestone swales, and l andscape ties or steps within steep grades where necessary. To better inform residents and trail users, updated interpretive and directional signage will be included. In addition, the design will include the creation of rest areas and amenities such as benches, shade structures, and trash receptacles, including one new shade structure and bench along the “North Canyon Loop Trail”. The project’s construction budget is funded by several sources, such as Park Development Fund, Measure W, Habitat Conservative Grant, and Measure A in an amount up to $485,000. Since August 2019, the City has contracted with landscape architect Richard Fisher Associates (RFA). RFA has extensive experience designing and developing park and trail projects throughout southern California. RFA provides the technical expertise and support while providing the City with potential trail design and amenity options, followed by final construction plans, specifications, and cost estimates. City staff and RFA met with the Parks & Recreation Commission on September 26, 1 Packet Pg. 6 2019 to provide a project update and obtain suggestions. Following additional feedback from the City Council, RFA will prepare project plans, specifications, and estimates. It is anticipated City staff will return to City Council in February of 2020 to request authorization to bid the project with an estimated construction timeframe of April to June 2020. City staff respectfully requests the City Council review the attached conceptual design and provide feedback. Attachments: 1. 1.a Study Session Attachment 10.3.19 1 Packet Pg. 7 1.a Packet Pg. 8 1.a Packet Pg. 9 1.a Packet Pg. 10 Agenda #: 6.1 Meeting Date: October 15, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager TITLE: MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION AND MINUTES OF THE OCTOBER 1, 2019 STUDY SESSION AND REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL. STRATEGIC GOAL: Open, Engaged & Responsive Government RECOMMENDATION: Approve the September 25, 2019 Special Joint Meeting minutes, and the October 1, 2019 Study Session and Regular Meeting minutes. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The minutes of the Special Joint City Council and Planning Commission Meeting of September 25, 2019 and the Study Session and Regular City Council Meeting minutes of October 1, 2019 have been prepared and are being presented for approval. PREPARED BY: 6.1 Packet Pg. 11 REVIEWED BY: Attachments: 1. 6.1.a Special Meeting of September 25, 2019 2. 6.1.b Study Session of October 1, 2019 3. 6.1.c Regular Meeting of October 1, 2019 6.1 Packet Pg. 12 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND PLANNING COMMISSION GENERAL PLAN 2040 UPDATE SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the Special Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission to order at 6:00 p.m. in the City Hall Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Council Members: Andrew Chou, Ruth Low, Nancy Lyons, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Tye, and Mayor Carol Herrera Commissioners: Jennifer “Fred” Mahlke, Ken Mok, William Rawlings, Vice Chair Frank Farago and Chair Naila Barlas Consultants: Rajeev Bhatia, AICP, ASLA, Partner, President & Project Manager, Dyett & Bhatia; and, Paul Hermann, Senior Engineer, Fehr & Peers Also present: Dan Fox, City Manager; Ryan McLean, Assistant City Manager; David DeBerry, City Attorney; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; David Liu, Public Works Director; and, Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager. 2. GENERAL PLAN UPDATE – REVIEW OF THE GENERAL PLAN 2040 PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT CHAPTERS 1 THROUGH 4: CM/Fox congratulated everyone on reaching the final stage of the General Plan Update process that began more than three years ago. There has been a very extensive public outreach effort and intense participation throughout the process, and the General Plan Advisory Committee (GPAC) has put together countless hours in reviewing and developing very detailed goals and policies that are contained within the draft document, which reflects the feedback and comments from the public who have participated in the process to date. The public draft of the General Plan, the Climate Action Plan and the Environmental Impact Report are now available for public review and the purpose of these joint 6.1.a Packet Pg. 13 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 2 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ study sessions is for the City Council, the Planning Commission and the public to become familiar with the contents of these documents, and to provide additional comments and feedback prior to the formal public hearings that will come before the Planning Commission in November, and ultimately before the City Council in December. CM/Fox expressed his thanks and gratitude to all who have participated in this exciting process – especially, the City Council, Planning Commission, the General Plan Advisory Committee, staff, the consultant team and the public. This is a monumental undertaking which is now approaching the finish line. CM/Fox introduced Rajeev Bhatia and Paul Herrmann and stated that tonight’s agenda will consist of the following: A brief staff presentation on Chapters 1 through 4 of the General Plan document; public comments; and a chapter by chapter review and discussion with the City Council and Planning Commission, for which staff will provide answers to questions and concerns and ask for the Council and Commission to provide feedback and/or direction. CDD/Gubman provided staff’s presentation stating that the Draft General Plan is the culmination of a process that kicked off on August 10, 2016 when the City Council and the Planning Commission held their first joint meeting. Following that was a 32- month effort that included 23 stakeholder interviews, 10 GPAC meetings, 2 online surveys, 2 community workshops, pop up booths at five (5) special events throughout the City, two more joint Planning Commission/City Council meetings, informational booths at every 2017 Concerts in the Park, as well as at Albertsons, Smart & Final, Market World, Starbucks at Diamond Hills Plaza, and at Diamond Bar High School and Diamond Ranch High School. In addition, there was a public scoping meeting and 30-day comment period when staff solicited input on what should be studied in the EIR that would be analyzing the impacts of the proposed General Plan Update. The City also had an extensive social media and direct mail outreach effort to engage the community and encourage their participation. Throughout this undertaking, the community played a significant role in constructing the framework upon which the Draft General Plan was built. Key components of that framework include: A Community Vision Statement, Seven Guiding Principles, an updated Land Use Map, and 118 Goals and 413 Policies. These 531 Goals and Policies were painstakingly reviewed by several members of the community and their feedback was taken to heart and reflected in the Goals and Policies language of that work which the GPAC ultimately endorsed. The General Plan Public Review Draft document provides the underlying context for 6.1.a Packet Pg. 14 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 3 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ the Community Vision and Guiding Principles that were crafted through the public process, and includes an updated Land Use Plan, as well as goals and policies. The General Plan is ultimately built upon that framework to provide the text, diagrams and photos to help provide context to the core ideas and aspirations that were crafted throughout this effort. Tonight’s meeting provides the opportunity to present the document to the Council and Commission, provide an overview of how the document is organized and to focus the discussion this evening on the first four chapters of the Draft General Plan. The Scope of Work for the General Plan was divided into three phases. Phases 1 and 2 - Product Initiation, Visioning and Issue Identification – led to the composition of the Vision Statement and Guiding Principles that provided guidance to move forward with the study areas that ultimately became some new land use districts and provided the basis for the Goals and Policies. We are currently in Phase 3, which is the draft and final documents, and we are in the closing tasks of the final phase. These public workshops are being provided as an opportunity to explain the intent, framework, organization and the steps that will need to transpire in order for the Planning Commission and City Council to ultimately hold the public hearings and adopt the document in its final form as it takes shape through this public review period. The General Plan documents are comprised of two policy documents and the EIR. The General Plan Update is a comprehensive update of the City’s first ever General Plan that was adopted in 1995. There is also a Climate Action Plan which will be the City’s greenhouse reduction strategy that demonstrates how Diamond Bar will comply with State mandates. The project also includes the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which studies the potential impacts of the project in accordance with the California Environment Quality Act (CEQA). The study sessions that are planned for tonight and October 8th are intended to focus on pieces of this overall project. Tonight, the focus will be on Chapters 1 through 4: 1) Introduction; 2) Land Use and Economic Development; 3) Community Character & Placemaking; and, 4) the updated Circulation Element. CHAPTER 1 – INTRODUCTION The introduction for the General Plan provides a roadmap to help navigate through the document in its entirety. The General Plan is a long-range policy document. The typical horizon for a General Plan is 20 years, thus the title of this document is Diamond Bar General Plan 2040. General Plans are often referred to as the “constitution” for local governments. It expresses the vision of the community’s 6.1.a Packet Pg. 15 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 4 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ future, its goals, objectives and policies to achieve that vision, and includes State- required and optional elements. The distinction between goals and policies is that goals are more overarching and more aspirational guiding statements that communicate or convey what the City would like to accomplish during the lifetime of this General Plan and policies are more specific explanations or directives to convey how the City should best implement those goals. A goal may say that “the City wishes to have a walkable downtown within its boundaries” and the policies would then say “we will do so by designating this specific area as the downtown and we will require a certain character in the street design, in the architecture and public spaces” and be more specific on how the City wants that vision to be realized when development is proposed to follow those General Plan criteria. The Introduction also includes the Community Vision to guide Land Use decisions to ensure a balance of different land uses that provide the ingredients for a complete community – a more livable place, and because a Town Center concept was consistently brought up as something the community wanted, it has been given prominence in the Vision Statement. Part of what a Town Center is, is its walkability and atmosphere that make it a destination and this too, plays an important role in the Vision Statement. Throughout the public workshops, a celebration of the community’s diversity was identified as an important value. Words used to describe Diamond Bar during these workshops included safe, quiet and family friendly, which were the most frequently used. These identities also have a special prominence in the Community Vision. There is more interest in sustainability and being able to make responsible well-informed decisions so that this community and its quality of life that residents enjoy can be passed on to future generations. Part of Diamond Bar’s unique character is its environmental resources and its country living character which are also embedded in the Vision Statement. CHAPTER 2 – LAND USE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT This element has the broadest scope of all of the chapters and provides the overall framework for the physical development of the community and the distribution and intensity of different land uses. The land use plan is built upon the goals and policies that were formulated throughout the process with the updating of the Land Use Map. Of importance to note in the Land Use diagram is that it is obviously more detailed than the 1995 Land Use diagram. Technology enabled staff and the consultant team to do a more precise and granular mapping of the different land use districts down to the parcel level, and reflect the current “built” environment as well as, previously approved development that has taken place since its original adoption 6.1.a Packet Pg. 16 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 5 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ in 1995. What the General Plan does not do, is propose any changes to existing residential neighborhoods and all of the density development criteria that has been established and developed into residential communities are cemented in this updated document. What the General Plan does alongside of that, is create four (4) new focus areas in areas that are currently not residentially developed. Town Center – This focus area is identified along Diamond Bar Boulevard between the SR60 and Golden Springs Drive that could accommodate a more traditional “downtown” type development with entertainment, retail restaurant, community gathering spaces and ancillary residential uses to create a walkable environment. Neighborhood Mixed-Use – This focus area is envisioned as a combination of residential and neighborhood-serving retail to promote revitalization of North Diamond Bar Boulevard. Community Core Overlay – This focus area covers the County owned and operated golf course. The City Council and Planning Commission directed the team to establish this as a proactive measure in the event that LA County chooses to discontinue use of the golf course or downsize it, establish policies and goals to prescribe how that land should be repurposed to protect the interest of the City and not ultimately become subservient to whatever the County might ultimately determine is the best fate for the property. Transit Oriented Mixed Use – This focus area is on the west side of Brea Canyon Road between Lycoming and the City limits, delineated by the railroad tracks and a small parcel at the northeast corner of Brea Canyon Road and Washington Street. The intent is to find ways to make it a more transit-friendly area, taking into account the transit center across the City limits in the City of Industry with the Metrolink station and the Foothill Transit Park & Ride facility. All of these focus areas express a desire to provide walkable, mixed-use activity and each focus area includes a residential component to keep the areas populated 24 hours and provide walkability and active lifestyles that does not rely heavily on the automobile and blend with the current layout of the City limits. Since the City is essentially built-out, these are also identified as opportunities for infill development to meet future needs and future aspirations for Diamond Bar. CDD/Gubman concluded that as part of the EIR traffic and air quality analysis, all of these newly established districts and policies led to some build-out estimates. With the proposed General Plan as drafted, if all of the policies were implemented and all of the focus areas were built out as they are envisioned under the proposed General 6.1.a Packet Pg. 17 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 6 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ Plan, there would be approximately 3,750 new housing units, 7,000 new jobs and approximately 8,800 residents. So by 2040, the population estimate for the City could reach 66,700 and that growth would essentially be concentrated in the focus areas and the goals and policies that take into account those build out numbers try to provide the direction and guidance to adapt to that future growth in a manner that is organized and compatible with the existing environment which creates the Community Character & Placemaking the community has expressed is an important characteristic that already exists within the country living, topographic and scenic features, and to continue to express that vision in the future built environment. CHAPTER 3 – COMMUNITY CHARACTER & PLACEMAKING Rajeev Bhatia stated that while the Land Use Element deals with where the uses will be located and how intense they will be, the Community Character & Placemaking deals with what it will look like and how human beings will interact with this environment. This chapter deals with the physical form and character of Diamond Bar and seeks strategies to strengthen the City’s identity through new development and public improvements and as a reminder, new development will be limited to very specific areas, which means that much of the City will remain largely as it is now. This plan also looks through these connections and streets and open spaces that filter through the areas and how those could also be improved in terms of the City’s identity. Obviously, the goals and policies are focused on those four mixed-use areas to encourage walkable and pedestrian-scale environments and districts, but also to preserve what people value most about Diamond Bar - the quality of the setting and residential neighborhoods that exist. The document seeks to do this through multiple strategies through an overall city-wide strategy that speaks to what the character is, how it should be preserved and enhanced, and it also drills down into the overall structure of the City as shown on the map and how those areas would be used to reflect the City’s heritage and history as an early original ranch, for example. It also deals with Placemaking and how we create a memorable and unified character. So, for a variety of reasons, there are certain streets designated as “boulevards” which include integrating transportation improvements while also thinking about what the different uses alongside those would be and what they would feel like in terms of unified streetscapes as one moves through the City. This provides a way to look at a City on a “bigger picture” scale, how one enters the City and how one moves through it. As such, a lot of policies are centered on those specific focus areas. And, this document also talks about pedestrian and bicycle paths that will connect these neighborhoods to the focus areas and other destinations within in the City and how there will be development that is sensitive to hillsides and adjacent residential uses in order to provide good transition between densities and uses. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 18 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 7 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ In addition to the overarching policies for each of the four focus areas, there are more detailed goals and policies. For the Neighborhood Mixed Use focus area along the north Diamond Bar Boulevard area where there are existing strip commercial uses that make transitions to other uses, we look to create well designed walkable neighborhoods, provide a visual gateway into the City when entering from the north side, and ways and opportunities to provide more open space for the new and adjacent residential uses. As a result, there are specific policies related to each of the specific areas such as, providing a small park if a development exceeds four acres. The Town Center Mixed Use area (downtown area with Sprouts, etc.) speaks to the need for a town center residents are seeking that needs to include parking, a pedestrian-oriented main street and greater mixed-use development. The Transient-Oriented Mixed Use focus area around the Metrolink station in the City of Industry offers Diamond Bar only a portion of that area and there are some industrial uses and opportunities for new residential use opportunities and how the City could develop better connectivity to the station as well as, a diversity of housing types, spaces for recreation, community gathering amenities and sensitivity to reducing uses. The Community Core Overlay focus area covers the County owned and operated golf course in the event that in the future, some of that land becomes available to the City for other kinds of uses and possibilities. This is a place where greater planning would be required before development could proceed, but the General Plan speaks to the desire to provide parks, walking areas and a destination place of vibrant pedestrian-scale uses for the community and the region. The Land Use Element includes details about the kinds of uses that would support active ground level activity and include some housing and perhaps hotels and offices that would be complimentary to the other uses that currently exist. Paul Herrmann spoke about the Circulation Element in conjunction with the Land Use Element taking into account the proposed growth. Overall, the Circulation Element seeks to improve mobility for a mostly vehicle-driven community. There are many policies with regard to limiting speeds and safety as well as, limiting congestion as much as possible. It also takes into account all other modes of travel available from an equity standpoint making more and safer connections for pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders. For the most part, the roadway network does not change in terms of capacity. There are a few key locations where improvements are recommended, but there are no new roadways recommended and no current roadways that are recommended to be expanded so that it will 6.1.a Packet Pg. 19 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 8 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ maintain the current capacity of the roadway system in order to maintain the community, the desires of the community and the community character. We don’t want Diamond Bar to be a “parallel freeway” to the SR57 and SR60. Again, it can expand and make safer bicycle and pedestrian connections to make a more walkable environment. In response to the latest legislation and policies from the State government including the Greenhouse Gas Reduction targets and the latest SB 743 for focusing on reducing VMT (vehicle miles traveled), there are several policies that focus on TDM strategies and active transportation. While we do transition away from Level of Service and EIR CEQA context, the General Plan still maintains Level of Service goals and policies that strive to maintain limited congestion on the streets as best as can be done given Diamond Bar’s unique situation and location. Referring to the circulation diagrams for the proposed bike network and the circulation network, Mr. Herrmann said that most of this has not changed in design or function except for a couple of designation changes. There is a new designation called the “Boulevard” intended to support a certain type of character along those routes. The proposed bike network is quite aspirational. There are proposed bicycle routes throughout the City, especially connections inside and outside of town that provide more connectivity to all users and the goal is to create a safe network for all users no matter their age or ability. NEXT STEPS: CDD/Gubman confirmed that the next joint City Council/Planning Commission Study Session is scheduled for October 8, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in the Windmill Room to cover Chapters 5 through 8 of the Draft General Plan, introduce the Climate Action Plan and its purposes in the overall context of this effort, as well as the Draft Environmental Report that analyzes the potential impacts of implementing both the General Plan and any potential ancillary consequences of the Climate Action Plan. Following that, the 45-day Public Review period for the EIR will conclude on October 31st. Once the Public Review period concludes, staff will receive all comments and respond to those comments, make any necessary adjustments to the EIR and produce the final EIR. With public comments and any feedback provided by the Council and Commission, staff will be working on the public hearing draft of the General Plan going forward. Looking through the Draft General Plan document there are a lot of placeholders where photographs need to be inserted and a number of photographs that are outdated and do not exemplify the character of the community or track with the adjoining text and those, too will be addressed and corrected. However, the substance and basic aesthetic of the General Plan document is defined. Once this effort is completed, the Planning Commission Public 6.1.a Packet Pg. 20 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 9 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ Hearing is slated for November 12th during which staff hopes to receive a recommendation to the City Council for adoption of the General Plan. In accordance with direction provided by the City Council last February to have this document adopted by the end of 2019, a Public Hearing to adopt the General Plan, Climate Action Plan and Certification of the Environmental Impact Report has been tentatively scheduled for the City Council’s December 3rd meeting. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: R. Lee Paulson, 21919 Santaquin Drive, thanked the City and the GPAC for their time and effort toward this process. There was a lot of discussion about bicycle paths and whether Diamond Bar topography was compatible with that goal. After visiting Canada and looking at their hills, he became aware of bicycles that are electrically assisted which he believes is the answer to dealing with the City’s topography. In 2040, we know that certain things are going to be true – that our natural open spaces will be even more precious than they are today and that roadways will be even more congested and, the demand for housing will be even more intense. So, if Diamond Bar’s open spaces are to be saved, additional houses will need to come from infill. And the Draft General Plan reflects this in its language by specifically highlighting those areas discussed this evening and Responsible Land Use members applaud this inclusion. Responsible Land Use was privileged to spend a term working with a Cal Poly professor who used Diamond Bar as a city planning agenda for the entire term. Very interesting points were made during these sessions, one of which is that if the bold vision that was presented tonight with the mixed-use and the neighborhood mixed-use in some of the commercial areas is adopted, Diamond Bar should make all of its commercial areas Neighborhood Mixed-Use to accommodate housing infill. In addition, instead of having just one Town Center, there would be a number of these throughout the City. Responsible Land Use respectfully requests that the following areas be designated as Neighborhood Mixed Use: The Target Center, the Super HMart Center and the Diamond Bar Boulevard/Grand Avenue Center. If this General Plan focuses on all of these areas, it will be able to step in front of the vision the City has for its future, which will help when the State comes in and tries to tell Diamond Bar what to do. Douglas Barcon said he is diametrically opposed to what the previous speaker said. With respect to the bicycle paths, one of his issues is they go up Sunset Crossing and up Gold Rush and those hills are quite steep. From the SR60 north on Diamond Bar Boulevard, there is a Neighborhood Mixed-Use area and LU-P-21 addresses in a loose manner, that the issue is along from south of Sunset Crossing to the freeway (the pink area on the map), the hill by Wienerschnitzel is not going to be stable and that may not be a buildable area. He suggested those areas be taken 6.1.a Packet Pg. 21 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 10 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ off of the map as Neighborhood Mixed-Use. Unless the commercial property owners decide to revamp their properties, he does not believe people will tear out current businesses to put in mixed-use. The planning area off of Chino Hills Parkway is interesting because it is not really part of Diamond Bar and most if not all of the shopping there will be done by people from Phillips Ranch and Chino Hills leaving no tax revenue for Diamond Bar and a small amount of property tax only. It is also possible that the support for the area may cost the City more than what it would be getting in tax revenue from it. LU-P-8 addresses residential development but what about the inclusion of redevelopment or replacement of current properties such as mansionization which should not be permitted in town. LU-P-15 mentions reducing parking requirements and/or shared parking which would likely result in street parking with more vehicles. With respect to LU-P-17, there are a bunch of mixed-use apartment buildings and condos that have popped up in the past couple of years that look like a giant wall against the street. Traffic calming measures on Diamond Bar Boulevard such as curve bump outs are not a wise idea because cars will be hitting them and there will be traffic accidents and damage to vehicles. And in his opinion, decreasing speeds will only encourage people to drive faster. Alan Kwan said he is very excited about what he is hearing and excited about the vision and goals being considered in the General Plan Update. He works at Storm Properties, a joint venture/partnership with the Gough family that owns a 5.4 acre parcel on Diamond Bar Boulevard at the SR60 off ramp which is designated as Neighborhood Mixed-Use. Most of the site is hillside and has geotechnical constraints that make it difficult for development. His firm is in final negotiations with a national retailer that has a neighborhood serving use and will submit its plan in the very near future for entitlement. While the proposed project will strive to meet the goals outlined in the update, his firm is concerned that some of the ideas and policies related to their policy will restrict their proposed development, as well as future development potential. The Neighborhood Mixed-Use is a great concept for this area; however, currently, only smaller-scale commercial developments are economically feasible and the requirements for the proposed land use would restrict their potential development which is the only thing that is economically feasible for the foreseeable future. Storm Properties and the Gough family respectfully request that the City consider an overlay for their parcel with Neighborhood Mixed-Use due to the topographical and geotechnical constraints of the property. In addition, LU- P- 23 requires that parcels greater than two acres construction of housing and some inclusionary housing. However, due to the slope and geotechnical constraints, less than 20 percent of their property is developable and the land use policy would create a hurdle they would not be able to achieve. Figure 3.2 shows the focus area with their property on the southern side and a bubble that notes that there is limited potential for development due to slopes and geotechnical constraints and while 6.1.a Packet Pg. 22 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 11 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ some of that is true, they would like it to be depicted that on the southwest corner to be hashed as commercial development as there is a portion there that is developable. Storm Properties and the Goff family want to ensure that existing uses permitted under the commercial land use and C-2 zoning will be allowed going forward. 4. COUNCIL AND COMMISSION QUESTIONS AND COMMENTS: Chapter 1: C/Mahlke thought it was an incredible document and she enjoyed looking through it. C/Low thanked staff and the consultants for their diligent work on this document and thanked the GPAC members and the public for their participation. C/Low asked how the three aspects of the General Plan document relate to existing documents such as the Zoning Ordinances, Municipal Ordinances and Design Ordinances. CM/Fox responded to C/Low that the General Plan is the top of the pyramid and that everything the City reviews from a land development standpoint, capital improvement standpoint and from a policy that the Council and the Planning Commission may wish to initiate, starts with the General Plan. Everything under that top tier becomes implementation of that General Plan, which means that the Zoning Code, the Subdivision Map Act, the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) are all tools that the City uses that involve the Planning Commission which is ultimately adopted by the City Council and Specific Plans, in the case of certain developments including a Master Plan for a particular piece of property. C/Low said that if there were inconsistencies between policies that are in the General Plan with the Zoning or Design plan, which document would control the process. CM/Fox responded to C/Low that State law requires that both Zoning and General Plans be consistent, so at some point the City would need to, as a follow-up step to the General Plan, look at updating the 30-year old Zoning Code by creating different zoning districts to reflect what is being approved and memorialized in the General Plan. Again, the General Plan takes precedent and everything underneath would need to be consistent with that General Plan. If the City received a development project tomorrow, once the General Plan is adopted, that project would need to be scrutinized for compliance in the interim to make that development consistent with 6.1.a Packet Pg. 23 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 12 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ the General Plan. C/Low asked if it was correct that the speaker who spoke about his property and an upcoming proposal for development would no longer be able to proceed with that particular development. CM/Fox responded to C/Low that it may or may not be possible because he is not sure what type of development they are looking to propose. Staff is aware of a couple of different points regarding that property. It is very topography challenged and some or all of the property may not be feasible for development bit there may be some pieces that are. The City can work with the property owner to determine their expectations or interest to see how that fits in with this General Plan and perhaps fine-tune some of the recommendations that are included in the General Plan document at this reading. C/Low said that throughout the four Chapters there are some 413 policies. To what extent is the City open to lawsuits from various special interest groups if any of the policies are not carried out? For example, policies such as collaborate with this organization, follow this mandate, develop this plan, ensure this, and ensure that. CA/DeBerry responded to C/Low that when development comes to the City, if it is a discretionary development that goes before the Planning Commission or City Council, one of the findings these bodies will typically make is whether or not it is consistent with the General Plan. The exposure would be if someone on the outside would way “well, it’s not consistent with the General Plan and we challenge that finding” but the City Council’s findings are given deference. If there is substantial evidence that supports the City Council’s findings, the Court is expected to uphold those findings. Every now and then a City gets challenges. In a lot of these lawsuits about General Plan consistency, even though the General Plan itself has to be internally consistent, obviously some of the policies are competing. Not every development will fulfill every single policy or goal in the plan and sometimes they may be adverse to some, but that is just the nature of a General Plan. The question is, are they consistent with the General Plan policy in that particular location, not whether they are consistent with all General Plan policies. Obviously, if you want open space and high density residential, you will not get both. Most of the litigation against land use approvals is under CEQA and not based upon General Plan inconsistencies although both can occur. As far as the City’s exposure, the City is always the defendant in that particular kind of action, but the person whose interest is most affected is the developer. As a result, the City has a normal condition that is put into the City’s Conditional Use Permits and other resolutions approving development where the developer has to defend and indemnify the City which 6.1.a Packet Pg. 24 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 13 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ means they end up paying the City’s attorney’s fees should any such action occur. C/Low asked the standing of a community group, an out-of-state organization, or community activist group to challenge the City for failure to adopt another plan or failure to update a plan – what about these specific policies that are in the General Plan? CA/DeBerry said that if he said it is usually a developer that sues the City, he did not mean to say that. It is usually these outside groups that sue a City for approving a development plan which was the case with Millennium. The scenario of developers suing the City for not approving a project, given that if the City has discretionary authority over a project, changes or a developer prevailing in a case are very minimal. Typically, the lawsuits he sees from a developer is where the argument is that the City’s function is ministerial versus discretionary. Where the City has discretion, for example, where the project needs a Variance, or Conditional Use Permit or a Zone change or relief from certain Zoning standards, it is totally with the discretion of the Planning Commission and the City. And, it is a very high standard they have to show that the City Council or Planning Commission abused their discretion. Developer lawsuits to not prevail very often. When they do, they get a lot of notoriety because they are so rare. Typically, what has happened in those instances is that there has been some sort of bias against the developer or their property is being taken without just compensation (unable to develop anything on their property). CA/DeBerry said he did not believe the exposure was very high as far as from developers – it is typically the third parties/citizens groups are suing the City. C/Low asked if lawsuits were generally based on specific properties as opposed to not following the General Plan. CA/DeBerry said that would be typical. When the City approves a particular project, the argument will be that “it is not consistent with the General Plan”. If people are going to challenge a General Plan in general, that will come after this General Plan is approved. However, that is a really high hurdle to overcome the City Council’s final determination on a General Plan. Typically, what you will see instead is that these groups will sue the City under CEQA saying that the EIR is insufficient in addressing all of the potential significant impacts of the General Plan. Chapter 2: C/Low referred to Page 2.3, standards for residential and non-residential density. She asked if this was a State standard and if so, what is the State’s standard. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 25 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 14 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ CM/Fox responded to C/Low that it is not a State standard. The density ranges are subject to the Council’s approval and can be found in the Summary Table on Page 2.16 with a breakdown of each of the Land Use designations, both residential and commercial and given it some type of density, one unit to the acre up to 30-units to the acre for the different Mixed-Use Land Use categories. For commercial development it is typically referred to as FAR (Floor Area Ratio) where the amount of square footage is a ratio to the size of the lot which helps define a density. State law requires cities to have some type of form of density which then helps to determine what those build out numbers are. This was worked on through the GPAC as well as, discussion of the preferred land use plan and some of those densities of 20-30 dwelling units per acre within those focus areas. C/Low referred to Page 2-19 under LU-P-2, words like “significant sensitive water features” have been used which to her, are very vague. In the end, who defines these words? CM/Fox said that ultimately, it is a combination of the developer application and staff and ultimately the Planning Commission and/or City Council. The idea of this is clustering development which brings to mind the property just begin discussed at the SR60 and Diamond Bar Boulevard. Some of that property, because of topography, cannot withstand that kind of density over the entire piece of property. So, that density is allowed (10 units per acre or something) to be in one corner of the property thereby preserving some features such as open space, steep canyon, stream or some other habitat. In this instance, you are taking what would be allowed if it were spread over the entire property and moving it to one portion of the property. C/Low referred to Page 2-19, LU-P-3 and the word “collaborate” and this requirement is that the City collaborate with regional agencies and neighboring jurisdictions on this land use. Similar language is repeated throughout Chapters 2, 3 and 4 and the various agencies could involve transportation, the bus system, or the two train stations and it is not possible to collaborate with the Union Pacific. This is written as a directive which does not leave the City with much discretion. CM/Fox said he believes the word “collaborate” means that Diamond Bar is willing to come to the table to talk. One example of that is the SR57/60 Confluence Project. Diamond Bar is working with a number of agencies to try to make a project happen that is in the City’s best interest and there is support for that. There may be a situation where we do not agree, but we can still collaborate even if there is ultimately no agreement. The Council ultimately has that policy decision on whether it wants to support something or not support something at a regional level. All this 6.1.a Packet Pg. 26 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 15 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ means is that we want to be at the table for those things that affect Diamond Bar. C/Low referred to LU-P-6 in terms of discretion where it says “require new development to pay its fair share for public facilities, etc.” Where is discretion given in the event this Planning Commission and City Council would like to incentivize a particular development when you include the word “require” and where is the discretion to offer an incentive? CM/Fox said that in this case, the Council still has discretion because it may be requiring it, but it may be in a different form. It is still a fair-share of something. While all of these might say “require” or “shall” they are all followed by something that is policy-driven and the Council ultimately retains the ability to waive fees, impose fees, and to look at other community benefits might offset those fees. This is not necessarily mandating anything other than in this case, telling the development community they need to contribute and pay their fair portion of the freight. C/Low said she heard CM/Fox say that require does not mean require. CM/Fox responded that from a policy standpoint the City has flexibility. If it was in the Zoning Code, that is the implementation. Where we have the Subdivision Map Act and it says developers have to dedicate parkland at a certain rate based on a certain number of units, that is a Code requirement and the City will make sure that not only are they paying their fair share but that they are making their dedications. CM/Fox said that as CDD/Gubman earlier alluded to that with the General Plan Advisory Committee and comments from the public, a lot of these policies throughout this document are very specific and very detailed and it was in response to that public inquiry that those changes were made. Normally, the other way to look at it would be to say could this “encourage” or “suggest” or include some other softer language. He does not believe that the word “require” takes away the discretion because the Council and Planning Commission ultimately have that discretion. It is a policy and it is a General Plan. The requirement comes in at the Code level and Entitlement level depending on the situation. There are different ways to say the same thing. Other General Plans might be a little bit loftier or include other qualifiers as opposed to “require” or “shall”. Mr. Bhatia explained that this is a long-range plan and the first time this has been done in 30 years. A lot of this will require subsequent and more detailed studies, codes, etc. In the case of the “fee” that is being discussed, before you can assess a fee on someone the City will be doing a complete study of a development including 6.1.a Packet Pg. 27 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 16 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ a fee study and those will then be established. As those more detailed plans, actions, and programs are developed, some of those rules will be defined as to what constitutes a fair share or not. So, while we may say hypothetically, “provide bike lanes along all boulevards” the City cannot start putting bike lanes in right away because it would require a detailed bike plan and require that it be include as part of an improvements program and in this case, the plan would be looking at each specific roadway to determine whether it is or is not feasible. The General Plan gives the City a bigger “roadmap” – this is the City’s desire and policy to provide that and in all cases, “where feasible, where practical, etc.” and there will be much more that will need to be done before any such plan can be implemented. A lot of the rules, variances, exceptions, etc. is what Zoning does. This document is saying that if you are a developer coming to the City expect to pay for traffic impacts and so on, but the Council may decide, as part of that assessment, that somebody contributing affordable housing and open space is part of contributing their fair share. There is a lot that will need to be done and very little that can be taken from this General Plan document and literally apply. C/Low said she would feel better about this plan if the language was softer from “shall” to “may” or “if feasible” or “if possible” or “to the extent” practical. None of this can become a reality of it is unaffordable and it is unaffordable if it is a prohibitive type of plan. Mr. Bhatia said that C/Low’s point is well taken and believes there is a proper place to add language that provides flexibility at specific locations. C/Low said she means it to be throughout the document and she is being told a “policy” is not aspirational and she has a problem with that. However, if it is made plain that the City “wants” to do this and the City will “try” to do that, but we cannot be required to do that, she believes it makes a better plan for Diamond Bar. M/Herrera agreed with C/Low that all of the sections that read “shall” should be removed and replaced with “may” or “could”. CA/DeBerry explained that this type of change could have significant ramifications. For instance, if you include statements that are defined as “we’ll try and make people pay if they can afford to pay their fair share of traffic impacts” for example, that may not be consistent with the Traffic Element. In other words, if the City is allowing housing development to come in that are not paying the Traffic Impact Fee which the City Council sets, the City may not be getting enough money for the traffic improvements that are in the General Plan. The fees the City Council sets for the ministerial projects as being fair share fees for traffic impacts, etc. will be the fees 6.1.a Packet Pg. 28 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 17 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ those projects will have to pay. The scenario he hopes C/Low is talking about is where there is a particular development that is coming into the City and there is the realization that it has specific benefits to the City that other projects may not provide and typically, the way the City handles that might be that the Council might wave fees for those items that are of benefit – this would be done through a Development Agreement which the City has done with a couple of residential projects of late. Or, if the project is seeking a discretionary approval from the City Council, there is some flexibility there as well. He believes a lot of these “shall” statements are for projects that are coming in and do not need approval from the Planning Commission or City Council because they fit within the Zoning ramifications. If a developer through his plan is producing 3,000 traffic trips a day, the traffic impact fee says that development will pay this much and that fee is based upon what the City decides is their impact to the traffic infrastructure. While staff can review the suggestion, CA/DeBerry wants to be sure of potential ramifications of doing that and how it might impact all of the other elements that need to be considered. M/Herrera said her concern was that this was a “policy” and now it is being very restrictive and becoming a code. CM/Fox said there are times when it needs to be very specific to the City Attorney’s point and there are times when it is more lofty and encouraging so it may vary throughout the document and staff will take another look at the language. C/Lyons said that while she respects the City Attorney’s input, she also agrees with C/Low in wanting to make sure the City does not back itself into a corner and would be in favor of a compromise. C/Mahlke said she is very concerned about language as well, and when she read through some of the document she felt the pressure would come with the first time these policy changes came before the Commission or Council. Some of the requirements such as LU-P-8, a requirement for new residential development, it is probably fine that it remain as written because it would align with Zoning and other policies that would likely carry over. CM/Fox said he would appreciate Commissioners and Council Members providing specific reference to specific items. Mr. Bhatia said there are some policies that say “require” but they say “require” adequate transition and are very liberal because they will always be subject to interpretation. The fee may be a different issue, but there are a lot of design policies that “require” development to be of a good quality, adequate transition to the neighbors, etc. and he would not want the Commission or Council to box itself in. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 29 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 18 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ MPT/Tye said this process has taken three years because the City has worried about whether it should say “ensure”, “guarantee” or “require” and he recalls that a developer (Suncal) wanted to change something that went outside of the map and the City was not going to do that. In his opinion, if it said “require” new development to do something, the City would not have been able to gain the 350 acres it got from that developer and he believes the document has to have that kind of flexibility. C/Chou asked if there was a way to put an overarching statement at the front of the General Plan that all of this is based on “to the extent possible”. CM/Fox said staff could look at including something in the Introduction when discussing how the document is constructed with respect to the policies and goals in order to enhance and clarify their meaning. C/Lyons referred to the diagram on Page 2-10 and wanted to know if the Transient- Oriented Mixed Use map is saying the current tenants have x number of years to move out. CM/Fox said absolutely not. This is something that provides guidance to the property owner that they may do something different with their property. And this is a document that will tell everybody where the City wants to go with the built environment. Nothing in this document prescribes or requires somebody to change their land use or their development or forces anyone to develop their property a certain way. CDD/Gubman stated that there is policy language that specifically addresses C/Lyons question because those industrial uses and office uses are thriving and viable at this time and have not become obsolete. The policy language states that those existing uses are to be considered “conforming” uses going forward. If they wanted to add on to those industrial buildings they may do so, but should they choose to implement the policies that actually expand the range of future ways they can use their property, this provides the means for them to do so and articulates the City’s expectations so that it is clear to them what they can do. The City is communicating through its policy language what the its expectations are which gives them confidence and assurance going forward that they have that option should they find that those uses are no longer in keeping with the times. In short, current uses are protected. C/Lyons referred to Page 2-17 and asked about what appeared to be inconsistencies between the number of households and buildings called out in the Table at the bottom of the page. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 30 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 19 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ Mr. Bhatia responded to C/Lyons that some housing units remain vacant for this purpose a vacancy factor of 5 percent is applied. C/Lyons referred to Page 2-21, LU-P-10 “provide opportunities and incentivize development of different housing types including senior housing, independent living facilities, residential care facilities...” and asked if these were designated to be in a separate place. Someone responded “no” off-mike. C/Lyons referred to Page 2-27, LU-P-33, “amend parking regulations in Title 22, Development Code of the Municipal Code to require lower parking minimums for developments with a mix of uses with different peak parking as well as, developments that implement enforceable residential parking demand.” She said this is a concern to her and she needs to know from what it is today to what is being suggested. Mr. Bhatia said this does not indicate specific numbers. These numbers will be worked out through the Zoning Code amendment and what this is saying is that if you have a retail development and an office development and with the office you have so many vehicles parking during the week and the retail peaks on the weekends and evenings when there is no office parking, it would result in some combined parking reduction. What that number is remains to be worked out through the Zoning Code. CM/Fox further explained to C/Lyons that the section this policy is related to is the Transient-Oriented Mixed-Use development neighborhood. So in the case around the transit station, for example, the idea is to get people out of their cars and traditional parking standards may not be appropriate for a higher density type of housing development and the City would want to look at determining the right demand for parking is based upon whatever product is being proposed. C/Low referred to Page 2-27, LU-P-28 “maintain a healthy jobs-household balance” and “maintain equal or greater than the non-residential building inventory existing at the time of the December 2019 GP update adoption” and asked what this meant. Mr. Bhatia responded that if a developer is taking out a commercial use and putting in mixed-use development then the developer should keep the amount of commercial development that existed on December 2019 and include it in the mixed-use development at the same site. During the GPAC discussions, there were concerns about possibly losing all of the non-residential uses that were present with people taking out the warehouses and replacing that with all residential uses, for example. And the idea was that a developer would be allowed to put in more mix of 6.1.a Packet Pg. 31 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 20 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ uses but not at the expense of removing the non-residential uses. C/Low recommended the team take another look at this because in other portions of the document there are issues about considering noise and air pollution, etc. While it is aspirational, she is not sure that it would be practical and if it is so aspirational that it is not practical, let’s put it where it should be – aspirational as opposed to keeping something in place. Mr. Bhatia said that knowing Diamond Bar has a jobs deficit – more people than jobs, this is one way of ensuring that the places where job-oriented land uses exist, should not just simply be taken out and be replaced by residential. It is a policy choice if the Council wishes to remove it, but there was considerable discussion at the GPAC level which is why it is in the document. C/Low said she believes it is very, very complicated. She agrees with the idea that we don’t want somebody to take warehouses out and put houses there. But there needs to be a better way to express that in the document. Likewise, on Pages 2-28 LU-P-35 talks about maximum range and other locations and she suggested that be looked at to see if that is better in the Development Standard Code. On Page 29 LU-P-40 “study the implementation of safe pedestrian connectivity, etc.” and in italics there are comments. Is this an action item for staff or a direction or a policy that comes into being when we actually have a proposed development? Mr. Bhatia responded to C/Low that the wording not in italics is a policy and the one in italics is simply an explanation. It is not policy, but merely points out different ways in which this can be done. CM/Fox further explained that this could be as simple as building a crosswalk or as complicated as building a pedestrian bridge. The idea to provide connectivity to this “town center” area is where there are a lot of pedestrians and a lot of kids that cross that street. And whether it could be made safer and help make that center/corner more viable. It could be a combination of things that would have to be studied which will happen when that portion of the property is master-planned. C/Low said there are a number of places where this kind of language appears throughout the next four chapters – study this, do this, develop this, develop that and it sounds to her like the City is creating a new job. Mr. Bhatia said that someone came up with a grant for a Safe Routes to School study and there is money available for such things and Paul Herrmann may get hired to do that study. And what would they do? As a very first step they will go to 6.1.a Packet Pg. 32 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 21 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ the General Plan to see what the General Plan directs them to study as the hotspot locations. So, that will be picked up at that time when that study is done. The City will not proactively go do the studies immediately. This is something that may happen at some point if it becomes a nuisance, the City would study that particular location. C/Low said that “as necessary” should be put in the text. M/Herrera and C/Mahlke agreed. C/Low referred to Page 2-31, LU-G-27 “designate adequate and equitably distributed land for educational, cultural, recreational and public service activities to meet the needs of Diamond Bar residents” and said that while she agrees with this goal she does not know what it means. Mr. Bhatia responded to C/Low that it simply is saying to make sure that land uses are balanced within the community. “Equitably distributed” means that through different parts of the City there are open spaces, etc. and don’t just put them in one location in the City. C/Low asked that the language be simplified to “within the City boundaries” rather than equitably distributed. Chapter 3: C/Rawlings referred to CC-P-3 on Page 3-15 “native tolerant plants” and ask if that is referring to California native plants endemic to the area. C/Low referred to Page 3-19 CC-P-28 under building massing and design. She asked if this was new criteria that new development could not cast a significant shadow on existing development. Mr. Bhatia responded to C/Low that there is no State law about this. He remembers being at a GPAC meeting where concerns were voiced about the City putting in higher density development and the GPAC wanted to make sure that it would not vitiating the neighbors next to it. CDD/Gubman indicated to C/Low that there are also requirements for solar access for rooftops. C/Low said that if a housing development comes before the Planning Commission and a neighbor says this house is next door to me and it is casting a shadow on me, how would the Planning Commission resolve this issue with this wording in the 6.1.a Packet Pg. 33 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 22 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ General Plan? Mr. Bhatia said this would provide the rules for that to happen so there would not be a case-by-case discussion. It is simply saying, develop the rules and put them into the Zoning Code. Someone responded to C/Low that yes, the City is developing rules in its Development Standards regarding shadows. C/Mahlke asked if it was true that if there was conflict with the State that the State would obviously override the General Plan and the City would have to adjust its General Plan to reflect what the City is allowed to do as things change. CDD/Gubman responded to C/Mahlke that in the hierarchy of things, if the State preempts a local policy or regulation, Diamond Bar needs to conform to that. C/Low referred to Page 3-29, CC-PP-49, that talks about reducing surface parking and encouraging people to develop consolidated parking structures, provided these structures are screened from view. What if it is not possible – does that preclude development of the structure? Mr. Bhatia said this policy actually says “encourage as opposed to require”. C/Low said this language is repeated elsewhere within these next four chapters and asked if staff would ensure that this it is plan it is not required. Mr. Bhatia offered that it could be clarified in the first chapter where it explains what “shall” means, what “encourage” means, and what “require” means. C/Low referred to Page 30, CC-P-52 “to work with the City of Industry to highlight, etc.” where she thinks “if possible” should be added. CM/Fox responded to C/Low that it doesn’t seem necessary to reference the City of Industry. The policy is “highlight gateways and access to transit facilities through landscape and signage” and the transit station is technically in the City of Industry, but the Diamond Bar City limits ends at the tracks. C/Low said that in that case, those words should be deleted. Chapter 4: 6.1.a Packet Pg. 34 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 23 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ C/Chou said that Mr. Herrmann stated he did not anticipate any changes to the current roadway circulation. And yet, we are anticipating an additional 8,800 people which translates to about 6,000 vehicles and how does the City plan to accommodate the additional flow of vehicles without widening the streets or making further changes. Mr. Herrmann said there are many policies throughout the document that reflect this. The City is currently going through programs such as the signal coordination program that will help move more cars through the City with the same capacity. There are several TDM reduction strategies that encourage people to use alternative modes – carpool, alternative work schedules, etc. There are several policies throughout the document that are trying to encourage people to not drive during those peak hours. There was a traffic study done in support of the Circulation Element with LOS analysis at roughly 30 intersections and 30 roadway segments and through that process, identified several intersections and several roadway segments that may not meet the Level of Service D standard. Where possible, the study recommended some lane improvements at some of the intersections that would bring those intersections up to standard LOS D. And other locations on specific roadway segments were specified as not in the best interest of the City to widen those, one of which was Brea Canyon Road at the southern end of the City where it parallels the freeway as well as, taking into the consideration the multiple comments with regard to induced travel (widening the roadway encourages more driving). C/Lyons referred to Page 4-26 CR-P-39c “implement traffic calming measures such as reduced vehicle speeds and road diets along Diamond Bar Boulevard” and asked for an explanation of “road diets” because she couldn’t imagine the residents would favor that. Mr. Herrmann responded to C/Lyons that the idea behind these policies are that during the peak hours, Diamond Bar Boulevard can be congested and should be improved by the adapted signal timing programs taking place through the City. Comments were also received about high speeding during off-peak or non-peak direction that was considered unsafe, especially for bicyclists riding in the Class II lanes (painted lanes) and one of the traffic calming measures that was recommended was to upgrade those facilities to Class IV facilities which are essentially the same bike lanes but they would have some type of physical barrier such as a pylon…..C/Lyons said a lane would be taken out in order to do that and Mr. Herrmann said “no, we would not” – in that case the traffic calming is within the bike lane and as the street lanes are wide (13 feet) it allows for faster travel whereas, if the lane can be width of the lane is minimized, it requires drivers to drive slower in order to feel comfortable. This would be considered a traffic calming 6.1.a Packet Pg. 35 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 24 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ measure. Where appropriate and where capacity allows, the City could consider road diets but nowhere in this plan does it specify that any lanes would be taken away or reduce capacity. C/Lyons said she does not believe residents want a road diet on Diamond Bar Boulevard. Mr. Bhatia said that Diamond Bar Boulevard was specifically discussed for a bike lane and how a bikeway could be squeezed in without taking out a roadway lane. Mr. Herrmann asked C/Lyons if her concern was specifically with the reference to Diamond Bar Boulevard. C/Lyons said that was correct and when adding a bike lane for complete streets that affected a small portion of Diamond Bar Boulevard from Gentle Springs Lane to Golden Springs Drive and she opposed to that term being applied to the entirety of Diamond Bar Boulevard. Mr. Herrmann said that when the policy was written it was a general overarching possibility that could improve the roadway to be studied and implemented at a later time. He has no personal vested interest in keeping that language if the Council wants it eliminated. C/Low and M/Herrera agreed that it should be eliminated. C/Low said that this is what she has been talking about. We need some flexibility. CDD/Gubman stated that Subsection C is under policy CR-P-39 and that pertains specifically to the Neighborhood Mixed-Use Neighborhood which is the very northernmost segment of Diamond Bar Boulevard where the intent to create the Neighborhood Mixed-Use area is to encourage a safer roadway that is more of a complete street that can accommodate pedestrians on the sidewalk and bicyclists and slow down the off-peak traffic. This was not intended to apply to any segment of Diamond Bar Boulevard south of the SR60 on and off ramps at Sunset Crossing Road, and staff believes that there are appropriate traffic calming measures that can be installed along that roadway segment so that if that area does become a viable Mixed-Use Neighborhood, addressing the traffic speeds, especially with the incline of the roadway, would be a prudent measure. Mr. Herrmann said that anytime a project comes through to the City it would have to be supported by some type of traffic study that showed what the proposed traffic volumes were going to be on this roadway and this is what the Level of Service would be. Ultimately, that discretion would fall to the City Council to say “we don’t care, that’s too much, or yes, we are in support of that”. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 36 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 25 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ C/Low referred to Page 4-20 CR-P-26 and CR-P-28, as two instances where the directive is to coordinate with other jurisdictions and she requested that “if feasible” be added to the end of the statement. Also on Page 4-25 CR-P-34, “coordinate, collaborate with neighboring jurisdictions; and P-33 we are asking developers to provide sidewalks and bicycle infrastructure on local streets, please add “if feasible” because it is all part of a plan and with the prior question from C/Lyons, C/Low understood that the discussion was about the Mixed-Use area on that portion of Diamond Bar Boulevard; however, if it is not limited, the next thing that she foresees is that people will surmise that if we can do it there let’s do it someplace else and this road diet might possibly migrate down to the south end which would likely spell trouble, in her opinion. She does not want to alarm folks. Likewise, on Page 4-26 on CR-G-36, CR-P-35, CR-P-37 and CR-P38 – again, a lot of directives. She loves bicycles and trees but there needs to be flexible – and again, she would like to have “if feasible” inserted. C/Low referred to Page 4-28 DR-P-43, “strengthen the protection of bicyclists in lanes by implementing improvements” – again, she believes in that but is this a to- do list or is this aspirational. This should be clarified so we are not creating a bunch of new mandates for ourselves. C/Low referred to Page 4-35 CR-P-55 which directs us to “coordinate with Metrolink and Union Pacific” – she does not believe that is possible but would like to have “if feasible” added. Likewise on P-48 and P-47 directing us to “coordinate with Foothill Transit and Metrolink” so that we can morph trains that would be great but it is not likely so please insert “if possible/if feasible”. C/Chou said he appreciates C/Low’s input but is concerned that the GPAC spent considerable time crafting the language and he is concerned that if this body unilaterally adds words and changes words, that could change the spirit of what this document is attempting to accomplish. Perhaps there was specific reason for the language they put in the document and he thinks that as this body proceeds through the document, it should be a little more mindful of there being a reason that specific language was chosen. He is concerned that now the Council is unilaterally changing language that has been crafted over the past three years. M/Herrera said in her opinion, the Council was attempting to be realistic. As has been stated, this is a policy document and not a code document and when language mandates certain things it changes policy. It is no longer policy, it is a code. And she believes it is realistic to implement the changes suggested. C/Rawlings said that throughout the document it talks about transportation 6.1.a Packet Pg. 37 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 26 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ management, the intelligent transportation systems, etc. and studies have been done on that. He wanted to be sure that the document captured the scope of the study and he wanted to know if any of the study was done taking into consideration the possibility of the SR57/60 Confluence project (Big Fix) and impacts that may have on the City’s service street transportation issues and knowing that as the City has the level of service in the document, as more regional solutions take root, it may actually improve the level of service and what the City might expect with regard to vehicles miles traveled, etc. Mr. Herrmann said that for the Traffic Study, the City’s future conditions for the year 2040 were included. The SCAG model is referenced which is consistent with the SCAG 2016 Regional Transportation Plan. In that plan there are hundreds of pages of transportation projects that are funded, partially funded or planned to be funded that it is consistent with general practice to assume that those will be in place by 2040. In the Diamond Bar analysis, the entire 60 freeway widening improvement project was assumed to be completed and the analysis showed higher traffic volumes on the freeway. In general, there was some increase shown through Diamond Bar, as well as through the freeways, but given that the City is mostly built out, accounted for the growth assuming that everything would be built out by 2040, the trips generated through the modeling process showed that the City was able to maintain the Level of Service standard at most study locations throughout the City. MPT/Tye said he agreed with C/Chou that hours and hours were spent trying to get this right and he believes this group is being too literal with it. Really, it is not a good idea to use the words “road diet” – we all know what it means and it won’t improve traffic in Diamond Bar, but as PWD/Liu said ages ago, whether it is a traffic circle, yellow dots, bump outs or speed bumps, those are just tools we have in the box. So, while the term “road diet” may not be so popular today, it is just a tool and no one is saying we have to do it. He is also not opposed to saying it should come out of the document. But, where we get into working with terms such as establish requirements, encourage public schools, etc., we had this conversation last Council meeting. We encourage public schools to come up with the Safe Routes to School. Great. They will take the phone call and they are going to say “no” because they don’t have the money. So, we have to be realistic about some of this. If we encourage public schools, great – we tried to do that. Work with Caltrans – we made a phone call and they hung up on us. Well, we tried to work with them. He does not believe the whole document needs to be wordsmithed because this group is so worried about it coming back to haunt us that well, what we really meant was - if feasible. I think we are working about stuff we don’t need to worry about. He thinks they are all good efforts and hours and hours and hours went into this document and he is personally not real interested in reworking the whole thing. 6.1.a Packet Pg. 38 ______________________________________________________________________________ SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 PAGE 27 GP UPDATE CC&PC JT MTG ______________________________________________________________________________ CM/Fox said that he appreciates everyone’s comments and staff gets it with respect to some of the language and terminology used in these chapters. Staff will take another visit at some of these items. CA/DeBerry just mentioned another phrase that might be more appropriate “as opportunities arise” rather than “if feasible”. Staff will attempt to be a little more creative as well as, provide flexibility. To C/Chou’s point CM/Fox does not believe any of these things that are being discussed and proposed to be changed have no effect with respect to diluting or taking away the intent of these policies. The efforts of the GPAC and residents are still there and it is the same document. It is, as MPT/Tye mentioned, a matter of dealing with semantics and it will not change anything. However, if it gives everyone a greater comfort level and the document can be a little bit clearer in its meanings as to how someone will read and interpret the document, whether today or 20 years from now, hopefully, staff can try and do that for the Council. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the joint session, M/Herrera adjourned the Special Meeting at 8:25 p.m. to October 8th, 2019. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this _______ day of ____________, 2019. Attest: Respectfully Submitted, _________________________________ Greg Gubman Community Development Director Carol Herrera, Mayor ____________________________________ Naila Barlas, Planning Commission Chair 6.1.a Packet Pg. 39 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION OCTOBER 1, 2019 STUDY SESSION: M/Herrera called the Study Session to order at 5:50 p.m. in Room CC-8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765. ROLL CALL: Council Members Chou, Low, Lyons, MPT/Tye, M/Herrera Staff Present: Dan Fox, City Manager; Ryan McLean, Assistant City Manager; Omar Sandoval, Assistant City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works Director; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Dianna Honeywell, Finance Director; Anthony Santos, Assistant to the City Manager; Ryan Wright, Parks and Recreation Director; Anthony Jordan, Parks and Maintenance Superintendent; Christy Murphey, Parks and Recreation Superintendent; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager, and Kristina Santana, City Clerk. Consultants Present: Jeff Scott, ICG and Ryan Hoak, PBLA ► HERITAGE PARK CONCEPTUAL PLAN UPDATE: PRD/Wright updated the Council on the Heritage Park Conceptual Plan with Option 5 as the focus for this evening’s discussion. On July 16th the Council met to discuss both Sunset Crossing and Heritage Park, and the two big takeaways from that meeting were that Sunset Crossing Option 2 was the priority and while there was a lot of discussion about Heritage Park, there were three areas that needed further study so that staff could provide more information regarding phasing options due to the slope, grade and ADA challenges as well as, the existing ballfield. Sunset Crossing priority Option 2 has an estimated construction cost of $3.8 million. Staff continues to search for funding and continues to work on design elements with ICG for Option 2. The challenges at Heritage park is that the building was last renovated in 1993 to eliminate the Transamerica offices and construct about 3 ½ acres of park. Challenges with Heritage Park include ADA accessibility, older facilities, slopes and grades around the buildings and picnic facilities, and restrooms that do not meet ADA requirements. Heritage is a multi-use park with a community center for seniors with special events, picnics and programs and of course, the existing trees are a priority to the community. The four options for Heritage Park previously discussed were: 1) Key component - the splash pad; 2) the tennis courts and two pickleball courts; 3) basketball courts relocated from one side of the park to the other and, 4) the existing ballfield and the cost that would be required to maintain that field because of the slope issues tha t would require an outfield fence and upgraded lighting at a cost of about $3 million. Option 5, the focus of tonight’s meeting, involves working from an inside out standpoint. This includes a new restroom that would be relocated from the main 6.1.b Packet Pg. 40 OCTOBER 1, 2019 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION entrance (existing outdoor restroom near the flagpole) to about 20-30 feet back from the front entrance where it would be attached to the outside of the building. It would be constructed to meet ADA requirements, provide restrooms for both men and women and tie into the existing electrical and plumbing of the building. The existing restrooms inside the building would be converted to storage where none currently exists, and the new indoor restrooms would be located on the north side of the building accessible through a doorway. The new restrooms will meet ADA accessibility requirements and add one stall per each restroom. In addition, this option will allow for kitchen storage that is not currently available. Staff looked at the exterior of the park and came up with three phases. Phase I – includes: the sidewalk and moving the existing restroom from the main entrance, the community center rehab, parking lot, walkway around the community center to meet ADA requirements, slope, etc., all of the new furniture, and fixtures as well as, equipment for inside the community center, drainage, etc. (cost about $2.2 million). C/Lyons asked what benefit would be gained from Phase 1 if the current parking lot, sidewalk, etc. was retained. PRD/Wright reminded the Council that once the City touches the project ADA issues have to be addressed for the parking lot and the walkways around it. Phase I encompasses both restrooms, all furniture, fixtures, equipment, audio/video, lighting, flooring, cabinets and everything on th e interior of the community center along with the perimeter parking lot and sidewalk. PRD/Wright continued by explaining that Phase 2 of Option 5 includes the northeast corner of the park where there are stairs and ramps that go from the community center to the patio open space to the rear of the center. There is a set of stairs in the path of travel to the existing basketball court, walkways, picnic areas, tot lot, drainage and runoff issue mitigation. The current walkway along the east corner is very steep on both sides and in order to bring that to a safe path of travel, the existing walkway will be pushed out toward the tot lot in order to meet the grade (cost about $1.6 million). Phase 3 is basically the ballfield and in staff’s opinion, Phase 3 is probably something that could be discussed at a later time. Decisions about amenities for Phase 3 would probably be better considered down the road because amenities and demand and interest tend to change over time . Option 5, Phases 1 and 2 provide flexibility that allows for the upgrade of many facilities including the community center and Tot Lot which are used on a daily basis, while at the same time allows for the ballfield to continue to be used as it is currently used with no impacts other than the approved walkway around the outfield. C/Chou asked if there was a specific reason for how these phases were decided and PRD/Wright said there were. Staff looked at the slope and grade and how it could all be tied together to comply with ADA. There is not a perfect line, but as one looks at Phase 1 and 2, the community center can’t be split in half so these phases look at everything from the community center to the parking lot and walkway. As one enters a facility, one comes to the parking lot first and, in order to 6.1.b Packet Pg. 41 OCTOBER 1, 2019 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION get to another amenity, one must be able to access that which typically happens via the parking lot, which is what led staff to work from the exterior to the middle, i.e., the path of travel. C/Lyons said this park is way out of ADA compliance and she wondered if there were grants specifically intended to bring parks up to ADA compliance. PRD/Wright said he was not aware of anything sp ecifically, however, staff is looking at all possibilities for funding. C/Lyons wondered if it might be eligible for a different type of grant as opposed to Sunset Crossing Park which is a brand new park in an under- served area, since it is a park in an old area that is totally out of compliance. PRD/Wright said he would look into any and all possibilities. PRD/Wright said that staff is asking for Council consensus to move forward with Option 5, Phases 1 and 2 with the architect, in order to finalize designs and costs. Thanks to AtoCM/Santos, the City has a grant request pending for Prop 68 monies for the Sunset Crossing Park project. Staff expects to hear back on the application late November/early December. CM/Fox said that staff continues to reach out to legislators to remind them of the importance of these projects to Diamond Bar. Council Members concurred to have staff move forward with Option 5 as recommended. Public Comments: Bruce Fuller, 2668 Castle Rock Road, has lived close to Heritage Park for 35 years. The baseball field is important and when this was discussed three years ago there was talk about residents wanting to keep the baseball field and staff commented on how expensive it was due to do the ADA compliance concerns but, that every year it is put off, construction costs go up 15 percent and he assumes that is a bigger number now. Bruce Fuller again stated that the community wants to keep the baseball field and appreciates Phases 1 and 2 but is concerned that if the ballfield (Option 3) is considered two or three years down the road, it will be 30 percent more each year than it is today and then perhaps pickleball will be cheaper or a basketball court or a wading pond (splash pad) which is a really big problem. Charleen Candia, 2660 Castle Rock Road, has lived in Diamond Bar since 1985 and on Castle Rock Road for almost 11 years. She has three children and her son, his group and others play baseball and always use Heritage Park, primarily because it is the only lighted baseball field in town so that kids can practice in the evening. Even though her son is moving on to high school, he and his dad use the field at least one day a week for practice along with other families. If the field goes a way it would be a big loss for the kids. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council, M/Herrera recessed the Study Session at 6:14 p.m. to the Regular City Council Meeting. 6.1.b Packet Pg. 42 OCTOBER 1, 2019 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION ______________________________________ KRISTINA SANTANA, CITY CLERK The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 15th day of October, 2019. _______________________________ CAROL HERRERA, MAYOR 6.1.b Packet Pg. 43 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OCTOBER 1, 2019 CLOSED SESSION: 5:30 p.m., Room CC-8 Public Comments: None ► Conference with legal counsel pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9 – Existing Litigation San Gabriel Valley Water & Power, LLC v. Chino Hills, et al. San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. CIVDS 1904434 STUDY SESSION: 5:50 p.m. – Room CC-8 Public Comments: Two speakers Heritage Park Conceptual Plan Update CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA. Staff Present: Dan Fox, City Manager; Ryan McLean, Assistant City Manager; Omar Sandoval, Assistant City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works Director; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Dianna Honeywell, Finance Director; Anthony Santos, Assistant to the City Manager; Ryan Wright, Parks and Recreation Director; Anthony Jordan, Parks and Maintenance Superintendent; Christy Murphey, Parks and Recreation Superintendent; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager, and Kristina Santana, City Clerk. ACA/Sandoval stated there was no reportable action taken during the Closed Session. CM/Fox reported that tonight’s Study Session focused on conceptual designs for the renovations at Heritage Park and it was the consensus of the Council to move forward in a phased approach to address ADA access issues, with a focus on the community building and parking lot in Phase I, the outdoor amenities, playground and some of the picnic areas in Phase II. Phase III would involve future options for the ballfield, which are undetermined at this time. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Herrera led the Pledge of Allegiance. 6.1.c Packet Pg. 44 OCTOBER 1, 2019 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL INVOCATION: None Offered. ROLL CALL: Council Members Chou, Low, Lyons, Mayor Pro Tem Tye and Mayor Herrera. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 1.1 M/Herrera and City Council Members presented a Certificate Plaque to S&J Gran Café II, 21050 Golden Springs Drive Unit C, 107 & 108, as New Business of the Month for October. 1.2 2020 Census Update – Engaging our Communities – Justine Chen, Partnership Specialist, US Census Bureau – LA Region. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: CM/Fox introduced new employee Nicholas Delgado, Engineering Technician who comes from the City of Fullerton where he served in a similar role. CM/Fox introduced Kristina Santana, new City Clerk who comes to Diamond Bar with over a decade of municipal clerk experience , having served the cities of Bell Gardens, Santa Cruz and Lynwood. CM/Fox spoke regarding the press about the LA Sheriff Department and their budget issues which has not affected Diamond Bar as a Contract City. There is a rumored hiring freeze which is apparently related to non-sworn personnel at the administrative level. As information becomes available, the City Council will be kept apprised. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Library Manager Pui-Ching Ho spoke about programs and events taking place at the Diamond Bar Library during Read Together month of October and asked that individuals go to the library website at https://lacountylibrary.org/diamond-bar- library/ for additional programs and information. Many library events are sponsored by The Friends of the Library. Daniel Luevanos, City Ambassador for One Legacy/Donate Life, spoke about the organization and its mission, and announced that their float entitled “The Power of Hope” would participate in the 132nd Tournament of Roses Parade. He invited Council Members to attend the first exclusive look event on December 11, 2019 and to please RSVP their intentions by December 4th. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None 6.1.c Packet Pg. 45 OCTOBER 1, 2019 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Diamond Bar Restaurant Week – October 4, 2019 through October 20, 2019. Visit the website at http://dbrestaurantweek.com/ for a listing of participating restaurants and their offerings. Participants are reminded to save their receipts for entry in the drawing at City Hall. 5.2 Special General Plan Update Joint Meeting of the City Council and Planning Commission – October 8, 2019, 6:00 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.3 Traffic & Transportation Commission – October 10, 2019, 6:30 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.4 City Council Meeting – October 15, 2019, 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Low moved, MPT/Tye seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Low, Lyons, MPT/Tye, M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 6.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES: 6.1a Regular Meeting of September 17, 2019 – as presented. 6.1b Study Session Minutes – September 17, 2019 – as presented. 6.2 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER DATED SEPTEMBER 12, 2019 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 25, 2019 TOTALING $1,222,334.92. 6.3 APPROVED TREASURER’S STATEMENT FOR AUGUST 2019. 6.4 APPROVED FIRST AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL, LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, AND NINYO & MOORE FOR ON-CALL GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING SERVICES, EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT TO JUNE 30, 2021. A. APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO SIGN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH WILLDAN GEOTECHNICAL, FOR A NOT-TO- EXCEED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $60,000; B. APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO SIGN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES 6.1.c Packet Pg. 46 OCTOBER 1, 2019 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL C. AGREEMENT WITH LEIGHTON AND ASSOCIATES, FOR A NOT- TO-EXCEED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $20,000; AND, D. APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO SIGN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH NINYO & MOORE, FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $20,000. 6.5 APPROVED FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ITERIS, KIMLEY HORN, FEHR AND PEERS, AND STANTEC FOR ON-CALL TRAFFIC ENGINEERING SERVICES, EXTENDING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT TO JUNE 30, 2021. A. APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO SIGN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH ITERIS, FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $60,000; B. APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO SIGN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH KIMLEY-HORN, FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $20,000; C. APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO SIGN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH FEHR AND PEERS, FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $40,000; AND, D. APPROVED AND AUTHORIZED THE MAJOR TO SIGN, AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH STANTEC, FOR A NOT-TO-EXCEED ANNUAL AMOUNT OF $20,000. 7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): None 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 8.1 CITY COUNCIL RECOGNITION POLICY: ACM/McLean stated that this item is an update to City Council Policy C -3, a policy that the City Council initially adopted in 1990. The pu rpose of this policy is to govern the issuance of City Council recognition which includes Certificates, Plaques, City Tiles and most recently, Keys to the City. Earlier this year M/Herrera established the committee consisting of M/Herrera and C/Lyons. The committee met with staff on three occasions during which the committee revised the policy and forwarded its recommendation to the City Council for approval. Key provisions included in the revision focused on bringing it up to current policy format and practices. The policy also sets defined conditions for the issuance of each type of 6.1.c Packet Pg. 47 OCTOBER 1, 2019 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL recognition so there are clearly defined categories of recognition for a Certificate, for a Plaque, for a City Tile or for a Key to the City. And finally, the City Manager is authorized to establish a process to receive, manage and track those requests and make sure they are fulfilled in accordance with the policy. The City Council Recognition Committee recommends that the City Council consider and adopt the revised policy, as presented and, if the policy is adopted by the City Council it also recommends that the subcommittee be dissolved, having completed its work. C/Chou asked if an individual City Council Member could issue a letter of recognition that did not go on official City letterhead and if so, would it fall under this policy or would it remain something separate and apart from this policy. M/Herrera said that at one time, each Council Member had letterhead “From the desk of……..” with their name on it. She thought if individual Council Members wanted to do that with letter head that did not carry the official City seal, it should be acceptable. ACM/McLean said that the Council’s Standards and Operations Policy which was adopted by Resolution in 1996, specifically states in a section relating to the use of City media which includes letterhead, that “City media, including letterhead may not be used for personal use. It is only available for City use by the City Council unless otherwise directed by the City Council” so an individual Council Member would have the ability to write a personal letter. If the Council wished to re-introduce letterhead from each Council Member, it is another option that is specifically called out within the current Standards and Operations Policy. C/Lyons said that she, M/Herrera and staff were looking to make this process more efficient because sometimes staff gets a request to present a Certificate but they do not get the full information in order to get the Certificate printed, which takes up a lot of time and effort for staff having to additional research. As such, CM/Fox will be looking to provide a form that the individual requesting the Certificate can complete to render the operation smoother and more efficient. In addition, the committee went through the policy and updated and modernized it by, for example, including “Girl” Scouts, etc. C/Lyons moved, C/Chou seconded, to adopt the revised Recognition Policy and dissolve the subcommittee. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chou, Low, Lyons, MPT/Tye, 6.1.c Packet Pg. 48 OCTOBER 1, 2019 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Chou had the pleasure of attending a joint session with the Planning Commission and City Council, during which the group was able to move forward with the first four chapters of the updated General Plan. He looks forward to next week’s meeting to tie up loose ends and move f orward to the Public Hearing phase. He and MPT/Tye attended a breakfast meeting with Senator Ling Ling Chang who gave an update on items she worked on during the last legislative session. A few Council Members attended the Nekter Juice Bar opening on Saturday which was a lot of fun. It was great to see the community turnout at 8:30 on a Saturday morning. Staff and Council did a great job promoting that event and he would love to see more of the same in the community going forward. C/Low thanked M/Herrera and C/Lyons for their hard work on the Recognition Policy revisions. She thinks it is a great policy and was thankful it was updated. She welcomed CC/Santana and ET/Delgado. She reminded everyone that the Multi-Cultural Festival will be held this coming Sunday from 11:00 a.m. to 3:00 p.m. at Peterson Park with family fun, food and games. And, she is very excited to partake in Diamond Bar Restaurant Week. C/Lyons said that the City Council had a very good joint meeting with the Planning Commission on the first four chapters of the General Plan and the next meeting will focus on the remainder of the General Plan as well as, other related documents. As Library Manager Pui Ching Ho said, today is the first day of Read Together Diamond Bar and there are three books for different ages, all of which are available at the Library. One can get a list of activities or go onto the County Library website which is LAcountylibrary.org and click on Diamond Bar. Last Thursday she attended the Diamond Bar Friends of the Library Annual Libra rian Luncheon, a worthwhile event that brings together the Diamond Bar Community Librarians and school librarians who get together and talk about how to increase literacy in the community. She is excited about Restaurant Week with 28 restaurants participating and is plotting her strategy to enjoy all 28. She sincerely hopes that everyone in the community will decide to try at least one new restaurant during this event. Residents need to support the local restaurants to keep them open and to get more restaurants into the community. MPT/Tye wondered if the Council should consider a resolution for the next City Council Agenda to relabel Restaurant Week to Restaurant 16 Days. He would recommend that the City keep track of what is happening with the Board of Supervisors and the Sheriff’s Department. He heard Supervisor Kuehl say today 6.1.c Packet Pg. 49 OCTOBER 1, 2019 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL that budget implications will not impact deputies and it will not impact contract cities. He welcomed CC/Santana and said that not all meetings are this long. Congratulations on being the newest City Clerk, the third in 30 years. It was great to participate in Nekter’s Grand Opening to see Paul and Nita open their Diamond Bar store. As the franchise owners, they can choose where they want to be and with the line around the building, Diamond Bar was a g ood choice. The trailhead reconstruction is coming to an end (at Sycamore Canyon Park) and it is exciting that it is close to reopening. Come January 2020, it will be three years ago that we had a massive storm that washed out that trail. One of the things that took so long was getting FEMA to agree to pay what they shou ld pay. It is hard to tell that this involved the reinforcement and reconstruction of the terrace drains. There will be two sets of staircases at a cost of a million dollars, 90 percent of which was paid by FEMA – money that did not come out of the City’s General Fund. Once again, being prudent and aware of the City’s fiduciary responsibilities and making sure the Fed pays what they are supposed to pay has, in the long run, paid off for Diamond Bar. The scheduled reopening has been moved to the end of October with a Grand Opening and re-dedication sometime in November. Quick is not important – doing it right is the right way to do it, and he is glad the City did it the right way and go t its rightful share of reimbursement. M/Herrera welcomed CC/Santana and said the City is thrilled to have her and that ACM/McLean is even more thrilled to have her. M/Herrera’s colleagues reported on the many meetings and events Council Members attende d. There are a lot of brand new restaurants that have recently opened in Diamond Bar and she asked everyone to please, please go visit them and support them so that they will stay. She thanked everyone for a great Council Meeting and thanked all who attended. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Herrera adjourned the Regular City Council Meeting at 7:21 p.m. ______________________________________ KRISTINA SANTANA, CITY CLERK The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 15th day of October, 2019. CAROL HERRERA, MAYOR 6.1.c Packet Pg. 50 Agenda #: 6.2 Meeting Date: October 15, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager TITLE: CITY COUNCIL REVIEW OF COMMISSION MINUTES. STRATEGIC GOAL: Open, Engaged & Responsive Government RECOMMENDATION: Receive and file the June 13, 2019 Regular Meeting minutes of the Traffic and Transportation Commission and the August 22, 2019 Regular Meeting minutes of Parks and Recreation Commission. FINANCIAL IMPACT: None. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: It is the practice to provide the City Council with approved Commission meeting minutes. The Traffic and Transportation Commission minutes of June 13, 2019 and the Parks and Recreation Commission minutes of August 22, 2019 have been approved and are being transmitted to the Council for your information. PREPARED BY: 6.2 Packet Pg. 51 REVIEWED BY: Attachments: 1. 6.2.a Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes of June 13, 2019 2. 6.2.b Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes of August 22, 2019 6.2 Packet Pg. 52 6.2.a Packet Pg. 53 6.2.a Packet Pg. 54 6.2.a Packet Pg. 55 6.2.a Packet Pg. 56 6.2.b Packet Pg. 57 6.2.b Packet Pg. 58 6.2.b Packet Pg. 59 6.2.b Packet Pg. 60 Agenda #: 6.3 Meeting Date: October 15, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager TITLE: RATIFICATION OF CHECK REGISTER DATED SEPTEMBER 26, 2019 THROUGH OCTOBER 9, 2019 TOTALING $1,855,333.04. STRATEGIC GOAL: Responsible Stewardship of Public Resources RECOMMENDATION: Ratify the Check Register. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Expenditure of $1,855,333.04. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: 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. The attached check register containing checks dated September 26, 2019 through October 9, 2019 totaling $1,855,333.04 is being presented for ratification. All payments have been made in compliance with the City’s purch asing policies and procedures, and have been reviewed and approved by the appropriate departmental staff . The attached Affidavit affirms that the check register has been audited and deemed accurate by the Finance Director. PREPARED BY: 6.3 Packet Pg. 61 REVIEWED BY: Attachments: 1. 6.3.a Check Register Affidavit 10-15-2019 2. 6.3.b Check Register 10-15-2019 6.3 Packet Pg. 62 6.3.a Packet Pg. 63 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC PAGE NUMBER: 1DATE: 10/09/2019 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ACCTPA21TIME: 10:21:49 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between ’20190926 00:00:00.000’ and ’20191009 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/20 FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME FUND/DIVISION -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT10100 130657 10/04/19 FRANCHIS FRANCHISE TAX BOARD 001 P/R WITHHOLDING ORDER 0.00 177.5010100 130658 10/04/19 MANAGEDH MANAGED HEALTH NETWORK 001 OCT 19-EAP PREMIUM 0.00 146.4010100 130659 10/04/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0014093 ELECT SVCS-CITY HALL 0.00 14,800.5310100 130659 10/04/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015554 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 188.9010100 130659 10/04/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 1395539 ELECT SVCS-DIST 39 0.00 198.4110100 130659 10/04/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 1385538 ELECT SVCS-DIST 38 0.00 231.0010100 130659 10/04/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015554 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 343.8510100 130659 10/04/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015554 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 2,505.6010100 130659 10/04/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 1415541 ELECT SVCS-DIST 41 0.00 107.8410100 130659 10/04/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015554 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 114.1810100 130659 10/04/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015556 ELECT SVCS-PARKS 0.00 3,930.4510100 130659 10/04/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015556 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 67.4910100 130659 10/04/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015554 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 105.44TOTAL CHECK 0.00 22,593.6910100 130660 10/04/19 TASC TASC 0014060 FLEX ADMIN SVCS-AUG 0.00 107.6410100 130661 10/04/19 WVWATER WALNUT VALLEY WATER DIST 1415541 WATER SVCS-DIST 41 0.00 11,796.1210100 130661 10/04/19 WVWATER WALNUT VALLEY WATER DIST 0015556 WATER SVCS-PARKS 0.00 3,542.19TOTAL CHECK 0.00 15,338.3110100 130662 10/09/19 4IMPRINT 4IMPRINT INC 0014096 PRINT SVCS-LANYARDS 0.00 625.3710100 130662 10/09/19 4IMPRINT 4IMPRINT INC 0014096 SUPPLIES-BADGE HOLDER 0.00 102.4810100 130662 10/09/19 4IMPRINT 4IMPRINT INC 0014096 SUPPLIES-COASTER 0.00 347.0710100 130662 10/09/19 4IMPRINT 4IMPRINT INC 0014096 CAPS-DBRW 0.00 404.14TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,479.0610100 130663 10/09/19 AARP AARP 0015350 AARP MATURE DRIVING 0.00 295.0010100 130664 10/09/19 ABSOSECU ABSOLUTE SECURITY INTERN 0015333 SECURITY GUARD SVCS 0.00 5,934.5010100 130665 10/09/19 AOS ADVANCED OFFICE 0014070 RICOH COPY CHARGES 0.00 1,207.1110100 130666 10/09/19 DRIVERAL ALLIANT INSURANCE SERVIC 1155515 SPL EVENT INS-RECYCLE 0.00 428.0010100 130667 10/09/19 BALDWINC CAROLE L BALDWIN 0015350 CONTRACT CLASS-FALL 0.00 372.6010100 130668 10/09/19 BANKERSA BANKERS ADVERTISING COMP 115 USE TAX 0.00 -223.2510100 130668 10/09/19 BANKERSA BANKERS ADVERTISING COMP 1155515 USE TAX 0.00 223.2510100 130668 10/09/19 BANKERSA BANKERS ADVERTISING COMP 1155515 PROMO SUPPLIES-BAGS 0.00 2,493.52TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,493.5210100 130669 10/09/19 BARRETTT THOMAS BARRETT 0015350 CONTRACT CLASS-FALL 0.00 360.0010100 130670 10/09/19 BEARSTAT BEAR STATE AIR CONDITION 0015556 MAINT SVCS-HERITAGE 0.00 176.9010100 130671 10/09/19 BIOCONTR BIOCONTRACTORS INC 1155515 SMART GARDENING-9/28 0.00 691.8610100 130672 10/09/19 BONTERRA BONTERRA PSOMAS 001 PROF.SVCS-PL 2015-44 0.00 1,675.006.3.bPacket Pg. 64 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC PAGE NUMBER: 2DATE: 10/09/2019 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ACCTPA21TIME: 10:21:49 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between ’20190926 00:00:00.000’ and ’20191009 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/20 FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME FUND/DIVISION -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT10100 130673 10/09/19 VALLEYCR BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SER 0015556 ADDL WORK-PANTERA 0.00 466.8910100 130673 10/09/19 VALLEYCR BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SER 0015333 MONTHLY MAINT-DBC 0.00 6,044.0010100 130673 10/09/19 VALLEYCR BRIGHTVIEW LANDSCAPE SER 0015556 MONTHLY MAINT-PARKS 0.00 29,719.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 36,229.8910100 130674 10/09/19 CPRS CA PARK & RECREATION SOC 0015350 ANNL CPRS MEMBERSHIP 0.00 2,090.0010100 130675 10/09/19 CEMCONST CEM CONSTRUCTION CORPS 2505556 CONSTRUCTION-S/CYN PK 0.00 131,000.0010100 130675 10/09/19 CEMCONST CEM CONSTRUCTION CORPS 2505556 CONSTRUCTION-S/CYN PK 0.00 212,440.0010100 130675 10/09/19 CEMCONST CEM CONSTRUCTION CORPS 250 RETENTIONS PAYABLE 0.00 -10,622.0010100 130675 10/09/19 CEMCONST CEM CONSTRUCTION CORPS 250 RETENTIONS PAYABLE 0.00 -6,550.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 326,268.0010100 130676 10/09/19 CHARTER CHARTER OAK GYMNASTICS, 0015350 CONTRACT CLASS-FALL 0.00 633.6010100 130677 10/09/19 CHEMPROL CHEM PRO LABORATORY INC 0014093 WATER TREATMENT SVCS 0.00 155.0010100 130678 10/09/19 CIVICPLU CIVICPLUS INC 0014070 CUSTOMER REQUEST SYS 0.00 2,340.0010100 130678 10/09/19 CIVICPLU CIVICPLUS INC 0014070 CUSTOMER REQUEST SYS 0.00 12,000.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 14,340.0010100 130679 10/09/19 COLLEYFO COLLEY FORD 5205556 VEH MAINT SVCS-P/WKS 0.00 56.4510100 130680 10/09/19 CPRSX CPRS DISTRICT 10 0015350 CPRS SR SYMPOSIUM 0.00 50.0010100 130681 10/09/19 DAVIDEVA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIAT 001 PROF.SVCS-PL 17-167 0.00 130.0010100 130681 10/09/19 DAVIDEVA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIAT 001 PROF.SVCS-PL 18-92 0.00 657.0010100 130681 10/09/19 DAVIDEVA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIAT 001 PROF.SVCS-PL 17-138 0.00 507.5010100 130681 10/09/19 DAVIDEVA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIAT 001 PROF.SVCS-PL 16-216 0.00 794.5010100 130681 10/09/19 DAVIDEVA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIAT 001 PROF.SVCS-PL 18-227 0.00 496.3810100 130681 10/09/19 DAVIDEVA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIAT 001 PROF.SVCS-PL 17-41 0.00 11.8610100 130681 10/09/19 DAVIDEVA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIAT 001 PROF.SVCS-PL 17-126 0.00 11.8810100 130681 10/09/19 DAVIDEVA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIAT 001 PROF.SVCS-16-105 0.00 22.6210100 130681 10/09/19 DAVIDEVA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIAT 001 PROF.SVCS-PL 17-36 0.00 28.8610100 130681 10/09/19 DAVIDEVA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIAT 001 PROF.SVCS-PL 19-85 0.00 1,165.0010100 130681 10/09/19 DAVIDEVA DAVID EVANS AND ASSOCIAT 001 PROF.SVCS-PL 15-528 0.00 2,249.84TOTAL CHECK 0.00 6,075.4410100 130682 10/09/19 DAYNITEC DAY & NITE COPY CENTER 0015510 PRINT SVCS-GENERAL PL 0.00 440.7410100 130682 10/09/19 DAYNITEC DAY & NITE COPY CENTER 0155210 PRINT SVCS-GEN PLAN 0.00 1,096.7610100 130682 10/09/19 DAYNITEC DAY & NITE COPY CENTER 0155210 PRINT SVSC-GEN PLAN 0.00 731.18TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,268.6810100 130683 10/09/19 DELGALEX ALEXANDRA DELGADO 001 FACILITY REFUND-DBC 0.00 609.1010100 130684 10/09/19 DENNISCA CAROL A DENNIS 0014030 PROF.SVCS-PLNG COMM 0.00 25.0010100 130684 10/09/19 DENNISCA CAROL A DENNIS 0014030 PROF.SVCS-CNCL MTG 0.00 200.0010100 130684 10/09/19 DENNISCA CAROL A DENNIS 0014030 PROF.SVCS-CNCL/PC MTG 0.00 250.0010100 130684 10/09/19 DENNISCA CAROL A DENNIS 0015210 PROF.SVCS-ADM REVIEW 0.00 25.0010100 130684 10/09/19 DENNISCA CAROL A DENNIS 0015210 PROF.SVCS-P/C HRG 0.00 100.0010100 130684 10/09/19 DENNISCA CAROL A DENNIS 0015510 PROF.SVCS-T&T COMM 0.00 150.0010100 130684 10/09/19 DENNISCA CAROL A DENNIS 0015350 PROF.SVCS-P&R MTG 0.00 50.006.3.bPacket Pg. 65 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC PAGE NUMBER: 3DATE: 10/09/2019 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ACCTPA21TIME: 10:21:49 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between ’20190926 00:00:00.000’ and ’20191009 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/20 FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME FUND/DIVISION -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNTTOTAL CHECK 0.00 800.0010100 130685 10/09/19 DIAMONDC DIAMOND CANYON CHRISTIAN 001 FACILITY REFUND-DBC 0.00 500.0010100 130686 10/09/19 DPDSLLC DIAMOND POINTE DINING SE 1155515 CATERING-HHWIE 0.00 770.3410100 130687 10/09/19 DMPR4LLC DMPR 4 LLC 0014030 STORAGE RENTAL UNITS 0.00 1,614.0010100 130688 10/09/19 DOGGIEWA DOGGIE WALK BAGS INC 1155515 SUPPLIES-DOGGIE BAGS 0.00 886.9610100 130689 10/09/19 DUENASDO DONOVAN DUENAS 001 FACILITY REFUND-DBC 0.00 1,007.5010100 130690 10/09/19 DYETTBHA DYETT & BHATIA, URBAN & 0155210 GENERAL PLAN-AUG 19 0.00 24,200.6110100 130691 10/09/19 ECSIMAGI ECS IMAGING INC 0014070 ANNL RENEWAL-SOFTWARE 0.00 15,030.0010100 130692 10/09/19 EMERALD EMERALD LANDSCAPE SERVIC 0014093 ADDL MAINT SVCS-SEPT 0.00 14.1010100 130692 10/09/19 EMERALD EMERALD LANDSCAPE SERVIC 0014093 MONTHLY MAINT SVCS 0.00 1,006.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,020.1010100 130693 10/09/19 ENVIRIMP ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT SCI 001 ENVIRONMENTAL SVCS 0.00 48,833.7010100 130694 10/09/19 EXPRESSM EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE A 0015230 EXPRESS MAIL-GENERAL 0.00 181.4410100 130694 10/09/19 EXPRESSM EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE A 001 EXPRESS MAIL-PL19-222 0.00 45.3610100 130694 10/09/19 EXPRESSM EXPRESS MAIL CORPORATE A 001 EXPRESS MAIL-PL19-108 0.00 22.68TOTAL CHECK 0.00 249.4810100 130695 10/09/19 EXTERIOR EXTERIOR PRODUCTS INC 0015350 BANNERS-ARMED FORCES 0.00 566.9710100 130696 10/09/19 FUNEXPRE FUN EXPRESS LLC 0015350 SUPPLIES-HALLOWEEN 0.00 888.4210100 130697 10/09/19 GARGMAHE MAHENDRA GARG 0015510 T & T COMM-SEPT 12 0.00 45.0010100 130698 10/09/19 GATEWAYC GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER 0014093 ASSOCIATION DUES-OCT 0.00 1,586.4010100 130699 10/09/19 GWMA GATEWAY WATER MANAGEMENT 0015510 WATERSHED MGMT COST 0.00 173.8310100 130700 10/09/19 GOMERGER GERALD L GOMER 0015554 STAFF SHIRTS-P/WORKS 0.00 41.0610100 130701 10/09/19 GONZMICH MICHAEL A GONZALEZ 0015510 T & T COMM-SEPT 12 0.00 45.0010100 130702 10/09/19 GOVERTAX GOVERNMENT TAX SEMINARS 0014050 TAX SEMINARS-FINANCE 0.00 860.0010100 130703 10/09/19 GJSINC GUARANTEED JANITORIAL SE 0015556 JANITORIAL SVCS-SEPT 0.00 2,450.0010100 130703 10/09/19 GJSINC GUARANTEED JANITORIAL SE 0015333 JANITORIAL SVCS-SEPT 0.00 5,400.0010100 130703 10/09/19 GJSINC GUARANTEED JANITORIAL SE 0014093 JANITORIAL SVCS-SEPT 0.00 8,724.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 16,574.0010100 130704 10/09/19 HLCHARTE H & L CHARTER CO INC 1125350 SR EXCURSION-GRYSTN 0.00 1,045.0010100 130705 10/09/19 HARDYHAR HARDY & HARPER INC 0015554 RD MAINT SVCS-SCE 0.00 790.0010100 130705 10/09/19 HARDYHAR HARDY & HARPER INC 0015554 RD MAINT SVCS-SCE 0.00 19,800.006.3.bPacket Pg. 66 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC PAGE NUMBER: 4DATE: 10/09/2019 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ACCTPA21TIME: 10:21:49 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between ’20190926 00:00:00.000’ and ’20191009 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/20 FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME FUND/DIVISION -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNTTOTAL CHECK 0.00 20,590.0010100 130706 10/09/19 HSIEHKIM KIM HSIEH 0015350 P & R COMM-SEPT 0.00 45.0010100 130706 10/09/19 HSIEHKIM KIM HSIEH 0015350 P & R COMM-JULY 0.00 45.0010100 130706 10/09/19 HSIEHKIM KIM HSIEH 0015350 P & R COMM-JUNE 0.00 45.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 135.0010100 130707 10/09/19 IVHS HUMANE SOCIETY OF POMONA 0014431 ANIMAL CONTROL SVCS 0.00 15,750.0810100 130708 10/09/19 JKCONSTR JK CONSTRUCTION 1255215 HIP PROJ-332 ROCK RVR 0.00 10,000.0010100 130708 10/09/19 JKCONSTR JK CONSTRUCTION 125 RETENTIONS PAYABLE 0.00 -500.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 9,500.0010100 130709 10/09/19 JOHNSONK KEITH E JOHNSON 0015350 D.J. SVCS-OKTOBERFEST 0.00 350.0010100 130710 10/09/19 JONESKEV KEVIN D JONES 0015551 PROF.SVCS-SR-57/60 0.00 4,000.0010100 130711 10/09/19 FASTSIGN K7 ENTERPRISES 0014096 ADDL BANNERS-DBRW 0.00 301.1410100 130711 10/09/19 FASTSIGN K7 ENTERPRISES 1155515 BANNERS-RECYCLE DAY 0.00 626.43TOTAL CHECK 0.00 927.5710100 130712 10/09/19 KIWANISC KIWANIS CLUB OF DIAMOND 0114010 SPONSORSHIP-TEACHER V 0.00 500.0010100 130713 10/09/19 KNIGHTSO KNIGHTS OF COLUMBUS 001 FACILITY REFUND-S/CYN 0.00 100.0010100 130714 10/09/19 LAFENCIN LA FENCING ACADEMY OF PO 0015350 CONTRACT CLASS-FALL 0.00 180.0010100 130715 10/09/19 LANDSEND LANDS’ END INC 0015350 REC STAFF JACKETS 0.00 645.6010100 130716 10/09/19 LEEPORTI PORTIA LEE 001 FACILITY REFUND-REAGA 0.00 100.0010100 130717 10/09/19 LIANGBEN BENNY LIANG 0015350 P & R COMM-SEPT 0.00 45.0010100 130717 10/09/19 LIANGBEN BENNY LIANG 0015350 P & R COMM-AUGUST 0.00 45.0010100 130717 10/09/19 LIANGBEN BENNY LIANG 0015350 P & R COMM-JUNE 0.00 45.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 135.0010100 130718 10/09/19 LIANGCLA CLAIRE LIANG 001 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 45.0010100 130719 10/09/19 LLOYDCRA CRAIG LLOYD 001 FACILITY REFUND-DBC 0.00 410.0010100 130720 10/09/19 LACMTA LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA 1125553 MTA PASSES-SEPT 19 0.00 528.0010100 130720 10/09/19 LACMTA LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA 1125553 MTA PASSES-SEPT SR 0.00 63.0010100 130720 10/09/19 LACMTA LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA 1125553 CITY SUBSIDY-SEPT SR 0.00 63.0010100 130720 10/09/19 LACMTA LOS ANGELES COUNTY MTA 1125553 CITY SUBSIDY-SEPT 19 0.00 132.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 786.0010100 130721 10/09/19 LASHERIF LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERI 0014411 CONTRACT SVCS-AUG 19 0.00 569,094.1210100 130721 10/09/19 LASHERIF LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERI 0014411 ST SWEEPER SVCS-JUL 0.00 419.6810100 130721 10/09/19 LASHERIF LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERI 0014411 ST SWEEPER SVCS-AUG 0.00 839.3610100 130721 10/09/19 LASHERIF LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERI 0014411 CONCERTS IN PARK-JUL 0.00 4,723.8310100 130721 10/09/19 LASHERIF LOS ANGELES COUNTY SHERI 0014411 CALVARY CHAPEL-AUG 0.00 8,778.32TOTAL CHECK 0.00 583,855.316.3.bPacket Pg. 67 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC PAGE NUMBER: 5DATE: 10/09/2019 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ACCTPA21TIME: 10:21:49 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between ’20190926 00:00:00.000’ and ’20191009 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/20 FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME FUND/DIVISION -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT10100 130722 10/09/19 POSTNET LW POSTNET INC 1155515 PRINT SVCS-HHW 0.00 163.1310100 130723 10/09/19 MACIASXO XOCHITL MACIAS 001 FACILITY REFUND-S/CYN 0.00 100.0010100 130724 10/09/19 MCECORPO MCE CORPORATION 1385538 REPLANTING-DIST 38 0.00 2,693.6010100 130725 10/09/19 METROLIN METROLINK 1125553 METROLINK PASSES-AUG 0.00 34,412.0010100 130725 10/09/19 METROLIN METROLINK 1125553 METROLINK PASSES-SEPT 0.00 34,714.4010100 130725 10/09/19 METROLIN METROLINK 1125553 CITY SUBSIDY-AUG 0.00 8,603.0010100 130725 10/09/19 METROLIN METROLINK 1125553 CITY SUBSIDY-SEPT 0.00 8,678.6010100 130725 10/09/19 METROLIN METROLINK 1125553 METROLINK PASSES-SR 0.00 2,121.0010100 130725 10/09/19 METROLIN METROLINK 1125553 CITY SUBSIDY-SR AUG 0.00 2,121.0010100 130725 10/09/19 METROLIN METROLINK 1125553 METROLINK PASSES-SR 0.00 2,121.0010100 130725 10/09/19 METROLIN METROLINK 1125553 CITY SUBSIDY-SEPT SR 0.00 2,121.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 94,892.0010100 130726 10/09/19 MIJOENTE MIJO ENTERTAINMENT 0014096 PROF.SVCS-DBRW 0.00 525.0010100 130726 10/09/19 MIJOENTE MIJO ENTERTAINMENT 0014096 PROF.SVCS-DBRW 0.00 600.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,125.0010100 130727 10/09/19 MMASC MMASC 0014030 MEMBERSHIP DUES-ALLEN 0.00 85.0010100 130728 10/09/19 MMASC MMASC 0014030 MEMBERSHIP DUES-LOPEZ 0.00 85.0010100 130729 10/09/19 MOBILEIN MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 0015556 CYLINDER ARGON 0.00 8.0010100 130729 10/09/19 MOBILEIN MOBILE INDUSTRIAL SUPPLY 0015350 SUPPLIES-HELIUM 0.00 87.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 95.0010100 130730 10/09/19 MOBILERE MOBILE RELAY ASSOCIATES 0014440 REPEATER SVCS-OCT 0.00 78.7510100 130731 10/09/19 MORENOMA MATTHEW MORENO 001 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 60.0010100 130732 10/09/19 JIFFYLUB MY FLEET CENTER 5205556 VEH MAINT SVCS-P/WKS 0.00 41.0910100 130733 10/09/19 BUDDNARE NARENDRA BUDDHDEV 001 FACILITY REFUND-PNTRA 0.00 100.0010100 130734 10/09/19 NETWPARA NETWORK PARATRANSIT SYST 1125553 DIAMOND RIDE SVCS-AUG 0.00 23,519.8310100 130735 10/09/19 OHCHAEWO CHAEWON OH 001 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 50.0010100 130736 10/09/19 ORORATHO THOMAS M ORONA 0015350 P & R COMM-AUGUST 0.00 45.0010100 130736 10/09/19 ORORATHO THOMAS M ORONA 0015350 P & R COMM-SEPT 0.00 45.0010100 130736 10/09/19 ORORATHO THOMAS M ORONA 0015350 P & R COMM-JUNE 0.00 45.0010100 130736 10/09/19 ORORATHO THOMAS M ORONA 0015350 P & R COMM-JULY 0.00 45.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 180.0010100 130737 10/09/19 PAPERREC PAPER RECYCLING & SHREDD 1155515 SHREDDING-CITY HALL 0.00 106.0010100 130738 10/09/19 PERMARIA MARIA ROCIO CID PEREZ 001 RECREATION REFUND 0.00 165.0010100 130739 10/09/19 PLAYERDE PLAYER DEVELOPMENT PRODU 0015350 SUPPLIES-SNOWFEST 0.00 132.666.3.bPacket Pg. 68 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC PAGE NUMBER: 6DATE: 10/09/2019 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ACCTPA21TIME: 10:21:49 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between ’20190926 00:00:00.000’ and ’20191009 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/20 FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME FUND/DIVISION -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT10100 130740 10/09/19 PUBLICST PUBLIC STORAGE #23051 1605516 STORAGE UNIT-RECYCLE 0.00 130.0010100 130741 10/09/19 QUANCYNT CYNTHIA L QUAN 0015510 T & T COMM-SEPT 12 0.00 45.0010100 130742 10/09/19 RAYCOMDA RAYCOM DATA TECHNOLOGIES 0014030 SCANNING SVCS 0.00 916.5210100 130742 10/09/19 RAYCOMDA RAYCOM DATA TECHNOLOGIES 0014030 SCANNING SVCS 0.00 6,674.10TOTAL CHECK 0.00 7,590.6210100 130743 10/09/19 RTSC REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CEN 1125553 CITY SUBSIDY-SEPT 0.00 4,340.0010100 130743 10/09/19 RTSC REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CEN 1125553 FOOTHILL TAP SVCS-SPT 0.00 17,360.0010100 130743 10/09/19 RTSC REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CEN 1125553 FOOTHILL TAP SVCS-SR 0.00 150.0010100 130743 10/09/19 RTSC REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CEN 1125553 CITY SUBSIDY-SEPT SR 0.00 150.0010100 130743 10/09/19 RTSC REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CEN 1125553 REFUND-SEPT 19 0.00 -25.0010100 130743 10/09/19 RTSC REGIONAL TAP SERVICE CEN 1125553 COMMISSION-SEPT 19 0.00 -659.25TOTAL CHECK 0.00 21,315.7510100 130744 10/09/19 RISEUPRO RISE UP ROOFING 001 REFUND-SPL INSP FEE 0.00 37.3410100 130745 10/09/19 RKACONSU RKA CONSULTING GROUP 0015220 BLDG & SFTY SVCS-JULY 0.00 108,953.2710100 130746 10/09/19 AGSINC RTS FINANCIAL SERVICE IN 0014411 CROSSING GUARD SVCS 0.00 15,441.4510100 130747 10/09/19 SAFECHEC SAFECHECKS 0014050 PRINT SVCS-A/P CHECKS 0.00 1,702.8710100 130747 10/09/19 SAFECHEC SAFECHECKS 0014050 PRINT SVCS-PAYROLL CK 0.00 568.58TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,271.4510100 130748 10/09/19 SALOAARO AARON R SALO 0015350 P & R COMM-SEPT 0.00 45.0010100 130748 10/09/19 SALOAARO AARON R SALO 0015350 P & R COMM-JULY 0.00 45.0010100 130748 10/09/19 SALOAARO AARON R SALO 0015350 P & R COMM-JUNE 0.00 45.0010100 130748 10/09/19 SALOAARO AARON R SALO 0015350 P & R COMM-AUGUST 0.00 45.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 180.0010100 130749 10/09/19 SAMPABRA SAMPA BRAZILIAN JIU JITS 0015350 CONTRACT CLASS-FALL 0.00 53.4010100 130750 10/09/19 SCICONSU SCI CONSULTING GROUP 1385538 LLAD LANDSCAPE MAINT 0.00 2,891.1010100 130750 10/09/19 SCICONSU SCI CONSULTING GROUP 1395539 LLAD LANDSCAPE MAINT 0.00 2,891.1110100 130750 10/09/19 SCICONSU SCI CONSULTING GROUP 1415541 LLAD LANDSCAPE MAINT 0.00 2,891.11TOTAL CHECK 0.00 8,673.3210100 130751 10/09/19 SHAHYASH YASHUANT SHAH 001 FACILITY REFUND-DBC 0.00 450.0010100 130752 10/09/19 SHEPPARD SHEPPARD, MULLIN, RICHTE 0014020 LEGAL SVCS-T/HERMANOS 0.00 544.3610100 130753 10/09/19 SHUMCRYS CRYSTAL SHUM 0015350 CONTRACT CLASS-FALL 0.00 786.0010100 130754 10/09/19 SIMPSONA SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC 0014095 DBCONN-SEPT NEWSLTTR 0.00 1,575.0010100 130754 10/09/19 SIMPSONA SIMPSON ADVERTISING INC 0014095 DBCONN-AUG 2019 0.00 5,350.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 6,925.0010100 130755 10/09/19 SOFTWARE SOFTWARE ONE INC 0014070 5 YR SVCS ANNL MAINT 0.00 18,376.806.3.bPacket Pg. 69 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC PAGE NUMBER: 7DATE: 10/09/2019 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ACCTPA21TIME: 10:21:49 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between ’20190926 00:00:00.000’ and ’20191009 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/20 FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME FUND/DIVISION -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT10100 130756 10/09/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015333 ELECT SVCS-DBC 0.00 9,725.2810100 130756 10/09/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015554 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 766.0110100 130756 10/09/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015554 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 84.7710100 130756 10/09/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 1385538 ELECT SVCS-DIST 38 0.00 22.6610100 130756 10/09/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015554 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 215.1910100 130756 10/09/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015554 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 405.4810100 130756 10/09/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015554 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 88.8210100 130756 10/09/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015554 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 91.0310100 130756 10/09/19 SCE SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDIS 0015554 ELECT SVCS-T/CONTROL 0.00 62.47TOTAL CHECK 0.00 11,461.7110100 130757 10/09/19 ADELPHIA SPECTRUM BUSINESS 0014070 INTERNET SVCS-C/HALL 0.00 1,040.0010100 130758 10/09/19 SULAKHEM MANISHA SULAKHE 0015350 P & R COMM-JULY 0.00 45.0010100 130758 10/09/19 SULAKHEM MANISHA SULAKHE 0015350 P & R COMM-AUGUST 0.00 45.0010100 130758 10/09/19 SULAKHEM MANISHA SULAKHE 0015350 P & R COMM-SEPT 0.00 45.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 135.0010100 130759 10/09/19 TISCAREN TISCARENO’S CATERING 0015350 DINNER-OKTOBERFEST 0.00 789.2710100 130760 10/09/19 TORRESJO JOHN TORRES 001 FACILITY REFUND-PTRSN 0.00 100.0010100 130761 10/09/19 TUCKERRA RAYMOND MICHAEL TUCKER 0015350 CONTRACT CLASS-FALL 0.00 180.0010100 130762 10/09/19 ULINEINC ULINE INC 0015554 SUPPLIES-RD MAINT 0.00 3,546.7510100 130763 10/09/19 USBANK US BANK 0014050 CITY CREDIT CARD-SEPT 0.00 19,671.0010100 130764 10/09/19 WAXIESAN WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 0015333 SUPPLIES-DBC 0.00 8.7610100 130764 10/09/19 WAXIESAN WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 0015556 SUPPLIES-PARKS 0.00 8.7610100 130764 10/09/19 WAXIESAN WAXIE SANITARY SUPPLY 0015333 SUPPLIES-DBC 0.00 505.19TOTAL CHECK 0.00 522.7110100 130765 10/09/19 WESTCOAS WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 0015558 TREE WATERING SVCS 0.00 510.0010100 130765 10/09/19 WESTCOAS WEST COAST ARBORISTS INC 0015558 TREE MAINT SVCS-SEPT 0.00 5,606.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 6,116.0010100 130766 10/09/19 WONGANDR ANDREW WONG 0015510 T & T COMM-SEPT 12 0.00 45.0010100 130767 10/09/19 YANGJOSE JOSEPH YANG 001 FACILITY REFUND-DBC 0.00 1,150.0010100 PP20/19A 10/03/19 PERSRETI PERS RETIREMENT FUND 001 RETIRE CONTRIB-PEPRA 0.00 3,422.1110100 PP20/19A 10/03/19 PERSRETI PERS RETIREMENT FUND 001 RETIRE CONTRIB-CLASSIC 0.00 28,948.2910100 PP20/19A 10/03/19 PERSRETI PERS RETIREMENT FUND 001 SURVIVOR BENEFIT 0.00 50.22TOTAL CHECK 0.00 32,420.6210100 PP20/19B 10/03/19 VANTAGEP VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNT 001 10/4/19-P/R DEDUCTIONS 0.00 42,668.9010100 PP20/19B 10/03/19 VANTAGEP VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNT 001 10/4/19-LOAN DEDUCTION 0.00 3,610.4510100 PP20/19B 10/03/19 VANTAGEP VANTAGEPOINT TRNSFR AGNT 001 10/4/19-PTS CONTRIBUTI 0.00 2,058.40TOTAL CHECK 0.00 48,337.7510100 PP20/19C 10/03/19 TASC TASC 001 10/4/19-P/R DEDUCTIONS 0.00 1,703.866.3.bPacket Pg. 70 SUNGARD PENTAMATION INC PAGE NUMBER: 8DATE: 10/09/2019 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ACCTPA21TIME: 10:21:49 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date between ’20190926 00:00:00.000’ and ’20191009 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 4/20 FUND - 001 - GENERAL FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT VENDOR NAME FUND/DIVISION -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT10100 PP20/19D 10/03/19 PAYROLL PAYROLL TRANSFER 113 P/R TRANSFER-20/PP 19 0.00 6,539.5310100 PP20/19D 10/03/19 PAYROLL PAYROLL TRANSFER 115 P/R TRANSFER-20/PP 19 0.00 11,974.3910100 PP20/19D 10/03/19 PAYROLL PAYROLL TRANSFER 138 P/R TRANSFER-20/PP 19 0.00 1,650.1010100 PP20/19D 10/03/19 PAYROLL PAYROLL TRANSFER 139 P/R TRANSFER-20/PP 19 0.00 965.7810100 PP20/19D 10/03/19 PAYROLL PAYROLL TRANSFER 141 P/R TRANSFER-20/PP 19 0.00 965.7810100 PP20/19D 10/03/19 PAYROLL PAYROLL TRANSFER 001 P/R TRANSFER-20/PP 19 0.00 186,983.8010100 PP20/19D 10/03/19 PAYROLL PAYROLL TRANSFER 112 P/R TRANSFER-20/PP 19 0.00 6,586.99TOTAL CHECK 0.00 215,666.37TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 1,855,333.04TOTAL FUND 0.00 1,855,333.04TOTAL REPORT 0.00 1,855,333.046.3.bPacket Pg. 71 Agenda #: 6.4 Meeting Date: October 15, 2019 TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council FROM: Daniel Fox, City Manager TITLE: SECOND AMENDMENT TO CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH LAE ASSOCIATES, INC. STRATEGIC GOAL: Open, Engaged & Responsive Government RECOMMENDATION: Approve, and authorize the Mayor to sign, the Second Amendment to the Engineering Consulting Services Agreement with LAE Associates, Inc. increasing the not -to-exceed contract amount from $124,200 to $223,200. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Salary savings from vacant positions in the Public Works Department will offset the cost of the consulting services. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In November 2018, an Associate Engineer, and in February 2019, a Senior Civil Engineer vacated their positions with the City. To temporarily backfill the openings in the department, LAE Associates, Inc. (LAE) was engaged and has provided staffing needs on a part-time basis since February 5, 2019. LAE placed a Senior Project Manager at City Hall to manage multiple capital improvement projects as well as assist department staff with engineering tasks. The original Agreement with LAE was for a not -to-exceed amount of $45,000, and the budget was exhausted in mid-April 2019. To help bridge the gap with staffing needs, until potential recruitments were completed, LAE provided continued services through August 31, 2019 (First Amendment), for an additional amount of $79,200. The total cost of the services was $124,200 and was offset by salary/benefit savings. The City Council has made the development and maintenance of a professional and effective workforce to serve the public a priority. Considering these vacancies within 6.4 Packet Pg. 72 the Public Works Department, three (3) new job classifications were approved and funded in FY 2019-2020: Public Works Manager/Assistant City Engineer, Engineering Technician, and Public Works Inspector. Both the Engineering Technician and Public Works Inspector positions have been recently filled. However, the recent recruitment for the newly created position of Public Works Manager/Assistant City Engineer was unsuccessful in retaining a qualified candidate; therefore, a second recruitment will ensue in the coming months. In the interim, the Public Works Department is in need of continued project management and engineering assistance. LAE is able to provide the same Senior Project Manager who is familiar with City projects and engineering tasks. Staff is anticipating the Public Works Manager/Assistant City Engineer position to be filled beginning in April 2020. A Second Amendment to the Original Agreement in the amount of $99,000 will bring the total contract cost to $223,200 and it will be offset by seven months of salary/benefit savings. Staff recommends the City Council approve the Second Amendment with LAE Associates, Inc. in the amount of $99,000. LEGAL REVIEW: The City Attorney has reviewed and approved the Second Amendment. PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY: Attachments: 1. 6.4.a LAE - Second Amendment with Exhibit B 6.4 Packet Pg. 73 6.4.aPacket Pg. 74 6.4.aPacket Pg. 75 6.4.aPacket Pg. 76 6.4.aPacket Pg. 77 6.4.aPacket Pg. 78