Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/15/2010 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 15, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Herrera led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Pastor Mark Hopper, Evangelical Free Church, gave the invocation. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ling -Ling Chang, Ron Everett, Jack Tanaka, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Tye and Mayor Carol Herrera. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle, Asst. City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; Ken Desforges, IS Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Ryan McLean, Assistant to the City Manager; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Natalie Tobon, Planning Technician; Christian Malpica-Perez, Associate Engineer (Traffic); Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer; Patrick Gallegos, Management Analyst; Anthony Santos, Management Analyst; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. Also Present: Mark Rogers, TRG Land and Peter Lewandowski, Environmental Impact Sciences (consultants for Site D) APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS 1.1 Steve Remige, President of Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs, (ALADS), presented a plaque to the City Council as a thank you to the City for its ongoing support for quality public safety services. Lt. Maxey joined the Council for the photo opportunity. NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH: 1.2 MPT/Tye presented City Tiles to Charlie Cobb, Manager and Bob Chu, owner of Burger King located at 2711 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. and 527 S. Grand Ave., as Business of the Month. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None Offered. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Allen Wilson asked the Council to amend its City Charter to forbid City Council Members from participating in CalPers, collecting medical JUNE 15, 2010 retirement and other "perks". PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL Jessee Lantz, Librarian, spoke about the Diamond Bar Library's summer reading programs. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: CM/DeStefano responding to Mr. Wilson, stated that the incidents that have occurred in other San Gabriel Valley cities involving Council Members is certainly not reflective of the City of D.B. The five members that currently serve and the 14 members prior to these five have served with honor and dignity for the City and its residents extraordinarily well over the past 21 years. The speaker referred to the need to develop an ordinance or to draft a Charter amendment with respect to the potential for City Council Members seeking unemployment benefits after they have concluded their service. D.B. is not a Charter City. D.B. is a General Law City and therefore must follow State Law. There are agencies outside of the City of D.B. that determine whether unemployment benefits are appropriate for former City Council Members. At this point there is no need for any follow up. To reiterate, this type of behavior is not reflective of the history of D.B. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Planning Commission Meeting — June 22, 2010 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.2 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — June 24, 2010 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.3 4th of July Blast — July 4, 2010 — 5:00 p.m., Diamond Bar High School, 21400 Pathfinder Rd. Music and Entertainment begin at 5:30 p.m. - Fireworks begin at 9:00 p.m. Free parking and shuttle service is available from the Cal Trans Park and Ride on Pathfinder Rd. 5.4 4th of July Holiday — Monday, July 5, 2010 — City Offices closed in observance of 4th of July. Offices reopen Tuesday, July 6, 2010 at 7:30 a.m. 5.5 City Council Meeting — July 6, 2010 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.6 Concerts in the Park — July 7, 2010 — 6:30 to 8:00 pm, "The Answer" (Classic Rock) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL 5.7 Movies Under the Stars — July 7, 2010 — Planet 51 — Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Tanaka approve the Consent Calendar as following Roll Call: moved, C/Everett seconded, to presented. Motion carried by the AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Everett, Tanaka, MPT/Tye M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 6.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6.1.1 Study Session of May 18, 2010—as submitted. 6.1.2 Regular Meeting of May 18, 2010 —as submitted. 6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of May 11, 2010. 6.3 RECEIVED AND FILED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of April 22, 2010. 6.4 RECEIVED AND FILED TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of March 11, 2010. 6.5 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER — Dated May 14, 2010 through June 8, 2010 totaling $1,312.182.17. 6.6 APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT— Month of April 2010. 6.7 CITY MANAGER'S DEPARTMENT: a) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-18: DECLARING THE CITY'S SUPPORT FOR AN ENERGY PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA EDISON AND THE CITY OF D.B. b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-19: CONSENTING TO INCLUSION OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THE INCORPORATED AREA OF THE CITY IN THE LOS ANGELES COUNTY ENERGY PROGRAM TO FINANCE DISTRIBUTED GENERATION RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES AND ENERGY AND WATER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS, APPROVING THE REPORT SETTING FORTH THE PARAMETERS OF THE REFERENCED PROGRAM AND CERTAIN MATTERS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH. JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL c) APPROVED CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH FIELDMAN/ROLAPP & ASSOCIATES. d) APPROVED THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION IN THE 2010 EDWARD BYRNE MEMORIAL JUSTICE ASSISTANCE GRANT (JAG) PROGRAM. e) APPROVED COST OF LIVING INCREASE TO THE HOURLY RATES FOR THE CITY ATTORNEY JENKINS & HOGIN. 6.8 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTS: a) APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 4 TO THE CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DIANA CHO AND ASSOCIATES FOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) LABOR AND CONTRACT COMPLIANCE SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,000 FOR FY 2009-10. b) APPROVED CONTRACT WITH DIANA CHO AND ASSOCIATES FOR CDBG CONTRACT ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR A NOT -TO -EXCEED AMOUNT OF $25,000 FOR FY 2010-11. c) APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO THE CITY'S AGREEMENT FOR LEGAL SERVICES IN CONJUNCTION WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT WITH DAPEER, ROSENBLIT & LITVAK, LLP. 6.9 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT: a) APPROVED CONTRACT WITH REPUBLIC ITS FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR THREE FISCAL YEARS (FY 2010-2011, FY 2011-2012 AND FY 2012-13). b) APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARDED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WITH RJ NOBLE COMPANY FOR RESIDENTIAL AREA 6 (NORTH OF SR 60 FWY AND EAST OF DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD) RESIDENTIAL ROAD MAINTENANCE PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $908,712; AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $91,000 FOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $999,712. c) APPROVED NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR PREVENTATIVE STREET MAINTENANCE PROGRAM (ZONE 3 AND ZONE 4 ARTERIAL STREET REHABILITATION PROJECT) FEDERAL JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL PROJECT NO. ESPL-5455(013). d) APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARDED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR PATHFINDER MEDIAN PROJECT BETWEEN THE NORTHBOUND STATE ROUTE 57 ON/OFF RAMPS AND FERN HOLLOW DRIVE IN THE AMOUNT OF $89,937.50 TO KASA CONSTRUCTION AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $18,000 FOR CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $107,937.50. e) APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARDED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD RAISED MEDIAN MODIFICATION PROJECT (IN FRONT OF THE DIAMOND BAR POST OFFICE) IN THE AMOUNT OF $54,843.50 TO ELITE COMPANIES US, INC. AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $5,500 FOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $60,343.50. fl APPROVED NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL BATTERY BACKUP SYSTEM PROJECT. 6.10 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTS: a) APPROVED INCREASE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT FOR MEGA WAY ENTERPRISES IN THE AMOUNT OF $3,731 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF SYCAMORE CANYON TRAIL PROJECT — PHASE III. b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-20: APPROVING SUBMITTAL OF A GRANT APPLICATION FOR FUNDING TO CONSTRUCT FREESTANDING OUTDOOR INTERPRETIVE EXHIBITS ALONG SYCAMORE CANYON PARK TRAIL. 6.11 IS DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTS: a) AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A FIVE YEAR AGREEMENT WITH COMPUCOM FOR MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO - EXCEED $105,651.65 ($21,130.33 ANNUALLY). b) AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE VARIOUS NETWORKING EQUIPMENT AND COMPUTER HARDWARE FROM CDWG, IN FY 2010-11 FOR AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED $181,000. JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL 6.12 FINANCE DEPARTMENT'S REQUESTS: a) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-21: SETTING PROPOSITION 4 (GANN) APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY 2010-11 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 9 OF TITLE 1 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE. b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-22: ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT POLICY FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-11. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 PUBLIC HEARINGS FOR LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE DISTRICT NO'S 38, 39 AND 41: a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-23: LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR'S LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR FY 2010-11. b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-24: LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR'S LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE FY 2010-11. c) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-25: LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR'S LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE FY 2010-11. PWD/Liu reported that the City has an annual maintenance program for landscaping and open space improvements for District's 38, 39 and 41. District 38 has a proposed levy rate of $15 per parcel which will generate about $268,000 in assessment for FY 2010-11. This assessment rate of $15 per parcel has remained the same since the date of incorporation in 1989. As a result of the rising operational and maintenance costs of the district the City has been using its General Fund to maintain service levels. For FY 2010-11 $14,867 from the General Fund is proposed to be used to pay for the operation and maintenance costs in District 38. Not reflected in the District 38 budget is $36,100 from the General Fund for personnel service costs. The total annual budget for District 38 is _ $282,617. Landscaping improvements maintained by District 38 include an estimated 17,850 parcels and parkways and medians JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL throughout the City for a total area of approximately 10.34 acres. Staff recommends that the assessment district amount of $15 for each assessable lot within District 38 be confirmed and that the resolution levying an assessment for FY 2010-11 be adopted. District 39 has a proposed levy rate of $130 per parcel which will generate approximately $164,190 in assessments. Similar to District 38, costs have outpaced the revenues and the current assessment rate is inadequate to maintain and improve District 39 without utilizing the General Fund. For FY 2010-11, $57,042 General Fund monies are proposed to pay for the operation and maintenance costs and $36,100 General Fund monies for personnel services costs. The District budget totals $221,232. Landscaping improvements maintained by District 39 include the mini parks, slopes and open space area within the district consisting of a total maintenance area of almost 61 acres. The estimated number of parcels within the District is 1,263. Staff is recommending that District 39 assessment value of $130 per parcel be confirmed and that the resolution levying an assessment for FY 2010-11 be adopted by the City Council. District 41 has a proposed levy rate of $220.50 which will generate approximately $122,157 in assessments. This assessment is inadequate to maintain and improve District 41 without utilizing the General Fund. For FY 2010-11, $20,000 of Prop A State Park funds are proposed to pay for the operation and maintenance costs and $36,100 of General Fund for personnel services costs. The District budget totals $183,368. Landscaping improvements to be maintained by District 41 include slopes and open space consisting of a total maintenance area of almost 16 acres. The estimated number of parcels within the District is 554. Staff recommends that the assessment amount of $220.50 for each assessable lot within District 41 to be confirmed and that the resolution levying an assessment for FY 2010-11 be adopted. M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing at 7:11 p.m. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, M/Herrera closed the Public Hearing at 7:12 p.m. MPT/Tye thanked PWD/Liu for his comprehensive report. He reiterated that the assessment rates remain the same as the rate -- applied at the date of D.B.'s incorporation 21 years ago. C/Everett asked why the report refers to "estimated" parcel numbers rather than exact numbers. JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL PWD/Liu stated that staff confirmed the number of parcels within each assessment district with the help of the City's Assessment Engineer and the numbers presented to Council are close to the latest available information. "Estimates" are used to convey staff's report is as close to reality as possible based on information available at the time of the survey. C/Everett moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to adopt Resolution 2010- 23, 2010-24 and 2010-25 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Everett, Tanaka, MPT/Tye, M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 7.2 A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VARIOUS ACTIONS PERTAINING TO SITE D (A SITE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 AND 8714-015-001) INCLUDING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-03, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2007-04, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2007-01 ("SITE D SPECIFIC PLAN"), TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 70687, AND CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2007- 02 (SCH NO. 2008021014). a) RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX: CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2008021014) AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SITE D SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 70687 FOR A SITE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8714-002- 900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714--002-903 AND 8714- 015-001). b) RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX: APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-03 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 2007-04 FOR PROPERTY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714- 002-903 AND 8714-015-001). c) RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX: APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 70687 FOR SUBDIVISION OF 30.36 ACRE SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PURPOSES WITH 202 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 153,985 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USE ON PROPERTY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN 8714-002-900, 8714-002- 903 AND 8714-045-001). d) ORDINANCE NO. OX (2010): APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2007-04 CHANGING THE EXISTING ZONING TO SPECIFIC PLAN FOR PROPERTY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 8714-002-900, 8714-002- 901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 AND 8714-015-001). e) ORDINANCE NO. OX (2010): APPROVING SITE D SPECIFIC PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2007-01, FOR PROPERTY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 AND 8714-015- 001). CDD/Gubman stated that the plan presented to the Council for consideration this evening is the result of a cooperative effort between the City of Diamond Bar and the Walnut Valley Unified School District. This effort began in June 2007 with the City Council's approval of a MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) between the School District and the City where it was agreed that the two agencies would embark on a planning process to establish a comprehensive and forceful planning strategy for Site D and to do so prior to putting the property on the market for sale. To further this goal, it was agreed that a specific plan would be the most appropriate planning tool to better ensure a predictable outcome for the eventual buildout of the site. The City and School District agreed to engage the services of Planning Firm TRG Land to prepare the Specific Plan which includes both the physical plan for the site and the regulations that would govern its buildout. TRG JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL specializes in hillside design so the company was well qualified to formulate a buildable and aesthetically appropriate design solution for Site D's complex topography. Staff selected Peter Lewandowski, principal of the firm Environmental Sciences to prepare the Site D Specific Plan Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mr. Lewandowski has worked with the City to provide other EIR's and provided other environmental consulting services over the years and is an excellent analyst who consistently delivers detailed, exhaustive, transparent and defensible environmental documents for D.B. CDD/Gubman then presented an overview of the decision making process which included an explanation of what is a Specific Plan, the purposes of an Environmental Impact Report and conclude the discussion with a project overview and explanation for the decisions the Council will be making at the end of the hearing process. A Specific Plan is a detailed blueprint to guide future development over a specific geographic area. A Specific Plan is a much more robust prescription for development than conventional zoning designations. It is not a project development plan that one would see for a shopping center or residential subdivision; however, it does specify the criteria to which such future developments must adhere. The Site D Specific Plan includes a land use diagram that is very much like a zoning map in that it shows the boundaries for -- development designated for residential and commercial uses but goes beyond that. This Specific Plan contains development regulations and architectural design guidelines, provides graphic and written specifications for onsite improvements and describes the public improvements that will be required as part of the plan's implementation. An adopted Specific Plan will enable the City to exert much more control over the outcome of subsequent development after the property is sold than what would be possible if the property is sold "as is". CDD/Gubman explained the purpose of an Environmental Impact Report using a slide presentation. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) process is prescribed under the California Environmental Quality Act (SEQA) and because of the potential environmental impacts that this project poses, an EIR is required. The framework for an EIR as called out in SEQA provides basic mandates the City must follow through the environmental process. One important function of the SEQA process is to inform governmental decision makers and the public about the potential environmental effects on proposed activities. Also, SEQA is intended to identify the ways that environmental damage can be avoided or significantly reduced. SEQA was also created to prevent significant avoidable damage to the environment by JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL requiring changes in projects through the use of alternatives or mitigation measures when the government agency finds the changes to be feasible. The purpose of SEQA is to disclose to the public the reasons why a government agency approved the project in a manner the agency chose if significant environmental impacts are involved. The bottom line of SEQA and those basic purposes is to provide an objective process to disclose and to minimize environmental damage. CDD/Gubman stated that the purpose of the EIR is to inform other governmental agencies as well as the public of the environmental impact of the proposed project. There are two major milestones in the EIR process. One is the drafting of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) which is collectively referred to as the Draft EIR; and, two the process of bringing the Draft EIR to the public and respond to any comments and make any changes if defects in the document are identified such as an eventual decision on a land use matter that the EIR was prepared to analyze. For Site D the Draft EIR process began in earnest with the publication of a Notice of Preparation. There was a 30 day notice period February 1 through March 5, 2008 wherein the City informed public agencies through the State's Clearinghouse, direct outreach to public agencies and notification to property owners within a 1000 ft. radius of Site D that an EIR was going to be prepared with the objective of having early identification to the City of what types of environmental issues are of concern that should be looked at. During the Notice of Preparation period the City also conducted a public scoping meeting on February 21, 2008, which provided a public forum to hear in a collective, efficient setting what the concerns were pertaining to environmental issues. Following the NOP process, the City drafted the Draft EIR which was completed in late Spring of 2009 after several screen check drafts were vetted through staff. When the document was ready for public review the City issued a Notice of Completion which started a 45 -day public review period for public agencies and residents to review the Draft EIR and provide comments on Environmental issues that were believed to be inadequately addressed or if questions were raised as to how the EIR analyzed certain issue areas. At the conclusion of the public review period staff collected all of the written and oral comments and began the process of a final EIR. CDD/Gubman further stated that the final EIR in terms of the - document is comprised of several volumes including the Draft EIR, technical appendices which are the scientific and technical/engineering reports that provide the data, and the specialized scientific analysis of the environmental impacts that are then collected and summarized in the Environmental Impact JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL Report. The final EIR also includes all of the comments received during the public review period and all responses to those comments. Ultimately, the role of the EIR in the decision making process is for the public agency to review the disclosures contained in that document and not to decide to approve or carry out a project for which an EIR was prepared unless either the project, as approved, doesn't have a significant effect on the environment; or, that the agency has eliminated or substantially lessened all of the significant affects on the environment, where feasible, and determined that any remaining significant affects on the environment are found to be unavoidable are acceptable due to overriding considerations. He reiterated that every comment that raises environmental issues must receive a written response. The EIR process generates many comments that go beyond the scope of environmental issues and as the scope of the environmental review process is as defined, responses are made to those environmental issues. With respect to Site D's Specific Plan there is the Statement of Overriding Considerations. SEQA provides that the decision making agency would need to balance, as applicable, the economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project against its unavoidable environmental impacts when determining whether to approve the project. If specific economic, legal, social, technological or other benefits of the proposed project outweigh the unavoidable environmental impacts, then the adverse environmental impacts may be considered acceptable. CDD/Gubman presented an overview of the site and its proposed land uses including commercial and residential components recommended by TRG Consulting and stated that the proposed project would include a measurable contribution fair -share fee to improve the functionality of two intersections. CDD/Gubman stated that the Specific Plan, related applications and EIR were presented to the Planning Commission on February 13, 2010. The Commission conducted a Public Hearing that evening and continued discussion over the next two meetings. On May 11, 2010 the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council certify the EIR, adopt the Statement of Overriding Considerations, approve the General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, and Tentative Tract Map with the additional recommendation that a 1.3 acre park be included on the commercial site. staff believes that the proposed Specific Plan represents the direction initiated through the 2007 MOU process and provides the City with an appropriate long-term plan for Site D that achieves a number of objectives that are of benefit to the community including providing JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL housing at an appropriate density for the site to add to the City's housing stock to help meet the City's obligation to contribute to the region's housing needs; to provide commercial amenities in this part of the City and at an intersection that is ideally suited for that purpose; the Specific Plan ensures the City's influence on the site's future build out; and, the land sale of the site and its proceeds will help further the WVUSD's educational mission. CDD/Gubman introduced Mark Rogers, TRG Land; Peter Lewandowski, Environmental Impact Sciences; Steve Sasaki, staff's contract traffic engineering consultant; Dr. Cynthia Simms, Superintendent, WVUSD; Carolyn Elfelt, WVUSD Trustee. CM/DeStefano stated that the residential and commercial pads are related to Tentative Tract Map 70687, a copy of which has been provided to the City Council and reviewed by the Planning Commission. This Parcel Map is proposed to generally commence the process of reconfiguring these acres in order to accommodate the proposed land uses. The Map talks about redistributing the acreage into three parcels — one for commercial and two for residential. The Map also identifies seven lettered lots, five of which are set aside for Open Space and two for roadways within the 30 plus acre site. The staff report incorporates 16 additional major exhibits including the aforementioned items as well as, all of the letters that have been received, communications prior to the Planning Commission's Public Hearing, Planning Commission staff reports, actions that occurred at the Planning Commission meetings, minutes of the Planning Commission meetings and all communication received since the Planning Commission's conclusions including one communication received today. Staff has provided the City Council with all documentation that would allow the Council to make its decision this evening, should it choose to do so. Staff is recommending that the City Council Open the Public Hearing, receive public testimony, bring the matter back to the City Council for discussion, direct City staff as necessary and continue the matter to a date in July specified by the City Council. This project has been documented on the City's website for many months and staff has provided a City Council agenda that includes all of the supplemental material so that the public has an opportunity to view all materials received by the City Council. M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing at 8:07 p.m. and invited Mark Rogers, TRG Land, and Dr. Cyndy Simms, WVUSD to speak on the matter. Dr. Simms stated that the School District has suffered major budget reductions due to the State's economy and the legislature's JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL decision to make cuts to public schools. As a result, the School District and School Board have had to act very responsibly to balance the District's budget. WVUSD believes that the sale of Site D would provide an opportunity to assist the School District with its operations if the sale takes place within a two-year window. The WVUSD respectfully asks that the City Council approve the recommendations of staff contained in staffs report on Page 2. Margot Eiser, Montebello, spoke in opposition to the project and in favor of leaving the property as open space. Ernie Salas, Andy Salas and Matt Teutimez, Covina, representing the Gabrieleno Band of Mission Indians, San Gabriel, California, said they were never given notice of this project and that their Indian tribe were the inhabitants of this area and oppose the project proposed on historical grounds. Matt Teutimez, biologist for the tribe, said that the natives look at this site as containing components that were utilized by their ancestors. John Martin, 1249 S. Diamond Bar Blvd., asked that the following issue be entered into the Public Hearing record: The SEQA requirement that viable alternatives be presented in any EIR was circumvented by the City's agreement with WVUSD via the MOU. He hoped the Council would give up the $300,000 reimbursement and vote against the proposal. Carolyn Elfelt, Board of Trustees, WVUSD, apologized to the City of D.B. and the community for being so slow to explain why the District needs to sell the property at Diamond Bar Blvd. and Brea Canyon Rd. She is sorry that the rumors about the property are running rampant and causing concern among the citizens. Regardless of the rumors, the harsh reality is there is a fiscal crisis in California. Sacramento has failed to adequately fund schools to continue the programs it demands the Districts to provide. California schools are desperately trying to survive the worst years of funding shortages since the great depression of the 1930's which lasted a decade. Today's budget challenges are not going away anytime soon. In Walnut Valley we are in a perfect storm of declining enrollment, economic cycles and legislative actions that add to educational requirements but fail to provide funding to support and sustain those requirements. There is no good news out of Sacramento for school districts. Walnut Valley, like every other school district in California, is facing staggering budget deficits. Sacramento has failed to adequately fund its schools. So, _ Walnut Valley has to find its own funding sources to prepare its JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL students to survive in the highly competitive global economy of the 21St century. Walnut Valley must maximize every asset it has to save the programs students need. Funding sources of any kind are desperately needed to fill and backfill budget holes. Selling surplus property such as Site D and using the funds to backfill budget holes is a viable option. The plan before the Council tonight is a result of over 20 years of effort to create a project which will benefit the citizens of D.B. and their children's education. The process for the approval is open and public. On behalf of the Board of Trustees of Walnut Valley, thank you City Council and City staff for enabling Walnut Valley to use its surplus property for the benefit of its students. David R. Busse, 21455 Ambushers St., took exception to the claim of an open process and cooperative effort. The people own this land and do not want this project. He presented the City Clerk with a petition opposing the Site D Specific Plan. Mary McCormick, 21455 Ambushers St., said she believes the proposal violates SEQA guidelines because there was no proper public participation during the Planning Commission hearings. Several residents attended the Planning Commission meetings prior to their decision to approve their recommendation to the City Council. The residents who were in that meeting were told they could not speak, that in fact, they were only allowed to speak at a public hearing. So at the Planning Commission meeting residents attempted to talk about alternatives. Chris Chung, 21470 Cold Spring Ln., asked if his letter was part of the record. He believed there had not been full disclosure of facts in this matter and mistakes of fact. Due to the lack of disclosure about the total number of units that could be built (253 units) the traffic was not analyzed properly. He pointed out other deficiencies in the General Plan as it related to the proposal. He felt if the Council approved the matter it could easily be challenged. Hilda He, 2911 Rising Star Dr., asked if the cash from the sale of the land would be used to employ more teachers, add more programs for students, etc. She preferred that the City retain the site as open space and for recreation. She asked why the City wanted to build when there were so many apartment vacancies. She was also concerned about the pollution from the additional --- traffic. Mary Rodriquez, 3419 Pasado Dr., said she was not in favor of developing Site D and did not trust the EIR. D.B. needs more park space and the time to save Site D, a historical and cultural site, is JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL Nancy Daugherty, 3010 La Paz Ln., said she wholeheartedly supported her neighbor's comments in opposition to this project. She would support a nature walk or nature park. She supports the School Board and would like to see an alternative plan for the property. School districts need revenue but the City needs to preserve its open space and wildlife habitats. Judy Leung, 21178 Running Branch, said she believed that most residents support public education but she is very concerned about what Jack LeBrun, Budget Manager of WVUSD said in April that this money cannot be used to pay for teacher salaries and school programs. Dr. Simms stated that there is a two year window for use of these funds and would like an explanation. She asked why the public is here to discuss only this plan and no other alternatives. She walked about 12 hours during the past couple of weeks and 90% of her neighbors object to this plan. She took exception to the 1000 ft. radius requirement and asked why bids were not offered to other firms for preparation of the EIR. Robert Poyner, 8115 Preston Rd., Dallas, TX, Country Hills Holding, said he understood the School District and City's financial motive. Country Hills Holding Company does not believe the commercial aspect of this plan is viable in a tough competitive market. His firm believes this plan offers a short-term financial gain and a long-term negative impact to both D.B. and its residents. Gregory Shockley, 3711 Crooked Creek, spoke in opposition to the proposed Site D Specific Plan and said he found many errors in the EIR. M/Herrera asked if staff had responses to speaker's comments CM/DeStefano stated that it is staff's recommendation to bring the matter back to the dais for discussion and that Council may want to direct staff to continue the matter to July 20. On July 20 staff can respond with answers to all of the questions and issues raised during tonight's public hearing testimony. Further, staff would recommend that the City Council continue the Public Hearing to July 20 and at that time Council can decide whether to close the Public Hearing and take action or continue the matter. M/Herrera asked for Council input. MPT/Tye asked staff to address the following issues: Was the Gabrieleno Indian tribes notified; clarification regarding the MOU JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL relative to "reimbursement"; possible violation of SEQA, and staff's opinion regarding the issue of "a taking". C/Tanaka asked staff if the Specific Plan, as presdnted is approved at a future date would that limit the potential developer to what could eventually be developed on the site. He also asked TRG if any alternatives were presented for Site D Specific Plan. C/Everett asked for clarification of use of funds by the School District because he has heard two conflicting reports regarding what the proceeds from the sale of property can be used for. He did not recall seeing oak trees being killed that may be on the property or Walnut Woodlands. He knows there are lots of Eucalyptus but if there are any other protected tree inventories he would like to have that brought back. He indeed appreciates the comments he heard tonight as well as previous comments he has heard and read. He moved here 32 years ago for the school district and schools for his kids and he feels D.B. is fortunate to have a school district that is ongoing and operating effectively since 1970. He appreciates the school leadership and has an interest in parks, trails and the environment and sustainable alternatives and thinks those needs to be a key part of any project. He further believes it would be great to protect that acreage but residents have to be realistic. It is a challenge for D.B. and he wants to balance it. He is here to listen and has heard good ideas that were not previously received because of a technicality and would like it clarified. He would like the alternatives he heard referenced but has not seen them. There is a claim that there have been no alternatives and asked for clarification. He also asked what was considered in the EIR as alternatives and would like to see that clarified as well. He said he was disappointed about the notices about Site D. He understands the frustration that people did not get the mandated notice; however, in the most recent Windmill May/June there is an article right in the middle about the "Walnut Valley property Site D for sale. This publication goes to every home in our City and has been on the web page. He has spoken to residents throughout the City about Site D and interestingly enough, he finds most of them know about Site D and have minimal concerns. Realistically we want to protect "Country Living" but we've got to be realistic and a property owner has rights. What he wants for Site D is for the neighbors to have something that they can appreciate and respect and something that all.of D.B. can view. He was delighted to see the latest charts presented by Mr. Gubman that show the land use plan_ There is a red asterisk on the corner of Brea Canyon Cutoff and Diamond Bar Blvd. that is listed as "Commercial Gateway". To him that red star is the gateway to D.B. and he wants it to be attractive and effective. He thinks the City can do it but needs JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL ideas and support rather than everyone saying "don't do anything". All who have listened to this proposal have lots of ideas. Council _ doesn't have a corner on the market. He wants to hear some ideas about how this parcel can be made into an attractive place because opportunity is knocking on Site D. He wants to balance this for the best benefit of D.B. and t he residents and not just the School District and not just for the resident who live there. He certainly does not want the project to create a path for traffic to shortcut through the City's side and back streets He thanked staff for its report and thanked M/Herrera for a chance to offer comments and questions. M/Herrera said she attended all of the Planning Commission meetings and the conversation was about a park opposite Cherryvale Dr. She would like staff to explore what a 2 acre park might look like if it were more along the edges of the homes where there could be more green space, buffer, and separation between homes on Ambushers at the very lower end of the commercial pad. At the Planning Commission meeting it was talked about at the corner/intersection of Brea Canyon Rd. and Diamond Bar Blvd. similar to a courtyard with trees and benches and shops on either side that could serve as a gathering place for people to sit and visit. It might somewhat reduce the commercial usage on that acreage. She would like staff to look at that possibility. She asked for her colleague's input. MPT/Tye said he heard a lot tonight about "alternatives" but he did not hear any specific alternatives offered. He has had conversations with folks at the south end of town and adjacent to the property and email conversations. He believes staff is correct that the City cannot tell a property owner they cannot do anything with their property. One of the notes he made to himself that he repeats publicly every time this type of project is considered is "undeveloped private property is not open space" and it is not on any plan one can find designated as open space. But what are the alternatives. When he was elected in 2005 one of the first things he attended was the grand opening of the Sprint store at Golden Springs and Diamond Bar Blvd. which he believes did not last a year. The key is that even though it is not up to him, he believes it makes more sense to have more residential. If the School District could develop this property this conversation would not be happening. If Lewis Homes and JCC Partnership had developed it, this conversation would not be happening. Personally, he did not see commercial working and he could not envision what 150,000 sq. ft. of retail would look like there. When he served on the Planning Commission Mr. DeStefano would often tell the Commission that "this is a palate and you get to create it" this is a JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL blank palate and let us create what we want it to look like. So what does that alternative mean compared to what the Council is looking at today? He is not a proponent of commercial on that property. He would rather see 100% residential and would like to know what that would mean. Whether that would be an answer for tonight or a future meeting relative to the process. He would like it made very clear for the public and those who have taken time to be here this evening that they understand that the Council is not driven by an MOU. Council is driven by what is best for D.B. — all of D.B. The property owner is a property owner in D.B. Those that spoke on behalf of the WVUSD are not only representing the School District, they are residents of D.B. Four of the five trustees are residents of D.B. It is not like they can say they only want what is best for the School District. If you have kids in school you want what is best for the School District. He did not hear anyone saying let's not do this so we can see how we can hurt the school district. No one has that in mind. So, what will work? What is the best for that area? What is the best for the School District? And, what is best for the City of D.B. and all of the citizens of D.B. He appreciated everyone's efforts to talk with residents and gather signatures but how many signatures came from people living close to the bowling alley or over by the golf course? When he talks to people around town there is interest in what might happen there but there is no fervor. He understands the fervor if someone lives there and it is their neighborhood. So, how do we craft the best product possible for that location? C/Chang said she studied this packet at length and has taken every comment under consideration. She grew up in D.B. and lives in the area. The area is very near and dear to her heart but everyone needs to step back and look at this plan in its entirety as objectively as possible. Bottom line is that D.B. needs a project that will benefit the most people and the key phase is "public benefit". There is a school district that is in desperate need of funds and there is the City that needs sales tax revenue to support City needs such as maintenance and operation of existing parks. Within 14.9 sq. miles D.B. has nine parks and has a wildlife corridor with a trail running through it. D.B. has many amenities for its residents. As she sees the situation, these are the options. She hears a lot of folks asking that the property remain in its current condition which is not realistic since the School District owns the property and needs to sell the property. The question is what is best for the School District whether or not that is for the benefit of the residents because if the City has a strong school district it raises the City's property values and affects the quality of life. Secondly, if this property were developed into a park, unless one were to find a developer that would develop it as a park, it is not feasible, and not realistic for the JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL City to purchase this property and be able to generate sufficient funding to operate and maintain this property as a park. Third, one hundred percent residential would not benefit the City as a whole. Granted, the City would receive a one-time fee for homes sold but it would not make up for the additional daily traffic and the City would lose potential sales tax revenue without commercial/retail which is much needed for the maintenance and upkeep of the City. Additionally, the true value of public benefit would exist only for those homeowners at the new housing development. The Site D Plan as presented is a win-win for the School District, the City and its residents. D.B. gets new residents and a beautiful new shopping center. The beauty of this Specific Plan is that the City gets more control over what the development will look like rather than have it look similar to Kmart. What she envisions is a center that will have an interactive public plaza at its heart very much like the Grove where one can interact with their neighbors. D.B. has 60,000 residents and it is desperately lacking in the selection of goods and services. D.B. needs better shopping options in D.B. and she is making it her priority to attract potential opportunities to open here in D.B. If D.B. is truly unable to attract commercial real estate the area could be rezoned for residential. So what is there to lose by proceeding with the proposed Specific Plan? Economic Development has been a priority goal for D.B. for many years and now the City Council is presented with an opportunity to move a — few steps forward toward that goal and this is an opportunity to start with a clean palate. Let us be forward thinking and not pass up this opportunity to reap the most benefit for all concerned out of all of the options. She has studied this at length and her option is to go with the option that benefits the most residents of D.B. MPT/Tye said he was pleased that C/Chang had a goal of attracting good retailers because this Council has tried for 21 years to do just that. She brought up the matter of sales tax revenue which he overlooked and what he would like to know what would work in 150,000 sq. ft. and how much sales tax revenue a grocery store or drug store would produce. The largest producers of sales tax revenue in the City are gas stations. So what would go there? Costco, Lowes, Home Depot or some other retailer and how would someone find a retailer at that location? Many commercial and retail entities have not made it in D.B. and he thinks the last thing D.B. needs is another strip mall or neighborhood center. C/Chang said she was not interested in another strip mall. She thought there were other retail options such as Whole Foods (55,000 sq. ft.) or Trader Joes. What does D.B. have to lose at this moment because she optimistically believes that the City can potentially attract a very nice shopping center. What does the City JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL have to lose because the property could still be rezoned residential so where is the harm in attempting to move this plan forward. If it doesn't work out, rezone the property for residential. M/Herrera asked CM/DeStefano to respond to C/Chang. CM/DeStefano spoke about marketing the property for both residential and commercial purposes as proposed. If the marketing of the commercial is unsuccessful the project could then move to an all -residential mode. Since that might not be what the City Council approved, moving it to an all residential mode would require changes to the existing approved documents which would require a process similar to that which is occurring, i.e., possible amendments to the environmental documents depending on what the residential project is, sending the project through the process to the Planning Commission and then to the City Council. The short answer is that it is possible but there would be various steps along the way that would need to be undertaken and fully exhausted before the City would get to that point. C/Everett said he would not like to get stuck on the traditional comparisons of commercial versus residential but rather get creative. He asked anyone interested to come up with creative ideas and share them with the Council. He suggested a 215t Century model based on the technology research for parks that many corporations and many cities have developed for decades which he believed would be very functional and stimulating. He suggested a possible headquarters for WVUSD which could include a child development center, professional and educational offices and meeting places that would all fit in a park setting with open and play space. The public could use the facility on weekends. In his vision it could be the best representation of a school district anywhere. It would be visible to the City which is a family city, fundamentally built on education so there could be some synergy there. Something of that nature with the aesthetics and appeal for an entry such as water fountains, water works with water flowing to create sound, visual and emotional aesthetics would be phenomenal. If staff could come back with something along those lines certainly that would be more of a decision that would involve the WVUSD and he would ask them to be innovative and join in because that could free up some land that may be much more attractive economically. C/Tanaka felt the most important thing the Council needed to do was to listen to the residents. As long as the public hearing process is still open Council should continue to listen and consider the alternatives. He reiterated that he had not heard or seen JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL alternatives and would like to explore that issue before reaching a conclusion. M/Herrera asked if staff had clear direction. CM/DeStefano said that staff took copious notes and will refer to the meeting tapes and go back and digest Council comments. CA/Jenkins offered the following alternatives to the City Council. One which does not seem likely is for the City Council to close the Public Hearing and make a decision tonight. The second alternative would be to close the Public Hearing and continue it for purposes of getting answers to Council questions and then further deliberate and render a decision at a future meeting. The implications of that option are that the Council would not take any further testimony and would simply come back as a staff with answers to questions and responses to comments that were made by the public. The Council would have a chance to deliberate on what is in front of the City Council and make its decision. The third option is to keep the hearing open and then continue the item to a future meeting. At that future meeting staff would provide responses to comments that were made by the public and would provide answers to Council questions. The City Council would then reserve the opportunity to have more testimony. With respect to this option, the Council might wish to give some consideration now to whether it would simply reopen all testimony so that everyone who spoke tonight could come back and speak again and repeat everything that they said or, take testimony only from people who have not spoken tonight, or only take testimony that is responsive to or reactive to staff's responses and answers to questions. The fourth option is raised by MPT/Tye's comments and that is if three members of the City Council have already decided that they would like this to be all residential then the City Council could remand this back to the Planning Commission for consideration of a one hundred percent residential project. If that is the direction the Council is going it will have to sooner or later remand it back to the Planning Commission so the efficient process would be to remand it back now; but only if the Council has a majority who are prepared to go in that direction. That is because under the governing statute any significant change to what is recommended to the City Council tonight that has not yet been considered fully by the Planning Commission needs to go back to that Commission. CDD/Gubman and he discussed this matter this afternoon and it is their collective feeling that a one hundred percent residential project was not fully considered by the Planning Commission. JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 23 CITY COUNCIL Following discussion, M/Herrera suggested that the Public Hearing be continued to July 20 wherein staff will come back with responses which will most likely be voiced prior to public input and then the public can comment on staff's responses including those who have spoken this evening. She asked for Council concurrence and Council unanimously concurred. M/Herrera moved, C/Everett seconded to continue the Public Hearing to July 20, 2010. Without objection, the motion was so ordered. 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None 9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Everett made general comments regarding events that recently took place. C/Tanaka reported that on May 29 he attended the American Cancer Society D.B. Relay for Life Survivor's Breakfast; the DBHS graduation; D.B. Chinese American Advocates Association 17th Annual Awards Ceremony; Eagle Scout Ceremony for Shaun McGuire, Troop 730; D.B. Chinese American Association's 20th Annual Gala and Fundraiser; Pantera Elementary School PTA Appreciation Tea; D.B. Tiny Tots Graduation; American Cancer Society's D.B. Relay for Life; Eagle Scout Ceremony for Chris Moncreif; and this evening a retirement event for Principal Denis Paul, DBHS. He asked that tonight's meeting be adjourned in his honor. C/Chang continues to post events she has attended online. She attended Armstrong Elementary and Diamond Point Elementary open houses; the League of California Cities Legislative Day; the Pantera Elementary Volunteer Appreciation Tea; the DB Relay for Life and Principal Denis Paul's retirement. MPT/Tye said that in consideration of the late hour he wished everyone good night and God bless. M/Herrera wished Principal Denis Paul Good Luck and Godspeed on the event of his retirement. Principal Paul had a big impact on her son and touched many other lives. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Herrera adjourned the Regular City Council meeting at 10:10 p.m. in honor of retiring DBHS Principal Denis Paul. JUNE 15, 2010 PAGE 24 CITY COUNCIL TOMMY9 CRIBB!NS, CI'T1r" CLERK The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 6th day of July 2010. w4v�ll CAROL HERRERA, MAYOR