Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/17/20041 THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY ADELPHIA FOR AIRING ON CHANNEL 3 AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE -BROADCAST EVERY SATURDAY AT 9:00 A.M. AND EVERY TUESDAY AT 8:00 P.M. ON CHANNEL 3. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FEBRUARY 17, 2004 STUDY SESSION: 5:00 p.m. CC -8 D.B. Center Grand Opening Update Economic Development Update — Country Hills Towne Center Goals and Objectives Review Public Comments on Study Session Items CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor INVOCATION: Pastor Ab Kastle, Diamond Canyon Christian Church ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Herrera, Mayor Zirbes APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 1.1. Proclaiming Black History Month. 1.2 Presentation of Certificate of Recognition to Ingrid Johnson, recipient of the Diversity Leadership Award sponsored by CalPoly. 1.3 Volunteer Patrol Recognition — 100 hours, 250 hours, 500 hours, 1000 hours and 2500 hours. 1.4 Introduction of the new Children's Librarian, Amy Cosato by Irene Wang, Community Library Manager. NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH: 1.5 Present Certificate Plaque to Cold Stone Creamery as "New Business of the Month" FEBRUARY 17, 2004 PAGE 2 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 2.1 Presentation of Transportation Strategy Report — McDermott Consulting, Inc. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda. Although the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the Council generally cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk (completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressina the Citv Council. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT: Under the Brown Act, members of the City Council may briefly respond to public comments but no extended discussion and no action on such matters may take place. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 FUNDRAISER FOR SUCCESS THROUGH AWARENESS AND RESISTANCE (STAR) PROGRAM — February 19, 2004 — 5:00 p.m. to 9 p.m., Cold Stone Creamery, 1127 Grand Ave. 5.2 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION — February 19, 2004 — 7:00 p.m., Room CC - 8, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.3 COMMUNITY COORDINATING COMMITTEE MEETING — February 23, 2004 — 7:00 p.m., CC 3 and 5, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — February 24, 2004 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.5 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION — February 26 2004 — 7:00 p.m. AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.6 HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS/E-WASTE DRIVE — February 28, 2004 — 9:00 a.m. — 3:00 p.m., Gateway Corporate Center, 1300 block of Bridge Gate Dr. 5.7 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE — March 1, 2004 — 7 p.m., Diamond Bar/Walnut Sheriff Station, 21695 E. Valley Blvd., Walnut 5.8 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — March 2, 2004 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. FEBRUARY 17, 2004 PAGE 3 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 6.1.1 Study Session —January 20, 2004 —Approve as submitted. 6.1.2 Study Session — February 3, 2004 — Approve as submitted. Requested by: City Clerk 6.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.2.1 Regular Meeting of January 13, 2004 — Receive and file. 6.2.2 Regular Meeting of January 27, 2004 — Receive and file. Requested by: Planning Division 6.3 WARRANT - Approve Warrant Registers dated February 5, 2004 and February 12, 2004 in the amount of $477,203.43. Requested by: Finance Division 6.4 APPROVE AMENDMENT TO THE CONTRACT WITH CONRAD AND ASSOCIATES, LLP IN THE AMOUNT OF $7,250 AND APPROPRIATE THE NECESSARY FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES. Recommended Action: Approve amendment. Requested by: Finance Division 6.5 AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO PURCHASE COMPUTER NETWORK HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE FROM CDW IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $60,000. Recommended Action: Approve purchase. Requested by: Information Systems 6.6 AWARD CONTRACT TO ORANGE COUNTY CATERING COMPANY FOR CATERING SERVICES AT THE DIAMOND BAR CENTER GRAND OPENING GALA FOR $38,200, WITH A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $3,800. Recommended Action: Award contract. Requested by: Public Information Division 6.7 AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO CONTRACT WITH GONZALEZ FEBRUARY 17, 2004 PAGE 4 GOODALE ARCHITECTS TO CREATE A COMPUTER-GENERATED ANIMATION FOR THE PROPOSED LIBRARY PROJECT AND APPROPRIATE FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES IN THE AMOUNT OF $22,000. Recommended Action: Approve contract. Requested by: City Manager 6.8 APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH JOHN R. BINGHAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 FOR CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AND APPROPRIATE NECESSARY FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES. Recommended Action: Approve amendment. Requested by: Community Development Division 6.9 APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH MCDERMOTT CONSULTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,500 FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES AND APPROPRIATE NECESSARY FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES. Recommended Action: Approve amendment. Requested by: City Manager 6.10 AUTHORIZE INCREASE IN THE VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE WORK AT CITY PARKS BY $20,000, FOR A TOTAL 2003/04 FISCAL YEAR AUTHORIZATION OF $50,000. Recommended Action: Authorize increase. Requested by: Community Services Division 6.11 APPROPRIATE AN ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $14,938.26 FROM PROPOSITION C FUND BALANCE FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ON PATHFINDER ROAD, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $414,440.26 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY CLERK TO FILE THE NOTICE OF COMPLETION. Recommended Action: Approve appropriation and authorize filing of the Notice of Completion. Requested by: Public Works Division FEBRUARY 17, 2004 7 0 PAGE 5 PUBLIC HEARINGS: None. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 8.1 APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS TO COMMISSIONS: 8.1.1 PLANNING COMMISSION 8.1.2 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION 8.1.3 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION Requested by: City Council 8.2 APPOINTMENTS/REAPPOINTMENTS TO THE DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION. Recommended Action: Re -appoint Andrew Wong and appoint Vinod Kashyap. Requested by: City Clerk Requested by: Community Foundation COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: 10. ADJOURNMENT: Agenda # Study Session 1 Meeting Date: February 17, 2004 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager TITLE: UPDATE ON DIAMOND BAR CENTER GRAND OPENING EVENT PLANS Recommendation: It is recommended that Council receive the preliminary grand opening event plans for the Diamond Bar Center, reviewthe preliminary guest list, and direct staff on eventoptions. Discussion: The Open House and Gala Reception event outlines are as follows: Open House — Saturday, March 20, 2004— 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Commander Chuck Street and Mayor arrive via helicopterand are escorted with Council via fire truck or vintage Rolls Royce to ribbon cutting ceremony at main entrance of facility. 11 a.m. — 2 p.m.: OUTDOORS o Commander Chuck Street will have his truck and booth set up to play music, sign autographs, and giveawayt-shirts. o Community organizations that will be hosting information/activity booths include (based on first come, first serve reservation basis): K City of Diamond Bar K Diamond Bar Community Foundation K Commander Chuck Street e LA County Sheriff sDepartment e LA County Fire Department IndependentLiving Center K Friends of the Diamond Bar Library/Bond Act Support K Diamond Bar Country Vaulters K Diamond Bar Evangelical Free Church e YMCA K Council of African American Parents K Cats in Need of Human Care (DB Petsmart Adoption Center) K Diamond Bar Pop Warner Football K Walnut Valley Rotary Club Diamond Bar Chinese Association o Food and beverageswill be provided including Carls Jr. Famous Stars, Kettlekorn, sodas and water. INDOORS: Self guidedtours of facility to include: o Grand View Ballroom — Formal Event Set Up (for display only) o Sycamore Roorn/Patio — Varietyof Party Set Ups (for display only) o Pine Room —Bingo and Senior Information Tables o Maple Room — Craft Activities o Oak Room — Demonstrations (dance, karate, etc.) o Birch Room—Computer Activities Gala Receotion — Saturday. March 20.2004— 6 o.m. to 10 a.m. 6 p.m. Cocktail hour(cash bar with non-alcoholic beverages hosted) and appetizers Entertainment: Background music provided by sponsored quartet 6:30 p.m. Doors open to Grand View Ballroom 7 p.m. Dinner served Entertainment: Background music provided by sponsored live band 8 p.m. Event program begins Master of Ceremonies: Commander Chuck Street from KIIS-FM Special presentations Entertainment: Live band and dancing 10 P.M. End of event The confirmed sponsors to date are Diamond Bar Community Foundation ($1,500 - Bronze); Walnut Valley Water District ($3,500 - Silver); and D & J Municipal Services ($5,000 - Gold). At this time we do not have a Grand Sponsor, which would equal a $10,000 donation. Individual businesses have sponsored specific items includingthe live band for dinnerand dancing ($1500 value) by the Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce; a quartet for the cocktail reception entertainment ($500 value) by Remax Realty 100 (Richard Malooly); and decorative trees with lighting ($500 value) by Southern California Edison. The preliminary guest list (see Attachment A) has been drafted to include City of Diamond Bar VIPs (Council Members, Commissioners, elected officials, past Mayors); event sponsors; original Community/Senior Center Task Force members; project leaders; staff; Diamond Bar Community Foundation members; City partners (Chamberof Commerce, Library, schools, etc.); senior citizen dubs; and the media, meeting planners, wedding coordinators, etc. The invitations need to be sent out by February 19, 2004. All RSVPs will be due no later than March 12, 2004. A few options are being suggested for the event such as offering complimentary valet parking, serving wine with dinner, using glass barware, adding more decorative trees with lighting, providing outdoor lighting and/or heaters, etc. By using no more than half of the sponsor contributions (which would be $6,250 of the current total donated amount of $12,500), the City would be able to enhance the event by adding items like those mentioned above while still retaining budgeted money to allocate toward other marketing efforts for the center, such as hosting a bridal show, to generate future revenues Prepared By Reviewed By Attachment A: Grand Opening Invitation List r_V4IWITS] :IA1:401rs1 Grand Opening Invitation List The Honorable Don Knabe The Honorable Bob Pacheco The Honorable Gary Miller Supervisor, LosAnge/es County Assembly Member, StateofCA Congressman, 41' District 500 W. Temple Street, Room 822 17600 Castleton Street, Suite 125 1800 Lambert Road, # 150 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Industry, CA 91748 Brea, CA 92821 The Honorable Bob Margett The Honorable Barbara Boxer Mr. Dickie Simmons & Guest Senator, StateofCalifornia United States Senator 1199 S. Fairway, Suite # 111 23355 E Golden Springs Drive 312 Al. Spring Street, Suite 1748 Row land Heights, CA 91748 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Los Angeles, CA 90012 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 The Honorable Dianne Feinstein The Honorable Leroy Baca The Honorable Arnold Schwarznegar United States Senator Sheriff, Los Angeles County c/o Governor'sOffice 11111 Santa Monica Bbd Ste 915 4700 Ramona Bbd. 300 S. Spring St. Ste 16701 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Monterey Park, CA????? Los Angeles, CA 90013 Asst. Fire Chief Nieto & Guest Capt. Alex Yim & G uest LAC Fire Department Diamond Bar/ Walnut Station 590 S. Park Avenue 21695 E Valley Bbd. Pomona, CA 91766 M/nut, CA 91789 JoeGonsalves & Son Mr. Mike Jenkins, Esq. & Guest Park Executive Bldg. Jenkins & Hogin, LLP 925 L Street, Suite 250 1230 Rosecrans Avenue, Suite 110 Sacramento, CA 95814-3787 Manhattan Beach, CA 90266 Vice -Chairman David Grundy& Guest Commissioner Marty Torres & Guest Commissioner Andy Lui & Guest Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation Parks & Recreation 365 Covered Wagon Drive 24032 Highcrest Drive 1720 Derringer Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Commissioner Nancy Lyons& Guest Chairman Osman Mi & Guest Vice -Chairman Dan Nolan & Guest Parks & Recreation Planning Commission Planning Commission 22536 Ridgeline 24106 Lodgepole Road 23463 Wagon Trail Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chairman Steven Tye& Guest Commissioner Jack Tanaka & Guest Commissioner Steve Nelson & Guest Planning Commission Planning Commission Planning Commission 23850 Chinook Place 23805 Country View Drive 24230 Delta Drive Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Chairman Roland Morris & Guest Vice -Chairman Liana Pincher& Guest Chairman Roland Morris & Guest Traffic & Transportation Traffic & Transportation Traffic & Transportation 24317 Darrin Drive 2135 Tierra Loma Drive 24317 Darrin Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Commissioner Vinod Kashyap & Guest Commissioner Tony Tomg & Guest Chairman Jeff Hull & Guest Traffic & Transportation Traffic & Transportation Parks & Recreation 21452 Chirping Sparrow 20985 Jade Court 2006-1 Silver Hawk Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 Council Member Robert Zirbes Council Member Debby O'Connor Council Member Wbn Chang & Guest & Guest & Guest Mayor Pro Tem Robert Huff Mayor Carol Herrera & Guest & Guest Ms, Tommye Crrbbins Mr. Al Flores Mr. Jim DeFrieid & Guest & Guest & Guest Mr. Jim DeStefano Ms. Lynda Burgess Ms. Marlene Dunn & Guest & Guest & Guest Ms. Debbie Gonzales Ms. Joan Chavez Ms. Nancy Whitehouse & Guest & Guest & Guest Mr. David Liu Ms. Linda Magnuson Ms. Ann Lungu & Guest & Guest & Guest Ms. Marsha Roa Ms. Marisa Somenzi Mr. Bob Rose & Guest & Guest & Guest Ms. Dorothy Schmid Ms. Diana Belt Ms. Linda Smith & Guest & Guest & Guest Ms. April Blakey Mr, David Doyle Mr. Jorge Garcia & Guest & Guest & Guest Mr. Ryan Wight Ms. Rebecca Siu Ms. Luisa Fua & Guest & Guest & Guest Mr. Fred Alamoholda Ms. Kim Crews Ms. Sara Ktt & Guest & Guest & Guest Ms, Teresa Arevalo Ms. Sharon Gomez Ms. Stella Marquez & Guest & Guest & Guest Mr. Ruben Soriano Ms. Susan Full Mr. Ryan McLean & Guest & Guest & Guest Ms. Rita Torres Mr. Jim Bayes Mr. Javier Peraza & Guest & Guest & Guest Ms. Christy Murphey Mr. Anthony Jordan City Manager Linda Lowry & Guest & Guest & Guest Ms. Ling -Ling Chang & Guest Ms. Elena Mafla & Guest Mr. Rai Marwah & Guest 3232 BentTwig Lane 615 Chapparal Drive 2878 Oak Knoll Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, Ca 91765 Ms. Jody Roberto & Guest Ms. Mary Murshedi & Guest Mr. Andrew Vbbng & Guest 22625 Ironbark Drive 23523 Twin Springs Lane 901 Golden Springs Dr, #C-3 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Tom Sawyer & Guest Mr. Scott McGookin & Guest Mr. Ernie Delgadillo & Guest 1139 S. Grand Ave 333 Ballena Drive 2551 Sunbright Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ms. Choy Cooper& Guest Ms. Fabby Holguin & Guest Ms. Faith Lee & Guest 23826 Decorah Road 23834 Decorah Road 2349 Clear Creek Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Gary H. Vlkmer & Guest Ms. Phyllis E. Papen & Guest Mr. Jay C. Kim & Guest City of Indio 10808 Foothillebd. Image Media Services, Inc. 100 Civic Center Mall PMB 160-370 7927 Jones Branch Drive, # 100N Indio, CA 92201 Rancho Cucamonga, CA 91730 McLean, VA 22102 Ms. Eileen Ansari & Guest Mr. John A. Forbing & Guest 1823 Cliffbranch Dr. 23209 Charwood Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Norman Bell & Guest Ms. Brenda Engdahl & Guest Jack & Kathleen Neve 405 Camaritas 24047 Decorah Rd, 6 El Vecino Place Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Phillips Ranch, CA 91766 Mr. Robert Duncan & Guest Ms. Nina Goncharov & Guest Mr. Art O'Daly& Guest 745 Big Falls Drive 23631 Gold Nugget 24075 Falcons View Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ms. Maya La/van i & Guest Mr. Thom Pruitt & Guest Ms. Cheryl Jacobs & Guest 2000 Chestnut Creek Road PO Box 1832 1003 Park Spring Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 M/nut, CA 91789 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Tom Ortiz& Guest Mr. Dave Yocum & Guest Mr. Dave Oliver & Guest 3308 Hawkwood 1732 Mensha 510 Charmingdale Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Dave Schey & Guest Mr. Jerry White & Guest Ms. Loretta Redcher & Guest 1211 Greycrest Place 22600 Sunset Crossing 3207 BentTwig Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ms. Eileen Tillery & Guest Ms. Sharron Shepard & Guest Diamond Bar, CA 91765 22823 Dry Creek 559 Golden Prados Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Gonzalez Goodale Architects AP SI 135 fttGreen Street, Suite 200 15707 Rockfield, Suite 225 D&J Engineering Pasadena, CA 91105 Irvine, CA 92618 435 Willapa Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Wglnut Valley Water District Diamond Bar, CA 91765 KPRS 271 S. Brea Canyon Road Wb/nut, CA91789 Diamond Bar Chinese Association Diamond Bar Senior Citizens Club Mr. Henry Chen, President Mr. Tom Metcher, President Diamond Age Club 18402 E. Stonegate Ln. 2001-1 Silver Hawk Drive Mr. Andy Liu Rowland Heights, CA 91748 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Sunshine Seniors Mr. MangalGulsahn, President 21401 Bella Pine Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Jeff Koontz& Guest Ms. Irene Wing & Guest Mr. Eric Stone & Guest Diamond Bar Chamber ofCommerce Diamond Bar Library Diamond Bar Improvement Association 21845 Copley Drive, Suite 1170 1061 Grand Avenue PO Box 4085 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ms. J.J. Dinkin & Guest Ms. Annette Finnerty & Guest 1877 Fenhollow Drive 1854 Silver Hawk Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Mack Kuykendall & Guest Ms. Nancy Lyons& Guest Mr. Dexter MacBride & Guest 1097 Overlook Ridge Road 22536 RidgelineRoad 435 Willapa Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Daniel Oaxaca & Guest Ms. Orien Pagan & Guest Mr. Allen Wilson & Guest 23226 Montura Drive 23814 Twin Pines Lane 22809 Hilton Head Drive, #7 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ms. Mary Hall & Guest Diversified Securities 1000 Lakes Drive, #420 VlstCovina, CA 91790 Mr. Brandon Grey & Guest Emerald Point Apartments 2840 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Michael Armijo & Guest Armijo Industries 18800 Amar Road, SuiteC-13 blfalnut, CA 91789 Mr. Joe Dunn & Guest Adelphia Communications 20748 Lycoming Street Walnut, CA 91789 Ms. Sophia Palacio Palace Frame 3910 Valley Bbd., Suite G Walnut, CA 91789 Ms. Nancy McCracken & Guest Pomona Unified School District 800 S. Garey Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Mr. Steve Lustro & Guest Pomona Unified School District 800 S. Garey Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Mr. Richard Malooly & Guest Rernax Realty "100" 1411 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Larry Tanouye & Guest Citrus Valley Health Partners 1115 S. Sunset Avenue WtstCovina, CA 91790 Ms. Ilse Boykin & Guest Vineyard Bank 1200 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dr. Jeffrey Lowe & Guest Lowe Chiropractic 1135 S. Grand Avenue Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Gil Villavicencio & Guest The Mole Enchilada 1114 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Candelario Mendoza & Guest Pomona Unified School District 800 S. Garey Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Mr. Patrick Leier & Guest Pomona Unified School District 800 S. Garey Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Mr. Aziz Amiri & Guest Holiday Inn Select 21725 E. Gateway Center Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. Angel Santiago & Guest Waste Management, Inc. 13940 E. Live Oak Avenue Baldw in Park, CA 91706 Mr. RobertCoventry & Guest Starside Security & Investigations 1930 S. Brea Canyon Road, Suite #220 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Ms, Alison Meyers & Guest YMCA 22600 Sunset Crossing Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Dr. Gerald Zunino & Guest 23916 Sunset Crossing Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Mr. John Avila & Guest Pomona Unified School District 800 S, Garey Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Dr. Anyork Lee & Guest Walnut Valley Unified School District 880 S. Lenon Avenue Walnut, CA 91789 Ms. Carolyn Elfelt& Guest Mr. Larry Redinger & Guest Ms.1*/en Hall & Guest Walnut Valley Unified School District Walnut Valley Unified School District Walnut Valley Unified School District 880 S. Lemon Avenue 880 S. Lemon Avenue 880 S. Lemon Avenue Walnut, CA 91789 Walnut, CA 91789 Walnut, CA 91789 Ms. Cindy Ruiz& Guest Dr. Kent Bechler & Guest Walnut Valley Unified School District Walnut 1/alley Unified School District 880 S. Lemon Avenue 880 S. Lemon Avenue M/nut, CA 91789 Walnut, CA91789 Rodney Tanaka Chinfang Chang, Staff Witer Diamond Bar Reporter San Gabriel Valley Tribune Chinese Daily News Daily Bulletin 1210 N. Azusa Canyon Rd. 1588 Corporate Center Drive 2041 E. 4m Street KtstCovina, CA 91795 Monterey Park, CA 91754 Ontario, CA 91764 Diamond Bar Reporter Janet Dovidio, Diamond Bar Reporter Business Press Los Angeles Times Higlander Newspaper Carol Park, Reporter 5555 Ontario Mills Parkway PO Box 4000 1650 South E. Street Ontario, CA 91764 Ontario, CA 91761 San Bernardino, CA92408 GeoffChin Liz Cahn, Publisher Sing Tao Newspapers VIk-stCoast Media Magazine Ms. Laurie Paz 10 South Palm Avenue 3873 Schaefer Avenue, Suite H Windmill Magazine Alhambra, CA 91801 Chino, CA 91710 Inland Empire Magazine Meetings & Conventions Magazine Modern Bride Magazine Los Angeles Business Journal Southern California Bride Magazine Bride Magazine CITY COUNCIL TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager Agenda # Study Session 2 Meeting Date: February 17, 2004 AGENDA REPORT TITLE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT UPDATE —COUNTRY HILLS TOWN CENTER RECOMMENDATION : Receive presentation from Staff and Michael McCarthy, Owner / Developer. BACKGROUND: Staff and Council members have endeavoredto market this 28 -acre shoppingcenter for retail, restaurants, service usesand a newgrocerystore with M&H Realty Partners. M&H sold the property to MCC Capital in November 2003. Michael McCarthy, Owner/developer has collaborated with the City to improve the center, preparea new market study for a replacement grocery store operator and to spotlight the center at ICSC. Mr. McCarthy has recently prepared new site and architectural plans for the center. MCC Capital is aggressively seeking new tenants for the shopping centerto include anew grocery store, 69,000 square feet of new medical office uses, hardware store, coffee shop, restaurants and retail uses. The Study Session is an opportunityto meet the new ownerand discuss prospects for the revitalization of the shopping center. Prepared by: James De Stefano Deputy City Manager Attachments: Site and Architectural Plans Study Session 3 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM CITY OF DIAMOND BAR TO: Mayor and City Council Members FROM: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager SUBJECT: 2003-2004 Goals and Objectives DATE: February 17, 2004 As requested by the Mayor, staff has updated the 2003-2004 Goals and Objectives that was reviewed by the City Council last Fall. This information is being presented for the City Council' sperusal. MGTZA attachment GOAL- TO OPERATE THE CITY IN A FISCALLY AND MANAGERIAL RESPONSIBLE AND PRUDENT MANNER OBJECTIVES STATUS Review the Council Appointed Committees List and consider reducing the At its meeting of January 6, 2004, the Council number, or merging some, of the Council Sub -Committees eliminated the City On -Line Technical consideration in 2004. Committee and the City Annivers ary Liaison position. Code of Ethics Policy including placing/removing items on/from agenda The subcommittee has been working staff on policy the development of this document, draft versions with clean-up of freeway on & off ramps. We are were circulated to Council, final version for still working with Caltrans to obtain an Council considerat ion will be submitted in March encroachment permit to start the freeway work. 2004. Enforce City codes and ordinances City-wide in an equitable manner and New Slope Maintenance Ordinance in effect. on weekends Holiday lights enforcement with story in January their responsibilities along the city public right-of- City News. Enforcement of trash cans remaining way. This is an ongoing effort. Caltrans is on street sweeping day underway with warnings opened to cities' requests to maintain these to violators. City News reminder story in March State' srights-of-way. An agreement would need 2004 re: trash cans / bulky item pickup/ street to be entered between the State and Diamond sweeping and recycling. Trash can stickers to Bar if we want to take on certain maintenance be created with Waste Management. Ongoing responsibilities . At this time, the State' seffort is weekday and weekend enforcement. GOAL- RETENTION OF RURAL/COUNTRY LIVING COMMUNITY CHARACTER & PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE OBJECTIVES STATUS Establish contiguous neighborhoods within City zip code and Walnut City Council placed project on hold for budget School District by annexing two existing housing tracts and other potential consideration in 2004. areas Clean up freeway entrances and improve slopes into City (work with 1. Addition of Lanterman as a litter removal Caltrans) Public Property contractor has created time for MICE to assist with clean-up of freeway on & off ramps. We are still working with Caltrans to obtain an encroachment permit to start the freeway work. MICE has stated there will not be an additional cost for this work, as long as Lanterman backfills their responsibilities along the city public right-of- way. This is an ongoing effort. Caltrans is opened to cities' requests to maintain these State' srights-of-way. An agreement would need to be entered between the State and Diamond Bar if we want to take on certain maintenance responsibilities . At this time, the State' seffort is minimal. Consider JCC Donation of lot at DB Blvd & 60 Freeway Improve and City Council discussion in December 2003. dedicate to Cal Trans Ongoing with JCC and City. Create a pre -annexation agreement for Shell Oil property Area / Shell project undergoing environmental review with Los Angeles County. City Council decision to place project on hold for budget decision in 2004. Monitoring of area cities activities regarding the project are ongoing. Continue to plant more trees around the City 34 trees have been planted along the parkways and 15 in the parks for a total of 49 trees so far this fiscal year (since July 1, 2003). GOAL- RETENTION OF RURAL/COUNTRY LIVING COMMUNITY CHARACTER & PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE - continued OBJECTIVES STATUS Monitor repair program that assists low to moderate income families with CDBG funded program for FY 2003-2004 and improvements FY 2004-2005. Accomplishments -5 completed projects, 4 projects in construction, 3 projects in pre -construction phase, 15 approved applicants on waiting list. Consider annexation of former Boy Scout property (work with the City of Budget consideration to postpone annexation Industry and the County) discussion and project funding until 2004. Adopt slopes on major roads and/or possibly provide funding assistance; Council adopted new ordinance in December staff to prepare list of options - Private Property 2003. Regulations now in effect. Monitor and evaluate proposals for proposed development in areas such Ongoing effort with THCA, Four Corners and as Tres Hermanos, Tonner Canyon and the Shell Oil property; monitor surrounding cities. water use in Tres Hermanos Expand the sphere of influence to incorporate properties both west and Focus on vacant properties. Budget southwest of City consideration to postpone discussion and project funding until 2004. Enact a comprehensive investigation into City's infrastructure (i.e. (1) A Request For Proposals to update our conditions of sewers, etc.) Pavement Management System is being prepared and will be distributed in February, 2004. (2) The Governmental Accounting Standards Board, Statement No. 34 (GASB 34, issued in 1999) reporting requirements mandate an approach to asset management. We' lneed to accurately assess the infrastructure' s value and maintenance costs, including work -order management software. To comply with the requirements of GASB 34, staff will be soliciting professional services. (3) Further, EPA' s Capacity, Management, Operations, and Maintenance (CMOM) Program for sewers, a new federal regulatory program, would probably be enacted in 2004. The new regulations would prohibit sewer overflows of any size, except overflows caused by natural disasters. To meet the new requirements, a CMOM Program would need to be developed by the cities. Staff is working closely with all the stakeholders, including the County, to coordinate and facilitate our joint compliance efforts. Develop sidewalk/curb replacement fund The City has an annual maintenance budget for the replacement work. Per Council' sdirection, we are tracking this activity with a separate line item in the budget. Workshop should be an action -oriented, practical and systematic discussion on creating a vision statement for the City's future; a special focus should be placed on the opportunties available to support this concept as well as what current issues are facing the City. Develop entry an sign that display the different service clubs within the City GOAL -REDUCTION OF REGIONAL TRAFFIC IMPACTS ON LOCAL STREETS OBJECTIVES STATUS Effectively and aggressively pursue resolution of City-wide speeding City hired Sgt. Blasnek to supervise traffic problems program. Currently evaluating different traffic enforcement and incentive programs. In response to our RFP for a comprehensive Neighborhood Traffic Management Program, a total of six (6) proposals were received. This program will outline the key procedures and tools to be used in developing action plans for individual neighborhood projects. Pending upon the mid -year budget, staff would be able to proceed with a recommendation to the City Council to award the contract. Computerized Signal Management System run by City, not County (1) The Citywide Traffic Signal Timing Plan was (Interconnect Master Plan) implemented in August/Septem ber, 2003. With optimized signal timings, we have seen perceptible improvements in travel time, overall reduction of veh stops and delays, and air qual ity. As an on-going program, consultant and staff will continue to monitor, adjust, and fine- tune the signals. (2) A separate proj, the Pomona Valley Intelligent Transportation System (PVITS), is in the conceptual design phase. This sys is intended to operate as a multi -jurisdictional sys, allowing the exchange of traffic info between cities, and enable immediate response to incidents and congestion. Member agencies are: Claremont, Caltrans, LAC, DB, Industry, La Verne, MTA, Pomona, San Dimas, and Walnut. In the traffic mgmt objective, DB would like to retain control of local signals, close the gaps that exist in the current interconnect conduits, and establish a new method of communication with all the stakeholders. Currently, DB/AQMD is top choice to house this sub -regional traffic operations center with workstations at each agency. Pursue/monitor traffic solutions (Four Corners Plan) City continues participation in Four Comers toward implementation of priorities. City continues working with McDermott to create and implement transportation strategy for City. Support ACE funding requests and construction of nearby rail grade Ongoing crossing projects Monitor State Route 60 truck lane project Ongoing monitoring and participation by staff, MPT Herrera and McDermott. GOAL- PROMOTIONOF VIABLE COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY OBJECTIVES STATUS (Phase 2) Consider strategies without redevelopment; utilize elements of economic Climate in Sacramento for new redevelopment plan from Kosmont study; work to pass redevelopment legislation and support other legislation poor. City moving forward with measures allocating stable funding for cities, such as through property taxes; Lewis/Calvary project; Country Hills project creation of an " EconomicAssi stance Program"to formulate alternative methods to revitalization plan underway. Working with finance economic development (use of money or bonds to replace lost WVUSD toward the creation of a new retail redevelopment funding) center on Site D. (Phase 1) Identify unmet retail needs; target revitalization of existing commercial City moving forward with Lewis/Calvary project; areas; attract commercial development; consider strategies with Project Area; Country Hills project revitalization plan prioritize commercial areas for economic development opportunities. underway. Working with WVUSD toward the spring. The use agreement is pending final creation of a new retail center on Site D. Establish supermarket for Country Hills Towne Center and/or south end New owner with new energy. New site and CRM system activated, new internal procedures architectural plans. Status report to City Council in place with Leg. Analyst Clarke providing on February 17, 2004. Work with the Chamber of Commerce, business owners, residents and Ongoing effort with retailers, developers, management companies to seek the following: a national chain (middle to shopping center owners. upper level) restaurant; businesses to fill vacancies, conduct a survey of residents to determine what businesses would be best for the City Develop Dynamic Center - Create Destination Location Lewis / Calvary most likely. Kmart next. Re -visit sign ordinance related to the percentage of non-English characters Commission and Council have reviewed Code. Review and legal opinion resulted in no change. Done. Work with County for possibility of acquiring Diamond Bar Golf Course Ongoing. Evaluate site "D" Net positive revenue needed. City desire for commercial retail user (i.e. freeway oriented entertainment, mixed use, neighborhood shopping center). School District desire for highest sale Evaluate the possibility of taking over program from LA County and Council review in December 2003. Tabled. providing licensing functions "inhouse" GOAL- CREATION OF COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT OBJECTIVES STATUS 1.) Pursue & promote joint development/use of facilities, parks and open 1. Through the Youth Master Plan and Sports space w/PUSD & WVUSD (coordinate duplicate policies such as for tennis Complex Task Force processes, priorities will be courts & basketball courts) 2.) Obtain Larkstone Park agreement 3.) established for potential joint use opportunities Implement project (a portion of the park could be utilized as a natural with the two school districts. Recommendations "laboratory" for the local schools, colleges & universities) for JPXs will be forwarded to the City Council by the end of the fiscal year. 2. Staff has negotiated the use of the Mt. Calvary Luthem School gymnasium for the youth soccer program this spring. The use agreement is pending final approval. Establish departmental procedures for returning calls within 24 hours; staff CRM system activated, new internal procedures to draft letters for Council in response to community letters (letters in place with Leg. Analyst Clarke providing responded to within 72 hours); conduct customer service training for staff responses. GOAL- CREATION OF COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT continued OBJECTIVES STATUS Provide proposal hire Part-time Neighborhood Improvement Officer to Done work 10-15 hours week Fri Sat Sun Consider development of a sports complex (work with property owners, 1. Sports Complex Task Force has had five school districts, surrounding cities and counties to purchase property meetings so far. Recommendation from this task and/or enter into joint use agreements to develop complex which includes force should be forwarded to the City Council by a gymnasium, swimming pod and sports fields) the end of Spring, 2004. The task for is made up of representatives of the sports organizations that use park facilities in Diamond Bar, plus representatives of both school districts, the City Council, Planning Commission and P & R Commission. Review parking ordinances (including oversized commercial vehicles, RV parking and vehicles exceeding 8000 pounds) from both the County and surrounding cities and develop similar ordinance for the City to promote safety and maintan property values Establish process to evaluate sports needs within community i.e. sports Sports Complex Task Force established by the park and explore size, potential site, funding sources, etc. Mayor on September 2, 2003. Recommendations from this task force should be forwarded to the City Council by the end of Spring, 2004. Develop Cost/Benefit report to consider bringing Street Sweeping In -House A cost/benefit analysis, with pros and cons for and sweep weekly both in-house and contract street sweeping services, will be presented as a study session item. Staff plans to present this report in March of 2004. Implement Trails Master Plan (includes developing a landscape area Two grants have been awarded to the city overlooking Sycamore Canyon park) totaling over $240,000 to construct trail improvements at Sycamore Canyon Park, including the trailhead overlooking the park next to Diamond Bar Blvd. Plans and specifications are 95% complete. Project will go out to bid for a construction contractor within the next two months. Goal is to have this construction completed by Summer, 2004. Staff will continue to pursue grant opportunities to further implement the trails master plan. Improve South side fencing from Evergreen to DB Blvd Coordinate with the Post Office and Federal representatives to resolve zip code issues Inform residents of needed permits New brochures created and available for residents. Compile list of properties desired for parks/open space; develop plan and The Sports Complex Task Force is evaluating a financial method for possible acquisition number of parcels for consideration for acquisition. Recommendations will be included in the task force final report, which is due at the end of Spring, 2004. Previously, the following list was forwarded to the City Manager in 2002. Attached is a list of properties desired for open space Study alternate uses of library site if funding fails No action on this item - Status of City's application to be determined in Aug/Sept. CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AGENDA NO. 6.1.1 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JANUARY 20, 2004 DRAFT Note: A great deal of machine noise was picked up on the tapes due to placement of a projector too close to a microphone; therefore, some items material to the discussions below were unable to be transcribed. We apologize for any inconvenience. STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order at 5:37 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. Present: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Herrera and MayorZirbes. Also present were: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Greg Kovacevich, Assistant City Attorney, Jim DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; April Blakey, Public Information Manager; Nancy Whitehouse, Executive Assistant; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Sara West, Recreation Supervisor; Fred Alamolholda, Senior Engineer, Shar on Gomez, Senior Management Analyst; Jim Clarke, Legislative Analyst; Leticia Pacillas, L. A. County Fire District and Lynda Burgess, City Clerk. Update on Diamond Bar Center Grand Opening Event Plans. City of Industry Business Center Project. Public Comments Update on Diamond Bar Center Grand Opening Event Plans. PIM/Blakey reported that the theme for the Grand Opening would be "Discoverthe Magic" with an open House from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. She said that staff is working with the D.B. Community Foundation for an unveiling of the commemorative tile walkway and that will take place at 10:30 a.m. prior to the ribbon cutting of the actual facility. Other activities before the open house will include self -guided tours, Commander Chuck Street from KIIS FM radio will be available to sign autographs, give away T-shirts, etc. and several non-profit organizations as well as other community organizations are invited to bring their information and post booths outside. Indoors, we' Ilbe setting up different scenariosin different rooms, i.e., the ballroomwill be set up for a ball event, the seniorroomwill be coordinating bingo and each senior group is being invited to staff an information table with their group's information. She explained that there will be craft activities, karate demonstrations in the multi-purpose room, and examples of how to utilize the small meeting rooms. She said that staff contacted In -N -Out Burger to provide the food for the Open House but, unfortunately, they were already bookedso staff is looking for another vendor in D.B. She stated that the original plan for the Gala Reception in the evening was scheduled for 6-10 p.m. and would includea cocktail JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION hour, appetizers, dinner and some kind of programming — perhaps a video ofthe progression ofthe buildingofthe center. However, she stated that, based on some of the estimates that staff has received, Council direction is requested on a couple of items. She referred to the handout which provided a break down of some of the areas including four specific items needing Council direction. She said that the first concern would be in the number of invited guests and pointed out that providing dinner and entertainment for that number would be extremely expensive with the cocktail reception totaling approximately $8,500. She felt that the City would not save a significant amount of money by having a no -host bar as opposed to a hosted bar because the costs are associated with the service and the personnel needed to staff that function. She also requested Council input on the issue of complimentary alcohol. She said that staff would appreciate Council direction on the type of menu to be selected and pointed out that the sit-down menu would be more costly than a buffet, usually $5/person more. She said, however, that based on the size and the capacity of the room, staff was not recommending a buffet because serving people in a buffet line would take too long and it would be difficult to manage 500 people walking around the room at the same time. She explained that the sit-down menus range from $51 for a type of menu item like herb baked chicken versus $60 per person for an item like Beef Wellington. C/Herrera asked whether staff was referring to alcohol as strictly beer and wine or if well drinks would be included? PIM/Blakey explained that the estimate is for complimentary beer and wine, but the vendors have indicated that the costs are actually for the service, not for the beer and wine. She said that the vendors make their money from well drinks, not complimentary beer and wine and that the real cost saving would be to not have a cocktail session at all. . C/O' Connorsaid that she understood that the Community Foundation offered to donate $3,500 toward the event. PIM/Blakey responded that the Foundation' sdonation was meant to be used for the day time. MPT/Huff stated that he was astounded at the price. DCM/Doyle explained that that was the reason for staff slooking for City Council direction. He said that the original budgetwas $45,000 and staff would be soliciting sponsorships to raise $20,000 to help offset the $40,000 price tag for the marketing efforts with the dinner, etc. He pointed out that the costs would be higherthan what was anticipated. He said that one option would be to use that sponsorshipfunding, if it comes through, to offset some of the highercosts, not offset the original $45,OOObudget. JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION PIM/Blakey explained that the planned activities are not barebonesand certainly not high end. She stated that a photographerwould also be present to provide material for the brochure so the room is being set up to show how it can be used. C/O' Connorasked if the City could charge a nominal fee such as $25 per person? DCM/Doyle replied that while that' san option, the Council may not wish to do that because the City will want to invite people that could be marketed to. PIM/Blakeyalso indicated that many persons on the guest list are dignitariesso Council may not want to charge them either. M/Zirbes asked if event planners will be invited to the reception? PIM/Blakey stated that she would be inviting a few event planners as guests. MZirbes proposed that enough event planners should be invited to fill a couple of tables because that' sseally who the City wants to attract DCM/Doyle pointed out that the staff report includes a breakdown of the invited guests. C/O' Connorsuggested elimination of 50 guests by removing the Council' s special guests. C/Chang asked if the estimated total of $55,500 included complimentary alcohol? PIM/Blakey answered yes, that the $40,000 for food and beverages is as staff had originally planned it with the reception itself cocktail hour, hors d' oavres and the dinner. She stated that the bar service is approximately $6,000 and the hors d' oeuvresare approximately$2,500. C/Huff asked how much did the Foundation give? C/O' Connorreported that the Foundation had originally authorized up to $10,000, butth e amount was lowered when they were told that they wouldn't get the recognitionthey thoughtthey would get. PIM/Blakey explained that the Foundation was now at the bronze sponsor level for the evening events which is $1,500 and they' regiving $3,500 for the daytime event because they wanted more of a lunch type event. JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION C/Huff wondered if the Foundation hosted the cocktail reception, whether that would give them enough exposure so that they would consider it. He said he would not feel comfortable with footing the bill for alcohol even if it' scomplimentary, there' s still a $6,000 set up fee and it would be a lot cleaner if the Foundation or another sponsor was covering that and then the City could coverwhat' son the estimate. He stated that if these are the charges for other events to be held in the future, then the prices would not be competitive. He stated that, in his experience, a very nice dinner can be served at other nice locations for under $40 and events at Chinese restaurants can be put togetherfor less than $20. DCM/Doyle explainedthat the service for 500 peoplefor dinnerwould cost $10,000 without the food. C/Huff reported that he had sponsored dinners for 400 to 700 people in the $20-$35 range. PIM/Blakey pointed out that the difference in the cost relates to the fact that other facilities can provide staff and amenities such as dinnerware, table linens, etc. which the City does not have. MPT/Herrera suggested consideration of reducing the number of hours for the reception because there are already other events being held during the day. She asked if the costs could be reduced if the reception were to be scheduledfrom 6 p.m. to 8 p.m. and only hors d' oeuvresNere served? C/O' Connorstated that the Foundation was considering selling tickets to a dinner -dance activity atone point in time. She suggested that the City host a cocktail reception and then charge separatelyfor a dinner -dance for those interested in continuing. She stated that she was not sure if the Foundation would be interested in putting on such an event for the Grand Opening. PIM/Blakey explained that, from the marketing perspective, the best case scenario for this event would be to have the guests that the City wants to thank, the guests that were involved in the project for the banquetportion, The ideal would be to invite those that are going to book the facilities — those that will give the City something back. She further explained that having this event as a standalone is the best production and the best advertising the City can possibly do, so part of the expense really is advertising. C/O' Connorasked how many events would need to be booked in order to make up the $55,000 cost of the Grand Opening when we only charge $1,500 and how many reservations have already been made? JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION CSD/Rose reported that the City has collected over $12,000 for this fiscal year up to this point. MPT/Herrera asked what the Council thought about not having a dinner, just a reception and hors d' oeuvres? C/Huff pointed out that itwouldn' help staff with the marketing aspects. C/O' Connor stated that tables can still be set up to show event planners what the room would look like while providing seating for the guests at the same time. PIM/Blakey pointed out that, for the brochure, the City would eventually have to bring somebody in to set it up the room whether it was for another event or not. C/Huff asked if staff had any idea what it would cost to do that? PIM/Blakey responded that it would probablycost around $2,000. C/Huff felt that the City could justify hors d' oeuvreswhich could offset the cost of the special setup for the marketing brochure. He stated that, with the State budget problems, the citizens are looking at the City to see how their money is being spent and the Council should be mindful of that when planningthis event. C/O' Connorasked whether anyone felt that people would be willing to pay $25 a person or $10 a person? C/Hufffelt that that would be a good way to do it but if tickets are going to be sold, it should be done right away so that staff could gauge the cost- effectiveness. M/Zirbes pointed out that, currently, Council is considering a cost of $75 - $120/person and asked if C/O' Connorwould be lookingto break even. C/O' Connorexplained that she was simply proposing an offset to some of the City' scosts for the event M/Zirbes asked what had been done for outreach to major corporate sponsors for donations? PIM/Blakey stated that approximately 50 brochures were received by potential sponsors today and another 10-15 will be followed up with tomorrow. JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 6 CC STUDY SESSION M/Zirbes asked when staff would need a final answer from the Council and direction? PIM/Blakey stated that, if the question is wheth er or not we' re having a dinner, staff would need to know that right away. M/Zirbes stated that if Council knew that $20-$25-$30,000 would be brought in from sponsorships, perhaps Council would embrace some of the costs. He agreed that the City needs to market the Center properly but an increase in costs for the event of approximately 50% should be offset by sponsorships. PIM/Blakey explained that, as a comparison, the City' sholiday party with approximately 150 guests costs about $5,000 all inclusive. Multiplied by the current guest list for the reception, the minimum for that type of dinner is $35,000. She stated that the budget for the event is $45,000 and if sponsorships are needed, then she would work toward collecting large sponsorships. C/O' Connorreminded the Council that the Foundation agreed to share 10% of the proceeds of their tile sales for use in the community center which would amount to approximately $5,000 after deduction of expenses. She said that there is a possibility that the $5,000 could be used toward the costs of the Grand Opening events. M/Zirbes asked how the Council would feel about directing staff to use the $45,000 already approved with approval to spend sponsorship funds received over and above the $45,000? C/Huff indicated that he would be in agreement with that direction C/O' Connorasked about the need to have Commander Chuck Street involved in both the daytime and evening events? Would his notoriety bring in more people to the events and is it necessaryfor him to arrive in the helicopterwith the Mayor? She said she was concerned about all the dirt being stirred up by the heliccpter and what the impact would be on the tents, etc. PIM/Blakey reported that Chuck Street would be landing on the ballfield and not where the tents and the publicwould be. DCM/Doyle explained that a walkthrough will be conducted with Commander Street because landing a helicopter requires a lot of clearance. C/O' Connorreminded staff that there could be 500 cars or more parked on site. JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 7 CC STUDY SESSION DCM/Doyle stated that he would actually land earlier. C/O' Connor:Then why have him if he' snot going to make a big fanfare? PIM/Blakey explained that he will be in his own booth where he' Ilbe playing music and providing give-aways, etc. M/Zirbes asked if the helicoptercould be cutout of Chuck' sbudget? DCM/Doyle explainedthat the helicoptercomes with Commande r Street. C/Chang stated that almost $100 per head is a lot of money for this type of event and if a prospective renter asked how much was spent on this event, they would feel that they couldn' bfford the facility. He suggested selling tickets at $35 or $40 with complimentary tickets for invited guests. C/O' Connorpointed out that the Chamber charges $25 $35 for their Casino Night which includes dinnerand has a difficult time selling enough tickets. The Friends of the Library have raised their price to $45 or $55 at the door. She did not feel that the City should charge people the full amount of the estimated costs but just an amount to help offset the costs. She calculatedthat $20 each for 500 peoplewould bring in $10,000. MZirbes suggested that perhaps Mr. Chang and Mr. Huff could review some of the costs with staff to bring them within the $45,000 budget since they had had experience in putting together events such as this. He further suggested that sponsorships may be able to offset some ofth e additional costs. PIM/Blakey stated that lot of events of this nature get sponsorshipsthat consist of donations of flower arrangements, etc. instead of cash donations and staff is working on finding these types of donations in addition to cash donations. She said that if the budget is $45,000, staff will work within that range. She wanted the Council to know that the dinner would not be in the Beef Wellington range but rather the Herb Chicken range. She stated that staff was not necessarily looking for a new format for the evening' sevents as the current plan has already been sentto possible sponsors. C/Herrera recommended that staff work with three orfour flower vendors for donated arrangements and allow them to put out their business cards to show their products to future customers. C/O' Connorsuggested that staff work with florists that are Chamber members. JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 8 CC STUDY SESSION C/Huff asked if the City intends to purchase its own tableware and linens, etc. eventually? He felt that a one-time capital expensefor these items would be beneficial so that staff would only have to budget the cost of cleaning and maintaining the items. M/Zirbes summarized the options: Option A would be to work with the $45,000 and not to exceed that amount unless the City receives donations for overages. Option B would be to have Mr. Huff and Mr. Chang work with staff on where the event is going, keeping within budget and perhaps even lowering the total costs to less than $45,000. C/O' Connorreminded M/Zirbes that another option would be to charge for the event. C/Huff asked if it would be possible to charge guests for their beverages while guaranteeing a minimum to the vendor. He said he was not comfortable with the City providingfree alcohol. PIM/Blakey stated that having a cash bar as opposed to complimentary beverages would be fine. In response to Mr. Chang' s suggestion that the City pay a vendor a guaranteed minimum for complimentary wine, PIM/Blakey explained that there would be a small savings but that the vendors make their money on the cash drinks, not on the complimentary beverage charges. She said that that is why staff suggested limiting the number of guests to 350 rather than 500. C/O' Connorasked if staff was planning to have sponsors pay for each of the tables? PIM/Blakey affirmed C/O' Connor' statement by saying that sponsorship of $10,000 would be used for all 10 tables with one table costing $1,500. C/Huff stated that, for marketing purposes, staff would want the room to look spacious so if it is filled to capacity, it wouldn' tnecessarily look open and airy and elegant He asked whether the guest list should be pared down to 360 or 400. PIM/Blakey stated that since the room has never been set up, it would be hard to say whether the room would look crammed with 50 tables. She said that the tables are large and could seat 12 persons. C/Huff stated that the City may want to shoot for 40 tables rather than having the room jammed on the opening night. JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 9 CC STUDY SESSION PIM/Blakey pointed out that having the dance floor set up as well would also reduce the number of persons able to be seated. M/Zirbes asked if the number of guests were reduced to 400 rather than 500, would there be any cost savings? PIM/Blakey responded that, at the estimated amount of $75 per person, the savings would be approximately $7,500 if the number of guests were reduced by 100 people. C/Chang stated that he would like to see the dance floor included so that people can see what the room would look like. He suggested reducing the number of City Council' sspecial guests, etc. PIM/Blakey explained that there are 110 possible guests just between the Council' sguests and VIP' sfrom neighboringcities. C/Huff stated that Pomona and Industry would be included in the VIP' s. C/O' Connorexpressed doubt that Industry would promote D.B.' s facility over their own. M/Zirbes asked if there was Council consensus to support Mr. Chang' s recommendation that the dance floor be set up and reduce the number of guests to stay within the $45,000 budget? He further asked if approval should be given to exceed the $45,000 based on donations received? DCM/Doyle clarified that the guest list would be reducedto 400 so that the dance floor can be set and that there would not be free wine with dinner. RECESS: M/Zi rbes recessed the meeting at 6:20 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Zirbes reconvened the meeting at 7:20 p.m 2. City of Industry Business Center Project. DCM/DeStefano reported that, at the request of Council Member, the matter was placed on the study session agenda for review of the Industry Business Center plan for development, a proposed 592 acre project. He stated that the City of Industry provided D.B. with a Notice of Preparation of an Environmental Impact Report (NOP) and D.B. has an opportunity to comment on the project. He said that comments can be included within the EIR regarding issues and concerns raised by the City to bring them to a level of mitigation for elimination. DCM/DeStefano further stated that he would present the project to Council, talk aboutsome of the areas that staff would like to respond to JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 10 CC STUDY SESSION Industry on within the Notice of Preparation, provide Council with a project schedule describingwhere staff feels the project is going and finally, solicit Council' scomments regarding the environmental document He reported that the project is basically behind the Honda dealershipon the north from Sunset Crossing to the terminus of Washington Streeton the south and is between the railroad tracks and the freeway on both sides of Grand Ave. He said that when the hillsides and acreage for roads is taken away from the total project, the development is reduced to approximately 330 acres. The City of Industry is proposing about4.8 million sq. ft. of buildingsfor offices, retail, commercial usesincluding a big box retail center, an automobile dealership row and approximately 630,000 sq. ft. of industrial uses closer to the railroad tracks. He explained that a water tank would need to be created for the development as well as a fire station to b e situated adjacent to Grand Ave. at the juncture of Baker Parkway. He added that approximately 4'/2 miles of new streets would eventually be constructed in the project. Street connections to D.B. and others important to D.B. include a connection to Old Brea Canyon Rd. --the short cul-de-sac behind the Honda dealership leading to Grand Ave. He explained that a new street would be constructed in the area north on Grand Ave. that would be a focal point for the develop ment where commercial -retail uses would likely locate. That street would connect to Old Brea Canyon Road and allow an extension across Grand Ave. easterly to the north side of the project. He reported that Baker Parkway is currently under construction on the west side of Grand Ave. and a connection is proposed at that location. Traffic signals have been installed and it is anticipated that Baker would cross over and connect to the east side of Grand Ave. In addition, he said that Industry is showing an additional connection to D.B. through Sunset Crossing on the very East end of the project site. He reported that one more connection to D.B. is proposed at Cheryl Lane, a new street created by Industry for the Majestic Project, is proposed to be connected to Brea Canyon Rd. for an employee/delivery accessfrom the Brea Canyon Road/SR60 intersection. DCM/DeStefano continued his report by stating that the entire project is proposed to have environmental approvals by mid 2004 with construction beginning with grading in mid 2005. Construction of the buildings would begin as soon as the grading is complete, depending on market conditions. He stated that the City of Industry anticipates that the length of time to complete the project would be a pproximately 10 years. He described the project as consis ting of large flat pads that can accommodate office buildings, retail, quasi -industrial or industrial uses by the railroad. He displayed current views of the project and the surrounding hillsides from Chisolm Trail, Birdseye, Armstrong Elementary School, Beaverhead Ave. cul-de-sac, behind the YMCA, etc. and pointed out that there is very little "environmentalvalue"in terms of flora and fauna on the hillsides He pointed out that few of the houses surrounding Armstrong Elementary School will have a view of the project because it JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 11 CC STUDY SESSION appears, based upon the graphic in D.B.' s possession, that the buildings are along the Industry side of the ridge. C/O' Connorasked if the nub of the hill would be removed resulting in D.B. residents viewing the buildingsor would the nub be a buffer? DCM/DeStefano responded that since staff has very little materials for the project, it would not be possible to speculate about the nub. He said that the City has received the Notice of Preparation and possesses only one drawing of the proposed project. He did not feel that that residents in the Armstrong Elementary School area would see the buildingsthat are closer to Grand Ave. in areas 3, 4, and 5 but pointed out that those residents may see some of the buildings in areas 1 and 2, depending on how high the buildings are and where the developed pads are located. He explained that staff is most concerned about land use compatibility, traffic and the impact of the project on D.B.' seconomic development. He said that there are other characteristics of the site that staff would attempt to comment on in the Notice of Preparation which are of lesser concern to staff such as view impacts of the immediately adjacent propertyowners as well as the views of property owners on the perimeter ofth esite. He pointed out that the hills will never be the same and the development will change the visual character of what residents from D.B. see. He said that the developmentwill create a potential for the possibility of light glare that may significantly affect the residents living nearby. At this point, he stated that the possibility of light glare is difficult to gauge because D.B. staff doesn' tcurrently know what kind of buildings will be built, how tall they will be, what kind of building materials will be used, the addition oft raffic signal lights, parking lot lights, etc. He indicated that another area of concern is air qualitywhich is affected byjust about every development. He recommended that staff comment about the use and transportation of hazardous materials because they would be transported through D.B.' s streets or adjacentto residential properties. DCM/DeStefano explained that land use is also one of the larger staff concerns because the 600 acres was originally proposed to be a "buffer area"several years ago by the City of Industry. He reiterated that Industry owns the property, Industry is the decision -maker on the property and Industry has obviously chosen to change the buffer area into an enterprise for their community. He said that staff would be concerned about maintaining some level of open space between the development and particularly the residential properties --something more lush in landscape so that if the residents in D.B. have to look at th e project, particulady the ones on the Armstrong side of Grand Ave., at least the project would be easier to swallow because there would be lush landscaping, that type of thing. T hose businesses will not be negatively affected by landscaping that blocks their buildings or affects the marketability of what they do. He said that businesses proposed on the west side of Grand Ave. behind the JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 12 CC STUDY SESSION Honda dealership would see the same kind of buffer, open space landscaping closer to Lycoming and to Washington Street, primarily where the residential properties are to make that transition a little bit easier. Regarding land issues themselves, DCM/DeStefano reported that staff currently has no idea as to what the land uses will be but it is assumed that the project will mimic the Gateway Corporate Center and that there will be big -box retailers like Costco, Walmart, Lowes, Home Depot, the type of buildings requiring 15 acres of development and have 150,000 sq. ft. buildings. He stated that staff wanted some assurance through the entitlement process and the EIR process that there are adequate standards in place to balance those types of businesses with the immediate needs of the residents nearby. DCM/DeStefano further reported that a more minor issue relates to population and housing increases since a project of this size will generate thousands and thousands of jobs, which can then generate the need for housing. He stated that the need for housing would not necessarily become a burden for D.B. but it does create an issue with respect to where people will reside who work in this area. He reported that regional planners have been talking aboutjobs and housing balancing so staff felt the need to make a brief response to the creation of so many jobs while no new housing is being created in the immediate area and there could be an impact on schools and parks and recreation when you there are thousands of new employees. He reported that a major concern for D.B. is traffic and transportation since there will be connections to Old Brea Canyon Rd., Grand Ave. , Brea Canyon Rd. and to Sunset Crossing, depending upon what the land uses are going to be. In addition, the developmentwill impact the freeway at Grand Ave. and Golden Springs as well as the freeway at Brea Canyon Road and the 60. He stated that the road networks exist but the connections could be negotiated with the City of Industry. He reminded everyone that Sunset Crossing is in the D.B. General Plan as a curie -sac, so staff scomment back to Industry would be to support the City' sadopted General Plan and indicate that there will be no connection to Sunset Crossing. He stated that the ultimate decision regarding the Sunset Crossing cul-de-sac remains with the City Council whether to expand it, enhance it, reduce it or simply maintain it as included in the General Plan. He suggested that staff be encouraged to tell Industry that there' sgoing to be no connection to Sunset Crossing and that the City would anticipate, based upon thousands of trips to and from the project, that there would be some significant impacts at key intersections and other impacts at lesser intersections and that the City would want those impacts fully mitigated. DCM/DeStefano further reported that an economic development issue for D.B. would arise as the development, when completed, would be a state of the art crossroads opportunity for businessesto locate at that address which will compete with D.B.' soffice park in the Gateway Corporate JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 13 CC STUDY SESSION Center. Further, he stated that proposed auto dealerships and big -box retailers would capture customers from D.B., Walnut and other nearby areas. He explained that D.B. cannot recommend that Industry not allow auto dealerships or big -box retail due to environmental concerns so the response to Industry will not address the issue. DCM/DeStefano reported that the response to the Notice of Preparation is due to the City of Industry on Monday, January 26. C/O' Connorsuggested taking a look at the response given to the City of Industry on their earlier proposal for a 400 acre development, especially with respect to residents at Hampton Court, etc. DCM/DeStefano responded that staff is addressing the areas where there are similarities to past issues such as development standards that require that dirty, stinky, noisytypes of businesses are sited as far away from D.B. residential properties as possible. C/O' Connorexpressed concern about the light glare in areas such as Armstrong Elementary School and Hampton Court. She said she wanted to be sure that there would be a buffer from the glare. DCM/DeStefano gave examples of variety of measures to reduce the glare such as placementof street lights only on the commercial side of the project, not the residential areas, installation of cutoff luminaries to keep the light from spilling overhead. In addition, he indicated that heavy landscaping wouldn' taffect the auto dealerships' or retailers'visibility but could be designed as a buffer for the residential properties which would also diffuse any light that might come down. C/O' Connorreported that she recently received a CalTrans presentation during a Local Governmental Services committee that indicated that the 57/60 interchange is now the most congested in all of LA and Ventura Counties. She wondered if the report she received from the committee could be used in the City' sresponseto the City of Industry. DCM/DeStefano explained that the typical responsibility is for the developerto mitigate the impacts to the satisfaction of the decision -maker. He said that, in this case, there are a variety of decision -makers including CalTrans but most of the decisions will be made by the City of Industry and mitigate those impacts. He reported that the City of Industry must devise a plan to improve the freeway, on/off ramps and local streets to handle the project and decision -makers such as CalTrans, Industry or D.B. would decide whetherto implement those improvements. JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 14 CC STUDY SESSION C/Huff asked what a typical response to an NOP would be to set up the things the City would want complete answers to in the environmental document? DCM/DeStefano explained that response to the NOP is an opportunity to help guide the creation of the EIR and to specifically express D.B.' s concerns. As an example, he said that D.B. might say "you' rgoing to add traffic to our streets. We want mitigation for that and we want you to look at any alternatives that may lessen that impact." The City of Industry would be required to respond to D.B.' scomment by saying `We' velooked at this impact but this alternative or that alternative is not feasible for these reasons." As another example, he stated that sometimes the response would be `We' relooking to widen Grand Ave. by 10 ft. on either side for x amount of lanes in order to give more capacity. And here' sthe plan for that." He said that the issues can be examined in the environmental document which is then given to the decision-making agencies for a 45 day review prior to development of the Memorandum of Understanding detailing the project. In response to C/Huff' s question regarding the zip code for the project. DCM/DeStefano indicated that he thought the zip would be 91789 at least to Grand Ave. with the piece on the other side of Grand Ave. possibly being 91765. C/Huff asked at what point doesthe Walnut 91789 zip reach over capacity with the end result being that the same problem exists as in D.B. He wondered whether the proposed development would have more value for those parcels if they had a D.B. address instead of the City of Industry. He suggested that D.B. could encourage the City of Industry to locate a post office in the complex that could serve zip code 91765, meet D.B.' s needs and meet the needs of the complex. He stated that he was not in favor of adding more traffic but would be in favor of Industry enhancingthe capacity of Valley Blvd. and the capacity of the freeway for the on- and off - ramps but atthis point, staff will only be addressing general things like glare, noise, odor, etc. and traffic. C/O' Connor stated that she wanted to make sure the City' s response addresses the need for a buffer for all of the residences. C/Huff recalled that the proposed project was always thought of as a buffer when he was a member of the General Plan Advisory Committee. He stated that it would be nice to preserve the hills as they are now. Regarding discussion of the cul-de-sac on Sunset Crossing, C/O' Connor suggested that Industry be requested to relocate the YMCA and build a new facility with a pool and gymnasium. JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 15 CC STUDY SESSION C/Huff stated that there mightbe some negotiation on that but he would want to see some traffic studies showing what that would do to the neighborhood. He felt that the businesses on the north end would probably like that connected because Der Weinerschnitzel, Subway , Kentucky Fried Chicken and others would all then have access to this marketplace where employees would be looking for lunch. With respect to traffic, opening up Sunset Crossing would probablytake a little congestion off of Golden Springs and the intersection at the expense of the neighbors that live on Sunset Crossing. In response to MPT/Herrera regarding the length of the City' sresponse to the NOP, DCM/DeStefano indicated that the written response will probably contain 10-15 pages. CM/Lowryasked Mr. DeStefano if he would be using the services ofthe consultant at this point? DCM/DeStefano reported that, in prior Industry projects, the City contracted with Steve Sasaki to help analyze traffic engineering that Industry put forward and that Mr. Sasaki has already looked at this and has helped with some preliminary comments. He further stated that Mr. Sasaki would likely be utilized for the EIR when evaluating the detail of traffic counts, some of the proposed impacts and the proposed mitigation measures. The bulk of the consultant' Services would be in response to the EIR. In response to C/Chang, DCM/DeStefano stated that staff thinks it' s important to bring up some of those aspects now, at least very generally. But specifically, staff would need to address traffic and land usages. In further response to C/Chang, DCM/DeStefano indicated that land issues revolve around the separation of these office/industrial uses, D.B.' s residential uses and ways to make sure that lights don' tllare on resident' s property and that there' s landscaping and not the kinds of uses that can create problems for residents. C/Chang stated that it appeared as though the only responses the City can give to the NOP will deal with traffic and land use until more information is received from the City of Industry so that D.B. can assess the impacts of the project. He felt that one of the City' sgoals is to possibly developthe golf course with the consentofSupervisor Knabe. MPT/Herrera felt that the points that DMC/DeStefano outlined are good. M/Zirbes agreed with MPT/Herrera. He stated that some of the response points were issues he had not even thought about. He asked whether the EIR would have more detail than the NOP with detailed site plans and more information regarding the details of the development. JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 16 CC STUDY SESSION DCM/DeStefano reported that the EIR might contain more information about the grading plan because Industry would need to begin to figure out how many yards of earth need to be moved for the project. He felt that the areas of the most concern to D.B. will remain the most general with the least amount of details because the future of the market will dictate how the project will turn out. He further felt that flat pads would be visible that could turn out to be a lot of different things. He said that details regarding specific land uses would be revealed in the EIR. M/Zirbes suggested that perhaps D.B. should respond with the most intense uses in mind and hope for the best that they're not quite as intense. DCM/DeStefano agreed. C/O' Connor asked whether there are certain restricted types of businesses such as massage parlors or adult businesses from being located too close to day care centers? DCM/Doyle stated that staff would research adult business issues and get back to the Council. DCM/DeStefano reported that the area surrounding the YMCA is an area that would have compatibility issues relating to the uses. He felt that that area would probably be developed into potential industrial uses and not retail, restaurants or other kinds of entertainment. He stated that, with industrial uses, hours of operation, noise and vibration are issues that can occur that may be negative to the YMCA. He stated that this would go back to the land use compatibility discussion that D.B. needs to have with Industry. C/O' Connorpointed out that the response to the NOP needs to indicate that Armstrong Elementary School is located on Beaverhead, near Industry' sproject. C/Huff expressed concern about the housing imbalance because D.B. knows that Industry is not going to include housing in their project and Industry could suggestthat the housing problemcould be taken care of on Tres Hermanos property. He was not sure if the City would be willing to increase the density on Tres Hermanos. C/Chang stated that that is why D.B. needs to know more about what the projectwill contain. Jeff Koontz, Executive Director, D.B. Chamber of Commerce, expressed concern regarding sales tax. He asked if Lewis Retail is aware of the Industry project and how it would impact the Calvary Chapel Project? JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 17 CC STUDY SESSION DCM/DeStefano explainedthat Lewis is aware of the Industry project. He stated that, so far, the Industry project has not impacted the progress and resources that Lewis is spending to cause the Calvary Chapel retail developmentto move forward. CM/Lowry reported that if the Council is looking at the City of Industry' s responsibility to balance development with housing, Industry may be saying that they would build something in D.B., which clearly isn' tan answer. She said that it' slndustry' sresponsibilityto build its own housing. C/Huff asked whether a legal responsibility exists for Industry to create housingforjobs? C/O' Connorasked if that wasn' tpart of the bill that was passed when the arrangements were made for Diamond Ranch High School? C/Huff asked if the Industry project is funded through redevelopment. DCM/DeStefano explained that the proposed project is not in the Redevelopment Project Area but it is owned by the Redevelopment Agency. In responseto Jeff Koontz regarding Tres Hermanos, C/Huff reported that the Joint Powers Authority has not met in approximately a year. He stated that the land use jurisdiction is between D.B. and Chino Hills and then Industry, as a property owner, is dependent on whatever is done with the Tres Hermanos area. D.B. owns approximately 700 acres and approximately 1800 acres are contained within the city limits of Chino Hills for a total of 2500 acres. He stated that it was the Authority' sintent to try to do it in a way that' sconsistent with the needs of both communities in working cooperatively with Industry. He said that Industry got tied up in a lawsuit on the Boy Scout property and they haven' t attended JPA meetings for a while. With Industry' sparticipation, JPA meetings can' the meaningful. Mr. Koontz asked how much of the proposed project would abut the Lanterman facility? DCM/DeStefano stated that none of the development would abut Lanterman. The closest the project would come is to the Little League ballfields in D.B. CM/Lowry stated that DCM/DeStefano will draft a response to the NOP and distribute copiesto Council. JANUARY 20, 2004 PAGE 18 CC STUDY SESSION RECESS: With no further business to conduct, M/Zirbes recessed the Study Session to the Regular Meeting at 8:10 p.m. LYNDA BURGESS, City Clerk The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 17th day of February , 2004. BOB ZIRBES, Mayor AGENDA NO. 6.1.2 CITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DRAFT FEBRUARY 3,2004 STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order at 5:06 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. Present: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes. Also present were: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Mike Jenkins, City Attorney; Jim DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Public Works Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Lynda Burgess, City Clerk; Nancy Whitehouse, Executive Assistant; Jim Clarke, Legislative Analyst; Kim Crews, Senior Management Analyst; Anthony Jordan, Parks and Maintenance Supervisor; Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer and Sharon Gomez, Senior ManagementAnalyst. Lewis/Calvary Chapel Retail Center Update DCM/DeStefano reported that, for the last several months, staff has been working with Lewis Operating Companies toward the development of retail center at the Calvary Chapel site located at Golden Springs and Grand Ave. He said that a retail development is being explored on the unused portion of Calvary Chapel' sproperty, expansion of Calvary Chapel to incorporate a new sanctuary, additional parking and so forth to service their growing needs as well as examining the future use of the piece above the Calvary Chapel site—the property that' sowned by the Citrus Valley Health Partners Group. Further, he stated that, on that site, discussions have taken place regarding a residential component as well as an office component. He introduced David Lewis, Sr. Vice President, Lewis Operating Companies to describe the project and provide an opportunity for questions by the Council. Dave Lewis reported that his firm began working with the Calvary Chapel nearly a year ago with the goal of moving the Chapel to another location perhaps to sites owned by the WVUSD and PUSD. He stated that the search for another site was unsuccessful because they weren' t large enough and didnt present them an economic package that would allow them to have a facility as large as the one being currently used. He said that the pastors and the congregation decided that they wanted to stay in their current location and were willing to part with a portion of their site for the Lewis development as long as they had enough funds remaining from the sale proceeds to increase the size of their current sanctuary which seats approximately3,000. Mr. Lewis said that Calvary Chapel desires a sanctuary which can accommodate 4,000 people. Mr. Lewis stated that his firm has worked with and are undercontract with the Citrus Valley Health Partner' mite which was once designatedfor a February 3, 2004 Page 2 Study Session community hospital. He said that his firm and City staff have worked closely to market the remainder of the Calvary site closest to Grand Ave. and high interest has been expressed by retailers such as Kohl' s, Home Depot and Target. He displayed a site plan that reflects the wishes of the pastors of Calvary Chapel showing how much of their site they are willing to part with. He indicated that a 120,000 sq. ft. retail box was being depicted on the drawing which would be perfect for a Target and a Home Depot, with a backup by Kohl' sand Best Buy. He further indicated that the site also contemplates restaurant pads and shop space and various retailers have been contacted who have shown a high level of interest in the site. He stated that a focus on marketing the restaurant pads and shops spaces had not yet begun because it is important to identify the business that will be located in the big box location to continue the appropriate synergy throughoutthe project. Regarding the Citrus Valley Health Partners site, Mr. Lewis explainedthat his firm has contemplated a plan of approximately 200 town homes but a builder has not yet been engaged because environmental studies and general coordination of issues must take place first. In early meetings with City staff, itwas indicated that the City had various users that were interested in having office space on Grand Ave. so approximately two acres have been set aside for an approximate 45,000 sq. ft. building. Mr. Lewis stated that his firm has explored a concept of having a Home Depot with a Target on top but even though the site merits it, there is no guarantee at this time that the companies will agree to this. He walked everyone through the site plans distributed to Council and staff. Regarding Site Plan Scheme 2A, C/O' Connorexpressed concern that the relocated driveway to th a development on Golden Springs was too close to the corner of Grand Ave. which would conflict with traffic atthat location. DCM/DeStefano stated that it looks as though the new driveway is approximately 200 feet away from Grand Ave. and staff is still working with the development team but not to the point that the fine details of public works, building and safety and planning and building codes have been worked out. Mr. Lewis pointed out that the drawing depicts a deceleration lane, or right -turn pocketthat doesn' bxist today. C/O' Connorasked if the parking structure being contemplated is a one or two-story structure? Mr. Lewis respondedthat the structure would be two stories tall February 3, 2004 Page 3 Study Session CM/Lowry asked what was the anticipated residential unit on the hospital site, when staff first started talking about this? She asked whether there was more commercial use on the hospital site in staff soriginalthoughts? DCM/DeStefano responded by stating that discussion has pretty much centered around a 40-50,000 sq. ft., office building, probably a two-story concept requiring approximately two acres and facing Grand Ave. He said that in the condominium town home project, staff has been discussing approximately 175 units but, from a staff perspective, staff has spentthe least amount of time on that portion of the project so the number probably will not go down but it could go up to approximately200. He said that staff had not seen a concept of 200 units. Further, he said that the concept of 177 probably needs further refinement because there are no homeowner association amenities as this point. CM/Lowry asked if there is a similar project in the community to compare the residential project with from density standpoint? DCM/DeStefano felt that the Cimarron Oaks project at the north end of Golden Springs, with the exception of the architecture which is about 35 years old, would probably be similar density -wise. He explained that the complex is on the east side of Golden Springs nearTemple. C/O' Connorasked why the City is not consideringthe project as combined commercial/retail on the hospital site as well? DCM/DeStefano responded that to some extent, it' sthe desire of the property owner to turn it from commercial to residential and to some extent, it reflects what staff has learned from trying to market the hospital site as a retail or an entertainment based project. He said that everyone who looked at the site asked for the corner property instead. C/O' Connor stated that, if the corner were going to be built as a nice commercial/retail spot, why wouldn' tpeople want to do the same with the hospital site and the City could receive doublesalestax? DCM/DeStefano explainedthat it goes back to what the marketplace has been telling the City and that is that the hospital site is not conducive for the kind of retail sales or entertainment that the City was hoping to create there. C/O' Connorasked why wouldn' the upper part go with the bottom? DCM/DeStefano stated that David Lewis has a lot more experience in actually financing, investing and buildingthese projects. He assumed that there would have to be some sort of direct connection between the two to February 3, 2004 Page 4 Study Session make them viable otherwise, there would have to be two separate and distinct projects and visitors would have to move their cars to go 100 ft. C/O' Connorstated that, atone point in time, there was talk about having an escalator -type device with waterfalls to make the connection. DCM/DeStefano explained that staff marketed that type of project and never got any bites. C/O' Connorasked if the City is closer now that there is definite interest in the corner? DCM/DeStefano stated that the focus has been on the current corner piece more so than on the residential piece probably because staff has had a difficult time generating interest in the hospital piece. C/O' Connor stated that David indicated that Best Buy and Kohl' sare interested in coming in there so she was wondering that if the two areas could be put together, so all of the property would generate sales tax revenue. Mr. Lewis explainedthat the concern of retail customers is that the access from Grand Ave. to that site isn' tvery good because the hospital site is so long and narrow. He said that the customers have indicated that they would prefer the corner site and the retailers are very sensitive to being 11outpositioned"so they don' bvant to have a store that' shard to get to and then a competitor opens a store in the City of Industry. C/Huff stated that when the Planning Commission discussed the Citrus Valley Health site' sconditional use permit, a lot of concern was expressed by the residents above the site regarding their view of the buildings below them. With a housing element there, he felt that the City would be creating something more pleasing to look at for the neighbors up above. Regarding the water tank being proposed by the Water District, he asked how that issue was being resolved. DCM/DeStefano reported that staff was not aware of the Water District continuing to pursue installation of a tank at that location. For purposes of discussion, if the Water District does decide to locate a tank on that site, staff would look at putting the tank undergroundand use the aboveground space as open space or a parking lot between the office building and the residential. He stated that staff would not want to erode any of the potential for the upper piece with addition of a water tank that would take up a couple of acres. In response to C/O' Connorabout whether the Water District has right to place a water tank on the site, DCM/DeStefano stated that the District February 3, 2004 Page 5 Study Session would have to acquire the property but no interest has been expressed in doing so over the last few years. CM/Lowry stated the City' seconomic development strategy is limited to working in partnership with the market and because the church property is so valuable and the pastors are good businessmen, the City must partner with the market to create the City' sopportunities. She said that in order for the market to work, the housing component offsets the high price of the commercial piece. Further, she explained that the City could zone it, land use designate it as all commercial, but the market wouldn' the able to do anything with it. C/Chang stated that he would certainly like to see the site being developed particularly for commercial usage because of the sales tax revenue for the City. He said that he had concerns relating to traffic because in the afternoon peak hour, the traffic on Golden Springs east and west bound is very heavy and cars stack up waiting to make a right turn onto Grand Ave. According to the drawing, he felt that the City would need to be very careful with the traffic study to convince a developer to make sure that the traffic is not going to become a bottleneck hampering growth. He agreed with C/O' Connorthat the ingress and egress between Golden Springs and Grand would be very close and with a right turn onto Grand Ave., there would be another intersection right away to access the upper portion. With the addition of 200 townhouse units and the 45,000 sq. ft. small office building, he feared that the traffic would become horrendous. He asked about the type of the bookstore to be located on the site. David Lewis explained that the bookstore is proposed to be a Barnes and Noble type Christian store. Regarding the traffic study, he stated that Linscott, Law and Greenspan has been working on the project since last October and the study should be complete soon. C/Chang asked if the zoning would have to be changed to accommodate the townhouse project? DCM/DeStefano reported that a variety of development entitlements will be needed such as a General Plan change to modify the property' s designation for commercial and office uses to residential, a specific plan, a zone change to change it from commercial manufacturing to residential, architectural review, site planning review, conditional use permit, sign review, etc. David Lewis continued with his explanation ofthe site plans and conceptual elevations presented to the Council, which are similar to building taking place in Irvine in Ladera Ranch. He stated that his firm' s sense of the market today is that the town homes would sell in the February 3, 2004 Page 6 Study Session $375,000 and $475,000 range and the home sizes are estimated to be between 1,400 and 2,000 sq. ft. He pointed out that a lot of people have approached the pastors in the last six to seven years with some extraordinary offers so Lewis is not the first company to make such an offer. C/Huff felt that what Lewis has done is tie up the piece above the Calvary Chapel which helps the economy work out. He asked aboutthe proposed timeline for the project. Dave Lewis responded that his firm is working very diligently to complete the entire package with environmental documents to present to the City. In response to C/Hufr s question regarding the thoroughnessof the traffic study, Mr. Lewis stated that the study encompasses more than what appears to be able to fit on the site. C/Huff stated that he did not like the traffic the project would generate but the retail sales it generateswould be very helpful to the community and he congratulated Mr. Lewis on his firm' screativity. In response to MPT/Herrera' squestion regarding the timeline after the project is presented to the City, DCM/DeStefano explained that with the details in the package, staff will have to finalize its assessment of the environmental documentation necessary to support the project and it could be a few months before it goes to the Planning Commission for public hearings and then public hearings before the City Council. He stated that staff is hoping to have firm commitments, letters of intent or actual agreements from some of the lead tenants before the package is submitted to the City and the project will be marketed at ICSC in May by City staff and Lewis staff. He said he anticipated that this will be the major project for the decision -makers and the staff in 2004. In further response to MPT/Herrera, DCM/DeStefano stated that it is hoped that construction would begin early in 2005 with an opening around Christmas 2005 or spring of 2006. CM/Lowry stated that one of the City' sinitial considerations would be the manner in which staff deals with the EIR. DCM/DeStefano stated that staff is carefully going through the environmental information to determine the type of document that needs to be processed for this project. He stated that, in addition, traffic studies are well underway, biological studies are well underway and other types of environmental studies have already been started. He said that a General Plan Amendment would be necessary for the Citrus Valley Health Partners piece and possiblyfor the balanceof the project and the General February 3, 2004 Page 7 Study Session Plan will require that a specific plan be prepared. The City will be creating its own set of unique development standards just for this area. M/Zirbes concluded the discussion on the matter and stated that there were no public comments offered. CM/Lowry introduced Jay Sloan from the Pacific Institute who has spent many hours training staff and stated that she hoped that Council would begin to see changesamong staff as aresult ofthe training. RECESS: There being no further business to conduct, M/Zirbes recessed the Study Session at 5:52 p.m. Lynda Burgess, City Clerk The foregoing... Bob Zirbes, Mayor Agenda No. 6.2.1 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. UR:IBic] =90]0-11RR r]/a1Zlei =1 Commissioner Wei led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Tye; Vice Chairman Dan Nolan; and Commissioner Osman Wei. Commissioners Steve Nelson and Jack Tanaka wereexcused. Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant; Lorena Godinez, Planning Intern; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. ■i:4:;y1:1_61TIa0:111:1M0=h;&'1-]I kt�o.CTi -ilii 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Approval of December 23, 2003, Regular Meeting minutes. VC/Nolan moved, C/Wei seconded,to approve the December 23, 2003, Regular Meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan, Wei, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Tanaka 5. OLD BUSINESS: None JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION 6. NEW BUSINESS: None 7. CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 Develooment Review No. 2003-33 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-13 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48, 22.68, and 22.56) is a requestto remodel and constructan approximate 1,040square foot addition to an existing 1,700 squarefoot one story single-family residence with a two car garage.A Minor Conditional Use Permit is to allowthe continuationof a legal nonconforming 15 feet front yard setback distance. (Continued from December 9, 2003) PROJECT ADDRESS: 313 Gunsmoke Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Philippe Colin APPLICANT: 313 Gunsmoke Diamond Bar, CA 91765 DSA/Smith presented staff sreport.StaffrecommendsPlanningCommission approval of Development Review No. 2003-33, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Philippe Colin respondedto VC/Nolan thathe hasresidedatthe propertyfor three months. Mr. Colin indicated to Chair/Tye that he read staff sreport and concurred with the conditions of approval. VC/Nolan said that during histenure on the Planning Commission this is the first experience he hashad with encroachment permits. He wondered if this was a common practice in the City and asked staff to cite examples. DCM/DeStefano responded that there are numerous examples of different front yard setbacks, different street widths, parts of the City where the right- of-way is very clearto the private property owner and other parts of the City where the right-of-way is very gray and unclearas to who owns it and who is responsible for its maintenance. This site is an example of Los Angeles JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION County planning and engineering from the late 60' s,early 70' s.This is the first case of its type in this neighborhoodand it is likely it may notbe the last. The City needs to look at the entire neighborhoodto determine how many more cases like this one are impending and whether it is better forthe City to allow blanket encroachment for all property owners with similar circumstances or is it better for the City to vacate that right of way. In lieu of formal blanket measures staff determined that the Planning Commission should act on this matter immediately. Chair/Tye reopened the public hearing There being no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. VC/Nolan moved, C/Wei seconded to approve Development Review No. 2003-33 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-13, Findings of Fact and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. DCM/DeStefano confirmed that the motion included the revised resolution that incorporated the Minor Conditional Use Permit. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan, Wei, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Tanaka 8. PUBLIC HEARING(S): 8.1 Development Review No. 2003-29 (pursuantto Code Section22.48.020)is a request to remodel and construct an approximate 930 square foot single story addition to an existing 1,871 square foot single story single-family residence with atwo-car garage. PROJECT ADDRESS: 1946 Los Cerros Drive Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNERS/ Remedius and Estella Mendonca APPLICANT 1946 Los Cerros Drive JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION Diamond bar, CA 91765 JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION DSA/Smith presented stafr sreport. Staff recommends PlanningCommission approval of Development Review No. 2003-29, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Reme Mendonca stated he read stafr s report and concurred with the recommendations of approval. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. Manuel Lamb, project designer, said the project would maintain the existing grading. VC/Nolan was excited to see so many home improvements in Diamond Bar. It is very positive for the community. VC/Nolan moved, C/Wei seconded, to approve Development Review 2003-29, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan, Wei, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Tanaka 8.2 Development Review No. 2003-09 and Tree Permit 2003-10 (pursuantto Code Sections 22.48.020.a. 1/22.38) is a request to construct a two-story, singlefamily residencewith basement including balconies, porch, deckand two attached two -car garages totaling approximately 15,930 gross square feet. Additionally, a requestto encroach uponthe 10 footprotective drip line and canopy of a mature oak tree and reduce the crown of the oak tree by approximately 30 percent. PROJECT ADDRESS: 3131 Steeplechase Lane (Lot 2 of Parcel Map 23382) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Polly Wu 1326 Golden Coast Lane Rowland Heights, CA 91748 JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION APPLICANT: Simon Shum S&W Development 20272 Carrey Road Walnut, CA 91789 PI/Godinez presented staff sreport. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Development Review No. 2003-09 and Tree Permit 2003-10 to a future public hearing date to allowthe applicanttime to submit a redesign project. Simon Shum, applicant, said his firm has done quite a bit of work in "The Country Estates."This site has difficult issues in terms of site planning and the matter of one tree on-site. He explainedthat he andstaff differed in their opinions regarding the 30 percenttree pruning recommenabd byhis arborist. Using visuals, he explained how he proposed to prune the tree. While recognizing the beauty and aesthetic val ue of the tree how can the needs of the tree be met while remaining in the guidelines of the code and accommodating the needs of the property owner. The tree is in bad condition. It lacks water, proper pruningand direction for growth. His arborist, Valley Crest, has moved and mitigated thousandsof oak trees and they are qualified to determine what should be done in this instance. Since Ms. Wu purchasedthe property measures have been implemented to treat the tree. As a result, the tree has produced new growth and the health of the tree has improved.The staff report mentioned that we areexpandingthe pad area. The intent of the design for the innovative 10,000 square foot building is to stabilize the buildingand take advantageof the north sloping direction. In addition, the building is set back on the property allowing for a largefront yard setback. He asked the Commission to envision the benefits of the unusually large structure to the future growth of the City. C/Wei noticed that the Oak tree was very close to the property line and extended over onto the neighboring property. He asked what assurancethe City would have that the applicant' sneighbor would not request further trimming of the tree. Mr. Shum respondedto VC/Nolan that no additionalsteps recommended by the arborist had been taken beyond implementation of deep feeding. JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION Chair/Tye was concerned that removing a large portion of the tree in orderto move the drip line was not in the best interest of the tree. He pointed out that the arborist and Valley Crest recommended that the tree not be pruned at this time and to that extent. Mr. Shum explainedthat eventually when the tree is restored to its natural health the applicant would want to prune the tree to enhance the existing building. The intent is to make the structure symbiotic with the oaktree. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. Raymond Perez, Las Brisas Homeowners Association Board Member, said his associations'concern is with the drainageof the three lots. The way the concrete swale currentlyexists is that half of the lot drainsto a swale on the east side of their propertiesall the way downto Diamond Bar Boulevard.The other half of the lot drains down to Sugar Pine Place, a private street built and maintained by the association. The association is concerned that the swale has the capacity to handle additional water from the three lots because of past problems. He referred to a study recommended by the Planning Commission on the swale to determine whetherit could handlethe additional water capacity. He could not find that the study had been done and would like to see it take place. Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. DCM/DeStefano explainedthatthe three lots were intendedto drain down on both sides of Las Brisas. These are the last three lots that are draining in that area. All of the other lots thatsurround Las Brisas have been developed for many years. The drainage system is private and has been in place for many years. Based upon the amount of impervious surface, the amount of additionalwater anticipated to come from this lotand if the existingdrainage swales havethe capacity to handlethe additional water, staff does not have an answer to these questions. This matter should have been part of the original subdivision approval becausethe subdivision approval was based upon certain assumptions and the subsequentdevelopment may be based upon a different set of assumptions or market conditions. The original subdivision approval anticipated homes in the range of 4-8000 square feet. At the time those anticipations may have seemed appropriate butmay have been a bitlowsince many of the homes in "TheCountry Estates"now start at JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION about 8,000square feet. Based upon the pad configu ratio nspro posed by the developerand approved by the City, the homes ranged from about 4000- 8000 square feet. This home is at 16,000 squarefeet. Staff sissue includes the fact that the configuration of this home is contributing to the issues that staff has problems with such as preservation of the tree, consistency with proposed setbacks. Additionally, staff sreport referencesthe fact that there is no geo-technical report to support the house construction on the slope. City Council' srecommendation based upon the Planning Commission' s recommendation was to preserve this tree. It is staff s responsibility to recommend conditions that cause the preservation of that tree. The consultant advised staff that pruning of the tree would be seriously harmful to the tree' shealth. This issue has an effect upon the placement of the house, the size of the house and the amenities proposedsuch as decks and driveways that enter into or near the drip line and the root structure of the tree. These issues have been discussed with the architect over the past several months. Staff has no problemwith the size of the home, only that it meets with the intent and spirit of the original approval and that there are geo-technical reports to support such a structure. VC/Nolan felt the City should address Mr. Perez' sconcernsandcontinuethe project to resolve the conflict between arborists as well as steps taken to address staff sconcerns. Chair/Tye recommended that in addition to V/C Nolan's request, the applicant initiate additional steps for tree mitigation recommended by the arborist. Mr. Shum explained that he had no concern about the additional water because there is m ore water running from an unfinished surface. Consequently, when Lots 1 and 3 are improved, there would be even less runoff. Chair/Tye was more concernedthat the applicant had not provided a geo- technical report supporting the supposition that the hillside wouldsupportthe proposed project. In view of the lack of supporting documentation the Planning Commission would be hard-pressed to make a decision on this matter. Mr. Shum agreed to continue the matter to February 10, 2004 JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Nolan moved, to continue Development Review No. 2003-09 and Tree Permit 2003-10 to the Planning Commission meeting of February 10, 2004. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan, Wei, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Tanaka 8.3 Develooment Review No. 2003-15 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-12 (pursuantto Code Section 22.48 is a requestto constructa first and second story addition including balconies for a total of approximately 3,675 square feet to an existing one-story single-family residence which includesa three cargaragetotaling to approximate ly4,136 squarefeet. The request also includes a Minor Conditional Use Permit due to the legal non- conforming existing front yard setbackof 25 feet instead of the required 30 feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: 2240 Rusty Pump Road (Tract 23483, Lot 47) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Xiao Sen Li 2240 Rusty Pump Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Ming K. Lan 2334 N. Batavia Street#102 Orange, CA 92865 AssocP/Lungu presented staff s report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-15 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Ming K. Lan, applicant, said he read staff sreport and concurred with the conditions of approval. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION There being no one who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. VC/Nolan moved, C/Wei seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2003-15 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-12, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan, Wei, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Tanaka 8.4 Develooment Review No. 2003-24 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020, 22.56 and 22.30.080(5)(a)(5)) is a request to construct a two -story, single family residence of approximately 15,722 gross square feet including balconies, porch, porte cochere, covered patio and five-cargarage.A MinorConditional Use Permit approval is required for the driveway. PROJECT ADDRESS: 3168 Windmill Drive (Lot 11, Tract 50314) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Richard Gould APPLICANT: Windmill Estates, LLC 3480 Torrance Boulevard #300 Torrance, CA 90503 DSA/Smith presented staff' sreport. Staff recommends Plan ningCommission approval of Development Review No. 2003-24 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Richard Gould, applicant, stated that the owners of these properties usually install extensive landscaping after the fact. For that reason, he would prefer the property owner install the landscaping. He read stafr s report and concurred with the conditions of approval. He explainedthat the property is in escrow and the structure is a custom built house for a custom buyer. JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Nolan moved, C/Wei seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2003-24 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-17, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan, Wei, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Tanaka 8.5 Develooment Review No. 2003-28 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-18 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020.(a)(1)) is a request to construct a first and second story addition of approximately 2,200 square feetto an existing onestory single-family residencewhich includesa two car garage totaling approximatelyl ,720 squarefeet. The requestalso includesa Minor Conditional Use Permit due to the existing legal non -conforming separation of 10 feet between the subject single-family structure and the single-family structure on the adjacent lot instead of the required 15 foot separation and existing side yard setbacks. PROJECT ADDRESS: 23511 Decorah Road (Tract 27530, Lot 55) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER/ Mr. and Mrs. Mohamad Fakih APPLICANT: 23511 Decorah Road Diamond Bar, CA 91765 AssocP/Lungu presented staff s report. Staff recommends Planning Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-28 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-18, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Mr. Fakih said he read staff sreport and concurred with the conditions of approval. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter Chair/Tye closed the public hearing. JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION VC/Nolan moved, C/Wei seconded, to approve Development Review No. 2003-28 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-18, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Nolan, Wei, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Nelson, Tanaka 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMA TIONAL ITEMS: Chair/Tye thanked staff for their fine work and assistance to the Planning Commission. He asked Commissioners to decide what date would be available for a tour of the Diamond Bar Center. 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFOR MATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/DeStefano reported to VC/Nolan' sconcernthathe had nothing to report regarding the Timber Ridge sign. Staff continuesto discuss the matter with potential lyinterested parties. Today staff received a new site planfrom the ownerof the Country Hills Towne Center. Staff is compiling a package that includes a Zone Change, Development Review, Conditional Use Permit modification as well as, a proposed height variance for a newly proposed structure. The property owner is interested in adding restaurants and retail, improving the theater, razing the buildingsat the northerly Diamond Bar Boulevard frontage in orderto constructa multi -story office building. The Planning Commission will likely review this project in the next couple of months. DCM/DeStefano attended a PlanningDirector' smeeting for the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments today. One of the topics discussed was an upcoming valley -wide summit on growth to be held on March 20, 2004, in Diamond Bar. DCM/DeStefano reported on freeway ramp closures. Tonight' spacket contains information regardingthe upcoming PlanningCommissioners Institute in Monterey on Wednesday,March 31 through Friday, April 2, 2004. He asked Commissioners to advise staff as soon as possible. He reported on the 600 -acre City of Industry project intended to create about 4.8 million square feet of space consisting of offices, industrial, a business park, big box retail, commercial center on Grand Avenue (creating a newstreet) and an auto rowto augment the Honda dealership with a network of streets aboutfour miles in length potentially connecting to Brea Canyon Road, Grand Avenue and Sunset Crossing Road. Diamond Bar is in the JANUARY 13, 2004 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION process of responding to the Notice of Preparation. The conclusion of the letter will be completed prior to the next Plan ning Commission meeting. The City Council will discuss the project and its impacts to Diamond Bar at its January 20, 2004, study session. 11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Tye adjourned the meeting at 9:02 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager Attest: Steve Tye, Chairman AGENDA NO. 6.2.2 MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION JANUARY 27, 2004 CALL TO ORDER: Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:03 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Nelson led the Pledge of Allegiance. 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Chairman Steve Tye; Vice Chairman Dan Nolan; and Commissioners Steve Nelson and Jack Tanaka. Commissioner Osman Wei was excused. Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant, Lorena Godinez, Planning Intern; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant. ■i:4:;y1:1_61TIa1:lei =1113�I���]���h71������.CTiT�i�ita'�a 3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Approval of January 13, 2004, Regular Meeting minutes. VC/Nolan moved, Chair/Tye seconded,to approvethe January 13, 2004, Regular Meeting minutes as presented.Withoutobjection,the motionwas so ordered. 5. OLD BUSINESS: None 6. NEW BUSINESS: None JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 2 PLANNING COMMISSION RION.,I:F_1:11.0*1 7.1 Development Review No. 2003-05 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48.020.A.1) is a request to construct a two story, single-family residencewith basement, incl udingbalconies, porch, deck and two attached two car garages totaling approximately 15,942 gross square feet. PROJECT ADDRESS: 3145 Steeplechase Lane (Lot 1 of Parcel Map 23382) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Stephe Tanidjaja 21550 Barbi Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Simon Shum & Manolo Manalo S&W Development 20272 Carrey Road Walnut, CA 91789 PI/Godinez presented stafr s report. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Development Review No. 2003-33 for 30-45 days to allowthe applicanttime to resolve certain issues and redesign the access accordingly. Further, staff needsto furtherexamine the geo-technical report that was submitted and not processed for reviewto insure that the structure could be supportedby the proposed solution.As a resultof comments during the January13 Plan ningCommission, hydrologydrainageconcerns needto be resolved. Simon Shum said he would address unresolved easement issues at a later time. He explained the project design and commented on the drainage issues. He stated thathis presentation focuses on howhis firm arrived at the current design, to compliment the staff s report concerning the drainage issue, and to shed some lightfrom their perspective. He showed pictures of other designs produced by his firm to point out their uniqueness and how S&W arrived ata solution and to point out howthis particular project would be an asset to the City of Diamond Bar. He showed a photo of what he said would be a "typical" Mediterranean house and the scale would later be presented to the Planning Commission for review. The site is relatively flat JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 3 PLANNING COMMISSION so that the issue is simple. It is located on an interior lot of "The Country Estates" so it is not a problem location like the house they are currently designing. Most of the Mediterranean houses are composed of large eve features, balconies, and decks. Another photo featured a house his firm designed for the City of Chino Hills. The entry containsarchitecturalfeatures that are reminiscent of the 1920' tturn of the century. Anotherphoto showed a home in Chino Hills - Lewis Brock home that was a small adaptation of a ranch house. The current project is nottypically Span isf�MediterraneanIt is a Moorish design. It is a combination of a little Sultan Spain and Moorish architecture. There is a lot of circus treatment and detail on theeve, canopy and the column scale. And the vegetation and landscape material to compliment the building is also different. His firm checked with the owner because this was such a prominent lot up on the ridge. The owner is committed to completinga projectwith full arch itecturaldetail. He pointedout the features of the tower and all of the juxtaposition of the tower in the front and the bank. He felt that if constructed, this project would add to the City because of its uniqueness. He stated that the owner is committed to constructing all of the detail as outlined. Because of the prominence of this site and architecture of the adjoining site that came before the Planning Commission at its last meeting is ultra -modern constructed of g lassand steel. The two structuressitting side by side would look be a good compliment, assuming the oak tree issue is resolved, in terms of size and prominence. In addition to providinga design that is satisfying to the owners, he hopes to provide a design that would speakfor Diamond Bar by providinga productthat would be unique.S&W is drawing a parallelto this projectand the Diamond Bar Center because it is a very prettyand unique building. He felt iftherewere small uniquefeatures in the architecture of the building it would probablybe a good thing for the City of Diamond Bar. Unfortunately, this project was beset from the beginning with a lot of easement issues that his firm was not totally aware of that was interpreted incorrectly. Nonetheless, the team of attorneys is working on these issues. His purpose for being here this eveningwas to go through the steps of how hisfirm arrived at a solution and why this buildingwould fit the site. He further stated that his firm is still researching the drainage issue. Based on the developer' snformation and what is constructed, his firm will compile something thatif notadequate,his firm would be happyto providea hydrology report to make certain that the project would properly drain. He asked for the Commission' sinputso thathe couldmove toward resolvingthe matter at a later date. JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 4 PLANNING COMMISSION C/Tanaka asked if Mr. Shum would be resolving the issue of encroachment into the fire lane? Mr. Shum responded that that issue was tabled for this presentation. His presentation is intwo stages with tonight' sfirst presentation focusing on the project and its background from an architectural perspective. The team of lawyers and the owner are working with Las Brisas on easement issue. He understands that there is a hearing resolution conference scheduled for March. Once that is completed, the applicant intends to contact staff and pursue the project to conclusion. Chair/Tye asked Mr. Shum if he agreed with staff sreport. Mr. Shum said that in general, he agreed with staff sreport but could not discuss the easement issue becauseof the legal implications. He was concernedabout the requirementfor a geological report. His firm provided a geologicalreport to the City' s staff indicating that the geology could support the building. Therefore, the setbackwould most likely notbe animpedimentto approvalof this project. He felt this issue had been resolved. As with other projects in the City his firm has provided a geotechnical report that confirms this building could be built safely on this location. But the detail about the drainageand placementof debris and depositof afee with the PublicWorks Department for reviewwould come at a later date. It would not be a public policy and Planning issue. With respect to landscape, S&W understands that the circle does not override the requirement for softscape so they can place turf blockto make the circle smallerand still maintain the utility of it. All of staff sissues are valid but not insurmountable compared to the scale of the project. Chair/Tye asked why, when the guidelines were clear, did S&W bring a project to staff that did not comply with the City' srequirements. He said he was not only speaking about this project but also about prior projects the Commission had been asked to review. He said he had the feeling that the applicanthad an "attitudeof neglect"offering projects that were outside the guidelinesjustto see iftheycould be pushedthroughthe system. This is not a process to be abused. Therefore, why would S&W bring projects to the City that clearly failed to meet the required guidelines? Simon Shum said he had worked extensivelywith City staff. In the past the processwas a little different in thathe could resolve the issues directlywith JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 5 PLANNING COMMISSION staff. In this case, his firm has submitted everything the staff has requested including presentation documentation. His firm received the staff reportonly two days before tonight' smeeting and they were not aware that there was such a difference of opinion. Had he known he could have changed the landscape outlay to correctly reflect staff swishes for the Commission to review butthose things were notbroughtto theirattention until much laterin time and too close to meeting time for him to revise his plans. Chair/Tye reiterated his concern. The City' srequirements are very clearly called out. Before this project was proposed, S&W knew what the City' s guidelineswere. And yet, the plans were submitted at 35 percent instead of the City' sdevelopmentstandard for front yard landscapingat a minimum of 50 percent. Mr. Shum said he differed with Chair/Tye' sopinion. He said that S&W was not an expert about Diamond Bar's guidelines regarding the front yard setback because they practice in several counties. What wasp resented was just a guidelineofwhatthey wanted and staff would be the expertto reflect the City' sopinion. If staff tells them that there is a 50 percent requirement they changetheir plans.The buildingthe Commission is reviewinghas gone through at least two iterationsfor the elevation and height. He did notrecall that in previous correspondence with the City staff that this project was a major issue. And we didn' tet the report, maybe because of time pressure, until day before yesterdayand the plans had already gone out. Chair/Tye said he received his report on Friday. As he read the report he observed thefollowing: 1)The setbacksare notin compliance; 2)ln a report from August 1999 it was made very clearthat the size of the home on these lots should be between 4000 and 8000 gross square feet; This project is 15,942 feet, just shy of double the City' srecommendation; and 3) the developmentwill encroach into a slide debrisarea. ChairTye said he would expectthe architect to beaware of whetheror notthat was acceptableto the City. Apparently, it is okay if requested but with this package, nos uch requestwas submitted for encroachment into the slide area. So in looking at the accumulation of seeming neglect of important issues. There is no required information regarding runoff. Chair/Tye said he relies on staff to provide the necessary information to review projects. When he sees words like "failedto request in writing"staff does not have the required information. Staff needs all of the details necessaryto arrive ata reasonable decision. JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 6 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Shum felt that staff should provide Chair/Tye with the requested information. His firm has had a lot of correspondence with staff. All of the issues brought up by staff were addressed. That' swhy there are some outstanding issues that are not insurmountable. Geology, for instance, is subject to interpretation. His firm has geologyto supportthe building andthe report was sent to staff. But staff determined at what level the site must be broughtto be in compliance. So it is an administrative decision.There have been a lot of modifications since the first design was presented to the City that S&W worked with staff to correct. Chair/Tye asked why they submitted 35 percent for the front yard setback and this is new to S&W because they were not even aware of the requirement. However, it is not insurmountable and S&W can change their plans to be in compliance but they need some guidance from staff. Chair/Tye asked Mr. Shum if he was familiar with City Council Resolution No. 9968. Mr. Shum said he had read through the City Council resolution. Chair/Tye asked Mr. Shum if he was familiar with Item 4.a. and whether he realized that the item called for custom homes that ranged in size from approximately 4,000 to 8,000 square feet. Mr. Shum uttered affirmatively. He said that the 4-8,000 feet meant interior space. It doesn' tmean the decks, etc., are meant to be included. So if you include parkingand appurtenancesthe structure hasto be more than 8,000 and 8,OOOforfour lots. So we combinedthe numbersand dividedby 3so the project is not too far off. In the past staff indicated to him that the size was not a concern,they were concerned about other issues. If you lookat a lot of JCC homes they' re15,000 squarefeetjust across the way from this project. So size is not the issue but how do you scale it out if it becomes an issue. The City resolutionforthe buildablepadis becausethe geotechnical report was not investigated beyond the point so the pad was what it was. If he presented report that verified thatthe site could be absorbed or supporta larger building, he felt that staff would not have a problem supporting the project. This is not the larges building in the area. Chair/Tye said he did not dispute that this project was not the largest home. However, even though this site is across the site from JCC it also abuts a home on the end of Hawkwood. So it' ssomewhere between the buildings JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 7 PLANNING COMMISSION across the street and the building next to this site. The point is, in the City' s resolution itis very clear that buildingsshould range from approximately 4,000-8,000 square feet, not including garages, driveways and decks. Mr. Shum reiterated his calculations.Chair/Tye confirmed that by Mr.Shum' s calculationsfor this projectwas proposedto be between 50 and100 percent larger than was recommended by the City. He stated that his proposal was for 12,000 square feet of livable space. The 16,000 square feet included garage, deckand appurtenances. Chair/Tye said he read City Council' sresolution to include garages, decks and appurtenances. Mr. Sum felt it was open to interpretation.He believedthe resol utio n referred to livablespace excluding the garage. Usually what a resolutionmeans is 4- 7,000 of livable area, at least by his interpretation. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. Amanda Owen, Attorney, Fiore, Racobs & Powers, 6670 Alessandro, Suite B, Riverside, CA 92506 spoke on behalf of the Las Brisas Homeowners Association that lies adjacent to the proposed project. She presented a photograph depicting the recent spate of wildfires in Southern California. The Las Brisas Homeowners Association is concernedabout fire access. She produced a timeline of City documentation that indicated a fire lane across the property where the project is proposed. The earliest documentis a Los Angeles County map dated 1978. Clearly indicatedon the map is the fire lane. In 1983 the Parcel Map for Las Brisas was recorded. She produced the detail from the Parcel Map that clearly indicated a fire lane. In 1976 the condominium plan for Las Brisas was recorded and the recordation also clearly indicates the fire lane. She referred to City Council Resolutions No.' s95-36 and95-37 andthe highlighted relevantCondition of Approval for Parcel 23382. "ParcelMap 23382shall maintain a minimum 20 foot wide open clear to the sky paved access road along and within that public utility and public services easementon the westerly portion of Lot V' Assertions have been made to the City that in fact the only emergency access that is needed is that between Hawkwood Road and Steeplechase. She believed that the language indicated that was not true. In order to illustrate the languageshe parsed it out. She showed the Commission the requirement is for a paved access along and within the public utility and JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 8 PLANNING COMMISSION public service easement on the westerly portion of the property and the requirement for the easement between the cul-de-sac of Hawkwood Road and the knuckle of Steeplechase Lane that is on the southerly portion. The former owner of this property, Warren Dolezal, came beforethe Commission requesting a reduction from the four lots to the three lots. Mr. Dolezal stated, as reflected in the Commission' smeeting minutes, the emergency access is paved and maintenance and liability is the responsibility of the Las Brisas Homeowners Association. Going to that early argurrentthat is necessary is that between Hawkwood and Steeplechase, here we have the former owner of the property saying that Las Brisas will maintain the easement. Of course it makes no sense that Las Brisas would be maintaining an easement to which it had no access and from which it derived no benefit. In 1999 there was a one-year extension of Parcel Map 23382 and that clearly states the following: "allofthe conditionsin Resolutions 95-36 and 95-37 shall remain in full force and effect unless amended"and they were notamended One of Mr. Dolezal' s representaties erected a chain fence across that fire access and that chain link fence remains in place today. As you know, there is pending litigation about access rights to the fire lane. DPW/Liu says the chain link fence must be removed because it has been designated as a fire access road. That same languagewent to the current owners and to their architects in June 2003. I am also aware that this languagewas again faxed to these parties on December 5, 2003. In June the fire department served the current owners of the property with a notice of violation that read "the chain link fence across the fire lane atthe end ofSurgarpine must be removed." She learned by speaking with the fire captain that he served anothercopy of in November 2003 and notated in his handwriting "lastand final notice."She viewed an inter -office memo prepared in anticipationof this hearing stating the same requirement that the applicantmust maintain the fire road. Her timeline reveals that this was a fire lane in 1978,1983,1986, 1995,1999, 2002, 2003 and it is a fire lane today. As to any suggestion that the litigationthat is currentlygoingon betweenthe (Las Brisas) Homeowners Association and the current and former owners of the property would take care of this filing easement issue is erroneous. They are two completely separate issues. At one pointthe association was given a written expressed easement over that property and the association is suing to vindicate its rights under that agreement and some related theories. The association is not suing the City of Diamond Bar. The City of Diamond Bar made its mandate clear and described the fire lane as existing within and along the access and utility easement. In fact, the access and utility easement is 40 feet wide under the written express grant. The fire lane, according to the JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 9 PLANNING COMMISSION conditions of approval, is 20 feet wide. In essence, they are layered one on top of the other. Asa representative of the Las Brisas Homeowners Association, the people who live in the 97 units at Las Brisas will fight any proposal that does not includethat fire lane. After reading staff sreport she is definitely encouragedthat it appearsto be the City' sposition as well. She requested some sort of clear statement or resolution tonight from the Planning Commission that any project that is approved for that parcel will have a condition that that fire lane must be maintained. She felt it would not only give her client peace of mind and that it would also help the property owners, Mr. and Mrs. Tanidjaja to build their dream home. Knowing that the fire lane must be accommodated in their plans would give them some certainty to make a plan that the City would approve. Chair/Tye reiterated Ms. Owen' srequest that there would be a statement relative to the maintenance of that fire road. He referred to the June 22, 1999, meeting of the Planning Commission minutes that stated "thatthe emergency access is paved and maintenance and liability is the responsibility of the Las Brisas Homeowners Association." He asked if Ms. Owen was asserting that the maintenance would be someone else' s obligation? Ms. Owen is not sure how the City maintains fire roads. She believed that the association was not necessarily taking the position that it has no maintenance responsibilitiesbut she could not assert that the association would welcome wholesale that maintenance responsibility. Raymond Perez, 3005 C La Paz Avenue, Las Brisas Association board member referred to hisJanuaryl3 comments regardingthe drainage.At that time he was speaking aboutthe center lot that drained in two directions, one into a swale on theeastside of their property and oneonto Sugarpine Place. He presented a photograph depicting the view looking up from Las Brisas and Sugarpine Place into the fire lane that goes all the way up to Steeplechase. This is the fence Ms. Owen referred to earlier that the fire marshall has requested be removed. The photo showed the debris that comes from the lot in question. During raining season and more especially during an EI Nino, the water and debriscoming from thatlot onto Surgarpine Place is excessive. The drainageon the middle lot comes down through the area and eventuallyon to Surgarpine Place. Chair/Tye asked staff for clarification of City Resolution 99-68 JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 10 PLANNING COMMISSION DCM/DeStefano stated that with the majority of subdivision approval one of the components is the anticipated pad size and anticipated size of the homes that would occupy those pads. When this project was presented to the City in the late ` 90' ifwas represented that the padswere sufficient for homes that would be constructed on those properties.When the projectwas proposed it was originallyproposed as a four-unitsubdivision of the two and one-half acre site. Further, it was estimated that the homes would range in size from about4-8000 feet. Like other projects in Diamond Bar, home sizes have grown from those that were presented by the developerto those that come forward with architects and new private homeowners for approval by the cities. Staff looked at the issue of -8000 square foot homes with somewhat of the same logic represented tonight by thearchitecti.e., thatwe were looking ata possible maximum size of about8,000 squarefeet for four homes or a total of 32,000 feet of habitable space. If you were to simply subdivide the 32,000 feet into three lots you might be looking at homes of about 11,OOOsquare feet. And, there are amenities thatgo with those homes such as balconies, patios and other features that are now incorporated within our overall square footage information to the Planning Commission. So, a16,000 square foot home is comprised of all of those different components. A 16,OOOsquare foot home is largerthan staff had anticipated and largerthan the Planning Commission or City Council anticipated when the subdivision was approved in 1999. But is that outside the scope of possibility? That is difficultto say. A creative architect dealing with size bulk mass can come up with a productthat enhancesthe neighborhoodand one that is not detrimental or overwhelming to other structures. The size is not necessarily the issue for the City. The issue on this particular project has been the encroachmentof the home based on its design size into two areas: 1) the fire lane and 2) the restricted use area that is a result of the landslide that was mitigated a few years ago. Staff is unsure that the home can be supported by the proposed geotechnicalsolution because that geotechnical report has not been reviewed and approved by the City. In addition, staff is definitelyof the opinionthat the home and its amenities should not encroach into the designatedfire laneas hasbeen represented by otherspeakersthis evening. Chair/Tye reiterated his belief that the proposed project was an absolute disregard for a variety of guidelines. VC/Nolan said it appeared to him that this project along with previously JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 11 PLANNING COMMISSION submitted projects by this architectwas submitted to the City in a manner similar to "let' sthrow it against the wall and see if it sticks." To him it was troubling. Publicsafety is the issue with a fire lane and thatfact would not be mitigated through conversations between Las Brisas and the current property owner. The conditions andthe maintenance responsibilitiesare to him, blackand white. The same requirements that the Commission made of the adjacent property during its previous meeting about water runoff, etc. should also apply to this project. C/Nelson complimented Mr. Shum on his home designs. He has a tremendous amount of faith in the staff that supports this Commission. He asked staff to consider the fact that this is an all glass and steel 35 -foot house as well as a Moorish palace design of 35 feet in height. He does not see any compatibility between these two homes and the adjacent single- family development. He asked that staff consider this a priority during its review and focus — not to lessen the concerns for the easement. He found it difficult to see these types of structures in that particular location. Mr. Shum is correct in stating that these types of structures are frequently built in "The Country Estates"where they are nextdoorto other housesconsisting of 12- 23,000 square feet. Chair/Tye asked Mr. DeStefano if it was more advisable to continue this matter to March 23, 2004, than staffs recommendation of March 10, 2004. Mr. DeStefano recommended that Planning Commission allowthe applicant to respond to this question. Mr. Shum agreed to a continuancedate of March 23, 2004. C/Tanaka asked Mr. Shum if he would have to totally redesign the project if the fire lane was upheld? Mr. Shum replied no, not necessarily. There is enough set back that the building could be pulled back from the property line. He felt that a fire truck could not access the fire lane. Chair/Tye felt it was far more likely that a fire truck could make it down the paved road the way it is todaythan if it had a block wall put up. VC/Nolan moved, C/Tanaka to continue Development Review No. 2003-05 JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 12 PLANNING COMMISSION to the Planning Commission meeting of March 23, 2004. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONERS: V/C Nolan, Tanaka, Nelson, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wei 7.2 Develooment Review No. 2003-11 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-09 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020(l)(1),22.56.020 and 22.68.020)is a requestto constructa secondstory additionof approximately 2,100 square feet including deck and balconyto an existingone-storysingle- family residence of approximately 1,774 square feet including the two car garage.The requestalso includesa MinorConditional Use Permitdueto the legal non -conforming existing side yard setbacks. PROJECT ADDRESS: 23831 Twin Pines Lane (Tract 27530, Lot 116) Diamond Bar, CA 91765 PROPERTY OWNER: Rene Sanchez 23831 Twin Pines Lane Diamond Bar, CA 91765 APPLICANT: Ramon Gallardo 3317 Beverly Boulevard #108 Montebello, CA 90640 AssocP/Lungu presentedstaff sreport. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission continue Development Review No. 2003-11 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-09 to February 24, 2004, to allow the applicant additional time to redesign the front fagade of the proposed addition and to give staff the opportunity to reviewthe redesign. Rene Sanchez, property owner, presented a series of photographsto each Commissioner. He has lived in the property for 11 years. It is one of the smallest in the neighborhood.Withoutthe parking garage,his home consists of 1492square feetof space. He complimented AssocP/Lunguon herreport and took exception to the three-foot cutback requirement because none of JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 13 PLANNING COMMISSION the surrounding homes has a cutback on their second stories. He agreed that it looks better to have a cutback. He showed photos of other homes in the area. His garage sits back 25 feet whereas other homes in his neigh borhoodhave 20 -foot setbacks for their garages. He did not feel it was necessary to set the rest of the house back three feet. If the Planning Commission decides he should incorporate the three-foot setback he would accept the condition. He asked for approval today as the project was presented orwith the three-foot setback condition. C/Nelson asked what the three foot -setback requirement meant to the applicant' splans. Would it render rooms unusable? Mr. Sanchez responded that it would make construction more difficult in orderto accommodate the bearingweight. He would have preferred to build out ratherthan build back. However, none of his neighbors have built outso it would not look appropriate. The photos show houses one street overfrom his home. Chair/Tye felt Mr. Sanchez' sphotos supported staff sconditions Mr. Sanchez felt that the three-foot cutback would look out of place in his neighborhood because no other homes on his street had three-foot cutbacks. He believed that if the three-foot cutback became part of the balconyitwould lookokay. Chair/Tye told Mr. Sanchezthat such a compromise might be acceptableto staff. DCM/DeStefano explainedthat staff was concerned about compatibility and architectural style. Staff made its recommendation accordingly. However, staff is not opposedto the decision reached by the Planning Commission. Mr. Sanchez said that in his opinion,a straight-line second storywith a fake roof would be 1 00percent compatible with the neighborhoodbecausethat' s what everyone has. He would like to make a balcony instead of the roof because he felt his designwould upgrade the lookof hishome. He reiterated he was agreeableto whatever the Planning Commission decided. C/Nelson asked if Mr. Sanchezwas in a hurry to get his project approved JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 14 PLANNING COMMISSION Mr. Sanchez responded that he has been waiting for 11 years to be in a position to move forward. He has a wood roof that is leaking. AssocP/Lungu explainedthat staff is not opposedto the second story. Staff is not opposed to the balcony. However, staff is opposed to the way the balcony has been applied to the front of the house in the design. It looks more like it is stuck there rather than belonging to the structure. However, staff is not opposedto the design of the house in the photograph showing the second story straight across with the fake roof and porch look underneath. C/Nelson said he liked the look of the house depicted in the photograph. Chair/Tye opened the public hearing. Arturo Sanchez appeal edto the Commission to approvethis project. He and his son Rene have been dreaming and saving forthis projectfor many years because the family grows and they need the space. This is not a luxuryfor his family, it is a necessity so that their family can live better. C/Nelson liked the compromise proposed by staff. It would not reduce the livable area. It would, however, reducethe size of the balconybuthe hasnot observed people making much use of their balconies. He felt the compromise would give the property owner what he was seeking. He would not be opposed to conditioning approval of the project tonight. Mr. Sanchez concurred with a February 10, 2004, approval of his project in accordance with staff sproposal. C/Nelson moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to continue the Public Hearing and direct staff to prepare a resolution of approval for Development Review No. 2003-11 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-09 incorporating the components proposed by staff and bring the resolution back to the Planning Commission for formal adoption on February 10, 2004. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COMMISSIONE RS: Nelson, Tanaka, VC/Nolan, Chair/Tye NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Wei JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 15 PLANNING COMMISSION 9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMA TIONAL ITEMS: None Offe red . 10. STAFF COMMENTS/INFOR MATIONAL ITEMS: DCM/De Stefano reminded the Planning Commissioners that they would tour the Diamond Bar Center tomorrow afternoon. Tonight staff provided the Commissioners with copies of a nine -page letter delivered to the City of Industry on Monday that outlines concerns with Industry' s proposed project, namely the vacant acreage behind the Honda dealership. Principleissues are traffic and the impacts the projectwill have as well as the cumulative total of Industry projects in that area and their impacts on Diamond Bar. Second, Diamond Bar is concerned aboutthe compatibility of the project with Diamond Barbusinesses, residents and otherland usesthat are in the area where the projectwill be developed.Other comments were represented in the letter as well. If Commissioners have questions, please consultstaff. The deadline to getthe letter to Industry did notallowfor time to bring it beforethe Commission in advance.The timeline for reviewof the Draft Environmental Impact Reportwill allow staff time to bring the matter to the Commission for input prior to the deadline for submittal of that communication. ii111�1143:14bill =90]aWIill V=0W1=1.11&_3 As listed in the Agenda. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Tye adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m. Respectfully Submitted, James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attest: JANUARY 27, 2004 PAGE 16 PLANNING COMMISSION Chairman Steve Tye AGENDA #6.3 NOTICE REGARDING THE WARRANT REGISTER Please note that the Warrant Register has not been included in the electronic versions of the City Council Agenda Packets on the City's Web Site because severe formatting errors occur when attempting to convert this material. If you are interested in receiving a copy of the Warrant Register, please contact the City Clerk's office at 909 -839-7000 to receive a FAXed copy or to pick one up in person. We apologize for the inconvenience. Agenda # 6.4 Meeting Date: February 17, 2004 CITY COUNCIL TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager AGENDA REPORT TITLE: Amend contractwith Conrad and Associates L.L.P in the amount of $7,250 and appropriatethe necessary funds from the General Fund reserves. RECOMMENDATION: Ratify and approve a contract amendment for services provided by Conrad and Associates, L.L.P. for the implementation of GASB 34 in connection with the FY02-03 auditin the amount of $7,250.00. Approve budget amendment and appropriate $7,250 from the General Fund unreservedfund balance. FINANCIAL IMPACT: $7,250 increase in general fund expendituresand the appropriation of $7,250 from the General Fund unreserved fund balance reserves. BACKGROUND: The Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) set forth a new governmental reporting standard, entitled GASB34-The Financial Reporting Model, which requires the capitalization and depreciation of fixed assets including infrastructure and the reformatting of the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The City implemented the CAFR changes in FY2002-2003. As a result, additionalwork had to be completed by the City' sauditing firm. This included working with City staff to assure compliance with all of the new requirements and reformatting the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). This work was completed with the deliveryof the CAFR in mid December. The City has until FY06-07 to complete implementation of GASB 34 by including the capitalization of the City' sinfrastructure in its financial statements. This will require a studyto evaluate the City' s infrastructure and condition. It is anticipated that an estimate of $30,000 to $60,000 for this study will be included in the FY04-05 Budget. Staff is currently contacting citiesthat have fully implemented GASB 34 to find out what their experiencehas been so that when the budgetis preparedthe estimate is realistic. Page 2 —City Council Report Audit Contract Increase DISCUSSION: On April 18, 2000, the City Council approved contract with Conrad and Associatesfor auditing services for FY 99-00 through FY 01-02 with the option to renewfor an additionaltwo years. The contract was renewed for FY02-03 at a cost of $23,500 underthe City Manager' sauthority. The cost proposal included clause that acknowledgedthe implementation of GASB 34 during FY 02-03 and that there would be additional costs for implementation. These costs were unknown until actual implementation. Since this work was completed as a part of the FY02-03 audit and was required, it is appropriate for the City Council to ratify and appropriate funds. It is anticipatedthat the audit costs for FY03-04 related to the implementation of GASB 34 will not be so great since this year' scosts were mostly for setup. PREPARED BY: Linda G. Magnuson Finance Director REVIEWED BY: Department Head Attachments: Deputy City Manager Agenda # 6. S Meeting Date: FebruarX 17. 2004 CITY COUNCIL TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager AGENDA REPORT TITLE: Authorize City Managerto purchase computer network hardware and software from CDW for an amount not to exceed $60,000 Recommendation: Itis recommended that the City Council authorize the City Managerto purchase the required hardware and software. Budget/Financial Impact: Initially there were insufficient funds in the FY 2003-04 budgetto purchase the required Information Systems hardware and software. However, current year priorities were re-evaluated and the associated resourceswere reallocatedto provide fundingwithin the FY 2003-04 budget. Funds allocated to complete the City' sdocument imaging program and a portion of salary savingsfrom the vacant Information Systems intern position were re -directed to purchase this necessary equipment. The hardware required for connectivity between City Hall and Diamond Bar Center will be paid from the construction contingency account. Discussion: In December 2003 the City circulated a request for proposalsto provide management services for the City' slnformation Systems division. The City' slnformation Systems Committee, comprised of City employees, reviewed all submitted proposals, conducted interviewswith key personnelof prospective companies, and unanimously selected Ken DesForges of Nakoma Group as the City' scontractlS Manager. Mr. DesForges is onsite at City Hall approximately 20 hours per week and has been under contract for two weeks. In that time he has reviewed the City' snetwork architecture, reviewed e-mail processes, evaluated hardware and software inventory, and prevented an e-mail virus from continuing to infect the City' s network and eliminated it from all City computers. He has also modified the City' snetwork security procedures and settings, reviewed the needs of the Diamond Bar Center, and compiled a list of required hardware and software to be purchased immediately. The most critical purchases includethe following: ? Two Cisco switches — These switches allow connectivity between Diamond Bar Center and City Hall. These switches will also improve the effectiveness and speed of the City' sinternal network. The cost for these items is approximately$24,000. ? Two HP Servers — The existing servers have outlived their useful life, are no longersupported or underwarranty, and in recent weeks have "crashed7epeatedly. The cost for these servers is $15,000. ? Veritas Software —This software will allowthe servers to be "backedup"and provide the means to recover mission critical information. The cost for this software is $7,200. ? In addition to the items listed above there are additional software and hardware requirements. The cost of these additional items is approximately $13,000. The City solicited cost proposals from several vendors and CDW providedthe lowest responsible bid. If approved by the City Council, these purchaseswill be made immediately. The City' sIS Committee has reviewed the hardware/software purchases PREPARED BY: Deputy City Manager Agenda # 6.6 Meeting Date: February 17, 2004 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager TITLE: AWARD OF CONTRACT TO ORANGE COUNTY CATERING COMPANY FOR CATERING SERVICES AT THE DIAMOND BAR CENTER GRAND OPENING GALA FOR $38,200, WITH A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $3,800. Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council award a contract to Orange County Catering Company in the amount of $38,200 with a contingency of $3,800, for catering services at the Diamond Bar Center Grand Opening Gala for a total contract amount of $42,000. Budget Implication: The budget for the grand opening events, promotion and marketing for the Diamond Bar Center was approved as part of the FY 03-04 budgettotaling $45,000. This amount will be off -set by the $12,500, which has already been secured by sponsorshipsforthe Grand Opening events. Background: The grand opening events are necessary marketing toolsto help achievethe Center' sprojected revenue goals. The primary goal of the Grand Opening Gala is to introduce the facility to potential clients as a high-class facility and build future business. Therefore, invited guests include community members, dignitaries, wedding coordinators,reunion planners, corporate clients, meeting planners, etc. The estimated attendance for the gala reception is 400. This number represents at least 200 potential future bookings,which could bring up to $135,000 in revenueto the City of Diamond Barto help meet the projected revenue of $170,000 per year. The secondary purpose of the Gala eventis the opportunityto showcase the facility' samenities without incurring additional costs. For example, the City will be able to photographthe Grand View Ballroom once it is set up for the Gala event to use for brochures, future advertising, etc. This saves the cost of setting up the room for a formal photo session, which is necessaryfor the production of marketing materials. Finally, the Gala is being held to show the City' sappreciationto all those who have contributed to the successful completion of this beautiful newfacility. Highlights of the Gala in clude:cocktails and appetizers with no -host bar and complimentary non- alcoholic beverages; seated dinner with live entertainment and dancing; and commemorative gifts for all attendees. Discussion: Four catering companies submitted proposalsand were interviewed by staff members. The proposals ranged in cost from $35,996 to $39,400. The Orange County Catering Company is the recommended vendorto provide services for the Gala Reception based on their professionalism, quality of service and product, and creative vision for the event. This company is also offering a variety of services and rentals at significantlydiscounted rates as well as sponsoring the Sycamore room set-up at the Open House. Being the inaugural event for the facility, the recommended contract amount includes a 10 percent contingency in orderto accommodate for unforeseen costs such as increased guest count, unexpected equipment rentals, etc. Prepared By Reviewed By Attachment: O.C. Catering Company Proposal CITY COUNCIL TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager Agenda # 6.7 Meeting Date: FP.IZruarj 17— 2 -U AGENDA REPORT TITLE: Authorize the City Managerto contract with Gonzalez Goodale Architects to create a computer-generated animation for the proposed library project and appropriate funds from General Fund reserves ($22,160). Recommendation: It is recommended that the City Council authorize the City Managerto contract with Gonzalez Goodale Architects in the amount of $22,160 to producea computer generated animation and artist' s rendering of the proposed library, and appropriatethe necessaryfunds from General Fund reserves. Budget/Financial Impact: There are no funds in the budgetfor this expense. Therefore, it is requestedthe Council appropriate $22,000 from General Fund reserves. Discussion: In January 2004 the City submitted a California Reading and Literacy Improvementand Public Library Construction and Renovation Bond Act (Library Bond Act) funding application. The City is one of 72 applicants competing for approximately$92 million availablefor library construction projects throughout California. The total funding requestfor all 72 applicationsis in excess of$586 million. The process to award the funds is extremely competitive. In order to enhancethe chances of being successful in the application process, staff has structured a marketing plan to promote the City's project. The City' smarketing plan includesthe following: 1. A letter writing campaign, 2. Creation of executive summary of the City' sproject, 3. Visits to Sacramento to meet with Library Bond Act Board members to promote the City' s applicationfor funding, and 4. Production of animated video promoting the unique attributes of Diamond Bar' sapplication with special attention to the Global Citizen Center The Diamond Bar Library project includes a unique element, namely the proposed Global Citizens Center. The Global Citizen Center is designed and programmed to promote cultural awareness and global citizenshipto K-6 grade students. The Center will expose young students to different cultures around the world through reading material, personal interaction, lectures, presentations, and visits from dignitaries from other countries, etc. Our demographicsare well suited to supportthis program. It is envisionedthat olderresidents, particularly those born and raised in other cultures,will participateby reading stories from other countriesto the students, talking aboutwhat is was like to grow up in anothercountry, and exposing the students to the idea that we live in a global world that stretches beyond the boundariesof the City. In order to promote the Global Citizen Center and the City' sLibrary Bond Act application we will create a computer-generated animation video that would allowyou to actually walk into the new library building,walk through the facility to the Global Citizen Center, sit down in the Center and experiencewhat it would be like if the Center was built. This animation would be created on Compact Disc or DVD format so that copies of the animation could be left with all of the Library Bond Act Board members. A similar video was prepared for the Diamond Bar Center project. If approved by the City Council, work on the project will begin immediately and should be completed in approximately90 days. The animation will be availableto be hand delivered to Sacramento by representatives of the City. PREPARED BY: Deputy City Manager Attachments Proposal from Gonzalez Goodale Architects CITY COUNCIL Agenda # 6.8 Meeting Date: February 17, 2004 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager TITLE: AMENDMENT OF CONTRACT WITH JOHN R. BINGHAM IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000 FOR CONSULTING SERVICES RELATED TO NATURAL HAZARD MITIGATION PLAN AND APPROPRIATE NECESSARY FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES RECOMMENDATION Approve. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the contract amendment and appropriation requestwill reduce the General Fund unreserved fund balance and increase FY 2003-2004 general fund expenditures. BACKGROUND: Natural disasters pose a great dangerto human life and property throughoutthe United States; and particularly in California. Congress has passed a law commonly known as the Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 that requires local governments to approve and adopta Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan before receiving federal funding for pre- and post -disaster projects. Federal expend itures for post disaster assistance are increasing without commensurate reductions from States and Cities to stem the tide of future losses. The Act requires a more detailed assessment of risks from natural disasters. In addition,the Act requires a mitigation plan to reduce lossesfrom natural disasters and insure that critical services and community facilities will continue to function after a natural disaster. The local mitigation plan is the representation of the local jurisdiction' s;ommitment to reduce risks from natural hazards and serves as a guide for decision makers as they commit resources to reducing the effects of natural hazards. Diamond Bar' slocal plan will also serve as the basisfor the State to provide technical assistance and to prioritize project funding. The City must complete this highlycomplex and comprehensive mitigation plan by November 1, 2004 pursuantto FEMA guidelinesin orderto receive project grants and reimbursement for declared local emergencies and disasters such as earthquakes, landslides,floods, wildfires and windstorms. The City of Diamond Bar (as well as many other Cities in the State) has only recently become aware of this Federal mandated requirement. With a limited amount of time to complete this complex project, the City has engaged the services of John R. Bingham. Mr. Binghamhas over twenty years experiencein municipal government, most recently with the City of Pasadena, where he performed various high-level administrative dutiesin the City Manager' Office. In addition,he has ten year' s experiencein Fire Department Administration. Mr. Bingham' sprimary focus with the City will be the facilitation and completion of the Federal Emergency ManagementAgency' FEMA) mandated Natural Hazard Mitigation Plan. Mr. Binghamwill be availableto assistthe City Managerwith administrative assignments as deemed necessary. We estimate an expenditureof $45,000 will be necessaryto complete the assignment. In orderto meet the deadlines imposed by the Act an initial contract for $5,000 has been approved utilizing existing budgetary resources. As the additional necessary funds will exceed the City Manager' s authority and require additionalgeneral fund expenditure,this matter is before the City Council for approval. City staff has negotiated a $45.00 perhourly rate for the requested services. This motion will authorize the City Managerto execute the $40,000 contract amendment for a total contract amount of $45,000 for the consulting services of John R. Bingham and authorize the use of $40,000 from the general fund unreserved fund balance. Prepared by: James De Stefano Deputy City Manager Attachments CITY COUNCIL Agenda # 6.9 Meeting Date: February 17, 2004 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager TITLE: AMENDMENT OF CONTRACT WITH MCDERMOTT CONSULTING, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $28,500 FOR TRANSPORTATION PLANNING CONSULTING SERVICES AND APPROPRIATE NECESSARY FUNDS FROM GENERAL FUND RESERVES RECOMMENDATION Approve. FISCAL IMPACT: Approval of the contract amendment and appropriation request will reduce the General Fund unreserved fund balance and increase FY 2003-2004 general fund expenditures. BACKGROUND: In June 2003, the City entered into a contract in the amount of $25,000 with McDermott Consulting, Inc. to provide transportation -consulting services to the City. The consultanthas provided an assessment of the status and prospects of the SR 60 / SR 57 Interchange;Tonner Canyon Bypass Road; the SR 60 Truck Lane Study (now known as the Eastern Gateway Corridor) and related local and regional transportation projects. McDermott has prepared strategy for achieving Diamond Bar' s regionatransportation goals, which will be presented, to the City Council on February 17, 2004. The proposed amendment will permit the use of the consultantto advance the transportation strategy. This motion will authorize the City Managerto execute the $28,500 contract amendment for a total contract amount of $53,500 to continue consulting services with McDermott and authorize the use of $28,500 from the general fund unreserved fund balance. Prepared by: James DeStefano Deputy City Manager Attachments: 1. Terms of Agreement and Work Scope dated January 27, 2004 2. Strategy for Achieving Diamond Bar' sRegional Transportation Goals CITY COUNCIL TO VIA: TITLE Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council Linda C. Lowry, City Manager Agenda # 6.10 Meeting Date: 02-17-04 AGENDA REPORT AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE THE VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CONTRACT FOR ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE WORK AT CITY PARKS BY $20,000 FOR A TOTAL 2003/04 FISCAL YEAR AUTHORIZATION OF $50,000. RECOMMENDATION: Approve Increased Authorization. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds for additional landscape maintenance work at the City Parks are already included in the current 2003/04 FY Budget. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION : The City Council awarded a contract to ValleyCrest for landscape maintenance service at Pantera and Peterson Parks for 2003/04 FY on March 4, 2003. Section 4 of the specifications for the contract allows for additional work to be added to the contract that is not included in the original scope of work. Typical additional work includes modification to existing landscaping/ irrigation systems, repairs necessary due to vandalism, seasonal specialty work, and park renovation and improvement . $30,000 has already been authorized by the City Council for additional work that may be necessary at Pantera and Peterson Parks. In addition to the work at these two parks, ValleyCrest was the lowest responsive bidder for additional irrigation and landscaping work needed for the back slopes at Sycamore Canyon Park. The work on the slopes at Sycamore Canyon Park has resulted in the need to add $20,000 to the authorized additional work amount for ValleyCrest this fiscal year. All funds required for this additional work are already included in the 2003/04 FY budge t. City Council approval is required for any increase in spending for contracts that have a total annual value of over $25,000. ATTACHMENT: Contract Agreement dated April 8, 2003 REVIEWED BY: Bob Rose James DeStefano Community Services Director Deputy City Manager CITY COUNCIL Agenda # 6.11 Meeting Date: February 17, 2004 AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager TITLE: APPROPRIATE AN ADDITIONAL CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $14,938.26 FROM PROPOSITION C FUND BALANCE FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECT ON PATHFINDER ROAD, FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AUTHORRATION AM OUNT OF $414,440.26, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY CLERK TO FILE NOTICE OF COMPLETION. RECOMMENDATION: Appropriate funds and file a Notice of Completion. FINANCIAL IMPACT: An additional $14,938.26 of unappropriated Proposition C funds is required to complete the signal project. BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION: On June 17, 2003, the City Council awarded a signal installation contract to Dynalectric with a total authorization amount of $399,502.00. The project was substantially completed in accordance with approved plans and specifications in mid -October 2003, and staff has monitored the traffic circulation for four months. The contractor has now completed all modifications required as a result of the monitoring . Following is the cost breakdown of the completed project; Brea Canyon Road/Fern Hollow Drive, Left Turn Phasing $ 138,043.00 Evergreen Springs Drive LeftTum Phasing $ 100,018.00 Diamond Bar High School (Westerly High School Entrance) $ 80,387.00 Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Compliance and Interconnecting $ 67,054.00 Other Change/Orders (Including Brahma Boulevard Signs) 28 938.26 (7% of total contract) Total Contract Amount: $ 414,440.26 The requested fund amount of $14,938.26 is to cover all the change orders to address the existing field conditions and modifications required after four months monitoring the traffic circulation and installation of Brahma Boulevard signs. PREPARED BY: Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer REVIEWED BY; David G. Liu, Director of Public Works Attachment; Notice of Completion Date Prepared; February 10, 2004 James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 21825 E. COPLEY DRIVE DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA 91765 ATTENTION: CITY CLERK NOTICE OF COMPLETION Notice pursuant to Civil Code Section 3093, must be filed within 10 days after completion. Notice is hereby given that: 1. The undersigned is the owner or corporate officer of the owner of the interest or estate stated below in the property hereinafter described: 2. The full name of the owner is Cit; of Diamond Bar 3. The full address of the owner is 21825 E. CopleyDrive 4. The nature of the interest or estate of the owner is; (Ifother than fee, strike" In fee" andinsert, for example, "purchaser under contract ofpurchase," or "lessee") 5. The full names and full addresses of all persons, if any, who hold title with the undersigned as joint tenants or as tenants in common are: NAMES ADDRESSES 6. A work of improvement on the property hereinafter described was completed on February 17, 2004 . The work done was: Traffic Signal improvements proiect on Pathfinder Road at Brea Canyon Road/Fern Hollow Drive at High School Westerly Entrance, and at Evergreen Springs Drive. 7. The name of the contractor, if any, for such work of improvement was KDA INC. dba DynaLectric, Los Ani Signature of owner or corporate officer of owner narned in paragraph 2 or his agent VERIFICATION I, the undersigned, say: I am the Director of Public Works the declarant of the foregoing ("residentof', "Manager ot;" "Apartner off" "Ownerof," etc.) notice of completion; I have read said notice of completion and know the contests thereof, the same is true of my own knowledge. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on 20 , at Diamond Bar California. (Date ofsignature) (City where signed) (Personal signature ofthe individualwho is swearingthat the contents of the notice ofcompletion are true) DO NOT RECORD REQUIREMENTS AS TO NOTICE OF COMPLETION A notice of completion must be filed for record WITHIN 10 DAYS after completion of the work of improvement (to be computed exclusive of the day of completion), as provided in Civil Code Section 3093. The "owner" who must file for record a notice of completion of a building or other work of improvement means the owner (or his successor in -interest at the date the notice is filed) on whose behalf the work was done, though his ownership is less than the fee title. For example, if A is the owner in fee, and B, lessee under a lease, causes a building to be constructed, then B, or whoever has succeeded to his interest at the date the notice is filed, must file the notice. If the ownership is in two or more persons as joint tenants or tenants in common, the notice may be signed by any one of the co-owners (in fact, the foregoing form is designed for giving of the notice by only one covenant), but the names and addresses of the other co-owners must be stated in paragraph 5 of the form. Note that any Notice of Completion signed by a successor in interest shall recite the names and addresses of his transferor or transferors. In paragraphs 3 and 5, the full address called for should include street number, city, county and state. As to paragraphs 6 and 7, this form should be used only where the notice of completion covers the work of improvement as a whole. If the notice is to be given only of completion of a particular contract, where the work of improvement is made pursuant to two or more original contracts, then this form must be modified as follows: (1) Strike the works "A work of improvement" from paragraph 6 and insert a general statement of the kind of work done or materials famished pursuant to such contract (e.g., "The foundations for the improvement"); Agenda # 8.1 Meeting Date 2117/04 CITY COUNCIL'! AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager TITLE: APPOINTMENTS TO VACANCIES ON CITY COMMISSIONS RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that each Member of the City Council make appointments to each Commission/Commi ttee as desired and that the City Council, as a body, ratify said appointments with an effective date of March 1, 2004. BACKGROUND: Ordinances 24B(1989), 25B(1989) and 28B(1989) establish two-year terms of office for Commissioners appointed to the Parks and Recreation, Planning, and Traffic and Transportation Commissions, respectively. Said terms are set to expire the last day of February of even numbered years. As a result, five vacancieswill exist on each Commission effective February 29, 2004. DISCUSSION: In compliance with the Maddy Act (Government Code Section 54972) s taff has advertised all vacancies in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the Tribune, has posted vacancy notices on the City's website and has placed a notice on the City's Public Access Channel, Channel 3. The City Council may make new appointments to each Commission or they may choose to re -appoint Commissioners. Three applications have been received by staff to date and distributed to all Council Members. Copies are attached to this report. IWW4WWAIW4911 YA Lynda Burgess, City Clerk IV:01z WN: 4NJIMA Lynda Burgess, City Clerk David Doyle, Deputy City Manager Attachments (3) Agenda # R.2 Meeting Date 2/17/04 CITY COUNCIL \` AGENDA REPORT TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager TITLE: APPOINTMENTS TO VACANCIES ON THE DIAMOND BAR COMMUNITY FOUNDATION RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council consider re -appointment of one current Foundation Board Member and appointthree new members to the Foundation Board of Directors for two-year terms. BACKGROUND: The Bylaws of the Community Foundation provide that half of the Board of Directors' terms expire annually each February. Positions are now availablefor appointment by the City Council for four at - large openings. In addition, two positions are available for re-appointment/appointment by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Chamber of Commerce and appointment to one position representing youth groupswill beconsideredatthe next Community Foundation meeting. DISCUSSION: At this time, current Foundation Member Andrew Wong has indicated his desire to be re -appointed. In addition, new applicants include Vinod Kashyap (former Traffic and Transportation Commissioner) and Rachel Anderson. Copies of all available applications are attached to this report. It is anticipated that more applications will be available for the remaining opening by the time the City Council meets on Tuesday, February 17, 2004. These vacancieswere advertised in the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin and the Tribune; posted at three locations throughout the City, broadcast on the City's website and on the City's Public Access Channel, Channel 3. PREPARED BY: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk REVIEWED BY: Lynda Burgess, City Clerk David Doyle, Deputy City Manager Attachment (1)