HomeMy WebLinkAbout4/20/2004THIS 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.
CLOSED SESSION
STUDY SESSION:
CALL TO ORDER:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
APRIL 20, 2004
5:00 p.m., CC -8
Pending Litigation — (Chung v. D.B.)
Public Comments on Closed Session Agenda
5:15 p.m., CC -8
Hindu Ceremony Demonstration
Business Licensing
Public Comments
6:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION:
ROLL CALL:
APPROVAL OF AGENDA:
Mayor
Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Herrera, Mayor Zirbes
Mayor
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1
Presentation to AYSO on the success of the Cottontail Tournament
1.2
Presentation to Sports
Complex Task Force Members.
1.3.
Proclaiming April 18
— 25, 2004 as "Days of Remembrance".
1.4
Proclaiming April 18
— 24, 2004 as "Safety Seat Checkup Week".
1.5
Proclaiming April 18
— 24, 2004 as "National Library Week".
1.6
Proclaiming April 18
— 24, 2004 as "National Victims Week".
1.7
Proclaiming April 19
— 23, 2004 as "Administrative Assistants Week".
NEW BUSINESS RECOGNITION
1.8 Present Certificate Plaque to Diamond Bar Shell, 21103 Golden Springs,
as New Business of the Month, April 2004.
APRIL 20, 2004 PAGE 2
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
♦ Diamond Bar Center Video Presentation
♦ Youth Master Plan Update
♦ So Cal Edison Grand Avenue Underground Re -cable Project Update by
City Staff
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each
regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to
directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to
the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda.
Although the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the
Council generally cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted
agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk
(completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five-minute maximum time limit
when addressing the City Council.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT: Under the Brown Act, members of the
City Council may briefly respond to public comments but no extended discussion
and no action on such matters may take place.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING — April 22, 2004 —
7:00 p.m., Government Center/AQMD Hearing Board Room, 21865
Copley Dr.
5.2 YOUTH MASTER PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE MEETING —
April 23, 2004 — 11:00 a.m., Diamond Bar Center, 1600 Grand Avenue.
5.3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — April 27, 2004 — 7:00 p.m.,
Government Center/AQMD Auditorium, 21825 Copley Dr.
5.4 COMPOSTING WORKSHOP — May 1, 2004 — 10:00 a.m., Heritage
Community Center, 2900 S. Brea Canyon Road; Call 909/839-7040 for
reservations.
5.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — May 4, 2004 — 6:30 p.m., Government
Center/ AQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:
6.1.1 Study Session of April 6, 2004 —Approve as submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of April 6, 2004 — Approve as submitted.
APRIL 20, 2004 PAGE 3
6.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.2.1 Regular Meeting of March 9, 2004 - Receive and file.
6.3 TRAFFIC & TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES:
6.3.1 Regular Meeting of March 11, 2004 - Receive and file.
6.4 WARRANTS - Approve Warrant Registers dated April 8, 2004, and
April 15, 2004, in the amount totaling $1,256,823.14.
6.5 REJECTION OF CLAIM - Filed by Paul Feiner dated March 23, 2004.
Recommended Action: Approve rejection of the Claim for Damages.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.6 APPROVAL OF NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR AREA 5 SLURRY
SEAL PERFORMED BY AMERICAN ASPHALT SOUTH, INC.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Public Works Division
6.7 RATIFICATION OF THE CREATION OF A LIBRARY TASK FORCE.
(M/Zirbes and C/Chang members)
Recommended Action: Ratify.
Requested by: Mayor Zirbes
6.8 ADOPT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR OPPOSING AB 3007 (PLESCIA) AMENDING THE
RALPH M. BROWN ACT REMOVING ITEMS THAT CAN BE
DISCUSSED IN CLOSED SESSION.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
Requested by: Legislative Sub -committee
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 TRANSMITTAL OF FINAL REPORT FROM THE SPORTS COMPLEX
TASK FORCE.
Recommended Action: Receive and file.
APRIL 20, 2004
PAGE 4
Requested by: Sports Complex Task Force
8.2 APPROVAL OF A SEVEN-YEAR SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Public Works Division
8.3 ADOPT INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. XX (2004) ESTABLISHING A
TEMPORARY SIZE LIMIT ON SECOND DWELLING UNITS AND GUEST
HOUSES AND DECLARING THE URGENCY THEREOF.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
Requested by: Planning Division
RECESS TO REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY ANNUAL MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Chang
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Herrera, Huff, O'Connor,
VC/Zirbes, C/Chang
2. CONSENT CALENDAR:
2.1 APPROVE MINUTES:
2.1.1 Regular Meeting of December 2, 2003 — Approve as
submitted.
2.1.2 Regular Meeting of December 16, 2003 — Approve as
submitted.
2.2 TREASURER'S STATEMENT FOR APRIL 1, 2003 THROUGH
MARCH 31, 2004
3. AGENCY MEMBER CONSIDERATION:
4. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Agency Members
are for Agency discussion. Direction may be given at this meeting or the item
may be scheduled for action at a future meeting.
ADJOURN REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY MEETING
RECESS TO PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY ANNUAL MEETING
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair O'Connor
ROLL CALL: Authority Members Chang, Huff, Zirbes, VC/Herrera,
C/O'Connor
APRIL 20, 2004 PAGE 5
2. 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 Authority on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to
the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda.
Although the Financing Authority values your comments, pursuant to the Brown
Act, the Authority generally cannot take any action on items not listed on the
posted agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the Authority
Secretary (completion of this form is voluntary). There is a five-minute maximum
time limit when addressing the Financing Authority.
3. CONSENT CALENDAR:
3.1 APPROVE MINUTES —
3.1.1 Regular Meeting of December 2, 2003 —Approve as submitted.
3.1.2 Regular Meeting of December 16, 2003 — Approve as submitted.
3.2 TREASURER'S STATEMENT FOR MAY 31, 2003 THROUGH
MARCH 31, 2004.
4. AUTHORITY MEMBER CONSIDERATION:
5. AUTHORITY MEMBER COMMENTS: Items raised by individual Authority
Members are for Authority discussion. Direction may be given at this meeting or
the item may be scheduled for action at a future meeting.
ADJOURN PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING
RECONVENE CITY COUNCIL MEETING:
9. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # Study Session
Meeting Date; 04/20/04
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: STUDY SESSION -- HINDU CEREMONY DEM ONST RATION AND REVIEW OF PROPOSED POLICIES FOR
USE OF THE DIAMOND BAR CENTER
Recommendation: Observe ceremony; provide feedback to staff about proposed policies and direct staff to agendize
proposed policies at a future Regular City Council meeting for consideration.
Financial Impact: None
Background: At the City Council meeting on April 6, the City Council directed staff to continue researching five issues
related to use of the Diamond Bar Center;
1. Use of Incense.
2. Use of Animals such as Horses and Elephants.
3. Diamond Bar -based non-profit Senior Groups Discount for weekend use (When banquet room is not already
reserved 21 days prior to date)
4. Use of outdoor grounds for wedding ceremonies.
5. Capacity of Grand View Ball Room
Discussion:
1. Use of Incense
The City has a large number of residents who practice religions that use incense in their most sacred ceremonies. Several
people who have reserved use of the Diamond Bar Center have inquired about the use of incense in the Center. So far,
staff has denied these requests because of the uncertainty of the lingering effect incense will have on the Center and
potential fire code issues related to the"oven" used to bum the incense. Hindu is one of the religions that makes use of
incense in its sacred ceremonies. Staff has invited a Hindu priest from the Shri Lakshmi Narayan Mandir in Riverside to
demonstrate the use of incense in a manner similar to what has been requested for the Diamond Bar Center. (AQM D
officials require the demonstration be conducted outdoors.) This will provide the City Council the opportunity to experience
the use of incense first-hand and to determine if its use should be allowed in the Diamond Bar Center.
Based on input from the operators of similar City facilities, staff recommends that burning incense not be allowed in the
Diamond Bar Center, for the following reasons:
1. Smoke from the incense will, over time, permeate the fabric in the facility, leaving an odor similar to stale
cigarette smoke. (Fabric includes carpet, chairs, sound panels, and room dividers.) The operators of five area
hotels have expressed similar concerns to staff. However, staff has located two hotels that do allow incense in
their banquet facilities: the Westin Hotel in Costa Mesa and the LAX Hilton in Los Angeles.
2. Currently, tea lights and sterno heaters are the only approved open flames allowed in the facility. Allowing
incense may increase the number of requests for different types of open flame uses. Staff needs to have clearly
defined limits (or no limits at all, as long as a fire department permit is obtained) in order to prevent claims of
discrimination.
2. Use of Animals such as Horses and Elephants
Since this was discussed on April 6, staff has received an opini on from the building's architect that concrete sealers will
wear off within a year and will need to be reapplied, especially due to car traffic. Therefore, staff believes that if the City
Council wants to allow use of these animals at the Center, they be limited to the asphal t areas of the access road and
parking lot, but not to allow them on any of the colored concrete areas. Staff also recommends that a $1,000 deposit be
required and a $100 fee be charged for staff to monitor the handling of animals while on-si to and to verify that the animals
do not stray from their authorized use areas. Deposit will be used for special cleaning, if necessary, or as a fine if the
animals stray into an unauthorized area.
Staff has already received requests from potential users of the facility seeking permission to bring animals on-site. Diamond
Bar Municipal Code section 12.00.260 specifically prohibits animals in parks (except leashed dogs and cats, and horses on
equestrian trails) unless permitted by the Director. The types of uses being requested include horse drawn carriages, riders
on horses and riders on elephants. In fact, one user has already contacted an elephant rental company, Have Trunks Will
Travel, and this company has applied for a Temporary Use Permit from the Planning Departm ent (application status
pending). The primary issues with animals are public safety and the associated animal waste. Although a trained handler
with liability insurance would be required to maintain control of the animal at all times, animals can be unpredictable if
inadvertently spooked and that could result in a dangerous situation. If animals are allowed at the Diamond Bar Center site,
waste will eventually be washed into the natural habitat surrounding the park and into the storm drain system. As mentioned
at the April 6 meeting, our janitorial service provider recommends the sealing of the decorative concrete area in front of the
formal entrance to prevent stains from the waste. This area is about 6,200 sq. ft. in size and would cost about $2.00 per sq.
ft. to seal, or about $12,400. If the concrete is sealed, according to our janitori al service provider, the waste can be cleane d
and neutralized with a concentrated citrus cleaner.
Staff recommends that animals such as horses and elephants not be allowed at the Diamond Bar Center.
3. Diamond Bar -based non-profit Senior Groups Discount for weekend use
On April 6, the City Council directed staff to determine the cost of utilities for the Center. Cost of electricity and gas, based
on bills for the 30 -day period of mid-March to mid-April, was about $10.00 per hour. Staff recommends the following policy
for qualifying senior groups use of the Banquet Room when the Banquet Room is not reserved for weekend use 21 days or
less prior to desired date: "Diamond Bar -based non-profit Senior Groups may reserve use of banquet room for the
discounted rate of $30 per hour of use, with a two-hour minimum, plus $60 per 100 people for set-up, take down and clean-
up. Such use shall not interfere with any other schedule d use of facility, and must receive prior approval from the Center
Director."
Costs incurred by the City for this type of use include: Staffing — $15.00/hr each staff person
Utilities -- $10 per hour approx.
Examples of cost/revenue for senior use:
City Cost Senior Fee (City Revenue)
a. 2 hour use for 100 seniors = $100 $120
(4 hours of one staff: $60
4 hours of utilities: $40)
b. 6 hour use for 400 seniors = $400 $420
(10 hours of two staff: $300
10 hours of utilities: $100)
4. Fee for wedding ceremony on the grounds of the Diamond Bar Center
Staff has received some inquiries about use of the Center grounds for a wedding cerem ony. Staff has recommended the
use of the grass area west of the Diamond Bar Center, adjacent to the water element. To be used for wedding ceremonies ,
the grass in this area will need specia I maintenanc a attention. Brown or worn spots in the turf will not be tolerated by users
of the area hosting a wedding ceremony. For this special maintenanc a effort year around, staff recommends charging $500
fee plus a $200 security deposit for potential damages per wedding ceremony on the grounds of the Diamond Bar Center.
Pacific Palms charges $1,500 for a 1 hour time block (includes gazebo, chairs, microphone and golf cart with driver). Staff
does not propose that the City provide any equipment for the weddin g ceremony. All equipment would be the responsib ility
of the user through a private rental company.
S. Capacity of Grand Yew Ball Room
The City Council also requested staff to review the capacity of the Grand View Ball Room if 60" round tables are used
instead of 72" round tables. This information will be provided to the City Council via the Weekly Report after staff has the
opportunity to rent the 60" tables and try various room configurations .
REVIEWED BY:
Bob Rose
Community Services Director
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Agenda: Study Session
Meeting Date: April 20, 2004
CITY COUNCIL_ AGENDA REPORT
crt<iv x cr � '
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION REGARDING AN "IN-HOUSE"
BUSINESS LICENSE PROCESS
RECOMMENDATION: Receive a presentation from staff and the recommendation to
enact a business registration program, discuss the report, and direct staff as
appropriate.
BACKGROUND: Upon incorporation in 1989, the City adopted the Los Angeles
County Code and entered into a General Services Agreement with the County to
provide the City, its residences and business community with various municipal
services. Among other services, the City contracted with Los Angeles County to
administer the City's business license function. As the City has matured and conditions
have warranted, the City has reduced the level of contracted support provided by the
County and opted to bring specific services "In -House".
The City Council has expressed an interest in evaluating the possibility of transferring
the business licensing function from Los Angeles County to "In House". As a result, City
Council has conducted Study Sessions on Januar y 3, 2003, February 4, 2003, February
18, 2003 and December 16, 2003.
DISCUSSION:
Current Business License Program
In a recent update, the County has estab lished a limited list of approximately 150 uses
requiring a County business license. This list includes uses that would not be found in
Diamond Bar (i.e. explosives, water taxis, boarding houses, hog ranch, poultry dealer,
etc.).
Processing fees established by the County have increased. Previously, fees ranged
from approximately $46.00 to $2, 193.00 per business for the initial approval. Fees now
range from approximately $60.00 to $2,268.00 for the initial approval. An annual
renewal fee which is less than the initial application fee is required and varies depending
upon the type of use. The City does not receive any revenue from the program.
I
Our business customers are required to appl y in person to the Los Angeles County
Business License Office located in downtow n Los Angeles. Processing time depends
upon the number of County agencies that must review the application. During this
processing time, the City confirms the appropriate zoning designation for the use. No
average processing time for County review has been established. The City has no
control over the County process or time frame for issuing a business license. No "over-
the-counter" processing of the County business license application is available. Annual
renewals may only be processed by mail. Bu siness License enforcement is provided by
the County.
In 2001, the County issued 243 business licenses for Diamond Bar. In 2002, the
County issued 196 licenses to local businesses. In 2003, the County issued to
approximately 216 licenses to local businesses. Fees collected by the County in 2001
were $28,356.00. Fees collected in 2002 and 2003 are not available. Business license
activities and fees will vary from year-to-year.
According to a survey published in January 2003 by Claritas, Inc., there are
approximately 1,750 businesses in the City. The Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce
has previously estimated with both that there are approximately 1,100 businesses in the
City.
Types of Business License Programs
Business Registration
The purpose ofbusiness registration isto document the business activity to ensure that
a business establishment is operating within the correct zoning district and in
accordance with the applicable Municipal Codes . Business registration may be used in
conjunction with the issuance of Certificates of Occupancy and help ensure that all
contractors doing business in the City are State licensed.
The business registration process helps the City to better understand the types of
businesses within the community. The information obtained from business registrations
are used to track business types in the City, aid in the proper receipt of sales taxes from
the State, provide useful information for economic development programs, and assist
public safety agencies.
Cities utilizing a business registration process usually require all individuals,
partnerships, and corporations conducting or operating a business within the City to
register and pay an annual fee to the local City. The creation of a business registration
program and certificate fee does not require voter approval.
Regulatory License Fee
The purpose of a regulatory license is to add additional controls to the proposed
business use and/or business operator. The business types within this category may
have characteristics that create special land use or law enforcement impacts (i.e., noise,
traffic, criminal behavior, operational hours, or other characteristics), which require
further investigation and operational conditions. These businesses generally
necessitate further scrutiny by the Building and Safety Division, Fire Department, Health
Department, Planning Division and/Sheriffs Department. Field inspections may be
required as well as criminal background investigations.
As a result, a regulatory license program necessitates fees that are higher than those
established for business registration. Fees required for a regulatory business license
reimburses the City for the cost to investigate the proposed business and to operate the
City program. Fees associated with a regulatory license program do not require voter
approval.
Business License Tax
A business license (tax) is imposed upon a business for the privilege of conducting
business within the City. This type of revenue generating program is most often based
upon gross receipts or levied at a flat rate. At times, it is based upon the quantity of
goods produced, or the number of vehicles, or number of employees in the business or
some other combination of factors. Cities may levy this type of business license tax for
either regulatory or revenue raising purposes.
A business license fee is considered a tax pursuant to Proposition 218. A tax requires
voter approval. Proposition 218, the "Right to Vote on Taxes Act' was approved by the
voters on November 5, 1996 and became effective July 1, 1997. The public is required
to be consulted or participate in decisions regarding the enactment of a wide variety of
fees and taxes. Enactment of the business license tax requires approval by vote of a
majority of the electorate.
Process Utilized by Other Local Cities
Eighteen cities were surveyed. A summary of the survey information is presented within
the Business License Comparison Matrix attached to this report. Of the cities surveyed,
three cities do not have an "In -House" business license program. Five cities surveyed
based business license fees upon business gross receipts. One city established a "flat
fee" business license program. Two cities base business license fees upon a
combination of flat fees and the number of employees. Four cities utilize a combination
of flat fees in gross receipts. Two cities utilize a business registration fee process
because it is considered more "business friendly" or because do not have staff to
implement a business license process. One city utilizes a use permit application.
Implementation of a Business License or Business Registration Program "In -
House"
Uses That Could Reauire a Reaulatory License
Most uses listed within Development Code Article II, Chapters 22.08 and 22.10, Tables
2-3, 2-5, 2-6 and 2-8 that require a discretionary review (i.e., Conditional Use
Permit/Minor Conditional Use Permit) could be a candidate for a regulatory license in
order to conduct business in Diamond Bar. The following is a list of uses that presently
require a discretionary review. A regulator y license could be processed in conjunction
with the CUP or MCUP review.
Mobile home parks 4
Studios —art, dance, music, photography 4
Health/fitness facilities
Transit stations and terminals, and
vehicle/freight terminals
Bars and nightclubs
Computer services/ network gaming center 4
Personal services — acupressure,
massage therapy, tattoo parlors
Chemical product manufacturing
♦ Psychic readers
♦ Indoor amusement/entert ainment facilities
and entertainment in general
Alcoholic beverage sales on-site
consumption
Religious places of worship
Private recreational facilities
Outdoor recreation
Child day care, large family day care homes
Theaters, auditoriums, meeting halls
Car wash
Medical services — hospitals
Heliports
Laundry and dry cleaning plants
Parking and vehicle storage facilities
Manufacturing uses that require a CUP
Alcoholic beverage sales off-site consumption
in conjunction with sale of motor fuel
Certain uses do not require a discretionary review. However, a regulatory license may
be required to ensure compliance with the Municipal Code orto attach required
operational standards. These uses are as follows:
Adult oriented businesses # Gun dealers
Some uses require a discretionary review depending on the zoning district. However, a
regulatory license may not be needed and the business registration process may be
more suitable. These uses are as follows:
Schools —public or private ♦ Veterinary clinics and animal hospitals
Cultural facilities, libraries, museums * Vehicle services — major repair/body work
Telecommunicati on facilities
Uses That Could Require Business Registration
Uses listed within Development Code Article II, Chapters 22.08 and 22.10, Tables2-3,
2-5, 2-6 and 2-8 that do not require a discretionary review or uses that would not require
a regulatory license could require business registration. This category also includes
uses currently not listed in the Code (i.e., solicitors, contractors, etc.). The following is a
list of uses that could require business registration:
All retail and wholesale sales including
#
Solicitors —company or individual
vehicle sales
Contractors doing business in the City
#
Office —medical, financial, business, professional
and real estate
Home occupation
♦
Multi -family rentals — apartments
Residential care homes, 6 or fewer clients
#
Child day care, small family day care homes
Seasonal sales — craft fairs, carnival,
♦
Hotels, motels, bed and breakfast inns
pumpkin lots, Christmas tree lots, etc.
Restaurants
#
All manufacturing uses that do not require a CUP
Community/cultu ral centers
#
Distribution centers
Service stations
#
Vehicle services — maintenance/mi nor repair
Storage facilities indoor/outdoor
#
Schools — Specialized education and training
♦ Printing/publis hing
♦
Personal services (tanning, hair & nail salons,
tailoring, shoe repair, etc.)
4
Recycling vending machines/small
Fees for Business Regulatory and/or Registration License
In cities surveyed, the Finance Division and City Planning Division administer the
business license or business registration program. Processing fees are typically based
upon the philosophy of full cost recovery. Fees would be based on the amount of time
needed to review the application for the specific use.
Example of an extensive review
Entertainment uses would typically involve a Conditional Use Permit reviewed by the
Planning Commission in addition to review by the Building and Safety Division, Fire,
Sheriffs and Health Departments.
Example of less extensive review
Fast food restaurant uses, with a drive-through, would involve a Conditional Use Permit
review by the Planning Commission. Other agencies involved in the review may include
the Building and Safety Division and Health and Fire Departments,
Example of minimal review
Acommercial use permitted "by right" ora home occupation use would involve a Zoning
Clearance approval bythe Planning Division atthe public counter.
Fee for Regulatory License
Regulatory license fee will be based on the amount of investigation time/background
check. The Planning Division and/or Neighborhood Improvement Division will likely
conduct the City investigation through a discretionary review process. However,
investigations may be required by other agencies (i.e. Sheriff, Fire, Health, Building and
Safety, etc.). According to Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department/Busin ess License
Investigation, the charges to the City for investigating a business license application will
varying depending upon the amount of time required to conduct the actual investigation.
According to a correspondence dated March 8, 2004 sent to the City from County of Los
Angeles Sheriffs Department Headquarters, the current rate for license investigation is
$58.26 per hour and mileage costs have already been factored into the hourly rate.
Investigation time line (best case scenario) is 30 days according to Los Angeles County
Sheriffs Department License Investigation Service.
The City Building and Safety Division will base investigation charges on 15 minutes of
field and file review. When a Neighbor hood Improvement Officer is required to
investigate, it could be reasonably approxim ated that a minimum of 15 minutes will be
utilized. The City Finance Division will administer the regulatory and registration
process and issue the certificate (license). The City Planning Division will review the
application for compliance with the City's Development Code. The estimated time for
both the Planning Division and Finance Division is 30 minutes each.
Initial fee
a. Fee could vary due to cost recovery.
b. Examples:
Non-discretionar v use
Land Use Health Ping. Fire Sheriff Bldg.& Safety Neigh. Improvemt. Finance
Officer NIO
4dult oriented X X X X X X X
)usiness
Planning
$42.50 ( 30 minutes estimated time)
Fire
$0 (According to Fire Dept. Capt. Foster, this service is in the both City's
contract.)
Sheriff
$58.26 + (Minimum charge per hour; applicant will pay for finger printing
at the station.)
Bldg. & Safety
$11.25 (15 minutes with estimated time)
NIO
$21.25 (15 minutes estimated time)
Health
$0 (Applicant will pay fee to Environmental Health/ Industrial
Waste directly)
Finance
$42.50 (30 minutes estimated time)
Total
$ 175.76 (estimated cost)
Discretionary use
Land Use Health Ping. Fire Sheriff Bldg.& Safety Neigh.lmprovemt. Finance
Officer NIO.
3ars/ nightclubs X X X X X X X
Planning
$ (costs to process included in MCUP or CUP)
Fire
$0 (According to Fire Dept. Capt. Foster, this service is in the City's
contract.)
Sheriff
$58.26 (Minimum charge per hour; applicant will pay for finger printing at
the station.)
Bldg. & Safety
$11.25 (15 minutes with estimated time.)
NIO
$21.25 (15 minutes estimated time)
Health
$0 (Applicant will pay fee to Environmental Health/Industria I Waste
directly)
Finance
$42.50 (30 minutes estimated time)
Total
$133.26 + (Fee for processing the MCUP or CUP)
Ren ewa I fee
Renewal fee for regulatory license will be less than the initial fee if all circumstances
remain the same. Annual renewal will require Planning Division review similar to a
Zoning Clearance at $30.00 to ensure all circumstances remain the same.
Neighborhood Improvement Officer may be consulted to confirm compliance with
conditions of approval or whether or not code violations have occurred. Estimated time
is approximately 30 minutes. Finance Division will issue renewal notices and process a
renewal certificate. Estimated time is 15 minutes ($21.25). The estimated cost for an
annual renewal certificate is approximately $50.00.
6
Fee for Business Registration
Initial fee Estimated at$30.00
A Planning and Finance Divisions' fee of $30.00 will be required to process a minimal
investigation for approximately 20 minutes.
Renewal fee Estimated at$10.00
This process may utilize less staff time. Finance Division will issue the renewal notice
and process the renewal certificate. Some cities require home occupation renewals
every three to five years with cost same as the original fee. Other cities require yearly
renewal on home occupation with same cost as original fee. Range for renewal fees on
home occupations vary from city to city from $20.00 to $92.00 a year.
Penalties/Enforc ement
The City Municipal Code currently indicates any person violating any business license
provision is guilty of a misdemeanor which is punishable by fine, or imprisonment in the
County jail for a period not exceeding six months, or both.
Los Angeles County Business License Commission is currently authorized to revoke or
suspend a license ata public hearing. For the City of Diamond Bar, City, staff, Planning
Commission, or City Council could be utilized to revoke or suspend a license. In other
cities, the City Council is typically the hearing body for revocation or suspension of a
license at a public hearing. A 10 percent (of the amount of license) penalty is usually
added for failure to pay the license fee on the required date and for each 30 days after
onto all fees are paid in full. All remedies prescribed are cumulative.
Approximate Time Necessary to Process an Application
Applications that would be regulatory and require discretionary review (CUP/CUP, etc.)
and review of other agencies could have an estimated time of 90 days or more
depending on the application's complexity. Applications that would be regulatory and do
not required a discretionary review but require the review of other agencies could have
an estimated time of 30 days. Applications that require only registration would be less
complicated and may not require the review of other agencies could have an estimated
time of one to five days.
Discussion with Chamber Of Commerce
Staff recently met with Jeff Koontz, Executive Director of the Chamber to discuss their
proposal. At that meeting, the Chamber expressed an interest in providing the business
registration process and renewal for the City. According to the Chamber, the business
registration fee would be $35.00 and renewal fee would be $10.00. The City would
have access to the Chamber's database. Currently, the Chamber has the same
database as the Sheriffs Department. Additionally, the Chamber believes that providing
this process would allow consumers who call with complaints easier contact with the
business owner. Itwould also allow for easier notification to the business owner in case
of emergency.
Recommended Action For Study Session Discussion
Continue the General Services Agreement with Los Angeles County for the issuance of
business licenses and supplement this process with an "In -House" business registration
program.
Revenue Estimation
Without knowing the exact number of businesses in Diamond Bar or which businesses
would be required to obtain business registration, it is difficult to estimate the annual
revenue. Assuming a program for business registration, we estimate annual revenue
from an "In -House" business program to be approximately $30,000.00 for the first year.
This revenue amount is based on an estimated 1,000 businesses.
It is expected that the first year receipt of approximately $30,000.00 will be used to
offset the cost of installing and maintaining a new computer software program and staff
time for general administration of the program. The revenue estimates for year two and
beyond is approximately $10,000.00.
Options For City Council Discussion
No change. Continue the General Services Agreement with Los Angeles County
for the issuance of business license only.
2. Continue the General Services Agreement with Los Angeles County for the
issuance of business licenses and supplement this process with an "In -House"
business registration program. (Recommended Action)
3. Discontinue the General Services Agreement with Los Angeles County and issue
business licenses "In -House". A Proposition 218 election is necessary as the
public is required to be consulted, or participate in decisions regarding the
enactment of such a program.
4. Discontinue the General Services Agreement with Los Angeles County and
implement business registration only, an "In -House" flat fee program, based on
the cost/extent of review and investigation required in addition to the Minor
Conditional Use Permit/Condition al Use Permit process where necessary.
5. Discontinue the General Services Agreement with Los Angeles County and issue
regulatory license "In -House" with a flat fee based on the cost of the process.
6. Discontinue the General Services Agreement with Los Angeles County and issue
a combination of regulatory license and business registration program to be
administered "In -House" with fees based on cost of the process. (Proposition
218 election not required.)
8
Continue General Services Agreement with the County and have business
registration process administered bythe Chamber Of Commerce.
CONCLUSION:
In light of the above mentioned information and Council study session discussions, ii
appears that continuing the General Services Agreement with Los Angeles County for
the issuance of business licenses and supplementing this process with an "In -House"
business registration program may be viable option for Diamond Bar. The reasons for
bringing some sort of business license program "In -House" is to better understand the
types of businesses within the community. The information obtained from a business
registration program can be used to track business types in the City, ensure appropriate
zoning district for a particular use, aid in the proper receipt of sales taxes from the State,
provide useful information for economic development programs, and assist public safety
agencies. Cost to the applicant would be relatively inexpensive if the Zoning Clearance
process is utilized. Additionally, the Zoning Clearance process is fast and simple and
can be easily incorporated into the existing responsibilities of staff.
PREPARED BY: REVIEWED BY:
Ann J. Lungu, James DeStefano
Associate Planner Deputy City Manager
Attachments:
Business License Matrix; and
Business License Computer Software Information.
Agend a #6.1.1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION DRAFT
APRIL 6, 2004
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order at 5:13 p.m.
in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Govern ment
Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Herrera ,
and Mayor Zirbes.
Staff present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney;
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager;
David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; April
Blakey, Public Information Manager; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Nancy
Whitehouse, Executive Assistant; Sara West, Recreation Specialist; Assistant
Fire Chief John Nieto; and Tommye Cribbins, Assistant City Clerk.
Mid -Year Budget Adjustment
FM/Magnuson reported that upon completion of its reconciliation, staff
determined that General Fund revenues were decreasing by
approximately $216,684 and General Fund appropriations were increasing
by $279,189. Additionally, staff is requesting an increase in use Fund
Balance Reserves for the Capital Improvement Program by $157,270 due
to non -receipt of $1,020,000 from MTA for the Grand Avenue
Beautification project.
Also requested in the adjustment is an increase of $225,000 for the
Diamond Bar Center construction. The Grand Avenue Parkway Median
Improvement Project that was placed on hold due to the Caltrans SR
57/60 HOV project resulted in a $96, 000 combined savings to the General
Fund and District 38. The Pantera Park V -Ditch repair design added a cost
of about $25,000.
Other changes requested include personnel changes such as the addition
of a Parks and Maintenance Supervisor position for the Diamond Bar
Center, reclassification of the Assistant City Clerk position to Executive
Assistant, and the addition of a Community Services Leader.
With respect to the slurry seal programs, the Public Works Department is
seeking direction from the Council about whether the program should be
increased from a five year to a seven-year program. M/Zirbes felt the
slurry seal discussion should be reserved for FY 2004/2005 budget
discussions.
April 6, 2004 Page 2 Study Session
C/O'Connor asked what services the three part-time Parks and
Maintenance positions provided and whether the new full-time Parks and
Maintenance Supervisor would assume the duties of those eliminated
positions.
CSD/Rose explained that several part-time positions were included in this
year's budget to respond to the scope of responsibilities for the Diamond
Bar Center. Now that the Center was operational, staff was aware of
staffing needs, thus the request. If Council agreed with the
recommendation and approved tonight's agenda item to terminate the
P&D Consultants' contract, the $4,000 per month budget amount would
supplement the salary for the Parks and Maintenance Supervisor position
for the remainder of this fiscal year and the Supervisor would assume the
responsibilities previously filled by the three part-time positions that would
be eliminated.
CM/Lowry asked for further discussion regarding the slurry seal project
and whether Council wanted to continue at the rate of 20 percent per year
or reduce the amount to one-seventh.
PWD/Liu explained that staff put the $580,000 allocation for Area I on hold
pending direction from Council about whether to continue the current
course or to redirect the allocation over seven years.
CM/Lowry reported that the City had accumulated gas tax monies but the
reserves were now depleted. Therefore, it was an appropriate time for the
Council to review the standards to determine whether the City should
attempt to stay within the annual allotment amount rather than to further
erode the City's reserves.
PWD/Liu said that in the interest of moving forward with the slurry seal
overlay programs, the City had spent $600,000 to $800,000 per year over
the last five years in the five areas.
When asked by M/Zirbes the condition of Area I, PWD/Liu responded that
the consultant would be asked to conduc t a field inventory to make such
determinations before mitigation plans could be finalized. The inventory
would identify streets needing overlays.
C/Chang stated that based on his experience, he an d his neighbors felt
the streets in their neighborhood were still okay after five years; in light of
possible budget cutbacks, he felt it would be prudent to implement a
seven-year program.
PWD/Liu indicated that with respect to slurry seal there would probably not
be too much of a difference between five and seven years. However, the
overlays may not be as effective over the seven-year period. Additionally,
April 6, 2004 Page 3 Study Session
the City could incur additional costs in some areas of the City because
some streets were not addressed in the last five-year cycle or the first
seven-year cycle. The City could, however, consider moving beyond
"slurry" to overlay.
CM/Lowry summarized that staff believed that with the implementation of
a seven-year cycle, itwould be more likely that the City could apply ARAM
to each of the required areas. PWD/Liu concurred.
PWD/Liu responded to M/Zirbes that generally speaking it would be safe
for the City to run on a seven-year cycle. However, there could be certain
areas identified through this process that might require more attention and
additional resources.
Based on staffs recommendation, M/Zirbes expressed his feeling that it
would be feasible to implement a seven-year cycle as long as the City
gave special attention to areas of immediate need.
C/O'Connor believed better attention should be paid to leveling the
manhole covers with the pavement during the slurry seal process.
PWD/Liu confirmed to C/O 'Connor that the County's policy allows for one -
inch differential in thickness and that D.B. could include the same policy in
its slurry seal program.
CM/Lowry asked if the Council woul d like to have consideration of
changing the slurry seal schedule included as an agenda item to which the
Council Members unanimously responded affirmatively.
Discussion of Monument Entry Sign for Display Organization Emblems
CSD/Rose reported that with respect to Council's stated goal to develop
an entry sign that would display Emblems of the City's service clubs, staff
contacted a number of cities in Southern California to determine how this
might be accomplished. The common guidelines and/or criteria from the
responding cities included 1 ) the service organizations would provide their
own sign; 2) there was no cost to the service organization other than the
cost for the emblem, and 3) the service organizations must be non-profit
service organizations of the city. There are currently 25 Diamond Bar
based community service organizations listed on the City's Website.
CSD/Rose presented a power point presentation showing other cities'
monument entry signs. These cities included Chino Hills, Fullerton,
Hawthorne, La Puente, Orange, Pico Rivera, Walnut, and Victorville.
During the presentation, CSD/Rose related that the City of Chino Hills was
planning to remove its sign because itwas not believed to adequately
April 6, 2004 Page 4 Study Session
represent entry into the City. The City of Hawthorne's double -sided
monument displayed service organizations on one side and churches on
the opposite side. Staffs proposal for a possible location was S. Brea
Canyon Road near the existing entry monument sign. CSD/Rose stated
that if Council wished to pursue this matter for inclusion in the 2004/05 FY
budget, staff would propose a conceptual design, recommend a policy for
service organization involvement, and recommend potential site locations.
In response to MPT/Herrera's question regarding cost of certain styles,
CSD/Rose indicated that cost estimates had not yet been obtained. The
$3,500 cost cited in staffs report represented a smaller version ofthe park
monument sign and $10,000 for the larger park and median signs.
MPT/Herrera asked how many DB entry signs, referred to as "fly
swatters", were left and whether signs could be attached around them.
CSD/Rose offered that no matter how nice the signs looked, it would not
improve the overall look of the fly swatter -type signs. He felt the service
organizations would rather participate in something that enhanced the look
of the City.
M/Zirbes indicated that for purpose of consistency, the City could adopt
such a policy and provide a look that people were used to seeing. He said
he was not impressed with any examples from the other cities with the
possible exception of the City of Walnut sign. He recommended a median
design for placement in front of one of the fly swatter -type signs with the
D.B. logo on top.
C/O'Connor thought the City might consider a miniature windmill structure.
M/Zirbes wanted to find something that would be visually appealing. With
windmills and/or fly swatter -type signs, emblems would be hanging from
the structure and it would not look as attracti ve as a well -thought out
design. He also expressed concern about the number of service
organizations and how the policy would justify what organizations would
qualify and what organizations might feel snubbed. He felt the policy
might also dictate the type of sign.
C/Chang believed the reasons for implementing such a sign would be to
identify the various service organizations to residents and visitors and
improve aesthetics. However, because of the number of organizations it
could quickly get "out ofhand." Everything hesaw in the presentation was
unattractive and did not enhance the cities. Unless the process could be
properly regulated it could potentia Ily be a negative addition. In his
opinion, there should be no study and this goal should be eliminated.
April 6, 2004 Page 5 Study Session
MPT/Herrera said that if the Council approved a monument sign she
would not vote to approve more than one sign if the cost for that sign was
$10,000.
C/Huff felt that in certain rural communities these types of signs indicated
a sense of community. He suggested itwould be reasonable to have staff
propose a location and present a draft policy with cost estimates.
However, in view of the slurry seal program consideration, he was not
sure it was appropriate to spend time and resources to consider this goal
at this time. He further proposed that the cost should be borne by the
service organizations and suggested that the goal could be accomplished
for less cost, citing the placing of emblems in metal -framed bus shelters,
as an example.
M/Zirbes pointed out that there could be a significant amount of
maintenance costs involved in using bus shelters. In addition, he felt it
would look run down.
C/Huff proposed that if the City provided the space, the service
organizations could provide the maintenance.
MPT/Herrera was concerned that for the 25 organizations the City was
aware of there were likely another 20 organizati ons the City was unaware
of and once emblems were placed at a site other organizations would
complain about being excluded.
C/O'Connor envisioned only service organizations having emblems on the
sign.
CA/Jenkins advised Council that these types of monument signs were
created in a different time and place. He pondered how, under the First
Amendment, cities could create such distinctions. The City may be better
served having a list on its Website as suggested by C/Chang and leaving
it at that. It was reported that the service organizations were already
established on the City's Website.
C/O'Connor agreed that the consideration of such a sign could open a
"can of worms."
MPT/Herrera moved to eliminate the item from the Council's list of goals.
M/Zirbes asked Council for direction with responses as follows: C/Chang,
MPT/Herrera and M/Zirbes favored removing the item from the Council list
of goals. C/Huff favored keeping the item on the list and C/O'Connor
abstained.
April 6, 2004 Page 6 Study Session
Discussion of Revision to Policies and Fees for Use of Diamond Bar Center
CSD/Rose reported that since the opening of the Diamond Bar Center,
staff has had the opportunity to conduct room setup based on actual
capacity. Staff estimated actual square footage as follows: The Grand
View Ball Room is a total of 7,135 square feet, which includes the stage
and storerooms on the stage. Based on the reduced actual floor space
area, staff determined the actual numbers to be as follows: Dining
capacity with no dance floor — 438; dining capacity with 1100 square foot
dance floor - 372; dining capacity with a 500 square foot dance floor —
405; and theatre style seating capacity — 1044.
PIM/Blakey responded to C/O'Connor that there was seating for 387 for
the grand opening event and there was space available in the back for
about two more tables.
C/O'Connor suggested tables not be placed too close to the stage.
C/Huff voiced his disappointment with the architect because the City's
direction was to provide seating for 500 people and that Council felt it was
making a major concession when it reduced the seating capacity to 480.
Now it appears that the facility accommodates only a maximum seating
capacity of 438 with no dance floor.
PIM/Blakey pointed out that the capacity might be increased if 60 inch
round tables were used instead of 72 -inch rounds.
CSD/Rose agreed it would be prudent to do the calculations and
determine whether the 72 -inch round tables should be exchanged for 60
inch round tables as soon as possible.
DCM/Doyle pointed out that utilizing the CAD program, the architects
arrived at capacity figures using tables that seated 10 individuals.
C/Chang said that certainly the facility was one of the most beautifully
designed and constructed facilities in the region but it was very
disappointing that it could not accommodate the 500 individuals as
proposed.
CSD/Rose said staff would continue to work with different configurations
to see if the room could accommodate more people. The fire capacity is
stated at 500.
C/Huff asked if the advertised number of 500 would create a problem for
people who had booked the room. RS/West indicated that to date, no
bookings had been received for that large number of individuals.
April 6, 2004 Page 7 Study Session
PIM/Blakey said the City advertises "up to 500" in its brochure. Actually,
depending on the size of the tables, the room may accommodate that
number.
CSD/Rose explained that for now, staff would propose acceptance of the
numbers outlined in tonight's staff report and in the future. If staff found
the numbers to be different, that number would be reported in the weekly
rep o rt.
Senior Group Use
CSD/Rose explained #5 in detail as it related to potential senior group
use.
In response to MPT/Herrera's concern about fairness to all senior groups,
CSD/Rose stated that staff would advise all four senior groups of
availability and bookings would bemade on a first-come, first -serve basis.
If one group was using the facility on a regular basis and other groups
wanted to use the facility, staff could impose an equitable rotation policy.
M/Zirbes wanted to know if staff was aware of the cost per hour to open
the Diamond Bar Center sans staff.
CSD/Rose responded that during construction the power was on 24/7 and
the Edison bills were somewhat inflated. He proposed that calculations
could be done based on those bills.
CM/Lowry stated that the answer to M/Zirbes' question is that staff does
not know the cost per hour.
M/Zirbes explained that with respect to Item No. 5, Council was being
asked to reach a conclusion based on the fact that staff had no statistics
regarding staff cost, facility cost, etc. He wanted to know whether the
proposed rate would result in a loss to the facility's operating budget.
MPT/Herrera suggested staff set aside No. 5 pending factual calculations.
Tea Lights
CSD/Rose explained that currently, option No. 2 was being utilized.
C/O'Connor reiterated that her recommendation for the City to provide the
tea lights was for the City to provide the metal/candle portion only. Her
recommendation did not anticipate that the City would provide the crystal
holders.
April 6, 2004 Page 8 Study Session
CSD/Rose pointed out that both the holder and the candle had to be
approved by the L.A. County Fire Department.
C/O'Connor said that nevertheless, she was opposed to the City providing
g I a sswa re.
CSD/Rose said that staff prefers option No. 2. C/O'Connor and
MPT/Herrera concurred.
C/Chang wanted to hear from the Fire Department prior to rendering his
decision.
Assistant Fire Chief Nieto explained that the fire department was
attempting to make the process as seamless as possible. Users rent the
facility and go directly to Fire Station 120, on Grand Avenue, where they
would type -up their permit on-screen and receive approval on the spot.
CSD/Rose said that staff would know in advance whether or not the
candles passed the Department's test.
When C/O'Connor expressed concern about how the user could be
prevented from changing out the approved candle, Assistant Fire Chief
Nieto offered to email a digital photo of the accepted candle directly to the
City. This process was acceptable to the City Council.
Incense and Ceremonial Fire Usage
CSD/Rose explained that staff had been researching this subject and
arrived at the conclusion that because of the numerous and various
religions, beliefs, and ceremonies, it might be prudent to have the groups
perform their ceremonies with incense at their individual facilities, temples,
or homes before they arrived at the Diamond Bar Center, a public facility.
If Council wished staff to continue pursuing this matter, it would be
necessary to bring the item back after staff conducted further
investigation.
M/Zirbes pointed out that according to staff's report, none of the other
cities allowed the use of incense in their facilities whereas, 10 percent of
the hotels do allow use of incense. This City just spent $13 million to
construct the jewel of the San Gabriel Valley and without having sufficient
information as to the potential adverse affects on the facility, its interior
materials, and its air circulation system, it would be seem to be imprudent
to allow the use of incense.
M/Huff felt that staff should continue compiling information because D.B. is
a diverse community and the Diamond Bar Center was purchased with tax
dollars. If it was determined that there was a problem with the use of
April 6, 2004 Page 9 Study Session
incense, by all means, the ceremonies should be conducted off-site.
However, if the Center could accommodate the use with minimal impact, it
should be considered.
M/Zirbes suggested staff arrange a display of proposed ceremonies on a
limited basis.
C/Chang, speaking from personal experience, said that the burning of
incense is an ongoing thing throughout the duration of most religious
ceremonies. To people who participate in such ceremonies, the odor is
virtually unnoticeable. To others, however, it creates an adverse
sensation. In this case, there is no smoking allowed in the Diamond Bar
Center and that should applyto the burning ofincense. Ifthe Citywants to
keep this building for neutral use, he would suggest the City continue to
implement a policy of no smoking and no incense. The City most certainly
respects all cultures and religions but such ceremonies should be
conducted in their respective locations.
M/Zirbes thanked C/Chang for his observation and upon reflection,
concurred with his sentiments.
MPT/Herrera was inclined to have staff gather more information before
making a determination. A significant portion of the D.B. population is
Chinese and Indian.
M/Zirbes said that likewise, a significant portion of the population is not
Chinese and Indian.
Sterno Heaters
C/O'Connor asked what kind of damage could result to the carpeting from
a tipped over Sterno heater.
CSD/Rose was not aware of what damage could occur. However, there
was a facilities deposit in place that should cover potential damage. He
explained that it was not expensive to cut out and replace a piece of
damaged carpet.
DCM/Doyle reported that last Friday a caterer tore the carpet while
delivering equipment which necessitated about a six square inch
replacement piece. The repair was virtually invisible to the naked eye.
Horses and Elephants
CSD/Rose explained that regardless of the use, maintenance people have
advised staff that the colored concrete in the front entry area should be
coated or sealed. If the City were to a Ilow large animals in the area there
April 6, 2004 Page 10 Study Session
could be significant damage. In fact, normal use without the proper seal
could result in unnecessary damage and the need for repair.
There was no Council opposition to allowing this type of permit. There was
Council consensus to seal the area.
Fees
CSD/Rose explained that due to the great demand for this outstanding
facility there was an opportunity to raise fees. Those who have leased the
facility were told they were given a lower fee because they rented the
facility sight -unseen. CSD/Rose gave a brief overview of the proposed
fees, as outlined on page 6 of the staff report.
In addition to the proposed recommendation, CSD/Rose further reported
the proposed amount of a flat -fee of $500 for wedding ceremonies and
receptions; which would include chairs and a PA system. The proposed
area would be outside at the circle area, west of the banquet/turf area,
adjacent to or near the water element. Any other equipment or
decorations would beat the
expense of the renter. CSD/Rose stated that the cost was in comparison
to the Pacific Palms; theirs being $1500 for a block of time, including a
gazebo, chairs, microphone, and golf cart with a driver.
M/Zirbes commented to charge for just the outside set up. MPT Herrera
commented that the reception would likely be held at the facility. Further
discussion ensued regarding the proposed fees and outdoor usage.
PIM/Blakey said the idea of charging for a wedding ceremony was to
recoup grounds maintenance fees. C/O'Connor agreed the City should
charge for wear and tear but not provide chairs and gazebos. RS/West
commented that the City would need to rentadditional chairs from a rental
company so as not to damage or soil the banquet chairs. C/Chang
commented that it was a fair price for one-stop shopping.
Public Comments on Study Session Agenda Items — None Offered.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council,
M/Zirbes adjourned the Study Session to the regular meeting at 6:35 p.m.
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
April 6, 2004 Page 11 Study Session
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of , 2004.
Bob Zirbes, Mayor
Agenda #6.1.2
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR D RAFT
APRIL 6, 2004
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Zirbes called the regular City Council meeting to order at 6:47
p.m.in theGovernment Cent er/SCAQMID Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar,CA.
M/Zirbes reported that during this evening's study session Council discussed mid -year
budget adjustments, a monument entrysign for display ofcommunity service organization
emblems, and potential revisions to the Policies and Fees for Use of the Diamond Bar
Center. Council decided not to move forward with the entry sign for community service
emblems.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: The Pledge of Allegiance was lead by Mayor Pro Tem
Herrera.
INVOCATION: The invocation was given by Capt ain/Chaplain Larry Burke, Los
Angeles Fire Department.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Herrera,
and Mayor Zirbes.
Staff present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, 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; and Tommy Cribbins, Assistant City
Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: M/Zirbes requested that Item 1.5, Introduction of Miss
Diamond Bar2003 and her Court and Miss Diamond Bar2004 and her Court, beremoved
from this evening's agenda and continued to May 4, 2004.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 Presented City Tile to Commander Alex Yim, outgoing Captain of the
Diamond Bar/Walnut Sheriffs station. Additional presentations by David
Varnam, from Congressman Miller's office; and by Jim Starkey, from State
Senator Bob Margett's office.
1.2 Captain Yim introduced Michael Kwan, incoming Captain, Diamond
Bar/Walnut Sheriffs Station.
1.3 Proclamations:
1.3.1 Presented Proclamation to Martha Soto, Fair Housing Foundation in
recognition of"Fair Housing Month."
APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
1.3.2 Read Proclamation in recognition of "Child Abuse Prevention Month";
proclamation to be mailed.
1.3.3 Presented Proclamation to Francine DeMarco, Project Sister, in
recognition of "Sexual Assault Awareness Month."
1.3.4 Presented Proclamation Io Parks and Recreation Commission
Chairman Dave Grundy and Commissioners Ling -Ling Chang and
Benny Liang in recognition of"Healthy Parks Month."
1.4 Introduced Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer.
1.5 Introduction of Miss Diamond Bar2003 and her Court and Miss Diamond Bar
2004 and her Court — Continued to May 4, 2004.
BUSINESS OF THE MONTH:
1.6 Presented City Tileto John Campos, Regional Manager, and Oscar Romero,
General Manager, Acapulco Mexican Restaurant, Business ofthe Month for
April 2004. Displayed Business of the Month video.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
2.1 PWD/Liu introduced Keith Lehto, Principle Engineer, Los Angeles County
Department of Public Works Departm ent. Mr. Lehto provided Council with a
presentation regarding the proposed $9 sewer service rate increase
comprised of $5 for operation and maintenance, and $4 for the accumulative
capital outlay (ACO) fund. Mr. Lehto stated that if approved, the $5 rate
increase would generate a $4 million annual revenue of which $2.4 million
would offset the projected current year deficit and would provide adequate
fund balance for unanticipated emergencies, $800,000 would be used to
establish a fixed asset equipment program, and $800,000 would beset aside
for claims. The $4 rate increase for ACO would generate $3.2 million for
establishment of condition assessment program. Mr. Lehto reported that,
as required by Proposition 218, Public Hearing Notices would be sent to all
customers and a Board Hearing would be held on May 25, 2004. If residents
had questions they were advised to call the hotline at 626/300-3399.
M/Zirbes asked Mr. Lehto to update residents regarding the effo its to mitigate
the offensive odors of the sewage pump on Fountain Springs near the
Country Hills Towne Center.
Mr. Lehto explained that since his department was unfamiliar with how to get
rid of the odor, different attempts were made to mask or eliminate it. Last
October a patented version ofan ozone generator that combines ozone and
APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
misting was installed, and subsequent testing revealed that the treatment
dramatically reduced the hydrogen sulfide gas. As a result, the department
planned to purchase the equipment at a cost of $70,000 for permanent
installation atthe Fountain Springs site. Heindicated that the system should
beup and running byearly Fall 2004.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Eileen Ansari, Diamond Bar resident, complimented
Council and staff on the Diamond Bar Center and the March 26 gala dinner. She
especially liked the water feature. She suggested the City install a "No Right -Turn
On Red" at the Center's exit on Grand Avenue. She urged Council to approve two
additional Concerts -in -the- Park for this year. If the Council felt that additional
concerts placed a burden on the City's budget, perhaps other sponsors would be
willing to cover the cost. She asked Council to investigate the traffic signal
synchronization at Fern Hollow and Pathfinder. She also urged Council to adjourn
tonight's meeting in honor of the 12 marines from Camp Pendleton who lost their
lives fighting in Iraq.
Marie Buckland, Diamond Bar resident, asked the City to support the troops. She
said that other cities flyflags and display yellow ribbons.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: PWD/Liu stated that staff would look
into the "No Right -Turn On Red" request for the Diamond Bar Center exit and bring
back the appropriate recommendation to Counc il.Regarding the signal timing along
Pathfinder Road, the City's technicians and engineers are currently monitoring the
situation and will offer their report upon completion.
CM/Lowry stated that staff was not currently considering any formof recognition for
the troops.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: AS LISTED ON THE PREPARED AGENDA.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPT/Herrera moved, C/Chang seconded, to
approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 6.13, as removed for
discussion by C/O'Connor. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES:
6.1.1 Study Session of February 17, 2004 — Approved as submitted.
6.1.2 Study Session of March 2, 2004 — Approved as submitted.
6.2 PLANNING COMMISSIONS — Regular Meeting of February 20, 2004 —
Received and Filed.
6.3 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of
APRIL 6. 2004 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
February 26, 2004 - Received and Filed.
6.4 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular
Meeting of February 12, 2004 - Received and Filed.
6.5 APPROVED WARRANT REGISTERS - dated March 28, 2004, March 25,
2004 and April 1, 2004 for a total amount of$981,217.24
6.6 REVIEWED AND APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT - month of
February 2004.
6.7 REJECTED CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES:
6.7.1 Filed by Stanley Fidel, February 13, 2004
6.7.2 Filed by John Fairley, January 5, 2004.
6.8 RATIFIED INCREASE OF $4,000 TO THE PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH MONTANA TESTING AND GEOLOGICAL
LABORATORIES (MTGL) FOR A SPECIAL INSPECTION SERVICE AT
DIAMOND BAR CENTER FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT COST NOT -TO -
EXCEED $114,000.
6.9 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-10 RECOMMENDING THAT PAROLE
BE DENIED TO CONVICTED MURDERER, DANNY SAUL ROSALES.
6.10 APPROVED LETTER OF AGREEMENT FOR THE LEMON AVENUE
RAMPS ON STATE ROUTE 60 BETWEEN THE CITIES OF INDUSTRY
AND DIAMOND BAR.
6.11 AUTHORIZED DISPOSAL OF SURPLUS COMPUTER AND TELEPHONE
EQUIPMENT.
6.12 TERMINATED CONTRACT WITH P&D CONSULTANTS FOR WATER
CONSERVATION SERVICES EFFECTIVE APRIL 30, 2004.
6.14 APPROVED EXTENSION TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
WITH ANALYTICAL PLANNING SERVICES, INC. (APSI) FOR
CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT SERVICES ASSOCIATED WITH THE
DIAMOND BAR CENTER IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,200.
6.15 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-11 AMENDING THE FY 2003-04
MUNICIPAL BUDGET.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.13 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-12 SUPPORTING CREATION OF
INCENTIVES FOR COMMERCIAL SHIPPING COMPANIES AND CARGO
OWNERS TO USE EXTENDED GATE HOURS AT AREA PORTS.
APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
C/O'Connor believed the resolution should besent to the person in charge of
the ports/port authority, the Long Beach and Los Angeles port supervisors as
well as the governor and any other individual deemed reasonable.
MPT/Herrera responded that there isa portauthority for Los Angeles and for
Long Beach and that Assemblyman Lowentha II has several bills pertaining to
this issue and did not want to be too specific since bills are generally subject
to change as they move through the legislature. Her intent was to adopt this
resolution and communicate with all of the cities along the SR60 corridor in
an effort to get them to adopt the resolutions that would eventually be
forwarded to the authorities.
C/O'Connor moved, C/Huff seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2004-12 with
the addition of"and others" to SECTION 3 so that it reads: "That City Staff
shall forward a copy of the certified resolution to the following and others ."
Motion carried bythe following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-13 AMENDING APPENDIX A OF
RESOLUTION NO. 89-97P, THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE.
DCM/Doyle reported that the City is required to review its Conflict of Interest
Code on a regular basis to determine its conformity with available City
positions. Accordingly, staff is recommending that the Parks and
Maintenance Superintendent position beeliminated from the resolution and
that a Maintenance Supervisor position be added. Additional actions were
previously taken to include positions currently funded in FY 2003/04.
Conversely, other positions are not currently funded in the City's budget.
However, they are listed in the current salary schedule and staff felt itwas
important to listthose positions in the Conflict of Interest Code. These actions
will again be reviewed during the upcoming fiscal year budget discussions
and appropriate recommendations will be forthcoming.
M/Zirbes opened the Public Hearing.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this item.
M/Zirbes closed the Public Hearing.
APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
MPT/Herrera moved, C/O'Connor seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2004-
13. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
7. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
7.1 CONSIDERATION OF ADDING ONE CONCERT TO THE SUMMER
CONCERTS IN THE PARK SERIES AND APPROPRATION OF $2,400 TO
FUND THE CONCERT.
CM/Lowry stated that this item was presented to the Council as a
recommendation from the Parks and Recreation Commission and at the
urging of C/O'Connor. In order to begi n the 2004 concert series early, the
Council would need to appropriate additional funds in the current Fiscal Year.
MPT/Herrera said she enjoys the concerts and recognizes their worth to the
residents. D.B. has been expanding its Parks and Recreation programs while
the State's subventions have been shrinking and she was very concerned
about remaining within the City's budget. On those grounds she opposed
further expansion ofthe budget.
C/O'Connor agreed that the concerts were well attended and felt itwas an
excellent platform for bringing the community together. She liked the
suggestion that the City look for financial sponsors for an additional concert
although itwas not essential to her for approval.
M/Zirbes opened the matter for public input
Mary Matson, Diamond Bar resident, commented that ifthe City could spend
$38,000 for a select group to participate in a gala atthe Diamond Bar Center,
it could support a $2,400 concert.
Marie Buckland, Diamond Bar resident, agreed that the City should provide
an additional concert.
There being no further public input, M/Zirbes brought the matter back for
Council discussion/actio n.
C/Chang commented that the Council always acted prudently with respect to
the City's budget. However, he believed that a one-time expenditure of
$2,400 was a low cost event in which families could joyfully participate.
APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
C/Huff explained that it would have been impossible to accommodate the
entire community fora gala dinner with limited capacity seating. Itwas staffs
first opportunity to actually set up and use the facility in order to gain
information about how to better market the Center, a facility financially
supported by user groups. When Counc it approved the 2003/04 FY budget,
the City built in a $1 million reserve due to the economic uncertainties. After
tonight's budget adjustment, the City isdown to slightly more than $200,000
in its reserves with nearly three months left in this budget year. Heenjoys the
Concerts -in -the- Park but felt that the City should not further deplete its
reserves this budget year. There are other considerations such as
maintenance of streets, etc., that require the Council's consideration. He
would be pleased to have a sponsor step forward and pay for an additional
co n cert.
M/Zirbes said hetoo enjoys the concerts . Factually, the Concerts -in -the- Park
series was trimmed back in a previous year due to the addition of other
community events, such as the 4th of July Concert. Hefelt the appropriate
time to consider adding a concert was during budget discussions. He also
recalled that the Council had considered several exceptions to the budget
during the past year. Additionally, there were daily reminders about the
State's budget shortfalls. Historically, D.B. Council's have been fiscally
prudent and forthe most part, remained within the approved budgets. Ifthere
were a sponsor willing to pay for an additional concert, he would not be
opposed.
C/Chang volunteered to personally sponsor an additional concert.
C/O'Connor thanked C/Chang for hisoffer. She commented further that she
had someone that she thought would be a sponsor, suggesting that each
Council member may have someone orcompanies that would also consider
being a sponsor.
C/O'Connor moved, C/Chang seconded, to add one concert and hopefully
find a sponsor for the event.
MPT/Herrera requested an amendment to the motion be contingent upon
C/Chang funding it or another donor. C/Huff seconded the amendment.
C/Chang concurred if the motion byC/O'Connor failed.
After brief clarification by CA/Jenk ins that the amendment being voted on
was to approve one more concert contingent upon the cost being subsidized
by one or more private sponsors, the amendment was approved by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: O'Connor
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
C/O'Connor questioned the need to vote on an amendment to the motion;
indicating that itwould bethe motion -maker to amend the motion. The City
Attorney clarified that there is a courtesy that is employed, but under
Parlimentary Rules, the maker need not accept the amendment if the
amendment isseconded and voted upon bythe majorityofthe body. If, upon
a vote, the amendment fails, then the main motion is acted upon. If the
amendment is approved, then the main motion is acted upon as amended.
C/O'Connor expressed concern that this is being handled differently then at
other times when amendments to a motion are presented.
The amended motion was approved by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: O'Connor
C/O'Connor asked that the minutes reflect that this was not her motion.
8.2 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2003-60A AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2003-
60 REVISING THE POLICIES AND FEES FOR THE USE OF THE
DIAMOND BAR CENER OPERATED BY THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR.
CSD/Rose reported on the proposed revisions which included a description
and name of each room added to Description of Facility on Page 2 under
Section 1, special rates for New Year's Eve and weekends, observance of
two holidays — Christmas Day and Thanksg iving Day, inclusion of a $100
cleaning deposit requirement for non-profit groups, determination of the
security firm by the City instead ofthe Sheriffs Department, and Tea Light
utilization permit requirement.
CSD/Rose explained that Council directed staff togive further consideration
to special Senior Group rates for the grand ballroom and for use of incense
inside the facility. Until a decision was reached, no use of incense or
ceremonial fires would bepermitted in thefacility. Caterers would beallowed
to use Sterno heaters. Elephants and horses and horse drawn carriages
would beallowed in the front entry area through the permit process after the
area was coated/sealed. Staff recommended increasing the rental fee to
meet increased demands for continued operation and maintenance of the
facility. CSD/Rose stated that current rates would behonored for Individuals
and groups who had already reserved the facility.
M/Zirbes opened the matter for public input; there was none offered.
C/Huff moved, C/Chang seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2003-60A with
the following clarifications: Adopt option 2 for Tea Lights; that the use of
incense and ceremonial fireswould bedenied until further consideration; that
APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
the front entry area decorative concrete would be coated/sealed as soon as
possible; that a policy regarding the use of horses and elephants would be
presented to the Council for adoption, and that CSD/Rose be allowed to
exercise his judgment regarding outdoor use until a po licyamendment was
approved by Council.
Motion carried bythe following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
COUNCIL SUBCOMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCILMEMBERS COMMENTS.
C/O'Connor said that the past three weeks was an exciting period for D.B. The
Diamond Bar Center grand opening was a wonderful community event. The Friends
of the Library Wine Soiree was the first non -City event held at the Center. She
commended DCM/Doyle, PIM/Blakey, RS/West, and all involved with the grand
opening. On Tuesday, March 30 the City's lobbyist held a dinner meeting in
Sacramento to give City officials a heads up on the upcoming State budget and
potential hits to local cities. Kudos to EA/Whitehouse who spearheaded a wonderful
and very successful "Youth in Government Day" on Wednesday, March 31.
C/O'Connor and M/Zirbes met with high school students who shadowed staff and
Council Members. She was very impressed with the students and hoped that it
would become a regular occurrence. Sheriffs Department and Fire Department
members also participated in the event. Shecommended AYSOontheir successful
Cottontail Tournament and felt that D.B. had benefited by their presence. This
morning she and PWD/Liu attended the Local Governmental Services Commission
meeting during which the Sheriffs Department reported on the cooperative effort
toward improving communication among governmental agencies, a major concern
since 9/11.
C/Huff hoped everyone would have an opportuni tyto visitthe wonderful Diamond
Bar Center. He enjoyed visiting with Chaparral Middle School sixth graders on
March 25; during which heand the students discussed mutually significant issues.
Because then -Governor Davis "borrowed" one billion in funds away from the
Alameda Corridor East project, and in particular the Brea Canyon Road grade
crossing project, the project would not move forward unless alternative funding
could befound. The earliest funds would likelybe available for the project would be
four years from now.
C/Chang agreed that the Diamond Bar Center grand opening was wonderful and the
building was outstanding. Finally, D.B. had a building that would bring the
community together and provide a facility forfunctions and events. The community
should bevery proud ofthis great accomplishment and ofa building that isa quality
product worthy ofthis City and its outstanding location. The facility has been booked
far in advance and the City is assured of significant operating revenues. He
APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
complimented staff on their efforts to stay thecourse and bring in the facilityon time
and on budget. Healso thanked community members fortheir patience and support.
He congratulated the Friends of the Library on a very successful Wine Soiree and
believed the event was the most successful ever sponsored by the Friends of the
Library. To that end, the proceeds would be returned to the community. Hethanked
staff for their hard work and support in making certain the Soiree proceeded as
planned. Recently, he received word that a local church would offer 10 $1,000
scholarships to high school students wishing to attend college. Hesaid hewould put
the church in touch with the principals of both local high schools to work out the
details. He reported that Congressman Miller assured him that congress had
allocated $12 million for the Lemon Avenue Ramps on State Route 60 between the
Cityoflndustry and Diamond Bar. Soon Brea Canyon Road exitwould closeand the
Lemon Avenue on and off ramps would be installed.
MPT/Herrera thanked staff fortheir hard workin preparing the Diamond Bar Center
for the grand opening event. She extended her best wishes to Commander Alex Yim
and thanked him for his support to D.B. She welcomed Captain Mike Kwan and said
she looked forward to working with him.
M/Zirbes said that during the three weeks since the last City Council meeting,
Council Members have been very busy. He thanked the community and staff, this
Council and previous Councils for the dedication to bring the Diamond Bar Center to
fruition. He congratulated Terra Unfrei d, Miss Diamond Bar 2004, and said he and
the City look forward to working with that community service organization. The Wine
Soiree was a tremendous success. During the past three weeks he was also
involved in the Youth in Government Day, Arbor Day, the City-wide track meet,
Volunteer Patrol Dinner, economic development, and many other meetings with
residents and businesses concerning issues in their neighborhoods. He and
MPT/Herrera have been working with the Sports Park Task Force and staff ispoised
to present the recommendation report to the City Council at its April 20 meeting
He reminded residents that equally important to sports for youth is education. The
past couple of years the City Council had worked diligently to push for Library Grant
Bond monies. Along with many other cities, D.B. had submitted an application to
Sacramento that the City was hopeful would be recognized and rewarded with a
substantial grant. Regardless of the outco me, he asked that a short term Library
Task Force be created and asked C/Chang to serve with him on the Task Force.
C/Chang said itwas his honor to accept the commitment. M/Zirbes asked staff to
place the matter on the April 20 agenda atwhich time hewould outline the goals and
objectives for the Task Force and propose a start and finish date.
Heasked Council Members to submit their preliminary draft of Goals and Objectives
to staff for FY 2004/05. He reported that the new City Hall num ber is 909/839-7000.
He hoped to see many turn out for the 10:00 a.m. Lions Easter Egg Hunt on
Saturday at Pantera Park and for the 8:30 Pancake Breakfast preceding the Hunt.
Heencouraged residents to attend the City's 15th Birthday Celebration on April 18
beginning at 12:00 noon at Pantera Park. The Chamber will sponsor a Business
Exposition, informational booths may be available through the City, and the DBIA
APRIL 6, 2004 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
will sponsor the Classic Car Show. Hethank ed MPT/Herrera for her work on Item
6.13 to improve the truck flow on SR 60 and he thanked residents for their
participation, time, patience, and trust.
10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Zirbes adjourned
the meeting at8:45 p.m. in memory of Fred Dodd, Jr., father of Deputy Diane Dodd,
Diamond Bar/Walnut Sheriffs Deputy, and the 12 marines from Camp Pendleton
who lost their lives in the Iraq conflict.
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of , 2004.
Bob Zirbes, Mayor
Agenda #6.2.1
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MARCH 9, 2004
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Tye called the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District/Governm ent Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Chairman Tye led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ADMINISTRATION OF OATH OF OFFICE FOR PLANNING COMMISSIONERS —
ADMINISTERED BY LYNDA BURGESS, CITY CLERK.
2. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Dan Nolan, Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka, and
Commissioners Ruth M. Low, Joe McManus and Steve Tye.
Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu,
Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services
Assistant, and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant.
3. PRESENTATION OF CITY TILES TO OUTGOING PLANNING COMMISSIONERS
STEVE NELSON AND OSMAN WEI.
Outgoing Commissioner Steve Nelson spoke about his tenure on the Planning
Commission and thanked hiscolleagues and staff for a pleasurable and professional
association.
Chair/Tye reported that in honor of and gratitude for Mr. Nelson's service to the
Planning Commission and the City, a tree would be planted in his name at the
Diamond Bar Center.
Chair/Tye thanked Outgoing Commissioner Wei for his contribution to and service
on the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Wei expressed his gratitude to the Commission and Staff for their
assistance. He hoped to be able to contribute to the City in other capacities.
4. REORGANIZATION OF PLANNING COMMISSION:
DCM/DeStefano opened nominations for Chairman of the Planning Commission.
C/Tanaka nominated Commissioner Dan Nolan. Commissioner Low seconded the
nomination. There being no other nominations offered, Dan Nolan was unanimously
selected Chairman of the Planning Commission.
Chair/Nolan presented a commemorative plaque to outgoing Chairman Steve Tye in
honor of his service and dedication to the Planning Commission as its Chairman.
Chair/Nolan nominated Commissioner Jack Tanaka to serve as Vice Chairman of
the Planning Commission. Commissioner Tye seconded the motion. There being no
other nominations offered, Commissioner Tanaka was unanimously elected to serve
as Vice Chairman of the Planning Commission.
5. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 Approval of February 24, 2004, Regular Meeting minutes.
C/Tye moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to approve the February 24, 2004,
Regular Meeting minutes as presented. Without objection, the motion was so
ordered.
7. NEW BUSINESS: None
8. PUBLIC HEARING (S):
8.1 Extension of Time Request for Conditional Use Permit No. 2002-02(1)
for Development Review No. 2002-06() and Variance No. 2002-01(1)
(pursuant to Code Section 22.66.050. C.) is a request for a one-year
extension oftime for a project approved bythe Planning Commission on April
9, 2002. The Planning Commission approval allows the construction of an
automated carwash with retail sales boutique, lube center, detail center with
office, auto service center, gasoline station, and platforms to display vehicles
for sale.
1W0031x4011IF:19]e] :m
PROPERTY OWNER/
APPLICANT:
515-525 Grand Avenue
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Mathew Tachdjian
Col -Am Properties LLC
P.O. Box 4655
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
DSA/Smith presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Planning
Commission adopt a resolution approving the extension oftime.
Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing.
There being no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nolan
closed the public hearing.
C/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded, to grant the extension. Motion carried
by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, Tye, Low, VC/Tanaka,
Chair/Nolan
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
8.2 Development Review No. 2004-05 and Tree Permit No. 2004-03 (pursuant
to Code Sections 22.48.020.(a)(1) ,22.38.070 and 22.38.130) is request to
demolish an existing two story single -fa milyresidence of approximately 4,000
square feet and construct a two story single-family residence with a
basement, four car garage, patio cover, veranda and balcony totaling
approximately 11,504 square feet. The request also includes a series of six
retaining walls within the rear yard with a maximum exposed height of six feet
for each wall. The Tree permit is related to the removal/replacem ent of two
oak trees.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 22807 Lazy Trail Drive
(Tract 30091, Lot 149)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: Ms. Rita Medirata
22807 Lazy Trail Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda
615 N. Benson Avenue, Unit C
Upland, CA 91764
AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report. Staff recommends Planning
Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-05 and Tree Permit
No. 2004-03, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the
resolution.
VC/Tanaka said he visited the site this afternoon. He saw that the public
notice board was present. However, there was no notice on the board.
Kent Smith, representing the architect, said he read staffs report and
concurred with the conditions of approval.
Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing.
Mark Montgomery, 22615 Lazy Meadow and General Manager of "The
Country Estates" Homeowners Association, informed the Commission that
the Association had a serious probl em with the proposed development. He
provided photographs to the Commission that were taken today. The
Association requires that the Architectural Review Committee reviewall plans
to determine whether they satisfy the conditions of size, shape, location,
orientation, etc. On July 18, 2003, the applicant appeared before the
Architectural Review Committee for the firsttime and presented a series of
plans that were reviewed and redlined by the architect. The applicant
returned to the Committee on October 7, 2003, with a new set of plans that
were reviewed and again redlined to indicate the Committee's concerns. On
December 25, 2003, the applicant returned to the Committee with yet another
set of plans that were scrutinized and ultimately denied by the Committee.
The Association has a responsibility to its members to make certain that any
proposed development within the sphere of influence meets the requirements
of the association. This property did not conform to the minimum
requirements. The Association has concerns that the developer may attempt
to proceed with the development believing that with the Commission's
approval they may proceed. The Association strongly objects to this project
moving forward asproposed and would take the necessary action to prevent
the project from being constructed as proposed. Therefore, the Association
requests that the Planning Commission defer further consideration of this
proposed project until such time asthe architectural committee approves the
plan.
C/McManus asked Mr. Montgomery to elaborate on the Committee's specific
objections to the project.
Mr. Montgomery explained that the Committee is concerned about the size,
shape, orientation and location on the lot and whether itconforms in harmony
to the surrounding properties. The Committee has determined that this
project is not in harmony with the association. He asked that the Committee
be allowed to continue working with the applicant to resolve these matters.
C/McManus wondered why the association had not requested the Planning
Commission to refer projects back to the Association prior to this time. Was
this a new requirement or request?
Mr. Montgomery said that unfortunately, this has not happened in the past
and has caused the association great problems in the past. For instance, the
association may not discover that a room was added until after -the -fact. Ifthe
association discovers that the structure was illegal built in the eyes of the
association, under California lawand caselaw, the association could require
that the illegal portion of the structure be removed as has happened in the
past. The association would prefer to work with the applicant to make certain
that the project is in harmony.
C/McManus felt it would be best for the architectural committee to work with
the Planning Department to preclude the possibility of out-of-compli ance
projects coming before the Planning Commission prior to committee
approval.
Mr. Montgomery agreed. However, the committee is unable to prevent an
individual from forwarding an unappr oved project to the Planning
Commission as has occurred with this project.
VC/Tanaka asked what was redlined on th is project and were the same items
redlined all three times that the project was taken to the committee?
Mr. Montgomery said they were not the same items. Because ofthe number
of items that were redlined, the project was denied on its face.
VC/Tanaka asked Mr. Montgomery ifhe could address the redlined items this
evening. Mr. Montgomery responded that hedid not bring the drawing with
him and would be unable to comment.
C/Tye asked Mr. Montgomery who makes up the architectural committee?
Mr. Montgomery responded that the committee is established by "The
Country Estates" CC&R's. It is a three-person committee including an
architect selected and approved by the five -member Board of Directors. The
committee acts on behalf of the association. The committee has final
authority over projects unless their decision is appealed to the Board of
Di recto rs.
C/Tye asked if the applicant appealed the denial to the Board of Directors to
which Mr. Montgomery responded "no, sir."
Chair/Nolan felt that the Commission had an obligation to move forward with
the applicant's requests. That said, during his tenure on the Commission
there had been a level of cooperation between the Commission and "The
Country Estates" Homeowner's Association. In fact, the Commission looked
to see if projects had received approval from the committee prior to
consideration by the Commission.
Mr. Montgomery said that the committee makes one of three decisions
regarding projects: approve, deny orcondi tionally approve. When a project is
conditionally approved, the committee is concerned that when it comes
before the City's Planning Commission, this body may assume the project
was approved. When a project is conditionally approved, the committee
wants the project to come back before it to see what the Commission
approved. He asked that the Commissioners look to see whether a project
has been approved, denied orconditionally approved so that the two entities
could work together.
Chair/Nolan explained that the committee is welcome to participate in
Commission meetings when "The Country Estates" projects are considered.
C/Tye stated that anytime the Commission reviews a project within "The
Country Estates" as a courtesy and not as a requirement, the Commission
inquires as to whether the project has been approved by the architectural
committee.
C/Low was concerned about the availab ilityof remedies for applicants who
were being "categorically denied" by the committee. She asked what notice
the committee had given the applicant regarding the appeals process?
Mr. Montgomery said hewas not present when the project was denied. What
should have happened was that the applicant should have been informed in
writing that he/she had been denied and the reasons for the denial. The
applicant has an opportunity to resubmit those plans orappea I the decision to
the board of directors. Mr. Montgomery said he suspected the applicant
might not be fully aware of those options. Whether the options were
communicated to the applicant or owner is unknown to him.
Carlos Negrete, attorney, stated that "The Country Estates" had not approved
this project orthe plans for the project.As Mr. Montgomery states, the project
does not meet even the minimum requirements. He felt the Commission
should not overlook the committee's denial of this project. The fact that the
project was not approved three times and that the applicant is submitting the
project without the committee's approval speaks loudly to the Commission's
consideration of"The Country Estates" concerns about the project. He was
also concerned that proper notice was not posted in conformance with the
City's Code 22.040.020(e) in that notice was not given to all property owners
within 500 feet (of the project.) This is important because as it applies here
there is difference between 32 property owners and 37 property owners. As
a result, five property owners did not receive notice and may have wished to
appear before the Commission. Improper notice would beg the Commission
to deny or, at the very least, defer the Hearing to another day in order to
comply with the requirement notice. Another defect and material omission
within the notice is that it failed to indicate that there would be 2000 cubic
yards of fill on the property. In addition, the proposal called out a three-story
home, not a two-story home. In his opinion, the applicant was attempting to
obtain approval in violation of City Code Section 22.80.020(b) that defines a
basement asa non -habitable space within a structure whereless than '/2the
distance from the floor to the ceiling is below grade. That is not the case in
this instance nor does itcomply with the notice. The notice also states that
this project is exempt from CEQA requirements, a statement that is untrue
because this proposal is not for minor modifications to a structure. Also of
concern is the natural wildlife trail behind the property that would be
destroyed or substantially impacted by the proposed project, a fact that has
not been addressed and falls visibly in violation of City Code Section
22.16.040. The applicant proposes a kitchen in the basement in what isbeing
called a prayer room, a study room, ora sitting room. Hefound itdifficult to
believe that a prayer room in a three-story house would contain a kitchen. He
felt the applicant was attempting to disguise an additional living quarter. Mr.
Negrete further stated that the retaining walls were also in violation of the
City's Code Section 22.08.04 in that thetier gets around the six-foot limitation
since the retaining wall was really proposed to be 12 feet high. In addition,
the cascading is in violation of the lateral setback requirements, the
ornamental requirements and the structures appurtenant to a property
requirement in combinati on with the earth that would be moved into and out
of the property which has significant impact on the proposed project as well
as the adjoining properties. There would also be significant and serious
impacts to the "harmony" in the general area and community i.e. non -
preservation ofviews, created obstructions, light interruption and a mountain
of fill dirt that woul d change the topography of the area. He suggested the
application should not be approved becaus a it contained several serious
infirmities and defects.
C/McManus asked if Mr.Negrete's reference to natural wildlife trail and open
space habitat referred to a wildlife corridor? C/McManus stated that he
believed it to be a habitat sink and not a wildlife corridor. Mr. Negrete
responded that hedid not know but believed that itcould beboth and would
be required to be protected.
VC/Tanaka said the path was outside the project area and well beyond the
water runoff.
Paul Horcher, 22803 Lazy Trail Road, (adjacent property owner) felt that
Mr. Negrete had also expressed his point of view. He poin ted out that the
retaining walls were illegal according to the Diamond Bar City Code. They
faced outward and could not beallowed inside ofthe lateral setback. Hedid
not understand why staff would ignore their own rules with respect to the
basement and infill. This property was entirely inappropriate and would
present a tremendous view impact on the neighbor residing on the opposite
side of the project. It was a fine looking structure but itwa s inappropriatel y
large for this property and presented a hazard in a landslide area. Hewas
surprised that the staff report made no mention of the nature trail.
Brandon Chi, 22815 Lazy Trail Road, stated that in accordance with the
City's Goals and Objectives there wasa longstanding goal among residents
to maintain and protect distinct physical attributes of Dia mond Barthat made
it a desirable place to live. Significant privately and publicly owned vacant
areas existed within the boundaries of Diamond Bar and within its sphere of
influence. The preservation of these resources contributed to the goal of
retaining the City's distinct characte r. Diamond Bar is included in SEA 15, a
major significant ecological asset to the community. According to its General
Plan, the City would play a proactive role in the preservation ofthis resource
byassuring that extensive analysis and review precede any changes from its
current uses and possibilities. Aphotogr aph hepresented to the Commission
clearly showed that the proposed project would significantly change and
destroy the existing natural terrain, alter the natural drainage pattern and
increase runoff. Hesaid hewas not oppos ed to the project, hewas opposed
to the scale of the development. He wished the applicant could be more
sensitive to the surrounding environment and residents.
Osman Wei, 24106 Lodge Pole Road, "The Country Estates" secretary and
board member said the issue of bypassi ng the board is new to him. Hewas
aware of two prior cases that were still under consideration by the
association. He explained how and why the architectural review committee
was formed. Each applicant is given a set of board approved rules and
regulations known as"The Architectural Guidelines." The most recent edition
(September 2003) states each individual step in the process and materials
required by the board. By court order, the horse trails will not and cannot be
modified orchanged. The horse trailspass through properties via easement.
Hewas not certain whether the proposed project was involved in the horse
trail. Abasic rule ofthe association states that any resident will not change
the easement to dig or to fill up and down more than two feet. "The Country
Estates" prefers not to see too many retaining walls because they are
contrary tothe concept ofmaintaining rural living. Many requests forretaining
walls have been denied. In 1999, when he applied to remodel his house it
took about eight months to conclude the process. During that time he met
with the architectural committee on seven occasions. He said heunderstood
that the applicant was anxious to build his/her dream home. However, the
plans needed to pass through the proper channels. He questioned the
parking requirement and the need for two kitchens. He urged the
Commission to deny approval and require the applicant to conform to the
basic requirements.
A.C. Kaushal, 22927 Lazy Trail Road, felt the City's Planning Department
had done an excellent job reviewing this project. The subject project was
proposed to cover only seven percent ofthe total lot area. How would such a
project be adverse to the environment? Staffs recommendation was to
delete the upstairs kitchen. It was not his project, but hefelt it was a good
project forthe City and believed the Commission should approve the project
as requested. Not only would the proposed structure be aesthetically
pleasing from the street, itwould also bring the property into compliance with
the current codes.
Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing.
DCM/DeStefano explained that staffs recommendation was to approve the
project subject to a number of conditions outlined by staff within a
recommended resolution. The resolution included conditions that dealt with
some of the issues described by prior speakers such as kitchens,
landscaping, etc. The Planning Commission had a number of options: To
agree with staffs recommendation, to disagree with the recommendation by
approving the project and modifying the conditions, deny the project or
continue the project for additional information to assist the Commission in
rendering its decision.
DCM/DeStefano responded to public comments: With respect to "The
Country Estates" orany private homeowners association, the City does not
enforce CC&R's. CC&R's area private contract between a property owner
and the association upon which they reside. The largest association in the
City is `The Country Estates." Other associations such as Pulte Homes,
Pathfinder and Diamond Crest as well as hundreds of condominiums are
subject to CC&R's as private homeowner associations. The City does not
make decisions and subject the decisions to further modification by a
homeowners association, a practice common in most cities in California. Itis
not good public policy for cities to bec ome involved in CC&R's of private
homeowners associations. The City does, however, strongly encourage
property owners and developers to gain association approval before they
present their projects to the City. The City is not precluded from approving a
project that has not received association approval. In fact, the City operates
under completely different rules from a private association with respect to
development permits and decision-making. The City isunder strict guidelines
to approve ordeny a project within a very specific timeline. For example, this
project must have a decision bythe City by May 26 or 27 in accordance with
the permit streamlining act.
DCM/DeStefano addressed the concern about property posting and hearing
notice. Staff believes that the proper posting and notification has taken place.
The Code requires a 500 -foot radius notification for this project size.
Accordingly, staff found 32 property owners should have been notified. With
respect to the quantity of fill and whether that was an omission from the
noticing, typically a project ofthis size will utilize more than 2000 cubic yards
of fill, be it import or export or onsite. Frankly, 2000 yards of fill in "The
Country Estates" isnot excessive. The notice is general statement of the
project. Regarding the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), staff
believes that this project is clearly exempt from the regulations ofCEQA. To
this point, staff could have utilized another section ofCEQA known as 15301.
This section speaks to reconstructio n, additions and new construction that
may exceed the size of this home as being categorically exempt. While this
project is a grand total of 11,000 square feet the City's Development Code
counts the square footage ofthe habitable area aswell asthe square footage
of balconies, decks, verandas, etc. This house is actually closer to about
7,800 or7,900 square feet oflivable space.This sizeaddition ornew home is
not at all unusual for "The Country Estates." Within these homes in "The
Country Estates" there is typically a very large kitchen and a very large
second kitchen sometimes referred to as a "dirty" kitchen. Some homes
contain rooms forpersonal religious purposes. Where question ofuse arises,
the City's Code Enforcement proactively responds to the matter and deals
with itaccordingly.
DCM/DeStefano explained that there are a variety of public and private
entities that have interest in this immediate area with respect to "Wildlife
Corridors." There is an area in the City of Diamond Bar and adjacent to the
City of Diamond Bar known as SEA 15. There are 62 such areas in Los
Angeles County. The proposed project isnot near the SEA 15 and there are
no wildlife corridors adjacent to this property. The site has been disked. The
site has grassland and while ithas trees itdoes not necessarily have "habitat"
as it is known in environmental terms that would be disrupted by the
proposed home or by the retaining walls that are designed to support the
home. Additionally, staff believes that the proposed walls and tier design are
consistent with the City's Code. In the past, the City has approved multiple
walls to support a home in "The Country Estates." With respect to the
comment that this project was in violation of a particular section of the City's
Development Code, the comment would be true if this was a brand new lot.
This is not a new lot. The Development Code exempts lots of record that
existed prior to a certain date. Lots like the applicants lot have more
discretion to deal with construction than a new lot being created today.
DCM/DeStefano reiterated staffs recommendation to approve the project.
While it is not a requirement that the project be continued, based upon
tonight's testimony, staff would reconsider its recommendation and instead
recommend that the Planning Commission talk with the applicant's
representative and consider a continuance ofthis matter so that the property
owner and the architect could meet with "The Country Estates" and adjacent
property owners in an effort to resolve outstanding issues. If as a result of
those meetings certain modifications were proposed, staff would present
those modifications to the Commission. If there were no modifications
proposed, staff would so advise the Commission. He reminded the
Commission about the timeline for approval.
C/Tye asked DCM/DeStefano to address the retaining walls in the setback.
DCM/DeStefano explained that staff was not sure what the speaker meant
because retaining walls were permissiblewithin the setbacks. There may be
association requirements that are different from the City's requirements. The
retaining walls that are proposed are not inconsistent with the City's Code.
With respect to Mr. Negrete's reference to Code Section 22.16.040, this
section of the Code states that all projects have to be evaluated in
compliance with CEQA. Code Section 22.08.040 refers to the residential
zoning district general development standards.
C/Tye asked DCM/DeStefano to address Mr. Wei's reference to the number
of covered garage spaces to the number of rooms. DCM/DeStefano said he
felt there was a distinct difference between the City's Code and what "The
Country Estates" strived to obtain. "The Country Estates" basically wanted
projects to have more covered parking than was required bythe City's Code.
"The Country Estates" desire for five covered parking spaces for six
bedrooms exceeds the City's Code requirement. The project meets City
Code with six bedrooms and four parking spaces.
C/Low asked DCM/DeStefano to address the basement issue.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the project was a three-level home. The
home had a proposed habitable area on each of the three levels. How itwas
described could probably be argued but the fact that it was a three-level
home had been clearly indicated and the fact that it met the Code
requirements had been articulated in staffs detailed report. Staff was
satisfied that it met the envelope of the building available as the Code
addresses.
Chair/Nolan said the matter of structural height was addressed in the
resolution and that it would be periodi cally reviewed prior to completion.
C/McManus moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to reopen the public hearing and
continue the matter to April 27, 2004, to allow additional testimony regarding
the project.
C/Tye asked that it be made clear he appreciated staffs preparation. He
believed the matter was properly noticed, that no material facts were omitted
and the project met the City's Code.
Chair/Nolan concurred with C/Tye. Hewanted the parties to reach agreement
so that the Commission could carry out its mandate. Hebelieved that based
on staffs report and recommendation, a decision could be made this
evening. However, in deference to harmony, hehoped an amicable solution
could be reached between all parties in the next 30 days.
DCM/DeStefano suggested the Planning Commission direct the property
owner and applicant to meet with "The Country Estates" and adjoining
property owners to arbitrate their differences.
C/McManus amended his motion to include staffs recommendation.
VC/Tanaka accepted the amended motion. Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Tanaka, Low, Tye,
Chair/Nolan
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
9. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONA LITEMS:
VC/Tanaka welcomed Commissioners Low and McManus.
C/Tye welcomed Commissioners Low and McManus.
Chair/Nolan said this is his first opportunity to Chair the Planning Commission and
he will strive to improve with time.
10 STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMA TIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano hoped that the Commissioners had received their invitations to the
Diamond Bar Center Grand Opening on March 20 and Gala Reception on March 26.
Staff is coordinating a Commissioners orientation meeting with the City's Attorney
tentatively scheduled for April 7. Please advise staff regarding your availability.
DCM/DeStefano explained that the Planning Commission had two projects in the
pipeline and would provide information for the new Commissioners to review. He
asked if anyone noticed that the Timber Ridge sign was up?
Chair/Nolan responded that he and his wife noticed the sign and thanked staff for
their persistence.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in the Agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: Upon motion ofC/McManus, seconded byVC/Tanaka and there
being no further business to come before the Planning Commission, Chairman Nolan
adjourned the meeting at 9:00 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
Attest:
Dan Nolan, Chairman
Agenda #6.3.1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MARCH 11, 2004
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Morris called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management/Gover nment Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chair Pincher led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Morris, Vice Chair Pincher and Commissioners Shah, Tomg and
Virginkar.
Also Present: David Liu, Public Works Director, Sharon Gomez, Senior Management
Analyst; Debbie Gonzales, Administrative Assistant and Sgt. Chris Blasnek.
I. ADMINISTRATION OF OATHS OF OFFICE FOR TRAFFIC AND
TRANSPROTATION COMMISSIONERS — Administered by Lynda Burgess, City
Clerk
II. REORGANIZATION OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
C/Virginkar nominated Commissioner Pincher to serve as Chair of the Traffic and
Transportation Commission. There were no other nominations offered. Without
objection, Commissioner Pincher was elected to serve as Chair of the Traffic and
Transportation Commission.
C/Virginkar nominated Commissioner Torng to serve as Vice Chair of the Traffic
and Transportation Commissioner. There were no other nominations offered.
Without objection, Commissioner Torng was elected to serve as Vice Chair of the
Traffic and Transportation Commission.
A. Minutes of February 12, 2004.
C/Virginkar moved, C/Morris seconded to approve the February 12, 2004
minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Morris, Virginkar, VC/Tonng,
Chair/Pincher
None
Shah
None
March 11, 2004 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION
IV. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chair/Pincher thanked outgoing Chair Morris for
his leadership. She suggested that "Commission Comments" and "Items From
Commissioners" be combined under a single agenda item.
V. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
VI. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
VII. ITEMS FROM STAFF
A. Traffic Enforcement Update — Report by Sgt. Chris Blasnek - Received and
filed on the following items:
1. Citations: February and March 2004
2. Collisions: February and March 2004
3. Radar Trailer Development
4. Results of Traffic Operations
5. Future Deployment ofthe Radar Trailer
VIII. OLD BUSINESS: None
IX. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Proposed Speed Hump Reques tfor Great Bend Drive
SMA/Gomez reported that since the City Council adopted a speed hump
policy on July 16, 2002 staff has received 15 requests for installation
throughout the City. Staff conducted a prioritization study based on physical
criteria requirements contained in the Speed Hump Policy. Six streets met
the criteria: Looking Glass Drive, Castle Rock Road, Clorinda Drive, Great
Bend Drive/Gold Rush Drive, Leyland Drive and Longview Drive. At this
time, ninety percent of Great Bend Drive residents living between Stirrup
Drive and Diamond Bar Boulevard have signed the petition. Staff extended
invitation to residents from Diamond Bar Boulevard to Tin Drive to attend
tonight's meeting. The residents on Great Bend Drive from Stirrup Drive to
Tin Drive would likely be affected by the speed humps and are entitled to
notification in accordance with the Speed Hump Policy. She presented an
aerial view of the four locations determined to be appropriate by Traffic
Engineer Warren Sieke. The locations forup to four (4) speed humps will be
along Great Bend Drive/Gold Rush Drive between Diamond Bar Boulevard
and Stirrup Drive at approximately 400 to 600 foot intervals. The
approximate locations are between the addresses of 23409 and 23415 Gold
March 11, 2004 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION
Rush Drive, 23315 and 233 21 Gold Rush Drive, 547 and 553 Great Bend
Drive, and 636 and 644 Great Bend Drive. Discussion ensued.
SMA/Gomez responded to VC/Torng that placement of the speed humps is
contingent upon majority approval of residents living in the immediate area.
PWD/Liu explained that due to the physical characteristics (steep grade) on
Great Bend Drive staff determined that the area between Stirrup Drive and
Tin Drive would not be eligible. However, staff intends to solicit input from all
residents along the two streets.
SMA/Gomez explained to C/Mo rris that it is very difficult to determine what
is considered to be "cut -through" traffic and staff has no statistics.
SMA/Gomez further explained that the installation of speed humps would be
funded by the proceeds of the sale of Prop A funds to the City of Claremont.
Battalion Chief Peter Sylchak said he understood the concerns about
speeding traffic. The fire department is very concerned about response time
during emergencies. Speed humps create a problem for the department due
to the weight of the equipment and the suspension on the apparatus forces
drivers to slow down considerably, down to one mile per hour. The only way
to cut down response time is to locate additional stations throughout the
City, a proposition that is very costly. As traffic conditions increase
throughout the City, so too does the department's response times. The
department is particularly concerned about timely intervention to extreme
medical situations such as heart attacks, strokes, etc. Timely intervention
offers the victim a great er opportunity for survival. Speed humps interfere
with these procedures and damage department equipment. Alternatively,
the City could consider using radar -activated photo devices for improved
traffic control. Battalion Chief Sylchak said that his personal experience and
opinion is that speed humps only slow down the law-abiding citizens.
Battalion Chief Sylchak responded to C/Morris that the department vehicles
are diesel -fueled and they do emit considerably more polluting fumes when
a ccel era ti n g .
C/Virginkar noted that the City's pilot program indicated that after the speed
hump was in place for six months speeds tended to increase once again.
What is the department's experience?
Battalion Chief Sylchak reiterated that the department is opposed to speed
humps because they increase response time. In his experience, speed
humps initially control the speed but after time, drivers tend to increase their
speed between the speed humps. Additionally, some vehicles are able to
maneuver the speed humps without slowing down. Such is not the case
March 11, 2004 PAGE 4 T&T COMMISSION
with the fire department apparatus. Again, the department's primary
concern is for timely response.
C/Shah asked if the department had actual statistics regarding response
time prior to and after installation. Battalion Chief Sylchak said hewould ask
Chief Nieto to respond.
C/Morris asked C/Virginkar to share information he garnered from an article
previously presented to the Commission. C/Virginkar said the Los Angeles
Times article talked about speed humps and their adverse impacts to fire
and life safety services. Ultimately, the residents concluded that speed
humps were not the best solution to speeding concerns.
Battalion Chief Sylchak pointed out that there might not be emergency
situations on a given street for many years. On the other hand, an
emergency could occur the day the speed hump was installed. It would be
difficult to accumulate statistics given those factors. In short, the department
is opposed to all impediments that prevent itfrom saving lives.
Sgt. Blasnek said he sympathizes with the residents. He felt that in some
ways the department had failed the residents by not strictly enforcing the
speed limit. However, the Sheriffs Department shares the same views as
the fire department. Speed humps slow response time for life-saving units.
Diamond Bar is already a tough City to traverse. Even though he
understands the concerns he feels that one speed hump would lead to
others and eventually make it even more difficult for safety equipment to
reach certain locations. He has to traverse six speed humps to get to his
house. When he leaves for work on his motorcycle he avoids the speed
humps by using the gutter. He would like to pledge increased enforcement
in the area in place of the City installing speed humps.
SMA/Gomez referred to a letter opposing installation of speed humps from
Mr. and Mrs. Robert Johnson, 800 South Great Bend Drive.
Staff recommends that the Traffic and Transportation Commission receive
public testimony and forward its recommendation for installation of speed
humps on Great Bend Drive to the City Council.
Sybil Delahoussaye-Car nes, 23337 Goldru sh Drive spoke in favor of the
installation and asked for confirmation of the proposed location of speed
humps to which SMA/Gomez responded.
Mike Whatley, 826 Great Bend Drive was pleased to see the City was
considering installation of speed humps but was disappointed that it did not
extend down to his area that is between Tin Drive and Stirrup Drive. He
favors speed humps and encouraged the City to perform further analysis of
March 11, 2004 PAGE 5 T&T COMMISSION
his area for possible consideration. He also encouraged the Commission to
consider the "big picture" of safety of the residents. He failed to understand
the inconsistency of safety vehicles having to slow down for speed humps
when other vehicles speed up. Mr. Whatley said he previously spoke in
favor of the proposed stop sign installation at the intersection of Ritter and
Great Bend. However, the installation has not helped deter the problem
because people run the stop sign. Theref ore, he would encourage the City
to take the next step and install speed humps on Great Bend Drive in the
area of Tin Drive.
There was no one else present who wished to speak on this item.
C/Virginkar felt that the location under consideration was ideally suited for
speed humps. Navajo Springs Road and Decorah Road are long stretches
of roadway that feed into Sunset Crossing Road. In addition, there are
numerous side streets that feed onto Navajo Springs Road and Decorah
Road and there is considerable cut -through traffic. On the other hand, the
location under consideration has very little cut -through traffic. The problem
seems to be that the residents are anxious to leave and eager to return to
the area and speed as result. Hefelt itwould bea better first approach for
the City to increase enforcement as recommended by Sgt. Blasnek.
C/Shah generally concurred with C/Virginkar. Too many speed humps
create an adverse effect. Since streets are used by residents and not by
cut -through traffic, some consideration should be given to the residents'
request. A compromise solution could be to reduce the number of speed
humps and increase enforcement during peak hours. Depending on the
outcome of the compromise, the City could review the possibility of
additional speed humps orelimination ofthe fewer speed humps.
VC/Torng agreed with C/Shah. He felt that the City was responding to
residents who believed the current mitigation efforts (stop signs and
enforcement) were ineffective. Speed humps are a last -resort effort to
mitigate speeding vehicles. He believed the City must respond to the needs
of the residents. Since this installation has received a 90 percent approval
there is strong sentiment for installation of speed humps. He agreed,
however, that four speed humps was excessive. He suggested that staff be
directed to re-evaluate the situation and bring the matter back to the
Commission for further consideration attheApril meeting.
C/Morris acknowledged that under Sgt. Blasnek's watch, enforcement has
increased. There is a program in effect in other parts of Los Angeles County
that Diamond Bar is considering. For instance, if you saw a vehicle
speeding past your residence and called in the information to the Sheriffs
Department, the follow up system would go into effect. He felt the City
should place this program on the top of its priority list. With respect to speed
March 11, 2004 PAGE 6 T&T COMMISSION
humps, he was concerned about pollution and response time. As
mentioned, good drivers treat speed humps with respect. Other drivers use
the speed hump as a launching ramp. If a vehicle takes the speed hump at
a high rate of speed, it is more likely to go out of control. At this point he
found it difficult to support installation of four speed humps. However, at a
later time the Commission could consider installing portable speed humps
and monitor the situation.
VC/Torng suggested the Commission invite Chery Cooper to give her views
regarding the Navajo Springs Road speed humps.
Chair/Pincher believed itwas a small number of drivers who made it difficult
for everyone else. Speed humps are the City's last resort. And yet, 90
percent of the residents want speed humps. This is a difficult decision. She
felt the follow up program could work in this City.
PWD/Liu stated the following: 1) The City has a speed hump policy. 2)
Speed humps are designed to slow down traffic. 3) Neighborhood Speeding
traffic is the number one concern of most cities. The Commission voted 3-2
to forward the speed hump policy to the City Council for approval. Pilot
project surveys indicate speeds were reduced. At the end of the one-year
moratorium staff conducted a survey of the residents. After one year the
majority of the residents strongly favored keeping the speed humps. This
request came to the City last August with a petition signed by 90 percent of
the residents as required. Numerous surveys have been conducted and all
input from all parties was considered including input from emergency
service entities. Bottom line is that the residents want action. If the
Commission does not concur with staffs recommendation, staff could
forward two recommendations to the City Council — that of the Commission
as well as, staffs recommendation for approval.
Resident Sybil Delahoussa ye -Carnes stated that in addition to residents,
Lorbeer Middle School parents use the streets as a cut -through. Residents
are concerned about the commuters.
C/Shah motioned to direct staff to develop a pilot program with a
compromise solution with the portable speed humps for a period of six
months and bring back the results to the Commission for further
consideration. Motion died for lack of a second.
C/Morris felt that the City had failed to take proper steps in enforcement,
education and follow up plan. This is the first opportunity the Commission
has had to consider this matter and he was not ready to concur with staff.
VC/To rng said he favored speed humps and sympathized with the
residents. However, this is the first time the matter has been presented to
March 11, 2004 PAGE 7 T&T COMMISSION
the Commission. He commended staff for their due diligence but felt that the
City should atthe very leasttry the follow up program.
VC/Torng motioned to approve staffs recommendation. The motion died for
lack of second.
C/Morris moved, C/Virginkar seconded, to request increased enforcement
on Great Bend Drive and Gold Rush Drive for a specific time period and
submit the "S.T.O.P. Program" to City Council for consideration as proposed
by Sgt Blasnek for immediate implementation. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
Morris, Shah, Virginkar,
Chair/Pincher
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
VC/Torng
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
None
X. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS:
None
XI. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS:
C/Morris stated that in February the installation of signals commenced on Ballena
Drive and Golden Springs Drive. Prior to the installation, the area was torn up and
remained in that condition up until one week ago when they poured concrete. He
had not noticed prior installations as much as he noticed this installation. He
believes there has been a significant negative impact on the surrounding area and
community as a result. He questioned the manner in which the area was torn up
and left for a long period of time by the contractor. He said he has never seen
traffic back up on Golden Springs Drive like he has witnessed since the
installation. Hefelt that the on -demand signalization might improve the situation.
VC/Torng thanks C/Virginkar and C/Morris for their support. He aske d if it was true
that the school district planned to build an additional 78 units in the Diamond Crest
Road area. He felt the traffic was already too congested.
C/Shah thanked MPT/Herrera for appointing him to the Traffic and Transportation
Commission. He looks forward to working with the Commissioners.
CNirginkar thanked C/O'Connor for reappoint ing him. He appreciated staffs input
and looks forward to continuing. Parents of Diamond Bar High School students
asked him if it was possible to stripe the parking spaces on Pathfinder Road
between Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. PWD/Liu stated staff
would look into the matter.
March 11, 2004 PAGE 8 T&T COMMISSION
Chair/Pincher thanked M/Zirbes for her appointment to the Commission. She
reminded the Commission that the City Birthday Party would be held on April 18.
She helps with the car show and wanted everyone to participate in the event.
ON I Z 1191 N JA1—,,,%0WZ/_\M110=1LTA F-3
PWD/Liu updated the Commission on the SR57/60 Caltrans HOV project, and
provided information on the upcoming SCE's Grand Avenue Underground Re -
Cable Project.
CNirginkar asked if staff could provide new maps to the Commissioners.
PWD/Liu congratulated the Commissioners on their appointments and
reappointments. Staff looks forward to working with the Commission.
PWD/Liu stated that with respect to tonight's speed hump item, staff has worked
with the residents; it is somewhat frustrating to see the lack of turnout when
residents have time and again stated the City was not addressing their concerns.
XII. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS — as agendized.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Traffic and
Transportation Commission, Chair Pincher adjourned the meeting at8:57 p.m.
Resp ectfu I I y,
David G. Liu, Secretary
Attest:
Chair Liana Pincher
AGENDA #6.4
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.
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 65
Meeting Date: April 20, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Rejection of Claim — Filed by Paul Feiner — March 23, 2004.
RECOMMENDATION: Carl Warren & Co., the City's claims administrator, recommends the City
Counc it reject the claim filed by Paul Feiner.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There isno financial implication associated with rejecting this claim. The
claim for damage is for approximately $17,800. Should the claim be successful, it will be paid by the
JPIA.
BACKGROUND: On March 23, 2004, Paul Feinerfiled a Claim for Damages with the City alleging
that due to a traffic accident on the 57/60 freeway his vehicle was a total loss. Carl Warren & Co., the
City's claims administrator, determined that the claim appears to be one of questionable liability and
has recommended denial. Upon action by the City Council, appropriate notice shall besentto the
claimant and Carl Warren & Co.
PREPARED BY: Tommye Cribbins, Asst. City Clerk
REVIEWED BY:
Department Head Deputy City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Creation of Library Task Force
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Counc it create a Library Task Force.
Agenda # _6.7
Meeting Date: April 20, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
BACKGROUND:
In 1998 a task force of community members recommended the City construct a new larger library.
Since that time the realization of this vision has been one of the City Council's highest priorities. In
January 2004, the City submitted an application to fund the construction of a new $10 million library
through the California Reading and Literacy Improvement and Public Library Construction and
Renovation Bond Act of 2000. The City is one of seventy-two applicants competing for approximately
$90 million of available funds.
DISCUSSI ON:
Based on the number of applicant s (72), the total amount of all the grant fund requests ($586 million),
and the actual amount of grant funds availab le for construction ($90 million), it is highly possible that
the City's fundin g request will not be granted. In order to prepare for that scenario, Mayor Zirbes has
proposed the creation of a Library Task Force. The Task Force would discuss and analyze the
following:
1. Current status of the City's application for funding
2. Action plan if grant funding is awarded
3. Alternative financing plan if grant funding request fails
4. Short Term/Interim capital improvements to the existing facility
Atthe conclusion of this process, the Task Force will present a formal report to the City Council. It is
anticipated that the final report will be present ed to the City Council in August 2004.
The Task Force will be comprised of the following members:
City Counc ilmembers (2) — Chang and Zirbes
2. Planning Commissioners (2)
3. Parks & Recreation Commission (2)
4. Friends ofthe Library (2)
5. PUSD Library Representative (1)
6. WVUSD Library Representative (1)
7. LA County librarysystem representative
8. Representativ e from Supervisor Knabe's office.
If approved by the City Council, staff will work directly with the City Council representatives to select
the task force members.
CC:
PREPARED BY:
Deputy City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6.8
Meeting Date: April 20, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
OPPOSING CALIFORNIA STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 3007 (PLESCIA): AMENDING
THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT
RECOMMENDATIONS:
It is recommended that the City Counc it adopt the Resolution.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact on the City of Diamond Bar.
%T6120l0oll]0U0I9]6Y611AS919101
Under the Ralph M. Brown Act, specified subjects may be discussed by the legislative body in closed
session if the agenda states certain information about the item of business to be discussed in closed
session. The legislative body must also subsequent ly report any action taken in closed session and
the vote or abstention of every member present on the action.
While Assembly Bill 3007 does not change the actual procedure for meeting notices and distribution
of materials under the Brown Act, it does propose major amendments with regard to the type of
meetings that the City Council may hold in closed session. The bill also would make some technical,
non -substantive changes in the provisions of the Act with regard to meeting notices.
AB 3007 would eliminate certain subjects that may be discuss ed in closed session; namely real
property negotiations, discussion with legal counsel about anticipated litigation, and liability claims;
and would make related changes. These changes could infringe upon the privacy and confidentia lity
practices cities use to conduct sensitive business including business that relates directly to the benefit
of the public welfare.
Prepared with information from the State Legislative Analyst's Office.
Prepared by:
Jim Clarke, Legislative Analyst
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
OPPOSING CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSEMBLY BILL 3007 (PLESCIA): AMENDING THE RALPH M. BROWN ACT
WHEREAS, under the Ralph M. Brown Act, specified subjects may be discussed
by the City Council in closed session if the agenda states certain information
about the item of business to be discussed and the Council subsequently reports
any action taken in closed session and the vote of each member present on the
action; and
WHEREAS, Assembly Bill 3007 has been introduced in the California State
Legislature by Assemblyman George Plescia; and
WHEREAS, AB 3007 would amend the Ralph M. Brown Act with regard to City
Council closed sessions; and
WHEREAS, AB 3007 would make substantial changes that could effect privacy
and confidentiality with regard to the conduct of City business by eliminating real
property negotiations, meetings with legal counsel about anticipated litigation,
and liability claims from the subjects that may be discussed in a closed session;
and
WHEREAS, the public welfare is protected by permitting certain types of
business matters to be discussed in closed session.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar OPPOSES AB 3007 (Plescia): Ralph M. Brown Act: meeting
notices and directs the following:
SECTION 1. That the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar shall adopt the
Resolution and the City Clerk shall certify to the adoption.
SECTION 2. That the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar asks all elected
local and State officials to OPPOSE AB 3007 (Plescia).
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this of 2004
Bob Zirbes, Mayor
I, Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution passed, approved and adopted ata regular
meeting held on the __ day of... 2004, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # —8.1
Meeting Date: _4/20/04
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: TRANSMITTAL OF FINAL DRAFT REPORT FROM THE SPORTS COMPLEX TASK
FORCE
RECOMMENDATION: Receive an d File
FINANCIAL IMPACT: None (For the receipt of the final report.)
BACKGROUND: On September 16, 2003 the City Counc it established a Sports Complex Task
Force to study the athletic facility needs ofthecommunity. The Sports Complex Task Force is
comprised of 29 individuals representing a variety of athletic facility users in the Diamond Bar
community, including City, school districts and non-profit sports organizations . The Task Force had
seven meetings and discussed the facilities needed to meet the practice and game need s of the
major sports organizations operating in Diamond Bar. The Task Force developed 1 ) a conceptual 75
acre facilitythat will meet all needs identified for the foreseeab lefuture, and 2) a short term
improvement plans that would meet many of the more pressing needs in a shorter time frame at less
cost. The Task Force reviewed the final report at their March 18, 2004 meeting and recommends its
acceptance by the City Council.
DISCUSSION: The Final Report of the Sports Complex TaskForce documents the needs of the
Diamond Bar Sports Organizations and recommends both Long -Term and Short -Term projects to
meet the organizations ' needs. The long-term project is a 75 acre sports complex, either constructed
on a single site or multi ple sites (sites not determi ned, but potential locations listed in report). The 75
acre sports complex, as proposed, includes the following amenities : 25,000 sfgymnasium, 14
soccer fields, aquatics facility with dive poo I, 50 meter competitive pool, and family play pool; six
softball/youth baseball fields, two adult baseball fields, one football field, 15 outdoor tennis courts, 10
outdoor basketball courts, restrooms, storage rooms, concession stands and parking lots for 1,100
cars. Total cost to construct th is 75 acre sports complex is approximately $40 million, not including
land acquisition orgrading costs.
The short-term projects consider working with the two school districts in the City to improve existing
school facilities that would result in expanded use by the Diamond Bar sports organizations.
Improvements such as lighting, improved turf areas including consid eration of artificial turf and
improved facility maintenance are recommended forthe proposed school sites. School sites
recommended for projects are: Lorbeer Middle School, Diamond Ranch High School, Diamond Bar
High School, Chaparral Middle School, and Southpo inte Middle School. Improvements are also
recommended atthe Little League/YMCA site and at Paul C. Grow Park. Total cost for short-term
improvements is approximately $18.3 million. There would be no need for land acquisition or major
grading costs.
After the City Council has the opportunity to review the final report, staff plans to return to the Council
at a future meeting where the report can be considered for adoption. At that time, staff will also
present the City Council with recommendations for funding and implementation.
REVIEWED BY:
Bob Rose James DeStefano
Director of Community Services Deputy City Manager
Attachment: Final Draft Report ofthe Sports Complex Task Force
Sports Complex Task Force
Final Report - Draft
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Tot isP.
age
MEMBERLIST
2
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
3
PHASING PRIORITIES
6
GYMNASIUM FACILITY
7
SOCCER FIELDCOMPLEX
9
AQUATICS FACILITY
11
SOFTBALL FIELD COMPLEX
13
ADULT BASEBALL FIELDS
15
FOOTBALL FIELD
16
OUTDOOR HARD COURTS - TENNIS/BASKETRkLL
17
75 ACRE MAJOR SPORTS COMPLEX OUTLINE
18
ESTIMATEDCOSTS FOR SHORT TERM PRIORITIES
19
FUNDING OPTIONS
26
UNIT COST ESTIMATES/DEVELCPMENT STANDARDS
31
LAND OPPORTUNITIES
33
INFORMATION RESOURCES
BALLFIELD LIGHTS
34
AQUATICS FACILITES
35
SPORTS FACILITY ARCHITECTS
36
ARTIFICIAL TURF
37
REFERENCES
38
CONTRACTOR/ LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE CO.'S
39
SPORTS COMPLEX TASK FORCE MEETINGAGENDAS
40
3
Bob Zirbes, Chair Dave Grundy Marty Torres
Council Member Parks and Recreation Commission Parks and Recreation Commission
2141 Tierra Loma 365 Covered Wagon Drive 24032 Highcrest Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Carol Herrera
Darryl May
Jody Roberto
Mayor
AYSO
1010 Overlook Ridge Road
1963 White Star
13575 Whispering Willow
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Chino Hills, CA 91709
Dan Nolan
Steve Tye
Chris Valencia
Planning Commission
Planning Commission
FCI
23463 Wagon Trail
23850 Chinook Place
21338 Hidden Pines
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Alan Hart
Dan Maloney
Brad Friend
DBW Baseball
DB Pop Warner
DB Little League
1819 Tintah
23813 Cholame Drive
PO Box 4113
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Albert Ramos
Ling -Ling Chang
Willie Oros
DB NJB
3232 Bent Twig Lane
DB Girls Softball
3443 Woodhill Circle
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PO Box 4343
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Ernie Delgadillo
Ray Minjares
Ken Schaffer
Member at Large
DB NJB
Diamond Bar High School
2551 Sunbright Dr.
24327 Gazebo Court
21400 E. Pathfinder Road
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Michael Vollebregt
Eric Espinosa
Jaime Sandoval
AYSO
Member at Large
Diamond Ranch High School
21835 Onawa Place
21552 Birch Hill Circle
100 Diamond Ranch HS Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Sam Slay
Paul Thomas
DB/W Youth Basketball
Pomona YMCA
Bob Rose
23441 Golden Springs #293
350 N. Garey Avenue
City Staff
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Pomona, CA 91767
Ryan Wright
Ryan McLean
Teresa Arevalo
City Staff
City Staff
City Staff
Michael Cooper Wayne Goodwin
DB/W Youth Basketball DB Little League
3883 Yosemite Court 1249 S. Diamond Bar Blvd. #327
Chino, CA 91710 Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Sports Complex Task Force
Final Draft Report
Executive Summary
The Sports Complex Task Force is comprised of 29 individuals representing a variety of athletic facility users in
the Diamond Bar community, including City, school districts and non-profit sports organizations. The Task
Force had seven meetings between the dates of October 9, 2003 and March 18, 2004 and discussed the facilities
needed to meet the practice and game needs of all the organizations operating in Diamond Bar. The task force
developed a conceptual plan for a 75 acre facility that will meet all needs identified for the foreseeable future,
plus developed short term improvement plans that would meet many of the more pressing needs in a shorter
time frame at less cost.
This report documents the needs of the Diamond Bar Sports Organizations through a variety of research
methods. The Diam and Bar Parks Master P Ian provided much of the technical information including facility
needs presented in the Community Needs Assessment report and a scientifically valid telephone survey. The
information from the Parks Master Plan was validated as current through interviews with current representatives
of the Diamond Bar -based sports organizations and facility users. The Sports Complex Task Force Report
includes the various references used to develop the information included in the report.
This report from the Sports Complex Task Force recommends both Long -Term and Short -Term projects to
meet the organizations' needs. The long-term project is a 75 acre sports complex, either constructed on a single
site or multiple sites (sites not determined, but potential locations fisted in report). The 75 acre sports complex,
as proposed, includes the following amenities: 25,000 sf gymnasium, 14 soccer fields, aquatics facility with
dive pool, 50 meter competitive pool, and family play pool; six softball/youth baseball fields, two adult baseball
fields, one football field, 15 outdoor tennis courts, 10 outdoor basketball courts, restrooms, storage rooms,
concession stands and parking lots for 1,100 cars. Total cost to construct this 75 acre sports complex is
approximately $40 million, not including land acquisition or grading costs.
The short-term projects consider working with the two school districts in the City to improve existing school
facilities that would result in expanded use by the sports organizations in Diamond Bar. Improvements such as
lighting, improved turf areas including consideration for artificial turf and improved facility maintenance are
recommended for the proposed school sites. School sites recommended for projects are: Lorbeer Middle
School, Diamond Ranch High School, Diamond Bar High School, Chaparral Middle School, and Southpointe
Middle School. Improvements are also recommended at the Little League/YMCA site and at Paul C. Grow
Park. Total cost for short-term improvements is approximately $18.3 million. There would be no need for land
acquisition or major grading costs.
The athletic facilities at the school sites could meet most of the same needs as the 75 acre Sports Complex, if
the following improvements/agreements can be made:
1. Gymnasium Facilities (Replaces one new gym):
Lorbeer -- Up -grade gym and support amenities (restrooms, parking, bleachers)
Diam and Ranch High School — Provide funds to strip, paint and resurface gym floor annually so that
additional community use can be accommodated.
2. Soccer Fields (Provides for 13 fields; one less than the desired 14 fields.):
Lorbeer — Improve turf on two fields and light a 2nd field.
5
Chaparral — Improve turf on three fields and light three fields.
Southpointe — Improve turf on one field and light one field.
Diamond Ranch High School — Improve turf on three fields and light three fields.
Diamond Bar High School — Improve turf on two fields and light two fields.
YMCA — Improve turf on one field and light one field.
Paul C. Grow Park — Light one field.
3. Aquatics Facility — Goal can not be made at this time without anew facility.
4. Softball Field Complex (Provides 11 fields; surpasses need for four new fields.)
Lorbeer — Improve infield areas of two fields and light two fields.
Diamond Ranch High School — Improve turf on two fields and light two fields.
Diamond Bar High School — Improve turf on two fields and light two fields.
Diamond Bar Little League — Light four fields.
Paul C. Grow Park — Light one field.
5. Adult Baseball Fields (Meets the need for two adult baseball fields.)
Diamond Ranch High School — Light one field.
Diamond Bar High School — Light one field.
6. Football Field (Meets the need for one football field)
Diamond Ranch High School — Improve turf and light one football field.
7. Outdoor Hard Courts — TennisBasketb all (Results in 22 lit basketball courts and 25 lit
tennis courts; exceeds
goals of 10 lit basketball courts and 15 lit tennis courts.)
Lorbeer — Improve court surfacing on four basketball courts and light four courts.
Chaparral — Improve court surfacing on three basketball courts and light three
courts.
Improve court surfacing on four tennis courts and light four courts.
Southpointe — Improve court surfacing on six basketball courts and light six
courts.
Improve court surfacing on three tennis courts and light three
courts.
Diamond Ranch High School — Improve court surfacing on six basketball courts
and
light six courts. Improve court surfacing on nine tennis courts and light
nine courts.
Diamond Bar High School — Improve court surfacing on three basketball courts
and
light three courts. Improve court surfacing on nine tennis courts and
light nine
courts.
The only goals left unmet by working with the school districts to improve and enhance facilities are the lack of
an aquatics facility and one less soccer field.
A variety of funding sources to construct a sports complex are recommended for consideration. The City
currently has Park Development funds and allocated State grant funds of over $3 million that could be used to
construct the higher priority facilities of a sports complex. Also, there are new grant opportunities forthcoming
from Proposition 40 (2002) that could provide as much as $1 million in State funding for a sports complex.
This report cites a variety of potential locations for a sports complex. Each site offers advantages and
disadvantages and will require additional review on the appropriateness and cost effectiveness for use as a
sports complex. One of the bigger issues related to each site is the need for extensive grading and fill dirt.
Unless a deal can be made with a developer to provide the grading, it may be cost prohibitive for the City to fill
and grade a site sufficient in size to support the proposed sports complex.
The more cost effective scenario involves joint -use agreements with the two school districts to improve the
athletic facilities most needed by the sports organizations.
Recommendations from the Sports Complex Task Force to the City Council:
1. Review and accept Sports Complex Task Force final report.
2. Direct staff to begin negotiations with the two school districts to start planning for the highest priority
sports facility improvements at the three middle schools, Lorbeer, Chaparral and Southpointe.
3. Direct staff to recommend a school district site to include in the Prop 40 Grant application for a $1
million competitive grant for a sports complex.
4. Direct staff to continue pursuing properties identified as potentia l locations for a sports complex.
5. Direct staff to consider funding sources available for a sports complex and to pursue those deemed
attainable.
Sports Complex Task Force
Phasing Priorities
5t' Meeting —1/29/04
Priority
Amenity
1.
Gym (25,000 sq. ft.)
2.
Soccer Complex (14 Fields)
3.
Aquatics Facility
4.
Outdoor Basketball Courts (4 courts)
5.
Football Field (One Regulation Field)
6.
Youth Softball/Baseball Fields (4 Fields)
7.
Adult Baseball Fields (2 Fields)
8.
Outdoor Tennis Courts (7 Courts)
Gymnasium Facility
Intent: To construct a gymnasium that meets the needs of the Diamond Bar community in an efficient and cost
effective manner.
Background: There are currently five gymnasiums in Diamond Bar: Diamond Bar High School, Diamond
Ranch High School, Lorbeer Middle School, South Point Middle School and Mt. Calvary Lutheran Church and
School. Current municipal or Diamond Bar based non-profit youth organizations that use these facilities are:
City of Diamond Bar
Adult Basketball
Year-round
90 teams
Youth Basketball
Dec. — March
400 players
Youth Soccer
April — June
140 players
Adult Volleyball
Year-round
30 players
D.B. National Jr. Basketball
Nov. — March
250 players
D.B. Walnut Youth Basketball
Nov. — March
400 players
Need: The Parks Master Plan identified the need for a gymnasium as the number 8 priority of the 20 facilities
listed (Pg. 42, Exhibit 3-7). With five school gymnasiums already in the community, the Parks Master Plan
suggests that instead of building a City -owned gym, it would be more practical to strengthen the joint use
agreements with the schools to obtain more community use (Pgs. 80 and 87).
The Community/Civic Center Task Force identified the need for a gymnasium as the number 3 priority of the 4
facilities listed (Pg. 3). The Task Force believed a Community Center and Library should be built before a
gymnasium.
Potential Services: Adult basketball leagues, youth basketball leagues, adult volleyball leagues, open play
basketball for youth and adults, aerobics classes, table tennis, indoor soccer, badminton, indoor tennis,
gymnastics, dance, and wrestling.
Discussion: Input from the Sports Complex Task Force indicates the need for a gymnasium with the
following amenities:
High School size basketball court 84' x 50 ` 12,000 sq. ft.
Two 84' x 50' side basketball courts
3 volleyball courts
4 badminton courts
Seating for 500 people on both main
and side basketball courts
Rest Rooms — 2 each @ 500 sq. ft. =
1,000 sq. ft.
Locker Rooms — 2 each @ 1000 sq. ft. =
2,000 sq. ft.
Weight Room/Exercise Room
3,000 sq. ft.
Office Space (including control counter,
conference room and supply storage) =
1,500 sq. ft.
Building Maintenance Room=
500 sq. ft.
Program Equipment Storage Room=
4,000 sq. ft.
Miscellaneous Space
1,000 sq. ft.
(for lobby, hallways, vending, telephone)
Total Square Footage 25,000 sq. ft.
Other Amenity Required:
Parking lot for 200 cars 72,745 sq. ft.
Cost:
Construction Costs:
Gym $5,000,000
Parking lot 400,000
Total $5,400,000
Annual Maintenance and Operations:
Gym $91,000
Estimated Annual Revenue: Dependent on policies for user fees
Other considerations: The City currently spends about $40,000 per year to rent gyms from local schools.
Construction of a gym will save the City these costs.
Land Needed: Gym .50 acre
Parking Lot 1.67 acre
2.17 acres
10
Soccer Field Complex
14 Fields
INTENT: To construct 14 soccer fields that accommodate the needs of the Diamond Bar based Youth Soccer
Programs, with one field designed to also accommodate football team practice.
BACKGROUND: There are currently ten soccer fields being used in Diamond Bar to accommodate the needs
of the youth soccer programs. These facilities include:
City Parks
Fields Schools
Fields
Paul C. Grow
1 Lorbeer
2
Pantera
2 Chaparral
2
Peterson
1 Maple Hill
1
Armstrong
1
There are 3 organizations normally allocated use of these facilities
Organization Dates Participants
D.B. AYSO — Fall Aug — Dec. 1,400
- Spring Feb. —June 250
FCI Year Around 250
DB/Walnut Soccer Club Year Around 60
NEED: The Parks Master Plan identifies the need for 12 additional soccer fields (Pg. 50, Exhibit 4-1; this was
before Pantera Park opened with two soccer fields). The Sports Complex Task Force has stated that 14
additional soccer fields are needed to meet current game and practice needs.
DISCUSSION: Youth soccer is the largest participation sport in the City, with over 2,000 players,
including club teams not considered Diamond Bar based. With about 15 players per team, this represents about
130 teams. In addition to league play, D.B. AYSO has hosted tournaments with as many as 160 teams
participating. Currently, tournament play has to utilize fields at Schabarum Park in Hacienda Heights, Cal Poly
Pomona in Pomona, Mt. Sac in Walnut and City parks in Diamond Bar. If this whole tournament could be
conducted in Diamond Bar the economic development potential would be large.
In order to service a 14 field complex the following amenities would be needed:
Restrooms 2 @ 1,500 sq. ft. — 3000 sq. ft.
Ball Field Lights 14 — 4 pole systems
Parking for 600 cars @ 125 cars/acre — 4.8 acres
Concession Stands 2 @ 1,500 sq. ft. = 3,000 sq. ft.
Drinking Fountains — one for each field
Tot Lot 2,500 sq. ft.
Estimated Cost to construct a 14 field soccer complex with the recommended amenities:
14 Soccer Fields w/sod 17.5 acres @ $250,000/acre = $4,375,000
6ea @ 120' X 240' (plus 10' clearance on all sides)
4ea @ 150' X 300' (plus 10' clearance on all sides)
11
4ea regulation @ 205' X 340' (plus 10' clearance on all sides)
$129,200
Restrooms 3000 sq. ft. @ $250/sq. ft=
750,000
Ball Field Lights 14ea 4 pole system @ $225,000 =
3,150,000
Parking 4.8 acres @ $5.50 sq. ft.
1,150,000
Concession Stands 3000 sq. ft. @ $250/sq. ft.
750,000
Drinking Fountains 14 ea @ $4,500
63,000
Tot Lot -2,500 s. f.
50.000
$10,288,000
Estimated Cost to Operate and maintain the above amenities:
Soccer Fields 760,000 sq. ft. @ $.17/s.f.
$129,200
Restrooms
5,500
Ball Field Lights 1,000 hrs. x 14 fields
140,000
Parking Lot — Slurry/Stripin g/Cleaning
40,000
Concession Stands
5,500
Drinking Fountains
1,000
Tot Lot
20.000
TOTAL
$341,200
Land Needed: Soccer Fields 17.5 acres
Restrooms 3,000 sq. ft.
Parking 4.8 acres
Concessions 3,000 sq. ft.
Tot Lot 2.500 sq. ft.
8,500 sq. ft. _ .2 acre
Total Acres 22.5 acres
ALTERNATIVE: Use of Artificial Turf instead of sod.
Artificial Turf Cost: $1.2 million/acre X17.5 acres = $21 million
ANALYSIS: Lighted soccer fields could be expected to be used somewhere between 1,000 and 3,000 hours per
year. Industry standards on natural turf care states that use over 500 hours per year will require the filed to be
shut down at least two months per year for turf renovation and repair. Use of artificial turf will allow for year
round use, in all weather conditions, with perfect field conditions, guaranteed for ten years.
12
Aquatics Facility
Intent: To construct a state of the art aquatics facility that meets the needs of the community in an effective and
cost efficient manner.
Background: There are currently no public swimming pools on Diamond Bar. Swimming needs are currently
met at private home owner's association facilities, private backyard pools, or at public facilities outside the City
of Diamond Bar, in cities such as Brea (10 miles away), Walnut (3.5 miles), Industry (8 miles) and San Dimas
(10.5 miles).
Need: The Parks Master Plan identifies a public swimming pool as the Number One needed Parks and
Recreation facility for the City of Diamond Bar. It identifies a competitive swimming facility as the Number 20
priority, out of 20 faciliti es (Pg. 42, Exhibit 3-7).
Potential Services: Swim lessons, recreation swim, pool parties, lap swim, competitive swim meets, aqua
aerobics and special events.
Discussion: Input during meetings of the Sports Complex Task Force indicates the need for an aquatics
facility with the following amenities.
Dive Pool- 25 yards x 25 meters
Two One -Meter Diving Boards
One Three -Meter Diving Board
Competitive Pool — 50 meters x 25 yards
Family Play Pool — 0'0" depth to 3'6" depth
Also needed are restrooms, showers, locker rooms, concession stands, store rooms, mechanical room, lifeguard
room with break area, showers, lockers, changing areas, bleachers, casual seating areas and parking.
Cost: Estimated cost to construct such a facility, based on the Santa Clarita Aquatic Facility, which opened in
Fall 2003 is $9 million.
Cost to maintain and operate the facility is estimated to be $1 million per year.
Revenue is estimated to be $300,000 to $700.000 per year, depending on weather conditions and popularity of
facility.
Land Needed: 4.2 acres
Alternative: The City of Vista built an aquatics facility that eliminated the traditional 50 meter competitive
pool. Instead a 25 yard x 10 lane pool with no diving boards, a flow rider, supplemental water attractions and an
element called the endless Curl. The City of Vista claims this configuration results in increased revenue and
lowered maintenance and operators costs.
Cost of Alternative: City of Vista has stated that this facility cost $4 million to construct.
13
Annual maintenance and operations costs are $1,300,000.
Annual revenue is $1,280,000.
Land needed: 3 acres
Analysis: Based on information from Aquatic Design Group, a 50 meter competitive swimming pool is the
most expensive amenity at an aquatic s complex to maintain and operate. Even with new technologies that help
facilities generate their own electricity (plus surplus amounts to sell to Edison), reduce the need for chemicals
and pumps that operate more efficiently, most facilities with a 50 meter pool cost $200,000 to $300,000 per
year more to operate and maintain than the revenue it can generate. The City of Vista facility demonstrates that
an aquatics facility with the amenities to attract lots of repeat visits can come within $20,000 per year of
generating the revenue need to pay for its annual maintenance and operations.
14
Softball Fields Complex
Four Fields
Intent:
To construct four softball fields that meet the needs of the Diamond Bar community. Fields could be used for
youth and adult softball games and practice and youth baseball practice.
Background:
There are currently 8 softball fields with skinned infields in the City's parks. Five of these fields are lighted.
Diamond Bar High School and Diamond Ranch High School each have two softball fields with skinned
infields. The Y.M.C.A has two ball fields with skinned infields, but each has a very small outfield. Diamond
Bar Little League has four baseball fields with a combination of skinned and grass infields for baseball play
only. There are two non-profit youth sports organizations that are the primary users of these fields, Diamond
Bar Little League and Diamond Bar Girls Softball. There are also a number of traveling softball and baseball
teams that use the fields as well.
Oreanizations Seasons
1 @ 1,500 sq. ft.
# of Participants
DB Little League Spring
Feb. — June
1,000
Fall
Sept. —Nov.
250
DB Girls Softball Spring
Feb. — July
450
Fall
Sept. —Nov.
200
Total
1,900
Discussion:
Although baseball and softball leagues play year around, the peak registration period is during the Spring
season when about 1,450 players participate. Since all of the City's softball fields can also be used for soccer
practice and games, the demand for these facilities is constant. The construction of four dedicated softball
fields with lights will provide the facilities needed to meet demand.
In order to service a four field softball complex the following amenities would be needed:
Restrooms
1 @ 1,500 sq. ft.
Ball Field lights
2 — 10 pole systems
Parking for 100 cars
@ 125 cars per acre = 0.8 acre
Concession Stand
1 @ 1,500 sq. ft.
Drinking Fountains
1 for each field = 4
Tot Lot
2,500 sq. ft.
Need:
The Parks Master Plan identifies the need for 5 additional softball fields (Pg. 50, Exhibit 4-1). The Sports
Complex Task Force identified the need for four dedicated use softball fields that could also be used for youth
baseball practice.
15
Estimated Cost to Build a Four Field Softball Complex:
4 Softball Fields @ 1.5 acres/Fie Id = 6 acres X $270,000/acre
Ball Field Lights 2-10 pole system @ $300,000
Parking for 100 cars 34,900 sqft @ $5.5 sqft
Restrooms
1,500 sqft @ $250 sqft
Concession Stand
1,500 sqft @ $250 sqft
Drinking Fountains
4,500 x 4
Tot Lot
2,500 sqft
TOTAL
Maintenance and Operations Costs:
Softball Fields
261,360 sqft @ 0.17 sgft=
$44,431
Parking — slurry, striping, cleaning
7,000
Ball Field lights
1000 hrs @ $10/hr x 4 fields
= 40,000
Restroom
2,750
Concession Stand
2,750
Drinking Fountains
400
Tot Lot
10.000
Total:
$107,331
Land Needed:
Softball Fields 6 acres
Parking Lot 0.8 acre
Restrooms/Conces sions/Tot Lot 0.2 acre
Total: 7 acres
16
= $1,620,000
= 600,000
= 192,000
= 375,000
= 375,000
18,000
50.000
$3,230,000
Adult Baseball Fields
Two Field Complex
INTENT — To construct two adult baseball fields to meet the needs of the community.
BACKGROUND — The only adult size baseball fields in Diamond Bar are at the two high schools with two
fields at each school. There are currently some travel ball teams that could use a facility to practice and play on
a regular basis. Also, the Senior League of the Diamond Bar Little League needs a field to practice on.
Need: The Parks Master Plan does not recommend the construction of a City -owned adult baseball facility.
Although not mentioned specifically, the master plan recommends the strengthening of the joint use agreement
with the schools to provide field use for sports such as adult baseball (Pgs. 80, 87).
DISCUSSION — If adult size baseball fields are constructed in Diamond Bar, it is suggested that the outfield
area be constructed so that a regulation size soccer field will fit in the turf area. This would require foul lines of
360 feet and a center field distance of 509 feet. Total square footage of one field would be 129,600 sq. ft. or 3
acres. The field would require a 6 pole lighting system to be lit.
Estimated Cost to Construct:
2 Adult size Baseball Fields
$250,000/acre x 3 acres x 2 fields = $1,500,000
Ball Field Lights (1Opole system) $600,000
2 Drinking Fountains $ 9,000
Parking for 100 cars $192,000
TOTAL $2,301,000
Estimated Cost to Operate and Maintain:
Two Baseball Fields 129,600 x .17/s.f. x 2 = $44,064
Ball Field Lights 1,000 hrs,/year x $10/hr. x 2 20,000
Drinking Fountains 500
Parking Lot 7.000
TOTAL $71,564
Land Needed: 7.7 acres; 6 acres for 2 ball fields and 1.7 acres for team warm-up areas, spectators and foul
balls.
17
Football Field
One Field
INTENT: To construct one football field to meet the needs of the community for youth sports league games
and practices.
BACKGROUND: There are four football fields in Diamond Bar, one at each of the two high schools and one
each at Lorbeer and Chaparral Middle/Junior High Schools. The high school fields are rarely available for use
by the youth league due to demands from the high school teams. The fields at Lorbeer and Chaparral are also
used for soccer, so the demand for these fields is high. The primary youth football program in the community is
Diamond Bar Pop Warner. Right now, this program has to play their home games outside of Diamond Bar
because of the lack of availability of quality fields on game days.
NEED: The Parks Master Plan does not recommend the construction of a City -owned dedicated football
field. The Sports Complex Task Force rated the construction of a football field as the Number 5 priority with a
rating of "C". Although not mentioned specifically, the Master Plan recommends the strengthening of the joint
use agreement with the schools to provide field use for sports such as youth football (Pgs. 80, 87).
TASK FORCE DISCUSSION: If a football field is constructed in Diamond Bar, it is suggested that the field
also be used for soccer. This will require goal posts that can also accommodate soccer goals.
ESTIMATED COST TO CONSTRUCT:
Football Field
$250,000/acre x 1.5 acres =
Ball Field Lights (4 pole system)
2 Drinking Fountains
Parking for 100 cars
TOTAL
ESTIMATED COST TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN:
One Football Field
Ball Field Lights
Drinking Fountains
Parking Lot
LAND NEEDED: 1.5 acres
65,340 s.f. x .17/s.f. =
1,000 hrs,/year x $10/hr.
TOTAL
18
$375,000
225,000
9,000
192.000
$801,000
$11,108
10,000
500
7,000
$28,608
Outdoor Hard Courts
Seven Tennis Courts/Four Basketball Courts
INTENT: To construct a hard court area with seven tennis courts and four basketball courts to meet the needs
of the community for lessons, drop-in play and team practices.
BACKGROUND: There are four lighted basketball courts in Diamond Bar, one at Ronald Reagan Park and
three at Pantera Park. These courts service the drop-in and scheduled team practice needs of the community.
Three programs use the courts for practice, the City Youth Basketball Program, NJB and Diamond Bar/Walnut
Youth Basketball. There are eight lighte d tennis courts in the City, three each at Ronald Reagan and Maple Hill
Parks, and two at Pantera Park. The tennis courts are used for lessons and drop-in play.
NEED: The Parks Master Plan recommends the construction of 7 tennis courts by the year 2010. More
tennis courts is the Number 3 demanded facility of the twenty identified in the Master Plan. Outdoor Lighted
Basketball Courts is the Number 5 demanded facility out of twenty. The Sports Complex Task Force has rated
tennis courts as the Number 8 rated facility, out of eight, with a priority of C-. The Task Force rated outdoor
basketball courts as the Number 4 rated facility, with a priority of C.
TASK FORCE DISCUSSION: Since there are eight lighted tennis courts in the City's parks, the Task Force
rated the need for additional tennis courts at the lowest level, Number 8. During basketball season, there is a
shortage of lighted basketball courts for youth teams to practice on. Basketball courts were rated Number 5 by
the Task Force.
ESTIMATED COST TO CONSTRUCT:
Hard courts (7 Tennis Courts/4 Basketball Courts)
74,400 s.f. x $6.50/s.f. _ $483,600
Lighting @ $80,000 per court x 11 880,000
4 Drinking Fountains 18,000
Parking for 100 cars 192.000
TOTAL $1,573,600
ESTIMATED COST TO OPERATE AND MAINTAIN:
Court Cleaning $5/court/day x 5 days/wk x 11 courts =
$14,300
Ball Field Lights 1,000 hrs/year x $5/hr/court x 11 courts
55,000
Drinking Fountains
1,000
Parking Lot
7,000
LAND NEEDED: 2 acres
19
TOTAL $77,300
Sports Complex Task Force
75 Acre Major Sports Complex Outline -- 12/4/03 Meeting
A. Youth Softball/Basebal l Fields
6 Fields
1.2 acres per field
7.2 total acres
B. Soccer Fields
4 Full Size Fields
4 Under 12/14 Category Fields
6 Under 10 Category Fields
14 total fields
1.7-2.1 acres per field
30 total acres
C. Adult Baseball Fields
2 Fields
3.0-3.85 acres per field
7.7 total acres
D. Parking Lot(s)
300 cars — softball/baseb all fields
542 cars — soccer fields
109-140 cars per acre (use 125 cars per acre)
7 total acres
E. Tennis Courts
15 courts
7,200 square feet per court for a total of 108,000 square feet
2.5 total acres
F. Football Field
1 field
1.5 total acres
G. Aquatics Facility
Dive Pool — 25 yards by 25 meters
-2 One meter diving boards
-1 three meter diving board
Competitive Pool — 50 meters by 25 yards
Family Play Pool — 0' depth to 3'6" depth
4.2 total acres (including parking for 280 cars at 140 cars per acre)
H. Outdoor Basketball Courts
10 6,000 square foot courts
1.4 total acres
I. Gymnasium
25,000 square feet
0.6 total acre
J. Restrooms/Storage Rooms/Concession Stands/Sidewalks /Tot Lots
8 total acres
K Internal Roads/Driveways/ Setbacks
4.9 total acres
L. Total Necessary Acreage: 75 Acres
20
Location Proposed Improvements
City of Diamond Bar
Sports Complex Task Force
March 18, 2004 (Corrected)
Estimated Costs for Short Term Priorities
Estimated
Cost
Lorbeer Ball Field Lights —Upper Field — 4 pole System $225,000
-- Phase I — Sod — Lower Field (80,000 sf @ $1.25 sf- $2.50 so 100,000 — 200,000
Additional Parking (39,500 sf @ $5.50 so 125 cars 220.000
Total $545,000-645,000
Alternatives
Ball Field Lights — Upper Field — 10 pole System $300,000
Artificial Turf—Football Field (103,092 sf@ $6.50 so 670,098
Artificial Turf— Upper Field (80,000 sf @ $6.50 so 520.000
Total Alternatives $1,490,098
Maintenance & Operations
Sod (80,000 sf @ $0.17 sf annually) $13,600
Electricity (1,000 hrs/year @ $10.00 per hr) 10,000
Sod Renovation (Twice per year @ $25,000) SQOOO
Annual Maintenance & Operations $73,600
Lorbeer Basketball Court Lights —4 courts @$80,000 per court $320,000
—Phase II -- Total $320,000
Alternative
--None--
Maintenance & Operations
Resurfacing ($2,500/court every 2 — 3 years @ 4 courts) $10,000 (x 33%) = $3,300
21
Electricity (1,000 hrs/court/year @ $5.00 per hr X 4 courts) 20,000
Routine Maintenance (Once per week @ $5 per court per week) L000
Annual Maintenance & Operations $24,300
Estimated
Location Pronosed Improvements Cost
Diamond Ranch Ball Field Lights — Softball Fields #1 & #2 and Multi -Purpose Field — 12 pole System $320,000 Fligh School
Sad -- Softball Fields #1 & #2 and M -P Field (236,440sf@ $1.25 - $2.50sf) 295.550 — 591.100
— Phase I— Total $615,550-911,000
Alternative
Artificial Turf— SB #1 & #2 Multi -Purpose (236,440 sf@ $6.50 sf) $1,536,860
Total Alternative $1,536,860
Maintenance & Operations
Sod (236,440 sf@ $0.17 sf annually) $40,195
Electricity (1,000 hrs/year @ $30.00 per hr) 30,000
Sod Renovation (Twice per year @ $25,000) 50,000
Annual Maintenance & Operations $120,195
Diam and Ranch Ball Field Lights — Baseball Fields #1 & #2 — 2ea 10 pole System s $600,000 High
School Sad -- Baseball Fields #1 & #2 (209,000 sf@ $1.25 - $2.50sf) 261,250 — 522,500
-- Phase II-- Total $861,250— 1,122,500
Alternative
Artificial Turf— Baseball Fields #I & #2 (209,000 sf @ $6.50 sf) S 1 358,500
Total Alternative $1,358,500
Maintenance & Operations
Sad (209,000 sf@ $0.17 sf annually) $35,530
Electricity (1,000 hrs/year @ $20.00 per hr) 20,000
Sod Renovation (Twice per year @ $25,000) 50.000
22
Annual Maintenance & Operations $105,530
Diamond Ranch Ball Field Lights —Football Stadium —4pole System $220,000
High School Sod -- Football Field (103,092 sf @ $1.25 - $2.50sf) 128,865 —257,730
-- Phase III-- Total $348,865-477,730
Alternative
Artificial Turf— Football Field (103,092 sf @ $6.50 sf) $670,098
Total Alternative $670,098
Maintenance & Operations
Sod (103,092 sf@ $0.17 sf annually) $17,526
Electricity (1,000 hrs/year @ $10.00 per hr) 10,000
Sad Renovation (Twice per year @ $25,000) 50,000
Annual Maintenance & Operations $77,526
Diam and Ranch Basketball Court Lights — 6 courts @ $80,000 per court $480,000 High
School Tennis Court Lights — 9 courts @ $80,000 per court 720.000
-- Phase IV -- Total $1,200,000
Alternative
--None--
Maintenance & Operations
Resurfacing ($2,500/court @ 2-3 years @ 15 courts)$37,500 (x 33%) _ $12,375
Electricity (1,000 hrs/court/year @ $5.00 per hr X 15 courts) 75,000
Routine Maintenance (Once per week @ $5 per court per week) 4 000
Annual Maintenance & Operations $91,375
Estimated
23
Location Proposed Improvements Cost
Diamond Bar Ball Field Lights — Softball Fields #1 & #2 — 2ea 10 pole Systems $600,000 Fhgh
School Sod -- Softball Fields #1 & #2 (80,000 sf @ $1.25 - $2.50sf) 100,000 — 200,000
-- Phase I -- Total $700,000 — 800,000
Alternative
Artificial Turf— SB #1 & #2 (80,000 sf @ $6.50 sf) $520,000
Total Alternative $520,000
Maintenance & Operations
Sod (80,000 sf@ $0.17 sfannually) $13,600
Electricity (1,000 hrs/year/field @ $20.00 per hr) 20,000
Sod Renovation (Twice per year @ $25,000) 50.000
Annual Maintenance & Operations $83,600
Diam and Bar Ball Field Lights — Baseball Fields #1 & #2 — 2ea 10 pole Systems $600,000 High School
Sod -- Baseball Fields #1 & #2 (209,000 sf @ $1.25 - $2.50sf) 261,250— 522,500
-- Phase II -- Total $861,250— 1,122,500
Alternative
Artificial Turf— Baseball Fields #1 & #2 (209,000 sf @ $6.50 st) $1,358,500
Total Alternative $1,358,500
Maintenance & Operations
Sod (209,000 sf @ $0.17 sf annually) $35,530
Electricity (1,000 hrs/year @ $20.00 per hr) 20,000
Sod Renovation (Twice per year @ $25,000) 50.000
Annual Maintenance & Operations $105,530
Diamond Bar
High School Artificial Turf— Football Field (103,092 sf@ $6.50 sf) $670,098
-- Phase III Total Alternative $670,098
24
Maintenance & Operations
--None--
Diamond Bar Basketball Court Lights — 3 courts @ $80,000 per court
School Tennis Court Lights — 8 courts @ $80,000 per court
-- Phase IV --
Alternative
--None--
$240,000 Ffigh
640,000
Total $880,000
Maintenance & Operations
Resurfacing ($2,500/court every 2 — 3 years @ l I courts) $27,500 (x 33%) = $9,075
Electricity (1,000 hrs/court/year @ $5.00 per hr X 11 courts) 55,000
Routine Maintenance (Once per week @ $5 per court per week) 3 000
Annual Maintenance & Operations $67,075
Estimated
Location Proposed Improvements Cost
Chaparral Ball Field Lights — 2 ea 4 pole Systems $450,000
-- Phase I -- Sod — 2 ea Fields (2 X 80,000sf @ $1.25sf- $2.50sf) 200,000 — 400,000
Total $650,000 — 850,000
Alternatives
Artificial Turf— Both Fields (2 X 80,000 sf @ $6.50 sf) $1,040,000
Total Alternatives $1,040,000
Maintenance & Operations
Sod (2 X 80,000 sf @ $0.17 sf annually) $27,200
Electricity (2 X 1,000 hrs/year @ $10.00 per hr) 20,000
Sod Renovation (2 Fields Twice per year @ $25,000) 100,000
Annual Maintenance &Operations $147,200
Chaparral Basketball Court Lights — 3 courts @ $80,000 per court $240,000
-- Phase II -- Tennis Court Lights — 4 courts @ $80,000 per court 320.000
25
Total $560,000
Alternative
--None--
Maintenance & Operations
Resurfacing ($2,500/court every 2 — 3 years @ 7 courts) $17,500 (x 33%) _ $5,775
Electricity (1,000 hrs/court/year @ $5.00 per hr X 7 courts) 35,000
Routine Maintenance (Once per week @ $5 per court per week) 2.000
Annual Maintenance & Operations $42,775
Estimated
Location Proposed Improvements Cost
Southpointe Ball Field Lights — One Field — 4 pole System $225,000
-- Phase I -- Sod — One Field (80,000 sf @ $1.25 sf - $2.50 sf) 100,000 — 200,000
Total $325,000-425,000
Alternative
Artificial Turf— Upper Field (80,000 sf @ $6.50 sf) 520.000
Total Alternative $520,000
Maintenance & Operations
Sod (80,000 sf @ $0.17 sf annually) $13,600
Electricity (1,000 hrs/year @ $10.00 per hr) 10,000
Sod Renovation (DArice per year @ $25,000) SQ000
Annual Maintenance & Operations $73,600
Southpointe Basketball Court Lights — 6 cts @ $80,000 per court $480,000 --Phase II —
Tennis Court Lights — 3 cts @ $80,000 per court 240.000
Total $720,000
Alterna rive
--None--
26
Maintenance & Operations
Resurfacing ($2,500/court every 2— 3 years @ 9 courts) $22,500 (x 33%) _ $7,425
Electricity (1,000 hrs/court/year @ $5.00 per hr X 9 courts) 45,000
Routine Maintenance (Once per week @ $5 per court per week) 2,340
Annual Maintenance & Operations $54,765
27
Estimated
Location
Proposed Improvements
Cost
Little League/YMCA
Ball Field Lights —Four Fields — 6 pole Systems
$1,000,000
Parking Lot (111,000 sf @ $5.50 so 350 cars
610,500
Total
$1,610,500
Alternatives
--None--
Maintenance & Operations
Electricity (4 X 1,000 hrs/year @ $10.00 per hr)4$
0.000
Annual Maintenance & Operations
$40,000
Estimated
Location
Pmnosed Improvements
Cost
Paul C. Grow Park
Ball Field Lights — 4 pole System
$225,000
Total
$225,000
Alternatives
Artificial Turf— (60,000 sf @ $6.50 so
390.000
Total Alternatives
$390,000
Maintenance & Operations
Sod (60,000 sf@ $0.17 sfammally)
$10,200
Electricity (1,000 hrs/year @ $10.00 per hr)
10,000
Sod Renovation (Twice per year @ $25,000)
50,000
Annual Maintenance & Operations
$70,200
27
FUNDING OP TIONS
The Community Services Division receives its primary funding through the General Fund and
program user fees. Additional funding for capital improvements comes from Park In Lieu
(Quimby) fees, developer assessments and special grants.
Funding Programs
The financial objective of the City regarding public facilities can be expressed in the following
general terms:
To achieve a balance between public facility operations and revenue generation that
enhances the City's financial ability to meet its goals while reducing the burden of direct
taxation of the people for parks and recreational services.
Such a "balance" may be administratively targeted; however, it in itself becomes an objective for
the City because of the City's evolution or development as a more extensive provider of full
service public facilities.
The City should examine specific opportunities within the present statutes and funding sources
and identify funding alternatives determined to be essential in developing goals of acquisition,
design and development, and operations and maintenance. Public service and revenue generation
balance should be targeted that is attainable and practical using a number of funding alternatives
as herein discussed.
Two major cost centers require funding in order to implement the recommendations of the Sports
Complex Task Force. The first is capital costs which include: a.) acquisition and development of
new required park lands and facilities and b.) renovation of existing park and school sites. The
second is the ongoing cost of maintain ing and operating these facilities.
The following listing of funding sources have been categorized according to the appropriate
application of the funding they provide - Capital Funding, Operation and Maintenance or a
combination of both. Explanations of funding options are provided to give definition to
alternative funding programs which the City may elect to employ.
Capital Funding Programs
1. Nonprofit Foundation - such as the Diamond Bar Community Foundation, a 501 (c)(3) non-
profit service provider. This could provide a vehicle for a capital fund drive. There should be
well defined facilities and specific costs to be funded. The Foundation acts as a conduit for
receiving private donations from entities that might otherwise be reluctant to donate to a City.
In addition, the donor could recei ve tax benefits. Through the Foundation, the City could
solicit funds from priva te foundations, corporations and other businesses, local organizations
and individuals including gifts, bequests and trust funds.
2. Grants - (from County, State and Federal agencies). Many grants have bee ome available
recently, including Prop 40 Youth Soccer/ Ball Field Development Grant. Some require
matchi ng funds from the City which could be an obstacle. Matching funds could come from
sources such as a community foundation. There is usually strong competition for such grants
and Diamond Bar should compet e aggressively. Some examples of such funding are:
28
- Prop A - The Los Angeles County Safe Parks Act — The City of Diamond Bar has about
$800,000 of these funds available at this time.
-Prop 12— Per Capita Grant - —The City of Diamond Bar has about $536,000 of these funds
available.
-Prop 12 — Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Block Grant - — The City of Diamond Bar has about
$172,078 of these funds available.
-Prop 40— Per Capita Grant - — The City of Diamond Bar has about $286,000 of these funds
available.
-Prop 40 — Roberti- Z'Berg-Harris Block Grant - — The City of Diamond Bar has about
$172,078 of these funds available.
- ISTEA Transportation Enhancement Activities and Bicycle Lane Account Funds - CalTra ns
provides funding for on- or off-street bike trails and some foot trails through these funding
mechanisms.
Community Developme nt Block Grant (CDBG) funding is available for upgrading parks for
ADA requirements and other improvements. These funds are also used for some limited
program funding.
3. Quimby Act - The Quim by Act is a widely used source of funding which enables local
govemme nt to exa ct de dication of land or in -lie u fees from new reside ntial development to
maintain a minimu m ratio of park land to population. This applies only to resi dential
subdivisions and does not address additional park demands created through the construction
of new unit s on existing lots or condominium conversi ons.
4. Development Agreements (DA's) are another mechanism through which park and
recreation improve ments can be ac quired or provi ded. As part of an agreement specifyi ng the
type and density of development allowed, the City can negotiate conditions and
considerations in return for concessions. Such incentive programs can also be used in the
provision of parks and other open spaces in commercial areas. One such program would
allow extra floor space in exchange for public recreati on facilities such as a plaza, a mini -
park or space in commercial development for anew teen or senior center.
Due to the limited growth potential of build -out in the City of Diamond Bar, the previous
two sources of funds may not contribute significantly toward future park and facility
developme nt.
5. Bonds - Most bond issues require a two-thirds vote of the electorate and are therefore not
widely used for this type of funding. Some of the most common forms of these bonds are as
follows:
General Obl i eation Bonds -These bonds are iss ued s ubject to a t wo-thi rds majority vote of
the electorate and pledge the full faith and support of the borrower. The issuer is authorized
by the vote of the electorate to levy an ad valorem tax on all taxable property within its
jurisdiction at whatever rate is requi red to service the debt. Because of the high level of
security, these bonds command the lowest interest rate.
Revenue Bonds -_These bonds are secured by a pledge of revenues from a tax or non -tax
source such as assessments or fees. Because the revenue from a particular facility is the only
security, these bonds usually carry a higher interest rate than general obligation bonds. The
29
direct issuance of revenue bonds without the formation of a funding district, as described in
more detail below, may not be feasible for park and recreation purposes due to limited
income streams from these types of activities. However, revenue bonds have been used to
partially fund such development as an aquatic facility where a feasibility study verified the
revenue generating capacity of the development .
6. Certificates of Participation - This is a form of lease purchase agreement that does not
constitute indebtedness under the State constitutional debt limit and does not require voter
approval. In a typical case, a local government entity decides to acqui re a new or renovated
public facili ty. This facility is purchased or constructed by a vendor corporation and the
local government signs a lease agreem ent with the corporation to use the facility. An
underwriting firm then buys the lease obligati on from the vendor corporation and breaks it
into small units called Certific ates of Participation, C.O.P.'s.
Each C.O.P. represents a share of the lease payment revenue stream. The underwriter then
places the C.O.P. issue with a bank which, in turn, sells the certificates to individual
investors. The local governme nt makes the lease payments to the bank which makes
payments to the certificate holders. At the end of the lease period, title to the facility passes
to the local government entity at nominal cost. Interest paid the certificate holders can be tax
exempt.
7. Fund Raising Events - (concerts, raffles, etc.) While these are not a major source of
funds, such events could contribu to to an overa 11 effort toward capital funding and encourage
continued community support for a specific facility. Funds raised from such events could be
channele d through the nonprofit foundation described above.
S. Park Development Funds — The City has about $2,450,000 of these funds available.
These funds were generated from the purchase and sale of surplus Water District property
and the proceeds have been dedicate d for park use by the City Council.
Sources of Operation and Maintenance Funds
1. User Fees - This option was most favorably supported by the residents in the survey results
presented in the Parks Master Plan. Such fees would provide some contribution toward
maintenance, but would not be sufficient to provide any capital funds. Some of the sources of
such fees include:
-Charges for classes and special programs.
-Charges to sports leagues for maintenance and lighting costs.
-Space rental for meetings, parties and special events. Charges for play, such as for tennis.
-Group picnic shelter use charges
-Charges for use of sites in the park system for such activities as swap meets, bazaars, antique
shows, auto shows, weddings, concerts, carnivals, Christmas tree sales, etc.
-Joint-use with nonprofit organizations is also included in this category, where sports teams
would renovate fields and/or provide field maintenance (labor or costs) if guaranteed use during
the season.
30
It is strongly recommended that the City examine the current fee structure and make adjustments
so that the fees collected are in line with the costs of maintenance and operation of the facilities
or programs for which the fees are levied.
2. Corporate Sponsorship of Events - This is most popular for team sports, various senior or
youth activities, and should be actively pursued. This would be facilitated by a nonprofit
foundation as a conduit to accept donations.
3. Adopt -a -Park Programs - This type of program could generate funds or volunteers to
provide maintenance for City parks or facilities.
4. Volunteer Labor - Useful for certain programming and/or maintenance tasks. Would
probably not constitute a large portion of funding needs. The City currently has a Volunteer
Program for summer activities. Recent court rulings regarding use of volunteer labor will have to
be reviewed to ensure that prevailing wage requirements are not violated.
Sources for Both Capital and Operations and Maintenance Funding
1. Concessions - By contracting with a concessionaire to build and/or operate a facility, the City
can generate income which could cover capital and maintenance costs of the facility. Examples
of such concession -operated facilities include: baseball or softball diamonds, equestrian
facilities, handball courts, tennis courts, miniature golf, roller hockey facilities and food and
beverage concessions. In most cases, the City provides a site for the facility and either the City or
the concessionaire builds the facility. The lease terms are determined accordingly.
An example for Diamond Bar could be a family aquatic center which could combine a
competitive pool with recreation/le isure family-oriented water facilities. Special
considerations, such as joint- use of such a facility with the high schools may make City
operation of such a facil ity the best option.
2. Special District Assessments - These include Community Services District, Benefit
Assessment, Landscape and Lighti ng Act and Mello -Roos Districts. A special assessment or
levy is placed on a property to finance improvements and/or maintenance that specifically
benefit that property. Recent legislation creates new challenges in forming these districts.
The Diamond Bar survey results from the Parks Master Plan show little support for this
method of funding park and recreation facilitie s from the City's residents.
3. Taxes - Some examples of taxes used by other cities to pay for park and recreation include
Transient Occupancy Tax (Bed Tax), Real Estate Transfer Tax, Utility Tax, and Admissions
Tax. A portion of such tax revenue could be dedicated for specific park and recreation uses,
either to provide funding for a bond issue or to cover defined maintenance and operating
costs.
4. Sale or Lease of Surpl us Lands - The sale or lease of land or other capital facilities for
which the City has no further use can sometimes be a major source of revenue. One-time
receipts from the sale of land can be used for the acquisition of new park lands, recreation
facilities, or the development of new community service facilities. Revenues from long-term
leases can be used to provide maintenance or underwrite programs. Surplus parcel s also may
provide opportunities for trading land elsewhere in the City with other agencies that own
land more suitable for park purposes.
31
5. Joint Powers Authority -Normally apublic authority formed from two or more
governmental agencies and based on lease agreements, project revenues and insurance programs.
Most often these projects are public facilities.
32
Construction
Soccer/Softball/ Football Field*
Baseball Field*
Artificial Turf
Ball field Liehts
4 pole system
10 pole system
12 pole system
Parking lot construction
Sod:
Drinking fountain with sump drain
Basketball/T ennis Court Lighting
Concrete for Courts & Sidewalks
Unit Cost Estimates
$250,000 per acre
$270,000 per acre
$6.50 sq. ft.
$225,000
$300,000
$320,000
$5.50 sq. ft.
$1.25 - $2.50 sq. ft.
$4,500 each
$80,000 per court
$6.50 sq. ft.
* Includes grading, sod, irrigation, fences and sidewalks (and backstops for
baseball fields)
Maintenance and Operations
Electricity
Ball Fields (Est. 1,000 Ins. per year per field) $10/hr. per field
Basketball/Tennis Courts $5/hr. per court
Sod (Including water, mowing, fertilizati on, & weed control) $0.17 sq. ft. per year.
Court Resurfacing (Every 2-3 years) $2,500 per court
Turf Renovation (Yearly) $25,000 per field
Court Cleaning (Routine Maintenance) $5 per court per week.
Parking Lot Cleaning (Routine Maintenance) $5 per 1000 sq. ft. per wk.
Land AUui sition
Raw Land $10 to $20 per sq. ft.
Development Standards
P arlan g
Current standards allow for 109 to 140 cars per acre. This number depends on variables such as
parking angle, landscaping, size of spaces, and security lighting. Spaces set at a 60 degree angle
are the most common, but lose roughly 10% of possible spaces when in this configuration.
Spaces designated at a 90 degree angle allow for the most spaces.
*300 square feet per car = 140 cars/acre (minimum standards)
*400 square feet per car = 109 cars/acre (desirable standard)
F ields
Soccer Field — Full Size 225'x360', with 10' clearance on all sides 2.1 acres/field
Softball Field — 300' outfield clearance 1.5 acres/field
Baseball Field —Adult Sized 330'/400'/330' 3 acres/field
Football Field —Regulation Size 160'x360' 1.5 acres/field
Tennis Court— 36'x78', with 12' clearance on sides, 21' on ends 7,200 sq. ft.
Basketball Court— Official High School 94'x60', with 5' clearance 5,640 sq. ft.
33
Concession Stand — Per Pantera Park 1,500 sq. ft.
Restroom Building with Storage — Per Pantera Park 1,500 sq. ft.
Tot Lot/Playground Area 2,500 sq. ft.
Acreage Conversion: 1 acre = 43,560 sq. ft. (5,280 squared divided by 640)
34
Land Opportunities
75 buildable acres of land is needed to house the major sports complex facility. (Goal is to
acquire the gross acreag e necessary to result in a net 75 buildable acres). Potential sites are as
follows:
1. City of Industry site — North of 60 Freeway
• Approximately 170 acres
• Significant grading required
• Slated for development by City of Industry
2. Lanterman Developmental Center site— Adjacent to existing Little League property.
• Approximately 20 acres
• Requires JPA with State and possible City of Pomona
• Access to property will be an issue.
3. Lots One & 61 site — South of Grand/Longview/S ummit Ridge Drive
• Approximately 65 acres
• Significant grading and flood control improvements required
4. Tres Herm anos site— Adjacent to Diamond Ranch High School
• Approximately 13 acres of athletic sports fields are already developed on the
Diam and Ranch High School site. (not counting Varsity football field) and 11
acres undeveloped land, for a total of 24 acres.
• Requires JPA with PUSD and possibly City of Industry
• Undeveloped land requires significant grading
5. Lot Adjacent to Pantera Park —Owned by City of Diamond Bar
• Approximately 35 Acres
• Significant grading required
• Road access required
6. Option for Connection of Tres Hermanos to Pantera Park
• Approximately 100 acres
• Requires JPA with PUSD and City of Industry
• Significant grading and flood control improvements required
• Lengthy Road access required
35
Musco Lighting
15311 Barranca Parkway
Irvine, CA 92618
949.754.0503
WNW. musco.com
Hubbell Lighting
2000 Electric Way
Christiansburg, VA 24073
540.381.6111
www.sportsli hg ti ng com
Qualite Sports Lighting
250 Industrial Drive
Hillsdale, MI 48242
517.439.1581
www.aualite.com
Techline Sports Lighting
9609 Beck Circle
Austin, TX 787583.5401
512.977.8880; 800.500.3161
www.sportslighti ng.com
Athletic Lighting Company
www.athleticlighting.com
INFORMATION RESOURCES
Ball Field Lights
36
Aquatics Facilities
Aquatic Design Group
1950 Kellogg Avenue
Carlsbad, CA 92008
760.43 8.8400
www.aquaticdesig neroup.com
Rowley International, Inc.
2325 Palos Verdes Drive West, Suite 312
Palos Verdes Estates, CA 90274.2755
310.377.6724x30
www.rowleyinternational.co m
Water Technology, Inc.
100 Park Avenue
Beaver Dam, WI 53916
920.887.7375
www. watertechnologvi nc.com
Santa Clarita Aquatic Center
20850 Centre Pointe Parkway
Santa Clarita, CA
661.250.3700
www.santa-clarita.com
City of Vista Water Park
The Wave Water Park
760.940.9283
161 Recreation Drive
Vista, CA 92085
www.ci.vista.ca. us
Beachwood, Ohio
Family Aquatic Center
2700 Richmond Road
Beachwood, Ohio 44122
www.beachw000doh io.com
Arch P ac
37
2103 Camino Vida Roble, Suite D
Carlsbad, Ca 92009
760.603.1200
www.arghpac.com
El Monte Aquatic Center
11001 Mildred Street
El Monte, CA 91731
626.580.2213
www.ci.el-monte. ca.us
David Evans & Associates
800 N. Haven Avenue, Suite 300
Ontario, CA 91764
909.481.5750
www.deainc.com
David Volz Design
17050 Bushard Street, Suite 300
Fountain Valley, CA 92708
714.593.3300
www.dvolzdesien. com
Hirsch & Associates
2221 E. Winston Road, #A
Anaheim, CA 92806
714.776.4340
www.hha-landarch .com
Sports Facility Architects
38
Field Turf
15865 SW 74th Avenue, Suite 110
Tigard, OR 97224
503.620.6707
www.fieldturf.com
Sport Fields, Inc.
10042 Wolf Road, Suite B-4
Grass Valley, CA 95949
530.268.6654
www.sportfields. net
Sprinturf
P.O. Box 1244
Bonsall, CA 92003
(760)728-5165
www.sprinturf.co m
Artificial Turf
39
References
Park Planning Guidelines, 3`d Edition by George E. Fogg
National Recreation & Parks Association 1990
Recreation, Park and Open Space Standards and Guidelines
Edited by Roger A. Lancaster
National Recreation & Park Association
4d' Printing — 1987
Parks Master Plan
City of Diamond Bar
Adopted 1998
General Plan
City of Diamond Bar
Adopted 1995
Internet News Article:
Dream of Aquatics Center at new high school
By Elizabeth Bucceri, Staff Writer
November 12, 1998
www.mtdemocrat.c om/news/aquaticl 11298.shtml
Community/Civic Center Task Force
City of Diamond Bar
Adopted 1999
40
Construction Contractor
Byron -Davey, Inc.
13220 Evening Creek Drive South, Suite 103
San Diego, CA 92128
858.513.7199
Landscape Maintenance Companies
ValleyCrest Landscape Maintenance
Ron Kirkpatrick
230 River Road
Corona, 92880
TruGreen LandCare
Tye Helmer
1367 W. 9th
Upland, CA 91786
Excel Landscape Maintenance
Hector Lopez
710 Rimpau Avenue, Suite 108
Corona, CA 92879
41
City of Diamond Bar
Sports Complex Task Force
Initial Meeting
Thursday, October 9, 2003 at 6:30 P.M.
A.Q.M.D. Room CC -8
AGENDA
1. Call To Order
2. Introductions
3. Welcome/Overview
4. Current Facilities Available in Diamond Bar
a. City Parks
b. WVUSD Facilities
c. PUSD Facilities
5. What do other Cities Have?
6. Preview of Next Meeting
a. Current Facility Use
b. Un -Met Needs
7. Public Comments
8. Adjournment
Thursday, October 30, 2003
A.Q.M.D. Room CC -8
6:30 P.M.
42
City of Diamond Bar
Sports Complex Task Force
2nd Meeting
Thursday, October 30, 2003 at 7:00 P.M.(Note New Start Time)
A.Q.M.D. Room CC -8
AGENDA
1. Call To Order
2. Welcome/Introduc tions
3. Current Facility Use in Diam and Bar by each organization:
i.e. : City Parks, WVUSD Facilitie s, PUSD Facilities , Other Facilities
4. Timeline of each sport(s) season.
5. Un -met Needs of each organization:
6. Discussion: Potential Short-term Solutions
a. Little League/YMCA Complex
b. Lorbeer Middle School
c. Southpointe Middle School
7. Preview of Next Meeting:
Topic: Wish List Facility Design
8. Public Comments
9. Adjournment
Thursday, December 4, 2003
AQ.M.D. Room CC -8
7:00 P.M.
43
City of Diamond Bar
Sports Complex Task Force
3rd Meeting
Thursday, December 4, 2003 at 7:00 P.M.
A.Q.M.D. Room CC -8
AGENDA
1. Call To Order
2. Welcome/Introduc tions
3. Conceptual Design of the All -Inclusive Sports Complex
• Create the facility as if land and money are not issues
4. More Discussion on Potential Short-term Solutions
• Diamond Ranch High School
5. Preview of Next Meeting: Thursday, January 8, 2003
Topic: Land Opportunities A.Q.M.D. Room CC -8
7:00 P.M.
6. Public Comments
7. Adjournment
44
City of Diamond Bar
Sports Complex Task Force
4th Meeting
Thursday, January 8, 2004 at 7:00 P.M.
A.Q.M.D. Room CC -8
AGENDA
1. Call To Order
2. Welcome/Introduc tions
3. Review of Land Opportunities — 75 acres of land needed to house Wish List plan
7. City of Industry —North of 60 Freeway
8. Lanterman Developmental Center —Adjacent to existing Little League Site
9. Lots One & 61 — South of Grand/Longview/Summit Ridge Drive
10. Tres Hermanos — Adjacent to Diamond Ranch High School
11. Adjacent to Pantera. Park — Owned by City of Diamond Bar
12. Option for connection of Tres Hermanos to Pantera Park
4. Preview of Next Meeting:
Topic: Top Priorities Facili , Design
5. Public Comments
6. Adjournment
Thursday, January 29, 2004
A.Q.M.D. Room CC -8
7:00 P.M.
45
City of Diamond Bar
Sports Complex Task Force
5th Meeting
Thursday, January 29, 2004 at 7:00 P.M.
A.Q.M.D. Room CC -8
AGENDA
1. Call To Order
2. Welcome/Introduc tions
3. Top Priorities Facility Design: What are the highest priority amenities that should be included in
the test phase of the Sports Complex?
4. Preview of Next Meeting: Thursday, Feb. 19, 2004
Topic: Estimated Construction, Maintenance & A.Q.M.D. Room CC -8
Operational Costs/Potential Funding Sources 7:00 P.M.
5. Public Comments
6. Adjournment
46
City of Diamond Bar
Sports Complex Task Force
6th Meeting
Thursday, March 4, 2004 at 7:00 P.M.
A.Q.M.D. Room CC -8
AGENDA
1. Call To Order
2. Welcome/Introduc tions
3. Discussion about Top Priority Short Term Fix(es): Potential Improvements at existing school
district facilities that would most efficiently and effectively meet the immediate needs of
community athletic programs.
a. Survey Results
4. Cost Estimates (Construction cost options/Maintena nce & Operation costs
a. Recommended location(s) to include in Prop 40 Grant application
5. Preview of Next Meeting: March 18, 2004
Topic: Review items for Draft Report A.Q.M.D. Room CC -8
7:00 P.M.
6. Public Comments
7. Adjournment
47
City of Diamond Bar
Sports Complex Task Force
7th Meeting
Thursday, March 4, 2004 at 7:00 P.M.
A.Q.M.D. Room CC -8
AGENDA
1. Call To Order
2. Welcome/Introduc tions
3. Discussion about Draft Final Report.
4. Recognition of Sports Complex Task Force Members: City Council
Meeting
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
A.Q.M.D. Auditorium
6:30 P.M.
5. Public Comments
6. Adjournment
48
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # _8.2
Meeting Date: April 20, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: APPROVAL OF A SEVEN-YEAR SLURRY SEAL PROGRAM
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve.
BACKGROUND/DIS CUS SION:
In an attempt to reduc a General Fund expenditures on the City's slurry seal program, and to ens ure
that the City receives maximum return on street rehabilitation expenditures, staff is recommending
that the current 5 -year slurry seal program for the preservation and rehabilitation of the City roadway
system be changed to a 7 -year program. Since 1998 the City has implemented a 5 -year (FY 98-99 to
FY 02-03) Pavement Management System (PMS). For residential streets, the City has taken two
types of pavement preservation approaches. The first type of pavement preservation is a routine
slurry seal application, a relatively low-cost preventive maintenance treatment consisting of a smooth
and even application of a liquid asphalt and sand mixture to all existing City streets except arterial
roadways. This treatment is intended to seal small cracks in the pavement and retard the destructive
oxidation of the sun without increasing the structural capacity. Studies indicate that this treatment
has an expected life of up to 7 years. The City's cost to slurry seal an average of 20 miles of
pavement each year is approximatel y $450,000.00. The City's accumulated costs for the past five
years of slurry seal are as follows:
Slurry Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 1 Area 5 TOTALS
Milea a 20.45 21.00 19.19 16.19_j 20.25 97.08
Tota
Cost l I $535,6 03.53 I $501,084.19 I $436,647.25 I $325, 801.55 I $434,7 61.40 I $2,233,897.92
Total Slurry Seal Construction Cost
$600,000.00
V $400,000.00
d $200,000.00
$0.00
Area
The second type of pavement preservation identified in the PMS is the application of Asphalt Rubber
and Aggregate Membrane (ARAM) overlay. This treatment consists of the application of an asphalt
rubber chip seal followed by an application of a slurry seal. Equiva lent to 2" of hot mix asphalt, this
treatment is intended to improve the durability of the pavement bypreventi ng reflection cracking. The
expected life of the combined ARAM and slurry seal can be up to 10 years. The cost to provide an
ARAM overlay is approximately $220,000. 00 a year. The City's accumulated costs for the past five
years of ARAM overlay (an average of miles of pavement each year) are as follows:
ARAM I Area 1 I Area 2 1 Area 3 1 Area 4 Area 5 1 TOTALS
Milea a 1 3.25 1 3.151 4.50 1 3.50 1 4.11 1 18.51
To
Costl I $105,6 76.96 I $105,782.31 I $288,135.00 I $263, 381.86 I $356,8 84.10 I $1,119,860.23
Total Asphalt Rubber and Aggregate
Membrane [ARAM] ConstlUCtion Cost
$400,000.00
$300,000.00
$200,000.00
$100,000.00
$0.00
Area
The approximate construction costs for a routine slurry seal type of pavement preservation can be
estimated for both 5 -year and 7 -year programs (all City streets except arterial roadways ). For ARAM
overlay, a more detailed analysis is required during the design process of each individual program
area Historically the City has performed an average of miles of ARAM overlay a year. Though more
than 4 miles a year of pavement is identified to receive this type of treatment, budget constraints limit
the actual mileage that is targeted each year.
Currently, the City is seeking proposals to devel op and implement a new Pavement Management
System (PMS). The overall objective of this program is to guide the process of making cost effective
pavement preservation/mai ntenance and rehabilitation decisions. As part of the new PMS efforts, the
consultant will identify the City's needs for routine preventive pavement maintenance efforts such as
slurry seal application, ARAM overlay, or other pavement preservation, pavement rehabilitation and
reconstruction efforts. This approach will enable staff to prepare a comprehensive 7 -year Capital
Improvement Program (CIP).
FISCAL IMPACT:
For the last five years the average cost of slurry seal per mile was $22, 500.00 leading to an average
total yearly cost of $450,000.00. If the Slurry Seal treatment is implemented over period of years
an average of 15 miles per year will be treated. With an average cost of $22,500.00/mi le, the
average yearly cost will be $350,000.00 for a 7 -year program. The ARAM overlay yearly budget shall
remain unchanged as the above discussion indicates that the degree of immediate attention that the
pavement will require is determined during the individual analysis of each area. As such, the total
average yearly cost for a 7 -year program will be approximately $570,000.00 compared to the total
average yearly cost of $670,000.00 for a 5 -year program. The chart below provides a breakdown and
comparison of the average yearly costs for the 5 -year and 7 -year programs.
CONCLUSION:
Our residential streets, at the end of this current 5 -year cycle, are better maintained and have less
deterioration. Extending the program from a 5 -year to a 7 -year cycle is sound engineering practice
and a cost effective preventat ive maintenance approach.
PREPARED BY:
Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer
Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu
Director of Public Works
Attachment: 5 -year slurry seal map
Date Prepared: April 14, 2004
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Slurry
ARAM
5 -Year
Seal
Overlav
Program
20 mi/ear)(
4mi/ ear
Total
Average
Cost/Mile
$22,500.00
N/A
N/A
Average
Cost/Year
$450,000.00
1 $220,000.00
1 $670,000.00
CONCLUSION:
Our residential streets, at the end of this current 5 -year cycle, are better maintained and have less
deterioration. Extending the program from a 5 -year to a 7 -year cycle is sound engineering practice
and a cost effective preventat ive maintenance approach.
PREPARED BY:
Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer
Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu
Director of Public Works
Attachment: 5 -year slurry seal map
Date Prepared: April 14, 2004
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Slurry
ARAM
7 -Year
Seal
Overlav
Pro ram
15 mi/ear)(
4mi/ ear
Total
Average
Cost/Mile
$22,500.00
N/A
N/A
Average
Cost/Year
$350,000.00
1 $220,000.00
1 $570,000.00
CONCLUSION:
Our residential streets, at the end of this current 5 -year cycle, are better maintained and have less
deterioration. Extending the program from a 5 -year to a 7 -year cycle is sound engineering practice
and a cost effective preventat ive maintenance approach.
PREPARED BY:
Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer
Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu
Director of Public Works
Attachment: 5 -year slurry seal map
Date Prepared: April 14, 2004
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Agenda # —8.3 —
.3__
Meeting Date: aril 20. 2
+CITY CQUNCIL AGENDA REPOT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: INTERIM ORDINANCE NO. XX (2004) - ESTABLISHING A
TEMPORARY SIZE L IMIT ON SECOND DWELLING UNITS AND
GUEST HOUSES AND DECLARIN G THE URGENCY THEREOF
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
BACKGROUND:
In September 2003, the City's development standards for second dwelling units
were revised to reflectthe passage of Government Code Section 65852.2, which
removed the City's discretionary review process. Since the adoption of the
revision to the City Code, the public's interest in second dwelling units on single-
family residential zoned property has rapidly grown.
A second dwelling unit refers to an attached or detached residential dwelling unit
that provides complete independent living facilities for one or more persons. The
unit typically includes permanent provisions for living, sleeping, eating, cooking,
and sanitation. As a result of the City's adoption of the new State law, these
units do not require a publ is notice or hearing and may be approved by the City
sta ff.
The State's legislative findings declare that second dwelling units are generally
intended to provide additional housing for:
9 Students
9 Elderly
9 Housing for family members
9 In-home health care providers
9 Disabled persons
Jurisdictions may determine the second dwelling unit's size by local ordinance.
State law indicates a maximum and minimum size:
Maximum detached size is 1,200 square feet
Maximum attached size is 30 percent of the existing living area of the
main dwelling
Minimum size per the Heath and Safety Code Section 17958.1 is a 150
square foot efficiency unit
The City Development Code adopted in 1998 permitted second dwelling units
and guesthouses up to 1,200 square feet in size after public hearing and
approval by the Hearing Officer. Since 1998, the City has approved 14
guesthous es. Eleven of the approved projects have exceeded 500 square feet in
size, two of which have been located outside the Country Estates.
Upon adoption of the 2002 State law revision, which prohibited loca I jurisdictions
from requiring public hearings , and the City's subsequent revision in 2003, the
Planning Division has received dozens of inquiries for second dwelling units and
daily requests for information to construct a unit. In March 2004, two second
dwelling unit proposals were administratively approved. Athird is in proces s. All
of the projects are 1,200 square feet in size. Two of the submitted projects
include a three-bedroom , two baths, home.
Diamond Bar's current second dwelling unit development standards are
consistent with the maximum guesthouse size, which requires a public hearing.
The following table indicates the development standard differences between a
guesthous a and a second dwelling unit:
DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
GUESTHOUSE
SECOND DWELLING
UNIT
Additional covered parking required?
No
Yes
May be use d as a rental property?
No
Yes
Publicly noticed hearing required?
Und er 500 SF No
No publi c hea ring
501 to 1,200 SF Yes
requi red.
Kitchen facilitiespermitted?
No
Yes
Covenant to Maintain property for use
Yes
No
as a Single Family Residence
Required?
Minimum parcel size?
Per zoning classification.
Yes — 10,000 SF
minimum lot size.
Housing classification.
Temporary living
Penman ent living
quarte rs.
quarte rs.
As staff implements Municipal Code Sections 22.42. 120 (second dwelling unit)
and 22.42.060 (guest houses), it has become evident that an amendment may
be in order to better serve the City, residents, and the development community.
Staffs current evaluation of this provision has determined that the current
second dwelling unit and guest house maximum size limitation appears
inappropriate for single family lots in the City.
The State's findings indicate that the purpose of allowing secon d dwelling un its is
to provide additional living area forspecial groups such as students, elderly, and
housing for family members, in-home health care providers, or disabled persons.
Diamond Bar's current 1,200 square feet size seems to exceed the intended
purpose by providing three bedrooms, kitchen, dining area, laundry, two baths,
and living room. This equates to a duplex or second home for property zoned as
single unit —single family.
Other jurisdictions are noting problems with the second dwelling units as related in
the attached April 11, 2004, Los Angeles Times article. According to the article, a
proposed new state law AB 2707 (Steinberg) will prohibit local agencies from
establishing a minimum second dwelling unit size of less than 60 0 square feet. If
adopted, this measure will further diminish local cities authority to determine its
land use development pattern and will further erode local control.
This proposed legislation is evidence of the Legislature's intent that second
dwelling units be appr oximately this size; the City's current maximum of 1,200 is
double the size contemplated by the Legislature. This is among the reasons staff
is suggesting that the maximum size be studied and reconsidered for reduction .
Staffs concerns include the following:
1. The impacts and issues of second dwelling units and guest houses size be
studied;
2. The size ofa second dwelling unit and guesthouse should be limited to 500
square feet: 300 square feet livable and 200 square feet for the garage or
carport during the term of the Interi m Ordinance (This size is based on
staffs current ability to approve a guest house of 500 square feet without a
public hearing);
3. The study and possible amendment to the Code is necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health , safety and welfare and
that no new second dwelling units and guest houses be approved that
exceed 500 square feet in size;
4. The potential inconsistency of the existing City Code standards for second
dwelling units and guest houses with new or modified State regulations
would bedetrimental to sound land use planning;
5. The potential inconsistency of the new second dwelling units and guest
houses would allow for incompatib le land use development which
constitutes a current and immediate threat to public welfare;
6. It is necessary that the ordinance take effect immediately;
7. The interim ordinance, adopted pursuant to the provisions of California
Government Code Section 65858, would remain in effect for 45 days after
its adoption and may require an extension pursuant to the provisions of the
Government Code.
CONCLUSION:
The purpose of the Development Code is to implement the City's General Plan
policies by classifying and regulating the City's land uses and structures. The
Development Code protects and promotes the public health, safety, and general
welfare ofthe residents,and preserves and enhances theaesthetic quality ofthe
City.
The intended purpose of second dwelling units is to add housing for family
members, students, the elderly, in-home health care providers, and the disabled.
The purpose of a guesthouse is to temporarily house visitors. Second dwelling
units and guesthouses are not intended to in crease the density, or result in the
creation of multiple dwellings or multiple -fa mily dwellings within the single-family
zo n es.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Interim Ordinance
establishing a temporary 500 square feet size limit on second dwelling units and
guest houses, and declare the urgency thereof, in order to allow staff opportunity
to study the issues and prepare amendments. The Urgency Ordinance requires
four votes for adoption.
PREPARED BY:
Linda Kay Smith James DeStefano
Development Services Assistant Deputy City Manager
Attachments: 1. Ordinance No. XX (2004);
2. Los Angeles Times article, April 11, 2004.
ORDINANCE NO. XX (2004)
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858
ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY SIZE LIMIT ON SECOND
DWELLING UNITS AND GUEST HOUSES AND DECLARING
THE URGENCY THEREOF
The City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does ordain as follows:
Section 1. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 22.42.120, 22.42.060, or
any other provision of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code, no application for a
second dwelling unit and guest house in excess of 500 square feet will be
accepted, processed or considered during the pendency of this ordinance or an y
extension thereof. Nothing herein shall preclude the consideration of
applications for second dwelling units and guest houses 500 square feet or less
in size.
Section 2. If any part or provision of this Ordinance or the application to any
person orcircumstance isheld invalid, theremainder ofthis Ordinance, including
the application of such part of provision to other persons or circumstances , shall
not be affected and shall continue in full force and effect. To this end, the
provisions ofthis Ordinance are severable.
Section 3. Violation of any provision of this Ordinance shall constitute a
misdemeanor and shall be punishable by a fine not to exceed $1,000 or by
imprisonment in Cou ntyjail for not to exceed six (6) months, or by both such fine
and imprisonment. Each and every day such a violation exists shall constitute a
separate and distinct violation ofthis Ordinance. In addition to the foregoing, any
violation of this Ordinance shall constitute a public nuisance and shall be subject
to abatement as provided by all applicable provisions of law.
Section 4. The City is currently evaluating the provisions of Municipal Code
Sections 22.42.120 and 22.42.060 to determine if the current maximum size
limitation for second dwelling units and guesthouses is appropriate for single-
family lots in the City. Pending study and possible amendment of those
provisions it is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace,
health, safety and welfare that no new second dwelling units and guest houses
be approved that may be larger in size than it is anticipated the study will
recommend. Potential inconsistency of new second dwelling units and guest
houses with new or modified regulations would be detrimental to sound land use
planning, would allow for incompatible land use development and constitutes a
current and immediate threat to public welfare. Hence, it is necessary that this
ordinance take effect immediately. This ordinance is an interim ordinance
adopted pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code Section
65858 and shall remain in effect for 45 days after the adoption thereof unless
extended pursuant to the provisions of that section. This ordinance shall not
affect the environmental review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality
Act ("CEQA") of any application for construction of a structure to which CEQA
applies.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this of 2004.
Bob Zirbes, Mayor
I, Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California do hereby
certify that the foregoing Resolution passed, approved and adopted ata regular
meeting held on the __ day of... 2004, by the
following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS
Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
City Clerk
6
RDA Agenda #2.1.1
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTO RS DRAFT
DECEMBER 2, 2003
CALL TOORDER: Chairperson O'Connor called the Redevelopment Agency
meeting to order at 8:17 p.m. in the SCAQMD/Govern ment Center Auditorium,
21865 Copley Dr., D.B.
ROLL CALL: Agency Members Herrera, Huff, Zirbes, VC/Chang, and
Chair/O'Connor.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, Executive Director; Mike Jenkins, Agency Attorney;
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager;
David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Linda
Magnuson, Finance Director; and Lynda Burgess, Agency Secretary.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered.
CONSE NT CALENDAR: Moved by M/Huff, seconded by M/Herrera to approve
the Consent Calendar as presented. Mo tion carried by the following Ro II Call
vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Herrera, Huff, Zirbes, VC/Chang, and C/O'Connor
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
3.1 APPROVED MINUTES —Annual Meeting of April 15, 2003 —As submitted.
AGENCY MEMBER CONSIDERATION:
4.1 DISCUSS AMENDING BYLAWS TO PERMIT AUTOMATIC
APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR TO CHAIR AGENCY.
ED/Lowry reported that this item presented an option to amend the bylaws
to allow the Chairmanship to occur automatically upon reorganization of
the City Council. If approved, the Mayo r would automatically assu me the
role of chair of the Redevelopment Agency and the Mayor Pro Tem would
automatically assume the role of vice chair.
M/Huff explained that he request ed this item for consideration because the
agency, due to litigation, had no project area and had become a skeleton
of its originally intended vision. As such, the agency could be short lived
and it might bean appropriate time to scale back from the ceremonial
procedure of selecting a chair and vice chair and merely include the
oversight of these agencies in the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem's duties.
M/Zirbes disagreed. He felt that even though the Redevelopment Agency
was somewhat inactive, the future could present new options. Assuming
that this or any agency or authoriti y undertook important issues, it could
DECEMBER 2, 2003 PAGE 2 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
place unnecessary time restraints on the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem.
Although these agencies are largely ceremonial, he wo uld prefer to
continue with the current strategy and perhaps reconsider the option ata
later date.
VC/Chang agreed with M/Zirbes. He felt that redevelopment was vital to
the future of D.B. When the City lost the project area lawsuit, it created a
difficult atmosphere for attracting businesses to relocate here. He remains
hopeful that D.B. would find a way to remedy this situation and wanted the
Council to continue pursuing every available option for rejuvenating the
agency. He also believed it was unfair to place additional burden on the
Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem.
M/Herrera said she agreed with all comments. Although the
Redevelopment Agency had no work at this time, it could bean important
vehicle for the City. She had very little hope, however, that the Agency
would ever become the viable tool that the Council had envisioned since
the state legislature wa s not very fond of redevelopment agencies and it
would be unlikely to participate in the funding of a redevelopment agency
for D.B. She recommended the bylaws remain unchanged. She noted
that under the current bylaws Members were free to nominate and elect
the Mayor for Chair and the Mayor Pro Tem for Vice Chair if they chose to
do so.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
It was the consensus of the Members to have the process to select the
Chair and Vice Chair remain as is.
5.1 SELECTION OF CHAIR
5.2 SELECTION OF VICE CHAIR
5.3 PRESENTATION TO OUTGOING CHAIR, DEBORAH O'CONNOR.
M/Herrera moved, M/Huff seconded, to continue this item to the regular meeting
of December 16, 2003 to coincide with the reorganization of the City Council.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Herrera, Huff, Zirbes, VC/Chang, C/O'Connor
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
6. AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: None Offered.
DECEMBER 2, 2003 PAGE 3 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, Chair/O'Connor
adjourned the Redevelopment Agency meeting to the Diamond Bar Public Financing
Authority Meeting at 8:26 p.m.
Linda C. Lowry, Executive Director
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this _____ day of____________, 2004.
Deborah O'Connor, Chair
I'
3
4
C
RDA Ag en d a # 2.1.2
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTO RS DRAFT
DECEMBER 16, 2003
CALL TOORDER: Vice Chair Chang called the Redevelopment Agency
meeting to order at 8:07 p.m. in the SCAQMD/Govern ment Center Auditorium,
21865 Copley Dr., D.B.
ROLL CALL: Present: Agency Members Herrera, Huff, Zirbes, and VC/Chang
Absent: Chair/O'Connor.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, Executive Director; Mike Jenkins, Agency Attorney;
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager;
David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Linda
Magnuson, Finance Director; and Lynda Burgess, Agency Secretary.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None offered.
CONSENT CALENDAR: None
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REORGANIZATION
4.1 SELECTION OF CHAIR
M/Zirbes nominated M/Chang to serve as Chair of the Redevelopment
Agency Board of Directors. There were no other nominations offered.
Without objection, Member Chang was unanimously elected to serve as
Chair of the Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors.
4.2 SELECTION OF VICE CHAIR
C/Chang nominated M/Zirbes to serve as Vice Chair of the
Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors. There were no other
nominations offered. Without objection, M/Zirbes was unanimous lyelected
to serve as Vice Chair of the Redevelopment Agency.
VC/Zirbes said he looked forward to working with C/Chang because he
understood C/Chang's interest and passion for the agency and held his
belief. He felt that together, the agency could move forward.
4.3 PRESENTATION TO OUTGOING CHAIR, DEBORAH O'CONNOR.
This matter was continued to the next agency meeting.
AGENCY MEMBER COMMENTS: None Offered.
DECEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 2 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, C/Chang adjourned the
Redevelopment Agency meeting to the Diamond Bar Public Financing Authority
Meeting at 8:13 p.m.
Linda C. Lowry, Executive Director
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this _____ day of_____________ , 2004.
Wen P. Chang, Chairman
Agenda # _2.2
Meeting Date: April 20, 2004
DIAMOND BAR REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY REPORT
TO: Chairman and Members ofthe Board
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, Executive Director
TITLE: Treasurer's Statement —April 1, 2003 through March 31, 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the April 1, 2003 through March 31 , 2004, Treasurer's Statement for the
Redevelopment Agency.
17101_10l3s]LWIuICLT4&I
No Fiscal Impact
BACKGROUND:
Per Agency policy, the Finance Department presents the Treasurer's Statement for the
Redevelopment Agency Board's review and approval. Due to the change in
Redevelopment Agency meeting schedule the following Treasurer's report covers the
period of April 1, 2003 through March 31, 2004.
PREPARED BY:
Linda G. Magnuson, Finance Director
lW"V I:47VA092i7l
Department Head Deputy City Manager
Attachments:
Treasurer's Statement—April 1,2003 through March 31, 2004
4/1/03 TRANSFERS 03/31/04
BALANCE RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS IN (OUT) BALANCE
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CIP
FD $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
LOW & MOD INCOME HOUSING
FD - -
REDEVELOPMENT DEBT SVC FD - -
TOTALS $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00
SUMMARY OF CASH:
DEMAND DEPOSITS:
GENERAL ACCOUNT $0.00
TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS $0.00
TOTAL CASH $0.00
Linda C. Lowry, Treasurer
PFA Agenda #3.1.1
DIAMOND BAR PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY DRAFT
REGULAR MEETING
DECEMBER 2, 2003
CALL TO ORDER: Chair Huff called the meeting to order at 8:26
p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center
Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., D.B.
ROLL CALL: Authority Members Chang, Herrera, O'Connor,
VC/Zirbes, and Chair/Huff.
Also Present Were: Linda Lowry, Executive Director; Michael
Jenkins, Authority Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David
Doyle, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose,
Community Services Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director and Lynda
Burgess, Authority Secretary.
2. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
3. AUTHORI TY MEMBER CONSIDERATION:
3.1 DISCUSS AMENDING JOINT EXERCISE OF POWER AGREEMENT TO
PERMIT AUTOMATIC APPOINTMENT OF MAYOR TO CHAIR
AUTHORITY.
C/Huff reported that this matter was fully discussed during the
Redevelopment Agency, and it was the consensus of the Agency
Members to have the process to select the Chair and Vice Chair remain
as is. This would also apply to the Authority.
4. PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY REORGANIZATION
4.1 SELECTION OF CHAIR
4.2 SELECTION OF VICE CHAIR
4.3 PRESENTATION TO OUTGOIN G CHAIR, BOB HUFF
M/Herrera moved, M/O'Connor seconded, to continue this item to the regular
meeting of December 16, 2003 to coincide with the reorganiza tion of the City
Council. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: AGENCY MEMBERS: Chang, Herrera, O'Connor, VC/Zirbes, and C/Huff
NOES: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: AGENCY MEMBERS: None
DECEMBER 2, 2003 PAGE 2 PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
5. CONSENT CALENDAR:
M/Herrera moved, M/Chang seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered.
5.1 APPROVE MINUTES — Annual Meeting of April 15, 2003 -As submitted.
6. AUTHORITY MEMBER COMMENTS: M/Herrera asked staff to
schedule a study session or workshop to review the bonds that have been paid
this year and the interest saved by the City due to the unanticipated low interest
rate. She asked that the Authority discuss the feasibility of establishing a sinking
fund for early bond payoff, if appropriate.
ED/Lowry pointed out that as requested by MPT/Huff, staff presented two
agenda items and related arguments this evening, both of which were rejected.
Council Members often request staff to place items on the agenda and staff
responds in the best fashion possible. However, there is no guarantee of the
outcome.
ADJOURN PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING: There being no
further business to conduct; Chair/Huff adjourned the Public Financing Authority
meeting at 8:31 p.m. to the December 16, 2003 meeting.
Linda C. Lowry, Executive Director
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this ------ day of------------- , 2004.
Bob Huff, Chairman
PFA Agenda #3.1.2
DIAMOND BAR PUBLIC FINANCI NG AUTHORITY
REGULAR MEETING DRAFT
DECEMBER 16, 2003
1. CALL TO ORDER: Chair Huff called the meeting to order at 8:13
p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center
Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., D.B.
ROLL CALL: Present: Authority Members Chang, Herrera, VC/Zirbes, and
Ch a i r/Hu ff.
Absent: Authority Member O'Connor.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, Executive Director; Michael Jenkins, Authority
Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Doyle, Deputy City
Manager; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services
Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; and Lynda Burgess, Authority
Secretary.
f �� 113 � C•�d�l ��i h�i I � � � �� ► G7 T�i� i t� �
3. CONSE NT CALENDAR: None
4. PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY REORGANIZATION
4.1 SELECTION OF CHAIR
Chair/Huff nominated Member O'Connor to serve as Chair of the Public
Finance Authority. There were no other nominations offered. Without
objection, Member O'Connor was unanimously elected to serve as Chair
of the Public Finance Authority.
4.2 SELECTION OF VICE CHAIR
VC/Zirbes nominated Member Herrera to serve as Vice Chair of the Pu blic
Finance Authority. There were no other nominations offered. Without
objection, Member Herrera was unanimously elected to serve as Vice
Chair of the Public Finance Authority.
4.3 PRESENTATION TO OUTGOIN G CHAIR, BOB HUFF
VC/Herrera presented a trophy plaqu a to outgoing Chair, Bob Huff and
thanked him for his service to the City as the Authority's first chairman.
6. AUTHORI TY MEMBER COMMENTS: None Offered.
DECEMBER 16, 2003 PAGE 2 PUBLIC FINANCE AUTHORITY
ADJOURN PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY MEETING: There being no
further business to conduct, Vice Chair Herrera adjourned the Public Financing
Authority meeting at 8:15 p.m. to the regular City Council meeting.
Linda C. Lowry, Executive Director
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this ____ day of____________, 2004.
Carol Herrera, Vice Chair
AUTHORITY
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Counc it
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # — 3.2
Meeting Date: April 20, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Public Financing Authority Treasurer's Statement for May 31, 2003 through Mar 31, 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the May 31, 2003 through March 31, 2004, Treasurer's Statement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
None
BACKGROUND:
Although the Public Financing Authority's funds have been incorporated into the City's monthly
Treasurer's Statement, a separate Treasurer's Statement has been prepared for review and approval.
This statement shows the cash balances for thevarious funds, with a breakdown of investment
account balances and the effective yield earned from investments.
Itshould be noted that all of the funds remaining in the Construction Fund with the exception of the
interest earnings have been budgeted for the constructi on of the Diamond Bar Center. At this time,
$588,225.87 has been requisitioned and will be reimbursed to the City on April 21, 2004. The funds
remaining in the Lease Payment Fund are being used to pay the bond principal and interest as the
payments become due.
PREPARED BY:
Linda G. Magnuson, Finance Director
Department Head Deputy City Manager
Attachments:
Treasurer's Statement May 31, 2003 through March 31, 2004
Diamond Bar Public Financing Authority
Monthly Treasurer's Cash Statement
03/31/04
BEGINNING
ENDING
BAL@05131103
RECEIPTS
DISBURSEMENTS
BAL@03131104
PFA -Construction Fund $8,764,456.23
$84,720.22
$8,176,230.36
$672,946.09
PFA - Cost of Issuance Fund 33,588.15
61.52
33,649.67
0.00
PFA - Lease Payment Fund 626,103.80
38,295.51
120,115.73
544,283.58
$9,449,845.92
$123,077.25
$8,329,995.76
$1,217,229.67
US TREASURY Money Market
CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT: Account $544,283.58
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD 672.946.09
$1,217,229.67
Note: The Diamond Bar Public Facility Authority is invested in the State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund.
The LAIF Bond Proceeds investment account's withdrawals are limited to one draw down per month.
As a secondary investment option, the Authority maintains a US Treasury Sweep Account with the City's Fiscal rent
Union Bank of Califomia. Arry excess funds are "swept" on a daily basis from the Authority's bank accounts and are
invested overnight in a pool of US Treasury Notes. Interest is credited to the Authority's bank accounts on a monthly
basis.
L.Al. F -Effective Yield -March, 2004 1.4740%
Union Bank Money Mkt - Effective Yield - March, 2004 0.820
All investments are placed in accordance with the City of Diamond Bar's Investment Policy.
The above summary provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six month's
estimated expenditures.
Linda C. Lowry, Treasurer