HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/1/2004THIS 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.
1
AM
for
STUDY SESSION:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
June 1, 2004
3:30 p.m., CC -8
Next Resolution No. 2004-23
Economic Development Planning Review
Proposed Budget Study Session FY 04-05
Public Comments
CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor
INVOCATION: Ahmad H. Sakr, Ph.D
Islamic Education Center
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Herrera, Mayor Zirbes
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 Presentation of a check in the amount of $1,341 to the City of Diamond
by the Gateway Friends Church for the Youth Master Plan.
1.2 Presentation to Diamond Ranch High School Principal Mr. Dave Linzey,
his service to Diamond Ranch High School for the past five years.
1.3 Presentation to Gil Villavicencio, owner of The Whole Enchilada, for his
many years of dedication to the betterment of the City.
BUSINESS OF THE MONTH:
1.4 Presentation of City Tile to Continental Burger, as Business of the Month,
for June 2004 and display of Business of the Month video.
June 1, 2004
PAGE 2 City Council
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
2.1 Announcement re: Opening to serve as a business community
representation on the PUSD's Measure J Citizens Oversight Committee.
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 PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE — June 7, 2004 — 7:00 p.m., Diamond
Bar/Walnut Sheriff Station, 21695 E. Valley Blvd., Walnut
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — June 8, 2004 — 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.3 CALTRANS MEETING St. Rt. 57/60 Carpool Lane Project— June 9, 2004
— 6:30 p.m., Room CC -2, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.4 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING —June 10,
2004 — AQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley
Dr.
5.5 LIBRARY TASK FORCE — (3rd Meeting) — June 14, 2004 — 6:30 p.m.,
D.B. Library Meeting Room, 1061 S. Grand Ave.
5.6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — June 15, 2004 — 6:30 p.m.,
AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 City Council Minutes:
6. 1.1 Study Session of March 16, 2004 —Approve as submitted.
June 1, 2004
PAGE 3 City Council
6.1.2 Study Session of May 18, 2004 -Approve as submitted.
6.1.3 Regular Meeting of May 18, 2004 — Approve as submitted.
6.2 Planning Commission Minutes - May 11, 2004 - Receive and file.
6.3 Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes — Regular
Meeting of April 8, 2004 - Receive and file.
6.4 Warrant Registers - Approve Warrant Registers dated May 20, 2004 and
May 27, 2004 in the amount of $767,442.12.
6.5 Treasurer's Statement - Month of April, 2004
Recommended Action: Review and approve.
Requested by: Finance Division
6.6 Reject Claim for Damages — Filed by Fredrick Fidel on December 23,
2003.
Recommended Action: Reject.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.7 Authorization to Increase Printing Services Agreement with PEPR
Graphics by $7000 for a total FY 2003-04 Expenditure of $60,000.
Recommended Action: Approve Authorization.
Requested by: Public Information Division
6.8 Approval of Five Year Municipal Law Enforcement Services
Agreement with the County of Los Angeles for General Law
Enforcement Services.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: City Manager
6.9 Authorize Purchase of Emergency Management Communications
Equipment in an amount not to exceed $16,000 from Metro Mobile
Communications and appropriate necessary Grant Funds from
Homeland Security Grant FY03 Part II ($13,730) and California Law
Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) ($2,270).
June 1, 2004
PAGE 4 City Council
Recommended Action: Authorize purchase and appropriate funds.
Requested by: City Manager
6.10 (a) Adopt Resolution No. 2004 -XX Declaring the City's Intention to
Levy and Collect Assessments for Landscape District No. 38 and
Direct the City Clerk to Advertise the Public Hearing Before the
Council at the July 6, 2004 Regular Meeting.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
(b) Resolution No. 2004 -XX Declaring the City's Intention to Levy
and Collect Assessments for Landscape District No. 39 and Direct
the City Clerk to Advertise the Public Hearing Before the Council at
the July 6, 2004 Regular Meeting.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
(c) Resolution No. 2004 -XX Declaring the City's Intention to Levy
and Collect Assessments for Landscape District No. 41 and Direct
the City Clerk to Advertise the Public Hearing Before the Council at
the July 6, 2004 Regular Meeting.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
Requested by: Public Works Division
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 Adopt Ordinance No. 1-A(2004): An Interim Ordinance
Extending The Term of an Urgency Zoning Ordinance No.
1(2004) Regarding the Maximum Size of Second Dwelling
Units and Guest Houses Pursuant to the Provisions of California
Government Code Section 65858 and Making Findings in
Support Thereof.
Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive
testimony, close the Public Hearing and Adopt.
Requested by: Planning Division
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None
9. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
June 1, 2004 PAGE 5 City Council
Agenda No. 6.1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
DECEMBER 1, 2004
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Zirbes called the Special Meeting to order at
8:11 a.m. in Conference Room B of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Chang, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem
Herrera and Mayor Zirbes.
Council Member Huff was excused.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager
and Tommye Cribbins, Assistant City Clerk.
1. PUBIC COMMENTS: None Offered
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
2. CONSIDERATION OF THE PROCESS FOR APPLICANT INTERVIEWS TO
FILL CITY COUNCIL VACANCY.
MPT/Herrera felt it was important for the four remaining Council Members to
interview applicants as a group rather than one-on-one. Individuals say different
things to different people and there should be continuity in the process and the
same set of questions should be used to interview each candidate in the interest
of fairness. Each individual should be interviewed in Conference Room B with the
remaining applicants waiting outside the room unable to hear the responses. In
this way, the four Council Members could objectively evaluate individual
responses. She felt it might be too burdensome to interview all applicants on
December 7 because 21 applications had been pulled and the City could receive
even more applications by Friday.
M/Zirbes pointed out that there might be only 10 applicants since only 6 of the 21
applications had been submitted to date.
MPT/Herrera said that the Council had been through the process of selecting a
City Manager. In that case, Council Members reviewed and ranked each
candidate with the top 5 candidates being selected for interview. She
recommended that the Council conduct the same type of interview process for
the Council vacancy. She also recommended that staff list the candidates with
columns for ranking next to each name. The Council Members should then rank
each applicant individually and have staff collate the numbers to determine which
five candidates the four Council Members would interview.
DECEMBER 1, 2004 PAGE 2 CC SPECIAL MTG
M/Zirbes felt that the fairest way to proceed would be to interview all applicants.
For example, 15 individuals turned in applications. The interviews could be
scheduled 10 minutes apart and then Council Members could rank applicants
from the initial interview to determine the five finalists for a more in-depth
interview.
MPT/Herrera agreed that it would be courteous to interview all applicants.
C/Chang agreed that it would most reasonable for all Council Members to
interview all applicants, rank the applicants and then invite the top five back for a
second interview.
In response to C/O'Connor, CA/Jenkins stated that the interviews must be held in
public view. However, the Council could say to the candidates that they would not
be considered unless they were willing to abide by the Council's request to
remain outside while others were being interviewed.
C/O'Connor said that she was not familiar with about half of the individuals who
pulled applications and that she had asked staff to set up appointments for her
beginning on Friday so that she could meet the individuals prior to interviewing
them. It was okay with her if the Council chose to interview individuals as a group
and felt it was important that all applicants be interviewed. Rather than ranking 1
through 5 in order of preference, she preferred to pick the top five for final
interview. She also felt that staff should contact each individual to inquire as to
why their application had not been received.
MPT/Herrera said that if people were truly interested in the position they would
make the effort to complete and submit the application. Staff should not have to
chase after individuals who should be responsible for their own actions or lack
thereof. She felt that many individuals would be deterred from filling out and
submitting Conflict of Interest forms each year.
M/Zirbes said that the application form states that applicants who submit a
resume and/or return the application by 3:30 p.m. on Friday, December 3 would
be scheduled for an interview on December 7 and because the form is explicit
about what needs to be done in order to have an interview on Tuesday,
December 7, the Council should abide by those statements.
C/O'Connor felt that 10 minutes was an insufficient amount of time to get to know
an individual. Discussion ensued.
C/Chang felt that each individual should have a 20 -minute interview.
MPT/Herrera said she had a problem with Council Members conducting
individual interviews.
DECEMBER 1, 2004 PAGE 3 CC SPECIAL MTG
M/Zirbes recapped: Each candidate will be granted a 20 -minutes interview; the
study session/interview process will be backed down from 6:00 p.m. in
accordance with the number of applicants; staff will contact each interviewee to
give each individual a time slot; applicants are to be told that in order to be
considered they must remain in the hall until they are called into the public
interview session; interviews will be scheduled on a random basis in accordance
with the applicant's availability; staff will provide a list of standard interview
questions to each applicant.
CA/Jenkins felt individuals would not be surprised about the questions asked by
Council so it would be feasible to give them a list beforehand. Everyone
understood what the job entailed and he felt the evaluation would depend more
on Council's reactions to individual answers and that applicants would in all
likelihood, come prepared to respond to why they believed they should be
considered to fill the vacancy and what they believed they could contribute to the
City.
MPT/Herrera suggested that each Council Member pick a preferred candidate
and those four be interviewed as the final candidates. Discussion ensued.
CA/Jenkins responded to C/O'Connor that the rankings could be public without
divulging how the Council Members arrived at the list of finalists.
DCM/Doyle summarized: On December 7 the Council will hold the collective
interviews, develop a rating sheet, present the sheets to staff, staff will go
through the sheets and create the final interview list outside of the public arena in
City Hall. The finalists will be contacted and invited back on December 14 for a
second interview or selection. The December 7 regular meeting agenda would
include an item calling for direction to staff for the final interview process. He
asked who would be writing the interview questions.
MPT/Herrera felt that if December 7 was a "get acquainted" session it would be a
conversational type of process during which the Council could ask applicants
questions about their applications, their experiences, involvement with the City of
D.B., etc. The second round could be questions pertaining to specifics about how
the applicant would work to help the City attain the Council's approved goals.
There was general consensus.
CA/Jenkins offered 10 possible questions to staff for the December 7 interview.
CM/Lowry asked for specific direction in order to pass along the correct
information to the applicants.
M/Zirbes said that on December 7 the first round interviews would be finished by
6:00 p.m. leaving 30 minutes for Council discussion and selection of the final
applicants for discussion and direction to staff during the regular meeting.
C/O'Connor reiterated her assumption that on December 14 the finalists would
DECEMBER 1, 2004 PAGE 4 CC SPECIAL MTG
be interviewed prior to the regular meeting with nominations being offered during
the regular City Council meeting.
C/Chang said the Council should inform each applicant what process would lead
to final determination during the first interview on December 7.
CA/Jenkins assured C/O'Connor that there were a variety of alternatives and
there was nothing that would preclude the Council from going back and
approaching it in a different manner. If the Council is unable to reach a final
decision. The Council could re-agendize the matter for the first January meeting.
Some Councils like to start by having the Mayor call each Council Member's
name to announce their top choice and then see if one person garners three
votes. The other method would be to nominate each individual one at a time and
vote yea or nay. There is no hard and fast rule. He personally liked the first
method of calling the roll with each person announcing his/her choice. In fact, the
Council could choose an individual who had not applied and had not gone
through the interview process. In short, up to the point of special election, the
Council can do whatever it wants in the selection process.
DCM/DeStefano asked when the Council intended to start its process on
December 14. Four Planning Commissioners have pulled applications and there
is a Planning Commission the evening of the 14th, beginning at 7:00 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Jack Tanaka asked if the Council had made a
decision about whether applicants would be allowed to remain in the public
meeting after their interview.
MPT/Herrera felt it would be uncomfortable and intimidating for applicants to
remain in the room.
C/Chang said it was a public meeting and anyone who wished to remain in the
room once they were finished could do so.
M/Zirbes agreed.
Beatrice Grossman asked how many vacancies there were on the Council.
Council Members responded that there is one opening replacing Mr. Huff.
C/Chang reminded everyone that next November there would be three positions
open.
C/Chang indicated to C/O'Connor that he expected the Council to decide on
December 14 or in January how long the selected applicant would serve.
M/Zirbes said he intended to look at a selection based on filling out the balance
of the term to avoid the election process. If the Council could not come to such a
DECEMBER 1, 2004 PAGE 5 CC SPECIAL MTG
determination it could be reduced to one year. He wanted to remain open-minded
to placing the individual for the entire balance of the term.
MPT/Herrera agreed and suggested the Council leave all options open to
consideration.
C/Chang said he would prefer to appoint someone for only one year and leave
the future choice open to an election by the people.
C/O'Connor said that she was inclined to confirm a three-year appointment only if
it was the next highest vote getter from the last election. However, she was open
to considering the three-year appointment.
CM/Lowry asked for confirmation that there would not be an agenda item related
to this process for discussion and direction to staff on December 7. Council so
confirmed.
CA/Jenkins said it would be helpful to go through each step of the process so
that everyone was on the same page.
DCM/Doyle reiterated: Friday, December 3: 3:30 p.m. deadline for applications.
Staff would then begin to pull names from a hat (random order) to determine the
order of scheduling applicants for interviews 20 minutes apart starting from 6:00
p.m. working back depending on the number of interviews. If random order does
not work staff would have the flexibility to work the scheduling accordingly. This
process would create the interview list for the Council as well as start time for the
interviews. Prior to the interview, staff will put together a list of questions that
would be included in Friday's packet. Those questions would be asked of
applicants on Tuesday, December 7 during the initial interview. The Council
would be seated in Conference Room B and the applicants would be seated in
another room waiting for their interview time. At 6:00 p.m. when the last interview
is completed the Council will commence to rank the applicants, how the
nomination process will go forward and determine the second round of interviews
between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. prior to the regular Council meeting.
CA/Jenkins asked if the Council wanted staff to make the questions available to
the applicants in advance of the interview. Council concurred to have the list of
questions available at City Hall. CA/Jenkins asked if the Council would have
sufficient time between 6:00 p.m. and 6:30 p.m. to digest all of the interviews and
determine what would happen next or has the Council already decided that the
next step would be the ranking process.
DCM/Doyle said his understanding was that based on the number of interviews
the Council would on December 7 at the conclusion of the interview process,
decide how many names they would give staff for the second interview. Council
will discuss how it wants to do the nomination process and how Council will
nominate people for actual voting per CA/Jenkins' recommendations. (This could
also be decided prior to commencement of the December 14 regular meeting).
DECEMBER 1, 2004 PAGE 6 CC SPECIAL MTG
December 14: Second round of interviews to conclude prior to the regular
meeting with the process being similar to the first round.
C/Chang felt that at the end of the interview process on December 7th the Council
should be able to select its final list.
MPT/Herrera suggested the Council should have all interviews completed by
5:30 p.m. on December in order to have sufficient time to make a decision about
who would be selected to participate in the final interview or to decide that the
Council needs to have a second round of interviews prior to final selection. Staff
should prepare a second round of questions in case the Council needed to
conduct a second interview process.
C/O'Connor said she was more comfortable with MPT/Herrera's scenario since
the Council Members would be meeting the applicants for the first time.
DCM/Doyle confirmed that the Council would not want consideration of an
appointment placed on the agenda for the regular December 7 meeting. Council
concurred.
CA/Jenkins reminded Council Members that they previously considered
compiling their rankings individually after the first interview and giving those
rankings to staff for collation and presentation on December 14.
MPT/Herrera said she would want to know the outcome on December 7.
C/O'Connor wanted to leave her options open because she was not certain that
she could arrive at two final candidates on December 7.
C/Chang said that if Council could not come up with a final list on December 7
they should have a final list prior to the December 14 meeting.
M/Zirbes asked to have the list by 9:00 a.m. on December 7 to see how many
interviews the Council would have that evening and to determine at the end of
the first interview whether the Council would need more time for second
interviews.
CA/Jenkins reiterated that Council would not reveal the rankings on the evening
of December 7 but would instead present those rankings to staff by December
10. Should the names be made public on December 10 as part of the packet that
gets mailed out for the meeting of December 14? Council Members indicated in
the affirmative.
CM/Lowry said that by end of business on December 7 the Council would tell
staff whether or not to schedule a second go -round of interviews.
CA/Jenkins said as a natural part of this process that some individuals may call
DECEMBER 1, 2004 PAGE 7 CC SPECIAL MTG
Council Members and lobby on their behalf or they may have other individuals
call to lobby on their behalf. There will be such conversations during the period of
time when Council Members are arriving at their ranking decisions and the
Council should not give the impression that they were sequestered from this type
of contact.
C/O'Connor advised staff that she would not be able to start the interview
process before 1:00 p.m. on December 7.
CA/Jenkins summarized: By the end of the study session on December 7 Council
would have a better idea as to what would happen next; there will be no agenda
item for the regular December 7 meeting; by December 10 a packet would be
sent out for the December 14 meeting that would include names of the "finalists"
and whether there would be additional interviews on the 14th or the time would be
devoted strictly to process of deciding on an appointment and for what length of
time.
CM/Lowry advised Council that time permits 13 interviews on December 7.
M/Zirbes said there would be no discussion of this subject during the December
21St meeting because C/Chang would be out of the country.
CM/Lowry asked if Council wanted a question included that addressed the length
of time an applicant was willing to serve.
Council concurred to hold the December 14 meeting in the main auditorium in full
public view.
MPT/Herrera asked if staff would prepare an analysis sheet for the Council
Members that would include the name of each applicant so that during the
interview process notes could be made for future reference.
DCM/Doyle said staff would pare down the interview questions and included
them on the analysis sheet.
M/Zirbes said that Mr. Huff continues to create problems for the Council and City
by stealing away EA/Whitehouse. M/Zirbes complimented EA/Whitehouse on her
great care of the City Council and was happy for her that she would assume a
new position. At the same time he was sad and sorry that she would be leaving
the City and would not be there to take care of him and the other Council
Members.
MPT/Herrera said that in the nine years that she has been on the City Council
EA/Whitehouse always did an outstanding job in making sure she was always
prepared, had everything she needed to do her job and was directed to where
she needed to go.
DECEMBER 1, 2004 PAGE 8 CC SPECIAL MTG
C/Chang said in the seven years he had been on the Council it was wonderful to
work with EA/Whitehouse. Whenever the Council needed something
EA/Whitehouse made it happen.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council,
M/Zirbes adjourned the Special Meeting at 9:36 a.m.
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of , 2004.
Wen Chang, Mayor
Agenda: Study Session #1
Meeting Date: June 1, 2004
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
t121Y H Cr ��
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: CITY COUNCIL DISCUSSION REGARDING ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNIT IES
RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff as appropriate.
BACKGROUND:
The City is currently challenged by our desire to continuously improve and expand
services and programs for the community and the need to increase revenue to fund
such ambitious plans. Added to the challenge is the annual uncerta inty of the State
pirating our local government resources to backfill uncon trolled State spendin g. In
addition, the City is confronted by attempts from area Cities to lure sales tax producers
from Diamond Bar to their communities.
Current financial concerns facing Diamond Bar include:
• State Vehicle Licens e Fee revenue reduction
• State "Triple Flip" ramifications
• Diamond Bar Center maintenance and operation costs
• Pending loss of top sales tax producers
• New revenue needed for ongoing operations and new obligations
• Best use of reserves
• Increase in annual revenue
• Attraction and retention of large sales tax producers
DISCUSSI ON:
One of the most important means to strengthen our resources is through economic
development activities. We have engaged Kosmont Companies to assist the City in the
exploration and identification of economic development strategies and related
implementation actions. With the assistance ofKosmont, the City has taken several
actions including identifying activities to preserve cash reserves, establish key sites and
priority projects for development and enhance ment of City revenue. The staff, in
dealing with developers, has focused all effo rts toward the creation of the highest
revenue generating (generally retail sales tax) producing developments.
Priority revenue enhancing development projects include:
Short Term
• Calvary Chapel /Lewis retail project
o Development plans underway to construc to big box retailer /restaurants /
and retail shops /developer contribution for residential entitlement on
adjacent property
• Country Hills Town Center / MCC Capital
o Emphasis on new grocery store /potential hardware store/ food uses /
new retailers /medical office building
• Walnut Valley Trailer Park
o Use of property for freeway oriented hotel /retail /restaurant
Mid Term
• Kmart/Charles Company
o Emphasis on big box retailer /additional retail /restaurants.
• Honda site
o New dealership /sale of new cars, used cars, motorcycles, boats, RV/
hotel site /restaurant uses /gasoline?
• Site D / Lewis
o Freeway oriented retail i.e. big box retail /restaurants /gasoline
o Grocery store /Neighborhood shopping center?
o Entertainment -theater /restaurants?
o Developer contribution forresidential entitlement
• Golf course
o 170 -acres of freeway oriented property.
o Exploration ofjoint County /City redevelopment project area?
Long Term
• Golf Course site redevelopment
o Mixed uses /freeway retail /office/ entertainment /restaurants?
• Tres Hermanos property
o Move County golf course?
• Aera property
o Annex?
o Freeway retail /auto dealerships?
Outcomes which cannot be obtained tonight, but are important to consider while
building an overall strategy include:
• Are the listed projects and uses consistent with Council vision?
• If not, what is Council Vision?
• Sales tax or consumerism?
• What is the best use of rese rves to obtain the objectives?
2
• Which site to focus investment?
• What does city expect to receive from investments?
• I.d. properties and opportunities
• Use of redevelopment project area
• Big box retailers?
• Movie Theater? (In Diamond Bar or within the Industry Business Center project?)
• More Gasoline sales?
• Uses for Calvary Chapel retail site
• Uses for Kmart site?
• Uses for CRTC?
• Uses for Site D?
• Business to business activities?
• Change Development Code to encourage retail sales tax land uses and
discourage non- sales tax producing land uses?
On May 18, 2004 Larry Kosmont provide an additional overview to support further
discussion of Diamond Bar's economic strategies. Staff requests additional Study
Session discussion with Council regarding Economic Development planning.
W042-11:9017 YJ
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
3
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda #
Meeting Date: June 4, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Decision Package Review for FY 2004-05 Budget Process
Attached for your review and consideration are the decision packages submitted by City departments
for FY 2004-05. The items have been reviewed by the City Manager and are presented in priority
order within each category. The priority order is one through five, with one being the highest priority.
The decision packages are divided into the following three categories:
• Economic Development
• General Fund Impacts
• Funded by Sources other than General Fund
At the study session, City staff recommends the City Council consider each request and provide
direction as to which decision packages, if any, are to be included in the FY 2004-05 budget.
PREPARED BY
Deputy City Manager
Attachments:
1. Decision Package Summary Sheets
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ADOPTING APUBLIC SAFETY PROGRAM POLICY
WHEREAS, since incorporation in 1989, Diamond Bar has contracted with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
Department for law enforcement services, along with other public safety entities; and
WHEREAS, a partnership between the City of Diamond Bar, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, the
Los Angeles County Fire Department, Inland Valley Humane Society, and all members of the community is necessary to
meet the needs of the City; and
WHEREAS, a development and documentation of a comprehe nsive community based Public Safety Program
was developed, and
WHEREAS, the program will emphasize long-term solutions to problems affecting the community, while also
addressing urgent needs; and
WHEREAS, the Program delineates specific responsibilities , including those tasks provided by the Law
Enforcement Team, the Fire Department Team, Animal Control officials, City Staff, and various Citizen Volunteer
groups; and
WHEREAS, each component is equally important and will be continually evaluated for effectiveness in
addressing the immediate needs of the community, with specific duties, deployme nt, and responsibilities modified when
appropriate; and
WHEREAS, through the commitment and dedication of all parties involved, this program will become a true
asset to the community; and
WHEREAS, our goal is to work as one to make the City of Diamond Bar a safe, enjoyable and prosperous
community, offering a quality of life the citizens of Diamond Bar expect and can be proud of.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Exhibit A is hereby adopted as the Public Safety Program Policy of the City.
SECTION 2. The Mayor is hereby authorized to affix his signature to this resolution signifying its adoption by
the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, and the City Clerk, or her duly appointed deputy, is directed to attest hereto.
PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR THIS
20"' DAY OF AUGUST 2002.
WEN CHANG, MAY OR
Agenda Item No. 6.1.1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MARCH16, 2004
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order at 5:09 p.m.
in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Governm ent
Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem Herrera,
and Mayor Zirbes.
Also present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Mike Jenkins, City Attorney;
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob
Rose, Community Services Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Lynda
Burgess, City Clerk; Nancy Whitehouse, Executive Assistant; April Blakey, Public
Information Manager; Marsha Roa, Communications & Marketing Coordinator;
and Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst.
Update on Diamond Bar Center Grand Opening Event Plans
PIM/Blakey reported that the Diamond Bar Center's Grand Opening/Open House
is Saturday, March 13, at 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m., and gave a brief overview of
events for the day:
10:30 a.m. —
The Diamond Bar Community Foundation will unveil the tile walkway at
the flagpole
10:35 a.m. —
• Chuck Street and the Mayor will arrive via helicopter and be escorted
with the rest of the Council up to the main entrance
• Ribbon -cutting ceremony
• Welcome and introductions, unveiling the Center's plaque
• Presentations from Congressman Miller, and Mr. Jim Starkey from
Senator Margett's office
• Doors of the Center open to the sounds of Pacific Crest Drum and Bugle
• The public can tour the facility and observe the different activities that
are going on inside. Goodies bags, containing coupons for free
food and beverages, have been prepared for distribution
All the food and beverages and information booths will be located outside the
facility in the parking lot directly adjacent to the main entrance with music
provided by Commander Chuck Street and the KISS -FM booth. Community
organizations booths will be set up, with the City's booth featuring face -painting
as well as giveaway items.
March 16, 2004 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION
Staff will be on hand to monitor parking, as will the Sheriffs Department for any
traffic control issues; there will be signa ge for the shuttle and to assist people
where they can park and how to get to the facility.
PIM/Blakey then gave a brief overview of the events planned for the Gala Dinner
scheduled for Friday, March 26, 6:00 p.m.; presentations , to date, include a
proclamation from the offices of the Governor, Congressman Miller, and
Supervisor Knabe; a commemora tive video/slide show will be displayed, followed
by entertainment featuring a swing band. Sponsorship s currently total $15,400,
with approximately 190 RSVPs; follow-up phone calls will be made over the next
few days.
In -House Street Sweeping Program
CM/Lowry commented that the Street Sweeping Analysis Report is on this year's
goals and objectives and the Public Works Department has investigated some
options. PWD/David Liu and SMA/Sharon Gomez will make the presentation.
With the aid of a power -point presentation, PWD/Liu briefly reviewed the City's
current street sweeping contract with R.F. Dickson, citing one of Council's
objectives for this fiscal year is to develop a cost -benefits report which considers
bringing the street sweeping in-house and then consider sweeping on a weekly
basis.
He reported that the 5 -year contract expires September 5, 2004, with an option to
renew for an additional five years. The 10 -month, bi-weekly services provided
include 10,000 curb -miles, with weekly services in December and January, as
well as a debris composting program for an additional fee. Due to day-to-day
variables, there have been times that a second sweeper is called in to assist.
He reported on some of the qualities of the current all-inclusive contract package,
including prompt and efficient service, no down- or minimal downtime due to
equipment breakdown, and response to service requests are immediate.
Referencing the staff report, PWD/Liu reported that based on the last five months
of logs or records, the City has received only 14 calls or complaints to City Hall,
making contract administration minimal. Historically, the street sweeping
program has been managed cost-effectively, being within or under budget. This
fiscal year's impact to the City is $140,000 from gas tax monies, $32,000 from
AB939 Funds, for a total of $172,000.
He emphasized that SMA/Gomez has don e further research and has discussed
specifics with contractors and vendors. SMA/Gomez briefly reported the two
alternatives that were researched:
March 16, 2004 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION
One alternative was a lease -purchase contract with Valley Vista Services who is
currently the City's commercial waste haule r. The program would be a five year
lease -purchase, and at the end of five years the sweeper would be the property
of the City. The sweeper would be powered by CNG gas — natural gas. Backup
equipment provided during maintenance or any downtime would be included by
Valley Vista, with an allotm ent of $18,000 per year for maintenance costs. As an
update to the staff report, the City is exempt from vehicle registration and license
fees.
The service would include one (1) sweeper and one (1) operator for five days a
week, the operator being a City employee. Valley Vista does not offer any
operator training programs, and the annual cost for this program, including the
labor provided by the City, is $211,517. SMA/Gomez gave a commentary of the
slide presentation of the Schwarze Model A7000CNG quote that was from Valley
Vista, and the difficulty in obtaining parts and maintenance that is more prevalent
with the CNG engine than with the diesel.
Continuing, SMA/Gomez reported on TYMCO, the second alternative, a major
supplier for municipal street -sweeping equipment throughout the nation and
actually manufactures the TYMCO 600 CNG product. This is the most
comparable to the Schwarze model.
She reviewed cost comparisons as itemized in the staff report, differences
include factory training for two individuals and $18,000 a year for maintenance
was factored in. In the event the sweeper would need repair, itwould have to be
taken to their maintenance yard in the City of Buena Park. Using TYMCO, one
sweeper, one City staff -operator , and averaging five days a week, the cost would
be $194,679.
She referenced the report that also included street -sweeping cost comparisons;
identifying Dickson to be a lump sum amount, and reviewing Valley Vista and
TYMCO costs -- equipment alone on a yearly basis for Valley Vista its $79,105;
for TYMCO is $62,267
SMA/Gomez further reported that a City employee at a Parks Maintenance
Worker Level II would be $48,716, includin g wages and benefits. At a minimum,
25 percent of the Public Works Superviso is time would be needed to assist with
the program, which would include quality control, monitoring of operations and
staff, as well as proper maintenance. Not factored in is additional Public Works
staff that would be involved with administering these two types of in-house
programs, as well as dumping fees which are currently $30,000.
Reporting on CNG fuel, SMA/Gomez stated that the cost is approximately
$18,000. There is a facility atAQMD, however, authorization for use is required.
Valley Vista has a CNG fuel station at their location in the City of Industry.
Additional auto insurance for the truck itself would be $17,280 yearly.
March 16, 2004 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION
The total yearly cost across the board for Dickson is a lump sum of $140,000,
based on a bi-weekly service for 10 months of the year and two months of
weekly service, plus an additional sweeper as -needed throughout the week to
assist.
She reviewed the proposals and actual costs identified in the staff report, citing
the need to make like -comparisons for weekly services, sweeper(s), equipment,
and operator(s), as well as a formula to factor in a second sweeper: R. F.
Dickson cost is $203,000; Valley Vista's amount is $338,439, and TYMCA is
$311,486.
SMA/Gomez briefly itemized some critical differences that need to be considered
should street sweeping be brought in-house; life-cycle—the sweeping unit is
normally 10-12 years, replacement cost is approximately $89,000; the truck
portion lasts longer, approximately 15 years—as well as the maintenance and
training issues. She reiterated the supervision necessary for such a program,
cost to train additional staff, and staff down-time due to illness or vacation, in
addition to the disruption of their daily responsibilities .
A City maintenance yard is another consideration. The facilities at Sycamore
Park would not be a secure location to adequately house nor do maintenance.
None of the surrounding cities, Walnut, Pomona, or Caltrans' facility on Golden
Springs, have a maintenance yard to rent for storing or performing maintenance.
Valley Vista Services does, however, have a yard at the City of Industry and
could provide space for housing the equipment only.
As to service, SMA/Gomez reported that the City currently pays Dickson $12.95
per curb mile, sweeping approximately 10,000 curb -miles per year. Asurvey was
done by the League of California Cities in March 2003, canvassing cities that
currently have in-house or contract services. The average cost between the two
was $18 and $19 per curb -mile.
The City's liability is minimal with Dickson as the primary operator. In response
to C/O'Connor's inquiry as to the number of accidents, SMA/Gomez reported that
the City is aware of two over the last four years, which were covered by Dickson.
There may be more, however, it would be handled directly by the company. This
would be more costly with an in-house program due to attorney fees and staff
time to handle the claims.
In conclusion, PWD/Liu stated that staffs perspective of the current program is
that itis one of the best management practices. The City's current service level,
bi-weekly with the exception of the months of January and December, under the
State Water Permit, exceeds the minimum requirements.
PWD/Liu reiterated that the current contract is all-inclusive, with minimal staff
cost to administer and availed himself to questions.
March 16, 2004 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION
M/Zirbes thanked staff for a very thorough presentation and well done report.
Council concurred.
C/Huff reported that Foothill Transit had the same apprehension about CNG.
The performance was much better than anticipated. There were few breakdowns
- comparable to their experience with diesel because they've worked a lot on the
drive trains from the original ones were. He commented that staff could find out
Valley Vista's experience since their program has been in place for a year and a
half and it sounds like the same equipment is being proposed, emphasizing the
need to get the right drive train.
PWD/Liu reported that currently AQMD requires cities entering new contracts to
start with implementing CNG or alternative fuel. There is an exemption in the
current air quality rule that if the fleet is under 15, then the agency is not subject
to this alternative fuel rule.
PWD/Liu clarified MPT/Herrera's inquiry that for budgetary purposes, staff works
with the amount of $140,000, the contract is actually $127,000. This allows for
any special needs or unforeseen conditions , such as special sweeps around
school areas, commercial areas, and/or the DB Center . The anticipated
expenditure this fiscal year is $128,000.
CM/Lowry and PWD/Liu commented on the City's liability, risks, and
indemnification with an in-house program versus service with a contractor.
C/Chang commented that with the rise in cost as reported and receiving positive
feedback from our residents that our streets are so much better than before,
there is no need for the City to change its current program.
C/Huff questioned if there were any grants available from AQMD for purchasing
alternate fuel. PWD/Liu stated there may beopportuniti es but was unsure of how
much was available. He referenced that Valley Vista was able to purchase one or
two CNG trash trucks to be used in Diamond Bar through an AQMD grant.
C/Huff commented that this information could besignificant.
In response to C/Huffs inquiry as to participation of a supervisor, PWD/Liu
commented that currently a spot-check is conducted, for speed and addressing
certain needs, for example. The City's more common practice is to respond to
any complaints; a supervisor is then dispatched to address conditions
appropriately.
C/Huff suggested supervision be increased as opposed to increasing sweeping.
Not all complaints are called in and could perhaps bead dressed in a more timely
manner with increased supervision. He cited the importance to make sure the
City is getting the best value—that the service contracted for is in fact being
provided.
March 16, 2004 PAGE 6 CC STUDY SESSION
C/O'Connor questioned if there
CSOs, lending itself to supervision
month speed survey and perform
speed ranged from 8-10 miles per
were any viola
of the program
ance was con
hour which is
tions reported by the Sheriffs
. PWD/Liu reported that a two
ducted about a year ago; the
under contract requirement.
The City's Public Work Supervisor was also out on a daily basis, checking each
route and making comments. The report showed approximately 95% of the
quality was there — that the sweeper was doing his job appropriately.
C/Huff voiced encouragement to continue this practice. He commented that this
would be the expectation from the City's service provider, then it is reasonable
that the City be doing that periodically with our contract service provider.
C/O'Connor asked if the grant C/Huff referred to would just cover the purchase of
the truck but not necessarily the gas, maintenance, or anything else. C/Huff
responded affirmatively and that CNG is going up and is pretty expensive.
Foothill Transit has some significant grants toward its bus purchases.
SMA/Gomez reported that there are grants to purchase the equipment but not for
the maintenance nor the operator. C/Huff concurred.
Brief discussion ensued regarding the positioning of the CSO during the street
sweeping process.
M/Zirbes thanked staff for doing all this work. He commented that researching
the probability of bringing the program in-house as an option was something he
presented a year ago. Over the last year, with the enhancements of parking
restrictions, the street sweepers are doing a better job and the City is receiving
fewer complaints. He suggested that the concerns of debris not being picked up
along the route could perhaps be discussed with the contractor.
In response to M/Zirbes inquiry to call for a re -sweep, PWD/Liu reported that only
the City has the authority to call. He stated that upon receipt of a request, the
City verifies performance, or lack thereo f, then the sweeper would return to re -
sweep the area at no charge to the City. He stated that this is a quality control
issue too because staff wants to make sure the complaint or the concerns would
be addressed adequately and timely and that typically contact is made with the
resident.
Staff has also established a list of probl em areas that is shared in advanced with
the sweeper operator. This also encourages a partnership and exchange of
information with the sweeper so that everyone is in sync on a regular basis. In
addition to this proactive approach, he commented that an educational approach
would also help; such as publishing articles in the City's newsletter.
March 16, 2004 PAGE 7 CC STUDY SESSION
M/Zirbes concurred, citing some articles to include exceeding the minimum
requirements for storm water, how far ahead we are, and what are the
anticipated requirements and will our program still be in compliance.
PWD/Liu stated that this particular street sweeping contact is one of the best
management practices that falls under one of the housekeeping matters of the
Storm Water Quality Permit. The technolog ies or devices required in the permit
have not been proven effective and are very costly. Diamond Bar's uniqueness
of being a bedroom community, unlike other cities that have different land -uses,
allows a proactive and effective performance for street sweeping services. One
such management practice was tonnage increase due to the parking regulation
program and getting the vehicles off the street. Diamond Bar will continue to look
at all of the existing practices and other types of pollution control that could be
utilized to assure compliance with that component of the permit.
CM/Lowry reported that in discussions with staff, it was preferred to hold back
increasing the frequen cy of sweeping so that when regulations tighten up, the
City has an easier mechanism to work with.
It was determined that the street sweeping program would be removed from the
list of goals in that the analysis was just presented.
Public Comments on Study Session Agenda Items
None offered.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Zirbes adjourned the
Study Session to the regular meeting at 5:58 p.m.
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
The foregoing minute are hereby approved this ____ day of___________, 2004.
Bob Zirbes, Mayor
Agenda No. 6.1 .2
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MAY 18, 2004
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order at
4:06 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District/Govemm ent Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem
Herrera and Mayor Zirbes. Council Member Chang was excused.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Mike Jenkins, City
Attorney; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager;
Bob Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Linda
Magnuson, Finance Director; Dennis Tarango, Building Official; April Blakey, Public
Information Manager; Sharon Gomez, Sr. Mgmnt. Analyst; Teresa Arevalo, Sr. Mgmnt.
Analyst; John Bingham, Consultant; Capt. Ron Watson, L.A. County Fire; Nancy
Whitehouse, Executive Asst.; and Tommy Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
Background Discussion of Agenda items 8.2a and 8.2b (Speed Humps)
PWD/Liu asked for Council's input regarding long-term effects of the Speed
Hump Policy and the moratorium.
CM/Lowry explained that staff was asking Council to reverse the Traffic and
Transportation Commission's position and to amend the policy to avoid further
controversy with respect to the policy adopted by the Council.
C/Huff was surprised that the Traffic and Transportation Commission took an
adverse position given the fact that the Council had labored to come up with a
policy that would be effect ive in the long-term. He recalled that the two adverse
votes were against the moratorium and whether the City was organized to
implement the policy.
C/O'Connor was concerned about the emergency service responses to the
speed humps and said she would discuss her concerns during the regular
meeting. When asked to state her concerns, she said she had heard conflicting
reports about the speed humps. For instance, the residents signed a petition in
favor of installation and after they received more information, changed their
minds and decided they did not want the installation.
PWD/Liu said staff verified signatures and found that 92 percent of the residents
in the affected area were in favor of speed humps. When staff followed up with a
neighborhood meeting, 15 residents including the initiator of the petition,
reiterated their desire to move forward with the installation. Only two residents
participated in the Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting. The
Commission was concerned because even though 92 percent of the residents
had indicated they wanted the installation, there was no favorable participation
during the regular meeting. However, when staff followed up with the residents,
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION
to a person they favored installation of speed humps and believed that they
would be present during tonight's regular meeting to indicate their opinions.
PWD/Liu responded to C/O'Connor's concern that the residents were not aware
of the comments by the Fire and Sheriffs Departments that the pros and cons of
speed humps were discussed during the neighborhood meeting and reported
during the Traffic and Transportation Meeting.
C/Huff said he was concerned for the same reasons as C/O'Connor because
every time the issue came up he heard the same concerns. He wondered if the
problem was that people signed the petition without full knowledge of the
ramifications. Perhaps the policy should be modified to direct that letter be sent
to the residents and signers of the petition to give them one final opportunity to
indicate whether or not they want the installation to proceed. At the very least it
would present a non-threateni ng opportunity for residents to state their minds
and not be influenced by not wishing to offend the person who asked them to
sign the petition.
M/Zirbes stated hewould not wish to have a speed hump on his street. However,
the City had created a policy for installation of speed humps. His concern was
that under 2.1 speed humps would only be considered as a last resort to control
speeds on streets and hewas not sure what had been done to mitigate the traffic
and speeding on the street prior to proposing speed hump installation. He would
not want the City to set a precedent that it would be a simple matter to tum in a
92 percent petition to commence installation without imposing prior mitigation
measures to solve the issue.
PWD/Liu assured M/Zirbes that speed hump installations were a last resort effort.
As soon as the City received the petition last year, staff worked closely with the
Sheriffs Department to implement a citation program in the neighborhood.
During the neighborhood meeting staff informed the residents about the Sheriffs
Department's efforts and when presented with the citation figures, the residents
were very surprised at the high volume of tickets. In addition, during the past
several months, staff worked with the residents to consider the possibility of and
implemented a neighbor hood letter campaign. After considering all of the
possibilities, the residents overwhelmingly indicated their desire to have speed
humps. In addition, staff collected traffic survey data as recently as last month at
the proposed four locations and were continued to be amazed at the speed
exhibited at the locations. For instance, at location one, 700 plus vehicles were
monitored with over 73 per cent exceeding the 25 mph posted speed limit, 72
exceeding 40 mph and several posting maximum speeds of 51 mph. At location
2, 767 total vehicles with over 75 percent exceeding the speed limit, 87 vehicles
exceeding 40 mph and several vehicles posting maximum speeds of 48 mph.
The data indicates drivers are not changing their behavior and that the effective
mitigation is to install a permanent barrier. Therefore, staff would like to
implement the policy to install speed humps per the majority requests.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION
M/Zirbes asked for Council's input on removing the Traffic and Transportation
Committee from the current policy.
MPT/Herrera said she would go with staffs recommendation.
Natural Hazard Mitigation Update.
DCM/DeStefano reported on the current status of the City's efforts toward
completing the federally mandated Natura I Hazards Mitigation Plan, a document
that the Federal Government required of all cities, counties and public agencies
in the United States. D.B. has a due date of November 1, 2004 to submit its
report. DCM/DeStefano explained that the most important of the numerous
requirements related to the mitigation planning process was public participation
and that this was not an Emergency Preparedness Plan but focused on
preventative planning to reduce risks from natural hazards and would serve as a
guide for Council to commit resources toward reduction of those hazards.
Specifically, the plan called for prevention related to earthquake, earth
movement, flood, wild fire and windstorm events. Staff had made substantial
progress toward the completion ofthe plan requirements and was on schedule to
complete the draft documents for Council's consideration well in advance of the
November 1 deadline. He introduced Consultant John Bingham.
Consultant John Bingham led Council through a slide presentation featuring
potential natural disasters and prevention from the threat of natural hazards. He
stated that the plan was divided into specific sections and that staff and the Fire
Department would speak to those specifics later in the process. The City must
identify the potential of natur al hazards; identify the extent of risk proposed by
those hazards, and find ways to deal with those vulnerabilities. In fact, D.B. had
always focused on these problems. He believed the Federal Government had
mandated the planning process to ward off the doling out of millions and millions
of dollars to cities that year after year ignored natural disasters. If cities did not
complete the plan to the satisfaction of FEMA and the State Office of Emergency
Services, they would not be eligible for pre -disaster grant monies and post -
disaster funding for recovery.
BO/Tarango spoke about earthquake faults located in the immediate area using
the USGS maps, L.A. County maps, Southern California Earthquake Center
maps, Department of Transportatio n maps and California Division of Mines and
Geologies. The basic map showed D.B. and surrounding local and regional fault
locations. He pointed out the various faults and distances from the City and
explained how building codes were changed to require inclusion of various
mitigation measures such as increasing hold downs — anchor bolts, shear value,
reducing windows to create additional stiffness of the house and including wider
span beams. He explained how D.B. had improved its Building Code by
tightening up construction requirements with increased wind load requirements
and shear value.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION
PWD/Liu continued with the power point presentation showing the earthquake -
induced movement of mass — rock, earth and debris. The size of a landslide
generally depended on the geol ogy and initial cause. For example, landslides
have occurred in D.B. such as the one that occurred on Morning Sun, Minnequa
and at Sycamore Canyon Park. These landslides provide insight as to what
could occur in D.B. due to its topography. Landslides could be initiated by heavy
rainfall and short bursts of concentrated rainfall. Burn areas are particularly
susceptible to debris and mudflow. The blue area of the map depicted potential
earthquake landslide (liquefaction) areas. He explained that liquefaction occurred
when a layer of soil near the ground surface was saturated with water and
shaken by an earthquake. In D.B. the canyon and stream areas are earthquake
liquefaction areas (depicted in green). The orange areas indicate potential
earthquake induced landslide areas. DPW/Liu stated that FEMA designated a
portion of the blue area as a flood prone area. Due to recent occurrences, the
flood concerns were mitigated and FEMA indicated they would work with the City
to designate the area as a flood prone area.
Fire Chief Ron Watson outlined the Department's wild fire mitigation plan.
Preparations for addressing wild land mitigation included an intense brush
clearance program for high-risk interface properties. Currently, Department staff
spends 10 -hour days canvassing D.B. making certain that residents in high-risk
areas comply with brush clearing. The Department employed wild land pre -attack
plans that identified problem areas such as homes with combustible roofs in
high-risk interface areas. The Department has a comprehensive fire -fighting plan
for canyon and other areas and has cleared brush near several high -valued
homes in "The Country Estates." The Department also has plans in place for
flooding with the availability of a swift water rescue team, search and rescue
teams, heavy equipment including bulldozers and other heavy equipment
machinery, sandbags, sand and food. Annual earthquake exercises are held
countywide and the Department employs a battalion center command that allows
it to facilitate emergency service vehicles. In addition, he reported that
jurisdictional surveys were routinely conducted to identify disaster plans that
identify critical occupancies, freeway bridges, overpasses and the like.
C/O'Connor was concerned about the Tonner Canyon Area's susceptibility to fire
and asked Chief Watson if he was comfortable that the Department was
prepared for a fire in that area.
Chief Watson responded that he felt as comfortable as possible based on multi -
agency responses. The Canyon was in close proximity to units in Brea, Chino
Hills and Orange County.
Mr. Bingham explained that staff would bring a final draft document to Council for
adoption that identified goals and possible mitigation activities. In addition, the
City's website contained information abou t hazard mitigation. As previously
stated, a large portion of this process depends on public participation and staff
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION
had attempted to fulfill that obligation in as many ways as possible including
tonight's meeting.
Reorganization of the Industry East Committee to address the Industry
Business Center Development.
DCM/DeStefano reported that the City of Industry proposed an almost 600 acre
development on the vacant hillsides beh ind the Honda dealership on both sides
of Grand Ave. and is in the process of preparing an Environmental Impact Report
anticipated for public review in June 2004. The EIR, he stated, would address
concerns regarding traffic impacts, land use compatibility with D.B. land uses,
etc. Industry told D.B. staff that they anticipated commencing project construction
in 2005 and that it would take approximately 10 years to complete the project. It
is Industry owned land and it is their intent to construct manufacturing, office and
retail buildings and development with retail incorporating big boxes and
potentially automobile dealership. During the past couple of years Industry has
completed similar projects including a project known as the Majestic Grand
Crossing Development for which Council created a 10 -person advisory
committee in 2000. The Advisory Committee was used as a resource to
understand potential impacts to D.B. He stated that Council Member O'Connor
suggested the Advisory Committee be reorganized and reconstituted as an
overall Industry project committee to address the ongoing Industry -East project
(Grand Crossing) and to address the proposed Industry Business Center project
located behind the Honda dealership.
C/O'Connor stated that her recommendation was a result of believing the City
should be proactive rather than reactive. She encouraged the Council to
establish a committee to continue the dialogue with Industry. She further
suggested that the City hold a town forum to explain the EIR once the document
was forthcoming.
C/Huff was also concerned about being open to dialogue. However, in his
opinion, those concerns should be address ed as they arise and he felt it would
be premature to form a committee at this time because there was no concern
about public safety.
M/Zirbes agreed with both C/O'Connor and C/Huff and felt that Council should
move forward by getting a committee ready. Once the EIR was released, the
Committee could get together to discuss concerns and determine which
neighborhoods would face the greatest impact. Hewould tend to form a separate
committee rather than reorganize the current committee because of the different
issues involved.
C/O'Connor was concerned that if Council waited too long to establish a
committee the EIR would come out in advance of the next Council meeting and
leave no time to organizing a committee and public meeting.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 6 CC STUDY SESSION
M/Zirbes felt staff would need time to review the document and advise Council
prior to the matter moving to a committee or public forum. He was encouraged
that there were good people serving as resource to the Council and that the
Council should bemindful ofmoving forward atthe appropriate time.
MPT/Herrera asked if the EIR contained specifics about the project or was the
document somewhat nebulous?
CM/DeStefano responded that the EIR was not likely to be specific in nature. It
was more likely that the document would indicate locations for potential land
uses in a broad sense and it could discuss building heights in general and not
contain detailed architecture, land uses, setbacks, etc.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/O'Connor that hedid not know whether the EIR
would speak to opening Sunset Crossing Rd. Industry's Notice of Preparation.
suggested they would be looking to open the street. However, the City of D.B.
and not Industry controlled that decision.
C/Huff said that after the Notice was released he asked Industry's Mayor if it was
their intent to open Sunset Crossing and the Mayor said No. Generally, the
Mayor has been forthright with him.
CM/Lowry pointed out that although the Mayor said No, the map shows a
connection via Sunset Crossing Road.
MPT/Herrera was concerned about stirring up feelings about things that might
not occur by forming a group to discuss a project when the specifics of the
project were unknown.
C/Huff felt that traffic mitigation would be a key issue for D.B. and wondered how
Industry would address traffic concerns in the document.
CM/DeStefano responded that based on previous Industry-EIR's the document
would contain a broad palette of possibilities such as "a million feet of industrial,
a couple million feet in offices and a couple million feet in reta il; indicating where
the land uses would be located again, on a broad basis i.e. "half on one side of
Grand and half on the other side of Grand. And then Industry would begin to
predict the number of trips based on broad land uses and suggest where those
trips might arbitrarily go with 25 percent to Brea Canyon Rd. and 75 percent to
Grand Ave., for example. Industry would then suggest widening or adding signals
within their roadway network, widening signal improvements and bridge
improvements in D.B. to accommodate the "arbitrary" 75 percent traffic increase
to Grand Ave. Hebelieved the document would bewritten in broad strokes as an
overall umbrella for the approvals they would undertake in subsequent years and
all of the subsequent projects would have to fit under that umbrella.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 7 CC STUDY SESSION
MPT/Herrera felt itwas important to have a committee but more importantly, that
the City have information to share with the committee.
C/Huff suggested setting up a Council subcommittee for the time being.
FY 2004-05 Budget: General Fund and CIP (First Draft)
CM/Lowry explained the FY 2004-05 first draft budget. Based on certain
assumptions, the go forward budget would leave a $800,000 balance for
Council's consideration in addressing the decision packages. The second page
brought forward the ongoing CIP requests that had been discussed for several
years through the budget process. Some items were first and second phase
projects and items that staff had been working on. The total on the CIP proposal
matched the $1.7 million formatted in the overall budget presentat ion as the draw
that would be made on General Fund reserves needed to fund those projects.
The good news was that this year's budget forecasted spending $1.1 million less
than what the City received, whereas, the original budget anticipated a savings of
only $200,000. Staff had not yet calculated encumbrances generated from POs
and there could be an extra $200,000 outgo as a result. The City has a $14.5
million going-forward-bu dget, projected with adjustments in revenue based on
the Governor's latest agreement with the League of Cities, estimates from the
Department of Finance regarding sales tax, estimates about the City's condition
resulting from local tax generators, inclusion of a full year for the D.B. Center,
and anticipated proceeds from building permits. In short, this was staffs best
estimate as to where the City would stand at the end of 2005. The City's
operating expenses were now at a $14.5 million mark with an additional
$300,000 income from the D.B. Center. Once Council determined the budget,
staff would pull out the D.B. Center item, to create an Enterpri se Fund. However,
staff felt itwould bebetter to provide Council with an umbrella view ofthe budget
and look atthe total operating budget before splitting out certain items.
FD/Magnuson explained to C/Huff that the $1.2 million CIP transfer out funds
were allocated for projects that the City anticipated completing during the current
fiscal year on a break-even basis. In other words, the City completed almost $1.2
million in projects and did not overspend the current year's revenues. She
explained that the $700,000 spike in Current Services Charges during FY 2004-
05 was due to the anticipated level opment of the Lewis project.
C/Huff asked if the budget anticipated a facilities-renov ation fund for the D.B.
Center.
CM/Lowry responded that the item was on staff's radar but was not included in
the budget estimate.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 8 CC STUDY SESSION
Economic Development Update — Kosmont and Associates
DCM/DeStefano stated that Larry Kosmont would touch on issues that would
affect the City over the next couple of years such as the State's ceilings of
monies, cities ceilings of land uses, the potential for increasing costs and areas
of opportunity for generating revenue to help offset losses and establish net
positive gains for the future. These included looking at how the City conducts
business and more specifically looking at the types of land uses that would
generate revenue to the City.
Larry Kosmont explained that it was a tough time for cities because they were
about to experience cash flow deficiencies from the states and their own existing
conditions of budget deficits. D.B. should consider certain issues having to do
with how the City could take a course of action that would generate the kind of
tax liquidity necessary to sustain the qua lity of life equation that captures the
City's vision. Secondly, much of the answer would likely come as a result of
economic development activity. Cities in Ca lifornia have a couple of opportunities
for economic development that relate to real estate and private sector
investment. And, how does D.B. marshal the resources it took out of the bond
issue lastyear and decide whether to use itfor economic development orpay out
the bond issue?
Council had directed Kosmont to work with staff to consider economic
opportunities. Ironically, experts predicted that D.B. would hit a cash flow deficit
fairly quickly and that the best opportunities were most likely in pure real estate.
The ultimate conclusion was that if the City had $15 million in reserves and was
about to build a large capital improvement and the cost of money was in the
neighborhood of 1 or 2 percent and the City was looking for shortfalls from the
State, don't spend the money, leverage it. Mr. Kosmont felt that with the current
State budget situation D.B. would suffer about $400,000 in hits for a couple of
years and then slowly catch up. Other issues of concern to D. B. - the potential
loss of sales tax generators and how to replenish that loss.
Mr. Kosmont stated that alternatives available to local governments were simply
not that easy and they would either need to cut costs or raise taxes. On the
whole, cities tended to be fairly efficient and there was not a lot of excess. As a
result, local level replenishment of cash flow imbalance generally resulted from
different tax and fee policies that were not, however, big revenue generators
when considering a $400,000 per year gap. There are some limitations on the
revenue side unless the City looks to building new revenue. Raising taxes in
California is painful politically and procedurally and as a consequence, California
cities generally focus on economic development. D.B. should find a way to
induce tax generators and primarily, the strategy would be to target retail. This
City is incredibly well located which accounts for its healthy housing prices. From
a retail standpoint, however, there is a considerable amount of competition with
surrounding cities placing as much big box retail as possible. To their credit, staff
and Lewis Company have formed a great partnership to bring retail tax
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 9 CC STUDY SESSION
generation to the Calvary Chapel site as well as Site D. He encourages Council
to move forward with those deals as qu ickly as possible on an economic basis
and to look for other opportunities becaus ethe other opportunities would make a
difference for D.B. on a long-term basis. For example, consider moving the golf
course to Tres Hermanos or some other suitable site. He emphasized the need
to conclude the live deals i.e., the Lewis, Town and Country, Country Hills Towne
Center. Focus on the live deals and get them closed to backstop the cash flow
deficits. And then consider the long-term options that might include some kind of
manuscripted redevelopment project area for the Kmart site to reallocate land
ownership or cut out a lease that isn't performing for the City. Or, consider Tres
Hermanos for a county golf course, a long-term political and county play that may
need to be put on the back burner until after the election. Consider that D.B. has
a very pro economic supervisor in Don Knabe who retires in four years.
Mr. Kosmont pointed out that D.B. currently has a series of seven properties in its
portfolio — three were in play and they should be worked and completed; four
properties had the capacity to bring huge economic windfall if the City made
smart strategic investment decisions now. Those decision areas could involve
zoning, annexation, planning, and limited redevelopmen t. D.B.'s mission was to
sift through those issues and target what has the highest return given the City's
cash flow requirements, what has the least risk politically speaking and the most
possible windfall from a structural and transactional perspective and execute on
those or, decide it is something the City does not want to do and give the bonds
back. D. B. has low-cost money available waiting to be put to good purpose,
should the Council decide to move forward in that manner. Otherwise, the City
should think about giving itup atsome point.
Mr. Kosmont summarized as follows: Pick a strategy based on State budget
issues, medium-term issues and long-term challenges. The long-term challenges
are the key because the City would be spending money today without any real
return for a period of time so D.B. needs to be very selective about which road to
take. It is much easier to spend a little money on the Lewis homes. Those deals
are critical and some resources have to go toward that development. The bigger
picture is to consider three or four major items that could take different kinds of
political and strategic considerations and, it may even require spending dollars
on in-depth analysis — market comparisons, political analysis, etc. in order to
make the decisions the right way. Put your "tuition" money into something that
provides a quality of life in future years. In short, determine the priorities (risk and
reward); identify additional resources (county monies, grant monies combined
with City dollars); soften the need to have a home run on real estate by bringing
in a couple of tax and fee increases locally; cut services in a meaningful way and
whatever combination of 1 through 6, number 7 is the key — Adopt Economic
Development strategy and vision and execute it knowing where the City needs to
be over a number of years in terms of revenue and expenses. And hold that
strategy to a timeframe and to the buyer so that the City can deliver it. That
means spending some money and getting the right resources. In his opinion,
staff does a great job but given the City's challenges, they should not be
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 10 CC STUDY SESSION
expected to deliver on some of the harder issues. As the City moves forward,
staff would need assistance from skilled and resourceful individuals and
companies. And that is part of the package of letting loose some of the money in
the unallocated reserve drawing interest in the bank.
Mr. Kosmont spoke to the bond issue. Should the City decide itwants to keep the
money and establish priorities and strategies, the time is coming in the bond
cycle to recast the Letter of Credit in a more cost-efficient way. If the debt
continued more than six years there would be a couple of ways to look at the
Letter of Credit cost annually that would reduce the annual outflow. With interest
rates going up that would be a priority for this Council. This matter would
generate a technical discussion and separate set of decisions that should be
addressed in a separate study session.
DCM/DeStefano asked Council if they wished staff to continue pursuing retail
sales tax dollars. Staff has a half a dozen projects on the front burner including
the three hottest projects. Staff is pursuing retail sales tax dollars to make up for
the loss of the State pirating the City's resources, to ma ke up for the loss of land
uses relocating to other cities and increasing operational costs over the next
couple of years. Staff is pursuing sales tax dollars, not lifestyle or land uses that
may create community but do not generate revenue. A key issue for staff and
consultants is to gain confirmation from the Council that staffs approach is
proper.
C/Huff asked how the City could use its unallocated reserves sans a
redevelopment agency to affect the goals and if economic development and
maximizing tax dollars was the next discussion, how would the City mechanically
p ro ceed ?
Mr. Kosmont responded to C/Huff that the City could still purchase property, hold
it and reuse it. There would need to be a "public purpose" for the land in order to
leverage the result and Coun cil would need to determi ne whether the City was
buying land to improve roadways, for instance, improve circulation, or create
additional open space. The City has definite challenges without redevelopment
but those challenges are not insurmountable. The City could acquire property or
joint venture with the County and relocate certain assets such as the golf course
for example, or the City could help developers target retailers and to the extent
that developers were unable to support land costs, help by providing public
improvements or infrastructure parking and such. If Mr. Lewis could prove that
the cost of the project were not supported by the private sector revenue stream,
the City may have to use its money to el evate the mechanics of the deal in order
to produce a long-term sales tax revenue stream. The City could spend money to
help attract tenants as has been done previous ly. D.B. is a great location and has
vacancies. The City could target tax -generating tenants and cut a sales tax deal
or tenant improvement deal, or some other mechanism or assist their move
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 11 CC STUDY SESSION
with a reimbursement. Certainly, engaging in partnerships with other cities and
the County that have a redevelopment agency would provide a way for the City
to develop vacant property. The City would need the appropriate findings to
make it happen and just as important, need to know you would be proceeding in
the right direction to achieve the desired results within a prescribed period of
time. The problem with the current projects, even though the City could find
"public purpose", effectuating them may be very long-term proposition because
of the politics, the location, environmental considerations, etc. Certainly, the
current projects are easier than the long-term opportunities such as the golf
course, Tres Hermanos and others. However, the City has to start somewhere
and it has the same vehicle for the first charge as for the second. D.B. does not
want to spend a lot of money on a project that might run into a political brick wall.
First, the City needs to have an honest dialogue with itself about thefeasibility of
projects and then decide whether D.B. has the political will to see them through
to fruition.
MPT/Herrera felt that staff should pursue tax -generating businesses. In addition,
the City would most likely need to use the bond money for economic
development to ensure the City's future. If the City paid off the bond it would be
out of debt but would then have no leverage to offer incentives to businesses to
locate in D.B. as a tax-gener ating entity for the City.
C/O'Connor felt that because the Council Members were the stewards of the
City's money that the City would have to temporarily turn away from the pursuit of
ideal living and put its attention to generating sales tax to help the City survive.
She would rather have a movie theater, cafe's, and the like, than a Home Depot,
but reality charges the City with the pursuit of economic development.
M/Zirbes said that Mr. Kosmont was abso lutely right that the City could have
dollars out for economic development reasons — the money had been sitting
dormant for a year and a half and now D.B. was faced with a substantial loss in
revenue. He also felt that D.B. needed to employ Mr. Kosmont and other
professionals to assist the Council and staff to focus on and develop a long-term
strategy. Until the Council and staff determined what potential each site could
offer and what companies might be interested in locating on those sites, the
City's income potential would continue to deteriorate. If D.B. intended to utilize
the borrowed money it needed to step up the process and seriously move
forward to ensure the City's fiscal security on a short and long-term basis.
C/Huff pointed out that the Council needed to go through the exercise of
determining what would be acceptable to the community before deciding how to
proceed. In other words, is the income/cost exchange worth the change in
lifestyle? There are amenities that cost the City money such as the library, that
the community wants to improve its lifestyle. Using that logic it would not be
beyond logic to say that creating an enterta inment center with restaurants that all
Council Members have heard residents say they want may produce half the
revenue of big box. One school of thought would be that a big box would
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 12 CC STUDY SESSION
generate more revenue therefore it would have more value to the City. The other
school of thought would be that for this community an entertain ment center with
restaurants would have more intrinsic value. Council looks at its limited resources
and attempts to plug the gaps. Still, other long-term projects have been identified
such as perhaps a golf course, Tres Hermanos, and a portion along the freeway
near Shell Oil. He felt the Council should "keep it all in balance" because he did
not want a strip mall in D.B. This City enjoys a certain quality of life. There are
multi-million dollar homes and most residents have high valued homes that would
continue to be high valued homes as long as the Council were good stewards of
the resources and land use entrusted to them . Frankly, he was never in favor of
big box as an entry statement for the City. A few years back the City was
marketing the Calvary Chapel/hospital site as an entertainment center. Maybe a
big box at that site is a good thing, maybe not. However, he believed that the
Council needed to decide whether there was a use that was not acceptable to
the community and if so, is there something else that would provide some type of
revenue stream that was more acceptable to the residents, and maybe down the
road there would need to be a revenue enhancement but the Council and the
community would be happy with what had been done in the meantime.
Mr. Kosmont felt that the pursuit of retail was good but retailers come and go.
Who the Council brings into the community today may very well not be here 10
years from now. It is important to shop retail and important to be careful about
which retailers. It is also important to diversify within a retail base. The world
changes and contrary to popular belief some previously well-established retailers
are fighting for their very lives. Bottom-line is that Council has to make choices as
wisely as possible based on the information available. That is why he proposed
that the Council look at this situation as a portfolio. If the Council started to edify
isolated and singular answers for one site without really understanding the
interplay and timeframe with the other sites D.B. would miss its limited
opportunities. Again, D.B. needs to be proactive about its future. He hoped that
DCM/DeStefano and the Lewis Company bring back great retailers at the end of
the ICSC trip but ultimately, he hoped that the Council would spend the time to
create the City's future in terms of utilization of sites, priorities and how the City
would spend its money to effectuate the desired result be it a lifestyle, big box or
neighborhood community result. They are all important and the Council has to
put all of the possibilities on the table, move the pieces around and come to
some answers.
CM/Lowry was concerned that for fifteen years the way this City handled its
finances was to each year save a sufficient amount so that it had freedom to
make decisions about how it would spend the money. Now the City was at a
point where it has to decide how it would get the money. This City had not had to
go through that exercise before now. The options were "how does the City
conservatively manage the money it gets." D.B. had never taxed its citizens. It
receives money and the money goes into the account and the Council decides
how to spend the money. The City acquired money including grant monies for
special projects and CIP projects, but for the day-to-day business, this City never
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 13 CC STUDY SESSION
had to ask itself where it would get the money. She asked the Council to please
begin considering not how the City would spend the money but how the City
would get money. Thinking of the amenities and what people want was certainly
the Council's responsibility but now, the Council's new responsibility would beto,
on top of that, figure out where and how the City would get its money. The
comparison of how people want to shop versus how can this City have retail that
brings it money, are not necessarily the same consideration. She asked Council
to turn their hats around and start thinking about how to go get the money and be
the breadwinner and no longer be merely an amenity provider.
MPT/Herrera felt the Council's direction to staff was to find revenue generators
and still maintain the look of D.B.
DCM/DeStefano explained that theater operators for instance, are not coming to
D.B. to build sites. If Council were interested in more of the lifestyle generators
i.e. theaters, restaurants , etc. and experience for residents and customers who
visit D.B., the City could do that, but it needs to figure out where it does that. Is
Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive the best place to do that? Or, is some
other location the best place to do that? Grand and Golden Springs seems to be
the location where the big box guys want to locate. So, does the City explore that
possibility and capture the big box while maintaining an eye for theaters and
lifestyle and focus on a different location for that. Should we grasp the
opportunity that seems to be presenting itself now on a given site or do we push
that aside, put something else there and hope the big box could be attracted to a
different location in the City? The Calvary Chapel project is the hottest project the
City has going. Staff spent a year and a half working on it and the project is
scheduled for Planning Commission on June 8. The project is being advertised to
the Planning Commission as a big box retail project next Tuesday . If that is not
the direction Council wants to go in for that location, staff needs to know that
now. Some of the land uses that could generate a lot of money would not
necessarily be"glamorous" uses. In D.B. gas stations are half of the top 15 sales
tax producers. This is a commuter City and it has a lot of cut -through traffic that
purchases gas to and from work. D.B. has gas stations that produce more
revenue than do grocery stores. Gas stations are not very sexy but they generate
a lot of income for a one -acre site. There are a lot of issues that staff needs
assistance with, starting with Grand and Golden Springs.
M/Zirbes felt that Council was supporting staff to continue with the current project
for Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive. Whether or not there is a retailer
willing to sign on the dotted remains the question and Council needs to
understand the expectations of companies willing to locate in D.B., the
landowners that are willing to support those businesses and the Council also
needs to have a full understanding of available land opportunities for now and in
the future. Today, D.B. needs to continue working with the developers who have
brought their projects to the City, work with them on their proposals until the
project commences or dies.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 14 CC STUDY SESSION
DCM/DeStefano stated that another concern about potential retailers is that while
they want to be in D.B. they do not have to be in this City to capture the D.B.
customer. Target is also looking at Grand and Valley. Walnut did not want Target
but Target still wants Walnut and they are looking atthe Majestic property across
from the Sheriff's station at Grand and Valley. The store would be located in
Industry and capture clientele from Walnut and from D.B. Staff's concern is how
do we position ourselves and move effectively now to capture some of those
retailers that want to be in this marketplace. Do we want them here or do we
want to let them go someplace else, we will still shop there and that someplace
else would capture the sales tax? Using the retail and theater example, do we
want the theater to go someplace else, probably in Industry behind the Honda
Dealer if it is not in D. B. We travel a quarter mile further to have a theater and
restaurant experience. It goes back to what D.B. wants and how it wants to
position itself on the short-term projects as well as the others on the list for
consideration.
David Lewis, Calvary site developer, stated that hewould be moving forward with
his project in front of the Planning Commission next week. He explained that he
was seeking approval for up to 200,000 ft. of commercial space so that they
would have the ability to more easily market it to retailers. Although the final
outcome of who will occupy the space is not certain he was moving forward with
the environmental documents and specific plan.
C/Huff asked staff to explain offsetting revenue for a big box as opposed to a
lifestyle center.
DCM/DeStefano said the answer would depend on who the retailer is. A 14-16
screen theater would take 80,000 square feet and would generate between
$20,000 and $30,000 a year to the City because there is no revenue from the
$9.00 theater ticket. The only revenue the City receives is off of the popcorn
sales and that type of th ing. Kohl's occupies 85,000 square feet and would
generate $300,000 to the City. Is Kohl's what D.B. resident's want or is the
theater what residents want? There could be a huge disparity in revenue
depending on which land use occupies the space.
C/Huff said that by itself, a theater wa s not a revenue generator for a City but that
they served as magnets to draw people who would spend money on other things.
DCM/DeStefano pointed out that another consideration was the demand for
space necessary for a revenue -genera ting product. A 16 -screen theater needs
about 1200 parking spaces, a lot more parking than a Kohl's of the same
physical size would demand. Kohl's would create an opportunity for a palette of
land uses surrounding it that could include other retail, restaurants and so forth.
A theater would do the same thing but it would be a different mix of retail.
Restaurants around a theater may generate more or less sales tax than
restaurants surrounding a Kohl's. D.B. has a very limited amount of acreage so
unless itbuilds upvertically itwould havea tough time intensifying those sites
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 15 CC STUDY SESSION
because the City cannot build out. Grand and Golden Springs was probably the
City's best opportunity to build up.
MPT/Herrera felt that since the City would suffer an $800,000+ loss of income it
could not afford to accept anything less than the biggest revenue generator that
wishes to build on the site.
C/Huff wondered if it would be better to place Home Depot on Site D freeing up
the main entry for a Kohl's or a Target. He would prefer not to have a Home
Depot on Grand Ave. and he would prefer to see an income asset for the
community that would not detract from what the City was attempting to achieve.
He said he did not view Site D or the Kmart location as having the limitations of
the Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Dr. site.
DCM/DeStefano stated that in some City's the physical appearance of Home
Depot is deplorable and some cities' Home Depot's are assets to the shopping
center. The Brea Home Depot is gorgeous, for instance. The Brea Home Depot
is well kept and it is not a big box with an orange stripe. Some cities have been
able to condition restrictions that obviously keep the retailer interested in the City.
Home Depot elsewhere in D.B. could be Site D or the Kmart site. Some land
uses may not be appropriate at a given location and are they appropriate in the
City at all?
C/Huff said if no one other than Home Depot was willing to locate in D.B. he
would not say No, but his preference would be to have a different type of use at
Grand and Golden Springs.
M/Zirbes said he wanted to move forward. Even if the develo per brought forth an
entertainment venue for the site he felt there was a way to produce revenue from
the residential component to help cover some of the City's short-term losses,
move the big box retailers to Site D, probably the best result getting the big
retailers off of one of the City's biggest intersections by taking their traffic to an
area that would not be as greatly impacted, begin to look at other opportunities
for pursuing Kohl's, Home Depot, Target and ways to use the economic
development capital to displace Kmart with a retailer that would create new
energy with a revenue generator. To think that the City's only two sites are
Grand/Golden Springs and Site D is short-sighted. Would he stand in the way of
moving forward? No. With an understanding of the City's budget shortfalls, it
would be serious consideration but that is not the only option open to D.B. and
in his opinion, all options should be considered as quickly as possible.
CM/Lowry focused on M/Zirbes comment regarding the residential development.
Unless there was some kind of particular agreement with the developer,
residential developments woul d cost the City money. If Council was looking for
the housing portion to help balance what the Council might want to change in
terms of the highest possible retail sales tax, there were two different approaches
— whether the Council would be looking for the developer to to ck on additional
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 16 CC STUDY SESSION
costs to the purchase price of the units giving the City a one-time check or,
guaranteeing a revenue stream to make up for the sales tax shortfall by
assessing the properties an a nnual assessment. Would either of those options, if
offered, be acceptable to the City Council?
M/Zirbes was okay with the first option. When Council initially negotiated with
SunCal on the Pulte property and then considered its second course of
negotiations the City was able to capture a lot premium on each of the 120 lots
offered that gave the City an opportunity to offset the short-term shortfalls and
consider the potential for revenue generators moving onto other sites. And hefelt
there were a lot of strategies to consider.
C/Huff spoke about the hospital site proposal and its iterations. Originally, 25
percent was dedicated to ho using, then it wa s increased to 50 percent housing
and then to 75 percent housing and now it is 100 percent housing. He had no
problem with an office building on the site and that disappeared. From that
standpoint he recognized the difficulties with the site and why it has remained
vacant. He felt that rather than a one -ti me deal if there was housing located at
the top of the property to the extent that it was currently proposed, there should
be an income stream to the City because that eliminates future tax -generation
possibilities. Nobody wants a Home Depot but we'll take a Home Depot if it gives
the City income. Well, if there's 100 percent housing up there we'll take housing if
there's an income stream. Such development practice is commonplace.
Mr. Lewis agreed that it would provide a more reliable income stream because it
would come from someone's home instead of risky retail.
DCM/DeStefano pointed out that the City would be making the annual
assessment and would conduct public hearings on the matter.
C/Huff stated that purchasers would know up front that there was an annual
assessment, not something imposed after the fact.
M/Zirbes pointed out that the Council should consider whether to take a 10 -year
up -front tack -on for each residence to cover the short-term shortfall and use the
money to invest back into other economic development activities or, take an
annual assessment over the long-term.
CM/Lowry stated that if building the housing units allowed the developer to
engage commercial that would make it economically feasible for him to build, and
ifthe City received revenue from those residential units itwould take the heat off
of the Council to put in big boxes that were believed to be incompatible with the
community.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 17 CC STUDY SESSION
Public Comments on Study Session Agenda Items:
Clyde Hennessee said this was one of the best meetings he had attended in
several years and the first time he heard a substantial discussion of putting a
revenue generator in the City. He felt the Council should use the bond money to
generate more money and plan for the long-term.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City
Council, M/Zirbes adjourned the Study Session to the regular meeting at 6:34
p.m.
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of , 2004.
BOB ZIRBES, Mayor
Agenda No. 6.1.3
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MAY 18, 2004
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order at4:06
p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Governm ent
Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem
Herrera and Mayor Zirbes. Council Member Chang was excused.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Mike Jenkins, City Attorney;
David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James De Stefano, Deputy City Manager; Bob Rose,
Community Services Director; David Liu, Pub IicWorks Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance
Director; Dennis Tarango; April Blakey, Public Information Manager; Teresa Arevalo, Sr.
Mgmnt.. Analyst; Sharon Gomez; Sr. Admin. Mgmnt.; John Bingham, Consultant; Capt.
Ron Watson, L.A. County Fire Departmen t; and, Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
Background Discussion of Agenda Item s8.2a and 8.2b (Speed Humps)
Natural Hazard Mitigation Update
Reorganization ofthe Industry East Committee toaddress the Industry
Business Center Development
FY 2004-05 Budget: General Fund and CIP (First Draft)
Economic Development Update — Kosmont and Associates
Public Comments on Study Session Agenda Items
M/Zirbes recessed the Study Session at 6:34 p.m
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Zirbes called the regular City Council meeting to
order at 6:46 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.,
Diamond Bar, CA.
M/Zirbes reported that during the 4:00 p.m. Study Session, Council received an update on
the natural Hazard Mitigation report, discussed possible reorganization ofthe Industry East
Committee to address the proposed Business Center Development; visited a first draft of
the FY 2004-05 Budget and received an Economic Development Strategies and Updates
report. The Council took no reportable action.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Boy Scout Troop 777 led the Pledge of Allegiance and
Posted the Colors.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
INVOCATION: Darlene Jones, Pastor, Outreach Diamond Canyon
Christian Church, gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem
Herrera and Mayor Zirbes. Council Member Chang was excused.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Mike Jenkins, City Attorney;
David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James De Stefano, Deputy City Manager; Bob Rose,
Community Services Director; David Liu, Pub IicWorks Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance
Director: April Blakey, Public Information Manager; and Tommy Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 CSD/Rose introduced Bryan Petroff, Parks and Maintenance Supervisor for
the Diamond Bar Center.
1.2 M/Zirbes proclaimed the week of May 16-22, 2004 as"National Public Works
Week." The Public Works Staff was introduced; a brief presentation by Staff
was given, after which DPW/Liu accepted the Proclamation.
CM/Lowry expressed her appreciation of the City's Public Works staff and
said that in her 25 years of worki ng with local governments, this was the
finest Public Works Department she had everhad the pleasure to work with.
1.3 C/Huff proclaimed the week of May 16-22, 2004 as "World Trade Week."
Moises Cisneros, Intl. Trade Manager with the L.A. Area Chamber of
Commerce accepted the Proclamation.
1.4 C/O/'Connor proclaimed the week of May 16-22, 2004 as "Taiwanese
Heritage Week." Cindy Liu accepted the Proclamation.
1.5 MPT/Herrera proclaimed the month of May 2004 as "Older Americans
Month." She asked all the members of the various Senior Clubs represented
to come up, as well as anyone else wishing to come up.
NEW BUSINESS RECOGNITION:
1.6 M/Zirbes presented Certificate Plaque to Yolanda and Randy Bender, owner
of Dream Dinners.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS:
1.7 Presentation by Friends of the Diamond Bar Library on "Read Together
Diamond Bar," Festival of Authors and Make a Difference Day, October 23,
2004. The presentation was given by Nancy Lyons, Marsha Hawkins and
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
Kathleen Newe all representing the Friends ofthe Library organization
Marsha Hawkins stated that this year's book will be "Pay if Forward"" by
Catherine Ryan Hyde. Other books included the Giving Treeand the Secret
Garden.
Kathleen Newe — stated that this year the 5k Run woul d be held September
26th. She then went on to speak about other events planned, such as: the
Read-a-Thon; Festival ofAuthors, Oct. 23 d at the D.B. Center; and, end with
"Make A Difference Day."
Nancy Lyons — Offered suggestion as to how the City might participate in the
month long event. Giving such ideas as: scheduling a press conference,
proclaiming the month of October as"Read a Book Month"; publicize the
events on the local channel and City newsletter, to name a few. She went on
to suggest that the City might want to appoint a City Liasion to the Committee.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: CM/Lowry asked
DCM/DeStefano to report on actions taken bythe City since City Council's adoption
last month of an interim ordinance dealing with the approval of second units and
guesthouses.
DCM/DeStefano reported that the California Government Code allowed local cities
to adopt interim development standards in order to react to a particular land use
pattern, development orstandard that was problematic to local cities. Government
Code §65858 permits such adoption of interim ordinances. Council took such action
on April 20 in response to a growing concern regarding the size of guesthouses and
second dwelling units in the City by adopt ing an interim ordinance that reduced the
maximum size from 1200 square feet to 500 square feet. The interim ordinance was
scheduled to be retired on June 4 unless extended by the City Council in
accordance with the Government Code. Since adoption of the ordinance, staff
began to analyze impacts and issues regarding second dwelling units and
guesthouses and how those products might impactCity services i.e. infrastructure,
sewer, water, recreation etc. Staff examined the potential inconsistency of the City
Code standard of 1200 square feet compared with new state regulations now being
considered by the State Legislature. Staff initiated efforts to consider specific size
amendments that would move to the Planning Commission and City Council in the
form ofzoning code amendments. Staff contacted other citiesto determine how they
dealt with this issue within their communities. Staff was reviewing and determining
that changes to the D.B. ordinance beyond those represented in the interim
measure should be contemplated by the City Council later this year and, that the
preparation of new Development Code Standards would set forth appropriate
guidelines forthe long-term development and physical character ofthe City. Due to
the timing of developing such changes, public notices required for Public Hearings,
Planning Commission and City Council review, staff believed that additional time
would berequired to complete the study and conclusion ofthese issues. Therefore,
staff planned to recommend to the City Council at its June 1 meeting the extension
ofthe interim ordinance for an additional 10 months and 15 days, the state law
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
permitted maximum, oruntil such timeasa new ordinance wasadopted bythe City
Council.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: Peggy Laine, Library Technician, Maple Hill
Elementary School, stated that the Diamond BarLibrary had been verysupportive of
her school's programs and believed it was very important that the library keep up
with thechildren's needs byoffering computeraccessibility and continuing theirbook
purchasing program.
Karen Imperial, teacher, Maple Hill Elementary School, felt it was important for the
children to have access to computers, more work space and updated materials to
support their educational process.
Nancy Lyons encouraged residents tojoin with her in writing letters in support ofthe
City's application for a California Library Bond. She assured everyone that this was
not a new tax for residents, rather an effort to retrieve some of the City's money
back from Sacramento. If successful, D.B. would use the bond proceeds to build a
beautiful new library atSummitridge Park adjacent to the Diamond Bar Center. The
Friends of the Library were joining with other parties to collect letters of support for
this project. Currently, the Friends have about 500 letters and would liketo have a
total of 1000 letters in the next few weeks. She read excerpts from some of the
letters and advised residents that they could send their letter via fax oremail or, type
or handwrite the letter and deliver itto the library or Basically Books bookstore.
Mary Matson feltthat one ofthe best ways to provide revenue and information about
businesses in the City was for the City to administer business licenses and collect
the fees. Sheattended tonight's study session and agreed with the discussion about
bringing big business to D.B. She preferred big business to more housing
developments.
Clyde Hennessee said that tonight's study session was one of the best he had
attended because there was serious discussion about generating revenue for the
City.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS:
M/Zirbes reminded residents that the Council's Library Task Force had held two
meetings. The next meeting was slated for June 14 at the Diamond Bar Library at
6:30 p.m. and that residents were encouraged to attend.
SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION MEETING - May 20, 2004 - 7:00 p.m., Room
CC -8, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING - May 25, 2004 - 7:00 p.m.,
Auditorium, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
5.3 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING — May 27, 2004 —
7:00 p.m., Hearing Board Room, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley
Dr.
5.4 MEMORIAL HOLIDAY — City Offices will beclosed, Monday, May 31, 2004 in
observance of Memorial Day. City Offices will re -open on Tuesday, June 1,
2004.
5.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — June 1, 2004 — 6:30 p.m., Auditorium,
AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPT/Herrera moved, C/Huff seconded to approve
the Consent Calendar with the exception ofltem 6.7. Motion carried bythe following
Ro I I Ca I I vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang
6.1 City Council Minutes:
6.1.1
Approved Regular Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2004 —as submitted.
6.1.2
Approved
Study Session Minutes of April 20, 2004 —as submitted.
6.1.3
Approved
Regular Meeting Minutes of April 20, 2004 —as submitted.
6.1.4
Approved
Study Session Minutes of May 4, 2004 — as submitted.
6.1.5
Approved
Regular Meeting of May 4, 2004 — as submitted.
6.2 Planning Commission Minutes:
6.2.1 Received and Filed Study Session Minutes of April 27, 2004.
6.2.2 Received and Filed Regular Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2004.
6.3 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes:
6.3.1 Received and Filed Regular Meeting Minutes of March 25, 2004.
6.3.2 Received and Filed Special meeting Minutes of April 8, 2004.
6.4 APPROVED WARRANT REGISTERS dated May 6,2004 and May 13, 2004
for a total amount of $816,719.81.
6.5 REJECTED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES — filed by Charm Park on April 16, 2004.
6.6 APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARDED
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR FY 2003-04 CDBG SIDEWALK
INSTALLATION PROJECT TO DYE AND BROWNING, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF$69,526.12 AND AUTHORIZED ACONTINGENCY AMOUNT
OF $14,000 FOR PROJECT CHANGE ORDERS, TO BE APPROVED BY
THE CITY MANAGER FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF
MAY 18. 2004 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
$83,526.12.
6.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2003-60B AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
2003-60A REVISING THE POLICIES AND FEES FOR THE USE OF THE
DIAMOND BAR CENTER.
6.9 ADOPTED REPORT FROM THE SPORTS COMPLEX TASK FORCE.
6.10 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2004-19 OPPOSING CALIFORNIA STATE
SENATE BILL 744(DUNN) PLANNING AND HOUSING WHICH WOULD
BROADEN THE AUTHORITY OF THE CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT TO OVERTURN LOCAL
LAND USE DECISIONS.
6.11 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-20 SUPPORTING THE LEAGUE OF
CALIFORNIA CITIES' AND LOCAL COALITION'S FY05-FY06 BUDGET
COMPROMISE WITH GOVERNOR ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.7 APPROPRIATE $26,250 FROM UNAPPROPRIATED PROP C FUND
BALANCE, APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH ADVANTEC
CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR CITYWI DE TRAFFIC SIGNAL TIMING
PROJECT FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS IN THE AMOUNT OF
$24,500, AND AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $1,750 FOR
CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR A
TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $26,250.
C/O'Connor said she understood that the data supplied bythe vendor proved
commuter traffic flow improvement. However, she and other residents had
grown frustrated about getting out of neighborhoods and onto main
thoroughfares and were seeking ways to avoid the traffic signals. It was
frustrating to wait at a stop light with no oncoming traffic. She wanted to be
sure that Advantec was more concerned about the residents' ability to
traverse the City than commuter traffic.
C/Huff moved, MPT/Herrera seconded, to approve Consent Calendar Item
6.7. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera
M/Zirb es
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 CONSIDERATION OF CITY EQUIPMENT RENTAL POLICY FOR
COMMUNITY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND GOVERNMENTAL
AGENCIES.
CSD/Rose reported that community non-profit organizations and other
governmental agencies frequently request to borrow the City's equipment.
These items include canopies, performance stage, PAsystem and different
carnival type games. Staff seeks a policy to ensure that the equipment is
available to D.B. organizations to assist with their events in a consistent and
fair manner. The proposal establishes fees for use of the City's equipment
i.e. $40 for canopies, $10 per carnival game, $300 for stage including
delivery and setup/takedown and $50 for use of the portable PA system.
Additionally, the policy requires payment ofa refundable security deposit and
liststhe replacement for each piece of equipment should itbe damaged, lost
or stolen. The proposed fee is intended to cover costs related to staffs time
required to check out and check in the borrowed equipment and to reimburse
the City for normal wear and tear of the equipment. The Parks and
Recreation Commission recommended Council adoption of the policy.
C/Huff suggested the City increase the deposit and rental rate for the PA
System to more appropriately track with its value.
CSD/Rose explained that the fees were geared toward staffs involvement
time and that the user was required to present a credit card at the time of
checkout should the equipment be damaged. If the equipment were
damaged, the organization would be required to repair or replace the
equipment.
C/Huff asked if staff had researched the rental fee for a portable PA System
of this nature?
CSD/Rose responded, No, that only staff time was considered.
C/Huff suggested the rental rate should beslightly higher for the PASystem.
MPT/Herrera agreed with C/Huff to upwardl yadjust the rental fee forthe PA
system.
No member of the public wished to speak on the matter.
M/Zirbes moved, C/Huff seconded, to adopt the City Equipment Rental Policy
for Community Non -Profit Organizations and Governmental Agencies with an
amendment to seek input from the open market about rental fees for the type
of the PA System owned by the City with the intent of increasing the rental
amount.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
M/Zirbes amended his motion to increase the deposit to $500 and leave the
rental amount at $50 for the PA System. C/Huff seconded the amended
motion. Motion carried bythe following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera
M/Zirb es
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang
8.2 (a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-21 APPROVING INSTALLATION OF
SPEED HUMPS AT636/644 GREAT BEND DRIVE, 547/553 GREAT BEND
DRIVE, 23309/23315 GOLD RUSH DRIVE AND 23409/23415 GOLD RUSH
DRIVE.
PWD/Liu reported that in September 2003 the Great Bend Dr. and Gold Rush
Dr. neighborhoods submitted neighborhood petitions and signatures were
verified with 92 percent of residents living in the affected area between
Diamond Bar Blvd. and Stirrup Dr. Subsequently, the Traffic and
Transportation Commission received staffs report and recommendation for
installation on March 11. In lieu of staffs recommendation, the Commission
recommended that the City Council increas eenforcement and implement an
educational program. In order to solicit additional input from the affected
residents, staff conducted another neighborhood meeting on April 21 with 15
residents attending. Atthe conclusion ofthe meeting the residents agreed to
move forward with the speed hump installation. In April staff conducted yet
another traffic survey that resulted in the following: Area 1 (near the 600
block of the Great Bend Dr. neighborhood) — 522 out of 712 vehicles
exceeded the 25 mph speed limit and 72 vehicles exceeded 40 mph speed
with a maximum speed of 51 mph. Area 2 (near 525 Great Bend Dr.) —
Almost 500 ofthe 677 vehicles exceeded the 25 mph speed limitand 87 of
those vehicles exceeded the 40 mph speed with a maximum speed of 48
mph. Area 3 (near 23321 and 23327 Gold Rush Dr.) -557 of 705 vehicles
exceed the 25 mph speed and 70 vehicl es exceeded the 40 mph speed with
a maximum speed of 44 mph. Area 4 (23421 Gold Rush Dr.) 612 of 677
exceeded 25 mph with 58 vehicles exceeding 40 mph and a maximum speed
of 48 mph. Enforcement efforts have not slowed the traffic and staff
concluded that the objective and quantitative criteria adopted by the City
Council was meant in these instances and recommended and supported
speed humps for these neighborhoods.
No member of the public wished to speak on the matter.
C/O'Connor felt that if neighborhood residents would slow down and drive
within the speed limitthe City would not have to install speed humps.
C/Huff moved, MPT/Herrera seconded, to adopt staffs recommendations for
installation of speed humps atthe aforementioned locations. Motion carried
by the following Roll Call vote:
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera
M/Zirb es
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang
(b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-22 AMENDING RESOLUTION NO.
2002-56, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE SPEED HUMP POLICY.
CM/Lowry explained that the amendment was recommended to remove the
Traffic and Transportation from its obligation of reviewing potential
installations.
No member of the public wished to speak on this item.
MPT/Herrera moved, C/O'Connor seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2004-
22 amending Resolution No. 2002-56, a Reso lution ofthe City Council ofthe
City of Diamond Bar adopting the Speed Hump Policy.
C/Huff asked that the maker of the motion consider an amendment to the
policy; that residents, after hearing all of the facts, have an opportunity to
withdraw their signatures from the petition. If in so doing, the removal lowers
the approval threshold, there would be no speed hump installation
authorized. MPT/Herrera and C/O'Connor accepted the amendment and the
motion carried bythe following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera
M/Zirb es
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang
COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS:
C/O'Connor asked residents to provide her with their input regarding goals for the
City in the coming fiscal year. During thepast two weeks she attended the Pomona
Unified School District's Award Day during which a plaque was presented to the City
for the award of computer s to the District. She and C/Huff attended the League of
Cities Legislative Day. The League acquired sufficient signatures to place an
initiative on the ballot to deal with local revenues that would place a two year ceiling
on the raid of cities' monies. She and staff members met with library contacts to
discuss the library bond application. Asa speaker pointed out, letters are extremely
helpful and they could be turned it to the library or City Hall for delivery to
Sacramento. The Youth Master Plan Stakeholders Steering Committee met last
week. Attendance dwindles but the input continues to be excellent. The steering
Committee is awaiting completion of the Search Institute survey that they hoped
would beforthcoming prior to the end of the school year. The Sheriffs Department
and Fire Department held open houses lastweekend and displayed theirequipment.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
C/Huff attend the annual Foothill Transit Meeting on May 5. He stepped down from
his position of Executive Board President and Dick Stanford from the City of Azusa
was installed as President. While in Sacramento Foothill Transit, San Gabriel Valley
Council of Governments, Alameda Corridor East Construction Authority and Blueline
Construction Authority co-sponsored a Legislative Appreciation Dinner over which
hepresided as President ofCOG. Itwas a good event that assisted in projecting the
San Gabriel Valley's (32 cities) legislative clout because in an era of cutbacks to
infrastructure and transportation it was imperative to stress the need to move
forward. Herepresented the Council and made a presentation on Sunday in the City
of Monterey Park for a Ta iwanese celebration that drew a host of people. He said
the community appreciated their influence on the economy.
MPT/Herrera spoke about tonight's study session involving the 2004/05 Fiscal Year
budget stating that the City faced significant shortages to the tune of$400,000 that
the State would not be sending to the City. In addition, the City's two largest sales
tax producers would bemoving out of D.B. and the Council had serious decisions to
make in the immediate future about how itwould spent its money. During the past
15 years the City prided itself on its conservative approach and it would be quite a
challenge for the Council to think outside the box. The main objective was to bring
large sales tax producing businesses to D. B. so that the City could continue to
provide programs and services the citizens had grown to appreciate and that the
Council wished to continue providing.
M/Zirbes reported that each Council Member had been busy during the past two
weeks. He chaired the recent Library Task Force meetings, attended the
Neighborhood Improvement meeting, and Chamber of Commerce subcommittee
meeting on Economic Development. With all that the Council had to do, there were
new challenges to meet with the State budget problems and the trickle-down effect
on D.B. as well as the loss of two majorsales tax producers. The good news was
that the City had potential developments on the table and whether those would
replace imminent financial losses was yet to be determined. Regardless, the City
would continue to provide the good service thecitizens had learned to expect. There
may not, however, be many major capital improvement projects coming forward in
the next couple of years but the City was focused on researching economic
strategies and looked forward to resolving issues in the short, mid and long-term to
secure the future of D.B. He thanked all who called, emailed and sent cards to his
wife on the loss ofher father. Hethanked everyone for tuning in and for their support
and encouraged them to contact City Council Members with any concerns.
10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Zirbes adjourned
the meeting at 8:17 p.m.
LINDA C. LOWRY, CITY CLERK
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of , 2004.
BOB ZIRBES, MAYOR
Agenda No. 6.2
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 11, 2004
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management District/Governm ent Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Commissioner Tye led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Dan Nolan, Chairman; Jack Tanaka, Vice Chairman; and
Commissioners Ruth 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.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Chair/Nolan requested that Item 8.3 be
moved to the end of the meeting. The Commission concurred.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the April 7, 2004, Special Joint Meeting of the Planning
Commission, Traffic and Transportation Commission and Parks and
Recreation Commission
C/Tanaka moved, C/Low seconded, to appr ove the April 7, 2004, Minutes of
the Special Joint Meeting of the Planning Commission, Traffic and
Transportation Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission as
presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered with C/Tye
abstaining.
4.2 Minutes of the April 27, 2004, Study Session .
C/Tye moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve the April 27, 2004, Study
MAY 11, 2004 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
Session minutes as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered
with VC/Tanaka abstaining.
4.3 Minutes of the April 27, 2004, Regular Meeting.
C/Low moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve the Aril 27, 2004, Regular
Meeting as presented. Without objection, the motion was so ordered with
VC/Tanaka abstaining.
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
7. PUBLIC HEARING(S):
7.1 Development Review No. 2004-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. 2004-05 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020, 22.30.080 and 22.56) is
a request to construct a two-story, single family residence of approximately
10,344 gross square feet including porches, porte cochere, balconies, and
three car garage, site improvements including retaining walls to a maximum
six foot exposed height and a Minor Conditional Use Permit approval for a
circular driveway.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3109 Windmill Drive
(Lot 6, Tract 50314)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER/ Windmill Estates, LLC and
APPLICANT: Richard Gould
3480 Torrance Boulevard #300
Torrance, CA 90503
DSA/Smith presented staff's report. Staff recommends Planning
Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-10 and Minor
Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-05, Findings of Fact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the resolution.
DSA/Smith responded to C/Low that she was correct in assuming that this
project involved a private street that the owner owned to its mid -point. The
dedicated asphalt portion of the street was calculated from a point 30 feet
from the centerline ofthe street where the setbacks areincluded and itisnot
MAY 11, 2004
Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
included in the 50 percent of the front yard.
Kurt Nelson, Windmill Estates, LLC, appreciated staff's revision for the
SUSMP recommendations to reflect review by the City's Public Works
Director. With respect to Condition (m), page 8, this project includes a
drainage plan for this tract that is designed to carry drainage down a swale
where there isa rear pad and a slope, and the drainage plan issuch that itis
suppose to and ultimately would drain the swale to a man-made catch basin
and tract drainage system. In so doing it crosses adjacent Lot 7. Strictly
speaking, it would drain over an adjoining parcel in accordance with the
approved drainage plan. He approved of the balance of staffs proposed
conditions.
AssocP/Lungu recommended that "if applicable" be added to the end of
Condition (m), page 8.
C/Tye wondered if the drainage crossing Lot 7 would bean easement. Kurt
Nelson responded that there were easements reserved for drainage to cross
the lots.
Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nolan closed
the public hearing.
C/McManus moved, VC/Tanaka seconded to approve Development Review
No. 2004-10 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-05, Findings of
Fact, and conditions ofapproval as listed within the draft resolution subject to
the aforementioned addition of "if applicable" to Condition (m), page 8 of the
draft resolution. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
McManus, V/C Tanaka, Low, Tye
Cha it/Nola n
None
None
7.2 Development Review No. 2004-03 and Tree Permit No. 2004-02 (pursuant
to Code Sections 22.48.020(a)(1) and 22.38) is a request to construct a four-
story (split-level) single family residenceof approximately 11,300 square feet
including a four -car garage, balconies, veranda and deck. The request also
includes retaining walls ofvarying height not to exceed an exposed eight -foot
MAY 11, 2004 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
height as well as removal, replacement and protection of oak and walnut
trees.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2557 Blaze Trail
(Lot 138, Tract No. 30578)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: Nasser Ahmadi
127 S. Brand Avenue
Glendale, CA 91204
APPLICANT: Mark Sebeti
147 Islington Drive
Irving, CA 92620
AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report. Staff recommends Planning
Commission approval of Development Review No. 2004-03 and Tree Permit
No. 2004-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions ofapproval aslisted within the
resolution.
VC/Tanaka asked if the eight foot high retaining wall required a Minor
Variance towhich AssocP/Lungu responded, no. The Code dictates sixfeet
exposed height as the typical requirement and eight feet was permitted atthe
rear of the site as long as it related to the topography.
Nasser Ahmadi, project engineer and owner said heread and concurred with
staffs conditions of approval as outli ned in the resolution. The project was
designed on a 20 percent slope lot and conformed to the City's guidelines for
design. He presented a design concept rendering for the Commission's
consideration
Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing.
May Yu said she was very concerned that the proposed structure would be
built in front ofher house and wanted to know ifshe would have a direct view
of the retaining wall. She also wanted to know if trees measuring 8 inches
across were protected and whether there werespecific trees identified to be
protected on the site. She wanted to know how she could show her parents,
the actual property owners, how the proposed project would appear.
AssocP/Lungu responded to Ms. Yu that she would be able to see the
MAY 11, 2004
Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
42 -inch high retaining walls that would be placed in the front yard setback.
The highest point ofa retaining wall was in the rear yard area and the highest
point of those walls would not be in Ms. Yu's view. The Code requires that
oak, walnut sycamore and willowthat have an eight -inch diameterat breast
height and pepper trees ofthe same sizewhere appropriate beprotected and
preserved. Further, the Code gives leewayto remove thosetrees when they
appear to frustrate the development of a lot and must be replaced ata 3:1
ratio on the site. In staffs opinion, the designer did the bestpossible job to
build the house into the terrain and maintained the greatest portion ofthe lot
as it was presented prior to construc tion. AssocP/Lungu said Ms. Yu would
be provided a copy of the meeting minutes, staff report and reduced
drawings and that the full-sized drawings could berevi ewed at City Hall. She
explained that the approved minutes would be available in two weeks with
copy of the meeting's audiotape available upon request at a cost of $5.
Staffs report and the reduced drawings would beavailable tomorrow.
Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing.
C/Low asked if the replacement trees were included in the landscape plan.
DCM/DeStefano responded yes. Included in the packet is a conceptual
landscape plan showing placement of the coast live oaks.
C/Tye moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Review
No. 2004-03 and Tree Permit No. 2004-02, Findings of Fact, and conditions
ofapproval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried bythe following Roll
Ca I I vote:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Tye, Low, McManus, V/C Tanaka
Cha it/Nola n
None
None
7.4 Development Review No. 2004-13 (pursuant to Code Section 22.48) is a
request to remodel and construct an approximate 713 square foot second
story addition to an existing 1,205 livable square foot one story single-family
residence with a two -car garage.
PROJECT ADRESS: 20316 Flintgate Drive
(Lot 69, T28258)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
MAY 11, 2004 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
PROPERTY OWNER: Lily W. Zheng
20316 Flintgate Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
APPLICANT: Rupert Mok
829 S. Lemon Avenue #A11-13
Walnut, CA 91789
DSA/Smith presented staffs report. Staff recommends Planning Commission
approval of Development Review No. 2004-13, Findings of Fact, and
conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
Rupert Mok, applicant, said hehighly appreciated what DSA/Smith told him
when he first presented this project to the City. Because the owner was
frustrated she decided to withdraw the project but DSA/Smith worked with
them to show how the applicant could meet her needs and move the project
forward. He indicated that he read staffs report and concurred with the
conditions of approval as outlined in the resolution.
Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing.
Helen Almaraz, 20319 Flintgate Drive, objected to the project because she
did not believe itwas intended to be a single-family home. There are always
four cars parked at the location, two in front of her house and two on the
opposite sidewith one parked agai nstthe side hill. She also felt the property
owner might be running a business out of the home and in her opinion, the
property was not well maintained.
Chair/Nolan thanked Ms. Almaraz for advising the Commission of possible
Code violations. The draft resolution statesthat the project isa single-family
residence.
Bill Becker, 20311 Flintgate Drive, across thestreet from the project, also felt
that this was not a single-family residence. He presented a photograph of
the project site that showed five spill over vehicles parked atthe residence on
Sunday at a three- bedroom home where five people reside. He felt there
would be additional people living at the house and vehicles parked at the
residence if two bedrooms were permitted. Years ago he was reprimanded
by the City for parking off of his paved driveway on his side lot which is a
MAY 11, 2004 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
constant circumstance atthe project site. Vehicles in disrepair are parked at
the site for long periods oftime. He emphasized his feeling that this was not
a single-family residence and that itwas more like an apartment complex.
Evie Becker, 20311 Flintgate Drive, asked the Commission to tell her what
would happen if this was not, in fact, a single-family residence?
DSA/Smith stated that when she visited the site it was obvious to her that a
mother, a son and the property owner occupied the dwelling stairs. The
addition provided fortwo new bedrooms and a sitting room up front. Itwas a
very small home and the addition of the 713 square feet would necessarily
not add room for additional dwellers. Further, she witnessed nothing
business-related in the garage area. Therewas room for a vehicle and there
were some boxes visible. The car in thedriveway was previously the subject
of code violation that was addressed by the property owner.
DCM/DeStefano explained that the Commission was considering whether
this home should be permitted to expand its size. Staff provided a technical
report that spoke tothe issue ofthe physical development proposal that met
the requirements of the City's Code. The issue of cars parked on the street
was sometimes difficult in Diamond Bar based on the size of families and
occupants of homes who were of driving age. As long as streets remain
public, they are available for parking. Sometimes it is annoying to have
someone else's vehicle parked in front of one's home. However, they are
public streets for the purpose of public parking. Should a vehicle be parked
on the street longer than 72 hours it would be subject to ticketing and
ultimately removed. Maintenance of the property was a Neighborhood
Improvement issue that would be addressed by the Neighborhood
Improvement Officers as to whether it should be noticed for correction.
Property maintenance may be a separate issue than what is before the
Commission for consideration. Potential home-based business was also a
Neighborhood Improvement issue and some home occupations were
permitted in the City as outlined in the Code. With respect to the size, type
and character of the family, case law continued to broaden the definition of
"family" and what the speaker outlined would not necessarily violate the
definition of "family" because it was a very broad definition. What was at
issue was whether ornot the home was being rented out. The Covenant and
Agreement attached to this project as a condition was a document recorded
with the County Recorder and obligated the applicant's signature and
recordation. The document basically stated that the applicant agreed that the
property would be used for a single-family residential purpose only and that
MAY 11, 2004 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
no portion of the structure or property shall be rented leased or sold and so
forth. If the City were required to bring legal action to enforce the covenant
the City would beentitled to its attorney 'sfees and all court costs associated
with that enforcement. Should the property be deemed to not be a single-
family residence after the resident has signed the document the City would
send a letter indicating the property owner was not in compliance and if not
addressed, would seek an injunction and proceed to court to ensure
compliance.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Low that this would be an infraction. The
first citation is a $100 fine, the second is a $200 fine and the third is a $500
fine depending on the number of violations observed. Ultimately, it is the
City's desire to have the violation corrected.
C/McManus took a photogr aph of his neighbor's yard to City Hall and the
situation was corrected. Hepointed out that there are direct marketing home-
based businesses that require unpacking and repacking of boxes.
VC/Tanaka asked ifitwas DSA/Smith'sobservation that the property owner
resided at the site? DSA/Smith responded that it appeared so to her.
DCM/DeStefano felt it would be appropriate for the applicant and/or the
owner to respond to the issues addressed.
Lily Zheng, property owner, responded to C/Tye that she lives at
20316 Rintgate Drive and agreed with the mandates of the Covenant and
Agreement.
C/Low asked Ms. Zheng if she understood the meaning and intent of the
Covenant and she responded that she understood. Regarding her neighbor's
concerns, sometimes her friends come to help her and they park in front of
her neighbor's homes and sometimes her neighbor's park in front of her
home.
C/McManus felt that many of the issues addressed tonight were
housekeeping issues that did not relate to the Commission's review ofthe
proposed project.
C/Tye stated that if the Commission's approval exacerbat ed the problems,
the Commission ought to make certain everything was in order to justify the
addition.
MAY 11, 2004 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
C/Low felt it would be advisable to postpone the ultimate decision until staff
could provide satisfactory answers to the Commissioner's concerns.
VC/Tanaka felt there was sufficient information to proceed with a decision.
While hewas sensitive to the concerns of the neighbors, there was sufficient
means by which those concerns could be addressed. The project had merit
and should move forward.
C/McManus wanted to know if the same concerns were applicable to prior
considerations and the other matter on tonight's agenda.
Chair/Nolan felt there were two separate issues involved in this decision.
There were no public speakers taking exception with certain issues on prior
agenda items and he saw no harm in waiting two weeks to make a final
decision.
Chair/Nolan moved, C/Low seconded, to continue Development Review
No. 2004-13 to the May 25, 2004, meeting. Motion carried 3-2 by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Nolan, Low, Tye
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Tanaka
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
7.3 Develooment Review No. 2003-30 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No.
2004-04 (pursuant to Code Sections 22.48.020, 22.30.080 and 22.56) is a
request to construct a two-story, single family residence of approximately
10,585 gross square feet including porches, balconies, covered patios and
four -car garage; as well as site improvements including retaining walls to a
maximum six foot exposed height, "pool location," and a Minor Conditional
Use Permit approval for a circular driveway that exceeds development
standards.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 2164 Rocky View Road
(Lot 126, T30091)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: Anil and Bhavina Patel
18603 Jeffrey Avenue
Cerritos, CA 90703
MAY 11, 2004 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
APPLICANT: Pete Volbeda
615 N. Benson Avenue #D
Upland, CA 91786
DSA/Smith presented staffs report. Staff recommends Planning Commission
approval of Development Review No. 2003-30 and Minor Conditional Use
Permit No. 2004-04, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed
within the resolution.
Pete Volbeda, project architect, said heread staff's report and concurred with
the Conditions of Approval. Condition (ff) was a surprise to him, however,
because the owner requested the sinks bea (lowed in the dining room so that
he could wash his hands before using the wet bar.
C/Tye asked why this project had not received approval from "The Country
Estates" architectural review committee.
Mr. Volbeda responded that although approval was not yet received, hehad
built houses in "The Country Estates" for 15 plus years and had always
processed the City and County approval and the association approval
simultaneously. The association usually wanted more elaborate landscape
plan and as a result, lagged behind the City or County approval and it was
not a concern to him.
DSA/Smith said that with respect to Condition (ff)the drawing indicated two
sinks for the dining area. She believed the architect made an error so she
included it in the conditions of approv al. She understood that the applicant
wished to have two sinks in the dining room and indicated that the request
would not present a code issue.
Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing.
There being no one who wished to speak on this item, Chair/Nolan closed the
public hearing.
C/Tye moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to approve Development Review
No. 2003-30 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2004-04, Findings of
Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution striking
MAY 11, 2004 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
Condition (f) with the appropriate editing to the remaining conditions. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, V/C Tanaka, Low, McManus,
Cha it/Nola n
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONAL ITEMS: None
Offered.
9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMA TIONAL ITEMS:
9.1 Public Hearing Dates for future projects.
DCM/DeStefano reported that staff wa s working vigorously with Lewis and
planned to bring the Calvary Chapel project materials to the Planning
Commission for preliminary consideration on May 24 with Public Hearings
commencing on June 8.
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in the Agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chair/Nolan adjourned the meeting at8:47 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
Chairman Dan Nolan
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
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Treasurer's Statement —April 30, 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the April 2004, Treasurer's Statement.
FINANCIA L IMPACT:
No Fiscal Impact
BACKGROUND:
Agenda # 65
Mee ting Date: June. 01, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer's Statement for the City
Council's review and approval. This statement shows the cash balances for the various funds, with a
breakdown of bank account balances, investment account balances and the effective yield earned
from investments.
PREPARED BY:
Susan Full, Accountant II
Department Head
Attachments:
Treasurer's Statement
Deputy City Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT
April 30, 2004
BEGINNING
TRANSFERS
ENDING
BALANCE
RECEIPTS
DISBURSEMENTS
IN (OUT)
BALANCE
GENERAL FUND
$22,348,549.88
$2,385,560.41
$1,183,553.47
($602,893.16)
$22,947,663.66
LIBRARY SERVICES FUND
80,760.19
277.76
81,037.95
COMMUNITY ORG SUPPORT FD
(8,354.00)
(8,354.00)
GAS TAX FUND
498,333.18
88,851.77
587,184.95
TRANSIT TX (PROP A) FD
1,307, 694.97
170,714.41
84,533.60
1,393,875.78
TRANSIT TX (PROP C) FD
1,054,05 3.91
104,562.94
(358,543.66)
800,073.19
ISTEA Fund
0.00
0.00
INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FD
541,503.12
40,397.40
30,149.88
551,750.64
AB2928-TR CONGESTION RELIEF FD
0.00
0.00
AIR QUALITY IMPRVMNT FD
160,098.18
520.81
9,444.86
151,174.13
PARK& FACILITIES DEVEL FD
2,467,934.12
8,492.73
(9,078.07)
2,467,348.78
COM DEV BLOCK GRANT FD
(10,424.57)
12,219.00
30,369.87
(28,575.44)
CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SAFETY FD
228,153.99
910.23
4,945.07
224,119.15
NARCOTICS ASSET SEIZURE FD
310,881.90
1,069.23
311,951.13
CA LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIP PRGM
85,256.59
293.23
85,549.82
LANDSCAPE DIST #38 FD
462,632.34
80,466.85
18,197.28
524,901.91
LANDSCAPE DIST #39 FD
259,08 8.14
47,870.42
17,525.95
289,432.61
LANDSCAPE DIST #41 FD
378,374.55
35,834.12
7,775.08
(10, 370.55)
396,063.04
GRAND AV CONST FUND
111,579.53
111,579.53
CAP IMPROVEMENT PRJ FD
(1,296,234.97)
532,678.17
505,517.45
980,885.44
(288,188.81)
SELF INSURANCE FUND
1,235,234.25
4,256.71
1,239,490.96
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
192,866.94
663.34
193,530.28
COMPUTER REPLACEMENT FUND
(1,153.91)
(1,153.91)
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY FUND
1,217,229.67
7,901.35
546,303.22
678,827.80
TOTALS
$31,624,058.00
$3,523, 540.88
$2,438,315.73
$0.00
$32,709,283.15
SUMMARY OF CASH:
DEMAND DEPOSITS:
GENERAL ACCOUNT
$177,896.35
PAYROLL ACCOUNT
12,024.61
CHANGE FUND
250.00
PETTY CASH ACCOUNT
500.00
TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS
$190,670.96
INVESTMENTS US TREASURY Money Market Acct. $1,791,844.16
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD 30,047,940.23
31,839,784.39
US TREASURY Money Market
CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT: Account $531,063.44
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD 147,764.36
(Bond Proceeds Account)
678,827.80
TOTAL CASH $32,709,283.15
Note: The City of Diamond Bar is invested in the State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund. There are two LAIF accounts set up. The
regular account's funds are available for withdrawal within 24 hours. The LAIF Bond Proceeds account's withdrawals require 30 days notice.
As a secondary investment option, the City maintains the US Treasury Sweep Accounts with Wells Fargo and the City's Fiscal Age nt, Union Bank
of California. Any excess funds are "swept" on a daily basis from the City's bank accounts and are invested overnight in a pool of US Treasury
Notes. Interest is credited to the City's bank accounts on a monthly basis.
L.A. LF -Effective Yield -April 2004 1.445
Wells Fargo Money Mkt -Effective Yield -April 2004 0.384%
Union Bank Money Mkt- Effective Yield - April 2004 0.800
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
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6.6
Meeting Date: June 1, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Rejection of Claim — Filed by Fredrick Fidel — December 23, 2003.
RECOMMENDATION: Carl Warren & Co., the City's claims administrator, recommends the City
Counc it reject the claim filed by Frederick Fidel.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There isno financial implication associated with rejecting this claim. The
claim for damage is for approximately $1,100. Should the claim be successful, it will be paid by the
JPIA.
BACKGROUND: On December 23, 2003, Fredrick Fidel filed a Claim for Damages with the City
alleging that a limb from a City tree broke off and damaged two automobiles in his driveway. Carl
Warren & Co., the City's claims administrator, determined that the claim appears to be one of
questiona ble liab ility and has recommended denial. Upon action by the City Counc il, appropriate
notice shall be sent to the claimant and Carl Warren & Co.
PREPARED BY: Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk
REVIEWED BY:
Deputy City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
Agenda # 6.7
Meeting Date: June 1. 2004
AGENDA REPORT
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: AUTHORIZATION TO INCREASE THE PRINTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH
PEPR GRAPHICS BY $7,000 FORA TOTAL FY 200 3-04 EXPENDITURE OF $60,000.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize a $7,000 increase to the printing services
agreement with Pepr Graphics for a total expenditure of $60,000 for the 2003-2004 fiscal year.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Funds for these services are already included in this fiscal year budget.
BACKGROUND/DIS CUSSION:
Per the City's Purchasing Ordinance, awards for services to a single vendor in a fiscal year shall not
exceed the City Manager's purchasing authority of $25,000 without prior approval from the City
Council. Previously, the City Council authorized a purchase order in an amount not -to -exceed
$53,000 to Pepr Graphics for printing services for the 2003-04 fiscal year.
Pepr Graphics was selected as the print vendor for the 2003-04 FY for the City News, Recreation
Guide, and business cards. During this fiscal year, two special inserts were printed for the City News
including street sweeping and slope maintenance. In addition, the opening of the Diamond Bar Center
increased the number of programs offered to resident s, which resulted in an increase in the number
of pages and distribution amount of the City's Recreation Guide. The opening of the Diamond Bar
Center also significantly increased the number of business card orders.
Due to all these factors, staff anticipates expenditures up to $7,000 for the remainder of this fiscal
yea r.
PREPARED BY:
April Blakey
Public Information Manager
REVIEWED BY:
David Doyle
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: June 4, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Approval of 5 year Municipal Law Enforcement Services Agreement with the County of
Los Angeles for general law enforcement services.
RECOMMENDATION:
City staff recommends the City Council approve the attached contract with the County of Los Angeles
for law enforcement services and authorize the Mayor to sign the agreement.
FINANCIA L IMPACT:
The financial impact for FY 2004-05 is approximately $4.26 million. Sufficient funds will be
appropriated in the FY 2004-05 budget for this expense. The cost in future years is unknown but itis
reasonable to estimate, assuming there is no change in the current level of service, that the contract
amount would increaseby 24% each year.
DISCUSSI ON
Since incorporation the City has been engaged in a successful partnership with the County of Los
Angeles Sheriffs Department to provide general law enforcement services in the City. The attached
contract states the terms and general conditions of how the services will beprovided.
In FY 2004-05 the only proposed change to the Diamond Bar Policing Team is a recommendation to
add a motorcycle traffic officer. The cost of this additional position will beoffset by the elimination of
the Diamond Bar Team Leader position. This recommended change originates from the Sheriffs
Department after a review of the Diamond Bar Policing Team bythe Team Lieutenant, Traffic
Sergeant, and Deputy City Manager. Again, this change will have no cost impact.
PREPARED BY
David A. Doyle
Deputy City Manager
Attachments:
1. Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department Contract for FY 2004 through FY 2009
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6.9
Meeting Date: June 1, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: AUTHORIZE THE PURCHASE OF EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT
COMMUNICATIONS EQUIPMENT IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $16,000 FROM
METRO MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS ANDAPPROPRIATE NECESSARY GRANT
FUNDS FROM HOMELAND SECURITY FY03 PART II ($13,730) AND CALIFORNIA
LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIPMENT PROGRAM (CLEEP) ($2,270)
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the purchase and appropriate the necessary funds.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The City will use already -awarded grant funds from the Federal Homeland Security Grant Program
and a portion of the funds allocated by the Califomia Law Enforcement Equipment Program.
BACKGROUND /DISCUSSION:
In the wake of the 9/11 tragedy, the Federal Government allocated funds to local governments in
order to enhance homeland security. For Fiscal Year 2003 the Homeland Security Grant Program
Part II awarded the City of Dia mond Bar $13,730. The money could be used for a variety of
equipment orprograms. The emphasis of these purchases, however, was to be "high tech" in nature.
The California Law Enforce Equipment Program also has an emphasis on upgrading local law
enforcement capability. The City was awarded money from a state pool. This purchase will use up to
$2,270 of a lump amount designated for Diamond Bar.
After careful consideration, City staff and the L.A. County Sheriffs Department determined that a City-
wide emergency management communications system is the top priority for the use of these funds.
The City subsequently issued a Request For Proposals (RFP) for the purchase of twenty—five (25)
Motorola portable radio units. Metro Mobile Communications was the lowest bidder. The radios will
be located at schools, city facilities and other locations. They will serve as backbone for future
emergency operations .
Prepared by:
---------------- ---------
Jim Clarke, Legislative Analyst
Attach men is
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6.10(a)
Meeting Date: June 1. 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR TO DECLARE THE CITY'S INTENTION TO LEVY
AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE DISTRICT
NO. 38 AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE THE
PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL AT THE JULY 6,
2004 REGULAR MEETING.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution.
aIZ/_1ZM/_1 W111LYiILYi/_1 WS
There will be no impact on the City's General Funds. As shown on the attached
Engineer's Report, the $265,905 of assessment generated by this District is proposed to
pay for the operation, maintenance cost, and Capital Improvements budgeted in special
fund No. 138.
BACKGROUND/DIS CUS SION:
The attached Engineer's Report for the City's Landscaping Assessment District Number
38, which is prepared pursuant to provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California, includes authority for the report, estimated costs of improvements, a diagram
for the District and the assessments.
The estimated number of parcels within the District is 17,727 parcels. The amount
assessed upon the lands within District Number 38 for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 was
$15.00 per parcel. The amount to be assessed for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 is to remain
at $15.00 per parcel. The assessments will be utilized towards the genera I
maintenance of City's medians and parkways.
The proposed assessment has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of
Proposition 218 as set forth in section 5 (a): Any assessment imposed exclusively to
finance the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets,
sewers, water, flood control drainage systems orvector control.
Prepared By:
Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst
V:kVjIAU►I40l: YA
David G. Liu James DeStefano
Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager
Attachments: Resolution No. 2004 -XX
Engineer's Report
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Update of
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38
Fiscal Year 2004-05
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Preliminary: June 1,2004
Prepared by:
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 230
Riverside, CA 92506
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Reven u e
Appropriations
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL
EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A-1" - Assessment Diagram
Exhibit "B-1" - Improvement Map
Page
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, this report is
prepared in complianc e with the requirement sof Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California.
This report presents the engineer ing analysisfor the 2004-05 Fiscal Year for the district
known as:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
(Hereinafter referred to as "District").
This District, by special benefit assessments, provides funding for the mainten ance of
landscaped areas owned by the City of Diamond Bar which are located in public rights-
of-way within the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be
levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may
be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special
benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the
improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvemen tAct of 1911 (Division
7 (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highwa ys Code, State of
California]."
As the assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee,
not a tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.
Properties owned by public agenc ies, such as a city, county, state or the federal
government, are not assessable under pre -Prop 218 law.
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
The boundary of the District is completely within the City limits of the City of Diamond
Bar and is shown on the Assessment Diagram (on file in the office of the City Clerk at
the City Hall of Diamond Bar as Exhibit "A-1 "). All parcels of real property included
within the District are described in detail on maps on file in the Los Angeles County
Assessor's office.
IMPROVEMENTS
The facilities and items of servicing and maintenance included within the District are as
follows:
Landscaping
Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the
operation of any fountains, orthe maintenance of any other improvements.
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual
maintenance, operation and servicing of any improvement, including:
Repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any landscape improvement.
2. Providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including without
limitation, cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, ortreating for
disease or injury.
3. The removal oftrimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste.
Improvements to be serviced and maintained include, but are not limited to, median
island and parkway landscaping on major streets and thoroughfares in the City of
Diamond Bar. Exhibit "B-1," attached hereto, shows the location and extent ofthe
landscaping improvements to be maintained by the proceeds from this assessment
d istrict.
3
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The estimated funding for maintenance and servicing of landscaping for the update of
Assessment District No. 38 for the 2004-05 Fiscal Year is as follows:
2004-05
Recommended Budget
Revenue:
Appropriation Fund Balance (from FY 2003-04) $450,783
Property Tax - Spec ial Assessments 265,905
Interest Revenue 7.000
TOTAL $ 723,688
Appropriations:
Personnel Services
Salaries
$ 15,450
City Paid Benefits
250
Retirement
2,350
Worker's Compensation Expense
650
Short/Long Term Disability
100
Medicare Expense
250
Cafeteria Benefits
2,850
Operating Expenses
Ad vertisin g
1,000
Utilities
112,200
Maintenance-Grou nds & Bldg
15,000
Professional Services
7,000
Contract Services
120,000
Capital Outlay
Capital Improvements
35,000
Transfer to CIP Fund *'
410,000
Reserve for Future Capital Improvements
1,588
TOTAL
$ 723,688
Includes replacement often irrigation control lers/cab i net boxes @
$3,500/eac h.
City Entry Improvements - SE Corner Diamond Bar Blvd. @Temple
Ave.
Landscape Improvements - Diamond Bar Blvd. between Maple Hill &
Mountain Laurel
Landscape Improvements - Pathfinder Rd. @ Evergreen Springs Dr.
Landscape Improvements - BCR @ Gerndal St.
Landscape Improvements -Golden Springs Dr. @ Adel Ave.
4
Plans and Specifications
Plans and specifications showing the general nature, location and extent ofthe
proposed improvements are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public
inspection.
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The net amount to be assessed upon lands within the District in accordance with this
report is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received byeach lot orparcel from the improvements, namely the maintenance and
servicing of public landscaping improvements within such District. The maintenance
and servicing of public landscaping improvements installed and constructed in public
places in the City of Diamond Bar provides a special benefit which is received by each
and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value.
The primary benefits of landscaping are as set forth below:
Beautification of the streets which are used by all of the residents in Diamond
Bar.
2. Asense of community pride resulting from well-maintained green spaces.
3. The enhancement of the value of property which results from the foregoing
ben efits.
Existing land use information indicates that well over 90 percent of the parcels within the
City of Diamond Bar are residences. Because the special benefits derived apply
equally to all residents and parcels, it has been determined that all assessable parcels
would receive the same net assessment.
6
ASSESSMENT
The amount to be assessed upon the lots and parcels within the District and the amount
apportioned to each assessable parcel within the District is shown in the table below.
Estimated Assessment Requirements:
$265,905
Estimated Number of Parcels:
17,727
Estimated Assessment Per Parcel:
$
15.00
2003-04 Assessment Per Parcel:
$
15.00
2004-05 Assessment Per Parcel:
$
15.00
Difference:
7
$ 0.00
ASSESSMENT ROLL
The individual 2004-05 assessments, tabulated by Assessor's parcel number, are
shown on an Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar as Exhibit "C and are made a part of this report by reference. (The
Assessment Roll is not included in this report due to its volume.)
Dated: ,2004
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
`� No. 027861 y JOHN A. FRIEDRICH
* E:p. 3/31 /06
�� CIVIL _gip
\\ CF
EXHIBITS
MOO
RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TO DECLARE THE CITY'S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE DISTRICT NO. 38 AND DIRECT THE
CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
COUNCIL AT THE JULY 6, 2004 REGULAR MEETING.
A. RECITALS.
(i) Heretofore the City of Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 38 was created
pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (§§ 22500, et.
seq.).
(ii) The City Engineer has prepared, filed with the City Clerk and presented to this
Council a report relating to said assessment district pursuant to the provisions of the
California Streets and Highways Code § 22623.
(iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
1. The Recitals, as set forth in Part A of this Resolution, are in all respects true
and correct.
2. The above-described report submitted by the City Engineer relating to City of
Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 38 is hereby approved as filed.
3. This Council hereby declares its intention to levy and collect assessments
during fiscal year 2004-05 pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways
Code of the State of California, known as the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972," within
that area designated "City of Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 38," as shown on Exhibit
"A-1" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4. A general description of the improvements proposed for the aforementioned
district is as follows:
The installation, maintenance and servicing of landscaping and any facilities
which are appurtenant thereto or which are necessary or convenient for the
maintenance and servicing thereof, including but not limited to, repair, removal or
replacement, grading, clearing, removal of debris, pruning, fertilization, pest control
and weed control, and the installation or construction of appurtenant facilities,
including curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks or pav ing, or water, irrigation, drainage, or
electrical facilities. Said installation, maintenance and servicing of the landscaping
and installation, maintenance and servicing of related work shall bewithin the area of
Assessment District No. 38 as shown on Exhibit "A-1." The location and type of
improvement is shown on Exhibit "B-1," as attached hereto and incorporated herein
by reference.
5. Reference is hereby made to the report of the City Engineer relating to the
said assessment district hereinabove approved. Said report is on file with the City Clerk of
the City of Diamond Bar and contains a full and detailed description of the improvements,
the boundaries of the assessment district and contains the proposed assessments upon
assessable lots and parcels of land within City of Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 38
for fiscal year 2004-05. Said proposed assessment per lot is the amount of $15.00, the
same amount which was levied in fiscal year 2003-04.
6. This Council hereby fixes 7:00 p.m. on July 6, 2004 in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Auditorium, 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, as
the time and place for a hearing before this Council on this question of the levy of the
proposed assessments on assessable lots with City of Diamond Bar Assessment District
No. 38 for fiscal year 2004-05 and hereby gives notice of said hearing.
7. The City Council hereby determines and declares that the proposed
assessments constitute a continuation of a ssessments existing on the effective date of
2
Article XIIID of the California Constitution, that the assessments are imposed exclusively to
finance the capital costs and maintenance and operation expenses for streets and
sidewalks and that the assessments are exempt from the requirements of Article XIIID,
Section 4 of the California Constitution.
8. The City Clerk shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Cause a true and correct copy of this Resolution to be published pursuant to
California Government Code § 6061.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 1 st day of June 2004.
Bob Zirbes
Mayor
I, LINDA C. LOWRY, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adop ted atthe regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 1 st day of June, 2004, by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
,C]
Agenda # 6.10(b)
Meeting Date: June 1. 2004
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
-liiitivfit,tiil
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR TO DECLARE THE CITY'S INTENTION TO LEVY
AND COL L ECT ASSESSMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE DISTRICT
NO. 39 AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE THE
PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL AT THE JULY 6,
2004 REGULAR MEETING
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
There will be no impact on the City's General Funds. As shown on the attached
Engineer's Report, the $164,190 of assessment generated by this District is proposed to
pay for the operation, maintenance costs, and Capital Improvements budgeted in
special fund No. 139.
BACKGROUND/DIS CUS SION:
The attached Engineer's Report for the City's Landscaping Assessment District Number
39, which is prepared pursuant to provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California, includes authority for the report, estimated costs of improvements, a diagram
for the District and the assessments.
The estimated number of parcels within the District is 1,263 parcels. The amount
assessed upon the lands within District Number 39 for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 was
$130.00 per parcel. The amount to be assessed for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 is to remain
at $130.00 per parcel. The assessments will be utilized towards the general
maintenance of slopes, open space areas and the five (5) mini parks within District 39.
The proposed assessment has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of
Proposition 218 as set forth in section 5 (b ): Any assessment imposed pursuant to a
petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment atthe
time the assessment is initially imposed.
Prepared By:
Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu James DeStefano
Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager
Attachments: Resolution No. 2004 -XX
Engineer's Report
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Update of
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39
Fiscal Year 2004-05
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Preliminary: June 1,2004
Prepared by:
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 230
Riverside, CA 92506
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Reven u e
Appropriations
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL
EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A-2" - Assessment Diagram
Exhibit "B-2" - Improvement Map
Page
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, this report is
prepared in complianc e with the requirement sof Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California.
This report presents the engineer ing analysisfor the 2004-05 Fiscal Year for the district
known as:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
(Hereinafter referred to as "District").
This District, by special benefit assessments, provides funding for the maintenance of
landscaped areas owned by the City of Diam and Bar which are located in public rights-
of-way within the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be
levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may
be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special
benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the
improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvemen tAct of 1911 (Division
7 (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of
California]."
As the assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee,
not a tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.
Properties owned by public agenc ies, such as a city, county, state or the federal
government, are not assessable under pre -Prop 218 law.
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
The boundary of the District is shown on the Assessment Diagram (on file in the office
of the City Clerk atthe City Hall of Diamond Bar as Exhibit "A-2"). All parcels of real
property included within the District are described in detail on maps on file in the Los
Angeles County Assessor's office.
IMPROVEMENTS
The facilities and items of servicing and maintenance included within the District are as
follows:
Landscaping
Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the
operation of any fountains, orthe maintenance of any other improvements.
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual
maintenance, operation and servicing of any improvement, including:
Repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any landscape improvement.
2. Providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including without
limitation, cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, ortreating for
disease or injury.
3. The removal oftrimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste.
The purpos e of Assessment District No. 39 is for the maintenanc a and servicing of mini -
parks, slopes and open spaces within the District. Exhibit "B-2," attached hereto, shows
the location and extent of the landscaping improvement s to be maintained by the
proceeds from this assessment district.
3
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The estimated funding for maintenance and servicing of landscaping for the update of
Assessment District No. 39 for the 2004-05 Fiscal Year is as follows:
2004-05
Recommended Budget
Revenue:
Appropriation Fund Balance (from FY 2003-04) $ 176,300
Property Tax and Assessments 164,190
Interest Revenue 3.000
TOTAL $ 343,490
Aoorooriations:
Personal Services
Salaries
$ 15,450
City Paid Benefits
250
Retirement
2,350
Worker's Compensation Expense
650
Short/Long Term Disability
100
Medicare Expense
250
Cafeteria Benefits
2,850
Operating Expenses
Advertising
1,000
Utilities
61,160
Maintenance -Gro unds & Bldg.
15,000
Professional Services
7,000
Contract Services
57,000
Capital Outlays
Miscellaneous Equipment
33,000
Transfer to CIP Fund "
25,800
Reserve for Future Capital Improvements
121.630
TOTAL $ 343,490
Includes replacement of 10 irrigation controllers/cont roller boxes @
$3,300 each.
Pantera Drive —Slope Repair
Asfunds become available, itis planned to update equipment in each ofthe district's
mini -parks.
4
Plans and Specifications
Plans and specifications showing the general nature, location and extent of any
proposed improvements are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public
inspection.
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The net amount to be assessed upon lands within the District in accordance with this
report is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received byeach lot orparcel from the improvements, namely the maintenance and
servicing of public landscaping improvements within such District. The maintenance
and servicing of public landscaping improvements installed and constructed in public
places in the City of Diamond Bar provides a special benefit which is received by each
and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value.
The primary benefits of landscaping are as set forth below:
Beautification of the streets which are used by all of the residents in Diamond
Bar.
2. Public parks which can be utilized and enjoyed by all residents within the District
3. Asense of community pride resulting from well-maintained green spaces.
4. The enhancement of the value of property which results from the foregoing
ben efits.
Existing land use information indicates that all of the parcels within the District are
residences. Because the special benefits derived apply equally to all residents and
parcels, it has been determined that all assessable parcels would receive the same net
assessment.
6
ASSESSMENT
The amount to be assessed upon the lots and parcels within the District and the amount
apportioned to each assessable parcel within the District is shown in the table below.
Estimated Assessment Requirements: $164,190
Estimated Number of Parcels:
1,263
Estimated Assessment Per Parcel: $ 130.00
2002-03 Assessment Per Parcel: $ 130.00
2004-05 Assessment Per Parcel: $ 130.00
Difference:
7
$ 0.00
ASSESSMENT ROLL
The individual 2004-05 assessments, tabulated by Assessor's parcel number, are
shown on an Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar as Exhibit "C and are made a part of this report by reference. (The
Assessment Roll is not included in this report due to its volume.)
Dated: ,2004
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
No,. 861
3
� e:p3/331 /06 * JOHN A. FRIEDRICH
�. CIVIL �p
�� CSF
EXHIBITS
RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR TO DECLARE THE CITY'S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE DISTRICT NO. 39 AND DIRECT THE
CITY CLERKTO ADVERTISE THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
COUNCIL AT THE JULY 6, 2004 REGULAR MEETI NG
A. RECITALS.
(i) Heretofore the City of Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 39 was created
pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (§§
22500, et. seq.).
(ii) The City Engineer has prepared, filed with the City Clerk and presented to
this Counc it a report relating to said assessment district pursuant to the provisions of the
California Streets and Highways Code § 22623.
(iii) No substantial changes in existing improvements are proposed for said
Assessment District No. 39.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE City Counc it of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby
find, determine and resolve as follows:
1. The Recitals, as set forth in Part A of this Resolution, are in all respects
true and correct.
2. The above-described report submitted by the City Engineer relating to City
of Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 39 is hereby approved as filed.
3. This Council hereby declares its intention to levy and collect assessments
during fiscal year 2004-05 pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways
Code of the State of California, known as the "Landsc aping and Lighting Act of 1972,"
within that area designated "City of Diamond Ba r Assessment District No. 39," as shown
on Exhibit "A-2" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4. A general description of the improvements proposed for the
aforementioned district is as follows:
The maintenance and servicing of landsca ping and any facilities which are
appurtenant thereto or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance
and servicing thereof, including but not limited to, repair, removal orreplacement,
grading, clearing, removal of debris, pruning, fertilization, pest control and weed
control, and the installation or construction of appurtenant facilities, including
curbs, gutters, walls, sidewalks or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or
electrical facilities. Said maintenance and servicing of the landscaping and
installation, maintenance and servicing of related work shall bewithin the area of
Assessment District No. 39 as shown on Exhibit "A-2." The location and type of
improvement is shown on Exhibit "B-2," as attached hereto and incorporated
herein by reference."
5. Reference is hereby made to the report of the City Engineer relating to the
said assessment district hereinabove approved. Said report is on file with the City Clerk
of the City of Diamond Bar and contains a full and detailed description of the
improvements, the boundaries of the assessment district and contains the proposed
assessments upon assessable lots and parcels of land within City of Diamond Bar
Assessment District No. 39 for fiscal year 2004-05. Said proposed assessment per lot
is the amount of $130.00, the same amount which was levied in fiscal year 2003-04.
6. This Counc it hereby fixes 7:00 p.m. on July 6, 2004 in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Auditorium, 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California,
as the time and place for a hearing before this Counc it on this question of the levy of the
proposed assessments on assessable lots with City of Diamond Bar Assessment
District No. 39 for fiscal year 2004-05 and hereby gives notice of said hearing .
7. The City Council hereby determines and declares that the proposed
assessments constitute a continuation of assessments existing on the effective date of
2
Article XIIID of the California Constitution, that the assessments are imposed pursuant
to a petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment
at the time the assessment was initially imposed and that the assessments are exempt
from the requirements of Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution.
8. The City Clerk shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Cause a true and correct copy ofth is Resolution to be published pursuant to
California Government Code § 6061.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 1 st day of June, 2004.
Bob Zirbes
Mayor
I, LINDA C. LOWRY, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that
the foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adopted at the regular meeting of
the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 1 st day of June, 2004, by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
r_1: �9�.r.1:N=kTAI:I►TA1a:4="]
r_lIf-All ►1Q•�K•1l1►Is] =•1a•1:3:4:�*]
ATTEST:
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
3
Agenda # 6. 100
Meeting Date: June 1. 2004
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR TO DECLARE THE CITY'S INTENTION TO LEVY
AND COLLECT ASSESSMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE DISTRICT
NO. 41 AND DIRECT THE CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE THE
PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL AT THE JULY 6,
2004 REGULAR MEETING.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the resolution.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
There will be no impact on the City's General Funds. As shown on the attached
Engineer's Report, the $122,157 of assessment generated by this District is proposed to
pay for the operation, maintenance costs, and Capital Improvements budgeted in
special fund No. 141.
BACKGROUND/DIS CUS SION:
The attached Engineer's Report for the City's Landscaping Assessment District Number
41, which is prepared pursuant to provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of
1972 of Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of
California, includes authority for the report, estimated costs of improvements, a diagram
for the District and the assessments.
The estimated number of parcels within the District is 554 parcels. The amount
assessed upon the lands within District Number 41 for Fiscal Year 2003-2004 was
$220.50 per parcel. The amount to be assessed for Fiscal Year 2004-2005 is to remain
at $220.50 per parcel. The assessments will be utilized towards the general
maintenance of mini parks, slopes, and open space areas within District 41.
The proposed assessment has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of
Proposition 218 as set forth in section 5 (b ): Any assessment imposed pursuant to a
petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment atthe
time the assessment is initially imposed.
Prepared By:
Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst
V:kVJIWU►I402 --YA
David G. Liu James DeStefano
Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager
Attachments: Resolution No. 2004 -XX
Engineer's Report
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Update of
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41
Fiscal Year 2004-05
NIWK612d/_1ky,W11101-7_1V
Preliminary: June 1, 2004
Prepared by:
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 230
Riverside, CA 92506
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Reven u e
Appropriations
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL
EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A-3" - Assessment Diagram
Exhibit "B-3" - Improvement Map
Page
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, this report is
prepared in complianc e with the requirement sof Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California.
This report presents the engineer ing analysisfor the 2004-05 Fiscal Year for the district
known as:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41
Ilei I WK9711] /_1 kyi W Z UI 7_1 V
(Hereinafter referred to as "District").
This District, by special benefit assessments, provides funding for the maintenance of
landscaped areas owned by the City of Diamond Bar which are located in public rights-
of-way within the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be
levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may
be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special
benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the
improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvemen tAct of 1911 (Division
7 (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of
California]."
As the assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee,
not a tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.
Properties owned by public agenc ies, such as a city, county, state or the federal
government, are not assessable under pre -Prop 218 law.
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
The boundary of the District is shown on the Assessment Diagram (on file in the office
of the City Clerk atthe City Hall of Diamond Bar as Exhibit "A-3"). All parcels of real
property included within the District are described in detail on maps on file in the Los
Angeles County Assessor's office.
IMPROVEMENTS
The facilities and items of servicing and maintenance included within the District are as
follows:
Landscaping
Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the
operation of any fountains, orthe maintenance of any other improvements.
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual
maintenance, operation and servicing of any improvement, including:
Repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any landscape improvement.
2. Providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including without
limitation, cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, ortreating for
disease or injury.
3. The removal oftrimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste.
The purpos e of Assessment District No. 41 is for the maintenanc a and servicing of mini -
parks, slopes and open spaces within the District. Exhibit "B-3," attached hereto, shows
the location and extent of the landscaping improvement s to be maintained by the
proceeds from this assessment district.
3
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The estimated funding for maintenance and servicing of landscaping for the update of
Assessment District No. 41 for the 2004-05 Fiscal Year is as follows:
2004-05
Recommended Budget
Revenue:
Appropriation Fund Balance (from FY 2003-04) $ 360,898
Property Tax and Assessments 122,157
Interest Revenue 4,000
TOTAL $ 487,055
Aoorooriations:
Personal Services
Salaries
$ 15,450
City Paid Benefits
250
Retirement
2,350
Worker's Compensation Expense
650
Short/Long Term Disability
100
Medicare Expense
250
Cafeteria Benefits
2,850
Operating Expenses
Advertising
1,000
Utilities
72,010
Maintenance -Gro unds & Bldg
10,000
Professional Services
7,000
Contract Services
Contract Services
27,000
Weed/Pest Abatement
15,000
Capital Outlays
Miscellaneous Equipment
52,500
Capital Improvement s **
240,000
Reserve for Future Capital Improvements
40.645
TOTAL
$ 487,055
Includes replacement of 15 irrigation controllers/cont roller boxes @ $3,500 each.
„ Slope Improvements —Brea Canyon Cutoff & Fallow Field Drive / WCL
4
Plans and Specifications
Plans and specifications showing the general nature, location and extent ofthe
proposed improvements are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public
inspection.
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The net amount to be assessed upon lands within the District in accordance with this
report is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received byeach lot orparcel from the improvements, namely the maintenance and
servicing of public landscaping improvements within such District. The maintenance
and servicing of public landscaping improvements installed and constructed in public
places in the City of Diamond Bar provides a special benefit which is received by each
and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value.
The primary benefits of landscaping are as set forth below:
Beautification of the streets which are used by all of the residents in Diamond
Bar.
2. Public parks which can be utilized and enjoyed by all residents within the District
3. Asense of community pride resulting from well-maintained green spaces.
4. The enhancement of the value of property which results from the foregoing
ben efits.
Existing land use information indicates that all of the parcels within the District are
residences. Because the special benefits derived apply equally to all residents and
parcels, it has been determined that all assessable parcels would receive the same net
assessment.
6
ASSESSMENT
The amount to be assessed upon the lots and parcels within the District and the amount
apportioned to each assessable parcel within the District is shown in the table below.
Estimated Assessment Requirements: $122,157
Estimated Number of Parcels:
554
Estimated Assessment Per Parcel: $ 220.50
2002-03 Assessment Per Parcel: $ 220.50
2004-05 Assessment Per Parcel: $ 220.50
Difference:
7
$ 0.00
ASSESSMENT ROLL
The individual 2004-05 assessments, tabulated by Assessor's parcel number, are
shown on an Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar as Exhibit "C and are made a part of this report by reference. (The
Assessment Roll is not included in this report due to its volume.)
Dated: ,2004
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
\► ria. c27ss1� JOHN A. FRIEDRICH
�\ a:p. 3/31 /06
�. CIVIL �p
�� CSF
EXHIBITS
RESOLUTION NO. 2004 -XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TO DECLARE THE CITY'S INTENTION TO LEVY AND COLLECT
ASSESSMENTS FOR LANDSCAPE DISTRICT NO. 41 AND DIRECT THE
CITY CLERK TO ADVERTISE THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE
COUNCIL AT THE JULY 6, 2004 REGULAR MEETING.
A. RECITALS.
(i) Heretofore the City of Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 41 was created
pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the California Streets and Highways Code (§§ 22500, et.
seq.).
(ii) The City Engineer has prepared, filed with the City Clerk and presented to this
Council a report relating to said assessment district pursuant to the provisions of the
California Streets and Highways Code § 22623.
(iii) No substantial changes in existing improvements are proposed for said
Assessment District No. 41.
(iv) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, THE City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby find,
determine and resolve as follows:
1. The Recitals as set forth in Part A of this Resolution, are in all respects true
and correct.
2. The above-described report submitted by the City Engineer relating to City of
Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 41 is hereby approved as filed.
3. This Council hereby declares its intention to levy and collect assessments
during fiscal year 2004-05 pursuant to Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways
Code of the State of California, known as the "Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972," within
that area designated "City of Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 41," as shown on Exhibit
"A-3" attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference.
4. A general description of the improvements proposed for the aforementioned
district is as follows:
The maintenance and servicing of landscaping and any facilities which are
appurtenant thereto or which are necessary or convenient for the maintenance and
servicing thereof, including but not limited to, repair, removal or replacement, grading,
clearing, removal of debris, pruning, fertilization, pest control and weed control, and
the installation or construction of appurtenant facilities, including curbs, gutters, walls,
sidewalks or paving, or water, irrigation, drainage, or electrical facilities. Said
maintenance and servicing of the landscaping and installation, maintenance and
servicing of related work shall be within the area of Assessment District No. 41 as
shown on Exhibit "A-3." The location and type of improvement is shown on Exhibit
"B-3," as attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference."
5. Reference is hereby made to the report of the City Engineer relating to the
said assessment district hereinabove approved. Said report is on file with the City Clerk of
the City of Diamond Bar and contains a full and detailed description of the improvements,
the boundaries of the assessment district and contains the proposed assessments upon
assessable lots and parcels of land within City of Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 41
for fiscal year 2004-05. Said proposed assessment per lot is the amount of $220.50, the
same amount which was levied in fiscal year 2003-04.
6. This Council hereby fixes 7:00 p.m. on July 6, 2004 in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District Auditorium, 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, California, as
the time and place for a hearing before this Council on this question of the levy of the
proposed assessments on assessable lots with City of Diamond Bar Assessment District
No. 41 for fiscal year 2004-05 and hereby gives notice of said hearing.
2
7. The City Council hereby determines and declares that the proposed
assessments constitute a continuation of assessments existing on the effective date of
Article XIIID of the California Constitution, that the assessments are imposed pursuant to a
petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment at the
time the assessment was initially imposed and that the assessments are exempt from the
requirements of Article XIIID, Section 4 of the California Constitution.
8. The City Clerk shall:
(a) Certify to the adoption of this Resolution; and
(b) Cause a true and correct copy of this Resolution to be published
pursuant to California Government Code § 6061.
PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 1 st ay of June, 2004.
Bob Zirbes
Mayor
I, LINDA C. LOWRY, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, do hereby certify that the
foregoing Resolution was passed, approved and adop ted at the regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 1 st day of June, 2004, by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
3
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # _ 7.1
Meeting Date: June 1. 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR EXTE NDING
THE TERM OF AN URGENCY ZONING ORDINANCE NO. 01 (2004)
REGARDING THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF SECOND DWELLING UNITS AND
GUEST HOUSES PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA
GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65858 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN
SUPPORT THEREOF.
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt
FINANCIAL IMPACT: N/A
BACKGROUND:
September 2003, the City's development standards for second dwelling units were revised to
reflect the 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 public notice or
hearing and may be approved by City staff.
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 un it's size by local ordinance. The 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 feet
efficiency unit
Pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858 (b) requirements, Ordinance No. 01
(2004), was adopted on April 20, 2004 to establish a maximum 500 square feet size limitation
for guesthouses and second dwelling units for a period of 45 days. This Urgency Ordinance
was adopted in order to allow an in depth evaluation to determi ne if the current Development
Code's 1,200 square feet maximum size limitation for guesthouses and second dwelling units
is appropriate for single-family lots in the City.
Due to timing, notices, and schedules for hearings, additional time is required for a complete
study ofthe issues. Therefore, staff recommends that the Urgency Ordinance remain in effect
for an additional 10 months 15 days, or until such time as other permanent size limitations be
studied, considered, and adopted.
Actions Taken
Pursuant to the requirements of California Government Code Section 65858(d) , the following
constitutes a written report of the City Council concerning those measures taken to alleviate
the conditions that led to the adoption of Ordinance No. 1 (2004).
To date the City staff has:
1. Begun analysis of the impacts and issues for second dwelling units and guest houses size
on City services;
2. Reviewed and determined that until the study and possible amendment are completed that
the Urgency Ordinance with the 500 square feet size limitation is necessary for the
immediate preservation of the public peace, health, safety and welfare;
3. Reviewed and determined that the potential inconsistency of the existing City Code
standards of 1,200 square feet for second dwelling units and guesthouses compared to the
new or modified State regulations would be detrimental to sound land use planning and
would allow incompatible land use development which constitutes a current and immediate
threat to public welfare;
4. Initiated efforts to formulate specific size amendments to the City's Zoning Ordinance,
which includes public hearings at the Planning Commission and ultimately to the City
Council;
5. Reviewed and determined that the evaluation should includes changes of second dwelling
units currently being deliberated by the State in AB 2702 (Steinberg), which was last
amended May 6,2004;
Reviewed and determined that the goal of such amendment is to create a unified and
balanced plan for the City of Diamond Bar;
Reviewed and determined that the preparation of the amendments will provide the
necessary guidelines for long-term development in the City and contemplated amendments
to the Zoning Ordinance will permit the comprehensive review of applications for
guesthouses and second dwelling units.
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 of the residents, and
preserves and enhances the aesthet ic quality of the 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 disable. The purpose of a
guesthouse is to temporarily house visitors. Second dwelling units and guesthouses are not
intended to increase the density, or result in the creation of multiple dwellings or multiple -
family dwellings within the single-family zone.
Therefore, staff recommends that the City Council extend 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. 01 (2004);
2. Ordinance No. 01-A (2004).
ORDINANCE NO. 01-A (2004)
AN INTERIM ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR EXTENDING THE
TERM OF AN URGENCY ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE MAXIMUM SIZE OF
SECOND DWELLING UNITS AND GUEST HOUSES, ORDIANANCE NO. 01 (2004),
PURSUANT TO PROVISIONS OF CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION
65858 AND MAKING FINDINGS IN SUPPORT THEREOF.
A. RECITALS.
1. On April 20, 2004, pursuant to the provisions of California Government Code
Section 65858(a), the City Council adopted its Ordinance No. 01 (2004)
establishing a temporary size limit on second dwelling units and guest houses.
2. On May 18, 2004, pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code
Section 65858(4) the City Council issued its written report describing the measures
taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of Ordinance No. 01
(2004) and at least ten (10) days prior to the expiration of Ordinance No. 01 (2004).
3. On June 1, 2004, a duly noticed public hearing as required by California
Government Code Section 65858(a) was conducted and concluded prior to the
adoption ofthis extension of Ordinance No. 01 (2004).
4. Alllegal prerequisites tothe adoption ofthis ordinance have occurred
B. ORDINANCE .
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of th e City of Diamond Bar does hereby ordain
as follows:
Section 1 . The City Council hereby specifically finds that all the facts which were set
forth in Recitals, Part A, of this ordinance are true and correct.
Section 2. The City Council hereby finds and determines that the adoption of this
ordinance is categorically exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental
Quality Act of 1970, as amended, and the Guidelines promulgated thereunder pursuant to
Section 15306.
Section 3. The City Council finds and determines that the consideration and
development of proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are continuing; however,
such amendments cannot be completed prior to the expiration of Ordinance No. 01 (2004).
Section 4. The City Council is concerned about the creation of orderly and balanced
development within the City of Diamond Bar. Accordingly, to protect the General Plan's
4
integrity and to insure the continued economic and development stability of properties within
the City, this Council finds it necessary to establish interim zoning policies to allow City staff
the time necessary to investigate and formulate 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 guest houses 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
we[ fa re.
Section 5. Ordinance No. 01 (2004) of the City of Diamond Bar, as heretofore enacted
under the authority of California Government Code Section 65858 (a), hereby is extended for
an additional 10 months and 15 days, and shall be of no further force and effect as of the 19 th
day of April, 2005, unless sooner repealed.
Section 6. This Ordinance hereby is declared to be an urgency measure pursuant to
the terms of California Government Code Sections 65858 (a) and 36937 (b), and this
Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
Section 7. The City Clerk shall certify the adoption of this Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this ___ day of______, 2004.
Bob Zirb es, 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 at a 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