HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/20/20041
2
THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY ADELPHIA FOR AIRING ON
CHANNEL 3 AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR
PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE-BROADCAST
EVERY SATURDAY AT 9:00 A.M. AND EVERY TUESDAY AT 8:00 P.M. ON
CHANNEL 3.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
July 20, 2004
CLOSED SESSION: 6:00 p.m., Room CC -8
Public Comments on Closed Session Agenda
Government Code Section 54956.9(b) —
Potential Litigation 1 case
CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor
INVOCATION: Captain/Chaplain Tim Stromer,
L.A. County Fire Department
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Herrera, Mayor Zirbes
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 Proclaiming July 18 — 24, 2004 as "Probation, Parole and Community
Supervision Week."
NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH:
1.2 Presentation of Certificate Plaque to "The Gourmet Essentials"; Marili
Raymundo, owner.
BUSINESS OF THE MONTH: July, 2004
1.3 Presentation of City Tile to Ayres Suites, Diamond Bar; Veronica H.
Cabuco, General Manager.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
July 20, 2004 PAGE 2 City Council
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
(comDletion of this form is voluntarv). 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 CONCERT IN THE PARK (LA Blues — Classic Rock/Latin) — July 21, 2004
6:30 - 8:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr.
5.2 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING — July 22, 2004 —
7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Board Hearing Room, 21865
Copley Dr.
5.3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — July 27, 2004 — 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.4 CONCERT IN THE PARK(Upstream — Caribbean) — July 28, 2004 — 6:30
— 8:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr.
5.5 Library Task Force Meeting (Final) — August 2, 2004 — 6:00 p.m.,
AQMD/Government Center Room CC -8, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.6 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — August 3, 2004 — 6:30 p.m.,
AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.1 City Council Minutes:
6.1.1 Adjourned Regular Meeting of June 29, 2004 — Approve as
submitted.
6.1.2 Study Session of July 6, 2004 — Approve as submitted.
6.1.3 Regular Meeting of July 6, 2004 — Approve as submitted.
July 20, 2004 PAGE 3 City Council
6.2 Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting of June 22, 2004 -
Receive and file.
6.3 Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes—
Regular Meeting of June 10, 2004 -Receive and file.
6.4 Warrants - Approve Voucher Registers dated July 8 and July 15, 2004
in an amount totaling $1,244,249.81.
6.5 Rejection of Claims:
6.5.1 Filed by Joseph Randall Barksdale, June 29, 2004
Recommended Action: Reject.
6.5.2 Filed by Julie Galindo, May 28, 2004.
Recommended Action: Reject.
Requested by: City Clerk
6.6 Approve Extension of Contract with Southland Sports Officials for
FY 2004-05 in an amount not to exceed $30,000.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.7 Approve Extension of Contract in an amount not -to -exceed $55,000
with James B. Clarke for Legislative Analysis and Consulting
Services.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: City Manager
6.8 Approve Contract Amendment No. 4 with TruGreen LandCare for the
first six months of FY 04-05 in the amount of $101,690 which
includes a 3.7% C.P.I. increase; and authorization of $25,000 to serve
as a contingency for additional work that may be assigned between
July 1 and December 31, 2004.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Community Services Division
July 20, 2004 PAGE 4 City Council
6.9 Adopt Resolution No. 2004 -XX: Creating a Bond Retirement Reserve
to Accelerate the Repayment of the 2002 Lease Revenue Bonds
Issued by the Diamond Bar Public Financing Authority.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
Requested by: Finance Division
6.10 Adoption of City Council Goals and Objectives for FY 2004-05.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
Requested by: City Manager
6.11 Approve Amendment to the FY 2004-05 City Budget Regarding the
Parks Capital Improvement Program to add Pantera Park Picnic
Shelters and Reallocate Special Fund Appropriations.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.12 Award of Contract for Neighborhood Traffic Management Program
(NTMP) to Katz, Okitsu & Associates (KOA) in the amount of $64,980
and authorize a contingency amount of $10,020 for change orders to
be approved by the City Manager, for a total authorization amount of
$75,000.
Recommended Action: Award.
Requested by: Public Works Division
6.13 Receive and file Letter of Response to the Draft Environmental
Impact Report (DEIR) for the proposed City of Industry Business
Center Plan for Development.
Recommended Action: Receive and file.
Requested by: City Manager
July 20, 2004 PAGE 5 City Council
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 Public Hearing — Consideration of the Recommendation of the Local
Law Enforcement Block Grant (LLEBG) Advisory Board for
expenditure of Grant Funds in the amount of $11,376.20 for FY 04-05.
Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony and
approve.
Requested by: City Manager
7.2 (a) Public Hearing — First Reading of Ordinance No. 0X(2004):
Approving Zone Change No. 2002-02 which changes the existing
zoning From A-1-15,000 to C-2 for a property of approximately 2.22
acres identified as APN 8763-007-002 located at 1035 1/2 Banning
Way.
(b) Adopt Resolution No. 2004 -XX: Approving CUP No. 2003-02,
Development Review No. 2003-07, Tree Permit No. 2004-05 and
Adopting Negative Declaration No. 2003-06, a Request to construct a
two-story commercial building of approximately 52,000 sq. ft. with an
underground parking garage and remove and replace one oak tree
and two pepper trees. The project site is located at 10351/2 Banning
Way, (APN # 8763-007-022).
Recommended Action: Open the Public Hearing, receive testimony
and Approve first reading by title only, waive full reading of Ordinance
No. 0X(2004); and, adopt Resolution No. 2004 -OX.
Requested by: Planning Division
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 (a) Adopt Resolution No. 2004 -XX: Adopting the Speed Zone
Survey.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
(b) Approve First Reading Ordinance No. OX (2004): Amending
Section 10.12.310 of the Diamond Bar City Code Regarding Prima
Facie Speed Limits Upon Certain City Streets.
Recommended Action: Approve for first reading by title only, waive full
July 20, 2004 PAGE 6 City Council
reading.
Requested by: Public Works Division
8.2 Waste Management Service's Residential Trash Rate Adjustment for
Consumer Price Index (CPI) Costs.
Recommended Action: Receive and file.
Requested by: Public Works Division
9. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Agenda No. 6.1.1
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 29, 2004
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Zirbes called the Adjourned Regular City Council
meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865
Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Zirbes led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro
Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Greg Kovacevich, Assistant
City Attorney; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager;
avid Liu, Public Works Director and Tommye Cribbins, Assistant City Clerk.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
01:11I M 1 A_1:71,11*1
CM/Lowry stated that tonight's Public Hearing was for one item requiring five
separate Council actions and that following staffs presentation it would be
appropriate for Council to receive public comments related to the public hearing
item prior to Council consideration of each of the five action items.
DCM/DeStefano reported that the Public Hearing consists of several items
pertaining to the proposed "Diamond Bar Village" (DBV) project. Council is being
asked to consider a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Adoption of Specific
Plan, Approval of a Development Agreement and Approval of the Environmental
Determination for the project.
DCM/DeStefano explained that the project consistsofabout 70 -acres located atthe
southeast comer of Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Dr. and involves sixparcels: 1)
property located at the immediate corner of Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Dr.
owned by Hidden Manna and operating as Calvary Chapel Golden Springs and 2)
the property east of the Calvary Chapel site and elevated approximately 80 ft. up
Grand Ave. south of Golden Springs Dr. owned by Inter-Communi ty Health
Services. For several years the City had worked with the property owners toward a
mutually beneficial development and about a year ago Lewis -Diamond Bar LLC
came to D.B. with a proposed project to implement many of the City's goals. The
first component of the project was General Plan Amendment 2004-01 that would
effect a General Plan designation from Planning Area -3, Professional Office to
Planning Area -3 and reclassification of a 14 -acre piece on Grand Ave. to High
Density Residential. The second component is Zone Change No. 2004-02
requesting a change of the zone from the site's existing Commercial-
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
Manufacturing/PI anned Development Zone C-3 and High Density Residential R-4 to
Specific Plan (SP). He explained that the R-4 designati on was inappropriate for the
area because the hillside was Map and Deed restricted from development and in
fact the hillside was not included in the proposal now before the Council. The third
component regarding the existing Calvary Chapel property was designated as
Commercial/Manuf acturing and would bereclassi fieri Commercial. In short all ofthe
designations would be a subset to the Specific Plan designation proposed for the
site.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the City's General Plan called for a Specific Plan for this
portion ofD.B. and the Zoning Ordinance allowsthe creation of Specific Plan and
discusses changes of zone classifications to Specific Plan for areas meeting the
General Plan requirements. Theproposed project incorporated a Specific Plan tool
that was identified. The Specific Plan would create four sub -areas to incorporate
residential, office, retail, institutional and open space land uses and would
incorporate development standards for the 71 -acre mixed-use site as identified on
the graphic included in the packet. Sub Area 1 - generally the Calvary Chapel
property; Sub Area 2 - generally the flat portion of the Inter -Community Health
Services property; Sub Area 3 - the Inter -Community Health Services property
closest to Grand Ave. and Sub Area 4- the hillsidearea between Montefino and the
project site. The commercial area iscomp rised ofabout 31 acres; the High Density
Residential area - about 11 '/2 acres or, more than 14 acres, and 25 acres of Open
Space. The Specific Plan was prepared in accordance with State Law and Local
Codes and Ordinances and is requi red to detail a circulation plan. Asdetailed on the
graphics, the property proposes accesses from Grand Avec via the existing access
point aswell astwo new access points. The current entry would be located closer to
Golden Springs Dr. New access points would be created on Grand Ave. at the
Diamond Bar Villa condo signal with a left -turn pocket for left -tum access and atthe
most easterly point on the site. Two driveways exist along Golden Springs Dr. The
driveway closest to Grand Ave. would bere located somewhat closerto Grand Ave.
and signalized and both Golden Springs and Grand Ave. would be widened in the
area of the signals to allow for smoother traffic movement. The second driveway
would remain intact.
DCM/DeStefano further stated that the almost 31 -acre Sub Area 1 would consist of
retail/commercia I uses - restaurants, ancillary retail to the large anchor retail and
church expansion. Sub Area 2 proposed a maximum of 200 dwelling units on 11 '/2
acres. The Specific Plan option allows forconstruction of either a 50,000 square ft.
office building within Planning Area 3 or expansion of the High Density Residential
on Sub Area 2. Should the developer choos eto expand the condominium project the
overall number of dwelling units would not exceed 200. Sub Area 4 would remain
undeveloped.
DCM/DeStefano showed schematic examples of intended uses. Site planning for
Area 1 - Retail, included the large anchor (approximately 135-140,000 square ft.), a
proposed freestanding full-service restaurant, a retail development (small in-line or
one or two larger retailers), in-line and larger retail, coffee shop/bookstore and
50,000 square foot sanctuary for Calvary Chapel, and a proposed parking structure
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
between the existing Calvary Chapel building and the future anchor retail. Details of
the project would come before the Planning Commission and City Council for
discretionary action at a later time. Council is being asked to approve only the
concept for the Specific Plan. DCM/DeSte fano presented a graphic depicting the
type of architectural design detail contemplated by the architectural team
representative of products they had produced in other cities.
DCM/DeStefano said that the Residential component in Sub Area 2 was proposed
to spread the maximum 200 dwelling units overthe entire 14 -acre siteconsisting of
10 dwelling units within each of 20 buildings. The residential component would
require a subdivision tract map to be approved by the Planning Commission with
final approval bythe City Council. The units ranged from two to four bedrooms with
the overall majority being two bedrooms with three and four bedrooms as ancillary
components. Each component had a two -ca rgarage and the entire 200 -unit project
proposed to include a total of 540 parking spaces. The units would range in size
from about 1270 to about 2050 square feet.
DCM/DeStefano reported that the entitlement package incorporated a Development
Agreement, a tool permitted by State Law and used by developers for major
developments. It was a negotiated agreement between the develop erand the City
and established vesting of rights to the developer in exchange for public benefits to
the City. A developer often looked for some level of certainty in the development
process due to the millions ofdollars involved. In exchange for the security granted
the developer, the City would receive assurances through agreed upon conditions
and the developer would pay for direct traffic mitigation as well as area -wide traffic
impacts. In addition, the developer would provide the City with park fees estimated
to be about $435,000. Also, thedeveloper would pay a $10,000 per -dwelling unit fee
for the right to construct the units for a total of $2 million to be used for municipal
purposes. There was also a guarantee in the Development Agreement that the retail
development would take place and if it did not occur, a penalty would be imposed
through the agreement. DCM/DeStefano explained that this project offered D.B. the
opportunity to capture sales tax leakage, an opportunity that had been a principle
consideration ofthe City's economic strategy during recent years. Asa condition of
the Development Agreement the developer is obligated to establish a Letter of
Credit in the amount of$2 million and commence construction ofth eretail portion of
the development by June 1, 2005. Finally, the Agreement calls out an April 2006
date for the City to draw down on the Letter of Credit atthe rate of about $42,000
per month (about $500,000 per year), the anticipated sales tax revenue that would
be generated by the commercial development within Sub Area 1. He emphasized
that itwas not the City's intent to cash in the Letter ofCred it- itwas the City's intent
to move forward with the project in a timely fashion.
DCM/DeStefano reported that the Environmental Document took an exhaustive view
ofthe proposed site and proposed City Counc it adoption ofwhat the Environmental
Quality Actterms an "addendum" to the previously certified Medical Plaza's EIR and
Economic Revitalization Area EIRtogether with a recently concluded environmental
analysis ofthe site. The current traffic study analysis indicates that the total number
of trips that would emanate to and from this location were less than anticipated by
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
the prior EIRs. The study of flora and fauna resulted in no habitat for
protected species.
DCM/DeStefano reported that tonight's meeting is a noticed Public Hearing with
notices provided on-site, on display boards throughout the City including notices to
all property owners within 700 ft. of the 71 -acre site resulting in excess of 900
notices. In addition to the formal required notices the project has been discussed
over time in the City's monthly news publication including a front-page story in the
July edition, in prior City newsletters , Mayor's State of the City speeches, Weekly
News and other publications from time to time. The Planning Commission
considered this project on June 22, 2004 and upon conclusion ofthe Public Hearing
with the same number of notices received positive public comments from three
public speakers. The Planning Commissioners asked good questions of the
developer and staff, read the material provided to them and unanimously approved
two resolutions forwarding the materials package to the City Council for
consideration.
DCM/DeStefano stated that staffs recommendation was that the City Council
conduct a Public Hearing and upon its conclusion take action to approve the
Addendum Resolution, the General Plan Resolution, the Zone Change Ordinance,
Specific Plan Ordinance and the Development Agreement Ordinance in that order.
C/O'Connor asked how long the Development Agreement would exist to which
DCM/DeStefano responded itwas for a five-year term, a relatively short term that
worked in the City's best interest to have the developer complete the project within
that timeframe. If for instance the residential project was not completed within the
five-year period new fees could beapplied to the remaining residential dwelling units
that had not yet been constructed.
MPT/Herrera asked for confirmation that the flora on the slope would remain
untouched.
DCM/DeStefano pointed out that the area between the Montefino condominium
complex and the flat portion ofthe Inter -Co mmunity Health Services property would
remain untouched. The area between the flat Inter -Community Health Services
property and the Calvary Chapel property would betouched with driveway, parking
and heavy landscaping. The area between the existing sanctuary and the southerly
property line would be modified to increase the width and location of the driveway
permitting access to the parking lot behind the sanctuary building. The 26 -acre
majority of the site that has Open Space and native landscaping would not be
touched by this proposal.
M/Zirbes asked DCM/DeStefano to share what had occurred over time with the
hospital site—how long the property had been on the market, how many times ithad
been in escrow and how utilizing the parcel would assist the City in fulfilling the
City's desire for commercial on the site below the hospital site.
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
DCM/DeStefano responded that the upper pad (the Inter -Community Health
Services property) was originally proposed to be a hospital. However, Inter -
Community Health Services chose not to construct an approved hospital for
business reasons. Inter -Community decided to dispose of the property and there
were a number of attempts to develop the site with office uses and retail and
entertainment to no avail. During the mid 90's there was interest in retail expansion,
entertainment theaters, etc. but at that point the theater industry collapsed.
Recently, D.B. and Lewis -Diamond Bar LLC brought together an interest in
constructing a residential property on the Inter -Community property as well as a
retail project in combination with the church's vision to expand their property. D.B.
was approached to build a resident ial project on the upper portion. D.B. said itwould
not consider such a proposal without some possibility of retail development on the
corner. During this year, the timewas right for all interested partiesto combine their
efforts to present the current project.
M/Zirbes asked if in today's economic climate would a commercial development
such as had been proposed for the Calvary Chapel site be economically feasible
absent the residential component?
DCM/DeStefano said he understood the negotiations between the developer and
Calvary Chapel with the combination ofland uses provided the best solution to make
this project economically feasible. The retail portion ofthe project was burden bythe
need for replacement parking for the church and other contributions toward the
church. Without sufficient parking for the retail and for the church independent of
one another this site would not work. The costs associated with creating the
replacement parking, responding to the church's requirements as well as the sales
price made the bottom portion of this 71 -acre site modestly beneficial if not
detrimental while the upper portion provided the developer with the greatest
opportunity to receive adequate rates of return on investment.
C/Huff asked DCM/DeStefano to relate the amount of traffic generated by the 200
residents as opposed to what was approved for the hospital use.
DCM/DeStefano explained that the hospital was proposed to be a 400-425,000
square foot facility estimated to generat a about 10,500 trips per day and that the
200 residential dwelling unit project was estimated to generate abo ut1800 trips per
day, significantly less volume of traffic overthe previously proposed hospital use.
David Lewis, Lewis Operation Corporation and Managing Member of D.B.-Lewis
LLC, 1156 Mountain Avenue, Upland, thanked the Council for their consideration.
Heexplained that Lewis had worked diligently with staff and a host ofconsultants to
propose what he felt was an excellent project. He introduced Rich Barretto from
Linscott, Law and Greenspan, his traffic consult as well as the City of Industry's
traffic consultant for the Industry Business Park and Industry Business Park East.
Healso introduced Jennifer Hernandez from Beveridge &Diamond who prepared
the project's environmental analysis. Hestated that Beveridge &Diamond played an
active role in the environm ental analysis of the Port of Long Beach and their client
listincluded Boeing and the City of Hercules and that Jennifer Hernandez was highly
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
regarded in her field. Additionally, Glen Piercefrom Pierce Cooley, the architect for
the retail portion of the project was present tonight. Also representing Lewis was
Walt Mitchell who recently completed oversight of a Home Depot and was
commencing a Target retail outlet at Limonite and the SR 15 in Mira Loma. He
stated that his consultants would answer any questions that Council might have.
M/Zirbes asked Mr. Lewis if he concurred with the conditions of approval. Mr. Lewis
responded that his company spent a considerable amount of time studying the
conditions and worked very closely with staff to conclude the mutually beneficial
agreement.
MPT/Herrera felt that a lot of residents were curious and concerned about the EIR
process and would expect a new EIR to be prepared for this project. She asked for
clarification as to why an addendum would be adequate in place of a new EIR
document.
Jennifer Hernandez explained that the CEQA process was designed to require EIR's
at certain levels. The EIR that was done for the City's General Plan was the broad
document that covered the entirety ofthe City. This EIRwas a site-specific EIR and
Medical Plaza EIR that covered in great Beta ilall kinds of issues associated with this
site. Once an EIR was prepared and certified fora sitethe presumption was that it
should suffice unless there was something new defined in terms of environmental
impacts that were significant. The point ofCEQA was that decision -makers and the
public were supposed to be told about significant impacts totheenvironment caused
by project and given the opportunity to dec ide upon a mitigation strategy ornot. In
this case, based on current data and exhaustive studies ofthe EIR's to confirm that
this project was in all respects either "about the same" or"a lot less than" in terms of
impacts to the environment than the previously certified document. The exercise of
examining the prior EIR's was in fact documented in the Addendum and an
Addendum could only beapproved ifthe new project did not cause a significant new
impact as was evident in this case.
C/O'Connor asked if it were true that all of the previous mitigation factors listed in
the previous EIR's would be carried forward as mitigation for this project; Ms.
Hernandez indicated that C/O'Connor's assumption was exactly correct. The
conditions proposed bystaff and accepted by Lewis forthis project were in addition
to the earlier mitigation obligations called out in the original EIR's.
C/Chang asked about traffic impacts for the entire project including residential and
commercial and asked if mitigation was included in the EIR. DCM/DeStefano
responded that the Medical Plaza EIR referenced 10,548 trips identified as
attributable to the Medica I Plaza project. This proposed development including the
residential and the retail proposed about 7.500 trips.
C/O'Connor asked for more information on the traffic studies that were conducted as
well as the impacts on different areas throughout the City including the project site
area.
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
Rich Berreto responded that with respect to the traffic study environmental
standpoint this project was evaluated based on current conditions. Helooked atthe
combined impact of all three proposed components and looked at 28 intersections
throughout the City. The prior EIR looked at14 intersections .And from a significant
impact standpoint based on the City's criteria this projecthad direct impact atsix
intersections. However, based on the City's guidelines for cumulative impacts, the
project contributed to 15 of the 28 inters ections on a fair -share basis and from an
environmental standpoint there were five orsix intersections that met the criteria for
mitigation. The project generated significantly less than what was proposed and
approved for the Medical Plaza. More critical to the situation would bepeak hour
traffic and those trips generated were also significantly less than trip generation for
the Medical Plaza. Mr. Perreto indicated to C/O'Connor that the City had guidelines
in place that required that ifan area wide orcumulative deficiency were identified at
any of the intersections this project would contribute on a fair -share basis toward
improvements ofthose intersections. Healso stated that the City of Industry project
and the Los Angeles AERA Energy project were considered in this analysis.
DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/O'Connor that Council was being asked to consider
the conditions for project approval that included all of their direct and area -wide
impacts but the City was not specifying exact percentages for each intersection.
Those details would beworked out between the developer and staff and would later
be reviewed when the retail and/or a condom inium portion was brought forward for
approval.
M/Zirbes stated that traffic was a major concern for the City and heappreciated that
Linscott, Law and Greenspan conducted a very thorough and exhaustive study that
considered more than 10 years of potential traffic impact from this and other major
p roj ects.
M/Zirbes opened the Public Hearing.
Jim Starkey, resident of the D.B. Tennis Club, supported the project that created
potential forshopping in the community and retaining sales tax dollars formunicipal
services. Hesaid hewas confident that Council and staff would work with neighbors
to ensure concerns regarding traffic impacts and other impacts would beaddressed.
He applauded the City and its partners for coming up with this unique idea and
looked forward to the opening of the center.
AzizAmiri,President, D.B. Chamber of Commerce, thanked DCM/DeStefano and
his team for their diligence in working with the developer to bring this project
forward. For a number of years residents have voiced concerns about the lack of
quality shopping, dining and entertainment in the community and the Chamber
shared those concerns. Given the long association between Lewis and the San
Gabriel Valley as well as the company's reputation for quality development the
community could not have a better partner for this project. The Chamber was
pleased that the proposed project was the first in a line of other projects being
considered by the City Council and staff to improve the quality of life in D.B. The
Chamber viewed this project as a much needed economic stimulant to the
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
community and would like for the City Council to review this project with a sense of
urgency and expedite its decision.
Eileen Ansari felt the Calvary property should bedeveloped but she wondered ifthe
EIR was adequate for the proposed 200 dwelling units and whether adequate
geotechnical studies had been conducted. She also wondered if the EIR could be
challenged in court. She felt that the significant building in D.B. had impacted the
nesting habits of birds and other fauna and also wondered if the EIR adequately
address those issues. She asked how many months it took to prepare the
Addendum and wondered ifduring that time some habitat had moved to this site and
whether environmental groups might challenge the City on these issues. In short,
she wanted to know ifthis project was being fast -tracked without completing proper
studies because she did not want the City to face possible litigation as it had in the
past.
Allen Wilson, 22809 Hilton Head Drive, asked the suggested price for each of the
200 units. Hewas concerned because originally, the Pulte Homes were intended to
sell for $400,000 and when the homes went on themarket they were listed at$650-
700,000. Hehoped that the traffic impacts would beaddressed and wanted to know
if the 7,500 trips included the Calvary Chapel. He said he was concerned about
traffic impacts because Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive were already
heavily impacted and the SR57/60 interchange was not yet completed.
Mary Matson, 1300 Diamond Bar Boulevard, feltthe City needed the project and the
resulting sales tax revenue but was concerned about water problems and slope
issues and what streets were going to be widened and to what extent. She also
wanted to know what would betaken away when the streets were widened. She felt
there were more trips than stated and that the developer was underestimating the
impact to make the project look good. She wanted to know what the real count
would be.
Steve Tye felt that this was an important time and an important project for the
community and appreciated Council's business -like approach to these types of
decisions. He felt this was a business decision and not an emotional decision. He
was troubled about comments about potential landslides, court challenges and what
would the City do "if' and he believed that Lewis had done a thorough job in
addressing each and every one of those issues. The City's largest sales tax
generators were being poached by surrounding cities and this gave the City an
opportunity to do something about that. Today a premier developer and retailers
were interested in D.B. and this project presented a wonderful source of potential
revenue going forward for the City. This mightnot bea perfect project; however, itis
in his opinion the right project atthe right time with the right developer and the right
retailers. Heencouraged Council to approve the project tonight.
Vinod Kashyap felt the slopes were stable and had stood the test of time. As a
licensed civil engineer hehad great confidenc ein the City's engineers and staff and
was sure that the City's geotechnica I engineers had conducted very thorough
research on the project that he was certain was contained in the Environmental
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
Impact Report including mitigation for flora and fauna. He felt the residents should
encourage the City Council to approve the project this evening.
Eric Holiday, 23839 Country View Drive, spoke about the development and related
traffic issues. There were several businesses closing because residents did not
support them. There were a number of developments in the City and now the City
contemplated building a Home Depot and housing that would contribute to the
already difficult traffic situation. He said he could not understand how the new
development would not further erode the traffic situation. He liked the small town
feel of the Farmer's Market held at the site on Saturdays and wondered how the
new development would impactthe Farmer's Marketand the small town feel of D.B.
Hehoped the Council would not approve this measure.
There being no one else present who wished to speak on this matter, M/Zirbes
closed the Public Hearing.
DCM/DeStefano responded to speakers. He stated that any project could be
challenged. In his opinion, the challenge would not be successful because the City
had conducted exhaustive studies, obtained legal analysis, and technical reports. In
addition, staff would not recommend approval of a project to the City Council if it
were flawed and if staff believed a cha Ilenge would be successful. The foundation
for the environmental conclusion was two Environmental Impact Reports as
previously discussed. In additi on, several studies were conducted to provide current
information and augment those reports. An Arborist's report was completed on May
24, 2004; an Air Quality Analysis was completed on April 22, 2004; a Biological
Resources Survey for the Inter -Community property was completed on February 24,
2004; a Biological Resources Study was completed on the Calvary Chapel property
on March 8,2004; a California Gnat-Catc her Report was completed on the property
on May 17, 2004; a Geotechnical Report prepared by Leyton & Associates, a
premier geotechnical consulting firm,was completed on April 8,2003; alloise Study
was completed on May 21, 2004 and the Traffic Study was dated March 9, 2004
with the addition in Council's packet dated April 25, 2004.
DCM/DeStefano further stated with respect to traffic conditions and assumption of
prior mitigation measures from a prior EIR. Linscott Law & Greenspan discussed
that matter in detail. Details ofthe physical changes were not yet complete -those
details would come back to the Counc it when the project is presented for
consideration during the next few months. Atth istimestaff is looking atan additional
right -tum lane on Golden Springs Dr. to eastbound Grand Ave. One option would be
to lengthen the right tum lane, another woul d be to add a second right turn lane, and
a third would be to acquire the right-of-way for the second right turn lane but not
construct it at this point in time. For Grand Ave. staff was discussing an additional
lane in order to deal with traffic entering theproject —a deceleration lane that would
run from the intersection of Golden Springs and Grand Ave. to the first driveway
next to the proposed restaurant. And then an acceleration lane that would begin at
about that same driveway point and end just prior to the new traffic signal at the
Diamond Bar Villa. On Grand Ave. in front of the Diamond Bar Villa, a new left -turn
pocket would be created so that westbound Grand Ave. traffic would be able to
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
navigate a safe signalized left turn movement into the retail/insti tutional project. The
left tum pocket was estimated to be about 200 ft. in length, sufficient for a good
number ofvehicles to queue up for the leftturn . Details ofthose improvements were
not yet finalized and no decision was anticipated on those details this evening
because those details would be presented to the Council for review ata later date.
DCM/DeStefano stated that with respect to traffic issues, the traffic report accounted
for all of the proposed land uses anticipated on the property. In addition to the
existing and anticipated traffic there was a presentation from the consultant that cut -
through traffic from Chino Hills, City of Industry and some 18 other projects were
included in the study. The existing church generated traffic trips were also
considered part of the current condition. The traffic report discussed the additional
trips anticipated by the new sanctuary and responded to those additional trips
through traffic mitigation on the immediate area and area wide basis as discussed.
The church generally operates at different peak hours from retail and certainly
different peak hours from residential. Depending on the retailer, the worst traffic
impacts would befelt during the week of Christmas shopping and religious worship.
To the question of whether this project was on a fast tract, DCM/DeStefano stated
that this project was discussed with the City and contemplated for several years as
earlier indicated and that this specific project had been discussed atthe City level for
more than a year and as earlier stated, addressed through public documents. Itwas
on a fast track in the sense that the Planning Commission made a decision on the
project last week and Council was being asked to consider itthis week for a number
of reasons not the least of which was that the City was challenged in this
marketplace with other retail developments proposed bysurrounding cities and that
D.B. had an opportunity to capture this type of retail land use or lose it to an
adjacent city. D.B. has a need for financial growth with an opportunity for sales tax
production. Recently, staff and Council Members attended the International Counsel
of Shopping Centers Development Conferenc eand learned ofa similarproject being
proposed for the City of Industry just a short distance from D.B. by a major retail
developer. Based on that information it was staff's opinion that after a year of
discussion itwas appropriate to quickly process this project in order to position the
City appropriately in the marketplace and not lose an immediate opportunity.
DCM/DeStefano further stated that the dwelling unit pricing was expected to be in
the $450,000 range.
C/O'Connor thanked Lewis and staff for presentation of a well -detailed and fine
project. She felt that traffic issues and other concerns were adequately addressed in
the voluminous documentation. With respect to prior speakers D.B. needed to make
a business decision based on the City's need for tax revenue from stable income -
flowing businesses. She asked for further clarification ofthe prices for new housing
units and asked what "moderate income level" was and whether that would support
the $450,000 price range.
DCM/DeStefano responded that hecould not speak to loan qualification but that the
Los Angeles/Long Beach Metropolitan moderate- income level for this year was
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
about $68-69,000
C/O'Connor asked if the Specific Plan locked the City and developer into a 50,000
square foot office building orif someother use could becontemplated.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the Specific Plan described a 50,000 sq. ft. office
building. Based on the two and one-half acres set aside for that option it would
accommodate a two-story office building and ground level parking. Whether itwas
necessary to the project would be a question for the developer to answer. Could it
beturned into a use other than an office bu ilding? From a City perspective, itwould
bemore difficult to achieve retail uses, than an office building due to the parcel size
restriction.
C/O'Connor asked if the City would be to cked into a 50,000 square foot office
building orthe option of additional condomin iums upon approval ofthe Specific Plan
or whether there be other uses approved for that site.
DCM/DeStefano explained that approval of the Specific Plan locked the City and
developer into a 50,000 square foot office building orextension ofthe High Density
Residential and the way the Specific Plan was written other uses would not be
permitted.
C/O'Connor asked the developer ifhe woul d be amenable to considering other uses
for the two and one-half acres orwould that be a deal breaker? Mr. Lewis explained
that hestudied the site for some time. Atone point one ofthe local office users was
scheduled to occupy the space. He would be open to a variety of suggestions that
would make the most sense for all parties. Currently, he anticipated that the entire
site would be used for residential and not office use. He would, however, like to
preserve the flexibility for Lewis as well as for the City of D.B. because in the event
that a point of sale office user wanted to locate in D.B. it would be mistake not to
consider the possibility. Further, he would not want to be locked into a 50,000
square foot office building because that would be the maximum size that such a
building could bebuilt on the site. Lewis would consider a retail possibility. However,
the environmental study was based upon the current proposal and he urged the
Council to approve the Specific Plan as written to preserve the environmental
documents.
Rich Barretto to explained that a restaurant, forinstance, had a different type oftrip
generation characteristic than an office building. Using the trip budget contained
within the document the City could work backward tofigure out what mightfiton the
site from a retail or restaurant standpoint to make certain that the environment
documents and the traffic studies remained valid.
C/O'Connor felt the Council might want to consider greater flexibility for Area 3.
She then asked if Calvary Chapel agreed in writing to this proposal. Mr. Lewis said
he had a letter from the Hidden Manna Corporation/Calvar y Chapel signed by
Pastor Goddard authorizing Lewis to proc ess and obtain approvals for the project.
Heexplained that Pastor Goddard and Pastor Rose were on vacation and Associate
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL
Pastor Barela who spoke atthe Planning Commission lastweek was not able to be
present tonight.
C/O'Connor said she understood that the majorityoftrees along Golden Springs Dr.
would be removed to expand the parking lot. She asked that as many trees as
possible be preserved or replaced with fast growing trees.
Mr. Lewis responded that the project would involve a tree location program but to
what extent was not known atthis time.
M/Zirbes stated that he would prefer to spread the 200 condominiums over the
entire Area 3 and eliminate the possibilityof intensifying traffic atthe intersection.
C/Chang said that although this was a difficult decision that involved additional traffic
the City was facing the loss of two major tax revenue generating businesses and a
state budget crisis. It was therefore incumbent upon the City and Council to move
forward to provide economic stability for today and for the future. Council
understood the project would bring more traffic. However, the project mitigated the
flow of traffic so that the increase in the number of vehicles would not adversely
impact the City.
C/O'Connor disclosed that she mettelephoni callywith David Lewis and the attorney
for Lewis along with C/Chang in March 2004 to obtain an explanation of the
Addendum.
C/Huff said he spoke with the developer over time about the project and most
recently atthe Shopping Center Convention.
M/Zirbes stated hehad several conversations with the Developer seeking answers
to questions about the project.
MPT/Herrera disclosed that she too had periodic conversations with the Developer
throughout the past year or so.
C/Chang said he met with Mr. Lewis on two occasions to discuss the project and
determine how Mr. Lewis and his group could provide the greatest benefit to the
City.
M/Zirbes stated that he and C/Huff met with the Developer to discuss the project's
financial arrangement with the City.
4.1 A REQUEST BY LEWIS-DIAMO ND BAR, LLC FOR APPROVAL OF A
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-01, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2004-
02, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2004-01, DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO.
2004-01 AND AN APPROVAL OF AN ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY
CERTIFIED MEDICAL PLAZA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT
(PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO. 93-11 AND TO THE
JUNE 29. 2004 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL
PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR A SITE COMPRISED OF
APPROXIMATELY 70 -ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED ATTHE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE AND GOLDEN SPRINGS
DRIVE (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8293-045-004, 8293-045-005,
8293-045-006, 8293-045-007, 8293-045-008 AND 8293-045-009).
(a) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-35: CERTIFYING THE
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS FOR THE
DIAMOND BAR MEDICAL PLAZA AND THE DIAMOND BAR ECONOMIC
REVITALIZATION AREA; AND FINDING SAND STATEMENTS OF FACT IN
SUPPORT THEREOF, REGARDING DEVELOPMENT OF A 71 -ACRE
PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OFGRAND AVENUE AND EAST OF GOLDEN
SPRINGS DRIVE, CONSISTING OF 200 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
UNITS AND UP TO 270,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL, RETAIL
AND INSTITUTIONAL USES.
C/Chang moved, MPT/Herrera seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2004-35.
Motion carried bythe following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-36: APPROVING GENERAL
PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-01; AMENDING THE LAND USE ELEMENT
PERTAINING TO PLANNING AREA 3 IN ORDER TO PERMIT HIGH
DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES UPON A VACANT 14 -ACRE SITE
GENERALLY LOCATED NEAR THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GRAND
AVENUE AND GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE IDENTIFIED ASA PORTION OF
PARCEL 2 OF PARCEL MAP 24819.
C/O'Connor moved, MPT/Herrera seconded to approve Resolution No. 2004-
36. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(c) FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 02(2004): APPROVING
ZONE CHANGE NO. 2004-02 FROM COMMERCIAL MANUFACTURING
PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CM -PD -BE), REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (C-3)
AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-4) TO SPECIFIC PLAN (SP) FOR
PROPERTIES COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 70 -ACRES
GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GRAND
AVENUE AND GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE AND IDENTIFIED AS
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8293-045-004, 8293-045-005, 8293-045-
006, 8293-045-007, 8293-045- 008 and 8293-045-009.
C/Chang moved, C/Huff seconded, to approv eFirst Reading by Title Only of
Ordinance No. 02(2004). Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(d) FIRST READING OFORDINA NCE NO. 03(2004) APPROVING THE
DIAMOND BAR VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2004-01).
C/O'Connor moved, C/Huff seconded to approve for First Reading by Title
Only of Ordinance No. 03(2004). Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(e) FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 04(2004) APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND LEWIS-
DIAMOND BAR, LLC FOR THE DIAMOND BAR VILLAGE PROJECT.
C/Huff moved, MPT/Herrera seconded to approve for First Reading by Title
Only of Ordinance No. 04(2004). Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Zirbes adjourned
the adjourned regular meeting at9:52 p.m.
Linda C. Lowry, CITY CLERK
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of 2004.
Bob Zirbes, MAYOR
Agenda No. 6.1.2
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JULY 6, 2004
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order at
5:07 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 Chang, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem
Herrera and Mayor Zirbes. Council Member Huff arrived at5:20 p.m.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Bob Rose, Community Services
Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; April
Blakey, Public Information Manager; Jim Clarke Legislative Consultant, Sharon Gomez,
Senior Administrative Analyst and Tommye Cribbins, Assistant City Clerk.
Public Comments
Discussion of City Council Goals
Park Improvements Update
a) Sycamore Canyon Project
b) Summitridge Tot Lot
c) Starshine Park Improvements
Public Comments:
Nancy Lyons spoke about the Friends of the Library October 2004 "Read
Together Diamond Bar program. The main program book is Pay It Forward and
other books include The Secret Garden and The Giving Tree . The Library plans
to include book discussions, movies, and speakers to correspond with the
themes put forth by Pay It Forward. Those events include a 5K Walk/Run/Bike on
Sunday, September 26, the Read-a-Thon each day the library is open from 3:00
p.m. to 3:30 p.m., a Festival of Authors plan for Satu relay, October 23 along with
"Make A Difference Day" in Diamond Bar on Saturday, October 23.
Marsha Hawkins felt the event should include a 11K for all ages from stroller to
wheelchairs and walkers. She pointed out that there would be broader
recognition of participants in the 5K. With the assistance of DBIA and possibly
the City Council the event should be bigger and better than ever.
Parks Improvements Update:
CSD/Rose stated that at the July 20 City Council meeting staff will propose a
budget adjustment due to over estimating allocations for Proposition 12 and 40
JULY 6, 2004 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION
funds. He presented a revised list of Parks and Recreation projects and their
proposed funding sources. Once staff has verified the CDBG monies available
the items will move forward for Council consideration. City Council previously
approved the Pantera Park picnic shelters and staff was prepared to move
forward with the project. The shelters that were originally approved with $112,000
of Proposition 12 monies were not listed on the CIP projects list for appropriation
of funds in the 04-05 Budget Document.
a) Sycamore Canyon Project
CSD/Rose reported that between Phase II and III there was some confusion
about how to proceed with this project Between Phase II and III. Council's
original consideration of constructing a new building as part of Phase III was
eliminated. Phase II included improvement along the walkway to the pedestrian
bridge to the lower Tot Lot, constructing a picnic shelter, picnic table pads,
repairing parking lot drainage and adding parking at the slope side near the park
entry. Phase III would include the area from the pedestrian bridge to the area
adjacent to the existing building — the Tot Lot, remove the existing wall, construct
access area from the upper parking lot to the lower portion, include a patio
extension for the portable stage including walkway. The existing building would
remain somewhat the same with changes to the drinking fountains and other
ADA work.
CSD/Rose said staff was ready to begin work on the Sycamore Trailhead that
would include the trailhead at Diamond Bar Boulevard and the trail (decomposed
granite) from the back of the V -ditch at the back of the park to the waterfall.
b) Starshine Park Improvements
CSD/Rose stated that this project would consist of enlargement of the existing
Tot Lot, replacing all playground equipment, as well as installation of a drinking
fountain and security light.
c) Summitridge Park
CSD/Rose indicated that at Summitridge Park the restroom building that was
removed during construction of the Diamon d Bar Center would be replaced just
past the ball field where it sloped down to the lower field.
d) Sports Complex Phase I
CSD/Rose reported that artificial turf would be placed at Lorbeer or Chaparral,
depending upon the school districts' review.
C/O'Connor said she thought the artificial turf would be placed at Lorbeer
because the lights were already there. CSD/Rose said that was his preference
but negotiations were ongoing with the school districts. C/O'Connor asked what
JULY 6, 2004 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION
was happening with the subcommittee meeting with Pomona Unified School
District. CM/Lowry said that no progress had been made.
MPT/Herrera asked why Chaparral would be considered for artificial turf when
the school had no field lights?
CSD/Rose said he felt it was a matter of staying true to the Sports Complex
Taskforce recommendations. In his opinion Lorbeer would be th a logical choice
since the lights were already in place.
C/O'Connor asked whether staff had planned to use of the Park Development
Fund of $350,000 for the project.
CSD/Rose said that staff planned to use a portion of the approximately $2.4
million in the Park Development Fund.
CM/Lowry said that at the next meeting Council would dea I with the budget
adjustments for the Pantera Park picnic shelters and restatement of funds that
would be drawn for each of the projects.
Referring to Page 3, CSD/Rose explained that the top portion of the document
indicated what was adopted in the FY2004/05 park projects' budget and the
lower portion contained the proposed changes indicated by shaded areas. Once
the CDBG funding was ascertained the document would bechanged from "draft"
to final.
2. Discussion of Council Goals
CM/Lowry reported that staff compiled input from Council into a ranking -
opportunity document. First, was a report from DCM/DeStefano about recent
economic development pursuits, Council's number 1 objective.
DCM/DeStefano reported on his meeting with the Trader Joe's executive who
oversees all Trader Joe's decisions across the nation and provided Council
Members with a copy of the presentation material prepared by PIM/Blakey.
DCM/DeStefano stated that Trader Joe's was considering Chino Hills for its next
southern California location. The presentation materials provided a detail of
demographics, traffic counts, etc. that showed why the D.B. location of Grand
Ave. and Golden Springs Dr. was superior to that of Grand Ave./Peyton in Chino
Hills. D.B. had greater household income, higher educational achievement,
bigger families, and more traffic trips. Even though D.B. did not have as high a
population count surrounding the proposed location, the excess population was
not, in fact, Trader Joe's customer. The low-income high-density areas of
Pomona and Chino represented about half of the circumference of the proposed
Chino Hills location and were not necessarily representative of a Trader Joe's
customer base. Additionally, the same Chin o Hills customer base, part of Phillips
Ranch, Walnut and the newer portion of Rowland Heights would be captured by
JULY 6, 2004 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION
a D.B. location. Staff also pointed out using verifiable facts that the D.B. crime
rate was 30 percent lower than Chino Hills. The Trader Joe's representative
made no commitment. What he said was that D.B. was correct in its analysis.
D.B. received an understanding that it was in a far superi or position now than the
Chino Hills location. Staff was also able to point out that there was an approved
project at the corner of Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive, two years
ahead of Chino Hills and two to four years ahead of the City of Industry. The only
other location for consideration would have been Grand Avenue and Valley
Boulevard, a location not under consideration at this time. The meeting ended
with far more discussion than was initially anticipated - that staffs analysis was
appropriate, that D.B. was "on -target," and staff received impressive comments
about D.B. being "ready to go." The representative asked for additional
information and said he would begetting back to staff. DCM/DeStefano said he
and PIM/Blakey intended to move forward with all diligence to woo Trader Joe's.
DCM/DeStefano said that he made a point when presenting the postcards that it
was a much more in depth response required of households and the
representative was very impressed with D.B.'s approach because no one else
had thought to do such a survey. They were not interested in having the 11,000
postcards dropped at their door but physically witnessed what had been
accomplished via the survey. PIM/Blakey stressed that it was essential for staff to
have a project approval in order to even "get in the door" at Trader Joe's.
DCM/DeStefano said it was important to the representat ive that D.B. was "ready
to go" which was not the case three weeks let along six months ago. The
representative asked DCM/DeS tefano and PMS/Blakey if the church was aware
there would bealcohol sold inside the project. Staff was able to say that not only
was the church aware there would be alcoho I sold but that they were selling the
site to the developer and they were also a resource for the 13,000 member
congregation, potential shoppers that travel from well without the 5 mile radius to
support the Calvary Chapel operation. Since the meeting staff has determined
other areas of interest to feed to the representative through correspondence.
DCM/DeStefano thanked PIM/Blakey for providing the material in an easily
understandable format.
MPT/Herrera asked when staff would again meet with Trader Joe's.
DCM/DeStefano said there was no formal date set. However, staff would be
following up toward the end of the week as well as provide an overview of the
meeting to David Lewis so that the proper Lewis people would be on alert to talk
with the proper people atTJ's.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Chang that the project site had a couple of
locations that would be suitable for Trader Joe's such as on either side of the first
driveway on Golden Springs.
CM/Lowry said the next step with respect to goals would be for staff to attempt to
create a work plan based on Council's rankings.
JULY 6, 2004 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION
MPT/Herrera suggested that Council no longer rank goals
C/O'Connor said that the Code of Ethics and Political Sign Ordinance matters
were not included on the list.
CM/Lowry said staff thought that the only matter left was the maintenance issues
and the business license issue that were previously discussed and with respect
to those items staff left the meeting without a clear sense of consensus.
MPT/Herrera felt there were a number of items that did not need to be ranked
and that they were ongoing items the City had been working on for a number of
years and would continue until resolved.
CM/Lowry concluded that at Council's direction, Business Registration would be
included as an economic development strategy with further input from Council as
to how staff should proceed.
M/Zirbes pointed out that for the same reasons the Zip Code matter should be
placed under economic development strategy and turned over to Congressman
Miller's office.
C/O'Connor asked if Council would have an opportunity to review the comments
on the City of Industry EIR.
DCM/DeStefano said staff would provide Council Members with a copy of the
letter that would be very similar to the Notice of Preparation letter. Similarly, the
primary concerns were traffic and the assurance that City of Industry would
mitigate their fair -share of traffic mitigation impacts as well as the land use
compatibility.
One of C/O'Connor's concerns was about the potential for opening Sunset
Crossing Road.
DCM/DeStefano responded that D.B.'s official position was, in accordance with
the General Plan, that Sunset Crossing would remain a cul-de-sac.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council,
M/Zirbes adjourned the Study Session to the Closed Session at 6:08 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
JULY 6, 2004
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order at 3:07
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, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem
Herrera and Mayor Zirbes. C/Huff arrived at 5:20 p.m.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Bob Rose, Community Services
Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; April Blakey,
Public Information Manager; Jim Clarke Legislative Consultant, Sharon Gomez, Senior
Administrative Analyst and Tommye Cribbins, Assistant City Clerk.
Public Comments:
Park Improvements Update
Sycamore Canyon project
Starshine Park Improvements
Summitridge Tot Lot
Public Comments on Study Session Agenda Items
M/Zirbes recessed the Study Session at6:08 p.m
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Zirbes called the regular City Council Meeting to
order at 6:35 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.,
Diamond Bar, CA.
M/Zirbes reported that during Study Session, Council discussed its goals and objectives for
2004/05 Fiscal Year, heard from staff on Park Improvements and received an update on
the Improvements approved for this coming fiscal year. There was no reportable action
taken during the Study Session.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Herrera led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Pastor Bob Stebe, Northmin ster Presbyterian Church
gave the Invocation.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor
Pro Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes.
JULY 6, 2004 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Bob Rose, Community Services
Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; April Blakey,
Public Information Manager; Jim Clarke Legislative Consultant, Sharon Gomez, Senior
Administrative Analyst and Tommye Cribbins, Assistant City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CM/Lowry asked that atstaf's request Council include a
matter as a special consideration out of urgency received after the posting of the agenda.
Friday evening MPT/Herrera received information from the WCCA staff regarding an item
for consideration by the WCCA Board tomorrow evening. The item included a response
from the WCCA Board to the City of Industry's initial study and Negative Declaration for the
purchase of property in the Tonner Canyon area. Unfortunately, D.B. would not be
represented atthe WCCA Board meeting tomorrow night due to lack ofattendance bythe
regular and alternate Board members. However, if City Council were able to consider
adoption of a Resolution in support of the Initial Study and the Negative Declaration
prepared bythe City oflndustry, the City's consultant would be in a position to present the
resolution to the WCCA Board during its Public Comment portion of tomorrow's meeting.
Therefore, staff recommends that the Council consider placing this item on tonight's
agenda as an urgency item under Consent Calendar Item No. 6.14.
MPT/Herrera moved, C/Chang seconded, to add Consent Calendar Item No. 6.14, a
Resolution in support ofthe Cityof Industry's initial study and the Negative Declaration for
the purchase of property in the Tonner Canyon area. Motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 C/Huff presented Certificates to Diamond Bar High School Teacher Kevin
Patterson, Lauren Lopez, Substitute Custodian; and Stacy Camou, Student
Trainer and several unnamed students for heroic efforts toward saving the
life of Coach Kemp Wells. Jung Soo Han, Assistant Coach was unable to
attend.
Chief Nieto and participating paramedics thanked Council for acknowledging
the school officials and students.
1.2 M/Zirbes presented a Proclamation proclaiming July 2004 as "Parks and
Recreation Month" to Parks & Recreation Commission Chairman David
Grundy.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None Offered.
JULY 6, 2004 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Chief Nieto reported that the Diamond Bar
Explorer Post consisting of about 30 individuals from the D.B./ Walnut area and
surrounding cities have quietly raised enough money to take 20 boys to Beidenbach,
Germany for a cooperative program to drill with German Explorers ages 14-21. He
thanked residents who helped support this worthwhile program to advance youth in
crews and firefighting.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
5.2 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING — July 8,
2004 —7:00 p.m. —AQMD/Go vernment Center Hearing Board Room, 21865
Copley Dr.
5.3 LIBRARY TASK FORCE MEETING —July 12, 2004 —6:00 p.m., D.B. Library,
1061 S. Grand Ave.
5.4 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — July 13, 2004 — 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.5 CONCERT INTHE PARK (The Beatless - 60's Beach Party) July 14, 2004 —
6:30 — 8:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr.
5.6 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION MEETING — July 15, 2004 —7:00 p.m., Room
CC -8, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — July 20, 2004 — 6:30 p.m., Auditorium,
AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Chang moved, MPT/Herrera seconded to
approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
Chang, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera
M/Zirb es
None
None
6.1 City Council Minutes:
6.1.1 Approved Study Session Minutes of June 15, 2004 — as submitted.
6.1.2 Approved Regular Meeting Minutes of June 15, 2004 —as submitted.
6.2 Planning Commission Minutes — Regul ar Meeting of June 8, 2004 —
Received and filed.
JULY 6. 2004 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
6.3 Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes:
6.3.1 Special Joint Meeting of Planning Commission, Traffic and
Transportation Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission of
April 7, 2004 — Received and filed.
6.3.2 Regular Meeting of May 13, 2004 — Received and filed.
6.4 APPROVED VOUCHER REGISTERS dated June 17, June 24 and July 1,
2004 in an amount totaling $1,196,205.47.
6.5 REVIEWED AND APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT— for the Month
of May 2004.
6.6 EXTENSION OF MAINTENANCE CONTRACTS:
(a) EXCEL LANDSCAPE —APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE
CONTRACT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES AT NINE
LOCATIONS IN LLAD NO. 38 FOR FY 2004-05 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$29,371.08 WHICH INCLUDED A 3.7% C.P.I. INCREASE; PLUS A
CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $5,000 FOR AS -NEEDED WORK.
(b) VALLEY CREST LANDSCAPE — APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 1
TO THE CONTRACT FOR MAINTENANCE AT TWO PARK LOCATIONS
FOR FY 2004-05 IN THE AMOUNT OF $121,236.26 WHICH INCLUDED A
2.6% C.P.I. INCREASE; PLUS A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $20,000
FOR AS -NEEDED WORK.
6.7 APPROVED SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 02(2004):
APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2004-02 FROM COMMERCIAL
MANUFACTURING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CM -PD -BE), REGIONAL
COMMERCIAL (C-3) AND HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (R-4) TO
SPECIFIC PLAN (SP) FOR PROPERTIES COMPRISED OF
APPROXIMATELY 70 -ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE AND GOLDEN SPRINGS
DRIVE AND IDENTIFIED ASASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8293-045-
004, 8293-045-005, 8293-045-006, 8293-045-007, 8293-045-008 AND 8293-
045-009.
6.8 APPROVED SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 03(2004:
APPROVING THE DIAMOND BAR VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC
PLAN NO. 2004-01).
6.9 APPROVED SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 02(2004):
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT (DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 2004-01) BETWEEN THE CITY AND LEWIS-DIAMOND
BAR, LLC FOR THE DIAMOND BAR VILLAGE PROJECT.
JULY 6. 2004 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
6.10 AUTHORIZED EXPENDITURES IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED
$55,000 FOR FY 2004-05 TO GRAPHIC UNITED FOR PRODUCTION OF
THE CITY'S NEWLETTER/RECREA TION GUIDE; AND AUTHORIZED A
CUMULATIVE EXPENDITURE OF $36, 000 FOR FY 2004-05 TO THE
POSTMASTER FOR POSTAGE FOR THE CITY'S
NEWSLETTER/RECRE ATION GUIDE POSTAGE.
6.11 APPROVED EXTENSION OF CITYWI DE GRAFFITI REMOVAL CONTRACT
WITH GRAFFITI CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR FY2004-05 IN THE AMOUNT
OF $35,000.
6.12 AWARDED CONTRACT FOR PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SERVICES
(PMS) TO MACTEC ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF$49,470 AND AUTHORIZED ACONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF
$10,530 FOR CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY
MANAGER FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $60,000.
6.13 AMENDED CONTRACT WITH DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT, INC. FOR FY
2004-05 DIAMOND RIDE (DIAL -A -CAB) SERVICES WITH A $.10 RATE
INCREASE FOR THE FLAG DROP AND A $.10 RATE INCREASE FOR
THE PER -MILE METER RATE.
6.14 APPROVED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-37: A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE CITY OF INDUSTRY'S PROPOSED
PURCHASE OF THE 525 -ACRE TONNER CANYON LLC PROPERTY
LOCATED EAST OF STATE ROUTE 57 WITHIN ORANGE COUNTY.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 (a) RESOLUTION NO. 2004-38: LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON
LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRI CT NO. 38 FOR FY 2004-05.
(b) RESOLUTION NO. 2004-39: LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON
LANDSCAPING AASSESSMENT DISTRI CT NO. 39 FOR FY 2004-05.
(c) RESOLUTION NO. 2004-40: LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON
LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRI CT NO. 41 FOR FY 2004-05.
PWD/Liu reported that the requested rate of$15 per parcel for District No. 38
would generate approximately $265,905 in assessment revenue. The
assessment rate remains the same as the rate applied atthe date of D.B.'s
incorporation. For FY2004/05 the total annual budget of this district is
$723,688. The landscape improvements to be maintained by District 38 are
the parkways and medians throughout the City and the total estimated
number of parcels within the district is 17,723.
PWD/Liu stated that for District No. 39, the requested levy rate of $130 per
parcel would generate approximately $164,190 in assessment revenue. The
JULY 6, 2004 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
assessment rate remains the same as the rate applied atthe date of D.B.'s
incorporation. For FY2004-05 the approved district's budget totals $343,490.
The landscape improvements to be maintained by District No. 39 are the
mini -parks, slopes and open space areas within the district boundary. The
estimated total maintenance area is approximately 61 acres and the
estimated number of parcels within the district is 1,263.
PWD/Liu indicated that for District No. 41the levy rate of$220.50 per parcel
would generate approximately $122,157 in assessment revenue and that the
assessment rate remains the same as the rate applied at the date of D.B.'s
incorporation. For FY2004-05 the approved district's budget totals $496,157.
The landscape improvements to be maintained by District No. 41 include the
slopes and open space areas within the district. The estimated total
maintenance area isapproximately 15.6 acres and the estimated number of
parcels within the district is 554.
M/Zirbes opened the Public Hearing.
With no public comments offered on the foregoing items M/Zirbes closed the
Public Hearing.
MPT/Herrera moved, C/Chang seconded, to approve Resolution No.'s 2004-
38, 2004-39 and 2004-40 as presented by staff. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
.0111P [oil 199161,1141114:7-11061,11
8.1 APPROVE VALLEY VISTA SERVICE'S RATE ADJUSTMENT FOR CPI A
AND DISPOSAL COSTS.
M/Zirbes recused himself from this matter, due to a potential conflict and
passed the gavel to MPT/Herrera and left the dais.
PWD/Liu reported that Valley Vista Services requested a rate adjustment
factor of1.75 percent to the service component orthe non -disposal portion of
the rate for the period April 1, 2003 through March 1, 2004. Further, Valley
Vista Services was requesting a disposal cost adjustment of $2.93 to the
dumping fee component ofthe rate. This increase request was largely due to
the increased cost associated with the County of Los Angeles mandated fees
applied uniformly to all commercial haulers and passed through to the
commercial and multi -family bin sites. Upon Council's approval, Valley Vista
proposed to implement the new rates commencing August 1,2004 in order to
JULY 6, 2004 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
provide sufficient notice to their customers
David Perez, Valley Vista Services said that his company was concerned
onlywith the disposal increases attheCounty landfill system and a small CPI
percentage to cover increased costs in Workers Compensation and Liability
Insurance premiums. Hethanked Council for their consideration.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
C/O'Connor asked about the disparity in CPI percentages for various matters
on tonight's agenda. CM/Lowry responded that the differences were
attributable to different statistic sources and calculations based on different
periods of time.
M/Huff moved, C/Chang seconded, to approve Valley Vista Service's rate
adjustment for CPI and disposal costs. Motion carried bythe following Roll
Ca I I vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zirbes
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
8.2 CONSIDERATION OF APPOINTMENTS TO THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR
CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR A TWO-
YEAR TERM.
CM/Lowry stated that this item was placed on the agenda as a result of
WCCA informing the City that it was time to re -up the appointments. Bill
Herrick was a recent appointment and would like to continue for another
term. Dexter MacBride who had faithfu Ily served for a number of terms had
agreed to continue until the City found someone to take his place.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this matter.
MPT/Herrera moved, C/Chang seconded to reappoint Bill Herrick for a two-
year term and Dexter MacBride on an interim basis to guarantee two
representatives for the Advisory Committee, and actively pursue recruitment
of a replacement for Dexter MacBride. Motion carried by the following Roll
Ca I I vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
JULY 6, 2004 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
C/Chang invited members of the public to participate in this year's Concerts in the
Park series each Wednesday at6:30 p.m. at Sycamore Canyon Park. Hefelt July 4
was agreat event that brought the community and the region together as result of
staffs excellent planning. He thought that about 9,000 individuals participated. He
acknowledged those who serve this country in the armed forces and all who served
in the past to protect our nation's freedoms.
C/O'Connor asked for clarification of the title on Consent Calendar Item 6.14.
CM/Lowry responded that the title should read: "A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY
COUNCIL SUPPORTING THE CITY OF INDUSTRY'S PROPOSED PURCHASE
OF THE 525 -ACRE TONNER CANYON LLC PROPERTY LOCATED EAST OF
STATE ROUTE 57 WITHIN ORANGE COUNTY." With respect to Council's vote,
CA/Jenkins advised that the vote would stand as taken with the Consent Calendar
item corrected accordingly.
C/O'Connor commented that she observed a young man approach the Operation
Gratitude Booth to ask if it was the organization that sent packages overseas. He
said he received such a package, that they were wonderful and to thank all who
participated in Operation Gratitude because the service personnel really appreciated
receiving packages from home. She encouraged residents to participate in the
program to any extent possible.
C/Huff spoke about Foothill Transit. Pomona exempted the AQMD mandated natural
gas buses and the tax on the gas that comes through a pipeline to their city. Foothill
Transit proposed to place a compressed station in Irwindale but received opposition
to that proposal. Heis working with staff to find a solution to exempt D.B. but itcould
cost $500,000 per year of funds that could otherwise be earmarked for transit. He
put Council on notice that Footh ill Transit may berequesting a resolution ifa solution
were not forthcoming through diplomatic channels. Hesaid the 4th of JUly celebration
was great and reminded people to maintain their swimming pool gates and areas so
that kids could not gain access and risk their lives.
MPT/Herrera commented that the 4th of July was absolutely wonderful. She thought
that about 10,000 people attended. The biggest factor for a large turnout was
probably due to many large cities in the area canceling their celebrations. She was
proud that D.B. continued to provide this wonderful community program and she
was particularly proud that D.B.'s small staff could put on such a spectacular event.
Such events remind her about the City's wonderful staff members, CSD/Rose and
his staff who spearheaded the 4th of July celebration, DCM/Doyle who brilliantly
completed the wonderful Diamond Bar Cent erand DCM/DeStefano who was doing
such a great job of pursuing economic development opportunities. Staff continues to
pursue excellence for the City and she is very grateful that she lives in D.B.
JULY 6, 2004 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
M/Zirbes also appreciated the efforts of staff and everyone who participated in the
July concert. Recently an individual set off bottle rockets that landed on a rooftop
and caused several thousand dollars worth of damage. Hereminded residents that
the City's event provided a safe environment for celebration. Council met last week
and approved the Specific Plan for the Diamond Bar Village project at Grand
Avenue and Golden Springs Drive. The Council also met with Supervisor Don
Knabe and his senior staff and discussed theCity's long-range goals for cooperative
efforts with the County of Los Angeles. Lastweek the Council met with Mayor Park
from Inchon, Korea when he visited D.B. to look at economic development
possibilities. In addition to those who attended the 4th of July celebration in person
heleamed that many others enjoyed the fireworks display fromthe parking lotatthe
Diamond Bar Center. He invited interested individuals to attend the Task Force
meeting atthe Diamond BarLibrary on Monday evening beginning at6:30 p.m. He
wished everyone a wonderful July and invited residents to contact any member of
the City Council with their questions and concerns.
10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Zirbes adjourned
the meeting at 7:30 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
JUNE 22, 2004
CK_11NM%ZelN11:1Z;
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 Low led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Dan Nolan; Vice Chairman Jack Tanaka; and
Commissioners: Ruth Low; Joe McManus; and Steve Tye.
Also present: James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate
Planner; Linda K. Smith, Development Services Assistant; Greg Kovacevich,
Assistant City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works Director; Steve Sasaki and Peter
Lewandowski, Consultants; and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant.
2. MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE/PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
3. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Minutes of the Regular Meeting of June 8, 2004.
VC/Tanaka moved, C/Low seconded, to approve the minutes ofthe Regular
Meeting of June 8, 2004, as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll
Ca I I vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Low, McManus, Tye, VC/Tanaka,
Cha it/Nola n
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
6. NEW BUSINESS: None
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
7. PUBLIC HEARING(S): None
7.1 Development Review No. 2003-27 and Tree Permit No. 2003-08 (pursuant
to Code Sections 22.48.020 (a)(1), 22.38.070 and 22.38.130) is request to
demolish an existing one story single -fa milyresidence of approximately 4,000
square feet including a two car garage and construct a three story single-
family residence with two four -car garages (attached and detached), guest
unit above the detached garage, pool house, patio covers, veranda and
balconies totaling to approximately 15,500 square feet. The request also
included a series of retaining walls within the front, side and rear yards with
a maximum exposed height of six feet, and tennis court and pool/spa within
the rear yard. The Tree Permit is related to the removal/replacem ent/
protection of walnut trees.
PROJECT ADDRESS: 3015 Wagon Train Lane
(Tract 30289, Lot 19)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: Ben Yi and lyun Yi
21887 Golden Canyon Drive
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
APPLICANT: Nick C. Kuik
11232 Hoyter Avenue
Culver City, CA 90230
AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report. Staff recommended Planning
Commission approval of Development Review No. 2003-02 and Tree Permit
No. 2003-08, Findings of Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the
resolution.
Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing.
Franz J. Foels, 2929 S. Wagon Train Lane, was concerned about drainage
because the property on the opposite side of his lot drained onto his lot.
Being downhill from the proposed tennis court it seemed logical to him that
the water would drain down onto his property and cause damage and he
wanted to know how the City intended to mitigate this problem.
C/McManus asked Mr. Foels to co mment on what appeared to be broken
pipes in the photographs he presented to the Commission. Mr. Foels said
that initially, the owner installed the pipes and atthe time they served their
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
purpose. However, since the property was sold the current owner had not
maintained the system.
C/McManus asked staff who was responsible for maintenance of the
drainage system.
Chair/Nolan responded to Mr. Foels that there were no cooking facilities in
the guest unit.
AssocP/Lungu explained that the resolution contained a condition on page 8
that read "all drainage runoff from the development shall be conveyed from
the siteto the natural drainage course orto the adjacent private street. With
the exception of the adjacent private street, no on-site drainage shall be
conveyed to adjacent parcels. Itis required by the Public Works Director that
the applicant shall provide a hydrology study for the City's review and
approval prior to the issuance of any City permits." Should Mr. Foels have
concerns in the future he should call the City's Public Works Division at
909 839-7040.
AssocP/Lungu responded to Mr. Foels that the resolution contained a
condition that the retaining wall would beto a maximum exposed height ofsix
feet and bescreened byadditional landscape materials.
There being no one else present who wished to speak on this matter,
Chair/Nolan closed the public hearing.
To C/Tye request AssocP/Lungu reiterated the project included a plan to get
the water off ofthe property and not onto Mr. Foel's property
In response to C/McManus, DCM/DeS tefano explained that staff would
investigate the drainage pipe problems on theproperty to the opposite side of
Mr. Foel's lot to determine responsibility and possible mitigation.
C/Tye moved, C/McManus seconded to recommend City Council approval of
Development Review No. 2003-27 and Tree Permit No. 2003-08, Findings of
Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried
by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Low, McManus, Tye, VC/Tanaka,
Chair/Nolan
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
7.2 General Plan Amendment No. 2004-01 is a request, pursuant to the
Government Code and Chapter 22.70 of the Development Code, to change
the General Plan Land Use designation from Planning Area -3/ Specific Plan/
Professional Office to Planning Area-3/Specific Plan/High Density Residential
(maximum 20 dwelling units per acre) for a 14 acre previously graded portion
of an approximately 43 -acre site located on grand Avenue in the City of
Diamond Bar and identified as Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 8293-045-004
and 8293-045-005.
Zone Change No. 2004-02 is a request, pursuant to the Government Code
and Chapters 22.12, 22.60 and 22.70 of th e Development Code, to amend
the Zoning Map from the existing CM -PD -BE (Commercial Manufacturing -
Planned Development -Bill board Exclusion), C-3 BE (Unlimited Commercial -
Billboard Exclusion) and R-4 (High Density Residential) zoning districtstothe
proposed SP (Specific Plan) zoning district, incorporating a sub -area of RH
(High Density Residential, OS (Open Space) and C-3 (Regional Commercial)
zoning districts. Property under consideration is identified as an
approximately 70 -acre site comprised of Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8293-
045-004, 8293-045-005, 8293-045-006, 8293-045-007, 8293-045-008, and
8293-045-009 and generally located at the southeast corner of Grand
Avenue and Golden Springs Drive in the City of Diamond Bar.
Specific Plan No. 2004-01 is proposed for the sub -area identified in the
General Plan as Planning Area 3. The Specific Plan is request, pursuant to
the Government Code Section 65450 at seq. and Chapters 22.12 and 22.60
of the Development Code, to consider the "Diamond Bar Village Specific
Plan" which proposes to establish the type, amount, development standards
and mixture of land uses for an approxim ately 70 -acre site comprised of
Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8293-045-004, 8293-045-005, 8293-045-006,
8293-045-007 8293-045-008 and 8293-045-009, generally located at the
southeast comer of Grand Avenue and Gold en Springs Drive in the City of
Diamond Bar.
Development Agreement No. 2004-01 is a request, pursuant to the
Government Code Section 65864, et seq. and Chapter 22.62 of the
Development Code, for the purpose of establishing an agreement between
the City and the developer setting forth the obligations and benefits to the
City and developer.
PROJECT LOCATION: Assessors Parcel Numbers 8293-045-004, 8293-
045-005, 8293-045-006, 8293-045- 007, 8293-045-008 and 8293-045-009, a
site comprised ofapproximately 70 -acre sgenerally located atthe southeast
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
corner of Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive, City of Diamond Bar. The
properties are presently comprised ofvacant land, a church, a paved parking
area and a private recreational facility in Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
PROPERTY OWNER: Assessors Parcel Numbers 8293-045-004 and 8293-
045-005 are owned by Inter Community Health Services, Inc. AKA Citrus
Valley Health Partners, 210 W. San Bernardino Road, Covina, CA 91723.
Assessors Parcel Numbers 8293-045-006, 8293-045-007, 8293-045-008 and
8293-045-009 are owned by Hidden Manna Corporation, 22324 Golden
Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
APPLICANT: Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC ,1156 N. Mountain Avenue, Upland,
CA 91786
DCM/DeStefa n o presented staffs report for the proposed project. Hestated
that tonight the Commission reviews proposed General Plan Amendment,
Zone change, adoption of Specific Plan, recommendation for adoption of
Development Agreement and forwards its recommendation to City Council for
the Environmental Assessment for the property. Six parcels totaling to
approximately 70 acres are under consideration as proposed by applicant
Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the Zone Change for the project was proposed to
bring the zoning into compliance with the General Plan classifications aswell
as permit the development of the project. The Specific Plan designation
called out in the General Plan would allow for retail commercial uses, High
Density Residential uses, for Office uses and for the preservation of Open
Spaces. The document is based upon and has responded to all of the
requirements ofthe City's General Plan aswell aspursuant tothe California
government code that establishes authority for Specific Plan and sets for
minimum mandated requirements. The development standards include land
uses and specific setback/yard area requirements, include landscaping
standards, sign criteria unique to this property, design guidelines, and so
forth. The Specific Plan breaks the siteinto four (4) sub -areas: 1)proposed to
serve asthe focal point of"The Diamond Bar Village" comprised ofabout 30
acres was proposed to serve up to approximately 170,000 square feet ofnew
retail floor space, a commercial shopping center and 50,000 square feet of
institutional space, a future sanctuary for the Calvary Chapel. 2) Planning
Area 2 that set forth a 200 residential Townhome condominium opportunity;
3) Sub -Area 3 was located immediately adjacent to Grand Avenue and is a
sub -area that may becomprised ofa 50,000 square foot office building oran
expansion of the high-density units. Should sub -area 3 not develop with an
office building the totality ofthe acreage together with Planning Area 2 could
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
not exceed 200 dwelling units; 4) Sub- Area 4 was the existing Open Space
located between the Montefino and the Inter-Communi ty property and land
that wraps around the church property and would serve with enhancements
to separate the residential land uses from the commercial land uses.
DCM/DeStefano pointed to two existing access points from Golden Springs
Drive to the Church property. The access point located closest to Grand
Avenue would be relocated to better accommodate the proposed commercial
project within sub -planning Area 3. The existing driveway further away from
Grand Avenue on Golden Springs Drive would remain in place. There was
only one existing driveway justeast of Grand Avenue that would berelocated
to sub -area 1. Atthe signal that supports the Diamond Bar Village project
there would be a proposed second driveway on Golden Springs Drive that
would serve the commercial area, the church institutional area and the
residential area to the east. A third driveway would be created for the
office/high density project located adjacent to the toe of the slope below the
Montefino complex.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the proposal within sub -area 1 for commercial
purposes was to construct a 140,000 square foot "big -box" retail anchor.
The City and property owner had attempted to acquire a large sales tax
producer for the City. At the corner of Grand Avenue and Golden Springs
Drivewas a proposal for a full-service minimum 6,000 square foot restaurant.
South on Golden Springs Drive near theproposed relocated driveway was a
proposal for an in-line or single sales tax producing retail operator and
additional retail. The fourth and fifth areas further south were a likely location
for a proposed Calvary Chapel bookstore and coffee shop. To theeast ofthe
bookstore/coffee shop would bethe area forthe proposed "institutional" use,
a 50,000 square foot building that would occupy a future sanctuary for
Calvary Chapel.
DCM/DeStefano stated that should the Commission recommend City Council
approval and with City Council approval ,the Planning Commission would see
details of the various project proposals in subsequent meetings. The
Planning Commission was not being asked to approve components of the
proposal, only the overriding zone changes, etc.
DCM/DeStefano explained that the proposed development was a tool
permitted within California State law and within the City's Development Code.
The Development Agreement establishes benefits and obligations for the
private developer and the City and is, in essence a contract between the two
parties. The public benefits associated with the Agreement included
development impact fees for park fees (Quimby Fees); traffic mitigation fees
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
on Grand Avenue, Golden Springs Drive and a fair -share contribution toward
future improvements necessary to reduce area wide traffic impacts. In
consideration ofthe entitlement ofexisting commercial property for residential
purposes, the developer had agreed to pay the City a Development
Agreement Fee of $2,000,000 based upon a schedule outlined within the
Agreement i.e. to post a $2,000,000 Letter of Credit (LOC) in favor ofthe City
to be drawn down upon by the City should the Development not commence
construction ofthe anchor tenant byJune 2005 and complete construction of
the anchor retail tenant by April 2006 in accordance with the timeline
established in the Agreement. In addition, the Agreement established the
quality and type of high quality retail tenants for the center such as Home
Depot, Lowe's and Target. The Agreement is the result of negotiations
between the developer and the City and has been approved by the City
Atto m ey.
DCM/DeStefano reported that none ofthe topical issues previously examined
in the Medical Plaza FEIR and/or Economic Revitalization would, because of
the project's proposed changes, manifest at levels greater than assumed in
those earlier documents and that all such impacts would occur at either
comparable or reduced levels than that assumed therein. As such, EIS did
not indicate that substantial changes wereproposed in the project that would
require "major revisions" of the previous Environmental Impact Report or
require the Lead Agency's preparation of a subsequent orsupplemental EIR.
Public Notice for the Planning Commission public hearing was published in
the Inland Valley Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on June 11,
2004, and public notices were mailed to a II property owners within a 700 -foot
radius ofthe project site on June 10, 2004. The project sitewas posted with a
display board and the public notice was posted in three public places within
the City.
Staff recommended that the Planning Commission recommend approval
to the City Council of General Plan Amendment No. 2004-01, Zone Change
No. 2004-02, Specific Plan No. 2004-01, Development Agreement
No. 2004-01 and the Addendum with the Findings of Fact and conditions of
approval as listed within the Draft Resolution.
DCM/DeStefano responded to VC/Tanaka that the agreement provided for
traffic mitigation by the developer. He reiterated that the previous EIR
assumed comparable or reduced traffic impact levels.
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
DCM/DeStefano responded toC/Low thattheSpecific Plan wasverydetailed
with limited flexibility for the developer primarily in the area of architecture
and landscaping. Major revisions to the Specific Plan would require at least
one public hearing before the Planning Commission and at least one public
hearing before the City Council. The Specific Plan created new zoning for the
property. Property ownership would ultimately be determined by the
configuration ofparcels. For example, ownership ofthe 200 residential units
would ultimately pass to the purchasing individuals. The church was
anticipated to retain its ownership. Inter Community Health Services was in
escrow to sell the property to Lewis forthe condominium -town house project
and Lewis had an agreement with the church to purchase the retail portion of
the project. The retail portion of the project could potentially be subdivided
and sold off. Often anchors wished to own their own properties, for example.
Staff would propose that the entire project would appear seamless.
DCM/DeStefano stated that all participating property owners and potential
property owners were in agreement with the proposed Specific Plan. Itwould
not benecessary for the church to be a party to the Development Agreement
in this instance.
David Lewis, 1156 Mountain Avenue, Upland complimented DCM/DeStefano
on his thorough presentation of the proposed project. He stated that this
development would have the Lewis stamp of quality and a guarantee that
there would be the highest attention to detail so that the project would meet
and exceed all expectations. He brought with him a team of consultants
including representatives from the traffic engineer firm of Linscott, Law and
Greenspan an environmental impact preparation firm and CEQA experts
from Beverage and Diamond. Additionally, Gary Ballard and Thomas
Ashcraft from Lewis Retail Centers were in attendance.
C/Low asked Mr. Lewis when heexpect ed to make a decision regarding sub-
area 3 as to whether it would consist of an office building or residential.
Mr. Lewis responded that heexpected sub -area 3 would beresidential. Lewis
was currently working with Brookfield Homes and John O'Brien from
Brookfield Homes was in attendance tonight. The current plan anticipated
using the entire Citrus Valley Health Partners site for Townhomes for sale.
C/Low asked how much of the 25 acres Open Space was usable and
whether it would be landscaped or left in its natural state. Mr. Lewis
responded that he anticipated the Open Space would be left in its natural
condition with consideration for fuel and slide issues with the homeowners
association and the merchants association in charge of maintaining the open
space between the flat parcels. C/Low asked about joint -use parking
agreements. Mr. Lewis responded that the parking plan was not finalized
although they had specific input from Ca Ivary Chapel that the church did not
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
want to share any of their parking with the retailers. Likewise, Lewis had
received specific instruction from some ofthe major retailers that they would
not want to share any of their parking with Calvary Chapel. In addition, both
entities individually envisioned parking that would exceed the City's code.
Chair/Nolan asked for clarification of the proposed use for sub -area 3
currently earmarked for construction of office and business -park. Mr. Lewis
responded that heanticipated the 200 townhouses would bebuild across the
entire site. However, itwas premature to say there was no anticipation to use
the office site for office. Certainly the potential for office was included in the
EIS and the traffic study contemplated that and other uses. Today's best
guess would be that the entire site would be used for residential but he
wanted to reserve flexibility in the final determination.
C/McManus asked Mr. Lewis if he had anything to do with the Calvary
Chapel parking structure and Mr. Lewis responded that their contractual
obligation included providing a certain number ofspaces for Calvary Chapel
exceeding the City's code.
In response to Chair/Nolan, Mr. Lewis said he had the flexibility within the
contract to determine the feasibility of parking structure orsurface parking
layered into the slope between the residential site and the Calvary Chapel
site. Heestimated that the pastors would use the new sanctuary for services
and convert the existing sanctuary to daycare, offices and possibly expand
the recording studio. Mr. Lewis expressed that the $2,000,000 Letter of
Credit was near and dear to the heart of Lewis as well as to his personal
salary and that hewas very confident that hecould deliver a retail entity at
that location.
To C/Low Mr. Lewis responded that the church was willing to share the
Golden Springs Drive driveways.
Chair/Nolan thanked Mr. Lewis for his participation.
Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing.
Aziz Amiri, President, Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce, thanked
DCM/DeStefa n o and staff for their efforts toward bringing this project forward.
For a number of years residents have voiced concern about the lack of
quality shopping, dining and entertainment in the community and the
Chamber shares those concerns. The Chamber views this project asa much
needed economic development stimulant and is certain the Planning
Commissioners would do their due diligence in assuring the needs and
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 11 PLANNING COMMISSION
expectations of the community were met. The Chamber asked that the
Commissioners view this proposal with a sense of urgency and expedite a
favorable decision inviewofanother majorplanned development inprogress
on Grand Avenue north of the SR 60 in the City of Industr y. The Chamber
believed that the City must show flexibility and insure that the best
opportunities were not lost in its zeal to dot every "I" and cross every "T."
Jesse Barela, 1170 Golden Springs Drive, and Associate Pastor of Calvary
Chapel urged the Commission to pass the proposed resolutions. After
working in the City he and his family chose to move to Diamond Bar and
wanted the opportunity to shop and dine in Diamond Bar. Unfortunately, he
and his family must go outside of the City to shop and eat out. Diamond Bar
is a hub for three different counties connected by the freeway system. More
than 12,000 individuals come from many adjacent cities to Calvary Chapel
each week and he felt that development of the property would provide
greater exposure to those visiting the area on a regular basis. In addition, the
church provides outreach to young people and assists them in becoming
good citizens. Heurged the Commission to move forward with their approval.
Don Karlin, 7 Rancho Laguna, Phillips Ranch, President ofthe Rotary Club of
Diamond Bar said hespent considerable time reviewing the proposed Lewis
plan and came to the Commission to speak in favor of the project. As a
resident of the area and with his involvement in community and business he
does everything possible to give his business to local businesses. The
Diamond Bar Rotary is an integral part of getting local business people
together. Unfortunately, there is not a lot of choice for meeting places in
Diamond Bar. His wife shops at the Brea Mall and the new Chino Hills
development. Grand Avenue serves asan artery for Chino Hills' residents to
drive through Diamond Bar without spending money and he felt this project
would be an excellent opportunity to capture some of those potential lost
retail dollars. He has worked with Lewis in the past and found this project to
be very cutting edge. He felt the City could not ask for a better developer
because Lewis founded itself in the San Gabriel Valley and belonged to this
area. He recommended the Planning Commission approve the proposed
resolutions.
There being no further testimony offered, Chair/Nolan closed the public
hearing.
C/McManus stated there was no apparent opposition to this proposal. The
Commissioners had thoroughly reviewed the materials, hehad met privately
with Lewis and there had been other study sessions regarding this proposal.
Hefelt the project would bedeveloped in a mutually beneficial manner to the
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 12 PLANNING COMMISSION
developer and to the community. And, as Mr. Karlin pointed out, this
community was in dire need of new retail.
In response to VC/Tanaka DCM/DeStefano responded that the traffic studies
were conducted this year taking into consideration new development since
the original EIR.
C/Tye said his observation was that Lewis had done an excellent job of not
only looking atthe proposal from its own and merits but with an eye toward
what was previously approved. The EIR was valid, constantly made
reference to "no significant impact to..." and the project was outstanding. He
believed this was a good project with good retail and provided the City with a
going -forward mechanism that would allow the City to accomplish many
things the City wanted and needed to acco mplish. One of the comments in
the initial study concluded that the proposed uses would besubstantially less
intensive than the uses associated with the previously approved project. In
his opinion, the City was getting a better project with sales tax revenue
through a win -win-win situation.
C/Low was very impressed with the Specific Plan as presented and felt the
level of detail, architectural renderings and mode of construction for a project
that would ultimately benefit the qualityof life in Diamond Bar was excellent.
She felt the City was working with quality developers who would in turn work
with the City to formulate a mutually beneficial project and she said that she
was very excited about the project.
C/Tye stated that David Lewis's father and uncle were recently named to the
Building Industry Hall of Fame. What wasimportant to Diamond Barwas that
that type of accomplishmen t did not occur over the short term and it was
exciting to have a renowned company like Lewis excited about building in
Diamond Bar.
Chair/Nolan said itwas atremendous legacy for Lewis that itsfounders were
included in the Building Industry Hall of Fame. When he visited the property
he wondered why this hadn't happened sooner. Obviously, in light of the
already approved Specific Plan there was extensive thought given to the fact
that this would bean appropriate location for retail and the other amenities
contemplated. Hefelt that one ofthe reasons this project was moving forward
was that Mr. Lewis was willing to pull together reluctant owners in a common
cause. Hetipped his hat to the individuals who produced this plan. Secondly,
the fair -share opportunities, the Quimby contributions and other funding
mechanisms included in this project that were generally included byreputable
builders in other projects were commendable.
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 13 PLANNING COMMISSION
------
C/McManus moved, VC/Tanaka seconded, to approve Resolution
No. 2004-22 supporting the addendum to the previously approved
Environmental Impact Reports incorporating the previous documents and
conditions the developer agreed to incorporate into the project. Motion
approved by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
McManus, VC/Tanaka, Low, Tye,
Cha it/Nola n
None
None
None
C/Tye moved, C/McManus seconded, to recommend City Council approval of
General Plan Amendment No. 2004-01, Zone Change No. 2004-02, Specific
Plan No. 2004-01 and Development Agreement No. 2004-01 incorporating
the previous documents, changes to the resolution and development
agreement brought forth by staff through the Errata document as well as
conditions the developer agreed to incorporate into the project. Motion
approved by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS:
NOES: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS:
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS:
Tye, McManus, Low, VC/Tanaka,
Cha it/Nola n
None
None
None
Chair/Nolan thanked Mr. Lewis and complimented staff and consultants for
their participation in tonight's meeting.
8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONA L ITEMS: None
Offered.
9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMA TIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano reported that the Banning commercial projectwas scheduled to go
to the City Council on July 20. Hethanked staff that supported each other byputting
the Lewis project together working closely with the City's consultants and the
development team. He thanked the Planning Commission for reviewing an
enormous amount of casework pertaining to the Lewis project in order to make
certain to forward a well -consider ed recommendatio n to the City Council.
JUNE 22, 2004 Page 14 PLANNING COMMISSION
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in the agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chair/Nolan adjourned the meeting at9:14 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
Chairman Dan Nolan
Agenda No. 6.3
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
JUNE 10, 2004
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Pincher called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management/Gover nment Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
Vice Chair Torng led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Pincher, Vice Chair Torng and Commissioners Morris, and Shah.
Commissioner Virginkar was excused.
Also Present: David Liu, Public Works Director, Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer; and
Debbie Gonzales, Administrative Assistant
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. Minutes of April 7, 2004 Special Joint Meeting of the Planning
Commission, Traffic & Transportation Commission and Parks &
Recreation Commission.
VC/Torng moved, C/Shah seconded to app rove the April 7, 2004 Special
Joint Meeting minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll
Ca I I vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Shah, VC/Torng, Chair/Pincher
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
Morris
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Virginkar
B. Minutes of
the Regular May 13, 2004 meeting.
C/Morris moved, VC/Torng seconded to approve the Regular Meeting
minutes of May 13, 2004. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS:
Morris, VC/Torng, Chair/Pincher
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS:
None
ABSTAIN:
COMMISSIONERS:
Shah
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS:
Virginkar
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR:
June 10, 2004 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION
A. Traffic and Transportation Commission Handbook —Received and filed.
IV. ITEMS FROM STAFF
A. Traffic Enforcement Update — Report by DPW/Liu - Received and filed on
the following items:
1. Citations: May 2004
2. Collisions: May 2004
3. Future Deployment ofthe Radar Trailer
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS: None
VII. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS: None
VIII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS:
VC/Torng asked when the Leyland Avenue and Longview Drive speed humps
requests would be considered.
PWD/Liu advised the Commission that the City's Speed Hump Policy was
amended to include a neighborhood meeting following receipt of petition request.
Based on the outcome of the neighborhood meeting the installation would either
move forward or the residents would withdraw their signatures. He advised the
Commission that the FY 2004/2005 budget contained a $30,000 allocation for
speed hump installation.
IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
PWD/Liu reported that at its June 15, 2004 meeting the City Council would
consider the Commission's recommendation to install multi -way stop signs on
Prospectors Road at Rock River Drive.
A. Diamond Bar High School Traffic Circulation
PWD/Liu reported that staff met with high school and school district officials
regarding the reconfigurati on of the Diamond Bar High School parking lot to
optimize the circulation and consider the possibility of increasing the
number of parking spaces. The school district hopes to have the majority of
the work completed prior to the September session.
June 10, 2004 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION
B. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program.
PWD/Liu reported that staff proposed to bring its report to the Council in
July for award of contract.
Chair/Pincher asked if the program would include speed humps and
propose other types of mitigation? PWD/Liu responded that all types of
mitigation alternatives would be considered as options on a neighborhood -
by -neighborhood basis and that the proposed traffic calming measures
would not be limited to speed humps.
C/Shah asked if the Commission would have an opportunity to review the
report and make its recommendation to Council. PWD/Liu responded that
the Commission and the residents would be involved throughout the lengthy
process that would include the Commission's recommendation to Council.
Staff anticipated the process would be completed within the next 12 -month
period.
C. SR 57/60 Direct HOV Connector Project.
PWD/Liu reported that the SR 57/60 HOV project schedule is on -target.
However, the reopening ofthe westbound Grand Avenue on-ramp would be
delayed due to issues with the concrete and rebars. He said that reopening
was anticipated for the end of June/beginn ing of July and when the ramp
was re -opened, the westbound Brea Canyon Road on-ramp would be
closed for about 10 months.
D. Preferential Parking Requests on Laurel Rim Drive.
PWD/Liu stated that staff was soliciting comments from residents adjacent
to the high school about students parking in their neighborhoods and this
matter would be brought back to the Commission on July 8, 2004.
X. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS — as adgendized.
XI. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: None
June 10, 2004 PAGE 4 T&T COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Traffic and
Transportation Commission, Chairman Pincher adjourned the meeting at7:27 p.m.
Resp ectfu I I y,
David G. Liu, Secretary
Attest:
Chair Liana Pincher
AGENDA No. 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
Agenda # 6.5.1
Meeting Date: July 20, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Rejection of Claim — Filed by Joseph Randall Barksdale — June 29, 2004
RECOMMENDATION: Carl Warren & Co., the City's claims administrator, recommends the City
Council reject the claim filed by Joseph Randall Barksdale.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial implication associated with rejecting this claim. The
claim for damage is for approximately $200.00. Should the claim be successful, it will be paid by the
JPIA.
BACKGROUND: On June 29, 2004, Joseph Randall Barksdale filed a Claim for Damages with the
City alleging that the wind blew sap from newly trimmed City trees on to his vehicle. Carl Warren &
Co., the City's claims administrator, determined that the claim appears to be one of questionable
liability and has recommended denial. Upon action by the City Council, appropriate notice shall be
sent to the claimant and Carl Warren & Co.
PREPARED BY: Tommye Cribbins, Asst. City Clerk
REVIEWED BY:
Deputy City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6. S. 2
Meeting Date: July 20, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Rejection of Claim — Filed by Julie Galindo — May 28, 2004
RECOMMENDATION: Carl Warren & Co., the City's claims administrator, recommends the City
Council reject the claim filed by Julie Galindo.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no financial implication associated with rejecting this claim. The
claim for damage is for approximately $437.95. Should the claim be successful, it will be paid by the
JPIA.
BACKGROUND: On May 28, 2004, Julie Galindo filed a Claim for Damages with the City alleging
that she drove over a pothole on one of the City's streets and damaged her vehicle. Carl Warren &
Co., the City's claims administrator, determined that the claim appears to be one of questionable
liability and has recommended denial. Upon action by the City Council, appropriate notice shall be
sent to the claimant and Carl Warren & Co.
PREPARED BY: Tommye Cribbins, Asst. City Clerk
REVIEWED BY:
Deputy City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6.6
Meeting Date: July 20, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Extend Contract Services Agreement with Southland Sports Officials for the 2004/05 FY in
the amount not to exceed $30,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Extend contract.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds for this contract are included in the proposed 2004/05 FY Budget.
Participant fees pay for all costs related to this contract.
BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded a contract to Southland Sports Officials on August 7,
2001. Section 2 of the contract allows the City Council to extend the contract on an annual basis if
doing so is deemed to be in the best interest of the City. The contract was previously extended for
the period of July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
DISCUSSION: Since the original contract was awarded, Southland Sports Officials have provided
contract officials for our adult softball and basketbal I leagues. These officials have the necessary
certification, knowledge and experience to provide quality officiating services for the City's adult
sports leagues. Staff recommends that the contract be extended for the 2004/05 FY in an amount not
to exceed $30,000.
ATTACHMENTS: Amendment #3 to sports officials service agreement
Sports officials service agreement dated August 7, 2001
Southland Sports Officials proposal for July 1, 2004 to June 30, 2005.
PREPARED BY: Ryan Wright
Recreation Supervisor
1 N W1 I ATIN =102 yA
Bob Rose James DeStefano
Community Services Director Deputy City Manager
AMENDMENT #3 TO SPORTS OFFICIALS SERVICE AGREEMENT
THIS AMENDMENT #3 TO SPORTS OFFICIAL SERVICE AGREEMENT is made this 1st day of July, 2004
by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY")
and SOUTHLAND SPORTS OFFICIALS (CONTRACTOR).
Recitals:
a. CONTRACTOR entered into a 12 month AGREEMENT with CITY effective JULY 1, 2001
("the AGREEMENT") for officiating services for the adult sports program.
b. Parties agreed to Amendment #2 extending the term from July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004.
C. Parties desire to amend the AGREEMENT to extend the term for an additional 12 months.
Now, therefore, the parties agree to amend the AGREEMENT as follows:
Section 1 — Term of the AGREEMENT provided in Section 2 is revised to extend the AGREEMENT
from July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2005.
Section 2 — Exhibit `B" dated June 13, 2003 is replaced with new Exhibit `B" dated July 20, 2004
attached hereto.
Except as provided above, the AGREEMENT is in all other respects in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT #3 TO AGREEMENT on the
date and year first written above.
ATTEST:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR SOUTHLAND SPORTS OFFICIALS
A Municipal Corporation Contractor
Of the State of California
Signed Signed
Title Title
APPROVED TO FORM
City Attorney
City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6.7
Meeting Date: July 20, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: APPROVE EXTENSION OF CONTRACT WITH JAMES B. CLARKE FOR
LEGISLATIVE ANALYSIS AND CONSULTING SERVICES THROUGH 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council approve the contract extension.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The contract secures services with an hourly rate of $42. On average, the City has received 25 hours
($1,050) of service per week. The contract extension would allocate $55,000 for FY2005.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION:
Mr. Clarke serves as a special legislative analyst for the City. He analyzes county, state, and federal
legislation and initiatives that will impact the City. He authors resolutions and letters used for
grassroots activities on each of the issues, thereby elevating the political clout of the City of Diamond
Ba r.
The Legislative Analyst services also include researching the solutions and writing the
correspondence pertaining to resident inquiries and complaints for the Council, Mayor, and City
Manager. He provides writing services for grants and requests for proposals (RFPs) and has been
acting as the City liaison for Adelphia with regard to community complaints.
The approval of this contract extension will allow the City to continue to receive legislative analyst and
community relations services from Mr. Clarke for FY 2005.
Prepared 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: 7/20/04
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Approval of Contract Amendment #4 to Extend City -Wide Landscape Maintenance Contract with TruGreen
LandCare for the first six months of the 2004/05 FY in the amount of $101,690 which includes a 3.7% C.P.I.
increase; and authorization of $25,000 to serve as a contingency for additional work that may be assigned
by City staff to TruGreen LandCare between July 1 and December 31, 2004.
RECOMMENDATION : Approve contract amendment #4.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds for these services are included in the 2004/05 FY budget
Parks:
$36,581
District #38:
$25,267
District #39:
$26,336
District #41:
$13,506
TOTAL:
$101,690
BACKGROUND: On June 16, 1998, the City Council awarded a contract to TruGreen LandCare and Maintenance
(previously Accurate Landscape & Maintenance) in the amount of $233,364.00 for City Wide Landscape maintenance
services. Section 11 of the contract allows the City Council to extend the contract on an annual basis if an extension is
deemed to be in the best interest of the City. At the middle of the 2002/03 fiscal year, staff was concerned about the
reduction in quality of work performed by TruGreen LandCare. During that time, landscape maintenance contracts for
Peterson and Pantera Parks and new parkway areas in District #38 were awarded to other companies. Then in May,
TruGreen LandCare brought a new management team to Diamond Bar, and things improved substantially. TruGreen has
successfully completed the 2003/04 contract year and is eligible to receive a contract extension for the 2004/05 Fiscal Year.
However, TruGreen management has requested a $30,000 annual increase in the contract amount to continue as the
contractor for the entire fiscal year. This represents an increase request of 15.3%. Contract language limits the available
increase to the C.P.I. rate of 3.7% or $7,262. Staff then negotiated a six-month extension of the contract at the 3.7% C.P.I.
rate ($3,631 for six months). Staff will go out to bid to replace TruGreen as contractor by December 31, 2004.
DISCUSSION: TruGreen LandCare provides landscape maintenance service to: Landscape Maintenance Districts No. 38,
No. 39 and No. 41 and City Parks, except Peterson and Pantera Pa rks and portions of District #38. Staff expects TruGreen
LandCare to maintain its quality of work for the final six months of this contract.
REVIEWED BY:
Bob Rose James DeStefano
Community Services Director Deputy City Manager
AMENDMENT #4 TO CONTRACT AGREEMENT
THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT is made this 20th day of July, 2004 by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a
municipal corporation of the State of California (°CITY') and TRUG RE EN LAND CARE, (CONTRACTOR')
Recitals;
a. CITY awarded a contract to CONTRACTOR for City-wide Landscape Maintenance on June 16, 1998
b. The CITY has extended its City -Wide Landscape Maintenance Contract with CONTRACTOR annually,
most recently for the July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004 fiscal year.
C. Parties desire to amend the contract to extend the contract period for an additional six (6) months, July 1,
2004 through December 31, 2004, in the amount of $101,690.
Now, therefore, the parties agree to amend the AGREEMENT as follows;
Section 1— Contract is amended to extend the contract period for an additional six (6) months, July 1, 2004 through
December 31, 2004, in the amount not to exceed $101,690.
Except as provided above, the AGREEMENT is in all other respects in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this AMENDMENT #4 TO CONTRACT AGREEMENT on the
date and year first written above.
ATTEST;
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
A Municipal Corporation
Of the State of California
Signed
Bob Zirbes
Mayor
APPROVED TO FORM
City Attorney
TRUGREEN LANDCARE
Contractor
Signed
Title
Linda Lowry, City Clerk
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # _6.9
Meeting Date: July 20,2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: A Resolution of the City of Diamond Bar creating a Bond Retirement Reserve to
accelerate the repayment of the 2002 Lease Revenue Bonds.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve Resolution No. 2004 -XX, a resolution of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar creating
a Bond Retirement Reserve to accelerate the repayment of the 2002 Lease Revenue Bonds issued
by the Diamond Bar Public Financing Authority.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Reserve of General Fund Balance for future repayment ofthe 2002 Lease Revenue Bonds.
BACKGROUND:
In December 2002, the City Council authorized the issuance of Lease Revenue Bonds to assist with
the construction of public facilities, primarily the Diamond Bar Center. At the time the bonds were
issued various options were considered and itwas decided that the bonds should bevariable rate
bonds rather than issued as five percent fixed rate bonds. Since the time of issuance, interest rates
have remained much lower than the original fixed rate, which has resulted in lower than anticipated
bond interest expenditures. It has become a goal of the City Council to capture this savings by
creating a Bond Retirement Reserve to be recorded against the General Fund reserves.
DISCUSSION:
The City, through its Public Financing Authority, issued variable rate lease revenue bonds valued a
$13,755,000 in December 2002. At the time of issuance, it was decided that the bonds should be
variable rate bonds rather than fixed rate bonds. Since that time, interest rates have averaged
1.106%, rather than the five percent fixed rate. This has resulted in pure interest savings of
$779,684, through May 31, 2004.
The interest savings realized is partially offset by the costs of the administration of the variable rate
bonds. These costs include the letter of credit fees of $154,777, confirming letter of credit fees of
$35,553, amortization of bond rate cap of $66,500 and rema rketing fees of $17,335. If fixed interest
rate bonds had been issued these costs would not be incurred on an annual basis. As a result, they
should be netted against the interest savings when calculating the Bond Retirement Reserve.
Therefore the actual amount of Bond Retirement Reserve upon the adoption of the Resolution should
be $505,519.
Every May, as the fiscal year bud get is developed, the Bond Interest Reserve will be calculated and
presented to the Council for adoption. This reserve will be also incorporated and disclosed as a note
in the following year's proposed budget documents. In addition, the reserve will be included as a
restricted portion of the General Fund balance in the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report.
PREPARED BY:
Linda G. Magnuson
REVIEWED BY:
Department Head
Attachments: Resolution
Deputy City Manager
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA,
CREATING A BOND RETIREMENT RESERVE TO ACCELERATE
THE REPAYMENT OF THE 2002 LEASE REVENUE BONDS ISSUED
BY THE DIAMOND BAR PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar is a member of the Diamond Bar Public Financing
Authority, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar in 2002, authorized the sale of lease revenue bonds in
the amount of $13,755,000, and;
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar authorized the issuance of variable rate lease revenue
bonds rather than five percent fixed rate bond, and;
WHEREAS, the actual interest rate as compared to the five percent fixed rate has been lower, and;
WHEREAS, the City has experien ced significant savings, and
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar desires to create a Bond Retirement Reserve against
the City's General Fund balances, and;
WHEREAS, such reserve shall be calculated based on the interest savings experienced as a result of the
issuance of the variable rate lease revenue bonds, and
WHEREAS, the reserve shall be based on the interest savings from the date of issuance, December 18, 2002
forward, and;
WHEREAS, Fiscal Years 2003 and 2004 have ended prior to the adoption of this resolution,
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, California, as
follows:
Section 1. A portion of the General Fund Reserves shall be identified as a Bond Retirement Reserve for the
repayment of the 2002 Lease Revenue Bonds issued by the Diamond Bar Public Financing Authority.
Section 2. The reserve shall be calculated at the end of each May, and based on the difference between the
previous twelve month's actual interest expenditure and the interest based on the fixed rate of five percent less
the letter of credit, confirming letter of credit and remarketing fees.
Section 3. The reserve shall also include the interest savings experienced from the date of issuance. This
portion of the reserve will be based on the difference between the actual interest expenditure and the five
percent fixed interest rate less the letter of credit, confirming letter of credit and remarketing fees for the period
of December 18, 2002 through May 31, 2004.
Section 4. Upon adoption of this Resolution, the City will restrict $505,519 in the General Fund reserves
for FY 2004-05 to account for the interest rate savings from the time the bonds were issued through May 31,
2004.
Section 5. That the Mayor of the City of Diamond Bar shall sign and the City Clerk shall certify to the
passage and adoption of this Resolution No. 2004-XXXX.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2004.
Robert P. Zirbes, Mayor
I, Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing
Resolution was passed, and approved and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar held on the day of , 2004, by the following vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # _6.10
Meeting Date: July 15, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Adoption of City Council's Goals and Objectives for FY 2004-05
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the City Council adopt the attached goals and objectives for FY 2004-05.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with the formal adoption of the goals and objectives. Many of the
objectives on the attached list are included in the current budget. The objectives not currently
budgeted will require appropr iation of funds by the City Council at the time the objective is considered
for approval.
BACKGROUND/ DISCUSSION
Each year in conjunction with the development of the annual budget, the City Council establishes its
goals and objectives for the fiscal year. This year the City Council considered a long list of objectives
and, after careful consideration and discussion, established the following goals as the highest priority
for FY 2004-05.
• Develop an Economic Development Plan
• Address various Transportation Issues
• Pursue Joint Development/Use Agreements with the school districts for use of facilities and
parks
• Create a strategy to build a library if State grant funding fails
• Create a bond retirement reserve fund to accelerate repayment of Diamond Bar Center bonds
The attached list of goals and objectives has been reviewed by the City Council at its study session of
July 6, 2003 and it is now appropriate for the Council to consider formal adoption.
PREPARED BY:
Deputy City Manager
Attachment
rtannnlu ob VICJ
Create Economic Development
Strategy including the following
objectives:
Create and implement a plan using
economic development funds to
secure long term revenue sources for
the future of the City.
Develop Dynamic Center/Evaluate
Site D
Establish Supermarket in South DB
Work with Chamber, business
owners to conduct survey of what
retailers/chain store DB residents
want
Hire Economic Development
Consultant
Create strategic plan for annexing
golf course and creating high quality
commercial activity center for long
term revenue source for City
Implement Business Registration
Program
RE
Transportation Issues:
4
2
2
7
2
3.4
Continue to pursue 57/60 long term
5
9
6
4
5
5.8
fix
Monitor and participate in the Lemon
Avenue offramp project
Continue to pursue Tonner Canyon
Bypass Road
Maintain opposition to 60 freeway
only truck lane
Computerized Signal Management
System run by City, not County
(Interconnect Master Plan)
3
15
7
2
7
6.8
Support ACE funding requests and
construction of nearby rail grade
2
3
14
9
9
7.4
crossing projects
6
16
13
5
8
9.6
Rankina Scores
OBJECTIVES
Chang
Herrera
Huff
O'Connor
Zirbes
SCORE
1.) Pursue & promote joint
5
9
6
4
5
5.8
development/use of facilities, parks and
open space w/PUSD & WVUSD
(coordinate duplicate policies such as
for tennis courts & basketball courts) 2.)
Obtain Larkstone Park agreement 3.)
Implement project (a portion of the park
could be utilized as a natural
"laboratory" for the local schools,
colleges & universities)
Create a strategy to build a library if
3
15
7
2
7
6.8
State Grant funding fails.
Create a bond retirement reserve fund
2
3
14
9
9
7.4
Implement Trails Master Plan focusing
6
16
13
5
8
9.6
on areas around the new Diamond Bar
Center.
Fund Pathfinder Road Improvements
8
13
8
19
4
10.4
from 57 Frwy east to DB Blvd
City Council and Staff visioning.
7
11
19
3
13
10.6
Monitor and evaluate proposals for
11
6
5
13
19
10.8
proposed development in areas such as
10
8
0
12
20
12.5
Tres Hermanos, Tonner Canyon and the
Shell Oil property; monitor water use in
Tres Hermanos
Consider annexation of former Boy
15
5
3
15
16
10.8
Scout property (work with the City of
Industry and the County)
Establish contiguous neighborhoods
12
10
9
12
12
11
within City zip code and Walnut School
District by annexing two existing
housing tracts and other potential areas.
17
17
16
6
10
13.2
Pursue purchase of Lots 1 & 61
19
12
4
20
3
11.6
Establish a fund for current library
9
14
12
18
6
11.8
enhancements
Create a pre -annexation agreement for
13
4
11
14
17
11.8
Shell Oil property
Ranking Scores
OBJECTIVES
Chang
Herrera
Huff
O'Connor
Zirbes
SCORE
Review parking ordinances (including
10
8
0
12
20
12.5
oversized commercial vehicles, RV
parking and vehicles exceeding 8000
pounds) from both the County and
surrounding cities and develop similar
ordinance for the City to promote safety
and maintan property values
Expand the sphere of influence to
14
7
10
16
18
13
incorporate properties both west and
southwest of City
Follow up with recommendations from
17
17
16
6
10
13.2
the Youth Master Plan when completed
Review Sign Code Ordinance for
8
19
17
10
15
13.8
Maintenance issues and Uniformity
Look into cost effective city medical
20
0
15
8
14
14.25
coverage.
Repair sidewalk on south side of Grand
16
18
18
17
11
16
Avenue, where we put in new sidewalk
and dedicate to Cal Trans -
but the sidewalk is closed because of
NEW (ZIRBES)
uneven Caltrans box (between freeway
etc. NEW (ZIRBES)
and Golden Springs.)
Hire Part-time Neighborhood
GOAL -RETENTION OF
RURAUCOUNTRY LIVING
COMMUNITY CHARACTER &
PRESERVATION OF OPEN
SPACE
Accept JCC Donation of lot at
DB Blvd & 60 Freeway Improve
and dedicate to Cal Trans -
NEW (ZIRBES)
GOAL - CREATION OF
COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT
Establish Committee to evaluate
sports needs within community
i.e. sports park and explore size,
potential site, funding sources,
etc. NEW (ZIRBES)
Hire Part-time Neighborhood
Improvement Officer to work 10-
15 hours week (Fri, Sat, Sun)
NEW (ZIRBES)
Bring Street Sweeping In -House
and sweep weeklyn-House
Weekly Sweeping NEW
(ZI REES)
Complete City-wide Street Signs
in FY 200304 instead of
spreading over next few years
NEW (ZIRBES)
Improve Pathfinder from 57
FRWY East to DB Blvd (Slopes
on North side from FRWY to
Evergreen Springs & South side
fencing from Evergreen to DB
Blvd NEW (ZIRBES)
IWr
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # _6.11
Meeting Date: 7/20/04
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: AMENDMENT TO THE 2004/05 FISCAL YEAR CITY BUDGET REGARDING THE
PARKS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM TO ADD PANTERA PARK PICNIC
SHELTERS AND REALLOCATE APPROPRIATIONS
RECOMMENDATION: Approve Budget Amendment
FINANCIAL IMPACT: There is no impact to the General Fund. All changes are related to park
fund orpark grant appropriations.
BACKGROUND: When the 2004/05 FY budget was adopted on 6/15/04, the Decision Packages
for park projects did not indicate the appropriate allocation of park funds and park grants. The
adopted budget omitted the Picnic Shelters for Pantera Park and listed more funds for Prop 12 and
Prop 40 Grants than appropriated to Dia mond Bar by the State.
DISCUSSION: The proposed amendment to the Parks CIP program makes the following
changes:
1. Adds Pantera Park Picnic Shelters project ata cost of $115,000 in Prop 12 funds.
2. Adds $20 in Prop 40 funds to Starshine Park ADA project.
3. Adds $115,020 to the total cost of the Park CIP program (see items 1 & 2).
4. Adds $27,000 in CDBG funds to Sycamore Canyon Park Phase III ADA (Carry-over from
Phase II Sycamore Canyon ADA project).
5. Reduces Prop 12 funds for Sycamore Canyon Phase III ADA to $50,000 from $425,000.
6. Reduces Prop 40 funds for Sycamore Canyon Phase III ADA to $0 from $425,000.
7. Adds $773,000 in Prop A Safe Parks Act funds to Sycamore Canyon Phase III ADA.
8. Reduces Prop 40 funds for Summitridge Park project to $209,600 from $286,000.
9. Increases Park Dev Fund for Summitridge Park to $116,800 from $40,400.
10. Increases Prop 12 funds for Artificial Turf to $436,062 from $362,550.
11. Reduces Prop 40 funds for Artificial Turf to $63,044 from $362,550.
12. Increases Park Dev Fund for Artificial Turf to $225,994 from $0.
The bottom line is that the proposed changes result in an increase to the Parks CIP budget for the
2004/05 FY in the amount of $115,020, to $2, 701,500 from $2,586,480, with no changes to the
General Fund. Please see the attachment for details of the proposed amendment (changes are
shaded).
REVIEWED BY:
Bob Rose James DeStefano
Director of Community Services Deputy City Manager
Attachment: Capital Improvement Project listfrom 2004/05 FY Budget (changes are shaded).
2,586,480 10,000 75,000 894,566 1,214,213 40,400 84,338 124,081 143,882
Jobs
Park Dev Housing Rivers & Park
Total Cost General Fd CDBG Prop 12 Prop 40 Fund GO Mtns Cons. Grants
115,000
J�
115,000
85,000
10,000 75,000
Jobs
850,00027,000
50,000 0
773,000
250,000
Park Dev
Housing
Rivers &
Park
Total Cost
General Fd
CDBG
Prop 12
Prop 40
Fund
Grt
Mtns Cons.
Grants
116,800 84,338 124,081 916,882
85,000
10,000
75,000
850,000
425,000
425,000
249,980
140,663
84,338
24,979
350,000
107,016
124,081
118,903
326,400
286,000
40,400
1,861,380
10,000
75,000
532,016
851,663
40,400
84,338
124,081
143,882
Park Dev
Park
Total Cost
General Fd
CDBG
Prop 12
Prop 40
Fund
J.H.B.G.
R & MC
Grants
725,100
362,550
362,550
2,586,480 10,000 75,000 894,566 1,214,213 40,400 84,338 124,081 143,882
Jobs
Park Dev Housing Rivers & Park
Total Cost General Fd CDBG Prop 12 Prop 40 Fund GO Mtns Cons. Grants
115,000
J�
115,000
85,000
10,000 75,000
850,00027,000
50,000 0
773,000
250,000
140,683
84,338 24,979
350,000
107,016
124,081 118,903
326,400
209,600
116,800
1,976,400
10,000 102,000
272,016 350,283
116,800 84,338 124,081 916,882
Park Dev Park
Total Cost General Fd CDBG Prop 12 Prop 40 Fund J.H.B.G. R & M C Grants
725,100 436,062 63,044 225,994
2,701,500 10,000 102,000 708,078 413,327 342,794 84,338 124,081 916,882
$2,586,480 Proposed CIP Total: $2,701,500 Increase: $115,020
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6.12
Meeting Date: July 20, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: AWARD OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PROGRAM (NTMP)
CONTRACT TO KATZ, OKITSU & ASSOCIATES (KOA) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$64,980.00 AND AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $10,020.00 FOR
CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL
AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $75,000.00
RECOMMENDATION:
Awa rd.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Fiscal Year (FY) 04/05 Budget allocated $100,000.00 for development of NTMP.
BACKGROUND:
Traffic operation and safety of the arterial and residential streets is a major concern for the City. As
traffic congestion increases on the freeways and major arterials, more traffic shifts to neighborhood
streets. As a result, neighborhoods continue to experience significant increase in traffic volume and
speed. The undesirable condition is the result of increased population and the intrusion of non -
neighborhood traffic using residential streets to bypass freeway congestion. The City has recognized
that traffic poses one of the greatest concerns to the quality of life in Diamond Bar. Recognizing the
need for innovative techniques to address age-old neighborhood traffic issues, in FY 02/03 the City
Council directed staff to develop a Neighborhood Management Program.
111810111-4 IA
In 2003, the City issued a Request for Proposals (RFP) inviting consultants to submit proposals for
the NTMP. The goal of the NTMP is to develop an interactive program to deal with the increasing
requests to implement programs and strategies to ma ke residential streets throughout the City more
livable. NTMP measures offer the potential to combine or modify the standard toolbo x of measures
into innovative solutions, which will address multiple problems.
In response to the RFP, six (6) proposals were received, reviewed and evaluated. Subsequently, a
panel consisting of two Traffic and Transportation Commissioners and two staff members interviewed
the following four (4) consultants for further consideration:
David Evans and Associates, Inc.
Katz, Okitsu & Associates
Meyer, Mohaddes Associates
Willdan and Associates
The panel members unanimously concluded that KOA best understood the City's neighborhood traffic
management needs, and presented the best solution for guiding the City and its residents. KOA has
completed numerous similar projects for other agencies in a satisfacto ry manner. The consulting fees
proposed by the above consultants ranged from $77,540.00 to $82,490.00. KOA's original fee was
$77,540.00 for major tasks and addition al meetings. Staff negotiated the fees with KOA and the total
compensation for the program will be $64,980.00 includin g optional tasks.
KOA's scope of services will consist of the following tasks:
• Task 1 — Define Neighborhood Boundaries
• Task 2 - General Community Workshops
• Task 3 — Neighborhood Workshops
• Task 4 - Develop Program Identity
• Task 5 - Develop Tool Box Application Guidelines/Proce ss
• Task 6 — Develop NTMP Tool Box
• Task 7 — Tool Box Design Specifications
• Task 8 — Outreach Materials
• Optional Tasks —Additional Meetings and NTMP Web Page
Staff requested KOA to submit a proposal for optional tasks for additional meetings and NTMP web
page development. The project is tentatively scheduled to commence on August 16, 2004 and will be
completed by June 30, 2005.
PREPARED BY:
Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer Date prepared: July 14, 2004
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu, Director of Public Works James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
Attachments: KOA's Revised Program Development Approach
Consulting Services Agreement —Excluding Exhibits A and B
2
CITY COUNCIL
Agenda # 6.13
Meeting Date: July
AGENDA RF
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: RESPONSE TO THE DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT (DEIR) FOR THE PROPOSED CITY OF
INDUSTRY BUSINESS CENTER PLAN FOR
DEVELOPMENT
RECOMMENDATION:
Receive and file the response letter.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact associated with receiving this response.
BACKGROUND/DISCO SSION:
The City of Industry, after making appropriate Notice of Preparation (NOP)
prior to distributing the DEIR for the Industry Business Center Plan for
development, has published a DEIR and provided copies to the City of
Diamond Bar. The City of Diamond Bar responded to the NOP in writing
and has followed up with a more detailed response to the DEIR.
The attached DEIR response was sent to the City of Industry on July 15,
2004.
July 15, 2004
Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
15651 East Stafford Street
P.O. Box 3366
City of Industry, CA 91744-0366
Subject: Industry Business Center Draft Environmental Impact Report
(SCH# 2003121086)
Dear Mr. Kissell:
The City of Diamond Bar (Diamond Bar) is in receipt ofthe Draft
Environmental Impact Report for the Industry Business Center project
dated June 2, 2004 (DEIR). This letter is submitted to the City of Industry
within the time period specified in the DEIR and incorporates our
comments in response to the info rmation contained in the DEIR.
As stated in our response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), the City of
Industry has caused the preparation of traffic studies and environmental
documentation for the "Plantation" project (1,548,000 square feet of
industrial use), the "Wohl" project (592, 971 square feet of industrial use)
and the "Majestic / Industry East / Grand Crossing" project (6,600,000
square feet of industrial uses) all of which have traffic impacts to Diamond
Bar. For each development, the project -related and cumulative traffic
impacts were found to extend beyond the boundaries of the City of
Industry into the City of Diamond Bar. The 4,779,000 square foot Industry
Business Center Plan of Development (IBC) is similarly located adjacent
to Grand Avenue and near Brea Canyon Road and is anticipated to
produce substantially greatertraffic impacts affecting public roadways and
other infrastructure systems within Diamond Bar. As the DEIR outlines,
modifications to roadways and other infrastructure systems within
Diamond Bar will be required to accomm odate the IBC project related and
cumulative impacts. Once again, the City of Industry proposes a multi-
million square foot development, which will generate impacts to the
adjacent cities with no funding or financial assistance provided to those
adjacent cities burdened bythe impacts.
Letter to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
July 15, 2004
Page Two
The DEIR states that Diamond Bar as well as Walnut, West Covina and the County of Los Angeles
have street intersections and roadway segments within our respective jurisdictions that will be
adversely impacted by the IBC proposal. In prior comments submitted to Industry on three previous
industrial development projects, Diamond Bar has sought the full disclosure of traffic impacts and
receipt from the City of Industry of an appropriate fair -share allocation orthe physical improvements
to those street and roadway improvements within Diamond Bar that are necessary to mitigate the
adverse environmental effects of the Industry projects.
As stated within our previous NOP comment letter, the City of Diamond Bar may be required to take
one or more discretionary actions to undertake appropriate street improvements and may befurther
required to initiate and fund improvements to other components of its infrastructure system to
accommodate the development and redevelopment activities within the City of Industry. Diamond Bar
will be required to rely upon the information contained in the DEIR as the environmental basis for
those actions. As a result, Diamond Bar is a Responsible Agency hereunder and asserts all of its
rights, duties, and obligations established under CEQA and its implementing guidelines. We request
recognition of this status and inclusion within the DEIR.
As required under Section 15124 of the Guidelines, a project description is required to provide
sufficient information "for evaluation and review of the environmental impact' and provide a
"description of the project's technical, economic, and environmental characteristics" of the project.
We believe the information provided within the previous NOP, the Initial Study and now the DEIR to
be grossly insufficient. A project description is not provided to objectively determine the impacts
associated with the project proposed. The NOP and the Initial Study failed and the DEIR fails to
contain any meaningful description of projec t components other than a generalized discussion and
graphic site plan representation of the proposed development. The DEIR lacks any further
information concerning the nature of the proposed uses and creates an inadequate informational
base for the identification of the environmental impacts associated with the proposed use(s).
As indicated in the previous Initial Study and now the DEIR, the project proposes the construction of
4,779,000 square feet of new development. No reference is provided anywhere in the DEIR
regarding the precise nature of any "business park", "corporate headquarters", "commercial center",
"industrial
Letter to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
July 15, 2004
Page Three
park", "big box retail" or"auto dealership" uses. Likewise, no information is provided regarding the
permitted and conditionally permitted land uses within the proposed "C" and "M"zoned planning
areas. It is not sufficient to indicate that the acreage for development is either office, industrial or
retail/commercia I. Such terms can include high-rise office buildings, adult uses, restaurants,
entertainment facilities, heavy industrial uses, etc. The DEIR should accurately characterize the
specific types of uses proposed. The DEIR should be revised to address this issue.
Page 1-1 of the DEIR indicates that 4,146,000 squarefeet of commercial uses and 633,000 square
feet of industrial uses are proposed. The document should contain a mo re definitive listing of land
uses permitted by the General Plan, land uses permitted by the zoning designation, and a list of the
permitted and conditionally permitted land uses. Those land uses specifically excluded from the site
should be clearly identified, as well. Lacking such information there is no possible way environmental
impacts can be properly identified, assessed and mitigated. The reviewer is not provided a clear
understanding of the project proposed without such information. The document is clearly lacking
without the full disclosure of the proposed uses and the effects such uses may have upon
surrounding properties and the environment.
The DEIR should be revised to include schematic site plans for all proposed uses indicating the
height, density, setback, parking requirements, floor-area-rati o, the types of materials anticipated to
beproduced orconsumed, including any hazardous, flammable, orexplosive materials and
landscape provisions for each area. The plans should include the nature ofall permitted or
conditionally permitted land uses for each area.
The DEIR should be revised to exclude land uses, which would require the use of, produce, or
transport hazardous materials orhazardous waste. Future land uses should becompatible with
existing adjacent Diamond Bar land uses. Incompatible uses should be prohibited from the
development. Specifically, careful considerati on should be made for all proposed uses, particularly
those adjacent to existing residential properties, the YMCA and Little League Baseball Fields, which
will create noise impacts, odors, vibration, or incorporate any other incompatible operational
characteristics. In addition, mitigation measures should be developed and enforced to respond to all
short-term construction related impacts (i.e. noise, dust, traffic). The DEIR should be revised to
respond to these issues.
Letter to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
July 15, 2004
Page Four
In the absence of such information, a program -level EIR for the entire IBC is the most appropriate
environmental documents. Referencing Section 15165 of the State CEQA Guidelines, "where
individual projects are, ora phased project is, to be undertaken and where the total undertaking
comprises a project with significant environmental effects, the lead agency shall prepare a single
program EIR for the ultimate project as described in Section 15168." As a result, a program EIR and
not a project -level EIR is most appropriate for the IBC development.
Page 1-3 outlines the substantial effect the project will have upon the existing configuration of the
hillsides and scenic vistas. In 1978, the City of Industry established these hillside areas and the land
below the hills as a "Buffer Preserve" area between the proposed project site and land in the "City" of
Diamond Bar. The proposed development is to be loca ted upon the 600 -acre hillside area included in
that buffer preserve. The proposed project will irreversibly eliminate an open space area that was
deliberately created to separate commercial /industrial uses from residential areas. How will this
impact be mitigated? The hillside character will foreve rchange. Our previous Initial Study comments
outlined mitigation measures for such losses to include considerabl esetbacks between the existing
and proposed land uses, landform-gradi ng techniques to replicate the natural contours of the land
and substantial landscaping to mitigate for the loss of the significant vegetation located adjacent to
the freeway atthe terminus of Old Brea Canyon Road. Mitigation for the reconfigurati on of the hillside
areas should include significant quantities of specimen trees and considerable landscaping efforts to
soften the visual impacts of the proposed graded pads and future structures. Landscaping
techniques should be incorporated to mitigate sources of light and glare to adjacent residential
properties. The DER should incorporate these mitigation measures into the project and or redesign
the project to minimize the impacts of the proposed design.
Page 1-5 indicates that future buildings within Planning Areas E-1, E-2 and E-3 adjacent to existing
Diamond Bar homes will have varying height limitations dependent on visibility from nearby (Diamond
Bar) residential areas. What does this mean? Nowhere in the document is there a detailed set of
development standards to measure this statement within the existing setting.
Page 1-11 describes facilities that may locate in the development have the potential to generate
operational odors depending upon the nature of the operations. What are those facilities? Where are
those facilities to be located?
Letter to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
July 15, 2004
Page Five
What manner ofoperational odors isthe DER referring to? Would such odors beobjectionable to
the area residents? Would such odors behazardous to adjacent residents? The statement that the
nearest sensitive receptors would not beeffected because ofa "substantial buffer" isnot supported
by any additional statements or facts found within the document. The DER must be revised to
include this issue.
Page 1-30 of the DER describes a break in the 105 -foot diameter water tank that, according to the
theoretical analysis performed, would uniformly release
2 million gallons of water. A detailed analysis is necessary for a more defin itive understanding of the
exposure of people to injury or death involving flooding because of the tank failure. The DER should
be revised to include detailed information regardi ng the proposed water tank and the berm proposed
to protect residents on the eastern edge of the tank site and other measures to protect adjacent
residents from such an occurrence.
Within the public services and utilities discussion on Page 1-35, wefind no response to our request
that as a result of continuous growth and development, particularly in the eastern portion of the City of
Industry, an analysis of project and cumulative impacts to loca I Diamond Bar and Walnut Post Offices
is warranted. An identification of Post Office mitigation measures should be included in the DER
including the construction of new Post Office facilityto serve both the eastern end of Industry and
the City of Diamond Bar.
Page 1-38 indicates that the proposed project will generate 92,056 vehicle trips at build out. Given
the size of the proposed project and previous traffic analyses for the study area, there will be
significant traffic impacts within and affecting the City of Diamond Bar as documented in the traffic
study. We previously provided comments to the City of Industry in response to the NOP and we
noted some of the traffic related comments were not incorporated and/or addressed in the DER as
requested, which has restricted our ability to conduct a meaningful review of the project and its
potential traffic impacts on the City of Dia mond Bar (and the surrounding areas).
Based on previous experience the mitigation of such traffic trips is placed squarely on the shoulders
of the adjacent Cities and the County of Los Angeles. The project should be redesigned to reduce
the traffic impacts to adjacent cities. The traffic study assumes the opening of Sunset Crossing Road,
which is in direct conflict with the City of Diam and Bar General Plan. The traffic study should be
revised to incorporate the continued termination of Sunset Crossing
Letter to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
July 15, 2004
Page Six
Road. There should also be reductions in developm ent potential to eliminate the need for acquisition
of additional right-of-way in Diamond Bar, which would cause disruptions and/or displacement of
existing land uses for the sole benefit of the project.
Without significant reductions in potential IBC development, the increase of the City of Industry
commercial Zoning creates the potential for loss of Diamond Bar commercial property due to the
need for roadway improvements and/or relocation of our local businesses to facilitate the traffic
impacts of the proposed project. The DER should consider dedication of commercial land within the
project boundaries to the City of Diamond Bar or equivalent revenue to the City of Diamond Bar
should be analyzed to mitigate and compensate Diamond Bar for the anticipated loss of commercial
property as a result of the project as presently proposed .
We find no response to our previous request that alternative road improvements be considered in the
DEIR. Similar to Alternative projects, there may be circulation measures that would provide
environmentally superior alternatives to the "typical" road improvements. As an example if the Grand
Avenue interchange were significantly upgraded, added Freeway "interchange" access were provided
to specifically serve the project, and/or Freeway improvements were made conditions of the project,
the traffic impacts to the Diamond Bar arterial street system could be significantly reduced. The DER
should examine and consider fully funding such interchange/f reeway studies and physical
improvements.
The proposed project shall provide, in an amount and within a time period to be determined by mutual
agreement with the City of Diamond Bar, a "fair -share" contributio n toward the cost of area wide
street improvements to offset potential project -related and cumulative transportatio n impacts. Those
"fair -share" contributions sha II be based on the projected costs associated with area wide roadway
improvement needs, as defined by mutual agreement of the two cities.
Such "fair -share" contributions shall be provided to Diamond Bar to offset specific impacts at specific
locations and/or may be utilized by Diamond Bar to provide regional or other Citywide traffic and
transportation benefits that may not be directly applicable to or located in close proximity to the
project site. It is recognized that given the present traffic conditions in Diamond Bar and the
forecasted traffic increase as a result of the proposed project, innovative, alternative, a bypass
roadway, and other transportation solutions may bethe
Letter to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
July 15, 2004
Page Seven
best method for addressing future transportation need s and reducing the detrimental impacts of the
loss of business and property to accommodate the proposed project.
The overview provided above describes some of the significant outstanding traffic issues. These are
not new comments and most were previously expressed in the City of Diamond Bar's comments on
the NOP. The same previously submitted NOP comments were updated and now serve as
comments on the DER (some of these reemphasize issues in the overview that must be adequately
addressed). In addition, some further technical traffic comments are provided, but as stated above it
is not possible to provide full review of the project since some critical, requested, traffic analyses are
absent from the DER document.
Previous City of Diamond Bar NOP Comments that were Not Addressed in the DER:
The City of Diamond Bar requested that its procedures (attached to the NOP comments) for
preparation of Traffic Impact Analysis ("TIA") be utilized for evaluation of the Project and
cumulative impacts on the road system within the City of Diamond Bar. Some critical elements
of the TIA procedures were not provided/follow ed by the DER analyses, including but not
limited to the method for calculating fair share percentage (at some Diamond Bar locations),
provision of cost estimates for improvements at all impacted locations, etc.
- On page K-115 (in the Traffic Study) within the"Mitigation Measures" section, itis
stated that the project is "expected to contribute , on a fair -share basis, to the
implementation of mitigation measures." For locations within the City of Diamond Bar
jurisdiction the Diamond Bar "fair share" methodology must be applied as requested
in the NOP.
In order to determine the "fair -share" mitigations, cost estimates must be prepared (for
the improvements necessary to provide acceptable future conditions). These cost
analyses must be provided to the City of Dia mond Bar for review so the City can
determine if it agrees that the calculations are correct, the traffic impacts are fully
mitigated, etc. The cost estimates must be based upon the needed "Area Wide
Mitigation Measure" (assuming these measures are correct after considering other
related comments) identified in the DER Traffic Study.
Letter to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
July 15, 2004
Page Eight
-The "fair -share" contributions for impacted locations in the City of Diamond Bar must
be provided to Diamond Bar in advance of the occupancy of the project.
As identified above, the "Proportionate Share" formula in the TIA document (attached to the
NOP comments) was not used in the DER to calculate the Project's "fair share" obligations
(mitigations) at all of the City of Diamond Bar locations. Adequ ate road improvements and/or
mitigation measures were not identified to addre ss project and cumulative traffic impacts within
the study area.
The DER recommends use of "typical" street improvements/wid ening as the mitigation to
provide sufficient roadway capacities, which likely results in significant amounts of commercial
land (in Diamond Bar) that will be lost to street right-of-way needs. It is possible that full
takings of commercial properties (i.e., atthe comer of Grand/Golden Springs, Grand/Diamond
Bar, other locations) could be required given the extent of widening that may be required.
Compensation to the property owners for the taking of property will need to be included in the
roadway improvement costestimates.
Alternative road improvements were not considered in the DEIR. Similarto Alternative
projects, there may be circulation measures that would provide environmentally superior
alternatives to the "typical" road improvements. As an example if the Grand Avenue
interchange were significantly upgraded, added Freeway "interchanges" were provided to
specifically serve the project, and/or mainline Freeway improvements were made conditions of
the project, the traffic impacts to the City of Diamond Bar arterial street system could be
significantly reduced. The DER should examine and consider fully funding such
interchange/Free way studies and physical improvements.
5. Another circulation Alternative identified in the NOP comments, that warrants examination is a
mitigation measure to fund/facilita to constructi on of connection(s) that would reduce "bypass"
traffic in the City of Diamond Bar, thereby creating additional capacity on the existing road
system. While "Alternative" transportation projects and/or connecting routes may not directly
serve IBC Project traffic, the overall transportation improvement benefits would serve to
increase "system" capacity and improve traffic conditions for the roadways that would be
Letter to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
July 15, 2004
Page Nine
used to serve the IBC project. The DER shou Id address various methods of mitigation that
include Alternative solutions to fully offset the project traffic impacts in the City of Diamond Bar
and surrounding areas.
The "Alternatives" section of the DEIR does not provide meaningful traffic analyses of
"Reduced Intensity Alternative". Given the size of the proposed project, there must be some
possible reduction in project intensity that would have the effect of avoiding or substantially
lessening significant impacts on the City of Diamond Bar. There should be thorough and
meaningful analyses of "reduced intensity project'. In addition, a related Alternative would
beto place conditions on the project to limit development until adequate roadway infrastructure
is constructed so that acceptable traffic operations are provided in conjunction with the project.
Specific traffic mitigation requirements shoul d be identified as a part of this DEIR document
and included as conditions/mi tigation measures for the project. Determination of project
responsibility should not be left to conducting futu reanalyses, studies, etc. Failure to clearly
identify, define, and fully mitigate (through project conditions) the total project impacts as a part
of the DEIR, is expected to result in a "piecemeal " effect (future portions of the project may not
register as "significant' impacts, while the whole project does have impacts). The project
mitigation responsibilities (e.g., fair share costs/requiremen ts), therefore, must be analyzed
now as a whole (not individually in the futu re). The total project impacts can be easily
identified as a part of this DEIR.
The NOP comments requested that analysis of traffic impacts and mitigation measures be
provided for both "with and withou to connection to Sunset Crossing Road". The DEIR only
addresses conditions that assume Sunset Crossing Road would be extended from its westerly
terminus to provide access to the project site. For this to occur the City of Diamond Bar
General Plan must be amended since Sunset Crossing Road is presently designated to end in
a cul-de-sac at its westerly terminus in the current General Plan. The current DEIR, therefore,
must include project mitigations/cond itions that requires the current City of Diamond Bar
General Plan to be amended prior to any significant amount of Project development (because
the DEIR does not contain traffic analyses of the IBC project traffic impacts and required
mitigation,
Letter to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
July 15, 2004
Page Ten
prior to availability of a project connection to Sunset Crossing Road). We still believe the
analyses for conditions "without" the Sunset Crossing Road connection should also be
provided in the DEIR because there is no guarantee that the connecti on will ever be made.
Additional Traffic Comments:
It must be recognized that the preceding and following traffic comments regarding the DEIR are for
the most part general. The City of Diamond Bar NOP comments were not fully addressed and
sufficient, requested information/anal yses and mitigations are not provided within the current DEIR.
More detailed review and comments can beprovided oncefull disclosure ofthe traffic impacts and
mitigation requirements are provided.
Page K-80 and Appendix C: The Traffic Study assumes some "Industry East Mitigation" as
improvements that will be constructed prior to and independent of the IBC project. This is an
erroneous assumption. The "Industry East' improvements in the City of Diamond Bar (and
likely for other area locations as well) shown in Appendix C of the Traffic Study are not planned
nor funded. The IBC Project, therefore, must contribute a "fair share" toward these
improvements (as well as the other "Area Wide Mitigations") or the DEIR must condition the
IBC Project to construct these improvements (e.g., with some form of reimbursement
agreement) or the DEIR must condition the project to wait for construction of these
improvements by the Industry East project (and/or others), since the DEIR assumes these
improvements to be "in place".
10. The DEIR needs to provide mitigations that will ensure that the "Transit/TDM Reductions"
assumed in the project trip generation analyses (Table 5 of the Traffic Study) are achieved.
Future project "phases" should be subject to the implementatio n and success of"Transit/TDM
Reduction" measures.
11. The traffic analyses should be consistent with the "worst case" assumptions/anal yses included
in the evaluation of the Diamond Bar Village project (in particular for the locations within the
City of Diamond Bar). Given the same traffic consultant prepared the analyses for both
projects it is reasonable that the evaluations can provide the same "worst case" assumptions
(some adjustments for factors such as the study years, etc. are acknowledged).
Letter to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
July 15, 2004
Page Eleven
12. According to the DEIR there will betwenty (20) intersections in the City of Diamond Bar,
significantly impacted by the IBC Project, for year 2015 conditions. The DEIR indicates these
same 20 intersections plus three (3) additional locations, will be impacted by the IBC Project
for year 2025 analysis conditions. The Mitigation Monitoring program needs to result in
assurances that sufficient improvements and/or fairshare mitigation fees are provided (to the
City of Diamond Bar) prior to development of the project.
13. It is possible that additional locations may be impacted or further mitigations required once all
comments are incorporated in the traffic study. The same need to provide mitigation (to the
City of Diamond Bar and potential others) prior to development of the project, would apply to
these added locations.
14. Table 1.4-1 in the "Executive Summary" of the DEIR recommends "MM 5.14-1" in the Traffic
and Circulation section (5.14). This mitigation measure lists both "Project -Related "and "Area -
Wide" mitigation measures (there should be mitigation for all 55 project impacted intersections,
including the 23 in the City of Diamond Bar). It needs to be clarified that the IBC Project would
be solely responsible for implementation of the "Project -Related "improvements orthe project
would make a "fair share" contribution toward the "Area -Wide" improvements. The description
in Table 1.4-1 indicates the project mitigations `require the cooperation and funding of other
agencies..." but that is incorrect. If the IBC project is unabl a to cause construction of a
"Project -Related "improvement (due to factors beyond its control) it can still provide "fair share"
mitigations/cont ributions to the affected agencies. It can be seen that neither of these options
requires funding by another agency and the project should be able to fulfill its mitigation
requirements independent of any "added funding" by other agencies.
15. We agree with the portion of "MM 5.14-1" that indicates some form of "equivalent traffic
improvements" may be necessary. The City of Diamond Bar NOP comments support the
concept that "fair share" contributions may need to be utilized to provide equivalent regional
citywide transportation benefits, rather than various specific intersection widening that may be
difficult to implement. It is recognized that given present traffic conditions in the City of
Diamond Bar, innovative,
Letter to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
July 15, 2004
Page Twelve
alternative, bypass, etc. transportation solutions may bethe best method to address future
transportation needs.
16. Specific traffic analyses and mitigation information were previously requested and are
presently requested by the City of Diamond Bar. If this additional information isnot provided,
there must be specific conditions and mitigation measures placed on the IBC Project to assure
that the project will bedeveloped in a manner consistent with the Traffic Study assumptions
(e.g., no development until a project connection at Sunset Crossing Road is achieved, etc.).
We have very real concerns regarding the impacts of the proposed project to our residential areas
especially those neighborhoods around the YMCA and Neil Armstrong Elementary School. Page 5-
27 of Volume 1, Foreground Receptors. "The three dimensional computer model illustrations in Figure
5.1-4 show the areas where the ridgeline would be maintained and minimize views of the
development. In other areas on the eastern boundar y there would be views directly across to
buildings at the same elevation. However, a transition buffer between the residential areas and the
proposed development pads of at least 150 feet has been planned for the entire eastern boundary."
It does not appear that the buffer area is wide enough or designed properly to mitigate the effect of
buildings proposed in areas E-1, E-2 and E-3 to be located directly across from the residential
properties. Anew grading design is necessary to more effectively mitigate the impacts of the
proposed structures. In addition, the landscaping plan should be constr ucted to permit the trees and
plants to start growing immediately after grading and well before buildings are constructed.
In order to allow affected property owners to participate in the planning process, Diamond Bar
requests that any further actions or correspondenc a related to the project include notification
of residents within 1,000 feet of the project area.
Page 5-43 describes construction dust resulting from the project. We are very concerned about the
affect dust (and noise) will have on the children attending Neil Armstrong School. Children play
outdoors during recess and lunch hours. Many children suffer from allergies and asthma. How are
the adjacent school children protected from the negative effects of the project grading and
construction?
Letter to Mr. Michael Kissell, Planning Director
City of Industry
July 15, 2004
Page Thirteen
Page 5-293-294 describes police protection. The DE IR describes response calls will emanate from
the Industry station. Th is is unrealistic when the Diamond Bar - Wa Inut Sheriff station is the station
located much closer to respond to emergencies. The DEIR should outline a plan to mitigate this
potential negative effect upon the City of Diamond Bar as we rely upon and directly pay the local
station deputies to protect our City. The mitigation measures outlined should not result in any
reduction of response times or service to the City of Diamond Bar.
The City of Diamond Bar appreciates the opportunity to submit comments to the City of Industry
regarding the Industry Business Center Draft Environmental Impact Report. Should you have any
questions concerning our comments, please contact me, 909/839-7030.
Sincerely,
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
JDS:DL:nbw
c: City Council
City Manager
Agenda # 7.1
Meeting Date: July 20, 2004
CITY COUNCIL _ r_ _ AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE CONSIDERATION OF THE RECOMMENDATION OF
THE LOCAL LAW ENFORCEMENT BLOCK GRANT (LLEBG) ADVISORY BOARD
FOR EXPENDITURE OF GRANT FUNDS IN THE AMOUNT OF $11,376.20 FOR
FISCAL YEAR 04-05
RECOMMENDATION:
The LLEBG Advisory Board and City staff recommends that the City Council open the public hearing,
receive testimony and approve the recommended use funds as requested by the Diamond
Bar/Walnut Sheriff Station.
176Y�1t1�h�1:7_[��I
For FY 04-05, the City of Diamond Bar's LLEBG Program award is $10,342. The "total" award,
including the City's obligated match of $1,034.20 (10%), is $11,376.20. As in previous award years,
the award amount will be used to partially fund a Special Problems Unit Deputy. The annual rate for
this position is $115,464 (including 6% liability insurance). The remaining costs ($104,087.80) will be
funded through the City's California COPS Fund as identified in th a 04-05 budget. Therefore, no
additional budget appropriation is required.
1:7_[67:1,09Oo1l1►DNA a]6Y6113M1010;
The City of Diamond Bar has submitted its application for funding under the Bureau of Justice
Assistance's Local Law Enforcement Block Grant Program. The purpose ofthis program isto provide
units of local government with funds to underwrite projects to reduce crime and improve public safety.
The City received approval of its application. The Fiscal Year 04-05 total program amount is
$11,376.20. The City will receive $10,342.00 from this federal grant with the city obligated to match
$1,034.20.
The program requires the City to hold a Public Hearing to info rm the community how the LLEBG
award is to be spent.
Walnut/Diamond Bar Sheriff Station Captain Michael Kwan submitted his recommendation to the City
for the use of the funds (See atta ched). The Captain recommends that the LLEBG funds continue to
be utilized for the Diamond Bar Special Problems Unit/High Impact Team Deputy. The Diamond Bar
Special Problems Unit/High Impact Team Deputy is responsible for a variety of law enforcement
functions including lecturing at local schools, performing vehicle check points and surveillance, and
conducting search warrants. Recently the Special Problems Deputy has been conducting "hit & run"
investigations and other specialized traffic enforcement duties.
LLEBG recipients are required to establish or designate an Advisory Board that includes
representatives of groups with a recognized interest in criminal justice and crime/substance abuse
prevention and treatment. The Advisory Board reviews the application for funding under the LLEBG
Program and is authorized to make non-binding recommendations to the local unit of government for
the use offunds received under theprogram. The Advisory Board reviews the application for funding
under the LLEBG Program and is authorized to make non-binding recommendations to the local unit
of government for the use of funds received under the program. The Advisory Board for the City of
Diamond Bar is comprised of the following:
Local Law Enforcement Agency: Lt. Joe Maxey, Diamond Bar/Walnut Sheriff Station
Local Prosecutor's Office: Amy Glaudi ni, Assistant Deputy District Attorney
Local Court System: Gretchen Riebennacht, Court Liaison
Local Public School System: Pamela Lopez, Administrative Director/Pomona Unified
Local Nonprofit Educationa I Group: Mike Goldenberg, Sheriffs Booster Club
On Wednesday, July 14, 2004 the Advisory Board met to review the recommended proposed use of
funds and concurs with the recommendation of Captain Kwan.
Lastly, this year the amount of the award for the City of Diamond Bar dropped to a figure very close to
the federally-requir ed minimum of $10,000. This may be the last year the City can qualify for these
funds.
Prepared by:
Reviewed by:
Jim Clarke, Legislative Analyst David Doyle, Deputy City Manager
Agenda: 8.1
Meeting Date: July 20, 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 COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR ADOPTING THE SPEED ZONE SURVEY AND AMENDING TITLE
10 OF DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE REGADING PRIMA FACIE SPEED
LIMITS UPON CERTAIN CITY STREETS;
ORDINANCE NO. 0X(2004) AMENDING SECTION 10.12.310 OF THE
DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED
LIMITS UPON CERTAIN CITY STREETS.
VXde]kydLTA I=1IU7_110WIF
Adopt Resolution No. 2004 -XX; and, introduce Ordinance No. 0X(2004) for first reading
by title only with further reading of Ordinance to be waived.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Speed limit signs will cost approximately $2,000.00. Funds are available in the Public
Works Maintenance budget.
BACKGROUND/DISCU SSION:
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires that traffic speed limits be established on
the basis of a traffic and engineering study. Th is study must consider prevailing vehicle
speeds, number of accidents, volume, roadway design, safe stopping distance,
shoulder and profile conditions, pedestrian traffic, and other conditions not readily
apparent to motorists. The CVC also requires that the traffic and engineering study be
updated at least every seven (7) years if radar is used for speed limit enforcement.
When certain conditions as defined in CVC are met, the traffic and engineering study
may be conducted less frequently and can be extended to ten (10) years. Failure by a
local agency to conform with these CVC provisions in the establishment and
enforcement of speed limits constitutes a speed trap. Speed traps are illegal per the
CVC and the courts will not honor citations written for violation of the speed limits.
The draft City of Diamond Bar Speed Zone Survey has been completed in conformance
with the CVC requirements (see attached Draft Speed Zone Study). The current Speed
Zone Survey is due to expire on August 16, 2004.
The speed zone survey disclosed that with eleven (11) exceptions, the existing speed
limits are appropriate. The exceptions are based on current data and include the
following:
Brea Canyon Road, from North City Limits to Washington Street,
decrease from 50 mph to 45 mph;
Brea Canyon Road, from Lycoming Street to Golden Springs Drive
decrease from 45 mph to 40 mph;
Brea Canyon Road, from Pathfinder Road to Fountain Springs Drive,
decrease from 45 mph to 40 mph;
Brea Canyon Road, from Diamond Bar Boulevard to Copper Canyon Drive,
decrease from 50 mph to 45 mph;
Copley Drive, from Golden Springs Drive to Bridge Gate Drive
decrease from 40 mph to 35 mph;
Gateway Center Drive, from Bridge Gate Drive to Golden Springs Drive,
decrease from 40 mph to 35 mph;
Golden Springs Drive, from Lemon Avenue to 900 feet west ofGona Court,
decrease from 50 mph to 40 mph;
Lemon Avenue, from North City Limits to Golden Springs Drive.
decrease from 45 mph to 40 mph;
Sunset Crossing Road, from West City Limits to Diamond Bar Boulevard,
decrease from 40 mph to 35 mph;
Sunset Crossing Road, from Diamond Bar Boulevard to Del Sol Lane,
decrease from 30 mph to 25 mph;
Grand Avenue, from Summitridge Drive to East City Limits,
increase from 45 mph to 50 mph.
The proposed amendments to Title 10 of the Municipal Code include the
aforementioned speed limitchanges. The attached table summarizes the existing and
recommended speed limits.
PREPARED BY:
Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu James DeStefano
Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager
Attachments: Existing and Proposed Speed Limits Chart
Draft Speed Zone Study
Resolution No. 2004 -XX
Ordinance No. 2004 -XX
RESOLUTION 2004 -XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ADOPTING THE SPEED ZONE SURVEY
Recitals
(i) California Vehicle Code Section 40803 (b) provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
"In any prosecution under this Code of charge involving the speed of vehicle,
where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which
measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of
its prima-facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon
a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802."
(ii) The City of Diamond Bar desires to continue to use radar and other
electronic devices to measure the speed of moving objects in order to protect the lives
and property of motorists utilizing City streets and to improve the enforcement of speed
limits within the City of Diamond Bar.
(iii) The City's Traffic Engineering Consultant has conducted a current speed
zone study establishing and justifying prima-facie speed limits on certain City streets
within the City of Diamond Bar.
(iv) The current Speed Zone Study prepared by the City's Traffic
Engineering Consultant, dated July 20, 2004, is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set
forth herein.
Resolution
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this resolution;
2. The Speed Zone Study submitted by the City's Traffic Engineering
Consultant dated July 20, 2004, and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted
and approved, in its entirety, as the official Speed Zone Study for the City of Diamond
Bar.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 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 a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 20th day of July, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
LINDA C. LOWRY, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
ORDINANCE NO. 2004 -XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING
SECTION 10.12.310 OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE
SPEED LIMITS UPON CERTAIN CITY STREETS
A. RECITALS
(i) California Vehicle Code Section 22358 provides that the City Council
may, by ordinance, set prima facie speed limits upon any portion of any
street not a state highway.
(ii) The City has conducted a speed zone survey dated July 20, 2004 of
certain streets within the City of Diamond Bar.
(iii) The determination concerning prima facie speed limits set forth in Part B.,
below, are based upon the speed zone survey identified in Section A. (ii),
above.
(iv) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have been
satisfied.
B. ORDINANCE
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
10.12.310 of the Diamond Bar City Code is hereby amended and replaced in its
entirety to read, in words and figures as follows:
(a) The prima facie speed which is most appropriate to facilitate the orderly
movement of traffic and is a speed limit which is reasonable and safe on such portion
of each such street is set forth in this subsection for each such street:
Avenida Rancheros/Temple Avenue, Diamond Bar Boulevard
to Northeast City Limits
45 mph
Brea Canyon Road, North City Limits to Washington Street
45 mph
Brea Canyon Road, Washington Street to Lycoming Street
45 mph
Brea Canyon Road, Lycoming Street to Golden Springs Drive
40 mph
Brea Canyon Road, Golden Springs Drive to Pathfinder Road
45 mph
Brea Canyon Road, Pathfinder Road to Fountain Springs Drive
40 mph
Brea Canyon Road, Fountain Springs Drive to Diamond Bar
45 mph
Boulevard
Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar Boulevard to Copper
Canyon Drive
45 mph
Brea Canyon Road, Copper Canyon Drive to South City Limits
50 mph
Brea Canyon Cut -Off, West City Limits to Brea Canyon Road 40 mph
Chino Avenue, Chino Hills Parkway to East City Limits 50 mph
Chino Hills Parkway, North City Limits to South City Limits
50 mph
Copley Drive, Golden Springs Drive to Bridge Gate Drive
35 mph
Diamond Bar Boulevard, Brea Canyon Road to Goldrush Drive
45 mph
Diamond Bar Boulevard, Goldrush Drive to Highland Valley Road
40 mph
Diamond Bar Boulevard, Highland Valley Road to Temple Avenue
50 mph
Gateway Center Drive, Bridge Gate Drive to Golden
Springs Drive
35 mph
Golden Springs Drive, West City Limits to Lemon Avenue
50 mph
Golden Springs Drive, Lemon Avenue to 900' west
of Gona Court 40 mph
Golden Springs Drive, 900' west ofGona Ct. to 1300' east
of Adel Avenue 40 mph
Golden Springs Drive, 1300' east of Adel Ave. to Sabana Drive 45 mph
Golden Springs Drive, Sabana Drive to Platina Drive 40 mph
Golden Springs Drive, Platina Drive to E Avenida Rancheros/
Temple Avenue
45 mph
Grand Avenue, West City Limits to Summitridge Drive
45 mph
Grand Avenue, Summitridge Drive to East City Limits
50 mph
Lemon Avenue, North City Limits to Golden Springs Drive
40 mph
Lycoming Street, Lemon Avenue to Brea Canyon Road
35 mph
Montefino Avenue, Grand Avenue to Diamond Bar Boulevard
25 mph
Pathfinder Road, West City Limits to Brea Canyon Road -
North
45 mph
Pathfinder Road, Brea Canyon Road -North to Brea Canyon
Road-South/Fern Hollow Drive
40 mph
Pathfinder Road, Brea Canyon Road-South/Fern Hollow
Drive to Diamond Bar Boulevard
45 mph
Sunset Crossing Road, West City Limits to Diamond Bar
Boulevard
35 mph
Sunset Crossing Road, Diamond Bar Boulevard to
Del Sol Lane 25 mph
Temple Avenue, Diamond Bar Boulevard, to Golden Springs
Drive 45 mph
Walnut Drive, West City Limits to Lemon Avenue 40 mph
Washington Street, Brea Canyon Road to Northeast City Limits 40 mph
The prima facie speed which is most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic
and is a speed limitwhich is reasonable and safe on all streets other than the streets listed
above is 25 mph.
(b). The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install appropriate
signs upon such portion of each such street specified in this section giving notice of the
prima facie speed limitfor each such street declared in this section.
(c). No person shall operate any vehicle in violation of this section.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be posted in three (3) public places within the City of Diamond Bar as
revised by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this of 2004.
Bob Zirbes, Mayor
I, Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting held on the
______ day of________, 2004, bythe following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
LINDA C. LOWRY, City Manager
City Clerk
Agenda # 8.2
Meeting Date: July 6.2004
CITY COUNCIL „ AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Waste Management Rate Adjustment for CPI -Related Costs
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact to the City; the proposed rate adjustment will be paid for by
Waste Management's customers (i.e. barrel users). The increase ranges from $0.22 to
$0.33 based on variable container size, with the 35 -gallon barrel having the lowest
increase. The requested rate adjustment has been reviewed and found to be accurate,
as well as within indu stry and area standards.
BACKGROUND:
In August 2000, the City Council awarded an exclusive contract to Waste Management
to collect refuse and recyclables in the residential sector. All requests for rate
adjustments are approved in accordance with the Rate Adjustment Methodology
appended to the service provider's agreement (Exhibit "A"):
The City Manager is authorized to approve a CPI related rate adjustment; Disposal and
Extraordinary costs are subject to review and approval by the City Council. Effective
dates of rate adjustments are July 1s',ifthe rate requests are timely and complete.
DISCUSSION:
Waste Management met with Staff and the City's consultant to discuss their request for
adjustment to their existing rates. Their request is based on the following:
(a) A CPI adjustment factor of 1.75% was applied to the service component for the
year April 1, 2003 through March 31, 2004.
With respect to the service component, the CPI -related rate adjustment was determined
by taking the total billed charges (i.e., gross receipts), deducting any disposal -related
charges, and multiplying the remaining operational charges by 1.75%.
In order to assign an appropriate rate increase relative to the size of the container,
Waste Management has distributed the rate adjustment noted above among all service
levels. This will meet the intent of our "Pay -As -You -Throw Program"/vari able rate
structure as those residents that are committed to recycling, and have smaller refuse
containers, will pay less of the increase percentage -wise than customers with additional
and/or larger refuse containers. No surcharges or other costs are adjusted so as to
keep the system as simple as possible. The current and proposed rates, incorporating a
1.75% increase, are presented in the following table:
While Staff finds the requested residential rate adjustment to be reasonable, a rate
comparison of local communities was conducted as illustrated in the following table:
Residential
64 Gallon
35 Gallon
City of La Verne
64 Gallon
City of Azusa
$18.67
96 Gallon
$16.73
Service
$19.30
City of San Dimas
$17.66
City of Glendora
$19.84
City of Ontario
$18.25
City of Pomona
$21.64
Component
Current
Proposed
Increase
Current
Proposed
Increase
Current
Proposed
Increase
Refuse,
Recycling &
Green Waste
$12.48
$12.70
$0.22
$15.71
$15.98
$0.27
$18.93
$19.26
$0.33
Additional
Refuse Cart
Surcharge
$4.20
$4.27
$0.07
$6.30
$6.41
$0.11
$8.40
$8.55
$0.15
Senior Rate
1 $10.61
$10.80
$0.19
1 $13.35
$13.58
$0.23
1 $16.09
$16.37
$0.28
Note: the above listed rates exclude City AB 939 fees of $0.75
per month
While Staff finds the requested residential rate adjustment to be reasonable, a rate
comparison of local communities was conducted as illustrated in the following table:
Based on the above comparison, the City of Diamond Bar's residential rates are among
the lowest of the selected sample of like -cities.
In conclusion, Staff finds Waste Management's rate adjustment request to be
reasonable and appropriate. Waste Management proposes to implement the new rates
beginning, August 1, 2004, in line with their upcoming residential quarterly billing (i.e.
August, September, and October) mailed in late July 2004. Prior notices will also be
mailed to residents upon approval of the requested rate adjustment.
Page 2 of 3
Residential
64 Gallon
Monthly Rate for a
Capacity Container
City of La Verne
$16.26
City of Azusa
$18.67
City of Diamond Bar
$16.73
City of Rancho Cucamonga
$19.30
City of San Dimas
$17.66
City of Glendora
$19.84
City of Ontario
$18.25
City of Pomona
$21.64
City of Chino
$18.43
City of Upland
$22.50
City of Walnut
$18.47
City of Claremont
$23.24
Note: The above listed rates include each CiVs respective fees (i.e. AB 939, Franchise, etc.) but do not
account for slight variations in tvDe
of services i.e. Fully automated 3 -Barrel System, etc.
Based on the above comparison, the City of Diamond Bar's residential rates are among
the lowest of the selected sample of like -cities.
In conclusion, Staff finds Waste Management's rate adjustment request to be
reasonable and appropriate. Waste Management proposes to implement the new rates
beginning, August 1, 2004, in line with their upcoming residential quarterly billing (i.e.
August, September, and October) mailed in late July 2004. Prior notices will also be
mailed to residents upon approval of the requested rate adjustment.
Page 2 of 3
PREPARED BY:
Javier Peraza, Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu Jim DeStefano
Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager
Attachments:
1. Exhibit "A" from the Agreements (Rate Adjustment Methodology for Waste
Management )
Page 3 of 3
Agenda: 8.1
Meeting Date: July 20, 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 COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR ADOPTING THE SPEED ZONE SURVEY AND AMENDING TITLE
10 OF DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE REGADING PRIMA FACIE SPEED
LIMITS UPON CERTAIN CITY STREETS;
ORDINANCE NO. 0X(2004) AMENDING SECTION 10.12.310 OF THE
DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE SPEED
LIMITS UPON CERTAIN CITY STREETS.
VXde]kydLTA I=1IU7_110WIF
Adopt Resolution No. 2004 -XX; and, introduce Ordinance No. 0X(2004) for first reading
by title only with further reading of Ordinance to be waived.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Speed limit signs will cost approximately $2,000.00. Funds are available in the Public
Works Maintenance budget.
BACKGROUND/DISCU SSION:
The California Vehicle Code (CVC) requires that traffic speed limits be established on
the basis of a traffic and engineering study. Th is study must consider prevailing vehicle
speeds, number of accidents, volume, roadway design, safe stopping distance,
shoulder and profile conditions, pedestrian traffic, and other conditions not readily
apparent to motorists. The CVC also requires that the traffic and engineering study be
updated at least every seven (7) years if radar is used for speed limit enforcement.
When certain conditions as defined in CVC are met, the traffic and engineering study
may be conducted less frequently and can be extended to ten (10) years. Failure by a
local agency to conform with these CVC provisions in the establishment and
enforcement of speed limits constitutes a speed trap. Speed traps are illegal per the
CVC and the courts will not honor citations written for violation of the speed limits.
The draft City of Diamond Bar Speed Zone Survey has been completed in conformance
with the CVC requirements (see attached Draft Speed Zone Study). The current Speed
Zone Survey is due to expire on August 16, 2004.
The speed zone survey disclosed that with eleven (11) exceptions, the existing speed
limits are appropriate. The exceptions are based on current data and include the
following:
Brea Canyon Road, from North City Limits to Washington Street,
decrease from 50 mph to 45 mph;
Brea Canyon Road, from Lycoming Street to Golden Springs Drive
decrease from 45 mph to 40 mph;
Brea Canyon Road, from Pathfinder Road to Fountain Springs Drive,
decrease from 45 mph to 40 mph;
Brea Canyon Road, from Diamond Bar Boulevard to Copper Canyon Drive,
decrease from 50 mph to 45 mph;
Copley Drive, from Golden Springs Drive to Bridge Gate Drive
decrease from 40 mph to 35 mph;
Gateway Center Drive, from Bridge Gate Drive to Golden Springs Drive,
decrease from 40 mph to 35 mph;
Golden Springs Drive, from Lemon Avenue to 900 feet west ofGona Court,
decrease from 50 mph to 40 mph;
Lemon Avenue, from North City Limits to Golden Springs Drive.
decrease from 45 mph to 40 mph;
Sunset Crossing Road, from West City Limits to Diamond Bar Boulevard,
decrease from 40 mph to 35 mph;
Sunset Crossing Road, from Diamond Bar Boulevard to Del Sol Lane,
decrease from 30 mph to 25 mph;
Grand Avenue, from Summitridge Drive to East City Limits,
increase from 45 mph to 50 mph.
The proposed amendments to Title 10 of the Municipal Code include the
aforementioned speed limitchanges. The attached table summarizes the existing and
recommended speed limits.
PREPARED BY:
Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu James DeStefano
Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager
Attachments: Existing and Proposed Speed Limits Chart
Draft Speed Zone Study
Resolution No. 2004 -XX
Ordinance No. 2004 -XX
RESOLUTION 2004 -XX
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
ADOPTING THE SPEED ZONE SURVEY
Recitals
(i) California Vehicle Code Section 40803 (b) provides, in pertinent part, as
follows:
"In any prosecution under this Code of charge involving the speed of vehicle,
where enforcement involves the use of radar or other electronic devices which
measure the speed of moving objects, the prosecution shall establish, as part of
its prima-facie case, that the evidence or testimony presented is not based upon
a speed trap as defined in paragraph (2) of subdivision (a) of Section 40802."
(ii) The City of Diamond Bar desires to continue to use radar and other
electronic devices to measure the speed of moving objects in order to protect the lives
and property of motorists utilizing City streets and to improve the enforcement of speed
limits within the City of Diamond Bar.
(iii) The City's Traffic Engineering Consultant has conducted a current speed
zone study establishing and justifying prima-facie speed limits on certain City streets
within the City of Diamond Bar.
(iv) The current Speed Zone Study prepared by the City's Traffic
Engineering Consultant, dated July 20, 2004, is attached hereto as
Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set
forth herein.
Resolution
NOW THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR DOES
HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE AND RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS:
1. In all respects as set forth in the Recitals, Part A, of this resolution;
2. The Speed Zone Study submitted by the City's Traffic Engineering
Consultant dated July 20, 2004, and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is hereby adopted
and approved, in its entirety, as the official Speed Zone Study for the City of Diamond
Bar.
The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this 20th day of July, 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 a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 20th day of July, 2004, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
LINDA C. LOWRY, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
ORDINANCE NO. 2004 -XX
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING
SECTION 10.12.310 OF THE DIAMOND BAR CITY CODE REGARDING PRIMA FACIE
SPEED LIMITS UPON CERTAIN CITY STREETS
A. RECITALS
(i) California Vehicle Code Section 22358 provides that the City Council
may, by ordinance, set prima facie speed limits upon any portion of any
street not a state highway.
(ii) The City has conducted a speed zone survey dated July 20, 2004 of
certain streets within the City of Diamond Bar.
(iii) The determination concerning prima facie speed limits set forth in Part B.,
below, are based upon the speed zone survey identified in Section A. (ii),
above.
(iv) All legal preconditions to the adoption of this Ordinance have been
satisfied.
B. ORDINANCE
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCI L OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1.
10.12.310 of the Diamond Bar City Code is hereby amended and replaced in its
entirety to read, in words and figures as follows:
(a) The prima facie speed which is most appropriate to facilitate the orderly
movement of traffic and is a speed limit which is reasonable and safe on such portion
of each such street is set forth in this subsection for each such street:
Avenida Rancheros/Temple Avenue, Diamond Bar Boulevard
to Northeast City Limits
45 mph
Brea Canyon Road, North City Limits to Washington Street
45 mph
Brea Canyon Road, Washington Street to Lycoming Street
45 mph
Brea Canyon Road, Lycoming Street to Golden Springs Drive
40 mph
Brea Canyon Road, Golden Springs Drive to Pathfinder Road
45 mph
Brea Canyon Road, Pathfinder Road to Fountain Springs Drive
40 mph
Brea Canyon Road, Fountain Springs Drive to Diamond Bar
45 mph
Boulevard
Brea Canyon Road, Diamond Bar Boulevard to Copper
Canyon Drive
45 mph
Brea Canyon Road, Copper Canyon Drive to South City Limits
50 mph
Brea Canyon Cut -Off, West City Limits to Brea Canyon Road 40 mph
Chino Avenue, Chino Hills Parkway to East City Limits 50 mph
Chino Hills Parkway, North City Limits to South City Limits
50 mph
Copley Drive, Golden Springs Drive to Bridge Gate Drive
35 mph
Diamond Bar Boulevard, Brea Canyon Road to Goldrush Drive
45 mph
Diamond Bar Boulevard, Goldrush Drive to Highland Valley Road
40 mph
Diamond Bar Boulevard, Highland Valley Road to Temple Avenue
50 mph
Gateway Center Drive, Bridge Gate Drive to Golden
Springs Drive
35 mph
Golden Springs Drive, West City Limits to Lemon Avenue
50 mph
Golden Springs Drive, Lemon Avenue to 900' west
of Gona Court 40 mph
Golden Springs Drive, 900' west ofGona Ct. to 1300' east
of Adel Avenue 40 mph
Golden Springs Drive, 1300' east of Adel Ave. to Sabana Drive 45 mph
Golden Springs Drive, Sabana Drive to Platina Drive 40 mph
Golden Springs Drive, Platina Drive to E Avenida Rancheros/
Temple Avenue
45 mph
Grand Avenue, West City Limits to Summitridge Drive
45 mph
Grand Avenue, Summitridge Drive to East City Limits
50 mph
Lemon Avenue, North City Limits to Golden Springs Drive
40 mph
Lycoming Street, Lemon Avenue to Brea Canyon Road
35 mph
Montefino Avenue, Grand Avenue to Diamond Bar Boulevard
25 mph
Pathfinder Road, West City Limits to Brea Canyon Road -
North
45 mph
Pathfinder Road, Brea Canyon Road -North to Brea Canyon
Road-South/Fern Hollow Drive
40 mph
Pathfinder Road, Brea Canyon Road-South/Fern Hollow
Drive to Diamond Bar Boulevard
45 mph
Sunset Crossing Road, West City Limits to Diamond Bar
Boulevard
35 mph
Sunset Crossing Road, Diamond Bar Boulevard to
Del Sol Lane 25 mph
Temple Avenue, Diamond Bar Boulevard, to Golden Springs
Drive 45 mph
Walnut Drive, West City Limits to Lemon Avenue 40 mph
Washington Street, Brea Canyon Road to Northeast City Limits 40 mph
The prima facie speed which is most appropriate to facilitate the orderly movement of traffic
and is a speed limitwhich is reasonable and safe on all streets other than the streets listed
above is 25 mph.
(b). The City Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to install appropriate
signs upon such portion of each such street specified in this section giving notice of the
prima facie speed limitfor each such street declared in this section.
(c). No person shall operate any vehicle in violation of this section.
Section 2. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Ordinance and shall
cause the same to be posted in three (3) public places within the City of Diamond Bar as
revised by law.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this of 2004.
Bob Zirbes, Mayor
I, Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, California do hereby certify that the
foregoing Ordinance was passed, approved and adopted at a regular meeting held on the
______ day of________, 2004, bythe following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
LINDA C. LOWRY, City Manager
City Clerk