HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/6/2004THIS MEETING IS BEING BROADCAST LIVE BY ADELPHIA FOR AIRING ON
CHANNEL 3 AND BY REMAINING IN THE ROOM, YOU ARE GIVING YOUR
PERMISSION TO BE TELEVISED. THIS MEETING WILL BE RE -BROADCAST
EVERY SATURDAY AT 9:00 A.M. AND EVERY TUESDAY AT 8:00 P.M. ON
CHANNEL 3.
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
July 6, 2004
STUDY SESSION: 5:00 p.m., Room CC -8
Discussion of Council Goals
Park Improvements Update
Sycamore Canyon Project
Summitridge tot Lot
Starshine Park Improvements
CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor
INVOCATION: Pastor Bob Stebe,
Northminister Presbyterian Church
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
Mayor Pro Tem Herrera, Mayor Zirbes
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 Presentation of Certificates to Diamond Bar High Teacher Kevin
Patterson, Jung Soo Han, Lauren Lopez and Stacy Camou for saving the life
of coach Kemp Wells.
1.2 Proclaiming July, 2004 as "Parks and Recreation Month."
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
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
July 6, 2004 PAGE 2 City Council
Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk (completion of this form is voluntary).
There is a five-minute maximum time limit when addressing the City Council.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT: Under the Brown Act, members of the
City Council may briefly respond to public comments but no extended discussion
and no action on such matters may take place.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 CONCERT IN THE PARK (Cold Duck — 70's/Top 40) — July 7, 2004 — 6:30
— 8:00 p.m. - Sycamore Canyon Park 22930 Golden Springs Dr.
5.2 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING — July 8,
2004 — 7:00 p.m. — AQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room,
21865 Copley Dr.
5.3 LIBRARY TASK FORCE MEETING — July 12, 2004 — 7:00 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 IN THE PARK (The Beatles 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:
6.1 City Council Minutes:
6.1.1 Study Session of June 15, 2004 — Approve as submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of June 15, 2004 — Approve as submitted.
6.2 Planning Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting of June 8, 2004 -
Receive and file.
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
July 6, 2004 PAGE 3 City Council
Meeting of April 7, 2004 - Receive and file.
6.3.2 Regular Meeting of Traffic and Transportation Commission of May
13, 2004 — Receive and file.
6.4 Vouchers — Approval of Voucher Registers dated June 17, June 24 and
July 1, 2004 in an amount totaling $1,196,205.47.
6.5 Treasurer's Statement - month of May, 2004.
Recommended Action: Review and approve.
6.6 Extension of Maintenance Contracts:
(a) Excel Landscape — Approve 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 includes a 3.7%
C.P.I. increase; plus a contingency amount of $5,000 for as -needed
work.
Recommended Action: Approve.
(b) Valley Crest Landscape — Approve Amendment No. 1 to the
contract for maintenance at two park locations for FY 2004-05 in the
amount of $121,236.26, which includes a 2.6% C.P.I. increase; plus a
contingency amount of $20,000 for as -needed work.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.7 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 Ave. and Golden Springs Dr. and identified as Assessors
Parcel Numbers — 8293-045-004, 8293-045-005, 8293-045-006, 8293-
045-007, 8293-045-008 AND 8293-045-009 -
Recommended Action: Approve second reading by title only and adopt.
Requested by: Planning Division
6.8 Second Reading of Ordinance No. 03(2004): Approving the Diamond
Bar Village Specific Plan (SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2004-01).
July 6, 2004 PAGE 4 City Council
Recommended Action: Approve second reading by title only and adopt.
Requested by: Planning Division
6.9 Second Reading of ORDINANCE NO. 04(2004): Approving a
Development Agreement (Development Agreement No. 2004-01)
between the City and Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC for the Diamond Bar
Village Project.
Recommended Action: Approve second reading by title only and adopt.
Requested by: Planning Division
6.10 Authorize expenditures in an amount not to exceed $55,000 for FY
2004-05 to Graphic United for production of the City's
newsletter/recreation guide; and authorize a cumulative expenditure
of $36,000 for FY 2004-05 to the Postmaster for postage for the City's
newsletter/recreation guide postage.
Recommended Action: Authorize expenditure to Graphic United and
cumulative expenditure to the Postmaster for FY 2004-05 for the City's
Newsletter/Recreation Guide postage.
Requested by: Communications and Marketing Division
6.11 Extension of City -Wide Graffiti Removal Contract with Graffiti Control
Systems for FY 2004-05 in the amount of $35,000
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Planning Division
6.12 Award of Contract for Pavement Management Services (PMS) to
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc. in the amount of $49,470
and authorize a contingency amount of $10,530 for change orders to
be approved by the City Manager, for a total authorization amount of
$60,000.
Recommended Action: Award.
Requested by: Public Works Division
6.13 Amend 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.
Recommended Action: Approve Amendment and rate increases
July 6, 2004 PAGE 5 City Council
Requested by: Public Works Division
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as matters may be
heard
7.1 (a) Resolution No. 2004 -XX: Levying an Assessment on
Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 for the FY 2004-05
Recommended Action: Open Public Hearing and adopt.
(b) Resolution No. 2004 -XX: Levying an Assessment on
Landscaping Assessment District No. 39 for the FY 2004-05
Recommended Action: Open Public Hearing and adopt.
(c) Resolution No. 2004 -XX: Levying an Assessment on
Landscaping Assessment District No. 41 for the FY 2004-05
Recommended Action: Open Public Hearing and adopt.
Requested by: Public Works Division
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 Approve Valley Vista Service's Rate Adjustment for CPI and
Disposal Costs.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Public Works Division
8.2 Consideration of Appointments to the Wildlife Corridor Conservation
Authority Advisory Committee for a two year term.
Recommended Action: Reappoint Bill Herrick and Dexter MacBride to
WCCA Advisory Committee as the City's representatives.
Requested by: City Council
9. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
10. ADJOURNMENT:
Agenda No. 6.1.1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JUNE 15 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/Govemm ent Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro
Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager;
Bob Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Linda
Magnuson, Finance Director; April Blakey, Public Information Manager; Kim Crews,
Senior Administrative Analyst; Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst, Ken
Des Forges, Assigned Technician and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
City Council Goals and Objectives
FY2004-2005 Budget Discussion
Public Comments on Study Session Agenda Items
CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES:
CM/Lowry stated that stafr s report included a compilati on of input from each of
the five Council Members as well as the list of last year's goals and objectives.
Staff did not include clean up freeway entrances and improve slopes in the
City and that staff was cleaning slopes but not freeway entrances at this point.
Also, JCC and the pre-annexat ion agreement with Shell Oil were removed.
C/Huff felt the City should continue working to produce a pre -annexation
agreement.
CM/Lowry believed that DCM/DeStefano felt this was covered in his Economic
Development Decision package that he would present later this evening. Plant
more trees was an ongoing budget item and was therefore excluded from the
list. Further, staff omitted annexation of the Boy Scout property.
MPT/Herrera felt that that issue would be covered under the Sphere of Influence
and LAFCO process.
CM/Lowry proposed that ongoin g goals not necessarily having a direct impact on
the next year's work plan should be eliminated from the current list. She
explained that the list was unwieldy and needed to be pared in order for staff to
make sense of action -orient ed priority matters.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION
M/Zirbes stated that in his opinion, every item should be brought forward and
reprioritized so that items would remain on the radar.
CM/Lowry asked if Council would be agree able to two lists — one for short-term
goals and one for long-term goals.
C/Chang felt Council should prioritize all of its goals based on input from staff
and that these types of discussions should be held earlier in the year in
preparation for budget considerations.
CM/Lowry felt there should be joint discussion between Council and staff about
priorities and how the items might fit into the overall budget, move into the budget
discussion and continue with the decision packages. When staff met today to
review this matter there was discussion about the study session during which
short-term, mid-term and long-term strategies for economic development were
discussed.
DCM/DeStefano believed that if the City had $10 million it should keep it secret
and not necessarily establish a detailed game plan as to how the dollars would
be spent because the development community would, if given the opportunity,
consume every nickel. Instead, the City needed to set forth a general framework
for the kinds of things the City might be willing to invest in, for example, but not
attach a dollar amount because there was too much information that was yet
unknown.
CM/Lowry encouraged the Coun cil to make a commitment to follow through with
the original plan to use the $10 million for economic development and no longer
agonize over whether to do economic development or retire the bonds. She
asked Council to give staff a direction to "engage in economic development and
find a prudent and appropriate way to invest $10 million."
C/Chang agreed with CM/Lowry and DCM/DeStefano.
M/Zirbes said he agreed that Economic Development should be a priority and
there should bea strong game plan.
CM/Lowry said that in that vein, priorities 3, 4, and S would be included inside the
No. 1 Economic Development goal.
C/O'Connor saw economic development as one main goal with objectives listed
under that main goal.
CM/Lowry said the bottom line for staff was the work plan so that staff knew how
to proceed. Accordingly, at the end of each year Council could determine
whether staff was able to complete the goals.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION
CM/Lowry referred to Priority #2 — Signal Management System; ongoing with no
outlay of City funds.
M/Zirbes pointed out that this was an example of why items needed to remain on
the list. Although this item was ongoing and required no outlay of City funds it
would require monitoring so that the system was controlled locally and if the item
were removed from the list of goals the system would likely fall to the County's
control. D.B. knows how its traffic flows and should be in total control of how the
system is monitored.
CM/Lowry asked for comment on the "dynamic center, the supermarket" and how
it related to the #7 goal of "in partnership with the Chamber and business
owners survey the City to see what people want to happen ."
M/Zirbes believed they should be tied together along with Site D. Site D was
under consideration for purchase by a developer and the City needed to make
certain the developer understood what the City wanted on the site. Until the
developer brought forth a design it would be better for the City to remain
proactive. "Evaluating Site D" was purely for economic development reasons so
all economic development items should be pulled together.
DCM/Doyle concluded that if the goal were to create an economic strategy all of
the other items would be bul let points under that goal.
C/Chang agreed with M/Zirbes and "work with the Chamber" should also be a
subcategory of Economic Development. To him a dynamic/lifest yle center should
consist of commercial complex with a theater, restaurant, retail shopping, etc.
M/Zirbes agreed and expanded it to multi -story, mixed use, theater, restaurant
and possibly third story co-op apartments. He pointed to Birch Street as an
example. He, having spoken to a staff member who lives on Birch Street, felt it
would be a great place to live. He also felt that all Council Members were like-
minded that these types of things should be explored for Site D unless there
were differing thoughts about what the City should be doing with economic
development.
CM/Lowry verified that the supermarket could be included as a subcategory. The
5th priority was the bond retirement fund included in the decision packages with
an estimate of the transfer amount of $8 00,000. The library goal of creating a
strategy if the funding failed was priority No. 6 but the goal to establish a fund for
current library enhancements has a priority of 14, with a priority 20 for studying
alternate uses of the library if the funding failed. In short, the library goals pull in
opposite directions. Moreover, staff believed that no separate budget
appropriation was needed at this time because the grant outcome was unknown.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION
C/O'Connor said that in the event the City were unsuccessful in obtaining the
funding would it be another year before the City decided to fund a new library?
DCM/Doyle said the Council could decide now that if the application failed the $8
million allocation would be included in the budget or, they could wait until that
eventuality and determine the money should be taken out of reserve funds. The
other option would be to look at alternative financing mechanisms (go to a vote of
the people) to fund the library. Does Council intend to build a library with City
money or does Council want staff to pursue other funding measures?
MPT/Herrera felt the City did not have 100 percent of the funds to build a new
library. She would not want the City to pay for the library in whole but reaching
out to the community to see if there was support through an assessment district,
for example, might bean option.
DCM/Doyle said staff had completed a survey on that possibility and asked if
Council would want to update the survey and whether they would want to hold a
special election or wait for the next election cycle? If Council wanted to hold a
special election, those funds would have to be set aside and the City would be
prohibited by law from spending money to promote such a measure. He
reminded Council that staff would not know whether the grant application was
successful until at least August/September . On that basis, would Council want to
appropriate money atthis time not knowing whether it would be spent in the next
fiscal year?
M/Zirbes felt that "talking about alternative uses of that site" could be
eliminated from the list because everyone was focu sed on having a library at
Summitridge Park. That left two items under the library goal — to create a strategy
to build the library if the State funding failed and establish a fund for the current
library. With those two items as a) and b) once the City received word from the
State, Council could get together to discuss the matter. He felt last night's task
force meeting was very productive with a lot of creative ideas coming from the
members. However, there was no reason to talk about this today because if grant
funds were forthcoming from the State, the City would be committed to building
the library. At this point, with Council concurrence, the third item should be
removed, move forward with the Library Task Force and discuss what types of
improvements could be made to the present facility in the interim and how the
City would proceed to obtain funds to build the library at the Su mmitridge location
once the City knew its direction.
C/Chang felt the Task Force was moving in the right direction during the interim.
This item was proposed to come up with a Plan B only in the event the grant
funding was not forthcoming and he certainly did not intend for the City to pay for
a new library facility.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION
Council concurred to eliminate "study alternative uses of the site if funding fails."
C/O'Connor said the "financing mechanisms" should remain.
CM/Lowry asked ifCounc it would be open to staff conducting an in-house survey
or would they prefer to engage an outside consultant.
MPT/Herrera recommended the survey be included as a small section of the
monthly newsletter and suggested that residents could call in to a certain
telephone number, email, or mail in a tear off response.
C/O'Connor asked that information about the possibility of getting a Trader Joe's
be printed in the newsletter because she had received numerous calls asking
what was happening.
DCM/Doyle explained that each tear off would costthe City 47 cents.
MPT/Herrera suggested it be a tear off or cut off and that residents could mail
back to the City using their own stamps.
M/Zirbes agreed and reiterated that this was going to be included under the
major topic of economic development. The next item was to hire an economic
development professional. Perhaps Council needed to work with the
professional to determine what kind of research studies the City needed to do to
satisfy companies such as Trader Joe's that residents would indeed shop at
these establishments.
C/O'Connor asked if hiring an economic professional was over and above the
proposed personnel changes to hire a Planning Director and designate
DCM/DeStefano as heading the economic development phase to which
DCM/DeStefano responded affirmatively.
C/Chang felt Council needed to discuss these potential changes.
M/Zirbes stated that Larry Kosmot had been advising the City for well over a year
and he had not seen any specific or detailed plans from Mr. Kosmot nor had he
brought any retailers to the City. The new consultant recently hired by
DCM/DeStefano may prove to be more proficient in this regard. If the City hired a
consultant, the Council needed to be assured he could produce what the City
wanted. In fact, the City's current private open space developer had brought in
more interest that any one. If the City were not realizing the kind of results from
the professionals and consultants currently being used for something as
important as the future economic health of the City, the Council needed the
ability to respond quickly. His thought wh en he listed the item, was for the City to
find someone with the connections to reach out and bring in particular
businesses
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 6 CC STUDY SESSION
that were vital to the long-term economic health of D.B. and that was what he
meant when he said "hire an econom is development professional."
MPT/Herrera recalled that the City did not extend Larry Kosmot's contract to
include a specific plan for the City and that it was her intent that the City invest
more dollars toward economic development in order to get a specific plan.
M/Zirbes assumed that the consultant would be paid from the money already set
aside for economic development.
C/O'Connor said she interpreted the goal as the City would be hiring an
employee and it would be DCM/DeStefano pursuing economic development.
That is why she rated the item high.
CM/Lowry said that staff felt there would not be a specific person to cure the
City's economic needs but that the combination of approaches to projects that
DCM/DeStefano described in his decision packages would address economic
development.
CM/Lowry stated that "annexation" was discussed to some extent and that the
"golf course" was included as a decision package in the economic table of five
items.
M/Zirbes agreed that the "golf course" would be a natura I sub item of economic
development.
CM/Lowry referred to the Trails Master Plan ranked No. 10, specifically
addressing the trails around the Diamond Bar Center. To accomplish this goal,
staff moved the grant writer to CSD/Rose's department for which no additional
funds would be required. Council concurred. The ACE funding was ongoing and
MPT/Herrera suggested the item be moved to "ongoing goals."
CM/Lowry agreed.
C/Huff said the truck lanes should be moved to "ongoing goals."
CM/Lowry said it would be places next to the ACE item. She explained that as
previously discussed, the Sports Complex goal was ongoi ng and to some extent
would be included in Goal #12 — Joint Use Facilities. These items were
addressed in CSD/Rose's decision packages with special fund allocations that
did not require general fund monies. She stated that the opportunity to deal with
Larkstone Park should be forthcoming if that development occurred and that it
would not necessarily require a budget appropriation.
M/Zirbes asked why "consider the development of sports complex "was not
on the list?
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 7 CC STUDY SESSION
CM/Lowry responded that staff felt it had become the actual work Plan.
"Purchase lots 1 and 61" and 'joint use agreements " could be moved under a
category of"consider the development of sports complex "as sub items.
C/O'Connor asked for information on the condition of Lots 1 and 61 and what
mitigation needed to be done.
M/Zirbes explained that Lots 1 and 61 consisted of about 68 acres and
depending on the amount of grading, there would likely be land available for a
30 -acre complex with parking and access most likely from Grand Avenue. He
said that Lots 1 and 61 were map and deed restricted properties and were
currently on the market as "mitigation" properties meaning there were limited
biological amenities and that the City would have to Bete rmine their worth. Hefelt
that if the City could find an agreeable price it could capture a parcel of land
offering the potential of creating additional sports fields, park space, or a
temporary tree nursery for development mitigation. In his opinion, Lots 1 and 61
offered the greatest potential forafuture sports park, parkorsomeother use ata
reasonable price and hefelt itwas an opportunity worth pursuing.
In response to C/O'Connor, M/Zirbes said the lots currently belonged to a land
bank broker in Texas.
M/Zirbes responded to C/Chang that the purchase price originally worked out to
just under $2 million. When he spoke with the broker the price was reduced to
$1.5 million. Additionally, there was potential for the City to swap one acre of
currently owned property for the 68 acres of Lots 1 and 61.
C/Chang said he regretted that some years ago the City did not step up to
purchase the SunCal property and with that in mind hew ould like to see the City
purchase the land for use or open space. He rated Lots 1 and 61 low -priority
because he felt the property could not be developed. The Council could decide to
use itas a park. Ifthe community wanted to build a sports complex on Lots 1 and
61, it would require a vote of the people. He was concerned about taking that
kind of action at this time because there were many other items to consider with
the City's limited resources and $1.5 or $2 million of the reserve was a huge
chunk for a piece of property that would sit unused. He felt it would be better for
the City to focus on using its money toward economic development.
M/Zirbes rated this item as No. 8. The land may be available fiveyears from now,
but with all of the development occurring a developer could easily purchase the
property for mitigation purposes.
C/Huff suggested the City sell the small piece of property.
DCM/DeStefano suggested selling and putting the proceeds toward the much
larger piece of land.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 8 CC STUDY SESSION
M/Zirbes said the final price may not be favorable but it should at least be goal
to pursue. His vision of D.B. was that it was a family destination and certain
components such as high quality schools, libraries, quality park space, etc. that
drew that segment of the population. This city lacks parkland and this offers D.B.
an opportunity to increase the number of playable fields at what appears to be a
favorable price.
C/O'Connor asked why the property was map and deed restricted to which
DCM/DeStefano responded that the County restricted the property in the middle
70's when they allowed the subdivision above the property. They took the
permissible hillside density and moved the density to the flat area above and
came back and deed restricted the balance i.e. transferred the density.
M/Zirbes responded to CM/Lowry that the item should be listed as "pursue the
purchase of Lots 1 and 61."
CM/Lowry reiterated that Item 14 was included with the library goal. Goal 15
"Council and staff team building" offered an interesting discussion when two
Council Members gave it a high priority and two Council Members gave it a lower
priority making it problematic to plan a consensual event when only two Council
Members were particularly interested.
M/Zirbes felt that since it was likely one Council Member would be moving on
and there would be a new Council Member on board it would be better to
promote this for the next year.
MPT/Herrera said it would be agreeable with her to wa it. She rated it high
because ithad been on the goals listfor a nu mber ofyears to develop a strategic
plan.
M/Zirbes said the makeup of the Council could change once again in a short
time.
CM/Lowry said the money was set-aside in the current budget for the visioning
process that had not occurred.
CM/Lowry again emphasized the point that the goals list and the budget
contained little pocket appropriations however, the ultimate goal for those items
was not clear. To her a strategic plan was not team building and visioning was
not a strategic plan. For instance, M/Zirbes just explained how he viewed his
community, but she did not hear any of the other four Council Members cheer
that opinion. Again, Council and staff have not engaged in that type of
discussion. And that is "visioning?" There are a number of different wishes on the
wish list. That is one facet of "visioning. " So, if Council wanted to have a team
building event some time next year there was probably an appropriation
opportunity within the budget. Before that happened, however, there needed to
begreater discussion about what visioning is.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 9 CC STUDY SESSION
C/Chang believed teambuilding meant working with staff. He felt the goal of the
Council was to make certain that the City was going in the right direction and that
was why he ranked the item low. At the same time he felt it would be a good
idea for Council to discuss a vision for the future of the City.
M/Zirbes agreed that it would be important to hear what each Council Member
viewed as their vision for the future of the City.
C/O'Connor felt the Council needed to work together as a body rather than going
five separate ways which was why staff kept asking which way they should go.
MPT/Herrera suggested that rather than Council and staff team building itshould
be Council and staff visioning and that a visioning event should be planned for
sometime between January and June of 2005.
C/Huff felt it would provide a platform for producing goals and a budget for next
year. As leaders, Council Members have an obligation to be as efficient as
possible and set a vision for the City that reflects the needs of the citizens and in
his opinion, a facilitator would definitely help.
M/Zirbes suggested that a visioning session be scheduled for the third or fourth
week of January.
CM/Lowry said staff was clear on this item.
CM/Lowry said that Item 16, Pathfinder Road Improvements, was included in the
decision packages with indirect funding that would not require a General Fund
appropriation based on the City's success in obtaining federal funds for the
Grand Avenue project. Staff believed that if the City were successful in getting
federal funds for Grand Ave. General Funds would not be required to do Grand
Ave. and those funds would then be available for the Pathfinder Road
Improvements Project.
C/O'Connor wanted to know why the City was spending money on private
property improvements instead of improvements to City property?
C/Huff said because they could not befixed by private property funds.
C/O'Connor asked if the residents had been surveyed to determine whether the
program was effective. The problem the City faces with private slopes is that
individuals do not maintain them uniformly and the City continues to struggle with
that issue and whether it would eventually require an assessment district to cure
the situation.
M/Zirbes suggested that if the City were successful in getting federal monies it
could use the money that would have been spent for enhancements on Grand
Ave. on Pathfinder Rd. instead, a major thoroughfare into the City.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 10 CC STUDY SESSION
C/O'Connor asked what about the slopes along Diamond Bar Blvd. and could the
City use the $400,000 to help irrigate that area to make it look nice? She felt it
was wrong to use public funds for one small area.
C/Huff said itwas a goal only.
M/Zirbes explained that the City had an easement over the area where the
improvements would be done and there was no easement over privately owned
slopes.
CM/Lowry stated Site Dwas incorporated in another goal and that the contiguous
neighborhoods/zi p code issue was an ongoing and separat a item. She asked if
Council would concur to remove the "clarifying the goal process " item. Council
concurred.
C/Chang said that each time Council discusses goals, staff should be invited to
provide more input as to whether or not the goal was feasible.
CM/Lowry said staff could look into Goal No. 20 without an additional
appropriation. She explained that the increases to the allotment do not keep pace
with the increased insurance costs. Goal No. 21 was eliminated. Goal No. 22 —
11evaluate the business registration" was not dispatched during the last study
session and there was no appropriation to purchase software or pay for third
party administration of such a program.
M/Zirbes rated it last because he was not in favor of the City assuming the
licensing function. He was however, geared to the City pursuing business
registration and felt it was the consensus of the Council.
CM/Lowry restated the goal "for business registration " only and asked the
Council if it would be ranked differently. If Council directed staff to proceed, there
would have to be a budget appropriation request approved.
M/Zirbes suggested rewording the goal to read as follows: "look to bring the
business registration as a requirement to do business in the City in-house
at zero cost" and asked that the matter be listed as a sub item under economic
development.
C/O'Connor did not recall that the Council concurred to do business registration
at zero cost to the City.
C/Chang said hewould preferto have the cost paid by the registrant.
CM/Lowry said that the business registration would be a sub item goal under
economic development.
C/Huff felt there were many items that could be dropped from the list
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 11 CC STUDY SESSION
C/O'Connor thought staff would redo the listbased on tonight's discussion
DCM/Doyle said that if Council concurred to drop items, itshould bedone on the
spot.
MPT/Herrera said she would like to see a dollar figure attached to the items
because the Council may revise their priorities after seeing what the costs are.
Discussion ensued about the street sweeping program.
M/Zirbes thought to take some of the revenue from the program and put it into
sweeping more frequently, especially during time of increased debris.
With consensus of Council the matter was tabled.
CM/Lowry referred Council to No. 23 and stated that since the Youth Master Plan
was not completed there was no specific budget allocation.
C/O'Connor felt this was similar to the Parks Master Plan wherein the City
expended funds to do the plan and then did no follo w up and she wanted this
item to remain on the radar screen.
Goal No. 25 was reviewing sign matters with no specific budget allocation. If
Council wishes staff to pursue this goal itwould do so with the current staff.
C/O'Connor asked if the Torito Plaza sign needed to be fixed.
DCM/DeStefano said he looked at the signs and discovered that two businesses
and the property owner needed to apply new lettering to the cans. There was,
however,no specific code section that addressed peal ing paint on signs. He
suggested that staff could write the property owner a letter.
C/Chang said he would like to see this item as ongoing.
DCM/DeStefano said staffs concern about this item was uniformity. For example,
some cities required all signs to be blue. Torito Plaza had multi -colored signs as
do many other centers.
C/O'Connor felt the City should have conformity for signage.
M/Zirbes suggested the Planning Commission revisit the Sign Ordinance with an
eye toward mitigating disrepair. Council concurred to leave it on the list of goals
and directed the Planning Commission to revisit the Sign Ordinance.
C/O'Connor suggested removing Goal #26 because itwas too expensive
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 12 CC STUDY SESSION
Aziz Amiri, D.B. Chamber was impressed with the Council's accomplishments
and was glad that economic development was a top priority for the Council and
staff. He also understood and appreciated CM/Lowry's concern that it was
essential for staff to have a clear understanding of the Council's goals and
exp ecta ti o n s.
2. FY2004-2005 BUDGET DISCUSSION:
CM/Lowry indicated that staff, department by department would discuss their
specific budget to and comment on important aspects of specific items and that
the study session goal was to provide backup information for Council approval
during tonight's regularmeeting.
DCM/Doyle commented that the proposed budget remained status quo with no
major changes. The only change was found on Page 25 indicating the City
Manager and City Clerk offices were merged.
C/O'Connor asked which budget would include a special election.
DCM/Doyle responded that it would be included in the City Clerk's budget and he
was not aware of what the cost would be. The cost for the last County election
was approximately $48,000 and he assumed itwould bes lightly more costly for a
special election.
FD/Magnuson reported that the basic change to the Administration and Support
portion of the budget was the incorporation of the bank courier service moved
from General Government. Secondly, a $50,000 appropriation was moved from
General Government to Administratio n and Support in anticipation of retirement
or separation opportunities that might presents themselves during the
forthcoming fiscal year. Page 37 indicated the Employee Recognitions Program
specifically targeted for certificates and plaques, retirement gifts, watches,
service pins, etc. On Page 38 was a $12,000 allocation for Education and
Training. This item was previously designated as a $7,000 allocation and staff
moved an additional $5,000 from the General Government Services Budget to
this allocation for purposes of consistency.
Decision packages for Employee Recognition Luncheon, Section 125 Plan and
Codes and Personnel Regs update. Organization Development pieces with
Pacific Institute were removed.
DCM/Doyle referred Council to the Information Systems area that indicated a
jump in the cost. During the current year the City had a six month contract that
staff was requesting be extended for one full year. Staff was very happy with the
contract services and excited about the company coming on board. Also included
were a number of software maintenance items. In short, the current budget
reflected true costs since there were a nu mber of software licenses that were not
renewed and those were currently being reviewed by AS/Des Forges. Staff also
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 13 CC STUDY SESSION
proposed to replace some servers, complete license upgrades and make a
concerted effort to keep the licenses current. Further, staff removed the
additional Kiosk from the budget and current plans were to move the existing
D.B. City Hall Kiosk up to the Diamond Bar Center. Under General Government a
number of items were eliminated and moved to other departments. One item that
was not included was an allocation for a Diamond Bar Community Foundation
grant writer. That item was included in the Parks and Recreation budget.
C/O'Connor asked for an explanation of the $7,000 Information Systems
Education and Training (Page 41) and in Human Resources Education and
Training allocation of $12,000 for a total of $19,000.
DCM/Doyle explained that the Education and Training in Human Resources was
for general staff and included computer training and other training and
educational opportunities. The Information Systems Education and Training was
strictly for the two -person IT staff.
AS/DesForges explained that $7,000 was the actual cost for one staff member
for the HP and Microsoft Training Center. Last year MIS/DeFriend attended
several classes and money for those classes came directly from the General
Fund. In keeping with the philosophy to more accurately track the funds this
allocation represents the actual line item.
C/O'Connor wanted to know if this was specialized training to which DCM/Doyle
responded absolutely.
AS/DesForges stated that only the hardware (HP) and software (Microsoft)
vendors offer these classes. In fact, there are only three such classes offered on
the west coast.
C/O'Connor asked about the Strategic Planning Program facilitator on Page 47.
DCM/Doyle explained that this was the $15,000 allocation for Council's visioning
for the community workshop.
CM/Lowry said the allocation was in resp onse to an item Coun cil included on its
goals list.
MPT/Herrera said this item was not a new item and that it had been carried
forward for several years.
C/O'Connor asked if on Page 50 the $3,000 for employee items was different
from the $3,000 allocated in Human Resources.
PMS/Blakey explained that employee items were staff shirts and the $3,000
Human Resource allocation was for other items. Within Special Services there
was a Cost of Living increase due to changing vendors and increasing the
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 14 CC STUDY SESSION
quantity of printing. Also within Professional Services there was an item included
in the first draft that was moved to a decision package - a new design for the
trade show groups. The second area of change was in the advertising budget. In
the past the City obligated its advertising dollars to local publications and now
that the Diamond Bar Center was online those advertisements in trade and
regional high-end publications were essential and significantly more expensive
than local publication advertisements. If the City were to obligate itself to one ad
per month in the Chamber publication the budget item would have to be
increased by $8,000.
CM/Lowry explained that the City would equally obligate itself to other
publications in the community. The nature of the advertising that the Chamber
could provide the City would have to change dramatically and the circulation that
/the City would have from its $10,000 guaranteed amount of advertising with the
Chamber per month would be significantly different because the Chamber would
be changing their entire format with respect to how they publish and to whom the
materials were mailed.
C/Huff was uncertain this was the year to cut back on the Chamber advertising
because they were attempting to become a more self-sufficient business. While
the Council grumbled about the budget item the Chamber had depended on the
City's allocation for its survival. He woul d like to have the City enter into a three-
year agreement, for example, to continue giving them the same payment this
year and perhaps cut it down over the next two years so that there would be
motivation for them to becom a more self-sufficient.
MPT/Herrera agreed.
M/Zirbes said he could not agree because he had not seen the new publication
and could not speak to what itwould do and what itwould cost.
C/Huff said the Chamber would have to make a presentation to the Council.
M/Zirbes suggested Council could increase the budget, accept a presentation
and proposal from the Chamber and make a decision accordingly.
CM/Lowry recommended that PIM/Blakey's advertising strategy would be left in
to ct.
C/O'Connor felt the Chamber was looking for a guarantee of $36,000, the
amount the City guaranteed last year.
DCM/Doyle said staff would add $4,000 to the Economic Development line item
for the Chamber of Commerce.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 15 CC STUDY SESSION
DCM/Doyle reported that there were no dollar changes in Public Safety. The
major change was to the team. In accordance with the Sheriffs Department
recommendation to add a motorcycle officer, the team leader position atthe
same cost was being eliminated. Accordingly, the team leader was offered and
accepted the position of motorcycle officer at the same salary. The LAT position
was not included in the original budget however, there was no increase over the
prior fiscal year, itwas merely not included with monies from COPS funds.
FD/Magnuson explained that the difference in the Sheriff figures from the first
budget draft was due to the fact that she did not have current numbers and a
correct classification for the team leader.
DCM/Doyle continued stating there was no significant impact regarding the
Volunteer Patrol. Fire protection that was included for Tres Hermanos; Animal
Control Service increased slightly from the first budget projections. There was a
significant reduction in Emergency Preparedness from $50,000 to $10,000
because it is not necessary chose not to rehire the consultant doing the Hazard
Mitigation Plan.
DCM/DeStefano stated that on the Development Services side there was a slight
bump over last year for the Planning Division that had to do with salaries. The
department was also asking for additional do Ilars for printing based on a desire to
provide more handouts and "how to" manual s for the general public and that
there was an increase in Membership and Dues associated with the American
Planning Association and other s. One of the other changes on Page 74 having to
do with Professional Services was videography that was reduced from $15,000
to $3,000 by amending the service for on-call services only and eliminating
Business of the Month videos. The Building and Safety budget was significantly
increased reflective of an increase in activity that was estimated to occur during
this budget year. Staff anticipates construction of a couple of office buildings,
hopefully the Home Depot and related residential development and as a result,
there will be significantly more revenue offset by additional expenditure. On the
Neighborhood Improvement side there was an increase over last year, most of
which was in salaries and small tools an d equipment. With respect to Economic
Development, the budget was decreased over last year due to the business
incentive program needing fewer resources. Although Sigma Net was scheduled
to leave D.B. in July the City would be responsible for the six months' of 2004
share of the generated sales tax. Based upon the company's growth, staff
estimates the City's portion to be $100,000 . The Professional Services category
was increased by ab out $15,000 for the additional services expected from Carl
Morgan, the new consultant for economic purposes. The Community
Development Block Grant Budget on Page 149 remains at about $500,000
approved by the Council in January 2004. One change under Economic
Development was a $5,000 recommendation for membership in the San Gabriel
Valley Economic Partnership.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 16 CC STUDY SESSION
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/O'Connor that the designee for the Partnership
could be a member of Council or staff.
CSD/Rose reported that the biggest difference in the Community Services
budget was due to the openin g of the Diamond Bar Center with a separate
budget. The $19,000 administration budget increase was due to moving the grant
writer to the Community Services Department as previously mentioned. He
referred Council to the notation on page 90 regarding the marketing allocation for
rental brochures. The Capital Improvements may or may not be done this fiscal
year. $10,000 was eliminated for Special Marketing Efforts.
C/O'Connor said she understood there was a problem this past week because
the City blocked the Diamond Bar Center driveway with a vehicle that she
understood was permitted to be there but unfortunately, a softball team was
unable to access the field. If the City installs the electric gate would staff
guarantee that the gate would beopened atsunrise?
CSD/Rose said that staff needed to talk about that issue. The truck was to have
been moved closer to the monument sign but the message did not reach the
responsible individual.
CSD/Rose reported that one item not listed was the possible replacement of the
banquet room projection camera and that staff was currently seeking bids on a
new unit.
C/O'Connor asked if the current projector could be returned and CSD/Rose said
he was told it could not and that instead, the City would use it as a portable unit
a t th a Center.
C/Huff suggested staff revisit the fee schedule based on the higher cost unit.
M/Zirbes suggested the projector could be sold to another city.
CSD/Rose said the projector could be used in other meeting rooms and he felt
there was a need for a portable unit.
CSD/Rose stated there wa s only one change in the Park Maintenance budget.
The Maple Hills Park restroom roof needed replacemen tand rather than increase
the budget request staff moved $10,000 from Heritage Park. The main difference
in the recreation budget was a reallocation of a position to Prop A funds. Staffs
goal was to begin selling transit tickets at Diamond Bar Center to accommodate
the seniors. Additionally, there were small changes between the Recreation and
Diamond Bar Center budgets to eliminate duplication.
C/O'Connor pointed out that Page 97 should indicate the 16 th birthday party
instead ofthe 15th birthday party.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 17 CC STUDY SESSION
PWD/Liu stated under Professional Services the Pub lic Works Division staff
budgeted $50,000 for the SR 57/60 Traffic Management Program in response to
the Caltrans construction activities. Again under Professional Services were line
items pertaining to complianc a related items. Under contract services staff would
be looking ata Pavement Management Program and a Neighborhood Traffic
Management Program in this fiscal year. The budget also included $30,000 for
speed hump installations.
FD/Magnuson reported on the following transfers out: $20,000 Community
Support Fund (ongoing), Self-Insuranc a Fund — same, $35,500 Computer
Replacement Fund (new), CIP — changes.
DCM/Doyle reported that $180,000 was allocated from the Air Quality AB 2766
fund for computer software in anticipat ion of possible funding for an on-line
permitting system, a GIS System and/or on-line transit sales in the next fiscal
yea r.
FD/Magnuson explained the changes in the CIP program. The document
presented to the Council tonight shows $286,000 from Proposition 40 for the
Summitridge Park restrooms, tot lot and drinking fountain and the number should
be $209,600 with the balance of $116,800 from the Park Development Fund. the
Transfer out for the CIP from the Park Development Fund would be increased
accordingly.
C/O'Connor asked what the cost was for constructing a new building at
Sycamore Canyon Park.
CSD/Rose responded that it would depend on t he type of building. A stick built
building with a 2000 sq. ft. meeting room and restroom s would cost about $1
million.
C/O'Connor recalled that it was a high priority for the Parks and Recreation
Commission and asked what Council decided and wondered if Council wanted to
consider using a portion of the Park Facilities Fund for the building and
CM/Lowry said that CSD/Ro se would come back to Co uncil with a presentation
in July to review various proposals.
FD/Magnuson continued stating the amou nt under miscellaneous improvements
for landscaping on Diamond Bar Blvd. between Maple Hill and Mountain Laurel
was changed to $125,730 with funds coming from the Landscape Maintenance
District 38. Staff removed the $250,000 General Fund budget item for the
Pathfinder median project to a decision package. With those changes, the grand
total for CIP was $5,572,295.
C/O'Connor questioned why the note for Pathfinder said $600,000
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 18 CC STUDY SESSION
PWD/Liu responded that when he formulated his wish list he took two
approaches: Option 1) take the median only for the length ofthe D.B.H.S.
frontage at a cost of $250,000 and Option 2) take the median from Fern
Hollow/Brea Canyon Rd. all the way down to Diamond Bar Blvd. at a cost of
$600,000.
FD/Magnuson concluded her presentation stating that at its June 8 meeting the
Planning Commission approved a resolution finding that the FY 2004-2005
Capital Improvement Program was in conformance with the City's General Plan.
Decision Packages:
CM/Lowry reported that in consideration ofthe Decision Packages, the Council
had $824,000 of current un -appropriated revenue and a bundle of Decision
Packages. The $400,000 economic package for example, would not be required
to come out of the current revenue, but out of the fund balance or out of the $10
million allocation for economic development. Secondly, the list of Decision
Packages on the second sheet would require an additional $1.9 million from the
General Fund. However, included in those numbers were establishing the Bond
Reserve Fund for $800,000, a restriction of the already ending fund balance that
would not necessarily have to be appropria ted out of the current revenues i.e.
creating savings accounts out ofthe reserves.
MPT/Herrera asked what amount was budgeted for the bond payments for the
coming year.
FD/Magnuson explained that monies from the bond proceeds was paying next
year's debt service based on a 1.2 percentage rate. When the bonds were issued
sufficient dollars were held in reserve to pay the debt service on the loan at 4.5
percent. This amount was earmarked "debt service" and was held by the trustee.
That money cannot be drawn down, it is used only to pay the interest. The
money has been used to pay the debt service for the past year and three months
or so and there is still enough money in the reserve to cover next year's interest.
MPT/Herrera believed that since 4.5 percent was set aside and the interest rate
was only 1.2 percent, the remaining money should be set aside to pay of the
bond earlier if possible.
DCM/Doyle explained that the excess money was never budgeted and remains
in the General Fund Reserve Account.
CM/Lowry said that one way to approach this would be to determine how much
money had been saved and restrict that amount in the reserve account or take
the extra savings out of the reserves and restrict it in a bond payment fund. She
urged the Council not to adopt a policy of restricting current revenues and shrink
the "future -building " in order to further expand the reserves.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 19 CC STUDY SESSION
C/Chang suggested that all or at least 50 percent of the $315,000 should be
used — set aside to create a bond retirement fund. At some point the interest rate
would go up and the excess should beset aside to take care of that eventuality.
Atthe same time, the City wanted to create funding resources and hefelt the City
could accomplish both.
CM/Lowry suggest the amount to budget could be shown as $250,000, staff
could transfer the actual amount and bring forward a resolution defining the
restricted fund and the manner in which the money would betransferred.
FD/Magnuson wanted to know if she should use the 4.5 interest rate or percent
(potential fixed rate).
CM/Lowry explained that if selected, the fixed rate would have been 5 percent
and if Council wanted to see that actual savings the 5 percent rate should be
applied.
C/O'Connor asked if the resolution would need to be approved by the Public
Financing Authority and the City Council and CM/Lowry responded, the City
Council only.
CM/Lowry stated that if Council wanted to approve $5 0,000 for the MTA study in
partnership with the City of Industry it could befunded out of Proposition Afunds.
PWD/Liu proposed that $50,000 for the MTA study and $200,000 for signs could
be funded from the sale of Prop A funds.
C/O'Connor suggested eliminating the No. 5's.
DCM/Doyle said that one of the No. 5's could potentially be done in-house.
CM/Lowry confirmed that CSD/Rose's staff could complete the Parks Master
Plan update.
C/Huff asked if Council could agree to use the $900,000 revenue offset for
disposal of property toward the purchase of Lots 1 and 61. If not that, at least
include it in a capital acquisition fund.
DCM/DeStefano explained that were other issues staff wanted to discuss with
Council and that the fundamental issue was to move forward to dispose of
p ro p erty.
CM/Lowry said staff would take this item off of the Decision Packages and insert
it in the goals and when the sale was consummated Council could then decide
how the money would be used.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 20 CC STUDY SESSION
DCM/Doyle confirmed for C/O'Connor that the first three items on Page 1 of the
Decision Packages would fall under the Economic Development goal and would
be paid for out of the $10 million economic package.
C/Chang felt it would be advisable to use the term Economic Development
instead of Redevelopment .
Council concurred to eliminate Item #1 and move forward with items 2 and 3
under economic development.
DCM/DeStefano said staff hoped that the City of Industry would buy into the Tres
Hermanos project (Item No. 4). However, D.B. and Chino Hills needed to
proceed toward a plan for their respective futures with or without the City of
Industry.
CM/Lowry said that if the cities do a good job they would bring a plan that would
work for the City of Industry as the property owner as well as for Diamond Bar
and Chino Hills.
DCM/DeStefano explained that Diamond Barand Chino Hillswould begin looking
at a potential palette of uses. For D.B. it might be relocating the golf course and
for Chino Hills it might be relocating Boys Republic.
DCM/DeStefano responded to M/Zirbes that it would be prudent to move forward
at this time and that it would likely be a two-year planning process for
development five to ten years from now. In addition, this works hand -in glove with
other economic development pursuits set forth for this year.
C/O'Connor asked if Chino Hills was open to this proposal and DCM/DeStefano
responded not completely because they have no money budgeted for this
p roj ect.
CM/Lowry said Chino Hills did not have this item in their Budget documents and
that they were waiting for THCA representatives to make their recommendation
to Chino Hills City Council. D.B. staff had been too busy to bring the matter to
Council through THCA.
Council concurred to move forward with Item No. 4 - $175,000.
M/Zirbes felt the Trade Show Booth should have a priority of No. 1.
C/Huff felt itwas a necessity for a minimal amount.
CM/Lowry asked if the bottom line for Page 1 was less $75,000 for a total of
$331,000.
Page 2 — Lose the #5 item for a $310,000 savings
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 21 CC STUDY SESSION
C/O'Connor and FD/Magnuson reiterated the elimination of $815,000, $250,000,
$10,000, $50,000, $200,000 and $50,000 equaling a botto m line of $532,010 for
Page 2.
Page 3 - $725,000 total. Council agreed that whatever PUSD was currently
spending to maintain the field that would be replaced by the artificial turf should
be put back into the maintenance fund.
C/Chang felt $20 per hour for use was not onerous.
Council concurred to move forward with the first three items on Page 4.
CM/Lowry asked Council if they had sufficient information to adopt the budget as
amended. There was general Council concurrence.
PUBLIC COMMENTS:
Delilah Knox Rios, Diamond Bar Chamber of Commerce thanked Council for
approving the Chambers funding request and for showing confidence in the
organization.
There were no public comments offered on the Closed Session agenda items.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City
Council, M/Zirbes adjourned the Study Session to the Closed Session at 6:37
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
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 15, 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, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro
Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Bob
Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Linda Magnuson,
Finance Director; April Blakey, Public Information Manager; Kim Crews, Senior
Administrative Analyst; Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst, Ken DeForges,
Assigned Technician and Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
City Council Goals and Objectives
FY 2004-05 Budget Discussion
Public Comments on Study Session Agenda Items
M/Zirbes recessed the Study Session to Closed Session at 6:37 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Closed Session to order at6:37
p.m. in Room CC -8 of the SCAQMD/Go vernment Center, 21865 Copley Drive.
Conference with Real Property Negotiators: Government Code Section
54956.8
Property: 5.4 acre parcel located on Dia mond Bar Boulevard atthe Pomona
SR60 freeway to the City; Parcel 2 of Tract 10208 (Assessor's Parcel 8703-
002-029).
CITY NEGOTIATORS: Linda Lowry, City Manager; James
DeStefano, Deputy City Manager and
Michael Jenkins, City. Attomey.
NEGOTIATING PARTY: Canyon Wash, LLC
UNDER NEGOTIATION: Price and terms of Payment
Anticipated Litigation - Two cases under Government Code Section
54956.9(b).
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
Pending Litigation — Government Code Section 54956.9 (Chung v. City of
D.B. Case No. KC 041832 R)
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Zirbes called the regular City Council meeting to
order at 7:04 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.,
Diamond Bar, CA.
M/Zirbes reported that during the 3:00 p.m. Study Session, Council discussed itsgoals and
objectives for 2003/04 and 2004/05, continued the 2004/05 budget discussion and
adjourned to Closed Session during which the Council discussed real property negotiations
and two anticipated litigation cases and one pending litigation case. There was no
reportable action taken during the Closed Session.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Council Member Chang led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Monsignor James Loughnane, St. Denis Catholic Church
gave the Invocation.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor
Pro Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; Bob
Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Linda Magnuson,
Finance Director; April Blakey, Public Information Manager; Kim Crews, Senior
Administrative Analyst and Tommye Cribbins, Assistant City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Approved as presented.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 Council Members O'Connor and Chang presented Certificates to Industry
East Project Advisory Committee Members.
1.2 MPT/Herrera presented Recognition Certificates to individuals who
completed the City's First Community Emergency Response Team (CERT)
Program. Asst. Fire Chief Nieto introduced instructor Kevin Taylorwho spoke
about the CERT Program.
NEW BUSINESS RECOGNITION:
1.3 M/Zirbes presented Certificate Plaque to owner Sun Won, owner of Business
of the Month "It's A Grind."
1.4 Ryan Wei, Assistant Public Relations Manager, Project D.R.I.P. (Drought
Resistant Indigenous Plants) made a presentation regarding the possibility of
cities adopting a practice of requi ring new developments to use drought
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
resistant plants in order to save water.
CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: CM/Lowry announced
that today the City received an invitation from Governor Schwarzenegger to gather
signatures in remembrance of former President Ronald Reagan that would
eventually bebound in book form and presented to the family of Mr. Reagan for The
Ronald Reagan Library. Additionally, due to a scheduling conflict the Council would
need to calendar an adjourned meeting for June 29, 2004 in order to review the
proposed Lewis Development immediately following the Planning Commission's
review.
MPT/Herrera stated that theproposed project offered economic opportunities for the
City and she felt Council should move forward expeditiously to avoid the possibility
of losing much needed business opportunities to other jurisdictions. She supported a
special June 29 Council meeting.
DCM/DeStefano explained to C/Huff that on June 29 the Council would beasked to
consider a General Plan change for the hospital (Citrus Valley) property from
Commercial to Residential and to consider a Specific Plan and Zone Change that
would reclassify a good portion of the 70 acres to Residential for the eventual
construction of up to 200 town homes; Commercial for the construction of one big
box operator such as Home Depot or Target and related land uses, and an
additional sanctuary and parking spaces for expansion of the Calvary Chapel.
Further, Council would beasked to review and consider a Development Agreement,
setting forth terms, obligations and benefits to the developer and to the City and be
asked to take action on the Environmental Assessment for the proposal. Staff was
preparing documents for the Planning Commission, a duplicate of which would be
forwarded to the Council along with Commissioner Comments following their June
22nd meeting.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/O'Connor that the Council would consider traffic
impacts to a certain degree using the Environmental Assessment and that the City
had not dealt with a project of this magnitude since incorporation. Public Notice
would be 10 days in advance of the June 29 meeting.
C/O'Connor was uncomfortable about rushing through the process without first
having an opportunity to digest the material.
C/Chang believed the project was good for the developer and good for the City, that
timing was important and that the process should move forward. Hefavored a June
29 meeting.
Council concurred to adjourn tonight's meeting to June 29, 2004 at7:30 p.m.
PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Cougars on a Mission" a group of concerned
students from Chaparral Middle School spoke about their mission to promote a letter
writing campaign in support of a new D.B. Library.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
Marsha Hawkins, Friends ofthe Diamond BarLibrary, thanked the students fortheir
efforts and the Diamond Bar High School Key Club for presenting the Friends ofthe
Library with a $5,000 check toward the new library -building fund.
Lydia Plunk asked if an EIR was available for the proposed Lewis project.
RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS:
DCM/DeStefano again stated that the only document that was prepared and
transmitted to the Planning Commission was the Environmental Assessment, a copy
of which was available at City Hall and the Diamond Bar Library as of Thursday,
June 17.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION MEETING — June 17, 2004 — 7:00 p.m.,
Room CC -8, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — June 22, 2004 — 7:00 p.m.,
AQMD/Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.3 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING — June 24, 2004 —
7:00 p.m., Hearing Board Room, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley
Dr.
5.4 CONCERT IN THE PARK — Jumpin' Joz Band - June 30, 2004- 6:30 — 8:00
p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Drive.
5.5 4T"OF JULY BLAST CONCERT AND FIREWORKS SHOW— (Gregg Young
and the 2nd Street Band & "Hot August Night" Tribute to Neil Diamond) -
July 4, 2004 — 6:00 -9:30 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden
Springs Drive.
5.6 4th of JULY HOLIDAY —Monday, July 5,2004 —City Offices will beclosed in
observance of the July 4th Holiday. Offices will re -open, Tuesday, July 6,
2004.
5.7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — July 6, 2004 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government
Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Chang moved, C/O'Connor seconded to
approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 6.9. Motion carried bythe
following Roll Call vote:
JUNE 15. 2004 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera
M/Zirb es
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6.1 City Council Minutes:
6.1.1 Approved Study Session Minutes of June 1, 2004 -as submitted.
6.1.2 Approved Regular Meeting Minutes of June 1, 2004 - as submitted.
6.2 Planning Commission Minutes - May 25, 2004 - Received and filed.
6.3 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting of April 29,
2004 - Received and filed:
6.4 APPROVED WARRANT REGISTERS dated June 3, 2004 and June 10,
2004 for a total amount of $418,399.47.
6.5 REJECTED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES -filed by Paul and Barbara Royalty on
April 16, 2004.
6.6 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-26: APPROVING THE INSTALLATION
OF STOP SIGNS ON PROSPECTORS ROAD AT NORTH ROCK RIVER
DRIVE.
6.7 AUTHORIZED INCREASE AMOUNT WITH NAKOMA GROUP BY $5,000
FOR A TOTAL CONTRACT AUTHORIZATION FOR FY 2003-2004 OF
$60,000 AND APPROVED CONTRACT EXTENSION FOR FISCAL YEAR
2004-2005 IN THE AMOUNT OF $112,500.
6.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-27: CONFIRMING THE
APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL REPRESENTATIVES TO THE BOARD OF
THE SAN GABRIEL VALLEY COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS.
6.10 APPROVED COST-SHARING AGREEMENT BETWEEN WALNUT VALLEY
WATER DISTRICT (WVWD) AND THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR
SLOPE EROSION REPAIRS WITHIN CITY -OWNED PROPERTY
SITUATED BETWEENWVWD'S EASTGATE RESERVOIRS SITE AND THE
RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT 828 PANTERA DRIVE AND AUTHORIZED
THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT.
6.11 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH BONTERRA CONSUL TING INAN AMOUNT NOT -TO -
EXCEED $15,425 FOR PREPARATION OF AN EIR REPORT FOR
PROPOSED VESTING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53670 (HORIZON
PACIFIC/JERRY YEH)
JUNE 15. 2004 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
6.12 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-28: ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF
INVESTMENT POLICY.
6.13 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO A PROFESSIONAL AGREEMENT
WITH BONTERRA CONSULTING IN AN AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED
$77,610 FOR PREPARATION OF AN EIR FOR PROPOSED VESTING
TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 53430 (STANLEY CHUNG).
6.14 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-29: SETTING FORTH PERSONNEL
RULES AND REGULATIONS FOR CITY EMPLOYEES AND RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO. 2003-45 IN ITS ENTIRETY.
6.15 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-30: OPPOSING CALIFORNIA STATE
ASSEMBLY BILL 2406 (BERMUDEZ): FIRE PROTECTION WHICH WOULD
MANDATE CONFORMITY TO SPECIFIC RESPONSE TIMES, STAFFING
OBJECTIVES, AND REPORTING REQUIREMENT FOR FIRE
DEPARTMENTS.
6.16 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-31: SUPPORTING CALIFORNIA
STATE ASSEMBLY BILL 1802 (BOGH): ILLEGAL DUMPING: PENALTIES
WHICH WOULD INCREASE THE MONETARY FINES FOR ILLEGAL
DUMPING OF SOLID WASTE.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.9 AMENDMENT TOA CONSULTING SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GARY
L. NEELY FOR GOVERNMENTAL AFFAIRS CONSULTING SERVICES.
MPT/Herrera requested that the contract with Mr. Neely be amended to a
two-year period instead of a one-year period with a begi nning date ofJuly 1,
2004 and continuing through June 30, 2006.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Huff, MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, O'Connor
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 (a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-32: APPROVING AND ADOPTING
A BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 2004 AND
ENDING JUNE 30, 2005, INCLUDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS,
SPECIAL FUNDS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS FOR ACCOUNTS, DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS, OBJECTS AND
PURPOSES THEREIN SET FORTH.
CM/Lowry reported that in accordance with Council's reviews ofgoals for FY
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
2004/2005 and approval of decisions packages and budget items this item
sets forth a total General Fund appropriation of $15,217,750. In addition,
$581,475 would be appropriated from the General Fund Reserve to include
Economic Development decision packages and establish a Bond Reserve
Fund. Council approved an additional appropriation of $345,000 of
Proposition Afunds to pay for new street signs and a transportation study to
beshared with the City of Industry regarding the futu reSR57/60 interchange
construction. Council also approved an additional $1,575,100 in a
combination of Proposition 12 and 40 funds for Sycamore Canyon Park
improvements and implementation ofthe firstphase recommendations from
the Sports Complex Task Force report.
There were no public comments offered.
MPT/Herrera moved, C/Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2004-32.
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) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-33: SETTING THE PROPOSITION
4 (GANN) APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2004-2005 FOR
THE CITY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 9 O
TITLE 1 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
CM/Lowry reported that in 1979 voters passed the Gann limit. Accordingly,
the City sets forth its spending cap each year. Each year the cap is increased
to the greatest extent possible. With a cap in excess of $24 million and fund
subject to the cap being less than $10 million, there is room to spare.
There were no public comments offered.
MPT/Herrera moved, C/O'Connor seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2004-
33. 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) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-34: ESTABLISHING SALARY
RANGES FOR ALL CLASSES OF EMPLOYMENT EFFECTIVE THE PAY
PERIOD COMMENCING JULY 1, 2004 AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 2003-43 IN ITS ENTIRETY.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
CM/Lowry explained that each year when Council approves the budget, staff
brings forward an accompanying resolution setting forth salary ranges forthe
City employees. The proposed schedule replaces last year's schedule and
includes the two -percent Cost of Living increase included in the budget
document and enters into the salary schedule the Planning Deputy position
that was approved by Council in the decision packages.
There were no public comments offered.
C/O'Connor moved, C/Chang seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2004-34.
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
8.2 CONSIDERATION OF AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE FOR THE CITY OF
INDUSTRY BUSINESS CENTER PROJECT.
DCM/DeStefano stated that this matter is coming to Council atthe request of
C/O'Connor and involves the pending almost 600 -acre City of Industry
project that encompasses Industrial, Office and Retail. The project has issues
that could affect D.B. residents and businesses and Council is requested to
determine whether an advisory committee should be created to provide
comments to the City Council.
MPT/Herrera felt that advisory committees were important to the
governmental process and certainly the Industry East Advisory Committee
played an important role in obtaining mitigation. However, she supported
such a committee only when the City received more definitive plans from the
City of Industry.
MPT/Herrera moved that an Industry Project Advisory Committee be created
and activated when the City of D.B. received a more specific plan from the
City of Industry.
C/Huff seconded the motion for purposes of discussion. C/Huff
recommended that Council form a subcommittee to watch the City of Industry
development.
MPT/Herrera said her motion was intended to create a committee but not fill
the positions until the information was available.
C/Huff concurred and suggested two Council Members beappointed to serve
as a subcommittee later to interface with the citizen's committee.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
MPT/Herrera accepted C/Huffs amendment
C/O'Connor felt that since the City had received an EIR and must comment
on the document by July 16 there was, in fact, information for the committee
to review.
DCM/DeStefano explained that staff would beresponding to the EIR and the
citizens could respond on their own if they chose to do so.
C/Chang felt that due to the complexity of the project the City should take
time to be prepared about its response. He asked ifthe July 16 date could be
postponed?
CA/Jenkins responded that the City could make the request but the City of
Industry was under no obligation to provide an extension.
DCM/DeStefano responded to MPT/Herrera that the City would respond to
the EIR.
There were no public comments offered.
C/O'Connor encouraged residents to review the EIR prior to the response
deadline.
C/Huff cautioned citizens that the City would offer a more technical response
to the EIR and that D.B. would be working with the City of Industry in a
proactive manner to benefit its residents.
MPT/Herrera restated her motion with the inclusion of a Council sub-
committee being appointed. 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
9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBERS COMMENTS:
C/Chang spoke about the support for the "Paint the Town" project and thanked the
many volunteers who participated. The Library Task Force continues to pursue
possibilities for the current facility and a new facility if the City were successful in
obtaining the grant funds. He thanked the Task Force members for their
participation and input. Hestatedthat the nation lost great leader with the passing
offormer President Ronald Reagan. Mr. Reagan ended the cold war without firing a
shot and without losing one soldier and, he avoided the possibility of a nuclear
disaster. Because of his actions the world is a more peaceful place today. Mr.
Reagan is a treasure to a nation and world.
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
C/Huff spoke about his participation as a member of the Boys' State sponsored by
the American Legion and his opportunity to travel to Sacramento to listen to then
Governor Reagan spread his optimism and joyabout being a Californian. Heshook
the hand of Governor Reagan and got his autograph. Governor and then President
Reagan led this nation in an unparalleled fashion and will be sorely missed.
C/O'Connor stated that she had been honored to meet Ronald Reagan in 1964.
She echoed the words of her colleagues and was very sorry that Mr. Reagan and
his family were faced with such overwhel ming challenges during the last 10 years of
his life. This afternoon she returned from a two-day California Joint Powers
Insurance Authority Conference, one of the most informative meetings she had
attended in some time. She especially enjoyed interacting with Council Members
from cities through southern California and listening to CA/Jenkins address the
group in his capacity as opening speaker on Monday morning.
MPT/Herrera reassured residents that D.B. was fiscally sound as compared with
some surrounding cities. Representatives from other cities at the League of
California Cities State Board told her they were cons idering imposing utility taxes to
help balance their budgets. She was proud of the Council and staff for practicing due
diligence and accumulating reserves over time. This City had made wise decisions
and done remarkable things and she was grateful to live in D.B. and no tin a city that
was in serious financial jeopardy.
M/Zirbes thanked staff for guiding the Council through the budget this year and
thanked Council Members for their cooperati on and positive attitude during the study
sessions. D.B. was in excellent financial shape and was able to continue providing
the quality of life in the City the residents had grown to expect. There are exciting
projects on the horizon, some ofwhich we reapproved in the bud get documents this
evening. Hewas very optimistic that this would bean excellent year for the City and
that next year would look even better. Lastmeeting hespoke to the residents about
the need for revenue in order to continue to fund the types of services and programs
the residents had come to expect and with that in mind, he hoped residents would
participate in the June 29 meeting to di scuss a major project that had been pending
for about a year. This project represent ed a potential for 200 new housing units and
a major retail center with related traffic impacts. He asked residents to join Council
on June 29 and stay informed. Staff had kept Council apprised of this matter for
more than a year and the Council would not make a decision unless itwas in the
best interest of the community. He, too, paid homage to former President Reagan
saying that though hehad been out of site forthe past 10 years, his achievements
were not out of mind.
10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Zirbes adjourned
the meeting at 8:42 p.m. to June 29, 2004 at 7:30 p.m. and in memory of Ronald
Reagan, former Governor of the State of California and the 40th President of the
United States ofAmerica.
LINDA C. LOWRY, CITY CLERK
JUNE 15, 2004 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
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 8, 2004
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Nolan called the meeting to order at 7:07 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 McManus 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 Smith, Development Services
Assistant, Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer, Kimberly Molina,
Assistant Engineer 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 May 25, 2004.
VC/Tanaka moved, C/McManus seconded, to approve the minutes of the
Regular Meeting of May 25, 2004, as presented. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Tanaka, McManus, Low, Tye,
Cha it/Nola n
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
5. OLD BUSINESS: None
JUNE 8, 2004 Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
JUNE 8, 2004 Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
6. NEW BUSINESS:
6.1 Review of Fiscal year 2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for
Conformity with the General Plan
DCM/DeStefano presented staffs report. Staff recommends Planning
Commission approval of resolution finding that the FY 2004-2005 Capital
Improvement Program is in conformance with the City's General Plan.
DCM/DeStefano responded to Chair/ Nolan that the $2.45 million
"miscellaneous funding sources" item was directly related to the CIP wish list,
projects for which funding sources had not yet been identified.
C/McManus moved, VC/Tanaka seconded to approve a resolution finding
that the FY2004-2005 Capital Improvement Program is in conformance with
the City's General Plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, VC/Tanaka, Low, Tye
Chair/Nolan
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
7. PUBLIC HEARING(S):
7.1 Zone Change No. 2002-02, Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-02,
Development Review No. 2003-07 and Tree Permit No. 2004-05 (pursuant
to Code Sections 22.700, 22.58 and 22.48) was a request to construct a two-
story commercial building of approximately 52,000 square feet with an
underground parking garage, parking lot and landscaping to be utilized for
general commercial and general office uses, thereby creating a shopping
center. The Zone Change was related to changing the current zoning from
A-1-15000 to C-2, which is consistent with the General Plan land use
designation of general commercial for the project site. The Conditional Use
Permit is required for a shopping center within the C-2 zone in order to
review potential impacts and ensure that the proposed project will protect the
public health, safety and welfare. The Development Review was related to
reviewing location, design, site plan configuration and overall effects of the
proposed project on surrounding properties and the City in general. Tree
Permit was for the removal and replacement of one oak tree and two
California pepper trees.
JUNE 8, 2004 Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
PROJECT ADDRESS: 1035'/2 Banning Way
(APN# 8763-007-001)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
PROPERTY OWNER: Diamond Bar Project Company
11618 South Street
Artesia, CA 90701
APPLICANT: Myung Chung
CMC Architects
3380 Flair Drive, Suite 222
EI Monte, CA 91731
AssocP/Lungu presented staffs report. Staff recommended that the Planning
Commission recommend City Council approval ofZone Change No. 2002-02,
Conditional Use Permit No. 2003-02, Development Review No. 2003-07 and
Tree Permit No. 2004-05, Negative Declaration No. 2003-06, Findings of
Fact, and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
DCM/DeStefano responded to VC/Tanaka that staff would like for Banning
Way to remain open because it was necessary for access to the nursery
property behind the proposed office building. Should Banning Way beclosed,
the access would be determined by Caltrans or, they could "take" the
property. He felt Banning Way would remain open.
C/McManus was under the impression that the nursery was located on
Caltrans property to which DCM/DeSte fano responded that staff understood
the nursery was on leased property from Caltrans. SE/Alamolhoda stated
that the second alternative would be to have an on-ramp for westbound and
off -ramp eastbound SR 60. If Caltrans built an off -ramp there would be no
nursery and any remaining parcels would be auctioned for sale.
C/Tye felt there should be ingress/ egress from Lemon Avenue as well as
Golden Springs Drive. DCM/DeStefano responded thatthe ingress/egress on
Lemon Avenue was problematic because of the topography. There could be
access but it would significantly impair the proposed project site due to the
grade makeup through a necessarily long -distanced access. Could this
property work appropriately with one access point on Golden Springs Drive?
Yes. For example, old city hall wa s about 60,000 square feet and had one
driveway access for several hundred parking spaces. The building next door
to old city hall was about 80,000 square feet and another example was the
JUNE 8, 2004 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
so-called Trenton Office Building built on Bridge Gate a couple ofyears ago
C/Low asked the current zoning of the neighboring properties. AssocP/Lungu
responded that the strip mall property across Lemon Avenue was zoned C-2,
the properties on the oppositesideofBanning Way including LA Fitness and
Diamond Star Plaza were zoned C-3 and the Residential properties across
the street were zoned R-1.
C/McManus asked if staff considered requiring gates to close off the
underground parking area atnight. AssocP/Lungu responded there were no
plans for such a gate at this time.
VC/Tanaka asked if a monument sign was proposed for the property.
AssocP/Lungu responded not atthis time. However, there was a condition in
the resolution requiring the applicant to provide the City with a
comprehensive sign program to be reviewed by the Planning Commission
prior to installation ofany signs. VC/Tanaka said hewas concerned that the
only visibility ofthe nursery would befrom the freeway.
Myung Chung, applicant and project architect appreciated staffs
presentation. He said the project met all zoning codes and exceeded the
parking requirement. He pointed out that there was a pending address
change for the building from Banning Way to Golden Springs Drive. He said
that although the proposed use was contemplated for the first story as
general commercial and restaurant and the second story for general offices,
the owner did not wish to be locked in to those uses. Hewas also concerned
about the fair share amount for improvements. To C/McManus's concern, he
would have no problem installing a gate if the Commission so desired. Also,
hewould besubmitting a comprehensive sign program plan in the future. He
asked for Commission approval on the project and indicated he agreed with
all other conditions proposed by staff. Mr. Chung responded to VC/Tanaka
that he did not foresee businesses requiring a C-3 zoning and that the C-2
zone was acceptable.
Dr. Antonio Coco, President of Coco Traffic Planners, Inc., 10835 Santa
Monica Boulevard, Suite 206, Los Angeles CA 90025, said his company
prepared two traffic studies for this project. He spoke with two Caltrans
officials this morning and they told him they had reviewed the traffic study
and although they had not yet responded they would accept the study as
submitted. His study was prepared using the DKS Associates adopted
guidelines. However, certain issues were discussed with staff and with the
JUNE 8, 2004 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
City's traffic engineer Warren Siecke who was originally assigned to this
project. He said he had a fundamental problem with the how the study had
progressed because Mr. Siecke felt that it would be reasonable to use a
three percent per year traffic growth to project traffic counts at build -out.
However, the guidelines also provide that traffic should beanalyzed 10 years
beyond build -out. Hesaid itwas his feeling that a three percent growth was
reasonable forthe near future but not inthelong term. Potentially, itwould be
disastrous ifthe project experienced a 30 percent increase in traffic over the
next 10 years and in his opinion, it would be unfair to base the fair -share
amount on that projected amount of growth. He felt this matter should be
discussed and addressed by the Commission because the project could be
unfairly burdened and prohibitive as a result.
C/Low asked what uses the applicant anticipated for the project. Mr. Chung
responded whatever the C-2 zone allowed and wanted flexibility within that
limitation. He said that the owner wanted the option of retail and restaurant
on the ground floor and may want retail on the second floor also.
Eugene Kim, 3751 Hermosa Place, Fullerton, CA 92835, said that when he
purchased the land he planned to build a shopping center to cater to the
Chinese and/or Korean community. In fact, a Korean Bank had indicated
interest in becoming a tenant and heenv isioned retail shops that would cater
to the bank and its traffic. Therefore, the basic design would consist ofa retail
strip shopping center for the firstfloor and the upstairs would possibly contain
a law office, dental office, real estate office, etc.
C/Low asked the owner if it was possible for him to increase the sidewalk
width from sixto 12 feet? Mr. Kim said itwould reduce the sizeof the building
and jeopardize the project. C/Low felt that there were many residences in the
area and it would enhance the retail aspect of the center. Mr. Kim felt that a
six-foot wide sidewalk would be sufFicient for the size of the center.
Mr. Chung responded to Chair/Nolan that he was not aware of the finished
evaluation ofthe building but that construction was contempl ated to be in the
area of $5 million. Chair/Nolan expressed that he was asking to get an idea
of the fair -share percentage of building value, about one percent of the
construction cost and less than one percent of the finished value.
C/McManus asked if any of the 1300 square foot office areas could be
divided to which Mr. Chung responded yes.
JUNE 8, 2004 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
Chair/Nolan opened the public hearing
There being no one present who wished to speak on this matter, Chair/Nolan
closed the public hearing.
C/McManus asked staff for more information about the fair -share portion.
DCM/DeStefano responded that staff is paying close attention to regional
traffic impacts that affect Diamond Bar and in particular, the City of Industry's
projects and traffic impacts that resuItfrom City approved projects. The City
hired traffic engineers Steve Sasaki and Warren Siecke on this project. Lead
engineer Sasaki carefully looked at the impacts this project would likely
create. Before the Commission is staffs recommendation that came from the
Public Works Director and the Planning staff asto what was considered to be
the appropriate fair -share contribution, a result ofthis project's impacts to the
immediate area. He respectfully proposed that $67,000 would not make or
break a $5 million construction budget and staff believes that itis appropriate
to the impacts the project would generate. If Banning Way were closed it
could be retained as public property or vacated back to the property owners
on either side of Banning Way with retention of utilities easements.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/Tye that a traffic signal at Banning Way and
Golden Springs Drive was an issue that was yet undetermined. Worst case
would beto receive the traffic mitigation fee from the developer and should a
traffic signal not benecessary the Citywould refund the appropriate amount
of the fee. SE/Alamolhoda stated that as previously reported by
AssocP/Lungu within 60 days of approval by the Planning Commission
another traffic study would be done to consider closure of Banning Way. If
the study determined the signal were not needed the proper fair -share
portion would be refunded to the applicant.
C/Low was concerned about the ingress/egress were Banning Way to be
closed and asked ifstaff would consider an additional driveway off ofLemon
Avenue in spite of the topography.
Chair/Nolan said he understood that the project would move forward under
the zoning ofC-2 or C-3 and that the adjacent properties were C-3 with the
exception of the R-1 properties across the street. He would also be
concerned about the proposed uses.
C/McManus moved, C/Tye seconded to recommend City Council approval of
Zone Change No. 2002-02 to C-2. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
JUNE 8, 2004 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: McManus, Tye, Low, VC/Tanaka,
Chair/Nolan
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
C/Tye moved, VC/Tanaka seconded to approve Conditional Use Permit
No. 2003-02, Development Review No. 2003-07 and Tree Permit No. 2004-
05, Negative Declaration No. 2003-06, Findings of Fact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the resolution with the revision to Condition 5 to wit
that "The applicant, within 60 days of approval, shall submit a revised traffic
study" and addition of the following senten ceto the end of Condition (w) on
Page 10 of the resolution to wit "In addition, the traffic study shall be
prepared in accordance with the May 3, 2004 Caltrans letter and submitted to
Caltrans for review and approval." Motion carried bythe following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tye, VC/Tanaka, McManus, Chair/Nolan
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: Low
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
C/Low did not elaborate on her reason for voting "NO."
8. PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS/INFORMATIONA LITEMS:
Chair/Nolan thanked C/Tye and VC/Tanaka for their assistance with the "Paint the
Town" project.
C/Tye thanked staff for the information referral manual.
9. STAFF COMMENTS/INFORMA TIONAL ITEMS:
DCM/DeStefano reported that the retail portion and residentia I portion of the Lewis
project was moving forward. Staff and legal counsel for Lewis and the City met to
discuss the development agreement, a contract between the City and private
developer setting forth certain business terms.Tomorrow isthe decision date asto
whether staff would present this project to the Planning Commission on June 22.
Assuming the June 22 presentat ion, the Commissioners would receive a multi -page
proposal forthe project about two weeks in advance ofthe Commission discussion.
The first items of consideration were policy items — a General Plan change, zone
JUNE 8, 2004 Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
change, a specific plan and development agreement. Atsome point soon thereafter
the Commission would begin looking atthe details ofthe project components —the
residential portion, the church sanctuary portion, the retail development portion
including a subdivision map for the condominium portion on the Citrus Valley
p ro p erty.
DCM/DeStefano stated that staff was working through the budget details with
Council with adoption slated for June 15 followi ng another study session. One ofthe
decision packages on the Planning side was an update to the General Plan to deal
with areas south and west of the incorporated City being considered for annexation
into the City and to deal with housekeeping measures in the Land Use Element and
Noise Element and related documents. Ifapprov ed, this would bea major project for
next year and the Commission would not likely see the matter before May/June
2005. Another significant decision package was a proposal to hire a manager for the
Planning Division, the only division in City government that did not have an
operating manager. A major consideration for the City if decision packages were
approved by the Council woul d be to proceed to conduct detailed studies now to
deal with the pending loss of the Honda Dealersh ip, look at incentives for inducing
investment in the Kmart center and begin looking at uses of other potential
development sites. As the City moved forward with economic development
DCM/DeStefano said he would devote additional time to that effort should the
Planning Manager position beapproved along with approval of resources to engage
experts in financial markets and land use issues.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/McManus that the Honda Dealership would be
gone from the City about December 2005 with remaining revenues received bythe
City about June 2006. Since itwas a foregone conclusion that the dealership would
have to relocate, Council was anxious to move forward to conduct studies about
potential uses of the property.
DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/Tye that whether or not the reader board sign goes
with the dealership was yet to be determined by staff.
10. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in the agenda.
JUNE 8, 2004 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chair/Nolan adjourned the meeting at8:50 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attest:
Chairman Dan Nolan
Agenda No. 6.3.1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE SPECIAL JOINT MEETING OF THE
PLANNING COMMISSION, TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
AND
PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION
APRIL 7, 2004
CALL TO ORDER: Planning Commission Chairman Dan Nolan, Traffic
and Transportation Commission Chairman Dave Grundy and Parks and
Recreation Commission Chairman Liana Pincher called the Special Joint meeting
to order at 6:20 p.m. in the Diamond Bar Center Grand View Ballroom,
1600 South Grand Avenue, Diamond Bar, CA.
COMMISSION ROLL CALL:
PLANNING COMMISSION: Dan Nolan, Chairman; Jack Tanaka, Vice
Chairman; and Commissioners Ruth Low and Joe McManus.
Commissioner Steve Tye was excused.
TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION: Liana Pincher, Chairman; Tony Tomg,
Vice Chairman, and Commissioners Jack Shah and Arun Virginkar.
Commissioner Roland Morris was excused.
PARKS AND RECREATION: Dave Grundy, Chairman; Nancy Lyons, Vice
Chairman; and Commissioners Ling -Ling Chang, Benny Liang and Marty Torres.
Also present were: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney;
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob
Rose, Community Services Director; Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer; Sharon
Gomez, Senior Management Analyst; Linda Smith, Development Services
Assistant; Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer; Marisa Somenzi, Administrative
Assistant and Stella Marquez, Administrative Assistant.
III. DISCUSSION TOPICS:
CM/Lowry announced that Mayor Zirbes asked her to thank the Commissioners
for attending tonight's meeting recognizing that most Commissioners attend
many meetings on a regular basis and that their time is valuable. Mayor Zirbes
and the Council Members are very apprecia tive of the Commissioners dedication
to their assignments. She asked the Commissioners to introduce themselves and
provide a brief synopsis of their term of service on their current commissions as
well as service on other commissions in Diamond Bar and other cities.
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 2 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
CA/Jenkins introduced himself and outlined the purpose, goal and structure of
the Special Joint Meeting.
Purpose of each Commission:
CA/Jenkins stated that all Commissioners are appointed. Commissioners
play a unique role in City government for a number of reasons. To a
significant degree, the role of Commi ssioners is unique because it has two
aspects that are sometimes in conflict. For example, the City Council
appoints Commissioners to provide expertise and to exercise good
judgment in particular areas in which the City is engaged in regulation and
providing services. There is an expectation that Commissioners will
behave in a manner consistent with the overall goals and direction of the
City Council. Sometimes Commissioners may not agree with the overall
goals in a particular area creating an interesting tension in how
Commissioners perform their duties. Commissioners are present to
exercise independent judgment and at the same time understand that the
Council, as the elected body, ultimately sets the goals and determines the
direction of the Commissions. Therefore, it would not be appropriate for
the Commission to go in a direction that is in conflict with the Council. At
the same time, within the general framework of direction, there is room to
exercise discretion and judgment. It is important for Commissioners to
exercise independence as long as they understand it is in the general
framework of the overall goals of the City as exemplified in the City's
General Plan and other organiza tional documents of the City. It is of value
and importance for City Council to have appointees — citizens, helping
them to govern, to outreach to the community, to be the voice of the
community to provide the City Council with feedback and input about what
the community is thinking and what it wants. At the same time,
Commissioners are City officials, and therefore, have a duty to carry out
the laws and to do what is in the best interest of the City in its entirety.
Sometimes those roles present a conflict. Commissions may be
approached by a large group of residents from a certain neighborhood that
wants something in particular. As a resident and as a neighbor,
Commissioners may feel it is their job to agree with the group. However,
the Commissioners may recognize what the residents are seeking is not
appropriate and it may also be inconsistent with the City's goals, zoning
ordinances, General Plan and laws that specifically prevent such a
request. And, the City may not have sufficient funds in the budget to
comply with the request. In this instance, Commissions are not supposed
to be the liaison and pass along the request, Commissioners should say
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 3 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
that they have a duty as a City official to do the right and correct thing and
to do what is in the best interest of the City.
CA/Jenkins understood that although it was part of their jobs, it was
difficult for Commissioners to go against a group of angry and frustrated
neighbors and take on the job ofeducat ing them that their request was not
the right thing for the City. The Commissioner's job was not just about the
prestige, it was also about making difficult decisions, taking the heat and
sometimes making neighbors angry. In short, it was a fine balance
between the two and if Commissioners had difficulty reconciling conflicting
issues they should talk with staff. He explained that it was especially
important for public officials to "take care" when putting forth utterances
during public meetings.
CA/Jenkins explained that the City Council keeps in touch with
Commissions in a number of ways such as one-on-one communication as
well as joint study sessions. An indirect method of communicating with the
Council is through a Commission action. If the action or recommendation
is appealed to the Council, Council accepts or rejects the action or
recommendation. If the Commission feels that the Council constantly
rejects or reverses its decisions, it would be advisable to speak directly
with the Council, have a joint study session or speak with the appropriate
staff person about the matter. There are a variety of reasons the Council
may take actions different from those recommended by Commissions.
Commissioners should do the best job possible in making their
recommendations and let Council take itfrom that point and trynot to take
the Council's decision as a personal affront.
CA/Jenkins responded to C/McManus that Commissions are like the lower
court and the City Council is like the Supreme Court. It is not the
Commissions job to argue its position in front of the City Council. Once
the Commission makes its decision and forwards its recommendation to
City Council its job is finished. When Council rejects a Commissions
unanimous decision it would behoov e the Commission to know the
reason. It is important to understand the Council's decision to determine
whether the Commission erred in its deliberations. In such cases itwould
be appropriate to discuss the matter with your Council Member or with
staff who was present during Council's deliberations. If the issue was
extreme or serious issues were raised it would be advisable to ask for a
joint study session.
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 4 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
CA/Jenkins said he works with a large number of staff members
throughout several cities and has gained a good appreciation for how they
work and for their quality of work. Diamond Bar has great staff that does a
good job and has a lot of knowledge. Staff is a resource to Commissions
and Commissioners. Staff members in some communities try to influence
their commissions. Staff members know the issues and also know that in
the end, they do not make the final decisions and respect that fact that
Commissions and ultimately Councils make the final decisions.
Sometimes staff does not agree with Commission decisions.
CM/Lowry explained that no matter the recommendation, the majority
Council rules and drives policy.
CA/Jenkins said that if staff brings a recommendation for approval and the
Commission denies the project it may go to the Council on appeal. In that
instance, staff has an obligation to represent the Commission's decision
and at the same time make a different recommendation. In fact, staff has
a right to make the same recommendat ion to Council that the Commission
initially rejected. This often presents a difficult dynamic. However, staff
and Commissions have different jobs and play different roles. The best
that all parties can do is to understand their boundaries and individual
roles and do the best job possible under those conditions.
CA/Jenkins responded to C/McManus that when Commissions take
actions contrary to staffs recommendatio n and itgoes to the Council, staff
has two responsibilities - one to explain the Commission's decision and
the other to continue to make its recommendation even if it is different or
contrary to the Commission's action. At the same time, staff has an
obligation to present the Commission's decision fairly.
CA/Jenkins summarized that each Commission had very subject -matter
jurisdiction and Commissioners should avoid the temptation to deviate
from that subject -matter jurisdiction.
CSD/Rose asked CA/Jenkins to explain where "policy" could be found.
CA/Jenkins responded that the Municipal Code sets forth all of the laws of
the City, the "law of the land" for the City. The General Plan sets forth the
City's long-term planning and land use goals and policies. From time to
time, Resolutions that set forth policies are adopted by the City Council.
Council approved programs are budgeted on the basis of specific
direction. The City also has administrative type regulations and policies
APRIL 7, 2004
PAGE 5 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
such as the "speed hump" policy adopted by the City Council. There is no
book of all of those administrative regulations.
DCM/DeStefano explained that administrative type policies and
regulations could also befound in the budget and the Council's Goals and
Objectives. The Council's Goals and Objectives is a dynamic policy that is
subject to change from year to year. However, this document is a basic
guide to the City Manager and her staff as to what the Council expects to
have accomplished during a 12 -month period. The budget outlines
anticipated expenditures for implementation of those policies such as
ongoing park maintenance and programs for new development.
CSD/Rose asked CA/Jenkins how far Commissions could stray from
written policy in making reasonable recommendations to the Council.
CA/Jenkins said his views sometimes conflicted with staffs views. In his
view, if the Commission was straying from the Council's policy staff could
articulate the Council's position. If the Commission understood and
acknowledged Council's position, and still wanted to talk about doing
something contrary to written policy, how far could they stray? Staffs job
was to communicate a certain expertise and the Commission could accept
or reject staffs advice. As an anal ogy, in his profession laws get changed
because lower courts deviate from what they believe to be the law and
because Supreme Courts change over time laws get changed. If the
Commission really wants to recommend something that is different from
the City's establish policy and staff has articulated what the policy is and
the reasons for it and they recommend to the contrary, he views it as
something that is within the boundaries of the Commission as long as the
body understands what happens beyond their point of recommendatio n.
CM/Lowry used as an example, that CSD/Rose would do everything within
his power to capture as much of the budget as possible for his projects.
Likewise, other staff members and Commissioners would push for their
projects to be funded. Ultimately, all projects fall under the umbrella of the
City Council that sets the budget for all projects and by necessity, input
from all three Commissions are considered for the overall and ultimate
benefit ofthe entire City.
CA/Jenkins told C/McManus that if anyone wished to propose an idea for
a project that the possibility could be shared with staff who could then
explore the possibility with the City Council and report back to the
Commission or Comm issioner(s).
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 6 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
C/Low asked about Commissioners appearing before the Council to
express their opinions as residents of Diamond Bar and not as
Commissioners. CA/Jenkins responded to C/Lowe that in his opinion
when individuals are appointed to Co mmissions there are advantages and
disadvantages. He felt that a disadvantage was the ability to remove
oneself from an issue at a moment's notice and in point of fact, whether
anyone would believe that an individual could remove herself from her
responsibilities as a Commissioner and speak only as a concerned citizen.
Although he routinely sees Commissioners appear before Councils
speaking as residents, he feels that the majority position would best be
expressed on the record in the minutes of the meeting. Sometimes a
Commission feels strongly about being represented and appoints a
representative to voice its views to the Council, a more acceptable
practice in his opinion.
C/Lyons asked if she as a Parks and Recreation Commissioner could
express her opinion as a private citizen about a Planning Commission
project. CA/Jenkins responded that it would be appropriate because in
that case she would not be speaking on something outside the purview of
her Commission.
Chair/Nolan felt it was important for an individual Commissioner to
articulate on the record the reason for his disagreement with a decision so
that Council could read the minutes and understand the reason for the
Commissioner's opposition. CA/Jenkin s said he completely agreed with
Chair/Nolan's observation.
Chair/Grundy asked at what point a Commissioner should assume too
much investment when a resident came before his Commission to express
views about an organization on which the Commissioner serves.
CA/Jenkins said hewould address the issue during the Conflict of Interest
presentation.
The Brown Act
CA/Jenkins spoke about the laws and rules that govern Commissioners
and legislative bodies in general. First, as earlier mentioned, Diamond
Bar has its Municipal Code. The Municipal Code sets forth all of the
ordinances (laws) of the City of Diamond Bar in the Municipal Code there
are chapters that govern the Commissions. These chapters define the
Commission and its jurisdiction, its purpose, how its members are
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 7 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
appointed and what the Commission and Commissioner's duties are.
Commissioners should read and re -read the document. Each
Commission has a handbook that contains interesting and informative
material that should be read and studied by Commissioners. The
handbook contains information about conducting meetings and why items
appear on the agenda and the reason for those items. During the next six
months staff will be looking to updat a the handbooks to make sure they
are current. The handbook is the Commissioner' s bible.
CA/Jenkins stated that the Brown Act is the State of California's open
meeting law. It is important to understand the Brown Act because
Commissioners are governed by the Brown Act and must comport
themselves in compliance with the Act. The most important rule of the
Brown Act is very straightforwar d. He referred Commissioners to Open
and Public 111, an easy resource to the Brown Act. The basic rule of the
Brown Act is that meetings have to be open to the public. When a quorum
of a Commission is gathered to discuss, listen, hear and have anything to
do with the business of its body, the Brown Act says that the Commission
must be in a properly noticed and posted meeting. In general,
Commissions have a regular meeting date and time (once or twice a
month) and agendas must be posted 72 -hours in advan ce of the meeting.
Staff develops and posts meetings . If there are no posted agenda 72 -
hours in advance of the scheduled meeting, there is no meeting.
Commissions cannot discuss and certainly cannot take action on anything
that is not posted on the agenda subject to a couple of exceptions. The
best Commissions can do is request that an item be placed on a future
agenda. The exceptions are if something has come to the attention of the
City after the posting of the agenda and there is a need for immediate
action, bodies can, by a two-thirds vote, add it to the agenda. Once the
item is added it can be treated like any other adgendized matter of
business. However, the likelihood of that needing to occur should be
extremely remote. The exception to placing a matter on the agenda is, for
instance, a brief response to a publ is comment, a brief comment during
Commissioner comments ora request to add an item to a future agenda.
CA/Jenkins stated that another important aspect of the Brown Act is what
Commissioners are allowed to do outside of regular meetings. "Serial"
meetings are not allowed. A serial meeting is a meeting during which
three members of a Commission communicate about an item of business
in person, through intermediaries, by facsimile or email or any other
method. He cited examples of a serial meeting.
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 8 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
CA/Jenkins responded to Chair/Grundy that a member who plans to be
absent from a meeting and wants an agenda matter continued in order to
be part of the discussion and decision can call the staff person to advise
that he will be out of to wn and request that the rest of the Commission
grant him the courtesy to continue the item until the next meeting when he
is present. Or, if the Commission is unwilling to continue the item and the
absent Commissioner cannot vote in absentia, he could convey to the
body that he was opposed to the item. Likewise, a body could decide
during deliberations that it wanted to continue an item until all members
were present even though a quorum was present. Sometimes items are
time -sensitive and cannot be continued.
Gatherings that are not meetings:
CA/Jenkins said there are occasions when Commissioners may be at
gatherings that the Brown Act recognizes as non- meeting occasions and
on those occasions, Commissioners do not have to be concerned about
being in violation of the Brown Act. For example, when Commissioners
attend conferences. However, being ata conference does not mean that
Commissioners can gather as a body and talk about the business of its
commission and use the gathering as an excuse to evade the Act. It is
probably unwise for three or more Commissioners to travel together to a
conference or meeting because it creates an appear ance contrary to the
Act.
CA/Jenkins stated that the Brown Act says that if you get a written
communication from a third party and that written communication is
addressed to a quorum of your body or copied to a quorum of your body
so that three, four or five of yo u are getting the same written material
about a subject matter jurisdiction, that is a public record. You should
insure that your staff has received a copy of that written correspondence if
the communication does not indicate that staff has been copied.
CA/Jenkins stated that another topic typically discussed under the Brown
Act is "Closed Session." That topic will not be discussed tonight because
the Commissions do not usually engage in matters that require Closed
Sessions. A Closed Session is a situation where Commissions can
legitimately meet behind closed doors outside of the public purview, a
situation often practiced by the City Council to discuss such things as
litigation, possible acquisition of real property, or negotiations with an
employee, matters requiring some degree ofconfidentiali ty.
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 9 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
DCM/DeStefano asked for comment on Commissioners becoming willing
or unwilling participants in a serial meeting that is created by an advocate
for position such as, a neighborhood representative who advocates for a
stop sign or gazebo, and a developer who advocates for a project.
CA/Jenkins responded that there are no rules that prohibit those types of
contacts. Some cities have rules that indicate no ex -parte contacts with
anybody interested in the matter. Sometimes that rule is helpful because
Commissioners can merely indicate that they cannot help the individual. I
cannot talk to you because "I risk losing my job" becomes an easy way to
avoid such contacts. In this City, Commissioners are not prevented from
having that conversation and not prevented from taking a field trip.
However, when the time comes for Public Hearing, Commissioners should
report any ex -parte contacts and site field trips that have taken place.
From a Brown Actstandpoint, the important thing isto avoid telling anyone
your opinions of how you intend to vote. Advocates take such information
and attempt to use it to their advantage by communicating what other
members of the Commission think. Any such conversation should be
preceded with a statement such as "I'm happy to talk to you about this
item but I want you to understand that I'll listen to what you have to say
but I'm under strict instructions from the City Attorney not to make a
commitment, not to tell you how I intend to vote or to tell you what I'm
thinking. I can't do that without risking a violation to the Brown Act. What I
can do and what I will do is, I will listen to your opinion and I will take it into
consideration and think about it and obviously it will be a factor in how I
ultimately vote on this matter."
CA/Jenkins responded to Commissioner Liang that it is preferable practice
to avoid potential due -process problems in a general manner by reporting
ex -parte meetings to the Commission when the Public Hearing is opened.
Information material a Commissioner intends to rely upon for his or her
vote should definitely be reported. For instance, if a Commissioner stated
that last weekend he drove by the site it would be a fairly inconsequential
statement. However, if a Commissioner said "last weekend I drove by the
site and I noticed that it's really steep. I'm really concerned about how
steep it is." This statement allows the developer to comment on a
Commissioner's concern. If the developer is unaware of the concern, they
may not address it in their comments. Ultimately, such items that are not
addressed during the Public Hearing that are later revealed after the
Public Hearing process and result in an unfavorable vote could beused in
litigation. Some public agencies forma Ily include an ex -parte agenda item
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 10 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
prior to Public Hearings, some do it informally, and other public agencies
do nothing. He felt itwas a good idea but that itwas a matter of choice.
PWD/Liu pointed out that staff often goes out into the community for public
informational meetings and it is not unusual for a majority of the
commissioners to be present at such events. How should the public be
notified about the presence of commissioners?
CA/Jenkins responded that if the City organized the meeting there could
not be a majority attendance unless it was noticed as a Commission
Meeting. If it was a neighborhood meeting organized by a neighborhood
group a majority could be present as long as they did not make
commitments or present themselves as a body.
CNirginkar asked if discussing agend a items with Council Members at
City functions was subject to the Brown Act.
CA/Jenkins responded "no." There is case history that states that a
committee consisting of two council members and two planning
commissioners that is put together to work on an item is clearly a Brown
Act body. If two Council Members happene d to enter into discussion with
two Commissioners itwould not constitute a Brown Actviolation.
CA/Jenkins offered that another way to handle site visits was to conduct
them as field trips. The disadvantage was that it took extra time and
created delays in handling projects. Some cities conduct field trips during
every public hearing. On the other hand, the advantage of scheduled site
visits is that all commissioners are present and can ask questions in real
time.
C/McManus asked who organized the field trip and CA/Jenkins
responded, "the City." In small cities it was not difficult and it was an
option for avoiding individual site visits.
3. Conflict of Interest
CA/Jenkins stated that most conflict of interest is related to financial
conflicts. California Conflict of Interest law is a state law contained in the
Political Reform Act of 1974 and it is very complicated law. It would take
hours and a great deal of expertise to explain the Conflict of Interest law.
In short, these are the key issues that commissioners should be aware of
in order to know when a problem might arise. If any commissioner
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 11 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
believes he/she could have a potential problem, they should seek advice.
He referred the Commissioners to the pocket guide entitled Pocket Guide
to Conflict of Interest Laws "Can 1 vote" distributed by the California Fair
Political Practice Commission and is probably available on their website.
CA/Jenkins stated that this means that commissioners cannot participate
in a matter in which they have a financia I conflict of interest if the decision
before them would have a material financial effect on one of their financial
interests - home, business property, investment property or a source of
gifts. On the other hand, if a commissioner's lawyer comes in front of the
planning commission for a CUP and the lawyer is a source of income,
could be a conflict of interest — not because he's a source of income but
because there is a relationship that may cause that commissioner to not
be able to be impartial. Commissioners need to be cognizant that when
an item comes before the commission, commissioners need to run those
financial interests through their minds to determine potential conflict of
interest. If a project is within 500 feet of a Commissioner's real property,
that commissioner is deemed to have a conflict of interest unless the
commissioner can demonstrate that the project will have absolutely no
effect on the value of his property. This applies to the location of a stop
sign, ball field and approval of a CUP for a new project. If a commissioner
believes a project would affect his business, the commissioner needs to
consult CA/Jenkins to determine whether it would be a material effect. In
such an event, CA/Jenkins would need to know the gross income of the
commissioner's business and what kind of financial effect the project
would have on the business, pro or con. With respect to "investment'
suppose a commissioner held a thousand shares of AT&T and Verizon
wants an antenna from the commission. Would that affect AT&T wireless
or would that affect AT&T wireless enough that the commissioner should
abstain? CA/Jenkins needs to know how much stock the commissioner
owns. Armed with background on AT&T he consults materiality standards
and they tell him whether the company in which the commissioner is
traded on the stock exchange then the decision the commission is making
would have to have affect equal to or greater than X dollars. If, on the
other hand the commissioner's investment is in a much smaller company
then the number for materiality is much lower — as little as $10,000 for
instance. If someone comes before the commission and they are a
source of income to the commissioner and the commissioner's spouse
and it exceeds the materiality standard the commissioner cannot
participate if that person appearing before you is a source of income to
you if the decision will have a material financial affect on them.
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 12 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
CA/Jenkins encouraged the commissionersto listtheir properties, sources
of income, investments, and sources of gifts. When reviewing a meeting
agenda a commissioner could determine whether any of his financial
interests were potentially implicated. In particular was the matter of a
Public Hearing within 500 feet of properly owned by the commissioner. If
the Commissioner thinks it could be implicated, that is the moment when
the commissioner should seek advice. With respect to gifts, it is illegal to
accept a gift worth more than $340 from any one individual in any 12 -
month period. He cautioned commissioners to be aware of potential
conflicts and ask for advice if there was any question. If it was determined
that a commissioner had a conflict of interest under the Political Reform
Act he could not participate in any aspect of the project. In other words,
the commissioner could not ask any questions of staff, could not do
anything behind the scenes, and must, when the item appears on the
meeting agenda, announce that he had a financial conflict of interest on
this matter because, for example, he lived within 500' of the project,
recuse himself and leave the room, and not return to the room until the
item was completely finished.
CA/Jenkins stated that there are complicated rules that apply only to
appointed officials that deal with soliciting or accepting campaign
contributions. Ifcommissioners accept or solicit campaign contributions he
is, unlike elected officials, precluded from voting from matters involving
people who made those campaign contributions within the immediately
preceding 12 months. If commissioners are in a position of soliciting
campaign contributions for themselves as a candidate or for someone else
as a candidate, please call CA/Jenkins to discuss the matter.
CA/Jenkins responded to C/Chang that this applies to soliciting
contributions from others for individuals running for assembly outside of
the city, for instance.
NON-FINANCIAL CONFLICTS OF INTEREST
CA/Jenkins stated that in a non-financial issue, Commissioners were
expected to render impartial decisions. People who come before the body
expect commissioners to be open-minded, impartial and fair, just as they
would expect of any judge. Even non-financial matters can affect a
decision -maker's impartiality. Those non-financial matters arise if, for
instance, the Commissioner's best friend is the architect on the project or
if the applicant is known through community activities or as a family
member. The key consideration is, if there is something going on that is
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 13 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
unrelated to the merits of what is before the body for consideration that
would effect how the commissioner would decide to vote? If there is
something unrelated to the merits, because of the relationship or because
there is something there, the commissioner would most likely be biased
and should probably not participate in the matter. Again, commissioners
should be deciding how to vote based on the merits of the matter before
the body (commission). This does not include "strongly held views." A
person who believes in slow growth, for instance, can be a commissioner.
Holding a philosophy orpolitical view isnot a conflict of interest. Basing a
decision on the fact that a relationship could be affected in some way
could be a conflict of interest.
Chair/Grundy asked if it would be a conflict to have a member of a sports
organization come before the Parks and Recreation Commission asking
for use of a facility that would reduce the amount they would have to pay
elsewhere, ultimately benefiting him and all other members of the
organization. CA/Jenkins said he would want an opportunity to think about
Chair/Grundy's scenario.
Chair/Grundy asked how a recusal would affect the quorum requirement.
CA/Jenkins responded that the rule is that if the body cannot muster a
quorum for reasons including absenteeism, the matter must be continued
to a later date when a quorum is present. If all five commissioners are
present and three commissioners have conflicts those three randomly
select one commissioner to participate.
6. Conducting Meetings.
CA/Jenkins emphasized the importance of fairness — being fair and the
appearance of fairness is very important to what government does. More
important than anything is that people, when they have contact with the
government, may not like the answer and outcome, but if they feel that the
process has been fair and that they have been heard and given a
meaningful opportunity to participate, would leave unhappy but could not
say that the body had been arbitrary or unfair or that the commissioners
were not listening. The duty of a commissioner is to listen to the
individual, show them that you are listening and that you are prepared to
hear what they have to say. However, individuals do not have a First
Amendment right to expect to say whatever they want and for however
long they want to say it. They do have a right to speak about what is
relevant within an allocated time period.
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 14 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
CA/Jenkins responded to CNirginkar that he is a great believer in making
the boundaries in Commission meetings very clear. Some cities do not
and some bodies do not. And sometimes, the atmosphere is not
conducive to clear-cut boundaries. For instance, in small rooms
individuals tend to more readily interject themselves back into the
conversation. Sometimes the Chair indulges that behavior. Generally,
however, hefelt itwas important to maintain bounda ries and not get into a
precedent setting mode where the boundaries are let down and then
during subsequent meetings, people expect the same indulgence. When
members of the public are allowed to speak, their time should be
uninterrupted without response from commissioners. Likewise, during
commissioner comments there should be no interruption from members of
the public. He stated that he did not believe in crossing the boundaries
and public speakers should not be engaged during their time unless
commissioners have factual questions. There should be no debate and
answers should not be given during public comments. Wa it until all public
speakers have had their time and then address each question. At that
point, the Chair should indicate that public comments were closed and the
Commissioners would commence with their deliberations. If, at that point
someone raises his hand for permission to speak the Chair should state,
"I'm sorry. The public portion is closed, you've had your turn, and now itis
our tum. And now we're going to debate and deliberate and make our
decision."
CNirginkar asked what should be done if questions arise during
commissioner deliberation and a speaker needs to be addressed?
CA/Jenkins said that such circumstances could occur and that is why he
encourages bodies not to close the Public Hearing until action has been
taken. Only the public portion of the hearing is closed. At that point, ifthe
commissioners have a specific factual question, it could be asked. He
very strongly discouraged commissioners from using that as an
opportunity to give an audience member a platform who feels they have
not had sufficient time to say what they want to say because everyone in
the audience could then feel cheated. If you say, "I'm not clear about this
aspect of the project, can the project architect please come up. We want
to ask a specific factual question."
CA/Jenkins cautioned chairpersons against using officious terminology,
avoiding using the gavel, avoiding telling people they are out of order, and
encouraged them to treat people in a civil and respectful manner. At the
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 15 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
same time, a chairman should be firm in their deliverance and uniformly
enforce time limits. If time limits are not enforced, the result is accusations
of selectivity. When the time period ends, thank the person for his
comments and tell him that you are sorry his time is up and move on to
the next speaker. If the person insists on continuing to speak, explain the
rules that this is a business meeting and public speakers are allocated
three minutes and ask them to be seated. If the Chair decides to expand
speaker time he should obtain concurrence from the remaining
commissioners by explaining the reason. The exception would be if a
person truly had a need for more time because the speaker was the
applicant and was explaining a very complicated project. The reason for
allowing such a circumstance would be explained up front by the Chair.
Again, the key is to be reasonable and fair.
CA/Jenkins stressed the importance of en gaging in active listening. Look
at the person and show that you are listening to their comments. Take
notes or engage in some activity to indicate that you are paying attention.
When commissioners are talking among themselves they should try to
avoid being repetitious. It is one thing to attempt to sway colleagues to
your point of view, but at some po int, enough is enough. CA/Jenkins said
he believed that it was very important for Commissioners to show respect
and to expect respect in return.
DCM/DeStefano asked that during public comments, can six speakers
give their five -minutes time period to one spokesperson. Does that
spokesperson get 30 minutes to speak?
CA/Jenkins responded that every city has its rules on ceding time. There
is no law and no governing law on the subject and each city may have its
own rule on the subject. His feeling was that ceding time was generally a
bad idea. The rule should be that if someone wished to speak he was
allowed his five minutes. If someone else wants to speak they get their
five minutes and that there would be no accumulation of ceded time.
However, there are circumstances where a spokesperson would be
selected and if others agreed not to talk, the spokesperson would be
granted extra time — not five minutes times all of the individuals. Suppose
there were 25 individual s from one neighborhood present to say the same
thing. In this instance, you cut a deal whereby the Chair gives the
spokesperson 15 minutes, for instance and gives one additional person
five minutes to speak by asking the remaining individuals to show by
raising their hands that they will abide by that view and the record so
reflect. Giving a group a meaningful block of20 minutes instead of25 x5
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 16 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
minutes is a fair exchange. In short, cities would be well -served to adopt a
rule/policy that did not allow ceding.
CM/Lowry specifically encouraged incoming Commissioners to exercise
their right to make informed decisions. If a commissioner believed hehad
not received a staff report that included information deemed necessary to
make that informed decision, he must ask staff to provide the necessary
information and staff is prepared to provide the necessary information.
However, it is sometimes easy to forget that new Commissioners lack the
foundation of knowledge. Commissioners are 100 percent entitled to be
informed and educated about their tasks and should never feel rushed or
pushed into making a decision without the material background
information necessary to render an informed and competent decision.
CA/Jenkins explained that individuals want to feel that they have been
dealt with in a fair and competent manner and staff is the Commissioner's
first line of defense. Commissioners are completely entitled to staffs
competency when rendering decisions.
IV. ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS/COMMEN TS:
DCM/DeStefano said he appreciated this first time opportunity to bring all of the
Commissioners together under this venue. He felt it was extremely valuable to
have CA/Jenkins share his skills and expertise with the Commissioners and staff
and hehoped such informative gatherings would become a regular occurrence.
CA/Jenkins encouraged Commissioners to write down their questions and pass
them along to him or to staff so that those questions, comments or subjects could
be addressed in future meetings.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, Chairman
Nolan, Planning Commission, Chairman Grundy, Parks and Recreation Commission
and Chairman Liana Pincher, Traffic and Transportation Commission adjourned the
meeting at 8:45 p.m.
Resp ectfu Ily,
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
APRIL 7, 2004 PAGE 17 SPECIAL JOINT
COMMISSIONS MEETING
Attest:
Dan Nolan, Chairman
Planning Commission
Resp ectfu I I y,
David G. Liu, Director of Public Works
Attest:
Liana Pincher, Chairman
Traffic and Transportation Commission
Resp ectfu Ily,
Bob Rose, b-Fecto rof Community Services
Attest:
Dave Grundy, Chairman
Parks and Recreation Commission
Agenda No. 6.3.2
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
MAY 13, 2004
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Pincher called the meeting to order at 7:09 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: Commissioner Morris led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman, Vice Chairman Tonng and Commissioners Morris, and Virginkar.
Commissioner Shah was excused.
Also Present: David Liu, Public Works Director, Fred Alamolh oda, Senior Engineer;
Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer; Debbie Gonzales, Administrative Assistant and Sgt.
Blasnek.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
A. Minutes of April 8, 2004.
C/Virginkar moved, VC/Torng seconded to approve the April 8, 2004
minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Virginkar, VC/Torng,
Chair/Pincher
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Morris
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Shah
II. COMMISSION COMMENTS: Chair/Pincher asked that due to Commissioner
Shah's absence, the discussion about whether to combine "Commission
Comments" and "Items from Commissioners" into one be continued to the next
meeting.
III. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
IV. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
V. ITEMS FROM STAFF
A. Traffic Enforcement Update — Repor t by Sgt. Blasnek - Received and filed
on the following items:
1. Citations: April 2004
May 13, 2004 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION
2. Collisions: April 2004
3. Future Deployment ofthe Radar Trailer
VI. OLD BUSINESS: None
VII. NEW BUSINESS:
A. Traffic Concerns on Leyland Drive.
SE/Alamolhoda presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic
and Transportation Commission concur with staff to install Multi -Way stop
signs on Leyland Drive at Highcrest Drive and 50 feet of double centerline
striping on both sides of the intersection.
Chair/Pincher felt that because of the close proximity of the stop signs it
was too short a distance to place additional stop signs at Armitos Place at
Pantera Drive and Highcrest Drive and Leyland Drive. She wondered if this
could be set aside until the Council had decided whether to install speed
humps and other traffic calming measures for Leyland Drive.
PWD/Liu referred the Commissioners to Page 2 of staffs report, cited
statistics and confirmed staffs concerns about the speeding traffic on the
long unobstructed stretch of Leyland Drive. Additionally, this street would be
considered for speed humps and staff felt it would be prudent to continue
with additional mitigation efforts such as deployment of the radar trailer, and
proceed with installation of the 50' of double centerline striping.
C/Morris agreed with PWD/Liu's assessment. He asked if there were side
streets on the downhill side of Leyland Drive and PWD/Liu responded
Newberry Way and Benfield Place, both of which have three-way stops.
VC/Torng concurred with PWD/Liu's comments.
C/Virginkar said that in traveling to Pantera Park he felt that Leyland Drive
traffic had not slowed down. In this case and contrary to his usual opinion, if
the multi -way stop sign were best for the area he would concur with staffs
recommendation.
PWD/Liu informed the Commission that staff received an email from Rene
Canseco stating she concurred with staffs recommendation for a three-way
stop atthat intersection due to the high speed of the traffic and curvature of
the roadway.
C/Morris moved, VC/To mg secon ded, to concur with staffs
recommendation to install 50 feet of double centerline striping in both
May 13, 2004 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION
directions of Leyland Drive, postpone installation of multi -way stop signs at
Leyland Drive at Highcrest Drive and request deployment of the radar trailer
to the site. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Virginkar, VC/Tomg
Chair/Pincher
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Shah
B. Traffic Concerns on Prospectors Road at North Rock River Drive.
SE/Alamolhoda presented staffs report. Staff recommends that the Traffic
and Transportation concur with staffs recommendation to install Multi -Way
Stop Signs on Prospectors Road at North Rock River Drive.
Chair/Pincher recognized a letter from Martha Reyes,137 N. Pintado Drive,
who stated her opposition to the stop sign installation.
Chair/Pincher also recognized an e-mail from Shelley Puente, 369 N. Rock
River Drive, who stated her approval to the stop sign installation.
C/Morris felt this street should be placed on the top of the City's priority list
for consideration of a solution to change the complexion of the street rather
than continuing with the "band-aid" approach.
PWD/Liu explained that the proposed Neighborhood Traffic Management
Program would proceed with a new eye to the City's traffic patterns,
uniqueness of the topography and street design to deal with speeding and
cut -through traffic through a combination of enforcement, education and
engineering solutions.
C/Virginkar moved, VC/To rng seconded, to concur with staffs
recommendation to install Multi -Way Stop Signs on Prospectors Road at
North Rock River Drive.
C/Morris was concerned that the traffic engineer would overlook this and
other sites because stop signs had been installed. PWD/Liu assured
C/Morris that stop signs could be replaced by traffic circles, for instance, as
long as it proved to be the equivalent of or better than the measure in place.
Motion carried bythe following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Morris, Virginkar, VC/Tonng
Chair/Pincher
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Shah
May 13, 2004 PAGE 4 T&T COMMISSION
VIII. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS: None
4IIIIIIIIIIIIrr:1LYIRya:%]LTA 9d0]LYdLYd1;�-1101ZI=1063
C/Virginkar thanked staff for providing parking stripes on Pathfinder Road. As a
result, he believed both sides of the street were being more effectively utilized.
VC/Torng received several complaints about Shadow Canyon Drive and hoped the
left turn signal would be in place in the near future.
C/Morris complimented the City on the seamless and clean signal installation
process at High Knob Road and Golden Springs Drive, a vast improvement over
the construction of the recent signalization at another location.
SE/Alamolhoda stated that the draft study for Shadow Ca nyon Drive was recently
completed and installation would be a matter of budget priority.
41IIIIIIIIIIIII1LI1Y•]:VJ-111%Orel ;r_1Wrr:ILYA&I
A. Caltrans SR57/60 Interchange Improvements.
SE/Alamolhoda provided the Commission with an update on the SR57/60
Caltrans HOV project. Westbound Grand Avenue on ramp would beopened
next week. Staff received a report that Caltrans would commence
installation of concrete barriers on Golden Springs Drive between Walnut
Pools and Gateway Center Drive to bu ild the foundation and column for the
bridge connecting the SR57 to the SR60. The estimated construction time is
three to six months or longer. Two lanes in both directions would remain
open and the Sheriffs Department will monitor the area. After opening the
ramp, the Westbound Brea Canyon Road on ramp would be closed to SR60
for 10 months.
B. Great Bend Drive/Gold Rush Drive Speed Hump Neighborhood Meeting.
PWD/Liu reported that 15 residents attended the meeting and everyone
expressed their desire to continue with installation of speed humps.
C. Residential Traffic Programs.
Sgt. Blasnek reported that when he came to Diamond Bar in October, 2003
to oversee the enforcement in Diamond Bar he needed to stay current with
what other cities were doing. He had not yet made an official presentation to
CM/Lowry but provided some insight on measures that could quickly and
easily be implemented to improve the traffic flow and speeding concerns in
May 13, 2004 PAGE 5 T&T COMMISSION
the City. He routinely posts emails pointing out problem areas and some of
the more aggressive officers work the situation and follow up with radar
trailer deployment. In talking with a Sergeant at the Fullerton Police
Department he learned they implemented a program in which they take
complaints from residents and assign the problem to a motor officer who is
given full authority and responsibility formitigating the matter. Heplanned to
implement a similar program and assign an officer to work three schools as
well. He also discovered that severa I agencies send out a speeding vehicle
letter, very similar to what C/Morris suggested for the STOP program but
targets everyone, not specific individuals or groups of individuals. His
program would be a "no -cost to the city" program. Sgt. Blasnek stated that
Diamond Bar has excellent engineering staff and excellent enforcement.
Missing are education and attitude change. San Jose looked to calm traffic
with a media blitz that included posting at bus stops, bumper stickers,
neighborhood signage, etc. Diamond Bar is doing what it needs to do and
the additional step would be education and an attitude change. He cited
examples of education and attitude changes with respect to seat belts and
recycling.
PWD/Liu said he would provide a copy of Sgt. Blasnek's memorandum to
the City's traffic consultant with the intent to eventually incorporate the items
into the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Program.
Sgt. Blasnek responded to Chair/Pincher that it was his intention to apply
this program throughout the school system.
VC/Torng cautioned Sgt. Blasnek about "Children at Play" signs and other
signs that could provide a safety hazard and Iiabilityfor the City.
Sgt. Blasnek was sure the CA/Jenkins would look at and comment on the
material.
C/Virginkar felt the Commission should highly recommend immediate
implementation of the program. He was particularly concerned that not only
the students partake of the educational program but the parents as well
since they were the primary cause of traffic concerns in school areas.
PWD/Liu pointed out that the minutes would record the Commissioner's
concerns. In addition, Sgt. Blasnek would be meeting with the City
Manager's Office and would convey the Commissioners' desires to
implement the new program.
C/Morris felt itwould betime and money well spent to have an officer stand
beside his motorcycle handing out educational materials to motorists at
intersections for one hour one morning a week. Drivers would understand
the City was serious about the program. He hope d staff understood there
May 13, 2004 PAGE 6 T&T COMMISSION
was unanimous concurrence for the program among the Commissioners.
He also felt that STOP was a catchy acronym and should be used.
Chair/Pincher liked the idea of the "beat" cop where he goes into the
neighborhood and garners the respect of the residents. She thought itwould
be good for law enforcement also to be able to convey a positive
atmosphere and promote change would be a win-win situation. She thanked
Sgt. Blasnek for doing his homework on this subject.
VC/Torng pointed out that this year's Read Together Diamond Bar project is
Pay it Forward and he thought it would be good slogan for the community
that would tie the program to the library. He felt it would be a waste of time
to have a deputy hand out material wh en the City had a number of volunteer
groups who could perfo rm that function.
XI. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS — as adgendized.
XII. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
A. Traffic Concerns on North Del Sol Lane.
ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Traffic and
Transportation Commission, Chair Pincher adjourned the meeting at8:24 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
TITLE: Treasurer's Statement — May 31, 2004
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the May 2004, Treasurer's Statement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No Fiscal Impact
BACKGROUND:
Agenda # 6.5
Meeting Date: July. 06, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer's Statement for the City
Council's review and approval. This statement shows the cash balances for the various funds, with a
breakdown of bank account balances, investment account balances and the effective yield earned
from investments.
PREPARED BY:
Susan Full, Accountant II
Department Head
Attachments:
Treasurer's Statement
Deputy City Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TREASURER'S MONTHLY
CASH STATEMENT
May 31, 2004
BEGINNING
TRANSFERS
BALANCE RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS IN (OUT)
GENERAL FUND $22,947,663.66 $1,147,078.03 $909,642.81
LIBRARY SERVICES FUND 81,037.95
COMMUNITY ORG SUPPORT FD (8,354.00) 500.00
GAS TAX FUND 587,184.95
TRANSIT TX (PROP A) FD 1,393,875.78 28,837.80 92,196.79
TRANSIT TX (PROP C) FD 800,073.19
ISTEA Fund 0.00
INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FD 551.750.64
AB2928-TR CONGESTION RELIEF FD 0.00
AIR QUALITY IMPRVMNT FD 151,174.13
PARK & FACILITIES DEVEL. FD 2,467,348.78
COM DEV BLOCK GRANT FD (28,575.44)
CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SAFETY FD 224,119.15
NARCOTICS ASSET SEIZURE FD 311,951.13
56, 799.07
16,389.00
11.855.66
1.731.12
7.549.77
106.21
CA LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIP 85,549.82
PRG M
LANDSCAPE DIST #38 FD 524,901.91 31,858.72 17,565.57
LANDSCAPE DIST #39 FD 289,432.61 21,238.77 8,914.65
LANDSCAPE DIST #41 FD 396,063.04 14,803.43 6,812.36
GRAND AV CONST FUND 111,579.53
CAP IMPROVEMENT PRJ FD (288,188.81) 823.25 526,073.98
SELF INSURANCE FUND 1,239,490.96
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND 193,530.28
COMPUTER REPLACEMENT FUND (1,153.91) 2,243.53
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY 678,827.80 372.35 12,592.88
FUND
TOTALS $32,709,283.15 $1,318,200.42 $1,597,785.33 $0.00
SUMMARY OF CASH:
DEMAND DEPOSITS: GENERAL ($158,965.10)
ACCOUNT
PAYROLL 12,188.92
ACCOUNT
CHANGE FUND 250.00
PETTY CASH 500.00
ACCOUNT
TOTAL DEMAND ($146,026.18
DEPOSITS
INVESTMENTS: US TREASURY $61,176.92
Money Market Acct.
LOCAL AGENCY 31,847,940.23
INVESTMENT FD
CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT: US TREASURY $518,842.71
Money Market
Account
LOCAL AGENCY 147,764.56
INVESTMENT FD
(Bond Proceeds
Account)
Note: The City of Diamond Bar is
invested in the State Treasurer's Local
Agency Investment Fund. There are
TOTAL CASH
31,909,117.1 E
666,607.2 7
two LAIF accounts set up. The
regular account's funds are available
for withdrawal within 24 hours. The
LAIF Bond Proceeds account's
withdrawals require 30 days notice.
As a secondary investment option, the
City maintains the US Treasury Sweep
Accounts with Wells Fargo and the City's
Fiscal Agent, Union Bank of California.
Any excess funds are "swept" on a daily
basis from the City's bank accounts and
are invested overnight in a pool of US
Treasury Notes. Interest is credited to the
City's bank accounts on a monthly basis.
L.A.I.F - Effective Yield - May 2004
Wells Fargo Money Mkt -Effective
Yield -May 2004
Union Bank Money Mkt - Effective
Yield - May 2004
All investments are placed in
accordance with the City of
Diamond Bar's Investment Policy.
1.426%
0.367%
0.830%
The above summary provides
sufficient cash flow liquidity to
meet the next six month's
estimated expenditures.
Linda C. Lowry, Treasurer
CITY COUNCIL
T0; Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA; Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6.6a
Meeting Date; 07/06/04
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE; AMENDMENT #2 TO CONTRACT WITH EXCEL LANDSCAPE FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
SERVICES AT NINE LOCATIONS IN LLAD #38 FOR THE 2004/05 FISCAL YEAR IN THE AMOUNT OF
$29,371.08, WHICH INCLUDES A 3.7% C.P.I. INCREASE; PLUS A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $5,000
FOR AS -NEEDED WORK.
Recommendation; Approve.
Financial Impact; Funds for this contract are included in the adopted 2004/05 FY budget.
Background/Discu ssion; The nine areas to be maintained by Excel Landscape in LLAD #38 are;
1. Median on Golden Prados south of Golden Springs.
2. Parkway on north side of Golden Springs between Platina and EI Encino.
3. Parkway on south side of Golden Springs across from Torito Lane.
4. Parkway on south side of Golden Springs west of Ballena.
5. Parkway on north side of Sunset Crossing between Chaparral and Big Falls.
6. Parkway on northwest comer of Gold Rush and Diamond Bar Blvd.
7. Parkway on southeast comer of Gold Rush and Diamond Bar Blvd.
8. Medians on Tin Drive west of Diamond Bar Blvd.
9. Parkways on both sides of Brea Canyon Road between Pathfinder and
southern City Limits.
Section 14 of the contract allows the City Council to extend the contract in one-year increments, with a C.P.I. increase. The
C.P.I. index for the period ending May, 2004 shows a 33% increase,
Attachments; Contract dated October 30, 2002
Amendment #1 dated September 2, 2003
Amendment #2 dated July 6, 2004
C.P.I. Index — May 2004 — Los Angeles/Riversid e/Orange Counties
Bob Rose
Community Services Director
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
AMENDMENT #2 TO CONTRACT AGREEMENT
THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT is made this 6th day of July, 2004 by and between the CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY") and EXCEL LANDSCAPE,
("CONTRACTOR')
Recitals:
a. EXCEL LANDSCAPE entered into a 12 month AGREEMENT with CITY effective July
1, 2002 ("the AGREEMENT") for Landscape Maintenance at locations listed in Exhibit A-
b.
b. AGREEMENT was extended for the period of July 1, 2003 through June 30, 2004 by
Amendment #1 on September 2, 2003 at the original contract price.
C. Parties desire to amend the AGREEMENT to extend the term for the period of July 1,
2004 through June 30, 2005 and to provide a 3.7% C.P.I. increase.
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 — AGREEMENT for extension includes a C.P.I. increase of 3.7% and shall not exceed
$29,371.08.
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 #2 TO AGREEMENT on the
date and year fust written above.
ATTEST:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
A Municipal Corporation
Of the State of California
Signed
Bob Zirbes
Title: Mayor
APPROVED TO FORM
City Attorney
EXCEL LANDSCAPE
Contractor
Signed
Title
Linda Lowry
City Clerk
Exhibit A
LLMD #38 Landscape Maintenance Locations
1. Median on Golden Prados south of Golden Springs.
2. Parkway on north side of Golden Springs between Platina and El Encino.
3. Parkway on south side of Golden Springs across from Torito Lane.
4. Parkway on south side of Golden Springs west of Ballena.
5. Parkway on north side of Sunset Crossing between Chaparral and Big Falls.
6. Parkway on northwest comer of Gold Rush and Diamond Bar Blvd.
7. Parkway on southeast corner of Gold Rush and Diamond Bar Blvd.
8. Medians on Tin Drive west of Diamond Bar Blvd.
9. Parkways on both sides of Brea Canyon Road between Pathfinder and
southern City Limits.
CITY COUNCIL
T0; Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA; Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6.6b
Meeting Date; 07/06/04
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE; AMENDMENT #1 TO CONTRACT WITH VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AT
TWO PARK LOCATIONS FOR THE 2004/05 FISCAL YEAR IN THE AMOUNT OF $121,236.26, WHICH
INCLUDES A 2.6% C.P.I. INCREASE; PLUS A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $20,000 FOR AS -NEEDED
WORK.
Recommendation; Approve.
Financial Impact; Funds for this contract are included in the adopted 2004/05 FY budget.
Background/Discu ssion; The two City parks to be maintained by ValleyCrest Landscape Maintenance are;
1. Pantera Park -738 Pantera Drive
2. Peterson Park — 24142 E. Sylvan Glen Drive
Section 14 of the contract allows the City Council to extend the contract in one-year increments, with a C.P.I. increase. The
C.P.I. index for the period ending May, 2004 shows a 33% increase. Staff is authorized to negotiate the increase between
no increase to a maximum of the C.P.I. increase amoun t. ValleyCrest has agreed to a 2.6 % C.P.I. increase.
Attachments; Contract dated April 8, 2003
Amendment #1 dated July 6, 2004
Letter from ValleyCrest Landscape Maintenance dated 6/11/04
C.P.I. Index — May 2004 — Los Angeles/Riversid e/Orange Counties
Bob Rose
Community Services Director
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
AMENDMENT 41 TO CONTRACT AGREEMENT
THIS CONTRACT AMENDMENT is made this 6th day of July, 2004 by and between the CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR, a municipal corporation of the State of California ("CITY") and VALLEYCREST
LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE, ("CONTRACTOR")
Recitals:
a. VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENAN CE entered into a 15 month
AGREEMENT with CITY effective April 1, 2003 ("the AGREEMENT") for Landscape
Maintenance at locations listed in Exhibit A
b. Parties desire to amend the AGREEMENT to extend the term for the period of July 1,
2004 through June 30, 2005 and to provide a 2.6 % C.P.I. increase.
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 — AGREEMENT for extension includes a C.P.I. increase of 2.6 % and shall not exceed
$121,236.26.
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 #1 TO AGREEMENT on the
date and year fust written above.
ATTEST
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
A Municipal Corporation
Of the State of California
Signed
Bob Zirbes
Title: Mayor
APPROVED TO FORM
City Attorney
VALLEYCREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE
Contractor
Signed
Title
Linda Lowry
City Clerk
Exhibit A
Park Maintenance Locations
1. Pantera Park — 738 Pantera Drive
2. Peterson Park — 24142 E. Sylvan Glen Drive
Agenda #
Meeting Date: July 6. 2004
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
AGENDA REPORT
Agenda No. 6.7
TITLE: 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 ap proximately 70 -acres generally located
at the southeast corner of Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive and
identified as Assessors Parcel Nu mbers - 8293-045-004, 8293-045-005, 8293-
045-006, 8293-045-007, 8293-045-008 and 8293-045-009
RECOMMENDATION: Approve second reading bytitle only and adopt Ordinance
No. 02 (2004).
BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 02 (2004) provides for a zone change as referenced in
the title. A public hearing and the first reading of the Ordinance occurred at the June 29,
2004, City Council meeting. Upon approval of second reading, the referenced zone change
will be effective August 5, 2004.
WWoMAIW452 yis
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
Attachment: Ordinance No. 02 (2004)
ORDINANCE NO. 02 (2004)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR 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
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS - 8293-045-004, 8293-045-005, 8293-
045-006, 8293-045-007, 8293- 045-008 and 8293-045-009
A. RECITALS .
On July 25, 1995, the City of Diamond Bar adopted its General Plan. The
General Plan established land use designations, goals, objectives and
strategies to implement the community's vision for its future.
The applicant, Lewis Diamond Bar, LLC (Lewis), acting as the agent for the
property owners, Inter Community Health Services and Hidden Manna
Corporation, has filed an application for Zone Change No. 2004-02, regarding
development of site comprised of appr oximately 70 -acres generally located at
the southeast comer of Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive and identified
as Assessors Parcel Numbers - 8293- 045-004, 8293-045-005, 8293-045-006,
8293-045-007, 8293-045-008 and 8293-045-009. Hereinafter in this
Resolution, the subject application shall be referred to as the "Application," and
the proposed development as the "project."
3. On June 18, 2004, Notification of the public hearing for this application was
provided in the San Gabriel Valley Tribune and Inland Valley Daily Bulletin
newspapers. On June 16, 2004, public hearing notices were mailed to
approximately 906 property owners of reco rd within a 700 -foot radius of the
project. Furthermore, on June 17, 2004, the project site was posted with a
required display board and public notices were posted in three public places.
4. On June 22, 2004, the Planning Commission of the City of Diamond Bar
conducted a duly noticed public hearing on the Application and adopted
Resolution No. 2004-22 recommending City Council approval of the application.
5. On June 29, 2004, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar conducted and
concluded a duly noticed public hearing on the Application.
6. Following due consideration ofpublic testimony, staffanalysis and the Planning
Commission recommendation, the City Council finds that Zone Change
No. 2004-02 set forth herein is consistent with the General Plan.
The City Council ofthe City of Diamond Bar does hereby approve Zone Change
No. 2004-02 based on the following finding, as required by Section 22.70.050 of
the Municipal Code and in conformance with California Government Code
Sections 65853 and 65860:
The City Council hereby finds that the amendment to the Zoning Map is
internally consistent with the General Plan and the adopted goals and policies
of the City and that the Zoning Map does not presently reflect the General Plan
designation for the Property, PA-3/SP (Planning Area-3/Specif is Plan. Zone
Change No. 2004-02 will place the City's Zoning Map in conformance with the
General Plan by designating the Property as SP (Specific Plan), with subareas
corresponding to those in the Diamond Bar Village Specific Plan. The existing
approximate 70 -acre site located generally near the southeast comer of Grand
Avenue and Golden Springs Drive, more particularly described as (APN 8293-
045-004, 8293-045-005, 8293-045-006, 8293-045-0 07, 8293-045-008 and
8293-045-009) shall have a zoning district designation of SP -Specific Plan.
The Zone Change application is in compliance with the provisions of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). pursuant to Sections 15162 and
15168 the California Code of Regulations. Therefore, further environmental
review is not required because pursuant to Section 15162, no new effects will
occur and no new mitigation measures would be required and the proposed
Zone Change is found to be within the scope of the General Plan Program EIR
and the Addendum for Diamond Bar Village, which is an addendum to the
Medical Plaza and Revitalization EIRs, considered the potential environmental
impacts and meets all requirements for compliance with CEQA. according to
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) of 1970 and guidelines
10. The City Council does hereby incorporate Conditions of Approval, attached as
Exhibit A, and incorporated herein by reference, which shall be conditions to
those matters specified in the Ordinance.
B. ORDINANCE .
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of th e City of Diamond Bar does hereby ordain
as follows:
The zoning designation for the following properties identified as APN 8293-045-
004, 8293-045-005, 8293-045-00 6, 8293-045-007, 8293- 045-008 and 8293-
045-009 is hereby designated SP - Specific Plan and shall allow land uses as
listed within the Diamond Bar Village Specific Plan.
The City Clerk is directed to amend the Zoning Map to reflect the referenced
properties' new zone designation.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF2004, BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
BY:
Bob Zirbes, Mayor
I, Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk of the City of Dia mond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
held on the ___ day of_____, 2004 and was finally passed ata 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:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
Exhibit A
CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Condition of Project Approval No. 1. Total new non-residential gross leaseable square footage on
the "lower parcels," as defined and delineated in the "Diamond Bar Village Specific Plan" (Lewis
Investment Company, LLC, May 25, 2004) shall not exceed 207,781 square feet unless a subsequent
traffic study, addressing the traffic -related impacts associated with any such increase, is submitted to
and deemed acceptable by the City or unless such increase can be determined by the City to not result
in any substantial increase in project-relat ed traffic.
Condition of Project Approval No. 2. All exterior paints utilized for the project's initial construction
shall conform to the following specification: All primers and topcoats shall contain 200 grams or less
of VOC per liter of coating, less water, less exempt compounds, and less any colorant added to tint
bases. Alternatively, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the project's selected finishes and exterior
wall features would result in a comparable reduction in -basin VOC emissions, such as might be
attained through the use of pre -manufacture d and pre -painted materials.
Condition of Project Approval No. 3. When operating within 100 feet of any church, educational
facility, residential use, or other sensitive receptor, the Applicant shall limit allowable engine idling
time to not more than five minutes for diesel -powered trucks and mobile heavy equipment. This
condition is applicable to both construction and operational activities occurring on the project site.
Condition of Project Approval No. 4. The Applicant shall include as part of the real estate disclosure
documentation, as required by the California Department of Real Estate for purchasers of those
residential units to be constructed on the project site, the disclosure that commercial activities are
proposed on the adjacent property and that the operational characteristics of those activities may
include trucking, delivery, and maintenance operations by diesel -fueled vehicles.
Condition of Project Approval No. 5. If required by the City Engineer, a detailed hydrologic and
hydraulic study shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer and submitted for the City's review and
approval prior to the issuance of any grading permits in order to ensure the safe and effective discharge
of storm waters from the project site into areawide storm drain conduits.
Condition of Project Approval No. 6. Based on the current site plan and as determined by the City,
unless effective sound mitigation can be demonstrated once the project is operational or other controls
imposed on delivery and related activities associated with the proposed home improvement center, the
number of delivery and related activities that occur within exterior area and in proximity to the loading
dock between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM shall not exceed three tractor trailers and two small
truck deliveries. With respect to those operations, trucks and tractor trailers are not assumed to be
comparable equipment such that one vehicle type could substitute for the other. The facility operator
shall maintain an on-site delivery manifest documenting delivery and operations between those hours
and, upon request, shall make that manifest available for inspection by City inspectors.
Condition of Project Approval No. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Director shall
review the project development plans with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LACSD) to
determine whether the LACSD has any recommendati ons regarding the project's design, development,
and/or operations. The Director shall work with the Applicant to incorporate such recommendations, if
any, into the final project design.
Condition of Project Approval No. S. The proposed project shall provide, in an amount and within a
time period to be determined by the City, a "fair -share" contribution toward the cost of areawide street
improvements to offset potential project -related and cumulative transportation impacts. Those "fair -
share" contributions shall be based on the projected costs associated with areawide roadway
improvement needs, as defined by the City Engineer.
Condition of Project Approval No. 9. As determined by the City Engineer, the Applicant shall
provide supplemental traffic information related to the assessment of areawide traffic conditions for
review and approval by the City Engineer. The City will incorporate any information deemed
pertinent by the City Engineer into the formulati on of the Applicant's "fair -share" contribution toward
areawide traffic improvements.
Condition of Project Approval No. 10. At the City's discretion, the Applicant's "fair -share"
contributions shall be provided to offset specific impacts at specific locations and/or may be utilized by
the City to provide regional or other City-wide 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 the City, innovative, alternative, bypass, and other transportati on solutions
may be the best method for addressing future transportation needs.
Condition of Project Approval No. 11. The final site plan shall include and accommodate those
traffic measures, improvements, and any other pertinent factors or facilities, as may be determined by
the City Engineer.
Condition of Project Approval No. 12. Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map, the
Applicant shall submit and the City shall review and when deemed acceptable approve a shared
parking study. The study shall present a quantification of on-site parking needs, quantify the number
of on-site parking spaces required under existing City regulations, discuss and evaluate opportunities
for shared parking between on-site land uses, and examine the need and timing for the development of
the proposed parking structure, if determined by the study to be required to accommodate on-site land
uses. The number, type, and location of on-site parking shall be determined by the City based, in
whole or in part, by the findings of that shared parking study.
Condition of Project Approval No. 13. General Plan Amendment No. 2004-01, Zone Change No.
2004-02 and Specific Plan No. 2004-01 shall take effect only if Development Agreement No. 2004-01
takes effect.
Agenda # 6.8
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: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 03 (2004) Approving the Diamond Bar
Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 2004-01)
RECOMMENDATION: Approve second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance
No. 03 (2004).
BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 03 (2004) establishes a Specific Plan for properties
comprised of approximately 70 -acres generally located at the Southeast Corner of Grand
Avenue and Golden Springs Drive and identified as Assessors Parcel Numbers - 8293-045-
004, 8293-045-005, 8293-045-006, 8293-045-007, 8293-045-008 an d 8293-045-009. A
public hearing and the first read ing of the Ordinance occurred at the June 29, 2004, City
Council meeting. Upon approval of second reading, the referenced Specific Plan will be
effective August 5, 2004.
PREPARED BY:
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
Attachments: Ordinance No. 03 (2004)
ORDINANCE NO. 03 (2004)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
THE DIAMOND BAR VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN (SPECIFIC PLAN
NO. 2004-01)
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . The City of Diamond Bar desires to adopt a specific plan pursuant to the
provisions of Governm ent Code Section 65450 et seq. and Chapter 22.60 of Title 22 of the
Diamond Bar Municipal Code with respect to real property located at the southeast comer of
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue in the City of Diamo nd Bar (the "Diamond Bar
Village Specific Plan Area"). The legal descriptions of said parcels are more particularly
described in the proposed specific plan, attached hereto as Exhibit Aand incorporated herein
by reference.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 22, 2004,
and the City Council conducted a public hearing on June 29, 2004, to consider the proposed
specific plan pursuant to Municipal Code Section 22.60.050. The Planning Commission
recommended approval of the agreement. Both oral and written evidence was presented
both to the Commission and the Council.
Section 3. Based upon substantial evidence in the record of the proceeding including,
without limitation, the written and oral staff reports, the Initial Study and Addendum prepared
for the Diamond Bar Village project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the
General Plan, and the record and decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council
hereby finds that the proposed specific plan is consistent with the General Plan of the City of
Diamond Bar and other adopted goals and policies of the City. Specific Plan No. 2004-01
covers an area notated as a specific plan area under the General Plan (as amended) and
includes those land uses provided for under PA-3/SP (Planning Area-3/Specific Plan). It
consists of a mixed-use develop ment that is appropriate for the area and meets all submittal
requirements for the City of Diamond Bar and Government Code Section 65451. The
proposed specific plan is consistent with the General Plan Land Use Element Objectives 1.1
and 1.3 and Strategies 1.1.9, 1.3.1, 1.3.2 and 1.3.5, and other adopted goals and policies of
the City because the proposed specific plan will provide innovative use of land development
with its combination of residential, office, retail, restaurant, institutional and parking uses as
specifically delineated in the Diamond Bar Village Specific Plan for the area of the project
site. The implementation of the Specific will provide additional housing, additional
employment and will provide revenue generation uses in a location that serves the City's
needs. Additionally, the proposed specific plan has been prepared pursuant to the provisions
of Government Code Section 65450. It is therefore consistent with the General Plan and
other City policies.
Section 4. The Specific Plan is in compliance with the provisions of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The Addendum for Diamond Bar Village, which is an
addendum to the Medical Plaza and Revitalization EIRs, considers potential environmental
impacts of DBV and the Specific Plan and meets all requirem ents for compliance with CEQA.
Section 5. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves the Diamond
Bar Village Specific Plan (Specific Plan No. 2004-01) attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and does
hereby incorporate Conditions of Project Approval, attached as Exhibit "B," and incorporated
herein by reference, which shall be conditions to those matters specified in the Ordinance.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF2004, BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
BY:
Bob Zirbes, Mayor
I, Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk of the City of Dia mond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
held on the ---day of_____, 2004 and was finally passed ata 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:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
Exhibit B
CONDITIONS OF PROJECT APPROVAL
Condition of Project Approval No. 1. Total new non-residential gross leaseable square footage on
the "lower parcels," as defined and delineated in the "Diamond Bar Village Specific Plan" (Lewis
Investment Company, LLC, May 25, 2004) shall not exceed 207,781 square feet unless a subsequent
traffic study, addressing the traffic -related impacts associated with any such increase, is submitted to
and deemed acceptable by the City or unless such increase can be determined by the City to not result
in any substantial increase in project-relat ed traffic.
Condition of Project Approval No. 2. All exterior paints utilized for the project's initial construction
shall conform to the following specification: All primers and topcoats shall contain 200 grams or less
of VOC per liter of coating, less water, less exempt compounds, and less any colorant added to tint
bases. Alternatively, the Applicant shall demonstrate that the project's selected finishes and exterior
wall features would result in a comparable reduction in -basin VOC emissions, such as might be
attained through the use of pre -manufacture d and pre -painted materials.
Condition of Project Approval No. 3. When operating within 100 feet of any church, educational
facility, residential use, or other sensitive receptor, the Applicant shall limit allowable engine idling
time to not more than five minutes for diesel -powered trucks and mobile heavy equipment. This
condition is applicable to both construction and operational activities occurring on the project site.
Condition of Project Approval No. 4. The Applicant shall include as part of the real estate disclosure
documentation, as required by the California Departme nt of Real Estate for purchasers of those
residential units to be constructed on the project site, the disclosure that commercial activities are
proposed on the adjacent property and that the operational characteristics of those activities may
include trucking, delivery, and maintenance operations by diesel -fueled vehicles.
Condition of P roject Approval No. 5. If required by the City Engineer, a detailed hydrologic and
hydraulic study shall be prepared by a licensed civil engineer and submitted for the City's review and
approval prior to the issuance of any grading permits in order to ensure the safe and effective discharge
of storm waters from the project site into areawide storm drain conduits.
Condition of Project Approval No. 6. Based on the current site plan and as determined by the City,
unless effective sound mitigation can be demonstrated once the project is operational or other controls
imposed on delivery and related activities associated with the proposed home improvement center, the
number of delivery and related activities that occur within exterior area and in proximity to the loading
dock between the hours of 10:00 PM and 7:00 AM shall not exceed three tractor trailers and two small
truck deliveries. With respect to those operations, trucks and tractor trailers are not assumed to be
comparable equipment such that one vehicle type could substitute for the other. The facility operator
shall maintain an on-site delivery manifest documenting delivery and operations between those hours
and, upon request, shall make that manifest available for inspection by City inspectors.
Condition of Project Approval No. 7. Prior to the issuance of building permits, the Director shall
review the project development plans with the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department (LACSD) to
determine whether the LACSD has any recommendations regarding the project's design, development,
and/or operations. The Director shall work with the Applicant to incorporate such recommendations, if
any, into the final project design.
Condition of Project Approval No. S. The proposed project shall provide, in an amount and within a
time period to be determined by the City, a "fair -share" contribution toward the cost of areawide street
improvements to offset potential project -related and cumulative transportation impacts. Those "fair -
share" contributions shall be based on the projected costs associated with areawide roadway
improvement needs, as defined by the City Engineer.
Condition of Project Approval No. 9. As determined by the City Engineer, the Applicant shall
provide supplemental traffic information related to the assessment of areawide traffic conditions for
review and approval by the City Engineer. The City will incorporate any information deemed
pertinent by the City Engineer into the formulation of the Applicant's "fair -share" contribution toward
areawide traffic improvements.
Condition of Project Approval No. 10. At the City's discretion, the Applicant's "fair -share"
contributions shall be provided to offset specific impacts at specific locations and/or may be utilized by
the City to provide regional or other City-wide 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 the City, innovative, alternative, bypass, and other transportati on solutions
may be the best method for addressing future transportation needs.
Condition of Project Approval No. 11. The final site plan shall include and accommodate those
traffic measures, improvements, and any other pertinent factors or facilities, as may be determined by
the City Engineer.
Condition of Project Approval No. 12. Prior to the approval of the final subdivision map, the
Applicant shall submit and the City shall review and when deemed acceptable approve a shared
parking study. The study shall present a quantification of on-site parking needs, quantify the number
of on-site parking spaces required under existing City regulations, discuss and evaluate opportunities
for shared parking between on-site land uses, and examine the need and timing for the development of
the proposed parking structure, if determined by the study to be required to accommodate on-site land
uses. The number, type, and location of on-site parking shall be determined by the City based, in
whole or in part, by the findings of that shared parking study.
Condition of Project Approval No. 13. General Plan Amendment No. 2004-01, Zone Change No.
2004-02 and Specific Plan No. 2004-01 shall take effect only if Development Agreement No. 2004-01
takes effect.
Agenda #
Meeting Date: July 6. 2004
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
Agenda No.6.9
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Second Reading of Ordinance No. 04 (2004) approving a Development
Agreement (Development Agreement No. 2004-01) between the City of
Diamond Bar and Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC for the Diamond Bar Village Project
RECOMMENDATION: Approve second reading by title only and adopt Ordinance
No. 04 (2004).
BACKGROUND: Ordinance No. 04 (2004) provides for a Development Agreement as
referenced in the title. Apublichearing and the firstreading ofthe Ordinance occurred atthe
June 29, 2004, City Council meeting. Upon approval of second reading, the referenced
Development Agreement will be effective August 5, 2004.
PREPARED BY:
James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
Attachments: Ordinance No. 04 (2004)
ORDINANCE NO. 04 (2004)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING A
DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY AND LEWIS-
DIAMOND BAR, LLC FOR THE DIAMOND BAR VILLAGE
PROJECT
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR HEREBY ORDAINS AS
FOLLOWS:
Section 1 . The City of Diamond Bar and Lewis -D iamond Bar, LLC, desire to enter
into a development agreement pursuant to Government Code Sections 65864 through
65869.5, and Chapter 22.62 of Title 22 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code with respect to
real property located atthe southeast comer of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue in
the City of Diamond Bar. The legal descriptions of said parcels are more particularly
described in the proposed development agreement, attached hereto as Exhibit A and
incorporated herein by reference.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider the
development agreement pursuant to Municipal Code Section 22.62.030( a) on June 22, 2004,
and recommended approval of the agreement. City Council held a properly noticed public
hearing regarding the proposed development agreement pursuant to Section 22.62.030(b) on
June 29, 2004. Both oral and written evidence was presented both to the Commission and
the Council.
Section 3. Based upon substantial evidence in the record of the proceeding including,
without limitation, the written and oral staff reports, the Initial Study and Addendum prepared
for the Diamond Bar Village project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act, the
General Plan, the proposed Specific Plan and the record and decision of the Planning
Commission, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed development agreement is
consistent with the General Plan of the City of Diamond Bar and with the Diamond Bar
Village Specific Plan. The City Council further finds that the proposed development
agreement complies with the zoning, subdivision, and other applicable ordinances and
regulations.
Section 4. The proposed development agreement is consistent with the public
convenience, general welfare, and good land use practice, making it in the public interest to
enter into the development agreement with the applicant. The development agreement
provides for the orderly and comprehensive development of a land area in a visible and
important location in the City. The development agreement ensures that the project can be
developed over time in its approved form, and that the applicant will provide substantial public
benefits as a part of the development.
Section 5. Taking into account all of the conditions of approval that have been applied
to the project, the City Council further finds that:
(a) The development agreement will not adversely affect the health, peace, comfort
or welfare of persons residing or working in the surrounding area, since the
project is in keeping with the character and general development pattern of the
existing area;
(b) The development agreement will not be materially detrimental to the use,
enjoyment or valuation of property of other persons located in the vicinity of the
site, since the development agreement ensures that public improvements,
additional infrastructure and other public benefits will be provided as the project
is constructed; or
(c) The development agreement will not jeopardize , endanger or otherwise
constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare, since the
development agreement will provide public safety improvements such traffic
improvements and ample parking . Further, the project is conditioned to comply
with applicable fire, building and life safety codes and regulations.
(d) The Development Agreement would be in the best interests of the City.
Development Agreement No. 2004-01 implements the proposed Diamond Bar
Village project and will provide certainty to the City and the Applicant regarding
the DBV development time table, impact fees, applicable ordinances, overall
development standards and similar matters. The proposed DBV project will
also transform an underutilized and graded site into a functional and attractive
development that will contribute to the City's tax base. Because of this, the
Agreement is in the best interests of the City and its residents.
(e) The Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan, any
applicable Specific Plan and the Development Code. Diamond Bar Village, the
subject of Development Agreement 2004-01, is consistent with the General
Plan (as amended), is the subject of an ap propriate Specific Plan and meets all
applicable standards of the Development Code. The administrative record and
findings of this Resolution demonstrate conformance with City requirements.
(f) The Development Agreement would promote the public interest and welfare of the
City. As stated above, Diamond Bar Village is a mixed-use development that
preserves open space and expands the City's tax base. It retains a residential
use adjacent to an existing residential area and limitsthe commercial -retail and
institutional use to an area adjacent to a major intersection. Development
Agreement No. 2004-01 implements this development plan and thus promotes the
public interest and welfare.
Section 6. The proposed development agreement complies with the terms, conditions,
restrictions and requirements of Section 22.62.040 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code.
Pursuant to Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.62.040(a) , the development agreement
and the project approvals incorporated therein provide a duration of the agreement, uses to
be permitted on the property, permitted density, maximum height, size and location of
buildings, the reservation of land for publ is purposes such as open space, and a time
schedule for public review. The proposed development agreement also includes additional
terms consistent with Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.62.040(b), such as
construction schedules, bond and insurance requirements, the provision of public
improvements, and requirements for yards, parking, ingress and egress.
Section 7. Pursuant to Section 21090 of CE QA and Sections 15006, 15162, 15164
and 15168 of the CEQA Guidelines, the Project, as defined in the Addendum, is an action
considered under the Medical Plaza and Revitalization EIRs, and there is substantial
evidence that there are no new significant environmental impacts, there is no substantial
increase in the severity of any previously identified impact and there are no new mitigation
measures required so as to warrant a supplemental or subsequent EIR or negative
declaration.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves the
development agreement attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and authorizes the Mayor to execute
said development agreement on behalf ofthe City.
Section 9. The time within which to any legal challenge to the subject development
agreement must be brought is governed by Government Code Section 65009.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED THIS DAY OF2004, BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
BY:
Bob Zirbes, Mayor
I, Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk of the City of Dia mond Bar do hereby certify that the foregoing
Ordinance was introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar
held on the ___ day of_____, 2004 and was finally passed ata 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:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
Agenda # 6.10
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: Authorize expenditures in an amount not -to -exceed $55,000 for FY 04/05 to
Graphics United for production of the City's newsletter/recre ation guide; and
authorize a cumulative expenditure of $36,000 for FY 04/05 to the Postmaster for
the City's newsletter/recre ation guide postage.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize expenditures in an amount not -to -exceed $55,000
for FY 04/05 to Graphics United for production of the City's newsletter/recre ation guide; and authorize
a cumulative expenditure of $36,000 for FY 04/05 to the Postmaster for the City's
newsletter/recre ation guide postage.
Budget Implication:
These amounts are budgeted for FY 04/05.
Discussion:
The City requested bids for production services from 13 different vendors. Six (6) vendors submitted
bids to the City. Bids ranged from $42,744 (from Graphics United) to $73,128 (please see Exhibit A
for bid comparisons). As the lowest responsible bidder, staff recommends that Graphics United
provide production services for the City's newsletter/re creation guide. In order to provide for additional
pages and/or special inserts throughout the year, it is recommended that the City Council authorize
expenditures to Graphics United in an amount not -to -ex ceed $55,000 for FY 04/05.
Postage cost to mail the City's newsletter/recr eation guide to all residents and businesses is
approximately $2700 per month. In order to accommodate for any increase in postage and/or quantity
mailed, staff recommends that payment be made to the Postmaster for $36,000 for the 04/05 FY.
----------------
Prepared By
--------- Dy -------------- ---
Attachments:
--
Reviewed By
Attach men ts:
A. Quote Comparisons for City News &Community Recreation Guide Production Costs
Exhibit "A"
Quote Comparisons for City News & Community Recreation Guide Production Costs FY 04/05
Vendor
city News mo
city News Yearly
Rec Guide(qtr)
Rec Guide r
Yr TE74452
Graphics United
$1,746.28
$13,970.24
$7,193.57
$28,774.28
42
A-1 Printing
$2,080.00
$16,640.00
$9,800.00
$39,200.00
$55,840.00
Reinber er Printwerks
$1,819.00
$21,828.00
$10,970.00
$43,880.00
$65.708.00
California Lithograph
$2,130.00
$25,560.00
$11,610.00
$46,440.00
$72,000.00
The Litho Connection
$3.039.00
$36,468.00
$8,915.00
$35,660.00
72 128.00
ProForma
1 $2,464.00
$29,568.00
$10,890.00
$43,560.00
1 $73,128.00
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # _6.11
Meeting Date: July 6. 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Extension of City -Wide Graffiti Removal Contract with Graffiti Control Systems for
the 2004-2005 Fiscal Year in the amount of $35,000
Recommendation: Approve the contract extension
Financial Implication: Funds for this contract are included I the proposed 2004-2005 FY budget.
Background: On May 19, 1993, the City Coun cil awarded a contract to Graffiti Control Systems
for graffiti removal in Diamond Bar. Section 31 of the specifications 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.
Discussion: Since the original contra ct was awarded, the City Council has approved the annual
extension ofthe contract atthe same cost of$30.00 per site. There were a total of948 sites ofgraffiti
removed in the 12 months of June 2003 through May 2004, for a tota I cost of $28,910. Staff is
recommending that the contract be extended for the 2004-2005 FY in the amount not to exceed
$35,000. This amount should be sufficient for required graffiti removal services, plus additional work
requested by the Public Works division on an as -needed basis, such as cleaning paint spills on the
public street. Graffiti Control Systems has proven that they can satisfactorily perform the
specifications of the contract.
Prepared by
James DeStefano
Deputy City Manager
Attachment: Letter of Agreement
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lo wry, City Manager
Agenda # __6.12
Meeting Date: Julv 6, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: AWARD OF PROFESSIONAL CONSULTING SERVICES CONTRACT FOR
THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM (PMS) TO MACTEC
ENGINEERING AND CONSULTING, INC. (MACTEC) IN THE AMOUNT OF
$49,470.00, AND AUTHORIZE A CONTIN GENCY AMOUNT OF $10,530.00
FOR CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR
A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $60,000.00.
RECOMMENDATION:
Award a consulting services contract to MACTEC.
FISCAL IMPACT:
Fiscal Year (FY) 04/05 Budget allocated $60 ,000.00 for development of a PMS program.
BACKGROUND:
In 1994, the City's first PMS program was implemented using a computerized approach for
developing a 5 -year pavement rehabilitation program. In 1998 the program was updated to
continue our pavement rehabilitation program from FY 1998/99 to 02/03.
On April 20, 2004, to reduce General Fund expenditures, and to ensure the City receives
maximum return on residential street rehabilitation expenditures, the Council approved the
change from a 5 -year roadway preservation and rehabilitation prog ram to a 7 -year program.
DISCUSSION:
On March 25, 2004, the City issued a Requ est for Proposals (RFP) for professional
engineering services. The RFP requested the Consultant design and implement a new
Pavement Management System software program. The goal is to have an efficient tool that
will guide managers in making cost effective pavement maintenance and rehabilitation
decisions regarding the City's approximately 135 center line miles of streets.
In response to the RFP, ten (10) proposals were received, reviewed and evaluated.
Subsequently, a panel of three staff members interviewed the following four (4) consultants
for further consideration:
Advanced Infrastructure Management, Inc.
Berryman and Henigar, Inc.
MACTEC Engineering and Consulting, Inc
Nichols Consulting Engineers
Staff unanimously concluded that MACTEC best understood the City's pavement and
program needs, and presented the best solution for guiding staff in the decision-making
process. MACTEC has completed countless similar projects for other local, regional and
State agencies in a satisfactory manner. The consulting fees proposed by the above
consultants ranged from $30,800.00 to $61,500.00.
MACTEC's scope of work will consist of system development and implementation of 7 -year
roadway rehabilitation and preservation program, data collection, compilation and installation.
The detailed scope of work will include the following tasks:
• Task 1, Pavement Management System Evaluation
• Task 2, Updating City's Existing Database
• Task 3, Survey Street Condition and Determine Pavement Condition Index
• Task 4, Capital Improvement Program 7 -year
• Task 5, GIS Linkage
• Task 6, Report Preparation
Additionally, as an optional task, staff has requested MACTEC to submit a proposal to
independently evaluate those streets which are being used as detour routes as part of
Caltrans State Route -57/60 construction project. The initial data collection for this optional
task will be included as part of the overall PMS program development tasks; however, if the
City chooses to utilize MACTEC for this task, the evaluation and monitoring will continue until
completion of SR -57/60 construction project.
The project is tentatively scheduled to commence on August 2, 2004 and will be completed
within four (4) months. The optional task of evaluating SR -57/60 construction project's impact
on affected City streets will continue through summer 2007.
PREPARED BY
Javier R. Peraza, Management Analyst
Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu, Director of Public Works James DeStefano, Deputy City Manager
Attachments: MACTEC'S Project Objectives & Technical Approach
Consulting Services Agreement
2
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6.13
Meeting Date: July 06, 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Amend Contract With Diversified Paratransit, Inc. For Fiscal Year
2004-2005 Diamond Ride (DIAL -A -CAB) Service to include a $.10 rate
increase for the Flag Drop and a $.10 rate increase for the Per Mile
Meter Rate.
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the Contract Amendment No. 5 and rate increases.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The Diamond Ride (Dial -A -Cab) program is funded through Proposition A, Local Transit
Funds. The approved budget for FY 2004-2005 is $330,000 and is sufficient for the
proposed rate increase.
BACKGROUND/DISCO SSION:
In April 1995, the City established the Diamond Ride (Dial -A -Cab) service to provide a
reliable, useable transportation system for the elderly (60 years of age and older) and
physically challenged residents of Diamond Bar. The Diamond Ride service operates
seven (7) days a week, 24 hours a day, within a specific geographic boundary and
designated facilities. As the City's current service provider, Diversified Paratransit, Inc.
(DPI) has been serving the community since the inception of this demand -response
program. After an RFP process, the City Council awarded the current contract to
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. on March 1999 for one year, with provision for annual
extension (s) by mutual agreement. This Contract Amendment No. 5 represents year six
(6) of the service.
Due to increased costs of gasoline and insurance, DPI is requesting an increase of $.10
to the current $1.90 per mile meter rate, and an increase of $.10 per flag drop. The
proposed (FY 2004/2005) fees would increase the flag drop from $1.90 to $2.00 (flag
drop is the fixed rate charged for initiating a trip) and the per mile meter rate from $1.90
to $2.00, with no wait time fees. A 10% administrative fee continues to be charged by
DPI. These fees have remained the same since the FY 2001-2002 increase.
For Fiscal Year 2003-2004, as of April, the average number of monthly trips is 1,170
and the average monthly contract expense is $20,970.00. Ofthe 1,170 trips, 52% ofthe
trips are to destinations outside of Diamond Bar and 48% of the trips are within the City
of Diamond Bar. The average cost per trip is $19.08 and the net cost per passenger is
$14.10. Please refer to Exhibit "D".
The Diamond Ride Program continues to serve as a reliable and in -demand public
transportation service for the City's elderly and disabled. Therefore, staff is requesting
that City Council approve Contract Amendment No. 5 with Diversified Paratransit, Inc
PREPARED BY:
Diana Belt, Office Assistant Date Prepared: June 28, 2004
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu James DeStefano
Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager
Attachments: Exhibit "A" -Agreement dated March 2, 1999
Exhibit "B" — Amendment No. 5 to the Agreement
Exhibit "C" - DPI Request to Extend Contract, dated June 23, 2004
Exhibit "D" — FY 2003-04 Status Report
Exhibit "B"
AMENDMENT NO. 5 TO THE AGREEMENT FOR
DIAMOND RIDE (DIAL -A -CAB) SERVICES
FOR 2004-2005 FISCAL YEAR
This Amendment No. 5 to the City's Contract Agreement is made and entered
into this 6th day of Jam, 2004 by and between the CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, a
municipal corporation (hereinafter referred to as "City") and DIVERSIFIED
PARATRANSIT, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as "CONTRACTOR").
A. Recitals:
(i) The CITY has heretofore entered into an agreement with
Diversified Paratransit, Inc. to provide Dial -A -Cab services to the
eligible elderly and persons with disabilities who reside in Diamond
Bar, dated March 2, 1999 ("SAID AGREEMENT" hereinafter). A
true and correct copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit "A'.
(ii) CONSULTANT has requested a one-year extension proposal
("PROJECT" hereinafter), a full, true and correct copy of which
attached hereto as Exhibit "C" to extend said services for a period
of one (1) year.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is agreed by and between CITY and CONTRACTOR:
B. Amendment to Agreement:
Section 20 of the original agreement is hereby amended as follows:
"20. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence July 1, 2004 and
shall be extended through June 30, 2005".
Each party to this Supplemental Agreement acknowledges that no representatio n by
any party which is not embodies herein nor any other agreement, statement, or promise
not contained in this Supplemental Agreement shall be valid and binding. Any
modification of this Supplemental Agreement shall be effective only if it is in writing
signed by the parties.
Exhibit "B"
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Supplemental
Agreement as of the day and year first set forth above.
"CITY"
ATTEST:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
By: --------------- ------------- By: --------------- --
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk Bob Zirbes, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM: "CONTRACTOR":
DIVERSIFIED PARATRANSIT
BY:
City Attorney Brian Hunt, President
2
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 7.1 a
Meeting Date: July 6. 2004
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: RESOLUTION LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2004-05.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The requested District 38 levy rate of $15. 00 per parcel will generate approximately
$265,905 in assessment revenue. The assessment rate remains the same as the rate
applied at the date of Diamond Bar's incorporation. The assessment revenues shall be
deposited in Special Revenu a Landscape Fund 138 and shall apply toward the 2004-05
operation, maintenance, capital budget, and a small reserve for future capital improvements.
The total annual budget of the District is $723,688. The itemized budget for District 38 is
included in the attached Engineer's Report, Financial Analysis, page 4.
BACKGROUND/DISCU SSION:
The landscaping improvements to be maintained by District 38 are the parkways along the
northerly side of Grand Avenue (between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Summitridge Drive),
the southerly side of Temple Avenue (between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs
Drive), along Golden Springs Drive (between Torito Lane and Temple Avenue); the
streetscape improvements along Brea Canyon Road (between Pathfinder Road and the
Southerly City Limit); and the medians throughout the City. The maintenance areas are
further detailed in Exhibit "B-1 "of the Engineer's Report. The maintenance and servicing of
public landscaping improvements installed and constructed in public places in the City
provides a special benefit which is received by each and every lot or parcel within the
District, tending to enhance their value. The estimated number of parcels within the District
is 17,727 parcels.
This proposed assessment has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of
Proposition 218 asset forth in Section 5(a): Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance
the capital costs or maintenan ce and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers,
water, flood control drainage systems orvector control.
Prepared By:
Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu James DeStefano
Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager
Attachments: Resolution No. 2004 -XX
Engineer's Report
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
A RESOLUTION LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004-05
A. RECITALS.
(i) By its Resolution No. 2004-23, this Council approved a report of the City
Engineer related to City of Diamond Bar Assessment District No. 38 prepared pursuant to
California Streets and Highways Code Section 22623, described the improvements thereon
and gave notice of and fixed the time and place of the hearing on the question of
assessment thereon for fiscal year 2004-05. A diagram of the area encompassed by said
assessment district is attached hereto as Exhibit "A-1."
(ii) Said hearing was duly and properly noticed, commenced at the South Coast
Air Quality Management/Gover nment Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California on July 6, 2004, and was concluded prior to the adoption of this Resolution.
(iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar does hereby find,
determine and order as follows:
1. The Recitals, as set forth in Part A of this Resolution, are in all respects true
and correct.
2. This Council hereby expressly overrules any and all protests filed objecting to
the proposed improvements specified herein orthe assessment levied therefor.
3. Based upon its review of the report of the City Engineer referred to
hereinabove, and other reports and information, the City Council hereby finds that (i) the
land within the said District will be benefited by the improvements specified in said report, (ii)
said District includes all of the lands so ben efited, and (iii) the net amount to be assessed
upon the lands within said District for the 2004-05 fiscal year, in accordance with said report,
is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the net amount among all
assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be received by each
such lot or parcel from the improvements
4. The improvements specified in the report hereinabove referred to which is on
file with the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar are hereby ordered to be completed.
5. The assessment diagram contained in the report referred to hereinabove and
the assessment of $15.00 for each assessable lot located within said District are hereby
adopted and confirmed and said assessment hereby is levied for the 2004-05 fiscal year.
6. The assessment is in compliance with the provisions of the Act, and the City
Council has complied with all laws pertaining to the levy of an annual assessment pursuant
to the Act. The assessment is levied for the purpose of paying the costs and expenses of
the improvements described in the report referred to hereinabove for fiscal year 2004-05.
7. The City Treasurer shall deposit all moneys representing assessments
collected by the County to the credit of a special fund for use in City of Diamond Bar
Assessment District No. 38.
8. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the diagram and
assessment with the County Auditor, together with a certified copy of this Resolution upon
its adoption.
9. A certified copy of the assessment and diagram shall be filed in the office of
the City Clerk and open for public inspection.
10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
2
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 6th 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 adop ted at the regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 6th day of July, 2004, by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
3
Akglei 1►1:14:4=1:4901:4 1
Update of
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38
Fiscal Year 2004-05
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Prepared by:
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 230
Riverside, CA 92506
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Reven u e
Appropriations
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL
EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A-1" - Assessment Diagram
Exhibit "B-1" - Improvement Map
Page
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, this report is
prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California.
This report presents the engineer ing analysis for the 2004-05 Fiscal Year for the district
known as:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
(Hereinafter referred to as "District").
This District, by special benefit assessments, provides funding for the maintenance of
landscaped areas owned by the City of Diam and Bar which are located in public rights-
of-way within the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be
levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may
be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special
benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the
improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvemen tAct of 1911 (Division
7 (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highwa ys Code, State of
California]."
As the assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee,
not a tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.
Properties owned by public agencies, such as a city, county, state or the federal
government, are not assessable under pre -Prop 218 law.
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
The boundary of the District is completely within the City limits of the City of Diamond
Bar and is shown on the Assessment Diagram (on file in the office of the City Clerk at
the City Hall of Diamond Bar as Exhibit "A-1 "). All parcels of real property included
within the District are described in detail on maps on file in the Los Angeles County
Assessor's office.
IMPROVEMENTS
The facilities and items of servicing and maintenance included within the District are as
follows:
Landscaping
Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the
operation of any fountains, orthe maintenance of any other improvements.
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual
maintenance, operation and servicing of any improvement, including:
Repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any landscape improvement.
2. Providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including without
limitation, cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, ortreating for
disease or injury.
3. The removal oftrimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste.
Improvements to be serviced and maintained include, but are not limited to, median
island and parkway landscaping on major streets and thoroughfares in the City of
Diamond Bar. Exhibit "B-1," attached hereto, shows the location and extent ofthe
landscaping improvements to be maintained by the proceeds from this assessment
d istrict.
3
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The estimated funding for maintenance and servicing of landscaping for the update of
Assessment District No. 38 for the 2004-05 Fiscal Year is as follows:
2004-05
Recommended Budget
Revenue:
Appropriation Fund Balance (from FY 2003-04) $450,783
Property Tax -Special Assessments 265,905
Interest Revenue 7.000
TOTAL $ 723,688
Appropriations:
Personnel Services
Salaries
$ 15,450
City Paid Benefits
250
Retirement
2,350
Worker's Compensation Expense
650
Short/Long Term Disability
100
Medicare Expense
250
Cafeteria Benefits
2,850
Operating Expenses
Advertising
1,000
Utilities
112,200
Maintenance-Grou nds & Bldg
15,000
Professional Services
7,000
Contract Services
120,000
Capital Outlay
Capital Improvements
35,000
Transfer to CIP Fund *'
410,000
Reserve for Future Capital Improvements
1,588
TOTAL
$ 723,688
Includes replacement often irrigation control lers/cab i net boxes @
$3,500/each.
City Entry Improvements - SE Corner Diamond Bar Blvd. @Temple
Ave.
Landscape Improvements - Diamond Bar Blvd. between Maple Hill &
Mountain Laurel
Landscape Improvements - Pathfinder Rd. @ Evergreen Springs Dr.
Landscape Improvements - BCR @ Gerndal St.
Landscape Improvements -Golden Springs Dr. @ Adel Ave.
4
Plans and Specifications
Plans and specifications showing the general nature, location and extent ofthe
proposed improvements are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public
inspection.
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The net amount to be assessed upon lands within the District in accordance with this
report is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received byeach lot orparcel from the improvements, namely the maintenance and
servicing of public landscaping improvements within such District. The maintenance
and servicing of public landscaping improvements installed and constructed in public
places in the City of Diamond Bar provides a special benefit which is received by each
and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value.
The primary benefits of landscaping are as set forth below:
Beautification of the streets which are used by all of the residents in Diamond
Bar.
2. Asense of community pride resulting from well-maintained green spaces.
3. The enhancement of the value of property which results from the foregoing
ben efits.
Existing land use information indicates that well over 90 percent of the parcels within the
City of Diamond Bar are residences. Because the special benefits derived apply
equally to all residents and parcels, it has been determined that all assessable parcels
would receive the same net assessment.
6
ASSESSMENT
The amount to be assessed upon the lots and parcels within the District and the amount
apportioned to each assessable parcel within the District is shown in the table below.
Estimated Assessment Requirements:
$265,905
Estimated Number of Parcels:
17,727
Estimated Assessment Per Parcel:
$
15.00
2003-04 Assessment Per Parcel:
$
15.00
2004-05 Assessment Per Parcel:
$
15.00
Difference:
7
$ 0.00
ASSESSMENT ROLL
The individual 2004-05 assessments, tabulated by Assessor's parcel number, are
shown on an Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar as Exhibit "C and are made a part of this report by reference. (The
Assessment Roll is not included in this report due to its volume.)
Dated: ,2004
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
`� No. 027861 y JOHN A. FRIEDRICH
* E:p. 3/31 /06
�� CIVIL _gip
\\ CF
EXHIBITS
Agenda # _7.1b
Meeting Date: July 6, 2004
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
yy&��IYHt�
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: RESOLUTION LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO.
39 FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2004-05.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The requested District 39 levy rate of $130. 00 per parcel will generate approximately
$164,190 in assessment revenue. The assessment rate remains the same as the rate
applied at the date of Diamond Bar's incorporation. Th a assessment revenues shall be
deposited in Special Revenue Landscape Fund 139 and shall apply toward the 2004-05
operation, maintenance, capital budget, and reserve for future improvements. The
District budget totals $343,490. The itemized budget for District 39 is included in the
attached Engineer's Report, Financial Analysis, page 4.
BACKGROUND/DISCO SSION:
The landscaping improvements to be maintained by District 39 are the mini parks,
slopes, and open space areas within the Assessment diagram as reflected in Exhibit "B-
2" of the Engineer's Report. This reflects atotal maintenance area of 60.67 acres. The
maintenance and servicing of public landscaping improvements installed and
constructed in public places in the city provides a special benefit which is received by
each and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value. The
estimated number of parcels within the District is 1,263 parcels.
This proposed assessment has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of
Proposition 218 as set forth in Section 5(b): Any assessment imposed pursuant to a
petition signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment atthe
time the assessment is initially imposed.
Prepared By:
Sharon Gomez, Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu James DeStefano
Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager
Attachments: Resolution No. 2004 -XX
Engineer's Report
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
A RESOLUTION LEVYING AN ASS ESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2004-05.
A. RECITALS.
(i) By its Resolution No. 2004-24, this Council approved a report of the City
Engineer related to City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 39
prepared pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 22623, described
the improvements thereon and gave notice of and fixed the time and place of the
hearing on the question of assessment thereon for fiscal year 2004- 05. A diagram of
the area encompassed by said assessment district is attached hereto as Exhibit "A-2."
(ii) Said hearing was duly and properly noticed, commenced at the South
Coast Air Quality Management/Gover nment Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California on July 6, 2004, and was concluded prior to the adoption
of this Resolution.
(iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diam and Bar does hereby
find, determine and order as follows:
1. The Recitals, as set forth in Part A of this Resolution, are in all respects
true and correct.
2. This Council hereby expressly overrules any and all protests filed
objecting to the proposed improvements specified herein or the assessment levied
th erefo r.
n
3. Based upon its review of the report of the City Engineer referred to
hereinabove, and other reports and information, the City Council hereby finds that (i) the
land within the said District will be benefited by the improvements specified in said
report, (ii) said District includes all of the lands so benefit ed, and (iii) the net amount to
be assessed upon the lands within said District for the 2004-05 fiscal year, in
accordance with said report, is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly
distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the
estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements
4. The improvements specified in the report hereinabove referred to which is
on file with the City Clerk of the City of Dia mond Bar are hereby ordered to be
completed.
5. The assessment diagram contained in the report referred to hereinabove
and the assessment of $130.00 for each assessable lot located within said District are
hereby adopted and confirmed and said assessment hereby is levied for the 2004-05
fiscal year.
6. The assessment is in compliance with the provisions of the Act, and the
City Council has complied with all laws pertaining to the levy of an annual assessment
pursuant to the Act. The assessment is levied for the purpose of paying the costs and
expenses of the improvements described in the report referred to hereinabove for fiscal
year 2004-05.
7. The City Treasurer shall deposit all moneys representing assessments
collected by the County to the credit of a special fund for use in City of Diamond Bar
Assessment District No. 39.
8. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the diagram and
assessment with the County Auditor, together with a certified copy of this Resolution
upon its adoption.
2
9. A certified copy of the assessment and diagram shall be filed in the office
of the City Clerk and open for public inspection.
10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 6th 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 the regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 6th day of July, 2004, by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
3
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Update of
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39
Fiscal Year 2004-05
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Prepared by:
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 230
Riverside, CA 92506
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Reven u e
Appropriations
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL
EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A-2" - Assessment Diagram
Exhibit "B-2" - Improvement Map
Page
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, this report is
prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California.
This report presents the engineer ing analysis for the 2004-05 Fiscal Year for the district
known as:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
(Hereinafter referred to as "District").
This District, by special benefit assessments, provides funding for the maintenance of
landscaped areas owned by the City of Diam and Bar which are located in public rights-
of-way within the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be
levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may
be apportioned by any formula or method wh ich fairly distributes the net amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special
benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the
improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvem ent Act of 1911 (Division
7 (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highways Code, State of
California]."
As the assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee,
not a tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.
Properties owned by public agencies, such as a city, county, state or the federal
government, are not assessable under pre -Prop 218 law.
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
The boundary of the District is shown on the Assessment Diagram (on file in the office
of the City Clerk atthe City Hall of Diamond Bar as Exhibit "A-2"). All parcels of real
property included within the District are described in detail on maps on file in the Los
Angeles County Assessor's office.
IMPROVEMENTS
The facilities and items of servicing and maintenance included within the District are as
follows:
Landscaping
Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the
operation of any fountains, orthe maintenance of any other improvements.
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual
maintenance, operation and servicing of any improvement, including:
Repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any landscape improvement.
2. Providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including without
limitation, cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, ortreating for
disease or injury.
3. The removal oftrimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste.
The purpose of Assessment District No. 39 is for the maintenance and servicing of mini -
parks, slopes and open spaces within the District. Exhibit "B-2," attached hereto, shows
the location and extent of the landscaping improvements to be maintained by the
proceeds from this assessment district.
3
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The estimated funding for maintenance and servicing of landscaping for the update of
Assessment District No. 39 for the 2004-05 Fiscal Year is as follows:
2004-05
Recommended Budget
Revenue:
Appropriation Fund Balance (from FY 2003-04) $ 176,300
Property Tax and Assessments 164,190
Interest Revenue 3.000
TOTAL $ 343,490
Appropriations:
Personal Services
Salaries
$ 15,450
City Paid Benefits
250
Retirement
2,350
Worker's Compensation Expense
650
Short/Long Term Disability
100
Medicare Expense
250
Cafeteria Benefits
2,850
Operating Expenses
Advertising
1,000
Utilities
61,160
Maintenance-Grou nds & Bldg.
15,000
Professional Services
7,000
Contract Services
57,000
Capital Outlays
Miscellaneous Equipment
33,000
Transfer to CIP Fund "
25,800
Reserve for Future Capital Improvements
121.630
TOTAL $ 343,490
Includes replacement of 10 irrigation controllers/cont roller boxes @
$3,300 each.
Pantera Drive —Slope Repair
As funds become available, it is planned to update equipment in each of the district's
mini -parks.
4
Plans and Specifications
Plans and specifications showing the general nature, location and extent of any
proposed improvements are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public
inspection.
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The net amount to be assessed upon lands within the District in accordance with this
report is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received byeach lot orparcel from the improvements, namely the maintenance and
servicing of public landscaping improvements within such District. The maintenance
and servicing of public landscaping improvements installed and constructed in public
places in the City of Diamond Bar provides a special benefit which is received by each
and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value.
The primary benefits of landscaping are as set forth below:
1. Beautification of the streets which are used by all of the residents in Diamond
Bar.
2. Public parks which can be utilized and enjoyed by all residents within the District.
3. A sense of community pride resulting from well-maintained green spaces.
4. The enhancement of the value of property which results from the foregoing
ben efits.
Existing land use information indicates that all of the parcels within the District are
residences. Because the special benefits derived apply equally to all residents and
parcels, it has been determined that all assessable parcels would receive the same net
assessment.
6
ASSESSMENT
The amount to be assessed upon the lots and parcels within the District and the amount
apportioned to each assessable parcel within the District is shown in the table below.
Estimated Assessment Requirements: $164,190
Estimated Number of Parcels:
1,263
Estimated Assessment Per Parcel: $ 130.00
2002-03 Assessment Per Parcel: $ 130.00
2004-05 Assessment Per Parcel: $ 130.00
Difference:
7
$ 0.00
ASSESSMENT ROLL
The individual 2004-05 assessments, tabulated by Assessor's parcel number, are
shown on an Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar as Exhibit "C and are made a part of this report by reference. (The
Assessment Roll is not included in this report due to its volume.)
Dated: ,2004
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
No,. 861
3
� e:p3/331 /06 * JOHN A. FRIEDRICH
�. CIVIL �p
�� CSF
EXHIBITS
Agenda # 7.1c
Meeting Date: Julv 6. 2004
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE FISCAL
YEAR 2004-05.
RECOMMENDATION:
Adopt.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The requested District 41 levy rate of $220.50 per parcel will generate approximately
$122,157 in assessment revenue. The assessment rate remains the same as the rate
applied at the date ofincorporat ion of the City of Diamond Bar. The assessment revenues
shall be deposited in Special Revenue Landscape Fund 141 and shall apply toward the
2004-05 operation, maintenance, capital improvement budget, and reserve for future
improvements. The District budget totals $496, 157. The itemized budget for District 41 is
included in the attached Engineer's Report, Financial Analysis, page 4.
BACKGROUND/DISCO SSION:
The landscaping improvements to be maintained by District 41 are the slopes, and open
space areas within the Assessment diagrams as reflected in Exhibit "B-3" of the Engineer's
Report. This reflects a total maintenance area of 15.6 acres. The maintenance and
servicing of public landscaping improvements installed and constructed in public places in
the city provides a special benef it which is received by each and every lot or parcel within
the District, tending to enhance their value. The estimated number of parcels within the
District is 554 parcels. The amount assessed upon the lands within District No. 41 for Fiscal
Year 2003-04 was $220.50 per parcel.
This proposed assessment has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of
Proposition 218 as set forth in Section 5(b): Any assessment imposed pursuant to a petition
signed by the persons owning all of the parcels subject to the assessment at the time the
assessment is initially imposed.
Prepared By:
Sharon Gomez, Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu James DeStefano
Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager
Attachments: Resolution No. 2004 -XX
Engineer's Report
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-
A RESOLUTION LEVYING AN ASS ESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2004-05.
A. RECITALS.
(i) By its Resolution No. 2004-25, this Council approved a report of the City
Engineer related to City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 41
prepared pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code Section 22623, described
the improvements thereon and gave notice of and fixed the time and place of the
hearing on the question of assessment thereon for fiscal year 2004- 05. A diagram of
the area encompassed by said assessment district is attached hereto as Exhibit "A-3."
(ii) Said hearing was duly and properly noticed, commenced at the South
Coast Air Quality Management Auditorium/Go vernment Center, 21865 Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California on July 6, 2004, and was concluded prior to the adoption of this
Resolution.
(iii) All legal prerequisites to the adoption of this Resolution have occurred.
B. RESOLUTION.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Diamon d Bar does hereby
find, determine and order as follows:
1. The Recitals, as set forth in Part A of this Resolution, are in all respects
true and correct.
2. This Council hereby expressly overrules any and all protests filed
objecting to the proposed improvements specified herein or the assessment levied
th erefo r.
3. Based upon its review of the report of the City Engineer referred to
hereinabove, and other reports and information, the City Council hereby finds that (i) the
land within the said District will be benefited by the improvements specified in said
report, (ii) said District includes all of the lands so benefit ed, and (iii) the net amount to
be assessed upon the lands within said District for the 2003-04 fiscal year, in
accordance with said report, is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly
distributes the net amount among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the
estimated benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements
4. The improvements specified in the report hereinabove referred to which is
on file with the City Clerk of the City of Dia mond Bar are hereby ordered to be
completed.
5. The assessment diagram contained in the report referred to hereinabove
and the assessment of $220.50 for each assessable lot located within said District are
hereby adopted and confirmed and said assessment hereby is levied for the 2004-05
fiscal year.
6. The assessment is in compliance with the provisions of the Act, and the
City Council has complied with all laws pertaining to the levy of an annual assessment
pursuant to the Act. The assessment is levied for the purpose of paying the costs and
expenses of the improvements described in the report referred to hereinabove for fiscal
year 2004-05.
7. The City Treasurer shall deposit all moneys representing assessments
collected by the County to the credit of a special fund for use in City of Diamond Bar
Assessment District No. 41.
8. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to file the diagram and
assessment with the County Auditor, together with a certified copy of this Resolution
upon its adoption.
2
9. A certified copy of the assessment and diagram shall be filed in the office
of the City Clerk and open for public inspection.
10. The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption of this Resolution.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 6th 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 the regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the 6th day of July, 2004, by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
NOES:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSENT:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ABSTAINED:
COUNCIL
MEMBERS:
ATTEST:
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
City of Diamond Bar
3
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Update of
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41
Fiscal Year 2004-05
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Prepared by:
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 230
Riverside, CA 92506
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Reven u e
Appropriations
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL
EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A-3" - Assessment Diagram
Exhibit "B-3" - Improvement Map
Page
1
2
3
4
6
7
8
INTRODUCTION
Pursuant to the order of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar, this report is
prepared in compliance with the requirements of Article 4, Chapter 1, Landscaping and
Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the
State of California.
This report presents the engineering analysis for the 2004-05 Fiscal Year for the district
known as:
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
(Hereinafter referred to as "District").
This District, by special benefit assessments, provides funding for the maintenance of
landscaped areas owned by the City of Diam and Bar which are located in public rights-
of-way within the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be
levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may
be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special
benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the
improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvemen tAct of 1911 (Division
7 (commencing with Section 5000)) [of the Streets and Highwa ys Code, State of
California]."
As the assessments are levied on the basis of benefit, they are considered a user's fee,
not a tax, and, therefore, are not governed by Article XIIIA of the California Constitution.
Properties owned by public agencies, such as a city, county, state or the federal
government, are not assessable under pre -Prop 218 law.
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
The boundary of the District is shown on the Assessment Diagram (on file in the office
of the City Clerk atthe City Hall of Diamond Bar as Exhibit "A-3"). All parcels of real
property included within the District are described in detail on maps on file in the Los
Angeles County Assessor's office.
2
IMPROVEMENTS
The facilities and items of servicing and maintenance included within the District are as
follows:
Landscaping
Servicing means the furnishing of water for the irrigation of any landscaping, the
operation of any fountains, orthe maintenance of any other improvements.
Maintenance means the furnishing of services and materials for the ordinary and usual
maintenance, operation and servicing of any improvement, including:
Repair, removal or replacement of all or any part of any landscape improvement.
2. Providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including without
limitation, cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing, ortreating for
disease or injury.
3. The removal oftrimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste.
The purpose of Assessment District No. 41 is for the maintenance and servicing of mini -
parks, slopes and open spaces within the District. Exhibit "B-3," attached hereto, shows
the location and extent of the landscaping improvements to be maintained by the
proceeds from this assessment district.
3
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The estimated funding for maintenance and servicing of landscaping for the update of
Assessment District No. 41 for the 2004-05 Fiscal Year is as follows:
2004-05
Recommended Budget
Revenue:
Appropriation Fund Balance (from FY 2003-04) $ 370,000
Property Tax and Assessments 122,157
Interest Revenue 4.000
TOTAL $ 496,157
Appropriations:
Personal Services
Salaries
$ 15,450
City Paid Benefits
250
Retirement
2,350
Worker's Compensation Expense
650
Short/Long Term Disability
100
Medicare Expense
250
Cafeteria Benefits
2,850
Operating Expenses
Advertising
1,000
Utilities
72,010
Maintenance -Gro unds & Bldg
10,000
Professional Services
7,000
Contract Services
Contract Services
27,000
Weed/Pest Abatement
15,000
Capital Outlays
Miscellaneous Equipment
52,500
Capital Improvement s **
240,000
Reserve for Future Capital Improvements
49.747
TOTAL $ 496,157
Includes replacement of 15 irrigation controllers/cont roller boxes @ $3,500 each.
** Slope Improvements —Brea Canyon Cutoff & Fallow Field Drive / WCL
4
Plans and Specifications
Plans and specifications showing the general nature, location and extent ofthe
proposed improvements are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public
inspection.
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
The net amount to be assessed upon lands within the District in accordance with this
report is apportioned by a formula and method which fairly distributes the amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated benefits to be
received by each lot orparcel from the improvements, namely the maintenance and
servicing of public landscaping improvements within such District. The maintenance
and servicing of public landscaping improvements installed and constructed in public
places in the City of Diamond Bar provides a special benefit which is received by each
and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value.
The primary benefits of landscaping are asset forth below:
Beautification of the streets which are used by all of the residents in Diamond
Bar.
2. Public parks which can be utilized and enjoyed by all residents within the District
3. Asense of community pride resulting from well-maintained green spaces.
4. The enhancement of the value of property which results from the foregoing
b en efits.
Existing land use information indicates that all of the parcels within the District are
residences. Because the special benefits derived apply equally to all residents and
parcels, it has been determined that all assessable parcels would receive the same net
assessment.
6
ASSESSMENT
The amount to be assessed upon the lots and parcels within the District and the amount
apportioned to each assessable parcel within the District is shown in the table below.
Estimated Assessment Requirements: $122,157
Estimated Number of Parcels:
554
Estimated Assessment Per Parcel: $ 220.50
2002-03 Assessment Per Parcel: $ 220.50
2004-05 Assessment Per Parcel: $ 220.50
Difference:
7
0.00
ASSESSMENT ROLL
The individual 2004-05 assessments, tabulated by Assessor's parcel number, are
shown on an Assessment Roll on file in the Office of the City Clerk of the City of
Diamond Bar as Exhibit "C and are made a part of this report by reference. (The
Assessment Roll is not included in this report due to its volume.)
Dated: ,2004
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
No. 027861 II JOHN A. FRIEDRICH
Exp. 3/31/06
CIVIL
EXHIBITS
Agenda # 8.1
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: Approve Valley Vista Services's Rate Adjustment for CPI and
Disposal Costs
RECOMMENDATION :
Approve rate adjustments.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
There is no financial impact to the City; the proposed rate adjustments will be paid for
by Valley Vista Services customers (i.e. bin users). The rate adjustment ranges from a
monthly fee increase of $1.78 fora 1.5 cubic yard (CY) bin to $5.05 for a 6 CYbin. The
requested rate adjustments have been reviewed and found to be accurate, as well as
within industry and area standards.
BACKGROUND:
In August 2000, the City Council awarded an exclusive contract to Valley Vista Services
to collect refuse and recyclables in the commercial (bin) sector. All requests for rate
adjustments are approved in accordance with the Rate Adjustment Methodology
appended to the service provider's agreement:
(a) A cost of living, Consumer Price Index (CPI) adjustment to the service
component (i.e. non -disposal portion) of the rate, pursuant to cost-of-livin g
changes based on the Los Angeles/A naheim/ Riverside Area Index.
(b) An increase for that portion of the rate which is impacted by aggregated
disposal costs (i.e. dumping/tipping fees).
(c)Adjustment for other extraordinary costs.
Of the above rate adjustments, the City Manager is authoriz ed 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 1St, if the rate requests are
timely and complete.
DISCUSSION:
In April 2004, Valley Vista Services met with Staff and the City's consultant to discuss
their request for adjustment to their existing rates. Their requests are as follows:
(a) A CPI adjustment factor of 1.75% was applied to the service component for the
year April 1, 2003 through March 31, 2004.
(b) A Disposal Cost adjustment of $2.93 was applied to the dumping fee component
due to increased costs associated with recent County of Los Angeles mandated
fees and taxes that are applied uniformly to all commercial haulers.
(c) There is no request for extraordinary costs increase at this time.
Valley Vista Services has provided a Rate Schedule that illustrates the breakdown of
the percentage increase in the CPI and disposal costs, which are collectively distributed
relative to the size of the container. No su rcharges or other costs are adjusted so as to
keep the system as simple as possible.
The proposed commercial rates have been compared to other local communities for
comparison below:
Commercial Monthly Rate fora
3 Yard Bin Collected Once Weekly
City of Diamond Bar
$79.06
City of La Verne
$86.19
City of Walnut
$86.49
City of Azusa
$92.75
City of Covina
$97.15
City of Claremont
$102.00
City of San Gabriel
$110.55
City of Rancho Cucamonga
$113.00
City of Glendora
$115.04
City of Baldwin Park
$115.31
City of West Covina
$120.74
City of San Dimas
$125.00
City of Temple Cit
$129.51
Based on the above comparison, the City of Diamond Bar's commercial rates are
among the lowest of the selected sample of like -cities.
In conclusion, Staff finds Valley Vista Services rate adjustment request to be reasonable
and appropriate. Valley Vista Services proposes to implement the new rates beginning,
August 1, 2004, in order to provide their customers with sufficient notice.
Page 2 of 3
PREPARED BY:
Javier Peraza, Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu, P.E. Jim DeStefano
Director of Public Works Deputy City Manager
Attachments:
A. Exhibit Afrom the Agreements (Rate Adjustment Methodolog yfor Valley Vista
Services )
B. Request for Rate Adjustment from Valley Vista Services
C. Rate Schedule for Commercial Accounts
Page 3 of 3
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