HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/5/2005THIS 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.
E91
1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA
July 5, 2005
09(2005)
Next Resolution No. 2005-
Next Ordinance No.
STUDY SESSION: 5:30 p.m., Room CC -8
♦ Discussion of Development Agreement with Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC
♦ Discussion of Grand Ave. Freeway Overpass Improvement Project
Public Comments
CALL TO ORDER: 6:30 p.m.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor
INVOCATION: Monsignor James Loughnane,
St. Denis Catholic Church
ROLL CALL: Council Members Herrera, Tanaka, Zirbes,
Mayor Pro Tem O'Connor, Mayor Chang
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Mayor
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 Presentation by the Friends of Diamond Bar Library on the Read Together
Diamond Bar Program - Wish You Well
1.2 Proclaiming the Month of July, 2005 as "Parks and Recreation Month."
BUSINESS OF THE MONTH:
1.3 Presentation to Haro Derkrikorian, owner of Speedwurk Motor Sports.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
JULY 5, 2005 PAGE 2
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: "Public Comments" is the time reserved on each
regular meeting agenda to provide an opportunity for members of the public to
directly address the Council on Consent Calendar items or matters of interest to
the public that are not already scheduled for consideration on this agenda.
Although the City Council values your comments, pursuant to the Brown Act, the
Council generally cannot take any action on items not listed on the posted
agenda. Please complete a Speaker's Card and give it to the City Clerk
(comDletion of this form is voluntarv). There is a five-minute maximum time limit
when addressina the Citv Council
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENT: Under the Brown Act, members of the
City Council may briefly respond to public comments but no extended discussion
and no action on such matters may take place.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 CONCERTS IN THE PARK Chico (Latin) — July 6, 2005 — 6:30 — 8:00
p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Spgs. Dr.
5.2 INDUSTRY BUSINESS CENTER TOWN HALL MEETING — July 7, 2005
— 6:30 p.m. — Neil Armstrong Elementary School, 22750 Beaverhead Dr.
5.3 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — July 12, 2005 — 7:00 p.m.,
Auditorium, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.4 CONCERTS IN THE PARK Sevilles (50's & 60's) — July 13, 2005 — 6:30 —
8:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Spgs. Dr.
5.5 TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MEETING — July 14,
2005 — 7:00 p.m., Board Hearing Room, AQMD/Government Center,
21865 Copley Dr.
5.6 CITY COUNCIL CANDIDATE NOMINATION PERIOD — Monday, July 18,
2005 through Friday, August 12, 2005, 4:30 PM
5.7 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — July 19, 2005 — 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 21, 2005 - Approve as submitted.
JULY 5, 2005 PAGE 3
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of June 21, 2005 — Approve as submitted.
6.2 Planning Commission Minutes - Regular Meeting of May 24, 2005 -
Receive and file.
6.3 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes — Regular Meeting of May
26, 2005 Receive and file.
6.4 Traffic and Transportation Commission Minutes:
6.4.1 Regular Meeting of April 14, 2005 - Receive and file.
6.4.1 Regular Meeting of May, 12, 2005 — Receive and file.
6.5 Ratification of Check Register — Ratify Check Register dated June 30,
2005 in the amount of $998,157.15.
6.6 Treasurer's Statement- month of May, 2005.
Recommended Action: Review and approve.
Requested by: Finance Division
6.7 Approval of Legislative Subcommittee Recommendations:
(a) ACA 4 Plescia/Harman) — Proposes a California Constitutional
Amendment to voters in the June 20065 Election Removing the Loophole
in Prop. 42 Allowing the Governor to Transfer Gasoline Sales Tax
Revenues from the Transportation Account to State General Fund.
Recommended Action: Support.
(b) SB 928 (Lowe nth al/Perata) — Bill Encompasses many aspects of
Solid Waste Management, Including Waste Board Reorganization,
Elimination to Time Extensions for Local Agencies that have not met
Di8version Rates, and Implementation of an Undetermined Placeholder for
a Higher Solid Waste Diversion Rate, without Provision for Technological
or Financial Assistance from the State.
Recommended Action: Oppose.
(c) SB 420 (Simitian) - Proposes Increase to State Mandated Solid
Waste Diversion Rate from 50% to 75% by January 1, 2015, without the
Provision of Technological or Financial Assistance from the State.
Recommended Action: Oppose.
JULY 5, 2005 PAGE 4
(d) AB 11 (De La Torre) — Prohibits General Law Cities from
Unauthorized Compensation to Council Members in Excess of their
Monthly Salaries unless Authorized by State Law, including Payment for
Serving on a Commission, Committee, or Board, Created or Overseen by
the Council Traveling/Necessary Expenses and Health and Retirement
Benefits are not Included.
Recommended Action: Support.
Requested by: Legislative Sub -Committee
6.8 Acceptance of Work Performed by CS Legacy for Construction of
Improvements at Starshine Park; Direct the City Clerk to File the
Notice of Completion; and Release Retention.
Recommended Action: Accept, Direct and Authorize.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.9 Approve Second Reading by Title Only, Waive Full Reading and
Adopt Ordinance No. 08 (2005): Amending Section 12.00.420 of the
Diamond Bar Municipal Code to Allow Non -Motorized Scooters to
Use the Skate Park at Peterson Park.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.10 Award of Contract to West Coast Arborists for Tree Maintenance
Services for FY 2005/06 in the Amount Not to Exceed $150,000.
Recommended Action: Award.
Requested by: Community Services Division
6.11 FY 2005/06 Community Support Fund Allocations.
Recommended Action: Approve.
Requested by: Finance Department
JULY 5, 2005 PAGE 5
6.12 Authorize Expenditures in an Amount Not -to -Exceed $65,000 for FY
05/06 to Graphics United for Production of the City's
Newsletter/Recreation Guide; and Authorize a Cumulative
Expenditure of $36,000 for FY 05/06 to the Postmaster for the City's
Newsletter/Recreation Guide Postage.
Recommended Action: Authorize.
Requested by: Communications and Marketing Division
6.13 Authorize City Manager to Purchase Computer Network Hardware
from Hewlett Packard for an Amount Not -to- Exceed $46,750.
Recommended Action: Authorize.
Requested by: IT Division
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as matters may be
heard.
7.1 Public Hearing — City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment
Districts
Recommended Action: Open Public Hearing, Receive Testimony and
Adopt.
(a) Adopt Resolution No. 2005 -XX: Levying an Assessment on
City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 38 for FY 2005-
06.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
(b) Adopt Resolution No. 2005 -XX: Levying an Assessment on
City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 39 for FY 2005-
06.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
(c) Adopt Resolution No. 2005 -XX: Levying an Assessment on
City of Diamond Bar Landscaping Assessment District No. 41 for FY 2005-
06.
Recommended Action: Adopt.
JULY 5, 2005
PAGE 6
Requested by: Public Works Division
7.2 Public Hearing — First Reading by Title Only, Waiving Full Reading of
Ordinance No. 0X(2005) Amendment No. 1 to Development
Agreement No. 2004-01 between the City and Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC for
Property Located at the Southeast Corner of Grand Ave. at Golden
Spgs. Dr.
Recommended Action: Open Public Hearing, receive testimony and
approve first reading.
Requested by: Community Development Division
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 City Council Committee Appointments
Recommended Action: Ratify Appointments.
Requested by: Mayor Chang
8.2 Appoint Planning Commissioner to Replace Newly Elected Council
Member Tanaka.
Recommended Action: Ratify Appointment.
Requested by: Community Development
9. COUNCIL SUB -COMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
10. ADJOURNMENT: This meeting will be adjourned in Memory of Sheriff's Deputy
and Diamond Bar Resident Jerry Ortiz.
STUDY SESSION NO. 1
PLEASE SEE AGENDA ITEM NO. 7.2
MEMORANDUM
DIAMOND BAR
Community & Development Services
PUBLIC WORKS/ ENGINEERING DIVISION
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
FROM: David G. Liu, Director of Public Works
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
DATE: July 5, 2005
RE: GRAND AVENUE FREEWAY OVERPASS IMPROVEMENTS AT
SR 57/60 INTERCHANGE
CC: David Doyle, Assistant City Manager
Jim DeStefano, Assistant City Manager
In February of 2005, the Industry Urban Development Agency (IUDA) invited six (6) consulting
firms to submit proposals for the preparation of planning, environmental, right-of-way and final
design documents for the subject project. Interviews were conducted on April 11 and 13, 2005
by a panel consisting of members from the City of Industry, CNC Engineering, City of Diamond
Bar and Caltrans. PBS&J/W. Koo & Associates presented the best approach, technical
capability and methodology to undertake this project and was recommended to do so.
The project is intended to address traffic mitigations from the various developments proposed in
the City of Industry including the development of about 600 acres at the Industry Business
Center area. In particular, the project calls for widening Grand Avenue bridge over SR 60 to
four lanes each direction including extending the widening of Grand Avenue to just south of
Golden Springs Drive in the City of Diamond Bar.
PBS&J/W. Koo submitted a proposal on a time and material basis for an estimated amount of
$2,865,230.00, and the IUDA Board approved the Agreement on June 1, 2005.
The work will be done in four phases and may take about 2.5 years to complete:
• Phase 1 — Project Initiation Document
• Phase 2 — Project Approval/Environmental Documentation
• Phase 3 — Plans, Specifications and Estimates
• Phase 4 — Right -Of -Way
To facilitate the discussion and understanding of the project, staff has invited Mr. John Ballas,
Director of Public Works, for the City of Industry, along with representatives of PBS & J/W.Koo
to attend the Study Session.
Agenda No. 6.1.1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
JUNE 21, 2005
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Chang called the Study Session to order at
5:05 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Herrera, Zirbes, Mayor Pro Tem
O'Connor and Mayor Chang.
Also Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; David Doyle, Assistant City Manager; James DeStefano, Assistant City
Manager; David Liu, Director of Public Works; Bob Rose, Community Services Director;
Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Ken DesForges, Information Systems Director;
Nancy Fong, Planning Manager; Ann Lungu, Associate Planner; Kim Crews, Senior
Management Analyst; Ryan McLean; Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer; Sharon
Gomez, Senior Management Analyst and Tommye Cribbins, Executive Asst.
Community Facilities District Issues
In House Building and Safety Discussion
2005-06 Budget Recap
Public Comments on Study Session Items
COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT ISSUES:
ACM/DeStefano said that tonight's discussion was about Community Facilities District
and whether or not that concept was an appropriate tool for D.B. to fund a portion of
infrastructure costs to support the Brookfield project development. The development
agreement that was approved about a year ago did not include any discussion about
CFD's. Since construction of Target is not expected to begin on or before July 1 as
agreed the City will begin drawing down on the $2 million letter of credit signed into
effect about a year ago since Lewis is unable to meet its commitment to commence
building. Lewis wants to change the development agreement in order to relieve them of
the responsibility to commence and conclude the project under the terms agreed and
prevent the Letter of Credit being cashed. Staff is discussing the matter with Lewis as
well as scheduling a discussion before the Planning Commission and City Council
regarding Development Agreement changes. One change would be to permit the
formation of a CFD to pay for most of the infrastructure costs and fees related to the
Brookfield Condominium project. The CFD would result in an assessment of about
$2800 per lot per year to pay off bonds sold by the City to fund the improvements.
Staff's opinion is that the CFD is not an appropriate tool for this project. CFD and Mello
Roos Districts are appropriate tools for larger projects. Lewis asked to talk with the City
Council and as a result staff has brought Chris Fischer, MuniFinancial to tonight's
meeting to discuss the pros and cons of CFD's and present his opinion about the
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION
applicability to this type of project. Following the MuniFinancial presentation,
representatives with Lewis will speak to the Council about its proposal.
Chris Fischer discussed what an CFD is and what can be paid for by a CFD; CFD Pros
and Cons; benefits of a CFD; CFD formation process and timeline; reporting
requirements; disclosure by the developer; ongoing district administration and who are
the members of the CFD team. Simply put a CFD or Mello Roos is an alternative
method of financing facilities and services. He emphasized that the City Council must be
prepared to explain to the community why they are paying this tax and point to the
improvements and benefits for which those taxes are used. Typically, bond size issues
are larger than this project because all of the roll players cost money. In this case, the
cost of issuance is spread over a small number of properties. In addition, staff would be
saddled with additional administrative hours and costs.
Darren McLevy, Vice President of Development for Lewis Homes referred to the CFD
presentation prepared by DPFG. He said that one of the benefits of a CFD is that when
bonds are issued, the City gets its money up front. Under the current Development
Agreement there are fees paid for parks and other capital improvement items that get
paid at a much later date (2,3 or 4 years). This is a proposal to have those monies
funded up front when the CFD bonds are issued. A CFD would help pay for libraries,
parks, senior centers landscaping maintenance, etc. Lewis proposes a services fee that
would be ongoing in perpetuity that would be paid to the City at the rate of $225 per unit
per year or about $40,500 per year, the equivalent of $400,000 in sales tax.
Communities that find it increasingly difficult to attract new business in order to generate
new sales tax revenue see this as an opportunity to place this kind of fee on all new
residential units. In addition to the 180 units, Lewis is working toward approximately 100
units in the JCC project and Site D for another 150 plus units. He pointed out that the
administrative fees are included in the CFD and he felt that this was a project that would
set the bar high in D.B. Therefore, Lewis was seeking the City's support in forming a
CFD. In addition, he felt that this form of capitalization was widely accepted and
certainly full disclosed in the sales process.
Mr. McLevy responded to MPT/O'Connor that the development would not stop if the
Council decided not to move forward with the CFD. However, the CFD would assist his
company and the homeowners in moving forward.
C/Herrera asked why the School District would be a part of the agreement.
Mr. McLevy said that it could be. Quite often school districts and cities enter into joint
agreements that include payment of school fees, capital improvements, etc. However,
the School District would not have to be included for this project.
C/Herrera asked Mr. McLevy to confirm that developers owe school districts so many
dollars per square foot of development and either way the school district gets their
money.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION
Mr. McLevy stated that C/Herrera was correct. In D.B. developers pay $2.24 per sq. ft.
paid at the time permits are pulled. He said that with the CFD, once the bonds were
floated the entire amount of money would be immediately paid.
C/Zirbes said he understood Lewis had sold the upper Townhome project portion of the
land to Brookfield. Mr. McLevy responded that the property was under contract with
Brookfield with conditions imposed.
C/Zirbes asked how it would affect the Lewis/Brookfield contract if Council decided not
to move forward with the CFD at this late date.
Mr. McLevy responded that it would not affect the agreement either way.
C/Zirbes said he was somewhat confused about why Lewis was asking for a CFD at this
late date because the conditions were called out in the Development Agreement the
City signed a year ago and to him it seemed that the timing was off because tonight the
Council had an item on its agenda for approval for the Brookfield project.
Mr. McLevy explained that for five months he had attempted to get in front of the
Council with his proposal and that there were still a number of steps that Brookfield
must take prior to closing and purchase of the property. He stated that in fact Brookfield
was many many months away from actual purchase of the property and that the
contractual agreement between Lewis and Brookfield would allow a CFD.
C/Zirbes said that absent a CFD the costs could be passed along to the purchaser.
Mr. McLevy said that most certainly the costs would be passed along to the purchaser.
The CFD would allow the fees that would be paid between 2006 and 2009 to all be paid
in 2006 or by the end of 2005 if the district were incorporated and funded.
CM/Lowry commented that one of the benefits put forth by the speaker was that the City
would get its money earlier rather than waiting for it over time. She said it was an
interesting concept because with the City not having a Redevelopment Agency to offer
incentives toward attracting commercial development and to deal with the high price of
D.B. land, part of the way the City substituted for not having redevelopment as a tool
was to give the developer time to pay and not force the developer to make a cash up
front payment for the infrastructure and permit requests. The City offered this plan as an
inducement to bring the developer to the table to work together to form an acceptable
development agreement and that particular outcome was not something that D.B. was
seeking. The City's cash position is a benefit that can be used in lieu of having no
redevelopment or sales tax rebate or land write-down. Therefore, it is not really an
incentive to D.B. to receive the money up front because that alternative was offered to
the Developer as a bargaining tool. In fact, a CFD is a benefit to the Developer that he
would not have to make the infrastructure payments at all as it becomes a part of the
property owners' burden.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION
C/Zirbes said he heard that with or without the CFD the bottom line to Lewis would
remain the same.
Mr. McLevy agreed that C/Zirbes' assumption was correct and that there would be no
development impact fees in D.B. In most cities where there are impact fees they are
paid over time.
CA/Jenkins said that he felt Mr. Fischer was correct when he stated that quite often it is
the marketplace that dictates the price of the homes. So, it is quite possible that they
could sell the homes for the same price saddled with a tax as they could without a tax.
In this instance, Lewis would benefit by having the CFD and it would not be neutral and
it would not be something that D.B. bargained for when negotiating the Development
Agreement.
M/Chang felt that the buyers would be paying for everything. As the buyer of a home he
would like to pay for the home up front and not be saddled with ongoing taxes. As a
businessman he wanted to know the total cost before getting into a project so that he
could figure the return on his investment. As a representative of the residents he views
this proposal as having cons and no pros for this particular project. When the City was
negotiating with Lewis staff and Council looked for benefits for the entire community.
D.B. appreciates Lewis stepping up to the plate and bringing Target to D.B. With a
commitment of $2 million and with all of the authority entrusted to the City Council by
the residents Council and staff worked in good faith with Lewis to form a mutually
beneficial agreement. He said he would not feel comfortable to make a decision to again
transfer the $2 million that people had already committed. He was adamant that in his
view it would be irresponsible to transfer such a tax burden (CFD) to future generations.
Jack Tanaka wanted to know when Lewis decided to try to use the CFD as a type of
financing, why was Lewis attempting to bring it forward only five months ago and what
affect would it have on future residential developments in the City.
Mr. McLevy responded that Lewis attempted to get this matter in front of
ACM/DeStefano and his staff and then in front of the City and it was not a new idea to
Lewis. If the City Council adopted a policy for CFD's and how they were to be used it
would pave the way for new developments to develop CFD's for their particular projects.
This CFD proposes a 1.85% total tax, a portion of which would be dedicated to the City
as part of the services fee paid in perpetuity. Mr. McLevy said he felt a CFD would not
slow down development and that it would enhance the opportunity for developers to
come into D.B. The pieces of developable property in D.B. are very expensive and it is a
very desirable community and CFD's could benefit everybody in the process.
C/Herrera asked if the City would benefit. Mr. McLevy said "absolutely."
C/Herrera agreed with M/Chang's comments. She said it troubled her that the City made
an agreement a year ago and is now being asked to "change the rules of the game"
because she does not like doing business that way. It seemed to her that the
developer would reap the majority of the benefits and the City would become burdened
with explaining the tax to residents, having to hire staff, build a team and have someone
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION
available to respond to questions for the life of the bond. And while the money comes
out of the CFD over the 30 -year life the City would not benefit. She felt that a 180 -unit
development was not an appropriate place and time to introduce a CFD. A large
development like the AERA Shell Oil property with 3600 possible units would seem to
be much more appropriate for consideration of a CFD. For the aforementioned reasons
she would not favor implementing a CFD at this time.
C/Zirbes appreciated receiving the information but felt that with the way prices are in
D.B. the project would be successful on its own merits as originally proposed. One of
the reasons D.B. is a strong community is because it does not have Mello Roos and
CFD's and everyone pays the same tax. He felt it was inappropriate to be talking about
a CFD the same night that the Council was considering the Brookfield project.
MPT/O'Connor said she too was not in favor of pursuing a CFD.
Following further discussion, M/Chang said he believed Council's direction was quite
clear and thanked Lewis Homes for their cooperation on this project.
IN-HOUSE BUILDING AND SAFETY DISCUSSION:
ACM/DeStefano presented an augmented report to the Council that included what staff
felt the cost would be to implement an in-house Building and Safety Division and what
revenues would be forthcoming as a result of the anticipated development with a bottom
line net forecast of revenue to the City. Based on what staff believes will occur in the
next several years there would be significant and sufficient funds to pay for services
outlined that would be met with in-house City personnel and a continuing use of D&J
Engineering for plan checking and inspection services. The bottom line is that staff
maintains this proposal as a budget decision and a business plan for the City's future in
building and safety services. Staff believes that from a management and financial
standpoint there is money to be utilized for other services in the City by bringing building
and safety in-house.
C/Herrera asked if the proposed turnover in staff was because the City was dissatisfied
with the job the staff members were doing.
ACM/DeStefano responded that D.B. had worked with D&J for 11 plus years and on
very rare occasions had asked that a D&J staff member assigned to D.B. be removed.
Generally speaking the turnover was a result of personal decisions by his employees or
corporate decisions through his administration of the contract in D.B. In many cases the
reasons are not known because they were not D.B. employees.
C/Herrera asked if the annual charge (by D&J) of $559,000 was totally covered be
revenue fees.
ACM/DeStefano explained that
in looking at the last seven years of
revenues
and
expenditures the result was an
expenditure average of $559,000. Each
year the
City
receives more revenue than it
expends for D&J's contract. Under the
terms of
the
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 6 CC STUDY SESSION
contract the City receives 40% of the Building & Safety revenue and the service fee
charges D.B. 60 percent of the revenue. Therefore, D.B. is never in a loss position
regardless of the ebb and flow of the development profession.
C/Herrera said that under this scenario the City has gained $294,000 for each year and
ACM/DeStefano agreed.
C/Herrera said she was trying to understand why this proposal was before the Council.
She said she views future development as speculative and the City prides itself on
being a contract city and remaining lean as a result. She said she was concerned about
adding four or five employees based on speculation of future development, one of which
was a hotel at the trailer park for which the City had been waiting for two years. Another
was the development of Country Hills Towne Center for which the City had been waiting
for two years. She had a concern about the City loading up with new employees when
future projects were not yet a reality. In addition, the proposed 3000 AERA homes
would more likely be cut in half for D.B. and it too was a future development that was
speculative. She opined that she did not feel "prudent" about adding the burden of new
employees to the City's budget when none of these developments had been realized.
ACM/DeStefano stated that this is one of the few operations where revenue is
generated by the services that are provided. Fortunately, D.B. is able to charge fees that
generate several hundred thousand dollars and in some better years millions of dollars
per year in revenue. That revenue is used to not only pay the expenditure of D&J
Services. It pays for rent, lights, planners, engineers, finance personnel, etc. By
bringing three and one-half employees into the City and continuing to use D&J for plan
checking and inspection, staff believes the City could provide extended service because
there would be a Building Official for at least 2000 hours at 40 hours per week as
opposed to the current 15 hours per week; that having inspectors on staff and having
the continuity and institutional knowledge that is lost when a D&J employee changes,
etc. would have a positive effect on customer service. On the revenue side, staff
believes that the City would generate more revenue for other uses than it is currently
generating. Staff was asked to forecast the future and it is somewhat speculative. He
said he was confident that with his specific economic development hat on he would see
the hotel at the Walnut Valley Trailer Park property regardless of how far out in the
future. It took 10 years to get Target. Things take a long time and based on the lean
years, staff believes this would be a good move for the City. Looking out five, seven and
ten years from now he would hope to see the golf course, Tres Hermanos and some
portion of the Aera Energy Project. There were only about 200 Aera homes included in
the forecast even though it may be 2000 or 3000. Staff built in a couple of Tres
Hermanos home projects and built in only about $300,000 of retail on the golf course
property because it could be 2010 and beyond. He felt the golf course could be more
than a million square feet of retail and several hundred condominiums and he believed
that Tres Hermanos could be many things — 700 or 800 homes, a golf course and so on.
The Council asked him to forecast and he did so based upon what he saw the General
Plan stating as being feasible and what he felt was possible for the future. Bottom line is
that staff believes it is an improved budget package and wanted Council to consider the
proposal and direct staff as appropriate. The budget set aside for presentation later this
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 7 CC STUDY SESSION
evening includes in-house Building and Safety Services effective January 1, 2006.
C/Herrera stated that the City is down several hundreds of thousands of dollars as a
result of lost sales tax dollars and money withheld from the City by the State. This
proposal adds employees before these projects materialize and she felt it was not
prudent management and she would not vote for the proposal.
C/Zirbes said he shared some of C/Herrera's concerns about adding staff. He felt it
might be better to look at other alternatives such as renegotiating the D&J contract or
having a better understanding of why the City would need a full time building official on
staff. In a pessimistic view what was the worst year D.B. has seen. Orange County's
employee retirement system is upside down by $2 billion for example. This City boasts
that it is a contract city. If it is in the best interest of the City that is probably the best
conclusion but it seems that this has moved fairly rapidly to the forefront over the past
couple of weeks and he would like to have a better feel that this proposal would be self-
sustaining three, five and ten years down the road. In his opinion it was easier to cut
back the contractor than it was to cut back on staff.
ACM/DeStefano said that the City's leanest year was 1997/1998 based upon the past
seven years and the revenue for that year was about $550,000. Over the 16 years staff
has taken over more and more responsibility for business plans based on customer
service needs, financial decisions and so forth. In 1990 D.B. took on City planning from
LA County and from a contractor recreation and engineering and so on and so forth so
the City has made these types of decisions as it has grown. Staff believes that it has
constructed a plan that protects the City in the lean years and like any department in
those lean years decisions are made accordingly.
C/Zirbes asked if there was a happy medium in all of this short of having to add staff.
ACM/DeStefano explained that the City needed the competency of a stable staff and the
institutional knowledge that comes from someone serving on a full time basis. In short,
D.B. needs a 40 -hour per week Building Official that can service the other development
departments. D.B. has several years of very extensive development effort and has not
built a shopping center in 25 years. And the City is going to be building a couple,
rebuilding a couple and so forth. There is a lot of work on the horizon and the City needs
a full time Building Official to deal with the daily administration as well as to work with
other staff, developers and so forth, and to provide a level of expertise that the City has
had with BO/Tarango specifically but to do so for at least 40 -hours per week. And staff
sees that as more evident now that it did in the past.
MPT/O'Connor felt that based on what she was hearing it was more of a customer
service issue than a money issue and this Council and staff had been working hard to
improve customer service and public service. The revenue would still come to the City
and the profit margin would cover the overhead. There had been some complaints and
issues regarding customer service.
ACM/DeStefano explained that from staff's perspective it was a combination of both
customer service and money. Complaints are not necessarily a bad thing. If you don't
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 8 CC STUDY SESSION
get complaints you may want to question why. Rather, it is a matter of volume and type
of complaint. From staff's perspective this is also a financial issue because staff
believes that it can generate more revenue to the City by going in-house.
M/Chang said that with all due respect to Dennis Tarango and his staff the turnover has
affected the service to some extent and he felt that this was purely a business decision.
He spoke with ACM/DeStefano and learned that even without future expansion projects,
bringing the department in-house and providing three and one-half new employees the
City could still net $100,000. Similarly, when CSD/Rose brought the recreation program
in-house it was a good business decision. He anticipates more projects coming to D.B.
when Target is completed. He reminded the Council that The Country Estate properties
would continue to generate revenue new homes were built and as older homes were
purchased, demolished and rebuilt and if the City could net more money today why
leave it on the table. He understood that D.B. is a contract city and would still contract
out certain items but if it would improve the service and net revenue of the City it would
be a small matter to add three and one-half employees.
MPT/O'Connor asked BO/Tarango if he would be able to dedicate more time than the
15 hours mentioned.
BO/Tarango said he believed he had proven his availability and willingness to devote
additional time during the startup of the Target project.
C/Zirbes said that this proposal was a revenue generator for the City and if the numbers
hold true there would be a benefit to bringing this in-house.
ACM/DeStefano said that the duties currently performed by BO/Tarango would fall to
the new Building Official. At a bare minimum it was at least an additional $105,000 over
what the City was currently taking in and it would grow depending on the amount of
work generated by the development community that the City would not have to pay
someone else to provide.
C/Herrera asked why the effective date was proposed to be January 1, 2006.
ACM/DeStefano said that if Council wanted to move forward the City would need about
six months to hire people and get the system in place to make the transition.
C/Herrera said she was still uncomfortable about burdening the City with additional
expense before some of the projects materialized. It seemed to her that development
was going more slowly than what the City had originally anticipated so why not consider
this to be effective July 1, 2006 to give some of the projects time to materialize.
ACM/DeStefano said it was up to Council to make those considerations.
M/Chang agreed that July 1, 2006 was a good date to consider.
MPT/O'Connor stated that once the City decided to bring the recreation program in-
house it took a couple of years to accomplish.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 9 CC STUDY SESSION
M/Chang felt it was a win-win situation because D&J would still be a contractor for the
City.
C/Zirbes felt the proposal was valid. However, his hesitation was about adding staff
based upon future potential revenue. He stated that he would like to see what could be
done to work with the contractor to see if the City could arrive at a better contract with
D&J to provide the hours and services desired by ACM/DeStefano. If these are deal
points that cannot be made, perhaps the City needs to bring Building and Safety in-
house and run the risk that the development is forthcoming or the City at least breaks
even. Customer service as pointed out by MPT/O'Connor is an issue for Council and
staff and the City strives to provide the best possible service. Perhaps the issue of
continuity could also be resolved with D&J. From staff's perspective perhaps there was
a way to renegotiate the current contract and be able to keep Building and Safety as a
contracted service and if not, move forward with the proposal.
CM/Lowry stated that the budget does not recognize an additional $100,000 and does
not account for additional personnel.
FM/Magnuson pointed out that $50,000 was allocated in the budget for Building and
Safety vehicles.
C/Zirbes recommended bringing this item back to the Council in three months. Council
Members concurred.
2005-06 BUDGET RECAP:
MPT/O'Connor felt this item should be a separate discussion item and not included in
the Consent Calendar.
CM/Lowry said she would move the item to Council Consideration.
C/Herrera asked for and received an explanation of the $314,480 on Page 2 for
additional items that were included regarding decision packages that were not listed.
MPT/O'Connor said she did not approve of the Gary Neely budget item and felt it should
be removed.
FM/Magnuson indicated to C/Zirbes that the $675,000 would be used for economic
development and capital improvements because the City was going into its reserves for
a little over $1 million.
Public Comments on Study Session Items: None Offered.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council,
M/Chang adjourned the Study Session at 6:50 p.m.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 10 CC STUDY SESSION
Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of , 2005.
WEN CHANG, Mayor
Agenda No. 6.1.2
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 21, 2005
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Chang called the City Council Study Session to
order at 5:05 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the SCAQMD/Government Center Building, 21825
Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Community Facilities District Issues
In -House Building and Safety Discussion
2005-06 Budget Recap
Public Comments on Study Session Items
M/Chang adjourned the Study Session to the Regular Meeting at 6:50 p.m. to the
Regular City Council meeting.
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Chang called the regular City Council meeting
to order at 7:00 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley
Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Jack Tanaka led the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION: Darlene Jones, Pastor Outreach, Diamond Canyon
Christian Church gave the Invocation.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Herrera, Zirbes, Mayor Pro Tem
O'Connor and Mayor Chang.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City
Attorney; David Doyle, Assistant City Manager; James DeStefano, Assistant City
Manager; David Liu, Director of Public Works; Ken DesForges, IS Director; Linda
Magnuson, Finance Director; Nancy Fong, Planning Manager; Ryan McLean, Senior
Management Analyst.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: CM/Lowry asked that the date of the contract under
Item 6.12 be changed from 2005 to 2006; Item 6.24, correct the November Municipal
Election date from November 1 to November 8, 2005; Item 6.25 included three items
that should be moved from Consent Calendar to Council Consideration (Item 8.4).
POST ELECTION PROCEDURE:
ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2005-30: RECITING THE FACT OF THE SPECIAL
ELECTION HELD ON JUNE 7, 2005 AND DECLARING THE RESULT AND SUCH
OTHER MATTERS AS PROVIDED BY LAW.
CM/Lowry reported that the resolution sets forth the numbers that the City certified last
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
week placing Jack Tanaka as the incoming Council Member to fill the position vacated
by
former Council Member Bob Huff. It would be appropriate for Council to adopt the
resolution and proceed to the swearing in ceremony.
MPT/O'Connor moved, C/Zirbes seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2005-30. Motion
carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Zirbes, MPT/O'Connor, M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ADMINISTRATION OF THE OATH OF OFFICE:
Honorable Sam Ohta, Judge of the Los Angeles County Superior Court administered
the Oath of Office to Council Member Jack Tanaka.
RECESS: M/Chang recessed the City Council meeting at 7:15 p.m.
RECONVENE: M/Chang reconvened the City Council meeting at 7:40 p.m.
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: None
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None
Offered.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Delilah Knox -Rios, D.B. Chamber of
Commerce, congratulated C/Tanaka and welcomed him to the Council. She
expressed appreciation to all of the Council Members for their assistance with the
business community in D.B and said that the Chamber looks forward to working
with all of the Council Members in the future.
Steve Tye congratulated Jack Tanaka on a successful campaign his personal
conduct during the campaign. He addressed his negative view of Mayor Chang's
and Eileen Ansari's participation in the campaign
Marie Buckland congratulated C/Tanaka on his successful campaign and
supported Mayor Chang.
Joseph Piper, Vice President, D.B. Senior Club, expressed support of fair play
and his disregard for earlier comments.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: M/Chang said he supported Mr.
Tanaka in the election but Mr. Tye was a good candidate. He reiterated his
campaign contributions to Mr. Tanaka's campaign past and current and affirmed
his role representing the entire community.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: CM/Lowry added Item 5.6 the July 4th
Blast from 6:00 p.m. to 9:00 p.m. at Sycamore Canyon Park to the Schedule of
Future Events.
5.1 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION — June 23, 2005 — 7:00 p.m.,
Hearing Board Room, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING — June 28, 2005 — 7:00 p.m.,
Auditorium, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.3 CONCERTS IN THE PARK Soundbytes (60's -90's)— June 29, 2005 — 6:30
— 8:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Spgs. Dr.
5.4 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — July 5, 2005 — 6:30 p.m., Auditorium,
AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.5 INDUSTRY BUSINESS CENTER TOWN HALL MEETING — July 7, 2005
— 6:30 PM — Neil Armstrong Elementary School, 22750 Beaverhead Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Tanaka moved, C/Zirbes seconded to approve the
Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tanaka, Zirbes,
MPT/O'Connor,
M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
6.1 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
6.1.1 Study Session of June 7, 2005—As Submitted.
6.1.2 Regular Meeting of June 7, 2005 — As Submitted.
6.2 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER DATED JUNE 16, 2005 in the amount of
$502,400.37.
6.3 REJECTED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES:
6.3.1 Filed by Thomas S. Craver on April 8, 2005
6.3.2 Filed by Gabrielle L. Sorer on April 26, 2005
6.4 TRANSMITTED AUDIT REPORT OF AIR QUALITY IMPROVEMENT
FUND (AB2766) FOR FY 2002/03.
6.5 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO CONTRACT WITH VALLEY
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
CREST LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE AT FIVE LOCATIONS FOR FY
2005/06 IN THE AMOUNT OF $217,680 WHICH INCLUDED A 3.2% C.P.I
INCREASE PLUS A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $50,000 FOR AS -
NEEDED WORK.
6.6 APPROVED EXTENSION OF CITYWIDE GRAFFITI REMOVAL
CONTRACT WITH GRAFFITI CONTROL SYSTEMS FOR FY 2005/06 IN
THE AMOUNT OF $45,000.
6.7 APPROVED EXTENSION OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
AGREEMENT WITH LDM FOR HOME IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
ADMINISTRATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $23,800.
6.8 APPROVED EXTENSION OF CONTRACT WITH DIVERSIFIED
PARATRANSIT, INC. FOR FY 2005-06 DIAMOND RIDE (DIAL -A -CAB)
SERVICE WITH A $.20 RATE INCREASE FOR THE FLAG DROP AND A
$.20 RATE INCREASE FOR THE PER MILE METER RATE.
6.9 APPROVED EXTENSION OF VENDOR SERVICES CONTRACT WITH
D.H. MAINTENANCE SERVICES TO PROVIDE JANITORIAL AND
BUILDING MAINTENANCE SERVICES AT THE DIAMOND BAR
CENTER, HERITAGE PARK COMMUNITY CENTER AND PANTERA
PARK ACTIVITY ROOM IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $175,194
FOR FY 2005-06.
6.10 APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARDED A
CONTRACT FOR THE AREA 1 SLURRY SEAL PROJECT TO DOUG
MARTIN CONTRACTING CO., INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $524,529;
AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $23,000 FOR PROJECT
CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR
A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $547,529.
6.11 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-31: AUTHORIZING,
APPROPRIATING AND APPROVING THE SALE OF $500,000 OF POP A
FUNDS (LOCAL RETURN TRANSIT FUNDS) TO THE CITY OF
COMMERCE IN EXCHANGE FOR GENERAL FUNDS.
6.12 AWARDED CONTRACT TO INLAND ROUNDBALL OFFICIALS TO
OFFICIATE THE DIAMOND BAR BASKETBALL PROGRAM FROM JULY
1, 2005 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2006 FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED
$30,000.
6.13 AWARDED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO ENVIRONMENTAL
CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS AT
VARIOUS MEDIANS AND PANTERA PARK PICNIC SHELTERS IN THE
AMOUNT OF $688,552.20 PLUS AN 8% CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF
$55,082.80 FOR TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF $743,635; PLUS
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
APPROVED APPROPRIATION OF $28,000 OF PROP 12 FUNDS,
$47,600 OF LLAD #38 FUNDS, $33,160 OF LLAD#41 FUNDS AND
$15,000 OF GENERAL FUND TREE PLANTING FUNDS TO COMPLETE
FUNDING OF THIS PROJECT.
6.14 AUTHORIZED D&J MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO PERFORM
INSPECTION AND PLAN CHECK SERVICES FOR VARIOUS MEDIANS
AND PANTERA PARK PICNIC SHELTERS PROJECT IN THE NOT -TO -
EXCEED AMOUNT OF $15,125.
6.15 APPROVED TRUGREEN LANDCARE TO COMPLETE AN ADDITIONAL
$15,000 OF AS -NEEDED WORK IN 2004-05 FY AND $40,000 OF AS -
NEEDED WORK IN 2005-06 FY AS AUTHORIZED BY CITY STAFF TO
COMPLETE WORK NECESSARY FOR THE CITYWIDE LANDSCAPE
MAINTENANCE CONTRACT.
6.16 AWARDED CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $437,622.55 PLUS 4.8%
CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $21,006 FOR TOTAL AUTHORIZATION
OF $458,628.55 TO CS LEGACY CONSTRUCTION, INC. FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS AT SYCAMORE CANYON
PARK TRAIL AND TRAILHEAD, PLUS APPROVED APPROPRIATION
OF $50,000 OF POP 40 FUNDS AND $120,261 OF POP A "SAFE PARKS
ACT" FUNDS TO FULLY FUND THE PROJECT.
6.17 SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE 07(2005): AMENDING TITLE 15
OF THE DIAMOND BAR CODE ADOPTING BY REFERENCE THE
CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE 2004 EDITION AND APPENDICES
TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN AMENDMENTS, ADDITIONS, DELETIONS
AND EXEMPTIONS INCLUDING FEES AND PENALTIES.
6.18 APPROVED AMENDMENT NO. 3 TO THE CONTRACT WITH EXCEL
LANDSCAPE FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES AT NINE
LOCATIONS IN LLAD #38 FOR FY 2005/06 IN THE AMOUNT OF
$29,371.08; PLUS A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $5,000 FOR AS -
NEEDED WORK.
6.19 AUTHORIZED D&J MUNICIPAL SERVICES TO PERFORM
INSPECTION AND PLAN CHECK SERVICES FOR THE SYCAMORE
CANYON PARK TRAIL AND TRAILHEAD PROJECT IN THE NOT -TO -
EXCEED AMOUNT OF $12,350.
6.20 APROVED AMENDMENT NO. 2 TO THE CONTRACT WITH HIRSCH
AND ASSOCIATES FOR ARCHITECT SERVICES TO EXTEND THE TERM
OF AGREEMENT TO DECEMBER 31, 2006.
6.21 AWARDED CONTRACT FOR ILLUMINATED STREET NAME SIGNS
PROJECT IN THE AMOUNT OF $199,655 TO POUK & STEINLE, INC.,
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $20,000 FOR
CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY
MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $219,655.
6.22 AUTHORIZED TRANSFER OF FUNDS FROM THE FY 2004-05 PUBLIC
WORKS OPERATING BUDGET TO THE VEHICLE EQUIMENT
REPLACEMENT FUND FOR PURCHASE OF A PUBLIC WORKS
TRUCK IN THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR.
6.23 APPROVED CONTRACT WITH COMPUCOM FOR MICROSOFT
ENTERPRISE LICENSE AGREEMENT ($56,645.82).
6.24
RELATING
(a) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-32: CALLING AND GIVING
NOTICE OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2005, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN
OFFICERS (3 CITY COUNCIL SEATS) AS REQUIRED BY THE
PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
TO GENERAL LAW CITIES.
(b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-33: REQUESTING THE
BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO
CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON
NOVEMBER 8, 2005 WITH THE SCHOOL ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON
THE DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS
CODE.
(c) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-34: ADOPTING
REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE
PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE
VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER
8, 2005.
6.25 MOVED TO COUNCIL CONSIDERATION ITEM 8.4.
6.26. (a) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-35: ESTABLISHING SALARY
RANGES FOR ALL CLASSES OF EMPLOYMENT EFFECTIVE THE PAY
PERIOD COMMENCING JULY 1, 2005; RESCINDING RESOLUTION
NO. 2005-19 IN ITS ENTIRETY.
(b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2005-36: SETTING FORTH
PERSONNEL RULES AND REGULATIONS AND RESCINDING
RESOLUTION NO. 2004-29 IN ITS ENTIRETY.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
7.1 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2005-37: ESTABLISHING A FEE FOR
BUSINESS REGISTRATION AND BUSINESS REGISTRATION
RENEWAL AND AMENDING THE EXISTING FEE SCHEDULE TO
INCLUDE BUSINESS REGISTRATION FEES AND REDUCE THE ZONE
LEARANCE FEE FOR A BUSINESS CONCURRENTLY REGISTERING
AND OBTAINING A ZONE CLEARANCE. (CONTINUED FROM MAY 3,
2005)
ACM/DeStefano reported that on May 3 the City Council adopted an
ordinance establishing a Business Registration Program that takes effect
on July 1, 2005. Also on May 3 the Council discussed whether or not a
registration fee should be added. Before Council tonight is a
recommendation from staff establishing a Registration Fee of $10 (initial
fee) and a $10 annual renewal fee for all business conducted in the City of
D.B. Since May 3 staff learned that home based businesses that are
required to receive a separate zoning clearance permit from the City might
be double -feed through this process. Therefore, within the resolution, staff
is recommending that the current $30 one-time only home based business
zoning clearance fee be reduced to $20 to make up for the $10 business
registration fee.
M/Chang opened the Public Hearing.
Steve Tye was opposed to charging a registration fee and wanted to know
what the individual business owner would get in exchange for paying a
fee.
With no further testimony being offered, M/Chang closed the Public
Hearing.
MPT/O'Connor explained that this was not a tax it was a fee. The City had
public safety problems with some of the businesses in D.B. and she felt it
was certainly worth $10 to make certain the neighborhoods were safe.
She felt a charge of $10 for every business was fair.
C/Zirbes agreed with MPT/O'Connor that the City wanted to make certain
that the businesses were operating within the code. The reality was that
whether businesses were charged zero dollars, $10 or $100 dollars those
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
that operate in an unsafe manner would not exist in the system. Most
businesses would register and he would prefer to have no fee for home-
based businesses. However, he would like to impose a very stiff penalty
for those who do not voluntarily register because the City is trying to
generate the types of businesses that are in the community that the City
can market. He felt it was right to have a business registration program in
order to prevent the storage of chemicals, avoid auto repair shops and
body shops and paint booths in residential neighborhoods. He felt it was
wrong to charge home-based businesses and he would want to make
certain that the resolution contained a tough penalty for those who failed to
register.
C/Tanaka said his main concern was for public safety. He felt that a
nominal fee of $10 would not make or break a business but would allow
the residents to feel safer and more confident that there was not a car
repair or paint shop operation in their neighborhood. For that reason he
favored the resolution.
C/Herrera said that when the Council discussed this matter it was
important to the Council that businesses be registered. The Council also
talked about sales tax leakage of which the City was unaware making it
even more important to register businesses. She agreed with C/Zirbes that
there should be penalties for those who continue to evade their
responsibilities.
CM/Lowry said that if discovered, those individuals who failed to register
would be guilty of an infraction and susceptible to a $100 citation.
M/Chang felt that all of the City Council members agreed there should be
business registration for safety purposes. With respect to the nominal
charge, people have a tendency to forget. So, from day one the City needs
to register the business and charge for registration. A fee should be
charged to cover a portion of the administration cost and $10 is a
reasonable fee. Council Members all agreed and asked staff to move
forward to prepare a resolution and now some Council Members want to
change the premise again. He said he did not believe a $10 fee would
prevent individuals from coming to D.B. with their businesses. He said the
Council should stay with its original decision and Council Members should
not change their minds back and forth again.
MPT/O'Connor moved, C/Tanaka seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2005-
37. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tanaka, MPT/O'Connor,
M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zirbes
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
7.2 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2005-38: APPROVING TTM 062482,
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW NO. 2005-05 AND TREE PERMIT 2005-03
FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF 180 CONDOMINIUMS ON 14.3 ACRES
OF LAND IN THE SPECIFIC PLAN SUB-PA2 AND 3 ZONES; TO
REMOVE UP TO 20 OAK TREES; AND TO RETAIN 25.5 ACRES OF
VACANT LAND IN SPECIFIC PLAN SUB -PA 4 ZONE AS OPEN SPACE.
THE PROJECT SITE IS LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF GRAND
AVENUE SOUTH OF GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE — APN: 8293-045-04
AND 05. THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING THE
REMOVAL OF TREES IS CONSISTENT WITH AND IS AN
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DIAMOND BAR SPECIFIC PLAN
APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL ON JUNE 29, 2004.
PM/Fong gave a presentation stating that last June the City Council
approved a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, the Diamond Bar
Village Specific Plan and Development Agreement. The approval included
a development concept that consisted of 135,000 sq. ft. of commercial
use, a Master Plan for the Calvary Chapel expansion, 200 residential
units and the retention of 25 acres of Open Space. Two weeks ago the
Planning Commission approved the Target project, the commercial
component of the Specific Plan. Brookfield Homes is the residential
component of the Specific Plan and proposes 180, 20 less than the
original approved concept comprised of 110 Townhouses and 70 Single
Family Residences. PM/Fong reported that during the May 24 Planning
Commission Hearing several Montefino residents raised concerns about
the stability of the slope and about the removal of trees and staff
responded to those concerns. In addition, she and Brookfield
representatives met with residents to satisfactorily answer their questions.
She said that the Planning Commission recommended City Council
approval and that MPT/O'Connor pointed out to her that on Page 11 of the
Resolution the tree replacement ratio should read 3:1 rather than 1:3.
In response to MPT/O'Connor PM/Fong used the map to show the
proposed location of the 110 Townhomes and the 70 single-family
residences.
PM/Fong confirmed to C/Zirbes that each unit has a two -car garage. He
asked for the total number of visitor parking spaces and PM/Fong said the
project met the City's standard of 120 guest spaces. PM/Fong also
confirmed that the project would have a gated entry with one entry and
one exit. This is a long private drive that could stack about 10 cars along
both sides of the drive.
M/Chang opened the Public Hearing.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
John Rowe, 1229 Porte Grande, Board Member of Montefino Townhomes,
said he attended the Planning Commission hearing and asked several
questions about the slopes, trees and construction. He thanked Brookfield
Homes, John O'Brien, Paul McDonald and PM/Fong for meeting with the
homeowners on June 9 to answer their concerns. In addition the same
group attended a homeowner association meeting and were able to
respond to
questions posed. He appreciated the number of trees scheduled for
removal was less than originally planned and was pleased to learn that
they were being removed from the base of the slope and not the top of the
slope.
John O'Brien, Brookfield Homes, thanked ACM/DeStefano and PM/Fong
for their cooperation in moving forward with the Diamond Bar Village
residential community and implementation of the previously approved
Specific Plan. He thanked the members of the Montefino Association for
their concerns and said that Brookfield wanted to be good neighbors and
that they were excited to be in the City of D.B. and look forward to offering
homeownership opportunities.
C/Zirbes said the products were impressive looking and asked when
Brookfield intended to commence construction if the project was approved.
Mr. O'Brien responded that Brookfield had submitted rough grading and
storm drain plans to plan check and were hoping to start construction in
August. The target phase release is in the first quarter of 2006 with move -
ins occurring April/May 2006 for the single family detached and June/July
for the Townhomes. The land development will occur in one large phase
with a phased implementation of the single family detached from 10-15
homes per phase and the Townhomes will occur every month during the
delivery period.
MPT/O'Connor asked if Brookfield had built the Plan 2AA-4 model and
was the layout acceptable because she found the powder room somewhat
inaccessible.
Mr. O'Brien indicated that Brookfield had not previously built that specific
floor plan. However, there had been similar floor plans built in other
communities. Part of what drives the floor plan is circulation. One goal in
placing the entry toward the middle of the home was to provide options
upon entry without having to expend valuable flooring space on circulation
patterns. There is also treatment to the architecture that lends itself to
having a home entry directly into the center of the home that is a nice
treatment Brookfield believes will be successful.
MPT/O'Connor asked if Brookfield had previously built the other floor
plans.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
Mr. O'Brien explained that all of the other floor plans were previously built
by Brookfield and that the Townhome product was a modified reuse of a
community that was currently under construction in the City of Long
Beach. The D.B. Townhome was larger in square footage and still very
similar to Long Beach in terms of the layout.
Mr. O'Brien responded to C/Herrera that construction of the single-family
homes would most likely commence first due to the permitting and
processing routine. Townhome construction is more complicated and
technical in nature causing a 30 to 45 day lag between the start of the two
product types. However, from that point forward the two products should
flow
consistently. There are 10 Townhomes per building that range from about
1200 to over 2000 square feet.
M/Chang congratulated Mr. O'Brien and staff for receiving a
commendation from the Montefino Association for being a good neighbor.
Mr. O'Brien thanked Lewis Homes for bringing D.B. to this level and said
that Brookfield Homes looks forward to being a good neighbor to Target as
well.
M/Chang closed the Public Hearing.
C/Zirbes moved, C/Tanaka seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2005-38.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tanaka, MPT/O'Connor,
M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Zirbes
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
MPT/O'Connor welcomed Brookfield Homes.
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 CONSIDER FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 08(2005):
AMENDING RULES FOR PUBLICLY OWNED OR PUBLICLY
OPERATED SKATEBOARD FACILITIES.
CSD/Rose reported that the Parks and Recreation Commission received a
request to allow non -motorized scooters at the skateboard facility at
Peterson Park. The current skate park rules disallow the use of scooters.
The Commission extensively reviewed this request and on April 28 voted
to recommend to the City Council that the skate park rules be revised to
allow non -motorized scooters to use the park. CSD/Rose indicated that
staff had determined that scooters cause no more damage to concrete
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL
than skateboards and in checking with the JPIA and other cities that
operate skate parks staff found that no claims had been filed as a result of
the use of scooters in those skate parks. However, there would be some
additional liability to the City by allowing the scooters in the skate park but
due to lack of available data there is no way to determine the extent of
additional liability that the City might incur. CSD/Rose further reported that
upon contacting the Consumer Product Safety Commission staff found
that nationwide, injuries suffered by individuals riding scooters was
equivalent to injuries suffered by individuals riding skateboards. An
additional statistic revealed that over 90 percent of fatalities to riders of
scooters occurred due to collisions with cars and from attempting to ride
their scooter on steep hills. He stated that the most important issue to the
City Manager was that scooters do not fall under the SB994 liability
exemption that prevents lawsuits from skateboarders who are injured in a
city operated skate park. Additionally, the statutory protection
the City enjoys from potential litigation was a factor in the City's decision to
construct the skate park five years ago. CSD/Rose stated that the Parks
and Recreation Commission recommended approval and the City
Manager's office recommended that the proposed ordinance not be
approved due to the City's increased exposure to liability and that further
study be done on this issue.
C/Zirbes agreed that it was unlikely that Razors would cause any more
damage than the skateboard and there are most likely Razors and
bicycles in the park now. However, the liability issue seems to be an issue
the City cannot get around. He asked if the City purchase additional
insurance to
cover potential liability claims.
CSD/Rose said he was not aware of insurance the City could purchase.
He indicated to C/Zirbes that even though there may have been injuries no
one had filed a claim.
C/Zirbes asked how many claims the City has had for skateboard injuries
in its skate park.
CSD/Rose said there had not been any claims filed.
CA/Jenkins explained that the City has a substantial amount of insurance
and the California JPIA has not advised the City that this would be in their
view an "uninsurable" event or an inherently dangerous mix of uses. In his
opinion, the amount of insurance the City has would be more than
adequate to address the type of injuries that might occur. Therefore, there
would likely not be a reason to increase the amount of coverage and the
City is covered under the JPIA policy.
C/Zirbes said he did not understand the liability issue when there is
coverage.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL
CSD/Rose explained that the liability issue is that D.B. is exempt from
liability by State Law for skateboarders in a skate park and the City is not
exempt by State Law for injuries due to bicycles and scooters.
CA/Jenkins further explained that cities in the JPIA that have higher
incidents of reported and/or paid claims ultimately suffer consequence in
the form of higher premiums. Therefore, if the City created a condition that
was likely to generate more claims it could ultimately cost the City in
higher premiums if there were injuries as a result of mixing the scooters
with skateboards. The question before the Council was whether it
perceived that it was an inappropriate mix of activities or whether the
Council felt comfortable about young people operating different devices
within the same facility at the same time.
MPT/O'Connor felt it would be prudent to ask for a revision of SB994 to
add scooters. However, it would be next year at the earliest before
legislation
might be passed to give the City immunity. Under the circumstances she
would be very nervous about allowing scooters in the skate park and she
would prefer to proceed through legal channels to get the legislation
changed to include the scooters rather than assuming the potential liability
at the City level.
Rick Illig, 23568 Prospect Valley Drive, stated that as CSD/Rose reported,
the majority of scooter accidents involve motor vehicles. If the kids are not
allowed in a park they ride on the street or in parking lots and it puts them
in danger. The reason that the SB994 does not cover scooters was
because it
was put into effect in 1997. The D.B. skate park was not built until 2000
and scooters were not popular until the summer of 2000. JPIA does not
revisit the issue until 2006. The kids need a place other than the streets to
ride their scooters.
Lora Illig said it was very important for the young people to keep busy
doing something positive and they have found something they enjoy in
scootering. She felt it was very important that the kids have a safe place to
practice and enjoy their sport.
Eric Loree showed the Council his scooter. Eric is 14 years of age and is
in the 7t" grade. He said that probably 75 percent of his life is scootering —
it's what he does best and he loves doing it. Peterson Skate Park is one of
the best parks he has ever been to and he has been to a lot of skate parks
in California. He would be very disappointed if he and his friends were not
allowed to use the skate park after attending six months of meetings and
all of the work they had done to get scootering accepted. He hoped the
Council would make the right decision.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL
Anita Loree thanked Council for letting the group speak to them this
evening. Parents are looking for a safe place for their kids to scooter.
Tonight the Council has talked about how it will increase the housing in the
community and that will put more kids on the street and what better way to
involve them than in a safe environment. These kids have waited patiently
for six months and if they have to wait another six months to a year it is, in
her opinion, unfair to them. As CSD/Rose mentioned on several occasions
a six-month probation period would be very fair and adequate and if the
Council was not satisfied with the outcome the matter could be revisited
and re-evaluated.
M/Chang felt it would be good for the kids to have a safe place to enjoy
their sport. He asked if the skate park facility was large enough to allow
both skateboarding and scooters.
CSD/Rose said that the Parks and Recreation Commission was
concerned about how the scooters might be received so staff posted signs
on three different occasions and received only one call about the
possibility that the scooters would get in the way of the skateboarders. In
speaking with representatives from other cities, Corona actively allows
scooters and
skateboarders to use the same skate park and many cities ignore the fact
that scooters are used in their skate parks. In addition, the City has not
received any information that both cannot use the same space
competitively.
M/Chang asked if the City would lose its insurance if it failed to notify the
insurer it was allowing scooters.
CA/Jenkins said that the City made the inquiry to the JPIA and received no
information back suggesting there would be a coverage problem. He felt it
would be prudent for the City to advise the JPIA about the change of
policy were the Council to allow scooters in the park and if the City
received any adverse information from the JPIA staff would report back to
the Council accordingly. CA/Jenkins said he would not recommend not
advising the JPIA.
M/Chang said he would like to create a facility to accommodate the youth
and their activities. However, because there was no clear cut policy in
effect the Council should ask the JPIA and if the word back was that there
was no problem with the insurance policy bring the matter back to the
Council for a decision.
C/Tanaka asked if the policy included use of safety equipment.
CSD/Rose responded that scooters would be required to use the same
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL
safety equipment as skateboarders.
C/Herrera recommended that the City continue the prohibition of scooters
in the skate park until the City was satisfied that it has received all of the
pertinent information to make an informed decision in two weeks.
CM/Lowry said she did not believe the JPIA would deny coverage if the
policy were changed. It was more likely that the JPIA would say that it had
not excluded the coverage from the City's policy. The issue was that if a
claim were brought against the City the JPIA would cover the City and the
City would pay or negotiate the claim and because the claim would not be
exempt the City would pay. This exposes the City to a new risk from which
it is not exempt and the insurance coverage is a financing mechanism for
the City. The City would be covered and the City would ultimately pay the
costs of the damages. The difference was that the skateboarder could not
file a claim for damages because the state law prohibits it and the scooter
could file a claim for damages because the state does not prohibit it.
CA/Jenkins said the primary concern was whether the risk of exposure
was unreasonable and whether the City would be creating a dangerous
condition to any of the kids using the park. The City does not automatically
incur liability just because someone is injured, the City only incurs liability
if the park was in a dangerous condition and would only incur liability if
there were something wrong with the park that caused the damage or if
the park as a result of incompatibility of uses was dangerous. The Council
ultimately
determines whether the activities are compatible or incompatible based on
the Council's personal experience, testimony and observations of how kids
function in the park using the scooters and the skateboards. In fact, both
types of equipment have the potential to cause injury. In fact, kids are
supposed to be wearing protective gear and equipment designed to
protect against injury. Keep in mind also that the State's immunity is very
limited even for skateboarders because it only applies to kids of a certain
age. Even there the statute is imperfect and has not been changed for
reasons he does not understand to be more protective of local agencies.
Also keep in mind
that the low incident of claims (no claims) is not uncommon and there are
many stories about kids who suffer injuries in these parks who do not file
claims for the reason that many kids and parents understand that the kids
are engaged in activities that could result in a broken arm or some other
type of injury and do not feel that it would be someone else's fault. The
City bears no liability for kids who injure one another and whether the kids
or the parents incur liability depends on the kid's behavior and whether
their behavior is wrongful or malicious.
C/Zirbes asked if the City would have created a greater potential for
incurring liability if the City allowed scooters and a kid on a scooter hit a
kid on a skateboard.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL
CA/Jenkins said that was the question of the moment, a question he could
not answer because that question depended on whether the Council
Members believe the activities were compatible or incompatible. Council
Members are often asked to make policy choices that involve conditions or
property that may or may not be hazardous. One possibility would be to
implement a pilot program for three months to see if there was a problem
and make sure that the recreation staff observed the situation and
reported back about whether there was an incompatibility or greater risk
than exists today.
MPT/O'Connor asked if the scooters wore proper safety equipment and
she acknowledged that the kids were nodding affirmatively.
C/Herrera felt it was important to have kids involved in positive activities
and she liked CA/Jenkins' suggestion about a pilot program.
C/Herrera moved, MPT/O'Connor seconded to approve Ordinance No.
08(2005) for first reading to expire December 1, 2005 and work with
legislators to attempt to amend SB994 to include Razor scooters in skate
parks and evaluate the matter immediately thereafter.
CA/Jenkins recommended adding Section II to read: "This ordinance shall
automatically expire six months from the effective date."
C/Herrera and MPT/O'Connor concurred. Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tanaka, Zirbes,
MPT/O'Connor, M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
8.2 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2005-39: APPROVING THE YOUTH
MASTER PLAN.
CSD/Rose stated that the Youth Master Plan development process began
on September 12, 2003 with the first meeting of the 21 -member steering
committee. Since then a tremendous effort was undertaken to collect
information and material through research and workshops culminating in
the creation of the Youth Master Plan before the Council this evening. The
Parks and Recreation Commission conducted an exhaustive review of the
plan between November 18, 2004 and April 13, 2005 and on April 13,
2005 the Commission voted unanimously to recommend City Council
adoption of the Youth Master Plan. Since its recommendation by the Parks
and Recreation Commission copies of the draft Youth Master Plan were
distributed to City Council Members and PUSD and WUSD school board
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL
members. Staff presented the draft plan to the City Council during its June
7 study session.
George Fullerton, Vice Principal, Diamond Ranch High School and Allison
Myers, Youth Master Plan consultant explained the development and
content of the plan using a Power Point presentation. The concept of the
Youth Master Plan involves a cultural shift. The plan is a basic document
to help guide the community through a collaborative with the school
districts and other organizations including the youth to share the vision
and to integrate strategies to enhance the lives of the youth. The plan
speaks to various models and many if not all models may be combined to
help establish the goals. Once the collaborative is established it will
determine a youth development model that is designed to connect the
youth programs and services throughout the community. The goal is to
share information and resources including applying for grants and other
types of funding thereby avoiding duplication of programs and facilities.
Allison Myers said that the next key strategy was to engage the
community and expand the capacity in resources, a strategy that would
allow the collaborative to engage the youth and provide insight to them
about what was available for them and for their families throughout the
City. The second strategy was to add to the current shared facilities and
resources and the third strategy was to eliminate barriers that included
financial barriers, cultural differences, geographic locations, transportation,
service inventory and so forth. This plan was designed to ensure that the
youth are happy, healthy, productive and involved and that the programs
are built based on a youth development model to provide outcome based
programming with everyone
working together.
CSD/Rose explained that staff proposed to make a presentation to the
Walnut Valley Unified School District for consideration by July 20 and to
go before the Pomona Unified School District by July 26 to get the
collaborative together in order to beginning meeting in September and to
form a youth action team by January 2006. The Parks and Recreation
Commission and staff recommend City Council adoption of the Youth
Master Plan.
There was no one present who wished to speak on this item.
MPT/O'Connor moved, C/Zirbes seconded, to adopt Resolution No. 2005-
37: Approving the Youth Master Plan. Motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tanaka, Zirbes,
MPT/O'Connor, M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL
8.3 NOMINATE A DIAMOND BAR RESIDENT TO FILL A VACANCY ON
THE PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE.
CM/Lowry stated that recently the Council received a letter of resignation
from Mr. Marvin wherein he resigned from the Public Safety Committee.
Staff advertised the position and received four letters of interest from D.B.
residents. In addition staff engaged in dialogue with the Captain of the
D.B./Walnut Sheriff's Station about the process of seating individuals on
the Public Safety Committee and realized that staff was mistaken about
the manner in which appointments were made in the past. Staff could
propose that the Council forward to the Captain the four names that were
submitted and deem it appropriate for him to make the selection or the
Council could wait until further discussions discern the formulation of the
committee and how it works. Out of respect for those who placed their
names for consideration staff wanted to provide Council the opportunity to
move the names forward to the Captain for review.
C/Herrera pointed out that staff's report acknowledged that it was the
Captain's committee and that he was the appointing authority. Therefore,
the resignation should have gone directly to the Captain rather than being
presented to the Council. C/Herrera said she believed that in the past it
was a different type of committee and upon termination of that committee
a different type of committee was formed with the Captain becoming the
appointing and governing authority.
C/Herrera moved to provide the Captain with the four names for
consideration and for him to report back to the Council.
MPT/O'Connor agreed with C/Herrera that it was prudent to pass the
names on to the Captain. She wanted to know what the Public Safety
Committee was about and whether or not the City should be involved in
any fashion.
C/Herrera said she accepted MPT/O'Connor's request as an amendment
to her motion and MPT/O'Connor seconded the amended motion.
C/Zirbes thanked the four people who submitted applications and Bob
Marvin for his service to the committee. He agreed that the Captain should
interview and select the candidate that would best serve the needs of the
City and the department and in turn the Council could approve the
Captain's
recommendation.
M/Chang thanked the applicants and appreciated their willingness to work
for the safety of the City of D.B. In addition, he agreed with his colleagues
that the City needed to determine due process for appointing committee
members.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tanaka, Zirbes,
MPT/O'Connor, M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
8.4 (a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-40: APPROVING AND
ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 2005 AND ENDING JUNE 30,
2006 INCLUDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, SPECIAL
FUNDS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS AND APPROPRIATING
FUNDS FOR ACCOUNTS, DEPARTMENT, DIVISIONS, OBJECTS AND
PURPOSES THEREIN SET FORTH.
ACM/Doyle reported that staff was requesting Council to approve three
separate resolutions calling for adoption of the operating budget, Fiscal
Year appropriations limit and Investment Policy. He said that the City is
once again in sound financial shape. The General Fund budget calls for
estimated revenues of $17.6 million with appropriations for ongoing every
day operations of $16.9 million leaving the City with an excess of about
$678,000 and staff is recommending that the $678,000 be re -invested into
the City's Capital Improvement Plan. Also included in the budget is a
$546,000 allocation out of reserves that has been identified for economic
development purposes. The proposed budget includes a 4% Cost of Living
increase for staff and a $25 benefit allotment increase for cafeteria
benefits. There are minor personnel changes including two positions that
are promotions only for current staff members.
C/Herrera said she was proud that staff was prudent about the
management of the City's money and that the budget was balanced
without budget cuts. She thanked staff and the City Council for keeping a
tight fist on the City's
dollars.
MPT/O'Connor informed the audience that the Council had held several
study sessions to discuss the budget. Many questions were asked and
staff was responsive. She agreed with C/Herrera that it was nice to be in a
City where funds were available to provide the services expected and
demanded by the residents.
M/Chang echoed the sentiments of his colleagues.
C/Herrera moved, M/Chang seconded to Adopt Resolution No. 2005-40.
Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tanaka, Zirbes,
MPT/O'Connor, M/Chang
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2005-41: SETTING THE PROP 4
(GANN) APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY 2005-06 FOR THE CITY IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 9 OF TITLE 1
OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE.
MPT/O'Connor moved, C/Herrera seconded, to Adopt Resolution No.
2005-41. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tanaka, Zirbes,
MPT/O'Connor, M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(c) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2005-42: ADOPTING THE
STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT (INVESTMENT POLICY).
MPT/O'Connor moved, C/Herrera seconded to Adopt Resolution No. 2005-
42. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tanaka, Zirbes,
MPT/O'Connor, M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
CM/Lowry requested that Consent Calendar Item 6.23 be corrected to reflect a
contract approval with CompuCom for Microsoft License Agreement in the
amount of $56,645.82 and that the Council approve the item as corrected.
C/Zirbes moved, C/Herrera seconded, to approve the contract with CompuCom
for Microsoft Enterprise License Agreement ($56,645.82). Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tanaka, Zirbes,
MPT/O'Connor,
M/Chang
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS:
C/Tanaka said he was very happy and excited to join his colleagues on the
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL
Council and said he would do the best job he could do for D.B.
C/Herrera congratulated C/Tanaka on his win and congratulated the candidates
who did not win. It was a close election with Steve Tye losing by only 84 votes. It
was a passionate election with many people working very hard for their
candidates. Because the election was so close there are a lot of wounded
feelings within the City. Of the ballots cast almost half of them were for another
candidate. She felt it was time to reach out into the community and heal the
wounds so that this Council and the residents could focus on the business at
hand and be the great team that she knows the five Council Members can be.
She offered her assistance to C/Tanaka. On tonight's agenda was approval of
construction at Sycamore Canyon Park for a trails project. She thanked Gary
Neeley, the City's Consultant who monitors organizations, one of which is the
Rivers and Mountains Conservancy because at Mr. Neeley's urging the
Conservancy was approached and did provide a grant to the City of D.B. in the
amount of $124,000. She thanked Mr. Neeley for his effort and acknowledged
that he had once again encouraged the City to apply for another grant. She
serves as a Board Member on the T.H. Pendergast Parole Museum. On June 30
the museum will sponsor an exhibit in Sacramento celebrating 100 years of
service. She thanked Assemblyman Bob Huff and his outstanding staff and
especially his Chief of Staff Junay Gardner Logan for facilitating and obtaining
approval for establishing an exhibit in the State Capitol. During the five years she
has served on the Board the Parole Museum has attempted to approval from the
Governor's office for an exhibit in Sacramento. When Mr. Huff took over there
were no records of work that had been done toward getting the exhibit
established. Assemblyman Huff recreated the work product and after obtaining
the necessary documents from the parole board was successful in getting the
matter concluded. The exhibit was designed by Patrick Merrill, Director of the
Keith and Janet Kellog University gallery at CalPoly Pomona and Arnold Holland,
Professor of Graphic Design at the California State University at Fullerton. The
unveiling is on the first floor of the capitol building directly across from the
Governor's office. The ceremony will be at 12:00 noon and she encouraged
everyone to attend. She again thanked Assemblyman Bob Huff.
C/Zirbes welcomed C/Tanaka. The election is over and it was a close race. All of
the candidates showed the residents that they care about the community of D.B.
It is unfortunate that there was a lot of painting of the Council that it is split 2-2
because if people look at the Council's voting record it is easy to see that the
Council works together on approving issues that are important to D.B. and its
citizens. The Council Members bring independent experiences to the Council. All
three of the candidates should be commended for the job they did in running for
Council. He disagreed that the community needed to come together to heal
because each Council Member represents the core value of this community and
each Council Member has an eye to the future of this City. He thanked tonight's
participants.
MPT/O'Connor attended the Chamber's very successful economic conference.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL
She
thanked the Chamber for a wonderful program and she thanked the City
Manager and Assistant City Manager for their contributions. She commended
C/Herrera for her service as President of COG. The organization celebrated 10
years of service and recognized five community members who were influential in
the San Gabriel Valley in honor of Jack Phillips who was a City of Industry
Council Member who passed away. She understood it was C/Herrera's idea to
hold a memorial in honor of Jack Phillips and MPT/O'Connor commended
C/Herrera for her thoughtful gesture. Last week MPT/O'Connor flew to
Sacramento to speak on behalf of Assemblyman Huff's AJR#7 dealing with the
zip code issue in D.B. and did not have to speak because the bill passed
unanimously and was sent to the senate floor without further input. Yesterday
she, CM/Lowry, ACM/DeStefano and C/Zirbes met with the City of Industry staff,
directors and mayor to discuss the Industry Business Center proposed for the
500 acre "buffer zone" on the west side of the SR 57. Industry is proposing an
industrial, commercial and retail area. A Town Forum is scheduled for Thursday,
July 7 at Neil Armstrong School and the City of Industry agreed to participate in
the forum. She hoped that the affected residents would attend. The City of
Industry has been very cooperative with D.B. during other projects and D.B.
anticipates that they will cooperate with the City during this project. School is out
and drivers should please watch out for the kids who are out on the City's streets.
She encouraged residents to attend the City's July 4t" celebration. It is a
wonderful and safe event. She welcomed C/Tanaka and believed that he was the
first Japanese -American to serve on the D.B. Council.
M/Chang welcomed C/Tanaka and thanked him for his willingness to serve the
community. He joined MPT/O'Connor in inviting everyone to attend the July 4t"
show and the Concerts in the Park series beginning June 29. He attended the
D.B.H.S. graduation ceremonies and congratulated all of the graduates and
wished them the best of luck in the next level and challenge of their lives. He
spoke about the election process and hoped the community would come together
to work together to keep D.B. moving forward.
10. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Chang adjourned the
meeting at 10:20 p.m.
LINDA C. LOWRY, CITY CLERK
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this day of
2005.
JUNE 21, 2005 PAGE 23 CITY COUNCIL
WEN CHANG, MAYOR
Agenda No. 6.2
MINUTES OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
REGULAR MEETING OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION
MAY 24, 2005
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman McManus called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air
Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Vice Chairman Low led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Joe McManus, Vice Chairperson Ruth Low,
and Commissioners Dan Nolan, Jack Tanaka and Steve Tye.
Also present: Nancy Fong, Planning Manager; Ann Lungu,
Associate Planner; Linda Smith, Development Services Assistant; Fred
Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer and Stella
Marquez, Senior 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 10, 2005.
C/Nolan asked that the record reflect that he led the pledge of allegiance
for the May 10, 2005, meeting.
C/Nolan moved, C/Tanaka seconded to approve the minutes of the
Regular Meeting of May 10, 2005, as corrected. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
Nolan, Tanaka, Tye, VC/Low,
Chair/McManus
None
None
MAY 24, 2005
IiK
11.
OLD BUSINESS:
NEW BUSINESS:
Page 2 PLANNING COMMISSION
1►reM12
6.1 Review of FY 2005-2006 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) for
Conformity with the General Plan.
AssocP/Lungu presented staff's report and recommended that the
Planning Commission make the finding that the CIP was in conformance
with the General Plan.
VC/Low asked why project 20705 Lorbeer ball field was on the City's CIP
list and not the responsibility of the school. C/Nolan explained that one of
the General Plan objectives was to have joint use agreements between
the City and the school districts and one of the joint use projects was
lighting the ball field. The City Council approved budgeting funds to install
artificial turf at the school however, there was a problem getting the school
district to agree and enter into a formal joint use agreement with the City
so the project was on hold and the City would not move forward without a
formal agreement from the school district.
VC/Low took exception to the City paying for vegetation control at freeway
ramps and Caltrans rights-of-way adjacent to City streets because if the
City continued to take care of the areas she felt there was no incentive for
Caltrans to do their job. PM/Fong said that although it was Caltrans'
responsibility the City was obliged to clean up the areas to enhance the
look of the City. VC/Low asked if there was another method for getting
Caltrans to take care of their responsibility. For example, the City seemed
to have a joint use agreement with the library and problems existed with
that agreement so Diamond Bar supplements the county with funding and
the county does very little.
SE/Alamolhoda explained that the City agreed to clean up two underpass
areas on Brea Canyon Road and Golden Springs under the connector
road. In addition to maintenance, the $50,000 budget item was for design
and because the City was doing the design it will be low maintenance and
something the City would control in the future. This problem is common to
many cities. Caltrans has a very low budget for landscaping and
maintaining rights-of-way and it is typical that if cities want to beautify and
enhance the Caltrans right-of-way within their jurisdictions, they are
MAY 24, 2005
Page 3 PLANNING COMMISSION
obliged to pay for the enhancement and agreements. PM/Fong stated that
through an agreement the cities enhance and maintain the rights-of-way
for 20 years after which Caltrans assumes the maintenance.
C/Tye moved, C/Nolan seconded to adopt Resolution 2005-22, finding the
proposed FY 2005-2006 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) in conformity
with the City's General Plan. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
12. PUBLIC HEARING(S):
Tye, Nolan, Tanaka, VC/Low,
Chair/McManus
None
None
7.1 Development Review No. 2005-18 and Minor Conditional Use Permit
No. 2005-07 — In accordance with Diamond Bar Municipal Code
Sections 22.48, 22.56 and 22.68, this was a request to remodel and
construct an approximate 1,289 square foot one and two story addition at
the rear of the existing 1,305 livable square foot two story legal
nonconforming single family residence with a two car garage. A Minor
Conditional Use Permit approval would allow the continuation of legal
nonconforming front yard setback distances.
PROJECT ADDRESS
PROPERTY OWNERS/
APPLICANT:
24339 Northview Place
(Lot 7, Tract 42585)
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
James M. and Kelley L. Golondzinier
24339 Northview Place
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
DSA/Smith presented staff's report and recommended Planning
Commission approval of Development Review No. 2005-18 and Minor
Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-07, Findings of Fact, and conditions of
approval as listed within the draft resolution.
VC/Low said in her opinion the fagade was very attractive.
Responding to C/Tye, DSA/Smith said she began inserting "LA County Lot
Averaging" when the project did not meet and would never meet the City's
MAY 24, 2005
Page 4 PLANNING COMMISSION
standards for single family lot sizes because of the way LA County
originally divided lots.
Eric Van Wetchel, Architect, said he read staff's report and concurred with
the conditions of approval as written.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
With no one present who wished to speak on this item, Chair/McManus
closed the public hearing.
C/Tanaka moved, C/Nolan seconded to approve Development Review No.
2005-18 and Minor Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-07, Findings of Fact,
and conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: Tanaka, Nolan, Tye, VC/Low,
Chair/McManus
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: None
7.2 Tentative Tract Map 062482, Development Review No. 2005-05 and
Tree Permit No. 2005-03 — In accordance with Chapter 21.20 of the
Municipal Code and Chapters 22.48 and 22.38 of the Development Code,
this was a request to construct 180 condominiums consisting of 70 single
family detached houses and 110 townhouses on 14.3 acres of land in the
Specific Plan Sub-PA2 and 3 zones; a request to remove approximately
20 trees consisting of Oaks and Walnuts, and the keeping of 25.5 acres of
vacant land in Specific Plan Sub-PA4 zone as Open Space. The proposed
development included the removal of trees consistent with and
implementation of the Diamond Bar Village Specific Plan approved by the
City Council on June 29, 2004.
PROJECT ADDRESS: West Side of Grand Avenue,
South of Golden Springs Drive
APN 8293-045-004 and 05
PROJECT OWNER: Lewis Diamond Bar LLC
1156 N. Mountain Avenue
Upland, CA 91785
APPLICANT: Brookfield Southland Holdings, LLC
MAY 24, 2005 Page 5 PLANNING COMMISSION
3090 Bristol, Suite 200
Costa Mesa, CA 92626
PM/Fong presented staff's report and recommended Planning
Commission approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 062482, Development
Review No. 2005-05 and Tree Permit No. 2005-03, Findings of Fact, and
conditions of approval as listed within the resolution.
John O'Brien, Brookfield Homes, presented the proposed planned
development implementation of the Diamond Bar Village Specific Plan that
was approved last summer. Brookfield Homes believes that this
implementation, while reducing the density and presenting a very
marketable approach will benefit the community by supplementing the
vacancy use and presenting new homeownership opportunities. He
introduced members of his project team. He said that on a positive note,
the project managed to save additional Oak and Oak specimen trees.
VC/Low asked Mr. O'Brien to address the amount of private and common
open space compared to the overall size of the project. Using overheads
Lance Walker, Landscape Architect, pointed out the various open space
areas. The primary open space will house a resort -style swimming pool,
restrooms, fountain, fireplace, tables, chairs, seating and pool cabana. Mr.
O'Brien pointed out that in addition to the primary open space the more
passive common open space areas would be the elements of the debris
basins. Each detached home has a courtyard area suitable for patio,
barbecue and a Jacuzzi in some cases. Each attached home has a small
patio area available for outdoor use. PM/Fong reported that the
landscaping percentage was 48 percent of the entire parcel and the lot
coverage for buildings and driveways was 19 percent. She said that this
project was well above the minimum standards for open space and for lot
coverage and was well below the maximum coverage opportunity. She
highlighted the open space areas using the overhead.
Mr. O'Brien responded to VC/Low that the project would provide a range
of trees from 24" box to some larger specimen trees in certain areas and
the trees would be replaced at the required 3:1 ratio in the 24" box size
and placed primarily in the debris basin area. Mr. O'Brien indicated to
VC/Low that he would like to review a possible alternative wood fence with
staff. He said that from a height perspective the family units were
somewhat taller than the single-family units and were designed to
represent two -stories out of grade with the remainder repressed into the
MAY 24, 2005 Page 6 PLANNING COMMISSION
earth. The attached home product was designed to provide a number of
viewing opportunities to a maximum number of homes although there
would be some limited view from the detached homes as they travel up
the slopes into the debris basin areas. The views are primarily oriented
toward the attached Townhomes. PM/Fong explained to VC/Low that as
part of plan check a noise study would likely be required to
determine what kind of building material would be required to acquire any
necessary noise reduction.
C/Nolan asked Mr. O'Brien to delineate the location of the setbacks of 6 '/2
feet and 10 feet. What percentage of the homes would have a 6.5 ft.
setback versus a 10 ft. setback. Mr. O'Brien explained that the 6.5 ft
setback between homes was in select locations between the detached
homes and that the setback in the pedestrian areas would range from 14
to 16 feet as one traveled up the Paseo. He indicated that this type of
product and corresponding setbacks had been built a number of times. He
further responded to C/Nolan that the homes would extend all the way to
Grand Avenue. C/Nolan wanted to know why the project was reduced
from 200 to 180 homes. Mr. O'Brien explained that Brookfield worked with
staff to provide a sellable community that met several restrictions.
PM/Fong responded to C/Nolan that the parking met the 3:1 ratio
excluding the parking areas outside of the gate. Mr. O'Brien stated that
Brookfield provided additional guest parking on the entry road.
C/Tye felt the parking would be inadequate and wanted to know how many
spaces street A would provide. Mr. O'Brien responded an additional 16
spaces and it appeared there could be an opportunity to increase that
number of stalls. C/Tye asked how homeowners would be prevented from
parking in guest spaces and PM/Fong responded that it would require
strong association CC&R's. C/Tye was concerned about sufficient parking
for homeowners and the less than one guest -parking unit per unit. Mr.
O'Brien said that crowded parking conditions were the nature of high-
density homebuilding and that Brookfield had strong CC&R's that required
garages to be occupied as garage spaces. In other communities the
associations have adopted towing policies so that when residents continue
to park cars that belong in garages or ownership cars within the site they
are subject to towing. Other similar communities have been able to evolve
and accept this condition. Mr. O'Brien indicated to C/Tye that Brookfield
would provide vinyl double paned windows for the entirety of the project.
C/Tye suggested that Mr. O'Brien compromise with staff and incorporate
slump stone fencing rather than wood fencing.
MAY 24, 2005 Page 7 PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. O'Brien thanked the Commissioners and staff for their support and
said he and his colleagues were very excited about bringing this project to
the market. Already there were several individuals who had signed their
interest list. He thanked Lewis Operating for their support.
Chair/McManus opened the public hearing.
John Roe 1229 Porte Grande, Montefino Townhomes, said that his
association of 543 Townhomes neighbors the project. As a board member
he represents 1500 residents in Diamond Bar. When he received the
public hearing notice it was the first notice he received that discussed
removing trees and he was concerned about slope integrity for the 38
units on the slopes directly above the project. He asked for a copy of the
plans showing the debris basins and how they would affect Montefino. He
also wanted to know where on the slopes the sound barriers would be
placed and how they would affect Montefino and he wanted to know where
the 25 acres of open space would be. He said he read the EIR but did not
understand whether the report said the slopes were safe or unsafe.
Chair/McManus indicated to Mr. Roe that the Commission had the same
concerns as he. The hillsides that slipped during the rain were developed
prior to incorporation. He indicated that Mr. O'Brien and his colleagues as
well as staff would address every one of Mr. Roe's questions and
concerns.
Mr. Roe said the association did not object to the proposed project.
Ruth Clark, 22807 Chardonnay #2, said that she had trespassed on the
property while walking her dog and noticed that there was one area where
the hill was affected by the rain. She was impressed that the property
remained dry in spite of the heavy rain. She was particularly concerned
about the houses in the back that would be up the slope. She asked the
City to leave the slopes and trees in tact.
PM/Fong displayed an aerial of the proposed project area. The 25 acres of
open space consists of all of the slopes. The project site is primarily on the
flat portion. She pointed out the trees designated for removal and
replacement that are at the bottom of the slope. The builder is trying to
save as many Oak trees as possible and the slopes are beyond the
project boundary.
MAY 24, 2005 Page 8 PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. O'Brien said Brookfield shared the speakers' concerns and that they
want to be good neighbors and can work with Montefino residents to
complete the new community. The trees that are impacted are all on the
lower portions of the slope. The slope will not be graded and the debris
basins are merely to handle the runoff that comes down the slope.
Brookfield cannot imagine that there will be debris runoff from the slope.
However, it is a requirement of the project that it must provide debris
basins. He assured Ms. Clark that the improvements the project provided
would make the slopes safer. What is currently on site is a storm drain
system that was never accepted by LA County and no maintenance was
provided. This process will create a private homeowners association to
maintain the storm drain system and to make certain that the County
accepts responsibility for downstream outflow of the storm drain activity.
Noise studies were done and there were no significant sound issues from
the retail site and from Grand Avenue. Mr. O'Brien stated that the project
completed studies to test the integrity of all of the slopes. The slope study
is available for review and he offered to meet with the homeowners to
explain the results. Mr. O'Brien indicated to Ms. Clark that if he had left her
with the opinion that the homes would reside on the slope areas he had
misspoken because no homes would be built on the slopes.
Ms. Clark asked Mr. O'Brien to show her the trees that are proposed for
removal. Mr. O'Brien said he would arrange a tour.
Johnny Lee, 22809 Chardonnay, Unit #2, said he lives in one of the 38
impacted houses and wanted to know when construction would
commence and how long it would take. He understood that there was a
certain amount of noise associated with construction projects.
Chair/McManus said that there was not yet a date certain for
commencement of construction because the City Council would first have
to approve the project. He also said that notifications regarding this project
were sent to residents within a 700 -foot radius of the project site as
required.
Resident Mohammed, 1107B Golden Springs Drive, felt that the project
would be very good for the community. Many homes in Diamond Bar are
older and suffer from termite damage. Brookfield is a very good builder
and they build nice homes. He was twice elected to the board of the
Sunset Crossing Homeowners Association and the association enforces
MAY 24, 2005
13
14
Page 9 PLANNING COMMISSION
rules. No property owner can park in visitor parking and if they do so their
vehicle is towed. If a visitor comes for a longer period of time such as a
week the association issues a parking permit. His association has not had
problems. He thanked the Commissioners for approving the project and
said that if he purchased a home in the Village he would be a good
neighbor to Montefino.
VC/Low and C/Tye said they appreciated Brookfield's immediate
responses to the neighbors' concerns. C/Nolan said he appreciated the
comments from the Montefino residents and he assured them that their
comments were not lost on any of the Commissioners, would be duly
noted in the minutes and that staff would work diligently to make certain
the project proceeded in the proper manner.
VC/Low moved, C/Tye seconded, to adopt a resolution recommending
City Council approval of Tentative Tract Map 062482, Development
Review No. 2005-05 and Tree Permit No. 2005-03, Findings of Fact, and
conditions of approval as listed within the resolution. Motion carried by the
following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS
NOES: COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS
VC/Low, Tye, Nolan, Tanaka,
Chair/McManus
None
None
PLANNING COMMISSION COMMENTS AND INFORMATION ITEMS:
C/Nolan said that on Monday he participated in the Los Angeles County Sheriff's
STAR Golf Tournament.
STAFF COMMENTS AND INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
9.1 Public Hearing dates for future projects.
PM/Fong reported that a major rezoning issue for multiple sites should be
considered during a Planning Commission Study Session on June 14 at
5:30 p.m. prior to the regular Planning Commission meeting and that
dinner would be provided. Commissioners concurred.
PM/Fong stated that today the Planning Department received the plan
check for the burned out building on Brea Canyon Road at Pathfinder
MAY 24, 2005 Page 10 PLANNING COMMISSION
Road and that staff would do everything possible to expedite the rebuilding
process.
C/Tye asked for an update on what information was provided to Bristol
Farms and Smith Brothers restaurant group relative to bringing their
businesses to Diamond Bar. PM/Fong offered that ACM/DeStefano would
respond to C/Tye's inquiry during the June 14 meeting.
11. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
As listed in tonight's agenda.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business before the Planning Commission,
Chair/Nolan adjourned the meeting at 8:32 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Nancy Fong, Planning Manager
Attest:
Joe McManus, Chairman
Agenda No. 6.3
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION
HEARING BOARD ROOM OF S.C.A.Q.M.D./THE GOVERNMENT CENTER
21865 Copley Drive
MAY 26, 2005
CALL TO ORDER:
Chairman Lyons called the Parks and Recreation Commission meeting to order at 7:00
p.m. in the SCAQMD/Government Center Building Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
C/Chang led the Pledge of Allegiance.
1. ROLL CALL:
Present: Chairman Nancy Lyons, Vice Chairman Marty Torres and
Commissioner Ling -Ling Chang
Commissioners Benny Liang and Dave Grundy were excused.
Staff Present: Bob Rose, Director of Community Services; Anthony Jordan, Parks
and Maintenance Supervisor; Sara West, Recreation Supervisor II; Andee Tarazon,
Community Services Coordinator for Special Events, and Marisa Somenzi,
Administrative Assistant.
MATTERS FROM THE AUDIENCE: None Offered.
CALENDAR OF EVENTS: As presented in the agenda.
1. CONSENT CALENDAR
VC/Torres moved, Chair/Lyons seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as
presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COMMISSIONERS: VC/Torres, Chair/Lyons
NOES: COMMISSIONERS: None
ABSTAIN: COMMISSIONERS: Chang
ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: Grundy, Liang
1.1 Minutes of the April 28, 2005 Regular Meeting — as presented.
MAY 26, 2005 PAGE 2 P&R COMMISSION
2. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS
2.1 Recreation Program Report — RSII/West
VC/Torres asked if it was possible to set up an information booth at the
Concerts in the Park. RSII/West responded that information booths were
not allowed except for the City booths and a couple of grandfathered
booths. However, food booths were allowed. The deadline is June 3 for
consideration.
C/Chang asked what the Diamond Bar Community Foundation was
permitted to do during the concert the group sponsored. RSII/West said
that usually a Foundation member was invited to speak during the Mayor's
introduction speech. In addition, the advertising acknowledges that the
concert was sponsored by the Foundation. The Foundation is permitted to
have an information booth.
Chair/Lyons complimented staff for getting the Recreation Guide out early.
She asked if someone was taking photos during tonight's senior dance
and RSII/West responded yes. Chair/Lyons suggested a senior photo be
used as a cover for the next Recreation Guide.
Chair/Lyons asked if it was true that the YMCA had five booths at the City
Birthday Party and if so, whether they should they have been allowed to
have five booths. RSII/West said that when she has extra booths the
YMCA signs up to take as many extras as are available. The YMCA and
the City have an excellent working relationship. RSII/West responded to
Chair/Lyons that the City received some reimbursement from the company
providing rides that were inoperable. Chair/Lyons said that there were
many positive comments about the Birthday Party and especially for
RSII/West. She hoped that CSD/Rose had passed along the
Commissioners comments from the last meeting. RSII/West said she
found the comments in the minutes and thanked the Commissioners.
2.2 Diamond Bar Community Foundation Oral Report
VC/Torres said that C/Chang was doing an excellent job as Chair of the
Foundation. The Foundation met this week and Chair/Chang implemented
a revised and streamlined procedure for evaluating funding requests. The
Foundation is in the planning stages for a formal dinner dance to be held
on December 3. The Foundation discussed a follow up promotion for tile
sales and created a formal routine with faster turnaround time. In addition,
the Foundation will set up a Website to display digital photos of the tiles to
show how they are displayed at the Diamond Bar Center.
2.3 Library Task Force Oral Report — no report offered.
2.4 C.I.P. Program Report — CSD/Rose
MAY 26, 2005 PAGE 3 P&R COMMISSION
a. Sycamore Canyon Park ADA Retrofit Phase II — Construction
commenced on Monday, May 16, 2005 and is scheduled for
completion by July 16.
b. Sycamore Canyon Park Trail and Trailhead Project — Bid opening
Tuesday May 31, 2005 with award of contract on June 7.
C. Citywide Landscape Improvements — Bid opening Tuesday, June
14, 2005 with award of contract by June 21.
d. Starshine Park ADA Improvements — Currently under construction
with completion delayed due to ongoing negotiations with Walnut
Valley Water District regarding the drinking fountain.
In response to Chair/Lyons CSD/Rose reported that in conjunction
with her recommendation the Council wished to have a ribbon -
cutting ceremony in July during Parks and Recreations Month.
CSD/Rose reported that staff was working with Pat Hirsch to move
forward with Phase III of the Sycamore Canyon Park project. With the
exception of a building that had been moved to Phase IV all other
components of Phase III would be implemented.
2.5 Parks Report — PMS/Jordan
PMS/Jordan reported that walkthroughs were completed for the following
parks: Peterson (Chang), Pantera (Torres), Sycamore Canyon (Liang),
Summitridge and the Diamond Bar Center (Chair/Lyons) and Heritage
Park (staff). Over the past several weeks, staff has been systematically
working to complete the punch list items as indicated within the packet. In
addition, items 9, 10 and 11 for Heritage Park were also completed as part
of an Eagle Scout project.
PARK
DATE
COMMISSIONER
Chang
TBD
Maple Hill
Torres
TBD
Paul C. Grow
Lyons
TBD
Starshine/R.
Reagan
3. OLD BUSINESS: None
4. NEW BUSINESS: None
5. ANNOUNCEMENTS: Chair/Lyons thanked RS/Murphey and others for their
great assistance to the Friends of the Library at the Wine Soiree. She attended
the CAAP's Cultural Fair last month and the group expressed their gratitude to
the Parks and Recreation Commission for the work that had been done to
MAY 26, 2005 PAGE 4 P&R COMMISSION
prepare the park for their event.
MAY 26, 2005 PAGE 5 P&R COMMISSION
ADJOURNMENT: Upon motion by C/Chang, seconded by VC/Torres and there being
no further business before the Parks & Recreation Commission, Chair/Lyons adjourned
the meeting at 7:36 p.m.
Respectfully Submitted,
Bob Rose, Secretary
Attest:
Nancy Lyons, Chairman
Agenda No. 6.4.1
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF
APRIL 14, 2005
CALL TO ORDER:
Chair Pincher called the meeting to order at 7:10 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Chair Pincher led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Chair Pincher and Commissioners Shah and Virginkar.
Commissioner Morris and Vice Chair Torng were absent.
Also Present: David Liu, Director of Public Works; Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer;
Debbie Gonzales, Administrative Assistant and Sgt. Chris Blasnek, Walnut/Diamond Bar
Sheriff's Station.
I. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of regular meeting of March 10, 2005.
C/Virginkar moved, C/Shah seconded, to approve the March 10, 2005
minutes as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES:
COMMISSIONERS
NOES:
COMMISSIONERS
ABSENT:
COMMISSIONERS
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
IV. ITEMS FROM STAFF:
Shah, Virginkar, Chair/Pincher
None
Morris, VC/Torng.
A. Traffic Enforcement Update — Received and filed on the following items:
1. Citations: March 2005
2. Collisions: March 2005
3. Future Deployment of the Radar Trailer
Sgt. Blasnek reported that a new motor deputy is in the City replacing Joe
Garland who was transferred to Norwalk. Also, he presented a copy of the
letter to the parents of Quail Summit Elementary School students. 640
APRIL 14, 2005 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION
copies were distributed to the parents letting them know that they needed to
work with the residents and not block their driveways and streets in and
around the school. The letter/flyer was done in color for effect.
Sgt. Blasnek stated that the Sheriff's Department was successful in
obtaining a state grant to pay for deputies for additional time spent enforcing
seat belt violations and that the special enforcement would take place from
May 16, 2005 to the first week of June 2005. The Department also received
grant monies for DUI checkpoints. Because the December 2004 checkpoint
was rained out, the state was allowing the City to make up the time so a
tentative date of May 27, was scheduled with the location to be announced.
C/Shah complimented Sgt. Blasnek on the letter. Sgt. Blasnek said that
because there were about 10 different languages spoken at Quail Summit
the principal translated the letter into other languages for the benefit of the
parents. C/Shah asked Sgt. Blasnek to report back to the Commission
regarding the impact of the letter.
C/Virginkar concurred that Quail Summit was congested around 8:00 a.m.
Parents want to make sure they drop their kids off as close to the school as
possible. He felt there was plenty of room to park on Winterwood Drive and
get the kids to the crossing guard. He suggested that if left turns in and out
of the parking area were eliminated it would relieve a lot of congestion. Sgt.
Blasnek responded that because it was difficult to change parents' habits in
the middle of the school session it might be better to test it in September,
2005 at the beginning of the school year. C/Virginkar thanked Sgt. Blasnek
for his good work and his helpful report.
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS: None
VII. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS: None
VIII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS: Chair/Pincher felt that staff was doing a stellar
job with the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program. She wished that more
residents would participate and offer their input and she felt bad about the lack of
participation because she knew the City had sent out thousands of postcards. She
also felt that once the residents realized what was happening they would see the
benefit of this very special program and wish they had participated.
IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
A. Caltrans 57/60 Freeway Construction Project
PWD/Liu stated that the project was on schedule. The westbound Brea
APRIL 14, 2005 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION
Canyon Road on-ramp at the SR -60 should be open in August/September
2005.
B. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP)
AE/Molina reported that the last introductory meeting was held last Tuesday
at Walnut Elementary School for the district north of Pathfinder Road and
west of Brea Canyon Road. The City sent out 1,150 postcards and about six
residents attended the meeting. One resident commented that she
represented about 10 families on her street. Major concerns were cut
through traffic on Lycoming Street and especially truck traffic from the City
of Industry not wanting to use Brea Canyon Road. Also of concern was
school traffic because traffic was being diverted through the neighborhoods.
PWD/Liu stated that staff was moving forward with a plan to improve the
streets on a first come, first serve basis and that subsequent outreach
meetings would be limited to the affected residents and not on a
neighborhood basis.
C. Grand Avenue Beautification/Betterment Project
PWD/Liu reported that on April 5, 2005 the City Council awarded a
construction contract to Sequel Contractors, Inc. in the amount of $2.2
million for the section of Grand Avenue from the SR60 to 1600 feet east of
Golden Springs Drive. The project commences this month and for the next
three to four months there will be a lot of activities in and about the
intersection of Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive.
PWD/Liu reported that this week staff in conjunction with the City of Industry
concluded interviews with six consulting firms and selected two separate
consultants for the Lemon Avenue on/off ramps project and for the Grand
Avenue Interchange Improvements project.
PWD/Liu responded to C/Shah that the Diamond Bar Honda parcel is within
Diamond Bar's jurisdiction. However, the roadway and bridge are under the
jurisdiction of the City of Industry. The project study report will identify
several alternatives.
PWD/Liu stated that at its April 5, 2005 meeting, the City Council approved
the Cost Sharing Agreement for the SR -57/60 Interchange Improvements
Feasibility Study, a focus study that will look at all of the viable alternatives
for long-term regional improvements.
PWD/Liu reported that the City submitted three applications for federal
funding for: 1) an in -pavement lighted crosswalk system as a pilot project
for the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Golden Springs Drive; 2)
traffic calming measures for Sunset Crossing Road and Prospectors Road
APRIL 14, 2005 PAGE 4 T&T COMMISSION
and for Cold Spring Lane and Fountain Springs Road; and 3) driver
feedback signs.
PWD/Liu explained that during a recent City Council Study Session
AA/Gonzales presented staff's report on illuminated street name signs
below mast arms of signalized intersections. The City Council decided on a
design that incorporates the Diamond Bar Logo and directed staff to get a
price on new signage for all signalized intersections instead of the originally
designated twenty.
PWD/Liu reported on the April 6 Alameda Corridor East Construction
Authority (ACE) public outreach meeting. About 70 residents attended
making it very clear that residents off of Lycoming Street are very concerned
about how this project will impact them over the next two years.
X. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS — as agendized.
XII. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS: None
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Traffic and
Transportation Commission, Chair/Pincher adjourned the meeting at 8:16 p.m.
Respectfully,
David G. Liu, Secretary
Attest:
Chair Liana Pincher
Agenda No. 6.4.2
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MINUTES OF THE TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION
REGULAR MEETING OF
MAY 12, 2005
CALL TO ORDER:
Vice Chair Torng called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality
Management/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond
Bar, California 91765.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Commissioner Morris led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL:
Present: Vice Chairman Torng and Commissioners Morris and Virginkar.
Chair Pincher and Commissioner Shah were excused.
Also Present: David Liu, Director of Public Works; Fred Alamolhoda, Senior Engineer;
Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst; Kimberly Molina, Assistant Engineer;
Debbie Gonzales, Administrative Assistant and Sgt. Chris Blasnek, Walnut/Diamond Bar
Sheriff's Station.
I. APPRIVAL OF MINUTES
A. Minutes of regular meeting of April 14, 2005 — Continued to June 9,
2005.
II. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
III. CONSENT CALENDAR: None
IV. ITEMS FROM STAFF:
A. Traffic Enforcement Update — Received and filed on the following items:
Sgt. Blasnek reported that the Sheriff's Department was approved for 200
hours of grant money from the Office of Traffic Safety for a three-week
"Click It or Ticket" annual compliance program that commences on Monday,
May 16, 2005. Currently, the State of California enjoys about a 90 percent
compliance rate and the State would like to bring the average to 92 percent
through the campaign. In addition, the DUI checkpoint will be in place on
Friday night May 27, 2005 to kick off the Memorial Day weekend with the
location to be determined.
Sgt. Blasnek stated that in addition to the usual statistics, he supplemented
the report with collision locations and other pertinent information such as
primary collision factors.
MAY12, 2005 PAGE 2 T&T COMMISSION
1. Citations: April 2005
2. Collisions: April 2005
3. Future Deployment of the Radar Trailer
C/Morris commended Sgt. Blasnek for obtaining the grant funds. He asked if
it were possible to get grant money for emergency vehicle compliance. Sgt.
Blasnek stated that once a year he can apply for grant money for specialty
items and he would look into the possibility of setting up a special program
to address the failure to yield issue.
V. OLD BUSINESS: None
VI. NEW BUSINESS: None
VII. STATUS OF PREVIOUS ACTION ITEMS: None
VIII. ITEMS FROM COMMISSIONERS: None
IX. INFORMATIONAL ITEMS:
A. Caltrans 57/60 Freeway Construction Project
SE/Alamolhoda reported that the project was proceeding ahead of schedule
and was near 70 percent completion.
B. Neighborhood Traffic Management Program (NTMP)
SMA/Gomez reported on the April 12, 2005 meeting for the district in the
northwest area of the City. Staff explained the program to the attendees,
presented a visual report on possible mitigation measures and listened to
the residents' concerns. Following the presentation and discussion staff
conducts field studies to determine the topography of the area and offers
possible mitigation during follow up meetings.
C/Morris asked if the traffic circulation pattern for Walnut Elementary School
was forwarded from the School Safety Study. SMA/Gomez responded that
the school has a one-way semicircular driveway. However, after parents
drop off or pick up their children they are forced to take a right turn out of the
area into a residential neighborhood. Staff intends to study the area and
make recommendations for possible mitigation at the second resident's
meeting on June 6, 2005.
C/Virginkar felt the dismal attendance was a real challenge to the City and
that staff should address how to get better response from the residents. He
would prefer to see a much better response and perhaps there are better
MAY12, 2005 PAGE 3 T&T COMMISSION
ways to get a response. He wondered how the City could set aside budget
funds for implementation without adequate input from the residents.
PWD/Liu responded that the basis for including a budget item for
neighborhood traffic needs is that the City continues to hear the same
concerns voiced over and over again. The purpose of the Neighborhood
Traffic Management program is to create a forum for communication and
opportunities for dialogue between neighborhoods and City Hall so that it
becomes a regular process. In short, this is the City's proactive attempt to
address these issues. Before the City spends any money on physical
improvements for traffic calming devices on any street there must be
majority support from the residents. The next step will involve a survey card
and if the response is still minimal appropriate staff's recommendation will
be made.
C/Morris said he concurred with C/Virginkar. The Commission would be
hard pressed to recommend that the City Council spend money based on
the community's input. He again recommended that a one-page direct,
forward survey be taken door-to-door by Explorer Scouts, Jr. ROTC at
Diamond Ranch, service organizations from Diamond Bar High School,
Eagle Scouts or some other group that wanted to complete a public service
project.
VC/Torng concurred with C/Virginkar and C/Morris.
C. Grand Avenue Beautification/Betterment Project
SE/ Alamolhoda reported that actual work on the $2.3 million dollar project
had not yet commenced because there was a great deal of underground
work that needed to be completed along with procurement of poles and
fixtures for traffic signals (15-16 weeks). The project should be in full swing
beginning in late June and continue through September/October 2005. The
project includes street beautification improvements, pavement, curbs,
gutters and sidewalks.
SE/Alamolhoda responded to C/Virginkar that the City's consultant would
act as the construction manager for the off-site work and the developers and
staff would manage the on-site work.
SE/Alamolhoda explained that more than half of the $2.3 million for Grand
Avenue beautification comes from Lewis Development through project
mitigation fees.
D. Traffic Signal Construction Project
SMA/Gomez stated that at its May 3, 2005 meeting, City Council awarded a
$570,000 traffic signal contract to Macadee Electrical to perform three
modifications to existing traffic signal intersections at Diamond Bar Blvd. at
MAY12, 2005 PAGE 4 T&T COMMISSION
Cold Spring Lane, Diamond Bar Blvd. at Sunset Crossing Road and
Diamond Bar Blvd. on-ramp to northbound SR57 north of Sunset Crossing;
and to install two new signalized intersections at Pathfinder Road at
Peaceful Hills Road and Diamond Bar Blvd. at Maple Hill Road. With the
shortage of materials and delay in receipt of same the completion will likely
be pushed out to September/October 2005.
X. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE CITY EVENTS — as adgendized.
XII. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS:
A. Approval of April Minutes.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the Traffic and
Transportation Commission, Chair/Pincher adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m.
Respectfully,
David G. Liu, Secretary
Attest:
Vice Chairman Tony Torng
Agenda No. 6.5
NOTICE REGARDING THE CHECK REGISTER
Please note that the Check 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 909-839-7010 to receive a FAXed copy or to pick one up in
person.
We apologize for the inconvenience.
Agenda # 6.6
Meeting Date: July. 5, 2005
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Treasurer's Statement — May, 2005
RECOMMENDATION:
Approve the May 2005, Treasurer's Statement.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
No Fiscal Impact
BACKGROUND:
Per City policy, the Finance Department presents the monthly Treasurer's Statement for the City
Council's review and approval. This statement shows the preliminary 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, Senior Accountant
Department Head
Attachments:
Treasurer's Statement
Deputy City Manager
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
TREASURER'S MONTHLY CASH STATEMENT
May 31, 2005
GENERAL FUND
LIBRARY SERVICES FUND
COMMUNITY ORG SUPPORT FD
GAS TAX FUND
TRANSIT TX (PROP A) FD
TRANSIT TX (PROP C) FD
ISTEA Fund
INTEGRATED WASTE MGT FD
AB2928-TR CONGESTION RELIEF FD
AIR QUALITY IMPRVMNT FD
PARK & FACILITIES DEVEL. FD
COM DEV BLOCK GRANT FD
CITIZENS OPT -PUBLIC SAFETY FD
NARCOTICS ASSET SEIZURE FD
CA LAW ENFORCEMENT EQUIP PRGM
LANDSCAPE DIST #38 FD
LANDSCAPE DIST #39 FD
LANDSCAPE DIST #41 FD
GRAND AV CONST FUND
CAP IMPROVEMENT PRI FD
SELF INSURANCE FUND
EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT FUND
COMPUTER REPLACEMENT FUND
PUBLIC FINANCING AUTHORITY FUND
TOTALS
SUMMARY OF CASH:
DEMAND DEPOSITS:
BEGINNING TRANSFEI
BALANCE RECEIPTS DISBURSEMENTS IN (OUT
$24,146,292.95 $3,058,033.07 $1,082,425.90
0.00
(9,072.74)
3,000.00
695,728.30
84,689.92
1,412,762.44
120,138.80
66,048.40
1,074,416.68
62,634.09
0.00
599,253.01
4,200.00
18,222.05
0.00
121,435.04
17,874.26
1,350.00
1,900,857.02
(36,302.56)
44,192.00
11,490.52
236,193.46
126.28
317,625.66
71,885.21
498,171.34
30,648.90
22,711.12
275,672.17
19,767.45
9,632.92
403,900.37
16,704.23
5,632.89
58,719.50
(691,851.65)
63,261.40
1,325,843.72
197,050.68
(4,061.55)
459,133.01
695.04
35,090.03
$33,053,652.0
$3,459,577.7
$1,318,991.51 $0.
6
6
GENERAL ACCOUNT ($302,332.95)
PAYROLL ACCOUNT 10,856.71
CHANGE FUND 250.00
PETTY CASH ACCOUNT 500.00
TOTAL DEMAND DEPOSITS ($290,726.:
INVESTMENTS: US TREASURY Money Market Acct. $739,122.08
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD 34,321,104.45
35,060,22,
CASH WITH FISCAL AGENT:
US TREASURY Money Market
Account
LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FD
(Bond Proceeds Account)
TOTAL CASH
$273,775.47
150,962.55
424,738
Note: The City of Diamond Bar is invested in the State Treasurer's Local Agency Investment Fund. There are two LAIF accc
regular account's funds are available for withdrawal within 24 hours. The LAIF Bond Proceeds account's withdrawals require
As a secondary investment option, the City maintains the US Treasury Sweep Accounts with Wells Fargo and the City's Fiscal
of California. Any excess funds are "swept" on a daily basis from the City's bank accounts and are invested overnight in a po
Notes. Interest is credited to the City's bank accounts on a monthly basis.
L.A.I.F - Effective Yield - May 2005
Wells Fargo Money Mkt -Effective Yield - May 2005
Union Bank Money Mkt - Effective Yield - May 2005
2.856%
2.281%
2.790%
All investments are placed in accordance with the City of Diamond Bar's Investment Policy.
The above summary provides sufficient cash flow liquidity to meet the next six month's
estimated expenditures.
Linda C. Lowry, Treasurer
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6.7
Meeting Date: July 5, 2005
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: APPROVAL OF LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS
RECOMMENDATION:
The Legislative Subcommittee recommends that the City Council approve the proposed responses to
the legislative items identified below.
FISCAL IMPACT:
There is no fiscal impact to the City based on the approval of these actions.
BACKGROUND / DISCUSSION:
The Legislative Subcommittee meets with staff on a regular basis to discuss and analyze proposed
legislation and its effects on the City. Following their meeting June 20, 2005, the subcommittee has
recommended action be taken on the following pieces of legislation:
ACA 4 (Plescia/Harman) - Proposes a California Constitutional Amendment to the voters in
the June 2006 election removing the loophole in Prop. 42 that allows the Governor to transfer
gasoline sales tax revenues from transportation account to State General Fund.
Recommended Action: Support
The attached letter of support will be sent to Assemblyman Tom Harman, Assemblyman
George Plescia, Joe A. Gonsalves & Son, and the League of California Cities.
• SB 928 (Lowe nth al/Perata) — This bill would encompass many aspects of solid waste
management, including Waste Board reorganization, elimination of time extensions for local
agencies that have not met diversion rates, and the implementation of an undetermined
placeholder for a higher solid waste diversion rate, without provision for technological or
financial assistance from the state.
Recommended Action: Oppose
The attached letter of opposition will be sent to Senator Alan Lowenthal, Senator Don Perata,
Joe A. Gonsalves & Son, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, and the League of
California Cities.
• SB 420 (Simitian) — Proposes an increase to the state mandated solid waste diversion rate
from 50% to 75% by January 1, 2015, without the provision of technological or financial
assistance from the state.
Recommended Action: Oppose
The attached letter of opposition will be sent to Senator Joe Simitian, the Los Angeles County
Solid Waste Management Committee, the League of California Cities, and Joe A. Gonsalves &
Son.
• AB 11 (De La Torre) — Prohibits general law cities from authorizing compensation to Council
Members in excess of their monthly salaries unless authorized by state law, including payment
for serving on a commission, committee, or board, created or overseen by the Council.
Traveling/necessary expenses and health and retirement benefits are not included.
Recommended Action: Support
The attached letter of Support will be sent to Assemblyman Hector De La Torre, Joe A.
Gonsalves & Son, and the League of California Cities.
Please find additional information regarding the above issues on the attached June Legislative
Subcommittee Watch List.
Prepared by:
Ryan McLean, Senior Management Analyst David Doyle, Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
1. Legislative Subcommittee — June Meeting
2. Legislative Status List — Updated 6.16.05
3. Letter of support for ACA 4 (Plescia/Harman) to Assemblymen Harman and Plescia, Joe A.
Gonsalves, and the League of California Cities.
4. Letter of opposition to SB 928 (Lowe nth al/Perata) to Senators Lowenthal and Perata, Joe A.
Gonsalves & Son, the San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, and the League of
California Cities.
5. Letter of opposition to SB 420 (Simitian) to Senator Simitian, the Los Angeles County Waste
Management Committee, Joe A. Gonsalves and Son, and the League of California Cities.
6. Letter of support for AB 11 (De La Torre) to Assemblyman De La Torre, Joe A. Gonsalves &
Son, and the League of California Cities.
SB
Legislative Subcommittee June 05 Meeting
Bill
Author Description
Potential Impacts
Status Action
928
ACA
Plescia
Beginning in FY 08-09, removes the option for the Governor to
Ensures that transportation accounts
Re-referred to
Support
Penta
extensions for local agencies that have not yet reached the 50% diversion
4
Asm. Natural
compliance rete. Would also set an as yet undetermined new percentage
50% standard. Gives legislators a blank
Resources Comm.
Harman
transfer gasoline sales tax revenues from transportation account
are funded as outlined in Prop. 42
Asm. Trans.
The Waste Board would also be reorganized under the plan, but is not yet
technological resources necessary to meet
Comm.
clear how this would be undertaken.
SEE ALSO SB 420
to General Fund. Prop. 42 funds would no longer be diverted as
without the threat of diversion.
5/10
OPPOSED BY COG
for failure and be subject to fines and penalties.
they have been throughout the fiscal crisis.
for streef/hwy maintenance in cities
Funds would be allocated as follows (subject to modification):
40% for transportation capital improvement projects (STIP)
20% for street/hwy maintenance in counties
20%
SB
Lowenthal
Relates to diversion compliance for solid waste. Would eliminate time
Places additional burden on cities, nearly half
Hearing 6/27
Oppose
928
Penta
extensions for local agencies that have not yet reached the 50% diversion
of which have not yet met the current
Asm. Natural
compliance rete. Would also set an as yet undetermined new percentage
50% standard. Gives legislators a blank
Resources Comm.
for compliance rates to be met by January 1, 2011.
placeholder for an increased diversion rate.
The Waste Board would also be reorganized under the plan, but is not yet
technological resources necessary to meet
clear how this would be undertaken.
SEE ALSO SB 420
OPPOSED BY COG
for failure and be subject to fines and penalties.
for streef/hwy maintenance in cities
SB
Lowenthal
Relates to diversion compliance for solid waste. Would eliminate time
Places additional burden on cities, nearly half
Hearing 6/27
Oppose
928
Penta
extensions for local agencies that have not yet reached the 50% diversion
of which have not yet met the current
Asm. Natural
compliance rete. Would also set an as yet undetermined new percentage
50% standard. Gives legislators a blank
Resources Comm.
for compliance rates to be met by January 1, 2011.
placeholder for an increased diversion rate.
The Waste Board would also be reorganized under the plan, but is not yet
technological resources necessary to meet
clear how this would be undertaken.
SEE ALSO SB 420
OPPOSED BY COG
for failure and be subject to fines and penalties.
SB
Simitian
This bill would increase the mandated solid waste diversion rates from the
While there are significant environmental
4/18/05
Oppose
420
current 50% level to a new 75% level by 1/1/15.
benefits to a higher diversion rate, reaching
Hearing canceled
such a rate may be unrealistic.
Without an increase in financial and
technological resources necessary to meet
such a high standard, cities could be set up
for failure and be subject to fines and penalties.
SB
Simitian
Would allow qualifying small businesses to file sales tax returns on an
The bill is an attempt to assist small business
Hearing 6/20
Watch
801
Torre
annual basis rather than on a quarterly basis as is done currently.
owners by easing the paperwork burden.
Local Gov.
from authorizing compensation to Council Members in excess of their
The new system would delay sales tax cash
6/15
OPPOSED BY LOC
flows to cities. At this point, we are unsure of
serving on a commission, committee, or similar body. If another statute
the number of businesses in DB that the bill
To Senate Floor
authorizes additional compensation without specifying an amount, the max
would effect, and the total amount of dollars
amount would be limited to $150 per month for each commission served.
that would be delayed.
TRAVELING/NECESSARY EXPENSES AND BENEFITS
The bill also does not include a set
NOT CONSIDERED AT THIS POINT
allocation period when the delayed tax funds
would be re -allocated to cities.
There would also be a cost to reconfigure
state Board of Equilization systems.
AB
De La
Limits compensation that Council Members can pay to redevelopment
Aims to maintains public trust in elected
Passed Senate
Support
11
Torre
agency and housing authority commissioners. Prohibits general law cities
officials by closing loopholes that have been
Local Gov.
from authorizing compensation to Council Members in excess of their
abused in other cities, such as Huntington Park.
6/15
monthly salaries, unless authroized by state law, including payment for
serving on a commission, committee, or similar body. If another statute
Would not have a large effect on Diamond Bar
To Senate Floor
authorizes additional compensation without specifying an amount, the max
in its current form.
amount would be limited to $150 per month for each commission served.
TRAVELING/NECESSARY EXPENSES AND BENEFITS
NOT CONSIDERED AT THIS POINT
2005 Legislative Status List - As of 6/16/05
Will Author Description Potential Impacts Status Action
Allows cities to front money for transportation projects
AJR 7
Huff
Urges US Postmaster to create ZIP
Add'I revenues may be
Resolution passed 3/15
Support
limit delays.
Failed Passage in
codes that encompass no more than
secured if the current part of
Passed Asm. &Sen.
Committee.
projects programmed by the state transportation
one city
To Senate Floor
improvement program during the current fiscal year.
is simply not in the best interest
Reconsideration
of government efficiency.
granted.
AB 267
Daucher
Allows cities to front money for transportation projects
Should expedite projects and
Resolution passed 3/15
Support
36 months in advance of state reimbursement rather
limit delays.
Failed Passage in
.
DB in the 91789 ZIP is
Committee.
projects programmed by the state transportation
incorporated into the 91765 ZIP
To Senate Floor
AB 267
Daucher
Allows cities to front money for transportation projects
Should expedite projects and
Resolution passed 3/15
Support
36 months in advance of state reimbursement rather
limit delays.
Failed Passage in
than the previous limit of 12 months, for
agencies. Creates a perception
Currently In Senate
projects programmed by the state transportation
of increased liability for cities.
Committee.
improvement program during the current fiscal year.
is simply not in the best interest
Reconsideration
AB 343
Huff
Exempts local transportation and school districts
No fiscal impact on City. May
Resolution passed 3/15
Support
from any utility user tax on the comsumption of
lower costs to consumers.
Failed Passage in
natural gas for transportation purposes.
agencies. Creates a perception
Sen. Rev. &Tax.
reporting of alleged violations.
of increased liability for cities.
Committee.
is simply not in the best interest
Reconsideration
of government efficiency.
granted.
AB 260
Bermudez
Mandates specific fire staffing levels and response times
Places a large Financial burden
Letter of opposition
Oppose
to correct alleged violations that may have occurred
on local, county, and state
sent 4/6
inadvertently. Removes the 90 day timeframe for
agencies. Creates a perception
Held in comm.
reporting of alleged violations.
of increased liability for cities.
2 year bill
AB 194
Dymally
Amends Brown Act, removing the opportunity for cities
Increases threat of frivolous
Letter of opposition
Oppose
to correct alleged violations that may have occurred
litigation, impacts decision
sent 4.6
inadvertently. Removes the 90 day timeframe for
making process of council and
Proposal rejected
reporting of alleged violations.
staff. Removal of these provisions
In Asm. Local Gov.
is simply not in the best interest
Hearing canceled
of government efficiency.
5/4
N/A
Florez public effect OPPOSE
SB 926 Prohibits a local agency from exporting treated Little on the City of DB, but the Letter of opposition sent
N/A
A petition submitted to the LA County Board on School
Increases insurance,
Letter of opposition
Oppose
District Reorganization requests that th Mt. Sac Board
compensation, and election
sent 4.6
of Trustees be expanded from 5 to 7 members.
costs, taking important funds
Proposal rejected
from education budgets.
by LA Co. 4/6/05
biosolids processed in that county to any other county.
bill would reduce opportunities to
5/5
Requires cities to provide add'I
resue and recycle biosolids in
OPPOSE
LA COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT REQUESTS OUR
a beneficial manner. May result in
Passed Asm En, Comm.
OPPOSITION
passed on costs to users
6/14. Re-referred to Asm.
Morrow
Local Gov.
SB 435
Hollingsworth
Amends several pieces of Planning & Zoning law,
Requires cities to provide add'I
Letter of opposition sent
OPPOSE
1059
which requires cities to provide density bonuses or
concessions/bonuses to
5/5
Morrow
incentives to developers that donate land or build
developers. Diminishes local
5/5
lower income housing within the development.
land use plans and architectural
Passed Asm. Housing &
If passed, the bill would include mobile home parks for
standards by increasing
Comm. Dev. 6/15
seniors as eligible for bonuses and require cities to offer
densities up to 35%. Results in
Referred to Asm. Local
additional bonuses to developers in the instance that
more demands on traffic, water
Gov.
they receive density bonuses but can use less than
schools, etc.
HELD IN ASM. 6/2
Developers would no longer be required to apply for a
OPPOSED BY LEAGUE OF CA
waiver/reduction of development standards to show that
CITIES
a waiver is necessary to make units affordable.
SB 317
Margett
Increases the penalties for those who attempt to evade
Should reduce the amount of
Letter of support sent
Support
1059
a police officer by adding time in county jail or state prison
high speed chases and related
5/5
Morrow
based on the severity of the attempt.
injuries to innocent bystanders,
5/5
by application of a person who plans to construct a high
including pedestrians and drivers,
MERGED WITH SB 719
Mt. SAC requests support
as well as police officers by
Hearing in Asm.
providing for prison sentences
Public Safety 6/28
for convicted violators.
AB 835
Huff
Would limit time for the collection of signatures on a petition
Would further protect Mt. SAC
Letter of support sent
Support
1059
designed to reorganize a community college board from an
from additional reorganization
5/5
Morrow
indefinite period to 3 months or 180 days.
attempts as happened recently.
5/5
by application of a person who plans to construct a high
ordinances to match the Energy
Passed Senate 6/8
Mt. SAC requests support
Commission's plan. Impacts local
To Consent Calendar
SB
Escutia
Authorizes the CA Energy Commission to designate an
Would require the city to amend its
Letter of opposition sent
Oppose
1059
Morrow
electic transmission corridor zone on its own motion or
general plan, land use, and planning
5/5
by application of a person who plans to construct a high
ordinances to match the Energy
voltage electice transmission line within the state
Commission's plan. Impacts local
land use decision making power.
Although it addresses an important
problem in the state, the bill proposes
HELD IN ASM. 6/2
too many sweeping preemptive
provisions.
July 1, 2005
The Honorable Assemblyman Tom Harman
California State Capitol Office
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0067
The Honorable Assemblyman George Plescia
California State Capitol
State Capitol Room 3098
Sacramento, CA 94249-0075
RE: City of Diamond Bar Support for ACA 4
Dear Assemblymen Harman and Plescia:
Recently, the Diamond Bar City Council Legislative Subcommittee met to review your proposed
resolution, ACA 4, in regards to our state's transportation infrastructure crisis. The subcommittee
recommended to the full City Council that they support ACA 4. Subsequently, on July 5, 2005, the
Diamond Bar City Council voted to support ACA 4.
In 2002, nearly 70% of California voters passed Proposition 42, supporting an initiative that would
dedicate the sales tax on gasoline to state and local transportation infrastructure programs. However, a
loophole in the language allowed these funds to be diverted to the State General Fund during the budget
crisis. California is currently in a state of transportation infrastructure and goods movement meltdown,
particularly in the areas surrounding the ports. Our roads are in disrepair, commutes keep getting longer,
and our economy suffers as the gridlock expands.
ACA 4 would help to remove this loophole and restore gasoline sales tax revenues to the transportation
fund designated by Proposition 42 by proposing an amendment to the California Constitution to be
placed on the 2006 ballot. The billions of dollars allocated annually in this fund will have a massive
impact on the transportation needs of our state, aiding the businesses and residents of California. For
this reason alone, the City of Diamond Bar supports ACA 4.
Sincerely,
Wen P. Chang
Mayor
CC: Assemblyman George Plescia
Joe A. Gonsalves & Son
California League of Cities
City Council
City Manager/ACM's
July 1, 2005
The Honorable Senator Alan Lowenthal
California State Capitol
State Capitol, Room 3048
Sacramento, CA 95814
The Honorable Don Perata
State Capitol, Room 2051
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of Diamond Bar Opposition to SB 928
Dear Senators Lowenthal and Perata:
Recently, the Diamond Bar City Council Legislative Subcommittee met to review your proposed bill, SB
928, in regards to solid waste management diversion compliance rates. The subcommittee
recommended to the full City Council that they oppose SB 928. Subsequently, on July 5, 2005, the
Diamond Bar City Council voted to oppose SB 928.
The City of Diamond Bar is committed to implementing programs that improve our environment while
remaining realistic for local jurisdictions. SB 928 proposes stricter mandates for cities, including a
reorganization of the Waste Management Board, additional enforcement provisions, and an unspecified
new diversion compliance rate to be in effect by January 1 st, 2011. The bill would also eliminate the
Waste Board's ability to grant time extensions to those cities that are struggling to meet the current 50%
diversion rate. With less than half of California's cities currently meeting the 50% mark, the elimination of
these time extensions combined with an increased diversion rate could make meeting the new standards
nearly impossible for agencies faced with tighter budgets and limited state assistance.
In its current state, SB 928 places a burden on cities, counties, and special districts. We believe that
before enacting such sweeping changes, a study of all diversion compliance options should be
conducted and analyzed. We remain committed to reducing solid waste from being sent to landfills, but
believe that the State should encourage cities to do so rather than subjecting them to even stricter
mandates. For these reasons, the City of Diamond Bar joins the San Gabriel Valley Council of
Governments in opposing this bill.
Sincerely,
Wen P. Chang
Mayor
CC: City Council/CM/ACM's
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee
Joe A. Gonsalves & Son
California League of Cities/San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
July 1, 2005
The Honorable Senator Joe Simitian
California State Capitol
State Capitol Room 4062
Sacramento, CA 95814
RE: City of Diamond Bar Opposition to SB 420
Dear Senator Simitian:
Recently, the Diamond Bar City Council Legislative Subcommittee met to review your proposed bill, SB
420, in regards to solid waste management diversion rates. The subcommittee recommended to the full
City Council that they oppose SB 420. Subsequently, on July 5, 2005, the Diamond Bar City Council
voted to oppose SB 260.
Currently, state law requires local agencies to reduce solid waste landfill disposals by 50%. Those
jurisdictions that do not meet the standard are subject to significant monetary penalties. If passed, SB
420 would increase solid waste diversion rates from the current level of 50% to 75% by January 1 st
2015.
There is no denying that increased diversion rates would have a positive effect on our most valuable
resource, the environment, and we certainly appreciate and support the idea of a "Zero Waste
California". However, many agencies are struggling to meet even the current 50% diversion standard
due to a lack of funding and technological resources available. While an admirable goal, an increase in
the diversion rate to 75% without the provision of the additional resources needed to implement the
program would only set up more local communities for failure.
In its current state, SB 420 places a burden on cities, counties, and special districts. The City of
Diamond Bar joins the California League of Cities in fundamentally opposing this bill.
Sincerely,
Wen P. Chang
Mayor
CC: City Council/CM/ACM's
Los Angeles County Solid Waste Management Committee
Joe A. Gonsalves & Son
California League of Cities
July 1, 2005
The Honorable Assemblyman Hector De La Torre
California State Capitol Office
P.O. Box 942849
Sacramento, CA 94249-0050
RE: City of Diamond Bar Support for AB 11
Dear Assemblyman De La Torre:
Recently, the Diamond Bar City Council Legislative Subcommittee met to review your proposed
resolution, AB 11, in regards to legislative body compensation. The subcommittee recommended to
the full City Council that they support AB 11. Subsequently, on July 5, 2005, the Diamond Bar City
Council voted to support AB 11.
AB 11 will set firm guidelines for City Council salaries and stipends, limiting the amount a local
legislator can receive for service on a commission or committee overseen or created by the Council.
This bill will help to preserve public trust in elected officials by closing loopholes that have been
abused in some areas, and will preserve the good reputations of those Councils that have remained
honest throughout their service.
The City of Diamond Bar believes in maintaining a fair and honest legislative body to serve its
residents. AB 11 is a definite step in the right direction. For this reason, the City of Diamond Bar is
proud to support AB 11.
Sincerely,
Wen P. Chang
Mayor
CC: Joe A. Gonsalves & Son
California League of Cities
City Council
City Manager/ACM's
Agenda # 6.8
Meeting Date: 7/05/05
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Acceptance of Work Performed by CS LEGACY for the Construction of Improvements
AT STARSHINE PARK; Direction to the City Clerk to File the Proper Notice of Completion and to
Release the Retention Thirty-five Days After the Recordation date.
RECOMMENDATION: Accept the work performed by CS Legacy; direct the City Clerk to file the
Notice of Completion; and authorize the release of the retention.
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Project Costs: Construction Contractor $269,327
Design 33,230
Construction Inspection & Plan Check 3,950
Walnut Valley Water District 6,372
Duplication of Plans and Specifications 1,514
TOTAL $314,393
Project Budget: $342,501
BACKGROUND: The City Council awarded a contract to CS Legacy on February 1, 2005 in the
amount of $269,327 to construct improvements at Starshine Park. The work was substantially
completed on June 29, 2005 and is now ready to be accepted.
DISCUSSION: The contract amount awarded to CS Legacy is $269,327, plus a contingency
amount of $26,932.70, for a total authorization of $296,259.70. Change Orders #1 and #2 were
processed at no cost to add 50 additional days to the contract due to rain, unanticipated conditions,
evaluation of handicap ramps and installation of a water meter by WVWD.
With a total budget of $342,501, there are surplus Prop 40 grant funds totaling $28,108. These funds
were appropriated by the City Council to the Sycamore Canyon Park Trail and Trailhead project on
June 21, 2005.
REVIEWED BY:
Bob Rose
Director of Community Services
Attachments: Notice of Completion
James DeStefano
Assistant City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6.9
Meeting Date: 7/05/05
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: SECOND READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 08-2005 AMENDING SECTION 12.00.420
OF THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE TO ALLOW NON -MOTORIZED
SCOOTERS TO USE THE SKATE PARK AT PETERSON PARK.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Adoption of this ordinance will require the purchase and installation of new
signs to post the rules. Total cost of signage is expected to be no more than $1,100. These funds are
available in the adopted budget.
BACKGROUND: The first reading of this ordinance was approved by the City Council at their June
21, 2005 meeting. If the second reading is approved by the City Council, the ordinance becomes
effective in 30 days (August 5, 2005).
DISCUSSION: Adoption of this ordinance will allow the use of non -motorized scooters at the
City's skate park located at Peterson Park. The ordinance includes a sunset clause (paragraph f.) that
repeals the ordinance six months after it becomes effective. To extend the ordinance beyond the six
month period requires approval of the City Council. Staff has been directed to collect information
about the use of non -motorized scooters in the skate park during the six months and to present that
information to the City Council. All users of the skate park, including riders of non -motorized scooters,
are required to wear safety equipment at all times while in the fenced area of the skate park.
Attachments: Ordinance No. 08-2005
REVIEWED BY:
Bob Rose
Community Services Director
James DeStefano
Assistant City Manager
ORDINANCE NO. 08-2005
AN ORDIANANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE RULES FOR PUBLICLY -
OWNED OR PUBLICLY -OPERATED SKATEBOARD FACILITIES.
A. RECITALS.
(i) The City of Diamond Bar owns and operates a skate park at Peterson Park for the
purpose of recreational skateboard and in-line skating use.
(ii) The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 02-2002 up -dating rules that govern the use of
the skate park.
(iii) The City Council has determined that it is necessary to amend the skate park rules to
allow non -motorized scooters to utilize the skate park.
B. ORDINANCE.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordained by the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
Section 1. Section 12.00.420 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 12.00.420 Skate Park Rules.
(a) Skateboarding non -motorized scooters and in-line skating are permitted in any skateboarding facility
designated by resolution of the City Council.
(b) No person shall enter the fenced area of the skate park without wearing a helmet, elbow pads and kneepads
("required protective equipment") at all times.
(c) Bicycles and all other wheeled vehicles not specifically permitted in paragraph (a) are prohibited from
entering the fenced area of the skate park.
(d) Violation of this section or of any provisions thereof shall be deemed an infraction and punishable as
provided in Section 1.04.020 of the Municipal Code.
(e) Signs shall be posted at the skate park providing reasonable notice of the requirements of this section and
the penalties for failing to comply with the requirements of this section.
(f) This ordinance will expire six months after its effective date unless extended by the City Council."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2005.
WEN CHANG
Mayor
I, David Doyle, Acting City Clerk of the City of Diamond 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 and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar held on the day of , 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
DAVID DOYLE
Acting City Clerk of the
City of Diamond Bar
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6. 10
Meeting Date: 7105105
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: AWARD OF CONTRACT TO WEST COAST ARBORISTS FOR TREE MAINTENANCE
SERVICES IN THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR FOR THE 2005/06 FISCAL YEAR IN THE
AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $150,000.
RECOMMENDATION: Approve.
FINANCIAL IMPACT: Funds totaling $150,000 for this contract are included in the 2005/06
fiscal year budget, per the following breakdown:
$125,000
15,000
5,000
2,000
3,000
$150,000
Street & Parks Tree Maintenance & Planting
Street Tree Watering
LLAD #38 Tree Maintenance & Planting
LLAD #39 Tree Maintenance & Planting
LLAD #41 Tree Maintenance & Planting
TOTAL
BACKGROUND: On May 31, 2005 staff released a Request for Proposals (RFP) to obtain a
contractor to provide tree maintenance services in the City of Diamond Bar. Two proposals were
received by the deadline on June 23 from West Coast Arborists and Great Scott Tree Service. Both
proposals were reviewed by staff and both contractors were interviewed on June 28. Staff has
determined that West Coast Arborists has submitted the more responsive and cost effective proposal
and therefore recommends that the City Council award a contract to West Coast Arborists.
DISCUSSION: The Tree Maintenance Services contract includes the following services in Diamond
Bar: tree -trimming, tree planting, tree and stump removal, emergency work and watering of trees
along the major arterials not serviced by automatic irrigation systems. Contract also provides for tree
GPS inventory with an automatic up -date as services are performed. Services are provided in the
following areas of the city: along the major boulevards, medians & parkways, residential
neighborhoods, lighting and landscape maintenance districts and City Parks. West Coast Arborists has
provided tree maintenance services in Diamond Bar for the past 15 years and staff believes they have
done an excellent job. The contract is for one year and it contains a renewal clause that allows for
five one-year extensions.
Attachments: Tree Maintenance Services Contract
Proposed Unit Prices for 2005/06 FY
1:7 VA I A►ITl 47 YF
Bob Rose James DeStefano
Community Services Director Assistant City Manager
AGREEMENT
The following agreement is made and entered into, in duplicate, as of the date executed by the
Mayor and attested to by the City Clerk, by and between, West Coast Arborists, Inc. ,
hereinafter referred to as the "CONTRACTOR" and the City of Diamond Bar, California, hereinafter
referred to as "CITY."
WHEREAS, pursuant to Request For Proposals (R.F.P.), proposals were received, on the date
specified in the R.F.P.; and
WHEREAS, City did accept the proposal of CONTRACTOR
West Coast Arborists, Inc. and;
WHEREAS, City has authorized the Mayor to execute a written contract with CONTRACTOR
for furnishing labor, equipment and material for the Tree Maintenance Services in the City of
Diamond Bar.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained, it is agreed:
1. GENERAL SCOPE OF WORK: CONTRACTOR shall furnish all necessary labor, tools,
materials, appliances, and equipment for and do the work for the Tree Maintenance Services in
the City of Diamond Bar. The work to be performed in accordance with the R.F.P., dated June 23,
2005.
2. INCORPORATED DOCUMENTS TO BE CONSIDERED COMPLEMENTARY: The R.F.P.
is incorporated herein by reference and made a part hereof with like force and effect as if set forth in
full herein. The R.F.P., CONTRACTOR'S Proposal dated June 23, 2005, together with this written
agreement, shall constitute the contract between the parties. This contract is intended to require a
complete and finished piece of work and anything necessary to complete the work properly and in
accordance with the law and lawful governmental regulations shall be performed by the
CONTRACTOR whether set out specifically in the contract or not. Should it be ascertained that any
inconsistency exists between the aforesaid documents and this written agreement, the provisions of
this written agreement shall control.
3. TERMS OF CONTRACT
The CONTRACTOR agrees to complete assigned work within timeframe presented on the
date work is requested.
Agreement and unit prices shall remain in force, unless terminated sooner, until June 30, 2006 .
Agreement may be extended per Section 14.
4. INSURANCE: The CONTRACTOR shall not commence work under this
contract until he has obtained all insurance required hereunder in a company or
companies acceptable to City nor shall the CONTRACTOR allow any subcontractor to
commence work on his subcontract until all insurance required of the subcontractor has
been obtained. The CONTRACTOR shall take out and maintain at all times during the
life of this contract the following policies of insurance:
a. Workers' Compensation Insurance: Before beginning work, the
CONTRACTOR shall furnish to the City a certificate of insurance as proof
that he has taken out full workers' compensation insurance for all persons
whom he may employ directly or through subcontractors in carrying out
the work specified herein, in accordance with the laws of the State of
California. Such insurance shall be maintained in full force and effect
during the period covered by this contract.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor
Code, every CONTRACTOR shall secure the payment of compensation to
his employees. The CONTRACTOR, prior to commencing work, shall sign
and file with the City a certification as follows:
"I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which
requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers'
compensation or to undertake self insurance in accordance with the
provisions of that Code, and I will comply with such provisions before
commencing the performance of work of this contract."
b. For all operations of the CONTRACTOR or any sub -contractor in
performing the work provided for herein, insurance with the following
minimum limits and coverage:
1) Public Liability - Bodily Injury (not auto) $500,000 each person;
$1,000,000 each accident.
2) Public Liability - Property Damage (not auto) $250,000 each person;
$500,000 aggregate.
3) CONTRACTOR'S Protective - Bodily Injury $500,000 each person;
$1,000,000 each accident.
4) CONTRACTOR'S Protective - Property Damage $250,000 each
accident; $500,000 aggregate.
5) Automobile - Bodily Injury $500,000 each person; $1,000,000 each
accident.
6) Automobile - Property Damage $250,000 each accident.
c. Each such policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. shall:
1) Be issued by an insurance company approved in writing by City, which
is admitted to do business in the State of California.
2) Name as additional insured the City of Diamond Bar, its officers,
agents and employees, and any other parties specified in the bid
documents to be so included;
3) Specify it acts as primary insurance and that no insurance held or
owned by the designated additional insured shall be called upon to
cover a loss under the policy;
4) Contain a clause substantially in the following words:
"It is hereby understood and agreed that this policy may not be
canceled nor the amount of the coverage thereof reduced until thirty
(30) days after receipt by City of a written notice of such cancellation or
reduction of coverage as evidenced by receipt of a registered letter."
5) Otherwise be in form satisfactory to the City.
d. The policy of insurance provided for in subparagraph a. shall contain an
endorsement which:
1) Waives all right of subrogation against all persons and entities
specified in subparagraph 4.c.(2) hereof to be listed as additional
insureds in the policy of insurance provided for in paragraph b. by
reason of any claim arising out of or connected with the operations of
CONTRACTOR or any subcontractor in performing the work provided
for herein;
2) Provides it shall not be canceled or altered without thirty (30) days'
written notice thereof given to City by registered mail.
e. The CONTRACTOR shall, within ten (10) days from the date of the notice
of award of the Contract, deliver to the City Manager or his designee the
original policies of insurance required in paragraphs a. and b. hereof, or
deliver to the City Manager or his designee a certificate of the insurance
company, showing the issuance of such insurance, and the additional
insured and other provisions required herein.
5. PREVAILING WAGE: Notice is hereby given that in accordance with the
provisions of California Labor Code, Division 2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Articles 1 and 2, the
CONTRACTOR is required to pay not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem
wages for work of a similar character in the locality in which the public works is
performed, and not less than the general prevailing rate of per diem wages for holiday
and overtime work. In that regard, the Director of the Department of Industrial Relations
of the State of California is required to and has determined such general prevailing rates
of per diem wages. Copies of such prevailing rates of per diem wages are on file in the
Office of the City Clerk of the City of Diamond Bar, 21825 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California, and are available to any interested party on request. City also shall cause a
copy of such determinations to be posted at the job site.
The CONTRACTOR shall forfeit, as penalty to City, not more than twenty-five
dollars ($25.00) for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed for each calendar
day or portion thereof, if such laborer, workman or mechanic is paid less than the
general prevailing rate of wages hereinbefore stipulated for any work done under this
Agreement, by him or by any subcontractor under him.
6. APPRENTICESHIP EMPLOYMENT: In accordance with the provisions of
Section 1777.5 of the Labor Code, and in accordance with the regulations of the
California Apprenticeship Council, properly indentured apprentices may be employed in
the performance of the work.
The CONTRACTOR is required to make contribution to funds established for
the administrative of apprenticeship programs if he employs registered apprentices or
journeymen in any apprenticeable trade on such contracts and if other
CONTRACTOR'S on the public works site are making such contributions.
The CONTRACTOR and subcontractor under him shall comply with the
requirements of Sections 1777.5 and 1777.6 in the employment of apprentices.
Information relative to apprenticeship standards, wage schedules and other
requirements may be obtained from the Director of Industrial Relations, ex -officio the
Administrator of Apprenticeship, San Francisco, California, or from the Division of
Apprenticeship Standards and its branch offices.
7. LEGAL HOURS OF WORK: Eight (8) hours of labor shall constitute a legal
day's work for all workmen employed in the execution of this contract, and the
CONTRACTOR and any sub -contractor under him shall comply with and be governed
by the laws of the State of California having to do with working hours set forth in Division
2, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 3 of the Labor Code of the State of California as amended.
The CONTRACTOR shall forfeit, as a penalty to City, twenty-five dollars
($25.00) for each laborer, workman or mechanic employed in the execution of the
contract, by him or any sub- CONTRACTOR under him, upon any of the work
hereinbefore mentioned, for each calendar day during which the laborer, workman or
mechanic is required or permitted to labor more than eight (8) hours in violation of the
Labor Code.
8. TRAVEL AND SUBSISTENCE PAY: CONTRACTOR agrees to pay travel
and subsistence pay to each workman needed to execute the work required by this
contract as such travel and subsistence payments are defined in the applicable
collective bargaining agreements filed in accordance with Labor Code Section 1773.8.
9. CONTRACTOR'S LIABILITY: The City of Diamond Bar and its officers,
agents and employees ("Idemnitees") shall not be answerable or accountable in any
manner for any loss or damage that may happen to the work or any part thereof, or for
any of the materials or other things used or employed in performing the work; or for
injury or damage to any person or persons, either workmen or employees of the
CONTRACTOR, of his subcontractor's or the public, or for damage to adjoining or other
property from any cause whatsoever arising out of or in connection with the
performance of the work. The CONTRACTOR shall be responsible for any damage or
injury to any person or property resulting from defects or obstructions or from any cause
whatsoever.
The CONTRACTOR will indemnify Indemnitees against and will hold and
save Indemnitees harmless from any and all actions, claims, damages to persons or
property, penalties, obligations or liabilities that may be asserted or claimed by any
person, firm, entity, corporation, political subdivision, or other organization arising out of
or in connection with the work, operation, or activities of the CONTRACTOR, his agents,
employees, subcontractors or invitees provided for herein, whether or not there is
concurrent passive or active negligence on the part of City. In connection therewith:
a. The CONTRACTOR will defend any action or actions filed in connection
with any such claims, damages, penalties, obligations or liabilities and will
pay all costs and expenses, including attorneys' fees incurred in
connection therewith.
b. The CONTRACTOR will promptly pay any judgment rendered against the
CONTRACTOR or Indemnitees covering such claims, damages, penalties,
obligations and liabilities arising out of or in connection with such work,
operations or activities of the CONTRACTOR hereunder, and the
CONTRACTOR agrees to save and hold the Indemnitees harmless
therefrom.
c. In the event Indemnitees are made a party to any action or proceeding
filed or prosecuted against the CONTRACTOR for damages or other
claims arising out of or in connection with the work, operation or activities
hereunder, the CONTRACTOR agrees to pay to Indemnitees and any all
costs and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in such action or proceeding
together with reasonable attorneys' fees.
So much of the money due to the CONTRACTOR under and by virtue of the
contract as shall be considered necessary by City may be retained by City until
disposition has been made of such actions or claims for damages as aforesaid.
This indemnity provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement and is
in addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law.
This indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability of
any insurance coverages which may have been required under this Agreement or any
additional insured endorsements which may extend to Indemnitees.
CONTRACTOR, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it,
hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees, while
acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising our of
or incident to activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the Indemnitor
regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the
Indemnitees.
10. NON-DISCRIMINATION: Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1735, no
discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons in the work contemplated by
this Agreement because of the race, color or religion of such person. A violation of this
section exposes the CONTRACTOR to the penalties provided for in Labor Code Section
1735.
11. CONTRACT PRICE AND PAYMENT: City shall pay to the CONTRACTOR
for furnishing all material and doing the prescribed work the unit prices set forth in the
Price Schedule in accordance with CONTRACTOR'S Proposal dated
June 23, 2005 in the amount not to exceed One Hundred and Fifty Thousand dollars
($150,000).
12.ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event that any action or proceeding is brought by
either party to enforce any term of provision of this agreement, the prevailing party shall
recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred with respect thereto.
13. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by the City, without
CONTRACTOR agrees to save and hold the Indemnitees harmless
therefrom.
c. In the event Indemnitees are made a party to any action or proceeding
filed or prosecuted against the CONTRACTOR for damages or other
claims arising out of or in connection with the work, operation or activities
hereunder, the CONTRACTOR agrees to pay to Indemnitees and any all
costs and expenses incurred by Indemnitees in such action or proceeding
together with reasonable attorneys' fees.
So much of the money due to the CONTRACTOR under and by virtue of the
contract as shall be considered necessary by City may be retained by City until
disposition has been made of such actions or claims for damages as aforesaid.
This indemnity provision shall survive the termination of the Agreement and is
in addition to any other rights or remedies which Indemnitees may have under the law.
This indemnity is effective without reference to the existence or applicability of
any insurance coverages which may have been required under this Agreement or any
additional insured endorsements which may extend to Indemnitees.
CONTRACTOR, on behalf of itself and all parties claiming under or through it,
hereby waives all rights of subrogation and contribution against the Indemnitees, while
acting within the scope of their duties, from all claims, losses and liabilities arising our of
or incident to activities or operations performed by or on behalf of the Indemnitor
regardless of any prior, concurrent, or subsequent active or passive negligence by the
Indemnitees.
10. NON-DISCRIMINATION: Pursuant to Labor Code Section 1735, no
discrimination shall be made in the employment of persons in the work contemplated by
this Agreement because of the race, color or religion of such person. A violation of this
section exposes the CONTRACTOR to the penalties provided for in Labor Code Section
1735.
11. CONTRACT PRICE AND PAYMENT: City shall pay to the CONTRACTOR
for furnishing all material and doing the prescribed work the unit prices set forth in the
Price Schedule in accordance with CONTRACTOR'S Proposal dated
June 23, 2005 in the amount not to exceed One Hundred and Fifty Thousand dollars
($150,000).
12.ATTORNEY'S FEES: In the event that any action or proceeding is brought by
either party to enforce any term of provision of this agreement, the prevailing party shall
recover its reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred with respect thereto.
13. TERMINATION: This agreement may be terminated by the City, without
cause, upon the giving of a written "Notice of Termination" to CONTRACTOR at least
thirty (30) days prior to the date of termination specified in the notice. In the event of
such termination, CONTRACTOR shall only be paid for services rendered and
expenses necessarily incurred prior to the effective date of termination.
14. EXTENSION OPTION: The City Council shall have the option to extend this
Agreement up to five (5) additional one (1) year periods, subject to the same terms and
conditions contained herein, by giving Contractor written notice of exercise of this option
to renew at least thirty (30) days prior to the expiration of the initial term of this
Agreement, or of any additional one (1) year extensions.
In the event the City Council exercises its option to extend the term of this
Agreement for one or more additional one year periods, the Contractor's unit prices shall
be subject to adjustment at the commencement of the extended term and annually
thereafter ("the adjustment date") as follows:
Any increase in compensation will be negotiated between the City and the
contractor, with the limits being no increase to a maximum of the cost of living.
The increase, if any, will be calculated with reference to cost of living during the
previous year. If the increase is approved by the City Council, the increase will
be calculated by adding the Contractor's monthly compensation, the amount, if
any, obtained by multiplying the contractor's compensation as of the adjustment
date by the percentage by which the Consumer Price Index ("CPI") for the Los
Angeles -Anaheim -Riverside metropolitan area for the month immediately
preceding the Adjustment Date (the "Index Month") reported by the Bureau of
Labor Statistics of the United States Department of Labor, has increased over the
CPI for the month one year prior to the Index Month. If the Index is discontinued,
the Director's office shall, at its discretion, substitute for the Index such other
similar index as it may deem appropriate.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement with
all the formalities required by law on the respective dates set forth opposite their
signatures.
State of California "CONTRACTOR'S" License No.
CONTRACTOR'S NAME
ADDRESS
Date
in
TITLE:
CONTRACTOR'S Business Phone:
CONTRACTOR'S Emergency Phone:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA
in
Date
ATTEST:
Date
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY
Date
WEN CHANG
MAYOR
LINDA C. LOWRY
CITY CLERK
City of Diamond Bar
Community Organization Support Fund
FY05-06 Allocation Plan
FY05-06 Planned Exp:
Allocation
Pomona Unified School District
1,500.00
DRHS - Golf Trnmt ($300)
DRHS - Casino Night ($500)
Lorbee Middle Schl -
Walnut Valley Unified School Dist
1,500.00
DBHS - Golf Trmmnt ($500)
Brahma Foundation ($250)
WV Educ Fdtn - Golf Trn ($500)
Southpoint Middle Sch-Music ($200)
CAAP
500.00
DB Chamber - Golf Tournament
100.00
DB Chinese Asn
1,000.00
Friends of the Library
3,500.00
Read together DB ($2,000)
Wine Soiree ($1,500)
IV Humane Society -Golf Tourament
100.00
Meals on Wheels
2,000.00
Miss Diamond Bar
1,500.00
Pacific Crest - Com Support
1,150.00
Com Support ($1,000)
Golf Tournament ($150)
Pop Warner -Com Support
500.00
Sheriffs 999 for Kids
500.00
Sister City
2,000.00
Walnut Rotary - Golf Tournament
500.00
YMCA 2,500.00
Golf Tournament ($500)
Fund Raising ($2,000)
Grand Total Allocated $18.850.00
Balance Available for New Allocations $1,150.00
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 6.12
Meeting Date: July 5, 2005
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Authorize expenditures in an amount not -to -exceed $65,000 for FY 05/06 to
Graphics United for production of the City's newsletter/recreation guide; and
authorize a cumulative expenditure of $36,000 for FY 05/06 to the Postmaster for
the City's newsletter/recreation guide postage.
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the City Council authorize expenditures in an amount not -to -exceed $65,000
for FY 05/06 to Graphics United for production of the City's newsletter/recreation guide; and authorize
a cumulative expenditure of $36,000 for FY 05/06 to the Postmaster for the City's
newsletter/recreation guide postage.
Budget Implication:
These amounts are budgeted for FY 05/06.
Discussion:
The City requested bids for production services from 10 different vendors. Six vendors submitted bids
to the City. Bids ranged from $54,912.28 (from Graphics United) to $101,924.00 (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/recreation 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 -exceed $65,000 for FY 05/06.
Postage cost to mail the City's newsletter/recreation guide to all residents and businesses is
approximately $3,000 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 05/06
FY.
Prepared By
Reviewed By
Attachments:
A. Quote Comparisons for City News & Community Recreation Guide Production Costs
Printer Comparisons - Community News & Community Recreation Guide FY 05/06
Graphics United
A-1 Printing
Rogers &
McDonald
ProForma
Reinberger
Smith Litho
City News
$19,722.60
$21,600.00
$24,876.00
$26,967.60
$25,800.00
$35,184.00
Rec Guide
$35,189.68
$33,920.00
$33,244.00
$35,386.56
$47,152.00
$57,800.00
Total (yr)
$54,912.28
$55,520.00
$58,120.00
$68,465.76
$77,128.00
$101,924.00
Agenda # 6.13
Meeting Date: July 5, 2004_
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Authorize City Manager to purchase computer network hardware from Hewlett Packard,
throughout the FY 05-06 for an amount not to exceed $46,750.
Recommendation:
City Staff recommends the City Council authorize the City Manager to purchase the required
hardware and professional services. This purchase exceeds the City Manager's spending authority
and requires Council authorization.
Budget/Financial Impact:
There are sufficient funds in the FY05-06 budget for these purchases.
Discussion:
The City's computer network is used to store all digital information created by City staff and other
network users. As the City's e -government program expands and other service applications such as
GIS are implemented, the amount of data to be stored and backup each night increases. It is
recommended that the City Council authorize the City Manager to purchase additional hardware
($17,750) to accommodate this increased amount of data.
It is further recommended that the Council authorize the replacement of 4 Dell servers ($29,000).
These servers have outlived their useful life and will not be eligible for support from Dell during the
fiscal year. These servers will be purchased throughout the next fiscal year as the support eligibility
expires.
Hewlett Packard (HP) is a recognized expert in the field and provides extremely dependable
hardware. In addition, HP provides excellent technical support services. By purchasing directly from
the manufacturer, the City can avoid any costly mark ups by resellers. In addition, the City is
purchasing the equipment under the State negotiated WSCA contract which provides pricing below
the regular retail price. Since the City is purchasing directly from the manufacturer and through the
State purchasing contract, no formal bidding process is required. If approved by the City Council,
these purchases will be made as need through out the fiscal year.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize these expenditures and also approve the
designation of the replaced equipment.
PREPARED BY:
Ken Desforges, Director Information Systems
2
REVIEWED BY:
Dave Doyle, Assistant City Manager
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
Agenda # 7.1O
Meeting Date: Julv 5, 2005
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: RESOLUTION LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006.
RECOMMENDATION:
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
The requested District 38 levy rate of $15.00 per parcel will generate approximately
$265,380 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 Revenue Landscape Fund 138 and shall apply toward the 2005-06
operation, maintenance, capital budget, and a small reserve for future capital improvements.
The total annual budget of the District is $387,945. The itemized budget for District 38 is
included in the attached Engineer's Report, Financial Analysis, page 4.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
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 17,692 parcels. The amount assessed upon the lands within District No. 38 for Fiscal
Year 2004-05 was $15.00 per parcel.
This proposed assessment has been determined to be exempt from the provisions of
Proposition 218 as set forth in Section 5(a): Any assessment imposed exclusively to finance
the capital costs or maintenance and operation expenses for sidewalks, streets, sewers,
water, flood control drainage systems or vector control.
Prepared By:
Sharon Gomez, Senior Management Analyst
REVIEWED BY:
David G. Liu
Director of Public Works
Attachments: Resolution No. 2005 -XX
Engineer's Report
James DeStefano
Assistant City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
A RESOLUTION LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF
DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006
A. RECITALS.
(i) By its Resolution No. 2005-26, 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 2005-06. 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/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar,
California on July 5, 2005, 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 or the 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 benefited, and (iii) the net amount to be assessed
upon the lands within said District for the 2005-06 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 2005-06 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 2005-06.
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.
ADOPTED AND APPROVED this 5t" day of July, 2005.
Wen P. Chang, 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 5t" day of July, 2005, 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
ENGINEER'S REPORT
Update of
ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38
Fiscal Year 2005-06
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
June 7, 2005
Prepared by:
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 230
Riverside, CA 92506
(951)781-0811
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Revenue
Appropriations
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL
EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A-1" - Assessment Diagram
Exhibit "B-1" - Improvement Map
Paqe
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 2005-06 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 Diamond Bar which are located in public rights-
of-way within the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be
levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may
be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special
benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the
improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvement 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.
Assessment District No. 38
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
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.
Assessment District No. 38 2
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
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, or the 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:
1. 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, or treating for
disease or injury.
3. The removal of trimmings, 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 of the
landscaping improvements to be maintained by the proceeds from this assessment
district.
Assessment District No. 38 3
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The estimated funding for maintenance and servicing of landscaping for the update of
Assessment District No. 38 for the 2005-06 Fiscal Year is as follows:
2005-06
Recommended Budget
Revenue:
Appropriation Fund Balance (from FY 2004-05) $115,565
Property Tax — Special Assessments 265,380
Interest Revenue 7,000
TOTAL $387,945
Appropriations:
Personnel Services
Salaries
$19,330
City Paid Benefits
250
Retirement
3,000
Worker's Compensation Expense
670
Short/Long Term Disability
100
Medicare Expense
250
Cafeteria Benefits
2,900
Operating Expenses
Advertising
1,000
Utilities
112,200
Maintenance -Grounds & Bldg
25,000
Professional Services
7,000
Contract Services
124,400
Capital Outlay
Capital Improvements *
3,500
Transfer to CIP Fund **
80,400
Reserve for Future Capital Improvements
7,945
TOTAL $387,945
Includes replacement of one irrigation controller/cabinet box @ $3,500.
** City Entry Improvements — SE Corner Diamond Bar Blvd. @ Temple Ave.
Assessment District No. 38 4
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
Plans and Specifications
Plans and specifications showing the general nature, location and extent of the
proposed improvements are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public
inspection.
Assessment District No. 38 5
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
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 or parcel 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. A sense of community pride resulting from well-maintained green spaces.
3. The enhancement of the value of property which results from the foregoing
benefits.
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.
Assessment District No. 38 6
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
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:
$265,380
Estimated Number of Parcels:
Estimated Assessment Per Parcel:
2004-05 Assessment Per Parcel:
$ 15.00
2005-06 Assessment Per Parcel:
$ 15.00
Difference:
$ 0.00
ASSESSMENT ROLL
17,692
$ 15.00
The individual 2005-06 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: May 27, 2005
�� ,�
W
No. C27861
Exp. 3/31/06
s�, CIVIL �P
Ur CA��F�
Arc
Vit" r- 8/q�,�
,, FR�c_
1
Assessment District No. 38 %
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
JOHN A. FRIEDRICH
Agenda # 7.1(b)
Meeting Date: Julv 5, 2005
CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT
198q
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 2005-2006.
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. The assessment revenues shall be
deposited in Special Revenue Landscape Fund 139 and shall apply toward the 2005-06
operation, maintenance, capital budget, and reserve for future improvements. The
District budget totals $299,998. The itemized budget for District 39 is included in the
attached Engineer's Report, Financial Analysis, page 4.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
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 a total 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. The amount assessed
upon the lands within District No. 39 for Fiscal Year 2004-05 was $130.00 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
Director of Public Works
Attachments: Resolution No. 2005 -XX
Engineer's Report
James DeStefano
Assistant City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
A RESOLUTION LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006.
A. RECITALS.
(i) By its Resolution No. 2005-27, 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 2005-06. 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/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 East Copley
Drive, Diamond Bar, California on July 5, 2005, 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 or the 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 benefited, and (iii) the net amount to
be assessed upon the lands within said District for the 2005-06 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 $130.00 for each assessable lot located within said District are
hereby adopted and confirmed and said assessment hereby is levied for the 2005-06
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 2005-06.
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.
9. A certified copy of the assessment and diagram shall be filed in the office
2
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 5t" day of July, 2005.
Wen P. Chang, 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 5t" day of July, 2005, 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 2005-06
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
June 7, 2005
Prepared by:
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 230
Riverside, CA 92506
(951)781-0811
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Revenue
Appropriations
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL
EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A-2" - Assessment Diagram
Exhibit "B-2" - Improvement Map
0
Paqe
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 2005-06 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 Diamond Bar which are located in public rights-
of-way within the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be
levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may
be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special
benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the
improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvement 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.
Assessment District No. 39
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
The boundary of the District 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-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.
Assessment District No. 39 2
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
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, or the 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, or treating for
disease or injury.
3. The removal of trimmings, 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.
Assessment District No. 39
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The estimated funding for maintenance and servicing of landscaping for the update of
Assessment District No. 39 for the 2005-06 Fiscal Year is as follows:
2005-06
Recommended Budget
RPvinm iP-
Appropriation Fund Balance (from FY 2004-05) $131,808
Property Tax and Assessments $164,190
Interest Revenue 4,000
TOTAL $299,998
Appropriations:
Personal Services
Salaries
$16,500
City Paid Benefits
250
Retirement
3,000
Worker's Compensation Expense
670
Short/Long Term Disability
100
Medicare Expense
250
Cafeteria Benefits
2,900
Operating Expenses
Advertising
1,000
Utilities
63,400
Maintenance -Grounds & Bldg.
15,000
Professional Services
7,000
Contract Services
Contract Services
158,159
Weed/Pest Abatement
25,000
Capital Outlays
Miscellaneous Equipment
3,500
Transfer to CIP Fund
0
Reserve for Future Capital Improvements
440
TOTAL $299,998
Includes replacement of 1 irrigation/controller box @ $3,500.
As funds become available, it is planned to update equipment in each of the district's mini -parks.
Plans and Specifications
Assessment District No. 39 4
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
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.
Assessment District No. 39 5
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
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 or parcel from the improvements, namely the maintenance and
servicing of public landscaping improvements within such District. The maintenance
and servicing of public landscaping improvements installed and constructed in public
places in the City of Diamond Bar provides a special benefit which is received by each
and every lot or parcel within the District, tending to enhance their value.
The primary benefits of landscaping are as set forth below:
Beautification of the streets which are used by all of the residents in Diamond
Bar.
2. Public parks which can be utilized and enjoyed by all residents within the District.
3. A sense of community pride resulting from well-maintained green spaces.
4. The enhancement of the value of property which results from the foregoing
benefits.
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.
Assessment District No. 39 6
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
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
2004-05 Assessment Per Parcel:
$ 130.00
2005-06 Assessment Per Parcel:
$ 130.00
Difference:
$ 0.00
Assessment District No. 39 %
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
ASSESSMENT ROLL
The individual 2005-06 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: May 27, 2005
FESS/q�,,
FR/FO F
No. C27861
{ Exp. 3/31 /O6
s� CIVIL �P
CF CA1-�F
Assessment District No. 39 8
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
JOHN A. FRIEDRICH
EXHIBITS
Assessment District No. 39
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
Agenda # 7.1 e
Meeting Date: Julv 5, 2005
CITY COUNCIL P AGENDA REPORT
'ORPOR ",
198
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 2005-2006.
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 of incorporation of the City of Diamond Bar. The assessment revenues
shall be deposited in Special Revenue Landscape Fund 141 and shall apply toward the
2005-06 operation, maintenance, capital improvement budget, and reserve for future
improvements. The District budget totals $192,650. The itemized budget for District 41 is
included in the attached Engineer's Report, Financial Analysis, page 4.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION:
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 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 554 parcels. The amount assessed upon the lands within District No. 41 for Fiscal
Year 2004-05 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
Director of Public Works
Attachments: Resolution No. 2005 -XX
Engineer's Report
2
James DeStefano
Assistant City Manager
RESOLUTION NO. 2005-
A RESOLUTION LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT ON CITY OF DIAMOND
BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR THE
FISCAL YEAR 2005-2006.
A. RECITALS.
(i) By its Resolution No. 2005-28, 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 2005-06. 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/Government Center, 21865 Copley Drive,
Diamond Bar, California on July 5, 2005, 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 or the 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 benefited, and (iii) the net amount to
be assessed upon the lands within said District for the 2005-06 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 $220.50 for each assessable lot located within said District are
hereby adopted and confirmed and said assessment hereby is levied for the 2005-06
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 2005-06.
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.
9. A certified copy of the assessment and diagram shall be filed in the office
2
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 5t" day of July, 2005.
Wen P. Chang, 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 5t" day of July, 2005, 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 2005-06
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
June 7, 2005
Prepared by:
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
6529 Riverside Avenue, Suite 230
Riverside, CA 92506
0
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
IMPROVEMENTS
Landscaping
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
Revenue
Appropriations
METHOD OF APPORTIONMENT
ASSESSMENT
ASSESSMENT ROLL
EXHIBITS
Exhibit "A-3" - Assessment Diagram
Exhibit "B-3" - Improvement Map
0
Paqe
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 2005-06 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 Diamond Bar which are located in public rights-
of-way within the City of Diamond Bar.
Section 22573, Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, requires assessments to be
levied according to benefit rather than according to assessed value. The section states:
"The net amount to be assessed upon lands within an assessment district may
be apportioned by any formula or method which fairly distributes the net amount
among all assessable lots or parcels in proportion to the estimated special
benefits to be received by each such lot or parcel from the improvements.
The determination of whether or not a lot or parcel will benefit from the
improvements shall be made pursuant to the Improvement 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.
Assessment District No. 41
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
BOUNDARIES OF DISTRICT
The boundary of the District 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 -Y). 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.
Assessment District No. 41 2
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
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, or the 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:
1. 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, or treating for
disease or injury.
3. The removal of trimmings, 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.
Assessment District No. 41 3
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
The estimated funding for maintenance and servicing of landscaping for the update of
Assessment District No. 41 for the 2005-06 Fiscal Year is as follows:
5,000
RPvinm iP-
Appropriation Fund Balance (from FY 2004-05)
65,493
Property Tax and Assessments
122,157
Interest Revenue
TOTAL
Appropriations:
Personal Services
Salaries
City Paid Benefits
250
Retirement
3,000
Worker's Compensation Expense
670
Short/Long Term Disability
Medicare Expense
250
Cafeteria Benefits
2,900
Operating Expenses
Advertising
1,000
Utilities
Maintenance -Grounds & Bldg
Professional Services
7,000
Contract Services
Contract Services
38,964
Weed/Pest Abatement
Capital Outlays
Miscellaneous Equipment
Capital Improvements **
Assessment District No. 41
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
4
2005-06
Recommended Budget
$
$ 192,650
$ 19,330
100
74,380
10,000
23,000
3,500
8,306
0
Reserve for Future Capital Improvements
TOTAL
* Includes replacement of 1 irrigation controller/controller box @ $3,500.
** No Capital Improvements this Fiscal Year.
Plans and Specifications
$ 192,650
Plans and specifications showing the general nature, location and extent of the
proposed improvements are on file in the office of the City Clerk and available for public
inspection.
Assessment District No. 41 5
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
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 or parcel 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
benefits.
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.
Assessment District No. 41 6
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
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:
Estimated Assessment Per Parcel:
2004-05 Assessment Per Parcel:
$ 220.50
2005-06 Assessment Per Parcel:
$ 220.50
Difference:
$ 0.00
ASSESSMENT ROLL
554
$ 220.50
The individual 2005-06 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:
Wo
No. 027861
Exp. 3/31/06
sy CIVIL �P
\\. CF CA��Fr
92
pjtOFESSlq�,�
1
, 2005
Assessment District No. 41 %
Engineer's Report — FY 2005-2006
GFB-FRIEDRICH & ASSOC., INC.
JOHN A. FRIEDRICH
EXHIBITS
Agenda # 7
F Meeting Date: July S, 2005
CITY COUNCIL
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
AGENDA REPORT
TITLE: Public Hearing regarding Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement
No. 2004-01 between the City and Lewis - Diamond Bar LLC for property
located at the southeast corner of Grand Avenue at Golden Springs Drive
RECOMMENDATION: Approve first reading of Ordinance No. XX -2005.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:
The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on June 28, 2005. Upon
completion of the public hearing the Commission unanimously approved Resolution No.
2005-25 that recommends City Council approval of the proposed amendment.
BACKGROUND:
In June 2004, the City Council approved Development Agreement No. 2004-01. Lewis -
Diamond Bar, LLC, on behalf of the property owners, has requested approval of
Amendment No. 1 (Exhibit "A") to the existing agreement in order to consider proposed
changes to the financial terms and the schedule of performance.
Development Agreement No. 2004-01 was crafted and approved to guide future
development of the approximate 70 -acre site located at the southeast corner of Grand
Avenue at Golden Springs Drive.
The approval established a framework to permit future construction upon the site with
the intended mixture of Commercial Retail / Institutional, High Density Residential,
Office / Business Park, and Open Space land uses. The Development Agreement
permitted a maximum development potential of 200 multiple family residential
condominiums, 170,000 square feet of commercial -retail space, 50,000 square feet of
new institutional use, 50,100 square feet of office / business park use and retained a
substantial portion of an existing church facility (Calvary Chapel), associated church
surface parking and preservation of approximately 25.5 acres of the 70 -acre site as
open space.
The proposed use of the 70 -acre property involves a multi -phased land development
project of the Developer, Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC, and a substantial monetary
investment. The Agreement reduces the developer's risk by locking in the development
approvals and related project fees for a period of time. This assures the developer that
future City development policy changes or regulation changes will not affect the
approved project. In exchange, the City receives assurance that the project will be
developed as proposed by the Developer with commitments and contributions to the
City that meet our community objectives. Key components of the Agreement include a
binding five-year term. The agreement incorporates the Diamond Village Specific Plan
that establishes development standards for the properties. The Agreement established
the quality and type of commercial anchor retail tenant for the center. While a specific
retail anchor and restaurant operator were not known at that time, the agreement set
forth the establishment of high quality tenants such as Target. The public benefits
associated with the Agreement include park development fees (Quimby Fee), roadway
improvements on Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive and a fair share contribution
toward future improvements necessary to reduce area wide traffic impacts.
In consideration of the entitlement of existing commercial property (formerly owned by
Citrus Valley Health Partners) for 200 -residential condominium units, the Developer
agreed to pay the City a Development Agreement Fee in the amount of $2,000,000 and
provide a Commercial Anchor development guarantee to the City. The Developer
agreed to pay the City the Development Agreement Fee based upon a payment
schedule outlined within Development Agreement No. 2004-01. In addition, the
Developer agreed to provide the City a $2,000,000 Letter of Credit, which was
established to guarantee the commencement of construction of the Commercial Anchor
by June 2005 and completion of the Commercial Anchor by April 2006. The Letter of
Credit assures the City that construction of the anchor retailer will conclude timely
providing retail sales tax dollars to the City for future municipal purposes.
Amendment No. 1
Both parties to the Development Agreement, Lewis — Diamond Bar, LLC and the City,
have worked cooperatively to implement the terms of the agreement. Circumstances
related to the ultimate size and configuration of the Commercial Anchor parcel, the
selection of the Commercial Anchor (Target) and the construction schedule have
resulted in a request by Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC for City approval of Amendment No.1
to the existing Development Agreement.
In summary, the developer's requested amendments will:
1. Revise Section 4.2.1, City Traffic Fee to memorialize the City and
Developer's previous agreement regarding the fair share cost of
applicable traffic improvements.
2. Revise Section 4.5, Commercial Fee by extending the date for
commencement of construction of the Commercial Anchor from
June 1, 2005 to September 1, 2005 and by extending the date of
the opening of the Commercial Anchor from April 2006 to October
2
2006.
3. Acknowledge, in furtherance of Section 4.5, the previous City
Planning Commission adoption of Resolution No. 2005-18 which
approved the Target development application; and a City
agreement to not impose any additional development exactions or
development impact fees other than those set forth in the Target
Resolution or the Development Agreement as conditions of
approval of the pending boundary (lot) line adjustment application
or the future Parcel Map.
In exchange for the proposed amendments, and as a result of extensive negotiations
with the City, the Developer will:
2006.
1. Deliver the approved Commercial Anchor to the City in October
2. Guarantee the $2,000,000 Residential Fee regardless of the
number of dwelling units constructed.
3. Increase the amount of the Residential Fee per dwelling unit and
accelerate the payment schedule.
The City and developer are in agreement regarding the type of traffic improvements
necessary to mitigate the impacts of the project and the estimated cost of the
improvements. As part of the implementation of the Development Agreement, a fair
share traffic fee has been negotiated with the developer. The requested revision
memorializes the previously agreed upon traffic fee. The proposed revision to the
commencement and completion of construction has been requested by Lewis -Diamond
Bar, LLC and confirmed with Target.
The request of the City to not impose any additional development impact fees for the
pending Lot Line Adjustment or future Parcel Map has been requested by Target. The
obligation to pay City development impact fees is already set forth in the current
Development Agreement and the Target project approvals. No new development
impact fees beyond those already identified in the Agreement and project approval is
anticipated.
The $2,000,000 Letter of Credit will remain in effect. The existing Agreement set forth a
development fee payment schedule based upon the construction of 200 dwelling units.
However, the developer proposed, and has received approval, to construct 180 units.
Based upon the set development fee formula, the total fee due to the City for the
completion of 180 units is $1,710,000. With this proposal the City will be guaranteed the
full $2,000,000.
The existing Agreement set forth a $5,000 per dwelling unit payment for each of the first
75 units, $12,000 for each of the second 75 units and $14,500 for each of the final 50
units. This proposal accelerates the payment schedule to require $10,000 per dwelling
unit for each of the first 60 units, $11,000 for each of the second 60 units and $12,333
3
for each of the final 60 units.
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT:
On June 29, 2004 the City Council approved an Addendum to the previously certified
Final Environmental Impact Reports SCH No. 91121027 and No. 96111047 for the
related General Plan, Zone Change, Development Agreement and Diamond Village
Specific. The proposed amendment to the Development Agreement makes no changes
to the land use plan for the 70 -acre site. The amendments only pertain to financial
terms and the schedule of performance; therefore additional CEQA review is not
required.
PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE:
Public Notices were mailed to 552 property owners within a 700 -foot radius of the
project site on June 23, 2005. The project site and the community boards were posted
on June 24, 2005. Notice of the City Council public hearing was published in the Inland
Valley Daily Bulletin and the San Gabriel Valley Tribune on June 24, 2005.
Prepared by:
James DeStefano
Assistant City Manager
Attachments:
1. City Council Ordinance No. XX (2005)
2. Amendment No. 1
3. Development Agreement No. 2004-01
4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005-25
Recorded at request of ) June 22, 2005 Draft
Clerk, City Council )
City of Diamond Bar )
When recorded return to ) EXHIBIT "A"
City of Diamond Bar )
21825 Copley Drive )
E
Diamond Bar, CA 91765
Attention: City Clerk
Exempt from Fihne Fees Gov. Code section 6103
DIAMOND BAR VILLAGE
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2004-01
between
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
a California municipal corporation
and
LEWIS-DIAMOND BAR, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
("Developer")
5
6/7/05 Draft
Redlined Against 5/11/05 Draft
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
("Amendment")
This Amendment is dated this day of , 2005 for reference purposes
and amends that certain Development Agreement effective August 7, 2004, (the "Development
Agreement") by and between the City of Diamond Bar (hereinafter "CITY"), and Lewis -Diamond Bar,
LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter "DEVELOPER"). All capitalized terms shall
have the meanings given those terms in the Development Agreement unless otherwise defined herein.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, DEVELOPER has requested CITY to amend the Development Agreement and the
CITY has conducted all proceedings required to amend the Development Agreement in accordance with
the DA Laws and all other rules and regulations of CITY; and
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of this Amendment have undergone review by CITY and
the City Council and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable; and
WHEREAS, all actions taken and approvals given by CITY for this Amendment have been duly
taken and approved in accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice, public hearings,
findings, votes, and other procedural matters.
COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual covenants
hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of
which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the Development Agreement as
follows:
1. Section 4.2.1, City Traffic Fee, and Schedule 3, are amended as follows: DEVELOPER and CITY
agree that the "fair share" cost of the traffic improvements allocable to the Property and
Annexable Property as set forth on Schedule 3 and the timing for payment are:
$233,604.50 Residential -- prior to the issuance of the first
certificate of occupancy
$964,323.50 Commercial -- prior to the issuance of the
certificate of occupancy for the Commercial Anchor
2. Section 4.4.1, Residential Fees, is deleted and the following inserted in place thereof:
4.4.1 Residential Fees. DEVELOPER agrees to pay to the CITY
development agreement fees in the total amount of $2,000,000 at the
issuance of certificates of occupancy for each DU in the Project as
follows:
$10,000 per DU for the first 60 DU's = $600,000
$11,000 per DU for the second 60 DU's = $660,000
$12,333 per DU for the final 60 DU's = $740,000
If less than one hundred eighty (180) DU's are developed by DEVELOPER, the amount equal to
the difference between $2,000,000 and the total amount of Residential Fees paid as of the date the
final certificate of occupancy is issued by City for the Project, shall be paid concurrent with City's
issuance of that final certificate of occupancy. The City may use the Residential Fees for any
purpose permitted by the City's Municipal Code and any other applicable laws.
3. Section 4.5, Commercial Fee, is amended by extending the dates (i) for commencement of
construction of the Commercial Anchor from June 1, 2005 to September 1, 2005, and (ii) for
opening of the Commercial Anchor to the general public from April 2006 to October 2006. City
agrees to cooperate with DEVELOPER, at no cost to City, to amend the Letter of Credit as
necessary to provide for these extensions.
4. CITY acknowledges and agrees that in furtherance of Section 4.5 of the Development Agreement
and consistent with the Development Plan for the Project, Target Corporation ("Target") filed its
applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-03 and Development Review No. 2005-16
(collectively the "Target Development Application") which was approved by the CITY by
Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005-18 on April 26, 2005 (the "Target Resolution"). CITY
further acknowledges that Target and DEVELOPER will be processing (i) a Boundary Line
Adjustment in the form of Exhibit "A" to this Amendment to create the final boundaries of the
Annexable Property (as set forth in Exhibit "B" of the Development Agreement) and of the
Commercial Component within the Annexable Property under Section 4.5.1 of the Development
Agreement, and (ii) a parcel map to create the two (2) retail pads fronting Golden Springs Drive
and the remainder parcel of the Commercial Component to be developed by Target as the
Commercial Anchor all as identified in the Target Development Application (the "Parcel Map").
CITY agrees that no Development Exactions or Development Impact Fees other than those set
forth in the Target Resolution or Development Agreement shall be imposed by CITY as
conditions on the BLA or Parcel Map. CITY acknowledges that this covenant is material to the
decision of Target to proceed with the acquisition and development of the Annexable Property and
Commercial Component.
5. Except as amended above, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year
set forth below.
7
"DEVELOPER"
LEWIS-DIAMOND BAR, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
By: LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC,
a California limited liability company
Its Managing Member
Dated: By: LEWIS OPERATING CORP.,
a California corporation — sole manager
Lo
"CITY"
Name:
Title:
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Dated: By:
Name:
Title:
Exhibit A — Boundary Line Adjustment
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
On - before me, a Notary Public in and for said
county and state, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his
authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of
which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF
On before me, a Notary Public in and for said
county and state, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person whose
name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the same in his
authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the entity upon behalf of
which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
9
ORDINANCE NO. XX (2005)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR APPROVING
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2004-01
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 -Diamond Bar, LLC, desire to amend a
development agreement approved on June 29, 2004 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 at the southeast corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand
Avenue in the City of Diamond Bar. The properties subject to the amendment are more
particularly described as Assessor's Parcel Numbers: 8293-045-004, 8293-045-005 - Lewis -
Diamond Bar, LLC, 1156 N. Mountain Avenue, Upland, CA 91785 and Assessor's Parcel
Numbers 8293-045-006, 8293-045-007, 8293-045-008 and 8293-045-009 - Hidden Manna
Corporation, 22324 Golden Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider proposed
Amendment No. 1 to the development agreement pursuant to Municipal Code Section
22.62.030(a) on June 28, 2005. The Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-25 which
recommends City Council approval of the amendment. The City Council held a properly noticed
public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to the development agreement pursuant to
Section 22.62.030(b) on July 5, 2005. 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, and the record and decision of the Planning
Commission, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed amendment to the 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 amendment to the
development agreement complies with the zoning, subdivision, and other applicable ordinances
and regulations.
Section 4. The proposed amendment to the 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 amendment to the development agreement with the applicant. The
amendment to the agreement provides for the orderly and comprehensive development of a
land area in a visible and important location in the City. The amendment to the development
agreement ensures that the project can be developed over time in its approved form, and that
I1
the applicant will provide substantial public benefits as a part of the development.
Section 5. The City Council further finds that:
(a) The amendment to 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 amendment to 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 amendment to the development agreement will not jeopardize, endanger or otherwise
constitute a menace to the public health, safety or general welfare, since the amended agreement will
result in 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 amendment to the Development Agreement would be in the best interests of
the City. The amendment to the Development Agreement No. 2004-01
implements the proposed Diamond Bar Village project and will provide certainty to
the City and the Applicant regarding the project development time table, impact
fees, applicable ordinances, overall development standards and similar matters.
The approved Diamond Bar Village project will 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 amendment to the Agreement is in the best
interests of the City and its residents.
(e) The amendment to the development Agreement is consistent with the General
Plan, Development Agreement No, 2004-01, any applicable Specific Plan and the
Development Code. Diamond Bar Village, the subject of Development Agreement
No. 2004-01, is consistent with the General Plan and is the subject of an
appropriate 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 Amendment to 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 limits the
commercial -retail and institutional use to an area adjacent to a major intersection.
The Amendment to Development Agreement No. 2004-01 implements this
development plan and thus promotes the public interest and welfare.
Section 6. The proposed development agreement amendment complies with the terms,
conditions, restrictions and requirements of Section 22.62.040 of the Diamond Bar Municipal
Code. The proposed development agreement amendment includes additional terms consistent
with Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.62.040(b), such as construction schedules,
commercial anchor security requirements, and the contribution of a developer fee to the City.
Section 7. In June 2004 the City Council approved an Addendum to the Medical Plaza
and Economic Revitalization Area Environmental Impact Reports for the Diamond Bar Village
Project. The Addendum considered the potential environmental impacts of the Diamond Bar
Village project, the Development Agreement, Zone Change, Specific Plan and related project
applications. Amendment No. 1 to the previously approved Development Agreement does not
change any contemplated land uses for the properties. The Amendment does not result in any
physical changes to the project site. The proposed amendment does not result in any new
environmental impacts. No further environmental review is warranted or necessary.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves Amendment No.
1 to Development Agreement No. 2004-01 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and authorizes the
Mayor to execute said development agreement amendment on behalf of the 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 OF 2005, BY THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
BY:
Wen Chang, Mayor
I, Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk of the City of Diamond 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 , 2005 and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of , 2005 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
ABSENT: Council Members:
12
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
13
Recorded at request of )
Clerk, City Council )
City of Diamond Bar )
When recorded return to )
City of Diamond Bar )
21825 Copley Drive )
Diamond Bar, CA 91765 )
Attention: City Clerk
6/7/05 Draft
Redlined Against 5/11/05 Draft
June 22, 2005 Draft
EXHIBIT "A"
Exempt from Fihne Fees Gov. Code section 6103
DIAMOND BAR VILLAGE
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT NO. 2004-01
between
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
a California municipal corporation
and
LEWIS-DIAMOND BAR, LLC,
a Delaware limited liability company
("Developer")
AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT
("Amendment")
This Amendment is dated this day of , 2005 for reference
purposes and amends that certain Development Agreement effective August 7, 2004, (the
"Development Agreement") by and between the City of Diamond Bar (hereinafter "CITY"), and
Lewis -Diamond Bar, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company (hereinafter "DEVELOPER").
All capitalized terms shall have the meanings given those terms in the Development Agreement
unless otherwise defined herein.
RECITALS
WHEREAS, DEVELOPER has requested CITY to amend the Development Agreement
and the CITY has conducted all proceedings required to amend the Development Agreement in
accordance with the DA Laws and all other rules and regulations of CITY; and
WHEREAS, the terms and conditions of this Amendment have undergone review by
CITY and the City Council and have been found to be fair, just and reasonable; and
WHEREAS, all actions taken and approvals given by CITY for this Amendment have
been duly taken and approved in accordance with all applicable legal requirements for notice,
public hearings, findings, votes, and other procedural matters.
COVENANTS
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the above recitals and of the mutual
covenants hereinafter contained and for other good and valuable consideration, the
receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree to amend the
Development Agreement as follows:
1. Section 4.2.1, City Traffic Fee, and Schedule 3, are amended as follows: DEVELOPER
and CITY agree that the "fair share" cost of the traffic improvements allocable to the
Property and Annexable Property as set forth on Schedule 3 and the timing for payment
are:
$233,604.50 Residential -- prior to the issuance of
the first certificate of occupancy
$964,323.50 Commercial -- prior to the issuance
of the certificate of occupancy for the Commercial
Anchor
2. Section 4.4.1, Residential Fees, is deleted and the following inserted in place thereof:
4.4.1 Residential Fees. DEVELOPER agrees to pay to the CITY development
agreement fees in the total amount of $2,000,000 at the issuance of certificates of
occupancy for each DU in the Project as follows:
$10,000 per DU for the first 60 DU's = $600,000
$11,000 per DU for the second 60 DU's = $660,000
$12,333 per DU for the final 60 DU's = $740,000
If less than one hundred eighty (180) DU's are developed by DEVELOPER, the amount
equal to the difference between $2,000,000 and the total amount of Residential Fees paid
as of the date the final certificate of occupancy is issued by City for the Project, shall be
paid concurrent with City's issuance of that final certificate of occupancy. The City may
use the Residential Fees for any purpose permitted by the City's Municipal Code and any
other applicable laws.
3. Section 4.5, Commercial Fee, is amended by extending the dates (i) for commencement
of construction of the Commercial Anchor from June 1, 2005 to September 1, 2005, and
(ii) for opening of the Commercial Anchor to the general public from April 2006 to
October 2006. City agrees to cooperate with DEVELOPER, at no cost to City, to amend
the Letter of Credit as necessary to provide for these extensions.
4. CITY acknowledges and agrees that in furtherance of Section 4.5 of the Development
Agreement and consistent with the Development Plan for the Project, Target Corporation
("Target") filed its applications for Conditional Use Permit No. 2005-03 and
Development Review No. 2005-16 (collectively the "Target Development Application")
which was approved by the CITY by Planning Commission Resolution No. 2005-18 on
April 26, 2005 (the "Target Resolution"). CITY further acknowledges that Target and
DEVELOPER will be processing (i) a Boundary Line Adjustment in the form of
Exhibit "A" to this Amendment to create the final boundaries of the Annexable Property
(as set forth in Exhibit "B" of the Development Agreement) and of the Commercial
Component within the Annexable Property under Section 4.5.1 of the Development
Agreement, and (ii) a parcel map to create the two (2) retail pads fronting Golden Springs
Drive and the remainder parcel of the Commercial Component to be developed by Target
as the Commercial Anchor all as identified in the Target Development Application (the
"Parcel Map"). CITY agrees that no Development Exactions or Development Impact
Fees other than those set forth in the Target Resolution or Development Agreement shall
be imposed by CITY as conditions on the BLA or Parcel Map. CITY acknowledges that
this covenant is material to the decision of Target to proceed with the acquisition and
development of the Annexable Property and Commercial Component.
5. Except as amended above, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day
and year set forth below.
"DEVELOPER"
LEWIS-DIAMOND BAR, LLC
a Delaware limited liability company
By: LEWIS INVESTMENT COMPANY, LLC,
a California limited liability company
Its Managing Member
Dated: By: LEWIS OPERATING CORP.,
a California corporation — sole manager
Name:
Title:
"CITY"
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
Dated: By:
Name:
Title:
Exhibit A — Boundary Line Adjustment
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
ss.
COUNTY OF )
On - before me, , a Notary Public in and for
said county and state, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person
whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the
same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the
entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
) ss.
COUNTY OF
On before me, , a Notary Public in and for
said county and state, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person
whose name is subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he executed the
same in his authorized capacity, and that by his signature on the instrument the person, or the
entity upon behalf of which the person acted, executed the instrument.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
Signature
ORDINANCE NO. XX (2005)
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
APPROVING AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 2004-01 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 -Diamond Bar, LLC, desire to
amend a development agreement approved on June 29, 2004 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 at the southeast corner of
Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue in the City of Diamond Bar. The properties
subject to the amendment are more particularly described as Assessor's Parcel
Numbers: 8293-045-004, 8293-045-005 - Lewis - Diamond Bar, LLC, 1156 N. Mountain
Avenue, Upland, CA 91785 and Assessor's Parcel Numbers 8293-045-006, 8293-045-
007, 8293-045-008 and 8293-045-009 - Hidden Manna Corporation, 22324 Golden
Springs Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765.
Section 2. The Planning Commission conducted a public hearing to consider
proposed Amendment No. 1 to the development agreement pursuant to Municipal Code
Section 22.62.030(a) on June 28, 2005. The Commission adopted Resolution No. 2005-
25 which recommends City Council approval of the amendment. The City Council held a
properly noticed public hearing regarding the proposed amendment to the development
agreement pursuant to Section 22.62.030(b) on July 5, 2005. 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, and the record and
decision of the Planning Commission, the City Council hereby finds that the proposed
amendment to the 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 amendment to the development agreement complies with
the zoning, subdivision, and other applicable ordinances and regulations.
Section 4. The proposed amendment to the 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 amendment to the development
agreement with the applicant. The amendment to the agreement provides for the
orderly and comprehensive development of a land area in a visible and important
location in the City. The amendment to 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. The City Council further finds that:
(a) The amendment to 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 amendment to 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 amendment to the development agreement will not jeopardize,
endanger or otherwise constitute a menace to the public health, safety or
general welfare, since the amended agreement will result in 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 amendment to the Development Agreement would be in the best
interests of the City. The amendment to the Development Agreement No.
2004-01 implements the proposed Diamond Bar Village project and will
provide certainty to the City and the Applicant regarding the project
development time table, impact fees, applicable ordinances, overall
development standards and similar matters. The approved Diamond Bar
Village project will 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 amendment to the Agreement is in the best
interests of the City and its residents.
(e) The amendment to the development Agreement is consistent with the
General Plan, Development Agreement No, 2004-01, any applicable
Specific Plan and the Development Code. Diamond Bar Village, the
subject of Development Agreement No. 2004-01, is consistent with the
General Plan and is the subject of an appropriate 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 Amendment to 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 limits the commercial -retail and institutional use to an
area adjacent to a major intersection. The Amendment to Development
Agreement No. 2004-01 implements this development plan and thus
promotes the public interest and welfare.
1
Section 6. The proposed development agreement amendment complies with the
terms, conditions, restrictions and requirements of Section 22.62.040 of the Diamond
Bar Municipal Code. The proposed development agreement amendment includes
additional terms consistent with Diamond Bar Municipal Code Section 22.62.040(b),
such as construction schedules, commercial anchor security requirements, and the
contribution of a developer fee to the City.
Section 7. In June 2004 the City Council approved an Addendum to the Medical
Plaza and Economic Revitalization Area Environmental Impact Reports for the Diamond
Bar Village Project. The Addendum considered the potential environmental impacts of
the Diamond Bar Village project, the Development Agreement, Zone Change, Specific
Plan and related project applications. Amendment No. 1 to the previously approved
Development Agreement does not change any contemplated land uses for the
properties. The Amendment does not result in any physical changes to the project site.
The proposed amendment does not result in any new environmental impacts. No further
environmental review is warranted or necessary.
Section 8. Based upon the foregoing, the City Council hereby approves
Amendment No. 1 to Development Agreement No. 2004-01 attached hereto as Exhibit
"A" and authorizes the Mayor to execute said development agreement amendment on
behalf of the 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 OF 2005, BY THE
CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
An
Wen Chang, Mayor
I, Linda C. Lowry, City Clerk of the City of Diamond 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 , 2005 and was finally passed at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Diamond Bar held on the day of
, 2005 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members:
NOES: Council Members:
3
ABSENT: Council Members:
ABSTAIN: Council Members:
City Clerk, City of Diamond Bar
LILA -
Avt.'NL -
S USE Al
RE��E
INIIC7m
g�
PA L` L' L 11
AS i554/2d-3
IIII
PAMEL mwm
!n
FUTURE
i 590.310.9052 S.F.INGRESS/EGRE55
13 5517 ACRES lI� I '...
EASEMENT 4
I
L FUTURE
;
Ld,
-- --� INGRESS/EGRESS
.._....__�\\ EASEMENT
-�
P AW Lit
3 iF�, �InaiL 4 Z
J
n Pm 14819
MB 154 o 27. ErA
PH 14619P
PHS 154/27-M
<,,
, PARCEL W.,.
` '�1�I''"
PARCEL """"
995,027.1264 S.
= 22.6427 CRE3
I IIL 757,821.3558 S.F. 'i IIIIl 7IIfIIIiiil
17.3926 ACRES
i
IIIII.
CFn ex
BLILMO
, I
II
I1
1/4
LEOO
x�t LOT LINE TO BE REMOVED
PROPOSED LOT LINE
— — — — FUTURE INGRESSI
EGRESS EASENENT
---- LOT LINE TO REMAN
PARCEL 3 — NOT A PART
MARK P- PFEJLER LS 5959 DATE
EXPIRES 12-31-06
NOTE;
*THIS PLAT IS NDT A LEGAL DESCPoPTION AND SHOULD ONLY BE USED
SEE SHEET 2 FOR UNE AND CURVE DATA AS AN AID IN UNDERSTANDING THE ACCOMPANYING LEGAL DESMIPT14N" SHEET 1 OF 2
PLAT �7 ' & AS�� ENCI�r M. LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
CM EMNEEMNO & UM SMEYEW IJA
660 N. Diamond Bar Blvd. Sulte 100, Diamond Bar, Ca 91765
Telephone (909) 860-5850 Fax (909) B60-3967 DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA.
r'Ur GICd ICU Vwin PUIrdILUly Uldl vClolUii VVVVVV.PUIIdILUIy.0 UIII
ORDINANCE NO. 08-2005
AN ORDIANANCE OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR AMENDING THE RULES FOR PUBLICLY -
OWNED OR PUBLICLY -OPERATED SKATEBOARD FACILITIES.
A. RECITALS.
(i) The City of Diamond Bar owns and operates a skate park at Peterson Park for the
purpose of recreational skateboard and in-line skating use.
(ii) The City Council adopted Ordinance No. 02-2002 up -dating rules that govern the use of
the skate park.
(iii) The City Council has determined that it is necessary to amend the skate park rules to
allow non -motorized scooters to utilize the skate park.
B. ORDINANCE.
NOW, THEREFORE, it is hereby ordained by the City Council of
the City of Diamond Bar as follows:
Section 1. Section 12.00.420 of the Diamond Bar Municipal Code is amended to read as follows:
"Sec. 12.00.420 Skate Park Rules.
(a) Skateboarding non -motorized scooters and in-line skating are permitted in any skateboarding facility
designated by resolution of the City Council.
(b) No person shall enter the fenced area of the skate park without wearing a helmet, elbow pads and kneepads
("required protective equipment") at all times.
(c) Bicycles and all other wheeled vehicles not specifically permitted in paragraph (a) are prohibited from
entering the fenced area of the skate park.
(d) Violation of this section or of any provisions thereof shall be deemed an infraction and punishable as
provided in Section 1.04.020 of the Municipal Code.
(e) Signs shall be posted at the skate park providing reasonable notice of the requirements of this section and
the penalties for failing to comply with the requirements of this section.
(f) This ordinance will expire six months after its effective date unless extended by the City Council."
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 2005.
WEN CHANG
Mayor
I, David Doyle, Acting City Clerk of the City of Diamond 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 and was finally passed at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Diamond Bar held on the day of , 2005, by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:
ATTEST:
DAVID DOYLE
Acting City Clerk of the
City of Diamond Bar
Agenda # 8.1
Meeting Date: July 5, 2005
CITY COUNCIL = AGENDA REPORT
�'�oRroR�T�9
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: City Council Appointments.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the Mayor announce any changes/updates to the attached
information regarding the City Council appointments to various organizations
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
There is no financial implication associated with the City Council appointments.
DISCUSSION:
The Mayor, at his discretion, appoints individual Councilmembers to serve on the
boards of various outside agencies and City Committees. Attached is the list of City
Council appointments as submitted by Mayor Chang In January 2005.
Since the election of Councilmember Tanaka, it may be appropriate to adjust some of
the Council appointments.
PREPARED BY:
David Doyle, Assistant City Manager
Attachment
Organization
California Contract Cities Association
Foothill Transit Board
Four -Corners Transportation Policy Group
Los Angeles County Vector Control District
Joint Powers Insurance Authority
L.A. County Sanitation District No. 21
L.A. County City Selection Committee
League of Calif. Cities - L.A. County Division
San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments
San Gabriel Valley Economic Partnership
Southern California Assn. of Governments
Tres Hermanos Conservation Authority
Council Appointees
O'Connor/Chang
Herrera/ Zirbes
Chang/Herrera
MacBride
O'Connor/Zirbes
O'Connor/Chang
Chang/Herrera
Herrera/Chang
Herrera/Chang
Chang/Staff
Herrera/Zirbes
Zirbes/Herrera/O'Connor
Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority (WCCA) Herrera/Chang
Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority Advisory MacBride/Herrick
D.B. Community Foundation
Zirbes
CITY COUNCIL AD HOC COMMITTEES
(Meet as Needed)
City Council Goals/City Manager Evaluation
Economic Development
Industry East Development Advisory Committee
Legislative
Neighborhood Improvement
CITY COUNCIL LIAISON
Chamber of Commerce
PUSD/City
Senior Citizen
Sphere of Influence/Annexation
Chang/O'Connor
Chang/Zirbes
O'Connor/Zirbes
Herrera/Chang
Zirbes/Chang
Zirbes/O'Connor
O'Connor/Zirbes
O'Connor/Zirbes
Herrera/Zirbes
WVUSD/City Herrera/Chang
Agenda #
Meeting Date: July 5, 2005
CITY COUNCIL = AGENDA REPORT
ooRroR
TO: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council
VIA: Linda C. Lowry, City Manager
TITLE: Appoint Planning Commissioner to Replace Newly Elected
Councilmember Tanaka.
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that Mayor Chang select a Planning Commissioner to fill the seat
vacated by Councilmember Tanaka.
FINANCIAL SUMMARY:
There is no financial implication associated with the City Council appointment.
DISCUSSION:
Each Councilmember is allowed to appointment a member to each of the various City
Commissions. Prior to being elected to the City Council, Jack Tanaka served as Mayor
Chang's appointment on the Planning Commission. After being elected to the City
Council, Mr. Tanaka was required to resign his seat on the Planning Commission.
His resignation created a vacancy which Mayor Chang may now fill with a new
appointment. After Mayor Chang makes his selection, it is recommended that the City
Council ratify the appointment.
The required Notice of Vacancy for this position has been posted in accordance with all
applicable laws.
PREPARED BY:
David Doyle, Assistant City Manager