HomeMy WebLinkAbout05/18/2004 Minutes - Regular MeetingCITY OF DIAMOND BAR
CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
MAY 18, 2004
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order
at 4:06 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management
District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
Present: Council Members Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro
Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes. Council Member Chang was excused.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Mike Jenkins, City
Attorney; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City
Manager; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works
Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Dennis Tarango, Building Official;
April Blakey, Public Information Manager; Sharon Gomez, Sr. Mgmnt. Analyst;
Teresa Arevalo, Sr. Mgmnt. Analyst; John Bingham, Consultant; Capt. Ron
Watson, L.A. County Fire; Nancy Whitehouse, Executive Asst.; and Tommy
Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
1. Background Discussion of Agenda Items 8.2a and 8.2b (Speed
Humps)
PWD/Liu asked for Council's input regarding long-term effects of the
Speed Hump Policy and the moratorium.
CM/Lowry explained that staff was asking Council to reverse the Traffic
and Transportation Commission's position and to amend the policy to
avoid further controversy with respect to the policy adopted by the
Council.
C/Huff was surprised that the Traffic and Transportation Commission took
an adverse position given the fact that the Council had labored to come up
with a policy that would be effective in the long-term. He recalled that the
two adverse votes were against the moratorium and whether the City was
organized to implement the policy.
C/O'Connor was concerned about the emergency service responses to
the speed humps and said she would discuss her concerns during the
regular meeting. When asked to state her concerns, she said she had
heard conflicting reports about the speed humps. For instance, the
residents signed a petition in favor of installation and after they received
more information, changed their minds and decided they did not want the
installation.
PWD/Liu said staff verified signatures and found that 92 percent of the
residents in the affected area were in favor of speed humps. When staff
followed up with a neighborhood meeting, 15 residents including the
initiator of the petition, reiterated their desire to move forward with the
installation. Only two residents participated in the Traffic and
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION
Transportation Commission Meeting. The Commission was concerned
because even though 92 percent of the residents had indicated they
wanted the installation, there was no favorable participation during the
regular meeting. However, when staff followed up with the residents,
to a person they favored installation of speed humps and believed that
they would be present during tonight's regular meeting to indicate their
opinions.
PWD/Liu responded to C/O'Connor's concern that the residents were not
aware of the comments by the Fire and Sheriff's Departments that the
pros and cons of speed humps were discussed during the neighborhood
meeting and reported during the Traffic and Transportation Meeting.
C/Huff said he was concerned for the same reasons as C/O'Connor
because every time the issue came up he heard the same concerns. He
wondered if the problem was that people signed the petition without full
knowledge of the ramifications. Perhaps the policy should be modified to
direct that a letter be sent to the residents and signers of the petition to
give them one final opportunity to indicate whether or not they want the
installation to proceed. At the very least it would present a non -threatening
opportunity for residents to state their minds and not be influenced by not
wishing to offend the person who asked them to sign the petition.
M/Zirbes stated he would not wish to have a speed hump on his street.
However, the City had created a policy for installation of speed humps. His
concern was that under 2.1 speed humps would only be considered as a
last resort to control speeds on streets and he was not sure what had
been done to mitigate the traffic and speeding on the street prior to
proposing speed hump installation. He would not want the City to set a
precedent that it would be a simple matter to turn in a 92 percent petition
to commence installation without imposing prior mitigation measures to
solve the issue.
PWD/Liu assured M/Zirbes that speed hump installations were a last
resort effort. As soon as the City received the petition last year, staff
worked closely with the Sheriff's Department to implement a citation
program in the neighborhood. During the neighborhood meeting staff
informed the residents about the Sheriff's Department's efforts and when
presented with the citation figures, the residents were very surprised at the
high volume of tickets. In addition, during the past several months, staff
worked with the residents to consider the possibility of and implemented a
neighborhood letter campaign. After considering all of the possibilities, the
residents overwhelmingly indicated their desire to have speed humps. In
addition, staff collected traffic survey data as recently as last month at the
proposed four locations and were continued to be amazed at the speed
exhibited at the locations. For instance, at location one, 700 plus vehicles
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION
were monitored with over 73 percent exceeding the 25 mph posted speed
limit, 72 exceeding 40 mph and several posting maximum speeds of 51
mph. At location 2, 767 total vehicles with over 75 percent exceeding the
speed limit, 87 vehicles exceeding 40 mph and several vehicles posting
maximum speeds of 48 mph. The data indicates drivers are not changing
their behavior and that the effective mitigation is to install a permanent
barrier. Therefore, staff would like to implement the policy to install speed
humps per the majority requests.
M/Zirbes asked for Council's input on removing the Traffic and
Transportation Committee from the current policy.
MPT/Herrera said she would go with staff's recommendation.
2. Natural Hazard Mitigation Update.
DCM/DeStefano reported on the current status of the City's efforts toward
completing the federally mandated Natural Hazards Mitigation Plan, a
document that the Federal Government required of all cities, counties and
public agencies in the United States. D.B. has a due date of November 1,
2004 to submit its report. DCM/DeStefano explained that the most
important of the numerous requirements related to the mitigation planning
process was public participation and that this was not an Emergency
Preparedness Plan but focused on preventative planning to reduce risks
from natural hazards and would serve as a guide for Council to commit
resources toward reduction of those hazards. Specifically, the plan called
for prevention related to earthquake, earth movement, flood, wild fire and
windstorm events. Staff had made substantial progress toward the
completion of the plan requirements and was on schedule to complete the
draft documents for Council's consideration well in advance of the
November 1 deadline. He introduced Consultant John Bingham.
Consultant John Bingham led Council through a slide presentation
featuring potential natural disasters and prevention from the threat of
natural hazards. He stated that the plan was divided into specific sections
and that staff and the Fire Department would speak to those specifics later
in the process. The City must identify the potential of natural hazards;
identify the extent of risk proposed by those hazards, and find ways to
deal with those vulnerabilities. In fact, D.B. had always focused on these
problems. He believed the Federal Government had mandated the
planning process to ward off the doling out of millions and millions of
dollars to cities that year after year ignored natural disasters. If cities did
not complete the plan to the satisfaction of FEMA and the State Office of
Emergency Services, they would not be eligible for pre -disaster grant
monies and post -disaster funding for recovery.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION
BO/Tarango spoke about earthquake faults located in the immediate area
using the USGS maps, L.A. County maps, Southern California Earthquake
Center maps, Department of Transportation maps and California Division
of Mines and Geologies. The basic map showed D.B. and surrounding
local and regional fault locations. He pointed out the various faults and
distances from the City and explained how building codes were changed
to require inclusion of various mitigation measures such as increasing hold
downs — anchor bolts, shear value, reducing windows to create additional
stiffness of the house and including wider span beams. He explained how
D.B. had improved its Building Code by tightening up construction
requirements with increased wind load requirements and shear value.
PWD/Liu continued with the power point presentation showing the
earthquake -induced movement of mass — rock, earth and debris. The size
of a landslide generally depended on the geology and initial cause. For
example, landslides have occurred in D.B. such as the one that occurred
on Morning Sun, Minnequa and at Sycamore Canyon Park. These
landslides provide insight as to what could occur in D.B. due to its
topography. Landslides could be initiated by heavy rainfall and short
bursts of concentrated rainfall. Burn areas are particularly susceptible to
debris and mudflow. The blue area of the map depicted potential
earthquake landslide (liquefaction) areas. He explained that liquefaction
occurred when a layer of soil near the ground surface was saturated with
water and shaken by an earthquake. In D.B. the canyon and stream areas
are earthquake liquefaction areas (depicted in green). The orange areas
indicate potential earthquake induced landslide areas. DPW/Liu stated
that FEMA designated a portion of the blue area as a flood prone area.
Due to recent occurrences, the flood concerns were mitigated and FEMA
indicated they would work with the City to designate the area as a flood
prone area.
Fire Chief Ron Watson outlined the Department's wild fire mitigation plan.
Preparations for addressing wild land mitigation included an intense brush
clearance program for high-risk interface properties. Currently,
Department staff spends 10 -hour days canvassing D.B. making certain
that residents in high-risk areas comply with brush clearing. The
Department employed wild land pre -attack plans that identified problem
areas such as homes with combustible roofs in high-risk interface areas.
The Department has a comprehensive fire -fighting plan for canyon and
other areas and has cleared brush near several high -valued homes in
"The Country Estates." The Department also has plans in place for
flooding with the availability of a swift water rescue team, search and
rescue teams, heavy equipment including bulldozers and other heavy
equipment machinery, sandbags, sand and food. Annual earthquake
exercises are held countywide and the Department employs a battalion
center command that allows it to facilitate emergency service vehicles. In
addition, he reported that jurisdictional surveys were routinely conducted
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION
to identify disaster plans that identify critical occupancies, freeway bridges,
overpasses and the like.
C/O'Connor was concerned about the Tanner Canyon Area's susceptibility
to fire and asked Chief Watson if he was comfortable that the Department
was prepared for a fire in that area.
Chief Watson responded that he felt as comfortable as possible based on
multi -agency responses. The Canyon was in close proximity to units in
Brea, Chino Hills and Orange County.
Mr. Bingham explained that staff would bring a final draft document to
Council for adoption that identified goals and possible mitigation activities.
In addition, the City's website contained information about hazard
mitigation. As previously stated, a large portion of this process depends on
public participation and staff had attempted to fulfill that obligation in as
many ways as possible including tonight's meeting.
3. Reorganization of the industry East Committee to address the
Industry Business Center Development.
DCM/DeStefano reported that the City of Industry proposed an almost 600
acre development on the vacant hillsides behind the Honda dealership on
both sides of Grand Ave. and is in the process of preparing an
Environmental Impact Report anticipated for public review in June 2004.
The EIR, he stated, would address concerns regarding traffic impacts,
land use compatibility with D.B. land uses, etc. Industry told D.B. staff that
they anticipated commencing project construction in 2005 and that it
would take approximately 10 years to complete the project. It is Industry
owned land and it is their intent -to construct manufacturing, office and
retail buildings and development with retail incorporating big boxes and
potentially automobile dealership. During the past couple of years Industry
has completed similar projects including a project known as the Majestic
Grand Crossing Development for which Council created a 10 -person
advisory committee in 2000. The Advisory Committee was used as a
resource to understand potential impacts to D.B. He stated that Council
Member O'Connor suggested the Advisory Committee be reorganized and
reconstituted as an overall Industry project committee to address the
ongoing Industry -East project (Grand Crossing) and to address the
proposed Industry Business Center project located behind the Honda
dealership.
C/O'Connor stated that her recommendation was a result of believing the
City should be proactive rather than reactive. She encouraged the Council
to establish a committee to continue the dialogue with Industry. She
further suggested that the City hold a town forum to explain the EIR once
the document was forthcoming.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 6 CC STUDY SESSION
C/Huff was also concerned about being open to dialogue. However, in his
opinion, those concerns should be addressed as they arise and he felt it
would be premature to form a committee at this time because there was
no concern about public safety.
M/Zirbes agreed with both C/O'Connor and C/Huff and felt that Council
should move forward by getting a committee ready. Once the EIR was
released, the Committee could get together to discuss concerns and
determine which neighborhoods would face the greatest impact. He would
tend to form a separate committee rather than reorganize the current
committee because of the different issues involved.
C/O'Connor was concerned that if Council waited too long to establish a
committee the EIR would come out in advance of the next Council
meeting and leave no time to organizing a committee and public meeting.
M/Zirbes felt staff would need time to review the document and advise
Council prior to the matter moving to a committee or public forum. He was
encouraged that there were good people serving as resource to the
Council and that the Council should be mindful of moving forward at the
appropriate time.
MPT/Herrera asked if the EIR contained specifics about the project or was
the document somewhat nebulous?
CM/DeStefano responded that the EIR was not likely to be specific in
nature. It was more likely that the document would indicate locations for
potential land uses in a broad sense and it could discuss building heights
in general and not contain detailed architecture, land uses, setbacks, etc.
DCM/DeStefano responded to C/O'Connor that he did not know whether
the EIR would speak to opening Sunset Crossing Rd. Industry's Notice of
Preparation suggested they would be looking to open the street. However,
the City of D.B. and not Industry controlled that decision.
C/Huff said that after the Notice was released he asked Industry's Mayor if
it was their intent to open Sunset Crossing and the Mayor said No.
Generally, the Mayor has been forthright with him.
CM/Lowry pointed out that although the Mayor said No, the map shows a
connection via Sunset Crossing Road.
MPT/Herrera was concerned about stirring up feelings about things that
might not occur by forming a group to discuss a project when the specifics
of the project were unknown.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 7 CC STUDY SESSION
C/Huff felt that traffic mitigation would be a key issue for D.B. and
wondered how Industry would address traffic concerns in the document.
CM/DeStefano responded that based on previous Industry-EIR's the
document would contain a broad palette of possibilities such as "a million
feet of industrial, a couple million feet in offices and a couple million feet in
retail; indicating where the land uses would be located again, on a broad
basis i.e. "half on one side of Grand and half on the other side of Grand.
And then Industry would begin to predict the number of trips based on
broad land uses and suggest where those trips might arbitrarily go with 25
percent to Brea Canyon Rd. and 75 percent to Grand Ave., for example.
Industry would then suggest widening or adding signals within their
roadway network, widening signal improvements and bridge
improvements in D.B. to accommodate the "arbitrary" 75 percent traffic
increase to Grand Ave. He believed the document would be written in
broad strokes as an overall umbrella for the approvals they would
undertake in subsequent years and all of the subsequent projects would
have to fit under that umbrella.
MPT/Herrera felt it was important to have a committee but more
importantly, that the City have information to share with the committee.
C/Huff suggested setting up a Council subcommittee for the time being.
4. FY 2004-05 Budget: General Fund and CIP (First Draft)
CM/Lowry explained the FY 2004-05 first draft budget. Based on certain
assumptions, the go forward budget would leave a $800,000 balance for
Council's consideration in addressing the decision packages. The second
page brought forward the ongoing CIP requests that had been discussed
for several years through the budget process. Some items were first and
second phase projects and items that staff had been working on. The total
on the CIP proposal matched the $1.7 million formatted in the overall
budget presentation as the draw that would be made on General Fund
reserves needed to fund those projects. The good news was that this
year's budget forecasted spending $1.1 million less than what the City
received, whereas, the original budget anticipated a savings of only
$200,000. Staff had not yet calculated encumbrances generated from POs
and there could be an extra $200,000 outgo as a result. The City has a
$14.5 million going -forward -budget, projected with adjustments in revenue
based on the Governor's latest agreement with the League of Cities,
estimates from the Department of Finance regarding sales tax, estimates
about the City's condition resulting from local tax generators, inclusion of a
full year for the D.B. Center, and anticipated proceeds from building
permits. In short, this was staff's best estimate as to where the City would
stand at the end of 2005. The City's operating expenses were now at a
$14.5 million mark with an additional $300,000 income from the D.B.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 8 CC STUDY SESSION
Center. Once Council determined the budget, staff would pull out the D.B.
Center item, to create an Enterprise Fund. However, staff felt it would be
better to provide Council with an umbrella view of the budget and look at
the total operating budget before splitting out certain items.
FD/Magnuson explained to C/Huff that the $1.2 million CIP transfer out
funds were allocated for projects that the City anticipated completing
during the current fiscal year on a break-even basis. In other words, the
City completed almost $1.2 million in projects and did not overspend the
current year's revenues. She explained that the $700,000 spike in Current
Services Charges during FY 2004-05 was due to the anticipated
development of the Lewis project.
C/Huff asked if the budget anticipated a facilities -renovation fund for the
D.B. Center.
CM/Lowry responded that the item was on staff's radar but was not
included in the budget estimate.
5. Economic Development Update -- Kosmont and Associates
DCM/DeStefano stated that Larry Kosmont would touch on issues that
would affect the City over the next couple of years such as the State's
ceilings of monies, cities ceilings of land uses, the potential for increasing
costs and areas of opportunity for generating revenue to help offset losses
and establish net positive gains for the future. These included looking at
how the City conducts business and more specifically looking at the types
of land uses that would generate revenue to the City.
Larry Kosmont explained that it was a tough time for cities because they
were about to experience cash flow deficiencies from the states and their
own existing conditions of budget deficits. D.B. should consider certain
issues having to do with how the City could take a course of action that
would generate the kind of tax liquidity necessary to sustain the quality of
life equation that captures the City's vision. Secondly, much of the answer
would likely come as a result of economic development activity. Cities in
California have a couple of opportunities for economic development that
relate to real estate and private sector investment. And, how does D.B.
marshal the resources it took out of the bond issue last year and decide
whether to use it for economic development or pay out the bond issue?
Council had directed Kosmont to work with staff to consider economic
opportunities. Ironically, experts predicted that D.B. would hit a cash flow
deficit fairly quickly and that the best opportunities were most likely in pure
real estate. The ultimate conclusion was that if the City had $15 million in
reserves and was about to build a large capital improvement and the cost
of money was in the neighborhood of 1 or 2 percent and the City was
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 9 CC STUDY SESSION
looking for shortfalls from the State, don't spend the money, leverage it.
Mr. Kosmont felt that with the current State budget situation D.B. would
suffer about $400,000 in hits for a couple of years and then slowly catch
up. Other issues of concern to D.B. - the potential loss of sales tax
generators and how to replenish that loss.
Mr. Kosmont stated that alternatives available to local governments were
simply not that easy and they would either need to cut costs or raise
taxes. On the whole, cities tended to be fairly efficient and there was not a
lot of excess. As a result, local level replenishment of cash flow imbalance
generally resulted from different tax and fee policies that were not,
however, big revenue generators when considering a $400,000 per year
gap. There are some limitations on the revenue side unless the City looks
to building new revenue. Raising taxes in California is painful politically
and procedurally and as a consequence, California cities generally focus
on economic development. D.B. should find a way to induce tax
generators and primarily, the strategy would be to target retail. This City is
incredibly well located which accounts for its healthy housing prices. From
a retail standpoint, however, there is a considerable amount of competition
with surrounding cities placing as much big box retail as possible. To their
credit, staff and Lewis Company have formed a great partnership to bring
retail tax generation to the Calvary Chapel site as well as Site D. He
encourages Council to move forward with those deals as quickly as
possible on an economic basis and to look for other opportunities because
the other opportunities would make a difference for D.B. on a long-term
basis. For example, consider moving the golf course to Tres Hermanos or
some other suitable site. He emphasized the need to conclude the live
deals i.e., the Lewis, Town and Country, Country Hills Towne Center.
Focus on the live deals and get them closed to backstop the cash flow
deficits. And then consider the long-term options that might include some
kind of manuscripted redevelopment project area for the Kmart site to
reallocate land ownership or cut out a lease that isn't performing for the
City. Or, consider Tres Hermanos for a county golf course, a long-term
political and county play that may need to be put on the back burner until
after the election. Consider that D.B. has a very pro economic supervisor
in Don Knabe who retires in four years.
Mr. Kosmont pointed out that D.B. currently has a series of seven
properties in its portfolio — three were in play and they should be worked
and completed; four properties had the capacity to bring huge economic
windfall if the City made smart strategic investment decisions now. Those
decision areas could involve zoning, annexation, planning, and limited
redevelopment. D.B.'s mission was to sift through those issues and target
what has the highest return given the City's cash flow requirements, what
has.the least risk politically speaking and the most possible windfall from a
structural and transactional perspective and execute on those or, decide it
is something the City does not want to do and give the bonds back. D. B.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 10 CC STUDY SESSION
has low-cost money available waiting to be put to good purpose, should
the Council decide to move forward in that manner. Otherwise, the City
should think about giving it up at some point.
Mr. Kosmont summarized as follows: Pick a strategy based on State
budget issues, medium-term issues and long-term challenges. The long-
term challenges are the key because the City would be spending money
today without any real return for a period of time so D.B. needs to be very
selective about which road to take. It is much easier to spend a little
money on the Lewis homes. Those deals are critical and some resources
have to go toward that development. The bigger picture is to consider
three or four major items that could take different kinds of political and
strategic considerations and, it may even require spending dollars on in-
depth analysis — market comparisons, political analysis, etc. in order to
make the decisions the right way. Put your "tuition" money into something
that provides a quality of life in future years. In short, determine the
priorities (risk and reward); identify additional resources (county monies,
grant monies combined with City dollars); soften the need to have a home
run on real estate by bringing in a couple of tax and fee increases locally;
cut services in a meaningful way and whatever combination of 1 through
6, number 7 is the key — Adopt Economic Development strategy and
vision and execute it knowing where the City needs to be over a number
of years in terms of revenue and expenses. And hold that strategy to a
timeframe and to the buyer so that the City can deliver it. That means
spending some money and getting the right resources. In his opinion, staff
does a great job but given the City's challenges, they should not be
expected to deliver on some of the harder issues. As the City moves
forward, staff would need assistance from skilled and resourceful
individuals and companies. And that is part of the package of letting loose
some of the money in the unallocated reserve drawing interest in the
bank.
Mr. Kosmont spoke to the bond issue. Should the City decide it wants to
keep the money and establish priorities and strategies, the time is coming
in the bond cycle to recast the Letter of Credit in a more cost-efficient way.
If the debt continued more than six years there would be a couple of ways
to look at the Letter of Credit cost annually that would reduce the annual
outflow. With interest rates going up that would be a priority for this
Council. This matter would generate a technical discussion and separate
set of decisions that should be addressed in a separate study session.
DCM/DeStefano asked Council if they wished staff to continue pursuing
retail sales tax dollars. Staff has a half a dozen projects on the front burner
including the three hottest projects. Staff is pursuing retail sales tax dollars
to make up for the loss of the State pirating the City's resources, to make
up for the loss of land uses relocating to other cities and increasing
MAY 18, 2004
PAGE 11 CC STUDY SESSION
operational costs over the next couple of years. Staff is pursuing sales tax
dollars, not lifestyle or land uses that may create community but do not
generate revenue. A key issue for staff and consultants is to gain
confirmation from the Council that staff's approach is proper.
C/Huff asked how the City could i
redevelopment agency to affect the
and maximizing tax dollars was the
mechanically proceed?
se its unallocated reserves sans a
goals and if economic development
next discussion, how would the City
Mr. Kosmont responded to C/Huff that the City could still purchase
property, hold it and reuse it. There would need to be a "public purpose"
for the land in order to leverage the result and Council would need to
determine whether the City was buying land to improve roadways, for
instance, improve circulation, or create additional open space. The City
has definite challenges without redevelopment but those challenges are
not insurmountable. The City could acquire property or joint venture with
the County and relocate certain assets such as the golf course for
example, or the City could help developers target retailers and to the
extent that developers were unable to support land costs, help by
providing public improvements or infrastructure parking and such. If Mr.
Lewis could prove that the cost of the project was not supported by the
private sector revenue stream, the City may have to use its money to
elevate the mechanics of the deal in order to produce a long-term sales
tax revenue stream. The City could spend money to help attract tenants
as has been done previously. D.B. is a great location and has vacancies.
The City could target tax -generating tenants and cut a sales tax deal or
tenant improvement deal, or some other mechanism or assist their move
with a reimbursement. Certainly, engaging in partnerships with other cities
and the County that have a redevelopment agency would provide a way
for the City to develop vacant property. The City would need the
appropriate findings to make it happen and just as important, need to
know you would be proceeding in the right direction to achieve the desired
results within a prescribed period of time. The problem with the current
projects, even though the City could find "public purpose", effectuating
them may be a very long-term proposition because of the politics, the
location, environmental considerations, etc. Certainly, the current projects
are easier than the long-term opportunities such as the golf course, Tres
Hermanos and others. However, the City has to start somewhere and it
has the same vehicle for the first charge as for the second. D.B. does not
want to spend a lot of money on a project that might run into a political
brick wall. First, the City needs to have an honest dialogue with itself
about the feasibility of projects and then decide whether D.B. has the
political will to see them through to fruition.
MPT/Herrera felt that staff should pursue tax -generating businesses. In
addition, the City would most likely need to use the bond money for
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 12 CC STUDY SESSION
economic development to ensure the City's future. If the City paid off the
bond it would be out of debt but would then have no leverage to offer
incentives to businesses to locate in D.B. as a tax -generating entity for the
City.
C/O'Connor felt that because the Council Members were the stewards of
the City's money that the City would have to temporarily turn away from
the pursuit of ideal living and put its attention to generating sales tax to
help the City survive. She would rather have a movie theater, cafe's, and
the like, than a Home Depot, but reality charges the City with the pursuit of
economic development.
M/Zirbes said that Mr. Kosmont was absolutely right that the City could
have dollars out for economic development reasons — the money had
been sitting dormant for a year and a half and now D.B. was faced with a
substantial loss in revenue. He also felt that D.B. needed to employ Mr.
Kosmont and other professionals to assist the Council and staff to focus
on and develop a long-term strategy. Until the Council and staff
determined what potential each site could offer and what companies might
be interested in locating on those sites, the City's income potential would
continue to deteriorate. If D.B. intended to utilize the borrowed money it
needed to step up the process and seriously move forward to ensure the
City's fiscal security on a short and long-term basis.
C/Huff pointed out that the Council needed to go through the exercise of
determining what would be acceptable to the community before deciding
how to proceed. In other words, is the income/cost exchange worth the
change in lifestyle? There are amenities that cost the City money such as
the library, that the community wants to improve its lifestyle. Using that
logic it would not be beyond logic to say that creating an entertainment
center with restaurants that all Council Members have heard residents say
they want may produce half the revenue of a big box. One school of
thought would be that a big box would generate more revenue therefore it
would have more value to the City. The other school of thought would be
that for this community an entertainment center with restaurants would
have more intrinsic value. Council looks at its limited resources and
attempts to plug the gaps. Still, other long-term projects have been
identified such as perhaps a golf course, Tres Hermanos, and a portion
along the freeway near Shell Oil. He felt the Council should "keep it all in
balance" because he did not want a strip mall in D.B. This City enjoys a
certain quality of life. There are multi-million dollar homes and most
residents have high valued homes that would continue to be high valued
homes as long as the Council were good stewards of the resources and
land use entrusted to them. Frankly, he was never in favor of a big box as
an entry statement for the City. A few years back the City was marketing
the Calvary Chapel/hospital site as an entertainment center. Maybe a big
box at that site is a good thing, maybe not. However, he believed that the
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 13 CC STUDY SESSION
Council needed to decide whether there was a use that was not
acceptable to the community and if so, is there something else that would
provide some type of revenue stream that was more acceptable to the
residents, and maybe down the road there would need to be a revenue
enhancement but the Council and the community would be happy with
what had been done in the meantime.
Mr. Kosmont felt that the pursuit of retail was good but retailers come and
go. Who the Council brings into the community today may very well not be
here 10 years from now. It is important to shop retail and important to be
careful about which retailers. It is also important to diversify within a retail
base. The world changes and contrary to popular belief some previously
well-established retailers are fighting for their very lives. Bottom-line is that
Council has to make choices as wisely as possible based on the
information available. That is why he proposed that the Council look at this
situation as a portfolio. If the Council started to edify isolated and singular
answers for one site without really understanding the interplay and
timeframe with the other sites D.B. would miss its limited opportunities.
Again, D.B. needs, to be proactive about its future. He hoped that
DCM/DeStefano and the Lewis Company bring back great retailers at the
end of the ICSC trip but ultimately, he hoped that the Council would spend
the time to create the City's future in terms of utilization of sites, priorities
and how the City would spend its money to effectuate the desired result
be it a lifestyle, big box or neighborhood community result. They are all
important and the Council has to put all of the possibilities on the table,
move the pieces around and come to some answers.
CM/Lowry was concerned that for fifteen years the way this City handled
its finances was to each year save a sufficient amount so that it had
freedom to make decisions about how it would spend the money. Now the
City was at a point where it has to decide how it would get the money.
This City had not had to go through that exercise before now. The options
were "how does the City conservatively manage the money it gets." D.B.
had never taxed its citizens. It receives money and the money goes into
the account and the Council decides how to spend the money. The City
acquired money including grant monies for special projects and C1P
projects, but for the day-to-day business, this City never had to ask itself
where it would get the money. She asked the Council to please begin
considering not how the City would spend the money but how the City
would get money. Thinking of the amenities and what people want was
certainly the Council's responsibility but now, the Council's new
responsibility would be to, on top of that, figure out where and how the
City would get its money. The comparison of how people want to shop
versus how can this City have retail that brings it money, are not
necessarily the same consideration. She asked Council to turn their hats
around and start thinking about how to go get the money and be the
breadwinner and no longer be merely an amenity provider.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 14 CC STUDY SESSION
MPT/Herrera felt the Council's direction to staff was to find revenue
generators and still maintain the look of D.B.
DCM/DeStefano explained that theater operators for instance, are not
coming to D.B. to build sites. If Council were interested in more of the
lifestyle generators i.e. theaters, restaurants, etc. and experience for
residents and customers who visit D.B., the City could do that, but it needs
to figure out where it does that. Is Grand Avenue and Golden Springs
Drive the best place to do that? Or, is some other location the best place
to do that? Grand and Golden Springs seems to be the location where the
big box guys want to locate. So, does the City explore that possibility and
capture the big box while maintaining an eye for theaters and lifestyle and
focus on a different location for that. Should we grasp the opportunity that
seems to be presenting itself now on a given site or do we push that
aside, put something else there and hope the big box could be attracted to
a different location in the City? The Calvary Chapel project is the hottest
project the City has going. Staff spent a year and a half working on it and
the project is scheduled for Planning Commission on June 8. The project
is being advertised to the Planning Commission as a big box retail project
next Tuesday. If that is not the direction Council wants to go in for that
location, staff needs to know that now. Some of the land uses that could
generate a lot of money would not necessarily be "glamorous" uses. In
D.B. gas stations are half of the top 15 sales tax producers. This is a
commuter City and it has a lot of cut -through traffic that purchases gas to
and from work. D.B. has gas stations that produce more revenue than do
grocery stores. Gas stations are not very sexy but they generate a lot of
income for a one -acre site. There are a lot of issues that staff needs
assistance with, starting with Grand and Golden Springs.
M/Zirbes felt that Council was supporting staff to continue with the current
project for Grand Avenue and Golden Springs Drive. Whether or not there
is a retailer willing to sign on the dotted remains the question and Council
needs to understand the expectations of companies willing to locate in
D.B., the landowners that are willing to support those businesses and the
Council also needs to have a full understanding of available land
opportunities for now and in the future. Today, D.B. needs to continue
working with the developers who have brought their projects to the City,
work with them on their proposals until the project commences or dies.
DCM/DeStefano stated that another concern about potential retailers is
that while they want to be in D.B. they do not have to be in this City to
capture the D.B. customer. Target is also looking at Grand and Valley.
Walnut did not want Target but Target still wants Walnut and they are
looking at the Majestic property across from the Sheriff's station at Grand
and Valley. The store would be located in Industry and capture clientele
from Walnut and from D.B. Staff's concern is how do we position
ourselves and move effectively now to capture some of those retailers that
MAY 18,, 2004 PAGE 15 CC STUDY SESSION
want to be in this marketplace. Do we want them here or do we want to let
them go someplace else, we will still shop there and that someplace else
would capture the sales tax? Using the retail and theater example, do we
want the theater to go someplace else, probably in Industry behind the
Honda Dealer if it is not in D.B. We travel a quarter mile further to have a
theater and restaurant experience. It goes back to what D.B. wants and
how it wants to position itself on the short-term projects as well as the
others on the list for consideration.
David Lewis, Calvary site developer, stated that he would be moving
forward with his project in front of the Planning Commission next week. He
explained that he was seeking approval for up to 200,000 ft. of commercial
space so that they would have the ability to more easily market it to
retailers. Although the final outcome of who will occupy the space is not
certain he was moving forward with the environmental documents and
specific plan.
C/Huff asked staff to explain offsetting revenue for a big box as opposed
to a lifestyle center.
DCM/DeStefano said the answer would depend on who the retailer is. A
14-16 screen theater would take 80,000 square feet and would generate
between $20,000 and $30,000 a year to the City because there is no
revenue from the $9.00 theater ticket. The only revenue the City receives
is off of the popcorn sales and that type of thing. Kohl's occupies 85,000
square feet and would generate $300,000 to the City. Is Kohl's what D.B.
resident's want or is the theater what residents want? There could be a
huge disparity in revenue depending on which land use occupies the
space.
C/Huff said that by itself, a theater was not a revenue generator for a City
but that they served as magnets to draw people who would spend money
on other things.
DCM/DeStefano pointed out that another consideration was the demand
for space necessary for a revenue -generating product. A 16 -screen
theater needs about 1200 parking spaces, a lot more parking than a
Kohl's of the same physical size would demand. Kohl's would create an
opportunity for a palette of land uses surrounding it that could include
other retail, restaurants and so forth. A theater would do the same thing
but it would be a different mix of retail. Restaurants around a theater may
generate more or less sales tax than restaurants surrounding a Kohl's.
D.B. has a very limited amount of acreage so unless it builds up vertically
it would have a tough time intensifying those sites because the City cannot
build out. Grand and Golden Springs was probably the City's best
opportunity to build up.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 16 CC STUDY SESSION
MPT/Herrera felt that since the City would suffer an $800,000+ loss of
income it could not afford to accept anything less than the biggest revenue
generator that wishes to build on the site.
C/Huff wondered if it would be better to place Home Depot on Site D
freeing up the main entry for a Kohl's or a Target. He would prefer not to
have a Home Depot on Grand Ave. and he would prefer to see an income
asset for the community that would not detract from what the City was
attempting to achieve. He said he did not view Site D or the Kmart location
as having the limitations of the Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Dr. site.
DCM/DeStefano stated that in some City's the physical appearance of
Home Depot is deplorable and some cities' Home Depot's are assets to
the shopping center. The Brea Home Depot is gorgeous, for instance. The
Brea Home Depot is well kept and. it is not a big box with an orange stripe.
Some cities have been able to condition restrictions that obviously keep
the retailer interested in the City. Home Depot elsewhere in D.B. could be
Site D or the Kmart site. Some land uses may not be appropriate at a
given location and are they appropriate in the City at all?
C/Huff said if no one other than Home Depot was willing to locate in D.B.
he would not say No, but his preference would be to have a different type
of use at Grand and Golden Springs.
M/Zirbes said he wanted to move forward. Even if the developer brought
forth an entertainment venue for the site he felt there was a way to
produce revenue from the residential component to help cover some of
the City's short-term losses, move the big box retailers to Site D, probably
the best result getting the big retailers off of one of the City's biggest
intersections by taking their traffic to an area that would not be as greatly
impacted, begin to look at other. opportunities for pursuing Kohl's, Home
Depot, Target and ways to use the economic development capital to
displace Kmart with a retailer that would create new energy with a revenue
generator. To think that the City's only two sites are Grand/Golden Springs
and Site D is short-sighted. Would he stand in the way of moving forward?
No. With an understanding of the City's budget shortfalls, it would be a
serious consideration but that is not the only option open to D.B. and in his
opinion, all options should be considered as quickly as possible.
CM/Lowry focused on M/Zirbes comment regarding the residential
development. Unless there was some kind of particular agreement with
the developer, residential developments would cost the City money. If
Council was looking for the housing portion to help balance what the
Council might want to change in terms of the highest possible retail sales
tax, there were two different approaches — whether the Council would be
looking for the developer to tack on additional costs to the purchase price
of the units giving the City a one-time check or, guaranteeing a revenue
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 17 CC STUDY SESSION
stream to make up for the sales tax shortfall by assessing the properties
an annual assessment. Would either of those options, if offered, be
acceptable to the City Council?
M/Zirbes was okay with the first option. When Council initially negotiated
with SunCal on the Pulte property and then considered its second course
of negotiations the City was able to capture a lot premium on each of the
120 lots offered that gave the City an opportunity to offset the short-term
shortfalls and consider the potential for revenue generators moving onto
other sites. And he felt there were a lot of strategies to consider.
C/Hutf spoke about the hospital site proposal and its iterations. Originally,
25 percent was dedicated to housing, then it was increased to 50 percent
housing and then to 75 percent housing and now it is 100 percent
housing. He had no problem with an office building on the site and that
disappeared. From that standpoint he recognized the difficulties with the
site and why it has remained vacant. He felt that rather than a one-time
deal if there was housing located at the top of the property to the extent
that it was currently proposed, there should be an income stream to the
City because that eliminates future tax -generation possibilities. Nobody
wants a Home Depot but we'll take a Home Depot if it gives the City
income. Well, if there's 100 percent housing up there we'll take housing if
there's an income stream. Such development practice is commonplace.
Mr. Lewis agreed that it would provide a more reliable income stream
because it would come from someone's home instead of risky retail.
DCM/DeStefano pointed out that the City would be making the annual
assessment and would conduct public hearings on the matter.
C/Huff stated that purchasers would know up front that there was an
annual assessment, not something imposed after the fact.
M/Zirbes pointed out that the Council should consider whether to take a
10 -year up -front tack -on for each residence to cover the short-term
shortfall and use the money to invest back into other economic
development activities or, take an annual assessment over the long-term.
CM/Lowry stated that if building the housing units allowed the developer to
engage commercial that would make it economically feasible for him to
build, and if the City received revenue from those residential units it would
take the heat off of the Council to put in big boxes that were believed to be
incompatible with the community.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 18 CC STUDY SESSION
Public Comments on Study Session Agenda Items:
Clyde Hennessee said this was one of the best meetings he had attended
in several years and the first time he heard a substantial discussion of
putting a revenue generator in the City. He felt the Council should use the
bond money to generate more money and plan for the long-term.
ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the
City Council, M/Zirbes adjourned the Study Session to the regular meeting
at 6:34 p.m.
i
4
Linda C. Lowry, City Cie
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this i st day of June ,
2004.
BO�RBES, Mayor
MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
MAY 18, 2004
STUDY SESSION: Mayor Zirbes called the Study Session to order at
4:06 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 Huff, O'Connor, Mayor Pro Tem
Herrera and Mayor Zirbes. Council Member Chang was excused.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Mike Jenkins, City
Attorney; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City
Manager; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works
Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Dennis Tarango; April Blakey, Public
Information Manager; Teresa Arevalo, Sr. Mgmnt.. Analyst; Sharon Gomez; Sr.
Admin. Mgmnt.; John Bingham, Consultant; Capt. Ron Watson, L.A. County Fire
Department; and, Tommye Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
► Background Discussion of Agenda Items 8.2a and 8.2b (Speed
Humps)
► Natural Hazard Mitigation Update
► Reorganization of the Industry East Committee to address the
Industry Business Center Development
IN. FY 2004-05 Budget: General Fund and CIP (First Draft)
No. Economic Development Update — Kosmont and Associates
► Public Comments on Study Session Agenda Items
M/Zirbes recessed the Study Session at 6:34 p.m
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Zirbes called the regular City Council
meeting to order at 6:46 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAOMD Auditorium,
21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
M/Zirbes reported that during the 4:00 p.m. Study Session, Council received an
update on the natural Hazard Mitigation report, discussed possible reorganization of
the Industry East Committee to address the proposed Business Center
Development; visited a first draft of the FY 2004-05 Budget and received an
Economic Development Strategies and Updates report. The Council took no
reportable action.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Boy Scout Troop 777 led the Pledge of Allegiance
and Posted the Colors.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
INVOCATION: Darlene Jones, Pastor, Outreach Diamond
Canyon Christian Church, gave the invocation.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Huff, O'Connor, Mayor
Pro Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes. Council Member Chang was excused.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Mike Jenkins, City
Attorney; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James DeStefano, Deputy City
Manager; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; David Liu, Public Works
Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director: April Blakey, Public Information
Manager; and Tommy Cribbins, Deputy City Clerk.
APPROVAL OF AGENDA: Approved as presented.
1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS:
1.1 CSD/Rose introduced Bryan Petroff, Parks and Maintenance
Supervisor for the Diamond Bar Center.
1.2 M/Zirbes proclaimed the week of May 16-22,2004 as "National Public
Works Week." The Public Works Staff was introduced; a brief
presentation by Staff was given, after which DPW/Liu accepted the
Proclamation.
CM/Lowry expressed her appreciation of the City's Public Works staff
and said that in her 25 years of working with local governments, this
was the finest Public Works Department she had ever had the
pleasure to work with.
1.3 C/Huff proclaimed the week of May 16-22, 2004 as "World Trade
Week." Moises Cisneros, Intl. Trade Manager with the L.A. Area
Chamber of Commerce accepted the Proclamation.
1.4 C/O/'Connor proclaimed the week of May 16-22, 2004 as "Taiwanese
Heritage Week." Cindy Liu accepted the Proclamation.
1.5 MPT/Herrera proclaimed the month of May 2004 as "Older Americans
Month." She asked all the members of the various Senior Clubs
represented to come up, as well as anyone else wishing to come up.
NEW BUSINESS RECOGNITION:
1.6 M/Zirbes presented Certificate Plaque to Yolanda and Randy Bender,
owner of Dream Dinners.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Cont'd:
1.7 Presentation by Friends of the Diamond Bar Library on "Read
Together Diamond Bar," Festival of Authors and Make a Difference
Day, October 23, 2004. The presentation was given by Nancy Lyons,
Marsha Hawkins and Kathleen Newe all representing the Friends of
the Library organization.
Marsha Hawkins stated that this year's book will be "Pay if Forward""
by Catherine Ryan Hyde. Other books included the Giving Tree and
the Secret Garden.
Kathleen Newe — stated that this year the 5k Run would be held
September 26t"'. She then went on to speak about other events
planned, such as: the Read-a-Thon; Festival of Authors, Oct. 23`d at
the D.B. Center; and, end with "Make A Difference Day."
Nancy Lyons — Offered suggestion as to how the City might participate
in the month long event. Giving such ideas as: scheduling a press
conference, proclaiming the month of October as "Read a Book
Month'; publicize the events on the local channel and City newsletter,
to name a few. She went on to suggest that the City might want to
appoint a City Liasion to the Committee.
2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: CM/Lowry
asked DCM/DeStefano to report on actions taken by the City since City
Council's adoption last month of an interim ordinance dealing with the
approval of second units and guesthouses.
DCM/DeStefano reported that the California Government Code allowed local
cities to adopt interim development standards in order to react to a particular
land use pattern, development or standard that was problematic to local
cities. Government Code §65858 permits such adoption of interim
ordinances. Council took such action on April 20 in response to a growing
concern regarding the size of guesthouses and second dwelling units in the
City by adopting an interim ordinance that reduced the maximum size from
1200 square feet to 500 square feet. The interim ordinance was scheduled to
be retired on June 4 unless extended by the City Council in accordance with
the Government Code. Since adoption of the ordinance, staff began to
analyze impacts and issues regarding second dwelling units and
guesthouses and how those products might impact City services i.e.
infrastructure, sewer, water, recreation etc. Staff examined the potential
inconsistency of the City Code standard of 1200 square feet compared with
new state regulations now being considered by the State Legislature. Staff
initiated efforts to consider specific size amendments that would move to the
Planning Commission and City Council in the form of zoning code
amendments. Staff contacted other cities to determine how they dealt with
this issue within their communities. Staff was reviewing and determining that
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
changes to the D.B. ordinance beyond those represented in the interim
measure should be contemplated by the City Council later this year and, that
the preparation of new Development Code Standards would set forth
appropriate guidelines for the long-term development and physical character
of the City. Due to the timing of developing such changes, public notices
required for Public Hearings, Planning Commission and City Council review,
staff believed that additional time would be required to complete the study
and conclusion of these issues. Therefore, staff planned to recommend to the
City Council at its June 1 meeting the extension of the interim ordinance for
an additional 10 months and 15 days, the state law permitted maximum, or
until such time as a new ordinance was adopted by the City Council.
3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Peggy Laine, Library Technician, Maple Hill
Elementary School, stated that the Diamond Bar Library had been very
supportive of her school's programs and believed it was very important that
the library keep up with the children's needs by offering computer
accessibility and continuing their book purchasing program.
Karen Imperial, teacher, Maple Hill Elementary School, felt it was important
for the children to have access to computers, more work space and updated
materials to support their educational process.
Nancy Lyons encouraged residents to join with her in writing letters in support
of the City's application for a California Library Bond. She assured everyone
that this was not a new tax for residents, rather an effort to retrieve some of
the City's money back from Sacramento. If successful, D.B. would use the
bond proceeds to build a beautiful new library at Summitridge Park adjacent
to the Diamond Bar Center. The Friends of the Library were joining with other
parties to collect letters of support for this project. Currently, the Friends have
about 500 letters and would like to have a total of 1000 letters in the next few
weeks. She read excerpts from some of the letters and advised residents that
they could send their letter via fax or email or, type or handwrite the letter and
deliver it to the library or Basically Books bookstore.
Mary Matson felt that one of the best ways to provide revenue and
information about businesses in the City was for the City to administer
business licenses and collect the fees. She attended tonight's study session
and agreed with the discussion about bringing big business to D.B. She
preferred big business to more housing developments.
Clyde Hennessee said that tonight's study session was one of the best he
had attended because there was serious discussion about generating
revenue for the City.
4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS:
M/Zirbes reminded residents that the Council's Library Task Force had held
two meetings. The next meeting was slated for June 14 at the Diamond Bar
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
Library at 6:30 p.m. and that residents were encouraged to attend.
5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS:
5.1 COMMUNITY FOUNDATION MEETING — May 20, 2004 — 7:00 p.m.,
Room CC -8, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.2 PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING -- May 25, 2004 — 7:00 p.m.,
Auditorium, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
5.3 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MEETING — May 27,
2004 — 7:00 p.m., Hearing Board Room, AQMD/Government Center,
21865 Copley Dr.
5.4 MEMORIAL HOLIDAY — City Offices will be closed, Monday, May 31,
2004 in observance of Memorial Day. City Offices will re -open on
Tuesday, June 1, 2004.
5.5 CITY COUNCIL MEETING — June 1, 2004 — 6:30 p.m., Auditorium,
AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr.
6. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPT/Herrera moved, C/Huff seconded to
approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 6.7. Motion carried
by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
6.1 City Council Minutes:
Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera
M/Zirbes
None
Chang
6.1.1 Approved Regular Meeting Minutes of March 16, 2004 — as
submitted.
6.1.2 Approved Study Session Minutes of April 20, 2004 — as
submitted.
6.1.3 Approved Regular Meeting Minutes of April 20, 2004 — as
submitted.
6.1.4 Approved Study Session Minutes of May 4, 2004 — as
submitted.
6.1.5 Approved Regular Meeting of May 4, 2004 — as submitted.
6.2 Planning Commission Minutes:
6.2.1 Received and Filed Study Session Minutes of April 27, 2004.
6.2.2 Received and Filed Regular Meeting Minutes of April 27, 2004.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
6.3 Parks and Recreation Commission Minutes:
6.3.1 Received and Filed Regular Meeting Minutes of March 25,
2004.
6.3.2 Received and Filed Special meeting Minutes of April 8, 2004.
6.4 APPROVED WARRANT REGISTERS dated May 6, 2004 and May
13, 2004 for a total amount of $816,719.81.
6.5 REJECTED CLAIM FOR DAMAGES — filed by Charm Park on April
16, 2004.
6.6 APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARDED
CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR FY 2003-04 CDBG SIDEWALK
INSTALLATION PROJECT TO DYE AND BROWNING, INC. IN THE
AMOUNT OF $69,526.12 AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY
AMOUNT OF $14,000 FOR PROJECT CHANGE ORDERS, TO BE
APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR A TOTAL
AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $83,526.12.
6.8 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2003-60B AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 2003-60A REVISING THE POLICIES AND FEES FOR THE USE
OF THE DIAMOND BAR CENTER.
6.9 ADOPTED REPORT FROM THE SPORTS COMPLEX TASK
FORCE.
6.10 ADOPTED RESOLUTION 2004-19 OPPOSING CALIFORNIA STATE
SENATE BILL 744(DUNN) PLANNING AND HOUSING WHICH
WOULD BROADEN THE AUTHORITY OF THE CALIFORNIA
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
TO OVERTURN LOCAL LAND USE DECISIONS.
6.11 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-20 SUPPORTING THE LEAGUE
OF CALIFORNIA CITIES' AND LOCAL COALITION'S FY05-FY06
BUDGET COMPROMISE WITH GOVERNOR ARNOLD
SCHWARZENEGGER.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM CONSENT CALENDAR:
6.7 APPROPRIATE $26,250 FROM UNAPPROPRIATED PROP C FUND
BALANCE, APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT NO. 1 WITH
ADVANTEC CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR CITYWIDE TRAFFIC
SIGNAL TIMING PROJECT FOR AN ADDITIONAL TWO YEARS IN
THE AMOUNT OF $24,500, AND AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY
AMOUNT OF $1,750 FOR CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED
BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION
AMOUNT OF $26,250.
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
C/O'Connor said she understood that the data supplied by the vendor
proved commuter traffic flow improvement. However, she and other
residents had grown frustrated about getting out of neighborhoods
and onto main thoroughfares and were seeking ways to avoid the
traffic signals. It was frustrating to wait at a stop light with no
oncoming traffic. She wanted to be sure that Advantec was more
concerned about the residents' ability to traverse the City than
commuter traffic.
C/Huff moved, MPT/Herrera seconded, to approve Consent Calendar
Item 6.7. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera
M/Zi rbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None
8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION:
8.1 CONSIDERATION OF CITY EQUIPMENT RENTAL POLICY FOR
COMMUNITY NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS AND
GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES.
CSD/Rose reported that community non-profit organizations and other
governmental agencies frequently request to borrow the City's
equipment. These items include canopies, performance stage, PA
system and different carnival type games. Staff seeks a policy to
ensure that the equipment is available to D.B. organizations to assist
with their events in a consistent and fair manner. The proposal
establishes fees for use of the City's equipment i.e. $40 for canopies,
$10 per carnival game, $300 for stage including delivery and
setup/takedown and $50 for use of the portable PA system.
Additionally, the policy requires payment of a refundable security
deposit and lists the replacement for each piece of equipment should
it be damaged, lost or stolen. The proposed fee is intended to cover
costs related to staff's time required to check out and check in the
borrowed equipment and to reimburse the City for normal wear and
tear of the equipment. The Parks and Recreation Commission
recommended Council adoption of the policy.
C/Huff suggested the City increase the deposit and rental rate for the
PA System to more appropriately track with its value.
CSD/Rose explained that the fees were geared toward staff's
involvement time and that the user was required to present a credit
card at the time of checkout should the equipment be damaged. If the
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
equipment were damaged, the organization would be required to
repair or replace the equipment.
C/Huff asked if staff had researched the rental fee for a portable PA
System of this nature?
CSD/Rose responded, No, that only staff time was considered.
C/Huff suggested the rental rate should be slightly higher for the PA
System.
MPT/Herrera agreed with C/Huff to upwardly adjust the rental fee for
the PA system.
No member of the public wished to speak on the matter.
M/Zirbes moved, C/Huff seconded, to adopt the City Equipment
Rental Policy for Community Non -Profit Organizations and
Governmental Agencies with an amendment to seek input from the
open market about rental fees for the type of the PA System owned by
the City with the intent of increasing the rental amount.
M/Zirbes amended his motion to increase the deposit to $500 and
leave the rental amount at $50 for the PA System. C/Huff seconded
the amended motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera
M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang
8.2 (a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-21 APPROVING
INSTALLATION OF SPEED HUMPS AT 636/644 GREAT BEND
DRIVE, 547/553 GREAT BEND DRIVE, 23309123315 GOLD RUSH
DRIVE AND 23409123415 GOLD RUSH DRIVE.
PWD/Liu reported that in September 2003 the Great Bend Dr. and
Gold Rush Dr. neighborhoods submitted neighborhood petitions and
signatures were verified with 92 percent of residents living in the
affected area between Diamond Bar Blvd. and Stirrup Dr.
Subsequently, the Traffic and Transportation Commission received
staff's report and recommendation for installation on March 11. In lieu
of staff's recommendation, the Commission recommended that the
City Council increase enforcement and implement an educational
program. In order to solicit additional input from the affected residents,
staff conducted another neighborhood meeting on April 21 with 15
residents attending. At the conclusion of the meeting the residents
agreed to move forward with the speed hump installation. In April staff
conducted yet another traffic survey that resulted in the following:
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
Area 1 (near the 600 block of the Great Bend Dr. neighborhood) — 522
out of 712 vehicles exceeded the 25 mph speed limit and 72 vehicles
exceeded 40 mph speed with a maximum speed of 51 mph. Area 2
(near 525 Great Bend Dr.) — Almost 500 of the 677 vehicles exceeded
the 25 mph speed limit and 87 of those vehicles exceeded the 40 mph
speed with a maximum speed of 48 mph. Area 3 (near 23321 and
23327 Gold Rush Dr.) - 557 of 705 vehicles exceed the 25 mph speed
and 70 vehicles exceeded the 40 mph speed with a maximum speed
of 44 mph. Area 4 (23421 Gold Rush Dr.) 612 of 677 exceeded 25
mph with 58 vehicles exceeding 40 mph and a maximum speed of 48
mph. Enforcement efforts have not slowed the traffic and staff
concluded that the objective and quantitative criteria adopted by the
City Council was meant in these instances and recommended and
supported speed humps for these neighborhoods.
No member of the public wished to speak on the matter.
C/O'Connor felt that if neighborhood residents would slow down and
drive within the speed limit the City would not have to install speed
humps.
C/Huff moved, MPT/Herrera seconded, to adopt staff's
recommendations for installation of speed humps at the
aforementioned locations. Motion carried by the following Roll Call
vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera
M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang
(b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2004-22 AMENDING RESOLUTION
NO. 2002-56, A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF DIAMOND BAR ADOPTING THE SPEED HUMP POLICY.
CM/Lowry explained that the amendment was recommended to
remove the Traffic and Transportation from its obligation of reviewing
potential installations.
No member of the public wished to speak on this item.
MPT/Herrera moved, C/O'Connor seconded, to adopt Resolution No.
2004-22 amending Resolution No. 2002-56, a Resolution of the City
Council of the City of Diamond Bar adopting the Speed Hump Policy.
C/Huff asked that the maker of the motion consider an amendment to
the policy; that residents, after hearing all of the facts, have an
opportunity to withdraw their signatures from the petition. If in so
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
doing, the removal lowers the approval threshold, there would be no
speed hump installation authorized. MPT/Herrera and C/O'Connor
accepted the amendment and the motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Huff, O'Connor, MPT/Herrera
M2irbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang
9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTSICOUNCIL MEMBERS
COMMENTS:
C/O'Connor asked residents to provide her with their input regarding goals for
the City in the coming fiscal year. During the past two weeks she attended
the Pomona Unified School District's Award Day during which a plaque was
presented to the City for the award of computers to the District. She and
C/Huff attended the League of Cities Legislative Day. The League acquired
sufficient signatures to place an initiative on the ballot to deal with local
revenues that would place a two year ceiling on the raid of cities' monies.
She and staff members met with library contacts to discuss the library bond
application. As a speaker pointed out, letters are extremely helpful and they
could be turned it to the library or City Hall for delivery to Sacramento. The
Youth Master Plan Stakeholders Steering Committee met last week.
Attendance dwindles but the input continues to be excellent. The steering
Committee is awaiting completion of the Search Institute survey that they
hoped would be forthcoming priorto the end of the school year. The Sheriff's
Department and Fire Department held open houses last weekend and
displayed their equipment.
C/Huff attended the annual Foothill Transit Meeting on May 5. He stepped
down from his position of Executive Board President and Dick Stanford from
the City of Azusa was installed as President. While in Sacramento Foothill
Transit, San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments, Alameda Corridor East
Construction Authority and Blueline Construction Authority co-sponsored a
Legislative Appreciation Dinner over which he presided as President of COG.
It was a good event that assisted in projecting the San Gabriel Valley's (32
cities) legislative clout because in an era of cutbacks to infrastructure and
transportation it was imperative to stress the need to move forward. He
represented the Council and made a presentation on Sunday in the City of
Monterey Park for a Taiwanese celebration that drew a host of people. He
said the community appreciated their influence on the economy.
MPT/Herrera spoke about tonight's study session involving the 2004/05
Fiscal Year budget stating that the City faced significant shortages to the
tune of $400,000 that the State would not be sending to the City. In addition,
the City's two largest sales tax producers would be moving out of D.B. and
the Council had serious decisions to make in the immediate future about how
MAY 18, 2004 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
it would spent its money. During the past 15 years the City prided itself on its
conservative approach and it would be quite a challenge for the Council to
think outside the box. The main objective was to bring large sales tax
producing businesses to D.B. so that the City could continue to provide
programs and services the citizens had grown to appreciate and that the
Council wished to continue providing.
M/Zirbes reported that each Council Member had been busy during the past
two weeks. He chaired the recent Library Task Force meetings, attended the
Neighborhood Improvement meeting, and Chamber of Commerce
subcommittee meeting on Economic Development. With all that the Council
had to do, there were new challenges to meet with the State budget
problems and the trickle-down effect on D.B. as well as the loss of two major
sales tax producers. The good news was that the City had potential
developments on the table and whether those would replace imminent
financial losses was yet to be determined. Regardless, the City would
continue to provide the good service the citizens had learned to expect.
There may not, however, be many major capital improvement projects
coming forward in the next couple of years but the City was focused on
researching economic strategies and looked forward to resolving issues in
the short, mid and long-term to secure the future of D.B. He thanked all who
called, emailed and sent cards to his wife on the loss of her father. He
thanked everyone for tuning in and for their support and encouraged them to
contact City Council Members with any concerns.
10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M;Zirbes
adjourned the meeting at 8:17 p.m. �1
Lf DA C. LOWRY, CITY CLERK
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 1st day of June
2004.
BOB ZIRBES, MAYOR