HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/29/2004 Minutes - Adjourned Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL
ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR
JUNE 29, 2004
CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Zirbes called the Adjourned Regular City
Council meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD
Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Zirbes led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Huff, O'Connor, Mayor
Pro Tem Herrera and Mayor Zirbes.
Staff Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Greg Kovacevich,
Assistant City Attorney; David Doyle, Deputy City Manager; James DeStefano,
Deputy City Manager; avid Liu, Public Works Director and Tommye Cribbins,
Assistant City Clerk.
2, PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered.
3. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None
4. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
CM/Lowry stated that tonight's Public Hearing was for one item requiring five
separate Council actions and that following staff's presentation it would be
appropriate for Council to receive public comments related to the public
hearing item prior to Council consideration of each of the five action items.
DCM/DeStefano reported that the Public Hearing consists of several items
pertaining to the proposed "Diamond Bar Village" (DBV) project. Council is
being asked to consider a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Adoption
of a Specific Plan, Approval of a Development Agreement and Approval of
the Environmental Determination for the project.
DCM/DeStefano explained that the project consists of about 70 -acres located
at the southeast corner of Grand Ave. and Golden Springs Dr. and involves
six parcels: 1) property located at the immediate corner of Grand Ave. and
Golden Springs Dr. owned by Hidden Manna and operating as Calvary
Chapel Golden Springs and 2) the property east of the Calvary Chapel site
and elevated approximately 80 ft. up Grand Ave. south of Golden Springs Dr.
owned by Inter -Community Health Services. For several years the City had
worked with the property owners toward a mutually beneficial development
and about a year ago Lewis -Diamond Bar LLC came to D.B. with a proposed
project to implement many of the City's goals. The first component of the
project was General Plan Amendment 2004-01 that would effect a General
Plan designation from Planning Area -3, Professional Office to Planning Area -
3 and reclassification of a 14 -acre piece on Grand Ave. to High Density
Residential. The second component is Zone Change No. 2004-02 requesting
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL
a change of the zone from the site's existing Commercial-
Manufacturing/Planned Development Zone C-3 and High Density Residential
R-4 to Specific Plan (SP). He explained that the R-4 designation was
inappropriate for the area because the hillside was Map and Deed restricted
from development and in fact the hillside was not included in the proposal
now before the Council. The third component regarding the existing Calvary
Chapel property was designated as Commercial/Manufacturing and would be
reclassified Commercial. In short all of the designations would be a subset to
the Specific Plan designation proposed for the site.
DCM/DeStefano stated that the City's General Plan called for a Specific Plan
for this portion of D.B. and the Zoning Ordinance allows the creation of a
Specific Plan and discusses changes of zone classifications to Specific Plan
for areas meeting the General Plan requirements. The proposed project
incorporated a Specific Plan tool that was identified. The Specific Plan would
create four sub -areas to incorporate residential, office, retail, institutional and
open space land uses and would incorporate development standards for the
71 -acre mixed-use site as identified on the graphic included in the packet.
Sub Area 1 — generally the Calvary Chapel property; Sub Area 2 — generally
the flat portion of the Inter -Community Health Services property; Sub Area 3
— the Inter -Community Health Services property closest to Grand Ave. and
Sub Area 4 — the hillside area between Montefino and the project site. The
commercial area is comprised of about 31 acres; the High Density
Residential area — about 11 1/2 acres or, more than 14 acres, and 25 acres of
Open Space. The Specific Plan was prepared in accordance with State Law
and Local Codes and Ordinances and is required to detail a circulation plan.
As detailed on the graphics, the property proposes accesses from Grand
Avec via the existing access point as well as two new access points. The
current entry would be located closer to Golden Springs Dr. New access
points would be created on Grand Ave. at the Diamond Bar Villa condo signal
with a left -turn pocket for left -turn access and at the most easterly point on
the site. Two driveways exist along Golden Springs Dr. The driveway closest
to Grand Ave. would be relocated somewhat closer to Grand Ave. and
signalized and both Golden Springs and Grand Ave. would be widened in the
area of the signals to allow for smoother traffic movement. The second
driveway would remain intact.
DCM/DeStefano further stated that the almost 31 -acre Sub Area 1 would
consist of retail/commercial uses — restaurants, ancillary retail to the large
anchor retail and church expansion. Sub Area 2 proposed a maximum of 200
dwelling units on 11 1/2 acres. The Specific Plan option allows for construction
of either a 50,000 square ft. office building within Planning Area 3 or
expansion of the High Density Residential on Sub Area 2. Should the
developer choose to expand the condominium project the overall number of
dwelling units would not exceed 200. Sub Area 4 would remain undeveloped.
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL
DCM/DeStefano showed schematic examples of intended uses. Site planning
for Area 1 — Retail, included the large anchor (approximately 135-140,000
square ft.), a proposed freestanding full-service restaurant, a retail
development (small in-line or one or two larger retailers), in-line and larger
retail, coffee shop/bookstore and 50,000 square foot sanctuary for Calvary
Chapel, and a proposed parking structure between the existing Calvary
Chapel building and the future anchor retail. Details of the project would
come before the Planning Commission and City Council for discretionary
action at a later time. Council is being asked to approve only the concent for
the Specific Plan. DCM/DeStefano presented a graphic depicting the type of
architectural design detail contemplated by the architectural team
representative of products they had produced in other cities.
DCM/DeStefano said that the Residential component in Sub Area 2 was
proposed to spread the maximum 200 dwelling units over the entire 14 -acre
site consisting of 10 dwelling units within each of 20 buildings. The residential
component would require a subdivision tract map to be approved by the
Planning Commission with final approval by the City Council. The units
ranged from two to four bedrooms with the overall majority being two
bedrooms with three and four bedrooms as ancillary components. Each
component had a two -car garage and the entire 200 -unit project proposed to
include a total of 540 parking spaces. The units would range in size from
about 1270 to about 2050 square feet.
DCM/DeStefano reported that the entitlement package incorporated a
Development Agreement, a tool permitted by State Law and used by
developers for major developments. It was a negotiated agreement between
the developer and the City and established vesting of rights to the developer
in exchange for public benefits to the City. A developer often looked for some
level of certainty in the development process due to the millions of dollars
involved. In exchange for the security granted the developer, the City would
receive assurances through agreed upon conditions and the developerwould
pay for direct traffic mitigation as well as area -wide traffic impacts. In
addition, the developer would provide the City with park fees estimated to be
about $435,000. Also, the developer would pay a $10,000 per -dwelling unit
fee for the right to construct the units for a total of $2 million to be used for
municipal purposes. There was also a guarantee in the Development
Agreement that the retail development would take place and if it did not
occur, a penalty would be imposed through the agreement. DCM/DeStefano
explained that this project offered D.B. the opportunity to capture sales tax
leakage, an opportunity that had been a principle consideration of the City's
economic strategy during recent years. As a condition of the Development
Agreement the developer is obligated to establish a Letter of Credit in the
amount of $2 million and commence construction of the retail portion of the
development by June 1, 2005. Finally, the Agreement calls out an April 2006
date for the City to draw down on the Letter of Credit at the rate of about
$42,000 per month (about $500,000 per year), the anticipated sales tax
revenue that would be generated by the commercial development within Sub
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL
Area 1. He emphasized that it was not the City's intent to cash in the Letter of
Credit - it was the City's intent to move forward with the project in a timely
fashion.
DCM/DeStefano reported that the Environmental Document took an
exhaustive view of the proposed site and proposed City Council adoption of
what the Environmental Quality Act terms an "addendum" to the previously
certified Medical Plaza's EIR and Economic Revitalization Area EIR together
with a recently concluded environmental analysis of the site. The current
traffic study analysis indicates that the total number of trips that would
emanate to and from this location were less than anticipated by the prior
EIRs. The study of flora and fauna resulted in no habitat for protected
species.
DCM/DeStefano reported that tonight's meeting is a noticed Public Hearing
with notices provided on-site, on display boards throughout the City including
notices to all property owners within 700 ft. of the 71 -acre site resulting in
excess of 900 notices. In addition to the formal required notices the project
has been discussed over time in the City's monthly news publication
including a front-page story in the July edition, in prior City newsletters,
Mayor's State of the City speeches, Weekly News and other publications
from time to time. The Planning Commission considered this project on June
22, 2004 and upon conclusion of the Public Hearing with the same number of
notices received positive public comments from three public speakers. The
Planning Commissioners asked good questions of the developer and staff,
read the material provided to them and unanimously approved two
resolutions forwarding the materials package to the City Council for
consideration.
DCM/DeStefano stated that staff's recommendation was that the City Council
conduct a Public Hearing and upon its conclusion take action to approve the
Addendum Resolution, the General Plan Resolution, the Zone Change
Ordinance, Specific Plan Ordinance and the Development Agreement
Ordinance in that order.
C/O'Connor asked how long the Development Agreement would exist to
which DCM/DeStefano responded it was for a five-year term, a relatively
short term that worked in the City's best interest to have the developer
complete the project within that timeframe. If for instance the residential
project was not completed within the five-year period new fees could be
applied to the remaining residential dwelling units that had not yet been
constructed.
MPT/Herrera asked for confirmation that the flora on the slope would remain
untouched.
DCM/DeStefano pointed out that the area between the Montefino
condominium complex and the flat portion of the Inter -Community Health
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL
Services property would remain untouched. The area between the flat Inter -
Community Health Services property and the Calvary Chapel property would
be touched with driveway, parking and heavy landscaping. The area between
the existing sanctuary and the southerly property line would be modified to
increase the width and location of the driveway permitting access to the
parking lot behind the sanctuary building. The 26 -acre majority of the site that
has Open Space and native landscaping would not be touched by this
proposal.
M/Zirbes asked DCM/DeStefano to share what had occurred over time with
the hospital site -- how long the property had been on the market, how many
times it had been in escrow and how utilizing the parcel would assist the City
in fulfilling the City's desire for commercial on the site below the hospital site.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the upper pad (the Inter -Community Health
Services property) was originally proposed to be a hospital. However, Inter -
Community Health Services chose not to construct an approved hospital for
business reasons. Inter -Community decided to dispose of the property and
there were a number of attempts to develop the site with office uses and
retail and entertainment to no avail. During the mid 90's there was interest in
retail expansion, entertainment theaters, etc. but at that point the theater
industry collapsed. Recently, D.B. and Lewis -Diamond Bar LLC brought
together an interest in constructing a residential property on the Inter -
Community property as well as a retail project in combination with the
church's vision to expand their property. D.B. was approached to build a
residential project on the upper portion. D.B. said it would not consider such
a proposal without some possibility of retail development on the corner.
During this year, the time was right for all interested parties to combine their
efforts to present the current project.
M/Zirbes asked if in today's economic climate would a commercial
development such as had been proposed for the Calvary Chapel site be
economically feasible absent the residential component?
DCM/DeStefano said he understood the negotiations between the developer
and Calvary Chapel with the combination of land uses provided the best
solution to make this project economically feasible. The retail portion of the
project was burden by the need for replacement parking for the church and
other contributions toward the church. Without sufficient parking for the retail
and for the church independent of one another this site would not work. The
costs associated with creating the replacement parking, responding to the
church's requirements as well as the sales price made the bottom portion of
this 71 -acre site modestly beneficial if not detrimental while the upper portion
provided the developer with the greatest opportunity to receive adequate
rates of return on investment.
C/Huff asked DCM/DeStefano to relate the amount of traffic generated by the
200 residents as opposed to what was approved for the hospital use.
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL
DCM/DeStefano explained that the hospital was proposed to be a 400-
425,000 square foot facility estimated to generate about 10,500 trips per day
and that the 200 residential dwelling unit project was estimated to generate
about 1800 trips per day, significantly less volume of traffic over the
previously proposed hospital use.
David Lewis, Lewis Operation Corporation and Managing Member of D.B.-
Lewis LLC, 1156 Mountain Avenue, Upland, thanked the Council for their
consideration. He explained that Lewis had worked diligently with staff and a
host of consultants to propose what he felt was an excellent project. He
introduced Rich Barretto from Linscott, Law and Greenspan, his traffic
consult as well as the City of Industry's traffic consultant for the Industry
Business Park and Industry Business Park East. He also introduced Jennifer
Hernandez from Beveridge & Diamond who prepared the project's
environmental analysis. He stated that Beveridge & Diamond played an
active role in the environmental analysis of the Port of Long Beach and their
client list included Boeing and the City of Hercules and that Jennifer
Hernandez was highly regarded in her field. Additionally, Glen Pierce from
Pierce Cooley, the architect for the retail portion of the project was present
tonight. Also representing Lewis was Walt Mitchell who recently completed
oversight of a Home Depot and was commencing a Target retail outlet at
Limonite and the SR 15 in Mira Loma. He stated that his consultants would
answer any questions that Council might have.
M/Zirbes asked Mr. Lewis if he concurred with the conditions of approval. Mr.
Lewis responded that his company spent a considerable amount of time
studying the conditions and worked very closely with staff to conclude the
mutually beneficial agreement.
MPT/Herrera felt that a lot of residents were curious and concerned about the
EIR process and would expect a new EIR to be prepared for this project. She
asked for clarification as to why an addendum would be adequate in place of
a new EIR document.
Jennifer Hernandez explained that the CEQA process was designed to
require EIR's at certain levels. The EIR that was done for the City's General
Plan was the broad document that covered the entirety of the City. This EIR
was a site-specific EIR and Medical Plaza EIR that covered in great detail all
kinds of issues associated with this site. Once an EIR was prepared and
certified for a site the presumption was that it should suffice unless there was
something new defined in terms of environmental impacts that were
significant. The point of CEQA was that decision -makers and the public were
supposed to be told about significant impacts to the environment caused by a
project and given the opportunity to decide upon a mitigation strategy or not.
In this case, based on current data and exhaustive studies of the EIR's to
confirm that this project was in all respects either "about the same" or "a lot
less than" in terms of impacts to the environment than the previously certified
document. The exercise of examining the prior EIR's was in fact documented
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL
in the Addendum and an Addendum could only be approved if the new
project did not cause a significant new impact as was evident in this case.
C/O'Connor asked if it were true that all of the previous mitigation factors
listed in the previous EIR's would be carried forward as mitigation for this
project; Ms. Hernandez indicated that C/O'Connor's assumption was exactly
correct. The conditions proposed by staff and accepted by Lewis for this
project were in addition to the earlier mitigation obligations called out in the
original EIR's.
C/Chang asked about traffic impacts for the entire project including
residential and commercial and asked if mitigation was included in the EIR.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the Medical Plaza EIR referenced 10,548
trips identified as attributable to the Medical Plaza project. This proposed
development including the residential and the retail proposed about 7,500
trips.
C/O'Connor asked for more information on the traffic studies that were
conducted as well as the impacts on different areas throughout the City
including the project site area.
Rich Barretto responded that with respect to the traffic study environmental
standpoint this project was evaluated based on current conditions. He looked
at the combined impact of all three proposed components and looked at 28
intersections throughout the City. The prior EIR looked at 14 intersections.
And from a significant impact standpoint based on the City's criteria this
project had direct impact at six intersections. However, based on the City's
guidelines for cumulative impacts, the project contributed to 15 of the 28
intersections on a fair -share basis and from an environmental standpoint
there were five or six intersections that met the criteria for mitigation. The
project generated significantly less than what was proposed and approved for
the Medical Plaza. More critical to the situation would be peak hour traffic
and those trips generated were also significantly less than trip generation for
the Medical Plaza. Mr. Perreto indicated to C/O'Connor that the City had
guidelines in place that required that if an area wide or cumulative deficiency
were identified at any of the intersections this project would contribute on a
fair -share basis toward improvements of those intersections. He also stated
that the City of Industry project and the Los Angeles AERA Energy project
were considered in this analysis.
DCM/DeStefano indicated to C/O'Connor that Council was being asked to
consider the conditions for project approval that included all of their direct
and area -wide impacts but the City was not specifying exact percentages for
each intersection. Those details would be worked out between the developer
and staff and would later be reviewed when the retail and/or a condominium
portion was brought forward for approval.
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL
M/Zirbes stated that traffic was a major concern for the City and he
appreciated that Linscott, Law and Greenspan conducted a very thorough
and exhaustive study that considered more than 10 years of potential traffic
impact from this and other major projects.
M/Zirbes opened the Public Hearing.
Jim Starkey, resident of the D.B. Tennis Club, supported the project that
created potential for shopping in the community and retaining sales tax
dollars for municipal services. He said he was confident that Council and staff
would work with neighbors to ensure concerns regarding traffic impacts and
other impacts would be addressed. He applauded the City and its partners
for coming up with this unique idea and looked forward to the opening of the
center.
Aziz Amid, President, D.B. Chamber of Commerce, thanked DCM/DeStefano
and his team for their diligence in working with the developer to bring this
project forward. For a number of years residents have voiced concerns about
the lack of quality shopping, dining and entertainment in the community and
the Chamber shared those concerns. Given the long association between
Lewis and the San Gabriel Valley as well as the company's reputation for
quality development the community could not have a better partner for this
project. The Chamber was pleased that the proposed project was the first in
a line of other projects being considered by the City Council and staff to
improve the quality of life in D.B. The Chamber viewed this project as a much
needed economic stimulant to the community and would like for the City
Council to review this project with a sense of urgency and expedite its
decision.
Eileen Ansari felt the Calvary property should be developed but she
wondered if the EIR was adequate for the proposed 200 dwelling units and
whether adequate geotechnical studies had been conducted. She also
wondered if the EIR could be challenged in court. She felt that the significant
building in D.B. had impacted the nesting habits of birds and other fauna and
also wondered if the EIR adequately address those issues. She asked how
many months it took to prepare the Addendum and wondered if during that
time some habitat had moved to this site and whether environmental groups
might challenge the City on these issues. In short, she wanted to know if this
project was being fast -tracked without completing proper studies because
she did not want the City to face possible litigation as it had in the past.
Allen Wilson, 22809 Hilton Head Drive, asked the suggested price for each of
the 200 units. He was concerned because originally, the Pulte Homes were
intended to sell for $400,000 and when the homes went on the market they
were listed at $650-700,000. He hoped that the traffic impacts would be
addressed and wanted to know if the 7,500 trips included the Calvary Chapel.
He said he was concerned about traffic impacts because Grand Avenue and
Golden Springs Drive were already heavily impacted and the SR57/60
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL
interchange was not yet completed.
Mary Matson, 1300 Diamond Bar Boulevard, felt the City needed the project
and the resulting sales tax revenue but was concerned about water problems
and slope issues and what streets were going to be widened and to what
extent. She also wanted to know what would be taken away when the streets
were widened. She felt there were more trips than stated and that the
developer was underestimating the impact to make the project look good.
She wanted to know what the real count would be.
Steve Tye felt that this was an important time and an important project for the
community and appreciated Council's business -like approach to these types
of decisions. He felt this was a business decision and not an emotional
decision. He was troubled about comments about potential landslides, court
challenges and what would the City do "if" and he believed that Lewis had
done a thorough job in addressing each and every one of those issues. The
City's largest sales tax generators were being poached by surrounding cities
and this gave the City an opportunity to do something about that. Today a
premier developer and retailers were interested in D.B. and this project
presented a wonderful source of potential revenue going forward for the City.
This might not be a perfect project; however, it is in his opinion the right
project at the right time with the right developer and the right retailers. He
encouraged Council to approve the project tonight.
Vinod Kashyap felt the slopes were stable and had stood the test of time. As
a licensed civil engineer he had great confidence in the City's engineers and
staff and was sure that the City's geotechnical engineers had conducted very
thorough research on the project that he was certain was contained in the
Environmental Impact Report including mitigation for flora and fauna. He felt
the residents should encourage the City Council to approve the project this
evening.
Eric Holiday, 23839 Country View Drive, spoke about the development and
related traffic issues. There were several businesses closing because
residents did not support them. There were a number of developments in the
City and now the City contemplated building a Home Depot and housing that
would contribute to the already difficult traffic situation. He said he could not
understand how the new development would not further erode the traffic
situation. He liked the small town feel of the Farmer's Market held at the site
on Saturdays and wondered how the new development would impact the
Farmer's Market and the small town feel of D.B. He hoped the Council would
not approve this measure.
There being no one else present who wished to speak on this matter,
M/Zirbes closed the Public Hearing.
DCM/DeStefano responded to speakers. He stated that any project could be
challenged. In his opinion, the challenge would not be successful because
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL
the City had conducted exhaustive studies, obtained legal analysis, and
technical reports. In addition, staff would not recommend approval of a
project to the City Council if it were flawed and if staff believed a challenge
would be successful. The foundation for the environmental conclusion was
two Environmental Impact Reports as previously discussed. In addition,
several studies were conducted to provide current information and augment
those reports. An Arborist's report was completed on May 24, 2004; an Air
Quality Analysis was completed on April 22, 2004; a Biological Resources
Survey for the Inter -Community property was completed on February 24,
2004; a Biological Resources Study was completed on the Calvary Chapel
property on March 8, 2004; a California Gnat -Catcher Report was completed
on the property on May 17, 2004; a Geotechnical Report prepared by Leyton
& Associates, a premier geotechnical consulting firm, was completed on April
8, 2003; a Noise Study was completed on May 21, 2004 and the Traffic
Study was dated March 9, 2004 with the addition in Council's packet dated
April 25, 2004.
DCM/DeStefano further stated with respect to traffic conditions and
assumption of prior mitigation measures from a prior EIR. Linscott Law &
Greenspan discussed that matter in detail. Details of the physical changes
were not yet complete - those details would come back to the Council when
the project is presented for consideration during the next few months. At this
time staff is looking at an additional right -turn lane on Golden Springs Dr. to
eastbound Grand Ave. One option would be to lengthen the right turn lane,
another would be to add a second right turn lane, and a third would be to
acquire the right-of-way for the second right turn lane but not construct it at
this point in time. For Grand Ave. staff was discussing an additional lane in
order to deal with traffic entering the project — a deceleration lane that would
run from the intersection of Golden Springs and Grand Ave. to the first
driveway next to the proposed restaurant. And then an acceleration lane that
would begin at about that same driveway point'and end just prior to the new
traffic signal at the Diamond Bar Villa. On Grand Ave. in front of the Diamond
Bar Villa, a new left -turn pocket would be created so that westbound Grand
Ave. traffic would be able to navigate a safe signalized left turn movement
into the retail/institutional project. The left turn pocket was estimated to be
about 200 ft. in length, sufficient for a good number of vehicles to queue up
for the left turn. Details of those improvements were not yet finalized and no
decision was anticipated on those details this evening because those details
would be presented to the Council for review at a later date.
DCM/DeStefano stated that with respect to traffic issues, the traffic report
accounted for all of the proposed land uses anticipated on the property. In
addition to the existing and anticipated traffic there was a presentation from
the consultant that cut -through traffic from Chino Hills, City of Industry and
some 18 other projects were included in the study. The existing church
generated traffic trips were also considered part of the current condition. The
traffic report discussed the additional trips anticipated by the new sanctuary
and responded to those additional trips through traffic mitigation on the
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL
immediate area and area wide basis as discussed. The church generally
operates at different peak hours from retail and certainly different peak hours
from residential. Depending on the retailer, the worst traffic impacts would be
felt during the week of Christmas shopping and religious worship.
To the question of whether this project was on a fast tract, DCM/DeStefano
stated that this project was discussed with the City and contemplated for
several years as earlier indicated and that this specific project had been
discussed at the City level for more than a year and as earlier stated,
addressed through public documents. It was on a fast track in the sense that
the Planning Commission made a decision on the project last week and
Council was being asked to consider it this week for a number of reasons not
the least of which was that the City was challenged in this marketplace with
other retail developments proposed by surrounding cities and that D.B. had
an opportunity to capture this type of retail land use or lose it to an adjacent
city. D.B. has a need for financial growth with an opportunity for sales tax
production. Recently, staff and Council Members attended the International
Counsel of Shopping Centers Development Conference and learned of a
similar project being proposed for the City of Industry just a short distance
from D.B. by a major retail developer. Based on that information it was staff's
opinion that after a year of discussion it was appropriate to quickly process
this project in order to position the City appropriately in the marketplace and
not lose an immediate opportunity.
DCM/DeStefano further stated that the dwelling unit pricing was expected to
be in the $450,000 range.
C/O'Connor thanked Lewis and staff for presentation of a well -detailed and
fine project. She felt that traffic issues and other concerns were adequately
addressed in the voluminous documentation. With respect to prior speakers
D.B. needed to make a business decision based on the City's need for tax
revenue from stable income- flowing businesses. She asked for further
clarification of the prices for new housing units and asked what "moderate
income level" was and whether that would support the $450,000 price range.
DCM/DeStefano responded that he could not speak to loan qualification but
that the Los Angeles/Long Beach Metropolitan moderate -income level for this
year was about $68-69,000.
C/O'Connor asked if the Specific Plan locked the City and developer into a
50,000 square foot office building or if some other use could be
contemplated.
DCM/DeStefano responded that the Specific Plan described a 50,000 square
foot office building. Based on the two and one-half acres set aside for that
option it would accommodate a two-story office building and ground level
parking. Whether it was necessary to the project would be a question for the
developer to answer. Could it be turned into a use other than an office
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL
building? From a City perspective, it would be more difficult to achieve retail
uses, than an office building due to the parcel size restriction.
C/O'Connor asked if the City would be locked into a 50,000 square foot office
building or the option of additional condominiums upon approval of the
Specific Plan or whether there be other uses approved for that site.
DCM/DeStefano explained that approval of the Specific Plan locked the City
and developer into a 50,000 square foot office building or extension of the
High Density Residential and the way the Specific Plan was written other
uses would not be permitted.
C/O'Connor asked the developer if he would be amenable to considering
other uses for the two and one-half acres or would that be a deal breaker?
Mr. Lewis explained that he studied the site for some time. At one point one
of the local office users was scheduled to occupy the space. He would be
open to a variety of suggestions that would make the most sense for all
parties. Currently, he anticipated that the entire site would be used for
residential and not office use. He would, however, like to preserve the
flexibility for Lewis as well as for the City of D.B. because in the event that a
point of sale office user wanted to locate in D.B. it would be a mistake not to
consider the possibility. Further, he would not want to be locked into a 50,000
square foot office building because that would be the maximum size that
such a building could be built on the site. Lewis would consider a retail
possibility. However, the environmental study was based upon the current
proposal and he urged the Council to approve the Specific Plan as written to
preserve the environmental documents.
Rich Barretto to explained that a restaurant, for instance, had a different type
of trip generation characteristic than an office building. Using the trip budget
contained within the document the City could work backward to figure out
what might fit on the site from a' retail or restaurant standpoint to make
certain that the environment documents and the traffic studies remained
valid.
C/O'Connor felt the Council might want to consider greater flexibility for Area
3. She then asked if Calvary Chapel agreed in writing to this proposal. Mr.
Lewis said he had a letter from the Hidden Manna Corporation/Calvary
Chapel signed by Pastor Goddard authorizing Lewis to process and obtain
approvals for the project. He explained that Pastor Goddard and Pastor Rose
were on vacation and Associate Pastor Barela who spoke at the Planning
Commission last week was not able to be present tonight.
C/O'Connor said she understood that the majority of trees along Golden
Springs Dr. would be removed to expand the parking lot. She asked that as
many trees as possible be preserved or replaced with fast growing trees.
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL
Mr. Lewis responded that the project would involve a tree location program
but to what extent was not known at this time.
M/Zirbes stated that he would prefer to spread the 200 condominiums over
the entire Area 3 and eliminate the possibility of intensifying traffic at the
intersection.
C/Chang said that although this was a difficult decision that involved
additional traffic the City was facing the loss of two major tax revenue
generating businesses and a state budget crisis. It was therefore incumbent
upon the City and Council to move forward to provide economic stability for
today and for the future. Council understood the project would bring more
traffic. However, the project mitigated the flow of traffic so that the increase in
the number of vehicles would not adversely impact the City.
C/O'Connor disclosed that she met telephonically with David Lewis and the
attorney for Lewis along with C/Chang in March 2004 to obtain an
explanation of the Addendum.
C/Huff said he spoke with the developer overtime about the project and most
recently at the Shopping Center Convention.
M/Zirbes stated he had several conversations with the Developer seeking
answers to questions about the project.
MPT/Herrera disclosed that she too had periodic conversations with the
Developer throughout the past year or so.
C/Chang said he met with Mr. Lewis on two occasions to discuss the project
and determine how Mr. Lewis and his group could provide the greatest
benefit to the City.
M/Zirbes stated that he and C/Huff met with the Developer to discuss the
project's financial arrangement with the City.
4.1 A REQUEST BY LEWIS-DIAMOND BAR, LLC FOR APPROVAL OF
A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-01, ZONE CHANGE
NO. 2004-02, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2004-01, DEVELOPMENT
AGREEMENT NO. 2004-01 AND AN APPROVAL OF AN
ADDENDUM TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED MEDICAL PLAZA
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (PLANNING COMMISSION
RESOLUTION NO. 93-11 AND TO THE PREVIOUSLY CERTIFIED
ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
REPORT FOR A SITE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 70 -
ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER
OF GRAND AVENUE AND GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE
(ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8293-045-004, 8293-045-005,
8293-045-006, 8293-045-007, 8293-045-008 AND 8293-045-009).
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL
(a) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-35: CERTIFYING THE
ADDENDUM TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORTS FOR
THE DIAMOND BAR MEDICAL PLAZA AND THE DIAMOND BAR
ECONOMIC REVITALIZATION AREA; AND FINDINGS AND
STATEMENTS OF FACT IN SUPPORT THEREOF, REGARDING
DEVELOPMENT OF A 71 -ACRE PARCEL LOCATED SOUTH OF
GRAND AVENUE AND EAST OF GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE,
CONSISTING OF 200 MULTI -FAMILY RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND
UP TO 270,000 SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL, RETAIL AND
INSTITUTIONAL USES.
C/Chang moved, MPT/Herrera seconded, to Adopt Resolution No.
2004-35. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2004-36: APPROVING
GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2004-01; AMENDING THE
LAND USE ELEMENT PERTAINING TO PLANNING AREA 3 IN
ORDER TO PERMIT HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL USES UPON A
VACANT 14 -ACRE SITE GENERALLY LOCATED NEAR THE
SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE AND GOLDEN
SPRINGS DRIVE IDENTIFIED AS A PORTION OF PARCEL 2 OF
PARCEL MAP 24819.
C/O'Connor moved, MPT/Herrera seconded to approve Resolution
No. 2004-36. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(c) FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 02(2004):
APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2004-02 FROM COMMERCIAL
MANUFACTURING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT (CM -PD -BE),
REGIONAL COMMERCIAL (C-3) AND HIGH DENSITY
RESIDENTIAL (R-4) TO SPECIFIC PLAN (SP) FOR PROPERTIES
COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 70 -ACRES GENERALLY
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF GRAND AVENUE
AND GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE AND IDENTIFIED AS
ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8293-045-004, 8293-045-005,
8293-045-006, 8293-045-007, 8293-045-008 and 8293-045-009.
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL
C/Chang moved, C/Huff seconded, to approve First Reading by Title
Only of Ordinance No. 02(2004). Motion carried by the following Roll
Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(d) FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 03(2004)
APPROVING THE DIAMOND BAR VILLAGE SPECIFIC PLAN
(SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2004-01).
C/O'Connor moved, C/Huff seconded to approve for First Reading by
Title Only of Ordinance No. 03(2004). Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
(e) FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. 04(2004)
APPROVING A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
CITY AND LEWIS-DIAMOND BAR, LLC FOR THE DIAMOND BAR
VILLAGE PROJECT.
C/Huff moved, MPT/Herrera seconded to approve for First Reading.by
Title Only of Ordinance No. 04(2004). Motion carried by the following
Roll Call vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Huff, O'Connor,
MPT/Herrera, M/Zirbes
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to conduct, M/Zirbes
adjourned the adjourned regular meeting at 9:52 p.m.
7
`L
lLfnda C. Lawry, 0, ITY CLERK
2004. th
The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 20day of jullz ,
JUNE 29, 2004 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL
Bob ZiftWT,-MkYOR