Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout7/20/2010 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JULY 20, 2010 CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:33 p.m. in The Government Center/SC:AQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA, PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Herrera led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Pastor Randy Lanthripe, Church of the Valley, gave the invocation. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ling -Ling Chang, Ron Everett, Jack Tanaka, Mayor Pro Tem Steve Tye and Mayor Carol Herrera. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle, Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works Director; Ken Desforges, 1S Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Grace Lee, Senior Planner; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager; Lauren Hidalgo, Public Information Specialist; Ryan McLean, Assistant to the City Manager; Rick Yee, Senior Civil Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer; Anthony Santos, Management Analyst; Patrick Gallegos, Management Analyst, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. Also Present: Site D Consultants APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS 1.1 Walnut Valley Water Board President Ted Ebenkamp, along with Directors Allen Wu, Edwin Hilden, Barbara Carerra, Scarlett Kwong, General Manager Michael Holmes, and Jose Martinez, presented a check to the City in the amount of $57,557.50 for its Water Conservation Program. NEW BUSINESS OF THE MONTH: 1.2 C/Chang presented a Certificate Plaque to David Viloria, owner, DA Kine Hawaiian Grindz Restaurant, 958 N. Diamond Bar Blvd., as New Business of the Month for July 2010. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: CM/DeStefano thanked CSD/Rose for his initiative in applying for the Metropolitan Water District and Walnut Valley Water District resources to help support the development and installation of the City's centralized irrigation controller system which will save the City between 25% and 30% of the cost and use of its water over many years. This was a $500,000 project for which the City received approximately $222,000 in grant funds JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL from the two agencies. He thanked the MWD and WVWD and staff for their participation and implementation of the project. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Nicholas Wong and Alexander Ng representing Assemblyman Kurt Hagman's office introduced themselves and announced that if there were any residents who have questions or concerns that they could speak with them and that they will relay those questions and concerns to the Assemblyman. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Concerts in the Park — July 21, 2010 — 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., "Doo Wah Riders" (Country) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 5.2 Movies Under the Stars — July 21, 2010 — "Monsters vs. Aliens" — Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 5.3 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — July 22, 2010 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Dr. (Dark). 5.4 Planning Commission Meeting — July 27, 2010 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.5 Concerts in the Park — July 28, 2010 — 6:30 to 8:00 p.m., "County Line" (Contemporary Rock) — Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 5.6 Movies under the Stars "Imagine That" — July 28, 2010 - - Immediately following Concerts in the Park, Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Springs Dr. 5.7 City Council Meeting — August 3, 2010 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Tanaka asked that Item 6.3 be pulled from the Consent Calendar. MPT/Tye moved, C/Everett seconded, to approve the balance of the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call: JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Everett, Tanaka, MPT/Tye, M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 6.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES — Regular Meeting of July 6, 2010 — As submitted. 6.2 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER — Dated July 1, 2010 through July 14, 2010 totaling $2,002,359.46. 6.4 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-26: AUTHORIZING CITY STAFF TO APPLY FOR FEDERAL DISASTER RELIEF FUNDS. 6.5 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-27: AUTHORIZING SUBMITTAL OF A USED OIL PAYMENT PROGRAM (OPP) APPLICATION TO THE DEPARTMENT OF RESOURCES RECYCLING AND RECOVERY (CALRECYCLE), AND AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY AGREEMENTS, CONTRACTS AND REQUEST FOR PAYMENT AS NECESSARY TO IMPLEMENT THE PROGRAM UNTIL RESCINDED. 6.6 APPROVED NOTICE OF COMPLETION FOR TRAFFIC SIGNAL INTERCONNECT LINKS — PHASE II PROJECT ALONG BREA CANYON ROAD, DIAMOND BAR BLVD. GATEWAY CORPORATE CENTER DR.AND GOLDEN SPRINGS DR. MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.3 APPROVE THE CONTRACT WITH THE REGIONAL CHAMBER OF COMMERCE — SAN GABRIEL VALLEY, FOR BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT AND RETENTION SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT NOT -TO -EXCEED $12,000. C/Tanaka asked if a performance evaluation had been completed since the contract has been in place and if so, what was the outcome? CM/DeStefano explained that this is an annual contract and that there has not been a performance evaluation provided by staff; however, staff requests that the Chamber's Executive Director provide staff with a report on implementation of the contract provisions which is provided annually and reviewed by staff. Since this is an annual contract it provides the Council with an opportunity to consider the Chamber's performance when considering whether to renew the contract. JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL C/Tanaka asked Chamber's Executive Director Heidi Gallegos how the Chamber was generating income in addition to the monies received from the member cities and projects. Ms. Gallegos explained that the Chamber is a member -based organization and that approximately 75% of the Chamber's revenue is generated by membership dues. C/Tanaka moved, C/Everett seconded, to approve the Contract with the Regional Chamber of Commerce — San Gabriel Valley, for Business Development and Retention Services in the amount not - to -exceed $12,000. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Everett, Tanaka, MPT/Tye, M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Due to the 7:00 p.m. schedule for Public Hearings, the City Council went on to Council Subcommittee Reports/Council Member Comments at 6:50 p.m. 9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Tanaka reported that this past week he had attended the Concerts in the Park, a car wash sponsored by Fire Explorers IXX, the Library's Pirate Program, and Teens Night Out event. C/Chang stated that she attended the most recent Concerts in the Park. She also stated that she is very excited about the City's launch of its Twitter and Facebook pages and the City prescription drug discount program. She stated that her door is always open and reminded residents her City pursuits could be followed on Twitter. C/Everett asked residents to recall the legacy of Coach John Wooden and that the City of La Verne was listed in this month's Family Circle as one of the best towns for families. He asked everyone to enjoy the summer and enjoy the opportunities available including the Concerts in the Park series. MPT/Tye again thanked staff for applying for and receiving grants that make it possible for the City to do over $200,000 in improvements at no cost to the residents. He thanked the Chamber and Executive Director Heidi Gallegos for her efforts on behalf of the Regional Chamber of Commerce. JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL M/Herrera thanked staff for applying for and receiving grant monies to help the City conserve water. Everyone has an obligation to conserve water and the City has been spending money on redoing its sprinkler systems and replacing grass and plants with more water tolerant plants. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 CONTINUED PUBLIC HEARING — A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VARIOUS ACTIONS PERTAINING TO SITE D (A SITE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 AND 8714-015-001) INCLUDING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-03, ZONE CHANGE NO. 2007-04, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2007-01 ("SITE D SPECIFIC PLAN"), TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 70687, AND CONSIDERATION OF CERTIFICATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT 2007-02 (SCH NO. 2008021014). (Continued from the June 15, 2010 City Council Meeting) a) RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX: CERTIFYING THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT (SCH NO. 2008021014) AND APPROVING THE MITIGATION REPORTING AND MONITORING PROGRAM AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF FACT AND A STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE SITE D SPECIFIC PLAN AND TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 70687 FOR A SITE COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8714-002- 900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 AND 8714- 015-001). b) RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX: APPROVING GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 2007-03 AND ZONE CHANGE NO. 2007-04 FOR PROPERTY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBERS 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714- 002-903 AND 8714-015-001). c) RESOLUTION NO. 2010 -XX: APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 70687 FOR SUBDIVISION OF 30.36 ACRE SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL PURPOSES JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL WITH 202 -UNIT RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND 153,985 GROSS SQUARE FEET OF COMMERCIAL USE ON PROPERTY -- LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (APN 8714-002-900, 8714-002- 903 AND 8714-045-001). d) ORDINANCE NO. OX (2010): APPROVING ZONE CHANGE NO. 2007-04 CHANGING THE EXISTING ZONING TO SPECIFIC PLAN FOR PROPERTY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 8714-002-900, 8714-002- 901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 AND 8714-015-001). e) ORDINANCE NO. OX (2010): APPROVING SITE D SPECIFIC PLAN, SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 2007-01, FOR PROPERTY COMPRISED OF APPROXIMATELY 30.36 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF BREA CANYON ROAD AND DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, DIAMOND BAR, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSORS PARCEL NUMBER 8714-002-900, 8714-002-901, 8714-002-902, 8714-002-903 AND 8714-015- 001). CM/DeStefano explained that this matter was continued from the June 15, 2010 Public Hearing regarding the 30 -acre property known as Site D, located at the Southeast Corner of Diamond Bar Blvd. at Brea Canyon Rd. Applications under consideration include a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Specific Plan, Tentative Tract Map and Environmental Impact Report all associated with a proposed development project comprised of 202 dwelling units and a maximum of 153,985 sq. ft. of neighborhood commercial uses. As Council is aware, staff prepared a detailed report on this proposal which includes responses to questions and comments from the audience, as well as Council comments and directions raised at the June 15, 2010 meeting. Copies of the report and attachments were provided to City Council and have been available to the public at City Hall, Diamond Bar Library and posted on the City's website. Staff and the City's consultant team are prepared to provide a detailed staff report; however, it is his understanding that Walnut Valley Unified School District Board President Nancy Lyons requests the opportunity to make a presentation this evening. — JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL Nancy Lyons, WVUSD Board of Trustees President, representing the entire Board, stated they appreciate the time the Council and City's staff has taken to prepare for tonight's hearing pertaining to the property known as Site D. As the community knows, Site D is an important school asset that serves a role of the District's capacity to fund and manage quality schools and educational programs in the future. Approval of a Specific Plan for the site is essential to this capacity. Like most public processes, concepts and ideas evolve and change. The Board has received and read comments from the community and recognizes the suggestions and opinions as a valuable part of this Specific Plan process. At the most recent D.B. Planning Commission Public Hearing, it was suggested that a 1.3 acre park be added to the project. This possibility certainly could affect the various project concepts evaluated in the Specific Plan and would also have some impacts on the neighborhood. On behalf of the Board, it would like to have the opportunity to explore a park component as part of the Specific Plan for the site and to identify and evaluate alternative layouts for a park as well as enable further consideration on the various site development alternatives. Equally important will be the chance to continue a dialogue with the community and to clarify recent misunderstandings regarding the Specific Plan that has surfaced including certain scare tactics such as, the Specific Plan will result in high density apartments which have never been the intent or the desire of the City and/or the School District. The School Board understands that there are multiple options as to the preferred mix of uses of the site with or without a park as well as, the potential impacts that a park may bring to the site and its neighbors. The Board believes it is important to get feedback and input from the community. To that end, the School District would support a continuance of tonight's hearing for approximately 60 days depending on scheduling and monitoring. She thanked the Council for its time and said she would be pleased to respond to questions. Jack LeBrun, Asst. Superintendent of Business Services, WVUSD, conveyed that the District faces significant financial challenges as a result of the State's budget constraints, declining enrollment and increases in operating costs. As a result, Site D is a potential revenue source for the School District. As a community based organization, the School District is committed to providing excellent educational services, facilities and programs. Without additional funds these items will most certainly suffer. The Specific Plan for Site D is a process that the City and School District embarked upon to JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL support the District in its continuing comprehensive approach to education and most importantly to serve the students now and in the future. It is essential for the School District to complete the Specific Plan in order to generate revenue from this important asset. CM/DeStefano asked if there was Council consensus to continue the matter as requested by the School District. He stated that assuming concurrence, the Council may wish to invite public testimony from those individuals who wish to speak this evening knowing that the Council will continue the matter to a future date. At the conclusion of public comments, Council may wish to provide additional communication to staff or the District so that formal action can then be taken to consider the request for continuance. CA/Jenkins noted that in light of the probability that the City Council will accede to the School District's request and continue the item and notwithstanding members of the public who wish to comment tonight, when this item is rescheduled for hearing before the City Council anyone who wishes to speak at that time will be given the opportunity to speak. In light of comments by School District representatives this evening about taking a look at the precise configuration of the project it may look different than it looks now and so comments tonight on what is currently in front of the Council may be rendered moot if the District/applicant comes back to the City with a different proposal. C/Chang asked if the School District planned to conduct study or focus groups. President Nancy Lyons responded Yes. It is their intent to get additional input from the community and take a look at the proposed park, etc. C/Chang asked how many such group meetings might be conducted within the next 60 days. President Lyons responded that since this is such a new development the School Board is not prepared to commit to a specific number. C/Everett thanked the Board, School District and staff and appreciated, respected and desired to move forward on the basis that the School District is joining in the dialogue. In his opinion, 60 days may be a bit optimistic with all that is to be JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL done and proposed a 90 -day continuation with a minimal stipulation of reimbursement that might expire on a certain date. Ms. Lyons responded that the School District is well -aware of the stipulation and willing to continue the matter if 90 days is better. The School District felt it could be accomplished in 60 days. MPT/Tye felt there had been enough progress on the matter to move forward but he believed the School District was the same as any other applicant who might wish to postpone. He would support the District's request for a 60 day continuance and if at the end of 60 days the District needed more time the District could request additional time. As for the number of meetings, one meeting is one more meeting than there would have been if the request for continuance had not been offered. M/Herrera asked if the Council allowed 90 days and the School District concluded its study in 60 days could the Council come back in 60 days. CA/Jenkins responded "No. CM/DeStefano also replied that the plan as stated by the School Board President is evolving and staff is not aware of how many meetings are planned and what the results of those discussions will be and how those results might affect the current or future plan if proposed which may cause the current documents to be changed. 60 days is a bit aggressive in terms of a community dialogue, providing results of that dialogue to the City's staff in order for further analysis to be undertaken so that an appropriate report can be provided to Council. 90 days or longer is a bit more likely for these actions to take place. CA/Jenkins stated that a third alternative would be not to set a date so that the only constraint on the District would be to bring the matter back and for staff to then to re -notice the Public Hearing. If the matter were tabled, it could be re -noticed for a Public Hearing at any time which would give Council a bit more flexibility. MPT/Tye said he concurred with the last option to table the matter to provide for more flexibility. C/Chang said she agreed. JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL MPT/Tye said he wanted to be very clear for the public's edification that the matter would be re -noticed. C/Tanaka commented that he was pleased the School District decided to engage the community to a greater extent because in his opinion, more public discourse would allow questions and misconceptions to be answered and addressed. He asked the School District to be as clear as possible on what direction they wished to take for the site and the exact purpose of the MOU because many residents were under the impression that the site actually belonged to the City of D.B. Additionally, there may have been several alternatives considered but only one plan was presented. The plan stressed 50% residential and 50% commercial even though there was considerable input for other options from residents. He felt the Specific Plan was too limiting for attracting potential developers by restricting it to 50/50 residential and commercial because it lacked inclusion of modern elements in sustainable areas. If a park space is considered it should be a desired element as expressed by the residents and should be planned in advance and not seen as an item that would fit into the project. He felt there were ways to protect some of the age old trees on the property with proper planning. In his opinion, the most important component is the community's input and there has to be some evidence of - consideration of input from the residents. He felt there was an opportunity for development of a project that would be acceptable to the community and for which the community could be proud. He also believed there was an opportunity to consider different elements such as open space, pedestrian - friendly element, inclusion of a water feature, etc. because this is a point of entry for D.B. With respect to housing, even though there was an opportunity for higher density housing there should be a consideration for senior housing in the area. Commercial development should be viable with goods and services offered benefiting the community as a whole giving consideration to the numerous empty store fronts that currently exist in the City. There is an opportunity to slow down this project in order to do it right. C/Everett said he was interested in flexibility; however, communication was critical and would rather have a date certain so that everyone present including the media will be aware of the date. While it is true that the appropriate public notice will be given (if the matter is tabled) he doesn't want to wait for a public notice because too often folks say they were not notified of various items. JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL MPT/Tye said that whatever date is set it is important that members of the public have an opportunity to speak this evening and would prefer to leave it open. C/Chang stated that over the past 30 days she has been able to gather a lot of great input from residents about Site D and was very pleased that the School District requested a continuance in order to continue a dialogue with the community. She would prefer the flexible option because she did not know how long it would take to gather information. MPT/Herrera reopened the Public Hearing at 7:22 p.m. and asked for Public Comment. She asked that the speakers recognize that this project may change and that their comments might be based on this proposal, it may go through revision and that speakers may wish to withhold their comments until the next Public Hearing. She reminded speakers that there is a five minute limit. Helen Hall, WVUSD Board Member, said she had not been able - to attend previous meetings regarding Site D. Thirty years ago she and her family moved to Diamond Ridge and like most parents, one of the main reasons was a quality school district. Walnut had and continues to have a reputation for a quality school district. She has now served on the Board for 24 plus years. The School District bought Site D because it was starting to grow very rapidly at the middle school level and needed to pool students from both Walnut and D.B. At that time it did not make sense to put a middle school at that corner so the school bought the South Point property for its middle school. Over the years there have been various projects proposed for Site D but those projects did not pan out. The School District has challenges and to continue to provide a quality school district with the current and ongoing state of its budget and the State's budget the School District needs to think outside the box. She thanked everyone who sent letters and emails. The Board does not intend to stock the coffers with money but want to do the best it can for the students and the community. Terry Meyer was glad that the applicant was considering other options and liked what C/Tanaka said about the possibility of low density residential, senior housing and a park. He is not - interested in seeing a business going into that little section and does not want to see a transient community in an apartment complex next to Diamond Ridge where he has lived for 30 yea rs. JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL Larry Smith stated that when he and his family moved to D.B. he felt that one of the best things about D.B. was its school — districts. It was not the restaurants and shops but the school districts that held up the City's property values. He thanked CM/DeStefano, ACM/Doyle and Council Members for their vision to improve the Diamond Bar Library because it is the quality of education that is paramount to the City's quality of life. Site D holds a similar challenge. In the tough California economic climate the City needs to support its school districts and allow them to use their assets to their highest and best value in order to continue the high level of education they provide. From a reliable source he learned that the City has about 25% vacancy in its commercial sector and it may not be viable to put more commercial space at Site D. Obviously, no one wants low income housing but believed that was a scare tactic. Good quality affordable housing could be very saleable and add school -aged families to the community and thus ensure the continuation of the schools and the districts. Denis Paul thanked the Council for presenting him a plaque commemorating his 30 -years of service to the WVUSD. As he listens to the discussions about budget and projections about the future of WVUSD he shares the concerns of his colleagues about the ability to continue to preserve and present a world class education. Council and staff have worked with the community to resolve many issues and he sees that happening now. The bottom line is that the District needs to get revenue from Site D and believes it that can be done in a way that is sensitive to community needs as well as environmen tal and traffic congestion concerns. Benjamin Yep has two young children and came here looking for a place to raise his family and educate his children with a world class education. He got involved with the School Board because he was frightened by what he saw coming. Currently, the School Board is cutting teachers and teacher's salaries and closing schools. If the community does not come together to help the schools there will be a lot of fall out. There is a petition being passed around in this auditorium right now from people who are saying "No" to development. While he respects their position as a Walnut homeowner he hopes that they will look at this as an opportunity for dialogue. He has attended School Board meetings for over a year and believes the members will listen and do what they can to make a difference. Sherry Babb moved to D.B. in 2000. Her eldest daughter graduated from DBHS and her younger daughter is a senior at JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL DBHS. She has a board member of the Chinese American Association for the past three years and is also involved in other community service organizations. She believes the community should support its public schools to achieve the highest possible education for its children. Gary Chow, Walnut resident, hoped the Council would find a way to resolve this issue because WVUSD is going through very, very difficult economic times attempting to produce a balanced budget. The budget crisis was so severe that this past March the District had to make a painful decision to cut the elementary school music program. When he found out that this wonderful and very valuable program was about to be cut he and his friend made a decision to fund the music program. They both felt it was time to step up and ensure that future D.B. and Walnut children would have the same opportunities that were afforded to their children. As a result, they have committed to paying the School District $168,000 a year for the next three years so that the music program at the elementary school level can continue, Tonight and in 60-90 days from now the City will be in the same position and while the City will not be writing checks to the School District like he and his friend are doing, the Council's decision will ultimately accomplish the same thing. The Council's approval of whatever change it ultimately agrees upon will allow the District to sell the property at a significantly higher value so that it can use the proceeds to provide the level of education children deserve. The children of the future need to have the same opportunities as the children of the past. Debbie Dobson, President, Coordinating Council for WVUSD, supports the School District because whatever happens, the Council Members know that the District has the best interest of the kids at heart. The Coordinating Council consists of parent representatives from every school in D.B. and Walnut and during the past month the Coordinating Council has been trying very hard to come up with fundraising and moneymaking ideas to help the District. Parents are beginning to see that a lot is being taken away from the kids and they also know that the School District is doing the best that it can under the circumstances. Parents believe that music for 4th graders and sports programs for high school students are just as important as the academic classes. Parents do not want to see any programs cut from their children and they are now seeing that their children's educational opportunities are being cut which is very upsetting. Parents are trying to do their part but know that these drastic budget cuts offer little opportunity for fundraising JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL events to provide any amount of money close to what is needed to preserve these programs. Girish Roy stated that he doesn't like to see the School District going through these tough budget times; however, he would not like to see high density and commercial components at Site D because there is already a severe problem with traffic issues and transients. He would like for Site D to be turned into a park and requested that the City purchase the property and turn it into a park. David Busse said he had children who graduated from local schools and attended a regional college. He supports the schools but is a bigger supporter of a sense of community. He said he had 300 more signatures of people who represent a broad range of ideas and thoughts in D.B. who wanted a say in this matter. If the City is going to make what could be a profound change to the south end of D.B. it has to be right. He presented the petition to the City Clerk and said he would be one of the first to sign up for a working group to discuss this matter. Richard Yeh, Country Hills Holding, readily admitted that what he was about to say was probably very self-serving based on his commercial interest in the center but felt his points were valid and should be considered. Based on his experience of owning the center if the City was able to find a commercial developer to build the center, it would likely be difficult to attract the type of tenant the City would want. D.B. is a "tweener" location and to MPT/Tye's point, by the time drivers were able to see the commercial shops it would be too late to exit the SR57 to reach the location. In addition, there is already a large amount of vacancy throughout the area with some vacancy in his center. He feels good about the center as things stand today he feels the situation would be very different if the City were to build a center just down the road from his. While the City has a plan to raise extra sales tax dollars to help the City, it may not see that particular footage raise the amount of sales tax dollars it seeks because it will take sales from other centers in the City. He said that he ultimately questioned whether such a project would be successful and whether the City had considered that its gateway to the City could be a half -empty center. He felt the best economic compromise to maximize revenues to the District would be to go all residential and park space. JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL Carolyn Elfelt, WVUSD Board Member and 30 year resident, said that while both of her sons went through the Walnut Valley schools she spent many hours at each school raising money to help support the school programs. She now serves on the School Board and was not present to talk about the Specific Plan, but rather just the site in general. The District's job is to educate and the nearby street named Fallow Field speaks to Site D. It is a passive asset. It generates nothing that helps the District educate kids. In these difficult economic times the District needs to turn this passive asset into a revenue generating asset that can be used to help educate the students. The District needs to have this idle land entitled so that it can be transformed into some kind of a revenue stream to help provide the educational tools that the children need in order to survive in this highly competitive global economy. Clark Rucker, DBHS Brahma Foundation member, WVUSD Coordinating Council member and Vice President, past member of the Chaparral Community Club, member of the DBHS Magnificent Seven, and parliamentarian for the Council of African/American Parents, said he was in favor of the sale of Site D. This year is a kind of perfect storm. District enrollment has declined, State funding has decreased and dollars per student has declined. Currently, D.B. and the WVUSD are facing severe detriments. Over the past three years the WVUSD State revenues have been reduced by $19,000 or about 17.4% and in 2007/2008 the revenues were about $110 million and in 2010/2011 the revenues are down to about $91 million so that as the District looks to the 2010/2011 it faces further reductions including a possible reduction in teaching staff of 60 plus, $600,000 in administrative reductions, salary reductions, loss of custodial positions, K through 3 class size increases to 31, loss of academic programs, loss of extra -curricular and after-school programs, loss of school bus transportation and possible closure of schools altogether and shortening of the 2010/2011 school year. Furlough days are being considered and encouraged. In 2007/2008 the per -student allocation was $15,316. In 2010/2011 the per -student allocation is $4,970 and that is essentially why this project is in front of the City Council. He hopes that this City Council will assess what the sale of Site D means to the City of D.B., to the WVUSD and most important to the students who have grown, learned and enriched their lives in this school district and in this City. Christopher Chung said he was pleased to learn that the School District was interested in having further discussions about Site D. As residents of D.B. he is pro-WVUSD but opposed to the JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL process under which this project developed which he believed offered inadequate input from the residents and ignored - - comments. Some of the comments raised were not appropriately responded to by the City such as the issue of whether or not any of the housing would be low income. The document allows for that and a 25% density bonus. The response from the City should have been that that was not correct and that it should have been excluded. If the money is going to WVUSD he hoped there was a guarantee that some of the money would be spent in D.B. versus the City of Walnut. There are fundamental issues that have to be addressed in order to get to an approval of a Specific Plan such as, the General Plan is outdated and in the General Plan the Resource Management Element which is the City's Open Space Element indicates there are deficiencies in Open Space. So the elimination of open space is not consistent with that element and therefore, there is no way the Specific Plan can be consistent with the General Plan. He hoped that some of the impacts of this project would be addressed and reanalyzed such as traffic and the time when grading can commence. He asked the Council to step back and consider the right process. He thanked C/Chang for talking with him and for the rest of the City Council for taking a step back and further discussing the proposal. Judy Liang, D.B. resident said she felt the majority of residents supported the School District but asked them not to forget their mission and their slogan. "Kids first, every student, every day". She wanted to know what more commercial and high density residential had to do with kids first, every student, every day. Residents are not opposed to development but there are a lot of problems with this process such as why other alternatives were never presented to the residents and why there are no bids going out and the City has only one consultant. Residents are not opposed to a project that will generate more money but if the City has to do that please do it in the right way by doing a thorough study. Mercedes Garrett thanked the City Council and the School District for the opportunity to discuss the Site D Plan. She was concerned about only three access streets to Diamond Bar Blvd. in the area of Site D and related an incident on Castle Rock Rd. which caused delays for everyone in the southern part of town leaving their homes. Now traffic is even worse on Brea Canyon Rd. and the idea of building more homes in that area that would cause more traffic in the area concerns her for the safety of the residents in the event of a disaster. More families JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL with children are coming into the area because homes are now more affordable so she wondered if it was true that enrollment was down because she is seeing an increase of families with young children moving to D.B. If the plan is to build more homes it seems to her that with the number of foreclosures that have occurred there will be even more empty homes because of the economy. Vinod Kashup, a 25 -year resident wondered why the Council is talking about a development at this time. Eight months ago everyone was talking about a stadium and now we are talking about a development. The sign advertising this public hearing was so hidden that he did not see it. He learned later that the City has an obligation to inform all residents living within 1000 ft. of the development and have no obligation to report to others directly. He may live within 1500 ft. of the projects but no one took the time to write him a letter to tell him there are only three ingress and egress points in his neighborhood and this project would impact him. He thinks there is a total lack of communication here. If the City can talk about the stadium at such great lengths and not talk about something that impacts D.B. he thinks there is a fundamental flaw in the thinking at the City. He served on the Diamond Bar Community Foundation and on the Traffic and Transportation Commission. When Bob Zirbes was mayor his dream was to have playing fields and a sports center and if there is an area which is crying out to be developed as a sports center what better way to honor Bob Zirbes than to come off of the freeway which was named after him to a sports center which could also be named after him instead of having homes built in a time when homes are not selling. We are selling this land at a time when prices are rock bottom. There are businesses in the immediate area that will suffer. What are we doing here, how did we get here, why are we here and how do we get out of this. Gregory Shockley said he has heard this referred to as a perfect storm with declining enrollment, lost tax dollars and so on and so forth. This is not the perfect storm. The reason the School District is successful is because of the people who work for it. Money will go up and money will go down. Selling this lot right now — maybe something should be done with it. He would like to see it developed but doesn't want to see one hundred percent houses or one hundred percent park or one hundred percent commercial. He felt that C/Everett, C/Tanaka and MPT/Tye had fantastic ideas that were expressed at the last public hearing. He said he was disappointed and discouraged about the proposed plan. He expected things would get worse before JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL they got better but he believed that the sun would come up within the next four or five years and the School District will be full again and will have more money. Site D has nothing to do with the success or lack of success of the School District. Success has to do with the administrators, teachers and parents and not from money. Joyce Tweed, Running Branch Rd. is an elementary school teacher in another school district and has learned that starting this fall her school might be closed and having had the school board vote to close two schools she is currently in the process of moving her teaching tools to another school site. Everyone is sad to see a community school close but if we make a mistake wanting to take care of the students of D.B. it will be a mistake that the residents will dread for a long time. She has not been present for every meeting but she has not heard anything but that it is important to think of the students and young people in the community. What about the older folks in the community who are in retirement and want to downsize to lodging in a place they have grown most accustomed to. As people get older they do not like change. They like to be able to go to their church, not have to face major traffic or major travel to shop and, if the property has to be sold, she would like to have the District and City give thought to provide residences to retired folks. There is no location that provides assisted living for people who are retired. She would love to see a park in that location but could D.B. at least get something new that would continue to serve its citizens. With no further public comments being offered, M/Herrera brought it back to the Council for comment. MPT/Tye asked staff to address comments referring to the General Plan being outdated, that the Specific Plan for Site D is inconsistent with the General Plan because the General Plan says D.B. does not have enough open space and by falling in the splash zone calling this site open calling it open space when it is not open space, it is undeveloped private property. He would also like staff to address the notification issue, and what it would mean to the City if the City were to go outside of the set notification parameters. CM/DeStefano reiterated that staff has answered those comments and they are in the written record. He agreed that if someone raises an issue enough times they are doing so _ deliberately in an effort to ensure that it sticks. It is a bit disingenuous to say the least. The General Plan is not an JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL outdated document. One of the speakers works for another municipality and is active in community development in that municipality including the creation of affordable low income housing units. That particular City has a General Plan that is older than D.B.'s General Plan. The property being labeled as open space is not an accurate statement. This is simply vacant land and there is no inconsistency between what the General Plan says regarding Site D or what it says with respect to open spaces on that particular piece of property. D.B.'s noticing is three times the State's requirement. D.B. has always provided for more aggressive public notice and provided notice to the public in ways that go well beyond what many communities do. Public noticing for this project according to State law is 300 ft. D.B. has a requirement of 1000 ft. D.B. requires noticing via signage whether it is this project or similar projects. D.B. posts public notices on its City Website, posts its agendas and agenda materials on the City's Website and that is not required by law. Everything that the Council received tonight is available to the general public not only at the traditional locations of City Hall and the Diamond Bar Library but online for review and download. Stated simply, Yes, attempts continue to be made to misstate the facts to string together things that should not be strung together in order to create controversy or to try to generate support for one's view. Those are inaccurate statements and staff has elaborated in more detail in the staff report and will likely do so again in order to ensure the record is correct at the next public meeting when this is discussed. CA/Jenkins said that several speakers during the course of the last couple of hearings have suggested that the City simply turn this entire site into a park or open space. That would be a choice that only the School District as owner of the property could make. The City is not legally able to simply turn this entire site into a park or open space. Under the California Government Code the City must treat an unused surplus school site as though it were private property and as everyone knows, if it were private property, turning private property into a park or open space would constitute a "taking" on the part of the City and no municipality can take a person's property and simply declare it to be open space and of no value. People in this country and state have a right to make some beneficial use of their property under the Constitution. Under Government Code §65852.9 that right is extended to school districts to the extent that they have unused school sites that they have no intention of using for school purposes. Consequently, to assert that it is inconsistent with the City's JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL General Plan Open Space Element not to convert this into some sort of park or open space is legally erroneous and simply a misstatement of the law which has no merit whatsoever. The truth is that the City cannot do that. That is not to say that State law dictates what type of use must go on the property but it does dictate that the City must treat the school district as though it were a private property owner and allow them the beneficial use of their property. It would be beneficial for everyone to know that the City is not in a position to impose a park or an open space over the entire parcel. Further, in the interest of clearing the record and eliminating a misconception that may be in the airwaves, it has been asserted over and over again that the density of this parcel could be exceeded due to density bonuses that are available under State law and that the City has not accurately represented what the actual maximum allowable density could be. One of the speakers suggested the City "should take it off the table." He has two observations. One is the City cannot take it off the table because the City is preempted from taking it off the table. State law simply provides that private property owners, whether it is the school district or a private owner, has a right to seek density bonuses. That is not to say the property owner will or they would and in fact, most property owners do not. It is very unusual to find a developer _ who is interested in using the density bonus law. However, the City cannot legally take it off the table. It is a matter of State law and the City has to abide by State law and there is nothing that can be done about it. The School District has made it clear it is not interested in seeking density bonuses and he thinks that should be taken at face value. But it is not a correct thing to say that the City should simply eliminate that possibility because the City does not have that power. He also noted that the EIR traffic consultant has looked at the traffic impacts associated with such a hypothetical increase in density and has concluded that it is deminimis. To the extent there is an argument floating around that the addition of these hypothetical density bonus units which will likely never be built will have a significant traffic impact is simply wrong. Finally, there is California Case law that says that the possibility that a developer might utilize something like a density bonus is so speculative at this stage when all the City is doing is adopting a Specific Plan is so speculative that it need not even be addressed in the EIR. Nonetheless, the City asked the traffic consultant to take a look at it and again, the consultant determined that the affect was deminimis. He hopes his additional statement further contributes to putting aside some of the erroneous statements that have been made. — JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL CM/DeStefano stated that the speaker who discussed the point about apartments to which CA/Jenkins was just referring should know by nature of the profession that the speaker is in and the municipality that the speaker works in that the statements that he made is trying to generate concern and support for a particular position. He hopes the individual knows that his municipality is required as is every municipality in the state of California, to provide such a density bonus based upon certain characteristics and certain requirements. It is not unusual and it is speculative at this point as to whether any project would come forward along that line. None have ever come forward in the City of D.B. But to try to imply that low income apartment units are coming or that they are improper is seriously flawed. As to the other comment that senior housing might be appropriate for that site maybe it is. Of course a group that is typically housed in an apartment complex and who is typically at low income levels — seniors. So is the City precluding by that statement a senior project that some residents believe is appropriate? Again, he believes it is unfortunate that comments were made in an attempt to solicit support based upon a flawed representation of the facts and what State law requires. That is why that provision is listed in the document, because it is required to be listed in the document. He only hopes the same type of provisions would be listed in the speaker's City's documents for the projects they work on. Following discussion, M/Herrera moved, C/Everett seconded, to continue the Public Hearing to the City Council meeting of October 19, 2010. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, Tanaka, M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, MPT/Tye ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None C/Chang and MPT/Tye stated their reason for voting "No" was their wish to have the matter tabled indefinitely in order to allow the School District to set the time for the next public hearing. 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: None ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Herrera adjourned the Regular City Council mee Zngt 8:45 p.m. TOMM E CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK JULY 20, 2010 PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 3rd day of August 2010. CAROL HERRERA, MAYOR