Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12/07/2010 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF REGWILAR MEETING 11F THE CIW #F 11AN11HI DECEMBER r r CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:30 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Herrera led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Monsignor Loughnane, St. Denis Catholic Church, 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; Ken Desforges, IS Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Rick Yee, Senior Civil Engineer; Kimberly Molina, Associate Engineer; Ryan McLean, Assistant to the City Manager; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator; Lauren Hidalgo, Public Information Specialist; Christian Malpica Perez, Associate Engineer (Traffic); and Marcy Hilario, Senior Administrative Assistant. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 1.1 City Council Members presented a City Tile to Linda Magnuson, Finance Director, upon the occasion of her retirement following 21 years of service to the City of Diamond Bar. Additional presentations were made by representatives from Senator Bob Huffs office, Congressman Gary Miller's office, Supervisor Don Knabe's office and Assemblyman Curt Hagman's office. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: 2.1 Traffic Management Program PowerPoint Presentation by Public Works Department. SCE/Yee updated the City Council on the City's Traffic Management Program, current traffic challenges and proposed future responses. He spoke about lack of freeway connectors, a limited number of cross town arterials and a limited number of connector roads and highlighted accomplishments including the Citywide traffic signal synchronization project; traffic signal interconnect; installation of eleven traffic signal battery backup systems (eight additional planned for this fiscal year); Closed circuit TV cameras (CCTV) at eight locations providing "real time" video to DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL City Hall (three additional proposed locations for the next fiscal year), and, video detection integration. SCE/Yee outlined challenges staff dealt with prior to implementation of the Traffic Management System (TMS), the primary purpose of which is to provide remote communication between the traffic signals along the City's major arterials and City Hall. Upon full implementation the TMS will provide a valuable tool for monitoring the City's traffic signals enabling immediate detection of signal malfunctions and allowing for signal timing changes to be performed remotely from City Hall. He explained the capabilities and the two-pronged approach to maintaining the system. Staff plans to continue implementing the existing maintenance program to address signal equipment failures; staff will develop and refine additional traffic response timing plans; continue to coordinate with LA County Department of Public Works to complete the Traffic Signal Controller Program upgrades; staff continues working with Cal Trans to provide real time operating data for the on/off ramp signals to help coordinate signals. He presented a video that showed how the system performed. C/Everett commented that residents regularly complain that a particular intersection is always stuck (on red) and asked if the system would either educate drivers or resolve the concern. SCE/Yee responded that the condition is usually a result of some kind of detection error and the technician is usually sent into the field to address those issues. The system is able to detect "stuck" detectors (whether they are in the on or off position) and can determine when vehicles are passing or not passing through the detection zone. Late at night when there are few vehicles on the street there may not be a problem with the system. However, there is a feature that allows the system to be calibrated to use the system to help aid and detect those kinds of issues. C/Everett asked if there was a system in place, or planned, to allow drivers to email or call a central location to report a problem and then to provide feedback to the resident that complained that the problem has been addressed. SCE/Yee explained that residents are not shy about communicating such matters to staff. Staff often gets calls regarding signal problems and staff follows up on every call received. If C/Everett is suggesting that the public be able to interface directly with the system that would not be feasible. At this point the system is intended for staff's technical use. DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL MPT/Tye asked SCE/Yee to verify that the cameras are intended to detect the flow of traffic and are not red light cameras. SCE/Yee responding to MPT/Tye stated that he was absolutely correct. MPT/Tye stated that as one looks eastbound and can view traffic at great length, if staff determined that traffic was backed up toward the park could staff manipulate the signals to relieve that situation. SCE/Yee responded that staff has the ability to manipulate timing adjustments remotely. In situations such as MPT/Tye is describing staff looks at things in context because when adjustments are made at a certain signal it can then affect other legs of the intersection. Every time staff does something to benefit traffic in one direction there is a sacrifice to another leg. MPT/Tye asked if staff was aware of road work and how it would impact traffic such as construction closing down the lanes to one lane on westbound Golden Springs across from Sycamore Canyon Park and southbound Diamond Bar Boulevard just before reaching Brea Canyon. SCE/Yee responded that the Department of Public Works controls all permitting within the public right-of-way and the department is aware of work being performed and those issues are taken into consideration in issuing permits and restricting timeframes. 2.2 City Council Reorganization: M/Herrera thanked her colleagues for allowing her to serve the City as Mayor during the past year. Diamond Bar has remained in a comparatively healthy economic situation because it has made sound decisions. During this time the City was able to purchase a building and for the first time in 21 year D.B. will no longer be renting space but owning its space, which will ultimately save the City hundreds of thousands of dollars a year. She is hopeful that the LA County Library will occupy the first floor because it will be another wonderful achievement for the City. The current library is 9,000 square feet with 35 parking spaces on Grand Avenue and the new location offers the library 18,000 square feet with more than 200 parking spaces for the building. 2.2(a) Selection of Mayor M/Herrera opened nominations for Mayor. DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL C/Chang nominated C/Tye to serve as Mayor. ClEverett seconded the nomination. There were no other nominations offered. By acclamation, C/Tye was affirmed as Mayor. 2.2(b) Selection of Mayor Pro Tem M/Tye opened nominations for Mayor Pro Tem. C/Herrera nominated C/Chang to serve as Mayor Pro Tem. C/Everett nominated C/Tanaka. There were no other nominations offered. By Roll Call vote C/Chang was elected to serve as Mayor Pro Tem C/Chang - Chang C/Everett - Tanaka C/Herrera - Chang C/Tanaka- Tanaka M/Tye - Chang 2.2(c) Presentations to Outgoing Mayor Carol Herrera Presentations made by City of Diamond Bar, Congressman Gary Miller's office, Senator Bob Huff's office, Assemblyman Curt Hagman's office, Supervisor Don Knabe's office, Captain Haim, D.B. Sheriffs Department and Fire Chief Montoya's office. RECESS/RECEPTION: M/Tye recessed the City Council Meeting at 7:27 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Tye reconvened the City Council Meeting at 7:52 p.m. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Sid Mousavi congratulated M/Tye and MPT/Chang on their appointments and thanked outgoing Mayor Carol Herrera for her service to D.B. Greg Ogonowski, 21492 Cold Spring Lane, asked for an update on the property at Cold Spring and Diamond Bar Boulevard (former Union 76 Station) as well as, status of the proposed Verizon FIOS project completion. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: CM/DeStefano responded to Mr. Ogonowski that the City is not aware of DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL plans by the property owner to construct any product on the parcel at Cold Spring Lane and Diamond Bar Boulevard. Verizon has chosen to stop the FIGS project due to financial currents and general economic times. PWD/Liu confirmed the status of the project and elaborated that upon being pressed, Verizon was not able to provide a future commitment date for implementation of the system. Currently, Verizon has no plan to complete the system. IS/Desforges stated that D.B.is off the (Verizon) budget for 2012. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting — December 9, 2010 — 7:00 p -m., AQMD/Government Center Hearing Board Room, 21865 Copley Drive. 5.2 Planning Commission Meeting — December 14, 2010 — 7:00 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. 5.3 City Council Meeting — December 21, 2010 — 6:30 p.m., AQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. 5.4 Christmas Holiday — December 23 and 24, 2010 — City Offices closed in observance of the Christmas Holiday. City Offices reopen Monday, December 27, 2010 at 7:30 a.m. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Herrera moved, C/Everett seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, Herrera, Tanaka, MPT/Chang, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 6.1. CITY COUNCIL MINUTES - Regular Meeting of November 16, 2010 —Approved as corrected. 6.2 PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.2.1 Regular Meeting of September 23, 2010 — Received and filed. 6.2.2 Regular Meeting of October 28, 2010 —Received and filed. 6.3 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER DATED November 10, 2010 through December 1, 2010, totaling $1,331,690.69. DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL 6.4 APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT — Month of October 2010 and Revised Treasurer's Statements of June, July, August and September 2010. 6.5 APPROVED APPLICATION TO BE RECERTIFIED AS A TREE CITY USA CITY FOR 2010 (10TH YEAR) AND AUTHORIZED THE MAYOR TO SIGN THE APPLICATION. 6.7 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2010-39: RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2003-47 IN ITS ENTIRETY AND RE- AUTHORIZING INVESTMENT OF MONIES IN THE LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND, AND CHANGING THOSE AUTHORIZED TO MAKE DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS OF MONIES. 6.8 AWARDED DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES CONTRACT FOR RESIDENTIAL AREA 7 AND ARTERIAL ZONE 5 (INCLUDING DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD FROM SUNSET CROSSING ROAD TO TEMPLE AVENUE) ROAD MAINTENANCE PROJECT TO ONWARD ENGINEERING IN THE AMOUNT OF $85,560 AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $8,600 FOR CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $94,160. MATTERS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.6 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-38: ESTABLISHING THE DAY AND TIME OF CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2001-46 IN ITS ENTIRETY. C/Everett said he was surprised about the proposed resolution because he felt that many people work and most public meetings start at 7:00 p.m. so he would prefer that the City start the regular meeting at 7:00 p.m. CM/DeStefano explained that this matter was brought before the City Council as a result of recent City Council meetings where public hearing matters which were by advertising and by policy, scheduled to commence at 7:00 p.m. were ready to commence earlier. However, due to the long standing policy that public hearings commence at 7:00 p.m., it was necessary to stall the public hearing portion by rearranging the agenda during the regular meeting. Based upon those experiences, staff looked at the existing policy and brought back a concept of changing the 7:00 p.m. start time for a public hearing to 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as the matter may be heard following the opening of the DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL regular City Council meeting commencing at 6:30 p.m. There is no change to the start time of the meeting; however, the matter is at the discretion of the City Council. To that end, staff will provide whatever information is available in order for the City Council to render its decision. C/Herrera felt it was important to have a practice in place that worked best for the majority. Several times during the last six months of this year, the City Council has finished its business ahead of schedule and has had to proceed out of order. She would prefer that the City Council have the flexibility to proceed with its public hearings earlier, if appropriate, and would support adoption of the resolution. C/Tanaka felt it was important for individuals to be able to get to the meetings and waiting 10 or 15 minutes was not a big issue. He was in favor of leaving the current policy in place. MPT/Chang suggested a compromise to 6:45 or 6:50. M/Tye said he felt it was a good idea to allow the public hearing to commence earlier. He did not feel this was a proposal to deny the community an opportunity to participate but that it was important to get on with the business of the City and if that means the City needs to move forward at 6:45 or 6:50 the Council should have the flexibility and freedom to do so which this resolution would allow. C/Everett proposed that all public meetings commence at 7:00 p.m. including the City Council meeting. M/Tye said the current topic of discussion is moving the public hearing portion of the meeting back to 6:30 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible, not moving the Council Meeting time forward to 7:00 p.m. C/Everett said he was offering that the City Council should move its meetings to a 7:00 p.m. start time and asked if it would be prudent to bring the matter back to the City Council for further discussion. C/Herrera moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to change the public hearing start time at 6:45 p.m. or as soon thereafter as possible. Motion approved by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: C/Herrera, MPT/Chang, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, Tanaka ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as matters may be heard. 7.1 A CONTINUED 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, CALIFORNIA (ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 87814-002-900, 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). CDD/Gubman updated the Council on the School District's recommendation that was passed at a special School Board meeting held on December 1. The School Board's recommendation to the City Council is to change the land use plan for Site D to 100 percent residential. Along with the recommendation, the Board of Trustees included two general parameters to help formulate that land use plan: 1) to incorporate municipal open space and park areas into the land use plan and to include some form of entryway monument, generally at the corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard at Brea Canyon Road as an entry statement to the City; and, 2) to reduce the density to a number below what is in the current use plan. Currently, the land use plan with the mixed use components specifies a density of 20 units per acre and the School Board's recommendation is to reduce the density to a number that ties more closely to what the prevailing surrounding community densities. These recommendations were based on School Board deliberations made in open session taking into account all public comments, all public input and the workshop hosted by the School District in which the community participated and expressed their preferences for the future vision of Site D. Therefore, the primary decision point for which staff is seeking direction this evening is to either stay with the mixed use land plan and continue the matter to revise studies to finalize that plan or to revise the plans focus to a 100 percent residential use in accordance with the School Board's recommendation. Staff is prepared to proceed with City Council's direction; however, staff states that this recommendation be discussed in light of the City's current economic development strategy that envisions commercial on Site D as well as, the School Board's recommendation and the neighborhood input where the consideration proposes the all - residential plan_ The commercial aspect of this plan was revisited DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL through a market study conducted by Keyser Marsten and as discussed during the last City Council meeting, the commercial viability is there but may not come online for the next five to seven years. CDD/Gubman reiterated that the land use plan currently before the City Council is based on a strategic vision for the long term development of Site D, a vision that is supported by recent professional analysis. As the Council deliberates on this matter the next steps staff will take will obviously be based on the direction provided by the Council regarding land use framework. If, for example, the City Council directs staff to proceed with a continuation of the mixed-use plan, the EIR would have to be updated and if the recommendation of the Planning Commission to incorporate a public park into this project be included, staff will also need to include criteria for the park within the environmental document ultimately presented to Council. If the Council directs staff to move forward with the 100 percent residential, staff will implement several steps including, revision of consultants contracts to address the change in the project scope and revise the environmental documentation; revise the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the School District which currently includes an agreement that the planning process proceed with a mixed-use plan; begin working on development of specific criteria to accommodate a 100 percent residential plan and perhaps a park element within the site that includes pertinent land use parameters such as the maximum density (maximum number of units that would be appropriate for the site), what kind of housing should be planned for the site (detached single family homes, townhomes or a hybrid of two or more housing types), and, if a park space or multiple park spaces are part of this planning process, the land use plan will have to include specifications such as the size and location of the park space and possibly what types of amenities the park space should include (walking trails, etc.). Additionally, Council may wish to make a third decision: If the Council believes that exploring the commercial vision is warranted staff can further explore that possible vision which would require a continuation of this discussion to do so. Staff would be willing to conduct more public workshops to flush out what types of commercial might be acceptable or at least determine what specific elements of commercial development are problematic in this area and whether the City can devise land use regulations and parameters to mitigate those concerns. CDD/Gubman concluded his presentation by recapping the Council's objectives for providing guidance to staff. Nancy Lyons, President, WVUSD Board of Trustees, thanked former Mayor Herrera for her service to the City on behalf of the School District and congratulated M/Tye and MPT/Chang on their appointments. She reported that the Board has submitted its DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL recommendation for Site D which calls for 100 percent residential with minimal peripheral open space, green belts or park areas. Originally, the Site D plan called for 20 units/homes per acre on the residential portion. Based on what the School Board heard from the D.B. community through its outreach program, the School District believes the property is better suited for 100 percent residential and that the residential density should be reduced to around 10 units per acre, similar to the Vantage project by Target, and of course the Board realizes that the judgment of the proposed density is up to the City Council. This recommendation is what the School Board believes is in the best interest of the School District, its students and the district's ability to continue to provide a quality educational program. The School Board asks that the City seriously consider its recommendation as the Council considers its due diligence and reach a decision that is in the best interest for the community. M/Tye asked for clarification on the 10 units per acre recommendation which President Lyons provided. M/Tye opened the Public Hearing. John Martin, 1249 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, a 37 year resident, stated that the Council has and will continue to hear from residents living within 1000 square feet of Site D. The City has also heard from at least 800 residents living in the northern and middle sections of D.B. who signed a petition at Albertsons and Vons stating they do not want a commercial center on Site D. The City has heard from the merchants at the HMart center that another shopping center less than a half mile from them would hurt them. The City has heard tonight from the WVUSD which unanimously concurred that they do not want a commercial center on Site D. Site D is located at°the entrance to the City and people do not want a shopping center there. It seems that people want the high berm along Diamond Bar Boulevard kept so that cars entering the City see green instead of asphalt. A great many people want a focal point at the corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Brea Canyon and perhaps put an actual windmill there with a permanent structure that welcomes everyone to D.B. To the right on the property the City owns, a park would be ideal. But the main emphasis is that the whole corner would be green and inviting and pastoral. The property is owned by the WVUSD. They have determined that by having 100 or 200 children live there is better than half that many children living on half the property and a shopping center on the other half. Without the shopping center the number of homes could increase and the number of children would increase respectively. Every year the State of California pays DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL $5000 or $6000 per student in ADA subsidies to the school district. $5000 times 50 to 100 kids is $200,000 to $500,000 more in income for the school. This is continuous ongoing revenue and it is money they could certainly use. He urged the Council to take the shopping center option off the table for Site D this evening. The sales tax revenue generated to the City cannot offset the loss of ADA money to the School District. Gary Cholo, Walnut, said that even though he does not live in D.B. there is a common thread within the School District the District is in difficult financial times. Despite his and his colleague's commitment (their offer to fund $168,000 of the annual elementary program for three years) the funding was enough to provide for only two music teachers instead of the three that are needed. For the same reason that he does not feed his children two meals instead of three, he felt the children of the District deserved to have a full daily plate of music instruction. Therefore, as of August 2010, he and his colleague d ecided to increase their commitment to the District to $248,000 per year for the next three years so that the children could enjoy the same music program that children have enjoyed in the past. Today, the City Council has before it a request from the School District to allow Site D to be rezoned so that the land may be sold at a more favorable price. He asked that the Council to approve the District's request and share in his and Dawn's vision that the small steps they take today will ensure that the educational foundations of today will be in place tomorrow. The Council's favorable vote will have a huge positive impact on the ability of the District to provide the quality education that the children deserve. The children of the future need to have the same opportunities as the children of the past. Carolyn Elfelt, 21119 Silver Cloud, a 30 -year resident who has raised children who have attended schools in the WVUSD and has served on the school board for the past 10 years, assured Council that WVUSD is very committed to providing its students with the best education possible. The reality is that the District needs to secure funding outside of what the State provides. The State cannot sustain the funding for critical programs the students must have to compete in a global economy. A good example is the ability to provide funding for technology. When she first joined the Board the State had a grand plan to provide technology for all high schools and middle schools. That plan died a couple of recessions ago before the funding reached the middle schools. Another high profile example of failure to sustain is the state's program for smaller classroom sizes (20-1 program). When first introduced, it provided jobs for construction workers and new teachers for all additional classrooms. But now, classroom sizes are once again DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 12 . CITY COUNCIL increasing as funding dries up and many young teachers are looking for permanent jobs in other fields. Again, the State cannot sustain funding for critical educational programs. So for WVUSD, Site D is a much-needed opportunity to transform a passive asset into a revenue generating asset to help fund technology, for example, for its students and the WVUSD deeply appreciates the City's efforts and the community support that enables the district to accomplish this goal. Peichin Lee, 2856 Wagon Train Lane, a 10 -year resident with three teenagers attending DBHS, is a real estate developer. She has studied Site D for many years and believes that any commercial development would have to be successful out of the gate; otherwise, the City would have another empty center. The supply and demand factor is important and the neighborhood is already saturated with commercial. She said she did not believe there was sufficient demand to support a new shopping center. In addition, by taking a five minute drive, people can visit a very successful and large mall in Brea that provides a good mix of tenants to meet the needs of the medium to upper income shoppers in the area. Also, Site D is very hilly and difficult to access which is a critical factor for a community's commercial to survive and thrive. A commercial center usually draws customers from within a three mile radius and the number of households within that radius will not support another shopping center. She said she would prefer to see a low density development on the site which she believed was the best and highest use for Site D. Clark Rucker, Phillips Ranch, said he supports the WVUSD and its position on this issue. His son recently graduated from DBHS and is now in college and his daughter is currently attending DBHS and he would like to see his daughter have the same opportunity his son and all other students have had. $19 million in budget reductions over the last three years have hit the School District hard. Cuts have hit classrooms, staff, called for furlough days, loss of instructional days for students and as a result, after-school activities and programs have been reduced and layoffs have occurred. Instructional materials have not been purchased. WVUSD recommends 100 percent residential. The last appraisal (of the property) highlights the most revenue is with 100 percent residential. Homes, kids, enrollment equals money for the District. 100 homes averaging one student per home would result in about $527,100 in annual revenue; 100 homes average two students per home, $1 million or plus annually. The math is simple; do the right thing. DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL Denis Paul, 1429 Blenbury, a 32 year resident, said he believed there had been a very healthy dialogue with the residents of the affected area and that there had been continued State funding woes as eloquently described by others. He said he was present to encourage the City Council to do what they do best and that is to listen and respond to the needs and concerns of its residents and to continue to support the District's efforts to provide a world class education. Mixed use zoning may help in future years but to do so would be to ignore the voices of its residences and would minimize benefits to students. He encouraged the Council to glean from the heart and not the bottom line and for the Council to support the District's proposal for Site D. Sherry Babb, 1249 S. Diamond Bar Boulevard, a 10 -year resident who is a real estate developer and who has a daughter who graduated from DBHS and college, and a younger daughter who is a student at DBHS, has been a member of the DBHS Chinese- American Parents Association since 2007. This very good school district is facing significant economic problems and everyone needs to work together to ensure a good educational standard for the students and therefore, it is incumbent on everyone to make certain the School District's recommended plan is approved to make sure it is a benefit for all and especially a benefit for ongoing education. She thanked the City for providing such a good community and school district and with everyone working together she believed this matter would be resolved satisfactorily. Debby Dobson, 364 Windemere Lane, Walnut, President, Coordinating Council, WVUSD, speaking on behalf of parents, stated that the Board works hard to come up with different ideas for fundraisers to bring in money for the district and its teachers, but what the district is doing is not nearly enough. She is also the President of the Suzanne Community Club and during last night's meeting and all prior meetings of that organization during the past year, teachers and staff members have repeatedly asked for help paying for programs, etc. for the students and requests are outpacing the fundraising efforts. She said that everyone appreciates what the school district is doing and hopes that the City Council supports their recommendation for Site D. David Busse, 21455 Ambushers Street, a resident since 1983, has two children that graduated from the D.B. schools and college said he believed D.B. was the best of small town living wherein residents were allowed to express their opinions and be heard. If the school district is in dire financial straits he did not believe that commercial could be included in the discussion as a result of the economic study that indicates commercial would not be viable for DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL five to seven years and several real estate developers have echoed that sentiment. What he is hearing and from what he has heard in the past, the recommended project of residential with a park element will be what is needed to attract the young families moving to this area who cannot afford $700,000 homes in his area. He wants development that can bring young people to the community who will help the community thrive and believed that the school district's recommendation would be the best use of Site D. David Wu, 21252 East Running Branch Road, thanked the Council for maintaining the high standard of living for the residential community of D.B. Because D.B. sales tax is higher than Orange County's sales tax, many people shop in Orange County. He did not believe it would be a good idea to put commercial on Site D because there is not sufficient population in the area to support the businesses. He also felt that the concept of high density would hurt the residential home values. He understands that the school district needs money but there are other ways to bring in money such as increasing taxes to support the schools and he believes people would be willing to pay more taxes to support the schools to maintain the community's higher standard of living. Wanda Tanaka, a resident since 1976 and very involved with the School District, was initially opposed to developing Site D because of the wildlife, but if it has to be, it has to be, so please listen to the people and find a developer that has a vision to make Site D a beautiful place for D.B. Christopher Chung, 21470 Cold Spring Lane, said he has heard the City Council and others say that the reason the City is going through this process is that the major applicant, WVUSD, needs the money and as the property owner, has the vested interest to pursue a project they deem fit. And he has also heard that in the event the City Council does not consider that, there would be some consequences including inverse condemnation. What he is hearing this evening is that WVUSD wants to go with 100 percent resident but the City Council has a lot to say about what that ultimate use may be. Since the School District owns more than 90 percent of the site and is the primary applicant, their application should be amended to focus on 100 percent residential and the City Council should be focusing on that as well. He understands that the City Council still wants a commercial component; however, residents who live in those homes will eat and shop in D.B. and that should increase the City's base. Were there to be a commercial center it may not generate that much in sales tax. DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL Sid Mousavi said he has great respect for the School Board members who are doing a great job for the children of the community and also understands and appreciates the District's attempt to sell the property and use the proceeds to better the children's education. As a land owner, the district can make recommendations for development just like any other landowner within the community. However, land use decisions are vested with the City Council. He believes the City Council should investigate all options in addition to 100 percent housing or a traditional mixed- use concept because the site offers great opportunity for creativity. An urban village concept with a green belt would promote urban living and would improve the quality of life for residents. He encouraged the Council to investigate and invest time in alternatives to 100 percent housing. M/Tye asked for Council discussion. C/Herrera said she heard comments about "why would the City want any commercial at Site D" and it is the City's fiduciary responsibility to make sure that the fiscal health of the City is solid. Otherwise, if the City does not have a good tax base to provide the revenue for programs and maintain roadways and other things that the City provides, it then falls on the residents to pay additional taxes to maintain the City as they expect it to be maintained. So it is natural that the City Council would be interested in commercial. At the same time, she believed that Council Members have historically been very careful with its decisions, and that D.B. has benefited from those careful and thoughtful proceedings. She wants whatever is done on Site D to be successful. Yes, it is a high profile site right next to the freeway. There was an economic update that indicated that less than 25,000 cars pass through the area. Someone complained about so many cars passing through the area. D.B. is dissected by two major freeways and it has no choice but to accept cars exiting the freeway for various reasons to cut through the City. Whether those people driving through the City will stop and shop at whatever business might locate at Site D remains to be seen. The study says there is need for a market but a market would most likely take up a good portion of the 10 acres and would probably be a standalone business and standalone businesses do not do well just as standalone car dealers do not do well, which the City experienced with Diamond Bar Honda when that business closed. Stores like to be located in close proximity to other stores because it creates a synergy. She said she had a concern about the size that is being discussed and whether it is enough to support the area and the City. She has a concern that the study says that because of the current market conditions and financing conditions there is a possibility that there would be no DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL development for five to seven years. So if the City Council retained the 50/50 Specific Plan as currently written would it mean that the school district would sell half the property for residential development and sell the remainder to someone who would later develop commercial so that it would remain vacant for five to seven years? She was not sure that would' be a good solution for the City. Speakers commented on property values and one reason property values are so high in D.B. is because of the quality of the school districts, so everyone has a vested economic interest in making sure that the school districts maintain the best quality of educational services possible. This is a difficult deliberation for the City Council because there are so many issues to weigh. Residents have said "do the right thing — make the right decision." The City Council is struggling to figure out what "the right thing/decision" is and she would strongly 'advocate that the City Council make a decision tonight about which way to move forward. MPT/Chang thanked everyone for their presentations. She grew up and attended local schools and understands the current funding needs. She is married to a school board member in another school district within the City and understands the issues. As everyone knows, the City has agreed to collaborate in the planning of land use and zoning designations for the site. The school district has a right to make a determination about what is in the best interest of the school district and the State has to determine what is in the best interest of the entire city and sometimes interests align and sometimes they diverge, and she would like to see all parties come to a happy compromise. Bottom line is that the Council is working for the betterment of the community. She was elected to represent all of D.B. and believes all options should remain open. The City's role is to determine land use and the Council Members have a duty to the residents to determine what is the best use and how the City can benefit from that land use. She believed the City should continue to explore the viability of commercial. During her recent research she has spoken with a lot of people including experts and residents who spoke with her about retaining some commercial component. She also believed that the public outreach effort should be continued before determining the final land use for this site. She is not certain that one five hour meeting attended by 60 residents, many of whom left during the meeting, is a good representation of what the residents want. It is incumbent upon the Council and the City to get this right because this is one of the last pieces of undeveloped property in the community, and there must be careful and thoughtful consideration before acting. People talk about ugly strip malls and asphalt, but during her research she discovered that urban villages are the trend. These urban villages incorporate eco -friendly development. She cited one development DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL parcel that is very similar to Site D. Five years may seem like a long time, but the City needs to plan for long term success. She suggested this matter remain open and that the City and the district continue its outreach sessions. C/Everett said he was troubled that he did not have enough information on the background and specifics of the City's economic development strategy for Site D. Secondly, he was very concerned with the reality of the dollars that would be netted by the project. He is frustrated because he felt the typical applicant/developer was a professional and the School District had been challenged because their business is school and kids, not development. He thinks the entry monument and green space is critical. The shopping center blacktop mentality is unfair to all parties because that is not a creative mentality, and he would agree with MPT/Chang's concept of an eco -friendly urban living village. At the same time he understands the school district's wants and needs. So, he is not really sure what would realistically net out to the best benefit of the school district and the kids and whether this would support D.B. for the long term. He said he is very, very frustrated but feels it is important to look at the mixed use development that is on the books. He also felt that everyone should be given a list of urban villages for viewing, and as indicated by CDD/Gubman, flesh out additional study sessions to refine the commercial vision. He said his focus would be on the 50/50 plan and it felt very irresponsible to him to go with the 100 residential without knowing the financial repercussions, because he fears expectations would exceed reality. C/Tanaka said he respected the School Board's recommendation. The City Council Members are not architects and developers and if the development is restricted it might be too restrictive to attract the greatest number of developers and types of developments that might be most beneficial to the School District and to the residents. He would favor further discussion and would prefer to postpone a decision until after the holidays. M/Tye said he did not think the Council should be driven by the calendar and the holidays. There is a decision that the Council needs to make and it needs to deal with the facts it has. A land owner wants to sell what they have identified as "surplus property". Whether one likes this process or not, there is a process and this has gone through the process, first with the Planning Commission and many hearings which were appropriately noticed and the public input that those hearings produced which is included in the Staff's report, all of which call for residential. The property owner has DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL come back saying they would like 100 percent residential; 11 out of 12 speakers said they did not want a commercial center. Yet he keeps hearing the City should back away and take a look at commercial, even among the five Council Members there is no consensus. If there is an urban village is that not up to the developer that buys this parcel to propose that development plan? The School District is not a developer and the Council is not trying to tell them what to do but rather come up with a Specific Plan that says this is what we see for D.B. He has served on the City Council for five years and one of the first things the Council did after he came on board was to hold a workshop at the Diamond Bar Center and talk about the need for commercial in D.B. and for redevelopment by targeting certain areas. One of the areas that Bob Zirbes wanted to see developed was Site D and what he saw going in there, because the difference between what Bob Zirbes saw for Site D and a Birch Street is that Birch Street is flat and Site D is not flat. It seems that the conversation is about squeezing something into Site D to say that the City has commercial at that location. Tonight we heard a unique perspective from a D.B. resident who has children in WVUSD who is a developer and whose business is studying retail centers that will work. She would be glad to make that site work for commercial if she could, but in her professional opinion, commercial will not work on that site. That is what frightens him the most is to get three, four five years into the future and look at a center and realize someone was right that it would either be a booming center or there would be more commercial vacancies in D.B. He believes it is best to retain the character of the neighborhood which is residential and he believes the Council should follow what is best for D.B. He believes 100 percent residential is best for D.B. This Council has built a $30 million reserve. That was done with the retail it has minus Diamond Bar Honda and the City has to attract retailers like Target, and the City needs to support businesses in D.B. like Chili's. Someone once told him D.B. needs a downtown and he differs with that premise. He believes D.B. has a downtown and it is Birch Street in Brea which is unfortunate, but that does not mean that the City needs 100 to 150,000 square feet of commercial at the south end of town. To say that the City needs more hearings, more outreach, etc. is to completely discount the 60 to 70 people that went to the WVUSD sponsored workshop and put forth their efforts. To hold the property owner hostage for five to seven years in the hope that commercial recovers and would be viable for that parcel would be like confiscating half the property. Think about why folks move to D.B. Do they move to D.B. for the shopping? When he and his wife moved here they did not move here because of the Kmart and not because of the library. They moved to D.B. because of the schools. People move here for the schools and if the City is not DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL going to do all that is possible to support its schools by letting them dispose of an asset, the City will witness the demise of that school district. He took exception to the notion that voters would approve higher taxes to support the schools and cited instances in which voters had rejected such proposals. M/Tye said he believed folks were tired of paying more taxes, that they were fed up with paying more for what they feel they are getting, and that folks are at their limit. If he thought it would be an effective commercial location the City could probably make a case for it, but he does not believe it would be feasible or effective for the location. He believed the Council had sufficient information to render its decision and felt it was fair to the school district for the Council to make a decision. He did not believe the School District was interested in being in the property management business because they have not offered to develop the site and lease it out to commercial businesses. The Pomona School District, under a previous superintendent, was in the business of acquiring property and the District now finds itself in a position of owning property it cannot sell. Site D is an asset that WVUSD can use to help stop the bleeding inflicted on it by Sacramento and he believed it was appropriate to say yes to 100 hundred percent residential. C/Herrera explained that the original conversation regarding the "Target" development was about the development being on two pads. Originally, the City wanted commercial on the top and commercial on the bottom and it had visions of a great looking project. The developer who purchased the land did not want commercial on the top because he would get a greater return by putting residential on the top and commercial only on the bottom. In past times, the City has discussed how much the City might expect to receive from a 10 -acre commercial development and the figure was $100,000 per year. And it is the same amount where Vantage is now located. So the City adjusted for that and required a "door" tax of $10,000 per unit which was added to the price of the condos and single family homes that were sold. One would think that would be a deterrent to a developer to have that kind of assessment placed on his development, but those houses and those condos went so fast that there was a waiting line to get a unit. So if the Council wants to secure the economic health of the City it can do the same thing for the houses at Site D. And then the City would not be needing sales tax revenue from the project. She is concerned that in order to get any commercial, there would be a five to seven year wait to find out whether it would even be a possibility that someone would buy the land and someone would be able to get the financing to develop the parcel. DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL MPT/Chang said she disagreed because this is a snapshot in time and to let go of the potential of what the site could be would be shortsighted. School districts are looking to retain their properties and lease them out for the time being because they will not get the purchase value they need. When one disposes of property it equates to a one time deposit into capital outlays whereas, leasing would result in generating revenue that could be deposited into a general fund for a wide variety of uses. She is not a school board member and this is not the school district so she leaves it up to the school district to determine how they would like to proceed depending on the Council's decision. She keeps hearing restrictions and the perception of roadblocks. She thinks times are changing and people are thinking more creatively. There are a lot of "out-of-the-box" developers and the City has not talked with any of those developers. She has spoken with many people who intuitively express that Site D would be perfect for mixed use. She felt it would be prudent for the City to begin having conversations with a wide variety of people. There was mention of a new resident who spoke at the last Council meeting, but what was not mentioned was the fact that while he said he moved here for the schools, he also expressed that he wanted his kids to be able to work and play in D.B. Growing up in D.B. MPT/Chang said she walked everywhere. She loves the community and believes the City can reach for the stars and talk to people who can provide important feedback. If the Council considered commercial, she believes it could be an amazing project and would not want the City to forego the opportunity of investigating that possibility. M/Tye felt that a decision contrary to the School District's recommendation would place a burden on the School District. He has not heard anyone from the school district nor the consultant say they like the idea of building and leasing buildings. The District's stationery says "kids first, every student, every day" and that is what they need the resources for and he does not feel comfortable weighing in on what the school does with their resources or how they generate those resources. He agreed with MPT/Chang that this is a land use decision for the City and it is not a lot different from other land use decisions the City has made, such as the SunCal or Larkstone projects. He did not believe it was the City Council's role to seek developers and retailers to get an opinion about property the City does not own. The City has tried that at different locations around town and as a result, the community has what it has. The City did not get any big box retailers and did not get anyone who is looking to redevelop the Kmart Center. In his opinion, that would be the grandest plan of all — redevelopment of the Kmart Center. If the City could start over from the freeway to Golden Springs and from Diamond Bar DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL Boulevard to Prospectors, the City would have everything it needed - all of the retail imaginable. But he did not believe the City needed to shoehorn retail or commercial into a location because of the lack of retail or commercial. Instead, the City needs to make the best of what it has. MPT/Chang agreed that the City has talked with developers and retailers and the market is changing. Retailers are looking at how to approach the market. The median income in D.B. is $105,000 and the median age is 39. She believes all possibilities should be considered. She understands that this is a concern for the school district; however, the City should be looking out long term and consider this location very carefully because it is one of the last undeveloped properties left in D.B. M/Tye reiterated his belief .that the highest and best use for Site D was 100 percent residential. He felt it would be good for folks who wanted to move into D.B. because there would be new product available and, he does not see the benefit of commercial. He agreed that the City needs to focus on tax producing businesses in D.B. which is how this Council over 21 years has built a $30 million surplus. It does not mean that the surplus can be spent for no good reason; it means the City is in good shape and the City can weather the current economic climate which means the City can be diligent in its pursuit of retailers it wants in D.B. C/Herrera said the Council keeps saying it needs more information and more information. The Council has been considering more information since July and before. What will happen in the future is unknown and speculative. How long will the downturn last. Speculation is that the downturn will last for five to seven years. What if economists are off the mark and it is longer? All this City Council knows at this point is the "now" and she believes it is time for the Council to make a decision now based on its best information it has instead of continuing to say we need more information. Staff has provided a massive amount of information. Council has asked for studies and staff has updated studies. C/Herrera moved to change the land use framework to one hundred percent residential and direct staff to prepare the following documents for Council consideration: Prepare a revised Memorandum of Understanding to eliminate commercial from the land use palate and to prepare changes to the consultant's contracts to revise the Specific Plan and the EIR. M/Tye seconded the motion. Motion failed by the following Roll Call vote: DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: C/Herrera, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett,Tanaka, MPT/Chang ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None MPT/Chang moved to continue exploring the viability of the commercial component and to continue the public outreach effort. CM/DeStefano stated that based upon the School District's recommendation, his sense would be that the School District would not be willing to pay for that effort. At this time the City and the School District are sharing costs. As the document currently states, the School District, through the MOU would be paying the City back upon sale of the property. There would need to be a discussion with the school district regarding the outreach component for commercial discussion purposes, and his suggestion is that the School District would not wish to pay for that. Based upon the School District's recent outreach with their consultant, a similar kind of session would be about $35,000 and if the City were to have multiple meetings it would probably result in $3,00045,000 more per meeting. Timing will be an issue and the City would not begin a public outreach discussion process until probably mid-January. Staff would need to bring to the City Council public outreach consultants for consideration as well as, the costs to hire those consultants for the work they would need to do to advertise and schedule public outreach sessions mid January or beyond. Moving toward a public hearing for that purpose would likely be no earlier than the first public meeting in February and perhaps not until the second meeting in February/first meeting in March. MPT/Chang amended her motion to early to mid February. C/Everett seconded the amended motion and said that he hoped the Council could get a status report the meeting prior with the public hearing scheduled for February. CM/DeStefano asked the Council to bifurcate the issues: Whether the Council wishes to have additional outreach that most likely the City would be paying for to initiate discussion about commercial opportunities on that property. Assuming the Council wishes to do so, it would move toward directing the City staff to bring back proposals because it would most likely exceed the City Manager's authority for the City Council to then approve such a contract. Staff could most likely not do that for the Council until the first meeting in January, assuming staff could get the consultants to participate in the next few weeks. If the decision is made to hire the consultant the first meeting in January, public outreach sessions would likely not take place any sooner than end of January/first of February DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 23 CITY COUNCIL timeframe. Again, staff would probably not have anything for the Council until mid February/first of March. If the Council wishes to proceed in that matter, direct staff accordingly to get all of that done and once staff returned to Council with its report the Council would make its decision on those details. If the public outreach bid proposals are in the area of $100,000 for example, that may be something the Council decides not to do. It may be far less than that but in his opinion, the Council needs to first decide what it wants to do. MPT/Chang amended her motion to pursue the public outreach and direct staff to begin considering proposals for a consultant. C/Everett seconded the motion. M/Tye asked for an understanding of the motion. Given that the City has a property owner that owns 99 percent of Site D that is more than likely not interested in spending any more money on consultants, are MPT/Chang and C/Everett telling him that they want him to vote to spend tens of thousands of dollars for a study given what has already been spent and given what the City knows about the consultative process, and given the time and effort it will take, is that what is being asked? MPT/Chang said yes, because she believes the City needs to do this carefully. M/Tye asked MPT/Chang not to couch her proposal in terms of being careful because the City has not done it "carefully" when in fact the City has done exactly that. Seventy residents showed up for the workshop. They have had their input. They said "we want all residential." The school district is the landowner. The school district has said "we would like one hundred percent residential." As he said at the last meeting he is getting a very clear picture of why residents feel they are not being listened to. "We want residential, we want residential, we want residential" and now we're saying, let's look at commercial. MPT/Chang told M/Tye that he was only talking about people who came to the meetings. She has gotten phone calls and emails and is the Council not listening to the people who sent in their letters, their emails and their phone calls? M/Tye said he felt the City was listening to everyone because that is part of the process. MPT/Chang said she did not think so. She stated that she has DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 24 CITY COUNCIL received several phone calls and emails today from residents in favor of some form of mixed use and that all she is saying is she does not believe the Council should foreclose any options. At the end of the day we're just saying we want to have a conversation about not removing commercial and keeping it on the table. She wants to proceed with this carefully. The Council did not discuss any commercial component even though it was in the Specific Plan. Commercial was not discussed at the community forum. There were at least three groups that brought up the commercial component but it was not further explored. The consultant asked what participants would like to see on the site and how would it benefit the school district. Nothing else was discussed. She felt that the public outreach was not a back and forth discussion, she feels the Council needs to get into the root of things and explore all options. For her, she supports spending an extra $30,000 to do what in her opinion, is right. The Council does not know what that will cost and that is what she is asking staff to explore. M/Tye said that when a consultant says "what would you like to see there, what would you paint it — here is the palate and you do it" and that is what they come up with one hundred percent residential what does that say. MPT/Chang stated that she did not believe that the participants in the workshop explored commercial and that when they drew up their concepts it did not include commercial. Their input was, "we would really like to see residential". That does not mean that commercial was not considered. Commercial has been considered there for 10 or 15 years. MPT/Chang reiterated that the workshop was five hours long and ended with 20 people present. What about the other 60,000 residents. There is a motion on the floor. I think we can disagree to disagree. M/Tye said he felt they were going to have to agree to disagree but the fact that all of D.B. did not turn out should not discount the folks that did turn out. MPT/Chang said she agreed with M/Tye on that point. C/Herrera said she was greatly disturbed by the direction Council is now taking because she believed it served no purpose for the School District and for the City to delay this until probably March of next year and to postpone a decision that far in advance with the City Manager telling the Council it would most likely cost the City about $100,000 and she opposes the City spending that kind of money to reach a conclusion that more public outreach results in a desire for residential when the Council could vote now and move on. There comes a time- when one has to stop "I want to think about it, I want to think about it, I want to think about it." This DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 25 CITY COUNCIL Council was elected to make decisions and let us make decisions. MPT/Chang asked CM/DeStefano if it would cost $100,000. CM/DeStefano responded that the outreach undertaken by the School District for the workshop that took place in mid October cost the District about $35,000 including about a month of effort by the consultant. CM/DeStefano said that based on multiple meetings and depending upon the meetings, it could result in a cost to the City of $100,000. However, if the City held multiple meetings it could be $35,000-$50,000. If the City went through a very exhaustive schedule with meetings over many months and getting into more and more detail, someone would have to facilitate that and with all of the various aspects involved, it could get very pricey. He indicated that it could be at least $35,000-$50,000 for a single workshop effort and subsequent effort, but it depends on exactly what and when it is done and how many times the City has workshop efforts. He has heard "a workshop" and he has heard "workshops" so he is trying to allow for flexibility in the number he is putting out in order to try to make certain that the Council understands what the cost might be. MPT/Chang said there are three Council Members who would like to continue exploring the commercial component and it seems that we (the three Council Members) feel that it is prudent to include the community's decision regarding the commercial. Because at this point three Council Members voted "No" on one hundred percent residential those three Council Members would like to be inclusive of the community in getting more input for the commercial aspect. M/Tye indicated to MPT/Chang that he understands what she is saying and asked her to please not be confused that this decision is "immediate" because it is not. This has been through a process already. In his office he has a report from 2007 about Site D so there is nothing immediate about this. C/Tanaka explained that the reason he was not voting for one hundred percent residential at this point was because the Council had been discussing a 50/50 split all along and as MPT/Chang stated, the Council had not seen any kind of proposal for commercial. At the same time, during a couple of school board meetings, they have turned it around and have now made the request for one hundred percent residential. This is an easy statement to make; however, without looking at what the maximum density would be, and without consideration of park, trails or open space area buffer zones between the current and new development, it is very difficult for him to now say he would like to DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 26 CITY COUNCIL see one hundred percent residential. Had that recommendation been made with more details as to the actual density, the type of product (condos or single family homes), whether it was a larger park space other than one at the corner entrance of the property, it would have made it an easier decision for him but at this point he is not ready to decide on whether one hundred percent residential is acceptable without having any other details. M/Tye said he appreciated C/Tanaka's input. Again, the Lewis Company had an option to purchase this property seven or eight years ago. To say we are now taking that option off the table all of a sudden is not accurate and the reason Lewis did not exercise that option was because Lewis felt it could not make 50 percent residential and 50 percent commercial work for them. That's what Lewis does - they are developers. So, that potential buyer at a much better economical time took a bath for whatever they paid for that option. They decided they could not make that option work at Site D and suffered the consequences and that is why the Council is having this dialogue today is why the Council is considering a Specific Plan for Site D. Council heard from a developer tonight (public speaker) who said the same thing. This is not a viable location for the commercial square footage. C/Everett called for the question. AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, Tanaka, MPT/Chang NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, M/Tye ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None Mayor Tye asked CM/DeStefano if the direction from Council was clear to staff. CM/DeStefano said he believed the Council had voted to ask City staff to seek public outreach consultants to craft a plan to seek public input of a commercial development on this property to help the City to understand what is possible from a resident's standpoint, what they might be fearful, of and what modifications might be appropriate to make the commercial palatable to the residents. That effort will take one or a series of workshops and after that, come back to the Council with that work product. MPT/Chang responded that CM/DeStefano outlined what the three Council Members who voted "Yes" were looking for. CM/DeStefano said he wanted to be clear that this would not be a market feasibility study. That was done with the Keyser Marsten DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 27 CITY COUNCIL report that was provided to the Council and to the School District. This is a discussion with the residents. MPT/Chang responded "yes." M/Tye closed the public hearing. C/Everett asked for a date specific for the matter to return to Council. CM/DeStefano said that if the workshops were ultimately approved by the Council they would be noticed and staff would notice a new Public Hearing through the normal vehicles available so that adjacent residents and other interested parties would have ample opportunity to participate. C/Tanaka asked if in the meantime it would be unreasonable to ask the School District to come forward with their vision of a hundred percent residential. CM/DeStefano said that School District representatives have been in attendance at this meeting for the past couple of hours and the Council may wish to bring someone forward to speak to that matter. CA/Jenkins indicated that with the audience remaining somewhat stable, M/Tye could reopen the public hearing and ask for input from the applicant. M/Tye reopened the public hearing and invited the applicant's representative to define his vision for one hundred percent residential. Chuck McCauley, Interim Superintendent, WVUSD, stated that shortly after arriving in this community he became aware of the extremely high quality of the educational programs and the wonderful community that the City has been able to establish and maintain with its high quality of life. This never has been, to the best of his knowledge, nor should it ever be a school district versus the City project. This is about the City. This school district is a part of this City. This school district is probably the most important part of this City. People come here to live because of the quality of education. People stay in this community because of the quality of education. It is the school district's responsibility to provide a quality education and no district anywhere has done it better. He believes it to be the responsibility of the City to support in every way that it can, the efforts of the school district to continue to maintain that quality of education and to maintain the quality of life DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 28 CITY COUNCIL in this City. There are lots of communities up and down this State that would love to be in the situation D.B. is in. We all represent the same people and we all want the same thing. And we should continue to work together to make sure we achieve that result. Here is why this needs to happen. We are in the business of education. We are not in the business of development; we are not in the business of land banking; and, we are not in the business of making decisions that reflect upon what it is that the City feels is in their best interest financially, economically and every other way. You can talk about the development of Site D for the next 10 years and in his opinion, it will still come back that the best use of that property will be residential and one hundred percent residential. Why? Because if the property were even viable for commercial development, the return that the City will receive from any commercial that takes place there would be minimal compared to the contribution the City would receive through developing that property in the best interest of the school district so that the district can continue to provide its high quality education. If education in this community and the quality of education begins to deteriorate due to lack of resources, the City will see what will happen to the quality of life. He was present a couple of months ago when law enforcement talked about the drop in crime rate. In addition to the City, the school district is largely responsible for that drop in crime 'rate because the kids are engaged in activities, after school programs, and academics. They are inside looking out, not outside looking in. They are off the streets. I would hope that this Council, and I, unfortunately, will not be here to see its final conclusion and its final decision, but he would strongly urge the Council to consider the overall benefit to the City which includes the school district, a viable entity, in order to make sure that D.B. residents continue to enjoy the quality of life they currently enjoy. With respect to the District's financial condition, the School District has cut $19 million dollars from its budget in the last three years. The School District has been through economic downturns in the past and has weathered the storm. And he can hear the words that are continuously expressed during those downturns to wit: "We will keep the cuts as far away from the classroom as possible." Let me tell you that the cuts have hit the classroom and hit them hard. The employees and teachers have stepped up and taken furlough days and salary cuts. D.B. is the most supportive community he has ever seen in his 50 years of service that supports public education. The Council heard about individual contributions people have stood up and made in order to make certain that the school can continue its music program. Do you want that music program cut? I hope not. D.B. and the School District along with the diligence of the Board of DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 29 CITY COUNCIL Education, has been able to continue educational programs in this community that other communities cut years ago. I do not want that to happen. The School District would be irresponsible if it did not manage all of their assets. And, he thinks the School District would also be irresponsible if they went to the taxpayers to ask for an increase when the district has other assets it can maximize and take advantage of. A speaker stated that once spent, this money would be gone and that it was "one time" money. This money, by law, can only be spent for capital improvements. That is where the technology comes from. The district would to use some of the principal from the sale to bring the kids into the 21st Century. Without it, our kids are falling farther and farther behind each year with technology. If there is one weakness in this school district, that would be it. The other fact is that the school district needs to be creative instead of cutting budgets and while doing that the District needs to look at creating new revenue streams on a daily basis in order to maximize all of the district's assets. As he said to someone the other day — houses supply kids; kids supply ADA and ADA brings money into the school district. And that is an ongoing stream of revenue. Again, the District would be totally irresponsible to sit back with a piece of vacant land that the district can use to benefit the kids of this community. And when he says this community he is talking about Walnut Valley Unified — we are a unified district and we serve multiple communities and we serve all of your kids. His parting shot is, think it through. What is really in the best interest for the total City as it pertains to the sale of this property? The school district wants to continue to work with the City and he wants to repeat that the district has had tremendous support and cooperation with the City's staff as we have walked through this process. We have tried to do everything that we can possibly do to get the information to get the Council the information it wants in order to make the right decision. You can study this for ten years and there will not be any more information that the Council has right now. And you can spend $100,000 getting it — that is your choice. Again, he thanked the City for its support of public education in this community in the past, today, and in the future and it has been a joy being here. C/Tanaka asked the applicant if during the time when the City has another public hearing if the School District would be able to more definitively identify the density, type of residential units, type of park or open space that would be provided. Mr. McCauley responded with all due respect, that that was not the School District's job. That is the City's responsibility and the School District has given the City what it believes is the best use and what will most benefit the School District. It is up to the City and its staff DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 30 CITY COUNCIL to determine those kinds of things. The school district does not have the expertise to do that. CA/Jenkins responded to M/Tye that the public hearing could remain open until tonight's deliberation was concluded. CM/DeStefano asked if the Superintendent's presentation changed the action and direction to staff previously taken by Council Members. He is hearing a variety of things and if the Council is leaning in one particular direction it would be useful for staff to know that because he would hate to spend months of time and money if there were a decision that could be reached tonight on a preferred land use plan so that staff could then be directed to work out that land use plan. MPT/Chang asked if her colleagues wanted to move forward as they voted or change their vote. C/Everett said No. He said he appreciated the input and respected that and it helped the Council going forward as it already voted. C/Tanaka asked if it was the City's responsibility to come up with a new Specific Plan if the Council voted in favor of one hundred percent residential. CM/DeStefano responded to C/Tanaka that the City is the ultimate decision -maker on the land use of the property, not the applicant, not the property owner. In this case, the City and School District are working on a cooperative effort to get to the land use decision. The City could lay out the land use scheme. Staff has heard 100 percent residential as an example and staff has also heard discussions about a public park, open space area, etc. so it is really not one hundred percent residential but something less than 100 percent residential. C/Tanaka asked if by saying 100 hundred percent residential it would not allow for park space. CM/DeStefano thinks the issue is, should the project be a mix of commercial and residential in some shape or form or, should the project be residential. He has heard in the past an interest in a park component. He believed it was safe to say that regardless of the land use the Council chooses, a park would be a part of that mix. So, what type of park, what size park, and so forth and he believed that CSD/Rose would recommend that a park should be closer to a two -acre flat development. If the Council is leaning toward a commercial component with a park and some form of DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 31 CITY COUNCIL residential then the Council proceeds with the direction it has given staff, which is to seek a consultant to conduct outreach on that commercial component and include the residential and the park component. If the Council is leaning toward a residential development with a public park, staff can also move forward without the need for public outreach and start to help the Council define those components and help the school district define more beyond what it said tonight 10 units per acre" that it might be looking for. CM/DeStefano wants to make sure that staff is following the Council's guidance. He wants to be sure that it is time and money well spent and if anything has changed in the last 15 to 20 minutes it would be helpful to know that. M/Tye, speaking to C/Tanaka, stated that the recommendation from the School District was that Site D be developed one hundred percent residential with minimal peripheral open space, greenbelt and park areas. That was part of the recommendation. When he and C/Tanaka served on the Planning Commission and considered the Sun Cal project, a developer came before the Planning Commission and presented to the City what they wanted to do was "X" with the property and the City came back and said it thought "Y" would be more appropriate. It is more important to have that input and make that land use decision when there is a developer in position to say what they would like to do. For example, a developer might say they want 50 units per acre and the City says, that's never going to happen. But that scenario does not happen at this stage of the deliberation and decision process. C/Herrera asked if she would be able to make a motion, rescind the previous motion and make a new motion, or, was a different format more appropriate. CA/Jenkins stated that from a procedural point of view, the Council has passed a motion and given staff direction. The only way to contradict that motion would be a motion for reconsideration by one of the three members who voted in favor of the previous motion. That motion would then have to pass, at which point the Council would then be in a position to make a new motion to provide new direction. C/Tanaka moved for reconsideration. M/Herrera seconded the motion. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: C/Herrera, Tanaka, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, MPT/Chang ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 32 CITY COUNCIL M/Herrera asked for clarification on what her motion could contain. CM/DeStefano responded that he believed the Council should specify a density and you have heard the School District suggest that 10 units per acre would be palatable and they mentioned the Vantage project as an example. He assumed that the portion of the Vantage project to which the school district referred was the single family homes. The Vantage project has two components: The single family home component and the multi -family component. CM/DeStefano recommended that the Council specify a density which would give the staff and the public an understanding of the Council's direction. M/Herrera moved to eliminate the commercial component for Site D and move to a density of 200 unit project of single family homes incorporating a greenbelt area separating the development with the existing residential properties with a berm, and a two -acre park. Motion seconded by M/Tye. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: C/Herrera, Tanaka, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, MPTIChang ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None M/Tye asked if staff understood the direction from Council. CM/DeStefano indicated that staff had direction, as indicated by majority vote, that the Council is interested in moving forward with a residential project comprised of 200 dwelling units on the approximate 20 -acre development site that would appear to exist there. In addition, he heard as part of the motion a two -acre park, a greenbelt between the existing homes and future homes. With this direction, staff would begin the tasks necessary to begin to detail that vision with the consultants and bring back to the meeting on December 21 any changes that would need to be made to the EIR, Specific Plan and any of the other planning documents as well as, changes to the Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the school district. In addition, staff would recommend that the City Council keep the Public Hearing open and move it to December 21. M/Tye concurred and announced that the Public Hearing on this matter would remain open and continue to December 21, 2010. 7.2 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-40: APPROVING THE CITY'S COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM INCLUDING $383,691 IN FY 2011-2012 FUNDS AND $205804 DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 33 CITY COUNCIL FROM UNALLOCATED BALANCE OF FUNDS FOR THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF $589,495. ACM/Doyle presented staff's report and recommended the City Council receive an update of the current year's funding and how the money is being used, presented a report on expenditures proposed for this year's grant. Upon conclusion of his report, ACM/Doyle recommended that the City Council receive staffs report, open the Public Hearing, Receive Testimony, close the Public Hearing, and Adopt Resolution No. 40. M/Tye opened the Public Hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, M/Tye closed the Public Hearing. MPT/Chang moved, C/Everett seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2010-40: Approving the City's Community Development Block Grant program including $383,691 in FY 2011-2012 funds and $205,804 from unallocated balance of funds for the total amount of $589,495. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, Herrera, Tanaka, MPT/Chang, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 7.3 ADOPT URGENCY ORDINANCE NO. 05(2010) U AND FIRST READING OF ORDINANCE NO. OX (2010) AMENDING TITLE 15 & 16 OF THE DIAMOND BAR MUNICIPAL CODE AND ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2010-41 DETERMINING THAT MODIFICATIONS TO THE CALIFORNIA BUILDING, RESIDENTIAL, GREEN, PLUMBING AND ELECTRICAL CODES, AND CALIFORNIA FIRE CODE WITH LOS ANGELES COUNTY AMENDMENTS ARE REASONABLY NECESSARY. CM/DeStefano reported that every few years the State adopts new codes for construction in the state and local communities and the City is required to adopt those changes along with any changes staff believes necessary to improve upon those documents to meet local conditions. Consultant Raymond Tao stated that in this case, the Council is adopting the state's code and reintroducing old amendments with modifications as required by the state. The State of California is adopting two new building codes: 1) The residential code for new single family homes up to two dwelling units and 2) the Green DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 34 CITY COUNCIL Building Code as a result of state adopting Assembly Bill 32. Staff proposed adoption of the Urgency Ordinance No. OX (2010) U by introducing First Reading by Title Only, Waive Full Reading, Set the Second Reading for the first City Council meeting of January and adopt the Urgency Ordinance and accompanying resolutions. M/Tye opened the Public Hearing. With no one present who wished to speak on this matter, M/Tye closed the Public Hearing. M/Herrera moved, MPT/Chang seconded, to adopt Urgency Ordinance NO. OX (2010) U by introducing First Reading by Title Only, Waive Full Reading, Set the Second Reading for January 4 and adopt the Urgency Ordinance and accompanying resolutions. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: Everett, Herrera, Tanaka, MPT/Chang, M/Tye None None 8.1 APPROVE FREEWAY AGREEMENT WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THROUGH DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION (CALTRANS) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW FREEWAY INTERCHANGE AT LEMON AVENUE ON STATE ROUTE 60. PWD/Liu stated that the Freeway Agreement represents another milestone and progress toward the construction of a new freeway interchange at Lemon Avenue on SR 60. The current agreement supersedes the previous agreement executed in 1968 between the State of California and the County of Los Angeles. At that time, the project envisioned the State would build an eastbound off ramp and a westbound on ramp at Lemon Avenue. Due to the lack of financial resources, that project was shelved. The proposed project will consist of a three-legged interchange, specifically a westbound onramp, eastbound onramp and eastbound off ramp. The existing westbound on and off ramps at Brea Canyon Road will remain in place while the existing Brea Canyon Road on and off ramps (existing hook ramps) will be removed once the new interchange is completed. By approving this agreement tonight, the City is authorizing the freeway interchange to be constructed at Lemon Avenue within the City's jurisdiction. The proposed right-of-way phase is scheduled to begin shortly and staff anticipates completion late 2012 with construction begin shortly thereafter with completion DECEMBER 7, 2010 anticipated for mid 2014. PAGE 35 CITY COUNCIL There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. MPT/Chang moved, C/Everett seconded, to approve Freeway Agreement with the State of California through the Department of Transportation (CalTrans) for the construction of a new freeway interchange at Lemon Avenue on State Route 60. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, Herrera, Tanaka, MPT/Chang, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 8.2 APPROVE THE GRANT APPLICATION FOR THE HIGHWAY SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (HSIP) FOR THE PATHFINDER ROAD PEDESTRIAN AND STREET SAFETY ENHANCEMENT PROJECT. PWD/Liu stated that in September CalTrans issued a call for projects for the Highway Improvement Program for FY 2010-2011 with a funding apportion or availability of $17 million. This program provides funds on a competitive basis for safety improvement projects, public roadways, bikeways and pedestrian walkways. This is a federally funded program administered by CalTrans. In the past, the City has been successful in receiving grant funds under this program; $25,000 for the Pathfinder Road Median project, $400,000 for the Golden Springs Safety Enhancement project; $220,000 Sunset Crossing Neighborhood Traffic Calming project. With this opportunity, staff is proposing to submit the project that would continue the construction of landscape medians along Pathfinder Road between Brea Canyon Road and Diamond Bar Boulevard. The engineer estimates $665,000 for this project and this application will include a request for 90 percent of the total project cost. If successful, staff will come back to the Council to request the 10% of the amount from remaining resources for approval. Staff anticipates the results of the application submittals will be available to the public in early spring of 2011. There was no one present who wished to speak on this'matter. C/Everett moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve the grant application for the Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) for the Pathfinder Road Pedestrian and Street Safety Enhancement DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 36 CITY COUNCIL Project and authorize the City Manager to execute contracts and related documents as may be necessary to process this project as designed. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, Herrera, Tanaka, MPT/Chang, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None RECESS: M/Tye recessed the City Council Meeting to the Redevelopment Agency Meeting at 10:45 p.m. RECONVENE: M/Tye reconvened the City Council Meeting at 10:52 p.m. 9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Tanaka attended the DBHS Brahma Foundation dinner and awards night for the performing arts and honor of former principal Denis Paul. He congratulated Jonathan Wu, Troop 730, D.B.'s newest Eagle Scout; attended the City's Candy Cane Craft Fair last Saturday; D134 -Youth meeting. He congratulated John Noguez, newly elected LA County Assessor. He recommended that the City Council send a Certificate of Congratulations to the new county assessor. He congratulated Linda Magnuson on her 21 years of service to the City. C/Everett thanked everyone for their attendance and input this evening. He congratulated Linda Magnuson on her retirement after 21 years of service. Best wishes as we begin the Christmas and Holiday celebrations and thanks to Monsignor Loughnane for tonight's invocation. Congratulations to M/Tye and MPT/Chang and thanked former Mayor Herrera. C/Herrera said the City would miss Linda Magnuson and congratulated Linda on her retirement. She congratulated M/Tye and MPT/Chang and said she believed it would be a great 2011 for D. B. MPT/Chang reiterated that residents can follow her on Facebook and Twitter. She attended the League of California Cities strategic planning meeting. She congratulated M/Tye and thanked C/Herrera for her leadership as Mayor and said she also looks forward to a great year. She thanked Linda Magnuson for her years of dedication to the City and congratulated her on her retirement. She offered her condolences to the family of Florence Lyons, mother of Nancy Lyons. She wished everyone a Happy Hanukkah. DECEMBER 7, 2010 PAGE 37 CITY COUNCIL M/Tye thanked former Mayor Herrera on her great effort at leading the Council and providing direction for D.B. and helping to make it the community that it is. M/Tye said he appreciates his colleague's confidence and being chosen Mayor and looks forward to working with his colleagues for the best of D.B. Tonight's meeting adjourned in honor residents who have passed: Clyde Hennessee passed away on October 30; Jack Kyser, Former Director of the LA Economic Development Corporation who passed away yesterday; Florence Lyons, long time D.B. resident, loving mother of Nancy, Jay and Linda and beloved grandmother of Nathan, Alex, Jamie, Alexander and her brother Tim. He asked that everyone keep Nancy and her family in their thoughts and prayers as they go through a particularly difficult time. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Tye adjourned the Regular City Council meeting at 11:00 p.m. in memory of Florence Lyons, Jack Kyser and Clyde Hennessee, TOMMA CRIBBINS, CITY CLERK The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 21st day of December 2010, STEV TYE, MA OR