Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout6/6/2006 Minutes - Regular MeetingCITY OF DIAMOND BAR CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION JUNE 6, 2006 STUDY SESSION: Mayor Herrera called the Study Session to order at 5:06 p.m. in Room CC -8 of the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. Present: Council Members Chang, Tanaka, Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Zirbes and Mayor Herrera. Also Present: Linda Lowry, City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Kim Crews, Human Resources Manager, Ryan McLean, Senior Management Analyst; Susan Full, Senior Accountant; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. ► Review of 2006107 Draft Budget and Decision Packages 1) REVIEW OF FY 2;006-07 DRAFT BUDGET AND DECISION PACKAGES CM/Lowry reviewed proposed staffing additions and adjustments and benefit adjustments as outlined in staff's report. The Cost of Living Adjustments included a 4.5% wage adjustment for a total of $196,300; a 4.5% COLA for the City Attorney Services; and no adjustment for the City Manager's contract. Staffing adjustments included the addition of a full time Planning Technician position for a total cost of $74,500; addition of a full time Permit Technician position for a total cost of $69,500 and a reduction in the D&J Engineer professional services contract of $35,000; addition of a 20 -hour per week part-time Neighborhood Improvement Officer position for a total cost of $37,500; promotion of a Recreation Specialist to Recreation Specialist II for a total salary of $6,300; promotion of an Office Assistant II to Administrative Assistant for a total cost of $2,700; market adjustment of the Parks and Maintenance Supervisor position for a total cost of $7,600; market adjustment of the Parks and Maintenance Superintendent position for a total of $7,800; a market adjustment of the; vacant Junior Engineer position for a total of $6,900, and the addition of a 30 -hour per week part-time Public Information Specialist position for a total of $21,450. The above adjustments include benefits as applicable. The total of the changes to the personnel structure is $234,000. Accordingly, the total benefit allotment increase is by $33,400. Staff also proposes auto allowance increases for the City Council, executive management and the addition of $120 for management staff for a total increase of $17,400. The City Manager's auto allowance is not being adjusted. Staff further requests a $4,020 in life insurance benefit increases and $4,600 in dental benefits to allow the City to be more competitive with its neighboring cities. The combined total for JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION increases to the employee section of the budget is $489,970 with an offsetting increase in Building and Safety building revenue of $35,000. FD/Magnuson reported on the CIP budget and organization fund. The funding for the Slurry Seal/Overlay Area 2 was reduced from $650,000 to $175,400 with $219,600 from Gas Tax and $255,000 from Developer Fees. The funds were received this year and because the project was not completed the item has been re -budgeted. Item 15704, Sycamore Canyon Park ADA Retrofit Phase II was added as a carryover project because the project will not be awarded until after the first of the 2007 year. $23,000 was added as a result of increasing construction costs. Another change was the increase for the Paul C. Grow ADA Retro - Construction (Item 21606) by $5,000 in CDBG funds carryover. Page 117, Community Organization Support Fund lists the allocations for fiscal year 2005106, what the City has paid this fiscal year and what remains unpaid. FD/Magnuson continued with Pages 120 and 121 — Gas Tax Fund showing transfers into the General Fund for Trip Maintenance, expenditures and transfers out to the CIP. Proposition A funds (Page 122) come from a portion of sales tax that was approved by voters many years ago which basically funds the transit subsidy program, Dial -a -Ride, bus bench maintenance, etc and in the past the City has sold Prop A funds. Proposition C funds (Page 126) are also transit related funds received from a portion of Sales Tax revenue. Traditionally, the City has funded a portion of the San Gabriel Valley COG as well as the transfer -out to the CIP. PWD/Liu explained the Transportation Efficiency Act Fund (Page 128). All of the funds for the upcoming fiscal year will be budgeted for the Grand Avenue improvements, Phase II and Ill. There are three revenue sources for the Integrated Waste Management Fund (Page 130-131). The City gets a certain amount from the State on an annual basis. The biggest source of income is from the residents and businesses. The projected revenue for the next fiscal year is about $700,000, $200,000 of which goes toward the salaries of two full-time staff members with the remainder going to pay operation and contract services (street sweeping and storm drain maintenance). FD/Magnuson explained that the Traffic Congestion Relief Fund (Page 134-135) consists of funds received from the State (AB2928, Prop 42, etc). The City has taken the approach of not budgeting these funds until it is certain they will be forthcoming from the State. Funds will be used for the Grand Avenue project and Slurry Seal Area 2 funding. Air Quality Improvement Funds (Page 136-137) cover a portion of the San Gabriel Valley COG dues and on-line implementation such as the transit pass system and use of the City's website to eliminate trips to City Hall. The JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION funds come from a portion of the Motor Vehicle in -lieu fees. Fund 118 (pages 138-139) is the Bikes and Trails Pedestrian Paths money that is being used toward the Grand Avenue projects. Park Fees Fund (Page 141) - Quimby Fees will be received in this next fiscal year. Quimby fees are assessed to developers to provide parks and recreation facilities within the area of new developments such as the Brookfield Homes project. CSD/Rose reported that Prop A — Safe Neighborhood Parks Funds (Page 143) are funds that come to the City annually as a result of projects that were funded through a bond act through LA County. The funds will be used for park retrofits and to support the funding of a position that works with the Youth At Risk Program. The Park & Facility Development Fund (Page 145) accumulated funds will be used for the remainder of the Sycamore Canyon Park ADA -Retrofit project. The City will continue to receive these funds until 2019. FD/Magnuson responded to MPT/Zirbes that the City anticipates 30 Brookfield Homes units will be on-line during the next fiscal year. The door charges are included in the budget as well. ICDD/Fong said that depending on occupancy the number could be higher. CSD/Rose explained that the Park & Facility Development Fund was generated from the sale of land to a developer several years ago as well as other developer contributions. Staff is recommending that a decision package be funded from the $2 million proceeds. The majority of the $866,000 for CIP is for improvements at Lorbeer Middle School. FD/Magnuson referred Council to the Community Development Block Grant Fund (Page 147) report which is a reflection of the Public Hearing that was held in January. Included is funding for the City's Senior Program, staff time, supplies and liability insurance premiums, YMCA Daycare, CPI projects, etc; public safety programs. FD/Magnuson responded to M/Herrera that the funds were used for the Sheriffs Department only and not the Fire Department. MPT/Zirbes asked why the anticipated resources were down some $100,000. FD/Magnuson explained that the City received and stockpiled the funds for a period of time. The increased cost for the Sheriffs Department accounts for the higher transfer -outs over the past couple of years. Revenues have declined. JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION FD/Magnuson stated that the Narcotics Asset Forfeiture Fund (Page 153) is comprised of monies received several years ago from a drug bust. The use of the funds is fairly limited. However, Law Enforcement has good ideas for use of the funds next year. The California Law Enforcement Equipment Program Fund (Page 155) proceeds are from the CLEEP one- time funding. At the time the City received the money, half went directly to the Sheriffs Department and the other half will be used for special law enforcement equipment. CSD/Rose reported on the budgets for the three Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Districts 38, 39 and 41. The Districts are fully funded for the anticipated cost for the next fiscal year. However, this is the last year the current assessments will effectively cover the costs of the three Districts. The only way to obtain funding is to create a post -Prop 218 District by having a by -mail election of the people that own the parcels located within the Districts. CM/Lowry said that in fact, the assessments have not been sufficient for several years but funds were carried over to allow for spending that exceeded revenues. The revenues have been fairly consistent. However, over the years the fund balances have been depleted. John Friedrich, Assessment Engineer for the three landscaping assessment districts, explained that the Districts were formed by the County pre-cityhood and pre Prop 218 and unless there is a built-in inflation factor the assessments cannot be increased. The only remedy is to have a"post Prop 218 district that would restart the process to allow the City to correctly set the rates to cover maintenance. He advised the incorporation of an inflation factor even if the Legislature refuses to allow it. In order to create a new district, the City would have to prepare engineer's reports and assessment diagrams which would take about four months to complete for the 17,500 parcels. This is not a difficult district in that it is primarily residential. He would create a formula by using the land use available on the Assessor information roll and create an "assessment unit" wherein a regular single family residence would be one assessment unit and everything else would spin off of that for other uses. It is possible that the information pulled this year could be used to create the formula. Once completed the engineer's report is submitted to the City to be placed on an agenda for a "Resolution of Intention." At that point three things happen — the City is alerting the people that there is a District coming, the Council preliminarily approves the engineering report and sets a Public Hearing. Immediately after that a mail notice of the Public Hearing along with a mail ballot would be sent out with instructions and possibly a return envelope. The ballot is a "yes" and "no" ballot with a simple majority approval. The Council does not approve or invalidate the District until after the ballot results are known. The ballot must state that in the event of a "no" vote the old Districts would remain in place. Assuming approval JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION the assessments would be turned in for collection about mid-July. The drop -dead date for corrections is August 10. Mr. Friedrich said that the matter would have to have a lot of good PR; positive education at every possible organizational meeting to explain why the City was proposing new districts. The best thing for the City would be to have a citizens' group behind the project. Technically, the Council Members should not be involved in any other areas of the measure other than approving or not approving the resolution. MPT/Zirbes asked what the assumption would be were the measure to fail. CSD/Rose said that utilities and contract maintenance would assume the funding available for each district. Staffing, professional services, capital improvements and so forth would be items that staff would be asking Council for approval of General Fund coverage transfers. Mr. Friedrich responded to MPT/Zirbes that should the Council decide to move forward his firm should be engaged reasonably soon in order to attempt a solution for the next fiscal year. Immediately following adoption of the Resolution of Intent a 45 -day mail notice period commences followed by a Public Hearing at the next Council meeting. Mr. Friedrich said that the Council might wish to consider including street lighting. However, the Council should not plan to hold a Public Hearing during the holiday season. C/Tye asked what Mr. Friedrich's fee would be and he said he would put together a proposal for Council to consider at its next meeting depending on what the Council wanted to include in the assessment. CM/Lowry said that staff's intention was to make Council aware of the situation and that the matter would be researched and a proposal would be brought back to the Council at a future agenda. MPTIZirbes felt this matter should move forward as quickly as possible in order to get the word out to the public and Council Members concurred. FD/Magnuson continued with the Self Insurance Fund (Page 176) that was created to cover uninsured losses. The Equipment Replacement funds accumulate dollars for vehicles and computer equipment replace me nt/pu rchases (Page 178). DECISION PACKAGES: ISD/Desforges stated that the City has relatively limited and aged photography of the: D.B. area. LA County is flying the entire County and JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 6 CC STUDY SESSION will sell the data for this area for an initial cost of $49,000 and $25,000 for succeeding years. The service includes oblique photography that will allow topographical and GIS instruction data to be updated on a bi-annual basis. CSD/Rose requested $5,000 for a portable enclosed 20 -foot trailer for the maintenance staff to transport equipment and materials for community events; $147,500 for a diesel powered standby generator for the Diamond Bar Center; $150,000 for a landscaping/drainage project for Gold Rush east of Diamond Bar Boulevard for landslide mitigation; and, $149,650 for design and construction of two batting cages at Pantera Park and Peterson Park. ISD/Desforges requested $27,500 for personal computers for the Willow Room at the Diamond Bar Center; $300,000 for development services automation software; and $32,000 for a color copier for development services. ACM/Doyle requested $13,540.07 for a thermal imager and a handheld GPS system for the Fire Department. ISD/Desforges requested $5,000 for HR automation software; $15,000 for network access control (NAC); $15,000 for IS contract renewal and license tracking software; $78,500 for Granicus provided hardware, software and monthly services ($65,000 for initial implementation and $13,500 for monthly service) to allow streaming of the entire Council meeting over the internet as well as provide direct lookup capability; $25,000 for preparation of a GIS Strategic plan consulting services; $2,000 for Cisco Pixs for Heritage and Sycamore Canyon Park; and $25,000 for City website redesign and upgrade. CM/Lowry concluded that Page 3 of the General Fund Budget shows excess resources over appropriations of $1.3 million. The decision packages just described would total $820,000 leaving a balance of $497,640 and if approved, this presentation would be included in the next Council agenda. C/Tye commented that on Page 51 there was no breakout of fire protection services. CM/Lowry said that was because the City did not purchase fire protection. D/Magnuson explained that it was a separate taxing district and the City had no authority over the item. C/Tye asked how the City would account for adding a paramedic for example. JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 7 CC STUDY SESSION FD/Magnuson responded that the budget included $5,000 for Wildland fire protection that basically covered the Tres Hermanos area. If the Council wanted to add other items a budget item would be added upon agreement with the Fire Department. Public Comments: None Offered. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council, M/Herrera adjourned the Study Session at 6:36 p.m. l Tommye tribbins, City Clerk The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 20th day of June , 2006. I�Aj4vlt--- CAROL HERRERA, Mayor 1 MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR .MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 6, 2006 STUDY SESSION: Mayor Herrera called the Study Session to order at 5:06 p.m. in Room CC -8 of The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. poll Review of 2006107 Fiscal Year Draft Budget and Decision Packages Public Comments: None Offered. M/Herrera adjourned the Study Session at 6:36 p.m. to the Regular City Council Meeting, CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Herrera called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 6:42' p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, .21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. M/Herrera reported that the City Council began its evening with a study session at 5:00 p.m. during which Council received staff's report on the 2006/07 Draft Budget. This item will come back to the City Council on its June 20 agenda for adoption. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: M/Herrera led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Ahmad H. Sakr, Ph.D., led the Invocation. ROLL CALL: Council Members Chang, Tanaka, Tye, Mayor Pro Tem Zirbes and Mayor Herrera. Staff Present: CM/Lowry, City Manager; David Doyle, Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Linda Magnuson, Finance Director; Nancy Fong, Interim Community Development Director; Kim Crews, Human Resources Manager; Ken Desforges„ IS Director; Ryan McLean, Senior Management Analyst and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As presented 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 1.1 C/Tanaka presented Certificates of Recognition to Students from Diamond Bar High School for participating in and winning the 2006 Solar Cup Championship sponsored by the Metropolitan Water District. Jody Roberto, representing Assemblyman Bob Huff s office presented certificates to the participants. Principal Denis Paul spoke about the event. JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL 1.2 M/Herrera presented a City Tile to Joe McManus, retiring Planning Commissioner. Jody Roberto, on behalf of Assemblyman Bob Huffs office, presented a Certificate to Mr. McManus. 1.3 Steve Remige, President, Association for Los Angeles Deputy Sheriffs (ALADS) presented a plaque to the Mayor Herrera in recognition of the City's ongoing support of quality public safety services. 1.4 CITye presented a Certificate Plaque to Mr. Brady and Mr. Boykin and a power point presentation was made by Mike Brady and Jerry Boykin, Small Business Development Center, serving the D.B. area. 1.5 DPW/Liu introduced the following new Public Works Department employees: Jason Fuentes, Street Maintenance Worker II and Joyce Lee, Management Analyst. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None Offered. 3, PUBLIC COMMENTS: Julie McCasland, Children's Librarian, announced that the Summer Reading Program would commence Thursday, June 12, 2006 at 3:00 p.m. Each Thursday different performers will visit the library and prizes will be awarded to children finish am . Many other activities are scheduled. Last year approximately 90 p eop Mded each performance. During the summer the Library also sponsors the Children's Author Series and event calendars are available at the Library. Ron Everett recognized Joe and Lois McManus for their service to D.B. during the past 30 years. He said that having recently joined the Planning Commission he grew to appreciate what he had witnessed from afar in Joe McManus, a man who is very dedicated to the community of D.B. Beyond that, his attitude is exemplary witnessed by his statement "see how great it is to serve." On behalf of his neighbors and the community Mr. Everett thanked Joe and Lois McManus and said they would be missed. Mike Shay, 34 year D.B. resident, reported that the Citizens for a New Library conducted a survey of 18,000 residents. The results reinforced the City's survey. In fact, most residents were surprised to learn that building a new library would require another ballot initiative because most individuals believed the facility was intended as part of the Diamond Bar Center build- out. He was thoroughly convinced that if an election were held tomorrow that a two-thirds majority would pass the initiative. Jerry Hamilton, 29 year resident, said that many bond issues had failed because the ballot measure failed to adequately inform the voters. He wanted answers to the following questions: How much will the Library tax and the operation tax be per year; how much will it be in five and ten year; JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL how much can the operation tax be increased each year; how will renters or apartment complex owners be taxed; will the cost presented at ballot time be the actual cost; arid, how many seniors, widows and handicapped individuals have a gross income of less than $30,000? Audrey Hamilton spoke about the City's survey regarding a potential ballot measure for a new library. Many residents want a new library but are not willing to pay for it. San Marino dedicated $13 million for a new library and managed to collect $12.5 million toward its construction so there would be no parcel tax. Their Friends of the Library has pledged $100,000 over the next five years to support the facility. The City of San Marino states on their website that they will impose no tax assessment for the new library. She implored the City Council to explore all alternatives in order to avoid imposing a parcel tax for a new library. A student from Diamond Ranch High School spoke in support of a new library. She referred to a number of students in the audience who appeared this evening to also support a new library, an essential part of the education process. Larry Smith, 27 year resident, thanked Council for putting the matter on the November ballot. He felt that although the Diamond Bar Center eventually cost more than most people wanted to spend or thought the City would spend it has proven to be possibly the best thing the Council had ever done in the City. It was indeed visionary. He asked the Council Members to please be visionaries once again. John Melendez, a nine year resident, spoke in support of a new library. Roger Meyer thanked the City Council for its support of a ballot measure for a new library so that the voters can make the decision. Clyde Hennessee, a 35 -year resident said he wanted a new library but did not want the individual taxpayers to have to pay for it. Marsha Hawkins thanked the City Council for placing the new library measure on the November ballot. The Friends of the Library has pledged $80,000 toward a new library and have raised between $80,000 and $100,000 that is ready to be spent on the children's section of a new library. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: ACM/Doyle responded to speakers that the Council held a special meeting and gave direction to staff to provide additional information regarding the possibility of placing the matter of a new library on the November ballot. As of this time the Council has not made any decision to officially place an item on the ballot. The City has begun the process of forming a Community JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL F1 Facilities District to generate funds for construction of a new facility as well as ongoing operations and maintenance. Most of the questions asked by Mr. Hamilton and other similar questions will be identified in the next report to the City Council on June 20 or during a special meeting that will take place after June 20 and before July 1, within the timeline for the November ballot. There would be some kind of inflationary annual increase for ongoing operations and maintenance. However, there would be no increase in the building tax once the assessment was set. CM/Lowry responded to a concern regarding income exemptions. The City's consultant informed the City Council that because the CFD taxes would be used to secure the bonds thatwould be sold to obtain construction proceeds for building the Library, tax proceeds could not legally be rebated. However, the Council directed staff and the consultants to gather information regarding an estimate of what it would cost the City to make a rebate to qualified homeowners and property owners from the City's General Fund. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting — June 8, 2006 — 7:00 p.m., Hearing Board Room, AQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.2 Planning Commission Meeting — June 13, 2006 — 7:00 p.m., Auditorium, AQMDIGovernment Center, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.3 City Council Meeting — June 20, 2006 — 6:30 p.m., Auditorium, AQMDIGovernment Center, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.4 Parks and Recreation Commission Meeting — June 22, 2006 — 7:00 p.m., Hearing Board Room, AQMDIGovernment Center, 21865 Copley Dr. 5.5 Concerts in the Park — June 28, 2006 — 6:30 -8:00 p.m., Sycamore Canyon Park, 22930 Golden Spgs. Dr. (Sponsored bythe Community Foundation). 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Chang moved, C/Tanaka seconded to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Item 6.12 (a) and (b) and with MPT/Zirbes abstaining on Consent Calendar Item No. 6.11. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPT/Zirbes, M/Herrera None None JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL 6.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES: 6.1.1 Study Session of May 16, 2006 —as submitted. 6.1.2 Regular Meeting of May 16, 2006 — as submitted. 6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PARKS AND RECREATION COMMISSION MINUTES -- Study Session of April 11, 2006. 6.3 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER — containing checks dated May 12 through June 1, 2006 totaling $978,304.96. 6.4 APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT — for the month of April 2006. 6.5 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2006-47: ESTABLISHING SALARY RANGES FOR ALL CLASSES OF EMPLOYMENT AND BENEFITS FOR ALL CLASSES OF EMPLOYMENT EFFECTIVE JUNE 6, 2006 IN ORDER TO INCLUDE THE POSITION OF PLANNING TECHNICIAN; THEREBY RESCINDING RESOLUTION NUMBER 2006-38 IN ITS ENTIRETY. 6.6 RATIFIED AGREEMENT WITH THE ROBERT REED TRUST FOR THE PURCHASE OF PARCELS APN NO. 8269-044-008,8269-096- 001 AND 8269-096-002 AND AUTHORIZED THE DEPOSIT OF $64,000 INTO ESCROW. 6.7 AUTHORIZED THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH RBF CONSULTING -URBAN DESIGN STUDIO TO DESIGN A GATEWAY ENTRY AND CREATE A STREETSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION MASTER PLAN FOR A CONTRACT AMOUNT OF $71,755 PLUS A 10% CONTINGENCY OF $7,175.50 FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION OF $78,930.50. 6.8 APPROVED LICENSE AGREEMENT WITH NEW CINGULAR WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS TO EXPAND AN EXISTING WIRELESS COMMUNICATIONS SITE AT PETERSON PARK. 6.9 APPROVED LEGISLATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS: (a) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2006-48 IN SUPPORT OF SB 1179 (MORROW) THAT EXTENDS THE PROVISION THAT IDENTIFIES THE RIDING OF A SKATEBOARD IN A PUBLIC SKATE PARK AS A HAZARDOUS REREATIONAL ACTIVITY UNTIL JANUARY 10-12 AND LOWERS THE AGE PROVISION FROM ITS CURRENT LEVEL OF 14-12. JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL (b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2006-49 OPPOSING SB 1330 (DUNN) THAT WOULD EXPAND THE RANGE OF ATTORNEY FEES THAT PLAINTIFFS CAN RECOVER FROM LOCAL AGENCIES IN A DEVELOPMENT RELATED CASE. 6.10 APPROVED WASTE MANAGEMENT'S RATE ADJUSTMENT FOR CP1, DISPOSAL AND EXTRAORDINARY FUEL COSTS. 6.11 APPROVED VALLEY VISTA SERVICES' RATE ADJUSTMENTS FOR CPI AND DISPOSAL COSTS. ITEMS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.12 (a) TRANSFER $412,173 FROM PROP C FUND RESERVE AND APPROPRIATE THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET; APPROVE PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS; AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT IN THE AMOUNT OF $912,673 TO MACADEE ELECTRICAL CONSTRUCTION; AND AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $90,000 FOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $1,002,673, FOR CONSTRUCTION OF LEFT -TURN TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT BREA CANYON ROAD/SILVER BULLET DRIVE; DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD/SHADOW CANYON DRIVE; DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD/MOUNTAIN LAUREL WAY; DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD/HIGHLAND VALLEY ROAD; DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD/GRAND AVENUE, AND GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE/PROSPECTORS ROAD; AND, NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS ON GRAND AVENUE AND AT CAHILL STREET AND AT CLEGHORN DRIVE (continued from may 16, 2006). (b) APPROVE CONTRACT AMENDMENT WITH WARREN C. SIECKE TRANSPORTATION AND TRAFFIC ENGINEERING FOR CONSTRUCTION INSPECTION SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $72,000 PLUS A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $8,000 FOR CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $80,000 FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF LEFT -TURN TRAFFIC SIGNALS AT BREA CANYON ROAD/SILVER BULLET DRIVE; DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD/SHADOW CANYON DRIVE; DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD/MOUNTAIN LAUREL WAY; DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD/HIGHLAND VALLEY ROAD; DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD/GRAND AVENUE, AND GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE/PROSPECTORS ROAD; AND, NEW TRAFFIC SIGNAL INSTALLATIONS ON GRAND AVENUE AT CAHILL STREET AND AT CLEGHORN DRIVE (continued from May 16, 2006). JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL MPTIZirbes reiterated his concerns about the City over -signalizing its major thoroughfares. In addition, the two new proposed signals are very close in proximity. PWD/Liu explained that the warrant study was conducted in 2004. Approval required that the City meet one of eleven criteria. The Traffic Engineer identified the modification of the existing raised medians to facilitate the left -turn movements coming out of the side streets as an interim step to signalization. MPTIZirbes said he hoped that the City would be able to wait until the digital synchronization program was up and running prior to further signal installations. He asked if the study could be redone eliminating the two new signal installations until further study was conducted. PWD/Liu asked Council to allow at least six months for staff to collect information regarding the two new signals because data should be collected during the Fall. In addition, the residents should be involved in the process because these recommendations were a direct response to the Neighborhood Traffic Study that was conducted in 2003/2004 and forward. Based on his review of the document and discussion with the City Attorney, it is likely that the City could obtain the necessary change order from Macadee Electric Construction. ClChang somewhat agreed with MPTIZirbes that the City should pay more attention to those two intersections and solicit input from the residents because they understand the situation of their neighborhood. However, if the City cannot decrease the traffic flow, the best solution for the residents is to give them a method for getting out of their homes onto the main thoroughfares by providing signals. MPTIZirbes agreed with ClChang. However, a couple of years ago the City installed a signal on Diamond Bar Blvd. for two neighborhoods to provide the residents easier access onto Diamond Bar Blvd. He was concerned about how close together the two new signals would be located and whether it would create additional traffic backup. C/Tanaka felt the matter had been sufficiently studied and felt staffs recommendation addressed safety issues. He has observed that the cut -through traffic prevents residents from leaving their neighborhoods. He has witnessed great confusion, accidents and near misses and felt it was time to proceed with the signals and, he believed the new digital system would further enhance the traffic signal installations. CITye felt one of the best things the Council had done was to implement the Neighborhood Traffic Management Program that was JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL formulated and executed by PWD/Liu and his staff. He felt the matter should go back to the residents for further consideration because they might not have a clear understanding about the proposed installation and the close proximity of the two signals. As MPTIZirbes pointed out, in less than four miles there would be 10 intersections controlled by signals. He was concerned that there would a potential for an abundance of signals at T -intersections in accordance with the warrant criteria. He felt the answer was not necessarily more signals but putting the City on the digital program that would coordinate and better manage traffic. His understanding of the signal at Clear Creek and Diamond Bar Blvd, was that it would serve the two sides of the intersection. He too felt that more signals were not the answer to reducing the City's traffic problems and that the City needed to work smarter with what was available. MPTIZirbes moved, CITye seconded to direct staff to negotiate with Macadee Electrical Construction to remove the two new signal installations at Cleghom and Cahill, proceed with the balance of work, and direct staff to work with the residents to determine other possible solutions. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPTIZirbes, MlHerrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-50: AMENDING THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE (CCIC) FOR DESIGNATED CITY PERSONNEL AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2004-13 IN ITS ENTIRETY IN ORDER TO AGREE TO THE CCIC PERSONNEL STRUCTURE. CCICribbins gave a report on the adoption of the City's Conflict of Interest Code. MlHerrera opened the Public Hearing at 8:20 p.m. With no one present who wished to speak, MlHerrera closed the Public Hearing at 8:21 p.m. MPTIZirbes moved, CITye seconded to adopt Resolution No. 2006-50 amending the City's Conflict of Interest Code (CCIC) for designated City personnel and rescinding Resolution No. 2004-13 in its entirety in order to agree to the CCIC personnel structure. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPT/Zirbes, M/Herrera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 7.2 LANDSCAPE ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS: (a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 20060-51 LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT EQUAL TO PREVIOUS YEARS ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 38 FOR, FISCAL YEAR 2006-07. (b) ADOPT' RESOLUTION NO, 2006-52 LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT EQUAL TO PREVIOUS YEARS ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 39 FOR. FISCAL YEAR 2006-07. (c) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2006-53 LEVYING AN ASSESSMENT EQUAL TO PREVIOUS YEARS ON CITY OF DIAMOND BAR LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 41 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2006-07. PWD/Liu reported that the assessments for District No. 38 cover landscaping improvements for the parkways along the northerly side of Grand Ave. between Diamond Bar Blvd. and Summitridge Dr.; the southerly side of Temple Ave. between Diamond Bar Blvd. and Golden Springs Dr.; the improvements along Golden Springs Dr. between Torito Ln. and Temple Ave.; and, the streetscape improvements along Brea Canyon Rd. between Pathfinder Rd. and the southerly City limit as well as medians throughout the City. There are an estimated 17,681 parcels within District No. 38. For FY 2006107 the levy rate of $15 per parcel would generate $265,215 in assessment revenue. The assessment rate remains the same as it was at the date of City incorporation. PWD/Liu stated that the total proposed annual budget for District No. 38 is $344,660. He noted that this would be the last year that the District would provide its current level of service without an increase in the levy, a subsidy transfer from the General Fund or a combination of both. In order for the City to increase the levy a Prop 218 level would need to be formed and approved by the affected residents. PWD/Liu reported that the assessments for District No. 39 cover landscaping improvements for the City's mini -parks, slopes and open space within the specific geographical area of 60.67 acres. The estimated number of parcels within the District is estimated to be 1,263 with a proposed per -parcel levy rate of $103 and would generate a total of $164,190 in assessment revenue. The assessment rate remains the same as the rate applied at the date of City JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL incorporation. The proposed District budget for next year is $294,783. Next year will be the last year that District No. 39 can provide the current level of service. The use of $150,000 of reserves from prior years would nearly deplete the District's carryover. The annual maintenance costs exceed $260,000. PWD/Liu stated that the landscape improvements to be made for District 41 are the slopes and open space area indicated within the assessment area consisting of 15.6 acres. The estimated number of parcels within the District is 554 parcels with a proposed levy rate of $220.50 per parcel generating $422,157 in assessment revenue. The assessment rate remains the same as the rate applied at the date of D.B. incorporation. This will be the last year that the District is able to maintain and provide its current level of service. The annual levy is approximately $120,000 and the annual maintenance cost exceeds $180,000. MlHerrera opened the Public Hearing at 8:27 p.m. With no one present who wished to speak on this item, MlHerrera closed the Public Hearing at 8:28 p.m. C/Chang moved, C/Tanaka seconded to adopt Resolutions 2006-51, 2006-52 and 2006-53 as proposed. Motion carried by the following Roil Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Tanaka, TyMPT/Zirbesera NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 7.3 APPROVAL OF NUISANCE ABATEMENT COSTS, LETTERS DATED MAY 23, 2006 FOR ABATEMENT OF A DECLARED PUBLIC NUISANCE AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD TAX LIENS TOTALING $141,263.54 ON PROPERTIES LOCATED AT 23891 AND 23885 MINNEQUA DRIVE, AND 23840, 23834 AND 23826 SUNSET CROSSING ROAD. PWD/Liu outlined the area affected by the January 11, 2005 landslide referred to as the "Minnequa" landslide. Working with the five property owners and the City's geo-technical consultant, the City initiated a temporary storm protection of the storm failure area on the five properties. The work completed in mid-February of 2005 included placing reinforced plastic tarps and sheeting, placing sandbags, performing drainage diversion and photographing the site to document before and after work conditions. Shortly after the work was completed the five property owners retained an independent contractor to perform additional temporary work and since that time JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL the City has repeatedly requested the property owners' cooperation in resolving the unstable slope conditions on their private properties. However, the slope conditions remain unabated. Pursuant to the abatement procedures of the D.B. Municipal Code the City, on February 14, 2006, declared a public nuisance on the properties located at 23891 and 23885 Minnequa Dr., and 23840, 23834 and 23826 Sunset Crossing Rd. and again required that temporary weatherization and other interim measures be implemented on the slope to prevent worsening of the nuisance and to protect neighboring properties. A hearing was scheduled for February 27, 2006 and none of the four property owners or their respective representatives appeared before the City's Hearing Officer for the hearing. After obtaining warrants from the LA Superior Court for the four affected properties the City and its consultants entered the four properties to undertake the temporary winterization work, which began on March 27, 2006 and was completed on April 10, 2006. AE/Molina gave Council a slide presentation of before and after the work. PWD/Liu stated that in compliance with the State Law and the City's Municipal Code the total cost of abatement shall constitute a special assessment against the parcels and the property owners are required to pay the cost of the nuisance abatement approved by the City Council this evening. Therefore, for fiscal year 2004/2005 the emergency temporary winterization work totaled $61,759.04 and is divided evenly among the five properties at $12,351.80 per property. The costs include the contractor's cost, consultant's costs and the City's administration costs. For fiscal year 2005/2006 the work totals $79,504.50. Due to the fact that the property located at 23826 Sunset Crossing Rd.(Lopez) was not identified by the consultant as a critical area of the landslide mass and no work was performed on that property, the cost of this year's work was divided four ways among the remaining properties at $19,876.12 per property. The total cost included cost of the City's contractor, City prosecutor and the City's administration costs. All five property -owners were invited to attend tonight's City Council meeting to offer comments or objections. The City's consultants are present this evening. Staff recommends that the Council consider staff's report as well as any testimony offered and consider approval of the nuisance abatement cost, and, authorize the City Clerk to record a lien on each one of the subject properties in the aforementioned amounts if the costs are not paid to the City within 10 days of City Council approval (June 16, 2006 if approved this evening). M/Herrera opened the Public Hearing at 8:35 p.m. JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL Joseph Graven, Attorney, 11900 W. Olympic Boulevard #680, Los Angeles, representing homeowner Thomas Sagline, 23834 Sunset Crossing Rd. yielded his time to his colleague, Mr. Blum. Steven A. Blum, Blum Collins LLP, Attorney for Heather and Eric Finkbeiner, two of the homeowners, said his goal in speaking to the Council this evening was to suggest that there not be a lien or assessment against the private property owners at this time and that the Council let the Court decide where fault lies. The homes in question were severely damaged by deep-seated land sliding which was caused by a defective slope buttress project that was maintained, operated, controlled and constructed by the City of D.B. and its agents in 1999-2000. The homeowners' properties were red tagged and the homeowners have been unable to use and occupy their homes since the landslide occurred. There were prior failures of this slope and the City directed repair of the slope in 1999. He cited statistics including the Kleinfelder report. He said that the City, by virtue of its direction of the slope stabilization project in 1999, established the project as a public project and he further stated that work on the public project fell beneath the standard of care and was a substantial contributing cause of the land sliding at the property. He continued, stating the City never advised the homeowners or their predecessors that the slope stabilization project was to be constructed beneath the standard of care that was required by the City's own building code. The homeowners have suffered a devastating loss and it is his belief and the belief of his geo-technical engineers by the words of Kleinfelder that these homeowners are not at fault. The City, its consultants, agents and contractors built something that was unsafe, that was below the City's own standard of care. The homes are a total loss and in his opinion, the City's demand that its homeowners pay for remediation before the City holds hearings to determine who caused this landslide or before the Courts decide who is responsible for the landslide would deprive the homeowners of their constitutional rights of due process and constitute a violation of the homeowners' civil rights. He recommended that the City defer this charge until the Courts have decided responsibility. Joseph Graven said that his firm obtained a bid from another contractor (Hillside Repair) whose proposal was to winterize the hillside for $15,000. The City sent the homeowners a letter dated May 23, 2006 detailing costs the City was seeking to impose. Specifically, Mr. Murray noted that prior to the 2006 winterization there were pipes directing water to the street and currently, those pipes are not in place. According to Mr. Murray, water is now directed into the hillside and he felt certain that the City's consultants would agree that that was a less than desirable situation. He said that it would not be prejudicial to defer the matter of an assessment or levy. JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL Thomas C.. Corless, representing Carmen Lopez said that in his opinion, the City should defer action on this matter because it has arbitrarily divided the amount equally among the neighbors when their situations are not necessarily the same. C/Tye asked if the City would waive its rights of recovery if a lien or assessment were deferred. CA/Jenkins responded that absent a lien on the property the amount that is due the City for expenditure of these costs were any of the property owners to sell their property to other individuals, would not be recoverable from the property and only recoverable as a personal debt of the property owners and for this reason cities secure debts of these types by way of a lien on the property. C/Tye asked if the City's opportunity to recover the costs would expire within 60 days, for example, if the Council were to defer this matter to a later date. CA/Jenkins responded that the recordation of a lien does not mean that the City would immediately attempt to recover the cost from the property owner. It is simply a recordation of a document that discloses to anyone with an interest or seeking to have an interest in that property that the City is owed a certain amount of money for the work performed. It is not contemplated that the City would be taking action in the immediate future for the recovery of those sums. As a practical matter, whether it is recoverable is a different question altogether. CA/Jenkins reminded Council of the very narrow purpose of tonight's hearing. He believed a fair portion of the comments made tonight during the Public Hearing were not relevant to tonight's proceeding. The narrow purpose of this hearing is for the Council to review the costs that have been incurred, to decide whether those costs are appropriate based on the information received, based on staff's testimony and based on the objections that were made by representatives of the property owners, and to make a decision as to whether or not the Council wishes to approve those costs or to approve those costs in some modified form, or to not approve those costs at all. The purpose of this hearing does not include making a determination about whether or not there was a "nuisance" on the property. That determination was made previously and the property owners specifically waived their opportunity to have a hearing on the question of whether or not the condition of the property constituted a public nuisance. As a consequence, the issue of whether or not there was a public nuisance on the property as a consequence of the conditions is not before the Council this evening. Mr. Blum began his presentation by asking the City Council to let the Court decide where JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL the fault lies. The purpose of this hearing has nothing whatsoever to do with "fault." In fact, what occurred here was a determination by the City that current conditions (2004-2005 and 2005-2006) were contributing to instability and had the potential to worsen the slide by virtue of the fact that the property was unprotected and needed to be "weatherized" or "winterized." The property owners were never asked, nor were they compelled to "fix" the slide, they were asked simply to weatherize or winterize the slide so as to preclude further worsening of the slide and potential spreading of the unstable condition to other properties. As a consequence, all that is being discussed tonight is a cost associated with winterization. CA/Jenkins further stated that in light of Mr. Blum's comments, the following should be stated on the record: That in 1999 when these properties first experienced the landslide the landslide was limited to private property and did not affect any public property. The City was not responsible and the City was not involved. The property owners at that time approached the City and pleaded with the City to assist them financially with the slide. The City told them that it was not responsible, that this was a matter that was entirely on private property that was likely a result of the original construction of that subdivision thatthe Citywas never involved with and that the City was not responsible for the slide. The homeowners at that time, some of whom are property owners today, privately and in public City Council meetings, persisted their pleadings with the City to assist them financially because they could not and would not spend their private funds to perform the work. Eventually, the City was able to find Federal Community Development Block Grant funds that the County surprisingly agreed could be made available for the project. Those funds were limited to a certain dollar amount and the City told the homeowners that it would make those CDBG funds available and that that was the only amount available to them and that any additional monies to be contributed toward any sort of correction or remediation of the slide would have to come from private sources. The homeowners were not prepared to spend their money — they were offered three alternative plans for a fix, each more expensive than the other and the more expensive plans with a greater guarantee that they would stabilize the property. In the end, after reviewing the plans and specs of the three plans, the homeowners selected the least expensive plan, one that was not guaranteed to provide stability. The homeowners selected the plan based on their willingness to contribute their money. They provided waivers at the time that clearly stated that there was no guarantee that this fix would solve the problem or stabilize the properties, that the City was doing this as an accommodation because it was not a public project, that the homeowners were aware that they had selected plans and specifications that might not stabilize the property and they were told that it was that or nothing at all and it was their choice. And, if they JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL wanted to do nothing at all the City was prepared to do nothing at all. The homeowners signed two sets of waivers, both of which were recorded against property titles and those waivers were noticed to all subsequent purchasers of the properties as to the nature of the fix, the fact that the fix provided no guarantees and that there was no guarantee that it would work to permanently stabilize the property. CA/Jenkins stated that it is categorically untrue that the City never advised the homeowners that the project was below the standard of care. All of the homeowners at that time understood without question what level of stability could be accorded by the remediation effort at that time. Hence, the notion that the homeowners in 1999 were duped into a project is belied by the documentation and the signed waivers that: each of those property owners signed and that every one of the subsequent purchasers knew about when they purchased the properties thereafter. Mr. Blum said he felt that if the City were to proceed tonight this would violate due process. CA/Jenkins begged to differ. He said that "due process" was satisfied by the very hearing this Council is holding this evening. The only question before the Council is whether the costs are appropriate for the work that was done to winterize the slide. All issues pertaining to fault will be decided in a different forum. And this City Council has no jurisdiction over that issue. With respect to the comment made by Mr. Graven indicating that the property owners had obtained a "bid" to perform the work, the City gave the property owners ample opportunity to perform this work on their own. The City wrote the property owners letters asking them to winterize their property and they declined. Now they come in and say that had a bid for $16,000. They had a bid for $16,000 in February and they could have done the work themselves but they chose not to do the work. Instead, the City was compelled to declare the property a nuisance and the City was compelled to obtain an abatement warrant and go through an entire procedure for which this City is, under state law, entitled to be compensated for in order to winterize those properties. PWD/Liu stated that without looking at the geo-technical issues and sources for the conditions staff determined that the best and fairest way to distribute the burden was to do so evenly among the five property owners. Staff knows from working with the five property owners in the past they were unwilling to collaborate and decided to act independent of one another with respect to performing the work themselves and performing work the City asked them to perform. M/Herrera closed the Public Hearing at 9:09 p.m. M/Herrera reopened the Public Hearing at 9:12 p.m. JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL Michael Murray said that when he purchased his property in 2000 a building Inspector visited his house with a yellow piece of paper and told him the hill was repaired better than it was before. He said he was never notified of any hearing prior to tonight's hearing. He said he could show the Council that he had covered his portion of the hillside if they would put the pictures back up on the screen. PWD/Liu stated that the City mailed certified notices to all property owners and notified their respective attorneys as well to make certain thatthey were present during discussions regarding abatement costs. A certified letter was sent to Mr. Murray and staff will provide a copy of the signed return receipt. M/Herrera closed the Public Hearing at 9:14 p.m. C/Chang moved to approve Nuisance Abatement costs and letters date May 23, 2006 for abatement of a declared Public Nuisance and authorize the City Clerk to record tax liens totaling $141,263.54 on properties located at 23891 and 23885 Minnequa Dr.and 23840, 23834 and 23826 Sunset Crossing Rd. MPT/Zirbes stated that in January 2005 the homeowners agreed to have the City proceed with the work and authorized and agreed to repay the City. Staff repeatedly contacted the homeowners. The City has an obligation to provide safety for the balance of the neighborhood. These homeowners were asked time and time again to winterize their properties and the City had to step in and spend taxpayer dollars to complete the work and it is only fair and right that the City protect the interest of its taxpayers. MPTlZirbes seconded the motion. CITye said that this was a difficult decision for him. However, given that CA/Jenkins confirmed to him that a lien would protectthe citizens of D.B. and the City's interest to this point, it was the right thing do. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Chang, Tanaka, Tye, MPT/Zirbesra NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION None JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL !�. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: M/Herrera welcome MPT/Zirbes back to the Council Chambers and said he looked absolutely wonderful. MPTIZirbes said that in his absence he remained in contact with staff and had an opportunity to watch the video of the May 2 meeting. He was extremely impressed with the work of the Council and was sorry he missed the previous two meetings. He said it was good to be back and he thanked Council Members, staff members and the community for their cards, letters, calls and prayers. He specifically mentioned that the first piece of mail he received was from Jack and Wanda Tanaka. MPT/Zirbes thanked PWD/Liu for stepping in on a Saturday to mitigate a problem between a commercial owner and waste hauler. He said he appreciated staff going the extra mile for the citizens. He asked to have the matter of declaring the Windmill a historical landmark placed on a future agenda. As always, it is his privilege to serve the residents and while some decisions are difficult they are necessary and in the best interest of the City. C/Chang said that the Council works to protect the best interest of the City's residents. He talked about the signal installations that were approved tonight to enhance the quality of life. Last week the Council met to discuss placing the new library on the ballot and staff and the consultants are busily preparing information for the Council to make a decision to put the matter on the November ballot so that the residents can make the decision. Groundbreaking ceremonies were held for the Brea Canyon Grade Separation Project yesterday and most Council Members were present. The project designed to allow for vehicle traffic flow under the railroad is supposed to be completed by May 2008. During this time residents will have to bear with the inconvenience of the traffic flow. When the project is completed it will innprove the quality of life, enhance the economy and provide better traffic flow. Last Saturday most of the Council attended the Chinese-American Association annual fundraising event. Almost 700 people supported the event. C/Tye welcomed NIPT/Zirbes back to the Council and was pleased that MPTIZirbes was recovering nicely. C/Tye congratulated C/Chang and his wife on 30 years of marriage. It was his pleasure to join his colleagues at the ACE project groundbreaking ceremonies. One was aware that it was a special event due to the presence of Congressman Miller and Assemblyman Huff. It was his pleasure to join C/Tanaka for Opera Tales at the Library during which LA Opera members performed works of Mozart. He said there was nothing like witnessing a young persons face "light up" over performances. On behalf of the Council he presented certificates to the Diamond Ranch JROTC program, the Chaparral Star promotion yesterday and the D.B. "All Awards" ceremony at D.B. H.S. He saw much for D,B. to be proud of in their future leaders. He congratulated the D.B. Chinese JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL Association on its 16th annual fundraiser. He congratulated Susie Vernon for her outstanding fundraising efforts on behalf of D.B.H.S. and WUSD. He congratulated this year's graduates and to be good and be careful when they celebrate the occasion. He concluded by asking for everyone's thoughts and prayers for Jack Newe who recently fell and broke his hip. C/Tanaka stated that in addition to all of the aforementioned events it was a pleasure for him to represent the City in its many activities. He attended the Three Valley Municipal Water District Leadership Breakfast; On May 23 he attended another PUSD Board meeting to keep the interests of the D.B. schools uppermost in their thoughts. Along with the rest of the Council he attended the employee recognition luncheon during which staff members who completed five years, 10 and 15 years of service were recognized. He attended the joint Chamber of Commerce mixer for D.B. and Walnut during which the art contest award winners were recognized for Water Awareness Month. Also attended the CLOUT meeting on May 25 and learned about commercial and industrial development in LA, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. On June 1 he attended the League of California Cities LA County Division meeting with MlHerrera; attended the Water 101 Session held by the League; on June 2 he was honored to present a Certificate of Recognition to Eagle Scout Thomas Barrett from Troop 730 at his Eagle Court of Honor; on Saturday he attended the Crestline/Diamond Canyon annexation meeting along with Planning staff members. MlHerrera said that the Grade Separation Project would be a fabulous project and the pain and inconvenience that was scheduled to start about October 2006 would give way to a much improved through way. Brea Canyon Rd. will be closed between Golden Springs Rd. and Valley Blvd. during construction. She thanked CM/Lowry and CITye for joining her at a Strategic Planning Session for San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments last Saturday. It was a very productive day and by the time they left the session they were in receipt of notes that had been typed up and printed by the facilitator. On June 15 COG will present a new Mission Statement for adoption by the Board to wit: "The San Gabriel Valley Council of Governments is a unified voice to maximize resources and advocate for regional and member interests to improve the quality of life in the San Gabriel Valley." The Board members adopted five goals for the COG to be accomplished in three years: 1) obtain additional local, state and federal funding; 2) improve regional transportation; 3) improve relationships and trust among members and improve the financial condition of the COG; 4) establish and implement the housing trust fund; and, 5) improve healthcare and the environment. She asked staff to copy the document and distribute it to all Council Members and staff. She invited her colleagues to the San Gabriel Valley Council of Government's second annual Jack Phillips Award Reception on Thursday, June 22 at Pacific Palms at 5:30 p.m. Jack hillips was a Council Member in the City of Industry and was instrumental in creating ACE. The award is given to individuals in the San Gabriel Valley JUNE 6, 2006 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL who have made a significant impact on regional concerns. This year's recipients are Assembly Member Judy Chu, Assembly Member Bob Huff, Leland Dolly Attorney for the San Gabriel Valley COG, Bart Doyle and Robert Que. She announced that for those individuals who travel the southbound SR 57 the Pathfinder exit is open! ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Herrera adjourned the regular City Council meeting at 9:35 p.m. Tommye C ibbins, City Clerk 2006. The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this2othday of ' I iAL��- CAROL HERRERA, MAYOR