Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06/07/2011 Minutes - Regular MeetingMINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF DIAMOND BAR JUNE 7, 2011 CLOSED SESSION: 5:30 p.m., Room CC -8 Public Comment on Closed Session Agenda — None offered. ► Government Code Section 54956.9(c) — Initiation of Litigation — 3 Cases ► Government Code Section 54956.8 Property Address: Agency Negotiator: Negotiating Party: Under Negotiation: Closed Session adjourned at 6:30 p.m. 21810 Copley Drive Diamond Bar, CA City Manager Los Angeles County Library Terms and Conditions CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Tye called the Regular City Council -- meeting to order at 6:31 p.m. in The Government Center/SCAQMD Auditorium, 21865 Copley Dr., Diamond Bar, CA. CA/Jenkins reported that tonight's meeting began at 5:30 with a Closed Session. There were no public comments on the agenda and nothing was added to the agenda. One item discussed in Closed Session had to do with possible acquisition of a small park on Longview that was believed to be owned by the City. After investigation he was happy to report that the developer who created the park has agreed to quit claim the property to the City without the need for litigation. The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute the appropriate documentation for resolution of that matter. With respect to potential initiation of litigation no other reportable action was taken. Council also discussed the matter of the lease of City property at 21810 Copley Drive. The Council was updated on the lease negotiations with the County of Los Angeles relative to the lease of space in the new City building for the library. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Crystal Brown led the Pledge of Allegiance. INVOCATION: Pastor Jeanne Favreau-Sorvillo, Diamond Bar United Church of Christ, gave the invocation. ROLL CALL: Council Members Ron Everett, Carol Herrera (temporarily excused), Jack Tanaka, Mayor Pro Tem Ling -Ling Chang and Mayor Steve Tye. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David Doyle, Assistant City Manager; Michael Jenkins, City Attorney; Bob Rose, Community JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 2 CITY COUNCIL Services Director; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Ryan McLean, Assistant to the City Manager; Rick Yee, Senior Civil Engineer; Grace — Lee, Senior Planner; Kimberly Young, Associate Engineer; Glenn Steinbrink, Interim Finance Director; Ken Desforges, IS Director; Lauren Hidalgo, Public Information Specialist; Natalie Tabon, Planning Technician; Raymond Tao, Interim Building Official; Vicki Cross, HR Manager; Anthony Santos, Management Analyst; and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: 1.1 M/Tye presented a Certificate of Recognition to Jessie Lau, Grand Prize Winner of the Second Annual "Bite Back Against Mosquito Attacks" Student Poster Contest sponsored by the Greater Los Angeles County Vector Control District (GLACVCD). A Certificate was also presented from Assemblyman Hagman's office. Members of GLACVCD including Crystal Brown attended. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: ACM/Doyle provided an update on the new City Hall and Library project. Staff has been to the City Council during the past few months to move this project forward including hiring LPA as the City's Architect. As of June 2 the plans and specifications have been developed and are available for pickup by general contractors wishing to bid on the construction project. Bids are due back to the City on June 28 and staff anticipates bringing the award for construction to Council for both the library and City Hall on July 5. At this time, discussions and negotiations are proceeding to conclusion and staff is working on a reimbursement agreement with the County as well as, negotiation and approval of a Memorandum of Understanding having to do with library services. He intends to bring all or some of the items to Council on June 21 and the remaining items on July 5 in order to keep on track for the new City Hall to be completed sometime in late December with the move taking place between the Christmas and New Year holiday. The library construction will be continuing for another six months with an anticipated move -in of the library sometime during the summer of 2012. CM/DeStefano reported that since 1989 when the City incorporated, it has been split by two zip codes, the regular D.B. zip code of 91765 and the Walnut zip code of 91789 which has been a point of confusion for residents, business operators, service providers, etc. for the past 22 years. Since the early 1990's, the City has been working diligently to gain a change to that split zip code and what the City has sought is an exclusive zip code for the entire community. Earlier this year he and Council Members traveled to Washington D.C. to lobby legislators, staff JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL members and leaders regarding the zip code issue as well as, transportation funding for the major transportation efforts currently underway near and within D.B. The good news is that there is a resolution to the zip code issue on the horizon and City Council Members will speak to that matter during tonight's meeting as well as, what staff will be doing to move forward to conclude the City's effort to gain a unified exclusive zip code for the incorporated community of D.B. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Diamond Bar Library's Julie Macasland Capt.) announced some of the many activities that the Library is sponsoring during the summer. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Planning Commission Meeting — June 14, 2011 — 7:00 p.m., SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive (Canceled). 5.2 City Council Meeting — June 21, 2011 — 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: C/Herrera moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented with the exception of Item 6.10, pulled by C/Herrera. 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 — (a) Study Session of May 17, 2011 — Approve as submitted. (b) Regular Meeting of May 17, 2011 —Approved as submitted. 6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES: 6.2.1 Regular Meeting of March 22, 2011 _ 6.2.2 Regular Meeting of April 12, 2011 6.2.3 Regular Meeting of April 26, 2011 6.3 RECEIVED AND FILED TRAFFIC AND TRANSPORTATION COMMISSION MINUTES — Regular Meeting of April 14, 2011. JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL 6.4 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER – Dated May 12, 2011 through June 1, 2011 totaling $2,396,244.60. — 6.5 APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT – For the month of April 2011. 6.6 a) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2011-17: CALLING AND GIVING NOTICE OF A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011, FOR THE ELECTION OF CERTAIN OFFICERS (TWO CITY COUNCIL SEATS) AS REQUIRED BY THE PROVISIONS OF THE LAWS OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RELATING TO GENERAL LAW CITIES. b) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2011-18: REQUESTING THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES TO CONSOLIDATE A GENERAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION TO BE HELD ON NOVEMBER 8, 2011 WITH THE SCHOOL ELECTIONS TO BE HELD ON THAT DATE PURSUANT TO SECTION 10403 OF THE ELECTIONS CODE. c) ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2011-19: ADOPTING REGULATIONS FOR CANDIDATES FOR ELECTIVE OFFICE PERTAINING TO CANDIDATES STATEMENTS SUBMITTED TO THE VOTERS AT AN ELECTION TO BE HELD ON TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 8, 2011. 6.7 APPROVED UNLIMITED USE SERVICE PROPOSAL WITH BLACKBOARD CONNECT FOR GOVERNMENT TO PROVIDE CONNECT-CTY EMERGENCY NOTIFICATION SYSTEM SERVICE THROUGH AUGUST 14, 2012 AT A COST OF $35,337.13. 6.8 AWARDED CONTRACT TO WEST COAST ARBORISTS FOR TREE MAINTENANCE SERVICES FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 BUDGET IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $181,700. 6.9 APPROVED PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND AWARDED CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE TRAFFIC SIGNAL BATTERY BACKUP SYSTEM PROJECT ALONG BREA CANYON ROAD, DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD, GOLDEN SPRINGS DRIVE, GRAND AVENUE AND PATHFINDER ROAD, IN THE AMOUNT OF $134,475 TO VT ELECTRIC, INC. AND AUTHORIZED A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $15,500 FOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $149,975. JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL 6.11 AWARDED RKA CONSULTING GROUP A CONTRACT TO PROVIDE BUILDING AND SAFETY SERVICES FOR THE CITY, 6.12 ADOPTED RESOLUTION NO. 2011-20: ESTABLISHING AND ADOPTING A SCHEDULE OF RATES, FEES AND CHARGES, FOR SERVICES PROVIDED BY THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENTS. ITEMS WITHDRAWN FROM CONSENT CALENDAR: 6.10 APPROVAL OF CONTRACT AMENDMENT #1 WITH RKA CONSULTING GROUP FOR A COST NOT TO EXCEED $275,000 AND APPROPRIATED $36,000 FROM GENERAL FUND TO PROVIDE BUILDING & SAFETY SERVICES FOR THE REMAINDER OF FISCAL YEAR 2010-11. C/Herrera asked for clarification of this item. CM/DeStefano responded that the City brought RKA on board to serve as the City's Building and Safety provider in October 2010. At that time, staff anticipated the budget resources for this fiscal year to be about $210,000. However, it appears that more will be needed to conclude the 2010-11 budget year due to a slight uptick in the work effort as a result of Building and Safety permit activities. There was also an increase required of their resources as a result of some extensive code enforcement cases for which they have assisted the City during the past nine months. M/Tye asked for confirmation that the amount being requested was "not to exceed" and "not in addition to". CM/DeStefano responded affirmatively. M/Herrera moved, C/Everett seconded, to approve Item 6.10. 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. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 7.1 ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2011-21: DENYING THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S DECISION TO APPROVE A NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE CONSISTING OF 7,432 SQUARE FEET OF LIVING SPACE, TWO JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL GARAGES TOTALING 1,968 SQUARE FEET, 1302 SQUARE FOOT INDOOR POOL AREA AND 1,573 SQUARE FOOT -- COVERED PORCHES AND LOGGIA LOCATED AT 3010 WAGON TRAIN LANE (APN 8713-019-004). CDD/Gubman reported that this matter was approved by the Planning Commission on April 12, 2011 of a new single family residence at 3010 Wagon Train Lane within "The Country Estates". He showed an aerial photo of the project site and the appellant's house across the street on the opposite corner. The proposed development is to demolish the existing single family one-story residence and construct a new two-story single family residence on the property consisting of the following specifications: The existing residence to be demolished is about 3700 square feet. The new residence to replace it is about 7400 square feet of living area, two garages totaling about 2000 square feet, an enclosed swimming pool that is within a 1300 square foot wing of the new residence, and ancillary covered porches and loggias that comprise the overall coverage of building space on the property. The basis for the Planning Commission's April 12, 2011 approval is not only that the project meets the minimum development standards required of all new construction in D.B. such as meeting setbacks, not exceeding height limits, parking requirements, etc. and because it is a discretionary project beyond the minimum code requirements, the Planning Commission must find that the proposed development is appropriate for the site and is compatible with the neighborhood in which it is to be located. During the 10 -day appeal period the neighbors on the opposite corner of Windmill and Wagon Train filed an appeal, the basis of which can be summarized by the following four points: The appellants contend that the proposed home will result in a loss of view from their residence; that the home should be constructed on the descending slope at the rear of the property rather than on the flat pad that currently exists on the parcel because should the house be constructed further into the lot and down the slope it would reduce the impact on their views; that a large number of trees were recently removed from the property according to the appellants, and that combined with the larger development proposed for this site would result in a new development that would degrade the site's natural character. CDD/Gubman then showed street views of the existing view of the home along Windmill Drive looking toward the Wagon Train frontage, an outline of the proposed new home on the photograph, and the proposed development that would replace the current residence. To respond to the contention that the proposed project would result in a severe degradation of the view from the appellant's view, CDD/Gubman showed street level views of the development site as viewed from the appellant's property's JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL advantage point. The first view shown was the lower right corner, the area that is currently a grove of mature trees. The second view was predominately of the existing residence, and the third vantage point showed a northwesterly view of Wagon Train that goes on toward the skyline where one can view the ridge of the hills beyond. CDD/Gubman stated that in reviewing the criteria set forth in the City's Development Code and in the Design Guidelines for view protection, staff and subsequently the Planning Commission, found that this development site, from the perspective of the appellant's property, did not meet any of the view criteria that would warrant invocation of view protection requirements. The appellant's have a significant panoramic view of the canyon area to the rear of their property. The view of the street scenes is obstructed, degraded, or at best are narrow slot views that are enjoyed at this time. The house that is being proposed would not significantly worsen those views although staff would not agree that the current views are significant and in need of protection or enhancement at this point. The significant view for the appellant's property needs to be considered to be the canyon area that is, once again, to the rear of their home and not affected by this project. The areas to the rear of the appellant's home are actually undevelopable so that view is effectively a guaranteed view to be preserved in perpetuity. The appellants bring another argument that the project property should be redeveloped so that the new home is developed down slope toward the rear of the property in order to keep the profile of the new home as low as possible. Staff would argue that doing so would significantly degrade the topography that currently exists at the rear of the project site. Other new construction in "The Country Estates" because of the relatively small pad size for undeveloped areas requires applicants to do significant earth work to build up their rear pads in order to create a buildable area on the site. This property, in contrast to that scenario, is relatively flat and there is no need to do the massive grading because the applicant is able to build on the flat area and not disturb the topography to the rear of the property which significantly minimizes grading to allow construction of the site. The most grading that will be needed to accommodate the proposed development is the excavation for the proposed swimming pool. CDD/Gubman further stated that another important point to bring up _ about this project is that unlike much of the newer development in "The Country Estates" which is generally monumental in scale, the proposed project is a more one-story oriented design that is more subdued in that it does not have a grand entrance, it does not have a bulky monumental two-story presence from the street and it is laid out more in a villa type of configuration where the applicant has JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL taken advantage of the amount of pad area and is spreading the footprint of the house over that pad to reduce its overall scale mass bulk. There is a point in the appeal that references the alleged unauthorized removal of protected trees before this project was submitted to the Planning Commission for approval. However, staff does not find that there is any evidence to that allegation based on discussions with the applicant. According to the applicant, the removal of the trees in question occurred when the property was sold. The property was acquired by the applicant about two years ago. According to the applicant and written statements that are required to be submitted with the Development Review application, there were and are no protected trees on the property. The final key point raised in the appeal is that the natural character of the site would be degraded. Staff and the Planning Commission also determined that that is not the case with this proposed project. This site plan shows the existing tree inventory that is on-site and the trees that are circled in red are the trees that would be removed to accommodate the proposed development. As part of the development, a significant and substantial plant palate is proposed consisting of numerous mature trees including container sizes as large as 60 -inch boxed trees and significant amounts of shrub and ground cover. CDD/Gubman also pointed out that the proposed project shows little if any turf, so it is actually reverting to a more — native plant palate than the current landscape which is predomi- nately lawn. He recapped the key points and stated that because the project is in the hillside zone there are other design features that need to be incorporated to ensure that the development is appropriately designed to fit the property and its natural characteristics. As part of this development, there are no retaining walls that exceed four feet in height, the building footprint is laid out so that it conforms to the topography of the land and is not requiring that the land form be altered to fit the footprint of the house, and, native vegetation is to be retained at the slopes, side and rear of the property. Because there is no earth movement necessary to accommodate this project, the canyon will be kept in its current state. C/Everett said that one thing that troubled him was the address of the project location. Apparently, there was a typo on one of the Commission reports. CDD/Gubman acknowledged that there was a typographical error on the attachment to the approval resolution where the property address is stated as 3010 Windmill and should be 3010 Wagon Train. He stated that should the Council uphold the Planning Commission's approval, all final approval documentation will be JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL revised accordingly to reflect the correct address of 3010 Wagon Train. C/Everett asked if staff knows of any protected trees that may have been removed prior to the applicant acquiring this property. CDD/Gubman responded that based on the signed statement from the applicant there were no protected trees previously on the site. The only way to confirm that fact is either through the applicant's statement made under penalty of perjury or through forensic analysis of the site if tree stumps are available to readily determine the species and diameter. Staff found no such evidence to uphold the allegation that there were protected trees removed from the site. Stuart Beck, GP Architecture, representing the property owner, spoke about the project and some of the items that were in question, the most significant of which was the issue brought up by C/Everett. He addressed the possibility of 50 native walnuts being removed. The site is currently graded and was mass graded when --- the development was originally done in the 1970's. The land was flattened at that time and any native trees would have been removed at that time. Any subsequent planting would not have been native; however, at this point it is impossible to verify what trees were removed. They would not have been native walnuts because the site was mass graded. The few trees he spoke with his client about consisted of a pine tree immediately adjacent to the home that was doing some root damage to the foundation and sidewalks and that pine was removed. Due to a Fire Department letter addressed to his client when he acquired the home, the home was not well maintained as far as flammable material buildup. The current owner cleaned up the flammable materials and at that time the applicant stated he removed a few dead pine trees that were the cause of the flammable material. That was the extent of the tree removal which took place on top of the flat pad that was graded during the original development. There are quite a few walnuts down the slope at the bottom of the natural topography which will remain undisturbed. There are a few walnuts up close to the flat pad and those will also remain undisturbed as shown in the plans. Mr. Beck stated that from the beginning of this project it was his client's desire to have the majority of the square footage on the first floor. His client stated that this would be the last home he built and would, in his retirement, not want a lot of stairs so the majority of the square footage is downstairs which provides a soft two-story mass. The width of the site along Windmill is 360 feet and the design is 190 feet wide but only 86 feet of the 360 feet of width constitutes the two-story element. Only a small portion of the JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL building mass could be considered a dominant two-story and have a major effect on the views. Ting Huang said he was not against his neighbors building a big house. The only problem is that this home of 2000 square feet will now be 7000 square feet and combines two lots. On Page 5 of staff's report, the first paragraph refers to attachment 4 about the City's Code for views. Paragraph B states that every new project shall respect the view of existing residential uses and any new structure shall preserve the view by creating a new corridor. The third rule new development shall be kept as low as possible to reduce or eliminate the possibility of blocking views. The next page talks about the citywide guidelines for checking the design. He showed a picture of the multiple listing that showed how the home looked. The second page of Attachment 4, Page 44 says that the first guideline is that the view shall be preserved as much as possible. The second guideline view quality is usually more important than view quantity. His house has four bedrooms, living room, dining room and den at the front of the house and almost 60 percent of his house is facing Windmill. Instead of being able to open the door and see trees and hear birds he opens his door to a view of a two story house that is 200 feet across. He felt that staff was following the guidelines but that it was very hard to determine whether the project would block his view or not. Page 5 refers to "loss of view". Staff says he has so many views it will not matter. In his opinion, one cannot say that because he has a view from the rear of the property that the front view can be taken away because that is not fair. The third point is that D.B. is committed to the urban forest which is the City's largest, most visible and important natural resource. The City Code 22.38.010 states very clearly that all of the native trees shall be protected. He referred to the second page of his pictures from 2009 showing that the house is imbedded in the green and the next page showing how many trees had been removed. When the applicant removed the trees Mr. Huang felt sorry so he asked the tree remover not to remove the trees and was told the City provided a permit to remove the trees. Mr. Huang said that his wife called the tree remover and asked him to testify that they removed a lot of trees which included Walnut and California Oak. If the City issued a permit to remove those trees he would like to see it and would not argue that the applicant had a right to remove the trees. If there is no permit he would call the environmental protection group. He reiterated his three objections. M/Tye said there was a difference between the need for a permit to remove trees from a property and the need for a permit to remove protected trees and asked staff to address that issue. JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL CDD/Gubman stated that there are a limited number of species identified in the Code as "protected" which include: walnut, oak willow and California Pepper. The size for a tree of those species to be considered protected is an eight inch diameter at shoulder height. If trees are being removed that meet those criteria an applicant or property owner would need a tree removal permit. Staff has not issued a tree removal permit for this site. Staff was unaware of any tree removal activity for this site which is not uncommon because tree contractors are in the City pruning and removing trees on a daily basis and the City did not receive any complaints alleging that protected trees were removed and staff has no forensic evidence to indicate that protected trees existed on this site which were unlawfully removed. M/Tye stated if he had Sycamore, Liquid Amber or Jacaranda, he would not need a permit to remove those trees. CDD/Gubman said that Sycamore would be a protected tree but Jacaranda, Eucalyptus. M/Tye asked if he had a Liquid Amber or Fichus he would not need a permit and would not matter how large. CDD/Gubman affirmed his comment. M/Tye said that permits were not issued which would lead one to believe that protected species were not removed. M/Tye asked staff to address Mr. Beck's point that if this property was scrubbed/leveled to build this property 30 or 40 years, would planted trees be native to that site? CDD/Gubman said they could be indigenous but not volunteer native to that site. However, by virtue of them being the right species and have sufficient time to mature, they could grow into becoming "protected" trees in accordance with the Code. Jen Huang explained that she took care of the previous owner until his death. She knew his backyard and the trees on his property. At her house she still has a lot of protected trees and she knows there were protected trees on the applicant's property. Otherwise, the applicant would not say anything about having a lot of protected trees on his property because it is a contradiction. Secondly, the owner of this property bought the house in one day. Right after December 2009 four big trucks came in and took out the two -rail fence and chipped out the trees to leave no evidence. Unfortunately, the tree removal process left a lot of debris at her JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL house because there was too much to finish. She has their address and phone number and if the Council wishes she can call -- them in to testify that they removed walnut trees and native oak trees and they were instructed to remove those before planning commenced. D.B. is the Tree City of America and please keep that integrity. C/Herrera stated that from all of the material contained in the Council packet it would appear that the Planning Commission thoroughly reviewed this application and came to conclusions and made various findings. C/Everett believed there was a bit of difference that was not included in staff's report as to whether there were protected trees and his feeling is that if there are valid witnesses they should be here tonight, what is the position of these people the Council has heard in hearsay and reference to that may have credibility but are not present this evening. CA/Jenkins responded that the Council can really only take into consideration the evidence that has been brought before it in this hearing in staff's report and in the form of testimony. It is Council's job to weigh the evidence presented and decide how much credibility it has and decide whether it has sufficient credibility and weight to influence Council's decision. Council cannot take into consideration matters that are not before the Council or matters that are third -party hearsay, for example. While this is not a court and it is certainly appropriate to bring up such matters, the Council has to decide whether it wishes to give such hearsay any weight based on where it is coming from. As C/Everett is suggesting, there is a proof problem in this instance and the second problem of course, is the relevance issue. Is it relevant to the findings the Council is being asked to make in response to this application for development of this site. CITanaka said that unfortunately, if trees were illegally removed, that is another issue. However, he believed the architect worked diligently to design a good product to reduce the bulk of the second story to a minimum and to design the bulk of the footprint on the first floor. Unfortunately, views are not something that in every case are guaranteed but with the architectural design he believed that all of those issues have been taken into consideration in this final project. C/Herrera moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2011-21 denying the appeal and affirm the Planning Commission's JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL Decision to approve a new single-family residence consisting of 7,432 square feet of living space, two garages totaling 1,968 square feet, 1302 square foot indoor pool area and 1,573 square foot covered porches and loggia located at 3010 Wagon Train Lane (APN 8713-019-004). 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 a) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2011-22: APPROVING AND ADOPTING A BUDGET FOR THE FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING JULY 1, 2011 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2012 INCLUDING MAINTENANCE AND OPERATIONS, SPECIAL FUNDS AND CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS; AND APPROPRIATING FUNDS FOR ACCOUNTS, DEPARTMENTS, DIVISIONS, OBJECTS AND PURPOSES THEREIN SET FORTH CM/DeStefano stated that with respect to Item 8.1 (a) through (e). Staff is pleased to present the City Council with the Draft Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget. This is a budget that has, as in the past couple of years, been very difficult to create. It has been difficult to keep City service levels high and new programs moving forward while doing so with stagnant or reduced resources that this City, like many other cities have faced, in the last few years. This draft document was reviewed on May 3 and on May 17. Changes to the draft have occurred as a result of refinements by staff and through direction and comments received by the City Council during the study session where the budget was discussed. The budget is presented with General Fund estimated resources of $23,069,411 with appropriations proposed at $22,775,776. This results in a contribution to the General Fund Reserves at the end of the 2011- 2012 Fiscal Year in the amount of $293,635. Council Members are aware that this number has increased since the first and subsequent Study Sessions. The budget starts the 2011-12 Fiscal Year with a General Fund Reserve of $21,090,968. It is estimated that $4,087,000 will be used from reserves in order to complete the library and city hall projects at the new building purchased during this, the 2010-11 budget year. Also included in tonight's budget is a Capital Improvement Program that amounts to $4,541,635. Also incorporated are a variety of spending plans within the City's Special Revenue Funds and Internal Service Funds. The economy is improving slowly and the City is looking at slight increases in JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL sales tax performance, hotel tax performance, property tax performance, and slightly more with respect to the City's return on investments. All numbers and growth areas are way below what had occurred in this community and had been received from the City's investments in the past few years which is directly related to the slowing of the economy and stagnant increases in economic growth during the past couple of years. Staff believes it will be another two years before it sees any significant new growth in any of those categories mentioned. The City continues to be concerned about what the State of California may be doing to the cities as a result of their own budget woes. D.B. has additional built-in protections that come from measures taken in the last years to protect cities and to protect raids from the State while the State deals with its own problems. Staff does not anticipate any major issues from the State this year but that is an uncertainty as the State becomes more creative in trying to find resources for their operation wherein they often look to municipalities to bail them out of their situations. $4,087,000 is proposed to be used for a variety of projects and specifically for the Civic Center project at $3,700,000. Since 2001 the City Council has utilized reserves for economic development projects and activities and in the 2011-12 Budget year staff proposes the use of $112,500 of reserves for economic development activities. Also, a portion of the reserves is — proposed to be transferred out to continue to fund the Lighting and Landscape Assessment Districts which have been exceeding the appropriations to keep the Districts afloat and the areas green. Typically, the CIP requires some appropriation from General Fund Reserves; however, this year there is none. This year staff worked very hard to ensure that all resources needed for the CIP (more than $4.5 million) came from other funding sources. Within the appropriations, there are no changes to service levels and no diminishment of service levels. The City will continue to provide the same level of service with one slight uptick with an added component to youth basketball. Law Enforcement is budgeted at 3 percent higher than last year which is directly related to the City's contract with the County of Los Angeles ($5.7 million). The components of Community Services, Public Works, Community Development and others have remained essentially the same as the 2010-2011 mid -year budget presentation. In January 2011 he asked department heads to consider what was then anticipated to be the mid -year budget presentation to the Council as the blueprint for the 2011-2012 Fiscal Year Budget. Built within the law enforcement budget is a contribution that the City is required to make to Los Angeles County each year to fund a liability trust fund account in the amount of $208,000. That contribution may be — waived this year; however, the waiver is not reflected within the draft budget presented this evening. Should the waiver occur or a JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL "holiday" the reserves will move up from the $293,000 to almost $500,000. However as of this date it is still budgeted because he has not yet received official word from the County that the contribution will be waived this year. However, he expects that action will occur within the next 60 days. This year staff continues to propose that four positions within the authorized allocation remain frozen. There are 50 benefited full-time employees, 5 benefited part-time employees and 58 part-time employees for a total of 113 employees at the peak. Often, the City has less as a result of the off-season peak of the part time staff needs in Community Services. The budget proposes a 2.5 Cost of Living adjustment for all employees which results in a General Fund contribution of about $20,000. The actual amount is about $130,000 but there is approximately $70,000 that comes from special funds and not the General Fund and with the frozen positions there is roughly $40,000 that is frozen and not anticipated to be used this year which results in an actual increase of $20,000. For the past 22 years the City has historically looked at the increase in the local area. This year the actual CPI increase from March to March is 3.5% but he is recommending that there be a 2.5 -- percent Cost of Living adjustment. In addition to the COL increase there is a benefit allotment increase that is proposed in the amount of $25 for each of the full time employees and those eligible which results in a $20,000 per year increase. Normally, the City pays a hefty amount to the Joint Power Insurance Authority (JPIA) for employee Workers' Comp and Liability insurance premiums but as a result of favorable loss experience has decreased by $58,000 this year. There are a number of special funds that for the most part are utilized for traffic, street maintenance, transportation programs, etc. and transfers -out from those various programs but very little of any significance with the numbers remain basically the same as in prior years. CM/DeStefano introduced Interim Finance Director Glenn Steinbrink and offered to answer Council questions. When the Council is prepared to do so, staff recommends that the City Council approve and adopt the resolution approving the budget for Fiscal Year 2011-12 and all attached thereto and for purposes therein set forth. MPT/Chang asked that each resolution be considered separately. There was no one present who wished to speak on this item. C/Everett said he supported the excellent presentation and the work behind the 2011-12 Budget. During the years he has served on the Council this has been the most comprehensive and JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL challenging budget. He is not prepared to vote for the total budget for a couple of reasons. The City has inherited three Lighting and Landscape Districts that are supported by fixed revenue taxing that the City inherited from the County of Los Angeles. CM/DeStefano mentioned that the City has looked for ways to deal with the costs that exceed the revenues. District 38 has 17,847 people and is probably the easiest to deal with. District 39 is only 7 percent of the residents or 1251 residents which the City has begun to underwrite. The deficit that the City is supporting from the General Fund in this year's budget is $57,000 and that amount will continue to grow. District 41 is more troubling to him because it consists of 551 (3 percent) residents and the City is supporting in excess of $15,000 to be paid back if the City finds a way to generate funds. He is sometimes critical of government that cannot live within its means. D.B. has means and this year the City is spending over $75,000 plus staff from the General Fund. He feels compelled to speak to this issue. He said he asked staff to come up with options such as reduce watering, reduce excel landscaping to allow the City to spend only the money that comes in. He asked to line -item veto the items on the Landscape District and the posture. There may not be time to correct that before the budget is due but he cannot support it at this time. The other issue is that everyone is making cost cuts and he thanked staff because neighboring cities are cutting programs significantly and materially. He feels the residents of the Districts need to participate in wiping out this appropriation to the General Fund or cut expenditures. Secondly, he stated he couldn't support the budget because in his opinion, there was no due process for Council directing staff to proceed with the dog park. Since 2009 it has been a part of the Parks Master Plan but the cost is about $131,000 and has not been voted on by the public. Most of all, it is a part of the Parks Master Plan but was not on the top of the list. He felt the City should adopt the Master Plan and then work on the Plan with the dog park being an item that would move through the process. M/Tye said that this budget would not be line -item vetoed and the Council Members will vote up or down on the budget as presented. Since he has been on this Council it has grappled with the Lighting and Landscape Districts and there will be a solution but the time for that solution is not right now and it is not either/or. Relative to the dog park, he loves the Parks Master Plan which is a tool — it is a plan. It is not set in concrete and it does not say what the City will do force rank 1 through 10. He previously commented when this issue was raised that if you force rank then nothing will get done because the City cannot afford to do the first few things on a list that is contained within the Parks Master Plan. This is low -hanging fruit, it involves property that is available that the City owns and JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL simply needs to make it an amenity. Let us think in terms of what we lack in D.B. and CSD/Rose could tell us the population to acres of park space deficit the City has. The dog park adds park space, it adds useful park space and it reduces that deficit. C/Tanaka thanked staff for putting together an outstanding budget. With respect to the Lighting and Landscaping Districts, he believes the Council subcommittee needs to continue to work to correct the gap. He is very happy about the services and programs staff has proposed with no cuts in service levels. Regarding 8.1 (d) the City has an outstanding staff and the City should make sure to continue to take care of its staff. C/Herrera said she shared C/Everett's concerns about the imbalance in the Lighting and Landscape Maintenance Districts. They have been out of balance for a number of years but that is not an issue that the Council can address today with adoption of the budget. The Council is obligated by law to adopt a balanced budget by July 1 and staff has presented that balanced budget to the Council for adoption. Regarding the imbalance in the Landscape Districts it will take Council direction to staff which has not been placed on the agenda for discussion about whether the Council will direct staff to reduce expenditures for each of the Districts so that they are balanced or, hold an election to raise the amount collected from the residents so that it is balanced. However, that is not something that can be decided right here and now. She appreciates staffs hard work in bringing the Council a balanced budget and the City is living within its means. Not every City can boast that because there are many cities that are running several millions of dollars of deficit and are forced to make severe cuts in their programs. D.B. is not in that situation because the City is very careful and prudent with its expenditures. With respect to the dog park, C/Herrera has served on the Council longer than any current Council Member and there have been residents coming forward on a regular basis for a great number of years asking please, we know you are working on the Parks Master Plan and please include a dog park. As previously stated a dog park was a component within the Parks Master Plan and things come up opportunities become available and materialize. There is a portion of land that without a great deal of investment and expenditure the City is able to turn into a dog park for the benefit of the residents. The City Council has not adopted the Parks Master Plan yet. It has been working on for a number of years but it has not yet reached the City Council for adoption. That does not make funding the dog park a bad or wrong thing because the opportunity and the ability have come about for the City to move forward. Again, it is something that residents have asked to have for a number of years. JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL MPT/Chang thanked staff for a great budget. With respect to the dog park she agrees with M/Tye. She served on the Parks and Recreation Commission during a time when the Parks Master Plan was being considered and a dog park is a component of the plan. She agrees that the components will not necessarily happen in the order of ranking and it is her understanding that the number one wish was a sports park. Given the lack of space for a sports park the premise of constructing the wish list in ranking order would assure that components 2 through 10 would never be accomplished. She also agreed that a dog park is low hanging fruit in terms of the cost of a dog park and the number of residents that would take advantage of it. To her, it is a win-win for all. Also, the City is not lacking in terms of sports and recreation for any other categories except for dog owners and their pets and as she has previously stated, it is a multi -generational use opportunity. C/Everett said he was not in it for forced ranking, he was in it for due -process and thinks what has been said is pretty true but low hanging fruit without looking at the whole plan in his opinion lacks vetting. D.B. is short on general park use areas. He thought there had been requests for picnic uses and overnight camping and the dog park location looks like a natural spot for those activities. The trails system that emerges out of that area is probably the best in the City. He is also concerned about the statements by Inland Valley Humane Society which points out potential increase in canine disease, potential increase in aggressive dogs, increase of calls to the Sheriffs Department and cautions from JPIA about setting up a dog park. He thinks there are enough questions that need input or the opportunity for input. It may go as intended but he does not believe in setting up a budget unless it will be done and that is his reason for feeling unsettled and unable to support that in the current budget. The Council has until June 30 to adopt a budget and may have another chance to take some cuts at being realistic and living within our means in the Lighting and Landscape Districts 39 and 41. M/Tye pointed out that the Contract Cities under which D.B. works well for the City. He looks at what this staff does — best staff, bar none. When he was studying to get his degree in Public Administration some 30 years ago a lot of public entities would fill positions just to keep them. It was very important to spend the budget at the end of the year so that they could get an increase the next year so that they could add to the staff. D.B. does not do that. The City has frozen four positions, it saves money where it can, the City will actually add $200,000 to its reserves and by the end of the fiscal year perhaps more like $500,000. The Contract Cities has made it possible for D.B. to get a "holiday" from the liability trust JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL fund that will save the City $200,000 and again, as C/Herrera stated, the community next door to D.B. that loves to follow this City's model is cutting their Concerts in the Park, their very popular parade, and stipends for Commissioners because they feel they have no choice. D.B. has choices. D.B. has a surplus. D.B. manages its surplus well. This will be the 23`d balanced budget in a row. He is encouraged by staff's work and the budget they have laid before the Council and very proud of all of the staff and the job that they do. C/Tanaka asked if passage of the budget required completion of the dog park. CM/DeStefano reiterated that the budget allocates a resource for the construction of the dog park. The City Council will have a variety of decisions that will need to be made going forward which will give the Council an opportunity to decide whether or not it wishes to construct the dog park. Based on prior Council discussion and action in study sessions, the matter was placed within the budget and in fact, the Parks and Recreation -- Commission added it to their recommendation for their Parks Master Plan which will come to the Council within the next few months. C/Herrera moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2011-22. Motion carried 4-1 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Tanaka, MPT/Chang, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:None b) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2011-23: SETTING PROPOSITION 4 (GANN) APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT FOR FY 2011-12 IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF DIVISION 9 OF TITLE 1 OF THE GOVERNMENT CODE. IFD/Steinbrink presented staffs report. Each year the Council is required to set the Gann limit. This matter has absolutely no fiscal impact on the City whatsoever because the limit is set at $34 million which provides a ceiling for the proceeds of taxes and appropriations against those proceeds of taxes. The City's proceeds of taxes and appropriations, therefore, are less than 50 percent of that limit. C/Herrera moved, C/Everett seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2011-23. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, Herrera, Tanaka, MPT/Chang, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None c) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2011-24: ADOPTING THE STATEMENT OF INVESTMENT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-12. IFD/Steinbrink stated that City policy requires that the City adopt an investment policy each year regardless of whether there are any changes in the policy. There are no changes in the investment policy this year from 2011. All of the investments made by the City are in accordance with Government Code § 53601 are allowable and therefore, no changes are necessary at this time. C/Everett moved, C/Tanaka seconded to Adopt Resolution No. 2011-24. 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 d) ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2011-25: AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 2010-13 ESTABLISHING SALARY GRADES AND FRINGE BENEFITS FOR ALL CLASSIFICATIONS OF EMPLOYMENT EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2011. CM/DeStefano stated that this is a request by his office to establish a new compensation plan incorporating salary ranges and fringe benefits for all classifications of employment effective July 1, 2011 and amending Resolution 2010-13 for this purpose as outlined in staffs report. C/Herrera moved, C/Tanaka seconded, to Adopt Resolution No. 2011-25 as corrected. Motion carried 4-1 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, Herrera, Tanaka, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: MPT/Chang ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None e) ADOPT RESOLUTION 2011-26: APPROVING AND ADOPTING A FUND BALANCE POLICY AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER AND/OR FINANCE DIRECTOR TO ASSIGN FUND BALANCE TO A SPECIFIC PURPOSE IN RELATION TO JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL THIS FUND BALANCE POLICY. CM/DeStefano explained" that adoption of this resolution creates a fund balance policy for the City being established in the current fiscal year and being carried over to subsequent years. IFD/Steinbrink stated that this item is required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement No. 54 to comply with generally accepted account principles. It has been approved by the CPA firm hired to audit the City. It requires that the City Council formally commit a portion of the General Fund Reserves for emergency contingencies. For example, such as in the case of a natural disaster such as an earthquake, there will likely not be any State, Federal or County agencies that will immediately step in to assist the City financially, so it is prudent to keep two to three months of General Fund expenditures in a reserve account set aside for emergencies, which is why the policy is being set at three months of General Fund expenditures which equates to $4.5 million. This can be changed at any time by a vote of at least 3 members of the City Council. The only thing that it requires is that if the total reserves in the General Fund should ever fall below the $4.5 million the Council has to take measures to reduce expenditures to maintain the reserves at no less than the $4.5 million. C/Everett moved, C/Herrera seconded, to Adopt Resolution 2011- 26. 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 APPOINTMENT TO THE WILDLIFE CORRIDOR CONSERVATION AUTHORITY ADVISORY COMMITTEE. M/Tye recommended that David DeMers be appointed to the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority Advisory Committee. David serves as the Deputy Director of the San Gabriel Valley Conservation Corp and is interested in serving on the Advisory Committee. M/Tye moved, C/Herrera seconded, to approve the appointment of David DeMers to the Wildlife Corridor Conservation Authority Advisory Committee. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Everett, Herrera, Tanaka, MPT/Chang, M/Tye — NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Tanaka reported on his attendance at the following meetings and events: the Pomona Unified School District's Community Service Awards; the YWCA Women of Achievement Awards and congratulated Marny Shay on her award; DRHS Musical Performance and Dinner at the Fox Theatre in Pomona; DBHS All Schools Award Night; Quail Summit Elementary School 5th Grade Promotion; DBHS Graduation Ceremonies for the Class (814 students) of 2011; Pantera Elementary School Open House and Fundraiser. He thanked Darren Fishell and Diamond Bar Patch for providing electronic news to the City of D.B. He asked staff to investigate establishing an historical ordinance for the City. He wished his wife Wanda a Happy 39th Wedding Anniversary. C/Everett congratulated Mr. DeMers and spoke about attending the YWCA Women of Achievement and applauded Executive Director Dr. Lisa Brabo. He then announced that the Emergency Preparedness program that was held at the Diamond Bar Center will be rebroadcast on the City's website and DBTV Channel 3. He also attended the Los Angeles County Peace Officer's Memorial and the 181h Annual Chinese-American Abacus Association event. C/Herrera thanked staff for their outstanding work and prudent planning in putting together yet another balanced budget. She thanked LA County Supervisor Knabe for his 45th Annual Older Americans Recognition Ceremony where he recognized three D.B. residents Jack Shah (Sunshine Seniors), Gloria Verrengia, (D.B. Seniors) and Irene Ng (Evergreen Seniors). MPT/Chang asked residents to follow her on Facebook and Twitter. She and CM/DeStefano were at the ICFC to meet with various retailers in an attempt to attract them to bring their businesses to D.B. She attended the Emergency Preparedness Seminar. She and C/Everett held Economic subcommittee and Neighborhood Improvement subcommittee meetings and spent several hours discussing many issues. The Council will be provided an update on the sessions at a later date. MPTIChang spoke about the City's zip code dilemma and thanked Congressman Miller, the postal service and others for facilitating the discussions that led to a possible solution. In February the City received a letter from USPS stating that its request to conduct a study for a zip code specific to D.B. was denied; however, when Council Members and staff met with USPS in JUNE 7, 2011 PAGE 23 CITY COUNCIL March they were able to schedule conference calls during which a new study was conducted. As a result, the next steps are that the affected residents will be asked to vote on the new zip code issue and the process should be resolved and completed by July 2012. Updates will be provided as they become available. M/Tye thanked MPT/Chang for filling in as Acting Mayor during the previous Council Meeting in his absence. He thanked staff again for their efforts to provide the Council with the necessary guidance to make sure that the City is spending prudently and that it has the resources needed to provide the programs it can. He is very grateful that the City has another balanced budget. He congratulated Jessie Lau and her recognition for her work on behalf of the Vector Control District. The City is very proud of Jessie. He attended the retirement ceremony for Dr. John Nixon, President and CEO of Mt. SAC, concluding a 35 -year career in education. He talked about watching the Scripps National Spelling Bee. Tim Quo was the representative for the Inland Valley Spelling Bee sponsored by the Diamond Bar Friends of the Library. Ralphs will close the first or second week of August. He receives a lot of calls about that issue and he wants residents to know that staff and the Council Members are working very, very hard to get a tenant for that site working with and supporting the Property Management's efforts as well. Council hopes to have a positive announcement about this matter over the next couple of months. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M(Tye recessed the Regular City Council meeting at 8:55 p.m. TOMMYE tRIBBINS, CITY CLERK The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this 21stday of June' , 2011. STEVE MAYO