Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout03/03/2015 Minutes - Regular MeetingSTUDY SESSION: M/Tye called the Study Session to order at 6:03 p.m. in Room CC -8, South Coast Air Quality Management District, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA 91765 Present: Council Members Carol Herrera, Jimmy Lin, Jack Tanaka, Mayor Pro Tem Nancy Lyons, and Mayor Steve Tye. Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; Ryan McLean, Deputy City Manager; David DeBerry, City Attorney; Dianna Honeywell, Finance Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Kimberly Young, Senior Civil Engineer; Ken Desforges, IS Director; Anthony Santos, Senior Management Analyst; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator; Anthony Jordan, Parks Maintenance Superintendent, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. ► FISCAL YEAR 2015-16 CITY COUNCIL GOALS AND OBJECTIVES — Discussion and Action DCM/McLean reported that tonight staff will present its recommendations for the 2015-16 Fiscal Year City Council Goals and Objectives. Each year as the City begins its budget process Council has an opportunity to consider the goals and objectives that were worked on and some of which were completed during the previous year, in order to set goals for the upcoming fiscal year. DCM/McLean further stated that in his report he has separated the goals from the objectives for the 2014-15 Fiscal Year to highlight staff's recommendations for amendment or removal. Next, Council will look at staff's recommendation for the 2015-16 Fiscal Year Goals and Objectives. During the discussion, Council can discuss items, ask questions and make recommendations for additions or deletions beyond what staff is recommending. FY 2014-2015 City Council Goals & Obiectives recommendations: 1. Traffic Mitigation Advocate for transportation solutions that are equitable in their distribution of goods movement related traffic. a) Secure recognition of the SR60's ongoing status as a component of the state and national freight networks in an effort to secure funding for 57/60 Interchange Improvements. Accomplished and recommend removal from the objective list. MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 2 CC STUDY SESSION • In cooperation with the City's project partners, complete the Lemon Avenue on/off ramp project. a) Complete right-of-way acquisitions and begin construction. Scheduled for completion prior to June 30, 2015 — Recommend removal from the objective list. • Develop a report to the City Council outlining the ongoing effectiveness of the City's ongoing traffic mitigation programs — Completed by June 30, 2015 — Recommend removal from goals list. 3. Communications a) Complete an update to the City's website, enhancing governmental transparency, access to information, and ease of use for the public — Completed by June 30, 2015 — Recommend removal from objective list. M/Tye asked if when finished the website would actually be more user friendly and accessible. PIM/Roa responded that the main focus of the redesign was to include more direct links on the home page. Staff feels that the amount of direct links has been doubled that will direct users into internal pages. This item refers to the initial redesign; however, overall update of the website is an ongoing effort. 4. Other Items • Preserve Windmill structure via ownership of structure and/or property. Completed in 2015 — Recommend removal from objective list. a) Commence Grand Avenue Beautification Project, using the chosen design as an initial standard plan for the City's streetscapes and entry signage — Completed by June 30, 2015 — Recommend removal from objective list. • Consider options for the development of a fiscally responsible City - administered public aquatics program — Completed - Recommend removal of goal. Staff previously contacted WVUSD about use of the DBHS pool which was built in the past couple of years. At that time the School District was not willing to rent the facility to anyone at the time. This may change in the future; however, the main issue with making this MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 3 CC STUDY SESSION program available to the City is that the facility was not built as a community pool but rather as a competitive style pool. Since it is very deep it will not be open for any type of open swim for kids or seniors. MPT/Lyons stated that when staff contacted the School District Dr. Taylor had been on the job for a very short time (less than a year) and she wondered if the School District might have changed their opinion and that it might warrant another look before the item is removed. DCM/McLean said staff could do so. M/Tye stated that he doesn't think that the pool meets the needs of what the City would want to program it for such as senior aerobics and kids swimming lessons. DCM/McLean agreed that the pool is very limited in its overall use. There may be a waythat there could be some very limited type of instruction but for the most part, programming the pool as would be done for normal City aquatics facility is not going to be possible. MPT/Lyons said it was disappointing that this is how it worked out since taxpayers thought they were getting something different. She has heard from seniors that would still like to be able to use the pool for competitive senior swimming. They used to use the Industry Hills pool which has been closed for a couple of years and the City cannot make the School District share the pool if they do not want to do so but wondered if staff could ask again before the year ends. DCM/McLean said he would contact administrative staff to see if their position has changed and what they might be willing to provide access for, if anything. MPT/Lyons said she agreed it was not ideal for swimming lessons, etc. but she would like to find out if there were any other options. M/Tye said he was not opposed to reaching out again but if staff gets the same information then remove it from the list. MPT/Lyons agreed. C/Herrera suggested to ask them one more time and if they say no, eliminate it from the goals. MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 4 CC STUDY SESSION MPT/Lyons asked staff to report back to the Council about what the School District said. She has had seniors tell her they realize the pool is deep; however they would like to utilize the pool for senior swimming with no small children present. DCM/McLean said the only drawback he sees is that WVUSD will not allow any type of drop in type of swim versus actual programs. MPT/Lyons said it would not be anything like that, it would have to be a class for which seniors signed up. DCM/McLean asked if MPT/Lyons was referring to an instructional class or something else. MPT/Lyons said she did not know because that would be up to Parks and Recreation. She thinks the first question is will they share the pool. She thinks the City should check one more time since Dr. Taylor was there just a short time when he was asked. C/Tanaka said that unlike the pool at Walnut High School, accessibility to the one at DBHS is a challenge with several steps and slopes, etc. It is not a flat concrete pool. C/Lin asked if the discussion was about using the pool on the weekends. M/Tye said the pool could not be accessed when students were there so times would be very limited to nights and some weekends. MPT/Lyons reiterated she would like to take a look at it one more time. DCM/McLean said if there were no other questions or discussion on the items presented he will move on to the 2015-16 FY recommendations. Proposed Fiscal Year 2015-16 City Council Goals & Obiectives: DCM/McLean explained the new format which attempts to identify the overall goal and then the different objectives/tasks that need to be completed during the next year or two to accomplish that goal or move toward the long-term goal. For example, the first item Traffic Mitigation Goal #1 indicates a new goal for FY 15-16. In reality the 57/60 Confluence project has been separated out from the 'Big Fix" because the City, the City of Industry and other partners have separated those two projects where as in the past the goal was referred to as "the 57/60 Big Fix MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 5 CC STUDY SESSION which is a recommended change. Staff has added Objective 1.2 which is to "commence construction of the westbound SR -60 off -ramp and auxiliary lanes to Grand Avenue" as a separate item under Phase II. Traffic Mitigation Goal #2 identifies the "Big Fix" as a separate goal from the Confluence project. M/Herrera said that with respect to "missing connectors" they are not part of the 57/60 Confluence Project. Diamond Bar keeps talking about it and when we do people get confused about what Diamond Bar is talking about and how much it will cost. It will cost hundreds of millions more which the City is struggling to get the $200 million funding to fix the remainder of the 57/60 and to add several more hundreds of millions for the missing connectors, is a matter she believes is causing a lot of confusion about the project and she does not know that "missing connectors" has support from local legislators. She knows Diamond Bar's State Senator does not support it and he will not help the cities to lobby to get funding for it. She wondered why the City would continue to spend time and dollars to pursue this when it is a very difficult thing to accomplish by Diamond Bar and it is not part of the big plan that Diamond Bar has marketed nationwide. CM/DeStefano said this involves a lengthy discussion that should be addressed during a study session in the future. If the Council concurs, staff would bring this specific matter back for policy direction and discussion so that the Council can hear in more detail from professional staff as to why staff continues to push this. Staff believes it provides traffic relief, in particular Diamond Bar Boulevard to put in those missing connectors and yes, that component of the project is not supported by our significant partner, the City of Industry but it does not necessarily mean that the City should not pursue this which goes back to the policy direction from the Council that staff has had in the past. If Council wants to change its policy that is fine but there should be discussion in more detail as to what relief staff believes connectors would provide, what timing might be involved, where there might be resources available, etc. To C/Herrera's point about lobbying, staff has tried to be very careful not to confuse the congressman and senators that support Diamond Bar by only talking about the Confluence Project as a deliberate measure because the' City of Industry has been Diamond Bar's partner and does not support the connectors. It is not that they are opposed to the connectors. The City of Industry does not see a direct benefit for them which is probably a correct assessment of the situation. However, it benefits Diamond Bar and that is why the City has continued to pursue it. C/Herrera said that at one time the total cost of the project was $800 million and that caused a lot of heartburn when the project was being MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 6 CC STUDY SESSION marketed and there was an effort to "whittle down" the project to where it was more manageable and believes that is the point at which the connectors were left off. She would like for the Council and staff to discuss this matter in depth. MPT/Lyons felt it would be great to have that discussion because it is complex project and there has been no real discussion for a couple of months. C/Lin echoed C/Herrera's comments. Selfishly Diamond Bar would like to have the connectors included but politically and financially, he does not see that the City would be able to get any more money for this for the next 10 or 15 years. The next round of Measure R may include the 57/60 Confluence project but the missing link has never been brought up in any discussion. Council concurred to have an in depth discussion at a future study session. CM/DeStefano said he would work with PWD/Liu to determine when this matter can be brought back to the City Council for policy direction. Traffic Mitigation Goal #3 Objective 3.1 — Refers to the Lemon Avenue project and because the right-of-way acquisitions should be completed by the next fiscal year the new objective would be to begin construction and complete the project by the estimated date of December 2016. Traffic Mitigation Goal #4 Objective 4.1 — An edit of the previous goal which is to maintain participation in the regional goods movement planning efforts to make sure any new ideas or plans that come down the line from the regional agencies do not over -impact the 57/60 area and the 60 as a freight corridor. Traffic Mitigation Goal #5 Objective 5.1 — The goal will be a new goal to optimize traffic flow on the City's arterial streets. This is kind of an over -arching type goal that will have several objectives in the future. The first objective for this year would be to "implement the adaptive traffic control system." The adaptive traffic control system is a project for which the City was a grant recipient from Metro in the amount of about $1.4 million. This project upgrades the City's traffic signals with new technology, allows for more immediate adjustments to traffic signal timing and optimizes traffic flow based on the conditions of the streets in real time. This is something that will MARCH 3,2015 PAGE 7 CC STUDY SESSIOK improve the City's traffic control and improve the flow on the streets. This is something that should be coming to fruition in 2015- 16. C/Lin asked if $1.4 million was the City's number or a number given to the City by Metro because it seems rather low to him. DCM/McLean said the City was awarded through the "Call For" Projects. PWD/Liu said that the City provides 20 percent local matching funds. CM/DeStefano explained that this was a competitive grant for which the City is getting $1.4 million. M/Tye felt it was interesting because Brian Pennington said this weekend that he was impressed with Diamond Bar because so many things have been identified and it makes it easier for them to step up to Diamond Bar. PWD/Liu said that Diamond Bar has a good track record. Section 2: Financial Responsibility/Economic Development DCM/McLean said that the edits for this section include a new goal under Goal #2 which is to "Stimulate growth in the local economy by attracting new businesses and jobs to Diamond Bar" which is also an over -arching type goal that will incorporate objectives the City Council may have seen in the past on the Goals & Objectives. Objective 2.1 Identify specific development opportunities and develop Specific Plans to revitalize the K -Mart property area in a way that provides the greatest net benefit to the community. M/Tye suggested that the property should no longer be called the "K -Mart" property. That way those people who have seen the property and said they were not interested would not be so quick to judge because of its stigma. People might be interested if the City had an overall uplifting format. CM/DeStefano said that he is meeting with the property owner and hotel developer tomorrow and will discuss that issue. He would like for people to acquire a different mindset about the property that it is new and exciting for Diamond Bar. MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 8 CC STUDY SESSION Goal #3 - Implement the plan to address the long-term financial sustainability of the City's Lighting and Landscape Assessment Districts (LLADs). This goal is based on the direction that City Council gave staff during the January Study Session to accept the plan that was presented to the City Council and begin the implementation process. The implementation process makes up two objectives. Objective 3.1 - "Complete implementation of updates to adjust annual assessments in District 39". Objective 3.2 - "Begin discussions with the five homeowners' associations in LLAD #41 to return maintenance responsibilities to the property owners." These are the two main pieces of the plan that the Council directed staff to begin planning back in January and this will give staff clear direction to continue with those mandates moving forward. Section 3: Communications Objective 1.1 - Follows the goal to provide a variety of opportunities for public interaction and participation. Staff is recommending that the first objective be to "Maintain a wide variety and expand upon existing public outreach methods, including print media (DB Connection/Envirolink), e - newsletter subscriptions, DBTV/website/YouTube channel video products, and restaurant guide." Section 4: General Items The first change is under Objective 2.1 which relates back to incorporating a standard design element with a unifying theme. Objective 2.1 - "Develop a plan to incorporate the features of the Grand Avenue Beautification Project at other arterial intersections and at City entry points." Now that the City has the general guidelines and the look and feel it is trying to create at other arterial locations and entry points in the City, staff and Council should begin to develop a plan on how to incorporate those features at other locations. M/Tye asked if the "quiet zone" should be eliminated. CM/DeStefano said until the City knows staff would recommend it stay on the list. M/Tye said his question is why bother with it because he understands from Walnut residents that it is not such a quiet zone. CM/DeStefano said it has its advantages but every stop along the way has to be covered by a "quiet zone" improvement. Otherwise, one still hears the train noise, etc. He is sure that he hears traffic on Lemon Avenue at his house but he does not hear the same from Brea Canyon and Nogales at Valley anymore. MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 9 CC STUDY SESSION M/Tye said his question was if it takes a million to establish a quiet zone, should Diamond Bar just do it or is it something the City throws against the wall hoping it can get Industry to pay for it. MPT/Lyons said City of Industry said they would pay for it with the stadium M/Tye agreed but his two point question is, if the stadium does not happen, does Diamond Bar still want to do the "Quiet Zone." CM/DeStefano said that is the broader policy question for the City Council. C/Herrera asked where the City would get a million dollars. CM/DeStefano said that is the broader policy question in terms of whether the Council wishes to pursue it regardless of who is paying for it. It is the only one Diamond Bar has in the City. Since Brea Canyon has the underpass there are no horns there. Temple Avenue will eventually have the same thing so it is the only one in the City and the only one in Walnut is behind Kohl's. Believe it or not, there is a private crossing that still requires the blasting of the horns. Other than that, in this general area the horns are no longer blasting. This is a broader policy issue. It is not necessarily who pays for it, it is just whether or not the Council wishes to do it. C/Lin asked if planning issues are typically included in the Goals and Objectives such as updating the General Plan, etc. CM/DeStefano responded that such issues can be included. C/Lin asked if the City was going to update its General Plan this year. CM/DeStefano said it would not happen that quickly but it will be started this calendar year. C/Herrera stated that only certain portions of the General Plan are periodically required to be updated; however, updating all components is up to the City and Diamond Bar's has been in effect since 1995 so it is time. CM/DeStefano said that staff is planning to work on it this year and it will take two or three years to complete. Money was set aside in last year's budget for it and depending on how things shake out staff may ask Council for more money because the cost is more than what was set aside. It could be on the Goals & Objectives list and staff can work on a statement for the Council's consideration. C/Herrera said she felt it should be stated. MPT/Lyons asked if it would be stated that it would be started and finished within three years or something like that. MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 10 CC STUDY SESSION CM/DeStefano said that staff would come up with appropriate language. The EIR will take a year. MPT/Lyons asked if something should be added to the list about working with PUSD to get Lorbeer Field in better shape and possibly adding lights to the upper field for more flexibility. The field was bad for the 4th of July Celebration and the field is just as bad now and she knows it gets too much use. M/Tye said he did not believe that the City needed to work with PUSD because the City cares for it like a park. CM/DeStefano said that the City does treat it like a park but the City does not own it. M/Tye said but the City does not need PUSD's permission to go in and make repairs. The response by everyone was Yes, the City does need permission. M/Tye asked how that happens. MPT/Lyons said it is their (PUSD) property. CM/DeStefano said PUSD would happily accept the City's significant improvement to their property for their benefit as well as the general public's benefit. Staff is working on that and it will happen this calendar year. In terms of looking at the upper field for improvements with or without lights, looking at the lower field for improvements, many have talked about artificial turf off and on over the years and if the Council concurs staff could craft a more specific goal but fundamentally, it would be the effect of working with the PUSD to develop a plan to improve the fields on the Lorbeer property and come back to the Council with what that meant with respect to dollars and timing. There is a component in the NFL Stadium agreement that generates a million dollars to Diamond Bar for use on Lorbeer. C/Herrera said there was an agreement for annual money to be used for the City's recreational programs. CM/DeStefano responded that in fact, that annual money is designated for "Community Services". C/Herrera thought that meant for programs. CM/DeStefano said "not the way Jim negotiated it." C/Herrera asked if CM/DeStefano intended to pave the City's roadways with the money. MARCH STUDY SESSION CM/DeStefano responded that the City can do anything it wants with that money. The issue with Lorbeer Middle School is similar to the "Quiet Zone." It is a policy issue and does the Council wish to look at improving those fields regardless of who might be paying for it. Staff will come up with language and see if Council concurs. M/Tye felt it was worth pursuing and did not want it to be limited to PUSD. What about South Point or Chaparral or others. CM/DeStefano said those are listed in the Parks Master Plan and through that policy staff has direction to work on those but they were a "second tier" priority after other projects were completed. CM/DeStefano said there are other things to consider that are in that hopper at this time. M/Tye said he would like for the City to replace a tree when a tree goes down. If there is an accident involving a tree the City should pursue the party's insurance company for a tree replacement fee. He believes Crepe Myrtles are beautiful but understands why people complain about them. He was driving eastbound on Golden Springs and saw a monstrous stump' in a tree well which he felt should be removed. The tree is gone but there is a stump in a tree well. People can drive Brea Canyon cutoff from Pathfinder Road to the SR57 and see pathetic trees within in the City's boundaries. They are sticks. They are not irrigated and, the City is paying for them and not getting a benefit. MPT/Lyons asked if they were part of the LLAD. PWD/Liu responded "No." M/Tye said this holds true in the medians. The trees look dead and should not be there. They should be pulled out and something should be planted in their place. He would like for the City to pay attention to this issue. CM/DeStefano said that staff has good direction from the City Council and will be bringing this back to the City Council for adoption at which time the Council can add or modify the document. It is important to get the goals moving forward so that dollars can be attached to some of those goals and those amounts can be built into the budget as that matter is brought before the Council. PUBLIC COMMENTS: None Offered. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to come before the City Council, M/Tye adjourned the Study Session at 6:35 p.m. TOMMYE CRIBBINS, City Clerk MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 12 CC STUDY SESSION The for gts` g minutes are hereby approved this day of 2015. , STEVE E, Mayor MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL MARCH 3,2015 CLOSED SESSION: 5:30 p.m., Room CC -8 ► Government Code Section 54956.8 — Conference with Real Property Negotiators IM Property: Portion of APN 8719-003-900 and 8719-003-903 Agency Negotiator: James DeStefano, City Manager; David DeBerry, City Attorney Negotiating Parties: City of Diamond Bar and State of California Under Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment Government Code Section 54956.8 — Conference with Real Property Negotiators Property: APN 8718-005 — Parcels 005, 006, 007 and 008. Agency Negotiator: James DeStefano, City Manager; David DeBerry, City Attorney Negotiating Parties: City, YMCA and Pony League Under Negotiations: Price and Terms of Payment Government Code Section 54956.9 (Anticipated Litigation) Potential One (1) Case - Government Claim filed by Diamond Bar Country Estates Association Dated January 20, 2015 — Relating to Millennium - Diamond Road Partners Project. STUDY SESSION: 6:03 p.m. — Room CC -8 ► Fiscal Year 2015-16 City Council Goals and Objectives — Discussion and Action Public Comments: None Recess: Study Session recessed to Regular City Meeting at 6:35 p.m. CALL TO ORDER: Mayor Tye called the Regular City Council Meeting to order at 6:40 p.m. in the South Coast Air Quality Management District/Government Center Auditorium, 21865 Copley Drive, Diamond Bar, CA. CA/DeBerry stated that No reportable action was taken during tonight's Closed Session. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: Mayor Pro Tem Lyons led the Pledge of Allegiance. MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 2 . CITY COUNCIL INVOCATION: ROLL CALL: Tem Lyons, and Mayor Tye. Pastor Ab Kastl, Diamond Canyon Christian Church, gave the invocation. Council Members Herrera, Lin, Tanaka, Mayor Pro Staff Present: James DeStefano, City Manager; David DeBerry, City Attorney; Ryan McLean, Deputy City Manager; Ken Desforges, IS Director; David Liu, Public Works Director; Bob Rose, Community Services Director; Dianna Honeywell, Finance Director; Greg Gubman, Community Development Director; Marsha Roa, Public Information Manager; Cecilia Arellano, Public Information Coordinator; Kimberly Young, Senior Civil Engineer; Anthony Jordan, Superintendent of Parks; Anthony Santos, Senior Management Analyst; Sterling Mosley, Associate Engineer, and Tommye Cribbins, City Clerk. APPROVAL OF AGENDA: As Presented. 1. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS, CERTIFICATES, PROCLAMATIONS: None. 2. CITY MANAGER REPORTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS: None. 3. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Daniel Luevanos, City Ambassador from One Legacy and Donate Life, stated that the national number of patients waiting for the gift of life-is-ever-1-2�Onn men, women and children. Over 22,000 reside in California. Sadly, about 21 individuals are lost daily and every nine minutes a potential recipient is added to the list. One Legacy has partnered with the Red Cross and the Department of Motor Vehicles to encourage people to register on the State's donor registry to become donors. One Legacy would like for the City of Diamond Bar to renew its proclamation for Donor Awareness Month in April. One donor can enhance the life of 60 individuals through eye, organ and tissue donation. One Legacy will hold its 5k -1k run/walk at Cal State Fullerton on April 25, 2015. He presented Council and anyone from the City who wishes to attend, with an invitation to participate from the Mayor of Fullerton. Jeff Deutsch, 1922 Chestnut Creek Road, said he attended last week's Planning Commission meeting in order to express concerns about a remodel and expansion proposal of the house located at 1928 Chestnut Creek Road because he believes the proposed project would result in a house that violates existing guidelines related to consistency in size and style with neighboring dwellings. He further stated he believed the hearing was held in violation of the Brown Act. He and his neighbors are planning to appeal the project but were outraged when informed by the City Planning Department that filing an appeal would cost in excess of $700. He asked the Council to waive the fee and to allow residents to file an appeal within the 10 -day period specified by City Code. In his opinion the meeting was not properly conducted, community standards are being violated by MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 3 CITY COUNCIL the developer and neighbors are seriously discussing whether this needs to be discussed with legal counsel. Pui-Ching Ho, Diamond Bar Librarian, spoke about upcoming library events. On Wednesday, March 11 at 4:00 p.m. children ages 6 to 11 are invited to a Magic Workshop with Tony Daniels. On Tuesday, March 17, at 3:30 p.m. teens aged 12 and older are invited to attend the Teen Wearable Electronics workshop to create LED bracelets using powered electronic circuits. On Wednesday, March 25 at 1:00 p.m. there will be a Hoopla Demonstration for those who have iPads or iPhones. Denise Macedo stated that when she goes jogging with her two boys in the stroller on Diamond Bar Boulevard at Shadow Canyon there is an electrical pole that prevents her from running safely on that portion of the sidewalk and that she ends up having to run on the street which is very busy. She asked the City to consider moving the pole off of the sidewalk area. Ms. Macedo also advised the Council that with the construction work on Diamond Bar Boulevard at Grand Avenue there is a green fence with tarps on it and that drivers do not stop for pedestrians. Ms. Macedo's son also said that he did not want to be run over because he did not want to turn into a kite (be flattened like a kite). She posted a private message on Facebook to the City's face page and someone replied back the same day stating they would talk to SCE to see if the matter could be resolved. Allen Wilson expressed his appreciation to the Planning Department staff for answering his inquiry regarding two public notices that had been before the Planning Commission and following through with his suggestion to insert proposed project development notice of hearings on e -subscriptions so that the public could be notified prior to the development project hearings in case they wanted to attend. He also recommended that instead of having to visit the library or city hall, notices be placed on e -subscription by the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Traffic and Transportation Commission so that residents can be aware of items being considered by those Commissions as well. Chia-Teng, resident of Diamond Bar and "The Country Estates" spoke to Council about the Millennium issue. He referred to a February 26 article in the Chinese Newspaper where M/Tye said some homeowners that were against the Millennium project were influenced by misleading information and he wanted to know what misleading information M/Tye was referring to. Homeowners are concerned that they may have to share the maintenance cost of the drainage system for the Millennium project. He said that M/Tye said that the entire cost would be the responsibility of the developer. He stated that he has followed the Millennium issue for awhile and is not aware of any such agreement for the developer to carry all of the future maintenance costs. So if the City knows that such an agreement exists please let the homeowners know. M/Tye said in the article that it is not true that a public trail will go through "The Country Estates" and the truth is that the public trail will go through the Millennium community and MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 4 CITY COUNCIL Millennium will be part of "The Country Estates" or it will have three accesses to "The Country Estates." To many homeowners this is equivalent to having the public trail go through "The Country Estates." He again quoted M/Tye as saying that "The Country Estates" future annexation with Millennium is baseless and annexation should be decided by "The Country Estates" homeowners. He pulled City Council Resolution No. 2006-15 and on Page 27, number 4 it reads that "prior to the final map recordation or prior to grading permit issue, whichever comes first, the applicant (Millennium) shall negotiate to annex into "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association. From the context of this resolution he believes that "shall" means "must" or that it is "mandatory" and it is not optional because every other sentence contains "shall." So if Millennium "must" annex into "The Country Estates" and there was an annexation agreement in 2007 but it is practically in default and this is in essence what M/Tye said in the article. Millennium is now seeking to rectify this annexation agreement; however, they chose to file a malicious lawsuit against 890 plus homeowners of "The Country Estates." The City should stop pushing these bad neighbors upon the 890 plus homeowners and voters. Residents have had enough. Kurt Nelson, speaking on behalf of Millennium Diamond Road Partners, LLC, said he was glad for the opportunity to immediately respond to the previous speaker. First, as Mr. Nelson has previously stated on more than one occasion, as far as the cost of the Millennium's development drainage system/sewer system and the entire infrastructure, just as was with the case with his previous company, JCC Homes/Crystal Ridge Estates and Windmill projects, the cost of the infrastructure installation is bourne by the developer. The cost of the maintenance of that infrastructure in the event there is not an annexation (to "The Country Estates") will be bourne by the homeowners through the assessments of the Millennium's Homeowners Association just as was the case with Crystal Ridge and Windmill Estates Associations. In the event there is one day an annexation (to "The Country Estates") he would expect and agree that any dollar amount of maintenance of these systems that was not covered by the payment of full Diamond Bar Country Estates' dues, would have to be bourne by a separate cost center, a separate supplementary assessment of the homeowners which is all that would be fair. Again, and again and again, this misinformation — and that's what it is, is disseminated because for whatever reason this project has become a political platform in a struggle for the Board of Directors control of the Diamond Bar Country Estates. With respect to the issue of annexation, the gentleman read a portion of a condition which is that "Millennium must negotiate for annexation." Back in 1992 and again in 1996 and again several years later his previous company that developed Crystal Ridge had to negotiate but did not have to annex. There is a difference and the speaker either misunderstands or chooses to misunderstand that a requirement, a condition of approval to negotiate is not a condition of approval to annex. Millennium cannot be forced to annex and of course, "The Country Estates" cannot be forced to annex Millennium. If the speaker had read further in that condition it said "shall negotiate' and the very next sentence says "if the project is annexed, then it shall be subject to full assessments, covenants, conditions and restrictions." Finally, MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 5 CITY COUNCIL again and again he has heard and read in campaign literature disseminated during the recall and more recently in the election and again tonight, that Millennium is "bullying" and that Millennium filed a malicious, vicious lawsuit. The lawsuitwas filed as a direct result of the owners of the property and, he believes, the City's own consultants assigned to monitor Millennium's fulfillment of conditions being denied access to Millennium's own property until Millennium acquiesced to a certain price for annexation. He does not care for litigation, he is a developer. But this is not a malicious lawsuit and he will not go into any further detail at this Council Meeting. He said he would really like to speak directly with the gentleman who spoke and again provided his personal cell phone number (714) 272-1610 and he asked the speaker to please call him to set up a meeting at the Millennium office in Diamond Bar and to invite any other homeowners of "The Country Estates" who have real questions. If he is unable to answer a specific question he will say so and find the answers. He has made this offer same offer to "The Country Estates" homeowners since last October and he has yet to receive one call. 4. RESPONSE TO PUBLIC COMMENTS: M/Tye asked CM/DeStefano to address Mr. Deutsch regarding his question and Mrs. Macedo's concerns relative to the Edison pole at Diamond Bar and Grand Avenue. CM/DeStefano stated that Mr. Deutsch was referring to a Planning Commission action that took place last Tuesday night at the Commission's regular meeting during which a public hearing was held to consider an addition to a home immediately adjacent to Mr. Deutsch's home. The Planning Commission approved the project by a 4-1 vote. The City Code allows for an appeal process that specifies that an application for appeal be submitted 10 days from the date of the Planning Commission's action and a fee for an appeal which is designed to partially offset the costs of the preparation of the legal responsibilities, legal ad, staff's report, etc. as that matter is on its way forward, in this case, to the City Council. The fee is only a partial coverage for those costs. There are other costs involved in such an appeal/hearing process which is the foundation for the fee. Mr. Deutsch's request is not a matter for the City Council's agenda this evening which makes it very challenging. The City Attorney will likely weigh in with additional commentary on this issue. CA/DeBerry stated that absent specific language in the resolution which Council adopted setting forth the fees, the Council would not have the authority to waive fees unless the Resolution was amended to provide that authority to the City Council. He is not aware of any waiver of the fees criteria in the resolution itself. Also note that if the applicant's application was denied, the applicant would be responsible for paying the same fees if the applicant wanted to appeal the decision to the City Council. The second matter is because it is not on the City Council's agenda this evening the City Council could not take action tonight to waive the fees. In any event, by the time the City Council meets again the 10- MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 6 CITY COUNCIL day appeal period will have passed so taking action at that time would not serve any purpose. CM/DeStefano further stated that the speaker needs to make a determination as to how he and his neighbors may wish to proceed but clearly, the deadline of this Friday is quickly approaching which is the end of the 10 -day appeal period and to preserve their options, they need to make a decision as to what they want to do at this point. MPT/Lyons asked CM/DeStefano to describe how the appeal process works. CM/DeStefano said it would work exactly the same as the Planning Commission's process. There would be an application to consider an appeal by either the applicant or an area resident, in this case an adjacent property owner, who feels that the decision was not appropriate. The application is filed, the fee is paid and City staff sets the matter with the City Clerk and City Council for a hearing roughly 30-45 days away from the date the appeal was filed. Staff prepares legal advertisements which would look very similar to the Planning Commission advertisements, a new legal posting on the property would take place, notices would be sent to the area property owners just like the Planning Commission meeting. Staff would prepare a report utilizing the foundation in this case of the Planning Commission's report and bundle the entire matter together for the City Council to conduct a public hearing where testimony would be received by the appellant (aggrieved adjacent property owner or applicant), other speakers would be invited to participate, the public hearing would be closed and the City Council would render its decision to either affirm the action of the Planning Commission, overturn the action of the Planning Commission, send the matter to staff for further study and report back to the City Council or possibly send the matter back to the Planning Commission. Fundamentally, it is very similar to the Planning Commission's action. It is considered a "de novo" hearing because it is considered a brand new hearing on the matter because the appeal itself would have stayed the action of the Planning Commission subject to the City Council making a final ruling. M/Tye asked that relative to Mr. Deutsch's concerns about the way the matter was handled is there any consideration or weight given to that. CA/DeBerry responded that if there is a concern with the way the matter was handled it should be stated in the applicant's appeal. So what the City Council would do then is to address that particular issue. With the application, the individual(s) is required to submit the reasons for the appeal and if the filer believes there was some violation of due process or the like, it would be addressed by the City Council and essentially be rectified by the fact that it is being heard by the City Council. CM/DeStefano responded to Mrs. Macedo's reference to the electrical pole near Shadow Canyon at Diamond Bar Boulevard near "The Country Estates" main MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 7 CITY COUNCIL entry gate. She referenced there was a posting made to the City's website. Staff will look at the pole and if it is determined that the pole needs to be moved staff will work with Edison, the utility provider, to have it moved. With respect to the intersection of Diamond Bar Boulevard and Grand Avenue, the project Edison is engaged in is replacing a vault. That work is almost done but staff will go to the site to ensure that there is clear passage where there needs to be for pedestrians and runners as well as work with the Sheriff's Department to ensure that deputies are out spot checking to make sure that traffic laws are being adhered to with respect to pedestrians. M/Tye asked staff to verify his comments to the Chinese newspaper that "because of Millennium, will there be new trail access." CM/DeStefano explained that the Millennium project is in an area of "The Country Estates" commonly known as the back of "The Country Estates." Earlier, Mr. Nelson spoke to his prior companies' development of several homes in that area. Those projects, of which there are five or six that have been developed over the past 26 years, all have an equestrian trail through their property and many of the parts of that trail are technically now within "The Country Estates." The Millennium project is the last piece of the undeveloped areas in that back country area and the trail, like the others, is planned to come onto the Millennium property, which would mean that it would be part of the future Millennium Homeowners Association or, if they are successful in annexing, would become a part of "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association. Some residents in September 2014 expressed concerns about the route the trail was proposed to take within the Millennium property and that route was sketched back in 2006. One of the responses from City staff was that Diamond Bar would work with the County of Los Angeles who actually operates that trail system in that area, to seek a different routing that may have made a bit more sense and may have relieved some of the residents in the area of some of their concerns. That is an ongoing process that has been done. There has been work between the County of Los Angeles and City staff and now it is a matter for the inclusion of "The Country Estates" Homeowners Association as well as, the Millennium Developer, with respect to the route that has been redrafted for that area. So this continues to be a work in progress. Again, almost the entirety of that trail is on either now Diamond Bar Country Estates Association Homeowner property or on Millennium property so it is not a new component to any of those projects to have this public trail within the associations' areas. M/Tye said it would be a misrepresentation to say that as a result of Millennium, this trail is being included in "The Country Estates" when it is already there. And to his conversation with CSD/Rose, there is no additional access as a result of the Millennium project as it is proposed. CSD/Rose said that M/Tye was correct. This is an existing trail easement owned by LA County. MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 8 CITY COUNCIL 5. SCHEDULE OF FUTURE EVENTS: 5.1 Planning Commission Meeting — March 10, 2015 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.2 Traffic and Transportation Commission Meeting — March 12, 2015 — 7:00 p.m., Windmill Community Room, 21810 Copley Drive. 5.3 City Council Meeting — March 17, 2015 — 6:30 p.m., SCAQMD/Government Center, 21865 Copley Drive. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR: MPT/Lyons moved, C/Herrera seconded, to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Lin, Tanaka, MPT/Lyons, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 6.1 APPROVED CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 6.1.1 Study Session 'of February 17, 2015—as presented 6.1.2 Regular Meeting of February 17, 2015 — as presented. 6.2 RECEIVED AND FILED PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES - Regular Meeting of December 9, 2014. 6.3 RATIFIED CHECK REGISTER — Dated February 12, 2015 through February 25, 2015 totaling $716,891.89 6.4 APPROVED TREASURER'S STATEMENT — Month of January 2015. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS: None 8. COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: 8.1 CITY COUNCIL REAPPOINTMENT OF COMMISSIONERS BY COUNCIL MEMBER LIN. CM/DeStefano stated that City Council Member Jimmy Lin was appointed to serve the remaining term of the vacated seat as a result of former Council Member Ling -Ling Chang's election to the State Assembly. C/Lin was placed on the City Council on January 5. In accordance with the City's Code, C/Lin has 90 days to determine whether or not he wishes for his appointees to remain within their position. At the 91St day, those seats would automatically become vacant unless C/Lin made the decision to request reappointment. Over the course of the last few weeks C/Lin has MARCH 3. 2015 PAGE 9 CITY COUNCIL taken the opportunity to look at his current appointees to the Planning, Traffic and Transportation and Parks and Recreation Commissions, has consulted with City staff and has informed City staff that it is his desire to have his colleagues on the City Council appoint these commissioners for the remainder of their term which would expire in February 2016. Staff has provided a report to Council which may wish to receive additional comments from C/Lin and upon conclusion, ratify C/tin's recommendation and confirm the appointments. C/Lin stated that he had the opportunity to visit with Planning Commissioner Peter Pirritano, Traffic and Transportation Commissioner Ted Carrera and Parks and Recreation Commissioner Kim Hsieh. All three expressed interest in continuing to serve the City in their current capacities. He knows their capabilities and enthusiasm for serving on their Commissions and his recommendation is that all three be confirmed for appointment for the remainder of their terms to expire in February 2016. C/Lin moved, C/Herrera seconded to ratify the reappointment of C/tin's three Commissioners: Peter Pirritano, Planning Commission; Ted Carrera, Traffic and Transportation Commissioner and Kim Hsieh, Parks and Recreation Commission. Motion carried by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera, Lin, Tanaka, MPT/Lyons, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None 8.2 APPROPRIATE PROP A EXCHANGE FUND SAVINGS OF $8,544 FROM THE FY 2014-2015 RESIDENTIAL AREA 2 CIP BUDGET TO THE FY 2014-15 MORNING CANYON REHABILITATION PROJECT CIP BUDGET; ADOPT RESOLUTION NO. 2015-09: APPROVING PLANS AND SPECIFICATIONS AND ESTABLISHING A PROJECT PAYMENT ACCOUNT; REJECT THE LOWEST BIDDER, CEM CONSTRUCTION; AND, AWARD THE CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT FOR THE MORNING CANYON ROAD ROADWAY REHABILITATION BETWEEN DIAMOND BAR BOULEVARD AND STONEPINE DRIVE, IN THE AMOUNT OF $214,841 TO ALL AMERICAN ASPHALT CORPORATION; AND, AUTHORIZE A CONTINGENCY AMOUNT OF $16,113 FOR CONTRACT CHANGE ORDERS, TO BE APPROVED BY THE CITY MANAGER, FOR A TOTAL AUTHORIZATION AMOUNT OF $230,954. CM/DeStefano stated that that action before the City Council is regarding the Morning Canyon Rehabilitation Project. He then turned it over to both CSD/Rose and PWD/Liu for staff's presentation. MARCH 3. 2015 PAGE 10 CITY COUNCIL CSD/Rose and PWD/Liu presented a Power Point presentation outlining the proposed project. CSD/Rose stated that this is the Morning Canyon Street Rehabilitation Project and its effect on the 16 Italian Stone Pine trees on Morning Canyon. The project area along Morning Canyon Road between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Stonepine Drive is just over 1000 feet long. The project includes rehabilitation of the street, some sidewalk repair, curb and gutter repair, repair to the two catch basins as well as, tree removal and replacement. The total budgeted in the adopted 2014-15 FY Budget is $300,000. There are 16 Italian Stone Pine trees that require removal. The City of Diamond Bar owns and maintains an urban forest of almost 14,000 trees which have an estimated value of over $38 million. Diamond Bar has earned a designation of Tree City USA for the past 14 years which staff believes demonstrates a commitment for the City to meet national standards required for this designation. CSD/Rose explained that the reason the trees need to be removed is due to the damage to the street and sidewalk. The tree roots are causing damage to both areas. Staff believes that these trees have outgrown their limited growing space and have become the wrong tree in the wrong location. The damage results from tree roots and knuckles that grow as a part of the tree root. One characteristic of the Italian Stone Pine is that when the roots come up from the ground and meet up with the hardscape (concrete or asphalt) it creates a type of "callous" on the root that is designed to protect the root but keeps growing and acts as a hydraulic lift under the concrete and asphalt. CSD/Rose provided a slide presentation of the driveway rehabilitation project at a home in Diamond Bar showing how the roots of an Italian Stone Pine grew under the driveway and damaged the driveway. When the concrete driveway was removed it revealed the roots of the tree had a giant knuckle that eventually lifted the driveway. On Morning Canyon cracks have developed in the roadway following repair work that was done in September 2013. When one drives the street one can feel the car go up and down over the raised sections that have been pushed up by the knuckles. The issue with the street is not only the raising of the asphalt but that the cracks allow rainwater to seep into the base under the street and weaken the base which can lead to "alligatoring" of the pavement surface, dips in the roadway and ultimately, dangerous potholes. In 2004 a technique which had been used to save these trees was used. In the process, the sidewalk was removed to allow for pruning and shaving of the roots after which the replacement sidewalk was poured. The space between the edge of the sidewalk and the tree roots is where the wood forms were placed in order to pour the concrete. This repair work cost the City about $100,000 and included repair to sections of the street, panels of the sidewalk and sections of the curb and gutter. In September 2013 MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 11 CITY COUNCIL repairs included root pruning and root shaving and about $10,000 was spent to repair sections of the street and grind some of the sidewalk panels. CSD/Rose said the question at hand is whether the trees can be saved at this point. The sidewalks need to be ADA Accessible and Health and Safety issues with the street and sidewalk must be resolved. Root pruning, root shaving and root crown shaving would be necessary to repair the sidewalks and streets. However, according to the City's arborist, West Coast Arborist, any further removal of roots could result in the ultimate failure of the trees. The Arborist stated that "based on the current health and condition of the trees if all repairs are made as the original design every one of the pines would need to be removed due to the excessive loss of root support leading to compromised stability and high probability of failure." When staff realized that these trees could very likely be removed there was an obligation for the City to be transparent and notify the residents that live in the area that removal and replacement could be a possible outcome. As such, a public meeting was held on Wednesday, February 11. Staff mailed notification letters to about 140 addresses that are either on or immediately adjacent to Morning Canyon Road. In addition, signs were posted on each of the 16 trees. Nineteen members of the public attended the meeting and unanimously expressed interest in developing options to save as many of the trees as possible. Attendees also requested a second opinion from a different arborist so staff contracted with Atlas Environmental Services and Master Arborist Ron Matranga provided a report. Both arborists' reports were used by staff to develop options that will be presented to the City Council this evening. CSD/Rose stated that before any options can be considered there are certain constraints that have to be taken into consideration. Adjacent to the church on Morning Canyon there is a slope from the sidewalk down to the Church parking lot and any movement of the sidewalk in that direction would require a retaining wall which would add significant cost to the project. Near the condominiums up Morning Canyon from the Church there is a retaining wall between the sidewalk and the condos to the left of the retaining wall which prohibits movement of the sidewalk in that direction. Also at the point of the condos there are access stairs from the existing sidewalk up to the condos and that access would have to be maintained for the residents to be able to access their units. Adjacent to the condos is on street parking which is a premium for the condo owners and when the options are presented to Council this evening one option may be to eliminate the street parking along the condominium frontage. PWD/Liu stated that staff has been considering three options at length. MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 12 CITY COUNCIL Option 1 - Proceed with staff's recommendation to completely restore the roadway to good condition which would include the removal of all 16 trees, replacement of the trees, reconstruction of the catch basin closest to Diamond Bar Boulevard, replacement of the sidewalk, curb, gutter and complete rehab of the roadway as designed. This option can be completed in two months. If this option is implemented, the City will eliminate the ongoing maintenance of the roadway, have a restored surface of roadway with a surface life of at least 20 years or longer, and be able to reduce the liability of the City related to the damage caused by these trees. Option 1 comes in at a cost of about $300,000. Option 2 - Perform the "minimum urgent maintenance repairs of the project areas" based on the existing conditions. This option will completely eliminate the sidewalk along the south side of Morning Canyon Road between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Presado Drive thereby eliminating any pedestrian path of travel on that side of the roadway. By removing the sidewalk on the south side of the street the curb ramp at the corner of Presado and Morning Canyon would need to be modified and a crosswalk at this intersection would need to be considered and installed. Due to their current condition, three trees would be required to be removed between Presado Drive and Stonepine Drive and the associated sidewalks would need to be reconstructed. The catch basin closest to Diamond Bar Boulevard will need to be reconstructed. This option can be completed in two months with a CIP budget of $30,000 which does not include the cost of removing the three trees. CSD/Rose has a line item budget for FY 2014-15 to remove the trees at about $1,000 per tree. M/Tye asked how much it would cost to reconstruct a catch basin. It appears from the three options and related costs that everything but the catch basin can be done for $30,000 plus removal of the trees. PWD/Liu said that M/Tye was correct. Staff has detailed numbers for each of the improvements. With Option 2 no asphalt pavement work will be performed as this will be a "wait and see" approach so ongoing maintenance of the roadway would need to be factored into the equation since the tree roots would continue to grow and uplift the roadway. The surface life of the roadway is unknown and the City will have ongoing liability exposure due to its condition. Option 3 - Widen the parkway eight (8) feet from its current location and reduce the roadway width along Morning Canyon between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Stonepine Drive. This parkway extension would reduce the existing curb to curb width from 40 feet to 32 feet which will result in the elimination of street parking from Diamond Bar Boulevard to Stonepine Drive on the south side of the roadway. Five trees would still be scheduled for removal with this option. Two catch basins would need to be reconstructed and two new catch basins will need to be constructed in MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 13 CITY COUNCIL order to accommodate the new drainage flow related to this option. Option 3 will require six months to be completed as redesign of the project would be required and the project will have to be rebid for construction. The total project budget associated with Option 3 is estimated at $375,000. Under this option a limited amount of asphalt pavement work will be done. Ongoing maintenance of the roadway can still be expected as the tree roots will continue to grow and uplift the sidewalk as well as the roadway. The service life of the roadway is unknown and the City will have ongoing liability exposure. Five trees will have to be removed as part of this option. Highlighting some of the concerns it is important to note that both Options 2 and 3 do not ensure that all of the trees will remain in place. Once sidewalks are removed or popped up, the Arborist will need to evaluate root systems of each of the trees. As previously mentioned by CSD/Rose under Option 3 the loss of parking could be a major concern to the condominium residents. With both Options 2 and 3 damages to Morning Canyon Drive will continue; therefore, potential liability risk will be ever present for the City. For Council's consideration tonight staff recommends the following actions based on the three options: Under Option 1, staff's recommendation is for Council to appropriate funds as requested, Adopt the Resolution approving the plans and specs, reject the lowest bidder CEM Construction and award a construction contract to All American Asphalt in the amount of $214,841 with a contingency amount of $16,113. Under Option 2, Council will reject all bids and direct staff to carry out the maintenance activities as defined. Under Option 3, Council will reject bids and direct staff to redesign the project per the conceptual plan presented this evening by widening the parkway into the existing roadway width by eight (8) feet. M/Tye referred to Slide #6 and asked if it was possible that if Council decided to go with Option #3 the City could strip the sidewalk, strip the pavement and move the parkway and find that there are more knuckles. CSD/Rose responded yes and usually they can be removed as part of the repair work. M/Tye asked what CSD/Rose meant by tree "fail or failure". CSD/Rose responded that if the roots are cut too close to the trunk of the tree and there is a windy day or microburst these trees will fall over. M/Tye said so in essence, CSD/Rose is saying he is not talking about having a result wherein the City would watch the tree wither because it was not treated properly, he is talking about fundamentally compromising MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 14 CITY COUNCIL the stability of the tree CSD/Rose responded that M/Tye's statement was true if the roots are cut too close to the trunk of the tree. M/Tye asked PWD/Liu about the ongoing liability exposure. He said he loved the zealousness of the people who attended the public outreach meeting and believed they went away from the meeting believing the City would consider options that would result in not removing all of the trees. For example, when staff spoke about removing the sidewalk one individual asked if the sidewalk could be raised. So obviously, there is a lot of thinking going on because folks want to do what they can to save these trees. In M/Tye's opinion and he is not just speaking for himself, the liability exposure is unacceptable because Diamond Bar is part of the JPIA. He asked CSD/Rose to share the JPIA's role in this process and what their attitude would be if the City knew it had exposure and did nothing about it. CA/DeBerry explained that the way the JPIA works is they do risk assessments of each agency every year. Typically, the premiums the City pays will be based on history of payments and also on the amount of risk. So typically what would happen, just the same as with personal insurance if you get in an accident and there is a large insurance payout, the next thing one sees is an increase in their premium, which would essentially be the net effect for the City as well. C/Herrera said she was concerned if the City did nothing or did a minimum amount of repairs or did a minimum of tree removal and continued to have root damage to the sidewalk and to the street because there are streets in the City where there is unevenness in the asphalt and people have sued the City because the bumps are too rough and people suffer back injuries which are debilitating, what would the continuing amount of dollars be for the City to continue to try and save these trees irrespective of the fact that they may fall over at any time. For the past 11 years the City has been shaving and cutting back at the root. Those trees are huge and if they fall over as a car is driving by it could be catastrophic. What would the continuing cost to the City be if the City tried to continue to save them with the sidewalk repair, the curb and gutter and asphalt repair on an annual basis? PWD/Liu stated that the last time staff visited the area was in September 2013 and that at that time some localized removal and replacement work had been done. Staff looked at the street pavement and -the sidewalk areas. Staff spent $10-$15,000 and at that time staff was focusing on the worst case areas. As evidenced by the current conditions, the conditions will continue to get worse. To answer the question, if Council were to consider moving forward under the minimum urgent maintenance scenario MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 15 CITY COUNCIL on an annual basis without looking at the cost for CSD/Rose's department doing something with the trees, the Public Works sidewalk and asphalt repair would likely cost $20,000 per year. MPT/Lyons asked PWD/Liu to verify that the City had two separate Arborists from two different companies review this matter which he did. The suggestion for moving the sidewalks up (raising them) was a workable solution and if not, why not. PWD/Liu said it was a matter of topography. Looking just at the first block between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Presado the church is below the street so of course, going toward the church is not an option and going toward the street in order to be cost effective the sidewalk should not be elevated by bringing in dirt in order to support the sidewalk path. Further west between Presado and Stonepine is the condominium complex with a staircase leading up to some of the units. Staff looked at options for tailoring the path of travel but it would be very costly and would not meet the ADA Accessibility needs and other requirements placed upon the City. MPT/Lyons said she drove and walked the area. A lot of the trees are very pretty and she is sensitive to the fact of replacing them with small scrawny trees. Is there a bigger species that would be suitable for the area? CSD/Rose said there are several options. The Brisbane Box is one that staff is recommending which results in a nice 25 -year growth tree. The recommendation includes a 24 -inch box; however, a 36 or 38 inch box could be planted if the City wanted to expend the funds. In any event, any replacement trees will look scrawny at the beginning. He deferred to the Arborist. MPT/Lyons said she has Brisbane Box in her yard and they look very nice. They are large at this point and she is not sure how long they have been growing onsite. C/Tanaka said he would like to save the trees to every extent possible; however, given all of the information it looks like the City is past that point. In the future, would trimming tree crowns to reduce the canopy have saved the growth from uplifting the sidewalk as much as has been done and has the section where the sidewalk has lifted happen in the last year and a half (since September 2013). CSD/Rose said he was not sure how long the sidewalk had been in its present condition. The first time he saw it was when staff evaluated the trees in January 2015. As far as keeping the crown trimmed back, the City has a policy of not topping trees. The trees in Diamond Bar should grow naturally and as mentioned in the report, these were the wrong trees MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 16 CITY COUNCIL in the wrong locations because the Stonepine is such a huge tree. It is a beautiful park tree, a beautiful slope tree in the open space but not suitable for a small parkway space. The parkway is probably the most difficult place to grow a tree because of the infrastructure and the need to maintain that structure for ADA and for the roadway. It is a very harsh environment for trees and unfortunately these particular trees are so big that they have taken a beating over the years. C/Tanaka said he was aware there was a community garden in the area and he would not like to see any of the street parking removed to save those trees. C/Lin said it seemed to him that it was a typical struggle between aesthetics and compromise of safety. As an engineer, he always tries to see the alternatives. He is not attempting to design the project; however, it seems there are two issues, the pavement and the sidewalk rehabilitation and the second issue is the sidewalk. Is it possible to simply rebuild the pavement, remove the 1000 feet of sidewalk and envision a six foot walking space in the pavement area? PWD/Liu responded that Option 3 is close to what C/Lin has expressed. Option 3 extends or widens the parkway by eight (8). feet which narrows the pavement down to 32 feet. The reason for recommending the parkway be widened by eight (8) feet came from the Arborist in order to allow the trees to continue to grow beyond its current life cycle. Eight feet is the space these trees will need to continue growing. The current parkway is 10 feet wide which includes the sidewalk and strip of grassy area. The result would provide the trees with an additional eight feet for a total of 18 feet to continue to live. By extending the parkway out it will create a new walkway to continue to serve the public's needs. C/Lin said that without extending the parkway out his suggestion was to use six feet of pavement for the walking area which would remove the parking. It seems to him it would be the most cost-effective way to resolve the problem. PWD/Liu reminded Council that there are also catch basin/drainage issues that would have to be addressed and on that side of the roadway there are two catch basins and drainage has to be considered. Depending on how the water will continue to drain or flow has to be looked at in a completely different way. M/Tye asked C/Lin if the reason he brought up a compromised recommendation is that he liked Option 3 and was trying to save money. C/Lin said M/Tye was correct. Unfortunately, there has to be a determination about the value for pedestrians, etc. If there are a lot of MARCH 3. 2015 PAGE 17 CITY COUNCIL pedestrians the worst thing that can happen is to put pedestrians on the same surface as moving vehicles. At the same time, if the volume is low enough and there is good striping it might be a compromise. CM/DeStefano said that staff would not recommend that pedestrians be on the same plane as vehicles. Striping is not enough to protect pedestrians, runners or anyone else from potential impact with a vehicle. The whole idea for the curb is not only for flood control purposes but it also serves as a protection and separates pedestrians and traffic. The only time they are at the same level is at a designated crosswalk. While he is not an engineer he believes it would be safe to say that staff could not support that proposal because it may lead to other areas of risk that would be worse than those that have been described with the trees. M/Tye asked if the area around the base of the tree could be cut out so that the sidewalk looks like it has a crescent-shaped cutout or, does this get into an area that compromises the City's obligation with ADA. CM/DeStefano said he would defer to the experts but believed it would bring speakers to the podium complaining about the impediment to running and walking. The right hand side of the sidewalk is likely the end of the City's right-of-way. There may be a couple of inches left. If a proposal were to be forwarded moving the sidewalk further to the right it would not only require property to be received from the adjoining property owner (church) but as PWD/Liu pointed out earlier it would then challenge the City's standards for safe pathway travel and probably require some sort of retaining wall and/or handrail system to aid pedestrians. There are other complications that have not been addressed but clearly there would need to be the proper width of travel in order for pedestrians to get around those trees. CSD/Rose explained that one of the biggest issues for the stability of the tree is how close to the trunk of the tree roots are removed and if this sidewalk is removed and moved over three feet it would still be within almost three feet of the trunk of the tree and there will be roots that need to be removed to put the sidewalk back in. Of course, with the sidewalk removed the Arborist can inspect the roots and tell staff which roots can be removed but the closer to the trunk the concrete is poured which includes the possibility of removing roots, the more likely the tree would be recommended for removal by the Arborist. M/Tye asked for Public Comments on this item. Frankie Warner asked for clarification about trimming of the roots which he believed had been 11 years ago and that nothing had been done since. In fact, as other residents will likely attest, these trees are very, very healthy and have a healthy water source especially along the church area. Very MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 18 CITY COUNCIL little maintenance has been done since it was done 11 years ago. He recalled that staff mentioned only about $10,000 had been spent to maintain a very small strip of the street which he too has witnessed. Option 2 includes putting in a crosswalk which he believes would make the street much safer because people drive too fast on the street and having a crosswalk would help no matter what option the Council chooses. Based on the history, Option 2 appears to allow residents to be able to enjoy the trees for another 11 years. Over the years he has visited with City employees who have looked at the trees and the street. Several years ago he spoke with an Arborist that was inspecting the trees and he asked her if the residents would lose these beautiful trees and at that time she assured him that they would not. He again encountered an individual who was looking at the trees who informed him they were getting bids to remove the trees and that is when he began calling the City begging for the trees to be saved. At that point he did not believe anyone was aware that the trees were being considered for removal. He thanked the City for putting up the signs to let residents know what was going on. He said he then saw CSD/Rose at the site who was taking pictures for the public meeting's Power Point presentation and begged him to save the trees. In short, these trees are very important to the residents and he has been keeping an eye on them for the past 15 years. Anytime residents see people looking at the trees it makes them very nervous because they want to keep the trees. Whenever individuals visit the area they comment on how beautiful the trees are and how beautiful they make the neighborhood. These comments are not made just by adults or older individuals, they are made by young people and children who also appreciate the trees and he felt it would set a very poor example that a solution could not be attained to save as many trees as possible. These trees have brought a lot of non -monetary value to the residents. These trees are a part of the neighborhood and have been part of the residents' lives for a very, very long time. He requested the City save as many as possible. Please do not cut them down. John Hoffner has been a resident of Diamond Bar for the past 22 years having moved to the area from Pasadena where he still works. The City of Pasadena has a lot of mature street trees that have not been removed. There are broken sidewalks and people live with them because they love the trees. Residents do not expect to live in a City that is perfectly clean with no cracks. He is also a member of the Diamond Bar Church of Christ. He appreciates the comments of the previous speaker. He believes these are very special trees as well. They were planted in the 1960's by the founders of the Church so the City can thank the Church for the current problem and the City can also thank the Church for the beauty and shade and oxygen these trees provide. It is no coincidence that the line of trees follows the original parcel the Church purchased when it moved to Diamond Bar. The upper section (about 40 percent of the subject area) was sold by the Church for the development of the MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 19 CITY COUNCIL condominiums. In the City's Municipal Development Code Title XXII, Article 3 it says "trees are an important natural resource. It is essential to the public peace, health and welfare that such trees be protected from random removal and cutting including protected trees such as natives with a diameter of 8 inches or more, or trees of significant historical value as designated by the City Council." He said he believes that these subject trees are legacy trees for the City of Diamond Bar. They have been there throughout most of the City's history and he would support the Council designating these trees as "special" trees worthy of protection. He also pointed out that the circumference of these trees along the Church property range from 73 to 138 inches which is over 11 feet. Are there any larger trees than this within the City limits of Diamond Bar - certainly not likely within the roadways and parkways. Mr. Hoffner said he appreciates staff's work and their point of view. He has spent most of his life in the City of Pasadena having grown up there and having worked there. There are many similar situations as this in Pasadena, Claremont, Covina and other cities in the southland where they do not hold such a rigid view of how to maintain streets and sidewalks. They allow mature trees to live and grow which is great for the residents. As one drives through the City most of Diamond Bar's trees are very small and will never grow much larger than they are. Of the three options before the Council tonight he would support Option 2 but feels there are more examples and more options that have not been considered. Linette Velker said she has been a resident of Diamond Bar for over 28 years and lives less than a mile as the crow flies from the pine trees on Morning Canyon. She has walked at least 80 percent of the streets in Diamond Bar over the past 28 years and has found these particular trees to be pretty extraordinary in their stature and beauty. One reason she and her husband moved to Diamond Bar was because of the country -like atmosphere and the open spaces. Unfortunately, the open spaces of Diamond Bar seem to be dwindling and to think that these heritage trees are also destined for the chopping block is disconcerting. Once these trees are removed they are gone forever. She understands that these trees may be 50 years old and can live to be 100. She believes trees add value to the land and believes they are quite valuable. The smaller trees just do not have the canopy and said that if these trees were cut down and replaced with smaller trees it would not provide the shade, canopy, habitat for birds and wildlife nor the historic value. Loss of habitat is a well- documented concern and she realizes these are only 16 trees but she is concerned that their removal will initiate a precedent for other similar trees in the city to also be removed. She appreciates everyone's comments and she appreciates all of the work that has gone into consideration of the three options since the last meeting she attended on February 11. Perhaps a discussion by staff with other cities such as Claremont which has spectacular trees may be a source of information. She went online and checked out arborday.org for information about becoming a tree city MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 20 CITY COUNCIL which she understands Diamond Bar is a part of. She recalled a City Newsletter a few years ago stating that Diamond Bar was one of the top 100 cities in which to live and she believed the City should strive to maintain that status by keeping the trees alive as long as possible. Bill Flournoy, Diamond Bar United Church of Christ, said he was able to review staff's recommendations yesterday concerning the Morning Canyon Rehabilitation Project. He commended staff for listening to the community's concerns. Staff has considered and evaluated two additional options, although their recommendation is still to adopt Option 1 which would result in the wholesale removal of the trees. After careful reading, the most feasible of these options to him is Option 2 which would remove the sidewalk and result in keeping the eight (8) trees along the lower Morning Canyon Road and five (5) of the trees between Presado and Stonepine. This is an acceptable compromise or solution that resolves the residents' major concerns. Hence, he urged the Council to adopt Option 2. He still has some differences of opinion with some of staff's recommendations. He is still not convinced that complete removal of the trees is necessary to accommodate the proposed rehabilitation project despite the Arborists' claims. If the trees have survived two root cuttings to fix the roadway it is likely they can survive one or two more over the next 10 or 20 years. He also does not understand why, once the sidewalk is removed, the Arborist needs to evaluate the root system of each tree and may deem the tree to be hazardous. This sounds like double jeopardy to him. He hopes that the City does not have to go through this effort again to save the trees. He is also not sure why the three trees between Presado and Stonepine need to be removed if the sidewalk and roadway are in an acceptable condition. By now the Council is familiar with the arguments for keeping the trees — the beauty, shade, feeling of well-being and the regret that the City will have lost something that is irreplaceable if the trees are prematurely removed. In addition, he thinks it is a matter of community values. Do people live here for the well -kept boulevards, the streets, the parks and other benefits of an efficiently run City? Yes, but the trees remind residents of other reasons people settled here. People chose to live on a former ranch in a country setting, a frontier with windmills turning, cattle grazing, coyote's howling, deer running. Yes, there used to be deer here. In fact, they are in a picture in the stairwell at City Hall; hills and valleys, gnarled oaks and canyons and, what is a canyon without trees guarding the entrance. People are running out of wild places and the trees represent that ideal. These particular trees have become a landmark that have grown and matured with the City. They do not appear to be unstable even if a few roots have to be cut to preserve the roadways and walkways. The larger trees are not leaning and residents do not feel in any danger from them. They are a welcome sight always. He is sure with a little creative thinking the City can accommodate those who may have difficulty in negotiating an uneven patch of the sidewalk. People have to find a way to live with what nature MARCH 3. 2015 PAGE 21 CITY COUNCIL gives them and look at their presence as a gift, not a nuisance. They are nature's church. He does not know and has not met anyone who is in favor of removing the trees other than staff. Removing trees of this maturity, beauty and benefit would not be a popular decision with most residents in the area. He believes the neighbors would be willing to trade off the imperfect roadway, sidewalk and infrastructure for their (the trees) continued presence. He asked Council and staff to again look at the recent picture of the trees they received yesterday and ask themselves if they should be cut down in the name of Public Works. How can the City remove these trees? Karen Gerloff, Diamond Bar Church of Christ, thanked the Council for their consideration and showed photographs of the street looking down toward the church property. She hoped that with Option 2 these would be the trees that would definitely be saved. Another photo looks up toward the Diamond Bar Community Garden and a picnic table which looks tiny under the massive tree. Community gardeners will miss that deep shade in the hot summer during and after working in the garden. These pictures show the deep shade these trees provide. The trees are gorgeous. Another photo showed a sad example of current street trees on Pathfinder near the high school. She knows it is difficult to take care of the street trees because of the severe drought. Another photo was taken in front of the church by the corner of Diamond Bar Boulevard on Morning Canyon Road and showed a fairly mature Crepe Myrtle which does not compare to the large Italian Stone Pines. She went online to determine the value of the trees with the National Tree Benefit Calculator which she calculated to be $495 per tree or $7,900 of benefit of those trees to the community each year. She included this information in notes she earlier sent to the City Council. She provided an article entitled Climate Change Could Cripple Southwestern US Forests. Trees face rising drought stress and mortality as the climate warms. Gardeners know how difficult it has been these last few years. It is an uphill battle and any street trees that are planted will face a difficult time during primary growth. In 1967 in Western Garden the Italian Stone Pine was selected as a "wonderful street tree." The new Western Garden does not mention the Italian Stone Pine as a street tree. She researched the Brisbane Box tree. MPT/Lyons asked about moving from a 24 inch box to a 36 inch box tree which was 12 feet by six feet. It looks like a nice tree but some websites say they have to be watered or they will not grow and although they may appear to be a good alternative the future may reveal something different. People and cities face risks every day but the value of these trees is important and she encouraged Council to choose Option 2 and do whatever is possible to save these wonderful living trees. Lauren Han said she moved to Diamond Bar just before her sixth birthday and has grown up listening to the howls of coyotes, followed deer trails MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 22 CITY COUNCIL and stumbling upon deer, seen rabbits in the morning mist and these trees compared to all of those things are the most magnificent The thick shade of these trees bring the temperature down as much as 15 degrees. No one took a photo or mentioned how beautiful it is when one looks up from the bottom of these trees. She has seen nesting white owls and brown owls. The trees are so dense the sun is unable to pierce the canopy. These trees are really a place of sanctuary, provide peace of mind and they are very much worth keeping. She has walked about three square miles close to where she lives by St. Denis Church and no street in those three square miles or for that matter, any other place she has walked in Diamond Bar compares to that street because of these trees. Also, the amount of pollution that is captured and avoided by these trees is significant. She calculated online that these 16 trees would absorb 768 pounds of carbon dioxide per year which is 48 pounds each per year which is extremely invaluable. In addition, these trees absorb an enormous amount of sound from Diamond Bar Boulevard and if these trees were removed there would be a significant increase in traffic noise for all houses in that area. There is a difference in looking at a sterile neighborhood compared to one that has trees. Beverly Hills has 30,000 street trees and Marcelino Lomeli, Superintendent of Parks, claimed their trees to be worth more than $450 million in the 1990's." The subject trees are an enormous asset for many different reasons which are not limited to visual reasons and it is worth sacrificing a sidewalk in order to keep them. She recommended an alternative with Option 2 to build a small bridge with poles to elevate the bridge over the level to accommodate wheelchairs, etc. which would be a much cheaper option than having to redo the sidewalk over and over again. She believes Option 2 is what people want and it is the best option. She thanked Council for its consideration. Allen Wilson said this item has drawn a very interesting dialogue about the trees in question. He has served on his homeowners' association board for three years. The one word he learned was "fiduciary" duty. The five City Council Members have a fiduciary duty to protect and to minimize long-term liabilities that could occur. He recalled that in 2004 and 2005 there was a huge storm and when a tree toppled in the median near CVS and crashed onto a vehicle which caused liability to the City. He loves trees and his complex has a lot of trees. He wants to save as many trees as possible but if the City does not take care of the City it will end up putting on a band-aid time and time again. If a tree comes down on a car there could be loss of life and it can become a question of whether to save a tree or save a life. To him it is a simple choice of saving a life. In his opinion, he believes the best approach is Option 1. He does not want to take down trees but again, this City Council has a burden of responsibility to make a very tough decision not to alienate passionate residents and to do their fiduciary duty to protect the City. MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 23 CITY COUNCIL Kathleen Yang said her family moved to Diamond Bar in 1985. She no longer lives in Diamond Bar but her parents live across the street from the trees. The gentleman who spoke said the City Council has a fiduciary duty to protect the City's assets and she believes the trees are also assets to the community. The likelihood of the tree falling down would be only if the roots are cut too close to the trunk. To her, when she looks at the three options, common sense tells her Option 2 is the best option. Those trees provide something intangible. They provide a sense of well-being and she believes that outweighs the risk for which the City has insurance. She thanked PWD/Liu and CSD/Rose for really listening to the residents and providing the Council with viable options. She hoped the Council Members understand how the residents feel and choose Option 2. M/Tye closed Public Comments. M/Herrera said she had sympathy for all of the speakers and their love of the trees. The trees certainly are beautiful. She moved to Diamond Bar in 1966 and Diamond Bar was a very, very different place back then. There was no Diamond Bar Boulevard, there was no Grand Avenue and there was no 57 freeway. The 60 freeway stopped in Hacienda Heights. Places grow and Diamond Bar has grown. This is a difficult decision for the City Council and looking at the option, Options 2 and 3 looking at the red print, even under option 2 and 3 there is a possibility that more trees will be removed once the sidewalks are removed and the Arborist has an opportunity to inspect the tree root system. So Option 2 and 3 are not "total" solutions. With Option 2 and 3 there continues to be ongoing liability for the City with the root system pulling up the sidewalk and more importantly, reaching out into the street. Some very creative solutions have been suggested by the residents on how to remediate the sidewalks but the sidewalks are not the only issue because the roots are going out under the street and cracks are forming, water will get into those cracks and compromise the asphalt which means that when cars drive over those cracks there will be asphalt failure and the roadway giving away. God forbid there would be a sinkhole. As a previous speaker stated, the City Council has a fiduciary responsibility for public safety and the lives and safety of the City's residents is paramount over trees. Diamond Bar needs to protect its residents and prevent or remove hazards and it is not prudent to fix it one year and the next year the situation has further deteriorated. The City belongs to the JPIA and the City has been presented with a report that talks about liability and exposure. Once JPIA looks at this situation and finds that the City Council knew it had a situation it let continue she does not know that Diamond Bar would be covered which would be very, very detrimental to the City. C/Tanaka said he liked the choices in Option 2 because it addresses a minimum of removing only three trees and allows the Arborist to take a look at the roots so if some of the trees can be saved he would favor doing MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 24 CITY COUNCIL so as opposed to removing all 16 trees. MPT/Lyons asked if there was a possibility of moving the trees. C/Herrera said she believed they were too big to move. Nick Alago, West Coast Arborists, said that anything can be done. The trees could be moved but it would entail tearing the street completely apart and it would be extremely expensive. Trees of the size in question would likely cost the City $75,000 to $100,000 per tree to move. C/Lin asked PWD/Liu why if in looking at Option 2 is the rehabilitation of the roadway pavement mutually exclusive to removal of the sidewalk. PWD/Liu responded that the section of pavement that is the most compromised is the section between Diamond Bar Boulevard and Presado. West of that there are certain conditions that do not compare to the first section which has extensive damage. When staff was considering Option 2 staff learned from public input that residents were willing to live without the sidewalk or path of travel. So staff felt that if the neighbors were willing to live with this option perhaps there was an alternative path of travel for the residents. Staff concluded that it could be done by re- routing everyone and making sure that from a public perspective that this alternative should be studied very closely which it was. As a result of the study, he suggested installing a crosswalk to make sure there was a clear passage for pedestrians. In terms of pavement repair work under Option 2, like everything else, as long as the trees remain where they are the roots will continue to grow out toward the street and basically in every direction. That section has displayed signs of deterioration in spite of all of the work the City has done. More importantly, the root systems will continue to create more and more damage. M/Tye said he was surprised that more people spoke up in favor of Option 2 instead of Option 3 but he thinks this can be massaged so that the City does not have to go in and obliterate the trees and still be responsible. To him it is like saying he has a corn on his toe and the doctor says if we amputate just above the knee it will take care of the corn on the toe. But if we start with the corn and we work on that and find that 10 or 11 trees will be saved which means that the City has already identified the trees it wants to remove. He assumed that the removal of five trees in Option 3 referred to the five in front of the condos. CSD/Rose responded that there were three in front of the condos and two in front of the church that were slated for removal. M/Tye asked which two in front of the church. MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 25 CITY COUNCIL CSD/Rose responded that it would be the two trees nearest the catch basin toward Diamond Bar Boulevard. M/Tye asked if Option 3 includes rebuilding catch basins and building two new catch basins why would there be a need to remove them. CSD/Rose said that under Option 3 there is a sidewalk being built on the road side and the sidewalk would have to come back to meet the existing sidewalk and that occurs about where the trees are. M/Tye felt there was a way to compromise and take a scheduled approach rather than an all or nothing approach. M/Tye acknowledged there will be a problem. He asked if the City spent $100,000 in 2004 and $10,000 in 2013 and is now talking about spending $300,000 or $400,000 for Option 1 or Option 3 in his opinion, it is worth working toward achieving as many objectives as possible. All of the trees will not be saved but something terrific can be created and still save as many trees as possible. He is nota proponent of tearing out the sidewalk. To do that is to ignore a section of society and perhaps in that neighborhood and church goers who use that sidewalk who have not had an opportunity to weigh in on this proposal. He likes the idea of creatively putting the sidewalk on the other side of the trees which will accomplish a couple of things even though the City may find out it went to a lot of additional expense by moving forward with the objective to save 11 of the 16 trees and find out only 8 could be saved which is better than denuding the neighborhood of all of the Italian Stone Pines. He likes this option because it is a two for one solution which he asked PWD/Liu to weight in on — save as many trees as possible, provide an opportunity for a new sidewalk and repair the catch basins, and have a traffic calming measure in the process. PWD/Liu said that to a certain extent one might say it is a traffic calming measure but under the Traffic Management Program he can offer many other options as well. MPT/Lyons asked if the City proceeded according to M/Tye's recommendation, would parking be eliminated if the sidewalk was moved to the other side of the trees. CSD/Rose responded "yes." MPT/Lyons said that if the Council were to consider that option, the parking should not be eliminated because some of the condo owners rely on street parking. M/Tye said he agreed and that is why the action would be for the Council MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 26 CITY COUNCIL to reject all bids and direct staff to redesign the project per the concept. Option 3 does not speak to putting the sidewalk on the other side of the trees up near the condos. CSD/Rose responded that the original Option 3 does include the sidewalk on the other side of the trees by the condos as well which would eliminate the parking for both the condos and the church. Obviously there could be a hybrid recommendation where Option 2 and 3 could be combined to remove the three trees by the condo and repair the panels only for the remaining trees which would provide parking along the street and the sidewalk is moved to the other side of the street at the church end of the street and the street parking would be lost in that area. M/Tye moved, C/Lin seconded, to reject all bids and direct staff to redesign the project per Option 3 which would save as many trees as possible (removal of a minimum of 5 trees). Motion carried 4-1 by the following Roll Call vote: AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Lin, Tanaka, MPT/Lyons, M/Tye NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Herrera ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None C/Lin asked for clarification that this motion does not guarantee that the Council is proceeding with Option 3 it is merely a motion for redesign. Is that correct? CM/DeStefano responded that as he understands the direction, the motion is to move forward with Option 3 and that will require a redesign. Through that redesign staff and Council will learn a lot more about what needs to be done and the entirety will be coming back to the City Council for a decision to award the contract at some point in the future. Council is directing staff to design a project with Option 3 in mind but there may be derivatives of it as staff works through the details. CSD/Rose said that staff would be meeting with the residents of the condos to gather their input which may take place on site under the trees. 9. COUNCIL SUBCOMMITTEE REPORTS AND MEETING ATTENDANCE REPORTS/COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS: C/Herrera reported that she attended the San Gabriel Valley COG meeting on February 19 and it was the last day of work for the Executive Director Andrea Travis -Miller who has served for slightly less than two years. She has been hired by the City of Covina as the City Manager and the COG Executive Board selected Fran DeLach, former City Manager for Azusa as the Interim Director. The board will begin the process of hiring a new executive director for the SGVCOG. MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 27 CITY COUNCIL C/Lin reported that during the past two weeks he attended three functions on behalf of the City. He was invited to attend the Diamond Bar Chinese Association New Year's Celebration which he attended with all of his colleagues on February 21 at the Diamond Bar High School. On February 24 he took a tour of the Sheriff's Station in Walnut and had an in-depth discussion with Captain Scroggin and Lieutenant Tachias. He said he appreciated the opportunity to gain an understanding about how this City is kept safe by the Sheriff's Department and its deputies and was amazed to hear that they are only three or four minutes away from any situation in Diamond Bar. Last Saturday he and M/Tye were invited to the International Chinese Transportation Professional Association meeting at Heritage Park. C/Tanaka said that a couple of weeks ago he attended the Chinese American Association's Lunar New Year Celebration at Diamond Bar High School. Later that day he attended the Diamond Bar Girls Softball Opening Day Ceremony at Pantera Park. On Sunday, February 22 he attended the Miss Diamond Bar Pageant's Fashion Show with 14 candidates competing this year, 13 of which were present. The Miss Diamond Bar Scholarship Pageant will be held on Sunday, March 29 at 2:00 p.m. in the Diamond Bar High School Theater. On Tuesday, February 24 he attended the Diamond Bar 4 -Youth "In Action" regular monthly meeting during which there was discussion of upcoming events including the City's Birthday Celebration, a canned food drive and the next 6th 7th and 8th grade dance. Elections for next year's board will be held at the March meeting. Last Wednesday he attended the San Gabriel Valley Regional Chamber of Commerce's Heroes Prayer Breakfast to honor men and women in the armed forces, sheriff's, police departments, firefighters and all emergency medical response teams. Thursday he attended the Evergreen Senior Citizens Club's Lunar New Year and quarterly birthday celebration. He stopped by the Pack 788's Blue and Gold Awards Dinner on Saturday to celebrate the birthday of scouting in the United States. He attended the Diamond Bar Pony Baseball Opening Ceremony on Saturday. That evening he attended the Casa Colina's Tribute to Courage Dinner. Four individuals were recognized during the evening which was hosted by Bonnie Hunt. Aron Ralston, the hiker from Colorado who survived being trapped by amputating his pinned and injured hand, was the guest speaker. MPT/Lyons stated that she too had attended the Diamond Bar Chinese American Association's New Year's Celebration it was wonderful because all five Council Members were present to celebrate with the community. She and her colleagues enjoyed the event very much and appreciated that staff had a booth there to pass out information. Staff also provided DB 4 Youth workers for their booth and other booths where help was needed. The Salute to Heroes Breakfast was very inspirational which she enjoyed along with her colleagues. She also attended the Diamond Bar Evergreen Seniors New Year's Celebration along with C/Tanaka for a celebration with good food, good friends and good entertainment. MARCH 3, 2015 PAGE 28 CITY COUNCIL M/Tye said it was wonderful to be at the Lunar New Year Celebration. He would like to clarify whether it is the year of the sheep, goat or ram but nobody seems to know. Last year was the year of the horse so it is Gung Hay Fat Choy to Chinese residents. It has been a busy couple of weeks with the Boy Scouts Blue and Gold Banquet for Troop 737 and a week later Troop 788. It is wonderful to be invited and be a part of the ceremony that promotes kids from cub scouts to boy scouts. It matters not whether it is the Friends of the Library, the Lions or the Rotary, things get done with volunteers and it was incredible to see how many volunteers were working on behalf of their children in scouting. The Heroes Prayer Breakfast was very moving and it was wonderful to attend with his Council colleagues and present certificates on behalf of the City to the different heroes from armed forces, sheriff's department, fire and American Medical who were being honored. He also attended the The Pony League opening day. M/Tye stated that it was a privilege to be invited to the International Chinese Transportation Professional Association, Southern California Chapter with C/Lin and speak with Brian Pennington who had good things to say about Diamond Bar and how prepared the City is to have projects recognized and funded. He was aware of the work staff does to be in line for the funding. He thanked staff for the very thorough information and presentation on the Morning Canyon trees not only tonight but at the public outreach meeting a week ago in the Windmill Room. He believes it is very important for people to understand that staff and City Council is present to listen and accept their input to see if the City can do what it needs to do to make the City as safe as possible while doing everything possible to preserve the flavor of the neighborhood and its trees. It is a testament to their willingness to come forward and ask that the City do everything possible to make it work for everyone's benefit. He did not hear anyone who was difficult but he heard people who were zealous about this matter and interested to provide input and participate in the process of getting the matter to a satisfactory conclusion for all. He thanked all who provided input and staff for their thoughtful and in depth study and work on behalf of the residents and City Council. ADJOURNMENT: With no further business to conduct, M/Tye adjourned the City Council Meeting at 9:18 p.m. n, l lv, TOMMYE C IBBINS, CITY CLERK The foregoing minutes are hereby approved this i 714ay of March , 2015. STE E, MAYOR