CITY OF ELK GROVE Incorporated July 1, 2000  MINUTES OF THE CITY COUNCIL  REGULAR MEETING Wednesday, June 8, 2011  CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL  Mayor Detrick called the regular City Council meeting of June 8, 2011 to order at  6:00 p.m. Present: Absent:  Mayor Detrick, Vice Mayor Cooper, Council Members Davis, Hume and  Scherman. None.  Staff Sergeant Brian Warme led the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Detrick asked that a moment of silence be observed.  APPROVAL OF AGENDA  Motion: M/S Davis/Cooper to approve the agenda as presented. The motion passed  by the following vote: Ayes: 5; Noes: 0.  CLOSED SESSION None.  PRESENTATIONS/ANNOUNCEMENTS  4.1 Mayor Detrick presented a proclamation to Staff Sergeant Brian Warme recognizing June 11 through June 17, 2011 as United States Army Week. 4.2 With the aid of an overhead presentation (filed), Kanat Tibet gave a presentation With the aid of an overhead presentation (filed), Mr. Tibet noted the HEAL Cities Campaign was a statewide health advocacy campaign to sponsor legislation focusing on health oriented policies in relation to general plans, zoning regulations, healthy food access, and employee wellness. He presented a folder (filed) with a list of policies recommended under the HEAL Cities Campaign, including provisions related to fighting obesity. He provided statistics on increasing obesity and diabetes rates in California, and displayed estimates in costs to government, stating that physical inactivity in Sacramento County in 2006, leading to adults being overweight or obese, saw costs of health care and lost productivity estimated at $1.7 billion. He noted local governments have promoted public health through initiatives on sanitation, clean air and water, drunk driving, lead poisoning, and tobacco control, and believed action should be taken to prevent obesity. The HEAL Cities Campaign utilized a multi-faceted approach,  on the Healthy Eating Active Living (HEAL) Cities Campaign.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8,2011 Page1of18    believing that solutions were not limited to only personal responsibility, but could be achieved through promoting local policies to educate the community and incentivize creation of healthy public environments. Mr. Tibet noted 78 cities had adopted HEAL Cities Campaign resolutions, that Kaiser Permanente was a sponsor of the program and had expressed wanting to see the program expanded nationwide, and he requested the  Council consider adopting a HEAL Cities Campaign resolution.  PUBLIC COMMENT  Nikki Carpenter, speaking in relation to the Justamere property item considered at the May 25, 2011 regular meeting, believed any parcel split should require adequate environmental impact studies. She believed an error had occurred in allowing the Bakey property, a previous property division, to not be required to conduct an impact study. She thanked Council Member Scherman for handing out American flags for Memorial Day, and requested the City utilize its publication resources to provide public Steve Lee requested additional means to inform the public of topical items be explored, as he noted several active members of the sports community were not aware of recent discussions regarding sports complexes at the Civic Center site. Mr. Lee suggested utilizing the electronic reader board at the Auto Mall, which he believed held a provision that a portion of the board be set aside for public service announcements, and suggested implementing alternate public service announcement signage further north Council Member Davis noted the concept of the sports complex was a discussion that had recently started, noting the recently noticed special meeting and his efforts to contact local youth sports leagues, and he encouraged the community to become  information on the rules for displaying the American flag properly.  on State Route 99 or along Interstate 5.  engaged and spread the word to interested parties. GENERAL ADMINISTRATION INFORMATION  City Manager Laura Gill reviewed the June 8, 2011 Administrative Report (filed). COUNCIL COMMENTS/REPORTS/FUTURE AGENDAITEMS  Council Member Hume stated he had no reports from the Sacramento Transportation Authority (STA) Board, Sacramento Regional Transit District (RT) Board, and the Capital SouthEast Connector Joint Powers Authority Boards as those boards had not yet met since his last report. He attended the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation Board of Directors meeting which voted to raise sewer rates to address requirements under the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit to treat sewer plant effluent. Mr. Hume noted the Spotlight at the Ranch Barbecue and Blues fundraiser for the Elk Grove Community Foundation scholarship group would be held June 12, and voiced agreement with idea raised under public comment for placing  information regarding flag protocol in the City newsletter.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8,2011 Page 2of18    City Manager Laura Gill noted that advance lead time was needed to insert items in the City newsletter, but noted information could be posted on the City website and social Vice Mayor Cooper noted from the Sacramento Regional County Sanitation Board of Directors meeting that the current operating budget for the agency was $90 million a year, and that the requirements of the NPDES permit would require construction of the system and facilities estimated at $2 billion, with an on-going annual operating budget of Council Member Scherman attended the Old Town Elk Grove Foundation Board meeting which discussed its budget and received a presentation by City staff. She participated in Memorial Day ceremonies at the East Lawn Elk Grove Memorial Park and Mortuary and the Elk Grove Cemetery, and she handed out over 2,000 American flags. She noted that in the past, flyers on flag protocol were also handed out, and appreciated public comment tonight as a reminder to do sO next year. On a personal note, Ms. Scherman noted her granddaughter had graduated to the next level in her criminal justice program, and her grandson graduated from Grant Senior High and Council Member Davis noted the Run 4 Independence event www.run4independence.com, would be held June 25, with proceeds going to the Elk Grove Food Bank. He noted the Elk Grove Community Connection organized a June baby drive, in conjunction with local banks, to coordinate donations of baby sundry items and clothes to be facilitated through the Elk Grove Food Bank. Mr. Davis requested, and received consensus from the Council, to return an item to consider the recommendations under the HEAL Cities Campaign, and to see if there were polices that could link to the City Sustainabillty Element and Climate Action Plan. Mayor Detrick reported Elk Grove would be receiving $1.2 million in franchise fees passed through by the Sacramento Metropolitan Cable Television Commission. He announced a program offered by Comcast to bring internet access to low-income families, and requested the City website provide informational material on the program. Mayor Detrick attended the Valley High Country Club 50th anniversary, and on June 17 would be a participant in the Dancing with the Strauss Festival Celebrity Stars Gala  media resources.  $77 million, above and beyond the agency's current operations.  would be continuing on to college.  fundraiser.  CONSENT CALENDARITEMS  Vice Mayor Cooper appreciated the wellness program offered through the contract renewal with Pursuit Performance under Item 8.9, offering healthy lifestyle choices for City employees, and reducing sick leave and reducing workers compensation In reply to Council Member Scherman relating to Item 8.8, GIS Manager Steve Gay stated the contract was to provide access to specific, proprietary records and information stored by Sacramento County. The contract would lock fees to access the  rehabilitation time.  system for up to six years.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8,2011 Page 3of1 18    Council Member Hume noted his support of item 8.7, approving a solar panel installation in conjunction with the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility, and suggested other City facilities be considered for such retrofitting, to install solar panels Motion: M/S Cooper/Davis to approve the Consent Calendar as presented. The  on the buildings, or shade structures in parking lots.  motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 5; Noes: 0.  Agenda Item No. 8.1: through 2011176 Agenda Item No. 8.2: meeting  Received Automatic Clearing House Nos. 3458 through  3611 dated May 1, 2011 through May 31, 2011, General Warrant Nos. 59184 through 59475, and Electronic Fund Transfer Nos. 2011164 through 2011172 and 2011174  Approved City Council Meeting Minutes: 1)July 14, 2010  regular meeting; 2) July 28, 2010 regular meeting; and 3) July 28, 2010 6 p.m. special  Agenda Item No. 8.3:  Received report on City Manager approved purchases and  contracts authorized by Elk Grove Municipal Code Chapter 3.42 Contracts and  Purchasing, filed through June 1, 2011  Agenda Item No. 8.4: and Bids Agenda Item No. 8.5:  Received report on Requests for Proposals, Qualifications, Ordinance No. 13-2011 adopted levying and apportioning  the special tax in territory annexed to Community Facilities District No. 2006-1 (Maintenance Services) Annexation No. 18 and amending Elk Grove Municipal Code  Section 3.19.010 (Second Reading) Agenda Item No. 8.6: (Second Reading) Agenda Item No. 8.7:  Ordinance No. 14-2011 adopted levying and apportioning  the special tax in territory annexed to Community Facilities District No. 2003-2 (Police Services) Annexation No. 18 and amending Elk Grove Municipal Code Section 3.18.010  Resolution No. 2011-99 adopted authorizing the City  Manager to execute a construction contract with Go Solar Now, Inc. for the Household Hazardous Waste Collection Facility Roof Mounted Photovoltaic System Project in an amount not-to-exceed $166,500 and authorizing the City Engineer to approve change  orders in an amount not-to-exceed $22,000  Agenda Item No. 8.8:  Resolution No. 2011-100 adopted authorizing the City  Manager to execute a three-year agreement with an optional three-year extension with Sacramento County Municipal Services Agency for access to the Sacramento County intranet and use of GIS viewers in an amount of $18,800 per year [for a total not-to-  exceed amount of $112,800 over a six year period]  Agenda Item No. 8.9:  Resolution No. 2011-101 adopted authorizing the City  Manager to execute a professional services contract with Pursuit Performance Training for an employee and law enforcement oriented fitness program for a three-year term in  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8, 2011 Page 4 of18    an amount not-to-exceed $80,000 per year [for a total compensation amount not-to- Agenda Item No. 8.10: Resolution No. 2011-102 adopted authorizing the City Manager to execute the neçessary documents to amend the website services and maintenance contract with Escudero Web Services, extending the contract for one, three-year term and authorizing an expenditure of $200,000 [for a total expenditure of Agenda Item No. 8.11: Resolution No. 2011-103 adopted authorizing the City Manager to execute the necessary documents to amend the utility billing goods and services contract with Infosend, extending the contract for one (1), two (2) year term, adding electronic billing services and authorizing an expenditure of $150,000 [for a total  exceed $240,000]  funds over six years not-to-exceed $380,000]  expenditure of funds over four (4). yearsnoHo-exceed $650,000]  PUBLIC HEARINGS Agenda Item No. 9.1: RECOMMENDATION  A continued public hearing (from April 13, 2011) to consider  adoption of a Supplemental Park Fee for the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan Area  Adopt resolution adopting the Laguna Ridge Supplemental Park Fee Program Nexus With the aid of an overhead presentation (filed), Heather Ross, Economic Development Coordinator, provided an overview of the staff report and recommendation. Ms. Ross summarized changes to date made to the nexus study: 1) lands were identified and shifted accordingly from Zone 2, consisting of properties that had met all land dedication requirements, to Zone 1, consisting of properties with land designated for future parks that had not yet dedicated any park land, resulting in an increase in the fee for Zone 1, and for Zone 2 a slight fee decrease, 2) a revised dedication status was assigned for Constellation Park for 2006, as Constellation Park offset land dedication requirements in Zone 2 the change did not result in an effect on the fee for that zone, 3) regarding the open space area within Civic Center Park, previously a 11.23 acre area was excluded (5.70 acres of open space and 5.53 acres of buffer area - a 100-foot wide buffer area around the wetland area), but the Management Plan for the Grove subdivision indicated 2.97 acres of that wetland area was intended to be accessible by the public, equating those lands would be included in the program resulting in an increase to the fee rate, 4)the Grand Parkway cost estimate was revised (previously it was a lump sum $225,000 per acre cost) using actual cost data for each cross-section portion of the Grand Parkway, and a net increase of 0.63 acres was included in the total area for the Grand Parkway as a discrepancy was realized in total acreage due to area improvements not matching with parcel lines. Ms. Ross reviewed a chronology of events relating to the Grand Parkway, and provided a fee comparison containing data provided by the Cosumnes Community Services District (CCSD) of the East Franklin Park Fee Program and the Laguna Ridge Supplemental Park Fee Program (LRSPF), displaying the primary difference between the two fees was in land acquisition cost (of the difference of $5,700 more for the LRSPF, with $4,500, or 80% of that difference, in land acquisition cost). Staff also included for analysis the average fee rates for the East  Study and establishing the fee amount.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8, 2011 Page 5of1 18    Franklin Supplemental Drainage Fee, noting that final difference in fees was $4,400, and again the primary difference was that the East Franklin Park Fee did not include a Inr reply to Council Member Hume, Ms. Ross noted land acquisition was not included in East Franklin Park Fee as park dedication was done at the time of final map based on Quimby Act ("Quimby") standards. She provided on overview of the current proposed fee scenarios calculated by the City consultant, noting staff recommended the base case scenario. She noted the maximum potential fee noticed in advance of the meeting was $13,780, and if a scenario was selected over the rate (currently only Scenario 5) the item would be required to be continued to a future date to provide adequate public  land acquisition component.  notice.  Mayor Detrick declared the public hearing open.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Chris Bardis thanked the Council and staff for efforts put into finalizing the program to date, and requested equitable treatment be considered for all stakeholders to bring the Kristin Schenone, representing Reynen & Bardis and Pulte Homes, spoke in support of either Scenarios 9 or 10 to compensate her clients, emphasizing a final fee program needed to include parks, parkways, and paseos included in the approved land use documents, the Specific Plan, and all amenities required from the first phase developers. She addressed comments of stakeholder issues over inclusion of Grand Parkway raised at the hearing held January 12, 2011, stating that land use documents, the Specific Plan, and design guidelines had always planned and required a joint use facility with a drainage component, in a park-like setting, with park amenities included for the Grand Parkway. She believed statements made January 12 that the Grand Parkway was not parkway but wetland mitigation and a drainage corridor, and was never intended to be reimbursed parkland, was contradictory to the City's financing plan, which included all 24 acres, including the drainage corridor. She believed that statements and references to a Clean Water Act Section 404 Permits (404 Permit) were not relevant, and nothing contained in any 404 Permit would preclude the use of the Ms. Schenone, representing Stockbridge, requested that when the fee program was adopted to include a mechanism to be updated or amended to reflect actual parks dedicated, as currently tentative maps were being amended which would affect park Les Hock, representing Reynen & Bardis Communities, supported Scenario 10, and noted current park areas in the City also served as drainage and water quality components, and in the past those improvements did receive park credits. He noted this fee program had been under development since 2004, and he believed it ultimately came down to balancing how to keep fees down to promote development and economic growth, and how to stay consistent with project entitlements through a program that recognized facilities already constructed by prior development, while maintaining the  issues surrounding the fee program to a conclusion.  Grand Parkway for required park amenities.  dedications for the Arbor Ranch and McGeary Ranch projects.  EIk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8, 2011 Page 6of1 18    City's vision for the development of this community project. In support of Scenario 10 Mr. Hock detailed it resulted in one of the lowest combined fee amounts, it allocated only 36 acres of community park to future development outside of the specific plan, it included the parkways and paseos that were always included under every prior program iteration, and it recognized conditions would be imposed on future project phases remaining consistent with the Specific Plan, Finance Plan, and the Trails Master Plan. Steve Zehnder believed the paseos and trails were important to promote non-vehicular mobility and felt that if a fee program did not compensate development for those amenities, it would be difficult to encourage future developrment to include such elements in proposed projects and provide linkages prescribed under the Trails Master Greg Van Dam, representing Pulte Homes, supported Scenario 9 or 10 as they included the parks, parkways, and paseos which were elements required of the first phase developers. He believed the Grand Parkway contained premier bike trails and bridges that linked parks in the vicinity, and included extensive landscaping, all of which the costs should be included in the program. He viewed the Grand Parkway as a joint use facility, noting all properties within Phase 2 drain, and ultimately flowed, through the Grand Parkway. He believed these improvements, including the drainage component, were amenities that benefitted other property owners, and felt it appropriate to have a mechanism to spread such costs among other benefiting properties. He did not request reimbursement of the cost of excavating and constructing the channel, as those costs were reimbursed through Sacramento County Water Agency Zone 11, but believed the improvements, amenities, landscaping, and linkages should be reimbursed. Thad Johnson, representing Pappas Investments, believed all of the scenarios presented would yield the highest park fee program in the region. He believed any part of the Grand Parkway utilized for wetland mitigation, fenced off as a drainage channel, or areas prohibiting public access, should be excluded. He believed the 404 Permit specifically required the entire Grand Parkway channel and buffers be established and maintained in perpetuity to mitigate for the loss of 1,900 linear feet of stream functions, and would be a water of the United States. He felt the subject areas contained no active or passive recreational uses within the fenced-off, enclosed area. If these areas were considered under the program, he requested the lands be valued as open space, including area T6 which also should be valued as open space as it contained wetland restrictions. Mr. Johnson addressed over-dedications, stating they should be allocated Ed Gillum, representing Jackson Properties, believed prior Council direction was exclusion of parkways, and only active parks were to be under consideration for the fee program. He submitted an informational packet (filed) with news articles on declining home prices, and park dedications as addressed under Title 22 of the Elk Grove Municipal Code. In relation to Title 22 he believed it prescribed a methodology to value property for payment of fees, for a property that cannot dedicate or will not dedicate land, by conducting an appraisal at the time the payment would be made, equating that prior land values were not to be used. He believed the currently proposed program was contradictory to this provision, taking approximately 15 acres of property valued at 2006 prices of $402,000 an acre, whereas current values would be $80,000 an acre. He  Plan.  as credits for land in the specific plan area and not cash.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8,2011 Page 7of18    believed the total park fees paid under the program, when including the community parks component with other park programs in the community, raised the total fee paid by $3,000. Mr. Gillum proposed a scenario based from Scenario 6 presented in the March 23, 2011 staff report that excluded the Grand Parkway, with the inclusion of two exceptions to account for conditions of the Zehnder property that could not be further Inr reply to Council Member Scherman, Mr. Gillum recollected that the Community Park Fee was approximately $2,723, sO the total fee paid would exceed $15,000 assuming the base case scenario was selected. Mr. Gillum did not see the justification of setting a park fee at a rate twice that compared to the region and neighboring development, where a Quimby exaction for active parks would be half of that proposed under the Paul Newton, Chief of Planning with the CCSD, voiced support by the CCSD of the base case scenario, and opposition to Scenario 10 as the listed active park land was at 3.8 acres, which would represent one of the lowest dedications in the City of Elk Grove for active park land dedication, and would not meet park activity programming for the Michael Monasky believed livable communities have an investment cost and believed development should pay to suburbanize open space. Mr. Monasky advocated that no development be conducted near wetlands, that area development should integrate with the South Sacramento Habitat Conservation Plan, and improved mitigation measures should be included for preservation of open space and habitat for wildlife.  subdivided nor utilized, and to add overwidths of the Grand Parkway.  scenarios for the fee program.  projected population in the area served.  Mayor Detrick declared the public hearing closed.  Council Member Hume believed several factors were altering discussion of the fee program, but believed the stated intent of the Council was to reduce the total fee amount. He felt the land dedication component drove the high fee cost and believed a Quimby exaction, as similarly used in other areas such as East Franklin, would assist in bringing the fee down to a reasonable rate. He acknowledged upfront expenses of initial developers required a level of compensation, but also agreed with statements regarding what elements were true park amenities. He noted that in regard to the active park dedication under Scenario 10 that the amount of active park space available was the same, only that the responsibility for the larger project of Riordan Park was shifted on to future development. He did not believe a drainage channel could be considered a park. Mr. Hume believed an equitable solution to reduce the amount of land to be compensated was to have developers mitigate to the equivalent Quimby amount of five acres, and the land that would be compensated for would then be the additional Council Member Scherman did not appreciate the new items and issues raised when trying to finalize the fee program. She emphasized the need to bring down the fee, as much of the fee would likely be passed to new home buyers, and an equitable amount was needed to make such new homes marketable. She appreciated the comments of Mr. Zehnder regarding trail amenities and connectivity, but also agreed that portions of  parkways and paseos over that Quimby amount.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting. June 8,2011 Page 8of18    the Grand Parkway, such as the drainage channel area and slopes, were not active Council Member Davis believed the difficulty in finalizing the fee program was that it involved the City mediating disputes between landowners on amenities provided during the peak of an active real estate market, and coming to terms with current day pricing from the economic downturn to compensate for installed amenities, while providing for future amenities as well. He believed the Grand Parkway had always been intended as a highlight of the City and the Laguna Ridge community and should be included in the Mayor Detrick agreed with Council comments, and observed that initial developers were not gaining any interest or return on monies invested to provide amenities in Laguna Ridge while the fee program has been pending over the last seven years. He believed the drainage channel and inaccessible areas of the Grand Parkway should be evaluated City Attorney Susan Cochran believed that establishing policy direction tonight on factors and facilities covered by the park fee would assist staff in accurately drafting an appropriate fee, and that to date the introduction of new information for consideration in the fee was creating constant changes and a multitude of scenarios which only complicated the process. She confirmed direction that the Grand Parkway be included, but for that amenity, what valuation of the cross section of its variation of uses should be used under the fee program. She requested clarification if parkways and paseos were to be included, how credits and reimbursements were to be handled, and what date of valuation for the land should be used. Ms. Cochran noted the current evaluation applied was the date land was dedicated to the City, as that date indicated when a developer lost their ability to use such land for any other purpose, and was given to the In reply to Mayor Detrick, Ms. Cochran noted that any lands dedicated would be required to be cleared of liens, and that when appraisals were conducted an assumption was that all liens would be addressed prior to dedication. The City would not accept any land dedication until there was a clean title. Regarding credits and reimbursements, Ms. Cochran noted the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan Park Fee Program was established under Elk Grove Municipal Code Chapter 16.82 and that dictated how credits and reimbursements operated, noting that developers could not access cash payments through the system until they had exhausted all of their credits, and there could be certain conditions where credits could be exhausted and that then cash could Vice Mayor Cooper expressed his disappointment that the fee scenarios returned for consideration tonight remained high, and believed clarifying questions and parameters on the program should have been addressed much earlier in the process. He agreed the land acquisition element was driving the high cost, but believed the final fee should be a balance of equitable pricing while compensating for facilities installed by initial  park but more effectively categorized as open space.  program.  at a reduced amount.  City to comply with providing facilities required under the Specific Plan.  go to developers.  phase developers.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8,2011 Page 9of1 18    Council Member Hume proposed using a Quimby standard as a required dedication that would not be reimbursed to drive down the land acquisition cost element, and only compensate, in the form of credit, for any over-dedication beyond the established Ms. Cochran noted that Quimby created an in-lieu fee that would be paid instead of dedicating land, which was an effective system going forward if development has not yet dedicated land; the difficulty in the current fee program was creation of a park system where some subdivisions have no park land in them, and others have an inordinate amount of park land, in addition the program was mediating past expenditures for land and facilities as well as future dedications. Had a Quimby program been in place from the beginning, developers would have been assessed at land values at the height of the market (when land was dedicated and facilities were Council Member Scherman suggested that no further information be accepted for consideration in the fee program, or suggestions be received to calculate additional scenarios. She believed all reimbursements should be done with credit and not cash. City Attorney Cochran noted that in order to provide clarity to stakeholders, taking action by motion of policy statements of the Council would be helpful to have record of what Council Member Davis noted he would abstain from voting on any motion that would Mayor Detrick noted the item would return as a future agenda item which would provide a public comment opportunity, and the limitation under consideration was specifically to Motion: M/S Hume/Scherman to include as policy direction in establishing the Supplemental Park Fee for the Laguna Ridge Specific Plan Area the following: 1) the 40-foot and 30-foot slope areas be included but at a value consistent with an open space valuation or that provided by appraisal, 2) for anything considered an overage within the Grand Parkway Area (anything else not in the Slope Area, not in the Channel Area, and not in the 25- foot landscape corridor) would be in the program as standard parkland dedication, along with all of the other park sites, 3) the program would back- out what would be a Quimby standard five acre per thousand dedication of land, and only include over-dedications in the program, anything over the five acres per thousand of that total, at a standard appraised rate, 4) the 50-foot center would have a separate analysis by appraisers, and 5) no further information or input would be received for consideration of alternate scenarios. The motion passed by the following vote: City Attorney Susan Cochran confirmed through City Council consensus that the  Quimby standard.  provided).  the Council agreed to. limit public comment.  not include new information to calculate new scenarios.  Ayes: 4; Noes: 0; Abstain: 1 (Davis).  paseos and parkways be included in the fee program.  Agenda Item No. 9.2:  A public hearing to consider the rezone of approximately  0.8 acres from Limited Commercial (LC) to General Commercial (GC) for the SBH Elk  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8,2011 Page 10of18    Grove Properties project located at 8686 and 8690 Elk Grove Boulevard (EG-11-011;  APN: 125-0050-001) RECOMMENDATION  The Planning Commission recommends (5-0 0):  1) Adopt resolution finding no further review required for the SBH Elk Grove Properties Rezone project (EG-11-011), under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section $15301 and $15183 of Division 6 of Chapter 3 of Title 14 of the 2) Introduce and waive the full reading, by substitution of title only, an Ordinance approving the Rezone from Limited Commercial (LC) to General Commercial (GC)  California Code of Regulations; and  for the SBH Elk Grove Properties Rezone project/EG-11-011).  The verbal staff report was waived.  Mayor Detrick declared the public hearing open.  PUBLIC COMMENT: None.  Mayor Detrick declared the public hearing closed.  Motion #1: M/S Cooper/Hume to adopt Resolution No. 2011-104 finding no further review required for the SBH Elk Grove Properties Rezone project (EG-11-011), under the California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to Section $15301 and $15183 of Division 6 of Chapter 3 of Title 14 of the California Code of Regulations. The motion Motion #2: M/S Cooper/Scherman to introduce and waive the full reading, by substitution of title only, Ordinance No. 15-2011 approving the Rezone from Limited Commercial (LC) to General Commercial (GC) for the SBH Elk Grove Properties Rezone project (EG-11-011). The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 5;  passed by the following vote: Ayes: 5; Noes: 0.  Noes: 0.  REGULAR AGENDA ACTIONITEMSRECOMMENDATIONS  Agenda Item No. 10.1: Consider adoption of proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2011- 12, the Capital Improvement Plan for Fiscal Years 2011-12 through 2015-16, and  adoption of the annual appropriations limit  RECOMMENDATION:  Staff will present an overview and analysis at, and receive comment during, the annual budget work session that includes the Fiscal Year (FY) 2011-12 proposed Budget, the FY 2011-12 through FY 2015-16 Capital Improvement Plan, and the annual appropriations limit. Staff asks the Council to consider the proposed Budget for With the aid of an overhead presentation (filed), Katy Baumbach, Budget Manager, provided an overview of the staff report and recommendation. The Capital  modifications and/or for adoption by resolution.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8, 2011 Page 11of18    Improvement Program (CIP) included transportation, drainage, and facility capital improvements planned for FY 2011-12 through 2015-16 identifying projects over a threshold of $250,000 in value, consisted of non-routine expenditures (for instance, routine maintenance of streets was not included in the CIP), and generally consisted of projects with a useful life of ten years or longer. The five year plan was a $250 million investment, with only $8.3 million programmed for FY 2011-12. Project highlights included in the CIP were the Civic Center Project, several intersection improvement projects, and the East Stockton Sound Wall renovation project. The East Stockton Sound Wall renovation project had identified $100,000 in FY 2011-12 for preliminary design, the total project was expected to cost $1.5 million, and was planned to be funded through gas tax and potentially Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Ms. Baumbach reviewed the General Fund, stating it was $50.4 million, or representing one third of the total FY 2011-12 budget. Revenues were stabilizing and projected to be up by is $1.4 million, projecting most revenues with flat to moderate growth. The General Fund budget would maintain the same level of services currently received by the community with emphasis on economic development and public safety. The General Fund work plan focused on the City Council's top five priorities for the community, implemented a new City employee pay plan, and included five new positions: Economic Development Director, a Finance Analyst, and three positions in the Police Department of an Administrative Assistant, Animal Services Officer, and Customer Service Specialist. The FY 2011-12 plan proposed use of $1.3 million in reserve funds, leaving a $13.6 million reserve balance. Ms. Baumbach displayed that the current General Fund reserve balance would be at 27% of total annual appropnations, above the established optimal level of 20% for FY 2011-12. Starting in FY 2012-13 it was projected that implementation of the pay plan, without commencing any corrective actions, would diminish the reserve level to under the 20% preferred level. She noted that historically, as the City had used fund balance in previous budget years, the actual amounts spent were less than planned, and the projections displayed were conservative estimates = anticipating that the City would continue the trend to Ms. Baumbach noted that at the meeting of May 25, 2011 a request was made to sponsor the Elk Grove Regional Veterans Memorial in the amount of $25,000, and she stated the request could be accommodated in the current FY 2010-11 budget. Regarding Council interns, $7,500 was annually appropriated to support each Council Member, and those funds could be reallocated for alternate programming as desired. In reply to Council Member Scherman, Human Resources Director Laura Brunson noted a formal policy for establishing qualifications and hiring of interns was under By City Council consensus, it was agreed to accommodate the Veterans Memorial In reply to Council Member Davis, Ms. Baumbach noted the $605,000 funding identified under the Economic Development portion of the budget included two positions, the Economic Development Director and the Economic Development Coordinator, $60,000  funds if the project qualified.  spend less from reserves than projected in the budget.  development.  sponsorship in the amount of $25,000 in the FY: 2010-11 budget.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8,2011 Page 12of18    ins support of the Elk Grove Economic Development Corporation (EGEDC), and funding for advertising, conferences, and general operations. Items such as economic  development incentives were under a separate fund.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Mike Monasky believed the budget document should be released earlier for public review. He requested detail on Economic Development Department expenditures, and funds for economic incentives. He did not agree with funding the EGEDC, and believed the Economic Development Director position should be under the Planning Department as he had observed in other regional agencies. He felt a proposal for five percent pay increases was incongruous when creating a $2 million operating deficit in implementing such a pay plan, and felt pay raises shouid only be given to employees making less than $50,000 a year. He observed the City's revenues had dropped, and did not believe the City had the finances to pursue new programs and proposals. He felt the discussion ofi intern payments was of minute importance compared to the overall fiscal health of the agency. He believed issues and funding of public safety should include health and human services for the City, as he stated that Sacramento County recently cut all funding for field nurses in public health, defunded the chest clinic, and if not for funding by local hospitals, immunization programs would also have ceased. He believed public safety needed to include a health impact assessment, and believed the betterment of the City would be best pursued in a budget prioritizing people's needs, building toward a Council Member Hume commended staff for continuing to find means to operate efficiently and to spend less than predicted for the past few years. He addressed comments regarding the five percent increase for the implementation of the step pay plan, noting City employee compensation had remained relatively level, or experienced furloughs and cuts, for three years. He raised concern over the $2 million dollar deficit projected, and its effect on diminishing an over 20% reserve, but believed that since the issue was recognized that efforts would be made to reduce the structural deficit. He appreciated inclusion of East Stockton Sound Wall Project, believing it was important from a health and safety perspective with respect to the deteriorating state of the current fence, but also important from an economic development standpoint to improve the Motion: M/S Scherman/Hume to adopt Resolution No. 2011-105 adopting the Fiscal Year 2011-12 Budget, the Fiscal Year 2011-12 through Fiscal Year 2015-16 Capital Improvement Program and the annual appropriations limit. The motion passed by the Agenda Item No. 10.2: Consider resolution to establish Development Services' processing fees and deposits for Building, Public Works, and Planning services  better quality of life for all.  aesthetics of the entry area of one of the main gateways into the City.  following vote: Ayes: 5; Noes: 0.  RECOMMENDATION:  Adopt resolution: 1) establishing Development Services' processing fees and deposits for Building, Public Works, and Planning services, and 2) authorizing the City Manager  to reduce processing fees and deposits when warranted.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8,2011 Page 13of18    With the aid of an overhead presentation (filed), Marsha Ley, Finance Analyst, provided an overview of the staff report and recommendation. Ms. Ley noted three green sheet" memos (filed) were provided regarding the item. She provided background information on the fee study process conducted, the stakeholder groups involved, and the proposed fees for the Planning, Building and Public Works Departments. When the project started a flat fee was proposed, and after working with the industry working group it became apparent that a flat fee was not an advantageous approach. Currently building fees were calculated on a value basis (which had been challenged under several court cases), and proposed flat fees were to be based on square footage, and incorporated an efficiency factor to acknowledge economies of scale. The effect of this change was an increase in residential building fees, and a decrease in commercial fees. It was found that full cost recovery for various building improvements could prove counterproductive, and staff suggested the City offset with the General Fund for those specific improvements, noting that regional comparisons used in the study were found be outdated and were not full cost recovery programs. Current Planning Department fees were on a deposit basis with time and material billing. Several planning fees were proposed at a flat fee, and for the remaining, complex planning entitlements, which can result in large cost variables, two additional fee types were created: 1) deposits with time and materials balanced billing (what was currently in place, but would increase the deposit), and 2) deposits with task orders and with a fixed fee specific to a project. The deposit with task order fee was planned to eventually become a flat fee once enough data on processing such fees was collected to provide accurate estimates. Full cost recovery was expected for the Planning Department, but it was recommended that certain fees be at less than full cost recovery including Old Town design review fees, Temporary Use Permits for tax-exempt organizations, and Tentative Parcel / Subdivision Map Extensions. For projects with multiple planning entitlements, the top tier entitlement would be charged at 100%, and the remaining entitlements would be charged at a discount rate. Public Works fees would be collected at application submittal, certain fees, such as trench cut fees, would be due prior to improvement plan acceptance or issuance of encroachment permits, and engineering fees for  improvement plans would be paid in two installments.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Scott White, representing Region Builders, spoke in support of the item, cited benefits of promoting commercial building in the community, and believed the reduced building permit fee schedule would result in a significant increase in commercial building in Elk Joan Costa appreciated the collaborative and comprehensive process in developing the revised fees, noting well-structured fees provided certainty to the development community for project costs and timeframes for completion. He voiced support for the hybrid approach to accommodate more complex projects requesting various Motion: M/S Scherman/Davis to adopt Resolution No. 2011-106 1)establishing Development Services' processing fees and deposits for Building, Public Works, and Planning services, and 2) authorizing the City Manager to reduce processing fees and  Grove.  entitlements.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8, 2011 Page 14of18    deposits when warranted. The motion passed by the following vote: Ayes: 5; Agenda Item No. 10.3: Receive update on redistricting and community outreach  Noes: 0. workshops  RECOMMENDATION: map adoption in July.  Receive update from Redistricting Partners on redistricting community efforts, consider mapping options, and provide direction as deemed appropriate to move toward final With the aid of an overhead presentation (filed), Matt Rexroad, representing Redistricting Partners, provided an overview of the staff report and recommendation. The update was review of the 30 map submittals received to date. He provided an overview of the outreach program conducted which included four public outreach workshops, advertising availability of the workshops and process through local newspaper advertisements and City media publications, articles by the local media encouraging citizens to participate, contact with homeowner associations, community groups and churches, inviting groups to submit maps, and hosting of an online chat room event. Placing the 30 map submittals in perspective, Mr. Rexroad noted he was not aware of many other places in the state that had as much public participation for people to submit maps as Elk Grove displayed, and believed the response represented input from far more than 30 people. All map submittals had the census data computations verified, submitter names were kept anonymous, and district numbers were replaced with letters to maintain the focus of the process on drawing districts over who currently served an area. Standards for drawing districts included seeking population equality (allowing for a 10% total deviation of +5% above or below the average district size), taking into account local geography and topography, neighbornoods and communities of interest in Elk Grove, and contiguity and compactness of districts. Overall, as map submittals adhered to the guidelines, and as Elk Grove had a diverse, dispersed community, no Voting Rights Act violations or issues were seen in any of the map submittals. One issue brought up at the workshops related to accounting for growth, and though population projections could not be used in the process, using the allowed population deviations could underçount districts planned with space to grow within those legally allowed deviations. Another issue was attaining zero population deviation, which could be done for any map submittal by making slight census block adjustments. The zero population deviation approach was not being recommended as often it adjusted districts away from the clear symmetry in utilizing roads as district boundaries, and created more meandering district boundaries. Mr. Rexroad highlighted four individual maps of the 30 submitted as best selections for Council consideration, Maps 1, 9, 17 and 18. For Maps 1, 9, and 17, each had population deviations around 5%, and several map submittals drew District D in the same manner, with District B submitted similarly under several different plans. For Map 1 he noted the same map was submitted numerous times at different workshops. Map 18 was submitted for consideration as it displayed how a district map would appear when the population deviation was maintained nearly at zero (creating lines not quite as  clear as the other plans that mainly followed major roads).  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8,2011 Page 15of18    Council Member Scherman observed that Map 18 split the community of interest of Old  Town.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Danetta Garcia expressed her pleasure in working with citizens on the redistricting process. She recommended the Council select a plan that provided zero population deviation, believing the intent of the legislature was for local agencies to create as equal population districts as possible, and noted Map 29 had a near zero population deviation. Susan Pecci voiced support for Map 1 which she believed resulted from a collaborative effort from a broad sector of the community, representing both urban and rural residents. She appreciated the clear boundaries established using major roads, it had an acceptable deviation, and the actual drawn map was achieved through consensus at Sharon Lynes appreciated the process allowing the citizens a voice, and appreciated the offering of workshop opportunities. She observed five to six maps submitted were similar to Map 1, and supported selection of Map 1 for its clear geography, respect of Shirley Peters voiced her support, and that of members of the Greater Sheldon Road Estates Homeowners Association (GRESHA), for Map 1, as it was the least complicated. She noted if workshops were conducted again to identify roads on the Council Member Hume appreciated that through the process many similar maps were created, and citizens coming from different perspectives found commonalities amongst the map submittais. He appreciated Map 9 as it grouped the Laguna Ridge area with East Franklin, keeping the newest growth areas together as a community of interest. In reply to Ms. Garcia's comments regarding zero deviation, he believed the 2010 census data was only a sampling in time that likely was already outdated by a year of growth, and believed the process could allow an agency to build leeway for projected growth districts, and at the very least allowed for district adjustments every 10 years. Mr. Hume recognized strong public support for Map 1, but reiterated his appreciation that Map 9 Vice Mayor Cooper voiced appreciation for the process in providing instruction and Inr reply to Mr. Cooper, Mr. Rexroad noted that at the local agency level, population deviation of up to 10% was allowed and had been vetted under case law. Ifa jurisdiction came closer to a 10% deviation it may come under judicial review. He noted the recommended maps were near a 5% total deviation, and none displayed unwarranted gerrymandering; combing Elk Grove's dispersed, diverse population it was unlikely there would be reasons the recommended maps would come under judicial review. In reference to seeking zero population deviation, Mr. Rexroad noted Elk Grove had already changed in relation to the 2010 census data, and the introduction of even  av workshop event.  neighborhoods, and clear divisions following major roads.  map materials to assist in orienting participants.  kept new growth areas together.  guidance and allowing the public to come forward with plans.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June 8, 2011 Page 16of18    one apartment complex could immediately distort a district in terms of population deviation. He stated the Council had discretion in utilizing population deviation, and Council Member Scherman preferred the clean delineation of Map 1, as Map 9 Council Member Hume requested if adjustments could be made to Map 9 to create a Mr. Rexroad requested some time to see if an adjustment to Map 9 could be NOTE: Council recessed at 9:40 and returned at 9:48 with all members present. Mr. Rexroad noted that in attempting to redraw lines for Map 9 the population deviations Motion: M/S Cooper/Scherman to proceed with finalizing Map 9. The motion passed After the vote, Council Member Scherman stated she believed the motion was for Map 1 and not Map 9, and wanted the record to note she was not in support of Map 9. Vice Mayor Cooper stated his motion for Map 9 was to keep the East Franklin and City Clerk Jason Lindgren noted the action for Council tonight was to recommend maps for final consideration, and after verification of any map selected, an item would return for consideration and final action at the July 13, 2011 regular meeting. Mr. Lindgren confirmed that additional maps could be requested for consideration at this time. Council Member Hume noted that under the motion voted on, he was of the understanding the motion was for a revised Map 9 to correct the deviating boundary between Districts A and C. With the current clarification that the motion was for Map 9 Council Member Scherman requested Map 1 be considered in addition to Map 9, to proceed for consideration on July 13, to which the City Council agreed by consensus. Council Member Davis requested the districts be assigned their respective Council Member District numbers. Regarding process, Mr. Davis did not believe a final map would require ratification by the voters, as he felt the intent of the legislature was to only require such ratification if districts altered between census dates, or suggested a change in the number of representative seats. Mr. Davis believed the voters had already approved the number of representative seats as the measures approved by voters in November 2010 authorized election of the directly elected mayor and four  were not required to establish districts with zero population deviation. contained an odd boundary line between Districts A and C. more distinct, symmetrical division between Districts A and C.  accommodated.  were much too large at nearly 15%. by the following vote: Ayes: 5; Noes: 0.  Laguna Ridge areas together.  as submitted, he noted he would have voted no.  council members.  Elk Grove City Council Regular Meeting, June8 8,2011 Page 17of18    City Attorney Cochran noted analysis and recommendations of next steps would be presented, along with the finalized Maps 1 and 9 for final consideration, at the meeting Agenda Item No. 10.4: Appointment of Youth Commission members amongst Districts  ofJuly 13. 1 and 4  RECOMMENDATION:  Consider applications received and make appointments for members of Districts 1 and 4 on the Youth Commission, and consider authorizing a continued recruitment for Jason Lindgren, City Clerk, provided an overview of the staff report and recommendation. A "green sheet" staff memo (filed) on the item noted submittal of one additional application eligible for appointment to one of the open District 1 vacancies.  District 1.  PUBLIC COMMENT:  Danetta Garcia commended the work of the Youth Commission, particularly the public engagement regarding bullying and cyber-Dullying, and voiced appreciation of the Vice Mayor Cooper announced his appointment of DeAndre Thorntona Bennett and Ania Skinner as voting members for District 1 on the Youth Commission. Council Member Davis announced his appointment of Rachel Wehrli as a voting  process for successors to contribute to the committee.  member for District 4 on the Youth Commission.  ADJOURNMENT adjourned at 9:58 p.m.  With no additional business to conduct, the June 8, 2011 City Council meeting was  kda  ATTEST: #h  W.  h  STEVEN M. DETRICK, MAYOR  Elk Grove City Councit Regular Meeting, June 8,2011 Page 18of18