MINUTES
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
APRIL 25, 2006 - 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Highland was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Mayor Jones at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.
The invocation was given by Pastor John Montgomery of Immanuel Baptist Church and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Jones.
ROLL CALL
Present: Lilburn, McCallon, Scott, Timmer, Mayor Jones
Absent: None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Jones presented a Proclamation for National Crime Victims Week for the week of April 21, 2006, and Blue Ribbon Week for the week of May 14, 2006, to Chief Bobby Phillips.
15-year Employee Award
Bruce Meikle, Associate Planner, was honored for his fifteen years of dedicated service to the City of Highland.
Battalion Chief Jim Rissmiller, along with Council presented the Paid-Call Firefighters, Andrew Henry, Michael Padilla, Jarrod Potts, Keith Tronts, Angel Cabral, Pedro Luna and Alfredo Valenzuela with their badge pinning.
City Clerk Hughes swore in the new Paid-Call Firefighters.
COMMUNITY INPUT
Mr. David Houchens stated he would like to commend the Council for the outstanding job they have done. He had attended the last Council meeting and presented photographs of a hazardous area on 21st Street. He still has not had any response from the city in regards to rectifying the situation. He would like to check on the status of this area.
City Engineer Wong stated city staff did have an internal discussion and did some research on this location. He was under the impression that a staff member had contacted Mr. Houchens. He will make sure contact will be made tomorrow.
Mr. Jack Jennings stated he read in the newspaper 150 people attended the last Council meeting regarding the property on Boulder Avenue and Fifth Street. He is in favor of constructing a Wal-Mart as he is tired of seeing an empty space of land. He would like to see businesses come to Highland.
Mr. Bernardino Castenada stated in reference to Mr. Jennings statement, he agrees with his statements. He supports Council and staff for what decisions they may make for our city.
COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT CONSENT CALENDAR
A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to approve the consent calendar as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, 5-0.
1. Waive the Reading of All Ordinances
Waived the reading of all Ordinances in their entirety and read by title only.
2. Warrant Register
Approved Warrant Register No. 417 for April 25, 2006, in the amount of $681,312.27 and Payroll of $63,819.72.
3. Treasurer's Report for March 2006
Received and filed Treasurer's Report for March 2006.
4. Claim Consideration - Avelina Cadion
Rejected claim.
5. Declaration of One Vacancy on the Building Code Appeals Board (BCAB)
1. Declared one (1) seat vacant on the Building Code Appeals Board; and
2. Directed the City Clerk to advertise the vacancy on the Board.
6. Easement Acceptance/Shelter LLC (7753 Elmwood Road)
1. Accepted the Grant of Easement for Road and Drainage purposes from Shelter LLC; and
2. Directed the City Clerk to record the Grant of Easement.
7. Easement Acceptance/Pedro A. Vargas (7503 Los Feliz Drive)
1. Accepted the Grant of Easement for Road and Drainage purposes from Pedro A. Vargas; and
2. Directed the City Clerk to record the Grant of Easement.
8. Proposed Community Development Block Grant City-County Delegate Agency Agreement for Fiscal Years 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09
Approved the Delegate Agency Agreement and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to sign the Agreement subject to approval of the City Attorney.
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING
9. Proposed Ordinance No. 306 to Amend Chapter 16.06 (Definitions) and 16.16 (Residential Districts) and add Chapter 16.50 (Inclusionary Housing) to Title 16 (Land Use and Development) Establishing Criteria for the Development of Affordable Housing City-wide (MCA 06-001)
Community Development Director Hartmann gave a brief review of the staff report. There are key points attached to the staff report which needs to be discussed. First off, a number of definitions have been added to ensure the terms and language of the draft ordinance is understood. This is a new area of development and a number of definitions have been added that staff feels are appropriate. Anywhere from defining affordability, to defining low income and moderate income to very low income. This way there will not be any confusion when staff uses the terms with a developer or any other future projects. The second item is staff has created a chapter exclusively for inclusionary housing. This will be easier for us to have a stand alone set of regulations rather then molding them into our existing development standards or development code. The third item is a developer will have either the discretion to pay an in-lieu fee or construct units. Staff felt this was a very critical component, in which Council wanted to ensure this will be the choice of the developer. Staff has specifically written this into the regulations. The draft ordinance will establish the minimum percentage of units to be constructed or paid in-lieu fee. Staff followed the redevelopment law with reference to the percentages. As Council knows, 15% of 100 units should be satisfying for affordable. The criteria is based on redevelopment law on how many units should be set aside as part of a project. Finally, construction of a single family unit will be defined as two or more units whether paying an in-lieu fee or not. Staff is seeking direction from City Council regarding two issues. First, a number of tract maps have been approved some time ago which have not been part of the discussion or have been informed of this inclusionary housing fee will be part of their business plan. Staff is suggesting if Council desires to make a provision for those tract maps that have gone through the process without discussing the inclusionary housing fee, he has information on how we might be able to do that. The other issue deals with the in-lieu fee. As you indicated before the gap is $191,000 between all types of units, rental and for sale. The Finance Subcommittee suggested a fee of $5,000 for all units. If the Council agrees with this fee or another amount, staff will have to put together a resolution for adoption in the near future. Staff needs direction as to what fee needs to be put into the proposed resolution.
Mayor Jones inquired if the number of tracts which have been approved or are in some type of process will be addressed.
Community Development Director Hartmann responded there are some tracts that have one or two lots left to be built, some tracts do not have a final map, some are in the middle of processing and some were finaled. It would be his suggestion to establish a date. With staff's assistance all maps were reviewed with current construction activity on or will have and when did we impose this criteria of having affordability on those units. It dates back to the end of July 2004, which was the first map in which we imposed inclusionary housing. His suggestion would read on page 35 of the ordinance, a residential development project that obtains a tentative tract map or parcel map approval pursuant to July 15, 2004. All of the tract maps since then have had the condition imposed regarding the affordability and the ones prior to that, there is no mention of affordability issues.
City Attorney Battersby stated that does not exempt any projects who were more recently approved.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated correct.
Councilman Timmer stated he wants to clarify that tonight Council is just adopting the ordinance and not setting the fee. When we first started talking about this as a process, there was a parallel plan or process as the same as development impact fees. As he understands it, development impact fees, regardless of where someone is in the process, rise and they have not pulled their building permits, they would pay the higher fees. He would want to think Council would want to do the same thing so we don't have two different processes involved. Are single lot development exempt from this process?
Community Development Director Hartmann stated yes, small in-fill lots are going to impact mainly the west side, and to put the burden of inclusionary housing on top of that, might have been overkill.
Councilman Timmer stated he recalls discussing this at a committee level. Someone could buy a parcel of three lots and subdivide the three lots, while only constructing one house. The other homes would come in a year or two. The developer would be getting around the system.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated he would not agree with that entirely. If someone were to come in with a parcel map with three lots, that would prompt us to record this as a map. A condition would be imposed on the parcel map that they pay the affordability.
Councilman Timmer asked what if someone purchased three lots adjacent to each other and developed one at each time. When we developed this and talked about this as a process, we stated we would like to have it similar or the same as the development impact fee process. A single family house development whether it is in town or not pays a development impact fee. Again, he thinks we should have the same process for that.
Councilwoman Scott stated on the percentage, she remembers when the City of San Bernardino took the area north of Pacific Street and this was done without LAFCO because they would take 99 homes at a time, therefore, they would not have to go through a process. If we have a developer who would do 99 homes or less, then he would be exempt from the 15% of the 10 units.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated if someone is trying to get around the inclusionary housing fee and did a 99-lot subdivision, that subdivision condition of approval would read, comply with chapter 16.50 inclusionary housing. If he did one at a time he still would have to pay $5,000 in-lieu fee if that is the choice.
City Attorney Battersby stated if they do single lot sale they will have separate properties.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated the conditions of approval of the tract map would be referred to for the compliance of conditions. His point is when staff looks at a project, we always go back to the initial approval. If Council feels one home, one lot, should pay the fee then by all means this is fine. He thought particularly on the west side the in-fill would come in as an asset to have the in-fill on the west side. If Council feels one single home or a number of lots should pay the same fee, then this is fine.
Councilwoman Scott stated her biggest problem is the $5,000 fee. The developer is not the one that is ultimately going to pay the fee. The ultimate payee will be the person who buys the property. If we are talking about affordable housing, putting on a $5,000 additional fee makes it that much more unaffordable. She can see the east side buying their way out of setting aside a certain percentage of affordable housing so most of it ends up on the west side.
Councilman McCallon stated as it is recalled the philosophy of how we provide the low to moderate income housing is as needed. He thinks the Council at that time agreed the best approach was to go out and buy covenants on existing housing stock. The fee would then generate the funds that will allow us to make the funds to purchase the covenants.
Mayor Jones stated he has gone on record that he is not in favor of inclusionary housing because he does not believe it fulfills the purpose in which it was intended for which is to allow everyone to realize the American dream of buying and owning a home to gain equity. That being said we still have the requirement of complying with the state mandate in regards to that. As far as the single dwelling unit is concerned, that individual is not even eligible to choose to do inclusionary housing or not. They can't take 15% of that home and say I am going to make that part of affordable housing and the rest of it will be different. He also is in agreement with Councilwoman Scott regarding the west side to encourage individuals to in fact build those homes and in fill the irregular lots. Again, he will voice his disapproval of including single family units as being required to pay the fee.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired if the number of tracts since July 2005 that have not filed would have to pay the in-lieu fee as well.
Community Development Director Hartmann responded yes.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated regarding the in-fill exempt, she feels everyone should have to pay their fair share and it does not matter what side they live on.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated this is a policy decision that the Council will have to make. Again, his idea on the west side is to encourage in-fill housing. He also has mixed feelings regarding this issue as he is not sure this is the best way to handle affordable housing. Unfortunately, there are two issues we have to deal with. One is redevelopment law in a redevelopment project area that says we shall provide affordable housing and use our low to mod income funds as well as developers should build affordable units or pay an in-lieu fee. The second is the State of California which says we have this Regional Housing Needs Assessment which states you should provide affordable housing. What he is afraid of, given the way the state reacts to fiscal issues, is at some point they will come in to say Highland you are not providing affordable housing as you should. Then they will say give us your monies back or make Highland non-eligible for certain grants in other programs.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated but even the $5,000 would not make a difference in the LMI funds.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated it may make or break a developer wanting to build a home when he does not have the funds. His argument has always been is a developer cuts a deal for the price of a property based on a performa and when the fees are added, it throws it off. If you impose a fee, then the developer will be offering less money for projects because now their costs will go up. Now the property owner will be saying why are you driving down the price of my property because we have to pay this fee. We have to try to balance providing inclusionary housing and keep development moving forward. As an idea if you wish to consider to allow the in-fill on the west side with one lot here and one lot there.
Councilwoman Scott stated she can see a difference between an in-fill one lot which is owned or has been purchased by a developer. They both want to build one house. The developer to sell and the owner to build and live in.
Councilman Timmer stated before we focus on the $5,000 which was the number we had discussed at a meeting many months ago, however, we are not setting this fee tonight as we will have additional discussion in the near future. The free market should work on housing. However, the state has stuck their nose in and now we have to make it work. That is why he supported the 13 lots the city has in which we want to develop at some point with no restrictions. The city should follow the same rules of the ordinance. He feels no development should have restrictions. Rather than having restriction on a specific development saying you will build X amount of houses and keep those houses artificially deflated down around the neighborhood. He knows we have enough of what he considers low to mod income housing. Despite of what the state and the rules say, he would like to have a pool of money which this fee will help to generate funds to allow us to work with existing houses and existing apartment complexes. This will allow us to bring the level of environment in those particular houses and not necessarily impact every development wishing to develop in Highland.
Mr. Phil Clayton stated he is in favor of the proposed ordinance. In his project, Glenrose Ranch, which was approved several month ago, they do have the option of providing inclusionary housing or paying a fee. It does not really affect them that much because we already have the option. He met with the Finance Subcommittee several months ago and read the reports. He does not agree with everything in the report. Certainly whatever fee and ordinance that Council comes up with, the money is going to have to be used somewhere. He likes Councilman Timmer's idea about using funds to improve existing homes. In reading the consultant's report, it was mentioned to purchase housing covenants for rental stock and buying down for sale units for moderate income buyers. Both of these options are pretty expensive. As developers, we are certainly aware of it and we see it in a lot of other communities. Bluestone is willing to help out with and he does think $5,000 is a bit on the high end especially when you look at it relative to development impact fee. Bluestone would be more comfortable with a figure around $2,500. The other issue the city should factor is a lot of the new housing projects are taking place in the redevelopment areas. The Redevelopment Agency will be receiving a windfall of property tax increments from all the new developments. It is his understanding these funds could also be used for LMI funds.
Mr. Camille Bahri stated he applauds the Council for being the best assembled Council that he has ever worked with. He likes the fact that the burden is being spread over different shoulders. He also likes the fact that there is an in-lieu fee with a conditional approval instead of inclusionary housing. This is a very good approach. Existing projects who will be given a face list is an awesome idea. His concern is over property values. As a developer who works with land residual, any unit being produced whether it be residential, commercial, industrial or office space, the higher the cost of producing that unit the less resources will be available for the land. By the virtue of increasing the cost you are not increasing the value. The land value goes down. The families who have owned property in Highland for years and are ready to sell will be most affected. A developer will add it up and subtract what he can afford for the land. No mistake about it when the land goes down, property across the board also goes down in value. When you see homes go up in value, the land also increases. His last concern is the higher the fee is, the more you are collecting. The more you collect the more you are committing to because the fee could be used for something different. The more you are committed, the more affordable housing you have to provide. The temporary tenant takes nothing with them economically and the second issue is the unit gets locked at particularly low value given the comps for the units around it. He would like to request a fee of $2,500 or below as this will be a lot easier to live with. Regardless of what the decision is, we will not change our opinion about the Council.
Councilwoman Scott stated Mr. Clayton mentioned the monies going to RDA, she just wants to clarify this is a city-wide area not just RDA area.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated the funds will be kept separate. Finance Officer Dantuono has the LMI funds listed in certain books and are done with certain accounting procedures. Just for auditing purposed these funds are kept separate.
Mayor Jones inquired if this will allow us to spend it outside an RDA.
Community Development Director Hartmann responded yes, as it was pointed out this ordinance is city-wide. You can do affordable housing city-wide. The City Council and redevelopment agency has adopted a resolution allowing affordable housing to be built city-wide using LMI funds. What is important to point out is, in defense of getting $5,000 a unit, the LMI monies could be used for infrastructure. If you collect more money on inclusionary housing fee, this gives you more money in your LMI base to do infrastructure components to help support the affordable housing. You can look at it two ways. If you had more money in the fund, it gives you better flexibility in your LMI monies.
Councilman Timmer stated this is what he would like to know. The proposed ordinance talks about the monies that are collected from the in-lieu fee would be tracked separately and have its own account. Therefore, it would not be collected with our other RDA monies. We would know how much we have collected, where it is being spent and we can track the activity.
City Manager Racadio stated when speaking about LMI funds, this is the 20% set aside which goes to low mod income housing. That has certain restrictions on it. There will be two separate funds generally for the same purpose. The 20% set aside could be used to fix infrastructures around low mod housing. You don't have to build low mod income housing just in the project area.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated homes must be built within city limits but you adopt a resolution stating the need and necessity to build the units outside the project area is great. This way you can use the monies for it.
Councilman McCallon stated the ordinance states will be put into an inclusionary housing fund.
Councilwoman Scott stated it seems as if we are mixing and matching funds.
City Attorney Battersby stated one suggestion that was made at a workshop was the inclusionary housing funds could be considered for apartment rehabilitation and to assist neighborhoods where the owners were prepared to enter agreements with time restrictions. The city does not have the same audit requirement with those type of agreements.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated the idea, if you adopt an inclusionary housing or in-lieu fee, is we will come back and identify projects to get covenants to upgrade those areas. Regarding complaints about the poor conditions of some of our rentals, this would allow some financing to be offered.
Councilman Timmer stated he feels it is a good ordinance and with the two developer's comments, they understand better the dilemma than we do.
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to Adopt a Categorical Exemption and direct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Exemption; Introduce Ordinance No. 306 amending Chapter 16.06 (Definitions) and 16.16 (Residential Districts) and add Chapter 16.50 (Inclusionary Housing) to Title 16 (Land use and Development) establishing criteria for the development of affordable housing city-wide (MCA 06-001); and directed staff to prepare the necessary ordinance and resolution establishing an inclusionary housing in-lieu fee with clarification of what causes this and once the ordinance is in place in 45 days it is handled with the processes as building permits and development impact fees. Motion carried, 3-2, with Councilwoman Scott and Mayor Jones dissenting.
ORDINANCE NO. 306
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND
AMENDING CHAPTER 16.06 (DEFINITIONS),
AND 16.16 (RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS) AND ADDING THERETO
CHAPTER 16.50 (INCLUSIONARY HOUSING) OF TITLE 16
(LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT) OF THE HIGHLAND MUNICIPAL
CODE RELATING TO INCLUSIONARY HOUSING REQUIREMENTS
Community Development Director Hartmann requested clarification of the comment made by City Attorney Battersby stating all units would be required to pay at the time the ordinance goes into effect.
City Attorney Battersby stated that is what is being suggested.
Mayor Jones inquired except single family units.
Councilman Timmer stated he would recommend we apply it the same as developer impact fees across the city.
City Attorney Battersby stated this will remove the last clause of item B on page 6, 16.050.30, to remove or a single dwelling unit not part of a residential housing project.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated we will also have to change the definition on page 5 as well as on page 13 of the ordinance.
City Attorney Battersby stated the definition on page 5 should read residential housing project for page 6 needs to be made consistent. On page 6, the last clause, should be removed and page 8 sub-section A from .060.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated right.
Councilwoman Scott inquired if section B is removed from page 33, if someone has to replace a place that is destroyed by fire, flood or any other act of nature.
Mayor Jones stated he would not be in favor of removing a single family dwelling.
City Attorney Battersby stated let's clarify the motion.
Councilman Timmer stated he is thinking about new housing. If it is a house that was destroyed, they should have the right to build that under . . .
City Attorney Battersby stated that exemption would stay in except the last clause stating or a single dwelling unit not a part of a residential project. Under page 13 in 16.016.040 E which is near the bottom of the page, we would remove more than one unit. That would read in any residential district, all new residential development projects shall be subject to the regulations set forth in the chapter.
Mayor Jones stated he will not vote for this as long as single family dwellings are being removed which is very adverse to encouraging housing on the west side on the in-fills.
Councilwoman Scott stated she would have to agree. On the replacement in case of fire, flood or act of nature.
Councilman Timmer stated that was left in.
Mayor Jones inquired if direction for fees is desired.
Community Development Director Hartmann responded we will bring this back for a fee but the question is whether a blank resolution is desired and then we will fill in the fee.
Councilman Timmer stated the way this is normally handled is to go through the Finance Subcommittee. Some additional information is provided to look at those numbers again and come back with another recommendation. Obviously there has been a great deal of discussion over the ordinance. The Finance Subcommittee could review and look at the numbers to see what is should be.
Councilwoman Scott stated when the numbers are brought back, she would like the actual figures of the current construction activity with the July 2004 date.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated we will do our best to provide the most accurate numbers.
COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT LEGISLATIVE
10. Proposed Ordinance No. 307 Amending the City's Development Code to be Consistent with the City's Comprehensive General Plan Update (MCA 05-004, ZC 05-002) (Continued from the March 14 and March 28, 2006, City Council Hearings)
City Planner Mainez gave a brief review of the staff report. Staff will disperse documents containing edits. The pink copy of the ordinance includes minor edits. Minor is defined as predominately typing errors and some legal formatting changes, which City Attorney as suggested. On page 12 of the pink handout, he made a change to item #8. A reference to orphan parcels is to clarify what exactly the intent is. We do not want a parcel being out there that cannot be developed. On page 14, near the bottom, regarding the general plan design element. The appendix actually reflected the old general plan. He wanted to make sure to include the general plan update as well as the new community design elements. The major focus should be the special provisions for existing uses in the R2C. He feels staff has accomplished what Council wanted to achieve and that is to allow commercial uses to remain in existence with a conditional use permit. In fact, part of the motion was to allow those uses to expand and under page 3, green sheet, he has identified two situations that could occur. The first item is continuation of the use and setting the condition that the Planning Commissioners should be looking at. The second item is the expansion of the use. That is where he believes he may have missed the mark and did not really specify here to be able to allow those uses to expand onto a vacant parcel next to it. Staff's recommendation is that he is not prepared to say this is going meet that. He feels City Attorney should have more time to work with staff to see if we can make this occur. As it is written tonight, it does not achieve that.
Councilman Timmer asked can't we add a definition or put a parentheses under item #2 stating something to the effect of expansion means on existing parcels or on contiguous parcels. This will clarify items A-D will allow them to do.
City Attorney Battersby stated is it your intent for people to merge lots, not that they can move their use to another parcel.
Councilman Timmer stated no, if they want to expand on their existing lot they can do that or if they want to buy a contiguous lot for the same business to expand.
City Attorney Battersby stated how about if we add language stating the proposed expansion complies with all conditions set forth in Section A1 of this section or can meet those conditions by merging or by purchasing.
Councilman Timmer stated he wants to allow businesses to expand on existing lots but must meet the setback requirements.
City Attorney Battersby stated if business cannot meet the setback requirements on the one lot, they can expand onto a contiguous lot through a lot merger or acquisition.
Councilwoman Scott stated it was also for existing businesses that have different owners and if they want to join together.
Councilman Timmer stated the intent is to allow businesses to stay where they are at, even though they are non-conforming, to have the ability to expand and improve their business if there is a demand to do so. Rather than tell them if you want to expand your business you have to move somewhere else.
Councilwoman Scott stated if they sell their business and expand their lots, must it be the same business.
Community Development Director Hartmann stated he believes the intent is to allow opportunities for existing businesses, not new businesses or different type of businesses. If for example when we adopt an ordinance, we as staff will go out and inventory every lot along Base Line, establish the use, establish the businesses that are there, and we would have some record of what was there when it was approved.
Councilwoman Scott stated why are we going to turn Base Line commercial into something other. For example, if some of the undesirable massage parlors on Base Line sold their building and the new owner wanted to put in a more desirable office space, they could not do that. We would always have to keep what was there in the beginning. That is not her intent.
Councilman Timmer stated under non-conforming part 1, if any existing business is there and sells, that business can continue as long as they do not want to expand or modify.
Councilwoman Scott stated what is the business today is what it is going to be the business fifty years from now or comply with the new ordinance.
Councilman Timmer stated we had the ability under the general plan to modify conditions of approval. If a business is beneficial to the City of Highland, we would certainly listen to that case by case. He is not saying this is how it will be forever. They have the ability to approach the suggestion as a process.
City Attorney Battersby stated the intent here is to have something to start working with. If there are problems with it and it is not working, staff will come back and address the Council for changes to fix the problem.
City Planner Mainez stated this is not about a lot of businesses, just to clarify Community Development Director Hartmann's statement about inventorying all the businesses, this is just R2C. If you look at the map, it is the orange color with the redline through it. A lot of the non-conforming are located in the planned commercial zone.
Councilwoman Scott stated she would recommend taking the orange red slashed area and put it back into commercial.
City Attorney Battersby stated the general plan would have to be amended and the zoning ordinance in order for this to occur. She would like to propose the language for item A to read the proposed expansion complies with all conditions as set forth in subsection A1 of the section or can comply with all conditions through a contiguous lot merger which increases the total lot area available for expansion. If it is expanded, it can comply with all the conditions or can comply with all conditions through a contiguous lot merger.
Councilman Timmer inquired if it needs to be specified as businesses can also expand on the existing lot.
City Attorney Battersby stated it already says that. They can expand if they comply with conditions.
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to introduce Ordinance No. 307, an Ordinance of the City of Highland, California, amending the City's Development Code, consistent with the City's Comprehensive General Plan Update (MCA 05-004) and ZC 05-002) as amended. Motion carried, 4-1, with Councilwoman Scott dissenting.
ORDINANCE NO. 307
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING
THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT CODE CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S
COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN UPDATE (MCA 05-004, and ZC 05-002)
11. Award of Multiple Bids for the Project Entitled "Highland Library and Environmental Learning Center
City Manager Racadio stated Assistant City Manager Hughes has informed him there is a potential technical problem in the bids. We are still planning to go forward but there are some problems that need to be addressed.
Assistant City Manager Hughes stated it appears in the contract documents it just reflected state prevailing wage and not state and federal prevailing wage. There was an issue where we lost the federal funding and then we got it back again. This may have caused some confusion. We need to go back and review the documentation to see if we can add the language into the contract itself. This may or may not be possible. If that is not the case, then we will have to put it back out to bid again for thirty days and at that time we will bring it back to Council.
Mayor Jones inquired if all the bidders are aware of this.
Assistant City Manager Hughes responded we just found this out literally half an hour before Council meeting. We will do some research and make a determination whether or not we have to go out to bid again.
A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to continue Item No. 11 until the May 9, 2006, regular Council meeting. Motion carried, 5-0.
12. Agreement for Class 1 DSA Inspection Services with American Inspection Company
Assistant City Manager Hughes gave a brief review of the staff report.
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement for Class 1 DSA Inspection Services with American Inspection Company. Motion carried, 5-0.
13. Naming of the Library and Environmental Learning Center "Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center
Councilman McCallon stated this item was brought up by the Public Facilities Subcommittee. It has not been recommended by staff nor by City Manager Racadio. In his view the reason this city has flourished is in large part due to Sam Racadio, given his conservative fiscal management, due to his planning and advice to past Council's including the current one and his long dedicated service.
Councilwoman Scott stated the Highland Library should be the Highland Library. She would like to see the whole upper floor, the environmental learning center, named after Sam or even the lobby. It has nothing to do with her feelings toward Sam at all. She thinks dedicating a room or the learning center is fine.
A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to name the Library and Environmental Learning Center, "Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center." Motion carried, 4-1, with Councilwoman Scott dissenting.
City Manager Racadio stated this was a surprise to him and it is an honor beyond what he ever thought he deserved. He appreciates it very much.
14. Update on SANBAG, SCAG, Omnitrans, Work Program and Regional/Legislative Issues/Development Issues
Councilman McCallon stated he has provided Council with information regarding the Measure I Strategic Plan, the program costs and the revenue updates with what we can expect in terms of revenue. The original plan for Measure I extension was based on a $6 billion expenditure plan. This was expected to be generated over the next 30 years. In 2005, dollars we can expect approximately $8.4 billion. What is driving the whole thing is the cost of construction. SCAG had a workshop on the arena process which is about to be begin, which is the Regional Housing Needs Assessment. SCAG has proposed to approach the arena cycle from a stand point of a policy issue. Council has received a copy of the presentation with the pros and cons of the current law versus what they are trying to do.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated Omnitrans has found a site for the Hub Station where all the connectors would meet. Full approval is being sought from the Board of Directors.
15. San Bernardino International Airport Authority and IVDA
Nothing to report.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
There were none.
CLOSED SESSION
At 7:53 p.m., the City Council and Redevelopment Agency convened into closed session regarding the following:
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(b)(1):
One case.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the following property:
Property: APN 1191-241-13, 14, 15
Negotiating parties: Sam Racadio, City of Highland
Sajjad Ahmed
Under negotiation: Instruction to City's negotiator concerning price and terms of payment.
Property: APN 1191-241-19
Negotiating parties: Sam Racadio, City of Highland
John R./Gina R. Dimmitt
Under negotiation: Instruction to City's negotiator concerning price and terms of payment.
Property: APN 1191-241-20
Negotiating parties: Sam Racadio, City of Highland
R W Blackwelder
Under negotiation: Instruction to City's negotiator concerning price and terms of payment.
Property: APN 1191-241-22
Negotiating parties: Sam Racadio, City of Highland
Yadira Altamirano
Under negotiation: Instruction to City's negotiator concerning price and terms of payment.
Property: 7793 Central Avenue (YMCA)
Negotiating Parties: Sam Racadio, City of Highland
YMCA of East Valley
Under Negotiation: Instruction to Negotiator concerning terms and price of lease agreement.
At 8:13 p.m., the City Council and Redevelopment Agency convened into open session, with all members present, making no announcements.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, Mayor Jones adjourned the meeting at 8:15 p.m.
Submitted By: Approved By:
Betty Hughes Ross B. Jones
City Clerk Mayor