MINUTES

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

DECEMBER 11, 2007 - 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 6:01 p.m. by Mayor Jones at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.

 

The invocation was given by Mayor Jones and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Timmer.

 

ROLL CALL

 

Present:          Lilburn, McCallon, Scott, Timmer, Mayor Jones

Absent:           None

 

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

 

Chito Seno was presented with a Community Spirit Award in appreciation for his contribution to the Community Trails patch. 

 

Employee Lance Arnegard was honored for his fifteen years of dedicated service to the City of Highland.

 

COMMUNITY INPUT

 

Mr. Kendall McCarthy stated he coaches a non-profit travel baseball team and he is interested in the use of the fields located at Highland Community Park.  He also would like to utilize the portable mounds and the snack bar.  He has eight children on his team who are residents of Highland and the team is very community minded.

 

Mayor Jones directed Mr. McCarthy to contact Public Services Manager Morgan to coordinate the use of the fields.

 

1.            Appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem for 2007/08

 

City Clerk Hughes opened the floor for nominations.

 

Councilman McCallon nominated Penny Lilburn.

 

Councilwoman Scott seconded the nomination of Penny Lilburn.

 

City Clerk Hughes closed the floor for nominations and called for the vote.

 

City Council voted unanimously to appoint Penny Lilburn as Mayor for the term of

2007/2008.

 

Mayor Lilburn opened the floor for nominations for Mayor Pro Tem.

 

Councilwoman Scott nominated Ross Jones.

 

Councilman Timmer nominated Larry McCallon.

 

Mayor Lilburn closed the floor for nominations and called for the vote.

 

Ross Jones received three votes.

 

Ross Jones was appointed Mayor Pro Tem for the term of 2007/2008.

 

2.            Subcommittee and Agency Appointments

 

Mayor Lilburn requested to postpone this item to a later date.

 

Councilman Timmer stated he would suggest, as done in the past, since Council Members have not changed and the committees seem to be working well, the Council Members should be kept on their current committees.

 

            Mayor Lilburn deleted the Airport Ad Hoc Committee. 

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, to keep the Council Members in their current positions on the various subcommittees of the Council and Agencies with the exception of Councilwoman Scott being the alternate, replacing Mayor Lilburn, on the San Bernardino International Airport Authority Agency.  Motion carried, 5-0.

 

CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSENT CALENDAR

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to approve the consent calendar as submitted with the exception of Item #17 being pulled for further discussion.  Motion carried on a roll call vote, 5-0, with Councilwoman Scott dissenting on Item #24.

 

3.         Waive the Reading of All Ordinances

Waived the reading of all Ordinances in their entirety and read by title only.

 

4.            Warrant Register

Approved Warrant Register No. 453 for December 11, 2007, in the amount of $1,816,394.37 and Payroll of $65,064.55. 

 

5.            Treasurer’s Report for October 2007

Received and filed Treasurer’s Report for October 2007. 

 

6.         Claim Consideration - Linda Menor

Rejected claim. 

 

7.         AB 1600 Development Impact Fee Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2006-2007 per Government Code Section 66066

Received and filed the AB 1600 Development Impact Fee Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. 

 

8.            Developer In-Lieu Fee Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2006-2007

Received and filed the Developer In-Lieu Fee Annual Report for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. 

 

9.         Notice of Completion – Project No. 2002-07, “Palm Avenue and Fifth Street Traffic Signal Interconnect”

1. Accepted Project No. 2002-07, “Palm Avenue and Fifth Street Traffic Signal Interconnect” as complete;

2. Authorized the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion; and

3. Directed the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

 

10.       Notice of Completion – Project No. ola07001 (Bid No. 2007-02) “CDBG Street Rehabilitation”

1. Accepted Project No. ola00701 (Bid No. 2007-02) “CDBG Street Rehabilitation” as complete;

2. Authorized the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion; and

3. Directed the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion.

 

11.       Notice of Completion – for Project Entitled “City of Highland Corporation Yard”

1. Authorized the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion for the project entitled “City of Highland Corporation Yard”; and

2. Directed the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion with the San Bernardino County Recorders Office; and

3. Authorized staff to release the 10% retention funds 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion. 

 

12.       Bid Award – Bid No. 2007-16 “Landscape Maintenance Contract”

1. Awarded Schedule “D” for landscape maintenance of Landscape Maintenance District to DLS Landscape, Inc., in the amount of $54,480.00;

2. Awarded Schedule “C” for landscape maintenance of parks and city facilities to Common Area Maintenance (CAM) Services, Inc., in the amount of $110,498.64; and

3. Authorized the Mayor to execute the contracts. 

 

13.       Award of Bid Number 2007-09 “Interactive Kiosk with Interpretive Software” for the Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center to CD Meyer

Awarded Bid Number 2007-09 “Interactive Kiosk with Interpretive Software” for the Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center to CD Meyer.

 

14.       Award of Bid Number 2007-10 “Interpretive Signage” for the Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center to Howard Schureman & Assoc.

Awarded Bid Number 2007-10 “Interpretive Signage” for the Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center to Howard Schureman & Assoc. 

 

15.       Award of Bid Number 2007-13 “Flat Panel Interactive Table Top for LEED Building Interpretation” for the Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center to Mad Systems

Awarded Bid Number 2007-13 “Flat Panel Interactive Table Top for LEED Building Interpretation” for the Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center to Mad Systems.

 

16.       Award of Bid Number 2007-14 “Flat Panel Interactive Touch Screens for Way Finding” for the Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center to CD Meyer

Awarded Bid Number 2007-14 “Flat Panel Interactive Touch Screens for Way Finding” for the Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center to CD Meyer. 

 

18.            Easement Acceptance/26787 Bruce Street - Edna Yvonne McCollum

1. Accepted the Grant of Easement for Road and Drainage Purposes from Edna Yvonne McCollum; and

2. Directed the City Clerk to record the Grant of Easement. 

 

19.            Easement Acceptance/26584 Pacific Street - R.W. and Mildred Blackwelder

1. Accepted the Grant of Easement for Road and Drainage Purposes from R.W. and Mildred Blackwelder; and

2. Directed the City Clerk to record the Grant of Easement.

 

20.            Easement Acceptance/27465 Pacific Street - Angel Vieyra

1. Accepted the Grant of Easement for Road and Drainage Purposes from Angel Vieyra; and

2. Directed the City Clerk to record the Grant of Easement.

 

21.            Easement Acceptance/Bruce Street Sidewalk Project

1. Accepted the Grant of Easement for Road and Drainage Purposes from Francisco Meza, Garry Perry, and Pedro and Celia Aguilar, and

2. Directed the City Clerk to record the Grant of Easement.

 

22.            Easement Acceptance/Church Avenue Sidewalk Improvements

1. Accepted the Grant of Easement for Road and Drainage Purposes from John and Chenfeng Sullivan and Wallace and Josephine Allen, and

2. Directed the City Clerk to record the Grant of Easement.

 

23.            Resolution No. 2007-065 Supporting the Display of the POW/MIA Flag On and Around City Facilities

Adopted Resolution No. 2007-065 supporting the display of the POW/MIA flag on and around City facilities. 

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2007-065

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, SUPPORTING THE DISPLAY OF THE POW/MIA FLAG

 

24.            Renewal of Crossing Guard Service Agreement with All City Management Services, Inc.

Approved addendum number 9 of the Crossing Guard Contract to extend the contract to the remainder of the current fiscal year (FY 07/08) and the coming fiscal year 08/09. 

 

ITEMS PULLED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

 

17.       Bid Award of Bid No. 2007-15 “Highland Sam Racadio Library Furniture.”

 

Mr. Viggo Torbensen stated he submitted a bid on the Highland Library Furniture package in the amount of $163,923.  He is the lowest bidder by the amount of $37,318 (19% under the high bidder).  He is 100% in compliance with the bid package.  After the bid opening, at the request of the City of Highland, a sample chair was submitted.   The chair is 100% in compliance with the intent of the specification.  He submitted references from libraries that have installed and utilized the said sample furniture.  He is requesting for Council to reopen the evaluation process.  Council will find he is a highly responsible and qualified contractor. 

 

City Manager Hughes stated as the Council is aware, staff has been working in partnership with San Bernardino County on the construction and furnishing of the new library.  Staff relied on the County’s expertise in drawing out the specifications of the furniture and putting it out to bid. 

 

Mr. Ed Kieczykowski, County Librarian, stated the County undertook the process of evaluating furniture for about a year now and he submitted a spreadsheet to the City of Highland on Mr. Torbensen’s product and the Orton product.  The County feels the Orton product is a superior product.  The references supplied did not have correct contact numbers listed, therefore, we were unable to make contact.  Also, names listed as references are no longer employed at the said reference buildings.  His recommendation is to utilize the Orton product.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated she looked at the difference in price but when she did the comparison between solid steel and tubular flat steel and contour seat versus a flat seat, the comparisons just went on and on.  The furniture we choose should last a very long time and we want the best. 

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to award Bid Number 2007-15 to Yamada Enterprises for $201,241.00.  Motion carried, 5-0.

 

CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING

 

25.            Consideration of an Ordinance adopting the 2007 California Fire Code

 

Community Development Director Jaquess requested item to be pulled for now.  It will be readvertised when it is ready to go. 

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, to remove this item from the calendar.  Motion carried, 5-0.

 

26.       An Appeal Application (APP 007-003) submitted by John G. McClendon on behalf of Citizens for Responsible Equitable Environmental Development (“CREED”) appealing the Planning Commission’s November 6, 2007 approval of Conditional Use Permit 007-009 and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration, for an approximate 93,000 sq. ft. Multi-tenant Commercial Project

 

Mayor Lilburn opened the public hearing. 

 

Senior Planner Meikle stated Regency Centers was a project that was approved by the Planning Commission on November 6^th and at that time the Planning Commission adopted what is called a negative declaration for the project.  That is the environmental document that goes along with the approval.  He is going to give the Council just a thumbnail sketch of the project.  In the audience we have a representative from Regency Centers, Dave Weber, Jim Dillavou and their design team.  They will talk to you a little bit more about details or if you have questions about the project itself.  We also have with us this evening, Kent Norton, with Michael Brandman Associates.  They were the contract firm that prepared the initial study, the negative declaration for the project.  Kent and several of his representatives are available to answer questions as well.  He believes that Mr. John McClendon, the attorney for CREED, who submitted the appeal package, is in the audience as well. There’s a couple of items that have been provided just recently.  Council has two of those items.  One is a revised air quality analysis which was done just recently by Michael Brandman and Associates.   Secondly, there is a letter that came in late this afternoon from the Center for Biological Diversity.  He is going to ask Kent Norton and his team to respond to some of those points of that particular letter. He is also aware that prior to the Council meeting, there is a document which was provided by Mr. McClendon.  Staff has not had an opportunity to look at the letter.  The document is with the City Attorney at this moment.  He just wanted to advise Council of the different pieces that have come in the last couple days.  Regency Center project, the site itself, consists of two parcels.  It’s about an 8-1/2 acre site.  Council Members are familiar with the area.  It’s done on the south side of Greenspot Road, just to the southeast of the 210 freeway.  He is sure it is known that Lowe’s trade partners was approved in the fall for a Lowe’s project just to the west side of the Regency Centers project, and then on the other side is the County Flood Control Plunge Creek Levy which is to the south and undeveloped property to the east.  There’s a storage facility just a bit further to the east.  On the north side of Greenspot Road, we have what we are referring to as the Mission Development project.  Regency Center is proposing approximately 93,000 square feet of building, five different buildings, two major tenants which, at this time, there is an athletic center and an office supply store, and then they have two other banks of suites and then an out building which would be used for a bank.  Maps are on the wall.  There is a proposal for shared access which is referred to as access A and that would be a shared access point with the Lowe’s project and the Regency Center project.  Again, we have our representative from Regency Center.  This is an appeal application which is being brought forward to City Council.         

 

City Attorney Steele stated before we start, he would like to comment briefly on the letter and packet we received approximately ten minutes before the meeting started this evening.  We were not provided with copies for the Council.  There is one copy and it was not provided in sufficient time in advance of the hearing process for us to make additional copies.  Yet, the appellant is requesting that it be made a part of the record of the hearing.  What he is going to do and, it is the only thing we can do in this circumstance is, he is going to pass it to Council and they can look at it if they wish to.  It is up to the Council to decide what way to give evidence that’s presented in any kind of fashion level.  If Council wants to take a look at this information, he is sure the appellant is going to highlight some of these positions during his oral presentation as well.  This is up to the Council.  Staff will be in a position to respond to the brief review of the letter which he was able to make while the Council was carrying out other business once the public hearing is closed.  We will pass the packet around allowing Council to review during the hearing.  There also was a CD disk given to us and we have no way to look at what’s on that disk, so he is not entirely clear what is on the disk.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated since no copies were made available to Council, the information cannot be used.

 

City Attorney Steele stated the Council makes that decision individually.  If you want to look at it, look at it.  There is nothing we can do to protect everybody’s rights when information is given to us ten minutes before a meeting starts.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated under the applicant, is that the applicant of the Regency, would that be clarified as our applicant.

 

City Attorney Steele stated Regency is the applicant and Mr. McClendon and his group is the appellant.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated she is going to ask Regency if they would like to do a presentation.

City Attorney Steele stated to make sure the concept is clear, this is a de novo hearing, which means you are starting all over again.  This is a brand new hearing, so the procedure would be the applicant Regency goes first, the appellant goes second and we go on from there.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated we received the one letter today, for today’s meeting.  It was on her desk when she came in and this other packet arrived this evening.

 

City Attorney Steele stated it was handed to Mr. Jaquess and then handed to me approximately five minutes before the meeting started.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated she also received a copy of something and asked is it the same or is there an additional piece. 

 

City Attorney Steele stated the Center for Biological Diversity.  Is that the letter you are holding? 

 

Mayor Lilburn answered yes.

 

City Attorney Steele stated yes, it is the same letter.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated so we received one today from the Center for Biological Diversity and then the packet we received tonight.

 

Mr. Jim Dillavue, Regency Centers, stated he believes Council is familiar with the location of our project which is on the south side of Greenspot Road.  We are very excited about this project.  In fact, just this morning we were presenting a description of the project to the Highland Chamber of Commerce.  We continue to receive great feedback on the project itself.  We have been working with staff for probably just under a year now on the details of the project.  We feel we have a very excellent project.  We are excited about it and he thinks the city is excited as well.  As Bruce Meikle mentioned, we are proposing a center as two major anchor tenants.  Currently, we have signed a lease with LA Fitness, major one, and we are negotiating an office supply store in major two.  We also have shop space between those major anchors and two sets of shop buildings on the corner, on Greenspot Road and what we’re calling access A, an outdoor eating area/closet area that we thought would be a nice benefit to the area.  We also have what’s currently proposed as a bank pad on the east side of our site.  There’s an entrance, right in, right out, exit on that side of the site.  It allows for nice traffic flow in and out of the site.  The main arterial way, in and out, will be access A, which is a signalized intersection on the west side of the site, which is also on the picture.  We have been through discussions with the city and we feel that our parking requirements, landscaping requirements, requirements and our dedication requirements, right of way requirements and everything is acceptable at this point to the city and to the site plan.

 

Mayor Lilburn inquired if Council wanted to accept the documents that were handed in to Council this evening.

 

City Attorney Steele responded this is one of those areas where CEQA and the rules of procedure don’t contemplate the realities of a hearing like this and there is no real legal rule on what time something has to be submitted but, Council as decision makers, have the right to decide what weight to give any evidence that might be submitted.  That’s why he passed it for Council to see because that’s all we can do at this point in the proceeding.  It has been requested that that document be included in the record of the proceeding.  Each member of the Council can individually decide whether to give it any weight as evidence or some weight or no weight. 

 

Councilman Timmer stated how can Council give it weight when we don’t even know what it is.

 

City Attorney Steele stated that’s the dilemma.  He thinks the appellant risk of handing us something five minutes before the meeting is Council won’t be able to give it any kind of consideration in the process because it’s been handed in so late.

 

Mr. John McClendon stated he wants to start by thanking staff for acknowledging that you have the materials tonight and he would beg to differ with the City Attorney and caution Council not to make his task easier than it needs to be by simply dismissing this information.  The case is found on page 18 of my materials.  It’s Bakersfield Citizens for Local Control vs. the City of Bakersfield (2004) 124 Cal.App.4th 1184 at 12:01.  “City appears to have thought that the public’s role in the environmental review ends when the public comment period ends.  Apparently it did not realize that if a public hearing is conducted on project approval then new environmental objections could be made until close of this hearing.”  He will go over the citations.  “Continuing on, if the decision making body elects to certify the EIR without considering comments made at this public hearing.  It does so at its own risk.  If a CEQA action is subsequently brought, the EIR may be found to be deficient on grounds that were raised any point prior to the close of the hearing and project approval.”  Now, someone who is himself serves a city attorney, he understands the awkward position that he is in with late comments, however, CEQA makes it very clear that it is incumbent upon you to consider those because they were put in during this hearing.  There’s a case out of Bolsa Chica, in the fourth district, where this argument was made that we can reject documents that are submitted at the public hearing.  The court of appeal rebuffed that and said if that’s a complaint, it should be directed to state legislature, not to the courts.  It’s the way CEQA is set up.  His client paid $1,450 for this hearing.  It’s a de novo hearing as the City Attorney correctly stated and this is the appropriate time for him to make these comments to Council.  You will always have the opportunity to close and continue this hearing to look at these matters.  For the record, he did propose to the developer that we come to the city and agree to continue this hearing for a week while we discussed the prospect of settlement and the developer declined.  That is why he is present tonight with the materials. 

 

Councilman McCallon stated Council is not rejecting the documents.  Question to the appellant, is this a tactic that he uses to try to continue the hearing?

 

Mr. John McClendon stated no, this is not.  As Council knows, he brought a lawsuit against this city some months back over the church project.  Again, off of a negative declaration.  We were able to settle that amicably and he thinks with the then City Attorney, myself working with the developer on that, we came to a very much of a win-win for all parties and he thinks all parties were able to amicably resolve that.  There’s always that prospect here that the developer is willing to sit down and talk with us. 

 

Councilman Timmer stated you mean pay you is that what you mean, settle.

 

Mr. John McClendon stated sit down and discuss things that can be done to make this project better.

 

City Attorney Steele stated he would encourage Council to allow Mr. McClendon just make his presentation, then we’ll take questions at the end.

 

Mr. John McClendon stated that’s okay, it’s not the first time I’ve been heckled.  The main thing that we see here is your own general plan that you adopted last year, says for the Golden Triangle and he quotes “for purposes build out projections identified earlier in the land use element.  It is assumed that approximately 115 acres of the Golden Triangle would be devoted to residential use, 25 acres for retail uses and 15 acres for office uses with the remainder being used for public spaces.” Now if you look on H here, there’s a letter to the edition that was written apparently by the Mayor published in the San Bernardino Sun talking about over 1 million square feet.  He thinks 1.3 million square feet of retail that’s going to be developed in this area.  Obviously when you talk about acreage here and you’re talking about designating this property, the substantial bulk of this property for residential development and you’re already now with this project exceeding the 25 acres, he means you’ve got a little bit of the miracle of the lows and the fishes that you’re trying to accomplish here with land.  There isn’t enough land left for the residential.  The problem with that is, SCAG came out with new RHNA just last July and all of our cities are floored by it.  Your city, as you probably know, has an obligation to develop over 2,100 units, he thinks 1,300 of which are supposed to be affordable units.  That’s a huge task to accomplish here.  Also, in his materials he talks about Government Code Section 65863, it’s what the legislature calls the No Net Lost and Density Law.  Sort of like the Federal government has no net loss for wetlands, we have no net loss for density.  In order to change or eliminate land from the prospect of residential development you have to make two findings under 65863.  Cities often times miss that.  He has not seen anywhere where that’s been discussed whatsoever.  Secondarily, it was not his choice but apparently someone in the city’s choice to make this project go forward with a negative declaration instead of a environmental impact report. The law says that an EIR is the preferred environmental document.  One expert over another is standard changes when it’s a negative declaration.  Under a negative declaration, it’s what is called a fair argument test.  If a project opponent makes a fair argument supported by substantial evidence that there will be an impact on the project and even if other evidence supports the opposite conclusion, that low threshold fair argument has been made and CEQA says that you prepare a negative declaration.  Moreover, in 15064 of CEQA, in subsection G, it says that if there’s disagreement among expert opinion supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the lead agency shall treat the affected significance and shall prepare any EIR.  So, his task is to present simply a fair argument supported by substantial evidence.  He does that in the materials on two basis.  One, as you know, the whole issue of greenhouse gas emissions on projects came out of nowhere in CEQA just the last year.  A year and a half ago nobody was talking about it, now it is front and center in all CEQA documents.  Unfortunately, your 2006 General Plan Update and the EIR for that don’t go into any kind of detail on your General Plan build out and greenhouse gas emissions and the impacts on global climate change.  It’s the same thing that the AG sued the County of San Bernardino on for their General Plan update this last year.  That being the case, this negative declaration that purports a tier off of that General Plan doesn’t have any analysis whatsoever of those impacts, nor does it do anything as far as quantifying them, talking about their incremental impacts, what are their impacts cumulatively in relation to the Lowe’s project plus the additional projects that are coming forward, the ones that the Mayor talked about, the 1.3 million square feet.  You have a potentially significant impact here.  The materials that he has given to Council and the CD, in order to save trees because they’re probably a foot tall, provide a wealth of substantial evidence to support the conclusion that this project will have greenhouse gas emissions and those will be incrementally insignificant.  In Exhibit E of the letter, you have the Center for Biological Diversity vs. National Highway Transportation case that just came out in November 15, 2007.  Talking in the context of NEPA, the Federal equivalent of CEQA, in saying how even small incremental emissions are cumulative and if we ignore them, this time, this time, this time, pretty soon we’ve got a lot of emissions that we’re ignoring and that’s not favored under NEPA.  Now, the California courts use NEPA when there’s no CEQA law to guide them.  The Center for Biological Diversity in terms of experts, not getting to the biological issue, The Center for Biological Diversity, Eileen Anderson, who is their top person for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat has been involved in K-Rat issues for better than a decade in this particular area.  She has reviewed the biological on this negative declaration and you can see in her letter, which is also attached to his, he asked her to send it separately by overnight, and he was glad to see it came here today.  She’s concluding that the expert analysis in the mitigated negative declaration is deficient.  You have that disagreement between experts here.  So, his suggestion is that we back up here and we do some kind of EIR document.  You can dismiss or if you want you can dismiss my greenhouse gas analysis if you want, you can do all of that because you have that discretion, if you’re doing an EIR, and you’re not doing one here.  So, that’s in a nutshell.  We’re doing a document that presents a very low threshold for legal challenge simply because of the fact that the law prefers an EIR rather than this kind of environmental clearance document. 

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones asked are there any representatives from CREED here this evening.

 

Mr. John McClendon stated he does not know if any of the members are here or not.

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated and who is CREED. 

 

Mr. John McClendon stated CREED is a California Non-Profit that, just as the name implies.  We want responsible and equitable environmental development.  We want environmental sensitivity.  We have sued in a number of cases.  We don’t make any bones about it.  What we demand is we demand environmental sensitivity in projects.  Wal-Mart is now rolling out in Texas, green stores with solar panels on the roof.  We’ve had developers come to us and say you know we will make a zero carbon footprint for our project.  We’ve sued them and they’ve come back and said we’ll take an environmentally enlightened responsible approach to our development. That’s his objective here.

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones inquired if Mr. McClendon is a member of CREED.

 

Mr. John McClendon responded yes, he is.

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated if nobody else is here from CREED, why is this so important to CREED if in fact they’re not willing to show up at this public hearing.

 

Mr. John McClendon stated why because under CEQA this is what we do.  This is they way we do it. 

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated if he was passionate in the cause of this organization, he would certainly support going around to these hearings and other things that you file appeals on and making sure the issue was heard but there seems to be nobody here to represent that.

 

Mr. John McClendon stated he is here representing CREED. 

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated or your own pocket whichever that is.

 

Mr. John McClendon stated you can heckle me.  That’s all right.  Free country.

 

Councilman Timmer stated one of the few points that were brought up was, as far as what’s in your document, you talk about the loss of potential housing or the loss of existing housing.  Well there’s no housing on any of this project.  As far as he knows, the final plans will have a segment of housing, not on this particular project, but other projects in the area to meet the General Plan’s requirement of certain housing elements to be included.  So, it’s not like we’ve ignored all housing at all in this project, these groups of projects in the Golden Triangle, as you’ve termed it, so he does not understand.  If there’s no housing there now, how can we be negatively affecting housing?

 

Mr. John McClendon stated well, you have a requirement in the planning and zoning law that’s 15, he’s sorry, 65913.1 maybe that talks about General Plan designation of vacant land which apparently this is and he’s not making this up.  He found it in your own General Plan, your own General Plan says that 25 acres in the Golden Triangle is going to be retail and 115 or so for residential and 15 for office uses.

 

Councilman Timmer stated not on this particular project.

 

Mr. John McClendon stated correct. 

 

Councilman Timmer stated the Golden Triangle is larger than this specific project.

 

Mr. John McClendon stated correct, your General Plan says it’s about 165 acres, he believes, and so his point being is you’re doing 1.3 million square feet of retail, if you can believe what’s written in the newspaper by the Mayor here. 

 

Councilman Timmer stated we haven’t approved anywhere near that volume or that area yet.  There’s still lots of projects in the planning phase and what the final square footage will be, we don’t know at this point. 

 

Mr. John McClendon stated again, you have the ability to put retail on this project.  He’s not disputing that but the point is under 65863, you can read it yourself.  There are two findings you have to make because your General Plan says this property identifies this nebulous 165 acres as being predominately residential and with this project you’re going over the 25 acres that your General Plan says is going to be the 25 acre for retail.  He’s just working the math.  You can make that but you have to make a finding.  That’s all.  That’s what the legislature said, he didn’t write that law.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated she wants to follow up on Mayor Pro Tem Jones’s question first.  This non-profit organization that Mr. McClendon belongs to, is he registered with the State of California?  Is the organization registered with the State of California? 

 

Mr. John McClendon stated yes it is. 

 

Councilwoman Scott stated so she could go online with the Secretary of State and find whom the officers and members are.

 

Mr. John McClendon stated that is correct.  You can pull up the articles of incorporation and all of it.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated she noticed that he is in several different cities here, actually several different states.  She has several questions.  Number one, did he attend or any members of your organization attend any of the Planning Commission meetings when the Planning Commission was going over the approval for the project? 

 

Mr. John McClendon stated he thinks he can say correctly, yes.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated you did attend.

 

Mr. John McClendon stated he did not but he understands there were members in attendance and have been following up.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated so somebody did attend.  October 2, 2007, the Planning Commission approved the CUP.  October 11, 2007, is when Mr. McClendon wrote his first letter of protest representing whomever.

 

Mr. John McClendon stated correct.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated and the item was put on our agenda.  The appeal was put on our agenda for the December 11^th meeting and at 3:00 p.m. today we received Mr. McClendon’s letter that was written on December 10.  According to our attorney at approximately at 5:55 p.m. that multi-page packet with the CD was given to staff for a Council meeting that was to begin at 6:00 p.m.  To her, this just seems like you’re throwing something out there and waiting until the last minute and she resents that.  She resents the time that you’re doing this to our staff and to the Council and to the city that you don’t even live in.  When the EIR was prepared. . .

 

Mr. John McClendon asked what EIR? 

 

Councilwoman Scott stated well the initial, we recently, approved a General Plan Update and in that update it included a reasonable projection for the development of not just the Regency project but the whole Golden Triangle area and you’re talking about the environmental concerns.  It was interesting because at 5:00 p.m. we had a meeting with Senator Dutton and one of the things that was brought up at that time was we have a bridge over here that we paid $8 million for; taxpayers’ money that should have only cost us $3 million because of the Kangaroo Rat and environmental concerns and so forth. 

 

Mr. John McClendon asked is there a question there.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated she is frustrated by what Mr. McClendon is trying to do. She is just absolutely frustrated.

 

Councilman Timmer stated he has a question for City Attorney Steele.  Council did a significant EIR with the General Plan which we addressed a lot of these issues in an effort to do the EIR.  He was under the assumption that the EIR done for the general plan covered a lot of these kinds of issues.  That’s why we did a General Plan EIR.

 

City Attorney Steele stated there are a number of issues in responses to comments that we as staff would like to make on issues that Mr. McClendon has raised.  He would suggest to keep the record clear if Mr. McClendon is done making his presentation and Council is done with questions, we invite him to be seated and we will proceed.

Mayor Lilburn called for any additional questions from Council.  Her only comment is to inquire if Mr. McClendon is the attorney for CREED and is he also a member of CREED as well.

 

Mr. McClendon stated CREED has officers under the Articles of Incorporation.  We don’t have dues paying members.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated so you just make your rules up as you go.

 

Mr. McClendon stated we have a provision in the Articles.  If you would like a copy of the Articles, he could provide them.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated she feels disappointed and feels this is almost a stunt that he would provide such a document knowing that he is an attorney to provide something like this and if it so near and dear to him why wouldn’t he get this so we could read it and become familiar with it.  She guesses this is her only comment and if that’s his presentation feel free to be seated.

 

City Attorney Steele stated he would suggest to keep the rest of the hearing going if there are others who want to speak in opposition you would ask them to speak and then let the applicant rebut and then staff will have some additional comments.

 

Mayor Lilburn inquired if there are any speakers in favor or opposed to the project or to the appellant.

 

City Attorney Steele stated actually in opposition to the project.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated hearing none she will close the public hearing.

 

City Attorney Steele stated it would be appropriate now to let the applicant have rebuttal time.

 

Mr. Jim Dillavou stated Mr. McClendon misstated that he was unwilling to speak with Council as clients.  The day after the Planning Commission appeal was filed, he and I spoke briefly through email which he said anytime between now and City Council hearing he would be willing to sit down as clients and listen to their requests.  He did not take him up on the offer.  We spoke again yesterday at which time he told him he would make himself available all yesterday, yesterday evening and all day today. Again did not hear from him, checked with him one more time before the meeting tonight.  He said that no one from CREED was present at that time and that there was nothing for us to talk about.  He also wants to enter into record that Mr. McClendon called yesterday and offered to settle this case, again he asked him to, I said settle, offered to dismiss the appeal.  He asked him what he would like in exchange for the dismissal in which he could not articulate his environmental concerns that we would need to address into the project and he did make reference to the fact that attorney fees would be involved in any sort of withdrawal.  This is a common tactic for this group CREED.  This has occurred through Regency on another project where they come in late, they throw a lot of data, a lot of documents, a lot of legal jargon, at a Council and try to scare the Council and hope that the hearing is delayed or postponed so they can continue to delay the project.  To respond to the legal argument side, he has asked their attorney David Hubbard to speak briefly. 

 

Mr. David Hubbard stated he represents Regency Centers in this matter.  It is as impossible for him as it is for Council to respond to arguments and data presented five or ten minutes before the meeting starts.  In fact he is at the additional disadvantage that he hasn’t even been provided with a copy of those things.  So, there really is no way he can address those.  What he can do is first of all explain very briefly how all this works with respect to how CEQA as the legislature envisioned it and intended that statute to work.  CEQA is a statute that is about public disclosure of environmental impacts.  It doesn’t expect city staff is going to be perfect in analyzing those impacts and for that reason it includes in the statute itself a very rigid public review and comment procedure.  The idea there is that members of the public should have an opportunity to assist the city in identifying areas of impact that need to be addressed or maybe weren’t covered adequately enough in the draft.  It’s supposed to be collaboration between the lead agency and the public so there aren’t any surprises.  You can see how well that works.  It is amazing to him that somebody would come to you and talk about their passion for affordable housing, safeguarding San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat and greenhouse gases, yet never bring this to your attention during the Planning Commission process or even after they appealed this matter to you.  It is his understanding that the appeal was filed November 15, nearly a month ago.  Yet, none of these issues were raised.  In fact, even in their appeal document they raised three issues.  One was that this Council could not delegate to the Planning Commission, the power to approve the project.  The second issue they raised is that this project is quite a piece-meal program that the city is conducting in which they analyze projects one by one rather than totally and there was some issue of inadequate finding under the municipal code.  No mention of greenhouse gas or anything like that.  So, his question to both the appellant and to the Center for Biological Diversity is that are you really concerned about environmental protection cause if you are why didn’t you bring these issues to the attention of the city and to the applicant so that they could be worked out or is this simply sucker punch litigation.  Setting people up to get sued when they can’t respond to the issues that he has raised or to the data that he has provided.  He suggests to Council that it is the latter.  Now, the issue of the General Plan that was adopted for this Golden Triangle area just last year and the EIR that was done for that, CEQA expressly permits, in fact encourages, the city to do exactly what the city has done.  An EIR for a specified area and then you do more specific documents as those projects come on line.  Those documents can be a negative declaration, mitigated negative declaration or as a project specific EIR.  In this case, the city did a Mitigated Negative Declaration, which is perfectly acceptable under CEQA, and Mr. McClendon has argued that you are not allowed to do that.  Ironically, that same argument was made by CREED in a lawsuit they filed against the City of San Diego just two years ago.  In the court of appeal on November 25, 2005, said CREED you’ve misread the law, you’re wrong.  City of San Diego, just as you have done, properly tiered those projects.  So he doesn’t believe there’s anything inconsistent or unlawful, in what the city has done.  In the final analysis, what is really going on here if you listen to what the appellant is saying and reading between the lines, they’re not really attacking this project or this Mitigated Negative Declaration, they’re trying to get at the 2006 General Plan which they can no longer do.  Statue of limitations has run on that document and so they’re trying to attack it by going through this one and Council shouldn’t let them.  That document was done long ago.  The statute has run.  It cannot be touched but they’re trying to get at it today.  His recommendation to Council is go ahead and accept the document that has been provided.  It isn’t going to make any difference.  Approve this project, deny the appeal and we’ll just see where it takes us after that because he thinks no matter how many times this hearing might be delayed, we continue to get things at the last minute and we’ll never get done.  So, if there’s going to be a lawsuit, he guesses he’ll just have to deal with it.

 

Mayor Lilburn closed the public hearing and opened up the floor for discussion from staff or Council.

 

City Attorney Steele stated he thinks perhaps the best way to organize this is if we could first ask the consultant team to address the issues that were raised in the letter dated December 10, 2007, from the Center for Biological Diversity. 

 

Mr. Kent Norton stated his company prepared the mitigated negative declaration packet for the city.  We got a chance to look at the CBD letter about 2 ½ hours ago and fortunately one of our staff biologists who worked on this project was in the office and did have a chance to look at the materials.  He could have her come up and talk about her experience out on the site but he will try and summarize it briefly. He will try and hit the main points.   He is not going to hit every single point of the CBD letter but he will say a couple of items in passing regarding a disagreement among experts.  He is not going to talk about Eileen Anderson’s qualifications but he does know that we have the biologist who is actually out on the site and did some of the survey work on the site working for us and here tonight and can answer any questions if you like.  Regarding the study that was done, he would summarize by saying that he believes the analysis and the mitigation measures that were in the mitigated negative declaration are appropriate.  We examined the impacts to various species on the site.  It’s kind of interesting, even CBD acknowledges that focus surveys weren’t done for some of the plants on site but because of the drought conditions during 2007, you probably couldn’t find them there anyway.  So, the bottom line is the mitigation measures that we propose including doing a habitat conservation plan for San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat protects the same kind of habitat that those particular plant species would support and so he offers to Council the mitigation that’s in the mitigated negative declaration covers any potential impacts to those listed plants species.  We also do have some various staff members here tonight if you have questions about either the cumulative or the project level traffic analysis.  There were also some comments made about greenhouse gas emissions.  On our staff, we have one of the authors of a white paper that the association of environmental professions did for the state on greenhouse gas emissions and global climate change and how CEQA documents can address those.  Her name is Cory Wilson and she is here tonight.  If you have questions about those issues, they can address those as well but he will bottom line that by telling you that she did a quick analysis of this project and determined that it would not have any significant greenhouse gas emissions and all the mitigation measures that were included in other portions of the document well mitigated any potential impacts of greenhouse gas emissions from this project. 

 

Councilman Timmer stated so basically what he is hearing is during the negative declaration development, if that is the right word, and review, you considered many of the factors or the factors that are being talked about here. 

 

Mr. Kent Norton stated yes. 

 

Councilman Timmer stated and we also looked at those in the General Plan process when we consider many of those factors during the General Plan, environmental, housing issues, pollution issues and all those other things. Those are all elements of the General Plan that we looked at and certified at that time.

 

Mr. Kent Norton stated that’s correct.

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated have there been any items or issues that have been brought before you since the appeal that is new information that in fact you feel presents an issue that has not already been addressed in either the negative declaration or in the mitigation thereof in this particular project.

 

Mr. Kent Norton said no there was a lot of information but he would say it is not significant in it that it does not raise a significant new issue.  It raises a lot of information but, as he indicated, the initial study and the mitigated negative declaration did examine all of those issues and found that they weren’t significant after mitigation which is the purpose of CEQA and the process of the mitigated negative declaration. 

 

City Attorney Steele stated there are three other issues related to this Center for Biological Diversity letter that he wants to get into the record.  One, he would note in just reading the letter, the author of the letter never indicates that she reviewed the environmental impact report for the General Plan amendment on which this negative declaration is based.  There’s no indication in the letter that happened.  There’s no indication in the letter that the author visited the site, to his knowledge, as the consultant for the city, did surveys on site.  This is a letter looking at a document not based on any visits or specific knowledge of the site and the third thing is that Mr. McClendon a couple of times represented this as an appeal review of the biological portion of the mitigated negative declaration.  There’s no indication in the document that doesn’t call itself a peer review.  That’s Mr. McClendon’s characterization of the letter and in scientific circles, the term peer review has a particular meaning and a particular set of standards that apply to it.  The author of the letter does not, herself, call this a peer review and so he thinks it is significant to just distinguish that’s Mr. McClendon’s characterization of it but it’s not a characterization that the author of the letter makes.  If the Council has any further questions on the biology issues that would be appropriate.  Mr. Jaquess and his staff are going to respond to a couple of General Plan issues that have been raised.

 

City Planner Mainez stated the appellant is correct.  The numbers he threw out of 115 acres would be devoted to residential uses, 25 acres for retail and then 15 acres of office.  Obviously we had to make some assumptions.  The Golden Triangle was a unique area and he wants to take the Council back to the start back in 2003.  So, the market was a lot different.  Some of the projects we evaluated, some of the build out projections did include a lot of housing on the north side of Greenspot.  So, that’s how some of those numbers were thrown on the table for CEQA perspective, so we can analyze traffic, air quality, noise, things like that.  He does want to take it further into the policies.  It does talk about housing being on the north side of Greenspot, it talks about master planning, giving a lot of discretion through master plans such as specific plans or conditional use permits that would be reviewed by the Planning Commission to determine the intensity of uses and the types of uses through a whole series of scenarios or findings based on physical noise or whatever the case may be.  You are aware of all the projects going on Greenspot so he’s not going to go into that but just for the record the numbers Mr. McClendon threw out were correct in terms of projection. 

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated but those issues basically resolve or gone around the projections that were being made on the north side were not at any time projections that were proposed for the south side or the development of south side at Greenspot.

 

City Planner Mainez stated again when we made assumptions of acreage we included the whole entire south side in the Greenspot area and we calculated square footage for retail on the south side.

 

City Attorney Steele stated to be clear, those are assumptions for planning purposes.  They are not policies.  They are not an ordinance that says here’s how much, it’s not a zoning map, and those are merely assumptions that were made for the purpose of creating a large scale plan.  They’re not exact numbers that bind the city in the form of some ordinance that has to be complied with.  They are simply assumptions set out in a scenario that was being examined.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated which is acceptable.

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated this is an additional comment.  As it was emphasized, the south side of Greenspot was always intended to be retail and potentially some office.  The north side was perceived to be a combination of commercial and residential.  We are anticipating that the larger project that is being discussed on the north side of Greenspot will be subject to an environmental impact report to address the significance of that combined residential and commercial project at that point in time. 

 

City Attorney Steele stated that background for you deals with the government code issues that Mr. McClendon raised at the podium and also in his letter related to the changes that he asserts are being made by this project.  They are not changes to our General Plan because those numbers weren’t adopted as a specific set of parameters by the General Plan.  In addition, there is an argument that Mr. McClendon makes in this letter related to an evidence code issue in the findings that the City Council would have to make in adopting an ordinance to eliminate some housing.  Again, this project is not eliminating housing.  It’s not taking housing units away and it’s not adopting an ordinance so the evidence code section Mr. McClendon cites is inapplicable in this instance and that also deals with the argument that’s made that states the mitigated negative declaration is inadequate because it doesn’t look at the displacement of people.  As you all know, there is no housing there now.  There wasn’t housing planned for this site.  We aren’t displacing any people from the site if this project were to be approved.  Mr. McClendon is a good lawyer and knows CEQA and obviously knows how to craft some arguments and he doesn’t disagree with him on the standard, the fair argument standard that he articulated for whether you prepare a mitigated negative declaration in a particular case or whether you prepare an environmental impact report.  He thinks Mr. McClendon stated the standard, which is if there’s a fair argument based on substantial evidence, CEQA prefers an environmental impact report in that situation.  His disagreement with the case that has been presented is that while an argument has been made there has not, to his knowledge, been any substantial evidence been presented as to those arguments.  The only evidence that we could call evidence that has been presented this evening is a letter from an acknowledged expert on biology issues that’s been given to Council and responded to by the staff.  She qualifies herself as an expert.  She’s provided evidence but that evidence has been responded to by staff and they have given Council their opinion that there isn’t information that hasn’t been considered and there’s no need to prepare an EIR based on that.  He is not aware that Mr. McClendon is an expert on any environmental issue other than the law.  So, his arguments about greenhouse gas emission, for example, don’t qualify as evidence.  They are merely arguments because he hasn’t established any credential to be able to tell Council about greenhouse gas emissions or what the science of that particular issue is.  So, basically all we have in terms of actual evidence, that’s been presented, is the Center for Biological Diversity issue.  That evidence has been examined by your consultant team and responded to so you’re on solid ground in his view.  Go forward with the mitigated negative declaration in this scenario and there is no fair argument that’s been established that no environmental impact report would be required.  Mr. McClendon is correct when he said that the law in many cases prefers environmental impact reports and he thinks everybody who has a concern for the environment would say you know what, if we could in every situation, we ought to do an EIR.  It’s not practical.  It’s not realistic.  So, what CEQA encourages is exactly what the city has done in this instance, prepare an environmental impact report as a broad planning document and then do what’s called tiering, which is work your way down and narrow the issues and frame the issues on a project by project basis.  That’s exactly what we’ve done in this scenario.  That’s exactly what CEQA encourages public agencies to do and we have complied with CEQA going forward. Finally, just for the record, the mitigated negative declaration was circulated for a thirty (30) day review period pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.  To his knowledge, neither Creed nor Mr. McClendon nor any other affiliate provided comments to the city at that time and a time we could have made some changes if changes were necessary.  There was not, to his knowledge, any testimony actually presented at the hearing regarding specific issues before the Planning Commission. There were some general boiler plate objections made in a letter, that again, was faxed into city hall at four or five in the afternoon prior to the Planning Commission hearing and, in nearly a month since the appeal on this case was filed, we have not received any kind of evidence or luminous information until, as you know, about ten minutes before the meeting started tonight.  So, there has been plenty of opportunity for the public to comment, public to participate in the process and this would be the culmination of the process.  So, if there are any other questions from staff we would be happy to answer them but he thinks we have responded to the issues that have been raised.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated City Attorney Steele has done an excellent job in providing Council information and responding to the issues.

 

Councilman McCallon stated he would like to make a comment.  Having reviewed all the documentation presented to us and hearing the testimony here tonight, he would move that we deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission approval and uphold its determination to adopt a mitigated negative declaration.

 

Councilman Timmer stated based on listening to the gentleman talk about the environmental negative declaration process that they talked about and the City Attorney’s comments that were just made, sounds like we are on pretty solid ground that this negative declaration process is okay.

 

City Attorney Steele stated he would like to make two amendments to the resolution.  On page 256, item number 2, in the last line of the paragraph where it says the City Council finds as follows, he would request for the Council make those words read the Council makes the findings required by section 16.08.050 of the Highland Municipal Code as follows and then add a sub point I to I on page 257, a mitigated negative declaration demonstrates that the proposed use would not result in significant effect on the environment and finally at the end of item C, on page 257, we would add the words as set forth in Planning Commission Resolution No. 2007-015 which is incorporated herein by reference. 

 

Councilman McCallon stated he will revise his motion to include the revisions made by City Attorney Steele.

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to adopt Resolution No. 2007-066 denying Appeal 007-003 and upholding the Planning Commission’s approval of Conditional Use Permit 007-009 and upholding its determination to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Regency Center’s Project with the amendments made by City Attorney Steele.  Motion carried, 5-0.

RESOLUTION NO. 2007-066

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPELLANT’S APPEAL APPLICATION (APP 007-003) AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION’S NOVEMBER  6, 2007 ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (CUP 007-009) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A MULTI-TENANT RETAIL CENTER WITH APPROXIMATELY 93,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL  AREA ON A 8.5 GROSS ACRE SITE LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GREENSPOT ROAD APPROXIMATELY 1,000 FEET EAST OF STATE ROUTE 30/210 FREEWAY. 

 

CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LEGISLATIVE

 

27.            Second Reading of Ordinance Number 319 for the Adoption of the 2007 California Building Codes including the 1997 Uniform Code for Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Uniform Housing Code, 1997Uniform Sign Code, and Minor Amendment to Chapter 8.24 of Title 8, regarding Fire Sprinkler Systems

 

Community Development Jaquess gave a brief review of the staff report.

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, to approve the second reading of Ordinance Number 319, adopting the 2007 California Building Code and various appendices and the 1997 Uniform Code for Dangerous Buildings, 1997 Uniform Housing Code, 1997 Uniform Sign Code, and minor amendments to Chapter 8.24 of Title 8 regarding Fire Sprinkler Systems. Motion carried, 5-0.

 

ORDINANCE NO. 319

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 280 AND AMENDING TITLE 15 OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND AND ADOPTING THE 2007 CALIFORNIA BUILDING CODE; VOLUME I AND II; THE 2007 CALIFORNIA ELECTRICAL CODE; THE 2007  CALIFORNIA PLUMBING CODE; THE 2007 CALIFORNIA  MECHANICAL CODE; THE 1997 UNIFORM HOUSING CODE; AND, THE 1997 UNIFORM SIGN CODE; AND THE 1997 UNIFORM CODE FOR THE ABATEMENT OF DANGEROUS BUILDINGS

 

28.       Letter Agreements with Edge Development, Inc., for Constructability and Construction Management Services for the New Highland Police Station

 

City Manager Hughes gave a brief review of the staff report.

 

Mayor Lilburn left the dais at 7:39 p.m. due to a conflict of interest because she lives within 500 feet of the project. 

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to authorize the Executive Director to sign the letter Agreement with Edge Development, Inc., for Constructability and Construction Management Services for the new Highland Police Station.  Motion carried, 4-0, with Mayor Lilburn abstaining.

 

29.            Proposal from STK Architecture, Inc., for Architectural Services to Design the New Highland Police Station

 

Mayor Lilburn remained out of the Council Chambers due to a conflict of interest because she lives within 500 feet of the project. 

 

City Manager Hughes gave a brief review of the staff report.

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to authorize the Executive Director to enter into an Agreement with STK Architecture, Inc., for architectural services to design the new Highland Police Station.  Motion carried, 4-0, with Mayor Lilburn abstaining.

 

Mayor Lilburn returned to the dais at 7:42 p.m. 

 

30.            Amendment Number 4 to the Waste Disposal Agreement with the County of San Bernardino

 

Public Services Manager Morgan gave a brief review of the staff report.

 

A MOTION was made by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to approve and authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment Number 4 to the Waste Disposal Agreement between the City of Highland and the County of San Bernardino, attached hereto as Attachment 1.  Motion carried, 5-0.

 

City Council took a ten minute recess from 7:45 p.m. to 7:55 p.m. and reconvened into regular session.

 

The tape stopped recording the remainder of the meeting.

 

31.            Greenspot Road Infrastructure Funding Relative to JLM-TREH

 

            Mr. Tom Robinson of Treh Development requested City Council to consider funding the underground utility requirements of their project.  They will still be responsible for constructing all other offsite improvements as required by their conditions of approval.  They are concerned about dealing with the unknown of their financial commitment and timing of the approval of funding requirements so they can close their deal with Lowe’s according with their schedule.  They would rather not participate as a party of the funding agreement. 

 

            Mr. Dave Weber of Regency spoke to request that they would also like to make the same request but be allowed the opportunity to come back to the agreement if it is found that it works better for them. 

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to authorize staff to work with Southern California Edison (SCE) to have the design and construction of the utilities of overhead distribution lines undergrounded from the freeway to the mini-storage facility using the $11 million RDA funds allocated to the ultimate improvement of Greenspot Road.

 

32.            Update on SANBAG, SCAG, Omnitrans, Work Program and Regional/Legislative Issues/Development Issues/Subcommittees/AB 1234 Updates

 

33.       San Bernardino International Airport Authority and IVDA

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

            No second meeting in December

 

CLOSED SESSION

 

At 8:54 p.m., the City Council and Redevelopment Agency convened into closed

session regarding the following:

 

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION 54956.9(a)

Town of Apple Valley et al. v. County of San Bernardino

Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. KC049711

 

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION 54956.9(a)

Juarez v. City of Highland, etal

San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SCVSS131759

 

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION 54956.9(a)

Brooks v. City of Highland, etal

San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SCVSS134428

 

At 9:14 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 Lilburn adjourned the meeting at 9:16 p.m. in memory of William Ted Dennis.

 

 

 

Submitted by:                                                            Approved by:

 

 

 

____________________________                       _________________________________

Betty Hughes, CMC                                                   Penny Lilburn

City Clerk                                                                   Mayor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C:\MyFiles\WPDATA\Minutes\2007 minutes\12-11-07 cc.doc