MINUTES
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
JUNE 26, 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 6:16 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 Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn.
ROLL CALL
Present: Lilburn, Scott, Timmer, Mayor Jones
Absent: McCallon
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None
COMMUNITY INPUT
Ms. Jeanne Ringo stated she would like to thank the City Council for assisting in the conditions of the home located at 6656 Rhone as the outcome is tremendously different. She has a comment regarding an article titled, "City Revisits the Parolee Housing," which was in today's newspaper. After talking with Assemblyman Emmerson's aide, she has found out cities play the biggest part of this as you mentioned before along with the state and federal. She has learned if there are multi cities that are having high crime we can partner with Patrick Morris along with the Mayor of Redlands, Mayor of Fontana and the Mayor of Colton. A group of six cities can make a major impact upon the state and the federal. She would like our City Attorney to check with the City of Hemet attorney on how a parolee was released to a family member in the City of Hemet. This is something that will occur more often as the parole division will confirm yes, this will start to happen.
Mayor Jones stated we have partnered with the League of California Cities on the group home situation. We have partnered with over 400 plus cities and are currently working on this item.
Councilwoman Scott stated she would like to add an item to be discussed on the agenda and because of the urgency she would like to have this accomplished by July 4, 2007. She would like the City of Highland to have a Wall of Honor. This will honor our men and women in the military.
City Manager Hughes stated staff will handle that.
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSENT CALENDAR
City Clerk Hughes stated there are clarifications for item #2 and item #3. On the minutes for item #2, page 24 of 30 and on item #3, page 24 of 25; the motion should be "motion carried, 3-0, with Agency Member McCallon and Timmer abstaining." This will be reflected on both items.
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Jones, to approve the consent calendar as submitted with the exception of item #10 being pulled for further discussion. Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman McCallon absent and Councilwoman Scott abstaining from item #5.
1. Waive the Reading of All Ordinances
Waived the reading of all Ordinances in their entirety and read by title only.
2. Minutes - May 8, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting
Approve Minutes as amended.
3. Minutes - May 8, 2007 RDA Regular Meeting
Approved Minutes as amended.
4. Claim Consideration - Terri Thomas
Rejected claim.
5. Warrant Register
Approved Warrant Register No. 442 for June 26, 2007, in the amount of $1,526,746.64 and Payroll of $58,154.43.
6. Treasurer's Report for May 2007
Received and filed Treasurer's Report for May 2007.
7. Amendment to Employment Agreement between Joseph Hughes and the City of Highland
Authorized the Mayor to execute Amendment No. 1 to the February 28, 2006 Employment Agreement between Joseph Hughes and the City of Highland.
8. Agreement with SANBAG for Improvement of Greenspot Road between State route 30 and Boulder Avenue
Approved the Cooperative Agreement with SANBAG for future reimbursement of Greenspot Road improvements between State Route 30 and Boulder Avenue.
9. Final Map Approval/Tract 18199 (Gardner Construction)
Adopted Resolution No. 2007-040 to:
1. Approval Final Map No. 18199;
2. Accept the subdivision bonds; and
3. Authorize the Mayor to sign the standard subdivision agreement.
11. Award of Bid Number 2007-4, "Audio Visual Systems," for the Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center to Matrix Audio and Visual Designs, Inc.
Awarded Bid Number 2007-4, "Audio Visual Systems," for the Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center to Matrix Audio and Visual Designs, Inc.
12. Award of Bid Number 2007-7, "Trash Truck Recycling Exhibit," for the Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center to Universal Exhibits
Awarded Bid Number 2007-7, "Trash Truck Recycling Exhibit," for the Highland Sam Racadio Library and Environmental Learning Center to Universal Exhibits.
13. Award of a Professional Services Contract to The Planning Center for Assistance in Preparing the Required Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MMD) for Proposed Lowe's Retail Center (Highland Crossing/JLM-Treh VII 30, LLC) on Approximately Fifteen (15) Acres Located on Greenspot Road East of WR30/210 (CUP-007-003)
Awarded a professional services contract to The Planning Center for preparing required Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration documents, for the proposed Lowe's Retail Center (Highland Crossings/JLM-Treh VII 30, LLC) in an amount not to exceed $20,000.00 (inclusive of labor and minor costs related to printing and postage) upon review and approval by the City Attorney.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR
10. Permission for Open House Directional Signs
Community Development Director Jaquess gave a brief review of the staff report.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she recalls when this issue was brought forward, one of the reasons was because the Ranch was picking up signs saying the signs were on Ranch property and the city was stating the signs were in the right-of-way. Her concern is not being able to have the signs in the sidewalk because some locations would require it to be in the actual sidewalk.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated the sidewalk in this case is in the right-of-way which is city owned property.
Councilman Timmer stated his only concern is being on the sidewalk. There are times where they are placed that it impacts the ADA issues.
Mayor Jones stated he is concerned with medians. He is very concerned with street signs, stop signs, turn signs and not placing them on those which is city property.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated there are some code limitations on open house signs anyway.
Councilman Timmer stated for clarification, this item is specifically for open house signs or all signs in general in the right-of-way.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated this issue was specific for open house directional signs as provided for in the current sign code.
Councilwoman Scott stated the reason she requested this item be pulled is she sees a can of worms being opened. Is it real estate only or can anyone hang signs?
Community Development Director Jaquess stated at this time we are not amending the sign code. We are really taking an existing provision of the sign code and making it clear in regards to the city stating it is allowable to have free standing off- site open house directional signs.
Councilwoman Scott stated one of her other concerns was the number of signs per project or developer. She does not want to see literally signs every five feet because we have three or four housing establishments that are opening.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated this is specifically for open house directional signs.
Councilman Timmer inquired if the current sign ordinance limits the number of directional signs allowed.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated it does not.
City Attorney Battersby stated this particular resolution would not restrict the placement of these off-site directional signs in center medians either. It would allow for that to happen. If Council would like for this not to happen, Council would need to state so. Her suggestion based on what has been said this evening, maybe the last sentence in the enactment clause of the resolution could read specifically, "This would allow said signs to be placed only in the parkway adjacent to the curb. They would not be permitted to be placed in center medians, on the sidewalk or in the actual street or elsewhere on city property." This will help to avoid people putting a bunch of signs in front of city hall.
Ms. Cindy Larson stated this is our business and as you all know our business is down right now. We are all doing everything we can, holding open houses during the week, trying to hold open houses in the evening, trying to help our clients and citizens of Highland sell their homes. We are very concerned by having this last sentence placed on the ordinance, not allowing signs on the sidewalk. What you are talking about is like at the corner of Church and Base Line where you have the concrete area there is no grass there to put directional signs.
City Attorney Battersby stated the restriction on sidewalks has to be that they cannot be within an ADA protected area. That does not mean on a ramp. That means a certain space on a sidewalk has to be clear and if the sidewalk is not wide enough, the space for the wheel chair access to be made on the sidewalk, they cannot put the sign there.
City Engineer Wong stated the minimum allowable feet is 4 feet unless there is very difficult hardship restriction then the allowable feet is 3-1/2 feet.
City Attorney Battersby stated we need to say on the sidewalk, it is not permitted on the sidewalk within ADA protected areas and then in parentheses the city requires 4 feet of unobstructed sidewalk area. Another way to do this is most relators know where the open houses are going to be held before they occur. They could come in and get a permit from the city and then city staff can review where the sign is going to go.
Ms. Cindy Larson stated but we are having open houses every weekend.
City Attorney Battersby but you know in advance where you are going to have them.
Mayor Jones feels this is an over restriction. Realtors want some protection from code enforcement, they want protection from East Highland Ranch and others who may be taking down their signs. He does not see any problem in giving that as long as the spirit of the law is we do not start cluttering everyone's front yard.
Councilman Timmer stated rather than just stating the city right-of-way, is it possible to state city right-of-way in front of the sidewalk.
City Attorney Battersby stated it states signs are to be placed only in the parkway adjacent to the curb.
Councilman Timmer stated there are a lot of places in the city that has no parkways or sidewalks.
City Attorney Battersby stated what was added was they would not be permitted to be placed in center medians or within ADA protected areas or elsewhere on city property. This would only allow placement in the parkway which is the curb. Maybe we could state this would allow set signs to be placed on city property except in center medians, on the sidewalk within ADA protected areas or elsewhere on city property.
Mr. Jeff Stoffel stated he is the owner of two realty offices in Highland and he appreciates the Council's dilemma. He would counsel you to maybe not try and over legislate this issue. It's not a severe problem but if you start getting into issues of keeping signs and start to micro manage where the signs are actually going to be put, the problem really does not exist. As far as the signs, most of the realtors are very good at where they put their signs. Most professional realtors will not block wheelchair access. Signs are very critical to the success in keeping property values up in Highland.
Councilman Timmer stated if you are saying we do not have a problem, then why are we doing this resolution.
Mr. Jeff Stoffel stated the reason for this item is because the Ranch was picking up
our open house signs saying they were in the wrong spot. So, what you are clarifying is a good thing but we need to get rid of the last portion of the ordinance.
Mayor Jones stated he feels we can clarify the Ranch without passing this ordinance. The Ranch just needs to know what is their property and what is not.
Councilman Timmer stated part of the Ranch's issue is they feel the property is theirs because they do all the landscaping and maintenance of the grass areas. So, they perceive it as their right-of-way. Rather than adopt an ordinance, we should just have dialogue with the Ranch explaining what is city right-of-way and what is not.
Mayor Jones stated yes, then we will not have to interpret what was passed which may be more restrictive than what the current code is.
Councilman Timmer stated that was his concern and is why he brought up the issue of does everyone know where city right-of-way is on many properties.
City Attorney Battersby stated she believes this item was brought forward because as it stands the municipal code prohibits the placement of these signs on any property without the property owner's consent. The intent of staff was to determine the scope of the City Council consent of the placement of signs on city property. Just the same as private property owner would have to consent. Staff is asking Council whether we need to interpret the provision the way we do, that the city needs to consent the same as a private property owner. City staff is trying to find a way of obtaining consent to use city property for this purpose. Specifically this would allow said signs to be placed on city property within the public right-of-way but not within the center median, on sidewalks within ADA protected area or in the improved areas of a street.
Councilwoman Scott stated the first Whereas on the resolution handles the whole issue because it states with the consent of the property owner. If the city is the property owner that is the consent, and it also states the times and signs must be removed but it does not address the ADA.
City Attorney Battersby stated it also does not address the placement of signs in the medians, if you want to restrict the medians. It also does not restrict the placement of signs all over city hall property and any other property that the city owns because it does not state within the public right-of-way.
Councilwoman Scott stated the signs are strictly for directional purposes and when she made the remarks about the number of signs, she could envision everyone placing their signs advertising their business all over the place.
Mayor Jones stated let us not pass this resolution and we will inform code enforcement not to pull signs and we will inform the Ranch what is right-of-way and what is not right-of-way. Medians are subject to being pulled.
City Attorney Battersby stated we need to clarify that through a rule.
Councilman Timmer stated really what is being said is if we do not adopt something to clarify this issue, every realtor is putting up signs in violation of our municipal code.
City Attorney Battersby stated first of all Council really does want to only allow the signs to be placed in the public right-of-way. You do not want to have signs on public property. It sounds like Council wants to restrict the placement of these signs to public right of way, not allowed in center medians, allowed on sidewalks but only where there is a 4-foot clearance for the ADA and not in the improved areas of any street. This will give code enforcement guidelines.
City Engineer Wong stated Council may want to consider adding more exception which is the area within the street right-of-sway but located between the sidewalk and street right-of-way line.
City Attorney Battersby stated that is within the public right-of-way issue. Within the public right-of-way, in the parkway strip, that is the area we are primarily speaking about.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated it has never been a problem in the past and as far as he knows the issue has not come up.
City Attorney Battersby stated so the sentence now would say specifically, "This would allow said signs to be placed on city property within the public right of way but not within center medians, on sidewalks within the ADA protected areas and in reference to the 4-feet of required clearance or in the improved area of the street."
Councilman Timmer stated he would think we could go with City Attorney Battersby's recommendation. It fixes the problem and right now it would give the realtors reassurance they are not violating the municipal code.
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Jones, to adopt Resolution No. 2007-041 as amended with the following language, "Signs can be placed on city property within the public right of way but not within center medians, on sidewalks within the ADA protected areas and in reference to the 4 feet of required clearance or in the improved area of the street," as provided in Section 16.56.040 (c)3. Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman McCallon absent.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-041
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND,
CALIFORNIA, ALLOWING FOR THE PLACEMENT OF FREE-STANDING,
OFF-PREMISE, DIRECTIONAL "OPEN HOUSE" SIGNS
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING
14. Application by Cal Disposal Company, Inc., and Burrtec Waste Industries, Inc. for an Adjustment in the Commercial Refuse Collection Rates in Accordance with the Current Franchise Agreements dated November 1, 2006
Administrative Analyst Morgan gave a brief review of the staff report. She would like to clarify the rate resolution. When the franchise agreement was adopted on November 1, 2006, it provided for a two-year holding of residential rates of the service component only. The first holding of the fee occurred on the adoption of the agreement because the increase the haulers would have been allowed on July 1, 2006, did not occur and when the fees were adopted November 1, 2006, the service component was held the same. This is now the second year that the service component will be held. Therefore, residential will not experience an increase in their fees. The first time residential will be available for an increase will be on July 1, 2008.
Mayor Jones opened the public hearing.
No opponents or proponents spoke.
Mayor Jones closed the public hearing.
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to adopt Resolution No. 2007-042 establishing rates for residential and commercial/industrial refuse collection and rescinding Resolution No. 2006-057 effective July 1, 1007. Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman McCallon absent.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-042
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING RATES FOR RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL REFUSE COLLECTION AND RESCINDING RESOLUTION 2006-057, EFFECTIVE JULY 1, 2007
15. 1) A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Highland Approving Payment by the Redevelopment Agency for the Costs of a Police Facility in Connection with the Issuance and Sale by the Highland Redevelopment Agency of its Highland Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 Tax Allocation Bonds, Series 2007
2) A Resolution of the Highland Redevelopment Agency Approving Payment by the Redevelopment Agency for the Costs of a Police Facility in Connection with the Issuance and Sale by the Agency of its Highland Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 Tax Allocation Bonds, Series 2007
City Manager Hughes gave a brief review of the staff report.
Mayor Jones opened the public hearing.
No opponents or proponents spoke.
Mayor Jones closed the public hearing.
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to adopt Resolution No. 2007-043, A Resolution of the City Council of the City of Highland Approving Payment by the Redevelopment Agency for the Costs of a Police Facility in Connection with the Issuance and Sale by the Highland Redevelopment Agency of its Highland Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 Tax Allocation Bonds, Series 2007. Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman McCallon absent.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-043
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND APPROVING PAYMENT
BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY FOR THE COSTS OF
A POLICE FACILITY IN CONNECTION WITH THE
ISSUANCE AND SALE BY THE HIGHLAND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
OF ITS HIGHLAND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 1
TAX ALLOCATION BONDS, SERIES 2007
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to adopt Resolution No. RDA 2007-005, A Resolution of the Highland Redevelopment Agency Approving Payment by the Redevelopment Agency for the Costs of a Police Facility in Connection with the Issuance and Sale by the Agency of its Highland Redevelopment Project Area No. 1 Tax Allocation Bonds, Series 2007. Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman McCallon absent.
RESOLUTION NO. RDA2007-005
A RESOLUTION OF THE HIGHLAND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
APPROVING PAYMENT BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY
FOR THE COSTS OF A POLICE FACILITY IN CONNECTION WITH
THE ISSUANCE AND SALE BY THE AGENCY OF ITS
HIGHLAND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA NO. 1
TAX ALLOCATION BONDS, SERIES 2007
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LEGISLATIVE
16. Appointment of the One (1) Vacancy on the Public Nuisance Hearing Board
City Clerk Hughes opened the floor for nominations.
A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to appoint, Melvin Abeyta, a member of the public to the Public Nuisance Hearing Board with the term ending August, 2008. Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman McCallon absent.
17. Community Trails Committee Logo and Patch Design Contest
Community Development Director Jaquess gave a brief review of the staff report.
Councilman Timmer stated he has met with staff regarding this issue and he cannot recall when the Trails Committee came up with a signage plan where 4x4's were utilized. Was this approved as a standard for community trails signage and did we adopt this process?
City Planner Mainez stated he had the opportunity to speak with Bruce Meikle and he indicated those were donated signs outside any adopted policy. There is another program where Council took action on and that was the Walking Trail and there is signage which was approved by City Council.
Councilman Timmer stated our street signs are very distinctive, our historic district boundaries are similar, and we have the Walking Trail signs. He would think we would want to keep the same type of motif with the new trails committee signage.
Mayor Jones stated Councilman Timmer is recommending we carry the same city logo over to the community trails signage and possibly make some modifications to the submitted designs.
Mr. Michael Haynes, Chairman of Community Trails Committee, stated the purpose is to create a badge patch, not a sign.
Councilwoman Scott stated so this is for individuals to wear on a t-shirt or vest of some sort. This is to be used to identity Highland trails members.
Mr. Michael Haynes stated no, for example, local boy scouts decide to go out and do some trail work. What happens after the work is done they will purchase a patch to show completion of the task. The idea was to make available something that would advertise Highland city trails. It would not be a patch that would be used on a hat or a shirt for us but for something that could be purchased by community members or someone who has visited the trails and wanted to acknowledge the visit with a patch.
Councilwoman Scott stated she really thinks the committee should make the decision but also to take Council's input into consideration.
Councilman Timmer stated he would recommend design 19 and design 20 to be combined and have the committee review it for color combinations and how it would fit on a sign as well as being an individual patch.
Council consensus to go back to the Community Trails Committee with City Council input given tonight.
18. Prioritization and Utilization of RDA Bond Funds
City Engineer Wong stated city staff is seeking direction from you on four areas related to the RDA bond issues relative to the prioritization and utilization of these funds. The first direction that staff is seeking from you is how to allocate the additional $700,000 that was not anticipated before the bond was sold. Do you want to spend the $700,000 in the Golden Triangle area or do you want to spend the $700,000 in other parts of the city? If you choose to spend the money, the additional $700,000, in the Golden Triangle area then the total amount available for that area for infrastructure improvements will be increased from $10.3 million to $11 million, otherwise it will stay at $10.3 million. The second area that the direction is being sought from Council is how you would like to prioritize the various infrastructure improvements in the Golden Triangle area because funding is limited and the cost of the improvement is higher than the funds available. There needs to be a prioritization of how the money should be spent. In the staff report you see a listing of ten categories of infrastructure improvements related to the Golden Triangle area. Those came from the developer last month. Most recently and after the preparation of the staff report, there is another updated list prepared by the developers and I'm going to pass it along to you at this point. You will see on that list the same ten categories of infrastructures and you see two columns. The first column represents the cost estimate done previously by the developers done last month and the last column represent the more recent estimate. He has added to the list some hand written notes for item #4, street improvements. He has added $155,000 for the median curb, which should have been included on the list. Making item #4 to be $2,514,000 and he also wants to draw Council's attention to item #5 on the list. Item #5 has to do with the undergrounding of the 66 KV Edison transmission main which currently exits on 5th Street and going north on that bypass the Mission Development property. To replace that overhead line with another overhead line along Boulder Avenue, it costs around $700,000. However, to underground the 66 KV line, the original estimate was $3.6 million. The new estimate is $3.1 million by the developer. Staff, however, had a conversation with Edison staff late last week and Edison staff who handles the transmission main told city staff that there is a $4 million cost that they did not originally anticipate that now should be added to the cost estimate. What they are talking about is that they need to, they feel that there is a need to upgrade four circuit breakers in the Edison substation and they said each of their circuit breakers will cost about $1 million each so there's where the $4 million comes from. That estimate, however, was prepared by an Edison staff members through a phone conversation. It was a conversation between two Edison staff and we got the information indirectly. Staff is not comfortable to say that yes, this $4 million will have to be added to the cost. As a matter of fact, he talked to Edison's area manager, Beverly Powell, yesterday and asked her to look into this issue for us and see whether this $4 million should be added to the project cost or if it is something Edison should absorb as part of their business capital improvement. Basically, what they are saying, the circuit breaker needs to be upgrade.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated it's in our right-of-way.
Mayor Jones stated no it's not. It's their substation.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated then it's their improvement.
City Engineer Wong stated right. We hope that we can talk them out of passing the cost to the city's project. He just wanted to bring it up because it is still floating around and it maybe, for whatever reason, it could be an added cost to the project.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn asked if someone looked at our lease. Did we look at our contract between Edison, our franchise agreement? There should be something in there.
City Engineer Wong stated well he has asked Beverly Powell to look into the issue for him and she said she was not aware that they would charge the project and she's going to look into her staff and her regulations and get back with us. Staff just wants to make Council aware of this and that potential.
Mayor Jones stated what was the rationale as to why Edison wants us to improve their substations.
City Engineer Wong stated first of all, from a technical standpoint, they said putting the lines underground create a different type of load and that's one thing. Second thing was the new developments.
Councilwoman Scott inquired if there aren't some kind of grant for this. Surely between the city and Edison by doing this and undergrounding the utilities there should be some grants, federal grants, environmental grants, something where it's not at Edison's prices. She is not willing to subsidize them.
City Engineer Wong stated the only money that he knows available to the city to do undergrounding work is what they call Route 28 funds. The city receives $170,000 a year and we have already mortgaged our five years.
Councilwoman Scott stated she's not talking about the little thing that we got the letter from Beverly the other day. She's talking about something new. There ought to be something out there.
Councilman Timmer stated we all know City Engineer Wong is very aggressive at looking into grants and he will continue to do that because the way to buy down some of these projects with grants, he knows Ernie will look at those things. Right now we have to come up with, first I guess is where we're gonna allocate that $700,000 to and come up with some priorities that will allow them some work to start on. Some of these things he guesses what we are looking at, some engineering, design, those kinds of things.
City Engineer Wong stated what staff is looking for is not how much money to allocate to each categories because these numbers are still numbers and by the time you do it, it will still change up or down. What staff is looking for is Council's priority so that we just apply the money from the top of the list down until it runs out and the rest of the cost would need to be absorbed by new development.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated his information says, well first of all, on the 66KV line there's only two circuits there, not four and our information is those circuit breakers are $250,000 each, not $1 million each. So, he thinks it is a good idea to just put that aside for now, worry about the priorities, and go with that. But he did want to kind of address it a little bit plus nobody in this room thinks the city or anybody else should have to pay for that except for Edison. So, we are all in agreement on that.
Councilman Timmer stated he knows City Engineer Wong will continue to work with Edison to get the real numbers but he thinks Council could certainly prioritize these things at this point and his feeling is on, if we're going to jump into that right now, is we need to look at doing things that are going to benefit the existing citizens first because we know some of these projects are a year, two years, maybe three years away. So he would think Council would want to start with doing street widening as a high priority and he knows the list Council has here is a developer priority list, and some of his fit within that. To him, the most important thing that we've been fighting for a long time is undergrounding, to him that's a high priority. That probably would be number two, so item 5 on the, he's going from the developer list here that we just got. So, number four, he would say, is to me his highest priority again this is just his recommendation. Number one would be two and number five would be three and to him one of his things that he's experienced a lot is storm drains are never built big enough, he would make that a high priority.
Mayor Jones stated currently according to some of the developers, a storm bridge is not going to be needed.
Councilman Timmer stated we don't know that at this point. Caltrans still has to approve everyone hooking into it and some other factors at this point. He would think the storm drain, if it's needed, would be a high priority. If it's not, then obviously that falls out of the priority list. But to him if we're going to build the street to six lanes, we need to make sure the roads are going to be free of water and so forth and the others, he really didn't give much thought. Street lighting, he thinks would be number five, again, that's going to create a safety factor for the drivers who are going to be driving that new widened road and again that's not going to happen for a while because it's going to take us a year to get the environmental through for widening from four to six. So, a lot of things are, by the time Edison says yes, we can do this and by the time they do all the engineering, who knows how long that will take.
Councilwoman Scott stated she could go with that priority. The only problem is on this one, she has a paper with little numbers on hers that has another $155,000 on number four added for the median curb and herself and the Mayor had a discussion about this because she feels a median is a very low priority.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated but you need it when you're going to redo the roads.
Councilman Timmer stated if you're going to channel traffic, he doesn't see those as being number two priority because he doesn't see that being needed until the development, a lot of the development has started to open up.
Councilwoman Scott stated no but she sees the street widening.
Councilman Timmer stated the street widening is number one in his opinion.
Councilwoman Scott stated like she said that median was put in there.
Councilman Timmer stated he guesses we should go back to City Engineer Wong's first question, the $700,000. Do we need to address that first?
City Engineer Wong stated you have started to talk about money. You want to decide whether you have another $700,000.
Councilman Timmer stated since we have approximately $13.3 million in projects based on the current estimates, they could go up and down, we have $10.3 right now and if we allocate the $700,000 to the Golden Triangle that would give us $11 million, so we're short basically $2.5 million to $3 million. However, then that would then fall on the developers but we have that money to put into these projects but he would like to focus first on the things that are going to improve the traffic flows currently, the safety of street lighting, the undergrounding of utilities because that's an immediate visual impact.
Mayor Jones stated to Councilman Timmer to finish his priorities.
Councilwoman Scott stated you have number two, number three, number six and number eight and number ten to do yet.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated we can't do it all because there's not enough money.
Mayor Jones stated we're still looking priorities.
Councilman Timmer stated he would think number eight would be six. Number seven would be item two. Parkway landscaping he sees at the very end, irrigation, hardscape for the median, that probably needs to be while we're building the roads that probably should be included, not the landscape but just the irrigation and hard engineering would be eight, signals nine, then that leaves number ten which is the parkway.
City Engineer Wong stated so he knows, he will read it. One through ten goes like this: two, seven, nine, one, three, eight, five, six, four, ten.
Councilman Timmer stated that is it.
Mayor Jones stated number one on the contractor's list is number two, number two on the contractors' list is number seven, number three on the contractor's list is number nine, number four on the contractor's list is number one, number five on the contractor's list is number three, number six on the contractor's list is number eight, number seven on the contractor's list is number five, number eight on the contractor's list is number six, number nine on the contractor's list is number four and number ten on the contractor's list is still ten.
Mr. Edward Horowitz, JLM Trade, stated he has a couple of comments. First one is regarding storm drain. He has received approval from Caltrans, expect a letter in the next two days, which would allow us to tie into 48' would basically have the storm drain.
Councilman Timmer stated you have properties to the east. How are they going to hook into that same system? We still may need the storm drain issues addressed. That takes care of your particular project but it may not take care of the ones to the east and to the north of Greenspot.
Mr. Edward Horowitz stated we're not suggesting a storm drain possibly not go in but this was a list that we asked to look at for prioritization of dollars. That storm drain may still be very well needed for the projects to the east. Recent development and us are going to tie into the storm drain.
Mayor Jones stated it is his understanding that Mission Development and Vestar are going to do their own through the levy.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated that is correct. If somehow the storm drain could happen quickly we wouldn't mind it at all and we would tie into it. As far as the cost overrun because these projects are not any project specific, we feel, should be spread out over the entire project area. All these projects should be part of the development area. If there is a cost overrun, we'll deal with it next year or the year after. Spread it over the whole project area, maybe it's a cash contribution, a CFD, or something else but the thing is let's go ahead and prioritize them. The main thing we did with this, list the next priority, is this is how we saw sequence of construction with the exception of the storm drain. We just think that's kind of a long shot so we put that at the bottom. Otherwise, this is how we thought it would get built. So, if some of the undergrounding has to happen because the street's going to get wider, that makes sense.
Councilman Timmer stated you're looking at it from a developer's point of view and construction. He's looking at the existing citizen and how are these facilities going to be built to benefit the existing citizens.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated well that's part of it because when you pave it, we don't want to cut up the street and construct it again. They'll tolerate any type construction but when it looks kind of stupid, you just paved it and you're out there again, that's when they get upset.
City Engineer Wong stated he sees all this work will be done in a coordinated manner and if there's not enough money from RDA bonds then money needs to come from new development so that all this work will be done at the right time and there won't be any cutting into the pavement.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated item number four of the widening is from the four to the six lanes. You're respective of the initial four lanes that are going under. It's just a four to the six lanes. Councilman Timmer, we cannot widen from four to six lanes unless the poles are underground. That's the reason for the prioritizing of the undergrounding.
Councilman Timmer stated he knows we have enough money to do probably the first five or six without any question that's why he lumped utilities and the road widening all together and some of the infrastructure stuff that would be done as part of all the same projects.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated a couple of comments to what the suggested priority be. As far as the traffic signal, we have tenants who can't open for business and we intend to have them open for business.
Councilman Timmer stated he sees that as a developer issue, personally.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated in order of priority, he just wants to discuss it.
Councilman Timmer stated the citizens of Highland that drive up and down that street, like today, if it was four lanes or six lanes don't need traffic signals. For you to open new projects along that road to help traffic flow, you need a signal to help those projects. The citizens that drive up and down that road don't need a traffic signal today. So, he sees that, in fact, he sees most of these as developer driven but that bond issue has been sold.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated right, so if the dollars are, in fact, there
and it's been allocated to go.
Councilman Timmer stated if there's enough money to do all these things, they will be done based on direction Council has taken. Staff asked us to prioritize, not necessarily for the sequence of construction but if we don't have enough money, which ones do we want to do first or which ones do we want to have money available to do. Some of them we find out that we don't have enough money, the developer is going to have to come up with a way to fund those.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated we understand that and we are not against that. We support it but as you say in order of priorities, the construction of that entire Golden Triangle infrastructure is what's going to direct the priorities. In essence, we in fact go widen that street and we take down the power poles, the next priority would be any underground utilities.
Councilman Timmer stated hopefully these projects will come under budget and we can do a majority of these things. That's why he recommended this extra $700,000 because of Highland's fiscal stability. We are very competitive in getting our bonds and we actually got more money than we anticipated for less of an expenditure. This is an extra $700,00 that we have toward these projects that we would not necessarily have before. Hopefully a lot of these things will get done. His primary focus is to address staffs concerns that he feels as a Council Member, again others may feel different, but we need to focus on what is going to make the lives of the citizens here today lives easier and if that also helps the developers so be it but there are some other things that are strictly putting for developers, for example, water and sewer connection. People drive up Greenspot today don't need water and sewer connection. You guys need water and sewer connection, not the City of Highland and not the residents. However, hopefully that will facilitate when the projects done. Some of the costs you guys may have to come up with whether we re-discuss the CFD or reimbursement agreement with future developers. Those things all have to be worked out but we have $13.3 million and we have projects requested estimated. Those numbers will go up and down. We only have $11 million to play with so obviously we can't do them all so staff has asked us to come up with priorities. We're doing that.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated right and that was the reason to give the same type of priority realizing that we do have a project and a design process to go forward.
Councilman Timmer stated but we are going to do up to the capabilities of the dollars we have.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, inquired if there would be some flexibility with staff in changing those priorities as far as . . .
Councilman Timmer responded once we take action, no.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated he would like to go on record stating that.
Councilman Timmer stated but staff is also going to tell us if there's something that they need to do a little earlier because of some engineering issues or some environmental issues have slowed some portions down or whatever. They're not hesitant of coming back to us because of these reasons one, two, three, whatever. We need to look at it an re-prioritize some specific things. Again, they're not afraid to come back to us if that's what you're asking.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated that is what he's asking to make sure as plans are developed and engineered. They are in support of the City Council directing staff to, at their suggestion, to have private development side of the private community work towards the management, construction and design of the work. He wants to go on record that they are in support of that as far as the timing issue as well as being able to achieve the most efficient way of getting it done.
Mayor Jones stated the way it really breaks down, if we pull the storm drain out of there at a $1.5 million, we actually end up with total project costs of $11,836,396.
Councilman Timmer stated but until we find out how all the people to the east and the people to the north cause there is some discussion as he understands that Mission may want to hook into this system. You know if we find out six months from now after logging engineering, we don't need it, that drops out of priorities all together. There may be others that, for example, Edison may say well you really don't need to pay for this infrastructure, you just need to pay for the undergrounding. He just wants to give staff some direction of a way they can start concentrating their time.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated we should just count on coming back in two months. Say this is where we are now and let's shuffle it around. By then, by shortfall, we've got a way to pace it out.
City Attorney Battersby stated she thinks the agency also needs to be advised there are some items on this prioritization list which are development projects, specific water and sewer connections to the extent the agency advances money and is reimbursed dollar for dollar. So putting those in, we may have a prevailing wage issue attached to the private portion of this project, not just the public portion. That is an issue that's going to need further discussion amongst staff.
Mayor Jones stated you're talking about the dry utilities.
City Attorney Battersby stated no, she's talking water and sewer.
Councilman Timmer stated he interpreted again this is not very descriptive of what the individual projects are or portioned. For example, storm drain system, that really needs to say storm drain system in Greenspot. Not the one that's going to run from Mission or whatever.
City Attorney Battersby stated we need to be very careful about how this is structured to make sure.
Mayor Jones stated and that's what he understands that the water and sewer is in Greenspot. Not the lateral hook ups.
Councilman Timmer stated it's just the main line.
City Attorney Battersby stated it's unclear. This is unclear. These are connection fees that would otherwise be paid by the developers.
Mayor Jones inquired to the developers what went into the estimations, the numbers we have here now. Was that just in the street?
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated the water and sewer connections are the laterals that are at the property line.
Councilman Timmer stated no, we can't do that.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated he does not want to do that.
City Attorney Battersby stated that's why we have further discussion on how we structure the funding.
Mayor Jones stated so if we pull that one out or a portion thereof . . .
Councilman Timmer stated to City Attorney Battersby could we, for example, put the main line and put the lateral connection that they didn't have to hook the laterals to.
City Attorney Battersby stated you're doing this for the benefit of the private developers. You may have an issue with prevailing wage on a project itself and those are issues that we're going to need to discuss amongst staff and identify where there's risk and where there isn't risk and what the intent really is in terms of reimbursement for public funding.
Councilman Timmer stated the reason he asked that question was if we just put the main line or the main one in the street and we don't put some points where they connect, they are going have to go back and pick up all the roads every time they want to hook into the line.
Mayor Jones stated they would do it in conjunction with our putting the main in.
Councilman Timmer stated there are pieces of property where the lines are going to be that don't have developer stuff in yet but if we don't put some fees in with a short stub on it or something we're going to be into the street because there are some projects or properties not included in this discussion that they may not develop for four, five, ten years but he would really hate to not put an ability to connect into those and have to dig those all up again five years from now.
Mayor Jones stated he does not think it is Council's intent to incur these on the developer that isn't the developers intent to have us incur them on them. That's something that needs to be negotiated and talked about on where it starts and where it ends.
City Attorney Battersby stated she thinks we understand what your intent is prioritization wise based on the discussion tonight. There will be further discussion as to how we're going to recommend this be implemented.
Councilwoman Scott stated she narrowed the list down because basically she had almost the same numbering system as Councilman Timmer and by taking the number four which is the street widening and by taking number one which is the utility undergrounding and by taking number three which again is the utility undergrounding but she thinks there's something wrong there. That comes to $9,809,000. So, if you want to add number four, no, number nine the storm drain system and we may not even need that, that's $11,307,700 and then another way of doing it would be taking the first three, one, two and three and instead of a storm thing if we wouldn't need it go to the number five choice which is the street lighting, this is not the signals because she agrees with Councilman Timmer, the signals are going to be for the development benefit not the citizens benefit. The street lighting will be for the citizens benefit. As you have more traffic, you're going to need lighting there for the vehicles going to the freeway and that came to $9,939,462. So, both of those are reachable goals.
Mayor Jones stated with further lightened knowledge on item number eight, depending upon what that readjustment is going to be, to be able to get only that portion in the street, we've got enough money with the storm drain out of there to pay for all of it.
Councilman Timmer stated again, he thinks the point was made three months from now we'll have some better numbers, some basic engineering, better contacts, numbers from Edison and all the folks, we'll be back discussing this again but again, his basic priority was that he wanted to facilitate the existing citizens first and then as money is left over have direct things that will enhance Greenspot and make it more useable for development.
Councilwoman Scott stated still, if we keep everything in and only remove the traffic signals.
Councilman Timmer stated we're not removing anything. We're just putting it at low priority. If we have money left, we'll allocate to those. If we don't so be it.
Councilwoman Scott stated this comes to $13 million and we only have $10.3 million.
Mayor Jones stated we have $11 million. If you take the storm drain out, you end up with $11,836,000 and if you readjust the item number eight, water and sewer, then we've got another re-discussion there.
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Jones, to provide direction relative to project funding prioritization as follows: number one on the contractor's list is number two, number two on the contractors' list is number seven, number three on the contractor's list is number nine, number four on the contractor's list is number one, number five on the contractor's list is number three, number six on the contractor's list is number eight, number seven on the contractor's list is number five, number eight on the contractor's list is number six, number nine on the contractor's list is number four and number ten on the contractor's list is still ten. Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman McCallon absent.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she is agreement but she thinks a lot of it will be after we kick things out, everything's going to wash out. What she really doesn't want to see is us laying down roads, tearing up roads, laying it down. That is the most ridiculous thing when somebody lays a road down then we have to tear it up. Let's just make sure that we coordinate.
Councilman Timmer stated just a quick clarification, the undergrounding of the 12 and the 33 and the 66KV. That includes not only the stuff along Greenspot but the stuff that transects Mission Development and the stuff along Webster as well.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated we understand that, you made that very clear that we don't want Boulder up on Boulder when we're all done. So, that includes that undergrounding. That's part of why these numbers moved around because we got 66KV on Greenspot and Edison wants to go all the way down but we don't see why and so it took a lot of headline to get things straight. Underground Greenspot, underground Boulder, Webster.
City Engineer Wong stated the next direction that staff is seeking has to do with the design concept of landscaping and streetscaping along Greenspot Road. City Council has seen a conceptual landscaping and streetscaping plan prepared by Mission Development Landscape Architect and it appears that the plan seems to be well accepted. Our planning staff is specially asking whether or not you would accept a suggestion that we hire the same firm that developed the landscape plan for Mission Development. We hire them to actually finish the design and develop construction plan, for example, for the median landscaping so that something is available for all developments to use.
Councilman Timmer stated so we have a standard basically is what you're saying. The preliminary stuff that Mission has completed and staff has apparently looked at. Has the Design Review Board or the Planning Commission looked at any of that at this point?
City Engineer Wong stated no. We're not looking for a recommendation for approving the design concept. We're seeing a need to develop that plan.
Councilman Timmer stated what he would suggest since they are going to be the bodies that review and approve them he would think we would need some of their input first to make sure what Mission has done is suitable and acceptable to what they feel is appropriate for the city and if they give you a nod that it looks good then we can look at getting a consultant to do the design plan for everything from the freeway to Boulder at that point. He would hate to spend a lot of developer time and city money coming up with something that our own Design Review and Planning Commission aren't going to support.
Councilwoman Scott stated we have the medians that we did on Boulder in front of Beaver and the shopping center there and that would be ideal for Greenspot because it's so close to the river and it could use the river rock.
Councilman Timmer stated he think the developer's plan has higher standard than what we have and we have a standard in our General Plan which is kind of limited but he thinks the developer is looking at having a higher standard than that and we just need to make sure the standard that they put forward is acceptable to the Design Review Board or Planning Commission ultimately to the Council. He would hate to bypass them and find out we invested a lot of time and money to find out oops they're not really, they see something a little different so it would save time and expedite the process, he thinks, even faster.
Mayor Jones stated they'll work collectively together with everybody that's developing for that design.
Mr. John Snell, Mission Development, stated that was their concern that if we pop that out and it's not even factually correct. It should go to a committee to get committee input and then it can be used as a standard but until it goes to that and is factually correct we can't use it. That's why we suggested it.
Mayor Jones stated what he thinks City Engineer Wong is looking for is direction from the Council that we want them to do that.
City Engineer Wong stated one more step beyond that. Let's say the Design Review Board likes the design concept and because the city or the developers need to fix the facility or someone needs to design the improvements so the question here is, would you accept the fact that we would just go and hire this firm or should we go to the RFP process to select a firm?
Councilman Timmer stated are we talking about using redevelopment dollars based on the project list to do the design and basic engineering of the landscape and median design and stuff?
City Engineer Wong stated right and does Council have a problem with us just going to hire a firm who is already working on the design for the developer or should we go out to the RFP process.
City Manager Hughes stated yes, we would use other redevelopment funds, not the bonds.
Councilman Timmer stated because it's kind of project specific, right.
City Manager Hughes stated correct.
City Attorney Battersby stated basically this project is going to be conditioned to do some things and this maybe one of the things this project is conditioned to do. She doesn't think the intent here is a private project should not have to do what other developers have to do.
City Manager Hughes stated the question basically is there's been a lot of work already done by a private firm on the design along Greenspot Road. Do we want to work with that firm that's already put some time and effort into it so you don't have to pay another firm to recreate the wheel and start all over again and we could possibly save the professional services?
Councilman Timmer stated if staff is comfortable working with that firm and they seem to be addressing our needs and concerns, he doesn't see any issues as long as there are professional services.
A MOTION was made by Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to utilize the landscaping design concept for Greenspot Road prepared by Mission Development's landscape architect. Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman McCallon absent.
City Manager Hughes stated we would have to bring back an agreement with the firm and we do a budget adjustment at that time for those costs.
City Engineer Wong stated the fourth area that staff is seeking direction is whether or not Council would find it acceptable if the work is done by the developer, not by the city as a formal city project. Staff is looking for the most efficient way to implement the project and one advantage is to have the developer actually do the work and then get reimbursement from the city. In order to do that, of course, there needs to be a funding and reimbursement agreement. We sort out of all the improvements so that we know those improvements would not figure prevailing wage for on-site construction work. We set up an agreement first and then they can use them. They can do the design and construction work and be reimbursed by the city using RDA funds. The design work will be done under city's design criteria and guidelines and the city will still need to approve the final design, just like our other developer projects and then they just simply act as the city's agents to implement the project. Staff is trying to see whether or not Council has any concerns.
Councilman Timmer stated this theory will save money and make things go faster.
City Engineer Wong stated yes.
Councilman Timmer stated he would think Council would be supportive of that. The only question he has is do we have the staff to oversee this many projects or are we going to have to hire a consultant like we hired Edge to oversee some of our city projects.
City Engineer Wong stated well it's not just this project. We have in the next three years, $120 million worth of projects and our department is looking at various ways to help us manage all these projects.
Councilman Timmer stated the bottom line is do we have sufficient staff to ensure the construction is done according to the plan and our standards.
City Engineer Wong stated we anticipate that we need to get additional help through additional contract services.
A MOTION was made by Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to approve the design and construct of the project to be done by the developer and who will be reimbursed by the city for the actual cost and under this alternative the developer and city will have to enter into a funding and reimbursement agreement. Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman McCallon absent.
19. Update on SANBAG, SCAG, Omnitrans, Work Program and Regional/Legislative Issues/Development Issues/Subcommittees/AB 1234 Updates
None
20. San Bernardino International Airport Authority and IVDA
None
ANNOUNCEMENTS
August 3, 2007 at 5:30 p.m. 14th Annual Volunteer Dinner
City Attorney Battersby stated the City Council conducted closed session at 4:30 p.m. as indicated on the agenda and no decisions were made.
CLOSED SESSION
None
ADJOURN
There being no further business, Mayor Jones adjourned the meeting at 8:20 p.m. in memory of Cecil Dowsett.
Submitted By: Approved By:
___________________________ ________________________________
Betty Hughes, CMC Ross B. Jones
City Clerk Mayor