MINUTES
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
SEPTEMBER 25, 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 by Mayor Jones at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.
The invocation was given by Reverend Ron Bingaman of Immanuel Baptist Church and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman Timmer.
ROLL CALL
Present: Lilburn, McCallon, Scott, Timmer, Mayor Jones
Absent: None
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
Assistant Public Works Director Barton introduced Vince Moreno, the new Maintenance Superintendent for the City.
COMMUNITY INPUT
Denise Hinshaw stated she is concerned about the intersection of Base Line, Browning and Streater. Ms. Hinshaw indicated vision is obstructed when attempting to turn onto Base Line, stating there is overgrown trees and a City of Highland sign blocking the view. Ms. Hinshaw would like the City to install a four-way stop or a traffic signal at the intersection.
Councilman Timmer stated staff should investigate the concern regarding trees and City sign obstructing vision.
City Engineer Wong stated this will definitely be done. The location of Base Line at Streater and Browning is an intersection at which the City anticipates to have a traffic signal installed. City Engineer Wong stated a couple of development projects have contributed a portion of the traffic signal cost for this location and, he believes, this intersection is one location in the 5-year Capital Improvement Plan to have a signal installed.
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSENT CALENDAR
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to approve the Consent Calendar as submitted. Motion was carried, 5-0.
1. Waived the Reading of All Ordinances
Waived the reading of all Ordinances in their entirety and read by title only.
2. Claim Consideration - Richard McGee
Rejected claim.
3. Claim Consideration - Joanne Nunez
Rejected the Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim.
4. Claim Consideration - Leilani Campos
Rejected the Application for Leave to Present a Late Claim.
5. Warrant Register
Approved Warrant Register No. 448 for September 25, 2007, in the amount of $426,945.53 and Payroll of $61,646.29.
6. Bid Award of Bid 2007-12, "Purchasing New Vehicle"
Award Bid No. 2007-12 to Raceway Ford for $15,958.98.
7. Selection of an Event Date and Budget for the Twelfth Annual Citrus Harvest Festival
1. Selected March 29, 2008, as the Event Date for the Twelfth Annual Citrus Harvest Festival with a Rain Date of April 5, 2008; and
2. Approved the draft budget.
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING
8. Applications submitted by Mr. David Chong, which include:
1. General Plan Amendment Application (GPA 006-002), to designate the subject property as Low Density Residential (LD);
2. Zoning Map Amendment Application (ZC 006-002), to prezone the subject property as Single-Family Residential with 20,000 square foot minimum lot sizes [R-1 (20,000)];
3. Tentative Tract Map Application (TTM 16636) for the subdivision of the subject property into five (5) single family residential lots (minimum 20,000 square foot per lot); and
4. Annexation Request (LAFCO 006-003) to annex the subject property into the City's jurisdiction.
Councilman McCallon stated the applicant of Item Number 8 is his son who owns the property. Councilman McCallon stated he is not legally required to abstain, but because the adopted ethics code requires me to abstain, I will be leaving the dais and not participating in this discussion.
Councilman McCallon left the dais at 6:08 p.m.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated this appears to be a very significant project based on the size of the staff report but in reality is a fairly simple, straightforward situation. It involves about a 3-½ acre parcel at the north end of Applewood Street and they want to develop a 5-lot subdivision. It turned out that in order for that to happen, the City had to do a de-annexation from the City of San Bernardino Annexation to Highland, pre-zone the property, make a General Plan Amendment and approve the Tentative Tract Map. The Planning Commission reviewed this in detail and have recommended approval. There was one letter that came in from an adjacent property owner prior to the Planning Commission meeting opposing the project, however, that individual did not attend the Planning Commission meeting. There would be five single family homes built on the property.
Councilwoman Scott stated currently that property is in the City of San Bernardino, which means it is also in the IVDA. Will this be de-annexed from the IVDA as well as the City of San Bernardino? The City of Highland will be providing services for those five properties and the IVDA will be getting the tax revenue property.
Councilman Timmer stated is it known certainly that it is in the IVDA because the IVDA boundary initially was a three-mile radius and that is more than three miles.
Councilwoman Scott stated the IVDA literally took everything that was not already in one of the thirteen RDAs in the City of San Bernardino.
Councilman Timmer stated there needs to be verification as to whether or not the property is in the IVDA.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated even if the property was in the IVDA for City of San Bernardino, it would not be IVDA for the City of Highland.
Councilwoman Scott stated the Council prior to this one detached some property on Third Street and switched it with San Bernardino, but the funds, tax revenue etc. goes to the IVDA. These five homes will be revenue but they will also require services.
City Manager Hughes stated on page 322, Table A-3 of the Plan of Service, it lists all of the taxing. It is not IVDA.
City Planner Mainez added on September 17, 2007, the Council of San Bernardino took action to move forward and approved the pre-annexation.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired if this was tentatively zoned in the General Plan.
City Planner Mainez stated no, this action tonight will pre-zone. This will be included in our sphere of influence.
Councilman Timmer stated the Council has been talking about the service areas and the boundaries of this City. This is an opportunity to at least fix some of the service areas, not necessarily a boundary issue, and it is good long-term for the City to do this. Councilman Timmer stated he is not sure how the City of San Bernardino would service this particular project at all. It only makes sense for us to service it.
Carlton Lockwood, Lockwood Engineering, stated his firm has been working on this for several years. Lockwood Engineering started with the City of San Bernardino and it dawned on us that it does not make sense that there are five houses outside the City boundaries. Mr. Lockwood appreciates the staff's work on this, and it has finally come to fruition. Mr. Lockwood and one of the owners are present, but he feels that they are on the right track with this and is looking forward to seeing five custom homes built on this property sometime in the future.
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to approve the Planning Commission's recommendations 1 through 5:
1. Adopted the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and instruct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination;
2. Adopted Resolution No. 2007-57 that approves a General Plan Amendment Application (GPA 006-002), designating the subject 3.62 acre property as Low Density Residential (LD);
3. Introduced Ordinance No. 316 to prezone (ZC 006-002) the subject property as single-family residential with 20,000 square foot minimum lot sizes [R-1 (20,000)];
4. Adopted Resolution No. 2007-057 that approves Tentative Tract 16636, (TTM 006-003) subject to the Conditions of Approval and Findings of Fact; and
5. Adopted Resolution No. 2007-058 that directs staff to file the appropriate applications (LAFCO 006-001) with the Local Agency Formation Commission to annex the City's Sphere of Influence area, as set forth in said Resolution.
Motion carried, 4-1, with Councilman McCallon abstaining.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007- 057
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FOLLOWING: GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION (GPA-006-002), TO DESIGNATE THE SUBJECT PARCEL AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (LD); INTRODUCTION OF AN ORDINANCE (ZCO 006-002), TO PRE-ZONE THE APPROXIMATE 3.62 ACRE SUBJECT PARCEL AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL WITH 20,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZES (R-1, 20,000); TENTATIVE TRACT MAP 16636 (TTM 006-003), A FIVE (5) LOT SUBDIVISION ON APPROXIMATELY 3.62 ACRES GENERALLY LOCATED AT THE NORTHERLY TERMINUS OF APPLEWOOD STREET IN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND SOUTH OF THE COOK CREEK WATERCOURSE. APPLICANT: DAVID CHONG.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-058
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND DIRECTING STAFF TO FILE THE APPROPRIATE APPLICATIONS WITH THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION FOR THE MUNICIPAL REORGANIZATION OF THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF HIGHLAND FOR THE ANNEXATION OF THE 3.62 ACRE SITE INTO THE CITY OF HIGHLAND AND REQUESTING THE LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION OF THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS FOR A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE AMENDMENT AND THE REORGANIZATION OF TERRITORY BETWEEN THE CITY OF SAN BERNARDINO AND THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, AND ANNEXATION TO CONSOLIDATED LANDSCAPE AND LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 96-1 AS MORE SPECIFICALLY DESCRIBED BELOW
City Clerk Hughes introduced Ordinance No. 316:
ORDINANCE NO. 316
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP AS ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF HIGHLAND
which title was read.
Councilman McCallon returned to the dais at 6:20 p.m.
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LEGISLATIVE
9. Appointments of the Two (2) Vacancies on the Community Trails Committee
City Clerk Hughes stated there are two vacancies on the Community Trails Committee. There are four applications before you for consideration. Two of the applicants are currently serving on the Committee. Margaret Wright and Gerard Reminiskey both have indicated that they would like to be reconsidered.
A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to reappoint Margaret Wright and Gerard Reminiskey. Motion carried, 5-0.
10. Corridor Residential District (R-2C) Inventory Results
City Planner Mainez stated in May of 2006 when action was taken to adopt an ordinance to provide relief to the businesses along Base Line that were changed from commercial zoning to residential zoning district, it was promised an inventory would be done. Tonight the results will be quickly summarized and staff will be asking for direction on the appropriate fee that would be charged for a special permit.
The direction from Council was to develop an ordinance that provided relief to those businesses that exist in the R2C. It is titled "Special Non-Conforming Uses in Structures" as permitted as Conditional Uses. It is referred to as the R2C CUP. A voluntary application and process was developed to meet with the property owners on two opportunities. Owners were invited on August 29 and September 5, 2007. Staff was also available to meet with the owners one-on-one to explain the process.
City Planner Mainez stated there were 141 properties located that were in the R2C District. Of those 141 properties, there have been 38 parcels that had legal non-conforming commercial uses. The total businesses in that area were 50, and there are 31 property owners that control those 141 parcels. There is a smaller number of owners than parcels due to the owners owning more than one property. The current uses that are out there now are legal non-conforming, grand-fathered in. They have always been that way, even prior to the new General Plan Update and Development Code Consistency Update. Staff attempted to explain that to existing property owners. There has been frustration from owners who want commercial zoning, and there is an education component on the part of staff to explain the vision of the General Plan and the findings that were made to make that conclusion. City Planner Mainez generally sensed that the owners understand, and the owners appreciate the Council and the City's efforts to protect their investments. One of the unique components of the R2C Special Permit is that it allows the existing commercial uses to remain there in perpetuity. In some cases, under certain unknown conditions, there is a little frustration for the property owners because it is unclear, being on a case-by-case basis. Staff has explained that there may be issues with signage, noise, etc., but in general some of these things can be worked out and easily solved so there will not be a large cost to the property owners. This process is voluntary, it goes to Planning Commission, it is a public hearing, and at the end of the process there will be a document with conditions that will be recorded with the property. It will go with the land, and inure to the future property owners. There is a situation that may come up when they want to sell the property. A lot of banks and savings and loans are concerned that the property is not zoned commercial. So this would be a good opportunity to put in writing that they have a special privilege there if they go through the special CUP. Without it, worst case scenario if the property burns down, more than 50% would not be able to rebuild, and that is a bit scary both for staff and the property owners. So staff tries to encourage the owners to go through this process. It is very unique, and there are only 15 to 20 cities in California that actually have this provision. Staff will continue to meet with the property owners and educate them on the zone change and the process. There is a tab spread sheet that shows you where the properties are, and it has table listing all the commercial uses.
The second item, of course, is the fee. That is always the big issue. There is a fee for all of the City's applications. The current resolution has a fee of $850. It is a fixed fee, and staff suggests possibly that be changed to a deposit so the effort could be streamlined, just charge time and material, and hopefully give a refund at the end of the process. Another option is to come up with a lower fee, or not charge a fee at all. There is one application for which a fee is not charged. That application is for over-the-counter staff review permits. There is such a process but it would take an amendment to a fee resolution if the structure is to be changed. Staff is requesting Council to receive and file the inventory and give direction on the fee.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated when going through the process of the General Plan, there was talk of re-zoning commercial Base Line to residential, and a number of residents showed up from affected businesses. Council agreed to include verbiage that indicated not only would the properties be grandfathered in, but indicate they are conforming and they would have the right to continue and expand their businesses. Was it mentioned the owners would have to file a CUP?
City Planner Mainez stated there are policies in the General Plan reflecting direction, and the ordinance is written giving them the opportunity to remain there in perpetuity. It grandfathers them in no matter what the zoning is over time and they can expand if they own those particular properties.
Councilman Timmer stated there was a lot of discussion at many different meetings regarding this issue. One of the things Council talked about is that certain grandfather rights would be granted to the property owners that they could expand on contiguous and existing property, and there was some discussion on the CUP to do that process if they came in for changes. They would have to go through the normal CUP process. It was felt that would occur at the time of some expansion or development. Councilman Timmer understands that there needs to be a good record of what is there in case something happens 20 years from now. The City would have documentation of that grandfather right to understand the property owner, which he understands and agrees with. He feels the concern is the fee issue. This is something the Council changed based on public input. It was felt this would happen at the time of expansion. To do it now, even though voluntary, is cause for discussion as far as the fee issue, and what triggers the issue and what should the fee be in association with that. He stated the owners are protected to continue to run their businesses and expand if they choose to based on the ordinances Council adopted. How is this going to be monitored and recorded to protect that?
Mayor Jones responded, the City is not going to require people to do CUPs today. They have a choice to do it now, if they wish to, to preserve certain rights. The owners can do it later if they choose to, as well. It is not advocated that they do it today. It was intended to share information with the owners that this was available as an option today but it is not required to do it today. There is a record of photographs of all the properties.
Councilman Timmer stated it was assumed the trigger point would be the activity that would occur on the property.
Mayor Jones responded most owners would probably use that as a trigger point, their desire to do something to their property different from what they are doing right now.
Councilman McCallon stated the $850 fee covers the initial CUP before the Planning Commission and then that CUP is recorded on the property. If they choose to expand at some time later, they have to come in with drawings and amend the CUP.
City Planner Mainez responded that is correct if the original request did not include expansion.
Councilman McCallon inquired what is the purpose of now having the CUP. What would the advantage be to the owners?
City Planner Mainez responded the advantage would be a great opportunity if the General Plan is changed in another 10 years. The vision may change and go a whole different direction. But in the meantime, there are some benefits. If the property is destroyed or if they want to sell it, they might have problems selling it because of the zone designation. Staff receives calls about properties around the City that are not zoned that use so staff is dealing with title companies and escrows, property owners that are frustrated.
Councilman McCallon stated with regard to the fee issue, if Council decides not to have a fee for this CUP, and the owners come in later with an expansion and all the details pertaining to that and causes much more staff time, etc., would that be a different CUP.
City Planner responded the process would remain the same. It would just be a matter of the City subsidizing the time that staff spends on it.
Councilman McCallon stated so if it was required to have a deposit fee of some amount, then that would cover the initial submittal and then later on if they expand that CUP for whatever, then they would incur staff time costs to pay for that.
City Planner Mainez responded that is correct. There would be a separate application and staff would receive an additional fee if the owners come back years later and want to amend it. For example, if a business owner came to the counter today and asked to take advantage of this permit, the City would give them the application, take in the $850 fixed fee, process the application hopefully successfully, and record with the County Recorders office, send them an approval letter and that would be the end of it.
Councilman Timmer inquired if some business decision came up, and a year and a half later the owner wanted to make additional changes, expansions, they would have to come in for an additional CUP.
City Planner Mainez responded it would be an amendment to the CUP.
Councilman Timmer stated which is the way it is currently done for all projects in the City. His concern is only the initial one. Councilman Timmer would not want to grant a fee issue or eliminate fees for perpetuity for just the initial one, not wanting to create one that would last forever. The owner would then be able to come in every two months and do a different CUP and basically have a subsidy to do that. If the owners come in voluntarily now to meet the intent of the ordinance to protect their interests, maybe what the fee should be needs to be addressed. But to say if they come in again after that for some business expansion reason, then they would fall into the same category as any other business in town. To give them a break for the rest of the life of the City, he does not feel that is a good direction to be going in.
Councilwoman Scott stated she attended the September 5 meeting that the businessman had here. In the packet there wasn't a copy of the little "to do" list that the businesses got. In addition to the $850 CUP fee, there is one page that tells them with the application for the CUP what they must do. They have to provide extensive paperwork. Without a special CUP, the buyer may encounter difficulties through financing or rebuilding should the property be damaged. Currently there are citizens who have property in areas where zones have been changed and they cannot get loans for refinancing regardless of the reason unless they obtain a special CUP at an expense. One of the responses in the question and answer guide about the property being protected if the owner has a special CUP was disturbing because it said "Should the Planning Commission approve your CUP." This implies that the Planning Commission may not approve the special CUP. The concession the Council made when the zone was changed was current businesses would be grandfathered and would be allowed to expand, improve, etc., their business. The business had to remain the same type, however, which was disturbing because it meant the adult business next to the fire station would always be an adult business. In some cases, the Planning Commission may attach conditions to the special CUP to ensure long term compliance. Why would anyone want to sign an agreement that affects their property or business with unknowns? Next, the special CUP provisions allows expansion under certain conditions. What are the conditions, what would prevent expansion, what is the cost. The wording is very ambiguous. What is the difficulty of financing or rebuilding?
Mayor Jones stated that is the intent of going through the CUP process to eliminate or at least reduce problems that they may have if they choose to refinance or do something else that way, and at least that way the lenders or others will have clear direction as to what their position is and their status.
Councilwoman Scott stated it talks about 50% damage. When she thinks about damage, she thinks of fire. There are other ways of having damage. Earthquakes, flood, airplane falling out of the sky, whatever. One of the business owners made a very good point when he stated that his corner lot as commercial has a value of about $250,000. As residential, it is just an empty lot and it would be $75,000. That is a big loss.
Councilman Timmer stated Council supported protecting the property rights of those businesses to be able to continue to protect them through this process as well as if they chose to expand. Council was sensitive to that issue.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated they cannot rebuild if they do not have a CUP.
Councilwoman Scott stated and the CUP could be denied.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated that would be in the City's favor because there are some businesses here that, if they lose their business and file a CUP, she would be the first Council member to appeal one of those businesses. That is the City's right, and the best right for the citizens of the City of Highland. That also protects the Council. As far as the owners not being able to rebuild without a CUP. That is where the issue lies.
Councilwoman Scott stated she cannot see Base Line being residential unless a bunch of San Bernardino type apartments would be built. There is commercial there and it needs to be supported.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated three Gardner Development residential projects were just put in.
Councilwoman Scott stated the development was a two-story that overlooked the recycling.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated if they want to build over a recycle bin, that is their business.
Councilwoman Scott stated the application implies the Planning Commission could also deny a CUP and not allow expansion.
City Planner Mainez stated that is correct. They could deny or approve. There would have to be findings to support that conclusion.
Councilman McCallon stated Council always has the last say.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired if the property is grandfathered in, how can their project be denied if the verbiage was agreed upon.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated being grandfathered means they were a preexisting, legal conforming use and by this action became non-conforming. As non-conforming, they have certain rights and that is where the grandfather term comes in. They can continue to be a business, no action required on their part to continue in business, and they can sell to a new owner without any action on the part of the City or themselves other than the process of sale. Under current code city-wide, if a non-conforming use is destroyed more than 50% by fire, earthquake, plane crash or whatever, then they cannot rebuild. That is a standard city-wide rule for non-conforming uses. The CUP concept was specific to this area along Base Line saying regardless of that city-wide rule, there will be a rule that says they can rebuild even if the property was more than 50% destroyed. That is why the special process was developed.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated so they can rebuild. If their business burned down right now, they can rebuild without a CUP.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated no, with a CUP. If the building is destroyed more than 50%, they cannot rebuild. The CUP process was designed to allow businesses unique to Base Line be allowed to rebuild or expand.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated when it was agreed to put verbiage in, it was really agreed to make them do a CUP.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated right. That is the special process which deviates from the code otherwise in the City.
John, owner of Mac's Spring Shop, stated he bought commercial property. It was re-zoned and that is a loss of money to him. This does not seem right to him. Why is it not possible to just leave it zoned the way it is and move on? There are other places along Base Line that were not changed. For what reason did those not get changed. From the start, it was stated that all the businesses were talked to about this. John stated he was never talked to about anything. He stated he had bought commercial and now it was residential property. That is two different price ranges. He feels he is being robbed.
Councilman Timmer stated the decision to make the zoning change was done during the General Plan process. All citizens provided input for that. It has already been implemented. Council is very sensitive to the existing businesses. When the change was made, it was set up to ensure that existing businesses can remain, can expand.
Mac's Spring Shop's owner inquired as to why he could not remain commercial.
Councilman McCallon responded that he could be and is. That is the intent, to have it recorded on his property that it is okay for the business to be there. His property would be non-conforming but the CUP process will have it recorded on the property that the business could remain there in perpetuity and expand under its current use. It is not intended to penalize current businesses at all.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated if he were to get a CUP, it would allow the business to remain, and expansion on adjacent property could be done with the CUP. If the property were to burn down and it is non-conforming, then there will be issues if there is no CUP.
Mac's Spring Shop's owner inquired if he wanted to sell, it would remain commercial property, not residential.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated with the CUP it would remain commercial.
Councilwoman Scott stated he could only sell it with the CUP as commercial property if it is the same type of commercial property that he now has.
Councilman Timmer stated the use would be zoned commercial but the underlying zoning would actually be residential. So he would be protected with recording against the deed that the use that is currently there would be protected for the life of however long the business wants to stay there.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired whether there was an environmental process required through the CUP.
Councilwoman Scott responded yes, there is.
City Planner Mainez stated this would be an exempt project as existing.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated one of the owners had real problems with doing an environmental. She would like to hold a study session for these business, or provide training.
Councilman Timmer inquired to do a CUP. A sample one.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated yes.
Councilman Timmer stated it was talked about earlier that there was a very long list of things the owners had to do. Was that the standard list for all the CUPs or was something new and different generated for this?
City Planner Mainez stated a new and different plan was generated, simplified. It has one copy of a yes or no land use form. This basically confirms what the planners will look at from an environmental standpoint.
Councilman Timmer stated so there is a different CUP process for these particular properties versus the standard properties in the City.
City Planner Mainez stated it is a streamlined version. It is a standard checklist that is about ten pages.
Councilman Timmer stated it is shorter than the normal CUP. If they were still commercial today and came in and wanted to expand, they would have a process that is lengthier than this one.
City Planner Mainez stated absolutely. The plans are more complex.
Councilman Timmer stated during the General Plan, it was discussed to have a simpler quicker process to do these than the normal process because of the sensitivity to protect those businesses along Base Line.
City Planner Mainez stated the most important item on the checklist is a business plan. In the owner's own words they describe the use in detail, the hours of operation, what exactly they are doing, so if there is a change in use, staff can see that it is similar and no more intense. That is item number five. They need to provide photographs, sketches. Staff will be flexible about that.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated the owners are being help by doing the CUP in case they ever want to expand. There are some businesses that do not ever want to expand, but then there are others that would want to. If they come in and do the Cup and pay the $850 and then come in and do another CUP, will any of that $850 from the original one be applied toward the second.
City Planner Mainez stated there are projects that are currently being worked on where it does take a while to develop it, and it takes the City a while to do a final audit of the deposit based fees. So if they want to come in and revise it, they can use the remaining deposit to adjust their project. In this case it is a fixed fee, so they pay it, get to the end, and that is it. For the record, he does want to state there is actually a separate fee if they want to come in and modify an existing CUP. It is actually a reduced fee. Hopefully that puts to rest the issue of taking another $850.
Mayor Jones inquired what is the modified fee.
City Planner Mainez stated he would follow-up and get the information to City Manager Hughes.
Councilwoman Scott stated Building Official will determine if 50% of the value of the structure is destroyed. Will the owners have to get permits from the City to replace glass windows, install energy efficient lights and fans, things that right now you would have to get permits for? Are they going to be able to get permits without going through this CUP? She does not want these businesses to become unsightly because they cannot afford to do something and make their place look nice.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated today city-wide, if there is a non-conforming use and it is desired to be maintained, and that even includes replacing the roof, that has been approved by staff without any application or process, just an over-the-counter type of approval so maintenance of the building is fine. It is the total reconstruction or expansion where the issue of the special permit comes in.
Councilwoman Scott stated maintenance is no fee. They just have to come in and tell the City.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated as far as building permits are concerned, it would be the building permit whatever it is for any use in the City, but there is no fee for any planning review of any maintenance situation for any existing building.
Councilwoman Scott stated they would still need a building permit but there would be no planning fee.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired whether many businesses had come in and inquired about the CUP. How many out of the 38?
City Planner Mainez stated Planning Technician Aguilar had been fielding a lot of those questions. Twenty seven showed up to the meeting and City Planner Mainez has been working one-on-one with a couple of them.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she thinks they do not understand.
City Planner Mainez stated they are working to overcome that.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated the CUP is really a process for record keeping more than anything else. Absent that, there is no way to keep track of what is going on. The issue was cost, and that is why the question was raised to Council whether to continue the fee or modify the fee in some way. That is what we wanted to have some discussion on.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she does not believe the owners understand what is going on, not to mention they are a little miffed because they are being charged $850 because their land use has been changed, and they are being asked to give more money if they want to comply. If they can be walked through it and helped in any way, she is all for it. In the long run, the CUP, they will eventually have to do when and if they do their expansions, is not out of the question. She is merely trying to be sensitive that the owners are already upset that there has been a zone change, and if they can be helped to go through this process as easy as possible, it would behoove the City to try and do that.
Mayor Jones stated the Council is in a position to say that the $850 fee is okay, or Council can waive that for these individual 38 businesses. That will be the determination of the Council. The important thing to understand is the CUP will be an advantage to the business owners as well the City in being able to make sure that these 38 businesses are preserved as commercial for the life of them. And should they be sold, or burned down, this will be an added plus for the owners to do that. Many of them are confused as to what the process will be to get this on the records for the City's inventory and to get them in a position where they can be represented, what their current condition is and what it will be in the future. Mayor Jones agrees that they need to be helped in some way to make sure that gets clarified and that every business owner, not just 27 but all 38, have a clear understanding of what is taking place. That is critical.
Councilman McCallon stated he agrees, and will make it a Motion, that the special CUP's would not have a fee, for these 38 businesses.
Councilman Timmer stated they were concerned about how to address this. He wants to encourage owners to come in and do the CUP, that there is no fee involved with the first voluntary CUP, however, if they come in and do an expansion project or they want to modify something or do some other things outside the norm, do an upgrade or change the building, that they go through the normal CUP process to do that.
Mayor Jones stated they would do an amendment.
Councilman Timmer stated they may not have come in to do one first, because they had not volunteered to do it. This is not mandated. It is voluntary.
Councilman McCallon stated that would be part of his motion.
City Manager Hughes stated what needs to be done is this fee needs to come back and the fee study actually needs to be modified, and the Council needs to take action to set up the special exemption to the fee schedule and make some findings for that. For Council to give intent and direction and bring back a resolution, would be the appropriate format.
Councilman Timmer stated anyone who comes in the next few years voluntarily without doing any structural changes on their business that the fee be waived for them, but if they come in next week and want to do an expansion of their business, that they go through the normal CUP process.
Mayor Jones stated we need to make an added effort to make sure that all 38 are aware of that and what the situation is. It is the City's responsibility to make sure that all 38 know of it, they are given the opportunity and are provided help to go through the process for completion.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated staff can do that.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired when notices are mailed out to them. Are they done certified mail where they have to sign for the letter?
City Planner Mainez stated it was sent certified.
Mr. Doug Seed, a resident of Stockton, California, stated he had purchased a commercial property on Base Line at the corner of Base Line and Central three years ago as an investment. He and his wife are approaching retirement and had intended to use this property as retirement income. He received a certified letter from the City of Highland last summer and he was shocked that he had not been able to have any input into the idea that there was going to be zoning changes. When he called the City, he originally talked with Planning Technician Aguilar who responded that had happened to a lot of people. Ms. Aguilar stated there is a whole file of returned letters that never got to property owners. He was one of those so he never had any input in the process initially. He did come to the September 5 meeting with Community Development Director Jaquess and then stayed over to meet with City Planner Mainez and Community Development Director Jaquess and had a lengthy discussion. He feels he is no longer in the category where he does not understand the CUP. Part of what will help is reading the document that was given to owners. There are a lot of stipulations to the CUP, many of which are conditional. The title of what is being proposed is CUP Conditional, which means that at any point it can be withdrawn, which is a problem. His property has had informal appraisals somewhere in the neighborhood of a quarter of a million dollars. If the zoning continues that it stays residential, it is potentially worthless. For instance, if it is worth $75,000 as an empty residential lot, it would probably take that much to remove the current building and clean it up. It does have a tremendous financial impact on him and his wife. He does not wish to debate the merits of the CUP. He would like to have the zoning changed back to commercial. His property has been commercial for over 100 years. It goes back to grain stores when everything was agricultural. It is at the corner of Base Line and Central Avenue. The thought that it could be converted to residential, the property is about 100 feet by 100 feet. What could be built there? He discussed this with City Planner Mainez, who stated he might be able to put a duplex there. If a duplex was put in that neighborhood right now, it would become an instant slum. It is not necessarily a great neighborhood right there, and he knows some of this has to be a desire to want to clean up the neighborhood. A residential house could not be put there. No one would want to live at the corner of Base Line and Central. The northwest corner, it is currently an auto repair shop. The business has been under the same owner for over 30 years. Across the street is a senior development, and many seniors are happy they can drop their car off and then walk home while it is being fixed. It is good to have a mixture of commercial and residential. He does not want to take all the commercial out of a neighborhood or make it a suburb that has no local enterprise and businesses. He thinks the initial zoning change is beyond common sense. It does not make sense to take that lot and change it to residential zoning. In one conversation with City Planner Mainez, it was mentioned that what had originally spawned some of these zoning changes was an economic study of the City of Highland. That must have been back a few years ago when there was a little bit more of a housing boom going on. In Stockton where he lives, it has become the poster child for foreclosures. They are leading the country in foreclosures. This area here is also in the top five and what has started in the housing market downturn is going to continue for a while. So maybe the study that suggested changing some of this study to residential was based on the idea that there was going to be a continued housing boom. The housing boom is certainly over and the problems are still in front of us. Good businesses are needed. Base Line needs to have a good mixture of commercial and residential. City Planner Mainez stated that he saw the day down the road where there would not be much traffic down Base Line. He stated he did not share that vision because Base Line is a major thoroughfare. To think that these are improper uses, particularly at the intersections, does not make sense. He is asking that his property be changed back to commercial zoning. In meeting with City Planner Mainez and Community Development Director Jaquess, their suggestion was that he come today and present his case to Council. He thinks it has been harmful and has continued potential harm in the future. He is appealing to Council to leave the businesses zoned for the uses that they are prescribed for.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she resents the idea of that area being undesirable, especially when many of them live in that area, and she has to drive by that dump every day on the corner of Base Line and Central. This is done to try to preserve the City that they live in and beautify the businesses that are there, and for the ones that currently need to be cleaned up, this is why this is done. She is sorry that Mr. Seed lives out of town and does not care what is in the City of Highland but the citizens do.
Mayor Jones stated the issue before Council is not an application for zone change. The issue before us is to resolve those 38 businesses that are continuing and were grandfathered in under a Conditional Use process. If in fact Mr. Seed is desirous of doing a zone change, he needs to submit an application for that so Council will have something before them to consider. As it is now, Council will not go back and re-hash the General Plan and the zoning thereof, and cannot do so because of the legal requirements of doing so. If there is an application, yes Council can, however, there is no application present so they cannot even address the issue.
Councilman McCallon stated Mr. Seed can still keep the property commercial. The CUP process, make sure it is recorded on the deed. This is a commercial property. The underlying zoning is residential but it is still a commercial property, still the same business can exist there, and can even be expanded so nothing is being lost.
Mr. Seed stated it is possible to change it in the future, but according to the use permit, just read the document that was handed out.
Councilman McCallon stated anything this Council does can be changed in the future by another Council. That is the way government works.
A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to provide guidance that will come back with an appropriate fee study. Motion Carried, 4-1, with Councilwoman Scott abstaining.
11. Update on SANBAG, SCAG, Omnitrans, Work Program and Regional/Legislative Issues/Development Issues/Subcommittees/AB 1234 Updates
Councilman McCallon stated the Chief of Freeway Construction Division has accepted a position as being Executive Director of the Ventura Transportation. As a result of that, to backfill him while we find a replacement, they have hired Sam Racadio. SANBAG is still discussing the trade corridor investment funds which will be decided on the projects for that. They will be coming up with a prioritized list at the next board meeting. There seems to be some desire on the part of administration to get the CTC to move the timeline up ahead of what the Legislature is willing to do, so they will have to prioritize their projects earlier than they thought.
Councilman McCallon stated SCAG will continue to look at reorganization, how to make that organization work better and be more responsive to what it needs to do. The other important thing that is going on is they are in the middle of the Regional Transportation Plan Development which is a very important document for transportation planning. If the project is not in there, it is not going to be funded. So that is being developed at the moment. They are also in the process of coming up with a regional comprehensive plan, sort of a vision for the region, sort of like the General Plan, but a voluntary kind of thing that SCAG would be commenting on the project submittals, the EIR's based on the vision contained in that regional comprehensive plan.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated there is a strike date set for Omnitrans, and management and the union have two more dates set to work on current negotiations. Hopefully everything will get worked out and will not go on strike.
Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn reported that there were two mobile home ad-hoc committee meetings. The owner of Silver Creek Mobile Home Park was in attendance. He agreed to set a meeting amongst the residents of Silver Creek, and asked them to put together a checklist of items they wanted to address. The residents put together a three page punch list of items. Councilwoman Scott and Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn had agreed to attend as citizens, part of the committee, just to listen to some of the complaints to see if they were the same kind of complaints they had at our meeting. They heard a lot of complaints. Mr. Martinez, the new owner of Silver Creek Mobile Home Park was very sensitive to their needs and agreed to a lot of things that he would help and orchestrate for them. All in all, it was a pretty good meeting, and she does not foresee needing another ad-hoc committee meeting in the near future. She spoke with the attorney from the mobile home solution group. There were a couple of other issues that were addressed in the public safety meeting. She believes they came to a great resolution and feels the residents will be much happier at Silver Creek.
12. San Bernardino International Airport Authority and IVDA
City Engineer Wong reported that he has a meeting set up with IVDA staff to start to discuss with them the mechanics of how to utilize the federal grant that they have agreed to provide for Third Street and Fifth Street. He will report to Council after the meeting.
Councilman Timmer stated he had attended the San Bernardino County Flood Control Zone Two special meeting last Thursday. Basically, they reviewed a new package the staff put together based on the committee's request to have some kind of prioritized list, criteria list of how to rate and rank new projects coming into that particular zone. They had a lot of discussion and staff will come back with final recommendations. They're looking at future projects within the pipeline are going to continue to be funded as money becomes available, so they are looking at a prioritization plan for about 15 years from now when some of the projects go to fruition. It will be a long-term process.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CLOSED SESSION
At 7:24, the City Council and the Redevelopment Agency convened into closed session regarding the following:
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
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - EXISTING LITIGATION 54956.9(a)
Marron v. City of Highland, etal
San Bernardino Superior Court Case No. SCVSS138038
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the following property:
Property: APN 1201-341-08, 09
Negotiating parties: Joseph Hughes, City of Highland
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Under negotiation: Instruction to City's negotiator concerning price and terms of payment.
CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the following property:
Property: APN 1201-331-01
Negotiating parties: Joseph Hughes, City of Highland
San Bernardino County Flood Control District
Under negotiation: Instruction to City's negotiator concerning price and terms of payment.
CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION
Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c):
One case.
At 8:24 p.m., the City Council and Redevelopment Agency convened into open session, with all members present, making no announcements.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, Mayor Jones adjourned the meeting at 8:26 p.m.
Submitted By: Approved By:
___________________________ ________________________________
Betty Hughes, CMC City Clerk Ross B. Jones, Mayor