MINUTES

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 11, 2008 - 6:00 p.m.

 

 

CALL TO ORDER

 

The regular meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Highland was called to order at 6:01 p.m. by Mayor Lilburn at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.

 

The invocation was given by Reverend Wayne Reynolds of Immanuel Baptist Church and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilwoman Scott.

 

ROLL CALL

 

Present:              McCallon, Scott, Jones, Mayor Lilburn

Absent:               Timmer

 

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

 

None

 

ADDED AGENDA ITEM

 

City Manager Hughes stated there was a rent increase that has occurred at Jeffrey Court Senior Apartments.  Staff has prepared a draft letter for the Mayor’s signature which addresses the rate increase issue.  If Council would like to address the item there are a number of Jeffrey Court tenants in the audience who would like to speak.

 

A MOTION was made by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to add the Jeffrey Court Rate Increase item to the agenda.  Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman Timmer absent.

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated staff has received input from Jeffery Court residents late last week in regard to a letter they had received stating there would be a rent increase.  Jeffrey Court has certain units that are Section 8 units where the rents are a function of income, there are affordable apartments where rent is set based on a HUD formula and then there are market rate apartments.  Therefore, the affordable units are the only units that will be affected by this rate increase.  The rent increase, which may not be exact numbers, is about $84 a month for a one-bedroom unit and about $100 a month for a two-bedroom unit.  Staff anticipated there would be some concern from Council relative to this rent increase and drafted a letter for possible approval.  The letter states the concern and the dismay that the City of Highland Council has over the proposed rent increase.  One of staff’s concerns is the short notice and staff has suggested, at a minimum, the rent should not go into effect until at least July 1. This gives the residents time to find other accommodations if they need to because of the rent increase.  It also identifies a suggestion for the owner that recognizes the rent increase is authorized by the HUD rent formula.  The rent increase should be phased in over a two year period rather than all at one time.  This is what the drafted letter suggests.  Staff would recommend Council authorize staff to send the letter and direct staff as to whose signature should be on the letter. 

 

Councilwoman Scott stated Section 8 was something the very, very low received for rental assistance. 

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated Section 8 is administered through the County Housing Authority but it is a program where the interested party has to go and apply for.  It takes three to four years to get approved for Section 8 assistance. 

 

Councilwoman Scott stated when Jeffrey Court was built, it was her understanding at the time that the rents were going to be on a sliding scale as to the income.  What troubles her the most is you think of Section 8 being the lowest paid rent and then the  affordable being a medium rent and then of course the market rate being the market rate and that really is not true. 

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated the rent level is the same.  It is just the county has the authority to subsidize a portion based upon the formula.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated she does not think the rent level is the same.  She knows too many people who live in Jeffrey Court and their rent is all different.

 

City Manager Hughes stated the residents might make different payments for rent because portions are subsidized by HUD. 

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated the rent is based on the resident’s personal income.

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated staff does receive a monthly report from our program administrator, which is Urban Futures, who monitors the rents and is making sure the right relationship of tenants is maintained by the program and right now Jeffrey Court is in compliance according to Urban Futures with the program requirements.  The rent adjustment is something that can be done annually based on the numbers that HUD prepares and the property owner has elected to increase the rent to the maximum that HUD will allow.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated we have Section 8, HUD formula and then the affordable portion.


Community Development Director Jaquess stated no, the formula is the affordable. 

 

Mayor Lilburn stated she knows a Jeffrey Court resident who is paying $600 with a monthly income of $800.  Now with the rent increase, he will be paying $700 which only leaves $100 for monthly expenses.  She does not think this is affordable.  How is this categorized as affordable?

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated as he understands it, the property owner does not decide who is on Section 8 and who is not.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated some residents do not know about Section 8 because a lot of people do not know how to work the system to receive Section 8. 

 

Councilwoman Scott stated most of the Jeffery Court tenants have worked all their lives and they have retired on Social Security.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated she is in support of sending the letter and wishes there was stronger language because it states the Council wants to recommend the rent increase to be phased in. 

 

Councilwoman Scott stated redevelopment funds helped build Jeffrey Court and she thought it was supposed to be for seniors to help them with their low income.  How many units are at Jeffrey Court? 

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated the total is 184, he believes.

 

Mayor Lilburn stated she has seen banners stating units available for lease and then they want to continue leaving a number empty because they want to increase the rent. 

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, to send a revised letter to Richard Packer, the representative for the company and a copy to Vickie Simpson expressing City Council’s concerns.  Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman Timmer being absent.

 

COMMUNITY INPUT

 

Mr. Steve Goss stated he is a senior citizen and he thinks the rent increase is awful. He receives $25 from Social Security and that now has been taken away from him and added $75 to his rent.  This is not fair.  He has worked hard and he is trying to do the right thing and being forced out of his apartment is just not fair.


Ms. Rosa Yglesis stated she has resided at Jeffrey Court for five years and she had applied for Section 8 prior to moving to Jeffrey Court.  It took her eight years to receive Section 8 benefits.  Her initial rent was $601.  When she started to receive the Section benefits her rent was raised to $712 which means she pays 30%. She pays $302 and Section 8 pays $488.  To her this did not make sense and when she inquired, no one had an answer.  The increase would prove a hardship for many of our residents.

 

Ms. Phyllis Collins stated she moved into Jeffery Court in October and was told she has to sign a 6 month lease and her rent would be $601.  With the rent increase, her rent would be $687.  This is an $86 increase in six months of time which is just too much.

 

Ms. Kathleen Houdal stated she has resided at Jeffery Court for six years.  There is no affordable living unit unless you are on Section 8.   If you make $1 over what the formula states you are out.  Residents have lived there and then got an increase on something and then had to leave because they had too much income. 

 

Ms. Margaret Deleon stated she is in agreement with what the other residents are saying.  She does not have the money available for the increase. 

 

Mr. Raul Garcia stated he is on Section 8 and is receiving SSI.  His rent was increased from $745 to $875.  He has a car payment, car insurance and co- payments for medications.  Section 8 does help but not much. 

 

Mr. Modesto Rodriguez stated he has been in Jeffrey Court for two years and is also on SSI. His current rent is $601 and he has received the notification of the $87 increase.  What he’s making in income is too little and, with medication costs, it is a struggle. 

 

Mayor Lilburn thanked the residents of Jeffrey Court for being in attendance.

 

Mr. Bernardino Casteneda stated he would like to commend the media for writing a letter regarding the Coffee Property.  The property owner is asking for a great deal of help with the property.  He would like for the City of Highland to offer the property owner some assistance.  There is an entryway at the new development of Highland Orchards that has an entryway that is supposed to be used only for emergency vehicles and service personnel.  He knows there is an RV parked in this location and it belongs to a CHP Officer. When an emergency entrance is blocked, it is a code violation. 

 

Mayor Lilburn introduced the City of Highland’s new lieutenant, Mike Lenihan, and welcomed to him to the City of Highland.


CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSENT CALENDAR

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to approve the consent calendar as submitted.  Motion carried on a roll call vote, 4-0, with Councilman Timmer absent, Mayor Pro Tem Jones abstaining from item #2 and item #3, and Councilwoman Scott abstaining from item # 8. 

 

1.         Waive the Reading of All Ordinances

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

 

2.            Minutes - February 12, 2008 City Council Regular Meeting

Approved Minutes as submitted. 

 

3.            Minutes - February 12, 2008 RDA Regular Meeting

Approved Minutes as submitted. 

 

4.         Claim Consideration - Brent Junker

Rejected claim. 

 

5.            Warrant Register

Approved Warrant Register No. 458 for March 11, 2008, in the amount of $1,281,403.71 and Payroll of $60,725.61. 

 

6.            Easement Acceptance/Rogers Street Sidewalk Project

1. Accepted the Grant of Easement for Road & Drainage purposes from Cramp Properties, L.P.; and

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

 

7.            Agreement Regarding Construction of Alabama Street Crossing at City Creek

Approved the agreement regarding construction of Alabama Street crossing at City Creek, contingent upon approval of the agreement by all other participating agencies. 

 

8.            Amendment to the Professional Services Contract with Conceptual Design & Planning Company (CD&PC) for Additional Work to Prepare a Schematic Design and Conceptual Landscape Plan for the Greenspot Road Corridor between the 210 Freeway and Boulder Avenue in the Golden Triangle Area

Approved an amendment to the Professional Services Contract with CD&PC for preparation of a Schematic Design and Conceptual Landscape Plan for the Greenspot Road Corridor between the 210 Freeway and Boulder Avenue in an amount not to exceed $7,500 upon review and approval by the City Attorney and authorize the Executive Director to sign the attached Work Authorization. 


CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING

 

ONCE THE PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED NO FURTHER TESTIMONY IS TAKEN.

 

9.         A City-Initiated Municipal Code Amendment to Amend Title 16, Land Use and Development Code, Section 16.56.170 Free-oriented Community Business Signs (MCA 008-001)

 

Mayor Lilburn opened the public hearing. 

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated in working on the project at the freeway interchange of Base Line and the 210 freeway, we had a project there going that is commercial, which involves a Denny’s restaurant.  Part of that project included a proposal for a freeway oriented pylon sign.  In looking at the code, the code had a maximum allowable sign area of 200 square feet, however, in recent years through various means, the city had approved other projects with sign area larger than 200 square feet and it seems that the 200 square foot limitation was probably not reflective of the city’s actual thinking, therefore, staff suggested that we actually amend the code.  The amendment to the code is fairly straight forward amendment.  It’s on page 4 of the staff report.  What it states is the maximum for signs shall not exceed 200 square feet except for an area in excess of 200 square feet may be permitted when the sign is proposed as part of a planned sign program and a flag test or other suitable mechanism in terms of greater copy area is required.  The sign program will have to be reviewed and approved by the Design Review Board before it could be approved for the project.  Staff believes this gives the city some flexibility on signs and it also reflects the uniqueness of various sites in the city.  There are probably about a potential for four more freeway oriented signs over the life of the city along the 210 freeway. 

 

Councilwoman Scott stated she noticed with the new word verbiage that there is no new maximum.

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated that is correct.  It was supposed to be site specific.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated her biggest concern is she doesn’t want the freeway along Highland to look like Colton and San Bernardino. 

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated what staff has seen is some flexibility has been allowed by the city.  For example, the sign that was approved for McDonald’s, all the panels have not been installed but we approved a multi-panel sign.  That sign is about roughly 400 square feet or so with four panels.  We are expecting the city will continue to exercise discretion in terms of the types of signage it approves for freeway oriented signs. 


Mayor Lilburn stated she actually would like one great big sign rather than signs everywhere.  She thinks that is our mission and goal but once something is site specific and goes to the Design Review Board, does it go to the Design Review Board and then the Planning Commission.  Ultimately, just like everything else, it can be appealed or go for further discussion.

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated certainly it will go to the Design Review Board.  It there is an appeal it will go from the Design Review Board to the City Council.  If the Design Review Board’s decision was something that the Council did not want, Council could appeal it.

 

Councilman McCallon stated we should not have an ordinance that we are going to be issuing variances all the time and that’s apparently what we have been doing.  The appropriate thing to do is, if we are issuing variances all the time, is to change the ordinance.  He thinks it is appropriate that Council does this. 

 

Mayor Lilburn stated she does not have any speaker slips in favor of the project or in opposition of the project.  She will close the public hearing portion.

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated the motion includes the environmental finding as well as the ordinance. 

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, to Adopt a Negative Declaration and instruct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the Board and to Introduce Ordinance No. 322 amending the Highland Municipal Code, Title 16, Land Use and Development, Section 16.56.170 Freeway-oriented Community Business Signs, (MCA 008-001).  Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman Timmer absent.

 

            City Clerk Hughes introduced Ordinance No. 322:

 

ORDINANCE NO. 322

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING SECTION 16.56.170 "FREEWAY-ORIENTED COMMUNITY BUSINESS SIGNS" OF TITLE 16 (LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT) OF THE HIGHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE

 

which title was read.

 

CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LEGISLATIVE

 

10.       Senate Bill 1118 which Proposes to Change the Law to Require that every County Must have an Airport Land Use Commission

 

Community Development Director Jaquess gave a brief review of the staff report.  Staff has drafted a letter to be sent to Senator Negrete McLeod recommending not pursuing this legislation.

 

Councilman McCallon stated the county legislative staff has talked to Senator McLeod’s staff.  Staff there recognized they have put something forward without consulting local cities and are looking at ways they can mitigate this mistake.  League of California Cities is opposed to this change in land use control. The county is opposing it as well.  He thinks it is important to let Highland’s feelings be known to Senator McLeod.  He would suggest a change or two to the letter.  He would change the reference line to have the word opposed in capital letters and have the Mayor sign the letter. 

 

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, to approve sending the attached amended letter to Senator Gloria Negrete McLeod and members of the Senate Local Government Committee indicating that the City of Highland opposes the bill as currently drafted and that we support the retention of the present provisions of the law to allow for al alternative authority to an Airport Land Use Commission.  Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman Timmer being absent.

 

11.       An Interim Urgency Zoning Ordinance No. 323 Prohibiting the Establishment of Marijuana Dispensaries in Any Zoning District within the City

 

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

 

Councilman McCallon stated the issue comes down to we have conflicting laws.  We have federal law and we have state law and they are in conflict right now.  The county is going to pursue getting some resolution on this conflict.  We have one federal law that says it is illegal and a state law that says it is legal. 

 

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman McCallon, approve the adoption of an interim zoning ordinance of the City of Highland prohibiting the establishment of Marijuana Dispensaries in any zoning district in the City of Highland.  Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman Timmer being absent.

 

City Clerk Hughes introduced Ordinance No. 323:

 

ORDINANCE NO. 323

AN INTERIM URGENCY ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, PROHIBITING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ANY ZONING DISTRICT WITHIN THE CITY AND ADOPTING FINDINGS OF URGENCY

 

which title was read.


12.       Letter to Orange County Board of Supervisors Chairman Regarding Potential Development of 1658 Parcel Owned by the Orange County Flood Control District within the City of Highland

           

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

 

Councilman McCallon stated the letter does take a neutral position and it should. He thinks from our standpoint the decisions should be made by Orange County.  We just want them to know we have been working with staff and we would continue to do that pending on their decision.  We do not want impose and tell them what decisions to make.

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated we tried to take, as noted, a relatively neutral position.  We were indicating that we know what is going on.  We are not in the dark. 

 

Councilwoman Scott stated she agrees with the letter and if Orange County objects to the suggestions made by the City of Highland, we will have to do something for a project that size. 

 

Community Development Director Jaquess stated the feedback we have gotten from Orange County staff is they actually see the staff support that we would potentially add as a plus. 

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to authorize the Mayor to send the attached letter to Chairman John M. W. Moorlach of the Orange County Board of Supervisors.  Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman Timmer being absent.

 

13.       Adopt Proposed Resolution No. 2008-006 Expressing Opposition and Objection to the City Council of the City of Berkeley’s Disgraceful Treatment of the Marine Corps

           

Mr. Roger Cooper stated he would like to read the First Amendment of the Constitution.  He would like to reaffirm the City of Berkley’s right to exercise their free speech regarding the potential ban on Marine Corp recruiting offices.  However, he would like to exercise his right to free speech by offering his view of utter disgust. He would like to commend Highland City Council for past decision two years ago banning city funding and/or travel to San Francisco for San Francisco opposing military recruitment at public schools. He has a suggestion for a resolution which would state Highland is an oasis, a safe haven for all military personnel living in the City of Highland, passing through the city or deciding to establish military recruiting offices within the city. 


Councilman McCallon stated he is agreement with Mr. Cooper’s statement.  He has spent 21 years in the military, willing to give his life so that Berkley can express their opinions.  It is important for us to have our rights and he agrees that other people who disagree with this also have the right to disagree.  If Berkley was under attack, they would be the first one to look for someone to defend them.  Our military is serving honorably whether you agree with the war or not.  The fact is they are out there willing to give their lives to protect our freedom to say what we want to say.

He feels very strongly about that.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated she feels strongly enough to make the motion to pass the resolution.  Her private personal monies will not go to Berkley or San Francisco nor will she ever visit those cities.

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated he would like to add to the resolution, “and Highland become a Safe Harbor for all military individuals.”  We want to be a safe harbor for military recruitment, reserves or anyone who certainly has sacrificed their lives and time.

 

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to adopt proposed amended Resolution No. 2008-006 expressing opposition and objection to the City Council of the City of Berkeley’s disgraceful treatment of the Marine Corps.   Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman Timmer being absent.

 

RESOLUTION NO. 2008-006

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, EXPRESSING THEIR OPPOSITION AND OBJECTION TO THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BERKELEY’S DISGRACEFUL TREATMENT IN OPPOSITION TO MILITARY RECRUITMENT OFFICES

 

City Clerk Hughes read a statement made by Councilman Timmer regarding this item.  “He strongly supports the letter to the commandant of the Marine Corp regarding the City of Berkley’s inappropriate action.  If it was not for the soldiers, marines, navy, air force and the coast guard personnel we as a nation would not have our freedom that we all enjoy.  To indicate military personnel are unwelcome in the City of Berkley is completely inappropriate.  This second issue I am in support of is Council’s action to compose a resolution again restating the displeasure of Berkley’s actions and their treatment of our military men and women who are defending our freedom.  He supports the prohibition of Highland city officials not attending any meetings or conferences within the City of Berkley.  He understands we have the right to agree or disagree with the war on terror.  However, politicians seem to indicate that they are against the war but are in support of the troops.  The action by Berkley despite their spin is a direct attack on our honorable men and women serving our great nation.”


14.            Redflex Contract for High Resolution Digital Red Light Photo Enforcement Camera Systems

 

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

 

Director of Administrative Services Dantuono stated cost neutrality basically means the city will not have to pay more than we receive.  They have a standard price of $5,975 per month.  If we leave the cost neutrality language in, it will mean we will only have to pay up to what we receive.  Another concern of the attorney’s will be addressed by City Attorney Steele.

 

City Attorney Steele stated the question in all the contract is whether the contracts provides an economic incentive for the contractor to issue as many violations as possible.  Those are issues we still are grappling with as people challenge the tickets that are issued through this form of enforcement.  We are trying to do in the absence of binding legal authority with courts of appeal, they are informing us what kind of contract provisions are allowable and what kind of contract provisions are not.  There is no disincentive to the city, no potential harm to the city in terms of losing monies by entering into any of these contracts.  The least risky provision, in terms of legal risk, in terms of having to refund violations that have been found invalid later on is the one that could potentially cost the most money up front in terms of what you pay to the contractor. 

 

Mayor Lilburn stated the Public Safety Subcommittee has met on this issue a number of times.  The subcommittee really struggled with this item and is looking to Council because one of the concerns is this is an educational process.  This is a safety issue that we would want to retrain people on the process.  

 

Councilman McCallon asked for clarification.  Are the citations written by our policemen and not by the contractor? 

 

City Attorney Steele stated yes, they are signed off by the police department.  They are citations issued by the police department and the evidence is provided by the contractor.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated she thought she had read Redflex would send out the citation and it would be sent to the Sheriff’s office for verification. 

 

City Attorney Steele stated the contractor handles the mechanics of processing the ticket, from the time the evidence is collected but it has to be done under the supervision of the Sheriff’s office.  It is not a valid citation unless the Sheriff’s Department is willing to prosecute although the mechanics of it are handled by the contractor.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated we are involving the Sheriff’s office, so in addition to what their monthly fees are.  Basically we would have to have another officer just to do this. 

 

City Attorney Steele stated many cities look at this particular concern as a wash because there is a certain efficiency added where you do not have the actual Sheriff Deputy writing a ticket and gathering evidence. 

 

Councilwoman Scott stated the fiscal impact, the flat fee of $5,970 per approach per month or $17,910 per month, because it is being figured as three approaches per month getting tagged.  It is a two year contract that is almost $500,000.  The lights, the cameras are a good deterrent and, of course, the first proposed intersection is a very necessary intersection.  However, as the report reads, as people become more aware of the cameras at these sites, then they tend to drive more sensibly at these sites and then proceed to drive recklessly at another corner.  She is more concerned, not so much with the red lights, as she is with the speeders on Greenspot. 

 

Mayor Lilburn stated those were issues the Public Safety Subcommittee has discussed as well.  The proposed intersection has a great deal of transit traffic.  Our goal is to get the citizens to have better driving patterns.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated she has a concern on page 2.  The paragraph below, number B, states Redflex refuses to indemnify and that is a real concern.

 

Mr. Wade Bettersworth, Director of Sales for Redflex Traffic Signals, stated there is no up front cost to the City of Highland to implement this program.  The cost to implement this program ranges from $50,000 to $100,000 per system per intersection approach.  The program will capture images at the intersection and will process them before the Sheriff’s Department reviews them.  There will be three forms of review to make sure a violation occurred.  The ultimate decision to accept the violation is up to the Sheriff’s Department.  Once the violation is accepted by the Sheriff’s Department, the violation is mailed by Redflex on behalf of the City of Highland.  If someone requests a hearing, Redflex will also provide court packages and in the event there is a need for eyewitness testimony, Redflex also will provide this.  In terms of contracting, the actual cost of neutrality was a method Redflex developed where it helps cities with the initial cash flow that this program requires.   The cost neutrality was to allow a city to compare the revenues generated from the program against our monthly fees.  The shortfall, which is likely in the first couple of months because of the violations that will occur in the first 30 days, the payment will probably lag by 30-90 days depending on how soon the payment is made.  A non- cost neutrality contract can also be done as well.  This contract will have a slight reduction of fee, if the Council chooses this option. 

 

Councilwoman Scott stated the first camera would be at Highland and Victoria and the two year contract would actually start at this installation of this first camera.  It also states the contract calls for seven more intersections and yet the flat fee per approach is $5,970.  Actually the $17,910 is only for three approaches and we add another four, which the contract stated we have to do.


Mr. Wade Bettersworth stated our contracts are typically written on a not-to-exceed basis.  It is the city’s discretion, in terms of if you built one or if you built at ten different intersections, the city will control this.  If the program started with one and ended up with one, at the end of two years, this is the number of programs we have. We don’t write the intersections into the contract, it will just state not-to-exceed a certain number of intersections. 

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated it has been mentioned before if the intersection proves it is not paying for itself, it can be moved to another intersection and utilized there.

 

Councilwoman Scott stated yes, for an additional cost for removing, transporting and re-installing.

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated that is correct but is not the same cost of a new camera.

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, to enter into an agreement with Redflex and the agreement shall include the “cost neutrality” language.  Motion carried, 3-1, with Councilwoman Scott dissenting and Councilman Timmer being absent.

 

15.            Subcommittee and Agency Appointments

 

Mayor Lilburn stated she received a letter from Councilman Timmer stating he is content with his current subcommittee positions.  She would like to confirm the Community Services and Recreation Subcommittee members as Lilburn and Scott. She would like to remove Scott and replace herself as the alternate for the Airport Agency Appointment Subcommittee.  Ad-Hoc appointments will remain the same as well. 

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, to remove Councilwoman Scott from the SBIAA Committee and reappoint Mayor Lilburn as the alternate as well as keeping all other subcommittee appointments the same with no changes to its members.  Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman Timmer being absent.

 

16.            Neighborhood Watch Sign Policy

           

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


Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated it is important to note in the Public Safety Subcommittee meeting when this issue was discussed with the members of the community, the community was proposing what seemed to be an enormous number of signs.  But as you look at the specific locations of the signs and because of the ability to enter that particular tract from a lot of different directions, the intent was to be able to notify those entering that they were in a Neighborhood Watch area.  After it was further discussed and reviewed it became very obvious that the number of proposed signs was indeed needed for this particular tract.  Now, this does not apply to every tract that applies for a Neighborhood Watch community.  For this particular tract, it was needed. 

 

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Jones, to adopt the Neighborhood Watch Sign Policy as presented.  Motion carried, 4-0, with Councilman Timmer being absent.

 

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

 

Councilman McCallon stated the CTC staff recommends the consensus group Tier One project list be approved for Southern California corridor at $1.65 billion.  SANBAG requested $248 million in projects and received CTC’s staff recommendations totaling $239 million.  The three top projects of SANBAG were proposed and recommended by CTC staff which is the Devore Interchange, three Freeway Interchanges along the I10 and Southern Grade Separation projects.  There are two projects which are significant to the desert, one being the Devore Interchange and the other being the Grade Separation near Barstow.  The Devore Interchange has 21,000 trucks and 135,000 vehicles traveling a day.  The CTC staff is recommending the Colton Crossing be maintained and will allow Caltrans to continue its evaluation on the benefits of the project. 

 

Mayor Lilburn stated she attended the Mayor’s voting sessions for the open LAFCO appointment as well as AQMD’s.  The City of Chino will remain as the representative for AQMD and she also supported the Mayor of Fontana for the LAFCO position. 

 

18.       San Bernardino International Airport Authority and IVDA

 

Mayor Pro Tem Jones stated a substantial contract will be coming to the Airport.  One of the current tenants has been successful in convincing an airline, who is attempting to reduce the fuel consumption in their airline by making a modification to their aircraft.  This modification consists of putting two wing tips on the ends of the wings which would reduce the consumption of fuel. The airline is going to do the modifications themselves with the assistance of the manufacturer.  The tenant was successful in showing them that if the airline did this, they would have to use union pilots and the cost would exceed $52 million.  By bringing it to San Bernardino and allowing the tenant to do the modifications and the certified pilots, the airline could in fact save $52 million which could go towards the reductions in fuel costs.  The tenant was successful in securing a five year contract to make these conversions. 

 

ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

            March 20 & 21, 2008                       City/County Conference – Lake Arrowhead

            March 29, 2008                                 Citrus Harvest Festival – Historic District

            April 16 & 17, 2008                                   Legislative Action Days - Sacramento

 

CLOSED SESSION

 

At 8:03 p.m., the City Council and 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

 

At 8:33 p.m., the City Council and Redevelopment Agency convened into open session, with all members present with the exception of Councilman Timmer being absent, making no announcements.

 

ADJOURN

 

            There being no further business, Mayor Lilburn adjourned the meeting at 8:35 p.m.

 

 

 

Submitted by:                                                            Approved by:

 

 

 

____________________________                       _________________________________

Betty Hughes, CMC                                                   Penny Lilburn

City Clerk                                                                   Mayor

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

C:\MyFiles\WPDATA\Minutes\2008 minutes\03-11-08 cc.doc