Community Information Annual Report City Council Members Engineering/Public Works Projects Events Highland Area Chamber of Commerce Maps Minutes Municipal Code Notice Inviting Bids Request for Proposal Volunteering
	Minutes City Council - 1/10/06

MINUTES

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING

JANUARY 10, 2006 - 6:00 p.m.

CALL TO ORDER

The regular meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Highland was called to order at 6:10 p.m. 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 Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn.

ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

COMMUNITY INPUT

Mr. Mike Randolph stated he has recently purchased the property at 26383 Base Line. He has been renovating the property. On Lynwood Way there is a building approximately 75 to 80 feet long and is a banner for graffiti. He is trying to come up with means to stop the graffiti. He has contacted the city Planning Department regarding installing a wrought iron fence around the perimeter of the building. The Planning Department has indicated there is a 7-1/2 foot minimum setback. He believes the building is only 5 feet back from the property line. He is asking for a variance of some kind to come up with a solution.

Mayor Jones inquired if currently there is a fence around the property.

Mr. Randolph responded no.

Councilman McCallon stated he would suggest this item be sent to the Public Works Subcommittee for further discussion.

Mayor Jones stated this item will be directed to the Public Works Subcommittee and they will notify you of the time and place of the meeting to discuss it further.

Councilman Timmer suggested a statement should be presented in writing for consideration.

Ms. Rosemary Murad stated she is a representative from the American Cancer Society. She would like to request participation for the 8th Annual Relay for Life. It will be April 22 & 23 and is a 24 hour walk. She would like the support of the City of Highland.

Mayor Jones thanked her for coming and appreciates the effort she is putting forth.

Mr. Bernardino Castenada stated the public should attend these meetings and bring forth any issues that come about such as stop signs and signal lights. Maybe we could prevent the fatalities that are happening. Coming to the meetings is the only way we can resolve these problems.

Mr. Don Houghtaling stated he has been informed of what cannot be done at Greenspot Road and now he wants to be informed of what can be done. He lives three blocks up on Greenspot Road and every night he hears racing and screeching tires. The problem is only going to get worse not better. He is sick of people getting hurt and does not want to wait for the five-year plan. He is requesting the Council become pro-active and do something about it. This issue has been brought before Council many times and nothing has been done. If he has to get a petition for stop lights at intervals he will do this to get something done.

Mayor Jones inquired if Mr. Houghtaling was aware that more fatalities occur at intersections with signal lights as opposed to open streets.

Mr. Houghtaling responded no he did not know this and the Council has the statistics on their side.

Mayor Jones stated if you are going to present a cure, present one that is going to fix the problem and not one that will contribute to a worse problem. We have been working on the streets since the city has been incorporated.

Councilman Timmer stated the Public Safety Subcommittee will be looking into this issue. If a decision was made tonight to install a traffic signal at that intersection, it will take at least six months to a year to get approvals through the system.

Mr. Houghtaling stated he understands this and knows there are rules to follow.

Mayor Jones asked if this will fix the problem? The signal light will create a false security. Once the signal light is there, the person with the green light will proceed, assuming the traffic will stop.

Councilman McCallon stated this issue will not be resolved this evening and it is not on the agenda; therefore, it needs to be directed to the Public Safety Subcommittee for recommendation.

Ms. Kelly Marron stated the accident that occurred at Weaver Street and Greenspot Road was her daughter. She had a future in this world and has been taken away. She implores the Council to install a signal light or a sign stating traffic is coming out of Weaver Street. She does not want anyone else to be killed in such a tragic accident. She knows there have been multiple fatalities at this intersection. She is requesting this issue become a priority on Council's agenda.

Ms. Tamara Duron stated she has not had the time to prepare statistics due to the death of her niece. She is also aware the Council has many items that they are responsible for. One problem she is concerned about is the death of her niece and the accident that caused her death. She is urging Council to find a solution before another persons life is taken. She will be attending meetings every month and will continue to inquire what the status of this issue is.

Mayor Jones stated he can assure them this item will be on the Public Safety meeting agenda. We did discuss the accident the day after it occurred but we did not have all the details of the investigation. Once we have the details we will be able to address and focus on the issue. We will also discuss the options for fixing this problem. Any death in our city is a tragedy and we certainly don't want them to occur. If there is anything that can be done to prevent them, we will do it.

Mr. Alan Chin stated the accident occurred a mile south of where he lives. He is present to support the City Council in trying to find and resolve the problem. Everyone is responsible for the their driving habits, and in order to fix a problem, the support of the city as a whole is needed. He believes 10% -15% of teenage drivers use Greenspot Road to get to Redlands East Valley High School. He would like to suggest some options. Mello Roos tax indicates that the services and facilities of the Mello Roos District can be used to provide streets, police and fire protection, ambulatory, elementary schools, parks, library and museums. It is possible for some of the funds to be used for traffic issues. There are a great deal of developers coming into the city and why isn't it possible for the developers to donate monies for safety issues? He also is concerned with Cram Elementary traffic and the amount of traffic before school hours.

Mayor Jones stated he appreciates the comments and suggestions as he himself has been an advocate of trying to correct traffic problems in the city. East Highland is an island and we have proved that through the fires and floods as there were no streets out of East Highland. This is a serious problem. The issue with Greenspot Road going to Redlands East Valley High School is absolutely the worst traffic problem in the city. We are currently working on putting a new bridge across Greenspot Road and in fact changing the shape and condition to try and improve the safety therein. Mello Roos is a tax put upon a particular housing tract early on before it is developed so they can commit and build these infrastructures. Unfortunately, we do not have these funds to spend after the project has been completed. Builder impact fees are being paid for safety and stop lights and it is only for the impact of the area being built. The Cram issue is again putting in other streets to get out of the Cram area. This would help correct this problem. The issues come back to the community. We have to obey traffic lights, signals and speed limits if we are going to make the city safer. We will publicly notify the community of the next Public Safety Subcommittee which will be held on Tuesday, January 24 at 8:00 a.m. in the Upright conference meeting room. We appreciate all your input and contributions to the city.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she wanted to thank everyone for attending. It is unfortunate that it takes a tragedy to bring the community together. The City Council is here, not to dispute with you or to find reasons not to help, we are here to serve the public and we will do what we can.

COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT CONSENT CALENDAR

City Manager Racadio stated it has been requested to pull items #3, #8, #14, #15, and #16 from the consent calendar.

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to approve the consent calendar with the exception of items #3, #8, #14, #15, and #16. Motion carried on a roll call vote, 5-0, with Councilwoman Scott abstaining from items #2 and #4.

1. Waive the Reading of All Ordinances

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

2. Minutes - November 22, 2005 City Council Regular Meeting

Approved Minutes as submitted.

4. Minutes - November 22, 2005 RDA Regular Meeting

Approved Minutes as submitted.

5. Minutes - November 22, 2005 RDA Special Meeting

Approved Minutes as submitted.

6. Treasurer's Report for November 2005

Received and filed Treasurer's Report for November, 2005.

7. Warrant Register

Approved Warrant Register No. 410 for January 10, 2006, in the amount of $1,791,116.41 and Payroll of $109,331.26.

9. Easement Acceptance/Cosme Cobian (DRB 05-012)

1. Accepted the Grant of Easement for Road and Drainage purposes from Cosme Cobian; and

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

10. Agreement for One-Time County Support for Special Project in the City of Highland (Highland Library and Environmental Learning Center)

Authorized the Mayor to execute the agreement for One-Time County Support for Special Project in the City of Highland (Highland Library and Environmental Learning Center).

11. Notice of Completion - Project No. 2003-01 "14th Street Improvements"

1. Accepted Project No. 2003-01 "14th Street Improvements" as complete;

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

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

12. Final Map Approval/Tract 16543 (WindDancer General Partners, LLC)

Adopted Resolution No. 2006-001 to:

1. Approved Final Map No. 16543;

2. Accepted the subdivision bonds; and

3. Authorized the Mayor to sign the Standard Subdivision Agreement.

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-001

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, APPROVING THE FINAL MAP

AND SUBDIVISION AGREEMENT, AND ACCEPTING SUBDIVISION BONDS

FOR TRACT 16543

(WINDDANCER GENERAL PARTNERS, LLC)

13. Resolution No. 2006-002 Expressing Opposition and Objection to the City of San Francisco's Declaration of Policy in Opposition to Military Recruitment in Public Schools

Adopted Resolution No. 2006-002 expressing opposition and objection to the City of San Francisco's declaration of policy in opposition to military recruitment in public schools.

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-002

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL

OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA,

EXPRESSING THEIR OPPOSITION AND OBJECTION TO THE CITY OF

SAN FRANCISCO'S DECLARATION OF POLICY IN OPPOSITION TO MILITARY RECRUITMENT IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

3. Minutes - November 22, 2005 City Council Special Meeting

Councilwoman Scott stated item #3, page 2 and page 3, is in regards to the assisted chair senior housing qualifications. It states "the RDA Special Counsel that night stated the actual product would have to be researched to see if it would qualify for the housing." She would like to inquire if the research has been done.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the preliminary discussion with Mark Huebsch was that it does not. He has not finished his complete research. Whether or not you have a care facility or units for rent, there is a distinction.

Councilwoman Scott requested further research on this issue.

Councilman McCallon stated there is a typo on page 6, 4th paragraph, "incriminates" should be "increments."

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to approve the Minutes as amended. Motion carried, 5-0.

8. Easement Acceptance/Kirit and Gita Patel (DRB 05-023)

Councilwoman Scott stated the city should put down on the record this building is going to take place. At the property just south, the fence was built on the north side, one to two feet onto the vacant lot. The south wall of the garage at 7251 was built on the property line. Originally these were three lots that were owned by one person. It is doubtful that this lot will be more than 50 feet wide with the required setbacks. She wants staff to be aware of this when the plans come in for this 2,160 square foot house. This is just an awareness for the record.

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to accept the Grant of Easement for Road and Drainage Purposes from Kirit and Gita Patel and direct the City Clerk to record the Grant of Easement. Motion carried, 5-0.

14. Victoria Avenue Interchange Project Study Report Cooperative Agreement

Councilwoman Scott stated there are six entities involved in the regional endeavor and only five have a financial obligation. The one with no obligation is the lead agency. She would like an explanation. Highland's cost is approximately $50,000 in the cooperative agreement.

City Engineer Wong stated this is a request initiated by the City of Highland to have SANBAG to act as lead agency. SANBAG has agreed to this and to have a project study report prepared as long as they are not part of the financial obligation.

City Attorney Battersby stated item #14 is the agreement that involves five separate agencies and includes San Manuel.

Councilman McCallon stated the reason for SANBAG being the lead agency is because we asked them to be the lead. They are only involved because we involved them.

Councilwoman Scott stated she realizes this but it seems that when it was discussed prior, the cooperative agreement had a lot more to it than this.

City Engineer Wong stated before the meeting, he distributed copies of the original version for each Council Member. As requested by San Manuel, SANBAG has cut down a lot of the provisions as approved by SANBAG.

City Attorney Battersby stated she also had requested item #14 be removed as well. After reviewing the comments, SANBAG did in fact approve the agreement with more than half the body deleted. She has suggested to City Engineer Wong that if the city could have commented on the removal of those provisions, her recommendation would have been to request the tribe make their contribution up front so there would not be a question of their non-participation in the agreement.

Councilman McCallon stated San Manuel will not participate unless all the other agencies participate.

City Attorney Battersby stated as drafted, the agreement was acceptable but since then more than 50% of it has been removed. All of the provisions that have been removed would be ones that would allow the public agencies to enforce the terms of the agreement.

Mayor Jones inquired if this would affect the tribe's sovereign rights.

City Attorney Battersby stated this is exactly what we are dealing with here and there are ways of avoiding that. She would like to advise the Council as of right now, we are dealing with the same questions with the fire services agreement, where that type of condition and agreement as one directly goes to liability, indemnity, and which court and under what court claims act disputes or liabilities under the agreement as determined.

Councilman McCallon stated all we are trying to do with the agreement is to get everyone to agree to put forth $50,000.

Mayor Jones inquired if the agreement is approved, can we go forward and feel some security that we are not going to have major impacts with the revisions to the agreement?

City Attorney Battersby responded this agreement is not a big deal. The only concern is if Highland is the only agency to approve this, according to the agreement, Highland may be liable for $250,000.

Councilman McCallon stated he understood the original agreement was going to state all agencies had to participate.

City Attorney Battersby stated the operative language states, "In the event of any one or more entity does not meet its obligation to pay the invoice, the remaining participating entities shall equally fund balances due."

City Manager Racadio stated the project study report will not go forward until all funds are collected. There will not be any PSR if there is no funding.

City Attorney Battersby stated it also is possible to approve this agreement subject to the approval by the other public agencies.

Councilman McCallon stated SANBAG has stated they will not move forward until all funding has been committed.

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to approve the Cooperative Agreement regarding preparation of a Project Study Report (PSR) for the Victoria Avenue Interchange at SR30 subject to all participants having approved the agreement. Motion carried, 4-1, with Councilman Timmer dissenting.

15. Agreement Regarding Project Development of Alabama Street Improvements at City Creek

Councilwoman Scott stated once again all agencies must participate, no pull outs, thus leaving the remaining entities liable for the balance due because this is a regional endeavor. Giving the San Bernardino County Flood Control District complete discretion in adding costs later without any apparent limitation is not acceptable. We need guarantee or protection for the City of Highland.

City Engineer Wong stated as far as the approval of this agreement is concerned, in talking to Flood Control staff, all the agencies except Highland have already approved this agreement as is.

Councilwoman Scott stated this part is okay but the complete discretion with the County Flood Control is not acceptable. She would like to have some oversight.

City Engineer Wong stated the language of the agreement may not be specific in that, but in practice, the County has been involving all the cities in every step. From the practical standpoint, the County is waiting to be the lead agency and they need to have some discretion to move the project along.

Councilwoman Scott inquired who will be responsible for reviewing additional costs if there should be any.

City Manager Racadio stated his understanding is once the bids are received, then the entities have the decision whether to go forward. The reality is the lead agency has to move forward. If in the middle of the project a change order is needed, they need to be able to move forward.

City Engineer Wong stated he would like to clarify that this agreement only pertains to the design and environmental study of the project. It does not pertain to construction.

Councilwoman Scott stated there is one entity involved that does not have a good track record, financially.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated her question is in the meeting, where the cities of Highland, Redlands, San Bernardino and Flood Control, but on the contract it is showing that IVDA is actually listed.

Councilman Timmer stated IVDA is participating in the funding.

City Manager Racadio stated Flood Control is the lead agency.

Councilman McCallon stated this project was initiated by the City of Highland. Specifically by Councilman Timmer where at the Flood Control District 3 Advisory Committee we received $25,000 dedicated to begin this process. Subsequent to this we discovered that the bridge (culvert) is not in the City of Highland. Therefore, there was discussion whether or not Highland should participate. However, the regional aspects of it and the fact that Alabama connects with Redlands, it is a benefit to Highland residents to have Alabama Street open and functioning.

Councilwoman Scott inquired if Redlands has agreed thus far.

City Engineer Wong stated Redlands has approved it.

City Attorney Battersby inquired if the IVDA has approved it.

City Engineer Wong responded yes.

Councilman Timmer stated there have been many projects with the County Flood Control over the years and our working relationship is very good. This is only for the design.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she is in complete support of this project. It gives another outlet for the City of Highland, which we need. There is some confusion as to which parts of Alabama Street that Highland is responsible for.

City Engineer Wong stated Alabama Street goes across City Creek and Santa Ana River. Once you go across City Creek, it is quite close to the entrance to Matich and Robertson's entrance. On January 10, 2005, this area was washed out. Within a weeks time, the three companies, Cemex, Robertson's and Matich shared the expense to partly fix the washout. Further south at the crossing of Santa Ana River, the City of Redlands has been building a bridge which is about finished. As a matter of fact, Alabama Street needed to be closed due to this construction. The bridge is about done and, in addition, work is being done at the City Creek crossing to remove the dip, which did not get lifted initially. Alabama Street will be opening sometime in February.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated although Redlands is building the bridge, and once the funding is approved for our portion, will we have to close Alabama Street again to complete the work?

City Engineer Wong responded yes but it will be for a much shorter period of time.

Mayor Jones stated this particular problem with this culvert has been unsized since 1940. All of the agencies have reviewed the situation and have refused to fix the problem. When it washed out in January, 2005, we as an agency stated we would fix the problem.

Councilman Timmer stated as soon as the bridge on Alabama Street is completed, Orange Street will be closed as well.

Councilman McCallon inquired when the Alabama Street bridge is completed, is the temporary fix adequate to allow public traffic?

City Engineer Wong responded yes, the dip will be removed, and it will be two lanes. At City Creek, there will be two phases of repair. The first phase is being done now which is to remove the dip.

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to approve the agreement regarding Alabama Street improvements at City Creek contingent upon approval of the agreement by all other four participating agencies to share the project development cost equally. Motion carried, 5-0.

16. Tract No. 16745/Aplin Street Right-of-Way Acquisition

Councilwoman Scott stated the staff report states the developer has not been successful in his efforts to acquire the off-site interest. She has spoken with the property owners and the owners had the property appraised a year ago. They gave the developer the figure and the developer has offered less than $2.00 a square foot; $25,000 for 18,000 square feet. The appraisal was $8.00 per square foot.

City Attorney Battersby stated this agreement is to start the process and it will take the acquisition of the property out of the hands of the developer. It will be handled by City Council. The developer has to pay all costs of acquisition including the road way, legal fees and staff costs. This is the agreement the developer needs to sign in order to obligate the developer to do that. The city will have its own appraisal of the property and that appraisal will form the basis of the city negotiation with the property owner. The downside of not approving this agreement is by state law if the city does not agree to proceed, the developer can be relieved of the obligation imposed by the condition, meaning the developers project may be able to move forward without the road. In addition, when the city takes control, you have the ability to review the appraisal and the ability to direct staff as to settlement.

Councilman Timmer stated if we do not approve this agreement, that does not start anything at this point.

City Attorney Battersby stated it certainly does. You have to initiate the process. This is where the City Council agrees you will move forward as if there is going to be a condemnation in the end.

Councilman McCallon inquired if there is a willing seller and a willing buyer.

City Attorney Battersby stated she does not know the details. She believes they have not agreed on a price. State law states if the city requires a developer to acquire property that he does not already own, then the city has to relieve the developer of the obligation to acquire it or agree to condemn it in the end if he cannot get an informal agreement with the property owner. There are also time constraints in the law. We have to initiate this process with this agreement within 60 days after the developer's request. This process is in the law for elected officials to determine whether it is important to require what the Planning Commission has previously imposed or move ahead. If the property owner never agrees to anything that is offered by the city, a jury or a judge acting as a jury will make the decision for the property owners. There are provisions in the law stating that if the offers on either side have not been adequate, then the side that has not been reasonable will pay attorney fees.

Councilman McCallon inquired if by approving this agreement are we agreeing to the condemnation?

City Attorney Battersby stated you are approving the start of the process.

Mayor Jones stated this project is for a public road, not a private project.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to approve the agreement with Emmanuel Damoulakis for acquisition of Aplin Street right-of-way pursuant to Government Code Section 66462.5. Motion carried, 4-1, with Councilwoman Scott dissenting.

17. Tract No. 16914 Revisions to Engineering Conditions of Approval

City Engineer Wong gave a brief review of the staff report.

Councilman Timmer stated he wants to verify the streets will be built to city standards in the case of the disbandment of the Homeowners Association. A Landscape Maintenance District will need to be in place with a zero amount in case the city needs to take over. Since some streetlights will be in public areas, will the streetlights be part of the city-wide Maintenance District or will they pay for the services per Homeowners Association.

City Engineer Wong responded the streetlights will be part of the road, therefore, they will be private. One alternative is the streetlights can be maintained by their contractor or they can have a separate maintenance agreement with Edison.

Councilman Timmer stated there are some streetlights along the park area which are now accessible to the public, assuming the city will be maintaining those. There are other streetlights behind the locked gate that are private.  Would it not be easier to put them all together? How is it possible to access all those parcels for the lights next to the park?

City Engineer Wong stated every parcel within the city is in the city-wide streetlight district. The idea is not only to pay for the lights within the tract but to pay for lights throughout the city.

Mayor Jones reiterated Councilman Timmer's statement by stating instead of charging privately and publicly, would it not be better to put all streetlights under the streetlight district and charge them one time.

City Engineer Wong stated when you choose to have private streets, you take on the responsibility to maintain what is inside your private community.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to approve revisions to Engineering Conditions of Approval for Tract No. 16914 as listed in the staff report. Motion carried, 5-0.

COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT LEGISLATIVE

18. Appointment to the Design Review Board

City Manager Racadio stated the applications have been received for consideration of appointment to the Design Review Board.

Councilman Timmer nominated Ed Burns.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn seconded the nomination.

Mayor Jones nominated Tom Fujiwara.

Councilwoman Scott seconded the nomination.

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to close nominations. Motion carried, 5-0.

City Clerk Hughes asked for votes for nominee Ed Burns.

Ed Burns received three votes.

City Clerk Hughes announced Ed Burns, a Member of the Public, to be appointed to serve on the Design Review Board.

19. Consideration of one appeal of the Planning Commission's approval of a Tentative Tract Map 17682 (SUB 05-004), Conditional Use Permit (CUP 05-003), Planned Development (PD 05-002), and associated Mitigated Negative Declaration to construct a 121 unit condominium project and accessory uses on approximately 11.5 acres generally located on the north side of 5th Street between Boulder Avenue and Orange Street (the "Project") -- Assessor Parcel Numbers: 1201-361-04, 05, 24 & 25 (Applicant -- William Lyon Homes). The Appeal is as follows:

Appeal 05-001: An Appeal filed by William Lyon Homes, requesting: A) reconsideration of Planning Condition No. 29 requiring the construction of affordable housing units and/or payment of an in-lieu fee, B) deletion of Condition of Approval No. 26 and associated Mitigation Measure No. 20 requiring a CC&R statement that noise levels may exceed 65 Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL), and C) deletion of Mitigation Measure No. 21 requiring recordation of an avigation easement against the property and all 121 units of the project.

The Public Hearing for Appeal 05-001 was heard at the City Council meeting of December 13, 2005. At the conclusion of the Public Hearing, the City Council closed the Public Hearing on the Appeal Application and continued the issue of Condition of Approval No. 29 requiring 15 percent of the units be sold to households with low- or moderate-incomes or pay an in-lieu fee. City Council directed staff to determine what is the "Affordability Gap" in the City of Highland and report its findings at the January 10, 2006 meeting.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated this is a consideration of an appeal of a Planning Commission approval in part of Tentative Tract 17682, a subdivision conditional use permit and planned development and associated mitigated negative declaration to construct a 121-unit condominium project. As you recall, we had a public hearing on this matter, December 13, 2005, which was filed by William Lyon Homes requesting consideration of certain conditions and mitigation measures. This matter was concluded at the public hearing on the December 13 meeting, and was continued to this date to deal with particularly the issue of condition of approval No. 29 requiring 15% of the units to be sold to households with low and moderate incomes or pay an in-lieu fee. The City Council directed staff to determine what the affordability gap in the City of Highland and report its finding at its January 10, 2006 meeting. Therefore, the subject matter that was focused on in the staff report is that condition of approval No. 29 went through the staff report and try to recap what has happened. We have provided a brief analysis of the importance of condition of approval No. 29. Mr. Richard Tillberg, Urban Futures, who is the city's fiscal advisor and in many aspects even with redevelopment areas, this is within a redevelopment project area. Therefore, there are some concerns with respect to the Agency's obligation to do affordable housing for very low, low and moderate households. We have determined that there is a significant gap and Mayor, I ask you to what level of detail you would like to have on this report by Mr. Tillberg. If you want a brief overview or do you want to open up for questions.

Mayor Jones stated why don't we get the brief overview and if that is not enough we will ask for more.

Councilwoman Scott inquired if we will be using the one in the staff report or the one in the email.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the last one, the red line copy is the corrected one.

Mayor Jones stated he was not in the office today so he did not receive any emails.

City Attorney Battersby inquired if the appellant has been given a copy.

City Manager Racadio stated yes.

Mr. Richard Tillberg, Urban Futures, stated at the meeting of November 22, 2005, the Council and I were here and you asked Urban Futures to come back with a gap affordability analysis with an analysis of the gap between market rate housing and affordable housing. The document you have before you this evening sets forth that analysis. I wanted to relay many of the numbers in the report are related to your Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers that are generated by the Southern California Association of Governments. Those numbers are much larger with reference to actual houses that have to be provided for affordability purposes and is the 15% that is required by the state redevelopment law. The analysis does, however, discuss both the state redevelopment law and the HCD regulations which discuss your RHNA numbers. As Rick said, you have an obligation to provide housing for low, very low and moderate income persons and families. RHNA or SCAG has indicated in your current general plan the current need. The need as we sit here today is approximately at 1,223 units. According to the general plan and to SCAG, there is an obligation or there is a requirement for 1,200 units to be purchased or rented by persons or families of very low, low or moderate income. We have done a projection of what these numbers might become in the next 20 years, using a number of data sources generally from the general plan. You will see on table one that the total number including the current need of 1,223 and the projected future need of 2,500 units generated 3,723 units that would be needed to provide for person and families of very low, low or moderate income, given the assumption that you will be building approximately 216 units between now and the year 2025. You will notice that total is only 4,320 units, so because of your existing need of 1,200 units and the projection for an additional 2,500 units, according to SCAG this city should provide 86% of all new units for persons and families of very low, low or moderate income. These are the magnitude of numbers that we are coming up against. How to do that? It is as they say only money and the way to do it is to take the cost differential between what an affordable house would cost and what a market rate unit would cost and to spend that amount of money. That money would be generated either by the city, the agency or the private development community. Starting on page five of the report we talk about housing costs, how much it would cost to purchase an existing product and how much it would cost to develop new product. We assume that you are not going to provide all of the affordable housing especially at the lower ranges with new product. That makes things incredibly expensive. The assumption of the report is that the low and very low income units, these will be resolved through rental properties not for sale properties. The moderate income will be resolved through for sale properties. If you look at Table 3 on page 9, you will see how those numbers work out. What we have done is we have taken the total number of units that should be provided by the year 2025 and you will see that at the bottom right hand cell, 3,723, and then we have spread them across for rent units and for sale units and then within those two categories, we have provided purchased and built. As we go to the left of the table, the units become less expensive. As we go to the right of the table, they become more expensive. The sections on pages 9 through 10 discuss the total amount of assistance that would have to be provided to induce the development of housing and then it would add these numbers up. Very frankly, they are very large numbers. They provide total assistance for units that are affordable to very low and low income persons and families which are developed over the next 20 years and this discounts inflation would cost approximately a calculated $268.1 million. To do the same thing for new single families owner occupied residence would cost $245 million. The total hit would be $615.9 million. If you assume that the City Council would generate tax increments from the creation of new housing in the project area and would dedicate all of the set aside funds or comply with this program we have assumed you would only generate $8.7 million. It has been pointed out that units that are built in the project area are likely to be more expensive than community wide units, therefore, that number may be higher. Whether that number is $8 million or $16 million does not appreciably change the calculated gap of $607 million which you will find on page 11. If you take that total gap and this is money that would have to be provided over the next 20 years and divide that by the number of units that are going to be built in the next 20 years, that would not be reserved for affordable families. You divide that $607 million by 3,179 units to generate the number of $191,000 per unit which is our calculated affordability gap. Now in the discussion this afternoon, we were very quick to say this is not the in-lieu fee, this is the calculated gap. So this helps this Council come up with a number as to if you were to 100% comply with all your RHNA requirements and your redevelopment law requirements and if you were to place that totally on the development community, that number would be $191,000 a unit. Obviously things less than that are more appropriate. It would be up to the Council to determine how much less. I would be more than happy to respond to any questions you might have.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired if this is based upon the projected 3,700 units build out.

Mr. Richard Tillberg, Urban Futures, responded well within the next 20 years. I think build out will be at 20 to 30. We only went to 20-25.

Councilman Timmer stated those are the rules we are living under the state when we talk about median income and median house prices. We know what is happening to the housing market. We know what is happening to wages. There is obviously no relationship. We had a long discussion over this and we all agreed that number is absurd. We threw around a lot of things. We kind of threw out some proposals and we can go into what we recommended. Basically we said rather than

taking the time to look at redevelopment issues and city-wide issues, we wanted to address the whole stamina thing to make sure we are going to reach the state requirements. We talked about $5,000 is the number per unit rather than $191,000. That is what Larry McCallon and I settled on. Some developers said this was okay, others said no, we need to have more discussion and so forth. If we don't address this issue, every year we wait, or day we wait, those numbers are going to be a greater differential.

City Attorney Battersby inquired if it is $5,000 per each unit in the project.

Councilman Timmer responded no, city-wide.

Mayor Jones stated any unit.

Councilman Timmer confirmed any unit.

City Attorney Battersby confirmed each new unit, not just otherwise affordable unit.

Councilman Timmer stated if we had done just affordable units we are now back up to $190,000 per unit.

Councilwoman Scott stated the affordable mandate from the state only applies to our redevelopment areas, correct. When he was talking all I could hear is it applies obviously not new housing, but to rental.

City Attorney Battersby stated this project is in the redevelopment agency project area, so we are looking at redevelopment project area affordability requirements.

Councilwoman Scott stated she needs to get another updated map of all of our redevelopment areas that we have in the city. I don't want to be like San Bernardino and have every square inch of Highland in a redevelopment area because that breeds apartments that are nothing but crime. We don't need anymore of this. We are going to have our hands full when San Bernardino closes theirs down and start building 162 on our border.

Mr. Richard Tillberg, Urban Futures, stated he would like to make a point. The requirement is actually city-wide. There are two laws in place here. There is a redevelopment law. Redevelopment law says that an amount equal to 15% of all units constructed in the project area must be enforceable restricted for a period of the longest feasible period but no less than 45 years.

Councilwoman Scott inquired if this has been changed to 30.

Mr. Richard Tillberg, Urban Futures, stated no it was 45. Regardless, that is the requirement in the project area. That is the bad news. The good news is that when you build in the project area you generate tax increments. Twenty percent (20%) of tax increments have to be provided for affordable housing. To a certain extent this issue is the redevelopment issue. It is self-financing to a certain extent if you are willing to spend all of your LMI money on providing this kind of inclusionary housing and you don't spend it on anything else. You probably will have enough without having any additional fees to pay for the money that the redevelopment law obligates you. This memorandum deals with the RHNA numbers and HCD regulations and has really nothing to do with whether you are inside the project area or outside. If a house is built inside the project area or the house is built outside the project area, this City Council still has some obligation under the RHNA and HCD regulations. Go to page 5, Table 1. I think you will start to see the enormity of this program. If you look at the second column, the affordable housing percentage, what this table says and what we are interpellating from SCAG is that 24% of household in the City of Highland are very low income. Therefore, 24% of all housing that is built or constructed within the City of Highland should be initially available for very low income persons or families. That is where these numbers are going crazy. Numbers are not going crazy because of our redevelopment law requirements. As that has been said, it is 15%, and we project it will be about 900 units built in the project area until build out. When you look at that 15% of 900 is 150 units. You have somewhere between $8.7 million and $16 million to provide for those units. Without doing any kind of a detailed analysis, off the top of my head, the statement is that you can do that. That is not the issue. This issue is that RHNA is saying 24% of your units have to be initially occupied or purchased by very low income persons or families, 15% by low income and 19% by moderate income. Because of the housing costs throughout the state, not just in Highland, but in the increase in housing, the dramatic increase in housing costs are no longer building single family dwellings for low income families. It used to be that way but now they are not. So when as single family, low income, seeks to secure shelter in Highland, it is not likely that it can afford that by purchasing a new single family residence. This is where the bust is coming. Your 58% of your units are supposed to be affordable. In short, we have 42% of the units subsidize 58% and that is where the problems come in.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated this is ridiculous. Obviously those people who put those laws in place are not coming down to the cities that see this low to moderate income living and the standards of living. One of the reasons that I agreed to put in the median density units are because they are a little more affordable. Obviously they are not affordable for low income families but they are more affordable. Do we have to live to the standards of the amount of the gap if we are not going to build anymore and we are just going to replace current apartments, can we lower that gap? Can we improve the current facilities and improve that and do we need as much money?

Community Development Director Hartmann stated let me make two points on this. First of all, what we have tried to do is to identify what is the difference between a market rate unit and a cost to a blended unit for families whether it be very low, low or moderate. We are saying that there is $191,000 difference between that. Think about the median home price in Highland is approximately $389,000. You take $191,000 off that you have about a $200,000 mortgage or home. A family making $45,000 or $50,000 could qualify and that would be low, very low or moderate income household. So the number is just a number it does not set forth any policies or programs that this Council may want to consider in the future. One of the points that Richard Tillberg and I want to emphasize is that on Table 3, it identifies what you are looking at most. There is a good portion of moderate income household which is 80% to 100% can afford to buy a home. So really you're looking at trying to provide housing for the lower two levels, your very low and low income households. Those are the ones that are going to struggle much more and those are the ones that, if we are to look at our numbers, what we struggle with. When we built the senior housing project some time ago, we got a tremendous amount of credit for that because the laws were not punitive for senior projects at the time. That provided for low and very low. When you think about this there is a good chance as the product you are viewing now at a higher density, more moderate income households are probably going to be able to afford those. You are really looking at very low and low income as the area and the problematic aspect that we have in providing housing.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she understands but that being said, I guess my question was the gap that we are looking for, the $191,000, and obviously we have lowered it to provide that stabilization, putting low income fix, do we need that much if we are not going to build any new ones and just to improve and preserve the currents?

Community Development Director Hartmann stated he cannot answer the question.

Councilman Timmer stated that is why we had some of the dialogue on where we came up with the number we talked about. With the increment and with that amount of dollars city-wide, they would provide us with the funding and apply that funding towards existing housing stock that needs improvements rather than building new low-mod. We came up with a number that generates some revenue throughout the city along with our low and mod points set aside. We can talk to some of these apartment owners with substandard housing stock to significant investment of upgrading that where you can get covenants put on. We can meet our numbers doing that to a certain extent rather than requiring this particular project, for example, having to build 18 low or very low units within his project because of the things talked about in the past. It is impractical. We would rather take the money on each house and take a portion of that money or all that money that comes from that specific item and plug it back into rehabbing existing housing stock.

City Attorney Battersby stated when you establish a fee too, I think it is important to always allow developers to create the affordable housing. We have to give them the opportunity to build the affordable units.

Councilman Timmer stated the same with developer impact fees. You give them the ability to build those infrastructures to contribute to the cause.

Councilman McCallon stated he would like to briefly go over a rationale of why we chose $5,000. If you look at the redevelopment area we have about a thousand to be built. That means 150 units very low or low required. We looked at it and said if we go outside the project area to do this we only get a half credit. So we're really looking at 300 units now. So if you take the figures that are in the gap analysis for buying covenants on existing rental property and refurbishing, it is $160,000 a year. If you multiply that times the 300 units, you come up with $48 million. If you divide that $48 million by the number of houses projected to be built, you come up with something around $10,000 a unit. In our long discussion with the developers in the room, we came up with and decided that probably the best figure would be something in the order of $5,000, which would provide half of the monies that are needed.

City Attorney Battersby stated that is for every new unit. Tonight is not the time to establish what the fee will be because you have to give special notice and follow a process to do that. The Council can give an indication of a methodology that you want to be looking at. The question on appeal is whether you are going to remove that condition all together. Staff is not recommending that you do that. We are recommending that based on your comments and decision tonight that condition be entirely revised and brought back to in form of a new condition and in a form of a resolution which will also wrap up the decision on the easements issues.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated in the thought process in coming up with the figure of $5,000 per unit, was there any thought going into say these units are going to sell between $350,000 and $400,000 and some of our homes are going to sell $500,000 to $600,000. Did you take into consideration a sliding scale if a home sells for this, we charge this much instead of a flat $5,000?

Councilman McCallon stated I'm not sure if we really want to do that. The reason we don't is because you are going to get LMI monies based on the assessed value of the property; 20% will go into LMI money. You are getting some monies already.

City Attorney Battersby stated the important thing is to know that the Council does not accept any intent to impose a $190,000 per affordable unit in-lieu fee and in fact you're looking at an even fee imposed on all new units city-wide in the neighborhood of $5,000. I don't think we can give any specific amount but certainly that is the dollar amount that you have thought about and to the extent staff justifies it in an ordinance and you adopt, then that is when it will be.

Mr. Dan Long, William Lyon Homes, stated we have read the staff report as well as the resolution. We concur with staff's recommendation to delete mitigation Numbers 21. We also reviewed the housing gap analysis as well as the staff reports. We are still of the condition of requesting elimination of condition No. 29 and with that we are able to answer any questions you have.

Mr. Phil Clayton, Bluestone Communities, stated we are not the formal applicant on the project. We will be the property owners in about seven days. Furthermore, I think I have mentioned to most of you here that we are going to be the ones footing the bill for the in-lieu fee and as far as the avigation easement and other conditions, that is Lyons call. We support them 100%. As far as the affordable element, the conditions of approval we would support either clarification of whether or not the condition requires the developer to build it or to pay the in-lieu fee because one possible reading of that condition is that it is the city's option and not the developer's. If it is the developer's option this is fine or just eliminate the requirement to build 15% altogether. That is another option too. As far as the actual in-lieu fee we had a good discussion. The city was nice enough to invite some of the local developers to the Finance Subcommittee sessions. I think we had a good discussion about it but in fairness we received three days. A lot of meat on these bones to think about. We are in no immediate hurry to calculate what this fee should be anyway and if the City Attorney says that it shouldn't be acted on tonight then we would certainly wait.

City Attorney Battersby stated she would like to clarify that staff needs to rewrite the condition and it will be rewritten to clarify that it is the developer's option whether to construct the 15% affordable units or pay an in-lieu fee when it is established city- wide by the City Council prior to recordation of the map.

Councilman McCallon inquired if this could be done tonight.

City Attorney Battersby responded it is her preference because there are other problems with the resolution as drafted that we bring it back to the next meeting with appropriate findings and wrap up both issues in one resolution. We will ask your decision tonight and clear direction for the resolution then you will actually be reviewing and adopting a resolution. So if you don't like what we prepared for you at the next meeting you can direct changes.

Councilman Timmer inquired if direction can be given to staff to start putting together ordinances or what is required to set this fee and the required public notices.

City Attorney Battersby stated yes then the developer will know.

Mr. Phil Clayton, Bluestone Communities, stated just so we are clear, you are requesting a resolution tonight and the fee issue stay open and come back to solve that later on.

City Attorney Battersby inquired would it be satisfactory that in the minutes of the meeting that Council's decision be reflected in a resolution adopted at the next meeting. The resolution will say two things, basically, with appropriate findings which findings are not of particular concern, the resolution will state mitigation measure No. 21 is to be removed from the conditions of approval with environmental findings consistent with that, and the applicant's appeal is granted in part and denied in part with respect to condition No. 29 that the condition be rewritten to state that the developer may determine the option of 15% of the units to be made affordable consistent with the city's policies or the developer will pay an in-lieu affordable housing fee that is established by City Council prior to recordation of the map.

Mr. Phil Clayton, Bluestone Communities, stated if this is okay with Lyon Homes then it is okay with us.

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to grant the appeal as to mitigation measure No. 21 by deleting the mitigation measure with appropriate environmental findings and grant the appeal in part, due to the initial request was for the entire condition be removed, you will clarify condition No. 29 to state the developer has the option of constructing affordable units as stated or paying any in-lieu fee for affordable housing fee that is adopted by City Council prior to recordation of the map. Motion carried, 5-0.

20. Design Review Application (DRB 05-039) for a Corporation Yard Consisting of Approximately 20,619 Square Feet in Floor Area Generally Located Seventy-five Feet (75') south of the Terminus of Sixth Street on the East Side of Central Avenue. Applicant: City of Highland.

Community Development Director Hartmann gave a brief review of staff report.

Assistant City Manager Hughes stated this is the last piece of the puzzle for the completion of the city projects including the Jerry Lewis Community Center, the athletic center, the Highland Library and Central Park. This will complete Central Avenue. In February this project will go out to bid.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to Approve the Site Plan, Landscaping Plan, Rough Grading Plan, and Elevations (DRB 05-039) subject to the Conditions of Approval, as amended by the Design Review Board; and Approve the Findings of Fact; and Adopt Resolution No. 2006-003 determining the Corporation Yard is consistent with the City of Highland General Plan in accordance with California Government Code 65402. Motion carried, 5-0.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired what is being done for security.

Assistant City Manager Hughes stated items of value will be locked inside the building. The building includes roll up doors to house items of value.

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-003

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, DETERMINING THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW CITY OF HIGHLAND CORPORATION YARD LOCATED APPROXIMATELY SEVENTY-FIVE FEET SOUTH OF THE TERMINUS OF SIXTH STREET ON THE EAST SIDE OF CENTRAL AVENUE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S GENERAL PLAN OR PART THEREOF IN ACCORDANCE WITH GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 65402 (DRB-05-039)

21. Update on SANBAG, SCAG, Omnitrans, Work Program and Regional/Legislative Issues/Development Issues

City Manager Racadio stated the Finance Subcommittee has requested the Council consider an item without a recommendation. It is an issue relative to utilization of 10% of CDBG funding for public service. The potential of using it for administration costs of administrating the CDBG program due to the city having over 50,000 population, we are eligible for this. The reason for the urgency is staff has just been informed of this today and the county needs an answer by next week.

A MOTION was made to add the above item to the Council agenda. Motion carried, 4-0, with Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn abstaining.

City Manager Racadio stated the information being distributed includes the funding request. The funding request for this fiscal year and how much is allocated is $73,500 worth of public service funding. This is not the construction portion only the public service portion. This year's allocation is 15% of the total and will amount to $69,000. The estimated cost to administer the program is approximately $28,000 a year.

Councilman McCallon stated last year $73,500 allocated to the agency shown. If we reduce the amount of $40,000 and we look at the agencies and what was funded it becomes very difficult to decide which program to take $28,000 away from. Currently we provide assistance to the after school program as it exists and if we took $18,500 away from this program, it still would have to be taken from the general fund. He does not want to make the decision of taking monies away from Little League, the YMCA, the library or the Highland Senior Center.

Councilman Timmer stated a decision could have been made but the consensus was not to take monies away from other agencies. The Subcommittee wanted to have Council to have input before making a recommendation. Either we reduce the allocation and pay the administrative costs. It makes good sense to save general fund monies but we will have to back bill the monies taken from the after school program.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, not to change our request made to the County of San Bernardino on how the funds are to be allocated. Motion carried, 4-0, with Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn abstaining.

Councilman McCallon stated a memo was distributed from SANBAG. The new executor's contract has been approved with the terms summarized in the memo. There was discussion on changing the membership of the South Coast Air Quality Air Management District as a result of South Bay Cities COG wanting to do this since they feel they are disenfranchised. It was decided not to support changing the composition of the board but to monitor what the South Bay Cities COG is doing in terms of getting an author in legislation. If they do have something come forward it will be reviewed and discussed at this time. He substituted for Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn at the Omnitrans meeting. The shortage of liquid nitrogen gas fuel shortage which occurred and the list of reasons was discussed. Action was taken to approve changes to existing contracts. Fuel was being purchased at less than half of the cost at $.60 a gallon when the price based on delivery to pipelines was at $1.31 per gallon. This was the reason for not receiving any fuel as the supplier stated he was not able to provide fuel at this price.

Councilman Timmer stated he sits on the LAFCO Committee 2919. The Muni issue with the Conservation District was discussed. Based on Highland's interest, it has been recognized that Plan B is of importance. In July of 2007, LAFCO cannot start the certificate of completion for any consolidation effort until Plan B is completed, environmental portions are approved, and take provision that these agreements have been worked out and approved. Another item of concern was that Muni has agreements with the City of Redlands, the City of Riverside and why was Highland not involved in these discussions. He is inquiring if the Council would like to have staff start working with Muni Board in putting a similar agreement together.

Councilwoman Scott asked does this mean that we are going to buy into Muni?

Councilman Timmer stated we do not have to adopt the same agreement. He is only stating if Council desires to have an agreement with Muni, that commits them by agreement to continue the focus on getting Plan B through the process.

Councilwoman Scott inquired if there has been discussion on what the impact is going to be when Muni consolidates with Water Conservation District and what it is going to do to the water coming to Highland. These are the things that need to be discussed due to Muni being at 24%. Her concern is the funds will be spent on San Bernardino's lakes and streams project.

Councilman Timmer stated these specific things were not discussed but Redlands did have information stating some of the efficiencies and saving that could occur if the two entities merge. The issue before LAFCO now is not consolidation, it is the sphere issue. This report will be focused more on how the sphere issue will be addressed and the concerns of the potential consolidation.

Councilwoman Scott stated her concerns are when LAFCO states it is not consolidation, it is a zero sphere, yet every report you read it will state consolidation.

Councilman Timmer stated if LAFCO takes action to grant the sphere issue, at some future point, anyone could file an application to start consolidation process. His focus is on how to protect Plan B.

Mayor Jones stated he has met with the Mayor of Redlands and also addressed the same issue of getting them to see another perspective and not try to proceed with this consolidation until Plan B is completed.

Councilman Timmer stated the Redlands representative on the Committee stated this will be good for the City of Redlands.

Mayor Jones stated the reality is what costs us now to percolate water in the ground is at $6.31 as opposed to $131 if we start buying state water.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated with respect to the question Councilman Timmer presented, is it Council's desire to open up the dialogue for a Plan B MOU agreement.

Mayor Jones stated if we do not have an MOU we may end up at the short side of the stick. It may be good sense to draw up an agreement.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the discussion was on how important this is and the concerns of if Muni Board does not have Plan B as a priority project, it would not dedicate the staff time or the resources to do it. The MOU should state they dedicate the staff time and resources to complete Plan B in the most feasible way.

Councilman Timmer stated LAFCO has two issues. One is that if an application comes in, they will have to take some kind of action. The second is there are deadlines based on state law. In January, 2008, if they do not take action, the ability to consolidate no longer is allowable.

Councilwoman Scott stated would it not be a better bargaining position if we do not have an MOU with Muni.

Councilman Timmer stated he believes it is a good insurance policy to have an agreement with Muni because if it happens we have some assurance that the Board has taken action to support Plan B.

City Attorney Battersby stated the better language would be for Muni to agree they will not submit their application until Plan B has been approved or the allowable number of months before the deadline expires.  As soon as Highland agrees, they can consolidate as long as they dedicate the correct staff.

Councilman Timmer stated he does not agree with the statement of supporting the consolidation. He would like for it to state if it happens, they will continue to support and dedicate their staff time to getting Plan B completed.

22. San Bernardino International Airport Authority and IVDA

Nothing to report.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

None

CLOSED SESSION

At 8:57 p.m., the Redevelopment Agency and City Council convened into closed session regarding the following:

PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957

Title: City Manager

At 11:45 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 11:50 p.m. in memory of Ashley Marron and Don Barnhart.

Submitted By: Approved By:

Betty Hughes Ross B. Jones

City Clerk Mayor