MINUTES
REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
NOVEMBER 13, 2007 - 6:00 p.m.
CALL TO ORDER
The regular meeting of the City Council and Redevelopment Agency of the City of Highland was called to order at 6:03 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 Councilwoman Jody Scott.
ROLL CALL
Present: Scott, Timmer, Mayor Jones
Absent: Lilburn, McCallon
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None
COMMUNITY INPUT
Ken Cottrell stated the Hillview Apartments behind his house need to be cleaned up. There is a lot of gang activity. The Sheriff's Department was called the night before. There were about 30 people, local gangs, back there and they scattered when the police showed up. The sheriff was there for about three or four minutes, and all of them took off. At least it quieted down for then, but this goes on every night, day in and day out. I have called the Sheriff's Department since the first of the year at least 10 or 12 times myself. Every time you call them they say you need to sign a complaint. We passed an ordinance on this noise stuff a long time ago, and why it never got to the sheriff's department and the dispatchers over there, I understand we don't have to sign a complaint to get them to do something. They're breaking the law. We've got ordinances against it. The same people have been driving up and down my street, day and night, for two and three years with their boom boxes blasting and they're never stopped, but they can write 600 tickets for no seat belts. Why can't we get something done about these apartments? Somebody should look into it.
Michael Haynes stated he is the Chairperson for the Community Trails Committee. We have been working over the last few years to develop a plan to encourage the usage of trails in the City of Highland. That plan has prioritized trail development projects. We have planned and conducted a couple of trails days. We have just finished completing the design of a patch for the committee and City to use. There are two concerns on recognition of special presentations. In regards to the City Trails patch, two artists' renderings were added together and we came up with a very good patch. He would like them to be recognized for their efforts.
Mayor Jones responded you need to make a recommendation to the City Manager or the City Clerk and we can prepare community service certificates.
Mr. Haynes continued that leads right into the second concern. One of our committee members is long serving, 20 years at this point. That person is not planning to leave and is still active. We felt we should do something special to recognize her 20 plus years of service to that particular committee. Thank you for your time.
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSENT CALENDAR
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to approve the consent calendar as submitted. Motion carried on a roll call vote, 3-0, with Councilman Timmer abstaining on items #4 and #5, and Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn and Councilman McCallon absent.
1. Waive the Reading of All Ordinances
Waived the reading of all Ordinances in their entirety and read by title only.
2. Minutes - October 9, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting
Approved the Minutes as submitted.
3. Minutes - October 9, 2007 RDA Regular Meeting
Approved the Minutes as submitted.
4. Minutes - October 23, 2007 City Council Regular Meeting
Approved the Minutes as submitted.
5. Minutes - October 23, 2007 RDA Regular Meeting
Approved the Minutes as submitted.
6. Warrant Register
Approved Warrant Register No. 451 for November 13, 2007, in the amount of $2,832,895.11 and Payroll of $66,131.90.
7. State COPS Grant BY 2007/2008 Allocation
Continued to allocate its funding under the annual State COPS grant for the hiring of a Sergeant position under the contract with San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department.
8. Agreement with Associated Engineers for Professional On-Call Engineering Services
Approved a professional services agreement with Associated Engineers, Inc., to provide professional on-call engineering services.
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING
9. Development Impact Fee Annual Adjustment
Mayor Jones opened the Public Hearing.
City Engineer Wong stated you may recall last year the City Council made a major adjustment of the City's Development Impact Fee because the fee had not been adjusted for many years, so we had a very big jump last year. City Council had instructed and also put it in the fee resolution that from now on, these fees are to be adjusted on an annual basis. What we have here tonight are two resolutions. One resolution deals with the Development Impact Fees that covers nine categories of improvements. The other resolution deals with the Quimby Act fee which only deals with the park fee for projects that involve a subdivision of land. The nine categories of fees are adjusted based on two indexes. Three of those nine categories including the regional circulation system, the local circulation system and the regional flood control facilities, are being adjusted based on an index used by SANBAG which would apply to all cities on regional facilities. We are using the same index to adjust the local circulation facilities and the regional flood control facilities because they are all heavy construction related type of work applying the same index. The rest of the infrastructure, including law enforcement, fire, public buildings, public libraries, community center and parks, etc., are using a different index to adjust them. The first index adopted by SANBAG has a large adjustment of 12.7 percent, because heavy construction costs were high for the last five years. This index is a five-year average of the heavy construction costs so we have a 12.7 percent adjustment for the three regional facilities as adopted by SANBAG. The other six infrastructures have a smaller adjustment of 1.56 percent based on a different index. Therefore, these adjusted fees are now listed individually in the two resolutions. However, before the meeting one of the developers did bring to my attention that there are some mistakes in the resolution, which I will call to your attention.
City Engineer Wong continued if you go to page six of the staff report on the top of the page, Paragraph E where it says Regional Flood Control Facilities, all six numbers listed there were copied exactly like the original circulation system and the correct numbers should be like this: Instead of 8198, we should have 742.69; instead of 5473 we should have 317.81; instead of 4291 we should have 261.46; instead of 4313 we should have 121.72; instead of 7.702 we should have 0.165; instead of 5.356 we should have 0.197. I apologize for the confusion here. All the other categories are good. Basically, we copied the same numbers from the regional circulation to the regional flood control which was a mistake.
These fees will be effective 60 days after their adoption if you choose to approve them tonight, so it would be the middle part of January that these fees would be effective. They would be applied to projects that are ready to pull permits after the mid-January date. I understand one of our developers would like to address this issue to you, but this concludes staff presentation.
Mr. David Webber with Regency Centers stated he is here to clarify on these fees. As you know, our project just got approved through DRB last week, and our neighbors to the west of us with the Lowe's Development also were approved. As a timing issue, and we have been working with everyone on the Golden Triangle and obviously the bond issue the infrastructure that's going on in that area, our request tonight on behalf of that was that the projects that are already in process, and I'm not sure if the entire Golden Triangle as its own entity would be grandfathered in so to speak, with the fees that are currently there and not have to have this next bump since we already are in process. So that's the question we have tonight. We will leave it up to you, but as you know the economics on this project are already tight. I have some tenant representation here to back me up on that, but we're looking for everything we can possible to keep these projects going forward, especially given the economic conditions we're running into now as everybody knows. So that is our request, is that we be able to be grandfathered into those current fees that are currently existing right now.
Councilman Timmer stated Ernie, if I recall when we adopted this ordinance the last time, we allowed that if a project is at a certain phase they can buy the future development impact fees at the current rate that is already in the ordinance, right?
City Engineer Wong responded what you had last time was a phase implementation of the increase. You made three increments because of the huge increase that we had last time. Also, the time to lock in the fee is when a project is ready to pull building permits. In order to pull building permits, the project has to finish grading. So you don't have a general prohibition to allow any project to just pre-pay the fees or lock in the fees. You do have a policy that if a project has proceeded to a point where it can pull building permits, and even though they don't pull building permits, they still can pay that fee in effect at that time. That is your way of encouraging projects to move forward rather than just locking the fee. This still can apply to many projects. You have projects some times that just proceed to a certain point and they don't build. They just finish grading and they don't build. The current policy will allow them to pay the fee after they finish grading, even if they don't pull the permits.
Councilman Timmer inquired if that still exists?
City Engineer Wong responded yes, that still exists.
City Manager Hughes stated the impact here though, the majority of this increase is the SANBAG increase which is the 12 percent increase. We really don't have any control over that. That has to go through. We can't hold that increase back. The only thing you would have any flexibility on is the 1.56 for those other categories. The 12 percent has to go through. That was mandated by a vote of the people.
Councilman Timmer stated also I think the regional facilities that we are talking about that have the higher percentage of 12 percent versus the 1.5 percent, the regional facilities, most of those, are being funded by the Redevelopment Agency anyway, the street widening and the storm drain system that is at the higher rate. So the rule increased to the developers then is the 1.5 percent. The big increase really doesn't apply, because most of those projects that have the larger increase are going to be City funded projects anyway.
City Engineer Wong stated the developer will still be required to pay the regular Development Impact fees, but it is largely offset, or completely offset by the City's contribution. They are still required to pay the fees.
Councilwoman Scott inquired if SANBAG's determined adjustment, this 12.7, why are we going 12.15 for the commercial.
City Engineer Wong responded SANBAG adopted the index, which turned out to be 12.7 percent based on the last five years rolling average. It is the Caltrans Highway Construction Cost Index.
Councilwoman Scott asked if it goes down, then we're going to redo this and go down?
City Engineer Wong responded yes, every year. Actually, because you are using a five-year rolling average and construction costs go up and down, you could see a reduction.
Mr. Webber stated he thinks Treh is going to miss that deadline for the grading permit by about two months and we'll probably miss it by four months, so rather than just pushing in at January 1, we're so close, as you guys know we have pushed these projects as fast as we can to try to get under that deadline. That's why we were asking for a little variance on that.
City Manager Hughes stated we would like to point out to the Council that we did receive a letter from the BIA requesting a continuance of this item for 45 days, and that letter is included in the packet, however, staff felt that there was adequate notice regarding this issue so we brought it forward to the Council. Our feeling is the Council took action to do this last year essentially to adjust this every year. We also gave the BIA their proper 14-day notice. This isn't a new study. It's an adjustment based on CPI.
Councilwoman Scott stated they had that notice and then they also had another 14 days because we did continue it from the last Council meeting two weeks ago. Is this for all new development, these fees, or how about someone that is going to add a room? Will expansions have to pay all of this too?
City Engineer Wong responded not all expansions. Residential unit expansion has a 500-square foot waiver. More than 500, they only pay the portion above 500. So if it is a 600 square foot expansion, they only pay the fee for 100 square feet.
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to approve Resolution No. 2007-060 amending amounts of development impact fees pursuant to Government Code Section 66,000 (AB 1600) and Resolution No. 2007-061 amending amounts of fees pursuant to Government Code Section 66477 (Quimby Act). Motion carried, 3-0, with Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn and Councilman McCallon absent.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-060
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES FOR ALL DEVELOPMENTS WITHIN CITY OF HIGHLAND
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-061
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA AMENDING A FEE APPLICABLE TO RESIDENTIAL NEW DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE CITY OF HIGHLAND ON PARK LAND ACQUISITION AND PARK FACILITIES DEVELOPMENT,
PURSUANT TO SECTION 16.40.200 OF THE HIGHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
AND THE QUIMBY ACT (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66477)
10. Adoption of Utility Undergrounding In-Lieu Fee Unit Costs
City Engineer Wong stated in August of this year, an ordinance was adopted that addressed the requirement for utility undergrounding for new developments. There are various categories of new developments. One of the categories of new development does not require the physical undergrounding work be done. However, it will be required to pay a construction in-lieu fee. According to that ordinance, you need to come back and adopt that fee by separate resolution, and that is what we are doing tonight. Basically, what you are presented is the unit cost of various types of utility undergrounding work, and based on this unit cost, city staff would calculate the fee that would be applicable to that certain type of new development. This fee is listed on page two of your staff report. As you can tell, on electric lines there are various kinds of lines, either single circuit or double circuit, and they have different voltages so we have different unit costs for the different voltages of lines. These numbers came from the utility companies. The resolution also reflects this unit cost.
Councilwoman Scott stated she is all for undergrounding the utilities, however, will this be considered by the Tax Assessor to be a property improvement that would trigger a raise in the property tax.
City Engineer Wong responded this is work outside of the property.
Councilwoman Scott asked would there be redevelopment funds or grants or anything like that. Would there be any financial help available, like the NIP program we have, to residents?
Councilman Timmer stated this is only for new construction.
City Engineer Wong stated existing overhead lines but only applied to new construction.
Mayor Jones stated it would trigger us to condition them to underground them.
City Engineer Wong stated in the past when we had to figure out how much in-lieu fee to be applied to a certain project, we were kind of using our judgment at that time. Now we want to standardize it, to adopt that rate so it is open. Everyone knows what that number is coming in.
A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to adopt Resolution No. 2007-062 establishing a schedule of unit costs for utility undergrounding in-lieu fee for development projects within the City of Highland. Motion carried, 3-0, with Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn and Councilman McCallon absent. RESOLUTION NO. 2007-062
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A SCHEDULE OF UNIT COSTS FOR UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING IN-LIEU FEE FOR DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS
WITHIN THE CITY OF HIGHLAND
11. City of Highland Land Use and Development Code Amendment - Amend Various Code Sections to the Highland Municipal Code Dealing with Provisions for Boarding and Rooming Houses as they Relate to Parolee Housing (MCA 007-002)
Community Development Director Jaquess stated this item before you is relative to an amendment to the Zoning Regulations of the City that deal specifically with establishing regulations for boarding and rooming houses in the City, and particularly as they relate to accommodating housing for parolees. Back in 2005, City Council adopted an Urgency Ordinance to restrict new facilities being established in the City for parolee housing. That was extended for two years ultimately, but that period ran out in September of 2007. The staff working with the City Attorney has been working to develop an ordinance to take the place of that Urgency Ordinance and that is what you have before you tonight. This was reviewed by the Planning Commission a couple of times and they recommended approval of this ordinance that is before you at their last meeting last Tuesday. Subject to some revisions to definitions that were made by the City Attorney's office and sent to me on Wednesday, which we incorporated in your packet, the ordinance itself deals with provisions for boarding and rooming houses in the city as they relate to parolee housing. Section One is fairly straightforward, the findings and purposes and intent section, and talks about the fact that over concentration of parolees and boarding houses can pose a threat to the peace, health and safety of the public, and is detrimental to the character of residential neighborhoods. Section Two is a revised definition of boarding and rooming houses. Specifically, it deals with the fact that a boarding and rooming house is a facility or a portion thereof accommodates three or more unrelated individuals for compensation and monies, services or other things of value under separate rental lease or sublease agreement, whether or not the owner lives there. I go through that because one of the things that we discovered in the review is that rental lease or sublease agreement is an important term in this definition of boarding and rooming houses. You have a facility where three unrelated people live together but there is no written or oral agreement about paying rent, say it's three college students, then it is not a boarding and rooming house by definition. This is where unrelated people live and where they agree to pay so much money a month for rent toward the ongoing cost of that particular unit. The other issue that is subject to some potential discussion is the definition of three or more parties. This number was recommended by the City Attorney after reviewing a number of other ordinances in California and various court decisions on housing that relates to parolees. The Planning Commission did support and recommend approval of the definition with three people as being the definition of a boarding and rooming house. Section Three of the ordinance defines a parolee. This is the term that was amended somewhat by the City Attorney's office after the last Planning Commission meeting. Section Four adds a definition of a residential care facility. We do not currently have one in our code. Section Five actually adds in a set of development standards for boarding and rooming houses that would be made a part of the Development Zoning Code. Number One says they must obtain a Conditional Use Permit prior to establishing the use within the City. That is a key provision of the ordinance. They would have to comply with parking requirements. Spacing requirements of 500 feet between boarding and rooming houses is required by code proposed. Another key element is that no more than one parolee can live in a boarding and rooming house at any one time. If you have three unrelated people or more, only one can be a parolee. We did add a provision in that section that talked about the possibility if you have, say an apartment project, a number of units, that you could have one parolee for 10 or more dwelling units you could have another parolee. In other words, it is recognizing that a lot of dwelling units, and it was attempting to look at the issue of separation between units. The Conditional Use Permit must provide information on the identification of the parolee and how long he or she will stay at that facility. That information has to be kept current within three business days. All the group boarders or roomers have to sign an agreement that states any criminal conviction during residency is grounds for termination of residency and also that the boarding rooming houses must be in compliance with the Zoning Code at all times. Violation of laws by tenants is grounds for revocation of the CUP where the property owner contributed to or did not protect against the violation. All boarding rooming houses shall be maintained so as not to be a nuisance. Previously, existing boarding and rooming houses shall comply with these provisions within six months of the effective date of this ordinance. If there is an existing facility in the City, they have to come in compliance within six months. However, if a tenant changes and involves a parolee, they have to come into compliance at that point in time, even if it is less than six months. We also determined that the proposed ordinance was consistent with the General Plan.
Councilwoman Scott stated referring to Section Two, when three or more parties live together without a formal agreement, if you have a landlord who is renting a piece of property and rents it to one person, and they have a lease and so forth and then two or three other people move in with this one person and one of them happens to be a parolee, then there is not going to be any oversight of that particular property because the only way you'll know the parolee is there is if his agent, his parole agent, happens to notify the City that he is there.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated actually he thinks the ordinance does cover that type of situation. If there are three or more unrelated people, even if they are in a sublease agreement or an oral agreement that they are renting the apartment by you are helping me pay the rent and we have an oral agreement that you are going to pay one third . . .
Councilwoman Scott stated it doesn't say that here.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated he thinks that is the definition of a boarding and rooming house. Turn to the City Attorney for backup on that point, but he thinks we are covered and that is included in the definition of a boarding and rooming house as you have just described and would be covered by the CUP requirement.
Councilwoman Scott stated she was linking number four under Section Five to this Section Two because it seemed to her that there was possibly a little contradiction there.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated residential care facilities are exempted from this ordinance, so if they are state licensed then they are not subject to these revisions and are subject only to State law.
Councilwoman Scott stated so this is strictly parolee, it is not for any other board and care facilities.
Community Development Director Jaquess stated that is correct.
Councilwoman Scott stated she did ask how they were going to get the State to cooperate, but the State would not be involved in the parolees.
Community Development Director Jaquess responded well not the State Agencies that license residential care facilities. Certainly, the police department is in communication with the agencies that relate to parolees as they leave the prison system.
Councilwoman Scott asked under our business license, do we have an established fee for a rooming house in our business licensing?
City Manager Hughes responded the same fee as any other business. Our business license fee really doesn't fluctuate.
Councilman Timmer stated he has two questions, one to follow up on Councilwoman Scott's question. Are we going to have to adopt another ordinance to set a new business license fee, and it sounds like it's the same, and I'm assuming then based on the Conditional Use Permit fees that we get the standard Conditional Use Permit fee permit cost so we wouldn't have to adopt any fees based on this. My last question is to the City Attorney. In your research, since these are multiple occupancy types of projects, are other cities looking at fire sprinklers because of the life hazard at any of these kinds of ordinances?
City Attorney Steele responded we are actually in a cycle now where cities are going through and adopting the next generation of the fire codes and so there is some research in that area. He is not aware of any city that has actually gone and done it yet, but we are in that cycle of that period of time where those discussions are taking place and some of those adoptions are taking place. So when we see it we will talk further. He is not aware of it but will check into it.
Councilwoman Scott asked can we look into that and give them 45 or 60 days to install it? It is a safety factor. We need to do it.
City Attorney Steele responded we will look into it.
Councilman Timmer stated he did have another issue. Basically, if there are problems at a particular facility, and someone is arrested for some activity, we have to wait to see if we can do anything because of using the word conviction. It can't just be pending. The other issue really is that we can't do anything to the property owner unless we can prove that they have had something to do with that activity. So, really, we could have activity at a place and it could go on for a long time as slow as the courts move.
City Attorney Steele responded or if the property is being maintained as a nuisance. There are a lot of those kinds of conditions that could be considered a public nuisance. So we would go through the administrative process rather than a criminal process.
Mayor Jones stated we have two individuals who have expressed interest in commenting.
(Blank places [. . .] were inaudible.)
Kurt Wilson stated he is the Chief of External Affairs for the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation. He actually attended a Planning Commission meeting and contacted the attorney's office and was able to work with Mr. Steele and make some of the changes to the language that were no longer current. Regretfully, because of the short time period, we weren't able to get to some of the others, but there are still pieces in the wording that it last read that are no longer current, but I did want to make sure that we were clear on a few things. One of them mentions that parolees are individuals who were released from the prison term prior to its expiration. While that may be true in the case of federal probation, not parole but federal probation, and in some other states, that is not the case in California. In California, parole is mandatory. We have the lovely distinction of being one of the two states in this country that have mandatory parole. This means that anyone coming out of our system, we put them on parole, regardless of whether they served a fraction of their time, their full time, regardless of what their offense was. By doing that we have many of those parolees who are legitimate danger to society. We also have others who are not quite the same level of danger.
In other words, in our system, whether you're Martha Stewart or Charles Manson, you are still going on parole. You're still going to have that type of parolee. The other issue is Penal Code Section 3003 which states which county individuals can turn back to. I remember having that same question as to why are parolees here in this area.
I just want to make you aware that if you go through this process throughout the State, a number of individuals have gone through some very stringent housing restrictions in the hopes that it would intensely reduce the number of parolees that are within our system. But, the number of parolees state-wide is not likely to be reduced because of a mandatory parole . . . In the ballpark of around 1,000 is not going to change, either. Where we've got an individual who is from this area, was from this area returned to the County of San Bernardino, is less likely that he is going to end up in Rubidoux. It is certainly an option, but it's less likely. The individual who spoke earlier in the meeting about the apartment complex, some of those same individuals if they were to work their way through our system, you can imagine . . . and under similar circumstances what many cities have found is that by restricting . . . and not allowing them to live within that one area, they end up either . . . until some law enforcement catches them and returns them back to the prison system or they end up . . . status or homeless status which is something that is an option to them under state law. It ends up giving us the case where we've got an individual . . . On the law enforcement side it's much easier for our agents or local police to keep an eye on somebody when you know where they are. It's much easier to figure out where they are when you suspect them of something or . . . When someone hits that . . . status, it makes it a lot more difficult. There are additional items that we can put on them, additional conditions during the time they are on parole . . . But it is regrettable, at times, that we are inadvertently putting these types of restrictions . . . Regardless of the outcome of today, I want to make sure that we are available to you. I've got plenty of business cards for anyone who would like them. On an ongoing basis, we'd like to make sure the department is working with you to make sure the City of Highland is safe. I do have some concerns about this ordinance, but again, regardless of the outcome of this ordinance, we are here to help you.
Councilman Timmer stated you mentioned that basically all folks coming out of the prison system are parolees. Even if they serve their full term, they are still considered parolees? So when does the term parolee go away for these individuals?
Mr. Wilson responded in California it goes away when they are discharged from parole. Officially, parole is a three year period. With the California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice Law, there are some instances where we can go a much longer period for a very specific individual.
Councilman Timmer stated so if someone goes to prison for a sentence of five years, they serve that full five years, then they have an additional three years, generally, on parole, is that what you're saying?
Mr. Wilson answered that is correct.
City Manager Hughes stated if he could suggest a change to the ordinance to clarify the issue.
City Attorney Steele stated I think what we could do to address the gentleman's issue is really just change the word "and" in the second line in the definition of parolee to "or", on page 35 of the Staff Report, Section 3A. There is a difference between parolees in the federal system and parolees, as I understand from this, in the state. So I think the word "and" in the second line should be "or" so that it could be a federal parolee who is released prior to the end of his sentence, or a state parole who is subject to monitoring by law enforcement officers for some set period of time.
Mr. Wilson stated while the bulk of the changes again were made by Mr. Steele, who was very cooperative, there are some additional references to the California Youth Authority, where youth authority parolees is a term that is no longer current within California. As of 2005, the California Youth Authority is no longer the current name for the division of juvenile justice. That acronym has been updated from the original definition.
Councilwoman Scott asked so we're just changing the one word "or" who is subject to regular monitoring.
Mayor Jones responded and then we want to update it with the new terminology as far as references from the Youth Authority to the Rehabilitation Division of Juvenile Justice.
Mr. Tom Kanavos stated he represents a non-profit charity that assists parolees and homeless and also veterans. This is not my town, so I really don't have any axes to grind here, but I can tell you that clearly, according to Constitutional Law, if we say that we discriminate between a parolee and somebody else, that it is discrimination. That is my opinion. When we came up here and we prayed, and we asked God to please help us so that we don't discriminate and then we came up here and we pledged our allegiance, justice for all, that meant all. That meant even parolees. That even meant people that have made mistakes and need the help and the support of facilities and places to live. You know, I'll tell you, my background is, I was chairman of NA of hospitals and institutions and I served on that committee for the EIE area and I went into prisons and jails and I assist parolees, which 85 percent of all parolees according to the DOJ have additional problems, or substance abuse problems. So essentially what we are saying is that we're not going to be able to let people recover or be in a place where their potential recovery can assist them. Secondly, it's kind of class discrimination in that if a parolee gets out and has lots of money and he's a rich parolee, he can go and get himself an apartment anywhere he wants to go, unless he has certain requirements based on his conviction. But if the parolee is a broke parolee, and he has to end up going in one of these types of houses, then essentially now he is being discriminated against because there can only be one person per house, and there are only so many facilities that are available and he ends up being transient on the street or going someplace else, and that only causes recidivism. Now, we have, the percentages 70 percent recidivism. I can tell you that I am very involved in a different area not too far from here, where I have cut the recidivist ratio at the very most 35 percent, from 70 to 35 percent and that's because I assist, and my program assists parolees, we find them jobs, we get them a place to stay that is stable and we monitor them. We assist the parole department in the monitoring. And secondly, I would say the problem is that there are a lot of people that are unscrupulous that open up these kind of houses that really do not have the credentials to be running these kinds of houses. That's what the determination should be, and I can tell you how to determine this, real simply. If under the category of a sober living, which most of them try to go under, the person who is running the program or that is involved in the program should definitely be able to quantify himself on an area level service to whatever 12 step program. So that means they have to be able to justify the fact that they were of service on an area level to any 12 step program. If they did that, then they certainly should be able to run a sober living. But there's a lot of people, unscrupulous people, that just say well okay, they open up houses and they say it's sober living and then they leave and there's all kinds of problems. I mean, how can somebody help somebody stay sober if they've never stayed sober themselves. So essentially, I don't have anything to do with parolee housing. I have sober livings, that's what I have, and I'm just wondering what does this specific housing thing, does this mean that sober livings, is that part of it or are they different? That's what I'm trying to quantify here, is we're distinguishing between regular people and parolees and the only thing that I can't, I don't think we should do that. I think it's discrimination. But like I said, I'm not from the city, and I just praise God. God does wonders and changes people's lives, and putting parolees out in the street I think is not good thinking. I just want to thank you so much for the opportunity to tell you my opinion.
Mr. Greg Oliver stated he is the manager of the Valencia Lea Mobile Home Park. I am here to represent the owners, the managers and the residents. We are thankful that you had the courage to take a position to support limitations. Obviously, you're not speaking to the issue of group homes, because you can't, but we are thankful that you are speaking to the issue of privatized housing in the form of rooming and boarding houses. It gives us an opportunity to see that our safety and the assurance of some kind of control is an issue that you're not unwilling to address. I just want to thank you for taking the position, and I'm looking forward to your community. Thank you again.
Councilwoman Scott stated this refers to parolees, so we're kind of talking about state prison and so forth, how about CYA, when the California Youth Authority is being paroled, does that also include them? Simply because they are released on a parole basis, so the CYA group homes that we have, that we're unaware of because the state will not release that information, we're only aware of it when there's a problem. The state will now have to, the home will now have to be licensed, etc., with the City so we can make certain that things are as they should be as far as the safety of the inhabitants.
City Attorney Steele responded except in the case of state run facilities. The state is not subject to local government.
Councilwoman Scott stated so then it doesn't apply to the CYA.
City Attorney Steele responded if it is state run.
Councilwoman Scott stated well if it's private run, they would have less than six and the state run could have . . .
Councilman Timmer stated isn't our ordinance basically saying there is only one permitted per house?
Councilwoman Scott stated I am bringing that up because we had a problem with a CYA home.
City Attorney Steele stated that falls under the category of things we can't do anything about, which is a state run facility in the City.
Councilwoman Scott stated this is a good start, and frankly it protects everyone. The one gentleman did have the right idea. There are unscrupulous people out there that hang their shingles and make money and they don't really care about the rehabilitation of anybody.
A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to adopt a Negative Declaration and instruct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk to the Board of Supervisors and amend the City's Land Use and Development Code, Title 16 (MCA 007-002). Motion carried, 3-0, with Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn and Councilman McCallon absent.
City Clerk Hughes introduced Ordinance Number 318:
ORDINANCE NO. 318
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA AMENDING THE DEFINITION OF BOARDING HOUSE, REGULATING THE USES OF BOARDING HOUSES IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES, AND AMENDING TITLE 16 (LAND USE AND DEVELOPMENT) OF THE HIGHLAND MUNICIPAL CODE
which title was read.
CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY LEGISLATIVE
12. City Council - Consideration of a Resolution Consenting to a Joint Public Hearing with the Highland Redevelopment Agency to Consider the Adoption of the Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Highland Redevelopment Project Area, and the Approval of the Negative Declaration Prepared by Connection Therewith
Redevelopment Agency - Consideration of a Resolution Consenting to a Joint Public Hearing with the Highland City Council to Consider the Adoption of the Proposed Amendment to the Redevelopment Plan for the Highland Redevelopment Project Area, and the Approval of the Negative Declaration Prepared by Connection Therewith
Community Development Director Jaquess stated this is an item that involves a sort of pro forma step in the amendment to the Redevelopment Plan to consider the addition or reestablishment of the Eminent Domain Authority for the City under the Redevelopment Plan. This proceeding tonight would authorize the holding of a joint public hearing between the City Council and Redevelopment Agency Board and the date proposed in these resolutions is January 22, 2008.
A MOTION was made by Councilman/Agency Member Timmer, seconded by Mayor/Chairman Jones, to jointly approve Resolution No. 2007-063 and Resolution No. RDA2007-007 to establish January 22, 2008, at 6:00 p.m., at the Donahue City Council Chambers, for the joint public hearing for the proposed Redevelopment Plan Amendment. Motion carried, 3-0, with Mayor Pro Tem/Vice Chairwoman Lilburn and Councilman/Agency Member McCallon absent.
RESOLUTION NO. 2007-063
RESOLUTION OF THE HIGHLAND CITY COUNCIL CONSENTING TO A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE HIGHLAND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HIGHLAND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE APPROVAL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
RESOLUTION NO. RDA2007-007
RESOLUTION OF THE HIGHLAND REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CONSENTING TO A JOINT PUBLIC HEARING WITH THE HIGHLAND CITY COUNCIL TO CONSIDER THE ADOPTION OF AN AMENDMENT TO THE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR THE HIGHLAND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECT AREA, AND THE APPROVAL OF THE NEGATIVE DECLARATION PREPARED IN CONNECTION THEREWITH
13. Proposed Resolution No. 2007- In Support of Tom Bradley Commemorative Stamp
City Clerk Hughes gave background from the staff report. Due to lack of motion, item was tabled.
14. Update on SANBAG, SCAG, Omnitrans, Work Program and Regional/Legislative Issues/Development Issues/Subcommittees/AB 1234 Updates
Councilman Timmer reported on the committee on the Base Line Corridor. We did have our first meeting and kind of set some guidelines and some procedures on how we're going to go and where we would like to go in the process to look at this. We will be dictating some more additional maps and stuff from staff, and we will be having a meeting in a couple of weeks after we all have a chance to go out and look and do some field work. The committee is moving along.
15. San Bernardino International Airport Authority and IVDA
Mayor Jones stated we have a meeting set for tomorrow. One of the items on the agenda is to gain the approval for the development of the airport, initial study for the SBIAA Corporate Aviation Center, which we sent an opposition letter to, and I will have to vote appropriately on that issue.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
None.
CLOSED SESSION
None.
ADJOURN
There being no further business, Mayor Jones adjourned the meeting at 7:13 p.m.
Submitted By: Approved By:
___________________________ ________________________________
Betty Hughes, CMC City Clerk Penny Lilburn, Mayor