MINUTES

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

MARCH 14, 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 6:06 p.m. by Mayor Jones at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.

The invocation was given by City Manager Racadio and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilman John Timmer.

ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

COMMUNITY INPUT

There were none.

COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT CONSENT CALENDAR

City Clerk Hughes stated items #2 and #3 need clarification on the same section for both items, RDA and City Council. Page 3 of 7, item #8, will have the following statement added; Councilwoman Scott stated she has to excuse herself from this item because she had attended Planning Commission meetings regarding the item and has also written a letter opposing the project. Councilwoman Scott left the dais prior to discussion of item #8.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to approve the consent calendar as amended and also with the exception of items #6 and #8 being removed for further discussion. Motion carried on a roll call vote, 5-0.

1. Waive the Reading of All Ordinances

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

2. Minutes - February 14, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting

Approved Minutes as submitted.

3. Minutes - February 14, 2006 RDA Regular Meeting

Approved Minutes as submitted.

4. Warrant Register

Approved Warrant Register No. 414 for March 14, 2006, in the amount of $1,051,562.93 and Payroll of $61,884.81.

5. Contract Renewal with Revenue and Cost Specialists for the Update of City Fees

Approved the contract with Revenue and Cost Specialists.

7. Resolution No. 2006-013 Amending the Legal Services Agreement with Richards, Watson, Gershon

Adopted Resolution No. 2006-013 approving the amendment to the legal services agreement with Richards, Watson, Gershon.

9. The Historic and Cultural Preservation Board Requests the City Council Waive the Applicant Fee for a Banner (Temporary Occupancy) Permit Related to the Sale of Citrus Harvest Festival Home tour Tickets

Waived the processing fee for a Temporary Occupancy Permit.

10. Award of a Professional Services Contract for Assistance in Preparing the Required Environmental Documentation (Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration) for a new Commercial/Office Building (Greenspot Properties, LLC) on Approximately Four (4) Acres Located on Fifth Street (Greenspot Road) East of SR30 (DRB05-030)(APN: 1201-341-12)

Awarded a contract to Michael Brandman Associations (MBA) for preparing the required environmental documentation for a new commercial/office building (Greenspot Properties, LLC) on approximately four (4) acres located on Fifth Street (Greenspot Road) in the amount not to exceed $24,000 ($21,000 labor and $3,000 for other direct cost such as printing and postage) upon review and approval of the City Attorney.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

6. Adoption of Expense and Reimbursement Policy Pursuant to AB 1234

Councilwoman Scott stated this will have an impact when you file your income tax return. If the city has a policy in place and you do not seek reimbursement as you have chosen to pay for your expenses and then take it off your own personal income tax, you cannot do so.

Councilman McCallon stated we are required by law to have one now.

City Attorney Battersby stated existing state law already requires cities to reimburse any public official.

Councilwoman Scott inquired what if the public official does not want to be reimbursed.

Mayor Jones stated then you don't receive any reimbursement at all.

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to adopt Resolution No. 2006-012 establishing a written expense reimbursement and use a public resources policy for public officials in the City as required by AB 1234. Motion carried, 4-1, with Councilwoman Scott dissenting.

City Manager Racadio stated for the public's information AB 1234 requires ethics training as well as this policy as required by state law.

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-012

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, ESTABLISHING A POLICY REGARDING EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT AND USE OF PUBLIC RESOURCES

8. Proposed Amendment to the Public Recreational Facility Use Agreement Contract with Central Little League to Extend the Term of the Agreement for the Use of the Baseball Fields and Facilities Located at Highland Community Park

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated as we enter into this agreement and although this has been in effect for one year, we want to review the procedures and activities of Little League as this is a public facility. They have been operating the snack bar and are taking 100% of the proceeds. She would like a detailed overview of how they are doing, how many children are registered, and what other agencies are using the facilities. She would also like to have a discussion and presentation of the little league facilities.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated we would be happy to prepare a presentation. A financial statement has been provided by the League to the Finance Subcommittee to review. The statement does appear to be well into solvency. They did spend a great deal of monies to benefit the Little League with a small amount left in reserves. It seems as if there is more interest in the Little League and has close to 200 registrants. The League is expanding and growing with interest in private organizations playing tournaments.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated we are charging private organizations fees to utilize the fields and these fees come to Highland.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated correct. They have been paid in full and have been in compliance with the terms of the agreement.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated since Melissa Morgan, Administrative Analyst, is currently scheduling the fields, this is taking staff time. She thought the master calendar was going to be kept by the YMCA. Have those details been worked out as staff is still devoting time to scheduling?

Community Development Director Hartmann stated we are. If Council wants to move in a direction to transfer the responsibilities to the YMCA, this is something we can continue to discuss with the YMCA. They do seem to be interested in handling the scheduling and there is some value to that.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she has a number of questions and would like to have a presentation prepared for an agenda item.

Mayor Jones agreed it would be a great idea so the whole Council has knowledge to the status of the league.

Councilwoman Scott stated it was her understanding when the contract was made, and after the first year, we were going to have a profit and loss statement available.

She did not receive any such documents.

Community Development Director Hartmann apologized. We can distribute copies to the Council and the document can be part of the discussion. Would you like to just invite the Little League or would you like to also include the organizations that utilize the fields?

Mayor Jones responded just the Little League.

City Attorney Battersby stated she has comments on the exact language on the extension. Council's approval is different from her approval.

Councilman McCallon inquired if this contract is different from the previously approved contract.

Community Development Director Hartmann responded the terms are different.

City Attorney Battersby stated the new term makes it an evergreen agreement. It renews itself every year for another year unless we give notice of termination a year in advance.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the idea by the Public Facilities Subcommittee is to plan a year in advance.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired what is the status of the Ad-Hoc Committee.

City Manager Racadio stated we normally handle public facilities issues by the Public Facilities Committee but if you would rather the Ad-Hoc handle the issue, you will need to direct staff to do so.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated no, not necessarily.

Councilwoman Scott stated she thought this was the same contract and has concerns with the year in advance language.

City Attorney Battersby stated if they are in default, we can terminate the agreement. The terms are the same.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to approve the term extension for one year with an automatic renewal provision, unless terminated by the City Council, and Authorize the Mayor and City Clerk to execute Amendment No. 1 to the Public Recreational Facility Use Agreement between the City of Highland and Central Little League, subject to approval of the City Attorney. Motion carried, 5-0.

CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING

11. City of Highland Comprehensive General Plan and Development Code Update, and Final Environmental Impact Report (State Clearinghouse Number 2005021046)(GPA-03-001, MCA-05-004, ZC-05-002, & ENV-05-007).

Community Development Director Hartmann gave a brief review of the staff report. He would like to add there are a couple of minor errors in the staff report and he will list the edits after the presentation is done.

Mr. Brian Judd stated this update represents the cultivation of two years of hard work including the commitment from yourselves, Planning Commission, Design Review Board and the public. The swift process of completing the update is a reflection of the following. The understanding of the community by yourselves, Planning Commission, Design Review Board and staff, it has also to do with the opportunities the community had to participate in this effort. Finally, the commitment and hard work of the city staff. He would like to add from a consultant's perspective, Highland's staff was top notch. Staff has been a pleasure to work with and truly care about the community and its residents.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated one procedural matter that is needing clarification is there are two members of the Council that may have a potential conflict of interest in a couple of parcels. It would be of importance for them to leave the dais now or they can hear the presentation of the Planning Center. There are two parcels that are going to be part of a change. One is part of an FPPC letter that stated an opinion provided by City Attorney Battersby for the Mayor who has property on Base Line west of Weaver and across the street from that location is subject to change. Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn lives within 500 feet of R2C corridor property; therefore, there is a potential conflict of interest on this area. You can, as a Council, take individual action on those two areas first with both Council members away from the dais.

City Attorney Battersby stated the staff report presentation can be given but at that point Council needs to make a decision how to proceed.

Councilman McCallon stated he would suggest after the presentation, the two areas will be handled separately.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the two members can return after the public hearing and after the public testimonies. Since Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn's residence is affected by this, would she be allowed to participate in the discussion.

City Attorney Battersby stated with respect to the 500 feet, she would not.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the property is not the Mayor's residence so you would not be able to participate. You would have to leave the dais and the room completely before the public testimony begins.

Mayor Jones stated if the public testimony is about that particular property.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated he believes the way it is written is that you are required to leave completely until all public hearing is completed. We would have to segregate those two areas, action taken on the areas, and then Mayor Jones and Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn can return to the dais.

Councilman McCallon stated he does reside in the Ranch, the house that he resides in is not his and he has a written opinion of the FPPC that states he has no economic interest in that home. Therefore, legally he does not have to excuse himself from these discussions.

Mr. Brian Judd stated he has brought additional staff with him. Bill Halligan, Vice President of Environmental Services, Carlton Waters, Urban Crossroads and Stan Hoffman, Stanley Hoffman Associates. Over the last 25 months, there have been many opportunities to get input from the community. A community survey was prepared and distributed to the community for input. A number of workshops were held with Council, Planning Commission and the Design Review Board. These were designed to keep both the decision makers and the community aware of ongoing planning activities and to solicit input on the plans, policies and standards that were being developed to implement community decision. In conformance with state law, two public review periods were held for the environmental analysis portion of the work program. A 30-day review period was held for the notice of preparation and initial study to receive preliminary input on the scope of the EIR. During the release of the draft of the EIR, the public had a 45-day opportunity to review the said document and to provide any comments. During the last public review period, the city had a video prepared to help educate the public about the major land use changes that are identified in the new general plan. In May 2004, the City Council, approved the new vision for Highland. The vision was an outgrowth of the community outreach process and reflected the community's values and desires for the future. In essence, the vision aims to protect Highland's suburban single family quality of life and small town charm; to provide services and amenities to meet the needs of the families; to attract and retain businesses to create new employment opportunities for Highland's economic security; to continue working with other jurisdictions on planning activities that relate to or impact Highland; foster Highland's diverse community volunteer efforts; balance housing, commerce and industries; to enhance the city's physical image and strengthen community character; to participate in regional and subregional planning efforts and plan for growth as opposed to just letting it happen. These aspirations are what guide the general plan and development code and will provide a benchmark with successful implementation of the plan. Following approval of the vision we begin to look at new land use opportunities in the city. Early on we developed a couple of alternatives focusing on key areas of the city, recognizing most of the city would remain unchanged. One of the additional benefits of creating a new plan is now the city has a GIS based map. This means the land uses are clearly tied to parcels making the plan easy to read and easy to maintain and update. Also, to provide the ability to review the plan on the city's website. Land use changes from the previous plan are focused in several key areas. Our efforts were on creating a new town center, vitalizing the Base Line corridor, maximizing employment opportunities in the Fifth Street corridor, rethinking Victoria Avenue as a primary entryway into the San Bernardino International Airport, maximizing commercial opportunities in the Golden Triangle area, and ensuring future development in the seven oaks area. One of the goals of the city is to create a more discernable, vibrant and attractive place where residents can shop, eat, socialize, and relax. In response, the land use plan proposes a mixed use town center that provides shops, employment, dining and housing opportunities in a high quality pedestrian friendly environment. In addition, the community design element provides a framework for ensuring a design pattern that encourages pedestrian activity in the town center and provides access for residents and surrounding neighborhoods. It provides design guidance for development in the future. Along the Base Line corridor, in addition to the town center, we wanted to revitalize the Base Line corridor by focusing retail opportunities at key intersections and providing new housing opportunities at the mid-block sections of Base Line. The new housing opportunities will come at an income to the area to further stimulate the new retail activity. To ensure the new development along the corridor improves the character of Base Line, the community design element provides additional guidance for buffering the connection to adjoining development circulation. In addition, the development code provides a separate section to address the midblock corridor residential uses with its own set of standards and design guidance. In the area nearest the San Bernardino International Airport and the immediate access to the freeway, the Fifth Street Corridor, planned as a significant employment corridor. The plan also takes advantage of the job growth that is rapidly moving east as plans for the west builds out. The community design element also provides policies to guide future development into a cohesive high quality, light industrial, and business park. The primary entryway into the San Bernardino International Airport from the 210 is Victoria Avenue. The Victoria Avenue corridor was another area of focus. New land use patterns will need to be established to take advantage of future commercial opportunities. Furthermore, to accommodate future traffic volumes, Victoria Avenue will need to be expanded and could impact current and future development along the corridor. The plan for the corridor concentrates commercial uses along Victoria, Base Line, Pacific, and Highland and allows for a mix of commercial and residential uses in appropriate area to the planned development land use designation. It provides residential opportunities including the mid-block areas between Ninth Street and Pacific Street. It creates a major business park and maximizes employment opportunities adjacent to the airport. In the Golden Triangle Area, the idea was to take advantage of the key location, freeway access and visibility from the 30 freeway and also to take advantage of the large vacant parcels in the area. Located east of the Santa Ana River, Seven Oaks Area, represents Highland's most prime real estate opportunity; 1,900 acre properties designated as planned development which ensures the area will be planned comprehensively to ensure quality development which functions as a whole. Stated in the land use element, the goal for the area is to create a one of kind, high quality, master planned estate community in the Seven Oaks area that incorporates a substantial scenic open spaced recreation and trail amenities. In addition to these focus areas, the land use plan addresses several issues. It addresses the preservation of historic village district and archeological sensitive areas. It addresses conservation of open space and land within habitat conservation areas. It also identifies policies for the protection and management of mineral resources. Furthermore, the roadway network was adjusted to address the growth and future traffic associated with the new land use plan. After your recommendation to move forward with the land use plan, we began to develop goals and policies for the various general plan elements including six of the seven state required elements. As you know, we did not update the housing element as part of this program. Some of the key changes for some of these elements, in addition to the changes in the land use plan, we developed a new mixed use designation. The circulation element, in addition to the roadway network, we developed a policy for scenic roadways, pedestrian safety, transit service, truck routes and bikeways. The public services and facilities element, we developed policies to ensure that your infrastructure utilities, community services and facilities keep pace with future growth. The conservation and open space element, we developed policies to protect your scenic resources, agricultural, biological, archeological, and mineral resources. We also developed policies to improve and expand on your park recreation and trails facilities. In the public health and safety element, we addressed a variety of hazards that Highland faces; seismic hazards, fire hazards, flood hazards, and issues related to the airport. In the noise element, we look for ways to minimize the impact from and exposure to noise sources. In addition to the required elements of state law, three new elements were prepared for the City of Highland's general plan. One is an economic development element, where we look for ways to expand the city's employment base. We developed strategies for attracting new businesses and retaining ones that you already have. A community design element, we looked to provide extensive design guidance for all of your land uses. Specific guidance for some of the key areas of the city, an airport element because of the influence of the San Bernardino International Airport and the impact on Highland. A separate airport element was prepared to address noise and safety in land use compatibility issues. The major changes that were made where we developed new districts for alternative zoning for the town center, new corridor residential land uses, and for mixed use in general. We also incorporated recent changes in state law to the development code particularly with respect to density bonuses in second units. We updated the non-conforming use section of the development code and for each zoning districts, we revamped the land use lists in terms of permitted and conditional uses, development standards and parking requirements. We also updated some of the definitions of the development code and overhauled the commercial district section.

City Planner Mainez stated the only thing he would add is to thank City Attorney Battersby for her input. She was critical of our work and very much appreciated. Also, would like to thank the Planning Commission, Community Development Director Hartmann and City Manager Racadio. His capacity is to facilitate the community's comments.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated there are a few technical corrections that he would like to make. A couple of items were left out of the staff report and the document the Planning Commission requested to make changes on. First of all, the area on the south side of Fifth Street, east of Orange Avenue, the Planning Commission felt instead of being medium density residential that it should be planned development. This is a technical error on the map. It should have represented more of a green color rather than orange for medium density. The second item is the Planning Commission wanted to ensure that Council take into consideration at their next work program, a parks program. They feel we are lacking in parks and an emphasis should be placed on Council's work program/capital improvement projects. Third item is a table that has a mistake under median, Highland Avenue, there should be a median. Rather than saying no, it should say yes.

Councilman Timmer inquired where on Highland Avenue. There are only a few small portions actually in Highland.

City Engineer Wong responded that portion of Highland Avenue, east of the freeway, from the freeway to Church Street. Two changes are being proposed to the blue page. One is Boulder Avenue, south of Fifth Street, should be changed from its current definition to secondary highway. In other words, just south of Fifth Street, the symbol should be the little dotted symbol. It is a graphical error. The second change is Palm Avenue, north of Base Line, just between Base Line and Fourth Street, just make the solid line go all the way to Fourth Street. The green page talks about the classification of bicycle lanes. Currently your map in the document shows Greenspot Road, east of the "S" curve, is Class II and Class III. Those are lower levels of bike lanes. We are proposing it be changed to Class I. Class I is the highest level, which is a bike path separated from the travel lanes.

Councilman Timmer stated we do not have any other Class I bike lanes in Highland at this time.

City Engineer Wong stated not at this time. We thought that area is fully underdeveloped and there are a lot of opportunities in the future. The pink page, Exhibit 10.1, this document is intended to indicate the various design futures, including the corridor street scape plan. The blue lines represent the corridor street scape plan and the discrepancy is some of the streets are being proposed to have landscape medians which cannot be shown on this drawing. We are asking to include these in this drawing. This includes Del Rosa, Tippecanoe, Boulder Avenue and portions of Highland Avenue. The last proposed change, which is not shown in this drawing, is just a reference of the level of service of the mid-block street. The current level of service for mid-block traffic is level C. The document inadvertently put down level D. We just wanted to make sure to change it back to level C. Intersections are currently at level D, which is the current standard.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated there is one graphical error on the map. The parcel north of Valencia Lea Mobile Home Park should be medium density residential rather than commercial. This is consistent with the zoning of mobile home parks. This is an excellent time to open up for discussion and whether or not you want to move forward by abstaining, take action individually and leaving the dais.

Mayor Jones asked if you want to do this before we take any public testimony.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated yes, we have to make the decision and remove yourself from the dais until the public testimony is closed.

Councilwoman Scott stated she does not feel this is right. Mayor and Mayor Pro Tem should be able to hear areas that are not in conflict with them.

City Attorney Battersby stated the recommended way to handle this is to address first for consideration those areas for which the Council members have conflict. Once the Council has determined land uses or fully considered the land uses in the areas and directed staff with respect to those particular properties, then you do the global consideration of your general plan.

Mayor Jones inquired we can do that before we take public testimony or . . .

City Attorney Battersby stated it is my understanding that a significant amount of the public testimony involves at least one of the Council's personal property or surrounding property. To that extent separating public comments may be difficult but you may do this. You can ask for public comment on those particular areas of land use concern first with the two Council members excused.

Mayor Jones stated I do not have any slips regarding the property across the street from the property that I own. I do have a number of slips regarding the Base Line portions that have been identified as far as the re-zoning of Base Line.

Councilman Timmer stated he would like to have full Council present if we can segregate testimony and do so clearly. The Base Line corridor, the R2C designation, is scattered throughout both the general plan and the staff report.

Mayor Jones inquired if he will be able to participate in this portion since that it is not his conflict.

City Attorney Battersby stated if that is not your conflict you can participate. Public comment isn't necessarily for Council participation. It's for the public to make their comments heard.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated since there is a room available with audio, are we able to excuse ourselves and then come back after the public testimonies.

City Attorney Battersby stated the Mayor has indicated there aren't any slips for public comment on his portion.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated at this point she is going to excuse herself from the entire public comment and then will come back and once we discuss the Base Line corridor, I will excuse myself again.

City Attorney Battersby stated the better way to handle it is for the balance of the Council to handle the Base Line corridor first and then the two excused members can participate fully at this point. If you want to remove yourselves now and request the public testimony having to do with the Base Line corridor, you can do that and then participate again.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn left the dais.

Mayor Jones opened the public hearing.

Mr. Jim Imbiorski stated he had approached the Council approximately a year and a half ago regarding the circulation of traffic in Highland. When the 210 becomes accessible to the 30 freeway, Highland will be inundated with traffic. About a year ago, we experienced flooding, which made Highland an island, and we had troubles reaching our homes. Part of this is due to circulation problems where the City of Highland and surrounding areas meet. He has come up with an idea for a transportation corridor that will serve the local area without the interference of the freeway system being clogged up. Looking at a long term program would be to push the roadway along the south side of Norton Base. A north/south alternative would be to cut across the hills over to Bryant Street in Yucaipa. That would be an expressway. I don't propose any commercial development or housing development. He has met with a firm in Redlands which are planting trees to refurbish the Santa Ana River and by turning the sand and gravel pits into lakes to try and make the area to what it looked like in the 1800's. This is similar to other projects that are staggered down the Santa Ana River into the ocean. There is another element also. A railroad line that crosses under the 10 freeway, comes across and terminates by Redlands East Valley High School. There is an old railroad right-of-way that runs north and across near Pearl Street. We are proposing to take that right-of-way and make a return loop in front of Norton Air Force Base. This would greatly enhance the transportation of the area. We have also shown some secondary roads. This is a very regional issue. Another element is Fifth Street. There is a project near the 215 freeway that is out to bid to move the Fifth Street interchange to where it belongs. He is proposing that from Boulder Avenue, we create what we call a smart street, which is a six lane road with a landscaped median with limited left turn lanes. This will give you a corridor from the interchange of the 210 over to the interchange of the 215. It will allow for a much better traffic circulation for our local area. There have been funds developed to start these projects off. Twenty-five million has been identified for building a bridge, widening Central and Tippecanoe, and doing some work on Fifth Street. Hopefully we can work with the community and the general plan to possibly set up a joint powers agreement between the local agencies and cities.

Mr. Dennis Johnson stated Mayor Jones also has knowledge of the design just spoken about as he has met with himself and Jim regarding future activities. This proposal is not something that will take place in five or ten years. This is what we call a 40-50 year project. This is not cast in stone and welcomes input. The future of this valley and the future of parks and recreation is actually awesome. He has other issues he would like to discuss. The seven oaks area has a large contingency of land to the right. This is 1,900 acres and another 1,000 acres to the right that the City of Redlands has the zone of influence. The City of Highland should not designate this a planned development but leave it in a natural state with one house per five acres. There are financial benefits for the City of Highland if the space is left open. The west end concerns are putting Lankershim through and will open up the area for independent enterprises to construct. On the development code, Highland Avenue has chain link fences in the front which bother him. He would like to redesign the code to make chain link fences illegal.

Mr. Robert Parkurson stated he owns a business on Base Line. His concerns are the re-zoning of Base Line from commercial to medium density residential. The problems will include children present along Base Line. Base Line is like a major highway through Highland and San Bernardino. The traffic is getting heavier each year. He would like to see Base Line stay commercial and see the city help the small businesses along Base Line.

Mr. John Rago stated he owns a business on Base Line and is against re-zoning to low density housing. Base Line is a very busy street and putting housing would be dangerous. Since the installation of the light, there have been more accidents than in the past 15 years.

Mr. Peter Forteza stated he would like to share a moment to show appreciation for the Council and city planners. He is against the re-zoning of Base Line due to the fact he bought a commercial business and he was pressing forward to try and better the site. He appreciates the city's assistance with the request for taking on the new zone of town center, although we came up with the conclusion that it still would not be cohesive to the new zone. Otherwise, car washing is not allowed in the zone of the town center. Therefore, we would like to keep commercial designation or rewriting the definition of town center to include car washing.

Councilman McCallon stated his reading of the staff report and the Planning Commission is that we have taken care of this issue. The car wash will be allowed in the town center as a CUP item.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated correct we have addressed the issue and will allow the car wash. It just has not been added to the final document pending Council action.

Mayor Jones stated if we approve it tonight, it will be included in the zoning for the new town center.

Mr. Forteza inquired without the CUP.

Mayor Jones responded with the CUP.

Mr. Forteza inquired if the CUP will have to be addressed every year.

Mayor Jones responded only once.

Councilman McCallon stated for a new car wash they would have to do a CUP. Your car wash is an existing one, therefore, you will be grandfathered in.

Mr. Ken Cantrell stated he is totally against re-zoning Base Line for apartments. It is very simple, the County decided to change the commercial property and make it all apartments. This is why we are stuck with apartment complexes that do not work. Once we change the commercial zone to multi-residential, it will leave it wide open for apartments. To change it to multiple housing will be a disaster. All of these meetings that were held on the planning issues, he did not receive one notice. Half of the people did not know anything about these meetings. It needs to be left the way it is and we will work with it.

Ms. Margaret Cisneros stated she has concerns for her neighborhood. She really wants to know once and for all what the zoning is for Sterling Avenue between east Ninth and east Base Line. She has been told too many different things as to what will be there.

City Planner Mainez stated planned commercial. The entire block across from Warm Springs is planned commercial.

Councilwoman Scott stated she knows what her concerns are as there was an article in the newspaper where a gentleman stated he was going to put apartments on Sterling directly across from Warm Springs school. It must be commercial, no multi mixed with commercial.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated that gentleman may be here tonight to recommend a change.

Ms. Margaret Cisneros inquired why would this man recommend a change if it is already zoned for this.

Mayor Jones responded the proposed zone is commercial.

Ms. Margaret Cisneros stated proposed, then it is not definite.

Mayor Jones stated this is why we are here tonight to vote on.

Councilman Timmer stated the recommendation is to make no changes.

Ms. Kimberly Staats stated she did not choose opposed or in favor because she wants a clarification. She noticed there was a CUP issue, specifically on Victoria corridor. She received a photocopy of the Highland code book and it was explained how it was easier for someone who is grandfathered in who lives in an area that has been re-zoned.

City Planner Mainez stated the non-conforming ordinance.

Ms. Kimberly Staats agreed. With that said, it was discussed about an overlay along the Victoria Corridor. At a later meeting, it was stated this would not be the case. She would like the final suggestion that is being presented to Council tonight.

City Planner Mainez stated the area that is being referred to is the 30 freeway and Victoria. There is a planned development area that the Planning Commission directed our consultant as a result of the on/off ramp. Ms. Staats owns a home in the area and is concerned with if they will able to stay until the freeway exists. The non-conforming ordinance still protects single family homes except in the business park/industrial areas. This neighborhood is protected until development comes in.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated one of the issues that was discussed was how to ensure that the non-conforming use can exist and make some improvements over the life time. With Peg's discussion, it has become a very difficult task to further the non-conforming use. What we are asking this evening is some direction as to how far you want to push the non-conforming issue.

Ms. Fay Jure stated she would like to see what vacant land that is left in the Base Line area to remain commercial. We really do not have too many commercial buildings and we definitely need small retail stores for the west end residents. She would like to see Base Line left commercial and not residential.

Ms. Gina Sandoval stated she is new to Highland and is speaking on behalf of her mother, who owns property on Third Street. She bought it as a commercial property to have a Mexican fast food restaurant. Since then they have tried to submit plans but Mr. Mainez stated he could not accept the plans because the zoning has been changed, therefore, we could not use it as commercial. We were not aware of any meetings. She tried to speak with Mr. Mainez about appealing or grandfather zoning. She is against the new zoning. We now have property which we have no use for if the zoning is changed.

Councilwoman Scott inquired when the property was obtained.

Ms. Gina Sandoval responded September 27, 2005. Since then we have been dealing with the Environmental Health Department. The Health Department did not inform them they needed to submit plans to the city. They found out much later, and when the plans were submitted, Mr. Mainez rejected the plans.

Councilwoman Scott stated this property is next to the new building where no one has moved into yet.

Ms. Gina Sandoval stated when the property was purchased the previous owner informed them there would be no problem to reopen the business as the previous owner had spoken with Mr. Mainez.

Mayor Jones inquired why she could not have submitted plans prior to the updating of the general plan.

City Planner Mainez responded the property in question is the old tire shop. The previous owner and the city did an interpretation of use and we found out when we incorporated as a city we wanted to continue the use. The new owner was going in as something similar where he was going to fix radios and such. We incorporated this in 2004 and basically Ms. Sandoval purchased the property without coming to the city first. She was not aware first hand what the zoning was and what the requirements were for a fast food restaurant. If you are familiar with the site, it is very small and there is no on site parking. There are some issues with handicap accessibility and the list goes on. He has provided Council and City Attorney Battersby with copies of a letter that was drafted as not part of this packet but on a separate item. He gave the applicant an option of appealing staff's decision. He informed her she could submit plans but that staff would not support it for the reasons listed in the letter.

Councilwoman Scott stated if someone was going to buy a piece of property, checked to find the property was zoned commercial and they were going to have a commercial enterprise, then they buy it.

City Planner Mainez stated if they wanted to develop the site they would conform to standards. If for some reason they could not meet those standards but it is a legally established lot, then they would build proportionately to that site.

Councilwoman Scott stated correct me if I heard you correctly. If she would have put in a radio repair or tire shop there, she could have washed the windows and opened the doors for business.

City Planner Mainez stated it would just be a continuation of a use that was there before.

Councilwoman Scott stated prior to the tire shop, it was a restaurant.

City Planner Mainez stated correct he does remember it as a Taco Shop.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the key issue here is that we have been looking to change this area from commercial to business park/light industrial for some years. What it comes down to is if she would have filed for a permit and gone through the process, she would have never have gotten her permit vested and allowed to continue before the Council took action on this project. Based on bad timing and not coming in to talk with staff and taking the word of the property owner has created this complexity of her ownership. We have advised her it would be prudent not to file the application but if she wanted to do so, she has every right to.

City Manager Sam Racadio stated the letter reads, dated March 1, as we discussed you have the prerogative to submit a proposal to the city for consideration, however, based on the size of the subject property and the change in the land use designation proposed in the city's general plan update, any plans for a drive in restaurant would not be supported by staff.

Councilwoman Scott stated that was March 1 and the property was purchased in September and I know there was contact with the city before March 1.

Ms. Gina Sandoval stated she would like to point out the reason for the letter was I talked with his supervisor and she advised him that I was faxing the letter and mailing a hard copy because she was having trouble contacting Larry. They had spoken three weeks prior to her letter being sent and she asked him for information on appealing the matter.

Mr. Milan Vora stated he owns a parcel in Highland which is approximately seven acres of land. This property is located at Sterling Avenue and Ninth Street across from Warm Springs School. The current population is 50,000 to 60,000 and there is a shortage of residential accommodations. There are no apartments available and single family home prices have skyrocketed. If people want to rent, there are waiting lists for rentals. He has held this land for 15 years and was waiting for a requested zone change which has never happened. This land was purchased residential and then in one year it was changed to commercial. We have been trying to develop it as commercial but have had no success. The land is not suitable for commercial as it has no frontage. The surrounding areas are residential.

Councilwoman Scott stated there is a shopping center on Ninth Street, then your vacant property and then there is residential so it is not totally surrounded by residential.

Mr. Milan Vora stated the back is residential, to the south is residential as well as north.

Mr. Kirk Wilson stated he has recently moved to East Highlands Ranch and is very satisfied with his new neighborhood as it is quiet and does not have much through traffic. His home is at the end of Base Line with no noise and no disruption. He bought his home because of the view of the orange groves. The way he understands it is if Base Line is continued through, 90% of the orange groves will need to be removed. The issues he is referring to are the streets will need to be widened so the Palm trees would have to be removed, and possibly the center median would have to be removed. It would end up being a four lane highway going right through East Highlands Ranch. It would take away the peace and quiet. His children would not be able to walk to school or they would have to wait for the bus on a busy intersection. The cost is also very exorbitant to bring Base Line through. This money would be much better spent to widen the 210 freeway between east Highland and Redlands. There is plenty of room also for emergency evacuation as is now. You have options to go down Base Line, Highland Avenue or Weaver Street.

Mr. Patrick Sanford stated he purchased his home three years ago in East Highlands Ranch. He is concerned about the changes that may take place. This is a possibility of thousands of vehicles onto Base Line and force the removal of many attributes that make the streets appealing. Pedestrian safety could be permanently altered. He is asking to not approve the Base Line extension as it could have drastic negative impacts on our quality of life. When he purchased his home, he asked the sales representative if Base Line would eventually go thorough, he was told no. He also came to City Hall to confirm this and he was informed by staff that Base Line would not go through. He was present when the Council voted 3-2 to add the Base Line extension to the general plan. The explanation he was given was it was needed for public safety in the event of an emergency. When the plan came out, he was surprised and pleased, to see how little the traffic flow would be impacted. The average daily volume is 5,100 vehicles on Base Line west of Weaver Street. The future plan shows a 10% increase, which is 5,600 vehicles per day. As he looked into the EIR, it shows that the traffic numbers appear to be based on factors that I am told will not take place. As he understands it, Cone Camp Road and Bryant Street will not connect without permission from the City of Redlands. He believes there is nothing in place to obtain this permission. The seven oaks plan development is listed in the general plan as allowing only one dwelling per five acres. He was told the seven oaks development would be a planned development very much like East Highlands Ranch. The Ranch has a density of more than three houses per acre. This would increase the vehicle count on Base Line and Greenspot Road by tens of thousands. Base Line east of Church Street is designated as a special secondary highway. This is a two way road that has a very wide paved area. This would allow for an additional lane. His concerns are if this amendment is approved tonight, money will be accepted by interested parties tomorrow to begin the research. He would expect the cost of this project to be passed onto new development. The development would need to be allowed to build enough structures to cover their costs. It would require a lot of rooftops to offset $16 million. He is asking not to approve this extension and is concerned there will be a tremendous amount of traffic that will be directed onto Base Line. If this project will continue, he asks it to be directed back to staff so that a complete traffic analysis can be generated. This will allow for the impacts of the seven oaks project to be considered. Staff can also remove Cone Camp Road and Bryant Street from the equation having moved through all the traffic traveling on Base Line and Greenspot Road. This could show the true impact the Base Line extension will have on the east Highland community. The general plan states the 215 freeway will be completed in 2010. The plan also states Base Line is undivided east of Church Street. He asks for the correct information in this report to obtain the adequately defended in the future.

Councilwoman Scott inquired when he was told Base Line would not be extended, was he told this by the seller and the city.

Mr. Patrick Sanford responded yes, he came to City Hall before he bought because he did not trust his real estate agent.

Ms. Lynette Smileo stated the town center may be without the residential components and this is where the city needs to go, not to build more houses. She does not support the seven oaks project. If there were no further homes being built, there would be no need to change things. Concentrate on building businesses to build up the tax income. Explore other areas of incomes. She suggested a stop sign be installed at Greenspot and Weaver. She has resided in the Ranch for 14 years and was very upset when trees were removed for Highland Avenue. She requests that no orange groves be removed even though she knows there are some traffic issues. The more through traffic you have, the more crime you have.

Mayor Jones stated unfortunately some of you have been grossly misinformed in regards to what this particular proposal would do or wouldn't do. To better inform you, in 2007 when the 210 freeway opens up onto the 30 freeway, I will assure you that you will not be able to move on it and the traffic will become a gridlock. Even the widening of the freeway, which is in the plans already and being budgeted for, is not going to take care of the increased traffic. We need to take into consideration the whole traffic pattern in regards to that.

Mr. Jim Connell stated he also spoke with the builder and was under the impression that Base Line would not be extended. Being a resident, I never received notice that these plans were coming about. The way he found out was in the newspaper. If residents are going to be impacted by these plans, he knows it is available on the web site but not everyone has access to the internet.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the issue is a general plan is a general benefit document and affects a lot of people. That being said our requirement is to notify only by newspaper and other sources, not by direct mail. However, anyone who has contacted us and provided a name, we sent a notice out to them. If any project moves forward, it would require additional review and personal notification.

Councilwoman Scott stated we need your name and address.

Mr. Jim Connell stated the reasons initially stated last year was the traffic impact when the 210 opens up. It's just a matter of poor planning. This is what it comes down to. This is something he did investigate before purchasing his property. It was committed that it would not be extended. Public safety is actually directing people away from the area. In consideration of the traffic flow that is going to happen, public safety is not a clue that would be used. If you look at the flow of traffic, Greenspot Road will be used regardless. The amount of money the city will need to spend on this would be $15 to $20 million. This money should be invested elsewhere in the city.

Mayor Jones stated all of the people present probably moved to Highland in the last 10 to 20 years. He was born here and remained here. He was part of the original corporation which made it possible for Highland to become a city. This way you would have the opportunity to express your opinions to plan your community together and not be overruled by another. We are not here to fight against you, we are here to plan the community but we need to plan for the people that come after us.

Mayor Jones stated he also had two speaker slips that do not wish to speak but wish to express their opposition of the Base Line extension.

Mayor Jones closed the public hearing.

Councilman Timmer stated there was discussion on the non-conforming uses within zones. Of course if we take the action as recommended by the Planning Commission, we are going to have a whole bunch of uses that now are non-conforming. Can we write language specifically to that R2C zone recognizing the existing businesses that are there and to ensure they can stay, more so than just how our ordinances are now, with the provision if they want to expand, they are permitted to do that or if they want to buy an adjacent lot to expand their business, they can do that. Can we legally do that kind of scenario? My concern is we have businesses along Base Line who have been there for many years. Can we ensure that they can stay and expand and grow if they wish with the overlaying density R2C? I know the City Attorney stated it was difficult to do this.

Councilwoman Scott stated in other words grandfather them with the provision that if they want to expand and improve, these improvements would also be grandfathered as commercial.

Councilman Timmer agreed. For example, if Stafford Painting wants to expand they are permitted to do so.

City Attorney Battersby stated I think you can as a zoning matter in the development code which provides special standards for grandfather enforced services types of uses is a very unusual thing to do.

Councilman Timmer stated what this is telling me by changing the land use is all the businesses who have been here supporting Highland that they are no longer welcome and have to move if they want to expand and grow.

City Attorney Battersby stated so you are saying they can acquire even more property adjacent to their existing land.

Councilman Timmer and Councilwoman Scott stated yes, adjacent.

Mayor Jones stated this would actually encourage and promote them to continue to be a legitimate business in the community. We want them to be here and continue to thrive as a business.

Councilwoman Scott stated and even some of the Base Line commercial lots are small and not owned by one but several owners. It could encourage them as a block to join together and do something to . . .

City Attorney Battersby stated the definition of a non-conforming use is one that isn't consistent with the zoning. Under a normal treatment of a non-conforming use, it can't be extended or intensified. You are proposing that a non-conforming use, under your circumstances, would be both.

Mayor Jones stated it is either re-zone or leave it zoned Base Line commercial as it is now.

Councilwoman Scott stated if she could say something about the current designation. The current designation is Base Line commercial. It is not commercial, it is not planned commercial, it is Base Line commercial. It was made Base Line commercial and was a separate designation from any other designation. Previous Council had stated no apartments were to be included in the Base Line commercial.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated he does not have an answer because Base Line commercial is the only commercial zone that allows for residential use.

Councilman McCallon stated this is a very difficult issue for all of us because we have businesses in our community that have been here for a long time and have contributed to our community. The vision put forward by the previous Councils, when they put the general plan together, was to make this a commercial corridor. Since the city began, there has been no commercial development on that corridor and that is the dilemma that we are in. As is zoned right now, development has not occurred so what we are trying to do is cast a new vision which says all right let's keep our current existing businesses and not penalize them. If we can do that with the non-conforming thing, where they have this opportunity to expand in their existing location. At least let's recast the visions so that other parts of the corridor can be developed in the R2C zoning. I think what that will do is cause the Base Line corridor to develop and if you look at the development code that has been put together for R2C zoning, we have some very good opportunities there. I am as much opposed to apartments as anybody on this Council but I think we can do something along the Base Line corridor that would be a little higher density. Maybe smaller lots, single family or you can make it single family residential. I think if we leave it like it is right now, we are going to have what we have forever which is empty lots and strip malls that are shut down. What we want to do with this recasting vision is make the nodes for commercial, keep our existing business and encourage them because they have supported our city, but at the time for the commercial that these nodes provide additional residential customers. So at the nodes we would have the commercial development that we still don't even want at the nodes. I think if we can do something with the non-conforming issue for our existing businesses, then I would support the R2C zoning that we have proposed.

Mayor Jones stated the interesting part of that is if in fact we left it Base Line commercial with your interpretation of what that zoning represents, then in fact it would allow the multi-family dwelling there as well as the commercial. We would solve both problems by leaving it where it is.

Councilman McCallon stated no because now it would be zoned R3 and we would have apartments.

Councilman Timmer stated or we could take action in removing the R3 from Base Line commercial.

Mayor Jones and Councilwoman Scott stated that's right.

Councilman McCallon stated by re-zoning it that way, it makes the land more valuable. The property owners will be available to develop the land or sell it. As it is now, commercial, it is less valuable.

Mayor Jones stated I guess that is a matter of opinion.

Councilwoman Scott stated she would like to have her map put up because she has gone through the map. There is a big flaw in our very faithful businesses that are on Base Line now. Some of them do have more than one lot and they have tried in the past year to expand, improve and so forth. They have been hampered/stymied because of this general plan and proposed designation. From the general plan book itself, it is talking about the Base Line corridor and it says principle east/west corridor through the city is primary commercial area. To revitalize the corridor, re-designate many of the mid-block commercial uses to medium density residential uses. Since all of the apartments, and I want you to look at the area you are talking about here, you are talking about all of the orange. That is medium density. Take Boulder and look where all the orange is and then look at this side and see where the orange isn't. Nobody in their right mind is going to want to put residences on Base Line. You are going to have children and vehicles coming in and out. Talk about traffic circulation. That is not going to work. Let's keep Base Line the way it is and remove that R3 thing.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated he would like for the economist, who looked at this, to give a perspective from his point of view on the commercial, to give you some type of information as to how we came up with the designation of the nodes at the intersections.

Councilman Timmer inquired on the concepts that he spoke about and that Larry kind of supported, is that something that is plausible.

Councilwoman Scott responded I said let's keep it the way it is and remove the R3 thing.

Councilman Timmer stated I talked about the non-conforming businesses having the abilities and be protected to expand, upgrade . . .

Councilwoman Scott stated ok, let's go right over here to . . . We had a bar over here, we also had real estate business and a market. They are not there now. So that means they would be residential now.

Councilman Timmer stated that is just one of the points that I wanted to talk about.

If there are some other ways we can help stimulate what is going to happen there as well as maintain the rural character that we like about Highland. We have medium density designated there but we can change the underlying density level as right now it is up to 14 units per acres. We can change the R2C zone to ten units per acre.

Councilwoman Scott stated oh yeah we could have eight, like the two apartments that were going to be right there at Olive Street and Victoria Avenue.

Mayor Jones stated the interesting point is, and Larry eluded to this too, that it has never developed. Highland has never been in the position that we are in today. We have come alive, come of age and we are at the point now where businesses and others are wanting to come here to develop. All of the things going on in the west side is living proof of that. We spent an hour tonight going over the code enforcement to improve that. With that improvement I think it's going to begin to attract those businesses that have never come because it was not presentable to that. I think by leaving it Base Line commercial, removing the R3, that in fact will invite and then go ahead let's do the other things such as the median. It will actually encourage and will be desirable to put a business there because you will have the support of the community. We also have the population now to make the businesses stay if we all shop in Highland. We need to live here, play here, shop here and eat here. The only way we can do that is to work with the community to make that work.

Councilwoman Scott inquired if we could put Base Line commercial in a redevelopment area too.

Councilman Timmer and Mayor Jones responded it already is.

Councilwoman Scott inquired then why aren't we helping our owners and businesses upgrade. Proper approaches to help, not stymie, and we have been stymieing them.

Mayor Jones stated I think we have to do more than that. We have to begin to provide the seed to start revitalizing.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated he would like to have Stan Hoffman make some comments because part of the analysis we went through, what he went through, and the economic development element of some of these land uses to get a perspective and then you will hear what professionally is appropriate. You hear the public comments but it may be important to hear what Stan has to say of how we came up with the plan we did.

Mr. Stan Hoffman, Stan Hoffman Associates, stated he was the fiscal and economic consultant that worked on the plan. There was also another consultant from Robert Charles Lesser that went out and did a retail evaluation. My comments will reflect both of those studies. Generally what has happened in older communities like this where there is a lot of commercial along corridors is that much of it does not get revitalized as retail because what happens is that you get concentration as you are now doing in ways like the Town Center and the golden triangle. So what happens is you start to move these smaller retail users and hopefully you get them into places like the town center where you have pedestrian earned development. If you add entertainment you create a synergy with anchors as well as smaller tenants. So what happens in a lot of communities, you start to attract these users and they leave a lot of the corridor with some of the commercials that can't work. I have worked on other communities in the Inland Empire and Orange County that have had the same thing and what they have found is that they have had to create a mix of uses. That is why the plan was trying to do what it is doing. Now that does not mean it all has to be residential. It could be offices or cultural or other kinds of uses that might stimulate development. I know in one community I worked in, Hawthorne, which had a regional mall along Hawthorne Boulevard, which went out of business because commercial started to go along the freeway. This is very similar to what you are trying to do with the golden triangle. It became very successful. The county came in, took the regional mall and converted it into county offices. The same thing is happening in Glendora where we are working the marketplace which has been expanded. As you may know, they are creating an entertainment component along with Wal-Mart, Kohl's, etc. So what is happening with the old Homebase, which used to be along the avenue there, is that it is turned into county offices. So what happens is some of the older retail, which sometimes stands alone, sometimes is not viable and cannot become competitive. That is what Robert Charles Lesser found with their study. With the retail you are going to bring in, through the golden triangle and town center, a lot of the strip commercial was not going to be viable. If you only allowed commercial then a lot of it would not happen. What I did also was look at the fiscal analysis of the retail. One of things I wanted to point out about the retail development, your point Mr. Jones about having people shop in Highland, is actually critical to getting more retail sales because you lack regional draw that the other communities have had. People have had to go outside the community whether they go to San Bernardino, Redlands or other places. So things like the golden triangle and the town center really develop the kind of retail that keeps people here to get more general merchandise appeal. You kind of have a two fold strategy. Your major strategy, in terms of retail, is to get the conglomerations to keep people here because it's what they want; the excitement, the pedestrian activity and entertainment, and the goods and services. You have a little bit of dilemma in my view. I don't think you can get all of Base Line commercial so the idea would be what would be acceptable and what are the conditions you can put on it. Obviously, you don't want it to be all residential and so the question is what is the balance you can strike there. I don't have an easy answer for that. I think the retail would not accommodate the full corridor from what we have seen in our studies.

Mayor Jones stated an interesting comparison to that is the City of Yucaipa. Yucaipa Boulevard from the freeway clear up to Bryant Street is almost an identical copy of Base Line. Yucaipa has done a very nice job of taking their old commercial and revitalizing by adding some new anchor points to draw it there and some of that old commercial is now beginning to turn over and redevelop, build new buildings, refurbish old buildings and literally we have watched and been able to view that process taking place as it goes right on Yucaipa Boulevard.

Mr. Stan Hoffman stated it is interesting you mentioned that as he had worked on Chapman Ranch with Yucaipa. One of the things they did there, as you know, is a major residential development, but they brought in some nice amenities with the golf course, etc. They did concentrate the retail of several nodes. So, it is not as though strip commercial is what is coming into the Boulevard but the new commercial is more in the center with restaurants and entertainment. Of course they had the major Chapman property. You have some large properties along the Boulevard but not quite as large as that. There was a mixed use example as well.

City Planner Mainez stated there is one component that we looked at with both Planning Commission and Design Review Board study sessions and public hearings, is that physically there isn't enough depth in most of these properties. That was a big deciding factor. There is a map that shows just red. It shows you all of the commercial on Base Line and there is quite a bit. It is concentrated at intersections where there is mostly physical land or dirt. He just wanted to add that. Physically trying to revitalize these commercial is going to result in taking properties to the north and south. We were trying to avoid that. We used the catch phrase term "colemanization" back when we were sitting on the General Plan Advisory Committee. We were told to designate everything commercial because we needed the tax base. If it happened, it happened, and if it didn't, it didn't. We would look at it in another 15-20 years. So here we are. Interesting. Physically I just want to mention it doesn't seem to work. If you look at the standards for commercial development on Base Line, that was a deterrent for live development. What do you mean I need a setback? What do you mean I need this much square footage? So they go elsewhere.

Mayor Jones stated I think if we continue to sit here and say well let's let it happen, it's not going to happen. I would be the first to sign onto that and say I agree with you 100%. It is not going to happen if we let it go by itself. We have got to do something as a city. Take a lead position and begin to change this environment so we in fact attract it and actually go out and physically drag Mr. Businessman in here and say this would be a great place for a sitdown restaurant. This would be a great place for a baked goods store, etc., to begin to contribute to the town center that we are going to bring here and do the same thing with. That is the only way it is going to happen.

Councilman McCallon stated he thinks City Planner Mainez was addressing the fact that the depth of these lots did not allow that kind of development to occur. If you are talking about taking the residents on the other side, I don't think we want to do that.

Mayor Jones stated I am not proposing we do that.

Councilman McCallon stated well then the point being that the lots on Base Line, a lot of them, are not of the size that you can do a viable commercial enterprise.

Councilwoman Scott stated you don't need a lot of parking for a dry cleaners or a photo shop. You can have your buildings and you don't need a lot of parking for people that are going to go and do their business and then come out.

Mayor Jones stated he thinks your service type of businesses would fit very nicely along here and we wouldn't need a great deal of parking. Store fronts along there and we are building another right across the street and yes we could easily put up a store front there but again it comes back to us, if we aren't going to shop there we can burn out 100 businesses. We need to adopt a philosophy ourselves and that's starting today to eat and shop here. When we do that, more businesses are going to come here because we are going to be able to say look, this is what we are doing. The businesses here are thriving and it's going to invite more. We can go right over here to Palm Avenue and say we've had four or five restaurants that have gone through and moved out because we don't support what's here.

Councilman Timmer stated he was just trying to find some middle ground with those alternatives with the non-conforming uses, changing the density and changing some of the design criteria to make them a little more "apartmentless" looking.

Councilwoman Scott asked can't we just leave it commercial, just the orange, meaning medium density. Certainly, if someone comes in with other plans, there is always the Planning Commission and so forth to come forward and ask for a change.

Mayor Jones stated if we leave it as it is, it provides that opportunity right now. You can have mixed use, both commercial and residential. The apartments that are already there, we have solved that. You don't have to go "mickey mouse" someway of making the non-conforming become conforming for those who were there and worked that out. It is the way it is right now and it will work.

Councilwoman Scott stated let's remove the apartments and I'm going for it.

Councilman Timmer inquired regarding the R3 that is now committed in the Base Line corridor, is R2 and R1 also allowed.

Community Development Director Hartmann responded it is not real clear. It talks about multiple-family residential.

Mayor Jones stated let's make it clear.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated well, then you have to look at doing a code amendment to that section that will allow it to be R1 or R2 or leave it as R3, based on the direction you want to take it.

Councilman Timmer stated what I have watched over the past three to five years is some of the older single family houses along Base Line have really improved their areas and I would like to capitalize on that. If we had a 2-2 on an individual issue, does this mean it stays as it is in the old general plan or how does that work?

City Attorney Battersby stated she thinks we get a bigger problem. People are going to need to hear from our planning consultants about the ramifications of leaving that in its original form in light of all the other elements of the general plan.

Councilman McCallon stated if the general plan before us contains that right now so if you take it out, you would have to have a motion to take it out of the general plan that is before us right now, the residential draft. That would have to pass on a 3-1 vote. If it is a 2-2 vote it wouldn't change, it would leave it as it is right now.

City Attorney Battersby stated that's correct because the recommendation of the proposal tonight is to have it the way it is in this document.

Mayor Jones stated he does not have any problem bringing apartments there, with the apartment standards that we currently have within the community. It's a very high standard since incorporation and we have never had a single apartment house built here since that apartment standard was adopted. That being said except for Jeffrey Court, which was an exception to everything that we ever set in. If we were to change the element so that is allowed, R1, R2 or R3, and let the apartment standard take care of the apartment problem, I could vote in favor of that.

Councilman Timmer stated leave it Base Line commercial.

Mayor Jones stated which would allow for those elements there.

Councilwoman Scott stated but if you do that you are going to allow apartments on Base Line and Olive Street which have been voted down by the Planning Commission and by this very Council not two months ago.

Mayor Jones stated but those apartments did not meet the current apartment standards. Those apartments were asking to violate every setback and everything else. They didn't even meet the current apartment standards. That was the only reason they were voted down. Not because of anything else. At least that is the reason why I voted them down and I think that is the same reason the Planning Commission voted them down.

Mr. Brian Judd stated in terms of the general plan there is, I'm sure, multiple references throughout the document that we obviously would have to update. The bigger issue is the environmental document, EIR, and what the assumptions were for that analysis. We may need to go back and do some additional analysis to make sure all commercial use was still the viable.

Councilman Timmer stated generally if you don't change things that would lower the review process.

Mayor Jones stated we aren't increasing anything.

Mr. Brian Judd stated we have a preferred alternative in the land use plan. The preferred alternative serves as the basis for the environmental analysis.

Councilman Timmer stated generally there is a provision in the EIR saying no change is one of the alternatives. That sounds like what we are talking about.

Mr. Brian Judd stated that includes all the other land uses in your plan.

City Attorney Battersby stated you have created land uses in other aspects.

Councilman McCallon stated that brings up an issue, we have met how many times as a Council on this general plan, at least nine times. This is a result of our meeting together and giving guidance to staff and to our consultant. This is what we asked them to do and now we want to change it at the last minute.

Mayor Jones stated no this is not true.

Councilman Timmer stated I don't agree with that as I have never supported medium density.

Mayor Jones stated nor did I.

Councilwoman Scott stated nor did I.

Councilman McCallon stated staff has done exactly what we told them to do.

Councilwoman Scott stated no they haven't.

Councilman McCallon stated I don't think staff did anything different than what we asked them to do.

Councilwoman Scott stated several times when they brought pictures of the maps up here, we said this wasn't changed and we asked for it to stay the way it was. It didn't and then we were told wait until we get to this issue here. So finally we just shut up and let them do their thing because we were told we could do it when the plan was adopted. I know that during the time they also had meetings. There were meetings here, especially the Base Line commercial people. They had them here and it was not taped nor were there minutes. I found out about it from some of the Base Line commercial people. I came to the meeting and their question was where are the Council Members and why aren't they hearing what we have to say.

Councilman Timmer stated I would like to reiterate what Larry said. In fact, staff and the consultants have put together a plan based upon input we gave them.

Councilwoman Scott stated and they have done a good job on many parts of it.

Councilman Timmer stated based on this plan, I voiced concerns of medium density. In fact, everywhere we recommended to make changes to higher density, I voiced some objections and if you remember the planned development along Victoria, I expressed concerns about those areas. However, collectively we gave staff direction to move forward with what has been brought to us today. The Planning Commission has adopted those things and now we are here debating whether our direction was clearly understood. If we just change the Base Line corridor, which is now smaller in size than it was before because a big chunk is now town center, how does this impact the EIR in great detail at all personally.

Mr. Brian Judd stated I can't give you a final answer on what that analysis would be. Basically, we are talking about changing a significant amount of area along the Base Line corridor from a residential use to a commercial use and typically the commercial retail generates more traffic.

Councilwoman Scott inquired how do you think it is going to generate more traffic because if you have families there with vehicles coming in and out in the street there isn't going to be any more than having a small shop there.

Mr. Brian Judd stated the residential uses as proposed with the new zoning would consolidate parcels and minimize the number of access points along Base Line as opposed to some of the existing commercial developments where you have multiple curb cuts along Base Line, when you have those flowing and turn conditions going in and out of the commercial areas that can generate traffic. If you minimize the number of entry points along Base Line corridor, that improves the traffic flow.

Mayor Jones stated the basis for generating traffic is residential. I mean if you put apartments there with 100 residents as opposed to a business that four people come to the business, the apartments will generate more traffic than the business.

Councilman Timmer stated again I think we are talking two different things. A lot of the Base Line corridor, west of the town center, is already developed. Some is vacant but there is already an apartment complex there and most of it is already marginal commercial. I don't see the traffic numbers increasing by making it commercial since it's already there.

Mr. Stan Hoffman stated right now the commercial corridor is not fully active. You have a lot of vacant lots and under utilized strip malls. Picture if you will, say one brand new convenience market with a gas station that is located near the freeway and it's a fairly small lot. Picture if you will perhaps three or four homes, or a six dwelling unit apartment, that convenient market/gas station probably has 20-30 cars that pull in and out of it during the peak hours, and yet if you had six apartments, perhaps two-thirds of those families come home during the peak hours. You are talking about four or five cars instead of 20 or 30 that could be using a fully active commercial site.

Mayor Jones stated show me an apartment that only has one car per apartment. I don't know of any. Every Californian has five cars a piece and park them on the street.

Mr. Stan Hoffman stated the typical behavior for people is that they don't all come and go at the same time. So you have an average amount of people that arrive and depart during the peak hours. For instance, a single family home, the data shows us that we have on average one car coming or going to each home in a neighborhood. The actual number of cars coming or going total for each individual apartment is actually less than one car per apartment during the peak hours. Now there may be someone that arrives the exact peak hour and someone arrives/departs after the peak hour. That is the typical statistical data that we have been using to evaluate the traffic pattern in the city. So when Brian says that preferred general plan alternative that included switching out some commercial uses for residential uses is a less than intense use than the currently adopted general plan, I support him in the statement entirely. That is a good objective and accurate statement from the perspective of a traffic analysis because of the other changes that have been put into the preferred general plan land use alternative. If you switch just that one area of the city, the Base Line corridor, back to the currently adopted plan, you now mix and match, and we can't state with 100% certainty what the results would be. That is why Brian has told you, and again I agree with him, to have a degree of certainty that we need for a defensible document you would be talking about some additional analysis.

Councilman Timmer stated if we take action to make this change we are talking about, can we adopt a plan tonight with the understanding that some more staff work will be needed to be done.

City Attorney Battersby stated no you can't. You can continue this meeting for further evaluation but if it's extensive, you will need to re-notice.

Mr. Staff Hoffman stated you will have to certify the EIR before you can take action on the general plan.

Councilman Timmer stated some of the changes I talked about earlier, about the non-conforming uses, maintaining and protecting commercial, changing some of the densities of that specific zone to lower, there was some other terminology about allowing three-story buildings and eliminating it to two-story with making it more restrictive in that particular zone, is that going to require doing more analysis.

Mr. Stan Hoffman stated no, you would be reducing the density of the proposed alternative.

City Attorney Battersby stated except with respect to his question whether existing non-conforming uses can be expanded.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated I think that could be a separate issue that we haven't even addressed in this non-conforming use section. So if that is a direction the Council wants to explore, I think we would have to take issue with discussing and exploring that after the fact. I think it really is a separate matter from what we are talking about this evening.

Councilman Timmer inquired if we could adopt the plan though.

City Attorney Battersby responded you can adopt it as presented.

Mayor Jones stated but if we adopt the plan and then find out we cannot do that, we just shot ourselves in the foot.

Councilman Timmer stated we can amend the plan in just those specific areas. Based on that information, I want to move forward with this whether it be when the public meets to get more information, we need to move forward on the project.

Councilwoman Scott inquired does that include the last thing that was on a lot because again . . .

Councilman Timmer responded I am talking about existing businesses.

Councilwoman Scott stated it has to be an existing business right now.

Councilman Timmer stated if there is a vacant lot, there is no grandfathering for a vacant lot or building that has not been used for the last 15 years. New businesses would have to meet the new R2C standards.

Mayor Jones stated unless it was bought by a neighbor that wanted to expand. Councilwoman Scott stated the R2C is residential. The corridor residential is on the zoning map is an orange stripe.

Councilman Timmer stated yes, that is the Base Line corridor.

Councilwoman Scott stated there is nothing in the general plan that has the R2C designation.

Councilman Timmer stated that's all in the development code that has all that stuff.

Mr. Stan Hoffman stated that would be an implementing zoning district for that use.

City Attorney Battersby stated I think we could have special non-conforming rule for that district.

Councilman Timmer stated I would also like to change the underlying maximum density in that zone from twelve down to nine. Also, there was a statement in one of the sections that talks about R2C zone that allows three-story buildings. He would like to limit that to two-story even though we allow up to 35-foot maximum. Most of those lots are narrow or shallow. I would hate to see a three-story building next to single family dwellings that are on the north or south of those. I don't want to re-evaluate, pay more consultant time and delay this process. This could delay the process for months to get all this information.

Councilwoman Scott stated she would like to discuss the peak hours. If you have a residential area somewhere, your peak hours are going to be between 6:00-7:30 a.m. when people are going to work, 8:00-9:00 a.m. for people going to school, 3:00 p.m. when school lets out, and then 5:00-7:00 p.m. when they get off the freeway to go home, whereas your businesses usually open at 9:00 a.m. or 10:00 a.m. and they close at 5:00 p.m. or 6:00 p.m. I really don't understand this peak hour thing and you know I hate to say this but I really don't trust what is going here with the Base Line corridor right now. Like I said, this has been an issue since we started this. People have protested. We have gone out as Council Members and we have said no, no, no. Then we were told well you can always when it goes before Council for the general plan adoption, you can change it then. Now we are being told well you should have done it before now because we got this finished thing here and we have to adopt it tonight.

Mayor Jones stated that is what we are fixing. With John's motion that in fact is what we are fixing to preserve that so that in fact it will take place.

Councilwoman Scott stated I want to see where you are preserving.

Mayor Jones stated we are preserving the commercial that is there now. We are not preserving vacant lots unless the neighboring commercial should buy it and wants to expand. We can't say we want to preserve it for some guy that is going to come here ten years from now and buy the vacant lot. We want to address the people of Highland right now.

Councilwoman Scott asked Mayor Jones do you remember where John's market was? That building is still there but, of course, it has not been a market for years.

Mayor Jones stated it will need to be torn down.

Councilwoman Scott stated that is true but what will go there, a house.

Councilman Timmer stated they could put a single story house or a condo project if it meets the standards.

Mayor Jones stated whatever the size of the lot, depending upon each individual lot, that is part of this process of working it out. If we had a collection of a lot of properties then we could go say we could master plan it a different way. We are having to deal with small, short lots. It is a matter of almost individually puzzling those and see how they fit into it to make it work. That is what John's proposal was.

Councilwoman Scott stated that's what scares me, a condo at that corner.

Councilman Timmer stated it could be a single family house.

Mayor Jones stated it depends on each individual lot. If you want to buy other lots you can do other things. This is the best of both worlds and still allowing us to move forward.

Councilwoman Scott stated if someone wanted to buy that lot and turn it into a little walk from your house market, they couldn't do it.

Councilman Timmer stated no, unless they came in and asked for a general plan change which they can do.

Councilwoman Scott stated then they still have the opportunity to for that particular lot.

Councilman Timmer stated any lot in the City of Highland.

Councilwoman Scott stated I mean that. Say it again so that I know these people are protected.

Councilman Timmer stated basically the language that is going to be developed will be grandfathering all the existing businesses so they can improve their businesses, expand their businesses, lower the maximum density to nine per acre and eliminate the three-story issue to a maximum two-story height.

City Attorney Battersby inquired can we ask Mr. Judd if he thinks this is going to change the environmental determination.

Mr. Brian Judd responded based upon those recommended changes, no.

City Attorney Battersby stated all we will need to do is amend the development code provisions and non-conforming. We won't adopt the ordinance tonight. They will do their first reading at the next meeting.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to allow existing businesses to upgrade and expand on their existing lots and to expand on adjacent lots if they choose to do so, to limit the construction of buildings to a two-story maximum and lower the maximum density to nine per acre in the R2C zone. Motion carried, 4-0, with Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn absent from the dais.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn returned to the dais.

At 9:15 p.m., Mayor Jones left the dais.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated we will now be dealing with the parcel known as the Christiansen property.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to adopt the land use designation for the Christiansen property as proposed by the Planning Commission. Motion carried, 4-0, with Mayor Jones absent from the dais.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired what is it currently.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated this proposed parcel and area has been part of this discussion for almost for 30 months. It has been one of the many parcels that have been discussed and acted on to move forward by the Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated this pertains to the whole general plan that has been on the agenda, which has been posted in several locations, and we have had public comments on several occasions.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the point we are making here with the Mayor not participating is that he owns property within 500 feet so we have to take separate action on this parcel. If there was not a conflict of interest then you could globally look at the general plan and either adopt it in full or part. The Council is moving in part because we have a conflict of interest with the Mayor owning property within 500 feet. Otherwise, it would be approved and acted on with the entire general plan.

Councilwoman Scott stated she was at the map and did not hear the motion. Is this medium density and again that is how many?

Community Development Director Hartmann stated 12.

Councilwoman Scott stated 12, no more.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated under state law provisions for density bonuses that would be subject to review by the City Council to either accept or reject in part. There are certain laws coming in that is going to make it very difficult for the city to have discretion as to whether or not it should be density bonus. That could occur in a single family neighborhood or a multiple family neighborhood. I can't say absolutely you will never see more than 12 units because it might be out of yours as a Councils' purview to say it's only 12 units. It could be higher.

City Manager Racadio stated 18 per acre.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated you do a 20% increase or a 35% increase, it could be affordable, the state is using its infamous hammer to beat on many cities to encourage affordable housing. This is one of the areas that I can't tell you what the definitive number will be. The developers we talked to that may be interested in this property is probably looking at closer to ten to twelve because they will be high end units.

Councilwoman Scott inquired did you say City Council or Planning Commission.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated when you get into the density bonus provisions and they're using their agreement because of the affordability covenant, that is an action by the City Council. The Planning Commission only has land use authority, not to entitle property.

Mayor Jones returned to the dais.

Councilman Timmer stated he has a list of which many of the items have been resolved but he would suggest to take action on individual items that way we don't have to try to be for everything or against it all. The first item he would like to bring up is on page 6-26 in the general plan. Basically, it is the fire hazard overlay. He was going to suggest as some of us have been here for a while, we haven't had any real fires in the wash in a long time and we are probably due. It can burn pretty vigorously there as well. He would suggest we put fire safety zone 1 basically from the Pole Line Road (east of the village) all the way parallel to Greenspot Road, from Merris Street on the east, over to Pole Line then to Greenspot Road.

Mayor Jones stated you just want to move it further south to Merris.

Councilman Timmer stated there is a project proposed in the general plan that will allow housing in there.

Community Development Director Hartmann asked if you are speaking of the light green color in here.

Councilman Timmer stated he knows this is a separate ordinance and we will have to take different action at some future point to modify that. He just wanted to get it into the record that we are looking at a general plan issue and this is a part of the general plan process. On page 629 under item #3, Policies, where it has the two green bullet points, he would like to add one. We have it in our general guidelines but he would like to clarify it in the general plan. Something to the effect of "perimeter roads adjacent to structures as a requirement" and then a fourth bullet point stating "ensure that fuel modification zones are maintained." A big part of the problem with those is that they are put in and overgrow, then you have a bigger problem that you didn't have to begin with. Again, that is just a general policy statement. That would be one issue we could take action on and get it out of the way.

Councilwoman Scott stated it sounds reasonable to me.

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to expand the fire hazard overlay zone to encompass Pole Line Road (east of the village) all the way parallel to Greenspot Road and also to add the two bullet points to page 629, item #3, to include the statement of "perimeter roads adjacent to structures as a requirement" and to "ensure fuel modification zones are maintained." Motion carried, 5-0.

Councilman Timmer stated the next point is the land use designation directly across the street on Central Avenue from Jeffrey Court which supposedly is going to be the school site, if this happens. He would propose to change it from the designated medium density to low density in case the school doesn't develop. We are going to have low density housing and this way it would be consistent with that whole side of the street rather than having another apartment project right in the middle.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to change the land use designation for the lot located on Central Avenue, across from Jeffrey Court, which is also the proposed school site, to low density. Motion carried, 5-0.

Councilman Timmer stated on page 99 of the staff report, item #3, states cul-de-sacs aren't necessarily required. He would like to change this to public dead end streets are required to have cul-de-sacs. They can't just put in dead end streets with hammer heads.

Mayor Jones stated we have allowed for it in some tracts.

Councilwoman Scott inquired changing it to how.

Councilman Timmer stated public dead end streets are required to have cul-de-sacs.

Councilman McCallon stated the issues come from when we have the dead end streets where adjacent properties are going to develop.

Councilman Timmer stated he thinks that is a little different. He's talking about a planned project.

Mayor Jones stated the one that we just approved as a matter of fact. That was a dead end street and was supposed to be punched through with a new project. We didn't punch it through with the new project so it remains a dead street without a cul-de-sac in it. Therefore, it is defective in its working ability to allow safety and others to get in there and work. He would agree with that. That has to happen.

Councilman McCallon stated but in that particular instance we may want to have a dead end street.

Mayor Jones stated then it would have to have a cul-de-sac.

Councilman McCallon stated but then you put the new development in and take the cul-de-sac out.

Mayor Jones stated if you are going to connect it up, then it isn't a cul-de-sac.

Councilman McCallon stated the idea would be to connect it up.

Mayor Jones stated but if we come along and we get someone that says not in my backyard, don't connect it up. Then we have the same problem. We are going to have to abide by this ordinance if we approve it.

Councilman Timmer stated the current fire code allows under certain circumstances, what they call hammer heads, but they are very cumbersome. Generally, it doesn't create a good environment to the general driving public that all of a sudden needs to make an u-turn in the middle of the street.

Councilman McCallon stated he would hate to make a cul-de-sac when we know the adjacent property is going to develop.

Councilman Timmer stated this particular section is talking about the small lots in the development code.

Councilman McCallon stated ok, for that I would agree.

Councilwoman Scott stated she remembers the one that we had and we had quite a few citizens protesting because the street dead ended, without cul-de-sac, because we knew when the next development came in, they were going to be required to connect it. The ones that bought into the area, that was already built. They were very unhappy because it was going to be connected. One of the things that won them over was the fact that we said you do not have a cul-de-sac there, you have a street that dead ended because we knew that the new development was going to come in. Now if we do in fact put a cul-de-sac and then the next project develops 5-10 years later, then we are going to have citizens that say, well I didn't know it was going to be connected to the next project because obviously this is a cul-de-sac, it is not a street that ends.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated but that development would be planned for that.

Mayor Jones stated we are not going to attach cul-de-sacs to other developments. At least that isn't the intention.

Councilman Timmer stated the intent was for small lot subdivisions that no dead end streets have to have a cul-de-sac.

Councilwoman Scott stated so this is one that you know is going to stay a cul-de-sac. That does not pertain to a project that is going to have another development later on.

Councilman Timmer stated that would be my intent.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Jones, to require public dead end streets must have cul-de-sacs installed in a planned development. Motion carried, 5-0.

City Engineer Wong stated this issue that you are talking about pertains only to the small lot single family detached design guidelines in the R2C zone. If you want every dead end street to have cul-de-sac . . .

Councilman McCallon stated no, we are talking about this zone.

City Engineer Wong stated the problem is this zone may not have a lot of room to allow you to have that kind of connection.

Mayor Jones stated then it cannot be developed that way.

City Engineer Wong stated okay, there may be a project that comes in that would not be able to design it that way.

Councilman Timmer stated he would like to change his motion a little bit. There are projects like the Lyons' project that we just approved. I think those should also be cul-de-sacs. We know that street is not ever going to go through. I'm not sure what part of the development code this is listed in.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated if in fact you are wanting a more global type of change on these small confined projects where you have dead end streets and no hammer heads, you probably would have to go back and do a subsequent development code update. We would have to find all those spots and bring an ordinance before you for consideration. I don't know if they exist today.

Councilman Timmer stated that is why I am bringing it up.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated Ernie is bringing up the appropriate point. Then we would have to look at globally where all the other changes are if that is the intent and I think it is. Not only the R2C that is before you tonight, but we have to look at our subdivision ordinance, the development code regulations and address that, but I don't know if we can address just that. If we get policy direction if that is the way you want to go . . .

Councilman Timmer stated yes, that would be a policy direction.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated then we would have to bring back an ordinance for you to consider in the future.

Mayor Jones stated I think that would fix the problem that John is addressing here. A development would come in make a dead end street and they expect us to come in and service it; then they don't provide the opportunity to service it effectively. This is for the public safety for everybody.

Councilman Timmer stated the next item is on page 102 of the staff report at the top of the page. It talks about fencing. I just want to confirm several projects ago the Mayor brought up the issue of block wall fences. I want to make sure that is now listed as a requirement with the understanding that certain areas of rear yards, side yards because the lot may be elevated. They wouldn't necessarily have to have a block wall but maybe wrought iron to enhance their views. I think on planned projects we need to start getting away from the wooden/chain link fences. After a few years, they fall down and becomes unsightly, code enforcement issues. He would make it a recommendation. Again he is not sure of all the policy places that would go.

Councilwoman Scott stated this addresses several different types of fences.

Mayor Jones stated yes, but the definition of fence I think is the point John is bringing up. We don't want that to be interpreted as a wood fence and that is acceptable. We want to encourage that to be upgraded to a wrought iron fence, block wall or something that is going to last longer than a year that the wood fence takes to be eaten up with termites.

Community Development Director Hartmann inquired for clarification. Within that page you have, for example, some issues partially transparent fencing adds interest while maintaining privacy, accents at gates, extend trellises. My point is the idea to have some of the fencing to be commenced with the type of building. We had a wood sided craftsman style home; the wood fencing wood gate would be the most appropriate type of fencing venture that you would want to look at.

Councilman Timmer stated the gate could be wood, there wouldn't be a problem with that.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated okay, you are talking about dividing the arterial lots, between lot parcels and between homes, would be block.

Councilman Timmer stated right now we require block walls around all projects basically, the perimeter fences. Now we also require them on certain entry streets. They have to have a block wall and we need to extend that even further that all fencing needs to be upgraded. Wooden and chain link is no longer permitted. The wrought iron and other products that is going to be used will make the whole neighborhood look better and last more than the first couple of years.

City Attorney Battersby stated so you want to prohibit chain link and want to use non-wood material.

Mayor Jones stated vinyl is just as bad especially in Southern California. Vinyl fencing when exposed to the sun all of a sudden gets brittle and once it gets brittle, it is no good. I think the ideal example that John is pointing out here is Arroyo Verde and Grove Elementary schools. They were going to put chain link fencing there. The city took a position and said no let's upgrade that to wrought iron. We paid for the cost of upgrading it and look at the end product. We have a nice wrought iron fence, not a chain link fence. We are beginning to create this atmosphere throughout the entire community no matter where it is and I would like to continue that myself.

Councilman Timmer stated basically I would like to have a requirement or a recommendation that we use block walls on all new projects, single family or apartments, whatever it may be. If it enhances the project for example, East Highlands Ranch, the rear yards or side yards have wrought iron. It looks nice and is upgraded. Rather than those wooden fences that are all shades of stains from water irrigation and all those kinds of things.

Community Development Director Hartmann inquired if there is a distinction between a small lot project or a bigger subdivision.

Councilman Timmer responded no.

Councilwoman Scott stated you are going to tell people what kind of fence . . .

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated we just did on that project where we decided to upgrade.

Councilwoman Scott stated okay, but that is just new development coming in.

Councilman Timmer stated new development. This doesn't prohibit someone from replacing their existing fence today.

Councilwoman Scott stated she was going to change the chain link that she has on part of her yard but I'm not going to do it if you are going to make me change it.

Councilman Timmer stated no, this is just new development only. Any existing fencing can be replaced with what is there today.

Councilwoman Scott stated so this is not where my chain link falls down I will have to install block walls.

Councilman Timmer stated no.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Jones, to require all new development to construct block walls or wrought iron between lots and upon entryways with existing fencing able to be replaced with current materials. Motion carried, 5-0.

Councilman Timmer stated the next item is on Base Line and Victoria. There are four lots on the east side of Victoria just south of Base Line. One map shows it as low density, the other shows it as commercial, I think. The correct designation should be commercial for those four lots.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the general plan map is correct. The zoning map is inconsistent. The zoning map needs to be corrected.

Councilman Timmer stated this only needs to be corrected, no action is needed.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated that was a graphic error.

Councilman Timmer stated at Ninth and Central, southwest corner, there is a medium density project there with a whole bunch of four-plexes or six-plexes that have been an ongoing nightmare for code enforcement and the Sheriff's Department. It is becoming the same kind of problem we had a Ward and Cunningham. He would like to recommend we do change this to low density and as it becomes vacated we revitalize them in a different use. I would suggest we change those to low density.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to change the current zoning for the lots located at Ninth Street and Central Avenue from medium density to low density with the recommendation of once these lots become vacant, they are revitalized in a different use. Motion carried, 5-0.

Councilman Timmer stated the next item I am not sure where it is specifically as he couldn't find it anywhere in the development code. Originally we had an issue with small lot development which was 25-foot wide and we didn't know how to address that. He knows the county for years had a lot merger program that they had in Big Bear and they encouraged that. He would like to look at if we don't have anything in the development code putting in something that talks about encouraging small lots to consolidate or merge. Also, how are we going to address substandard lots under today's standards and how if it is a committed use, how are they going to develop. He knows this won't necessarily be addressed in the general plan but at some point we need to have some direction on an area that is now considered commercial that is only a 6,000 square foot lot. How do we develop that or not develop it? Right now with all the setback requirements and ADA requirements, most of those are now underdevelopable based on our standards. He knows staff has been visiting this issue quite often and how we address that.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated to bring everyone up to speed, you might have received a memo that a couple of our staff are going through parcel by parcel looking at a variety of small lots to deal with how many lots are we going to have to deal with throughout the entire city.

Mayor Jones inquired if we are going to inventory everything?

Community Development Director Hartmann stated we are inventorying everything. Particularly on the west end of the town where the older subdivisions are we have a number of issues. This issue was something we have talked to Peg about. Non-conforming lots that are below substandard. We need to address it and we have been taking the time to do it. When we get past this general plan it will still be part of our work program to look at which the planning department and Peg will have to sit down and put our heads together so we can come back with a program for you to consider. We have it on our list of things to do and if there is consensus with the Council then we will take that direction and move forward with the project and an ordinance to bring back in the near future.

Councilman Timmer stated in the two folders that we got, the smaller one we have to adopt, there is language talking about the monitoring committee and this is related to monitoring mitigation issues that we have to do in the EIR. It kind of implies that the Council has that role or staff has that role. How does that work?

Community Development Director Hartmann stated this should be referred to Brian at the Planning Center and their environmental review. A typical mitigation monitoring program for project are done all the time. It is staff's responsibility but let me have it referred to the Planning Center as they did talk about the issue.

Mr. Bill Halligan, the Planning Center, we were responsible for the preparation of the EIR for the general plan update. Per CEQA every time an EIR is certified you need to adopt a mitigation monitoring program. In the case of the general plan, much of the responsibility for implementing the mitigation measures would fall on the Community Development Department. With the development project, it is also implemented by the Community Development Department as well as public works and others.

Councilman Timmer inquired now they are the mitigation monitoring team, then there is another term called mitigation monitoring committee. Are they two different entities?

Mr. Bill Halligan responded the team is made up of various city departments and the committee that would be formed for implementation of the mitigation monitoring program and the mitigation measures.

Councilman Timmer stated they would monitor the mitigation but they also review what the team reports and such.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated what some of the implementation may result is at a staff level, Design Review Board level or Planning Commission level, based on a team that is required to approve a project that has been implemented. It could be a variety of different functions through the Community Development Department to review the project and to ensure there is compliance with environmental documents.

Councilman Timmer stated it would be the Community Development Director's job to review the teams' reports and if there is a question, it is talked about the City Council being the mediator of those issues.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated that is correct. Everything is our development code with very few exceptions. My decisions are appealable either to the Design Review Board, Planning Commission or City Council. In this case I believe we are taking it directly to the City Council since you are the final legislative act to approve a general plan and ordinance that would be your responsibility. Is this correct?

Mr. Bill Halligan stated this is correct. It would only be in some type of dispute that it ends up going back to City Council.

Councilman Timmer stated the reason he asked this question is because he has been on the Council 14 years and he has never had this brought to the Council or subcommittee being a mediator of different specialty guys that are on the team who are in conflict with whether we are meeting our mitigation requirements or not.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated it has been a while since you have done a general plan update plus this is a tier one document. What we talked about is that you are going to have implementing projects and environmental review to make these general plan policies effective. If in fact the chances of bringing something to you without us negotiating and working out a deal with the developer or a compromise is probably going to be far and few between. I had never had a position where I had to bring an environmental document to you unless it is part of a project that has been appealed up. I am assuming that same basic intent is here and we should be able to deal with it at a staff level but you are the ultimate decision makers in everything we do so we thought we would brand you with that appeal board.

Councilman Timmer stated on page 5-2, the bottom of the page, the main title is achieving the vision. The last bullet point talks about improving the safety and the aesthetics in sand and gravel operations. The city has no authority in safety of the mining operations. My concerns is are we stepping into something. Does that word really need to be there? We are obviously, with our reclamations plans and so forth that we are dealing with, we are concerned with the aesthetics. We really don't address safety of the mining operations. Page 10-20, top of the page, item #7, is talking about the kinds of things we would like to have in our development. He would like to add at the end of that sentence somewhere it is talking about all the different things we would like to have such as decks and porches and lists individual garages. Our apartment ordinance requires garages and I would think any project we develop in the future should have a garage.

Mayor Jones stated are we making that so restrictive that every unit has to have that. That is the problem I have. We are beginning to dictate and say well you don't have a porch and we begin to nit pick at interpretation. I would be careful in making it so restrictive that our interpretation doesn't address the spirit of what we are trying to do.

Councilman Timmer stated current apartment ordinance requires a garage. That is what I wanted to make sure it was clear in here that it is still a part of that. If it is already covered and we are meeting the requirement, disregard. On item #9 of the same page, and this goes back to my earlier question about lot consolidation, rather than use the word encourage, can we use the word require?

Councilwoman Scott stated how can you require it if the one person doesn't agree. You have to encourage it.

City Attorney Battersby stated you can require it if it has common property owners.

Councilman Timmer stated maybe that is the language we need to have.

Councilwoman Scott stated yes require it if it is common ownership. On your first one, you've to understand we are talking about the Base Line mid-block corridor development.

Councilman Timmer stated that is why he wanted to make sure it was listed that garages need to be on those projects.

Councilwoman Scott stated it might be in the development code but she thinks it needs to also be here.

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to add to the general plan, section 5-2, which will state garages are required for any new development also the consolidation of lots is encouraged, and if the property is under a common ownership, it will be required. Motion carried, 5-0.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated we have discussed two issues; Number 7 which required the garage and we talked about Number 9 to encourage lot consolidation as Peg said.

Councilwoman Scott stated no, encourage stays, require with common ownership.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated I didn't know if you had an action for both.

Councilman Timmer stated page 10-4, under goals summary, he would like to add a couple of bullet points. He thinks there are some missing that really describe our community and what he would like to maintain. One being maintain and enhance the low density atmosphere of our residential neighborhoods. Another one would be design projects/developments to enhance public safety in making sure police and fire are involved. These are already happening. He just wants to modify it in the general plan. The last one would be enhance infrastructure to improve pedestrian and vehicular traffic.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to add to the general plan, section 5-2, to maintain and enhance the low density atmosphere of our residential neighborhoods; design projects/developments to enhance public safety in making sure police and fire are involved; and to enhance infrastructure to improve pedestrian and vehicular traffic. Motion carried, 5-0.

Councilman Timmer stated page 4-22, he knows we have ordinances that talk about businesses needing security cameras and monitors but he would like to have it included to reinforce that.

Councilwoman Scott stated she wants to add #4 to put security cameras in there.

Councilman Timmer stated no, not necessarily cameras but monitoring systems. It seems like the way the Sheriff's Department and law enforcement in general is solving a lot of crimes these days is by having these monitors and recording systems. We already have an ordinance in place, he just wants to redefine that it is important that law enforcement be involved in new projects.

Mayor Jones stated they brought one to us regarding cameras at stop lights.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to add to the general plan, section 4-22, to state all businesses must have a monitoring or recording system in place at all times. Motion carried, 5-0.

Councilman Timmer stated page 4-23, under fire issues, he would like to add an item talking about again, this was really pronounced during the Old Fire and why Highland was successful. Something along the words of ensure fire defense improvements such as perimeter roads, green belts, open space, fuel modification zones and if they are maintained in high levels for the protection of development adjacent to the wild land interface areas. He just wants to reinforce the perimeter road fuel modification stuff.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Jones, to add to the general plan, section 4-23, the statement to ensure fire defense improvements such as perimeter roads, green belts, open space, fuel modification zones and if they are maintained in high levels for the protection of development adjacent to the wild land interface areas. Motion carried, 5-0.

Councilman Timmer stated the only other item is the one that was talked about tonight from the Planning Commission that wasn't included as part of the plan. He used to ride a bicycle quite often and he rode all over the country on many different bicycle trails. The Class I bicycle lanes that are physically separated from the main road generally become difficult to ride on because they are never maintained. He would suggest we continue the bike lane in this area but make it a Class II. It is kind of like what we have now. You have the separated and they ride down the road. You are not physically protected with the berm or a median strip.

Mayor Jones stated this is on the 3-5 green handout.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated on the general plan if you could turn to page 3-29 it has the actual area of the bike paths. The green is noted in the far easterly Northern Canyon area, all the orange is considered Class IIs. Are you talking within the green area out to the Northern Canyon area?

Councilman Timmer stated well whatever was included in this. The changes that Planning Commission made but did not get included in our plan.

City Engineer Wong stated actually it wasn't the Planning Commission, it was . . .

Mayor Jones stated we only have one Class I designation and that is on Boulder Avenue.

City Engineer Wong stated this map shows Class I on Boulder and then in the beginning part of the meeting I asked that portion of Greenspot east of the 'S' curve be changed from Class II to a Class III. What John is saying is don't do any Class I in the city and to change all the Class Is . . .

Councilman Timmer stated no he was only talking about this one right now. The Greenspot area but Boulder there is no way physically we have enough right-of-way to do that anyway. To put a separate lane on Boulder.

City Engineer Wong stated on Greenspot Road the pavement is very wide, more than adequate for four lanes of traffic. So the extra pavement is proposed to be used as a separate bike path.

Councilman Timmer stated no, the way you explained the definition earlier, and the way I read it, was a Class I is physically separated from the road by a green median or concrete berm. We don't have any Class I in the city is what you said. We basically have a wider street with a wide strip that allows the bicycles to be there. I found those ones work best. The ones that are separated, unless you are in a park where they are maintained, they collect broken glass and such.

City Engineer Wong stated let me draw your attention to what is in the plan now and we can discuss something. If you turn to page 3-5, it shows a cross section of various type of roadway classifications. If you look at the very bottom cross section that is the cross section of Boulder Avenue. As you can see, there is a lot of room for asphalt pavement as it is now. The proposal is to convert the curb lane into a separate bike path by actually building a median. That is why this is called a Class I instead of a Class II. Class II is just a line striking on the pavement.

Councilman Timmer stated if you have the physical separation, the street sweepers can't get in and they just don't take care of them and become dangerous to ride on. The bike riders are then forced out into the street where the lane isn't wide enough to ride. He supports the bike lanes but not a physical separation; just have a wide line and wider road. This would be Class II.

City Engineer Wong stated change Boulder Avenue to Class II and Greenspot Road east of the 'S' curve to Class II.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to change Boulder Avenue bike paths to Class II and Greenspot Road bike paths, east of the 'S' curve to Class II. Motion carried, 5-0.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she would like to go over a couple of the land uses on the general plan. A lot of them already have been answered with Base Line. She would like to start on Third Street. This section is industrial, we currently have planned commercial, and the frontage here we received a letter from someone who owns a piece of property. She spoke with the property owners; they have vested interest in this property. She is not getting why we are going to turn this into industrial when we have all this development. Her concern is can we keep this frontage and mentor that and leave the rest of it industrial.

Councilman Timmer stated there is another alternative. We could extend business park all the way down there. Business park does, as I understand, allow certain kind of commercial uses which would permit the AM/PM's. Some of these may support the activity on the airbase.

Mayor Jones stated that is prudent because of the not too deep lots that are there which would not lend itself to industrial.

Councilman McCallon inquired what is the zoning in San Bernardino between Third and Fifth Streets. He knows right now there is a developer that is talking about developing in this area and in here it is industrial.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated above Fifth Street is housing. He does not know what happened between the two right-of-ways.

Mayor Jones inquired where is Matich putting in his yard.

City Engineer Wong stated on Central Street south of Third Street.

Councilman McCallon stated he knows there is discussion going on with San Bernardino and the County developing this area.

Mayor Jones stated but that would not go against John's proposal to put a business park along there with the industrial and the two would work very nicely there.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn asked would business park allow for little restaurants because that is primarily what we are looking at or currently there. This guy owns Domino's there and he was going to relocate but they ended up selling. Her concerns are why would we want to close that all up when we can potentially create new jobs.

Councilman McCallon stated he understands and is not opposed to that. He is just saying we need to be aware that we have that compatibility.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the only project that we have seen by staff is a residential project. We have not seen a formal submittal of projects off of Third Street and Fifth Street. To answer Penny's question, the business park would allow eating establishments from drive-thrus to full restaurants with alcohol service.

Councilman Timmer stated it still would have to meet our standards of parking requirements and ADA requirements.

Councilman McCallon stated what you are proposing is that the frontage be business park or that whole thing.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she could go for that whole thing. She doesn't have a problem with that, she was just concerned with the frontage.

Councilman Timmer stated how about from Fourth Street south.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated he would like to suggest to make it all business park. He would suggest if you are interested in keeping some flexibility, allow some intensive use as well as some more business services, change it all to business park other than the portion on the corner which is planned commercial. This will allow more flexibility with some retail goods and services. Business park would still allow some intensification of land use as well as goods and services as a mix. We still have to comply with development standards, Design Review Board, all the others. There will be some other problems we will have to fix as we talked about this general plan update but I believe if you keep it all a business park it would fit better with what the airport is doing and what is going on around it. Rather than trying to make a little block in the middle industrial and one part commercial, just make it all business park except for the Tippecanoe area.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated that would satisfy if we wanted to put the Subway. That would satisfy those needs along that corridor.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the use would be permitted but whether or not we would come to terms based on the lot, design and all those other issues. It would be a permitted use and they could make an application.

Councilman Timmer stated by making this change and we approve it, how does this impact the EIR. It should be a less intense use rather than industrial or is this more intense regarding the traffic. We're not opening the EIR process again.

Mr. Bill Halligan stated it shouldn't impact it.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Jones, to change the zoning from Fourth Street south, except the Tippecanoe area, from industrial to business park. Motion carried, 5-0.

Councilwoman Scott stated it has to do with one of the properties here. It is a property of which they are still in the audience. They have maps that show parking and so forth and she would like to have the Council see them.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated he does not think it is appropriate at this time. We are dealing with general policy and direction, not site specific issues and how one project works with parking, landscaping, etc.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she has the same concerns behind Pinehurst, she would be inclined to turn this into low density.

Community Development Director Hartmann asked are you talking about Pinehurst itself?

Mayor Jones stated this property has struggled for a long time.

Councilman Timmer stated this may be premature as we have invested quite a bit of money.

Councilwoman Scott stated we did it to Ward Street with all the apartments that were there.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated this may not be the time right now to do so but she thinks we should really keep an eye on that. Another concern was she was interested about the development on Palm Avenue and Meines Street because this is a pretty curious area. It has houses that has big lots which you can't find very much.

Community Development Director Hartmann inquired if she wanted to keep this residential.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she is not sure what she is suggesting.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated he is strongly against that. You have a very small industrial business corridor and you will have a number of properties that will be developed around it. It takes back to some of the initial U.S. Supreme Court decision where you separate intense uses from residential. You really have some non-conforming properties that really should be turned over to business park or industrial type of use. He would not encourage you to keep those and try to mix them in.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired on Palm Avenue and Ninth Street you have a R2, should we turn this into another color such as blue.

Community Development Director Hartmann responded no it is neighborhood commercial. The R2 allows for that use to continue.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she has a question about the Historic District. Do we need a difference between residential historic and commercial residential?

Community Development Director Hartmann stated it is already that. The District has the district and the zone breaks it down between commercial and residential.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired did we zone for the post office?

Community Development Director Hartmann stated it is a public quasi. It is permitted wherever the Federal Government wants to put it. Planned commercial allows for a variety of office and retail types of uses.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she was matching the general plan against the land use and from what I understand they should mirror each other.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated and they do in intent. Sometimes the underlying zone might have a little different tweak to it based on the existing project. They are basically consistent between the two.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she noticed Arroyo Verde wasn't a blue zone.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated it was part of the PD of the East Highlands Ranch. That was an individual planning area designated as a school site.

Councilwoman Scott stated but to be consistent shouldn't it be the blue to be a public place on the map.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated no because the underlying zone is planned development for the entire project. It is the same as John pointed out the fire department . . .

Councilwoman Scott stated well, the fire department isn't there either and that was one of mine too.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated I believe if you were to look in the public safety element it designates the school and fire as part of a public safety map of the fire protection act.

Councilwoman Scott stated on the land use map if someone wants to come in and look at the land use map . . .

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she has one more question. On Base Line and Sterling frontage, she was wondering why there was a change in the frontage.

Councilwoman Scott stated this is planned development and it will allow for commercial.

Councilman McCallon stated on page 117 of the staff report, #88, which states recycling collection facilities including reverse vending machines and small collection facilities. Recycling collection facilities are done by staff review, why wouldn't they be CUP.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the recycling collection facilities you have to look at the definitions. There are definitions of a minor and major. This pretty much mimics state law that would allow what a minor/major use. Minor collection facilities are often approved by staff like your 20/20 facility or the one by Albertsons. Major collection facilities are probably not permitted. He would have to look further into the definitions to see how this all plays.

Councilman McCallon stated you see my concern. I would think the recycling center on Base Line in San Bernardino which would be something that had to have a CUP.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated you have the Amigo Recycling Center off of Fifth Street. Based on that type of use and the definitions, he would have to check because that would not be considered a minor facility. Minor facilities would be your collection at Albertsons and the like. A major recycling center where you weigh in, in Highland, would only be allowed in industrial zones or business park.

Councilwoman Scott stated you said business park though. Business park to me is being kind of a little broader than just commercial. I still consider it something that is not industrial.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated he thinks she needs to think a little bigger than that. Business park does allow manufacturing, wholesaling, and some other type of commercial uses, not at the same level of industrial zone but more so than a commercial zone. We would have to go through the permitted uses so he could explain it. If you are thinking business park can be totally clean it's not totally correct as it can be a little dirtier type of commercial uses. They are all numerated and spelled out in our code for what is permitted and what is not permitted. If we want to take the exercise in the future to go through to see if you agree or disagree than that is something we can do.

Councilman McCallon stated on page 118, he does not know if this is something state law requires or not but 95 service stations, staff review. Why wouldn't that be CUP.

City Planner Mainez stated service stations basically staff reviews, means by writing zone. Now if you look somewhere else in the code, it talks about new projects, would require discretionary reviews. It is going to go through design review process, then you go to another section of code which talks about service stations and lists all the standards. We are saying here is just by writing zone if it is in that zoning district it can go if they meet the standards and go through the design review process.

Councilman McCallon stated but service stations with convenience stores need a CUP.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated yes.

Councilman McCallon stated the other two items he has are just editorial items. On page 191, which is the mitigation monitoring program, section 1.3 the last paragraph talks about Interstate 210 and State Route 30. It is not Interstate 210 it is State Route 210. It has not been designated as an interstate as of yet. On page 70, section 25, where it talks about section 16.15.050 should that be 16.16 rather than 16.15.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated not necessarily.

Councilman McCallon stated that is why I am asking. The section 24 above there has the same reference and it's 16 rather than 15.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated but sometimes it might be a different district. It should be 16.16 as we do not have a 16.15.

Councilman McCallon stated on page 170, under 5.5-2V on the second line, the city of cities should be city or cities.

Councilwoman Scott stated the trailer park at 7717 Church street, mobile home park, is marked as medium density. Why not high. She questions this planned development on the zoning map because obviously we already have . . . This school was not blue neither was the fire station . . . One of her concerns was the two maps together, the zoning and general plan map, we had 18 general plan designations and 18 zone designations, nine of which are the same of each, so that leaves the rest of them. However, for the general plan we have agriculture/equestrian and for the zone we have agriculture/equestrian/residential. She kind of likes consistency. The planned commercial is the same. General commercial, mixed use, office professional, business park, industrial is all the same. Then you get to public/institutional on the general plan and yet on the zoning it is public/quasi public. Let's make them the same thing. Then there was another one where we had open space and we had three different open spaces. The general plan has State Route 30 and Fifth special policy area but the area is not identified on the zoning map. Planned development page 2-13 is zoning designation only but it is in the general plan land use element but not on the general plan map. That was a bit confusing to her.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated it isn't confusing to those of us who use it. Our general plan and the land use element we have a number of special little policy areas so it points it out and brings it out to draw attention to it. The golden triangle, town center, Fifth Street corridor, all those are identified as special policy areas. In reviewing the projects with a proponent of a project, we always have the documents in front so it actually flows very nicely. What it does do and I think this is very important, it emphasizes that there is special attention to these areas. You don't necessarily have to put it on the general plan because this entire document, not just the map, is the general plan. If you look at just the map, you aren't doing the entire document justice because it is a complete package. The same thing for the development could be applied. We look at it from a staff perspective in a bigger picture when we look at a project; how does it comply with all the elements of the general plan, not just the land use.

Councilwoman Scott stated the next item was the description of the general plan high density. The second paragraph says areas designated high density provide good access to major transportation routes are located in close proximity to neighborhood serving commercial facilities and will not negatively impact single family residential areas. She got to thinking based on that description then all future high density should be east of Boulder where all the commercial is going.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated actually we only have three designated high density spots in the entire city. All these in blue are already developed. They are existing projects and some have been rehabbed and redeveloped. Some are relatively new within the last 15 years or so.

Councilwoman Scott stated but then it does not fit this description about being in close proximity to the commercial.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated globally you have to look at how it serves the entire area.

Councilwoman Scott stated explain the mixed use 18-1 or 1FAR which is your parking floor area ratio. When we went to the picture of it, page 211, in several places you have the 50% and I understand that, but then we have on the different map, we have the mixed use it says 1FAR instead of .50. She was wondering none of these show the one.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated two stories with half the lot.

Councilwoman Scott stated so half with two would be one.

Mr. Bill Halligan stated to give you a general sense of the intensity of the potential structure there but it is further refined by the zoning code.

Councilwoman Scott inquired is this the finished project or is it going to get corrected in the few places.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated as you made notations and corrections this evening we will provide a final document.

Councilwoman Scott stated would you show a 1% since you have the 1 several times in here.

Community Development Director Hartmann responded we will try to graphically put something together. Probably we would show it as a two-story.

Councilwoman Scott stated because we don't have any 25 and we don't have any 16.6, we don't have any of those anywhere.

Councilman Timmer stated again, the EIR that was done for the general plan. Basically we are putting staff back eight or nine months.

Councilwoman Scott stated couldn't we say we would like to look at it later.

Mayor Jones stated he doesn't propose we put the whole thing in but he proposes we put this extension out to the old sunrise ranch.

Councilman Timmer stated that is already in the plan now.

Mayor Jones stated the rest of this is not in the City of Highland and it is just a matter of addressing it and getting a concept of the regional plan that will affect or not affect Highland.

Councilwoman Scott stated I'll buy that. The Victoria freeway off ramps I didn't see addressed anywhere.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated part of the transportation circulation analysis. We don't know for a fact if it is viable project. PSR I believe is paid for in commission to start work or soon will. That is going to take approximately two years to complete and then a number of political meetings and discussions. We haven't put it on the map because we don't know how certain it really is. Once we get the chance to analyze that . . .

Councilwoman Scott stated maybe mapping is premature but shouldn't some mention of it . . .

City Engineer Wong stated the document states that a freeway interchange is in the works and is to be studied in more detail. There are policy statements in the document that recommend that Victoria Avenue to at least have a definition. In fact it is not definite in the circulation analysis as a major highway.

Councilwoman Scott stated let's go to 6.7, that is a map.

City Manager Racadio stated he would like to bring up a point of order. Section 1.9 of the resolution of the City Council states that you cannot start any new item after 11:00 p.m. unless it is a unanimous vote of the Council to do so. An item that was started can continue but you cannot go beyond 11:30 p.m. unless a unanimous vote by the Council and you can't start something new after 11:00 p.m. I know we have Janet Laiblin from AQMD, is here for item AB 2015 and I think for her benefit since it is 10 minutes until maybe you could decide, obviously it will go beyond 11:00 p.m., if you are going to need a unanimous but if you were going to go ahead and consider the additional items after 11:00 p.m.

Councilman Timmer stated we don't have any other items after this.

City Manager Racadio stated he knows but it is seven minutes until and she is on item 12 of 15. I think for her benefit if you would take a vote now to determine if you are going to continue.

Councilwoman Scott stated she thinks we should continue until we finish the general plan as it needs to be done tonight.

City Manager Racadio stated and the other items continue with those. It needs a unanimous vote if you want to continue. There are items 12 and 13 which are regional issues.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired are you proposing we do item 13.

City Attorney Battersby responded she suggests you do that one before you change all the air quality standards for the city.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to continue the Council meeting until all items are discussed and action has been taken. Motion carried, 5-0.

Councilwoman Scott stated go to page 6.7 which is a map.

City Attorney Battersby stated it is the airport compatibility map. The same map appears in the EIR figure 5.7-1.

Councilwoman Scott stated it is 6-7. We have requested information from the airport authority board several times. The information has been denied so she is asking that we on this map here remove the Norton Air Force from the map in our general plan.

City Attorney Battersby stated she thinks the suggestion is to leave the redline on the map, which is the airport influence area and remove the runway, not a designation influence area from that.

Councilman McCallon stated because there is no master plan that we are aware of.

City Attorney Battersby stated right.

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to remove airport zones from any and all maps that display or refer to as there is no confirmation of an airport master plan. Motion carried, 5-0.

Councilwoman Scott stated that is on the maps that show and reference a master plan that we cannot verify.

Councilwoman Scott stated the next one she is not real sure if it has to do with the general plan or not that policy 7-14, #5, under the noise element, under goals 7.1. She thinks we also need to mention the shooting range here. According to some of the complaints she receives, she thinks they go up higher than that. The shooting range does not get above 65.

Mayor Jones stated the horror stories being told do not meet those decibels and therefore have never been a nuisance as far as this is concerned.

Councilwoman Scott stated okay, well and because off the subject here, the neighborhood watch we've had so many complaints about noise and boom boxes and so forth. This document refers to the city's noise control ordinances. She would like to have a copy of that because every time any of the citizens complain they are told the city does not have a noise ordinance. She knows better so she would like to have a copy of that. Please put it in her box. Under community design element goal 10-11,

City Attorney Battersby stated unless you get the Council to vote on these items, you are not getting a concurrence as you move along your list.

Councilwoman Scott inquired you mean the Council has to vote on whether she gets a copy of the noise ordinance.

City Attorney Battersby responded no, but adding the shooting range or whatever.

Mayor Jones stated we didn't add it and the shooting range is not within the city limits.

Councilman Timmer stated yes it is.

City Manager Racadio stated yes it is. It goes to the signal light.

Councilwoman Scott stated it has to do with signs under community design. Wherever it is it says to permit attractive appropriately scaled and well ordinated signs as well as . . . Okay the sign on page 10-25 would not be allowed in Highland. If you look at that sign and think, this one right here, that would not be allowed in Highland under our current sign ordinance. Maybe we need to address our sign ordinance. Goal 10-13 is a very good policy and I don't know who did that. The map 11-1 which shows the noise contour of the airbase this contour is different than the noise contour on map 6-7. Why? She has several comments to make on the airport element but since we took that offending map out, she is not going to say any more on that. On Sterling we are keeping that commercial, right?

Mayor Jones responded planned development.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the underlying zone there is to be commercial. That was the intent.

Mayor Jones stated his first would be we make references in the general plan in regards to this intersection here as being environmentally . . . Fifth and the 30, he thinks we should remove that because in talking with Flood Control these areas are not in a designated and we don't need to encourage our environmentalist who will say well we want them that way and we are going to take them now. He thinks we need to remove these.

Councilman McCallon inquired who is designating them that way.

Mayor Jones responded we are. He met with Flood Control today and they said that those are not designated. Flood Control owns that.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated he knows that the habitat maps from U.S. Fish and Wildlife have that intersection and most of the area easterly designated habitat for the San Bernardino kangaroo rat. I assume our designation is based on that information and other information we received from appropriate agencies not necessarily the Flood Control District.

Mayor Jones stated again what he is saying is we are designating . . . These are probably the most prime intersections in the entire city. For us to keep to that on there when in fact everything he can find out does not support that is not prudent on our part.

Councilman McCallon stated you are saying take it out, the intersection EIR.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated we don't know. We are trying to get an answer to it but he can pull the official wildlife maps in the back and they have it designated as critical habitat.

Mr. Bill Halligan stated can he refer them to page 2-18 in the land use element. We did include and it is reflected on the land use plan, SR 30/Fifth Street special policy area, where we do recognize the development potential of the site but also recognizes that there are potential environmental issues there. It does provide some ability to look at it in more detail and do some further analysis.

Mayor Jones stated well we could not find anything to confirm that is the case.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated on the golden triangle and the others we will take special attention when a project goes into that area to be sure that we cross the t's and dot the i's. Whether it be a commercial, industrial or residential project or an environmental issue, we will look at it from the detail that it is elevated in our issues and concerns.

Councilman McCallon asked if it contained documentation that it is an environmental issue.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated it is designated on the map as a special policy area.

Councilman McCallon stated along those lines it doesn't spell out environmental, it states it is a special policy.

Mayor Jones stated we're saying that is where it is coming from and he has heard this for some time. When we first talked about this at the last planning session, we said we wanted to take it out of there but it is still there.

Councilwoman Scott stated she thinks we ought to take it out.

Mayor Jones stated unless we can find true justification for it being there.

Mr. Bill Halligan stated it is shown on the map because it is a designated critical habitat area by U.S. Fish and Wildlife which means it doesn't necessarily preclude future development but you have to do focus surveys to determine if this species is actually there. That is the only reason it is shown on the map.

Mayor Jones stated Orco has been mining on that for two years and if they are there they have been run over by cats 500 or 1,000 times every day because there is no habitat there. Obviously because it has been cleared and they have been using for a mining operation for the last two years.

Councilman McCallon inquired is that the only area listed as habitat. Why would we put that there as opposed to other areas of the city?

Mr. Bill Halligan responded all areas that are within a critical habitat designation are shown on the map. That includes the California map capture, the San Bernardino kangaroo rat.

Mayor Jones stated this is the only one where we have designated that. We don't designate any of this area.

Mr. Bill Halligan stated the intent there is it is recognizing just as you said some of the development potential there depending on whether or not there is actually some flood issues or habitat issues. The reason that area is identified on the land use plan is because there is a development potential there as opposed to some of the other sensitive habitat areas that are designated open space and they are not really connected to any circulation routes.

Councilman McCallon inquired what harm is there in taking it out.

Mr. Bill Halligan stated in terms of this process, there isn't any.

A MOTION was made by Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to remove the special policy area regarding the SR30/Fifth Street intersection from the corresponding map(s) and any text it may refer to. Motion carried, 5-0.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated that would include not only the map but also the text aspect. You have some text in here talking about the SR 30/Fifth Street special policy area.

City Attorney Battersby inquired if Fish and Game has designated it specially and has reviewed the environmental document and the general plan document, will that cause a problem.

Mr. Brian Judd responded to remove this section.

City Attorney Battersby stated to remove special policy area designation.

Mr. Brian Judd stated there is no development potential associated with that policy area. It is just recognizing the development potential but it also recognizes the flood and environmental hazards.

City Attorney Battersby stated Fish and Game doesn't care whether we designate it or not.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated we still have to comply with the endangered species act.

Councilwoman Scott stated that's right.

Mayor Jones stated the Arnott property is currently zoned agricultural. He has sent us several letters going clear back to November of 2005 where he would like, matter of fact he has entered into an agreement, and I understand that is now in escrow. We know that in fact it is going to be a planned development. He thinks that should be zoned planned development rather than agriculture because it in fact has been done. Matter of fact there is even a tract map that we haven't seen yet approved but it has been done. They have done all the earthquake studies and everything else on that.

Councilman Timmer stated he understood that the deal had fallen apart.

Mayor Jones stated no.

Councilman McCallon inquired is that part of the annexed area.

Mayor Jones stated no, the annexed area was this part in here.

Councilman Timmer stated the only problem he has with that request is as we are moving east along Greenspot Road, the lots are maintained at a certain minimum size, and a PED would allow them to have some small lot subdivisions. He would think if we are going to put planned development on that we need to then have some kind of underlining minimum lot size requirement to ensure the compatibility of those lots going east are similar to the ones west of that.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the process of a planned development whether it be the general plan or the zone, would require conditional use permits and have to go through, basically, establish the development standards for that project. It could go down to 5,000 square feet lot if you wanted to or if the Council approved it. You could keep it as a minimum 8,000. The purpose of the planned development allows the flexibility if you have unique characteristics to the site. The concern he has is, not necessarily the PD zone, but the underlying density would start exceeding one lot per 20,000 square feet. You could end up with maybe a typical subdivision at the base of the hillside if that is what your intentions are then so be it. If you are wanting to keep the underlying densities to allow the flexibility in the development of the property then you have to be somewhat clear or have some type of policy statement that you have underlying density of 1 unit per ½ acre basically is what you going to try to achieve.

Councilman McCallon stated the Planning Commission considered this issue and the rationale for leaving it like it is was . . .

Community Development Director Hartmann stated they felt larger lots out in the eastern portion of town is more appropriate than having the 5, 6 or 3,000 square foot lots congregated in the area and having the rest left in open space.

Mayor Jones stated well we are going to be able to address that when we actually see the tract map that someone wants to put on it. We either approve it or we don't approve it. We still have the authority to in fact approve or not approve anything that is proposed. It does not mean we blanketly accept 700 2,000 square foot lots. It just simply means that's what the use is going to be. Arnott's letter to us has continually said he no longer is going to use it for citrus but in fact it is on its way out.

Councilman Timmer stated he does not have a problem with the request. The only concern he has is this project is going to be compatible with stuff existing in the west. He does not have a problem and in fact will make a recommendation we change PD with minimum lot size of 10,000 square feet.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated before we go to a motion, he would like to have Brian make a comment because he thinks we are starting to cross that line with the environmental document now becomes sufficient.

Mayor Jones stated he has an answer for that too. We are zoning this planned development which we have no buyer on whatsoever.

Mr. Brian Judd stated that was analyzed in the EIR as planned development.

Mayor Jones stated we have no buyer for that. That is Orange County and the worst thing we could do is leave that planned development. What we are doing then is we are encouraging the appraisal that Orange County would be doing now. Raise the price of that property from $50 million to $200 million and thus drive out the type of development that we would want to get in there where we would want to keep the amenities because they bought that land cheaper and those amenities would be here which will include schools, fire stations, parks, sewer plants and open space.

Mr. Brian Judd stated those are two separate issues. If you are talking about reducing the potential on that from planned development to add that, it wouldn't be an additional issue. If you are going to a more intense use in the area from agricultural to planned development that has not been analyzed in the EIR.

Mayor Jones stated take this one and make it agriculture, take this one and make it planned development. This one should balance each other off. This is a larger project than this one.

Mr. Brian Judd stated it hasn't been analyzed. That's all we can do.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated for the benefit of everyone the Morton Canyon/Greenspot area was analyzed in a range of one unit for every five acres to one unit to 2-1/2 acres per lot. It is not your typical PD where you do small lots and the like. The density is still significantly less in the Morton Canyon/Greenspot area than the rest of the area. It is probably the lowest density area we have in the entire city. That area gives you the flexibility to cluster the units but still keep the overall density very low. That's where the general plan was set up. The issue that he agrees with Brian is unless you put in an underlying zoning density cap on the Arnott property, you are in spinning the general plan/EIR into some area we haven't studied.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired can we do that.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated if we keep the underlying density the same on the PD for the Arnott, it doesn't exceed but allows the clustering of the units.

Councilwoman Scott stated you talked about the one going from agricultural to residential. She is more interested in the one below it, the larger one; much larger one. She is definitely for putting that one into the agricultural or open space. Either one, the bigger one.

Mayor Jones stated his proposal for this is agricultural because that is the current use. We have some known factor so that we are in fact able to realize the benefits of that property in Highland and not an Orange County $200 million for it.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated there is less agricultural use in the 2,000 acres of the Greenspot than there is on the Arnott property of 234 acres. There are more orange groves, agricultural uses on the Arnott property then the entire 2,000 acres of the Greenspot. You are allowing all the trees for the most part in the Orange County area to go basically dead. That was principle area of use for the borrowed pit for the seven oaks dam. So the agricultural current use of the Greenspot/Morton Canyon area is minimal compared to the Arnott property. What we analyzed is pretty much what we already have out there which is one unit per five acres. That was part of it, to a range of one unit per 2-1/2 acres. That's the analysis, between 500 and 1,000 units. What you are proposing on the Arnott property is going to significantly increase the density out there to a level he thinks would be comparable to what you have in East Highlands Ranch.

Councilwoman Scott stated she does not see how he figures that. You are taking a larger piece of property to the south and making it agricultural. In exchange for making the smaller piece, you have as agricultural into residential.

Mayor Jones stated let's talk about the complexity of the Arnott property. If you take the complexity of the Arnott property, you are not gong to be able to duplicate East Highlands Ranch in that piece of property because this particular property is going to demand a great deal of open space be dedicated and trails or it will never work. Then there is some environmentally sensitive things which include the sycamore trees which he would be the first to say they need to stay there and need to be worked into the plan. As we move down here we take into this and this develops into a regional park, we want it to complement that and we want to be able to move and plan things together.

Councilman Timmer stated we are making significant changes here and some he supports. We are jeopardizing the whole EIR process and if we go forward we may get challenged. What he was going to suggest is that, if he understood Rick correctly, he said the underlying land use for the planned development was pretty low density anyway, so if we change that to agricultural, the density isn't that much different.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated it depends. Our agricultural/equestrian zone starts at two per acre and he is saying one unit per 2-1/2 acres.

Councilman Timmer stated he sees, rather than making it more intense in the planned development underlying plan use . . .

City Attorney Battersby stated if the Arnott property has a map, why don't they ask just ask for a general plan amendment.

Councilman Timmer stated that was the second point he was going to make. Rather than jeopardize the EIR and this whole general plan process based on the conversation that we are hearing here, this Council would be receptive, he thinks at some future point, to a general plan amendment to look at that specific property and look at a higher level of use, then the EIR would be done for that project separate from this process and the two won't get mixed together. That was going to be his recommendation. To leave the PD to get the land use intensity which is actually less than agricultural/equestrian and if the issue is driving the price up or down, the planned use designation with the current land use designation would actually be a lower price than agricultural/equestrian.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the Arnott property has shown a map to staff with over 300 units on it. From staff's perspective, we felt that was too many units and all of sudden there is a letter now for the planned development. We are debating with the developer on how many units should be placed out there because of configuration and design. They are taking into consideration what the Mayor has mentioned, that the groves and some of the open space area. Some of the lots that we are looking at from a preliminary study preview was we felt was excessive. All of a sudden the letter comes back wanting a planned development project zoning on this. Let them make the application themselves, let them process it and if you feel that you want to go down to 7,000 square foot lots then that is something you can deal with.

Councilman Timmer stated he had the same conversation with representatives. He was concerned with some of the densities they had. He was supporting the project but it was a little too intense use. He would recommend as an action we leave the PD as it is because the land value will actually be less because the intensity of use is less. Leave the Arnott property as agricultural/equestrian with the understanding that this Council sounds like it may be supportive of looking at PD. Let them file a process and do their individual EIR as required. This way we don't cloud this whole issue. That would be his recommendation.

Councilwoman Scott stated let them do their own EIR instead of delaying this now. We have come this far we don't want to go through this again.

Councilman Timmer stated his process is not necessarily extending this process but if we make so many changes, the EIR is going to be challenged and we are going to . . . all of the analysis figured was on totally different uses and we are opening Pandora's box which we don't want to open.

Councilwoman Scott inquired you are just talking about the Arnott one.

Councilman Timmer responded he is talking about leaving what is proposed.

Mayor Jones stated let's address the Arnott property by itself.

Councilman Timmer stated he proposes we leave it as is.

Mayor Jones stated leave it agriculture.

Councilwoman Scott stated and let them come in.

Councilman Timmer stated let them come in and go through the EIR process. If they can prove to us that they want a higher intense use we will play with that.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to leave the discussed Arnott property as proposed agricultural. Motion carried, 5-0.

Mayor Jones stated now let's talk about the Landmark development property which is the larger piece. He would move there that in fact we change it back to agricultural away from the planned development. Thus wait until it we have in fact a buyer on that and they also bring that forward and get the approval as needed.

Councilman McCallon inquired does that make the intensity higher.

Councilman Timmer responded yes.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the agricultural/equestrian per the development code reads as follows; the primary per for the ag/equestrian district is to provide for to protect rural atmosphere and lifestyle. This district intended as an area for development of low density, large lots, single family attached dwelling units at a maximum allowance density of two units per acre. So you build up to two units per acre.

Mayor Jones stated the reality of that is it is currently not developed and we don't have anybody to purchase it or want to develop it that way. We would see it anyway before that ever occurred.

Councilman Timmer stated the appraiser would actually have a lower value with this designation on it. If that's the motivation to maintain the price at a lower level so we can get more amenities, we are actually defeating that by changing it.

Councilwoman Scott stated why don't we make that open space. It would be contiguous with the . . .

Mayor Jones stated then we would open a real Pandora's box. It would go into a open space forever and never get it out of there. That is the most prime land.

Councilwoman Scott inquired what do you mean open space forever.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the JPA for the primary responsible party being Orange County Flood Control District, don't know. We have talked about a variety of . . . Right now it is one unit per five acres. That is the way we annexed it into the city years ago. Any change that would come in outside of that would have to do another EIR and look at the intensity land use to see if it is appropriate. The one unit per five acres gives you a lot of freedom and flexibility to keep the density down out there. It really does, Mayor. He would encourage you to keep that density because it allows someone to come in and make a proposal to change it. Then you get a chance to see that one more time. One unit per five acres is pretty darn restrictive.

Mayor Jones stated people have stated that the Base Line extension is going to be six lanes. That is not true at all. It is going to be two lanes. Nothing more than it is right now. It is just going to be extended on out allowing it to cross at Plunge Creek. Plunge Creek can actually be crossed with a culvert, not a bridge. We can go across Oak Creek. Oak Creek is currently in a v-ditch and again a culvert would work there. Even a pipe would work there handling a flow of a v-ditch. We were starting to say we would have a $12 million or $20 million bridge to go across that. That is not the case at all. That is not where we are taking it. We are taking it right at the mouth of Plunge Creek which doesn't have anything that wide there. If you necessitate putting a bridge across that pipe, then it comes along this side of Plunge Creek and down to Greenspot which then begins to align with the other extension that we show here that takes it over and would line up with Redlands. Redlands is currently doing an update on their general plan and they need some direction from us, that our plan is to in fact bring something across and allow this continuous loop to allow that traffic to flow. Give us a safety factor in Highland. East Highland is an island, it is truly an island. All we need is a natural disaster to prove that. Today, getting out of east Highland because we changed one element and that is the closing of Orange Street we have backed up traffic on Greenspot, Base Line and Highland Avenue. Very simple he has watched every morning and evening, just since we closed Orange and it is amazing what the current circulation is and what changing one simple little element has caused to this area. Now the safety factor is if there was a fire through the east of the Cove project, you would not be able to get out of there, you would be stranded. There is no other way out. You get four cars and all of them fighting to get out in a disaster, they won't get out. When we had the fires, he lives at Weaver and Base Line, and we were asked to evacuate, we couldn't get out because of all the looky loos. Those of us who had to evacuate couldn't evacuate because the traffic was always jammed and it doesn't work. Now, to say the 210 is going to take care of it, this has nothing to do with 210. This is all surface streets. This is that which is feeding from this project right here, which needs an outlet instead of going into this project all of these people came up here and yelled the same thing you yelled not in my backyard. It's not going to be any more intense than Highland Avenue is through the rest of East Highlands Ranch. It's not going to be more intense than Weaver Street is currently now and Weaver is a two lane. Highland Avenue is a two lane and Base Line is a two lane.

City Engineer Wong stated Base Line can only be connected to Alta Vista by going through the portion of the local street within the project and through a 20-foot wide alley.

Councilman McCallon stated it is recognized that there is an emergency exit from that area. He has said it before and he will say it again, he is not in favor of the Base Line extension and he would move we take it off the general plan.

Councilman Timmer stated he was involved with the fires up there and having Base Line go through wouldn't have made any difference in the fire operation. We had traffic problems but that was an issue of maybe we didn't close enough streets further down. Personally from what we went through four or five years ago when we looked at this issue in great detail at that point, he determined and the full Council voted unanimously, not to include that as part of the transportation issues when talking with the ranch. His feelings on not needing it were actually confirmed during the fire that we really didn't need it for evacuation purposes and so forth. The cost of course, a huge cost involved, and we all can debate what those costs are but it will still be a lot of money with the environmental issues. He does support Cone Camp crossing because he can see the two issues separately. The extension of Base Line doesn't necessarily have to tie in with Cone Camp going all the way over to Redlands. He supports leaving that portion in because he thinks we do need another access across the wash.

Mayor Jones stated John, he thinks as a safety employee you would have to admit that the more routes out of an area is better than fewer.

Councilman Timmer stated sure, he would agree.

Mayor Jones stated in his lifetime of investigating catastrophic events he has never found when two many exits is not a good thing. Never found it and he has spent 45 years investigating catastrophic events for public entities and others. Every time you get the catastrophic event you can't get enough streets to get out of there. That is the reason he proposed it originally, when Base Line was put in the original plan, and unfortunately was not here to defend that was it was taken out. Unfortunately when it was taken off, we lost the opportunity to have developers contribute to that extension and the buildings and cost thereof. Now we are down to the end of the gate where we are having to address some issues and to deal with that. Now putting that into perspective is that the City of Redlands is attempting right now to buy right-of-way along 38 which is along Lugonia. There is no way in our lifetime or anyone else's that they are going to be able to afford to buy the right-of-way on Lugonia to put 38 through. That is why this proposal makes great sense because that right-of-way doesn't have to be purchased in order to make that work. So he cannot support removing this and he will call for the vote.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn requested not to call for the vote yet.

Councilman Timmer stated we can still discuss the issue. He thinks the plan for crossing the wash is warranted for the city and extending the project out through the annexed area to Bryant probably is a good part of the Greenspot corridor. He really doesn't feel the portion for the Base Line extension needs to be there to facilitate the regional traffic.

Councilwoman Scott stated when this was first brought up on that wall over there, she had the impression with all the hallabaloo that was raised about it that it was going to come like down here and it isn't it. It's going to go over here and down here. She doesn't see where it's going to impact any of the homes here. They already have Base Line up here and it can only help.

Mayor Jones stated there are no houses that face Base Line in the Cove or any project that will be along there. It will maintain the same position and the design that it does in all other parts of the East Highlands Ranch.

Councilman McCallon stated what it is going to do is increase traffic in that and that was the complaint.

Mayor Jones stated it will probably decrease traffic because it will give another alternative out.

Councilwoman Scott stated anyone living here could leave this way or could leave this way.

Mayor Jones stated the first traffic studies that were done on the proposal of them shows it actually reduces traffic not increase traffic. The current one that the Planning Center did in the proposal of this being extended.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired if we have shared this with our residents.

Mayor Jones responded it is in our documents. It's all there.

City Engineer Wong stated if it is helpful to facilitate the discussion, he has an aerial photo map.

Mayor Jones stated this is an aerial photo of the alignment.

City Engineer Wong stated this is the Cove project and this is the three acre orange grove that was discussed earlier, so if you were to extend Base Line, it's logical location is to go through the orange grove and then cross Plunge Creek, come down along east side of Plunge Creek across Oak Creek and then connect to Greenspot. If you want to avoid the Cove or orange grove, you can swerve the alignment further to the north but that means that there is a lot more earth work. Of course the cost would be more if you want to avoid the orange grove.

Councilwoman Scott inquired how many trees would be affected by a two lane road with all of the other things.

City Engineer Wong responded this yellow line indicates the width of the road way. If you look at this, it looks like 1/3 of the grove area would be cut through.

Councilwoman Scott inquired but it could be cut through in such a way where you would basically have trees on both sides.

City Engineer Wong responded yes, there will be trees on both sides.

Mayor Jones stated it all depends on your alignment as to which way you make it flow. That grove isn't going to last long anyway because the cost of maintaining it is going to soon have the board screaming because they can't make ends because they are selling oranges. Everyone is picking them.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated so we are wanting to put it in to have an out of the city not necessarily for traffic, is that correct. We just want another outlet.

Mayor Jones stated that is correct.

Councilwoman Scott stated well that doesn't make sense because if you are going to have a road, people are going to use the road.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated the question you are asking, Penny, does the Base Line extension relieve traffic congestion. According to our traffic studies, it does not. It does provide the outlet which the Mayor is suggesting.

Mr. Brian Judd stated the proposed extension of Base Line has a relatively minor effect on traffic patterns from a city-wide perspective. If you look at Base Line just east of Weaver, if you do not put the Base Line extension in the projected future traffic volume is 5,900 cars a day. If you do put the extension in, it drops by 300 cars a day to 5,600 cars a day. There is out at the very end of the roadway, as one gentlemen eloquently said, he lives at a point where there is only another 19 homes beyond where he lives so if you are at the end of the street there, today its probably carrying about 200 cars a day. If you put this extension in its going to carry approximately 2,100 cars a day on over and down to Greenspot. We studied a lot of roadways through the city as part of this process. None of the roadways where we collected traffic count data is carrying that small number of cars. So from a traffic engineer standpoint 2,100 cars is a relatively small number on a two lane road. At the same time, the people you heard speak are living in a world where right now they have 200 cars a day and what they are concerned about is that its going to go up to 2,000.

Mayor Jones stated but we are also addressing the fact that in the Ventana project and the other homes that were just there. This gives them an outlet and will reduce the number of cars coming out from the other project and also going back in. There is another purpose for this. The major impact is not a major impact. Even though you have been told other crazy stories, the horror stories are not there. The traffic studies don't pan that out.

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to remove the proposed Base Line extension from the general plan update document. Motion carried, 3-2, with Mayor Jones and Councilwoman Scott dissenting.

Councilwoman Scott stated this reminds her of the annexation vote.

Mayor Jones stated this does not give him any problems because at least it gives me the assurance he brought it before the city. You guys voted it down and when someone complains we need another street out, he is going to say don't talk to me. He proposed it. Talk to the people that live there and don't want it there.

Councilwoman Scott stated she wants to make sure that her vote was heard.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she originally voted to support looking into the studies of the Base Line extension.

Councilman Timmer stated he just wants to make sure that motion did not exclude the Cone Camp because he said he supported that. Also, a part of that whole system is going to be the extension out through Bryant as well. He would support both of those being left in.

Mayor Jones stated Cone Camp is still in, we didn't remove it.

City Attorney Battersby stated her question is to the consultants is if we need another additional finding in here as none of the changes that have been approved by City Council alters in anyway the Environmental Impact Report.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated under recitals probably under item #9, on page 151, which City Council conducted the necessary hearing, you could add the statement of a number of issues were in fact made to it. Under section B under resolution, you probably add another section or include a statement under section #2 that says a number of items were made.

City Attorney Battersby stated an additional finding that the City Council has found that none of the changes that were made at the public hearing . . .

Community Development Director Hartmann stated are still consistent with the original filed EIR and does not require any substantial changes or amendments to final determination.

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilwoman Scott, to adopt City Council Resolution No. 2006-014, certifying the final Environmental Impact Report as amended and is still consistent with the original filed EIR and does not require any substantial changes or amendments to final determination, with responses to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, Findings of Facts and Statement of Overriding Considerations, and direct staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the Board and State Office of Planning and Research related to the City's Comprehensive General Plan and Development Code Update Program (ENV 05-007). Motion carried, 5-0.

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-014

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT WITH RESPONSES TO COMMENTS, MITIGATION MONITORING AND REPORTING PROGRAM, FINDINGS OF FACTS AND STATEMENT OF OVERRIDING CONSIDERATIONS, AND DIRECT STAFF TO FILE A NOTICE OF DETERMINATION WITH THE COUNTY CLERK OF THE BOARD AND STATE OFFICE OF PLANNING AND RESEARCH RELATED TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN AND DEVELOPMENT CODE UPDATE (ENV 05-007, GPA 03-001, MCA 05-004, and ZC 05-002)

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to adopt City Council Resolution No. 2006-015 , adopting a Comprehensive General Plan Update (GPA-03-001) as amended and voted on. Motion carried, 5-0.

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-015

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE GENERAL PLAN

(GPA 03-001)

City Attorney Battersby stated we are requesting to hold off on the development code because we need some substantial revisions to the non-conforming provisions and other changes.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated we are going to have look at this very closely and make sure we have all the corrections and those areas where we can't make an amendment we talked about some policy direction. We will list those in the staff report so we won't forget to bring them back at a later date. For example, small lot issues, non-conforming issue; hopefully will get into this one. We will have to look at it.

City Attorney Battersby stated you can continue the hearing to your next regularly scheduled meeting and direct staff to make appropriate revisions.

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer to continue the proposed Ordinance, an Ordinance of the City of Highland, California, amending the City's Development Code consistent with the City's Comprehensive General Plan Update (MCA 05-004, and ZC 05-002) to the next regularly scheduled Council meeting on March 28, 2006. Motion carried, 5-0.

COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT LEGISLATIVE

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

City Manager Racadio stated AB2015 is a request to increase the AQMD Board of Directors from 12 to 16. There is opposition from the Board of Supervisors of county, Redlands, Chino, and many others are going to be discussing it.

Councilman McCallon stated to clarify SANBAG took an action to keep it the same and they said they were going to revisit that once they had legislation to look at. SANBAG has not looked at the legislation and taken a position on it.

Mayor Jones stated he would be concerned with losing our local representation and brining in those from LA County and others. That begins to dissolve our influence there.

Councilman Timmer inquired what jurisdiction or bodies are they planning to expand to.

Mayor Jones stated Los Angeles County and Orange County.

City Manager Racadio stated well we would get one too. The issue he has heard is in the south bay cities. They have two slots in LA county but they can't get on to create this third one.

Councilman McCallon stated if you read the way it would work, it would actually increase the representation of the cities slightly because each of the cities in each county would have an additional city representative. In that regard we would get a slightly larger representation for the cities in this area and the other counties.

A MOTION was made by Mayor Jones, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to not support the expansion of the AQMD Board of Directors from 12 to 16 members. Motion carried, 5-0.

City Manager Racadio inquired if AQMD is requesting a letter stating we oppose it or is the action sufficient.

Ms. Janet Lailblin, AQMD, responded either a letter or resolution will be acceptable.

City Manager Racadio stated we will compose a letter for the Mayor to sign. We will be having a study session with the City Council, Planning Commission, and the Design Review Board on the Base Line median on April 11, 2006. We are handing out material so you are able to review it prior to the study session. We have reviewed it with the Public Work Subcommittee and reflects changes the Public Works Subcommittee recommended. Finally, he sent information to the Council regarding the Legislative Action Days. He has received responses from Penny, Ross, Larry, and Jody.

13. San Bernardino International Airport Authority and IVDA

There were none.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

March 18, 2006 HIT Clean Up - Citrus Harvest Festival

March 21, 2006 at 7:45 a.m. Tour of Sheriff Facilities

March 23-24, 2006 City/County Conference - Lake Arrowhead

March 25, 2006 Citrus Harvest Festival

March 27, 2006 at Noon-5 p.m. Blood Drive - Jerry Lewis Community Center

March 28, 2006 Study Session with the Airport Authority

April 11, 2006 Study Session with Planning Commission, DRB and City Council - Base Line Median

May 17-18, 2006 Legislative Action Days

May 20, 2006 Opera by Children

May 22-23, 2006 ICSC Conference

CLOSED SESSION

At 12:07 a.m., the City Council and Redevelopment Agency convened into closed session regarding the following:

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION

Initiation of litigation pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(c):

One case.

At 12:14 a.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 12:16 a.m.

Submitted By: Approved By:

Betty Hughes Ross B. Jones

City Clerk Mayor