Highland, California - January 24, 2006







	Minutes City Council - 2/28/06

MINUTES

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 28, 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 6:04 p.m. by Mayor Jones at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.

The invocation was given by John Montgomery, Immanuel Baptist Church, and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn.

ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

Mayor Jones presented a proclamation for Adult Education Week to Mr. Gary Dehrer.

COMMUNITY INPUT

Mr. Don Houghtaling stated it is obvious by Council's last action at the previous Council meeting that you are not interested in any opinions given by citizens regarding Greenspot Road being dangerous. It is of no importance to the Council. After being interrupted after my three minutes were complete, you allowed another individual who supports the Council to speak for almost eight minutes. He has tried to provide proof the road is dangerous and this information was not reviewed. He proposed a question stating why is the Mayor's opinion more important than others? He would like to know what sort of road design expertise the Mayor holds that would allow him to dismiss what others have to say. He demands the 2006 petition guidelines be mailed to him immediately.

Mr. George Lockwood stated he did not receive the initial reminder notice for his business license renewal therefore he incurred a $15 late fee. He did pay the $35 renewal fee and attached a note stating he did not receive a prior notice. He is requesting a waiver of the late fee.

City Manager Racadio stated Finance Officer Dantuono will look into the matter further.

Councilman Timmer stated he would pay the $15 late fee. This is in an effort to eliminate the need for staff to hold a special meeting to discuss the late fee.

Ms. Debbie Gill stated she is present to discuss loud parties being held in her neighborhood. Last Saturday, loud music began at 10:00 a.m. and continued to increase in volume as the day progressed. She did call the sheriff dispatch several times and this did not stop the loud party. The party did finally end at 11:00 p.m. For 13 hours this homeowner was allowed to disrupt the entire neighborhood. She contacted City Manager, Sam Racadio, and inquired on how to handle this incident. He was very helpful and forwarded the call to the Sheriff's Department. She spoke with an officer who explained the law to her. In order to lower the volume of the music she would have to give her name and sign a complaint. Her name and address would become public information with a possible court date. She recently read where a driver was cited for loud music coming from his vehicle. She would like to inquire why loud music coming from a vehicle is so different from loud music coming from a home.

Ms. Marianne Briody stated she feels compelled to add balance to the emotionally charged subject of Greenspot Road. No one can deny the accidents that occurred on Greenspot Road were tragic. We also cannot deny we as drivers are responsible for our actions once we are behind the wheel of a car. Harping on this only creates an adversarial atmosphere. We as a community experience the tragedies and now we as a community must come together and deal with it. Our city leaders are not supposed to do something, they are supposed to do the right thing. We need to stop bickering and let the process work.

Mr. George Infeldt, General Manager of East Highlands Ranch, stated he would like to commend one of your members and it is long overdue. Several years ago during one of the serious fires, he ran across an individual coming from the hills with flames right behind him. This individual was Councilman Timmer. He asked Councilman Timmer what was going to happen and he was told all this was going to burn. On behalf of the Ranch and the citizens of Highland, he would like to commend Councilman Timmer and those who fought with him in protecting Highland.

Mr. Lawrence Nigle stated he resides in the Club View Villa area. He wants to make Council aware of a problem that has been occurring. For the last four months he has contacted Jack's Disposal and it seems their trucks leave debris, glass and hydraulic fluid in their wake. He has been trying to work with them but to no avail. He knows Jack's is a franchise business, therefore, Council has the authority to make any necessary changes. He is requesting direction to which staff member to speak with to try and resolve this problem.

City Manager Racadio stated Community Development Director Hartmann or Administrative Analyst Morgan would be able to assist in this matter.

COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT CONSENT CALENDAR

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to approve the submitted consent calendar with the exception of item #5 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 - January 24, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting

Approved the Minutes as submitted.

3. Minutes - January 24, 2006 RDA Regular Meeting

Approved the Minutes as submitted.

4. Claim Consideration - Standard Pacific Homes

Rejected claim.

6. Warrant Register

Approved Warrant Register No. 413 for February 28, 2006, in the amount of $592,289.25 and Payroll of $62,794.85.

7. Treasurer's Report for January 2006

Received and filed Treasurer's Report for January, 2006.

8. Amending the Auditing Services Contract with Conrad and Associates, LLP

Approved the amendment to the contract with Mayer McCann P.C., for auditing services.

9. Notice of Completion - Project No. 2003-19, "Orange Street Improvements"

1. Accepted Project No. 2003-19, "Orange Street Improvements," as complete;

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

3. Directed the City Clerk to file the Notice of Completion with the County Recorder's Office.

ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT CALENDAR

5. Employment Agreement between the City of Highland and Joseph Hughes for the Services of City Manager

Councilwoman Scott stated under 7C there is a #1 and #2 listed are already listed in the contract in a different location. She feels these items should be listed on page 9 of 12 under the conflict of interest title.

City Attorney Battersby stated it is negotiating term and adding it back in as H again would make that conflict of interest violation grounds for separation for cause. In the agreement the employee agreed that he cannot have those conflicts of interest. I think H could be listed as G where it states failure to carry out the duties of the City Manager as set forth.

City Manager Racadio stated, as the City Attorney stated, this is a matter of a negotiated agreement and if you want to renegotiate it, you would have do so with the affected person.

Mayor Jones stated if we were to bring these items back into the agreement, we would have to renegotiate this and then bring it back to Council.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to authorize the Mayor to execute the agreement. Motion carried, 5-0.

City Manager Racadio stated this does not preclude the employee to be subject to all the laws of the State of California. He is subject to all the laws. He will not be exempt from any of the conflict of interest laws.

CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING

10. Public Hearing on the Allocation of the City of Highland's Community Development Block Grant Funds for Fiscal Year 2006-2007

Immediately following the announcement of Agenda Item 10, Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn announced she would be stepping down from the dais due to a conflict of interest which arises because she is the Executive Director of the Highland Senior Center which is seeking CDBG funds. Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn then left the dais and the Council Chambers.

Community Development Director Hartmann and Economic Development Specialist Stater gave a brief description of the staff report.

Councilman McCallon suggested the construction portion be separate from the other items, therefore, Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn may participate.

Mayor Jones opened the Public Hearing.

Ms. Margaret Hill stated she is a Board Member of the Highland Senior Center. Historically, the City Council has continuously financially supported the Senior Center with CDBG funds. As you know, the Highland Senior Center receives no funding through the city's general budget, therefore, making the CDBG funds extremely important. The center continuously is being recognized as the largest and most active Senior Center around and this is due to the quality of life programs the center offers. Such programs include quality of life, physical fitness and social,

transportation assistance, visitation and phone pal program. The center, in approximately eight months, has served 37,412 seniors and by the end of the calendar year should reach 74,000. In October of 2004, the center was able to purchase a new van in order to implement a new program, Operation Pick Up. This program, the Board of Directors has agreed, is very valuable to seniors in our community.

Ms. Nona Martin stated she also is a member of the Senior Center. She continuously helps out in different areas of the center and is very appreciative of the center and its programs.

Ms. Harriet Foucher stated she would like to thank the Council for the support that has been given to the Highland Library Literacy program in the past. We urge you to continue to fund the literacy program so we can continue to reach out into our community.

Mr. Darrell Black stated he is the program director for community services for the Highland YMCA. Over 2,000 children and adults are participating in basketball, t-ball, soccer, karate, dance, track and field, and flag football. CDBG funds are to be used for children that cannot afford programs or the membership. The annual Highland YMCA Run is also funded through CDBG funds.

Ms. Karen Fosdick stated she is on the Board for Child Advocate of San Bernardino County and the agency she represents is the agency that serves the children who are abused, neglected or exploited within our county. We are hoping the CDBG funding would help to focus on Highland, the advocates and the children who live in Highland. Our advocates are trained to work with the young people to give them back their lives. They meet with the children on a monthly basis and give them what they do not have. We are in great need of adult advocates as there are 200 children on a waiting list.

Ms. Cheryl Heesen stated she is the Director of the Family Service Association. They have been providing services in the area for over 100 years and provide the most basic needs in life such as food, clothing and housing assistance. Sometimes families are faced with a decision between paying rent or buying food. This is where our assistance comes in as we can prevent homelessness. For families that already are homeless, we provide a comprehensive case management program that will help them to get into housing. In 2005, our agency served over 1,200 families in our family support program and 389 families go through our homeless program. From Highland, 59 families have received services from our agency.

Mr. Mike Clingman stated last year CDBG funds were received in the amount of $10,000. We have 210 registrants this year and out of the 210, 174 qualified for grant funds. We are requesting funds for registration as we expect the number of registrations to grow next year.

Mr. Ruben Martinez stated he is an employee of Liberia del Pueblo. It is a non- profit organization and is located in San Bernardino. It serves low income families with services such as immigration and naturalization, divorce, restraining orders, English classes and citizenship classes. In the past, we have not received any funds from Highland but we have continued to offer services to Highland. He is requesting funds to continue these classes.

Ms. Tammie Sheard stated she is representing Gerri's sober living facility. We have not received previous funding but have continuously provided services to the City of Highland and San Bernardino. They would like to open a women and children facility in Highland as well as a job training program for parolees who do not have any job skills.

Mr. Brenton Hagood stated he is President/Executive Director of Work and Management Group which is a charity foundation. We are planning in 2006 to equip 100 potential candidates in the low end job market with business attire for the first impression requirement.

Ms. Carol James stated she is representing South Capitol Cottage. They build and manage homeless shelters and this development will help to develop unemployment by 30%. We can provide 100 beds for homeless people.

Mayor Jones closed the Public Hearing.

Councilman McCallon stated one of the problems this year is that CDBG funding has been cut by 10% and we have requests for $779,500. We only have an allocation of $66,096. He would propose to provide $10,000 for the library, $10,000 to the Senior Center for the visitation and phone pal services, $8,000 for transportation services, $5,000 for the life enrichment program, $10,000 to little league and the remainder to go to Highland YMCA in the amount of $23,000.

Councilwoman Scott inquired how many of the groups are 501c. She has reviewed the different organizations and their needs and also finds it difficult to justify the allocation of the limited funds. She proposes $15,000 for the YMCA , $8,000 for the senior transportation program, $5,000 for the senior visitation and phone pal service, $10,000 for the library and the balance will go to code enforcement services.

Councilman Timmer stated he proposes the funds be allocated in the same manner as last year with the exception of the reduction of funds for the after school program; $15,000 for the YMCA, $7,000 for little league, $10,000 for the library, $23,000 for the Senior Center and the remainder of $11,000 for the after school program. After listening to the presentations he would like to give the little league the full request of $10,000 and giving the additional monies to the YMCA. Thus, meaning we would not fund the after school program with CDBG funds but may be made up from other revenues as this is an ongoing program.

Mayor Jones stated he proposes $25,000 to the YMCA, $8,096 to the little league, $23,000 for the Senior Center and $10,000 to the library.

A MOTION was made by Mayor Jones, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to allocate $25,000 to the YMCA, $23,000 to the Senior Center, $10,000 to the library and $8,096 to the little league. Motion carried, 4-0, with Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn absent from the dais and abstaining from the motion.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn rejoined the Council meeting in progress.

Councilman McCallon stated he would propose $60,000 to code enforcement, $23,165 to the neighborhood revitalization program, and the remainder $251,381 to street improvement program.

Councilman Timmer stated he proposes $76,127 to code enforcement, $23,165 to

the neighborhood revitalization program and the remainder of $275,254 to the street improvement program.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she proposes full funding for code enforcement, full funding for the neighborhood revitalization program and the balance to public works.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to allocate full funding of $76,127 to code enforcement, full funding of $23,165 to the neighborhood revitalization program and the remainder of $275,254 to the street improvement program. Motion carried, 5-0.

11. An Application submitted by Spring Pacific Properties, LLC. for:

1. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration; and

2. Amendments to the East Highlands Ranch Planned Unit Development (EHR PUD) for Planning Areas 28, 39, 40, 42 and 45, a Supplement to the Development Standards Report, Development Agreement, EHR PUD Impact Fees Development Agreement revision to extend the Term an additional five (5) years; and Planning Conditions (PUD 05-003); and

3. Tentative Tract Map 16448 (SUB 05-001), a Subdivision of fourteen (14) single family detached residential lots at a minimum of 5,500 square feet on 3.9 acres within the EHR PUD Planning Area 39, subject to Conditions of Approval; and

4. Parcel Map 17630 (MS 05-005), a Subdivision of four (4) residential lots on 25 acres within the EHR PUD Planning Areas 40 & 42, subject to Conditions of Approval.

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

City Planner Mainez stated he will be handing out minor changes to the agreement to Council this evening. He is making reference to a diagram that will show all the planning areas that will be affected in the East Highlands Ranch PUD. They are proposing to change some designation for planned areas. PA28 which is on the north end, this will be changed from single family to an open space, PA45 which is at the intersection of Highland Avenue and Church Street will be changed from business professional to single family residential on a two-acre minimum lot size, PA42 on Greenspot Road and Church Street will be changed from business center to a medium density residential land use, planning area north of PA42 will be changed from commercial designation to single family residential. The project description includes the amendment of development standards through a supplement, which will be called 2006 Supplement. This will highlight all the changes that were just explained as well as add a new standard named Blossom Trails.

Councilman McCallon stated his home he resides in is within 500 feet of one of these areas, however, he has a written opinion from the FPPC that states he has no economic interest in the house he resides in. Therefore, he does not have to abstain from this discussion.

Councilman Timmer inquired the area 28, which will now be designated open space, will that be part of the homeowners association or will it be part of the 900 acre plus that we have.

Planner Larry Mainez stated it will be part of the natural open space.

Mr. Camille Bahri stated he has attended the Planning Commission and Design Review Board recently on February 7, 2006. This could be the first time you will be seeing an actual implementation of medium density and some of the proposed land use changes under your general plan update. What is being shown is a partial copy of your map for the proposed general plan update and the dashed area on the lower left hand size shows the southwest corner of East Highlands Ranch, the area in light green is the area PA42, which is designated medium density and the area north of that would be the minimum 5,500 square foot lots. The idea is to show that this is compatible and consistent with the general plan update that you have come forward with. As far as the application, there is a beauty amendment because as you know we have our own land use that is equivalent of a specific land. I'm not sure there is a need to go over the staff report, if you should have any questions on the documents please ask questions. The Planning Commission was presented with a tentative map consistent with the application and the parcel map. The tentative map, since we know the land use and the exact square lot footage, is 14 lots and engineering will find very compatible with that lay out of the tentative map. As far as the parcel map is concerned, for the most part, is driven in terms of layout would be specific product that the builder would come up with. This will be a four lot subdivision mostly for financing purposes and for appraising purposes. This level of entitlements and we have added dimensions what the medium density specifically might mean as you adopt these land uses under your general plan. We rely on our circulation element for the layout of the land starting with the most local streets, to the collectors, and this one we are calling Promenade Way which bisects the property and collects from the local streets. Of course we are facing, what we hope will be Greenspot Road, and what that will demonstrate is that we have not taken access to the street. That is the first thought that came to mind is the way we are located it is important we show some sensitivity to the village. The people have been there for a long time and it lent itself for an in/out only because it is a host of amenities that you will see on the east end. This point of access would accommodate so we have avoided taking access to this side of the community on Church Street. We will show you how articulating the edge of the community as we go along with the presentation. Also, due to some resistence and taking the cul-de-sac through the neighborhood it makes it a little long to Fifth Street. We were recommended by the City Engineer to place that point of access to the westerly edge of the property so it becomes beneficial to this property as it develops in the future. We did not know at the time whether it would be a full intersection or a restricted intersection or not but this is what we ended up with until we were required or asked to do a specific traffic study analyzing the project. We utilized your consultant that you guys have used under the general plan update and the traffic signal would be warranted here, although, we are not sure at what stage of the process. Ernie Wong has drafted a new condition of approval that we agree with. We are in additional analysis and a warrant would be needed along the process of the first occupancy to identify exactly when the traffic signal would be needed in place and functional. As far as the land use diagram there are three categories; mainly the top one being the single family lot. What we have done is take a look within the ranch and these are three areas within the ranch that have been built ten years ago. Some of these photos taken from these areas right here are about eight to nine years old. A couple of the other areas, Richmond American and Granite Homes which were built in the last two or three years, are very well articulated and show very well including the ten year old product. On this side we thought maybe it would take a mix of the maximum 12-acre single family detach and put it along this edge of the community also we have taken pictures from different communities including Orange County, specifically Quail Hill, this product is called Sage. There is one product I would like to point your attention to and that is being built at Club View Drive, called Club View Villas. This is very well articulated and very attractive product that sold very well in the Ranch. As far as the attached is concerned also, from different communities I think you have had the chance to go to Ranch and places like that. So, these are where some of these products are from. That is to illustrate that the attached and detached products do not necessarily distinguish in a major way other than the fact that one is attached and the other is detached. Also maybe the square footage on the attached typically has a lower range than the detached. Things of that nature. Otherwise this is the very same product that is being built by the same builder of 42 units. Some of it is being used as attached and some of it will be used as detached. Typically the presentation stops there or even before that because this is the land use emphasis and this is what people do apply for. This is something I have been privileged to be involved in, the citrus heritage of East Highlands area. These photos are from East Highlands Ranch, these is just north of PA34, this is at the end of Base Line by PA35 which Centex just finished building that tract and this is right along Highland Avenue. The idea came from the San Jaoquin Valley where there is a very attractive tourist feature that shows on typical California maps. Off the 99 Freeway go through the very rich agricultural community and it has the sign for Blossom Trails and that is where the idea came from. I think this would be a very good feature to bring back the heritage and produce it back into our living community. So what we have done is taken that concept and instead of putting it in an orchard, kind of more of a commercial type of setting, like in the case of the Ranch. We have taken it and put it along the spinal cord of the community where it is within reach and is obtainable to our residents and the people on the outside to experience and enjoy. With that we felt maybe you are familiar with the citrus heritage but the newcomers might not be. We thought it is very important to capture the history of the area, the idea is to take some bronze plaques and take the language to the Historic Committee and work on four or five plaques that would show throughout that area. If this looks familiar, this comes from the village, and these are material that we can build something similar to that. The stone pilaster that looks like it belongs there. What is interesting is that I took this picture a couple of years ago and this cup was there and I drove by a couple of weeks ago and it is still there. With the alignment of the Blossom Trail we felt we needed to bring people closer to there. So we are going to make it a little bit higher to make it obtainable to people and we will put four to five foot sidewalk and made it into a bike and pedestrian path. So we elevated it to eight feet so people can jog or push a stroller in an easy way. Along with that to make it a bit more active and enjoyable, we are going to make it a bit more rigorous for the people that would like to use the par course. Maybe a sprinkle of rest spots whether you are resting from a jog or you want to read a book in the sun. We thought it would be a good function for that linear park but it helps also keep an eye on that facility where kids won't get into trouble. We thought it would be a welcome feature along with the well situated bronze plaques that talk about the history of the area. As such you end up with a for sale practically linear park that is very active. If you take the acreage that is spent on this kind of park, for all of that plank that claims about 17 feet extra width on the street right-of-way. Typically, at least in the Ranch, 36 foot curb to curb street, the right-of-way is 50 feet. What you might expect on a dense development like that, medium density that you haven't had before, you want to shrink the street right-of-way or you want to claim it for development. I felt very strongly that this corridor should be articulated in this way, it should be open and very inviting. This facility should be right along where it is easy and obtainable for people to use. So we have expanded the right-of-way and it comes at the cost of development but it is not for additional pavement to add the greenway to this facility. With that we felt the multi-purpose trail at the back of the community could be also elevated to the level we have described in the community. There are different opportunities. These are photos from Aurantia Park or close by trails, this is from Trails Day, people jogging in Aurantia Park, this is a volleyball court and it does not have to be these but there are a host of opportunities that could be there. If the volleyball court is not being used currently this is not an option but we want to make sure we get together with the HOA and the city planners and see what is feasible and what is desirable. Here are some other examples. These are from the park north PA39, a rose garden and these are from a Los Angeles magazine and a couple of other magazines, one from Montreal. I went to a community garden like that. That could be a opportunity that could be open just to the project or to East Highlands Ranch residents all together. The city may say we would like a community garden that benefits the whole city residents and that could be the choice to be made. With all of that, we are anchoring all of this on account of the whole corners of the community with the recreation center that will have the swimming pool, the maintenance building, the restroom buildings and maybe gazebo that could be fenced off and would be for the use of the community residents. All of that adds up to a very rich recreation. As you can tell, it would not be enclosed although we have not taken vehicular access to Church Street. What we are doing with that edge is being articulated as well if not better of the inside of the project. This is being open to the community. This is making the length of the community so that social interface is available and encouraged. People come around to the church to visit. The idea started from the citrus heritage background capturing the history and escalate that into the park and pedestrian path within the park element, the rest stops and anchoring the whole park with a recreation center that is for the benefit of the community. I don't know if you have seen this anywhere else. I know I have not seen it in Highland other than Temecula which was built and designed. I hope I have built it up in your mind as how well a package that has been put together. As for as the connectivity of the community I wanted to make sure that this would be just four block walls all the way around and disjointed from the rest of the community. These are only a few examples of how this community on pedestrian at least interfaces with the two existing communities. These points of access look like that. This is an extension of the linear park and the Blossom Trail that spills out to Church Street as well as a corridor that links the community. This would be a great feature for the kids that live up on this side to get to the elementary school and the middle school rather than making the trip all they way down Fifth Street. This is an added value that I hope the community will enjoy. All of that is for a very recognizable designations from shopping to schools to the trails. There is a host of designations obviously because the pedestrian and vehicular access there is a purpose as to where they lead. We put this exhibit together and I was even surprised with how much it tells. This area here is all in white and all of the white are amenities within the East Highlands Ranch. So it is not an accident that 104 acres in the East Highlands Ranch is an active space. Other than the 900 acres that you just spoke about, why just about double what exists in the city even if you take credit for the joint use and that is in your general plan. That is not by accident, this is by design and this is why your development impact fees are structured the way that they are. This exhibit was not invented for this other than to show how this community, Blossom Trail Community, fits as a puzzle within the rest of the community, not only in the East Highlands Ranch with all the amenities. I felt the church, which is the only thing out of all of these pictures, that is not out of East Highlands Ranch. I feel so close to this church for some reason that I wanted to show that. All of these from shopping to schools are from within the East Highlands Ranch. What that vex for is for the side context in relationship with the surrounding area, not only East Highlands Ranch, but how is that fitting as true fit as a puzzle within the rest of the community. What you have here is a very dynamic corridor. The challenge you may have in a job plan update along Base Line because of how it is positioned you do not have along Fifth Street. I feel very passionate that this area will be so dynamic. It will need to be anchored properly. Our project is right here and you can tell how it links to this major corridor that leads to the freeway. This is a very important feature for these kinds of densities along major corridors rather than building them on top of the hills. The concept of the village court and being right in the heart of the village court lends itself to these kinds of densities and for these kinds of amenities. This is very important; there is job formation here, there is the golden triangle and commercial coming up in future development. Finally, this is the edge of the community if you look west on Church Street this what you would see. I didn't find a much better spot and I didn't show you the worst spot but nevertheless this is pretty ugly. If you were to go elsewhere, you won't get a much better view. Also, this is the north side which faces the distant community. This parkway from here to here is about 40 feet. This is our vision to Church Street. This is what you would be able to see with a 40-foot parkway. This Blossom Trail has been extended from within the community to the outside, about 21 feet. Overall, this is the site plan and what we envision for this community. Unfortunately there is an issue that needs to be discussed this evening between ourselves and staff. The latest version of the amended impact fee agreement with its ordinance as well as the amended development agreement with its ordinance and does not have an ordinance number yet.

City Planner Larry Mainez stated he has the final copy and it does have some minor changes. He will exchange the ordinances at this time.

Councilman McCallon inquired does this show what the changes are.

City Attorney Battersby stated the primary difference between the ordinances and the agreement in both cases has to do with title to the property. When originally drafted it was her assumption that Spring Pacific, LLC, was the applicant and the entity that would be entitled under the amended development agreement. In fact, that is not the case. SP Deerfield, LLC, and SP East Highland are listed together as the applicant and referred to in the agreements generally as Spring Pacific but without reference to Spring Pacific, LLC. This is the only change between the two ordinances and two agreements in the staff report.

Mr. Bahri stated SP East Highland, LLC, was the property owner for all of the land purchases in East Highlands Ranch. The company by the name of Spring Pacific Properties was formed that managed this project as well as the Temecula project. The ownership was put under different, LLC's, for the Ranch it was SP East Highlands, LLC. Spring Pacific Properties is no more than a management company that was hired to manage these different assets for different owners. One important difference recently, is I personally left Spring Pacific Properties and came back and bought into the last piece in the ranch. I have a personal vested interest in the property and that is when SP Deerfield was formed, to allow me the opportunity to come in. This is partially what my concern is as I have invested in this thing at the end of 2004. I was just handed the latest version at 6:20 p.m. and I had a chance to compare this and the prior one. There are two minor corrections. On the amended impact fees development agreement there is a minor spelling error on the third line that shows SPP and it should be SP Deerfield. Unfortunately, there is a change that I am very concerned about. What we are doing here is a development amendment agreement. The reason for that is our development agreement states specifically the land use changes that are initiated under the general plan update. It states specifically what planning area 45, for instance, needs to be developed as. As an office space, there is an application or a request to move the historic structure. It has been requested we apply for that land use change on their behalf to allow for this structure to go in area 45 of East Highlands Ranch. That is part of the reason why the development agreement is being requested. The 28 specifically states what land use it should take and what it should decide for all the 17 acres into an open space. As well as area 39 and 40, 42, which the part of the general plan amendment and the division that you have adopted so far. It specifically calls out for the current land use and the development agreement states that if you change the land use on any of these planning areas that constitutes more than a minor change. Therefore, you are required to do a development agreement amendment. Maybe if it wasn't for that we would have not requested a development agreement. If I may call out other properties that are being changed or being allowed, or given medium density some of which did not come to you but were approved by the Planning Commission because they do not have a development agreement, they simply follow the city code. This is very important that you understand the initial need for a development agreement change. It is simply to change the standing area of designation as far as land use is concerned. In the process we ask for the extension of the development agreement and an extension of the development impact fees agreement. There are two agreements that we have with the city. Typically, they are one single document and it is not known to me why there are two different documents. Typically, the development agreement address land uses and addresses all the typical development issues as well as the fees. We requested an extension since it is roughly about three years left on both agreements. We requested an extension on the term of that agreement to allow for the development of East Highlands Ranch. These agreements are signed with the city with the understanding that the fee is reduced for East Highlands Ranch development because of improvements East Highlands Ranch has implemented. It is understand that the did not be challenged by other property owners or developers outside of East Highlands Ranch because we do not have the same kind of program. The first is equitable, number two is the challenge. To take away that structure whether it is intended or not intended would be unfair. Some of these improvements if not the majority of these improvements have been completed in advance of the time frame. In your staff report Larry does a fiscal analysis that shows "what the city would lose if we exceeded the term of the development agreement" would no longer credit for the development fee reduction of $1.4 million dollars. I think to make that fair it would have been good to show how much the development spent in order to earn this credit. There is $1.4 million dollars from roughly 300 units that should be selected otherwise if the development of East Highlands Ranch pays like everyone else. I wonder how much has been spent on the credits for roadways, recreational, and for all the amenities and infrastructures that has advanced. I submit to you when we got involved with East Highlands Ranch and some of you were on Planning Commission, the first thing we requested was the athletic infrastructure. Some of the infrastructures and that number sticks in my mind is, 2,500 building permits. We were waiting for the 2,500 building permit to do certain things because the initial ranch ranged between 3,200 and 3,800 units. We sat down and heard from everyone that this is not going to happen. The 2,500 building permits might not be reached for another couple of years. We finished the majority of our improvements if not all of them about four or five years ago.

Councilman McCallon inquired what exactly are you asking the Council to do.

Mr. Bahri responded what he is asking is there are four places in the ordinances and development agreement where it states we will agree to any new fees as may be implacable and the rest of the city that it would be applied to us as well. The concern I have is as follows; there are provisions in the development agreement and the DIF agreement as well that allow for that. One is section 4.4 of our development impact agreement. In different words, it states if the city considers a new fee, we will be subject to that new fee. That provision is already there. Unless, that new fee is for fishing lake. You might feel like you want to put a fee together for fishing. We have the right under that provision to raise our hands and say we have enough fishing lakes. We should not participate in the new fee. That is all it says but we came forward and I was the only one, as you may recall, that said so long as you pass a reasonable fee for affordable housing, we are behind you. I agreed with all of you to participate in affordable housing fee. I took a condition of approval by the Planning Commission that states you pay whatever the City Council decides. That is a lot of faith in all five of you; that you will do the right thing. I have no clue what that will be and I did not come to any of you and say please make it a $1,000 or $5 or what have you. I knew I could count on you to do what is reasonable. So when it comes to a new fee where we have not contributed to either the facility you want to build, a new senior center or an airport. The fee applies to us like everybody else but if you come in and want to tax a fee for swimming pools 30'x50' wide with a green fence around it, I will have to raise my hand and say we have done enough swimming pools. These provisions are already in the development agreement.

Councilman McCallon inquired if these concerns were raised with the Planning Commission.

Mr. Bahri responded it was not at the Planning Commission. This is one of my concerns. This language I have heard about it just before the weekend. I have communicated with you my concerns and will share with you the language I have recommended. That language was rejected. Larry Mainez left a message stating all of the recommended changes have been implemented.

Councilman Timmer stated we are not talking about the general development impact fee. That is locked in. We are talking about new fees that the city could possibly adopt, specifically low to mod affordable housing issue. You had talked about previous meetings when we had made other changes and amendments to the development plan. One of the reasons we continue to go forward with the new agreement is because the ranch said they would accelerate as you indicated. We also recognized because of the density that were being reduced, the numbers of homes we were willing to lock into some of those agreements for long terms. Now we are talking about adding additional density back in some areas. I do not have a problem talking about that and that is why we are here. The only fee we are talking about is the affordable housing fee. Is this over the one fee?

City Attorney Battersby stated there are other potential fees such as traffic uniform fees and other mitigation fees.

Councilman Timmer stated Measure I fees will be adopted under our development impact fee ordinances so they will be exempt.

City Manager Racadio stated they will be separate though. The Measure I fees will be separate from the normal development impact fees.

City Engineer Wong stated the city is required by Measure I ordinance to adopt a regional transportation fee, in which everyone has to pay. My understanding is when the city first adopted its development impact fees in 1988, East Highlands Ranch negotiated a contract with the city that they only pay a very small portion of that fee.

City Manager Racadio stated it was real specific. For example, they paid very little fire mitigation fee because they built fire stations. They don't pay parks because they developed park facilities. They don't pay road DIF because they developed the backbone system. They still pay police and general facilities.

City Engineer Wong stated that agreement is the first agreement had with a developer, East Highlands Ranch. Quite a few years after that subsequent owner of East Highlands Ranch entered a development agreement with the city. Therefore you have two separate agreements. One has to do with development fees and the development agreement was adopted afterward.

City Attorney Battersby stated she does not feel this is quite correct. There was a development agreement early. The city was sued by Mobil Land Development and that was the origin of the development impact fees. Categories of impact fees, which were initially adopted by the city based upon findings, that East Highlands Ranch had contributed its share already through its planning process of facilities within the category.

City Engineer Wong stated that fee agreement basically provided a 20 year period where the developer would enjoy a discount of city fees. This 20 year will expire in 2009. If this project is fully developed before 2009, it is not an issue because the fee agreement locked the discount in. If they for some reason have to continue to develop after 2009, then the agreement would no longer give them the discount. They would be subject to regular city fees.

City Attorney Battersby stated this is what they are requesting with the extension of that development impact fee agreement which was not a part of their original application. It was not discussed early on. The first time I met with Camille that was not a subject matter of our discussion that in exchange for that extension request I would recommend to Council a corresponding benefit to the city and that is the ability to impose and collect additional categories of fees if the Council were ever to adopt those, then apply them to city-wide other development projects. The city has not made a finding in advance that East Highlands Ranch has already contributed its fair share. For this particular project has committed its fair share of categories that have not been established.

Mr. Bahri stated we have no problem with that. If there are any new categories and you have the protection of section 4.4 of the agreement. If there is a new fee that applies to East Highlands Ranch so long as they have not built a fire station, if it is a fire station, it would be a beautification fee. We have not contributed to the rest of the city's beautification, we should be subject. If you should choose to build a senior center in East Highlands Ranch, that is a new fee, and it is a benefit for the whole community. We should be subject like everyone else. The problem I have with the provision is today, not at the end of the existing term, of the subject to all the fees. There is another concern I have as well. A section of your own ordinance. Ordinance No. 43, there also is an exhibit, what it says is that the city will issue new fees. If there is a nexus, that is the law. A nexus comes from A.D. 1600. If there is a nexus between the fees established and the impact from the development, then you pay your fair share. If someone else, outside of East Highlands Ranch, raised their hand and stated we are not going to go to the senior center. They could show evidence that there is no nexus between their project and the senior center. They would be exempt from the new fee. The language you have right now, that Peg is proposing, we could not be exempt from it, due to I have already signed up under the new fee. Whether I like it or not and whether there is a nexus or not. I have a concern about that. I am not an attorney. I can defend our position. Like everyone else that hasn't lifted a finger on a city-wide basis to do improvements for the city. Rather than pay you a check and you go do it. That is not what we did. I am not able to be the example, whether there is a nexus or not. That is why I have a bit of a problem with that. That is why I suggested since you have the protection for any new fee that should apply to East Highlands Ranch, like everyone else since you already have it in the agreement. I suggested the adage of the language in accordance with certain provisions of the DIF, development agreement. It is already there. In accordance to these provisions. Not regardless what we issue, you like it or not, you built it or not, imagine there is a new fee that we contributed to.

City Attorney Battersby stated if that is the concern, I think some additional language, that just says, "in accordance with the city's development impact fee ordinance in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit."

Councilman Timmer stated again, I am still confused. We are talking about an extension of the DIF agreement. We are talking about some liability under the current terms and if we don't extend it, obviously that agreement is now terminated and whatever the fees are at that time, they will be paying the fees. There are two issues, I am hearing, about whether we extend the agreement or we don't. I remember we did the last change on the developer agreement, we had quite a discussion on what length of agreement, what should be the term of the agreement. We talked about this and we, as a Council, said let's give you more time in case there are hiccups. The other question is on infrastructure, storm drain. How does this relate to this project? Is this going to create a new trigger for that construction?

City Engineer Wong stated first of all construction of lines is coming up in a few weeks. It already had a construction meeting. Regardless of that we do have the provision in the engineering conditions that in case for some reason they cancel the contract and then don't move forward with the construction. In your next go around of entitlement of this project, for the parcel map, let's say next time they have a builder. They want to come in and do a portion of the parcel map, which has been subdivided into condominiums, by that time they must finish the Line "C" channel.

Councilman Timmer inquired so the condition is in this. Also, reinforced.

City Engineer Wong responded that's right.

Councilman Timmer stated I know we have been fighting with this, with the environmental agencies.

Mr. Bahri stated we have about eight agencies that were paid $1.5 million. That one guy wire for Edison costs about $117,000. We just finished the water line relocation for $107,000. All of the engineer cost about $700,000. Our contract with the city itself is $735,000. We had to budget four years ago for $250,000. We have done more than half and honestly this is the easy part.

City Attorney Battersby stated we can resolve the concerns that Camille has. Not by referring back to the DIF development agreement as he has discussed. I think there may be a difference in interpretation language of that DIF development agreement. In terms of new categories and fees. If his concern is they should be the beneficiary of section 10 of the city's ordinance, the DIF ordinance, which allows for the City Council to consider adjustment based on contribution they have already made within those new categories of fees, I think it would be appropriate to add language that says and in accordance with the city's development impact fee ordinance in effect at the time of issuance of zoning permits. When you adopt a redevelopment impact fee ordinance, that is always subject to challenge. I think that should satisfy them. The DIF ordinance now in effect has this section 10 in it about fee adjustment.

Councilwoman Scott stated number one, I don't like making changes especially when there part full. It does not give me time to read it and compare it with what I already gone through. How much damage or whatever will it cost if we continue this until the next Council meeting and then make certain we have all the materials that we are supposed to have intact? This way we can go over it. I have not prepared to make any decision because I have not read what was given to me tonight.

Mayor Jones stated you understand that the only difference in what we got tonight from what was in the packet is name changes.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated basically it is a legal issue that Peg caught and clarified and that is the reason why we gave you the other. Actually we could have introduced it as just a technical correction but we always like to present matters to you so you can have it in front of you. The bigger issue is the interpretation, as Peg appropriately put it, how you would interpret on behalf of the city and what Camille feels the fees would be imposed upon him. That is really what this is coming down to the issue that we want to discuss here and get some policy direction on how you want to appeal. There are some fees that may come online that may not be an issue within East Highlands Ranch that Camille has agreed to pay. Camille has also been making the argument is that if he has contributed a portion of those fees for the improvements of East Highlands Ranch that he should be allowed to offset those and fees that might be imposed to in the future. It really comes down to a policy decision with what you are proposing but there are some fees that you have to consider in the near future. One is the affordable housing fee which is appreciated and a traffic mitigation fee. In the 2000 agreement, we did not amend any of the time structure. We left it the way it is. We did bring forward some of the improvements as indicated and they were done before we originally thought they were going to be done. We did not amend a time limit of what the development agreement nor the development impact fee agreements were to expire. Both were to remain constant.

Councilman Timmer stated I think in 1992 was when we extended them.

Councilman McCallon inquired Camille, is the language Peg offered acceptable.

Mr. Bahri stated it is acceptable to me if I understand it right. The current terms and especially as they relate to the reduction of fees. I think what you are suggesting is acceptable because it takes place today. The ordinances for fees are amended on a regular basis and it will increase ten fold. Our percentage is a fixed percentage of that increased fee. We are ready to abide by whatever the current ordinance for these fees are.

Councilman Timmer inquired what is the extension being asked for.

City Attorney Battersby stated till 2009.

Mr. Bahri stated it has been a couple of years and I do not want to point fingers here. I don't want to blame for a delay or anything like that because we like what is happening and we are behind you 100% on the general plan update.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she has spent the last four or five days reading the whole packet and then I get all this. Does the low to moderate income apply to the Ranch?

Community Development Director stated no, it will impose on any new housing project.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated regardless of where it is located, whether it is in the Ranch or not. Camille is aware of this and seems to be pretty agreeable to that.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated there actually is a condition in the project that states the condition with Lyon Homes. The fee has not been established and Council has been curing on it. The condition is being imposed by staff and is being accepted on behalf of the developer.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated I was doing the figure thinking it was a lot. I don't think it is unreasonable.

Mr. Bernardino Castenada inquired how much of an affect will this project have on St. Bosco Church. If they start changing the structure of the church and the older homes, I don't support that.

Mayor Jones responded there is a potential for 300 additional members. Camille was very sensitive to that and pointed out that in fact those things are being taken into consideration.

Mr. Bahri stated one of the reasons I feel for this church, he has taken his mother to services and she enjoyed it very much. I feel very close to the area. If you are asking about the structure changing, I hope not.

Mr. George Einfeldt, General Manager of East Highlands Ranch, feels Peg has everything safely under control. Camille has put together a fine addition to the Ranch. We are very concerned that what he has developed here, remains here. When merchant builders get involved they don't get a chance to mess with this design. I think it is a wonderful design and when people buy the property and want to come in for design plans and try to change what is there, we will rise up and keep what is here. I ask that what was seen tonight not be changed. We look forward to this project moving forward.

Mr. David Bailey stated he supports the project.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired if he has written a letter regarding this project.

Mr. David Bailey responded he did. He was opposed to putting a cul-de-sac in.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated your letter seemed as if you were opposed but what I am hearing is that you are okay with the project. It sounded like you thought there was high density.

Mr. David Bailey stated we were opposed to the cul-de-sac lengthening to accommodate the houses. We moved there because of the cul-de-sac, we did not want to see the cul-de-sac lengthened.

Councilman Timmer stated I think everyone knows how I feel about high density projects.

A MOTION was made by Councilman Timmer, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the approval of Responses to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and; adopt the 2006 Supplement to the 1999 Development Standards Report and Amending PUD Planning Conditions of Approval for the East Highlands Ranch Planned Unit Development (EHR PUD), and; Ordinance No. 304 approving an Amendment to the Development Agreement with Spring Pacific Properties LLC, recognizing certain amendments to the East Highlands Ranch Planned Unit Development project; and making findings in connection therewith, and; Ordinance No. 305 approving an Amendment to the Impact Fees Development Agreement with Spring Pacific Properties LLC, extending the term and providing further terms and conditions thereof, and; adopting Tentative Tract Map 16448 (SUB 05-001) for Planning Area 39, subject to the Findings of Facts and Conditions of Approval, and adopt Parcel Map 17630 (MS 05-005) for Planning Areas 40 & 42, subject to Findings of Facts and Conditions of Approval with the corrections the city attorney has determined and also to include the engineering conduit changes. Motion carried, 5-0.

City Attorney Battersby stated the changes to the amendments need to be clarified because both of these are going to come back to a second meeting. There was two changes, typographical errors need to be corrected and parcel numbers. It is on the amended impact fees development agreement, first paragraph, an extraneous "t" is removed and also on the same page, planning area 29 is changed to planning area 39. In each instance where the amendment to the development impact fee agreement and the development agreement referring to new city-wide fees is incorporated in the document, we are adding the language following the comma, "in accordance with the city's development impact fee ordinance in effect at the time of issuance of a building permit." On both of those ordinances and agreements we are adding that language referring to a fee ordinance.

Mr. Bahri stated you are striking out in accordance with certain provisions of the impact fee development agreement.

City Attorney Battersby stated that phrase we just read is not a part of the staff report or an agenda item.

Mr. Bahri stated you just added something that the Council did not add.

Councilman McCallon asked is that something you requested and do you have a problem with that.

City Attorney Battersby stated I do. Camille has expressed his opinion that the development impact fee development agreement included or has the ability to include the city's adoption of new categories and fees and to impose them on a city wide basis. The concern he has expressed this evening has to do with latitude that is given in the city's development impact fee ordinance, not the agreement, the ordinance which is consistent with state law which allows the developer to come forward and challenge the adoption or imposition of a particular category or fees for their project. I think adding in language that makes this particular provision in this development agreement amendment of being considered tonight. We change that latitude for them to come forward and claim that there is a lack of nexus between a particular city wide fee in their project.

Mr. Bahri stated what is the problem with adding the reference to the provisions of the impact fee development agreement.

City Attorney Battersby stated I think it is confusing because of statements you have made previously in a sense that impact fee agreement may affect the city's ability later to impose other city wide fees.

Mr. Bahri stated I am not trying to take a legal position where the courts someday would refer to today as a part of the record. What I am trying to do is have the perfection of the property language in the document that somebody will inherit and will have to be relying on the development of the property. This is insensitive and whatever opinions I have stated today are no more than concerns that I have raised on how the language proposed by the City Attorney might affect the project financially. As such, my request is the impact fee agreement is in good standing and acceptable in its entirety today to the Council and to the developer. Then a reference to it would not mitigate anything and would not harm anything. I would beg of you to make reference to that development impact fee agreement that continues to be in full force and continues to be in full effect.

City Attorney Battersby stated just to clarify I would not make a recommendation for changes.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn inquired if the contract continues then that still makes that contract current and then if there is a nexus then you come back anyway.

City Attorney Battersby responded no, we are not affecting and adopting this amendment. The city is not attempting to affect the vesting of the existing categories of the development impact fee. Each one of those categories, in a settlement agreement with Mobil Land Development, the City Council agreed that a reduction in the development impact fee for each category was appropriate because of infrastructure and improvements that were a part of the PUD plan and that was determined in advance. Those reduced fees have been in effect and there is no intent here to amend that vesting to those fees or categories because those are a part of a project that currently exists. The intent here is to clarify something which I think, may not be entirely clear with the current applicant that the city reserves its right to impose any other city wide development impact fee that the City Council may in the future determine or appropriate and impose them on this project because there has been no previous determination made that they have contributed to or are already made their fair share to those unknown category of fees. East Highlands Ranch as initially concedes made contributions in the initial eight or ten categories of impact fees that we currently have in place.

Mayor Jones stated Camille has agreed to that.

Mr. Bahri stated I am agreeing with that and if I could just show you one more time to section 4.4, the additional improvement category that I handed you a copy of. It states exactly what I believe I just talked about.

City Attorney Battersby stated that is not entirely true. What 4.4 does and what will be affected by what I am recommending; 4.4 requires a negotiation period and prohibits the City Council from imposing new categories and impact fees on remaining projects without first negotiating. What I am suggesting is new categories or fees should be subject to the same process that any other new development in the city is subject to. There shouldn't be a special provision for East Highlands Ranch outside their initial category that were already determined.

Councilman Timmer stated he does not understand what the squabble is about. It seems pretty clear that the developer has been locked into the development impact fees. New fees can be established if they are city wide fees and they apply to everyone.

Mr. Bahri stated I doubted from the beginning that I would be able to persuade you more than Peg would. I don't think you can or should trust me more than you would trust Peg. I had hoped that it would be a convincing argument for both you and Peg, otherwise I was not going to have my way. I came in understanding that and I am ready to accept whatever decisions you take. I make one last clarification, out of the two different points, I have not done a good job in articulating. One of them is the nexus. Nexus means if you want to do a senior center, I would never benefit from a senior center. In my development, it does not create a need for that senior center, therefore, I have no impact on senior center needs. Therefore, there should not be a link between that fee established for a senior center in my development. This is the nexus argument provided under the Ordinance No. 42. There is a separate issue all together that relates to my development and the impact on needed facilities. If I would have contributed to these facilities that I should be given credit towards them. That is not addressed in section 10 of the ordinance, it is addressed in section 4.4. Now I understand Peg's concern about section 4.4. This is not the intent. The intent is if there is a facility that is being funded newly that the East Highlands Ranch has already built, forget transportation; everyone has transportation needs in any development, but not only development has lakes or swimming pools. If you elect someday to do that I would not be exempt from that new fee, although, we built that. How did we pay for that, higher land value. I agree with the reference to the ordinance that would be in place at that stage and that takes care of the nexus. What would take care of protecting the development from having to pay for things that already were built, which you would not accept on anybody else in the city? I know that you would want us to have that protection because we would have up fronted the money and paid for these facilities. How do we maintain that protection? This is my concern and not referring to section 4.4 while I understand perfectly what Peg is talking about. Can I count on you Peg to come up with the language that protects against the fees for facilities that already have been contributed to by East Highlands Ranch and be treated in the same manner as the other categories that have been given credit for?

City Attorney Battersby stated on a case to case basis that is something the City Council will be required to consider under its development impact fees ordinance under state law.

Mr. Bahri stated you are saying that is the law whether we refer to section 4.4 or not.

City Attorney Battersby stated no that is the law as you refer to in section 10 of the city's current development impact fee ordinance and also the law that exists under Government Code Section 66005. Basically, it puts East Highlands Ranch in the same shoes as other new developers with respect to those categories that have not already participated by the city.

Councilman Timmer stated he would like to add, me as a Council member, my feeling is that we have negotiated with property owners of the Ranch for many years over certain things. Philosophy wise they are still going to be basically held to the same agreements that we have. We are extending the agreement for additional five years and I am sure we still will have continuing debates on how to interpret.

Councilman McCallon stated we have worked with Camille and Spring Pacific for several years now and I have found them to be good people to work with. They do an outstanding job and Camille is a tough negotiator.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she understands Camille's concern on the language and the Council knows your product.

COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT LEGISLATIVE

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

Councilman Timmer stated we have a scheduled a Plan B elected officials committee. One of the issues to be discussed is traffic issues and change of scope. There may be a new agreement for additional fund requests. We did file based on some of the infrastructure things, to change the haul road routes and for additional traffic analysis to be done.

Councilman McCallon stated a request was made by the League of California Cities to adopt a Resolution in support of Proposition 42. To make revenues to be used solely for transportation.

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to adopt a Resolution in support of Proposition 42. Motion carried, 5-0.

13. San Bernardino International Airport Authority and IVDA

Councilwoman Scott stated she had asked for the airport layout plan. She also asked for a copy of the letter from the FFA and in the copy it states it refers to correspondence back and forth several times between the airport and the FFA. She also has requested the back up material from these discussions.

Councilman McCallon read from the airport layout plan the following: The contents of this plan do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the FFA acceptance of this document by the FFA does not anyway constitute a commitment on the part of the United States to participate in any development depicted herein nor does it indicate that the proposed development is environmentally acceptable in accordance with appropriate public law.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Friday, March 17, 2006 at 8 a.m. Dedication of Highland Grove Elementary

Tuesday, March 21, 2006 at 8 a.m. Tour of Sheriff Headquarters, training facility, coroners office, dispatch and jail

Saturday, March 25, 2006 10th Annual Citrus Harvest Festival

Monday, March 27, 2006 Blood Drive at Jerry Lewis Community Center

CLOSED SESSION

There was no closed session.

ADJOURN

There being no further business, Mayor Jones adjourned the meeting at 8:52 p.m. in memory of Lillian "Tude" Rich and Andy Robles.

Submitted By: Approved By:

Betty Hughes Ross B. Jones

City Clerk Mayor