MINUTES

REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY AND CITY COUNCIL

REGULAR MEETING

SEPTEMBER 12, 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 6:02 p.m. by Mayor Jones at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.

The invocation was given by Pastor John Montgomery of Immanuel Baptist Church and the Pledge of Allegiance was led by Councilwoman Scott.

ROLL CALL

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

Absent: None

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS

Mustang Sally - Senior Follies Show

COMMUNITY INPUT

Mr. Frank Zizzo stated he owns property adjacent to the proposed Golden Triangle project. He is speaking in support of Joanna Weck, a tenant of his building, who as an applicant for a Day Spa has conditions set by the city she will need to abide by. Some of these conditions affect him as a property owner. The problem is if he makes these modifications he will have to remove them once Mission Development proceeds with the proposed project. He is willing to support Ms. Weck in her business but at the same time not being put in a difficult position by the city.

Mayor Jones inquired if there was a way to issue a CUP for the tenant.

City Planner Mainez responded this is correct. There is a provision in the ordinance that allows developers to bond for improvements. This particular case is currently before the Planning Commission for review and consideration.

Ms. Pat Coffee stated her family owns property located at 7394 Central Avenue. In March of 2006 there was vote which indicated a possible school would be constructed on the site. In 2003, the San Bernardino Unified School District contacted her to request the acquisition of her family property. Approximately one year later it was clear the school district was no longer interested in the property due to lack of funding. In November of 2005, she did pursue discussions with builders and developers what possible projects they would put on her property. She found a developer who would put the best project on the property; however, it was contingent upon medium density which had been proposed for three months. She was completely unaware of the vote which took place on March 14 as she was not notified in any way of the upcoming vote. At this point the builder had to withdraw the proposal of purchase as the property has gone back to its original density of low. The developer is still interested but the property will need to go back to medium density.

Mayor Jones stated in order to pursue this, an application for a zone change has to be submitted and then it could be set as an agenda item.

Councilwoman Scott stated there is another property located on Cunningham and Base Line, which due to zoning changes, cannot be utilized for what the owner purchased it for. Isn't the Council allowed to make zone changes and what is the process for this?

Mayor Jones stated the Council is allowed four.

City Attorney Battersby stated the item would have to be agendized for a later meeting.

Mr. Jack Jennings stated there is a business being run next door to his home which is creating a problem with insects and trash. With the project of the library and environmental learning center coming in, he would like assistance from the city in maintaining the area and keeping it clean.

Ms. Joanna Weck stated she has opened a day spa and has been opened for two weeks now. Her day spa includes massage therapy and with the message therapy a CUP permit has to be pulled. Her original blueprint plans, which were approved by the city, were based on having a full service salon. She received a phone call from the Planning Department to attend a meeting on September 5, 2006, to finalize her permit. At this meeting she was informed she would have to make revisions beyond her control to the existing property. She only leases space inside of this building. The Planning Department is asking for parking spaces, lighting changes and landscaping. The Planning Department will not release the permit until the owner complies with the list of changes. She is asking for the assistance of the Council to release her permit allowing her to start her full line of business, including massage therapy, and to work with the property owner separately for the completion of the requested changes.

Mayor Jones stated it is his understanding this item is before the Planning Commission as an agenda item and for the Council to make any comment prior to the hearing would not be appropriate.

COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT CONSENT CALENDAR

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to approve the consent calendar as submitted. 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 - August 8, 2006 City Council Regular Meeting

Approved the Minutes as submitted.

3. Minutes - August 8, 2006 RDA Regular Meeting

Approved the Minutes as submitted.

4. Claim Consideration - Shaun Moody

Rejected claim.

5. Warrant Register

Approved Warrant Register No. 425 for September 12, 2006, in the amount of $3,360,239.49 and Payroll of $198,535.13.

6. Treasurer's Report for July 2006

Received and filed Treasurer's Report for June 2006.

7. Bid Award - Project No. 2006-20 "Article III and Sidewalk Improvements"

Awarded the contract for Project No. 2006-20, "Article III and Sidewalk Improvements" to CS Legacy Construction, Inc.

8. Bid Award - Project No. 2006-24 "Year 2006 Overlay Project"

1. Awarded the contract for Project 2004-14 "2006 Overlay Project" to International Pavement Solutions, Inc. (IPS); and

2. Authorized staff to transfer $435,070 for maintenance of effort (MOE) from the General Fund 001.1450.4104 to Gas Tax 004.8310.9901.

9. Declaration of Two (2) Vacant Seats on Historic and Cultural Preservation Board

1. Declared two (2) seats vacant on the Historic and Cultural Preservation Board; and

2. Directed the City Clerk to advertise the vacancy on the Board.

10. Notice of Completion for Project Entitled "Highland Fire Station No. 3"

1. Authorized the Mayor to sign the Notice of Completion for the project entitled "Highland Fire Station No. 3";

2. Directed the City Clerk to record the Notice of Completion with the San Bernardino County Recorder's Office; and

3. Authorized staff to release the 10% retention funds 35 days from the recordation of the Notice of Completion.

11. Conflict of Interest Code Update

Rescinded Resolution No. 2002-53 and adopt Resolution No. 2006-050 approving and adopting the amended Conflict of Interest Code pursuant to the Political Reform Act of 1974.

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-050

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND,

CALIFORNIA, RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2002-53

AND ADOPTING THE CITY'S CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE

12. Eleventh Annual Citrus Harvest Festival - Selection of an Event Date and Budget

1. Selected March 31, 2007, as the event date for the eleventh Annual Citrus Harvest Festival with a rain date of April 7, 2007; and

2. Approved the draft budget.

13. Easement Acceptance/Janice R. Tamkin (7544 Alta Vista)

1. Accepted the Grant of Easement for Road and Drainage Purposes; and

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

14. Funding of the Police Reserve, Citizens Patrol, Paid Call Fire Fighter and Explorer Units

Authorized an Adjustment from $100 per year per Member to $200 per year per Member for the Police Reserve, Citizens Patrol, Paid Call Fire Fighter and Explorer Units.

15. Resolution No. 2006-051 Summary Vacation of a Portion of Alta Vista Right-of-Way (Janice R. Tamkin)

1. Adopted Resolution No. 2006-051 ordering the summary vacation of a portion of Alta Vista right-of-way located at the intersection of Alta Vista and Frontera del Norte; and

2. Directed the City Clerk to record the resolution.

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-051

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE

CITY OF HIGHLAND ORDERING THE SUMMARY VACATION

OF A PORTION OF THE ALTA VISTA RIGHT-OF-WAY

FOR PUBLIC ROADS, HIGHWAYS AND PUBLIC UTILITY PURPOSES

PURSUANT TO THE AUTHORITY PROVIDED BY

CHAPTER 4, PART 3, DIVISION 9, OF THE

STREETS AND HIGHWAYS CODE

CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY PUBLIC HEARING

16. Mr. Marty Barrett has filed an Appeal Requesting the City Council to Rescind the Planning Commission's Approval of Conditional Use Permit (CUP 04-003) as Submitted by Calvary Chapel of San Bernardino. Conditional Use Permit 04-003 Proposes the Development and Operation of a Religious Institution with Sunday School Classrooms and Related Ancillary Facilities from a Site on Greenspot Road.

Associate Planner Meikle gave a brief review of the staff report.

Mr. Kent Norton, Director of Environmental Services of Michael Brandiman and Associates, stated supplementary materials were submitted to the Planning Department. It was primarily in response to the second set of comments from Mr. Todd Brody. The noise comments were responded to separately and the air quality comments were responded to. Their firm believes the assumption, the data, the analysis and the conclusions from the initial study are still valid and active for this project. The church will generate air pollution and noise primarily from the amphitheater when it is in operation. However, the analysis provided demonstrates those potential impacts from the church proposal including the amphitheater which will be less than city standards or the appropriate threshold. Despite the volume of comments of this particular project, especially the air quality and noise, we do believe all of the information does not change the conclusions of the initial study of the negative declaration or the mitigation measure proposed therein. We would propose the mitigated negative declaration still the most appropriate of compliance documents for this project. As you can see there is an awful lot of material in here for noise and air quality. He is not sure exactly, in detail, what the Council is ready for. We do feel the conclusions of the documents are valid.

Associate Planner Meikle stated based on this, it is staff's recommendation the appeal be denied and the Planning Commission's June 6, 2006, approval of the project be upheld. We have Mr. Barrett in the audience as well as members of Calvary Chapel.

Mr. Marty Barrett stated he has lived in Highland for two years and this is his first appeal. He would like to take this opportunity to thank the Mayor, City Council and the Planning Commission. He welcomes the members of Calvary Church as well as the citizens of Highland. He would like to review why he is here tonight. Calvary Chapel made an application for a conditional use permit to build a church and related facilities. We, as residents, were notified of the project, its content, and were invited to voice our concerns. Approximately 75 letters were sent to the city with various concerns to the project. Many letters were on and in relation to noise and outdoor amphitheater issues. Brandiman and Associates reports the city had to interpret and conclude that none of the 75 independent letters written by the city residents were valid. He finds that a little bit ironic. That is 100% which is grade average. We decided to get a cross check of quality control, double check if you will, of the Brandiman report. We found there were errors in the report and were significant to our appeal. After you hear Mr. Brody tonight we hope the city planners and City Council will hold Mr. Brody's findings in the same light as Brandiman and Associates. He is a highly qualified professional with 27 years of experience and should be taken very seriously in his findings. Preparation, since day one, himself and some neighbors have asked what is a definition of a church. He found it rough to find an answer; therefore, he looked it up in the dictionary. The definition is a place of worship. He is a God fearing man himself. If a survey was taken in this room regarding the definition of a church, some responses would be a place to congregate, a place to celebrate your faith, a place of holy matrimony, a place to mourn, bible study, bake sale or maybe a school yard. This does not include an outdoor amphitheater. This is not usual, nor typical. It is a place for entertainment. It is a venue. In the neighborhood, a random survey of churches was done. In three counties and in the 61 churches surveyed, there was one church with a small amphitheater. This gives the conclusion this is not common nor necessary. A number of letters and petitions were signed specifically opposing the amphitheater. The two separate petitions were done at two separate times and again were random through the Ventana and Entrada neighborhood. There may be a few duplicates but not many. Both petitions indicated the opposition to the outdoor amphitheater and not the church. On contrary, the opposed to the church petitions in support of the church project, has been passed around at the Immanuel congregation. We are not newbies. We are educated and sincere homeowners who have supported the church project from the initial meeting. We have participated in this project with earnest intentions. By the show of numbers we are saying not in my backyard, but also not in my neighborhood. The numbers speak for themselves. This is not just himself speaking for others. We oppose certain aspects of this project and we are concerned many of the findings of the report submitted regarding environmental effects. Enough so a professional was hired to review the report and quite frankly, there were a lot of holes in the study which were discovered. Residents of the Ventana neighborhood have attempted to discuss compromises with Calvary Chapel at each meeting. A quick notice about Immanuel Baptist, a choice of which I am in favor of the proposed Calvary project. He understands a petition was passed around during services to support the church project. We support the church project in essence. We are arguing against the findings of the environmental impact report because they are not based upon reality. The amphitheater is not appropriate for this area. It is not appropriate land use. He would like to ask City Council members if they are members of Immanuel Baptist Church and is asking for a show of hands. He is only bringing up the Immanuel Baptist position regarding the building of Calvary church. No other church in Highland has been this heavily involved as Immanuel Baptist. Immanuel has spoken about the people in opposition of the Calvary Church at its church services. Immanuel Baptist had petitions signed and Immanuel Baptist has sent representatives to City Council meetings. These Council Members who are members of Immanuel Baptist should either abstain from voting or he would hope they would vote the facts. As residents of Highland we have genuine issues with this matter.

Councilman Timmer stated he did not sign the petition.

Mr. Marty Barrett inquired if Councilman Timmer is a member of Immanuel Baptist.

Councilman Timmer responded yes.

Mr. Marty Barrett inquired if this is a conflict of interest.

Councilman Timmer responded no.

Mr. Marty Barrett stated it is an awfully awkward interest.

City Attorney Battersby stated Councilman Timmer does not have a financial relationship with the church.

Mr. Marty Barrett stated many letters have been read in support of the church project and we agree whole heartedly. In our neighborhood we support the church as far as the construction of the church. We are not trying to stop the church from building but we are opposed to the unspoken uses of the amphitheater. Actually after reading many of the letters he started to wonder how little information the congregation is being told about the opposition of this project. He cannot emphasize enough the concerns for the unspoken use of the amphitheater. We made this point to the Planning Commission, city staff, church and the media. Religious land use laws state amphitheaters are not essential for church members to congregate. A one thousand six hundred (1,600) seat sanctuary is more than ample to allow congregation concerts, just modified, this is an option. Many alternatives in commercial areas hold outdoor stadium type events. Church representatives have stated often that it is not their intention to open a coffee shop for public use nor is it their intention to use a 93 square foot classroom to operate a school. They may build an amphitheater in 20 years. The first suggestion is to ensure the submitted studies are true and accurate. Once the study is accurate, then approve the project minus phase five. This will allow the church to move forward with their project and once they have proven they are good neighbors, they can come back to the Planning Commission and perhaps the opposition may have dissipated. City staff, we realize, are not experts in these fields and must rely on consultant expertise to develop these studies. In such, different consultants can derive different outcomes. In recent events, Brandiman and Associates are bidding more specific, more detail to the challenges of Mr. Brody. With Mr. Brody's expert opinion, his creditability, he has sort of pushed the envelope with his knowledge. They have taken a step further, talking about Brandiman, after each rebuttal. He feels they deserve a little bit more from the outside. We hired Mr. Brody from Synectecology to form a review of the report submitted by the Calvary project. The firms principal founder, Mr. Todd Brody, has a degree in environmental biology with 27 years of experience in environmental consulting field in southern California. His broad knowledge includes project management, errors omissions, analysis, modeling, traffic analysis and environmental site assessments. Mr. Brody has extensive knowledge in CEQA analysis and documentation including environmental impact reports, studies, negative declarations and was instrumental in the incorporation of SWAB's handbook. For our purposes, we asked Mr. Brody to focus on air quality, noise findings in the calvary study.

Mr. Todd Brody stated he was retained by the approximate homeowner, Mr. Scott Frymire, to review the mitigated negative declaration and the associated documents prepared for the Calvary Church to be constructed in the City of Highland. By way of introduction, as was noted, Synectecology was established twelve years ago and he has been in the environmental consulting field since 1978. He has done over 600 environmental and CEQA documents over the years. In fact, Michael Brandiman is one of his esteemed clients and has done work for them in the past. Locally, he did Patton Hospital and also the Highland Community Day School. First off he would like to thank the applicant and the consultant, MBA, for going back and providing most of the analysis that was left out of the initial document. However, there is still a couple of key issues that have not been adequately addressed. He received comments and responses today so some of this may or may not have been addressed in the responses to the comments. First off, air quality and construction. While the applicant has modified the analysis to include two more pieces of equipment, they now show NOX would exceed the daily threshold value. They provide mitigation through tuning and equipment and assume a 15% reduction that reduces NOX through the daily threshold. We take issue with the use of a 15% value. Urban model analysis which it was based on, does not include quick minute tuning in their list of mitigation. If it was in fact that easy to tune the equipment and get a 5, 10 or 15% reduction, don't you think it would be included in the model as one of the viable mitigation measures. It's not because the model assumes the equipment is already tuned and is in good operating condition. If in fact they want to say that we are going to tune up the equipment and reduce emissions, well then let them put those emissions on top of the model to begin with because they are not in there. Then they go back and say ok, we are going to reduce idling time to five minutes a day for the heavy equipment. We are going to knock idling time down from 30 minutes to five minutes a day. How ridiculous is it to think that heavy equipment out in the field is only going to idle five minutes during an eight hour day. They also do the similar with traffic. They say we are going to have a traffic congestion management plan and that is going to reduce traffic emissions 5%. Well that may work around the site but these trucks are coming from 20 miles away and their reduction plan at the site is doing nothing with what is happening a mile beyond the site. So to take a 5% reduction for that is also ridiculous. So you take a 5% reduction for construction and you take a 5% reduction for trucks and they take a 5% reduction for idling and add them all together, you get 15%. They took 15% off everything. They don't take 5% off the equipment or 5% off the trucks, they lump it all together. They are overestimating their mitigation and if it is done properly NOX will continue to exceed the 100 pound per day limit. We also took issue with the number of pieces of equipment because the urban model says that their project will take 16 pieces of equipment during the grading and initially they were saying no, no, no, it's only going to take three or four. We said that being the case, put a stipulation on it. If you say it is going to take five pieces that is 40 hours a day. Fine, limit it to 40 hours a day. You have that power. You can say grading shall be limited to 40 hours a day and the applicant shall keep records on site that we can come to check. The building of the structures, they say, is going to be 56 hours a day. Fine, if that is what they say then put it in the conditions. Put it in the mitigation measure that the applicant shall monitor the equipment. All of the equipment have hour meters on them, it is easy enough to do. It's a standard mitigation as we do it all the time and in reality it is the only way you are going to limit heavy equipment emissions. Limit the time the equipment operates. We noted in our comments the air quality analysis fails to examine daily emissions when the amphitheater is to be in use. Use of the amphitheater will generate additional vehicle trips and the emissions from the trips still have not been considered in the analysis. In fact, the applicant has not even specified how many trips are going to be generated by the amphitheater. We don't even know. They have not told us. The SCAQMD threshold uses their quality analysis based on a peak day. The applicant is aware of this and in fact stated for construction, he quotes "this is an appropriate analysis because it depicts the worst single day short term air quality impacts." The applicant then failed to look at the worst case single day for the long term impact. As such the city really does not know how much emissions are going to be generated on a daily basis when the amphitheater is used and you don't have an idea really what you decided on. You don't know how much NOX is coming out of the project. When the applicant initially did the air quality study they erroneously based it on the daily emissions of peak hour traffic volumes of 1,008 trips a day. At our insistence, they revised the analogy to include 2,448 trips a day to include the typical daily traffic. So these emissions were originally underestimated by 243%. We also requested the analysis to include winter modeling conditions because these elevate the NOX and add 45% on top of that. He understands at this point winter modeling has been done but he has not had a chance to review it. In addition to the regular daily traffic, we requested the analysis to include the trips generated by the amphitheater that are not included in the 2,448 daily trips. The applicant's rebuttal said that "the 1,000 seat amphitheater will be used four times throughout the year in place of a normal service, therefore, it is not anticipated to create additional trips." Our understanding is the amphitheater could also be used for outdoor entertainment including live music. However, the applicant has stated the amphitheater is to be used just four times a year in place of a normal service. We would refer this to mean a regular scheduled church service which would not include live music except that which would normally accompany a church service such as an organ or piano. Because the long term analysis does not examine those days when the amphitheater is to be used for any use other than a normal service, the decision makers really have no idea of how many trips could be produced on those days or the potential impact associated with the augmented emissions if the amphitheater is to be used for anything other than a normal service that would occur on a normal Sunday. As such, in accordance with the analysis and the applicant's response to our comments, the city should prohibit any other use of the amphitheater other than to replace a normal church service or the analysis remains deficient under CEQA. The city is empowered to make this restriction a condition of approval and we would ask for such. In our comments we requested to see the data from the field study performed during the noise survey. This data still has not been provided. In fact, we were questioned what field data? Well the field study notes they measured 40 decibels at the local neighborhood, he has not seen any field measurements. Obviously some were taken and he wants to know what happened in the field. The proposed mitigation for the amphitheater noise clearly calls for the construction of a 14-foot high wall relative to the stage along the west side of the amphitheater. However, the back of the amphitheater is 16 ½ feet higher than the stage or 2-1/2 feet higher than the proposed wall. In response to our comments the applicants stated the walls are to be 14 feet high relative to the grade. However, the mitigation measures clearly state a wall 14 feet high relative to the stage elevation shall be constructed on the west side of the amphitheater. While it may seem like a minor technicality, it constitutes a new mitigation and under CEQA it could require a re-circulation of BMD. We also noted that crowd nosie was emitted from the analysis. The applicant responded this noise would increase that of the PA by one decibel at the property line. However, their noted mitigation for the PA only gets them to the city code level and the addition of one decibel even would push them past the code limits. Based on our monitoring for stadium type venues, we find that the crowd noise could be substantially higher than the PA levels. In reality, there are too many variables and unknowns that the applicant can't say without absolute certainty whether the proposed mitigation would meet the city code at the residence. In discussing with the residents, he finds there is like a bowl type of effect and noise may not be attenuating at the six decibels per doubling the distance. This only can be determined once the amphitheater is in place and live music is performed. It is up to the city to ensure that its residents are protected from the impact of excessive noise. The city is empowered to require the applicant perform noise monitoring at the property line, approximate to the residences during all live music venues which would ensure that project complies with the local noise restrictions. All monitoring should be performed by a disinterested third party, all data should be available for public review, the burden and cost of any such monitoring should not be borne by the residents. If it can be conclusively demonstrated and documented through numerous uses of the project site that noise does not exceed city code limitations, the city may wish to ease off the restriction. However, even if the applicant can meet the city limitations at the property line, there is one more glaring issue that is yet to be resolved. While the analysis looks at adherence to the municipal code, it fails to consider the increase in noise at the approximate homes and in doing so purposely skirts the goals of CEQA. The CEQA checklist specifically asks if the project will result in "a substantial permanent increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project." It has nothing to do with adherence to local code and while the proposed mitigation may or may not achieve the city's noise ordinance, noise and its impact will still increase by significant levels thorough the amphitheater use. They have come out and said it will increase the noise. The applicant notes that based on the field level, the ambient level is on the order of 40 decibels at the homes during the day. Nighttime levels would be even lower. With mitigation noise from the project being projected at 55 decibels at the residence representing an increase of 15 decibels in the ambient noise during the day and probably an excess of 20 decibels in the night. This level of increase certainly denotes substantial increase and the impact remains significant. We presented this comment with the response that "because the noise levels will not exceed the city code threshold, the project will not create a substantial increase in noise levels." Again, it has nothing to do with adherence to local code. If the project area is quiet and the project substantially raises the ambient level it is significant, regardless of whether it adheres to the public code or not. In response to our comment, the applicant goes on to use an increase of three decibels to represent a significant increase but only relates the increase at the traffic levels. Certainly the use of the amphitheater will cause an increase in the ambient noise at the local receptors and this impact is not being addressed. If the three decibels criteria is applied to amphitheater noise, as it must be, the impact is certainly significant and the analysis projects that the noise the residents could rise from 40 to 55 decibels for an increase of 15 decibels during the day. Again, probably at night. To simply state that because project related traffic does not increase the ambient level by three decibels is not adequate and skirts the goals of CEQA for full disclosure. Because the applicant does not recognize this impact, no viable mitigation is proposed other than what is to achieve the goals specified in the municipal code. However, in the case of Orafina Gold Mining Corporation vs. The County of El Dorado, the courts rejected the contention that the project noise levels would be insignificant simply by being consistent with the standards for the zoning question. If the increase in the ambient noise at the property line is allowed to remain significant, i.e. three decibels, or more above the ambient level, then it skirts CEQA and by adoption the mitigation negative declaration the city is subject to possible lawsuit based on past case law.

Mr. Marty Barrett stated the final act to convince that this project is not right, talking about the amphitheater, we look for points, specifically the comments of first item number 23 B12, refers to concerns that crowd noise is not considered. The Brandiman and Associates study or response states page 14, third paragraph, comments state subsequent ones focus on the amphitheater and its various assumptions about its operations and no definition of amphitheater operation was used by the client. So the model is based on our best estimate for this type of venue. Simply being a resident and a homeowner there he does not see how we can go forward with best estimates with this much on the line. The rebuttal also states it will be used four times a year in place of normal service. Where did this appear as he has not seen this anywhere until he saw it on their report but on the initial report it was never stated. This kind of information would have given us access to act on our fears but he is just asking where this comes from and who threw it in at the eleventh hour.

Associate Planner Meikle stated this information came from an initial draft that was provided to the city. This restriction, Calvary Chapel came back and asked for that restriction be struck so you will find there is an amended document included in the staff report to Council that had no limitations on the number of events per year.

Mr. Marty Barrett stated it is troublesome that the city hired Brandiman and Associates for a $125,000 and that the city took the time for what the potential intended use was for this venue, especially since there has been such a contested topic. In fact, it is not negligent for us to ask this simple question, which we have been. We should not have to apologize for wanting the correct facts. For example, if you build a large area and he knows this is not a large area but just drawing some parallels, don't you try to maximize it for it use; sports, entertainment, conventions, what are you building it for. Let us check out a few examples of the kind of venues Calvary Church has redeemed historically and annually entertain in local amphitheaters. This way we can appreciate why we are having a through study done of accumulative noise, so significant, and why we are here today. In an article dated March 28, 2005, from the Press Enterprise Newspaper, he is going to draw the attention to the very first sentence which reads the screams carried from the top of the bleachers. This is an alert. That is not loud enough. He comes from an African American community and we shout. The next slide is off the web site, again, ironically has been taken down some time ago. Future amphitheaters use would be limited to outdoor worship services, music and concerts. It also could be used by community for public events. He does not know if the church would say they are not familiar with this but this was off the web site and you will not find this anymore on any web site. The next item is an audio segment from a commercial concert. He does not think in our neighborhood we have room for aggressive music for 15 to 16 years old. Right now we are being proactive to prevent a problem. If approved, this becomes purely a reactive issue. We have to react to it. These issues have been discussed thoroughly with the city and it could become a liability if these issues are not corrected. We are asking the city to modify the scope of the project preferably to approve the project but with the removal of Phase 5 or until a more thorough study has been done to everyone's satisfaction. He believes this is fair and is common sense or the minimum with the closure of the amphitheater to mitigate the noise pollution. In conclusion, it is our position that we have created enough proof, Mr. Brody has shown enough doubt and inconsistencies to doubt that Phase 5 is a CUP. However, trying to contest part of the Calvary Church's plan, the city planners, City Council, Brandiman and Associates, proves the odds are stacked and limited to overturn this process. We would like to know as active residents in our community how high of a bar we have to jump over to have our concerns validated. He is not trying to question anyone's integrity but it is quite a home court advantage. Let's choose sides for moment. You have money, private city, an entire church congregation, engineers, environmental services, City Attorney, City Council, city planners and then there is him. The burden is on him and is more than lopsided. It is unsurmountable. When it gets down to it, he hopes you factor this is as we ask you to reconsider your decision by approving this part of the project. Also, in conclusion looking at CUP 16.08.050 on appeal these conditions must be met, which one of them is not in our review. E2 proposed use will not impair the integrity and character of the district in which it is to be established or located. In fact it will. From a noise impact, both crowd and acoustic, there is still not a tangible study to test or support the city's approval of Phase 5. It is a forecast at best. To us this is real life, it is not a model. Even Pastor Coe has acknowledged our concerns are legitimate. We have shown through research Phase 5 is not needed for a church to operate. It is not the norm in other counties or cities as shown earlier. Outdoor amphitheaters are out there just not at churches. It is not the right land use in this case and he thinks this has been shown. We have demonstrated by many letters and hundreds of signed petitions that the residents of Ventana Entrada and others in the City of Highland do not want an amphitheater to infringe on their neighborhood. He also knows the church has offered various opinions about Phase 5, its use, building time line, however, it has never been in writing. It was speculative. We don't have anything in writing or anything going. We feel based on our evidence the outdoor amphitheater is neither a fit for this part of the church project nor a fit to the adjoining neighborhood. If our appeal is not approved, sorry

to say you didn't approve it, you didn't have an opportunity to give us our day in court here before you went ahead and did your staff report. We asked the amphitheater be enclosed and moved to the most easternly part of the Calvary Church property, that is all we want, otherwise the Calvary Church is welcome in Highland. We thank you for your time, the city's patience, Calvary Church's patience regarding the important matter.

Mayor Jones inquired if Calvary Chapel's engineer is willing to respond.

Associate Planner Meikle stated at this point Kent Norton, Michael Brandiman and Associates, would be prepared.

Mr. Kent Norton stated as he said before most of all Mr. Brody's comments were addressed in our written responses. He would like to clear up one item. Our contract with the city is not for $125,000, more in the order of $40,000. He may be lumping in all the subconsultants that were hired to do the various technical studies but that is not nearly what our contract was for this work. If you look at our evaluation of Mr. Brody's comments and based on some comments that were made by the appellant, there are not a lot of holes in our analysis. Actually we believe there are some inaccurate assumptions, analysis, conclusions made about our studies and we have outlined those in our written responses. Again, we stand by the analysis provided by in our studies. Certainly the amphitheater is subject to city controls through conditions of approval. Certainly the City Council has reasonable discretion regarding Phase 5. There is no question about that. He would like to make a quick comment about staff information. It may seem that way from the appellant's position, however, he knows in his years of working with Planning Commission's and City Council's that they do a pretty good job fairly evaluating all of the information that comes in to them. While it may seem there is a lot more information on one side than another, just the volume of information alone is not what carries the day so he would argue against that comment. Regarding the air quality construction, he does not want to get into a point by point analysis as we have already done that in our written analysis. He would like to say his analysis was done consistent with SCAQMD methodologies using information that was specific about this project not just bulk conditions and general information about construction. Certainly the city could decide to monitor activities like tuning of construction equipment. On larger projects we recommended that and on some regards other projects. Assumptions about the amphitheater use, he imagines, the applicant will come up and clear up some of that. Obviously there seems to be some confusion on that. He will let them take care of that. There again, restrictions on the types of amount use is certainly up to the discretion of the City Council. Some of the comments about noise and mitigation measures, we addressed in our written comments. Mr. Brody said there were too many variables of his analysis of our studies are also based on many assumptions and many variables. So it becomes a matter of what is reasonable in terms of analysis. Again we believe we have used reasonable assumptions for our analysis. We do this on all kinds of projects including churches. There were some comments about noise levels at night and he thinks they have addressed most of those in the written information.

The permanent increase in noise levels we have also addressed that as well. He thinks everyone will acknowledge that air pollution in short term and long term will increase as a result of this project. Noise will increase and there is some discussion as to what level the noise will increase. The residents feel it is significant. We feel the analysis says it is not significant. A lot of it is based on assumption and restrictions of use. That is totally up to Council discretion. He is here to answer any questions you may have on our analysis or the documents that have been prepared.

Mr. Michael Hendricks stated he just wanted to make it clear when we get comments in a particular review, we take them seriously. It wasn't a matter of just simply rebutting information that was brought to us but rather looking at the information and analyzing it. I direct your attention to attachment three of the last response letter, which is an analysis of construction equipment on construction sites. In that analysis we looked at three different size sites, a small site, a one-acre medium site and a large site of 150 acres to see how well our construction scenario fit with this project. The terrain, vegetation and demolition was also taken into account. As that analysis shows we are actually conservative with the amount of equipment we have. A lot of the contentions that Todd has with the project is a dispute between whether you use overly exaggerated conservative assumptions or not. We have tried to accurately depict the project. We want to be conservative enough to encompass the project but not to the point that we exaggerated the project to no end. As far as mitigation measures, there have been no new mitigation measures resulting from the comments. In some places the mitigation measures were further described or detail given to try and address the comments but these are not new mitigation measures. These are in fact the same mitigation measures as we were trying to elaborate on how they are used.

Mayor Jones inquired if there are any further questions.

Mr. Marty Barrett stated we sent an appeal and Mr. Brody has caused more investigation, more research and the report was not good enough. To him that is an alert. There is more and more work here because we are concerned, rightfully so, Mr. Brody has proved that. They have gone to work a couple more times because he has initiated it. That is not how you do something. Do it above board and have it correct so that the church is happy and we are happy. So he is just telling you that this is one thing he is passionate about because Mr. Brody did a good job and if they would have done a little bit better job initially then he wouldn't have been here finding mistakes. That goes back to his 75 letters that were not valid and telling us on June 6 that what they wrote was valid. Now we are finding out it is not.

Mayor Jones inquired what is the 75 letters which are being referred to.

Associate Planner Meikle stated as part of the Planning Commission's packet there was quite a stack of comments that came in from the residents. It is also part of your Council packet this evening. MBA went through each of the letters and provided a written response. In fact these are what was provided to the Planning Commission along with the written responses.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn wanted clarification of the 75 letters and if they were valid.

Associate Planner Meikle stated no these were letters from the residents. They were part of the Planning Commission's packet on June 6, 2006. The Council has them in their packet as well.

Mayor Jones stated yes they are part of all the documentation and have not been ignored nor forgotten. Because this is a public hearing it is necessary we hear from the public. Now he knows there has been a bit of confusion on whether he is in favor or opposition to. In this particular issue the applicant is Mr. Barrett, so if you are speaking in favor of the applicant, then that is the position you took. There seems to be a bit of confusion. He made some pre-judgement decisions and if it is wrong please state your position. He would like the speakers to state if they are in favor of the applicant, Mr. Barrett, which is an appeal to a planning decision, meaning he is the applicant and you are in opposition to the applicant.

Mr. John Miller stated he is opposed to the applicant. He is in favor of what Calvary Chapel wants. He has been associated with the Saints and Members of Calvary Chapel for some 35 years or so. He has watched it grow and he must say that the people of Calvary Chapel are the church, not any building. He does not have to look in a dictionary, he knows the church is the people, not a building. The people of Calvary Chapel, Saints and Members, are honorable people. They want to abide by the laws of the community that we are in and we have been doing so for 35 years. We are aware of the laws governing noise levels. With that in mind he would like to say that if we were told by you that we are too noisy, too offensive, we would immediately make an adjustment or shut down to comply. We believe in obeying the laws of the land. We have a good track record over the last 35 years with the places we have occupied and conducted our services. If you were to investigate you would get the best kind of report. His prayer is Council will see fit to give us the green light for Calvary Chapel of Highland. He lives in a community between San Bernardino and Highland. He does business in both cities. He prays Council will move in their favor.

Mr. Steve Murray stated he is the architect for the project. There is a discussion of truck trips during construction. He thinks at this point of time they are planning on a balanced grading situation which will cut the truck trips along 5th Street and Greenspot for bringing in materials. We have enough material on site and should have no reason to bring in materials. For clarification, the amphitheater will not be used at the same time as we are using the rest of the church facility. So essentially if we have 1,000 seat sanctuary and we are in a situation if we have 1,000 seat amphitheater, then we have a 1,600 seat sanctuary in the future, which is already approved. Traffic patterns should be less than what was planned for the 1,600 seat sanctuary. We are under the understanding that the 14-foot wall along the amphitheater, which we are actually proposing to provide on both sides, would be 14 feet high above the seating level. As a matter of clarification, the church has been paying all the fees. The city has not been responsible for any fees paid to the consultants.

Mr. John Montgomery stated he is the executive Pastor at Immanuel Baptist. He appreciates your appeal and no offense has been taken at all. He would like to make a couple of comments about his church policy and ecclesiology. He knows these are big church words but it is how we do business at church. We do not tell our members what they can and cannot do unless we are preaching from the Bible. We do not tell our members how to vote and we certainly don't tell Council Members, who are members of our church, how they have to vote. He has served with individuals here and he is not going to tell them how to do their job. In his mind he knows there is no conflict of interest whatsoever. He would like to speak in favor of the project Calvary Chapel is proposing. Immanuel has been a part of the community of Highland since before its incorporation in 1987. We have owned property since 1982 at the corner of Base Line and Webster. The stated part of our purpose is this; to make a positive difference in this generation and the next. That is what churches are about. This is what Calvary Chapel is about. For more than 30 years, John Miller has pastored this great church. The men that lead this church are men of great integrity and great character. The membership of this church are the best sort of people. He does not know about others but this is the type of people we want in Highland. That is the kind of church we want here. This request that is being made is coming from an established, beneficial organization in this area. The last three decades they have sought to impact your community and its region by making a difference in the lives of the people with whom they have come in contact with. That is why Calvary Chapel offers programs to families, children, students, young adults as well as grown men and women. Because of Calvary Chapel these peoples lives are changed and they in turn return to their community and make a positive difference there. The 21st century ministry in churches is different. He knows there has been some talk about normal church service or normal church activity. What was described earlier was normal for 1955. He knows all of us have air conditioning, all of us drive automobiles relatively new but times change. Ministry has changed and with the music we have heard tonight, he takes exception with the word insightful because it is not insightful. It does not insight teenagers to do anything except to worship God and to live their lives in purity. That is what Calvary Chapel is about and he believes that is what will happen in Highland. Calvary Chapel will be a great addition to this great city. Traffic will increase for a few minutes two to four times in the morning when there is very little traffic anyway. Most residents are not out yet. He sees more traffic for a longer period when he picks up his children from school. A comment was made about Immanuel speaking about the complaints. That is not true. He would like to clarify the comment which was made by the Pastor is, at worst, is there are those who are opposed to this project and at best, Calvary Chapel is having problems with this going through. From the vocal response of Immanuel there is great support for Calvary Chapel. We believe they will make a positive difference in Highland and that positive will greatly outweigh a few minutes of traffic and the sound of music in the hills. As a resident of this city, he supports the project. In fact, he supports it enough to say if it was being built in his backyard he would still say yes.

Mayor Jones stated as a matter of clarification in response to schools, this Council never sees, approves nor denies any school buildings. This is all done on a State level, therefore, Council does not have any jurisdiction over schools whatsoever. We cannot tell them to build an amphitheater or not to build an amphitheater. That does not come before the Council.

Mr. Victor Ramirez stated he wants to thank you for the opportunity to speak. It is not his intention to question the integrity of the church. He too is a lover of the Lord and has dedicated 22 years of medical service to preserve and protect God's people. Obviously the church has researched the project concerning the amphitheater and noise level. He questions as to whether or not they have actually investigated the health effects on his neighbors and children. It has been clearly documented that noise can cause hearing loss at exposures equal to an average of 85 decibels or higher for an eight hour period. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) mandates employers provide hearing protection for their employees in work places where noise levels equal or exceed 85 decibels for an 8 hour average. In situations where noise cannot be eliminated people are advised to wear hearing protection. The reason why we experience hearing loss is because there are hair fibers in our hearing organ that are literally blown off by the force of the sound. It is never replaced. That means with repeated exposure, hearing loss becomes progressively worse. There is already a large body of research detailing the noise exposure hearing from attending a concert. The rest of his speech will be based on solely the results of the Council meeting held in June. He has not had access to any of the research material that has been done since then. The church had stated at the June meeting that the decibel level would reach 99 decibels. Giving some kind of idea, an operating motorcycle or lawnmower will achieve 90 decibels. He cannot imagine anyone who would be willing to tolerate standing next to something that is ten times louder than an operating lawnmower for 13 hours or more. He says 13 hours because it was stated at the last Council meeting that these events would serve from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. He cannot even imagine that someone in good conscience would expose a child to that kind of level of noise for that duration. Is the church prepared to provide hearing protection to all our neighbors during these concert events. Already on three occasions they have had events on their property that were loud enough, even without the amphitheater being built. Is this the beginning of the worse to come? If the church is really concerned about us and our children and wants to be a good neighbor, they can either enclose the amphitheater or not build it at all. They have given us no written guarantees as to the frequency of use nor have they taken into account the sound system they are going to install and even the effects of crowd noise. Lastly a mention was made of Cram amphitheater which is only a four tiered structure. Again he greatly appreciates the time given for him to express himself. He speaks not only as a concerned neighbor and parent but also as a former Army Combat Medic and currently a physician assistant.

Mr. Jim Bruce stated he is speaking in opposition of the applicant. He is the Deputy Fire Chief for Rialto and he has gotten involved in a lot of church projects and from watching this it looks like the air pollution issue and the amphitheater is a red herring. Also, the threat of a lawsuit is an attempt to intimidate decisions that already have been made. He has known John Miller for 30+ years. He is a man of integrity and a man of his word. He is a type of person who runs a tight ship. He keeps meticulous grounds. As far as Calvary Chapel itself goes, he has worked directly with Calvary Chapel, Rialto, and they provide one of our fire chaplains. We utilize their fire chaplains for our 9/11 memorial ceremony, conduct fire funeral services, weddings and marriage counseling. Another thing about the church is the way they worked with the fire department in the Old and Grand Prix fire. Calvary Chapel of San Bernardino was very instrumental in working at the disaster center in helping people who had been displaced. Also it is very good for crime prevention and contributes to the good of the community. Economically having a church in your community brings people to shop in your stores, eat in your restaurants, to buy gas at your gas stations, buy homes in your community and attracts people to buy many other things in your community. So overall churches contribute positively to the greater public good. He speaks in support of Calvary Chapel.

Mr. Dustin Hoffman stated he is speaking in support of the Calvary Chapel project. He does not know and can't say he knows the pastor nor is he affiliated with Calvary Chapel. His theological beliefs lie elsewhere. Yet he is here speaking support of the project. As a Ventana resident, he received all the letters that were left on his doorstep. He had the people come by and the critique he had of their arguments then are the same ones he has tonight. They are often in conflict of themselves and inflammatory. He thinks the studies have shown and to listen on June 6^th to the engineer studies and traffic studies, which was his first question, how much traffic. Then he found out it is a comparably small church and that the traffic would be primarily restricted to Sunday. If at which he leaves for church on Sunday morning and sees there is no one on the road. After looking at it he realized putting a housing development on the same land would increase the sound on an average basis more so would traffic be even more so. He works out of his home so he sees traffic at different times of the day. It is a great project as he looked at the plans. He realizes this is not a small strip mall church with very few assets that cannot contribute to the community like Calvary Chapel of San Bernardino can. He has seen the project and it is a beautiful space. He is excited about having Calvary Chapel with the beautiful piece of land wonderfully developed and having it there at the end of his development. Living in the city of Highland does not mean you will not ever be inconvenienced. If he had it his way, as soon as his house was built we would have frozen all development and no one else would move in or out. He doesn't have any basis to object as it is not a sufficient basis to object to the land owners from developing their site. Everyone has something to put up with especially in a city that is growing like Highland. He asks for the support in line with the June 6 decision to let them proceed.

Mr. Kelly Allen stated he is a member of Calvary Chapel. He is speaking in favor of Calvary and their project. First of all, it is his opinion churches should comply procedurally with the requirements that is needed for a conditional use permit. Secondly, it is his opinion that church has undergone its studies and even more so. He believes the church has considered its neighbors and even more so as a church body, we are guided by the principal of our Lord Jesus. That primarily is a good neighbor. Finally he thinks this is an undue delay of the conditional use permit and is causing the church undue costs. What he can say as a professional, that it is important to share his personal experiences such as he often is approached by attorneys and other professionals to review and criticize work done by CPA's. He often has come with a memo 500 pages thick able to poke holes in the ideas and concepts of the CPA's. While that exercise might often appear, when the final project is delivered, there is no creditability on the other ends part because in reality, as professionals, there are various levels of professional judgement. He does not think Mr. Brody's analysis takes away any professional creditability that Brandiman and Associates brings to the table. Rather he thinks it is an attempt to continue to prolong the process and incur fees that are not necessary.

Mr. Jeff Rokusek stated he is a resident of Highland. The American Heritage Dictionary defines sanctuary as a sacred place such as a church, a place of refuge, an asylum of protection. That is what Calvary Chapel has been in the City of San Bernardino. It has been that and that is what it longs to do in the City of Highland. Calvary Chapel has been an important part of his life and is where he came to know Jesus Christ. It has been a place where he finds shelter, refuge and protection from the storms and hardships of life. Also, it has been a place to find hope, purpose and direction for his life. These are just a few of the blessings that he has received from going to Calvary Chapel. He could tell so much more and go into more detail but that would take quite a bit of time. He has the privilege of knowing the pastoral staff at Calvary Chapel at San Bernardino. He can say they want to bless this city and not only that but the hearts of the people. As a resident of Highland for more than 12 years, his family strongly supports the building of Calvary Chapel in Highland.

Mr. Frank Dolen stated he lives in San Bernardino but has a Highland address, therefore, he has relations with both cities. He noticed on the agenda it states Highland is dedicated to the betterment of the individual, the family, the neighborhood and the community. You are to be commended for being civically responsible people and we appreciate that. He is not speaking for the church and is basically speaking for himself. The church means a great deal to him as he is retired military and has lived in San Bernardino since 1967. He was trying to think how he could express what the church really means to us as individuals. He was walking through the parking lot at the church and found a note with prayer requests from the children in the Sunday school class. The first one was for Africa, the next

one was dogs, the next one was for a class to stop cussing, that Shadow won't be jealous and the last one is for someone's Grandpa to stop doing drugs. This is what the church means to us. It is an open community as anyone can come in to draw strength and support. He does believe that collectively as a church, they would be an asset to the community. One thing the applicant brought up was the pictures of the youth and the modern music. He does not remember seeing where there has been a riot after a Christian concert. There may be a throng of people that will come forward to change their lives but never a riot.

Mayor Jones inquired if there is anyone else that would like to speak for or against this issue.

Ms. Susan Folsom stated she is in favor of the appeal that Marty Barrett has put forth today. She is one of the neighbors on that street and she is up here not because she is against the church. What she does not get is why they are so intent on having an amphitheater there. The problem is they are imposing. She does not believe anyone should be allowed to impose their religious convictions on someone else. She would have been happy to hear you people were going to be coming into the neighborhood but when you start playing music with words, now that is not fair to people in the community who might take offense. They have plenty of room in their church to do this as they don't need to have a loud rock concert going on in our neighborhood. We would not do that to them. We would not sit in our backyards and play music loudly while they are having church services. She thinks that would be very disrespectful. Our neighbors are very respectful of each other. She is trying to leave you with this as she has gone to church all her life but has not picked one in Highland yet. You have to remember as a neighbor yourself, would you want to have other people's religious convictions coming to you over your back fence. You have to think of everyone in the neighborhood. They are not against the church. They can worship all they want. First off she does not think any church would be so intent on building an amphitheater if only they were going to have concerts there four times a year. That is a pretty large expense for only four time a year. So she has to assume that there are other plans in mind. For instance, she put a pool in her backyard and would not have put a pool without a heater because you could only swim four months out of the year so she put a heater in so she could swim any time of the year. In closing, she found it very rude that we sat through this and were very polite while she heard people laughing at our beliefs.

Mr. Gene Hahn stated he can see the church property from his second story. He is looking forward to the church being built there. He believes that the property would never be developed and he would much rather see a church there than a Wal-Mart or a strip mall. His wife and two children are looking forward to it. The church being in Highland and so close to home is a benefit to him. The church has done so much good and reached out to many people. He is opposed to the applicant and is okay with the church.

Mr. David Hunter, Associate Pastor of Highland Baptist Temple, stated he is for the applicant. He has been in the community for three months and his church goes door to door presenting Gospel. Just by going to door to door in the community meeting people, the attitude towards Christ has been very bad. The Bible tells us to be different, not be conformed in the world. This music that has been played is conforming young men and women in the world. It is not transforming their lives into anything. As a Baptist preacher, his main objective is to win souls to Christ. The community is not going to one with Christ, it is going to be driven from Christ. He would urge people to attend church to realize it is not about the church it is about the amphitheater. This is about the music and noise, it is not about Christ. It's about what will happen in the amphitheater. It will affect the people as they do not want to hear the Gospel of Christ because of the attitudes of certain individuals of certain churches. He was taken aback about the comment of music in the 50's was organs and pianos. We love the organ and piano. When it comes to changing peoples lives, we are supposed to be transformed, we are not supposed to conform.

Mr. Steve Moody stated he has driven off the mountain for twelve years to attend church. John Miller has meant a lot to him and his growth in Christ. When he was about eight years old he asked Christ to be his Savior. When he was sixteen he had a brother go through a real hard time with drugs. It drove him to his knees. He had rededicated his life at sixteen. If you look at the financial aspect of it, he will spend his money in Highland as he will be here all day going to church. He wants you to look at the benefit this church will bring. These are a bunch of individuals that love Jesus Christ and recognize that they have been saved by grace through Christ. They know they want to live their life for Christ. He would plead they are not going to be bringing in riff raff. Calvary Chapel is going to give individuals the opportunity to receive Christ. It is an outreach to the community. It will bless the community. There is some Christian music that is not going to be rowdy and there is some music that the older generation will appreciate. The music will reach out and touch people to share the Gospel of Christ. Change takes place when you take Christ as your Savior. This is what he wants the Mayor and City Council to understand, we as a church body, will bring a blessing to you.

Mr. Wallace Wartenbarger stated his dad was born in Highland and he himself grew up in Highland. His dad owned a business in Highland and he also worked in every packing house that used to be here. He is Calvary Chapel's nearest neighbor. He does not go to Calvary Chapel. He has talked to all the pastors and a lot of people who attend the church. He knows that John Miller started a bible study for 30 people and now has a congregation of 750. He is a Christian and goes to a Baptist church in Redlands for over 55 years. The Calvary Chapel has been great neighbors. They have been a bit noisy now and then but not bad. He does not think a little music, especially a concert which only lasts about three hours, will not hurt anybody. He is glad they are moving in and hope they will be given the right to build there.

Mr. Dave Liski stated those loud rock concerts in the amphitheater and the stuff that has been talked about is rude. He walked into one per chance while high on dope and when he walked out, his life was changed forever. He went down and accepted the Lord who changed his life. He has blessed him with a place of fellowship. He has a place to worship and minister to so many people. It is a life he does not regret and a life that has saved him from personal destruction.

Ms. Munoz stated she for one is grateful that someone has imposed Christianity on her. During a time when she was an alcoholic, lost and suicidal, someone from Calvary Chapel imposed their faith on her and saved her from alcoholism straight to a life of strength and courage. Unfortunately, her children were grown already when she was saved by Jesus Christ. She had to suffer the consequences of that lifestyle. She has since then become a licensed vocational nurse and has been working in the nursing field for 30 years. This was accomplished because of Calvary Chapel and the ministries of John Miller.

Mr. Lyle Gregory stated he is a Chaplain to Kaiser Hospital and to Fontana Police Department. He does not attend Calvary Chapel in San Bernardino. He knows the productivity of the church as he has seen it in families. He and his wife conduct marriage ministry and he has seen families change and grow. The crime rate in this area needs all the help they can get. It would help to have a positive influence. He knows John Miller and he is a fair, passionate man who wants to be a good neighbor. He would trust him as a neighbor to do so. On the way over he was thinking this whole scenario is one you would see on Little House on the Prairie. He agrees not to push our Gospel down the throats of others but when you go to a store you are going to overhear not so positive things. If for some reason people hear the music that might be sung, it will be positive stuff.

Ms. Carmen Sandoval stated she lives in San Bernardino and has attended Calvary Chapel for some time. She does want to say before she came to Calvary Chapel, she did not know much about religion though she had been brought up in religion. Through these churches she was blessed to come to know the truth and to hear the Gospel. This is what has led her to be a better mother and wife. Thanks to these churches, her family through God, have become productive citizens. They went through stages as teenager where if God wasn't in their lives they might be gang bangers in the street destroying the community. She hears these people complaining about the music. She would like to tell you what this music does to the young people. She works for the High School and lives behind San Bernardino High School. She would love to have a church there instead of a high school because the profanity and music she witnesses is terrible. The music is what drew her children to church and she is very thankful for that. Their friends go to concerts and youth services. Thanks to God this is what saved her family. Her husband and her came from broken families. Through the church they have been thankful for saving their lives. She sees a lot of children that do not have God in their lives and the music they listen to is offensive. She believes in time Highland will come to understand what is trying to be done in this community.

Ms. Dale Broody stated through Calvary Chapel her life has changed. Twenty years ago she was a drug user and a drug dealer. There is hardly anyone out on Greenspot Road and she used to party there all the time. There is no control out there. As far as the music, her grandchildren started listening to Marilyn Manson and now go to Calvary Chapel youth group to listen to worship. She has dedicated her life to teaching children about Jesus Christ. They don't need drugs, wild parties or hard music. She is for Calvary Chapel building on Greenspot Road.

Ms. Sandra Cadesa stated her house is directly across from where the amphitheater will be. She has lived here 26 years and she teaches her students to believe in city government. To believe that the voting process is right. To believe you will be there because you hear us. You need to hear us. You need to hear that we don't mind Calvary Chapel at all. We want them there. She believes it is a nice addition. Her dearest and closest friends belong to Calvary Chapel. She wants their fellowship and partnership. She wants the revenue in Highland when people come down the hill. She does not want to hear stuff in her backyard. It is too much and too big. The rest of the project is absolutely fabulous. Everything else we welcome with open arms. Hear what the residents of Highland are saying.

Mr. John Miller, Pastor Calvary Chapel in San Bernardino, stated he has lived in Highland for 29 years and raised all his children in Highland. He basically would like to wrap this up. Council is more patient than he is and he appreciates all the people here from Calvary Chapel speaking their testimony and what God has done in their life. He appreciates the fact that we live in America where those who oppose aspects of the project are able to speak. We need to focus on the issue. The building of an amphitheater cannot be done or operated in an illegal manner. Question is are we breaking the law. Why single out an amphitheater why not go to a playground. Should churches not be allowed to have a playground that generates noise. Sad day in the United States of America when people are going to dictate to a church what methods or means they can use to spread the Gospel of Jesus Christ. If we feel an amphitheater can be used to bring people to Christ, that is the purpose of an amphitheater. The church is called to worship God. We feel we should have a right to worship God outside. Not violate law, not to disrupt our neighbors but to worship God. Why single out an amphitheater and playground? A playground makes noise so should we not allow our children to have a playground on the church campus. Basically he is going to ask the Calvary Chapel people not to speak anymore. He appreciates all that has been said. He trusts the Planning Commission and that the city officials have done their homework. We have complied with everything the city has asked us to do. Patiently. Even an extension of the appellants' desire to build their case. We were given a date of July 25 and were told a week prior to that it was not going to happen because the appellant had an extension. That only happened because we chose to call the City of Highland. We have prayed for the City of Highland. We have been gracious. We are a church. We want to worship God and we do not want to break the law. We will and have complied with all the laws. If the appellant folks want to speak some more and Council wishes to do so, that is great, but to argue over style of music, to argue over amphitheater over playground which is going to impose on us, should we not have lawnmowers in our community, should we not let people ride motorcycles in our community or a hot rod car. We live together and affect one another. We all have to abide by the law. He would encourage the Council to look at the legal issues, the reports by Brandiman that have been done and meet all the CEQA standards which the church as funded. There have been accusations by the appellant that the city had funded the study. It has all been at the church's expense. So he would like to encourage Calvary Chapel people not to speak anymore so that we can wrap this up. If Council has any questions, he would be glad to answer them.

Mr. Marty Barrett stated we did not have a great deal of people speaking on our behalf as we tried to identify a spokesman. He thinks the things he had said have been stretched. At least four times he said Phase 5 of this project. He doesn't think any of the interactions have been stated against the church or the good of the church. He thinks one time we questioned anyone helping our fire fighters. He doesn't think his religious preference has any relevance on his opposition with the neighborhood. We did not stone wall the delay or cost these good folks money. Again, he goes back to the process. He does not mean the city spent money on this but they have a lot of man power. Just good neighbors that got together and say this noise in the amphitheater is an issue. We got involved. That is all we did. Used our rights. We got an extension because we did not think we were prepared enough to give honest information to convey our concerns. When he says a city with money he meant staffing, man power but he knows money is not coming out of pocket. He does not doubt the peoples testimonials one bit. Not at all. But to say that some people need to be saved by music he does not know. He is Catholic and he does not believe that he has told one person that he should go to church. That is a personal decision. Just like politics. You either believe in the war or you don't. That is a personal choice. If you want to have a discussion about it, fine. If you say to someone oh, you don't belong to church and you want to come to our church, that is fine. Certainly folks the intentions with the music is good but my family does not need to be recruited as we are spoken for already. We go to church every Sunday in Redlands. Music is part of the new millennium. It has nothing to do with the 1950's. He thinks our grandparents also told us to turn the music down. Families are torn apart these days as there is a lot going on. You want to get the kids connected. That is great. He is fine with that. He does not think at any point he had said he was against a playground. If you have that in Phase 5 that is his error but he does not have a problem with kids playing at the church. All he can say is the commercial featured heavy metal music and the web site was taken down. He knows they are being forthright but it was taken down. There was some stuff going on. When he said insight at a concert, he meant you can insight cheers, he did not mean a riot. His insight meant cheers, voices and stomping. He also thinks what the churches plans on is for more confidence in their members, they still can be saved and be invited the church for other things other than the music alone. Certainly their history and creditability of getting people to come to their church and getting people saved is fine. He just does not think we should have to endure the music. Again, that is our issue. He is not putting his will on you and he hopes they don't put their will on him as far as personal choices. He appreciates the sincerity of the church and the people who reside in Ventana.

Mayor Jones closed the public hearing. Just to understand as a matter of information, there is a process in a public hearing. A public hearing, of course, is required. We open the public hearing to allow staff to make a presentation, the applicant make their presentation and then be rebutted by those who are for and against the issue. Then we open it up for speakers. That is part of the process. We have to do that or we are not legally holding a public hearing. Then of course the applicant is given the final opportunity to rebut any and all comments made prior to that. We have now finished that portion. From here on out all discussion that will take place will be between the Council and we are not here to entertain you. We are going to discuss the issue between ourselves and from the discussion we will arrive at a decision. Before we do that, we will break for five minutes.

At 8:33 p.m., the City Council took a five minute recess.

At 8:42 p.m., the City Council reconvened into the Council meeting.

Mayor Jones stated the first question he would like to ask both the applicant and Calvary Chapel is will any activity in the amphitheater exceed 55 decibels at any time for residents on the east and west side of the amphitheater. He understands there are only residents on the west side but there are plans for construction on the east side. In consideration of them, who are not there yet, we must consider their concerns if this is to go forward one way or another.

Mr. Ken Norton, Brandiman and Associates, certainly not on the east side will it exceed 55 decibels as the distance of separation is adequate. On the west side, in fact he wanted to clear up the 99 decibels and that is an instantaneous value. That is not an average value. Our calculations show it would not exceed the city standards at the property line based on the assumptions that have been made about the amphitheater operation.

Mayor Jones stated whatever the standard is, he asked the question will it exceed 55 decibels.

Mr. Ken Norton stated there are times when it would exceed 55 decibels.

Mayor Jones asked how many who are here this evening, who live in Highland or any else for that matter, have heard the gun range on Wednesday evening. Put that in perspective. A gun shot is at 135 decibels and it takes 5,000 feet for it to dissipate to or reduce in level to 55 decibels. If you are hearing it and you are more than 5,000 feet away from the gun range, then you know in relationship how sound travels in this particular pattern. The way it exists right now, we are talking about sound traveling this way and that way. That being said the EPA standard for noise nationwide is hearing loss begins at 70 decibels. Hearing loss begins to be affected depending upon the length of time and the amount that is heard. That of course is taken into consideration. The EPA also says that any outdoor activity interferes and is an annoyance once it gets about 55 decibels. Any outdoor activity that occurs and get above 55 decibels is an annoyance and is an interference with neighbors who may hear that. EPA also says that any indoor activity that exceed 45 decibels also is an annoyance. They also go on to say any noise above 30 decibels in the evening when people are sleeping is considered an annoyance. Now he will ask the planners in regard to the Entrada and Ventana project as to what the requirements were to building these homes as far as DB levels for those homes and sound barriers that were built into those to reduce noise in the environment around them.

Associate Planner Meikle stated typical noise standards for residential areas is 45 interior and 65 exterior.

City Planner Mainez stated on that particular project, Greenspot Road had a significant effect as it had significant noise particularly at build out. It can get worse. There was consideration to the walls. There was consideration to setbacks. He is not sure if anything was done to the windows but there was a lot of design issues that would mitigate any significant effect. As we do with Calvary Chapel, the walls, were made almost 300 feet away from residents to hopefully mitigate the use of the amphitheater.

Councilman Timmer stated as he understands the current noise ordinance basically triggers at 6:00 a.m. in the morning and ends at 10:00 p.m. in the evening. If activities occur in the daytime, they are generally not monitored in a sense of noise complaints. After 10:00 p.m. at night, if there is a noise complaint, we go verify if there is one. Would that indicate the hours of operation would have to terminate by 10:00 p.m. and meet city standards?

Associate Planner Meikle stated they already under a condition of approval that restricts their hours of operation from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.

Councilman Timmer stated that is well within the city standards. For example, in your local neighborhood, you are fixing your motorcycle in the garage and it reaches 10:00 p.m., complaints can be looked at in a sense of violating a city ordinance. That is why construction hours start at 7:00 a.m. and have to terminate at a certain time. That addresses the nighttime noise levels which would be non- existent as they would not operate past 9:00 p.m. based on the conditions of approval.

Associate Planner Meikle stated one of the items brought up during Council break was our consultants believes it would be appropriate for the church to voice how they would like to operate their amphitheater. They should do so for public benefit.

Mayor Jones stated the public hearing is closed, therefore, we cannot have any testimonials, only if a direct question is asked.

Councilwoman Scott stated will they have to have extra conditions or extra permits when they actually start Phase 5 or is this all inclusive and being permitted right now.

Associate Planner Meikle stated they are under a condition where they have to come before the city Planning Commission six months after the first phase. There is additional language in the condition that states the Planning Commission can make additional review at their discretion if there are issues from neighbors.

Councilman Timmer stated don't they have to, for each phase that is completed, go through plan check and go through Design Review.

Associate Planner Meikle stated absolutely.

Councilman Timmer stated then we are just basically approving or not approving the master plan. They will have to come back at each portion of construction for grading issues, noise issues, etc., as part of the requirement of design.

Associate Planner Meikle stated potentially they can come in all at once for both Design Review which is an additional step they have to go through and eventually they could go through plan check all at one time if they chose to do so. Being a phase project, that is not their intent, but things happen.

Councilman McCallon stated he was happy to hear Mr. Barrett state where he goes to church as no bearing on the issue. That is the reason why when he asked the Council where we attend church, he did not think that was important because it does not bear on the decision he makes. He would like to say he is a proud member of Immanuel Baptist Church. However, that does not color his decision. As we saw tonight, we Baptists are a contentious lot. A couple of our Pastors are in disagreement and that is fine. So it does not color his decision at all. He would like to have this on record. Also, we are called to make a decision based on the evidence that is presented to us and all of this stuff plus the staff report he has read and has listened to the testimony tonight. Based on all of the evidence that has been given to him through the written material and the testimony tonight, he sees no reason to uphold the appeal. He would vote to deny it.

Councilwoman Scott stated she has also gone through everything and made many, many notes. She thought that probably the only thing that would maybe satisfy the neighbors with the amphitheater would be to twist the circle toward the east a little bit more but that is up to the Planning Commission. That is why she asked when Phase 5 comes in, will there be another opportunity for the neighbors and the church to have a review and open discussion.

Associate Planner Meikle stated through Design Review. If again the church was to come upon funding and pursue it all at one time, they could bring the entire project in front of the Design Review Board. That is a second step and the neighbors will be notified and invited to the public meeting. Their comments will be in front of the Design Review Board. More details of the plans will be available at that time.

Councilwoman Scott stated that does not make sense. They have it in phases and they literally have six phases here.

Associate Planner Meikle stated right, they have proposed it through their application as six phases but if the church was to come forward with an application for Design Review.

Councilwoman Scott asked are they proposing for Phase 1 to be done first and then Phase 2 to be done next. In other words, it would not be Phase 5 and then Phase 1s later down the road.

Mayor Jones stated the reason we want to see all phases is so we will know what the ultimate build out is going to be. Whether all phases at one time or whether they do it one, two, three, whatever is entirely up to the applicant and at the timing they choose to do that. There are additional processes that they must go through as each phase is decided to move ahead on to be able to accomplish that and there are certain boards they will need to go before. Each of the phases brings forth an opportunity again for public hearings and public comment.

Councilman Timmer stated if they change significantly whatever is approved, that opens the CUP process again where review would focus in on those specific changes. This isn't a blanket approval as if they want to make any changes, they will have to open up the whole CUP process. Immanuel Baptist has had a long term process also with many, many phases and they have had to come back through the process because conditions change, money issues, etc. They have come back several times through the whole process again to make those changes. He does not see this project having no additional review, input and public meetings. This is just the first of many to come.

Councilwoman Scott stated there is a concern that was raised tonight regarding the height of the wall. Now from what one gentleman said he was talking about the wall being two feet lower than the seating.

Associate Planner Meikle stated there was a larger copy provided this morning.

Councilwoman Scott stated the rendition clearly shows the wall being above the seating. No seating is above the wall.

Mayor Jones stated the elevation, as elevations are, from perspective, it may appear that the wall is higher than the seating but without knowing actual elevations.

Councilwoman Scott sated she personally does not see any alternative for the Council other than to deny the application. She thinks a very good point was made regarding school as we cannot stop them from any theater or athletic fields. She does feel Calvary Chapel will be a good neighbor. She personally does not like that kind of music but it is hard to find a church to that play the old fashioned music but that is her preference.

Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn stated she thinks it is kind of unfair as we are going through all these phases and we are looking at all the information we read. We were given a lot of information to dissect and she really thinks both parties did their homework. She tried to put herself is both positions as a neighbor. She does not think it is fair of her to go through the packet and agree to all the phases that the staff and Planning Commission has made recommendations on and then pull out one phase just because.

Mayor Jones stated he is one that believes that churches ought to be held to a higher standard because they need to be an example within the community and certainly they are that. That is important in that criteria. That being said we can leave this evening and talk about the letter of the law or the spirit of the law. He read to us what the spirit of the law was in EPA standards. Now he guesses Council can ask which do you want to obey. Do you want to be a good neighbor and not annoy those around you who you want to attract to your facilities or in fact do you want us to approve it based on the letter of the law? We do have more than one decision to make and we also have the ability to condition the project based upon those things presented before us. He is one that believes that the EPA standard is in fact the one that we ought to be obeying. The reason that is because that is the one that changes the attitudes of the neighbors who you must satisfy everyday. Now if you are going to be at church there and you are going to operate in Highland and going to be a good neighbor, you ask yourself which are you going to obey.

Councilwoman Scott stated she lives in the area where the Mayor's church was built and the ballfields were put up and the humongous lights. There was a big hue and cry in her neighborhood regarding the church property noise, light and the negative impact your church would have on my neighborhood. A few complaints and a great deal of communication later, the church is a fantastic neighbor. She does not think any complaints have been made in years. She thinks there can be communication between the neighbors and the church.

Mayor Jones stated that is a very good example because my church did in fact get approval to build the facility under the letter of the law. We complied with the letter of the law but then we found the spirit of the law was in fact being violated and the lights have come down as well as the hours of play have deceased. That is because we wanted to be part of the community and not be obnoxious and do what we legally were able to do.

City Planner Mainez stated he wants to clarify a point in which Bruce mentioned regarding the phasing and the ability for the Planning Commission to review each phase. Condition 37 basically states the Planning Commission will review the first phase six months after Certificate of Occupancy. It does not state all phases. The condition does further state the Commission can determine it will and require further review down the line. Staff would like the condition to be amended to include all phases.

Councilwoman Scott asked each phase not just all phases.

Mayor Jones stated when the actual engineer drawings come forth in their completion because right now we are talking about concepts not actual drawings.

Councilman Timmer stated this is not a condition of approval that we usually put on projects, however, this is something unique developed by the Planning Commission to address some concerns.

City Planner Mainez stated it was slightly amended and discussed at a study session and then it was modified by the Planning Commission. There was an issue regarding the possibility of reviewing at every phase could be redundant.

Councilman Timmer stated but this is not a normal condition we put on projects that we review them after the Certificate of Occupancy is issued.

City Planner Mainez stated it is actually a standard. It has occurred in a handful of projects when in fact we wanted to make sure mitigation measures were being complied with.

A MOTION was made by Councilman McCallon, seconded by Councilman Timmer, to adopt Resolution No. 2006-052 to deny the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission's approval of the Conditional Use Permit 04-003 and upholding the determination to file a Mitigated Negative Declaration for the Calvary Chapel project and to amend the conditions to state each phase is to be reviewed after the certificate of occupancy is issued. Motion carried, 4-1, with Mayor Jones dissenting.

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-052

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, CALIFORNIA, DENYING THE APPELLANT'S APPEAL APPLICATION AND UPHOLDING THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S JUNE 6, 2006 ADOPTION OF A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND APPROVAL OF CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT APPLICATION (CUP 04-003) FOR THE CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION FACILITY THAT WILL BE DEVELOPED IN SIX PHASES (6 PHASED (PROJECT). THE PROJECT INCLUDES A PRIMARY AND SECONDARY SANCTUARY/OFFICE BUILDINGS, THREE CLASSROOM BUILDINGS, RECREATION/PLAY FIELD, OUTDOOR AMPHITHEATER, CHAPEL, PUBLIC COMMUNITY TRAIL, ALONG WITH ASSOCIATED PARKING AND LANDSCAPING AT 30976 GREENSPOT ROAD. APPLICANT: CALVARY CHAPEL OF SAN BERNARDINO

COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT LEGISLATIVE

17. Adding the Name of James Rissmiller to Highland Fire Station No. 3

City Manager Hughes stated this item was raised by the Public Facilities Subcommittee in which we are to name the Highland Fire Station No. 3 after James Rissmiller. James Rissmiller will be retiring from CDF and he has been acting as our Fire Chief since 1999. He has been a Highland firefighter for many years and was Highland's first paramedic. He also started the paramedic program in Highland and has done a great deal for our community.

A MOTION was made by Councilwoman Scott, seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, to add the name of James Rissmiller to Highland Fire Station No. 3. Motion carried, 5-0.

18. Measure I Four-Year Capital Improvement Program (2006/07-2009/10)

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

A MOTION was made by Mayor Pro Tem Lilburn, seconded by Councilman McCallon, to approve Resolution No. 2006-053 adopting the 2006/07-2009/10 Measure I Four-Year Capital Improvement Program and Expenditure Strategy, as presented. Motion carried, 5-0.

RESOLUTION NO. 2006-053

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF

THE CITY OF HIGHLAND, STATE OF CALIFORNIA,

ADOPTING THE FOUR YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM

AND EXPENDITURE STRATEGY

FOR MEASURE I LOCAL PASS-THROUGH FUNDS

(2006/2007 - 2009/2010)

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

Mayor Jones stated he has brought the items in which were voted on at the League of California Cities Conference. All four items were approved. They had attempted to amend one of them to include what is defined as "side shows". We voted in favor of all the items but did not vote for the "side shows" to be included. It would be advantageous for the Council to agenda an opportunity for each of us to report on various committees in which we have attended in addition to receiving the minutes.

Councilman Timmer stated historically during the announcement section he has three items he would like to present from the subcommittees he attended.

City Manager Hughes stated staff will add an item line to the existing section listed "Update on SANBAG, SCAG, Omnitrans, Work Program and Regional/Legislative Issues/Development Issues."

Councilman Timmer stated he has concerns listing the committees. As the intent is to give Council a full report and if they are agendized specifically we can start making decisions without having all the information. There is really a big issue.

20. San Bernardino International Airport Authority and IVDA

Councilwoman Scott stated staff was given authorization to start the advertising for construction bids for the rehabilitation of the air traffic control tower and authorized to file a California Environmental Quality Act Notice of Exemption with the County of San Bernardino. She has requested the tape of this meeting. An acceptance of a $4,305,000 grant from the U.S. Department of Transportation has been done and they are going to appropriate local matching funds of 5% specifically intended for the construction of the fuel farm facility.

ANNOUNCEMENTS

September 25 from Noon to 5:00 p.m. Community Blood Drive at Jerry Lewis Community Center

October 14 Community Trails Day

October 23 - 31 Red Ribbon Week

CLOSED SESSION

At 9:30 p.m., the City Council and Redevelopment Agency convened into closed session regarding the following:

CONFERENCE WITH REAL PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR

Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8 regarding the following property:

Property: APN 1192-431-04

Negotiating Parties: Joseph Hughes, City of Highland

James S. Curran

Under negotiation: Instruction to City's negotiator concerning price and terms of payment.

CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL - ANTICIPATED LITIGATION

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

One case.

At 10:23 p.m., the City Council and Redevelopment Agency convened into open session, with all members present, making no announcements.

ADJOURN

There being no further business, Mayor Jones adjourned the meeting at 10:25 p.m.

Submitted By: Approved By:

Betty Hughes             Ross B. Jones

City Clerk                 Mayor