HomeCommunity ServicesCurrent City ProjectsWeekly ReportAgendasPublic Notices
Housing ProgramsEconomic DevelopmentEmploymentCommunity LinksFrequently Asked QuestionsContact Us
Planning Commission



FEBRUARY 7, 2006


The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Highland was called to order at 4:11 p.m. by Chairman Haller at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.

Present: Commissioners John Gamboa and Gina Birnbaum, R. Paul Scott, Vice Chairman Randall Hamerly and Chairman Richard Haller

Absent: None

Staff Present:Rick C. Hartmann, Community Development Director

Lawrence A. Mainez, City Planner

Ernie Wong, City Engineer

Debbie Chapman, Fire Marshall

Linda McKeough, Administrative Secretary

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Haller.


There was none.


Chairman Haller explained to the audience there are conflicts of interest and requested Staff to explain the process.

Community Development Director Hartmann explained there is no quorum because of conflicts of interest for Commissioners Gamboa, Scott, Vice Chairman Hamerly and Chairman Haller, the exception is Commissioner Birnbaum. He further stated how he had received a memo from the City Attorney addressing the conflicts of interest and the affected Commissioners. Copies of the memo were made available to the public if the public wanted to review it, and further explained the process the Commission needs to take in order to participate.

There were no questions of the Commission to Staff regarding the process. Staff proceeded with the process of participating by a blind straw draw with the Commissioners drawing the longer straws would participate. The results were Commissioners Birnbaum, Gamboa and Scott would participate in order to have a quorum. Both Vice Chairman Hamerly and Chairman Haller left the Dias and joined the audience at 4:15 p.m.

Commissioner Scott volunteered that he would chair the meeting since both Vice Chairman Hamerly and Chairman Haller are absent from the Dias.

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

1. Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and;

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

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

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

East Highlands Ranch Planned Unit Development, Planning Areas 39, 40 and 42 are located on Fifth Street/Greenspot Road just west of Church Street. Planning Areas 28 & 45 are located northeast of the intersection of Church Street and Highland Avenue. Representative: Camille Bahri, Spring Pacific Properties, LLC.

Acting Chairman Scott introduced the item, opened the Public Hearing and called for Staff's presentation.

City Planner Mainez gave the presentation from the Staff Report. He explained how the proposed Project will be forwarded to City Council, the Project's location and what the Applicant is proposing. City Planner Mainez further explained the Amendment to the EHR Development Agreement and the EHR PUD Development Impact Fees (DIFs), how Staff has deleted Planning Condition of Approval No. 14. Staff distributed a copy of the revised Engineering Condition of Approval No. 47 for consideration and City Engineer Wong explained the revised verbiage to the Commission. City Planner Mainez then introduced to the Commission the Applicant's Environmental Consultants from MBA, .621 East Carnegie Drive, San Bernardino, California. Mr. Ken Norton, Environmental Project Manager and Ms. Joan Ramirez, Environmental Analyst.

Acting Chairman Scott asked if the Commission had questions of Staff. Hearing none, he then asked if the Applicant would like to make a presentation.

Mr. Camille Bahri, of Spring Pacific Properties, 31866 Camino Capistrano, San Juan Capistrano, California, who is the Applicant, addressed the Commission. He asked if Commissioner Birnbaum was present at the December 20, 2005, Meeting when he provided a power point presentation. Commissioner Birnbaum replied no. He then had brought with him the same power point presentation Mr. Bahri had provided at the December's Meeting for review which was displayed on the overhead screen. He explained the inclusion of the Site Plan for the Planning Areas (PAs), how the PAS complies with the General Plan Update (GPU), Land Use Entitlements, the Planning Conditions of Approval coincides with the GPU and Entitlements, the proposed Supplement, the Design Standards for Medium Density Designation and the Development Agreement Revision with the revised terms. Mr. Bahri further explained the lot design / proposed phasing, Site Plan approval process, general circulation and sensitivity to the Village (located on Greenspot Road / Church Street) circulation, as well as ingress / egress on Church Street.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding traffic signalization in PAs 39 and 40 / 42 and being required as a Condition of Approval and the location of the signals and when they would be installed, turning pockets, the feasibility of adding another lane and stacking limitations. How the traffic signals operate at Levels of Service through Conditions of Approval were also discussed.

Further discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the Land Use Entitlements for the PAs and the location and historical background for the proposed multi-purpose trail.

Mr. Bahri explained how PA 28 was approved two (2) years ago for fourteen (14) lots and was blended / merged with Open Space (approximately 900 acres) and will retain as Open Space. PA 45 has an Office Designation and is intended to be developed with the historic building located on the northwest corner of Base Line and Boulder. With PA 39, has been designated for both attached and detach single family homes.

Mr. Bahri stated he has been here in Highland for eight to nine years now and wants to bring back the heritage of Highland and have it incorporated into the EHR PUD. The PAs are highly visible, land designated as a trail system, and an uninterrupted parkway for Blossom Trail's Project. Mr. Bahri also intends placement of historical plaques and will coordinate that with the City's Historic and Cultural Preservation Board. He explained how a linear park will bring pedestrians into the Blossom Trails area, intend to install benches / "rest stops", exercise portals, promenade way, multi-purpose corridors, possible City / Community gardens, Recreational Center and a paseo. Mr. Bahri continued stating how he wants connectivity to the existing community, infrastructure, pedestrian path, circulation destinations to Aurantia Park, St. John Bosco Church (they are not part of the EHR), amenities, is a gateway to the East Highland area, Mission Development Project, Site content and linkages to those destinations and the Schools. He further explained the Church Street vision to the Commission and then thanked Staff, the Consultants and the Commission.

Acting Chairman Scott asked if the Commission had questions of the Applicant.

Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Bahri and Staff regarding how the promenade and major collector roads and how the Applicant will control the subdivision (spine) roads, the proposed linear park paseo and other amenities have to be in place i.e. the Recreational Center and how the unit will have to be plotted and how garages will be on the alley. The perspective developers will have to submit plans and go before the Design Review Board for review and certain Document Standards will come into play i.e. road width and how some parts of the Document / Project is a tier one product. Staff explained how not all of the details have been worked out yet, but there are parameters and indicated hopefully, they will be addressed in the Document, and if not, refer to herein these Minutes and address the issues now.

Mr. Bahri stated he can provide a set of Standards to the potential developer and want to review the Standards and the vision between the developer and Mr. Bahri. Staff responded point taken.

A question was asked regarding on the east side how wrought iron fencing is proposed and not block wall located by the condominiums and what is proposed on the west side. Mr. Bahri responded the fencing is located in the Design Standards and indicated he wants the (individual) projects to looks as if the project design has been master planned. He indicated demarcation may leave open with shrubs, and in a specific plan, and may want to leave open now. Mr., Bahri further indicated on Greenspot Road and outdoor private space away from Greenspot Road, may not need a noise / sound barrier.

Discussion ensued regarding the proposed Recreational Center for the proposed specific community and concerns were raised regarding how other residents in the EHR may want to use the new Center and not go to Stone Club House and is a "clear distinction" how those new residents would pay for their own amenities for them to exclusively use that particular Recreational Center. Ample options and costs would rest on the residents.

There being no further discussion or questions of the Applicant or Staff, Acting Chairman Scott asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak on the item.

Mr. Phil Clayton, of Bluestone Communities, addressed the Commission. He stated he is supportive of the proposed Project and the Greenspot Road corridor. He further stated this Project will add quality to the community and will raise the bar for potential developers when Glenrose Ranch is built. Mr. Clayton said how people love Highland and East Highland and there is not a shortage of interested builders and reiterated he is supportive of the Project.

Mr. George Einfeldt, 7136 Clubview Drive, Highland, California, who is the General Manager of the East Highlands Ranch Master Home Owners Association, addressed the Commission. He requested to add to the Conditions of Approval on PA 28 Open Space that EHR does not want it and also does not want the area turn into a Common Area. With regards to PAs 40 / 42 and the Blossom Trail concept be retained / maintained. If the concept is changed, he will voice his opposition to the concept. Mr. Einfeldt wants assurance the Blossom Trails concept to be adhered to. Issues have not been addressed with regards to the "Shooting Range" (Fish and Game) on Orange. He wants a clause / disclosure in the Document / Conditions that the residents not complain to the EHR and that no surveys will be conducted. Mr. Einfeldt was also concerned with the swimming pool concept and there may be trouble with that concept may need legal opinion in that all residents pay dues to use.

Acting Chairman Scott asked if anyone else would like to comment on this item.

Mr. Randall Hamerly, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He commented he liked the document and the streetscape, in addition to amenities such as installing rocks / boulders into landscaping and how the EHR's Development Standards on Page 29 states as such. Mr. Hamerly requested berming be installed and he does not want to increase boulders into the landscaping. With regards to the illustration on Page 20 of the Promenade Way on the Paseo side, he requested berming be added for the pedestrians. Regarding the Architecture Concept on Page 37, there is a need (for the Applicant) to grasp of vision for architectural character of development and the Document will "have teeth". Have generic architectural features / design styles. He requested illustrations be added for the design styles and stated not all styles go together. Mr. Hamerly gave an example for Blossom Trails' styles i.e. Craftsman / Bungalows are appropriate while the Monterey / Italianate should go elsewhere. He had overall concerns with the Architectural Guidelines and someone may come in and view as the Standards as a checklist, and the Applicant needs to clarify the styles and make recommendations to the potential homebuyer and provided another example with the design of a garage door, Mediterranean style ok, but not with the other styles. Mr. Hamerly further commented on the chimney styles / determinations and the need to add chimney shrouds to add authenticity to the Project. He also commented on the parking structure design. With regards to Page 41, the non-architectural elements, he requested no mechanical equipment be placed onto the roof. In additional the mechanical equipment vent stacks are not a chimney.

Mr. Hamerly continued with regards to Page 42, the maximum building height is thirty-eight feet (38') and the proposed Standard states forty-five feet (45') and said the proposed Standard may be too high and suggested maintain a larger block and taper (the height) down.

Acting Chairman Scott asked Staff to respond to Mr. Hamerly. Community Development Director Hartmann responded stating the Minutes will be as part of the Document and be part of the record and the intent for the Commission's action.

Mr. Richard Haller, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He commented on the timing of the proposed improvements. He suggested the infrastructure to be installed with the first parcel, go in with the first phase the traffic signal, and two foot (2') storm drain, and conflicts with Planning COA No. 15 and Engineering COA No. 36 stating the Applicant either construct or bond for the traffic infrastructure. Mr. Haller also suggested to revise the proposed Resolution on Paragraph "F" on Page 10 (Page 31 of the Staff Report) regarding the deletion of the "unprecedented" portion of the statement. With the Second Paragraph on Page 11 (Page 32 of the Staff Report) the language needs to be revised regarding the intensity ("accelerated") and need to make verbiage on a fact basis.

Community Development Director Hartmann asked Mr. Bahri and then City Engineer Wong to respond.

Mr. Bahri stated not a conflict and is a great point and he ensured the City will receive the "right package" (plan submittal) for review. With regards to the building height, he stated is a three-story element and i.e. Mr. Hamerly's suggestion to taper the element down and hope that would work. With regards to the timing of improvements, Mr. Bahri indicated both Engineering and Fire drives the timing to install the signal and access and agrees with Mr. Haller's statement. Regarding bonding for the traffic signal, he will be flexible - whatever the Commission would impose. He further stated he has had positive responses in support of the Project. The intensity of the infrastructure with the EHR traffic is for 3,800 units.

City Engineer Wong responded regarding the timing of the infrastructure installation. He explained the COA is for the Parcel Map south of Greenspot Road and the Contractor will bring the Application to the Commission and reiterated he is conditioning the Parcel Map. With regards to Engineering COA No. 15, the traffic signal is required to be built prior to occupancy. Regarding COA Nos. 11 and 12, the Church Street improvements are also required to be built prior to occupancy. COA No. 13, is for the "U"-shaped public road for the Parcel Map. City Engineer Wong continued with Engineering COA No. 36 (on Page 49 of the Staff Report), regarding the bonding for the improvements on Church Street and Greenspot Road,

the Project's public road, etc., "A" means prior to recording of the Parcel Map and explained the process to the Commission.

Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Bahri and Staff regarding the PUD Planning COAs Nos. 21 and 24 on Page 186 of the Staff Report (Attachment No. 4) about extracting PA 28 and the maintenance / ownership of it. A question was asked about classifications on Categories 1, 2, and 3 and the Open Space. Staff stated the intent is to have PA 28 included as part of the 900 acres as a public entity and can clarify under the Documents by referring to the Land Use Entitlement Designation. Staff added the Open Space is Category III - Natural Hillside Area. Staff further stated to make clear with the Development Agreement and the Development Standards Report and not conveyed to the Homeowners Association (HOA) and perpetuity to address the Commission's concerns.

Mr. Bahri responded to add to No. 14 of the Supplement. He further stated regarding Engineering COA No. 13 (Page 46 of the Staff Report) that Blossom Trails' footpath ties hands with the COAs is in conflict with the design comment and conflict with the PUD, need to check the popout design in mid-block and the intersections in order to slow down traffic. He then asked the Commission to allow flexibility since the Project is a Planned Development and a Medium Density, allow flexibility to reflect it.

City Engineer Wong responded the COA is not intended to include curb-to-curb and is specified as thirty-six feet (36') curb-to-curb. He stated if the pavement width is narrow, can be accommodated and does not have a problem with that. He then defer to provision to Design Standards on Page 28 of the Blossom Trails Design Standards and referred to the popout. The COA is less rigid and will be more flexible, as allowed Blossom Trails Design Standards and would be appropriate and would work.

Acting Chairman Scott asked if anyone else would like to speak on this item.

There being no further testimony, Acting Chairman Scott closed the Public Hearing and opened the floor for discussion amongst the Commissioners.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding amending both the Development Agreement and the Fee Agreement both of which will expire in the proposed time frame of five (5) years.

The Commission recapped and wanted the following revisions / clarifications:

1) On Page 46, Engineering COA No. 13 for the street improvements, for PA 28 and Open Space III Category and clarify also in the Development Standards Report: 2) The width in the Engineering COA Nos. 13 and 14 for PM 17630; 3) delete

Planning COA No. 14 for PM 17630; 4) the architectural features be contiguous, and; 5) incorporate the Minutes for architectural features and refer to the dialog discussion, as well as Mr. Haller, Mr. Hamerly and the responses from Staff.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding Engineering COA No. 29 (Page 48 of the Staff Report) and the multi-purpose corridor on the south side of the Project. With regards to the HOA, be granted to the HOA for maintenance and ownership. The intent is a clear cut entity to maintain the strip and is usually done. If not transferred to the HOA, need to go to another entity for maintenance. Staff explained how the Commission has the choice to make comments and recommendations.

Mr. Bahri stated the concept and explained the Agreement with the HOA, the City, Blossom Trails and the amenities in general. He further explained the ownership for the amenities would be for those residents alone.

Mr. Einfeldt stated the concept for Blossom Trails and other areas and their cost centers and Sub-associations and responsibility for maintenance, and should be amended to read as, "Maintain by Sub-association, or cost center of that area."

City Engineer Wong responded and stated it is acceptable to him regarding the Engineering COA No. 29 language be revised stating if a Subassociation takes over the maintenance.

Community Development Director Hartmann stated this is the overview now and the COA is acceptable, as written, and recommends when the City receives a project submittal for review.

Mr. Hamerly asked on the PUD COA No. 43 on Page 188 (Attachment 4) if the condominiums ownership goes all the way down to the dirt. Mr. Bahri responded undivided interest with Subassociation ownership, airspace and dirt. Multi-story buildings were also discussed.

Mr. Hamerly asked about the Second Paragraph from the bottom on Page 189 under the Public Services and Utilities COAs using clear glass for the south-facing windows and indicated there is a Title 24 issue and the possibility of using a passive shading / glazing on the south-facing windows.

There being no further comments or testimony, Acting Chairman Scott called for the question.

A motion was made by Commissioner Birnbaum and seconded by Commissioner Gamboa to adopt Resolution No. 06 - 003, as amended, with the following:

Revised Page 10, Paragraph "F"

F. Staff and EHR Master Homeowners Support - the Land Use changes have enjoyed support by the surrounding community due to its lesser impact and welcome amenities and other positive aspects. This unsolicited support is uncommon to Land Use issues and Land Development Applications.

And recommending the City Council approve the following:

1. A Resolution approving the Mitigated Negative Declaration and the approval of Responses to Comments, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program, and;

2. A Resolution approving the amendments to the East Highlands Ranch Planned Unit Development Supplement to the Development Standards Report (inclusive of Planning Conditions of Approval), as amended, and that PA 28 Open Space is Category III (Natural Hillside Area), and;

3. An Ordinance adopting the Amendments to the East Highlands Ranch Development Agreement between the City of Highland and Spring Pacific Properties, LLC and repealing Ordinance No. 256, and EHR PUD Impact Fees Development Agreement revision to extend the Term an additional five (5) years, and;

4. Adopt a Resolution approving Tentative Tract Map 16448 (SUB 05-001) for Planning Area 39, subject to the Conditions of Approval and adopt Findings of Fact, and;

5. Adopt a Resolution approving Parcel Map 17630 (MS 05-005) for Planning Areas 40 & 42, subject to Conditions of Approval, as amended, with the following:

Delete Planning COA

14. A minimum of twenty-four inch (24") box, multi-branched trees shall be planted on-site within the street right-of-way. Any proposed palm trees shall be a minimum of thirty-five feet (35') brown trunk height or variation as approved by the Design Review Board. The variety of trees to be provided is subject to Design Review Board and City Landscape Architect's review.

Revised / Added Engineering COAs

13. Construct street improvements on the interior public streets including, but not limited to: curb and gutter, asphalt concrete pavement, Class II aggregate base, six foot (6') curb adjacent sidewalk, Blossom Trail improvements including the bike and foot path, and landscaping. Street widths shall be thirty-six feet (36') curb to curb to include traffic calming designs, as outlined in the 2006 Supplement to the Development Standard Report.

14. Construct street improvements on the interior private streets including, but not limited to: curb and gutter, asphalt concrete pavement, Class II aggregate base, and sidewalk, in accordance with approved plans for future developments within the Parcel Map.

And adopt the Findings of Facts, and;

6. Incorporate the Minutes for architectural features and refer to the dialog discussion, as well as the public's comments and the responses from Staff. The Minutes of February 7, 2006, Special Meeting will be as part of the Blossom Trails Standards Document and be part of the record and the intent for the Commission's action.

Motion carried on a 3 - 0 vote with Vice Chairman Hamerly and Chairman Haller absent.

Staff explained the above Project Applications will be forwarded to City Council in approximately three (3) weeks.


There were no items.


There were no announcements.


There being no further business, Acting Chairman Scott declared the meeting adjourned at 6:00 p.m.

Submitted by: Approved by:

Linda McKeough, Paul Scott, Acting Chairman

Administrative Secretary Planning Commission


City of Highland
27215 Baseline St.
Highland, CA 92346
(909) 864-6861

Open 7:30 am - 5:30 pm
Monday - Thursday