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

MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

FEBRUARY 7, 2006







1.0 CALL TO ORDER



The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Highland was called to order at 6:27 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

Bruce Meikle, Associate Planner

Kim Stater, Economic Development Specialist

Linda McKeough, Administrative Secretary



The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Haller.





2.0 COMMUNITY INPUT



Ms. Margaret Cisneros, 7512 Sterling Avenue, Highland (San Bernardino), California, addressed the Commission. She was concerned about the lack of payment establishments / facilities where a person goes to pay their utilities. Not only do they have the payment, but there is the additional cost including postage, transportation (to and from the facility), money order, etc. She noted how the East Valley Water District had closed its payment office on Del Rosa Avenue. A person can pay their Edison and Gas bills at Rio Ranch Market, but not the Water, Trash or Cable bills. Ms. Cisneros asked if there was an Agreement(s) with centralized payment center(s) and remarked the prices / fees are increasing by an additional $3.00 to $5.00.



Staff responded the Planning Commission does not have the authority to review these issues, but are applicable to the City Council. The City does approve trash fees and is currently in negotiations for agreements with the Trash Haulers and may be finaled soon.









In addition, discussion ensued between the Commission, Ms. Cisneros and Staff regarding graffiti and the time period it takes the City to remove the graffiti from buildings, walls, equipment, etc. Ms. Cisneros also was concerned about issues regarding the group homes / house parolees, and how sex offenders would be located close to schools, or even next door (neighbor).



Chairman Haller reiterated how the Planning Commission evaluates land use issues and Ms. Cisneros issues need to be brought forth to the City Council. He then thanked her for her comments. He then asked if anyone else would like to comment on items that are not on the Agenda. Hearing none, the Commission proceeded forward with Item 3.0.



3.0 CONSENT CALENDAR



3.1 Minutes of January 17, 2006, Regular Meeting.



On Page 6, Last Paragraph, First Sentence was amended to read as follows: "A question was asked by Vice Chairman Hamerly regarding if there was a cost analysis conducted between cost of rehabilitating and moving the existing structures versus the cost of new construction."



On Page 9, Second Paragraph was amended to read as follows: "Comments were made by the Commission regarding issues about the lack of open space, accessibility, garage space, how the rooftop on the garage is not accessible, and substandard setbacks. Mr. Nelson responded the issues have been addressed and if the Commission desires more open space, common space, then advise him. Issues Mr. Nelson claimed had been addressed clearly had not been."

On Page 10, Third Paragraph was amended to read as follows: "A question was asked by Vice Chairman Hamerly regarding whether the Commission would have the opportunity to review the draft Minutes, or whether the Commission could just approve them with the proposed modifications."





A motion was made by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Commissioner Gamboa to approve the Minutes of January 17, 2006, Regular Meeting, as amended.



Motion was unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.











Chairman Haller then explained if the Commission concurred, the Agenda items would be taken out of order for the Commission to consider Legislative Item 5.1 first then follow up with Public Hearing Item 4.1. He asked Staff if the Commission would need to make a motion and Staff responded no, as long as there was consensus of the Commission.



The Commission concurred to consider Legislative Item 5.1 first, followed by Public Hearing Item 4.1.





5.0 LEGISLATIVE



5.1 Denial of Conditional Use Permit Application 05-001 which proposes to construct and operate an eight (8) unit Senior Housing Apartment Complex within the Base Line Commercial Zoning District subject to a Qualifying Residents Agreement. The Property is an approximate 0.5 acre Site consisting of three adjoining vacant parcels located at the northwest corner of Base Line and Olive Street (APNs: 1191-381-19, -20, & -21). Representative: Mr. Clovis A. Wellington and Dr. Leona Williams.



Commission Chairman Haller introduced the item and called for Staff's presentation.



Community Development Director Hartmann gave the presentation from the Staff Report. He explained how Associate Planner Meikle and Economic Development Specialist Stater prepared the Resolution, at the Commission's request for consideration. He then concluded Staff's presentation and indicated the Applicant is present in the audience.



Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had questions of Staff.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding parking issues and how the buffer would address the parking issue(s), how individual dwelling unit sizes also are substandard and the verbiage in the proposed Findings of Facts.



Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had questions of Staff. Hearing none, he then asked if there was anyone else who would like to speak on the item. Hearing none, Chairman Haller asked if the Applicant would like to make a statement.



Dr. Leona Williams, 1790 Washington Street, Riverside, California, who is the co-Applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated Mr. Clovis Wellington is also present and indicated for the record, she requested the proposed Project remain open and constant and will make a presentation at City Council.







Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any questions of the Applicant. There being no further comments or testimony, he then called for the question.





A motion was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Commissioner Scott the Planning Commission adopts a Resolution to the City Council, with the inclusion of unit size verbiage be added into the proposed City Council's Resolution and Findings of Fact, and with the following:



1. Recommends the City Council deny the proposed Entitlement (CUP 05-001) to construct and operate an eight (8) unit Senior Housing Apartment Complex and Qualifying Residents Agreement within the Base Line Commercial Zoning District, and;



2. Adopt the Findings of Fact.



Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.



The Commission returned to Item 4.1 for consideration.





4.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS



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



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. He further stated 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 and with Commissioners to leave the dias and the Chamber.



There were no questions of the Commission to Staff regarding the process. Staff proceeded with the process of participating by a blind draw with playing cards. The results were Commissioner Birnbaum, Vice Chairman Hamerly and Chairman Haller would participate in order to have a quorum. Both Commissioners Gamboa and Scott responded they would comply with the City Attorney's memo and Staff escorted them from the Chamber at 6:45 p.m.









With regards to the General Plan Public Hearing, Staff asked if the Commission would like to take separate action on the issues or collectively. The Commission responded to take action separately.



Chairman Haller stated he can evaluate the item(s) and consider them in a fair and professional manner and Vice Chairman Hamerly concurred with Chairman Haller's statement. Chairman Haller then opened up the Public Hearing and called for Staff's presentation.



Community Development Director Hartmann gave the historical background of the General Plan Update, indicated the General Plan is not perfect, but is a good benchmark. He publicly thanked City Planner Mainez and the City's Consultant, The Planning Center for all of their efforts and then turned the item over to City Planner Mainez.



City Planner Mainez stated it has been twenty-eight (28) months to prepare thanked City Staff, Engineering Resources, the Chamber of Commerce, Neighborhood Watch Group(s), the Design Review Board and the Planning Commission for all of their efforts put forth into this Project. He then read a memo providing historical background how he and Linda McKeough were on the Citizens Advisory Committee (CAC) for the General Plan in 1991, when at that time, the City's population was 29,000. Now, in 2006, the population is over 50,000 there is a new General Plan Vision, and many past achievements have been accomplished. He then turned the item over to Mr. Brian Judd of the Planning Center.



Mr. Brian Judd, of The Planning Center, who is the City's Consultant, addressed the Commission. He thanked Staff for all of their efforts that were put forth and gave a brief update / recap of the General Plan Update, including the efforts of the Community Outreach Programs, as well as the Highland Area Chamber of Commerce, Neighborhood Watch Group(s), Land Use and Preferred General Plan Alternatives revisions, Policies of the General Plan, Development Code Amendments, Town Hall Meetings, Scoping Session(s) and the EIR. A video was also prepared and the General Plan is also on the City's Website. Mr. Judd then provided a slide presentation, explained to the Commission the General Plan document and Vision is a benchmark and then briefly gave an overview of the General Plan. He explained the identity of the community's character, volunteerism, the Land Use Plan, most of the General Plan stayed intact, the proposed Town Center, revitalize the Base Line Corridor, Fifth Street Industrial Corridor, Victoria Avenue as it relates to the San Bernardino International Airport (formerly Norton AFB), the "Golden Triangle" area, guidance for the Seven Oaks area. Mr. Judd further explained the Historic Village District preservation and the roadway network update. He then summarized how the General Elements all had been revised; created the new Economic Development, Community Design and Airport Elements, Development Code Update, created some new Districts, Mixed Use District, Density Bonuses, Second Units, as well as Zoning Districts and Commercial Districts. Mr. Judd then concluded his presentation and asked if the Commission had any questions.



Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had questions of Staff or of the Consultant.



Staff responded and distributed to the Commission two pieces of correspondence the City received / dated today approximately 3:00 p.m. by facsimile. One was from the City of Redlands regarding Cone Camp Road and the other from San Bernardino International Airport Authority (SBIAA). Staff went on to provide a brief explanation of each correspondence to the Commission. The first was with the City of Redlands updating its General Plan in the future relative to the potential extension of Cone Camp Road to connect to Opal Street in Mentone and requesting the City of Highland to reevaluate the EIR. The second was from SBIAA regarding the EIR to evaluate the Airport Influence Maps in the EIR. Staff stated for the record, the EIR is a tier one document. With regards to the Airport comment, the City will take a proactive approach in the future. Staff indicated the Airport Master Plan is premature and the City will take no action until the Airport adopts an Airport Master Plan. Staff will then provide written response to the Consultant and City Council. The final adoption of the Airport Master Plan may be in three (3) months.



A question was asked by a Commission whether to recommend inclusion of Airport safety standards as a point of reference. Staff responded by stating how Staff plans to work with SBIAA on public safety issues with the project adjacent to the airport or affected by Airport Safety Zones, but the policy has been adequately addressed



There being no further discussion or questions of the Consultant or Staff, Chairman Haller called speakers up to the podium one at a time who had submitted a Speaker Slip in order to be heard and provide comments / testimony to the Commission.



Mr. Don Staats, 6566 Victoria Avenue, Highland, California, who is a resident, distributed a personal letter dated February 7, 2006, along with a colored diagram and then addressed the Commission. He then read his letter into the record and suggested widening Victoria Avenue (along its east side Corridor), asked for the Commission to consider the residents, as well as not having to replace telephone poles / power lines and fire hydrants located on the west side of Victoria Avenue. He discussed being able to widen where the apartments are located on the east side between Fourteenth Street and beyond the Freeway. Mr. Staats then asked if anyone knows if there will be an interchange created at Victoria and the Freeway.

City Engineer Wong provided a brief status report on the Victoria Interchange, SANBAG will be Lead Agency and no determination concerning funding or schedule has been reached.



Both the Commission and Staff responded no one was sure, at this time.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Staats and Staff regarding there appears to be a contradiction with the SBIA being a viable entity to Highland and the "No Fly Zone". Mr. Staats asked and suggested if the City has a motto and if not, if a contest could be held for one. Mr. Staats also suggested relocating the centerline designation on Victoria Avenue. Staff responded how all public agencies need to participate in something like the relocation of the centerline indicated the City and County of San Bernardino, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians, and the SBIAA are sharing equal amounts for a Project Study Report.



Further discussion ensued between the Commission, the Consultant and Staff regarding the feasibility of preparing a detailed Study modeling north/south terminus from the San Manuel Casino to the Airport and to include final findings to the General Plan at that time. Staff needs to assess what the needs and impacts in the immediate area and the General Plan could be amended at that time. A broad range of Land Use scenarios with Victoria Avenue being as an interchange, right-of-way road width and the General Plan's Circulation Element were also discussed.



Ms. Margaret Cisneros, 7512 Sterling Avenue, Highland (San Bernardino), California, addressed the Commission. She stated that she was concerned with the Zoning Designation on Base Line / Sterling Avenue. She stated when they bought their Sterling Avenue property, it had a Commercial Zone Designation and asked if the Commercial Designation would remain. Ms. Cisneros also asked about the Zoning Designation located on Elm Street, (which runs parallel to Sterling) west of Sterling and south of Base Line.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Ms. Cisneros and Staff regarding if her property on Sterling Avenue would remain Commercial. Staff stated across from Warm Springs Elementary School is proposed to be Planned Commercial and the properties closer to Base Line, the Designation goes from Planned Commercial to a Medium Density Residential Designation. The property in question would be also Planned Commercial Designation. Community Development Director Hartmann asked City Planner Mainez is there no change in the General Plan, and City Planner Mainez responded that is correct. Ms. Cisneros then thanked the Commission and Staff.



Mr. Doyle La Mountain, 25362 (previously 1606) East Third Street, Highland, California, distributed a letter from Fullerton, Lemann, Schaefer & Dominick dated February 7, 2006, who then addressed the Commission. He stated he resides in Redlands, but his business property is the Third Street address and the Preferred General Plan Designation would have an adverse effect on his property. He then read the letter that was distributed to the Commission into the record. Mr. La Mountain explained how he had purchased and closed escrow on the Third Street property for a sandwich franchise, and how that sales tax base for Highland would be increased and indicated he had $75,000 last year in sales tax with his other Domino's Pizza facility.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. La Mountain, Mr. Judd and Staff regarding the Business Park Designation along the Third Street Corridor, and if the Commission considers Mr. La Mountain's Commercial Designation request, how most of the property along Highland's portion of Third Street is Business Park. Staff stated how Third Street / Del Rosa will be renovated and the Third Street / Tippecanoe corner is designated for Planned Commercial and that Mr. La Mountain has a non-conforming use and building and if the business is currently active, Mr. La Mountain would have been issued both a business license and therefore, a vested approval to use the property as a sandwich shop. Mr. La Mountain stated how the building permits had been pulled and the work is almost complete. He further stated Third Street and Del Rosa is a major artery for the Airport and will capture a lot of people working there at the Airport and with the warehousing, he disagrees with Staff how much sales tax will be generated and how visible the building is relative to the Airport. Staff further added the Third Street / Fifth Street Corridor is a major truck route, will be a light Industrial use and indicated there is a difference of opinion between Mr. La Mountain and Staff.



Mr. Peter Forteza, 936 Creek View Lane, Redlands, California, who owns the property at 27108 Base Line (Diamond Car Wash [self-service] on the northwest corner of Base Line and Cole), distributed a letter dated February 7, 2006, with attachments and then addressed the Commission. He stated he owns the self service car wash and requested he wants to continue his business as is (Commercial Designation), the use is a non-conforming use, he has a current business license, but is unable to change / modify his property, he requested to have his property included into the Town Center / Mixed Use District, the boundary one (1) property over on Cole Avenue.



Mr. Jim Cimino, 27255 Messina Street, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission from the audience. He stated Mr. Forteza has already spoken about keeping the Commercial Zoning for the car wash.



Discussion ensued regarding Mr. Forteza's property (which is No. 18, on Page 15 in the Staff Report) of the Base Line Corridor and the Town Center Designations.



Mr. John Castillo, 5129 Monterey Road, Los Angeles, who is a potential property owner who wants to purchase the property at the northwest corner of Ninth Street / Sterling, addressed the Commission. He stated the current property owner is Mr. Vora and gave an historical background of the seven and one-half (7) acres was previously Zoned Commercial and over ten (10) years, Mr. Vora has been unable to market the property, and is seeking to redesignate the property to Multi-Family (High Density Residential Designation). The property was previously residential prior to 1992 and Mr. Castillo further stated he is interested to go into an agreement with Mr. Vora and reiterated his request for the Land Use Designation to be returned to the original Multi-Family Residential Land Use. He then thanked the Commission.



Mr. Milan Vora, who owns Assessor Parcel Nos. 278-131-45, 46, and 47, which is across Sterling from Warm Springs Elementary School and adjacent commercial strip mall, addressed the Commission. He stated it is impossible to build as commercial on Sterling Avenue. He has had the property since 1990, and requested the Commission to covert the property back to Multi-Family Use.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Vora and Staff regarding the historical background relative to the previous, current and proposed Land Use Designations, Mr. Vora's request for High Density Residential Land Use Designation and how Staff recommends to the Commission the Planned Commercial Land Use Designation.



Mr. Ken Cottrell, 7720 Central Avenue, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated he is opposed to the High Density Residential Land Use Designation. He explained how no one will improve their properties on Base Line, as it was hard enough to build there years ago. He stated the same goes for Ninth Street Land Use Designation and how large apartment complexes will have to deal with the Highland Police (for public safety issues) and reiterated he is opposed to changing the Land Use Designation to residential property. Mr. Cottrell then thanked the Commission for its time.



Mr. David Spoelstra, 7908 Calle Del Rio, Highland, California, addressed the Commission. He stated He is opposed to the Base Line Extension going through citing graffiti, vandalism, trash thievery, the area full of couches / mattresses. With regards to the area next to the Levee, there are numerous motorcycles and ATVs.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Spoelstra and Staff regarding how the General Plan Update is a conceptual document and the Base Line Extension. A question was asked about procedures of possibly keeping the Public Hearing open, the feasibility of the Commission taking separate action on Items No. 22, 23, 24, 25 and Base Line Extension and the voting procedures. Chairman Haller then explained to the audience what the Commission and Staff just discussed regarding the Public Hearing process, final comments and conflict(s) of interest. He asked if anyone else would like to speak on the item.



A gentleman named, "Oscar", 1314 West Murray, Rialto, California, addressed the Commission. He stated he owns property located at 26037 Base Line (Base Line / McKinley) and asked about housing requirements from the Base Line Commercial Land Use Designation to Medium Density Mixed Use Land Use Designation. Staff explained what the Land Use Element of the Medium Density Designation can be used for, and further explained the "R-2-C" Land Use Designation to Oscar. Oscar then further asked what the City will allow and questioned the adjacent Mobile Home Park. Staff explained how the use is a non-conforming use and how it can retain the Residential Use. If Oscar would demolish the building, he may be able to construct one or two (1 - 2) units, the criteria is strict and advised Oscar he would need to talk with Staff.



Chairman Haller asked if anyone else would like to speak on the item. Staff reminded the Chairman if he closes the Public Hearing, keep the Public Hearing closed because of the conflict(s) of interest issues. Chairman Haller asked again if anyone else would like to speak on the item. There being no further testimony, Chairman Haller closed the Public Hearing and opened the floor for discussion amongst the Commissioners.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Judd and Staff regarding how to proceed forward to separate the two (2) separate Medium Density areas; one located on Fifth Street (southeast corner of Fifth Street / Orange Street) and the other located on the north side of Base Line next to Club View Drive. The Commission concurred to take the items separately.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Judd and Staff regarding the area on the south side of Fifth Street east of Orange Street, the Draft Zoning shows R-2 and the need for an underlying Zone if changed to PD and the feasibility of establishing Planned Development Policy stating a Residential Use with a maximum density. Mr. Judd responded he would be able to prepare a Policy stating the above. Community Development Director Hartmann asked City Planner Mainez if the same type of an underlying policy should also be added for the area on the north side of Base Line east of Club View Drive. City Planner Mainez responded on Base Line, there is no connection to EHR. Vice Chairman Hamerly stated the point was for continuity with the proposed Blossom Trails Project from the Fifth Street property.



The following discussion and Motion reference Public Comments and Recommendation Table from the Planning Commission Staff Report, as attached to these Minutes.





A motion was made by Chairman Haller and seconded by Vice Chairman Hamerly to recommend to the City Council:



1. Maintain the recommendation of a Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation on Base Line (Recommendation No. 1), and;



2. Change the Recommendation to Planned Development Land Use Designation consistent with an underlying Policy with the proposed Blossom Trails Project, for the area south of Fifth Street.



Motion carried on a 3 - 0 vote with Commissioners Gamboa and Scott abstaining.











Note: Commissioner Gamboa returned to the Dias at 8:17 p.m.



The Commission provided background on the action taken to Commissioner Gamboa.



Further discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding keeping the Base Line Extension concept in the General Plan and what are the impacts if it is not constructed. Community Development Director Hartmann asked City Engineer Wong what would happen if the City would pursue at City Council direction. City Engineer Wong responded stating Development Impact Fees (DIFs) are needed for improvements and how the DIFs will pay a share of the improvements.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the feasibility of a separate route and how a roadway alignment study would need to be prepared. Concepts were discussed on all east / west route south of Fifth Street, the local transportation system, and how the DIFs and the General Plan are subject to updates. Analysis for an east/west route, as well as cost estimates of 14 - 16 million dollars at today's prices, including mitigation were also discussed.



Further discussion ensued regarding if the DIFs are not changed, there is no funding which is not the best solution, and that additional studies must be conducted to determine viable alternatives. Alta Vista was also discussed being used as a potential access alternative, but not good with the driveways being on Alta Vista. The Commission encouraged Staff to explore additional solutions as the City still depends on one of the three (3) major arteries; Base Line, Fifth Street / Greenspot Road and Highland Avenue. Greenspot Road to Opal and Greenspot Road to Bryant were also discussed as alternatives.



Comments from the Commission included the path of travel channeling the three (3) major arterials and reiterated need for another east / west route possibly south of Fifth Street / Greenspot Road, but it has environmental issues. Staff responded in the Santa Ana Wash Area, there is Plan "B" which also has significant restrictions in that area and is difficult. There is a need to explore the options if the route stays in the General Plan and there are some constraints that makes the City unable to build in the Wash area. Staff recommended to the Commission to keep the verbiage in and if the Commission would want it out, would need to make a motion and take action on that motion.













A motion was made by Chairman Haller and seconded by Commissioner Birnbaum that the Base Line Extension remain in the General Plan with the caveat for further significant study to provide for east / west movement.



Motion failed on a 2 - 2 vote with Vice Chairman Hamerly and Commissioner Gamboa dissenting and with Commissioner Scott abstaining.





Note: Commissioner Scott returned to the Dias at 8:38 p.m.





Community Development Director Hartmann explained the conflict of interest issues to the audience and what just transpired with the Commission.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the Commission recommending Staff's recommendation to the City Council Nos. 3 and 15 (which are the same properties fronting Sterling Avenue / Ninth Street and the Liquor Store) and whether or not the Land Use Designation be either Commercial or Medium Density.



Comments made by the Commission included how the Sterling Avenue / Ninth Street properties front Sterling Avenue and if these properties may be more appropriate as a Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation. Another comment made by the Commission was to have the properties maintain its Planned Commercial Designation, while the overall area does not work well without property consolidation. The feasibility of a Mixed Use Land Use Designation was also discussed.





A motion was made by Commissioner Gamboa and seconded by Commissioner Birnbaum to recommend to the City Council to maintain Nos. 3 and 15 as Planned Commercial Land Use Designation.





The standing Motion was amended.





A motion was amended by Commissioner Gamboa and seconded by Commissioner Birnbaum to recommend to the City Council to maintain Nos. 3, 15 and 20 as Planned Commercial Land Use Designation.



Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.









A motion was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Commissioner Gamboa to recommend to the City Council to maintain Agricultural / Equestrian Land Use Designation for No. 4.





Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding to discussion the Arnott's property.





Both the Motion and Second were retracted and withdrawn.





Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the public comments and recommended action on Item Nos. 1 through 33 (Pages 11 through 18 of the Planning Commission Staff Report).



The following is a recap of the Commission's Land Use Designation recommendations to the City Council: No. 1 - Low Density; No. 2 - not an issue requiring a recommendation; No. 3 - Planned Commercial; No. 4 - Agricultural / Equestrian; No. 5 - not an issue requiring a recommendation; No. 6 - Staff stated the concept to relocate the centerline on Victoria Avenue and recommended to leave as is; No. 7 - maintain Base Line Extension language in the General Plan; No. 8 - Maintain Base Line Extension language in the General Plan; No. 9 - Planned Development; No. 10 - not an issue requiring a recommendation; No. 11 - not an issue requiring a recommendation; No. 12 - not an issue requiring a recommendation.





(Note: Commissioner Gamboa left the Chambers at 8:56 p.m.)





Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding No. 13 - (B & D Auto Sales). Vice Chairman Hamerly made a comment that he thought B & D Auto Sales were going to expand, and Staff indicated some discussion in the past had occurred but no plans have been submitted to the City. Staff recommends a change to Base Line Corridor for No. 13.



Continued the recap of the following: No. 14 - not an issue requiring a recommendation; No. 15 - Planned Commercial; No. 16 - not an issue requiring a recommendation.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding No. 17 - (southwest corner of Victoria Avenue and Cypress Street) Staff indicated they have not heard back from the owner and is unsure they own the property. Staff recommends Business Park Land Use Designation for No. 17.



(Note: Commissioner Gamboa returned to the Chambers at 8:59 p.m.)



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Judd and Staff regarding No. 18 (Town Center Designation versus the Carwash use). Staff explained the existing Carwash is located outside the Town Center Designation, but separated by Cole Avenue and the need to prepare Standards / Conditions where a carwash would be located and the City Council to reevaluate the use for the Town Center. Mr. Judd stated the Town Center Designation would be affected if it was updated / revised to include the property on Cole Avenue. Comments were made by the Commission about the feasibility of Medium Density Land Use Designation, if the Carwash was gone and unable to place other uses on that property. Community Development Director Hartmann asked City Planner Mainez how could the Carwash exist within the Town Center. City Planner Mainez responded regarding policy on drive-thru uses at major intersections within the Town Center. He further explained other non-conforming uses and the possibility areas / locations of placing the issue on the City Council Work Program List. This has not been done and City Planner Mainez stated Base Line is proposed as a residential corridor and is reluctant to add car washes to the Town Center and how the Carwash is protected under non-conforming uses.



The Commission asked about the feasibility of the Base Line Commercial Land Use Designation uses and Staff's comfort level with said Designation. The Commission stated if included in the Town Center, the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) process would be required. Lot consolidation was also discussed since Cole Avenue is a small street, along with adding the two (2) lots to the north of the Carwash to the R-2-C Designation. A suggestion was made by the Commission how the Town Center could be with a Mixed Use Designation and not the R-2-C Designation. Other suggestions were made by the Commission to the Town Center Land Use Designation for a carwash with a CUP requirement (and expand if made as a permitted use) and if the carwash should burn down, the owner could rebuild the carwash. Staff responded for the Commission to review Page 78 of the Staff Report and discussion ensued regarding the properties located on Cole Avenue, Messina, Reedy.



A question was asked about taking the "whole corner" to the Town Center (the block between Cole and Reedy). Further discussion ensued about the feasibility of taking Town Center up to Messina and extend to the west side of Cole Avenue.

A motion was made by Commissioner Gamboa and seconded by Vice Chairman Hamerly to recommend to the City Council to change the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation to Town Center Designation for the Carwash and the two (2) adjoining lots to the north (Lots 36, 37, 60 and 61, or APN 1191-501-22,23, and 58), as well as amending the appropriate places in the Development Code with CUP requirements for a self-serve carwash establishment(s).



Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.







Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding No. 19 (also shown on Page 80 of the Staff Report).





A motion was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Commissioner Gamboa to recommend to the City Council to change the Base Line Corridor Land Use Designation to General Commercial Land Use Designation.



Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.





Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding No. 20. Already addressed with Item Nos. 3 and 15.



Continued the recap of the following: No. 20 - Planned Commercial; No. 21 - maintain the Medium Density Residential Land Use Designation at Fourteenth Street / Victoria Avenue; No. 22 - maintain Base Line Extension language in the General Plan; No. 23 - not an issue requiring a recommendation; No. 24 - maintain Base Line Extension language in the General Plan; No. 25 - not an issue requiring a recommendation; No. 26 - not an issue requiring a recommendation; No. 27 - not an issue requiring a recommendation; No. 28 - not an issue requiring a recommendation; No. 29 - not an issue requiring a recommendation.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Judd and Staff regarding No. 30. Staff informed the Commission the property owner submitted a Map for a detached single family subdivision on the property. Therefore, no change is needed. Maintain Low Density Residential Land Use Designation.



Mr. Judd indicated the Commission needs to consider more than just the one parcel if it wants to change Designations at Third Street and Del Rosa Drive (Mr. La Mountain's property). A question was asked if the restaurant / fast food use could exist in an Industrial Land Use Designation. Staff responded and explained the historical background of Mr. La Mountain's property (Dominos Pizza "Airport Plaza" building) to another food use. Staff added the need to find a mechanism to make this happen. Commissioner Gamboa commented how he was on the Design Review Board and remembers when this project went before the Board for consideration for the renovation(s). Staff stated another option is for the Commission to reevaluate the Industrial Land Use Designation clarification in order to allow flexibility. Staff further added the feasibility of consolidating lots for a larger project, explained what the property owner provided in order to renovate the property and Staff recommended to the Commission to leave the Designation as is or revise the Designation to make it more flexible.









Further discussion ensued regarding the CUP in the Business Park / Planned Commercial Land Use Designations and market viability, location of the Airport, stand alone project(s) the ability for the property owner to compete with the product suppliers (located at the Airport). Staff stated how the City Council can be more aggressive to encourage sooner (rather than later) consolidation of lots located on the north side of the Airport, how there is interest at the Fifth Street Corridor in the Industrial Land Use Designation areas. The Commission concurred to leave as is and maintain the Industrial Designation.



Continued the recap of the following: No. 31 - not an issue requiring a recommendation; No. 32 - not an issue requiring a recommendation, and; No. 33 - not an issue requiring a recommendation.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Judd and Staff regarding Mr. Ken Cottrell's issues regarding the High Density Residential Land Use Designation on Base Line, and the issues with the Land Use Designation on Ninth Street. The Commission concurred to maintain the Designations.



Community Development Director Hartmann stated this concludes Staff's review and analysis.



City Planner Mainez stated he has received a facsimile letter dated January 30, 2006, from Mr. and Ms. Darrell and Evelyn Wilburn and distributed a copy to the Commission for consideration. The letter requested their property maintain the Commercial Designation. The vacant property is located at the southeast corner and south side of Old Greenspot Frontage Road and Church Street. He explained how on the north side of Old Greenspot Frontage Road is Neighborhood Commercial and on the south side is proposed to be Residential.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the Wilburn's request and their other property's location on the north side of Old Greenspot Frontage Road by the pumping station and how that property fits into a commercial land use, and the feasibility of the Wilburns intent of constructing a drive-through dairy.





A motion was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Commissioner Birnbaum to recommend to the City Council to change the Neighborhood Commercial Land Use Designation at the southeast corner of Old Greenspot Frontage Road and Church Street to Low Density Residential to conform with the preferred Land Use Designation in the General Plan.



Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.





A motion was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Commissioner Birnbaum to approve the balance of the list exclusive of the Base Line Extension and recommend to the City Council concur and take action.



Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the EIR.





(Note: Commissioner Gamboa left the Chambers at 9:46 p.m. and returned at 9:47 p.m. - in order to retrieve his documents from the other room.)





Chairman Haller asked there were any comments or questions of the Commission.



City Planner Mainez introduced Mr. William Halligan, who is the legal counsel for environmental services for the Consultant (The Planning Center).



Both Mr. Halligan and City Planner Mainez addressed the Commission. City Planner Mainez stated the City received two (2) letters from Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) and indicated the second letter was in response to the Final EIR, and had added a Policy to the General Plan and then Staff distributed the LAFCO correspondence and the Draft Policy to the Commission for consideration. Mr. Halligan further explained how Goal No. 12 now exists regarding the Agricultural Preserves. There are two (2) separate issues; one being the Williamson Act Contract (Contracts) and the other being the Agricultural Preserve.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Halligan and Staff regarding the definition of Agricultural Preserves. Staff explained how the EIR document is a first tier document and does not change anything when reviewing a project and will then be a tier two at the time of specific development involving a preserve or contact, and is not an issue requiring a recommendation to the City, at this time.



Further discussion ensued regarding General Policy Statement 2-41 is "setting the tone" for Goal 2.15, there is no map as an exhibit due to the Agricultural Preserve is established by boundary, but yet, there is no Williamson Act Contract. A question was asked regarding if the verbiage needs to be made in form of a motion and added to the EIR and Staff responded affirmatively.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the Conservation and Open Space Element of the General Plan and the Park / Parks Service Areas Goal 5.10 (Page 5-43) which relies on the use of School facilities. Vandalism and graffiti is happening at the School Facility(s) and the School gates are now closed / locked. Staff agreed to investigate the status of the School District Recreation Facility located within the School District Agreement(s).



A motion was made by Chairman Haller and seconded by Vice Chairman Hamerly to recommend to the City Council the Parks and Recreation Master Plan be a "High Priority". Affirmation Policy Goal 5.10, Policy Item No. 1 should be made as a High Priority on the City Council's Work Program and to make efforts to develop / maintain the Parks and Recreation Master Plan.





Discussion ensued regarding the City does not have a working Agreement with San Bernardino City Unified School District. Comments were made by the Commission concerning a working Agreement with Redlands because Highland Grove and Beattie Schools are still closing / locking their gates at 6:30 p.m. Staff responded the City does not have a written Agreement to open / close by City Staff and not an exclusive right to oversee it.



A comment was made that Figure 5-5 Park Service Areas is not accurate. Staff responded need to clarify with the School District(s).



Vice Chairman Hamerly commented the need for the accuracy of the Park Service Areas for the Parks and Recreation Master Plan and reiterated his second to Chairman Haller's motion and forward on to the City Council's Work Program as a high priority.





The standing Motion was amended.





A motion was amended by Chairman Haller and seconded by Vice Chairman Hamerly to correct Figure 5.5 to accurately reflect that the Schools are not always accessible as a park and Staff will review the availability to use the Schools for recreational purposes.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding when the General Plan is taken to City Council for consideration, another category may be added. Staff stated the Commission's recommendation to the City Council is that Parks are a High Priority to the Commission and the School grounds need to be kept open consistent with Policy Statement (on Page 5-43) Figure 5.5 Park Service Areas and if no Agreement exists, the Schools be open to others.



Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.





Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the proposed Development Code Amendments.









The following comments were made by the Commission regarding the Development Code. On Page 1, Item "B", to reduce the thirty minute time for the alarm. On Page 7, the Design Review Board Members are now five (5) instead of three (3), On Page 89, there are formatting issues. Staff provided an overview of the issues on formatting concerns will go away when the Development Code is codified. Staff further explained the process of the Public Facilities Subcommittee to the Commission. The Public / Public Quasi category was also discussed.



The Commission suggested to create a Title Page at the top of each page for the Matrix and Staff was amenable to the Commission's suggestion.





(Note: Commissioner Birnbaum left the Chambers at 10:16 p.m.)





A question was asked regarding the feasibility of limiting the number of mixed use dwelling units in that a problem / issue be created with the mixed use. Staff responded these are existing Standards.



The Commission continued with its comments. On Page 60, Item "B" at the bottom of the Page, questions were raised regarding the height of two story elements and a minimum of thirty-five feet (35') from the ultimate right-of-way. Staff responded that is outside Town Center R-2-C Designation. On Page 48, Item F.1 regarding restoration of a damaged structure. What the process is if a required structure is rebuilt by non-conforming use, or required by current Code / law.





(Note: Commissioner Birnbaum returned to the Chambers at 10:19 p.m.)





Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding non-conforming uses.





(Note: Commissioner Scott left the Chambers at 10:20 p.m.)





Further discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding F.1 on Page 48, structure, non-conformity, fifty percent (50%) damage, non-conforming uses cannot be resumed. "Act(s) of God" was also discussed. If damaged by "Act(s) of God", the use would remain and if the City would take action, the use would be with Code enforcement and Code requirements or "voluntarily razed". A typographical error was pointed out in the Mixed Use District Chapter 16.22 in Section 16.22.010.A. The Second paragraph, Second Sentence to be amended as follows: "The General Plan provides a set of guiding principals for the Town Center and includes..."





(Note: Commissioner Scott returned to the Chambers at 10:22 p.m.)





The Commission continued it comments. On Page 48, Item F.2 regarding the estimates of damage and matching the scope / quality of structure cost per square foot. A question was asked about the feasibility of an update on the Board of Realtors Service. Different revisions were suggested which included the following: "Cost data service or equivalent"; "Match quality / scope of remaining structure for cost per square foot or equivalent."' Staff stated how Staff would "word smith" F.2 to comply and provided a scenario. Staff further stated the City has Standard and point taken from the Commission's comments.



Comments continued. On Pages 40 - 42, regarding abbreviations. Need to add a column in the matrix for AG / EQ and not down three pages later as a footnote. Then Vice Chairman Hamerly submitted his Draft copy for corrections / revisions of Exhibit "B" for the Development Code Amendments / Proposed Zoning Map to Staff.



Further discussion ensued regarding the Motion include recommendation with the Land Use Designation changes to make the same consistent changes on the Zoning Map, and approve the balance of the changes and include the comments with the Parks / Parks Service Areas, how Item No. 2 has been done, need to certify the EIR, review the list of Ordinances since adopted and the Zoning Map.



A question was asked regarding if the Commission's recommendations were appropriate for it taking separate actions. Staff responded because of the conflicts of interest and the Commission taking separate actions, Item No. 2 has been acted upon and Staff reiterated the proposed Resolution can be "word smithed". Now the Commission can consider and take action upon the EIR, Development Code and Zoning Map.



Discussion ensued regarding Policies, Goals, affirmation of the text and making the Motion with the exception of the Items the Commission took separate action upon those individual parcels.







A motion was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Commissioner Scott to approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 06-004 recommending the City Council to approve the following:



1. Certify the Final Environmental Impact Report and direct Staff to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the Board and State Office of Planning and Research;

2. Adopt the Comprehensive General Plan Update, with the exception of the prior separate actions (Motions) taken;

3. Amend the City's Development Code consistent with General Plan update policies, as modified, and;

4. Amend the City's Zoning Map consistent with the General Plan update policies, as modified.





Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.





5.0 LEGISLATIVE



The item was previously considered.





6.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS



Staff explained there will be a Planners Institute Conference in March, this year, in Monterey.



Staff further explained there will be a Study Session scheduled on February 21, at 5:00 p.m. and with Mr. Ed Burns being the new DRB Member. There will also Commission Meeting scheduled at 6:00 p.m. for a Code Interpretation.





7.0 ADJOURN



There being no further business, Chairman Haller declared the meeting adjourned at 10:42 p.m.





Submitted by: Approved by:







Linda McKeough, Richard Haller, Chairman

Administrative Secretary Planning Commission

 



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

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

CLOSED FRIDAYS