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

MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

JUNE 6, 2006







1.0 CALL TO ORDER



The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Highland was called to order at 6:04 p.m. by Chairman Haller at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.



Present: Commissioners John Gamboa and R. Paul Scott, and Chairman Richard Haller



Absent: Vice Chairman Randall Hamerly



Vacancy: One



Staff Present:Rick C. Hartmann, Community Development Director

Roger Derda, Interim Community Development Director

Ernie Wong, City Engineer

Lawrence A. Mainez, City Planner

Bruce Meikle, Associate Planner

Kim Stater, Economic Development Specialist

Margaret Stegenga, Planning Technician I

Jim Godfredsen, Contract Project Manager

Linda McKeough, Administrative Secretary



The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Haller.







2.0 COMMUNITY INPUT



There was none.





3.0 CONSENT CALENDAR



3.1 Minutes of May 2, 2006, Regular Meeting.



Approved, as submitted.





3.2 Minutes of May 16, 2006, Regular Meeting.





A motion was made by Commissioner Gamboa and seconded by Commissioner Scott to approve the Minutes of May 2, and May 16, 2006, as submitted.



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





4.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS



4.1 An Application for a Conditional Use Permit (CUP 04-003) submitted by Calvary Chapel of San Bernardino which proposes to develop and operate a Church with Sunday School Classrooms and related ancillary facilities from the Greenspot Road Site. The proposed Project is an approximate 60.44 acre Site consisting of three (3) adjoining parcels located at 30976 Greenspot Road, approximately 1.25 miles east of Plunge Creek. The area proposed to be developed is an approximate sixteen (16) acre area of gently sloping land extending between Greenspot Road and the base of the foothills of the San Bernardino Mountains (APNs.: 0297-021-04, -05 and -12).Representative: Lee Coe, Pastor - Calvary Chapel and Steve Murray, Architect - Steven Paul Murray Architect & Associates



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



Associate Planner Meikle first thanked the public for attending tonight's meeting and nice to see a full Council Chambers. He then introduced Mr. Rock Miller of Katz, Okitsu and Associates, 685 East Carnegie Drive, Suite 125, San Bernardino, California; Mr. Christopher Jean of Gordon Bricken and Associates, 1621 East Seventeenth Street, Suite K, Santa Ana, California; and Ms. Lori Trottier and Mr. Kent Norton of Michael Brandman Associates, 621 East Carnegie Drive, Suite 100, San Bernardino, California.



He then gave a brief overview of the proposed Project, location, that Calvary Chapel is proposing to develop sixteen (16) acres of a sixty (60) acre site in six (6) phases. Associate Planner Meikle explained the proposed Phasing Plan and what is proposed to be built in each Phase. He further explained the Land Use Entitlement process, as well as the Planning Commission's role and Design Review process to the audience. He described the proposed six foot (6') wall location, the hours of operation, Photometric Plan and explained he would defer to the City Engineer and Traffic Engineer Consultant. A question was asked regarding the hours of the Amphitheater and he responded the hours could be from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m.







City Engineer Wong gave the historical background regarding Greenspot Road, including the "S" curve and ninety degree (90) sharp turn / curve, the City receiving both Federal funding / grants, as well as building a new bridge and anticipates the road widening process will start in early 2008. He explained the Traffic Study and the left turn pockets into the proposed Project's parking lot for two entrances. He further explained Traffic Analyst Consultant Mr. Rock Miller, who is a Civil Engineer with the Katz, Okitsu and Associates had conducted the Traffic Study and gave a brief overview to the audience regarding the Traffic Study, traffic level / peaks during certain days and the Level of Service. City Engineer Wong stated there is proposed to be a four lane road created in the future, the feasibility of traffic signalization and had recommended minor Mitigation Measures, and then concluded his presentation.



Associate Planner Meikle introduced the Calvary Chapel team; John Miller, Senior Pastor; Lee Coe, Assistant Pastor; Steven Murray, SPM Architects and George Lightner with Calvary Chapel to the Commission.



Community Development Director Hartmann introduced to the Commission Planning Technician I Margaret Stegenga and Mr. Roger Derda who will become the Interim Community Development Director when Mr. Hartmann leaves the City Staff.



Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any further questions of Staff. Hearing none, he then opened the Public Hearing and asked if the Applicant would like to make a presentation. He explained the Public Hearing process to the audience, requesting the public focus their comments and keep them at three (3) minutes or under. While the Commission values all comments, because of the number of people in attendance, there needs to be some limits, and, as a formal Public Hearing, the people need to speak into the microphone.



Pastor John Miller, 6605 La Praix, Highland, California, who is the Senior Pastor of Calvary Chapel (in San Bernardino), addressed the Commission. He stated he has been a Highland resident for twenty-seven (27) years and that City Engineer Wong and Associate Planner Meikle did a great job in their presentation on the proposed Project. He further stated he likes to worship in his own community and many congregation members also live in Highland, wanting to build a Church and there would be no School / Day Care services at the Church. Pastor Miller explained the Phases and proposed services, traffic during the week would be a minimum with approximately five to six (5 - 6) cars of Church staff, while the majority of the traffic would be headed westbound to the 330 Freeway. The Greenspot location is suitable and ideal for a Church, the Coffee Shop is for the congregation only during Church hours, as well as the Book Shop. The future development of the Amphitheater has been reviewed for sound and earthquake issues and the Amphitheater will be used for the Church's use / services only. There will be no concerts that a person would sell tickets for and there is ample on-site parking. Pastor Miller explained he has read the complaints from the neighbors and responded that the Church has not used tax funds to build the proposed Project and has used only Church funds for the Project. Highland needs more churches in the community, he is devoted to keep the property beautiful and appreciates what the Commission has done. He then stated he is here to answer any questions the Commission may have.



Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had questions for the Applicant. Hearing none, he called for the first speaker.



Ms. Susan Folsom, 7868 La Cresta Street, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. She stated she resides adjacent to the Church, and she is not opposed to the Church in the neighborhood, but the proposed Project is too close to the residents on the southwest corner and suggested a large buffer zone. The six foot (6') wall will not be high enough to reduce the lighting and that the lighting will be glaring into the residents' yards. There is adequate parking, but was concerned with Greenspot Road and off-site parking. With regards to the proposed Amphitheater, the Church is a "bad neighbor" and even if the wall was fourteen feet (14') high, it would not be enough to contain the noise. Ms. Folsom further stated she can hear hikers up on the hill talking. With regards to the "Shooting Range" (Inland Fish and Game on Orange Street) a person can hear that, and the "Range" is located three (3) miles away from her, and a person has to deal with the noise. She also was concerned with traffic on Sundays.



Ms. Teri Wortley, 7873 Calle Del Rio, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. She stated she resides three (3) streets down and was concerned with traffic and residents having one direction out and will have trouble getting out to go to the store because of Church traffic. Also, she was concerned with noise and how sound travels and a person can hear peacocks that are located one mile away, and stated there is no wall big / tall enough for noise attenuation. She does not want to hear the cars on Sundays and that Churches belong closer to the Freeway. The street is a dead end street and everyone has to turn to the right and is concerned with being able to get out. Ms. Wortley does not want any trash dumpsters located next to the nine foot (9') wall and how music will be heard.



Staff called the three (3) minute time.



Ms. Wortley thanked the Commission for its time.



Mr. Robert Wortley, II, 7914 La Cresta Street, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated he resides adjacent to the proposed Project and is opposed to it. The proposed Project is a nuisance and a hazard. On Greenspot Road to the west, there was a fatality. The traffic is speeding and there is a lot of traffic. It is peaceful there and able to view the stars at night, but with the proposed lights glaring, a person will be unable to. Mr. Wortley is also concerned with noise.





Ms. Sandra Kubitza, 7888 La Cresta Street, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. She stated she has lived there for twenty-six (26) years and indicated the proposed Church is fine, but looks too "industrial" and should be more "soft", suggested additional landscaping to be more "citrusy" and install additional orange trees. Ms. Kubitza also had issues traffic issues and driveway location(s) and suggested a switch of the driveways.



Ms. Tina Raddish, 7821 La Cresta Street, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. She stated she had submitted two (2) letters to the City regarding the proposed Project. With regards to the Amphitheater, she is against it because of noise issues and added how a person can hear hikers, dogs, coyotes, etc. at night and reiterated she has concerns with noise issues. The possibility of the Church using the Amphitheater from 8:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. and possibly seven (7) days / week; the residents have enough to put up with the noise generated from the "Shooting Range" (Inland Fish and Game), then with the possibility of concerts on Saturday / Sunday and with the airplanes at San Bernardino International Airport and Redlands Municipal Airport. With regards to parking, the Church will have parking for 580 vehicles and if there are two (2) events going on simultaneously, there will be inadequate parking. There could be equestrians parking their horse trailers in the parking lot. Ms. Raddish stated how the Applicant indicates the proposed Coffee Shop is for Church members only and one of the churches in Redlands started that way and is now also for public use. She also has concerns with the six foot (6') wall in back of the property, graffiti in the front Chapel, and traffic for the Church's evening meetings.



Staff called the three (3) minute time.

Ms. Raddish continued stating that even if the Church held evening meetings one night a week, she would still hit the traffic coming home.



Mr. Fernando Garcia, 7919 La Cresta Street, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated he resides in the Ventana / Entrada Tract and is okay with the proposed Church, but not the Amphitheater and suggested the Applicant "rearrange" the Project and locate the Amphitheater further from the existing homes. Mr. Garcia continued that on June 3, 2006, he was awakened by amplified music and profanity at 1:00 a.m. and it continued until 2:00 a.m. at the Church Site and then asked who will control this.



Mr. Steven Paul, 7897 La Cresta Street, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated he resides adjacent to the proposed Project and is concerned with the noise at the Amphitheater. He works nights for Miller and asked for another driveway / route for Greenspot Road and would defer for the Engineer to respond.







Ms. Patty Ortiz, 30823 Mission Street, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. She stated she resides five (5) houses west and fronts on Greenspot Road and attended the first meeting. She stated she is in favor of the proposed Church, but is opposed to the location. Ms. Ortiz stated she had attended Calvary Chapel in three (3) different cities. She had concerns with parking / traffic issues, and concerts held on the weekends and asked the Commission to reconsider its decision on the proposed Project.



Mr. Robert Shenton, 7891 La Cresta Street, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated his back yard is adjacent to the proposed Project and is okay with it, but is opposed to the Amphitheater with having music outside, which will create a noise impact on weekends. He suggested the removal of the Amphitheater and have the Church do its events indoors.



Mr. Daniel Scott Frymire, 7846 La Cresta Street, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated he was the one who attempted to do a computer presentation for the Commission and has resided in Highland for many years. He is opposed to the Amphitheater and concerned with amplified music. He stated he had read the proposed Mitigation Measures for the proposed walls, building, the height, size and decibel range of the speakers that will be facing north (mountains). He was concerned with the amplification and decibel range for the neighborhood and then would have to complain to the Public Nuisance Hearing Board. Mr. Frymire stated the building design has already been discussed to make the building more appealing and then asked if there has been a disclosure made in the Toll Brothers' C C Rs proposed project about the Church project.



Mr. Victor Ramirez, 7907 La Cresta Street, Highland, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He reiterated he is not opposed to the Church, but is concerned with the Amphitheater. He made the comparisons to a basketball and how sound rebounds and will travel and will go higher than a six foot (6') wall. Mr. Ramirez had concerns with increased traffic on weekends and how Greenspot Road is supposed to be improved in 2008. He also had concerns with what security measures will be taken for the Church's parking lot, as well as with Vector Control and the bubonic plague / virus. Mr. Ramirez has a little daughter and is concerned for her health.



Mr. Eugene Hahn, 7904 Santa Paula, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He resides approximately 200 feet from the proposed Project and indicated how the Church will be a "good neighbor". He currently attends Calvary Chapel and that Church is an oasis. He stated the property will be developed by someone at some point and would rather have a Church there than a commercial strip mall.



Ms. Gloria Graham, 2889 Ridgeview Road, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. She stated she and her husband have resided there all of their lives of thirty-five (35) years and writes the "Under the Dryer" column for the Highland Community News. Ms. Graham stated this past week, people were out there painting off graffiti off of the property and to her, this shows goodness and respect. Calvary is goodness and respect and can promote that. The Church can also teach good values to the children, as well as parents, grandparents and is contagious with Calvary Chapel. The Church needs another location and welcomes the Church.



Ms. Peggy Minnis, 7840 Morningside Lane, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. She stated she has resided there for three (3) years and had been going to Calvary Chapel for twenty-seven (27) years when it started in 1974 and gave the historical background of the Church. Ms. Minnis further stated she has raised two children who are now 24 and 20 years old and have gone to school there, as well as Church activities and Mission trips. Their moral conduct is displayed because of the Church. Highland is a fast growing City and wants others to have the same opportunity as she to raise their children.



Mr. Wallace (Bud) Wattenberger, 30992 Greenspot Road, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated his property is adjacent to the proposed Project to the east and has resided there for seventy (70) years. He explained how the property was his parents and then he moved-in in 1980, how in the Church's Sunday School Auditorium, he sees both adults and children will graduate. The Church teaches good values and how to treat people and that will have a positive effect on the children. Mr. Wattenberger stated he has no problem with the Church and Amphitheater, even though the noise does carry, he is still in favor of the proposed Project.



Mr. Dustin Hoffman, 7804 Calle Del Rio Street, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated he will not attend the Church and is in favor of the proposed Project, but freeze the development. He indicated urban noise will occur regardless and there are reviewable guidelines. The lighting standards can be worked with. Mr. Hoffman stated how the Calvary Chapel in Redlands has an amphitheater and he then asked how much traffic would be generated in a week and how much would the proposed Amphitheater be used. He further stated the proposed Calvary Chapel is a "clean cut" project, and he would rather have the proposed Church than residential development. Use the Planning Commission to consider the proposed Project. Unfortunately, even though there was one head on collision that has occurred on Greenspot Road, by State standards, Greenspot Road it is not dangerous.



Mr. Jim Bruce, 2660 East Mirada, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated he is the Deputy Fire Chief for the City of Rialto and has reviewed projects and wanted to provide wider community input. He stated the Church is beneficial in disaster preparedness. The Church is a good citizen and he knows Pastor Miller for forty (40) years and is an upstanding citizen. Mr. Bruce indicated he attends Calvary Chapel in Rialto and has attended three (3) funerals for firefighters and two (2) for police officers. He explained an accident had killed an eighteen (18) year old and a Chaplin from the Rialto Calvary Chapel, as well as the Fire Department's Chaplin responded. Mr. Bruce concluded his testimony by stating in times of crises, a person can count on Calvary Chapel.



Mr. Chris Fleming, 5560 Golondrina Drive, San Bernardino, California, addressed the Commission. He stated he has lived in the San Bernardino Valley since 1956, and is looking to relocate to Highland. His great grandparents had settled here and were citrus growers. Mr. Fleming stated he is in favor of the proposed Project. He asked for the Commission to review how more Buildings are proposed to be located in the Riverbed and with the possibility of the riverbanks banks overflowing and the people being cut off and inaccessible in case if there was an emergency. Mr. Fleming stated he is a County employee and commented how there will probably be mitigation after a death has occurred. He then stated how the Commission will need to consider services and is amazed at the lack of services provided. Mr. Fleming concluded how the proposed Church Facility will not be a detriment to the Community.



Chairman Haller commented to Mr. Fleming this is the Commission he is providing testimony to and if the Commission approves the Project tonight, the Project can be appealed to the City Council.



Mr. Tony Garrell, 37450 Ironwood, Yucaipa, California, addressed the Commission. He stated he is a Traffic Sargent with San Bernardino Police. He then gave an example how he has not heard of any complaints of Calvary Chapel's use of the Perris Hill Amphitheater which is located in the 600 block of Highland Avenue.



Mr. John Montgomery, 7058 Pleasant View Lane, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated how he is a Pastor with Immanuel Baptist Church and how the proposed Project will have a positive impact on the City; it is a safe place / environment for children and how the Church provided clothing, food and aid in last year's Old Fire disaster. Pastor Montgomery further explained how Calvary Chapel is a good Church and how Immanuel Baptist (congregation) was appalled by the opposition of the proposed Project and he is in favor of Calvary Chapel.



Mr. Tony Calvillo, 6765 Stevenway, San Bernardino, California, (92407) addressed the Commission. He stated he works at Caltrans and has reviewed the Traffic Study and has been going to Calvary Chapel for three (3) years. The proposed Amphitheater will be used for music and teaching the word of God. Mr. Calvillo further stated the proposed Project will be mitigated since the City has Guidelines, as well as Federal and State requirements and added the Average Daily Trips (A.D.Ts) for the Sunday traffic is nothing like the A.D.T.s for a retail store. Mr. Calvillo reiterated the proposed Amphitheater is a great way to worship and invited the Commission to join the congregation and is in favor of the proposed Project.













Mr. Randy Becker, 7324 Westwood Lane, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated he has resided in Highland for fifty-two (52) years and how he had observed The Viet Nam Veteran Wall plaque etchings located at the back of the Council Chambers and indicated out of the ten (10) soldiers who died in Viet Nam, that he knew four (4) of them. He further stated how the proposed Project has to proceed through the design review process with the Planning Commission, City Council, Design Review Board and City Staff. Mr. Becker indicated with all of that assistance and requirements, the Applicants will have a great design and that is what makes Highland a great place to live and understands the public's fears. He then stated he is confident the City will make a good decision.



Chairman Haller asked the Applicant would like to respond.



Pastor Miller responded regarding the frequency of use of the Amphitheater stating during the winter months, there would be no outside events and may be a long time before it is built. There may be events held on Sunday evenings from 6:00 p.m. - 7:30 p.m. plus one night a week, but not seven nights a week and the parking lot will be quiet. Pastor Miller further stated that both the Sanctuary and the Amphitheater would not be used at the same time and reiterated the Amphitheater would not be used during the cold, winter months. With regards to the Coffee Shop, the intent is for the congregation's use only both before and after Church where the members can fellowship there and is not staffed to be open during Church. Regarding the Coffee Shop to be open to the public / guest, yes, it could.



The Commission stated the CUP would then have to be revised.



Staff added the parking lot security, lock the entrances and signage required for loitering / towing. Staff proposed a Condition of Approval requiring one way egress / ingress from the east so the homes located west of the Project will not be affected.

Pastor Miller continued how the field is for playground use and away from the neighbors to the west and even if the youth music is loud, it still meets the City's sound decibel standards.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Pastor Miller, the various City Consultants and Staff regarding the Project's east / west access and the traffic route taken to Greenspot Road. Staff indicated the weekday night traffic was not addressed, yet the parking meets Code requirements, how the travel time would be approximately fifteen (15) minutes from the Freeway and the amount of traffic generated and analyzed. Consultant Miller said the proposed Project is technically a small project and how the traffic route may go out the "back way" on Greenspot Road.











The Commission stated there needs to be a Mitigation Measure to address the fourteen foot (14') block wall for noise attenuation.



Consultant Jean explained and provided a worse case scenario of an event that was held in Costa Mesa with professional tour groups and sound systems resounding at fifty feet (50'). He stated for these residential uses, beyond / after 10:00 p.m., the decibels above 20 needs to be reduced. He further explained the fourteen foot (14') block wall, is allowed, but is highly unlikely. The City Ordinance does not guarantee noise level and gave additional examples / scenarios as noises from a leaf blower and lawn mower and the noise interpretation between next door neighbors.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding various noise levels, noise levels at the proposed Project's property line, the proposed Mitigation Measures and the process for compliance with both noise and lights. Staff indicated the proposed Lighting Plan will be submitted to the Design Review Board for review. Staff imparted that regarding the noise and light issues, Staff were not experts, but trying to work out the details. Noise is a reactive issue and if the proposed Project is approved / constructed, and with the proposed Mitigation Measures, if they exceed the requirements, they will have to make revisions. This is an on-going issue with noise, parking, dogs, garage conversions, and how a Church is no different than any other use, that must comply with City Codes and that the Mitigation Measures before the Commission is Staff's best professional judgement.



A question was asked by a Commissioner if the Commission should go with Staff's recommendation or make changes. Staff responded that it depends on the Commission's dialog and indicated how in the Staff Report it states the Amphitheater will be in the Project's Fifth Phase and maybe in four - five (4 - 5) years out. And in that time frame, the Applicant's intent may change as to whether or not to build the Amphitheater; Staff suggested the Commission could review this component after the Amphitheater is constructed; and how Staff took a proactive approach for monitoring, but Staff was unsure if the Applicant is in agreement.



Chairman Haller asked if anyone else would like to speak on the item.



Pastor Lee Coe, who is the Assistant Pastor for Calvary Chapel in San Bernardino, and is the Applicant, addressed the Commission. He first apologized for the non-Church event and explained how the caretaker's son had abused their trust. Pastor Coe then went on Saturday to Mr. Wattenberger's residence to explain and with due diligence and appreciated Mr. Wattenberger's assistance. He then stated how both Arroyo Verde and Cram Elementary Schools have an Amphitheater and it is his desire to use the proposed Amphitheater infrequently.









Chairman Haller asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak on the item.



There were none.



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 and Staff regarding noise mitigation during construction and how the added Planning Condition of Approval (COA) No. 40 will cover the noise issue and the feasibility of the Commission re-reviewing the Mitigation(s) for noise prior to construction of the Amphitheater. Consultant Lori Trottier recommended to modify Mitigation Measure N6, rather than adding an additional Mitigation Measure. The following additional language was proposed to be included in Mitigation Measure N6: "Any equipment that might be brought to the Amphitheater from outside presenters will also be required to comply with the restrictions in this Measure." Staff then explained the Mitigation Monitoring Program to the Commission, as well as the audience.



A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the feasibility of a COA that the Commission review the proposed Project after six (6) months for both Phases One and Five. Both Staff and the Consultant responded that Planning COA No. 37 already required Planning Commission review after six (6) months of operation of Phase I and modifying Mitigation Measure N6 would address the issue.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding Engineering's COA Nos. 11, 12 and 23 for the interim street improvements and "S" curve and ultimate street improvements. The following language was proposed for said COAs:



11. Construct interim improvements to connect the proposed drive isles to the existing Greenspot Road improvements, as approved by the City Engineer. Widen existing pavement to provide left turn lanes and install interim street lights at project entrances. Install traffic signage and pavement striping as required by the City Engineer. Upon the City's completion of the Greenspot Road capital improvement project, construct street improvements across the Greenspot Road frontage including, but not limited to, curb and gutter located 40 feet northerly of street centerline, a raised curb landscaped median, match-up asphalt concrete pavement, class II aggregate base, and 6-foot curb adjacent sidewalk. Utilize 20-foot minimum curb return radii at the project entrances. Place the full structural section at the time of the paving operation. Prior to first building occupancy, submit bonds to guarantee construction of ultimate street improvements on Green Spot Road.









12. Install a striped east bound left turn and deceleration lanes on Greenspot Road at the westerly project entrances. The length of the bay taper, and left turn and deceleration lane shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Remove conflicting striping and apply type II slurry seal the full street width within the limits of re-striping.

23. Apply to the City to annex the project into an assessment district for maintenance of frontage landscaping and the community trail. Sign ballots prepared by the City agreeing to the annexation and amounts of assessment. The City will maintain the landscaped median using assessment proceedings. The City will maintain the frontage landscaping within the right-of-way and landscape easements using assessment proceedings only if the level of maintenance provided by the property owner is deemed inadequate by the City.



City Engineer Wong added how Engineering was unable to see if the Applicant is agreeable to the revisions. He then conversed with Pastor Coe and Pastor Coe responded he was amenable to the revisions.



Mitigation Measure N6 was further discussed between the Commission and Staff.



Discussion ensued regarding the feasibility if the Toll Brothers' project has disclosed in it's C C & Rs regarding the Church is an allowed use in the existing Residential Zone to its potential home buyers / owners. Toll Brothers is aware of the proposed Project and had submitted a copy of the C C & Rs to the City and will make an issue when the Project gets to that point regarding traffic issues.



The following are comments made by the Commissioners: 1) the need to look at the proposed Building(s) where they are not a "tilt up" style; 2) the flipping of driveways are not in the Plans and the need to have DRB review the Plans; 3) the Mitigation Measures on the proposed Amphitheater will help calm the residents' fears; 4) the Commission's surprise with the proposed Amphitheater is in the Application and how the noise issue is a concern and how the Staff went the "extra mile" with expert Traffic Consultants with the details and proposed Mitigation Measures; 5) the Church is the lowest intensity use of the property rather than a self-storage facility; 6) the land use for the proposed Project is appropriate with minimal impact; 7) the Commission appeared comfortable with the proposed Project, as modified with the revised COAs and Mitigation Measures, and how Staff will address the issues and will work with the Applicant, and; 8) how the Commission will review the proposed Project after six (6) months and supportive of the Project.

















There being no further questions of the Applicant or Staff, or discussion amongst the Commissioners, Chairman Haller then called for the question.



Staff stated with recent legislation the Commission needs a unanimous 3 - 0 vote, or denial, or roll over to the next Regular Meeting. Staff further explained how Vice Chairman Hamerly is not present and there is a vacancy on the Commission.





A motion was made by Commissioner Scott and seconded by Chairman Haller to:



1. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program and instruct the Secretary to file a Notice of Determination; and,



2. Approve Resolution Number 006-013 adopting Conditional Use Permit 04-003 and associated Findings of Fact to permit Calvary Chapel of San Bernardino to construct and operate a Church and related accessary uses and structures, subject to the Conditions of Approval, as amended with the following:



Added Planning Condition of Approval



40. Construction equipment (i.e. bottom loaders, tractors, backhoes, dump trucks, etc.) shall be serviced / maintained during daylight hours only. Night time maintenance of construction equipment is prohibited.





Added verbiage to Mitigation Measure N6



N6 Any equipment that might be brought to the Amphitheater from outside presenters will also be required to comply with the restrictions in this Measure.





















Revised Engineering Conditions of Approval



11. Construct interim improvements to connect the proposed drive isles to the existing Greenspot Road improvements, as approved by the City Engineer. Widen existing pavement to provide left turn lanes and install interim street lights at project entrances. Install traffic signage and pavement striping as required by the City Engineer. Upon the City's completion of the Greenspot Road capital improvement project, construct street improvements across the Greenspot Road frontage including, but not limited to, curb and gutter located 40 feet northerly of street centerline, a raised curb landscaped median, match-up asphalt concrete pavement, class II aggregate base, and 6-foot curb adjacent sidewalk. Utilize 20-foot minimum curb return radii at the project entrances. Place the full structural section at the time of the paving operation. Prior to first building occupancy, submit bonds to guarantee construction of ultimate street improvements on Green Spot Road.



12. Install a striped east bound left turn and deceleration lanes on Greenspot Road at the westerly project entrances. The length of the bay taper, and left turn and deceleration lane shall be as approved by the City Engineer. Remove conflicting striping and apply type II slurry seal the full street width within the limits of re-striping.



23. Apply to the City to annex the project into an assessment district for maintenance of frontage landscaping and the community trail. Sign ballots prepared by the City agreeing to the annexation and amounts of assessment. The City will maintain the landscaped median using assessment proceedings. The City will maintain the frontage landscaping within the right-of-way and landscape easements using assessment proceedings only if the level of maintenance provided by the property owner is deemed inadequate by the City.





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



Staff explained the Commission's action on the proposed Project can be appealed within ten (10) calendar days.





Note: The Commission recessed at 8:28 p.m. and reconvened at 8:41 p.m. with Commissioners Gamboa, Scott and Chairman Haller present.









4.2 An Application by the Victoria Development Company requesting approval of: (1) Conditional Use Permit 05-002, a Multi-tenant, Commercial Retail, Office and Hotel development including two Freeway-oriented Community Business Signs, and (2) Conditional Use Permit 06-003 / Alcohol Beverage Control Application 05-001 for on-sale licenses at two Restaurants and Hotel. The proposed Project is an 12.29 acre site is located on the southeast corner of Highland Avenue and Boulder Avenue. Assessor Parcel Numbers: 1200-081-01 and 03. Representative: Eric Jennings, Sr., Victoria Development Company



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



Economic Development Specialist Stater gave the presentation from the Staff Report. She explained the description of the proposed Project, Plot Plan and stated the Applicant has a power point presentation they would like to present to the Commission. She further explained the issues regarding parking / traffic and how a Parking Study was prepared, the installation of a Traffic signal, noise both on-site and off-site, visual aspects and Staff's proposed Conditions of Approval (COAs). Economic Development Specialist Stater stated how the retaining walls will be higher and will be reviewed by the Design Review Board and the City received one (1) comment letter regarding visual effects and traffic. She further explained a flag test had been conducted for the proposed Freeway signage, indicated the Applicant was in the audience, concluded her presentation recommending approval of the proposed Project.



Chairman Haller asked if there were any other questions of Staff. Hearing none, he then asked if the Applicant would like to make his power point presentation.



Mr. Eric Jennings, 26569 Community Center Drive, Highland, California, of the Victoria Development Company, and who is the Applicant, addressed the Commission. He stated it has been great working with City Staff, has read and is amenable with the Staff Report. With regards to the retaining wall issues, he will look at it and will address them in order to gain compliance. He explained the proposed Freeway Signage and ABC License classifications on Pad 3, Pad 6 for a restaurant and the proposed Hotel. Mr. Jennings then proceeded with the power point presentation. He explained the Site location and what is proposed to be constructed on the Pads, the location of the Municipal Water District Line, the Earthquake Fault setbacks, the change in elevations, the cluster design, panoramic view, Hotel design, Professional Offices design, proposed Pad 5 Building, proposed Pad 6 Building, as well as the proposed Pad 3 line-of-sight and Photo Simulation, Mr. Jennings requested the Commission approve the CUP Application and will answer any questions the Commission may have.



Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had questions of the Applicant.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Jennings and Staff regarding the proposed Freeway signage for the viewability and the height flown for the Flag Test that was conducted on May 16, 2006, as well as what transpired on-site of the proposed Project, and the feasibility of potentially raising the height of the proposed sound wall. Mr. Jennings explained that he also had concerns about the proposed Freeway sign located on the southwest of the property, the proposed sound wall, as well as the proposed Signage at the overpass / entrance to the Project. He stated how he took photographs and then explained the differences between the two (2) proposed Freeway Signs. Lighting for the proposed Freeway Signs was also discussed.



Further discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Jennings and Staff regarding why the Applicant is requesting an Alcohol Beverage Control (ABC) License(s) for the proposed Project, how the License would be granted for use and location for the potential tenant and would "lock" the License(s) in place and would be a selling point. Staff added the License(s) would be an embellishment for the proposed Project and for the Commission to consider the License(s) from a Land Use perspective. Staff explained the process regarding a potential Lessee requesting an ABC License. The Lessee is reviewed by the City, Highland Police Department, etc. and how Planning has to "sign off" on Planning Zoning issues and can be brought to the Commission. Staff further explained to the Commission how the ABC License(s) would run with the Land Use, along with the Conditional Use Permit.



There being no further discussion or questions of the Applicant or Staff, Chairman Haller then opened the Public Hearing and asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak on the item. Since there were no speakers on the Item or testimony, Chairman Haller closed the Public Hearing and opened the floor for discussion amongst the Commissioners.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the issues with the number of parking spaces (proposed is 731; minimum is 675; come up with a percentage number, or the feasibility of the Applicant installing 700), the possible flexibility with on-site pedestrian movement. Staff asked the Commission if it was comfortable with the Parking Study number for the parking spaces, and if not, should there be additional spaces, and what number should it be.



Mr. Dan Serrano, of Mooney, Jones and Stokes, 9903 Business Park Avenue, San Diego, California, who is the Applicant's Environmental Consultant, addressed the Commission. He stated how the Parking Analysis identified the number of vehicles and the how the parking is adequate.



Staff responded the number in the Analysis is 675 and there is a variety of peak times and/or demand for the parking spaces.









Mr. Serrano responded indicating there are scattered times and whether or not the time is during the week day or weekend and requested with the flexibility, to reduce the number of parking spaces.



Staff asked the Applicant regarding vacancy factors in the Hotel and Office Space. The Applicant responded the factor in occupancy factor for the Office Space is 65% - 70% and the occupancy factor for the Hotel is the demand for allowance for offset (off season) versus overnight versus during the day. Staff then asked if the Commission had a comfort level with this.



A question was asked regarding if Mitigation Measure 4 impacts for the State Route 30. Staff responded the Project impact estimates the average daily trips (ADT), in/out usage and the 330 volume on the Freeway, and Staff then explained how the improvements are made and how Staff is preparing a nexus study, if someone asks for further information.



Mr. Mohammed Rowther, who is the Shared Parking Analysis Consultant, addressed the Commission. He stated how he had researched different kinds of uses / demands and if complimentary to the proposed Project and further indicated this is typical of a mixed use development.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the feasibility of adding an additional COA to be more specific for noise made from HVAC units and also how a ten foot (10') high wall is inconsistent with the Noise Mitigation Measure No. 3. The Applicant's Consultant responded the Mitigation Measure for the Noise Study looked at different HVAC units on the roof and consider the COA similar to others in the City with utilizing a parapet(s), screening, noise, etc. Staff stated an additional COA and how the HVAC units will be enclosed. Staff added how Planning COA No. 30 could also be expanded.



Mr. Rowther reiterated how the shared parking issue has been read into the record and how the City's Municipal Code allows a percentage of up to thirty percent (30%) below the Code.



Further discussion ensued regarding the Fire COA No. 37 and the fire apparatus prior to Certificate of Occupancy, during construction versus prior to the Certificate of Occupancy to the Hotel or Office Building was also discussed. Staff suggested to revise the verbiage to state prior to issuance of Building Permit.



The Commission requested the Parking Finding in the proposed Resolution be added on Page 10, Last Paragraph; clarification of the Sign add as additional to Section 3 - Finding of Fact No. G, and; Page 2 of Attachment "A" stating twenty-five feet (25') above the adjacent grade.













Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Jennings and Staff regarding the height of the proposed Sign height and addressing it in the proposed Resolution. Staff had suggested using the Photo Simulation for the Design Review Board. The Commission was concerned about the Sign height without further analysis. Staff suggested the Applicant hold off for additional time, or conduct another Flag Test(s) with another twenty-five feet (25') of Sign pilasters which is aesthetically unpleasant and not true representation of the Sign. Mr. Jennings responded how the Signs were approved in principle with the Design Review Board. Staff stated how the Commission has to determine the height of the Sign.



Further discussion ensued regarding conducting another Flag Test(s). Mr. Jennings stated the issue is the northeast Sign and not conducting a Flag Test; just look at the scale architecturally. Staff responded with the Existing Photo Simulation rendering, reconsider the design and is nervous because of signs on Base Line. Either the Sign is too tall or not tall enough for a Freeway Sign; the Signs bring value to the Site, but not the Sign height and with the pilasters (legs) being taller.



Mr. Henry Wong, of Perkowitz & Ruth Architects, 600 Anton Boulevard, Sixteenth Floor, Costa Mesa, California, who is the Applicant's Architect, addressed the Commission. He stated there are two (2) issues for "effectiveness" (success) for the proposed Project located adjacent to the Freeway: 1) the architectural design needs to be a stand alone Project, and; 2) the need for the Freeway Signs to be reviewed separately.



Staff recapped the revised verbiage for the Conditions of Approval for the Fire Department and Conditions of Approval for Planning Division, as well as the proposed Resolution 06-014 and Attachment "A" for CUP 05-002. The Commission added using a minimum of the Photo Simulation and return to the Commission for an overall height of the Freeway Signs. Staff stated how the Commission can approve the proposed Project with factors and/or approve in part, without the Freeway Signs. In addition, both the Commission and Staff said how the Commission can also approve the Project and continue the Public Hearing in part regarding the Freeway Signage to July 5, 2006, in that there will be a quorum and the Applicant was amenable to the continuance of the Public Hearing for the Freeway Signage.



The Applicant's Engineering Consultant commented on the Freeway Sign that it is located in an urban area; will be visible in adjacent neighborhoods and is not a significant impact. Staff responded how Staff does not disagree with the Applicant on the aesthetics or the environmental issues.



The Commission responded it wanted to be ensured that it wants it correct for the City.









There being no further questions of Staff, or discussion amongst the Commission, Chairman Haller then called for the question.



A motion was made by Commissioner Gamboa and seconded by Commissioner Scott to:





1. Adopt the Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program and direct the Secretary to file a Notice of Determination;



2. Adopt Resolution 06-014 to Approve Conditional Use Permit 05-002, subject to the Conditions of Approval, as amended with the following:





Planning COAs



No.3 The location of each Sign shall be in keeping with the approved Site Plan, attached as Exhibit "A".



No. 11 The Sign Program shall be submitted to the Design Review Board for review and approval. The Design Review Board shall review aesthetic elements of the Signs such as Elevations, Exterior Materials Treatment and Colors.



No.30 All rooftop and ground mounted mechanical equipment shall be screened completely from public view and provide sufficient visual and noise mitigation.



Mitigation Measure



No. 13 Permanent automobile parking spaces shall be paved with asphalt, or concrete and painted with clearly painted lines. A minimum of 700 parking spaces shall be provided.



Fire COAs



No. 10 Non-Standard: Developer shall provide apparatus capable of aerial fire suppression and rescue services (through means approved by the Fire Department required for fire and life safety considerations of the proposed Project.

















Resolution No. 06-014



Section 3. Findings of Fact



G. Freeway-oriented Freestanding Business Signs shall not exceed a height of twenty-five feet (25') above the adjacent Freeway grade.





3. Adopt the associated Findings of Fact;





4. Adopt Resolution 06-015 to Approve Conditional Use Permit 06-003 / Alcohol Beverage Control Application 05-001, subject to the Conditions of Approval and associated Findings of Fact;



and;



To continue the Public Hearing portion regarding the proposed Freeway Signs to July 5, 2006.





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





5.0 LEGISLATIVE





There were no items.





6.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS



Staff explained the items scheduled for the June 20 and July 5, 2006, Design Review Board and Planning Commission Meetings.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding to having a Commissioner fill in on an interim basis for former Commissioner Birnbaum's position on the DRB. Commissioner Gamboa offered his services to fill in until the City Council appoints a new Commission Member.













Staff explained there will be an Ethics Training regarding AB 1234 for the City's Boards, Committees, Commission and City Council and has a deadline of December 31, 2006. City Clerk Hughes is conducting research on this and the feasibility of doing it online.



Community Development Director Hartmann advised the Commission this is his last PC Meeting, and again, thanked the Commission Members for their years of hard work and dedication to the City. He further stated the City will by advertising his position in approximately three - four months. The Commission thanked Community Development Director Hartmann for all of his input and wished him well and good luck in his future endeavors.





7.0 ADJOURN





There being no further business, Chairman Haller declared the meeting adjourned at 9:58 p.m.







Submitted by: Approved by:









Linda McKeough, Rich 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