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

MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

SEPTEMBER 19, 2006







1.0 CALL TO ORDER



The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Highland was called to order at 6:03 p.m. by Chairman Haller at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.



Present: Commissioners John Gamboa, Bob Moore, Vice Chairman Randall Hamerly and Chairman Richard Haller



Absent: Commissioner R. Paul Scott



Staff Present:Roger Derda, Interim Community Development Director

Lawrence A. Mainez, City Planner (arrived at 6:15 p.m.)

Sean Kelleher, Assistant Planner

Ernie Wong, City Engineer

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



There were no items.



















4.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS



4.1 CUP 006-005: The establishment of Massage Booths, as part of Surreal Salon and Day Spa. The property is located at 7920 Webster Street on the southwest corner of Webster and Boulder Avenue. APN: 1201-361-27. Representatives: JoAnna Weck (Surreal Salon and Day Spa) Dr. Frank Zizzo (Property Owner). (Continued from September 5, 2006, Planning Commission Hearing).



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



Interim Community Development Director Derda gave the presentation from the Staff Report, which included, but not limited to the historical background of the proposed use; the Conditions of Approvals (COAs) and the time frame for meeting the COAs; Staff met with the Applicant and Property Owner and was provided with a Draft / strike out of Administrative COAs located as Pages 4 and 5 of the Staff Report; Staff's rationale of the COAs, the property is an existing legal, non-conforming use; the CUP Application is incidental and accessory to the Beauty Salon; is a rough proportionality and Staff's intention / attempt to the proposed Application in meeting the City's Code requirements, but still allow flexibility of the COAs i.e. landscaping, trash enclosure, light standards. He further explained the rationale and revisions to Planning COAs Nos. 9, 11 and 19 and to delete Planning COAs Nos. 17, 18 and 20. Interim Community Development Director Derda further explained the four (4) large existing light standards be removed in sixty (60) days, even though the Property Owner does not embrace that requirement; the emphasis was "compromise" language, it is a recommendation only and it's up to the Commission if it wants to add, modify or make deletions; he then concluded his presentation and indicated Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Project.



Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the requirement of the Property Owner to remove the four (4) large existing light standards in sixty (60) days and the feasibility of compromising for security purposes; unsure if the current existing light standards are adequate; and the proposed Project includes the dirt area.



Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any further questions of Staff. Hearing none, he then continued the opened the continued Public Hearing and asked if the Applicant would like to make a presentation.



Mr. Frank Zizzo, 3661 Palm Crest Drive, Highland, California, who is the Property Owner, addressed the Commission. He stated how Staff had worked hard with him and made significant progress; parking / security lights will do that in six (6) months; with the four (4) large existing light standards, he would need a crane to remove them - the lights are not operable and parking in that area is not obtrusive; Staff







wants him to integrate with Mission Development; will take major equipment to remove existing items i.e. wall; has spent "thousands of dollars" now and won't do in one (1) year, or until when Mission Development develops.



Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any questions of the Property Owner or Staff.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding if the four (4) large existing light standards are inoperable, why take them down and Staff responded they are unsightly. A comment was made by a Commissioner if the Applicant here meets the landscaping, parking, security lighting then there is the feasibility of reasonably deferring. Staff responded affirmatively, if the Commission desires to postpone.



There being no further discussion or questions of the Property Owner or Staff, Chairman Haller then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak on the item. Hearing none, and 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 the proposed COAs; there were concerns regarding the development of Mission Development's project and the feasibility of it falling through and not being satisfied with the end product; the Commission wanting the four (4) large existing light standards to be removed;



(Note: City Planner Mainez arrived at 6:15 p.m.)



Discussion continued regarding the existing light standards and wall would have to be removed if Mission Development's project would be developed; when / what would the time frame be for the items that would need to be removed if there is nothing but existing dirt would be sixty (60) days and the feasibility of granting one extension; the Commission evaluated the time frame if the Applicant is unable to comply with the COA. The Commission then commended Staff for its efforts.



The following are comments by the Commission: 1) can amend the COA, but what would trigger COA No. 1 as it is a minor point; 2) the Applicant would still need to comply with the Code even though it is a grey area within the Code; 3) the Applicant needs to make the improvements and supports Staff's recommendation; 4) the feasibility of the Applicant may be able to do the parking lot at the same time; 5) deviate from consistency / improvements for construction of activity; 6) the contractor's availability and keeping the time frame at sixty (60) days; 7) not a problem with Staff's recommendation, and; 8) extend the time frame.











The Commission revised the time frame from sixty (60) days to 180 days.



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





A motion was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Commissioner Gamboa to approve Resolution Number 06 - 018 adopting Conditional Use Permit 006-005, and associated Findings of Fact, as modified with the following:



Planning COAs



10.e. (NS) The temporary parking lot, construction / improvement plans shall be submitted to the Planning Division and Building and Safety Division for plan check prior to occupancy of Massage Booths. Said parking lot construction / improvements shall be installed within one-hundred-eighty (180) days from the issuance of the parking lot construction / improvement permits (if applicable).



11. (NS) All existing light standards established for the former and now abandoned race track, shall be removed within one-hundred eighty (180) days of the approval of this Conditional Use Permit. Applicable Building and Safety Permits shall be obtained prior to removal of said lighting standards.



And to permit the establishment of two (2) Massage Booths, as part of a Beauty Salon and Day Spa use located at 7290 Webster.





Motion carried on a 4 - 0 vote with Member Scott absent.





Chairman Haller explained the Commission's action on the proposed Project can be appealed within ten (10) calendar days. He again commended Staff for its efforts and thanked the Applicant and Property Owner for theirs.























4.2 CUP006-006 - The establishment of on-site sale and consumption of beer and wine for "Sushi Mac" Restaurant (Type 41 State Department of Alcohol and Beverage Control (ABC)). The proposed Project is located within the Highland Village Plaza at the northeast corner of the intersection of Base Line and Boulder Avenue. The address is 7243 Boulder Avenue. APN: 1200-501-04-P-002. Representative: Kyung Ja Hong.



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



Assistant Planner Kelleher gave the presentation from the Staff Report, which included, but not limited to the historical background of the proposed Application on the Type 41 ABC License and the on- and off-site sale of beer and wine; the Census Tract is over concentrated and will be number 6; indicated the Applicant is in the audience, concluded his presentation and indicated Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Project.



Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff. Hearing none, he then opened the Public Hearing and asked if the Applicant would like to make a presentation.



Ms. Karen Hong, 7243 Boulder Avenue, Highland, California, who is the co-Applicant, addressed the Commission. She stated Assistant Planner Kelleher did a fine job on her behalf.



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



There were none.



There being no further discussion or questions of the Applicant or Staff, Chairman Haller then asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak on the item. Hearing none, and 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 noted there was no exhibit showing the Census Tracts, i.e. Mia Cocina, San Manuel Band of Mission Indians Project, i.e. of the over concentration; Staff clarified the Census Tract is established by population in 2000 and the population has grown over in six (6) years, Staff is of the opinion that the Census Tracts will be divided in 2010.



Comments were made by Commissioners how the proposed Project is geographically appropriate and supports the Application, Findings of Fact and the concentration of the ABC Licenses. There being no further comments or testimony, Chairman Haller called for the question.





A motion was made by Commissioner Gamboa and seconded by Vice Chairman Hamerly to approve Resolution Number 006-019 adopting Conditional Use Permit 006-006 and associated Findings of Fact to permit the establishment of on-site sale and consumption of beer and wine for "Sushi Mac" Restaurant (Type 41 ABC License) located at 7243 Boulder Avenue.



Motion carried on a 4 - 0 vote with Commissioner Scott absent.



4.3 Tentative Tract Map 17668 (TTM 006-001); A proposed thirty-six (36) lot residential subdivision comprising eleven (11) parcels totaling 9.37 acres. The location is eleven (11) parcels of land combined to form a 9.37 acre site bordered by Highland Palms Health Care to the north, Cypress Street to the south, existing single family residences to the west, and Palm Avenue to the east. Ninth Street runs through the center of the Project. APN's: 1192-461-17, 20, 21, 22; 1192-481-02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 1192-481-07, 09, 12. Representative: Lockwood Engineering.



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



Assistant Planner Kelleher gave the presentation from the Staff Report; he explained the proposed Subdivision is bisected by Ninth Street and the layout of the proposed Project. He further indicated both Applicant and his Representative are in the audience; concluded his presentation and indicated Staff is recommending approval of the proposed Project.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff the number of proposed lots for homes and Lot "A" and the Applicant is requesting to discuss with the Commission.



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.



Mr. Stan Stringfellow, 326 West Arrow Highway, San Dimas, California, who is the Applicant, addressed the Commission. He thanked Staff and how the Application was processed in a timely manner and Staff was cooperative; it has been a pleasure to create this proposed Project and was originally going to be apartments, but now homes are proposed; how he had acquired the property approximately four (4) years ago; there is an existing dilapidated house on the property that vagrants have been living in it and will be abated / razed; there have been concerns with Staff and with the water flow / drainage in that a portion flows eastwardly towards Cypress, and Ninth and cul-de-sac flows towards Ninth Street when the water treatment flows in a westerly direction; further explained in detail the location of the











storm drain versus the water shed / runoff relative to the proposed Project. Mr. Stringfellow suggested the possibility of leaving Lot 36 as is and utilizing it as a drainage lot with a Landscaping Easement over it and have the water treated at another time, or in perpetuity; Lot 36 would be better to retain the watershed in the proposed Project and Staff appeared to be in agreement with Mr. Stangfellow's suggestion.



Mr. Stringfellow was concerned about the COA requiring the demolition of a well between Lots 25 / 26 and suggested the parcel of ground should be deeded to them; he stated the previous property owners had placed the property into a Trust and the owner has now been deceased for ten (10) years and explained he should have the deed shortly. He explained how the fence around the property and along Palm Avenue is an eyesore and the location of the gutter runs across Palm Avenue and the abandoned well.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Stringfellow and Staff regarding Engineering COA No. 29 and Planning COA No. 24.



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



Mr. Carlton Lockwood, 380 West Foothill Boulevard, Rialto, California, addressed the Commission. He explained the Drainage Easement over the Lot and explained the dedication process of the Lot process regarding Engineering COA No. 6, verbiage and then asked about the retention basin and how water is standing there all the time.



Staff responded and showed on the displayed Map Staff's proposal of not grading the Lot as a basin and leave at grade level, landscaped and open for the neighborhood to use. Staff further explained the Lot would then be an open space lot basin and the water treatment would go underground and filtered by seepage process through / with perforated pipes. The proposed COAs is a concept derived to eliminate the basin, build something nice and not be a liability; similar to what is constructed under a parking lot and that Staff hasn't seen one built, but is being built by other developments in other communities.



Comments were made by the Commission regarding Engineering COA No. 6 regarding the Water Quality Management District (WQMD) if the goal is to treat the Subdivision prior to the storm drain system; if graded flat will treat the water shed only and divert the treatment. Staff responded the proposed Tract Map shows two (2) catch basins on Ninth Street and by "A" Street; and suggested revised verbiage for Engineering COA No. 26.









Discussion ensued regarding revised verbiage for Engineering COAs Nos. 25 and 26, Planning COAs Nos. 8 and 19, as well as in the proposed Resolution.



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



Mr. Joseph Livermore, 7555 Drummond, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated that he resides next to the proposed Lots 3 / 4 (northeast corner of the Project) and asked about grading and how high will the (Tract) wall be; was concerned there would be a block retaining wall located at the property line than a gap between the wall and his property. Mr. Livermore then thanked the Commission.



Both the Commission and Staff responded as proposed, there could be both a six foot (6') Tract boundary wall and a seven foot to eight foot (7' - 8') retention wall stepped and would be located on the Developer's property.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Mr. Lockwood and Staff regarding grading, the retaining wall being two feet (2') and the screening wall being six feet (6') located at the northwest corner and south of Ninth Street; there is no cross lot drainage, and the landscaping would be located on the stepped wall and a private easement would need to be granted from the homeowners as would be using the stepped wall for landscaping; the irrigation for the property owner install irrigation by the property owner and would be a Design Review Board (DRB) issue in how a sleeve would be located in the wall to stub out for accessibility.



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



There were none.



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



Ms. Nancy Miller, 7663 Drummond, Highland, California, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. She stated she is 66 years old and resides at the end of the stepped wall. She stated the new homeowner / property owner should maintain the wall; she will not be responsible if an earthquake comes and will not sign anything; she does not want to weed the wall or climb on top of it, etc.



Staff responded the stepped wall will be located within the Tract - behind the wall of the Subdivision; the existing neighbors will be looking at it; the Applicant has been working with the neighbors; reiterated the wall is a stepped wall; with the neighbors on how to resolve the problem lies with the Developer.











Discussion ensued between the Commission, Ms. Miller and Staff regarding property owners and who will maintain the landscaping; easements; fence placement is a design issue for the existing neighbors purview. Staff explained the design issue is atypical; the Developer has gone to the property owners and still needs to go to the DRB; the retaining wall and grading was for the Commission's information; there are many issues that still need to be worked out and is seen as an unresolved issue. Ms. Miller stated how she went over to see the tract home that are being constructed on Church Street; that tract's six foot (6') fence and could not see past the six foot (6') fence. She asked if that tract developer grade it down to five feet (5') above grade and added the dirt placed in that field is not good quality dirt.



Chairman Haller asked if anyone else would like to speak on the item. Seeing none, Chairman Haller asked Mr. Stringfellow if he had any final comments.



Mr. Stringfellow stated he has made a diligent effort to work with the existing property owners (in the neighborhood) on the proposed Project and sometimes solutions are not easy; the document sent around was a licensed agreement to go onto the property owner's property and build the wall; has talked with most neighbors and most are agreeable and will make every effort to work with the neighbors; the stepped wall will not be imposing; will view the landscaping; the high wall along the southwest side of the Project is a concern with him; the Highland Meadows project (on Church Street) the neighbors put the wall on the property line and on their yards; the tall retaining walls are difficult and not always a great solution; has not worked out the Maintenance Agreement or the Easement Agreement and if the property owner does not want landscaping, or weeds.



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



Discussion ensued in general of the COAs and Resolution to change to a 35 Lot Subdivision and Lot "36" would become Lot "A", and change in general the COAs for the above revision and deletion of Planning COA No. 8. A comment was made the DRB will have its hand full, along with water quality issues.



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



A motion was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Commissioner Gamboa to:



1. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and instruct the Secretary to file the Notice of Determination; and













2. Adopt Resolution 06-020 approving Tentative Tract Map 17668 (TTM 006-001), all subject to the Mitigation Measures, Recommended Conditions of Approval, as amended with the following:



In general, change the number of Lots of the Subdivision from 35 to 36 throughout the COAs and proposed Resolution.



Engineering COAs



No. 6 Construct an underground water quality infiltration within Lot 36 and grade the entire Lot to drain directly to the adjacent streets, or an alternate water quality treatment facility, as approved by the City Engineer. Install landscaping, as approved by the City Planner and Design Review Board.



No. 26 Dedicate an exclusive drainage and landscape easement over the entire Lot 36 to the City for maintenance of the water quality treatment facility and landscaping improvements.



Planning COAs



Delete No. 8 Lot "36" (BMP Basin) shall be renamed to Lot "A" prior to recording of the Final Map and conveyed to the City of Highland.



No. 19 A City Landscape Maintenance District (LMD), shall be provided on Lot "36" (renamed to Lot "A", consistent with Planning Condition No. 8).



and;



3. Adopt the Findings of Fact.



Motion carried on a 4 - 0 vote with Commissioner Scott absent.























5.0 LEGISLATIVE



5.1 DCI 006-004: A Request for Development Code Interpretation of a proposed Ceramic and Craft Studio / School and Supply use within the Office Professional Zoning District located on Palm Avenue south of the City's Historic District. The location is within the City's Office Professional Zoning District. App.: Laverne Goodreau.



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



City Planner Mainez gave the presentation from the Staff Report; he explained the use to the Commission, which included, educational institutions; for the record, the Applicant has talked with the Planning Division; he indicated the Applicant is in the audience then concluded his presentation.



Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding if the proposed Interpretation would be City-wide.



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



Ms. Laverne Goodreau, 1431 Eucalyptus Drive, Highland, California, who is the Applicant, addressed the Commission. She explained the proposed location is adjacent Church building and that she teaches ceramics that would be advantageous to the City and community; there would be no outside landscaping, she conducts activities with children and would be able to purchase supplies at the location; her husband would be able to work on-site; this would be an investment loan and paying taxes for the City of Highland and considers this to be a win / win situation both for her and the City; the Building would be maintained inside / out and Ms. Goodreau added she does Church camp at the Church.



A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding what types of activities does Ms. Goodreau do. Ms. Goodreau responded she has kilns, teaches ceramics and other classes and provide certificates, fires items, has other crafts supplies / mediums; the only other crafts stores in the area are JoAnns and Michaels located in Redlands.



Further discussion ensued between the Commission, Ms. Goodreau and Staff regarding whether or not the facility located at 6979 Palm Avenue (former Frank's Furniture) would fit into an Office / Professional environment designation.













A comment was made by a Commissioner he agrees with the proposal, but the compatibility is light manufacturing with the use of a kiln and generates a lot of heat in an Office / Professional use, and it does not fit with other similar situations a provided an example of a person may be teaching welding, but someone might be running an accounting business next door. Ms. Goodreau responded the Church has three (3) sections - there is no office building there and she can run the kiln at home; she explained the kiln is small in size and limits the amount of items that can be fired and added both her and her husband can run the kiln.



A question was asked by a Commissioner if the Applicant had looked at other locations for business. Ms. Goodreau responded she does not want to take out a home equity loan and find something else. If she rents an area where the Highland Area Chamber of Commerce is located on Palm Avenue, that would be rent only and she needs to invest; the business is a small family-run business; the children can let their imagination go and can be creative in their items; reiterated the City has lost crafts stores to other areas; the property / facility is not far from the Applicant's home; there is adequate parking in the back; the Applicant took maps and drove around the City and Staff has told her the use is "not permitted" and that a CUP Application is needed.



A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the Commission making a determination within an Office / Professional Zone could do similar uses and how the Commission needs to make that determination. Ms. Goodreau responded she understands that and then explained the surrounding uses in the area to the Commission; Ms. Goodreau tried in San Bernardino, but did not feel she was safe there.



Staff stated the General Plan Vision wants certain business uses to create synergy; Bakers Drive-Thru Restaurant will be developing a larger development on Base Line and Palm Avenue; physicians, lawyers, art galleries, more retail are not permitted for that use and that barber / beauty colleges by Right-of-Zone and the Applicant is proposing something similar, but art studios, art supplies are also a similar use, but there are chemical issues.



Discussion ensued between the Commission, Ms. Goodreau and Staff regarding one of the preferred uses is art galleries and the feasibility of pottery making being an ancillary use. The studio / gallery is a retail business; a question was asked if the artist is giving instructions to teach i.e. jewelry, ceramics - then is it a gallery use or a studio use. City Planner Mainez asked for Interim Community Development Director Derda's input and then said what is a primary use - is a discretion call or a small aspect of the use not creating an impact and be acceptable for reproduction of art and look at the primary use and function.











The following are comments were made by Commissioners: the primary use is a community service activity and is instruction, the Applicant would be firing the kilns up at night; is a low occupancy and is a better fit with use; is instructional and there is also a Century 21 conducting evening classes in the area.



Interim Community Development Director Derda added he was not here when the City's General Plan was developed and is a long term basis the Commission can rely on; the nexus / spirit and made a Development Code Amendment; is a Policy related item and that City Planner Mainez has done a good job.



A question was asked if the facility / property was just outside of the Historic District. Staff responded what properties are located within / out of the Historic District and that Staff has not done enough for the Applicant and recommends to the Commission and the Applicant to provide more time for Staff to research for a location or other provisions in the Code; there is a lot of planning activity for development for the next year or two; City Planner Mainez volunteered his services to assist her to possibly find another location, from an economic standpoint.



Chairman Haller asked Staff if the use is appropriate in the Office / Professional Zone and he felt it was not; he has gone through the General Plan Update process and does not envision that use i.e. welding not in a Office / Professional Zone; hoped that Staff can solve and find a "home" for the Applicant.



Vice Chairman Hamerly stated how some uses dove tail with certain other areas i.e. the scenario of residents living upstairs and their business (use) is located downstairs.



Staff added there is incompatibility within the Zoning Designation i.e. metal sculpture using blow torches and is it a gallery with art definition; usually art galleries are with pictures, canvas painting and not fabrication.



Ms. Goodreau responded how she appreciates Staff's offer in attempting to find her another location; the Church is located on one end and explained rental process to the Board and establishing her business; reiterated there is a large parking lot; if required, she would be open in the evenings and fire the items at her home and not at the Church; reiterated the business is not overwhelming for her, is a healthy environment and she would be able to handle; does not want to locate to Redlands and will do whatever it takes.



















Discussion ensued between the Commission, Ms. Goodreau and Staff regarding how Staff is willing to work with the Applicant; suggested Ms. Goodreau modify the Application and iron out the differences; by Right-of-Zone is a permitted use; could fit her business into a school definition; could be a CUP and what that entails and may be looked at as a discouragement to economic development; the feasibility of having a liaison officer to work from the Chamber of Commerce to work with the Applicant and Staff and have the officer know the CUP Application process; as an ambitious endeavor, have the Chamber of Commerce nurture this similar to the massage project located on Webster Street. Staff responded point well taken from the Commission with human resources constraints, agreed it is an ambitious endeavor and Staff will contact the Chamber of Commerce for a possible new location.



There being no further comments or testimony, or questions of the Applicant or Staff, Chairman Haller called for the question.





A motion was made by Commissioner Gamboa and seconded by Vive Chairman Hamerly confirming Staff's determination that a Ceramic and Craft Studio / School and Supply use is not a permitted use in the Office Professional Zoning District. In addition, willing to work with the Applicant a new siting is available for the Office / Professional Zone.



Discussion ensued what transpires now and the Application processing; and the Applicant has an option to appeal the Commission's determination to City Council.



Motion carried on a 4 - 0 vote with Commissioner Scott absent.





6.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS



Staff explained the items scheduled for the October 3, and 17, Regular Meetings; the Commission needs to contact the City Clerk for reservations for the Ethics Training in Yucaipa on November 16, 2006.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the status of the new Fire Marshall's duties and the difficulty of the Commission is having in order to obtain the Agenda packets. City Planner Mainez offered he would hand deliver the Packets until December, 2006, and would also advise the Design Review Board Members. It was City Planner Mainez's hope to find a solution before the end of December.













Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the Standard Conditions of Approval for the Right Elevation allowing the DRB flexibility for the normal approach and the language of the COA allows that flexibility when the Planning Commission indicated how the COA states one-story units on corner lots..



7.0 ADJOURN



There being no further business Chairman Haller declared the meeting adjourned at 7:58 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