MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

APRIL 15, 2008





1.0 CALL TO ORDER

The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Highland was called to order at 6:02 p.m. by Chairman Haller at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.



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



Absent: None



Staff Present:John Jaquess, Community Development Director

Ernie Wong, City Engineer

Dennis Barton, Assistant Public Works Director

Lawrence A. Mainez, City Planner

Bruce Meikle, Senior Planner

Sean Kelleher, Assistant Planner

Linda McKeough, Administrative Assistant III



The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Chairman Haller.





2.0 COMMUNITY INPUT

There was none.





3.0 CONSENT CALENDAR



3.1 Minutes of March 18, 2008, Regular Meeting.



A Motion was made by Commissioner Gamboa and seconded by Vice Chairman Hamerly to approve the Minutes of March 18, 2008, as submitted.



Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.





4.0 PUBLIC HEARINGS

Prior to the Meeting, a Petition and a Letter were submitted by Mr. Shin and Ms. Guadanoli, respectively and were distributed to the Commission for consideration.

4.1 An Application submitted by a Mr. Young Shin for a General Plan Amendment (GPA 007-001), to Amend General Plan Chapter 2, Land Use Element, to allow Drive-through type commercial uses and structures in a larger area of the City's Town Center Community Policy Area. The ten (10) neighboring properties within the General Plan Designated Town Center Community Policy Area. The properties are located along the south side of Base Line extending between Palm Avenue on the west to State Route 30/ 210 Freeway on the east. (APN's:1201-011-01, -08, -09, -22, -23, -24, & -25 and 1201-051-14, -16, -17.) REPRESENTATIVE: Mr. Young Shin, Applicant (Continued from the April 1, 2008, Planning Commission Regular Meeting.)

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

Community Development Director Jaquess explained at the previous Public Hearing, this Item was continued, he indicated the Commission could take further testimony at this Continued Public Hearing, and the Commission had directed Staff to prepare a Resolution for Denial of the Application. He further stated the Commission is not obligated to reopen the Resolution, if the Commission desires, and advised the Commission the Application is scheduled for Public Hearing at the April 22, 2008, City Council Regular Meeting and further public testimony could taken at that time.

Chairman Haller asked what is the Commission's desire.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding if there were any speakers in the audience, and how Staff and the Commission received the submitted documents today.

Further discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the wording of Staff's recommendation for the Commission's consideration. A question was asked about Staff's primary rationale, but comments were made by Commissioners wanting to reaffirm the Vision, Goals and Policies of the Town Center and asked shouldn't the recommendation to the City Council affirm the Vision, Goals and Policies of the Town Center, as part of the General Plan. Staff asked if the Commission questioned the title of the proposed Resolution. A Commissioner responded how the Commission wants the Resolution to clarify and reaffirm the Commission's Findings. Staff responded the Commission needs to act on the General Plan Amendment Application inclusive of the Resolution and Findings. Staff added by the Commission adopting the Resolution, the Commission is saying the Resolution is okay and advised how the proposed Resolution is on Pages 20 - 23 of the Staff Report.

Comments were made by the Commissioners if any proposed comments on the Resolution Sections B.2.b and B.2.c would characterize the Commission's intent to Staff. Other comments made by the Commission indicated Nos. 9 and 10 summarizes the Policies of the General Plan for the Town Center and the remaining Policies were brought up at the last Meeting and why the proposed General Plan Amendment Application is inconsistent with the General Plan. The Commission reiterated to Staff to advise the City Council that the proposed Resolution does hit the Commission's high points.

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





A Motion was made by Vice Chairman Hamerly and seconded by Chairman Haller to Approve Resolution No. 08-008 recommending the City Council Deny a General Plan Amendment Application (GPA 007-001), Amending General Plan Chapter 2, Land Use Element, Goal 2.10, Policy 10), to allow Drive-through type commercial uses and structures on ten (10) properties within the City's Town Center Policy Area.



Commissioner Moore excused himself because they (the Applicant) are friends of his.



Motion carried on a 3 - 1 vote with Commissioner Willhite dissenting and the abstention of Commissioner Moore.





4.2 CUP-007-013 - The subject Conditional Use Permit Application is for the construction of a two thousand eight hundred six (2,806) square foot Jack in the Box Fast Food Restaurant with Drive-thru Facility. The Project, as proposed, is set on a single parcel of land approximately 0.68 gross acres (29,600 square feet) in size. The Site will be developed with the proposed Building and Drive-thru Facility designed to accommodate space for the stacking of seven (7) vehicles, twenty (20) parking stalls, and seven-thousand five-hundred forty (7,540) square feet of landscape area. The Project is located at the southwest corner Sterling Avenue and Base Line and is identified as Assessor Parcel Number: 0278-121-39. Representative: Tobias Miller - Camden Holdings, LLC.

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

Assistant Planner Kelleher gave the presentation from the Staff Report. He explained the historical background of the proposed Project, proposed hours of operation, lighting, parking, noise, wall design and maintenance and delivery hours, the Base Line Median, and the proposed Project is located in Flood Zone AE. Assistant Planner Kelleher then concluded his presentation.

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

A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding Engineering Conditions of Approval (COA) No. 26 regarding the in lieu fee relative to undergrounding the existing utilities. Staff responded how the proposed Project is a commercial project and has street frontage and will be working with Southern California Edison with this Project.

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. Tobias Miller, 5000 Centinela, Los Angeles, California, who is the Applicant, addressed the Commission. He thanked Staff and advised the Commission and indicated this is his first time going through this process. Mr. Miller then said he would like to add a few things and said the Site has been vacant since 1992 and the proposed Project will provide a much needed facelift. Twenty-eight percent (28%) of the Project will be landscaped. Sterling Village Apartments which is adjacent to the proposed Project is in favor of the Project and has a letter explaining it is acceptable for the Applicant to remove the (adjacent) Sterling Village Apartments' wall and install / construct the Applicant's proposed wall.

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

A question was asked by a Commissioner if the Applicant is removing the existing wall, does there need to be a modification of a COA and Staff responded no.

There being no 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, he closed the Public Hearing and then opened the floor for discussion amongst the Commissioners.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding lighting levels / intensities and should not exceed between 0.5 and 1.0 foot candles. Comments were made by the Commissioners indicating the Design Review Board (DRB) will have a challenge / ensure with the foot candles' lighting intensity and still provide security lighting. A Commissioner stated there used to be a gas station located on the property prior to this and this proposed Project is a better project than the gas station.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding Engineering COA No. 14, relative to the Base Line Median. The Median surface is usually installed with accent pavers, stamped concrete, or landscaping. Concerns were raised about removal of the Median surface and damaging the curb profile and if in the future, there is a desire to landscape the Median. Staff responded the DRB will review the proposal and Staff said that Staff has the Commissioner's comment / point taken. This would be a semi-permanent situation and Staff wants something doable with no weeds between blocks, yet look attractive for the community. Staff further explained it is up to the Applicant to propose the design and then Staff review the proposal and then the DRB would consider the proposal.



Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding Engineering COA No. 16, relative to striping and traffic control signs. Staff explained that COA is a "catch all" COA and is part of the plan check process i.e. "No Parking Site", and "Right Turn Only" out of the Site.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the CEQA document on Page 77 regarding No. 15 Transportation / Traffic and the Average Trip Generation at Peak Hours and Staff looking at those numbers, and the Level of Service (LOS) Traffic Model would not be reduced with this Project. Staff added for the record, it was noted the Site had been previously developed and is a reuse of land.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the CEQA document on Page 51 on No. 18, regarding if certain Studies are required. Staff responded the Applicant did conduct a Noise Study and the Applicant would have to install an eight foot (8') high wall plus parapet for the proposed Project. In addition, Staff apologized to the Commission and explained there was a formatting issue on the CEQA document and part of the Yes / No boxes were inadvertently removed from the Slope Study, there is no ground water and there is a Water Quality Management Plan (WQMP) preliminarily approved .

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the Mitigation Measures for the 24 hour operation with significant residential uses. Staff responded through a Noise Study and Lighting Study, can place restrictive lighting COAs on the proposed Project. A comment was made by a Commissioner regarding the direction of the vehicle's headlights for the stacking cue and if the residents are looking down (from the second story), the residents would still have headlight glare and asked Staff if there could be line-of-sight landscape screening required. Staff responded that they would review the placement of trees and can look at the Landscape Plan and reiterated that would be for the southwest corner of the proposed Site. A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding a Level of Service Analysis be conducted and Staff responded that would be at the DRB's request.

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





A Motion was made by Commissioner Willhite and seconded by Commissioner Gamboa to:



1. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and direct Staff to File an Environmental Notice of Determination with San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board, and;

2. Adopt Resolution 08-009 approving Conditional Use Permit 007-013, all subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval, and the Findings of Fact.



Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.





4.3 CUP-007-014 - The subject Conditional Use Permit Application is for the construction and operation of a Senior Living Community, which is designed to accommodate Independent Living, Assisted Living, and Memory Care Units. The proposed Development will be divided into one (1) Main Building that is approximately 62,080 square feet in area and will include fifty-four (54) assisted Living Units and fifteen (15) Memory Care Units. In addition, to the main Building, two (2) Duplexes and two (2) Triplexes are proposed on the property for ten (10) Independent Living Units. The Duplex and Triplex units will range in size from 2,232 square feet to 3,348 square feet. (Chaparral Heights Senior Living Community) The approximate 5.2-acre Site is located on the south side of Base Line approximately four hundred feet (400') west of Church Street. (Assessor Parcel Number: 1201-251-12.) Representative: Janice Goo - LRS Architects

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

Assistant Planner Kelleher gave the presentation from the Staff Report. He explained the historical background of the proposed Project, Zoning and explained the Mixed Uses on-site. He further explained the noise issues, maintenance / delivery hours and potential emergency services, proposed retaining wall and an overall Site design.



(Note: City Planner Mainez left the Chambers at 6:35 p.m.)





Assistant Planner Kelleher explained the proposed Conditions of Approval (COAs) for the proposed walls, access gate location and how those COAs have been added. He stated Site access will be right in / right out only and indicated Staff was unable to include in the Commission's Agenda packet regarding a slope located on the Cinnamon Forest Tract in that some of the unit pads had to be regraded. The unit in the middle of the proposed Triplex and single-car garage be provided on-site. He explained with the Municipal Code, parking courts can be maintained and suggested to relocate the garage more over to the east.

City Engineer Wong apologized both to the Commission and Staff and added the two (2) driveways are to be located on Base Line. The westerly driveway will be restricted for emergency access and the easterly driveway will be for right in / right out only. He then explained the Median design to the Commission.



(Note: City Planner Mainez returned at 6:45 p.m.)



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

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the proposed five foot (5') wall to the west is not Conditioned and the Commission would prefer to see the landscaping remain and Staff responded that is correct. The proposed access gate is for the septic tank which is located on the adjacent property and Staff was unsure of the septic tank's location on the property.

Further discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the proposed two driveway accesses and the Median locations.

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. Ted Chillus, of LRS Architects, 625 West Star, Portland, Oregon, and is a part of the Development Team, addressed the Commission. He stated he had attended the previous meeting and had worked hard to implement with Staff, and accepts the Conditions of Approval, and indicated the proposed Project will be a beautiful project. Both the proposed block wall and the Median located to the east will enhance the Project. Mr. Chillus added the Civil Engineer is also here to answer any questions the Commission may have.

Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any questions of the Applicant or Staff. Hearing none, he then asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak on the item.

Mr. Tom Oliverios, 7373 Crimson Drive, Highland, who is a resident, addressed the Commission. He stated he resides in the Tract west and south on Crimson Drive off of Marigold and indicated he was concerned regarding traffic and safety issues. He has lived there for twenty-five years and is also concerned with emergency vehicles, employees' driveway to Church Street has no Median. He has seen the traffic flow is dangerous and the posted speed is 45 MPH, but people are traveling at 50 MPH - 60 MPH with limited visibility. With people traveling to Church Street, there are people making illegal U-turns on Base Line both up and down the hill and residents living on Marigold are already having a hard time to get out. Mr. Oliverios recommended to extend the Median up to Church Street. Emergency vehicles will be traveling from the west to the east and the driveway approach would still provide access to them. He then asked if there had been a Traffic Study done and Staff responded this is a typical for low traffic generation Project and a Commissioner added that approximately ten (10) residents still may have difficulty. Mr. Oliverios asked if a Lighting Study and Noise Issue Study had been conducted and a Commissioner responded that would depend on the foot candles' intensity and wanted Staff to clarify if the 0.5 footcandle intensity is still in effect. Staff responded and clarified it is still 0.5 footcandle intensity. Mr. Oliverios then thanked the Commission.

There being no 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. There was none and Chairman Haller left the Public Hearing open in case if someone else would like to speak.

A question was asked by a Commissioner about the number of employees and occupants for the proposed Project. Mr. Chillus responded the Project is located in a residential area and indicated the Facility located in Yucaipa is about the same size as the proposed Project.

Ms. Lynnette Alvarado, who is the Executive Director of the Yucaipa Facility, addressed the Commission. She responded and stated only approximately three percent (3%) of the Facility residents drive themselves and that the Facility provides transportation for the Facility residents. With regards to the number of employees, there are two (2) separate units with Memory Care and Assisted Care. During the Day Shift, there are twelve to thirteen (12 - 13) Employees, along with nine (9) Department Heads, in the Afternoon Shift, there are five (5) Employees and during the Night Shift, there are three (3) Employees.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the Line-of-Sight along Base Line and how the easterly driveway is located in the middle of the hill and somewhat flattens out and has adequate sight distance.



A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the viability of extending the Median. Staff responded from a Public Works' matter of convenience and how a person would have to make a U-turn coming from East Highlands Ranch (EHR) area and it is best not to have a (Median) break there to handle the traffic pattern.

A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding Planning COA No. 14 relative to paving and storm water. Staff responded there is a little bit of inconsistency with Planning COA No. 14 and Engineering COA No. 23. The Engineering COA states pervious paving. Staff added how Staff agreed with adding about other paving materials and the WQMP and Staff will revise the first paragraph in Planning COA No. 14, and will make it as a standard format.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the previous Study Session Meeting, the proposed Project is now smaller and a question was asked by a Commissioner if the Project will meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Standards.

Mr. Bud Thatcher, of Thatcher Engineering, who is the Applicant's Engineer, addressed the Commission. He responded affirmatively and has kept the sidewalk under five percent (5%) slope.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding Planning's Mitigation Measure 11.4 on Page 25 of the Staff Report. The Commission recommended modification and add language that all mechanical equipment shall be screened adjacent to the neighbors and also needs a Noise Mitigation Measure.

Further discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding lighting COAs relative to the 0.5 foot candles at the property line. Because of the close proximity of the structure with the last Public Hearing (Item 4.2) and if the Commission is still comfortable with the 0.5 foot candles or 0.1 foot candles. A comment was made by a Commissioner how view fencing needs to be explored and that the neighborhood is a "dark neighborhood". A Commissioner responded how the Design Review Board (DRB) will review the Project more closely. Staff added the footcandles can be restricted from 0.5 down to 0.1 intensity because of the projection. Staff explained this is a residential Project located in a residential neighborhood and asked the Commission if Staff should look at other projects and revisit the Standard. A Commissioner responded how the light intensity is low risk, but there is potential light intensity for monument signs, parking area(s) and security lights. Staff added with regards to drive aisles, the four (4) parcel map subdivision on Base Line is similar with the lighting and Staff could look at the lighting. Staff added there is no Photometric Standards or a Study conducted. Staff indicated a COA could be added regarding drive aisle lighting standards and the Commission responded that is a DRB design detail. Staff stated how 0.5 footcandle intensity appears to be acceptable with the last project that is located on Stoney Creek.

A question was asked by a Commissioner if the Yucaipa Facility is located in a residential area and what type of lighting is in the parking lot. Mr. Chillus responded the Facility is located in a residential area and added the lighting on the Yucaipa Facility is a "shoe box" type of lighting installed on the building and has had no complaints with the lights, or with the neighborhood, so far. Ms. Alvarado reaffirmed the Yucaipa Facility is located in the middle of a residential area. Mr. Thatcher added there is no parking on the west side of the proposed Project and need to light only the sidewalk with 0.1 footcandle intensity. The Light Engineer could do a spillover light in the center of the Project and have separate lights on the parking lot. Mr. Thatcher further stated the Applicant is internalizing the sidewalk and is not a problem. Staff added the Mitigation Measure will also be evaluated by the Design Review Board.

A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding Item No. 18 of the Initial Study on Page 53 of the Staff Report and asked about the Slope Study. Staff responded the height of the slope and what is to be built by the slope. Staff recommended in the Study has been included in the COA. The soil investigation deals with the slope. The Applicant proposes to grade less than 2:1 slope and converted this into a COA and wants to leave the area as natural as possible.

A question was asked about the barn owl habitat. Staff responded there is a Secondary Study that had been conducted and the Study found the vegetation for the burrowing owls is too thick for them.

Chairman Haller recapped the modified COAs and Staff noted the Commission's lighting issues. In addition, Staff reiterated the Median extension was not to extend to Church Street, but will be terminated at the west side of the Project's easterly driveway approach.

Chairman Haller asked if anyone else would like to speak on the item. Seeing none, and there being no further questions of the Applicant or Staff, or discussion amongst the Commissioners, he closed the Public Hearing and then called for the question.





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



1. Adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration and direct Staff to File a Notice of Determination with San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board, and;



2. Adopt Resolution 08-010 approving Conditional Use Permit 007-014, all subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval, as amended with the following:



Planning COA



14. *(NS) Permanent automobile parking spaces shall be paved with asphalt, concrete, or alternative material as approved by the City Engineer, and painted with clearly painted lines. A minimum of seventy-five (75) parking spaces shall be provided. Of the proposed seventy-five (75) parking stalls, ten (10) of the parking stalls shall be placed within fully-enclosed garages and attached to the Independent Living Units.



a. Each permanent parking space shall be no less than nine feet (9') wide, nor less than nineteen feet (19') deep, with adequate provisions for ingress and egress by a standard American passenger vehicle, except where compact car spaces have been authorized as follows:

1) Compact car parking spaces shall be not less than seven and one-half feet (7'6") wide, nor less than fifteen feet (15') long and shall be clearly marked and/or posted with signs stating "Compact Cars Only". Compact spaces shall not exceed twenty-five percent (25%) of the required parking.

b. All parking areas shall be provided with nighttime security lighting. Lighting shall be shielded and directed to reflect away from neighboring properties. Lighting shall not exceed 0.5-foot candles of illumination beyond the property boundary, as approved by the Design Review Board.

c. The Handicapped Parking spaces shall be properly signed and striped per the Americans with Disabilities Act.

d. Loading Zones shall be properly striped and signed.



Mitigation Measure 11.4

MM11.4 A parapet equal in height to the tallest piece of roof-mounted equipment shall be installed on the building. All Ground mounted mechanical equipment shall also be screen on all sides. Prior to Issuance of Building Permit Planning and Building and Safety

Initial



Date



and



3. Adopt the Findings of Fact.



Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.





Chairman Haller explained to the audience the Commission's action can be appealed to the City Council within ten (10) calendar days.







4.4 CEQA Clearance for the Greenspot Road Bridge Replacement Project (Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan) (ENV 005-003). The Project is located in the east portion of the City of Highland, on Greenspot Road north of Mentone Boulevard, east of Cone Camp Road. Representative: Dennis Barton, Assistant Public Works Director

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

City Planner Mainez indicated Ms. Lynn Calvert from LSA who is the City's Consultant, as well as Assistant Public Works Director Barton are in the audience. He then gave the presentation from the Staff Report. He explained the historical background of the proposed Project, and preservation of the old Bridge and that environmental Mitigation Measures are associated with the proposed Project. The Site was disturbed and is considered to be a potential habitat and the California Fish and Wildlife Agency is also involved. He further explained what had transpired today at 5:00 p.m. at the Joint City Council and Commission Study Session regarding the Santa Ana River Wash Plan and how the new proposed Bridge was described at that time and the Incidental Take Permits process and time frame of 2009. Staff received comments and are located at the end of the environmental document and are straight forward. City Planner Mainez then recommended the Commission adopt the negative Declaration and then turned over the presentation to City Consultant Calvert and Assistant Public Works Director Barton for additional clarification.

Assistant Public Works Director Barton clarified about maintaining the road for the Old Bridge Trail access relative to construction of the New Bridge. In the Initial Study, there is an exhibit which shows the driveway on the north and south of the Bridge and will provide access to the Edison Pump Station Plant and Seven Oaks Dam. Vehicular access will be allowed and specific details still need to be worked out and reiterated there will be a Trail and limited vehicular access.

A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding how the Trail will be connected. Staff responded the area before the Old Bridge, is the Arnott's property and will have the Trail developed onto that property. The other side of the Bridge is Orange County property and will be a Class III Trail and will connect with dirt trails. Staff added the details still have to refined in the future. In addition, Staff indicated how Staff is happy to be at this point in time.

A question was asked by a Commissioner about the CEQA document has Federal issues and how Fish and Wildlife Agency is also involved with this Project.

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) has been going for fifteen (15) years now and Fish and Wildlife is supposed to be writing an HCP Environmental Impact Report (EIR) out for public review for about sixty (60) days. Another component is that an Environment Initial Study has to be prepared and land exchange is Federal action by Congress and there are many steps in the process and have to be taken. At the end of 2009, Staff or the Consultant did not want to make any predictions. The Fish and Wildlife issues the Incidental Take Permit(s) and Mitigation is in the Initial Study and Mitigation does not happen until just prior to construction. There is a NEPA component and there is also Federal funding and the Army Corps of Engineers are involved. Staff has a better idea for construction and a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) will be Mitigated by the HCP.

Assistant Public Works Director Barton indicated Staff's progress and made a request by Fish and Wildlife services, and if there is concurrence, the Santa Ana River Wash will Mitigate the taking of the critical habitat. If not acceptable in the time frame, and construction in 2009, Staff will have to step back then and look at the credits and since the area is almost nine (9) acres, it will cost the City approximately 1.2 million dollars in credits. The goal is to get acknowledgments by Fish and Wildlife and into concurrence.

A comment was made by a Commissioner there is not Santa Ana River Wash crossing(s) and asked about accommodating the utilities in the Bridge construction i.e. parallel to the Bridge i.e. phone, water lines, and possibly add to the Bridge structure and do that through negotiations. Staff responded point taken with the Commissioner's comment and Staff will do its best to accommodate.

Another comment was made by a Commissioner there needs to have a Needs Analysis with the east end of the City if crossing the Santa Ana River Wash. Staff responded that Edison and different Water Agencies (Municipal, East Valley, etc.) are involved and will create within reason.

Chairman Haller asked if the Commission had any further questions of Staff or the Mitigation Measures. Hearing none, he then opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak on the Item. Hearing none, he then closed the Public Hearing and then called for the question.





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



1. Approve Resolution 08-011 adopting a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan for the Greenspot Road Bridge Replacement Project, and;

2. Direct Staff to file an Environmental Notice of Determination with the San Bernardino County Clerk of the Board.



Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.





5.0 LEGISLATIVE

There are no items.





6.0 ANNOUNCEMENTS

Staff explained there will be an "Open House" with the Developers on the Greenspot Road Corridor and hopefully, will be well attended. Staff further explained this is not a City sponsored Event, but Staff will be in attendance. A comment was made by a Commissioner stating how some members of the public approached him and thought this (Open House) would be a Public Hearing.

Staff explained the anticipated items scheduled for the May 6, 2008, Design Review Board Regular Meeting at 5:00 p.m. and the Commission's Regular Meeting starting at 6:00 p.m.





7.0 ADJOURN

There being no further business Chairman Haller declared the meeting adjourned at 7:35 p.m.





Submitted by:





Linda McKeough,

Administrative Assistant III





Approved by:







Richard Haller, Chairman

Planning Commission