MINUTES

PLANNING COMMISSION REGULAR MEETING

JULY 15, 2008

 

 

1.0       CALL TO ORDER

 

The Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission of the City of Highland was called to order at 6:08p.m. by Interim Chairman Hamerly at the Donahue Council Chambers, 27215 Base Line, Highland, California.

 

Present:          Commissioners Bob Moore, Michael Willhite, Interim Commissioner Sam Racadio, Vice Chairman John Gamboa and Interim Chairman Randall Hamerly

 

Absent:           None

 

Staff Present:John Jaquess, Community Development Director

Ernie Wong, City Engineer

Geoffrey Ward, Assistant City Attorney

Les Howitt, Fire Marshall

Lawrence Mainez, City Planner

Sean Kelleher, Assistant Planner

Linda McKeough, Administrative Assistant III

 

The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Interim Chairman Hamerly.

 

 

 

2.0       COMMUNITY INPUT

 

There was none.

 

 

 

3.0       CONSENT CALENDAR

 

3.1       Minutes of June 17, 2008, Regular Meeting.        

 

 

A motion was made by Vice Chairman Gamboa and seconded by Commissioner Willhite to approve the Minutes of June 17, 2008, as submitted. 

 

Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.

 

 

 

4.0       PUBLIC HEARINGS          

 

4.1       Vesting Tentative Tract Map 18610 (TTM-007-002) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP-007-012) - An Application for the subdivision of an existing Mobile Home Park into sixty-five (65) numbered lots and one (1) lettered lot including the existing Clubhouse, Pool, Guest Parking, Common Landscaped Areas, and Private Streets.  The Project is located at 26245 Base Line, an approximate 8.21-acre Site located on the on the south side of Base Line approximately one thousand five hundred feet (1,500') west of Victoria Avenue (Assessor Parcel Number: 1192-091-04).  Representative:  John H. Pentecost, Attorney for OWT2 - CABO, LLC.   (Continued from the May 6, and June 3, Regular Meetings.)

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly introduced the item and called for Staff=s presentation.

 

Assistant Planner Kelleher gave the presentation from the Staff Report.  He explained the Site Plan and indicated both the Applicant and the Applicant=s Representative are in attendance, as well as the Fire Marshall and a Representative from the City Attorney=s Office.  He then gave a historical background of the Project and the Design Review Board=s (DRB) comments which were listed in the Staff Report on Page 2 and the City Attorney=s response to the DRB=s comments to the Commission.   The following are City Attorney=s responses: 1) No individual responses from Tenants are not evidence of health, safety and/or welfare issues.  However, the opinion of Tenants may be relevant to the Planning Commission=s deliberations regarding neighborhood compatibility; 2) Typically economic impacts of on-site, Code required health / safety improvements are not considered; 3) no; 4) State Law governs the structure of the HOA.  Assistant Planner Kelleher then explained Staff=s Analysis on Page 5 of the Staff Report, including, but not limited to the following: the Tenant Impact Report, how the Applicant needs to provide an Economic Displacement Study (EDS), and survey of the residents.  Staff has been told by the residents the numbers for the EDS have changed and that the numbers have dropped supporting the Project.  He further explained the Applications and Staff=s requirements / recommendations regarding the health and safety concerns listed on Page 6 of the Staff Report and noted how the Mobile Home Park is governed by the Highland Municipal Code and Title 25.  Assistant Planner Kelleher further noted the Vesting Tentative Tract Map, if approved, the Highland Municipal Code sets in place and the Applicant is held to those Standards of today.  Those Standards are locked in place with today=s Standards.  He then concluded his presentation. 

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff.  

 

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the following: 1) vesting the Tentative Tract Map locks in the current Standards in perpetuity and is Staff=s understanding that it also locks in the fees, and; 2) it was confirmed that the time limit listed in the Conditions of Approval (COA) is in compliance with the Highland Municipal Code.

 

 

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the DRB and dollar amounts, the Tenant Impact Report (TIR).  A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the current utilities if they are substandard, with the Homeowners Association (HOA) be impacted.  Staff responded all homeowner associations would bear those type of costs.   A comment was made by a Commissioner at that time, potential impact regarding fire flow, be a responsibility of owners or not covered with the COAs, and disclosure to owners.  Staff added that would be included into the sale price of the property.  A comment was made by a Commissioner the issue was identified by the Fire Department.  Staff responded those costs are borne by the HOA.  If apply in the future, those costs are borne by the HOA  by the owners.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly asked if the Commission had any further questions of Staff.

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the second question by the DRB on Page 2 of the Staff Report if no was the answer.  Staff responded that is correct.

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner about a Displacement Study.  Staff responded may be relevant to the Tenants and compatibility.    Staff added with comments on the Survey issue, the Majority of Residents can vote Ano@ and the Project can still can go forward if two-thirds (2/3) of the majority Resident approved and would not have to before the Planning Commission.  There is State / Case Law the choice of owner can go forward with it, even though the Residents disagree.  Staff then explained the purpose of the Survey.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff.   Hearing none, he then opened the Public Hearing and asked if the Applicant or the Applicant=s Representative would like to make a presentation. 

 

Mr. John Pentecost, Esq., of Hart, King and Coldren, 200 Sandpointe, Fourth Floor, Santa Ana, California, who is the Applicant=s Representative, addressed the Commission.  He indicated Mr. Victor Martinez (who is Property Owner of Silvercreek Mobile Home Park) and Mr. Burt Mazelow (who is the Applicant=s Engineer) are in the audience.   He explained how OWT2-CABO is converting to a Subdivision and the Commission=s Representative(Attorney Ward) and Staff pointed out, if the Government Code has been met.  There are sixty-five (65) spaces in the Park and Title 25 is the governmental body and will continue to have control over the Mobile Home Park.  He then went over the Staff Report and concerns raised at the DRB Meeting and had received the tape transcription today.   Mr. Pentecost then wanted to assure the Commission of the status quo of the Mobile Home Park and the Tenants will continue and can reside there and if they want to sell, they can.  Those spaces still will be owned by the Property Owner, at this time.  When the Tentative Tract Map is finaled, the Common Area will be vested and will then be submitted to the Department of Real  Estate (DRE) and Conditions, Covenant and Restrictions (CC&Rs) for HOA documents and compliance with the Governmental Code.  When it is determined satisfactory, the Tenants can purchase (their lots), at that time.  The cost is unknown, at this time, until the DRE approves under law.  Title 25 and the Fire Marshal inspections require compliance regarding health and safety with the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) Conditions of Approval (COAs), the City Engineer and Fire Department imposed COAs regarding the fire hydrant(s).  Title 25 says (the Park) is compliant and most leaks have been fixed on individual lots.  After the Park was developed, it was owned by individual Mobile Home Owners and is a symbionic relationship.  The Residents can buy their lot and better financing for their Mobile Home.  If they do not buy their lot, okay, they can continue to be in the Mobile Home Park. Mr. Pentecost stated the place of land of where two (2) or more spaces rented out is a Mobile Home Park.  Since some Residents want to own land / lot, they will have HOA dues and will go for infrastructure, maintenance, Clubhouse, road, utilities, etc.  He further stated when it=s approved and in escrow, will go into the HOA.  Mr. Pentecost then asked the Commission if there were any questions for him. 

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner if there is written correspondence between Mr. Pentecost and the City Attorney with the current Mobile Home Park=s condition and compliance with current Fire Marshal Standards.  Has there been communication from Mr. Pentecost concerning compliance with the current Standards as a Mobile Home Park.  Mr. Pentecost responded it was grandfathered in, and from that standpoint, yes with Title 25 and no upgrades.  He stated as an example, trees, gates, etc. can look at and be changed.  The City / Fire Marshal and Engineering have different opinions, as well as Staff=s has Health and Safety Standards with the CUP.

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner to Staff if can just process the conversion  City=s interpretation, or change of use of a Mobile Home Park to a Subdivision and require an upgrade.  Staff responded make a decision of a Discretionary Permit even the Subdivision will be a Mobile Home Park and is still governed by Title 25.  Upgrading facilities by the Subdivision in concert with Staff and the City Attorney, and install current Code Standards, street lights, etc.

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner if the Fire requirement(s) will be $200,000, not for the change of use, but the action itself is needed for health and safety reasons.  Staff responded it is allowed through the CUP.

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner if the Fire Marshal communicated with Mr. Pentecost and the Property Owner concerning  the health and safety issues.  Staff responded the current Codes required by the California Fire Code and City Ordinances provide fire protection through COAs and the Project proceeding with the City.  Staff had met with Mr. Pentecost and the City Attorney and explained the conditions of the Mobile Home Park and was also presented to the Property Owner and City Staff.

 

 

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner the number of hydrants and the distance between hydrants.  Staff responded three hundred feet (300') between fire hydrants. 

A question was asked by a Commissioner about the main street.  Staff responded variances between previous Fire Codes then and now varies.  Staff has spoken with HCD and with the Fire Chief and indicated is not approved with existing Fire Standards.

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding if construction standards are a low, medium or high risk.  Staff responded they are a high risk if there is no fire safety in the Park and could result in devastation to the Park if there was a fire.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly asked if Mr. Pentecost had any questions.  Mr. Pentecost responded incorporated all correspondence and understands the Fire Marshal and meetings.  The Mobile Home Park has been there for many years and the CUP would have to comply and based on that, every mobile home park had to comply with Fire Standards less than ten (10) years old, none would comply.  He stated Title 25 and the CUP will have no change.

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding Page 74 of the Staff Report if the position has changed with the June letter, be different than the May letter.  Mr. Pentecost responded the position is the same.  The Client will have to make a decision about compliance with the CUP.

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the fire hydrant distance.  Staff responded the Park is approximately 1,500 feet long and then provided an example with the length of fire hoses approximately one hundred and fifty feet (150') or so.

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner if the Commission could asked the Property Owner or speak to the Renters regarding the TIR.  Mr. Pentecost responded the Commission could ask the Property Owner and added the TIR starts on Page 14 of the Staff Report.

 

A comment was made by a Commissioner there are different categories, i.e. New Residents, Non-lower Income Residents, etc. are they subject to a lease / rent agreement is on a month to month basis.  Mr. Pentecost responded he believed it to be on a month to month basis. 

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the Residents being displaced, as long as their rents are current.   Mr. Pentecost responded it is controlled by certain Mobile Home Residency Law Sections (7098, 55 and 56),  as long as they have not violated the rules  or regulations.  A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the notification of the rent rate and Mr. Pentecost responded ninety (90) days in a written notice and cited Section 7090.000 (of the Mobile Home Residency Law) and added the rent could go up after one (1) lot is sold and referenced Page 14 of the Staff Report.  A question was asked by a Commissioner about a long term lease.  Mr. Pentecost responded the Mobile Home Residency lease is a negotiable item, if the Tenant doesn=t want it, the Tenant doesn=t have to agree to it.  A question was asked by a Commissioner what is factored into the rent.  Mr. Pentecost responded the rent is a Abundle rights@.  A long term lease is non-determinable, at this time and added costs are going up.  A comment was made by a Commissioner regarding the third Category and asked for an explanation between  Category 2 and Category 3.  Mr. Pentecost responded he is unable to provide and is covered by the Government Code listed on Page 14 of the Staff Report.  A comment stated no way Residents could pay the increased rent and has reviewed the CPI since 1998 and rent increase is 4.2%, based on that analysis.  Mr. Pentecost responded that is correct.  A question was asked by a Commissioner what if the Resident buys the lot and pay rent.  Mr. Pentecost responded the Resident will pay HOA fees which would include the Common Areas.  A Commissioner added plus property tax.  Mr. Pentecost stated when the Map is recorded, the property tax is for the purchase of the lot and is bundled in with fees.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if no one (1) lot is sold, no change in ownership.  Mr. Pentecost responded special assessment on property beyond what is assessed.  The Planning Commissioner indicated he had been an Assistant Assessor for the County and then explained there would be sixty-five (65) Tax Bills and also have a Special Assessment Bill.  Mr. Pentecost responded whatever has to be done, will be done.  A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the first right of purchase and asked if the Property Owner have other investors.  Mr. Pentecost responded that decision has not been made yet and may be done down the road in one to two (1 - 2) years.

 

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Mr. Pentecost providing example scenarios of what would happen if one of the Commissioners would purchase a lot. A comment was made by a Commissioner to have a Relocation Plan in place and Mr. Pentecost responded that is not a requirement and will not do that.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if the same COA go for a month to month rent regarding CPI or new under the CUP.  Mr. Pentecost responded the existing rents are controlled by non-lower residents.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if controlled by the agreement between the Property Owner and the Resident.  A Commissioner also asked if this document would give the Residents more control and Mr. Pentecost responded definitely so.   He then thanked the Commission for hearing him out and is happy to answer any further questions.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly asked if the Commission had any further questions of the Applicant.  Hearing none, he then asked if anyone would like to speak on the item. 

 

Ms. Nora Schweizer, 26245 Base Line Sp. 43, Highland, California, who is a Resident, addressed the Commission.  She stated she is representing the Residents of Silvercreek Mobile Home Park and is opposed to the Project.  She further stated the Residents will have to now be paying for their lots, there will be real estate taxes to be paid in addition to the licensed fees, there will need to be a homeowner association to be established, pay the Manager=s costs and supplies for running the Park.  In addition, there will need to have the lawn and landscaping maintained, street sweeper, refuse pickup, pool maintenance, the recent security camera, etc. will have to be covered.  The underground utilities will need to be replaced soon and street improvements / repairs, as well as liability and fire insurance for the building. Ms. Schweizer asked if the lots could be sold out from under them, then what would happen to the Residents.  She then explained about a survey that was provided to Residents and were unsure of it and the Residents had contacted the Park Manager regarding the survey and was misled.  The Residents are on a limited income.  The rent had increased sixty-five percent (65%) and why the Residents needed to vote when it was for (information) purposes only.  She then asked the Commission to consider all of the above issues.  Ms. Schweizer stated since the last Meeting, another Survey was conducted and the votes were as follows: 56 No; 1 Yes; 1 Undecided and 7 had not voted - 5 lots are vacant and 2 lots are owned by the Property Owner.  There are eleven (11) for sale and two (2) are owned by the Property Owner. 

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner about the rent had increased by 65 percent and 25% were grandfathered in.  Ms. Schweizer responded she has been there for two and one-half (22) years.  Originally, the rent was $360, and now it=s $390.  Residents are now paying $590 plus the water and sewer costs have doubled this year.  A question was asked by a Commissioner about the personal rent and Ms. Schweizer responded only the new Residents now have to pay the 65% rent increase.  For Ms. Schweizer, it was an increase of $45 for her and $90 for the new Tenants. More than 25%.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if the rent has increased over 10% in two (2) years, of $425 now up to $465 and if the Tenant does not purchase the lot, would be in favor of the Map and not having to pay rent.  Ms. Schweizer responded and indicated from listening to the Attorney, probably not and the infrastructure is high.  A comment was made by a Commissioner indicating the HOA expenses would be the responsibility of the Property Owner.   Ms. Schweizer responded if something goes wrong with the infrastructure, and the Tenant has bought the lot, she asked if then if it would be the responsibility of the Tenant who had bought the lot.  A Commissioner responded if the Tenant who had bought the lot, he would be 1/65th Owner.  Ms. Schweizer stated the roads were only slurried, and still not resurfaced.  She then asked for all of the Residents to stand up in the audience and said these Residents are not young people and where are we going to get the money and asked if this is a greater or lesser protection with the proposed Plan.  She also asked about if the rent could still be increased to 25% or 65%. A question was asked by a Commissioner if they had received a copy of the TIR or Staff Report.  Ms. Schweizer said no and asked again if the Property Owner can increase the rent.  A Commissioner responded affirmatively, the Property Owner can increase the rent and by the TIR and is capped in four (4) years.  Ms.  Schweizer asked why didn=t someone stop him.  A Commissioner responded the CPI is based on the prior twelve (12) months over a four (4) year period.  Mr. Pentecost added the conversion requires limit increases and is under the Government Code and now, there is not a limit for the rent increase.  Ms. Schweizer said, yes, there is.  A question was asked by a Commissioner as it is written now, the Staff Report addressed in the TIR and is available with the City and the factor input of the neighborhood.  Ms. Schweizer stated if it goes through, the Residents are unable to afford the lot with the mortgage payments, the HOA fees, increase costs, the people would have to go on Welfare.  She stated how she only knew hardly anyone, but now, all have become her friends.  A Commissioner stated each Tenant should receive the TIR and some of the benefits are listed in it and another Commissioner agreed. 

 

Ms. Opal Darlene Hodge, 26245 Base Line Sp. 4, Highland, California, who is a Resident in the Silvercreek Mobile Homes Estates, addressed the Commission.  She stated that she is 76 years old and has resided in the Park for seventeen (17) years and has been a widow for seventeen (17) years.  She receives a pension of $960 a month and had to drop her car insurance down to only PL / PD, now has no home insurance, only basic television and telephone.  No one will provide a loan for $1,000.  Ms. Hodge further stated she has worked with various (Park) Managers through the years and most of them have not even stepped on the Property.  She indicated she has spoken with various City Staff who were unable to answer her questions regarding Title 25 and that Title 25 is 107 pages long.  She said how the Fire Marshall doesn=t do mobile homes and advised her to go to HCD The Residents were sent to Environmental Services and asked where does a person go.  The lawyer had contacted Richard Rodderick in San Bernardino and wants to see papers from this Meeting.  Ms. Hodge then asked where are the children going to play at?  The tire obstacle filled with cement is on the other side of the fence and said there is only one entrance into the Mobile Home Park.  There are twenty-three (23) new lights around the Recreation Building and the Residents in the middle and back of the Park do not have lighting.  She reiterated the children have no place to play and asked if this could be looked into.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if she had contacted the City with a list of questions regarding fire hydrants.  Ms. Hodge responded that she had talked with City Staff and the Fire Marshal and had mentioned about the tire obstacle more than once and said someone with authority had to do that and then asked about inspections conducted on the Park.  Staff responded inspections have been conducted for the past twenty (20) years with the San Bernardino County Environmental Health Services Department, and indicated on August 9, 2008, will be assumed by HCD.  Staff added the City will be receiving copies of the inspections in the next month or so.   Ms. Hodge responded she needs a Staff Report for the Attorney tomorrow.   A Commissioner responded for her to contact Staff.  Ms. Hodge said with regards to fire hydrants, there aren=t any and there is a block wall between the two (2) properties and people have to go Athrough hell@ to get out.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if someone is building a block wall and Staff responded no new ones.  Ms. Hodge indicated that is not in the COAs. A question was asked by a Commissioner if she provided a list of questions to the City and Ms. Hodge responded she had reached them, but Staff was unable to answer them.  She had spoken with one Staff member this morning and provided her with some information.  Ms. Hodge then thanked the Commission for the time.

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

Ms. JoAnn Dahlberg, 26245 Base Line, Sp. 1, Highland, California, who is a Resident of the Silvercreek Mobile Home Estates, addressed the Commission.   She stated about the fire hydrants.  How are the people in the back going to get out if the Mobile Home Park goes up in flames.  The people in the back won=t have a chance to get out.  All are senior citizens and living on a budget and need help now.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak on the item. Hearing none, he would leave the Public Hearing open he then opened the floor for discussion amongst the Commissioners. 

 

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the ingress / egress and health and safety issues.  Staff stated there is inadequacy and has not resolved the issues.  The COA states there has to be accessibility and is currently under Staff review / consideration and listed in the COAs.  Staff added with regards to the adjacent property (to the east) with accessibility issues, Staff had stated Code Enforcement could look into it.  Staff responded and stated Code Enforcement does not do mobile home parks, but the Housing Community Development (HCD) has the responsibility for health, safety and welfare.  A Commissioner requested Staff to contact HCD and advise HCD of the issues and Staff responded affirmatively, that Staff would. 

 

The following are comments made by the Commissioners: 1) there is not a mechanism with regards to the fire issue(s); 2) no action, but can go into perpetuity, and; 3) with regards to Title 25, (the City) cannot change Title 25.  Staff responded as a City, cannot, but in approximately one (1) month, HCD will do inspections.  A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding upgrading to current Code.  Staff responded no, it is still a Mobile Home Park.    A question was asked by a Commissioner if the Commission can take an approval action with the COAs.  A Commissioner stated the COA indicated will have a secondary access.  Another Commissioner responded the secondary access is on the other property and there is an obstruction on that other property.  Staff added that it takes time to cut the padlocks off and that is why there is a Knox Box.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if the padlock / chain is cut off by HCD, and there is a Knox Box, then what happens.  Staff responded to inform the Fire Department, since they cannot do it, remove it or cut it.  A Commissioner asked if the Applicant would like to address any questions / comments.

 

Mr. Pentecost addressed Ms. Schweizer=s comments and if bought the land / home fee atop with a license fee (for the mobile home), the fee would go away when it (the land) would become a taxable item.  With regards to the rent receipts for the Manager, if the Subdivision is approved, is a two (2) part Project.  The HOA and whatever lots are sold and lots what the Property Owner owns.  The HOA would be

 

the functioning body through a Property Management deal with the Mobile Home Park.  He further indicated and reiterated the Survey and is a 2/3 majority in favor.  The rent structure is beyond the scope of this Meeting.  The TIR, the Government Code be applied if the Tenant does have not to pay rent.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if the existing Tenant did not buy the land, rent the mobile home to a new Resident, what would the month to month agreement be in perpetuity.  Mr. Pentecost responded the Tenant could rent out to the new Tenant or moves out and the new Tenant sublease be under a new agreement.   He added the Tenant could sell only the mobile home and then the new Tenant / Purchaser would have to be approved by the Property Owner.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if the Tenant would sell the coach and would the new Purchaser have to buy the land.  Mr. Pentecost responded under the Mobile Home Law, there is no sublease law and reiterated the new Purchaser would have to go under a new agreement with the Property Owner.  With regards to lights in the middle / back of the Park - they were in compliance with Title 25 when they were installed.  There is a second exit which is located on the adjacent mobile home park, Knox Box, and violations the HCD or Environmental Health Services could investigate and said the Mobile Home Park Property Owner has no control over the mobile home park next door.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly requested Mr. Pentecost to address the first speaker=s comments.  Mr. Pentecost reiterated and provided an example of a person would buy ten (10) lots, that would be a mini-mobile home park subject to rights and obligations under Title 25.  There is no turning people away and stated it gives the people the option to own their own land.  Mr. Pentecost then thanked the Commission.

 

Ms. Rosemary Yoder, 26245 Base Line, Sp. 33, Highland, California, who is a Resident in the Silvercreek Mobile Home Estates, addressed the Commission.  She stated the Mobile Home Park is not a great (Mobile Home) Park. People to get to the Park have to give away (sell) their mobile homes and are worth $25,000 - $30,000, but have to give them away (sell) at $15,000.  She stated she moved there to retire and had a home before.  Is a great person, but is a business, and looking as a people, people have shot at each other.  She has a lot located in the back and have to travel over thirteen (13) speed bumps. Ms. Yoder asked how are we going to buy lots when people won=t buy a $15,000 - $20,000 trailer.  What will happen to her and she is 75 years old.  The Environmental Health Services and tried to get information regarding speed bumps, but the Property Owner has never looked into it.  She indicated it=s crazy and questioned about the fighting.  No way to find people to buy these lots and then thanked the Commission.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak on the item. Hearing none, he would leave the Public Hearing open.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Pentecost indicated the fifty-five (55) year old residence is beyond the scope of this Meeting and fair housing activity.  With regards to the second entrance, the Fire Department is okay with the Knox Box.  With regards to the speed bumps, they are there for people not to speed through the Park.  Mr. Pentecost explained the Park was inspected on September, 2007, with the Environmental Health Services, but with a violation in that the mosaics had to be changed out in the swimming pool and then further explained the replacement of the mosaics.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak on the item. Hearing none, he would leave the Public Hearing open and continued the floor open for discussion amongst the Commissioners. 

 

Staff commented there is fire protection that were up to standards, at the time the Project was originally developed.  The COAs require the Applicant to install new water lines and hydrants, as part of the proposed Subdivision, and subject to the proposed CUP Application. 

 

A Commissioner indicated he has some experience with mobile homes and conducted appraisals for six to seven (6 - 7) years and has seen four to five (4 - 5) converted and only one (1) was not successful and located in Colton by an attorney and if done by a property owner, or as a business, was successful.  The Property Owner has to improve infrastructure.  The rent has gone up 25% and could not happen with CPI over the next four (4) years and not increase with economic conditions and cannot discuss what may happen in the future.  With appraisal, why Mr. Pentecost is unable to anser or the Property Owner is unable to answer regarding HOA, fees, etc.  The rent is paying for the gardener, maintenance, etc. and the Property Owner will not put that much more income for this.  The mobile homes are not on permanent foundations and people receive two (2) property taxes because of the yearly appraisal and Proposition 13. 

 

Another Commissioner stated there are two (2) big issues.  One is selling lots and the Tenants do not have to buy the lot and can stay in the mobile home with the current lease and have more protection and can stay renting it.  Two is the conditions to the Commission environmentally will make it safer with the fire hydrants, lighting, etc.   

 

Another Commissioner concurred and indicated had been there fourteen (14) years ago and it hasn=t changed.  This was for his mother-in-law and the Property Owner will have to put in a lot of money for improvements.  Like the previous Commissioner said, a person does not have to buy and the Commission can only go on what is on paper.  He added that he doubted if the Property Owner will go with the cheaper price and indicated safeguards are written in.

 

 

 

A Commissioner stated and encouraged the Tenants to obtain the TIR.  He gave an example if having a HOA and if you don=t like having thirteen (13) speed bumps and want only six (6), you would take it to the HOA and same with the lighting for the middle / back of the Park.  The needs of the Residents of the Park and the rights of the owner of the Property Owner, is held to lots of rules that are outlined in the Brown Act, General Plan, Zoning, considerations and hopefully all of the questions have been answered.

 

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

 

 

A Motion was made by Interim Commissioner Racadio and seconded by Commissioner Willhite to:

 

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

 

2.         Adopt Resolution 08-015 approving Vesting Tentative Tract Map (TTM-007-002) and Conditional Use Permit (CUP-007-012), all subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval, and the Findings of Fact.

 

Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly then explained to the audience the Commission=s action on the proposed Project can be appealed to the City Council and to contact Staff.  He then thanked the audience.

 

The Commission recessed at 8:10 p.m. and reconvened at 8:18 with all Commissioners present.

 

 

 

4.2       City of Highland General Plan Amendment (Land Use Map B Base Line Corridor Policy Area Amendments), Zone Change (R-2C and PD modifications consistent with General Plan Amendments), and various Municipal Code Amendments to Title 16, Land Use and Development Code.  General Plan Amendment (GPA 008-001), Zone Change (ZC0 007-001), and Municipal Code Amendment (MCA 008-005)

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly introduced the item and called for Staff=s presentation.

 

Assistant Planner Kelleher explained he would defer to City Planner Mainez for the R-2C portion of the Staff Report and then Assistant Planner Kelleher would do the remaining portion of the presentation.

 

City Planner Mainez thanked the audience for its patience and then gave the presentation of the Staff Report regarding the R-2C.  He gave the historical background pointing out the locations, commercial nodes, various Zoning designations and how the R-2C Designation came to be.  He further explained the commercial uses / non-conforming, the CUP process and the R-2C Ad Hoc Subcommittee=s recommendations.  He indicated Assistant Planner Kelleher would be out in front of the Dais at the table that also has a map on it for the audience=s benefit while he would be at the display board to explain the various locations to the Commission.  City Planner Mainez proceeded to explain the various Sections and locations, public comment, if any received, and recommendations for the Zoning Designations to the Commission including, but not limited to the following locations between various streets along Base Line: Exhibit  1: (Del Rosa to Sterling), Del Rosa, Golondrina, Osbun Road where ProAuto Electric is; Exhibit 2: (Sterling to Victoria Avenue) Rogers Lane, Base Line at K&L Hardware and Base Line Buggies, and Exhibit 3: (Victoria Avenue to the Town Center Limits).. 

 

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding Lankershim / Arden location, and the street termination and the fact Arden was taken out of the City of San Bernardino General Plan. 

 

City Planner Mainez continued with his overview, but not limited to the following locations between various streets and Base Line with Exhibit 3: Victoria Avenue, Vine Street, Hillview, Central Avenue, and Palm Avenue.  He then opened the floor for discussion.  Staff added most people who are now here in attendance are for the R-2C portion.

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner the process for handling the Recommendations as one (1) action motion or not.  Staff responded and clarified the Commission=s action would consist of the Commission adoption the Negative Declaration and filing a Notice of Determination (NOD) first and then the Commission=s Resolution Nos. 16 and 17 would be one motion, then the others would be done separately with the adoption of the Negative Declaration and filing the NOD and Resolution 18 for the Flood Plain Ordinance and again, the Commission would have to adopt the Negative Declaration and filing of the NOD and would be Resolution 19 for the various General Municipal Code Amendments.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly asked if the Commission had any questions of Staff.   Hearing none, he then opened the Public Hearing and asked if anyone in the audience would like to speak on the R-2C Item.  He then called a Ms. Anna Merrisk, to come to the podium, but there was a no one in the audience by that name.


 

Mr. Bill Lemann, of Fullerton, Lemann, Schalfer and Dominich, LLP and Associates, 215 North AD@ Street, San Bernardino, California, who is representing the Darwish family properties, (which includes 25414 Base Line) addressed the Commission.  He said he can speak for the Darwish family, and is supportive of the Staff=s Recommendation.  The Darwish family owns properties from Del Rosa to Osbun and owns six (6) lots.  He indicated the Assessor=s Parcel Numbers are as follows: 272-242-20, 21, 22, 23, 24, and 25 and are contiguous.  He has a letter in the file with the proposed Recommendation.  Mr. Lemann reiterated his concurrence with the proposed Recommendation, as long as it is with the six lots from R-2C to General Commercial (GC) Designation. 

 

Staff indicated that is not representative of what the Ad Hoc Subcommittee recommends, however, based on recent interests from the Property Owner, Staff is recommending a GC change in the area.  A question was asked by a Commissioner about the area across the Wash will be R-2C and Staff responded that is open.  A question was asked by a Commissioner about Medium Density Residential.  Staff responded where there is R-2C, they wanted to change it back to commercial and if there was an underutilized use.  Staff added the area would not survive under the R-2C or PC Designations, only a GC Designation.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if the Ad Hoc Subcommittee supported the changes from R-2C to GC.  Mr. Lemann responded he concurred with that and reiterated wanting assurance it would Designate all six (6) lots are included all the way up to Osbun.  Staff explained the underutilization of properties and provided a scenario to the Commission.  A Commissioner added from the Medium Density Designation to the GC Designation on one side of Base Line due to availability and would be the best fit for the area without deviation and Staff added that is also Staff=s Recommendation to the GC Designation.  Staff also added the Ad Hoc Subcommittee increased R-2C east of Sterling which should compensate for the net acre loss in this section. 

 

Mr. Robert Nastase, 876 North Mountain Avenue, Upland, California, who is representing the ProAuto Electric business, addressed the Commission.  He stated the property had a R-1 Zoning Designation when his client purchased the property.  He gave a historical background how his client obtained a CUP and then was shut down and put out of business.  He has been there for two to three (2 -3) years and has suffered.  He has been unable to finance, obtain insurance and that a non-conforming use is non-financable.  Mr. Nastase is supportive of Staff=s position.  There are two families up from ProAuto Electric and have an R-1 Zoning.  Adjacent to his client=s property, the property is Zoned for Multi-family.  The most commerical building significance in the area might be used as a car lot area.  It is good for the City to make the changes and applaud=s Staff and Staff=s Recommendation.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if the property had been R-1 Zoning since the City=s incorporation.  Staff responded there was a lot of ambiguity at that time on the original Zoning Map and has agreed to process a Staff Review Permit for the Pro-Auto Electric and wants the Commission and to turn back to Commercial similar to the commercial properties proposed around it. 

 

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

 

 

 

 

Mr. Brian Harris, 26901 Base Line, Highland, California, who is the Representative of K & L Hardware, addressed the Commission.  He stated he supports Staff=s Recommendation and wants to talk about Lankershim.  He indicated punching through Lankershim would be detrimental to K & L=s parking lot and added parking would have an initial impact for them and Base Line Buggies.  A question was asked by a Commissioner about if Lankershim shows up as a dedicated street.  Engineering Staff responded and gave a historical background to the General Plan Designation and Lankershim is to be extended as a collector street.  With regards to the General Plan Update, Lankershim was kept as a street extension up to Base Line where K & L and other businesses are located.  A few days ago, K & L came in to see Planning and Engineering Staff with a proposal on developing a building which triggered what to do with Lankershim.  Staff added how Staff has not done a lot of research yet.  There needs to be a way to separate the Lankershim School / Traffic problem and may not have to be punched all the way through to Base Line.  With the old Gardner=s Project, the interior street may be still stubbed out there to Lankershim.  Staff thinks there may be an alternative, however, deleting the extension of Lankershim may take a General Plan Amendment.  A comment was made by a Commissioner that would be in the Circulation Element and not being considered in the Land Use Element tonight.  Staff concurred and asked the Commission for direction whether there should be a modification and Staff would explore further. 

 

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the Right-of-Way, street dedication, connectivity, etc.  A comment was made by a Commissioner this use is for twenty (20) years and the Circulation Element to take land, buy the whole business, and need to have a plan and the need to inform / instruct Staff.  The Circulation Element is not on this Agenda and is a different issue.

 

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

 

Mr. Walt Mogel, 26117 Base Line, Highland, California, who represents Base Line Buggies, addressed the Commission.  With regards to Lankershim, that will take twenty-five feet (25') off his property and would put him out of business.  His business stops at his block wall.  He stated he had spoken with City Staff last year and was advised nothing would happen, but now looking at doing it.  He has been in Highland for fifteen (15) years and would not go over too well with the Lankershim street extension and is unsupportive of it.  A Commissioner responded and stated that is a different Element and the Commission is unable to take action on it.  Mr. Mogel responded and said can discuss it, but not take action.  Both the Commission and Staff indicated Staff will look into it and do further research.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak on the Item. 

 

 

 

 

Mr. Robert Galindo, 24596 Base Line, Highland, California, who is the property owner, addressed the Commission.  His property is located in the middle of Base Line and change back to Commercial, it will cut his property in half and installing sidewalks, landscaping, etc.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if he supported Staff=s Recommendation to return to GC and Mr. Galindo responded affirmatively.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly asked if anyone else in the audience would like to speak on the item. Hearing none, he would leave the Public Hearing open and continued the floor open for further discussion amongst the Commissioners. 

 

Comments were made by the Commissioners regarding how the Recommendations made a lot of sense and commended the Ad Hoc Subcommittee and Staff for all their hard work.

 

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding the property on Base Line, Exhibit 3 / Sheet No. 3 use by Stafford=s Painting.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if he is closing his business, or if he was in business.  Staff responded Stafford=s Painting is down sizing his operations and will be working from his home and Mr. Stafford is currently selling his property.  The Commissioner can=t see switching / returning (the Base Line property) to the GC Designation and further asked if the market picks up, the possibility of vacating the facility.  Staff responded the house (on Base Line) is being used as storage and is a contractor=s business on Base Line in a Residential Designation.  Staff currently indicated the property is designed as R-2C and what is going on next to it in that there are three (3) new homes being constructed and heard the property owner was also thinking  about building a home.  Questions were asked by Commissioners if the existing use is a non-conforming use and if it is still used as a residence.  Staff responded affirmatively.  Staff added it is unable to speak for the property owner and unsure how Stafford=s Painting is marketing the property for another use and reiterated there is an existing house on the property.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if the residential use is a Abetter fit@.  Staff responded the Use would be out of place with the Commercial Designation.  A comment was made by a Commissioner if the GC Designation defend the previous operating business.  A question was asked by a Commissioner if the property is still owned by the same property owner and Staff responded affirmatively and suggested Staff could approach the property owner and find out from him if it is acceptable to go with the R-2C Designation and what his future intentions are for the property.  Another question was asked by a Commissioner if the property owner had participated in previous Meetings.  Staff responded no, however, he is aware of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee recommendation and R-2C recommendation.  A scenario was provided by a Commissioner regarding Macs Spring Shop (located on Base Line / Hillview) if the Shop relocated to Redlands and not there anymore, what the Ad Hoc Subcommittee did was to preserve the property Use Designation.  Discussion which is Commercial in nature.  Discussion ensued regarding possible vacating property, marketability and possible relocation(s).  A Commissioner asked if the Ad Hoc Subcommittee Recommended to keep the R-2C Designation and another Commissioner who was a Member of the Ad Hoc Subcommittee responded affirmatively.  Another Commissioner asked if the PC keeps the R-2C Designation and moves forward to City Council with said Designation,  the property owner can go to City Council for reconsideration of the Designation.  Staff responded that Staff will personally notify the Stafford=s Painting=s property owner.  A Commissioner asked then that would be Resolution Nos. 16 and 17, be amended and Staff responded that is correct. 

 

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

 

Ms. Patricia Aulto, of Visalia, California, who is a Property Owner, addressed the Commission.  She stated how she owns property on both sides of Base Line and has a GC Designation and is pleased with that.  On the north side, is R-2C Designation and has no issues / complaints and indicated they had come down from Visalia for the Meeting.  She asked then about the Medium Density Residential Designation.  Staff responded the Medium Density Residential Designation allows nine (9) dwelling units per acres and does allow for single family homes.  Ms. Aulto responded there are apartment units up to that allowance.  Staff informed the Commission that apartments would also be allowed in a R-2C Designation, but not an R-2 Zoning Designation.

 

Interim Chairman Hamerly asked if anyone else would like to speak on the item.  Seeing none, and there being no further questions of Staff, or discussion amongst the Commissioners, he closed the Public Hearing portion for the R-2C Designation and then called for the question.

 

 

A Motion was made by Vice Chairman Gamboa and seconded by Commissioner Moore to recommend the City Council:

 

1.         Adopt a Negative Declaration and instruct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the Board;

 

2.         Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-016, recommending the City Council Amend the City of Highland General Plan, Land Use Map and Land Use Element related to R-2C, as amended;

 

3.         Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-016 recommending the City Council Amend the City's Zoning Map consistent with the General Plan Amendments related to R-2C, as amended;

 

and;

 

 

 

4.         Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-017 recommending the City Council Amend Title 16 Chapter 16.08, Section 16.08.150 and Section 16.08.155, Land Use and Development Code, of the Municipal Code related to R-2C.

 

Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.

 

 

Assistant Planner Kelleher continued the presentation from the Staff Report and explained the Flood Plain Ordinance Amendment to the Commission.  In addition, he further explained the General Land Use and Development Code Amendments to the Commission.

 

(Note: Interim Commissioner Racadio left the Dais at 9:27 p.m.)

 

Assistant Planner Kelleher continued Staff=s presentation regarding Page 108 of the Staff Report regarding Retaining Walls and Lighting which is on Page 110.

 

(Note: Interim Commissioner Racadio returned to the Dais at 9:28 p.m.)

 

Assistant Planner Kelleher stated how the items will be codified into the City=s Land use and Development Code.  With regards to the Lot Merger, Staff is currently using the Lot Line Adjustment Procedures and Applications.  He then concluded his presentation and asked if the Commission had any questions.

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the security lighting for single family homes regarding No. 5 of Page 112 of the Staff Report regarding motion sensors.  Staff responded that is in the proposed Ordinance and depends on the sensitivity of the security light and light switch made type to the Ordinance to be the homeowner=s discretion. 

 

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding Page 109 of the Staff Report regarding fences and walls figures and a question was asked by a Commissioner if the COAs include perimeter walls.  Staff responded how direction was given by the City Council in 2006, and was an error of omission.  The view type fencing is contrary to block walls and allows flexibility.  A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding except where the view type fencing is appropriate.  Staff responded that is how Staff understands it and then provided a scenario from Page 108 of the Staff Report regarding wrought iron fencing.  A comment was made by a Commissioner regarding the Gardner Project for interior walls and a block wall design.  Staff responded it is the intent for all tracts to be a solid type block wall.  Staff read Page 108 of the Staff Report regarding Section 2 of Section 16.40.  A comment was made by a Commissioner that does not give the latitude for view fencing.  Staff responded that the language could be at the discretion of the Design Review Board (DRB) or Staff.  Added language was discussed.

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner if Figure A of Page 109 of the Staff Report is always measured that way and Staff responded affirmatively.  Another question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the step downs relative to Diagram B.  Staff responded regarding there was concern with the heights of the wall with DRB and on slopes and added Staff will look on a case-by-case basis.  A comment was made by a Commissioner regarding the methodology and engineering and provided an example with the Wacovia Bank Project and the over height condition.  Staff read on page 108 of the Staff Report regarding Section 16.22.040 (B) to the Commission. 

 

A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding how many units on Sixth Street remain or were removed.  Staff responded that was missed on the General Plan Updates and was an oversight.  The total amount of units is in the PC District south of Sixth Street is approximately forty - fifty (40 - 50) units.  The City Council may not be aware of the non-conforming issues and the excluding those impacts on those neighborhoods around the San Bernardino International Airport.   A question was asked by a Commissioner if this has something to do about the Airport Land Use and Staff responded no, and more of a non-conforming exclusions so it would be easier for new BP / development to take place.. 

 

Discussion ensued between the Commission and Staff regarding Victoria Avenue  with the Freeway off-ramp scenario.  Staff explained the historical background to the Commission how the City asked Caltrans and SANBAG to conduct a Study and provided further explanation and how the process to prepare this Study has been slow for the past two (2) years.  Staff further explained Caltrans has indicated that they are unable to continue the process, unless the City commits to the next project phase and funding.  A question was asked by a Commissioner regarding the City=s commitment.  Staff commented that the commitment to funding for future project phases must be worked out among various stakeholder Agencies.

 

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

 

A Motion was made by Commissioner Willhite and seconded by Interim Commissioner Racadio recommend the City Council:

 

1.         Adopt a Negative Declaration and instruct the City Clerk to file a Notice of Determination with the County Clerk of the Board;

 

2.         Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-018 recommending the City Council Amend Title 16 Chapter 16.06, Sections 16.06.010, 16.060.020, 16.06.060, 16.06.120, 16.06.130, 16.06.140, 16.06.180, 16.06.190.  Repeal Sections 16.04.150 and 16.40.460, and add Chapter 16.76, Land Use and Development Code, of the Municipal Code related to the Flood Plain Ordinance.

 

 

 

3.         Adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 08-019 recommending the City Council Amend Title 16 Chapter 16.08, Section 16.40.030, Accessory Structures, 16.40.100, Fences and Walls, Section 16.40.160 Lighting, Chapter 16.68 Section 16.68.220 Lot Merger, Land Use and Development Code, of the Municipal Code related to General Municipal Code Amendments, with Resolution No. 08-019, as amended with the following:

 

Section 3   16.40.40.100. 2 Fencing proposed for all new housing development and not considered view type fencing shall be constructed of solid block material, Aunless otherwise determined by the Design Review process.@

 

Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.


 

 

 

5.0       LEGISLATIVE

 

5.1       Planning Commission and Design Review Board FY2007-2008 Annual Report.

Due to the lateness of the hour, the following action was taken.

 

 

A Motion was made by Vice Chairman Gamboa and seconded by Commissioner Willhite to continue this Item.

 

Motion unanimously passed on a 5 - 0 vote.

 

 

 

6.0       ANNOUNCEMENTS

 

Staff explained the anticipated items related to Greenspot Specific Plan scheduled for the July 22, 2008, Joint Study Session with the City Council and Planning Commission.  In addition, there will be no Regular Commission Meeting on August 5, and tentatively scheduled for August 19, 2008. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

7.0       ADJOURN

 

 

There being no further business Interim Chairman Hamerly declared the meeting adjourned at 9:52 p.m.

 

 

 

Submitted by:                                                            Approved by:

 

 

 

 

                                                                          _________________________________

Linda McKeough,                                                      Randall Hamerly, Interim Chairman

Administrative Assistant III                                       Planning Commission