Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout11-23-04_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, November 23, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: George Webber, Chair James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Commissioner Miller, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner ABSENT: Caroline Laymon, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Leslie E. Murad II, Assistant City Attorney Robert Dalquest, Principal Planner/Project Manager Manuel Baeza, Associate Planner Alicia Heideman, Assistant Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD The meeting was called to order at 2:00 p.m. by Chairman Webber. All commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioners Laymon, Miller, and Cook. Chairman Webber advised members of the audience that parking permits are available from the secretary for those who are parked in the 30 minute parking zone. II. CONSENT ITEMS (It is recommended that the following item(s) be acted upon simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is requested by a Commissioner or a member of the audience.) A. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 272 - Planning Commission to consider a Commission Sign Review for two(2)freestanding monument signs for the Howard Roberts Development located at 1710 Plum Lane in the Office/Industrial area of Specific Plan 25. Request submitted by HOWARD ROBERTS DEVELOPMENT CO. (Project Planner: David Jump) MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Sign Review No. 272. III. OLD BUSINESS Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Pagel A. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 101 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING on a General Plan Amendment to:a)change the land use designation from Agriculture to Very-Low-Density Residential on 41.22 gross acres located on the west side of Wabash Avenue(Assessor Parcel Number 168-132-05), south of San Bernardino Avenue,and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1,Agricultural District. Request submitted by ARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) B. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE REMOVAL NO. 106 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for an Agricultural Preserve Removal on 41.22 gross acres located on the west side of Wabash Avenue(Assessor Parcel Number 168-132-05), south of San Bernardino Avenue, and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1,Agricultural District. Request submitted by ARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) C. ZONE CHANGE NO. 406 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Zone Change from A-1, Agricultural District to R-E, Residential Estate District on one(1)parcel totaling 41.22 gross acres located on the west side of Wabash Avenue (Assessor Parcel Number 168-132-05), south of San Bernardino Avenue, and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted by ARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) D. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 834 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING on a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development (PRD)on 41.22 gross acres into ninety-three(93)residential lots and six(6)common lots located on the west side of Wabash Avenue(Assessor Parcel Number 168-132- 05), south of San Bernardino Avenue, and north of Capri Avenue in the A-1, Agricultural District(Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by ARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) (WITHDRAWN) E. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16878 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide approximately 41.22 gross acres into ninety-three(93)residential lots and six (6) common lots located on the west side of Wabash Avenue (Assessor Parcel Number 168-132-05), south of San Bernardino Avenue,and north of Capri Avenue Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 2 in the A-1,Agricultural District(Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by ARIEF NAFTALI. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Commissioner Miller arrived at 2:03 p.m. Project Planner Alicia Heideman stated the proposed project was continued from a prior meeting. Ms. Heideman stated the Commission expressed a preference for wider lots and more contiguous open space. Ms. Heideman stated the applicant withdrew the Conditional Use Permit application and is no longer requesting a Planned Residential Development(PRD). Ms. Heideman stated the applicant submitted a landscape plan, however it was returned to the applicant because staff felt it was inadequate. Commissioner Cook arrived at 2:10 p.m. Chairman Webber noted the project description is for 92 residential units, although the staff report states 76 units. Assistant City Attorney Les Murad stated the public was advised the project was reduced from 92 to 76 units. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Arief Naftali, stated he represents Mr. Chang, the owner of the property. Commissioner Miller stated when the project came to the Commission before,a Planned Residential Development (PRD) was proposed. Commissioner Miller stated at that time, the Commission suggested a few minor revisions to the plan. Commissioner Miller stated the plan,as proposed now, is lacking to what was presented previously. Commissioner Miller asked Mr.Naftali why he chose to go with the second proposal. Mr. Naftali stated he contacted the owner after the last Planning Commission, and conveyed the Commission's request for bigger,wider lots. Mr.Naftali stated Mr.Chang decided to invest more money into the project to reach the higher end housing market and decided against the PRD. Commissioner Miller cautioned Mr.Naftali that the point allocation process is fairly competitive and one of the items considered is the street layout and curving.Commissioner Miller stated Mr.Naftali may not receive the points needed to build the project if it lacks some of the amenities offered by the PRD. Commissioner Macdonald commended Mr. Naftali on the bigger, wider lots. Commissioner Macdonald stated the layout is boring and there are no setbacks on the houses. Commissioner Macdonald stated with some creative thinking, property could be taken from the lots and an area Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 3 with trees could be added to the design, making it a nicer subdivision. Commissioner Macdonald stated the project looks like 1950's tract homes. Commissioner Macdonald suggested a staggered layout of the lots, with pocket dividers or landscaped areas with trees. Commissioner Macdonald stated these types of amenities generate more points because they make the development more attractive. Chairman Webber concurred with Commissioner Macdonald,stating they are now faced with a run of-the-mill, generic product. Commissioner Osborne concurred stating the applicant may have misinterpreted what was expressed to them by the Commission at the previous meeting. Commissioner Osborne stated if they (Commission)want more open space,they have to be willing to give something up. Commissioner Osborne stated if there are other Commissioners beside Commissioner Miller who prefer a PRD, they should provide better guidance than what was given before. Chairman Webber stated he did not recall the Commission giving direction to reduce the number of units from 93 to 76. Commissioner Miller stated a suggested was made to remove four(4)narrow lots to enlarge the remaining parcels. Mr. Naftali stated the owner did not believe the PRD would generate the income he requires. Commissioner Osborne stated the open space and added amenities of the PRD would filter into the desirability of the neighborhood and the cost of houses. Mr. Naftali stated the owner projects he will have much bigger houses with the second proposal. Commissioner Thompson concurred with Commissioner Miller, and expressed concern that the current street layout will not generate the points needed to qualify. Mr.Naftali asked what would happen if they did not meet the required points. Commissioner Cook replied that he would not be able to build the houses. Commissioner Macdonald suggested Mr.Naftali stay for the entire Commission meeting to observe the allocation of RDA points. Director Jeff Shaw stated there is a variety of areas in which points are awarded,such as subdivision design,landscaping,and other criteria.Mr. Shaw stated the Commission is identifying a concern that the project may not receive sufficient points. Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Shaw if staff had an opportunity to sit down with Mr.Naftali and discuss the RDA process. Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 4 Commissioner Macdonald stated it appears from the map that there is a lack of understanding on the part of the applicant of the ability to move the homes around; they are all located in a straight row. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller addressed Ms. Heideman and stated it appeared there was quite a bit of exchange with the applicant after the last meeting. Ms. Heideman stated she expressed the Commission's preference and she showed the applicant how he could redesign the project by deleting four(4) lots, and leaving a contiguous open space in the center of the project,however he chose not to go with that option. Mr. Shaw stated the applicant complies with the criteria of the R-E,Residential Estate zone and staff is recommending approval.Mr. Shaw suggested the Commission look at the legislative actions and evaluate them in terms of requesting a redesign. Chairman Webber stated he would like to see a different project and he cannot see a basis for supporting the project. Chairman Webber stated the owner did not grasp what the Commission was asking for and he cannot support the General Plan Amendment or the Zone Change. Chairman Webber stated he would like to see the PRD come back to the Commission. Mr. Shaw stated the Commission is put in a position of denying the legislative actions to include the General Plan and Zone Change. Mr. Shaw asked the applicant if he would like to reconsider and discuss with his client the possibility of a PRD with the suggested changes. Mr.Naftali stated if the Commission would like to see the PRD,he will discuss this alternative with the owner. Commissioner Cook suggested a PRD with the modifications that were suggested by the Commission. Mr. Shaw stated there is an issue with the CEQA time line, however it could be extended for a 90 day period, if the applicant can return with the requested changes fairly quickly. Mr. Shaw stated if the project can be heard during the first meeting of January, the General Plan Amendment could be heard by the City Council on February 15th.Mr. Shaw noted the project would have to go before the City Council on December 7th for an extension of time on the CEQA time line. Assistant Director suggested the proposed project be continued to the December 14th, to allow the City Council to take an action on the CEQA time line on December 7th. Mr. Shaw stated the applicant could re-file the Conditional Use Permit with no fee. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue General Plan Amendment No. 101, Agricultural Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 5 Preserve Removal No. 106,Zone Change No. 406, Conditional Use Permit No. 834, and Tentative Tract No. 16878 to December 14, 2004. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 792 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and consideration of a Commission Review and Approval to construct a 259,572 square foot warehouse/distribution center located north of Palmetto Avenue and west of Marigold Avenue in Concept Plan 2 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan.Request submitted by PROLOGIS. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Project Planner Alicia Heideman gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Ms. Heideman noted the applicant stated the site will have approximately 100 employees therefore, they are requesting a reduction in parking. Ms. Heideman stated at staff's request, the applicant added architectural enhancements including green reflective glass accents along the south elevation which faces Palmetto Avenue and height variations on the parapet. Ms. Heideman stated staff believes the site could provide additional landscape from what has been proposed, further reducing the parking area by 89 spaces. Ms. Heideman stated Condition of Approval 24 addresses this issue. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr.Pat Meyer,representing the applicant,stated he concurs with staff's recommendations with the exception of a modification to the landscaping. Mr. Meyer stated the building has the potential of having more than one tenant, therefore he does not want to eliminate the parking as it might discourage an employer with a higher employment use. Mr. Meyer suggested the middle isle be preserved in case the parking area should be divided up. Mr. Shaw concurred with Mr. Meyer's suggestion. Mr.Meyer noted that at least half of the 330 trees included in the landscape plan,are 24-inch and 36- inch box. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 792 and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 6 accordance with City guidelines. It is recommended that this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 792. It is recommended that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community, and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 6-0 vote approve the request for reduced parking spaces in accordance with the letter submitted by the applicant and Section EV4.0201 (c) of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 792,subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: I. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. 2. That the site properly relates to adjoining streets which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. 3. That the conditions of approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 792 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. 4. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community. 5. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing Commercial/Industrial Designation of the General Plan with a revision to Condition of Approval 24 to reflect a modification to reduce the parking by 74 spaces as indicated on the exhibit presented by the applicant. B. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 793 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 7 for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and consideration of a Commission Review and Approval to construct a 485,600 square foot warehouse/distribution center located north of Palmetto Avenue and west of Marigold Avenue in Concept Plan 2 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan.Request submitted by PROLOGIS. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Project Planner Alicia Heideman gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr.Pat Meyer,representing the applicant,stated he would add extra landscaping and make changes to the sweet gum trees. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 793 and direct staff to file and post a Notice of Determination in accordance with City guidelines. It is recommended that this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 793. It is recommended that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community, and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the request for reduced parking spaces in accordance with the letter submitted by the applicant and Section EV 4.0201 (c) of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 8 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No.793,subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. 2. That the site properly relates to adjoining streets which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. 3. That the conditions of approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 793 are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 4. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community. 5. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing Commercial/Industrial Designation of the General Plan. C. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 790 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a Commission Review and Approval to construct a 3,182 square foot office building located at 1449 W. Redlands Blvd. in the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by WARREN TUTTLE. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Project Planner Alicia Heideman gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Ms. Heideman stated the landscape plan meets Code with a few minor revisions. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Corey if he would consider breaking up the roof line, as it is the same height all around the building. Mr. Corey stated they wanted to keep the building simple and he felt the projecting surround around the openings will provide the break up suggested by Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Miller suggested an 18 inch height variation would draw attention to the entrances of the elevations most visible to the street. Chairman Webber asked if there was a consensus from the Commission on breaking up the roof line. Commissioner Cook stated she felt it would look better broken up.Chairman Webber concurred with Commissioner Miller, stating he felt the elevation on the west side needed to be broken up. Commissioner Osborne concurred stating any changes made by the applicant could be reviewed by the Community Development Director. Chairman Webber stated the applicant could work with Mr. Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 9 Shaw and Commissioner Miller. Assistant City Attorney Murad asked Mr. Corey for proof of the driveway easement with the Social Security Administration. Mr. Shaw suggested a Condition of Approval be added to address this issue: The applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Community Development Director proof of easements for access to the parking area through the Social Security Office building prior to issuance of a Building Permit. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commissioner Review and Approval No. 790 and direct staff to file and post a Notice of Determination in accordance with City guidelines. It is recommended that this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 790, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: I. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. 2. That the site properly relates to adjoining streets which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. 3. That the conditions of approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 790 are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare. 4. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community. 5. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing Commercial Designation of the General Plan, with the addition of Condition of Approval 27 to read: The applicant shall provide to the satisfaction of the City Attorney and Community Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 10 Development Director proof of easements for access to the parking area prior to the issuance of a Building Permit, and the addition of Condition of Approval 28 to read: The elevations shall be modified to break up the west elevation by changing the parapet wall or other architectural modifications to the satisfaction of the Community Development Director. D. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 15757 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide approximately 4.73 gross acres into five(5)residential lots located on the southeast corner of Carob Street and Kincaid Street in the R-E, Residential Estate District. Request submitted by NFC DIGITAL, INC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Assistant Director John Jaquess stated the proposed project is under review by staff relative to issues regarding the slope density. Mr. Jaquess stated the applicant hired an engineer and will return to staff with its findings. Mr. Jaquess stated staff recommend the proposed project be continued. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming,Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson,seconded by Commission Osborne,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continued Tentative Tract No. 15757 to December 14, 2004. E. VARIANCE NO. 693 - PUBLIC HEARING for a Variance from Section 18.144.200 (B) of the Redlands Municipal Code to permit recreational open space within private rear yards in lieu of the requirement for recreational open space in the proposed common area of Tract No. 16816 located on the east side of Alessandro Road in Specific Plan No. 43. Request submitted by CLIVE PETERS. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 843 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit for the establishment of a Planned Residential Development on 26.81 gross acres consisting of 10 residential lots and 3 common area lots located on the east side of Alessandro Road in Specific Plan No.43. Request submitted by CLIVE PETERS. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 11 G. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16816 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 26.81 gross acres into 10 residential lots and 3 common area lots located on the east side of Alessandro Road in Specific Plan No. 43. Request submitted by CLIVE PETERS. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) Assistant Director Jaquess stated the proposed project is undergoing additional review by the applicant to address concerns raised by staff. Mr. Jaquess stated the applicant requested a continuance to December 14, 2004. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming,Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Variance No.693,Conditional Use Permit No. 843,and Tentative Tract No. 16816 to December 14, 2004. H. RDA 2004-IV-01 -A recommendation to the City Council for the approval of points for a Residential Development Allocation request for Tentative Tract No. 16747, an approved residential subdivision consisting of fifty-two (52)lots on 19.6 acres located north of San Bernardino Avenue and south of Pioneer Avenue approximately 2,000 feet west of Judson Street. (Note: This request is for 52 allocations; no allocations have been previously awarded.) Request submitted by RYLAND HOMES OF CALIFORNIA, INC. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) Mr. Jaquess stated the applicant wished to speak to the Commission prior to awarding of points. Mr. Scott McCann, Director of Forward Planning for Ryland Homes, stated he was disappointed with the total number of points recommended for his project (69 points), especially because there were no other applicants this quarter. Mr. McCann stated their engineer misunderstood Public Works' requirement for the coverage calculation, causing a loss of 7 points. Mr. McCann stated they put their effort into the front elevations of the homes, and did not understand the importance of upgrading the side and rear elevations. Mr.McCann stated he met with Mr. Jaquess and Mr. Hartel to see how they can score the minimum 90 points and they are challenged, given the site constraints that exist. Mr. McCann stated they put a lot of effort into the front elevations and the landscaping. Mr. McCann Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 12 stated their project, because of its location, is not eligible to score points in categories such as historical resources, ecologically sensitive area, reorientation of units,and special view preservation. Mr. McCann requested assistance in defining "development on three perimeter sides." Mr. McCann noted that they received 5 points in this category,even though there was a plan for a tract proposed to the west of his project. Chairman Webber asked Mr. McCann if the proposed tract was approved by the Commission. Mr. McCann stated it was not. Chairman Webber stated if the project was not approved, it is not a plan. Mr. McCann stated there is a single family home on the east side of the tract which he would like to be interpreted as a development. Chairman Webber stated the applicant could be eligible for additional points in the architecture category. Mr. McCann stated they will enhance the sides and rear elevations and vary the setbacks on the houses. Mr. McCann stated they have an opportunityto score additional points in Grading and Site Design (2b) but cannot score points in Ecologically Sensitive Areas (2c). Commissioner Osborne stated the lack of points is in areas other than planning. Mr. Shaw stated that staff's interpretation relative to the lack of points in the area of" project abuts development on three sides"is accurate. Mr. Shaw stated those points are geared toward awarding points for infill projects. Mr. Shaw stated the Commission has the ability to interpret the provisions and could make a recommendation to the City Council if they wish. Mr. Shaw stated staff can sit down with the applicant and identify areas where additional points can be attained. Mr. Shaw suggested as the RDA is reviewed, the Commission may identify areas in which the applicant may able to score additional points. Mr. Shaw stated it is true that certain projects will not score as high based on the project location itself. Mr. McCann stated he appreciate's the feedback from the Commission. Mr. Hartel stated staff received information from the Public Works Department that 7 additional points have been awarded, bringing the total from 33 to 40 points, before awarding of Commission points. The following are areas identified in which the applicant could be eligible for additional points: A. Architectural Design- Staff felt the side and rear elevations were devoid of architectural treatment and building materials were not listed (Commissioner Miller stated that a project would have to have outstanding elements such as as clad wood windows rather than vinyl, clay roof rather than concrete tile, or a substantial amount of precast trim around the windows for him to award ten points in this category. Commissioner Thompson concurred, stating he felt the rear elevations were plain and he suggested relief on both sides for corner lots.) Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 13 B. Site Design - Staff stated the project does not include varied front setbacks C. Internal Street Patten is Curvilinear - Mr. McCann stated there is an opportunity to put some"wiggle" in the north and south streets. Chairman Webber stated it would not be considered curvilinear, therefore, the modification would be pointless. The proposed project was reviewed by staff and 37 points were awarded by the Commission, for a total of 77 points. Mr. McCann stated he does not know how they can arrive at the required minimum points. Mr. Jaquess stated the proposed project is adjacent to a parcel that is under a Williamson Act Contract, which works against it. Mr.Jaquess stated there are many points eligible in the affordable housing category and the applicant may want to take it into consideration. V. ADDENDA F. Review of Conditional Use Permit No. 803 and Commission Review and Approval No. 759 - Terry and Geneil Vines (Barton House) Project Planner Asher Hartel stated the project was approved by the Commission in October 2003. Mr. Hartel stated there was a section relating to outdoor weddings that recommended the permit be subject to a one (1)year review period. Mr. Hartel stated the restoration has taken longer than first anticipated, and no outdoor weddings have been held. Mr. Hartel stated the Commission may want to revisit the project in November 2005. Commissioner Osborne commented the outside of the building looks great. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson,seconded by Commissioner Osborne,and carried on a 6- 0 vote that the project be reviewed by the Planning Commission again on November 22, 2005. VI. CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS A. City Council Report Mr. Shaw gave a report on the City Council actions of November 16tH Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 14 VII. ADJOURN TO EVENING SESSION Chairman Webbed adjourned the meeting to the evening session at 4:18 p.m. 7:00 P.M. VIII. RECONVENE EVENING SESSION Chairman Webber reconvened the meeting at 7:00 p.m. All Commissioners were present with the exception of Commissioner Laymon. I. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 801 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to install a ninety(90) foot high monolyptus cellular tower for a wireless telecommunication facility located at 1402 Cajon Street (Prospect Park) in the O, Open Land District. Request submitted by SPRINT PCS. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Project Planner Alicia Heideman noted that the Environmental Review Committee recommended a Mitigated Negative Declaration with 5 Mitigation Measures in the areas of aesthetics and cultural resources. Ms. Heideman stated an archeological and historical assessment was conducted on the site by Michael Brandman and Associates with four(4) Mitigation Measures recommended: 1. Construction must not affect the cobblestone wall or flume site 2. The trenching must not affect the site 3 The equipment shelter must be made with materials that match the historic nature of the park 4. A qualified archeologist must be present during construction activities Ms. Heideman stated the assessment was forwarded to the State Historic and Preservation Office (SHPO),which concurred with the assessment and concluded there would not be a negative effect on the park with the mitigation measures in place. Ms.Heideman stated a noise study was conducted by Mestre Greve and Associates on one(1)carrier and three (3)carriers for the proposed site. The noise level was 34.3 decibels to the east and 24.1 to the west. Ms. Heideman stated with three carriers the noise level was 39.1 and 28. Ms. Heideman stated this is well below the City's night time noise ordinance of 50 dba,therefore no mitigation was required. Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 15 Ms. Heideman stated an appeal was filed on the recommendation by the Environmental Review Committee. Ms.Heideman stated the appellant requested an Environmental Impact Report(EIR)be prepared on the project to research potential environmental degradation. Ms. Heideman stated the City Council voted that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is the appropriate document for the project. Ms. Heideman stated that plans show a ninety (90) foot tower, however Sprint indicated that the height of the tower can be reduced to eighty (80) feet. Ms. Heideman stated a Condition of Approval has been added that requires the maximum height of the tower to be 80 feet. Ms. Heideman stated Sprint indicated that the number of antennas can be reduced from 12 to 6; a Condition of Approval has been added to address this issue. Ms. Heideman stated staff recommends approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 801. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Ms. Carrie Horton,Business Law Partners,LLP,gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. Ms.Horton provided an existing Sprint coverage map and indicated there is a coverage gap from Prospect Park towards the Redlands Country Club. Ms.Horton stated to fill the coverage gap Sprint is proposing to install an eighty(80) foot monopole which as been designed to simulate a eucalyptus tree. Ms. Horton stated one battery cabinet and one cooling fan will be housed in an adjacent equipment shelter designed to mimic nearby architectural styles and will be fenced for security reasons. Ms. Horton stated they are proposing to reduce the height from a ninety(90)foot pole to an eighty (80) foot pole. Ms. Horton stated in an effort to further mitigate visual impacts, Sprint proposes to use a new state-of-the-art mono-eucalyptus tree design. Ms. Horton stated during the course of the appeal process, Sprint was asked to explore alternative locations. The five (5) locations were identified and evaluated: Hillside Memorial Cemetery: The distance from the coverage objective,the rise in the topography to the northeast, and tree clutter within the cemetery itself created a barrier for signal propagation. The site was deemed technologically unfeasible for Sprint's RF engineers. Orange Grove at 1515 Dwight Street: A seventy-five (75) foot tower would meet the coverage objective, but there is a lack of natural screening from taller trees that would help to mitigate the visual impact to the surrounding residences and the nearby school. Christ the King Church: The site was rejected by RF because of the topography rising to the east and south, which would result in poor coverage and large gaps in service. Valley Prep School: The site is densely developed with school buildings or parking, therefore a facility would have to be located at the front of the school in the parking area. There is a lack of screening in which to mitigate the visual impact to the surrounding area. Garden Street Fire Station: Ms. Horton stated a seventy-five (75) foot tower would meet their Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 16 objectives,however, the site lacks adequate screening and is closer to residences than the Prospect Park location. Ms. Horton stated they would anticipate a greater level of public opposition if they were to relocate the facility to one of the alternate locations. Ms. Horton stated after viewing the alternatives, they felt the Prospect Park site was a superior candidate for closing the existing coverage gap Property Values: Ms.Horton distributed a 2002 Property Value Impact Report prepared by Alfred Gobar and Associates that evaluated the impact on property values within 1/4 mile of four(4)stealth towers in Riverside County. Ms. Horton stated the study compared home resales before and after construction of a cell tower and found that the stealth towers did not negatively impact property values,and in fact,the property values immediately adjoining cell towers increased at a greater rate than those further removed from the tower. Chairman Webber asked Ms. Horton if she knew why that was true. Ms. Horton stated she did not. Mr.Horton stated Mr.Mark Neumann of Hemet Medicine would address the health and interference issues. Ms. Horton stated they placed a petition over the weekend at the Sprint PCS store in Redlands and obtained over 100 signatures in support of the proposed project. Mr. Mark Neumann, Hemet Medicine Consulting Engineers (San Francisco) stated his company's expertise is compliance with the FCC standard for radio frequency exposure.Mr.Neumann stated his company performed extensive calculations which incorporated the antenna types, height, power, reflection off ground and topography surrounding the site. Mr. Neumann stated a radio frequency analysis for the proposed site determined the maximum exposure in any accessible area was 0.05 of the FCC standard, which is 1,000 times below the standard. Mr.Neumann stated the standard was based on establishing a maximum level at which there are any adverse effects in addition to incorporating a safety factor. In addition to completing the radio frequency analysis,Mr.Neumann stated his company looked into radio frequency interference concerns based on issues a neighbor had with a wheelchair. Mr. Neumann stated the manufacturer states that the wheelchair in question has an RF immunity that is resistant to interference from RF energy,up to 20 volts per meter.Mr.Neumann stated based on their analysis, the maximum levels of exposure would be 1.8 volts per meter,which is over 10 times below. Mr. Neumann stated based on their analysis, there should be no interference to the wheelchair from the operation of the proposed site. Mr.Newman noted that an analysis done by a second consultant provided by appellant,determined that exposure levels at ground level were 1,000 times below the FCC standard, corroborating their results. Mr. Neumann stated he was available to answer questions. Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 17 Ms. Christeen Tanaguchi, Architecture Historian for GNA Associates, stated she evaluated the proposed Prospect Park location for the National Register of Historic Places. Ms. Tanaguchi stated they found Prospect Park to be potentially eligible as part of a national register historic district.Ms. Tanaguchi stated the Stated Historic Preservation Officer(SHPO)reviewed and concurred with their findings. Ms. Tanaguchi stated they recognize that the original proposal,which included a 90 foot tall mono pine tower would constitute an adverse effect. Ms. Tanaguchi stated they recommended the shelter be redesigned to better match the surrounding architecture and building materials. Ms. Tanaguchi stated that SHPO responded with a finding of adverse effect and found the tower to be "an introduction of visual, atmospheric or audible elements that diminish the integrity of the property's significant historic features." As a result, Ms.Tanaguchi stated the project was modified so that there would be no adverse effect and after careful consideration,the current proposal for an 80 foot mono eucalyptus and adjacent equipment shelter was accepted by SHPO. Discussion was held on the building materials for the equipment shelter. Ms. Heideman stated the plans indicate the shelter would be stucco with a tile roof. Mr. Mike Holritz, Mestre Greve Association, an acoustical consultant, stated his firm prepared a noise report and believe the noise from the proposed project will not be a significant concern to adjacent residents. Mr. Holritz stated the noise level was calculated for one (1) cell phone system, and for three (3) cell phone systems. Mr. Holrtiz stated the noise level to the east would be 34.3 DBA and to the west would be 24 DBA for one(1)system;which is well below the nighttime Noise Ordinance limit of 50 DBA.Mr.Holrtiz stated the noise level for three(3)systems would be 39.1 to the east and 28.8 to the west, which is still well below the Night time Noise Ordinance level. Commissioner Cook asked what type of noise would be generated by the tower. Mr.Holritz stated a constant hum which is emitted from the fans which would cycle on and off. Mr. Holrtiz stated ambient noise levels were measured at 40.3 DBA without the equipment running. Commissioner Cook asked Mr. Holritz if a regular house air conditioner would make more noise than the fan. Mr. Holritz stated it would. Ms. Carol Smith, resident, stated it has been a long struggle for the residents to convince a major corporation and an entire city that placing a telecommunications facility in Prospect Park is a bad idea. She asked the Commission to consider the overall picture. Risk Assessment: The World Health Organization (WHO) has made epidemialogical studies of people living around cellular base stations a top priority.Ms. Smith stated evidence is mounting that RF radiation at extremely low levels is working as a co-promoter with environmental agents as UV radiation and certain chemicals and drugs to enhance their adverse effects. Ms. Smith stated Resolution No. 15, which was passed by the International Association of Firefighters (IAFF), states no more cell towers next to fire stations and it calls for a moratorium and an independent epidemialogical study to compare firefighters in stations next to cell towers with those who are not. Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 18 Property Devaluation: Ms. Smith stated Sprint's assertion that an 80 foot fake eucalyptus tree draped with antennas and surrounded by a chain link fence would not affect property values,makes no sense. Ms. Smith stated they have expert opinions of court cases and experts in the field of real estate who state you can expect a property devaluation of 5-40% for houses close to cell towers. Ms. Smith stated they have provided the opinion of Andrew Davis, a well known environmental attorney,who lists cell towers as one of 50 environmental hazards to avoid,when buying, selling or maintaining a home. Aesthetics: Ms. Smith stated dropping the tower height to 80 feet will not cause the resident's objections to go away. Ms. Smith stated there are no dense trees in the surrounding area that would hide the tower. Ms. Smith stated there is one (1) seventy foot eucalyptus tree next to the proposed tower. Ms. Smith stated a fake tree would be the center of attraction in Prospect Park. Ms. Smith distributed photos of the proposed site as she spoke. Ms. Smith stated when Michael Brandman and Associates surveyed the site,Mr.Michael Dice,the archeological consultant, recommended the entire lease area be moved twelve (12) feet to the southeast to limit construction damage. Ms. Smith displayed Mr. Dice's photos taken in summer 2003. Ms. Smith stated they had no part in contributing letters,literature or studies,as they(residents)were not told what was going on. Ms. Smith showed the Commission site plans dated June 2003 which Mr.Dice used when he visited the site, and site plans dated March 2004,which are identical. Ms. Smith noted Mr. Dice stated the site had to be moved and it was never moved.Ms. Smith stated the proposed building is within three (3)feet of historical elements. Ms. Smith stated Mr. Dice's recommendation that the site be moved twelve (12)feet to the southeast is an error, as it would end up in the flume area. Ms. Smith stated if the site was moved twelve feet, it would be in the orange grove and you would have a different view because the building would be moved into clear site. Noise: Ms. Smith stated the noise levels were measured at two (2)ten minute periods. Ms. Smith stated it should have been measured during a six hour period,such as midnight to 6 a.m. Ms.Smith stated Sprint has insisted that there is only to be one (1) equipment cabinet and one (1)fan, while their plans indicate four(4) equipment cabinets and two (2) fans. Commissioner Osborne noted that the electromagnetic field Ms. Smith referred to is different from radiation,which is an ultraviolet ray or beam. Commissioner Osborne stated Ms. Smith commented that she did not have any input relative to the relocation of the site, however,the proposed site has been moved. Ms. Smith stated she should have been given an opportunity to send letters of protest to SHPO. Chairman Webber stated SHPO normally reviews projects and renders decisions without public input. Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 19 Mr. Steven Kennedy, (Brunik, Battersby, McElhaney and Beckett)representing Sprint,stated there are two issues before the Commission; a CEQA issue and an issue relative to the Conditional Use Permit. Mr. Kennedy stated they need only to submit evidence that meets the threshold of a fair argument in order for an EIR to be prepared for the proposed project. Mr. Kennedy stated for the Commission to determine that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is all that is needed for the project, it would have to find that the hundred of pages of evidence provided in support of the appeal,does not rise to the threshold of a fair argument. Mr. Kennedy stated such a finding by the Commission would be demeaning, insulting, and statutorily wrong under CEQA. Mr. Kennedy submitted a letter for the record, that deals with whether the standards/criteria for a Conditional Use Permit have been met under the Municipal Code and State Planning and Zoning Law. Mr. Kennedy stated staff is recommending a Conditional Use Permit(CUP)forthe proposed project, however the staff report makes no reference to whether the criteria for a CUP in an O District has been met pursuant to Municipal Code Section 18.124. Mr. Kennedy stated Municipal Code Section 18.124.100 states the height of building and structures in an O District shall not exceed 55 feet,and the height of flagpoles and light poles shall not exceed 80 feet. Mr. Kennedy stated there is no explanation in the staff report as to why that section is being ignored. Mr. Kennedy stated Municipal Code Section 18. 178 deals with evidence that needs to be submitted in support of a CUP. Mr. Kennedy stated this information was not included in the staff report as it relates to the modified project. Mr. Kennedy stated Municipal Section 18.192 states a CUP may be approve only if it will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare, yet the staff report(Page 9) states that health issues cannot be addressed. Mr. Kennedy stated per state planning and zoning law, a CUP can only be permitted in the case of a hardship. Mr. Kennedy stated the only hardship presented by Sprint is that the five(5)alternative sites don't meet their coverage objectives. Superior Court Judge Michael Kaiser, (1407 Cajon Street), stated the proposed cell tower will be visible from his front door. Judge Kaiser stated Municipal Code Section 18. 178.050 encourages the location of towers in non-residential areas, and encourage users of towers and antennas to locate them in areas where the adverse impact is minimal. Judge Kaiser stated the impact on this community is not minimal and the tower is incompatible with the character of the neighborhood. Judge Kaiser stated there are several District court cases that found that towers lower adjacent property values. Judge Kaiser also noted that maintenance truck traffic will be in close proximity to the Gingerbread Pre School. Dr. Wolff Kirsch (Head of Neurosurgery Center for Research and Education at Loma Linda University Medical Center) stated evidence is clear that prolonged exposure to microwaves is associated with brain tumors. Mr. Kirsch stated the WHO is conducting massive studies in many Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 20 countries on electromagnetic radiation. Dr. Kirsch asked the Commission to wait for definitive evidence, as the studies have not been conducted of long enough duration. Ms. Donna Crowther (205 Fountain) stated she has an electric engineering degree, and feels the federal government is not protecting us. Ms. Crowther stated she does not dispute that the Sprint tower is compliant, but she feels that 200 feet from a pre school is not appropriate. Mr. Ed Raab(1328 Cajon Street)stated if the tower comes in, his wife's wheelchair will be affected, furthermore,to say their property values will go up in value is absurd. Mr. Raab stated every manual on wheelchairs states"Do not operate in the vicinity of a cell tower"and they are within 120 feet from the cell tower. Mr. Rabb stated their entire home has been changed to his wife's needs and he does not want to move. Ms. Paula Dill (1357 Prospect)gave a brief summary on the history of Prospect Park. Ms. Dill stated Prospect Park was purchased as a gift to the citizens of Redlands. Ms. Dill read part of a letter from Mr. Waldo Burroughs, a former Mayor of Redlands, stating future development of the park must be done in stages that will compliment and preserve the original scenic beauty of the park. Ms. Liz Beguelin (Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission and President of the Redlands Historical Museum Association) stated no one thought to protect Prospect Park with a historic designation because they did not believe that this type of situation would occur. Ms. Beguelin stated she would hate to see the demise of the park because of one tall tower. Chairman Webber allowed Ms. Horton an opportunity for rebuttal. Ms. Horton stated there are several issues she would like to address. Ms. Horton stated the proposal is for one(1)Sprint facility and any future co-locators would have to go through the zoning process. Ms. Horton stated the site has undergone several revisions and they have made proposals on how to mitigate the impacts each time. Ms. Horton stated the site plans do not reflect their new revisions. Chairman Webber stated the plans to do not reflect the twelve(12)foot movement that was required by the Historic Officer. Ms. Horton stated the site plans do reflect the move, as they were incorporated before their application was submitted and before the lease was signed in February. Ms. Horton stated they would be happy to comply with any other requirements which could be added as Conditions of Approval. Ms. Horton stated they would be happy to comply with the Commission's requests relative to construction materials. Ms. Horton stated they have concentrated on all concerns raised by the residents. Ms. Horton stated they have submitted reports that they will operate well below the FCC standards and they are not dangerous levels. Ms. Horton stated they have undergone SHPO and in all cases they have shown that there are no negative impacts anticipated. Commissioner Thompson stated he is concerned with the impact on Ms. Raab's wheelchair and he asked Ms. Horton if she could explain how it will not impact the ability for her to run her wheelchair without it malfunctioning. Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 21 Mr. Neumann stated they were given information with regard to the manufacture and model of the wheelchair and based their analysis on that information. Mr. Neumann stated there are some devices that have shown susceptibility at 3-10 volts per meter, but they are below that number. Mr. Neumann stated the FDA has a tracking system for all complaints filed since 1992, and there have been a total of 8 complaints filed during that time. Discussion was held on standards and effects of exposure levels. Mr. Neumann stated the American National Standards Institute is required to re-validate the standard every five years and they will vote next week to re-certify the standard. Assistant City Attorney Les Murad stated that health effects cannot be considered as they are pre- empted by federal law. Chairman Webber asked about the height issue raised by Ms. Smith. Director Jeff Shaw stated it is recognized that antenna facilities will be higher than what is allowed in any zone, to include the Open Space zone. Commissioner Macdonald asked why Sprint would continue to pursue the project with so much opposition from the residents. Commissioner Macdonald stated the location is incorrect and should not be approved in such close proximity to a pre school. Commissioner Macdonald noted the close proximity to a residential neighborhood, the unknown effects to Ms. Raab, the risk assessment discussed by Ms. Smith, the noise from the fans, as reasons for his opposition to the project. Commissioner Miller stated the Commission has an obligation to make a decision based on the facts that are included in the staff report. Commissioner Miller stated the photographs provided are out of scale. Commissioner Cook stated Sprint does not have the right to place the tower in a park just because they need coverage. Chairman Webber stated the Commission has approved projects in the past that don't have as many trees on site. Commissioner Cook noted that those projects did not have as much opposition from the neighbors. Commissioner Miller asked if it would be helpful to stand on the property and look at the it from all angles. Commissioner Cook concurred with Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Osborne stated the proposed project is located in open space that is adjacent to a residential neighborhood. Commissioner Osborne stated he has no problem with the tower being located in a park, as he does not feel it will have an effect on the park. Commissioner Thompson stated he is not satisfied and he cannot support the project. Commissioner Thompson cited noise, aesthetics, property values, and the wheelchair issue as his reasons for opposition to the project. Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 22 Chairman Webber stated the Code is clear relative to the 100 foot setback from residential areas for CUP's and the standard has been met. Chairman Webber stated he did not feel the visual impact was an issue. Chairman Webber stated he does have some reservations relative to the wheelchair. Ms. Horton stated they could test Ms. Raab's wheelchairs for immunity levels to determine if they will withstand exposure to 1.8 volts per meter. Ms. Horton stated a balloon test could be conducted with the Commission present, to look at the impact of an 80 foot high facility. Commissioner Cook concurred with Ms. Norton's suggestion. Chairman Webber asked for a consensus from the Commission. Commissioner Macdonald suggested the final decision be made tonight as it is the Commission's responsibility. Chairman Webber stated he was in favor of seeking more information before a decision is made. Director Shaw stated the proposed project cannot be continued without taking an action on the Mitigated Negative Declaration. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 801 and direct staff to file and post a Notice of Determination in accordance with City guidelines. It is recommended that this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. Commissioner Macdonald made a motion for denial of the project. The motion failed due to the lack of a second Commissioner Miller suggested the Commissioners visit the proposed project site. Assistant City Attorney Les Murad indicated that Chairman Webber could call a special meeting of the Planning Commission to be held at the site. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 5-1 vote (Commissioner Macdonald voting no)to continue Conditional Use Permit No. 801 to January 11, 2005. IX. ADJOURN TO DECEMBER 14, 2004 Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to December 14th at 9:26 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 23 Patti Ortiz, Senior Administrative Assistant Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of November 23, 2004 Page 24