Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-14-05_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, June 14, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Caroline Laymon, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner ABSENT: George Webber, Chair Thomas Osborne, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Dan Mc Hugh, City Attorney Robert Dalquest, Principal Planner/Project Manager Asher Hartel, Senior Planner Manuel Baeza, Associate Planner Joshua Altopp, Assistant Planner David Jump, Junior Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Acting Chairman Jim Macdonald opened the public hearing at 2:00 p.m. All Commissioners were present except Commissioners Webber and Osborne. Chairman Macdonald noted that some agenda items would be taken out of order. Mr. Bill Cunningham asked for the status on the R. P. Wages project on Alabama Street. Mr. Cunningham stated that there does not seem to be any activity on the site,which is a field of weeds. Mr. Shaw stated that staff would report back to the Commission at the next meeting. II. CONSENT CALENDAR Chairman Macdonald noted that agenda item III-D-K would be heard at this time. Commissioner Laymon was excused due to a conflict of interest. D. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE REMOVAL NO. 104 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on an Agricultural Preserve Removal on 30.4 gross acres on property located north of San Bernardino Avenue,south of Pioneer Avenue,and west of Judson Street in the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) E. ZONE CHANGE NO. 396 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Zone Change from A-1, Agricultural District to R-E, Residential Estate District on three (3) contiguous parcels totaling 30.4 gross acres located north of San Bernardino Avenue,south Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Pagel of Pioneer Avenue, and west of Judson Street in the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) F. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 809 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development (PRD) on 30.4 gross acres consisting of 75 residential lots and three (3) common lots located north of San Bernardino Avenue,south of Pioneer Avenue, and west of Judson Street in the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) G. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16465 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 30.4 gross acres into 75 residential lots and three (3) common lots located north of San Bernardino Avenue,south of Pioneer Avenue,and west of Judson Street in the A-1, Agricultural District (Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) H. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE REMOVAL NO. 105 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on an Agricultural Preserve Removal on 12.1 gross acres on property located at the southeast corner of Pioneer Avenue and Judson Street in the A-1, Agricultural District. Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) I. ZONE CHANGE NO. 399- PUBLIC HEARING forthe Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Zone Change from A-1, Agricultural District to R-E, Residential Estate District on 12.1 gross acres located at the southeast corner of Pioneer Avenue and Judson Street in the A-1,Agricultural District(Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) J. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 819 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development(PRD)on 12.1 gross acres consisting of 33 residential lots and one (1)common lot located at the southeast corner of Pioneer Avenue and Judson Street in the A- 1, Agricultural District (Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) K. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16627 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 12.1 gross acres into 33 residential lots and one (1) common lot located at the southeast corner of Pioneer Avenue and Judson Street in the A-1, Agricultural District (Proposed R-E Residential Estate District). Request submitted by WALTON DEVELOPMENT. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) Project Planner Asher Hartel stated the proposed project was continued from the May 10th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hartel gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Hartel stated the Redlands Airport is located northeast of the proposed project;the end of the runway is Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 2 approximately 2,000 feet from the nearest proposed lots. Mr. Hartel stated the Airport Land Use Compatibility Plan(ALUCP)designation is Zone C for a majority of the southern portion of the site and Zone B2 for the open space area in the northerly portion of the site. Mr. Hartel stated that Zone C allows residential uses such as what is being proposed whereas Zone B2 allows for open space. Mr. Hartel stated the Conditions of Approval for the project require an Avigation Easement and a deed notice that discloses the proximity of the airport,for all lots. Mr. Hartel stated the issues and concerns that staff expressed for Tentative Tract No. 16465 also apply to Tentative Tract No. 16627: 1. The landscape recreational open space does not meet the 20% standard 2. San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat Habit in the northerly area 3. Side yard setbacks 4. Redlands Airport considerations 5. A lack of conceptual landscape plans Mr. Hartel stated the existing zoning designation for the parcels is A-1,Agricultural, and the proposed zoning designation is RE, Residential Estate, which is consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Hartel stated staff requested direction on the appropriate zoning for the B-2 zone area at the May 10th Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Hartel stated that proximity to the Redlands Airport and consistency with the ALUCP were discussed at the meeting. Mr. Hartel stated the consensus of the Commission was that the zone change is not timely or appropriate due to land use and noise issues associated with the close proximity of the airport; the Commission indicated the zoning should remain A-1, Agricultural. Mr. Hartel stated no revisions have been made to the proposed project to address the issues raised in the staff report. Mr. Hartel stated staff recommends the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) be certified, the Socio Economic Cost Benefit Study be approved, and the Zone Changes, Agricultural Preserve Removals, Conditional Use Permits, and Tentative Tract Maps be denied. Mr. Hartel stated prior to the meeting he was advised that a representative from the Municipal Utilities Department wished to address the Commission. Mr. Gary Van Dorst, Municipal Utilities Department, stated there are numerous examples where residential development encroaches upon existing airports until sufficient complaints are generated to severely restrict or close airport operations. Mr. Van Dorst stated it is the airport industry's experience that residential encroachment is incompatible with airport operations. Mr. Van Dorst stated they stand in support of those actions that would reduce residential density in proximity to the airport. Mr. Van Dorst stated that Municipal Utilities and Planning staff have met to jointly discuss the development of an action or policy to address this issue, however they have not yet come to a conclusion; they anticipate returning to the Commission at a later date with a recommendation. Mr. Van Dorst Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 3 requested support of staff's recommendation to deny the Zone Changes, Agricultural Preserve Removals, Conditional Use Permits and Tentative Tracts. Commissioner Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Pat Meyer, representing the applicant, stated the proposed project has been going through the development process for the past two years and has been consistent with the General Plan, the development in the area and the trends throughout the corridor. Mr. Meyer stated they are consistent with the ALUCP and the Zone C criteria. Mr. Meyer stated they concur with staff's recommendation that the Planning Commission should recommend approval of the certification of the EIR and the Socio Economic Cost Benefit Study. Mr. Meyer recommended the Planning Commission recommend approval of the Agricultural Preserve Removals stating something is going to happen with the land, whether it be a reduced residential development in another zone or some other form of land use. Mr. Meyer stated they disagree with staff's conclusion that the Agricultural Preserve Removal is not needed at this time. Mr. Meyer stated they can meet the 20% open space criteria required by the Planned Residential Development(PRD)ordinance without utilizing the habitat conservation areas along Pioneer Avenue and he hoped they would not be penalized by having to include this area in their gross acreage. He stated they will provide the required 20% open space for the two tract maps if and when they are in a position where the zoning is appropriate. Mr. Meyer stated he felt that staff's recommendation for denial of the zone change is premature and he believes it should be continued for further study to allow staff to continue their policy discussions. Mr. Meyer stated the Conditional Use Permits and Tentative Tract Maps should be continued. Mr. Meyer stated the project biologist, Mr. Tom McGill, is in the audience and the project noise consultant who conducted additional noise studies is available to answer questions. Mr. Meyer requested the Commission certify the EIR, recommend approval of the Socio Economic Cost Benefit Study, and recommend to the City Council that the Agricultural Preserve be eliminated. Mr. Meyer introduced Mr. Dean Dennis, attorney, representing Walton Development. Mr. Dean Dennis, attorney from the Law Firm of Hill, Farrer, & Burrill, stated he delivered a letter to the Planning Division and City Attorney earlier in the day. Mr. Dennis stated that his client hopes to work out a solution, but they are obligated to lay out a position by way of their letter. Mr. Dennis stated if the City persists in relocating the line,there will be a legal fight. Mr. Dennis stated two years ago,the City made a long range planning decision to open up the land south of the airport to more intensive residential development by moving the B2 line one thousand feet to the north of San Bernardino Avenue. Mr. Dennis stated Mr. Walton is proposing design revisions for consideration that may address some of staff's design concerns. Mr. Dennis stated the Walton proposal is consistent with the airport plan and the General Plan. Mr. Dennis stated they believe the idea to relocate the line to where it was previously,would be arbitrary, as there is no evidence of any changed circumstances or health and safety issues that would advocate the change in such a short period of time. Mr. Dennis stated his client and possibly others, purchased their property in reliance of the fact that the line was moved and the area was opened up to development Mr. Dennis stated the City approved the Ryland Homes tract, which is similar or exactly situated to the Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 4 proposed Walton Development. Mr. Dennis stated that coming up with a justification for denial of the Walton project, by reversing course, could result in legal complications. Mr. Dennis stated they are prepared to present design changes to the staff. Commissioner Macdonald reminded members of the audience that there is a three minute limit for speakers. Mr. Everett Hughes, applicant, deferred to Mr. Pat Meyer who stated his position. Mr. Scott Hughes, applicant, deferred to Mr. Pat Meyer who stated his position. Mr. Eric Paul, 939 E. Brockton Avenue, stated he has had an aircraft at the airport for 38 years. Mr. Paul stated he is speaking on behalf of a large group from Redlands Airport who are in the audience. Mr. Paul stated that the Hemet and Redlands Airport are the only two airports in the region that operate without restrictions at this time. Mr. Paul stated aircraft noise is the primary complaint of homeowners and most of the airplanes at Redlands Airport are propeller-driven and noisy. Mr. Paul stated the FAA and the state said no to the idea of moving the helicopter flight pattern to the north. Mr. Paul distributed a photo depicting Redlands Airport in 1965. Mr. Paul stated it would be nice for future generations to have use of Redlands Airport 60 years from now. Mr. Paul distributed a color photo of Los Angeles Airport depicting vacant lots,concrete slabs and vacant streets, where there was once a thriving neighborhood. Mr. Paul stated if residential developers are allowed to build close to the Redlands Airport,complaints will follow,which will result in more City staff and expense to manage them. Mr. Paul stated the Airport is a vital asset to our city and the surrounding communities that don't have their own airport. Mr. Paul stated they need to ensure that any development around the airport compliments it and does not restrict it. Mr. George Lessard,Airport Advisory Board,stated he was Chair of the board during the development of the plan,as it currently exists. Mr. Lessard stated the City established an Airport Master Plan and an Airport Land Use Plan in 1997, and both have been available to individuals interested in purchasing property near the airport. Mr. Lessard stated in 2001,the Airport Advisory Board, in trying to be supportive of the City's Plan to develop a sports park, suggested they make accommodation because they felt the Sports Park was an appropriate use of the land adjacent to the airport. Mr. Lessard stated that they asked that recommendations be brought back for discussion, but they were not brought back and an action was taken,that created a large change in the position of the B1 and C lines. Mr. Lessard stated there is no way of making helicopters quiet and this property is directly under their climb zone. Mr. Lessard stated that development will occur but it needs to be appropriate; both the citizens who buy the houses and the airport needs to be protected. Mr. Lessard stated the intent of the Airport Advisory Board was to separate incompatible activities and the Commission's action to this point supports that position. Mr.Ted Lindberg,3151 Airway Avenue#1-2,Costa Mesa,identified that his company prepared the noise study and he stated that he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Lindberg to clarify the term"energy average noise level" Mr. Lindberg stated that noise is converted into a unit of energy. Commissioner Miller asked for a clarification on LEQ (Equivalent Noise Level). Mr. Lindberg stated if the noise level is measured for one hour, the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) is the average noise level for that hour. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on the noise threshold for Redlands. Mr. Lindberg stated in most cities the threshold is 65 dB Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL); in Redlands it is 60 dB CNEL. Mr. John E. James, Airport Advisory Board, summarized a letter he distributed to the Commission. Mr. James stated that future landowners and residents are going to respond to noise, regardless of the noise level. Mr. James stated it is not likely that the helicopter pattern will move to the north therefore if helicopter Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 5 noise becomes a nuisance and the future landowners complain, the helicopter pattern is likely to be abandoned. Mr.James stated that various compatibility zones around the airport require a percentage of the zone to remain open land so that a land use and density gradient is created around the airport. Mr. James stated the airport is a fixed point,therefore allowing the open space on one zone to be used for open space in another zone should not be allowed. Mr. James stated the Municipal Utilities Department is preparing a draft ordinance that will actively notify residents within the area of the airport. Mr.James stated the draft ordinance might include physical marking by street signage,and the marketing and selling of new properties.Mr.James stated he concurred with staffs recommendation to deny the zone change and the proposed project. Mr. Calvin/Ms. Mona Penner, 1305 E. San Bernardino Avenue, stated they own property adjacent to the proposed Walton project. Ms. Penner stated their property will be affected by changing the Airport Land Use Plan and they are opposed to it. Ms. Penner stated that they purchased their land with the knowledge on where the boundaries of the B2 and C zones were located. Mr. Penner stated they have taken their hard earned money and purchased the property for the purpose of development and he does not believe the airport has the right to take that away from them. Commissioner Macdonald suggested Mr. Penner communicate with staff for further clarification. Ric Brown,2075 Costa Del Nogal,Ste. I,stated he is currently processing a 6-acre site below the airport. Mr. Brown stated he purchased the property approximately four months ago without an understanding of the airport issue. Mr. Brown stated he is strongly opposed to what the City is doing to landowners such as him self. Mr. Brown stated he purchased the property under the City guidelines, after meeting with Planning on three or four occasions,and was not told about the proposed change. Mr. Brown requested the Commission not go forward with the proposed realignment of the Airport Land Use Plan, which is going to hurt a lot of people. Mr. Brown stated he does not want to pay attorney fees but he is not going to let his investment go down the drain. Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Brown if the zoning when he purchase the propertywas what it is now. Mr. Brown stated it was.Commissioner Thompson stated the land can be developed under the existing zoning and he does not believe anything is being taken away from Mr. Brown. Mr.Brown disagreed,stating he spoke with the Planning Department and was told he could remove the Agricultural Preserve and obtain RE zoning and a PRD. Mr. Brown stated he calculated the value of the property and paid a premium. Mr. Brown stated he proposed a 19-lot subdivision with 8,500 square foot lots and was told by the Planning Department that they are looking for larger lots. Mr. Brown stated he decreased the subdivision to 15 lots and then purchased the property. Mr. Brown stated he was told by Mr. Jaquess that there was an issue with the airport relative to realignment of zones for the Airport Land Use Plan and it was suggested he attend the May 10"Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Brown stated the biggest issue is the fiscal responsibility of the City; what makes more money for the City, new residential development or the airport? Mr. Phil Furnari, 1278 E. Pioneer Avenue, stated he lives in the B2 zone and has a five(5)acre commercial acres. Mr. Furnari stated the site of the proposed development is a dumping ground with tires,furniture,and refrigerators. Mr. Furnari stated if the Walton development will adhere to the PRD, it will be fantastic improvement for the site. Mr. Furnari stated he feels the helicopters are a nuisance, especially at 9:30 p.m. Mr. Furnari stated the airport is going to be there and the houses are going to come, and he stated they have to find a solution and live in a harmonious community. Mr. Patrick Casey, 1365 E. Pioneer Avenue, stated he lives north of the proposed development. Mr. Casey stated he does not have a problem with the airport, but Mr. Walton is going to develop the streets and the drainage at his expense. Mr. Furnari stated Mr.Walton is going to fix the streets on San Bernardino Avenue, both sides of Judson, and Pioneer, and install a 56-inch drainpipe. Mr. Casey stated Mr. Walton is going to improve their property values. Mr. Casey stated they need to work things out. Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Bob Johnson, 1485 E. San Bernardino Avenue, stated he built a house on San Bernardino Avenue twenty-eight years ago. Mr. Johnson stated he is opposed to any changes to the Airport Land Use Plan because it will affect what he can do with his property. Ms. Bruce Ann Hahn, 830 Utica Avenue,stated she recently purchased 10 acres near the airport. Ms. Hahn asked what type of aircraft was used in the noise study. Ms. Hahn stated a recent newspaper article stated that aviation is one of the fastest growing transportation issues in the state. Ms. Hahn stated the Commission does have a fiscal responsibility and the airport is a wonderful asset to the City. Ms. Hahn stated that smaller airports are seeing more traffic. Ms. Hahn stated she did not feel that dense housing is compatible with an airport. Mr. Mark Gardner, 1810 Country Club Drive,stated as a resident and an aviation enthusiast,he finds himself in a peculiar situation. Mr. Gardner stated that they are talking about people's private property rights and the right of development that is going to go on around the airport. Mr.Gardner stated the airport needs to promote the airport with projects that will be complimentary to it. Mr. Gardner stated they need to think"outside the box" and there is residential development that is compatible with the airport; they are called air parks. Mr. Gardner stated there is a lot of land that is adjacent and contiguous to the airport,and the people who will live in the air parks are not going to complain about noise because they are aviation enthusiasts. Mr. Gardner stated those who have built hangars and own airplanes have substantial investments. Mr. Eric Fraser, 1045 W.Sunset Drive,stated he has been a pilot for the past twenty years. Mr.Fraser stated that property rights are important, however,this development is a classic example of an incompatible transition of land use for an area adjacent to an airport. Mr. Fraser stated he would hope that the Commission would move forward and take into consideration what type of land use would be acceptable. Mr. Fraser urged the Commission to move forward with staff's recommendation except the change from Agricultural Preserve to a more compatible land use. Mr. Bob Pearce, 1320 Knoll Road, Chairman, Airport Advisory Board, thanked the Commission for its consideration of the concerns that the Airport has had in the past. Mr. Pearce stated he supports staff's recommendation for denial of the project. Mr. Pearce recommended that noise considerations which may need to be revised under the Master Plan or the General Plan be reviewed by the Airport Advisory Board and the recommended changes be submitted to the State of California Department of Aeronautics, as required under CA PUBLIC CODE 21670. Mr. Pearce recommended that any noise requirements be reviewed as it is reflecting the US Government's EPA Noise Standards for airports. Mr. Pearce stated that development in and around the airport can be accomplished and remain near the airport by developing airport friendly family residences,and aviation or industrial communities. Mr. Pearce reminded those sitting in the audience, itwas not the City that established the zoning for the airport, it was the State Legislature that did so without public hearings in 1992. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Pearce for the source he quoted with regard to rural and suburban areas. Mr. Pearce stated it is the California Airport Land Use Plan, Section 7, page 25-26, Chart 7-C. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Pearce if it was thought possible to move the airport landing area to the north side of the airport,when the line was moved to accommodate the sports park. Mr. Pearce stated it was. Commissioner Miller stated since that time, they have learned that it will not be allowed by the governing agency. Mr. Pearce stated it is the Department of Aeronautics and FAA who have refused to move the traffic pattern to the north side because of safety issues, which are very pertinent. Commissioner Miller stated he understood that it was a verbal statement made, however Mr. Pearce stated there is a letter to that effect. Mr. Pearce stated he is sure the Municipal Utilities Department holds the letter from the Department of Aeronautics stating that they refuse to have it moved. Commissioner Miller asked to see the letter and he asked if it had been found. Mr. Shaw stated they may want to check with Mr. Gary Van Dorst, as he has not seen it. Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 7 Mr. Pearce stated he has a copy of a letter from Cal Trans but he did not bring it with him. Mr. Pearce stated that he would bring the letter to staff the next day. Mr. Gary Van Dorst stated it is his understanding that the FAA responded to the effect that the heli-pad could not be moved for several reasons;one of which is the San Bernardino Kangaroo Rat(SBKR)habitat. Mr.Van Dorst stated they have correspondence on file from the Department of Transportation Division of Aeronautics citing concerns about mixing the flight patterns of fixed wing aircraft with helicopters. Mr. Bill Cunningham, stated he had the honor to serve on the City Council through the development of the Master Plan, through the closure of Norton Air Force Base, through controversy with regard to noise from aircraft(both from our own airport and from Norton). Mr.Cunningham stated that Norton changed their flight path due to the controversy. Mr. Cunningham stated he did a good deal of research on the impact of noise from airports with regard to residential situations, and they are severe; whether they are small general use airports or international airports. Mr. Cunningham questioned the ultimate capacity and use of the airport, which doesn't seem to be taken into account. Mr.Cunningham stated the noise is out of scale for this project when you consider the weighting of 60 CNEL down to 50 CNEL between the hours of 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. Mr.Cunningham stated he co-authored Measure N and Measure U and set as a minimum standard,a density of RE in the conversion of agricultural land. Mr. Cunningham that RA or RR zoning would be allowed and would still be consistent with the General Plan. Mr.Cunningham stated that 6,700 square foot lots,which are 7%smaller than the smallest single family residential zone lot in the city,says something about trying to pack as many houses into as small an area as is physically possible. Mr. Cunningham stated there is no requirement that there be an automatic zone change on the part of the city. Mr. Cunningham stated he concurred with staff's recommendation. Mr. Bill Ingraham, Redlands Airport Advisory Board and County Director of Airports, stated that Redlands Airport, by accepting federal grants,contracts to operate the airport for a minimum of 20 years. Mr. Ingraham stated one of the many penalties for closing the airport is the repayment of$2.5 million in grant funds. Mr. Ingrahm stated he has done a number of master plans on airports and it appears that the noise report over a two day period made several assumptions for the post 3 p.m.time period. Mr. Ingraham states the report indicates there is a high potential for complaint. Mr. Ingraham concurred with Mr. Cunningham. Mr. Ingraham suggested they are overdue for a a new airport master plan on the airport before significant changes are made in planning for the community,and as a follow-up,an update to the ALUCP in compliance with the 2001 standards from the Division of Aeronautics. Mr. Ingraham stated the airport is a strong community asset. Mr. Dave Belanger, 1285 E. San Bernardino Avenue, stated he purchased a 5 acre lot adjacent to Ryland Homes for his retirement. Mr. Belanger stated something needs to be done with the raods. Mr.Ali Mozayeni,ABCO Realty and Investments, has owned a 10 acre parcel of land that would be affected by moving the B2 line. Mr. Mozayeni stated he is opposed to moving the line as many property owners would be financially impacted and he supports the Walton development which will greatly revitalize the area. Mr. Meyer stated this is a very emotional issue. Mr. Meyer stated it appears they take a scientific look at the airport land use plan,figure out where the B2 zone needs to be and not arbitrarily move it back and forth,and consider the land uses in the area. Mr. Meyer requested the Commission certify the EIR, recommend approval of the Socio Economic Cost Benefit Study,remove the Agricultural Preserve,and continue the zone change until the Commission determines what the airport land use should be. Mr. Meyer stated they would Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 8 like to see whatever denials were provided by the FAA, if they are in writing. Commissioner Macdonaldclosed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller asked if the noise study is part of the EIR so that certification of the EIR would also be certification of the noise study. Mr.Shaw stated the information provided can be considered in their evaluation of the project, however it is not within the draft EIR. Commissioner Miller stated he felt the Commission would benefit from additional information about the noise generated. Mr. Shaw stated the Commission can always request additional information that will help them make a decision. Commissioner Thompson stated he would like to see an expanded noise study projected 20 years into the future, because he felt the airport will have more activity, and if residential development is approved around it, it may generate more complaints in the future.Commissioner Thompson stated he felt they made a mistake in moving the line to accommodate the sports park. Commissioner Thompson stated at the time the Ryland project was approved, he noted that it would be the last development he would approve. Commissioner Thompson stated the airport is an asset to the community, it keeps other flights awayfrom the city, it provides recreational and educational benefits to the city. Commissioner Thompson stated if they start to approve residential development around the airport, it will severely restrict the use of the airport. Commissioner Cook concurred with Commissioner Thompson. Commissioner Cook stated they need to resolve the land use issue around the airport before moving forward with the proposed project. Commissioner Cook stated she would agree to approval of the Socio Economic Cost Benefit Study and removal of the Agricultural Preserve designation. Commissioner Macdonaldconcurred with the Commission relative to the importance of the airport,and he felt a zone change at this time is inappropriate until the issues that have been identified have been resolved. Commissioner Macdonaldstated he agrees with the certification of the EIR, and the approval of the Socio Economic Cost Benefit Study, but he is concerned with removal of the Agricultural Preserve designation at this time. Commissioner Macdonaldstated he concurs with staff's recommendations. Commissioner Macdonaldstated there is the issue of the lot size, PRD minimums, the open space, the side yard set back which are unacceptable, in addition to the helicopter noise. Commissioner Cook asked if the proposed project should be continued. Commissioner Miller stated he is sensitive to the landowners who had expectations based on previous zoning, and he would prefer to the see the project continue to look at other options;first,a more thorough noise study that would identify the type of aircraft that is flown and measure the noise that is generated from helicopters and jets,and second, look into alternative developments that would be more compatible with the airport and enable landowners to get the highest and best use out of their land. Commissioner Thompson concurred with the Commission and stated he concurred with Mr. Gardner, that there are probably many land uses that could be applied to the land around the airport and be compatible with it other than high density residential. Commissioner Macdonald stated he does not agree with a continuance, as he feels all action and development should be stopped until all issues are resolved. Commissioner Macdonald stated a more thorough noise study will prove that helicopters flying over houses will create a problem. Commissioner Macdonald stated he concurs with staff's recommendation. Commissioner Macdonald asked if the project should be tabled. Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 9 City Attorney Dan Mc Hugh stated a continuance means the project is continued to a date certain;tabling the project means it is tabled indefinitely and would require re-noticing the entitlements.Mr. Mc Hugh stated there is a question before the Commission as to what should be continued, and he is unsure if there is a concurrence from the Commission. Mr. Mc Hugh stated the certification is scheduled to go before the City Council on June 21 and he questioned what effect it would have on trying to complete noise studies subsequent to certification of the EIR. Mr. Mc Hugh stated under state law the City has one year from the date an application is deemed complete to complete an EIR. Mr. Mc Hugh stated a developer can enforce that requirement within one year,and recently the court said the EIR should be completed and certified. Mr. Mc Hugh stated they have taken one year in addition to a 90 day extension which the applicant agreed to, and they are up against that deadline on June 291H Mr. Mc Hugh stated they asked for an extension to try to give the Commission and staff additional time on the EIR, however the applicant was not willing to do so. Mr. Mc Hugh questioned whether it would be appropriate, if the EIR is certified, for the applicant to pay for noise studies or whether the City would undertake the studies. Mr. Shaw stated he is hearing the purpose of the noise study would be to evaluate the Redlands Airport Master Plan relative to changes that have occurred since the original Master Plan was adopted. Mr. Shaw stated based on the testimony received it appears that since the Master Plan was prepared, activities at the airport have changed relative to the types of aircraft. Mr.Shaw stated his expectations relative to a new noise study would pertain to modifications to the airport and a new Airport Master Plan. Commissioner Macdonald stated he would read the motions and the Commission can determine if the project should proceed to the City Council. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Laymon recused) that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council certifythe Environmental Impact Report finding that the EIR has been completed in compliance with CEQA,thatthe EIR has been reviewed and considered prior to making a recommendation on the project,and the EIR reflects the lead agency's independent judgment and analysis. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 4-0 vote (Commissioner Laymon recused) that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Conditional Use Permit Nos.809 and 819 and Tentative Tract No. 16465 and 16627,as this project will not create unmitigable blight or overburden public services in the community,and no additional information or evaluation. Commissioner Miller asked if there is a timeline to consider on the zone change. Mr. McHugh stated that certain portions of the project may proceed to the City Council,without the zone change. Mr. Mc Hugh stated if the zone change is denied by the Commission, as the final approving body, the applicant have a right to appeal the decision. Mr. Mc Hugh stated the applicant has stated he has some alternative plans that he would like the City to consider. Mr. Mc Hugh stated it might be beneficial for the Commission to continue the project and review the alternative plans, before proceeding to the City Council.Mr.Mc Hugh stated there is no time constraint with regard to the legislative entitlements. Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 10 Commissioner Macdonald requested a motion for continuance. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 3-1 vote (Chairman Macdonald voting no)that the Planning Commission continue Zone Change Nos. 396 and 399, Agricultural Preserve Removal Nos. 104 and 105, Conditional Use Permit Nos. 809 and 819 Tentative Tract Nos. 16465 and 16627 to September 13, 2005. Commissioner Macdonald recessed the meeting at 4:03 p.m. The meeting reconvened at 4:10 p.m. Commissioner Miller was recused due to a possible conflict of interest. Items IV-E and IV-F were heard at this time so that Commissioner Cook could vote prior to her early departure from the meeting. E. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO. 106 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING on a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from Agricultural to Light Industrial District on approximately 15.63 acres located on the north east corner of Wabash Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue, Request submitted by LARRY JACINTO. (Project Planner: Joshua Altopp) F. ZONE CHANGE NO.414- Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Zone Change from unincorporated San Bernardino County IC(Community Industrial)to the City of Redlands M-1 (Light Industrial District)on approximately 6.73 acres APN: 0297-121-07-0000 and a Zone Change from unincorporated San Bernardino County AG-AP (Agricultural, Agricultural Preserve)to the City of Redlands M-1 (Light Industrial District)on the remaining 8.90 acres APN: 0297-121-10 and 11 located on the northeast corner of Wabash Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue, Request submitted by LARRY JACINTO. (Project Planner: Joshua Altopp) Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr.Altopp stated during the pre-zoning process it was brought to staff's attention by LAFCO that the two parcels were located within a County Agricultural Preserve. Mr. Altopp requested the proposed project be continued to allow staff and LAFCO sufficient time to resolve this issue. Commissioner Macdonald opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Commissioner Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson ,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue General Plan Amendment No. 106 and Zone Change No.414 to June 28, 2005. Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 11 Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting at 4:14 p.m. III. OLD BUSINESS A. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO.801 -Consideration bythe Planning Commission on a Mitigated Negative Declaration,a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and Planning Commission consideration of a Commission Review and Approval for the construction of a 699,350 square foot concrete tilt-up building for a regional distribution center on approximately 32.11 acres located on the west side of Marigold Avenue at the terminus of Palmetto Avenue in Concept Plan No.2 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by AMB PROPERTY CORPORATION. (Project Planner: Bob Dalquest) Project Planner Bob Dalquest gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Pat Meyer, representing the applicant,stated he concurred with staff's recommendations and Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 801 and direct staff to file and post a"Notice of Determination"in accordance with City guidelines. It has been determined 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 Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 801. It has been determined 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 Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 801, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and all of the required yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features to adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the area; Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 12 2. That the site properly relates to streets and highways which are properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. 3. That the conditions set forth in the approval and those shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; 4. That Commission Review and Approval No. 801, therefore, be approved subject to all departmental recommendations. Commissioner Cook left the meeting at 4:25 p.m. B. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 802 - Consideration by the Planning Commission on a Mitigated Negative Declaration,a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and Planning Commission consideration of a Commission Review and Approval for the phased construction of a 1,313,470 square foot concrete tilt-up building for a regional distribution center on approximately 60.32 acres located on the northwest corner of San Bernardino Avenue and California Street in Concept Plan No. 2 of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by AMB PROPERTY CORPORATION. (Project Planner: Bob Dalquest) Project Planner Bob Dalquest gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Dalquest reviewed the recommended changes that were included in the staff report. Mr. Dalquest stated staff is recommending the proposed project be continued to the June 28th Planning Commission meeting however, the applicant has indicated that they would like to have the project approved subject to revised elevations. Mr. Dalquest suggested the Commission consider changes to the elevations on the north and south sides. Commissioner Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Bob Jacob, representing the applicant,stated he concurs with the recommendations with the exception of the north and south elevations. Mr.Jacob stated they would like to work with staff and do something similar to what was done on the loading docks to break up the wall and add articulation. Commissioner Miller commented on the elevations: 1. East elevation- Formerly there was an element that occurred at the corners of the building, that has been replaced by anew element. Commissioner Miller stated he would prefer to see a combination of the two elements. 2. South elevation - Raise the element in the middle a little more Mr. Pat Meyer, representing the applicant,stated that he would like to see the project approved today subject to bringing back the revised elements as an addenda item. Mr. Darrell Butler, AMB, stated he would like the project to be approved at this time subject to the recommendations of staff. Mr. Shaw stated if the Commission is comfortable with staff reviewing the amendments it can be approved with direction from the Commission, or the project can continued. Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 13 Commissioner Miller stated he would be comfortable with staff reviewing the changes. Commissioner Laymon concurred with Commissioner Miller. Mr. Dalquest suggested the three motions be read and he would draft wording for additional Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson,seconded by Chairman Macdonald,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 802 and direct staff to file and post a"Notice of Determination"in accordance with City guidelines. It has been determined 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 Thompson,seconded by Chairman Macdonald,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 802. It has been determined 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 Thompson,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 802, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. That the site for the intended use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use, and all of the required yards, setbacks, walls or fences, landscaping and other features to adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses of land in the area; 2. That the site properly relates to streets and highways which are properly designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. 3. That the conditions set forth in the approval and those shown on the approved site plan are deemed necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; 4. That Commission Review and Approval No. 801, therefore, be approved subject to all departmental recommendations with the addition of Condition of Approval 43 to read: The east elevations of the building shall contain the vertical glass element presented to the Planning Commission in addition to the vertical elements scored on the building wall that shall remain,subject to the approval of the Community Development Director. Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 14 and Condition of Approval 44 to read: On the south and north elevations,the center architectural element shall increase in height above the roof line and in the center elevation subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 855 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Conditional Use Permit for an irrigation pond of approximately one (1) acre in size and a pump house building of 1,200 square feet located in the northeastern area of the golf course at Redlands Country Club, 1749 Garden Street in the R-A Residential Estate District. Request submitted by REDLANDS COUNTRY CLUB. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) Project Planner Asher Hartel gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Ken King, representing the applicant, stated that he concurs with the Conditions of Approval. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 855, subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City, because the use at Redlands Country Club at 1749 Garden Street is an approved use that is consistent with the General Plan and Zoning Regulations. The proposed golf course irrigation pond and pumphouse are consistent with the City's land use plans; 2. That the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, because Conditions of Approval from various City departments require any necessary improvements; 3. That the proposed development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable R-A zoning district and the City's development standards because current standards have been applied to the project Conditions of Approval; 4. That the proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location because both the General Plan and Zoning District provide for the use of the property at 1749 Garden Street as a golf course. Mr. Shaw noted that a motion for the Mitigated Negative Declaration was not included in the staff report. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Chairman Thompson, and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 855 and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. It has been determined that this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 15 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 33 (AMENDMENT NO. 1) - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for an amendment to the sign criteria for Specific Plan No. 33 Section C. 7.b.4 to allow pedestal signs to identify up to three (3) tenants in a commercial center. Request submitted by SILVERCREEK PROPERTIES. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) B. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 281 - Planning Commission to consider a Commission Sign Review for a multi-tenant sign program for a six building commercial center located on the west side of Alabama Street, the south side of Lugonia Avenue, and north side of Orange Tree Lane in the Commercial District of Specific Plan No.33. Request submitted by SILVERCREEK PROPERTIES.(Project Planner:Manuel Baeza) Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated the application is for the Orange Tree Marketplace, located at the southwest corner of Lugonia Avenue and Alabama Street. Mr. Baeza stated the amendment asks for a ground sign that would allow up to three(3) tenants and the name of the center or a combination. Mr. Baeza stated that staff had concerns relative to the amount of signage the project is allowed to have under Specific Plan No. 33, however at this time staff cannot recommend further changes. Mr. Baeza stated the center identification signs which will be located at the southwest corner of Alabama and Lugonia,and the northwest corner of Orange Tree Lane and Alabama will return to the Commission for review and approval. Mr. Baeza stated staff is recommending approval of the Specific Plan and the Commission Sign Review. Mr. Shaw stated the modification in terms of staff's position, came as a result of a discussion with the City Attorney. Mr. Shaw stated the Specific Plan Amendment provides for a significant amount of sign area that isn't allowed in other zones in the city. Mr.Shaw stated it would be important for the Commission to give their thoughts on this issue because the applicant is opposed to modification of the reduction of square footage. Commissioner Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Rick Del Carlo, Silvercreek Properties, stated they want to go on record that they are satisfied with the current Specific Plan. Mr. Del Carlo stated they believe the amount of signage they are providing is fair and not overstated. Mr. Del Carlo stated they hope to have their project approved. Commissioner Miller asked if the signage shown on the illustrations is drawn to scale. Mr. Del Carlo deferred to his architect, Mr. Milton Solomon. Mr. Milton Solomon, Architectural Design and Signs, stated their criteria was developed after meeting with staff;they are asking to be allowed to have three(3)tenants on the monument sign. Mr.Solomon stated the one criteria they agreed with is the maximum 120 feet per each elevation; so the size of the letters doesn't matter. Mr.Solomon stated signage is much better than it was and has nothing to do with how big the sign is; it has to do with proportion. Mr. Solomon stated they want no ambiguity with regard to the Specific Plan and the Municipal Code. Mr.Solomon stated for the applicant to go back to prospective tenants and tell them that the sign criteria has been changed from 1.5 square feet to 1 square foot makes life difficult for them and he stated it is unfair to change the guidelines twenty-four hours before the Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Solomon stated the City Code says they are allowed up to a maximum 120 square feet, and they have Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 16 used 50-52 square feet, however they still have to go back to the Planning Commission for approval. Mr. Solomon requested approval of the project at this time. Mr. Solomon advised Commissioner Miller that the illustrations were not drawn to scale. Mr.Solomon stated that staff's recommendations allude to"towers"however they are unsure what the towers are. Commissioner Macdonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner Thompson questioned why Specific Plans are allowed to have criteria different from the Municipal Code,yet staff is recommending that this project abide by the Code. Mr.Shaw responded by saying there was a significant amendment to the Sign Code several years ago and staff wants to provide consistency for commercial uses throughout the City. Mr.Shaw stated the Specific Plans were adopted prior to 1989 and there was a recognition that the Municipal Code and the Sign Code, in particular,were not sufficient to meet signage needs prior to the late 90's. Mr.Shaw stated they have not been advised by retailers that the formulas developed by staff and approved in the Municipal Code have presented any problems. Discussion was held on the 1 foot versus 1.5 criteria. Mr.Shaw stated an applicant would still be allowed more signage under the Specific Plan than under the Redlands Municipal Code as it is currently written. Commissioner Miller asked if the applicant will benefit by bringing the Specific Plan more in line with the current Sign Code by allowing multi tenants on monument or pedestal signs. Mr. Shaw stated it is one of the changes that was made to the Sign Code. Commissioner Miller stated it does not seem fair to him to ask for something and not give something back if their effort is to try to bring this into compliance with City ordinances. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification on calculating the total sign area allowed. Mr. Jaquess stated the current Municipal Code allows you to calculate your total sign area by taking the longest frontage or longest side,whichever gives you more.Commissioner Miller summarize that the Specific Plan allows you to take frontage cumulatively from every side with the benefit of 1.5 feet per frontage. Commissioner Macdonald stated that Commissioner Miller's comment that the cumulative effect of using all four side at 1.5 feet would be significant. Commissioner Macdonald stated they did go through an extensive revision of the Sign Code with the input of many businesses,and in fairness to the businesses that complied with the current Sign Code it would be his recommendation that the Specific Plan be amended to reflect the same sign area as allowed by the Redlands Municipal Code. Mr. Del Carlo asked for clarification on what they would be allowed to do. Mr.Solomon asked if they agree to the 1 square linear foot of frontage,what happens to the major tenant that has 200 linear feet of frontage; if he is allowed a maximum of 120 square feet for his sign but he wants to place signage on 2 or 3 sides. Commissioner Macdonald stated they spent years revising the Sign Code to balance it as much as possible for all types of businesses that they deal with. Commissioner Miller asked if the applicant is limited by one frontage or multiple frontages. Mr. Shaw suggested the project be continued for 2 weeks so that staff can work with the applicant in understanding the parameters and how they effect him. Mr. Solomon stated he understands fully what the Municipal Code is saying however, their thinking has been based on the Specific Plan requirements. Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 17 Commissioner Macdonald asked Mr. Del Carlo if he would like to continue the project. Mr. Del Carlo indicated he would like a 2 week continuance. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson ,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue RPC No. 1064,Amendment 1 to Specific Plan No. 33, and Commission Sign Review No. 281 to June 28, 2005. C. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 861 - PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to allow for the occupancy of approximately 6,230 square feet of an existing light industrial building for a children's recreational facility at a property located at 415 Missouri Court in the EV/IC, Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by PETER GEIGER. (Project Planner: Joshua Altopp) Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Miller asked what will happen in the arena. Commissioner Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Peter Geiger, applicant, stated that large inflatable toys will be used in the arena. Mr. Geiger stated he concurs with the Conditions of Approval with the exception for the Condition of Approval that limits events to 60 people, as he would hope to have a big party when they open. Mr. Geiger asked how he can pursue obtaining additional parking spaces on the weekend. Mr. Jaquess stated there is no provision in the Municipal Code to allow shared parking however, what the applicant is proposing will probably work in reality because the other industrial buildings will be used during the week and not on weekends. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 861subject to the following findings, submitted plans, and attached conditions of approval: 1. That the proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City. The applicant is seeking a Conditional Use Permit to locate an indoor family recreational facility in an existing building located in the EV/IC, East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, Commercial Industrial District. The use is a conditionally permitted use within this district per Section EV 3.0713(3)of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan and is applicable to the land use plans of the City; 2. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed Conditional Use Permit is for an indoor family recreational facility. All activities associated with its use will be indoor and are of a nature that is for recreational entertainment. Those affected will only be those that use the facility by choice and the general public will not be affected. Thus the Conditional Use Permit will not in anyway be a Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 18 detriment to the public health, safety, and welfare; 3. That the proposed development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable zoning district, and the City's development standards. The application for a Conditional Use Permit to house an indoor family entertainment center is being located within an already approved structure that is consistent with the City's General Plan designation of Commercial Industrial,the City's zoning designation of EV/IC East Valley Corridor Specific Plan Commercial Industrial,and the City's development standards; 1. That the proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location. The application for a Conditional Use Permit for an indoor family entertainment center facility is located within an existing structure with only interior improvements to be made. The demand on the structure itself and the surrounding support for the operation of the facility is sufficient and the proposed location is appropriate for its usage. D. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 807 - Planning Commission to consider a Commission Review and Approval to allow the construction of a residence for the manager of the existing equestrian center totaling 4,067 square feet square feet on a 31.72 acre site located on Sunset Hills Lane east of Alessandro within Specific Plan 43, Sunset Hills Specific Plan. Request submitted by JOHN H. FERRONATO.(Project Planner:Joshua Altopp) Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Macdonald commented that the manager's quarters is substantial and he noted that the equestrian center has been closed for quite some time. Commissioner Macdonald asked if the equestrian center is going to be brought back to life. Mr.Jaquess stated he believes it is the intent of the applicant to do so. Mr. Pat Meyer, representing the applicant,stated Mr. Ferronato owns the property and is planning to live on the property, improve the equestrian center, and have it up and running. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 807 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; the site meets development standards of Specific Plan No. 43, Sunset Hills Equestrian Center; 2. That the site properly relates to streets which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. The new manager's residence will not generate any new impacts to the existing streets which were already anticipated in the residences development; 3. That the conditions of approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No.807 are necessary to protect the public health,safety and general welfare. The conditions of approval insure that the development of the manager's residence will not have any detrimental effect upon the public health, safety, and general welfare of the public; 4. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community. The manager's residence for the equestrian center will help to assist in the center's revitalization and Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 19 contribute to the overall welfare and desires of the Specific Plan and the residence of Redlands; 5. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing Resource Preservation Designation of the General Plan. The only alterations being made to the project site is the addition of a manager's residences which under the Specific Plan is an allowed use,and thus consistency is maintained. E. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO.280-Planning Commission to consider the adoption of a uniform sign program for the Citrus Grove Business Park located at 310 - 390 Alabama Street in the I-C District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by HEEMSTRA SIGNS. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) Project Planner Asher Hartel stated the proposed project came before the Planning Commission approximately one year ago with Mr. Wil Fesler as the applicant. Mr. Hartel stated the proposed Sign Program meets the requirements of the Sign Code and is virtually the same as the program that was approved for the R. P. Wages project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Sign Review No.280 subject to the Conditions of Approval: 1. This approval is for a Sign Program establishing the sign criteria for the Citrus Grove Business Park, Any changes to this Sign Program would require an amendment to the Sign Program subject to the Planning Commission approval 2. In no case shall any sign extend into the City right-of-way. 3. All signs shall conform with the provisions of Chapter 15.36 of the Redland Municipal Code. ADDENDA Mr. Jaquess suggested that items C and D be heard at this time, pending the arrival of the Project Planner Bob Dalquest. C. Review of Application for Transfer of an On-Sale General Alcoholic Beverage License for John Hollis Holt for Las Fuentes Restaurant located at 336 N. Eureka Street. Mr. Jaquess stated staff is not aware of any problems or concerns relative to the transfer and staff recommends approval. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the person to person and premises to premises transfer related to the On-Sale General License for Las Fuentes Restaurant, and no conditions are recommended to be added as there are no problems associated with this facility. Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 20 D. Review of Application for the Transfer of an On-Sale General Alcoholic Beverage License for Mr. Tequila Restaurant located at 19 E. Citrus Avenue, Suite 101. Mr. Jaquess stated staff is not aware of any problems or concerns relative to the transfer and staff recommends approval. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the person to person transfer related to the On-Sale General License for Mr. Tequila, and no conditions are recommended to be added as there are no problems associated with this facility. Commissioner Macdonald stated that item A would be heard at this time. A. Determination by the Planning Commission as to General Plan conformity for acquisition of approximately 1.38 acres of real property for the New York Street Extension and Improvement Project located between Colton Avenue and Lugonia Avenue and designated as a portion of Assessor's Parcel Nos. 0169-021-01 and 0169-021-10. Request submitted by the CITY OF REDLANDS. Project Planner Bob Dalquest stated the City is attempting to obtain 1.38 acres from Teledyne to complete the right-of-way acquisition of the New York Street project which would extend New York Street to connect with Lugonia Avenue. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that the City's acquisition of 1.38 acres of real property for the New York Street Extension and Improvement Project is consistent with the City's General Plan. B. Determination by the Planning Commission as to General Plan conformity for acquisition of approximately 1,204 square feet of real property located at 306 Edgemont Drive (Assessor's Parcel No. 0294-161-08) to facilitate the extension of Edgemont Drive for public access and utilities to property within Parcel Map No. 8226. Request submitted by the CITY OF REDLANDS. Project Planner Bob Dalquest stated the site has a single family dwelling and staff is seeking an approx. 1,200 square foot area to extend Edgemont Drive to connect with Parcel Map No. 8226. Mr. Dalquest stated the approval of Tentative Tract No. 13013 went into litigation and as a result of the court approving the final map, a twenty (20) foot gap occurred. Mr. Dalquest stated staff is trying to rectify this issue and is requesting a Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 21 determination from the Planning Commission as to General Plan conformity. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 4-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that the City's acquisition of a 1,204 square foot easement of real property to provide public access and utilities to Parcel Map No. 8226 is consistent with the City's General Plan. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES C. May 24, 2005 The approval of the minutes was tabled due to a lack of a quorum. Mr. Shaw suggested the minutes be continued to the next meeting. VII. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL LAND USE ACTIONS OF JUNE 7, 2005 VIII. ADJOURN TO JUNE 28, 2005 Chairman Macdonald adjourned the meeting to June 28th at 6:03 p.m. Patti Ortiz Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of June 14, 2005 Page 22