Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout08-09-05_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, August 9, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: George Webber, Chair James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Caroline Laymon, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner ABSENT: ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director 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 Chairman Webber opened the public hearing at 2:00 p.m. All Commissioners were present except Commissioner Miller. II. CONSENT ITEMS(S) Map extension for Minor Subdivision No. 265 - Victor La Batista (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Consent calendar. III. OLD BUSINESS A. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17429 - 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 4.16 gross acres into six (6) residential lots located on the south side of Camelot Drive, east of Marvin Avenue, in the R-E, Residential Estate District. Request submitted by KEITH McCANN. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) Project Planner Asher Hartel stated the project was continued from July 12th so that the applicant could reduce the number of proposed lots. Mr. Hartel gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Pagel Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Ms. Linda Dreissel-Williams, President, Goodrich Mortgage and Goodrich Development,stated she is a partner with D C Development and Mr. Keith McCann, the applicant. Ms. Dreissel-Williams stated the neighbors were given an opportunity to purchase the land prior to acceptance of their purchase offer on the property, however, they could not agree with the owner on a price. Ms. Dreissel-Williams stated they were told by the Planning Division that they could possibly build up to eleven (11) homes. She stated they worked closely with City staff and heard nothing from the neighbors during the planning process. She stated they attempted to address design concerns expressed by the neighbors and the neighbors verbally agreed to five lots;they were shocked when the neighbors later suggested reducing the density to conform with their homes which are located across the street. She stated they categorically disagree with the findings and arguments of the last meeting. Ms. Dreissel-Williams stated they have subsequently reached a conditional agreement with the Dunbars and the Kwons, but have been unable to reach agreement with the Kim family. Ms. Dreissel-Williams stated they relied on the zoning code and representations from staff ; they believe their project is in compliance with the zoning. Ms. Dreissel-Williams stated she felt some of the conditions requested by the neighbors were "far reaching." Commissioner Cook asked if the Commission can require the type of conditions being requested by the neighbors. Director Jeff Shaw stated it would be very difficult to enforce these types of conditions as there is no way to monitor subsequent building construction. Mr. John Wilhelm, Keller Williams Real Estate, stated he met with the neighbors on several occasions and specifically with the three neighbors who live across the street. Mr.Wilhelm stated all the neighbors agreed to five lots with specific conditions; he subsequently asked the developer if he would agree to the conditions. The developer agreed to some, but not all of the conditions. Mr. Wilhelm stated the Kwons want an increase in the front yard setback from forty(40)to fifty(50)feet which is a point of contention. Mr. Wilhelm stated the Kwons have not signed the agreement. Mr. Michael Williams, Keller Williams Real Estate, owner, stated it is his opinion the original six(6) lot proposal is the highest and best use of the land. Mr. Williams stated he was surprised to read that the Commission gave in to the neighborhood opposition since the project complies with the zoning requirements. Mr. Williams stated the applicant is providing much larger lots than what the zone requires and it is still not good enough. Mr. Williams stated it appeared to him that the neighbors want the Planning Commission to force the applicant to clone his homes after theirs;and there is a need for more diversity. Mr. Williams stated it appears that Mr. McCann is being held to a higher standard than what is required, relative to the construction of the garages. Mr. Williams stated it should be up to the future home buyer to determine the elevation of the house. Mr.Williams urged the Commission to approve the proposed tract with five (5) houses. Ms. Tai Kim, 1741 Camelot Drive, stated they met with Mr. Wilhelm, who proposed the written agreement. Ms. Kim stated it was Mr. Wilhelm who proposed having five lots and sixty (60) foot setbacks. Ms. Kim stated they felt intimidated and threatened by the developer. Commissioner Miller arrived at 2:37 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 2 Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Thompson stated that arrangements between the developer and the neighbors should not be addressed by the Commission. Commissioner Thompson stated he felt five (5) lots are appropriate. Commissioner Laymon asked why the developer thought eleven (11) lots were permissible. Mr. Hartel responded that eleven (11) lots are allowed based on the General Plan designation, which allows up to 2.7 units per acre where the average slope is less than 15%. Mr. Hartel stated eleven is a theoretical number; realistically the developer is limited by what is allowed in the RE zone. Commissioner Miller stated he would abstain from voting because he was absent for most of the testimony. Commissioner Miller stated he didn't support five(5)lots at the last meeting as he did not feel there was inadequate frontage given the transition of large homes in the north to smaller homes to the south however after seeing the revised tract map it would appear that the lots are of sufficient size to fit the neighborhood. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller abstaining) that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 17429, 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 Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller abstaining) that the Planing Commission approve the Socio- Economic Cost Benefit Study for Tentative Tract No. 17429. It is recommended that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or over burden public services in the community, and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller abstaining)that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract No. 17429, based on the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Very-Low Density Residential and zoning of R-E, Residential Estate District, and is consistent with both the General Plan and Municipal Code; 2. The site, which is located on the south side of Camelot Drive, and Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 3 east of Marvin Avenue and Buckingham Drive, is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is large enough to subdivide into five (5) lots and is consistent with the R-E District standards for lot sizes, lot widths, and lot depths; 3. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a five (5) lot subdivision. The General Plan Land Use Designation of Very-Low Density Residential allows for a density of up to eleven (11) dwelling units; 4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subject site is not identified as being within an area containing biological resources or within a wildlife corridor; 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. This is a residential project and is not likely to cause any serious public health problems, aside from temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction addressed in the project's Mitigation Measures; 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; public streets and pedestrian access will be provided throughout the project site; 7. That pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.4, of the Subdivision Map Act the land is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The property is not under Williamson Act Contract. B. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 805 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study and consideration of a Commission Review and Approval to allow the construction of two separate industrial buildings totaling 140,380 square feet in combined square footage on a 7.6 acre site south of Park Avenue and east of Kansas Street within the I-P, Industrial District. Request submitted by THRIFTY OIL COMPANY. (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 4 Mr.Armando Enriquez, Director of Acquisitions and Development,Thrifty Oil Company,stated that staff did a good job presenting the proposed project. Commissioner Miller asked what type of glazing would be used for the project. Mr. Dan Mc David, architect for the project, stated a low reflective aqua-colored monolithic glass would be used. Commissioner Miller requested a four(4)foot overhang rather than a three (3)foot overhang. Mr. Mc David stated anything over three (3)feet has to be sprinklered if it is solid, however they could go with a trellis element rather than solid. Commissioner Miller stated the landscape plan shows a corridor on the south property line that is landscaped with mulch, but he felt it might pose a maintenance problem. Chairman Webber suggested a Condition of Approval be added to allow a material other than mulch such as rock, concrete or a combination of the two. Mr. Mc David stated they may be required to have a sidewalk in that area for fire access; Mr. Mc David stated this matter would be addressed. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 805 and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. It has been determined 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 Miller,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval 805 as 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 Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve a reduced LOS at the intersection of Alabama Street/Redlands Boulevard during the peak Hours as permitted in General Plan Policy 5.20b and 5.20c. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 805 subject to Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 5 the following findings and attached Conditions of Approval. 1. The site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the industrial park use because it complies with all property development standards for the I-P zoning district; 1. The site properly relates to Kansas Street and Park Avenue which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development because both streets will be constructed to city prescribed standards to their ultimate half widths through compliance with project conditions of approval; 3. The Conditions of Approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 805 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; 4. The use is desirable for the overall development of the community because the proposed project conforms with both the General Plan Designation and Municipal Code requirements with the addition of Condition of Approval 35 to read: The applicant shall revise the submitted plans to show the proposed three (3) foot canopy extended to a length of four (4) feet with a trellis type top or as may be required by Code. and Condition of Approval 36 to read: The applicant shall supply a different type material other than mulch at the rear of Building 2 to prevent the overgrowth of weeds. Chairman Webber stated that agenda item IV-1 would be heard at this time to accommodate senior citizens who were seated in the audience. I. RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ALLOCATION 2005-III-01 - A recommendation to the City Council for the approval of points for a Residential Development Allocation request for Conditional Use Permit No. 768, an approved one-hundred sixty(160) unit senior apartment complex in eight (8) two story buildings on 4.76 acres on the north side of Orange Avenue 300 feet east of Kansas Street. (Note: This request is for 160 allocations; no allocations have been previously awarded.) Request submitted by TELLUS FINANCIAL GROUP, INC. Project Planner Asher Hartel reviewed Residential Development Allocation 2005-III-01 and stated the proposed project is scheduled to be heard by City Council on September 6th. Mr. Hartel stated currently the project has received 53 points awarded by various City departments and is scheduled to go before the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission and the Housing Commission for additional points. The Planning Commission recommended a total of 34 points to City Council. Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 6 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. SPECIFIC PLAN NO.25(AMENDMENT NO. 11)- 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. 25 Section 3. C. 8.a., and subsections 2, 3 and 4, which would increase the allowable sign area on building frontages, change the way sign area is calculated and allow 2 main identification signs per building frontage. Request submitted byQUIEL BROS. SIGNS. (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) Commissioner Miller recused himself at 3:30 p.m. due to a possible conflict of interest. Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Assistant Director John Jaquess stated that staff met with the applicant and they concur with staff's recommended proposals. Ms. Nancy K. Parker, Quiel Bros. Signs, stated she concurs with the staff report. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber asked why a revision was necessary. Mr. Jaquess stated the applicant's request was initiated because of an interpretation of the Specific Plan that one sign was permitted on one side of a building. Mr. Jaquess stated the applicant felt it was important to have some flexibility and they pointed out other locations with more than one sign; some of the signs were permitted and others were not. Mr. Jaquess stated they negotiated a compromise between what is built within the Specific Plan and what is allowed by Code. Commissioner Laymon stated she is bothered by the fact that unpermitted signs are used as examples for granting approval of the request. Mr. Jaquess stated staff does not oppose having two (2)signs on the side of the building, as long as there are limitations on the size of the sign. Mr. Shaw stated the allowed area of signage within the Specific Plan is actually being reduced. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller excused)that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1067 (Amendment No. 11 to Specific Plan No. 25) and recommend that the City Council approve Amendment No. 11 to Specific Plan No. 25. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting at 3:39 p.m. B. MINOR SUBDIVISION NO.270(REVISION NO. 1) -Planning Commission to consider the amendment of conditions of approval for a Minor Subdivision(Parcel Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 7 Map No. 16372) subdividing approximately 8.22 gross acres into eight (8) commercial parcels located on the northwest corner of Citrus Avenue and Iowa Street in the EV/IC, Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by MKJ IOWA COMMERCE CENTER, LLC. (PROJECT PLANNER MANUEL BAEZA) C. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 772 (REVISION NO. 1) -Planning Commission to consider the amendment of conditions of approval for a Commission Review and Approval developing an eight (8) building industrial park with a combined area of 118,260 square feet on an approximately 8.22 gross acre property located on the northwest corner of Citrus Avenue and Iowa Street in the EV/IC, Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by MKJ IOWA COMMERCE CENTER, LLC. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated, after completion of the staff report, staff was advised by the City Attorney that revisions to the Minor Subdivision require a public hearing. Mr. Baeza stated due to noticing requirements no action can be taken at this time. In addition, Mr. Baeza stated that staff recommends a continuance to September 13th to allow staff additional time to review the project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Revision No. 1 to Commission Review and Approval No. 772 and Minor Subdivision No. 270 to the meeting of September 13, 2005. D. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 803-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 develop a four (4) building, fifty-two (52) unit motel with an area of 19,730 square feet on an approximate one (1) acre property located on the north side of Colton Avenue approximately 420 feet west of Texas Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. Request submitted by CHEN KUO. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated the applicant is revising his architectural plans and recently submitted a traffic study for staff review,therefore staff recommends the project be continued to the first meeting in September to allow staff additional time to review the proposed project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review and Approval No. 803 to Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 8 September 13, 2005. Chairman Webber recessed the meeting for a short break at 3:42 p.m. Chairman Webber reconvened the meeting at 3:50 p.m. Chairman Webber stated that item IV-E would be tabled, pending the arrival of the applicant and items IV-F- H would be heard at this time. Chairman Webber announced that Commissioner Miller was excused due to a conflict of interest. F. 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 A-1,Agricultural District to M-1, Light Industrial District on approximately 6.73 acres (APN: 0297-121-07) and a General Plan Amendment to change the land use designation from A-1, Agricultural District to I/C, Commercial/Industrial District on approximately 8.90 acres located on the northeast corner of Wabash Avenue and San Bernardino Avenue, Request submitted by LARRY JACINTO. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) G. 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) and a Zone Change from unincorporated San Bernardino County AG-AP,Agricultural,Agricultural Preserve to the City of Redlands C-M, Commercial 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) H. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE REMOVAL NO. 111 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration for an Agricultural Preserve Removal on 8.90 acres (APN: 0297-121-10 and 11) designated by the County of San Bernardino associated with an annexation into the City of Redlands on the property located at the northeast corner of Wabash and San Bernardino Avenue in the County land use designation AG-AP, Agricultural, Agricultural Preserve. Request submitted by LARRY JACINTO. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing.Seeing no comments forthcoming,Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber asked Mr.Altopp what type of use would be allowed on the property designated Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 9 C-M. Mr. Altopp stated that commercial, food, and retail uses would be allowed. Mr. Shaw noted the area, which is north of San Bernardino Avenue, is affected by the airport. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 6-0 vote(Commissioner Miller excused) that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on the Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. 106,Zone Change No.414, and Agriculture Preserve Removal No. 111 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 Cook, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller excused)that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 1062 recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No. 106, changing the land use designation of the subject property from Agricultural to Light Industrial on approximately 6.73 acres APN: 0297-121-07and changing the land use designation of the subject property from Agricultural to Commercial/Industrial on approximately 8.90 acres APN:0297-121-10 and 11. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller excused)that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 1063 recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change No.414,changing the designation of the subject property 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 and changing the designation from unincorporated San Bernardino County'AG''AP' (Agricultural,Agricultural Preserve)to the City of Redlands'C-M'(Commercial Industrial District)on 8.90 acres APN: 0297-121-10 and 11. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller excused) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1066 recommending that the City Council adopt Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 111 based upon the following findings: 1. The applicant is the legal owner of record. Patrick Meyer is authorized representative of the owner; 2. The land requested to be removed from the preserve abuts a developed zone other than agricultural. There is existing residential development to the south, an approved Contractor's Yard to the north, and the City's Sports Complex to the west; 3. The application for the General Plan Amendment is triggering the Agriculture Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 10 Preserve Removal. The proposed land use designation is in conformity with the proposed and existing land use activity and thus the proposed change is going to be consistent with the City of Redlands' General Plan; 4. The land requested to be removed from the Preserve shall not circumvent land under contract in accordance with the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The project site is not under Williamson Act Contract; 5. The development will not adjoin lands under Williamson Act Contract and thus will not share a common boundary with contract lands. Development of the project will not impact agricultural uses found on contract land. Chairman Webber noted that addenda item V-A would be heard at this time. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting at 4:05 p.m. V. ADDENDA A. Determination by the Planning Commission as to General Plan conformity for acquisition of approximately 29,539 square feet (0.678 acre) of real property from twenty-one (21) parcels for right-way for the Redlands Boulevard/Alabama Street/Colton Avenue Improvement Project located in the General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan, and designated as a portion of Assessor's Parcel Nos. 0169-362-06,08,11,13,15,16,18,19,20 & 21; 0169-391-01; 0292-063-48; 0292-157-06,16 & 31; 0292-182-11,15,22,27,30 & 32. Request submitted by the CITY OF REDLANDS. (Planner: Bob Dalquest) Project Planner Bob Dalquest gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Dalquest stated that Mr. Tom Fujiwara, Public Works Department, who was seated in the audience, was available to answer questions. Chairman Webber commented that it was a good exhibit. Commissioner Osborne asked if the parking is decreased because a right-of-way is taken away is there an alternative or is the parking then lost? Mr. Dalquest stated the parking lot could possibly be re-striped so that parking spaces could be retrieved. Mr. Shaw stated that staff would attempt to come up with an alternative design to meet the minimum parking standards. Mr. Tom Fujiwara, Public Works Department, stated that project construction will be phased with a detour plan in place. Mr. Fujiwara stated they will attempt to maintain the current four lanes for traffic. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Laymon,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that the City's acquisition of approximately 29,539 square feet of real property for the Redlands Boulevard/Alabama Street/Colton Avenue Improvement Project is consistent with the City's General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 11 B. Finding of general plan consistency for acquisition and sale of property located on the south side of Sessums Drive west of Wabash Avenue. Assistant Director John Jaquess gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Laymon, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission determine that the acquisition and sale of the subject parcel referred to as Assessor Parcel Number 0168-041-54 located on the south side of Sessums Drive, west of Wabash Avenue involving Mission Aviation Fellowship is consistent with the Light Industrial Land use designation of the City of Redlands General Plan. C. Review of application for transfer of an off-sale general alcoholic beverage license to Touma Abedella for Joe's Liquor located at 1748 Lugonia Avenue# 15, Redlands, CA Assistant Director John Jaquess gave a brief presentation on the application. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Off-Sale General Alcoholic Beverage License person to person transfer for Joe's Liquor and no conditions are recommended as there are no problems associated with this site. Chairman Webber stated that item IV-E would be heard at this time. Commissioner Miller recused himself due to a possible conflict of interest at 4:20 p.m. E. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 788 - 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 develop two (2) office buildings each with a building area of 4,623 square feet on approximately 0.97 acres located on the north side of Plum Lane immediately east of the northern terminus of Idaho Street and west of Alabama Street in Office/Industrial District of Specific Plan No. 25. Request submitted by PENCE CONSTRUCTION. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 12 Mr. Glen Follett, GMID, stated he was available to answer questions. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller excused) that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 788 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 (Commissioner Miller excused) that the Planning Commission approve the Socio- Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 788. 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(Commissioner Miller excused)that the Planning Commission approve a reduced LOS at the intersection of Alabama Street/Redlands Boulevard during the peak hours as permitted in General Plan Policy 5.20b and 5.20c. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller excused) that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 788, 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. All development standards are being met. 2. That the site properly relates to Plum Lane which is 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. 788 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare. Mitigation measures incorporated into the conditions of approval will address impacts to health and safety. 4. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community. The project will provide office space to new or existing businesses in the City. 5. The proposed project will develop offices which is consistent with the existing Commercial Designation of the General Plan. Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 13 VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES A. June 14, 2005 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 5-0 vote (Commissioners Osborne and Webber abstaining) that the Planning Commission approve the June 14th minutes with a correction noted. B. July 26, 2005 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 5-0 vote(Commissioners Laymon and Thompson abstaining) that the Planning Commission approve the July 26th minutes. VII. DISCUSSION OF CITY COUNCIL LAND USE ACTIONS OF AUGUST 2, 2005 Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation on the City Council land use actions of August 2"d Commissioner Laymon complimented Mr. Shaw on his City Council presentation of the MKJ McCalla project. VIII. ADJOURN MEETING TO EVENING SESSION Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to the evening session at 4:35 p.m. 7:00 P.M. IX. RECONVENED EVENING SESSION Commissioner Laymon recused herself due to a possible conflict of interest. A. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE REMOVAL NO. 108-PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on an Agricultural Preserve Removal on 60.06 gross acres located on the north side of Live Oak Canyon Road approximately 1,100 feet south of Burns Lane in the A-1, Agricultural District(Proposed Specific Plan No.59). Request submitted by BONITA DEVELOPMENT. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) B. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 59 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council of Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 14 the adoption of a Specific Plan for Sector 8 of the Southeast Area plan consisting of approximately 221 acres generally located directly north of Live Oak Canyon Road, and directly south of Burns Lane and Helen Drive. Request submitted by BONITA DEVELOPMENT. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) C. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17265 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council of Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING fora Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING fora Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 60.06 gross acres into 26 residential lots and 3 common area lots located on the north side of Live Oak Canyon Road approximately 1,100 feet south of Burns Lane in the A-1, Agricultural District (Proposed Specific Plan No. 59). Request submitted by BONITA DEVELOPMENT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief PowerPoint presentation on the proposed project and stated staff requests the proposed project be continued to September 13tH Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Pat Meyer, representing the applicant, thanked Manny and staff for their hard work. Mr. Meyer gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Meyer stated the Southeast Area General Plan area (approx. 2,000 acres) was studied in the 1980's; the City initiated a General Plan Amendment master plan of the area that culminated in the adoption of the Southeast Area General Plan and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Mr. Meyer stated the Southeast Area General Plan required implementation of a Specific Plan relative to development of the area. Mr. Meyer stated in 1990 the City initiated the annexation of a very large area on the south side of town that included the Southeast area. Mr. Meyer stated during the LAFCO and City Council hearings,the Southeast Area General Plan Amendment was proposed to represent the future zoning of this area. Mr. Meyer stated the Southeast Area General Plan was incorporated into the City's General Plan in 1995 (Section 4.41). Mr. Meyer continued by stating in 1997, Measure U incorporated the new Resource Preservation designation,stating specifically that the provisions of Section 4.42 (m)Density within the Southeast Area General Plan would apply. Mr. Meyer stated that Sector 8, as defined in the General Plan, projected a total of 221 acres with 61 potential dwelling units for that sector. Mr. Meyer stated that Sector 8 is comprised of 12 parcels (landowners). Mr. Meyer stated the applicant, Bonita Development, paid for a geologic investigation, cultural resource, and a biologic report for the entire sector, a fire protection plan, hydrology and water quality management plans and a specific biologic study for their sixty (60) acres. Mr. Meyer stated the Bonita Development proposal would provide legal access to some of the developable parcels within Sector 8 that currently do not have access. Mr. Meyer displayed grading concepts for the area stating a geologic study showed potential faulting in the area. Mr. Meyer stated a restricted-use zone was created that would require future geologic trenching to determine fault locations for subsequent landowners. Mr. Meyer reviewed the circulation plan for the proposed project. Mr. Meyer stated there will be an Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 15 emergency access utility easement within the sector; it is there intent to add a Condition of Approval that would restrict the City's ability to make it a public thoroughfare. Mr. Meyer stated the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan, the Southeast Area General Plan,the density limitations contained in Measure U, and the representations made by the City during the annexation hearings in the 1990's. Mr. Meyer stated Bonita Development owns 60 acres out of the total 221 acres included in the Southeast Area General Plan. Mr. Meyer stated they are proposing a significant detention basin/water quality feature to bring the water down and control it. Mr. Meyer stated they concur with the proposed changes to the Specific Plan and will work out the locations of the trails with staff. Mr. Meyer stated they have addressed all the issues contained in the General Plan and Measure U. Commissioner Macdonald stated that staff expressed concern on lots 3, 9, 16, and 26 as they felt they cut into small ridge lines. Mr. Meyer stated he concurs with staff. Commissioner Macdonald asked Mr. Meyer about the potential for occurrence of sensitive wildlife species within the area. Mr. Meyer stated that focused surveys were conducted and none were found to be in the area. Mr. Meyer stated the Chambers Group conducted the initial biological report on the entire sector, E Corp conducted a sensitive plant and gnat catcher survey on the 60-acre parcel, and SJM Biological conducted a kangaroo rat site survey and the results were negative. Mr. Meyer stated the California Dept. of Fish and Game and U. S. Fish and Wildlife were notified of the surveys. Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Meyer if the proposed zone change would affect other properties within the sector. Mr. Meyer stated one of the landowners expressed to staff that he did not want to lose his animal rights. Mr. Meyer stated that keeping of animals will be incorporated in the next rendition of the Specific Plan; wording from the A-1 District zoning will be duplicated verbatim into the Specific Plan. Commissioner Miller stated he felt it would be helpful to have a summary that categorized list of the unique characteristics of the area, and the means being utilized to preserve the characteristics. Chairman Webber concurred with Commissioner Miller. Chairman Webber advised the audience that they have 3 minutes to speak and he asked the audience not to yell and cheer. Caroline Laymon, stated she owns 36 acres within the Specific Plan and she does not want to be part of the zone change. Ms. Laymon stated she spent 20 years of her life instituting a quality breeding program and she requires A-1 zoning to maintain her business. Ms. Laymon stated she has 21 acres that are secluded and heavily vegetated with a lot of habitat and she expressed concern that the subdivision residents will encroach onto her property and the dirt road will provide access to motorcycles and ATVs. Ms. Laymon expressed concern that the increased density will also increase the fire danger. Ms. Laymon asked if an archeological study has been conducted on the entire property as there are ruins and a dump site from the 20's and 30's on the property and she Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 16 asked if they had been addressed. Mr. Daniel McNairy, 17 S. Buena Vista, stated he thinks it would be a great place to live. Mr. McNairy stated they have a great opportunity to have a local developer do the project. Mr. McNairy stated the applicant has taken great effort to preserve the oak trees. Mr. Carter Hoggan, 1590 Silver Cup Court, stated he sees this as a positive growth opportunity. Mr. Hoggan stated the developer has taken the unique characteristics of the site into consideration. Ms. Amanda Frye, 12714 Hilltop Drive, asked for the definition of a bio swale and for the list of the sensitive wildlife species referred to in the staff report. Ms. Frye stated the beauty of the area is it's agricultural land that allows horses and animals. She stated it is questionable that developing a natural resource is an upgrade. She asked for further analysis of the Soc-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. Ms. Frye stated she did not understand how land use can be changed without owner consent. Ms. Frye asked for clarification on the perception of waterways. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Meyer to address Ms. Frye's questions during his rebuttal. Mr. David Burishkin, 25475 Nicks Avenue, Loma Linda, stated if the project is not completed, someone is going to buy the land and they may scar the hill. Mr. Burishkin stated there may be someone who will put houses where Live Oak Canyon Road is located. Ms. Peggy Hatfield Neumann, 30176 Live Oak Canyon, stated she is saddened by the fact that we are trying to have the City live on taxes. Ms. Neumann stated she lives in Live Oak Canyon and she would be devastated if her zoning designation was changed to residential in the future. Ms. Neumann stated she does not want to turn the City into Orange County. Mr. K. D. Macknet Jr., 11306 Mt. View, stated he is one of the trustees who owns 21 acres within the development. Mr. Macknet stated he feels the project would be a beautiful improvement to the area; the lots are nice and large. Mr. Macknet stated he objects to the adoption of a plan that indicates a fault runs through their property without providing information on where it is located. Mr. Macknet stated his land could be devalued because of this theoretical fault. Mr. David Dowling, 1244 Judson Street, expressed support of the project stating that Redlands is the 'jewel of the Inland Empire" and it would be great to keep it that way. Mr. Dowling stated the Bonita Development limits the number of properties in the area and they are donating 28 acres back to the City to preserve the area. Mr. Dowling stated, as a current homeowner and future home buyer, he would like to see a development such as this. Mr. Jay Rentz, 250 Grant Street, stated he purchased land located within the project area approximately 2 years ago. Mr. Rentz stated he spoke with City staff, was educated on zoning, specific plans, sector plans, and slope density and then hired Mr. Pat Meyer. Mr. Rentz stated they are allowed to have more houses than what is proposed but they want a nice, attractive project. Mr. Frank J. Delany, 13033 Burns Lane,stated the proposed specific plan and subdivision are in his back yard and will have a direct impact on him. Mr. Delany stated he is favor of the plan as it strikes the correct balance by allowing the property owners to develop their land while preserving open Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 17 space and keeping the integrity of the area. Mr. Delany stated the proposed development is consistent with the area. Mr. Delany stated in the past 30 years they have had 8-10 fires in the canyon. Mr. Delany stated currently there is no way to provide fire protection in this area and the project would provide a reduction or elimination of the fire danger. Ms. Theresa Kwappenberg, 31265 Freya Dr., asked if the Mitigated Negative Declaration was submitted to U. S. Fish and Wildlife and California Fish and Game. Mr. Baeza stated that it was. Ms. Kwappenberg stated the area is resource preservation because it is fragile soil. Ms. Kwappenberg stated she would like to see the lots larger than proposed. Ms. Kwappenberg stated we buy land and we tend to think that we are protected by the zoning. Ms. Kwappenberg they should give some thought to school busing. Mr. Bill Cunningham,The Redlands Association,stated no matter who develops the area,the same restrictions will apply. Mr. Cunningham stated A-1 zoning is significantly different from other zone with regard to animals and usage. Mr. Cunningham noted there are two substandard lots shown on the map. Mr. Cunningham stated that emergency service access should be a concern; Live Oak Canyon Road is the only access and there are currently 60 trains a day that delay traffic on Alessandro Road. Mr. Cunningham stated detention basins are noted for failure; he questioned what would happen with a large volume of additional water and its impact on properties. Mr.Cunningham stated the hillside ordinance that is being applied is not legally valid; it was not adopted properly. Mr. Cunningham stated when you consider service, traffic, and biota, the project needs an environmental impact report. Mr. Mark Hamilton, 36967 Lan Franc, Yucaipa, stated he owns 18 acres within Sector 8. Mr. Hamilton stated he opposes the Specific Plan and he asked the Commission to deny or defer the project. Mr. Hamilton stated the developer does not state why he wants to vacate the thirty(30)foot wide easement that runs up to his property. Mr. Hamilton stated that no one has discussed the horse trails or the view that may be taken. Mr. Hamilton stated there should be a neighborhood meeting scheduled. Mr. Hamilton questioned emergency access to the area if there are gates at both ends. Mr. George De Cristo, 3272 Hudson Avenue, stated he fully supports the project. Mr. De Cristo stated he comes from the Bay area where they use this type of planning with trails, low density housing, fire breaks, and equestrian activities. Mr. De Cristo stated all of the trails in Walnut Creek are developed in the same manner. Mr. De Cristo stated this type of low density development creates and maintains an above average quality of life and creates a sense of community that sets you apart. Mr. De Cristo stated this plan preserves oak trees and ridgelines. Mr. Oliver Rocroi, 1400 Barton Road #2803, stated 26 homes on 60 acres hardly seems like high density. Mr. Rocroi stated the developer has demonstrated a willingness to be open and make modifications per staff recommendations. Mr. Rocroi stated it is a tremendous benefit to have high quality residential development along with the amount of open space that is being donated. Mr. Rocroi stated he fully supports the project and he urged the Commission to approve it. Mr. Ward Thompson, 30260 Live Oak Canyon, stated there are excellent agricultural uses throughout the canyon and he listed a number of them; a Christmas tree farm, herds of long horn Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 18 cattle, a chicken ranch, a cattle ranch, and a horse ranch. Mr.Thompson stated he is terrified that a zone designation can arbitrarily be changed. Mr.Thompson stated there is an 85-year old woman on the north side of the community who subsists by herself and is being run out because of the government taking her land. Ms. Carole Beswick, stated she served on the City Council at the time the Southeast General Plan was created and the annexations were approved by LAFCO. She stated there was quite a bit of consternation on the part of the landowners, as to what kind of deal they would receive if they annexed to the City. Ms. Beswick stated the landowners were told they would be in the agricultural preserve and they could develop their land in a reasonable fashion. Ms. Beswick stated there is a potential to have approximately 100 acres donated to the City for open space at no cost and being maintained by the homeowners. Commissioner Miller asked Ms. Beswick if, during the annexation process, the cities of Yucaipa and Loma Linda were offering the same assurances as the City of Redlands. Ms. Beswick stated the property owners' greatest concern was that there would be greater restrictions with the City of Redlands. Mr. Wayne Stair, 30919 Sutherland Drive, stated the proposed project is close to his property and he supports it. He stated the project enhances fire protection and provides greater safety for his property. He stated he believes working with local developers is the correct way to obtain and preserve open space, provide trails, and access the canyon areas that currently we do not have. Mr. Russell Burch, 30633 Country Road, stated he is one of the principals of Bonita Development and he is here to support Redlands not destroy it. Mr. Burch stated they are trying to do the best they can for the City of Redlands. Mr. Ken Summers, 33110 Lotus, Yucaipa, stated he has an interest in parcels 02 and 04. Mr. Summer stated his partner, Mark Hamilton was told that his property would be taken by the developer for open space. Mr. Summers stated the use of his property can be restricted by the potential earthquake zones indicated by the developer. Mr. Summers stated the development is nice looking but what the developer is trying to do to his property is not fair. Mr. Fred Waitz, 31550 Highview Drive, stated his property was in the county area when he purchased it. Mr.Waitz stated some of the open space that has been referred to is nothing but steep hills. Mr. Waitz expressed concern that a developer can change the zoning so that he can build more houses and get richer. Dr. K. D. Macknet, 11306 Mt.View, Suite C,stated he supports the development because it is going to happen whether we like it or not. Dr. Macknet stated he does not believe society should decide how property is going to be used. Dr. Macknet stated a project with lots of this size is a very nice development and it will be good for the City of Redlands. Commissioner Osborne asked Mr. Meyer for clarification on the A-1 zone relative to the development. Mr. Meyer stated he tried to establish, during his presentation, that the foundation for the planning of this area started in the 1980s. Mr. Meyer stated he will try to create an overlay in the Specific Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 19 Plan that will allow Ms. Laymon to remain zoned in A-1 if she would prefer. Commissioner Thompson asked if Mr. Meyer can put an A-1 overlay in the Specific Plan so that properties can remain as they are. Mr. Shaw stated it could be incorporated but it would be more restrictive than the 1 acre density that is currently allowed. Commissioner Thompson stated if a property owner wanted to develop his property he would have to comply with the hillside overlay district. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Meyer to comment on the earthquake fault zone. Mr. Meyer stated he would address the concerns expressed at the next meeting. Mr. Meyer stated that Ms. Frye asked for a definition of a bio swale. Mr. Meyer stated there are new water quality standards that will no longer allow stormwater to be placed into inlets to be dumped into the Santa Ana River. Mr. Meyer stated that water will have to be treated;the best way to accomplish this is to allow water to go through bio swales that are lined with grasses and plants. Mr. Meyer stated the City has all the biological studies that were conducted and they are available for review. Mr. Meyer stated a preliminary investigation on the entire sector indicate there are actual faults; some are active and some are inactive. Mr. Meyer stated some of the faults can be eliminated by trenching. Mr. Meyer stated each property owner will have to have a site specific analysis conducted on their property prior to development. Mr. Meyer stated the project will bring water, fire hydrants, and public lines down into the canyon with access for emergency vehicles for the first time. Mr. Meyer stated he will look into saugus soils. Mr. Meyer stated Mr. Hamilton was disingenuous in his earlier discussion as Mr. Hamilton called him that day and asked for an easement from Bonita Development so that he can legally show his property which is now for sale. Mr. Meyer stated he advised Mr. Hamilton when he started speculating in the area that he(Mr. Meyer)felt the area should be open space. Mr. Meyer stated he does not believe the zoning is arbitrary;the area has been studied extensively for the past 20 years. Mr. Meyer stated they will address the concerns addressed by staff and the Commission. Commissioner Miller stated it appears that the only four (4) parcels that do not have access are located in the southwest corner of the property. Mr. Meyer concurred. Commissioner Miller asked if the Specific Plan is approved and the easement is removed, how will Mr. Hamilton have access to his property? Mr. Meyer responded by saying they would dedicate a portion of the road; Mr. Hamilton can initiate a lot line adjustment and so that they can have the two lots close to the road. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Meyer on the status of the Mr. Hamilton's easement from Live Oak Canyon Road. Mr. Meyer stated the easement is located up along ridges and down steep grades. Commissioner Miller stated if the existing dedicated street is vacated, parcel 02 will be landlocked by parcel 04. Mr. Meyer concurred. Commissioner Miller stated there should be some means to assure there is access to parcel 02. Mr. Meyer stated to make things simple, he won't process a street vacation; they will dedicate the property to the City and it will remain as is. Commissioner Miller stated he felt it is important to protect the people who want to keep their agricultural use; similar to situations where development is located close an airport. Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 20 Mr. Shaw stated the proposed project should be continued to September 13tH MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Laymon abstaining) that the Planning Commission continue Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 108, Specific Plan No. 59, and Tentative Tract No. 17265 to September 13, 2005, at 7:00 p.m. X. ADJOURN MEETING TO SEPTEMBER 13TH Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to September 13tH Patti Ortiz Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of August 9, 2005 Page 21