Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Minutes 12-12-06_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES: of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, December 12, 2006, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: James Macdonald, Chairman Thomas Osborne, Vice Chairman Paul Foster, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner John James, Commissioner Eric Shamp, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director Robert Dalquest, Principal Planner Michael Reiter, Assistant City Attorney Manuel Baeza, Senior Planner Tamara Alaniz, Assistant Planner Joshua Altopp, Assistant Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Macdonald called the meeting to order. All Commissioners were present except Commissioner's Cook and Foster. II. CONSENT CALENDAR- NONE III. OLD BUSINESS A. TOM CUTLER, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BEAZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 842 - a Commission Review and Approval for an approximately 1,890 square foot two-story building addition to the retained portion of the Y Alliance building and a new parking area to be located at 16 E. Olive Avenue (southeast corner of Olive Avenue and Cajon Street) in the A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider Parking Modification Permit No. 24 - a Parking Modification Permit for the Y Alliance building located at 16 E. Olive Avenue (southeast corner of Olive Avenue and Cajon Street) in the A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant was available to address the Commission. Megret Olewiler, Project Manager, stated that she was available for questions. Commissioner Foster arrived at 2:09 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Pagel No comments were forthcoming and Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 842 and Parking Modification Permit No. 24 and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. It is recommended that this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 842, and Parking Modification Permit No. 24. It is recommended that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community, and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Parking Modification Permit No. 24 subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed parking modification and use of the historic structure is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone because the site is designated by the City for the proposed use, and is compatible with surrounding commercial and institutional uses; 2. That approving the proposed parking modification and use will significantly improve the possibility that the structure will be preserved and maintained as a historic structure because the applicant has committed to make the necessary improvements to maintain the historic structure; 3. That the required parking cannot be provided without the approval of the requested modification because this property has inadequate space to provide all of the required parking on-site; 4. That all on-site parking lots will function safely because the onsite driveway is twenty-six (26)feet wide and the parking lot meets Code requirements; 5. That approval of the parking modification will not harm the integrity of the historic structure or the surrounding neighborhood because the original YWCA building will be retained. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner James, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 842 subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 2 1. That the site for the proposed use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the use. 2. That the site properly relates to adjacent streets which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development. 3. That the conditions of approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 842 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 in the City. 5. The proposed project will develop offices which is consistent with the existing Office Designation of the General Plan. B. TANDY HILL, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: TAMARA ALANIZ) 1. Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration. 2. Public hearing for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE REMOVAL NO. 116 on approximately 12.43 acres (APN: 0294-091-39) located north of San Timoteo Canyon Road and west of Alessandro Road in the A-1, Agricultural District. 3. Public hearing for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on ZONE CHANGE NO. 428 from A-1, Agricultural District to R-R, Rural Residential District and FP-1, Floodplain District on approximately 12.46 acres (APN: 0294-091-39, and 32) located north of San Timoteo Canyon Road and west of Alessandro Road. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Tamara Alaniz stated that the project representative has requested a continuance to the January 23, 2007 meeting so that the applicant can continue working on a potential development plan for concurrent processing with the proposed zone change. Chairperson Macdonald asked if the applicant or anyone in the audience would like to address the Commission. Robert C. Newman II, 11981 Preston Street, Grand Terrace, stated that it was an inconvenience to the public in postponing this project but would come back and address the Commission in January. Bill Cunningham, representing the Redlands Association, gave an overview of a conversation that he had with Peter Dangermond, Executive Director of the Riverside Land Conservancy, relative to land acquisitions in the Canyon. No further comments were forthcoming and Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 3 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue the Negative Declaration and the public hearing for Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 116 and Zone Change No. 428 to the meeting of January 23, 2007. C. CITY OF REDLANDS, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: TAMARA ALANIZ) 1. Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on ORDINANCE TEXT AMENDMENT NO. 313 adding Chapter 18.170 to the Redlands Municipal Code establishing development standards for publicly displayed artwork, a public art program, and an inventory of existing public art located on public or private property. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Tamara Alaniz addressed the concerns of the Commission that resulted from the November 14, 2006 Planning Commission meeting. Ms. Alaniz provided additional information on other cities that have adopted public art ordinances, addressed the educational component and maintenance issues, and gave a summary of the potential revenue that would be generated from eligible projects. Staff requested that the Planning Commission provide staff direction on these issues and recommended a continuance to the February 27, 2007 meeting so that the ordinance could be revised. Commissioner Osborne asked if the .050 percent would be taken out of the fees currently being paid by the developer. Ms. Alaniz addressed Commissioner Osborne's question. Commissioner Foster commented that he is struggling with the processing fee and stated that other alternatives of the ordinance need to be explored. Chairman Macdonald referred to the four cities indicated in the staff report and asked if there was information available on the revenue collected and/or on the value of the art installed. Ms. Alaniz responded that information relative to revenues collected was not available at this time. Chairman Macdonald asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak on this subject. Dora Waters, 1333 E. Colton Avenue, read a three page letter to the Planning Commission addressing the excessive fees associated with the ordinance. Ms. Waters stated that she is opposed to the current version of the ordinance. Commissioner Macdonald stated that a copy of Ms.Water's letter was provided to each Commissioner. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner James stated that he embraced the idea of the Commission having a workshop with the Cultural Arts Commission to discuss the proposed ordinance. Director Shaw referred to the Brown Act, stating that it was best to discuss the proposed ordinance in a workshop environment and follow-up with a formal public hearing. Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 4 Commissioner Shamp expressed his interest in the arts. Commissioner Shamp stated that he preferred an approach that would be more incentive based. He indicated that this would be an effective way of getting a high quality of aesthetic improvement, and would provide some room for developers, especially with regard to low to moderate income housing. He would like to see these concerns addressed in the future. Chairman Macdonald commented that he did not feel it was correct to charge a certain segment of our development community for a very specialized item such as art in public places. He strongly recommended that the entire ordinance be rewritten so that equal shares of the funds that were collected would go to some of the other Commissions and committees that contribute to the cultural aspect of our City. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Ordinance Text Amendment No.313 to February 27, 2007. Chairman Macdonald recessed the meeting at 2:43 p.m. Chairman Macdonald reconvened the meeting at 2:47 p.m. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. REDLANDS AVIATION, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 789 to develop three (3) airport hangers with a combined area of approximately 74,000 square feet within the Redlands Municipal Airport located on the north side of Sessums Drive, and west side of Opal Avenue in the A-D, Airport District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant was available to address the Commission. Jim Ott, Managing Partner of Redlands Aviation, was available to answer questions. No comments were forthcoming and Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Shamp, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 789 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. Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 5 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Shamp, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 6-0 vote move that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 789. It is recommended that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Shamp, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No.789, 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 project complies with the development standards of the A-D, Airport District; 2. That the site properly relates to nearby streets which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed development; 3. That the conditions of approval proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 789 are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare; Mitigation measures will address environmental impacts generated by the project. 4. That the use is desirable for the overall development of the community; 5. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing Public Institutional Land Use Designation of the General Plan. B. REDLANDS COMMERCE CENTER , APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 835 to develop a thirteen (13) building commercial center with 165,350 square feet of floor area on approximately 12.9 acres located on the north side of San Bernardino Avenue, south side of Pioneer Avenue, immediately west of the 210 Freeway in the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider Minor Subdivision No. 303 (Tentative Parcel Map No.18311) to subdivide 12.9 acres into airspace lots for office condominium purposes for a proposed commercial center located on the north side of San Bernardino Avenue, south side of Pioneer Avenue, immediately west of the 210 Freeway in the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Manuel Baeza advised the Commission that Caltrans intends to redesign and widen Interstate 1-210 on-ramps and off-ramps that are immediately east of the project site. Mr. Baeza stated Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 6 that staff and the applicant have met with Caltrans to review plans and that more time is needed to determine what action will be taken. Staff recommended continuance of the project to the meeting of January 9, 2007. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant or representative was available to address the Commission. No comments were forthcoming and Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue the Mitigated Negative Declaration, Commission Review and Approval No. 835,and Public Hearings for the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and Minor Subdivision No. 303 to January 9, 2007. C. CINGULAR WIRELESS, INC, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 867 for the installation of a new 64-foot tall cellular telecommunications facility within a church steeple (existing steeple at approximately 47 feet) at Brookside Free Methodist Church on a 1.59 acre parcel located at 75 Tennessee Street in the A-1, Agricultural District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed cell tower. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Miller asked for clarification relative to the height of the steeple. Mr. Altopp stated that they based the overall height on the top of the steeple. Commissioner Miller commented that the original steeple has a rather tall, narrow, cone shaped element that goes up from where the gables end and the cross starts. The new one is stubby looking and the only alternative is to make it even taller and wanted to bring that up for discussion with the Commission. Commissioner Osborne stated that the cross could be lowered. Chairman Macdonald referred to the underground vault and asked if it was something new or if technology has been improved. Mr. Altopp stated that the applicant could address his question. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant was available to address the Commission. Richard Ambrossini, representing Cingular Wireless, was available for questions. Mr. Ambrossini commented on the underground vault, stating that it afforded more room to put equipment shelters and was aesthetically pleasing. Mr. Ambrossini addressed concerns relative to the cross stating that the stubbiness of the top part of the spire maintains the overall proportion of the cross. Commissioner Miller asked the other Commissioners if they felt the steeple was stubby or if they were happy with the current design. Chairman Macdonald asked if it was determined what it would add to the height to make that part of the spire thinner. Mr. Ambrossini stated that it would make it higher if they carry the whole thing up to maintain the overall proportion. He commented that lowering the base of the cross would allow increasing the height of the spire. Commissioner Miller asked the Commissioners for their opinion on the steeple. Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 7 Commissioner Foster stated that he would support Commissioner Osborne's position in lowering the base of the cross. Commissioner Osborne asked Mr. Ambrossini if it would be acceptable to raise the cone so there would be less of a shaft on the cross. Mr. Ambrossini stated that it would not be a problem changing the design. The Commissioners liked the higher spire. Commissioner Shamp stated that he would like to see an image of the redesign in order to envision the change in proportion with the cross. Commissioner Miller commented that it would be better to shorten the cross two (2) feet in lieu of four (4) feet. The concern is about the overall proportion and understood Commissioner Shamp's concerns with the proposed changes without actually seeing an image. Mr. Ambrossini clarified that the cone would go up four (4) feet and the overall height to the top of the shaft would be an additional two (2) feet. Mr. Ambrossini asked if photo simulations would be adequate to show the changes. Commissioner Miller stated that the Commission would approve the project with the recommended changes but that it would be nice for staff to have a look at the revised photo simulations. Director Shaw suggested adding a condition of approval requiring a revised photo simulation showing the changes recommended by the Commission to be approved by staff. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 867 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 Foster, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 867 subject to the following findings submitted plans, and attached conditions of approval: 1. The use applied for at this location is conditionally permitted in the A-1, Agricultural District under the provisions of Chapter 18.178.090 and 18.192.020 of the Municipal Code, which allows the placement of public utility structures and service facilities to be permitted in any zone when such uses are determined by the City to be essential or desirable for the public health, safety, and welfare subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit; 2. The proposed establishment of the wireless facility at this location is necessary and desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone; Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 8 3. The project site is sufficient in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, meets all development standards and other features required in order to adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses on land in the neighborhood; 4. That the site for the location of the wireless service provider relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use. The site to be utilized by the wireless carrier was originally designed to handle all traffic generated by the conditionally permitted use allowed at the site; 5. The conditions for the proposed use are reasonably related to the use to address potential effects of the proposed use, and are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and the best interests of the neighborhood. This includes the addition of condition of approval number seventeen (17) as follows: 17. The tower is to be modified to reflect an increased height of the cone of four feet (4), overall height of two feet as it relates to the cross with a photo simulation to be submitted to be reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director. D. CINGULAR WIRELESS, INC., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider Conditional Use Permit No. 868 for the installation of a new 63-foot tall cellular telecommunications facility within a church steeple (existing roof top at approximately 45 feet) at First Lutheran Church on a 3.90 acre parcel located at 1207 W. Cypress Avenue in the R-S, Suburban Residential District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of project subject to the conditions of approval. Commissioner Shamp had questions relative to the location and size of the conduit. Mr. Altopp explained that the conduit would be in a box like container that would run along the roof and down the side of the building and then underground to the back of the church. Mr. Altopp was unsure of the specific dimensions of the conduit container. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant was available to address the Commission. Richard Ambrossini, representing Cingular Wireless, thanked staff for their presentation and was available for questions. He stated that the dimensions of the container holding the conduit would be approximately eleven by four to five inches and is very flat so that the relief is very indiscernible. Chairman Macdonald asked if anyone in the audience wished to speak to the Commission. Karo Tonelli, 1225 W. Cypress Avenue, had concerns about the addition of the steeple and the possible effects of radiation that would be generated from the proposed tower. Jeff Ballinger, Vice President of First Lutheran Church, indicated that there is a steeple or spire which is an architectural feature that houses the speakers with a cross on top of it. Mr. Ballinger asked the Commission to approve the proposed tower. Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 9 Karo Tonelli spoke again of his concerns relative to the addition of the steeple, radiation and the money that would be generated from Cingular Wireless. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller asked if the applicant would address the concerns relative to radiation exposure. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Ambrossini addressed Commissioner Miller's questions relative to radiation exposure and passed around a brochure on the subject for the Commissions review. Commissioner James asked Mr. Ambrossini why this particular site was selected for the tower. Mr. Ambrossini stated that this particular site has very poor cell coverage and that the church met the necessary height requirements. Chairman Macdonald suggested that the brochure be given to Mr. Tonelli for his review. He suggested that in the future, brochures should be made available to the public. Commissioner Miller had concerns relative to the exposed conduit cover being applied to a very prominent, visible roof. He asked the applicant if they fully explored penetrating the roof with the conduit. Mr. Ambrossini stated that it would not be a good idea to run the conduit in the interior of the building and that the best option is to run the conduit on the exterior and keep it as flat to the surface as possible. Commissioner Miller made several suggestions relative to locating the conduit in other areas of the church. Mr. Ambrossini stated that he could do an investigation as to why Cingular chose to do an exterior run as opposed to an interior run. He explained that they only have 100 feet of cable that can be run from the roof top to underground and that a longer cable could affect the signal. Commissioner Miller commented that a better job needs to be done on the shape of the addition. Mr. Ballinger commented on the design of the tower and the importance of keeping the chimes for the neighborhood. He stated that the parishioners liked the design and asked the Commission to approve it. Mr. Ballinger stated that the money generated from the cell tower will be used for a Youth and a Parish Education Director. Mr. Tonelli reiterated his concerns relative to radiation and stated that the bell tower does not belong in the neighborhood. Bill Cunningham, resident, spoke about other cell towers that were rejected and the effects of microwave radiation. Richard Hites, Senior Pastor of First Lutheran Church stated that the members of the church looked at the drawings and thought they were fine. He commented on the speakers for the chimes and stated that the roofing material was metal. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Chairman Macdonald took a poll relative to Commissioner Miller's suggestion for the redesign. Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 10 Commissioner Foster stated that he was not troubled by the way the tower was currently designed. Commissioner Osborne stated that he was not in favor of the proposed design. He added that he would be agreeable if there were some modifications made that would not require a redesign to come back to the Commission, and could be approved by the Community Development Director. Director Shaw asked if there was any consideration given to running the conduit along the ridgeline of the roof and then come down the rear of the building which would not affect the visual side of the building. He asked if the applicant could respond to this alternative. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Ballinger indicated that Director Shaw's suggestion was considered but was not feasible since there was not enough space underneath due to the metal sheathing. Director Shaw stated that he suggested adding a cap element that would go the full length of the ridgeline. Mr. Ballinger stated that they did not consider adding it on top or outside the sheathing and felt it would not be a problem. He commented that they were anxious to see this project approved today. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Commissioner James concurred with Commissioner Foster in keeping the current design. Commissioner Shamp was in agreement with the rest of the Commission with the clarification that the conduit be widened to match the standing seam panel so it could be better concealed. Chairman Macdonald stated that if appeared that the majority of the Commission was in favor of the current design. Commissioner Miller commented on some of the minor modifications discussed stating that whatever is voted on today would be there for at least the next twenty years. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Mr. Ambrossini stated that the modifications suggested by Commissioner Miller did not appear difficult to do and that he would need to meet with the church representatives to get their input for the redesign. Mr. Ballinger stated that the changes appeared to be minor and that the congregation could work them out with Cingular. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. Chairman Macdonald asked Director Shaw if he made note of what was discussed. Director Shaw stated that he noted two of the items which included using the top seam of the roof to carry the conduit and using a v-shape oriented downward as opposed to the opening. Director Shaw asked for clarification on the third component. Commissioner Miller stated that the third component was to make the shape hexagonal where the front and back have a peak or a ships bow. He added that it would expand the space in which the chimes are currently housed and should enable them to continue to function. Director Shaw asked if the steeple would be four or six-sided. Commissioner Miller indicated that the steeple would be six-sided. Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 11 Director Shaw stated that staff would review the applicant's changes and approve it based it on the Commission's recommendations. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. One of the parishioners referred to one of the PowerPoint slides and wanted to clarify the location of the actual speakers. Mr. Ballinger responded to the parishioner's question. Chairman Macdonald stated that any redesign or modification would not affect the speakers. Mr. Ambrossini asked that the modification be subject to the review and approval of the Community Development Director with the understanding that the architectural suggestions would be incorporated and that the speakers would remain compatible. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Conditional Use Permit No. 868 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 Foster, seconded by Commissioner Shamp, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 868 subject to the following findings, submitted plans, and attached conditions of approval. 1. The use applied for at this location is conditionally permitted in the R-S, Suburban Residential District under the provisions of Chapter 18.178.090 and 18.192.020 of the Municipal Code, which allows the placement of public utility structures and service facilities to be permitted in any zone when such uses are determined by the City to be essential or desirable for the public health, safety, and welfare subject to approval of a Conditional Use Permit. 2. The proposed establishment of the wireless facility at this location is necessary and desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements or objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone. 3. The project site is sufficient in size and shape to accommodate the proposed use, meets all development standards and other features required in order to adjust the use to those existing or permitted future uses on land in the neighborhood. 4. That the site for the location of the wireless service provider relates to streets and highways properly designed and improved to carry the type of traffic generated or to be generated by the proposed use. The site to be utilized by the wireless carrier was originally designed to handle all traffic generated by the conditionally permitted use allowed at the site. Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 12 5. The conditions for the proposed use are reasonably related to the use to address potential effects of the proposed use, and are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare and the best interests of the neighborhood." This includes the addition of condition of approval number seventeen (17) as follows: 17. That the steeple shall be redesigned so that the applicant would use the top seam of the roof to carry the cable and the seam will extend across the entire roof, a v-shape to tie into the roof downward as opposed to the open area and a six-sided steeple and a peak to come to the cross. However, that these modifications will be reviewed by the parishioners for consensus, and ultimately reviewed and approved by the Community Development Director with recognition that a key component will be to accommodate the functionality of the speaker system that is currently in place. V. ADDENDA A. AIR QUALITY ISSUES REGARDING LAND USE (DIRECTOR SHAW) Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation to the Commission on air quality issues regarding land use. VI. MINUTES A. NOVEMBER 28, 2006 It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 6-0 vote to approve the minutes of November 28, 2006. VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF DECEMBER 5, 2006 Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation on the City Council Actions of December 5, 2006. VIII. ADJOURN TO JANUARY 9, 2007 Chairman Macdonald adjourned the meeting at 4:12 p.m. to January 9, 2007. Christine Szilva Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 13 Planning Commission Minutes of December 12, 2006 Page 14