Loading...
06/21/2007 I II Community and Economic Development Department GRAND TERRACE PLANNING COMMISSION ' I MINUTES OF REGULAR MEETING (ALIFORNIA JUNE2122007 The regular meeting of the Grand Terrace Planning Commission was called to order at the Grand Terrace Civic Center. 22795 Barton Road. Grand Terrace. California, on Tune 21.2007, at 7:00 v.m., by Chairaerson Douo,Wilson. PRESENT: Doug Wilson, Chairperson Matthew Addington,Vice Chairperson Tom Comstock, Commissioner Darcy McNaboe, Commissioner Brian Phelps, Commissioner Gary Koontz, Community Development Director John Lampe,Associate Planner Rich Shields,Public Works Jerina Cordova,Planning Secretary 6:55 P.M. CONVENED SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/ PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING • Call to Order • Pledge of Allegiance led by Vice Chairman Matthew Addington • Roll Call • Public address to Commission shall be limited to three minutes unless extended by the Chairman. Should you desire to make a longer presentation, please make written request to be agendized to the Director of Community and Economic Development. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION This is the time for anyone in the audience to speak on any item which is not on the agenda for this meeting. JANESE McSCHINOFF 21816 Vivienda Avenue I have a comment on access to the horse trail. They have shut, chained and locked the gate. They put weep holes in but I can't get my horse through there. I have talked to you about the trail many - 1 - 22795 Barton Road • Grand Terrace, California 92313-5295 • 909/ 824-6621 Item 1 ( times about having access from the Grand Terrace side. Everything seems to be going on, on the Colton side and not the Grand Terrace side. I also have another comment about the posting on the Grand Terrace blog; Grandpa Terrace keeps suggesting to put a park in the west,north part of town and that is where I live. Chair Wilson: Staff, do we have any questions in regards to the locked gate? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: I have brought that up to Mr. Berry and I will bring it up again. Chair Wilson: Do we have any kind of easements involved? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: We put together a temporary easement with Mr. Hodgedon until a formal development goes in. We have an agreement for access. I will get with Mr. Berry and we will work it out. CHARLES HORNSBY 22656 Brentwood Street Brentwood Street is rapidly turning into a race track. End of Public Participation -" Chair Wilson: There are several corrections in relation to the minutes of April 5`' and April 19`h we are going to continue those items. 1. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 5,2007 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-12-2007 Chair Wilson made a motion to continue Commissioner Phelps seconded a motion to continue MOTION VOTE 5-0-0-0 2. MINUTES Planning Commission Meeting Minutes of April 19,2007 RECOMMENDATION: Approval MOTION PC-13-2007 Chair Wilson made a motion to continue Commissioner Phelps seconded a motion to continue MOTION VOTE 5-0-0-0 - 2- l 3. GPA-07-01, SP-07-01 Z-07-01, SA-07-02& E-07-02 This proposal includes an amendment to the City's General Plan to re-designate the subject site from LDR (Low Density Residential) to MHDR (Medium High Density Residential -- which also involves adding this category to the Land Use Element of the General Plan) under General Plan Amendment No.07-01 (GPA-07-01). This will allow for the development of a new residential facility for senior citizens on the subject site. In addition, Specific Plan No. 07-01 (SP- 07-01) has been filed for the site-specific development standards for this project; and, Zone Change No. 07-01 (Z-07-01) has been filed for a new zoning designation of R3-S (Multiple Family - Senior Citizen) for the site and will be added to the Zoning Code. Lastly, Site and Architectural Review Case No. 07-02 (SA-07-02) has also been filed for the design and architectural review of this project. The proposed development will feature a two-story, 120 unit residential facility for active senior citizens totaling approximately 100,000 square feet of floor area; a one-story, 7,000 square foot, new senior center; and an approximately 2.6 acre park with controlled public access. The project will also include the development of on-site parking and landscaping for the senior residences, the new senior center and the proposed park. The existing senior center will be replaced by the new senior facility proposed under this project. APPLICANT: CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING LOCATION: 22627 Grand Terrace Road (Approximately 6 acre site located on the southerly side of Grand Terrace Road easterly of Mt. Vernon Avenue; the site is mainly vacant excepting for the existing City of Grand Terrace senior center and parking lot next to the senior center. The Terrace View Elementary School lies to the immediate east.) RECOMMENDATION: Open the public hearing, receive the staff report and testimony, close the hearing and Recommend the Approval of General Plan Amendment No. 07-01, Specific Plan No. 07-01, Zone Change No. 07-01 to the City Council; Approve Site and Architectural Review No. 07-02; and Recommend the Approval and Certification of the Final Environmental Impact Report filed under E-07-02. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: We have a few reports tonight. Mr. Lampe will first give an overview of the project, next Carl Winter, LSA will give a presentation on the Environmental Impact Report and lastly we would like the applicant to present a power point presentation. - 3 - T� John Lampe,Associate Planner: In August of 2005, the Planning Commission recommended a similar project on this site to the City Council. However that proposal involved a three story residential structure and a slightly larger park. Following the City Council's approval of the project a law suit was filed challenging the adequacy of the environmental assessment. The court found that the City did not adequately evaluate certain environmental affects. The proposal, this evening, has been filed as a response to the actions of the court;including a new proposal with a two story structure and an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) to discuss and analyze the potential impacts of this project. OVERHEAD PHOTOS The subject site is located at 22627 Grand Terrace Road. It is an approximately 6 acre parcel located on the southerly side of Grand Terrace Road beginning about 100 feet easterly of Mt. Vernon running easterly about 900 feet to the Terrace View elementary school. The site is bounded by single family residential on the west and south; by vacant property and Edison easement to the north; and by an elementary school to the east. Further to the west on the westerly side of Mt. Vernon are multi-family residential...the Highland Apartments. The site and properties to the south and immediate west are located in the "LDR" category of the general plan and are zoned R1-7.2. To accommodate this project the requests include a GPA to change the designation of the site to "Medium High Density Residential" and a ZC to change the zoning to R3 -S "multiple family- senior citizen with a maximum density of 20 d.u./acre. SITE PLAN NO. 2 The site plan, marked Exhibit 1, shows the proposed development consisting of the two-story, 120 unit senior citizen residential structure with a footprint of about 50,000 square feet. Total floor area of the two-story, residential building will be 100,000 square feet. The southerly wing of the structure will be placed about 77 feet north of the southerly property line. Slightly increasing that distance from the prior approval. The new community senior center will be located at the west end of this southerly wing. It will consist of a single story structure with about 7,000 square feet of floor area. The project will include two main parking areas. The east/south parking area will contain a total of 98 open parking spaces which will mainly be used for the parking for the residents of the residential complex. The parking area on the west with 48 parking spaces will serve the needs of the visitors to the residential complex, the community senior center and the future Petta Park. The main entrance to the residential complex, community senior center and the park will face this westerly parking area. The westerly 2.6 acres will be developed to the future Petta Park. The park will be developed in conformance with many of the design features that were part of the original Master Plan submitted several years. The park will be maintained by the applicant/developer. -4- FENCING PLAN NO.3 Exhibit 2 shows the proposed fencing for the site. A six-foot high block wall is proposed for the east, south and west property lines. The fencing plan shows that along the southerly property line, there will be "wrought iron inserts" which will be included at the request of the adjacent property owner. The fencing along Grand Terrace Road will consists of a 6-foot high wrought iron fence with pilasters and wrought-iron gates. FLOOR PLAN NO.4 (Al &A2). FLOOR PLAN NO. S (B &BI) The proposed residential units will include four different floor plans. Plan Al and A2 will be one-bedrooms with a little over 500 sq. ft. of floor area each, however, Plan A2 will have a balcony. Plan B and B 1 will be two-bedrooms with a little over 800 sq. ft. of floor area each, plan B 1 will have a balcony. All units will have a living room, a kitchen, a full bath and closet space. There will be 103 one-bedroom units and 17 two-bedroom units. FIRST FLOOR PLAN NO. 6 Exhibit 4 shows the floor plan of the first floor of the complete residential building. The plan shows elevator locations (two in number), Lobby Area, Administrative Offices, Storage Rooms, Common Rooms, Laundry and Trash Rooms. The second floor layout is similar but with no administrative areas or common rooms. SENIOR CITIZEN CENTER NO. 7. Exhibit 6 shows the proposed floor plan of the senior community center. The new center will contain a Community Room, Library/Computer Room, T.V. & Pool Room, Crafts Room, Kitchen, Administrative Offices and Restrooms. ELEVATIONS NO. 8 Exhibit 7 shows the proposed elevations of all four sides of the project. The proposed residential structure will be two stories in height with a maximum height of 24 feet. It should be pointed out that the height limit of the existing R1 zoning allows for a 35 foot height structure. The units with balconies will be restricted to the west and north sides of the building reflecting sensitivity to the nearby residential areas. The proposed architecture reflects the Monterey style with some Mediterranean and Craftsman influences. The architectural design as proposed is the same design approved by the Planning Commission in 2005 excepting that the residential building is now two-stories in height. 5 r LANDSCAPING PLAN NO. 9. The preliminary landscaping plan is shown on Exhibit 8. Highlights of the plan include shade trees along the east and south property lines to provide shade to the residential parking lot while serving as a landscape buffer/screen for the adjacent land uses. The future Petta Park will be landscaped reflecting a meditative inspirational setting with walking paths and commemorative display areas relating to the city's history and local culture. CONCEPTUAL GRADING PLAN NO. 10. The conceptual grading plan is shown on Exhibits 9 and 10. Proposed finished floor elevations are designed to descend from east to west as shown on Exhibit 8. A twenty-foot cut will be created along the easterly boundary next to the school with a 2:1 slope between the property line and parking area. In addition, there will be an approximately 300 foot long retaining wall at the top of the slope along the easterly property line. Maximum 2:1 slopes are also designed at varying.heights between the southerly property line and the parking area. Another retaining wall is proposed along a portion of the southerly property line. The proposed grading will lower the site so that the finished floor pad elevations of the southeast - corner of the proposed structure will be 15 to 20 feet below existing ground level. This will reduce the visual effects of the proposed residential structure as seen from adjacent residences. COLOR BOARD: The applicant has submitted a color board showing the material types and colors for the proposed project. This color board is the same as that approved in 2005 except it now shows a two story building. Walls will be primarily an "Omega White" with earthtone accents. Roofing tiles will be a reddish-brown blend of a Mediterranean design. SPECIFIC PLAN: A specific plan entitled the"Blue Mountain Senior Villas Specific Plan" was labeled "Exhibit A" in your package. It includes a detailed discussion of the proposed project including types of uses, architectural styles and development standards to be employed including building coverage, setbacks, access, grading/drainage, landscaping and proposed fencing. 6 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW.- A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared for this project and was included as "Exhibit B". The potential impacts included aesthetics, air quality, land use planning, noise and population and housing. Carl winter of the environmental firm "LSA" will address the environmental issues following the completion of my presentation, Mr. Chairman. CONCLUSION.• This approval is very similar to your prior approval in 2005. It has the same number of senior citizen residential units, 120. It has the same architectural style and general layout. The number of stories of the residential building has been reduced to two stories from the original three. The foot print for the residential portion is slightly larger because of the reduced height. The proposed park is smaller but with the same overall design theme as in the earlier approval. Lastly, the parking in the last approval was 141.spaces. This project is going to have 146 parking spaces. It should be pointed out that at the March 15, 2007 general plan workshop the Planning Commission reaffirmed the "Medium High Density Residential" designation for this site. This recommendation is consistent with that action. As you will hear from the environmental consultant, the rather detailed final environmental impact report has satisfactorily addressed the environmental issues noted by the court. In addition, this project will allow the city to meet its Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) goals as part of the required update of the housing element of the general plan. This project will also allow the City to comply with the requirements of the State Department of Housing And Community Development in its review of the housing element by rezoning a site for higher density development for senior citizen housing, that is the R3-S (multiple family- senior citizen). RECOMMENDATION.• The Staff therefore is recommending that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of the proposed development subject to the recommended findings and conditions as set forth in the ordinances and resolutions in the staff report. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: Before we get into Mr. Winter's presentation, if you are interested I have the proposed final RHNA number for 2006-2014. - 7 - Chair Wilson: Does the Commission have any questions? Commissioner McNaboe: In regards to the rezoning for high density senior housing. In our package there was a statement that talked about "if we rezone this are for high density senior housing, then we need to choose another area to rezone for a density non-senior housing",can you clarify that? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: That is related to the last housing element. The housing element was approved back in 2002. It got approved by the Council but when it went up to the State and they came back with "you need to find two sites and zone them". We refused to do that. We didn't want to just identify two sites and then zone them. Approving this project will help the high density requirement out. We have no intention of coming in and proposing any sort of high density. However,if a developer wants to come in and propose it he would have to propose that kind of density, select a site and it would come before the Planning Commission and the City Council. As we have discussed in the General Plan Workshops, designating this site would be moving toward that direction in having the designation available. Someone could come in and propose something but it would have to go through the Public Hearing process. If it is a good project you may approve it or not. Commissioner McNaboe: If this project would be approved for rezoning, it doesn't obligate us to rezone another area in the City for high density? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: No. As a part of the new RHNA numbers and as a part of the General Plan update we are going back and redoing the Housing Element because it has to be every five years. We will revisit all of that again with HCD. Hopefully this project will show them good faith and hopefully it will mean something. Commissioner McNaboe: And if it doesn't? Gary L. Koontz,Planning Director: Then we will argue with them. Chair Wilson: According to the numbers it looks like we are going to have a lot of company. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The RHNA numbers are very controversial and a lot of cities are filing law suits over their numbers. Our numbers are reasonably manageable. If you look at those numbers,this project will go a long way to satisfy those numbers. Commissioner Comstock: I would like to have a couple of points clarified. In regards to the wrought iron fences;will some of the residences have wrought iron feature and others will not depending on who wants it? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: In the last round going through the hearing the applicant was trying to work with the local residents on Brentwood. Some of them wanted a view and some didn't. The applicant can get into-that. - 8 - _J CARL WINTER LSA ASSOCIATES,INC. 1500 Iowa Avenue Riverside, California As previously stated the proposed project was originally approved by the Planning Commission and City Council in 2005. As envisioned the project consisted of a three story structure. Subsequent to City Council approval the project was challenged. The reason sited were the project would increase population density which would result in an environmental affect, the project would be inconsistent with the surrounding land uses which would result in an environmental affect and noise from air conditioners on the units would be excessive and would adversely affect the environment. In light of this challenge,LSA responded to the City's Request for Proposal and was retained by the City to prepare and Environmental Impact Report for the project. The EIR process began with an issuance of an Initial Study. The Initial Study was the first thing to identify which issues needed to be carried forward in the EIR. The issues that were determined necessary for the EIR were aesthetics, land use, population housing, noise and air quality. The Initial Study was prepared and distributed for a thirty day public review period. This extended from December 15, 2006 through January 16, 2007. In response to the Initial Study; five public agencies provided comments. These agencies were Office of Planning and Research, Native American Heritage Commission, South Coast Air Quality Management District, Colton Joint Unified School District and the - Southern California Associated Governments. As appropriate the concerns of these commenting agencies were incorporated into the EIR. During the thirty day public review period, a public scoping meeting was held to solicit input from the citizens of the city to determine what issues they thought needed to be included in the EIR. This meeting was held on January 4, 2007. Eleven persons spoke at this public meeting and as appropriate their comments were incorporated into the EIR. Upon the closure of the public review period for the Initial Study;work commenced on the Draft EIR. The analysis and the EIR were based on technical Air Quality runs; noise modeling; biological resource assessment; cultural resource record search; consultation with the Native American Heritage Commission; the phase I hazardous materials site assessment; geotechnical report; a consultation with local and state data bases with the Federal Census Bureau and consultation with various service providers. As stated the issues address in the EIR include aesthetics, air quality, land use, noise and population housing. The EIR included a summary of those issues determining not to be significant in the Initial Study. None of the issues addressed in this study were determined to be significant. There was either no impact or the impact was less significant or it could be reduced to a less than significant level with the incorporation of mitigation measures. - The two issues that were determined to be significant, but mitigatable, were construction noise impacts and construction air quality impacts. The EIR included a total of six alternatives to the project. These alternatives included variations to the project which would - 9 - 1�l � alter the type of use on site, allow the site to remain undeveloped and to consider an alternative project location. The Draft EIR was distributed to the public for a forty five day review period which extended from April 3, 2007 through May 17, 2007. A total of seven comment letters were received. Five were from public agencies and two came from citizens. The response to these comment letters were included in the Final EIR and were submitted to the staff for review. All of the issues brought up in these comment letters were appropriately responded to and did not contain any new information or concern that would warrant recirculation of the Draft EIR. That is my conclusion and I am available for questions. Chair Wilson: Do we have any questions for Carl Winter from the Planning Commission? Commissioner McNaboe: Are we going to have a report on the noise levels? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: If you would like one. Carl Winter,LSA: We can summarize the noise levels. Chair Wilson: I believe in the document it addresses it several places in regards to parking levels, noise levels,grading equipment and so on. Gary L Koontz asked the City Attorney a question regarding opening the public hearing formally. The City Attorney agrees that the Planning Commission continue to hear the remainder of presentation and then formally open the public hearing. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: Do' you want a presentation from the noise engineer? Chair Wilson: Yes. KEITH LEIGH LSA ASSOCIATES, INC. 22 Executive Park, Suite 200 Irvine, California As Carl mentioned we conducted ambient noise measurements within the project site and the surrounding vicinity to establish the existing noise environment that is generated by air craft, other stationary noises in the area and trucks as the primary existing sources of noise. Based on those levels we established a baseline which was to compare the noise levels that would be generated from the facility itself. The items that were address included the short term construction, parking lot activities and from the onsite air conditioning units that were included in the proposed units. - 10 - None of these activities would result in noise levels of excess of the existing ambient noise levels and are quite low. Chair Wilson: It is my understanding that we have a ninety foot buffer between the condenser units and the area that would be impacted by the noise. The "db" rating is somewhere in the average of forty two,is that correct? Keith: You are correct on the distance but it varies depending on the unit and the nearest resident to the south. The noise level combined, assuming every unit would operate at the same time,would be forty four decibels. That is well below the ambient level in the area. Commissioner Comstock: I am curious as to what the ambient level is for that area? Keith: It varied and the average hourly level raged from forty five to fifty two decibels. The maximum level which should be generated by trucks passing or law mowers, ranged from sixty through sixty six decibels. Chair Wilson: Does that also consider freeway noise? Keith: The freeway is audible from the area but not predominant noise. The local road ways are much closer and would generate more. Chair Wilson: Does the railroad impact that area? ` Keith: I believe in a measurement 1, a train was heard, but it is too far to the west to impact the residents. Chair Wilson: Do you have something that you can give Commissioner McNaboe so that she could take a look at? Commissioner McNaboe: His verbal summary is fine. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: I would now like to ask the applicant to come up. CORPORATION FOR BETTER HOUSING CHARLES BRUMBAUGH 15303 Ventura Boulevard, Suite 1100 Sherman Oaks, California As previous testimony indicated, this project was approved about two years ago. There was a court challenge and the court found that there may or may not be some impact and that was the nature of the EIR. I wanted to let everyone know that the matter is on appeal and hopefully nothing that we do this evening jeopardize that appeal. - Blue Mountain Senior Villas is the name of the project& Corporation for Better Housing is the developer. We have completed twenty three projects with 1,500 units all over the State of California. - 11 - A couple of the projects in this power point are senior facilities and are very similar to the Blue Mountain Senior Villas as far as quality. Bellflower's project was in their downtown core area and that was developed in the 20's, 30's &40's with and art deco motif and that is why we stuck with that. The Cudahay project is very similar in size and density to the Blue Mountain Senior Villas. It is a two story facility with a central court yard. San Jose's project is very different because it is in an urban area. We built on top of a church parking lot and we put the parking below the church's parking lot, replaced the church's parking lot and built three stories of housing over the top. It is a different community but the values of real estate are real prohibited in the San Jose area. Temecula's project was built about four years ago. This too is a very similar type of arrangement. The City owned the property and provided some financial assistance and guided us through the design process just as your planning and building officials have done here as well. This next project is a little different. This is a senior condominium for sale project. Twenty five percent of the units were affordable and the balance,were sold at market rate. The Grand Terrace Senior housing team is Corporation for Better Housing, the architect is John Cotton. He has done approximately five hundred thousand apartments since the late 1960's when he started;Landscape Architect is the landscaping architecture firm;Paul Green and Associates are the engineers and David Leonard is the outside planner for the project who did the Specific Plan. You have seen these next elevations; the only difference is that the easterly portion of the project site is that the three story portion was lowered to an all two story facility. The landscape plan is also very similar to that which was presented several years ago to this Commission. It is slightly smaller however due to the lowering of the three story portion of the building we had to scoot the building over to provide more land. The site development is approximately 6.1 acres, 120 units. The facility will have a stand alone resident only facility of approximately 2,100 square feet. We hope the seniors in the building who live there, will interact and use the large senior center however there will be some who prefer some quiet space and individual type areas with computers and other things that they would like to do and use that 2,100 square feet for residents only. Joanne and I worked together the best we could to satisfy there present and future needs. If there are changes that need to be made we will be working with them throughout the entire build out process. You are all familiar with the project site. The project amenities are it's a senior friendly design. The counter tops will be adaptable and all of the units will be adaptable and some - 12- will be built with handicap items built in. We use low cut carpet to accommodate those in - wheelchairs. To my left there is a material board with interior built out and I believe the staff has passed around the exterior board. As you can see we use granite counter tops in all of our units and the cabinets are a nice cabinet face with nice carpet and a high quality build out. A number of council members and your city manager have been to some of our facilities and have seen first hand out quality and we are very proud of what we do. Here you will see the floor plan. There will be two courtyards that will be self contained within the facility, the community room will open up into the northern courtyard area and the senior center will be open towards the park. As the staff indicated some of the units have balconies and some don't. Some time ago we specifically decided not to have balconies that would have an overlook issue or potential overlook issue into the single family homes. Where we could build the balconies we did and certain areas we didn't. We hope that these slides give you perception of what the park is going to look like. There are a lot of different species and lots of different colors. We are hoping that it illuminate with colors and varieties through out the year. The exterior of the building is going to be stucco and a Mission style with Mediterranean playing off of it. If you have any questions I am ready to answer. Chair Wilson: I know that the last approval had covered parking. Why is there no covered parking on this design? We are in an area that has a fairly heated climate in the summer and I don't think that fifteen gallon trees are going to shade the area. What was the emphasis of no covered parking? Charles Brombaugh: In affordable senior housing that we have built all over the state we have built them without covered parking. It has been a standard detail profile that we propose to the city. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The approval from the City Council in the last approval;they had removed the covered parking. Chair Wilson: Was there a purpose? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The covered parking was tuck under, and in efforts to drop things down we removed some of that parking and the City Council approved it. Chair Wilson: I am against that. Next, I have a question on the landscaping; I see a lot of fifteen gallon trees stuffed all over the place and maybe a couple of forty eight gallons. - 13 - ' That is okay except a fifteen gallon tree has a small twig and it takes about three or four years to where it becomes shady. I don't see that-as acceptable. Charles Brombaugh: We would be more than happy to amend the landscaping plan. The only thing that I would ask is to allow height and density varieties to allow some movement. If you put all the trees at the same height it may not have the look that we all hope for. I will address that with staff and make some amendments. Chair Wilson: The Park is a lot different than before and we all know why part of it is and everyone can have there opinion in relation to why that had to take place but we were warned. We knew that if we were not able to maintain the original design that we would have to push some of the building into the open space. There is a general lack of trees in the park but I think that it may be a result of the design. I have looked at the landscape plan and I have reviewed the landscape plan, the concepts that were behind the passive park in the past are a lot different than they are now, can you give me some background on that. Charles Brombaugh: The Park area was redesigned and there were a couple of features that didn't fit because of the massing issues. When the building moved over it made the park less narrow. We couldn't find a place that would work very well so it became a little crowded. The one major feature that I think you are talking about has been removed. We can take a second look at scaling it down and bringing it back. It didn't work in the space that we had left. Chair Wilson: No. Let me elaborate; because I think there are a few things in relation to topography that have changed. There is a difference in the amount of trees. I noticed that there is a different kind of feel. There used to be some meditation involved. If we are going to sacrifice some of those areas I think it would be appropriate to get practical with shade structures that could benefit the general public and the folks that are going to be in this building. We have about four months a year in this area that exceeds ninety degrees in the afternoons. If it is going to be used, it is going to have to have some shade capacity to it. I am sick of seeing landscape architecture that puts too much asphalt on the ground and grass and bushes and neglect the fact that humans have to live there. I would like to see more of that consideration. Charles Brombaugh: We understand and we will be more than happy to look at a pergola or a gazebo with open sides but maybe a closed roof structure. I think something like that could work very well in the middle making it a central focal point. Chair Wilson: I suspect the use that is being prescribed will lend itself well to visits by families. If that is the case then they will need a place to sit under shade. - 14- I look at Rollins Park and that is a major use for Rollins Park. It is definitely a place where people use the shade structures and parking areas. Charles Brombaugh: We will take a look at that. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: This is a preliminary landscape plan;if you elect to approve the project we can come back and present you with a formal plan that is part of the final engineering for your review and approval. Chair Wilson: I will think about that. Commissioner Phelps: On Exhibit 10, it looks like a side walk with a couple of pipes underneath it. Can you elaborate more with that and make it a little more garden type. I can see someone with a wheel chair going off the edge. It looks like it doesn't have any curbing on the edge. Charles Brombaugh: We will give you a more detailed design concept on it. Commissioner Phelps: I was looking at the color board and I noticed that the sliding windows have a white frame around them. Will that be a frame that you are using? Will it match the color of the entire building? Charles Brombaugh: It does not matter to us to buy the ones with a brownish tan. It is a relatively diminimus cost. We can do it either way. Commissioner Phelps: I think the same color would match the stucco a little better. Charles Brombaugh: It is going to bring a lot of attention to the windows if that is what you are going for. Commissioner Phelps: I see black as the outline structure. Vice Chair Addington: So you are comparing the new color board that was up here tonight? Commissioner Phelps: Yes Commissioner McNaboe: Are the walls white? Charles Brombaugh: Yes. The color of the walls will be a slight off white. Vice Chair Addington: What is the color of the molding around the windows? Charles Brombaugh: I can't recall what the color of the stucco trim is. It is a pink color on the color board. Vice Chair Addington: Okay. I don't personally have a problem with the windows because they have a dark trim around them. - 15 - Commissioner McNaboe: I can live with the white trim. Commissioner Comstock: I don't know if we should ask staff this question. In regards to the parking for the residents on site; I notice that we have 120 units and we have 96-98 parking spaces for the units. I was wondering about the figure and if we could elaborate to the public on why we used .75 spaces/unit instead of including one parking space per unit. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: We looked at other senior housing projects and what they used. We also talked to the applicant about some of their other projects and the use of cars,how many cars are on the site,parking spaces and how other jurisdictions use it. Charles Brombaugh: We build all over the state. Typically senior housing parking requirements for affordable housing,range from 'A and 3/a. We went toward the higher side. Tom and a couple of other Council members have been out to our Bellflower project. The council there wanted us to build a 1 to 1. We built 180 underground parking spaces at an immense cost and there are probably less than one hundred people that have cars. We are probably over parked right now about fifty percent. We felt that .75 is a really safe number. In addition, if there are a couple odd ball cars we still have a lot of extra spaces for guest. I don't think you will ever see a problem with parking. The other constraint is that we have already encroached into the park area and all what we would be doing is encroaching further into the park area. Commissioner Comstock: I wanted to make sure that we looked into that issue thoroughly so that we don't under park the residents. I don't want them to have to use the public space for the park. There should be onsite parking. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: After looking at other projects we are quite comfortable with this type of resident parking. Vice Chair Addington: Adding to that, does the ratio for the handicap parking falling in line with all of the other projects that are being done. Charles Brombaugh: Yes it is per code. Chair Wilson: As a question in relation to the parking, Bellflower is an incorporated city right? Charles Brombaugh: Yes. Chair Wilson: Okay then that leaves them out of the sphere of the City of Los Angeles. What is the parking for seniors for the City of Los Angeles. Charles Brombaugh: ' The City of Los Angels is .75 and they have a Conditional Use Permit which would allow for lowering that number if you could show hardship or something else.They have a whole set of ordinances and rules. The Don Hotel has about 30 parking spaces for 58 units. - 16 - \ j _ Chair Wilson: The City of Los Angles has a very restrictive parking requirement. They address every condition that you can think of. Charles Brombaugh: If it wasn't senior housing it would be about 1 3/4 after you add on the guest for a 1 bedroom apartment. Commissioner Comstock: I would like to see some consistency in the way we put the fence up. I realize that we are trying to help the neighbors and appease their concerns. I think it makes more sense instead of having a hit and miss we need to have consistency. I don't know what you go through in making a determination of where these would be put up. What did you go through? Charles Brombaugh: We met with everyone that was up there. There was not a consensus. It was the general desire to have an opened airiness and not a solid block wall. Commissioner Comstock: As you met with the neighbors, can you give me an approximate percentage of how many wanted to have it as opposed to those who did not want it. Charles Brombaugh: I would really hate to speculate. If I say something it may turn out to be a bone of contention later. Commissioner McNaboe: I would like to restate the concern over the lack of covered parking. Is there any way to look into some sort of shelter? I would also like for you to comment on the lighting for the parking lot and how will it be so that it doesn't affect the neighbors behind the property. Charles Brombaugh: A lot of cities have issues with lighting and glare that go elsewhere. The EIR has a lot of conditions. Gary and I .have spent some time talking about pole locations and other things. We will be working very closely in working with the City of Grand Terrace to make sure that the lights will be designed to only shine forward. We will use low ambient light around the building. It will not be a commercial parking lot that maybe you would see at Von's or something. Vice Chair Addington: On page 3 of 3 of the conditions under the public works. You are requesting a valuation of the downstream storm drain. Is there something here that we should be aware of? Is this a standard condition? Rich Shields, Public Works: Yes it is a standard. Commissioner Phelps: If we are going to do covered parking, perhaps we can do an open type of trellis as oppose to your standard covered parking. I would like to see something decorative. Chair Wilson: Do we have any comments from the Commission on the design or the covered parking issue? - 17 -. Vice Chair Addington: In going back to what the resident's desire for their views; the area seems to be depressed 20 ft. along the east side of the property and along the south east corner. Charles Brombaugh: As you move west the depression decreases. Vice Chair Addington: I would suggest that the covered parking be near that area so when the people look out of their homes they won't see it. They will be looking over it. I don't think it should be in an area where you are approaching the same ground level as shown in the grading plans. Charles Brombaugh: That would be very helpful to us because this is a real serious issue. What I propose is to allow partial covered parking along the school side and keep it in that area. There won't be that many issues of view shed or that sort of thing. The area to the east sits down low enough where we are not going to have any one story view issues but as you move out towards the west the property goes down dramatically. Chair Wilson: Okay,then we need to use common sense. Commissioner Comstock: I don't have a preference one way or another but it does make sense to put it along the school side and not along the residential side. Chair Wilson: We shall open the public hearing. REQUEST TO SPEAK CHUCK HORNSBY 22656 Brentwood Street I would like to comment on something that I heard earlier. One thing that was left out is the square footage of the project. It was 115,000 sq. ft. it is now 100,000 sq. ft. It is like going from an apartment that is 1,000 sq. ft. to 860 sq. ft. My point is what was very dense before is even more dense now. I don't know if you have forgotten or whether there are other motives involved but documents have a way of getting out. I am in possession of copies of a letter that Mr. Koontz received from the California Housing Authority tell him he has to do everything that you are questioned on. If you do this, you have to do this elsewhere for people of other age brackets. If he has a letter that supersedes that he should present it. Everyone needs to take EIR's with a grain of salt. They have been going on forever in Southern California. For the last 30-40 years every project that comes along has an EIR. Southern California is becoming more crowded _and more unlivable. EIR's are just paper. That is all they are worth. - 18 - J The parking regulations are very specific in this city. They allow 2 parking spaces per _ apartment and 1 for every four for a guest. One of those has to be in a garage. When you do the math it adds up to 270 parking spaces. The municipal code also points out that the planning director is only allowed to make minor changes to those. From 270 we are down to 146. You also have to look at the math of this complex. Any apartment manager who has 103 single units and 17 double units comes up with 103 parking spots for the single and 2 for 17, 2 bedroom apartments. That comes up to 137. You have 9 left over. On any given day if 1 out of 13 units have a visitor you are at your maximum parking that quickly. If one out of 13 has a visitor every parking spot will be taken. That doesn't allow anybody who is coming from an offsite location to visit the senior center, delivery trucks, and service trucks and certainly doesn't allow any body to park for the Park. I would like some clarification on what Mr. Koontz talked about in his responses to our EIR report. He talked about the density transfer. There needs to be a density transfer and I would like to know where it going to be transferred to. Is the density coming back? Maybe they are going to roll half of the buildings over to the western side of the property so that he could come up with the 20 units per acre. The way I understand transferring is that when you transfer density it doesn't come back. I grew up in the family of a naval officer. My father was transferred to San Diego, we went there; my father was transferred Long Beach, we went there; to Burmington, WA we went there then to Norfolk, VA, we went there. I want to know where the density is transferred to and if it is coming back. Vice Chair Addington: Gary, doesn't a specific plan allow modification of the existing codes and ordinances specifically in this case on parking? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The specific plan acts as the zoning code. We are creating this R3 Senior zone and it is implemented through the implementation of the specific plan which gives site specific design guidelines including parking. JOANNE JOHNSON 12723 S. Mt. Vernon Avenue I thought my comments were appropriate but now I am not sure. I would like to make a few points. This project is badly needed. The City of Grand Terrace has no senior housing at all and there is very little low income housing available in this city. My personal belief is that this is an ideal location for the senior housing. There is no other location in this city more suited to this project. With the need for commercial tax based projects; the same project will take away from a more profitable use if build elsewhere in the city. The possibility with relationships with the school, are virtually endless. A substantial amount of our seniors are retired teachers and would be ideal tutors and class room aids and other - 19 - members. Others have expressed a desire to become involved in some way with the school therefore I think the location is ideal. The concern about noise produced by air conditioners is a bit hard for me to see. I can go out on our porch at the senior center and hear a minimum of four or five air conditioners at about any time. The central air conditioners of the neighbors are far noisier than the small units of the apartments. I have walked within 20 ft. of those same small air conditioners at the Terrace retirement facility before I could hear them. As far as the coming and going of cars from this complex; I don't think this will be an issue at all. Not all will have cars. Those who do, avoid the high traffic times of the day including opening and ending of school times. Many do not drive at all at night. I feel there will be car pool(s) to go the grocery store. The number of trips out is not going to be great. I feel that we have been very good neighbors and we will continue to be good neighbors when this project has been completed. We will not trash things or throw loud parties. This will enable many families in Grand Terrace to have their aging parents close to home yet living independently. This is very important. VIRGINIA HARTFORD 11825 Arliss Way I love this town and I think to approve this project is the best thing to do. Let's hurry up and get it built. You are going to hear from a lot of and the only thing that that have done is delay the project to the tune of about$300,000.00. ROBERT STEWART 11677 Mt.Vernon Avenue I reside on the west end of this project and I have a couple of questions for the landscape architect concerning the walls. Are you going to remove fences or are you going to build a double set? Mr. Koontz what has been resolved on the easement? It was in limbo the last I heard. In response to letters to the letters included in the EIR,what would we do if we moved this? What is going to happen is this land will be sold you will have two story houses you will have pools in the back yards, air conditioners, it will be pad grading. There will be parties and goings on into the curfew hour and I'm sure you won't like that at all. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: In terms of the Edison easement. Yes. We do have to maintain access to those lines. We will have to work with Edison to make sure that they are comfortable with the access that we have. Charles Brombaugh: We are back at the wall issue. If we have to double butt the wall if - the residents want to keep the wall or if they want it on the property line we will do whatever to work with them. -20- � � J _ Chair Wilson: To make it clear, we are leaving it up to the residents or the adjacency whether or not you split the lot line and install a new wall in place of the old or demo the fence or you end up building something on your.side of the line to be able to accommodate the grade. Charles Brombaugh: That is what we will typically do. Once we get started we will go to each resident and get them to sign a sheet of paper allowing us to build a wall in the middle of the property line. If they are not willing to sign it then we keep everything on our side of the property and put it right against whatever they have. Chair Wilson: Does that answer your questions Mr. Stewart? Robert Stewart: Yes. PATRICIA FARLEY 12513 Michigan Street I would like to point out that the public were to be able to make oral comments on this EIR at a meeting and have them included in the final EIR and that meeting got cancelled. The EIR was printed up fast and passed around. Any comments made tonight should legally be a part of that. A lot of people are making this an issue of seniors versus the rest of the community. This is very naive. There are some incredibly important issues that have caused problems for this project. They are taking specific areas and deciding to create a zone with a much higher density with a specific plan where they make their own rules. This City keeps catering to developers and friends or people that support them. That is the big problem that a lot of us are complaining about. Mr. Schwab already designated three places in the city and they are little pockets. To have an EIR where Mr. Koontz says that the affects are insignificant is very disgusting because the significant affects are extremely important. I would be enraged if you put a high density business like this right behind my back yard with an alley, parking, and all of that. That will change the whole environment by your house and for the City to make deals with developers takes our rights away. No matter how much you have put into your house and how long you have lived here. That is unconscionable. The fact for people who act like the seniors are being hurt,I would like for you to know that the Court could have made the City move the senior center back to where it was suppose to be. This city keeps grading and moving things before things have been approved. When the City wastes money like that it is the City's fault and it is your fault for electing them. There are significant cumulative things that never get into these EIR's. There are four considerable projects that should have been included that were not. In table 2.0 of chapter 2.0 on pages 2-23 of the Draft EIR, there are three that are located in Grand Terrace and one that is located in Highgrove and when all of these projects are finished they will be contributing to traffic impacts on our streets in Grand Terrace as well as other things. -21 - The following projects need to be added to the list Karger Homes, Hidden Gate, Scwartfegger, and Calvary the Brook. We get three minutes to talk about all the things that keep getting undermined by people and I am sorry these reports keep saying that the stuff the public keeps bringing up is not significant but they have not answered it. I think you should measure the parking spaces as well as there not being enough because they need to be extra wide for people to get in and out of their cars with crutches, wheel chairs and etc. Your involvement with the school is that you will be sharing a parking lot with the school. You have not considered the parking for the park, the guest, service vehicles. There was not a reasonable effort to put this project somewhere else. This City wheels and deals with developers. The citizens of this community are being trampled on by a minority. We all have rights and our rights need to be protected. We should not have this zoning category where Mr. Schwab can put anything he wants anywhere in the City. Commissioner Comstock: I would like to ask, did we address the traffic issues in the EIR? Did we do a full blown traffic study? Carl Winter, LSA: The traffic discussion in the EIR was based on traffic numbers that were generated by the City's traffic engineer and in addition to that we observed traffic conditions at the school during morning and afternoon, pick up and drop offs. We did not find any significant impact in regards to the traffic flow at the school. The intersections adjacent to the project site specifically Mt. Vernon Avenue and Grand Terrace Road currently operate at an acceptable level of service. Chair Wilson: What is the level? Gary L. Koontz,Planning Director: Level is Commissioner Comstock: I just wanted to make sure that we addressed traffic issues. Carl Winter, LSA: It is my understanding that to do a full blown traffic study you would need to have more than 250 am/pm peak trips. With our project the pm trips were 42 and 34 am peak our trips. We don't really reach that level of trigger and it is below the standard. Commissioner Comstock: I would also like to address Patricia Farley's question regarding the City's requirement to have questions in writing. That is to protect the resident of the City as well as the staff. It is very difficult to answer questions and then have to come back at a later date and if the questions are not entered into writing then we don't know what and how it's been asked and answered. -22- BARBARA BERLINER 22624 Brentwood Street At the scoping meeting we were not shown any design of the changes. The original one was three stories and we know they changed it to two stories. They did not show us how many parking spaces directly behind my house. Right now I count nineteen cars could possibly park behind my house within 10 ft. of my fence. If you put a block wall there I am going have some type of noises. Right now I don't have anything. No one else in the city has nineteen cars parked behind their back yard. Put the parking out front and move the building a little closer to my yard I am already losing my view. I am a turtle and tortoise rescue and I am in my yard every single day for at least four to five hours. I don't have noise, I don't work and I am home all day. I can't fathom having that many cars parked behind my house all day and all night. Don't tell me that alarms are not going to go and they don' slam their doors and don't tell me that these are active seniors. If they are active seniors then they drive. That is the only way to get around here. When we discussed the trees; there weren't going to be any right behind my house. That is going to take the little view that I have of the mountains. The trees are not going to happen. DANIEL BERLINER 22624 Brentwood Street I have quality of life comments. It is interesting that all of the people here that are saying it's not a big deal. They don't have the building behind them. Some of our neighbors are saying it's not a big deal well they are not being bothered by it being right behind them. They don't really care. Charles Brombaugh wasn't at the meeting otherwise he would have been able to answer your question. As far as the air conditioners I am curious as to how you can have forty air conditioners running and it is going to be as quiet as it is with nothing in that open field. I want that explained. You also said that there were central air conditioners. If they were central you could put them on the roof and then they would be less of a problem. With them where they are the sound will be shot out towards our house. The bottom line is that all of the people that are for the project is because it doesn't not affect them directly. The people who are speaking up against it are the ones that are affected most. I know the decisions have already been made. This was decided months ago and these are just the formalities. We are going to live with it and we are going to try and be good neighbors and I know that they will. If we do have problems I hope that we will be able to call the police or 911 when we have problems with alarms and things like that. -23 - TONY PETTA 11875 Eton Drive I am impressed in what I see and what I hear. Chair Wilson has wisely suggested putting in large shade trees. I hear making this project like a park like atmosphere with benches next to a senior center that services the seniors. The seniors can walk where their services are without having to travel miles and go somewhere else. We have a large area near by that is approximately 20 acres of open space and will always remain open because it is directly under power lines and it is unbuildable. There has been a lot of thought gone into this project to make sure that it blends in with the neighborhood. The key appears to be park like atmosphere with large trees blending in buffer with the school and buffer with the open Jand I think it is ideal. I admit that I am a senior and I hope that I can qualify to live in that project. Chair Wilson: Are there any other members of the public that want to address this issue. CHUCK HORNSBY 22656 Brentwood Street The reason we are here today is because of density. Density first arose when Corporation for Better Housing approached Grand Terrace with no competitive bids given. One of the things they told the City Management was that then needed 120 units to make this a financial go. The City management took them at their word. In yesterday's paper covering Redlands Tuesday City Council Meeting senior housing wants approval. The Redlands Council voted 4-0 to approve a 71 unit senior housing project in northern Redlands. Rents were qualifying low income at the 3.5 acre Webster Street project could range from $250-$325 a month. The Housing Authority of San Bernardino County will administer the project as affordable housing. My first question goes to the gentleman from Corporation for Better Housing. If they can put 20 units/acre why do you need 60 units/ acre to make a profit? My second question is,why did the square footage of building drop so dramatically. It went from 115,000 sq. ft. to 100,000 sq. ft. which is a 14% drop. If you went out looking at homes and you instructed your real estate broker that you wanted 2,000 sq. ft. and he brought you to a home that had 1,740 sq. ft. that would probably be the last time you employed him. My last question is about the mitigation that this gentleman spoke of. He said that two things were going to be a problem as far as mitigation. He said the construction noise and the air pollution would be a problem. Those will be for a while because they are transitory it will all be over within 8-12 months. How can that be a problem? How can he ignore the fact that he is coming into a neighborhood where 3 and 4 people live on a quarter acre up and down that street. The average population on Brentwood Street is less than 4 people per home. Yet he doesn't think the fact that he is putting 120 people on 3 acres is deserving of any mitigation. He doesn't state that it needs mitigation because you can't mitigate it. You are just going to do it. - 24- Charles Brombaugh: As Mr. Koontz pointed out, in the origin design we were parking _ underneath the building. We eliminated that portion of the building to lower it and mitigate the height issues associated with the building. As far as the elimination of the square footage,was that it merely was from the tuck under parking. The unit size and configuration of the units and the community building remain exactly the same. In fact we have built a prototypical unit seven hundred times. Chair Wilson: You will also need to answer the question in relation to density. Am I correct in assuming that we have six acres overall; and 120 divided by 6 is approximately 20 units/acre. Charles Brombaugh: The only other issue that I would like to talk about is Mr. Hornsby's question regarding the project he talked about, I don't know the details but when the Housing Authority does an affordable housing project they invariably enroll in Section 8 certificates with people of very modest means living there. Mr. Schwab and I,when we first discussed this project, was really not interested so much as having a lot of people with no income living in the facility. We were trying to strive to serve the needs of a very large group of people from modest means up to market rate. One of the things that we didn't spend a lot of time on tonight is that 10% of the units are senior market rate units. So Mr. Petta and those that have means but may want to downsize or come and live will have an opportunity. That was one of the key concepts that was immediately put on the table from the City's perspective is that we need to serve a whole variety from the seniors and not just one group. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: In terms of the square footage you may want to consider that when you take out the entire third floor, you have stair wells, equipment rooms, and laundry rooms that you don't need because you have those on the second and first floors already. PATRICIA FARLEY 12513 Michigan Street I am wondering if people have forgot that you were told a long time ago that the County of San Bernardino can make you let low income at risk people be living here and not just seniors. I'd love to have lots of trees but the reality is there will be little trees because they wont' want the parking lot to be cracking. What happens when there is a fire and the elderly residents can't use the elevators? Chair Wilson: So you are saying the county can make us use the Section 8? Patricia Farley: Yes. It came up a long time ago that they can make the City of Grand Terrace accept people in those residences if they feel that it is a need or an emergency and you will have no control. That was publicly stated. _-- Chair Wilson: We will address that through the City Attorney. II - 25 - \ 1 Patricia Farley: How are they going to enforce the parking? There are going to be people from the school that are going to be parking there and who is going to enforce it? I am glad that they are not going to have underground parking because I don't think that is safe. If there is a fire how are they are going to get out? City Attorney: I am not sure what Ms. Farley is getting at by saying the county can force people in. Typically low income senior projects have CC&R's limited to a certain age group. There are state restrictions as to who can live with seniors. They are allowed to have family members move in but I am not aware of the state forcing senior projects to open up to persons with low income that don't meet the senior requirement. Chair Wilson: This is the City of Grand Terrace and I would be opposed to the County enforcing anything. Commissioner Comstock: I have comment on the fire safety issue. This facility will be completely fire sprinklered and it offers an extreme protection of the residents. They will have a fire unit and the sprinkler heads pop;it puts the fire out. I used to be in the fire alarm industry and there is going to be all kinds of bells and whistles and noises that will go off. There will be a direct line going to the fire department regarding this. This is an elaborate fire alarm system that will be required by the fire department. Those residents will be highly protected against fire. 1 - CHUCK HORNSBY 22656 Brentwood Street Let us have an open discussion. The City Fathers (Mr. Schwab & Mr. Koontz) have used the park to get bonus density. Chair Wilson: That is part of the over all project which is a six acre parcel. Chuck Hornsby: Here is what the City is doing. The City wants to take credit for providing a park which they are doing so that they can use the density bonus to jack up the occupancy rate. That is how they are able to put 120 units on 3 acres. The City has been obligated to provide a park there for many years. It was set aside as open space within the General Plan. The second place and the most important thing, is that if it's a park, it's a park. They are saying it is a public use park. How can they say that they are setting this land aside as a park but they want to keep it joined so that they can act like its part of the apartment complex? They are next door to each other but they are separate. They are saying this is a park because they need a park so they can get a density bonus. Have Mr. Koontz come up and talk about this. Chair Wilson: This is a normal practice;it is called"clustering". Chuck Hornsby: It is called ripping off the public. -26 - I still want my question answered. This gentleman pointed to two things that are going to be a problem. They are going to be a problem for about six months and they will disappear. The 120 units will never go away. Chair Wilson: Let's answer the question as best as we can. Carl Winter, LSA: The answer to the LOS question is on page 2-12 section 2.4.9 of the EIR states that the LOS on Grand Terrace Road is LOS `B" and Mt. Vernon is "A". That is regarding the traffic conditions. As far as the land use capability the 6 acres of the site is totally integrated. It is all one comprehensive unit. The significance of the of the land use impact: the EIR considered several factors and one of them was the pattern in practice of the zoning and the current practice of zoning in the City. The City currently places multi-family residential zoning adjacent to single family zoning in general. The type of project that we are proposing is basically the same thing as the current practice of zoning in the City. The set backs with the proposed specific plan are greater than the current standards. The height in this is less than maximum height in the existing zoning. The EIR took into account the adjacency different uses. There are the Highlands Apartments with 560 units and we took that into account with the pattern of zoning in the project area. The totality of what was taken into account supports the conclusion that the change of the project site from its existing to the proposed would not result in a significant impact to the environment. It is a reasonable conclusion. Vice Chair Addington: Is the City maintaining ownership of the underlying land? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The City maintains ownership and there is a lease agreement. We will be leasing the entire site to the applicant and in return the park will be available with the senior center for public use. Theoretically they are leasing the entire thing. Commissioner Phelps: I was approached by the City Assistant Manager to ask of this could be a non-smoking facility. Is that something we would handle or is that something City Council handles? Charles Brombaugh: It is a very complicated question. There is a movement afoot to have all affordable housing projects both senior and family to be converted to non-smoking facilities. There appears to be a problem with that because you have certain ADA issues. If you create a smoking area there will be a lot of other issues with that. It doesn't seem to be the reality but if there is a legal way we would be more than happy to do that. I just hesitate to agree to something like that because all of the advocates can't answer certain key issues that the Attorney General's office continue to rise for this group. We are not sure it is legal to prohibit people from smoking in their unit. We can regulate corridors and laundry rooms -- or implement a non-smoking with in 20 ft. from the door but when someone is renting it becomes a much more complicated issue. - 27 - Chair Wilson: I would like to make sure that you address Barbara Berliner's concern about trees in her back yard. I can understand how she had a limited view and how we can help preserve that view. Charles Brombaugh: If you can give us some direction on that I would be more than happy. If we can make an exception for that particular lot or other lots or some sort of procedure to talk to the residents to have them fill out their desires. I'm not trying to push the issue back on the City. I'm in a tough spot and I need direction. Chair Wilson: I would like the Corporation for Better Housing to meet with each individual adjacency and receive their information and try to accommodate them the very best that you can. At the end of that I would like to see a signed declaration that they have accepted that. Charles Brombaugh: I can do that with the one caveat;if you can give further direction if someone is unwilling to meet with me or my staff. Chair Wilson: Maybe we can get the City Council involved for arbitration. We need to satisfy these folks. MIKE HOUGE 22594 Brentwood Street I would like to follow up on Tony Petta's idea in utilizing the Edison easement that is empty land. We can use that land and put it in that easement you will also facilitate the school. When we pick up our son there are cars everywhere. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The piece right across the street is owned by the City. Our issue is that Edison has a major transmission easement over the entire thing and dealing with Edison to allow anything under the lines can be a true challenge. We have talked about converting it into a park and a variety of other things. If you are looking at putting some of the parking across the street, you may have some real issues concerning the distance of the parking. If this was a more family oriented thing then you wouldn't have a problem but because of so many handicap's and seniors you will have problems. Rich Shields, Public Works: I think it would be very difficult to get any type of parking in that easement area. Chair Wilson: From the stand point of a handicap situation it is not possible at all. I have run into a situation like that and it's a real hard time getting off site parking. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: Another thing to consider is that this project is required to pave out the north side of Grand Terrace Road from Mt. Vernon Avenue to Vista Grande. There will be additional street parking for the school on the north side. We fully understand that during school events and when they let out; there are a lot of people there but they are only there for a short period of time. We are improving that street so that it will provide for some on street parking for people who are using the school. -28 TOM TILLINGHAST 22667 Brentwood Street One of the concerns that I have is in the reports references the closeness of facilities and typical distances that a person has to travel to get groceries, etc. It states that you are roughly 6/10 of a mile away from the current Stater Bros. Market. It is my understanding that the Stater Bros. Market will be moving further away. So you will be ending up with the food facilities more than a mile away. You will have a terrain issue. Those were some of the issues that came to mind when I looked at the reports. DONALD BARTEE 22878 Miriam Way I have lived in Grand Terrace for about fifty years. If it wasn't for the Grand Terrace Senior Center my quality of life would be almost zero. VIRGINIA HARTFORD 11825 Arliss Way One thing that has been overlooked is the fact that we have at least 50 seniors that will volunteer to take anybody anywhere they want to go for no money. Close of Public Participation Vice Chair Addington: We heard a lot of questions that came up and I think it would be appropriate that these are addressed and amended to the EIR. Do you think we should have these addressed or put into writing, Gary? Carl Winter, LSA: If you have any specific questions I can answer them tonight to provide clarification. Is there any answer that didn't meet your satisfaction? Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The minutes to the meeting accompany the project to the City Council and they become part of the record. It will be in writing when it gets to the City Council. Vice Chair Addington: So we have addressed all of the questions that were brought up here on record. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: The entire discussion will be verbatim for this entire meeting it will be a written record and approved by the Planning Commission. It will be a formal record that is sent to City Council. Commissioner Comstock: I am looking at this project and feel this is a good looking project. I realize that we had some questions regarding the EIR. I see that there is a tension _ on the mandated housing standards for the State of California for the City of Grand Terrace and the desire of the residents for a vacant piece of property. No one wants to see development. We don't want the quietness of our back yards to be interrupted but on the -29 - other hand I look at the favorable impact that this project will have of taking care of the needs ands concerns of many of the residents who have been here 40 or 50 years. It think that staff and the developer have done and exceptional job at researching this and I want to compliment you on that. This is a large body of work and a lot of reading for a planning commissioner. I was very impressed as I looked through it. I am happy to make a recommendation for approving GPA-07-01, SP-07-01; Z-07-01, SA-07-02 &E-07-02. MOTION PC-14-2007 Commissioner Comstock made a motion to discuss Chair Wilson seconded a motion to discuss Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: We would like clarification on that. First how do you want to handle the parking? Chair Wilson: I would like to propose that we add a section about the covered parking issue "where it is feasible" and I would like to add a section addressing the "enhanced landscaping" as it is feasible and practical as well the enhancements as far as park enjoyment or recreational opportunities. Commissioner Comstock: I concur with that recommendation. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: Would .you like to also see the final landscape plan for the entire project? Chair Wilson: Yes. Gary L. Koontz, Planning Director: Can we bring it back as a workshop for your review and approval? Chair Wilson: Yes. Does this motion concur? Commissioner Comstock: Yes Concur? City Attorney: Chair, was that an amended motion and a second on the amended motion? Chair Wilson: Correct. Amended MOTION PC-14-2007 Commissioner Comstock made a motion to approve Chair Wilson seconded MOTION VOTE 5-0-0-0 City Attorney: I would like to add to the record that Ms. Farley handed a document to the City Clerk after the public hearing had been closed. - 30 - j' ADTOURN SITE AND ARCHITECTURE REVIEW BOARD/PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING CONVENE PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION ADTOURN PUBLIC WORKSHOP SESSION NEXT PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING TO BE HELD ON TULY 19,2007 Respectfiilly Submitted, Ap7'� _� Gary L. Koontz,Planning Director b�Wilson, Chairman Planning Commission 1 - 31 -