Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-14-04_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, September 14, 2004, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: George Webber, Chair James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner(Arrived at 2:06 p.m.) Caroline Laymon, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Commissioner ABSENT: Paul Thompson, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Leslie E. Murad II, Assistant City Attorney Bob Dalquest, Principal Planner/Project Manager Asher Hartel, Senior Planner Manuel Baeza, Associate Planner Alicia Heideman, Assistant Planner Junior Planner, David Jump I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Webber called the meeting to order at 2:02 p.m. All commissioners were present except Commissioner Thompson. Chairman Webber advised members of the audience that a parking permit is available for those who are parked in the Civic Center parking lot, some of the parking spaces have a thirty minute parking limit. II. CONSENT ITEMS A. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 265 - A request for Planning Commission consideration of one (1) freeway oriented pole sign with a total face area of 106 square feet and a height of 80 feet located at 1230 W. Colton Avenue in the EV/CG, East Valley Corridor Specific Plan/General Commercial District. Request submitted by CVG HOSPITALITY INC. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) B. PARCEL MAP NO. 16327 - Request for final approval of Parcel Map No. 16327 (Minor Subdivision No. 267)located on the west side of Judson Street and east side of Emily Street approximately 150 feet north of Brockton Avenue in the R-1, Single Family Residential District. Request submitted by PANDA HOMES OF CALIFORNIA INC. (Project Planner: Manuel Baeza) C. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO.266-Planning Commission to consider the adoption of a uniform sign program for the Redlands Business Park located between Alabama and Kansas Streets on the south side of Park Avenue in the EV/IC, East Valley Corridor Specific Plan,Industrial Commercial District. Request submitted by Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Pagel HEEMSTRA SIGNS. (Project Planner: David Jump) MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Osborne,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the consent items. III. OLD BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 801 - Planning Commission consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to install a ninety (90) foot tall monolyptus cellular tower for a wireless telecommunication facility located at 1402 Cajon Street (Prospect Park) in the O, Open Land District. Request submitted by SPRINT PCS. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Project Planner Alicia Heideman stated an appeal on the decision of the Environmental Review Committee (ERC)will be heard by the City Council on October 5th. Ms. Heideman stated staff is requesting the proposed project be continued to September 28th, not October 12th as indicated in the staff report. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Ms. Carol Smith, requested clarification on the date the proposed project will go before the City Council. Director Jeff Shaw stated the proposed project will go before City Council on September 21St to request an extension of the CEQA deadline time frame. Mr. Shaw stated they anticipate the City Council will take an action to extend the deadline for 60 days and the project will be continued from the September 28th Planning Commission to a date after the ERC appeal has been heard by City Council. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Laymon,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Conditional Use Permit No. 801 to the Planning Commission meeting of September 28tH B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 813 - Planning Commission consideration of a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Conditional Use Permit to install a seventy foot high wireless telecommunications facility(water tower) located in a City Grove south of the 1-10 freeway and east of California Street within the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request Submitted by SPRINT PCS. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Chairman Webber noted that Conditional Use Permit No. 813 was withdrawn and there will be no further action taken on the project. Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 2 IV. NEW BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 837 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Conditional Use Permit to allow wine tasting in a banquet room of an existing grocery store known as Annette's Market located at 1600 E. Citrus Avenue in the C-2, Neighborhood Convenience District. Request submitted by WEIS ENTERPRISES. (Project Planner: Alicia Heideman) Project Planner Alicia Heideman gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Ms. Heideman stated the applicant is proposed to have wine tasting approximately one time per month. Ms. Heideman stated that food will be served along with the alcoholic beverages. Ms. Heideman stated that serving of alcoholic beverages is allowed in the C-2 Neighborhood Commercial zone if served with food. Ms. Heideman stated a Condition of Approval would be added to the proposed project limiting the wine tasting to once per month. Commissioner Macdonald asked why the wine tasting was limited to 12 times per year. Ms. Heideman stated the applicant requested the limitation. Mr. Shaw stated there is nothing in the Municipal Code that specifies limitations. Commissioner Macdonald stated if there is no valid reason for the limitation, why place one on the project. Assistant City Attorney stated he does not know if the Alcoholic Beverage Control has those types of restrictions for serving of alcoholic beverages Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Ms.Annette Weiss, applicant, stated she was available to answer questions. Ms.Weiss stated the number for wine tastings was an arbitrary number she picked. Ms.Weiss stated the wine tasting is a good, community involvement activity. Ms.Weiss stated ABC did not specify the number of wine tastings that would be allowed. Commissioner Macdonald asked Ms. Weiss if she would object to not having a limitation on the number of wine tastings she could have. Ms. Weiss stated she would not. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Macdonald stated it is a new business in the City and anything the Commission can do to promote her business is in the City's best interest. Commissioner Osborne concurred and suggested that Condition of Approval 3 be deleted. Mr. Shaw suggested that Condition of Approval 3 be revised to read: The applicant shall comply with all ABC regulations and state law, rather than deleted. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Osborne,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No. 837 subject to the following findings and attached Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 3 2. That the proposed development does not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City. 2. That the proposed development does comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable zoning district, and the City's development standards. 3. The proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare. 4. 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. 5. That the proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location with a revision to Planning Division Condition of Approval 3 to read: The applicant may only allow wine tasting of a maximi rn freq enGy of twelye impe year shall comply with all ABC regulations and state law. 7 B. GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT NO.2004-2-A-Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING for a General Plan Amendment to amend the Trails Map(GP Figure 7.1) by: (a) adding nineteen (19) multi-use off-road trails throughout the San Timoteo Canyon and Live Oak Canyon areas; (b) adding a multi-use on- and off-road trail located south of the Redlands Municipal Airport between Judson Street and Wabash Avenue; and (c) adding a multi-use on-road trail along San Timoteo Canyon Road from the San Timoteo Creek crossing to Alessandro Road. Request submitted by CITY OF REDLANDS. (Project Planner: Robert Dalquest) Commissioner Laymon recused herself at 2:20 p.m. due to a conflict of interest. Project Planner Bob Dalquest requested the proposed project be tabled to a date when it can be heard along with the Rural Standards. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission table General Plan Amendment No. 2004-2-A. C. SPECIFIC PLAN NO.45(AMENDMENT NO.9)-Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING on an amendment to Specific Plan No. 45 to modify Section III(C)(2) of the Town Center-Historic District by adding Subsection 2.2 to establish a parking exemption for new restaurants that reuse all or a portion of the historic buildings located on the east side of Orange Street, south of the BNSF Railroad tracks. Request submitted by the CITY OF REDLANDS. (Project Planner: Robert Dalquest) Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 4 Project Planner Bob Dalquest stated the amendment to Specific Plan No.45 would amend the Town Center Historic District only and would provide a parking exemption from the required customer parking for any new restaurant that would reuse all or a portion of the buildings located on the east side of Orange Street. Mr. Dalquest stated a restauranteur is in the process of buying the Carlson Building in order to establish a family restaurant in the city. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Commissioner Laymon asked if the portion of the building to be used should have a defined minimum size. Mr. Gary Romano stated he currently operates three restaurant in Riverside and he is planning to open a family restaurant/New York style pizzeria in Redlands. Mr. Romano stated he wants to bring the building back to its historical brick facade and remove the stucco. Commissioner Laymon stated she is delighted with the applicant. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Osborne stated the amendment specifically identifies a restaurant use for the historic buildings and he did not feel the portion of the building to be used should be specified. Chairman Webber stated the Ad Hoc Zoning Committee recognized this as an opportunity to give an incentive for companies or individuals to do something with the older buildings. Commissioner Miller stated he is in favor of the proposal but he doesn't want to lose the character of the historic street facade. Commissioner Miller stated he wants to ensure the amendment will not create an incentive to level the building for a more efficient building. Commissioner Miller asked if it would be appropriate the revise the wording to specify If the exemption is granted, the applicant must preserve the character of the street facade or return it to the character it historically and limit it the development to within the confines of the existing building envelope. Commissioner Osborne asked if the Historic and Scenic Preservation Commission would have to notified in the case of a building in a Historic District. Mr. Shaw responded by saying only if the building is designated. Assistant City Attorney noted that the amendment deals with parking, and not the facade of the building. Mr. Dalquest stated the wording could be revised to read " all or a portion of the interior of the historic buildings"...and the word existing be eliminated. Mr. Shaw suggested the language be "tightened up." Commissioner Osborne stated the Citrone Restaurant has done a great job with its reuse of the building. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded b by Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 6- Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 5 0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on the Negative Declaration for Amendment No. 9 to Specific Plan No.45 and direct staff to file and post a Notice of Determination in accordance with city guidelines. It is recommended that this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 1047 recommending that the City Council adopt amendment No. 9 to Specific Plan No.45 as amended. D. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16287- Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration,a PUBLIC HEARING on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING on a Tentative Tract map to subdivide approximately 3.16 acres into twelve (12) residential lots located on the east side of Occidental Drive approximately 110 feet north of Purdue Avenue, in the R-1,Single Family Residential District. Request submitted by FRANCIS HYONG. (Project Planner: David Jump) Project Planner gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Ms.Vicky Valenzuela,Thatcher Engineering,stated she concurs with staff's recommendations. Ms. Valenzuela stated she was available to answer questions. Mr. Donald Feenstra, 1205 N. University, stated he owns property that backs onto the proposed tentative tract. Mr. Feenstra expressed two concerns on the proposed project: 1. An existing five (5) fence is topped with barbed wire, and he does not feel it is a proper fence 2. When the tract was graded, the property was graded down approximately three (3) feet, and he is concerned about drainage from the property. Mr.Feenstra proposed a block wall that would serve as a barrier for the water,stating he spoke with another owner who backs onto the proposed project, and who agrees the block wall would be desirable. Commissioner Osborne stated there are two drainage swales on the property. Mr. Feenstra stated he is concerned the water will erode onto his property. Ms. Valenzuela stated the project was a previously approved tentative tract map that expired. Ms. Valenzuela stated the plans which were previously approved,were designed to drain to the cul-de- sac and out to Occidental. Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 6 Commissioner Cook asked Ms.Valenzuela if a block wall be built in place of the barbed wire fence. Ms. Valenzuela stated she did not believe they were conditioned to build a block wall. Chairman Webber and Commissioner Cook stated it could not remain a barbed wire fence. Mr. Shaw stated a block wall could cause a drainage problem with puddling in the rear of the properties. Mr. Shaw stated typically the developer is required to accept cross lot drainage. Mr. Shaw stated these are older subdivisions where the drainage flows to the rear of the lot. Commissioner Miller stated Condition of Approval 11 addresses Mr.Feenstra's concerns because it requires that prior to recordation of the final map, a final grading plan be provided that shows how off-site drainage from adjacent, up stream private properties will be picked up and carried to the storm drain system. Commissioner Miller suggested the wording be revised to state"Applicant shall provide a satisfactory means to ensure the embankment will not be eroded." Ms. Valenzuela stated she was sure the developer would provide screening for the tract. Mr. Shaw stated typically block walls are mandated when there is a noise issue or the development abuts another tract, however it is not a standard Condition of Approval. Mr. Feenstra stated he and property owner to the north would be willing to participate in the cost of a block wall if the developer decides to go forward. Mr. Feenstra stated he feels the developer should be instructed to work with him. Commissioner Miller thanked Mr. Feenstra stating it is not common for people to come before the Commission with development happening in their backyard and be as cooperative as he is. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Commissioner Miller suggested a Condition of Approval be added stating: The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to ensure that no erosion occurs to the embankment on the east side of the property. Chairman Webber stated he is not in favor of dictating walls and fences, and if the two owners and the developer want to solve the block wall issue they have to work it out amongst themselves. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Mitigated Negative Declaration for Tentative Tract No. 16287 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 Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 7 It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Tentative Tract No. 16287 as it has been determined that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community, and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Osborne, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Tentative Tract No. 16287 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, and based upon the following findings: 3. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code The project has a General Plan land use designation of Low Density Residential and a zoning of R-1,single Family Residential and is consistent with both the General Plan and Municipal Code. 2. The site, which is located on the east side of Occidental Drive, north of Purdue Avenue, and south of Lugonia Avenue, is physically suitable for the type of development. The site has a relatively flat grade and is large enough to subdivide into twelve (12) lots. 3. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a twelve (12) lot subdivision. The general plan land use designation of Low Density Residential allows for up to six(6)dwelling units per acre. The proposed density of this project is 3.79 dwelling units per acre. 4. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. The subject site is not identified as being within an area containing biological resources or within a wildlife corridor. 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. This is a residential project and is not likely to cause any serious public health problems, aside from temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction addressed in Mitigation Measures one (1) and two (2). 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; no known easements exist for the property. 7. That pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.4, of the Subdivision Map Act the land is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The property is vacant and is not being used for agricultural purposes,with a revision to Planning Division Condition of Approval 11 Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 8 to read: The applicant shall work with the City Engineer to ensure that no erosion occurs on the embankment on the east side of the property. The applicant is encouraged to work with the property owners. E. VARIANCE NO.686-PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Variance from Sections 18.40.100, 120,and 140 of the Municipal Code to allow an increase in the requirement for maximum lot coverage from 30 percent to 39 percent lot coverage, a reduction in the required front yard setback from 25 feet to 11 feet 5 inches, and in the rear yard setback requirement from 25 feet to 5 feet in the Suburban Residential (R-S) District, specifically located at 806 Monterey Street. Request submitted by NICOLE AND TOM ROSENBAUM. (Project Planner: David Jump) Project Planner David Jump gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION it was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 686 subject to the following findings and attached Conditions of Approval : 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or the intended use that do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the same vicinity and zone because the proposed property is a substandard lot limiting the amount and types of improvements or expansion that could be constructed on-site. 2. The variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zoning district,but which is denied to the property in question as identified in the staff report. 3. The granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of others in the vicinity as current setback distances would not be modified and proposed additions would not affect surrounding property owners. 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands. F. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 769 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING for a Commission Review Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 9 and Approval to construct a single-story retail commercial building of 8,048 square feet on 1.07 acres located at the southwest corner of Tennessee Street and Lugonia Avenue in the CG (General Commercial)District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by BARRY WICKMAN. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) G. VARIANCE NO. 667 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Variance from Section 18.168.220 of the Redlands Municipal Code to allow a seventeen (17) foot landscape setback rather than the required twenty-five (25) foot setback to construct a single-story retail commercial building of 8,048 square feet on 1.07 acres located at the southwest corner of Tennessee Street and Lugonia Avenue in the CG (General Commercial) District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by BARRY WICKMAN. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) Project Planner Asher Hartel gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Commissioner Laymon commented that she would like to soften the transition at the rear of the building to avoid the freeway's view of the backs of buildings. Commissioner Laymon stated she likes the project. Commissioner Osborne concurred with staff that there should be some type of shrubbery at the rear of the property. Mr. Hartel stated the Municipal Utilities Department does not want trees located in the area of their sewer easement. Mr. Hartel stated the entire twenty-two(22)foot area behind the building is either existing or proposed additional easement. Mr. Hartel stated the building had to be moved closer to Tennessee Street because it was in close proximity to the proposed sewer easement. Commissioner Miller expressed concern on the dimension of the parapet, insofar as screening equipment. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Alan Smith, 7201 Haven Ave., representing the applicant, stated they prepared a set of plans and met with Engineering 3-5 times before they were told that new plans would have to be generated. Mr. Smith stated he did not understand why they could not plant trees in the area of the abandoned sewer line. Mr. Smith said he dressed up the rear of the building with stone veneer to enhance it. Mr. Shaw stated the actual view from the freeway will be of the end of the building. Commissioner Miller stated if the cornice and wall could be returned back onto the roof so that it would have less of a "Western storefront" feel. Mr. Smith concurred with Commissioner Miller. Mr. Jaquess advised that the Municipal Utilities Department was contacted to clarify some questions regarding the sewer easement issue. Mr. Lonny Young, Municipal Utilities Department, stated they have a 30-inch diameter sewer trunk main that runs along the westerly side of the property. Mr. Young stated the trunk main collects sewage for approximately 40%of the city,therefore they prefer not to have trees planted in the area; particularly if they have a large root system. Mr. Young suggested ground cover and turf be used Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 10 instead. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Mr. Shaw stated there is landscaping on the Cal Trans right of way. Mr. Shaw suggested revising Municipal Utilities Department Condition of Approval 3 to read: No trees shall be planted within the easement area. Commissioner Miller suggested Condition of Approval 29 be revised to require the applicant to return the raised portion of the parapets. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Commission Review and Approval No. 769 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 Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Commission Review and Approval No. 769 as it has been determined that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community, and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve a reduced LOS at the intersection of Alabama Street/Redlands Boulevard during the peak hours as permitted in General Plan Policy 5.20b and 5.20c and City Council Resolution 6202. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No. 667 subject to the following findings: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or the intended use that do not apply generally to other properties or uses in the same vicinity and zone. The project site has an irregular shape and configuration. There is a significant grade difference between the property and the 1-30 Freeway, therefore the area will not be seen from the freeway. Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 11 2. That the variance is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right possessed by other properties in the same vicinity and zone district, but which is denied to the property in question. There are a number of properties in the City which have been able to develop within the twenty-five foot setback area of the freeway right-of-way. 3. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property or improvements of others in the vicinity. The reduced setback would not affect existing neighboring development as the project site is a virtual "island" between Tennessee Street and the Route 30 Freeway and is isolated from other properties in the vicinity. 4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands. The project is consistent with the General Plan Land Use designation of Commercial. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Commission Review and Approval No. 769 subject to the following findings: 1. The size and shape of the site are adequate for the proposed commercial buildings. 2. The site properly relates to lugonia Avenue and Tennessee Street, which have been designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed commercial building. 3. The conditions proposed for Commission Review and Approval No. 769 shown on the site plan are necessary to protect the public health, safety and general welfare of the neighborhood and the City of Redlands. 4. When completed, the project will contribute to the overall development of the neighborhood. 5. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing Commercial Designation of the General Plan and the General Commercial District of the EVCSP with the addition of Planning Division Condition of Approval 29 to read: Return raised parapets at least three (3) feet in length in a direction perpendicular to length of the parapet, and the addition of Municipal Utilities Department Condition of Approval 4 to read: No trees shall be planted in the sewer easement, and a revision to Planning Division Condition of Approval 26g to read: Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 12 Trees with a trunk height of not less than six(6)feet shall be installed in the planters at each end of an aisle, at three (3) space intervals throughout the parking area, and at twenty(20)foot intervals along the periphery of the parking area. With parkin" aFeas +Foos mov be nL stere d in groups to Feq iiremepAs V. ADDENDA A. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 778 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study,and a PUBLIC HEARING on a Commission Review and Approval for the construction of a business park of five single story buildings with 89,640 square feet on 5.5 acres, located on the east side of Alabama Street between Park Avenue and State Street in the Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by WMF DESIGNS. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) Assistant City Attorney Les Murad noted a change in the project description that was shown on the agenda. Project Planner Asher Hartel stated the revised Landscape Plan replaces the previously approved pistacio trees with brisbane box trees and silver dollar eucalyptus trees. Mr. Hartel stated the building elevations for Building No. 1 now includes a rounded feature at the parapet in the central portion of the building. In addition, side elevations were included that contain windows and stone veneer. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Cook,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning commission approve the Landscape Plan and elevations for Building 1. B. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO.773(REVISION 1)-Planning Commission consideration on the use of an existing off-site parking lot located on the west side of Eureka Street, south of the Orange Street Off-Ramp,to supplement the parking facilities for an approved 11,132 square foot commercial center located on the southeast corner of Pearl Avenue and Eureka Street in the Town Center District of the Downtown Specific Plan No.45. Request submitted by INVESTWEST GROUP, INC. (Project Planner: Robert Dalquest) Project Planner Bob Dalquest gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Dalquest stated the applicant would like to lease one on the tenant spaces that was planned for retail with a restaurant, resulting in an increase in the required parking. Mr. Dalquest stated the applicant acquired four(4)parcels across the street which contains the off-site parking lot and the Code does allow the Planning Commission to approve all or part of the required parking on a substitute location. Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 13 Mr. Dalquest stated the parking does not contain landscaping and is considered to be non- conforming. The applicant requested to use the parking lot"as is"but was prepared to upgrade the site, however staff recommended the parking lot need not be upgraded because the property is part of the area slated to be redeveloped with two (2)years. Mr. Joe Donati, Investwest, stated this is one more piece of the puzzle they are trying to assemble on the corner of Pearl and Eureka Street. Commissioner Macdonald stated he did not understand why 2 or 3 fast-growing trees cannot be planted along the curb. Commissioner Miller stated the applicant has done a nice job on his side of the street to place street trees along the curb. Commissioner Miller asked if it could be continued on the west side of Eurkea. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Donati if it was possible. Mr. Donati stated the trees will be torn out by General Growth because the driveways and street trees will be realigned. Mr. Donati stated there is no irrigation in that area. Chairman Webber stated he usually asks for trees, but he does not want to stand in the way of Mr. Donati's proposed project. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that Revision No. 1 to Commission Review and Approval No. 773 does not require further environmental processing, pursuant to Section 15162 of the California Environmental Quality Act Guidelines based on the following findings: 1. The proposed revision would not result in new significant environmental effects or a substantial increase in the severity of previously identified effects. 2. No substantial changes have occurred with respetc to the circumstances under which the project will be undertaken; 3. There is no new information of substantial importance with respect to this project's environmental consequences that was not known at the time the previous Mitigated Negative Declaration was adopted. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller,seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 6-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 1 to Commission Review and Approval No. 773, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 1. That the substitute lot is located within the 200 feet of the principal uses for which the parking is being provided; and Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 14 2. That the substitute lot is in the same possession as the use it is intended to serve. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES L. August 24, 2004 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 4-0 vote(Commissioners Cook and Laymon abstaining)that the Planning Commission approve the minutes of the August 24th Planning Commission meeting. VII. CORRESPONDENCE/COMMUNICATIONS A. City Council Report Mr. Shaw gave a brief summary of the City Council actions of September 7th VIII. ADJOURN TO EVENING SESSION Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to the evening session at 4:40 p.m. 7:00 P. M. IX. RECONVENE EVENING SESSION Chairman Webber reconvened the evening session . All commissioners were present except Commissioner Osborne. A. ZONE CHANGE NO. 400 - PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission consideration of a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration and a PUBLIC HEARING on a Zone Change from unincorporated San Bernardino County RS-1 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per acre) to the City of Redlands R-E/PRD (Residential Estate, Planned Residential Development), on approximately 28.5 acres located on the east side of Wabash Avenue, north of Intestate 10 Freeway. Request Submitted by GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 15 B. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 815 - PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission consideration of a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING on a Conditional Use Permit for a Planned Residential Development(PRD)on approximately 66.2 gross acres consisting of 80 residential lots and four(4)common lots located on both sides of Wabash Avenue, north of Reservoir Road, and east of Sophia Court and Buckingham Drive in the City of Redlands R-E (Residential Estate)District and the unincorporated San Bernardino County RS-1 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per acre) District (R-E District pending). Request submitted by GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) C. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 16586- PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission consideration of a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING on a Tentative Tract Map to subdivide approximately 66.2 gross acres into 80 residential lots and four (4) common lots located on both sides of Wabash Avenue, north of Reservoir Road, and east of Sophia Court and Buckingham Drive in the City of Redlands R-E (Residential Estate) District and the unincorporated San Bernardino County RS-1 (Single Family Residential, one dwelling unit per acre) District (R-E District pending). Request submitted by GRIFFIN INDUSTRIES. (Project Planner: Asher Hartel) Project Planner Asher Hartel gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Mr. Hartel stated the project went before the Environmental Review Committee in August 2004 and a Mitigated Negative Declaration was recommended with sixteen (16) Mitigation Measures. Mr. Hartel stated the proposed project is within the Hillside Development District and a slope analysis was required for the project which results in a maximum development of 80 units. Mr. Hartel noted he received a memorandum that date from Larry Harvill and Evelyn Ifft. Mr. Hartel stated that Public Works Department revised their Conditions of Approval because the map was revised. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Pat Meyer, representing the applicant, stated several months ago the residents in the Wimbledon Heights area attended the Environmental Review Committee meeting and expressed several concerns. Mr. Meyer thanked Evely Ifft and Larry Harvill for taking the time to meet with him. Mr. Meyer stated the biggest design constraint was the new alignment of Wabash Avenue that was adopted in 1973. Mr. Meyer thanked Mr. Bruce Strickland (Griffin Homes)for improving the roadway in terms of the effects on the neighbors. Mr. Meyer stated that Sofia, a cul-de-sac,was redesigned because of the neighbor's concerns relative to additional traffic. Mr. Meyer stated the most significant concern of the residents appeared to be the preservation of a significant ridge line. Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 16 Mr. Meyer stated the neighbors expressed concern on the maintenance of the trails in the area. Mr. Meyer stated Condition of Approval 39 requires that the trails and open space area will be maintained by a Community Facilities District (CFD), and will be open to the public. Mr. Meyer stated since the propery is contiguous to the City limits and they will be requesting City services, they are required to annex into the City before they receive City services. Mr. Meyer stated the neighbors expressed concern relative to the extension of Wabash Avenue to the north. Mr. Meyer stated the Public Works Department requested the road be finished up to its current paved area. Commissioner Macdonald asked for a timetable on the phasing of the project. Mr. Meyer responded by stating Phase I and II will start fairly rapidly,with Phase III commencing once they are in the City limits. Director Ron Mutter, Public Works Department, stated in the Conditions of Approval there are two conditions that apply to Wabash Avenue. Mr. Mutter stated it has been a capitol improvement project for the past 15 years. Mr. Mutter stated the Wabash Avenue project is being funded by Measure I funding and development impact fees and they would like to see the road finished within the next five (5) years. Chairman Webber advised the members of the audience that speakers will be limited to three (3) minutes. Mr. David Waters, 525 S. Wabash Avenue, stated he would like to see larger lots in the area and density reduced. Mr.Waters stated the Centex development project increased the lot elevations in front of his home by ten (10) feet and wiped out his view. Mr. Waters stated the residents of the area need to follow the meetings very closely. Mr. James Hester, 736 Buckingham Drive, thanked Mr. Meyer and Mr. Strickland for their cooperation with a group of residents who expressed their concerns. Mr. Hester asked the Planning Commission not to open Wabash Avenue, as Reservoir is not designed to handle the speed and volume of traffic that comes through at this time. Mr. Hester requested that Wabash not be opened until the interchange is open. Mr. Mutter stated a Condition of Approval from his department requires the construction of a traffic signal at Reservoir Road and Ford Street to accommodate the additional traffic generated by the project. Mr. Larry Harvill, 723 Buckingham Drive,distributed a memorandum summarizing his concerns and recommendations relative to the proposed Griffin development. Mr. Harvill requested the Commission take leadership in overseeing the implementation of the rules and guidelines of the Municipal Code and General Plan. Mr. Harvill commended Mr. Meyer and Griffin for their willingness to sit down, listen to their concerns, and negotiate. Mr. Harvill recommended that all projects within the Hillside Developments District provide overlay maps. Ms. Evelyn Ifft, 723 Buckingham Drive, requested her allotted time be given to her husband to allow him to continue with his comments. Mr. Harvill stated the overlay maps are electronically created in a CAD system. Mr. Harvill Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 17 submitted a revised support list to the Planning Commission secretary. Mr. Harvill stated there have been a number of residents who have not received notification of the public hearings. Mr. Harvill thanked Mr. Meyer and Griffin development. Mr. Charles Irvin, 854 S. Wabash, stated his property is most effected by the proposed development. Mr. Irvin stated he has kept Wabash graded for the last ten years. Mr. Irvin stated he strongly supports opening Wabash to the north. Ms. Jo Lessard, 31543 Highview Drive, representing the Open Space Preservation Sub Committee of the Redlands Conservancy,thanked the Commission for the time and effort they spend on behalf of the City of Redlands. Ms. Lessard stated the Trust for Public Land is conducting a feasibility study relative to the Redlands Lifestyle ballot measure to provide financial resources for land acquisition and management and for matching funds for grants awarded. Ms. Lessard stated the most important thing the Planning Commission can do to contribute to the "Emerald Necklace" is to maintain the zoning designations of the General Plan. Chairman Webber asked Ms. Lessard her comment relative to the Open Space element of the proposed project. Ms. Lessard stated she appreciates the open space that has been set aside, but she feels the zoning should be maintained. Mr. Don Marshall, 1649 Camelot Drive, stated he drives Reservoir Road almost daily, and he opposes the opening of Wabash to the north. Mr. Marshall stated he feels the additional traffic that is going to be generated by the new subdivision can possibly be handled safelywith serious controls implemented on Reservoir Road. Mr. Marshall stated Reservoir Road is hilly, curvy, and very narrow. Mr.Al Kelly, Clark Street, challenged the validity of the biological data that was submitted. Mr. Kelly stated he made a video on the early trails and their endangered species. Mr. Kelly stated Rick Fisher (Fish and Game) noted two mountain lion deaths and two bucks killed in the last several years. Mr. Kelly stated he cares about the wildlife and he asked Mr. Strickland if there was anyway they could work with Phase III as possible Resource Conservation. Chairman Webber noted that he was handed an endorsement signed by approximately 15 residents, and another sheet endorsing the memorandum distributed by Mr. Harvill. Ms.Teresa Kwappenberg, 31265 Freya Drive,stated the residents of Crafton are working very hard to try to retain their citrus. Ms. Kwappenberg urged the City to consider having buffer zones so that they don't have high density housing moving right into the citrus. Ms. Kwappenberg stated they took casts of cougar prints on Overcrest Drive and Live Oak Canyon, and she hopes the project would leave enough open space so there is come connectivity for the animals. Mr. Pat Meyer stated he is very proud of the project on Fifth and Wabash. Mr. Meyer stated theywill defer to the Planning Commission on the issue of the expansion of Wabash Avenue. Mr. Meyer stated the project is consistent with the General Plan,zoning, and County zoning. Mr. Meyer stated Mr. Krantz was more concerned with the bird life that will be commuting from the badlands in Riverside County than the terrestrial animals. Mr. Meyer stated there will be a connection to Sand Canyon as the cities of Yucaipa, Redlands, and San Bernardino County recognize the need for an outlet out of Yucaipa. Mr. Meyer stated he appreciates the opportunity to have met with the neighbors. Mr. Meyer stated Condition of Approval 37 will be deleted, as Condition of Approval 41 Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 18 will address that issue. Commissioner Laymon asked Mr. Meyer the status of the previous Griffin project. Mr. Meyer stated the project was delayed due of the Redlands Bicycle Classic, the Run Thru Redlands and the Olympic trials. Mr. Meyer stated Mr. Mutter asked Griffin to delay grading of the project until the three events were concluded. Mr. Mutter stated it is great to live in a town where so many great events occur. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber noted a key issue of the proposed project: Opening of Wabash to the north: Chairman Weber stated the traffic study does not mention what will happen when Wabash is opened to the north. Chairman Webber stated he projects there will be more traffic coming through Reservoir Road to access the freeway, and he does not believe this issue has been addressed by the traffic study or the mitigation measures. Chairman Webber expressed grave concern and stated the road should be blocked off so as not to allow traffic to travel on Reservoir Road. Commissioner Macdonald stated the issue is bigger because the existing residents will drive down the newly completed Wabash to access Reservoir Road in addition to the new owners in the development. Mr. Shaw stated he lives off Dearborn, and he personally would not back track to Wabash in order to access Reservoir Road to get to Ford Street. Mr. Shaw stated they did not do a traffic study on vehicles traveling north on Wabash to access Reservoir Road. Mr. Shaw stated the extension of Wabash Avenue was anticipated in the General Plan update of 1995. Mr. Shaw stated there will be reduced traffic on Reservoir Road as a result of Wabash being opened. Commissioner Miller noted two (2) issues: 1. The traffic at Ford Street and the I-10 Freeway currently has a Level of Service(LOS) of D-F,however with the improvements that are planned it will improve to a LOS of A-B. Commissioner Miller asked if the anticipated traffic that may contribute from points north on Wabash was taken into account. 1. Speed of traffic on Reservoir Road and its ability to handle the flow of traffic Mr. Meyer stated this issue was raised at the ERC meeting. Mr. Meyer stated the first traffic study initially did not anticipate the connection and only the traffic generated by the development was considered. Mr.Meyer stated based on concerns expressed by members of the community,a second traffic study was completed and this study did anticipate traffic traveling from Wabash and Crafton Hills. Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 19 Chairman Webber asked Mr. Meyer if the second traffic study included additional mitigation measure. Mr. Meyer stated it did not. Commissioner Laymon asked how far the City's sphere of influence extends. Mr. Shaw stated the City's sphere of influence extends to City of Yucaipa boundary. Commissioner Miller stated this situation is similar to Fifth Street before the stop signs were installed. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Mutter for comments. Commissioner Miller stated there is a fair amount of open space proposed on the north side, allowing an opportunity to enhance habitat. Commissioner Miller stated it would be his recommendation that a plan be developed to replace the eucalyptus trees that are taken down as a result of the development with more eucalyptus trees in the open area. Mr. Mutter stated they anticipate the traffic levels on Wabash to remain relatively low however, general traffic in the area is increasing due to more and more development. Mr. Mutter stated the traffic on Reservoir Road is primarily generated by local residents. Mr. Mutter stated they have looked at traffic calming measures using traffic signs in other areas of town. He indicated the traffic signal at Ford Street will significantly help the traffic problem on Reservoir Road and stated they might consider an all-way stop at Devonshire as development continues. Mr. Mutter stated studies have determined it is the people who live within the area that do the speeding. Mr. Mutter stated selective enforcement can be used as a deterrent to speeding. Mr. Mutter stated there is physical connection of Wabash Avenue which is a rough,dirt road that is not maintained. Mr.Mutter stated with the project the dirt road will be eliminated and there will be a physical connection for emergency purposes. Mr.Mutter stated they were looking at a very narrow section of pavement to make the connection and then not improving the rest of Wabash to Sixth Avenue Chairman Webber asked Mr.Mutter if he was comfortable with the traffic signal at Reservoir Road and Ford Street being the proper mitigation for the proposed project and the traffic traveling north from Wabash to Reservoir Road. Mr.Mutter stated there would be an improvement from LOS D-F to LOS A-B, which is well within the General Plan standards. Mr. Shaw noted that an area identified as Conservation Open Space will be enhanced with natural vegetation. Mr. Shaw asked Mr. Hartel if there is a Condition of Approval that addresses this issue. Mr. Hartel stated Condition of Approval 17 relates to pre-construction surveys to be conducted for burrowing owls on the site and Condition of Approval 18 relates to trees that are removed during the raptor nesting season. Commissioner Miller preferred that wording be added to the Condition of Approval 17 to address the issue of enhancing open area to encourage nesting of raptors and habitat for the gnatcatcher. Mr. Shaw stated a Condition of Approval could be added that requires the enhancement of natural Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 20 open space areas. Mr. Shaw stated these areas could be replanted with natural occurring vegetation. Mr. Miller stated he would prefer the wording, "Plant material that would encourage the establishment of the species that were identified on the site". Commissioner Miller requested clarification on the sound wall and stated he would feel more comfortable if there was a specified height limit. Mr. Mutter stated he reviewed the traffic study anticipated there would less traffic on Ford Street along Reservoir Road and on Reservoir Road with the Wabash connection. Chairman Webber stated there are a significant number of 15-gallon crepe myrtle trees shown on F Street and G Street and he asked if they could be changed to 24 inch box trees or a faster growing tree. Mr. Meyer stated he would look at the parkway trees allowed by the Public Works Department, and Mr. Mutter stated he would be happy to work with the applicant. Mr. Meyer stated agreed to a minimum 35% of the trees would be 24-inch box. Commissioner Cook asked if the neighbors have a different perspective after listening to Mr. Mutter's comments. Chairman Webber stated he has a comfort level after listening to Mr. Mutter's opinion relative to the traffic issue. Mr. Harvill asked if the study referred to by Mr. Meyer included traffic from the south. Mr. Harvill stated that stop signs or speed bumps on Reservoir might deter the speeders. Commissioner Miller suggested it might be advisable to do a traffic study on Devonshire to address the concerns of the residents. Commissioner Miller stated he could attest personally to the value of enhanced enforcement. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Zone Change No.400, Tentative Tract No. 16586, and Conditional Use Permit No. 815 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. Commissioner Laymon stated she supports the project but she does not want to see the project go forward unanimously as she wants someone to see that the residents have concerns about Wabash. Commissioner Cook stated she supports the project as well, but she disagrees with the extension of Wabash. Mr. Shaw suggested Commissioners Cook and Laymon vote on the project,and if there is a minority opinion they can be incorporated into the minutes and passed onto the City Council. Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 21 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 4-1 vote (Commissioner Laymon voting no) that the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Zone Change No.400, Tentative Tract No. 16586, and Conditional Use Permit No. 815 as it has been determined that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community,and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 5-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 1046, recommending to the City Council adoption of Zone Change No. 400. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 3-2 vote(Commissioners Laymon and Cook voting no)that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council the approval of Conditional Use Permit No. 815 based on the following findings: 1. The Planned Residential Development applied for on Wabash Avenue, north of Reservoir Road and the 1-10 Freeway is proper for a Conditional Use Permit; the project meets all requirements of the Planned Residential Development Ordinance; 2. The Planned Residential Development as proposed is a project that is necessary, essential or desirable for the public welfare as well as the development of the community; the project will provide new housing opportunities for future and current City residents; 3. The Planned Residential Development is not detrimental to existing or permitted uses in the proposed R-E, Residential Estate District where it would be located; 4. The size and shape of the site are adequate for the proposed Planned Residential Development;the site is large enough to accommodate the proposed seventy-six(76) lots; 5. The site properly relates to Wabash Avenue and Reservoir Road,which are designed and improved to carry the type and quantity of traffic to be generated by the proposed Planned Residential Development; 6. The conditions set forth on this Conditional Use Permit are deemed necessary and reasonable to protect the public health, safety and general welfare,the best interests of the neighborhood; Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 22 7. The proposed project will be consistent with the existing Very Low Density Residential (0-2.7 units per acre) General Plan Designation with a revision to Condition of Approval 14 to read: Prior to the recordation of the final map the applicant shall submit final landscape and irrigation plans, and wall and fence plans for review and approval by the Planning Commission. The final landscape plan shall include dense planting with fast-growing evergreen bushes along any walls facing public streets or areas visible to public view. Final landscape plans shall provide plant material in natural open space areas to enhance the natural habitat as identified in the biological report for the project. A minimum 35% of the street trees shall be 24-inch box trees; street tree types may be revised to meet City-listed approved street trees, and deletion of Public Works Department Condition of Approval 12(b)for Conditional Use Permit No. 815 to read: b. Construet standard eurb and gutter 26 feet on both sides of street eenter-line. Commissioner Laymon voted no with specific exception to finding 5 which relates to the expansion of Wabash Avenue. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 3-2 vote (Commissioners Cook and Laymon voting no) the Planning Commission recommend that the City Council approve Tentative Tract No.16586 subject to conditions of approval, and based upon the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Very-Low Density Residential and a proposed zoning of R-E, Residential Estate and is consistent with both the General Plan and Municipal Code including the Planned Residential Development Ordinance: 2. The site,which is located on both sides of Wabash Avenue,north of Reservoir Road and the I-10 Freeway, is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is large enough to subdivide into seventy-six(76)lots and the project is consistent with the Hillside Development District standards. 3. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a seventy-six(76)lot subdivision. The General Plan Land Use Designation of Very-Low Density allows for up to eight (80) dwelling units; Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 23 4. The design of the subdivision of the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. Biological resource studies indicate that impacts can be mitigated to a less than significant level, and appropriate Mitigation Measures have been incorporated into the project; 5. The design of the subdivision or type of improvements is not likely to cause serious public health problems. This is a residential project and is not likely to cause any serious public health problems, aside from temporary air quality and noise impacts during construction addressed in the project's Mitigation Measures. 6. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision;public streets,pedestrian access, and trails will be provided throughout the project site. 7. That pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.4, of the Subdivision Map Act the land is not subject to a contract entered into pursuant to the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The property is not under Williamson Act Contract with the deletion of Condition of Approval 3,the revision to Condition of Approval 14,and the revision to Public Works Department Condition of Approval A6 with the deletion(b): Construet standard e rb and gutter 26 foot o both sides of street nto,l;,�o D. ADJOURN TO SEPTEMBER 28, 2004 Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to September 28th at 9:21 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Patti Ortiz, Senior Administrative Assistant Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Community Development Department Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of September 14, 2004 Page 24