Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-27-05_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, September 27, 2005, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: George Webber, Chair James Macdonald, Vice-Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Caroline Laymon, Commissioner Thomas Osborne, Commissioner Gary Miller, Commissioner Paul Thompson, Commissioner ABSENT: ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director John Jaquess, Assistant Director Asher Hartel, Senior Planner Manuel Baeza, Associate Planner Joshua Altopp, Assistant Planner David Jump, Junior Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Webber called the meeting to order at 2:00 p.m. All commissioners were present. II. CONSENT ITEM(S) - NONE III. OLD BUSINESS A. CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT NO. 863 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Conditional Use Permit for the adaptive reuse of a relocated two-story house as a museum at 1153 N. Orange Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. The proposed museum is in conjunction with and adjacent to the existing Historical Glass Museum at 1157 N.Orange Street. Request submitted by the HISTORICAL GLASS MUSEUM FOUNDATION. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) B. BUILDING MOVING PERMIT 116-PUBLIC HEARING forthe Planning Commission to consider the relocation of the "Marten Andersen House," a designated historic resource presently located at 8316 th Street, to a vacant property at 1153 N. Orange Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. Request submitted by the HISTORICAL GLASS MUSEUM FOUNDATION. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) C. PARKING MODIFICATION PERMIT NO. 21 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Pagel Commission to consider a Parking Modification Permit for two designated historic houses for use as the Historical Glass Museum at 1153 and 1157 N. Orange Street in the C-4 Highway Commercial District. Request submitted by the HISTORICAL GLASS MUSEUM FOUNDATION. (PROJECT PLANNER: ASHER HARTEL) Project Planner Asher Hartel stated the proposed project was continued from the September 13th Planning Commission meeting to allow the applicant an opportunity to resolve issues regarding the Conditions of Approval. Mr. Hartel stated a Municipal Utilities Department Condition of Approval was revised to eliminate the requirement for a commercial type trash enclosure. Mr. Hartel stated that Planning Division Conditions of Approval requiring a lot merger and parking at the rearwere deleted (Conditions of Approval 16 and 17)and Condition of Approval 11 was expanded to require a palm tree on Orange Street. Mr. Hartel stated that staff and the applicant reached an agreement to delete Planning Division Condition of Approval 5 (D) which required that all proceeds derived from the adaptive reuse of Marten Andersen historic home be used exclusively for the physical preservation and restoration of this structure and to defray the reasonable cost of administering activities authorized by the permit. Mr. Hartel stated the practicality of enforcing Condition of Approval 5(D)is questionable. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Ms. Sherli Leonard, Redlands Conservancy, stated she was available to answer questions. Commissioner Miller stated the site plan indicates that the existing block wall will be removed although he believed the applicant wanted the block wall to remain. Ms. Leonard stated the block wall will remain. Ms. Leonard thanked the Commission for its support and encouragement. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon,seconded b Commissioner Miller,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Parking Modification Permit No. 21 subject to the following findings: 1. The proposed parking modification and use of the historic structures 1153 and 1157 N. Orange Street is necessary or desirable for the development of the community, is in harmony with the various elements and objectives of the General Plan, and is not detrimental to existing uses or to uses specifically permitted in the zone because the site is designated by the City for the proposed use, which is compatible with surrounding residential uses; 2. That approving the proposed parking modification and use will significantly improve the possibility that the structures will be preserved and maintained as historic structures because the applicant has committed to make the necessary improvements to maintain the historic structures; 3. That the required parking cannot be provided without the approval of the requested modification because this 0.32 acre property has inadequate space to provide all of Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 2 the required parking on-site; 4. That all on-site parking lots will function safely because the existing parking provides adequate parking space for multiple spaces and turning areas; 5. That approval of the parking modification will not harm the integrity of the historic structure or the surrounding neighborhood because there is adequate space on Western Avenue and Orange Street (if utilized) for the provision of off-site parallel parking spaces on these public streets. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Building Moving Permit No. 116 subject to the following findings: 1. That such moving shall have no detrimental effect on the living environment along the route of the move and on the relocated site. 2. That the structure to be moved is compatible with existing development in the area into which the structure is to be moved at 1153 N. Orange Street. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Laymon, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Conditional Use Permit No.863 subject to the following findings: 1. That the proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City, because 1153 and 1157 N. Orange Street are designated "Commercial" by the General Plan and is within the "Highway Commercial"Zoning District. The proposed adaptive reuse and expansion of the museum are consistent with the City's land use plans; 2. That the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare, because conditions of approval from various City departments require any necessary improvements; 3. That the proposed development will comply to the maximum extent feasible with the regulations of the City's General Plan, the applicable zoning district and the City's development standards because current standards have been applied to the project conditions of approval; 4. That the proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location because both the General Plan and Zoning District provide for use of the Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 3 properties as a museum at 1153 and 1157 N. Orange Street with the deletion of Condition of Approval 5 (D) and a notation that the wall shown on the site plan will remain. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 778 (REVISION 1) - Planning Commission to consider the revision to Community Development Department Planning Division Condition of Approval No. 15B to allow issuance of building permits subject to conditional approval of permits from the San Bernardino Flood Control District for construction of the required Class I bike path adjacent to the Mission Zanja Creek within the East Valley Corridor specific Plan Industrial Commercial District. Request submitted by DAN MERRITT. (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) Project Planner David Jump stated the project was originally approved in June 2002 with a requirement for the construction of a Class I bike trail prior to the issuance of building permits. Mr. Jump stated delays have occurred during the approval process and the applicant is now requesting a modification to Planning Division Condition of Approval 26. Mr. Jump stated a modification to the Condition of Approval will allow the applicant to proceed with the project construction while an agreement is being drafted with the San Bernardino County Flood Control District and the City for the operation, maintenance, and liability of the trail. Mr. Jump stated Public Works Department Condition of Approval B(15) will be revised and moved to Section D(11) and will read: 11. The following items are required prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. Chairman Webber opened the hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Webber closed the hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commission Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 1 to Commission Review and Approval No. 778. B. VARIANCE NO.715-PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission consideration of a Variance from Section18.52.170(A1) of the Redlands Municipal Code to reduce the required Common Outdoor Living Space for a two-unit residential project from two-thousand (2000) square feet to twelve hundred fifty (1250) square feet for the property located at 227 Bond Street in the R-2, Multiple-Family Residential District. Request submitted by RODNEY CANADA. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 4 Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Rod Canada, applicant, thanked the Commission and stated he was available to answer questions. Mr. Cary Van Loon, stated he is opposed to the variance request as he feels the lot is too small to accommodate two (2) houses. Mr. Loon stated granting approval of the variance weakens the General Plan. Chairman Webber stated this is a substandard lot in the R-2 zone;the Commission has to decide if they want to continue with a precedent that has been set to grant this type of request for a small lot. Commissioner Miller suggested adding a parking stall adjacent to the two story addition that is proposed,which would enable a fourth vehicle to be parked out of the way of the maneuvering area of the other three vehicles. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Canada if he would be open to adding another parking space. Mr. Canada stated he did not think it would be a problem. Mr. Shaw stated that parking is based on size of units; in this case the two (2) units would require three (3) parking spaces. Mr. Shaw stated the plan could be redesigned with pavers as an open patio area, providing dual purposes. Chairman Webber stated he is opposed to adding hard scape for parking and losing more open space. Commissioner Miller concurred with Mr. Shaw's suggestion. Commissioner Osborne asked if the Commission can request additional parking when the variance request is for open space. City Attorney Dan McHugh stated the project can be appropriately conditioned to address parking or other aspects. Commissioner Osborne stated he concurred with Chairman Webber; the project is providing three (3) parking spaces which are required by Code. Chairman Webber asked for a consensus on more concrete versus open space. Commissioner Cook stated she believes there should be one more space for parking. Commissioner Thompson concurred with Commissioner Laymon stating the project should be left as is. Commissioner Macdonald concurred. MOTION Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 5 It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Variance No.715 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 due to the substandard size of the parcel. 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, such as those 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, and have no effect on current living conditions for neighbors of those living at the property in question ensuring aesthetics and safety issues are minimized. 4. The granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands. C. VARIANCE NO.709-PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission consideration of a Variance from Section'!8.48.170(A)of the Redlands Municipal Code to reduce the requirement for a front and rear yard combination from forty(40)feet between two homes to twenty(20)feet for the property located at 825 E. Colton Avenue in the R- 1-D, Single Family Residential District. Request submitted by GEORGE & GEORGETTE DARVANSAN-STANCIU. (PROJECT PLANNER:JOSHUAALTOPP) Project Planner Joshua Altopp stated the project has been withdrawn therefore there no action will be taken. 5. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 812- Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and consideration of a Commission Review and Approval to develop a 6,750 square foot commercial center on a 25,616 square foot lot located on the southeast corner of Lugonia Avenue and Orange Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. Request submitted by MLST INVESTMENT LLC. (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) Project Planner Joshua Altopp gave a brief presentation on the proposed project stating it is a very good design. Mr. Altopp stated there is an issue relative to under grounding of utilities that the applicant will have to address. Mr.Altopp stated the Water Quality Management Plan has not been approved, therefore staff recommends the project be continued to October 11tH Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 6 Mr. Steve Teng, applicant, stated he has had a number of conversations with Cal Trans and Southern California Edison relative to under grounding of utilities. Mr. Teng stated that any Cal Trans work would have to occur between midnight and morning. Mr. Teng requested that the Condition of Approval requiring under grounding of utilities be waived. Mr. Simon Lee,thanked the staff for its support and assistance. Mr. Lee stated under grounding the utilities will be a hardship to the developer. Chairman Webber asked for clarification on the colors of the building. Mr. Lee stated the elevations to the south and east will have two colors. Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Lee if the project is being required to under ground utilities beyond the property line. Mr. Jaquess stated the applicant is required to under ground the entire property, but in order to connect to the first pole, the applicant has to cross both Orange Street and Lugonia Avenue. Mr. Jaquess stated there is Rule 20 money which is used for under grounding, however that money is already committed for the next 10 years. Mr. Teng stated that Cal Trans is discouraged by the traffic control plan that the applicant will have to submit; they are not certain how long it will take to process. Chairman Webber stated there are costs involved with developing a corner lot on two (2) state highways. Chairman Webber stated the Commission does not have the authority to waive the Condition of Approval. Mr. Shaw stated he was aware of one instance in which this Condition was modified. Mr. Lee stated that under grounding of the utilities is a hardship, because of the cost, and the applicant may consider not proceeding with the project. Mr.Teng stated he received an estimate of $150-250 per linear foot not including contractor costs. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber asked for a consensus on the palm trees proposed in front of the buildings. Chairman Webber stated he agreed with leaving the palm trees. Commissioner Miller commended the developer and architect for taking a simple building and making it really nice. Commissioner Miller noted there is a fairly substantial amount of landscaping around the perimeter of the lot. Commissioner Miller stated it is well known when developing a site, that if you see overhead power lines, you will have to under ground them. Commissioner Miller questioned whether it would be possible to under ground everything but the corner pole,which would save the expense of crossing the street. Chairman Webber concurred with Commissioner Miller that under grounding of utilities is a standard requirement. Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 7 Chairman Webber stated the same standards that apply to the rest of the city, apply here. Commissioner Laymon concurred with Chairman Webber; stating if the project is going to be done, it should be done right. Commissioner Osborne stated this is a major corner; the under grounding of the utilities will enhance the project. Commissioner Macdonald stated that Commissioner Miller's comments were very enlightening. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Osborne,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review and Approval No. 812 to October 11, 2005. E. VARIANCE NO. 706 - Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and a Variance from Section 18.68.090 to allow parking to be located in the twenty-five(25)foot front yard setback for a proposed 4,783 square foot medical office on a 0.37 acre site located at the northeast corner of Terracina Boulevard and Laurel Avenue in the M-F, Medical Facility District. Request submitted by ERIC SAUTTER. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) F. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 808- Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration, and Consideration of a Commission Review and Approval to develop a 4,783 square foot medical office on a 0.37 acre site located at the northeast corner of Terracina Boulevard and Laurel Avenue in the M-F, Medical Facility District. Request submitted by ERIC SAUTTER. (PROJECT PLANNER; MANUEL BAEZA) Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated the project has not yet received preliminary approval of the Water Quality Management Plan by the Public Works Department,therefore staff recommends the proposed project be continued to October 11, 2005. Chairman Webber opened the hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, Chairman Webber closed the hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Commission Review and Approval No. 808 and Variance No. 706 to October 11tH G. SPECIFIC PLAN NO.40(AMENDMENT NO.34)-Planning Commission to consider Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 8 a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING for a recommendation to the City Council on an amendment to the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan creating the EV/TC Commercial Transition District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by MKJ-MCCALLA INVESTMENTS, LLC. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) H. SPECIFIC PLAN NO.40(AMENDMENT NO.35)-Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study and a PUBLIC HEARING for a recommendation to the City Council on an amendment to the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan changing the zoning on approximately 9.5 acres located on the east side of Nevada Street, immediately south of the Atchison,Topeka, and Santa Fe railway and 122 feet north of Redlands Boulevard from the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan to EV/TC, Commercial Transition District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by MKJ-MCCALLA INVESTMENTS, LLC. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) XI. COMMISSION REVIEW AND APPROVAL NO. 796- Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study,and Consideration of a recommendation to the City Council on a Commission Review and Approval to develop an eight(8)building business park development with a combined building area of 135,570 square feet on approximately 9.5 acres located on the east side of Nevada Street, immediately south of the Atchison,Topeka, and Santa Fe railway and 122 feet north of Redlands Boulevard in the EV/CG, General Commercial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan (proposed EV/TC, Commercial Transition District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan). Request submitted by MKJ-MCCALLA INVESTMENTS, LLC. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated the proposed project was reviewed by the Environmental Review Committee(ERC)on September 19th, and was continued due to questions regarding traffic impacts. Mr. Baeza stated the project will return to the ERC on October 3rd, therefore Mr. Baeza requested the proposed project be continued to October 11tH Commissioner Macdonald requested clarification on the EV/TC, Commercial Transition District. Assistant Director Jaquess stated the City Council felt this was an opportunity to develop a zoning district that could blend the elements of the industrial/commercial and highway/commercial districts. Commissioner Macdonald asked if the zone was created strictly for this development. Mr.Jaquess stated the zone was created as a result of this development. Commissioner Thompson asked Mr. Jaquess if the Commission will receive a description of the new district. Mr. Jaquess stated the Commission will receive a description included in the staff report. Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 9 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald,seconded by Commissioner Miller and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue Specific Plan No. 40 (Amendments 34 and 35) and Commission Review and Approval No. 796 to October 11, 2005. Chairman Webber recessed the meeting at 3:24 p.m. Chairman Webber reconvened the meeting at 3:33 p.m. J. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE REMOVAL NO. 110 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on an Agricultural Preserve Removal on 4.68 gross acres located on the south side of San Bernardino Avenue, the west side of Grove Street and north side of Sherry Way in the R-E, Residential Estate District. Request submitted by MONTROSE PARK LLC. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) K. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17533 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council of Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING fora Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING fora Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 4.68 gross acres into ten (10) lots for property located on the south side of San Bernardino Avenue, the west side of Grove Street and north side of Sherry Way in the R-E, Residential Estate District. Request submitted by MONTROSE PARK LLC. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated staff recommends approval of the proposed project. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. Bedros Daichan, thanked Mr. Baeza and stated he was available to answer questions. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council for the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 110 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17533 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 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 110 and Tentative Tract Map No. 17533 Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 10 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 7-0 vote move that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1071 recommending that the City Council adopt Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 110 based upon the following findings: 1. The applicants are the legal owner's of record. Montrose Park LLC is the owner of the property and project applicants; 2. The land requested to be removed from the preserve abuts a developed zone other than agricultural. There is existing residential development to the east, west and south; 3. The application will be in conformity with the City of Redlands' General Plan. The General Plan land use designation is Very Low Density Residential and the project is consistent with this designation; 4. The land requested to be removed from the Preserve shall not circumvent land under contract in accordance with the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The project site is not under Williamson Act Contract; 5. The development will not adjoin lands under Williamson Act Contract and thus will not share a common boundary with contract lands. Development of the project will not impact agricultural uses found on contract land. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Macdonald,and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Tentative Tract Map No. 17533 subject to conditions of approval, and based upon the following findings: 12. 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 zoning of R-E, Residential Estate District and is consistent with both the General Plan and Municipal Code; 13. The site is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is large enough to subdivide into ten (10) lots; 14. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a ten (10) unit subdivision. The General Plan Land Use Designation of Very Low Density Residential and R-E, Residential Estate Zoning both allow for at least to 10 (10) dwelling units; 15. The design of the subdivision or the proposed improvements are not likely to cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 11 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; 16. 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; 17. 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; 18. 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 will not be in an agricultural preserve. Commissioner Miller recused himself at 3:43 p.m. L. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 29 (AMENDMENT NO. 3)- PUBLIC HEARING forthe Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for an amendment to the sign criteria for Specific Plan No. 29. Request Submitted by COORDINATED SIGN SYSTEMS. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) M. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO. 286 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for a Commission Sign Review for a sign program for a two (2) building office complex located on the east side of California Street and north side of Orange Tree Lane in the Commercial District of Specific Plan No. 29. Request submitted by COORDINATED SIGN SYSTEMS. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) N. COMMISSION SIGN REVIEW NO.290- Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council for a Commission Sign Review for two (2) monument signs for a two (2) building office complex located on the east side of California Street and north side of Orange Tree Lane in the Commercial District of Specific Plan No. 29. Request submitted by COORDINATED SIGN SYSTEMS. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a brief presentation on the proposed project. Assistant Director Jaquess stated there were three specific plans (Specific Plan 25, 29, and 33) that had generous sign programs and sign provisions that allowed 1.5 square feet of signage per side of the building. Mr. Jaquess stated they have been applying a revised standard that reduces Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 12 the (one-and-one-half) 1.5 square foot to (one) 1 square foot of signage per side. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Mr. David Kertz, representing the owner and Ms. Deborah Fishburn, Coordinated Sign Systems, were present. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Miller recused) that the Planning Commission adopt Planning Commission Resolution No. 1072 and recommend that the City Council approve Amendment No. 3 to Specific Plan No. 29. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Cook, seconded by Commissioner Thompson,and carried on a 6-0 vote(Commissioner Miller recused)that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Commission Sign Review No. 286 and 290 subject to the attached Conditions of Approval. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting at 3:55 p.m. O. MINOR SUBDIVISION NO. 270 (REVISION NO. 1) - PUBLIC HEARING for Planning Commission to consider the amendment of conditions of approval for a Minor Subdivision (Parcel Map No. 16372) subdividing approximately 8.22 gross acres into eight (8) commercial parcels located on the northwest corner of Citrus Avenue and Iowa Street in the EV/IC, Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Request submitted by MKJ IOWA COMMERCE CENTER, LLC. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Project Planner Manuel Baeza 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 Thompson, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 7- 0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Revision No. 1 to Minor Subdivision No. 270. V. ADDENDA Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 13 1. Review of Final Architecture for Conditional Use Permit No. 865 - BUCKEYES LIMITED PARTNERSHIP Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated the project was approved and conditioned to return to the Planning Commission for final review of the architecture. Mr. Baeza stated the Commission asked for decorative paving at the entrances, stone veneer on the clubhouse elevations, and the use of S-tile for the roof. Mr. Baeza stated the applicant submitted revised elevations for the project which included: 1. Stone veneer wainscot along the driveway elevations of all the residential buildings 2. Wainscot on three sides of the clubhouse 3. "S" tile will be used in place of the flat, concrete roof tile Chairman Webber opened the hearing. Seeing no comments forthcoming, the hearing was closed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Macdonald, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve the final architecture for Conditional Use Permit No. 865. VI. APPROVAL OF MINUTES - None VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF SEPTEMBER 20, 2005 Mr. Shaw gave a brief summary on the City Council actions of September 20th. Mr. Shaw stated there was a discussion on an urgency ordinance relative to non-licensed parolee homes. Mr. Shaw stated the ordinance may come back to the Commission in the next 30-60 days. Mr. Shaw stated these homes, if they have six(6)or fewer residents, are licensed through the State of California. Mr. Shaw stated there is a concern with regard to homes for parolees because other jurisdictions in San Bernardino County have had problems associated with them. VIII. ADJOURN TO EVENING SESSION Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting at 4:05 p.m. Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 14 7:00 P.M. IX. RECONVENE OLD BUSINESS Chairman Webber called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Commissioner Laymon recused herself due to a possible conflict of interest. A. AGRICULTURAL PRESERVE REMOVAL NO. 108 - PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on an Agricultural Preserve Removal on 60.06 gross acres located on the north side of Live Oak Canyon Road approximately 1,100 feet south of Burns Lane in the A-1, Agricultural District(Proposed Specific Plan No.59). Request submitted by BONITA DEVELOPMENT. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) B. SPECIFIC PLAN NO. 59 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council of Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING for the adoption of a Specific Plan for Sector 8 of the Southeast Area plan consisting of approximately 221 acres generally located directly north of Live Oak Canyon Road, and directly south of Burns Lane and Helen Drive. Request submitted by BONITA DEVELOPMENT. (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) C. TENTATIVE TRACT NO. 17265 - Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council of Mitigated Negative Declaration, a PUBLIC HEARING fora Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and a PUBLIC HEARING fora Tentative Tract Map to subdivide 60.06 gross acres into 26 residential lots and 3 common area lots located on the north side of Live Oak Canyon Road approximately 1,100 feet south of Burns Lane in the A-1, Agricultural District (Proposed Specific Plan No. 59). Request submitted by BONITA DEVELOPMENT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated the project was continued to allow the applicant time to address items of concern identified by the Commission and staff. Mr. Baeza stated the items included: 1. A redesign of the tract to avoid grading through signature ridges and smaller ridges 2. A revision of the location of the trails within the Specific Plan 3. A clarification, within the text, of the future changes to the R-R District and Hillside Ordinance applied to the Specific Plan Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 15 4. Incorporating uses under the current A-1 District zoning 5. Clarification on when an oak tree preservation plan will be prepared 6. Inclusion of a provision for deed notices informing future property owners of nearby agricultural uses 7. Contacting the Department of Fish and Game and U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service as to the adequacy of biological studies that were conducted on the project. Mr. Baeza stated the Specific Plan has been redesigned and the text has been amended to address most of the items, however there are some remaining items that will have to be addressed. Mr. Baeza stated a major issue of concern identified by the Commission is grading. Mr. Baeza stated the plan has been redesigned to 24 lots,there is a new street alignment for street"B"and the grading of minor ridges has been reduced in the area of lots 6, 13, and 24. Mr. Baeza stated the Specific Plan did not originally include the trails called for in the General Plan, however the Specific Plan has been revised to be consistent with the General Plan. Mr. Baeza stated staff recommends that more language be added to the Specific Plan stating the importance of trails and specifying how trails will be required of future development under separate ownership. Mr. Baeza stated there were questions regarding state and federal review of the studies prepared for the project relative to environmental impacts. Mr. Baeza stated the California Department of Fish and Game and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service have reviewed the initial study and all other biological studies prepared for the project and find them to be adequate; their comments have been minor. Mr. Baeza stated that all lots meet the development standards of the Specific Plan,except flag lots and cul-de-sac lots with regard to width; staff recommends provisions be made to address the two issues. Mr. Baeza stated in order to ensure that future tracts provide an appropriate amount of open space, staff recommends that the Specific Plan include language to require future subdivisions to set aside a minimum of 30% open space. Mr. Pat Meyer, representing Bonita Development, stated he concurs with staff's recommendations and the recommended Conditions of Approval. Mr. Meyer gave a brief PowerPoint presentation. Mr. Meyer stated there are legal lots of records within the sector that do not have legal access. Mr. Meyer stated there are four(4)ten-acre parcels, owned by separate owners, within the sector. Mr. Meyer stated they have conceptually shown a cul-de-sac that could provide access where the corners of the four (4) lots meet. Mr. Meyer wanted it noted for the record that it is their intent to dedicate a ten-acre block of land as permanent open space. Commissioner Miller asked Mr. Meyer for clarification on the grading of Lots 1 and 24. Mr. Meyer stated it will be a 3 or 4 to 1 slope. Chairman Webber opened the public hearing. Chairman Webber advised the audience that speakers are limited to three (3) minutes and he requested speakers refrain from making personal comments against the Commission or staff and clapping or"cat calling." Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 16 Mr. David Matuszak, 30320 Live Oak Canyon, speaking on behalf of Friends of Live Oak Canyon, stated it is very difficult to separate staff's recommendations from those of big business. Mr. Matuszak stated that staff is ignoring the Survey of Biotic Resources of Live Oak Canyon, prepared by Professor David Bixler. Mr. Matuszak stated the area is very sensitive and he urged the Commission not to contradict the General Plan,which is the will of the people. Mr. Matuszak asked who will be responsible for maintenance of Live Oak Canyon Road. He stated he received an email from Ron Mutter that informed him the City does not have the money to maintain Live Oak Canyon Road. Mr. Rich Hafermalz, 13069 Burns Lane, stated he is concerned about street lighting and "light pollution." Mr. Hafermalz stated he would like to be assured that this aspect of the proposed project will be considered. Ms. Theresa Kwappenberg, 31265 Freya Drive, stated the property is zoned A-1, which requires five-acre parcels. Ms. Kwappenberg stated that once again,they have a land speculator's wishes coming against the wishes of the citizens. Ms. Kwappenberg stated the parcels on Live Oak Canyon Road, from the 1-10 Freeway to San Timoteo Canyon Road, are quite large with a few 2.5 acre parcels that are located in Riverside County. Ms. Kwappenberg stated the tentative tract is not consistent with the canyon, which is rural. Ms. Kwappenberg stated the proposed map is not consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. Ms. Kwappenberg stated the canyon was zoned Resource Preservation because of the fragility of the area. Ms. Kwappenberg stated if one follows the General Plan zoning, Sector 8 would permit 44 homes in the Specific Plan, and 12 homes in the Bonita Development area. Mr. Randy Barger, 715 Afton Court, stated the project is a good project that will add to the canyon Joseph Asbury, 11730 Overcrest,stated the plan seems like a reasonable plan forthe canyon and it gives middle class families an opportunity to have something other than a tract home on a small lot. Mr.Asbury stated it is located in the canyon which gives more of a"country"feel. Mr.Asbury stated it appears that those who are opposed to the plan, have theirs, and they don't want to give anyone else an opportunity to have something of their own. Mr. Jay Rentz, 250 Grant Street, one of the principals, stated they obtained the rules, guidelines, and regulations from the City and then started the project. Mr. Rentz stated the canyon is beautiful and he hopes their project is part of that beauty. Mr. Russell Burch, 30633 Country Road, Redlands, one of the principals of Bonita Development, stated the raccoons, red tail hawks, cougars, and bobcats are still in his backyard and just because there is a house it doesn't mean the animals will go away. Mr. Mark Hamilton, P. O. Box 1642,Yucaipa, stated he owns two(2)nine acre parcels within Sector 8. Mr. Hamilton requested that the applicant address his concerns. Mr. Hamilton stated the applicant is proposing to put horse trails through his property; he asked how the trails would be maintained and where they would be located. Mr. Hamilton asked for the status on the road easements. Mr. Hamilton stated Bonita Development has not been in contact with the property owners in the canyon. Mr. Hamilton stated the only supporters of the development are the developers. Commissioner Cook asked Mr. Hamilton if he would be able to build on his property if the Specific Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 17 Plan is not approved. Mr. Hamilton stated he could; he has legal access and the lots are buildable. Commissioner Cook asked Mr. Hamilton if he would have to build a road out to Live Oak Canyon. Mr. Hamilton stated not necessarily. Mr. Hamilton stated the Specific Plan shows a trail although he did not believe it was shown in the General Plan. Mr. Hamilton stated he has two (2) points of legal access; one of them is off Helen Drive and one is an easement from Live Oak Canyon Road. Chairman Webber stated that the alignment from Live Oak Canyon Road would cut into a signature ridge and would cost a fortune to build. Mr. Hamilton stated they would not build a road; just a driveway access. Ms. Susan Finsen, 31328 Alta Vista Drive, stated she is suspicious about cost benefit analyses because often they leave out intangible things like the cost of this project to future species, and endangered species. Ms. Finsen stated the Cost Benefit analysis suggests that the project will provide $231 k in revenue per year, at a cost of$28k to the City. Ms. Finsen stated there isn't any direct access unless Helen Drive is opened,therefore the people will probably shop in Yucaipa. Ms. Finsen stated if Helen Drive is opened, the traffic situation will have to be adjusted relative to the impact of traffic. Commissioner Thompson stated he does not believe that revenue to Redlands will be lost because people are going to shop in Yucaipa. Ms. Finsen stated we seem to be in a process of gradual erosion and changing of the zoning. Ms. Finsen stated more traffic has to be factored into a Cost Benefit analysis. Ms. Caroline Laymon, 13202 Bruder Lane,stated she has 21 heavily vegetated and habitated acres and she is concerned that it will become a private park for the development. Ms. Laymon stated she was under the impression that the Fire Department is leery about cul-de-sacs that are 1/2 mile long. Ms. Laymon stated the she appreciates the applicant considering her easement, but it is a double edged sword. Ms. Laymon asked the Commission to consider the density of the project in an area where fire, unstable soils, and drainage are a major concern. Ms. Laymon stated they have spent tens of thousands of dollars to stabilize their property. Mr. Gary Glazier, 1563 Foothill Way, stated he has lived in Redlands for 20 years. Mr. Glazier stated he is in total support of the project, and he would love to build a nice home on 2 acres. Mr. Glazier stated the project, which is semi-private, is unique and will be a wonderful addition to the City. Mr. David Burishkin, 25475 Nicks Avenue, Loma Linda,stated it is difficult to find a nice place to live and he believes if the project is approved, it will be a nice place to live. If it is not approved, there will be coyotes on the land. Mr. Ken Summers, 33110 Lotus Avenue, a partner of Mr. Hamilton, stated their parcel will be landlocked if the horse trail is brought in. Mr. Summers stated the applicant has shown an earthquake zone, although he has paperwork that says there is no earthquake zone in the area. Mr. Summers stated the applicant is welcome to come onto his property to perform earthquake studies. Mr. Summers stated Yucaipa is in the process of developing the property from Live Oak Canyon to County Line Road into stores. Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 18 Commissioner Miller stated that development requires a soils report by a soils engineer and the fault history of the area is researched; therefore if an earthquake zone comes up in applicant's report, it will show up on their report. Chairman Webber closed the public hearing. Chairman Webber allowed Mr. Meyer an opportunity for rebuttal. Addressing Mr. Haffermalz's concerns, Mr. Meyer stated Condition of Approval 10E has been written to require street lighting only at intersections or at the end of a cul-de-sac, once the rural street standards have been adopted. Addressing Ms. Kwappenberg's comments, Mr. Meyer stated the proposed density is consistent with Measure U, which was a voter initiative. Addressing Mr. Hamilton's concerns, Mr. Meyer stated they were asked to show all the trails located within the Specific Plan. Mr. Myer stated Mr. Hamilton's road easement is a'/2 mile long easement that would require a grading permit because more than 50 cubic yards would be moved. Mr. Meyer stated the easement cannot be built; it is not practical and there is an issue of no utilities. With regard to Mr. Hamilton's comment that the applicant has not communicated with the neighbors, Mr. Meyer stated that several of the landowners in the sector have spoken in support of the project. With regard to the earthquake fault, Mr. Meyer stated his client was required to pay for a geology study for 230 acres, not just the 60 acres he owns. With regard to Ms. Laymon's comments, Mr. Meyer stated they agreed to fence off the property and they will stub a right- of-way out to her 20 acre parcel. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Meyer to summarize Helen Drive and its future capacity as an emergency access. Mr. Meyer stated they feel Helen Drive should be finished off in a cul-de-sac, and their street will stop 1,000 feet short of the cul-de-sac. Mr. Meyer stated each cul-de-sac will have a knock box chain with emergency people only having the key to it. Mr. Meyer stated the City will have an exclusive easement for utility and emergency traffic only, and will not ever become a public right-of-way. Commissioner Macdonald, read from page 19 of the Environmental Review Committee checklist form that stated, "The proposed development will ultimately connect Helen Drive to Live Oak Canyon Road." Mr. Meyer stated that statement was referring to hydrology and drainage. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Meyer to comment on the biological studies. Mr. Meyer stated a general biological survey was conducted on the entire sector along with specific surveys for the gnat catcher, the kangaroo rat, and endangered plants. Mr. Meyer stated they had to conduct a protocol survey which involved contacting Fish and Wildlife Service along with the State Department of Fish and Game. Mr. Meyer stated another follow-up survey will be conducted in the spring. Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 19 Commissioner Miller stated he has a concern relative to the grading along Live Oak Canyon Road; he feels that after development occurs you are left with manufactured slopes. Commissioner Miller stated it would helpful to have plant restoration and hydro-seed the embankment with a native plant mix. Commissioner Miller stated there is a fairly significant amount of manufactured slopes on parcels 1 and 24. Commissioner Miller stated he is generally supportive of the project;they have a better chance of concentrating development, having more open space, and giving the species a better chance of survival if they preserve corridors and concentrate on where the humans are. Commissioner Miller stated they arrived at the density that the General Plan has recommended taking into account, among other things, native species. Mr. Shaw stated the 1995 General Plan had several layers of environmental review. Mr. Shaw stated they updated the biological assessment at that time based on the density as proposed for the project. Mr. Shaw stated several evaluations have been completed;the General Plan was updated, the Southeast Area Plan was completed, and environmental work was completed by the applicant. Commissioner Miller asked if the report completed by David Bixler, was considered by staff. Mr. Baeza stated it was not. Referring a comment that was made, "voting against the citizens for the benefit of land speculators", Commissioner Miller stated that is not how he votes. Commissioner Miller stated he votes according to what the law says and what's best for the community, because he is a citizen too. Commissioner Miller stated he has a concern regarding Mr. Hamilton's access; he felt they can accommodate Mr. Hamilton and ensure that he will have access to his property. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Meyer for clarification on the easement. Mr. Meyer stated currently there is language that states the easement can be replaced by an alternative means for providing access, like a public right-of-way. Mr. Meyer stated they propose to build a street and dedicate the right-of-way that connects with Mr. Hamilton's property. He stated they are no longer proposing a street vacation, however half the street will be under the control of the City of Redlands. Mr. Meyer stated Mr. Hamilton will receive dedicated right-of-way to his property including utilities. Chairman Webber asked Mr. Meyer if he concurred with Commissioner Miller's suggestion for planting of slopes with native plants. Mr. Meyer stated he concurred and he suggested that a Condition of Approval be added to address planting of slopes Commissioner Thompson stated he generally supports the project because he feels it is good to condense land development in small areas. Commissioner Thompson stated he concurred with Commissioner Miller. Commissioner Thompson stated he is happy to see the allowance of the existing agricultural land uses to continue within the sector. Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 20 Commissioner Osborne stated the Fire Department says the project will improve fire fighting ability because it will give them access. Commissioner Osborne stated when this property which was in the county, came into the city, it was expected that it would be developed. Commissioner Osborne stated he prefers to see "cluster"development with a large block of open space and he feels it is a well-planned project. Commissioner Cook stated she feels the project is consistent with the General Plan,which is put in place to guide development. Commissioner Cook stated the City will receive 28 acres of open space and the ridges will be protected with this project. She stated she supports the project. Commissioner Macdonald stated he is basically opposed to development in the canyon. Commissioner Macdonald stated they do not have to allow development in the canyon; they can preserve it. Commissioner Macdonald stated issues such as fire danger and access, landslide danger, police protection, and biological resources and sensitive animals living in the canyon, have not been adequately addressed. Commissioner Macdonald stated the agricultural preserve concept was developed in an effort to preserve the agricultural industry in Redlands. Commissioner Macdonald stated the agricultural preserve removal must meet five(5)findings; Finding 2 states the "land requested to be removed from the agricultural preserve must abut a developed zone other than agriculture." Commissioner Macdonald stated the proposed project does not abut developed land, therefore he recommends a "no" vote on the agricultural preserve removal and the project. Mr. Meyer stated the City of Redland did not adopt the Agricultural Preserve; it was inherited from the County. Mr. Meyer stated the entire southern boundary abuts developed properties with houses that are located in the County. Mr. Meyer stated the entire northerly portion of the sector abuts developed properties on Burns Lane and Helen Drive. Commissioner Thompson stated in his opinion, anything that"ends at" also abuts. Commissioner Macdonald disagreed with Commissioner Thompson. Chairman Webber concurred with Mr. Meyer. Chairman Webber stated he feels there has to be a balance between "property rights of an owner" versus"preservation rights driven by citizens." Chairman Webber stated the owner of the land has rights under the General Plan to do something with his property. Chairman Webber stated he has an issue with the project not having flat, open space. Chairman Webber suggested dropping lots 18 and 19 to provide open space in a flat area and to provide a wildlife corridor from east to west. Mr. Baeza identified lots 18 and 19 on the map. Chairman Webber suggested a wildlife corridor through lots 19 and 20. There was no support for Chairman Webber's suggestion. Mr. Shaw noted that Condition of Approval 12 talks about the establishment of a homeowner's association for the care and maintenance of the common areas. Mr. Shaw stated they would like to Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 21 add a "CFD" (Community Facility District) as an alternative to the homeowners association at the City's discretion. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 5-1 vote (Commissioner Laymon recused, and Commissioner Macdonald voting no) that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for Specific Plan No. 59,Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 108 and Tentative Tract No. 17265, and direct staff to file and post a "Notice of Determination" in accordance with City guidelines. It is recommended that this project will not individually or cumulatively affect wildlife resources as defined in Section 711.2 of the California Fish and Game Code. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 6-0 vote (Commissioner Laymon recused) that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Specific Plan No. 59, Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 108, and Tentative Tract No. 17265. It is recommended that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or over burden public services in the community, and no additional information or evaluation is needed. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 5-1 vote (Commissioner Laymon recused and Commissioner Macdonald voting no) that the Planning Commission adopt Resolution No. 1068 recommending that the City Council adopt Agricultural Preserve Removal No. 108 based upon the following findings: 1. The applicants are the legal owner's of record. Bonita Development Co. LLC is the owner of the property and Urban Environs is the authorized representative of the owner; 2. The land requested to be removed from the preserve abuts a developed zone other than agricultural. The site touches a developed zone at a corner and is adjacent to land not in an agricultural preserve being proposed for re- zoning to a developed zone ; 3. The application is in conformity with the City of Redlands'General Plan. The applicant's proposal will be consistent with the Guiding Policies of the SEAP of the City's General Plan; 4. The land requested to be removed from the Preserve shall not circumvent land under contract in accordance with the California Land Conservation Act of 1965. The project site is not under Williamson Act Contract; 5. The development will not adjoin lands under Williamson Act Contract and thus will not share a common boundary with contract lands. Development of the project will not impact agricultural uses found on contract land. Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 22 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 5-1 vote (Commissioner Laymon recused and Commissioner Macdonald voting no) that the Planning Commission approve Resolution No. 1069, recommending to the City Council adoption of Specific Plan No. 59. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Osborne,seconded by Commissioner Thompson, and carried on a 4-2 vote (Commissioner Laymon recused, Commissioners Macdonald and Webber voting no)that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of Tentative Tract No. 17265, based on the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: 19. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan and Municipal Code. The project has a General Plan land use designation of Resource Preservation and proposed zoning of Specific Plan No. 59, and is consistent with both the General Plan and Municipal Code; 20. The site, which is located on the north side of Live Oak Canyon Road, is physically suitable for the type of development. The site is in a hillside location and is large enough to contain twenty-four (24) lots; 21. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of a twenty-four (24) lot subdivision. The General Plan Land Use Designation of Resource Preservation allows for twenty-four(24) dwelling units; 22. 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. 23. 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; 24. The design of the subdivision or the type of improvements will not conflict with easements, acquired by the public at large, for access through or use of property within the proposed subdivision; public streets and pedestrian access will be provided throughout the project site; 25. 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 a revision to Condition of Approval Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 23 12 to read: The applicant shall establish a Homeowner's Association or CFD at the City's discretion for the care and maintenance of common area, and all other property improvements held in common ownership of the subdivision. Conditions, Covenants and Restrictions (CC&R's)shall be prepared and submitted for review and approval by the City Attorney, prior to approval of the final map and shall be recorded. The CC&R's shall cover the care and maintenance of open space, trails and all other property and improvements held in common ownership of the subdivision. The CC&R's shall also cover the maintenance of all improvements found in the medians of public streets. X. ADJOURN MEETING TO OCTOBER 11, 2005 Chairman Webber adjourned the meeting to October 11tH Patti Ortiz Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of September 27, 2005 Page 24