Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutPlanning Minutes 05-8-07_CCv0001.pdf MINUTES: of the Planning Commission Meeting of the City of Redlands held Tuesday, May 8, 2007, at 2:00 p.m. are as follows: PRESENT: James Macdonald, Chairman Gary Miller, Vice Chairman Ruth Cook, Commissioner Carol Dyer, Commissioner Paul Foster, Commissioner John James, Commissioner Eric Shamp, Commissioner ADVISORY STAFF PRESENT: Jeff Shaw, Director Robert Dalquest, Assistant Director Michael Reiter, Assistant City Attorney Manuel Baeza, Senior Planner David Jump, Associate Planner Joshua Altopp, Assistant Planner I. CALL TO ORDER AND PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD - 3 MINUTES Chairman Macdonald called the meeting to order. All Commissioners were present. Chairman Macdonald dedicated the May 8, 2007 Planning Commission meeting to the memory of ex- Planning Commissioner and Mayor, Swen Larson. Director Shaw introduced new Planning Department staff member, Christopher Boatman, to the Planning Commission. Allan Wilson, Redlands property owner, expressed his dissatisfaction on the requirements imposed upon him by Public Works in building his single family dwelling on Sunset Drive. II. CONSENT CALENDAR A. MEDICAL REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT CO., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: DAVID JUMP) A request for final map approval of PARCEL MAP NO. 17637 (Minor Subdivision No. 298) an approved subdivision of a 39,781 square foot medical office building into 14 individual condominium units located on the east side of Terracina Boulevard approximately 400 feet south of Olive Avenue within the MF, Medical Facilities District. B. PLANNING COMMISSION REVIEW OF APPLICATION FOR THE PERSON TO PERSON TRANSFER OF AN OFF-SALE BEER AND WINE LICENSE FOR VALERO CALIFORNIA RETAIL COMPANY LOCATED AT 710 W. COLTON AVENUE. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Miller, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve the Consent Calendar. Commissioner Miller recused himself at 2:07 p.m. due to a conflict of interest on item III. A. Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 1 III. OLD BUSINESS A. PENCE CONSTRUCTION, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: JOSHUA ALTOPP) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 670 (Revision1) to develop an 18,480 square foot addition to the Express Containers business for a combined total building area of 44,000 square feet with a 7,800 square foot- covered parking canopy on approximately 2.60 acres, located at 560 Iowa Street in the 'EV/IC', Commercial Industrial District of the East Valley Corridor Specific Plan. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Joshua Altopp stated that the project was continued from the meeting of April 24, 2007 to allow the applicant to work out details relative to the Water Quality Management Plan. Mr. Altopp stated that there has been some resolution allowing the applicant to modify the Water Quality Management Plan and that staff is working with the applicant on landscaping details. Mr. Altopp indicated that the CEQA deadline was extended to August 22, 2007 at the May 1, 2007 City Council meeting. Staff recommended continuance of the project to the June 12, 2007 meeting. Commissioner Shamp asked if the applicant would be able to keep the landscaping in the front of the project area. Mr. Altopp addressed Commissioner Shamp's question. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant or anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. No comments were forthcoming and Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 6-0 vote, (Commissioner Miller excused), that the Planning Commission continue the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Public Hearing on the Socio Economic Cost/Benefit Study, and the Hearing on Commission Review and Approval No. 670 (Revision 1)to June 12, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Miller returned to the meeting at 2:10 p.m. B. CITICOM DEVELOPMENT, LP, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 820 for the development of three (3) commercial buildings having a cumulative area of 24,067 square feet on 6.65 acres located at the northeast corner of Parkford Drive and Marshall Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit No. 877 for the development of a 1,615 square foot drive through restaurant to be located at the northeast corner of Parkford Drive and Marshall Street within a proposed 6.65 acre Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 2 shopping center located at the northeast corner of Parkford Drive and Marshall Street in the CA Highway Commercial District. 5. PUBLIC HEARING for Conditional Use Permit No. 878 for the development of a 1,722 square foot drive through restaurant to be located at the north side of Parkford Drive approximately 200 feet west of Ford Street within a proposed 6.65 acre shopping center located at the northeast corner of Parkford Drive and Marshall Street in the C-4, Highway Commercial District. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Manuel Baeza stated that the applicant is still revising the plans for the proposed shopping center and has requested a continuance to the May 22, 2007 meeting. Mr. Baeza indicated that the applicant has made some significant changes to the project and has eliminated one of the drive- through lanes. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant or anyone in the audience wished to address the Commission. No comments were forthcoming and Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Shamp, seconded by Commissioner James, and moved on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission continue the Mitigated Negative Declaration, the Public Hearing on the Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study, Conditional Use Permit No. 877 and Conditional Use Permit No. 878, and the hearing on Commission Review and Approval No. 820 to May 22, 2007. IV. NEW BUSINESS A. ESRI, APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: MANUEL BAEZA) 1. Planning Commission to consider a Mitigated Negative Declaration. 2. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 3. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on General Plan Amendment No. 114 amending the General Plan Land Use Designation from High-Density Residential (0-27 units per gross acre) to Office on approximately one (1) acre located on the north side of State Street, east of New York Street in the R-2, Multiple Family Residential District (Proposed for change to A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District). 4. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Zone Change No. 430 to change the zoning designation on approximately one (1) acre of land located on the north side of State Street, east of New York Street from R-2, Multiple Family Residential District to A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District. 5. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider Variance No. 745 a request to grant a variance from Section 18.168.210 for a reduction in the required parking area landscaping for a proposed parking lot to be developed over a portion of the Mission flood channel located immediately north of the ESRI Campus between New York Street and Tennessee Street in the M-2, General Industrial District. Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 3 6. Consideration of Commission Review and Approval No. 825 (Revision No. 2) to develop a three-story office building with an area of approximately 81,635 square feet, and a central plant with an area of approximately 3,845 square feet within the campus of ESRI, located at the terminus of New York Street, between State Street and Redlands Boulevard in the A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District, and R-2, Multiple Family Residential District (Proposed for change to A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District) and to develop a parking lot over a portion of the Mission flood channel located immediately north of the ESRI Campus between New York Street and Tennessee Street in the M-2, General Industrial District. 7. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider Minor Subdivision No. 310 (Tentative Parcel Map No.18165) to subdivide 26.98 acres into six (6) lots within the campus of ESRI, located generally north of State Street, east of Tennessee Street, south of Redlands Boulevard and west of Texas Street in the A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District, and R-2, Multiple Family Residential District (Proposed for change to A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District). Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Manuel Baeza gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended approval of the project subject to the conditions of approval and that the Commission Review and Approval is to be continued to the June 26, 2007 Planning Commission meeting. Commissioner Dyer commented on fencing and security, stating that there was fencing to the south of the proposed parking area but did not see a fencing plan protecting the additional parking provided over the new box culvert. Mr. Baeza indicated that there would be fencing to secure the parking area but that the trail would not be enclosed. Commissioner Dyer commented that there were issues that were not clearly explained on the plans and did not like the fact that the landscaping was left up to the applicant. Director Shaw stated that staff requested that the applicant identify that they would be using the same type of landscaping treatment that has been used for the remainder of the project area, and since their landscaping exceeds the City standards, a detailed landscape plan was not required. Commissioner Cook commented that it was her understanding that there would still be a walkway when the Commission approved the street closure. Mr. Baeza indicated that the walkway is shown on the Tentative Parcel Map and is also conditioned on the Street Vacation. Commissioner Dyer commented that New York Street would be closed off and asked if the stop sign at the intersection of New York and State Street would remain at that location. Mr. Baeza addressed Commissioner Dyer's question. Commissioner Shamp commented on the bike path north of the angled parking and asked if there would be a continuous wall along the bike path. Mr. Baeza stated that there would be a fence along the bike path. Commissioner Shamp asked if there were any requirements relative to the control of traffic at the intersection between bicycles and automobiles at New York Street. Mr. Baeza indicated that he did not believe that there were any requirements and was not aware of any type of control for bicycle traffic. Commissioner Foster asked what type of fencing material would be used along the bike path. Mr. Baeza indicated that ESRI currently uses wrought iron fencing. Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 4 Commissioner Cook asked what type of fencing was being proposed between the triangular house and parking lot. Mr. Baeza stated that he believed it would be the same wrought iron fencing that they already use on campus but suggested that the applicant could respond more specifically. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Melissa Hanson, Armantrout Architects, stated that there would be a wall along the residence and it would be a six foot high split faced, concrete block wall with plantings and vines. Ms. Hanson indicated that public access would be maintained along that side of the new building. Commissioner Cook asked where the planned public access was located. Ms. Hanson pointed out the public access route on the map for the Commission. Commissioner Dyer commented on the median islands in front of the property stating that she felt it was ESRI's responsibility to take care of the medians since they have frontage along the street and are the major landowners. She asked if ESRI would take on the responsibility of maintaining the medians since they are the major benefactor of them. Dave Atchley, ESRI Facilities Manager, indicated that City staff currently maintains the median islands periodically but they would consider maintaining them. Commissioner Shamp asked if there was consideration for a parking garage or reducing the need for on- site parking in lieu of covering the Mission Channel. Mr. Atchley indicated that they did visit that alternative and stated that ESRI does not have any ostentatious structures that just stand out and that it was the owner's wishes to find other alternative other than a parking structure. Don Berry, ESRI, spoke about ESRI's carpooling program with plans to significantly enhance it. He indicated that their goal is to ensure that there is adequate parking and to continue with their existing rideshare and transportation programs. Commissioner Shamp asked if they were at capacity on parking most of the time. Mr. Berry stated that they were not at capacity for parking at this time but that the addition would push them to capacity. Mr. Berry indicated that they are going to move their training center off-site which should help to control the parking situation. Commissioner Miller commented on the parking ratio and asked if the 1 stall per 225 square feet was over kill since ESRI staff was using alternative means in traveling to work. Mr. Berry indicated that it was his educated guess that the ratio was appropriate but would really need to look at the numbers. Director Shaw stated that the parking is based on a net leaseable area which actually assists ESRI. Commissioner Miller asked if they currently have more parking stalls than they actually need. Mr. Berry indicated that he would need to research it. Chairman Macdonald asked if there was any analysis made on the affect on wildlife for that length of the channel. Mr. Berry stated that there was an analysis made and that they were taking mitigation measures in various places, including downstream, by buying mitigation land to offset any possible impacts on the wildlife. Bill Cunningham, Redlands resident, asked if the sidewalk along the campus would be available twenty- four (24) hours a day so that people could have access to it after business hours. Mr. Baeza indicated that the sidewalk is a public access sidewalk and would be available twenty-four(24) hours a day. Commissioner Cook asked for feedback relative to the maintenance of the median islands. Director Shaw indicated that an agreement could be worked out if the applicant was willing to provide maintenance on the medians, but that it was something that could not be mandated in the conditions of approval. Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 5 Chairman Macdonald asked for a consensus from the Commission relative to ESRI maintaining the center median as part of this project. Commissioner James stated that according to Director Shaw, the Commission could not mandate conditions of approval but could encourage them to maintain the medians. Director Shaw indicated that there are provisions whereby maintenance could have "an adopt a median"approach taken on by service clubs. Mr. Berry expressed that he did not want the maintaining of the medians to be made as a condition of approval. He stated that ESRI has planted and maintains the trees along Redlands Boulevard from Stuart to Alabama Streets and maintains the tree planting and all the landscaping that are in the parking lot south of Jenny Davis Park along with other locations throughout the City. He indicated that the Commission's concerns have been heard and indicated that ESRI will be good citizens. Commissioner Miller commented on Commissioner Dyer's concerns relative to the absence of landscaping and asked if it would be appropriate to have a condition of approval that states that the landscaping shall be consistent with the pattern that has already been established on the campus. Mr. Baeza indicated that condition of approval eighteen (18) is the standard condition relative to landscaping. Commissioner Miller suggested supplementing the condition that states that the landscaping should follow the pattern that currently exists on the campus. Mr. Baeza indicated that the supplemental wording can be added as part of condition of approval eighteen. Commissioner Shamp had comments and concerns relative to covering up the channel stating that it was a nice amenity, especially along the bike path. He stated that the bike path is a continuation of what will become a vital bicycling corridor and wanted to ensure that any bike path developed along this area had the necessary amenities to make it a viable commuting corridor. Commissioner Shamp expressed concerns relative to the plans that showed a jog in the bike path and the warning signage at the bicycle/automobile interface. He also asked about the possibility of installing lighting and drinking fountains along the bike path. Mr. Baeza indicated that the project engineer could comment on the jog shown in the plans. John Egan, Engineering Resources, stated that the jog shown in the plans was a drafting error and that there was no need for the jog. Mr. Egan addressed Commissioner Shamp's concerns relative to the lighting and the drinking fountains stating that there is not a potable source available but that ESRI hopes to do that eventually on their campus. Don Berry indicated that there would be lighting in the parking lots and that lighting could be provided on the trail but was more concerned about selecting lighting that would not cause light pollution. Mr. Berry stated that they would research the water source issue. Commissioner Shamp stated that he would like to see a condition made that if there was potable water on site but would not like to impose that kind of expense on ESRI for a drinking fountain. Chairman Macdonald asked about Commissioner Shamp's concerns relative to the signage at New York Street. Director Shaw stated that this item could be sent to the Traffic Commission for this particular crossing since it is one of the few locations where they will have the trail on both sides of the road with a rail segment and that it would be an opportunity for a link to cross roadways. Chairman Macdonald stated that Commissioner Shamp introduced a possible condition for drinking water on the trail and asked for the Commission's consensus. Commissioner Dyer indicated that it was an excellent idea due to how hot it could get at that site and that landscaping would help reduce the elements. Commissioner James indicated that he liked the ideas brought forward by Commissioner Shamp but would propose that the Commission allow the applicant to make their best effort in providing lighting and drinking water. He stated that he would like to see the signage handled as a comprehensive plan on the whole trails system as opposed to having a condition imposed that would be non-standard at this point in time. Commissioner's Foster, Cook and Miller supported Commissioner James' position. Chairman Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 6 Macdonald indicated that the Commission would not require a condition of approval relative to lighting, signage, and water fountains. Commissioner Shamp expressed that he supports making these items a condition of approval on this project. He indicated that this would set precedence for future developers who would continue this bike trail in the City and believes that there needs to be a set of standards and conditions in place that requires these amenities. Director Shaw indicated that there is a grant for a project being initiated for the Orange Blossom Trail and as part of the study, they will be evaluating the standards, the crossings and other issues with installing a trail. Commissioner Dyer asked if there could be an advisory condition stating that the applicant is encouraged to furbish and maintain the existing median to the south on State Street which would show that there had been dialogue on this issue. Director Shaw stated that the direction the Commission has taken will be reflected in the minutes and that an advisory condition of approval would be inappropriate. Commissioner Shamp commented that there was no discussion relative to Building "Q" but wanted to express that it was a gorgeous building with nice clean lines. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration for General Plan Amendment No. 114, Zone Change No. 430, Variance No. 745, Commission Review and Approval No. 825 R-2, Minor Subdivision No. 310 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 Foster, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend to the City Council approval of the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for General Plan Amendment No. 114, Zone Change No. 430, Variance No. 745, Commission Review and Approval No. 825 R-2, Minor Subdivision No. 310. It is recommended that this project will not create unmitigable physical blight or overburden public services in the community. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No.1131, recommending to the City Council approval of General Plan Amendment No.114 subject to the following findings: 1. The reduction is consistent with the adopted general plan, including the housing element; other land has been converted to from office use to residential use compensating for the project's removal of housing; 2. The remaining sites identified in the housing element are adequate to accommodate the jurisdiction's share of the regional housing need pursuant to Section 65584 of the Government Code. Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 7 MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 1132, recommending to the City Council approval of Zone Change. No. 430. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Variance No. 745 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; the parking area would be constructed over an underground box culvert limiting how the site can be planted; 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 several other properties in the A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District located on the south side of Brookside Avenue that have reduced parking area landscaping similar to the applicant's request; 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; reduced landscaping will not be injurious to industrial uses to the north; 4. That the granting of the variance will not adversely affect the General Plan of the City of Redlands; as part of parking lot improvements a linear tail will be installed as called for in the General Plan. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council of Minor Subdivision No. 310 subject to conditions of approval, and based on the following findings: 1. The proposed map is consistent with the City's General Plan, Municipal Code; the project has a General Plan land use designation of Office and is consistent with the General Plan, Municipal Code, and; 2. The site is physically suitable for the type of development; the site is large enough to subdivide into six parcels; 3. The site is physically suitable for the density of development of an office park; the General Plan Land Use Designation of Office and zoning of A-P, Administrative and Professional Office District both allow for subdivisions; 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; the initial study prepared for the project includes mitigation measures addressing the projects potential to create health problems; Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 8 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; new easements have been provided to the pubic and are shown on the map; 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. This includes the addition to condition of approval number eighteen (18) q. as follows: q. ESRI shall install parking area landscaping matching existing landscaping found within parking areas. Adding condition of approval eighteen (18) q. was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Cook and carried on a 7-0 vote. MOTION It was moved by Commissioner Foster, seconded by Commissioner Cook, and carried on a 7-0 vote to continue Revision No. 2 to Commission Review and Approval No. 825 to the Planning Commission Meeting of June 26, 2007. B. REDLANDS LAND ACQUISITION COMPANY, L.P., APPLICANT (PROJECT PLANNER: ROBERT DALQUEST) 1. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Socio-Economic Cost/Benefit Study. 2. Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the Redevelopment Agency on an Environmental Impact Report. 3. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on General Plan Amendment No. 115 amending the Redlands General Plan Land Use Map to change the land use designation of twelve (12) contiguous parcels comprising 2.91 acres from Commercial/Industrial to Commercial located on the south side of Stuart Avenue, west of Eureka Street. 4. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on General Plan Amendment No. 116 amending Figure 5.1 (Trafficway Network) of the Circulation Element to change the designation of approximately 800 linear feet of Stuart Avenue, west of Eureka Street, from a Collector street to a local street. 5. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Amendment No. 11 to Specific Plan No. 45 (Downtown Specific Plan)to amend the Downtown Specific Plan Land Use Map (Figure 2) to change the land use designation of twelve contiguous parcels comprising 2.91 acres from Service Commercial District to Town Center District located on the south side of Stuart Avenue, west of Eureka Street. 6. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Amendment No. 12 to Specific Plan No. 45 (Downtown Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 9 Specific Plan) to amend Section IV(A)(3)(c) of the Downtown Specific Plan to change the designation of approximately 800 linear feet of Stuart Avenue, west of Eureka Street, from a Special Collector street to a local street. 7. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Amendment No. 13 to Specific Plan No. 45 (Downtown Specific Plan) to amend Section VI(B)(8) of the Downtown Specific Plan to modify the sign criteria by allowing an increase in sign area for multiple-tenant buildings fronting on a street with parking at the rear of the buildings. 8. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Street Vacation No. 141 to vacate approximately 575 linear feet of an alley located west of Eureka Street and north of Stuart Avenue in the Town Center District of the Downtown Specific Plan. 9. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Conditional Use Permit No. 905 to construct a 149,800 square foot commercial center containing retail, restaurant, and office uses and including a health club and drive-through facilities for a financial institution on approximately 13.2 acres located south of the Interstate 10 Freeway and west of Eureka Street in the Town Center District north of Stuart Avenue and Service Commercial District south of Stuart Avenue (Proposed to be changed to Town Center District) of the Downtown Specific Plan. 10. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on Minor Subdivision No. 312 to subdivide approximately 13.2 acres into twelve (12) parcels within a proposed commercial center located south of the Interstate 10 Freeway and west of Eureka Street in the Town Center District north of Stuart Avenue and Service Commercial District south of Stuart Avenue (Proposed to be changed to Town Center District) of the Downtown Specific Plan. 11. PUBLIC HEARING for the Planning Commission to consider a recommendation to the City Council on a Uniform Sign Program for a proposed 149,800 square foot commercial center located south of the Interstate10 Freeway and west of Eureka Street in the Town Center District north of Stuart Avenue and Service Commercial District south of Stuart Avenue (Proposed to be changed to Town Center District)of the Downtown Specific Plan. Chairman Macdonald opened the public hearing. Project Planner Bob Dalquest gave a PowerPoint presentation and overview of the proposed project. Staff recommended that the project proceed to the City Council for approval on June 19, 2007 subject to the conditions of approval. Mr. Dalquest indicated that as a result of a review of the conditions of approval with the applicant, staff expressed that they would like to make three minor revisions to the Planning Division conditions of approval numbers five (5), fifteen (15), and forty-three (43) which would be addressed during the motions. Mr. Dalquest stated that Building and Safety condition of approval number one (1)was amended to comply with the high velocity standard for flood protection. Commissioner James asked if the flow of the drive-through aisle was situated north to south so that any cueing would come back into the parking lot as opposed to going out onto Stuart Street. Mr. Dalquest addressed Commissioner James question. Chairman Macdonald asked if the project qualified for a freeway sign. Mr. Dalquest stated that freeway signs are not permitted in the Downtown Specific Plan. Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 10 Commissioner Dyer referred to the loading dock located in the rear elevation near Major One and asked if it was for a semi truck to load onto their site. She had concerns relative to the turning radius and access since the street was very narrow with no parking on either side. Mr. Dalquest stated that the applicant could address Commissioner Dyer's question. Commissioner Shamp asked if the buildings were one-story. Mr. Dalquest indicated that the buildings were all one-story but that the fitness center may have a mezzanine. Chairman Macdonald asked how the project could move forward when all the parcels were not owned by the applicant. Mr. Dalquest indicated that there was a resolution passed by the Redevelopment Agency or City Council authorizing the developer to proceed with the project even though they did not own all of the property. Chairman Macdonald asked if the applicant wished to address the Commission. Martin Vhatra, General Growth Properties, introduced Scott Lewis, Don Walker and architect, Mark Giles, and Civil Engineer, Mike Silvey, and indicated that he was available to answer questions. Commissioner Shamp asked what drove the level of density for the development. Mr. Vhatra stated that it was purely economics based on the income stream and the rents that could be achieved and that it was really parking driven. Commissioner Miller asked if there was enough setback between the buildings and the freeway right-a- way to allow for some significant landscaping so that the air conditioning units would not be the first thing that would be seen coming into the project area. Mr. Vhatra indicated that the parapet heights would provide adequate screening for the roof top mechanical units from the streets and the freeway. Mr. Vhatra stated that there will be some landscaping in that area which will be brought back to the Commission. Commissioner Miller commented that he liked the architecture of the buildings and asked if the applicant could provide some relief to the north elevation of Major One since it was a fairly visible elevation. Mr. Vhatra indicated that Commissioner Miller's suggestion would be considered. Commissioner Dyer echoed Commissioner Miller's comments relative to the architecture. She had concerns about the median islands on Eureka Street, the elimination of the cut stone curb on Stuart Street and the possible removal of the Eucalyptus trees, stating that there really was no good reason to pull the trees out. Mr. Vhatra indicated that they will address Commissioner Dyer's concerns on the landscape plans but stated that the likelihood of retaining the trees may be impossible since most of the grades would be raised above the flood planes. Commissioner Dyer asked if the 24 Hour Fitness Center was moving from the Albertson's shopping center. Mr. Vhatra stated that the fitness center would be moving to the new shopping center. Commissioner Dyer had concerns relative to the possibility of fitness customers parking their cars on Stuart Street. Mr. Vhatra addressed Commissioner's Dyer's concern relative to the parking. Commissioner James commented that the project looked nice but that the east elevation on Eureka Street appeared flat. He asked if there was the possibility of adding a tower element and incorporating a clock that would be reminiscent of the train station and other clocks located in the downtown area. Mr. Vhatra indicated that they have stretched their budget relative to this project and was not sure they could afford to incorporate a clock tower. Mr. Vhatra commented that staff required that 50% of the stores needed to have their front door on Eureka Street and understood that goal but indicated that there were reasons that would be a hardship for them to make that commitment. He stated that they are prepared to commit to encourage their tenants in recommending that the front doors face Eureka Street and also put it into the tenant design criteria. Mr. Vhatra requested the flexibility to encourage the use but not make it a requirement. Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 11 Chairman Macdonald commented that his interpretation was that the intent was to encourage pedestrian traffic along Eureka Street and asked staff if he was correct. Mr. Dalquest indicated that Chairman Macdonald was correct in his interpretation that the Downtown Specific Plan encourages active building fronts. Mr. Vhatra indicated that his architect pointed out that due to the flood plane issues, the four elevations in question are all raised and that the walkway would be a couple of feet above Eureka Street, making it a challenge to make that a comfortable communication with the curb heights on Eureka Mark Giles, KKE Architects, gave an overview of the shop elevations and the locations relative to ADA access. Chairman Macdonald asked if the fronts of the four shops on Eureka Street would not be at the same level where people can walk from the shop on the north to the shop on the south without going out the back of the building. Mr. Giles addressed Chairman Macdonald's question. Director Shaw stated that this situation is similar to the patios that are located on Orange Street where you can go from sidewalk up to the higher level patio. He indicated that ADA access could be accomplished by going around the building and back into the parking area. Chairman Macdonald stated that he was looking for the ambiance that has been created on Orange Street with the ability to sit out front and walk from store to store. Chairman Macdonald asked if the 50% figure was with the intent of restaurants using half the buildings on Eureka Street. Mr. Dalquest indicated that staff wanted to have active storefronts develop and found 50%would be acceptable figure. Commissioner Miller stated that the tenant should have the ability to provide access from Eureka Street and make it adaptable for future use. Mr. Vhatra commented that they could make Commissioner Miller's suggestion part of the tenant agreement criteria. Commissioner Miller stated that there is the standard City sidewalk down at the edge of the curb in addition to a paved area that was being proposed adjacent to the storefront and asked Mr. Vhatra if that was redundant. Mr. Vhatra indicated that there will have to be some level of sidewalk at that location. Director Shaw commented that staff would need to work with Public Works on how the public sidewalk could be modified. Director Shaw indicated that it was also staff's intent to provide a planter area that would help to provide some greenery or shrub row to conceal the pavement adjacent to the retaining wall. Chairman Macdonald asked if staff's intent was to have 50% of the storefronts facing Eureka and Stuart Streets be constructed so that public access could be made from that side or that 50% would actually be used. Director Shaw stated that the intent was for people to access the storefronts facing Eureka and Stuart Street. Director Shaw stated that an alternative would be to indicate that 50% of the tenant spaces shall accommodate public entrances for customers so that the design of the building is there. Mr. Vhatra commented that they build to suit the major uses and that those buildings that need to be flexible are structurally designed so that the storefronts are inserts. He indicated that there is a structural element across the opening that bridges the opening and that the tenant actually custom designs certain sections of that opening. Mr. Vhatra stated that they would be dictating a little more than normal on this particular project but will have the ability to basically change out the storefronts over the life of the building. Commissioner James supported Commissioner Miller's concept that the design should be made flexible. Mr. Vhatra indicated that he was in agreement with that concept. Commissioner Shamp asked what the current setback was on Eureka Street. Mr. Dalquest stated that the patio is being used as part of the building and that there may be a few feet or actually no setback on Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 12 Eureka Street. Commissioner Shamp stated that there is one dimension on the plans that shows that there is a ten foot setback. Mr. Giles addressed Commissioner Shamp's question relative to the setback. Commissioner Shamp indicated that he was in support of Commissioner Miller's idea in minimizing the public sidewalk and moving the public sidewalk up to patio level. He stated that it would be a more desirable approach for people to walk by the shops at shop level and wanted to ensure that the building setback would accommodate a healthy sized patio with enough room for cafe seating and for people to walk by and felt that ten feet may not provide enough room. Mr. Dalquest indicated that the Specific Plan states that the setback cannot be any further than ten feet. Commissioner Shamp asked if was possible to build the storefront set in ten feet and have the seating within the actual footprint of the building. Mr. Vhatra indicated that it would be a tenant driven decision. Mr. Giles addressed Commissioner Dyer's comments relative to the loading dock, stating that it was a 110 foot turning circle which is more than sufficient and is standard for a 65 foot long truck. Commissioner Dyer asked what type of material would be used on the two monument signs and buildings. Mr. Giles stated that a brick veneer would be used on the monument signs and buildings. Commissioner's Foster and Dyer asked about the existing cut stone curbing on Stuart Street. Mr. Giles addressed the cut stone curbs and stated that most of it along Stuart Street is part of an old box culvert that would be removed. Commissioner Foster stated that prior projects have been conditioned to give the City the cut stone so that it could be used in other areas. Director Shaw stated that the City has a depository by the Airport where the cut stone is stored for other uses. Mr. Vhatra indicated that it would not be a problem. Commissioner Miller stated that this project is the gateway to downtown Redlands and that the first thing people will see is the buildings at the north elevation and reiterated the need for a some type of element such as a clock tower. Mr. Vhatra stated that he could look into an element for relief or an identity piece but that a clock tower would be an expensive proposition. Commissioner Foster concurred with Commissioner Miller's idea of a dome on top of that corner but was not enamored of using a clock tower element but agrees that there needs to be something more prominent on the corner elevation. Mr. Giles stated that a dome would be inconsistent with the architecture. Commissioner Foster stated that they needed to bring something back to the Commission. Mr. Dalquest indicated that a condition could be added relative to adding an element at the corner. Mr. Vhatra asked if they were height restricted. Mr. Dalquest stated that he believed the height restriction was fifty-five (55)feet. Director Shaw indicated that it appeared that the Commission would like to see an element added at the entry point of Eureka and the off ramp. Mr. Vhatra stated that they could look at something more prominent on either building two or three and asked the Commission if they would be open to economizing in another area on the site to balance out the cost of putting an element at the front corner. Chairman Macdonald indicated that he would not be open to Mr. Vhatra's suggestion and did not want it to be a show piece at the expense of something else being sacrificed. Commissioner Miller stated that they needed a little more height with some unique treatment at the roof line that would be consistent with the architecture. Mr. Vhatra stated that they could look into Commissioner Miller's suggestion. Chairman Macdonald requested that Commissioner Miller present his comments again relative to the frontage on Eureka Street. Commissioner Miller indicated that the tenant spaces should have the flexibility or the adaptability to enter from Eureka Street. Commissioner Shamp indicated that it should apply to all of the shops facing Eureka and the few shops facing Stuart Street. Chairman Macdonald Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 13 understood Commissioner Miller's recommendation stating that the Commission would vote on this issue later. Chairman Macdonald concurred with staff's recommendation that 50% of the tenant spaces should have access facing Eureka Street. Marion Conley, owner of 509 Eureka Street, indicated that she submitted a letter to the Commission requesting that it be placed in the minutes. She stated that it would hurt one of her tenants if the alley was vacated behind her building. Ms. Conley asked that the Commission delay the Street Vacation to such a time when their buildings were purchased or acquired by eminent domain. Mr. Dalquest clarified that the motion on the Street Vacation is in conformance with the General Plan and is not a recommendation or an approval. He indicated that the City Council would be making a determination on that and if the alley was dedicated, half would go on one side and half would go on the other side, so that the frontage along the back of the property would go toward that property owner and other side to General Growth. Rollie Moore, Family Services Association of Redlands, had concerns about the appearance of the wall going along the west side of the project site. He indicated that the ten foot high wall on their property would be imposing and asked what type of material would be used for the wall. He commented that they are happy with the improvements that will be made on Stuart Street. He also commented on the sidewalks, indicating that there would be pedestrian traffic along Eureka and Stuart Street and did not see that changing. Chairman Macdonald asked staff if the ten foot wall was to mitigate noise. Mr. Dalquest stated that the wall was to mitigate the noise from the loading docks and the parking lots located along the west property line. Director Shaw asked if there was a condition relative to the design of the wall. Mr. Dalquest stated that condition of approval number forty (40) requires that the wall come back to the Commission for final approval of design. Bill Cunningham, Redlands resident, commented that the frontage on Eureka should be as open and friendly as possible. Mr. Cunningham had a question relative to the project being phased. Director Shaw addressed Mr. Cunningham's question. Mr. Cunningham commented that it was important that all of our street networks, especially downtown, not be impacted any further than necessary and that it would behoove us to retain Stuart Street as a collector street. Chairman Macdonald asked if anyone else wished to address the Commission. No comments were forthcoming and Chairman Macdonald kept the public hearing open for further discussion. Chairman Macdonald suggested that the Commission follow staff's outline relative to discussion on each entitlement. Chairman Macdonald indicated that he supported with the Environmental Impact Report, the Socio- Economic Cost/Benefit Study and General Plan Amendment 115. Chairman Macdonald referred to General Plan Amendment No. 116 and asked for a consensus. Commissioner Shamp commented that he is in favor of downgrading the status of Stuart Street, indicating that if we are going to be developing the Downtown Specific Plan as a pedestrian oriented environment, encouraging a heavier and faster flow of traffic would not be desirable. He added that anything that we can do to divert commuter traffic to Redlands Boulevard and upgrade Redlands Boulevard is the right approach. The Commission concurred on General Plan Amendment No. 116. Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 14 Chairman Macdonald referred to Downtown Specific Plan No. 45, Amendment numbers 11, 12 and 13 and asked if there was any discussion to the Specific Plan. Commissioner Miller stated that there is a service area behind the Major building and asked if those buildings do not qualify for this increase in sign square footage. Mr. Dalquest indicated that Commissioner Miller was correct; stating that the Uniform Sign Program specifically calls out that buildings 2, 3, 4, and 5 can have signage on two fronts but not the building in the back. Director Shaw stated that staff would review the language in the Specific Plan to ensure that it is clearly understood as to what type of signage would be allowed by each tenant. Commissioner Shamp referred to the signage site plan stating that the provision would allow signage on front and back and asked if that was correct since the market shows a sign facing the freeway and building four and the buildings closest to Eureka and the off-ramp appear to have signs on three sides. Mr. Giles indicated that they were showing potential signs locations and that the sign program would still rule relative to what would be allowed. Chairman Macdonald referred to Street Vacation No. 141 indicating that there was discussion relative to the alley and asked if there were further comments from the Commission. Commissioner Miller commented that he wants to be sensitive to the property owner affected by the Street Vacation and asked that it be put on the record to work with General Growth in accommodating the property owner to use the alley until the property is acquired. Commissioner Shamp stated that he would like a stronger recommendation that every measure be taken to maintain that access to the existing shop owners since it would be a hardship by closing off that alley. Chairman Macdonald stated that the proposed Street Vacation is in conformance with the General Plan and asked if a statement could be formulated to go to the City Council so that they understand the Planning Commission's position. Director Shaw stated that there is the motion relative to the General Plan consistency and that a minute motion could be made indicating that the Street Vacation should only occur at such time that the properties are under the control of General Growth. Chairman Macdonald indicated that there was a consensus of the Commission relative to making a minute motion relative to the Street Vacation. Chairman Macdonald referred to Conditional Use Permit No. 905 asking input relative to the ten foot wall at the rear of the project. Commissioner Cook stated that the wall should not be offensive to the people behind it. Commissioner Shamp stated a lower wall would not be feasible due to the noise issues. Commissioner James stated that he was comfortable with the language in conditions of approval number forty(40) that pertains to the construction of the wall. Commissioner Miller commented on the split faced block material, stating that it is split on one side only and suggested a condition requiring dual, split faced block be installed so that it would be decorative on both sides of the wall. Mr. Vhatra asked if the Commission was concerned about the appearance of the wall facing the loading dock. Chairman Macdonald indicated that the Commission was not concerned about the appearance facing the loading dock and to condition it accordingly. Commissioner Foster had concerns that the smooth side of the wall would make an attractive pallet for graffiti. Chairman Macdonald asked if there were comments relative to parking and circulation. Commissioner Shamp stated that he was disappointed that the project was not different from any other one story strip retail development and was expecting something more for the downtown area. He commented on active pedestrian store fronts and that he was in favor of the site layout as proposed. Chairman Macdonald asked if there was any discussion relative to the suggestions made by staff on Major One and Shop Buildings two and four. Mr. Dalquest indicated that there was discussion relative to varying the roof line along the cornice of the north elevation and the Commission may want to incorporate it as a condition of approval. Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 15 Commissioner Shamp stated that he would like to see the condition expanded to accommodate potential future conversion to a pedestrian store front along the south elevation of the Fitness Center and the north elevation of Major One. He stated that there are opportunities on the site plan to fill in all the parking with a parking garage, and that the stretch of Stuart Street could become additional pedestrian oriented shopping. Mr. Vhatra indicated that the buildings that Commissioner Shamp was referring to were long term, twenty to forty years, these are long term leased buildings and he would not like to modify the structures of a building that he has no anticipation in touching for the next twenty to forty years and that it would be an undo expense. Mr. Vhatra stated that turning Stuart Street into a pedestrian way would require parking garages that is extremely far reaching into something that is not in the foreseeable future. Commissioner Shamp stated that it was a proposal that the Commission could consider as a condition of approval. Chairman Macdonald indicated that the Commission could discuss it among themselves and decide it they wanted to support Commissioner Shamp's proposal. Commissioner James commented that the applicant is taking a financial risk to make this project successful and that making the project flexible is a great idea. He indicated that he supports the flexibility of the design of the project so that they can have entrances on both sides should the tenant choose to use them. He stated that we should respect the applicant's expertise relative to the buildings and to the tenants who would be using the buildings. Commissioner Shamp indicated that he was seeking that expertise and understood that these buildings are with tenants that have twenty to forty year leases. Commissioner Miller referenced the staff recommendations relative to the elevations, and stated that he felt that most of the suggestions were appropriate and would like them reworded as conditions. Commissioner Foster concurred and Chairman Macdonald indicated that it was the consensus of the Commission that the suggestions on pages nineteen and twenty of the staff report be rewritten as conditions of approval. Chairman Macdonald indicated that landscaping would come back to the Commission and asked for additional input. Commissioner Miller indicated that he would like to see significant screening along the freeway off ramp and that it would be helpful to have cross sections through the freeway and parapets. Commissioner Miller indicated that the back of the Shop Two elevation would be visible off the freeway exit and asked if the applicant could work at screening the building with landscaping in addition to enhancing the parapet height. Mr. Vhatra indicated that the landscape plan did not address the freeway ramp adequately but stated that one of the things the retailers are buying is a sign that can be seen from that exit ramp. He indicated that he will ask the landscape architect to cluster landscape elements so that there is a break up of the long embankment since they do not want to screen the signage and activity. Commissioner Foster stated that he understood the desire of not hiding the stores but that the landscaping strip coming off the freeway needs to be more attractive and requested to see something more high-end. Commissioner Macdonald referenced Minor Subdivision No. 312 and Commission Sign Review No. 319 and asked for comments from the Commission. Chairman Macdonald indicated that the Commission had no comments relative to both Minor Subdivision No. 312 and Commission Sign Review No. 319. Commissioner Dyer indicated that we missed addressing the salvage of the cut stone curb materials and asked if that was added as a condition. Chairman Macdonald stated that it could be conditioned. Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 16 Mr. Vhatra indicated that he wanted to be clear on what the Commission was voting on and how the actions in the store fronts were being addressed. Mr. Dalquest referred to condition number forty-five (45) and indicated that the tenant space in Shop Buildings 3, 4, 5, and 6 shall accommodate public entrances for customers that directly face the public street. The Commission concurred with the amendment to condition number forty-five. Chairman Macdonald closed the public hearing. MOTION A. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend certification of the Final EIR for the Redlands Promenade Project to the Redevelopment Agency, 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. B. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on the Socio-Economic Cost Benefit Study for Conditional Use Permit No. 905 and Minor Subdivision No. 312. 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. C. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 1133, recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 115. D. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 1134, recommending that the City Council approve General Plan Amendment No. 116. E. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 1135, recommending that the City Council approve Amendment No. 11 to Specific Plan No. 45. F. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 1136, recommending that the City Council approve Amendment No. 12 to Specific Plan No. 45. G. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission approve Planning Commission Resolution No. 1137, recommending that the City Council approve Amendment No. 13 to Specific Plan No. 45. H. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission find that Street Vacation No. 141 is in conformity with the Redlands General Plan. I. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on Conditional Use Permit No.905, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval; Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 17 1. That the proposed development will not adversely affect the applicable land use plans of the City; 2. That the proposed development will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare; 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; and 4. That the proposed development is appropriate at the proposed location. This includes adding condition of approval numbers fifty-two, (52), fifty-three (53), fifty-four, (54), and fifty- five, (55) as follows: 52. Cut stone curbing along Stuart Avenue shall be saved after removal. 53. The applicant shall make modifications to the elevations in accordance with the staff recommendations as outlined in the staff report on pages nineteen (19) and twenty (20) and written as conditions of approval. 54. The roof line of Major One shall be provided with relief along the north elevation varying in heights. 55. The tower elements of Shops Two and/or Three shall be more prominent and distinctive. Mr. Dalquest gave a summary of staff's recommendations. Director Shaw stated that there are also modifications to Planning conditions of approval numbers five (5), fifteen (15), forty-three (43)and forty-five (45) as follows: 5. All utilities shall be placed underground except power poles for lines over 66 KV. Plans shall be submitted that detail the undergrounding of all on-site utilities, subject to review and approval by the Community Development Director, prior to issuance of building permits. 15. All lighting within the parking lot areas shall be a shoe box-type design that directs the light beam downward and not outward. In addition, any lighting attached to the building shall be shielded to prevent light and glare from projecting horizontally or outward. Parking lot light fixtures shall not exceed 15 feet On the overall height as permitted by the Specific Plan. 43 The project applicant or the Redevelopment Agency as provided by the Disposition and Development Agreement, shall pay all applicable traffic and signal impact fees. 45. ° The tenant spaces in Shop Buildings 3,4,5 and 6 shall have accommodate entrances for customers that directly face the public street(Eureka Street and Stuart Street). The additions of conditions of approval numbers fifty-two, (52), fifty-three, (53), fifty-four, (54) and fifty- five, (55), and changes to conditions of approval number five, (5), fifteen, (15), forty-three, 43), and forty- five, (45), was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster and carried on a 7-0 vote. J. It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on Minor Subdivision No. 312, subject to the following findings and subject to the attached Conditions of Approval: Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 18 1. That the proposed map is consistent with the policies, land use designation, and density prescribed by the General Plan; 2. That the site is physically suitable for the type of development; 3. That the site is physically suitable for the density of development; 4. That the designs 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; 5. That the design of the subdivision or type of improvements will not cause any serious public health problems; 6. That 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; and, 7. That pursuant to California Government Code Section 66474.6, the discharge of waste from this subdivision apparently will not result in violation of existing requirements prescribed by the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board pursuant to Division 7 of the California Water Code." It was moved by Commissioner Miller, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote that the Planning Commission recommend approval to the City Council on Commission Sign Review No. 319. There was discussion from the audience regarding Agenda item B. 8, Street Vacation No. 141. V. ADDENDA- NONE VI. MINUTES A. APRIL 24, 2007 It was moved by Commissioner James, seconded by Commissioner Foster, and carried on a 7-0 vote to approve the minutes of April 24, 2007. VII. LAND USE AND CITY COUNCIL ACTIONS OF MAY 1, 2007 Mr. Shaw gave a brief presentation on the City Council Actions of May 1, 2007. VIII. ADJOURN TO MAY 22, 2007 Chairman Macdonald adjourned the meeting at 5:45 p.m. to May 22, 2007. Christine Szilva Jeffrey L. Shaw, Director Senior Administrative Assistant Community Development Department Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 19 Planning Commission Minutes of May 8, 2007 Page 20