Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAug 3, 2006 PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES 0 ` Meeting — August 3, 2006 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL: Present: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac Absent: Commissioner Tragish Advisory Members: Robert Sherry, James D. Movius, Steven Walker, Phil Burns Staff: Jennie Eng, Dana Cornelius 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Sherry Van Wagner would like to speak on Agenda Item 8.1. Would you like to speak now, or wait until it's heard? She indicated she would wait until it's heard on the regular agenda. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of July 6, 2006. Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the non-public hearing items on the consent calendar. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Amendment to the Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield 4.2b Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11513 (Cornerstone Engineering, Inc) 4.2c Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6522 (Pinnacle Civil Engineering, Inc.) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6577 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6802 (Porter Robertson Engineering and Surveying, Inc.) 4.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6824 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2g Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6839 (phased) (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) 4.2h Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6840 (phased) (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) 4.2i Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6841 (phased) (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) 4.2j Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6842 (phased) (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) Planning Commission —August 3, 2006 Page 2 4.2k Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6843 (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) 4.21 Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6849 (McIntosh &Associates) 4.2m Approval of Zone Change No. 06-0620 (McIntosh &Associates) The public hearing is opened. No one from the audience, or from the Commission, requested removal of any item from the consent calendar. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley,to approve the public hearing items on the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by group vote. 5. PUBLIC HEARING—Amendment to the Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield Amendment to the Specific Parks and Trails Plan for Northeast Bakersfield to add and identify multi- purpose trail alignments and park sites within the area commonly known as Rio Bravo#3 annexation located approximately one mile south of Highway 178, east of the Miramonte Drive alignment (extended). (Ward 3) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6. PUBLIC HEARING—Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11513 (Cornerstone Engineering, Inc) Heard on Consent Calendar. 7. Vesting Tentative Tract 6874 (SmithTech/USA Inc.) (Continued from July 20, 2006). (Note: The public hearing for this project was closed on July 20, 2006). Staff report given. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Daniel Rudnick about the estimation of the oil reserves below the tract map in question. Mr. Rudnick stated that Mr. Crawford is not a petroleum geologist, and the applicant proceeded on to waive the signatures of the mineral rights holders purely on an access issue which notice was given relative to that. Mr. Rudnick further stated that there was an impasse with regard to a negotiated surface waiver or layout for a drilling island design. He stated that the applicant promised him a drill island design for the tract to the west of the subject tract, as indicated by Mr. Smith. However, two days ago in the afternoon was his first notice that the applicant was not going to give a drill island design, and not going to set up another drill island for this 3-tract area. He stated the applicant was to bring in a petroleum geologist to argue that the probability of recovering minerals under this one specific tract is non-existent and/or not probable. Mr. Rudnick stated that they cannot o that legally or procedurally as the applicant needs to have 30 days notice to do this. Mr. Rudnick stated that their petroleum geologist's report should be considered irrelevant and inadmissible as they have not been given proper notice and he objects to that. Staff indicated that the Staff can consider Mr. Rudnicks written documents. Commissioner Johnson stated they wanted to know what the possibilities were of petroleum reserves below this tract, and Mr. Crawford's letter indicates that it's beyond his capabilities. Mr. Rudnick stated that it is best addressed by a petroleum geologist, but it's not beyond his capabilities, and the issue was access. He stated that the issue that the applicant was proceeding on was an access issue, and the applicant never gave notice that they were going to argue that the probability of producing minerals under this property was non-existent. Commissioner Johnson inquired of Mr. Claude Fiddler if in his professional opinion there is the ability to drill the petroleum reserves below the tract in question. Mr. Fiddler stated that it is highly improbable that there are petroleum reserves, and that his opinion is based on the review of 10 exploratory wells that have been drilled in the area above section 28, and to the east and west of 28. He pointed out that one Planning Commission —August 3, 2006 Page 3 well has gone beyond 14,000 ft and there is extensive core data, and that his conclusion is based on that data indicating it is highly improbable that there is commercial oil accumulation under this tract, which includes extensive testing of some wells that were in the zones that could be productive that they produced salt water. Commissioner Johnson pointed out that the ordinance is developed so that the rights of the mineral rights owners are not stepped on. He stated that the applicant is providing a six acre drill island, as opposed to the required 2 acre drill island, and therefore this application as it stands now more than meets the requirements for those stipulations. He further stated that with the additional stipulation that the highly improbable potential for petroleum reserves below the tract map in question raises the question if there's even a need for a drill island in the first place. Commissioner McGinnis referred to Mr. Rudnick's documentation, and inquired of Mr. Sherfy if there is any legal problem that would preclude them from proceeding on this agenda item. Mr. Sherfy responded that there is no legal issue with regard to the notice in that the notice was properly done, and that the issue with regard to the probability beneath the subdivision for mineral rights was evident in response to questions that came up last night; however what was advertised was an off-site drill site from the tract. Commissioner McGinnis commented that the dispute appears to be between two engineers, and since the applicant has met the City standard he is prepared to proceed with this item. Commissioner Tkac inquired who is granting and getting the cuff-site access. Staff responded that the subdivider for this tract is reserving an off-site drill site in order to access the minerals for Mr. Rudnick/mineral right owners. Commissioner Tkac inquired what the minimum access amount is that has to be provided to Mr. Rudnick, to which Staff responded two acres, and the off-site access being provided is six acres. Commissioner Tkac inquired if this six-acre off-site island would allow access to all of the other areas for drilling, including the current tract. Staff responded that the minerals under the current tract, according to Mr. Fiddler, can be accessed from the cuff-site drill site. Staff commented that Mr. Rudnick's request is to have different sizes spread around throughout the area; however, the only thing under consideration tonight is this one tract. Commissioner Lomas reviewed the history of this item. Commissioner Blockley stated that he is in favor of the requirements that have been met. Commissioner Blockley moved,seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to approve Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6874 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit"A". Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: Commissioners:; None 8. PUBLIC HEARINGS—TENTATIVE TRACT MAPS 8.1 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract 6202 (San Joaquin Engineering) The public hearing is opened. Staff report given. Will Winn listed their concerns as follows: 1) Krazan's report the field of geotechnical engineering is very new and the technology used is ever changing, however at least one of the textual references sited and used in the report is 38 years old. In addition, a City Staff report on revised vesting tentative tract 6202, dated 1-24-06 quotes Mr. Burns stating that, "existing soils problems were the result of soils engineering company falsifying documents." Mr. Winn stated that many perimeter homeowners were given these reports years ago, and does not engender much confidence in what will happen to them now. Mr. Winn stated that they do not question the methods or the truthfulness of Krazan's report, but they know that soil engineering is far less than precise. 2) The samplings taken neglected to adequately deal with the most prominent fills and slopes that are behind the homes on Meadow Oaks Court in tract 4197. He stated that only one sample location was established here and at the bottom of the fill, and it is important to note that the currently submitted map of vesting tentative Planning Commission —August 3, 2006 Page 4 tract map 6202 still does not show the well defined and recorded slope easements behind the homes collectively that is in said tract. The slope easement, or retaining wall, was required before any building permits were to be issued, and is stated on the recorded map of tract 4197, and on it's adoption signature page 2. He stated that somehow the proposed reconstruction of this slope easement as approved by City Staff is suppose to rescind this recorded slope easement. He stated the Meadow Oaks homeowners involved would like the developer to stay away from the defined boundaries of this easement, as it was required to protect these homes from existing problems then, as well as subsequent development earthwork that would undermine that slope now, as well as potential future homeowners in this area. 3) He pointed out that the report gives several disclaimers with respect to the historical geotechnical problems in this area. Krazan's report does recognize the existing instability in several places, but disclaims any and all responsibility for possible geotechnical issues that may be created by the reconstruction of unstable slopes. 4) The overall screenings of the tract samples show that there is about 40% fine silt, and silty sand that pass through a#200 screen. He stated that from his experience as a soils engineering technician for Kern County Roads, and the US Naval CB's, he knows that this material is totally unstable as a compacted foundational base, unless possibly completely contained, and even then the moisture content is critical. He stated that this silty material does not have the angular characteristics that cause it to lock together when compacted. He stated that it appears that most of the site's slope material will need to be excavated and/or removed and placed in an area where it could be mixed with other suitable material to produce an engineered fill. He pointed out that the removal from these slopes for mixing poses a threat to the stability of the existing homes on top of these slopes during this procedure. Mr. Winn stated that if this tract map is approved, they would like to see all of the provisions and recommendations of Krazan's report as included in the conditions required for development and construction of this tract which would include: 1) Pregraded inspection by a structural engineer on all perimeter properties and homes, as sited in the report on page 5, paragraph 6. 2) A licensed geotechnical engineer to be on site and present during all constructive and reconstructive earthwork, fills and/or excavations using imported or on-site engineered material, report, page 6, paragraph 3, page 7 paragraphs 4 and 6, page 8 paragraph 1, page 9 paragraph 1, and page 11 paragraphs 1 and 4. That the City of Bakersfield provide much oversight to all earthwork and an inspection to verify that truthful reporting and adherence to ordinances and codes and acceptable practices of soils engineering and construction are observed, which would also include ample testing during development. 3) timely seeding and/or slope protection on reconstructed slopes are needed to ensure that erosion does not threaten adjacent properties and homes. Timely means within a week after existing slopes have been reconstructed; Krazan's report page 11 paragraphs 2-5. 4) Special attention needs to be given to construction traffic and vibratory equipment away from back cut slopes, page 10 paragraph 3. Mr. Winn stated that from his experience, he would suggest that the catch point of new cuts and reconstructed fills; where the slopes begin at the top of the cut or fill, and where it intersects the existing original ground, should be located at 5 ft. from the perimeter property line, instead of just two feet as now specified. He stated this would be significantly helpful to protect existing contiguous properties. Mr. Winn further commented that the City's public notification process desperately needs improvement, in that if they were given more adequate notice, and the developer required to work with them sooner to address critical issues, this development could have been expedited greatly, and it would have streamlined the entire planning time line for the commission's benefit as well. Carrie Van Wagner, representing as Vice President of Royal Coachman Estate Homeowners' Association, stated they completely support all of the studies that Mr. Rowland has done. She stated that her father is a retired city and county building inspector stated that he is very concerned about this development going in. She stated that her development has had extensive problems with settling and cracking, including terrible roads. Ms. Van Wagner stated that according to Attorney Michael Whittington, the sale of the property to Signal Hill Petroleum from Rio Bravo Land Company does not convey the right of control over the private Royal Coachman Estates draining easement and pipe line that is being proposed to be Planning Commission —August 3, 2006 Page 5 used by the new tract development. Therefore, a new agreement will need to be negotiated with Signal Hill Petroleum and they have made attempts to meet with them since the January 30th board meeting, but their calls were not returned. She stated that based on advice from Mr. Whittington, their homeowner's association has voted to make a decision of maintaining control over their private drainage system and the 30" pipe line until such time as they enter into a new and separate development and use agreement with Signal Hills Petroleum for the use of said easement and pipe line. She pointed out there are very radical differences between the Rio Bravo land design at that vesting tentative tract which they were very excited about, and the tentative tract as now proposed by Signal Hill Petroleum, and therefore as homeowners they need to meet with them in order to protect the health, safety and welfare of their families and their community, and the privately maintained infrastructure within which they live. Tom Sholin representing the applicant, Paladino West, LLC, stated they have had several meetings with the homeowners, and it is evident that they are rightfully concerned. He gave a presentation of the area. He further pointed out that in meeting with the homeowners, they have made some adjustments. He stated the main issues are: grading, water retention area, lift station, slope easement, views and fences from adjoining property, lot sizes, trail systems, schools, traffic, and circulation. He stated this tract is 310 lots on 80 acres,.which is 3.9 lots per acre, with a minimum size lot of 6,090 and they go up to 21,000 sq. ft., with an average lot size of 8200 sq ft. Mr. Sholin gave an overview of their grading plan. He states they want to come in surgically and take out the stuff in the yellow and replace it at 2 to 1 all compacted, and then bring up their proposed lots and all of it would be newly compacted fill. Greg Walker with Krazan & Associates stated they performed the original geotechnical engineering investigation for the tract itself for the previous owner. He stated that the slopes that are currently there are improperly compacted and have been weathered for the last 20 years, and they are experiencing distress in several forms; including erosion and some evidence of creep. He stated they have been evaluating the potential for reconstruction of these slopes in a safe manner from a geotechnical standpoint. He stated that their prepared report addressed that issue, wherein they evaluated the existing slopes from several different angles. He stated that they have provided for a back cut and a keyway cut at the bottom of each of the slopes, as well as recompaction regarding of those slopes. Mr. Walker stated that after evaluating all of these issues they've determined that they can safely be reconstructed, and stated that the concerns Mr. Winn referred to, and specifically the four out of his report, are definitely a disclaimer that they would adhere to and require the property owner to adhere to if retained as the geotechnical consultant for the duration of this project. Specifically, he stated that this project has to have oversight from a geotechnical standpoint. Mr. Walker concluded by stating that he personally has lived in this area his entire life, and is more than familiar with the history on this particular project, and has been in this business for 24 years, and assured the Commissioner that strictly from a geotechnical standpoint these slopes can be safely reconstructed if monitored properly, and if the recommendations contained in his report are adhered to. Brett Dawson from San Joaquin Engineering stated with regard to the water retention area, the concern appears to be with the location. He stated they have done a drainage study which quantified the volume of water coming off site to the east and south, as well as flows. He stated that Staff has advised that they can use an existing 30" pipe to width its capacity, and expect that the pipe will take most of the existing off-site flows and the development flows, and to the extent that it can, they would put all waters through that 30" pipe, and to the extent that it cannot which may be determined in later studies, they will hold back a small amount of water. He pointed out their detailed hydrology study has sized a basin which is roughly 40% smaller than a basin that was sized by Cornerstone in the 80's which utilizes a 30" pipe. He stated that they would expect that basin to get even smaller than what is shown in their study. Mr. Dawson said with regard to sewer, the biggest objection is with the lift station. He stated that their project proposes a lift station at the lowest point of the project that will be silted with the Planning Commission —August 3, 2006 Page 6 drainage basin and pumped up to a gravity sewer main in Paladino, as required by the City, and flowed to the east. Mr. Sholin stated they do not believe that the alleged slope easement exists, and if an easement was in place the homeowners would be obligated to remove and prepare the unsafe and degrading condition on his property. He submitted that the approval condition on mediating those slopes is the best solution for the argument of an alleged slope easement. Mr. Sholin stated with respect to views and fences there are 37 lots that are adjacent to the property at 6202, and of these there's only 12 lots that have non-solid fences, and all the rest of the homes (25) have solid fences (wood, concrete block walls, chain link with slats). He stated that they tried to take all the lots that adjoin existing houses and put them down in elevation lower than the existing houses. He stated that they would replace any fencing that could not remain during development. Mr. Sholin further stated that the lot sizes of tract 6202 that adjoin the existing homes range in size from 6600 ft. to 18,000+ feet. He stated they committed to the existing homeowners to increase the size to 7400 sq. ft. on a stretch of lots that were smaller lots in the 6600 sq. ft. range. Mr. Sholin stated that with regard to the trail system along the edge of their tract there is a planned City trail which goes underneath the Southern California Edison easement, and they have provided on Shandon Lane a 20 ft. pathway that will be restricted to pedestrian and bicycle use so there will be access to the trail system. Mr. Sholin stated with respect to school and circulation concerns; the school district has indicated that they plan for three more elementary schools, as well as another middle school. He stated that their impact fees would contribute to approximately $2.6 million, or approximately 25% of an elementary school. He pointed out that with respect to traffic, the main entry for the first two phases would require access from Morning and down Paladino. In later phases, access would be available through tract number 6539 which has access to Panorama. Mr. Sholin stated the following are the commitments he made to the homeowners: 1) They will grade and repair all existing and future slopes to existing geotechnical engineering safety standard. 2) They will notice all of the adjacent homeowners prior to grading and will hire a structural engineer to go into their yards and do a base analysis of all the conditions there just in case there was an impact from their construction, they would know what it was, and of course it will be their responsibility. 3). They are going to give the homeowners contacts for the geotechnical people, the structural engineer, the civil engineer and the grading contract that would be doing the work. 4) They will immediately landscape all of the newly manufactured slopes throughout the whole subdivision. 5) They will replace any fencing that is necessary. 6) He stated that they designed their storm flow pass through and retention basin according to the location of the 30" pipe, and made it smaller. 7) They will lower the lots adjacent to the existing homeowners. 8) They increased the lot sizes along the interface with the neighbors. 9) They have agreed to a certain wall configuration with a fence for one homeowner. 10) They have provided the pedestrian path. Mr. Sholin stated 9.2.1 requires that in their third phase of construction that they have to acquire the right-of-way and construct a secondary emergency access road into their adjoining tract to the east, which is tract 6539. He further pointed out that Public Works condition 9.3.1 requires their fourth and last phase to construct the little red area, which indicates they only have to do that if this tract is not under construction or has not been completed. By definition if this isn't under construction that little road way, which is across somebody else's property, is just a dead end street going nowhere, and they don't understand the reason that would necessitate them building a dead end road. He stated that they would like this condition deleted. Mr. Sholin concluded by stated that the homeowner's concerns were understandable, and feels that they have gone to great length to so some extra special studies to be safe in their and Staff's mind that this can be done safely. The public hearing is closed. Planning Commission —August 3, 2006 Page 7 Break is taken. Commissioner Johnson inquired about a stipulated sewer use agreement would be difficult to rescind when a new property owner takes over. Staff responded that the agreement provides that it is for the benefit of the successors as well. Commissioner Johnson commented that the property in question does pose some difficulties, and is happy to see the applicant agreeable to stabilizing the area, including the existing structures. However, he stated he feels that the applicant has done due diligence and feels that in the end the adjacent neighbors will be better off. He pointed out that if in the end the adjacent homeowners' properties have been diminished, they have the ability to take the developer to task and even perform a civil matter to address it. Commissioner Johnson inquired if the immediate landscaped slopes, and hiring of a structural engineer to do preconstruction grading were included in the conditions of approval. Staff responded that it is their understanding that the applicant would hire a structural engineer to do an assessment of the adjoining properties, and there is not a condition to allow for this. Staff further stated that the erosion control material as far as hydro seeding is a condition that is typically required on all grading plans, and does not need to be added as a condition at this level. Commissioner Johnson requested Staff to draft a condition regarding the applicant hiring a structural engineer to do preconstruction grading analysis of the existing neighboring homes. Mr. Sholin stated they are agreeable to this condition. Commissioner Johnson stated that he would feel more comfortable if there was a condition. Staff replied that a condition should be attached. Mr. Sholin stated that the condition should state that they will notice all of the homeowners, and the homeowners have the right to not let them on their property for the assessment. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the character of the native soil in this particular tract and how it relates to adjoining tracts and developments to the east. Greg Walker with Krazan and Associates, stated that the soils in this tract are similar in their geotechnical nature to the surrounding areas, and pointed out that in the original analysis for tract 6202 and in the subsequent investigation that they've recently performed, the native soils are very, very slightly compressible and in their native state they are moderately strong in terms of providing foundation support. He further stated that the existing slopes in their current state, however, utilizing that same material are compressible because they have not been properly prepared. Commissioner Blockley inquired if problems have surfaced in the course of inspections and approvals for the tracts that have already been built east of this. Staff responded that they have not encountered problems with soils reports or development. Staff agreed that the problems in the previous decade were more the result of slip-tract construction by grading contractors. Commissioner Blockley stated that he is comfortable with what the applicant has proposed to not only improve their tract, but really the conditions for the adjoining property owners. Commissioner Tkac inquired where the location is of the sump and sewer. Staff responded that the lift station would be at the edge of the sump location for the detention basin, and is not adjacent to any of the habitable land of existing land tracts. Commissioner Tkac inquired if it will catch water and/or detention water from the tract to the east. (end of side B, tape 1) Commissioner Tkac stated that he wants to make sure that there is enough run off from that area and it is big enough to handle. Staff responded that it takes the traditional flows and detains the excess flow so that it goes out in the traditional volume so that capacity is not compromised. Commissioner Tkac confirmed that this tract will sit lower than the Royal Coachman property, and Staff confirmed this. Staff stated that the applicant will be required to reconstruct the slopes through the grading process. Commissioner Tkac further inquired if the parks and trail plans has been radically altered. Staff responded that it has not, and that the parks and trail plans in this project doesn't do anything other than provide additional access to the trail. Planning Commission —August 3, 2006 Page 8 Commissioner Tkac inquired about a separate slope easement document. Staff stated that the adjacent subdivision was the one that theoretically was suppose to record a separate document that involved a slope easement where the slopes were pushed onto this project's property. Staff pointed out that they can find no evidence that that was ever recorded, and therefore there is no prohibition for this developer to come in and recompact the slopes. Commissioner Tkac also inquired if the statement "Applicant will not assume undue risk in the excavation of the slope since applicant would have potential liability exposure if the slope excavation is not properly completed." contradicts the statement or requirement that the applicant has to go in and actually alter these other slopes or slopes surrounding the property. Staff responded that it is their understanding the applicant can do what they've said they are going to do, and suggested he ask the applicant. Mr. Sholin responded that they do not to assume undue risk, and that they want to do this safely, and that they open themselves up to liability by putting this whole process at risk. Mr. Sholin inquired about Ms. Van Wagner's statement regarding "Royal Coachman Estate entered into the exclusive development and use agreement with Rio Bravo Land Company..." which was "designed and written by Michael Whittington...." and "... according to Mr. Whittington the sale of the property to Signal Hill Petroleum from Rio Bravo does not convey the right of control over the private Royal Coachman Estate drainage easement and pipeline, and a new agreement will need to be negotiated with Signal Hill Petroleum." Staff responded that paragraph 12 of the Development and Use Agreement says that the benefits and burdens of the agreement inure to the benefit of the successors, heirs and assignees. Commissioner Tkac stated that he is confident that this will be followed up on, and will be done properly. Commissioner Tkac further inquired if they need any reference in a motion regarding the replacement of fencing. Staff responded that the applicant has indicated that if they damage any of the fencing during the repair of the slope they will replace the damaged fencing with like materials. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the slope will be carved out and built back up to grade with regard to the western neighbor. Greg Walker responded that to a degree yes, but not in its entirety, as what is under the residence will obviously remain. Mr. Walker explained that most of the material down to the OG (original grade) will be removed and then some. He stated that they have recommended going a minimum of 2 ft. into native soil before they start back filling and compacting material to reconstruct the slope. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he doesn't see any reason for objection and is in support of this project. Commissioner Lomas stated with regard to the notification process the City is trying to improve on the noticing. Staff stated that Mr. Sherfy's office is working on this with the Planning Department and will probably have something back to the Planning Commission in late September or early October, with the intent to have posting on the property consistent with 4X8 signage every 330 feet and a maximum of two sings per frontage, but not to increase the notice radius. Commissioner Lomas inquired about having a condition that defines the applicant's intention of "closely monitoring the slopes construction." Greg Walker stated that in this type of situation they would provide continuous monitoring, and as long as they have people out on the project working, they will have a representative from their firm present. Mr. Walker stated that in addition, they have several geotechnical engineers on staff, one whom will make regular routine visits to the site, if not daily, to check progress. Commissioner Lomas inquired about 9.3.1 and 9.2.1 referenced. Staff responded that it may be a typo. Staff suggested that on condition 9.3.1 the first part of the sentence, "If tract 5639 has not yet been constructed, be stricken, then The Developer shall construct....." leaving the rest of the condition in place. Planning Commission —August 3, 2006 Page 9 Commissioner Lomas stated that with respect to the easement that while there may have been an intention to record an easement, it was never done, and therefore, unless there is an owner of the easement, you can't deal with something that doesn't exist. Staff read the added conditions as follows: Add to Building Department Condition 20, "Prior to grading plan approval the subdivider shall hire a structural engineer to provide preconstruction assessment of each adjacent property. Adjacent property owner shall be notified by the applicant to the commitment to provide a lot-by-lot assessment for the purposes of gaining access to property to be evaluated. A copy of the notice and results of assessment shall be provided to the Building Department." Add to Building Department Condition 20, "Subdivider shall provide continuous on-site monitoring by a qualified geotechnical engineer during slope reconstruction." Amendment to 9.3.1 of Public Works and the words "If tract 5639 has not yet been constructed, then" shall be stricken, and there would be a capital "T" for the word "The developer shall construct...." Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve and adopt the Negative Declaration and to approve revised vesting tentative tract map 6202 with the findings and conditions set forth in the Resolution attached to the Planning Director's memos dated July 19, 2006 and August 2, 2006, also including the amendments to Condition 20 read by Mr. Burns, and the additional amendment read by Mr. Movius to Condition 20, and the amendment to 9.3.1 Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners: Blockley, Johnson., McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Lomas NOES: Commissioners: None 8.2 Vesting Tentative Tract 6522 (Pinnacle Civil Engineering, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 8.3 Vesting Tentative Tract 6577 (McIntosh &Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 8.4 Vesting Tentative Tract 6802 (Porter Robertson Engineering and Surveying, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 8.5 Vesting Tentative Tract 6824 (McIntosh &Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 8.6 Vesting Tentative Tract 6839 (phased) (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 8.7 Vesting Tentative Tract 6840 (phased) (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 8.8 Vesting Tentative Tract 6841 (phased) (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. Planning Commission —August 3, 2006 Page 10 8.9 Vesting Tentative Tract 6842 (phased) (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 8.10 Vesting Tentative Tract 6843 (San Joaquin Engineering, Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 8.11 Vesting Tentative Tract 6849 (McIntosh &Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 9. PUBLIC HEARING—Zone Change No. 06-0620 (McIntosh &Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 10. COMMUNICATIONS: Staff advised that at the pre-meeting on August 14, 2006 there will be action taken to continue the Hillside Ordinance, and another continued item. 11. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. 12. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business to come before the Commission, the meeting was adjourned at 7:52 p.m. Dana Cornelius, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director August 30,2006