HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-01-07 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION
MINUTES
0 ` Regular Meeting —March 1, 2007 - 5:30 p.m.
Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue
1. ROLL CALL
Present: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tragish, Tkac
Advisory Members: Bob Sherfy, Jim Movius, Marian Shaw, Janice Horcasitas
Staff: Jim Eggert, Robin Gessner, Jennie Eng, Kate Shea
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE:
3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS:
None.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR:
4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items
4.1 a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meetings of January 4, 2007 &
February 1, 2007.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve
Agenda Items 4.1 a, Non-Public Hearing Items.
Motion carried by group vote.
4.2 Public Hearing Items
4.2a Approval of Administrative Review (06-2188) — Master Parks and Trails Plan for
Ashe #4 (McIntosh &Associates)
4.2b Approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6296 (WRA Engineering, Inc.)
4.2c Approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6522 (Pinnacle Civil Engineering,
Inc.)
4.2d Approval of Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6616 (The Lusich Company, Inc.)
4.2e Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6741 (McIntosh &Associates)
4.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract 6742 (McIntosh &Associates)
4.2g Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6744 (McIntosh &Associates
4.2h Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6745 (McIntosh &Associates)
4.2i Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6905 (San Joaquin Engineering)
The public hearing on all these items, except for 4.2d, is open. Commissioner Tkac
joined the Commission at 5:36.
Planning Commission — March 1, 2007 Page 2
No one from the audience had any comments. Commissioner Spencer requested
removal of item 4.2c, agenda item 8.3, from the consent calendar.
The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner McGinnis, to approve the
public hearing items on the consent calendar, with the exception of 4.2c, regular agenda
item 8.3.
Motion carried by group vote.
5. WORKSHOP
Public Works Department will make presentation regarding City improvement projects.
Art Chianello, with the Public Works Department, gave a presentation on sewer treatment plant
expansions.
Commissioner McGinnis inquired about the effect of the ordinances that restrict building within '/ mile of
the treatment facilities. Mr. Chianello responded that a '/ mile buffer is "golden." Commissioner McGinnis
further inquired if the 16 million gallons of processing per day would equate to 16 million gallons of flow
on the tertiary. Mr. Chianello responded that they are not equal because it is quite expensive to build 16
or 18 million gallons per day of tertiary treated water. He stated that they know they have a solid use for
about two million gallons per day, including the sports village as well as on-site use at the plant itself. Mr.
Chianello further stated that out of their total expansion, two million gallons per day of that will be treated
at the next higher level, which is tertiary treated water. He also stated that the expansion is being
designed in a modular fashion so if there's a need to increase that capacity to generate more tertiary
treated water in the future they will be able to do that. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if it would be a
possible asset for the city to generate the reclaimed water to sell to agriculture for irrigation. Mr.
Chianello responded, "most definitely."" He indicated that he hopes there are plans for this in the future,
and that they've explored talking to some of the water purveyors early on. Mr. Chianello stated that the ag
community is interested in it, but are not ready to commit to it right now.
Commissioner Tkac inquired if we produce sludge. Mr. Chianello responded that the City does produce
sludge at both plant two and plant three, and that it is a natural byproduct of the treatment process. He
explained that the current process is that once the sludge is bigested, they have taken out all the
methane gas possible and all the volatile solids have been destroyed in the sewer digesting process, and
a lot of the pathogens have been reduced it then goes out to solar drying beds, once most of the water
has been dried out it goes to the City's farm south of plant two which is leased to a farmer who grows
feed and soder for animals, including alfalfa and wheat. Mr. Chianello indicated that their schedule right
now is about twice a year, and therefore there are not trucks going to the farms every day, but rather they
haul from plant two and plant three about twice a year, and all of the sludge gets spread on specified
fields within the city farm itself,which is about 5500 acres.
Commissioner Tkac inquired if with technology and time if this water will be more usable, and if the
amount of sludge will be reduced because of technology. Mr. Chianello responded that he doesn't
necessarily see that, because even though they can add additional treatment processes to produce a
cleaner product that is more useable for more people, the bulk of that sludge is generated early on in the
process, and it will still be there. Commissioner Tkac stated he likes the plans, and inquired about the
efficiency of the lift stations to be able to get the raw sewage out to the place it needs to go. Mr.
Chianello gave an example of the new lift station under construction at McCutchen and Gosford pointing
out that it is a master plan to handle additional flow, not only from the northwest, but from the southwest,
and is replacing a temporary lift station that is getting close to its limit of pumping. He indicated that other
lift stations are being upgraded to handle the additional flows. Commissioner Tkac inquired about the
reconstituted, Title 22 Water, as it is cleaned and purified as much as possible, where the waste water
goes, and how far it is going down, and why it is not bad for the flow. Mr. Chianello responded that at
plant three there is 8 'h mile pipe line, and once the water is treated it goes to the Greenacres Farm, on
Taft near 1-5, which is a 4700 acre farm that is used similar to the City farm to grow the same kind of
crops. He pointed out that it is not 100% of the flow, but it could do about 14 or 16 million gallons per
Planning Commission — March 1, 2007 Page 3
day. Mr. Chianello stated that what does not go out to this particular farm goes into a storage reservoir
with sandy bottoms, and as a result some water will percolate into the ground. He pointed out that
they've had extensive meetings with the Regional Water Quality Control Board to discuss this issue, and
their concerns were nitrates, which is a form of nitrogen. He stated that they are removing the nitrogen
from the water.
Commissioner Tkac stated that he would like to know how much this costs on a per capita basis,
indicating that he would like to keep it cost effective.
Commissioner Spencer inquired where plant number four will be located., Mr. Chianello stated they do
not have a definitive area for plant number four.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is a time line on plant number four. Mr. Chianello explained that it
depends on the rate of development in that particular area, which is why the one slide showed how they
can serve isolated pockets that might more logically in the future flow to plant four, but in the short run
can also be pumped up and be treated at plant three.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the tertiary/reclaimed water at the sports park and if a cost base
analysis has already been initiated in terms of the benefits with the added costs to lay the lines. He
further inquired about any drinking out of the sprinkers that might occur at the sports park. Mr. Chianello
stated that with Title 22 water in other areas there were signs indicating that the water was not potable.
He pointed out that the water can be used to grow tomatoes and cabbage for human consumption
because it is of high quality for crops for human consumption. He indicated that he would have to check
back and see if a detailed cost benefit analysis was done, however, he suspects that the cost for
irrigation the sports village wouldn't be too great as there is no infrastructure in the sports village, and
pointed out that it is not the same as installing pipe on a main arterial road for median landscaping.
Commissioner Blockley stated that he did listen to the tape from the last meeting and is prepared to vote
on items this evening.
Commissioner Tkac pointed out that the plant would be regenerating its own power.
6. PUBLIC HEARING — Approval of Amendment to the text of the Bakersfield Municipal
Code, relating to architectural design standard for large retail development. (Continued
from February 15, 2007) (Public Hearing open)
Staff report was given. Staff is recommending adoption of the Amended Revised Resolution and
recommend the same to City Council. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Dave
Demohowki,.with Premier Planning Group, stated the ordinance is worthy of support. The public hearing
is closed.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he watched the CD presentation from the last meeting on this agenda
item. He inquired if there is some type of provision where the Planning Department has discretion
whether to strictly adhere to some of these particular requirements or deviate given the cost involved.
Staff responded that parts of the ordinance are flexible and parts are inflexible. Staff responded that
typically there will be PCD overlays where there can be deviation from adopted ordinances. Staff clarified
that there is no "saving grace" if it is not in a PCD.
Commissioner Johnson stated that he thinks this is a good zoning ordinance that will be a good addition
to the community. He further inquired about page 5, number 9, entryway, and if requiring two entryways
on two sides of the building interfere with the retail tenant to adapt their floor plan in a way that makes it
unfriendly to retail. Staff responded that the graphic on page 6 defines "large retail establishment" as
being the entire project, and therefore, it is not per building, but rather having multiple entrances in
multiple buildings.
Commissioner Blockley stated there appears to be a lot of leeway with the materials, and believes Staff
will have flexibility on a non-PCD project to determine whether someone is proposing something high end
that may look like it violates the ordinance.
Planning Commission — March 1, 2007 Page 4
Commissioner Tragish stated he is in support of this project and noted his concerns to have a saving
clause or escape hatch to allow the Planning Department or the Commissioners under certain
circumstances to entertain a certain amount of variance from the ordinance. He further suggested that
the developers appear in front of the Council to express their concerns and/or comments to bring further
clarification.
Commissioner Tkac commented that if there was any way they could get practical application, such as a
video, of what has been done in Bakersfield it would be helpful. He stated that he supports the
ordinance.
Staff responded that typically in ordinances you don't see where Staff has the flexibility because they will
make decisions that the Commissioner's disagree with and then the Staff is in trouble. Staff indicated
that if something comes before the Commission it is because it is a PCD and the Commission will have
the flexibility in making a decision. Staff further commented that in Mr. Eggert's last slide presentation
there were several examples in Bakersfield which pertained to specific areas of this ordinance.
Commissioner Tkac responded that he likes the practical applications.
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt the attached revised
Resolution attached to the March 1, 2007 Memorandum from the Planning Director with all the findings
approving the proposed ordinance amendments and recommend the same the City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish.
NOES:None.
7. PUBLIC HEARING — EIR Adequacy Hearing /Administrative Review
7.1 Ten Section Project GPA/ZC 05-1580 (Ten Section LP) located within the southwestern
portion of Metropolitan Bakersfield, within unincorporated Kern County, California. The
Project site is generally located south of Panama Lane and east of Nord Avenue.
The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one from the public commented on the
adequacy of the EIR. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish commented that the
report seems to indicate that air quality will be an unavoidable significant impact. He inquired
what the alternatives are to bring impacts to zero, or significantly below the threshold for the air
quality requirements. Commissioner Tragish further referred to the Proposed Circulation
Element Amendment, Exhibit 3-7, and inquired if there is a water bank to the west, and if it is
within the sphere of influence of Bakersfield. Staff responded that the area to the east and
south is water bank area (the blue area), and it is not within the City of Bakersfield sphere of
influence. Commissioner Tragish further inquired about the area to the west of the proposed
project. Staff responded that the area to the west is within the City's sphere of influence and is
part of 10 section oilfield facility currently. Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like to
have a better explanation or understanding of why they are abandoning Nord Avenue and
turning it into Canfield Road as a collector, why they both can't exist, why we have to delete one
and put this other one in. He further commented that when you look at Canfield Road there is a
road that goes off to the east and he does not know where that road goes. Is the road going to
go through the water bank area and if so, who is going to build it and who is going to pay for it?
Also, what will happen to the road that bends to the west and terminates at Nord?Will it continue
to the West? Also, are they requiring an abandonment of Nord Road for the convenience of this
particular project or is it being abandoned because it serves no practical purpose.
Commissioner Spencer stated he fails to find any reason to justify putting this out in the middle of
nowhere when it is not contiguous to any development and is adjacent to a producing oilfield. He
further noted that this may be in close proximity to the recent raceway that is under development
at this time. He stated that the way this is being presented he cannot justify this proposal to
present to the commission or the public.
Planning Commission — March 1, 2007 Page 5
Commissioner Lomas explained for the benefit of the public that this is a comment period for
further review of the project.
Commissioner Johnson referenced page 5.5-38 and 5.5-39, on table 5.5-7 there are 10 different
areas that are below level D or worse, and on 5.5-39 it mentions, "As indicated in table 5.5-7 nine
of the studied intersections are currently operating at an unacceptable LOS D or worse." He
commented that they add up to 10 in the table, and that it is probably because South Allen Road
is combined into a bullet under this description, and suggested that there be an asterisk to
outline this to make it clearer for the public's understanding. He further commented that on
section 9.0, page 9-1, segment 9.1-2 traffic and circulation a lot of concerns are addressed as it
relates to traffic, but it all deals with noise level. He suggested that noise level shouldn't be
addressed under traffic and circulation, but rather under noise which would be 9.2.4, and it could
be noted that the noise is related to the traffic. He further commented that perhaps there are
some impacts under traffic and circulation that aren't there that should be there.
Commissioner Johnson stated that when they look at the year 2011 and the submitted maps,
there are two proposed freeways, the Westside Parkway, and the West Beltway. He used
Highway 58 as an example of why the EIR needs to address the issue that these proposed
freeways may not be constructed to full capacity as they are in the traffic model presented. He
stated that we need freeways, and we need to make sure the infrastructure is in place, and with
the possibility of a lot of these projects not being able to come to full fruition because of rising
costs of materials these issues need to be addressed in the EIR.
Commissioner Blockley stated he will make his comments on the EIR in writing.
Commissioner Tragish stated that he would like to see an analysis in this EIR with and without
the freeways that are projected in the different charts.
Commissioner Lomas asked for clarification of the proposed freeways (the beltway and the
parkway) and the funding issues.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to refer the comments
back to Staff for preparation of a final EIR.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish.
NOES:None.
Short break taken
7.2 Administrative Review .(06-2188) — Master Parks and Trails Plan for Ashe #4 (McIntosh &
Associates) Located between State Highway 119 (Taft Highway) and Engle Road, and between
Eberle Road and Stine Road. (Environmental Impact Report on file) (Continued from February 1,
2007)
Heard on consent calendar.
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS —Vesting Tentative Tract Maps/Parcel Maps
8.1 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11548 (DeWalt Corporation) located near the southwest
intersection of Texas Street and Easter Avenue. (Negative Declaration on file) (Continued
from February 15, 2007) (Public Hearing Closed)
Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish stated he reviewed this item. Commissioner Johnson
stated that he thinks this project is consistent with the use in the area and is a good project. He
commented that he thinks the walls address the conflict with the church in terms of making sure
it is a consistent use for the area. He additionally stated his concern for the western access to
Mt. Vernon and it has been addressed.
Planning Commission — March 1, 2007 Page 6
Commissioner Tragish inquired if the DeWalt Corp. has any issue with the added condition that
states, "Prior to the recordation of the final map, the subdivider shall secure and prove secondary
access to the project site to Mt. Vernon Ave. to the west."? Eric Lopez, from DeWalt Corp.
stated that the only comment they have to the condition is regarding the wording, indicating that
there already is paved access to the site, as well as an existing access easement. Mr. Lopez
pointed out that the access goes across the front of the entire boundary out towards Mt. Vernon,
so there already is access there. Mr. Lopez suggested that it be reworded to the effect of, "the
current state of the secondary access will be preserved through final map recordation."
Commissioner Tragish inquired if this would be adequate secondary access. Staff responded
that it may be, and the condition adequately states that it has to be subject to approval of
Director of Fire and Prevention Services because it is a health and safety issue.
Commissioner McGinnis, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve and adopt the
Negative Declaration approving Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11848 with findings and conditions
set forth in the attached resolution, and incorporate the memorandum from Howard Weins,
Director of Prevention Services, dated February 28, 2007.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish.
NOES:None.
8.2 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6296 (WRA Engineering, Inc.) located on the northeast
corner of South Mount Vernon Avenue and Casa Loma Drive (extended). (Proposed Negative
Declaration on file)
Heard on consent calendar.
8.3 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6522 (Pinnacle Civil Engineering, Inc.) located on the
southeast corner of Cottonwood Road and Watts Drive. (Negative Declaration on file)
Staff report given. No one spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Leslie Quintana,
Pinnacle Engineering, stated they accept the conditions as written. The public hearing is closed.
Commissioner Spencer stated he would like to continue the policy of the Commission in
providing for adequate means of access to the site, which would be along Watts Drive along the
commercial area in that the present conditions indicate that Watts Drive shall be improved from
Cottonwood Road to the tract boundary, and it is not really clear that it is shown as part of Phase
1. He stated that Phase 1 should include not only the condition of curb and gutter but for
sidewalk from the terminus easterly boundary of the commercial area to Cottonwood Road. He
stated he would like to amend conditions 5.7.1.1 and 5.7.2.2 to indicate that they will install
sidewalk as a part of that property that lies south of Watts Drive along the northerly boundaries of
the commercial area.
Staff indicated where Phase 1, Phase 2 and Phase 3 boundaries are and that they don't know
why the are starting phasing on the east, but it is their recollection that there is existing roadway
on the north side to get there. Commissioner Spencer pointed out that the roadway is
deteriorated and is partially a piece of junk. He stated that he cannot abide by the condition that
phase 1 the road will be constructed. Staff responded that phase 1 requirement in 5.7.1.1 does
refer to the existing lanes if they are not constructed to city standards it shall be reconstructed.
Commissioner Spencer pointed out that if they do full improvement on Watts Drive they want to
make sure it is complete full improvements, and the wording as such does not lend itself to
achieving that goal. Staff responded that there is existing pavement that has to be brought to
standard, and phase 1 also requires they build this section of roadway, and there will be some
channelization, and with phase 2 they have to construct this with phase 2. Commissioner
Spencer stated the phasing problem he is looking at is totally backwards. He stated he would like
to improve Watts Drive with the first phase of construction for this subdivision, with the full curb,
Planning Commission — March 1, 2007 Page 7
gutter and sidewalk constructed the full length of Watts Drive for the southern half of the street
from the west boundary to the east boundary.
Commissioner Blockley commented that condition 5.7.1.1 it says, "If the existing eastbound
lane..." which he assumes is east off of Cottonwood and right now that existing roadway is on
the north side which in the future will become the westbound lane, unless they are only doing the
south half. He further commented that the building of the roads seems pretty well phased so
that no phase gets knocked up the side of the head with a huge amount of roadwork that's way
out of proportion to the number of lots that can be sold, and therefore makes it more
developable.
Commissioner Johnson inquired about the channelization issue at the end of phase 1, and asked
for clarification from a health, safety and welfare standpoint if it would create an S curve in
consideration of Watts being a collector. Staff responded that they are talking about a
channelization to get the lane lines to line up. Staff responded that it is not really an S but more
of a stretched out S and do take into account the speed of the traffic that's suppose to be on the
collector. Staff responded that this standards, policy and ordinances in the City of Bakersfield
do address the health, safety and welfare issues with this stretched out S.
Commissioner Lomas asked Mr. Walker to weigh in on the flow issues. Mr. Walker responded
that the transition Ms. Shaw is referring to is a standard construction design, and it has to be
designed to the State of California standards, and to the design state of the roadway, which for a
two lane road is 55 mph, and for a four lane major road is 65 mph. He stated that any curvatures
that are used must meet the speed design for both line of sight visibility and for safety on a
curve. He stated that all these design standards are set and promoted by the State of California
which the City of Bakersfield has adopted as its standards and guidelines.
Commissioner Lomas inquired if there is any concern with the transitioning of the phases from a
northern point to a southern. Mr. Walker responded that it is a design problem that is easily
solved.
Commissioner Spencer inquired about Watts Drive, to which Mr. Walker responded that in this
area Watts Drive is a collector, which means that ultimately it will be four lanes wide when fully
developed. Commissioner Spencer inquired where the secondary aspect of Watts Drive end.
Mr. Walker responded' that he does not have that information with him, although it is on the
approved General Plan Circulation Element where it shows it transitions from being arterial in
areas to collector in areas.
Commissioner Spencer stated that his reason for bringing these issues up is to improve the
roadway all along the adjacent line of Watts Drive with curb, gutter and sidewalk, because the
conditions indicated in the report just allow for curb and gutter for the commercial area. He
stated that he wants full improvements from the residential area to Cottonwood.
Commissioner Tragish stated his understanding is that the Planning Commission's previous
concerns have been with getting streets in as soon as possible, and in some instances having
adjacent properties having the improvements put in as well as part of the conditions. He pointed
out that in this particular situation, his concern is that if phase 1 is put in and then construction
stops there is a project that has homes backing up against a canal without a full street out to
Cottonwood and Cottonwood hasn't been improved either. He stated that he would like the full
street length of Watts completed with phase 1.
Commissioner Lomas pointed out that condition 5.7.2.2 says, "Curb and gutter only.." and
Commissioner Spencer would like "sidewalks" inserted. Commissioner Spencer stated they
would also have to change condition 5.7.1.1 to indicate that part of phase 1 is going to be
completed in full in phase 1.
Commissioner Johnson stated that with the recordation of phase 1 they are required to do the
roadway and sidewalk, and if doing this they are laying asphalt why couldn't they lay a little
sidewalk. Leslie Quintana from Pinnacle Engineering stated that the phasing is done and the
Planning Commission — March 1, 2007 Page 8
park is across the street, so the phase was negotiated with the Parks Department so that the end
of Watts would be developed while the park is being constructed. She stated they can put a
temporary asphalt walkway all the way along, but it will probably be a moot point because it will
be built all at one time.
Commissioner Johnson inquired if this solution addresses Commissioner Spencer's concerns, to
which Commissioner Spencer responded in the affirmative. Staff recommended an amendment
indicating: "Watts Drive improvements west of Phase 1 to Cottonwood road shall include an
asphalt sidewalk." Commissioner Johnson stated that he would just add, "If Watts Road is not
improved in its entirety."
Mr. Movius, Planning Director, read the amendment as follows: "With the first phase of
development, Watts Drive improvements west of Phase 1 to Cottonwood Road shall include
asphalt sidewalks."
Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Blockley, to approve Revised
Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6522 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached
Resolution adding the amendment as stated by Planning Director Jim Movius, and with the
addition to condition 5.7.2.2. in between the words "with" and "curb" in the second line inserting
the word "sidewalk," and recommend the same to City Council.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac, Tragish.
NOES:None.
8.4 Revised Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6616 (The Lusich Company, Inc.) located north and south
of McCutchen Road and between Old River Road and Gosford Road. (Environmental Impact
Report on file) (Continued from February 15 2007) (Public Hearing Closed)
Heard on consent calendar.
8.5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6741 (McIntosh & Associates) located at the northwest corner of
Stine Road & Romero Road. (Environmental Impact Report on file) (Continued from February 1,
2007)
Heard on consent calendar.
8.6 Vesting Tentative Tract 6742 (McIntosh & Associates) located between State Route 119 (Taft
Highway) and Romero Road, and between Stine Road and Ashe Road. (Environmental Impact
Report on file) (Continued from February 1, 2007)
Heard on consent calendar.
8.7 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6744 (McIntosh & Associates) located on the northeast corner of
Ashe Road and Romero Road. (Environmental Impact Report on file) (Continued from February
1, 2007)
Heard on consent calendar.
8.8 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6745 (McIntosh & Associates) located on the southwest corner of
Romero Road and future Mountain Ridge Drive. (Environmental Impact Report on file)
(Continued from February 1, 2007)
Heard on consent calendar.
Planning Commission — March 1, 2007 Page 9
8.9 Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6862 (Hendricks Engineering) located at East of
South Cottonwood Road, and north of East Berkshire Road. (Negative Declaration on file)
(Continued from February 15, 2007) (Public Hearing Closed)
Staff report given. Commissioner Tragish advised that he has represented the Oscar Rudnick
Trust, and recused himself.
Commissioner Blockley moved, seconded by Commissioner Spencer, to approve vesting
tentative tract map 6862 with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution Exhibit
A and incorporating the traffic conditions stated in the Planning Director's memo dated March 1,
2007.
Motion carried by the following roll call vote:
AYES: Commissioners Lomas, Blockley, Johnson, McGinnis, Spencer, Tkac
ABSTAIN: Commissioner Tragish
NOES:None.
8.10 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6905 (San Joaquin Engineering) located on the east side of Sunny
Lane, approximately 200 feet south of Columbus Street. (Categorically Exempt)
Heard on consent calendar.
9. COMMUNICATIONS:
None.
10. COMMISSION COMMENTS:
None.
11. ADJOURNMENT:
There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:51 p.m.
Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary
JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary
Planning Director
March 26,2007