Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-08 MINUTES PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Meeting – February 7, 2008 - 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1. ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Andrews, Stanley Absent:, Commissioners McGinnisTragish 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items 4.1a Approval of minutes for Planning Commission meeting of January 3, 2008. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the Consent Calendar, Non-Public Hearing Items. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Extension of Time of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11192 (McIntosh and Associates) 4.2b Approval of Extension of Time of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6362 (Pinnacle Engineering) 4.2c Approval of Planned Development Review – 08-0030 (Formerly 07-1651) (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2d Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6950 (Rick Engineering Company) 4.2e Approval of Administrative Review 07-1881 -- Master Parks and Trails Plan for Rosedale Ranch (Rick Engineering Company) 4.2f Approval of Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11785 (Delmarter & Deifel) 4.2g Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6760 (McIntosh & Associates) 4.2h Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7057 (Stantec Consulting Inc.) 4.2i Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7058 (Stantec Consulting Inc.) 4.2j Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7059 (Stantec Consulting Inc.) 4.2k Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7065 (Stantec Consulting Inc.) 4.2l Approval of Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7070 (Stantec Consulting Inc.) 4.2m Approval of Zone Change 07-2111 (R.L. Abbott & Associates) Minutes of Planning Commission – February 7, 2008 Page 2 4.2n Approval of Zone Change 07-1724 (John Balfanz) The public hearing is opened. A gentleman from the audience requested that 4.2g be removed from the consent calendar. At the request of the developer item 4.2m is continued to March 6, 2008. Commissioner Tkac abstained from agenda item numbers 4.2b, 4.2d, and 4.2e for any appearance of impropriety due to the fact that he has done business with these entities. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to approve the Consent Calendar Public Hearing Items with the exception of 4.2g which was pulled, and 4.2m which was continued to 3/6/08. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, Andrews, Tkac NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish 5. PUBLIC HEARING – EIR Adequacy Hearings 5.1 Panama/Ashe Commercial Project Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) Adequacy Hearing (General Plan Amendment/Zone Change No. 06-1052) (Maurice Etchechury) The public hearing is opened, staff introduced Tom Henry, with Jones and Stokes, the City’s consultant on this project. Mr. Henry gave an overview and summary of the Draft EIR. He stated that this project is approximately 20 acres bounded by Panama Lane to the north and Ashe Lane to the East. He explained that the site is currently used for agriculture, but it is zoned and designated for residential use. He stated that on the north and east sides there is currently development and bounded to the south and west there is still agriculture land. He pointed out that the requested entitlements include a General Plan Amendment, Zone Change, Approval of a Development Plan and a Parcel Map approval. He explained that the property is currently designated for low- density residential (LR) and they are proposing to redesignate to General Commercial (GC). He also stated that the existing zoning is One Family Dwellings (R-1) and they are requesting re- zoning for Regional Commercial/Planned Commercial Development. Mr. Henry explained that out of the 20 acres, 16 acres will be buildings and parking lots, one acre of street improvements and three acres of public right-of-way. He also stated that it is a single- phased development with construction planned to begin in late 2008 with an opening in 2009. Mr. Henry also pointed out that the west edges of the project is slated to be a large major retail space such as a grocery store and then the six other pads are varying sizes for other more modest retail opportunities. He said that the intent is to allow the public and decision makers to see details on the project and from the CEQA standpoint, to identify important environmental impacts that are significant and then identify ways to reduce those impacts if possible. Mr. Henry showed on the slide how mineral resources and urban decay produced a less than significant impact on the project, without any mitigation. He also stated that there were some resource areas that were identified as being less than significant with prescribed mitigation measures. He pointed out that traffic and transportation were found to be significant and unavoidable and specifically there are four intersections along Panama Lane. He stated that they reviewed three alternatives in the EIR, one which was a no project and then no project but Minutes of Planning Commission – February 7, 2008 Page 3 allowing it to build out in its current zoning and land use designation of residential and thirdly they examined an alternative project site which is approximately one mile west of this project. th Mr. Henry stated that they are closing the comment period on the 25 and they will complete the Final EIR. No one from the audience spoke on the adequacy of the EIR. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Johnson referenced page ES-24, Impact PS-4, dealing with the project not resulting in substantial impacts on sewer and wastewater treatment facilities and stated that it is also addressed on page 3K-7 on the top regarding wastewater. He inquired as to the timing and the expansion of plant number 3. Commissioner Tkac moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to refer comments to staff for preparation of a Final EIR. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, Andrews, Tkac NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish 5.2 Canyons Project/GPA/ZC 03-0337/Vesting Tentative Tract 6299 Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR) – Adequacy Hearing (Robert Kapral, Canyons, LLC) The public hearing is opened, staff introduced Mike Hullahan, with RBF Consultants, the City’s consultant on this project. Mr. Hullahan explained the land uses in the vicinity of the project site. He stated that generally in the immediate vicinity the project site does not include urban uses. He pointed out that there are two PG&E, 220 KB power towers located through the project site, as well as the line that identifies the steepness of the slopes, which shows undulating terrain. He pointed out two steep bluff areas, one on the western side and one on the eastern side. He also stated that the elevation change on the eastern side is approximately 200-330 feet and on the western side it is about 400 feet. Mr. Hullahan pointed out that the former asphalt concrete batch plant is located in the central eastern portion of the site, which includes excavation equipment and several ponds. He also said that several water and oil related facilities are located on the project site. He explained that there is a water well located adjacent and south of the project site. He explained that in the north central portion of the project site, there is the Bakersfield Cactus which is a federally and state endangered plant species and adjacent to it is the Bakersfield Cactus Reserve. Mr. Hullahan stated that the EIR was a full scope document, which included all of these issues from land use, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, hazardous materials, hydrology and water quality, noise, public services, recreation, transportation, traffic, utilities and service systems, esthetics, population and housing, mineral resources and energy conservation. He stated that the recreation, population and housing and energy conservation issues were found to be less than significant. The remaining environmental issues can be reduced to less than significant with the recommended mitigation measures that are in the Draft EIR. Mr. Hullahan stated that there are no environmental issues that would remain significant after the implementation of mitigation measures. Mr. Hullahan stated that with respect to the alternatives to the project, the EIR evaluated five alternatives. First, the no project, no development. Second, no project development in accordance with the existing zoning designation includes the project site being developed under Minutes of Planning Commission – February 7, 2008 Page 4 the current zoning designations. He stated that based on developable density assumptions, it is assumed that this site would include approximately 2000 single-family residential units. He also stated that the alternative site that was evaluated was approximately five miles southeast of the project site and is called the Rio Bravo site, which was selected based on several criteria. He stated that the reduced intensity alternative included approximately 20% fewer single family residential lots compared to the proposed project. Finally, the alternative site plan includes a similar configuration of land uses as the proposed project, but includes 25 additional single- family residential units compared to the proposed project and does not include one of the parks proposed under the proposed project. He stated that the secondary access is also modified under the alternative and the project includes access on the west by Solitude Canyon Way, extending to Goodmanbell and to Alfred Harrell Highway, but under this alternative site plan it would be removed and the alternative access would be Clear Canyon Parkway extending to Morning Drive to the east. Mr. Hullahan stated that the environmental superior alternative of those alternative proposed developments is the reduced intensity alternative. Mr. Hullahan stated that the proposed project includes both residential and commercial and it includes 11 private gated communities, with about 1033 private gated residences, and 301 non- gated residences. He stated that overall, the project consists of 1214 single-family residential lots and approximately 120 multi-family dwelling units. He pointed out that the commercial includes approximately 65,000 square feet of general commercial. In addition, the project includes approximately 28 acres simi-public recreation area located near the center of the project site, and north of the proposed commercial area includes a private recreational center. In addition, he stated that the proposed project includes three parks, one located in the northeast portion of the project site approximately 8.5 gross acres, as well as a 6.83 gross acre site located in the east central portion of the site, and a 2 acre site located in the south western portion of the site. Mr. Hullahan also stated that the project includes approximately 9.66 miles of class 1 public bike path, as well as approximately 284.41 acres retained for open space. He also stated that there is 42 acres that will be maintained as common areas. Mr. Hullahan stated with regard to the environmental schedule, the Notice of Preparation was distributed in March 2006, the Draft EIR was distributed in the middle of January 2008 and the th end of the public review period will be February 29. He pointed out that the Planning th Commission hearing for this project is planned for March 20 and it is anticipated that the City Council will take action on the project in May. Bob Leruh with Kern County Parks & Recreation Department stated they are responsible for Kern Regional County Park which includes both Hart Park and Lake Ming, as well as the CALM facility. He stated they have two issues from their prospective. First, if Morning Drive is completed down to Alfred Harrell they are concerned with the impact on the people coming down Morning Drive onto Alfred Harrell. He also stated that there will be a recreation impact as well. He proposed that the County get together with Staff and discuss these issues and mitigate his concerns perhaps with an impact fee. Craig Smith with the Bakersfield Bluffs and Trails Committee stated that in reviewing the Draft EIR it appears not to address or clarify the status of this project with regard to the Revised Hillside Ordinance and whether it is going to remain in compliance throughout, or if there are changes. He asked for clarification. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Johnson referenced impact 5.11.f on page 2-37 of the EIR, regarding getting GET to provide service to the project site. He pointed out that the mitigation does not talk about bus turnouts for possible stops and he thinks this needs to be further addressed. Commissioner Johnson also referenced page 2-43, impact 6.3.5.a dealing with a place for unstable soils to occur during seismic events and referenced the language that states that, “No mitigation is required.” He stated that in other mitigation dealing with seismic issues and with Minutes of Planning Commission – February 7, 2008 Page 5 geology and soils it definitely does reference a mitigation measure. Commissioner Johnson inquired why there is no mitigation required on this one. (Specifically on page 2-23) Commissioner Johnson referenced page 2-44, impact 6.3.9.a, dealing with the need for fire facilities and project’s contribution to cumulative impacts. He stated that this impact spells out a series of things that are going to be needed as a result of the project. He asked if this is significant to address fires in hillside areas where it is not like fighting a fire in the areas in southwest Bakersfield. Commissioner Johnson referenced Exhibit 3-6 in Section 3 relating to traffic. He inquired if as you are going through Hart Park if it would be an expressway, because it is a 25mph zone. He asked for clarification on this. Commissioner Johnson referenced the traffic study and asked if the 2006 study would be considered current. Commissioner Andrews expressed his concern with traffic on Morning Drive. Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Johnson, to refer comments to Staff for preparation of a Final EIR. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, Andrews, Tkac NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish 6. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REVIEW – 6.1 Planned Development Review – 08-0030 (Formerly 07-1651) (McIntosh & Associates) Heard on consent calendar. 7. PUBLIC HEARINGS – Vesting Tentative Parcel Maps/ Vesting Tentative Tract Maps/Zone Change/Administrative Review 7.1a Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6950 (Rick Engineering Company) Heard on consent calendar. 7.1b Administrative Review 07-1881 -- Master Parks and Trails Plan for Rosedale Ranch (Rick Engineering Company) Heard on consent calendar. 7.2 Vesting Tentative Parcel Map 11785 (Delmarter & Deifel) Heard on consent calendar. Vesting Tentative Tract Map 6760 (McIntosh & Associates) 7.3 The public hearing is opened, staff report given. Lloyd Norton, a representative of the church, stated that they like the project. He stated they have no objection to the wall. He stated that when they became aware that there was a proposal to delete the wall they became concerned. He inquired if their entire letter will be in the record, or if he needs to read everything into the record. Staff referred that the letter has been submitted and is part of the record. Mr. Norton explained Minutes of Planning Commission – February 7, 2008 Page 6 that they thought the wall was a good idea and was agreed upon. He further stated that it is their understanding that under City ordinance, if the church were to expand their facilities adjacent to zoned residential, the church would be required to install a wall. Therefore, if the wall is not installed by the developer, the housing tract at this time is creating the change, immediately putting the burden on the church either now, or in the future. Mr. Norton also stated that the previous maps did require a wall and that while they understand the technicality under which the wall is being deleted, he believes it is the Planning Commission’s position to take a look at issues that are created, with the understanding that not everything can be specifically addressed in an ordinance. He stated that if there is a land use circumstance that is being created, and in this case a residential tract adjacent to an existing church, under ordinance if the reverse were true the church would be required to install a wall. Therefore, he stated, it seems logical to them that there needs to be a wall and if there is not a wall the church would immediately be subject to the liability exposure and other issues related to that. He states any complaints of noise, etc. will immediately effect their operation, and furthermore, the church is saddled with the burden of defending what ever those issues might be. Mr. Norton referenced item 21 relating to property exchange with the church and he stated that they have no objection and pointed out that this condition does include an “or” provision, as long as they understand that the “or” is subject to the Planning Director’s enacting only if the church refuses the transfer. Mr. Norton stated they are very concerned that if the City ordinance finds it necessary for the construction of a wall and a church is constructed next to residential, then in the reverse situation the residential should provide the wall so that the church is not in direct conflict with the City ordinance. He also pointed out the elevation difference between the church site and the residential site, explaining that there will need to be some retaining wall, or slope or erosion maintenance issue. Mr. Norton pointed out that they already have vandalism problems and the church is already sensitive to liability exposure. He also stated that when they do expand in the future they will be saddled with the cost burden of installing a wall retroactively, which will be substantially more expensive then installing it at this time. Mr. Norton went on to state that if it is approved without the wall, they think there are some concerns which should be of record and referenced the conclusion of his letter which addresses that if this is adopted without a wall, it certainly seems that there are environmental issues that should be addressed which are in conflict with the intent of the compatible land uses in the City ordinance. Mr. Norton requested a 60-day extension so that they can investigate all of the issues raised. He also stated that if this is approved without the wall, the church will probably appeal to the City Council and they would request a waiver of fees based on the inconsistencies in the City ordinance. Finally, he stated, if the subdivision is approved without a wall, they see this as a great potential for liability exposure and they would therefore like the City and Centex to hold the church harmless from anything related to approval of the subdivision without a wall and the impacts on those property owners that may occupy that subdivision. Roger McIntosh with McIntosh & Associates, representing Centex Homes, addressed comments made by Mr. Norton. He clarified that the letter submitted by Ms. Gionelli, requesting a block wall be constructed along Taft Highway. Mr. McIntosh stated that Centex has been working with Ms. Gionelli and they have agreed to construct about 300’ of frontage improvements along Taft Highway in front of her property which is not part of the subdivision. Mr. McIntosh stated that Ms. Gionelli’s house has been there for about 50+ years, and Centex is not willing to accept that kind of a condition. Mr. McIntosh also addressed the church’s letter pointing out that they have had numerous discussions with the church. In the beginning Centex offered giving some property to the church along the edge and the church, in return, would exchange some property along the north back side of the church, where there would be a cul-de-sac that went up and into the north two acres. Minutes of Planning Commission – February 7, 2008 Page 7 Centex thought they had a solution worked out, but the church kept requesting more and more, and it got to a point where it became infeasible. Therefore, Centex decided to develop just the property itself. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that when they designed the property they tried to balance the depths of the lots on both east and west sides of the cul-de-sac and they ended up with about 135’ lot depth on both sides. This was submitted and Centex was conditioned to provide access to the church, so they did a double cul-de-sac design and brought one of the cul- de-sacs down where the church can get access and they were willing to provide them with a drive approach and the other cul-de-sac goes up to the north. Mr. McIntosh explained that when the original conditions of approval came out, the City was asking for a wall to be constructed along the east property line and he was advised that the ordinance requires that when a single family residential property is next to an A zone that the lots have to be 140’ deep and since they weren’t 140’ deep, that a wall would be an appropriate buffer. Subsequently, they made the lots 140’ deep to meet the ordinance, and not put in the wall. Mr. McIntosh pointed out that the Mr. Norton alludes to the fact that if you develop single-family residential next to a church, the ordinance requires a wall. However, Mr. McIntosh points out that this is not the case and that when you develop a church next to residential property the wall is required to be placed and constructed by the church and not the other way around. Mr. McIntosh refers to Section 17.36.030(f), which simply says, “Churches and related development proposed adjacent to property zoned or designated for residential development shall be required to be separated by a solid masonry wall.” Mr. McIntosh also refers to the church’s letter which states that the City ordinance obligation must not be placed on the existing church facility. He clarified that the church is not in the City, but rather is in the County. He explained that County ordinance (Section 19.80.030) does not require a wall in an A zone and pointed out that churches are allowed by right, in most zones, and a wall is not required. He further pointed out that County ordinance only requires a wall if it is a commercial or industrial zone. Mr. McIntosh stated that the church was required to put up a six foot chain link fence when they obtained a CUP in the County. He also pointed out that it would not be until the church site is annexed into the City that the wall would be required. Mr. McIntosh also pointed out that churches and residential are compatible land uses. Mr. McIntosh stated that the church is already open and unsecured and this development should not be required to hold harmless, defend, or indemnify the church in any way because of the open exposure. Mr. McIntosh referred to the environmental analysis referenced in the letter, stating that this property was subject to a GPA and zone change in which that environmental analysis was prepared and there was no condition to place a wall along that property line. He explained that if the wall was a necessary mitigating issue the church should have come forward at that point in time. He also stated that Centex was in discussions with the church and nothing was said about a wall. Mr. McIntosh further pointed out that there is a tract to the north, tract 6290, which was approved by Resolution in 2004 and if a wall was required for single family residential, it would have been a requirement at that tract as well. Mr. McIntosh presented pictures of the property. Mr. McIntosh stated that he cannot imagine the City entering into any indemnity and hold harmless agreement, nor will Centex agree to any such proposal. Mr. McIntosh explained that there is an ordinance as far as consistency or confusion with the ordinance, Bakersfield City Ordinance Municipal Code 17.58, 054, section n, which applies to off- street parking, stating that, “Where the parking lot including drive-ways, drive aisles, delivery areas and loading and unloading areas is within 10’ of a property line of property zoned residential, it shall be separated there from by a continuous solid wall of masonry construction at a Minutes of Planning Commission – February 7, 2008 Page 8 minimum of six feet in height as measured from the highest adjacent grade.” He explained that the parking lot on the church site is 10’ away from the property line, and therefore, even if the church was to develop a parking lot adjacent to residential property even the off-street ordinance does not require a block wall unless that parking lot is within 10’ of the property line. Mr. McIntosh stated that he does not think there is any inconsistency with the City ordinance. Mr. McIntosh stated that they pulled the church’s CUP with the County and pointed out that a 6’ chain link fence with slats exists along the property line to at least the back of the parking lot. He presented some more pictures, pointing out that there is no block wall along the north edge. Mr. McIntosh asked for consistency with other property around the church. He further stated the CUP states that there are no special uses allowed and the conditional of approval on the CUP back in 1988 required that a 6’ high solid screen fencing be constructed because it was in an A zone. He also pointed out that the project description is a description of a phased church facility with future sanctuary seating estimated at 1000. Phase one is an eight classroom addition to the existing building and the authorized placement of 12X65 commercial coach for temporary classrooms. Phase two is 20,000 to 30,000 square feet educational building with parking lot, landscaping and drainage improvements. Phase 3 is 1,000 seat permanent sanctuary with full completion of all master plan improvements not previously accomplished. He stated that this was anticipated to be in five to eight years from the original application. Mr. McIntosh stated that the application provides that there, “will be no day care or full-time school existing or proposed.” He explained that there may be just one day of the week that there will be a lot of people at the church. He went on to explain that in 1995 the church requested slight changes to the Phase two buildings, where they were adding parking stalls and asking for six temporary modular classrooms in place of four that were in place at that time. He showed the location of these buildings, explaining that they are located in the parking lot along the east side of the residential subdivision, with a 10’ landscape buffer. He also showed that on the north end a modular building that was removed, the fire tank and a future maintenance building. Mr. McIntosh stated that they are asking to be consistent with the ordinance, which does not require a block wall to be constructed along the property line with the church. He reiterated that it was not required for the tract to the north and they don’t see it as an incompatible land use. He also pointed out that they did agree to provide the church with access, even though they didn’t have to. Mr. Norton stated that he didn’t object to the project. He pointed out that the Notice on the property did not indicate the change in the number of lots and inquired if that deficiency would require a renoticing. Mr. McIntosh added that the increased lot depth allows them to meet the building code requirements for slope and they probably will not need a retaining wall, as they will slope down to the lots and put a wood fence along the chain link fence that exists. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tkac stated that his concern is that the way Ms. Gionelli writes her letter it indicates to him that something was promised and is still in dispute. He asked Staff to clarify what kind of fence was promised around Ms. Gionelli’s home. Mr. McIntosh responded that they have had a number of discussions with Ms. Gionelli trying to accommodate the design of the tract and not bother her situation. He pointed to the condition of approval that requires a block wall along the north side of Ms. Gionelli’s property, as well as a requirement to provide her access from the cul-de-sac. Mr. McIntosh stated that they can do this. However, now Ms. Gionelli is asking that Centex construct a block wall along Taft Highway as well and Centex has a problem with putting a wall along Taft Highway. Commissioner Tkac inquired if there will be a wall on the east side. Mr. McIntosh responded in the affirmative, clarifying that Ms. Gionelli’s property is zoned A. Bill Scroggins, with Centex Homes, stated that there is a wall being built on the west side of Ms. Gionelli’s property and to the east side of tract 6491, which is already an approved map. Minutes of Planning Commission – February 7, 2008 Page 9 Commissioner Tkac inquired if Ms. Gionelli is blocked in now, thereby making her letter moot. Mr. Scroggins responded that Ms. Gionelli would like a block wall along the frontage of Taft Highway, and they are in negotiations with her for the right-of-way, as Centex has to obtain that from her. Commissioner Tkac confirmed that currently they have the east, west, and the north side that Centex is providing to Ms. Gionelli. Mr. Scroggins clarified that they are building a wall on the west side, and the north side, and that the east side of her property is the subject tract, and they are not conditioned to build a wall on the east side. Mr. Scroggins stated that an east wall may be negotiated with her in obtaining the right-of-way. Commissioner Tkac stated he hates to make a decision without Ms. Gionelli’s presence. Commissioner Stanley inquired of Mr. McIntosh if Ms. Gionelli has access to the road to the north of her, to which Mr. McIntosh responded in the affirmative, pointing out that they are conditioned to provide her with an access point onto the cul-de-sac to the north. Commissioner Stanley commented that they probably all wish that there would have been some agreement between the developer and the church and looking at the City ordinance he sees a project that is in compliance. With regard to Ms. Gionelli’s property, he does regard this hearing being the best opportunity for every citizen that is effected to have a say. He stated that his concerns have been satisfied. Commissioner Johnson stated he would like to be able to do something for the church, but he does not think a block wall is going to be the result. He inquired of counsel if condition 18 could reference that prior to recordation of the final map that a covenant disclosing the existence and location of the adjacent agriculture zoned land be recorded for lots 26. Commissioner Johnson also inquired if it would legally be possible to provide a covenant advising the people in lots adjacent to the church that they will be living next to a church and on Sundays and special other days there may be traffic and noise. Staff responded that normally the covenants are recorded for incompatible uses, or where it is not obvious that there is a use, and in this situation, it is obvious that the church is there and further the church is not incompatible. Staff stated that it would be unusual and not advisable. Commissioner Johnson stated that based on Staff’s comments he does not think a wall is going to happen. He further referenced the number of lots on the noticing sign and inquired if they are in compliance with the noticing ordinance. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Andrews stated that he agrees with Commissioner Stanley, and if you look at this in terms of what the ordinance says and what is being proposed, his questions and concerns have been answered. Staff requested that on condition number 21 that it is the church’s understanding that basically they have the landscape maintenance program and landscaping in place of the access would be provided should they choose to refuse acceptance of Lot A. Staff stated that they do not read the condition this way and if it is the intent they should add language to the end of condition 21 to say at the end that, “if the church refuses acceptance of Lot A.” Otherwise, it looks like it gives the developer the option of either providing access or the landscaping. (page 5 of 5 of Staff’s report condition number 21). Mr. McIntosh responded that that is his understanding and that addition would be okay with the developer. Commissioner Blockley commented that good fences make good neighbors and good neighbors split the cost, however there is no rule or ordinance that this could be forced. Commissioner Tkac commented that he is concerned that Ms. Gionelli is not here to comment. Staff presented an overhead of the property and the access, pointing out that this current project is not changing the current circumstances on Taft Highway, and Staff would find it hard for the Planning Commission to require a wall on Taft Highway because there is no strong nexus to this proposed subdivision to the noise impact that she is going to receive off of Taft Highway. Minutes of Planning Commission – February 7, 2008 Page 10 Commissioner Tkac asked Staff to clarify which fence they are referring to. Staff clarified that they are referring to the fence along Taft Highway. Commissioner Tkac stated that in the nature of fairness, he recognized Mr. Norton. Lloyd Norton clarified that all the way through intended to negotiate in fairness. He pointed out that in August 2006 Mr. McIntosh’s office had prepared a map that indicated a block wall. Mr. Norton also pointed out that the property exchange that was discussed with Centex would have resulted in more than a ½ acre loss to the church and therefore they were asking for completion of the road improvements. Mr. Norton also stated they understand that they are in the County and their intention has been to annex, but it sounds like the collective decision is that it would be a bad decision to annex at this point. Commissioner Blockley inquired if when Taft Highway is built out as an expressway if it would typically be lined with block walls for sound attenuation. Staff responded that an expressway is no different than an arterial and if there are pre-existing homes and driveways along the roadway there does not have to be constructed walls when there is an existing front yard onto an arterial. Commissioner Johnson thanked Mr. Norton for showing the map and that it is unfortunate that they weren’t able to come to an agreement with the developer. He commented that Commissioner Blockley had a good suggestion to split the cost. Commissioner Johnson inquired if they are still referencing the memo from Marian Shaw dated th January 28. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Johnson moved, seconded by Commissioner Andrews, to approve vesting tentative tract map 6760, with findings and conditions set forth in the attached Resolution, and incorporating the Planning Director’s memo dated January 31, 2008, incorporating the memo from Marion Shaw dated January 28, 2008, and incorporating the amendments to condition 21 clarifying the intent of that condition. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Blockley, Johnson, Stanley, Andrews NOES: Commissioner Tkac ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Commissioners McGinnis, Tragish Commissioner Tkac stated that his no vote is because he did not understand for sure whether Centex is going to continue the conversation with Ms. Gionelli. 7.4 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7057 (Stantec Consulting Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 7.5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7058 (Stantec Consulting Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 7.5 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7059 (Stantec Consulting Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 7.7 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7065 (Stantec Consulting Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. 7.8 Vesting Tentative Tract Map 7070 (Stantec Consulting Inc.) Heard on consent calendar. Minutes of Planning Commission – February 7, 2008 Page 11 7.8 Zone Change 07-2111 (R.L. Abbott & Associates) Heard on consent calendar, and is to be continued. 7.10 Zone Change 07-1724 (John Balfanz) Heard on consent calendar. 8. COMMUNICATIONS: None. 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS: None. 10. ADJOURNMENT: There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 7:21 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director February 26, 2008