Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-05-09 MINUTES gAK RSA PLANNING COMMISSION i MINUTES c9c P Regular Meeting February 5, 2009 — 5:30 p.m. Council Chambers, City Hall, 1501 Truxtun Avenue 1, ROLL CALL Present: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Tragish, Strong Absent: Commissioner Tkac (arrived 5:31 pm) Commissioner Johnson welcomed Commissioner Strong to the Commission. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE: 3. PUBLIC STATEMENTS: Commissioner Johnson pointed out that Mr. Blane Frazen requested removal of 4.2c from the consent calendar. Staff introduced Jefferson Billingsley, with the City Attorney's Office, who will be sitting as legal counsel. 4. CONSENT CALENDAR: 4.1 Non-Public Hearing Items Commissioner Tragish commented that with regard to 4.1a, approval of Minutes for Planning Commission Pre-Meeting December 15, 2008 and the Regular Meeting December 18, 2008, he wanted to correct page 26 of the Minutes of the Planning Commission on December 18, 2008, noting the first paragraph asking that it be re-stated to read as follows: "Commissioner Tragish stated that he voted no against this motion item for the reasons previously stated that this project is a unique project in the hills and bluffs of Bakersfield, and is not the usual single-family resident project found in Bakersfield. Furthermore, there are no assurances from the past history of projects that come through the Commission that do not have a specific plan, or development plan, or CC&Rs, or HOAs that these homes may be marketed to builders, who can build these homes, except for the existing ordinances, with any kind of elevation that they desire. I would like to see some control over this project because comments have been made that the applicant has allegedly engaged in all types of acrobatics to meet the requirements of the ordinances, and have purportedly met the City half way. However, without the control of a PUD over the project there is no way to ensure the continuity of this project and its strict compliance with its requirements." Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the Non-Public Hearing Items as amended by Commissioner Tragish. Motion carried by group vote. 4.2 Public Hearing Items 4.2a Approval of Revised Comprehensive Sign Plan No. 08-1717(Donahue Schriber) 4.2b Approval of Continuance of Comprehensive Site Plan 08-1631 to March 5, 2009. Castle& Cooke California, Inc.) 4.2c Approval of Revised Planned Development Review 08-1768 (Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, Inc.) Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-February 5, 2009 Page 2 The public hearing is opened, Item 4.2a is continued to the March 5th meeting. Blane Franzen requested removal of item 4.2c. Commissioner Tragish stated that with regard to Agenda Item 4.2b, he believes the contractor is a client of his and, therefore due to the appearance of a conflict, he recused himself from this item. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to approve the public hearing items on the Consent Calendar as stated. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioner Johnson, McGinnis, Tkac, Blockley, Stanley, Strong RECUSE: Commissioner Tragish (item 4.2b only) 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS—TENTATIVE PARCEL MAPS Approval of Tentative Parcel Map 11846 for Condominium Purposes(Porter and Associates) The public hearing is closed, staff report given requesting continuance to the March 5th meeting. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Tragish, Tkac, Strong 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS—COMPREHENSIVE SIGN PLANS/DEVELOPMENT REVIEW 6.1 Revised Comprehensive Sign Plan No. 08-1717 (Donahue Schriber) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.2 Comprehensive Site Plan 08-1631 (Castle&Cooke California, Inc.) Heard on Consent Calendar. 6.3 Revised Planned Development Review 08-1768(Fresh & Easy Neighborhood Market, Inc.) The public hearing is opened, staff report given. No one from the audience spoke in opposition to Staff's recommendation. Blane Franzen stated that he just got notice about some changes that were going to be made and he was not sure what they were. Mr. Franzen said that he received clarification and he has no reason to object to this. Katie Rounds with Evergreen Development, on behalf of Fresh & Easy, stated that she agrees with the report and is available for any questions. The public hearing is closed. Commissioner Tragish commented that previous concerns with the hours of loading, from 7 to 10, were based on the fact that they would not have refrigeration running and now there will be refrigeration running, in light of the fact that there is housing next to the project, as well as a car wash. He stated that he is concerned with this going on until 10 o'clock at night. Commissioner Tragish inquired why it has to be 10 p.m. as opposed to 9 or 7 p.m. Ms. Rounds responded that Fresh & Easy would like to have the flexibility in the future if they were to change their delivery hours. She pointed out that currently they are scheduled for the Bakersfield area to receive one fresh delivery a day between 7 a.m. and 9 a.m., as well as a frozen and ambient, delivery which will occur two days a week on alternating days between 9 a.m. and 12 p.m. Commissioner Tragish commented that he can appreciate the need for flexibility, but wonders if it is the other way around if perhaps the hours should be from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. and if more flexibility is needed then the applicant can come back in and give a good reason for extended hours. He stated that he is sensitive to the use of the property with regard to trucks. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-February 5, 2009 Page 3 Commissioner McGinnis inquired how many Fresh & Easy stores are planned for Bakersfield at this current time. Ms. Rounds responded that there are currently four that are open right now, but she does not know exactly how many are planned. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if one truck carries all the food for all the stores. Ms. Rounds responded that the trucks that come from the distribution center are definitely stocked with products that are meant for all of the Bakersfield stores. Commissioner McGinnis inquired what the average loading time is for each store. Ms. Rounds responded that it is approximately 30 minutes per store. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if the store on Stockdale Highway will be right on Stockdale Highway or back by the sporting good store. Ms. Rounds responded that it is already built and it will be handed over to Fresh & Easy tomorrow. She indicated that it is right next to Sport's Chalet. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he can understand the desire for flexibility and how some stores do not abut residential, and inquired if Fresh & Easy can do prioritization so that the stores abutting residential receive deliveries within a restricted time period. Ms. Rounds responded that she would have to speak to their transportation department. Commissioner McGinnis inquired how many deliveries a week each store receives. Ms. Rounds responded that a typical Fresh & Easy gets one fresh delivery a day, then gets two frozen a week and two ambient a week, for a total of 8. Commissioner McGinnis stated that he concurs with Commissioner Tragish and would like to see the hours restricted. Ms. Rounds responded that she does not think beyond 8 o'clock would work for Fresh & Easy, however they might be able to adjust from 10 o'clock. She pointed out that Steve Peddijohn, who wrote the acoustic study, is available for questions. Furthermore, she commented, previously when the site was approved by the Council they did get the 7 to 10 hours, understanding that the refrigeration unit was not included. Ms. Rounds stated they are proposing to keep the refrigeration units on, but with the additional length in the sound wall, as well as the absorptive panel, they will not be increasing the sound from what was previously approved. Commissioner McGinnis commented that the maximum time would be an hour to an hour and-a- half a day for deliveries. Ms. Rounds commented that based on the business of the store they would increase it if they were selling out on certain products. Commissioner McGinnis commented if they go along with the proposal and Fresh & Easy finds that it wants to put more locations in, he inquired if there is any way that the Planning Commission can put restricted hours for delivery on the existing stores and when new stores are applied for the delivery hours can be reconsidered. Staff responded that there is no way to condition the existing projects. Staff explained that if the new stores are under a PCD they can be conditioned. Staff further clarified that the 7 to 10 comes out of a General Plan Policy for sensitive hours and the noise study appropriately looked at that General Plan Policy, which is the same as the condition, and then looked at what it would take to mitigate it down. Staff stated that the Planning Commission has the authority to restrict it beyond that, but past practices consistently have typically been 7 to 10 because that is the General Plan Policy. Commissioner McGinnis inquired if it is too restrictive to try and restrict it even more. Staff responded that if you have a study that shows you mitigated to policy standards, within that period of time, that should be acceptable. Commissioner McGinnis commented that he thinks it should be more restrictive when it abuts a residential area. Commissioner Stanley inquired what the specific decibel level is on the General Plan requirement for 7 to 10. Staff responded that it is variable for these types of disturbances where it is sporadic. Commissioner Stanley asked the sound study consultant, Steve Peddijohn, principal with the Acoustic and Vibration Group in Sacramento, if he can explain the difference between what was existing with the refrigeration trucks versus what the new mitigation measure is Mr. Peddijohn Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-February 5, 2009 Page 4 explained that all noise ordinance standards are based on the model noise ordinance published by the State of California in 1976. He pointed out that there is a limit of 55 decibels if the sound lasts 30 minutes to an hour, a limit of 60 if it only lasts 15 minutes, a limit of 65 if it lasts five minutes, a limit of 70 if it lasts 1 minute and a limit of 75 as the maximum sound level that can be produced. He further explained that each of those goes down by 5 dba for 10 p.m. to 7 a.m., and each of those goes down 5 dba if there is a peer tone, if there's music, speech, impulsive sounds. Mr. Peddijohn commented that they try to assume that the sound will last 30 minutes and to meet the standard of 55, with at least a 2 to 4 dba margin of safety, they are aiming for 50 to 51 dba in the backyards of those homes. Mr. Peddijohn explained that the vehicles will be making noise as they enter. They will pull up, back in and the wall is now long enough that even with the front bumper of the vehicle, when it's backed up against the dock, is going to be 10' tall at the dock, but the trucks are going to go down a grade so that the base of the trailer will be even with the ground. Therefore, the noise sources will be down at that level and it will have to go up and over the wall, plus there is another six foot wall at the property line and then the homes on the other side are recessed two feet. Mr. Peddijohn further explained that when there are two parallel services, where there is a wall and a building, the sound is bouncing back and forth so they put absorptive material on the wall itself, particularly right near the top to minimize the amount of sound that can go over the top of that. From experience, he commented that the unloading is going to be unheard and the only sound that will be heard is when the truck is driving up and getting ready to back in. Mr. Peddijohn also commented that they can't turn off the refrigeration unit, so the wall extends beyond that so that the refrigeration unit, the exhaust and the engine are all hidden. Commissioner Stanley inquired if Mr. Pettyjohn had any experience with other facilities that have a similar type of mitigation. Mr. Peddijohn responded that almost every one has the same 7 to 10 requirement. Commissioner Stanley inquired if Mr. Peddijohn is aware of any decibel readings for something similar like this with houses on the other side of the property wall. Mr. Peddijohn responded that he can't say what the instantaneous sound level is, however they've done several of these and they've never had complaints when they finished. Commissioner Stanley inquired, with regard to the sound limits outlined in the General Plan, if one of these other businesses in this facility will be able to meet this policy and be allowed to produce similar noise. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Stanley commented that with the additional mitigations, taking into account where the refrigeration units are, having the wall extended to a point where it will be directly blocked, in addition to the longer wall at the property line, he understands the potential concerns, however it seems like there is going to be physical blocking of the sound keeping it below the appropriate level which are the same requirements for every other location. He stated that he is in support of this project. Commissioner Tkac commented that the only thing they are truly concerned about tonight is the amount of sound that will be generated prior to 10 o'clock. He commented that the car wash has been mitigated down and inquired if they are talking about a moot point because it is his understanding that the car wash is opened until 9 o'clock. Staff responded that they do not remember the sound level of the car wash, however with the original project the Commission added extra sound on the canopies for the stereos that might be playing on the other side of the building. Staff commented that they do not see that the car wash being a problem, according to the acoustical analysis, and it does not sound like the Fresh & Easy project is going to be a problem. Commissioner Tkac suggested a possible compromise at 9 p.m. Commissioner Blockley inquired about the noise reduction coefficient value of panels at the car wash, assuming that it would be different than the Fresh & Easy because the noise reduction coefficient on those is .55 and this applicant's report says .85, which is an improvement. Mr. Peddijohn responded that is correct, explaining that the noise reduction coefficient is the percent of sound that is absorbed when the sound strikes that surface. Therefore, one is absorbing 55% and the other one is absorbing 85% of the total sound. Mr. Peddijohn stated that if you had 70 decibels going into the wall and you absorbed 50% of it, it would come out as 67, and the sound that is still Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-February 5, 2009 Page 5 coming toward the wall, is still 70 because the noise being made would sum to 72. If you're at 85%, the noise that comes out of the wall would come out at 61, and the sound is essentially still the 70 so there's no addition, and therefore you get rid of enough sound that they don't add to each other. Mr. Pettyjohn further added that the original property line they had requested to be eight feet, and because the neighbor's yards are two feet below the level of their ground, it was asked if it could be lowered back down to six feet so that they wouldn't be looking at such a tall wall. Commissioner Blockley referenced the recessed truck dock, and inquired if is constructed so that the entire trailer is level. Mr. Pettyjohn responded that the picture he has seen is a constant slope down, which is the only one that he's ever seen. He stated that the trailer is 53' and the trailer will drop 4'. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the end of the trailer that has the actual refrigerator with the noisy compressor will be four feet, to which Mr. Pettyjohn responded in the negative. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the wall will be constructed as a block wall, to which Mr. Pettyjohn responded that to his knowledge it is still a block wall. Commissioner Blockley inquired if the STC rating of 35 would apply to a concrete block wall, to which Mr. Pettyjohn responded that the concrete block wall will be probably be closer to 45, explaining that the higher the STC the less the sound passes through the wall. Therefore, it is a much more effective barrier then the minimum that is called for in the condition. Commissioner Strong inquired how noise complaints from the residents will be addressed and processed. Staff responded that if there is a complaint they typically go out and do noise measurements. If the complaint is valid then they look to see if the conditions are being met or if they need to be improved. If they are out of conformance with the conditions they try to work with the owner of the property to see if they can bring it back into compliance either through adding some additional design features to the project, or some other way. Commissioner Strong inquired if there is any proactive mitigating monitoring as these businesses go forward. Staff responded in the negative pointing out that it is pretty much complaint based. Commissioner Johnson inquired if when the noise study was done it was going to be 55, to which Mr. Pettyjohn responded that the sound level at the receiver when measured over 30 minutes would be 55. He explained that if you were to take a piece of paper and you were standing where there were no cars going by, and you pick some point on your paper to say this is the sound level I'm hearing right now, and a car goes past, you would get a rise and then it would go away. The easiest way to define that sound is statistics, by answering how many seconds was the sound above each point. In this case, the sound of a truck approaching is going to be at some level, the truck is going to get louder and then it's going to get quieter, and if the limit is 55 you count how many seconds it was above 55 during that event. Mr. Pettyjohn stated that the sound study indicated it would be less than 55 when averaged over 30 minutes. Commissioner Johnson inquired what 55 decibels might sound like. Mr. Pettyjohn responded that when you are talking at a normal voice level to Commissioner Tragish, Commissioner Johnson is speaking at 60. He further explained that if Commissioner Johnson moved back approximately 6', he'd be down around 54 decibels. Commissioner Johnson commented that it doesn't sound like it is that excessive with the added condition. He stated that he is okay with Commissioner Tkac's suggestion of compromising at 9 p.m. Commissioner Tragish inquired how sound can be measured, such as it measured by pure statistics and using some type of book that has line items to indicate what type of sounds come from what type of movement or activity. Mr. Pettyjohn explained that what they did initially was make sound measurements at positions all along the property line before there was much there (two years ago). He explained that the meter takes samples at set intervals (once per second), and then gives all of the statistics by creating a histogram internally to its little brain. Mr. Pettyjohn commented that they also measure the frequency content so they can tell what piano keys are being played. He explained that they not only hear loudness, but frequency. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission—February 5, 2009 Page 6 Commissioner Tragish pointed out that when these noise measures were done the project was not built. He inquired how you can know what the noise will be today when the tests are two years old. Mr. Pettyjohn explained that the sound that occurs before the project is called the background sound level, and the sound level today is greater than at the previous time. He stated that they would expect the sound to increase, therefore they use the data they measured in early 2007 as the baseline. Mr. Pettyjohn further commented that with regard to the noise ordinance, if the background sound level is 56 decibels for the 30 minutes in an hour number, then the noise ordinance changes from 55 to 60. Commissioner Tragish inquired if they estimate what the sound levels will be today given what the applicant is trying to do. Mr. Pettyjohn stated that by using the level that occurred in 2007, it puts a bigger onus on us to say that the background is not going to change the regulation. He stated that they are estimating that it did not get quieter. Commissioner Tragish stated that whatever the final results are it is still an estimation based on statistics. Mr. Pettyjohn responded that they are using that data to say this is the existing background sound level, and then they use data that they take at actual markets for trucks driving by to predict what the sound levels will be. He explained that if the difference between those two is such that the truck is always louder than the background, there is no change in the regulation, and the background becomes somewhat irrelevant. Commissioner Tragish stated that the problem he has with these types of estimations is that it is still an estimation and you are still extrapolating from numbers. He further commented there haven't been any tests on the project with the existing shopping center, and therefore you really don't know exactly what the noise level is going to be. He inquired if Mr. Pettyjohn has ever been wrong. Mr. Pettyjohn responded he very seldom has been wrong, and that he is not aware of when he has been wrong. Commissioner Tragish commented that this is a Planned Development Review, and in these situations he inquired if he has unfeathered discretion as long as he can give a reason for his decision. Staff responded as long as a Commissioner has a basis for conditions, and a concern is being described where lack of mitigation is felt to exist, he can go above and beyond typical policies of the City of Bakersfield. Commissioner Tragish stated that he has concern because he has gone through these reports and over time he has seen some of them that just don't pan out and don't take into account the reality of the situation. He explained that in this situation there is a shopping center that has a drug store, a Fresh & Easy with another four majors, as well as a lot of people in a bunch of drive-ins and drive-outs, along with the traffic in and out of the shopping center and there's a lot of noise both off of the street and on the street. He stated that shopping centers are noisy places and have cars and trucks coming in and out, as well as the voice boxes from the drive-thrus. He explained that it is the totality of the shopping center that bothers him, and given the testimony provided he is not convinced that it takes all of these issues into consideration. Commissioner Tragish further commented that there will be exhaust coming in and out of the shopping center, and having the trucks come in until 10 o'clock at night just exacerbates the entire situation of a shopping center. He stated that he is not convinced that the cumulative effect of now having refrigeration trucks come in until 10 o'clock at night isn't something that they should be concerned about for the benefit of the residents in that neighborhood. He stated that he will not support this from 7 a.m. to until 10 p.m., however he would support it from 7 a.m. to 8 p.m. Commissioner Stanley stated that they have a sound standard that is statewide and has been adopted by the General Plan, allowing for 7 to 10, and that it outlines what the procedure is to identify what the sound levels are. He explained that the procedures have been followed to identify what the sound levels are, and it is within those parameters. Commissioner Stanley commented that he doesn't understand why this particular applicant deserves a higher standard than all the other ones that are under the same 7 to 10 standard that currently exists. He inquired of Staff if they are aware of any other existing shopping centers that have a more restrictive time limit. Staff responded that they are not aware of any. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-February 5, 2009 Page 7 Commissioner Stanley inquired if it comes back and the analysis is wrong, would the applicant be required to have further mitigation to bring it down to the limit. Staff responded in the affirmative. Commissioner Stanley stated that with the current standards that are enforceable through compliance measures, it seems solid analysis as far as the ability to mitigate what sound is there. He stated that he is fine with supporting the recommendation with the existing 7 to 10. Commissioner Johnson commented that the resulting information is only as good as the information you put in. Commissioner Johnson inquired about the STC rating at 35, and Commissioner Blockley brought up an STC rating of 45. He inquired if the plan is to go with a 45 STC, and if so should the condition be changed from a STC 35 to 45. Mr. Pettyjohn stated that there is no gain because the sound goes over the top of the wall. He explained that when you get a 10 decibel drop through the wall it's only the sound that goes over the wall that is an issue, and therefore the STC rating of the wall is inconsequential as long as you meet the minimum of 35. Mr. Pettyjohn commented that the developer is going to use concrete blocks, but he doesn't have the actual grout information or what the weight per block will be, in order to determine what the actual STC rating will be. He further explained that there is no reason to change the requirement because it doesn't mean anything to the neighbors, however putting the sound absorptive material and making the wall longer is what matters. He commented that if he was to do anything else he would put the wall up to 8 feet. Commissioner Johnson stated that the 9 o'clock might be a compromise that most on the Commissioner and the neighbors could all go with. Ms. Rounds added that they had a neighbor contact them who was worried about multiple idling trucks, and she explained that they have added an additional condition whereby Fresh & Easy has agreed to adjust their delivery schedule so that there will never be multiple trucks arriving at the site at the same time. Therefore, adjusting the hours would add additional burden on their scheduling in the future, because they are restricted to only one truck at the site at a time. Commissioner Tkac suggested that since there's an hours issue, perhaps they could mitigate this with some trees or something like that, because it will eat the exhaust up. Staff responded that they are already required as part of this project to put 24" box trees around the perimeter of this project. Staff also commented that they have a 6' wall that will be 8' on the residence side, and Staff recommends that the wall not be raised because there have been complaints with 10' walls next to residences. Furthermore, Staff commented that there is no expectation that the lots adjacent to a commercial subdivision will be as quiet as the lots interior to that subdivision. Staff stated that they heard the noise consultant say that he does have empirical evidence measured from loading docks from stores, not just modeling information to base his mitigation on. Staff also stated that they have a shopping center that meets the standards for sensitive noise uses with increased landscaping. Therefore this project will have the mitigation of the aesthetics, the sound attenuation and more than meet the standards based on the consultant's comments. Commissioner Tkac stated that with that consideration in mind he's going to listen to other Commissioners. Commissioner Stanley stated that he agrees with Staff's point that there is empirical, real data behind this, and this is a standard that we are using for every other shopping center. He further stated that he cannot support a motion for 9 o'clock, because he does not see why they should change the standard. Commissioner Tragish commented that they have made changes to the times of loading and unloading in various shopping centers over the years when the circumstances warrant it. Commissioner Tragish moved, seconded by Commissioner Tkac, to adopt the attached Resolution with all findings and conditions approving Revised Planned Development Review No. 08-1768 as depicted in the project description, which references the Resolution which references Exhibit B-1, with the change that deliveries must occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. seven days a Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-February 5, 2009 Page 8 week, and incorporate the February 3, 2009 memorandum from the Planning Director, with the only change that the deliveries must occur between the hours of 7 a.m. and 9 p.m. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Blockley, Tragish, Tkac, Strong NOES: Commissioner Stanley Commissioner Stanley stated that his dissenting vote was as previously stated, and that with our economic times, it is good to stick to the standards and make sure that we can be a business friendly environment. 7. PUBLIC HEARING— DEIR ADEOUCY HEARING Hillside Development (HD) Combining Zone Ordinance(Bakersfield Municipal Code Chapter 17.66) (City of Bakersfield) generally located in the northeastern portion of the City of Bakersfield extending to the Sequoia National Forest at the foot of Greenhorn Mountain Range and at the entrance to the Kern Canyon. The public hearing is opened to receive comments regarding the adequacy of the Draft Environmental Impact Report. Staff report given, Daniel Vaughn read a letter that he wrote to Mr. Ortiz with the City of Bakersfield Planning Department. He stated that his concerns and questions were not answered in the DEIR and indicated that the Final EIR needs to address the following questions/issues: 1) The EIR needs to include another alternative which would restrict the HD zone to new development areas only. 2) In the DEIR there is a section explaining the need for the DEIR, but no explanation of why the ordinance is needed on slopes that are already in a City maintenance district and adjacent to already developed areas. He commented that to impose the ordinance on already developed areas seems arbitrary and capricious, without a definite showing of need for the ordinance in these areas. He inquired what the need for these ordinances are in these areas. He inquired if the existing slopes are horribly degraded. He questioned if the existing City's maintenance district is not accomplishing its purpose. He pointed out that the DEIR does not explain this. 3) In the DEIR there is no social economic analysis of how the ordinance would affect owners of existing lots on the bluffs adjacent to the ordinance area, especially those who have dropped their fences the slope slightly. 4) There is a visual analysis of view points and viewable slopes in the initial study and DEIR, along with some general statements about the ordinance's preservation of view sheds. He pointed out however, that there is no explanation or analysis of specifically how the ordinance would improve or maintain slopes adjacent to existing housing developments, especially where there is already a City maintenance district in place for slope protection, and where there are existing houses at the top of the slope. He pointed out that in these areas, the ordinance seems duplicative, and stated that the Final EIR needs to specifically analyze what effects the ordinance would have on visual qualities in these areas, either positive or negative. 5) The maps in the DEIR are not detailed enough for many landowners to see if their land will be effected by the ordinance. The EIR needs to include, not reference, detailed maps of the ordinance boundary. He suggested using County Assessor Maps as the base maps. 6) He indicated that he previously requested that the DEIR might want to include a listing of parcels effected by the ordinance. 7) He asked for clarification on why the placement of the HD zone came out to where it did, because if you look at a map the HD zone runs around in a kind of horse-shoe shape. He suggested that it be cut off where there are big flat areas. Mr. Vaughn invited the Planning Commission out to his house for a personal tour to see the area. Commissioner Johnson encouraged Mr. Vaughn to re-submit his letters to the City so that all his concerns could be addressed. Staff confirmed that they will respond in writing to comments presented. Meeting Minutes of Planning Commission-February 5, 2009 Page 9 No further public comments were made. The public hearing is closed. No Commissioner made any comments. Commissioner Stanley moved, seconded by Commissioner Strong, to refer comments to Staff for preparation of a Final EIR. Motion carried by the following roll call vote: AYES: Commissioners Johnson, McGinnis, Stanley, Blockley, Tragish, Tkac, Strong 8. COMMUNICATIONS Staff reminded the Planning Commission that the next meeting of February 19 has been cancelled, and the next meeting will be March 5, 2009. Staff further pointed out that the Planning Commission should have received a transmittal memo with a re-circulated portion of the EIR for the Canyons project for agricultural resources. 9. COMMISSION COMMENTS Commissioner Tragish commented on Mr. Sherfy's retirement. 10. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business the meeting was adjourned at 6:53 p.m. Robin Gessner, Recording Secretary /JAMES D. MOVIUS, Secretary Planning Director February 23, 2009