PC 111605 - Laserfiche WebLink

-- thorough job on this proj cct_ He believed this davalopxnent would be au asset to the neighborhood and that the development on Rose Avcnuc should be con~pletcd. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Arkin regarding whether the families he represented supported the Rose Avenue extension as outlined in the General Ylan, Mr. Bitz replied that they did not. Peter MacDonald, representing Mr. Jansen with respect to the project's legal issues, advised. that the applicant had tried to address every issue he could with respect to the Jones family. I-Ic noted that they had developed a written agreement, which was included in the C'oxnmission packet, an independent legal party verified that it was a legally binding agreement. Mr_ Jansen was willing to continue to work with the Jones £imily with respect to their concerns but believed that the ti~ric would come soon to continue with the pro_ject_ He noted that the Planning Coxrimissioxi did not approve agreements and added that staff recommended approval of this design. He assured the Conmii ssion that he and the applicant would deal with the legal aspects of the project. He noted that the applicant did not want to lose another construction season- In response to an my uiry by C7ommissioner Blank regarding whether the roofs would be photovoltaic-ready, Mr_ Jansen replied that he would consider that and added that wiring [-or the Photovoltaic systems were included in the conditions of approval He noted that the older Mr_ .Tones was the sole owner of the property, and he was the only person. he had dealt with. He invited Mr_ Jones to bring in a. lawyer and. an engineer, which he did- I-Ie acknowledged that there were personal interests on the part of the sons and that he was attempting to keep their interests in mind as well. He believed that his plan was in conformance with the General Plan axed that it was designed to be neutral with respect to Rose Avenue- I-Ie personally believed that Rose Avenue sho uld not go thro ugh_ THE PUBLIC= HEARINC~ WAS CLOSED_ Commissioner Blank moved toe (1) make the finding that the project would not have a significant effect on the environment and that the Negative Declaration is the appropriate document for the project, and adopt a resolution recommending approval of the Negative Declaration as for the project shown in the staff report; (2) make the finding that the project has a De Minimus impact on the site's wild liife; (3) make the finding that the proposed rezo u:ug and PLTD davelopm¢ut plan are consistent with the General Plan and the purposes of the PUD ord:u anceg (4) make the PUD fin din gs numbers 7 through 7 as identified in the staff report; and (5) recommend approval to the City C7ouncil of PUD-38, subject to the conditions of approval as listed in Exhibit B of the staff report, as recommeu ded by staff wah the mod:f:cat:ous that the soa directly uudern Bath the explosion site be tested for any hazardous or environmentally damaging materials, and that a separate specific report be provided to staff for review and approval_ Commissioner Fox secou ded the motion with a proposed amendment to the motion to accept Items 1 and 2 as findings from the November 75, 2005 memo from Lynn Tracy Nerland regarding the Housing Element, but with the deletion of references to Hacienda Business Park and Staples Ranch as specific locations for increased densities, as followsc PLANNING C7OMMISSION MINUTI/S November 16, 2005 Page 7 of 23