PC 010908 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Narum noted that the first sentence of the third paragraph under Item 6.b., PAP-109 (PHUP-18), Rebecca Andrus on page 8 was an incomplete sentence. Ms. Decker replied that it should read: "Ms. Decker stated that a temporary use permit is not the process used...." With respect to the phrase "Condition L" in the third sentence of the second full paragraph on page 11, Commissioner Narum inquired if the conditions for Item 6.b. were in letters or number. Ms. Decker replied that they were letters. Commissioner Narum stated that the fifth sentence of the last paragraph on page 17 which reads: "He added that they had addressed the water issue and stated their position that they were allowing the Roberts to use it for their domestic use until such time as they [Sariches] are able to find a suitable source of irrigation water for the vineyards" was not very clear and requested clarification from staff. Ms. Decker replied that staff would look into it. Chair Blank noted that in the first sentence of the fifth paragraph on page 33, he requested that language be added that residents can decline the request to start construction before 8:00 a.m.; however, the first modification on the motion on page 34 states that the neighbors may express their objections but does not indicate that the request will not be granted if the neighbors are not agreeable to the change. Ms. Decker replied that staff would add that phrase regarding the neighbors' ability to decline the request. Chair Blank noted that he had a speaker card from someone who wanted to comment on the Minutes. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Mary Roberts expressed concern about the Minutes. She stated that at the November 14tH meeting, Chair Blank had asked staff whether the issue of the well was taken care of in the Conditions of Approval. She noted that Condition No. 28 conditions her as well as the Sariches. She pointed out that the first sentence conditions the applicant to defer planting of vineyards until such time in the future that a proven water source on the Sarich property can be developed. The condition should have stopped there because the next sentences conditions the Roberts, giving them access to the well water until they connect to City water, and the well water maybe used only for residential and household uses and not for irrigation purposes. She noted that no one from staff or the applicants had talked to them about this. She compared it to an application for asecond-story addition where because a neighbor states that a windows look into his or her house, that neighbor is conditioned to obscure their windows or open their drapes only at certain times. She indicated that she was not sure this was legal, especially since no one talked to them about it. She noted that she did not understand why she was being conditioned when she was not the applicant. She added that she was open to negotiations regarding the use of the well water and hoped that the condition could be modified to include only the first sentence. She indicated that if they had been assured of the adequacy of the well, they would have watered the grapes this year since they have had less than half of the rainfall they needed; but the condition does not allow them to use the water for irrigation purposes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 9, 2008 Page 2 of 28