|
Resolution No. 2021-02
<br />Page 3 of 7
<br />properties to the east and the residential properties to the west have
<br />a concrete masonry wall at the property line. In addition, the
<br />decorative design of the fence will complement the church building.
<br />4. That the granting of a minor exception will not adversely affect the
<br />General Plan of the City.
<br />The project is consistent with the General Plan as the proposed minor
<br />exception is consistent with Goal 2.0 of the Urban Design Element,
<br />which states that new development should be proportionally and
<br />aesthetically related to its district setting. Specifically, Goal 2.7 of
<br />the Urban Design Element states that projects must exhibit a
<br />functional, comfortable scale in relation to the neighborhood. This
<br />proposed seven-foot high fence is in scale with existing fencing and
<br />structures in the project site’s vicinity. Landscaping will be maintained
<br />in front of the fence to soften the height and appearance in the front
<br />yard.
<br />G. This project was reviewed in accordance with the Guidelines for the
<br />California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The project is exempt from
<br />further review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303, which pertains
<br />to New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures. This Class 3
<br />exemption applies to accessory (appurtenant) structures, including fences.
<br />Based on this criteria and staff analysis, Categorical Exemption
<br />Environmental Review No. 2021-70 will be filed for this project.
<br /> Section 2. The Applicant shall indemnify, protect, defend and hold the City
<br />and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies,
<br />authorized volunteers, and instrumentalities thereof, harmless from any and all claims,
<br />demands, lawsuits, writs of mandamus, referendum, and other proceedings (whether
<br />legal, equitable, declaratory, administrative or adjudicatory in nature), and alternative
<br />dispute resolution procedures (including, but not limited to arbitrations, mediations, and
<br />such other procedures), judgments, orders, and decisions (collectively “Actions”),
<br />brought against the City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents,
<br />departments, agencies, and instrumentalities thereof, that challenge, attack, or seek to
<br />modify, set aside, void, or annul, any action of, or any permit or approval issued by the
<br />City and/or any of its officials, officers, employees, agents, departments, agencies, and
<br />instrumentalities thereof (including actions approved by the voters of the City) for or
<br />concerning the project, whether such Actions are brought under the Ralph M. Brown
<br />Act, California Environmental Quality Act, the Planning and Zoning Law, the Subdivision
<br />Map Act, Code of Civil Procedure sections 1085 or 1094.5, or any other federal, state or
<br />local constitution, statute, law, ordinance, charter, rule, regulation, or any decision of a
<br />court of competent jurisdiction. It is expressly agreed that the City shall have the right to
<br />approve the legal counsel providing the City’s defense, and that Applicant shall
<br />reimburse the City for any costs and expenses directly and necessarily incurred by the
<br />City in the course of the defense. City shall promptly notify the Applicant of any Action
<br />brought and City shall cooperate with Applicant in the defense of the Action.
|