CC Min 1996-09-16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

.~- Councilman Leipzig asked Councilwoman La Berge "if we had the EIR done, what would make you feel comfortable and what is it that you are looking for?" Councilwoman La Berge said that one of the major concerns she had was the density of the slopes, and expressed concern that ultimately the City would find a building up there in danger of slipping down the hill. She said she wanted the City to be sure of the safety of the residents of that community. Also, she had concerns about the City's liability if emergency vehicles had problems with access to that area. Councilman Leipzig said that "we can find out by other ways whether we should allow building on some lots, without doing an EIR. The concern I have is improving the roadway and the safety of the existing and any other homes that might go in. The proposal we have before us increases the chances we will get that entire road done completely. I am at a loss to see what we are going to get out of an EIR." Councilman Leipzig said the Council voted for the Hatfield project in 1986, and this applicant was proposing greater improvements than Hatfield did, including storm drains and gutters, and other major items that would stop run-off and problems down the hill. Councilman Leipzig said "I see it as a positive," and questioned the need for the EIR. City Manager Everett said, "We had a similar situation like this, much larger, in Belmont. I think the thing that the EIR will tell you, will be, where do you have slope instability or stability. Because the configuration of that road may not be the exact configuration you want given slope stability.... You want to know that before you start building the first half of it. The EIR was also very helpful in looking at the amount of vegetation that would be removed and.... whether it would or would not make the slopes unstable if you proceeded to build on every lot. In fact, in that EIR.... it did suggest that given the small size of the lots, to adequately build and have sufficient space between each building and foundation.... lots were combined within the private sector. People had to buy each other out. They were very strict on how big of a house and kinds of foundations allowed. There was a whole issue of ideas that came forth, and (they) were then made as conditions and the area was opened up to development. It has been quite sparse.... but people have developed in that area. They have bought joint lots and built.... and in fact the road had to be moved in that case....or if the road crosses this fill it must be removed and reengineered." In answer to Councilman Leipzig's questions, City Manager Everett agreed that the Belmont area was much larger than the Laurel Way area. He added that it was similar to Laurel Way in that all the lots were substandard, and conditions were imposed, because "you carmot not allow someone to develop." Building size was limited to avoid density impacts that would cause instability. City Manager Everett said the EIR showed where storm drains etc. should be placed to protect the whole area. Councilman Ruskin expressed his concern that "the nature of this proposal (building a portion of the road instead of an EIR) is that it implies that if we accept it that we are implicitly accepting the right of the four other property owners to build as well in this area. Once giving the variance to Mr. Whitaker we would probably be looking at similar variances to the other four property owners. And I am concerned that while some though REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING MINUTE BOOK NO. 54 SEPTEMBER 16, 1996 MINUTES Page No. 478 PAGE 14