Laserfiche WebLink
in size so that they do not encroach on the creek setback at all. <br />The Finger Avenue Project also would have the residential buildings on Lots 1, 2, <br />3, and 4 touching within the 25 foot creek setback — although, as above, Respondent is <br />requiring that only Lots 1 and 2 can encroach. Pursuant to Section 32.12(F), this <br />encroachment on the Creek is allowed if a Use Permit is issued, after particular written <br />findings are made by the Planning Commission. Those findings were not made by <br />Respondent. - Instead, Respondent took the position that it was not necessary, and that <br />there was no requirement of any Use Permit, because the Finger Avenue Project was being <br />approved via a Planned Development Permit. <br />Although Respondent does assert that no Use Permit is required because the project <br />has a Planned Development Permit, Respondent does concur /concede that Respondent <br />City still needs to make the three findings required under Section 32.12(F)(3) before <br />any development in the creek setback area. Real Party in Interest actually <br />requested that Respondent make the findings. <br />In that regard, although not explicitly stated as findings under (F)(3), Respondent <br />cites to portions of the EIR and discussions at the City Council meeting, which Respondent <br />believes would fit the bill as "findings". <br />13 <br />8.B. - Page 72