CC Min 2009-08-03 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

One Council Member asked about alternatives and the choices and Mr. Aranda explained the choices before Council in detail. He also added that the Council could make changes to the PD permit and ask that it be brought back with modifications. Staff clarified that modifications could be implemented under the Negative Mitigated Declaration. M/S Hartnett/Howard to: 1. Move to Deny the Appeal thereby approving the Planning Commission's adoption of the Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) based on the following findings: a. The Council finds that there are no credible facts (substantial evidence) contained in the administrative record and in the evidence and testimony presented at this public hearing to support a Fair Argument that there are potentially significant environmental impacts. b. The Council adopts the findings for approval of the MND as set forth in Attachment #1 to the PC Agenda Report of 05/19/09. The Council adopts the conditions applicable to the MND as set forth in Attachment #2 to the PC Agenda Report of 05/19/09, Condition #58 Mitigation Measures. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Minute Order 09-167 The City Council next discussed the planned development permit and the tentative map and Assistant City Attorney Aranda provided details on the options before Council. Council discussed issues related to neighborhood character, integration with existing houses and neighborhood, the issue of the setbacks and the single direction road. There was a general consensus that the project is still not at its best and compromise might be needed. Vice Mayor Howard thanked the public for the comments and how.99% of the public comment was factual and helpful. She also spoke about what she found to be the need for balance and she asked that the applicant look at the following items: partner with neighbors, make it a pedestrian friendly project and cohesiveness. Various Council Members commented on the issue of open space, massing and scale and the creek setbacks. Other comments related to integration with the rest of the neighborhood and making it a cohesive addition to the area. Some commented that the streets needed to be looked at and Council Member Bain suggested a study session on creek setbacks. Mayor Foust concurred with this idea and there seemed to be consensus for such meeting. Some Council members discussed the need for compromise and an understanding of what concerns Council in this project. M/S Ira/Pierce to extend the meeting until 1:00 a.m. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. Some Council Members asked about the number of homes in the proposed development. There wasn't clarity or specificity on how to rework the project but there was a general sense that some modifications and considerations were needed. One Council Member thanked people for their testimonies and the Planning Commission for all their work. One Council Member said the goal is to have the community work together and get back a JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD AUGUST 3, 2009 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 9 MINUTE BOOK NO. 62 Page No. 439