AgdaPkt 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 65 Laure] Way Joint Venture Laurel Way Area Neighbors Ass�ciation April 15, 2011 Page 4 Venture, but instead recommended appz ofAlternative B id�ntified in the EIR — the sa-called "Reduced Floor Area" alternative. Various neighbors submitted oraI testimany and written corresponde�ce and argument at the hearin�, including Mr. Velyvis' Dece�nber 7, 2410 letter on behalf of LWANA. As a result of �lus testimony and correspondence, City staff learned that not all of the praperty owners within the proposed project area had actually authoarized tne Laurel Way .�oint Venture ta fi�e the development applications. In addition, in reviewing the legal ar�uments znade by counsel for the LWANA, City staff deterinizied that one oftlleir objections had technical legal merit. SpecificaIly, stai�agreed with theit• �egal argunaer�t that the City sl�ould not approve a new subdivision map, given that the propc�sed lots would not conform with tne City's existing z�oning ordinances, far the reasons described above. However, staff also detern�ined t�at a new subdivision map was not necessar•y to the pro�osed project, given that the individual lots already existed. The necessary roadway easelnent for fihe wider �oad could be created without changing the �ots themselves, and the three lots could be merged without the need foi• a subdivision map. The Planning Commission did not take action on the applications at the Decer�zber 7, 20i0 hearing, but rather continued the hearing far the purpose of cansidering these and various other issues. City staffth�n consulted with Mr, Har�er in arder to ascertain which pr�perty owners were actually joining in on the developn�ent applications. Ultimately, on .lanuary 21, 2011, M��. Haner submitted to the City signed aut�orization fo��tns froin the owners of all but thrree of the lots within the proposed Project area. The three lots whose owners have not joined in on the application are the lots identified in the Draft EIR as Lot Nos. 2(Cicero), 12 (Ramontianu), and 13 {Hanigan). I then met with Mr. Haner, George Long and City staff an February 3, 2011 to discuss how to furth�r �rocess the application. At that ineeting, M�r. Haner informed rne that the Lauxel Way Jaint Venture vvould soon be submitting a revised application for a Planned Develapment Per�x�it whicll only included the owners of lots who were authorizing the applacation (thus amitting Lot Nos. 2, 12, and 13). Tk�e Joint Venture ha� since withdrawn its original developme�at application. However, contrary to what I and City staffwere told on February 3, the Joint Venture has now indicated to City staffthat it does not 'rrrtend to submit a revised dev�lopment application until after the C�ty Council hears the appeal of the Planning Cornrrussion's EIR certification. Tlle Jotnt Venture is now asking the City to proceed with sclaeduXiaag the �earing of that appeal.