AgdaPkt 2011-11-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.A. - Page 11 matter be referred back to the Planning Commission to reconsider the adequacy of the EIR as revised. MINUTE ORDER 11 -144 Blake Lyon, Acting Planning Principal, briefly explained why this is before the Council (presentation on file). He noted that this provided staff an opportunity to look back at the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and focus on two areas which are particularly important. These two areas are the Geology Mitigation Measures and the home size data. He noted that staff wants to add accuracy to the EIR and make some additional recommendations. Mr. Lyon reiterated that staff is recommending that the Council grant the appeal to remedy the Geology Mitigation Measures and home size data. The final item he touched on was the FAR (floor area ratio) for Hillside homes and how staff seeks Council direction on this matter. Mayor Ira opened the Public Hearing. The developer addressed the Council first and then the appellant. There was no ceding of minutes to other speakers. Dr. Bell, City Manager, interjected stating that the appellant traditionally goes first and then the developer. Christina Lawson, on behalf of the Laurel Way Association shared a presentation, (on file) and addressed the Council for ten minutes. She requested that the record include all the prior comments previously made on the project. She provided a comparison of the withdrawn proposal to the 1926 subdivision map. She shared background on the project application and how not all the owners were interested and committed to the project. She tied this matter to the General Plan and how oversized residences need to be reviewed. Ms. Lawson revealed that her major concern is that there is no project application and so there is no way to evaluate the environmental impacts. Ms. Lawson made specific comments about the lack of data and clarity on the project application. She highlighted the primary purpose of the EIR and how staff has identified two deficiencies, therefore, requiring the appeal be upheld. She further opined that additional deficiencies exist. She noted the nearby mercury mine and its activity has not been analyzed as well as the project's aesthetic impact. She added that drilled pier foundations are not analyzed and the cumulative impacts on surrounding proposed development. In her perspective, the EIR fails to describe a reasonable range of alternatives. She stated that an EIR should not be considered in the absence of a project application so that the neighborhood and the Council can properly review and understand the two side -by -side. John Hanna spoke next and explained he is representing 16 owners who would like to build in the lots they own. He said that the project was withdrawn because it needed revisions. He guaranteed that nothing different is going to be added to the project like condos. He explained he is not the developer but instead represents the sixteen single residential owners who are interested in building. Mr. Hanna noted that these residents have spent over $900,000 in the process to date and opined that the legislature instituted "categoric exemptions" for this particular situation. He then introduced Scott Fittinghoff, representing the firm Cornerstone, who then spoke on geological impacts who stated that the reports done to date are acceptable and in his opinion there is no need for additional work to be done. He noted that no traces of the mercury mine have JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD August 22, 2011 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 11