AgdaPkt 2011-11-14 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.A. - Page 15 Mayor Ira reported that two people, Jed and Rena Dugish were present earlier but did not understand the public comment process and had left, but they both indicated that they object to the project. One Council Member asked about this being a legal subdivision and he asked if there is anything on the record that could indicate that this is non - legal. Mr. Lyon said that there is nothing in the record that would counteract the fact that this is a legal subdivision. One Council Member inquired about the easement rights and how various owners own the street. Ms. Thompson said that this will depend on what the project is and then staff can better assess the situation. City Attorney Thompson reiterated that it would be premature to respond at this time. This same Council Member asked for confirmation regarding the current zoning not assigning FAR and staff confirmed. Another Council Member inquired if the deficiencies had been identified before the Planning Commission and whether they would have approved this had that been the case. Staff said that the Planning Commission would have considered them carefully but could not speak for that body. The City Attorney said that the current language is very loose in the EIR as far as the "mitigations would be done to the extent feasible" and that appears to be a deficiency in the EIR. She conceded that some issues were premature because there is no project but in this last item it is very clear that the deficiencies need to be addressed. Another Council Member talked about CEQA and how since the 90s the Council had spoken about the fact that an EIR needs to be done for this area and this position has been reaffirmed. Staff confirmed Council's direction on this matter was unchanged and the Council has reaffirmed its position. This Council Member would like the City Attorney to guide the Council through the process of addressing the deficiencies and fixing the wording. This Council Member would also like to look at the impacts on Highland, and Glenwood. Staff confirmed that since there are sixteen owners for 18 owners at least one owner has two lots. This Council Member believes the matter has to go back to the Planning Commission so that the project and the EIR come back together. It was asked if staff could regulate the length of the construction. Ms. Thompson said that staff can phase the construction but she will need to check if staff can cap the construction schedule. City Attorney Thompson said that information can continue to be considered while this is going through the process until the project is approved. The EIR will have to take those items in consideration as the items change on the application and the EIR will have to be re- evaluated in light of these changes. One Council Member wanted to know when and if the drainage issues were disclosed to the owners. This Council Member would like to know how much the owners knew when this was considered and opined that the Planning Commission should also have this information. Another Council Member commented that Council cares and does listen. This Council member inquired about the lack of specificity on what might be built in these lots. Ms. Ekas referred to the North Main Street (Precise Plan area) project, as an example and how there was an initial study and a negative declaration as a whole and a more JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD August 22, 2011 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 15