Laserfiche WebLink
6.1.A. - Page 16 <br />specific final study. Another Council Member disclosed she has been to various homes <br />and visited the streets in question many times. She asked about three lots and how <br />there are some county regulations that may apply. Mr. Lyon confirmed that there are <br />three parcels that are under county jurisdiction. Ms. Thompson further clarified the legal <br />issues associated with this situation, which is that it conveys a right to be able to build <br />on the site even though the minimum building size today would not be applicable, but all <br />other regulations apply. This Council Member also noted that she connected with a prior <br />Council Member, Mr. Dick Claire, and she felt a general discomfort with having a lot of <br />houses built on a steep hill. For this reason the Council wanted to look at this as a <br />whole. She referred to a prior incident when a house was built unsafely and slid down <br />and ended up on Farmhill Blvd and the city was sued. She has no interest in repeating <br />such situation. This Council Member wants to be sure that items that are brought up <br />can be mitigated and she feels more comfortable sending this back to the Planning <br />Commission and knowing that staff took a careful look at houses on slopes. She <br />reiterated that the goal is not to stop development but to make sure that what is done is <br />done correctly. <br />Ms. Thompson said the EIR has not been certified and if you Council grants the appeal <br />it returns to the PC for addressing the deficiencies that were mentioned tonight and in <br />the staff report. The City Attorney explained that without a full project paired with the <br />EIR then this matter can't move forward. One Council Member inquired if we have the <br />same situation in other areas. She shared concerns about the houses at the bottom of <br />the hill and if we they have the same issues. Mr. Lyon explained that staff needs to <br />research this in order to respond. This Council Member inquired about the overall <br />timeline and Ms. Thompson said that it really depends on the project applicant and <br />when the application is turned in and paired with the EIR then things can move forward <br />because without having the two there can't even exist a legal appeal. <br />Mayor Ira asked if this is the first time staff recommends upholding the appeal and Mr. <br />Lyon said no. Mayor Ira said this is a unique situation because of the developer being <br />the land owner and the Mayor understands both sides of the coin. He agrees with <br />sending this back to the Planning Commission and then come back. City Attorney <br />Thompson asked if there is some direction on the slope density and FAR. One Council <br />Member thinks it warrants looking into but it is a bigger issue and he does not want to <br />hold up this project for that work or vice versa. This Council Member opined that <br />looking at this in parallel would be ideal. <br />Dr. Bell said that this could be addressed as part of the General Plan in a parallel track <br />and Council seemed to concur. <br />M/S Bain /Pierce to 1) grant the appeal and 2) direct staff to revise the EIR to remedy <br />the two deficiencies it has identified. By consensus Council also directed that, after staff <br />has remedied those deficiencies, the matter be referred back to the Planning <br />Commission to reconsider the adequacy of the EIR as revised. Motion carries <br />unanimously by electronic vote. <br />9. MATTERS OF COUNCIL INTEREST <br />JOINT CITY COUNCIL/REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD August 22, 2011 <br />MEETING MINUTES PAGE 16 <br />