CCMin 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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 projecYs 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 He said that the project was withdrawn because it needed revisions.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 been found at the site and he believes the geological reports are valid. Mr. Hanna also explained that the term feasibility is well used and need not be defined. He then asked Council to let the owners build responsibly. Public Comment Roger Flores read a statement regarding a structurally unsafe house that was over 60 years old that was leveled and rebuilt, and in the last 20 years, this house is now livable and substantial. He said that factual data was not submitted. Arlene Flores was not present when called. Kristi Guinon said they live at the bottom of Glenwood and requested the EIR (Environmental Impact Report) be overturned. She referred to a letter they had sent to the City Council on August 16� regarding their concerns and many questions about the process, and opined that it is not acceptable to take a wait and see approach. Larry Purcell, an almost 30-year resident, spoke about legal nonconforming lot sizes, the issue of putting a cap of the size of homes, easement issues, that there was a dirt road that was never deeded to City, and each property owner owns the street in front of it. He questioned the staff report, the inadequacy of addressing easement issues by the developer over the years, and in the description of the lot sizes, the average sizes were JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD August 22, 2011 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 12 MINUTE BOOK NO. 63 Page No.384