CCMin 2011-08-22 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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 specific final study. Another Council Member disclosed she has been to various homes and visited the streets in question many times. She asked about three lots and how there are some county regulations that may apply. Mr. Lyon confirmed that there are three parcels that are under county jurisdiction. Ms. Thompson further clarified the legal issues associated with this situation, which is that it conveys a right to be able to build on the site even though the minimum building size today would not be applicable, but all other regulations apply. This Council Member also noted that she connected with a prior Council Member, Mr. Dick Claire, and she felt a general discomfort with having a lot of houses built on a steep hill. For this reason the Council wanted to look at this as a whole. She referred to a prior incident when a house was built unsafely and slid down and ended up on Farmhill Blvd and the city was sued. She has no interest in repeating such situation. This Council Member wants to be sure that items that are brought up JOINT CITY COUNCIUREDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD August 22, 2011 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 16 MINUTE BOOK NO. 63 Page No. 388