AgdaPkt 2012-10-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.A. - Page 15 developer are not concerned and that the trees along the creek add beauty that should not be sacrificed, and this is the only chance to build something that fits. She opposes this project and hopes Council will deny it. Brian Schartz is a resident with his wife and children living on Avondale Avenue. He spoke in favor of the project and said he feels it will increase property values. M/S Seybert/Gee to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried by unanimous voice vote. Council discussion One Council Member addressed the question of the ordinance in the books regarding creek set back and asked staff to confirm its adoption was related to the Storm Water Prevention Pollution. Ms. Thompson referred to the adoption of the ordinance and hoe she had read the staff report from that time, which clarified that this ordinance was created and came into effect (not for protection of the creek per se) but due to water quality and to comply and respond to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES ) permit. She said the goal was to protect the creek and make sure the discharge of pollutants does not go into the creek. Ms. Thompson clarified that four lots and four homes abut the creek and not all nine, and two of those would be 25-feet away and two lots would be within the 25-feet as recommended by staff. One Council Member made comments about his history with the project since he was a Planning Commissioner. He noted that regarding the EIR he asked Mr. Ekern to clarify what it takes to certify an EIR. Mr. Ekern provided an overview of the EIR and what it includes from biology to traffic, to historical resources to impacts of the development in general. This Council Member asked the EIR consultant to speak to the issue of independence. Akoni Danielsen, the consultant for the EIR, provided detail and explained how they came in and there was disagreement between experts but there is case law substantiating that disagreement does not invalidate the EIR. The consultant agreed that there was disagreement on the issues and that is permissible in the EIR process. He noted that some neighbors hired their own experts to conduct additional studies and they have responded to issues as they come up. Ms. Thompson clarified that disagreement among experts does not invalidate an EIR. This Council Member asked specific questions about the Planned Development (PD) approach. Mr. Ekern explained that the PD process can offer some flexibility in some cases. This Council Member spoke about what he sees as the main issues: stability, vegetation and storm water runoff. This Council Member elaborated on each of these three items. He also inquired about what has been done to avoid the later issue of pollution. Mr. Ekern said that the lots are graded towards the street and away from the creek, secondly the material on the driveways is of permeable material and the water is being moved down to EI Camino Real. This Council Member inquired if this is fairly common practice and Mr. Ekern said this is an unusual solution but it can work. JOINT CITY COUNCIUSUCCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD September 10, 2012 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 15