AgdaPkt 2012-10-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.A. - Page 16 Another Council Member referred to the comment that the creek will flood, and he believes and wanted confirmation that if this project gets approved it will improve the storm water flow run off away from the creek. Mr. Ekern confirmed that the plan is to give it more surface area and allow to free it of as many pollutants as possible before the water goes into the creek, as best as anyone can tell. This Council Member also inquired if any rules are being set aside to approve this project. Mr. Ekern said that to the best of his knowledge no rules are being set aside. A Council Member said that she received a call from a Planning Commissioner who indicated that there had been some procedural confusion when the Planning Commission voted and that she had intended to vote for an EIR alternative with a 25-foot setback and the houses would not be moved forward, but she had not intended to vote for project approval with the number of homes requested. Ms. Thompson indicated that she had received a similar call and that she understood this is what the Planning Commissioner intended to convey. This Council Member said that Ms. Holt called her and she is being very careful relaying the information. One Council Member would like to have more analysis and study around the creek. The mitigation program and the issue of the species was discussed. Mr. Ekern stated that the EIR clearly outlines the possibility of protected species being identified and then how to go about addressing them. Mr. Danielsen said that while three different experts were on site, none identified protected species. But, there is a recommendation that surveys should take place and that a biologist review the site. One Council Member inquired about restoration of the creek and Mr. Ekern said this will be something staff will address with the developer. Another Council Member agreed with studying the creek to possibly get some standards. This Council Member noted that regarding the Planning Commission it seemed as though the 25-foot rule was used to get smaller houses and for him it seemed some inconsistency with the original purpose of the ordinance. Mr. Ekern said that one concern was that the houses not move so far to the front that it not fit in the neighborhood. The other Council Member noted that after reviewing the stream the goal of the Planning Commission seemed to be to not create the unintended consequences. One Council Member asked about the facilitation and how it went. Mr. Ekern noted that the first meeting was a good opportunity to see what was each person's positioning and basically people finished really hungry and tired. At the second meeting, the strategy changed and there was a productive dialogue. He said that the final discussion was positive. He said the groups were able to discuss the options and go over different scenarios. Staff (meaning Mr. Ekern and Mr. Kip Harkness) then proposed a solution of eight units which ended up back at the nine houses with the awareness that neighbors could purchase lots to maintain and create additional open space in that area. However, Mr. Ekern said that these discussions are to take place between the neighbors and the JOINT CITY COUNCIUSUCCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD September 10, 2012 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 16