AgdaPkt 2012-10-08 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

6.1.A. - Page 17 developer and staff's role is not to get in the middle of this. In his opinion, the end product was positive. One Council Member drew a parallel to Manor Court and noted how this area in many ways is a similar situation with nine houses. She then addressed some of the letters that came in and the passion behind some of them. In particular, she read excerpts of Mr. Fausto letter making comments about its contents. This Council Member said that ultimately people will be unhappy and her hope had been that people will be less unhappy. Mr. Ekern was asked if a certain paragraph in the letter had validity and he said that is the purpose of the EIR to address impacts. This Council Member also noted that the letter had a different interpretation on the facilitated discussion and Mr. Ekern added some detail to the flavor of the facilitated discussion but he thought they were positive. This Council Member asked if in fact staff placed an option on the table to reduce to eight units and the neighbors rejected this because it was going to be the developer's choice which lot to take away. Mr. Ekern confirmed those statements. This Council Member noted that in her opinion it would be in the best interest of everybody to still work together. Another Council member addressed the issue of the hammer head and Mr. Ekern noted this changes a bit the nature of the project. This Council Member shared the items she finds important: having as much setback from the properties as possible, houses three and four move back, redesign the house on lot seven, do what you can with lot eight, assess the hammer head, and while it is not reasonable to ask the developer to provide open space. She does find it reasonable to have the developer reduce the number of houses. This Council Member would like Mr. McGowan to reduce the number of houses and further consider community benefit. She would also like a community benefit Study Session. She was disappointed that the eight lot alternative did not work out. One Council Member is ready to make a decision. Another Council Member noted that everything has impacts and he is convinced that the EIR was independently performed and he believes that this meets the requirement to certify the EIR. Another Council Member stated that he was happy with the movement he had hoped for more. She also thought that the eight lot alternative m ight have been a good one. Another Council Member said that the Council asked the community and the developer to work together and obviously not everything Council hoped for happened. This Council Member believes staff will work out the kinks and he will support this action. Another Council Member said that this is an enormous amount of time spent on nine units and the fact is that based on the EIR document there is no clear reason to deny the EIR. This Council Member noted that all projects have impacts and that is just how it is. This Council Member noted that there are three items before Council the EIR, the PD and the Vesting map. JOINT CITY COUNCIUSUCCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD September 10, 2012 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 17