CC Min 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

and four homes abut the creek and not all nine, and finro of those would be 25-feet away and finro 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 befinreen 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. 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. JOINT CITY COUNCIL/SUCCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD September 10, 2012 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 16 MINUTE BOOK NO. 64 Page No. 197