CC Min 2012-09-10 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

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 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 JOINT CITY COUNCIUSUCCCESSOR AGENCY BOARD September 10, 2012 MEETING MINUTES PAGE 17 MINUTE BOOK NO. 64 Page No. 198