AgdaPkt 2013-09-23 Closed and Regular

Browse Search

8.A. - Page 307 B.A. - Page 65 %awd Way Joint Venture Lauml Way Atex Neighbors Association April 1.5, 2011 PW 4 Venture, but instead recommended approval of Alternative B identified is the EIR — the so-called Meduc:ed Floor Area" alternative. Various neighbors submitted oral testimony and written correspondence and argument at the bearing, including 1VIr. VO4-vis' December 7, 2010 letter on behalf of LWANA. As a result of this testimony and correspondence, City staff teamed that not all of the property owners within the proposed project area had actually authorized the Laurel Way Joint Venture to file the development applications. In addition, in reviewing the legal argumants made by counsel for the LWANA, City staff determined that one of their objections had technical legal mit. Specifically, staff Weed wkh their legal argument that the City should not approve a new subdivision mag, given that the proposed lots would not conform with the City's existing zoning ordinances, for the reasons described above. However, staff also determined that a new subdivision map was not necessary to the proposed project, given that the individual lots already existed. The necessary roadway easement for the wider road could be created without changing the lots themselves, and the three lots could be merged without the need for a subdivision nap. The Planning Commission did not take action on the applications at the December 7, 2010 hearing, but rather continued the hearing for the purpose of considering these and various other issues. City staff then consulted with Mr. Haner in order to ascertain which properly owners were actually joining m on the developnient apphcations. Ultimately, tin J'a mmry2l, 2011, b&. planer submitted to the City signed authorization forms from the owners ofall but three of the lots within the proposed Project area The three lots whose owners ,have toot joined nt on the application are the lots identified in the Draft EIR as Lot Nos. 2 (Cicero), 12 (Ranaontionu), and 13 (Hanigan). I then met with Mr. Haney, George Long and City soon February 3, 2011 to discuss how to further process the application At that meeting, Mr. Haner inforined me that the Laml Way Jomt Ventum would soon be submitting a revised application for a Phmned Development Permit which only included the owners of lots who were authorizing the application (thus ornitting Lot Nos. 2, 12, and 13). The Joint Venture has since withdrawn its original developneent application. However, contrary to what I and City staff were told on February 3, the Joint Venture has now indicated to City staff that it does not intend to submit a revised development application until after the City Council. hears the appeal of the Planning Commission's EIR certification. The Joint Venture is now asking the City to proceed with scheduling the hearing of that appeal.