Laserfiche WebLink
7.2.A. - Page 26 <br /> Mr. Hahn said that based on the geology and people who live there, he has concerns <br /> with public safety and environmental concerns for that area. <br /> M/S Gee/Ira to close the Public Hearing. Motion carried unanimously by voice vote. <br /> Council then took a break at 9:40 p.m. and resumed at 9:50 p.m. <br /> Planning Manager Lyon provided some clarifying remarks regarding the stormwater <br /> requirements in Article 32 of the Zoning Section of the Municipal Code. He addressed <br /> the questions the appellants raised regarding the roadway and culvert of the protection <br /> water course. He provided details on this issue and the flood condition issue and the <br /> health and safety component. <br /> One Council Member brought up several issues: the issue of slope density <br /> requirements and asked if the City is in violation of the City's own Zoning requirements; <br /> merging smaller lots and was told that the County was doing this; and the status of a <br /> possible hillside ordinance. <br /> Planning Manager Lyon answered by stating that through Article 33 of the Zoning <br /> Ordinance, this ordinance gives the City opportunity to develop on nonconforming <br /> existing lots and legally creates lots consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Thus, the <br /> City is not in violation. With regards to combining smaller lots, it is the City's discretion <br /> and it can require those of the property owners but are not required to mandate it. <br /> Lastly, with the draft hillside ordinance proposal which went to the Planning Commission <br /> on October 18, 2011 Mr. Lyon stated that there was clear opposition to this approach <br /> and this was specifically done for Residential Housing Zoning. Instead, the City looked <br /> at residential design guidelines and overall context and scope. Since then, this <br /> approach is still in draft form due to the loss of the Redevelopment Agency, reduction of <br /> staff, priorities shifted, and change of philosophy. <br /> City Manager Bell added that in the beginning this was a larger task than expected, <br /> because of the various zoning designations throughout the City. Furthermore, priorities <br /> had shifted and Dr. Bell said that Staff will bring this matter to the Planning Commission <br /> in the future but it is questionable how it would relate to this project before Council <br /> tonight. <br /> The same Council Member also asked about what would happen if the Council upheld <br /> the appeal and not developed and would it reduce or increase the value of a property. <br /> Moreover, he wanted to know if this would put the City in a precarious position. The <br /> City Attorney responded that there could be financial implications, but that the Council <br /> should not make it the only driving factor. Instead, Council needs to take into account <br /> that this is a Land Use decision and authority set by the Zoning Code. <br /> Another Council Member and City Attorney Thompson discussed that the current 16 <br /> homes and 14 property owners were based upon existing regulations and General Plan <br /> and current zoning. The City Attorney further stated that the lots are developable and <br /> Council had asked owners to work together on an EIR to evaluate environmental <br /> impacts together and develop infrastructure to support that as a group effort. Also, in <br /> CITY COUNCIL September 23, 2013 <br /> MEETING MINUTES PAGE 11 <br />