PC 070903 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas, Ms. Nerland replied that if any legal challenge ware to be itiiti ated, the first step would be an appeal to City G'ouricil. At that point, any final action may be challenged in a court action. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Swift recounted the history of the joint well serving both properties. Staff found that the tentative map is very close to the PU D, and that with the exception of the ilerns identified in the staff report, staff is satisfied that all of the conditions of the PUI7 have been met. furthermore, the findings for approval of the tentative neap can be made, and staff recommended approval of the tentative neap subject to the attached conditions. Chairperson Arkin believed that the City should support amenities to residents who are impacted by projects, and did not see any amenities offered to the Brozosky family, his Councilmember status notwithstanding. Ms_ Nerland advised that there was a distinction between a mitigation that is required under an eiivirorirrtental impact and a concession that a developer voluntarily makes to a neighborhood. The City requires mitigations to comply with environmental impacts and n-titigated negative declarations; the City did not require developers to offer amenities in order to become good neighbors_ Chairperson Arkin believed that Condition 40 in the Ponderosa project stated that those amenities would be offered. Ms. Nerland advised that the developer had stated that was part of the project, and the condition was a men~orialization of what had been mutually agreed upon. h~t response to an inquiry by Conirnissioner Sullivan, Mr. Swift advised that with respect Lo the Merritt property, the amenities offered were to the community, not to another private individual_ The City has not required that a developer give aneighbor acall-i amenity because they were building next door to the neighbor's house. I-lc added that in this case, the well was being used less after the subdivision_ THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. Christopher Schlies, 699 Peters Avenue, noted that he represented the applicant, and would refer technical questions to Jim Happ. He noted that his client took. the informal position that the Planning Commission should have heard this item within a ceriain time period as defined by Government Code Section 66452.1, which required the hearing within 50 days from May 15, 2003. He advised that time period expired the previous Saturday. FIe noted that the lack of a hearing within that time led to an automatic approval of the item. 1-ie added that the City did not accept that position, and he noted that his client would not waive any rights or claims, and would participate in the public process. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 9, 2003 Yager 4