Laserfiche WebLink
181 <br /> <br />conservation easement so that he can try to prove, from a <br />geological point of view they are developable (Condition 8) and <br />that Condition 11 requiring a peer reviewer on site during grading <br />be eliminated. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver asked if Mr. Dommer were to start over with the <br />current landslide information, would he still design the project as <br />it is. <br /> <br /> Mr. Dommer answered no, not if you accept the peer reviewer's <br />knowledge as being correct. <br /> <br /> There being no further testimony, Mr. Mercer declared the <br />public hearing closed. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler referred to Condition 11 and asked staff if it <br />would be in agreement with the applicant's request to eliminate the <br />peer reviewer if Council approved only 37-lots. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift answered no. Staff is still recommending that. <br />Several of the lots have active landslides within their boundaries, <br />but not where the house pad will sit. Staff felt that those active <br />landslides need to be repaired. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr commented that she would like the two geotechnical <br />engineers to meet and determine whether or not they could come to <br />some type of an agreement regarding Lots B and C. She believed <br />that staff recommendation for 37-lots was appropriate. If there is <br />a resolution on the safety of Lots B and C, then it could be <br />brought back to Council for review. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler agreed that unless and until the consulting <br />geologists can reach an agreement, he would not want to put the <br />City in a position of not relying on its own consultant. He <br />preferred not to put the conservation easement on the two lots and <br />at this point just restrict the development to the Planning <br />Commission recommendations. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver stated that once this project is changed from the <br />original submission it would be less than it was in the beginning. <br />He felt that this project should be redesigned to take in account <br />the additional information and to lay out the project differently. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer commented that when the City hires a peer <br />reviewer to make recommendations, it places the City Council and <br />the Planning Commission in an awkward position. If Council goes <br />against its own expert, it could leave the City open to liability <br />if anything happens in the future. He concluded that he would <br />support the motion because he did not feel that he had a choice. <br /> <br />11/17/92 7 <br /> <br /> <br />