Laserfiche WebLink
453 <br /> <br />to court and the judge make a finding that the builder had <br />proceeded in good faith and that the substantial compliance <br />question was reasonably addressed, the building would be allowed to <br />remain. She indicated that in spite of the impact on the <br />neighbors, the City would not be able to uphold the finding that <br />the building does not meet the substantial compliance requirement. <br />However, the requirement that the builder should provide <br />landscaping for the neighbors remains a critical issue and should <br />be followed through. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes concurred with Ms. Mohr. He pointed out that <br />lowering the building by 3.5 feet would not make a significant <br />difference. In addition the front elevation makes the building <br />more attractive. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver pointed out that the conditions of the Measure X <br />are binding. He commented that there are indications that the <br />developer actually wanted his building permit approved before he <br />closed the deal and that he has the same architectural firm that <br />did the plans for Measure X. He stated that the City owed it to <br />the residents to defend their rights as much as it defends <br />developers' rights. <br /> <br /> Mr. Brandes commented that this was not the first action <br />Council has taken regarding Measure X. Several months ago, Council <br />had to make a decision clarifying the prohibition of fastfood <br />restaurants, which was overlooked in Measure X. At the time <br />Measure X was put to a vote, there were concerns to make the <br />building high enough to mitigate the supposed impacts of the gas <br />station, McDonald's Restaurant and the freeway. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler agreed with Mr. Brandes that the focus in Measure X <br />regarding the retail center was that it act as a buffer for the gas <br />station. He also agreed with Ms. Mohr that the whole question <br />ultimately comes down to judgmental call on substantial conformance <br />with Measure X. He added that a 3.5 feet change in the building's <br />height would not result in what the neighbors wanted and <br />consequently would not justify committing a substantial amount of <br />money in a lawsuit for a resolution that would not solve the <br />problem. He indicated that he could not accept that risk at this <br />time. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer commented that this is a difficult situation for <br />the Council, the staff and the neighbors. He stated that he <br />supported the neighbors through the whole process and would <br />continued to support them. <br /> <br /> 8-22-90 <br /> - 3 - <br /> <br /> <br />