CCMIN110982 - Laserfiche WebLink

283 Council discussion ensued as to whether or not to open this item up for public testimony. The City Attorney advised Council they could take testimony if they so desired. Council determined to allow public testimony on this item. Mr. Steven Weschler, 647 Orofino Court, presented the fact that Mr. T. H. Linden- meyer, Environmental Coordinator for the East Bay Regional Park District, had not been properly notified; that he could not attend the meeting this evening but had a letter being prepared to send to the City Council. Mr. Weschler stated that if Mr. Linden- meyer had received the proper notice he would have vehemently opposed the negative declaration and requested that an Environmental Impact Report be prepared. Mr. Weschler stated that it is his feeling that since, if this is the case and Mr. Lindenmeyer did not receive notification based on some problem of City staff, then Ordinance No. 1056 should be continued to determine the legality of lack of proper notification and to allow Mr. Lindenmeyer an opportunity to testify. Mr. Harris advised that East Bay Regional Park District had responded to the first notification on PUD 82-21. He stated that a public hearing notice was sent to the East Bay Regional Park District, 11500 Skyline Blvd., Oakland, and was not returned so it is assumed the notice was delivered to that office. Mayor Butler asked the City Attorney if the legal requirements of notification had [] been met by the City. Mr. MacDonald advised that the requirements had been met. Council discussion ensued as whether or not to take final action on the adoption of Ordinance No. 1056 at this meeting. Mr. Frank Sieglitz, Attorney representing Ken Earp, et al, stated there is urgency inapproving the ordinance as soon as possible, as the developer needs to make commit- ments for the purchase of property; meeting deadlines for price commitments to make affordable housing available. He stated it has been apparent throughout the hearings of objections expressed by Mr. Weschler in an attempt to delay the project if possible. He stated this project has been considered by Planning Commission and City Council a number of times; these same individuals have been before Planning Commission and City Council a number of times. Mr. Sieglitz stated that the request for an Environmental Impact Report at this point is a last ditch effort in an attempt to put the project off track and has the same effect as a pocket veto. He stated a person from the East Bay Regional Park District had made a presentation at an earlier proceeding but he did not see what this had to do with the adoption of the ordinance tonight. He stated that he felt all affected surrounding property owners had been properly notified and to delay the project for this reason is not excusable; and if Mr. Lindenmeyer had a letter pre- pared it could have been delivered to the Council in time for the meeting tonight. He requested that the adoption of Ordinance No. 1056 not be continued. After discussion, it was moved by Councilmember Mercer, and seconded by Mayor Butler, that the adoption of Ordinance No. 1056 approving the application of Ken Earp, et al, for Planned Unit Development (PUD) development plan approval for an approxi- mately 238 unit manufactured housing project for an approximately 29 acre site located on the north side of Vineyard Avenue opposite Sauterne Way, be continued to the meeting of November 23, 1982, and that East Bay Regional Park District be notified of the con- tinuance so they may present their comments. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Mercer, Mohr, and Mayor Butler NOES: Councilmembers Brandes and Wood ABSENT: None SPECIAL REPORTS There were no special reports presented at this meeting. 10. 11/9/82