CCMIN062381 - Laserfiche WebLink

287 saved, there would be improvements to the roadway, the water system would be im- proved, and that thedensity has been decreased. Mr. Dunkley stated he took exception to Condition 1 imposed by the Planning Commission for the removal of · lot 24. He stated, in his opinion, this reduction is arbitrary since lot 24 is well designed, with an average slope of 16%, and the driveway can be relocated. Mr. Dunkley stated that staff recommends eliminating two of five sites in the area of Twelve Oaks Drive. He requested that only one lot be eliminated. Mr. Dunkley presented letters from the following persons supporting this development: Ralph Juhl, Manuel DeFreitas, Frank Capilla, Gent Finch, and Ted Vinther. Mr. Dunkley requested approval of 4 lots bordering the cul-de-sac of Twelve Oaks Drive, and that lot 24 not be eliminated. He stated this compromise is sound and meets the concerns of the Planning Commission and staff. Mr. Dunkley thanked the neighboring homeowners for their assistance and support in designing this proposal, and stated he is proud of the results. Dr. Ralph Juhl, property owner in the area, stated-that staff and Art Dunkley have worked out a good project which will enhance the neighborhood, and he recom- mended approval of the application. Mr. Judd Hull, 147 Bernal Avenue, project consultant preparing the soils and geotechnical reports, stated that from a professional standpoint this project has ' received more field investigation than any project that has been proposed for this hillside. He stated that from a geotechnical standpoint there is no measure that cannot be mitigated, and that he supports 24 homes being allowed as proposed. Mr. Maurice Engel, Attorney representing Mr. and Mrs. Lee Henserson, 2780 Foot- hill Road, stated his clients were opposed to this application. Mr. Engel stated he felt that a full Environmental Impact Report should be required as set forth in State law with all alternatives taken into consideration; such as no project, effect on other properties, progression from the Long and Boatright projects to Castlewood property. Mr. Engel stated the 50+ conditions indicate there is adverse impact on the environment, therefore, in his opinion an Environmental Impact Report should be required. Mr. Engel stated the Hillside Planned Development ordinance is not being adhered to in this instance, and he felt it should be, or the ordinance eliminated. He compared the Long project and Boatright project with the Castlewood project and stated that only 9 units should be allowed on the Castlewood project to be in con- formance with the HPD ordinance and surrounding developments. He stated that there needs to be evidence to support the findings for increased density, and that none can be found. He pointed out that even the staff stated there were "no unusual features". Mr. Engel stated that Mr. Henderson will have problems with ingress and egress and that he has a right to be protected without cost to himself. He added that Condition 10 locks Mr. Henderson in as a one home-site lot. Mr. Engel reiterated his concern that the Hillside Planned Development ordinance is not being adhered to and there are no standards by which Council is being guided and he finds this totally unacceptable. He stated that as long as the Hillside Planned Develop- ment ordinance is in effect Castlewood Properties is entitled to only 9 units on this development. Mr. Engel stated he felt it imperative that an Environmental Impact Report be required instead of a Mitigated Negative Declaration. The City Attorney disagreed with Mr.. Engel's position that an Environmental Impact Report is required whenever there is a potential adverse impact. He pointed out that OPR (State Office of Planning and Research), who draft the guidelines of environmental assessment, provide for the use of a mitigated negative declaration whenever there would be no substantial adverse impacts not mitigated by conditions to the project. Councilmember Mohr stated she felt the Mitigated Negative Declaration addressed all of the concerns of adverse environmental impact in more detail than some Environ- mental Impact Reports. 7. 6/23/81