CCMIN110607 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan noted the speaker's mention of new information and asked staff to provide a response as to how this relates to the EIR. Mr. Iserson said staff does not believe it is new information because it was addressed in the draft EIR and further addressed in the final EIR. Councilmember Sullivan referred to the house designs and confirmed with Mr. Iserson that the Zoning Administrator will approve the house designs as prepared which is an in-house staff function, notification is sent to property owners within 1,000 feet and if people have issues with the proposal, then a hearing can be held or it can be elevated to the Planning Commission for review if they feel that body should participate in the discussion and the criteria used to approve home design is contained in the PUD, the development agreement and design guidelines. Mr. Iserson said prior to house approval, owners would need to go through review by the homeowner association where an architect is required to review the plan and ensure there is consistency with the design guidelines. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed the material is sent to the Planning Commission so that if any one commissioner does not support a home design, it could be agenized for a Planning Commission hearing. If someone at the Commission hearing opposes the project, it can be appealed to the City Council. City Attorney Roush said the Council also will receive the information relating to the Zoning Administrator's action, as well. Councilmember McGovern asked that she be notified when every house is reviewed by the Zoning Administrator, and Mr. Iserson agreed to provide this notice. Councilmember Sullivan referred to the issue of water and energy use and confirmed with Mr. Iserson that the development will comply with the City's green building ordinance. He also said the City will discuss a tiered water rate to address upper end water users, which could potentially be a way to deal with high water users. Mr. Iserson said the landscape design guidelines for the project also includes statements that strongly encourage the use of drought- tolerant landscaping and the provision to use 20% less than the maximum allowance for the development. Annual water audits would be conducted by the homeowners association to ensure they are complying and hopefully reducing their consumption. Councilmember McGovern questioned the maximum water allowance, and Mr. Iserson said it was defined in the landscape design guidelines and he agreed to forward that information to her. Councilmember Sullivan said at the last meeting, he made his views known on the project which have not changed. The City spent 3.5 years working with the neighbors, the developer and the City to come up with something that would provide balance, something that people could support and live with and provide an incredible amenity for the community which he felt has been done. He believed in the process; felt it was a good project, agreed there were trade-offs. He does not like the idea of houses in the hills but felt there were also controls in place to minimize, reduce, or eliminate the houses from the majority of the City. He supported moving forward with placing the additional language in the ordinance and said he supports the citizens' right to pursue a referendum. He felt the Council should not add additional barriers to the citizens in doing this and he was also supportive of the additional language proposed. Councilmember McGovern felt what needed to be voted on prior to the PUD and development agreement is the additional language. Councilmember Sullivan said he would support adding additional language that would allow the citizens to pursue a referendum either the PUD or development agreement. He asked that if City Council Minutes 11 November 6, 2007