CCMIN031081 - Laserfiche WebLink

f that adjacent properties are larger and that any reduction in open space would be an adverse impact for surrounding property owners. Mr. Engel stated he felt the open space should be increased, and that if you vary from the ordinance then there should be compelling reasons. Mr. Engel added that if this ordinance is the City policy, then stick with it. He urged denial of the open space reduction and approval of 9 units as the permitted number, and do not allow a density adjustment. Mayor Mercer asked staff if all information had been submitted to the Planning Commission. Mr. ~rris advised that the profiles and geographic features were not presented to the Planning Commission as he did not feel this was necessary. Mr. Engel reiterated his feeling that the profiles and initial map should have been submitted to the Planning Commission; that any application should obey all rules and regulations and he felt that not all data had been made available in this case. He added he felt an Environmental Impact Report should be required. Mr. Engel questioned the Mitigated Negative Declaration. Mr. Harris explained the process under a mitigated negative declaration, stating that conditions of approval could mitigate those impacts to a significant level. Dr. Howard Long, 9933 Longview Lane, presented pictures taken this date showing slide conditions in the area. He stated he concurred with the previous speaker about the need for an Environmental Impact Report. Dr. Long advised that there was danger of slides blocking access to some of the homes in the development.-He also stated that the development would increase traffic problems on Foothill Road, which is already a very dangerous road, and also create a hazard for children who walk in this area. In rebuttal, Mr. Dunkley stated that when the HPD Ordinance was adopted very little was known abouts its effects and operation, but it was an intent for more control, with no concern about reduction of density. He stated that reduction of density is now an issue. Mr. DunHey stated that with regard to the documents not submitted to the Planning Commission, this information is on file and available at the Planning Department. He stated this development will provide a loop utility and other beneficial improvements, a study shows no earthquake zone, and the find- ings for the open space application were approved by the Board of Adjustment. Councilmember Butler asked that if the concerns about the variance were satis- fied and Council addressed the Hillside Planned Development, could they act on the development plan? "Mr. Harris advised that although Planning Commission did not look at this particular map the lot arrangement is what they intended. He stated he was not sure that the geological study would take in Lot 24 or Lots 6 and 7. The City Attorney advised that the staff had proposed no unusualy topographical features pursuant to Subparagraph (4) for a density adjustment and nothing in the oral testimony supports this. Mr. Dunkley responded that the slope maps indicated a considerable amount of land in excess of 25% sufficient to justify the adjustment. Mr. Engel stated he was not opposed to the project but felt all evidence should be out in the open. Mr. Dunkley stated the City has safeguards in the conditions that address all areas of concern and any specific points that may be in question. He advised that we are talking about the hillside planned development permit only tonight and that he will comply with the HPD Ordinance.; and that other issues can be addressed in the application process. s. 3/lO/Sl