1983 REG MTG MIN AUG 16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

City Attorney Edwards asked if the City Council would divertfrom the 7 Agenda and next consider Item No. 21, Appeal, which deals with the same property as Item Nos. 16 and 17, and the action by the Council on Item No. 21 would effect what the Council might do on Item Nos. 16 and 17. Mr. Edwards referred to the Appeal letter filed by Joseph E. Bonadiman regarding a General Plan Amendment, G-3-83, and a Zone Change, A-4-83, on a five -acre parcel of land located at the southwest corner of Reche Canyon and Barton Roads. Mr. Edwards said Staff's recommendation is that this Appeal be set for Public Hearing on Tuesday, September 6, 1983. Mr. Edwards continued that if the Council decides to do that, then Staff would also recommend as to Item Nos. 16 and 17, which are the Public Hearings for the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change on the same property, they also be continued to that same date so that the Council has all aspects of this piece of property before them on September 6th. Mr. Edwards concluded if Council concurs, Staff recommends that these matters be set for Public Hearing on Tuesday, September 6, 1983• Councilman Rios asked if the City Council could act on these matters (\f tonight. —D City Attorney Edwards answered yes, the Council can, if they desire. Mayor Huntoon stated as he understands it, this Appeal was filed be- cause the Planning Commission did not see fit to give a Negative Dec- laration on the EIR. City Attorney Edwards answered that is correct, as detailed in Staff's report on the Public Hearing which was held by the Planning Commission on August 9, 1983• Mr. Edwards then read that portion of Staff's re- port relating to the Planning Commission decision. Councilman Rios asked if that is the only thing, then, that is holding back the whole development, the results of a focused EIR on traffic. Mr. Edwards replied what he had just read was the action that the Planning Commission took, and so it now stands that the matter went back to Staff and the Commission did not make a recommendation on either the General Plan Amendment or the Zone Change, they simply re- ferred it back to Staff. Planning Director Aguilera stated because the Planning Commission found that the Negative Declaration was not warranted, the applica- tion was deemed to be incomplete and the Planning Commission could not proceed because of the lack of an EIR. Mr. Aguilera said if the City Council were to reverse the Planning Commission's recommendation and find that a Negative Declaration is warranted, then, as Mr. Edwards has said, the Council could continue to hear the applications for the General Plan Amendment and the Zone Change. Councilwoman Garcia asked if the EIR will be available by September 6. Mr. Aguilera answered no, the EIR process will take approximately 4 to 6 months, depending on how soon the applicant can put a study to- gether. Councilwoman Garcia asked then on what is the applicant basing his Appeal. Mr. Aguilera explained that the applicant is requesting a change on paper, a change of the General Plan and a zoning change, and it is Staff's opinion that it does not require an EIR, that a Negative Dec- laration is warranted. The Planning Commission felt that there was reason to require an EIR, even though this was a paper change. Staff explained to the Commission that the applicant would still be requir- ed to perform an EIR, when they submit development plans. The Plann- ing Commission did not agree with Staff and required the EIR now in- stead of later. The study will be done eventually, either now if the Council upholds the Planning Commission decision, or later when the AUG 1 6 1983