01-05-1976 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

In rebuttal, Mrs. Kearney stated that the general plan for the property development has completely changed from what was originally presented at the time the Mabury property was rezoned; that the overall density is too severe; that the EIR shoul8 not be a useful "tool" for the developer; and that adverse impacts to the area will result from the Lake Dianne Project. The public hearing was closed by Mayor Garthe after hearing no more requests to speak. In answer to Mayor Garthe's questions, Ronald Wolford, Public Works Director, stated that the project would be supplied with City water and quality would not be an issue; and that the drainage was in a southerly direction and had been ade- quately provided for. Responding to Councilman Yamamoto, the Senior Planner stated that the EIR did meet all the legal requirements and the guidelines of implementation adopted by the City and State. In response to Councilman Ward's question regarding what would be on Fruit Street if it were developed as Ri, William Daugherty, Senior Planner, stated that a typical Ri develop- ment would have 20' back yards with a block wall fence or 4' side yards if streets entered Fruit Street. Councilman Bricken reminded Council that the 100' buffer zone was a compromise to a previous appeal of a zone change; that the proposed project would be a second compromise on the part of the appellants; and that the people of that neighbor- hood have stated that they are opposed to this kind of design in their neighborhood. Councilman Yamamoto stated that the "I was there first" argu- ment is not always the best position to take for the benefit of the City. Councilman Bricken's motion not to accept the Draft Environ- mental Impact Report as accurate failed for lack of a second. Councilman Yamamoto's motion to adopt the Draft Environmental Impact Report, all written materials pertaining thereto and all verbal comments as the Final Environmental Impact Report and certify that it has been completed in compliance with CEQA and the City's rules and regulations and that the Council has reviewed and considered the information contained therein was seconded by Counoilman Ward and carried 6:1 with Council- man Bricken dissenting. The following Resolution No. 76-7 was adopted on the motion of Councilman Yamamoto, seconded by Councilman Ward and carried 6:1 with Councilman Bricken dissenting: RESOLUTION NO. 76-7 - A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, AF- FIRMING THE ACTION OF THE PLANNING COmmISSION ON VARIANCE APPLICATION NO. 75-50, APPROVING SAID VARIANCE APPLICATION, AND DENYING APPEAL NO. 359 FILED THEREON BY LEE M. KEARNEY OF CITIZENS FOR FAIR ZONING ASSOCIATION. CA 13.3 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES 16 JANUARY 5, 1976