My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
75B - PH - EIR 1584 SANTA CLARA
Clerk
>
Agenda Packets / Staff Reports
>
City Council (2004 - Present)
>
2014
>
09/02/2014
>
75B - PH - EIR 1584 SANTA CLARA
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2014 4:18:57 PM
Creation date
8/28/2014 3:54:37 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Clerk
Doc Type
Agenda Packet
Agency
Planning & Building
Item #
75B
Date
9/2/2014
Destruction Year
2019
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
604
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Final EIR No. 2011 -01, VA No. 2012 -04 & VTTM No. 2012 -02 <br />February 10, 2014 <br />Page 3 <br />Project Background <br />The subject site, known as the Sexlinger Farmhouse and Orchard, was occupied around 1914 <br />when the Sexlinger Family first located to the property. The Sexlingers used this site as their <br />residence and as a small ranch for oranges until approximately 1980. In 2006, the last of the <br />Sexlinger Family vacated the property. <br />In September 2007, the City received a proposal from Empire Homes to construct a 24 -unit, single - <br />family residential project on the property. A draft environmental impact report (EIR) was prepared <br />for this project; however, due to a major shift in the economy, the EIR was never released and the <br />applicant withdrew their proposal in May 2008. <br />In 2010, Tava Development submitted a new proposal for a 24 -unit single - family residential <br />development similar to the Empire Homes project. In response, the consultant that prepared the <br />previous EIR was selected to review and update the EIR document and make modifications as <br />necessary. In October 2011, the draft EIR for the Tava Development was released for public <br />review and comment. Due to significant concerns from the public regarding the document, <br />specifically the Cultural Resources section, the document was revised to identify the property as <br />potentially historically significant and eligible for listing on the City's historical register. In June <br />2012, the City Council held a public hearing and voted to list the property on the City's Register of <br />Historical Properties as a Key property. In response, the property owners filed a Notice of Intent to <br />Demolish on June 11, 2012, which initiated a 240 -day time period that prevented demolition of the <br />structures and orange grove. Further, it required the Historic Resources Commission (HRC) to <br />investigate feasible alternatives to the demolition. On June 24, 2012, the HRC appointed an Ad <br />Hoc Committee to investigate feasible alternatives. The Ad Hoc Committee considered various <br />alternatives to demolition, including seeking private financial sources to purchase the site, <br />publicizing the availability of the site and structure, exploring possible sites for the relocation of the <br />building, suggesting that the City purchase the site, and a hybrid alternative that included the <br />construction of 21 units along with the preservation of the Sexlinger residence and some orange <br />trees. On January 24, 2013, the HRC received and filed the final report on the alternatives to the <br />demolition of the site and adopted a resolution urging the City Council to purchase the Sexlinger <br />site. The 240 -day waiting period ended on February 7, 2013, but a demolition permit was unable <br />to be issued as the City Council had yet to certify the EIR and the appeal period had not <br />commenced. This is not expected to occur until April 2014 at the earliest (Exhibits 8 and 9). <br />On February 10, 2013, the Planning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed project. <br />After receiving public testimony and holding extensive deliberations, the Commission's vote was <br />3:3, which resulted in an impasse. Per the Commissions by -laws, the Commission gave the <br />applicant the option to either continue the item to a future meeting or move forward to the City <br />Council with a recommendation of denial. The applicant elected to move the project forward to the <br />City Council. <br />75B -5 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.