CCMIN112712SP - Laserfiche WebLink

of major modification to or condition any of these issues warrants a full public hearing and said she also agreed with many of Mr. O'Connor's points. She moved the staff recommendation on all items. Councilmember Cook-Kallio referred to meeting minutes of June 6, 2008, in which Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with Ms. Brown that the intent of the initiative was to control construction of residential and commercial structures, not roads, on slopes of 25% or more. She is also noted to have commented several times that she felt it was important to use exact language at that time so that they did not create this very sort of situation where they pick and choose which items to make exceptions for. Councilmember McGovern reiterated her earlier point that Specific Plans do not indicate vested rights. She referred to the Happy Valley Bypass Road as an example of a roadway that is identified in a Specific Plan but could ultimately turn out different than originally envisioned based on the kind of growth that eventually occurs. She referred to the Planning Commission's minutes of March 14 regarding Lund Ranch II, in which staff agreed that a road is a structure. She said she would much rather conduct a public hearing process to make exception for an individual roadway than to grant blanket approval for something that someone might need someday. She reiterated her position that Option 2 is a better option. Councilmember Sullivan asked and Mr. Fialho confirmed that Option 3 would still involve a public process at both the Planning Commission and City Council level. He also noted the language acknowledges that such streets and roads would still be subject to the City's environmental and discretionary review and direction on the road's location and design to mitigate or preserve any environmentally sensitive features. Councilmember McGovern said it would seem appropriate then to pursue Option 2 and allow the public process to happen. She referred again to the Planning Commission minutes of March 14, in which a Commissioner is cited several times as interpreting that a slope was manufactured 25 or 30 years before, has found its natural resting point and, if 25% or greater, should be left intact. This is a clear indication that PP should not be interpreted as excluding manmade slopes. Councilmember Thorne requested clarification on the motion with respect to manufactured slopes. Mayor Hosterman said she moved the staff recommendation, as presented. Councilmember Cook-Kallio said she felt PP was silent with regard to existing manmade slopes, that it could easily be argued either way, and that this is her issue with this type of ordinance. She asked what impact this would have on a pile of dirt with a 25% slope on the Bernal property. Mr. Fialho explained that this is hillside preservation, not valley floor preservation, ordinance and therefore, the Bernal site is not subject to the provisions of PP. Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked and Mr. Fialho confirmed that PP is silent with regard to manmade slopes. MOTION: It was m/s by Hosterman/Cook-Kallio to approve the staff recommendation. Councilmember Sullivan asked whether, assuming no distinction was made between natural and manmade slopes, there would be a process to apply for an exception or waiver to develop on a manmade 25% slope that does not otherwise conflict with the intent or language of PP. He referred to the Hana Japan site as an example. 5