17 - Laserfiche WebLink

somehow fixing a traffic problem or not, but his view here is that there cannot be any development on that hillside within 100 feet of the top of the ridge; and this is the reason why he thinks the ridges ought to be defined now. He noted that there is already a big controversy over this. Mr. Dolan noted that the controversy over whether a road is a structure or not relates to the 25-percent slope more than it does to the ridge issue. Commissioner Olson agreed. Chair Blank stated that it does say "or": "no grading or residential or commercial structure shall occur on hillside slopes 25 percent or greater or within 100 vertical feet...." He agreed with Commissioner Olson that "25 percent or greater or within 100 vertical feet"is the same issue. Mr. Dolan added another thought to the discussion, stating that it is a reasonable reading of Measure PP that the word "grading' assumes grading that is done to place the structure. He indicated that he could see how it could be a long way to go to, all of a sudden, leap into roads getting to the development. Chair Blank stated that he thinks the concern is that if roads are not a structure, then the only protection that roads on ridges have is what is in the General Plan; and someone in the audience mentioned that that same language was in the General Plan and did not protect against the potential development of the large Oak Grove project. He indicated that, therefore, when he thinks about whether roads should be included, he wished there were a way to get there without decimating Measure PP, to say that it would be fine if these existed before 2008, such as the Bypass Road or Lund Ranch II. He added that the downside of Lund Ranch II, though, is that it could be argued that it does not have development rights: it gets ten units, and that's it. He indicated that he did not know how to reconcile the two. Commissioner Narum asked Chair Blank how he got to Lund Ranch II having only ten units. Chair Blank replied that ten units would not be subject to the restrictions as Measure PP would not apply; therefore, Lund Ranch II could build those units and have the traffic come out anywhere. Commissioner Narum noted that Lund Ranch II could do it however it wanted. She stated that Chair Blank just took some units away. Chair Blank replied that he did not take anything from anybody because according to staff, Lund Ranch II does not have any vested development rights. He noted that those are the legal rules. He added that had Lund Ranch II had an approved PUD with a filed Vesting Tentative Tract Map, then the City would really be in a bind. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 13, 2013 Page 28 of 35