CCMIN040213 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan stated that the definitions of "ridge" and "ridgeline" have evolved somewhat from what was originally presented to the Council in order to increase consistency with what occurs in the City's Zoning Ordinance. Staff presented the proposed language to the Commission and they agreed with the recommendation. The Commission also reviewed the recommendation regarding ridgeline setbacks and made one change to what was discussed by the Council in November. The Commission believed the100 foot vertical setback from the top of the ridgeline should be measured to the top of the proposed structure rather than the base or pad elevation. Staff believes this interpretation to be more restrictive than the language of Measure PP and would not recommend supporting this change. If the Council does prefer the Commission's approach, staff is recommending some minor text changes to offer exceptions for small architectural features such as cupolas and chimneys similar to other height exemptions granted for development elsewhere in the City. The final and perhaps most controversial issue is the determination of whether public and private streets or roads are considered to be structures and therefore restricted by Measure PP. Originally the Council concluded that they should be considered such and therefore prohibited as described. The Council did want to allow a possible exception for those and streets or roads that had been envisioned in any specific plan document adopted prior to November 2008 as well as for streets intended to provide access to city facilities and other landlocked areas. At that time the Council also noted that any street or road would be subject to the same rules, restrictions and discretionary review as any development project. Staff feels the language of Measure PP addresses only residential or commercial structures therefore an exemption is not required for city facilities. Staff also reviewed the inventory of affected properties and identified only one site, which is so limited by its natural slopes that the development potential does not meet the 10 lot threshold. The Commission concurred with the Council's assessment that roads are structures and therefore subject to the conditions of Measure PP, but did offer one change to the Council's original direction. Based on some additional review by staff and the City Attorney's office, the Commission felt it would be difficult to propose the recommended exemptions. The language of Measure PP essentially says that it is an amendment to the General Plan which supersedes the provisions of the previous General Plan, thereby negating what was envisioned in those specific plans that are components of the General Plan. Staff does not agree with this interpretation for several reasons and recommends that the proposed ordinance not consider roads to be structures. Staff believes the measure, which does not reference roads, would have been more explicit if its intent was to address roads. Staff also reviewed the definition of "structure," of which there are several, within the current Municipal Code and found that it differed based on the situation being addressed. Staff also believes there are fairly significant policy implications in concluding that a road is a structure, primarily relating to two roads envisioned by previous specific plans. These included the bypass road from Happy Valley, which is intended to traverse land that largely exceeds 25% slope, as well as the potential connection to the future Lund Ranch II development through Sunset Creek Lane or Sycamore Creek Way as identified in the North Sycamore Specific Plan. He noted that passing the ordinance with staff's recommendation does not mean that either road would come to pass, but determining that a street or road is a structure would unequivocally prevent them. He also noted that the City would maintain its discretionary review authority and CEQA tools in order to locate the roads and mitigate any impacts that their construction might create. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio asked which of the potential Lund Ranch II connection stubs has a sign reading "future connection" that keeps disappearing. Mr. Dolan said both have signs posted but noted there have been times that they were not. He also pointed out that each property does contain a notice in its disclosure documents, though some have testified that they do not feel it was adequate. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 11 April 2, 2013