Laserfiche WebLink
Alan Roberts suggested that a fair solution would be to take the issue back to the voters and ask, rather <br /> than second guess, what their intent was with regards to roads. With regards to ridgeline definitions, he <br /> said he advised the Council of the need for some real world analysis back in November and proposed <br /> the idea of a ridgeline inventory to the Planning Commission. He asked that the Council not vote with <br /> the staff recommendation to evaluate ridgelines on a project by project basis, which would result in long <br /> and contentious meetings like this on every proposal that comes forward. <br /> Mayor Thorne closed the public hearing. <br /> BREAK: Mayor Thorne called a brief recess at 8:58 p.m. and reconvened the meeting at 9:08 p.m. <br /> Councilmember Brown said the comments of the public, affected landowners and the Planning <br /> Commission all support a ridgeline inventory. While cumbersome, she said it is something that would <br /> benefit both developers and the community in terms of disclosure. She said she could support the <br /> Commission's recommendation and noted that Mr. Roberts had already prepared a draft inventory. <br /> Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio questioned the accuracy of Mr. Roberts inventory in light of the comments <br /> related to mapping of the Lund Ranch II parcel. She presumed that the ridgeline surveys prepared in <br /> connection with proposals already in the pipeline were done at the developer's cost and asked staff to <br /> estimate the cost to the City of preparing such an analysis ahead of time. <br /> Mr. Dolan said that it could require significant investment, more in terms of staff time than hard costs. <br /> The mapping done to date has been prepared, with preliminary input from staff, by the applicant's own <br /> civic engineers in order to allow for the level of detail that is ultimately required. He said it would be very <br /> difficult to prepare an accurate analysis with only general levels of information, which would <br /> undoubtedly result in disagreements and potentially litigation. He also clarified that if prepared on a <br /> project by project basis, the cost would be shared with the applicant but if prepared now, the onus <br /> would be entirely on the City. <br /> Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio said she was originally inclined to favor the inventory because it would provide <br /> developers with a level of certainty. After further consideration, she doubted that it provided any <br /> certainty at all. She said she also disliked the notion of spending City funds on potential developments <br /> that may never come forward or that may have to be revisited down the road. <br /> Councilmember Pentin concurred with the Vice-Mayor. He said one of his primary concerns in running <br /> for Council was to keep this city out of litigation. He noted that the Council has a priority list of over 100 <br /> items it will be asking staff to tackle over the next two years and said that adding the cost and effort of <br /> this inventory to the workload seems burdensome and premature. He said he did not believe that PP <br /> required the inventory or that voters voted for it, therefore he did not support the proposal. <br /> Councilmember Brown asked staff to provide more specific information on costs. <br /> Mr. Dolan said it is dependent on the level of detail required but could easily add up to tens of <br /> thousands in civil engineering time. When asked whether the necessary information could be found on <br /> preexisting maps, Mr. Dolan said it did to a certain level and it is exactly that level of effort that would <br /> lead to a lawsuit. <br /> Mayor Thorne echoed the comments of the Vice-Mayor and Councilmember Pentin. He expressed <br /> concern over the cost and staff commitment in light of the City's existing workload, level of uncertainty, <br /> and potential for litigation. <br /> MOTION: It was m/s by Cook-Kallio/Pentin that an inventory of ridgelines subject to Measure PP not be <br /> incorporated in the proposed ordinance. Motion passed by the following vote: <br /> City Council Minutes Page 10 of 23 April 16, 2013 <br />