CCMIN041613 - Laserfiche WebLink

entirely prohibit such a road, provided it is related to a project with no more than 10 units. Similarly, PP does not preclude a 10 unit development on Lund Ranch II with a road that traverses a 25% grade. He said it is clear that PP limits development, not roads and roads are not to be considered structures. Mayor Thorne said PP was intended to protect the ridges, not to regulate neighborhood traffic. He reiterated that with over 40 years in construction, he has never heard roads referred to as structures. While there are structural elements to a road, the road itself is a part of the infrastructure that supports a development. He noted that he was an opponent of PP but said that he is comm itted to doing his best to uphold the wishes of the voters when they say they want their ridgelines protected and do not want a road like what was presented as part of the initiative to occur. He said he conducted considerable research on roads and structures since this issue presented and is more convinced than ever that his vote in November was wrong. Councilmember Brown asked whether he would consider a swimming pool or 7 foot fence a structure. Mayor Thorne said "probably not." Councilmember Brown asked that if the Council decides a road is not a structure, it consider strengthening the language of General Plan Policy 21 to clarify the position that roads, whether structure or infrastructure, cannot be constructed to service developments of more than 10 units. The Council offered its support. Mr. Fialho said the Council could provide direction to staff, as part of this discussion or under Matters Initiated, to return with a proposal to amend Policy 21 of the General Plan. He noted the item would first go before the Planning Commission for review and recommendation. Vice-Mayor Cook-Kallio said she too is clear that PP calls for the protection of ridgelines and their views. She asked staff whether section 12.3 of the initiative is sufficient to accomplish Councilmember Brown's intent. She noted that future Councils are not precluded from amending the General Plan if the needs and nature of the community change and expressed concern over spending staff time on a paper barrier when the language of PP is already sufficient. She also felt the level of detail, including the term "infrastructure," that was requested to be so minute that it recreated the potential for unintended consequences. Mr. Fialho said the amendment would provide additional protection but that the Vice Mayor was correct in the ability of future Council's to amend the General Plan. Councilmember Brown said there is sufficient disagreement over something as basic as what constitutes a structure to warrant the amendment, although perhaps "infrastructure" was too broad. She noted that the 1996 General Plan also spoke to hillside and ridgeline protections but that it did not prevent Oak Grove. Mayor Thorne asked staff to estimate the time required to prepare the amerdment and what the potential consequences might be. Mr. Fialho said staff could return with a proposal in one to two months. He said that the 3 properties really at play, those being Spotorno, Lin and Foley, are subject to PP and so it would really address developments of 10 units or less. Mr. Dolan said it would depend largely on the comments of the Planning Commission and how specific they would like to be. Councilmember Cook-Kallio asked and Mr. Fialho confirmed that a potential consequence could be precluding the Happy Valley Bypass Road, which everyone has already acknowledged will not be built City Council Minutes Page 13 of 23 April 16, 2013