11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair Allen stated that she knows the staff report does not include a visual of what the road would look like constructed because it has not been designed yet, but asked what staff expected the height of retaining walls would be on the section that crosses the 25 percent or greater slope. Mr. Dolan replied that it is almost impossible to answer that question as staff has not really done the evaluation on the exact part that crosses 25 percent because there is not a whole bunch of it that is 25 percent. He stated that what he does see, if there were retaining walls, would be one retaining wall below at a minimum and one above the road, and obviously they would be as short as possible. He added that if more were required, staff would bench it up and split something up, perhaps two below and two above at the maximum but limited to three or four feet. Chair Allen inquired if there is any way to get a road connecting from Sunset Creek Lane into the Lund property without crossing this 25-percent slope. Mr. Dolan said no. He stated that one could argue that it is not a huge area of 25 percent, and the way the staff report is written, it suggests kind of between the lines that there is another way of concluding you can make that access. He noted that theoretically, the City could conclude interpreting Measure PP that there is not enough 25-percent slope here to be concerned about, but technically the road would go through an area of 25 percent. Commissioner Balch inquired if staff has a rough idea of what percent of the area is not 25 percent. He noted that it is a little different at the top than at the bottom. Mr. Dolan replied that it varies all the way up to 24 percent and down to something that is much more gentle. He indicated that staff has not really done that analysis; staff just drew the line and said this is over the threshold and this is not. Chair Allen referred to a comment made by a speaker and which she read in the previous Planning Commission's deliberation when the Commission was asked to look at if a road is a structure or not, that a voter Initiative such as Measure PP would trump the General Plan, no matter what the history was and what kind of specific plans and traffic model assumptions exist. She asked Ms. Harryman to confirm if that is correct. Ms. Harryman replied that is correct. She explained that if the voters put something into effect through an Initiative that would be in conflict with the General Plan, specific plan, PUDs, it would trump it all. Mr. Dolan added that in this case, the Initiative actually suggested that the General Plan be changed; it was very direct and was an amendment to the General Plan. Ms. Harryman agreed. Chair Allen continued that if one were to say that a road was a structure —which the General Plan does not say, there has not been a vote and that has not been decided — that would create additional definition that would trump other agreements that were EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 29 of 45