SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Lot 32 is considered part of a ridge, it is possible that a home site could be located in the lower portion of Lot 32 so long as the grading for the pad was below elevation 500. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends the City Council consider the following options relative to Lot 32: 1) Eliminate Lot 32 from the project. 2) Allow Lot 32 to remain with the one story restriction imposed by the Planning commission. 3) Require that the home site on 32 be relocated such that only grading below elevation 500 is necessary. Concern 2. The ridge designation along the southern boundary of the project site along the Spotorno property should extend further west to beyond the City water tank, and as such, the retaining walls necessary to build the culvert creek crossing are not allowed by Measure PP as they will be approximately 90 feet below the extended ridgeline. Response. Mr. Roberts points out that there is a highpoint in the land just west and north of the City water tank that is two feet higher than the elevation between this highpoint and the next nearest high point. While it does not appear to be so from the valley floor, Mr. Roberts is correct, and per staffs working definition of the end of a ridgeline, this ridge should be mapped to extend to the western property line of the site. Staff does not necessarily agree that mapping of this ridgeline prohibits the construction of the creek crossing. The retaining walls in question are proposed as part of the creek crossing culvert at the lowest elevations on the site. An interpretation of Measure PP to prohibit these walls (if walls are considered to be structures) is questionable in that the walls are not visible from anywhere except the immediate vicinity, they are located within a creek bed on one of the lowest portions of the valley, and that the restriction is somewhat artificially imposed only because the adjacent ridge is a relatively low ridge compared to the valley floor. One could also question the consistency with the purposes of Measure PP of such an interpretation, and what public purpose such an interpretation would serve. Staff Recommendation: Staff recommends that the City Council consider the following alternatives: 1) Agree that Measure PP prohibits the culvert crossing and that a road connection to Sunset Creek is not allowed by Measure PP. 2) Accept the ridges as mapped previously and presented to the public and allow the creek crossing to Sunset Creek as permissible within Measure PP. 3) Conclude that the retaining walls proposed as part of the creek crossing are not structures prohibited by Measure PP. 4) Acknowledge that the ridgeline extends to beyond the water tank but determine that Measure PP does not prevent the creek crossing retaining walls in this particular case due to their location at one of the lowest elevations of the site. Page 2 of 4