08 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Measuring slope. This has not been that controversial. Staff has been using a two-foot contour for measuring slope. The results of some test cases with various methodologies of doing a more crude measurement of slope were not that much different, so staff continues to use the two-foot contour measurement as the most conservative way of measuring slope and continues to recommend doing it that way. Identifying ridges and their end points. In terms of where the ridges are in Lund Ranch, staff used a certain methodology and ended up mapping the ridges, using the definition that the ridge point ended when it stopped going up and only continued going down. Some people have expressed concern about that methodology. Staff recognizes it is not perfect, but it seemed to work in this case; and since this is being done on a case-by-case basis, staff continues to recommend this method on Lund Ranch. Staff did commit, however, in its conversations with others who seem to be more concerned about future projects that might be affected by Measure PP, that instead of trying to come up with a perfect definition and applying it to an infinite number of possibilities, what staff really should do, in advance of any projects excluding this one, is to go ahead and take the time to map all the ridges on properties that would be subject to Measure PP or at least the ones very likely to be developed, and then have a public discussion about whether there is agreement on what the ridgelines are. While that will take some time and some back and forth among community members, staff is committed to it, all the way up to the City Manager. In this particular case, there has not been much controversy about which ridge is right and which land forms were identified as ridges, and staff just provided some of the key elevation points at the ends of the ridges and at the bottom of the valley, and some of the elevations of particular interest might be the elevations of the custom lots, particularly Lot 32, which is quite a bit higher than the other homes proposed at the bottom of the valley. Measuring ridgeline setback to building pad versus top of structure. Staff is proposing a new methodology on how to determine the ridgeline setback. Measure PP states that no building is permitted within a 100-foot vertical setback from the top of a ridge. Staff was struggling with how to measure that and came up with a methodology that it has previously talked about. It basically involves taking the ridgeline and drawing a line straight out from the top, and then saying that no home could be placed anywhere that came within 100 feet of that straight line. This brought about a discussion of whether one is grading to the pad or to the top, and there were good arguments on both sides. It was really problematic because the ridge is constantly moving, so whatever height one is measuring from could be different from one end of the house to the other, and it almost became a silly exercise to really try and implement that methodology to the letter of the law. The other thing that it did was penalize homes that were adjacent to but not on hills that were very short, and that seemed counter-intuitive to the purpose of Measure PP, such that the lower the hill the more punitive the rule was. As a result, staff came up with this other methodology that is much cleaner, and the applicants have been pushing for this as this was the methodology they came up with in the beginning. Staff considered it and explored the other option, but in the end, staff believes it is the best methodology because it can actually be implemented on a consistent basis regardless of the topographic situation. In this particular methodology, measurement starts at the top of the ridge, goes 100 feet straight down, and then turns at a 90-degree angle towards daylight: that is the area, 100 feet down, that is protected; EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 3 of 45