01 - Laserfiche WebLink

previous meeting. She pointed out that the same type of road was previously evaluated in the EIR, however, not at that exact location being proposed. Pertaining to Lot 32, Councilmember Brown referred to the staff report stating that the hill located behind lot 32 is at 600 feet, hence why it was previously mentioned to lower the pad 30 feet in order to obtain the differential between the 600 and the 500 as a 30-foot drop. Ms. Ramirez-Holmes responded saying that the applicant used numbers staff provided in 2009 and staff did not designate the 600-foot area as a ridge line. Assistant City Manager Brian Dolan stated that a member of the public made a suggestion that the ridgeline should be different and that comment was passed along to council with staff giving Council the option of accepting the original designation or agreeing with the new ridgeline designation. Mr. Dolan confirmed that the recommendation given to the Planning Commission and City Council did not include the exclusion of Lot 32, but rather raised the issue of whether or not they wanted to approve Lot 32 based on the ridgeline of other pads within the surrounding area. Councilmember Narum asked if the parking spaces are still in the plan on the Lund Ranch side leading to Sunset Creek based on the new drawing, to which Ms. Ramirez-Holmes clarified that there are four existing spaces located at the hammerhead at the end of Sunset Creek and anticipated to use these four for the trail and add four more at the staging area. Councilmember Narum also asked for approximation of when Greenbriar would be in a position to break ground in the growth management ordinance allocation, if construction was to be approved, to which Ms. Ramirez-Holmes stated staff has a recommendation of allocation in place, however, if council would like the recommendation of allocation made by staff change, Greenbriar gave an approximation of splitting the timeframe over a period of two years. Councilmember Brown reiterated information related to the new street configuration in the event some members of the audience were not able to properly view the slides previously shown. The configuration includes; 695 feet long, 245 within the 25 percent slope area, 645 truckloads of dirt to be cut/filled and maximum wall height of 6-foot culvert within 122 feet of walls. Ms. Ramirez-Holmes also stated that the recommendation was made by the planning commission. Councilmember Narum asked staff to confirm if there is a standard provision that the applicant will be responsible for if road and common areas are damaged during construction and also asked City Attorney Lowell to explain why it is up to the Council or legislative body to define the terms that are in place regarding Measure PP. Mr. Lowell explained that when Measure PP was being drafted, there were certain definitions, such as ridgeline, structures and how the slopes were measured which were ambiguous, unclear, undefined as was pointed out in the City Attorney's Impartial Analysis. As the City Council was appointed by the residents as the representative body for the residents, and the council makes it a point to keep abreast of all zoning ordinances and land use ordinances, therefore, its members are in the best position to determine the terms related to zone ordinances, land use ordinances, etcetera. Mr. Lowell also pointed out that if the issue were to end up in litigation, while a Court will arrive at its own ruling, it will give great weight and consideration to what the legislative body decides. At the conclusion of questions posed by Councilmembers to Ms. Ramirez-Holmes, prior to opening the public hearing, Mayor Thorne advised the public to comment only based on the revised plan currently being proposed as numerous comments had already been received regarding the project. Mayor Thorne also requested each speaker to keep their comments to three minutes. City Council Minutes Page 4 of 16 December 1, 2015