Laserfiche WebLink
/ \ / ' �' <br /> f f{ i i Cdot* • r l r <br /> 4 k t 4 7.' / --I /1.' , \ , * <br /> . , iiillif........, i 1,4001 <br /> 1 At <br /> PL ,i). <br /> 1 : ,, \3N 1 ,\ <br /> Ir y Y <br /> ' le <br /> Livs <br /> 1 \ <br /> The map clearly shows at least six ridges on the property which are designated #1 to #6. <br /> The red lines are the ridges that were identified by Staff and communicated to the <br /> developer in 2008, marked as ridges#1, #2, #3 and #6. Why were ridges #4 and #5 <br /> excluded? <br /> Staff has indicated that ridge#4, which is longer and more pronounced than either#2 or <br /> #3, is not a ridge because it has no "last hill," since it continually declines in elevation. <br /> Ridge#5, which is longer than ridge #2, has a last hill at an elevation of 600'. Therefore, <br /> ridge#5 fully meets the definition of a ridge and should have been included in the ridge <br /> inventory provided to the developer. The original exclusion of ridge #5 was completely <br /> arbitrary and inconsistent with Measure PP and the Staff's own definitions. <br /> The omission of this ridge was noted in my letter to Staff on July 10, 2014 in response to <br /> the Draft EIR. It was again noted in my letters to Planning Commission of February 24th, <br /> June 23rd, and August 24th of this year. It also was the subject of a meeting with the City <br /> Manager on October 27th, 2015. That meeting generated the letter to Council dated <br /> October 30th from the Assistant City Manager. <br /> The Council on November 17th correctly recognized that Lot 32 was on ridge #5 and <br /> within the 100' setback(as defined by Staff) and therefore was not permissible. The <br /> Council voted to relocate the home site to an elevation below 500'. When the revised <br />