PC 08/11/82 - Laserfiche WebLink

Page 9 Gil Barbee, 147 Bernal Avenue spoke. He said ordinances are difficult to write. He said his quibbles are small but can't support the ordinance in its entirety. Zach Cowan, attorney for P.A.R.C. spoke stating he agrees with staff in that the City does need a hillside ordinance and agrees with Mr. Dunkley that it should be limited to the ridgelands and that the ordinance is not specific in this regard. He said the initial study done refers to the environmental impacts of the HPD ordinance and in his opinion ridge development would require another study if considered under the PUD. Mr. Swift said this is a very foggy area of CEQA. Mr. Cowan passed out his comments on the matter to the Commission and staff. Commissioner Wilson asked if Mr. Dunkley agrees with Mr. Cowan's comments. Mr. Dunkley made reference to a 19,500 sq. ft. 2.4 acre site with 17$ slope allowing one unit and that the proposed ordinance doesn't use averages and Mr. Cowan is correct in this regard. Lee Henderson addressed the Commission and said Art Dunkley didn't attend all of the Committee meetings and is perhaps not aware of the intent of the ordinance. He said a piece of property might have 40 units allowed but if 5,000 sq. ft. less than 25$ slope could be found, it could have no development and that was one of the reasons they used 10 acres on up. He said no one can stop a land owner from putting one unit on his property. He further said the W.I.S. method is not a difficult one for professional people. He said the intent of the ordinance is to limit the amount of buildings in the hillsides to protect the present environment. He indicated the General Plan says west of Foothill Road there will be less than two units per acre and if you have one acre and 15~ slope with a road you can only build one unit on it. He said they do not want Foothill Road to become another Crow Canyon Road. He said he doesn't agree with Mr. Dunkley. Commissioner Lindsey asked Mr. Harris about the number of units Mr. Dunkley could build under the ordinance proposed. Mr. Harris said staff did a rough calculation and he could probably get 22 units. Commissioner Getty said the proposed ordinance must not be too specific if staff comes up with one number of units and others come up with others. Mr. Henderson said the EIR prepared for Dunkley doesn't apply to this ordinance change. He said the reason they sued against Deer Oaks et al is because approval allowed him more units under the HPD than were allowed to Long or Boatright under the same law. Mr. Henderson urged approval of the proposed ordinance. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Wilson stated in his opinion the proposed ordinance doesn't simplify matters with regard to the number of lots allowed in the hill- side. He further said six different people calculating the buildable lots would probably come up with six different answers. He said the Planning Commission is very interested in protecting the hillside and