CCMIN112905 - Laserfiche WebLink

Vanessa Kawaihau, 871 Sycamore Road, said she appreciated the efforts to preserve the southeast hills. However, she was concerned about how that will impact the Happy Valley community, its rural atmosphere and quality of life. She acknowledged Specific Plan areas are not being looked at during the General Plan process, however two PUD areas on the Spotorno property have a total of 80 homes which were approved in areas with a slope of more than 25% and next to an identified fault line, much like the golf course property. In enacting a more stringent gross developable acreage definition, it will affect those two PUD areas and because of state law, she asked if those 80 homes would be transferred to the flat land automatically, thus ruining her community. She does not deny Spotorno's right to build, but there is an overall responsibility to the overall community. She urged finding a good balance. Martin Inderbitzen, 7077 KolI Center Parkway, Suite 120, supported the staff recommendation to continue with the PUD process and not suggest alternate language for the General Plan as outlined in the staff report. Before any modification is made, he urged staff to provide an analysis of how the PUD process works successfully. It takes more than the brief discussion in the staff report and the oral debate at this meeting to understand what the ramifications of a change might be. For example, he believed he could identify a number of existing developments that were planned and built that have used a calculation like this and resulted if very nice developments. In terms of public health and safety, he felt the PUD process and CEQA process protects it well. The definition of gross developable acres does not relate to that at all. Several months ago he participated in a process with neighbors and staff to find a development plan that would provide benefit to the property owner on the Oak Grove project and to meet some concerns of adjacent neighbors as well as achieve the City Council's goal of bringing substantial acres of open space into the southeast hills area. He has commenced that process and is optimistic that the process has been cordial and straightforward. A lot has been learned and the process will continue. He felt introducing this kind of policy into that process could be detrimental to the ability to move forward. He asked that Council defer any action until he has exhausted attempts to reach a solution with the neighbors. He supported the staff recommendation. Mr. Brozosky asked how that would affect the process Mr. Inderbitzen was undertaking? Mr. Inderbitzen thought it could be taken as a misleading indication of an appropriate density and unbalance the negotiations. Mr. Inderbitzen indicated he has tried to avoid posturing by saying he is entitled to a certain number of units. Discussion has been more focused on how the plan was developed, the issues of importance to both sides, etc. He felt it was premature to introduce another element into the discussions. Mr. Brozosky felt that Council has latitude in the PUD process to go below or above the midpoint. No matter how it is calculated, Council still has discretion on how many units to approve. Joint Workshop City Council/Planning Commission 4 11/29/05