01 REGULAR MINUTES - Laserfiche WebLink

determined that the plan worked, did not expose residents to fire danger, and they would be able to get in and defend the property based on the mitigation measures proposed. Councilmember Sullivan asked Chief Cody to comment on the issues and speaker comments regarding the fire protection buffers around each house. Fire Chief Cody said what was said was absolutely inconsistent with what is being proposed in the fire management pan. There are setbacks required for vegetation, there is a small buffer zone for anon-combustible area and there are other plant able areas with specified plant materials. The pictures shown tonight do not accurately reflect what is in the fire management plan. Councilmember Sullivan asked if the pictures shown in the design guidelines were consistent with the fire management plan, and Chief Cody said they are and may need to be refined somewhat based on the wild land fire management plan they receive, but key is that oak trees are actually positive types of vegetation and safeguards against fire spreading, as long as they are maintained properly underneath. Mayor Hosterman referred to the requirements for grading, a biologist and entomologist to locate endangered species and the requirement for US Fish and Wildlife Service to do a full review. She said the City has a certified EIR which mandates further studies, the City will hopefully secure permitting from US Fish and Wildlife, grading issues have been addressed and the Chief has spoken about fire safety issues. Regarding holding out for a better plan, the City has worked over three years with the community, neighborhoods and staff to arrive at a balanced plan that allows the developer to move forward while providing a wonderful amenity and she reiterated that no houses have yet been approved. Regarding the wording of the development agreement and PUD, she thinks the initiative has been addressed regarding staff to come back to Council to consider. She felt the referendum is misguided, but those interested could move forward with this. City Manager Fialho said staff has copies of suggested language to present on the overhead projector, as well as hard copies for the audience. He said the City Attorney can walk through this language with the Council and if considered, it could be added to Section 5 of each of both ordinances. City Attorney Roush said the proposal would be to have self-termination language as part of the ordinance in terms of the effective date. This language could be in either or both ordinances. What is shown now is the language in the ordinance that would approve the development agreement. It provides that the ordinance adopting the development agreement would be effective 30 days after its passage and adoption, but they added a provision that states that if Ordinance No. 1961, which is the PUD development plan ordinance, is set aside for referendum, then the development agreement ordinance would be of no further force and effect. If this language was adopted and then the development agreement ordinance was set aside, the PUD development plan would also go away. The Council could add that same language to the PUD development plan ordinance. He said when a referendum petition is circulated one needs to attach to the petition the document that is being set aside. So, with respect to the PUD development plan ordinance, there is a statement of overriding considerations and PUD conditions. There is a much larger amount of paper involved with the development agreement ordinance than just with the PUD development plan. Councilmember McGovern said she supports putting the language in both ordinances under Section 5 because it makes it fairer to those who are trying to referendum the project and she City Council Minutes 9 November 6, 2007