SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Amy Lofland stated her support for the staff recommendation on streets and roadways, assuming that PUDs, Specific Plans and CC &Rs approved prior to November 2008 are exempted. Her specific concern related to PUD 90-18 for Bonde Ranch, PUD 97-03 for Greenbriar for Bridle Creek, PUD 97 -12 for Sycamore Heights, the North Sycamore Specific Plan, Happy Valley Specific Plan and the CC &Rs for Bridle Creek and Sycamore Heights. Allen Roberts recommended an alternative to staffs Option 1 regarding slope, which would include even very small changes in elevation in the calculation of slope or allow staff to determine that the change was insignificant. He recommended that they instead use the 2 -foot contour interval over 10 vertical feet. He suggested that several real and clarifying examples of how ridgelines are to be measured would be very helpful to the public. He also stated that PP did not make distinction between manmade and natural slopes and neither should the ordinance. Greg O'Connor said he had several issues with staff's recommendations regarding measurement of slope and the definition of the ridgeline. While he always assumed scope would be measured as a continuous line, he said he could support using a 2 -foot rise for the purposes of practicality. He felt staffs recommendation regarding ridges would not capture the entire ridgeline, but that it was certainly a good starting point. He said PP is clear and does not provide for exceptions with regard to streets and roadways, except for those PUDs and Development Agreements approved prior to 2008, or manufactured slopes. He did not feel streets or roadways discussed in Specific Plans, which are modified as the reeds of the community evolve, should be exempt from the provisions of PP. He cited the 1996 General Plan, which made several references to prohibiting grading where existing scopes are 25% or greater. Mayor Hosterman dosed the public hearing. Councilmember Sullivan asked and Ms. Ayala confirmed that the PP authors support staff's recommendation for Option 3 regarding streets and roadways. Ms. Ayala reiterated her request for the additional language and said she did not think it critical to include Development Agreements in the exemption. She also suggested that the City conclude its outstanding lawsuits prior to putting any new laws on the books. Counclmember McGovem said she would be more comfortable with Option 2 for streets and roadways as this would enable a public hearing process rather opposed to a blanket allowance. She asked and Mr. Fialho confirmed that the details such as road connections of an approved PUD are vested rights whereas those in a Specific Plans are not. Her concern with exempting road connections discussed in a Specific Plan is that it suggests they are in fact vested rights. She asked if staff reviews the PUDs of adjacent properties when a project comes forward. Mr. Fialho said staff would draw guidance from the adjacent PUDs as well as any related Specific Plans in evaluating a project. Lund Ranch II for instance is bordered by sites with approved PUDs that assume a roadway connection on that site. Lund Ranch 11 has no PUD but there is a Specific Plan that provides very detailed discussion on how the roadway would be constructed. In order to encourage that those connections be made, staff would rely on the fact that PUDs are required to comply with Specific Plans. Councilmember Sullivan asked and the PP authors confirmed that they wish to exempt any previously approved roadways or connections that may now violate PP. Mayor Hosterman said staff has done an amazing job in crafting a set of definitions and language that the community can really get behind. She agreed with Councilmember McGovern that to make any kind 4