08 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with Ms. Brown that the intent of the Initiative is to control construction of residential and commercial structures and not roads that maybe on 25% slope and leads to the conclusion that the intent of the Initiative is not to preclude construction of the Happy ----Walley Bypass Road." P. 10 of City Council Minutes, June 26, 2008. (underlining added). Despite the very clear record made by its proponents that a road is not a structure, by March 2012 City Planning Staff concluded a road was a structure. City Planning Staff also concluded that even the retaining walls associated with a road would be prohibited by Measure PP. That Staff position triggered the debate about whether a road is a structure, and other issues regarding application of Measure PP. When the issue of whether a road is a structure got to City Council in the form of an implementing ordinance in April of 2013, the City Council voted 3 — 1 that a road is not a structure. The Councilmembers discussion from the City Council minutes is attached for your information (Attachment 2, areas underlined in red). That implementing ordinance did not get a second reading and ultimately, a decision was made not to have a second reading, but the City Council's policy direction is clearly that a road is not a structure. Lastly, City policy makers should not make their determinations based on the threat of lawsuits. But, for those who do, regarding the "Is a road a structure?" issue, the City would surely win in its determination that a road is not a structure. See Attachment 3 for standard of review courts apply to interpreting initiative statutes. 3. The Sunset Creek Lane connection is not environmentally significant, or even detrimental. The Sunset Creek Lane connection is a common type of neighborhood road link, without substantial environmental impacts, or unreasonably costly. The road is approximately 950 feet long, not 1/2 mile long as alleged by some. The total elevation drop from the end of Sunset Creek Lane to its intersection in the Lund Ranch II project is only 10 feet (Attachment 4 Site Plan). The road slopes at maximum 3%, and for most of its length is at 1 1/2% or 2%. According to City topographical analysis to date, a small section of the connection would cross a pre-existing 25% slope. We do not, however, believe this should exclude the connection when assessed relative to voter-intent of Measure PP. The biggest environmental problem for this road connection came from City Staffs incorrect interpretation that retaining walls are prohibited —we know from Councilmember Sullivan and (now) Councilmember Brown —that structure means "residential and commercial structures and not road." Under the prior Staff interpretation, the grading to maintain a maximum of 3:1 slopes without retaining walls would have caused grading over the entire hillside, and needlessly taken out many trees. Proper retaining walls are part of the road infrastructure, which would tuck the road into the hillside well below the ridge, with minimal grading beyond. Attachment 4 shows the road following the contour along the hillside, and retaining walls if balanced on both sides, would be smaller than the retaining walls the lot plan shows on top of the creek bed. Ihe trees impacted by the road connection alignment are primarily ornamental landscape trees of no special significance, and not attractive or rural in their current straight line pattern across the hillside.