Laserfiche WebLink
time, and there was no initiative process early on to change that course. He pointed out <br /> that the initiative process was for a different eyesore in the public's immediate vision at <br /> that time, and this project has gotten caught up in that and as a result, the project they <br /> have done is outstanding. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that as he looks at this scale model and at going off to Lund <br /> Ranch, and he thinks that this is not as impactful as the deal that the Commission was <br /> being asked to uphold, which is the 150 homes. He indicated that in his opinion, this <br /> plan of 50 homes is beautifully designed, except for Lot 32, and he believes this is a <br /> beautiful community that should not be broken into two parts because the community <br /> should be connected, but he does not know how to address the cut-through traffic and <br /> that is a concern. He added that he also worries about going with any option that <br /> crosses the creek for his basic concern of the environment. <br /> Commissioner Balch moved to: <br /> (1) find that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) conforms to the <br /> California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); <br /> (2) find that the proposed PUD Rezoning and Development Plan, and the <br /> Development Agreement are consistent with the General Plan; <br /> (3) make the PUD findings for the proposed Development Plan as listed in <br /> the staff report; and <br /> (4) recommend that the City Council: <br /> (a) certify the Final EIR as complete and adequate; <br /> (b) approve the CEQA Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and <br /> Reporting Program; <br /> (c) approve Case PUD-25, the PUD Rezoning and Development Plan <br /> as shown in Scenario 3 of the Final BR, subject to the Conditions <br /> of Approval listed in Exhibit A of the staff report, as modified by <br /> the staff memo dated June 24, 2015 <br /> (d) approve the Development Agreement, as shown in Exhibit B of <br /> the staff report, to vest entitlements for the project. <br /> Commissioner Nagler seconded the motion. <br /> Mr. Dolan clarified that the motion is for Scenario 3 of the EIR and not Option 3 in the <br /> staffs lists of options in the staff report. He asked the Commissioners if they <br /> understand that. <br /> Chair Allen stated, for clarification, that Scenario 3 in the EIR, as she understands it, <br /> would be Option 3 in the staff report if the road did not have a cul-de-sac and was open <br /> on both sides. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that was correct. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 40 of 45 <br />