11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

why roads or retaining walls are not structures; not one cited code nor dictionaries or ballot materials. He stated that to decide something this important, it is necessary to be able to point to something that supports the notion that roads and retaining walls are not structures. He noted that at its last meeting, the Commission found itself in a position that some walls are structures and some walls are not, that some roads are structures and some roads are not. He added that people have learned since then that roads are structures, that walls are structures, and that thousands of truckloads of dirt are going to have to be moved. He stated that one of the proposals involves building 1,000 linear feet of 10-foot tall retaining walls, roughly two football fields worth of grading, and 20+ Heritage trees being removed to cross a creek. He stated that there is no doubt Measure PP voters voted against that. Mr. Melaugh stated that looking at the traffic numbers from the report, it is very clear that his neighborhood is experiencing far more traffic right now than Ventana Hills is, and all of the traffic from this project is added to the Ventana Hills neighborhood, they would still be experiencing less traffic than Ventana Hills. He encouraged the Commission to act as a Community of Character and enforce the law and honor the role of the voters. Carol Spain, a member of the Ventana Hills Steering Committee since its inception in 1991, stated that she spoke at the June 24th meeting and will not repeat what she said then. She indicated that she would like to address two specific items that did come up during that meeting that she believes warrant some clarification: 1. A statement made by the biologist working with Greenbriar Homes indicated that using Lund Ranch Road to access the Lund Ranch II development would simplify the permanent need for the Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Board, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. Greenbriar's current plan is mapped in the draft EIR in Figure 4.3-1A which shows the creek bed will need to be removed for the purpose of constructing seven to nine lots which would go over the existing creek channel. This construction will relocate the creek by approximately 243 feet with hundreds of linear feet of retaining walls that will back up to or over the former creek bed. The creek-crossing with bridge abutments on either side of the creek channel will pale in comparison to the wetland impact with this proposed lot layout. 2. The second item refers to the potential need for a small portion of a 25-percent slope to build a new connector road as well as the previously proposed retaining wall infrastructure to support this road. At the special City Council meeting held on June 26, 2008 which was prior to the vote of Measure PP, Councilmember Karla Brown, who is one of the Initiative sponsors, clarified that the intent of Measure PP was to control construction of residential and commercial structures and not roads that may be on 25-percent slopes. Given Ms. Brown's clarification in 2008 that Measure PP was never intended to include roads, the voter information statements that were in the ballot indicating that Measure PP would not apply to roads, the vote from the City Council in April 2013 that supported a road is not a structure, and the new 24-Foot Road Option proposed by City staff which does not require infrastructure retaining wall support, the Planning EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 7 of 26