CCMIN120115 - Laserfiche WebLink

PP interpretation a road is defined as infrastructure, enable access to the 29 units on Sunset Creek Lane and the open space and trail areas above the proposed development; that, in this case, the city establish the end of the southern ridge at 580 foot elevation and insure that all housing structures are outside the 100' vertical set back line; and to add a condition that if our interpretation of Measure PP is successfully challenged legally, the entire project, including this motion, is considered null and void and must return to the Planning Commission and the City Council for further consideration consistent with the terms of the development agreement. Mayor Thorne noted that this project began back in 2002 and keeping in mind that the number of homes that exist in the General Plan for this particular area represents 50% of the total capacity of the project at its current zoning level.The initial proposal that was brought forth in 2002 had 113 units in it and he was not sure what happened to that, but there was another proposal that was submitted in 2007. He did not recall how many units were submitted in that project as he had just began his service on the council and does not believe the 2007 project came to the City Council. Mr. Dolan confirmed the 2007 project did not come to the City Council and that the amount of homes was in the vicinity of 70 or 80. Mayor Thorne noted in any case the third application in 2008 had 77 homes in it and staff sent that back because of PP so he believes Measure PP did work. He believed it kept houses off the ridges out of view of other residents. He stated that access to the property has always been planned to go through Sunset Creek. He noted that there is a sign at the end of the road that says the road was going to be extended and homeowners signed documents with the knowledge of the fact that there was going to be a road going through / from the new Lund Ranch development. He noted prior Councils had made promises and that was something very important to him. Promises were made to people in Ventana Hills that nothing else would go through that property and he stated that was a very important consideration to him as he came to the meeting prepared not to let anything go through Lund Ranch Road to Ventana Hills. Mayor Thorne noted that this legislative body has a variety of different opinions that come forward like this and unlike Congress and the State Legislature, it is their responsibility to make a decision on it. He stated that means no matter how polarized the Council is, at some point we have to arrive at some kind of compromise and he believes that what's been proposed here tonight. He noted he does think it compromises the integrity of prior Council's and this Council. He did not see any other way to get out of this and noted it can be challenged legally by referendums, but the project needed to move forward. He believed the project would give some direction of where to go from here and did not see bringing the project back over and over trying to come to some kind of conclusion that the Council as polarized as this one is,. He stated that he will second the motion and vote for it even though it goes against my grain to do it because of the promises that have been made. Councilmember Narum requested an amendment on the growth management allocation so that it would be split between 2016 and 2017 consistent with what the Council has done with the Ponderosa and other earlier projects in light of the water drought. Councilmember Olson agreed with Councilmember Narum and added the amendment to the motion. Mayor Thorne requested an amendment that enough leverage be given to the developer and staff to work on the most environmentally responsible road be put there and that it doesn't necessarily have to do with the way that they've looked at as the developers proposed, but just to look at it to see what's the most environmentally responsible way to get that road through there. Councilmember Olson agreed with Mayor Thorne and added the amendment to the motion. City Council Minutes Page 10 of 16 December 1,2015