CCMIN120115 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Thorne opened the public hearing. Angela Ramirez-Holmes representing Greenbriar Homes, noted their application and preferred option remain the same. However, in response to Council questions and comments, she thanked the Council for allowing them the opportunity to provide additional information on three items; road alternative, removal of lots nears the tree slope area and Lot 32. She noted the applicant revised their proposal from the 100 or so homes to be constructed on Lund Ranch to 48 homes with an access road that will be half the length of what was originally proposed in the plan. The following proposed changes being offered by Greenbriar Homes are: O Road Alternative - Greenbriar Homes provided information on a lower road alternative, which includes having the road come in through Court B, rather than the Court C previously proposed. This will reduce impacts of length and land coverage within slopes of 25 percent or greater. It will also allow the road to be split from the trail and bring the amount of trees removed to be potentially in the single digits as opposed to the double digits previously discussed. The applicant also proposed to have the split of homes to be 19 / 29; 19 homes on Lund Ranch and 29 Sunset Creek, allowing for only 1 dead- end with no left turn of Sunset Creek extension. This alternative is based on the previous recommendation by council to have a more equitable split of properties. o Removal of Lots - Lots surrounding the tree slope area are now shown as an open space. As council requested to have that area stabilized, Greenbriar Homes revised the plan and configured it to allow for the open space. The lots were configured to allow for the open space which now is 50 feet graded flat from the sidewalk and a 25 percent slope 40 feet down to the tree to accommodate the open space. The lots were configured to allow for the open space. Additionally, Lot 31, the estate lot, was moved into a production home. The revised proposal is now 48 homes; 47 production homes and one estate lot. ® Lot 32 - Clarification of Lot 32 location was provided. During the presentation from last meeting, staff showed a picture that was not where the pad would be located, and council wanted lot 32 to comply with Measure PP. The ridge line on the property and the 25 percent slope line were designated by City staff in 2009. The original designation does comply with staff direction and Measure PP. She provided demonstration depicting the current location of Lot 32 and a visual of the lot with a single story home. She provided elevation comparisons of nearby developments, Kottinger Ranch 683 feet; Bonde Ranch 571 feet; Lot 32 530 feet. Based on the information provided, Greenbriar Homes is requesting Lot 32 to remain in the proposed development with the home restricted to a single story. The lot also has a maximum square footage of 5,000 Councilmember Brown stated the council received the revised proposal late the previous evening and requested Greenbriar Homes provide the reason behind receiving a revised proposal of this magnitude at such a late date. Councilmember Brown also stated that receiving the information at such a late date is not conforming to CEQA guidelines and is not transparent government when a plan has, been modified in such a way, the inclusion of new roads. She noted revised plans need to go through the process and that the proposed new road was not evaluated in the EIR. Ms. Ramirez-Holmes noted she was not in a position to fully answer Councilmember Brown's question regarding the delay in providing the information to the Council and referred Councilmember Brown to the attorney's. However, she noted that since Greenbriar's application remains the same, the modification was not considered to be a major modification. Ms. Ramirez-Holmes noted that there were eight scenarios presented in the EIR, with one being the connection to Sunset Creek alternative. She also stated that the majority of the councilmembers saw the plan at a meeting held on Wednesday, November 25th, this was simply an alternative based on the feedback and questions received at City Council Minutes Page 3 of 16 December 1, 2015