Laserfiche WebLink
Throughout the project several issues emerged, among them are the following three major <br /> discussions made regarding the choice of access; choice of access affecting 25-percent slope, <br /> the environmental impacts of connecting to Sunset Creek Lane, and implementing previous <br /> private agreements with the Ventana Hills neighborhood. <br /> Councilmember Brown wanted assurance that the impact from Bonde Ranch to Ventana Hills is <br /> accurate. According to Mr. Dolan, there are approximately 15 homes in the area, however, she <br /> counted a total amount of 25 lots and wanted clarification if that area would be partially developed <br /> or if the remaining sites come at a later date. To that Mr. Dolan stated that there are 15 homes <br /> which were originally intended to be rerouted through Lund from Middleton Place. The other <br /> Bonde lots would go elsewhere. Ms. Brown also requested further information regarding how the <br /> Municipal Code would treat a 10 foot retaining; wall as a structure or not a structure. Mr. Dolan <br /> responded that some sections of the Code indicate it is a structure. He also stated that the Code <br /> contains different definitions in different sections, however it is not defined whether or not the <br /> council needs to use any one of them as Measure PP is being interpreted. <br /> Mayor Thorne asked Mr. Dolan to identify where the proposed road would be visible from if it ran <br /> from Sunset Creek besides Bonde and Lund Ranch, to which Mr. Dolan replied stating that <br /> homes would be visible across the proposed site, but wouldn't be visible from anywhere else in <br /> the city. <br /> Mr. Dolan continued with the presentation showing pictures depicting slopes for the retaining wall <br /> and how it will affect the 515 acres, which would be the new endpoint. If the road is constructed <br /> from Sunset Creek, there are retaining walls that will be required to have culverts in order to cross <br /> the creek. However, there are portions of coverts and retaining walls that are not more than 100 <br /> feet from the top of the extended ridge line; they are estimate to be 90 to 95 feet below. Council <br /> will need to decide whether or not to accept the new extended ridgeline. Mr. Dolan listed the <br /> following four options the Council could consider: <br /> A. Accept new ridgeline, which will prohibit retaining walls, thereby prohibits creek crossing. <br /> B. Accept previous ridge mapping, thereby allowing creek crossing. <br /> C. Decide that retaining walls not prohibited by vertical setback. <br /> D. Decide that the purpose of Measure PP vertical setback is not relevant to these specific <br /> retaining walls within the creek bed. <br /> Mr. Dolan discussed various options on how to build the road. One of the options discussed was a <br /> full size city standard road without retaining walls and the other with retaining walls described the <br /> various steps that will be taken and the options available to the Council as to how to proceed with <br /> the project. <br /> Mr. Dolan presented the following recommendations for Council to consider: <br /> A. Ensure that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) adheres to the California <br /> Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). <br /> B. Ensure that the proposed PUD Rezoning and Developmental Plan along with the <br /> Development Agreement is consistent with the General Plan. <br /> C. PUD Findings for the proposed Development Plan to be as listed in the June 24, 2015 <br /> Planning Commission Staff Report. <br /> D. Certify the Final EIR as complete and adequate. <br /> E. Approve the CEQA Findings and the Mitigation Monitory and Reporting Program. <br /> F. Approve Case PUD-25, the PUD Rezoning and Development Plan. <br /> G. Approve the Development Agreement. <br /> H. Approve the Affordable Housing Agreement. <br /> I. Approve the Growth Management Agreement. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 4 of 14 November 17, 2015 <br />