CCMIN111715 - Laserfiche WebLink

Tim Chu, Hanifan Way resident, urged Council to consider the long term impacts of their decision, as it could open up opportunities to build roads on and over hillsides Phyllis Lee, Sycamore Creek Way resident, stated that when she voted for Measure PP, the hillsides would be preserved. Since Sycamore Creek Way will incur a lot of traffic she supported Option 1. Ms. Lee also request that Mr. Penton abstain. Kay Ayala, Gatetree Circle resident, stated that the decision has already been made to use a parcel-by-parcel approach and that tonight's meeting is representing more than just two neighborhoods. She requested Council stick to parcel-by-parcel alternative and to honor the agreement that has been in place for the last 25 years as Ventana Hills, Mission Park and Junipero Road will not take traffic from Lund Ranch Road. She also pointed out to the residents of Sycamore Creek, if it not for Measure PP, could possibly have three times more houses than the developer is requesting. The 10 unit estate lot may solve the problem and leave room for John Spotorno plan to save the barn and build a park for the community. Angela Holmes Ramirez, for the applicant, requested staff discuss the option provided by Mr. Bauer, indicating five units that was never adopted and was disputed to be incorrect. Mr. Dolan stated that the then staff predated him and did not have the benefit of five years of analysis of PP on the site that is currently available. There was some analysis and the conclusion derived at that time, as demonstrated in the table provided by Mr. Bauer was an estimated 10 units on Lund Ranch II. Mr. Dolan advised that with the facts currently in place, he does see how that conclusion is an accurate one. Angela Ramirez stated that at another public hearing staff said the information provided was an error, to which City Manager Nelson Fialho said that there was no error made and the chart was written without the benefit of a detailed slope analysis, which is reflected in the staff report. This was done at a high level and very quickly pre-election for the benefit of the council as they prepare for the ballot. The information provided was not a mistake; it's just did not have the same comprehensive analysis as it did today. Mayor Thorne closed the public hearing. • At this time Council took a 10 minutes break. The meeting reconvened with all members of the Council present. Mayor Thorne noted that decisions regarding this project will difficult and the Council will try to work through the topic as smoothly as possible. He stated that the first step is to decide on the amount of houses to be built. Councilmember Pentin spoke regarding the conflict of interest on his behalf and asked the City Attorney speak to issue. Pertaining to the request for Mr. Pentin to abstain from voting, City Attorney Jonathan Lowell stated a request was sent to FPPC by a public member to ascertain if Councilmember Pentin has a conflict of interest regarding this project. As the FPPC does not provide opinions to members of the public, Councilmember Pentin requested that the FPPC be contacted regarding this matter. Recently, the FPPC replied advising that Councilmember. Pentin does not have a financial conflict of interest prohibiting him from participating in the decision making on the Lund Ranch II project. Councilmember Pentin stated that while the FPPC stated that he does not have a financial conflict of interest in participating in the decision making of the Lund Ranch II project, however the comments made by the public at tonight's meeting indicated that he may have a bias regarding the project. He commented on the fact that his integrity has never been questioned during the 20 City Council Minutes Page 9 of 14 November 17,2015