Laserfiche WebLink
development. He added that the thinking then was that Shapell Industries was actually <br />going to be the developer on Lund Ranch II and that it would come very shortly thereafter. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the City's Legal Department has reviewed the document and <br />concluded that there is no legal obligation on anybody's part to honor that agreement. He <br />added, however, that that is not to say that the Council will not acknowledge there was a lot <br />of dialogue about this issue and commitments from the Council at that time, and the intent <br />then was to follow that agreement. He explained that this was a condition of approval <br />related to the Bonde Ranch development, which was approved and done. He pointed out <br />that Lund Ranch II is a whole different area and now with a different owner who never <br />signed any agreement, and whoever owned the Lund Ranch II property at the time never <br />put any restriction on Lund Ranch II that it had to do that. He indicated that the idea was <br />there, but there was no legal mechanism to enforce it all this time later. <br />Mr. Dolan restated the City Attorney's conclusion that the private agreement does not <br />legally bind the current property owner or the City, but noted that it highlights one of the <br />very difficult questions before the Commission that raises the issue of the obligation to <br />implement these previous commitments to the neighborhood made by previous City versus <br />the other side of the argument from the other neighborhood that there are new <br />circumstances that change things. He indicated that the two things the Commission <br />probably should think about are what these new circumstances are and why they make any <br />difference 20 years later. <br />Mr. Dolan explained that there are two things that come to mind immediately, and there <br />may be more: first, Measure PP was not in the picture back then; and second, accessing <br />Sunset Creek Way would mean going up the side of the hill that has some slope that is <br />greater than 25 percent. He pointed out that these things start to work together and could <br />affect the interpretation of Measure PP, that one cannot honor the Bonde agreement and <br />still claim that the road cannot go up that 25- percent slope. He noted that they are all <br />inter - connected and that the Commission will have to look at them holistically rather than <br />ticking -off its answer to each separately. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the other new circumstance is that back then, the developer was <br />talking about a development of 150 units, but because of Measure PP, that number is a lot <br />smaller and would not have as much of an impact on either neighborhood as was originally <br />envisioned. He pointed out that this is a policy question and not a legal issue. <br />Environmental Impacts of Alternatives <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the EIR identified some environmental impacts associated with the <br />project: <br />Biological Impacts. The access to Sunset Creek Lane will require crossing a creek and <br />going up a hill. This crossing will result in the loss of habitat for the California Tiger <br />Salamander and indirect disturbance of nesting and other birds and roosting special <br />status bat species through loss of additional trees. Taking a roadway through the <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 18 of 46 <br />