PC 022515 - Laserfiche WebLink

1. Ridgeline setback. Mr. Meyer expressed concern that the City has now changed its interpretation of the vertical setback. The draft EIR in Figure 4 on page 10 of the staff report very clearly shows the direction from the City. Figure 4 shows the 100 -foot ridgeline setback and demonstrates that none of the lots intrude or cross the line. Measure PP protects the ridgelines by prohibiting housing structures in the area between the ridgeline and the ground line that is located 100 vertical feet below a ridgeline. This plan view more clearly shows the vertical setback area on the project site. The question should be, "Is the building pad inside or outside the setback line ?" Mr. Meyer proposed an Option 3 to the ridgeline setback options set out in the staff report, based on the previous City Council staff reports from prior years. 2. Is a road a structure ?. Mr. Meyer stated that the street connection has not raised this question in its plan. As to man -made slopes, the Planning Commission and City Council have all weighed in previously after seeing the area in question, that artificial slopes should be excluded. The natural slope of the area in question is about 16 percent. 3. The Ventana Hills road connection. The Ventana Hills Steering Committee has argued that the Lund Ranch II project has an obligation not to connect to Lund Ranch Road, based on various agreements or approvals that did not involve Lund Ranch or Greenbriar. On page 14 and again on page 17 of the staff report, the City Attorney has stated that these agreements and approvals are not legally enforceable against Greenbriar. In any event, it should be noted that when the documents relied on by the Ventana Hills Steering Committee were authored, there was a much larger project under consideration on Lund Ranch II. Around the time of the 1991 agreement, Shea Homes had plans on the contiguous land, Lund Ranch II, for the development of 150 homes. It was a big project with two access points. Many things have changed since then. It should also be noted that Lund Ranch II is not governed by the North Sycamore Specific Plan because it is outside of the boundaries of that Plan. On page 20 of the staff report, Option 1 is the applicant's preferred connection, and as stated in the EIR, it is the environmentally superior connection. Greenbriar also supports the Middleton Place owners' request for PUD Minor Modification to allow Livingston Place to stay open for that. Mr. Meyer noted that the design that Option 3 on page 22 of the staff report is different from the proposal in the EIR. He further noted that Scenario 3 in the EIR was for all 50 homes to use either of the two roads. He pointed out that the new Option 3 in the staff report would result in the loss of lots for the project. He urged support for Option 1 with the change in the ridgeline setback as previously discussed, which is the EIR's environmentally superior alternative. In closing, Mr. Meyer introduced the members of his team to respond to any questions the Commission might have: Carol Meyer, Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc.; Tim Quinn, In -House Engineer, Greenbriar Homes Communities, Inc.; Chris Kinzel of TJKM Transportation Consultants, Project Traffic Engineer; Mark Falgout of RJA PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 21 of 46