PC 022515 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Dolan replied that he does not believe the City has been confronted with anything like this in the last seven years. He stated that there were a series of decisions made that assumed the connection to the East/West connector was going to happen; it was anticipated in individual project approvals; and it was put in the North Sycamore Specific Plan. He noted that none of those things prohibited a different idea, but it did seem to be the collective thinking. Commissioner Nagler inquired if the only thing that has changed in the intervening period is the number of homes planned for Lund Ranch II. Mr. Dolan replied that there is also Measure PP. Commissioner Nagler stated that the detail that has changed as a result of Measure PP is the number of homes being contemplated. He noted that Mr. Dolan had mentioned earlier that if the number of homes were still as originally envisioned, there would almost be no choice; it would be necessary to have several access points or roads into the development. Mr. Dolan said that was correct. Referring back to Commissioner Nagler's precedent question, Commissioner Balch stated that the thing that changed was a vote of the electorate that provided for Measure PP. He noted that it did reduce the number of homes, but it also put on conditions that, in hindsight, were not fully evaluated in light of this current project. Mr. Dolan replied that one can look at it that way, but Measure PP could also be interpreted in such a way that it does not make that much difference on the access. Commissioner Balch concurred, adding that it would come down to that, depending on the structure question. Mr. Dolan replied that was correct. Commissioner Piper noted that the collector road was in the North Sycamore Specific Plan, but a speaker stated that it was not in the Lund Ranch approval. She ask staff if that was correct. Mr. Dolan explained that the North Sycamore Specific Plan identified an East/West collector in a sort of schematic way. He indicated that it was so general, it could be said that Sunset Creek Lane represents that connection due to its location, but it would more likely be Sycamore Creek Way because it is clearly the one designed to move more traffic. He added, as he had pointed out earlier, that it is also very difficult to get there. Commissioner Ritter stated that he believes that some of those prior Council commitments should be honored. He added that he knows the developer does not need to, but the City, as a community, needs to accept Sunset Creek Lane and Sycamore Creek Way as connectors, as planned. He noted that the challenge is Measure PP, and if the road cannot PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 36 of 46