PC 062415 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Balch inquired what the true number is. Mr. Tassano replied that it is somewhere between 500 and 550 Commissioner Piper referred to the agreement with Ventana Hills and the City Attorney's determination that it is not legally binding with the City and the private property owner and stated that she understands why it would not be legally binding with the property owners because they were not a party to that. She inquired why it would not be legally binding with the City if the City was the one that wrote and determined it. Mr. Dolan replied that this was a private agreement that was required between two private parties and that the City was not a party to it. Commissioner Piper stated that it sounded from Mr. Dolan's presentation that the City sort of adopted that. Mr. Dolan replied that this happened long, long ago and that he does not know what the dialogue actually was. He noted that the City wanted it to happen; there was a condition of approval on the Bonde Ranch approval that made reference to it and so the City was clearly aware of its contents. He added that there was then this private agreement between two parties, which does not legally bind the owners of Lund Ranch because it is a different piece of property. He pointed out that the case in point now is just the matter of if the City is still committed to the idea that it was committed to then. Chair Allen noted that even though the fact is that the private agreement is not legally binding on the City, the City did adopt specific plans and made assumptions in the City's traffic model that uses the General Plan. She inquired if that could be changed over time and if the assumption made regarding Sunset Creek Lane is legally binding in terms of the private agreement. Mr. Dolan said yes. He added that there have been plans that have been adopted that follow the thinking of that agreement. Commissioner Balch stated that he just compared the math on the traffic between staff's Option 3 recommendation based on the description of the 10/40 split and Scenario 3 of the EIR, and the numbers are not very different. He inquired if there was a reason why Scenario 3 in the EIR is not being recommended. Mr. Dolan replied that staff's impression was that Scenario 3 of the EIR gives people a choice, so it is an estimate regarding which way they'll go; and Option 3 makes sure people will go one way, and staff felt that the assurance of dictating precisely where traffic would go would be better accepted. Commissioner Balch inquired if City services, for example, trash, to be provided to the new neighborhood were considered within that recommendation. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 12 of 54