Laserfiche WebLink
Metadata
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015 Laserfiche. All rights reserved.
projection of the area that was created before that went up to 21.9 percent, but none of <br />it appears to have ever been 25 percent. <br />Prior Council Commitments <br />Mr. Dolan stated that as previously mentioned, back when Bonde Ranch was being <br />considered, the Ventana Hills neighborhood was opposed to that project due to traffic. <br />He indicated that the project was ultimately approved, with an indication from the <br />Council that the intent in the long run is that the neighborhood will not have the traffic <br />from Middleton Place because that will be sent out to Lund Ranch Road and connected <br />to Sunset Creek Lane or Sycamore Creek Way, and the neighborhood will not have the <br />Lund Ranch project traffic either. He pointed out that while that was part of the dialogue <br />that was put into writing, as Conditions of Approval for the Bonde Ranch project, they <br />unfortunately do not apply or have anything to do with the owner of the Lund Ranch II <br />project. He noted that there were some private agreements that the Conditions of <br />Approval actually referred to, but again, those private agreements do not have a legal <br />hold on the current Lund Ranch II project applicant and current property owner. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that another thing to consider is that the original approval of Ventana <br />Hills did anticipate connection of development on the Lund Ranch II site to connect to <br />Lund Ranch Road, which is a dead end that goes into vacant property. He added that <br />the staff report talks about this being a connection to potential future development. He <br />indicated, however, that when Bonde Ranch came forward, there was some different <br />thinking that actually made its way into some of the General Plan and Specific Plan <br />documents. He noted that it was the thinking of the day and would really have been the <br />final say on the issue about where this project is going to connect, until the passage of <br />Measure PP changed that dialogue. <br />Mr. Dolan reiterated and wanted to reaffirm that, as was discussed at length at the Work <br />Session, the City Attorney has concluded that the private agreements that came out of <br />the discussion about Bonde Ranch and the conditions on that project do not legally bind <br />the current property owner or the City. He indicated that because this is not a legal <br />issue but a policy question, the issue then really becomes whether the City is inclined to <br />implement the previous commitments versus what could be described as new <br />circumstances after all these years, with the new circumstances being: (1) the passage <br />of time; (2) the dramatic reduction in units for this proposed project which used to be a <br />150 -unit project and is now down to 50 units; and (3) the considerations about access <br />relative to the restrictions of Measure PP. <br />Environmental Impacts of Alternative Access <br />Mr. Dolan stated that there was a fair amount of discussion at the Work Session that <br />those who oppose the secondary access included in staff's recommendation cited that <br />that was not the right thing to do because of the additional environmental impacts and <br />questioned whether or not the EIR adequately described those impacts. He indicated <br />that staff's position is that it does, it identifies what they would be, and staff <br />acknowledged that there will be more environmental impacts: <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 7 of 54 <br />