PC 062415 - Laserfiche WebLink

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