PC 082615 - Laserfiche WebLink

Middleton Place area who are in support of the road and are the most impacted in terms of views; and c. at least two of the folks that were involved in writing Measure PP have said a road was never in; and d. involved parties on both sides of the Measure PP issue have told her that the intent of Measure PP was never to prevent the road access to Sunset Creek Lane; it was for visible roads such as for the Oak Grove project and roads that would go to the Hayward Hotel. Chair Allen stated that with all of that information, she believes that having this roadway is not a violation of the intent of Measure PP, and, therefore, she can support the staff recommendation of splitting the traffic. She indicated, however, that if she were to make a motion, it would be to support Option 2 with 100 percent of the traffic going to Sunset Creek Lane because she believes strongly in the General Plan, the history, the traffic model that has been in existence for 25 years, and the promises that have been made. She added that it is clear that the homeowners who now live in the Sycamore and Sunset areas received disclosures, and there is a promise that has been made. She indicated that she was open to the compromise as well. Chair Allen stated that she has a couple of other items just for consideration, and the first refers to a question that came up at the last meeting relating to Option 3 on whether there should be a cul -de -sac design in Lund Ranch II, whether that road should be blocked in the middle, or whether through- traffic should be allowed. She indicated that she strongly believes the road should be blocked because of the traffic issue, and if it is opened up to through- traffic, there could be a lot of cut - through from many neighborhoods; then all neighborhoods will be at traffic levels that are two to three times what they would otherwise be, and no one wants that because everyone wants to reduce traffic. Chair Allen stated that she would like to recommend removing Lot 32, independent of whether the slope is an issue or not, as it is almost 70 -100 feet higher than the other lots, and the house that will be built there will be very visible even to hikers. Commissioner Balch stated that his position has not changed in terms of the road /structure element and that he is still supportive of a road being built. He commended staff for the three options, which was extremely helpful to get a concept of the volume of earthwork that would need to be done. He noted that he has been grappling since the last meeting with regard to which option he would go with because his original position was to connect the two communities to mend the community, but after being heavily lobbied, it does not seem to be a good choice. He indicated that he is still leaning more towards the Option 3 because of the graciousness of the Ventana Hills residents to accept 10 additional units with kind of the finality of a cul -de -sac and completion. He added that he still stands with his prior comment that the deal they mentioned that the community promised them is not necessarily the deal that is now on the table: that deal was for 150 homes, which is three times the traffic of the 50 homes of the current deal. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 22 of 43