PC 082615 - Laserfiche WebLink

bottom of that lot as opposed to the top as a condition of approval would change the Commission's opinion about whether a home could be put on Lot 32. Commissioner Balch stated that he did was not in favor of removing the house. He proposed a compromise of restricting the house to a single story in its current pad instead of relocating it on the site. Commissioner Ritter agreed. Commissioner Nagler and Chair Allen stated that they could support that Commissioner Balch asked if the Commissioners have an opinion about access to construction. He indicated that he was in favor of letting the condition stand that the City Engineer would make that determination. He added that he believes the Commissioners are all supportive of the 24 -foot wide road. Chair Allen stated that she supported the amendments staff made earlier, including re- looking at what the natural slope of that valley area was. She asked the Commissioners if they did as well. Commissioners Ritter, Balch, and Nagler stated that they did Commissioner Balch stated that one of the additional conditions staff has in the memo is that if the City is under a declared drought condition during construction, all water use for dust control shall be recycled water unless otherwise approved by the Director of Community Development. He stated that he was inclined not to let the Director of Community Development dictate otherwise and that it be changed to "All water for dust control shall be recycled water." Commissioner Nagler stated that he agrees that the use of recycled water be mandated. Chair Allen and Commissioner Piper also agreed. Commissioner Balch moved to: (1) Find that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) conforms to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); (2) Find that the proposed PUD Rezoning and Development Plan, and the Development Agreement are consistent with the General Plan; (3) Make the PUD Findings for the proposed Development Plan as listed in the June 24, 2015 staff report; and (4) Recommend approval of: (a) the Development Agreement, as shown in Exhibit B of the June 24, 2015 staff report, to vest entitlements for the project; (b) certification of the Final EIR as complete and adequate; (c) the CEQA Findings and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; and (d) Case PUD -25, the PUD Rezoning and Development Plan, as shown in Option 2, Require the project to be redesigned to access only to Sunset Creek Lane, as described on page 34 of the June 24, 2015 staff report, with the 24 -foot road option without retaining walls, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit A of the June 24, 2015 staff report, with the following modifications: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 25 of 43