PC 082615 - Laserfiche WebLink

the culvert; this retaining wall height is not going to be visible on the hillside because there are no retaining walls necessarily built -in along the length of the road, and so even though the average height looks pretty consistent, two of them do not really have walls along the length of the road; it is just down in the creek which will happen no matter what. Building this road will mean having a culvert and crossing the creek, so there will be some sort of retaining wall down in the secret part of the bank. Linear Feet of the Walls. This is really a very short distance at 220 feet and 187 feet for Option A and the 24 -Food Road Option, relative to Option B at 1,185 feet as it is a proposal to have retaining walls almost the entire length, more than the length of the roadway. Average Wall Height. This is an average of 6 feet, 4 inches on Option B, where there is a wall along almost the entire length. Mr. Dolan reiterated staff's recommendation to recommend to the City Council that the FEIR conforms to CEQA, that the PUD is consistent with the General Plan, to make the necessary findings to approve the PUD Development Plan, to approve the Development Agreement, and to approve Option 3 as outlined in the original staff report, the proposal to divide the neighborhood into two sections with the cul -de -sac off of Lund Ranch Road that would serve ten lots, and the remainder of lots in the development would go out the road across the creek to connect to Sunset Creek Lane. Mr. Dolan then presented the reasons for recommending Option 3: It honors the spirit of the previous agreements with Ventana Hills. A lot has been mentioned about whether or not those agreements are legally enforceable. The City Attorney's position is that they are not, but it was part of an ongoing dialogue that was incorporated into many of the City's planning documents over the years. 2. The Sycamore Heights and Bridle Creek neighborhood residents had prior knowledge there would be additional development connected to their streets. There was a fair amount of testimony about that and what their documents included when they purchased their homes and the signs that have been put up. 3. There has been the primary question here, which is: "Wouldn't Measure PP prohibit that ?" Staff's conclusion is that the City Council has the authority to interpret Measure PP where it is not clear, and it is not clear that a road is prohibited by Measure PP. The City Attorney backs that interpretation that it is not clear and that the Council has the choice; and the City's outside counsel also comes to the same conclusion. That allows staff to make this recommendation. 4. The Option represents a compromise between the two neighborhoods who clearly disagree over this issue. Mr. Dolan acknowledged that the EIR identifies this particular Option as having slightly more environmental impact, but these impacts are not extreme and un- mitigatable; they are fairly routine things that are done in development all the time to make these impacts less than significant, and that is the process that the applicant would have to go through in getting the various permits from other agencies to make that happen. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 4 of 43