PC 062415 - Laserfiche WebLink

for the interpretation. He continued that 20 years is a significant amount of time of planning, and the best -laid plans were to go over the hill. He stated that he has to believe that was because that was the community's intent over a consistent period of time, and there was no initiative process early on to change that course. He pointed out that the initiative process was for a different eyesore in the public's immediate vision at that time, and this project has gotten caught up in that and as a result, the project they have done is outstanding. Commissioner Balch stated that as he looks at this scale model and at going off to Lund Ranch, and he thinks that this is not as impactful as the deal that the Commission was being asked to uphold, which is the 150 homes. He indicated that in his opinion, this plan of 50 homes is beautifully designed, except for Lot 32, and he believes this is a beautiful community that should not be broken into two parts because the community should be connected, but he does not know how to address the cut - through traffic and that is a concern. He added that he also worries about going with any option that crosses the creek for his basic concern of the environment. Commissioner Balch moved to: (1) find that the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) conforms to the (2) (3) (4) California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); find that the proposed PUD Rezoning and Development Plan, and the Development Agreement are consistent with the General Plan; make the PUD findings for the proposed Development Plan as listed in the staff report; and recommend that the City Council: (a) certify the Final EIR as complete and adequate; (b) (c) approve the CEQA Findings and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; approve Case PUD -25, the PUD Rezoning and Development Plan as shown in Scenario 3 of the Final EIR, subject to the Conditions of Approval listed in Exhibit A of the staff report, as modified by the staff memo dated June 24, 2015 (d) approve the Development Agreement, as shown in Exhibit B of the staff report, to vest entitlements for the project. Commissioner Nagler seconded the motion. Mr. Dolan clarified that the motion is for Scenario 3 of the EIR and not Option 3 in the staff's lists of options in the staff report. He asked the Commissioners if they understand that. Chair Allen stated, for clarification, that Scenario 3 in the EIR, as she understands it, would be Option 3 in the staff report if the road did not have a cul -de -sac and was open on both sides. Mr. Dolan replied that was correct. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 42 of 54