11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

too much for Junipero Street. She pointed out that Option 1 is evidently cheaper for the builder: there is no extra grading; there is nothing that has to happen. She asked if that is the right thing to do for the people living on Junipero Street. She reiterated that it is not right to send all of that traffic down their street. She stated that she is willing to take that compromise and encouraged the Commission to look closely at Option 3. Bill Lincoln stated that he and his wife were attracted to Pleasanton ten years ago by the historic Main Street, the small town feel, and the beautiful hills and open space. He indicated that they actively campaigned for Measure PP a few years later and were thrilled that those hills and ridges would be preserved after thousands of Pleasanton citizens voted for it and overwhelmingly passed it. He stated that now, Lund Ranch II has brought with it issues that have pitted two neighborhoods against each other: entry and exit road options, traffic impact, environmental impact, and previous builder and Councilmember discussions, promises, and giveaways. He stated that these issues can probably be discussed and debated ad infinitum; however, these issues are resolved for all concerned by one thing, and that is Measure PP, which is the law and is the will of the people of Pleasanton. He indicated that Measure PP trumps everything else and must be followed, and any deviation, exception, or amendment to its principles and provisions must only be decided by Pleasanton residents. Mr. Lincoln stated that the Lund Ranch II developer has adhered to Measure PP by reducing the number of homes to be built from 150 to 50 and has planned for Lund Ranch Road to be the entry and exit point. He further stated that the neutral EIR has determined that the Lund Ranch Road access has the least environmental impact and is the environmentally superior alternative for project entry and exit; any option other than Lund Ranch Road compromises the intent of Measure PP, violates the law, and establishes a precedent for other developers to use to circumvent the Initiative that the people passed in 2008. Mr. Lincoln stated that in his mind, the use of Lund Ranch Road for project access is a no-brainer. He told the Commission that its decision and recommendation to the City Council will have far-reaching consequences and will set a precedent for other hillside areas throughout Pleasanton. He noted that it may well be the most important decision that they, as Commissioners, will make. He added that the people have faith that the Commission will do the right thing for all citizens of Pleasanton by sending the Council a unanimous recommendation to use Lund Ranch Road for the developer's project. He asked the audience for a show of hands in support of his comments. Carol Spain stated that her husband, Bill, and she have lived in Ventana hills since 1989 and that she has been a member of the Ventana Hills Steering Committee since its inception in 1991. She noted that the Ventana Hills Steering Committee and Mission Park representatives had sent the Commission a letter, dated June 23, 2015, providing comments relative to the staff report for this meeting. She noted that for more than 20 years, Planning has supported routing the road connections for the Lund Ranch project through Bridle Creek and Sycamore Heights, and he does not believe there is any justification to dismiss more than two decades of thoughtful and collaborative planning between the City and the community. She added that the CC&R's for both of these neighborhoods note the future development possibility to the east, including specifically the Lund Ranch II property and the road connections to that development. EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 19 of 45