11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

She noted that the CC&R's are a public record that are part of the closing documents homeowners must sign-off on prior to purchasing their home. Ms. Spain stated that Option 1, which proposes putting the entire increase in traffic from the Lund Ranch II development through Ventana Hills and Mission Park neighborhoods, is not fair or reasonable. She indicated that she does not want to see any neighborhood burdened with traffic, and she does not believe that building in the community can be stopped. She stated that the road connection from Lund Ranch II to Sunset Creek Lane is no different from many roads already established in Pleasanton: it will not stand out, it will not be on a ridge, and it can be developed into the natural topography in a way that is consistent with other roads in the City. She added that it would be unfair to overburden any single neighborhood with already existing high traffic volumes, specifically their Mission Park neighbors on Junipero Street. She noted that putting the majority of the Lund Ranch II development traffic through the Bridle Creek and Sycamore Heights neighborhood is the right decision, especially given the numerous agreements and plans that are part of the public record. Ms. Spain stated that some will argue tonight that the road through Bridle Creek and Sycamore Heights should not be built because of Measure PP, and that the people of Pleasanton who voted for Measure PP do not support this road. She noted that this is not necessarily true because she is one of the many people who voted for Measure PP, and she does, in fact, support this new connector road. She added that she would argue that Measure PP was not intended to include roads, and her position is confirmed and documented in City records when the proponents of Measure PP addressed the issue of roads on several occasions prior to the passing of Measure PP in November. Ms. Spain stated that the City's goal has always been to keep the flow of traffic reasonable for all neighborhoods. She indicated that although Option 2 is in line with previous agreements and understandings and would be their preference, she agrees with staff that Option 3 best balances the previous commitments made by the City, the plans previously adopted by the City, and the concerns of affected neighborhoods. She stated that Option 3 is an acceptable compromise, provided the cul-de-sac at the end of Lund Ranch Road contains ten homes or preferably less. She concluded by saying that she would like to have the construction traffic recommendations previously noted by Bill Spain be added to the developer's agreements and conditions of approval. Shareef Mandavi, a Pleasanton resident for 22 years, stated that he has been listening to the commentary from the neighbors in Ventana Hills and that he has known people who live there and have moved there partly because they were told that there is an agreement with the City that no traffic will be coming through this neighborhood. He noted, however, that over the past few months, it has been mentioned in hearings that such an agreement never existed. He agreed that there might have been numerous discussions about it, but that was an agreement with a builder and not with the City, and that agreement is not a legally binding agreement and has now become an urban myth that is continuing to be propagated this evening. Mr. Mandavi stated that he believes when Ventana Hills saw there were some holes in that line of thinking, they moved to this road/structure issue. He indicated that he is seeking transparency in City government, less opacity and fewer back room deals of EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 20 of 45