Laserfiche WebLink
Michele Plunge, Sycamore Heights, read a letter from Rebecca Evans, Chapter Chair of the <br /> Sierra Club, San Francisco Bay Chapter, referenced her October 15, 2015 letter supporting <br /> Option 1, which will allow the protection of hillside and ridges. <br /> Greg Wohlenberg, residents of Sycamore Heights, expressed disappointed by the possibility that <br /> the Council would consider approving a project that would go against the guidelines of Measure <br /> PP and against the wishes of the residents. He requested Council adopt Option 1. <br /> Rob Olstad, Sunset Creek Lane resident, stated that since the majority of comments are related <br /> to the traffic flow, the Council should focus on the evidence in hand regarding traffic impact, which <br /> is the EIR. According to the report, the busiest street Ventana Hills is through Junipero with an <br /> existing traffic flow of 2,880 trips and if Option 1 is approved, the number would increase to 3,140 <br /> trips. Sycamore, with existing week day traffic has 3,440 trips. If Option 2 is approved, <br /> Sycamore's traffic flow would increase to approximately 4,000 trips per day. He requested Council <br /> to approve Option 1. <br /> Greg O'Connor, resident and owner of a dwelling that while is more than 2500 feet from the Lund <br /> Ranch project, but could possibly be affected the project. Measure PP's guidelines and <br /> specifically the definition indicates a road is a structure. Measure PP is the law and looking <br /> around Measure PP is not the way to serve the entire community. Tonight's decision will define <br /> the hillside preservation for years to come and requested Council approved Option 1 <br /> Bill Lincoln, a Sycamore Heights resident, stated that he and several other residents reached out <br /> to the Ventana Hills residents to find some common ground. The only common ground is <br /> downsizing to 10 or fewer homes and using Sunset Creek Lane. Ventana residents are pushing <br /> for Option 2 based on a "Letter of Understanding" from 1991 that he feels has no legal merit. He <br /> noted residents of Ventana Heights and Sycamore Heights were aware at the time they <br /> purchased home, that the streets, including Lund Ranch Roach, may be expanded for future <br /> developments and that Sunset Creek Road was not built to be a major connecting road. He <br /> believed it unreasonable, unfair and irresponsible to require the developer to connect to Sunset <br /> Creek Lane when Lund Ranch Road is available, which will also violate Measure PP. He <br /> requested Council to choose Option 1 unless the project can be downsized or reconfigured. <br /> Councilmember Brown asked Mr. Lincoln to comment on the discussions involving the lot situated <br /> across the street from his home since the lot may have limited access. <br /> Mr. Lincoln, stated that he can't speak for the rest of the property owners and HOA, however he <br /> took it upon himself to contact the property manager and requested of the property manager <br /> contact the HOA's attorney to inquire as to the kind of conditions needed in to allow construction <br /> on the lot. Mr. Lincoln stated that he recently received a letter from the attorney stating that it is <br /> possible, but would involve selling, conveying and possible de-annexing the identified parcel; and <br /> that getting an alternate access plan is far from being a simple process and may not even be <br /> legally possible or feasible. <br /> Carolyn Lincoln, a Sycamore Heights resident, stated that for every Council and Planning <br /> Commission meeting that she attended, Pleasanton has frequently been referred to as a <br /> community of character, therefore, she requested that Councilmember Pentin voluntarily abstain <br /> from voting on the three options for access to Lund Ranch project. She felt it would create a <br /> conflict of interest for Mr. Pentin considering he would be voting alongside his neighbors. <br /> Olivia Melangh, Sycamore Heights resident, felt the ridgeline maps presented to the Planning <br /> Commission were incorrectly drawn. She suggested decisions previously made were made under <br /> false information and requested that the Council approve Option 1, which supports Measure PP. <br /> City Council Minutes Page 8 of 15 November 17, 2015 <br />