PC 022515 - Laserfiche WebLink

those signs, and it was their interpretation that minimal things could happen beyond Sycamore Heights after the buildings were put in place. He then addressed the City Engineer with respect to Scenario 3, stating that while he did a very good job of talking about the ingress and egress from Lund Ranch II, he did not talk about the significant impact of the cross -over traffic between the different areas there, which may actually be Ventana Hills residents getting to 1 -680 through Sycamore Creek Way. He pointed out that there are concerns about the way the traffic plan was looked at, and in some cases it may under - estimate the impact or options. Vicki LaBarje stated that she actually invited a group to come sit with her on her porch and watch moms racing down the street in the morning to take their children to school, and in the afternoons when people are racing home from work. She indicated that her neighborhood has made numerous calls to the Police Department to patrol their street because they have such a traffic problem now. She concurred with many of her neighbors that vehicles speed down the "S" curve along Mission Park, which is heavily occupied in the summer months. She encouraged the Commission to go with Option 2, which was the one that was committed to many, many years ago. John Bauer inquired, for clarification purposes, if Lund owns the deed to the Lund Ranch property, and if Shapell Industries ever held the deed to that property or were ever in a position to make a commitment with the Ventana Hills community. He then referred to Mr. Meyer's statement that the North Sycamore Specific Plan reference does not apply to Lund Ranch II. He indicated that he has a lot of good information going back to 2003 and asked Katia Kamangar, then Director of Land Development for Greenbriar Homes to address these issues. He stated that Ms. Kamangar had indicated that the North Sycamore Plan prepared in 1992 contemplated the development of Lund Ranch, and Greenbriar was named as a funding developer; that the infrastructure through Bridle Creek to Sunol Boulevard was designed and constructed to accommodate the future Lund Ranch development; and that the City Council asked them to rework the plan to include a wider variety of housing types and not just the affordable component. Mr. Bauer stated that at a Planning Commission meeting in 2003, there were many speakers from the Bridle Creek/Sycamore Heights community who thought that they were able to stop the Lund Ranch 11 development in 2003. He indicated that one common thing he noticed in all prior speakers tonight was that nobody has asked what the benefit of this project is to the community. He stated that he does not care where this street goes because regardless of whether the street goes into the neighborhood or not, there is no upside to this project, there is no benefit to the community, and he cannot support any development that has such a detrimental effect on a neighborhood community. He inquired if keeping this as open space is an option. He questioned why it needed to be developed. He indicated that this is the end of the urban value right now, and if this development goes in, the Foley property behind it would follow, and there is nothing to stop a future development going all the way out to Highway 84. He reiterated that this development has no upside for the community. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 28 of 46