PC 062415 - Laserfiche WebLink

and Measure PP as he has made statements on those matters before, but will talk about the options. Mr. Brown stated that Option 1 is an unacceptable option because it ignores 20 years of planning and coordination between neighborhoods. He added that Option 2, as previously mentioned, obviously would be the most favorable for his neighborhood considering the traffic that it gets down the street. He indicated that at the end of the day, Planning and the City need to move ahead, and Option 3, as described by City staff, is preferable over the prior EIR recommendation because it clearly delineates and splits the traffic, and makes the traffic predictable. He noted that although it is some additional pain on his neighborhood, it also makes that pain predictable and measurable. Finally, he stated that, as mentioned earlier by Ms. Spain and Ms. LaBarge, Option 1 is obviously the most cost - effective for the developer; so although is it nice to hear the developer emphasize the environmental impacts, there is the obvious financial impact that it lends to them. Chris Markle stated that he has two comments to make and will read them into the record: My first comment relates to Measure PP. If this project is the beachhead where, by some crazy outcome, it is determined that a road is not a structure, and, therefore, PP doesn't apply to the building of a road across the hill to connect to Sunset Creek, then the City establishes a precedent that applies to some 4 -6, maybe more, other properties, including Foley Ranch and the Golf Course Bypass Road. I'm pretty sure that the voters for PP, when presented with signature - gathering campaign materials describing the tops of multiple hills being lopped off to run a road into the proposed Oak Grove development, we were surely thinking of a road into that property and the buildings on the property the same way. No to any of that, and they voted for Proposition PP with those thoughts in mind. We do not want to open the floodgates of development made possible by allowing roads over hills into these other undeveloped properties. Please do not set the precedent here and, instead, approve the environmentally preferred option to route the Lund Ranch 11 development to the existing Lund Ranch Road. My second comment relates to the fact that the applicant, Greenbriar, has been working with the City on this project for years —too many years. They are a business trying to develop this property on their own, the property they own in good faith. The environmentally preferred option of routing Lund Ranch 11 traffic out of the property onto Lund Ranch Road will permit this applicant to most quickly get back to their business of developing this land and turning it into a profitable enterprise. Any of the alternatives that traverse the creek or build a road over the hillside exposes this project to delays and risk. Traversing the creek brings the Army Corps of Engineers and apparently numerous other organizations into the mix and introduces delays related to that Building a road and related structures over the hill to connect to Sunset Creek Lane violates Proposition PP, exposes the City to yet another potential lawsuit or set of lawsuits, and risks even more delay to this project. The applicant has waited long enough here. Vote for the environmentally preferred option and let them get on with their development. Thank you for listening to my comments and all you do to help plan for a better Pleasanton. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 25 of 54