11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Ventana Hills Steering Committee c/o Lofland residence �• Pleasanton, CA 94566 1:211 EDVEELR) February 24, 2015 FEB 2 4 2015 CITY OF PLEASANTON Planning Commissioners PI^A.NN!NCi DIVISION City Of Pleasanton Subject: Lund Ranch II, PUD-25 - Final EIR Workshop The Planning Commission has been faced with massive information, much of it conflicting. So the Ventana Hills Steering Committee will limit our comments to our three main points: 1. The City needs to abide by its agreements and its adopted plans and policies. In the Final EIR, in the Master Response: History of Adjacent Land Use Approvals and Related Ventana Hills Agreement at p. 9-4, the consultant states "The City Attorney has opined that those land use approvals and the Ventana Hills Agreement are not legally enforceable against the Lund Ranch II properly owner. The City Council may or may not choose to impose similar land use requirements or honor the Ventana Hills Agreement as part of its land use approval of Lund Ranch It es it determines how Measure PP applies to the proposed project." The comment assumes the City Council is not obligated to keep its agreements and follow adopted City plans. The statement is technically right as to the Ventana Hills agreement only. However, the City policy and agreement that Lund Ranch II shall take its access from Sycamore Creek Way has been reaffirmed repeatedly over twenty plus years, starting in 1991, including the eight instances cited in Attachment 1. Most importantly the North Sycamore Specific Plan and the City of Pleasanton General Plan Circulation Element have Lund Ranch II traffic using the east-west collector through the North Sycamore area. The primary developer of the North Sycamore area was Greenbriar Homes, who duly notified every home purchaser that the Lund Ranch II traffic will be coming down their streets. 2. A road is not a structure. The dilemma arose with adoption of Measure PP, which prohibits structures on slopes of 25% or more. When ballot argument opponents pointed out that restriction could prohibit the by-pass road to the golf course, Measure PP proponents denied that allegation in their ballot argument —the one authority every voter had of the true intentions of the Measure PP proponents. One of the authors of the Measure PP initiative explained this at a City Council meeting prior to ballot adoption: ® Karla Brown spoke on behalf of all three authors of the initiative. . . .