Laserfiche WebLink
Maria Hoey <br /> Subject FW: Lund EIR - request for further info <br /> Planning Commission, <br /> First, I was informed that I need to recuse myself from the <br /> discussion on the Lund Ranch II EIR. I can only speak on this <br /> item as a member of the public at a public meeting. So Nancy will <br /> be the chair on that item on Wednesday night. <br /> Thank you for asking your questions regarding "agreements". The <br /> reason you didn't see the agreements in the Draft EIR document is <br /> because they are not actually "agreements". Wording such as <br /> "may" and "intend" do not create a legal agreement. Furthermore, <br /> Council minutes reflect the Council would attempt to route traffic <br /> elsewhere; and of course such statements are not binding. The <br /> Bonde developer also stated they would "use best efforts" to secure <br /> a right-of-way through the Lund property, but that never happened. <br /> No written agreements were ever obtained from the owners of the <br /> Lund Ranch II property owners, past or present. <br /> No binding agreement was ever put in place; subsequently, <br /> Measure PP was soundly passed by the voters in 2008 to prevent <br /> grading on slopes of 25% or greater. That includes grading for <br /> roads. The measure states no grading in order to build homes; it <br /> also prevents grading for structures, and the municipal code <br /> defines structures as anything constructed that requires a place on <br /> the ground - which includes roads. Measure PP also stated that it <br /> would override any existing General Plan (and therefore any <br /> Specific Plan). Ordinances in the Bonde Ranch/Sycamore <br /> Heights/Bridle Creek developments do not convey vested rights to <br /> the Ventana Hills subdivision(or anyone else) or create binding <br /> agreements on the owners of the Lund Ranch II property. Read the <br /> minutes of the included PC meeting from 2012; staff agreed that <br /> roads were not allowed on slopes of 25%. The impartial analysis <br /> by the city prior to the election also stated that if passed, Measure <br /> PP would prevent the bypass road from being built- because the <br /> path of that road was over 25% slope. <br /> Staff, all the planning commissioners and the council had agreed <br /> that roads were structures. That only started to change later after <br /> "grandfathering in" Specific Plans was deemed prohibited by PP; <br /> ® then the new argument surfaced that maybe roads weren't <br /> structures after all. Even the former owners, the Spotorno family, <br /> 1 <br />