RES 2026039 - Laserfiche WebLink

2 activities for over a century. Through this long-standing and regular use, we have legally established unrecorded access rights. The dirt road we use is partially visible in Exhibit 2-3 aerial photograph, and a portion of it is shown in the base topographic survey in Exhibit 2-6. However, Exhibit 2-6 inaccurately depicts the road as ending in the middle of “Parcel B” when in fact it continues to the northwest corner of Parcel B, where it enters the Devany Parcel. As shown on Exhibit 2-6, the project proposes three homesites that are directly on this road. It appears that the authors of the DEIR were unaware of both the existence of this road and its long-standing use as access to our otherwise landlocked parcel. As a result, the DEIR is deficient in failing to discuss the road and address the impacts associated with it. For example, pages 2-20 and 3.10-11 of the DEIR discuss compatibility with surrounding uses, but do not reference or analyze the incompatibility of the project as designed with the access to, and current or potential future uses of, the Devany Parcel. Similarly, the Transportation analysis in the DEIR (Section 3-14) fails to include the traffic from the Devany parcel (which includes typical traffic associated with a working ranch, including the seasonal transportation of cattle to and from the Devany parcel using the road) in the baseline, nor does it analyze the impacts of the Project on that use or the impacts of that Devany Parcel traffic on the Project. These deficiencies are also present in the Cumulative Impacts and Project Alternatives sections of the DEIR. To comply with CEQA, the DEIR must include these analyses and identify and adopt feasible mitigation measures to address these potentially significant impacts prior to the City Council’s consideration of the Final EIR. 2.During the December 10, 2025 public hearing, Ponderosa Homes, the developer, stated that it would provide an easement to allow access to our property. In post- meeting discussions with the developer and the property owner, it was indicated that Alameda County would record the easement; however, they suggested that the right- of-way was not a CEQA issue. Based on the issues discussed in our previous comment, both we and our expert disagree and believe this matter does constitute a CEQA issue. Accordingly, we request that the recorded easement be explicitly identified as a mitigation measure addressing the project’s impacts on our access rights. R. DEVANY 2 Page 2 of 3 &217