SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Subject: FW: Greenbriar's Testimony -- Lund Ranch II development &____ ��g�� SUPPLEMENTAL Provided to the City Council From: allison Chang Pro of PaC�e$ Sent: Monday, November 30, 2015 1:21 PM After Distribution i To: Mayor and City Council � -34, Subject: Greenbriar's Testimony -- Lund Ranch II development Date Dear City Council Members, In order to avoid testifying at your hearings and making a tedious process even longer, I write to point out the unctuous testimony of Greenbriar. I've been to many many planning commission staff meetings, planning commission meetings and now city council meetings. At every meeting the Greenbriar people get up and cite all the things they have done for Pleasanton as a community. Their testimony is offensive and should be discounted. I'II address their main points ad seriatim below. challenge Greenbrier to show that any of their 300 acres "donated" open space would have been "donated" without the accompanying approval for a development or that it was viable land that could have been developed. They made money off of those developments, which would not have been approved without that open space being included. Accordingly, that open space was paid for by those homeowners that bought those houses and were part and parcel and a condition of those developments being approved, or they donated space that couldn't be built upon. It is ridiculous for the City to take this into account the open space "donations" as those actions were in response to requirements for building their other developments. Greenbriar also states that they build their communities like they live in them. Yet, Greenbriar is based in FREMONT. They don't vote here, they don't live here, and their kids, dogs, seniors, soccer moms, etc. wouldn't be put at risk by trying to run all the Lund Ranch II traffic past the Mission Hills Park. This comment that they build the developments like they live there is just self - serving fluff. They don't live here and if they did, they wouldn't put all of this traffic (both the construction traffic and added traffic from the development) going past the park. Not once has Greenbriar talked about safety measures for the Park, instead they talk about traffic mitigation measures for when they would run the construction trucks and how many would go by per day. They don't talk about added police presence or crossing guards for when the kids are going to school or at soccer practice at the Park. They don't talk about rumble strips or added stop signs or where all their workers will park. They don't talk about bollards or other barriers put on the sides of the park to stop a runaway truck or a barrier vegetation or fences to stop balls from going into the street. Putting any more traffic around the Park is unconscionable. As elected officials, you should consider the safety of your constituents and not the self - serving rhetoric of an outside developer. Lastly Greenbriar states that they have donated to PPIE and other charities. Well, so what? That was a donation, supposedly given freely. To cite those donations as something they should get a quid pro quo for is, unethical. It's basically asking for a corrupt kickback. And, what's even more offensive is that many of us are also large supporters of the PPIE, our local schools and Pleasanton charities -- in the Ventana Hills community, and I'm sure the Mission Hills and Sycamore Creek neighborhoods too. Should we then be asking for extra credit for our community involvement? No, not one person has gotten up to say that at any single meeting, yet Greenbriar cites that every time. It's offensive. We all give. We give generously and we don't ask for anything in return. Neither should Greenbriar and they shouldn't get anything in return either. 1