PC 032404 - Laserfiche WebLink

moratorium on development and believed that the findings required for such an action are simply not present, especially in the context of the Lund Ranch II project. Mr. Baran wished to clarify comments made by the public regarding Lund Ranch II and emphasized that they did not push forward on the project in an effort to circumvent potential changes to the General Plan. He noted that Greenbriar entered into a purchase contract in 1996 and submitted a preliminary development plan to City staff in 1999. They finally submitted a formal PUD application in 2002. He noted that subsequent to that formal application, Greenbriar responded to later comments by the City Council and again revised the development plan. He noted that the project is in the middle of the EIR process and anticipated that a draft EIR will be available for circulation within the next several months. Mr. Baran noted that Greenbriar was committed to the Lund Ranch II project and is committed to providing a project that Greenbriar, the City, and the adjacent neighbors can all support. He noted that Greenbriar respects those residents and will listen and accommodate those concerns into the project designs where possible. He noted that Greenbriar believed that the project- specific concerns were best addressed within the context of each individual project. He noted that the impacts of each project are studied in the process of an EIR, which provide the decision-makers in any city with the information to make informed and intelligent decisions. He noted that the impacts of any given project need to be quantified through the specific process of an EIR before concerns can be discussed. He did not believe that neither a moratorium nor the General Plan would provide that information. - Mr. Baran did not believe that the residential units at Lund Ranch II constituted a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare and that further land use entitlements would result in or would exacerbate that threat. He noted that the infrastructure that was required and installed is sized and designed to handle a number of residential units that are currently being proposed at Lund Ranch II. He added that the Specific flan expressly lists Lund Ranch II as one of the funding developers for the infrastructure that is now installed and providing services to Pleasanton residents. Mr. Iserson replied to Commissioner Sullivan's earlier question and confirmed that Lund Ranch II contributed $1.8 million to the North Sycamore infrastructure, $720,000 of which would go to the East-West Collector Road, which would eventually connect to the Bypass Road. Mary Roberts, 1666 Vineyard, noted that she was involved in the referendum on the Kottinger Hills property and had received a request from the City to make comments about what should be in the EIR. She did so with the old EIR in hand, which involved a golf course. She did not believe this project was imminent because of the nature of the EIR and noted that the comments had to be received by January 31. She noted that the Planning Commission will scope for the EIR, and the draft EIR must then be written and would address the various comments. She noted that the draft EIR would be released for public comment, with 45 days to respond. She advised that all of the comments for the EIR would be published and responded to, after which it would go to the Planning Commission, and then the City Council for its approval, before any large PUDs are acted upon. She noted that previously, the City Council stated that there were "overriding considerations" from the previous EIR; the Council wanted the houses and did not PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES March 24, 2004 Page 12 of 22