SR 05:031 - Laserfiche WebLink

lowing project intervals: existing site, newly constructed buildings without landscaping, and then five, 10, and 20 years after building construction with landscaping. The visual consultant for the DEIR will be present at the scoping session. Although the visual analysis section of the attached scope of work initially identified four viewpoints, the applicant understands that the fi- nal scope for the visual analysis section will be determined at the scoping session. Public Comment/Neighborhood Concerns and Controversy A map of the public notice area is attached. Staff has consistently used this area for all public notices for this application. Based on the communications already received by staff, the proposed project is controversial to surrounding neighbors and homeowners associations. Appendix "B" contains the letters and printed email communications from approximately 75 homeowners received in response to the several public notices - Notice of Preparation of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, Con- sultant Contract, City Council/Planning Commission Scoping Meeting, etc. - that were sent out on the proposed project. The comments received generally cover the environmental issues pertaining to available City and regional parks to service the residents of the proposed project, available school capacity to serve the children of the proposed project, impacts to the quality of life of existing neighbor- hoods, loss of existing trees, loss of open space provided by the subject property, loss of views, single public street connection to Hearst Dhve, proposed density, traffic and circulation, etc. Several neighbors also believe that the proposed project is premature given the ongoing update of the Pleasanton General Plan. These letters and emails will be considered as part of into the proposed project's environ- mental/project review. Any future letters and/or emails received after the scoping session will be attached to and replied to in all future City Council/Planning Commission staff reports on this proposal. Although the comments are predominantly environmental in nature, some comments may be more project-oriented. Project related comments would be discussed in future City Council/Planning Commission staff reports. With the recent work session public notice, staff received additional email communications from Bob and Denise Howe (3228 Arbor Drive), attached, and from Bryan Scott (3248 Arbor Drive), attached. The Howes believe that the DEIR should include a comprehensive analysis of the en- vironmental impacts if Red Feather Drive is proposed to be used to access the proposed project. Mr. Scott pointed out an inaccuracy in the notice:" ..... on the southerly sides of the Vintage Heights and the Grey Eagle Estates developments" should read" ..... on the southerly sides of the Vintage Hills II and the Grey Eagle Estates developments". Although staff considers this to be a clerical error, staff is appreciative of Mr. Scott pointing it out, and staff will correct it for all £u- ture public hearing/work session notices. SR:05:031 Page 6 of 7