PC 03/25/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

~ neighborhood; that they have listened to the people but have not tually heard their concerns. Karen Liersch, 6621 Amber Lane, expressed concern that there is a certain timeframe for comments for the EIR and that if they are not in at a set time that . t is too late. She felt the noise impact had not been addressed in the EIR; she also expres concern that years ago it was guaranteed that Rosepointe and Carriage Garden were req' to be only one story homes. It seemed unfair to her that with this project Rosepointe d Carriage Gardens would be looking directly at two story homes. She also felt that p s are changing so rapidly that no one really knows what is going on. Joe Callahan returned to the podium. He said he appreciated the mments and concerns of the neighbors; however, he felt they were not accurate. With reg d to visual impacts, he described how mitigation measures would take place in regard to e freeway, the creek and the bermed areas. He noted that they are trying to protect the vis entrance to the City by limiting the heights of the houses, and by restricting the most visi e areas along the freeway to one story houses. By further screening with landscaping, he fel the homes would not be seen from the freeway. Mr. Callahan further addressed grading issues, commenting that th re has been much more grading done on other projects in Alameda County than this one. e did not feel there would be excessive grading on this project. In regard to traffic co cerns, he did not think ~ the project itself would generate that much more traffic, and in fac , those issues regarding traffic safety already exist. Furthermore, staff and the developer ve suggested mitigation measures for traffic, drainage, water, and sewage capacity concern , which is also addressed in the City's General Plan. In regard to the train trestle issue poi out by Mr. Churka, he said they have attempted to find out what the County's objectives e, but at this point they have come to no conclusion. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. COMMISSION'S COMMENTS Commissioner McGuirk said he appreciated the comments and p ntation by the neighborhood and felt the historical background was helpful. He s ted he would like to keep to the philosophy of what was agreed to some years ago. He said he is having difficulty with seeing a transition from 1-680 to an MDR-type deve opment into an R-l- 20,000 to everything east. There just does not seem to be a smoo transition. He felt for a gateway to the City, he might favor something more spread out; th n if necessary, the medium density could be back off the freeway. He also did not li e seeing the topography change for the sake of development, and would rather see the deve opment change for the topography. Regarding traffic, he felt that everyone simply has to eal with some increase of traffic; he had more of a problem with the safety of ingress and egress off Sunol Minutes Planning Commission March 2S. 1992 Page 18