PC 01/27/88 - Laserfiche WebLink

Donna r-::o1 i~ t~ii I i er , 1 I~r' i~ubl i n Canyon Ed. stated ti-,at s!-3e was horn and raised on the property ire discussion and expressed concern about tl'ie wisdom, of tfoe proposed project. Her concerns centered ar ound the survi vaI of wi 1 dl i fe a,~ound Foothi 11 and its subdivisions; the impact rn traffic in tha+~ area; and the po5slble invasion o-€ property owner privacy between their homes and p~,er4;.lands. .aim Mellow, ~41t~ Second Street, Livermore, stated heat he has a business ir, i'ieasanton. He e: pressed confidence that staff had been very astute in planning for grading and erosion control. The public hearing was closed. Commissioner Micheletti noted beat available traffic studies ar-e outdated and asked Mr. Lee where a current one ,Tiight be e:-:petted. He thought a new one should be ready iri eari~y February. Commissioner I''Eichelotti was also concerned about a buildout on Stoneridge Drive and Stoneridge Mali i;oad. Mr. Swift responded that mitigation measures have been included iri the general plan for- somie time to mitigate a change in the laning pattern Ori Stoneridge Mali Road as it approaches Stoneridge Drive to allow a triple left turn lane. However, this can't be implemented anti I t4ee Stoner-i dge inter Change i s modified. Co,T,mi ssi oner Hoyt as€~ed Mr . Lee to comment on difference of opinion between Staff and applicant regarding the term ",-r,assive grading." Mr. Lee explained that the distinction made in the staff raper-t was a difference only between grading for i ndi ~~ i dual bui I di ng pads as opposed to cutting tt'ie tap off a -r-idge, wing that dirt to fill in a valley On a large scale of m+ore ti an just one lot. Staff meant tS~,e term "massive gs-ading" as anything more t!ean just custom home sites. Commissioner Tarver stated that he agt eed with most of tiee spea~_er-s tonight. He thought it was a model EIS and tteought it presented alternatives that could be loo€~ed into. He thought the effect on the school system needed to be explored thoroughly; he thought the issue of housing mix in 19~CU and growth managemient st-,oul d tae contained i n the EIS; ` s g and that the visual preservation of views on the Ridgelands should be addressed. He desired a reduced density regarding lots, w~eich he felt would protect the hi I I s ` vi si Lei 1 i ty; i-,e opposed any extensive grading; he felt the t',i~~3ng trails were properly{ addressed by staff and was in favor of a staging area. He expessed great concern r egarding t~"ie impart of the project on the existing school system; he felt the geologic study needed to be further addressed along wI tt-, ~-eousl r,g prices. He was greatl y Concerned about the impact on traffic acid thought a current traffic study should be obtained. Commissioner Micheletti basically agreed with Comimi5sioner Tarver and commended the developers on the proposed project. She favored a much oower density than proposed; supported the F'age b