Laserfiche WebLink
~:t-:en he przrchased has home tie disclosure made n;_s sTtention of a <br />freew~.}• that rlauld go s:;~ near his house. He was distressed that <br />hd s view of the Liver-mare hills was~l d be c3estrc~~FFC~ _ <br />The ComtTsi ssi orz discussed aai th t~ir . Lee i*~t'sether i t rJuul ~ be <br />feasi C*i e to put up a sound:;cal l an the north side of the s4rro}'a. <br />~+ere~~ Almorsd, _U~t? Ferndale Ct. , spo~:e of the tunrsel effect on <br />«alle•{ Aversue and felt that it is attractive; however, he feit <br />that ~tdest Las FosiiLas Fslvd. was the ugliest street in town. He <br />supported the concept of feathering the density. <br />!a~a ~aldacci., F'arwest Associates, returned to the podium. He <br />spo~:e ir: response to a comment about a soundwall through the <br />i~al i nara property. He said that tt-:e 5peci f i c FI an ref erred to <br />section 8 of the landscape section. The ss;uth side pro;-ides a <br />soundwal? but because the north side is high density the scsund <br />engineer had indicated that sound attznuataon is achiet.'ed <br />thrau~h arct-citecture which is a normal way to da it irz certain <br />areas_ . <br />h9i ~::e E~ranco, ~ l5~ Roardwal ~., as?-ed i f i r, deterr»i ni ng the route <br />presentl}' drafted for Staneridge whether people ors the nor-tt-s <br />side of the Arroyo ~~ere considered in that analysis. He <br />ei:pressed concern about ha .fi ng a saundrraal I and eras not i n f avar <br />of orse, but was also concerned about the noise level. He did <br />not s.i4~e the idea of t-saving a saundwall rigi-st behind his house. <br />P'la;; 6ahrahrrcat, one of the developers, spo~;e about the Chu <br />property. He said he ~'sas met s~ith the cit}f far- three years ns_sty <br />to discuss the project; they wanted parks arsd open spaces and a <br />school and traffic solutions. He felt they had tried to achieve <br />aII of these things, but it appears it still is not sufficZent. <br />He s~;ggested that after three years of planning, that the <br />developers should be given some cr~nsideration. <br />The public hearing was closed. <br />CONCLUSION <br />Oared an the preceeding discussion, the Comrrsissian re•riewed the <br />1~ re•,ris~.ons to the Specific Flan rF'age l7} <br />1 . !~!a oppasi ti an. <br />No opposition. <br />_ . i'•to opposition. <br />4. C~a oppasi t i an and interested 3 n some I eve I of of f ardatsl e <br />t-iousing. <br />5. i+lcs oppasi ti ors. <br />~. No opposition. <br />7. Ncr csppo~ition. <br />fit. lea apposition. <br />~. ~~a oppasiticsn. <br />l!~}. No opposition. <br />'=°age ± <br />