Laserfiche WebLink
3. Meeting Oren to the Public <br />Tom Pico, 795 Neal Place, believed there would be serious controversy regarding the <br />environmental impacts of the proposed project. There were serious impacts of the previous <br />proposal and he noted he was one of the leaders of the referendum for that project. He noted <br />these kinds of issues have been present with other projects including the Vineyard Corridor <br />Specific Plan, the Ponderosa/Busch property, etc. and it has been possible to find solutions <br />acceptable to the community. The Lin family has asked him to be a consultant to assist in <br />finding ways to make this project more acceptable, to mitigate its environmental impacts and <br />to make sure a way is found to turn the controversy into support. He commented that this is a <br />significantly different project than the one previously presented. He felt that when the EIR <br />addresses the controversy of the project that it addresses the positives and negatives to the <br />entire community as well as to the neighborhood. He was extremely optimistic that as this <br />process proceeds there will be solutions to allow the community to accept the project if not <br />embrace it as it did the PonderosaBusch project. He believed that can happen and he is <br />committed to ensuring that all the environmental issues and concerns are addressed. <br />Mary Roberts, 1666 Ofd Vineyard Avenue, indicated she lives at the edge of this blue <br />oak forest. She wanted the E1R to view this area as an ecological whole, not just a few trees. <br />There is a problem in California because the blue oaks are not regenerating. She did not <br />want small trees to be removed and was concerned about the impact of houses above the <br />trees at lower elevations. She believed one-acre lots are usually heavily landscaped and the <br />water runoff will affect the trees and the forest. She, then referred to the tiger salamanders <br />that used to be on her property. A neighbor built a wetland and rearranged some grasslands <br />-- and she has not seen tiger salamanders for twelve years. Ruby Hill has a tiger salamander <br />preserve, but she had doubts that actually worked. She was concerned about wild fires in the <br />area as well. All the trees in one gully were lost and have not regenerated. She was <br />concerned about water runoff and the flooding of the arroyos. She urged the consultant to <br />view this as a woodland and savannah and a valuable'resource. <br />Susan Astbury, f 375 Hearst Drive, expressed concern about traffic issues and noted <br />at peak hours it is difficult to turn left onto Bernal Avenue. It is also difficult turning right from <br />Bernal onto Hearst Drive. She felt 980 additional car trips on Hearst Drive were significant. <br />Safety of the children and pedestrians in the neighborhood was a concern as well. The <br />developers would improve part of the open space and the remainder wauld be open to the <br />public in the form of trails. She wondered how much traffic would be generated by people <br />wha don't live in the area coming to use those trails. Where would they park and where would <br />the staging area be located? She also expressed concern about the impact on the schools <br />from the additional residential housing. This is the last undeveloped ridge top open space in <br />Pleasanton and she felt it should be protected for futura3 generations. <br />Terri Maxoutapoulis, 3531 Crespi Court, said her family chose to live in Kottinger <br />Ranch because it was quiet, safe, close to downtown and had excellent schools. Her children <br />and others play in Crespi Court. She was concerned about the construction of 98 new homes. <br />Her biggest concerns were: 1) safety of the children, 2) excessive traffic, 3) permanent loss of <br />beautiful hills, ridge lines and heritage oaks, and 4) increased burdens on schools. She <br />referred to the Community of Character Elements: Responsibility -1000 extra cars on Hearst <br />Joint Workshop <br />City Council and <br />Planning Commission 5 <br />02/08/05 <br />