11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

__ the proposed trail system and its connection to the regional parks trail system and the hiking/biking experience the Pleasanton residents would enjoy from that kind of trail system. He asked if a 494-acre park and trail system within the urban growth boundary was a good buffer and is it good planning? Does it work in other communities and is it a good idea to feather out development as we reach the urban growth boundary? He had questions about the viewpoints. He wandered how visible this project would be from file Bernal Property and the chain of lakes area? Dick Quigley, 4613 Cope Court, indicated he also hiked on the site and commented on its beauty. He had seen the model of the project and he felt it was seldom a city gets a proposal to have a few homes with a gift of 495 acres for trails and parks. He wanted the trails to connect with the regional trails and possibly the Happy Valley Golf Course, as wail as the Shadow Cliffs trail system and to Lake Del Valle. He spends a lot of time on the trails in the Ohlone wilderness area. The ridge in the project site is the urban boundary of the city and has been on the General Plan for development. The model is appealing to him. He suggested an additional access point for the project and felt it would diminish the traffic on Hearst. He felt that would be beneficial for the fire department as well. The staging areas for the trails should be nestled out of sight of the neighbors in a passive site. Jon Harvey, 3790 Smallwood Court, said there were four areas he would like the EIR to address. The first was the loss of wild life habitat, not only from development of the homes, but cumulative loss for the region. He was also concerned about the replacement of the habitat with non-native plants and animals. The second concern was the loss of private agricultural grazing land and the impact of putting more pressure on public grazing lands. The third area of concem was protection from sprawl development. There is now an urban growth boundary and he wanted the EIR to address how that would be protected. There are effective boundaries to north and west by freeways and to the east by the City of Livermore. There is no protection to the south except for the line on the map. If there is an alternate project contemplated with access from Vineyard Avenue or Highway 84, what is the effect of that to enable future growth in the open lands to the south of Pleasanton. The last concem is protection of the natural watershed. The grading and compacting of dirt will alter the surface water flows and limit the capacity to absorb and filter rainwater. There were no further speakers. Mayor Hosterrnan asked Mr. Inderbitzen to address the protection of watershed and loss of permeable surfaces. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) will be looking at that for the region in the years to come. She thanked all the speakers for coming to the meeting and raising issues of concern. Mr. Arkin asked if the developer could be required to present alternatives, such as a 20-unit project? Mayor Hosterman said yes. Joint Workshop City Council and Planning Commission 10 02/08/05