11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

„__ Mr. Iserson indicated the EIR consultants would come back with alternative plans. One of them will be an environmentally superior plan which will be developed after all the analysis of impacts and mitigation measures has been done. A plan will be developed to mitigate as many impacts as possible and will most likely have a reduced number of units. it is done on that basis rather than just specifying a certain number of lots. Ms. Fox had concerns about another access to the property. She referred to the design of the Busch property development. It has access from Valley Avenue and Mohr Avenue, but there will be no cut through traffic because of the street design. She wanted two access points for the proposed project, from an arterial street like Vineyard Avenue as well as the existing point. She wanted the street designs to include cul de sacs between the two to points to discourage cut through traffic. Ms. Maas said she had received questions about why the applicants keep coming back with a project. She asked staff to explain the process and history of this area. Mr. Iserson said there was a prior development proposal for this site, which was approved by Council and then overturned by a referendum. The applicant has waited a number of years and developed a new application. The City is obligated under state law to process that application. The fact that a previous project was denied has no bearing on the current application. Based on the new application and evaluation that it is necessary to do an EIR, this meeting was called to identify impacts for the EIR. Ms. Maas asked if this property could be de-annexed? If the developer gets tired of -- dealing with the City can it go somewhere else to develop? Mr. Iserson said if the question is can the property go into the County, he said it was unusual for that to happen. The property is within city limits because it is adjacent to other developments, infrastructure to serve it and it is unusual to go back out of the city. It is within the city's sphere of influence and planning area and those designations are a recognition by LAFCO that the property belongs in the City of Pleasanton. Ms. Hosterman indicated she has gone through her list and notes and all the points she wanted to cover have been raised. Mr. Arkin wanted the EIR to review the impact of the construction traffic: how many trips, starting time, and noise. He also wanted to analyze the visual impact from other parts of the community. For example, could one see the project from the Stoneridge Mall parking lot? He requested consideration of a connection to Vineyard Avenue and he wanted a sidewalk added on Hearst Drive. Economic analysis should be done regarding the effect on existing homeowners. He wanted to consider the impact of traffic to a city-owned facility for park and recreational uses. He noted school field trips often go to the Pleasanton Ridge area. He wanted to consider stubbing off the street and building only ten homes. Lastly, the community has made many comments a# a previous Planning Commission workshop at Vintage Hills School and he wanted those comments to be part of the public record for this project. He was uncomfortable with this application coming forward before the General Plan Upda#e process is complete. Joint Workshop City Council and Planning Commission 11 02/08/05