11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Dolores Bengtson, 568 Hamilton Way, noted that she wished to comment on the Oak Grove project and read the following letter from Julie Casamajor, resident at 2018 Foxswallow Road, into the record: "Please vote yes to provide a convenient staging area and an internal trail system to the public open space proposed to the Oak Grove Project. "I was present at the Trails Committee discussion of the proposed Alternative 5 which has addressed the major concerns of those in the immediate vicinity. I will be out of town at the Planning Commission meeting and want to make my support for community access to this extraordinary area known. "Many Pleasanton residents who will use the trails will not be at the Planning Commission meeting. They will be hurrying from work, various school and team related activities, making dinner and taking care of family obligations. They will use the trails from time to time, particularly if access is convenient and the trail is not too long for an afternoon stroll. Pleasanton residents appreciate the opportunity to get outdoors, and the Oak Grove project provides us all with a great opportunity to do so. "I urge your full support for including the staging area and internal trails in the Oak Grove project so all residents will be able to enjoy the beautiful open space park." Ms. Bengtson noted that this PUD had been reviewed and shaped by considerable public and neighborhood input. She noted that this allowed the City to own 500 acres of open space to serve as the anchor of a continuous open space park. She described the diverse public needs served by this open space and believed the solution to public access was the result of cooperation between the City, the developer, a coalition of open space users, and the neighboring homeowners. She believed that good open space access was an important part of this project and added that protection of the open space was essential. She urged the Commission to support staff's recommendation. Mike Regan, 1363 Hearst Drive, noted that he wished to comment on the Oak Grove project and that although no one wanted to see development of the hills, he believed this development was the best way to preserve the open space. He noted that the City, developer, land trust conservancies, and other entities had worked on this for three years and wanted to ensure that the project fulfilled its vision. He complimented the developer on listening to each group. He supported the reduced development of 51 homes with the proviso that the following restrictions be put in place to secure against future development and be memorialized in the development agreement: 1. The open space areas of the development would be subject to a conservation easement to be held by an appropriate non-profit group or land trust conservancy. The easement would prohibit the construction of roads or tie-ins except those detailed in the 51-home Oak Grove project agreement. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 28, 2007 Page 3 of 6