My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENT 8
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2007
>
100207
>
11 ATTACHMENT 8
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/28/2007 12:31:47 PM
Creation date
9/25/2007 1:56:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/2/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENT 8
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
91
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Finally, Ms. Roberts noted an inconsistency, pointing out that on page 300, it is stated the road <br />going down to Vineyard Avenue is impossible; but page 336 has this sentence: "In short, <br />Alternative 3's effectiveness in shifting traffic is not very substantial, and the payoff in terms of <br />reduced LOS is minor and limited." <br />Mike Regan, 1363 Hearst Drive, expressed concern about traffic in terms of the potential over <br />the years to break through to properties even beyond the Oak Grove proposal. He indicated that <br />he would like to have a formal mitigation which would include easements and legal restrictions <br />that would basically say that this project would be the end of any kind of development beyond <br />Hearst Drive. With respect to the environment issues, he noted that the mitigation typically is a <br />measure-and-monitor type of response and that what is really necessary is to determine what <br />open space is and how to keep it as open space. He stated that he does not see the sight lines on <br />some of the views in Alternative 4 and that this needs to be followed up in terms of aesthetics <br />and impact. Finally, he indicated that the impact of the EVA road needs to be determined prior <br />to moving the project forward. <br />Phil Blank, 1339 Hearst Drive in Kottinger Ranch, noted that the traffic impact is an issue of not <br />just volume but speed as well. He noted that traffic on upper Hearst Drive is out of control, <br />sometimes up to 45 and 50 miles an hour. He commented that he believed the vehicles not <br />familiar with the area and are looking for acut-through as the vehicles typically go all the way to <br />the end of Hearst Drive and then make a U-turn and speed back down the other way. He <br />encouraged the Commissioners to and walk the site. Mr. Blank added that better visual <br />simulations are needed, preferably digitally and electronically, that would accurately render what <br />is actually seen. <br />Mr. Blank stated that he did not believe 45 days is sufficient time to gain public comment and <br />visit the site and encouraged the Commission to consider extending the comment period. He <br />added that discussions going on between the developer and the neighborhood, and sufficient time <br />is necessary for written agreements to be put into place. <br />Mr. Blank noted that vibration is one item not mentioned in the Draft EIR. He stated that there <br />have been foundation problems in the fill and on the ridgeline in Kottinger Ranch and requested <br />that the EIR include an assessment of the impact of construction trucks going up and down <br />Hearst Drive for a lengthy period of time, which could be mitigated by reducing the size of the <br />construction trucks. He noted that the vibration is a concern in terms of its impact on the <br />existing foundations due to slippage and foundation problems that have already occurred in the <br />area. <br />Finally, Mr. Blank commented that one section of the EIR talks about outside impacts on the <br />project, and it did not discuss the Livermore airport. He stated that from the noise perspective, <br />this project will be a lot closer to the Livermore Airport than Kottinger Ranch. He noted that the <br />traffic pattern at Livermore Airport was recently approved with a substantial number of new <br />hangars, a runway extension, and a significant airport expansion. He indicated that he would like <br />to see the impact on the site of the mixture of business jet and small aircraft operations 24 hours <br />a day, 365 days a year. <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 12, 2006 Page 17 of 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.