11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Becky Dennis, 838 Gray Fox Circle, noted that she wished to comment on the Oak Grove project and not with regard to Condition 33(a) regarding cattle grazing, she concurred with Ms. Bengtson's suggestion that grazing not be limited to cattle only and that there had been successful grazing programs including sheep and goats. She thanked the staff, developer, and trails advocates for their attention to protection of the open space. She distributed photos of the trails. Phil Blank noted that he wished to comment on the Oak Grove project and that several years ago, he had opposed this project; at a different Planning Commission meeting, he had called for a moratorium on development. He noted that there had been considerable progress since then and expressed concern about all access on Hearst Drive. He believed it was a good public amenity but did not believe that all access should be via Hearst Drive. He would like to see other potential access points such as Red Feather Court and Grey Eagle Court and acknowledged the financial and other constraints with respect to indemnification agreements. He was concerned about the Environmental Impact Report (EIR), which he believed glossed over the vibration issue. He would also not accept the EIR response to airport noise, which he believed was almost insulting. He noted that the noise was detectable on the side of Kottinger Ranch that faced away from the airport. He noted that 50 percent of the noise complaints came from two houses in Pleasanton. He noted there was the possibility of a pilot being required to land following an engine failure in the area, and he did not believe that was properly addressed in the EIR. He did not believe the disclosure statements around the grazing areas, airport, noise, and environment were adequately addressed. He believed there should be a mechanism to be worked out by staff. He noted that he had seen disclosure statements given to Stoneridge Drive residents that gave no indication of any possible extension of Stoneridge Drive. He noted that it would be impossible to sue a developer that has since gone out of business. He wanted the City to ensure that the disclosures were properly made. He did not particularly favor rental property on that site. He believed Lot 11 could use some work, either situationally or visually. He noted that the photomontage mixed up the 98-home project and the 51-home project and that it was very difficult to see the pictures on the montage. He supported Mr. Regan's comments about conservation easements being under independent control and not under the control of a political body or a pressure group. Overall, he believed this was a very good project. David Camp. 1374 Benedict Court, noted that he wished to comment on the Oak Grove project and wished there was a way that this entire property could be permanently protected as open space rather than a mile of homes on a ridge. He would like the view from the high areas looking down to be considered as well. He would like the open space to be permanently and independently protected against additional homes or other uses such as motocross. He liked the proposal for the staging area in the new development, which was of a modest size. He did not want staging areas near existing homes or streets. He wanted to keep the trails away from existing streets and homes, creating a de facto staging area. He supported one EVA road as proposed through Grey Eagle Court. He believed that construction traffic would be a huge impact and would like very strict controls on them. He would like some assurance from the City that developments would not be added to the end of existing roads. He was opposed to rental units. He noted that EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 28, 2007 Page 5 of 6