Laserfiche WebLink
property and forming a loop to Hearst would be enticing for inappropriate and illegal use by <br />motorcycles, motor scooters, ATV's and trucks and cars, as described by Megan Williams. <br />Nancy Storch said she's lived in Vintage Hills area for many years, thinks the opportunity that <br />the development offers to retain the open space should not be passed up because of a few <br />vocal residents. The residents would like to control the hills for their benefit alone and she can <br />understand this viewpoint; however, unless you own the property next to your home this is not <br />possible and everyone gets neighbors. She felt the project has benefits for all and provides <br />mitigations and controls to protect the existing neighbors and looks forward to hiking the trails. <br />Marti Evans said she believed the citizens are being steamrolled into accepting a flawed set of <br />goods in the EIR for the sake of new trails. Everyone loves open space but many of her <br />neighbors have provided very good details as to some of the flaws in the EIR, they felt they <br />were splitting hairs on the intent of Measure F to protect Pleasanton Ridge and said there needs <br />to be a corollary initiative to protect Pleasanton Ridge lands which is in keeping with the City's <br />Land Use Element outlined in the General Plan, Policy 12. <br />Russell Schmidt said he is a family member of East Bay Regional Park District, said he supports <br />the general idea of more hiking in the hills; however, he does not support the development as <br />currently framed. He voiced concerns with visualization and trust of home sizes, is encouraged <br />there has been motion which would lessen visual impacts, but he felt this was hard to <br />understand coming so late in the process. He referred to the visuals done in the EIR, said they <br />have repeatedly asked that those visualizations be done with accurate house sizes, <br />representative viewpoints, and that they be peer reviewed by a neutral expert rather than a paid <br />consultant and asked for story poles on the lots to show the maximum sizes of houses possible. <br />Sasson Rajabi said he resides close to the development, is a boardmember of the Kottinger <br />Ranch HOA, has not seen all documents presented a couple of days ago, said initially he did <br />not want to object to the project, noted that his job as a structural engineer is to build homes but <br />thus far he has not seen anything that addresses problems the development will have. He cited <br />traffic problems on Hearst Drive, fire exit issues, was not sure the changes proposed tonight <br />were the best alternative and felt the homes would be quite large. <br />Bob Grove feels the Council is being deceived as well as the vast majority of residents, <br />presented an overview of the impact of Oak Grove from the back of Grey Eagle and pointed out <br />a house that purports to be the visual impact of a 7,000 to 10,000 square foot home as being <br />viewed by Grey Eagle. There has been a lot of discussion on view impacts and finds that if he <br />stands on one of the lots and takes a picture of his house, it would be a true representation of <br />how large the homes would appear. <br />Keith Symons said there were good points brought up, felt people who have land have a right to <br />develop on it, his biggest concern has always been traffic and if the project is approved there is <br />a lot that needs to be done on Hearst Drive. He felt the light will help, was not sure if trees would <br />screen the properties and wanted more work on the project. <br />Karla Brown, Vice President of the Kottinger Ranch HOA, thanked everyone who has worked so <br />hard to reach an agreement, said most members of the Board have been exposed to many new <br />issues and thanked the subcommittee of the Board who worked hard to make progress. <br />However, there are 7 boardmembers, and 4 members are not prepared to support the project at <br />this time. They understand the process of compromise, but cannot support it because they need <br />more time to collect the information on deals that have been made in order to weigh the options <br />and vote for them as a Board, the traffic mitigation options are not sufficient and details of where <br />City Council Minutes 15 October 2, 2007 <br />