RES 2026039 - Laserfiche WebLink

City of Pleasanton—Hidden Canyon Residences and Preserve Project Final EIR Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments FirstCarbon Solutions 4-5 https://adecinnovations.sharepoint.com/sites/PublicationsSite/Shared Documents/Publications/Client (PN-JN)/2148/21480016/EIR/4 - Final EIR/21480016 Sec04-00 Response to Public Meeting Verbal Comments.docx asked to approve. This is desecration . . . Okay. Um, you need to see the damage you're being asked to approve. Uh, this is desecration. Uh, back in 2019, Herb Ritter, a member of this commission, came to see for himself, which I'm asking you to do. He then made it clear during that 2019 meeting that the developer must try harder to minimize the visual blight. Some of these points were made at that hearing. If the number of houses won't be reduced, and they should be, they should be less of an eyesore. They should be single-story. The houses, roads, retaining walls should have earthtone colors that blend into the hillside. Retaining walls should be planted and terraced and not so clearly scar the hillsides. And the recent drawings that they have placed in the file show that they are so high and so big, but that's because they have to do that because they can't otherwise flatten the hills to make their paths. Mr. Mr. Ritter made it clear that tall and yes, mature trees, the size of the heritage trees that are going to be removed must be planted around the development for visual screening. There are power poles and power lines on the property that city staff has told me will be or should be removed and undergrounded. There's also a plan to put pipes down the fire road from Crosby Drive to Dublin Canyon Road. Well, if that's the case, then the developer or the city has to repave that road and maintain it and the wooden fence along it. And if driveway to my house uh is cut open for those pipes, that's going to have to be replaced. Uh any East Bay Regional Park walkways and parking lot must be secured and monitored for fire safety. That hillside is an absolute tinder box in the summer. Fire safety measures must be enforced. Now I know under current state law and the housing element, this project won't be rejected in its entirety. But you have to understand despite the fact that they have decreased the number, it is still too much. Too many houses, too much grading and flattening of those hillsides, and there is much that can be done. I've mentioned a few things to help mitigate it. Now, Ponderosa told us at the very first time we met with them, that we are not like other developers. We care about and listen to and work with impacted neighbors. And those are quotes, by the way. I was there and took notes. But I have to tell you, sadly, nothing of the sort has taken place. There has been no communication, no collaboration, nothing from Ponderosa. They know we're there. They can say visually it's unimportant. It is important to some of us. So, I call upon Ponderosa. I'm sure they're not bad people, but to heed their own promises, work with your neighbors to make this project as palatable as possible. You promised and you failed. And I call upon the city to insist that they do so and create an imposed condition so that their valuable rights and interests of current Pleasanton restaurant residents are not completely ignored. Insist the developer try harder than it has to the extent that is tried at all to minimize the blight they intend to bring to Pleasanton and to not ignore what already has been requested by the city. Thank you. Okay. I'm sorry I went over my three minutes. They've had six years . . . Response to A.GELB 2 Please refer to Master Response 2, General Opposition Comments Not Addressed in Final EIR, in Section 2, Master Responses, of this document. This Master Response provides a response to comments that express general comments on the proposed project or the environmental analysis. Please also refer to the Response to A. GELB 1-1 through the Response to A. GELB 1-6 for a discussion of aesthetic impacts related to development of the proposed project, including the City’s ridgeline. As stated by the project applicant at the Planning Commission public meeting, the proposed project development has been designed to fit into the allowable envelope to meet Measures PP and QQ. This is also discussed in Draft EIR Chapter 2, Project Description at pages 2-19 and 2-20.