PC 082306 - Laserfiche WebLink

r^ that had been approved eazlier of the issues addressed would become part of the material addressed in the Final EIR. Chairperson Arkin disclosed that he visited the site. He noted that visiting the project site provides for a better understanding of the project and is very helpful in the review process. Commissioner Fox disclosed that they had visited the site with the applicant. Commissioners Olson and O'Connor disclosed that they had visited the site. Martin Inderbitzen, representing the applicant, made a presentation to explain the overview of the project. He noted that they had not requested a General Plan Amendment and stated that as submitted, it was a 98-unit project. He noted that they intended to minimize the overall disturbance of the property. As a result, the project submittal resulted in the removal of approximately 120 trees out of a total of about 12,000 trees. He noted that the development concept was consistent with that of surrounding developments such as Kottinger Ranch and Grey Eagle Estates; they believed it was pemutted and called for in the General Plan. They realized that the major issues would be view impacts and traffic. The traffic analysis indicated that the street can accommodate the buildout of 98 units, although it would have an impact to existing residents. They had been engaged in discussions for some time to mitigate the perceived impacts to the residents, which would entail a reduction from 98 to 51 units on the ~ property as outlined in the environmentally preferred alternative. He displayed the lots that had been removed, particulaz the lots that had the most visual impact on the property. He noted that the impact on 2000 feet of lineal drainage was all but eliminated by the environmentally preferred alternative; that drainage will remain. The traffic impact to Hearst Drive would be reduced by neazly 50 percent by the removal of 47 units. He noted that they intended to demonstrate how the lots lay into the existing landscape, how the grading would occur to drop lots lower on the site, and in relation to the existing tree canopy, the mature trees would be brought up to create better visual shielding. They would also demonstrate how the tree mitigation plan would replace several hundred trees to buffer the future development. He noted that the mandatory design guidelines would be very strict. Cormissioner Fox noted that the simulations on the Oak Grove website were sharper and clearer than those in the Draft EIR and expressed concern about the lack of sharpness in the visuals in the Draft EIR. Mr. Inderbitzen stated that the Final EIR and project approval would contain a series of visual analyses that would adhere to the project, as proposed, and to the design guidelines. He noted that the visuals would be of the quality as seen in the Austin property application. Mr. Pauan concurred with the Commission that the quality of the visual could be better but could not speak to the reason at this time. He appreciated the Commission's comments in r,o, that regazd and indicated that staff would ensure that the visuals provided to the Commission PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 23, 2006 Page 11 of 17