Laserfiche WebLink
considered highly visible. Accordingly, staff believes that the questions related to <br />visibility of the homes have been adequately addressed and mitigated. <br />Lot-Gradin and Se aration <br />Initial grading for the development will accommodate the public streets and the front- <br />yard portion of the lots. In most cases the front yard portion of the lots facing the Grey <br />Eagle Estates development will be lowered from four feet to 29 feet, and the rear yard <br />portion will be lowered from one foot to eight feet. Three lots -Lots 5, 6, and 18 -will <br />be raised from 26 feet to 41 feet to bring the lot elevation up the elevations of the <br />adjoining properties. Most lots facing the Grey Eagle Estates development will be <br />buffered by the separations from the Grey Eagle property line - 430 feet for Lot 4, 150 <br />feet for Lot 10, and 70 feet for Lot 33 -augmented by existing and/or new tree planting. <br />Lot 32 directly adjoins the Grey Eagle property line but is buffered from view by existing <br />tree vegetation. Therefore, the proposed lot siting and grading will further mitigate <br />visual impacts to the Grey Eagle Homes. <br />Lot-Specific Design Review <br />As stated above, more fine-tuned visual analyses will occur at the individual lot design <br />review stage, when visual impacts will be assessed and mitigated, based on the <br />proposed house design, grading, and landscaping. The design review process is <br />another mitigation measure for the visual impacts of the homes on these lots. <br />Su <br />Staff believes the simulations accurately depict what will be seen and what structures <br />will be visible. The simulations provide the best tools for decision-makers to evaluate <br />the visual impacts and approve appropriate mitigations. In this case, the reduction from <br />98 to 51 lots, extensive tree planting, and the custom lot design review process will <br />mitigate the otherwise significant visual impact associated with the proposed <br />development. Staff believes the process proposed requiring a visual evaluation by the <br />development's architectural review board, then City review, will be successful as it has <br />been in other recent developments in the City, notably Mariposa Ranch. <br />EIR Adequacy <br />California State law and the CEQA Guidelines set forth how adecision-making body <br />should evaluate an EIR as to adequacy in order to be able to determine if that document <br />is legally adequate. The applicable CEQA guidelines include Section 15021. Duty to <br />Minimize Environmental Damage and Balance Competing Pub/ic Objectives, and <br />Section 15151. Standards for Adequacy of an EIR on pp. 5 - 6 of the June 27tH <br />Planning Commission staff report. They establish the EIR's function as a balanced <br />information document that emphasizes the public agency's responsibility in avoiding or <br />mitigating the impacts of a development to the environment balanced, however, with <br />feasibility of mitigation and with actual benefits to the public agency as a whole. <br />Staff, therefore, believes that the Oak Grove project when evaluated in its entirety - <br />Final EIR and PUD Development Plan including supporting documents -conforms to <br />CEQA standards based on its identification and mitigation of the development's <br />impacts: <br />Page 15 of 27 <br />