PC 062707 - Laserfiche WebLink

the kind of fires the Fire Chief spoke of in which the fire spread from canopy to canopy and then to the structure itself. He agreed that there should be the maximum protection for the structures. Allen Roberts, 16 Grey Eagle Court, noted that he also owned the property at 29 Grey Eagle Court, which was immediately adjacent to the subject site. He displayed a chart from the Oak Grove Landscape and Open Space Plan as well as the area containing the project site. He expressed concern about the proposed Emergency Vehicle Access (EVA) and noted that they knew what the mail kiosk for the project would look like, but that they did not know what the EVA would look like. He noted that the EVA was a required mitigation item in the EIR. He noted that the EVA was shown on the drawing, although there was no easement there. He had pointed out a year ago that the existing easement granted to the City went straight up with an existing grade of 20 percent. He noted that the Draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) stated that the maximum grade for any access road was 12 percent. When the Final EIR came out, there was a statement from the Fire Marshall that that was a mistake and that the maximum grade was 15 percent. He noted that a 15-19-foot deep trench would be put through his property and that the latest plan communicated by staff indicated that a 20-percent grade was acceptable because a fire truck would be able to take a running start at the hill to make it to the top. He noted that with the recent news of wildland fires, this did not make sense to him. He had not seen a drawing of how it would be built and did not know how the EIR could be certified until this important detail was resolved. Mr. Roberts noted that the staff report referred to his house, and he had tried to build a house on his site for seven years; the last four years had been tied up because of Oak Grove. His proposed house site was on the top of the hill. He noted that the staff questioned HOA approval of his home and that it was viewable from I-580; he objected to that determination because Oak Grove would be viewable from I-580 as well. He noted that he had been required to do a visual study when he took his house proposal to City Council to show the maximum house size proposed for the lot for the maximum height of the structure. He noted that the appropriate lenses were used: A 50-mm lens was used for the nearby areas, and a 300-mm telephoto was used from the West Las Positas Boulevard overpass. He added that all of his visualizations were peer-reviewed. He expressed concern that Oak Grove appeared to have a different set of rules and that there was no peer review of the project. He objected to what he believed to be misleading lens selections for the visualizations. The size of the homes was half of what could be built. He did not understand how designing a house with one story plus two stories equaled two stories. He believed the landscape results were incorrect and believed the new staff report minimized the importance of the visuals. He asked the Planning Commission to insist that the visualizations be fixed and be made subject to peer review. He noted that the trees on the rolling hills of the site were a major benefit to the area and believed the staff report and the EIR grossly underreported the tree impacts. He did not believe those reports assumed any impact on the building sites themselves. He displayed a representative image of a 12,000-square-foot house, plus pool, decks, landscaping and the required fire safety zone. He believed the Commission should ask for the tree impact in the EIR, which includes the trees affected by the proposed homes. He noted that the proposed PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2007 Page 10 of 28