PC 062707 - Laserfiche WebLink

chaos that ensued from the grass fire the previous year when the Fire Department came up Hearst Drive to find the fire. He noted that the fire rigs had been blocked and were unable to turnaround and added that there were so many spectators they could not get out of their driveways. He believed that there should be another exit from the development to avoid a major safety problem. He noted that when he bought his home in 2005, he was aware of Oak Grove. He believed the ridgelines should be preserved and did not believe the two homes should be placed where the view of the ridgeline could be destroyed. He added that the cul-de-sac near his house was an attractive nuisance due to the kids who loiter there at night. He was concerned about that occurrence after the development has been built and was very concerned about wildfires in that area. Chairperson Fox advised that Terri Maxoutopoulis, 3531 Crespi Court, was unable to stay and read the comments on her speaker card: “Request the Planning Commission change the location of five homes on Court 1 of Oak Grove development/Kottinger Ranch to minimize visualization on hill.” Martha Evans, 18 Grey Eagle Court, noted that as a parent, she recalled a story published in 1867 called “The Necklace of Truth” about a necklace given by the enchanter Merlin to a girl who tended to tell falsehoods. She read from the story: “Although she was at first thrilled by its beauty, she soon discovered that the precious stones turned black when a false statement was made. The necklace grew longer to the point of tripping the wearer when the truth was stretched or exaggerated. The necklace shortened to the point of choking the wearer when the truth was held back, or the full story was not told. It was somewhat embarrassing for the girl to know that she could never more prevent or pervert the truth.” She believed the story had relevance and added that the applicant had been outspoken about its ability to reach agreement with the surrounding community in newspaper articles, four-color brochures, and emails. She believed the truth had been stretched and that only part of the surrounding community was party to this compromise. She did not believe the concerns of the Grey Eagle Estates homeowners had been given adequate attention. She believed the key elements of this development involving the EVA, the size and number of homes directly in view of the Grey Eagle Court neighborhood and the ridgeline, and other landscape view mitigation measures were never fully revealed. She noted that she and several neighbors had expressed these concerns in emails, phone calls, individual discussions, and publicly. She urged the Planning Commission and City staff to live up to the credo of being a community of character and to consider the ramifications of allowing this development to go forward as currently planned. Pam Grove, 28 Grey Eagle Court, noted that the EIR eliminated Alternatives 1 and 2, and placed Alternative 4 (51 homes). She noted that page S-12, Alternative 3, read: “This alternative, which is also described in more detail and illustrated in Chapter 5.. This provides a second full public access to Oak Grove, complementing the Hearst Drive access that the project proposes. This EIR considers an alignment that extends the proposed tank road to the eastern edge of the Oak Grove site and then turns north along the property boundary to cross the adjacent Berlogar property as Berlogar Ridge Road, eventually intersecting with the old Vineyard Road.” She asked the Commission to consider this alternative. She noted that the fence along the current access road was not her family’s, and PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2007 Page 17 of 28