PC 062707 - Laserfiche WebLink

7.Reduces fire danger in the gully below the homes on Hearst, Crespi, Brandy and Mataro; 8.Does not require staff to take any photos; 9.Might actually get approved. “Please in good conscience do not approve the visual portion of the EIR as it applies to Court 1. Please consider requiring that Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 be moved further back in the project to reduce their impact.” Russ Schmidt, 18 Grey Eagle Court, inquired whether any of the existing 20-percent grade had been used in an actual emergency and whether any actual Fire Department emergency vehicles had used that grade as a test. He was still confused about the timing of the referendum process and requested further clarification. With respect to the EVA, he inquired about talk regarding condemning someone’s existing driveway in the Red Feather Court scenario; he understood that it would be the public part of Red Feather Court that was being discussed. He inquired about the Berlogar road and displayed Alternative 3 from page 301 of the Draft EIR from the previous year; he inquired why Alternative 3 was not viable. He wished to emphasize the value of fair play and noted that the staff report proposed re-evaluating Grey Eagle Court as a no-parking street. He did not believe that it qualified as fair play to place the burden of a no-parking street on its residents. He would like the house sizes and visuals to agree with common sense. He displayed four bricks stacked in a way to resemble the stepped-level home and noted that the home’s height would be visible from below as a three-story home. He displayed various views of the site on the overhead screen and expressed concern about the prominence of eight large homes on the hillside. He was also concerned about the lights from those homes at night. He wished to address the inconsistency of the homeowners association approving Mr. Roberts’ house and noted that they did that because they had known Mr. Roberts for a long time; he was known to have conducted himself in a way that evinces trust. He noted that they did not yet have that trust with the applicant, although he hoped they could gain that trust. He requested more straight talk and answers to common-sense questions. Sharon Burnham, Executive Director, Tri-Valley Conservancy, 1736 Holmes Street, Livermore, noted that she would be available to answer any questions regarding conservation easements and the resource management plan for Oak Grove. Howard Neely noted that he had worked on the General Plan on Housing, the Park and Recreation Commission, and the Housing Commission. He noted that when Vintage Hills I and II and Kottinger Ranch were built, no one complained about them because they lived as a housing community. He recalled when Hacienda Business Park was built, people believed that it was a good project for the town. He expressed concern about the increasing frequency of private roads and gated communities in town, which he believed started social problems such as the divisions demonstrated by this project. Mary Roberts, 1666 Frog Hill Lane, believed that Alternative 3 was dead because there was no place to put it. She noted that the Commission has since approved the caregiver’s house, a wine barn and a horse barn. She added that there was no such thing as a ridge PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 27, 2007 Page 21 of 28