11 ATTACHMENT 1 - Laserfiche WebLink

The use of a 50-mm lens would have produced the same images; however, the end product would have been a patchwork of photographs, breaking the view rather than creating the seamless photographs provided in the EIR, which present the scale and appearance of the project within the panorama of the largest landscape setting. From the testimony, a major criticism is that the visual representations provide a simulation that makes the homes appear smaller at the viewpoint locations than they will actually be. The comment needs to be weighed in the context of the CEQA- mandated analysis -the purpose of the simulations is to provide the public and decision-makers a tool that defines whether or not the homes may be seen, to what degree, and how the visual impacts can be mitigated if the developed sites are visible. The proposed home sites would be located primarily at the uppermost interface of the ridges that extend the development from the existing Kottinger Ranch development easterly into the Oak Grove site. These areas have been identified by the Draft EIR as the most stable areas for construction, which would also reduce potentially significant impacts to wetlands and valleys located on down slope areas. This development pattern would echo the visual character and impacts of the Kottinger Ranch project. Staff notes that many developments that have taken place within the City are initially visible, but, over time, as vegetation takes hold and matures, those visual impacts are significantly or sometimes wholly mitigated. The Grey Eagle Estates development is but one example of homes sites located closer to the tops of ridges where visual impacts are minor. The questions to be answered by the visual analysis are: • Will home sites be visible? The answer is yes, to some degree. • Is there a reduction in the number of home sites that are now visible, due to a reduction in the number of homes proposed from 98 to 51? The answer is yes. • Can the visibility of the home sites be reduced with the use of landscaping materials? The answer again is yes, and, to that end, the visual simulations provided views of the site at construction, at five years and at 15 years. • Are there further measures that can be used to reduce visibility? The answer again is yes, and, as discussed further, these would be accomplished through the lot-specific design review conducted with each lot. During the Planning Commission's public hearing, members of the public asked if the visual simulations adequately represented the size of the homes to be built, given the proposed FAR's. Staff notes that the intent of the simulations was to show whether or not a structure would be visible, not to represent precisely the size of the house on the lot. As analyzed and stated, there will be some visual impact; however, that impact can be mitigated by landscaping and custom lot design review, when additional visual simulations will be required. Furthermore, additional lots have been added to the list of "highly visible lots" such that these lots would be required to follow the site design landscaping criteria for highly visible lots rather than the less rigorous criteria for lots not Page 14 of 27