11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Schmidt then noted that the Draft EIR mentioned discouraging bikers and pedestrian hikers from using the EVA. He stated that Grey Eagle Estates experiences this persistent trespassing problem, both with the private road and the EVA associated with it as it is a natural route for people who want to come up to a high point and look out. He stated that he had posted additional signage on his part of the EVA regarding not trespassing, and it had been ripped down. He expressed concern that the same problem would occur here if the EVA allows bicycles and hikers to continue up the hill and connect to the new trail systems. He indicated that he supported the trail system with the trail head but that he did not want the public to use the EVA to get to the trail. Mr. Schmidt then indicated that he did not agree there would be no real traffic impact since most of the intersections that would be impacted are already very bad; he stated that traffic impacts need to be examined. Finally, he noted that he knows there is wildlife in the area, such as horned owls there and foxes, that did not show up in the survey and inquired what these were omitted. Mary Roberts, 1666 Frog Hill Lane, stated the Alternative 4 was an environmentally better solution but not superior to all. She echoed Mr. Fulton's comment about ridgeline development, noting that this development would all be on the ridges and that nothing in the EIR discusses ridgelines or why Alternative 4 is a superior or a better environmental solution in this regard. She added that if the houses were put down lower and cut into the hill so there is a backdrop, the ridgeline would be the sky behind all the houses. She added that there may be a good environmental reason for doing it but that it is not discussed in the EIR. She noted that she liked the tree replacement discussion which is superior to our ordinance, which is one per six. She stated that the new trees need to be protected or the deer will eat them or rub their antlers on them and kill them. Ms. Roberts continued that the public hearing process is ignored for the design guidelines and stated that when groups do their own design approval, these groups sometimes get "clique-y." She stated that there should be some possibility of public hearing as was done with the Callippe Golf Course homes and the Reznik property. She suggested that Floor Area Ratios (FAR) be disregarded as some of these lots are two acres, which would mean 20,000-square-foot houses on the ridge, resulting in a lot or visual impacts and hardscape on the property. Ms. Roberts noted that no mention is made about allowing any irrigation on the slopes, which is a very good idea. She added that big lots tend to be fully landscaped and use a lot of water, as was the case in the Vineyard Avenue Corridor, where the water tank had to be bigger because of the amount of water Ruby Hill used. Ms. Roberts commented that the road going through the Berlogar property mentioned in Alternative 3 was proposed in 1991 or 1992. She added that since then, Berlogar has had new structures built, some of which were approved by the Planning Commission. She stated that the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan needs to be changed to include a road on the ridge. She further noted that noise in the canyons that bounces off the hills is not addressed in the Draft EIR. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 12, 2006 Page 16 of 21