11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Chairperson Arkin noted that there was more material in this EIR than can be covered in one meeting and that there may have to be multiple meetings to cover everything. He suggested that the Commission stop in the middle and take public testimony and then reschedule for a future meeting. Ms. Decker recommended that the Commission consider continuing some or all of the rest of the presentation, from the hazardous section , to the July 26, 2006 meeting. She noted that some of the Commissioners would be on vacation, but a number of Commissioners will be in town, and it could be determined then where the Commission is with respect to the Draft EIR review and comment period; the next hearing would be on August 9, 2007. Commissioner Fox inquired if the Commission could also talk about some other alternatives that the Commission might want staff to go out and investigate other than Alternative 4. Ms. Decker replied that it may be premature to do that at this time as not all the information of the Draft EIR discussion topics have been covered. She added that the Commission could also have a study session about the preferred project and go more in-depth into the alternatives sometime in August 2006. She recommended that discussion as far as a revision or additional alternatives be considered at that point. Commissioner Fox stated that she had a lot of questions because that was done with Greenbriar and the Bernal PUD development on the west side of I-680. She noted that the inclusionary zoning ordinance was put in place, and the project ended up having to build multiple duets I think there were ten in a section of million-dollar homes. She stated that she did not see any alternative that involves, for example, 51 units with ten duets in compliance with the inclusionary zoning ordinance, but only references to a 20-unit off-site development with no details. She noted that it goes counter to what the Commission tries to do of spreading those units around town. Commissioner Fox continued that in terms of the ridgeline development and some of the comments on the grading presented tonight, it appears unclear which part is fill and which is not. She added that Commissioner Arkin has asked for a chart showing in green and red what is fill and what is not and that she would like to see a map that shows the ridgelines of the property and what pieces of property are being proposed to be graded that are within 200 feet of the existing top of the ridge, similar to what the Commission talked about with the General Plan and the San Juan Capistrano Ridgeline Preservation Ordinance, with conservation and open space, and potentially having a ridgeline preservation ordinance where grading would not be allowed within 200 feet of a ridgeline. She noted that based on the topographical map, she cannot get a sense as to whether 100 percent of the proposed 51 units is within that 200-foot top of the ridge thing or whether there is a small portion. She concluded that she could not assess what the aesthetics are without that kind of information. Ms. Decker clarified that the goal is to bring back this specific information that the Commission is directing the consultant as well as staff to look into and bring back to the Commission as a part EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 12, 2006 Page 18 of 21