11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

EXHIBIT J-6 PUD-33, James Tong/Charter Properties, Jennifer Lin, Frederic Lin, and Kevin Lin Review of the Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Oak Grove Planned Unit Development fora 98-lot custom home development and to consider a 51-developable-lot environmentally preferred alternative on a 562-acre property located near the present terminus of Hearst Drive on the southerly sides of the Vintage Hills II and the Grey Eagle Estates developments. Zoning for the property is PUD-RDR/OS (Planned Unit Development -Rural Density ResidentiaVOpen Space) District. Commissioner Blank recused himself from the dais. Ms. Decker summarized the staff report and noted that the City's consultant, Roberta Mundie, would not be able to make her presentation. However, in the staff report, she had provided an overview of the last remaining sections from the previous hearing, including traffic and noise, and a discussion of the differences of Alternatives 1 to 4. She noted that Alternatives 2 and 3 would not be discussed as thoroughly as the preferred Alternative 4. She noted that the public review process would end on August 29, 2006, and any comments received by that time would be forwarded to the consultant and addressed in the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR). She advised that a transcript that had been approved earlier of the issues addressed would become part of the material addressed in the Final EIR. Chairperson Arkin disclosed that he visited the site. He noted that visiting the project site provides for a better understanding of the project and is very helpful in the review process. Commissioner Fox disclosed that they had visited the site with the applicant. Commissioners Olson and O'Connor disclosed that they had visited the site. Martin Inderbitzen, representing the applicant, made a presentation to explain the overview of the project. He noted that they had not requested a General Plan Amendment and stated that as submitted, it was a 98-unit project. He noted that they intended to minimize the overall disturbance of the property. As a result, the project submittal resulted in the removal of approximately 120 trees out of a total of about 12,000 trees. He noted that the development concept was consistent with that of surrounding developments such as Kottinger Ranch and Grey Eagle Estates; they believed it was permitted and called for in the General Plan. They realized that the major issues would be view impacts and traffic. The traffic analysis indicated that the street can accommodate the buildout of 98 units, although it would have an impact to existing residents. They had been engaged in discussions for some time to mitigate the perceived impacts to the residents, which would entail a reduction from 98 to 51 units on the property as outlined in the environmentally preferred alternative. He displayed the lots that had been removed, particular the lots that had the most visual impact on the property. He noted that the impact on 2000 feet of lineal drainage was all but eliminated by the environmentally preferred alternative; that drainage will remain. The traffic impact to Hearst Drive would be reduced by nearly 50 percent by the removal of 47 units. He noted that they intended to demonstrate how the lots lay into the existing landscape, how the grading would occur to drop lots lower on the site, and in relation to the existing tree canopy, the mature trees would be brought up to create better visual shielding. They would also demonstrate how the tree mitigation plan would replace several hundred trees to buffer the future development. He noted that the mandatory design guidelines would be very strict. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, August, 23, 2006 Page 1 of 4