11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

You were promised 11 x 17 photos. Not the as-delivered multiple 4x 10 and smaller photos on 11 x 17 paper using the same deceptive photographic techniques with the same undersized house simulations. To me, this shows the utmost disrespect for this Commission and the citizens of this `Community of Character.' "Miti ag tion: It was pointed out by staff that the assumed effectiveness of the proposed mitigation is not remotely realistic. According to the latest grading maps, the proposed "screening trees" around Court 1 will be planted an average of more than 30 feet in elevation below the foundation of the house that they are intended to screen. "The assumption that these trees, planted in the low-nutrient, low-moisture soil of the west-facing upper slopes, would screen these houses, let alone reach the height of the foundations in 15 years is too absurd to be given any consideration! "The suggestion of additional trees closer to the houses would compromise the required Defensible Fire Safety Zone around these houses that would be highly susceptible to the wildfires that have hit this area three times in the past 15 years. "Staffs conclusion of `Mitigated to Less Than Significant Impact' is an insult to this process, this Commission, and the citizens of Pleasanton. They do not want you to make an informed decision on this very large and very permanent impact to the City. "As stated in the Development Agreement Section 6.07: `The City agrees not to impose any additional mitigation measures other than those already specifically imposed by the project approvals and the mitigation monitoring program.' It's get it right now, or live with the consequences forever! Please do not condone this deception and dishonesty by approving the visual impact portion of the EIR. It needs further examination." Mary Roberts, 1666 Froghill Lane, wished to clarify that she was not related to the Mr. Allen Roberts referenced earlier. She had submitted a letter detailing her objections to some of the design guidelines. She requested that the Planning Commission not approve the development agreement as written because it has a possibility of precluding a conservation easement in perpetuity. She stated there had been discussions about a possibility of a GHAD (Geological Hazard Abatement District) holding the easement; she noted that Mr. Pavan had mentioned that it would be a third-party entity. If a GHAD is proposed to hold the easement, and the City Council served as the Board of Directors for the GHAD, the easement can be changed as a major modification. She noted that in the future, there could be State pressure for more housing, or the Park District may want more facilities. She noted that a bona fide conservancy would stop that by monitoring the trails and the houses. She believed that one of the problems of the development agreement was that it seemed to preclude any contributions to anyone holding the easement. She noted that bona fide conservancies generally would have fees and assessments to keep them going, which had already been done twice in Pleasanton. She noted that Section 5.07(a) of the development agreement stated, "The parties understand and agree that as of the effective date, there are no assessment districts that may affect the project site. Cities EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 13, 2007 Page 16 of 19