11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Las Positas Boulevard overpass. He added that all of his visualizations were peer-reviewed. He expressed concern that Oak Grove appeared to have a different set of rules and that there was no peer review of the project. He objected to what he believed to be misleading lens selections for the visualizations. The size of the homes was half of what could be built. He did not understand how designing a house with one story plus two stories equaled two stories. He believed the landscape results were incorrect and believed the new staff report minimized the importance of the visuals. He asked the Planning Commission to insist that the visualizations be fixed and be made subject to peer review. He noted that the trees on the rolling hills of the site were a major benefit to the area and believed the staff report and the EIR grossly underreported the tree impacts. He did not believe those reports assumed any impact on the building sites themselves. He displayed a representative image of a 12,000-square-foot house, plus pool, decks, landscaping and the required fire safety zone. He believed the Commission should ask for the tree impact in the EIR, which includes the trees affected by the proposed homes. He noted that the proposed design guidelines for Oak Grove stated that the distance a tree had to be planted from a house of any type is 2x its full-grown height; if the height was 40 feet, it must be 80 feet from the house. Mr. Roberts believed the proposed Development Agreement removed the ability of the voters to have a say in this project. He rejected the certification of the EIR because of what he believed to be its many flaws. He urged the Planning Commission to direct staff to correct the EIR and, if necessary, work with the developer and all of the community to propose a project which has no impact on the community and which does not have major health and safety risks. In response to a request from Chairperson Fox to clarify the wraparound in the Development Agreement, Mr. Roush replied that approval of the Development Agreement would not prevent this project from being subject to referendum. He noted that it would provide that a subsequent action by the voters could not set aside the approval. If this project were approved, because it was a PUD and a Development Agreement, both of those items would be subject to referendum, and the voters could set it aside. It provided that once it is approved, a subsequent action could not be taken to set aside those approvals because they would be vested. Ms. Decker noted that there had been considerable discussion about 20-percent grades on EVAs and wished to point out to the Commission that this is not an uncommon grade that has been used with various projects. She noted that the recent Reznick project on the Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific plan had grades that exceeded the 15 percent; there were three lines of approximately 20-percent grades for short distances that were approximately the same length being considered in this project. She noted that the grades for the Reznick project, which was approved in 2006, were based upon an analysis and review by the Fire Chief and Fire Marshall, evaluating what met the site constraints and the project needs best, and whether it was a plausible solution. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner O'Connor regarding whether the grades for the Reznick project were mitigated, Ms. Decker replied they were not and that the grades were presented to the Planning Commission with improvement plans. The grades were designed at 20 percent and have been constructed or were in the process of construction. She noted that the water tank had been under construction for some time, and the road had been graded uphill. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 27, 2007 Page 3 of 17