11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairperson Fox noted that when the Lehman-Selway project on Trenery Drive was considered, the question was raised regarding where a public sidewalk would go. She recalled that Trenery Drive was a private road, which was not ideal for a sidewalk; the EVA established in the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan between Trenery Drive and Kamp Drive had been eliminated when it was built out. She requested clarification regarding why staff recommended that the sidewalk not go on the private road but on the public street, and why staff recommended a sidewalk on a private road in this case. She was concerned about potential liability issues. Ms. Decker noted that she was not on staff at the time the Trenery Drive issue was discussed. The roads for the Ponderosa development were proposed without sidewalks on either side; that particular area of the City has supported no sidewalks on the roadways to maintain a rural effect. Cameron Drive was approved with a sidewalk on one side of the development; Trenery Drive does not have sidewalks on either side. She stated that the planned EVA was abandoned, but she did not know the history of that decision. Mr. Roush advised that with respect to Grey Eagle Court, the City had a public safety easement over the private road leading to Grey Eagle Court, and an access easement ran from Grey Eagle Court to the Lin property. Staff felt that the easement and the road could be improved to meet the Fire Department's needs. With respect to Red Feather Court, that would be a good alternative, assuming that the route into Oak Grove would work. However, there was no easement over the property to get to Red Feather Court; either the developer would have to acquire that, or the City would have to use eminent domain to condemn the property owner's driveway. In that case, the City much preferred using an existing easement. Regarding Red Feather Court, Ms. Decker noted that the map on page 106 of the Draft EIR showed that any access to Lot 10 for an EVA would go through a habitat area; staff tried to minimize as many impacts as possible in that area. Commissioner Pearce noted the possibility of forwarding this application to the City Council with the recommendation that the EVA not be used in favor of another EVA. She inquired how the EIR could be certified that considered this EVA. Mr. Roush replied that it would be necessary for staff to examine whether or not the EIR should be modified in certain respects, or whether a second look should be taken to assess impacts of a new EVA not described in the EIR. Michael Brown, 1371 Hearst Drive, believed it was unconscionable for the Commission to consider this development with only one way in and one way out. He recalled the chaos that ensued from the grass fire the previous year when the Fire Department came up Hearst Drive to find the fire. He noted that the fire rigs had been blocked and were unable to turnaround and added that there were so many spectators they could not get out of their driveways. He believed that there should be another exit from the development to avoid a major safety problem. He noted that when he bought his home in 2005, he was aware of Oak Grove. He believed the ridgelines should be preserved and did not believe the two homes should be placed where the view of the ridgeline could be destroyed. He added that the cul-de-sac near his house was an attractive nuisance due to the kids who loiter there at night. He was concerned about that occurrence after the development has been built and was very concerned about wildfires in that area. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 27, 2007 Page 8 of 17