11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Lee Fulton, 3407 Brandy Court, noted that at the last meeting, testimony was received from a gentleman who had contacted the State Fire Marshall. He believed the gist of the conversation was that the State codes would eliminate the latitude of local entities to make modifications to their suggestions of EVA roads. He requested that staff check with the State Fire Marshall. He believed that the project application clearly stated that the trees that were to be planted in this project would be three different species of oak trees. He recalled the Fire Chief's statement that the distance of trees from each house would be determined by the species of the tree; he believed that was already specified. He had asked Fire Marshall Eric Carlson whether the additional 100 feet precluded putting 100-foot mitigation oak trees at the property line; he was told that it depended on the species of the oak trees and the Fire Management Program and that it would be determined after the project was approved. At that time, the Fire Program for each house would be evaluated by the Fire Department. He noted that at the last meeting, it was stated that Mataro Court could not be seen from the project; he noted that the pavement could not be seen, but the houses and backyards could be viewed from Lots 2 and 3 of the proposed project. Mr. Fulton noted that he agreed with the statement that it was not so much the size of the house but how well it blended into it surroundings; he noted that John Madden's 15,000-square-foot house could not be seen from the main road. He then distributed his prepared statement and read it into the record: "First, let me preface my remarks by saying that I have finally walked the property's upper lots and have found much of what staff and the applicant have been saying about placement and potential mitigation with planning does seem appropriate. The upper levels of the project did not seem to impose on nearby homes. The upper lots seem to be primarily visible from very distant locations. The low viewing angles would lend itself to screening by planting. I believe probably 80% of this project is a pretty good project. But you don't buy a car that is 80% okay without looking very closely at the other 20%. "Staff has made some very good comments in the latest staff report. They stated [italics added for emphasisJ: `The Pleasanton General Plan contains a number of policies that address visual resources directly or indirectly. Because these directions have been articulated, the consideration of aesthetic and visual resources for a project on a hillside setting needs to recognize hillsides and ridgelines as resource of public importance. The principal vehicle for evaluating the impacts of the project on aesthetics and visual resources is the representation ... provided by the computer simulations.' "In addition, they quoted State law as it pertains to CEQA guidelines: `EIR Adequacy: 15021. Duty to Minimize Environmental Damage: (a) (1) CEQA establishes a duty for public agencies to avoid or minimize environmental damage where feasible. (2) A public agency should not approve a project as proposed if there are feasible alternatives or mitigation measures absolutely that would EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 27, 2007 Page 10 of 17