11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

from that line, which would put that an additional 30 feet lower or a total of 60 feet below the foundation. "Photo #4 was taken from the middle of the north part of the New Bernal City Park. Sewer pump station #7 is in the foreground. The same techniques for house sizing and placement were used as in Photo #3. Again, the redline represents the elevation of the rear property lines. "I hope this helps to show that a "reasonably feasible, adequate, complete, good faith effort at full disclosure" was not provided. In the case of Court 1 from the west, where the mitigation planting will be between 30 and 60 feet below the foundation of these highly prominent houses it is absurd to think that the mitigation would be "reasonably feasible." "A reasonable and feasible alternative would be to eliminate Court 1 and to relocate the five houses (Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6) farther back in the project where the mitigation measures would be more effective. "This mitigation (or alternative) has many benefits: 1. Eliminates the most prominent and visually objectionable houses from the project; 2. Eliminates the majority ofclose-in visibility from more than a hundred locations; 3. Eliminates the horizon ridgetop view of this project from the New Bernal City Park. Maintains the existing skyline' 4. Separates the 8,000-square-foot homes from the existing 3,500-4,500 square foot homes, thereby maintaining the existing character of the existing neighborhoods' 5. Drastically reduces the dust issues to nearby existing neighborhoods; 6. Drastically reduces the dust issues to nearby existing neighborhoods; 7. Reduces fire danger in the gully below the homes on Hearst, Crespi, Brandy and Mataro; 8. Does not require staff to take any photos; 9. Might actually get approved. "Please in good conscience do not approve the visual portion of the EIR as it applies to Court 1. Please consider requiring that Lots 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 be moved further back in the project to reduce their impact." Russ Schmidt, 18 Grey Eagle Court, inquired whether any of the existing 20-percent grade had been used in an actual emergency and whether any actual Fire Department emergency vehicles had used that grade as a test. He was still confused about the timing of the referendum process and requested further clarification. With respect to the EVA, he inquired about talk regarding condemning someone's existing driveway in the Red Feather Court scenario; he understood that it would be the public part of Red Feather Court that was being discussed. He inquired about the Berlogar road and displayed Alternative 3 from page 301 of the Draft EIR from the previous year; he inquired why Alternative 3 was not viable. He wished to emphasize the value of fair play and noted that the staff report proposed re-evaluating Grey Eagle Court as a no-parking street. He did not believe that it qualified as fair play to place the burden of a no-parking street on its residents. He would like the house sizes and visuals to agree with common sense. He displayed four bricks stacked in a way to resemble the stepped-level home and noted that the home's height would be visible from below as a EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 27, 2007 Page 12 of 17