11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Olson expressed concern that when he received the package, an updated development was not included. He did not believe he was in the position to opine on the Development Agreement or the conditions of approval because he would like to see some additional conditions. He was also concerned about some language in the Development Agreement. Mr. Roush noted that he could choose to certify the CEQA documents as the first step, and then approve the development plan either with the conditions or with different conditions or recommend that the plan not be approved. Commissioner O'Connor expressed disappointment that after the length of time that has passed, some of the items of concern to the Commission had not been addressed in the EIR. He noted that they wanted to see vibration testing for Hearst Drive with respect to the heavy equipment that would use the road for construction. He noted that there were already problems in foundations in the neighborhood and was concerned about the size and weight of the equipment. They also repeatedly addressed the photomontage and did not know whether they had seen the actual depiction. When he reviewed the layout and topography, he wondered whether any of the units could be relocated to reduce the visual prominence of some of the homes. Commissioner Olson noted that he was less concerned about the visuals in the EIR and noted that would be addressed later in the process as each home was contemplated in the design review. He was concerned about the seeming fluidity of the EVA, and he did not see how the EIR could be certified without knowing where the EVA would be located. He recalled his comment during the Draft EIR process that there should be another access to this project in addition to Hearst Drive. He would like to examine moving Lots 2, 3, 4, and 5 lower relative to access from Benedict Court or Red Feather Court. He noted that he was not able to recommend certification of the EIR. Commissioner Pearce noted that the EVA concerns relating to safety and visual impact were her two main concerns. She relied on the Fire Chief to assess when he considered something to be safe and trusted his judgment regarding the safety and adequacy of the EVA. She appreciated the input and time expended by the residents and was satisfied that the stated safety of the EVA would satisfy CEQA's analysis. With respect to the visual impact, she realized that reasonable people would disagree with methodology. She examined the City's methodology and found it to be consistent with an accepted method of practice. She was comfortable with the use of the 28-mm. lens. She understood from walking the site that some of the areas were chosen despite their visual impact because of the environmentally sensitive areas. She would prefer to mitigate the visual impacts of the individual houses in order to respect the environmentally sensitive areas as much as possible. Commissioner Narum agreed with Commissioner Pearce's comments and was also comfortable with the judgment expressed by the Fire Chief regarding the EVA safety. She acknowledged that there would be a visual impact of the houses and noted that the design guidelines would be very important. She was prepared to certify the EIR at this time. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 27, 2007 Page 15 of 17