PC 061307 - Laserfiche WebLink

distant ridgelines, thereby serving as a backdrop.’ This is not true in the case of Court 1 when viewed from the west. “Photographic Methods: The second method staff used to misrepresent the prominence of these houses is to use photographic methods to make the houses appear more than twice as far away as they really appear to the naked eye. “Photo Size: The third method staff used was to print the photos too small to reveal usable detail. “House Size: The fourth method that staff used to mislead this Commission and the citizens was to significantly undersize the computer simulated homes, even though staff has admitted that ‘The market tendency is to design large homes to the maximum allowed Floor Area Ratio.’ “At the time of the Final EIR, the average proposed house size on Courts 1 and 2 was 12,015 square feet plus an 800-square-foot garage. The visual analysis, used to evaluate the prominence of these 12,000-square-foot houses, according to staff, used 6,700-square-foot computer simulations with no mention of garages. “Even under the 20-percent FAR proposed at this meeting, the average house size on Courts 1 and 2 is 9,716 square feet, plus an 800-square-foot garage. But they are still using the same 6,700-square-foot simulations, a more than 3,000-square-foot discrepancy per house. “Corrections to Draft EIR: During the Draft EIR process, many citizens have officially requested these four misleading areas be corrected. Both on July 12, 2006, and August 23, 2006, this Commission has directed staff to correct these four areas. Ms. Decker and Mr. Pavan assured the Commission that it would be taken care of. You were promised 11x17 photos. Not the as-delivered multiple 4x10 and smaller photos on 11x17 paper using the same deceptive photographic techniques with the same undersized house simulations. To me, this shows the utmost disrespect for this Commission and the citizens of this ‘Community of Character.’ “Mitigation: It was pointed out by staff that the assumed effectiveness of the proposed mitigation is not remotely realistic. According to the latest grading maps, the proposed “screening trees” around Court 1 will be planted an average of more than 30 feet in elevation below the foundation of the house that they are intended to screen. “The assumption that these trees, planted in the low-nutrient, low-moisture soil of the west-facing upper slopes, would screen these houses, let alone PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13, 2007 Page 23 of 29