11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

EXHIBIT J-1 3. MEETING OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHICH IS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA. PUD-33, Oak Grove Jon Harvey, Smallwood Court, noted that he wished to comment on the Oak Grove project and that he was part of the three-member team that met with the developer over the past few years to try to reach a consensus regarding the properties around this project and achieve resolution on the land behind their homes. He supported the project as conditioned and agreed to a solid guarantee that included, but not limited to, no further extension or tie-in of Hearst Street beyond the 51-unit development plan; traffic mitigations specified by the homeowners association and funded by the developer; a conservation easement over the entire remaining portion of the property held by a non-profit conservation organization such as the Tri-Valley Conservancy; and open space accessible to the public. He would like to see a change to Item 25 on page 9, which provisioned buildings for future photovoltaic systems. He noted that for them to be effective, the structures must have a substantial plane that faces in a general southern direction and suggested that the condition include a surface that could accommodate photovoltaics. He noted that Subitem 3 on page 10 regarding inverters should read "to connect to the electrical utility." He noted that Subitem 33(a) on page 11 should be changed to allow grazing by sheep or goats, instead of only cattle, for fire suppression. He noted that Item 34(b) on page 12 addressed total square footage and believed that square footage total was excessive. He did not believe the staff report was clear in stating whether the second unit ordinance would apply. He noted that Item 49 on page 18 discussed protecting the blue oak woodlands and noted that there were other species such as buckeye trees and western sycamore trees that should be included. He noted that if only the old trees were protected, there would be no trees left in time. He suggested a new tree-planting program. James Van Dyke, 3362 Arbor Drive, noted that he wished to comment on the Oak Grove project and that he lived in Vintage Hills and believed that this was generally a good plan that he supported. He wanted to ensure that the area was designated open space for the general public. He agreed with Mr. Harvey's comment about protecting all species. He wished to mention some comments in local publications that he believed bordered on hysteria or NIMBYism that if there was an access at Kottinger Ranch, that would invite arsonists or partiers to the site. He did not believe that was a reasonable fear and did not believe that an arsonist would be deterred by a "Keep Out" sign or lack of public parking. He believed that safety was enhanced by the presence of hikers and mountain bikers. He noted that mountain bikers were generally nature-loving people who were concerned about conservation; he noted that they tended to go into the deepest wilderness areas and would immediately do something if they saw an arsonist. He noted that mountain bikers had less of an environmental impact than equestrians. He noted that open space access was a positive activity for kids. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 28, 2007 Page 1 of 6