08 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

® Ranch project He provided an overview of the environmental process,and displayed a flow chart which detailed the CEQA process. He noted that the available alternatives in the EIR were: I. No Project Alternative; 2. Higher Density and/or Lower Density alternative;and 3. Environmentally superior alternative. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan,Mr.Iserson advised that the Planning Commission may suggest alternatives as well. He noted that various measures may be taken to reduce environmental impacts,such as reducing gradings or moving houses. Greg Perkins,880 Summit Creek Lane,expressed concern about the disclosure by Greenbrier,and noted that they did not receive specific information about the future development plans when they bought their home. He noted that was a false statement, and believed that the agents were aware of the development plans. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas,Mr.Perkins noted that he would have to search through many documents to confirm that he had that disclosure statement. Mr. Perkins noted that the ten trips per household was heavily underestimated,and noted that 1.500 trips per day translated to 150 trips per hour. He witnessed several near- ® accidents at the blind corner near Sunset Creek, which he stated was a very dangerous area. He was not aware that a development of this magnitude was being built,and was told that Greenbrier did not know what was being put in. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Maas,Mr. Perkins noted that he was now aware of the future construction of New Cities. Ken Czaja, 1141 Lund Ranch Road,believed that the number of homes in the development was too high,and noted that the General Plan midpoint was 82 homes. He noted that the number of homes would have a negative impact on traffic and noise, because of the bowl-shaped area.He noted that there was no green belt connection with New Cities as there was with Ventana Hills.He noted that the road extension appeared to go to a potential new development. Mr. Iserson noted that it was a connection to the Foley property,which was currently used for cattle ranching. Mr. Czaja inquired about the impact on the water flow to the creek,especially by his property.He believed that was subject to serious erosion problems.He strongly objected to the possibility of building homes on the ridges,and noted that it would have damage the visual and aesthetic impacts.He was concerned that 400 trees,including 200 heritage trees,on the hillside would be destroyed,which he believed was out of proportion.He PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES September 24.2003 EXCERPTS