PC 2000-45 - Laserfiche WebLink

Fact~ in Smyoort of Findine: The following facts demonstrate that it is not feasible to mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. a. PUD Condition , calls for retaining as many mature, healthy trees as feas~le within the context of the development plan. In particular, the Tree Preservation and Removal Plan will retain existing oak trees located on the side of the knoll (Parcel 19), riparian vegetation along the Arroyo de la Laguna. The majority of syc~nore and other species of trees located in the median and on the north side of Bernal Avenue, except as necessary to accommodate traffic improvements, and existing oak trees located in the Western Area between the dry channel and the Arroyo de la Laguna. Thus, feasible mitigation has been incorporated into the Project. b. Full implementation of Mitigation Measure N5a is not feasible to mitigate the impact because it is not physically feasible to accomplish the land use plan objectives, without removing some heritage trees. Some trees are in poor condition. c. The Greenbriar PUD plan requires the developer to retain as many mature, healthy trees as feasible. New trees must be planted to replace removed trees at a ratio of greater than one to one. d. The Gre~nbriar PUD limits removal of Sycamore trees from the Bernal Avenue median to~tbe minimum necessary for traffic improvements. PUD Condition requires a Bernal Avenue plan for the south side of Bernal Avenue that is consistent with, and complementary to, the sycamore tree-lined streetscape on the nor~ side and in the median of Bernal Avenue. The landscape program must be consistent with the Community Character Element of the Pleasanton General Plan and provide for a tree planting program for those trees removed in or along Bernal Avenue. In addition, under the G-reenbriar Project, there will be fewer intersections at Bemal Avenue, decreasing impacts on trees in the area. Thus, feasible mitigation has been incorporated into the Project. e. The distribution of land uses under each of the development alternatives would result in the loss ora significant number of major trees on the site. The No Project Alternative is rejected because it would not meet any of the Project Sponsor's objectives nor would it fulfill any of the City's objectives for this site, including provision of additional homing, open space, affordable housing, an elementary school site and public improvements. F. Biology 1. Impact 03. Potential for removal of heritage trees located in the study area. 63