Laserfiche WebLink
Measure 03. Prior to the approval of a grading plan for the site, require the <br />preparation and approval of a Master Landscape Plan and Tree Preservation Plan. <br /> <br />Fjndine: Specific economic, social or other considerations made infeasible mitigation <br />measures or project alternatives identified in the Final EIR. <br /> <br />F~,~ in Su_nnort of Findimt: The following facts demonstrate that it is not feasible to <br />mitigate the impact to a less than significant level. <br /> <br /> a. Heritage trees were found in four primary areas: (1) adjacent to the Arroyo <br />de laLaguna corridor, (2) proximate to the old farmstead in the West Parcel, (3) <br />bordering Bernal Avenue, and (4) proximate to the knoll on the East Parcel. Under the <br />Greenbriar Project: the area adjacent to the Arroyo de la Laguna will be dedicated to <br />the City for currently unplanned future public uses; there will be fewer intersection <br />improvements along Bemal Avenue; and the knoll of the East Parcel will be an 18- <br />acre neighborhood / special use park. <br /> <br /> b. The findings set forth above under Visual Resources Impact N5 are <br />incorporated by reference. <br /> <br /> c. The Greenbriar PUD Plan addresses tree removal and protection by <br />encouraging retention of as many mature, healthy trees as feasible and requiring <br />replacement planting. <br /> <br /> d. PUD Condition requires the Property Owner to retain as many mature, <br />heallhy trees as feasible, recognizing that implementation of the PUD Plan will result <br />in r~noval of certain trees within planned development areas. Retention and removal <br />of trees will occur in accordance with the Tree Preservation and Removal Plan. <br /> <br /> e. PUD Condition requires that a Master Landscape Plan be prepared for <br />the entire site. The plan is to be prepared by a registered landscape architect <br />Condition details the Plan requirements and calls for a tree planting program. <br /> <br /> f. The distribution of land uses under each of the development alternatives <br />would result in the loss of a significant number of major trees on the site. The No <br />Project Alternative is rejected because it would not meet any of the Project Sponsor's <br />objectives nor would it fulfill any of the City's objectives for this site, including <br />provision of additional housing, open space affordable housing, an elementary school <br />site and public improvements. <br /> <br />G. Geology, Soils, and Seismic Safety <br /> <br />1. ~. Introduction of structures and population into an area in which the <br />likelihood of impacts from seismic events is high. <br /> <br />64 <br /> <br /> <br />