PC 01/20/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

Commissioner Sullivan initiated the Planning Commission discussion and addressed the following issues: Impact 4.1-2, Conversion of Agricultural Land: He expressed concern with the criteria used in determining statewide and local farmland and with the disappearance of farmland in general. Impact 4.1-7, Land Use Compatibility - Aggregate Mining and Residential Uses: He expressed concern with Lot 21 and the appropriateness of mining there. He further inquired about the rationale for mining in the Specific Plan Area. Impact 4.3-3, Agricultural Chemical Use: He suggested that language be added to the EIR requiring an Organic Pest Management Plan for the vineyards. Impact 4.4-1, General Vegetation and Wildlife: He stated that there is a conflicting statement relating to the effects on wildlife and habitat between this section and Impact 4.4-6, California Tiger Salamander. Impact 4.4-2, Heritage Trees: He stated that mitigation measures for heritage trees are inadequate. He suggested that staff examine the Heritage Tree Ordinance and provide stronger language in the EIR to preserve oak trees. He further suggested that the EIR examine issues relating to transplanting mature trees. Impact 4.4-4, Wetlands and Other Jurisdictional Waters of the United States: He raised concern with whether an adequate wildlife survey has been performed. Impact 4.5-3, Noise Effects of Crravel Processing Operations: He initiated discussion relating to mitigation measures on noise patterns. Chapter 4.6, Air Quality: He spoke in favor of public transportation being established as a mitigation measure and suggested that school buildings utilize renewable energy. Chapter 4.7, Transportation and Circulation: He inquired as to the traffic baseline numbers utilized (1996 or 1998 General Plan buildout scenario for traffic) and expressed concern with the accuracy of the baseline data used in the DEIR. He suggested that staff analyze issues relating to the impacts of cut-through traffic in the vicinity of Vineyard Avenue. He further requested that an analysis be performed on the average daily trips and peak-hour trips through the Plan Area on Vineyard Avenue. Impact 4.8-6a, Increased Demand for School Services: He requested that staff examine issues relating to the amount of school fees that developers would be required to pay. Impact 4.10-2, Visual Changes in Subarea 2: He noted his disagreement with the sentence, "Most development would be visually unobtrusive or consistent with the rural character of the area." PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 5 January 20, 1999