Laserfiche WebLink
Fact: The revised plan proposes an open, <br /> wrought-iron/pilaster-type fence along <br /> Foothill Road and requires open fencing <br /> at rear yards. <br /> <br /> Fact: Fencing is subject to City review and <br /> approval with each house plan. <br /> <br /> 3.e.2. Finding: Project alternatives described in the <br /> EIR are unnecessary as this effect is fully <br /> avoided. <br /> <br /> Fact: See 3.e.1. <br /> <br />4. Vegetation and Wildlife <br /> <br />4.A. Siqnificant Effect: Forty percent of heritage trees <br /> would be destroyed or adversely affected. <br /> <br /> 4.a.1. Find~nq: The revised plan substantially <br /> lessens this impact. <br /> <br /> Fact: Only 18 heritage trees (estimated 6% on <br /> site) would be removed. <br /> <br /> Fact: Project requirements and conditions <br /> requires implementation of a tree <br /> preservation plan during construction <br /> and thereafter. <br /> <br /> 4.a.2. FindinG: Project alternatives are either <br /> infeasible or have similar, or worse, impacts <br /> on trees than the revised plan. <br /> <br /> Fact: See 3.c.2 and 3.c.3. <br /> <br />4.B. Siunificant Effect: Central Canyon Creek would be <br /> subject to siltation. <br /> <br /> 4.b.1. Finding: The revised development plan avoids <br /> this potential impact. <br /> <br /> Fact: Grading on the south side of the upper <br /> canyon wall has been eliminated, as has <br /> most of the grading on the north side. <br /> <br /> Fact: The creek is protected by a siltation <br /> fence around all lots in hilly areas <br /> above the creek, as well as City erosion <br /> control standards. <br /> <br /> -s- <br /> <br /> <br />