Laserfiche WebLink
safety analysis. He noted that only one option was presented to the Commission <br />because it is the best. <br /> <br />Chair Blank explained that having a separate safety report explaining numerous <br />different scenarios and the positive and negative implications of each scenario <br />makes it clear to the Commission that a thorough analysis had been done. He <br />added that such a report would also included the sStaff’s recommendation, along <br />with their justification for staff’s choice. <br /> <br />Commissioner O’Connor commented that if the Commission had been given a <br />safety report, it would have had a choice of numerous options rather than just being <br />presented with only one option. <br /> <br />Mr. Pavan explained that sthe Staff took the Commission’s direction quite seriously <br />and performed a thorough safety analysis to ensure staff’s recommendation was <br />safe. He added that staff did look at various other options that involved greater <br />grading and tree removal, but since the preliminary analysis made it clear that there <br />was only one best option, staff decided not to spend the time performing analysis of <br />other options that they strongly believed were inferior. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce, having just read the revised Conditions of Approval, asked <br />Mr. Pavan ifif he had spoken to the person at the California Native Plant Society who <br />had written the letter. Mr. Pavan said yes. Commission Pearce He confirmed. then <br />inquired if, after discussing the details of the project, the California Plant Society had <br />reversed its position. Mr. Pavan confirmed that was the case. He explained that the <br />Society now believes that the sStaff had addressed the potential impacts to the plant <br />species based on the analysis. He noted that, as an example, fragrant frittilary area <br />requires a serpentine underlying soil material, and when staff pointed out to the <br />Society that there was no serpentine material at this property, the Society agreed <br />that the likelihood of this plant species being on the site would be very, very low. <br /> <br />Mr. Pavan continued that staff also pointed out to the Society that the site had been <br />walked by the consultants and that the California Native Plant Society’s data were <br />used for the analysis. He added that staff had provided the Society with examples of <br />where these plant species are presently found; the closest known occurrence of <br />these plants is five miles over the ridge in Hayward. Mr. Pavan then noted that sthe <br />Staff’s recommendation requires that 30 days before construction begins within the <br />bBuilding eEnvelope, an analysis needs to be done to see if any of the plant species <br />in question are present. He added that if any of these plants are present at that <br />time, construction will not be allowed to proceed until a mitigation plan is formulated. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce asked what kind of environmental review will need to be done <br />with respect to widening Foothill Road and filling in the creek. Mr. Pavan responded <br />that the widening of Foothill Road had already been addressed in the Initial Study. <br />He noted, for example, that the questions of impacts to trees areis located in the <br />Biotics section of the Initial Study. He added that the question of jurisdiction was <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 13, 2008 Page 9 of 26 <br /> <br /> <br />