PC 061301 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry from Commissioner Harvey as to whether Mr. Berlogar was consulted r- regarding the elimination of the setback line, it was noted that while he was not contacted, there have been at least four geotechnical consultants involved in the process of the analyses and peer review. Commissioner Arkin questioned how the amount of movement resulting from an earthquake is calculated and the size of the earthquake that was used in the calculation. Ms. Kline advised that the maximum, credible earthquake was used, as well as the worst possible conditions that could exist, including the water table factors. Mr. Grubstick provided additional clarification as to how the analyses was conducted. In response to an inquiry from Chairperson Sullivan, Mr. Roush explained that a couple of years ago, one ofthe existing lot owners wanted to build a home, but the placement of that home could not be accommodated given the location of the geotechnical setback line. Because all of the geotechnical work had been completed at that time, staff brought a request forward to the City Council to allow the geotechnical setback line to be eliminated on that the lot, and the City Council approved the elimination of the geotechnical setback line for that lot. It was noted that any of the lots which have the "Berlogar line" running through it could also seek the City Council's approval to remove the line, but that staff would like to have the removal of the entire line addressed, and not have it done on a lot-by-Iot basis. ,..-.. In response to a question from Chairperson Sullivan, Mr. Roush advised that, theoretically, the Planning Commission could recommend removal of the "Berlogar line" without certifying the Supplemental EIR, even though the Commission would need to rely on the information in the SEIR to reach that conclusion. Chairperson Sullivan asked how the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's designation that the Pleasanton Ridge area adjacent to this site is a critical habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake affects the certification of the Supplemental EIR. Mr. Roush advised that it is not unusual for information to come to light after the publication of an EIR or lapsing of the comment period for an EIR. He cited to the EIR guidelines and the provisions that justify or require recirculation of an EIR. Mr. Roush noted that staff believes the designation of the Ridgelands as a critical habitat for the Alameda Whipsnake does not rise to the level of new information that would require recirculation ofthe EIR. He noted that a wildlife survey was done by the County when this project was initiated, and the study identified this as a potential habitat for the Whipsnake. This was discussed in the Draft EIR and a mitigation measure regarding potential changes to the creek and/or creekbanks that could affect wildlife has been included. Ms. Kline noted that the Supplemental EIR was sent to the State Clearinghouse for distribution to appropriate agencies, and no response was received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. She further noted that the biologist reviewing the site looked for the Alameda Whipsnake and the San Joaquin Kit Fox, but neither was observed. r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13,2001 Page 4