PC 061301 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairperson Sullivan asked if it is possible to find that the mitigation measures are appropriate ,- for the removal of the line, but find that the certification of the SEIR is not appropriate. Mr. Roush responded that he does not feel the two issues should be separated. Chairperson Sullivan stated that in 1998 he asked how the wildlife field reconnaissance was conducted, as he was concerned about the Alameda Whipsnake and Kit Fox habitat, and that none had been detected. He advised that his inquiry pertaining to this issue did not receive a response. Ms. Kline reported that this issue was addressed and it was considered an unavoidable lost of wildlife in the original ErR. She advised that the future project is smaller and would have less of an impact than the former application. She noted that for purposes of the SEIR the response would be that no new enviromnental information has been provided that requires a response. She further advised that the biologist visited the site in 1988 and this information can be provided. Chairperson Sullivan advised that he would like to see the details on how the study was conducted, as he is concerned that an adequate wildlife survey has not been completed. Chairperson Sullivan advised that he is reasonably satisfied with the geotechnical issues, but he would like to see some additional things done, such as the monitoring of the groundwater. Commissioner Arkin stated that he would like to see a table with the most up-to-date information so that it can be used as a guide for potential future development. Chairperson Sullivan feels that there is incomplete information regarding the wildlife Issue which would prevent the certification of the SEIR. ,.-. Commissioner Harvey stated that the setback line has one set of implications for the existing development and another set for the "to-be-determined" development on the hillside. He advised that he would like to address tonight, at a minimum, the issues with the existing development. He noted that the line runs, rather arbitrarily, through some lots and does not really serve any purpose to the extent that it is inside the existing lots. He questioned whether the Planning Commission is really making a decision about the future development on the hillside or whether there will be an opportunity for a future Planning Commission to delve into the specifics of a PUD. He stated that he wants to remove the line, or, at least, move it outside of the sphere-of- influence of the lower Phase I and Phase 2. He noted that by certifying the SEIR the Planning Commission is not giving the green light for development to proceed in the hill area. Mr. Roush suggested that some of Chairperson Sullivan's concerns be incorporated in the mitigation measures table to provide for additional review or analysis of the wildlife before any development occurs. Chairperson Sullivan asked when the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service typically gets involved in a project. Ms. Kline responded that, as an example, the Vineyard Corridor EIR identified potential biological studies that might need to be done in some of the creek areas, and that Centex Homes is going through the actual delineation process with the agencies. She advised that this is a case where the EIR identified potential habitat areas with studies to be done at the actual PUD stage. Mr. Roush advised that the requirement for the studies could be done as a mitigation measure that would be included with the PUD application submittal. r- PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13,2001 Page 7