PC 082714 - Laserfiche WebLink

issue in the comments is the way the road connects to the existing system, and there is no way to avoid it. He indicated that this is going to take up almost all of the discussion, and there will be analysis outside of the EIR because some of it does include consideration of environmental impacts, but ultimately it is about who has to put up with more traffic in their neighborhood. He further indicated that triggering a level -of- service impact would not necessarily be identified in the EIR, but it will still involve whether or not the level of service slips from one level of service to the next. Commissioner Balch stated that he recalls that, based on the traffic calculations, various intersections will be addressed, including three or four intersections beyond the 1 -680 interchange, because those would be the first to fail. He asked staff if that was correct. Mr. Dolan replied that any intersection that would potentially have an impact is evaluated. Acting Chair Allen stated that she has four or five items: (1) Include a table in the EIR that indicates the street - facing setbacks proposed along some of the primary streets that have been considered for major access points, such as Sycamore Creek Way, Sunset Creek Lane, and Junipero Street. (2) Provide the Commission with a copy of the disclosures that have been referred to and include that somewhere in the EIR for the benefit of new homeowners in the Sycamore Creek area and where they relate to the access points (3) Provide a clear chronology around the history of this project relative to road access and agreements that have been made historically, including Measures PP and QQ and the General Plan. (4) Create a thorough analysis for the scenarios, especially of Scenario 6, including the full mitigation measures for the scenario and some of the points in Ms. Lofland's memo, as this is really important for everyone, particularly the Ventana Hills Steering Committee, to really understand what the issues would be and how they could be thoroughly mitigated. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS RE- OPENED. Mr. Melaugh inquired if staff will do a detailed analysis of just one particular alternative and why that particular one and not all of them, since all of them have already been done in the EIR anyway. THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. Acting Chair Allen stated that staff will take note of that. She added that the important thing is that all alternatives be analyzed well. Mr. Dolan explained that CEQA requires that the environmental impacts of the application be evaluated, and that is the reason there is always concentration on one, which is the application that was made. He added that staff is also obligated to evaluate a reasonable range of alternatives, and that determination is based on what the logical alternatives are. He indicated that that is what staff did, and the analyses do not have PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 27, 2014 Page 43 of 44