Laserfiche WebLink
Biological Impacts. The alternative access scenarios require crossing the ephemeral <br />creek along the southern end of the site and would result in the loss of habitat of the <br />California Tiger Salamander and indirect disturbance to nesting and other birds and <br />roosting special status bat species through the loss of additional trees. There will also <br />be some fairly complex permitting processes required to put anything in a drainage <br />channel in the wetlands: approvals from the Army Corps of Engineer, the Regional <br />Quality Water Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife would <br />need to be done. <br />Geology and Soils Impacts. There would also be some geology and soils impacts to <br />putting a road up the side of the hill to connect to Sunset Creek Lane. Grading on the <br />side of the road has stability concerns, both in the structural components of the <br />construction as well as long -term erosion control that have to be dealt with. <br />Visual Impacts. The grading and potential retaining walls required for building a road up <br />the side of that small hill to connect to Sunset Creek Lane would change the <br />appearance of the north - facing slope. This is an interesting situation because that <br />hillside is not really that visible; it is hardly visible from public vantage places and <br />certainly not from public roads. It is visible from some of the trails and from some of the <br />private homes; the staff report provides some visual simulations of what that might look <br />like. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that all these additional environmental impacts that have been <br />identified in the EIR can be mitigated through fairly routine mitigation measures. He <br />indicated that the geology and erosion impacts are pretty basic problems to solve and is <br />done all the time: crossing creeks happens, permits are obtained, and the bridge or <br />some kind of crossing is built. He continued that the biological impacts are all <br />mitigatable: it will take time, cost money, and require expertise and review; but these <br />are not show- stopper types of environmental impacts, and they are routinely mitigated <br />throughout this City for many, many, projects. <br />Issues from the Work Session and the Planning Commission <br />Mr. Dolan then addressed the issues raised by the Planning Commission at the Work <br />Session: <br />Parks. A Commissioner suggested that the project include a park. Staff figured out <br />basically the distance from the project to the existing park and determined that it is <br />within the distance suggested in Planning documents as the ideal for a neighborhood <br />park. Additionally, because there is so little land that is actually suitable for either <br />development or a park, it is difficult to recommend that a park be included since one has <br />already existed that meets the City's standards. <br />Tree removal. A Commissioner stated that the mitigations suggested in terms of tree <br />removal was a little too loose. Staff added some conditions to nail down what the tree <br />mitigation would be and the ratio for various kinds of trees. Staff talked to the <br />Commissioner who raised that issue, who seemed to be satisfied with the condition that <br />would be adequately mitigating that loss. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 8 of 54 <br />