PC 062806 - Laserfiche WebLink

~. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regazding the traffic report and the number of students who walk on the street, Mr. Tassano replied that would be between 30-40 students. The volume of traffic would increase from 700 to 900. Consideration was made in 2000 that the property owner was not favorable to any development or modification at that time. Traffic Engineering and the Public Works Deparhnent, however, prefen•ed to have the sidewalk. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the landscape maintenance between the sidewalk and the street, Mr. Grubstick replied that the City maintained the area. Ms. Decker added that generally, homeowners associations were required to maintain these landscaped azeas. There is no common azea for maintenance at this time. A Maintenance Association would probably be formed for the stormwater pre-treatment swales on the internal azea, and the landscape azea could be added to that scope of responsibility. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regazding the mitigations for the removal of the heritage trees, Ms. Decker replied that page 10 contained a condition requiring the developer to comply with the recommendations of the tree report and that no tree shall be removed other than those specifically designated by those on the approved plans. Trees could be planted as a mitigation. ~~ Chairperson Arkin inquired whether the environmental review was accurate because it was delayed due to the rezoning issue. He expressed concerns that the environmental document appeared to be inadequate because the biotic survey was done on one day after a heavy rainfall. He questioned if this was an accepted standazd and believed that more work needed to be done. He voiced an interest in the survey being peer-reviewed at the very least and believed that the project may need an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ms. Harryman noted that the list of animal species known to occur on the site were listed in Appendix A, and the plant species were not included due to the low diversity. A discussion on the distinction between an EIR, a Negative Declazation, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration ensued. Ms. Decker noted that EIRs were done as a result of a level of significance of environmental impact. She noted that this site did not have those particulaz adverse effects that could not be mitigated according to the criteria for "threshold of significance" as identified in the Negative Declaration and the biotic survey, for example. The biologists felt that as a service of this report, it was assumed that impacts would be focused with buildings, access roads, and other infrastructure. Minor modifications of locations of this development would not require a reassessment of project impact. The Initial Study process determined that a Negative Declazation would be adequate and mitigation measures, if any impacts were determined, could be conditioned and mitigate any concerns about the site. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 28, 2006 Page 20 of 26