PC 082306 - Laserfiche WebLink

for the Final EIR would be 8 inches by 10 inches to 11 inches by 17 inches in size and as close to photographic quality as possible. Chairperson Arkin requested a scoping meeting to address what the Commission would like to see in the visual analysis. Ms. Decker noted that the transcript from the July 12, 2006 hearing included an apology by Roberta Mundie regarding the quality of the photovisuals contained in the Draft EIR and that she would repair that particulaz deficiency in the Final EIR. She noted that Commissioner Fox had requested 11-inch by 14-inch photos with better clarity; 11-inch by 17-inch photos would be available for the Commission. She noted that the scoping meeting suggested by Chairperson Arkin was not a typical response through the Final EIR process. Mr. Iserson noted that it was important to bear in mind that comment on the Draft EIR was the primary focus of this particulaz item and that the legally defined comment period had been stretched out as faz as legally possible, 60 days. Any comments received in that time period would be referred to staff and the consultants and responded to in the EIR. He noted that future workshops and site visits would be possible, but the EIR cutoff must occur by August 29, 2006. He did not see how a workshop in another month would be feasible that would then feed information into the EIR; however, it could be applicable to the PUD and the development plan. Commissioner Olson suggested that the site visits and visual analyses be conducted from the ~"" viewpoints of the residents who commented, as was done for the Austin project. Mr. Iserson replied that would be possible and added that Mr. Inderbitzen had indicated his willingness to conduct a detailed visual analysis. Commissioner Fox noted that when Dublin did the IKEA project, they issued a Supplemental EIR; she inquired whether a Supplemental Draft EIR could be created. Mr. Iserson replied that would not be possible unless a change occurred in the project after the Final EIR was approved. Mr. Pavan detailed the traffic analysis and noted that the neighbors on Heazst Drive and Bernal Avenue preferred that a traffic signal not be installed. The environmentally preferred alternative mitigated a series of environmental impacts, primarily in the filling of the significant Swale azeas in this area of the project. He pointed out the Callipe silverspot butterfly habitat was being reviewed in conjunction with the Department of Fish and Game. The project's design guidelines aze referenced in the Draft EIR and aze reviewed by staff on an ongoing basis. In response to Chairperson Arkin's concerns regazding the residents' attitudes towards driving six minutes to get to a main artery, Mr. Tassano noted that neighborhood peer pressure will slow the traffic and that drivers generally drove faster away from their own neighborhood. Chairperson Arkin inquired what could be done to slow people down on the arterial road. Mr. Tassano noted that a narrow road tended to slow drivers down. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 23, 2006 Page 12 of 17