11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Pavan stated that based on his understanding of CEQA, the Commission can direct staff to look at another alternative and define what that alternative should be. He added that he did not see that process as being one of the criteria for extending the 45-day review period but that staff would look into the matter. Ms. Decker clarified that the answer to that is actually two-sided. She explained that through the CEQA process and the environmental review process, the Planning Commission and staff and the applicant are provided with a document that has evaluated what the environmental impacts of the proposal is, and then look at preferred alternatives. Following that process, Alternative 4 is now the preferred alternative, which has not yet come before the Planning Commission as the project. She noted that at this evening's meeting, discussion is about the draft environmental document and how it arrived at finding that the fourth alternative was preferred in mitigating many of the impacts and concerns that the project had within the area. Ms. Decker continued that as has been previously noted, there is always an opportunity for the Planning Commission to review and assess projects and determine what it likes and does not like, what it would like to condition or not. She proposed that the Planning Commission evaluate the Draft EIR this evening and added that the Alternative 4 plan can be brought back to the Planning Commission as a study session prior to its being presented as a project with the Final EIR for action and recommendation to the City Council. That meeting would provide a forum to have a detailed discussion on the project itself, which alternative would be preferred, and what changes, if any, the Planning Commission would like to discuss. Commissioner Fox noted that the pictures in the document were so tiny that she could barely make out things such as trees. She inquired if staff will be providing larger pictures of the photomontages as has been provided for other projects, possibly 11 inches by 14 inches. Mr. Pavan said that could be done. In response to Commissioner O'Connor's inquiry if the 700,000 cubic yards of fill that will be moved is in the 98-home proposal or the Alternative 4 proposal, Mr. Pavan replied that it would be in the Alternative 4 proposal. Chairperson Arkin questioned if the prospect of putting the road in is not soil neutral but that the top of a ridge would be taken off and flattened when the road and homes are put in. Mr. Pavan deferred the matter to the project engineer. Chairperson Arkin inquired what the next step to taking public comments would be. Mr. Pavan replied that the next step in the process would be to complete the 45-day review period and come back with the Final EIR. He added that, hypothetically, the Commission could also comments and continue the item to another hearing for more comments. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 12, 2006 Page 3 of 21