01.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

to report to the city and not to the developer, to peer review all of this information. He felt the EIR stands up spectacularly by itself, thinks the project is a fabulous project, hoped that they are able to leave tonight and celebrate what a wonderful thing that has been done for the community. The Mayor closed the public hearing. Councilmember McGovern referred to Policy 10 of the Public Safety Element; "strive to respond to all fire calls within 5 minutes. Program 10.1: Deny proposed developments not within a 5 minute response time of a fire station unless acceptable mitigations are provided." She asked if this has been met. Mr. Iserson said the EIR comments on this and it lists mitigation measures for the 5 minute response time which includes sprinklering the buildings, applying appropriate access and creating the wild land fire interface management plan. Councilmember McGovern felt her biggest concern was that there are not two ways in and out and the effect would trap people. Councilmember McGovern said she understood Mr. Inderbitzen's comments, but she read all of the material. The East Bay Regional Parks District states, "The proposed project is planned in a manner that would substantially fragment the existing open space and result in significant disturbance of scenic ridgelines in the southeast hills. The proposed project would extend access roads through steep hillsides and place home sites on prominent ridgelines in a manner that would significantly fragment the existing open space." She felt this is why the clustering of the how the development is laid out fragments the land. Councilmember Sullivan said there were many questions about the geotechnical evaluation and when preliminary evaluations are done and when detailed evaluations are done and how that relates to the PUD approval in the tentative and final maps. He asked how this process works and is what is being proposed the same on what the City does on any PUD. Mr. Iserson said generally, the analysis starts off with a preliminary geotechnical analysis that looks at the site as a whole. There are borings done, test pits, and other work to get a feel for issues like landslides and seismic issues. This then creates a series of recommended mitigation measures. The next step would be to do more of a design level geotechnical report when getting into the more specific details of the tentative map stage and we have more information about grading, we get down to a more specific level of geotechnical review at that point. This then creates more recommendations for mitigations as homes come in for proposed development. At that time, the building and planning department's jobs are to make sure those mitigations are met and then soils, foundation, retaining walls and engineering reports are reviewed for the eventual house plans. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed the home plans would return to staff and potentially to the Planning Commission and the tentative and final map also come to the City Council for final approval. So, if there is additional information that comes out of the analyses and additional conditions to mitigate any geotechnical problems, ultimately the Council would be able to approve or disapprove those, and Mr. Iserson said this was correct. He said there is still much work and review to be done prior to the homes being built. The tentative maps are reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission; their job is to make sure they are in compliance with the PUD and conditions of approval and everything is addressed. The final map must pass muster by the Council prior to it being approved, so there is more work done and the City needs to make sure that everything approved is implemented. Councilmember Sullivan confirmed the tentative and final maps are agendized items. City Council Minutes 18 October 2, 2007