CCMIN020309 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mayor Hosterman noted that she has often seen this land disked and asked if anyone has raised issue with that. Mr. Cook could not say if disking affected the plant and reiterated that the spearscale is classified as a Category 1 B plant, free from state or federal mitigation regulations. Councilmember McGovern said that the ACA letter states a known spearscale population of 12 acres in 1993 and noted there has been no current discussion on how many acres of habitat remain. Mr. Cook noted that the letter also says there area "few plants" on the 12 acres and said the two measurements are incomparable. Mr. Bocian reviewed staffs recommendation that the Council adopt the resolutions approving the EIR Environmental Findings, Statement of Overriding Considerations, Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and certifying the EIR to approve the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan Amendments/Staples Ranch and the PUD Zoning and Rezoning. Mr. Bocian acknowledged the interest and controversy surrounding the related issue of the Stoneridge Drive extension. He explained that Supervisor Haggerty has submitted a proposal to finance all of the road improvements, the second bridge, and $1 million in offsite mitigations if the City would agree to construct the road within the same time table as the rest of the Staples Ranch infrastructure. Mr. Bocian noted that if the Council wishes to accept this offer, it would have to make a decision at the time it approves the Development Agreement. He also stated that LAFCO has formally requested that the EIR be amended to include the Stoneridge Drive extension and has indicated that the EIR in its current state may require additional environmental work. Staff recommends that if the Council chooses to consider the matter of Stoneridge Drive, it provide direction to schedule a special meeting for discussion of that issue. Councilmember Sullivan said in light of the controversy surrounding the Stoneridge Drive extension, it is important to clarify the Council's current policy for the community. He stated that the Council unanimously voted to include the extension in the General Plan but required that it first proceed through the regional framework and develop an agreement on other regional projects, timing, and funding. He referred to page 3.2-19 of the EIR; Air Quality and questioned the current validity of the conclusions surrounding greenhouse gas emissions in light of recent CEQA challenges from the Attorney General's office. He cited the City's experience with similar issues in the General Plan EIR and questioned the legal adequacy and enforceability of the proposed mitigation measures. Assistant Planner Robin Giffin explained that the State has not yet established emissions thresholds and as it has not commented on any insufficient areas of the EIR, staff stands by its analysis. Councilmember Sullivan pointed out that the current lack of AB32 guidelines has not prevented the State from taking legal recourse against municipalities for failure to develop adequate analysis and mitigation measures. City Attorney Michael Roush noted that the Attorney General has primarily acted in respect to General Plans or particular projects that are likely to emit significant greenhouse gas emissions. While this is not a small project, it does not rise to the level of a General Plan build-out and is therefore considered not to have a significant impact. Councilmember McGovern referred to page 1 of the draft Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; Prepared Lighting and asked if there are any guidelines pertaining to the ice center. Ms. Giffin directed her to Mitigation VQ3.4; Community and Neighborhood Parks. City Council Minutes Page 5 of 14 February 3, 2009