SR 06:208 - Laserfiche WebLink

Goals, Policies, and Prol!rams Page VII - 34/3 5 Commissioner Olson inquired if the terms "natural habitat area" and "natural public open space area" are the same and if they are defined anywhere in the document. He indicated that if they were different from each other, there should be a definitional process that leads to the distinction between the two such that there is clarity regarding what each term means. Ms. Stern replied that the two terms are different and that staff could come up with distinctive definitions. She noted that "natural habitat area" is defined earlier in the report and includes what animals can be found there and that "natural public open space" refers to public open space land, such as the Ridgelands and East Bay Regional Park District properties, which are accessible to the public and where there is an attempt to preserve the land in their natural state. Chairperson Arkin requested staffto bring the definitions back to the Commission. Page VII-35 Commissioner Blank stated that the ordinance on tree preservation provides that developers who remove trees can pay into the urban forestry fund but are not obligated to replace the removed trees. He noted that the Planning Commission has consistently conditioned projects to replace trees that are removed in addition to paying into the fund. He indicated that he would like to see a General Plan goal or policy that would preserve trees such that the total number of trees is not reduced. He emphasized that no amount of money can replace a heritage tree, and every tree that is removed must be replaced. Ms. Stern replied that this issue should be addressed in the ordinance and that the ordinance should be clear about preserving trees with no net loss of trees resulting from development. Commissioner O'Connor commented that no amount of small replanted trees could replace heritage trees that are removed; it would take very long before they grow into heritage trees. He stated that the goal should be to not take the trees out. Commissioner Blank emphasized that the goal of the General Plan with regard to preserving trees so there is no net loss of trees in any development should not be contradictory to the ordinance. Ms. Harryman suggested that staff review the ordinance to determine if a conflict exists; if there is no conflict, the language could certainly be added to the General Plan, and if there is a conflict or if the ordinance is vague, it could be brought before the Commission for review. Chairperson Arkin stated that he would like to add a policy to not have reverse osmosis, the process of basically filtering water and returning it into the groundwater system to be used later as drinking water. He noted that reverse osmosis was heavily debated at the 2002 election and that he would not want to have that issue back for future discussion. EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, May 24, 2006 Page 6of8