SR 06:182 - Laserfiche WebLink

plan findings 1-7, as stated in the staff report, and recommend approval of Case PUD-50 to the City Council, subject to the conditions of approval with the following modifications: . Condition 4 had some lotting patterns regarding second story placements and first story structures in Lots 4-9 and 19-22. . Condition 21 contained a request for a masonry wall, noted on the northeast and west sides. Staff supports its placement on the northeast and west sides, and wrapping on the south side, on the lots adjacent to the existing residences. . She noted that there was a requirement that homes be photovoltaic-ready, to be amended to require electrical conduit and pull strings installed. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the traffic report and the number of students who walk on the street, Mr. Tassano replied that would be between 30-40 students. The volume of traffic would increase from 700 to 900. Consideration was made in 2000 that the property owner was not favorable to any development or modification at that time. Traffic Engineering and the Public Works Department, however, preferred to have the sidewalk. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Fox regarding the landscape maintenance between the sidewalk and the street, Mr. Grubstick replied that the City maintained the area. Ms. Decker added that generally, homeowners associations were required to maintain these landscaped areas. There is no common area for maintenance at this time. A Maintenance Association would probably be formed for the stormwater pre-treatment swales on the internal area, and the landscape area could be added to that scope of responsibility. In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Arkin regarding the mitigations for the removal of the heritage trees, Ms. Decker replied that page 10 contained a condition requiring the developer to comply with the recommendations of the tree report and that no tree shall be removed other than those specifically designated by those on the approved plans. Trees could be planted as a mitigation. Chairperson Arkin inquired whether the environmental review was accurate because it was delayed due to the rezoning issue. He expressed concerns that the environmental document appeared to be inadequate because the biotic survey was done on one day after a heavy rainfall. He questioned if this was an accepted standard and believed that more work needed to be done. He voiced an interest in the survey being peer-reviewed at the very least and believed that the project may need an Environmental Impact Report (EIR). Ms. Harryman noted that the list of animal species known to occur on the site were listed in Appendix A, and the plant species were not included due to the low diversity. A discussion on the distinction between an EIR, a Negative Declaration, and a Mitigated Negative Declaration ensued. Ms. Decker noted that EIRs were done as a result of a level of significance of environmental impact. She noted that this site did not have those particular adverse effects that could not be mitigated according to the criteria for "threshold of significance" as identified in the Negative EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 28, 2006 Page 20f 7