11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

regulated biological resources. He pointed out that Option 1 is the most environmentally sensitive plan developed for this project and greatly reduces impacts as compared to previous designs. He noted that a key benefit of this effort to shrink the effect on sensitive and regulated biological resources is that the project proponent has substantially simplified the permanent need for the Corps of Engineers, the Regional Board and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. He explained that Option 3 not only results in greater impacts that, by themselves are not trivial but additive to the efforts of the proposed project, but also risks compromising the simplified permitting strategies by possibly exceeding regulatory thresholds that shift the permit requirements from a non-discretionary process to a discretionary one that will require substantially more analysis to justify and mitigate. He added that the permitting uncertainties that Option 3 creates also results in extensive earthwork and a loss of 37 additional trees, 23 of which are heritage, complicates analysis of setback and slope as related to Measure PP, increases impacts to habitats considered suitable for endangered species, and increases the risk of road mortality of wildlife, thereby increasing the project effects on wildlife movements. Mr. Meyer reiterated that Option 1, the environmentally superior alternative according to the EIR, is their choice. He pointed out that Option 2 is an unusual alternative that ignored Lund Ranch entirely and has all the traffic coming off of Sunset Creek Lane. Option 3 splits the project and, in effect, has to be built with environmental problems; it does not serve all of the households, but only part of the community while another part of the community goes off of Lund Ranch Road. He stated that one of the underlying problems of this is that it does not create one community like Bridal Creek or Ventana Hills or any of the other projects in the neighborhood. He urged the Commission to approve Option 1, the environmentally superior alternative; Option 1. Chair Allen stated that she has seen many faces in the audience from previous meetings and noted that they all got an applause from the Commission at the previous meeting for being so respectful given such a sensitive discussion. She indicated that she would really appreciate courtesy tonight, and if members of the audience who wish to speak hear something someone else has mentioned that they totally agree, it would be fine to get up and say that they totally agree with that person, and the Commission is good with that and understands what is being said. She then requested that there be no clapping or booing. Tim Chu stated that he is a ten-year resident of Pleasanton and thanked the Commission and staff for their service to the community and the long hours they have devoted to the matter. He indicated that this matter is truly about the broader Pleasanton community, although the context may appear to be an isolated neighborhood-vs.-neighborhood issue which, in and of itself, is very unfortunate. He noted that the Commission's decisions and recommendations will have far broader implications for the community because Measure PP is being tested and precedent is being established. He added that contrary to certain staff comments made at the February meeting, casting doubt that Measure PP would ever be implicated again in the future, that the Measure PP issues at hand are one off, his understanding is that, in fact, there are seven or eight other properties that would be impacted by the precedent set by the application of Measure PP to the Lund Ranch development. He noted that this project is at the tip of the sword in putting Measure PP to its first meaningful test. He EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 12 of 45