08 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16 - Laserfiche WebLink

Visual Impacts. The grading and potential retaining walls required for building a road up the side of that small hill to connect to Sunset Creek Lane would change the appearance of the north-facing slope. This is an interesting situation because that hillside is not really that visible; it is hardly visible from public vantage places and certainly not from public roads. It is visible from some of the trails and from some of the private homes; the staff report provides some visual simulations of what that might look like. Mr. Dolan stated that all these additional environmental impacts that have been identified in the EIR can be mitigated through fairly routine mitigation measures. He indicated that the geology and erosion impacts are pretty basic problems to solve and is done all the time: crossing creeks happens, permits are obtained, and the bridge or some kind of crossing is built. He continued that the biological impacts are all mitigatable: it will take time, cost money, and require expertise and review; but these are not show-stopper types of environmental impacts, and they are routinely mitigated throughout this City for many, many, projects. Issues from the Work Session and the Planning Commission Mr. Dolan then addressed the issues raised by the Planning Commission at the Work Session: Parks. A Commissioner suggested that the project include a park. Staff figured out basically the distance from the project to the existing park and determined that it is within the distance suggested in Planning documents as the ideal for a neighborhood park. Additionally, because there is so little land that is actually suitable for either development or a park, it is difficult to recommend that a park be included since one has already existed that meets the City's standards. Tree removal. A Commissioner stated that the mitigations suggested in terms of tree removal was a little too loose. Staff added some conditions to nail down what the tree mitigation would be and the ratio for various kinds of trees. Staff talked to the Commissioner who raised that issue, who seemed to be satisfied with the condition that would be adequately mitigating that loss. Visual impacts of the potential Sunset Creek connection. Staff provided some visual simulations in the staff report demonstrating these visual impacts. Analysis methodologies. A Commissioner basically asked staff to do a survey of how other communities tackle these issues. Staff researched what relevant and nearby communities do and did not find an absolute pattern; each community seems to treat it slightly differently. Documentation of that research is provided in the staff report. Water supply. This issue, which was obviously a big part of the dialogue in the discussion on the East Pleasanton Specific Plan (EPSP) where there is no General Plan designation that allows the uses being proposed; the designation for Lund Ranch site does. In the EPSP discussion, there were choices of whether land was going to be annexed to the City; Land Ranch is already in the City. The EPSP proposal was to change what zoning that did exist in the City from Industrial to Residential; Lund Ranch EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 6 of 45