PC 022515 - Laserfiche WebLink

riparian area would require cutting down a few more trees. Those impacts are actually going to exist through some of the other components of the project, but the area gets a little bit greater. It is not a huge area though; just the width of a road across a fairly narrow riparian area. Mitigation of something like is fairly routine and has probably already happened a hundred times in Pleasanton. Crossing the creek will also require certain permitting processes from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife. These permits are also going to be required for other little drainage seepages that are going to be affected by the project. Geological and Soils Impacts. Constructing a road up a 25- percent slope will require some cutting and filling to create enough flat space to build the road, and will probably utilize some retaining walls. Building on a slope is a special concern because of its potential for erosion. The road could give way at some point and certain specialized engineering techniques and approaches will have to be utilized to make sure those things do not occur. Again, this is a little bit more of an impact, but it is addressed in a routine way and has been done thousands of times in development in this area. Visual Impacts. The cuts - and -fills and the retaining wall resulting from cutting the road across that slope will be visible, and it will not look like a natural hillside anymore. The EIR did not identify any significant adverse visual impacts associated with any of these alternatives that require this connection. While it might be visible from some homes, it will not be visible from any public space other than from within the center of the project. Those visual impacts can be mitigated in a fairly routine manner. The grading should be done to make it look natural; there needs to be a high - quality retaining wall design with high - quality materials to lessen the visual impact; and landscaping can be used to disguise the look or lessen its appearance on the landscape. Mr. Dolan noted that the environmental impacts of those alternatives are slightly greater, but the mitigations to address them are fairly routine. Mr. Dolan then identified the following areas for the Commission to discuss which would be helpful in guiding the dialogue: (1) Prior Council commitments; (2) Access alternatives; (3) Measure PP Implementation, to include (a) measuring slope, (b) indentifying ridges, (c) measuring vertical setback to building pad or top of structure, (d) is a road a structure, and (e) man -made slopes. He reiterated that what staff is looking for is to make sure the Commission understands all the issues and to relay to staff what additional information it will need when the project comes back for a public hearing. Commissioner Ritter inquired how the developer came up with 50 as the number of homes to be built, and if this is maximum that can be built and still be within Measures PP and QQ requirements. Mr. Dolan replied that the General Plan designation would allow quite a bit more with a midpoint of 81 units. He indicated that if the developer could have a lot more homes if it had smaller lots, but there are Measure PP constraints relating to the slopes. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 19 of 46