11 ATTACHMENT 7 - Laserfiche WebLink

Staff believes when the project is evaluated in its entirety, • the benefits of the reductions of environmental impacts due to the development of the preferred environmental alternative (reducing the number of lots from 98 to 51), • the dedication to the City of nearly 500 acres of open space with an easement overlaid on those lands administered by an independent third party, such as the Tri-Valley Conservancy, • the proposed development will be of benefit because the project itself creates an amenity not only for those residing in Southeast Pleasanton but also for residents Citywide. Staff further notes that the studies that have been provided by the environmental consultant do meet the criteria for adequacy and that the project is supportable and worthy of a positive recommendation from the Planning Commission to the City Council. • Visual Analysis: Ridgetop Development and Graphic Representation There has been considerable testimony related to the adequacy of the visual analysis in the EIR. These issues relate to: • whether the photographs on which the visual simulations are based utilized an appropriate lens, • whether the choice of viewpoints was appropriately chosen, and • whether the size of the buildings presented in the visual simulations adequately represents what is likely to be viewed when the project is developed. The visual analysis is a part of the analysis of aesthetics and visual resources per CEQA and is found in the Draft EIR which outlines significance criteria for analysis of the proposed project. The aesthetic criteria are provided below: Significance criteria for aesthetic impacts are drawn from CEQA Guidelines Appendix G (Items XII (a), (b), (c), and (d)). Impacts on aesthetics and visual resources would be significant: (1) [If the project would) have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista. PUD-33, Oak Grove Planned Unit Development Planning Commission Page 7