11 ATTACHMENT 8 - Laserfiche WebLink

houses are screened. She noted that a house is visible where the vegetation ends, and this might be a place where maybe more mitigation trees might be needed. Ms. Mundie pointed out that these visual simulations are of assistance in a number of different ways, the most important of which are to give decision-makers an idea of what the completed project will look like, and then to give the EIR team one measure of determining whether there are significant aesthetic impacts associated with the project. She added that, in fact, Chapter 4, Part A did find significant impacts associated with the aesthetics and visual resources: In Impact A-1, public uses and facilities, including new roads, need to be integrated into the surrounding landscape, primarily by landscape and plantings. It is recommended that the mandatory design guidelines be revised to put more lots into the category of "high visibility," which would have the effect of placing more restrictive setbacks and landscape requirements on all the lots that would be added to this group. Ms. Mundie then noted that no adverse impacts were found in the case of agriculture. She added that in the case of air quality, the methodology, the information, and the analysis are determined by regional agencies and that the regional criteria established by the Bay Area Air Management Quality Agency were observed. Because the project was too small for the other impacts, only one impact was found related to those criteria to reach those thresholds: that on dust generation primarily during construction. An impact mitigation program was recommended to deal with that. Ms. Mundie continued that Section D, the second large section of Chapter 4, is biology. It includes a series of graphics showing biological resources associated with the site, among them ponds, wetlands, plant communities, and substantial wooded areas on the site. There are approximately 12,000 trees on this site at the present time, and about 950 trees would be removed of which about 90 would be trees that meet Pleasanton's heritage tree standards. She noted that the ponds are potential breeding habitats for the California Red-Legged Frog, which, together with the California Tiger Salamander, has been found on the site in association with these ponds. In addition, a certain plant called the Johnny Jump-up, or the viola cornuta, grows in the area. This plant serves as the host plant for the Callippe Silverspot butterfly in its larval stage, so these plant areas are a very important part of the life cycle of that endangered species and an important biological resource of the site. Ms. Mundie noted that the biological section found ten biological resources and proposed extensive mitigations for all of them, which are reported in the Draft EIR. Chairperson Arkin inquired how the biological assessment was done and if the consultants did the assessment themselves or hired someone to do it. Ms. Mundie replied that they worked closely with specialists with several of the technical areas. She added that they used the services of a firm called Environmental Vision in Berkeley in the aesthetic area. The firm prepared the visual simulations, and higher quality reproductions of these visual simulations are available at a larger size, which will be provided to the Commission. Ms. Mundie continued that in the biology area, they worked with the firm WRA Incorporated in San Rafael. WRA's technique was, first of all, to use the information bases that are available to let biologists know where on a site of any kind they would be likely to find resources if they EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, July 12, 2006 Page 7 of 21