01.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

to be addressed, Kottinger Ranch is a quiet neighborhood and the potential flow of one way in and out for the project, construction equipment and a staging area is inappropriate for the community. He asked for the project to be denied and felt the PUD and development agreement also needed to be returned to the Planning Commission rather than approved by the Council. Tim Belcher referred to page 271 of the EIR and the Callippe butterfly, noted Dr. Arnold visited the property 6 times and 5 times he found a total of 58 butterflies. He measured and determined the sex of many of those butterflies, commented on alternatives 1 and 4, stating; "Both alternative site plans are likely to cause substantial adverse impacts to the endangered butterflies' life stages, food plants and its habitat." The second expert, Dr. Murphy, hired by the developer, reviewed Dr. Arnold's paperwork and refuted the finding on paperwork only. Mr. Belcher said he spoke today with Dr. Arnold for the first time since issuing his report in September 2006. He was unaware of Dr. Murphy's rebuttal to his findings and was surprised the process does not allow for Dr. Arnold to clarify or defend his report. Dr. Arnold pointed out that regardless of what an opponent claims, the US Fish and Wildlife considers the Callippe butterfly and the sub-species as the same endangered species and has also designated the Callippe butterfly habitat at the Callippe Golf Course and the Sunol Watershed. Dr. Arnold suggested Pleasanton officials contact the US Fish and Wildlife service for clarification of their stance regarding the surrounding areas which would include the proposed project. Mr. Belcher believed there was a fundamental problem with alternative 4 being called the environmentally-superior alternative because it has only been compared to completely inferior alternatives. He felt measure D-3 was inadequate, felt it was never too late to do the right thing, and he requested the City create development boundaries based on environmentally sensitive areas and not on a map or some outdated city plan. David Lunn spoke of his experience in the 1990's hiking on the property, said he worked on the trails master plan and the Vision 2010 Ag Open Space Committee and talked about challenges in opening trails where housing developments are put in first and then people oppose the opening of the trail. He said in review of this plan, they noticed there was no staging area and the trail was not going to be put in early, so he thanked the City Manager for meeting with this group back in January to discuss this. He felt the Council has a chance to approve a project that will complete part of the major Pleasanton Hills trails project and he supported it. Michelle LaMarche said she spoke for many years against the Oak Grove development and after the last Council meeting many new things came to light about the project. The local newspapers and marketing pieces put out by the developer has skewed the public's view of this development and felt this forum allows more of the public to hear first-hand facts that need to be considered before our elected officials vote on a development that will have a major effect on the entire city and surrounding hills. The General Plan allows for land use that preserves the character of the existing residential neighborhoods and people have been led to believe by marketing flyers and articles that the future homes would be similar to existing Kottinger Ranch and Vintage Hills homes. She felt it was inconsistent with the General Plan to approve a development that does not meet a 5-minute response time of a fire station. She suggested that the the project needs to be sent back to the Planning Commission for them to review the PUD and development agreement. David Camp said to pave a road directly through the middle of the development makes no sense, said the old plan had EVA roads both from Grey Eagle and from Benedict but when paired back to 51 lots, the length of Hearst and the wrap-around of the development was eliminated, the second EVA road through Benedict was dropped. This was the environmentally preferred alternative in the EIR and the plan brought to the Planning Commission. So, he was surprised the Benedict EVA road was put back in. In addition, an extra road into the heart of the City Council Minutes 14 October 2, 2007