01.1 - Laserfiche WebLink

Councilmember Sullivan said there were many questions regarding the biological analysis, especially given the Callippe butterfly. To actually obtain building permits, the applicant must receive approval by Fish and Game and he asked about this process. Mr. Iserson said more definitive work needs to be done on the Callippe butterfly to make an accurate assessment as to whether they are on site or not and ultimately prior to the final map approval, all environmental agencies that have jurisdiction over the site need to grant the appropriate permits and approvals. If they find something in the permitting process that identifies a habitat of impact, this would have to be mitigated through on-site or off-site measures, depending upon what the agencies require. Councilmember Sullivan said there were concerns regarding the EIR consultant and the visual analysis consultant and that it should be peer reviewed. He confirmed the EIR consultant is hired by the City and works for the City. Councilmember Sullivan questioned the traffic mitigation fee and ways to deal with traffic calming for Hearst Drive and additional traffic generated by the project. Mr. Iserson said they have funds available through the developer's contribution that will be used to construct traffic calming. What lies ahead is a process whereby the City staff will work with the neighbors to come up with appropriate mitigations that will help slow down the traffic and make it safer for residents. Staff will work with the neighbors, the homeowner association and consider options available and work toward a plan that works for everyone. The developer pays for these mitigations and staff will work with the neighborhood to identify the best way to deal with traffic prior to homes being built. Councilmember Sullivan said there are many comments regarding the sizes of the homes, where they may be and it seems like there is confusion on how this is decided. He noted the latest condition provided at the last Council meeting, which is listed on Table 2, identifies every single lot, the lot size and size of the house on the lot. Based on whether it is a high visibility lot, additional mitigations are identified to reduce visibility and screening. If the Council decides to make the proposed changes for Court 1, we would have a similar set of conditions reflective in conditions of approval. Mr. Iserson said staff could modify the table, it would not be completely known until the tentative map stage where they would determine where the lot would be re-located and how large the home would be. Also, with each custom home, there would be additional visual analysis required at that time, as well as landscaping, screening and review of visual impacts. In response to Mayor Hosterman, Mr. Iserson said the homes would need to comply with the City's green building ordinance and conditions address certain components necessary for energy efficiency which could be employed in the home's design. Mayor Hosterman felt it was critical to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as a community and she personally thinks every new home should be mandated for photovoltaics. The problem is that if you make it photovoltaic-ready, homeowners are typically more interested in purchasing landscaping and furniture for the backyard and not necessarily prioritizing or the installation of PV. She felt it was important to mandate this. She also thinks it is important to leave an opportunity to return and look at greenhouse gas emissions reductions pending the process we are entering into with ICLE, and then strategizing ways to reduce. She also likes the idea of water reduction, acknowledged the State's current situation, but said their water supplier Zone 7 is able to contract out of basin for additional water, so she did not feel there has ever been a time Pleasanton has precluded development because of water. However, it may come up in the near future. City Council Minutes 19 October 2, 2007