Laserfiche WebLink
views. She felt if opponents succeed, Pleasanton will lose its biggest park. If the initiative fails, <br />opponents will enjoy an even bigger park. <br />Tim Belcher said he learned a lot about the Callippe butterfly, presented Figure 17 on page 106 <br />from the Draft EIR and identified a specific plant which was crucial to the Callippe life cycle. He <br />talked to the first author's report about the Callippe butterfly who said the plant species was very <br />difficult to grow and very improbable to grow in a mitigation attempt. He said Lot 51 obliterates <br />the vast majority of the hard to grow plant as well as a main road that runs through the property <br />where the plant also exists. He requested that 1) the Entomologist is approved by the U.S. Fish <br />and Wildlife; 2) requested no grading or grading permit is granted until the study is completed as <br />the butterfly does not fly until mid-May through July; and 3) to include in the EIR with Alternative <br />4 mapped over it, which would help future people who would have to implement the EIR. <br />Councilmember Sullivan asked staff to explain the permitting and inspection process by US Fish <br />and Wildlife Service. Mr. Iserson said the EIR contains a mitigation measure that requires a <br />mitigation plan be developed for the Silver Spot Callippe Butterfly and other potential <br />endangered species on the site. The City would have to retain a qualified biologist to go to the <br />site, inspect it as far as the presence of the host plant species. There would also be a <br />requirement that an entomologist go out to the site and try to find and verify whether the species <br />does exist. There has been discussion and disagreement as to whether or not the species is out <br />there and this would need final determination, which would be done under the auspices of US <br />Fish and Wildlife Services. They would also need to provide a permit to the City prior to any final <br />map, grading or construction being done on the site. He said other endangered species are <br />subject to additional studies and determination as to pinpointing their habitat area, which is <br />normal and specified under CEQA law. <br />Councilmember Sullivan confirmed with Mr. Iserson that the US Fish and Wildlife Service <br />instructed the City that additional mitigation was required in the form of purchasing the <br />additional open space to provide for habitat. <br />Bob Grove said the Oak Grove development is a balance and atrade-off; it involves the <br />construction of 50+ large homes but also hundreds of acres of parkland. He believes the <br />Council and a majority of the Planning Commission feel it is a fair trade-off, so he questioned <br />why the Planning Commission turned it down. He asked the Council to ask itself not whether <br />this is a reasonable balance but if this is the best plan they can come up with for the project. If <br />sent back to the Planning Commission, development of it will not go away and developers will <br />come back with a more adequate plan and felt very strongly that it could be made better. <br />Allen Roberts said he is a trail advocate, hikes 15-20 miles a week, is very much in favor of <br />open space and trails and felt whether or not the compromise is a good one. He presented an <br />overhead about fire safety mitigation in the EIR, said the project needs to have fire sprinklers in <br />all homes, as this is a high fire danger wild land area, many issues such as defensible and non- <br />combustible spaces between homes and trees/shrubs that are two times the height. Each home <br />must have an acre of free space around it without plants or trees if they are 30 feet high. <br />Therefore, 50 acres of oaks will need to be clear-cut. He reminded the Council that all of the <br />proposed tree screening for the plan is not allowed, given what is in the EIR. He said he sent <br />the view from Grey Eagle so the Council could see the homes on the ridgeline that show trees <br />behind them, which is not allowed. He said the plan allows for three story high homes and he <br />presented the view of homes three-stories tall with trees removed behind which will be seen <br />from Pleasanton. He presented pictures of two homes in Oakland; one two-story home about <br />9,000 square feet and one 12,000 square feet, which will simulate what the new homes will look <br />City Council Minutes 7 November 6, 2007 <br />