PC 07/29/1998 - Laserfiche WebLink

to Foothill Overlay District; peak noise levels due to train traffic; ratios for tree replacement; and how field reconnaissance of wildlife was conducted. - Commissioner Sullivan expressed concern with performing a geotechnical report on a known landslide and that removal of vegetation will have ashort-term impact, loss of scenic open space. Further, he stated he would like to see an additional alternative such as eliminating Lots 5 -13 and stated there are additional questions and issues relating to visual sensitivity and reduced geologic hazards. Further, he stated that his understanding of the EIR is there is unavoidable and significant impacts that cannot be mitigated in regards to tree removal, vegetation, habitat loss, loss of open space, loss of views and geotechnical results and studies. Further, he stated that no project alternative is the only viable option and he would support and initiate a General Plan amendment to rezone this property as open space or relocation into an urban growth boundary, as referenced in response to the EIR. Commissioner Dove referenced the General Plan conditions, designation of the site and the recent General Plan process which would allow a certain amount of development of this site. Chairperson Cooper expressed concern with allegations of misrepresentations in the sales process to neighbors and spoke in favor of a higher level of assurance from the professionals due to misrepresentations. The applicant responded that the residents were informed this property would be developed. Chairperson Cooper expressed concern with issues in the Supplemental Drafr EIR relating to geotechnical issues and runoff Chairperson Cooper noted that there was saturation of the soils and _ mudslide runoffs in January of 1998 and expressed concern with the stability of the landslides based on water table drillings being performed when land was not saturated. He stated he would like assurance that the City of Pleasanton has no exposure to future liability from homeowners relating to landslides. Chairperson Cooper expressed concern with the drainage plans of Lots 5 - 13, and impact of flooding and run-offs on adjacent neighbors. He suggested that final EIR include engineering mitigation relating to flooding and run-offs. He indicated ambivalence relating to noise issues; however, that the damage to views would be substantial from Lots 5 -13 and added sensitivity needed to be given to that issue. He expressed concern with the loss of trees, and stated if there is development, the number of trees must be minimized. He expressed concern with the availability of water for wildlife, and requested that issue be addressed. Further, he requested examination of the wildlife surveys relating to small animal life. Chairperson Cooper requested clarification of density issues and gross versus net developable acres from staff. Chairperson Cooper concluded by stating that the alternative he would like to see, if not the No Project Alternative, is Lots 1 - 4 would be permitted with Lots 5 - 13 not being permitted. Further, he stated his desire for no additional applications for development in this area; however, if there are legal disputes, he would support the no project alternative. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 July 29, 1998