PC 041200 - Laserfiche WebLink

include that no building permits be issued until the Pleasanton Unified School District acquires land for a fourth high school; and, a condition that this project will pay $10,000 per unit regional l~affic mitigation fee to the City oftbe Pleasanton to be administered by the City of Pleasanton to mitigate traffic from this project with sources of mitigation to be discussed at previous meetings. There was no second to the motion. Commission Sullivan expressed his support with Commissioner Arkin's modifications to the motion; however, he stated he has concerns with the project. Commissioner Sullivan noted that this development is visible from BART and that additional houses in this area will be visible. He stated that the house is ten feet higher than the top of the berm and the visual analysis does not reflect the visibility of the house. He stated that in his opinion the visual analysis is not accurate and when riding BART, the houses on lots 25 through 28 are visible. Commissioner Sullivan advised that the General Plan states that the visual and environmental resource of the Pleasanton ridge are to be preserved and if the project is approved, the General Plan is not being followed. Commissioner Sullivan moved that the project be denied based on the visual impacts. There was no second to the motion. Commissioner Kameny apologized to the applicant and his fellow commissioners for being absent at the last few meetings. He noted he has read the public testimony and commissioner's input previously provided relating to the visual impact concerns. He stated that the visual impacts are minimal from this project. He noted the applicant has proposed to lower the elevation of the pad and install a 12-foot berm. He noted that landscaping will minimize the visibility. He advised the Commission that he travels down Bernal Avenue frequently and his view consists of houses located west of Foothill Road that are very visible from the Golden Eagle project and are much more intrusive than this particular project. He noted that the applicants have accommodated the existing neighbors and he expressed his apology to the church for the lack of public noticing. Commissioner Kameny moved to approve Case PUD-99~03 by making the finding that the proposed PUD Prezoning and PUD Development Plan will not have a significant environmental impact and adopt a resolution recommending approval of Exhibit "C," the draft Initial Study/Negative Declaration for PUD-99-03; make the finding that the proposed PUD Prezoning to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) - LDR, C, and PHS/WO (Low Density Residential, Commercial, and Public Health and Safety/Wildlands Overlay) District and the PUD Development Plan are consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan; make the PUD Development Plan findings as stated in the staffraport; adopt a resolution recommending approval of the PUD Prezoning to the PUD (Planned Unit Development) - LDR, C, and PHS/WO (Low Density Residential, Commercial, and Public Health and Safety/Wildlands Overlay district and recommend approval of the PUD Development Plan subject to the revised draft conditions of approval stated in Exhibit "B," with the following modifications: the first two sentences of Condition 27 regarding the cross easements shall be deleted with the issue being resolved at the tentative map stage; and, changing the lapsing provision for the development plan approval from two years to three years. Commissioner Maas seconded the motion. Commissioner Maas noted that she concurred with the applicants' request for blending of this development with the Presley development. She noted her concerns have been resolved relating PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 12, 2000 Page 4