My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 07/07/99
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1999
>
PC 07/07/99
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:06:40 PM
Creation date
10/24/2001 5:14:52 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/7/1999
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 07/07/99
NOTES
BERNAL PROP PUBLIC HEARING
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
22. <br /> <br />Wetlands/Biological <br /> <br />Issue: <br /> <br />The City should retain the option to have community park drainageway (along <br />the Union Pacific Railroad) filled as part of the project permit/mass grading, <br />and too many trees are being removed. <br /> <br />Proposed Project: Shows the drainageway left as an open channel. Shows most trees on <br /> site removed, but conditioned to retain mature, healthy trees as feasible. <br /> <br />Alternatives: <br /> <br />Require the project's Corps of Engineers and other permits to incorporate <br />filling the drainageway if the City so determines prior to the project's <br />completion of its mass grading and agency permit applications. <br />Require the drainageway to be filled. <br />Retain as many trees along the south side of Bemal Avenue, Valley <br />Avenue to Pleasanton Avenue, as feasible, consistent with commercial lot <br />and roadway access. <br />Retain the significant trees in the cottonwood grove (Eastern Area), <br />around the farmhouse and finger tributary (Western Area), and elsewhere <br />as designated. <br /> <br />Discussion: <br /> <br />While many more trees than proposed to be saved could be saved, staff <br />questions the mid- to long-term wisdom of such an action. These trees are <br />not important in retaining the site's identity, in fitting in with the <br />"neighborhood," or in saving trees of intrinsic high value. Many of the <br />trees are ill-suited to the new environment they will find themselves in or <br />are already in poor condition. Saving too many trees, although possible, <br />will make the site's grading plan more difficult. It will be harder to add <br />new interest to the flat site; it will be harder to allow the golf course to add <br />topography/interest to its layout; if will interfere with lake/reservoir plans <br />integral to the project; and it will require retention of channels/seeps <br />planned to be modified. Saving the Bemal Avenue trees would also call <br />into question whether the General Plan "gateway" policies can be <br />accomplished. Staff continues to believe that putting the right tree in its <br />suitable, planned site will make better sense in the long run than forcing <br />the plan to fit certain trees desired to be saved. The best trees on the site <br />(oaks on the knoll, within the Western Area, and riparian trees along the <br />Arroyo de la Laguna and B-2-1 channel) are being saved. Some of the <br />trees identified as "cond. save" in the Tree Survey can also be saved when <br />the grading plan/tentative map is being reviewed. Any specific tree <br />desired by the Planning Commission to be saved can be (but with potential <br />consequences) by designating it, by number, to be saved. <br /> <br />Principles of Agreement: Not specifically addressed. <br /> <br />Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 25 June 9, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.