My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 041509
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
PC 041509
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:40:00 PM
Creation date
9/23/2009 8:44:18 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
4/15/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Mr. Otto replied that there has been an ongoing issue between Zone 7 and the City <br />regarding the maintenance of those trees. He added that he believes Zone 7 would <br />not have an issue about the removal of the trees because Zone 7 did not want that <br />maintenance responsibility. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the fact that the public trail was added as a requirement after <br />the Commission’s discussion had factored into the discussion. He noted that in an <br />attempt to address the community’s concerns, staff tried to balance some of the <br />concerns in order to resolve them. <br />Commissioner Blank stated that he has always been concerned about removing <br />trees, especially if they are not being replaced or if payment for their removal is not <br />being required. <br />Commissioner Narum referred to the language in Condition 22 regarding other <br />trail-related improvements and requested staff to elaborate on what this might <br />include. <br />Mr. Otto explained that the Class C trail is a simple, compacted, graded earth trail <br />that is eight feet wide. He stated that the other improvements would include <br />signage, adjustment of fencing and landscaping, and review of grading and <br />drainage. <br />Commissioner Narum stated that she was not comfortable with the language being <br />open-ended and inquired if this was standard language. <br />Mr. Otto replied that this was a catch all to anticipate any items that staff may have <br />overlooked. He added that the PUD conditions actually identify the applicant’s <br />responsibilities, including grading, landscaping, fencing, and signage. <br />Commissioner Narum inquired if the condition was added to the PUD after Council <br />approved the project. <br />Mr. Otto said yes. <br />Commissioner Blank inquired which would take precedence if there were any conflict <br />between the Conditions of Approval and the Vesting Tentative Map and what is in <br />the PUD. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that theoretically, there would not be any conflict between the two. <br />Ms. Seto replied that it would depend upon the issue. She stated that many of the <br />things in the Vesting Tentative Maps deal with utility and grading plans and that if <br />they are any over-arching or general issues, then staff would typically look at the <br />PUD condition. She added that the Director of Community Development is given <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 15, 2009 Page 4 of 24 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.