My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
08 ATTACHMENTS 4-10
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2010
>
020210
>
08 ATTACHMENTS 4-10
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2010 4:43:42 PM
Creation date
1/28/2010 2:29:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
2/2/2010
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
08 ATTACHMENTS
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
65
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).
View images
View plain text
be preserved. If a tree were damaged or destroyed due to construction activities, its value <br /> could be ascertained and payment made to the City for the damaged or destroyed tree. <br /> The tree report surveyed a total of ninety-four trees, of which 34 are defined as heritage trees <br /> under the Pleasanton Municipal Code, representing 13 species types. The proposed <br /> improvements will allow for the preservation of 91 trees, including all 34 Heritage trees. <br /> Green Building <br /> As proposed, each of the homes will be required to achieve a minimum of 150 green points. <br /> During the second workshop session, the Planning Commission requested information <br /> regarding the environmental impacts of six new homes achieving 200 GreenPoints versus <br /> three new homes achieving the minimum 50 GreenPoints. The applicant has provided some <br /> information on each of the checklist categories (energy, indoor air quality, resources, and <br /> water) comparing homes with these green point ratings (Attachment 5- Exhibit E) based on <br /> information provided by Build It Green. However, staff is not aware of any accepted <br /> methodology for providing a detailed comparative quantitative analysis of the overall impact to <br /> the environment based on a certain green point rating. <br /> PUBLIC NOTICE <br /> Notice of this application was sent to all property owners and occupants within 1,000 feet of <br /> the subject property. In response to the noticing, staff has received one additional comment of <br /> non support since the previous Planning Commission meetings. <br /> Frank Imhof, of 962 Happy Valley Road, is opposed to the subdivision and is of the opinion <br /> that the County and the City have an agreement that future subdivisions of properties located <br /> within Happy Valley are not allowed until the Happy Valley bypass road is built. Staff is looking <br /> into such an agreement that would place a moratorium on subdividing properties within Happy <br /> Valley. <br /> Please refer to Attachment 8, Exhibit F for comments and correspondence received. <br /> PUD FINDINGS <br /> The following is staffs analysis of the projects relationship to the required findings. <br /> 1. Whether the plan is in the best interest of the public health, safety and general <br /> welfare: <br /> The proposed project meets all applicable City standards concerning public health, safety, and <br /> welfare, e.g. vehicle access, geologic hazards (not within a special study zone), and flood <br /> hazards. Detailed geologic studies have been done in conjunction with the Happy Valley <br /> Specific Plan and with the proposed development plan and, accordingly, have been accepted <br /> by the City Engineer. Mitigation measures have been incorporated into the project design to <br /> achieve stable slope banks and site grading. The report did not identify any landslide or <br /> seismic safety issues pertaining to the development of these sites. <br /> Therefore, staff believes that this finding can be made. <br /> PUD- 75/PGPA -14 /PSPA -3: Wentworth Planning Commission <br /> Page 10 of 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.