PC 021401 - Laserfiche WebLink

Discussion ensued regarding the use of the Land Trust's model for the easement and the r determination of the grantee. It was suggested that the Land Trust be the grantee unless staff has reason for a differing opinion. The Planning Commission agreed to modify the PUD conditions of approval as follows: Condition #6: delete the words "including grape root stock" and add "as stated in the Specific Plan." Condition #25.b.: rewrite this condition in order to make the intent clearer. Chairperson Sullivan advised that he still has two major issues with Lots 33-36. He stated that he is not comfortable with approving houses that are subjected to the level of noise generated from the quarry operation. He advised that he is unable to make the finding in the negative declaration that stated that the noise impacts are insignificant. He stated that he feels those lots should be removed from the plan. He further stated that these houses would have a negative impact on the park. He advised that because the present property owner would occupy the house on Lot 33, he might be able to accept this one lot. Chairperson Sullivan moved to approve the PUD with the modifications of the conditions listed by the Planning Commission, with an additional condition that Lots 34, 35, and 36 be deleted from the plan. r Commissioner Arkin stated that he would like to find a way to make all of the negative impacts disclosed to potential purchasers. Commissioner Maas stated that she feels the buyers need to take some responsibility. She further stated that she couldn't support the motion. Commissioner Arkin asked if staff could prepare a one-page disclosure statement in layman's terms that can be given to all potential homebuyers. Ms. Seto noted that Condition #35 addresses this issue. She noted that the City Attorney's Office would review this language. She further noted that staff could work with the developer on preparing a one-page document regarding the mining operation issues. Chairperson Sullivan's motion died for lack of a second. Commissioner Maas moved to: 1. make the finding that the proposed PUD Development Plan for the Costas portion of the proposed project will not have a significant environmental impact and adopt a resolution recommending approval of Exhibit "C," the draft Initial StudylNegative Declaration; 2. make the finding that the proposed PUD Development Plan is consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan for the Costas property and the Pleasanton General Plan and Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific Plan for the Hahner property; 3. make the PUD Development Plan findings as stated in the staff report; and 4. recommend approval of the PUD Development Plan subject to the draft conditions of approval stated in Exhibit "B," with the following modifications: r' PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES February 14,2001 Page 8