My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 091102
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
PC 091102
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:46:46 PM
Creation date
4/15/2003 8:38:50 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/11/2002
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 091102
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
<br />~ In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Kameny, Ms. Sherwood confirmed that the <br />replacement cost was $45,000, and the cost ofremoval would be $25,000. She noted that <br />the owners supported the project so strongly that all the monies had been collected. <br /> <br />Mr. Malby noted that they were long-term owners of the property, and they would like <br />the trees to present a positive statement in twenty years. There was discussion regarding <br />the exit from 580 at Hopyard. In the past, Mr. Malby had worked with CalTrans, and had <br />not been successful. That area needed help and it was hoped that there would be dialogue <br />between Mr. Malby's group and the City in helping the appearance of that off-ramp. He <br />added that they took a lot of care in the maintenance of their properties. <br /> <br />Chairperson Maas noted that the City wished to be proud of its entrances, and noted that <br />this site needed help in its appearance. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Sullivan, Mr. Iserson replied that if the <br />application were denied, the applicant may appeal to the City Council. If the application <br />were to be approved, it would go to the City Council for its consideration. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kameny did not believe this approval would be precedent setting, and <br />looked to the City's Landscape Architect for his expertise. <br /> <br />r- <br /> <br />Commissioner Kameny moved to approve PUD-80-14-05M subject to the conditions <br />in Exhibit "B." <br /> <br />Chairperson Maas requested that Commissioner Kameny amend his motion to include a <br />three or four year phased implementation. <br /> <br />Commissioner Kameny moved to approve PUD-80-14-05M subject to the conditions <br />in Exhibit "B," with a three- to four-year phased implementation. Chairperson <br />Maas seconded the motion. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roberts noted the contrast between the large expanse of asphalt by the <br />Home Depot and CompUSA with the shade trees by Johnson and Owens. She <br />appreciated that shady area, and while she understood the applicant's aesthetic concept <br />for the trees, she did not believe that the crape myrtle trees would provide the same kind <br />of shade. <br /> <br />Chairperson Maas understood the maintenance issues regarding the existing trees, and <br />believed that the three-year phasing would enable a gradual change. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sullivan did not interpret Mr. Fulford's letter as a strong recommendation <br />to replace the existing trees. He read the letter as a two-part recommendation to replace <br />the trees in a timely marmer. He believed the willow trees appeared out of place, but <br />_ added that the cottonwood trees were magnificent. He noted that he could not support the <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES <br /> <br />September 11, 2002 <br /> <br />Page 6 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.