My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 091411
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 091411
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
2/2/2012 11:18:33 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/14/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
28
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
hat it looked like with precious approval and what specific <br />changes they made. <br /> <br />Mr. Pavan suggested that the applicant address this question. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired if staff took the time to review all the workshops for this <br />project. <br /> <br />Mr. Pavan said yes. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank inquired why, given the controversy and the number of hours that <br />were put into this project by previous Planning Commissions and City Councils, staff did <br />not hold any workshop that would have allowed more public input. <br /> <br />Mr. Dolan explained that when the proposal was first brought to staff a few months ago, <br />Ponderosa Homes staff indicated to City staff that they had already begun outreach and <br />were meeting individually with concerned neighbors, and that they would not be bringing <br />any project forward that did not have the support of the neighborhood. He indicated that <br />because Ponderosa is quite experienced in doing this, staff took them at their word. He <br />stated that staff had actually not heard any unresolved issues until right after the staff <br />report was issued. He noted that staff did not feel the additional four lots were creating <br />a problem; the trade-off that the houses would all be one story seemed to be something <br />that was well received. He added that with all the protections in the previous project <br />carried over, staff did not feel the need to conduct a workshop. <br /> <br />Commissioner Blank stated that he does not disagree <br />expressed concern that a surprise email would come in at the last minute even though <br />outreach was done. <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pentin and Chair Narum disclosed that they met with Jeff Schroeder, <br />Ponderosa Homes, regarding the project. <br /> <br />Jeff Schroeder, Ponderosa Homes, stated that this project is from a different time and a <br />different era in the housing industry, and things have changed a lot since then. He <br />indicated that he and his staff went through a lot of discussion about this project <br />internally and with the property owners over the last two years and were able to reach a <br />point where they thought they could come back with a project that would address <br />which would not be wildly different than what was approved <br />previously, and which would actually be an improvement in several ways. <br /> <br />Mr. Schroeder stated that they did a focused outreach process to the neighborhood, <br />primarily to those most concerned about the project, those who are most closely <br />affected by it, those who back up to the project on Palmer Drive and those who live on <br />Cameron Avenue, people who live on the east and west sides of the project. He <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, September 14, 2011 Page 11 of 28 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.