My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
041613
>
18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2015 3:03:53 PM
Creation date
4/10/2013 3:42:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/16/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
18 ATTACHMENT 1,4,6,9
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
206
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
ATTACHMENT 6 <br /> DRAFT <br /> PUD-85-08-01D-04M , Mark English, Pleasant Partners, LLC. — California Center <br /> Application for a PUD major modification and development plan to construct 305 <br /> apartment units, two retail buildings totaling approximately 7,520 square feet, <br /> new surface parking and a parking garage to serve the existing office uses, and <br /> related site improvements at the California Center property located at 4400-4460 <br /> Rosewood Drive. Zoning for the property is Planned Unit Development— High <br /> Density Residential (PUD-HDR) and Planned Unit Development— <br /> Industrial/Commercial-Office (PUD-I/C-O). <br /> Steve Otto presented the staff report and described the background, scope, and key <br /> elements of the proposal. He indicated that Mike Tassano, City Traffic Engineer, and <br /> Mary Bean of Michael Brandman Associates, the City's consultant who prepared the <br /> Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Addendum for the project, are present in the <br /> audience to answer any questions. <br /> Commissioner Pearce inquired if the landscaping on the pictures being displayed is an <br /> accurate reflection of the landscape plan. <br /> Mr. Otto replied that it is mainly conceptual at this point. <br /> Commissioner Narum noted that there was a question on a color of the community <br /> buildings at the time this application came before the Commission at a Work Session. <br /> She inquired if the applicant brought color chips to this meeting. <br /> Mr. Otto confirmed that at the Planning Commission Work Session, the Commission <br /> raised a potential concern with the yellow color and had asked that actual large color <br /> samples be provided when the application came back to the Commission. He indicated <br /> that the applicant has brought color samples, which were then presented to the <br /> Commissioners. <br /> Commissioner Narum noted that there was no change from the original color proposed. <br /> Mr. Otto explained that the colors shown on the colored elevations at the Work Session <br /> were computer-generated colors; what is being presented tonight are actual color chips. <br /> Chair Blank commented that the bleed might not have been just right on the print, and <br /> the Commission can now get a sense from the chips of what the colors really look like. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor referred to a color board that was placed against the podium <br /> on the floor and inquired if that was the color board for the buildings. <br /> Mr. Otto replied that that color board is for the parking garage building. <br /> Chair Blank complimented and thanked staff for indexing the slides corresponding to <br /> Exhibit B elevations in the packet. He noted that this is a significant improvement and <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 3/27/2013 Page 1 of 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.