My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
22 ATTACHMENT 05
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
041514
>
22 ATTACHMENT 05
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/19/2015 3:39:19 PM
Creation date
4/4/2014 1:20:29 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/15/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
22 ATTACHMENT 5
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
41
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 done. She indicated that she believes Alternative 2 does the best job of balancing <br /> the environmental aspects and protecting the view, which is what she thinks is the <br /> highest priority and intent for the 19 homes that were put into this Hillside Residential <br /> area, and that is the Alternative that she could support. <br /> Chair Olson asked Commissioner Allen if she would not support Alternative 1. <br /> Commissioner Allen confirmed that she would not support Alternative 1. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor stated that he also would not support Alternative 1. He <br /> indicated that he would be willing to support Alternative 2 for all the same reasons that. <br /> Commissioner Allen just mentioned. He added that they were hoping that it could come <br /> lower and closer to the trees without impacting the trees, but that has already been <br /> reviewed and this is about the best it could be. He indicated that he would support <br /> Alternative 2. <br /> Commissioner Posson stated that he is where Commissioner Pearce is. He indicated <br /> that he looks at it from the standpoint of recognizing the concern of the neighbors in <br /> terms of visual impact, but to move that much dirt and trying to visualize what the <br /> photographs show, dropping that ten feet seems to mitigate it and meet the spirit of the <br /> Specific Plan. He indicated that he is leaning towards Alternative 1. <br /> Chair Olson stated that he truly believes that Mr. Berlogar wants to protect the trees, <br /> and he think that is admirable. He indicated that he would weigh in in favor of <br /> Alternative 1. <br /> Commissioner Pearce moved to find that there are no new or changed <br /> circumstances or information which require additional California Environmental <br /> Quality Act (CEQA) review of the project, that the proposed PUD Development Plan <br /> is consistent with the General Plan and the Vineyard Corridor Specific Plan, and that <br /> the location of the proposed home sites as shown in Alternative 1 results in an <br /> environmentally superior plan; make the PUD findings as listed in the staff report; <br /> and recommend approval to the City Council of Alternative 1 of Case PUD-84, <br /> subject to the Conditions of Approval as listed in Exhibit A of the staff report, with <br /> modifications to Condition No. 37 to add language from the "Specific Hillside <br /> Residential District Design Guidelines," pages 34-35 of the Vineyard Avenue <br /> Corridor Specific Plan to install additional landscaping to screen the new homes. <br /> Commissioner Posson seconded the motion. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor stated that the Commission also included Condition No. 32 which <br /> addressed the landscaping of the retaining wall. <br /> Chair Olson agreed. <br /> Commissioner Pearce indicated that is correct. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 12, 2014 Page 17 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.