My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
110315
>
11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2015 3:38:00 PM
Creation date
10/14/2015 3:54:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/3/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENTS 9-16
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.
/
270
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
Mr. Dolan replied that if the Commission will take out Lot 32, the motion should include <br /> something to that effect as that is not part of staffs recommendation. <br /> Commissioner Nagler stated that he appreciates the point made about Lot 32 being an <br /> extraordinarily large lot going up a hillside, with a house which appears to be situated at <br /> the top of the lot. He asked the Commissioners if relocating that home site to the <br /> bottom of that lot as opposed to the top as a condition of approval would change the <br /> Commission's opinion about whether a home could be put on Lot 32. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that he did was not in favor of removing the house. He <br /> proposed a compromise of restricting the house to a single story in its current pad <br /> instead of relocating it on the site. <br /> Commissioner Ritter agreed. <br /> Commissioner Nagler and Chair Allen stated that they could support that. <br /> Commissioner Balch asked if the Commissioners have an opinion about access to <br /> construction. He indicated that he was in favor of letting the condition stand that the <br /> City Engineer would make that determination. He added that he believes the <br /> Commissioners are all supportive of the 24-foot wide road. <br /> Chair Allen stated that she supported the amendments staff made earlier, including <br /> re-looking at what the natural slope of that valley area was. She asked the <br /> Commissioners if they did as well. <br /> Commissioners Ritter, Balch, and Nagler stated that they did <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that one of the additional conditions staff has in the memo <br /> is that if the City is under a declared drought condition during construction, all water use <br /> for dust control shall be recycled water unless otherwise approved by the Director of <br /> Community Development. He stated that he was inclined not to let the Director of <br /> Community Development dictate otherwise and that it be changed to "All water for dust <br /> control shall be recycled water." <br /> Commissioner Nagler stated that he agrees that the use of recycled water be <br /> mandated. <br /> Chair Allen and Commissioner Piper also agreed. <br /> Commissioner Balch moved to: (1) Find that the Final Environmental Impact <br /> Report (EIR) conforms to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); <br /> (2) Find that the proposed PUD Rezoning and Development Plan, and the <br /> Development Agreement are consistent with the General Plan; (3) Make the PUD <br /> Findings for the proposed Development Plan as listed in the June 24, 2015 staff <br /> report; and (4) Recommend approval of: (a) the Development Agreement, as <br /> shown in Exhibit B of the June 24, 2015 staff report, to vest entitlements for the <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 25 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.