My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
08
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
120115
>
08
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/1/2015 10:15:40 AM
Creation date
11/12/2015 11:11:54 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/1/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
08
NOTES
THIS ITEM WAS CONTINUED FROM 11-3-2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
OTHER CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS <br /> If the City Council does not support the project as proposed or as recommended to be <br /> revised by staff, e.g., it does not feel that the project meets the requirements of <br /> Measure PP relative to the construction of a road on a 25-percent slope, or it does not <br /> believe that the proposed development area above the barn is steep due to previous <br /> grading, it could consider the following options: <br /> 1. Deny the project, stating which aspects of the project it did not believe meet City <br /> plans, policies, and regulations. <br /> 2. Send the project back to the Planning Commission with direction as to what <br /> aspects of the project it does not believe meet City plans, policies, and <br /> regulations, and with instructions to the applicant to work with the Commission to <br /> submit a revised plan that addresses the specific issues. <br /> 3. Send the project back to the Planning Commission with direction that the City <br /> Council would like to consider a ten-unit plan that is accessed via Sunset Creek <br /> Drive only. <br /> PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMENT <br /> Attachment 14 is the map of the location and public notification area for the Planning <br /> Commission public hearing. Based on the communications received by staff, the <br /> proposed project is controversial to surrounding neighbors and homeowners <br /> associations. <br /> Public comments received by staff since the revised project was submitted relate <br /> primarily to traffic and circulation, the previous commitments to the Ventana Hills <br /> neighborhood, and the requirements of Measure PP, but also available City and <br /> regional parks to serve the residents of the proposed project, available school capacity, <br /> impacts to the quality of life of existing neighborhoods, loss of existing trees, loss of <br /> open space, and impacts to the off-site views of the site. <br /> CONCLUSION <br /> The proposed project is consistent with the General Plan designation for the site and <br /> well below the allowed density. The application has evolved since 2002 and has been <br /> revised substantially to respond to public input as well as Measure PP. A 50-unit <br /> project is included in the City's residential land inventory submitted with the Housing <br /> Element. The primary issue associated with the project is access and related traffic <br /> through adjoining neighborhoods. Factors influencing this choice include commitments <br /> made by previous City Councils and the application of Measure PP where its meaning is <br /> not entirely clear. Staff believes that its recommendation to divide the access through <br /> two neighborhood provides the right balance of consideration for each neighborhood, is <br /> allowed by the specific language of Measure PP, and is consistent with Measure PP's <br /> primary purposes. <br /> Page 23 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.