My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
06
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
060716
>
06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 11:38:04 AM
Creation date
6/1/2016 9:41:01 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/7/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
06
Document Relationships
06 ATTACHMENT 3
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\060716
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
58
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
proposed, the massing of the buildings will be compatible with others in the area. The <br /> details shown on the elevation plans for both lots add architectural interest and the home <br /> design incorporates high quality elements. In general, the architectural design and colors <br /> conform to the hillside design guidelines of VACSP. <br /> The proposed second floor on Lot 1 is approximately 30% of the first floor area, would not <br /> be prominent as seen from off-site locations, and conforms with the intent of the VACSP. <br /> Therefore, staff believes that this PUD finding can be made. <br /> 6. Whether adequate public safety measures have been incorporated into the design <br /> of the plan. <br /> Several public safety measures have been incorporated into the design of the <br /> proposed development plan. The Livermore-Pleasanton Fire Department (LPFD) has <br /> found that the existing private road within the project area could be safely used to access <br /> the proposed lots. As required by LPFD, the existing vehicle turn-around area will be <br /> modified to meet the fire code requirements and be used as a required fire turn-around <br /> area. A fire hydrant will be provided near the fire pull-out area for the proposed <br /> development. Additionally, all new homes are required to be equipped with automatic <br /> residential fire sprinklers. Therefore, staff believes that this finding can be made. <br /> 7. Whether the plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD District. <br /> The PUD district allows flexibility in creating development plans and standards for unique <br /> situations. The location of the homes, the mass and bulk of the homes, and the style of the <br /> homes are found to be compatible with the surrounding homes. Staff finds that the <br /> proposed development plan takes into account the City's desire to preserve open space <br /> and significant vegetation, to reduce grading on hillsides, and to minimize visibility of <br /> development from off-site views. Staff believes that through the PUD process the <br /> proposed project has provided the applicants and the City with a development plan that <br /> optimizes the use of this hillside site in a sensitive manner. Therefore, staff believes that <br /> this finding can be made. <br /> ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT <br /> Environmental review for the proposed project was undertaken with the Final Environmental <br /> Impact Report (EIR) approved by the City Council for the VACSP in conformance with the <br /> standards of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). CEQA specifies that projects <br /> that are prepared pursuant to an adopted specific plan for which an EIR has been prepared <br /> and certified are exempt from additional environmental review provided: 1) there are no <br /> substantial changes to the project or to the circumstances under which the project is being <br /> undertaken that involve new significant environmental effects or that substantially increase the <br /> severity of previously identified effects; and 2) that no new information is identified that would <br /> indicate that the project will have one or more significant effects not discussed in the EIR. <br /> None of these criteria apply to the project. Therefore, no additional CEQA review is required. <br /> Case No. PUD-116, 88 Silver Oaks Court Planning Commission <br /> Page 15 of 16 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.