My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 082714
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
PC 082714
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:20:55 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:17:02 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/27/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
44
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Commissioner Balch apologized for his initial comment at the last meeting that the <br />aluminum on the northern, eastern, and western fagades of the building was blinding, as <br />he now realizes and understands that this is the interior of the arch and not the fagade <br />itself. He noted that the applicant addressed a lot of the interior concerns he previously <br />had. He further noted that while they were primarily looking at Lot 1, all three lots look <br />more connected and all together, and that the stop sign that was not previously there <br />and the right turn around Building 3 make the area look better. <br />Commissioner Allen stated that the project is a good addition and that she appreciates <br />the changes that were made. <br />Chair O'Connor indicated that he appreciates the changes made as well. He noted that <br />his only concern has been the entry coming off of El Charro Road, which did not have a <br />lot of discussion and which may be revisited later. He added that he agreed with <br />Commissioner Allen that the project is a good addition to the City. <br />Commissioner Ritter concurred and stated that the applicant did a great job. He <br />indicated that he was not present at the first meeting but that he read through <br />everything and all his questions were answered. He added that he would support the <br />project. <br />Chair O'Connor thanked the applicant for being so thorough on the changes. <br />Commissioner Allen moved to find that the previously prepared Environmental <br />Impact Report (EIR) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Report (SEIR), <br />including the adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Findings and <br />Statement of Overriding Considerations, are adequate to serve as the <br />environmental documentation for this project and satisfy all requirements of <br />CEQA and that the proposed PUD Development Plan is consistent with the <br />General Plan; to make the PUD findings as listed in the staff report; and to <br />recommend approval of Case PUD 106, subject to the Conditions of Approval <br />listed in Exhibit A of the staff report. <br />Commissioner Piper seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: Commissioners Allen, Balch, O'Connor, Piper, and Ritter <br />NOES: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br />RECUSED: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />Resolution No. PC- 2014 -44 recommending approval of Case PUR -106 was entered <br />and adopted as motioned. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 27, 2014 Page 36 of 44 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.