Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Resolution No. PC-94-29 <br />Page 2 <br /> <br />3. Whether the plan is compatible with previously <br />developed properties in the vicinity and the <br />natural, topographic features of the site: <br /> <br />The overall visual significance of the trees would <br />be preserved with the implementation of a <br />reforestation plan. The preservation of the other <br />five eucalyptus trees on the lot would maintain <br />the overall visual quality of the eucalyptus tree <br />groupings on the property. <br /> <br />4. Whether grading takes into account environmental <br />characteristics and is designed in keeping with <br />the best engineering practices to avoid erosion, <br />slides, or flooding to have as minimal an effect <br />upon the environment as possible. <br /> <br />No grading is involved with the subject proposal. <br /> <br />5. Whether streets and buildings have been designed <br />and located to complement the natural terrain and <br />landscape: <br /> <br />Changes to streets or buildings are not proposed. <br /> <br />6. Whether adequate public safety measures have been <br />incorporated into the design of the plan: <br /> <br />The recommended tree removal would provide all the <br />necessary public safety measures. <br /> <br />7. Whether the plan conforms to the purposes of the <br />PUD District: <br /> <br />The purpose of the PUD district is to allow for <br />consideration of individual circumstances on a <br />site by site basis. The proposed tree removal <br />would be consistent with the original PUD <br />develop~ent plan and conditions of approval. <br /> <br />WHEREAS, the Planning commission determined that the proposed <br />PUD modification is consistent with the General Plan <br />and the original PUD development plan. <br /> <br />,. <br /> <br />" <br />