My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:159
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:159
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/21/2006 2:59:57 PM
Creation date
6/16/2006 3:16:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
6/20/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:159 (1)
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
105
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
<br />moved. The locations of these trees shall conform to the Conceptual Landscape Plan of Exhibit <br />"A" and shall be shown on a landscape plan subrnitted with the tentative subdivision map. <br /> <br />Miscellaneous Issues <br /> <br />A complete analysis and discussion of issues pertaining to "Vineyard Avenue Corridor Specific <br />Plan Conformance", "Design Guidelines", "View Analyses", "Green Building Measures", <br />"Fencing", "Growth Management Allocations", "Grading", and "Urban Storm water Runoff' <br />is in the attached Planning Commission staff report. <br /> <br />VI. PUD DEVELOPMENT PLAN FINDINGS <br /> <br />The Pleasanton Municipal Code sets forth the purposes of the Planned Unit Development (PUD) <br />District and the considerations to be addressed in reviewing a PUD development plan proposal. <br />The City Council must make the findings in the attached Planning Commission staff report that <br />the proposed PUD development plan conforms to the purposes of the PUD District, before rnak- <br />ing its action. <br /> <br />VII. PUBLIC COMMENT <br /> <br />Public notices of the public hearing were sent to all property owners and tenants located within <br />1,000-feet ofthe subject property. A summary of the neighbors' letters and/or emails is covered <br />in the attached Planning Commission staff report. As of the writing of this staff report, staff has <br />not received any additional verbal or written comments pertaining to this proposal. Staff notes <br />that before the Planning Commission's work session and public hearing, the applicants held <br />their own neighborhood meetings on November 19, 200S and December 3, 200S. Project plans <br />and the visual analyses were present. <br /> <br />VIII. CITY COUNCIL OPTIONS <br /> <br />The City Council has the following options pertaining to this application: <br /> <br />1. Approve the proposed project: <br /> <br />With this option the Council can approve the project as proposed or with any modifica- <br />tions to design, conditions of approval, etc., that the City Council deems to be appropri- <br />ate. <br /> <br />2. Deny the proposed project: <br /> <br />Denying the proposed project would require the developer to begin anew with new de- <br />velopment plan application incorporating whichever direction the City Council deems <br />appropriate. <br /> <br />SR 06:159 <br />Page 60f8 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.