My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN091603
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2003
>
CCMIN091603
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/17/2007 10:56:38 AM
Creation date
10/10/2003 2:37:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
9/16/2003
DOCUMENT NO
CCMIN091603
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
He felt we should not be waiting three years to implement programs; rather we should be <br />putting this through right away. <br /> <br />There was a break at 8:56 p.m. <br /> <br />The meeting was reeonvened at 9:05 p.m. <br /> <br />Item 6C <br />Reconsideration of Appeal coneernim, Vesting Tentative Map Tract 7399~ Northstar <br />Development. (SR 03:263) <br /> <br /> Councilmember Bmzosky recused himself from participating on this issue <br />because he owns property within 500 feet of the development. <br /> <br />Mr. Swift presented the staffreport. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala noted there were no visuals attached to the staff report but that visuals <br />had been presented in 2001 when the project first came forward. In reading the staff <br />report, she believed the visuals would appear about the same. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swil~ informed her that each of the pad heights, as proposed in this proposal, <br />are within one to two feet as originally shown in the PUD with the exception of those at <br />the very lowest evaluation in the Berlogex Valley where up to four feet of fill has been <br />added, which are Lots 17, 18 and 19. These houses are by far the lowest lots in the <br />development and are below the houses that are immediately to the west and located on a <br />higher ridge. With respect to where they are in relation to the hillside, he did not believe <br />there would be any difference if you were to do a new visual with this grading plan as <br />compared to the old grading plan. This grading plan does have a retaining wall which, <br />once the landscaping is installed, will be obscured from view from both the Vineyard <br />Avenue Trail as well as fxom offsite view. <br /> <br /> For clarification, Ms. Ayala confmned that if one were to look at the visuals today <br />for the new plans, one would see a retaining wall reflected, and a~er growth of, say five <br />years, you would not see it reflected. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift responded by stating that it would take less than five years because the <br />condition of the tentative map is to plant shrubs in front of that wall to as to obscure the <br />wall in less than a year. This will take less than a year and a half to two years at the most. <br /> <br />Ms. Ayala asked at what direction would one see the retaining wall. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied one would be able to see it when the property is graded not only <br />fi'om the Vineyard Trail and the existing Vineyard Avenue, but also from the new <br />Vineyard Avenue end perhaps as a tiny line from Stanley Boulevard. There are many <br />trees to be planted between the existing Vineyard Avenue end the open space area <br />alanting up the hill to the retaining wall site, so any of the crowns in those flees will <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 14 09/16/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.