CCMIN111505 - Laserfiche WebLink

site improvements or house construction activities on Federal holidays, which was also included in the Mariposa Ranch Design Guidelines adopted by the Planning Commission and Council. Mayor Hosterman closed the public hearing. Mr. Brozosky asked if Condition 36 needed to be revised to correct the hours of site improvements and house construction activities for Saturdays and major holidays? Mr. Iserson said staff could check this condition against what the PUD condition is for work hours and if the PUD conditions prevailed, that is what construction requirements would be. Mr. Sullivan sympathized with the neighbors in the Happy Valley area and the arguments about what is considered semi-rural. He supported the Mariposa Ranch Design Guidelines and believed they were progressive and does many things that Council has not been able to do for development in the City. The Design Guidelines also put a form based code idea together that Council had discussed where projects could be approved based upon a set of detailed guidelines. He believed the Mariposa Ranch Design Guidelines resulted in a better product than some of the projects approved in the City over the past ten years. He supported this project and believed it met the Design Guidelines and, therefore, would support staff's recommendation to deny the appeal. He believed the ground water contamination issue was a separate subject and one of high concern, and the City was living up to the mitigations that were put into place from the EIR. He also believed the City should make sure that it was not contributing to this problem either from the Golf Course or the development that occurs in this area. It was moved by Mr. Sullivan, seconded by Mr. Thorne, to adopt Resolution 05- 086, a resolution denying the appeal of Case PAP-88, thereby upholding the approval of the application of David Quartaroli for design review approval, as filed under Case PDR- 482. Ms. McGovern referred to page five of the staff report which mentioned staff supported the reduced setbacks because the garage side of the home is one-story only, minimizing its mass; it features generous setbacks from property lines; and its visible elevations contain significant stone wainscots. She asked staff if it was stating that no mater where the bypass road would eventually be located, it believed it goes along with what is being proposed in all of the different specific plans? Mr. Iserson said that is staff's judgment. Ms. McGovern mentioned the staff report also indicated that staff believed the proposed home complies with the Happy Valley Specific goal to preserve the existing semi-rural character of the neighborhood. She asked staff if it was saying that it complied with the Happy Valley Specific goal because these lots are large and surrounded by open space, trails and the views of the surrounding hills? Mr. Iserson said yes. Pleasanton City Council Minutes 18 11/1 5/05