My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENT 1
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2007
>
100207
>
11 ATTACHMENT 1
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/28/2007 12:32:47 PM
Creation date
9/25/2007 1:20:41 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/2/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENT 1
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
• Open space -park and trails; <br />• Development Agreement/Conditions of Approval Issues; and, <br />• Liability and indemnification of the Grey Eagle neighborhood. <br />The item was continued to the June 27th meeting agenda. As a result of the June 27, <br />2007 hearing, the Planning Commission voted 3-2-0 (Commissioners Narum and Pierce <br />in opposition) to not recommend certifying the Final EIR ,citing the above issues and <br />the following: <br />• The fact that the EVA through Grey Eagle Estates is unresolved; <br />• Use of the 28-mm. lens for the visual analyses; <br />• The lack of specific house designs analyzed in the visual analyses; and, <br />• Lack of consideration of alternate fire-access routes including an EVA to Red <br />Feather Court or through the Berlogar property. <br />As a result of this action, the Planning Commission was unable to make a <br />recommendation on the PUD development plan and the Development Agreement, <br />effectively denying both. Note that three Planning Commissioners -Narum, Olsen, and <br />Pierce -stated their support of the visual analyses in the Final EIR using the 28-mm. <br />lens. On July 7, 2007, the applicant appealed the Planning Commission's actions.. <br />V. DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION <br />The Oak Grove development application includes four parts: the Final Environmental <br />Impact Report, the PUD Development Plan, the Housing Agreement, and the <br />Development Agreement. A brief discussion of these aspects of the proposal follows. <br />Final Environmental Impact Report <br />As to the Final EIR, the City Council should determine whether the Final EIR complies <br />with CEQA standards for legal adequacy: whether the EIR has reasonably and fairly <br />evaluated and disclosed environmental impacts, has identified mitigation measures, and <br />has adequately addressed comments made on the Draft EIR. The findings and <br />determinations must be supported by substantial evidence in the record. <br />PUD Development Plan <br />The PUD development plan includes the site design, grading plan, and design <br />guidelines for the 51-lot plan now proposed. In staff's opinion, relative to the original 98- <br />lot plan, the 51-lot plan provides an enhanced site layout that reduces environmental <br />impacts identified in the Draft EIR, creates an improved lotting pattern, and creates an <br />overall environmentally preferred plan. The PUD development plan incorporates by <br />condition the mitigation measures identified in the Final EIR and the tree reforestation <br />plan in the landscape design guidelines. The Council is being asked to determine <br />whether the PUD findings can be made and whether the project should be approved. <br />Housing Agreement <br />The Housing Agreement memorializes the developer's commitment to provide <br />affordable housing conforming to the City's Inclusionary Zoning Ordinance. The <br />Page 9 of 27 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.