My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
5_Exhibits A-G
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2020 - PRESENT
>
2020
>
05-27
>
5_Exhibits A-G
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/20/2020 3:27:16 PM
Creation date
5/20/2020 3:26:19 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/27/2020
Document Relationships
5
(Message)
Path:
\BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS\PLANNING\AGENDA PACKETS\2020 - PRESENT\2020\05-27
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
78
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Harold Roundtree, neighbor of the project, provided his support of the project, with the <br /> proposed five lots. <br /> Eron Bringhurst, Pleasanton resident and member of the Bringhurst family, stated the project <br /> would look consistent with the surrounding area. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> Vice Chair Brown inquired about the level of the Commission's decision regarding the project. <br /> Ms. Clark referenced staff's recommendation for denial of the project and explained that if the <br /> Commission wanted to provide direction for an alternate option, the project would come back <br /> before the Commission for review of a five-lot proposal, or whatever decision was made by the <br /> Commission. <br /> Commissioner Allen inquired whether there were other lots in the NSSP that would border <br /> Sycamore Creek and Sycamore Road. <br /> Ms. Clark responded that she was not aware of any similar lots. <br /> Commissioner Pace inquired about the three lots at the top of the hill, consistent with the <br /> existing development on the hill. He stated the proposal offered the three lots at the top <br /> consistent with the existing upper portion and the two lots below were consistent with existing <br /> conditions below. <br /> Ms. Clark discussed the grade change from the north to the south and the proposal reflected <br /> the division from the north to the south elevation. <br /> Vice Chair Brown stated the three northern lots were pre-graded. He explained the donation of <br /> land to allow Sycamore Creek Way to go through. <br /> Commissioner Allen stated the applicant mentioned that they donated land, but land was <br /> received in return. She then inquired how the appropriate value of an amenity was determined <br /> and she discussed home values in the area. She also stated Dale Way was not an amenity <br /> because it already existed. <br /> Ms. Clark explained the lot line adjustment to accommodate Sycamore Creek Way alignment <br /> and easements on Dale Way. She then responded that there was not a strict formula to <br /> determine amenity, rather a negotiation considering the type of amenity proposed, but that it <br /> should be in proportion to the request. She stated Dale Way was an improvement that would <br /> be required, irrespective of the number of lots being requested for the parcel, therefore not an <br /> amenity in staff's view. <br /> Commissioner Pace discussed precedent related to similar requests and amenities offered. <br /> Ms. Clark responded that amenities varied widely and discussed offers including cash <br /> contributions for public improvements, Ponderosa Home's Valley Trails project that included <br /> and various park improvements and what amenities made sense for the particular location. <br /> Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2020 Page 2 of 7 <br />encourage new housing and infill and peripheral areas which <br /> were adjacent to existing residential development,' NSSP, page 75. She pointed out the <br /> proposed agricultural lots. She referenced the visuals of the lots and clarified that the family <br /> was asking for an update to the NSSP to allow for the proposed development. She continued <br /> by referencing Senate Bill 50, passed on January 6, 2020, regarding housing projects and the <br /> state providing housing to all income levels. She referenced a visual simulation to demonstrate <br /> the size of the lots and discussed support from the neighbors. <br /> Laverne Spotorno, resident of Pleasanton and family within the City for over 250 years, <br /> provided support for the project and encouraged the Commission to approve the plan, with <br /> whatever conditions may be set forth. <br /> Excerpt: Planning Commission Minutes, January 22, 2020 Page 1 of 7 <br />ed to review of its consistency with the approved PUD development plan <br /> and compliance with State-mandated findings. As noted earlier, staff does not support the <br /> proposed five-lot residential development, and thus does not support the Vesting Tentative <br /> Map as proposed. However, should the Planning Commission support a version of the PUD <br /> PUD-135, P19-0030, P19-0031 and Vesting Tentative Map 8528 <br /> 990 Sycamore Road Planning Commission <br /> 21 of 23 <br /> review and acceptance by the Director of Engineering/City Engineer, prior to <br /> issuance of an engineering or building permit, whichever occurs first. Stormwater HM controls <br /> PUD-135, P19-0030, P19-0031 and VTM 8528 Planning Commission <br /> 990 Sycamore Road <br /> Page 14 of 21 <br />