My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
06
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2022
>
021522
>
06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
2/10/2022 9:59:08 AM
Creation date
2/10/2022 9:53:40 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
2/15/2022
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
139
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
Anurag Jain provided comments on Item 6 and shared his support for the project. <br />Sue McKinley provided comments on Item 6 and shared his support for the project. <br />The Applicant, Mr. Srirama, responded to the concerns mentioned in the public comment. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br />Commissioner Nibert asked another question regarding setbacks and Ms. Amos clarified. <br />Chair Pace asked to see a view of the proposed landscaping between the proposed lot and <br />existing lot. Ms. Amos showed him and he asked if there was specifics about how large the trees <br />have to be between the lots and Ms. Amos stated that the trees proposed should reach the heigh <br />of the window when fully grown. Chair Pace asked what age of tree they are putting in and Ms. <br />Amos said they are more valen size but they can recommend putting in box size. He then asked <br />her to describe what the efforts to preserve and maintain the existing mature trees has been. <br />Ms. Amos described. <br />Commissioner Brown made some comments about the impact on the existing properties from <br />this project and stated he is not very concerned about the privacy impacts. He does sympathize <br />with the residents of Cameron Circle but states that they knew they were buying one story home <br />surrounded by two story homes when they bought their homes. He finds the architecture <br />appealing and well thought out and designed. He is supportive of the project. <br />Commissioner Gaidos echoed Commissioner Brown. He stated he could not come up with a <br />single reason to deny this project and commended the architect and property owner for their <br />design and consideration. <br />Commissioner Nibert echoed the other Commissioners and stated that the letters of opposition <br />are not persuasive given the findings. <br />Commissioner Allen is in agreement with previous comments and finds the design attractive and <br />believes it enhances the neighborhood. <br />Chair Pace expressed his gratitude to those who submitted comments on both sides and is in <br />support of the project. <br />Commissioner Brown moved to approve P21-0132, P21-0133, and PUD -142 as submitted. <br />Commissioner Allen seconded the motion. <br />ROLL CALL VOTE: <br />AYES: <br />Commissioners Allen, Brown, Gaidos, Nibert, and Pace <br />NOES: <br />None <br />ABSENT: <br />Commissioner Morgan <br />ABSTAIN: <br />None <br />Excerpt: Draft Planning Commission Minutes, January 12, 2022 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.