My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 101409
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2009
>
PC 101409
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 4:41:23 PM
Creation date
1/28/2010 10:43:47 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
10/14/2009
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
25
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
Mr. Trobbe stated that they are encouraged by some of the comments heard tonight <br />and are anxious to hear the Commission’s approach to the next phase of the hearing. <br />He added that as part of their outreach, they will be meeting next week with Mr. Bass. <br />Commissioner Blank stated that the comments from the Bernal Corners representative <br />reminded him of the Costco in Livermore and its proximity to the freeway. He noted that <br />Costco has a gas station and there is a service station on the corner, as well as a fast- <br />food restaurant. He indicated that he likes what Commissioner Narum said earlier <br />regarding looking into what is going on with the Safeway in Dublin. He added that to <br />provide some insight to the Commission, he would like staff to gather any data on where <br />this kind of combination might exist in proximity to each other elsewhere in the Bay <br />area. <br />Mr. Dolan indicated that staff could come up with some representative examples. <br />Commissioner Olson inquired if the zoning on the property has remained the same <br />since Bernal Corners made its investment. <br />Mr. Pavan replied that the zoning has not changed. <br />Commissioner Narum stated that she thought the property was zoned “Office” when the <br />Bernal Specific Plan was done. <br />Mr. Pavan replied that it is. He explained that the PUD development plan references <br />the uses of the IP (Industrial Park), CC (Central Commercial), and Office District for this <br />property. He added that what was approved was a development plan – building, <br />parking, landscaping, etc., with eight office buildings totaling 745,000 square feet – that <br />is referenced by the development agreement. He continued that office, commercial, <br />and some industrial park uses are allowed on the property; however, because a <br />development plan with offices only was approved, a PUD modification is required to <br />accommodate this project. <br />Chair Pearce stated that in the last workshop, there were discussions on the inclusion of <br />a water element, which she did not see in the plans. <br />Mr. Trobbe stated that the water element is located in the community plaza area, and <br />there will be one on the office side as well. He noted that this will be specifically shown <br />on the landscape plan. <br />Referring to the landscaping, Commissioner Blank stated that if the project comes back <br />as an application, it will be critical for the Commission to see accurate visuals. He <br />recommended that they be presented as “as-built” and then “five to ten years later” to <br />show how the vegetation would grow out. He also requested that they be shown from <br />all directions. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 14, 2009 Page 17 of 25 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.