My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 121102
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2002
>
PC 121102
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:48:07 PM
Creation date
4/15/2003 8:54:22 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/11/2002
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
26
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
<br />Commissioner Roberts concurred with Commissioner Kameny's assessment. She cited <br />the Bridge Housing Project's location in a nonresidential neighborhood, and noted that it <br />was planned beautifully. She believed that something must be done to make this project <br />more compatible with a neighborhood that had been there for over 30 years. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arkin strongly believed that ElderCare belonged in Pleasanton, but <br />strongly disagreed that this would be an appropriate site. He believed that 6 acres could <br />be found elsewhere in Pleasanton for this project. He suggested that the City explore <br />options to obtain no-cost land for the project on the East Side, the affordability of the <br />facility would be increased. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sedlak agreed with Commissioner Arkin's assessment. He noted that the <br />project would benefit any community, but believed that the size of the structures as <br />currently proposed were inappropriate and incompatible with the neighborhood in the <br />proposed location. <br /> <br />Chairperson Maas advised that there was a need for the use in Pleasanton, but did not <br />believe the project as proposed was appropriate for the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Commissioner Arkin added that he lived on the East Side of Pleasanton, and would be <br />willing to live near such a facility. <br /> <br />Regarding setbacks, the consensus of the Commission was that the setbacks were not <br />adequate and sufficient to provide a buffer between the uses. <br /> <br />Regarding the issue of landscaping being sufficient in quantity and size, Commissioner <br />Sullivan did not believe there was enough detail to determine the sufficiency. <br /> <br />Commissioners Kameny, Roberts, and Arkin agreed with Commissioner Sullivan's <br />assessment. <br /> <br />Regarding the question of whether the project should retain more of the existing oak trees <br />at the northwest corner ofthe site to screen the buildings, Commissioner Arkin believed <br />that that was too much detail for this point in the project. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roberts noted that depended on the grading, the rest of the Commission <br />agreed. <br /> <br />Chairperson Maas believed the landscaping was insufficient as shown. <br /> <br />Commissioner Sullivan noted that for the current grading plan, it may be sufficient, and <br />added that the grading could change. <br /> <br />Regarding the sufficiency of open space for the residents, Commissioner Roberts <br />believed it was adequate. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES <br /> <br />December 11, 2002 <br /> <br />Page 21 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.