My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 120810
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2010
>
PC 120810
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
4/19/2011 3:01:23 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
12/8/2010
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
Commissioner Pentin stated that he cannot envision installing a 15-percent grade road <br />and cited the 10-percent grade on Santos Ranch Road. He noted that he sees no <br />reason to change the density today and would rather see the applicant address what <br />they would do for clustering, why it would make sense, and what would be gained in <br />open space. He indicated, however, that he would not support the proposed project at <br />this time. <br />Commissioner Narum agreed with Commissioner Pentin and believes that the West <br />Foothill Corridor Overlay District was created to keep it rural on the west side of Foothill <br />Road, which has generally worked. She indicated that she would not want to see this <br />compromised and that she would not support a density increase unless there were <br />some benefit towards regional housing allocation numbers or an amenity to benefit the <br />City which would warrant an increase in density. <br />Commissioner Blank agreed with Commissioners Pentin and Narum, stating that hillside <br />development is one of the third rails of Pleasanton and that the Commission should be <br />extremely careful in how to approach it. He indicated that changing the General Plan <br />Land Use to increase density will spur another referendum. He added that there is not <br />enough information for him to support the project and that there appear to be a lot of <br />homes. He stated that he would also want to see detailed visuals of high quality <br />visuals; however, he suggested that the applicant wait until he comes forward with a <br />formal application because of the extraordinary expense that would entail. He noted <br />that based on the existing rules and regulations in the City outside of Measures PP and <br />QQ, those homes would be subject to approval by the Planning Commission and City <br />Council. He indicated that there is so much angst about Pleasanton Ridge’s protection <br />and that he could not support the proposal with the current information. <br />Commissioner Pearce agreed with Commissioner Narum and stated that there must be <br />a compelling reason for her to support a General Plan Amendment. She noted that the <br />City has altered the General Plan and zoning off of Foothill Road but that her <br />recollection is that if more houses are allowed, there should be more open space so the <br />perception is that it is a lot less dense.She expressed concern about the grading and <br />safety of the road as well as access to the houses. <br />Chair Olson stated that he is also not in favor of a General Plan Amendment. <br />Chair Olson indicated that the Commission is unanimous in its decision and will not <br />address the second question regarding density. He asked staff if there was a reason to <br />proceed with the rest of the questions. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that he believed most of the Commissioners have articulated their <br />concerns. <br />Commissioner Pentin referred to the site plan and indicated that he would not support <br />Lots 2-5. With respect to Lot 6, he indicated that if there would be an acceptable plan in <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, December 8, 2010 Page 8 of 23 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.