My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
12 ATTACHMENT 6
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2014
>
031814
>
12 ATTACHMENT 6
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/18/2015 3:28:43 PM
Creation date
3/12/2014 3:53:44 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
3/18/2014
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
12 ATTACHMENT 6
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
104
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
DRAFT <br /> Commissioner O'Connor noted that the south side would be on the opposite side of this <br /> development. <br /> Commissioner Pearce said yes. <br /> Commissioner Allen replied that was correct. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor asked if no one today on the north side has direct access. <br /> Commissioner Allen said that was correct. <br /> Commissioner Pearce stated that she just wanted to have the conversation because it did <br /> not look like the Commission had a conversation about a gate. She noted that there was a <br /> conversation about eliminating access from West Las Positas Boulevard through the <br /> property and that it is certainly not what she wants; that she is not looking for some kind of <br /> cut-through. She indicated that it seemed to her to be an issue of fairness and something <br /> that was appropriate if it is an amenity in terms of living, such as a park. She noted that <br /> there are residences that back up to all kinds of parks, such as a sports park or aquatics <br /> center, and there are gates that go right out to the park. She added that it seems like it is a <br /> benefit of living there, and she did not want to discount a conversation with regard to this <br /> simply because this is higher-density housing. She stated that she thinks all residences <br /> that back up to these public amenities deserve the same kind of access, so she wanted to <br /> have this conversation ahead of a Council conversation which she was certain would <br /> happen on the exact same topic. <br /> Chair Olson stated that he will weigh in in favor of the neighborhood's view that there <br /> should be no access. He indicated that it syncs up with what he said during the Work <br /> Session. He noted that the Commission heard early on with this project from the Parkside <br /> neighbors that the Arroyo presents them with problems from time to time; things go on in <br /> there, out there, just on the other side of their fences, and he did not think the Commission <br /> should be contributing to that. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor added that beyond that, he thinks the north side was developed <br /> as industrial and that it was never contemplated that there would be public access on that <br /> side. He indicated that he thinks this is a unique situation where if that had all been <br /> residential on the north side, they would have this same access as the south side does. He <br /> added that it is just a little unique that a piece of property right in the middle of an industrial <br /> area was rezoned, and no one contemplated that. He noted that they still do have access, <br /> and it is not that far away to come down the side alley. <br /> Commissioner Pearce stated that she just wanted to make sure the Commission had the <br /> conversation. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor stated that the Commission had quite a few Work Sessions, and <br /> the applicants had even more with the neighbors. He indicated that there have been a lot <br /> of requests for changes, and he cannot think of any that the applicants have not actually <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 2/26/2014 Page 12 of 13 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.