My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
110315
>
11 ATTACHMENTS 9 -16
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/28/2015 3:38:00 PM
Creation date
10/14/2015 3:54:32 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
11/3/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
11 ATTACHMENTS 9-16
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
270
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
Chris Kinzl, TJKM Transportation Consultants, noted that the EIR makes the point that <br /> there are no significant neighborhood impacts associated with Option 1. He indicated <br /> that, as a matter of fact, on the main streets that have been discussed tonight, the traffic <br /> would add about 26 cars in the peak hour, which would be one car every two minutes, <br /> which is hardly a major impact. <br /> THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> Chair Allen thanked everyone, on behalf of the Commission, for being so respectful. <br /> She indicated that all the Commissioners believe the same thing, that this is one of the <br /> most difficult decisions all of them will make. She noted that while she cannot speak for <br /> everyone, she thinks this is going to be her most difficult decision, and that is because <br /> there are two competing things going on, and it is the Commission's job to make a <br /> decision. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that every Commissioner is evolving on the Commission, as <br /> much as the members of the audience are evolving in their arguments and positions. <br /> He agreed with Chair Allen that the most difficult decision the Commission has to make <br /> is a neighbor-versus-neighbor dispute, and this is obviously ten-fold because it is a <br /> neighborhood against other neighborhoods. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that what he is going to do is highlight a few questions the <br /> audience has raised that he actually would like an answer to, which would help in his <br /> decision-making process. <br /> 1. One of the first speakers mentioned a widening of existing roads when a project <br /> right after Measure PP or Measure QQ got passed, and it was deemed compliant <br /> with the measure. Does staff know of that project? <br /> Chair Allen asked it was the Chrisman property, and if the speaker is in the audience <br /> and could clarify that. <br /> Mr. Bauer said yes. He indicated that in the 2005 Minutes that he referenced, there was <br /> a discussion on the Chrisman property regarding roads on the property that exceeded <br /> 25 percent which staff exempted from the hillside ordinances or Measure PP; grading <br /> and road construction were allowed to spread out around the road to make connections <br /> within the property. <br /> Chair Allen asked Mr. Bauer if this was before or after Measure PP. <br /> Mr. Bauer replied that it was recommended in 2009. <br /> Commissioner Balch re-stated Mr. Bauer's statement that the Chrisman project roads <br /> agreement for 25 percent existed and was expanded. He asked if staff knows about <br /> this. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that there is a distinction between a property being exempt from <br /> Measure PP and being given an exemption from Measure PP. He stated that he did not <br /> work on the Chrisman project, but it was exempt from Measure PP. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 25 of 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.