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
Commissioner Balch inquired if a 24-foot wide road can accommodate the car trips in <br /> the area. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that it easily would. <br /> Commissioner Piper inquired if the trails would be dirt. <br /> Mr. Dolan replied that it would be asphalt or decomposed granite. <br /> Chair Allen addressed the audience and stated that everyone present has invested <br /> many months and years being involved with this project, and that each one's point of <br /> view is very, very important to that person, and that everyone has a strong commitment <br /> to seeing a solution here. She added that some among the audience have not had an <br /> opportunity to speak, but because she wants to make sure that each person in the room <br /> tonight has an opportunity to voice his/her opinion, she would ask a few questions and <br /> would like the members of the audience to raise their hand based on how they feel <br /> about the question. She then asked questions regarding what their greatest concerns <br /> on this project are to them personally and their family: <br /> • Who is most concerned with traffic being a top issue? <br /> • Who is most concerned about protecting the General Plan as it exists today in <br /> terms of the agreements that were made around the Lund Ranch access? <br /> • Who is most concerned about the potential that Sunset Creek Lane connection <br /> might be a violation of Measure PP? <br /> Chair Allen then asked the following set of questions regarding the preferred options in <br /> the staff report at the June meeting: <br /> • Who would support approving the plan that Greenbriar proposed which is the <br /> plan which has Lund Ranch Road being the access point for traffic? <br /> • Who would prefer to just solely have Sunset Creek Lane as the primary access <br /> for this project? <br /> • Who would prefer staffs recommendation which was a blend of the two and <br /> having access through both roadways to distribute the traffic, using the staff <br /> numbers of 10 of the homes would have access through Lund Ranch Road with <br /> Middleton staying with Lund Ranch Road, and the remaining would have access <br /> through Sunset Creek Lane? <br /> Chair Allen then referred to a final question in connection with new information on road <br /> options that Mr. Dolan raised regarding access through Sunset Creek Lane: <br /> • Who would support the 32-foot wide road with the trail and no retaining wall? <br /> • Who would support the 24-foot wide road with the trail and no retaining wall? <br /> • Who would support the 32-foot wide road with a retaining wall? <br /> Commissioner Ritter thanked everyone for coming. He indicated that he was out of <br /> town at the last meeting and wanted everyone to know that he did read every memo <br /> that was sent, he listened to the tape recording of the proceedings, and has been going <br /> through the stack of documents over and over so that he has heard everything that was <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 5 of 26 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.