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
already has zoning for residential development. The circumstances are not identical. <br /> An attachment to the staff report is a memo provided by Acting City Attorney Julie <br /> Harryman which addresses the question of whether or not the City has the ability to say <br /> no to this development based on water. <br /> Staff Recommendation <br /> Mr. Dolan stated that staff is recommending that the Commission take all the actions <br /> necessary to approve the project, which would require certifying the Final EIR, <br /> approving the PUD, approving the Development Agreement, approving the PUD <br /> Development Plan subject to the recommended Conditions of Approval and staffs <br /> memo on some minor revisions: minor adjustments to the setbacks discussed with the <br /> applicant very recently, and some additional conditions requested by Planning <br /> Commissioners to tighten things up, including a condition that is currently being required <br /> of all existing construction projects that if the drought it still going on when this project is <br /> built, recycled water must be used for dust control. He added that staff is <br /> recommending that the project be amended to reflect Option 3 in the staff report: that <br /> the project be re-designed to create a cul-de-sac serving ten homes off of Lund Ranch <br /> Road or some number that the Commission might want to consider other than ten; the <br /> Middleton Place residents would continue to use the access that they currently have; <br /> and the remaining project homes would be accessed from a new project roadway that <br /> would have to cross the creek, cut across the hill, and connect to Sunset Creek Lane. <br /> He noted that the implications of that would obviously be the assumption that a road can <br /> do that and do it within the rules of Measure PP, and staff is suggesting that the <br /> Commission has the ability to conclude that it can, but that the traffic essentially be split <br /> as proposed. He further noted that staff's recommendation is the best way to balance <br /> all of the concerns raised by City policies, the previous discussions amongst the City's <br /> decision-makers, and the input of the community. <br /> Commissioner Balch inquired what the traffic impact would be on the split 10/40 that <br /> staff is proposing. <br /> Mr. Dolan displayed a graphic that shows that split: the total trip generation is still 550, <br /> with ten homes using one access and the rest going out the other way. <br /> Mr. Tassano stated that the trip generation is pretty straight forward. He explained that <br /> the general rule-of-thumb is ten trips per vehicle, and the study used a calculation for <br /> the standard rule-of-thumb which works into 11 trips per home for a single day: the <br /> daily trip figure of 550 would be split with the ten homes on that north side totaling <br /> 110 trips, and the remaining 40 homes going the other way would total 440 trips. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 7 of 45 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.