My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 012214
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2014
>
PC 012214
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:05:50 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:01:13 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/22/2014
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
Security, privacy, access to the Arroyo. The plans appear to show no access to <br />the Arroyo. <br />Number of stories limited to two or less from our view. This has been been <br />addressed. <br />Impact of development on schools. Provide access to the report Ms. Soo <br />talked about. <br />Ms. Ellgas asked about the possibility of the applicant providing a two feet by four feet <br />(2' x 4') model of the proposed project so people can see what it actually might look like. <br />Joanie Chidambaram, a Parkside resident, asked if Summerhill will redraw the plans. <br />She stated that the development would be visible from her home and that she <br />specifically told the applicant that she was interested in seeing what the development <br />was going to look like from their home. She pointed out that the slide presented earlier <br />of the view from the south did not include Buildings A and B, and she does not believe <br />they are far away enough that they would not be visible. She indicated that she thinks <br />what everybody needs to see is what it would look like from the back because that is a <br />lot of roof and it will just look like one big solid, dark brown slope. <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br />Chair Olson explained that, with respect to the concern mentioned that there was not <br />going to be any development on this parcel and now there is a project planned, the City <br />is under pressure from regional housing organizations and from Sacramento to provide <br />more housing in Pleasanton. He pointed out that, as everyone may be aware, there <br />was a lawsuit, and the City lost the lawsuit; and that is why staff has spent over a year <br />looking around the City for property that could be rezoned to permit housing. He noted <br />that there is considerable pressure from outside the City, and that is why this is <br />occurring. <br />The Commission then proceeded to consider the Work Session Discussion Points. <br />Is the new location of the pool and other amenities, and access from West Las <br />Positas Boulevard acceptable? <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that where the pool is located is what the Commission <br />was asking for and that he is satisfied with that. With respect to the access from West <br />Las Positas Boulevard, he inquired if the gate only opens out and is restricted from <br />outside coming in. <br />Chair Olson noted that that is the way he reads it. <br />Ms. Soo replied that it is just for residents to pass. <br />Commissioner O'Connor stated that he is satisfied with that. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, January 22, 2014 Page 11 of 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.