PC 102214 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chair O'Connor stated that it is his understanding that recycled water is good for non - edible vegetation and inquired if the grapes will not be edible if the vineyards will be using recycled water. Commissioner Balch replied that the fruit is edible if the recycled water, when applied, does not touch the fruit. He indicated that if the watering is at the roots, the fruit will be edible, but if an overhead spray is used, the fruit will not be edible. He noted that this information is actually on the Dublin San Ramon Services District recycled water website. The Commission then proceeded to the Discussion Points: A. Are the on -site circulation, parking layout, and positioning of the buildings acceptable, and specifically, does the Planning Commission find the proposed 28 -foot setback as measured from face of curb along Stoneridge Drive adequate? Commissioner Balch stated that it is difficult for him to judge, based on what he sees on the plans and given that he does not believe it will be a high -use area at that location, so he does not really consider setbacks as a significant issue. He indicated that he does not think this is where a lot of people will gather and that he is indifferent about it. Mr. Dolan stated, to assist the Commission a bit, that this is roughly the same distance as how the buildings are set back at Pleasanton Gateway on Bernal Avenue. He noted that if the Commissioners have walked on the Pleasanton Gateway sidewalk or at least have driven by and seen the relationship of the curb to the buildings, and if they feel comfortable with those, then what is being proposed here will be fine, with the understanding that two of the buildings will be a little bit taller. Commissioner Allen stated that she feels Pleasanton Gateway is a little tight but that she would support staff's recommendation for this proposal "to incorporate more variation in architectural setback along both Stoneridge Drive and El Charro Road such that individual tenant spaces are better articulated." She indicated that it would just create a more pleasant view versus the feeling that it is stacked and in a row. Chair O'Connor agreed. He stated that he knows the size of this parcel and the square footage the applicant is trying to put in, but he is not a big fan of the two -story buildings in this development along with all the single stories, especially on the outside periphery. He indicated that the biggest thing is the massing that is visible that close to the sidewalk, and he would rather have a little more room to be able to articulate tenant space and have other options for the landscaping. He noted that Pleasanton Gateway is fine with him, although he wished it had a little more setback; however, it is all single -story. He reiterated that he would rather have a little more room so there would be more options with both landscaping and articulation for tenant space. Addressing on -site circulation, Commissioner Ritter stated that he is in Pleasanton Gateway all the time and that he does not like the parking lot layout. He noted that for the proposed project, there is a right turn where Shop A is located, and he would like to PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 22, 2014 Page 19 of 30