Laserfiche WebLink
development of East Pleasanton. He further inquired if there is a relationship between <br />the two or if that has just been overridden by the East Pleasanton Specific Plan. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that the relationship between the two is that the City has the right to <br />build El Charro Road, and if the East Pleasanton Specific Plan is approved, it will be <br />built. He noted, however, that there are certain limitations outlined in the agreement <br />that need to be considered, and one of them is this limitation on access in the future. <br />He added that the agreement also says that this access could be provided if the other <br />parties to the agreement concur that it is workable. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the actual improvements of the El Charro Road connection are not <br />yet designed and will involve a long dialogue with the parties to figure out how it is all <br />going to work. He indicated that the issue is essentially integrating regular street traffic <br />with the gravel trucks in the safest situation possible. He noted that it is at least <br />possible that there would be a solution within that design that would allow a future <br />opening of the driveway. <br />Commissioner Nagler recalled that there was talk in the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan <br />about having a second access road for the gravel trucks in addition to El Charro Road. <br />Mr. Dolan explained that if El Charro Road is built, the path of travel for the gravel trucks <br />is not going to be the same as that of the internal City traffic. He stated that it is a <br />question of how the merging of those two different types of traffic is designed and how <br />to get the trucks safely essentially up to the freeway and back. <br />Commissioner Nagler inquired if, for the purposes of this development, that <br />conversation has been put to the side. <br />Mr. Dolan said yes. He stated that the City explored with the other parties permission to <br />have the second opening, but they were not enthusiastic and the City did not pursue it <br />any further. He pointed out that this is understandable from the perspective that what <br />future improvements will look like is still uncertain, and the parties would rather be safe <br />than sorry. He noted that they are using the rights they have in that agreement to at <br />least delay or possibly prohibit forever. <br />Chair Allen noted that Ms. Wallis had mentioned earlier that in some cases, the City has <br />limited the amount of non - retail and non - restaurant space use, which was the <br />Commission's feedback from the last Work Session. She pointed out, however, that <br />there were a couple of areas that were not included in that limitation, such as Items 7 <br />and 8 of the Permitted Uses and Item 1 of the Conditional Uses: barber shops and <br />beauty salons, including massages. She indicated that these would have been included <br />as a non - retail kind of service and would have been limited to 5,000 square feet or <br />similar. She inquired what staff's thinking was in this regard and if there was a reason <br />why those were not included. <br />Ms. Wallis replied that staff's thinking was that in traditional commercial retail centers, <br />only one beauty shop would typically be established within a center, as opposed to <br />other non - retail type of uses that oftentimes would have multiple uses within the same <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 11, 2015 Page 4 of 17 <br />