Laserfiche WebLink
similar to what was done at the Ironwood development. He asked Mr. Tassano if that <br />would resolve the issue of internal cutting- through. <br />Mr. Tassano replied that was correct. <br />Chair Allen noted that the Ironwood development faces the same issue, and the reason the <br />cul -de -sac was created was because there were two neighborhoods that wanted a fair split. <br />She noted that something like that would probably not be done otherwise because it does <br />not seem reasonable. She asked Mr. Tassano if he has any feedback on how that is going, <br />whether the residents are fine with it or if it is not working. <br />Mr. Tassano replied that the request was to limit the number of vehicles that had direct <br />access to Mohr Avenue. He stated that he thought there would be more of an outcry from <br />those living on the "wrong" side and just want to use Mohr Avenue, but he has not had any <br />complaints or requests. He indicated that the only request that he ever gets for a removal <br />of a closure or a walling -off or a cul -de -sac is the one on Kolln Drive off of Valley Avenue. <br />He stated that it could be a little upsetting to be on the wrong side of the cul -de -sac when <br />going to Raley's would mean driving all the way out to Sunol Boulevard rather than going <br />directly there through Junipero Street. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that the issue of creating a cul -de -sac in that connection goes beyond just <br />people driving. He acknowledged that there are positives to this because it does provide a <br />solution for cut - through; it splits the pain and pre- determines what the percentage is; it does <br />not matter where anybody works because everybody is forced to go out one way. He <br />noted, however, that there are also negatives: it is not a very good City planning solution; it <br />messes everything up in providing services such as mail, deliveries, and the garbage <br />service; and it doubles the amount of vehicle miles traveled. <br />Chair Allen commented that it is more extreme in Lund Ranch II than it is in the Ironwood <br />development. <br />Mr. Dolan agreed. He stated that one would have to go all the way down to get over to the <br />other side, and if a planner were doing a site visit for a project and wanted to go to both <br />sides, there would be a lot of driving all the way down and back up. <br />1. Prior Council Commitments <br />Commissioner Nagler questioned how much importance precedents holds, if current policy <br />makers are beholden to it, or if life is always measured by what currently happened before. <br />He inquired if there is a precedent on this question in the City of Pleasanton; if planning <br />projects have occurred in the past where there were controversies that were between <br />discussions or commitments that have been made previously and changed circumstances <br />in the modern day; if the City has a history of deciding that issue in a particular way or if <br />there is a pattern of not having a pattern; or if there is a sense of how the City of <br />Pleasanton has previously done something like this. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, February 25, 2015 Page 35 of 46 <br />