My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 062415
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
PC 062415
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:49:59 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:39:30 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/24/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
54
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
Commissioner Balch inquired if that would be at the larger width. <br />Mr. Tassano said yes. <br />Commissioner Balch noted that Junipero Street seems to be already at 2,800 trips a <br />day, based on the report. <br />Mr. Tassano replied that it varies: the volume is lower closer to the park, and increases <br />to around 4,200 by Raley's. <br />4. One of the speakers talked about retaining walls not being structures, but the <br />Municipal Code states that a retaining wall over six feet was deemed a structure. <br />Could staff confirm if that is correct? <br />Mr. Dolan read from the Municipal Code: "Structure means anything constructed or <br />erected which requires a location on the ground... not including a fence or a wall used <br />as a fence if the height does not exceed six feet, or access drives or walks." He <br />cautioned the rush to go to some particular definition in the Municipal Code that <br />supports one's position because there are other sections people could look at that could <br />support a different position, and if Measure PP was meant to reference a specific <br />condition or State law, it could be argued that it should have said so. He explained that <br />basically, because it is ambiguous on these topics, the City's legal advisors are stating <br />that the City has the option to interpret it, and the Commissioners can use all these <br />things and whatever helps them to come to their decision, but they are not obligated to <br />stick with one of those definitions. He added that they can use common sense however <br />they want to interpret it. <br />Mr. Dolan stated that there is also the practice, and there is another part of the <br />Municipal Code that talks about what size a retaining wall requires engineering, and <br />basically, that part of the Code says that if it is four feet from the bottom of the footing to <br />the top of the wall, then it needs to be engineered and usually that would mean a three <br />foot high wall. He indicated that there are different definitions that can be used to get to <br />what the solution is on the retaining walls. He added that if the concern is the visual <br />impact, the solution could be a series of retaining walls instead of a larger one. He <br />indicated that the road could be built without retaining walls, but it would probably have <br />to be graded from the bottom of the hill all the way to the top. <br />5. If the Bridle Creek and Sycamore Heights neighborhoods came back now with <br />Measure PP in effect, would they have been approved in their current form, or <br />would they have the slope and elements restricted? <br />Mr. Dolan stated that he did not ever see that area before it was developed, but it would <br />be hard to imagine that any neighborhood in the Southeast Hills could be built like it is <br />now if Measure PP had been in effect. He clarified that he is not saying they would not <br />be there but that they would be pretty dramatically different. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 30 of 54 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.