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
Chair Allen stated that she truly believes that the intent of most people would be that <br />this road would be all right; but the language that is written defines a retaining wall as a <br />structure, and a retaining wall is clearly needed to build that road, unless the whole hill <br />is graded, which is contrary to the intent of the initiatives and hillside protection. <br />Chair Allen added that she is strongly opposed to the estate lots, especially Lot 32 most <br />specifically, because it is about 100 feet higher than the other homes and contrary to <br />the intent of Measure QQ and Measure PP regarding protecting scenic hillsides and <br />views. She indicated that she would like Lot 32 to be taken out, as well as Lot 31,which <br />is a little lower at 40 or 50 feet above the other lots, but still higher than the rest. <br />Commissioner Balch asked Chair Allen if she wants Lot 32 to be eliminated or just have <br />the home sited lower. <br />Chair Allen stated that she is proposing to eliminate the lot. She noted that it is a large <br />site, so whatever gets built there will most likely be a very large house, prominently 100 <br />feet above everything else. <br />Commissioner Balch brought up the element also mentioned by Commissioner Nagler <br />regarding the unit of measure of two feet versus some other measure. He asked Chair <br />Allen and Commissioner Piper if they were fine with that. <br />Chair Allen and Commissioner Piper replied that they were. <br />Commissioner Balch stated that the other element was the vertical setback: 100 feet <br />down and 100 feet across. <br />Chair Allen stated she was comfortable with that for this project, but that she does not <br />know how that would apply to other projects because it has not been tested. She <br />indicated that she wants to make sure that this is not precedent- setting. <br />Commissioner Balch stated that was a good point because of the contours of the land. <br />He noted, however, that he believes all the Commissioners are fine with it. <br />Commissioner Nagler agreed. <br />Commissioner Balch then mentioned artificial slopes and stated that he was fine with <br />staff's interpretation. <br />Chair Allen stated that she was fine with it as long as the original slope line was less <br />than 25 percent, and Mr. Dolan's engineering drawings indicate that the original slope <br />was less than 25 percent. <br />Commissioner Balch stated that he would like to talk about the issue of the retaining <br />wall. He stated that he also asked a lot of people who were community members but <br />not directly involved with the issue about their definition of a structure. He indicated that <br />a most of the people hesitated at first, and then some said it is infrastructure. He added <br />that a lot of people asked how big the road was and if it is a dirt road or a freeway. He <br />stated that he actually grappled with that a lot and still does because he personally <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, June 24, 2015 Page 38 of 54 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.