My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 082615
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2015
>
PC 082615
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 4:54:00 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 4:44:33 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
8/26/2015
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
43
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
In terms of housekeeping things, Mr. Dolan re- alerted the Commission to a memo that <br />was handed out at the last hearing that supplemented the staff report; the memo <br />included minor amendments primarily to engineering - related conditions that would apply <br />as a part of staff's recommendation tonight. He added that there is one other condition <br />that staff is recommending. He apologized that this is so late in the game, but one of <br />numerous emails and letters that came in over the last several days raises some issues <br />relative to the conclusions that were previously reached about the area of a man -made <br />slope right down by the creek where the barn is. He indicated that staff went out in the <br />field today to look at this again. He noted that this is not something that can be resolved <br />this evening, but staff is suggesting that when the Commission gets to the point of <br />making a motion, a condition be added which basically says that staff is going to take <br />another look at the assumptions made on what a man -made slope is before it goes to <br />City Council; and if staff determines that there is development proposed in an area that <br />is a natural 25- percent slope and not a man -made 25- percent slope, then the project <br />would have to be amended to work around that. <br />Chair Allen referred to the new staff report for tonight and requested clarification about <br />what staff's recommendation is relative to the road access, if one were to be built. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that staff is recommending that the Commission opt for the 24 -foot <br />wide, narrower road without retaining walls. <br />Chair Allen inquired what the thinking was on that. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that the thinking was that the retaining walls do get fairly high, and it <br />addressed the issue that there are some people who believe that Measure PP allows a <br />road, but that a retaining wall is clearly a structure and would not be allowed under <br />Measure PP. <br />Chair Allen inquired, for clarification, if all the road options presented tonight have a <br />hiking /walking trail and that part of the cut is to support the trail and not just the road. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that was correct; it would be an eight -foot wide trail. <br />Commissioner Balch inquired if the 24 -foot road would also have a trail. <br />Mr. Dolan said yes. <br />Commissioner Balch noted that it is not reflected on the drawing and inquired if it would <br />be just a trail to the side. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that staff did not do the drawings; staff just did the summary. He <br />added that the trail would be right next to the road. <br />Commissioner Balch inquired if the 24 -foot road would not have a sidewalk but would <br />have a curb on each side. <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 5 of 43 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.