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
Mr. Dolan replied that it would be a multi -use eight -foot trail on one side of the road and <br />would have a curb and gutter. <br />Commissioner Balch inquired if the 32 -foot road would look like the 24 -foot road, but <br />just wider, with parking on both sides. <br />Mr. Dolan said yes, and it would include parking on both sides as it is a residential <br />street. <br />Commissioner Balch inquired if a 24 -foot wide road can accommodate the car trips in <br />the area. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that it easily would. <br />Commissioner Piper inquired if the trails would be dirt. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that it would be asphalt or decomposed granite. <br />Chair Allen addressed the audience and stated that everyone present has invested <br />many months and years being involved with this project, and that each one's point of <br />view is very, very important to that person, and that everyone has a strong commitment <br />to seeing a solution here. She added that some among the audience have not had an <br />opportunity to speak, but because she wants to make sure that each person in the room <br />tonight has an opportunity to voice his /her opinion, she would ask a few questions and <br />would like the members of the audience to raise their hand based on how they feel <br />about the question. She then asked questions regarding what their greatest concerns <br />on this project are to them personally and their family: <br />• Who is most concerned with traffic being a top issue? <br />• Who is most concerned about protecting the General Plan as it exists today in <br />terms of the agreements that were made around the Lund Ranch access? <br />• Who is most concerned about the potential that Sunset Creek Lane connection <br />might be a violation of Measure PP? <br />Chair Allen then asked the following set of questions regarding the preferred options in <br />the staff report at the June meeting: <br />• Who would support approving the plan that Greenbriar proposed which is the <br />plan which has Lund Ranch Road being the access point for traffic? <br />• Who would prefer to just solely have Sunset Creek Lane as the primary access <br />for this project? <br />• Who would prefer staff's recommendation which was a blend of the two and <br />having access through both roadways to distribute the traffic, using the staff <br />numbers of 10 of the homes would have access through Lund Ranch Road with <br />Middleton staying with Lund Ranch Road, and the remaining would have access <br />through Sunset Creek Lane? <br />Chair Allen then referred to a final question in connection with new information on road <br />options that Mr. Dolan raised regarding access through Sunset Creek Lane: <br />• Who would support the 32 -foot wide road with the trail and no retaining wall? <br />• Who would support the 24 -foot wide road with the trail and no retaining wall? <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, August 26, 2015 Page 6 of 43 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.