My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 01/22/97
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1997
>
PC 01/22/97
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 3:56:32 PM
Creation date
1/26/2005 3:51:59 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/22/1997
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 1/22/97
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
23
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
<br />Commissioner Cooper commended the applicants on an attractive plan, accomplishing the neo- <br />traditional design. Through the General Plan process, it was the City's will to have a neo-traditional <br />~ design. The neo-traditional concept means that all residences to be accessible to the central area <br />without getting on an arterial. This is why he opposes Plan 4; it violates the concept of free traffic <br />flow. Regarding the noise on Kolln, Commissioner Cooper advised that higher noise levels are <br />allowed in the front yards than in the rear yards. He cannot support the closure to Mohr Avenue <br />in Plan 4. The Mohr/Martin streets are not being asked to have a higher traffic flow than other <br />streets in the City. Commissioner Cooper sees no technical reason why this project should not go <br />forward. It does not create a violation to the General Plan. The cut-through traffic on Kolln is <br />severe enough that if Mohr has to get on more traffic, it will be less than what Kolln has currently. <br />He would like to see the Commission vote on this project tonight. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright stated that he concurred with the statements of Commissioner Cooper. The <br />applicants have worked very hard on this project. Plan 4 blocked access to the north, putting the <br />EVA in the middle, it isolated the neighborhoods and funneled all traffic to the south. Direction <br />from the Planning Commission was to revise Plan I to equalize the distribution of traffic throughout <br />the community. Commissioner Wright will support the application and Plan 1. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dove advised that they are asked to approve the project, however, it could be quite <br />some time before this project is ever constructed, given the growth management issues before the <br />City Council. He also advised that within the near future, the Planning Commission will be looking <br />at plans that provide for the extension of Stoneridge to EI Charro. There are also plans in the <br />Capital Improvement Plan to provide for the extension of Busch to EI Charro, and he would not <br />assume this project would go forward without being reviewed in relation to these streets being <br />extended. He also commented that everyone's input is being considered, and that everyone will have <br />an opportunity to voice their opinion to the City Council, if this project is approved through the <br />Planning Commission. <br /> <br />Commissioner Lutz believes the revised Plan 1 accomplishes the objectives of General Plan, spreads <br />the traffic out to meet the 3,000 ADT, and carries out what was requested at the December '96 <br />meeting. He feels it should develop into a very nice neighborhood. There are a large number of <br />emotional issues connected with this project; however, he feels constrained to look at the technical <br />issues of the project. The emotional/political issues should be addressed to the City Council. <br />Commissioner Lutz feels it would be helpful if the City Council would give first priority to <br />determining the annual growth management numbers. When the growth management number is <br />decided, a development can proceed slowly without overwhelming the neighborhoods, schools, etc. <br />Commissioner Lutz would like the Planning Commission to recommend this be the first priority of <br />the City Council. Without solving the growth management of the General Plan, the City Council will <br />reject projects and the public is likely to go to a referendum. <br /> <br />Chair Barker feels a mistake was made with putting houses facing onto Mohr because now they are <br />angry with traffic impacts with the development of Busch property. There are too many outstanding <br />issues with this project. She doesn't think the project is ready to move forward. She feels most of <br />the residents don't want the pain to be severe, but they are willing to share the burden of the traffic. <br />The City must fix the major arterials first before moving forward with the design of this project. <br />Also, she does not feel the public hearing is the correct format to reach a compromise. The residents <br />should have a staff advocate to provide them with accurate data. Chair Barker feels the process is <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 14 <br /> <br />January 22, 1997 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.