My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 02/28/96
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
PC 02/28/96
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/10/2017 3:58:53 PM
Creation date
2/23/2005 3:39:15 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
2/28/1996
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 2/28/96
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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 /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />. <br /> <br />are asking for 82 residents. This is an 18% increase in density, and they are dismissing <br />previous conditions of no parking on Mohr Avenue and construction of a soundwall along the <br />1/4 mile section of road. Mr. Sharp feels finances are the reason for not constructing the <br />sound wall, and would agree to planting vines on the soundwall to discourage tagging. <br /> <br />Mr. Sharp believes some residents will still have cars, and feels this will add to the dangers <br />on this roadway. He stated that a significant number of cars are not being registered on <br />traffic counters because they are turning onto Kolin. Further, he feels the noise will increase <br />with the addition of an elementary school and the development of the Busch property. Mr. <br />Sharp believes the applicants should be held to the conditions of approval from 1990 and that <br />improvements to this street need to be made now. <br /> <br />In rebuttal, Mr. Shutts feels they are not responsible to provide a soundwall for a situation <br />that is not significantly increased by this project. He feels developing the street to full width <br />is the greatest single safety improvement for this roadway. Mr. Shutts feels the project may <br />not be able to afford to build a soundwall. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Barker, Mr. Shutts believes it would be possible to have access <br />from the parking lot to the adjacent parking lot. He also clarified that using the number of <br />units rather than residents is a standard engineering practice used for traffic studies. <br /> <br />Commissioner McGuirk inquired what would stop a resident from parking their cars on the <br />street as opposed to the parking lot. Mr. Shutts advised that it is a condition of residency <br />that they will not keep a vehicle on site. <br /> <br />Commissioner Hovingh commented that people living in these facilities have long since given <br />up their driver's license or else they wouldn't be in one of these facilities. <br /> <br />Kay Ku, the applicant, stated she has been in this business for 24 years, and there have been <br />only two cases where they allowed a resident to have a car on site and that only lasted for a <br />few weeks. The overflow parking from holiday celebration will only occur about once or <br />twice per year when they invite families to the facility for Thanksgiving and Christmas. All <br />other holidays have very little additional traffic. <br /> <br />Commissioner Dove advised that he has visited the Kus' Castro Valley facility, noted there <br />was plenty of parking space available, and also noted the average age of the residents was <br />86-88 years of age. <br /> <br />PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED <br /> <br />Commissioner Barker inquired of staff what procedure could provide amenities such as a <br />soundwall when there is no one development which necessitates it, but is the result of a <br />collective of developments, Mr, Beougher advised that these items are provided for in the <br /> <br />Planning Commission Minutes <br /> <br />Page 20 <br /> <br />February 28, 1996 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.