PC 08/12/1992 - Laserfiche WebLink

She felt that the applicant should provide an easement for a possibl road in the future and that the golf course should have its own access. As far as traffic 0 Hearst Drive is concerned, she would favor Alternative 5. She would want as m y mitigations as possible to alleviate any traffic problems. She advised that the applicant an staff should work together to mitigate all problems as much as possible. She felt tha water could be an issue, but that it would work out all right. Commissioner Mahern conclu ed that she could support the project with Plan E; she felt the citizens of Pleasanton would 1 e the trail system, she would like a small park moved closer to the homes, with no more an 98 homes. ~ Commissioner Wright basically concurred with all the previous co ments from the Commissioners. He would favor the park to be near the homes. owever, he would favor a condition that would keep all construction traffic (carpenters, etc.) ff of Concord Street and out of the school traffic area, even if they have to go 100 percent 0 Hearst Drive. He felt that some sort of speed control on Hearst Drive would be neces As far as a second access road, he felt that Red Feather Drive could be used to go rig t into the site. He felt that a second access was necessary, but that it could be worked so ehow into a swaled area. He favored 98 units with a golf course, and concluded that he can s ppOrt the project with modifications. Commissioner Finch stated that he favored a small park, 98 units, a second access road and felt that possibly Red Feather Drive would be the right way to go 0 that issue. He favored Plan E and concluded that he felt the project would be a major asset to the City. Chairman Hovingh stated that he likes the project and the clustering effect of homes. He had no particular feeling about Plan D or E in regard to the golf course. He would favor a second access road and felt that in the case of a fire, such as in Ber eley, that it would be an absolute necessity. He felt Red Feather Drive would be an appropri te second access to the site. He favored a public park over a private park; he was pleased ith the golf course and felt that Robert Jones has done a great design. As far as traffic miti ation was concerned, he did not think Alternative 5 was the answer. ~ In response to Chairman Hovingh's question about the use of speed umps, Mr. Higdon stated that the City is definitely against installing speed bumps or s humps. Mr. Swift noted that the Commission could make their decision toni ht or they could postpone their decision until an access road is designed. Further discussion ensued as to the second access road. A motion was made by Commk~ioner Mahern, seconded by Co . ioner Michelotti, recommending approval of a resolution for Case PUD-91-13 cert' ing that: o The EIR is adequate and complete in its assessment of the project impacts and is in compliance with CEQA; o The Commk~ion has reviewed and considered the' ormation contained in the EIR prior to approving the project; and Planning Commission Minutes August 12, 1992 Page 12