My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 03/25/87
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1987
>
PC 03/25/87
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 11:11:15 AM
Creation date
4/19/2007 4:13:25 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/25/1987
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 03/25/87
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
18
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
Minutes <br />Planning Commission <br />3/2/587 <br />PUD-87-3, Trammell Crow Co./Callahan, Sweeney, and O~Brien <br />Application of Trammell Crow Company and Callahan, Sweeney, and <br />O~Brien for development plan approval for a 212-unit apartment <br />complex, to be located on an approximately 7.6 acre site located <br />in the area bounded by Owens Drive, West Las Positas Boulevard, <br />the abandoned Southern Pacific Transportation Company railroad <br />right-of-way, and Tassajara Creek. Zoning for the property is <br />PUD (Planned Unit Development) - High Density Residential <br />District. <br />Mr. Swift presented the staff report recommending approval of <br />this application. He then acknowledged a letter sent from <br />Deborah Castles to the Planning Commission outlining areas of <br />disagreement between the staff report and applicant. Further <br />Mr. Tarver brought to staff's attention the fact that numbers <br />shown in the traffic study do not correlate to the 1986 base <br />line. He suggested that the Commission ask the applicant to <br />explain whether a mistake was made or whether or not the ensuing <br />numbers are also incorrect. The conditions being contested are <br />10, 12 and 13. <br />Mr. Swift stated that staff doesn't agree with the information <br />contained in Deborah Castle's letter regarding Condition No. 10. <br />When the General Plan took place, the vacant Southern Pacific <br />right-of-way was proposed to be added to this lot and the General <br />Plan was changed to "High Density Residential." Prudential, who <br />owns the 150' right-of-way, offered the property to CSO for sale, <br />and they chose not to purchase it. Staff does not want a 150' <br />weed area and this project could landscape the 33' P.S.E. and it <br />can be taken over by the Hacienda Owners Association once it is <br />installed. Regarding Condition No. 12, and pro-rating the <br />interim mitigations, this has been a requirement of all <br />development since AT&T was approved. The only exception to this <br />was Valley Memorial Hospital who was excepted from NPID. Without <br />the mitigations; the traffic studies show the intersection would <br />be at LOS E and projects could not be approved. Mr. Swift asked <br />the Commission to allow staff's wording to remain as shown. <br />Caltrans has granted approval for plans and specifications for <br />the traffic signal and widening the roadway of that area. <br />Concerning Condition No. 13, staff had the applicant furnish a <br />signal warrant for that intersection. The warrant found a signal <br />to be required. Staff has routinely required projects to pay for <br />all or portion of the traffic signals if they were found to be <br />necessary at a future date. This condition is similar to those <br />imposed on other projects in the past. <br />Regarding mitigation measures, Mr. Swift addressed the potential <br />noise from the heliport. The noise consultant is here tonight <br />with additional information which the staff has not had time to <br />review in depth. There apparently is a disagreement between the <br />noise consultant's findings of the project and the Airport Land <br />Use Commission (ALUC). Staff feels the condition, as written <br />relating to this, is the best that can be done at this time until <br />the discrepancies can be worked out regarding the ALUC staff <br />report. <br />- 5 - <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.