My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 11/14/84
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1984
>
PC 11/14/84
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/17/2017 10:28:53 AM
Creation date
4/26/2007 4:59:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
11/14/1984
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 11/14/84
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
14
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 Commissioi. <br />11/14/84 <br />Park and Recreatiof foursacres aslrequestedrwith theedevelopments <br />park falls short <br />they have tried to site. Regarding Condition No. 11 they aske <br />that 20' be allowed instead of 25' or as otherwise approved by <br />the City Engineer. He felt that Condition No. 3 would kill the <br />project if imposed because of the delicate balance economically. <br />The annexation process would have to be cancelled and the area <br />would then not be in the City. He addressed Pang's traffic <br />report as sited by staff. He felt that mitigations of this <br />project including diversion of traffic to Stanley Boulevard, the <br />project would improve Bernal Avenue from Tawny to Vineyard Avenue <br />and eliminate the 'country' configuration of the roadway. <br />People would use Bernal Avenue from Palomino over the hill to <br />Kottinger Drive allowingontVinelardoAVenueverthe~driving distances <br />project only comes out Y <br />to Stanley Boulevard intersection vs First Street is a superior <br />route. He stated that the Pang Traffic Report did not consider <br />the creation of a park in this area. This may reduce traffic <br />because people would use this park instead of others. The Mike <br />Valley project and Kottinger project traffic reductions are not <br />assumed in the Pang Report. He reviewed other projects in the <br />area. <br />Commissioner Innes then discussed with Mr. Dunkley findings of <br />the Pang Report. <br />Commissioner Wellman asked where parking would be located within <br />the park. Mr. Dunklehborhoodduseshandtnot intendedgtoorequareaak <br />and designed for neig There is parking on Vineyard <br />substantial amount of parking. <br />Avenue if accehat1Sa~kingnbeaaalowedronaTawnycreation is <br />recommending t P <br />Howard Richner, 3469 Bernal Avenue, lives next door to the <br />project. He asked whi~ha~lmostfofethelwi'deningwwouldbbewonethe. <br />Mr. Warnick explained <br />east side. Mr. Richboth1sidestedMTOnWarnickaindicatedtthattthere <br />would be widened on <br />will be only slight widening on the other side. Mr. Richner <br />asked if his housewoulddnotvbetmovedmovled.bWarnickrexplained that <br />indicated that it with a <br />the widening would be for two lanes in each direction, <br />median, and on parking on either side. <br />Nancy Storch, 3193 Chardonnay, urged approval of the park. She <br />has been working for a park for four years concerninorthaswith <br />the homeowners association and Art Dunkley g <br />There is currently no park less than 1-1/2 miles away from the <br />ark will meet the needs of a large community. She <br />area. The p <br />recognized that only some of the needs of the area would be me <br />with regard to facilities on the park site burohibitla park inn~t <br />used now for a park the cost would probably p <br />the future on other property. <br />Commissioner LindsdyAvenue resultinghfromsthisadevelopmentabouMs• <br />traffic on Vineyar <br />- 8 - <br />_. __ . ~ <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.