My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 01/14/81
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
1980-1989
>
1981
>
PC 01/14/81
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/16/2017 4:21:03 PM
Creation date
4/30/2007 9:34:46 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/14/1981
DOCUMENT NAME
PC 01/14/81
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
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
Chairperson Wilson asked Mr. Brown that if Condition No. 7 as written <br />by staff were changed that after connecting to Hopyard you could go <br />to Level E on Johnson would be acceptable. Mr. Brown stated it <br />would not be satisfactory -- that after you make connection to <br />Hopyard you could go to E on Johnson could you live with that (by <br />D. Wilson).. <br />Chairperson Wilson then asked when the developer would like to make <br />the connection to Hopyard. Mr. Harris stated they wanted to be <br />allowed to go through Level D before connection with no mention of <br />any other intersection. <br />Chairperson Wilson then asked how you would get to Level D. Mr. <br />Warnick explained the traffic study which the Planning Commission <br />was offered has ratios, giving numbers, etc. for conversion (volume <br />to capacity ratio). <br />Mr. Brown stated he still had problems with the last sentence of <br />Condition No. 7. <br />Commissioner Lindsey inquired if the sentence were removed, would <br />the City have control to stop construction if the traffic reaches <br />an unacceptable level. Mr. Harris stated the City has this control <br />but believes it should be clearly spelled out in writing to the <br />developer and future purchasers of the property. <br />Chairperson Wilson addressed the negative declaration comments con- <br />cerning maximum height of six stories. Mr. Brown stated they have <br />no current intentions of going over two to three stories in height <br />and that they are allowed 33~ coverage. He further stated they <br />plan on staying with the project through the building stage and <br />built-out the project. He stated that with every project that comes <br />in initially traffic surveys will be required and anyone coming <br />to the area will be aware of this. He urged, again, removal of the <br />last sentence to Condition No. 7. <br />Commissioner Getty stated she agrees with Mr. Brown and that requesting <br />traffic studies for each development appears to be the way to regulate <br />this problem. She stated she would assume if Reynolds/Brown sells off <br />they would have to make the buyer be aware. <br />Mr. Harris stated that traffic studies would only be required until <br />after Meyers' street goes through and only a small percentage of the <br />property would have studies on it. <br />Commissioner Getty stated we don't know that for a fact. <br />Mr. Harris stated that the Meyers case is different because the <br />Johnson-Hopyard intersection is critical to them but that similar <br />conditions would be suggested and if the condition is tossed out at <br />this time he questioned how the achieved goal would be made. <br />-10- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.