My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN070996
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1996
>
CCMIN070996
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:53:45 AM
Creation date
5/13/1999 10:33:46 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
7/9/1996
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
45
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).
View images
View plain text
Ms. Dennis said that if the transportation corridor becomes a trail, then a landscape <br />buffer would be required between the trail and the residents. She did not think that was <br />necessary. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift indicated it depends on how you treat property along the area. Either you <br />have landscaped setbacks up to the corridor or you don't. For instance, the Hacienda Business <br />Park has recently been approved for fences along the edge of the transportation corridor with <br />no consistent setback. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarvet wanted to know what will be done with the Case Avenue project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said there is parking with the fence directly adjacent to the corridor. There <br />is landscaping between the fence and the parking lot. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the transportation corridor is converted to the Iron Horse Trail, would <br />the landscaping be part of the cost of the trail system? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said it would not. All the landscaping would be on private property, not on <br />the corridor. This policy speaks to how you develop property adjacent to a corridor, similar to <br />property adjacent to a street. Instead of a soundwall at the property line on an arterial, this <br />policy requires a landscaped buffer, not a wall. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if that would only apply to new development. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said yes. <br /> <br /> A substitute motion was made by Ms. Denni.~, seconded by Ms. Michelotti, to modify <br />Program 6.2 on page IX-11, to read as follows: "Require landscape buffer zones within <br />residential and sensitive receptor site plans to separate these uses from transportation <br />corridors, transit hubs, freeways, arterials, point sources, and hazardous materials <br />locations." <br /> <br />The roll call vote was as follows: <br />AYES: Councilmembers- Dennis, Michelotti, Mohr, Pico, and Mayor Tarver <br />NOES: None <br />ABSENT: None <br />ABSTAIN: None <br /> <br />Mobili~ Alternatives <br /> <br /> It was moved by Ms. Dennis, seconded by Ms. Mohr, to adopt the Planning <br />Commition recommendation to modify Program 8.3 on page IX-12, to read as follows: <br />"Encourage non-motorized (i.e., pedestrian and bicycle) and non-polluting mobility <br />alternatives." <br /> <br />07/09/96 -28- <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.