My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN040792
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
CCMIN040792
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:03 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 10:12:14 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DESTRUCT DATE
PERMANENT
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
22
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
183 <br /> <br />Moreover, due to the fact that the gravel trucks will stop using <br />this road in 1995, the noise level will decrease and the soundwall <br />could be lowered to less than 12 feet. She spoke with the <br />applicant regarding the noise issue, and asked if he would be <br />willing to phase the project so that those homes abutting the <br />soundwall would be the last ones built. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that the soundwall needed to be 12 feet <br />because of the noise generated on Stanley Boulevard. He indicated <br />that after gravel trucks on Stanley Boulevard were eliminated, <br />staff would support lowering the wall. There would need to be <br />another noise survey to determine how low the wall could be built. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr asked if the park area in the project could be <br />expanded. She discussed eliminating the two houses facing the park <br />to expand that area. <br /> <br /> Ms. Bengtson responded that it would give more open field play <br />but it would not be large enough for a usable baseball/softball <br />field. A full size basketball or sand volleyball court would be <br />more appropriate for that area. <br /> <br /> Mayor Mercer asked what the criteria was on lowering the <br />soundwall on Santa Rita. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift explained that Council made the finding that because <br />of the type of housing it was, it could have noise levels up to 65 <br />decibels. The character of the yards was the difference between <br />that project and the Kaufman & Broad project. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver did not object to the design of the project. He <br />believed that affordable housing programs, in terms of financing, <br />was an innovative way to get people into housing. He did not agree <br />that there was sufficient high density housing in the City. He <br />pointed out that there were several statements in the General Plan <br />that said that High Density should be encouraged. He was sorry <br />that Mr. Callahan's project did not get the financing needed <br />because he felt that project was excellent. He was concerned with <br />the soundwall and noise issues on Stanley Boulevard. He wanted to <br />see more for the site than what was presented. He would not <br />support the redesignation. <br /> <br /> Ms. Scribner felt that because of the shape and noise <br />restraints, it was a better location for High Density Residential. <br />She did agree that there was a great need for moderate detached <br />homes in Pleasanton. Although Ms. Scribner did not object to the <br />design of the project, she felt that this was not the right <br />location for it. <br /> <br /> Mr. Butler referred to the left turn into the project and no <br />left turn out of the project. He asked staff to clarify this <br />condition. <br /> <br />4/7/92 15 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.