My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
CCMIN100290
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
MINUTES
>
1990-1999
>
1990
>
CCMIN100290
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/26/2010 10:55:33 AM
Creation date
10/29/1999 11:30:50 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.
/
28
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
50 <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that she felt that asphalt curbs would be <br /> appropriate for the project but that concrete rural curbs would be <br /> more practical. She asked Mr. Swift whose standards would be <br /> followed for the construction of the trail. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that the trail would not be built in <br /> conjunction with the project. He explained that since the trail <br /> would be neither on Zone 7 or on EBRPD property, Council would have <br /> to determine how much land the developer would have to provide for <br /> that trail. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr inquired if the construction of the trail would come <br /> before the Council for design approval. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift replied that if the trail is built by EBRPD, it <br /> would not come before the Council. However, an agreement between <br /> the City and EBRPD provides that the City would review improvements <br /> to Shadow Cliffs Park. He pointed out that if the trail is built <br /> on top of the bank and comes into the property, the developer would <br /> have to either grant an easement or dedicate that portion of the <br /> property for the trail. Otherwise, the trail would have to stay in <br /> EBRPD property and will definitely have to be constructed into a <br /> very steep slope. <br /> <br /> Ms. Mohr stated that Mr. MacDonald had earlier indicated that <br /> a retaining wall would have to be constructed even for a ten-foot <br /> trail. She commented that it would be better to put the retaining <br /> wall as a base to the fence and lower the trail to assure privacy <br /> in the backyards. <br /> <br /> Mr. Mercer mentioned that the construction of the trail is not <br /> vital to the project and suggested that the developer meet with the <br /> Fire Department and EBRPD to address the issues. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift stated that the project could be subject to a <br /> general condition that the trail would be worked out between staff <br /> and the applicant. The project will then go through the <br /> subdivision process and come before the Planning Commission, which <br /> could be appealed to the Council if the issue is not satisfactorily <br /> resolved. <br /> <br /> Mr. Tarver commented that the concept of the project was good <br /> but that the developer would have to work with the Planning <br /> Commission and staff with regard to the density of the project. He <br /> added that because of its density, the project would not be able to <br /> put in the amenities that would make it consistent with the General <br /> Plan, including the Vineyard Avenue realignment and the trail <br /> issue. <br /> <br /> 10-2-90 <br /> - 22 - <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.