CCMIN021704 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swirl said yes but staffwould not recommend it for a number of reasons. The main reason is that it would require a full deceleration and right turn lane. An additional fight of way would be required in order to create a dedicated right hand turn lane, and given where the driveway is currently located, it would mean acquiring some of the front yard of the residents immediately to the east of the property. He pointed out that there is no parking on that side of the street; however, there is ample width on Ray Street for vehicles to slow down and make a right hand turn. Ms. Hosterman referred to number 48 of the Conditions of Approval and noted that sprinkler heads located near the monument sign shall be directed away from the monument sign so as to not spray water on the sign. However, on condition number 37 it indicated that the site irrigation design should utilize low-volume drip, bubbler or other water conservating irrigation systems to conserve water. She asked if this was an oversight.9 Mr. Swift said that condition number 48 relating to the sprinkler heads is a standard condition to avoid a sign that ends up looking like it is water stained. The monument sign typically blocks water to a certain area that needs water and in this particular instance, the amount of landscaping that will be around this sign would most likely be done with bubblers, which is an appropriate condition. Ms. Hosterman referred to condition number 44, which stated that the address on the monument sign should be indirectly illuminated with ground-mounted lighting. She objected to any additional ground-mounted lighting shining up at anything, and asked if it was possible for a monument sign to be modified in such a way that it might look similar in design to the building itself and have some sort of lighting underneath it that would be somewhat hidden shining down on the sign. She believed there is a light pollution problem in the City of Pleasanton, which has become increasingly worse, and worse with added development. She would like the applicant to consider this. Mayor Pico opened the public hearing. Tom Siewert, representing the applicant Valley Park Associates, thanked staff for their hard work and effort they have put into this project. He noted that Valley Park Associates is not Pacific Union Development, which was the former owner of the property. In wanting to assure that this project was done correctly, Valley Park Associates spent considerable time with staff and its peer architect in designing the project. Valley Park Associates conducted a dozen open and individual meetings with the neighborhood and individual neighbors regarding the project. As a result of those meeting, the design was fine-tuned into what is before Council this evening. He reported that Valley Park Associates is a development firm that has other properties in Pleasanton, particularly in the Hacienda Business Park. Valley Park Associates are developers of business parks and office/industrial commercial buildings, and have built extensive office buildings both in downtown business locations as well as in suburban business park environments. This office building would be more similar to a Stanford Shopping Center than a Sun Valley Mall. There are differing opinions among the neighbors with respect Pleasanton City Council 13 02/17/04 Minutes