My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 061307
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2000-2009
>
2007
>
PC 061307
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/5/2017 3:30:13 PM
Creation date
10/16/2007 3:35:10 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
6/13/2007
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
29
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
<br />Becky Dennis, 838 Gray Fox Circle, wished to discuss the grazing issue and the plans for <br />grazing which were discussed in detail in the staff report. She urged the Planning <br />Commission to discuss grazing and noted that the open space area would have a <br />management plan that she believed should integrate the way that grazing will be used in <br />the plan. She believed the fire control issues should also be considered and detailed very <br />specifically. She believed the Park District would be happy to provide resources to the <br />City to do a detailed grazing plan as well as the Resource Conservation District. She <br />encouraged the City to identify the goals in terms of the open space, including species <br />protection, as well as habitat enhancement and maintenance. She had believed that the <br />Tri-Valley Conservancy or similar organization should take control of the easement and <br />did not believe that would be an issue. <br /> <br />Robert Coutches, 1044 Hearst Drive, noted that the major issues for Kottinger Ranch <br />residents were views and traffic. He suggested eliminating and moving Lots 1, 2, 3 and 4 <br />farther back into the property. He noted that the people at the top of Hearst Drive would <br />be most affected by these first four lots and that their view towards Mt. Diablo would be <br />significantly impacted. He expressed concern about the traffic and noted that there were <br />many similar concerns expressed during the meetings. He noted that traffic on Hearst <br />Drive often moved at a high rate of speed, which he believed was very unsafe. He noted <br />that a speed metering device had been placed in front of his house but believed it was <br />placed too close to the stop sign. He would like to hear further information about the <br />traffic roundabouts. He would like an island or a sidewalk to be installed on the other <br />side of Hearst Drive and suggested that it be narrowed and planted with more street trees. <br /> <br />Mr. Pavan noted that Hearst Drive is a public street and, therefore, must meet the <br />minimum width of 28 feet curb to curb; that allowed for two travel lanes and one parking <br />lane. With respect to traffic impacts on the existing section of Hearst Drive, the applicant <br />would be required to pay $1 million to the City upon recordation of the first Final Map to <br />go towards traffic changes, improvements, and mitigation measures. This would include <br />traffic-calming measures on the existing portion of Hearst Drive, worked out in <br />conjunction with the City’s traffic engineer, Mike Tassano, as well as representatives of <br />the Kottinger Ranch HOA. He noted that the speaker was correct that it was not <br />addressed in detail but was addressed via condition of approval, which specifically called <br />out traffic calming on the existing Hearst Drive. <br /> <br />Ms. Decker wished to clarify the ownership of the open space lands and noted that the <br />development agreement Section 3.04 stated that the developer was to dedicate to the City, <br />or to a GHAD all of the open space lands. However, the next page stated that an <br />easement would be granted to the Tri-Valley Conservancy. <br /> <br />Mr. Inderbitzen believed that their presentation addressed many of the concerns and <br />noted that he would be available for further questions. He believed the comments that <br />were derogatory towards the staff, implying that the staff intentionally misrepresented the <br />issues to the Commission or anyone else, did not deserve a response. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES June 13, 2007 Page 25 of 29 <br /> <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.