PC 080807 - Laserfiche WebLink

In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox whether the applicant would need to have an Alameda County Planning Commission hearing because they had two County parcels, Ms. Seto replied that this application initially appeared to present itself as a City and LAFCO approval. She added that the uses being considered for permitting would be on City property after the annexation. Commissioner Blank noted that a very detailed landscaping plan for this site was a must, and that while this was not a defined gateway, it served as one when 580 was backed up. He believed there should be fairly to-scale visuals from the freeway point of view as well as from the road and housing developments to understand the visual impact. Commissioner Blank would like the building to look as much in character with Pleasanton as possible. He suggested using landscaping and trees that would provide noise attenuation. He noted that it was difficult to determine the exact color of the dome. He agreed with Commissioner Olson’s earlier comments and believed that the City should check the other M.T.O. facilities around the country. He had wondered whether an EIR would be needed and understood that staff would examine that issue. He suggested looking at the traffic from a safety standpoint. He did not know whether there was significance to the height dome or the ratio of the dome height to the size of the building. He noted that a visual representation of the 52-foot dome from the freeway would be very important and believed that it could be visible from miles around. He did not know whether the 80-foot setback would be sufficient and believed that the sightlines should be examined. He would like noise attenuation boundaries to be set. He believed the gate appeared very baroque and ornate and suggested adequate design for the front entrance to look like Pleasanton. He would like to find a way to make this application work, but that it must be done in such a way to assure residents that it was safe, and that it made the community better by the practices being implemented. Commissioner Olson agreed with Commissioner Blank’s comments, and noted that he was no longer concerned about noise. He added that he was not overly concerned about viewing this location as a gateway to Pleasanton and whether this facility should be considered as a gateway structure. He believed that safety must be uppermost as the concern with respect to traffic. He would like to find a way to make this application work and inquired whether the main building must sit in the back corner of the lot. He inquired whether it could sit elsewhere on the property, farther away from the Canyon Creek development. He did not have any objection to the fencing and the guard station and believed this facility will have to be protected. He noted that there was a lot of noise from the freeway and inquired how a serene environment could be achieved in that environment. He supposed that the style of design and construction could be used to achieve that goal. He believed this would be a challenging site on which to promote serene meditation. He noted that safety, entry, and exit issues would be the most important areas to resolve. Commissioner Narum noted that there should be enough parking to support the phasing and increase in attendance. She believed that the timing of the phasing would be very important. She was no longer concerned about noise and added that conditions could be PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 8, 2007 Page 19 of 24