PC 102407 - Laserfiche WebLink

ROLL CAL AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: RECUSED: ABSENT: L VOTE: Commissioners Blank, Fox, Narum, Olson, and Pearce. None. None. None. None. The motion passed, and the Minutes of October 10, 2007 were approved as amended. 3. MEETING OPEN FOR ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON ANY ITEM WHICH IS NOT ALREADY ON THE AGENDA. Mary Roberts expressed concern about the retaining walls that had been approved for the Reznick project located between the Brozosky property and hers. She acknowledges that the Planning Commission had approved them but wanted to advise the Planning Commission to look carefully at plans because she described how these walls, though approved, were not what she had envisioned at the time by reading the plans. She displayed several photo montages that had been approved in 2006. She noted that there was a stepped retaining wall at that location, which was visible from the road. She stated that it was difficult to read the grading plans accurately and pointed out the property line "- trees. She noted that she was upset that the trees had been removed, and when she revisited the plans, there were shown for removal as "optional." She had not considered that they would be removed. She noted that the resulting 30-Foot-high retaining wall, with another 10-foot slope on the other side before the pad. She noted that while the retaining wall looked nice and will have foliage, the trail was supposed to be a rural trail. She expressed concern about the emergency vehicle access (EVA) and stated there would be considerable compromise on that site. She noted that from the pedestrian's point of view, the height of the retaining wall was very apparent. Toe DeRossett expressed concern about the elder care facility on Singletree Court where he lived and noted that there were already 22 such facilities in Pleasanton with four more pending. He understood the State regulations, especially with respect to six or fewer residents. He was very concerned about the aesthetics of the house and added that a huge ramp had been added in front of the house. He was worried about safety, parking, and traffic issues on their court. He noted that this building looked like a business, and he believed the appearance was very unattractive. He wished to clarify that he supported elder care facilities but did not believe this was a good match for a residential neighborhood court such as his. He displayed photos of the house, and urged the Planning Commission to take some action to improve the appearance of the building and the access ramp. Chairperson Fox noted that following this item, she would poll the Commissioners to see if this item could be addressed during Matters Initiated by Commission Members. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES October 24, 2007 Page 3 of 40