Laserfiche WebLink
Minutes <br />Planning Commissio. <br />January 9, 1985 <br />circulation would exist turning left onto a half street.. <br />Commissioner Lindsey stated that the main entrance to the <br />development would be on a half street. Vice Chairman Wilson <br />expressed concern with a fire truck making a full circle to get <br />to the back units. Commissioner INnes said Bernal Avenue should <br />be completed south to the School District Administration Office <br />entrance. <br />Mr. Warnick stated that the project does not have Growth <br />Management approval and the railroad tracks will probably be <br />removed in two years. <br />Commissioner Getty asked about the connection from Main Street to <br />Bernal Avenue and when this would go to public hearing. Mr. <br />Warnick indicated that everything is just in the process of being <br />put together. <br />Commissioner Lindsey discussed Condition No. 5. Commissioner <br />Innes indicated that Mr. Howell has valid point, their <br />negotiations might be jeopardized if this situation changes. Mr. <br />Warnick explained that it would be possible to have no <br />occupancy' until the street goes through. Vice Chairman Wilson <br />explained that originally Hacienda's buildings were not to have <br />been constructed until the assessment district was in place and <br />it is not in place yet and buildings are occupied. Commissioner <br />Innes discussed no construction 'until a contract had been let <br />for the extension of Bernal Avenue.' Vice Chairman Wilson then <br />suggested perhaps the condition should read until construction <br />has started on Bernal Avenue. Commissioner Lindsey still felt a <br />full street should be required. Commissioner Lindsey did not <br />want to hold up the project because a fully built street was not <br />constructed because a project like this one is needed in <br />Pleasanton. He would go along with one -half street. He was in <br />disagreement of some of the other comments of the commissioners <br />concerning one -half street. Commissioner Innes didn't feel it <br />would be any tougher for a developer to negotiate for a full <br />street than a half street on the 0.44 acres. Mr. Warnick stated <br />that the Commission would be taking away leverage which the <br />developers has. Mr. Harris stated that theoretically a two <br />lane street can handle 10,000 trips per day. This development <br />will not generate that many trips. A one -half of a four -lane <br />street is more than sufficient to handle this project as well as <br />the development proposed for the senior citizens. <br />A motion was made by Commissioner Innes, seconded by Commissioner <br />Wilson that case PUD -84 -21 be recommended for approval subject to <br />the conditions contained in the staff report changing Condition <br />No. 2 to reflect no construction can begin on the development <br />until the 0.44 acre San Francisco Water Department property and <br />the 40 foot wide access strip owned by the City of Pleasanton <br />until EVH has the ownership of those properties; Condition NO. 5 <br />to eliminate "...the eastern one half" in the third line; <br />Condition No. 9 to eliminate "...eastern one -half of the... and <br />add Conditions No. 18 and 19 that "No construction begins until <br />construction begins on Bernal Avenue to Sunol Boulevard and that <br />8 <br />