My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 031412
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2012
>
PC 031412
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
8/10/2017 2:38:05 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/14/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
35
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
it might not make any sense if it is a ten -foot step, in which case a split -level might fit <br />better. He added, however, that if single - family homes or single -story handicapped - <br />accessible homes are being considered, then there would not be any stairs. He stated <br />that he did not think any single- stories are proposed in this development, although he <br />would like to see a few next to the existing neighborhood and said that maybe staff can <br />see if they can work with the developer on that. <br />Commissioner Olson inquired if the top of any retaining wall that may be installed would <br />presumably be 100 feet below the ridgeline and that its visibility would be minimized <br />from afar. <br />Mr. Dolan said he believes that is correct. <br />Commissioner Pearce noted that it is a structure. She added that her inclination is <br />always to minimize the impact on the hills. She noted that she does not think it should <br />be a "blanket" this type versus that type and that the Commission is in agreement that it <br />will be a lot -by -lot discussion. <br />The Commission considered Questions 5 through 7 together. <br />5. The street connection to Middleton Place will be determined with the review <br />of the proposed project. The Planning Commission should review this <br />issue and provide its comments to staff, the applicant, and the public. <br />6. If the street connection to Sunset Creek Lane is not provided, does the <br />Planning Commission concur that the North Sycamore Specific Plan will <br />have to be amended to remove the street connection in order to make the <br />Specific Plan consistent with the Pleasanton General Plan? <br />7. Does the Planning Commission concur with the staff determination that <br />streets are covered by Measure PP? <br />Commissioner Blank stated that he thinks the Commission should defer to <br />Commissioner Olson on these questions because he was pretty passionate about them. <br />He indicated that he agrees at the very least, that a comprehensive traffic study is <br />necessary and that the Commission and staff ought to look at ways to increase traffic <br />access. He added that he would support going over the 25- percent grade to put in a <br />traffic access, but without seeing the property, he does not know whether or not that is <br />possible. He noted that he would want to go out there and look at it to understand if it <br />would entail an extra thousand dollars or an extra million dollars to do it. <br />On Question No. 7, Commissioner Blank stated that he agrees with staff. He added <br />that barring any other guidance at this point in time, staff is making the right choice to <br />include streets in Measure PP. He noted that asking 100 different people can result in <br />100 different answers, and he is not going to try and interpret what people thought they <br />were doing way back when, which was a much more emotionally- charged environment <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 14, 2012 Page 31 of 35 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.