My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
SR 06:242
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2006
>
SR 06:242
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/12/2006 2:05:17 PM
Creation date
10/12/2006 1:09:35 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
STAFF REPORTS
DOCUMENT DATE
10/17/2006
DESTRUCT DATE
15 Y
DOCUMENT NO
SR 06:242
Jump to thumbnail
< previous set
next set >
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
348
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).
View images
View plain text
<br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> <br />Mr. Grubstick noted that he would share his notes with the Traffic Engineer and the Planning <br />Director. The Traffic Committee meets on the first Thursday of the month, and it was aware of <br />the difficulties of Foothill Road. <br /> <br />Chairperson Arkin addressed the discussion points: <br /> <br />1. Does the Planning Commission conceptually support changing the Austin property's land <br />use designation? <br /> <br />The Commissioners concurred that they did. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox agreed with the speakers who wanted it to be dedicated with the condition of <br />open space, not to do overflow parking for the park or to have structures and picnic tables. She <br />also wanted grazing activities to be allowed. <br /> <br />Commissioner Roberts agreed that the open space should be preserved in perpetuity with a trust. <br /> <br />2. Is the Planning Commission comfortable with the overall site plan? <br /> <br />The Commissioners concurred that they were comfortable with the site plan. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce inquired why the other berm was eliminated. Mr. Hirst replied that as they <br />worked with the second berm, they did not believe it was a good idea after all and that the home <br />near it did not want to be shielded and lose the view. <br /> <br />3. Does the Planning Commission preliminarily support the proposed project's conformance <br />to the West Foothill Road Corridor Overlap District? <br /> <br />The Commission concurred in its support. <br /> <br />4. What information will the Planning Commission wish to see to assist its decision on the <br />question? <br /> <br />This question was not addressed. <br /> <br />5. The Planning Commission may wish to comment on possible viewpoints for the analysis. <br /> <br />Commissioner Pearce would like to see views from Foothill Road. <br /> <br />Commissioner Fox would like to see views from the cul-de-sac, the bottom of the private access <br />road, and Alviso Adobe. <br /> <br />Chairperson Arkin would like to see the views driving north and south along Foothill Road, from <br />the park, and from Jorgensen Lane. <br /> <br />EXCERPTS: PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, April 26, 2006 <br /> <br />Page 3 of 4 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.