My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 012611
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2011
>
PC 012611
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/10/2017 3:14:47 PM
Creation date
4/20/2011 3:59:55 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
1/26/2011
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
50
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
Commissioner Blank stated that one of the problems here is that the Commission just <br />got the report and has not had the chance to digest it. <br />Commission O’Connor indicated that he just wants to know if it could be built that way. <br />Commissioner Blank stated that based on the information he has about the traffic <br />patterns other than Mr. Tassano’s summary, he sometimes has questions about traffic <br />that are not in the traffic report. He indicated that based on the information available <br />right now which can be summarized in about 35-45 seconds of testimony, as opposed <br />to looking at the data, his recommendation is to leave it as is with the two options <br />because he believes that over time, staff, the City Council, and the Planning <br />Commission may need to forward this on and not be able to make a specific <br />recommendation about traffic or the environmental effects. He indicated that he is <br />hesitant to try and design this beyond what is in the document. <br />Commissioner O’Connor stated he understands the need for the safety regarding <br />parking and the bicyclists. <br />Commissioner Blank commented that there may be other ways to mitigate that that the <br />Commission is not aware of. <br />Commissioner O’Connor stated that that is the reason he was asking if it can be done <br />with just a curb. <br />With respect to the number of lanes, Commissioner Pearce stated that her experience <br />with looking at TODs and in talking with consultants indicates that when a road is very <br />wide, it no longer is a TOD but becomes a TAD, Transit Adjacent Development, which <br />does not do anybody any good. She noted that the people from BART are not going to <br />come across to these stores, and the people who live there are going to have a hard <br />time getting across the street. She indicated that she has always been in favor of <br />anything that would narrow Owens Drive, which will make this a more successful <br />development and will ultimately make this retail more successful. <br />Chair Narum agreed with Commissioner Pearce and added that she would be <br />supportive of some configuration that was one through lane in each direction. She <br />inquired what the plan was in terms of who would be paying for this and if the owner of <br />Parcel 1 would have do half of it when the Parcel 1 project came in. <br />Mr. Dolan replied that the payment plan is not entirely spelled out. He stated that there <br />is grant money available for capital projects particularly around stations, and there <br />would be no project more qualified for some of this money than this one; however, it <br />takes time and processing and other things. He added that the most that the Parcel 1 <br />owner would have to do is its side, and the cost is not as significant as some people <br />have said it is because while it involves changing sidewalks, utilities will not be moved, <br />and the grade will not need to be changed much, if at all. He indicated that the median <br />might have to be moved, but it is not out of the question that, if it comes down to this <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING MINUTES, January 26, 2011 Page 41 of 50 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.