My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
14 ATTACHMENTS 03-07
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2012
>
060512
>
14 ATTACHMENTS 03-07
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/31/2012 12:26:04 PM
Creation date
5/31/2012 12:25:58 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/5/2012
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
14 ATTACHMENS 03-07
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
32
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
opportunities for people who live to the east of Pleasanton and who will want to get on <br /> BART to not have to drive to this station. He noted that the idea of shared or multi-use <br /> parking allows for that evolution to occur. He added that from a planning point of view, <br /> as the rest of Hacienda is also finishing up development, he could see where Kaiser <br /> would be thinking of a garage, and other places would fill up and get more pedestrian. <br /> He indicated that this probably is the essence to the start of a parking district, where if <br /> more parking is available, and it becomes more pedestrian and no longer an end <br /> station, more people will start to commute here to work coming from elsewhere, <br /> resulting in more of that even AM and PM flow like the stations in Oakland and <br /> Berkeley. <br /> Commissioner Blank stated that he thinks this is more than just parking and trip <br /> generation, although those are part of the equation. He indicated that in preparation for <br /> tonight's meeting, he spent time on the City of Livermore's website looking at their <br /> projected routing of BART and timeframes. He noted that while this may not happen <br /> soon, he is certain it will happen at some point in the future. He inquired how <br /> Pleasanton would anchor the things that are there when it is no longer the end of the <br /> line and ensure that this extension is not a detriment to the community that the City is <br /> trying to build. <br /> Mr. Fleissig stated that the beauty of this system being discussed tonight is that the <br /> circulation framework Mr. Williams identified really works like a skeleton. He noted that <br /> while it is not certain how it will be built upon, the skeleton makes sense and allows for <br /> phasing, different sizes of parcels, and different uses, with the mix-and-match options to <br /> set the basic framework. He added that as people come forward, the site review can <br /> come before Planning Commission, and a developer will describe how they have met <br /> the guidelines. He indicated that he has worked with BART, and having the <br /> expectations where the City has set out a vision before BART does its RFP is such a <br /> big help of saying what the City wants. He stated that he believes that sometime in the <br /> next five to ten years, this framework will still hold and it will probably be before the <br /> extension takes place. <br /> Mr. Fleissig stated that because this is part of the zoning regulations, they have <br /> translated all the guidelines and development scenarios to include everything the City <br /> needs to have. He noted that the Planning Commission and City Council have <br /> indicated that this site is the heart of the transit village, and, therefore, it is the place <br /> where density ought to be. He indicated that if it can be demonstrated that a trip <br /> reduction, with a parking study, with those particular users, and in that particular design, <br /> could make sense, a beyond-the-base maximum of a FAR 1.0 might be allowed within <br /> the framework as impacts have not increased, and there is the flexibility to allow for a <br /> greater development. He noted that the different numbers are mathematically derived, <br /> the height limit will be maintained as it currently is, with an exception for the hotel to <br /> allow for the additional height or with the percentage, per specific site review. He added <br /> that the TOD parking minimums reflect what has already been agreed to in terms of <br /> residential live/work, visitor parking, and non-residential use with three spaces per <br /> 1,000 square feet of commercial space, and additional reductions if it can be <br /> demonstrated. <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, MAY 25, 2011 Page 9 of 18 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.