My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2013
>
041613
>
18 ATTACHMENT 1-4; 6-9
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/28/2015 3:03:53 PM
Creation date
4/10/2013 3:42:07 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
4/16/2013
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
18 ATTACHMENT 1,4,6,9
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.
/
206
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
Mr. Thatch replied that they have not gotten into that level of detail yet but that it will be <br /> a significant number. <br /> Commissioner Olson inquired if the parking structure is only for the corporate offices. <br /> Mr. Thatch said yes. He added that there will be a parking structure under the podium <br /> building; otherwise, there is tuck-under parking, garage spaces on the apartment <br /> buildings, and then surface and carport spaces. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor noted that there was some talk about shared parking between <br /> office and residential and believes that the proposal was for 40 spaces. <br /> Mr. Thatch replied that they talked about that but that they are just getting into more of <br /> the details about exactly how that will work as far as numbers, the buildings and <br /> locations of residents, and the proximity of where the office is. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor inquired if those 40 spaces would be in addition to the <br /> 1.5 minimum required for the residential or if they would be used to meet that minimum <br /> requirement. <br /> Mr. Thatch replied that it would be part of the number to meet the requirement. He <br /> indicated that he looks at how much parking there is and how they can really double up <br /> parking so they can to have less asphalt. He added that they are being sustainable as <br /> far as their approach to parking is concerned. <br /> Commissioner O'Connor stated that he knew what the standard is. He asked <br /> Mr. Thatch what would happen in some of the properties, if those 40 are used to meet <br /> that standard, if the residents in the complex had two cars. He noted that there would <br /> be a lot of extra parking here that is really office parking, and inquired if there would be <br /> any way some of the parking could be utilized in the evenings or overnight if a <br /> residential parking problem arose down the road. <br /> Mr. Thatch replied that he sees possibilities but that it is a question that Mr. Inderbitzen <br /> and the owners should respond to. <br /> Commissioner Pearce stated that she is not aware if the City has ever done a shared <br /> residential/office parking before and asked Mr. Thatch how this works and if they have <br /> done one of this before. <br /> Mr. Thatch replied that they have done one in Concord; however, the project is on hold <br /> and did not get built, but basically there were parking spaces that were available. He <br /> explained that it was more like a practical situation that those spaces farthest away from <br /> office were going to be available. <br /> Chair Pentin inquired who would have priority for these parking spaces if push comes to <br /> shove; for example, if a major corporate client comes in to California Center and the <br /> EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, October 10, 2012 Page 5 of 11 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.