My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
18 ATTACH 05-06
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2015
>
121515
>
18 ATTACH 05-06
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
4/3/2017 11:01:40 AM
Creation date
12/9/2015 12:44:26 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
12/15/2015
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
18 ATTACH 05-06
Document Relationships
18
(Message)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2015\121515
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
31
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
DRAFT <br /> Chair Allen said there are two spaces. She added that in addition to the five, that would <br /> be a total of seven. <br /> Mr. Weinstein corrected that only two on-site and three on-street parking spaces are <br /> being removed. <br /> Mr. Nagler stated that this is what he was trying to drive at because he thinks Chair <br /> Allen is double-counting spaces. He indicated that in the end, it appears to him that <br /> there are five parking spaces that are at issue. <br /> Commissioner Ritter agreed. <br /> Chair Allen stated that she is comfortable going with five spaces but that she still came <br /> up with seven spaces. She noted that in looking at the model for a commercial building <br /> or coffee shop that goes in there, the model will say there will be four cars that would <br /> need to be parked somewhere on the street or in the area to visit the coffee shop, which <br /> means that there are four spots that are going to go away on the street, and another <br /> three spots will also be lost for residential for the driveways, which gives a total of seven <br /> parking spaces. <br /> Commissioner Nagler stated that Chair Allen does not seem to be considering the <br /> spaces that are there and unaffected by this development. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that his problem with this is that this is not applied <br /> consistently to any Downtown business. He noted that when the Commission <br /> considered the plaza area at the former Pastime Pool property and the double-story <br /> restaurant at the former Union Jack site, the Commission did not look at how many <br /> users there would be for those restaurants or how many parking would be needed for <br /> those patrons. <br /> Chair Allen replied that Commissioner Balch was correct on not being consistent, but <br /> this is also a PUD, and a PUD has a different threshold. She indicated that given that <br /> the concerns about parking is becoming more prominent, she is trying to protect the <br /> parking spots and is looking at what parking the project eats up factually, based on <br /> some parameters; and that is how she came up with seven spaces that the project <br /> loses. <br /> Commissioner Balch asked how many spaces the applicants are allocated as their pro <br /> rata share compared with all the other businesses in the area, because if there is <br /> parking available on the street, then one or two get to park on the street because they <br /> are, in fact, Downtown. <br /> Chair Allen noted that the study shows that the parking is almost at capacity. She <br /> stated that she was Downtown twice earlier, and the street was filled up; there was only <br /> one spot available. She indicated that she wants at least five spaces. <br /> Commissioner Balch stated that he agrees that parking is an issue. <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, 11/182015 Page 12 of 22 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.