My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
15
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2016
>
051716
>
15
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
11/30/2016 1:50:45 PM
Creation date
5/12/2016 8:34:48 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
5/17/2016
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
DOCUMENT NO
15
Document Relationships
15 ATTACHMENT 2 EXHIBIT B - Project Narrative
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\051716
15 ATTACHMENT 2 EXHIBIT B - Proposed Plans
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\051716
15 ATTACHMENT 2 EXHIBIT B - Traffic Study
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\051716
15 ATTACHMENT 2 EXHIBIT B - Tree Reports
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\051716
15 ATTACHMENT 4 EXHIBIT D
(Attachment)
Path:
\CITY CLERK\AGENDA PACKETS\2016\051716
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
81
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
THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED. <br /> Chair Ritter: And remember, this is a modification. We're not going to rehash old issues. <br /> Commissioner Balch: So my general comment is that I think the modification is <br /> outstanding. The redesign of the parking structure is outstanding. It looks a lot more <br /> presentable. It obviously allows for more billboard space for Workday but not being too <br /> egregious or imposing upon the traffic on 580. So in my opinion, I think all of the design <br /> changes are really nice and new amphitheater/plaza area being created I think is an <br /> extreme enhancement over the one that was proposed initially. <br /> So I do have a few minor things though probably in light of the grand comments before <br /> me, they seem small so I apologize for the minutia that I'm in. And these are not to say <br /> we have to change anything. They are just for comments for the designer. Working at <br /> one of these larger companies in the past that had a parking structure, I was always <br /> shocked that there was never a covered walkway between the parking garage and the <br /> actual building itself. So I just want to point that out; that while rain is a scarce resource <br /> or reality around here, it does, so I'll just say that. I know that people can below ground <br /> and traverse the lower basement to get across and that leads me to my next comment <br /> which is, the lower section of the parking area only has elevator A and D providing <br /> access for it all the way up to the building so you only have two elevators out of a six <br /> elevator bank providing that access. It looks like it could be changed, but it looks like <br /> there is a storage room in the basement garage parking area that will prohibit additional <br /> banks of elevators coming on line. So as I mentioned to staff, given the large <br /> underground parking area, and I mean I understand it's all EV on this side, but given the <br /> large area, I would encourage you to consider if you have enough elevator access to <br /> that access well. <br /> My next element is similar to what I was saying about covered walkways. I noticed the <br /> bridge for BART which I think is an extremely good enhancement; I'm actually <br /> impressed that Workday was willing to grant that public right-of-way, and I want to <br /> mention that's outstanding. A lot of companies don't. They close their campus rather <br /> than open it, so I really appreciate that personally. I just notice it's not covered but it <br /> doesn't necessarily have to be. <br /> In terms of the options on signage, I know there's a question of which ones to go with <br /> and I think staffs recommendation is for Option 3 and I do support that option. I think <br /> that's definitely a very nice option. <br /> And my last comment which staff knows about but I'll try to be gentle on is I'm not too <br /> sure I'm supportive of the whole heritage tree change, and here's what I mean by that. <br /> So under the prior plan, 130 heritage trees were going to be removed and under the <br /> revised plan, 195 heritage trees are going to be removed. So 65 additional heritage <br /> trees will be removed, but only 34 additional trees will be planted. So, we're going to <br /> lose 31 net trees. Let's say we're all planting heritage and we're getting like-for-like. So <br /> staff knows that one of my elements, just in general, is typically I like to see greater than <br /> a one-to-one replacement on heritage trees coming out and the premise is that I <br /> understand we need to remove them from the BART area and the garage area. I <br /> understand that and I'm going to talk a little bit further, but the premise is that those <br /> DRAFT EXCERPT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, April 13, 2016 Page 7 of 9 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.