17 - Laserfiche WebLink

the parking on non-arterial streets as Commissioner Brown mentioned or the closing to all vehicular traffic, or something like Livermore did where they narrowed it, changed it and designed it. But that being said I think the 10 that they listed out except the parking structure right off the bat--I think those are good. I can see how some of the public comment has been supportive of one or two of them more than others, but it's on the list of the top 10 so I can support that. Commissioner Nagler: I just wanted to echo what others have said which is, I obviously continue to support this as a recommendation of the Council, but in the larger context, I think we do need to start with the question about, and it's certainly part of the DSP conversation, is what do we want the personality of the Downtown to be? What are our larger global policy interests? There's a debate as we know underway today about having changed the number of lanes on Owens Drive from the BART station, and the focus is on those people who are angry about an additional 30 second delay in getting to and from the BART station during peak hours. But what seems to be lost in the conversation is why the lanes were narrowed in the first place. The reason the lanes were narrowed was because it was an attempt to implement a larger policy interest of encouraging people to use public transportation and to reduce the number of cars on the street. One way to do that is to make it safer to walk to and from public transportation and specifically on Owens Drive, the traffic went through so rapidly that the idea was to narrow the funnel of cars so that pedestrians could more safely get, particularly from that new development, to public transportation. But again, it was grounded in an over-arching interest of reducing the number of cars on the road, increasing therefore pedestrian safety as a way to encourage public transportation. So similarly, I just think the conversation we're having is the right one. Whether there's a one-way street or not, I honestly believe is ground first in a question of what do we want the character of the Downtown to be. Then, that becomes a sort of an implementation strategy or challenge, parking being one of the issues. I actually think a one-way street would be an unfortunate development for Downtown because in fact, in Palo Alto when you're on Emerson and some of those other streets, you're on those streets to be off of University Avenue so you can go as quickly as possible from one end of Palo Alto to the other. That's why you're on those streets, right? So, one-way streets absolutely have their intended purpose. They work. They question is whether that's something that works once we determine what we want the personality of Downtown Pleasanton to be. So I just encourage us to start there as we have the DSP conversation and parking is just one of the elements. Chair Balch: I'm going to tap into that. One of the presenters at the conference—I sound like a broken record—was the City of Livermore talking about their downtown. They specifically talked about how their downtown one way in the beginning and that they consciously chose to go one lane each way and the parking kind of semi-perpendicular at 45 because it purposely caused everyone that was doing cut-through to avoid it like the plaque and by doing that, it made it safer for pedestrians, it opened it up and it made it a much better city than the surrounding area to go and dine at. But, the comment is right. I do say that I've been in cities that I think one-way has worked and I'll mention San Luis Obispo which has several one-ways in order that kind of go across and their downtown is both long and wide in its downtown nature. It might not work there, but in EXCPERT: PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 8, 2017 Page 8 of 10