My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
PC 032316
City of Pleasanton
>
BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS
>
PLANNING
>
MINUTES
>
2010-2019
>
2016
>
PC 032316
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/11/2017 2:30:13 PM
Creation date
8/11/2017 2:23:12 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
MINUTES
DOCUMENT DATE
3/23/2016
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
46
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).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
My learning on all of that as I looked at it, was in our workshop, I don't think we were as <br />clear to you about our priorities and tradeoffs and that became clear. We said we <br />wanted a different balance of commercial and residents. I mean for the takeaway, you <br />had, let's add more commercial, but when we added more commercial, it ended up <br />causing a parking issue and in some way, the tandem parking got built in, but we never <br />asked for it. Had we been maybe clearer as a team or me as the Chair being clear, that <br />actually the top priority if it was, was parking. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: I thought we were clear. They were supposed to eliminate <br />one townhouse, create more parking and leave the commercial at 4,000 square feet. <br />Chair Ritter: But the process worked. You didn't have to send it back and kept it moving <br />along. <br />Commissioner Allen: They said that. <br />Commissioner Nagler: I think the learning we got out of it was that if there are issues <br />we feel strongly about, we have to push back. There is a creative way to meet the <br />things we consider to be important. <br />Commissioner Allen: We could have pushed it back versus saying no we won't do it <br />because in the end I think we all kind of felt we were compromising a bit. <br />Commissioner O'Connor: The Council heard loud and clear that we wanted on -site <br />parking and no tandem. They wanted all of the parking handled on site. <br />Chair Ritter: The moral of the story is its okay to keep the thing moving, not to say you <br />have to have a unanimous vote. <br />Commissioner Allen: Or to potentially push it back at our level if we think it's just not <br />fitting anything versus wait for the Council to do it. <br />Commissioner Nagler: Is it possible when they are done to send us electronically what <br />those plans are? <br />Weinstein: Yes, we can send them out. <br />b. Future Planning Calendar <br />Commissioner Nagler: On the Future Planning Calendar, on the Workday project, that's <br />interesting. That's the first time this appeared. I see that they're going to come back for <br />a bigger building basically? From 410,000 square feet to 430,000 square feet? <br />Beaudin: No, it's the other direction. 430,000 square feet down to 410,000 square feet. <br />Commissioner Nagler: And the question is on the parking that seems to be changing, is <br />there any conversation about including extra BART parking? <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES, March 23, 2016 Page 45 of 46 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.