My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
22
City of Pleasanton
>
CITY CLERK
>
AGENDA PACKETS
>
2019
>
061819
>
22
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
6/12/2019 3:46:43 PM
Creation date
6/12/2019 11:30:17 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CITY CLERK
CITY CLERK - TYPE
AGENDA REPORT
DOCUMENT DATE
6/18/2019
DESTRUCT DATE
15Y
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
15
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
3. When viewed in two dimensions, the width between the retaining wall and western <br /> property edge of the corridor allows 12 feet for the bicycle/pedestrian pathway. Due <br /> to the varying elevations of the adjacent properties and pedestrian access points, <br /> some of this available width has been designed as landscaping in order to transition <br /> the elevation of the proposed improvements to the adjacent properties' <br /> improvements. The minimum width of the concrete path is eight feet at the pinch <br /> points. <br /> Policy Issue Before City Council <br /> The BPTC and the PRC raise the issue that the proposed transportation corridor <br /> improvements between Bernal and Abbie put too much emphasis on maximizing <br /> parking, and not enough space is allocated to bicycles or pedestrian activity. The goal of <br /> the design, as proposed, is to maximize parking for the downtown area. Devoting more <br /> of the corridor width to bicycle and pedestrian trail uses will result in decreasing the <br /> number of parking spaces that can be created within the corridor. The question before <br /> City Council is whether to proceed with the project as currently proposed or change the <br /> goal of the design and explore other options. Discussing the challenges and how those <br /> challenges impact the design in this report allows for the understanding that if other <br /> options are to be considered, each option will also need to overcome those challenges. <br /> After receiving the feedback from the BPTC and PRC, and in preparation for this <br /> discussion, staff referred to some of the alternative designs considered very early in the <br /> design process, and also developed some other options to increase the trail width area <br /> that Council may wish to consider. Some of the options staff considered as part of the <br /> design process proved to be infeasible, but they are presented as well for informational <br /> purposes. <br /> Reduce Parking Lot Size or Move Parking Lot East <br /> Reduce the parking lot drive aisle and parking stall lengths or shift the entire parking lot <br /> area eastward: Further review confirmed that the parking lot is utilizing the minimum <br /> recommended design dimensions for drive aisle width and parking spaces. A drive aisle <br /> width of 24 feet is required with 90-degree parking spaces so that motorists can <br /> maneuver a standard vehicle in and out of the parking space from/to the drive aisle. The <br /> parking spaces are designed at 8.5 feet wide, as is necessary to create the 81 <br /> additional spaces. This 8.5-foot-width is the minimum width recommended for parking <br /> spaces. It should be noted that the parking lot will "feel" fairly tight, and care will be <br /> necessary when motorists park and open their car doors. Therefore, it is not feasible to <br /> decrease the stall widths. <br /> Moving the entire parking lot east would impact the mature trees and existing <br /> improvements on the eastern private property. While the trees could be removed, and <br /> additional property purchased, staff did not spend time exploring this option and has <br /> accepted the property boundaries as a "given" to this point in the design. <br /> Page 7 of 10 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.