Laserfiche WebLink
<br />center is about a 6,000 sq. ft. site for a large number of people. 0 er hotels in Pleasanton <br />have a much smaller seating capacity that will not accommodate lar e numbers of people. <br />He further noted that the residence hotel does not particularly lend i self to be a site for a <br />conference center. <br /> <br />Commissioner Mahern questioned Mr. Swift as to the vacancy rate or the hotels currently in <br />Pleasanton. Mr. Swift thought the hotels are about 70-80 percent fi led mid-week and 40-50 <br />percent on the weekends. <br /> <br />Commissioner Wright questioned the right-of-way CalTrans encroac ment permit regarding <br />three years of irrigation and one year of maintenance. Mr. Swift n ted that after that time it <br />is automatically turned over to CalTrans, <br /> <br />Chairman Hovingh discussed the need for a sidewalk extension fro the proposed project to <br />the Holiday Inn. He noted that the sidewalk appears to end in a be m and felt that residents <br />of the hotel would probably wish to walk to the Holiday Inn for m s and drinks, or to the <br />shopping mall. He felt it was very important to have a sidewalk on the north side of the <br />Holiday Inn for that purpose. Mr. Higdon noted that Condition 38 f the original plan <br />addresses this issue; however, the revised Condition 38 as handed 0 t tonight addressed the <br />"south property line." <br /> <br />THE PUBLIC HEARING WAS OPENED. <br /> <br />Bob Kuchman, 2020 Hurley Way, Suite 205, Sacramento, represent the application and <br />stated that with one exception he concurred with the staff condition. He referred to <br />Condition 8, Page 3 of the revised conditions: he hoped that he wo Id not be limited to the <br />same type of sign as everyone else, as the Home Office has a speci 1C type of sign that is <br />used for the residence hotels over the country. He would favor hav ng a plexi-glass sign <br />with internal illumination like the Doubletree Inn that is more visibl from the freeway. <br />Other than that exception, Mr. Kuchman stated he did not have a p sentation but was happy <br />to answer any questions, noting they have worked very hard withs ff. <br /> <br />Chairman Hovingh questioned Mr. Kuchman about the sidewalk en ing at the property line <br />of the proposed project. He suggested that at least some kind of st ping stones could be <br />installed if a sidewalk was out of the question. Mr. Kuchman no that in conversations <br />with staff they felt it was not appropriate to ask the applicant to pa for a sidewalk that <br />would extend to the north side of the Holiday Inn. In response to question from <br />Commissioner Mahem, Mr. Kuchman thought the site could accom odate some stepping <br />stones across the planter from one parking area to the other parking area. He thought most <br />people would go that way rather than go to the edge of the street d felt a path from the <br />planter would be the straightest, most convenient route for most Ie. <br /> <br />In response to Commissioner Mahem's question, Mr. Kuchman rep ied that typically, <br />residents could be a business person; a company could send 50 peo Ie in for a meeting; or it <br />could be a family who is making a move and looking for a home. e indicated that at this <br /> <br />Minutes Planning Commission <br />May 27, 1992 <br /> <br />Page 3 <br />