Laserfiche WebLink
Mr. Tang noted that they were asked to reconsider the notion of the play area at the <br />perimeter of the site, which would be impacted by the freeway noise. He pointed out the <br />new location for the play area and added that it incorporated the notion of public gardens <br />and sculptural areas rather than an institutional playground area. He described the <br />circulation plan through the development and noted that they had agreed to install <br />additional landscaping on the BART side of the property. He stated that creating more of <br />a “Pleasanton feel” was a less tangible challenge and that they heard the Planning <br />Commission’s desire loud and clear. He noted that the richness of the roof form and <br />building texture was very important, and that described the gateway and residential scale <br />elements around town that would give the project a sense of richness and variety. He <br />noted that the Commission’s critique of the tower having a prisonlike appearance would <br />be taken to heart. He wished to emphasize that this was a four-sided building and that no <br />side would be minimized with respect to details or articulation. He believed the previous <br />institutional feel had been replaced by more of a “village” feel. He displayed the various <br />elevations and described the proposed project in detail. He displayed similar examples <br />from Portland, Vancouver, and downtown Oakland, all of which brought an urban texture <br />into a pedestrian-friendly environment. <br /> <br />Mr. Tang stated that they proposed a subterranean parking garage level and that they <br />were working with consultants to develop a user-friendly retail level. He noted that their <br />overall parking ratio was 1.9 spaces per unit, which was substantially higher than many <br />of the other transit-oriented development (TOD) projects they were working on; the <br />Oakland project had a 1:1 parking ratio. He indicated that the 1.9 ratio included guest <br />parking spaces. He noted that the market was driving the parking ratio and added that the <br />analysis performed by BART stated that 1.3:1 would be well within the acceptable <br />parking ratios for this type of project, particularly this close to the BART station. He <br />noted that there was the potential that CalTrans may take some of the land containing the <br />guest parking spaces, but that there was no plan in the documentation that would validate <br />that action at this point. He noted that this open space proposal was much more open <br />than the previous plan. He added that they would commit to providing a percentage of <br />three-bedroom units for families in addition to the one- and two-bedroom units. <br />Mr. Tang noted that they intended to propose a project that the City would be proud of <br />and welcomed the Commissioners’ comments. <br /> <br />In response to an inquiry by Chairperson Fox regarding the height of the revised building <br />as well as the height a fire engine ladder can reach, Mr. Tang replied that they had met <br />with the Fire Department and added that the building had always been proposed as <br />60 feet tall at the tallest point. He noted that they were building up some planter <br />conditions and added that the project architect had met with the Building and Safety <br />Division and Fire Department so there would be no future surprises. He noted that the <br />Fire Department’s main concern was to ensure the ladder could reach the sill height of <br />the window and that it was well within the California Building Code (CBC), which was <br />accepted by the Fire Marshall as well. <br /> <br />PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 22, 2007 Page 7 of 20 <br /> <br /> <br />