PC 082207 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairperson Fox suggested addressing the questions separately: 1. Is the revised positioning of the buildings acceptable? Commissioner O’Connor noted that he was happy to see what the applicant brought back to the Commission and believed the higher building to attain more usable open space was well-done. He believed the facilities were fine and liked the new location of the tot lot; he liked the location of the pool as well. He indicated that closing off the upper floors for noise mitigation was a good idea. Commissioner Blank agreed with Commissioner O’Connor’s comments and believed the revised positioning of the building worked well. He appreciated the increase in the net square footage of the open space and believed the increased height of the buildings was well placed. He inquired what the sports court was intended for. Mr. Heffner replied that the purpose had not yet been specified and noted that in the second iteration, it had been removed from its location near the parking lot. He noted that would create a logistical problem with balls flying onto the parking lot; he noted that it should be more of a passive space. Commissioner Blank inquired whether there were any Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) or other environmental impacts present from the transformer; he would like examination of other environmental contaminants in addition to electromagnetic issues. Commissioner Olson noted that he was delighted to see the new iterations and believed that architecturally, the applicant did a very good job. He noted that the applicant had a tough assignment in defining the “look of Pleasanton” and believed that there was no single look of Pleasanton. He noted that Ruby Hill, the Downtown, and Hacienda Business Park all have different looks and believed that assignment did a disservice to this project. He was extremely pleased with the architecture of this proposed project and believed it fit well with its surroundings. He commended the applicant for increasing the open space, doing so at the expense of their rentable space. He noted that this was a transit-oriented development and that it was very likely that some residents would not own an automobile. He did not object to the proposed parking ratio. Chairperson Fox noted that ideally, she would like to lop off the north part of the building closest to the freeway in favor of open space and have the buildings farther back from the freeway so people did not live overlooking the freeway. 2. Are the revised layout and size of the common open space/recreation area acceptable? Chairperson Fox expressed concern about the issue of the site being sandwiched in the commercial area. She believed it would be difficult to define the demographics of the project because the City has not had a similar project to date; for instance, the student generation rate of such a project was unknown. She requested more information on the impact on existing infrastructure in terms of the school district and the City as a whole because this project was not near a residential area. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES August 22, 2007 Page 9 of 20