CCMIN050311 - Laserfiche WebLink

historical aspect, stating that in the 1990's a developer in San Francisco wanted to build 4,000 units on that property. The City Council and Planning Commission at that time were successful in reducing the development clown to 500 units with 318 acres of City owned open space. Regarding Site 16; Vintage Hills, there was a proposal for high density housing 10 years ago and it was almost unanimously denied by the Council. If mixed use, retail and a small residential development at 23 units/acre were proposed, he might be interested in looking at it. Regarding Site 6, he thinks the site is a good one, but supporting preserving historical buildings. Site 18 is an ideal place because there is already a BART and ACE train station there. It is downtown, walk able, ideal for some of the General Plan policies, and while sensitive to the neighbors next door, he thinks it is a good site. Regarding Site 15; Valley Trails, it was taken off the list and he repeated his favorite quote from Connie Cox, the HOA president; "How many times do we have to say no?" He said it meets no criteria; it is far from transportation; it is in the middle of a neighborhood; there are no services; and it makes no sense. What the task force has not looked at closely enough is the Stoneridge Shopping Center, which is identified on the list. He also uses the new BART station everyday, and comes out and looks across at a huge parking lot directly across the street. He sees no other place for a high density housing project there and it seems some of the issues on Sites 7, 8, 11 and 14 could be addressed by reducing units and moving them to Site 1. Councilmember Sullivan supported the list proposed, was not in favor of removing anything from it, and would like to see the task force finish its work. Councilmember Thorne said he thinks the task force has done a remarkable job, as the timeframe is very uncharacteristic of the way things are done in Pleasanton. He too thinks that Site 7 should remain on the list, as it is near the freeway and near schools. He pointed out that no matter where projects are put in town, they will have an impact on schools. He agrees with moving Site 15; the Valley Trails off the list. He has some concerns with Site 12; the Goodnight Inn project, for many of the same reasons they had concerns about the Valley Trails project. It is next to an established, older neighborhood and may not fit. It also impacts the same neighborhood that the Kiewitt and Legacy Properties would. If he were on the task force, he supported looking at removing Site 12 off the list. He said the discussion about balancing high density housing around the City is also important. He wants to ensure traffic studies are in order and ensure that when the City says housing produces less traffic as opposed to office, it is true. He though it would be fairly even if the AM peak were taken out of the 70% and he would like to see what this looks like before returning to Council. He has heard discussion about property values and has never found data that suggests these developments reduce property values, but rather the opposite. Councilmember McGovern questioned two other properties Ms. Stern had alluded to. Ms. Stern said these properties are on Sunol at Sonoma and Sunol at Sycamore. Both are pretty small sites of between 1 and 2 acres. Councilmember McGovern said she would like the property owners contacted to determine their interest and she would hope to see if the property owner could be identified for the house across from the Firehouse Arts Theater. City Council Minutes Page 13 of 19 May 3, 2011