CCMIN032100 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. DeCredico then referred to views and beauty of the site. A request came from a previous neighborhood meeting to increase the overall width of the landscape area and create a berm to hide the parking lot. That was included in the design guidelines. Another request was to increase the width and provide a multi-use path so people could continue from the path on Sycamore to the other side of this site. Those items were reviewed in relation to the existing trees on Sunol. The arborist catalogued 378 heritage trees in the development zone and that doesn't include the trees in the preserved area. They worked with staff to develop a heritage tree removal and replacement program should anyone wanted to remove one of the old eucalyptuses. Any tree with a diameter of six inches or greater would have to be catalogued in order to preserve the character and screening of the site. Many additional plantings will be done on the site determined by the area. He said this project is less dense than the AT&T project, the proposal for the San Francisco property and the new Heinz proposal at Stoneridge. It is equal to having a 1600 sq. ft. house on a 5000 sq. ft. lot. He also believed the setbacks were adequate and well screened. He referred to the remarks about housing on the site and believed it would be poor planning to put housing where it would not be good to raise a family. He also said there are deed restrictions on the sites that would have been most likely for housing. The one place that could have accommodated housing was also adjacent to a business that ran about sixty refrigeration trucks day and night every day of the week and has underground fuel storage. One would not want housing near that. The letter from the Housing Commission asked for housing similar to the project on Case Avenue, which is a high density project. Ms. Dennis asked about the Department of Toxic Substance Control restrictions on the property and what that means in relation to housing. Ms. Ayala expressed concem about the height of the buildings adjacent to the San Francisco property and the impacts on what could be residential housing. Mr. DeCredico said there is a one hundred foot setback based on the transit corridor in that area, plus an additional sixty feet in back of that. He reiterated that these plans are conceptual and only provide a footprint of what could be supported in the area. The height of the buildings is optional. Mr. Swift indicated the proposal for the San Francisco property adjacent to this site was parkland and residential development was not planned for the property until farther north of the Kaiser site. The intention of staffwas to recreate a natural creek area between the park, transportation corridor and residential area. Ms. Michelotti asked if the topography of the site would be considered in placing three or four story buildings and could four story buildings be located at lower elevations to minimize the impact. Mr. DeCredico said they had done that. In addition the massing of the buildings had been located in the center of the site to minimize the impact on the perimeter of the property. Pleasanton City Council 15 Minutes 03/21/00