Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Michelotti asked if the circulation element of the property would remain as <br />proposed and whether the view corridors would be preserved. <br /> <br /> Mr. DeCredico said the two intersections are fixed. The intent is to have the loop <br />road remain as proposed. A lot of effort went into a study of the topography of the site. <br />the best locations for buildings and the least amount of grading. He said the views I~om <br />various locations would be preserved without impact. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti asked if there would be screening for the buildings in the north <br />quadrant that are three and four stories. <br /> <br /> Mr. DeCredico said yes. He referred to the drawing of the plan and illustrated <br />how views would be preserved and screening provided for the buildings and the parking <br />Iot. There would be one tree for every 27 feet in the parking lot and he went on to <br />explain the various layers of landscaping to be installed to preserve the park like setting <br />of the site. <br /> <br /> Ms. Dennis asked about the potential for structure parking on the site instead of <br />all surface parking. <br /> <br />Mr. DeCredico did not know if it were economically feasible for this location. <br /> <br /> Ms. Michelotti referred to the Signature Center parking structure as an example <br />tbr this site. She referred to a question about tree removal on Sunol Boulevard and asked <br />for further information. <br /> <br /> Mr. DeCredico said many of the trees on Sunol are either damaged or are <br />eucalyptus. Any tree in that zone that is larger than six inches in diameter will have to be <br />replaced if removed. The majority of the trees are set fairly far back from the road. <br /> <br /> Ted Splitter, with Levine and Frickee, an environmental consulting firm, <br />explained there are several deed restrictions on the property that restrict use of the <br />property for residential development. Those are related to the drainage system which <br />drain the core of the site and extend to the comers. <br /> <br /> Mr. Burke responded to other issues raised by the neighbors. He explained the <br />process used for sending notices to the neighborhoods and how the lists had been <br />obtained from the City. He then indicated that when the Planning Commission denied <br />the application based on housing, the neighborhood groups were reinvolved. He <br />supported affordable housing, but did not think this site was a fitting place for that type of <br />housing. This project will contribute about $500,000 in impact fees for moderate to low <br />income housing. There are only so many places where housing could be sited. They had <br />indicated housing near the lake as one option. It could not be placed on the northem side <br />of the property because of the deed restrictions, noise and proximity to a truck entry for <br />the property. There was no consensus from the Planning Commission on the type of <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 16 03/21/00 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />