CCMIN040301 - Laserfiche WebLink

the project such as green building codes. She asked if the design was a factor, did the Commission believe a restaurant was a higher need for the site, or did it just want an overall study? Mr. Swirl believed a majority of the Commission felt that another use than pure office ought to be studied and located there. He did not believe the architecture of the building led them in that direction per se. If the Commission had agreed with the land use, it would have given more direction on the architecture. Ms. Ayala believed that uses along Hopyard Road were looked at differently than in other locations within Hacienda Business Park. Mr. Swirl said the areas in the original development plan that were designated CPD (commercial planned development) were right along Hopyard Road from the Shell station to Inglewood. There is another small commercial site in the center of Hacienda Business Park that has a bank and various shops and restaurants. Those are the two commercial areas that were to provide the mix of complementary uses for the major industrial and office uses that were anticipated to be brought to the Hacienda Business Park. Various hotels, retail stores, etc. are located in these two locations. One cannot go to the middle of the Business Park and build retail, financial, or hotel projects. Ms. Ayala did not feel that requiring a market study for this site would require a similar study for other sites within the Business Park. Ms. Dennis asked if any use could be considered as part of a market study? Mr. Swift said yes. Ms. Michelotti pointed out there is a two-story office building being constructed on Gibraltar right behind Pedro's. Mayor Pico declared the public hearing open. Scott Graeser, Chamberlin Associates, 5880 West Las Positas Boulevard, Suite 51, thanked the planning staff for their assistance. He expressed his belief that this process should be nothing more than design review because the proposed project complies with the existing zoning and meets all the PUD requirements. He believed that over the last fifteen years the market has done its own study and indicated a restaurant/retail use of this site is not viable. The letter included in the staff report from Colliers International further supports this. He pointed out that analysis was not paid for by Chamberlin Associates. He felt it was important to point out the Planning Commission denied the project because it wanted Council involved in this. It could not simply deny the project, but had to initiate a rezoning. A lot of time was spent developing the General Plan of the City and he believed this property was zoned as it was to allow flexibility to insure a successful project on the site. Pleasanton City Council 11 04/03/01 Minutes