CCMIN040301 - Laserfiche WebLink

was an acceptable use for this property. Based on the comments of the Planning Commission and the suggestion of things to be studied, she felt those uses were already all around this site. Given the vacancy rates quoted by Mr. Paxson for office and for retail, if there is a downturn in the economy then it doesn't make sense to put more retail on the site, since it already has the highest vacancy rate. She believed putting an office use on this site supports the other uses surrounding it. She did not object to sending the project back to the Planning Commission for design review. If Council wanted to do a study, she felt it should go further than what the Commission had suggested. It should include a single occupancy hotel, residential or other housing options. In terms of commercial, retail or other business park type uses, she felt the proposed office building was best for the site. She would even agree to a bigger building. Ms. Ayala was concerned about the four million square feet of office space that is approved and not built. She believed the market has changed and supported a market study of all possibilities, including high density residential/affordable housing. Ms. Dennis indicated housing is a need of the city, but may not be the most viable for the site. She believed the Planning Commission, when it suggested a study, was thinking more about commercial uses, and of all the commercial uses, she felt this building was the best. Ms. Ayala felt that any time a change in use is requested in Hacienda Business Park, that the city have a neutral party analyze the economic feasibility of the site. Mr. Campbell indicated he also straggled with this. Consideration should be given as to why this site has remained vacant and why a restaurant has not been successful. The property should not sit vacant. The zoning allows this type of a building and he felt it was a good use for the site. He did not object to having the Planning Commission review the architecture of the building, but he liked it as it was. Ms. Michelotti indicated she was around when the Hacienda Business Park was approved and there were many prototypes of the buildings to be situated along Hopyard Road and within the Business Park. Residential housing was suggested to be part of the area south of West Las Positas and the developers did not think it would work. The prototypes that were suggested for Hopyard reflected what is actually there now. She described the existing buildings and uses along the road. For many years, design review for projects in Hacienda were approved by both the Planning Commission and the City Council. That only changed a few years ago. Traffic studies take into consideration the number of trips generated by a specific use. The trips for an office are calculated per square foot of space, not the number of tenants. Given the fact that this has been fallow property as a restaurant use, she would not consider require that a restaurant use come back to this site. One possibility for the site is to intensify the use and build a larger, taller building. Instead, we have a project that will be a cornerstone for the city, has the same setback and footprint as the present building, and will be an asset to the city. She supported the application and felt it complemented the buildings across the street. She did not think it appropriate to review retail uses for this site. She did not support a Pleasanton City Council 16 04/03/01 Minutes