CCMIN021704 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Swift did not believe opposition from the neighborhood residents who lived near the property at 325 Ray Street came up at the Planning Commission's hearings, but noted that it was an issue at the time the Specific Plan was being reviewed. At that point, a number of the neighbors wanted residential land use for this site, and Council ultimately chose a single-story office use building as a compromise land use because it was believed it would best meet everyone's needs. Mr. Campbell noted that one of the prior issues was access to the Arroyo del Valle, and asked what sort of discussions were held about this issue. Mr. Swift reported that the Specific Plan includes general direction for access to the Arroyo del Valle in the Downtown Commercial zones. In this particular instance, the Arroyo del Valle from Main Street to First Street is in private ownership. After many years of talking to the neighbors and going through the Downtown Specific Plan and a number of General Plan reviews, staff does not believe that the corridor of the Arroyo del Valle will ever be open to the public. He noted that the property owners do not want the public in that section of the Arroyo del Valle. In other areas, the General Plan and the Downtown Specific Plan try to incorporate the kind of land uses that would attract a pedestrian element, whether it is a gazebo or an outdoor dining area that would be compatible with a commercial use and the presence of the Arroyo del Valle. In order to do this on this particular site, it would invite a land use that would not be pure office in character. He mentioned that staff explored a passive type of use by the Arroyo del Valle that could be used by the office tenants; however, the arborist who reviewed that plan strongly urged against it because of the impact that it would have on the existing heritage trees along the bank of the Arroyo del Valle. It would also introduce a potential feature that could attract nighttime or evening activity that was opposite of what the neighbors on Walnut Drive would like. Because there is no opportunity to introduce a land use that is compatible with some outdoor dining or other type of more passive use along the Arroyo del Valle, staff felt that the design that would make the parking lot a private parking lot was compatible with what the neighbors were asking for and what would work on this particular site. Ms. Hosterman pointed out that the square footage of the original proposal in relation to this proposal had been reduced significantly, from 26,240 square feet of office retail to 15,300 square feet. In looking at the site maps, it did seem, based upon scale, that this is a much better fit. She was aware that Pacific Union was the development company for this particular proposal and asked about its reputation? Has Pacific Union built other types of structures similar to this one in other places in the Bay Area? Does Pacific Union have an example available of other types of construction that it has developed? Mr. Swift said that stafftakes the position that if an applicant presents and shows its plans to staff, staffwill make sure that it gets built in accordance with the plan. Pleasanton City Council 10 02/17/04 Minutes