CCMIN042506 - Laserfiche WebLink

numbers. Similarly, she supported a lot housing at Hacienda, but did not know if it could be done successfully for less than 1,200 units. She wanted more units for Kottinger Place and Pleasanton Gardens. That is a very valuable area of low-income housing for seniors. In terms of Staples Ranch and what should be counted as units, she supported 65 units as well, but would also like more information about the housing cap initiative and what should be counted. She wanted a higher reserve of units, especially with regard to the east side. If a specific plan is to be developed, it would be helpful to have more units to accommodate infrastructure and to make it a vibrant area. Trish Maas indicated she was familiar with the Valley Trails area as she used to live there. She believed that was what is defined as in-fill and thought that developing on that parcel could be a win/win for everyone involved, especially when working with Ponderosa Homes. Putting in the right kind of housing could blend with the existing neighborhood and make the older homes appreciate. She favored allocating 25 units to Valley Trails and rezoning the property. In the Staples area, she supported the staff recommendation of 240 units. If senior apartments and other apartments are already being counted towards the cap, it is only fair to do it on Staples Ranch. She supported housing near transit, but did not want to over do it, such as what occurred across 1-580. She supported 1,273 units with a reserve of 300 units. She read from her chart #1-300, #2-343, Staples-240, east side-240, Valley Trails-25, Kottinger-l00, downtown in-fill at 25. She was willing to adjust some of the numbers. Mayor Hosterman invited the Council members to ask questions or give comments. Matt Sullivan asked what the agreement is for the West Dublin BART station regarding commercial, residential, parking garage, etc. Nelson Fialho indicated there is no land use agreement as it pertains to residential. There is a financing agreement that allows for a public/private partnership for the construction of the BART station. In that agreement, it assumes a certain level of public parking amenity, whether it is a parking garage, or interim parking lot to accommodate the needs of the BART riders. It also contemplates a commercial development of 170,000 sq. ft. There is no mention of residential. That arose as a way to create an incentive for the property owner to build more quickly and to build a parking garage. Mr. Sullivan asked what was the trigger that causes the parking garage to be built or not? Mr. Fialho indicated that since office development is slow, then the developer would defer construction of the parking garage until the office market had rebounded. That provides the financing to building the garage. The idea of creating value on the property so that the parking garage could be built sooner was to create a mixed-use development. Mr. Sullivan summarized that there is nothing in the agreement that says when the parking garage must be built; it is up to the developer based on the economic value of whatever is finally constructed. Mr. Fialho said in order to get that amenity for Pleasanton riders an incentive was offered in the form of dual zoning (commercial and residential) and the market would drive what ultimately gets built. Joint Workshop City CounciVPlanning Commission 12 04/25/06