PC 072600 - Laserfiche WebLink

Gerry Brunken, 1753 Pasco Del Cajon, noted he supported the Specific Plan that was in agreement with the City of San Francisco in 1998 and he noted he voted against Measure I. He noted that Measure I did not provide enough housing. He stated that he was in support of G-reenbriar's proposal; however, he felt the development needed additional housing and affordable housing. He noted that whatever aitemative is chosen, must conform to Pleasanton's 1996 General Plan and be in accord with the 1998 Bemal Specific Agreement. He commented on the need for another golf course in Pleasanton. Valerie Hurst, 3593 Arbor Court, noted that the plans submitted by Greenbriar are not similar to Measure I. She requested that the Commission recommend to the City Council that this project be treated separately from Measure I and require an election. She requested that the 1,900-home plan be a part of the election to allow the citizens to be provided choices. Mr. Costanzo noted that the option agreement has a timeline and that all parties have worked cooperatively to meet the timeline. He expressed appreciation to the Commission and staff for helping to achieve that goal. He noted the option agreement timeframe does not allow for this project to go to the ballot. He noted this project does not prohibit additional housing and if the plan is approved, there are many options for the City's acreage. He added that the City of San Francisco has been working on this project for 14 years. He stated that the plan before the Commission is a well-thought-out plan, provides the City with a mix of housing types and affordability levels, provides for an attractive office complex, and provides additional infrastructure. PUBLIC HEARING WAS CLOSED Discussion ensued whether a golf course will fit in this plan and the primary reason for the large setback on the west side being to accommodate Zone 7's potential channel widening. Commissioner Malmrose noted it is critical that a golf course fit on the West Parcel around the housing. He stated that the hill on the East Parcel is not appropriate for housing; however, it may be appropriate for certain terrain's for golf. Further, that the houses on the East Parcel may not be appropriate for golf use and Commissioner Malmrose's preference would be for Alternative C, leaving the East Parcel free of homes. He continued by noting that the space north of the housing on the Central Parcel that backs up to Bemai is wasted space and that housing should be built to back up to Bemai. He suggested that the group of housing at the bottom of the housing on the Central Parcel should be moved north of the housing on the Central Parcel. Commissioner Malrarose spoke in favor of housing being located near the downtown area, near schools, transportation, and within walking distance of the various amenities. He spoke in favor oftbe housing not being located on the East Parcel, due to the desire to keep the creeks in a natural state. Commissioner Arkin spoke in favor of Alternative 7a and noted he preferred a plan that kept the central parcel as contiguous as possible. He noted that Plan 7a and the preferred plan both allowed for a golf course. He requested that a LEED score requirement be developed for the PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES July 26, 2000 Page 13