Laserfiche WebLink
the more confident it can be in making a long-term allocation). The <br />project allocation is consistent with the growth management ordinance's <br />future annual allocations. San Francisco will note that the agreed-upon <br />rate is quite slow for a major project with significant infrastructure costs, <br />restricts the project from taking full advantage of "hot markets," and is a <br />limitation not present in its County approval. <br /> <br />Principles of Agreement: Specifies the elements of subsequent discretionary review and <br /> establishes the growth management allocation as incorporated into the <br /> initial approvals. <br /> <br />StaffReeommendation: These two areas were probably the most hotly debated as the <br /> Principles of Agreement were negotiated. No City willingly gives up its <br /> normal police powers unless it receives something substantial in return <br /> and is confident in its future projections or in its ability to react to resolve <br /> unforeseen issues. As described in earlier reports, staff is confident that <br /> the project's localized impacts are mitigated. Its citywide/regional impacts <br /> are less clearly identified and addressed, but, again, staff believes this <br /> project does more than others to address these issues. Ultimately, the city <br /> must weigh the project's benefits against the uncertain possibility that <br /> unmitigable effects may occur, unforeseen at this time. Staff has reached a <br /> comfort level that the growth management allocation is manageable. Staff <br /> would have preferred performance-type requirements for key issues, but <br /> staff believes the mitigations as drafted allow the City to reach a comfort <br /> level consistent with granting the vesting sought by San Francisco. While <br /> staff supports the compromises incorporated in the Principles of <br /> Agreement, San Francisco should have enough confidence in Pleasanton's <br /> future fair dealing with it or its successor to agree to performance-type <br /> measures, as staff believes this issue has been the most strongly debated <br /> by the public and commissioners. Agreeing to these types of measures <br /> could alleviate many of the fears of granting, at one time, a right to <br /> long-term build-out, notwithstanding that the basis for the approval could <br /> prove to be erroneous. <br /> <br />amipro\a:\pc0623.sam <br /> <br />Substantive Issues/Alternatives Page 31 June 9, 1999 <br /> <br /> <br />