PC 07/16/99 - Laserfiche WebLink

He advised that to him "consensus" is where you can support the decision that was taken. He believes that this reflects the majority vote, not necessarily consensus. He also commented that the June 28 Staff Report indicates that the Commission should evaluate the project with two questions. The first question was: Is the project what was envisioned in the General Plan as an integral part of the future of Pleasanton? Commissioner Sullivan stated that he believes the General Plan is broken and never envisioned the regional and local problems that the City has with transportation and traffic breakdown, inadequate water supply and sewage capacity, severe school overcrowding, sprawl development, lost of open space, and increasingly poor air quality. He stated that he believes the General Plan needs to be updated to take these issues into consideration, and for the Planning Commission to approve a project of this magnitude and say it is in compliance with the General Plan is irresponsible, because the General Plan is not adequate. He advised that the second question was: "Will its design and conditions satisfactorily avoid negative externalities on the City as a whole and on immediate neighbors in particular?" He stated that he believes the answer to that question is no. He offered the following altematives and comments to the applicant: conduct a thorough, comprehensive and complete environmental, infrastructure, and community support analysis to determine the appropriate level of project intensity or density and avoid negative externalities on the City as a whole and immediate neighbors consideration be given to a public/private partnership to purchase the property from San Francisco, which will remove the need for development rights/amenities "trade-offs" he supports the idea of a pedestrian-oriented, transit-oriented community (a key to that is relocating the ACE station adjacent to the Village Center) generally density should be much lower, but the number should be decided in the analysis he is recommending developer fees should be used to pay for sports and community parks according to the existing City fee structure, with additional park acreage paid for by the City as part of the public/private partnership the School District and community should evaluate the need for an additional elementary school and a third high school and the School District should purchase sufficient land on the property to accommodate those needs work diligently with Zone 7 to develop an upstream solution for flood control and keep the Arroyo riparian habitat intact the East Bay Regional Park District should purchase a significant portion of the west parcel and Arroyo and establish a nature and/or agricultural park; save the old ranch house compound; EBRPD should purchase the southern knoll and cottonwood grove and establish a nature park work with developers to establish fees for the Bernal bridge, 1-680 interchange improvements and Bernal Avenue mitigations certification of the EIR should follow the testing; the Specific Plan adoption would follow the certification of the EIR, followed by PUD's for subsequent development approvals without a development agreement Chairperson Kumaran noted that he felt there were several good things about the project which was proposed. He stated that his main issue was with the density and increasing the City's population by about 10 to 12 percent. He advised that he also had difficulty with the Zone 7 proposal. He suggested PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES Page 12 July 16, 1999