CCMIN110309 - Laserfiche WebLink

Mr. Fialho said that is a potential outcome of either the PUD modification process or a specific plan. He said that the goal of this task force, anchored by the advisory group, is to engage in a discussion on this vision with a clean slate; that potentially leads to a discussion that gets further refined and creates a plan that meets the interest of all parties. Councilmember McGovern stated that the workshop minutes of August 2008 make no mention of the development of visions and guidelines for the park as a whole. She said this broadens the topic so greatly that it cannot be done in 12 months, and more time is necessary to allow for an education process and the creation of a beautiful, well planned TOD that people would desire to live in. She voiced concern for the scope of work, allotted time, the "good cause" clause, and the potential outcome. She suggested that these properties should not have been rezoned because an unrealistic timeframe is now being pushed. Mayor Hosterman said that she understood the task to indicate a desire in engaging the community in articulating a vision and goals statement that would logically provide an overlay for the remainder of the park in the years to come. She proposed removing "and park as a whole" in order to narrow the scope. Councilmember McGovern supported the proposal and requested that any similar language be removed as well. Councilmember Sullivan said he strongly supports the concept of this democratic process and appreciates staffs work. His goal is to develop a beautiful community where people want to live and that integrates well with the existing community, providing all the benefits that a TOD can bring. He supported the Mayor's suggestion to focus the scope of the project to the three sites near the BART station and said there was actually considerable discussion against expanding it to the park as a whole. He acknowledged the potential for collateral impacts, but doubted that would mean recreating design guidelines for the entire park. He concurred with staff that the ultimate goal is consensus but reality dictates the potential that more than one recommendation will come out of this committee. He cautioned that the risk of groups like a task force is that the membership gets stacked in one direction and urged both staff and the Council to choose its appointments with that in mind. The West Las Positas Committee may have been a better model, with fewer political appointments. He made an argument that the neighborhoods of Stoneridge Drive and Valley Avenue, who suffer the brunt of the traffic impacts, deserve a voting position. He concurred with staff regarding the appointment of apartment complex tenants rather than owners or management and further recommended that those representatives be chosen by tenants as well. He shared uncertainty on BART's role in this and said that since it has no current proposal on the table, the advisory group may be its suitable place. He also found it odd to potentially have another public agency with voting rights in this process. He asked that the following groups be invited to participate in an advisory capacity: Las Positas College, building trades organizations, environmental groups, and the Friends of Pleasanton. Councilmember Sullivan cited the "good cause" clause as his primary concern; its lack of definition provides the property owners with undue leverage over this process and reduces their stake in a good faith process. He noted that one site representative stated earlier that if plans do not proceed to their satisfaction, they will pull out. He recommended some language prohibiting the good cause clause from taking effect until either a defined period of time has elapsed or certain items on the task list are complete. City Council Minutes Page 10 of 21 November 3, 2009