PC 04/12/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Chairman Wright advised the audience the intent was to discuss the ErR report not necessarily the general uses of the property. Bob Cordtz, 262 West Angela, stated he is not speaking for or against the plan, but he asked what the EIR cost and why is it needed when San Francisco and Alameda County are doing a joint ErR. He could not find the Draft ErR, the County ErR, nor the San Francisco ErR in the Library. He feels these documents should be reference documents. He cited the 1965 Pleasanton General Plan, and the Raker Act states this land cannot be sold. He asked if this statement is true. Mr. Swift addressed Mr. Cordtz' questions. The ErR to date has cost approximately $60,000. The California Environmental Quality Act requires an environmental process in conjunction with the prezoning. Staff chose to do a Negative Declaration. Because of requests from the County, San Francisco, and LAFCO to do an ErR, staff thought it best to do an ErR now instead of being required to do one during the annexation process. Further, the EIRs being done by the City and Alameda County are for different projects and purposes. He also noted the Draft ErR should be in the Library. Mr. Swift did not know how the Raker Act applied to the SFWD property. In his opinion, he feels San Francisco does act like the Raker Act still applies. Rick Nelson, 3398 Sweet Drive, Lafayette, project manager for the SFWD site, offered to the Commission that he and other San Francisco officials would be available to meet to discuss this plan further. He also noted that several copies of the San Francisco ErR was forwarded to the City of Pleasanton. David Speer, 489 Adams Way, noted he is a member of the Housing Subcommittee of the General Plan Steering Committee. He stated he has attended most of the GPSC meetings pertaining to this property as well as the public workshops of the San Francisco Specific Plan Committee. He fully supports the annexation of this property so the City has control of any future development. Regarding the draft EIR, Mr. Speer feels the scenario acceptable to the general public is the lesser of the development scenarios. The project put forth by the SFWD is extremely high in residential units. He asked that the high traffic congestion at Bernal and 1-680 be reviewed as well as the traffic circulation impacting traffic access from downtown to the freeway system. A parallel connector would be one of his suggestions to mitigate traffic problems. Noreen Ambrose, City Attorney's Office, San Francisco, advised the Commission that San Francisco staff are preparing a number of comments in writing to be submitted to Pleasanton staff. Ms. Ambrose made some general comments regarding the population growth/density as projected by Association of Bay Area Governments through the year 2010. Planning Commission Minutes Page 5 April 12, 1995