PC 01/09/85 - Laserfiche WebLink

Minutes Planning Commissio. January 9, 1985 how far this road would be from the School District Office. Mr. Warnick explained. Commissioner Lindsey asked about the possible 'at grade' crossing. Mr. Warnick doubted that the PUC would authorize the crossing. Vice Chairman Wilson referred to Condition No. 2 of the staff report and felt the acreage should include all of the property and that no work be done until EVH has ownership of it all. Commissioner Innes asked about Condition No. 5 and the staff asking for possible condemnation. Mr. Warnick explained the reasons for this. He reviewed the agreement with regard to dedications of the developer and applicant. The developer would be required to pay the cost of condemnation if was required by the City and the developer would pay for one-half of the street. Vice Chairman Wilson was surprised at the letter from San Francisco Water as they have known about this project for a long time. Mr. Harris explained that Mr. Jensen is a new manager and is not familiar with the property in the Pleasanton area. Vice Chairman Wilson then asked if any one agrees with a continuance for a month. Mr. Harris recommended that the Planning Commission listen to the applicant first. The public hearing was opened. Mr. Tandy Carter, San Francisco Water, indicated that the letter is only for the protection of San Francisco Water and they would be happy to negotiate with the developer to work out a suitable agreement. They are willing to rescind their request for continuance. Vice Chairman Wilson asked Mr. Carter about the legal process the Water Department must go through to sell property. Mr. Carter indicated they would go through the legal process, however, it is not necessarily the case that the property must be advertised for public sale. Mr. Fred Howell, EVH Partnership, was absolutely opposed to a continuance. The last time they dealt with the City and County of San Francisco was one year ago. Every time they meet with them, there is a different cast of people. If the conditions of the staff report are changed, their bargaining power would be eliminated. San Francisco Water did not give the developer a copy of the letter presented to the City. The first he knew they would request a continuance was by telephone call at 5:OOpm at Mr. Howell's home. Mr. Howell presented the project stating that this is the same as the 296 unit proposal except it has a 34 unit reduction. They are providing 71 extra parking spaces over the two to one ratio required. 52% is landscaping and open space. Commissioner Lindsey asked how the applicants feel about providing access off of Sunol Boulevard. Mr. Howell stated they have no problem with that and the project has been designed the way it is to allow it based upon Planning Commission comments when the original project was heard. - 6 -