CCMIN011696 - Laserfiche WebLink

to say generally what will develop, Pleasanton can annex the property, and as it develops and economics change, the plan is-still flexible. It will benefit all parties. Keith Warden, 2931 Liberty Drive, commended Council for its change of heart. There has been considerable acrimony during these negotiations and he hoped that the discourse that follows will be civil and high-minded and free of the kind' of inflammatory remarks that have been made, such as "a gun being held to our head." There is an axiom in law that refers to the "prudent or reasonable man". San Francisco owns this property and has legal entitlement to do certain things. It met resistance here and proceeded to Alameda County, as any prudent man would do. We should keep that prudent man in mind as we proceed with these negotiations. His other point was that ten years ago he appeared before Council with Paul Ebright to ask for a library. In five years, Pleasanton had a library that is the envy of the Alameda County library system. Paul Ebright pleaded for support for a golf course and he feels that people like Mr. Ebright have waited long enough. He wanted a commitment from Council to help the golfers. Pat Stillman, Sunol, was saddened by this action. She felt Pleasanton was at a disadvantage because the Committee of Decision Makers was stacked against it. There were two members from the County and two from San Francisco and only Tom Pico to represent the environmental interests of Pleasanton. Eric Byer, 3961 Kern Court, was concerned about the number of units of residential housing. He indicated he is a commuter and every year he has to leave earlier to avoid traffic. He was concerned about the additional Waffle to be created by the proposed residential units. He felt the application with the County showed an unwillingness to work with Pleasanton and did not want Pleasanwn to provide any services to the property if it is approved through the County. He agreed the commercial area should be pushed back from Bernal but was not certain if it should be next to the freeway. He did not like the see-through soundwalls. He also felt the number of units should comply with the growth management goals. He did not see why there was a rush to get this approved. San Francisco has owned the land since 1930. George Gunter, 1805 Greenwood Road, felt Mr. Byer's comments reflected where many persons were a few years ago. He also agreed this was not the best plan. He wanted Valley Avenue and Case Avenue to be four lanes to be sure they can serve future needs. He wanted no additional stop lights on Bernal Avenue. He objected to the dual processing, but did recommend that the joint process continue with a request that San Francisco withdraws its application with the County until Pleasanwn has a chance to work on the plan. He urged Council to vote 5-0 to send the message that it is willing to work with San Francisco. Gene Pons, 832 Abbie Street, objected to the density of the residential housing. He felt there were two issues: there must have been some kind of review (legal and political) that indicates Pleasanton's success in court was questionable, so San Francisco must have some leverage; the other could be that Pleasanton has leverage by refusing to provide services and force San Francisco to deal with Pleasanton eventually. Council must have come to the conclusion that it must work with San Francisco, because the plan is not acceptable if it were 01/16/96 -11-