CCMIN011696 - Laserfiche WebLink

forward with this process regardless of the dual track. A County development is unacceptable and we must do everything we can to prevent that. There has been lots of input from the community and we know what it wants. He stated those desires were: a plan with the least amount of development; residential development reduced or eliminated; more single family and less multiple family; city-owned golf course (preferably 27 holes); a convention and cultural arts center; visual corridors along Bernal Avenue and 1-680 protected with no soundwalls; not more than 250,000 sq. ft. of commercial/office; retail development reduced or eliminated; retail use that does not compete with downtown; enough public and institutional land for community park, fh'e station, elementary school, church and cemetery. We have to get busy developing a 'Pleasanton Preferred Plan' and stop talking about the San Francisco Preferred Plan. It may be similar, but he hopes the Pleasanton plan is accepted by San Francisco. We need to look at the economic viability of the two projects. He feels this will go against what some want in terms of growth management through the General Plan Review Process, and we have to continue to try and include some of that in the plan that is still acceptable to San Francisco. We cannot do that if we take the approach of merely opposing the County action. That does not give us the ability to participate in the planning. He does not like the dual process, but understands San Francisco's position. He hopes San Francisco understands that this community does not want a county approved plan. Mayor Tarver offered his remarks because they are a significant change from his position -- in the past and felt he needed to say that before public testimony starts. Ms. Dennis knows many have reservations about the dual track process, but she has never been disappointed when the City was involved in negotiations. Even when the negotiations have been long and difficult, there have always been benefits to the community. The best benefit from this process is that Pleasanton will have a plan to offer. She complimented the community for the interest and participation. Ms. Michelotti was delighted at the Mayor's change of heart and thanked those who called her with input. It is very important now to work on a plan that is viable. This is a good faith effort for everyone involved. Mr. Pico believed that the Committee of Decision Makers, of which he was part, took a bad plan and made it a better plan. It is not the best, but he is willing to continue negotiations and the planning process with San Francisco which will lead to an intensive public review process for a specific plan, zoning classification, and development agreement for the Bemal property that will lead to ultimate annexation and development in the City of Pleasanton. He supports an economically viable project for San Francisco, provided satisfactory arrangements are made to allow Pleasanton to acquire the additional twenty acres along Bernal and Old Bemal as he proposed to the Committee of Decision Makers. However, he did not believe Pleasanton should be a party to any agreement that endorses allowing San Francisco to proceed with its development application before Alameda County. Pleasanton Council should state in the strongest way that it will oppose with all means at its disposal any further efforts of the San Francisco Water Department to obtain a separate dual track development plan approval through 01/16/96 -7-