CCMIN041696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Cindy McGovern, 9206 Longview Drive, was nervous using the new terms *new urbanism" or whatever. We are changing names and she did not understand how we got from rico-traditional to new urbanism. She thought the workshops were to talk about land use mixes and setting guidelines on the alternative plans, and choosing what we wanted from the various plans. She described what she thought came out of the April 11, 1996 meeting: moving the driving range and the clubhouse; reducing the herins along the freeway especially in the central portion; keeping the community park along Bemal Avenue and keeping it large so there are not small parks. The Park and Recreation Commissioners said they cost a lot of money and maintenance. We were to look at traffic on Bernal Avenue and consider the number of entrances as well as freeway entrances/exits. There was a question about whether there should be any commercial development on the west parcel. The school would be moved to the south parcel because a school might not be compatible with a golf course (there was discussion about the noise from the school when golfers are playing). She thought we were using a civic building as the focal point of the promenade because it brings community spirit, etc. She thought the knoll was to be saved at all cost. The arroyo/trail system was a way to invite people to walk and enjoy the community and that piece of land. She felt the goal was 250 acres of saleable properly, 150 acres of golf course on both sides of the freeway. She also felt if we can agree on the acreage, land use and land mix, then there would be guidelines on what the final approval would be on. There would be consensus. She wanted to see that written down and shown on a plan. Mr. Tarver felt that was an excellent explanation of the consensus agreement. Ms. McGovern had a concern about the deadline on the Cooperative planning process, which was April 1. She was concerned that if we delay the County plan will proceed and be approved. She wanted to get something in writing that San Francisco and the County agree we can continue to work on this and there is no time limit. Mr. Tarver believed the deadline was April 15. The County was also under that deadline and has not moved forward. San Francisco is willing to continue this process so long as there is movement and something is accomplished. Ms. Dennis indicated the Cooperative Plan and the plan we are working on are both part of the environmental considerations. Ms. McGovern thought we were talking to the County about a specific plan, development agreement, prezoning, and annexation. Are those things all going on at the same time as the EIR? Ms. Acosta indicated San Francisco has always said it would process a plan in the County regardless of what Pleasanwn does. That County plan has been delayed for various reasons and there is not a specific schedule. The Cooperative plan is on hold at this time, since 04/16/96 -12-