CCMIN041696 - Laserfiche WebLink

It is important to understand that. Calthorpe has some elements which San Francisco would be comfortable with incorporating, such as, streetscapes, gateways, entrances, and unifying themes of a development. He had concerns, however, about developing typical lot and building studies leading to final design guidelines of all land use types included in the plan. He could not predict what the development market will be in the future and did not want to become to constrictive on this project. He felt that is part of what happened at Laguna West. It was too restrictive and the market turned down. Laguna West is not Pleasanton. It is near Gait and is 40 miles south of Sacramento. The project developers felt they had to build something to bring people to the area and that is not the case with Pleasanton. It was important to see examples of just what is meant by neo-traditional planning. He was also perplexed by the role of Mr. Calthorpe in this process. It appears that as part of the additional $60,000 contract, Calthorpe would be including the golf course architecture and traffic analysis. That is not correct; he was relying on San Francisco's consultants to do the work. That is difficult for San Francisco from contractual, administrative and other standpoints, it is not acceptable to have its consultants be consultants to Calthorpe. We are trying to work with this process, but we draw the line at becoming subconsultants to Peter Calthorpe. Mr. Nelson felt that once Calthorpe presents the revised plan, it is possible between city staff and San Francisco staff and consultants that the work can be done to make sure it works. In summary, he felt the design guidelines should not be done immediately. San Francisco is looking to have a certain vesting of rights on whatever plan is approved. San Francisco does not know exactly what type of homes will be built, who the development parmen will be and it does not want constraints that would limit creative designs for the existing markets. He agreed everyone needs to know densities, setbacks and building heights, etc. but did not want to talk about architectural details and exactly what size house is going to go on these lots at this time. Mr. Tarvet understood that San Francisco was comfortable with the process, wanted to keep moving along, and would like to see the plan before talking about the next step. It seems the plan needs to come back for review before proceeding with the EIR. If that is not slowing the process in San Francisco's perception, that would be the way to go. He also made it very clear that Pleasanton does not want the property developed in the County. Mr. Nelson indicated a tremendous amount of time and money has been spent over many years and they want to proceed with this project. There is still a lot of predevelopment work to take place before construction begins. Hopefully, the plan will be developed in Pleasanton and we need to work on the issues to make that happen. Ms. Mohr felt the goal, from all the comments, was to have the plan come back for review so that everyone knows what neo-traditional/new urbanism is and to do the necessary homework. She believed San Francisco is willing to give us the necessary time to do that before moving forward on the EIR. Mr. Nelson felt a reasonable extension was not objectionable. O4116/96 -15-